Films Recently Watched

[cruising for burgers]

tokyo! (2nd viewing)

• interior design - i love this script! 9/10

 

• merde - fun, crazy, overwhelming, majestic, love the main theme song!!! 9/10

 

• shaking tokyo - there it is, the punctual/sharp/exact focus messes me brain up... extremely focused action while the rest of the screen is totally blured. this technique gives a CGI look whenever it's used. bleh...

mental - well i had some good laughs, even the emo factor in the story had an adventure touch to it a bit like the goonies? i don't know, it's one of those movies i'm almost sure a lot of people will hate it for what it is but i enjoyed it!


doubt - i didn't know what to make of this movie, while it suggested it would be a bit dark and controversial it really didn't went there, it was lighthearted with a pinch of comedy which made me a bit indifferent to it...

 

 

upside down - lol, i'm gona let someone funny/hater review this...

Edited February 12, 2013 by THIS IS MICHAEL JACKSON

[Salvatorin]

warm bodies I enjoyed it very much, nuff said

[Nebraska]

 

weird movie that takes full advantage of robert z'dar's chin to sketch a messy plot about a... maniac cop.

 

this film is about an ex-cop turned serial killer who goes after the (ny)police department because they screwed him over (particularly the police commissionar) and is currently stalking the city killing both innocent citizens and cops in an attempt to clear his name

 

any of this sound familiar?

[Rubin Farr]

Dredd - 7/10 good dumb action flick, glad at least one decent adaptation of 2000 AD made it to screen.

 

Django Unchained - 8/10 not Tarantino's best, but great casting and +1 for bloody gunfights.

[Squee]

Beasts of the Southern Wild - 5/10

 

Terrible music. Sounded like someone trying their best to sound like Nick Cave and Warren Ellis but failing miserably. The dad was a bad actor, the story was meh, but the girl was a cutey.

[data]

eXistenZ

 

nnnaahh, i used to enjoy this one, but it hasn't really aged well imo, feels way too 90's in the same way as hackers and, i dunno, mall rats? the concept feels faily played out now aswell.

[Guest Jimmy McMessageboard]

i think it holds up. hackers too. well they're great in a 90s way anyway

 

mallrats probably not so much. i saw chasing amy again awhile back and that was poor

[Squee]

Kevin Smith sucks shit

[cruising for burgers]

i think that movies like hackers and eXistenZ shouldn't be in the same sentence...

 

hackers - well, from what i remember, it was just like what modern movies go for, trends, and so we had rasta people, spray neon hairs, junkies, etc... pretty cheap...

 

eXistenZ- damn son that's an entirely new world only possible in a mind like Chronenberg's one...

 

both are silly and full of technical flaws i give you that...

[Guest zaphod]

rewatched tree of life. i really liked it this time. weird.

[Guest Mirezzi]

If I had that not-so-fresh feeling, I too would enjoy watching a lengthy douche commercial.

[cruising for burgers]

I think my favorite of them all is Chinese Roulette - fucking masterclass in moving cameras to build tension in what is essentially a stage play. so great.

what's this technique called and what does it consist in, mathematically it doesn't make any sense, if you close up while zooming out or vice versa it wouldn't make it look like this looks like...

 

 

fantastich movie, almost didn't get what was happening cause was totally hypnotized by camera work...

 

 

i wonder, Fassbinder wasn't the camera operator, how can this kind of subjective aspects be transferred to the mind of the cameraman???

[Guest zaphod]

interview with the vampire

 

this movie is fucking hilarious. i admire its sheer homoerotic bravado. brad pitt smoldering, antonio banderas' affected bass voice, "hugh wan to sah her, sen her ewaigh". tom cruise flying around. creepy child kristen dunst. two vampires meeting in an alley and flapping their velvet capes around. this kind of high profile garbage doesn't get made anymore. it's really too bad. if i were quoted on the front of a vhs tape, i would call it a "sumptuous treat", or maybe, "a cinematic load of cum right in my eye".

[lumpenprol]

hehe, yeah it's something special. Especially given that the end result, when all is said and done, is so turgid. It's quite a bore.

 

Keep in mind Neil Jordan was kind of the "it" director at that point, coming off the "success" of The Crying Game

[YO303]

Red Riding Trilogy - Just watch (if you like movies like Zodiac) 9.5/10

[Guest Mirezzi]

Flol. Best ever Interview with Vampire review. I'd buy that VHS.

