Film forum off topic/random chat thread

The Black Oil

Critic Philip French has passed away.

https://twitter.com/ObsNewReview/status/658965369361727490

Cantona's Collars

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUT9iOWaIow

e_e

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdjqXOCeEtg

Love this stuff.

johnny_ultimate

Sight & Sound have released their 2015 top 20 poll: http://www.bfi.org.uk/best-films-2015

Of course three of the top five haven't been screened here yet :pac: (four if you count Carol, but it's after midnight!)

Cantona's Collars

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UxZLCtatAo

e_e

https://twitter.com/Twotafkap/status/426703498856906752

Still makes me laugh.

sonic85

Anybody go see Krampus? If so what did you think of it?

e_e

sonic85 wrote: »

Anybody go see Krampus? If so what did you think of it?

It was fun, felt like something out of the 80s with the irreverence and darkness of something like Gremlins. Doesn't add up to much but it's an enjoyable ride imo.

Drumpot

Went to die hard tonight in the lighthouse cinema. I have to say, even though I've seen it loads of times (used to always watch it on video) , this is possibly the most enjoyable version for me.

I was too young to see it in cinema but everybody who likes it should try and get to see it in the cinema. I can't explain it but even though I could quote most the movie it was like seeing it for the first time the way it should be!

One of the most enjoyable movie nights out in sometime and better then most of the stuff out there.

pixelburp

Die Hard, for me, exists within a small collection of films alongside the likes of Back to the Future that I would honestly consider 'perfect'. While no, they don't revolutionise the visual landscape of cinema blah blah blah, I think they're almost flawless executions of cinema as pure entertainment and balanced narrative. To me, they're perfect films.

e_e

Back to the Future was a film I wished I was a fan of at a younger, more innocent age because as an adult I can't really shake what a weird and disturbing movie it is in some aspects. :P

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6nqXxfoJAU

Die Hard though, even for someone who has film snob leanings it's a true masterpiece for me.

pixelburp

Meh, don't really buy into the cynical side-eye BotF suddenly gets here & there, especially around Marty & Doc's relationship. It's definitely a film that skirts around some pretty dodgy areas for a 'family' film, but while there's no explanation for the friendship, equally the film has never suggested or implied anything unhealthy, unpleasant or toxic about Marty's relationship with Doc Brown. Tbh I think it says more about the viewer than the film in this case

Sad Professor

It really doesn't sound like he's recently watched the film at all. Marty and Doc become friends over the course of the story, I guess, but there's nothing to suggest they are already best friends when the film begins. Marty is his assistant.

And he doesn't try and screw his mother, that's dumb. She has the hots for him, but she obviously doesn't know he's her son from the future. His attempts to reject her advances and get her to like his father instead is the source of all the humour. Children get this and find it very funny. Only uptight adults find it disturbing.

e_e

I take umbrage with being called uptight for finding one scene that was meant to be uncomfortable a little jarring. I'm not calling it a bad movie, I really like it, it was just something that jumped out to me on a re-watch.

Sad Professor

Sorry, e_e, that wasn't directed at you.

e_e

No problem, I did too get the sense that Marty and Doc were friends from the offset, I actually kind of liked that it wasn't called into question. The "tries to **** his mom" bit was just comedic exaggeration for me.

pixelburp

The obligatory 'Every Frame a Painting' ladies & gentlemen; thought this one was a really interesting edition & not a topic that you'd automatically think of when watching a 'talky' scene (not me anyway haha). We/I'm so preconditioned to accepting the standard Hollywood closeup-closeup-closeup, it's refreshing to watch an examination of something a little more interesting and aesthetically attractive. The thumbnail for this video alone is beautiful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4seDVfgwOg

Sad Professor

So funny!

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

pixelburp wrote: »

The obligatory 'Every Frame a Painting' ladies & gentlemen; thought this one was a really interesting edition & not a topic that you'd automatically think of when watching a 'talky' scene (not me anyway haha). We/I'm so preconditioned to accepting the standard Hollywood closeup-closeup-closeup, it's refreshing to watch an examination of something a little more interesting and aesthetically attractive. The thumbnail for this video alone is beautiful.

Only over the past maybe 2 years, since I made a conscious effort to expand my viewing habits, have I noticed how common and how annoying the standard way of shooting "talky" scenes is. Close up on person talking, cut to close up on other person talking, cut to first person talking etc. etc. etc.
I think you see a bit more variety in low budget independent films, presumably because they don't have the equipment, time or budget to do 9 different camera setups for a 40 second shot. It's done out of necessity rather than creativity or storytelling.

There was a scene in the second season of Fargo there where one character was sitting on a step and the other character talking to him was standing over him on the porch talking to him which I thought was great. Friday Night Lights was great for that too, just letting the actors tell the story, not cutting too much from scene to scene.

pixelburp

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Only over the past maybe 2 years, since I made a conscious effort to expand my viewing habits, have I noticed how common and how annoying the standard way of shooting "talky" scenes is. Close up on person talking, cut to close up on other person talking, cut to first person talking etc. etc. etc.
I think you see a bit more variety in low budget independent films, presumably because they don't have the equipment, time or budget to do 9 different camera setups for a 40 second shot. It's done out of necessity rather than creativity or storytelling.

