The movie discussion thread

[supergoing]

That is a Bold statement Supergoing...

To be fair, I've seen less than 50 films from 2010-2012 so far. But I also don't dish out a lot of perfect ratings in general.

Top 5 looks like:

1. The Raid (10)
2. The Tree of Life (9.5)
3. Inception (9)
4. Drive (8.5)
5. Ip Man 2 / Warrior (tie) (8)

[akbar]

To be fair, I've seen less than 50 films from 2010-2012 so far. But I also don't dish out a lot of perfect ratings in general.

Top 5 looks like:

1. The Raid (10)
2. The Tree of Life (9.5)
3. Inception (9)
4. Drive (8.5)
5. Ip Man 2 / Warrior (tie) (8)

Ahh stupid stupid me, I heard decade and I just thought 99-09.

Btw I hated Tree of life...

[Androo]

The Raid: Redemption is everything one could possibly hope for in an action movie. Choreography is off the chain with some fairly inventive sequences, there's loads of well built suspense/tension, and the technical side [staging, lighting, cinematography, sound] is handled extremely well for a film I'm assuming didn't have a massive production budget behind it. Shit, even the score is amazing (miraculous, considering a Linkin Park member was involved) and they even pull off some decent character development despite the fact only ~20mins of the runtime is NOT some sort of action sequence.

An easy 10/10 (The only perfect film of this decade so far IMO (although The Tree of Life comes close(for widely different reasons)))

The Raid - me still no seen!!!


Man! The Tree of Life. Put me through some serious snakes and ladders of enjoyment in the duration of watching the film. Which kind of holds true to what I'd actually read about it. Apparently some people were giving it standing ovations in the cinema at its conclusion, while others had walked out mid-screening.

Definitely for me, at the start of the film, I think I thought - "I already don't like this film, I'm going to hate this film". It radiated an air of pretentious existentialism, which, for most of the time, gives me baddddd hayfever. The series of Worldly life images and events, while quite stunning, just bellowed: "oh it's this type of film" cliches. It did become fun for me to predict what the next image would be, and what would be seen later on (I got alot correct! My favourite of which was jellyfish!). I also felt like I've seen all of this before in many 'save the planet', 'Life's Wonders', awareness films.

When it began to get into the story a bit more, with the family and the boys, I found myself getting involved with them, (if you will). It sort of blew open to me, and it did begin to make me think about things in my life, that have happened, or may yet happen, and how I can affect them. I ended up liking the film.

I still feel as though I may have missed things, though, which, on a second viewing, would add even more to my enjoyment of it; and so that is what I intend to do at some point. I've got bit and pieces, but, I don't think I'm truly there as to what the complete message was that the film set out to elucidate. (Were all the versions of the characters, shown in the film, in Heaven at the end?)

[supergoing]

The Raid - me still no seen!!!


Man! The Tree of Life. Put me through some serious snakes and ladders of enjoyment in the duration of watching the film. Which kind of holds true to what I'd actually read about it. Apparently some people were giving it standing ovations in the cinema at its conclusion, while others had walked out mid-screening.

Definitely for me, at the start of the film, I think I thought - "I already don't like this film, I'm going to hate this film". It radiated an air of pretentious existentialism, which, for most of the time, gives me baddddd hayfever. The series of Worldly life images and events, while quite stunning, just bellowed: "oh it's this type of film" cliches. It did become fun for me to predict what the next image would be, and what would be seen later on (I got alot correct! My favourite of which was jellyfish!). I also felt like I've seen all of this before in many 'save the planet', 'Life's Wonders', awareness films.

When it began to get into the story a bit more, with the family and the boys, I found myself getting involved with them, (if you will). It sort of blew open to me, and it did begin to make me think about things in my life, that have happened, or may yet happen, and how I can affect them. I ended up liking the film.

I still feel as though I may have missed things, though, which, on a second viewing, would add even more to my enjoyment of it; and so that is what I intend to do at some point. I've got bit and pieces, but, I don't think I'm truly there as to what the complete message was that the film set out to elucidate. (Were all the versions of the characters, shown in the film, in Heaven at the end?)

I'm not too surprised to learn that The Tree of Life divided the critics.

To detail my own viewing experience a bit for context: the only thing I knew about The Tree of Life beforehand was that it was a Terrence Malick film. In fact, it's only his fifth film in the space of about four decades, and since I've seen the other four previously I had a pretty good idea what to expect. The main characteristics of his work is that he cares MUCH more about amazing cinematography than any other aspect of his films, usually leaving his actors' performances fairly subdued and the plots very simplistic, albeit with a heavy dose of spirituality. My past experiences with his work is that I've felt indifferent (sometimes bored) by his films during the first half, then I eventually submit to their beauty and become utterly entranced and charmed by them. The same process happened with this film as well.

What I really enjoy about The Tree of Life is that it presents a wide range of raw human emotions, free from schmaltz and fake sentimentality. It doesn't try too hard to manipulate the viewer to feel a certain way, it feels more like a series of cross-sections of life that you can project your own thoughts and experiences onto. It's the greatest human document to come out of cinema in many years, if you ask me. In addition, while I was talking about how Malick likes to use amazing cinematography, this one is no different - Emmanuel Lubezski did a tremendous job here, almost every frame looks like it belongs on an art gallery wall. And the acting and story on display is fine - still very much in the background, I guess, but it's perhaps some of Malick's finest work in that aspect.

I think the only things I could have done without in this film is the whole volcanoes/CGI dinosaurs/etc sequences, and the whole "whispering to God" brouhaha. I've seen people compare the film to 2001: A Space Odyssey - no doubt due to these aspects - but I felt that introducing such a grand scale to what's essentially a low-key story about the lives of a 50's Texan family just came off as silly. However, like you, I also felt like I didn't fully comprehend what the film was trying to say on the first viewing, so perhaps I missed something on that front.

