Reply to Topic
PTA is easily one of the best directors working today, despite what I saw as a misstep with Inherent Vice. I expected to not like There Will Be Blood, but when it was over, I thought it was a masterpiece.
Step Right In! Witness A Swan Discuss Cinema!
→ in Movie Reviews
X
Favorite Movies
I obviously don't agree with you on The Master or Punch Drunk Love but i really have to rewatch Vice. 2 out of 5 is not bad, you should try There Will Be Blood.
X
Favorite Movies
I obviously don't agree with you on The Master or Punch Drunk Love but i really have to rewatch Vice. 2 out of 5 is not bad, you should try There Will Be Blood.
__________________
''Haters are my favourite. I've built an empire with the bricks they've thrown at me... Keep On Hating''
- CM Punk
http://threemanbooth.files.wordpress...unkshrug02.gif
''Haters are my favourite. I've built an empire with the bricks they've thrown at me... Keep On Hating''
- CM Punk
http://threemanbooth.files.wordpress...unkshrug02.gif
X
User Lists
So, I need to start posting stuff. Let's just jump into it.
I'm going to start Breaking the Waves in a second. It looks f*cking fantastic, just my style for non-horror. I won't get through it all tonight, probably, because of my f*cked up sleep problems, but I'm excited to at least start it.
My feelings about von Trier are a bit odd. On one hand, I think a lot of his films are fantastic, moody, experimental, human, creative, etc. On the other hand, there is something about his work that keeps me from outright loving it. I can't really explain it. I want to say it's the fact that he goes for shock just for shock value, but I don't think that's it. It's just that "von Trier vibe" I get. That in-your-face feeling. It's not a bad thing. It might actually be Chalotte Gainsbourg, not von Trier, that's causing it. Either way, I hate that it even exists. Part of me, for example, wants to give Antichrist all my love. That movie is, frankly, top ten worthy for me. It has everything I want in a movie. So what's keeping me from putting it in my top ten? I don't know. Maybe nothing. Maybe I will put it in my top ten one day. Maybe not. Who knows? It's nebulous.
But I probably won't.
Okay now I'm being stupid. Sorry. I'm okay with rambling in this thread though. I'll rank all the von Trier I have seen here:
Antichrist
Dancer in the Dark
Melancholia - (need to rewatch, but I remember liking it)
THOSE DAMN NYMPHOMANIAC FILMS
As you can see, I haven't seen much of his work, and most of it is his last bunch of work. Excited to see some early stuff.
What are other people's thoughts on von Trier?
I'm going to start Breaking the Waves in a second. It looks f*cking fantastic, just my style for non-horror. I won't get through it all tonight, probably, because of my f*cked up sleep problems, but I'm excited to at least start it.
My feelings about von Trier are a bit odd. On one hand, I think a lot of his films are fantastic, moody, experimental, human, creative, etc. On the other hand, there is something about his work that keeps me from outright loving it. I can't really explain it. I want to say it's the fact that he goes for shock just for shock value, but I don't think that's it. It's just that "von Trier vibe" I get. That in-your-face feeling. It's not a bad thing. It might actually be Chalotte Gainsbourg, not von Trier, that's causing it. Either way, I hate that it even exists. Part of me, for example, wants to give Antichrist all my love. That movie is, frankly, top ten worthy for me. It has everything I want in a movie. So what's keeping me from putting it in my top ten? I don't know. Maybe nothing. Maybe I will put it in my top ten one day. Maybe not. Who knows? It's nebulous.
But I probably won't.
Okay now I'm being stupid. Sorry. I'm okay with rambling in this thread though. I'll rank all the von Trier I have seen here:
Antichrist
Dancer in the Dark
Melancholia - (need to rewatch, but I remember liking it)
THOSE DAMN NYMPHOMANIAC FILMS
As you can see, I haven't seen much of his work, and most of it is his last bunch of work. Excited to see some early stuff.
What are other people's thoughts on von Trier?
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
There Will be Blood (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2007)
This is my being more careful with my rating system. Honestly, in terms of pure enjoyment and craft, from my perspective, this film is unbelievably masterful. Such a fun piece to watch from a writer/director's perspective. Anyone interested in the art of filmmaking is going to learn a lot watching it. It's flawed, sure, but I only realized that after seeing the film so many times. I think after you see just about any film as many times as I have seen this one, you're going to start seeing minor "dents", if you will. But I like imperfections.
