Reno
The In Kraut
Spares me going to see it now
Saved you some money there.
(he's just one of a gazillion villains who get dipatched BTW)
List the films you've seen at the cinema: 2012
- Thread starter MellySingsDoom
- Start date
Saved you some money there.
(he's just one of a gazillion villains who get dipatched BTW)
gaijingirl
Well-Known Member
Rock of Ages (you don't get a great deal of choice at baby cinema) - kind of like a soft rock Glee. Not brilliant but Tom Cruise was very good - to be fair to the bonkers lizard lover.
DJ Squelch
King Of Insides
I went to see the re-release of Jaws the other day, fantastic to see it on the big screen again. Saw it at the marina and afterwards I sat on Brighton beach watching the boats & people swimming in the sea.
Saw this the other day. Thought it was pretty good. And no, no problems with the Weegie English either...
dynamicbaddog
run for your life
Ill Manors
It's not perfect - like others have said it's relentlessly grim and a bit overlong. However I thought it had a good storyline and John Cooper Clarke putting in an appearance reciting ' Pity the Plight of Young Fellows'
It's not perfect - like others have said it's relentlessly grim and a bit overlong. However I thought it had a good storyline and John Cooper Clarke putting in an appearance reciting ' Pity the Plight of Young Fellows'
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Spares me going to see it now
Reno is right the quality of the action scenes alone make it worth seeing on big screen. And Im not really into martial arts films.
.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
Frankenstein - a recording (which is why it's going in here, rather than the theatre thread) of the NT production from last year.
Quite astoundingly astounding really, Johnny Lee Miller can't have ever acted better, the script and staging were superb, and, fuck me, what a story. The James Whale film is great fun, but its a travesty of the depth and intelligence of the book itself
Quite astoundingly astounding really, Johnny Lee Miller can't have ever acted better, the script and staging were superb, and, fuck me, what a story. The James Whale film is great fun, but its a travesty of the depth and intelligence of the book itself
dynamicbaddog
run for your life
Rock of Ages - really liked it, it's good fun. Loved all the soft rock 80s classics and Russell Brand was on form.
blossie33
trailer trash
Rock of Ages - really liked it, it's good fun. Loved all the soft rock 80s classics and Russell Brand was on form.
I have heard say he does a terrible Brummie accent - what did you think?
As a Brummie I'm interested to know
I can't stand the guy otherwise I'd go to hear for myself!
dynamicbaddog
run for your life
oh was that meant to be a Brummie accent?I have heard say he does a terrible Brummie accent - what did you think?
As a Brummie I'm interested to know
I can't stand the guy otherwise I'd go to hear for myself!
His singing and dancing were very good tho, he's a surprisingly good singer.
blossie33
trailer trash
oh was that meant to be a Brummie accent?
His singing and dancing were very good tho, he's a surprisingly good singer.
Yes, apparently.
One of my colleagues told me she heard he had done it as a tribute to Ozzy Osbourne but people were saying how dreadful it was!!
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Showing Theatre plays in cinemas is becoming popular in cinemas. What is it like compared to film version of play or seeing a play in the theatre? Do you get close ups? Or is it straight on camera as though ur in audience?
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
It's straightforwardly filmed, seem to be about four to six camera's in use I'd guess. So you get up close when you need to and pan about on other occasions. But that is how you really watch in the theatre anyway, concentratng on one person sometimes, the whole scene at others.
This worked really well - partly down to Boyle's film history I suppose. It was better than the filmed than theatre I've seen on TV. The fact that it was a recorded show made it slightly less intense - there was no worry that someone might fuck up, cos they wouldn't have chosen that one to show, would they? An actual live feed would be that bit more gripping I think. But they're even more expensive.
Smetimes the theatrics don't quite come off. The opening of this, for instance, is ten minutes of Frankenstein being born. It was an impressive bit of performance, but it didn't really work as cinema. If it had been happening actually right in front of me tho, I bet it would have been rivetting.
Definitely worth going to if it's a decent play I think.
This worked really well - partly down to Boyle's film history I suppose. It was better than the filmed than theatre I've seen on TV. The fact that it was a recorded show made it slightly less intense - there was no worry that someone might fuck up, cos they wouldn't have chosen that one to show, would they? An actual live feed would be that bit more gripping I think. But they're even more expensive.
