Movies: Last Movie You Watched and Rate It | Part#: Some High Number +4

[nameless1]

I love Solaris myself. It is probably one of the top sci-fi film I have ever seen. Everything you listed as a issue, I find to be a strength.


I have a problem with slow cinema too, but I like the deliberate pace in this one. It helps to convey the message, and its ultimate examination of humanity.

I am curious, Osprey, what would you constitute as an intelligent sci-fi movie? I am curious about your taste.

 

[kihei]

I thought Solaris was excellent. The thing I liked most about it was the relationship between Kelvin and his phantasm of a wife, Hari. I thought that was very poignant and beautifully done, especially the performance by Natalia Bondarchuk who brought out all the confusion and sadness in a character who feels real but realizes that she isn't. I can't think of any other movie that came up with anything like that.

There no sin not liking slow movies, but sometimes the problem might not be the movie but just a matter of personal taste. No need to blame the movie if you know you are going to resent this particular kind of experience to begin with. People will miss a lot of great art that way but for some that's no big deal.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Most of my review consisted of explaining that conclusion. Also, I worded it that way to avoid calling it pretentious because I didn't want to go that far. I want to believe that Tarkovsky was just too focused on being artistic that he neglected pacing and viewer patience.

You describe scenes you felt too slow or boring, but you conclude there was an intention of being artistic/slow for the sake of being artistic/slow. To get to that conclusion, you'd need to either discuss Tarkovsky's intention (which you don't) or to attribute an intention to the film itself (which makes no sense).

I will not go into an exhaustive comment about Solaris (I haven't seen it in about 10 years), but one thing about Tarkovsky is that he is looking to liberate the eye and attention of the spectator from the constant control of common narrative cinema. You watch Mission Impossible 5 and your eyes are dragged to certain precise parts of the screen at any moment. I think that it's in Poétique du cinéma that Ruiz tells about his first experience in an American editing room, where he'd point continuity errors and jump cuts to the editor and the editor would just not care, saying the eyes of the spectator would be drawn elsewhere in the screen.

The average shot length is now below 3 seconds (and that length normally grows in relation to the shot's content - about 1,5s per additional character in average). Having over a minute to watch a shot, with no action to direct your gaze, being constantly forced to consider the shot's composition and to feel it's duration, puts you in a different position as spectator. You can go through a Museum in 10 minutes, or you can appreciate art. Tarkovsky sits you down and forces you to think about his films, and about your position towards his films. You can think they're boring - he didn't think Solaris was that great himself - but you can't refute their efficiency.

Here's an example. I disagree with pretty much everything that's being proposed in this video (or maybe it's just very badly brought forward), but still, it's pretty clear that Tarkovsky's pace forces this guy (and every serious spectator) to think about what he is seeing beyond the simple narrative level of the film.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

The Tarkovsky Solaris is one of Mrs PC's favourite movies.

The George Clooney one made her as mad as I've ever seen her. She literally smashed something.

 

[kihei]

The Tarkovsky Solaris is one of Mrs PC's favourite movies.

The George Clooney one made her as mad as I've ever seen her. She literally smashed something.

Good for her.

 

[Langdon Alger]

The Tarkovsky Solaris is one of Mrs PC's favourite movies.

The George Clooney one made her as mad as I've ever seen her. She literally smashed something.

What did she smash?

 

[ProstheticConscience]

Good for her.

She agrees.

What did she smash?

