Wall-E was alright, but sitting there for an hour+ with no dialogue sucked.

Yeah, no.

I liked Wall-E. I wouldn't call it poetic brilliance, but I wouldn't call it boring either. As far as animation goes, the first half was amazing. The story overall was wonderful.

No it is just your opinion. Skulking around the lounge for a couple of nights and berating peoples opinions is hardly endearing for a new poster.

This is not what I would call a constructive post either.

http://www.takehollywood.com/core/me...graphy_152.jpg

Meehh, i watched it because i heard it was similar to High Fidelity, but the love stories and the music was nowhere near as endearing, and it was more of a cheese-fest.

http://www.iwatchstuff.com/2007/10/2...ood-poster.jpg

Finally got round to this, i've only seen a few films with Daniel Day Lewis in but every one of the characters he plays i like. Some really great imagery and some powerful moments.

:( Sowwy


I don't think I'd call your post on the matter constructive either. Have you got something against silent films? If you don't even have the patience to sit through 45 minutes of an animated film with no dialogue how do you sit through Chaplin or Eisenstein? Do their films suck because there's no words?

no but dont go to the movies to see "visual poetry" i go to see a good movie..and i just didnt get that from wall-e

I was pertaining to your one sentence post and not discussing silent films. I was just doing my job!

However I personally love the work of Murnau and Eisenstien's montage editing was revolutionary but not all film fans are into silent films.

exactly

http://www.popmatters.com/images/fil...rol-poster.jpg
Control - 9/10

Hal Hartley's Trust
http://pixhost.eu/avaxhome/avaxhome/...6/iz_108_1.jpg

Really good, pretty brutal. 9/10

The Unbelieveable Truth and Henry Fool are great little oddities from Hal Hartley.

Doomsday - A flaming turd of a movie.

This was going to be 'THE' movie for genre specific fans-post apocalyptic set up, 80's movie nods, British director and genuine movie fan too. Alas I have heard that it sucks which is a major dissapointment to me. Having grown up with films such as 'Death Race 2000', 'Escape From New York', 'Mad Max', 'The New Barbarians' and '2019 The Fall Of New York' I was hoping for a well crafted slice of exploitation :(. I will give it a watch when it hits shiny disc (next month) just to sate my curiosity.

^

It could have been good, but the plot just made no sense at all... it almost seemed like they were trying to make it into a satire film. There are a few good scenes worth seeing, but don't expect to be blown away.
There's a gimp, at least.

Marshall's two previous films-'Dog Soldiers' and 'The Descent' were so good too.

I was getting you confused with oojay. My post about silent films was actually directed at his comment

"yeah but sitting there for a 1+ hours with no dialogue kinda sucked."

You're right, the first half of Wall E was incredibly great, the second half sucked. The fact that you've got that flip flopped is why you didn't think Wall E was a "good movie."

you're a film fan...:rofl:

The last film I watched was Andrei Rublev (1966)


Andrei Rublev marked the full emergence of Tarkovsky's style, only briefly visible in his previous film Ivan's Childhood. Throughout his career, Tarkovsky concerned himself with man's quest for spiritual growth. Andrei Rublev chronicles the life of the titular iconographer as he wanders across the desolate landscape of medievil Russia. To call the film a biopic would not do it justice however--it isn't a biopic at all. In fact Rublev serves as a periphery and even absent character throughout much of the film. Although we bear witness to the ups-and-downs of Rublev's life, we never connect or identify with him. The film's focus lies more in identifying the viewer with Rublev's struggle to find inspiration amidst the turmoil of medievil Russia.

Andrei Rublev opens with an thematically related prologue, though unrelated plotwise to the remainder of the film. Yefim, a peasant searching for a means to physically release himself from the confines of the barren Russian landscape, takes flight in a patchy air balloon. His bliss at being airborne is quickly transformed into panic however, as his vehicle hurls towards the ground. Yefim and his aspirations are crushed by the austere terrain. This breif segment introduces a central theme; the artist's struggle again those forces, both natural and human, that seek to inhibit artistic freedom. As the following vignettes introduce us to Andrei Rublev and the major events shaping his life, this theme becomes more defined. As an artist, Rublev must draw inspiration from the most feral circumstances.

Throughout the film we are introduced to many characters representing the hopeful, the creative, and the visionary. Yefim's hopes are crushed by the ground, the Jester's and Marfa's by a group of brutal soldiers. Not until the final vignette do we see the triumph of the artistic spirit over the tyrannic and brutish. The Grand Prince commissions the casting of a bell, but the town's bellmaker has died. The bellmaker's son, Boriska--our final creative character, insists that his father has passed to him the secrets of bellmaking . Boriska begins the arduous task of casting the bell, relishing in his control over the workers but laboring to cast the bell correctly against the punishment of death. Rublev witnesses the event from the peripherary and from a self-imposed vow of silence. The bell rings beautifully at the inauguration ceremony and Boriska collapses to the ground in tears. As Rublev embraces him, Boriska reveals that his father did not pass down the secrets of bellmaking. Boriska's unwavering faith in his own skill was soley responsible for the bell. The beauty of this moment inspires Andrei to break his vow of silence and resume his art.

