Search

Search only in certain items:

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
1968 | Classics, Sci-Fi

"I kind of briefly threw The Shining out there, so that gets its own due, which means I can fall back on 2001, I suppose? I think that film speaks for itself, if I could explain that film to you, then I’d be… I don’t know what I’d be, one in ten who could explain it to you, but there was a followup called 2010 with Roy Scheider, which wasn’t a great film, but if it did anything, it helped explain 2001 a little bit, but 2001… I remember my father took me to see that in the theater, and that was so awe inspiring, and just to see where the imagination and creativity could go on screen as an 11-year-old kid, or however old I was. And to have seen that film over and over and over again and ask new questions every time I do, it’s been a pretty profound staple in my house for years. Then you get into all the conspiracy stuff. You attach the lunar landing — Kubrick shot the lunar landing stuff in it, and the rear screen projection that was used in the space scenes and in the ape scenes in the beginning, and how conspiracy theorists surmise that that’s what he used to shoot the moon landing. Did you hear all that? The theory is that NASA got a hold of the footage from 2001, saw it, and got Stanley Kubrick to shoot all the moon landing stuff in his studio and broadcast it across the country. Now, they’re not saying that we didn’t go to the moon, they’re saying that what the people in America saw was shot in a studio, because at that time we didn’t want to broadcast to the world what we may or may not have found on the moon — which actually makes more sense then it just being… It’s not, “We didn’t go.” We went. But we didn’t want the Russians to see, or we didn’t want Japan to see, or China to see what we’re discovering, you know? In case there’s anything there, or anything that we could weaponize, so Kubrick shot all this stuff in a sound stage, and that was the agreement. That’s why NASA gave Kubrick a super, super special space lens that he used for Barry Lyndon, because Barry Lyndon wasn’t shot with any lights. It was all natural light… candles, or sunlight, or whatever, so he used the lens, and that’s what allowed the light to get in for the film process, but there’s so many layers to the Kubrick stuff and I just, as a conspiracy theory fan, I like to have that in the back of my brain while I’m watching those films."

Source
  
40x40

Gaspar Noe recommended Eraserhead (1977) in Movies (curated)

 
Eraserhead (1977)
Eraserhead (1977)
1977 | Drama, Horror

"When Eraserhead came out in France, it came out with the weird title, The Head to Erase. It was in French. I remember I was reading my parents’ newspaper — it was a socialist newspaper — and there was a whole page of how much this famous film critic didn’t like the movie. He was really trashing the movie. But the way he was saying it was very awful, disgusting, it made me — I was a 14 or 15 year old kid — want to go to the other side of the city and see it. And then it was like my own secret. And I went there. And I loved the movie so much, that I believe I went to see it four times in one month. Then after two weeks it moved to another city and I went to see it again in a screening with my friend. Then maybe one year later, it was replaying near my house at the midnight screening, so I went again with another friend. And for me that was the confirmation that cinema could also portray your inner world, that cinema could portray dreams and nightmares. And I hadn’t seen, at that time Un Chien Andalou by [Luis] Buñuel but Un Chien Andalou is one of the rare movies that is written in a mental language, a dreamt language. Eraserhead is another one. Kubrick said once that he regrets he didn’t have the idea to do that movie. In any case, it had such a strong impact on me that I would say Eraserhead — it made me get into film school two years later. Maybe it was a mix of 2001 and Eraserhead. I don’t know how many times I saw Eraserhead in the movie theater, but I guess it was maybe 15 times. I had an addiction to this movie, which is the kind of addiction kids can have to their mother telling them a story. You want to listen to the same story over and over, and have a hypnotic feeling and relaxing feeling. It created some kind of relaxing feeling in me. That I would enjoy all these movies — that are nightmarish– as if it were a dream, especially when the girl comes out saying everything is fine in heaven. There’s a fact also that David Lynch made that movie with almost no money over a period of five years. Then when I was doing I Stand Alone, I had a lot of money issues. I had problems completing the movie, then doing the editing, also. All the time I had in mind that David Lynch did that movie in five years. And I said well, “Maybe it will take me 10 years to finish the movie. If it takes ten years I’ll do it and I shouldn’t worry.”"

