Damn good read, excluding that Burton part of course. lol. I mean who was Depp until Burton brought him into existence. Also Depp's real mistakes in the recent years (Rum Diary, Mortdecai, Transcendence and On Stranger's Tides) had nothing to do with Burton.£
Most anticipated movies of 2015
Considering you're a Rooney stan I am baffled you don't have Carol listed (not to mention it is one of the most acclaimed films of the year thus far).
I'm sure he only forgot to add it, since he's also a big Blanchett fan, unless he has already seen it or something.£Allstar wrote:Considering you're a Rooney stan I am baffled you don't have Carol listed (not to mention it is one of the most acclaimed films of the year thus far).
I'm feeling weirdly phobic of what I call Middle Brow movies, and Carol seems to epitomize all of that. In retrospect I "should" have, but I'm sincerely just not interested in it.Allstar wrote:Considering you're a Rooney stan I am baffled you don't have Carol listed (not to mention it is one of the most acclaimed films of the year thus far).
-Vader
Hmm, would you name a few other titles that you consider to fall into that category?£Vader182 wrote:I'm feeling weirdly phobic of what I call Middle Brow movies, and Carol seems to epitomize all of that. In retrospect I "should" have, but I'm sincerely just not interested in it.Allstar wrote:Considering you're a Rooney stan I am baffled you don't have Carol listed (not to mention it is one of the most acclaimed films of the year thus far).
-Vader
The Imitation Game, The King's Speech, The Descendants, Nebraska, etc. They're movies that are as empty and meaningless as your run of the mill blockbuster and every bit as enslaved to hitting the checkbox marks of what it 'has to be'. They're often fine movies insofar as they have a lot of good parts, like direction, acting, etc, a 'nice' message. But they're inoffensive, polite, and ultimately end up having nothing much to say about anything at all. It's surface level entertainment for non-idiots, basically. Every trailer I've seen for Carol makes it seem like that type of movie.
Honestly, the film's lesbianism and that two buzzy stars are playing lesbians who fuck seems to be the driving force behind the movie's interest. It's kind of an empty novelty.
This stems from my fetish that mirrors I believe Bazin's—that great art is high brow or low brow, never in the middle. And, typically, my favorite films, plays, and books are a synthesis of both. It's high and low art coexisting happily, without any signs of one diluting the other. Pulp + Art, in other words. Obvious more recent examples would be Nolan, Finch, Villeneuve, Miller per Mad Max, Spielberg, Miyazaki and plenty others. Populist and often genre art is my favorite kind.
There's also the problem centering on the idea that all 'great' art is cohesive, that not only do all the parts fit, but they compliment one another. So the score is actually made better by the sound design, and how cues work with the editing, and how the editing is based around the exact facial ticks of performances to dial in an emotional moment, and when a movie's really flying high all of those are kind of an orchestra making each single sound better. Anyway, the idea is that these middle brow movies are more than anything ignorant of their own absence of any real substance, or a lack of doing anything interesting aesthetically or otherwise. So that's two huge knocks against them, their lack of cohesion along with the actual lack of substance itself.
Anyway that's more of an answer to questions you didn't ask but you seemed intrigued so I thought I'd explain the thought process.
-Vader
Honestly, the film's lesbianism and that two buzzy stars are playing lesbians who fuck seems to be the driving force behind the movie's interest. It's kind of an empty novelty.
This stems from my fetish that mirrors I believe Bazin's—that great art is high brow or low brow, never in the middle. And, typically, my favorite films, plays, and books are a synthesis of both. It's high and low art coexisting happily, without any signs of one diluting the other. Pulp + Art, in other words. Obvious more recent examples would be Nolan, Finch, Villeneuve, Miller per Mad Max, Spielberg, Miyazaki and plenty others. Populist and often genre art is my favorite kind.
There's also the problem centering on the idea that all 'great' art is cohesive, that not only do all the parts fit, but they compliment one another. So the score is actually made better by the sound design, and how cues work with the editing, and how the editing is based around the exact facial ticks of performances to dial in an emotional moment, and when a movie's really flying high all of those are kind of an orchestra making each single sound better. Anyway, the idea is that these middle brow movies are more than anything ignorant of their own absence of any real substance, or a lack of doing anything interesting aesthetically or otherwise. So that's two huge knocks against them, their lack of cohesion along with the actual lack of substance itself.
Anyway that's more of an answer to questions you didn't ask but you seemed intrigued so I thought I'd explain the thought process.
-Vader
I can understand your POV and taste but what puts movies like Room or Suffragette ahead of Carol?
Room seems honest. Maybe not good, or great, but I feel a sincerity there I don't with Carol—that could be projecting Short Term 12 vibes from Larson onto Room, but it's just an impression. Again, these are loose impressions made off little information. Suffragette over Carol honestly is just because I'm currently more fanboying Mulligan than Mara. Plus, it's an 'actually important' things to see get told, despite the bad buzz.Allstar wrote:I can understand your POV and taste but what puts movies like Room or Suffragette ahead of Carol?
-Vader
Posts: 55632
Joined:
May 2010
No matter how you spin it Vader it all comes down to little (personal) details that can't be precisely measured: movies are movies, and even when they are certain types it's possible to be excited over one and completely neutral about the other.
Although I do get what you mean by 'high brow', even when I actually quite like few of those you mentioned.
Although I do get what you mean by 'high brow', even when I actually quite like few of those you mentioned.
By the Sea is Jolie's third feature.Vader182 wrote:The Metaplex's 25 Must See Movies of Fall and Winter 2015:
http://themetaplex.com/top-ten-lists/20 ... inter-2015
Normally I'd post the list and stuff but I'm in a huge rush.
-Vader