By the way, it's funny you should mention existentialism in your post, because I read an academic paper a couple of months back comparing Malick's The Thin Red Line to Heideggerian philosophy after watching that film. Nurrrrrrrrrrrrrd~

[Androo]

I'm not too surprised to learn that The Tree of Life divided the critics.

To detail my own viewing experience a bit for context: the only thing I knew about The Tree of Life beforehand was that it was a Terrence Malick film. In fact, it's only his fifth film in the space of about four decades, and since I've seen the other four previously I had a pretty good idea what to expect. The main characteristics of his work is that he cares MUCH more about amazing cinematography than any other aspect of his films, usually leaving his actors' performances fairly subdued and the plots very simplistic, albeit with a heavy dose of spirituality. My past experiences with his work is that I've felt indifferent (sometimes bored) by his films during the first half, then I eventually submit to their beauty and become utterly entranced and charmed by them. The same process happened with this film as well.

Yeah. Kind of sums up my experience with The Tree of Life, as I said in my post, I just couldn't get into the beginning.

What I really enjoy about The Tree of Life is that it presents a wide range of raw human emotions, free from schmaltz and fake sentimentality. It doesn't try too hard to manipulate the viewer to feel a certain way, it feels more like a series of cross-sections of life that you can project your own thoughts and experiences onto. It's the greatest human document to come out of cinema in many years, if you ask me. In addition, while I was talking about how Malick likes to use amazing cinematography, this one is no different - Emmanuel Lubezski did a tremendous job here, almost every frame looks like it belongs on an art gallery wall. And the acting and story on display is fine - still very much in the background, I guess, but it's perhaps some of Malick's finest work in that aspect.

Even though I do feel it did try to 'say something'; bolded is, again, what I experienced with it. I began to reflect on my own life, and experiences.

I think the only things I could have done without in this film is the whole volcanoes/CGI dinosaurs/etc sequences, and the whole "whispering to God" brouhaha. I've seen people compare the film to 2001: A Space Odyssey - no doubt due to these aspects - but I felt that introducing such a grand scale to what's essentially a low-key story about the lives of a 50's Texan family just came off as silly. However, like you, I also felt like I didn't fully comprehend what the film was trying to say on the first viewing, so perhaps I missed something on that front.

By the way, it's funny you should mention existentialism in your post, because I read an academic paper a couple of months back comparing Malick's The Thin Red Line to Heideggerian philosophy after watching that film. Nurrrrrrrrrrrrrd~

And, I would agree with the first bolded part, again. But, now that you mention the "grand scale...to 50s family", I actually think that that does well to create the comparison between the two, and how they equate to each other as periods of huge significance, and importance in Time and the Universe. You know, sort of as such, the 50s Texan family's Tree of Life is just as BIG in the Grand Scheme, as these huge World life events?

[akbar]

Remember what Kubrick did with the Gorillas using the bone as a tool then cutting to a spaceship, to show the evolution of man and progression in time?...maybe Malick tried something like that with the 50's family thing...

[supergoing]

And, I would agree with the first bolded part, again. But, now that you mention the "grand scale...to 50s family", I actually think that that does well to create the comparison between the two, and how they equate to each other as periods of huge significance, and importance in Time and the Universe. You know, sort of as such, the 50s Texan family's Tree of Life is just as BIG in the Grand Scheme, as these huge World life events?

Remember what Kubrick did with the Gorillas using the bone as a tool then cutting to a spaceship, to show the evolution of man and progression in time?...maybe Malick tried something like that with the 50's family thing...

I suppose that was the intended effect, in retrospect. However, unlike 2001 where the time comparisons were natural juxtapositions to each other, this feels more like a disjointed mash-up of two different ideas forced together to me. Like, there was no "monolith" present to anchor them together as a relevant whole, so the personal and cosmic sections end up feeling like two different films. It comes off as surreal and absurd in a film that I'd regard as the opposite of those things. Or maybe the comparisons are supposed to be jarring? Or maybe they're totally not, and I've mis-interpreted something along the way? Either way, I really feel like buying this on blu-ray and re-evaluating it, because it's fucking great!

[akbar]

I suppose that was the intended effect, in retrospect. However, unlike 2001 where the time comparisons were natural juxtapositions to each other, this feels more like a disjointed mash-up of two different ideas forced together to me. Like, there was no "monolith" present to anchor them together as a relevant whole, so the personal and cosmic sections end up feeling like two different films. It comes off as surreal and absurd in a film that I'd regard as the opposite of those things. Or maybe the comparisons are supposed to be jarring? Or maybe they're totally not, and I've mis-interpreted something along the way? Either way, I really feel like buying this on blu-ray and re-evaluating it, because it's fucking great!

Maybe there is a monolith but we've missed it

[akbar]

This time the mum is kidnapped, He really needs to tell his ladies to stay home from now on...Should be a good film

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VpaT8NzkLgE

[supergoing]

Crippled Avengers - 10/10

Seance on a Wet Afternoon - 9/10

Don't have anything particularly riveting to say about either, but they're both really great. Crippled Avengers hits all the right notes for an old-school kung fu flick, truly a genre classic. Seance is a beautifully made British Hitchcockian thriller/drama with A+ performances from the main cast. Either film would appeal very much to fans of action movies or British cinema.

Oh, and akbar, I finally got round to watching Confessions, and I agree about the amazing cinematography. I wasn't all that keen on the second half of the film's story though, seemed to be getting too stylish for it's own good at times while the actual substance became increasingly ridiculous. If it had ended after the revelation that

 

the milk of the killers were poisoned with HIV infected blood (AND not revealed that they weren't actually poisoned)

it probably would've made a perfect short feature.