Smetimes the theatrics don't quite come off. The opening of this, for instance, is ten minutes of Frankenstein being born. It was an impressive bit of performance, but it didn't really work as cinema. If it had been happening actually right in front of me tho, I bet it would have been rivetting.
Definitely worth going to if it's a decent play I think.
Reno
The In Kraut
Cosmopolis. Not one of Cronenberg's better ones, though I didn't mind the main section in the cruising limousine where loads of people already left the cinema. It was the last act and the endless confrontation with Paul Giamatti's character in full Giamatti mode, which nearly made me lose the will to live. It reminded me a little of Cronenberg's Crash which I rather like, it's just nowhere near as effective.
Just seen this... not a lot to add, but find your comments of the film more or less spot on. I have to say I was just very slightly put off by how this was kind of portrayed in reviews as some kind of comedy (while not being a fan of of films with a self righteouss tone) . In the event the balance between hard hitting political points and humour was just right. Really enjoyed it.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
I dont see plays that often so I notice the difference. Last time was when a friend was over from Canada and I got tickets to play at that Royal Court (upstairs) in Sloane sq. It is more intense to see real people act rather than on a cinema screen. So I see your point about theatrics.
I prefer cinema screen myself. Like the distance.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
I was going to try and see this but its not on many places now. Read interesting review in Evening Standard where reviewer said he was not impressed by it straight after he saw it. But several days later the effect of the film made him look at things in a different way. Im curious.
Crash was a disappointment. I had read Ballards book as I read sci fi. The book is, as Ballard said, pornographic. I was hoping that Cronenberg would do a more daring version of the book than he did . I thought it was tame compared to the book.
blossie33
trailer trash
Info for anyone interested, the East End Film Festival starts tomorrow 3rd July intil Sunday 8th July.
http://www.eastendfilmfestival.com
Have booked to see a couple. Would have liked to have seen Arena: Amy Winehouse in Limehouse but it was sold out.
http://www.eastendfilmfestival.com
Have booked to see a couple. Would have liked to have seen Arena: Amy Winehouse in Limehouse but it was sold out.
Reno
The In Kraut
Five days later and I'm still not impressed.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Oh well maybe I will catch it on DVD then.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Always looks good line up of films in this Festival.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
http://marinafilm.co.uk/?gclid=CIqPssq8iLECFUcKtAodcGrW9A
On at Renoir in London.
Doc on the "grandmother" of performance art. Grew up in Yugoslavia to hardline Communist parents. She says that her parents were totally involved in there political work. She had a austere upbringing as a member of the revolutionary elite. Shows in her work. She is highly disciplined and autocratic.Also a true believer in her work. Which only now, as she says, is getting taken seriously and not the work of a mad woman.
I had mixed feelings about her work. It is on the intense humourless end of performance. She went from 60s alternative peformance to being a rock star of the art world. As someone said she is the Andy Warhol of performance art. She has a loyal team behind her. She use her body as the centre of her art work.
As one person says in the film there is a difference between acting and performance art. In acting you use fake blood and fake knives. In performance art real blood and real knives. ( which she has done in the past.)
Her last work at MOMA was her sitting opposite one person. Sitting still and staring into there eyes. It works and is moving in a strange way. As someone says she makes everyday life slow down. It is simple idea and also profound. But it is by her rules. Those who attempted to subvert her artwork were hauled of by burly security guards at a hidden signal by her. There is a touch of Stalinism here. It is subversive art but its structured and not a free for all. There is no discussion here. I noticed at one point she is talking about her pyscho analyst. She likes her because she is strict.
On at Renoir in London.
Doc on the "grandmother" of performance art. Grew up in Yugoslavia to hardline Communist parents. She says that her parents were totally involved in there political work. She had a austere upbringing as a member of the revolutionary elite. Shows in her work. She is highly disciplined and autocratic.Also a true believer in her work. Which only now, as she says, is getting taken seriously and not the work of a mad woman.
I had mixed feelings about her work. It is on the intense humourless end of performance. She went from 60s alternative peformance to being a rock star of the art world. As someone said she is the Andy Warhol of performance art. She has a loyal team behind her. She use her body as the centre of her art work.
As one person says in the film there is a difference between acting and performance art. In acting you use fake blood and fake knives. In performance art real blood and real knives. ( which she has done in the past.)