One great thing about it is every time I watch it, it feels like a different experience in a way. I noticed new things, mostly about Daniel's character, this time around. My favorite scene changed from the surveying scene, with my favorite song "Proven Lands" playing over it, to the scene near the end with (SPOILER) Daniel and his grown-up son. I feel like that scene is flawless, and easily the most poignant scene to me, even beating out the films finale.
Which brings me to... the finale! People complain a lot about the last scene, but I have always liked it. At the same time, I could appreciate that it feels a bit jarring compared to the rest of the film. But it still feels right. It's how the story naturally concludes, and to me, it fits appropriately.
I can easily say this is one of the most inspirational and mentoring films in my life, at last a few years in my life, even if I don't rank it as highly as some of what I consider the greats. It goes back to the peer-mentor thing I talked about in my recent PTA/Tarantino post. I admire it greatly, but I don't put it on the pedestal I put some films on. Which is a good thing - I feel I learn more from it that way.
-
This is my being more careful with my rating system. Honestly, in terms of pure enjoyment and craft, from my perspective, this film is unbelievably masterful. Such a fun piece to watch from a writer/director's perspective. Anyone interested in the art of filmmaking is going to learn a lot watching it. It's flawed, sure, but I only realized that after seeing the film so many times. I think after you see just about any film as many times as I have seen this one, you're going to start seeing minor "dents", if you will. But I like imperfections.
One great thing about it is every time I watch it, it feels like a different experience in a way. I noticed new things, mostly about Daniel's character, this time around. My favorite scene changed from the surveying scene, with my favorite song "Proven Lands" playing over it, to the scene near the end with (SPOILER) Daniel and his grown-up son. I feel like that scene is flawless, and easily the most poignant scene to me, even beating out the films finale.
Which brings me to... the finale! People complain a lot about the last scene, but I have always liked it. At the same time, I could appreciate that it feels a bit jarring compared to the rest of the film. But it still feels right. It's how the story naturally concludes, and to me, it fits appropriately.
I can easily say this is one of the most inspirational and mentoring films in my life, at last a few years in my life, even if I don't rank it as highly as some of what I consider the greats. It goes back to the peer-mentor thing I talked about in my recent PTA/Tarantino post. I admire it greatly, but I don't put it on the pedestal I put some films on. Which is a good thing - I feel I learn more from it that way.
-
So I'm guessing you never finished Breaking the Waves since you never wrote anything about it?
I admire Lars von Trier's attitude toward cinema. I've only seen four of his films so far: Dogville, Manderlay, Antichrist, and Melancholia. None are personal favorites, but all four left a strong impression on me. The first half of Melancholia bored me to tears, but the second half was mesmerizing. I've seen a lot of films with depressing subject matter, but I don't know if I've seen a film that better captured the hopelessness of depression more accurately than Melancholia. If you're truly depressed, nothing matters. Every day already feels like the end of the world. I've been in that mindset. Melancholia brought back those feelings a little too strongly, which is probably why I've never revisited it despite thinking that it was a beautifully made film. Antichrist featured genital mutilation and talking foxes, so that automatically makes it worthwhile. Dogville is the ultimate exercise in minimalism. I was amazed by how quickly into the movie I stopped paying attention to the lack of a traditional set. Manderlay is my least favorite of the four I've seen, mainly because von Trier's heavy-handed message seemed to get lost somewhere in the delivery. It's still a good movie, though. Plus it gave Bryce Dallas Howard an opportunity to prove to the skeptics that the carpet matches the drapes.
I don't have much respect for directors who coddle an audience. Von Trier is the opposite. He seems to have an antagonistic relationship with his audience. Maybe that's why its hard to love his films. He doesn't care whether you like his films or not. In fact, he almost dares the viewer to like his films. I can see how that turns off a lot of people, but I admire that "f*ck you, I'll make my movie the way I want to make it" approach. I hate "shock for shock value" as a criticism as much as you hate "style over substance," but I've yet to see anything in von Trier's films where I would apply that statement. Not even the genital mutilation in Antichrist. He's certainly a provocateur. He pushes boundaries. He presents imagery and subject matter that's going to make some people uncomfortable. But so far I've always felt that those scenes serve a purpose beyond just simple shock value.
