dangerous method is the real nadir of latter-day cronenberg, imho - so lifeless and cheap-looking
― sʌxihɔːl (Ward Fowler), Monday, 29 September 2014 18:41 (nine years ago) link
watched cosmopolis at the w/end - never seen so many people walk out of a film, seriously. it is exceptionally boring, but somehow more Cronenbergian than the pallid heritage cinema of 'Dangerous Method'
― Ward Fowler, Tuesday, June 19, 2012 4:20 AM
no idea what heritage cinema is, but your opinion has been noted and thanx
― son of a lewd monk (Dr Morbius), Monday, 29 September 2014 18:44 (nine years ago) link
no prob morbs, i take it you'll want notifying too when you next repeat an opinion
― sʌxihɔːl (Ward Fowler), Monday, 29 September 2014 18:46 (nine years ago) link
anything to keep me in the news of this hotpot of regurgitation
― son of a lewd monk (Dr Morbius), Monday, 29 September 2014 18:51 (nine years ago) link
if you can't regurgitate on a cronenberg thread, etc
― sʌxihɔːl (Ward Fowler), Monday, 29 September 2014 18:54 (nine years ago) link
so Mortensen and Rachel Weisz were sposed to do this originally? I didn't recognize Olivia Williams at all.
― son of a lewd monk (Dr Morbius), Monday, 29 September 2014 18:58 (nine years ago) link
this was the first time i heard applause for a deadly assault from (one member of) a Lincoln Center audience, so there's that.
― son of a lewd monk (Dr Morbius), Monday, 29 September 2014 19:37 (nine years ago) link
Deadly assault is homicide, no?
― Eric H., Monday, 29 September 2014 19:48 (nine years ago) link
i don't want to be specific
― son of a lewd monk (Dr Morbius), Monday, 29 September 2014 19:50 (nine years ago) link
the body count in this, on and off screen, is fairly impressive
w/out cuts this also appears to be "unrated" or NC-17 to me, and even aside from that i don't see any industry awards for Moore w/out a level of disconnect that... belongs in this movie.
― son of a lewd monk (Dr Morbius), Monday, 29 September 2014 19:51 (nine years ago) link
I've seen Olivia Williams in all kinds of stuff but the majority is probably television, so...
― ⌘-B (mh), Monday, 29 September 2014 19:55 (nine years ago) link
The awards bloggers have shifted onto a different Moore perf this year. The amount of relief they've displayed not having to pretend she had a shot with Maps is impressive.
― Eric H., Monday, 29 September 2014 19:57 (nine years ago) link
I'd like to see a movie this hateful about awards bloggers.
My favorite line in Maps might be "Everything's stunt casting!"
― son of a lewd monk (Dr Morbius), Monday, 29 September 2014 20:04 (nine years ago) link
For Your Consideration was a step in the right direction.
― Eric H., Monday, 29 September 2014 20:07 (nine years ago) link
a better ending for maps to the stars would be if after the final scene the limo driver drives up, shakes his head, chuckles and says "only in 'Hollyweird'!"
― Onan Pullett (wins), Tuesday, 30 September 2014 19:41 (nine years ago) link
"that's 'La-La Land' for ya!"
― Onan Pullett (wins), Tuesday, 30 September 2014 19:42 (nine years ago) link
Something bout those little pills...
― Eric H., Tuesday, 30 September 2014 20:00 (nine years ago) link
hopefully during next awards season, Mia Wasikowska grabs someone's trophy and proceeds to...
― son of a lewd monk (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 30 September 2014 20:00 (nine years ago) link
thank the Academy.
― Eric H., Tuesday, 30 September 2014 20:14 (nine years ago) link
I liked it, it was much stranger than I expected. The boy being competitive with the younger kid was funny.
Is it just me or was the burning woman struggling with a ghost made of fire? Probably not but I kept thinking there was some extra figure in the scene.
