care-tags.org

Oh Boy. Adroit and wryly hilarious film following a day in the life of a directionless 20-something beset by bizarre people and circumstance. Modern-day Berlin is gorgeously presented, the music beautiful and Tom Schilling is very pretty too. Recommended. Easy comparisons to Woody Allen or Jim Jarmusch.

what's everyone's favorite movie?

Mine would have to be Primer. So as not to clog up the thread with repeated conversations, I'll just drop this link http://qntm.org/primer (re: primer) really cemented my understanding but it took a couple views to really grasp it.

Primer is pretty crazy. Have you seen Upstream Color? It's another great one from Shane Carruth. I'm not sure if I would call it my favorite, but it's definitely up there on my list. It's a really beautiful looking film and pretty interesting to watch. Similar to Primer in the sense that you appreciate it a bit more after you've read about it, but not quite so confusing as far as plot. is a pretty decent article to read after you watch it.

Yeah big fan of upstream color. Haven't seen it enough times to know what to make of it but it really is beautiful and I like the walden bit. Think I wrote a little bit about it earlier in this thread.

I recently just printed out the script to A Topiary (spy the prof pic) to see what's what with that

Carruth is currently working on A Modern Ocean, not much info on the web about it but I really am just thirsting for more Carruth

Watched Paprika today, it's a fantastic animated movie that served as flintstone for Inception.

Anyone else seen Inherent Vice yet? Saw it the other night (stoned, admittedly), which was interesting to say the least. It's definitely the weirdest film PTA's done in a while, much more in the vein of Boogie Nights than his past two films. Although, if you've seen the trailer you probably knew that already. I want to see it again with a clear head so that I won't spend all my time trying to figure out what the fuck the plot was.

Report back when you've seen it, I'd love to talk about it.



Edit: Great styling as well

Yeah, I just saw it last night. Funny though, I saw it sober and now I want to see it again stoned. For what it's worth though, I really enjoyed it, although the voice overs struck me as a little odd. I'm more used to seeing PTA just show what's going on, and hearing Doc's thoughts was a surprise. I'm still trying to gather my thoughts, since I just saw it last night, and I haven't read the book, but I want to go back and see it again and pay closer attention to color, and the relations between "hippie" characters and the more "normal" characters.

For what it's worth, the plot is really jumbled and confused and ends up pretty unresolved, but I don't think that's the point. Next time, just try to remember names and faces.

Interesting, because I thought the disorientation of the plot was actually intentional. I thought the part where Doc is looking at the whiteboard was such a great nod to the viewer, showing us that we're sharing in his confusion. Though I'm sure this is a gross over-simplification but as a stoned viewer I felt that I was experiencing the story exactly as Doc was.

Anyway, as with most PTA I need to see it again to get a better grasp on my ideas.

I'd love to hear what other people who read the book then saw the movie thought. They maintained quite a bit, removed the entirety of the vegas trip, though.

I don't know how anyone could have understood what the fuck was going on in the last scene with Shasta in the car, that shot was so zoomed in you would have had to read the book to get that they were driving. A lot of the film seemed kind of oddly zoomed in to be honest. If I remember right the interactions with Coy were a bit different as well. The last scene with the schooner was a bit different in the book as well.

Expected more world play, was hoping for something a little closer to airplane at bits.

All in all though, I really enjoyed it, I've been watching it at work during my downtime all week.

e:

Don't get me wrong, I loved the movie, it doesn't take it self too seriously and it was light hearted and fun to watch. I loved reading the book because of Doc and I sure as hell loved watching Joaquin do a great job of depicting him. Though my understanding was that Doc was much much younger.

It was funny and I enjoyed it, would definitely recommend.

I don't mean the plot is inconsequential or unintentionally confusing. I think it does put the viewer in the same space as Doc, and from what Pynchon I've read (which isn't much), his plots are generally just as confusing. But what I was trying to get a better grasp of was the sense of place and time in the film. Doc's a hippie in a time when most people have gone back to their regular lives. His clients are ex-dopers or former hippies, the FBI agents tell him he can't keep up his "anti-establishment bullshit" anymore, etc. The film felt like an end of an era, to me. The scenes with Wolfmann and the last scene with Bigfoot felt that way especially to me too.