QT and PTA are two of my favorites, so it's very cool to read how they've inspired you as an artist.
I admire Lars von Trier's attitude toward cinema. I've only seen four of his films so far: Dogville, Manderlay, Antichrist, and Melancholia. None are personal favorites, but all four left a strong impression on me. The first half of Melancholia bored me to tears, but the second half was mesmerizing. I've seen a lot of films with depressing subject matter, but I don't know if I've seen a film that better captured the hopelessness of depression more accurately than Melancholia. If you're truly depressed, nothing matters. Every day already feels like the end of the world. I've been in that mindset. Melancholia brought back those feelings a little too strongly, which is probably why I've never revisited it despite thinking that it was a beautifully made film. Antichrist featured genital mutilation and talking foxes, so that automatically makes it worthwhile. Dogville is the ultimate exercise in minimalism. I was amazed by how quickly into the movie I stopped paying attention to the lack of a traditional set. Manderlay is my least favorite of the four I've seen, mainly because von Trier's heavy-handed message seemed to get lost somewhere in the delivery. It's still a good movie, though. Plus it gave Bryce Dallas Howard an opportunity to prove to the skeptics that the carpet matches the drapes.
I don't have much respect for directors who coddle an audience. Von Trier is the opposite. He seems to have an antagonistic relationship with his audience. Maybe that's why its hard to love his films. He doesn't care whether you like his films or not. In fact, he almost dares the viewer to like his films. I can see how that turns off a lot of people, but I admire that "f*ck you, I'll make my movie the way I want to make it" approach. I hate "shock for shock value" as a criticism as much as you hate "style over substance," but I've yet to see anything in von Trier's films where I would apply that statement. Not even the genital mutilation in Antichrist. He's certainly a provocateur. He pushes boundaries. He presents imagery and subject matter that's going to make some people uncomfortable. But so far I've always felt that those scenes serve a purpose beyond just simple shock value.
QT and PTA are two of my favorites, so it's very cool to read how they've inspired you as an artist.
__________________
X
User Lists
So I'm guessing you never finished Breaking the Waves since you never wrote anything about it?
I don't have much respect for directors who coddle an audience. Von Trier is the opposite. He seems to have an antagonistic relationship with his audience. Maybe that's why its hard to love his films. He doesn't care whether you like his films or not. In fact, he almost dares the viewer to like his films. I can see how that turns off a lot of people, but I admire that "f*ck you, I'll make my movie the way I want to make it" approach. I hate "shock for shock value" as a criticism as much as you hate "style over substance," but I've yet to see anything in von Trier's films where I would apply that statement. Not even the genital mutilation in Antichrist. He's certainly a provocateur. He pushes boundaries. He presents imagery and subject matter that's going to make some people uncomfortable. But so far I've always felt that those scenes serve a purpose beyond just simple shock value.
Can I ask why you hate the criticism "shock for shock value"? I may have been hasty to use that criticism.
Can I ask why you hate the criticism "shock for shock value"? I may have been hasty to use that criticism.
X
User Lists
Well, I know von Trier well, not personally (though I met him, only I was too shy to say much lol), but I've studied him and I think he's a very interesting person.
And yes, Trier very much likes to test his audience. Here's a great quote by him, which is from memory so it may not be word-for-word correct; "I like to challenge my audience and see how long they can stay on... what is their breaking-point? A lot of people liked Breaking the Waves, but not all stayed with the ending. I find that interesting."
He also compared moviemaking and people's desire to be in control to an ant hill (or what the **** they are called). Sometimes you just gotta poke it with a stick and see it all go crazy until it all settles down again. That's a great feeling.
In terms of being a man who likes to show rather than hint at things, when asked about why he chooses to show stuff like gential mutalation, he says that it would be like lying if not. At least to him. And of course he is a provocative moviemaker, he likes to provoke though he mostly see it as teasing. That's why his persona is so strange to many, because he likes someone who can challenge him a bit as well.
Anyways, I hope you will finish Breaking the Waves some day, Swan!
And yes, Trier very much likes to test his audience. Here's a great quote by him, which is from memory so it may not be word-for-word correct; "I like to challenge my audience and see how long they can stay on... what is their breaking-point? A lot of people liked Breaking the Waves, but not all stayed with the ending. I find that interesting."
