Jump to content
đź”’ The Earwolf Forums are closed Read more... Ă—

AlmostAGhost

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    1382

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    59

Posts posted by AlmostAGhost

  1. Posted

    I also voted no. For the simple reason that I believe #3 is better. I do think I like all three fairly equally, but the change in the second two is that they feel more about characters and less about 'toys', and that is an improvement for me.

    I can understand why a 'first' is often used to represent something, but the converse of pioneering something is that the first one can suffer for being a bit of a novelty. And I think there's a little of that here.

    I called the film 'product placement' in my Letterbox review, which is close to what Amy was expressing in it being too corporate. I'm not anti-corporate (used to be, less so now as I get older). But I definitely think that vibe is why I'd keep this version off the list.

    • Like 3

  4. Posted

    It did change to Do The Right Thing next week, I confirmed it on twitter

    6/27 - Do The Right Thing (see tweet below; it's being re-released)

    7/4 - The Deer Hunter (hmm about this being on the Fourth Of July)

     

    • Like 1

  6. Posted

    Honestly, I thought this movie was as bad as the HDTGM movies we watch. The two leads occasionally had some charisma (they are pop stars irl) but mostly everyone just talked quietly and slowly like they weren't interested in anything. The direction was weird, I thought, with the camera floating all over and around their heads and stuff. A lot of scenes were irrelevant and pointless. The script was generic and bland. I found it truly a chore to get through.

    • Like 2

  10. Posted

    I wanted to expand on me calling it 'superficial' as I keep pondering that. I think my main issue is all these points that they mention on the pod -- homosexuality, his mother, self-identity, earlier trauma, being raised by TV, even Vietnam I guess -- are raised so minutely in the film that I feel like it's just all on the surface. I take this movie as very straightforward almost, which maybe is at odds with its rep or intent. I see it as just about a guy with some sort of misguided dream, who meets another guy with a similar misguided dream.

    *edit to note that sycasey simulposted a similar explanation. :)

    • Like 3

  11. Posted

    Yea Amy is helping me a little with one too.

    I still find the film fairly superficial and think it doesn’t say all that much, really, beyond extreme hopelessness (which maybe is enough). It definitely a movie I’m finding I can’t stop thinking about though.

    • Like 2

  17. Posted

    4 hours ago, Cameron H. said:

    don’t feel like Nina was being egotistical. She was finding strength and comfort and wanted to share that with her audience. She wasn’t comparing herself to Sita any more than I compare myself to Frodo when I read Lord of the Rings. You don’t have to literally carry a ring to a necromancer’s evil volcano to relate to the feeling of being forced to carry a burden. It only matters how we interpret the message for ourselves and apply it to our own lives. And if it grants us some measure of solace or wisdom or whatever then that’s absolutely valid. 

    That's true to some extent, I can see the lack of ego point. The difference to me though is that she isn't just reading the Ramayana, like most of us would Lord of the Rings, she's putting herself straight into a retelling. Or at the very least, she's making a movie about reading the Ramayana, I guess -- which is a far weaker dramatic framing than just retelling the Ramayana. That's how her storyline warps the film slightly for me.

    I do think that was a big flaw, but I say 'slightly', as I still liked the film a lot, I'll add. It was fun; as fun as a "break-up movie" could be, I guess! lol

    • Like 3

  18. Posted

    Yea, I said something similar on Letterboxd. Putting herself into it felt really weird to me, and the way she told that part was really basic with no insight or anything. If you were to just tell the Ramayana story with old jazz blues, that would have been just fine, just as creative and original, and probably even more effective of a tale of break-up and timeless emotions. 

    • Like 3

  20. Posted

    Hmm here's my quick Oscars for these first 50 films

    Best Actress - Jodie Foster Silence of the Lambs 

    Best Actor - Charlie Chaplin City Lights

    Best Director - Stanley Kubrick 2001

    Best Screenplay - Billy Wilder / Raymond Chandler Double Indemnity

    Best Picture - 2001

    here's my personal ranking of the first 50, though I do fiddle with the rankings a lot so it's ever-changing

    https://letterboxd.com/almostaghost/list/my-unspooled-afi-list-order/

    • Like 2

  23. Posted

    I'd assume Paul & Amy, because of their jobs, have gigantic TV screens.

    But either way, me, I watch most all of these on my phone. It's fine. It's how I watch things now. I still liked 2001 and Vertigo an awful lot and my experience isn't lessened with the films. In fact, I find it more absorbing to be that close to it.

    If a film can't accurately depict its scale without literally being big, I dunno, is that good?

    Watch them how you watch them. It's 2019. I will defend viewings in this way!

    • Like 1
×