Personal View site logo
Triumph of meanness
  • 258 Replies sorted by
  • Yes, I really want to see it. I'm wondering if you also had major issues with some of the physics and science. A person with your background in science might be more troubled by such shortcomings than the average movie viewer.

  • btw, I haven't seen the movie. I might hate it. But I believe they scored a winning a formula with the concept.

    OK, in this case you need to see it. If they scored something it is mix of idiocy and inaccuracy.

    I have some problem if abstract concept is good, but all things are inaccurate and wrong and main hero is unstable emotional idiot.

  • @Vitaliy No, I think it's really good. It's so simple and terrifying: Adrift in Space. 3 words and you get it. The trailer conveys the concept in 20 seconds. This is story telling GOLD in my mind. Once they had the concept all they needed were the compelling vfx and camera work which they got. btw, I haven't seen the movie. I might hate it. But I believe they scored a winning a formula with the concept.

  • fragility of life ...survival under impossible odds

  • GRAVITY had a great concept

    Can you tell us this concept? As all I see is completely idiotic thing plus some VFX.

  • Digital trash or coffee and cigarettes isn't the choice. Dirty Harry wasn't about coffee and cigarettes. Also, GRAVITY isn't the kind of mindless vfx garbage we see from Marvel and DC properties. GRAVITY had a great concept, still the most precious and elusive thing for the industry.

  • but public funding from tax dollars will never work

    No? Virtually every country in the world provides film subsidies. In the U.S. they take the form of state tax credits usually of value only to larger productions, but in other countries both art-house and mainstream movie-making depend on outright state subsidies and grants.

    Can't answer for your tastes, but the Cannes Film Festival, for example, would have nothing to program if not for non-commercial sources of film funding -- art films subsidized by the state. Like it or not, this is the way it's worked for many years.

    In poorer countries, the absence of state funding means no film industry. In richer ones like ours, the absence of state funding means Sundance -- pious and foolish movies made by privileged, well-connected people about the poor, but without what used to be called "class consciousness", because class consciousness would the offend the rich dudes who attend Sundance and the festival's corporate sponsors.

  • When you have "screenwriters", many of whom aren't really writers, creating material for the approval of MBAs and the marketing department, it's no wonder the medium feels exhausted.

    Well, I agree with you here...

    And in countries, like the U.S., without public film funding, the so-called "independent" scene will be just as bankrupt, because no matter how cheap the equipment gets, filmmaking remains expensive and revolves more around fund-raising and managerial effectiveness than conceiving and writing.....

    I think Kickstarter and such websites are starting to solve this problem... but public funding from tax dollars will never work as we'll get even more bureaucrats and unions skimming money from the process and in the end it's just going to end up being well-connected politician's kids making movies. Internet crowd funding seems to be the best solution right now. Nothing's going to be perfect though... it's an expensive art form.

  • The fundamental conflict with film, as jean cocteau so eloquently pointed out when he stated that film will only become a true art form when film is as accessible as a pencil and paper, is it's dependance on finances. And everyone knows...people who are concerned with financing are not concerned with aesthetics. There are thankfully, rarely, some exceptions. If you look at the parallel worlds of popular music and art, you see the exact same decline into mediocrity when money became the dominating factor. If anything, the quality of popular music has even declined further than film, into total garbage. And the art world hasn't seen anything happen of importance since the 80's.

  • @Mimirsan

    On a side note VK liked that St Trinians remake. I cant gauge the quality meter hes using! :-D

    LOL. St'Trinians is good and fun film. All of the above is just real crap, sometimes full of good camera work and computer effects. But it is personal thing, if you like some of them, nothing is wrong.

  • Seriously. Films like Gravity are mainstream hollywood money making flicks (heck the original script was "space adventure-the movie") you can nitpick all you like but at the end of the day many people liked it and it made shit loads of money while coming up with new technical innovations for filmmakers to use. Job done.

    Not every film has to be about coffee & cigarettes.

    Its nearly as bad as music lovers complaining about mainstream music and harp on about how great indie music is. You can enjoy both.

    I'm sick of comic book movies myself but accept that they make money so therefor they will keep on coming.

    On a side note VK liked that St Trinians remake. I cant gauge the quality meter hes using! :-D

  • Analyzing films, industry norms and market trends is useful to filmmakers. There are many filmmakers at PV.

  • $10 !!!!!!!!!!? I would never see a film if I had to pay $10 ! A dollar for the dvd...an 2 for the bluray ! Of course, what's really boring are uncritical viewers ! There used to be a whole discipline called film criticism . There were even magazines devoted to it. Those were the dayz ! Now we're apparently only interested in the toys.

  • because I see a crisis in narrative films in general. They simply have nothing more to offer. No more new stories. No more new characters.