― Robert Adam Gilmour, Wednesday, 1 October 2014 12:10 (nine years ago) link
no it was just the worst CGI ever put on film
― Number None, Wednesday, 1 October 2014 12:11 (nine years ago) link
That they bothered using cgi instead of a stunt person with real fire was part of what made me wonder. That is part of the annoyance of so many bad cgi scenes, that they easily could have been avoided.
― Robert Adam Gilmour, Wednesday, 1 October 2014 12:16 (nine years ago) link
That had to have been deliberate
― please delete outrageous tanuki crappyposter (wins), Wednesday, 1 October 2014 12:26 (nine years ago) link
Not going to entirely dismiss the notion that it's a "commentary" on something but it's pretty jarring considering the rest of the film (including the ghosts/hallucinations) is presented in such a flat, realistic manner
― Number None, Wednesday, 1 October 2014 13:14 (nine years ago) link
I vaguely recall reading something about Croney getting pissed off when questioned about it at Cannes but I can't seem to find it
― Number None, Wednesday, 1 October 2014 13:24 (nine years ago) link
idk
"I really love CGI in the sense that it's another tool," he said. "When I made Naked Lunch, there was no such thing as computer generated graphics. Even in Maps to the Stars, which is relatively naturalistic, there's a lot of CG that's wonderful. It was set in Hollywood, but it was mostly shot in Toronto. We just shot five days in Hollywood. And yet I could put the Hollywood Hills in the background easily because of computer graphics. That's a fantastic tool for a director, and that's why I love digital. But because it's exciting, it does get overused, of course."
― Number None, Wednesday, 1 October 2014 13:52 (nine years ago) link
the freud-jung movie wasn't great but there were a few interesting stylistic choices. but yeah for a movie with that subject matter it was pretty uninvolving
there are one or two moments of flagrantly shoody CGI in moonrise kingdom, i sort of like it
― I dunno. (amateurist), Wednesday, 1 October 2014 14:26 (nine years ago) link
I always wondered why in Naked Lunch when you see that big thing Julian Sands was stuck in, they created a fake Julian Sands instead of putting the real actor in it. Another case of what seems to me unnecessary effects. That Giger looking humping thing looked pretty rough too but otherwise I thought the special effects were brilliant. I can only guess what he would have replaced with cgi if he could.
― Robert Adam Gilmour, Wednesday, 1 October 2014 15:12 (nine years ago) link
w/out cuts this also appears to be "unrated" or NC-17 to me
Surely this is because of the guy wanking and not any of the violence. Brightly lit full-on penis shots are begging for an MPAA panic attack.
This is really Bruce Wagner's movie - it's got bits and pieces from Force Majeure and I'm Losing You - and so much autobiographical stuff (he was a limo driver at the Beverly Hills Hotel; he is heavily involved in new age mysticism but is a raging cynic, etc. etc.)
Cronenberg had never filmed a single shot in Hollywood before this movie!
― Your Ribs are My Ladder, Wednesday, 1 October 2014 15:19 (nine years ago) link
hoew in the world do you clowns suspend your disbelief over rear projection in old movies?
― son of a lewd monk (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 1 October 2014 15:42 (nine years ago) link
Brightly lit full-on penis shots are begging for an MPAA panic attack.
Wolf of Wall Street was rated R and featured a brightly lit full-on penis shot of Jonah Hill wanking it in a crowded party
― Οὖτις, Wednesday, 1 October 2014 15:48 (nine years ago) link
heh Existenz features some of the worst - or most obvious - back projection ever (in the driving scenes) and I've always wondered if it was a deliberate stylistic choice
― sʌxihɔːl (Ward Fowler), Wednesday, 1 October 2014 15:50 (nine years ago) link
it is in Far from Heaven and prob a few Coen joints I am forgetting.
anyway i have a number complaints about this movie and the fire is nowhere close to the top 20.
