It's slightly better than 8............
Film 'buffs'
- Thread starter VanNistelrater
- Start date
It's slightly better than 8............
Salvation is one.
I may have said this before.
He liked Saw.
I may have said this before.
He liked Saw.
Don't know I haven't seen Sunshine(for real).
Re film buffs, I think I agree... though i'm not 100% convinced these people exist, outside of piss-takes in sit-coms. If you mean anyone who has an opinion on a film or the way it's made, then bollocks.
Re Shindler's list I thought it was let down - by the decision to have the little girl in red. It was corny and unnecessary. Also by the decision to make it about 8 hours long.
I agree. Did you like the Pianist, Plech to the Zed?
I mean anyone who goes on about anything unrelated to the story. The lighting, the camera work or something. Just shut up and follow the story, cretin face.
Ahh, so you dislike anybody who likes film that analyses the actual filmaking part. I agree, I mean, why do they make these films and put them in the public eye? It's certainly not so they can be judged by anbody, it's not like they are selling this films or anything, they give them away for free, the public have no right to ask questions, especially not about a film involving Jews.
Yes, in the main. I didn't quite believe the Nazi hiding him cos he played Chopin so movingly bit... but given that it's a true story, I suppose I should believe it
Nah, I think that's bollocks. People pretentiously displaying knowledge they think is excclusive is irritating. On the other hand, there are things to be known about how films are made and how they work... if you're not interested in them, fine, but if you pride yourself on your ignorance, you're being a bit of a cock. At the end of the day some films are more or less artistic, and use of the lights and camera are part of that. It's a reasonable comment to say that, for instance, Kubrick's "Barry Lyndon" is fecking beautiful to look at (because of the cinematography), but very dull as a story.
I agree with Van. I also hate people who go to see an obviously stupid film, and then spend ages complaining about how stupid it is. This, despite being one of those people
He was inspired by a few Turner paintings apparently. I love appreciating good cinematography. It's a visual medium after all.
It's like someone complaining about football fans analysing a game.
Yeah, exactly. I saw "Hallam Foe" the other day... now I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure that film was fecked up by bad editing. A lot of the time it was hard to know what was going on, in terms of where characters were in location to each other... plus there were some very abrupt cuts that broke the illusion and made you remember you were watching something made-up.
On the other hand, "Pulp Fiction" was apparently turned from shit to gold by the editor. As I understand it, Tarantino wrote it and shot it as a straight beginning-to-end narrative. It was crap, so the editor, in desperation, chopped it up and put some sequences that were chronologically after others before them.
According to Van, these things dshould not be discussed.
I've mention it a few times. . .but I was just gobsmacked as to how beautiful In the Mood for Love was. Ran by Kurosawa was another. Can't help but sit in awe of some of these films. ITMFL had fantastic lighting(shadows), camera angles that made it appear voyeuristic at times. . . and the colours were amazing. Was a scene in which the protagonist was smoking. . . the way the smoke filtered to the top looked brilliant.
Whatever
How can lighting or cinamatography or something actually dictate your enjoyment of the film? (Unless it's filmed in the dark, in a shed or something).
If it does, you're an idiot. This is factual stuff. People use minutiae like that to make themselves look clever. Think Feedingseagulls, except fatter and more lonely.
If it does, you're an idiot. This is factual stuff. People use minutiae like that to make themselves look clever. Think Feedingseagulls, except fatter and more lonely.
Because it's a visual medium.
It almost always does. You may not realize it but it does.
'Cos those aspects are as visible to you as anyone else
It's about how you say it, and what you're trying to do by saying itCinematography dictates how the film looks, more or less... depending on how much of a control freak the director is. But basically, the cinematographer frames the shot, lights it, and colour-corrects it afterwards. That's the difference between a film that looks fecking amazing, like say, The Godfather, and one that looks crap. Also to a large extent the thing that makes a film like Seven so moody and tense.
That's something actually real, and crucial to your enjoyment of the film... not just something ponces talk about.
If people talk like Feadingseagulls about cinematography, there's a dead giveaway that they're pseuds who don't know what they're talking about, and that's that they only talk about it when the film's picture-postcard beautiful. Whether something's well shot isn't about how pretty it is, it's about how well it tells the story. it is possible to feck up a good story by filming it badly. Go out with a video camera and crap lights and try to re-make Jaws, and you'll see what I mean. They had crap shark models and an average script and the actors were decent but not amazing, but they made a great film because it's a) well directed and b) well shot (and c) has a cracking soundtrack.)
If someone bangs on about films like The English Patient and how "beautifully photographed" they are, they're 10-1 a ponce and should be ignored, or as you rightly prescribe, killed. But there's something to be discussed there if you're interested, not being interested is fine, wearing your ignorance/lack of interest as a badge of honour is retarded.
Plech, you're a "movie buff" and should be killed...that and cos you have a big nose
Anyone whose taken a photograph on very low light will appreciate the scenes involving Marlon Brando in Apocalypse Now. Isn't exactly wannabe rocket scientists
Anyone whose taken a photograph on very low light will appreciate the scenes involving Marlon Brando in Apocalypse Now. Isn't exactly wannabe rocket scientists
I've just watched Pirates of the Caribbean 2 - Dead Man's Chest
It was about this pirate called Jack who was looking for a chest that contained a heart, but was being chased by Davy Jones - who was a squidman and his crew (including a hammerheadman and a hermitcrabman), and there was thie big feck off squid called the Krakan
The lighting was immense
It was about this pirate called Jack who was looking for a chest that contained a heart, but was being chased by Davy Jones - who was a squidman and his crew (including a hammerheadman and a hermitcrabman), and there was thie big feck off squid called the Krakan
The lighting was immense
@ DavoI hate movie buffs.
I don't really know where "there" is, that's the problem
"Gary Neville clapped by hand"
I like movie puffs though...those chicken filled bread dishes that we get in theaters
I'm not backing down on this one.
You're all Ihni binni dimi diniwiny anitaime.
You're all Ihni binni dimi diniwiny anitaime.
I hate it when someone next to me in a theater is eating something. Especially if I can smell it. And even more if I'm really hungry or really full.
The eating bit depends entirely on how rubbish the movie is for me
Jack got eaten by the Krakan, but luckily they can save him by going on a really long journey, and some bloke who I don't know who is turned up to be the new captain
I once got a blowjob in a movie theatre. This has nothing to do with movie buffs, I'm just glad I got a blowjob in a theatre.
I'm with Van on this one.
The last film I saw was Shrek, so I know what I'm talking about.
The last film I saw was Shrek, so I know what I'm talking about.
It's picking through the sarcasm to work out what you might have been trying to suggest, that I've sadly failed to do this evening... too much booze
Never mind... who gives a feck anyway
Never mind... who gives a feck anyway