Search

Search only in certain items:

40x40

Catherine Hardwicke recommended Parasite (2019) in Movies (curated)

 
Parasite (2019)
Parasite (2019)
2019 | Drama

"How could I not love it? I’m a former architect and “Parasite” even had a photo of the “architect” who designed the house. I was fascinated with the long horizontal window in the living room of the elegant house — looking out to the peaceful garden — in contrast to the long horizontal window in the semi-basement house looking out to the crowded neighborhood where a guy pisses regularly. As it rains at the elegant house — seen through the window, it’s a beautiful sight, but in the semi-basement house — rain becomes a flood of sewage! So many layers of detail which reveal economic inequities…. the cramped bathroom with the raised toilet — the only area where the sister could get cell phone reception… vs. how she “fit in” when bathing in the more luxurious bathroom. I loved the delicious details like the sister pointing out the “schizophrenic” area of the child’s paintings — the dark shape in the lower right hand corner — so she could be paid more for art therapy! Yummy! And of course the amazing shot where the former housekeeper is HORIZONTAL in the basement — trying to push open the bookcase. I thought she was possessed by a demon. Then the film surprised me again and took another unexpected seismic shift. All the visual delights strengthened the story in a great feedback loop! Bravo!"

Source
  
Young Frankenstein (1974)
Young Frankenstein (1974)
1974 | Classics, Comedy, Horror

"The next movie would probably be Young Frankenstein. I remember going to see that as a kid. Because I loved all the Universal horror films, but I had only seem them on TV, like on Creature Double Feature on Friday afternoons. By that point I loved Gene Wilder, because I made the connection like, “Oh, that guy was in Willy Wonka. Now he’s in Young Frankenstein.” So that movie blew me away. And even to this day, I watch it all the time. It’s such an incredible movie because it’s really, really funny, with such incredible performances, but it’s so beautifully made. Nobody would spend the time now to make a comedy that well. Visually and technically, it’s so incredible. It doesn’t date; it holds up. Peter Boyle’s perfect, and Madeline Kahn and Gene Wilder, and everybody. It’s just an incredible movie. It really captured the feel of those Universal films, like Bride of Frankenstein, yet it is really funny. It’s something that almost never works. You know, kind of look at the Munsters on TV, and the Addams family, where you could get into it and they have the art direction there and everyone’s funny, but it almost never works. It’s almost always a disaster, and that film is just so perfect. I think the fact that people were brave enough back then to release black-and-white movies."

Source
  
The Name of the Rose
The Name of the Rose
Umberto Eco | 2008 | Fiction & Poetry
10
8.4 (5 Ratings)
Book Rating
A labyrinth of mystery with multiple dimensions, pitfalls, dead ends and revelations. (2 more)
The story and structure are brilliant.
The characters are genius and the narrative is written in way that you get sucked into and are part of the narrative.
Brilliant and entertaining introduction to semiotics.
I first read this book in my freshman or sophomore year in college after having seen the Sean Connery film adaptation. Like most novels that movies are based on, the book was far better than the movie. The movie was just a superficial touching on the themes of the book but the book was a multi dimensional journey through art, philosophy, literature and theology while captivating the reader in a very good murder mystery. The tragedy of the book is the revelation to the reader that our tendency to try to form connections between random events as and ideas is futile. The library is an allegory to the house of cards that comes crashing down when we create false narratives on tenuous connections between randomn events and ideas; connections that don't really exist.

Eco takes all of his academic experience that he has absorbed in the years and uses fiction to not only tell a good story but also to challenge us on how we see the world and interpret the signs and symbols we come into contact.
  
Blade Runner (1982)
Blade Runner (1982)
1982 | Sci-Fi
10
8.5 (75 Ratings)
Movie Rating
Dark and gorgeous setting (4 more)
Harrison Ford
Thought-provoking premise
That moody Vangelis score
Rutger Hauer
It's taken 35 years to get a sequel (0 more)
Best in Class Cyberpunk Neo-Noir
Most Sci-Fi fans these days probably rank Blade Runner somewhere in their top five favorites. Its status and influence on Sci-Fi, especially in the Cyberpunk sub-genre, is undeniable. When it was first released in 1982, however, it was not so well appreciated. It was met with polarized reviews and underwhelming domestic box office figures. This was probably due to some misplaced expectations of the movie. The studio erroneously marketed Blade Runner as an action/adventure, and not to mention, Harrison Ford was riding the fame of another Sci-Fi franchise that was much more action-oriented. It's no surprise then, that audiences and critics alike were initially turned off by the slow-burn pacing of detective noir that Blade Runner pulled into a science fiction setting. Today, Blade Runner is a celebrated masterpiece of filmmaking and adored by fans around the world. However, with a sequel coming soon, those new to the franchise might be a little confused due to the existence of multiple versions of the film. Let's clear that up a bit.

