Who is Sonny Chiba? I've never heard of him. One of Bruce Lee's student? I know Jackie Chan and Jet Li was actually Bruce Lee's Students, if I'm not mistaken! I thought that was really cool.
Random Entertainment Topic
- Thread starter PermanentSelfBan
- Start date
Who is Sonny Chiba? I've never heard of him. One of Bruce Lee's student? I know Jackie Chan and Jet Li was actually Bruce Lee's Students, if I'm not mistaken! I thought that was really cool.
A student of Bruce Lee?? ....
....
..
No. He's older than Bruce Lee and around longer. Before kung-fu became a hollywood toy, he was pounding heads epic style.
Check out e movie, Streetfighter (not related to the Capcom game of the same name).
Only the ones that are released this year. Older ones you watched this year does not belong here.
Mine are:
Prisoners
Rush
Star Trek Into Darkness
Oblivion
That said, I have no idea why I like Oblivion. It is seriously flawed, but I want to watch it again.
Mine are:
Prisoners
Rush
Star Trek Into Darkness
Oblivion
That said, I have no idea why I like Oblivion. It is seriously flawed, but I want to watch it again.
I've only saw Now You See Me, Gravity and half of the last Batman film, so Gravity it is then.
*edit*
I saw Oblivion too, that will be my number two.
*edit*
I saw Oblivion too, that will be my number two.
In no real order
Trance
Stoker
Star trek into darkness
Elysium
Oblivion
Pain and Gain
MUD
The East
Movies I want to see and have yet too..
Filth
Upstream color (motm)
Rush
American Hustle
Trance
Stoker
Star trek into darkness
Elysium
Oblivion
Pain and Gain
MUD
The East
Movies I want to see and have yet too..
Filth
Upstream color (motm)
Rush
American Hustle
As the Wikipedia article on this movie states, it's a parasite that affects all these life forms. Earlier on I thought that the maggot-like worm is the parasite, but the later VFX scenes where the parasite moves from pigs to orchids seem to suggest that the real form of these parasite is the blue, microscopic, well, thing. Sort of like Prometheus, if you saw that movie. So I'm guessing the parasite moves from orchid to maggot to human to pig to orchid and the cycle goes on.
Last edited:
That said, sorry for starting the discussion on a negative note, but here we go.
I hate it when filmmakers shake timeline to 'break forms'. This is especially confusing when the shots do not attach very well to each other. I don't know where it started, but it annoyed the hell out of me at the final sequence of Drive, the whole running time of Spring Breakers, and quite a few scenes in this film. Two adjacent shots cross the line of angle that can be put together too often and that distracts the viewers. Adding to the confusion, sometimes a sequence shows the final result of certain action first and puts them together with scenes of events that previously happened in random order, all to no effect.
I guess they want to break away from the rules, but that's not the way to do that. French new wave filmmakers wanted to get away from Hollywood rule of filmmaking, but at the same time they were a great admirer of Classical Hollywood and revered the likes of Alfred Hitchcock and John Ford. And that actually shows in their films as well. We all know Godard's Breathless for breaking away from some of the key points of editing, but they are effective and draws attention of the audience because that breaking away does not happen all the time. Usually it follows the rules, but then the jump cut and strange editing scheme comes up from time to time.
A film is always supported by a series of rules that keeps the immersion together, and all the experiments with forms are based on that. Some of the recent films, including Upstream Color, seems to forget that. It's not the worst of these kind of films (that should be Spring Breakers, what a piece of ****), but this movie could have been a lot better if it was chronological and was clearer in its cinematic language.
I hate it when filmmakers shake timeline to 'break forms'. This is especially confusing when the shots do not attach very well to each other. I don't know where it started, but it annoyed the hell out of me at the final sequence of Drive, the whole running time of Spring Breakers, and quite a few scenes in this film. Two adjacent shots cross the line of angle that can be put together too often and that distracts the viewers. Adding to the confusion, sometimes a sequence shows the final result of certain action first and puts them together with scenes of events that previously happened in random order, all to no effect.
I guess they want to break away from the rules, but that's not the way to do that. French new wave filmmakers wanted to get away from Hollywood rule of filmmaking, but at the same time they were a great admirer of Classical Hollywood and revered the likes of Alfred Hitchcock and John Ford. And that actually shows in their films as well. We all know Godard's Breathless for breaking away from some of the key points of editing, but they are effective and draws attention of the audience because that breaking away does not happen all the time. Usually it follows the rules, but then the jump cut and strange editing scheme comes up from time to time.
A film is always supported by a series of rules that keeps the immersion together, and all the experiments with forms are based on that. Some of the recent films, including Upstream Color, seems to forget that. It's not the worst of these kind of films (that should be Spring Breakers, what a piece of ****), but this movie could have been a lot better if it was chronological and was clearer in its cinematic language.
Well just saw it, let's have a crack at it... First reaction is that within the first 5 minutes I think you know that this is not a movie where you're gonna get any kind of straightforward message or meaning, or maybe not get any at all. Which is fine by me. The opening image is of a paper chain covered in philosophy lying in the dirt... I think? Maybe that represents what this movie is. The first line is "close your eyes", so you get the vibe this movie is not something you're supposed to "understand". This movie is hard. It's like Legendary difficulty.
