Generic Business Oriented Website

copstache wrote:

MANTIS wrote:Why would anyone give money to Darren Aronofsky to make a Noah film that was faithful to the Bible? How could you possibly expect that result?

Takin me out of context... my Aronofsky apprish is well-documented

MANTIS wrote:Why would anyone give money to Darren Aronofsky to make a Noah film that was faithful to the Bible? How could you possibly expect that result?

Conversely, though, why would Aronofsky sign on to do a big-budget bible movie and expect to have free rein? This just had trainwreck written all over it from the start. In theory, I can actually see how you could interpret Noah as an Aronofsky character - driven/obsessive to the point of self-destruction and all that - but there's just too much obvious red tape. I dunno, I worry where the guy's career's going. First he almost makes a Marvel movie, and now this? Urgh.

Fair enough. I thought Black Swan was second-tier Aronofsky, though still good, but I'll reserve judgement on his career downfall til I see Noah. I remember quite a bit of turmoil over The Fountain too and I thought that was his best film.

Oh, I loved Black Swan, that's not the issue here. I'm pretty much on board with the general consensus that The Fountain was a failure, which makes Black Swan his second attempt at a big budget movie, this time successful - but I'm worried about what's going to happen next. I'm totally willing to give this Noah movie a fair chance, and I hope it's good. But it doesn't sound like a good idea.

Hammer of the Gods - 6/10

Needed some viking metal, and maybe some black metal for one scene in particular, but I enjoyed it, mostly. Parts of it plods along with a weary lack of energy, and the gratuitous profanity feels like lazy dialogue writing... other than that, no real complaints.

fountain is definitely his best and had financial disaster written all over it (which was, of course, realized), though extensive market research probably could have tweaked into a shittier movie that more people liked

black swan wasn't really big-budget at $13 M, just a massive success, taking $330 M

things that I'm sure I'd enjoy if aronofsky make them without anti-grimness execs meddling: wolverine movie, batman year one movie, robocop remake, noah

the graphic novel excerpts look solid - I have no reason to be pessimistic about this one until I hear he doesn't have cut

spacehamster wrote:I can actually see how you could interpret Noah as an Aronofsky character - driven/obsessive to the point of self-destruction

yes! that's the thread of all his movies for sure. framing this character that way could work well.

MANTIS wrote:Takin me out of context...

it's top-tier trolling you've fallen victim to...

The Fifth Estate 7.5/10. I ended up enjoying this more than the WikiLeaks documentary. I was surprised how well they formed a flowing narrative and story. Benedict Cumberbatch is great as usual. Daniel Bruhl (Niki Lauda in Rush) is outstanding in this movie. Julian Assange is against this movie but the movie treats him pretty fairly in my opinion. This is worth seeing, especially if you don't know the story and implications of WikiLeaks.

Necrometer wrote:

spacehamster wrote:I can actually see how you could interpret Noah as an Aronofsky character - driven/obsessive to the point of self-destruction

yes! that's the thread of all his movies for sure. framing this character that way could work well.

It also would've worked great with Wolverine, but there's no way Marvel would've actually let him do it properly. That's the problem, not the fact that the characters/stories don't work for Aronofsky.

Also, I didn't know he made Black Swan for 13 million. That's... amazing.

the wolverine story could get so fucking nasty - a theme of self-destruction when the protagonist is indestructible?

and... I just found out that in 2004 he was reported to be directing Watchmen ... that probably would not have gone so well

I do get your "this is why we can't have nice things" sentiment, though. I guess I have given up on wishing for flawless things when budgets are $100+ M... like, gravity was just plain gay when it didn't need to be. but then you have prometheus, which wasn't really pulling punches on its loopy grimness. I don't know. we'll see. this still is the dude who made the fountain, and I really don't think he's "learned his lesson" from that experience since he was able to make a couple of solid movies on very low budgets in its wake...

Necrometer wrote: and... I just found out that in 2004 he was reported to be directing Watchmen ... that probably would not have gone so well

The only way that could've been done was the way Terry Gilliam said - as a 12-epsiode TV series. And even that wasn't a great idea. The whole thing was doomed from the start, no matter who did it. Course it didn't help that they got that fucktard Snyder to do it, but in fairness, nobody could've pulled it off.

but then you have prometheus, which wasn't really pulling punches on its loopy grimness.