The final moments of the bell-casting sequence represent not only the triumph of Boriska over the Grand Prince but also the triumph of Rublev over all of the events and persons throughout the film that have led him to doubt himself and his abilities. His encounter with the pagans and tempation for the naked pagan woman, his slaying of a Tatar to save the life of a mute woman, and his abandonment by that woman led Andrei to give up painting. Boriska's supreme achievement restores Rublev's faith. Rublev's ability to overcome the adversity present in medievil Russia is evident by the survival of his greatest icons, which the camera glides over in the film's epilogue.

-lesamourai

Amazing, beautiful film. I watched that and Mirrors recently, which was also visually stunning.

Yes it is, I consider it my favorite Tarkovsky, just ahead of Stalker.

I really can't rank them, they're all so good. I now also really feel the need to read Solaris.

I've not read the book, but Stanislaw Lem was really disappointed with Tarks take on the story. Tarkovsky took the source material and made it his own as opposed to a direct adaptation. Soderberg's version is closer to the book (but obviously greatly inferior to Tarkovsky's version).

Why?

Why what? Why isn't Soderberg's version as good as Tarkovsky's? That's like asking why Rembrant is better than Norman Rockwell.

I'm gonna need a little more clarification on that.

Have you seen Tarkovsky's Solyaris? He was a master of cinematic form. Beautiful long takes, some of the most beautiful imagery ever committed to film. Tarkovsky was an out-and-out genius of the medium, Soderberg is a Hollywood director who forfeits artistic intergrity to appeal to a mass audience. Tarkovsky took the source material and made it something of his own, ruminations on faith and self-discovery, Soderberg did a by-the-numbers book adaptation to film. Tark's version runs nearly three hours because nothing is rushed, he is taking the time to explore Kris' world and the environment of the space station. Soderberg's version runs a short, sweet 99 minutes (so as not to offput anyone). Frankly your question is ridiculous, Tarkovsky is one of the greatest film directors of all time, Soderberg is the guy who gave us Oceans 11.

I don't think my question was ridiculous, I merely asked you to try and elaborate why Tarkovsky's version is "obviously" better, and as I suspected, it appears that it's mostly because Tarkovsky has a better reputation. :|

Tarkovsky has the better reputation because he's the better director. Soderberg's version doesn't even compare. Have you seen both?

I don't doubt that he's a better director, I just don't believe in liking a film just because it's a cult film from a cult director. And yes, I've seen both and I liked Soderberg's better for what it's worth.

Since when is Solyaris a cult film, and Tarkovsky a cult director?

last movie ive seen was step brothers in theater,

it was funny

Well he wasn't exactly a part of the mainstream scene.

He's the most successful and widely known Russian director since Eisenstein. He was about as famous as Soviet directors could get, and Solyaris was one of the most widely released Russian films of all time. Calling him a "cult" director comparable to Cronenberg or Ed Wood is an insult.

yes...but we dont live in russia now do we?

Sorry, I meant cult in the sense that it's praised by a small (usually highly pretentious) group of people. But ok, it may not have been an apt word in this case.

Mindblowing post there. Clearly you're an intelligent dude.

I think he's almost universally praised by film buffs. He's certainly acknowledged as one of the greatest film artists of all time by most film scholars and theorists. Tarkovsky invented a new cinematic languagae. His "sculpting in time" theory was revolutionary and has been modified (and/or copied) by dozens of directors, including some of the greatest directors currently working like Bela Tarr, Aleksandr Sokurov, Andrei Zvyagintsev, and even Paul Thomas Anderson to an extent. Perhaps you're making the argument that the group of people with enough dedication to be film theorists/scholars is small, but within the group there is virtually no dissent. And from an objective standpoint there is no doubt that he is the most commericially successful Russian director since Eisenstein.

So you are saying that Cronenberg is a Cult director?

Cronenbergs early films were certainly "cult" films. Scanners and Videodrome are basically listed under "cult film" in the dictionary. With his last two films he has proven to be more accessible and appealing to a larger audience, but for the initial 20 years of his career he pretty clearly falls under the category of "cult director."

Hmm, he certainly is the most renowned Russian director but I'm not so sure that any of his films actually made any money, all being art films with a specific (and by no means numerous) target audience. I don't have any hard data to back this up, but I'm pretty sure Bekmambetov's vampire thrilogy and Bodrov's Mongol have made a substantial amount of money, far out of reach of an art house film.

He went mainstream in 1986 with The Fly and every film since has been financed (wholly or partially) by a major studio. His first few films were revered amongst the Horror fraternity. So while those films were cult, he is certainly not a cult director.

Tarkovsky is revered as you say by scholars and film aficionados alike but to mainstream fans he is very much an unknown quantity so it that sense his name suggests a cult following.