Massive Spanner
The Football Wrench
Adria Arjona she reminds me of @Rooney in Paris hot half Japanese girlfriendI liked Hitman
It was a fun movie with twists and turns I didn’t see coming. The actress is such a smoke show though damn
Adria Arjona she reminds me of @Rooney in Paris hot half Japanese girlfriendI liked Hitman
It was a fun movie with twists and turns I didn’t see coming. The actress is such a smoke show though damn
Definitely. Have you seen her first movie?I’ve followed Schoenbrun on twitter for a while so went into the film knowing some of the themes. Tbh I would interested in seeing what she could do with a bigger budget.
What can't he do?Omg I had no idea that was Fred Durst!
I don't really get this. Is the first paragraph suggesting the film would benefit from a spiritual dimension (ick!) and the second that it needs more fake drama and made-up weirdness?https://www.newyorker.com/news/fault-lines/the-polite-therapy-of-the-inside-out-movies
You might enjoy this.
Excerpt:
In the gospel according to “Inside Out,” the purpose of life is entirely secular. We are meant to savor all of our emotions and meld the memories they color into a plausible but positive Sense of Self. Any notion of a higher or deeper purpose is not really discussed, or even hinted at—which is somewhat surprising, given that the director of the first “Inside Out,” Pete Docter, has spoken publicly about his Christian faith. But Docter has also said that his duty as a popular filmmaker pushes him away from proselytizing. “I don’t want to feel as though I’m ever lecturing or putting an agenda forth,” he told Christianity Today in 2009.
There is also little consideration given to how our emotions and our outlooks on life are shaped by material conditions. The world of “Inside Out” might be racially diverse, but, like the “Toy Story” universe, it is also uniformly middle class in a way that almost seems designed to ward off commentary. Not that I expect Pixar to produce anything suggestive of Karl Marx—or even of Jesus—but if you’re going to make a film about memories, feelings, and what amounts to the soul, the spirit that brings it to life should be immediate and relevant. Instead, the movie offers a careful picture of the polite, educated, secular consensus about emotional health, and the supposedly deeper question it asks almost feels like it’s been generated by ChatGPT. This doctrinaire and yet thoroughly generic conception of consciousness is, in itself, a bit depressing. Should children feel a perfectly balanced salad of emotions? Do the names we assign to them—sadness, anxiety, ennui, embarrassment—actually fit our reality? Or does this eagerness to categorize and contain our experiences offer a vision of life that is tame, restrictive, and finally unimaginative?
Tbh I think the French title is better. I watched it on Mubi. Its by the same director who has recently done The Beast with Léa Seydoux which I haven’t seen it yet but has been getting incredible reviews.I had never heard of this and it seems interesting. Where did you watch it?
EDIT: I have heard of it, it's called L'Apollonide in French! But never seen it
Oh I haven’t. Is it any good ?Definitely. Have you seen her first movie?
The world is his oysterWhat can't he do?
I haven't, but it's on my priority list. It's apparently inspired by creepypasta stuff. I was so impressed by her command of horror on ISTTVG. Her first one has excellent reviews, too.Oh I haven’t. Is it any good ?
Oh that does very good. Pretty sure Emma Stone produced I Saw The TV Glow which is very cool but definitely the worry is Schoenbrun will get taken up by the studio pipeline. They tend to love smaller directors as I guess it’s cheaper and the directors demand less.I haven't, but it's on my priority list. It's apparently inspired by creepypasta stuff. I was so impressed by her command of horror on ISTTVG. Her first one has excellent reviews, too.
According to ScreenRant:
Jane Schoenbrun referred to We're All Going to the World's Fair as the first installment in their so-called "Screen Trilogy." Instead of meditating on the all-consuming nature of the internet, and its potential for self-discovery, the filmmaker's second entry in the Screen Trilogy tackles a different kind of looking glass: the television screen.
Hopefully she gets to make film 3! In reality, Marvel will snap her up for an X-Men origin story.
This was a very, very strange film. Probably one where having the sound on or off would not affect the clarity of it one bit.Holy Motors
This is going to be a terrible review as I don’t want spoil anything. Just go watch this incredible piece of art. Denis Lavant is a god.