He also compared moviemaking and people's desire to be in control to an ant hill (or what the **** they are called). Sometimes you just gotta poke it with a stick and see it all go crazy until it all settles down again. That's a great feeling.
In terms of being a man who likes to show rather than hint at things, when asked about why he chooses to show stuff like gential mutalation, he says that it would be like lying if not. At least to him. And of course he is a provocative moviemaker, he likes to provoke though he mostly see it as teasing. That's why his persona is so strange to many, because he likes someone who can challenge him a bit as well.
Anyways, I hope you will finish Breaking the Waves some day, Swan!
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Inherent Vice (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2014)
How the hell was this so divisive? How did it not knock everyone out of their minds? Well, I guess I can understand why some people don't like this film. It's weird. It has a unique sense of humor. It's meant to be a bit all over the place and maybe even confusing at times. It plays into its drug-trance mood. But that what I loved most about it. This is why I don't often trust critics or IMDb ratings or anything like that. Movies like this. Part of me wants to give it a full score, but I'm going to be a bit more cautious. Still, I loved this film. A trance-inducing drug-infused detective story.
Paul Thomas Anderson, before There Will Be Blood, was a bit choppy in terms of quality. Not only across his filmography but in single films. While he certainly made some great stuff, I don't believe he had a masterpiece before There Will Be Blood. But then he just came into his own, his craft became impeccable. What I love about his filmography from There Will Be Blood on, though many will disagree with me, is the amazing consistency in terms of quality. I could give this the exact same score as I recently gave There Will Be Blood and it would feel right. There reason I'm not is I literally just finished this, and don't have the history with it that I have with that film.
I don't think any of you are surprised I loved this one, but maybe I'm wrong. I say that because I feel like I really clicked with it's style and sense of humor. I'm not much of a comedy guy but this one I thought had tons of comedic genius in it, though I wouldn't call it a comedy in the purest sense. I prefer when humor is laced in a way that's not blatantly in-your -face, I guess. The humor in Inherent Vice felt incredibly organic, which I don't see in a lot of comedies. Anyway, I'm a bit ecstatic right now, just because I love that there's a new PTA film that's fresh, one that I can look forward to watching over again.
Also, yes, at times it can be groovy being insane.
+
How the hell was this so divisive? How did it not knock everyone out of their minds? Well, I guess I can understand why some people don't like this film. It's weird. It has a unique sense of humor. It's meant to be a bit all over the place and maybe even confusing at times. It plays into its drug-trance mood. But that what I loved most about it. This is why I don't often trust critics or IMDb ratings or anything like that. Movies like this. Part of me wants to give it a full score, but I'm going to be a bit more cautious. Still, I loved this film. A trance-inducing drug-infused detective story.
Paul Thomas Anderson, before There Will Be Blood, was a bit choppy in terms of quality. Not only across his filmography but in single films. While he certainly made some great stuff, I don't believe he had a masterpiece before There Will Be Blood. But then he just came into his own, his craft became impeccable. What I love about his filmography from There Will Be Blood on, though many will disagree with me, is the amazing consistency in terms of quality. I could give this the exact same score as I recently gave There Will Be Blood and it would feel right. There reason I'm not is I literally just finished this, and don't have the history with it that I have with that film.
I don't think any of you are surprised I loved this one, but maybe I'm wrong. I say that because I feel like I really clicked with it's style and sense of humor. I'm not much of a comedy guy but this one I thought had tons of comedic genius in it, though I wouldn't call it a comedy in the purest sense. I prefer when humor is laced in a way that's not blatantly in-your -face, I guess. The humor in Inherent Vice felt incredibly organic, which I don't see in a lot of comedies. Anyway, I'm a bit ecstatic right now, just because I love that there's a new PTA film that's fresh, one that I can look forward to watching over again.
Also, yes, at times it can be groovy being insane.
+
X
User Lists
I thought it was okay. And probably deserves a rewatch. Then again I am not a big PTA guy.
X
Favorite Movies
Guns - part of me is baffled that people actually wouldn't like this movie. The other part of me gets why.
Guns - part of me is baffled that people actually wouldn't like this movie. The other part of me gets why.
X
User Lists
Well, you love Jeepers Creepers Derek, and that's all that matters.
X