A beer stein full of ginger ale. Ruined one of our crappy Ikea end tables as well.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Xtro II: The Second Encounter (Bromley Davenport, 1990) - From the director himself (ironically): "another fine motion picture!". The guy is hilarious. "The genesis of that film, was that I needed a job [...] and amazingly I had managed, through some quirk or contract, to hang on to the rights to the title Xtro, the word Xtro, I didn't own the script or the story or anything, but I owned the title. It could not have anything to do with the first story". "Along came some Canadian guys and these reprehensible people stuck this script together [...] and I ran off to Canada and shot this thing, which is truly is, it really is a piece of garbage [...] I mean these people who made this thing, you know, they define artlessness". Seriously, this interview is 10x better than the film. Well, he trashes the first film too, and I think he's wrong, but here he is right on the money. This film really is unexcusable filth. It's an Aliens rippoff made without any soul or any trace of talent at whatever level, even the sets, the lighting, everything is beyond terrible, and it's not even funny. 1.5/10

Watch the interview though, the guy is so proud of his work it's inspiring

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Oh yeah, I also watched:

Terminator: Dark Fate (Miller, 2019) - I guess that as an action film, it kind of works. I just don't understand why they keep remaking ONE good idea over and over and pretend they're expending on something. It's so bland, they have to hang to the fact that it's not the son of the target but the target herself who will lead the new resistance as some sort of novelty. Big difference. 3.5/10

Necessary Roughness (Dragoti, 1991) - I guess I watched that because I like Friday Night Live (the series) a lot, and I maybe was thinking maybe there would be anything interesting in there. 3/10

 

[Langdon Alger]

Necessary Roughness (Dragoti, 1991) - I guess I watched that because I like Friday Night Live (the series) a lot, and I maybe was thinking maybe there would be anything interesting in there. 3/10

I remember seeing that one many years ago. Can’t say I remember anything about it though.

 

[kihei]

Children of Nagasaki (1983) Directed by Keisuke Kinoshita 7A

For reasons that would be interesting to explore but not relevant here, Children of Nagasaki was never shown commercially in North America. It doesn't appear to have been shown much if at all in Japan, either. But the movie is an important humanist and anti-war document. Based on a series of books by Dr. Takashi who wrote them for his children, Children of Nagasaki is principally concerned with the period between August 6,, when the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, and August 9, when the second atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, and its aftermath.The movie is not a disaster movie. We don't experience the full annihilation of Nagasaki until the final few minutes of the movie, and then only to make a point. Rather the film is an account of how the bomb affected the lives of one Japanese family who lived in Nagasaki. Children of Nagasaki is neither bitter nor, except for one grandmother, accusatory toward the United States. The film is, however, a strong cautionary tale about the great carnage of war made all the more effective by the film's calm depiction of that devastation. Takashi is a dedicated doctor with a rich family life. He very much loves his wife and two children who were removed to their grandmother's dwelling a few miles away from Nagasaki after the first blast in Hiroshima. His wife stays behind and she is not so lucky. The movie deals with her destabilizing loss to her family as well as with the massive annihilation of life that occurred to an entire population. Ironically, Nagasaki was the centre of Christian faith at the time in Japan and Children of Nagasaki starts with a brief but powerful address from Pope John Paul speaking at a memorial service in Hiroshima in 1981. The film is not interested in pointing fingers or apportioning blame. Rather its purpose is to show the barbarity of war and the great human suffering that comes in its wake in the hope that our species will finally come to its senses.

subtitles

Criterion Channel

 

[Osprey]

I am curious, Osprey, what would you constitute as an intelligent sci-fi movie? I am curious about your taste.

Plan 9 From Outer Space


Seriously, since we're talking about it, Solaris is obviously one. My favorite is likely Planet of the Apes and The Day the Earth Stood Still, Ex Machina and Moon are a few others that I like, off the top of my head.

 

[Osprey]

You describe scenes you felt too slow or boring, but you conclude there was an intention of being artistic/slow for the sake of being artistic/slow. To get to that conclusion, you'd need to either discuss Tarkovsky's intention (which you don't) or to attribute an intention to the film itself (which makes no sense).

I discussed the purpose of the scenes, which is the same as discussing Tarkovsky's intention, considering that he's the one who wrote, directed and left them in the film.