I need more time and more viewings to better collect my thoughts, though.

Watched J'ai tué ma mère last week as a sneak preview of Xavier Dolan. Tonight it was time for Mommy and it was great. I never thought I'd enjoy this film more, but damn. Dolan paces everything perfectly imo. There's not a single dull moment, and no events seem unnecessary. The usage of varying aspect ratios to convey messages is also pretty damn clever. The acting wasn't too bad either. Ten outta ten.

american sniper was really underwhelming. i had qualms about it in the first place because of all the questionable shit chris kyle said/did, but i was excited to see the movie because quite honestly the trailers were better than 99% of the movies out there. the trailers made it look like an incredible tour de force.

it wasn't, really. it was actually pretty flat and cheesy. bradley cooper and sienna miller were both very good, but the pacing and the script were so... typical and boring.

imitation game was good.

actually both imitation game and american sniper are "based on a true story" movies that get a little too formulaic and saccharine with their storytelling. both worth watching, however.

watched au revoir les enfants by malle last night. malle is definitely one of my favourite directors and i regret taking so long to watch this. the pace, color palette, and composition were all incredible. the shots have a cool/chilly aspect to them. i wont comment on the plot, i wouldnt want to spoil anything. but more importantly the clothing in this movie is wonderful.

Yeah, I know. I don't wanna come off as a huge fanboy, but this is rly a great sequel to a great yakuza flick movie.

watched oldboy for the first time last night

im usually not into gory and gross films like that, but i thought that oldboy was such a beautifully made film. if yr into cinematography or just pretty things (that are also ugly tbf) i'd recommend it.

just reminded me of how much i love oldboy.

great, great flick that caught me so off guard - i didn't expect to like it. i remember trying it a bit when i was around 16ish and i was insanely bored, but seeing it recently has opened my eyes to a set of movies that were greatly unappreciated by younger me. oldboy is probably one of the greats in story and in cinematography. i could not recommend it any more.

another great korean flick you should check out is A Man from Nowhere. great action flick that keeps you at the edge of the seat for a good, good while and'll still keep you excited as the credits roll (maybe too much hype?)

Been watching more movies lately. Recently watched 13 Assassins, Dredd, Tetsuo: The Bullet Man, Total Recall, and Bloodsport

Watching Man Bites Dog and it's very well done. The subject matter is obviously incredibly dark but the movie itself is very believable given that the film is a documentary about a serial killer.

re-watched Inception for the first time in a while

holy crap i forgot how intense that movie is. especially near the end when Cobb gets home and he decides to believe that he's finally with his children again. that plus the music nearing it's climax and the top looking like it's going to fall. gets me every time.

bruhh I'm watching Nightcrawler

jake gyllenhaal can be a creepy motherfucker when he wants to be

great performance so far imo

have watched a few movies lately:

whiplash: holy SHIT if you're like me and everyone has been telling you to watch this movie and you keep seeing it everywhere but putting it off, STOP WHAT YOU'RE DOING RIGHT NOW AND WATCH IT. this is one of the best movies i have seen in recent memory. it's electric. i think it may have been the best movie i watched this year.

copenhagen: wow, i highly recommend this movie. the main actress is really phenomenal in it. it was the first movie i watched in my movie marathon on saturday (started at 8am) and i wish i had saved it for last; it really moved me. the music in it is good, too. don't want to give any plot points away but WATCH IT. it's on netflix.

four weddings and a funeral: not much to say about this movie, it was hilarious and exactly what i expected it to be. i did find andie macdowell to be really stiff. hugh grant and john hannah are so adorable in it.

blue is the warmest color: damn. this was such a good movie. i waited a long time to watch this because i heard it was so depressing, but i'm glad i finally got around to it. it's a sort of quiet, fly on the wall look at a girl growing up. very true to life. i liked how the high school dynamics were super realistic, nothing was exaggerated or fantastical (except the sex scenes...?). adele exarcharpoloux is so, so amazing in it.