10/10
I think the reviewer was trying to put in terms of Pete Docter's own psyche. I thought the first one wasn't great.I don't really get this. Is the first paragraph suggesting the film would benefit from a spiritual dimension (ick!) and the second that it needs more fake drama and made-up weirdness?
I don't think so: I think the author is rather explaining why they are surprised that Doctor, as a Christian, doesn't include that spiritual dimension ('higher purpose').I think the reviewer was trying to put in terms of Pete Docter's own psyche. I thought the first one wasn't great.
Yep it’s a strange one and honestly just watching as a visual experience was brilliant. I loved not knowing what was going to happen next. But having thought about the film more and looked at other reviews there’s definitely lots of points Leos Carax is making.This was a very, very strange film. Probably one where having the sound on or off would not affect the clarity of it one bit.
Preach on, brother. I'm an apostate in the church of Pixar. I liked Up and Wall-Eyed. The rest I think are "aggressively shit", as @CoopersDream phrased it. You're probably right though.I don't think so: I think the author is rather explaining why they are surprised that Doctor, as a Christian, doesn't include that spiritual dimension ('higher purpose').
I also skimmed through the article now, and I have to say I like it even less now. They seem to think Pixar films are for small kids, but the Inside Outs are clearly primarily aimed at kids around the main character's age - so it shouldn't surprise that a seven year old doesn't get all of the film's concepts. The author also seems to have a simplistic and old-fashioned view of child psychology and what sort self-awareness is useful for children.
The article basically complains that the Inside Out films don't share the author's romanticized, outdated view of childhood and child psychology, but if you'd ask me (I know you didn't ), I think that point is entirely without merit and I am happy that the films do embrace the 'standard, secular consensus' on those subjects.
(In case it matters: I also have young-ish kids, so all of the above is very relevant to my and their lives - which helps explain why I'm frustrated with the article. )
I knew you'd break eventually. No man can sit through 4 Expendables without breaking.I watched the fourth entry in the Expendables franchise and it was aggressively sh!t. I usually enjoy seeing Statham being a one man army but it just didn't do it for me this time. Not even good in a bad way, just plain bad. I also think you need to up the game in each of these films, and ladt time (if I remember correctly) they went up against the army of a country. It wasn't good, but at least it was so ridiculous it was a fun watch. This just wasn't.
You better duck. I fecking hated this movie, but apparently it's brilliant and genius and worth all the Oscars, and anyone who says different is banished to the land of wind and ghosts. It's even worse when you learn the entire last act was a reshoot to try and get a jazzier ending.Get out
Huge disappointment, you could see the plot twist miles away that were lame anyway. Also most of the linea felt too "over-scripted" if that's a word.
Haha thanks for the heads up. Apparently all the movies I watch these days that are supposed to be great are basically shit. They really did a reshoot for the ending? That's crazy.You better duck. I fecking hated this movie, but apparently it's brilliant and genius and worth all the Oscars, and anyone who says different is banished to the land of wind and ghosts. It's even worse when you learn the entire last act was a reshoot to try and get a jazzier ending.
I knew you'd break eventually. No man can sit through 4 Expendables without breaking.
Holy Motors
This is going to be a terrible review as I don’t want spoil anything. Just go watch this incredible piece of art. Denis Lavant is a god.
10/10
Definitely. Denis Lavant kidnapping Eva Mendes from cemetery to a underground sewer and then sitting next to her with a hard on is very french.I remember very little about this movie except at the time thinking yep that was very french.
Ooh la la!Definitely. Denis Lavant kidnapping Eva Mendes from cemetery to a underground sewer and then sitting next to her with a hard on is very french.
Preach on, brother. I'm an apostate in the church of Pixar. I liked Up and Wall-Eyed.
I knew you'd break eventually. No man can sit through 4 Expendables without breaking.
You better duck. I fecking hated this movie,
My friends told me on Sunday they had watched Get Out for the first time the night before. They loved it. I was speechless. That movie is so fecking dumb it makes me question my friendship.Nothing since 2010 has really been that great and mostly I haven't liked them at all.
I didn't get to the end of the first one if I remember correctly.
Watching the the obvious and on the nose "twist" lumber into view was a chore.
My friends told me on Sunday they had watched Get Out for the first time the night before. They loved it. I was speechless. That movie is so fecking dumb it makes me question my friendship.
@Wing Attack Plan R is about to radicalize himselfi could understand people not liking it but what about it is so dumb you'd question a friendship?
