Going from the driest blockbuster of all time to a movie so moist with desire that a single one of its scenes could probably feed the people of Sietch Tabr for two years, Zendaya delivers a supernova-confirming performance that sees through the flinty scrim of the “Dune” star’s usual persona by thinning her armor until you can feel the hunger and frustration holding it all together. The intransigent Zoomer modernity of Zendaya’s screen image — a face that, because of “Euphoria,” will probably always seem to me as if it’s “seen an iPhone” — is the perfect foil for a role so rooted in pre-Code comedies like “Design for Living,” and she harnesses that disconnect in a way that allows Tashi to have this entire movie by the balls without ever foot-faulting into invulnerability.
I can’t see the rest of the tweet, don’t really know the context of it, and I gave up caring at this exact phrasing.
Just watched Poor Things. It was pretty compelling. Like a cross between The Island of Dr. Moreau and your typical bizarre Wes Anderson film. It was odd and quirky and funny and clever and pornographic. Liked it more than I didn't. Started watching Zone of Interest and after 5 full minutes of the title screen quietly fading to black before realizing that TV was indeed working and eventually seeing a picture, then seeing 15 minutes of the mundane and recognizing that this heavy handed crap was not going to work for me. I was fully aware of what they were doing and decided I did not need another 1 1/2 hours of that after remembering that I mostly hate holocaust films, so I bailed. Someone let me know how it was, thanks ...
We clearly think very much alike. Loved Poor Things - got the blu ray last week, so I look forward to watching it & seeing if it gets in my top 3 for last year. Such a fun movie. And you made a great call with Zone - it's exactly the same for the next 90 minutes. I know some others here disagree, but I hated it - I was hoping to be shocked, challenged, horrified... anything at all. Instead I was just bored out of my brain.
ZOI was a very good movie seen in a theater setting. Of course your mind is going to get bored at home.
Disagree to an extent. When I watch a film, I fully engage and have a theatrical set up at home. Seeing that in a theater would have just pissed me off in addition to boring me out of my mind. I go to the movies to experience more than I can at home, like with Top Gun Maverick and MI6 ...
totally get what you mean. normally, the best movies or ones to see at a theater are like the ones you mention. while def not for everyone bc of tone and subject matter - it's hard to explain ZOI, unless you've seen it at the theater. the use of sound in the foreground and background (+ silence at times) is unlike anything i've experienced before. i know many dgaf about the oscars, but beating out oppenheimer for best sound was validation of its quality after I thought oppenheimer was clearly best sound after seeing it 2x. both were great on that front, in different ways
saw civil war in imax the other day. some great set pieces that looked great on the big screen, but not sure there is much else to it. almost felt like a zombie apocalypse movie
I appreciate what you are saying about the sound. My home set up was professionally done and cost me a bunch when I remodeled my home 4 years ago. It's good. I recall the bombastic sound followed by a slow fade to black with accompanying silence for 4 1/2 minutes before the faint sound of birds chirping and then the well lit sunny lake scene with ordinary background sounds. Then the mundane home scenes with children playing and the squeak of the wooden cart as it approaches the house. I was aware of all of it and was getting pissed at the pandering of the filmmaker as he tried to paint a picture of hum drum normalcy to counter the presumed horror that played out next door. I knew what he was doing and I said fuck you by turning it off ...
likes to put things in neat little boxes never said I liked Top Gun Maverick, I said it was better to see action films in a theatrical setting. reading comp is not your friend, but then I saw you were an FSU fan, so it made sense how wonderfully condescending ...
I'm fine with someone not liking an experimental movie but being condescending and saying it bored you out of your mind while also praising top gun maverick is just too cliche to make up
Again, not what I said, but interpret what you like. I don't generally like holocaust films, except for Europa Europa and a couple of others. I am not being condescending. I saw where it was going and knew it was not for me. If you liked it great. All I can say is I didn't like the 1st 20 minutes ...
If you want to take shots at my taste in films, here's some ammo of stuff that I am actually saying: My favorite films are The Red Violin and American History X Thought Oppenheimer was the best film I've seen in years, it's a near perfect film. Lock Stock and 2 Smoking Barrels had the best ending of any movie I've ever seen Big Guy Ritchie fan, love his use of music, slow mo action, humor and overlapping plot lines. They are rollicking good fun ...
In Poor Things, the dancing scene cracked me up. Ruffalo was great. I am not a big Wes Anderson fan, but this film seemed similar to his best stuff ...
Seeing civil war this week. And challengers the next. excited for civil war. The discourse online seems like an eye roll but I’m seeing it in Dolby
hating the "pandering" of the zone of interest and loving american history x is utter perfection so perfect it almost has to be a bit thank you
If you want to take shots, take them at what I actually say and not what you thought I said. What don't you understand?
you said you went to the theater to enjoy top gun maverick you also said zone "bored you out of your mind" what have I said that you literally didnt say
All of that. I said I went to a theater to experience action films like top gun and Mission impossible six I also said that if I had gone to a movie theater to watch zone of interest, I would have been bored out of my mind, implying that if I had watched more than just 20 minutes that I would have indeed been bored out of my mind. you were close, but not correct ...
Your condescension is on point, bro, haha. I missed where the title of the thread included "serious film critics only" Carry on ...
the thread title has "discussion" in it if you wanna come in here and say something stupid, people can discuss how stupid it is
If you like movies about photo journalism, you are in for a treat. i've enjoyed the conversation around Civil War, what the film is trying (or not trying) to do, and how successful it is at doing that. opinions all over the map.
There was no discussion, it was booing and calling people casuals. Both movies drug quite a bit for me. KotFM had great cinematography. Huller’s performance was great while Gladstone’s has been overrated esp by people who think she should have beaten Stone for the Oscar.