Cilogy wrote:

mchekhov 2: Chek Harder wrote:Everyone has their favourite PTA, but preferences aside I feel this is his strongest film.

I'd award that title to The Master, but this is close.

What makes you say that?

Because drugs.

Cilogy wrote:

mchekhov 2: Chek Harder wrote:Everyone has their favourite PTA, but preferences aside I feel this is his strongest film.

I'd award that title to The Master, but this is close.

What makes you say that?

i feel it's his most "complete" film, in that every single element at his disposal is helping move the story forward.

comparing that to his other films, which are obviously pleasing aesthetically but are perhaps that way for their own sake rather than servicing the film (the 70mm in the master, for example)

@n4l i've yet to get baked in 2015 and i'm tryna keep it that way. shit slows ya down

m4st4 wrote:

slimshady247 wrote:Damn, the reactions elsewhere on the interwebs are very mixed.

Which means... what exactly?

Just what it says, basically. The user RT, for example, is 59%, which I found mildly amusing. I just think it's interesting how people are reacting so differently to it. It's not a knock against it or anything. I liked it from what I saw in the screener, but I think I need to see it in theaters with sound that isn't complete shit to get a better idea anyways.

mchekhov 2: Chek Harder wrote:

Cilogy wrote:

mchekhov 2: Chek Harder wrote:Everyone has their favourite PTA, but preferences aside I feel this is his strongest film.

I'd award that title to The Master, but this is close.

What makes you say that?

i feel it's his most "complete" film, in that every single element at his disposal is helping move the story forward.

comparing that to his other films, which are obviously pleasing aesthetically but are perhaps that way for their own sake rather than servicing the film (the 70mm in the master, for example)

Does that make it more "complete", though? As a story perhaps, but as a film?

mchekhov 2: Chek Harder wrote:

Cilogy wrote:

mchekhov 2: Chek Harder wrote:Everyone has their favourite PTA, but preferences aside I feel this is his strongest film.

I'd award that title to The Master, but this is close.

What makes you say that?

i feel it's his most "complete" film, in that every single element at his disposal is helping move the story forward.

comparing that to his other films, which are obviously pleasing aesthetically but are perhaps that way for their own sake rather than servicing the film (the 70mm in the master, for example)

@n4l i've yet to get baked in 2015 and i'm tryna keep it that way. shit slows ya down

I don't know if films need to use everything at their disposal to be more complete. Hell, I don't even think they need to seem "complete".

What I really enjoyed about The Master was that it seemed to focus more on lingering in the moment. It never felt like there was any obligation to move the plot along, it just seemed to move along effortlessly without any urgency.

I have a feeling the driving force behind this film was the source material, which seems like it was pretty dense to begin with. As a result, the film is very much "about" its plot ... if that makes any sense. I don't count that as a mark against it, it's just the way it's structured.

idk, I haven't read the novel

Cilogy wrote: I don't know if films need to use everything at their disposal to be more complete. Hell, I don't even think they need to seem "complete".

well yeah you can do whatever you want, but [going on the assumption that] your goal as a filmmaker is to immerse your audience in the story as much as possible, you have to make a conscious decision to use every element (costumes, performances, locations, sound mixing, everything) to help you do that. this is necessary because not making those choices is a choice in itself, since all of those elements will be onscreen whether you like it or not. i just feel PTA did this more than he has with his previous films.

but i agree that different films have different goals, for example performances and editing are a much higher priority for comedies since those two elements will most determine whether or not the film is funny. but for PTA i would imagine he went in with a very specific vision, and to execute that you sorta have to be aware of everything

Crazy Eight wrote: Does that make it more "complete", though? As a story perhaps, but as a film?

sort of the same thing no?

mchekhov 2: Chek Harder wrote:sort of the same thing no?

Not necessarily. As you said, different films have different goals. That isn't limited to genre. If PTA's goal is expound an idea or elicit an emotion, and the story is just a part of trying to do that, then each scene doesn't necessarily need to drive the story forward. It's kind of a pseudo avant-garde way of looking at it, but yeah.

"The whole movie is kinda boring really it's just people talking in rooms." - PTA

mchekhov 2: Chek Harder wrote:"The whole movie is kinda boring really it's just people talking in rooms." - PTA

Out of context dou.

This might be my second favorite PTA after There Will Be Blood.