[keep poppin pimples]

Originally Posted by Murmer99

I think it is.

Thomas: [seeing Verushka, the model, at a party the evening of the day she had just told the photographer that he'd better hurry because she had to catch a plane to Paris] I thought you were supposed to be in Paris.
Verushka: [taking a toke of her marijuana cigarette] I *am* in Paris!

screencaps plz

[h8kurdt]

Originally Posted by Murmer99

I think it is.

Thomas: [seeing Verushka, the model, at a party the evening of the day she had just told the photographer that he'd better hurry because she had to catch a plane to Paris] I thought you were supposed to be in Paris.
Verushka: [taking a toke of her marijuana cigarette] I *am* in Paris!

Well I think it isn't.

[demonrail666]

I agree with H8kudrt. I certainly don't hate it but bits of it just make me cringe, like when David Hemmings gets Vanessa Redgrave stoned and plays her jazz. It's dated quite badly, I think.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by Murmer99

The mimed tennis game at the end is perhaps the most powerful ending I've seen and nearly made me want to cry... despite not even knowing what the scene meant.

It's obviously open to endless interpretation but the best or most convincing one that I've heard is that by picking up the invisible ball, he's finally succumbed to the absurdity of the era. Although he was arguably as much a part of it from the word go.

To be honest, the anti-Blow Up thing (if we can call it that) seems more a British thing, just as most people I've met who don't like Zabriskie Point (which I really like) are American. There's a sense that outside Italy, Antonioni was a bit too much of a tourist, not really getting the details right and a bit in awe of it all. I actually know a couple of people who had minor parts in Blow Up, mostly in the party scene, and they weren't that convinced that Antonioni really 'got' the world they represented at all. General consensus is that Performance was a far more accurate and insightful portrayal of the whole Swinging London thing. I'm too young to really comment but certainly Performance feels more in tune with that time than Blow Up does - perhaps because Donald Cammell, Jagger, Anita Pallenberg, etc were very much a part of that scene. And maybe Antonioni's style just wasn't really suited to the subject-matter. Given what he did in films like Roma, Satyricon and obviously La Dolce Vita, perhaps Fellini would've been a better choice to direct it.

[keep poppin pimples]

mystery of chess boxing: 6/10
even dwarfs started small: 7/10
the lost patrol: 4/10
metallica: some kind of monster: 6/10

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by h8kurdt

It's a good film but not that good.

it IS fucking great. here what critix sei:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowup#Critical

yes. yes it is, in many ways.

Originally Posted by demonrail666

I agree with H8kudrt. I certainly don't hate it but bits of it just make me cringe, like when David Hemmings gets Vanessa Redgrave stoned and plays her jazz. It's dated quite badly, I think.

so is everything that was ever written or made! from don quijote to daydream nation.

[evollove]

The Yardbirds scene in Blow-Up is a stand-out, in my opinion.

The object (a broken guitar neck) only has value when others want it. Once that's gone, not even the owner of the object gives a shit about it. At least that's how I interpret the scene. Not sure how it fits into the rest of the film, but speculate away please.

By the way, I can't resist being a jerk: I would've been one of those in the crowd at Cannes yelling "Cut!" during that awful cure-for-insomnia called L'Aventura.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by evollove

By the way, I can't resist being a jerk: I would've been one of those in the crowd at Cannes yelling "Cut!" during that awful cure-for-insomnia called L'Aventura.

haa haaa haaa

i finally liked l'avventura like the 3rd time i watched it

it creates its own world and sets of expectations, so it's very demanding on the viewer. once you allow it to dictate to you "how to watch a movie" it's quite enjoyable.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

it IS fucking great. here what critix sei:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowup#Critical

yes. yes it is, in many ways.





so is everything that was ever written or made! from don quijote to daydream nation.

Dated has nothing to do with being of its age, which is inevitable, but being stuck in, and only relevant to it. Films like L'avventura, L'Eclisse, La Notte are clearly of their time but also manage to feel current in a way that I just don't think Blow Up does. It'll never be anything other than a 'sixties film', for me, which is something I'd never say about films Antonioni made earlier in that same decade.

And seriously, that you consider L'avventura 'quite enjoyable' while calling Blow Up 'great' is akin to preferring the wrong Ronaldo. I'm sorry, it just is.

Either way, just rewatched

 

Avengers Assemble

Brilliant. etc.

[Rob Instigator]

Honest human drama and concerns are never dated. That is why shakespeare, Cervantes, Melville, Etc are all still read and loved.

If by dated you mean OUTdated then yes, everything eventually becomes that, but dated in art really refers more to relevance, to the personal relevance of the struggle or the story or the humor in the work.

Sonic Youth will never seem dated in either way I think. They were never big enough to be assimilated into mainstream culture by the masses, and no other bands took the SY sonic approach and got super famous with it.