    That's largely true of mass-market commercial cinema, but consider the "culture" of screenwriting, with all the "plot point", "character arc" and "three-act structure" nonsense. How many original screenplays have the density, conviction and narrative "bones" of film adaptations of novels (e.g., everything from Dracula and Double Indemnity to The Conformist, Satantango, Berlin Alexanderplatz, Stalker, The Third Man, 2001, Vertigo, etc.) or material based on "real life" (Citizen Kane, Goodfellas; Raging Bull; Donnie Brasco)?

    When you have "screenwriters", many of whom aren't really writers, creating material for the approval of MBAs and the marketing department, it's no wonder the medium feels exhausted.

    And in countries, like the U.S., without public film funding, the so-called "independent" scene will be just as bankrupt, because no matter how cheap the equipment gets, filmmaking remains expensive and revolves more around fund-raising and managerial effectiveness than conceiving and writing.....

  • @brianl

    ...couldn't agree more...since I get to see snippets of all these dumb special effects movies due to having kids ! But I'd go even further, because I see a crisis in narrative films in general. They simply have nothing more to offer. No more new stories. No more new characters. That's why, personally, I'm more interested in docs, or more experimental cinema. BTW, I thought Bruce Willis's character in Pulp Fiction was the go-to sympathetic character, although in general you are right. The genius of the film, besides it's non-linear storytelling, was the dialogue that allowed the viewer to identify with tasteless people.

    ....obviously there are some supreme exceptions.....El Labyrinto del Fauno for example.

  • Raise your hand if you didn't appreciate Pulp Fiction

    Get my hand. Absolutely do not like Pulp Fiction and most of Tarantino films.

  • That's a subjective matter that you're entitled to either way.

    It was copy from IMDB film description :-) Not my words. :-)

    Either way, I do not like this film.

  • There is a lot to be said for looking beyond the American tradition, to go back to VK's original rejoinder.

    For brief periods, national cinemas do seem capable of accessing more vital human material, though that window doesn't remain open for very long. I'm thinking of underground Chinese cinema -- films like "The Orphan of Anyang" or "Seafood" ("Haixian"), made for minimal money, which do seem to access a truer human response from the viewer, not based on phony heroism, identifying with the characters in self-glorifying ways, etc. And of course there's Charles Burnett's "Killer of Sheep", to return home. It's rare, but it happens, and always outside commercial traditions.

    Once it gets institutionalized or monetarized, it's finished. But of course you can't continue to make movies without bringing those institutions to bear. Just look at the sad career of Martin Scorsese.....

  • I just have different view. Or as you say - I do not get it.

    Your one line assessment of the film or more specifically who the film is about isn't about whether or not you like the film. That's a subjective matter that you're entitled to either way. As a one-line summation it's objectively incorrect for by your logic I could sum up Spike Lee's Malcolm X as so:

    Malcolm Little, petty criminal, zoot suit enthusiast and white woman lover bungles his way into a jail cell

    ...and then, yeah, not interested. Oh, or how about this for Mandela: Long Walk To Freedom:

    Nelson Mandela, terrorist, goes to jail.

  • And you obviously have a problem following a thread. In an effort to be the intellectual contrarian you just sent me a link explaining the point I was trying to make to Vitaliy. Congratulations.

  • @BurnetRhoades

    You obviously haven't watched the film. Quoting that as a summation of what the film is about or what his character becomes means you haven't seen it or you didn't get it.

    I've watched it twice. The "for your consideration' dvd has been out for months, and then I bought the bluray clone..supporting those criminal copyright pirates. I'd say...maybe you didn't get it. It's called "character growth"

    http://www.filmslatemagazine.com/filmmaking/how-to-create-memorable-characters

    ..or development

    http://psychologyinfilm.weebly.com/character-development.html

  • As I mentioned in another post....Nebraska takes the cake for the narrative film with absolutely no sympathetic characters in the whole film. Sadly it is the film that is more accurate about the society from which it comes. Meanness pervades ! I'd guess the son buying his dad a used pickup and an air compressor was supposed to compensate for real human tenderness !

    And i'd agree with Vitaliy about Dallas Buyers Club. Who among us can say we're perfect ? But who among us achieves that level of growth during their short span of time on this earth ? Few I'm certain !

  • Also to this shit you can freely add

  • @babypanda first two I don't know, but Man on Wire's Philippe Petit is certainly not a hero. I LOVED that doc 'cause other than brilliantly dissecting an unbelievable experience also exposes how some dreams have a very high human cost... did you not saw his "friends" truly moved and crying of emotion while recognizing their crazy achievement, BUT at the same time completely reassured they wouldn't do it again and their relations "burnt" with Petit? And yet there is a beauty to it =)

    PS
    A paradigm of heroes gone bad - 'cause historic, social and environmental conditions - is Dersu Uzala's modern style Kekexili aka Mountain Patrol