Prometheus was a terrible movie in every conceivable way except for the art direction, and a fine example of what happens when scripts get rewritten so many times that they turn into something with as much character as the release schedule of a new breakfast cereal.

The closest thing Hollywood has left to a director with real control over his vision and a clear, recognizable style that runs through his movies (edit - and who gets to throw around the big budgets)? Michael Bay. That's where we are today. If Aronofsky can make a movie that grosses over 300 million with a 13 million budget, then that's exactly what he should keep doing. It certainly didn't show in the polish or the scope of Black Swan that it was cheap, so it's not hurting the quality of his output, and because the movies don't cost much to make, he doesn't have a bunch of execs breathing down his neck, fucking everything up. It's a no-brainer, really.

Gravity - fucking awful/10

maybe a 4?! some intense scenes and some great music in spots
and that's about it.

Blair wrote:So... ...I'm the only one that thinks Gravity was a piece of shit?

no, you're not alone
can't see why anyone would give it more than a 5
a slightly above average movie on the "wow, it has special effects" scale
everything else is in-the-gutter trash, at best

caldwell.the.great wrote:Gravity - fucking awful/10

some great music in spots

huh

you can read my pretty brief review of it not so far back, but I dug it (basically only for the visuals, sure), and I thought the music was terrible

it was so...hollywood? it never felt like it belonged to the setting, and I thought it was beat-you-over-the-head dramatic

hahaha, fuck. im simple, i had such a blast.

elephants gerald wrote:gravity (imax 3D)- 7/10

maybe generous? I had fun, but I really expected this to be stranger and more bleak. the children of men connection had me maybe too hyped. so that was disappointing. this was, I think, the first 3D experience that I truly enjoyed, but I would have enjoyed it much more had the characters not said any of the things that they said. horrendous dialogue/monologue. I had problems with the music. and there were times when this felt like one of those universal simulation rides like terminator

SPOILERSPOILER_SHOW

the first fire comes to mind

but it looked really fucking cool, so I guess I can forgive most of this shit

I'm with you on a lot of this, but the dialogue/monologue stuff ruined it a lot more for me. pretty good use of 3D. Enjoyed it more than I did with Avatar - but I would have been happier with an hour and a half of nothing but 3D shots of astronauts floating through and around shit with the Earth in the background.
the fucking "documentary in Africa" soundtrack bits were absolutely terrible, but in a few places there was some cool ambient weirdness happening. that's what I was talking about. thought it worked very well combined with the few atmospheric sounds the movie had.

the innkeepers- 6.8/10

The Way, Way Back - 6/10

Amin: The Rise and Fall - 5
The Imposter - 6

Sleepwalk With Me - 7/10 - I like Birbiglia, and I was surprised he was such a solid actor. The dream sequences were great, but I wish it had focused more on the comedian aspect of the character.

man your playlist is EXCEPTIONALLY bad right now. was you girlfriend on your computer?

Raw Ting wrote:man your playlist is EXCEPTIONALLY bad right now. was you girlfriend on your computer?

It was a 90s Spotify mix a friend made for a party that he played through my laptop on my Last.fm account.

ahahaha

great party

Outrage (2010) - 8 - love Kitano's style so much, it almost doesn't matter what the movie is about.

This is the End - 6 - funny, but the set-up was often better than the punchline.

Rush - 5.5 - adequate exhibition of flawless movie craftsmanship, and a nice way to kill 2 hours, but I didn't really care that much going into it, and I don't care that much in hindsight.

postaddiction wrote:Outrage (2010) - 8 - love Kitano's style so much, it almost doesn't matter what the movie is about.

I couldn't help but be a bit dissappointed with this, and I am/ was (up to Zatoichi) a huge Kitano fan. I enjoy bleak, cold movies like this, but nevertheless I had been looking forward to something poetic as in Hana-Bi. It sure was better than the three movies before it IMHO. Btw did you enjoy those and if so, what exactly was it that made you like them?

>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1-2fpLNXe4<

after sticking up for this idea, I am not too keen on how the trailer felt

certainly not helping: xian tune for xian audience