MovieChat Forums > prayformojo > Replies
prayformojo's Replies
You have it right, it's about creating a boxed-in feeling for the viewer. It's been done before by many other filmmakers when they want to convey a tight, claustrophobic space.
Since the entire film is essentially shot in one room, it's one of the most appropriate uses of the technique I've ever encountered, and it fits the film beautifully.
One of the worst mistakes that modern people make, due to their complete ignorance of history, is that they look at the people living in a place RIGHT NOW and assume that the same type of people must have lived there ALWAYS.
Of course such a thing could not be further from the truth. Humans migrate, empires expand, empires collapse. The middle east today is largely Arab because of the rapid and quite recent expansion of Islam throughout those territories. Prior to this, when Jesus was alive, completely different types of people lived there.
Turkey is a perfect example: today it is 99% Muslim. However it's also home to the worlds largest Christian Church (now a Mosque I think, but you get the point). It was once Christian, now it is Muslim. The Christians did not covert, they were expelled and exterminated.
While OP is 12 years ago and long gone, I found both lists here extremely interesting, as I think any list would be on the board for such an obscure and challenging film as "The Sacrifice" is. So here's mine in a chronological order cop-out. Maybe in 12 years there will be a couple more.
Harakiri (1962)
Contempt (1963)
Cool Hand Luke (1967)
Once upon a Time in the West (1968)
Network (1976)
Apocalypse Now (Redux version) (1979)
Stalker (1979)
Glengarry Glen Ross (1992)
Se7en (1995)
Whiplash (2014)
Well put. I don't think the film was trying to say that all British solidiers were like the main villain. It was trying to say these circumstances were ripe for creating or enabling pure sociopaths such as the main villain. I guess some people have trouble believing that such sociopaths existed in the past, which is odd because there is ample evidence in front of our eyes that such sociopaths are still with us today, in modern times.
I am as anti "woke" as they come and I didn't get that about this film. I feel it tried to be historically accurate and more or less succeeded. The general attitudes towards the aborigines <i>were</i> vile and depraved at the time.
The "strong independent wamen" acted like a clueless moron for the last act of the film, and was totally useless at battling men (which is/was accurate). A modern woke film would have turned her into a mary sue, rifling down every one in sight with dead accuracy. This did not happen. The film makes it clear she was lucky to survive.
There was also at least an attempt at balance in the film. It showed there were inhumanities done by both sides. It showed that not all the white people shared the same views.
Did some modern anachronisms and wokeness creep into this film here and there? Undoubtedly. But this was not your typical hollywood stuff, and for that reason I enjoyed the film.
I agree with OP, though I'm not sure if it's because the film has aged, or because I have. 17 years ago, I thought the music was sooo cool, the film was sooo edgy, Scarlett was sooo hot, etc.
Re-watching it now, it seems to have lost much of it's power on all fronts. Like much 'indie' and 'art-house' stuff, it was film of its time and place.
It actually is quite confusing... yes Dumbledore owned the Elder Wand (movies don't explain how) and it was buried with him. Snape killed Dumbledore and presumably took ownership of the Elder Wand, however since Draco Malfoy actually disarmed the wand from Dumbledore, the wand itself considered Draco its true owner even though Draco never held it. When Harry Potter disarmed a different wand from Draco, the Elder Wand somehow considered Harry Potter now the true owner, even though the wand was either still with Dumbledore's body or already stolen by Voldemort. Once he had the Elder Wand, Voldemort killed Snape thinking the wand would align with him, not knowing it was never truly Snape's (Snape knew all this and played along to protect Harry, one more heroic act for him). In the final battle with Harry Potter, the wand refused to kill its true owner, Harry Potter, and failed Voldemort leading to his defeat.
So Harry accidentally won by taking a random wand from Draco...
In a 2009 interview, Fincher said the budget is what derailed the project back in the ’90s:
“It was too expensive. Because if you’re going to make a Hollywood insider movie—it’s nothing to do with Hollywood really, it’s Hollywood in the late thirties, early forties—you’ve got to make it really cheaply. We had a chance to make the movie for, like, $13 million, back in 1998 and, um, [guiltily] I wanted to make it in black and white. [Laughs] And that fucked up all those home video and video sellthrough and cable deals"
He's been sitting on this script for ages. Nobody would make it because nobody thought they could make money on it (and they were right - a traditional theatrical release and this thing would have the worst bomb since "Heaven's Gate").
It's interesting how this will all play out, because Netflix will get a LOT more eyes on this than it otherwise would have, but in my mind that just means that many more disappointed people.
I thought it was dreadful. It wasn't just 'a bit' up it's own ass, it was entirely up there. As for funny, I think I mildly chuckled exactly once in the 2 hour running time. It's not a comedy. It's also not a mystery, nor really a drama. It talks endlessly about people I've never heard of and don't give a shit about. The single interesting character, Orson Welles, has about 5 minutes of screen time. The re-creation of 1930s hollywood was interesting and well done, that's about it.