I will not go into an exhaustive comment about Solaris (I haven't seen it in about 10 years), but one thing about Tarkovsky is that he is looking to liberate the eye and attention of the spectator from the constant control of common narrative cinema. You watch Mission Impossible 5 and your eyes are dragged to certain precise parts of the screen at any moment. I think that it's in Poétique du cinéma that Ruiz tells about his first experience in an American editing room, where he'd point continuity errors and jump cuts to the editor and the editor would just not care, saying the eyes of the spectator would be drawn elsewhere in the screen.

The average shot length is now below 3 seconds (and that length normally grows in relation to the shot's content - about 1,5s per additional character in average). Having over a minute to watch a shot, with no action to direct your gaze, being constantly forced to consider the shot's composition and to feel it's duration, puts you in a different position as spectator. You can go through a Museum in 10 minutes, or you can appreciate art. Tarkovsky sits you down and forces you to think about his films, and about your position towards his films. You can think they're boring - he didn't think Solaris was that great himself - but you can't refute their efficiency.

You're mostly describing the difference between filmmaking today and filmmaking 50 years ago, not just Tarkovsky's, but in general. Shots back then were longer and wider, in general. Some of that was probably because cameras weren't as mobile or cheap and editing was not as easy. Tarkovsky, working with a small budget, may've even kept things particularly simple and efficient partly out of necessity. Regardless, I love the shooting style of films of that era and have said in the past that I wish that directors would bring back some of that style of filmmaking. My issue with Solaris wasn't that.

Here's an example. I disagree with pretty much everything that's being proposed in this video (or maybe it's just very badly brought forward), but still, it's pretty clear that Tarkovsky's pace forces this guy (and every serious spectator) to think about what he is seeing beyond the simple narrative level of the film.

That seems like a good example of how easy it is to over-analyze and look for meaning that may not be there. Kris walking up a flight of stairs signals his willingness to reach a higher mental level? If he were walking down a flight of stairs, it'd be interpreted as a signal of his eventual descent into emotional ruin. I guess that you can't be a "serious spectator" if you figure that a staircase is just a staircase .

 

[Trap Jesus]

I've started Solaris and Stalker but haven't been able to finish either one, I made it about halfway through both. The immediate stand-out to me in both was sound design, I thought it was brilliant in both. Obviously cinematography is excellent as well, the color palette in Stalker was great. Both were just far too slow/boring for me though, and I'm usually someone that can handle a very slow pace. I think if I were to revisit them, I'd much rather go back to Stalker though; that one kept my interest more.

 

[kihei]

I discussed the purpose of the scenes, which is the same as discussing Tarkovsky's intention, considering that he's the one who wrote, directed and left them in the film.

Like the rest of my aesthetic approach it is a pretty old-school position, but I do not believe you can tell the intention of the author on the basis of the work itself. I think it is a mug's game to try, one that usually tells you more about the critic than the piece of art being examined.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

I discussed the purpose of the scenes, which is the same as discussing Tarkovsky's intention

This ain't true (see kihei's post). It's particularly not true about what you did. Let's see:

"For example, early in the film, before it transitions to space, there's a full 5-minute-long sequence of a character driving to work through tunnels and on freeways, all without any dialogue or soundtrack. At another point, the camera pans around a 16th-century landscape painting for two full minutes. At another, the camera slowly zooms into a close-up of a character's ear while he's talking."

I fail to see where there's anything about these scenes' purpose. Unless you were refering to:

"self indulgent and there just to make the film longer and seem smarter, more meaningful and/or more artistic"

And if you think that's discussing Tarkovsky's intention, I think there's no point in discussing at all.

You're mostly describing the difference between filmmaking today and filmmaking 50 years ago, not just Tarkovsky's, but in general.

In the 1930s, that's 90 years ago, shot length averaged around 12 seconds. It's been decreasing since. Tarkovsky = over a minute. We are not at all discussing the same thing. I can only think of two other directors who consciously worked on freeing the spectator's gaze from narrative control: Duras and Tarr.

That seems like a good example of how easy it is to over-analyze and look for meaning that may not be there.