There was a scene in the second season of Fargo there where one character was sitting on a step and the other character talking to him was standing over him on the porch talking to him which I thought was great. Friday Night Lights was great for that too, just letting the actors tell the story, not cutting too much from scene to scene.

Fargo gets a lot of credit for (rightly) being a fantastic bit of television, but the way it often framed its scenes, particularly the dialogue heavy ones, left a lot of cinema in the dust. Really beautiful use of the camera in places & proof to me that the medium of TV is slowly using the camera & frame just as creatively as any film these days.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

pixelburp wrote: »

Fargo gets a lot of credit for (rightly) being a fantastic bit of television, but the way it often framed its scenes, particularly the dialogue heavy ones, left a lot of cinema in the dust. Really beautiful use of the camera in places & proof to me that the medium of TV is slowly using the camera & frame just as creatively as any film these days.

It makes you wonder how much of their budget these massive studio films waste on the standard set up. Not sure what film (English one) that is in the video there but it says they had 9 different camera sets ups for a 93 second scene. That must take the best part of a day to get through, or at least half a day, when they could have had multiple scenes in the bag in that time by being a bit more creative with staging.

I remember reading something where Ava DuVernay was talking about making Selma on $20 million which was relatively small but for her was the most she'd ever had to work with. She talked about how small budgets teach you to be creative in your thinking whether it's staging, special effects, stunts etc. etc. Some directors have way too much money thrown at them and think they have to use it all. I watched Pilgrim Hill the other day and while it's not groundbreaking cinema it was as well shot and staged as a lot of bigger films and it was made on a couple of grand borrowed from the Credit Union.

Sad Professor

It depends. Sometimes over-over-closer-closer is exactly what a scene requires, especially emotional scenes. But if the whole film is shot that way it gets boring pretty quickly. But even then I think it depends on the film.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Sad Professor wrote: »

It depends. Sometimes over-over-closer-closer is exactly what a scene requires, especially emotional scenes. But if the whole film is shot that way it gets boring pretty quickly. But even then I think it depends on the film.

True. Sometimes though I find the over-over-closer thing can take you out of a scene entirely. But yeah, it can work depending on what's happening, the tone of the scene etc. etc.

johnny_ultimate

Fargo season two is probably the most stylistically and formally accomplished/complex tv series I've ever watched (Utopia perhaps more explicitly cinematic, but the show left me fairly cold overall). The level of depth in the visual storytelling, as well as the sheer energy of the cinematography and editing, were utterly unique. More along those lines and maybe we'll finally start seeing the IMO still considerable gap between television and film narrow a bit.

Rjd2

Went to see the Danish Girl earlier aware of the bad reviews, but still wanted to see the fuss, their was a technical issue, so it did not show. The only thing starting at same time was Joy and they did me a great deal.

I lost the will to live towards the last half hour as it was so bland and broke the cardinal role of seeing a film, I started playing with my phone. :eek::eek::eek:

Am I a bad person?:eek:

No matter how bad a film is, are you able to avoid distractions?,

Sad Professor

Rjd2 wrote: »

I lost the will to live towards the last half hour as it was so bland and broke the cardinal role of seeing a film, I started playing with my phone. :eek::eek::eek:

Am I a bad person?:eek:

This is a “if a tree falls in the forest” type question. If there was other people in the cinema and they could see the light from your phone, then yes, you are a bad person. Otherwise, no.

Sad Professor

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Fargo season two is probably the most stylistically and formally accomplished/complex tv series I've ever watched (Utopia perhaps more explicitly cinematic, but the show left me fairly cold overall). The level of depth in the visual storytelling, as well as the sheer energy of the cinematography and editing, were utterly unique. More along those lines and maybe we'll finally start seeing the IMO still considerable gap between television and film narrow a bit.

I haven’t got around to Fargo season 2 yet, but I find most tv shows very inconsistent visually. For every brilliantly directed episode of Mad Men there was a dozen bland ones.

Rjd2

Sad Professor wrote: »

This is a “if a tree falls in the forest” type question. If there was other people in the cinema and they could see the light from your phone, then yes, you are a bad person. Otherwise, no.

Good point, 2 other girls in the cinema, right at the back and me closer to the front, right beside the exit sign, some effort if they could see my phone upon reflection and I had it close to my knees.

They were chatting now and then as well, normally I'd be fuming, but for Joy I wouldn't blame them.

Rjd2

Sad Professor wrote: »

I haven’t got around to Fargo season 2 yet, but I find most tv shows very inconsistent visually. For every brilliantly directed episode of Mad Men there was a dozen bland ones.

Have you watched the Returned or Rectify? Both shows dealing with loss and the aftermath, and both are absolutely beautiful to look at. I'd be confident Peak Rectify would hold up to most films visually at least, got a very Terrence Mallick vibe about it.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Sad Professor wrote: »

I haven’t got around to Fargo season 2 yet, but I find most tv shows very inconsistent visually. For every brilliantly directed episode of Mad Men there was a dozen bland ones.

That's the problem with TV shows, especially American network ones that have way too many episodes. Some have a different director every week. I know Madmen wasn't a network show but I'd assume it had a variety of directors.