Source
  
Wind River (2017)
Wind River (2017)
2017 | Action, Crime, Mystery
Between Sicario and Hell or High Water (both of which landed on my year-end best lists for 2015 and 2016 respectively), Taylor Sheridan has already proven to be an incredible talent at crafting slow-burning thrillers that also serve as in-depth character studies. His new film, third as a screenwriter and second as a director, may move at quite a faster pace than his previous two screenplays, but it is no less accomplished, either in plot or in character development. Though some may leave the theater feeling that they haven’t seen anything new, and they’d be right to as there isn’t anything particularly flashy or unique in the direction or cinematography, Wind River however finds its strength in its simplicity. It’s a simple story concerning the death of a young girl on a Wyoming reservation, of the tracker (Jeremy Renner) for whom the circumstance strikes too close to home, and of the presumably untested FBI agent (Elizabeth Olsen) forced to face the darker side of her chosen profession.

 

For Jeremy Renner, Wind River marks a career best. He displays restraint in a role that others would have played far too arrogantly and when he lets us in to share in his character’s painful past, the melodrama inherent in the dialogue is delivered with dignity and humility. Complimenting his performance beautifully is Gil Birmingham as Martin, the father of the murdered girl. Much like his work opposite Jeff Bridges in Hell or High Water, his scenes with Renner are the highlight of the film. Every line he delivers reverberates with truth and with the weight of losing of two children, one whose life is thrown away to drug use and one to an untimely, mysterious death. Veteran actor and longtime favorite of mine, Graham Greene is also on hand to give a competent turn as the local sheriff who in equal measures doles out tension-relieving humor as well as reminding us of the gravity of a bleak situation.

 

In amongst a predominately-male cast, Elizabeth Olsen shines. This film was an undoubtedly a tough task, as her character is given no soft options, and her performance gave me cause to reflect on a young Jodie Foster in The Silence of the Lambs. I don’t just draw this comparison because of the fact they both play young agents thrust into a situation beyond their level of experience, but because of the scenes in these films where they are called upon to confidently take command of a room full of men and to show great physicality in moments of unexpected violence. It’s another top mark in her filmography comparable to her breakout in Martha Marcy May Marlene and hopefully, in-between bouts of this bloated Marvel Cinematic Universe nonsense, we’ll continue to see her in roles of some substance.
  
Wonder Woman (2017)
Wonder Woman (2017)
2017 | Action, Fantasy, War
The extent of my knowledge of Wonder Woman comes from vague memories of the TV show with Lynda Carter in the 70s and the Super Friends cartoon in the early 80s. So I knew she was an Amazon princess from Paradise Island who flew an invisible plane. I may have been Wonder Woman for Halloween back when you stuck your arms through a plastic sheet with Wonder Woman’s torso painted on it, that tied at the neck like a cheap, hospital gown, with a mask with eyes cutout and a mouth you really couldn’t breathe through. So really, I knew OF her, but I never really actually knew much about Wonder Woman.

Fast forward some 40 years later and I’m in a theater learning Diana is the fiercely spirited daughter of Queen Hippolyta who sculpted her from clay and was brought to life by Zeus. Wait. What? Tell me more! She’s raised on the secluded island of Themyscira where, thanks to her aunt Antiope’s training, Diana develops extraordinary skill in combat.

Those skills come in handy when Steve Trevor somehow crashes through the protective barrier surrounding Themyscira, while trying to escape from the Germans. Suddenly made aware of an outside world, Diana decides to leave Themyscira with Trevor for war-torn Europe believing she must help stop the great war.

Gal Gadot portrays Wonder Woman as a strong-willed, worldly but still naïve force to reckon with. Chris Pine plays a wiley American spy who isn’t immune to Diana’s beauty but remains respectful of the innocence he can see behind her conviction. Together they team up with a motley crew of unlikely heroes to bring down a horrific German, whom Diana believes is Ares, the God of War, reborn.