I absolutely agree with you (and said so when I posted the link). But that's exactly part of Tarkovsky's intention: to give you the liberty to do so, to invite you to think about what you're seing (and hearing - see @Trap Jesus post), and about your position towards what you're seeing. The video I posted just shows that you can venture in different directions and still have fun: the fun here is in the intellectual musing, in the emotional quests.

 

[Osprey]

Like the rest of my aesthetic approach it is pretty old-school position, but I do not believe you can tell the intention of the author on the basis of the work itself. I think it is a mug's game to try, one that usually tells you more about the critic than the piece of art being examined.

It seems to me like that's largely what art appreciation amounts to. It's assuming that whatever is being appreciated was the intention of the artist and not accidental. When you praise a filmmaker for an aspect of a film, you're assigning him or her credit, even if you don't know how much is really deserved.

Also, I have to point out that you wrote the other day, "The purpose of this movie is to entertain while being as innocuous as possible and to make boatloads of money in NA and abroad while being praised as a cultural breakthrough." It's natural to guess at the intentions of filmmakers.

 

[kihei]

It seems to me like that's largely what art appreciation amounts to. It's assuming that whatever is being appreciated was the intention of the artist and not accidental. When you praise a filmmaker for an aspect of a film, you're assigning him or her credit, even if you don't know how much is really deserved.

Also, I have to point out that you wrote the other day, "The purpose of this movie is to entertain while being as innocuous as possible and to make boatloads of money in NA and abroad while being praised as a cultural breakthrough." It's natural to guess at the intentions of filmmakers.

I disagree that what we think is going on in a scene or appreciate in a movie is necessarily the intention of the artist. And the more complex the movie, the more foolhardy it would be to try to judge that intent. Sure, the intention of most commercial movies is to make lots of money and please as many people as possible, but that's a very generalized intent from the perspective of the producers. But there is no way of knowing with any degree of certainty what the director intended based on the scenes and themes we see developed in the movie. You can make all the educated guesses that you want but there is no certainty that you will be even in the ball park. So, why even worry about it?

 

[Spring in Fialta]

It seems to me like that's largely what art appreciation amounts to. It's assuming that whatever is being appreciated was the intention of the artist and not accidental. When you praise a filmmaker for an aspect of a film, you're assigning him or her credit, even if you don't know how much is really deserved.

Also, I have to point out that you wrote the other day, "The purpose of this movie is to entertain while being as innocuous as possible and to make boatloads of money in NA and abroad while being praised as a cultural breakthrough." It's natural to guess at the intentions of filmmakers.

All of it. Their series of creative decisions still led them to that conclusion, even if unintended. It's still skill or at the very least, a product of their sensibilities.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Also, I have to point out that you wrote the other day, "The purpose of this movie is to entertain while being as innocuous as possible and to make boatloads of money in NA and abroad while being praised as a cultural breakthrough." It's natural to guess at the intentions of filmmakers.

Nice find.

I'm sure I am myself guilty of stuff like this from time to time. Especially I think I'd be enclined to say stuff like "there's no purpose to this shit". It's still wrong.

Of course, we know the intention of big time producers is to make money. The film still doesn't have that intention, and if it's part of the director's intentions, it's probably only to make sure he'll get another gig after that one. The film doesn't give a shit about money.

 

[Arizonan God]

Exotica (1994) directed by Atom Egoyan

I've been wanting to watch some more Canadian cinema lately, and the Criterion Channel currently has a collection of films by Atom Egoyan up on the site. I've never seen a film of his, and all I really know is that he is considered to be a bit of a disappointment in recent times after an intriguing start as a filmmaker.