the main effect blue is the warmest color had on me is that i became ravenously hungry for fucking spaghetti bolognese. i'm not even a big spaghetti person but i was on a juice cleanse this weekend while watching it and it KILLED me. the first scene where they eat spaghetti was like, holy fuck that looks good. and then later they eat spaghetti again and i was like HOLY FUCK that looks good. and then later they eat motherfucking spaghetti AGAIN, and i was like KILL ME. i really liked how they used food in the movie to accentuate the class divide between adele and emma.



like come on how is that even fair

I watched Birdman the other day. The movie's point of view and the use of the background music was absolutely amazing. I thought Michael Keaton did a fantastic job playing his role. Edward Norton hands down the best character in the entire movie. I thought the ending was a little lackluster though.

Open ending definitely a highlight for me (best parts probably being Norton's discussion of 'real' theatre/Keaton's near-naked stroll through NYC and tirade vs. critic)

I assumed Norton's casting was a reference to the fact that he was in 'good' films like Fight Club and American History X and that his character in Birdman was supposed to be a parody of himself. I think the whole film is supposed to be a parody of its subject matter and even the cast.

It's hard to tell whether the characters were written first or the actors casted, but I think the film goes beyond just making caricatures out of what happens to be reflected in both the world of the film and the world of the actors. I mean to say that the parody and the characters themselves had more depth and purpose than just to serve as a satire of the industry/the actors themselves and tackled deeply rooted issues of artistic self-worth and self-actualization that I described in my first response. You can see this in how Norton's character is portrayed as only being "real" on stage, when he embodies another fictional character's essence, etc.

I just don't think that was the objective of the film, to say that it goes 'beyond' that doesn't really make sense as they are two different directions. It also implies that my interpretation of the film lessens its worth, but that's not really what I'm trying to say. The issues they tackle in the film seem to me to be symptomatic of the fact that they aren't truly great actors. All artists doubt themselves but the characters in Birdman doubt themselves in an almost childlike way, the issues they face are easy to relate to and kind of obvious, it's something grey done in black and white, if that makes sense.

If you look at Edward Norton's character as a reference to his own career then it's easy to dismiss his character as dishonest, he's received critical praise for films that aren't great and is playing along, because he wants it to be true. The fact that he gets a boner on stage can be seen as evidence that he is only real on stage or a joke at his own expense: after it all it's ridiculous, is this what his artistry is?

Michael Keaton gets locked out in his underwear at one point and the video goes viral: the whole thing's a circus. At the end he shoots himself on stage and gets a good review from the influential critic, he's a star again. Then there's the ambiguous ending, did he throw himself out the window because his self-doubts are true? The ignored child, messy divorce, one off blockbuster hit, these are all Hollywood clichés. Keaton is obsessed with this false idea that he was a god when he was Birdman and only turns to artistry when he is forced to, but that exposes who he is to himself. He rages at a critic in a bar because he's looking for reasons to not believe what he's learnt about himself.

I think if you compare Birdman to Whiplash you can see some of this: Whiplash is about a young man with a vision who'll do anything to be great, there's a poster in his room that says: 'If you don't have ability you'll end up playing in a rock band.' He's not looking for fame, his moment of glory comes at the JVC festival, a concert his ex has never even heard of, people outside of the conservatory don't understand and aren't impressed by his achievements. His mentor employs extreme methods and is misunderstood, they understand the sacrifices you need to make to be great.

Whilst not exactly a mentor the critic in Birdman is comparable to the teacher in Whiplash. She's a part of the same circus that Keaton is, she's just a newspaper critic.

I'm sure the characters were written first, you probably could have cast several actors in stead of Keaton and Norton, because they're clichés. If I'm right then the film is extremely subtle, and you really have to look for it, I'm not even sure if I'm imagining it, I may just be projecting my own thoughts onto the film. A lot of what I've said can be flipped round, I'm just going on my feel for the film, how it was executed. Either way I don't think it's a great film, which would actually be fitting considering my interpretation.

fosho, just depends on the lens with which you watched the film. I liked it a lot

Disney movies, though, c'mon.

THE BEST