― son of a lewd monk (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 1 October 2014 15:57 (nine years ago) link
figure all the fake-looking stuff in eXistenZ is v intentional
― Οὖτις, Wednesday, 1 October 2014 15:57 (nine years ago) link
It could just be that Cronenberg makes sure effects look great when they're integral to the story but doesn't really care when they're not
― ⌘-B (mh), Wednesday, 1 October 2014 16:11 (nine years ago) link
― Οὖτις, Wednesday, October 1, 2014 10:48 AM (26 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
did it? man, I must have blocked that out
― I dunno. (amateurist), Wednesday, 1 October 2014 16:15 (nine years ago) link
election features an amusing rear projection as a kind of fellini pastiche; film is chock full of intentionally crickety analog effects
although that's not a coen joint
― I dunno. (amateurist), Wednesday, 1 October 2014 16:16 (nine years ago) link
i was watching some 1960s richard fleischer movie (which one? I forget) and it had a rather amazingly seamless instance of rear projection in a car-ride scene
really; i wonder if Sophocles thought Jocasta's suicide was "non-integral." xxxxp
WotW cock scene was v different than this; also the MPAA cuts a break to bad big-budget comedies. (also this one is clearly not a fake johnson, but it is flaccid)
― son of a lewd monk (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 1 October 2014 16:17 (nine years ago) link
True, I haven't seen this one yet so I have no idea what's important
― ⌘-B (mh), Wednesday, 1 October 2014 16:19 (nine years ago) link
in general, or w/r/t this movie?
― I dunno. (amateurist), Wednesday, 1 October 2014 16:19 (nine years ago) link
I always wondered why in Naked Lunch when you see that big thing Julian Sands was stuck in, they created a fake Julian Sands instead of putting the real actor in it. Another case of what seems to me unnecessary effects.
― Robert Adam Gilmour,
because it emphasizes the illusory nature of what Bill sees? It's the actor playing Kiki who's obv fake. Sands and Kiki are having sex; instead, he imagines a mugwump eviscerating Kiki.
― guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 1 October 2014 16:23 (nine years ago) link
I should probably watch it again, I barely understood the film but I enjoyed quite a lot of it. Not that I think I'll understand it the second or third time.
― Robert Adam Gilmour, Wednesday, 1 October 2014 16:29 (nine years ago) link
nice one, amateurist B)
― ⌘-B (mh), Wednesday, 1 October 2014 16:47 (nine years ago) link
Should have clarified - full-on bright penii played for a laugh (see also: Walk Hard) generally treated differently than dramatic and sexualized full-on bright penii (in Maps (genital spoilers) the guy is tugging on it watching Julianne Moore make out with another woman).
― Your Ribs are My Ladder, Wednesday, 1 October 2014 17:15 (nine years ago) link
genital spoilers
― Οὖτις, Wednesday, 1 October 2014 17:16 (nine years ago) link
Jonah Hill's genitals are spoiled.
― guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 1 October 2014 17:18 (nine years ago) link
Cronenberg is a man with eyes who has seen what fire looks like and seems to put a fair amount of thought into how he films things so I don't find it difficult to credit him with making these decisions for a reason
The alienation effect or whatever of the fake-looking fire worked for me cause I found the (self?) immolation of the woman to be one of the odder things to happen in the film, it seemed to come out of nowhere (I may have missed something tbh)
― please delete outrageous tanuki crappyposter (wins), Wednesday, 1 October 2014 21:15 (nine years ago) link
Having now seen Maps to the Stars, I can confirm that a) the penis tugging scene is far more explicit than the one in Wolf of Wall Street and that b)it is possible to read the shoddiness of the fire SFX as either the unfortunate consequence of a limited technical budget OR a deliberately artificial moment of extinction in a film that blurs the boundaries between what's real and what's unreal.
xpost to winsYes, I was going to say that SPOILERS the fire/suicide scene is probably the most difficult one to read at a simple narrative level in the whole film
― sʌxihɔːl (Ward Fowler), Wednesday, 1 October 2014 21:20 (nine years ago) link