Jump to content

zaphod

Members
  • Posts

    1,130
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by zaphod

  1. kinda weird to suddenly object to facebook because russia is "deeply embedded" in it when they were selling your info to companies and the government years ago. this anti-russia hysteria in the us is so fucking bizarre.
  2. she kind of has resting bitch face. plain looking if anything.
  3. The Americans is such an excellent show. Season 1 was near perfect, the first half of season 4 is incredible. I have no idea how they can wrap it all up in a shortened final season 6. you’re right, first half of season four is great. had to stop and take a breather after the fourth episode. brutal stuff.
  4. also depends on your browser if you're watching it on a computer. safari and edge are the only ones that can display above 720p. they also like to put sd rips of movies on their service. even a blu ray can have compression artifacts. only way to be sure is to hire the cast and crew and have them act out the movie in your home, i can give you a number and rates if you need it.
  5. aoty but also only thing I’ve listened to this year
  6. no. using your own imagination is basically replacing the artist, it's stupid. i guess there's stuff that you can't do in film, but where images, sound and the sense of experience matters (like pretty much all the time) books are quite inept. it's mostly the technical/cost issues that are the reasons for the common "oh, but you can't really compare a film to a book" book hipster retorts. films to books is like notation to actual, recorded musical performance. this is one of the dumbest things i've ever read on the internet
  7. yeah it has a tangerine dream score. it’s an ok movie but I don’t think it’s a great one. understandable that it bombed when it came out.
  8. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n3qUgn166w
  9. i watched dunkirk again. i must have been high when i saw it last summer. what a complete pile of shit. absolutely nothing to it. i hate being reductionist about things but it really is just stuka attack->britfag hits his head and dies->stuka attack->tom hardy runs out of gas and presumably dies. i've had the suspicion for a while now that nolan is a total hack only capable of empty spectacle and watching this on digital without the IMAX EXPERIENCE to pummel me into submission really drove the point home. the entire movie is cut like a trailer, just this relentless literal ticking clock soundtrack to be absolutely clear to the dumb fuck audience members that they are watching a TENSE WAR MOVIE. people always compare nolan to kubrick and i don't know why. the movies don't look anything like each other, kubrick probably overestimated his audience's ability to comprehend a movie, and nolan's entire career is built on filming every movie like it's batman. he's much closer to michael bay. there are moments in dunkirk that are kind of surreal in that unimaginative way that inception was; the orderly lines of men waiting on the beach feel a bit like a magritte painting although compared to the same scenes in atonement, which was like the polar opposite in its almost video game cut scene tracking shot, it feels sterile and empty. is that supposed to communicate isolation? why is this movie so small scale? why not tell the story of all the french guys who brought up the rear and got slaughtered or captured by the germans? every nolan movie since the dark knight has done the same thing. exposition heavy script that carefully guides the audience through each story beat while hans zimmer's score tells them exactly what to feel at literally every moment, bland cinematography, distracting aspect ratio changes because for some reason shooting half your movie in imax makes you an auteur, characters who represent emotions, weird conservative christian subtext and a complete lack of sexuality on any level. his only good movie is the prestige. every sleight of hand trick in the script works because the movie is actually about the only thing nolan is good at, tricking an audience into believing he's the real thing.
  10. so like, how do you watch movies where “bad” aesthetics is a stylistic decision? how do you watch old movies where the sets are all fake looking? horror from the 80s? how do you deal with bad acting, theatricality, stylized direction, dated production? do you just dismiss all this as awful? I know I’m going a long way to defend this movie, which I’ll admit didn’t look great, but I don’t understand the disconnect here. also I saw this in a theater and it looked significantly better than a rip from Netflix.
  11. damn I don’t know how you guys suspend your disbelief because I think the cgi is terrible in most movies I watch but I’m able to let it go.
  12. stephen hawking http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43396008
  13. haven't listened to cum town in a while but i saw this adam friedland's girlfriend sounds like nick mullen's impression of him
  14. the bear was great. under the skin was like a fucking student film comparatively.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.