I think things get dated more when they are too specific of their time. However, once the memory of that time leaves the collective consciousness, then it can be rediscovered based on it's own values.

the same tyhing happend with Bach, sho was alomost willfuly ignored for several hundred years after his death, having been too big an influence on what came after. It took time for people to truly rediscover the magic Bach wrote.

[h8kurdt]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

it IS fucking great. here what critix sei:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowup#Critical

yes. yes it is, in many ways.





.

Oh well then! If they say it's good then i'll have to agree. The critics make out North By Northwest was the best thing sonce sliced bread but I sure as hell aint gonna agree with them.

ANYWAY!

 

Re-watching this in a mo. I lent it to a guy at work. I knew he wouldn't like it but he hated it. His main reasons being 1)it didn't make sense and 2)nothing was explained at the end. Brilliant.

I tried to explain to him that films shouldn't have to have everything explained in a tidy box with a bow on it. They can leave things open and let the viewer think for themselves. He didn't buy it. He said that films have to have a story and then used a god awful metaphor "it's like having a novel and only having pictures" <- my face right after that. That put the idea of me lending him Tarkovsky's film Mirror out! Oh and he said that nothing happened in the film. Fail.

I asked him what his fav film of all time was to which he said Shawshank Redemption. That said it all for me. Don't get me wrong it's a good film but is it THAT good? Non.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by h8kurdt

Don't get me wrong it's a good film but is it THAT good? Non.

Yeah, I've never understood what it is about that film for it to be so many people's favourite.

[Severian]

Prometheus. Finally. And it was about 10 times better than I had expected. Why would anyone be disappointed by this movie?

As far as big budget blockbusters that take an obsurdly long time to make, it kicks Avatar's ass, and offers more proof that Ridley Scott is, always has been, and always will be better than Cameron.

[Severian]

Originally Posted by h8kurdt

Oh well then! If they say it's good then i'll have to agree. The critics make out North By Northwest was the best thing sonce sliced bread but I sure as hell aint gonna agree with them.

ANYWAY!

 

Re-watching this in a mo. I lent it to a guy at work. I knew he wouldn't like it but he hated it. His main reasons being 1)it didn't make sense and 2)nothing was explained at the end. Brilliant.

I tried to explain to him that films shouldn't have to have everything explained in a tidy box with a bow on it. They can leave things open and let the viewer think for themselves. He didn't buy it. He said that films have to have a story and then used a god awful metaphor "it's like having a novel and only having pictures" <- my face right after that. That put the idea of me lending him Tarkovsky's film Mirror out! Oh and he said that nothing happened in the film. Fail.

I asked him what his fav film of all time was to which he said Shawshank Redemption. That said it all for me. Don't get me wrong it's a good film but is it THAT good? Non.

Yes. Mulholland Drive. I may be over my Lynch phase at this point, but that movie will never leave me, even if I never see it again.

[LifeDistortion]

I've not seen "Prometheus", but I've just heard bad things about it, especially if you love "Alien".

[gast30]

I need your bloooood v""v

 

[Severian]

Originally Posted by LifeDistortion

I've not seen "Prometheus", but I've just heard bad things about it, especially if you love "Alien".

If you're the type of Alien fanboy who has three blurays of AVP and knows the scientific genus types of all the long headed things in Latin, then there will be some frustrating timeline issues (apparently). But, if you love the first movie, watch the second every few years and pretend all the others don't exist, then it's a ripping good flick with a great premise and visuals. There's a theological element to it that I found pretty goddamn cool. What if "God" is a crazy monster that wants to kill us? Made me think of Star Trek V.

[Severian]

Originally Posted by gast30

I need your bloooood v""v

 

This was cute and all, but a much better film could have been made of such a classic cult show.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by Severian

If you're the type of Alien fanboy who has three blurays of AVP and knows the scientific genus types of all the long headed things in Latin, then there will be some frustrating timeline issues (apparently). But, if you love the first movie, watch the second every few years and pretend all the others don't exist, then it's a ripping good flick with a great premise and visuals. There's a theological element to it that I found pretty goddamn cool. What if "God" is a crazy monster that wants to kill us? Made me think of Star Trek V.

I think that's exactly right - although I do like Alien 3 (a lot) and Alien 4 (a bit).

[Rob Instigator]

Originally Posted by h8kurdt

Oh

I tried to explain to him that films shouldn't have to have everything explained in a tidy box with a bow on it. They can leave things open and let the viewer think for themselves. He didn't buy it. He said that films have to have a story and then used a god awful metaphor "it's like having a novel and only having pictures" <- my face right after that. That put the idea of me lending him Tarkovsky's film Mirror out! Oh and he said that nothing happened in the film. Fail.

I asked him what his fav film of all time was to which he said Shawshank Redemption. That said it all for me. Don't get me wrong it's a good film but is it THAT good? Non.

If you watch films to watch a story, which is most folks, then he is right. Maul holland falls is one big bag of meaningless bullshit about extremely unlike able people. Boring as FUCK. I hated it like I hate Thomas kinkade's rotting corpse.