Watching Movies Alone with crumbsroom

Tools    





Such information is valuable, but I don't have to know what camera and what lenses were used to shoot, say, Seconds to decide it's a visual masterpiece. It is incredibly aesthetic visually, and just watching the film is enough to tell. Similarly, I don't need to know how the 70s look was achieved in Late Night With the Devil to decide it's close enough to the 70s vibe for me to enjoy it. Of course, you can disagree and say it looks nothing like the 1970s, but I already addressed that point before and said I don't think it really matters anyway. I just think it's close enough and good enough, you don't. Maybe my standards are too low. I can accept this sort of explanation, but regardless, I'd love you to tell me what are your favorite:
1. Films that reproduce the 1970s aesthetic. (Or films that reproduce any sort of old-school aesthetic if you don't know any for that decade specifically.)
2. Films that are visual masterpieces. Let's say your top 10 best-looking movies.
I stopped being interested in engaging with you in good faith when you off-handed and condescendingly dismissed my criticism with vague and vapid "it's still good though." I just wanted to get you to admit you didn't actually care or know what you were talking about beforehand. Thus, I'm satisfied.

Have a great one!



Fair enough. I think knowing & analyzing the technical aspects too much is detrimental to experiencing films. Films are not meant to be analyzed like that unless you want to make your own movies as a filmmaker. There's absolutely no point in going frame by frame to analyze a movie - something film critics sometimes do - it totally ruins the film as a whole. Films work magic because they're experienced as a whole, not a sum of its parts. And the whole is usually much more than the sum of its parts. I have nothing against knowledgeable people pointing out trivia inconsistencies, this-couldn't-works, and so on, but this does feel like minor nibbles that they somehow extrapolate to huge issues that stop them from even enjoying the film. There are some films I think are visual masterpieces and I know people knowledgeable about cinematography who say some shots were underlit and so on, and I thank God I couldn't tell because I know this sort of nit-picking would totally ruin my enjoyment. Then again, maybe those shots were underlit, or maybe it's what I think it is: chiaroscuro. Or maybe it's a failed attempt at chiaroscuro, which would make both of us right. Opinions were wary, and I learned to trust nobody but my own aesthetic sense and taste.



Some movies can be so 'cheesy' or 'bad' or outright demented that they transcend form. They create a new language out of film.


The problem with this one is that it hems too closely to what it hopes to achieve, and as a result, it just comes off as a watered down, flaccid version of the real thing. Basically it's lazy, and I swear the more I think about the script being a product of AI, at least partially, the more I can't shake the feeling that this is how such a dumb things could be generated without it at least being somewhat entertaining, or form busting.


With a concept like this, I literally went into it expecting it to be either absurd to the point of transcendence. I wasn't expecting a serious experience with a movie. I was, minimally, hoping for what one would call a bit of fun. But it was just so amateurish, in all the bad connotations of this word (and I usually champion the amateur as much as I do the masters).


I don't begrudge anyone for liking it, though. Only saying it baffles me. I don't even understand how someone with bad taste could like it. It seems like it should exist right in the nether region where neither serious or unserious movie goers would give it the time of day. But instead, in this world that has clearly gone upside down, it now gets credit from both camps.



The amount of vitriol you have for this film is unbelievable - even more than I do for Marvel movies.

Didn't like it? Just forget it and move on. I don't mean it in a condescending way. I just see no point in wasting any more time on discussing a film one so vehemently disliked.



Crummy, you seen Ghostwatch? It's also on Shudder and it pulls off the TV special meets supernatural horror so well that it Orson Welles'd the UK into thinking it was real.



The amount of vitriol you have for this film is unbelievable - even more than I do for Marvel movies.

Didn't like it? Just forget it and move on. I don't mean it in a condescending way. I just see no point in wasting any more time on discussing a film one so vehemently disliked.

I don't think I'm wasting any time explaining why or how much I didn't think a movie worked. This is a movie forum. That's what happens here. And I like talking about movies I have strong feelings about, whether positive or negative.



It's not like I've spent the last week stewing over it in my personal life. But when I come here, and there is a discussion going on about it, why wouldn't I respond in a way that represents how I feel?



Crummy, you seen Ghostwatch? It's also on Shudder and it pulls off the TV special meets supernatural horror so well that it Orson Welles'd the UK into thinking it was real.

I don't think so. I've heard of it for awhile, but not sure if I ever actually watched the thing. Probably not.



I don't think so. I've heard of it for awhile, but not sure if I ever actually watched the thing. Probably not.
It wasn't available outside the UK until fairly recently. Got a blu-ray release and added to Shudder. Hope you give a whirl. Curious how you'll respond to it.



I can't believe I'm agreeing with FilmBuff. "This couldn't work because back then they shot on Quadruplex!" is valuable trivia for nerds, but hardly a reason the film doesn't work. Can't people suspend their disbelief anymore? Apart from some poor CGI, like the vomit, and the sporadic use of AI, which is always unacceptable, this was really well-made and fun. The denouement of supernatural guilt was a little bit disappointing in how glaringly obvious/Aronofskian it got but anything that came before was a good time
I can be OK with the fact that most filmmakers are trying to do something that's accessible to the average viewer (which I am very much not). I don't expect most directors to cater to my very particular likes/dislikes.

