Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10
Paul Thomas Anderson / Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
« Last post by Bleep on May 14, 2018, 11:55:59 AM »
"staring contest . . . you will lose."

Two sides of her character:

1. Aggressive one-upsmanship.
2. A compliment (he is attractive to her, easy on the eyes).
3. A meta-moment: PT will outlast us. (EWS: "You haven't changed a bit." "Thanks . . . I think.")
The Small Screen / Patrick Melrose (Showtime)
« Last post by wilberfan on May 11, 2018, 05:33:39 PM »

Based on the Patrick Melrose Novels by Edward St. Aubyn.
Starring: Benedict Cumberbatch, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Sebastian Maltz

This five-part limited series tracks Patrick Melrose (Benedict Cumberbatch) from a privileged but deeply traumatic childhood in the South of France, through severe substance abuse in his twenties in New York and, ultimately, toward recovery back home in Britain.

Begins Saturday, May 12, 2018
The Vault / Re: The Tree of Life
« Last post by Drenk on May 11, 2018, 04:42:01 PM »
Amen. That news transformed me into a basket full of happy puppies. I'm excited. That longer cut has been a dream...
The Vault / Re: The Tree of Life
« Last post by Ravi on May 11, 2018, 04:16:54 PM »

Terrence Malick’s ‘Tree of Life’ Gets Longer Criterion Version
By Peter Debruge

Terrence Malick has secretly been working on an extended version of “The Tree of Life,” which will be included by the Criterion Collection as a supplement to an enhanced special-edition Blu-ray and DVD release later this year.

The film, which won the Palme d’Or at the 2011 Cannes Film Festival, has grown 50 minutes of new branches — although roots might be a better metaphor, since the additional material focuses primarily on the lives of the O’Brien family (characters played by Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain) and the backstory of Jack (Sean Penn), whose search for meaning in the wake of his brother’s death drives a transcendental quest unlike any previously depicted on film.

“Terry doesn’t see this as a director’s cut,” says Criterion president Peter Becker, who insists that the 139-minute theatrical version is the official “director’s cut” and remains the centerpiece of the Blu-Ray edition. “It’s a fresh view of the film that has a different rhythm and a different balance.

“There’s a kind of cloud of myth that surrounds ‘The Tree of Life,’ that somewhere there’s a long-lost five-hour cut that was never released. That’s not the case,” Becker says. “The film that he presented in Cannes is the film that he wanted to make.”

And yet, there could be no ignoring that the film continued to engage Malick even after its release: “These films are very much living things for Terry,” Becker says. The director — whose last feature, “Song to Song,” takes places in the Austin music scene — identifies strongly with the way musicians create, embracing the organic way their work is allowed to evolve over time. “A song has a life after it’s recorded — it is a beginning, not an end for musicians. Nobody expects Bob Dylan to go out on the stage and play the song the same way every night.”

Conversations between Becker and Fox Searchlight, which distributed the film theatrically, began as far back as Cannes 2011 about doing a special Criterion home-video release. When it became clear that Malick was interested in revisiting the movie, Criterion took the unprecedented step of financing an alternate version, overseen by Criterion producer Kim Hendrickson.

That meant tracking down palettes of original negatives in order to pull the scenes Malick wanted, scanning everything in 4K, grading the footage with cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki to match the original film, and creating a full sound mix for the additional material. Malick himself dedicated the better part of a year to the project.

Alternate versions are nothing new for Malick or the Criterion Collection (which has released four of the director’s films, including a special edition of 2005’s “The New World” that includes three “variant versions”). But Becker insists, “We have never undertaken anything this extensive or this challenging, or anything that has taken this long to achieve or required so much effort on the part of pretty much every post-production craft. The only thing we didn’t do is go shoot new material,” says Becker.
As cinephiles’ imaginations race, it’s important to note: The expanded 179-minute cut doesn’t contain more effects shots, and the epic creation sequence remains untouched. But it restores material that Malick was exploring for the version that was shown in Cannes, including specific events and characters that were referenced only elliptically in the original film. Audiences will get specific insights into Mr. O’Brien’s painful upbringing, meet members of Mrs. O’Brien’s extended family, and witness a major natural catastrophe that serves as a kind of centerpiece for what Becker has been calling “the new version.”

At this stage, no theatrical release is planned. Criterion holds only home-video rights, “but Fox has been very supportive,” Becker says, “and we’ll see what the audiences demand.”
The Art Gallery / Re: The Old Souls Revival
« Last post by Neil on May 11, 2018, 10:40:35 AM »
New-ish song that I wrote. Got asked to do a little vid for it, and here it is.

Paul Thomas Anderson / Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
« Last post by eward on May 10, 2018, 05:23:40 PM »
"Someone's so and so meets someone else's so and so and so on..."
Paul Thomas Anderson / Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
« Last post by Jeremy Blackman on May 10, 2018, 05:12:42 PM »
Personally that reminded me of the lyrics in Jon Brion's "Here We Go"...

Because someone can say, "Hello
You old so and so, here we go"

"So and so" is used in other PTA movies too. Does anyone remember?
Paul Thomas Anderson / Re: Phantom Thread - SPOILERS!
« Last post by Bleep on May 10, 2018, 03:34:11 PM »
In the charming I Met Him in Paris (1937), Claudette Colbert delivers the line, "You old so and so"  -- while in the mountains of Switzerland.

This Year In Film / Re: You Were Never Really Here
« Last post by Something Spanish on May 10, 2018, 03:29:50 PM »
This was very good; the images and mood lingering in my thoughts almost 24 hours later. I'm not fully convinced it's the masterpiece I'd like it to be, but have not ruled that thought out at all. Feels like the structure was toyed with excessively in post, the conventional material deliberately chucked in favor of creating something new, a moody spin on the vigilante genre. The entire film put me in a trance, the many tracking shots with no actors on screen adding to that effect. The running time, about 80 minutes without credits, is perfect, any longer and Ramsay's camera techniques would border on pretentious. There are a few weird scenes that I can't say I'd seen in a movie before, such as a moment Joe has with a baddie he just shot, that help the movie stand out, if the visual narrative doesn't stand out enough for you. Overall what was really good is the mood sustained by Ramsay, I think she really found the movie in editing. I loved it while watching it and love it now while reflecting on it. Phoenix is a big reason why, he's interesting in every frame and carries the movie without much effort, remaining naturally sympathetic. You really get a sense of who Joe is with nary an expositional word of dialogue uttered. It's just an inventive, melancholic piece of arthouse grind, made by one of the more visual directors working in the medium.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10
DMCA & Copyright | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy