Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
Talk about music, movies, TV, books, other types of entertainment and what your vices are. Also, if you're addicted to the high you get off Aspirin, this is the place to talk about it.
King of Creation wrote:Which reminds me....their busride into the immigrant camp at the end soooo reminded me of a tram ride intro or something in Halflife. Just staring out the windows at all the brutality.
That entire fucking film reminded me of Half Life, Clive Owen is Gordon Freeman! I kept waiting to see the power suit under his dress clothes.
As far as my previous reservations about the director it was as if he had matured 20 years as a filmmaker since Y Tu Mama, really a surprisingly well directed film.
MAJOR FUCKING SPOILERS
You know a film has some massive goddamn balls when they kill of the love interest 35 minutes in. Also what was probrably most incredible was the EXTREMELY long takes in all of the major action sequences. I don't know if anyone else noticed but there weren't ANY cuts within those sequences which is EXEPTIONALLY difficult to do, especially when you consider how much was going on at once. Pulling that shit off must have been a nightmare.
yeah, i did notice that about the action sequences. i thought they flowed really well, and that style of take hands down beats the one most popularly utilized in action sequences, aka the braveheart shaky-cam-epilepsy-angle-change-every-1.5-seconds-what-is-going-on-i-cant-see-shit style
BRaveheart didn't really have shaky camera syndrome and it had lots of different angles because it's a god damn war and you don't just want to focus on one character the whole time.
I don't know why directors like to shake the camera, is it usually done on purpose or can the camera man really not keep the god damn camera still?
I think the worst case of camera angle change and generally shitty camera work was Batman Begins, the director was either trying to simulate a bat during fight scenes or is just fucking retarded.
Shaky cam's can be cool, if done properly, the kind of *WW2 running over Omaha beach with shit hitting the fan every way you look* type cam.
However, when it is done properly there are usually quite long cuts, and none of the shitty *time to hide our crap CG* cutting..
While alot of people gave Greengrass shit for it I thought the whole shaky cam thing worked amazingly well in the Bourne Supremacy. The fact that you felt jarred and couldn't get a grasp of what was going on because of the short shot duration put you in the same frame of mind as the confused and disoriented Bourne character, a notable difference in characterization as well as technique from the first film. I thought it was brilliant and not arbitrary as it is in most action flicks.
While that worked for Bourne I don't think it would have been nearly as effective in Children and I thought the long takes were completely appropriate and really fucking well executed.
johnny, pooper etc. wrote:shaky camera syndrome stuff
yeah, but LOTR-type movies with sweeping, "epic" battlescenes are just as bad, if not worse. they try far too hard to make battles look grandiose, an overly gratifying presentation for the viewer. unless taken with a grain of salt i find things like that almost impossible to watch.
i can only think of two directors who do battle scenes in a really elegant, artsy manner, and they are: kurosawa, and whoever directed 'master and commander'.
suppose you're thinking about a plate of shrimp. suddenly somebody will say like 'plate' or 'shrimp' or 'plate of shrimp', out of the blue, no explanation.
tho directors can say what they think of camera work, it's not them who's doing the 'cinematography'. Hence the special category in the Academy Awards and alike.
PiP wrote:tho directors can say what they think of camera work, it's not them who's doing the 'cinematography'. Hence the special category in the Academy Awards and alike.
Yeah, they just tell the DP what to do. Saying the director has no hand in it is kind of shortsighted.
guess how much which of them decides depends on a particular film. Some photography directors are real artists take big credit for the camera work. It so happens that's the department (along with film music) where Polish film-makers are kinda good and appreciated by directors 0123 4 - like in afore mentioned 'Blackhawk Down'. Still, screenplay writers and directors are to be praised the most. Well except Blackhawk Down where the camera work is the good only thing - as much as I like Scott, this film is poor.
second view of this film (sober) confirmed this to be an excellent movie with nothing of the cliche hollywood action vomit left, encrusted to the celluloid. headshots. urban tank crowd control. dead maincharacters. agony of the mortally wounded. flocks of immigrant trash whipped around. ja.
I agree on the non-cliche stuff and main char death being good, but on the other hand the whole concept of that "savior-ship flying circus" together with "human project" us fucking silly and underdeveloped, just like the rebel organization is also vague and underdeveloped - They're the most important group in the film yet you don't exactly know who they are (yea, immigrants) and what they want (rights - that's just too little), what's their agenda with the baby etc. All in all a good, non-hollywoot flick, but a wee bit flawed.
i liked how they didnt bother going off story just to explain the big history. and stuff shown in background ok. i liked it better than v for vendetta anyways
Yah, the fact they didn't go and spell everything out added a lot to the film. Clive Owen didn't really care about all that he was worried about his own little slice of the pie, and we saw the movie from his perspective.
We don't know a ton about the human league or whatever because maybe it is bullshit, maybe that was a fishing boat. Deleted ending or something.
PiP wrote:I agree on the non-cliche stuff and main char death being good, but on the other hand the whole concept of that "savior-ship flying circus" together with "human project" us fucking silly and underdeveloped, just like the rebel organization is also vague and underdeveloped - They're the most important group in the film yet you don't exactly know who they are (yea, immigrants) and what they want (rights - that's just too little), what's their agenda with the baby etc. All in all a good, non-hollywoot flick, but a wee bit flawed.
You really thought that was underdeveloped? I thought they developed it plenty well with the stork joke. The fact that the last best hope for humanity is only explained in the equivalent of a fart joke, not only that but as a one-up to an actual fart joke, only adds to the uncertainty and disillusionment that is one of the major themes of the film.
I really liked how they left a lot of the background to the movie vague and unexplained. A friend I saw it with disliked that aspect, but I found it nice to be able to think for myself for once, because I am, of course, a machine. I have come for your children, if you take up arms, you will be destroyed.
off topic? OMG YOU'VE BEEN CENSORED... yet you're still posting. MYSTARY!!!!
- like in afore mentioned 'Blackhawk Down'. Still, screenplay writers and directors are to be praised the most. Well except Blackhawk Down where the camera work is the good only thing - as much as I like Scott, this film is poor.
