shakahislop
Well-known member
watched the first half of frances ha. worst bit of media i've seen in ages. really annoying
films you've seen recently and would NOT recommend
- Thread starter bruno
- Start date
shakahislop
Well-known member
it's not a bad film probably. i said the same to my mate and she said she loved it, it was close to her heart.
it's the sensibility i think that i don't like, the sort of self-mythologising of these kind of rich arty people. dancing in tompkins for money and all of that. it feels fake to me. actually that's not quite right. i can't put my finger on it.
there was a weird moment where a guy i know was playing one of the minor characters, didn't expect that
Clinamenic
Binary & Tweed
I've seen Frances Ha a couple times now, and have enjoyed it both times. I think Baumbach on general is a solid writer/director (not sure if he wrote Frances Ha or not), but I can also see where his films might annoy people like how Shaka says.
I just recently watched Margot at the Wedding, Greenberg, and The Meyerowitz Stories, and enjoyed all three. The NYC/LA duality is a common theme (also in Marriage Story, which I also enjoyed).
I just recently watched Margot at the Wedding, Greenberg, and The Meyerowitz Stories, and enjoyed all three. The NYC/LA duality is a common theme (also in Marriage Story, which I also enjoyed).
Clinamenic
Binary & Tweed
In a way, Noah Baumbach and Whit Stillman are like Jewish and WASP equivalencies, in terms of quirky, acerbic upper-middle class young adult stories, often set in NYC.
shakahislop
Well-known member
@Clinamenic do you think people like it because its aspirational?
shakahislop
Well-known member
i get the impression its one of those films that serves as a guide
Clinamenic
Binary & Tweed
Maybe some like it that way, but I don’t really interpret it that way. I view Frances Ha as more of an upper-middle class coming-into-adulthood story, but to versions point I think people like his movies because they’re comfortable/enjoyable, and also because they’re well made. I personally like the black and white approach for Frances Ha, but I can also see where some may find that pretentious (in a way where Nebraska strikes me as a harder film to call pretentious, maybe just due to subject matter).
Clinamenic
Binary & Tweed
Cause what, didn’t Frances have a degree in semiotics or something? So like literary philosophy territory, I’d imagine it’s tough finding a job for that. Plus she’s a dancer, so the degree wasn’t a career move, thus likely more of a passion (as was my degree, in film), so I’m not sure how much of a struggle there really is in the film. Been a couple years since I last saw it though, so maybe I’m forgetting something.
It was interesting to learn he's a big De Palma fan, to the point of doing a documentary on him. You can see it in certain shots in White Noise, but it was never something that occurred to me from watching the stuff prior to that.
There's a long interview between the two of them on the Criterion release of Blow Out too.
There's a long interview between the two of them on the Criterion release of Blow Out too.
shakahislop
Well-known member
it's autofiction basically I think
shakahislop
Well-known member
yeah you're both right. low stakes. a gentle story
shakahislop
Well-known member
there's an interesting strand in that film about money
but all the people in it seem temporarily short of it because they want to do something creative, rather than permanently
part of what's going on is frances is rubbing up against people from the same kind of background who have more boring jobs that make them rich
but all the people in it seem temporarily short of it because they want to do something creative, rather than permanently
part of what's going on is frances is rubbing up against people from the same kind of background who have more boring jobs that make them rich
Clinamenic
Binary & Tweed
I still haven't seen this doc of his. That, the Shawn/Gregory one, Mr Jealousy, and Highball are his only films I haven't seen yet.
IdleRich
IdleRich
Two films that were on telly recently which I watched cos I'd heard or read mixed reviews of - mixed reviews that were so polarised that I found them a little intriguing.
First up a horror called Ghost House. Some people said that it was genuinely scary... while others suggested that it was utterly run of the mill. The clip in the trailer was creepy enough that I thought I'd give it a try. Sadly however the second viewpoint was right, it was the most basic horror I've seen in a long time, entirely reliant on jump scares to the point where the jumps came along so frequently they become predictable and stopped making you jump or scared. I couldn't finish it.
I checked the reviews to see what had fooled me and there was one saying it was a deeply disturbing and original piece of work - and about a hundred saying how unoriginal and dull it was. There was one hilarious one that attacked the film's philosophy, it said that lifting the curse by finding a good witch was illogical, the only way to do it was through God. Also, the film ended with the victim safe, which was ridiculous cos the only way that she could truly be safe would be by walking in the light of Christ. I got more fun from that review than the film.
