Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
This Year In Film / Re: ROMA
« Last post by samsong on Today at 06:29:30 PM »
i've been immune to the supposed pleasure of cuaron's "look what i can do" technical chicanery, and this is his most thankless slog yet.  bored out of my mind for most of it until cuaron's penchant for sentimentality and, by my estimation, wrongheaded feminism led to eye roll city.  color me confused about why this one is so beloved.
This Year In Film / Re: the house that jack built
« Last post by eward on Today at 05:37:42 PM »
Fuck the MPAA. Seeing the R-Rated cut Thursday night, will let y’all know what the differences are.
This Year In Film / Re: the house that jack built
« Last post by Ravi on Today at 02:36:27 PM »

‘House That Jack Built’ Director’s Cut Release Pushed to 2019 Because IFC Dared to Defy the MPAA
Posted on Sunday, December 9th, 2018 by Chris Evangelista

Oh, IFC Films. Now you’ve gone and done it. After failing to get the appropriate waiver to screen the unrated The House That Jack Built director’s cut last week, IFC Films is now pushing the official release date back a few months. The House That Jack Built director’s cut release was originally set for next week, but this MPAA kerfuffle has bumped Lars von Trier‘s controversial serial killer flick into June of 2019.

A quick recap: last week, IFC Films made headlines by screening the unrated director’s cut of Lars von Trier’s The House That Jack Built in select theaters for one night only. IFC then planned to release the director’s cut, along with an R-rated cut, On-Demand next week, December 14. The R-rated cut would also play in select theaters. Here’s the problem: the MPAA doesn’t take kindly to screening an unrated cut of a movie so close to an R-rated cut. IFC could have done this smoothly had they acquired an appropriate waiver from the MPAA. But they didn’t. And the MPAA wasn’t happy.

The MPAA threatened sanctions against IFC if they went ahead with their planned release, leading to IFC to change course. Now, The House That Jack Built director’s cut won’t arrive until June 2019. That date is tentative, so it might change. But if you managed to catch the director’s cut in theaters last week, you’re among a privileged few to witness it long before most people will have the chance.

The R-rated cut release will continue as planned, arriving in select theaters and On-Demand December 14, 2018. For what it’s worth, I’ve heard from credible sources that the unrated cut and R-rated cut are almost identical. Indeed, the different in runtime between the two is only about four minutes. Sure, a lot could happen in four minutes, but nothing too detrimental. In other words, the version you’ll be able to watch next week won’t be much different than the version that arrives in June of 2019.

In The House That Jack Built, director Lars von Trier follows Jack (Matt Dillon), a “failed architect and vicious sociopath” through five acts as he “recounts his elaborately orchestrated murders — each, as he views them, a towering work of art that defines his life’s work as a serial killer in the Pacific Northwest.” Also starring Bruno Ganz, Uma Thurman, Siobhan Fallon Hogan, Sofie Gråbøl, Riley Keough, and Jeremy Davies, the film premiered at Cannes, where it was met with a negative reaction (although since then, many have praised the film).
This Year In Film / Re: The Favourite
« Last post by WorldForgot on Today at 01:33:56 PM »
Had to see this twice just to make sure I remembered its insults correctly enough to hurl them at my enemies.

A great, twisted romance. I was alone in a theater with some women who, I think, must have assumed I was laughing ironically, but I really, really think this is an effective indictment of "control systems" (self-imposed and within our Cuntry) as feedback loops -- a facade of "individual" always reveals our id as puppet master, or longing -- a long-con amidst the people, regardless of why the troops are not called home, and our manipulation of childish cult of personality.

Yorgos and his production team have a great sense for the modern ey (fish-eye envelops us in the period and overlap-editing translates tonal jumps that haven't reached the scene yet) imposing that era into our quick-cut, GoPro/IG grammar, without losing its lippy bite.
News and Theory / Re: Horror
« Last post by WorldForgot on Today at 01:04:17 PM »

really i think the world is fucked if that's a hard movie to like. i admit that i didn't finish the last 25mins, but that was related to practical difficulties, and there was no way the movie could have soured itself.

Idk, a lot of the people who I know don't like it are coming from a sort of altruistic-cinema-gramma stand point. I.e., a movie should not be "vague" if it's going to make "political commentary" etc, that's their feeling on it. I think the world IS fucked up, but that movie was just a bit too much Amirpour vibe than thought, and that irks a certain sort of moviegoer. I like that she thinks movies are feeling, I agree with her. But also there are people who shush'd my laughter at The Favourite, so idk, you know. The Bad Batch is definitely not aiming at any sort of appeal.
This Year In Film / Re: The Favourite
« Last post by putneyswipe on Today at 11:32:29 AM »
Accidentally deleted my earlier post, but to repeat...  Lanthimos took a huge visual step forward with Sacred Deer (my favorite film last year) and now with this is cementing himself as a master. As a huge fan of Bunuel, I feel like some of his sensibilities have been reincarnated. Though there's nothing here as immediately affecting and disturbing as Keoghan's character in Sacred Deer or as comic and inventive as The Lobster, it's a legitimately crowd-pleasing, almost mainstream movie that retains the signature Lanthimos edge. The way the perfectly-crafted super formally precise costume drama setting contrasts with the ridiculous behavior of the characters reminded me a lot of Phantom Thread. Introduced me to an awesome Elton John deep cut over the end credits, as well.
The Grapevine / Re: Under the Silver Lake
« Last post by Drenk on Today at 05:52:52 AM »
You may have find it less boring than IV, but it's way less substantial. (I don't think it tries to feel like an Altman movie, especially The Long Goodbye, as similar as they may be regarding the themes.) It spends it time quoting movies and winking. It may seem that it aims at the same thing as IV and that kind of story (The Big Sleep, The Long Goodbye, The Big Lebowski), but that's it: it looks that way. That younger geberation really has nothing to show except that they like some movies.

Ultimately, I'd compare this movie to Ready Player One: this one is way more self aware than the Spielberg, but it also treats a perverse relation with pop culture.
This Year In Film / Re: Cam
« Last post by wilder on Today at 04:37:23 AM »
Peter Labuza interviews Daniel Goldhaber on The Cinephiliacs podcast

The technical aspects he talks about beginning at 1:09:40 are nuts

Also, pete's friend Katelin Arizmendi shot this movie
The Grapevine / Re: Under the Silver Lake
« Last post by The Ultimate Badass on Yesterday at 10:14:13 PM »
This wasn't bad at all, despite the Rotten Tomato rating. I definitely see The Inherent Vice comparisons, but I have to say this one felt a whole lot more fresh and compelling to me than PTA's boring dud. To me, this one played a lot more like a poor man's David Lynch whereas IV felt a lot more like a poor man's Altman. Under The Silver Lake is not a masterpiece, and it never really coalesces into anything substantial, but I thoroughly enjoyed the journey it took me on. I really liked the movie's rando-dreaminess and its portrayal of certain LA mythos.
2017 In Film / Re: The Snowman
« Last post by polkablues on Yesterday at 05:43:27 PM »
Well now I have to watch it.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
DMCA & Copyright | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy