Movies to look forward to
- Thread starter ranemaka13
- Start date
I plan to see Interstellar in theaters (despite the duration), but I have to say, no movie of Nolan has ever impressed me. They're well-made and provide good entertainment, but I find his stuff quite overrated. I think The Prestige might be the one I most enjoyed.
Johnstantine
Skibbidy Boo Bop
Aazealh said:
That's the one I actually enjoyed the least.
Oburi
All praise Grail
Aazealh said:
Me too. I plan to see it in theaters because like Walter said the sci-fi/ space stuff is interesting to me and it's been a while since we've had a good one. I've never been a Nolan "fan" but his movies are, like you said, entertaining, well made and at the very least interest me enough to spend the money to see it in theaters.
The Nolan movies I enjoyed the most would be Following, Memento and The Prestige. Following is the only Nolan movie that I think can be considered "not overrated". So if you haven't seen it, I'd recommend it.
Oburi said:
I saw it many years ago, and thought it was fine, but didn't feel it was very transcendent. The story carries the emotional equivalent to a "Sawyer" episode in Lost and it reeks of a first-time effort (which it is, for all intents and purposes). And it's comparing apples and oranges, but while watching it, I couldn't help but think of another black and white, first-time director independent film that I thought was far more memorable: Pi. And no, not the one with the fucking tiger.
But guys, I could sing the praises of Memento for far longer than is healthy for anyone to listen to. Watch that and then watch his abysmal follow-up, the terrible US adaptation of the brilliant Insomnia, and you'll probably begin to understand where my opinion of the guy went.
Oburi
All praise Grail
Walter said:
Yea, I loved Memento, hated Insomnia. So I'm with you on that. But even though it's been 10 years since I've since either Pi or Following, as of right now I remember enjoying Nolan's debut more than Aronofsky's. Maybe I should I revisit both, but I did prefer Nolan's style (albeit cold, distant and emotionless) to Aronofsky's ... and I've continued to feel that way since with their subsequent films. While I'm not a fan of either director (they both have hits and misses) I'm always more interested in what Nolan is cooking up.
Both are overrated in my opinion.
Johnstantine
Skibbidy Boo Bop
Oburi said:
Aronofsky is pathetically overrated.
Aazealh said:
Are you gonna see it in IMAX?
As a fan of sci-fi, I can't skip this. Gonna see it in IMAX 70 mm. DP cinema's are mad at Paramount and Nolan for giving preferential treatment to theaters who have the ability to show the film in 70 mm IMAX or 35 mm or 70 mm formats, they'll have the ability to show the movie 2 days prior to the actual release date of the 7th.
Oburi said:
If we're talking this year, I had fun with Coherence, Edge Of Tomorrow, Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes, Guardians, Winter Soldier, Under The Skin. Gotta see Marling's I Origins.
Oburi
All praise Grail
IncantatioN said:
Now that is something that's overrated.
The whole IMAX gimmick is almost as bad as 3D. It's just another way for them to get more of you're money.
I remember when I was younger and going to the IMAX meant you got to see big, epic documentaries about nature and science and space. Now they they rent it out to whatever blockbuster is going to make the most money that month.
Oburi said:
I think IMAX is a luxurious experience for milestone movies that people really care about (and I doubt it'll be around forever, as the industry continues to change in scale...). But they really shouldn't sell those seats closer to the screen than is comfortable. When Avatar came out, I went with a group, and we arrived a little late, so the last seats available were in the first three rows. In 3D, it was probably the most physically painful movie viewing experience of my life. And on top of that, it was Avatar.
Oburi said:
Not a gimmick if it's shot using an IMAX 70 mm camera. To put into perspective - 70 mm rolls vertically and takes up 5 slots on a regular film strip, IMAX 70 mm rolls horizontally taking up 15 slots. So an IMAX 70 mm is 3 times bigger than a 70 mm or 9 times bigger than a regular 35 mm. No comparison. Post IMAX conversions lack in quality ... it's like imagine taking a small picture and enlarging it versus having an already big picture ... you lose resolution.
Did anyone else enjoy gaurdians of the galaxy?
had a small role but I enjoy that grin so much. I remember seeing the avengers post credits and when he appeared I stood up and screamed YES!!! I felt so alone as everyone looked puzzled.
Thanos
Oburi
All praise Grail
IncantatioN said:
I understand all that but I'm just really old school when it comes to film. I'm not crazy about digital filmmaking either, even though it's the way of the future. The technology is interesting and I can appreciate all the work that goes into it, but at the same time you end up sacrificing something one way or another when you use specific types of cameras to shoot 3D or IMAX or whatever. Even when it's done right and it looks amazing in theaters, 5 years down the road when I'm laying in bed at 3am watching the movie on my tv, I think about all the time and money and work that went into the production of 3D or IMAX and the giant cameras they had to use to get some of those shots, which in turn made it impossible to get some other, more basic shots.
I'm all for ingenuity but at this point it's just my personal preference in the world of filmmaking that a back to basics approach is the way to go. For example, look at the original Lord of the Rings movies and how they used all those old school camera tricks and forced perspective and miniatures to get the effects they want. Now look at the new trilogy, for all it's new technology using the state of the art epic RED 3D cameras, they can't even shoot like they use to, and they miss some of the most basic aspects of moviemaking. And it shows.
Oburi said:
I only know of IMAX cameras and the sacrifice you make is on sound because the camera is loud and is bulky to move about freely as you could with a 35 mm. But what you get is larger picture without having to go through post digital conversion to enhance movie size for some bigger screens.
All that effort, time and money that may have gone into filming it with those bigger cameras is for a more complete or enhanced theatrical experience. Like using IMAX cameras would allow for crisper moving images in IMAX screens versus converting 35 mm to be shown on IMAX or for people who love 3D ...you can tell the difference when movies shot in 35 mm are post converted to 3D versus being shot in a 3D camera (just giving an example). I for one enjoy watching movies on the big screen. Not a fan of 3D, but I am a fan of IMAX. So for me it's all the more exciting when a movie's shot using an IMAX camera, especially sci-fi! I understand where you're coming from, I guess it's a matter of preference of the format. For instance, some like to read Berserk on computer screens or iPads while some prefer to read the physical volume or even in a bigger YA page format.
Johnstantine
Skibbidy Boo Bop
NightCrawler
Aeons gone, vast, mad and deathless
Whiplash - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvOksqh1Td0
Also,
Also,
You look good in that poster! Oscar buzz and all ^_^.
Anyone interested in seeing the trailer, it's on the previous page.
Anyone interested in seeing the trailer, it's on the previous page.
This Nightcrawler poster is terrible I think. The only thing i see is ''It's basically Drive with a Camera''
This one is definitely better
Among others films, I'm going (tomorrow night) to Nightcrawler' screening at an annual independent film festival held in Montreal. I'll give my brief thougths.
Here's the rest of my schedule :
* Fires on the Plain (Nobi) remake of Ichikawa's masterpiece by Shinya Tsukamoto Tetsuo I&II, Bullet Ballet, Haze).
I highly recommand at least to see the original. It's basically an agonizing (but grisly yet poetic) portrait of desperate Japanese soldiers, their descent into psychological and physical oblivion set during World War II.
* The Salt of the Earth by Win Wenders based on the famous works of journalist and photographer Juliano Ribeiro Salgado.
* Jauja by Lisandro Alonso
The story mostly unfolds in 19th century ruggedly Patagonia where the Danish Captain Dinesen (Viggo Mortensen) and a small band of men are camped out, until Dinesen’s 15-year-old daughter, runs off with a Spanish soldier and Dinesen sets off to find her in the wild.
This one is definitely better
Among others films, I'm going (tomorrow night) to Nightcrawler' screening at an annual independent film festival held in Montreal. I'll give my brief thougths.
Here's the rest of my schedule :
* Fires on the Plain (Nobi) remake of Ichikawa's masterpiece by Shinya Tsukamoto Tetsuo I&II, Bullet Ballet, Haze).
I highly recommand at least to see the original. It's basically an agonizing (but grisly yet poetic) portrait of desperate Japanese soldiers, their descent into psychological and physical oblivion set during World War II.
* The Salt of the Earth by Win Wenders based on the famous works of journalist and photographer Juliano Ribeiro Salgado.
* Jauja by Lisandro Alonso
The story mostly unfolds in 19th century ruggedly Patagonia where the Danish Captain Dinesen (Viggo Mortensen) and a small band of men are camped out, until Dinesen’s 15-year-old daughter, runs off with a Spanish soldier and Dinesen sets off to find her in the wild.
Oburi said:
2011 and onward you're missing out on Source Code, End Of Watch, Prisoners, Enemy ... all good movies back to back and now, Nightcrawler.
Oburi
All praise Grail
IncantatioN said:
I saw Prisoners and End of Watch and while I didn't really like either movie anyway, both made me dislike Jakey boy even more. Maybe he didn't ruin the movie, but I still thought he was shit. He just comes across as phoney to me. Like how James Franco plays the same character every movie with that stupid smirk on his face.
The 2014 films I have any interest in seeing are Interstellar , The Hobbit The Battle of Five Armies , and Marvels Guardians of the Galaxy.