I wasn’t sure what kept me more riveted, the storyline, the chemistry between Gadot and Pine,or Wonder Woman’s physical beauty and prowess. I can tell you that I never heard a screener audience cheer for Batman or Superman like they did for Wonder Woman, just at the sight of the determined superhero slowly walking towards battle, prompted in part by the pounding opening wails of Wonder Woman’s theme music.

Wonder Woman is an origin story well-told, something I really can’t say for the previous Justice League movies. Where Man of Steel, Batman v Superman and Suicide Squad have left me “meh” for future DC movies, Wonder Woman left me hopeful for Justice League and future DC Extended Universe movies. I hope the directors of DCEU movies take some lessons from Wonder Woman’s director, Patty Jenkins. Simply put, we want to root for a multi-dimensional superhero with a story we can easily follow and get behind. In other words, be like Wonder Woman.
  
The Goldfinch (2019)
The Goldfinch (2019)
2019 | Drama
The life of Theodore Decker (Ansel Elgort and Oakes Fegley) is for every changed when his mother is killed in an explosion at an art museum. In the same tragic moments when his mother is killed he also makes a decision that will help shape the rest of his life, he takes a rare and valuable painting in the chaos of surrounding. This painting, The Goldfinch, wasn’t something he planned on taking, but having it will be the only thing that brings him comfort in the days ahead. After the tragedy he is temporarily placed with a family he really enjoys. He has a best friend, Andy Barbour (Ryan Foust), and a mother figure in Mrs. Barbour (Nicole Kidman). Theodore also makes a connection to a girl Pippa (Aimee Laurence and later by Ashleigh Cummings) and her caretaker Hobie (Jeffrey Wright). Pippa and her uncle Welty (Robert Joy) were standing right next to Theodore when the explosion that killed his mother happened. Welty also passes away during the explosion but not before he would influence Theodore to take the painting. Thus changing the trajectory of the rest of his life.
This film is based on the Pulitzer Prize winning book by Donna Tartt of the same name. I have not read the book so I cannot make a comparison between the two. The director, John Crowley (Brooklyn and Closed Circuit) makes a visually beautiful film. You can tell that care was taken to make the film have a certain feel and texture. The cast is very good, including those mentioned above and Finn Wolfhard, Sarah Paulson, Aneurin Barnard and more. I particularly thought the casting of Oakes Fegley as the Young Theodore and Ansel Elgort as the adult Theodore was particularly good. The story skipped in sequence and you could see the similarity in the two actors as on character. The overall story is original and fascinating. But the film jumped around and made it feel choppy. Also the run time of two hours and twenty nine minutes somehow felt longer than that. The story moved at a snail’s pace and really seemed like it had no direction. Then in the final 10 minutes it wrapped up in a flash.
I thought overall the performances were good and the story was interesting but how it was presented really lacked. It was slow and developed in a non-compelling way. I could definitely see potential but it fell a little short for me. It did make me want to read the book and see how the author meant for the story to be told. I would recommend seeing this in a theater for the cinematography because it was beautifully shot.
  
    World Conqueror 1945

    World Conqueror 1945

    Games and Entertainment

    (0 Ratings) Rate It

    App

    World Conqueror 1945 is a new style strategy game on the background of WWⅡ(Super Risk). In the...

The Last House on the Left (1972)
The Last House on the Left (1972)
1972 | Horror, Thriller
To Avoid Fainting Keep Repeating...Its Only A Movie
The Last House on the Left- was wes's directoral debut and what a start. Its a disturbing, psychological, graphic, exploitation horror film.

The plot: Teenagers Mari (Sandra Cassel) and Phyllis (Lucy Grantham) head to the city for a concert, then afterward go looking for drugs. Instead, they find a gang of escaped convicts who subject them to a night of torture and rape. The gang then kills the girls in the woods, not realizing they're near Mari's house. When they pose as salesmen and are taken in by Mari's mother (Cynthia Carr) and father (Gaylord St. James), it doesn't take the parents long to figure out their identities and plot revenge.