[Guest Shit Attack]

a good day to die hard - some shitty cgi bruce willis action flick where he plays a character called john mcclane. Its not the john mcclane we all know tho its just some tired middle aged bored looking bald dude whos hardly ever shown actually moving. Theres not really a story or plot in this movie its basically just 3 long action sequences strung together with some shit about Chernobyl thrown in towards the end . The bad guys suck save for a moderately hot rooskie babe and some decoy bad guy who tap dances (no joke). Mcclane has a gimpy son whos too bland to even be properly annoying, but he has a good try . Mcclane himself seems tired, listless, bored of the whole thing, like the will to fight and make wisecracks at the same time has finally taken its toll on him. Still for some reason I was mostly entertained even tho or maybe because this movie was pretty fuckin awful. 4/10

 

 

 

I think my favorite of them all is Chinese Roulette - fucking masterclass in moving cameras to build tension in what is essentially a stage play. so great.

what's this technique called and what does it consist in, mathematically it doesn't make any sense, if you close up while zooming out or vice versa it wouldn't make it look like this looks like...

 

 

fantastich movie, almost didn't get what was happening cause was totally hypnotized by camera work...

 

 

i wonder, Fassbinder wasn't the camera operator, how can this kind of subjective aspects be transferred to the mind of the cameraman???

 

you mean this thing ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchcock_zoom

 

not really relevant but pretty sure the guy who shot all those fassbinder movies in the 70s was Scorsese's camera man from the 80s onwards

[cruising for burgers]

you mean this thing ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchcock_zoom

 

not really relevant but pretty sure the guy who shot all those fassbinder movies in the 70s was Scorsese's camera man from the 80s onwards

yes, exactly, why do most people and media keep telling it was Hitchcock who invented it if it was in fact his camera operator?

 

so, this is a whole new world, in my head a zoom in was the same as pushing the camera close to the object and vice versa, but i was wrong! right?

 

cause if it were in fact the same, both movements would cancel each other out leaving us with the same image... right?

 

Edited February 16, 2013 by THIS IS MICHAEL JACKSON

[Silent Member]

It gives the impression of the stuff in the foreground standing still and the background closing in/moving away, depending on the direction it's done in.

 

Edit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwrel&v=NB4bikrNzMk

Edited February 16, 2013 by Gocab

[tec]

Anyone seen The Master? Worth a watch?

[cruising for burgers]

It gives the impression of the stuff in the foreground standing still and the background closing in/moving away, depending on the direction it's done in.

 

Edit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwrel&v=NB4bikrNzMk

don't get me wrong but sometimes it's frustrating asking you guys anything...

 

shitt attack already explained to me what's it called and how does it work...

 

i just need someone to confirm that:

 

ZOOM IN IS NOT THE SAME AS PUSHING A CAMERA CLOSE TO AN OBJECT...

 

the same way that a:

 

ZOOM OUT IS NOT THE SAME AS PULLING A CAMERA AWAY FROM AN OBJECT...

 

i have this issue cause i asked some photographers and they said that they're the same... and they are wrong, right???

 

gonna repeat myself, if the processes were the same they would cancel each other and the image would remain the same... zoom in+pushing a camera away from an object at the same time, would lead to a static image...

 

 

thanks

[Silent Member]

Yes, not the same. As you can see.

[lumpenprol]

they are different. Reason being the focal length, fov, or whatever the correct film geek word is.The focal point (in the jaws case, the main character) doesn't appear to move, but because of the focal length or fov or what have you (I'm using maya/max terms as I'm a 3d artist not DP) the background distorts.

[syd syside]

 

It gives the impression of the stuff in the foreground standing still and the background closing in/moving away, depending on the direction it's done in.

 

Edit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwrel&v=NB4bikrNzMk

don't get me wrong but sometimes it's frustrating asking you guys anything...

 

shitt attack already explained to me what's it called and how does it work...

 

i just need someone to confirm that:

 

ZOOM IN IS NOT THE SAME AS PUSHING A CAMERA CLOSE TO AN OBJECT...

 

the same way that a:

 

ZOOM OUT IS NOT THE SAME AS PULLING A CAMERA AWAY FROM AN OBJECT...

 

i have this issue cause i asked some photographers and they said that they're the same... and they are wrong, right???

 

gonna repeat myself, if the processes were the same they would cancel each other and the image would remain the same... zoom in+pushing a camera away from an object at the same time, would lead to a static image...

 

 

thanks

 

[cruising for burgers]

thanks dudes, i'm sorry if i sound like an asshole...

 

but damn, these so called photographers are way more assholes than me... how can someone claim that he/she is a photographer and think both functions are the same i don't even....