Fast-forward ten years to 1992, when the world received the Director's Cut of the film. At the time, Blade Runner had picked up in popularity through video rental and the international market, and the studio was prompted to release an official Director's Cut after an unofficial version was being made available from a workprint. The Director's Cut was the first introduction to Blade Runner for a whole new generation, including myself.


Fast-forward fifteen more years to 2007, when Ridley Scott brought Blade Runner fans his definitive version of the movie, the Final Cut. Blade Runner: The Final Cut was digitally remastered and reworked by Ridley Scott with complete artistic freedom, whereas the Director's Cut was created by the studio without his involvement. This version fixes some technical problems that persisted from the theatrical version to the Director's Cut, and adds back a little story to better fulfill Ridley Scott's original vision for the film.


If you're looking to get into Blade Runner before Blade Runner 2049 hits theatres in October, the Final Cut is probably the best place to start. It offers the most cohesive viewing experience, complete with restored visuals. Believe me when I tell you there is no movie quite like Blade Runner. Watching Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) track down and "retire" replicants on the streets of a dystopian Los Angeles awash in neon signs never ceases to fill me with awe. Rutger Hauer's performance as the main antagonist, Roy Batty, is both chilling and thought-provoking, making viewers question what being human truly means.


Blade Runner is now widely considered to be not just the first example of Cyberpunk in film, but also the best. And for good reason, as every frame is a work of art, and the philosophical questions it first posed 35 years ago are still being debated today. Us die-hard fans can only pray the upcoming sequel doesn't completely obliterate the mystery and pathos of the replicant condition.
  
Tomorrowland (2015)
Tomorrowland (2015)
2015 | Sci-Fi
A CGI disaster
Disney has an intriguing track record when it comes to movies. The multi-billion dollar company has produced some incredible films and some absolute stinkers, with its live-action department bearing the brunt of this misfortune.

Here, The Incredibles director Brad Bird is hoping to add another great film to his CV with Tomorrowland: A World Beyond, but does this George Clooney fantasy adventure tick all the right boxes?

Tomorrowland is based on Disney’s adventure ride of the same name and like The Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, requires a completely original story to ensure it translates well onto the big screen.

George Clooney, Hugh Laurie and Britt Robertson star in a film that is visually stunning but horrifically uneven with a story that doesn’t make much sense. Its vague environmental message is one of the only things to take away from it.

Clooney stars as Frank Walker, a disgruntled inventor who transports Robertson’s Casey Newton to a place in time and space known only as Tomorrowland. Once there, they must change the past in order to secure their future.

Bird’s direction is as usual, supremely confident with stunning CGI landscapes of the metropolis being beautifully juxtaposed with the Earth we know and love. There are scenes here that look like something from an art installation.

Clooney is as dynamic as ever in between all the special effects and Robertson channels Jennifer Lawrence in her role as the plucky teenager, but Tomorrowland showcases Hugh Laurie the best. His David Nix is an intriguing character who is sorely underused with the CGI being the main focus here.

Unfortunately, as countless blockbusters have proved time and time again, brilliant special effects don’t equal a brilliant film and Tomorrowland falls head first into that trap. Yes, the other dimension is on the whole, breath-taking but there’s such a lack of detail anywhere else that it feels decidedly hollow.

This isn’t to say that we have a film like Transformers: Age of Extinction on our hands but it doesn’t reach the heights of Saving Mr Banks or even the Narnia films.

Being stuck in the middle isn’t the best place to be for a movie with a rumoured production cost of $200m and it’s this lack of identity that may hold Tomorrowland back when it comes to box-office performance.

There’s also some debate over the target audience. With a 12A rating, you’d expect a similar tone to The Hunger Games or even The Amazing Spider-Man 2, but what the audience gets is a PG movie with a couple of scenes of violence, pushing it over into the coveted ‘teen market’.

Overall, Tomorrowland is a fun if entirely forgetful fantasy adventure brimming with CGI and unfortunately not much else. Hugh Laurie is an eccentric and painfully underused presence and that pretty much sums up the entire production.

Everything feels a little underdone, like there was something else under the surface waiting to break free that just didn’t come to fruition.

https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/05/24/a-cgi-disaster-tomorrowland-review/