 Wes Craven, who had no money at the time, was put on the job of synchronizing dailies for Cunningham's re-shoot. He soon began editing the film with Cunningham. He soon began editing the film with Cunningham and they became good friends. Hallmark bought the film for $10,000, and it was considered a "hit"; this prompted Hallmark to persuade them to make another film with a bigger budget, and gave them $90,000 to shoot a horror film.

This script, written under the title Night of Vengeance, has never been released; only a brief glimpse is visible in the featurette Celluloid Crime of the Century (a 2003 documentary on the making of the film).

The majority of the cast of The Last House on the Left were inexperienced or first-time actors, with the exception of Richard Towers, Eleanor Shaw, and Sandra Peabody who were all soap opera regulars and had prior film roles.

The film underwent multiple title changes, with its investors initially titling it Sex Crime of the Century. However, after test screenings were completed, it was decided to change the title to Krug and Company; however, this title was found to have little draw during test screenings. A marketing specialist who was an acquaintance of Cunningham's proposed the title The Last House on the Left. Craven initially thought the title was "terrible."

Due to its graphic content, the film sparked protests from the public throughout the fall of 1972 who called for its removal from local theaters.

Promotional material capitalized on the film's graphic content and divisive reception, featuring the tagline: "To avoid fainting, keep repeating 'It's only a movie' ..." advertising campaign. Under the Last House... title, the film proved to be a hit.

Though the film passed with an R-rating by the Motion Picture Association of America, director Craven claimed that on several occasions, horrified audience members would demand that theater projectionists destroy the footage, sometimes stealing the film themselves.

It is a distubing film but it is a excellet film by a horror icon.
  
Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015)
Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015)
2015 | Action, Sci-Fi
BB-8 (2 more)
Old Cast
Better Than The Prequels
Copy & Paste of A New Hope (0 more)
A New Hope Shortly Lived
Contains spoilers, click to show
The Force Awakens- is a excellent, phenomenal movie, no doubt about that. Its the return of old charcters coming back and a whole new cast of new charcters. My favorite is BB-8, he reminds me of R2-D2. The problem if you really think about it is.. Its a copy & paste of A New Hope. Lets look deeper into that.

Case 1- Introducing A Core Trio, you have Rey, Finn and Poe. In ANH, you have Luke, Leia and Han.

Case 2- Rey's beginning. Some one who is lonely, raised in the desert and finds a droid that has important infomation and that sets off the beginning of the adventure. Sounds like Luke to me, cause it is.

Case 3- The Droid Holds The Secret Clue To Everything Important. In this case, BB-8 is holding important infomation on the whereabouts on to find Luke.

Hmm R2-D2, secret message from Leia to Obi-Wan Kenobi, Luke, the farmboy whose future as a Jedi would save the Rebellion and the galaxy, is led to his Jedi. Intresting right.

Case 4- Jakku And Tatooine. Jakku is basically Tattooine. Its where the main charcter is from, where the story begins, where the main charcter finds the droid and where the adventure begins.

Case 5- Starkiller Base And The Death Star. Basically Starkiller Base is the Death Star. The First Order's Starkiller Base is just a complete rip off of Darth Vader's Death Star. While the Starkiller Base can inflict much more damage than the Death Star, it's basically the same weapon. A has basically the same weak point.

So basically what Im saying is that The Force Awakens is a copy & paste of A New Hope.

The plot: Set 30 years after Return of the Jedi, The Force Awakens follows Rey, Finn, Poe Dameron, and Han Solo's search for Luke Skywalker and their fight in the Resistance, led by General Leia Organa and veterans of the Rebel Alliance, against Kylo Ren and the First Order, a successor to the Galactic Empire.

I remember seeing this film opening day at 9:15am on Friday. With a packed theater, every seat was full and that was a excellent experience. Seeing it with a crowd full of star wars fans was epic and would do it again.

Its fun, entertaining and overall a excellent, phenomenal movie. Bringing us a new star wars movie after the awful prequels. The Force Awakens brought us fans a new hope after the disappointed and awful prequels. A new hope that didnt last long, but i will get to those soon. But for now this review.