Her last work at MOMA was her sitting opposite one person. Sitting still and staring into there eyes. It works and is moving in a strange way. As someone says she makes everyday life slow down. It is simple idea and also profound. But it is by her rules. Those who attempted to subvert her artwork were hauled of by burly security guards at a hidden signal by her. There is a touch of Stalinism here. It is subversive art but its structured and not a free for all. There is no discussion here. I noticed at one point she is talking about her pyscho analyst. She likes her because she is strict.
Reno
The In Kraut
In that piece of art Marina Abramovic makes herself tremendously vulnerable, both as an artist and as a human being. To imply that because she grew up in the former Yugoslavia she is like Stalin is rather unfortunate, especially as her work comes out of being the neglected child of parents who valued the state over their child. The whole idea of that piece of art was that she connects with people on quite a personal level and she has to trust strangers that they will collaborate rather than use her. The idea wasn't that this is a free for all where wannabe performance artists use her piece of art to piggy back on to promote themselves. Those who did struck me as profoundly insensitive. The guards just did what guards in any museum do when a visitor interferes with a piece of art, they asked them to move away and whatever force was used, was minimal. Those people weren't asked to leave the museum, just to stop interfering. The woman who took her clothes off was perfectly fine and still inside MoMA when she was interviewed after and actually quite apologetic. The guards are also there because her work obviously gets the backs up of conservative nutballs and as the incendiary clip featuring those two rightwing fembots from Fox News showed, it's not inconceivable that someone would want to physically attack her. I also don't see why her work has to be humorous. Not all art has to be and what she does is confrontational and challenging both on a physical and emotions level. Humour would take the edge off to a degree where it would lose it's power. And to the benefit of the film, as a person she struck me as someone who clearly did have a sense of humour.
I thought this was a tremendous documentary on a subject I could not conceive would be this interesting before I went to see it. I thought the film was surprisingly moving at times, especially when Ulay, her ex-husband and collaborator sat with her, decades after an acrimonious split. I came as a sceptic and in the end thought her work was tremendous and I found her tremendously charismatic. If I had a minor niggle, I would have liked to know more about the artists chosen to recreate her older performance pieces. The films seems to go down this road when they enter her perfomance art "boot camp" but then that's dropped, but I suppose that would have demanded a longer film.
In any case this is among my two or three favourite films so far this year.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
I agree about the other artists who recreated her work. They were not interviewed at all. I agree a lot of her work comes out her background. She also mentioned her Grandmother with whom she did have a close relationship. She also said her Grandmother was a very spiritual person. I think that relationship was an influence on her work.
Her early work looked like a reaction to Yugoslav communism as well as the history and politics of that region.There was a thaw in Tito's Yugoslavia that left an opening for counter-cultural artists and film makers in 60s and 70s. I would also have liked the doc to look more closely at her earlier work. Why did performance art take off in this period? Why did these artists turn to using there bodies? What effect on society did they want?
Early performance art was confrontational when compared to theatre. It was done in close proximity to the audience in small spaces. Often with the spectators being involved in the art work. Traditional theatre was considered to be passive consumption of art that would not lead to any change in the spectator once they had left theatre. Leading to society remaining unchanged. The critique of traditional theatre was that it was safety valve for the social order not there to change it. Same went for cinema. Also performance art took its confrontational approach to the masses ( in theory). Hence the van she and her partner travelled around Europe in.
So her work needs to be seen in context of worldwide development of this kind art. Which the doc did not go into. I need to see Yoko Ono exhibition at Serpentine as she is same generation. Marina was not the only pioneer of this art. Shuji Teryama did it in Japan ( made some interesting film versions of his groups performances). I like his work.
The doc could have a taken a more critical approach to her work. The one point this happened was late on in the doc when they interviewed a woman in MOMA who the doc said was an art critic. It was very short bit.
I find myself feeling uncomfortable with her piece in MOMA despite what you say. If she did this piece again would I go is the question I ask myself. The answer would be no. To me it looked like the piece was turning into an endurance test. Can she do it for the set time? Will she make it? Not an aspect of her work I liked. Her charisma got in the way of the art.
Still it was fascinating doc on the subject. Better than seeing Spiderman.
mwgdrwg
Be a Pisces. Jam.
I watched The Amazing Spider-Man last night, and thoroughly enjoyed it, even better than the Avengers. The 3-D was quite subtle, the action scenes were great, and the characters relationships were believable (e2a: for comic book creations). I'm a big Spidey fan and was worried that it would be a disaster, but it was great
Similar threads