This is: "David Fincher makes a movie from his dad's terrible script because he can, and f-you if you don't like it."
Once this thing hits netflix, expect the 'shit to hit the fan' from people expecting something even remotely resembling Fincher's popular work (Social Network, etc). Can't wait for the statistics (if they ever release them) of how many people start this on netflix but never finish. I'm betting 60%.
Yes, Stephen King is an idiot. I enjoyed his books as a teenager, and I find that this is about the right level of "mental development" required for his work. But I kept reading him on and off until I finally read the final books of the Dark Tower series, where he not only WROTE HIMSELF INTO THE FUCKING STORY, but ostensibly made the entire series of books ABOUT HIMSELF. I was like: holy shit, am I ever dumb for getting suckered by this shit. Never read anything else by him again and never will.
Doctor Sleep is about on the same level. If you are looking for the meaning of it all, it's probably about Stephen King himself on some metaphoric level.
Get your eyes checked first, then look at the trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyet47PdQXA
It's ugly. Every shot in that trailer is ugly. Dull looking, washed out, sepia toned, brown, and ugly.
To give an example of a comparable western that is not ugly and also not awful, I would submit "Once Upon a Time in the West." Gorgeous tracking shots of monument valley, crane shots of the town, etc, etc.
You don't really counter anything I say, you just point you don't agree. I have seen Thunderbolt and Lightfoot. It's pretty OK. My favourite Cimino film for what that's worth, but I also read or heard somewhere that Clint Eastwood was quite influential in how that film turned out.
Kael was consistent with Cimino, and her Deer Hunter review actually predicts what was going to happen with Cimino in a way. She calls out his lack of understanding of character development for example, something that plagues Heaven's Gate. Poseur is the perfect word for Cimino... and perhaps also for those who adore him.
https://scrapsfromtheloft.com/2016/07/05/god-bless-america-symphony/
Ridiculous comparisons. "Ace Ventura" or any of the others you mention never sold themselves as "high art" or pretended to be anything other than entertainment, and excepting skywalker were not over the top lavish productions. They also all made a profit I believe, unlike the smoking crater of "Heaven's Gate."
Perhaps the biggest crime of "Heaven's Gate" was that it pretty much ruined movies and is big reason why they evolved into the type of movies you mention. You see the 70s were the era of the "auteur" filmmaker, where a studio would give a director millions of dollars and basically let them go free to make whatever they wanted on a big budget. When "Heaven's Gate" destroyed the studio that backed it, it changed how things were done in hollywood and it was never allowed to happen again. The era of the "auteur" ended and the more corporate, more controlled, and less artistic films of the 80s came in. A trend that arguable continues up until today, though of course a few lucky filmmakers have managed to buck the trend and continue making their own films on big budgets. But today's big budget films are far more likely to be made-by-committee dreck such as "Rise of Skywalker."
I have a few "unconventional" choices, in no particular order.
Space seed
The Doomsday Machine
A Taste of Armageddon
All Our Yesterdays
Return to Tomorrow
Balance of terror
The Gamesters of Triskelion
Arena
The Mark of Gideon
The Enterprise Incident
I can't believe "Catspaw" is not anywhere in this thread. A very lame attempt make a "Halloween" episode of Star Trek, the two mixing like oil and water. That was the only episode I've seen so far that I've had to turn off, just couldn't stand it.
The music was supposed to be jarring and create additional tension in the film. Uncut Gems is a film about tension.
Very much agree with the points OP made. They had all the potential in the world and threw it away by not respecting the original characters. All the films were made with this this completely unwarranted subtle tone of snark towards the original characters, seemingly intentionally rubbing them out one by one. Almost like someone had an axe to grind...
There were a ton of Star Wars books, comics, and games to draw ideas and inspiration from, but instead someone thought that they could write it all up themselves by just getting enough idiots into one big committee room. All these films are textbooks examples of 'film by committee,' where a single visionary is NOT given free reign to develop the film they want. And what the committees ultimately produced was just an idiotic rehash of the original. It's kind of like bad fan-fiction when you look at the films objectively.
What actually shocks me is just how bad they turned out when it such a softball hit to make something at least half-good.
2h38m of redux - he's a fucking whale, film doesn't lie:
https://imgur.com/a/zdbdM4B
Maybe it all turned out for the best - I like the film, but I don't understand why anyone would try to claim Brando didn't show up unexpectedly fat and out of shape. That was the primary motivation for changing the ending - they HAD to.
One of the worst films of all time - laughably bad in every aspect. In many ways it almost destroys the series as you come away hating all of the characters. I'm glad they made another one after this to redeem themselves.
Only good for serious Trek fans, or novelty value.
Final cut is a half measure between original cut and Redux. Not as drawn out and long winded as Redux, but still including shortened versions of the extra material (such as a shortened version of the French plantation). I think it's a half measure that will please few. People will either want to stick with the original short version or will go all in for the longest version.
Personally I love Redux, you really feel the descent into madness and hell and makes for one of the most "literary" films of all time.