With that said, Exotica was a very interesting film. Bruce Greenwood plays a CRA agent who frequents a strip club, in which he gets a nightly dance by a stripper played by Mia Kirshner. I won't say any more about the story than that, because Egoyan leaves a lot unsaid early on in the film to be revealed later on. Bruce Greenwood puts in the best performance here, and in someways carried the film. I appreciated the fashion in which Egoyan peels back the layers of the story, which left me guessing and making assumptions that were ultimately proven wrong. Exotica deals with themes of grief, attachment and revenge, and the vehicle that Egoyan uses to explore these themes (a strip club) is certainly unique. I did find some of the dialogue to be a bit cheesy and on the nose, and a few of the performances to be amateurish. Another gripe I had was with the character played by Don McKellar, who I found to be underdeveloped.

It was also neat to see a Toronto that was before my time.

7

Criterion Channel

 

[Langdon Alger]

Exotica (1994) directed by Atom Egoyan

I've been wanting to watch some more Canadian cinema lately, and the Criterion Channel currently has a collection of films by Atom Egoyan up on the site. I've never seen a film of his, and all I really know is that he is considered to be a bit of a disappointment in recent times after an intriguing start as a filmmaker.

With that said, Exotica was a very interesting film. Bruce Greenwood plays a CRA agent who frequents a strip club, in which he gets a nightly dance by a stripper played by Mia Kirshner. I won't say any more about the story than that, because Egoyan leaves a lot unsaid early on in the film to be revealed later on. Bruce Greenwood puts in the best performance here, and in someways carried the film. I appreciated the fashion in which Egoyan peels back the layers of the story, which left me guessing and making assumptions that were ultimately proven wrong. Exotica deals with themes of grief, attachment and revenge, and the vehicle that Egoyan uses to explore these themes (a strip club) is certainly unique. I did find some of the dialogue to be a bit cheesy and on the nose, and a few of the performances to be amateurish. Another gripe I had was with the character played by Don McKellar, who I found to be underdeveloped.

It was also neat to see a Toronto that was before my time.

7

Criterion Channel

have you seen the sweet hereafter? That’s also directed by Atom Egoyan. I have it on my PVR. Need to watch it soon.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Exotica (1994) directed by Atom Egoyan

I've been wanting to watch some more Canadian cinema lately, and the Criterion Channel currently has a collection of films by Atom Egoyan up on the site. I've never seen a film of his, and all I really know is that he is considered to be a bit of a disappointment in recent times after an intriguing start as a filmmaker.

With that said, Exotica was a very interesting film. Bruce Greenwood plays a CRA agent who frequents a strip club, in which he gets a nightly dance by a stripper played by Mia Kirshner. I won't say any more about the story than that, because Egoyan leaves a lot unsaid early on in the film to be revealed later on. Bruce Greenwood puts in the best performance here, and in someways carried the film. I appreciated the fashion in which Egoyan peels back the layers of the story, which left me guessing and making assumptions that were ultimately proven wrong. Exotica deals with themes of grief, attachment and revenge, and the vehicle that Egoyan uses to explore these themes (a strip club) is certainly unique. I did find some of the dialogue to be a bit cheesy and on the nose, and a few of the performances to be amateurish. Another gripe I had was with the character played by Don McKellar, who I found to be underdeveloped.

It was also neat to see a Toronto that was before my time.

7

Criterion Channel

About the bolded part, I must admit I am guilty of not caring for his recent films for no real reason. I think I've seen his remake of Nathalie..., and I know I've seen Where the Truth Lies (but don't remember anything of it), but other than that, I haven't seen anything of him after Felicia's Journey (which was a very interesting film).

I think Calendar (on which I commented just a few pages back) is his best film, but you can't go wrong with Family Viewing, Speaking Parts, or (more accessible) The Sweet Hereafter. And after that, The Adjuster and Felicia's Journey are also very good films. Exotica was subpar Egoyan to me.

 

[kihei]

have you seen the sweet hereafter? That’s also directed by Atom Egoyan. I have it on my PVR. Need to watch it soon.

I think The Sweet Hereafter is one of the best Canadian films ever made after Mon Oncle Antoine. Will be good to get your thoughts (one way or the other).

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

after Mon Oncle Antoine

Oh you're one of those. ;-)

(I think this film is ssssoooooo overrated)