Nobody, let us move on swiftly.
Film 'buffs'
- Thread starter VanNistelrater
- Start date
Yes...
Van is wrong, as he secretly knows, and will, credit to him, publicly admit in a year or so... as he has on issues from united fandom to politics. See Davo's "Growing up on the Caf" thread for details
Van is wrong, as he secretly knows, and will, credit to him, publicly admit in a year or so... as he has on issues from united fandom to politics. See Davo's "Growing up on the Caf" thread for details
Buff
hey DE... when is ongbak2 coming out?
early next year I think. probably around feb-march
cool bro... i'm looking forwards to that one.
are there any other thai movies that are along those lines that are worth watching?
are there any other thai movies that are along those lines that are worth watching?
I've heard cumonbak2 is ace
Most Thai movies are either historical epics,scary movies or slapstick comedy/action and in the latter category unless you understand thaiyou won't get the joke. Even in Ong Bak most of Mum Jokmok's jokes were lost with subtitles.
yeah i kind of guessed that cos i started watching one called dynamite warrior starring dan chupong and it was too bizzare even for me. it had some forest man eating people and he had a gang with a midget in it and they were attacking a village and some guy was flying on rockets to fight them... or something like that. but the fighting wasn't good enough to make up for the strangeness.
Midgets and crossdressers are a must in almost every Thai comedy.
there was a cross dresser too!
Cinematography 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.
I don't think I've heard anyone say 'beautifully photographed' though or even that film had brilliant lighting(unless it's a pisstake). Although, I'm not sure I agree that films can't be picture postcard beautiful(That said, I've just had a quick scan, and I don't think you said this), ITMFL clearly is, so is the one you mentioned. . .Barry Lyndon, although I've only seen a few clips. It was inspired by a couple of Turner paintings afterall. And I don't think there's anything wrong with aesthetics. I thought ITMFL was well composed. . . each scene was done meticulously, even the way the objects were cropped ie the car when the passenger got out. . .or the way the camera moved across behind curtains into the room. I don't think you can throw things like that together by fluke(Although, I'm not sure who takes more credit for this, the director or cinematographer). Blade Runner's another. Visually stunning. Again, a lot went into the way it looked, but it also created a noir feeling. Which is one of the genre's it crossed into.
Nowt wrong with opinions. . . most of us just enjoy watching films.
Although, I can't stand them.
By that standard it doesn't matter how well a book is written as long as the plot is OK, it is written grammatically and a spell checker is used.
No wonder John Grisham sells so many books.
A film like 3 Colours Blue or even Blade Runner owes a huge amount to the cinematography which sets the tone and mood of the film. It is the difference between an original song you love and a competent but totally unoriginal cover on Idol.
I agree with Wibbs... amazingly enough
It's not that a film can't be beautifully shot. But film ponces tend to talk about the beauty of the cinematography only when it's picture-postcard prettiness on offer - they can spot it because everything looks lovely, so they seize on it as their chance to prove they know something about cinematography.
A lot of beautiful film-makling isn't pretty though. Take a film like Midnight Cowboy, or Mean Streets. Amazing images and camera work, but not exactly looking like a Turner landscape.
Also, pretty shots can often mask a crap story - eg The English Patient. People come away thinking it's classy, and it gets loads of Oscars... all because they've cut gorgeous shots of the desert with shots of naked lovers. Confidence trick.
It's not that a film can't be beautifully shot. But film ponces tend to talk about the beauty of the cinematography only when it's picture-postcard prettiness on offer - they can spot it because everything looks lovely, so they seize on it as their chance to prove they know something about cinematography.
A lot of beautiful film-makling isn't pretty though. Take a film like Midnight Cowboy, or Mean Streets. Amazing images and camera work, but not exactly looking like a Turner landscape.
Also, pretty shots can often mask a crap story - eg The English Patient. People come away thinking it's classy, and it gets loads of Oscars... all because they've cut gorgeous shots of the desert with shots of naked lovers. Confidence trick.
People who I work with and I will frequently mention how good the lighting of a movie was. We do this because lighting movies is our job.
That's buffist.
I can also forgive a film a great deal if it looks good good enough.
example?
I only walked out of Legends Of The Fall 2/3 of the way through.
I only walked out of Babel about halfway through
I watched the whole of Legend despite Tom Cruise being in it.
I didn't walk out at all. Beat that. *
* I watched it in my front room so walking out would have seemed more like a toilet break than a statement of disapproval.
Impressive
I wanted to walk out, the missus wouldn't let me.
Road To Perdition was a film that I wouldn't have bothered finishing except for the rather decent cinematography.
Static was a film that everyone apart from me and my mate hated but I loved the look and the music.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090069/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090069/
Kill Bill was another film where a fairly shit film was watchable due to good cinematography.
Why walk out of a movie when you could just as easily move to an empty area of the cinema and have sex in public???
It would embarrass my son.
You took you son to see Legends of the Fall! Somebody should call protective services.
I don't think he was even born when it came out.
Making any kid endure that truly terrible film would be beyond abuse. Cruel and unusual punishment at the very least.
Making any kid endure that truly terrible film would be beyond abuse. Cruel and unusual punishment at the very least.
In any case it was an almost full cinema. After we walked out my wife fecked the whole effect up by forgetting her handbag and refusing to go back for it. Since it had our car keys, mobiles and money in it I had to go back in, find it in the dark and make a slightly less dramatic gesture by leaving again.
Van - how do I rate then? I'm a film lecturer...so I get paid to talk bollox about the complexities of film.
I also hate other film lecturers
I also hate film students (particularly the smart-assed ones who know more than me, particularly about films that I haven't seen then, proceed to bore me to tears about a film I have no intention of ever watching)
I also hate other film lecturers
I also hate film students (particularly the smart-assed ones who know more than me, particularly about films that I haven't seen then, proceed to bore me to tears about a film I have no intention of ever watching)
I agree. It depends on the genre. You can't make Mean Streets into a Turner or Monet landscape. . . but that doesn't mean it's in some way inferior. The cinematography has to reflect the film. I was just pointing out a couple of films in which it's worked. Ran was amazing too. . . different to the likes of Barry Lyndon, but it didn't make it any less jaw dropping. The battle scenes were fantastic. . .also loved the way he used the sunset, horizon and silhouettes. Kurosawa's another who's very meticulous. . .apparently he's always made sure that everything was authentic from the sets to the costumes. But yeah, you're right. . . A Turner landscape for example isn't the only form of beauty. I think you'd have to be an idiot to think that.
He's borrowed so much from Eastern cinema, that it's not even funny. Back to Plech's point. . . Ichi the Killer had amazing cinematography too, almost comic book/anime like, very stylised(hyper reality, I think is what it's called). I thought it was sexy. Not exactly Monet's Sunrise, but it was beautiful in a different way.
Film buff.
Even the cinematography will not make me like Ichi.