The second was Crazy Rich Asians which made Ghost House look like The Bicycle Thieves, the negative reviews were so strong - and contrasted so much with the positive reviews - that part of me wondered if racism was involved. Actually not so, it was cos a comedy with no jokes that consists entirely of people going "look how rich they are" "they are very rich" "rich" "rich rich rich" etc doesn't make for a good film. I lasted about twenty minutes with this one before I listened to the voice in my head saying "Why am I doing this to myself?" and turned it off.
First up a horror called Ghost House. Some people said that it was genuinely scary... while others suggested that it was utterly run of the mill. The clip in the trailer was creepy enough that I thought I'd give it a try. Sadly however the second viewpoint was right, it was the most basic horror I've seen in a long time, entirely reliant on jump scares to the point where the jumps came along so frequently they become predictable and stopped making you jump or scared. I couldn't finish it.
I checked the reviews to see what had fooled me and there was one saying it was a deeply disturbing and original piece of work - and about a hundred saying how unoriginal and dull it was. There was one hilarious one that attacked the film's philosophy, it said that lifting the curse by finding a good witch was illogical, the only way to do it was through God. Also, the film ended with the victim safe, which was ridiculous cos the only way that she could truly be safe would be by walking in the light of Christ. I got more fun from that review than the film.
The second was Crazy Rich Asians which made Ghost House look like The Bicycle Thieves, the negative reviews were so strong - and contrasted so much with the positive reviews - that part of me wondered if racism was involved. Actually not so, it was cos a comedy with no jokes that consists entirely of people going "look how rich they are" "they are very rich" "rich" "rich rich rich" etc doesn't make for a good film. I lasted about twenty minutes with this one before I listened to the voice in my head saying "Why am I doing this to myself?" and turned it off.
Clinamenic
Binary & Tweed
Idle Rich Asians
IdleRich
IdleRich
Yesterday I happened to catch a terrible film called The Rental, a so-called horror tha relied on the technique of a loooooong, sloooooow build up that finally came together to form a seamless mix of boredom and tedium
en.m.wikipedia.org
The most noteworthy thing to me was its striking similarity to a film I saw a while back which was a vehicle for Emily Rati.. Ratjo... - the bird who got her knockers out in the video for that song that sounded so much like Marvin Gaye they had to pay his estate one hundred percent of the profits (I guess with hindsight Pharrell probably shouldn't have said "I've just written a song based on Got To Give It Up" when it came out).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welcome_Home_(2018_film)an
In each film some hipsters rent a stunning place on Airbnb, they slowly realise that someone is spying on them but it's not the creepy person they first blame. And that's it.
And as that is simply not enough plot/story/action to sustain a thirty minute episode of Neighbours, nevermind a feature length film, each one has to pad itself out with some stunningly mindless sub-plots that are so empty and forgettable that you can actually see the actors deleting the lines from their memory as they finish speaking them.
To be honest, although I did just about make it to the end of both films, my eyes had totally glazed over and my brain all but flat-lined so the details were lost on me - I guess it's sort of theoretically conceivable that in the final few seconds there was some kind of stroke of impossibly unimaginable genius that twisted the whole preceding 90 minutes inside out and rescued the film... but let's face it, that didn't happen.
I just don't understand how these things get made, why would someone who has just starred in Shameless or Breaking Bad give their time to something so pointless? Something so flat out bad in every way? I can't even imagine they made much money which would be the standard answer.
The Rental - Wikipedia
The most noteworthy thing to me was its striking similarity to a film I saw a while back which was a vehicle for Emily Rati.. Ratjo... - the bird who got her knockers out in the video for that song that sounded so much like Marvin Gaye they had to pay his estate one hundred percent of the profits (I guess with hindsight Pharrell probably shouldn't have said "I've just written a song based on Got To Give It Up" when it came out).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welcome_Home_(2018_film)an
In each film some hipsters rent a stunning place on Airbnb, they slowly realise that someone is spying on them but it's not the creepy person they first blame. And that's it.
And as that is simply not enough plot/story/action to sustain a thirty minute episode of Neighbours, nevermind a feature length film, each one has to pad itself out with some stunningly mindless sub-plots that are so empty and forgettable that you can actually see the actors deleting the lines from their memory as they finish speaking them.
To be honest, although I did just about make it to the end of both films, my eyes had totally glazed over and my brain all but flat-lined so the details were lost on me - I guess it's sort of theoretically conceivable that in the final few seconds there was some kind of stroke of impossibly unimaginable genius that twisted the whole preceding 90 minutes inside out and rescued the film... but let's face it, that didn't happen.
I just don't understand how these things get made, why would someone who has just starred in Shameless or Breaking Bad give their time to something so pointless? Something so flat out bad in every way? I can't even imagine they made much money which would be the standard answer.
luka
Well-known member
mental how shit this was not even an actual film imo