Get Out is grand. Not amazing but pretty original for the genre and good fun. Plus Daniel Kaluuya is a very watchable lead. Have no idea why anyone would hate it.
I didn't mind Get Out. It wasn't as mind blowing as some people made out at the time but it was enjoyable and a feel good ending.Get Out is grand. Not amazing but pretty original for the genre and good fun. Plus Daniel Kaluuya is a very watchable lead. Have no idea why anyone would hate it. Nope was similar. Doesn’t set the world on fire but at least he’s trying something a bit different. I enjoyed both movies. It’s weird the way some people have reacted so strongly to them.
i could understand people not liking it but what about it is so dumb you'd question a friendship?
I didn't mind Get Out. It wasn't as mind blowing as some people made out at the time but it was enjoyable and a feel good ending.
Us was a better trailer than a movie. The idea was fun and I kind of enjoyed the film but once you think about it and the rules of the world... It massively falls apart.
I didn't enjoy Nope at all. It did nothing for me.
But I still would rather have someone lined Peele trying to do something different versus the 100s of bullshit horror films released every year.
It was a bit on the nose.
that's just a reason for disliking a movie
It's probably the super high praise that Get Out got. It makes people want to be contrarian - and that becomes even more pronounced if they actually disliked the movie. If the consensus on Get Out had been 'it's well made from a technical point of view but otherwise just alright', you wouldn't have heard much else.Exactly. Even when his films don’t work for you, personally, you surely have to appreciate their originality. What’s really strange to me is hating them. There are so many films in the horror genre much more worthy of hating, why single any of these out?
Peele is like M Night Shyamalan. They both make high concept films with some nice looking scenes but their stories fall apart well before the end of the movie. They rely on the development of plot that is nonsensical and therefore surprising, the proverbial "twist" ending(s). The entire last third of Get Out was a reshoot, everything involving his cop buddy, and because of it the entire movie is a shart.i could understand people not liking it but what about it is so dumb you'd question a friendship?
This. Not only won an Oscar for a very pandering script, but his subsequent films have had his fans saying he's the greatest horror director of all time, which really, really, really gets on my nerves. I wouldn't even call him a horror director. It's an insult to the entire genre that he gets praised as he does.It's probably the super high praise that Get Out got. It makes people want to be contrarian - and that becomes even more pronounced if they actually disliked the movie. If the consensus on Get Out had been 'it's well made from a technical point of view but otherwise just alright', you wouldn't have heard much else.
You don’t get the peele experience, and you don’t get his movies. I have reached the conclusion that you’re not a big fan. So you’ve stated this, in several insulting sentences, and made yourself heard. Do you need to hang around in this thread still?This. Not only won an Oscar for a very pandering script, but his subsequent films have had his fans saying he's the greatest horror director of all time, which really, really, really gets on my nerves. I wouldn't even call him a horror director. It's an insult to the entire genre that he gets praised as he does.
I see what you did there, and no, this is NOT the same as Taylor Swift! You leave Taylor alone!You don’t get the peele experience, and you don’t get his movies. I have reached the conclusion that you’re not a big fan. So you’ve stated this, in several insulting sentences, and made yourself heard. Do you need to hang around in this thread still?
These fans, are they in the room with us now?This. Not only won an Oscar for a very pandering script, but his subsequent films have had his fans saying he's the greatest horror director of all time, which really, really, really gets on my nerves. I wouldn't even call him a horror director. It's an insult to the entire genre that he gets praised as he does.
Small sampling of horror directors who apparently labor in the shadow of Peele: Kubrick (1), Scott (1), DePalma, Cronenberg, Marshall, Soavi, Fulci, Bava, Fincher (1), Argento, Henenlotter, Fuller, Ching Siu-tung, Cohen, Gordon, Lewis, Carpenter, Zulawski, Tsukamoto, Del Toro, Russell, Landis (1), Friedkin (1), Coscarelli, Demme (1), Romero, Goddard (1), Raimi, Verbinski (1), Boyle (1), Mitchell, Eggers, Alfredson, Kent, Barker, Craven, Nakata, Yeon Sang-ho, Miike, Hooper, Dante, Hitchcock, Tourneur, Aster, Franju, Sluizer, Balaguero & Plaza, Aja.