While horror is definitely not one of my favorite genres, like any other genre I still tend to be much more appreciative of the ones that aren't coming from the major studios, because I think the horror movies from the studios, with very few exceptions, tend to be the weakest and most derivative of all.

And so far this year, the only non-studio horror movies that have played in theaters in my area are Late Night with the Devil and Stopmotion. Coincidentally or not, those are also the only ones (again, so far this year) that I feel might even be worth revisiting at some point.



Reporting back two details:
I Saw the TV Glow - I felt it was pretty good, despite not really growing that much more than what you see sketched out in the trailer. And yet, I'd prefer not to go into it more until others have seen it.

Don Hertzfeldt has a new animated short out, which I didn't realize until tonight. That, I haven't seen, but I will probably be buying a ticket for it soon.



The trick is not minding
Reporting back two details:
I Saw the TV Glow - I felt it was pretty good, despite not really growing that much more than what you see sketched out in the trailer. And yet, I'd prefer not to go into it more until others have seen it.

Don Hertzfeldt has a new animated short out, which I didn't realize until tonight. That, I haven't seen, but I will probably be buying a ticket for it soon.
Iíve been wanting to see Glow for a bit now. Itís playing near me, so likely this weekend.
Hertzfeldtís newest short is supposed to be playing along with Itís Such a Beautiful Day, which has been rereleased for the occasion. If youíre lucky enough to see both playing in your area, definitely see them. It doesnít appear to be playing near me anytime soon.
*wump wump*



Iíve been wanting to see Glow for a bit now. Itís playing near me, so likely this weekend.
Hertzfeldtís newest short is supposed to be playing along with Itís Such a Beautiful Day, which has been rereleased for the occasion. If youíre lucky enough to see both playing in your area, definitely see them. It doesnít appear to be playing near me anytime soon.
*wump wump*

Yeah, I left off the showing is accompanied with It's Such a Beautiful Day since I just assume everyone in this thread has already seen it many a time and is probably somewhat less noteworthy in terms of its news.



The trick is not minding
Yeah, I left off the showing is accompanied with It's Such a Beautiful Day since I just assume everyone in this thread has already seen it many a time and is probably somewhat less noteworthy in terms of its news.
I havenít seen it yet. 😭
I plan to itís just when it comes to my watchlist, I rarely go out of my way to find them and just wait until it eventually appears on any of my many streaming platforms.



The trick is not minding
Hey, Crumbs! I donít know how well you keep up with recent films out of Canada, but have you seen, or heard of, Humanist Vampire Seeking Consenting Suicidal Person?*



I have that same disc, but have never watched the sequel. I think there is a part of me that feels it's likely really embarrassingly bad, and might end up casting a light on the original.

As for the original, it is still one of the guiding lights of film for me. But it does come with the caveat that, much like Tragically Hip or Degrassi Jr. High, it's appeals come from something that is distinctly Canadian about it that might not appeal to anyone who isn't from here. But my experience with it was one where I believed it was the first time I had ever seen 'truth' in a film. How something like those who first discovered Italian neo-realism might have felt. But this is just a little rougher around the ages, and has that domestic beer stink that comes with anything truly Canadian.


Plus, don't overlook the SCTV parody on this. That was actually my first experience with the movie, as I had no idea what they were making fun of at the time. But it piqued my curiosity over what this dopey movie must be where they just keep going down to Yonge Street to wander around Sam the Record Man. And when I finally came upon the real thing, laying in bed with the flu, not going anywhere as it came on the television three times over the course of 24 hours, I watched it every time with a mixture of nausea, fever and confusion as to why this was even a movie. But each time starting to understand it a little better, and as a result, began to understand all sorts of other similar movies as a result.


Hooray for the flu!
I saw Goin' Down the Road (during my long July 4th weekend...real patriotic of me, huh) last week and really liked it. It's plays out like a really good Italian Neorealist movie. I enjoyed it as a story about the pains of being a fish out of water and that the big city takes a lot more from you than it gives you. Doug McGrath is so good as Peter, especially when you get the impression of how out of place he feels, how unhappy he is and that he believes moving to Toronto was a huge mistake. Man, those failed chances to connect like the scene where he chats up the customer at the record store or the disappointing date with the French woman from his job hit hard. As for Joey, I didn't look down upon him, think he is lazy, etc. for stopping to look for work. Living there had clearly sucked the life out of him too much. Oh, and that Bruce Cockburn soundtrack, especially "Another Victim of the Rainbow," is amazing. As a non-citizen, the impression that I get is that there's Toronto and then there's the rest of Canada and you're pretty much in or out. Not much in-between.

There's a Portuguese movie called The Green Years I watched for the 25th Hall of Fame that is similar and that you may like for how it explores the bourgeois life of Lisbon versus the working class life in the rest of the country.