Jump to content

What are you watching? a.k.a. Film Thread v 2.0


Recommended Posts

Didn't wanna make a new thread but there making a movie about Noah's Ark called Noah. It looks like complete crap and there's going to be a commercial for it in the Super Bowl

As much as I feel Aronofsky deserves the benefit of the doubt...yeah, I can't see this not being a howler. Especially with Crowe, who though gifted as all hell, has way too much baggage now. The trailer gigglesome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bunch of Hitchcock's, most from his Warners period..

Stage Fright

Marlene Dietrich, Jane Wyman - Hitch returns to British shores and all of the ole' English humour. Famous for its - oft criticised - 'false flashback'.

Strangers on a Train

Simply a masterpiece. The cinematography is jawdropping. People now would not even know what to do to make a film that good: they do not have the tools.

I Confess

Montgomery Clift as a priest. Shot in Quebec. Underated noir piece.

Dial M For Murder

First movie with Grace Kelly. Another masterpiece. It is classic Hitch genius: you are sort of routing for Milland's character despite the fact he is trying to bump off the most beautiful woman in the world! He turns the whole thing upside down.

North by Northwest.

Seen it so many times. It is simply flawless. It sort of defines Hollywood at its greatest, this film.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Len B'stard

Bunch of Hitchcock's, most from his Warners period..

Stage Fright

Marlene Dietrich, Jane Wyman - Hitch returns to British shores and all of the ole' English humour. Famous for its - oft criticised - 'false flashback'.

Strangers on a Train

Simply a masterpiece. The cinematography is jawdropping. People now would not even know what to do to make a film that good: they do not have the tools.

I Confess

Montgomery Clift as a priest. Shot in Quebec. Underated noir piece.

Dial M For Murder

First movie with Grace Kelly. Another masterpiece. It is classic Hitch genius: you are sort of routing for Milland's character despite the fact he is trying to bump off the most beautiful woman in the world! He turns the whole thing upside down.

North by Northwest.

Seen it so many times. It is simply flawless. It sort of defines Hollywood at its greatest, this film.

All belters, Isn't Monty great it I Confess? Dial M and Strangers on a Train are my favorites outta them :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Len B'stard

I loved Hitch's dry very very thinly veiled contempt for actors :lol: His method of filmmaking i think it like..the proper way to do it, everything on a schedule, tight as fuck, no improv, bang on point, everything fuckin' last frame storyboarded and laid out, everybody knows what they're doing, now nail it, there's something very organised and Old English about it, not nowadays, nowadays in England you couldn't get these wankers together to order a cup of tea but our contemporary doziness and lack of institutional organisation runs in contrast to the way shit was in this country, from industry on up and Hitchcocks work ethic is reminiscent of that. He had a very workman-like way of approaching filmmaking, even though it contained artistry of perhaps the highest order that commercial cinema has ever been subject to it's his attention to detail and the actual craft of filmmaking that bought that about, there is almost something disingenuous about the artist merits of the wild and woolly handheld, long monologues facing the camera brigade.

It's easy to make 'art' when you have total creative control and freedom but you also end up making cinema for cinemas sake as opposed to for the sake of entertainment. The true measure of an artist in this regard i think is being able to let your artistry shine through under a set of constraints. I'm not trying to say that Hitch' didn't have total creative control cuz he did, later on at least but even when he didn't he had an ability to take a given tale under whatever constraints and really put his stamp on it and make serious fucking art...that was entertaining as fuck to boot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The debate between the artist and the guy, who merely gives you entertainment, could infact revolve around Hitchcock. I think he resolved the two mediums. But this was a guy who could veer into experimentalism (The Rope and do not ignore The Lodger). He also did stuff like Rebecca (which he considered Selznick's film). But in the greatest - bona fide - Hitchcock films, I think he resolved the two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Len B'stard

Definitely and thats what makes him the dogs bollocks, thats the highest estate of cinematic craftsmanship i think, to marry those two elements, to bring art to the people in a way where they enjoy it, it's easy to cater to a bunch of poofters up in lofts that smoke roll ups cuz it's fashionable, it's like preaching to the converted but what Hitchcock did is pure genius, make complete art and not only make it entertaining but enthralling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't Hitchcock just film the script. In the 70s you'd have directors going off rewriting the script and then actors just making stuff up. Basically if the script works on the page, film the actors saying the words. Sounds easy doesn't it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you like that kind of movies? Sort of precursors to superhero movies.

Watch Existenz instead. One movie to rule them all.

Existenz will blow your mind. One of my time fav films and starring my fav actress Jennifer Jason Leigh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's the only time in my life where I thought this is what I think in a movie or book. I suppose it must be some sort of nihilistic fatalism but with laughs in a positive way. Or am I epically depressed.

Edited by wasted
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't Hitchcock just film the script. In the 70s you'd have directors going off rewriting the script and then actors just making stuff up. Basically if the script works on the page, film the actors saying the words. Sounds easy doesn't it.

He co-wrote most of his pre-Gaumont films. He also worked closely with his screenwriters, handpicking them and dismissing what he did not like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...