Next thing is how the movie kind of hovers around people, not just at the beginning but throughout the movie, like you'll get a small slice of someone's story before it moves on.
I haven't checked but I can guarantee that most critics would compare the way this movie is filmed to a Terrence Malick one, especially The Tree of Life. Carruth seems to have a major hard-on for nature and sort of seeing what our relationship is with it, there's a lot of controlling nature from the potted plants that the Thief uses for the parasite and the caging of the pigs, and of course the mind control used on Kris.
I think the clearest theme would probably be a "spiritual" connection between people (or animals or whatever). At the beginning you have the kids who seem to have some kind of psychic link (?), Kris and Jeff obviously have their connection (there's a lot to talk about there but honestly it's the morning after New Years and my brain is a Jackson Pollock right now), and of course there seems to be some influence the pigs/parasite things have on Kris and Jeff's lives (or vice versa?). The end shows Kris embracing a pig but honestly I'm not sure if it's a happy or a bleak ending.
Repetition seems really prominent too... you have some scenes that repeat over and over again (the starlings, "I hope today is better" etc), there's the cycle of the grub/human/pig/plant. And one of the first images of the movie is of a recycling bin, although I can't remember right now what's put into it. Is it the philosophy chain link? If so I think that's important. We're in Finnegans Wake territory here...
The Sampler (sound recording guy) is the most interesting character to me. Putting aside the parasite/human medical experiment... thing. He sort of drifts around like a ghost, just observing people, a bit like how the film does that itself. He's also recording sounds that we the audience hear, so he's sort of making the movie himself. There's also a big connection between sound he records and the lives of Kris and Jeff... but I'm not sure what. It's a really striking moment when Kris cuts one of her sewing threads and the Sampler like... loses his connection to her? Or loses interest? Or something?
I'm wondering whether Carruth is a cinephile, and maybe wondering if a lot of this movie is about how to make a movie in the first place. Like about the creative process. Kris is editing a movie, which is A Topiary, the film Carruth had begun before deciding to make Upstream Colour instead (thanks IMDB!). The Sampler is like someone who sort of just looks at people, I feel like he's sort of like (and here's where I really start going off on a tangent) representative of the audience or maybe the filmmaker. He just observes all these stories, and at the end it's like Kris and Jeff become aware of his presence (and then murder him), like it's Carruth saying this is not a movie that you just observe without thinking about it, like he's "killing" the usual kind of audience expectations or film-making conventions.
Yeah, it's flimsy, but Jesus what do you want? I'm not Quentin Tarantino. And I'm hungover. Double whammy. I do feel there is a lot of stuff that sort of points towards Carruth examining the process of creating a story. I don't think the movie gives any answers, just wants to make you think, which is how I think is a good way to operate.
Some other stuff, like colour is important (no duh, clue is in the title), like blue and especially yellow but I've written a lot already. Also don't think you can ignore the way the story has a lot about financial fraud, housing equity, bankruptcy, poverty, wealth, unemployment etc. Honestly you could talk all day about this movie, there's so much I'm leaving out.
One more thing, and that's how cleverly Carruth marketed and distributed the movie. Tiny budget, no stars, limited theatre release. But online distribution and great use of word of mouth have helped. He's really been successful in promoting himself as a trailblazing indie hero. And I hate to finish on a cyncical note... but I wonder if he purposely makes his movies so strange partly so the movie will generate buzz and discussion as a means of promoting the movie.
Kind of like how I just spent half an hour writing this post... Damn you Carruth! No, that's being unfair, I think he's genuine.
Probably.
Next thing is how the movie kind of hovers around people, not just at the beginning but throughout the movie, like you'll get a small slice of someone's story before it moves on.
I haven't checked but I can guarantee that most critics would compare the way this movie is filmed to a Terrence Malick one, especially The Tree of Life. Carruth seems to have a major hard-on for nature and sort of seeing what our relationship is with it, there's a lot of controlling nature from the potted plants that the Thief uses for the parasite and the caging of the pigs, and of course the mind control used on Kris.
I think the clearest theme would probably be a "spiritual" connection between people (or animals or whatever). At the beginning you have the kids who seem to have some kind of psychic link (?), Kris and Jeff obviously have their connection (there's a lot to talk about there but honestly it's the morning after New Years and my brain is a Jackson Pollock right now), and of course there seems to be some influence the pigs/parasite things have on Kris and Jeff's lives (or vice versa?). The end shows Kris embracing a pig but honestly I'm not sure if it's a happy or a bleak ending.
Repetition seems really prominent too... you have some scenes that repeat over and over again (the starlings, "I hope today is better" etc), there's the cycle of the grub/human/pig/plant. And one of the first images of the movie is of a recycling bin, although I can't remember right now what's put into it. Is it the philosophy chain link? If so I think that's important. We're in Finnegans Wake territory here...
The Sampler (sound recording guy) is the most interesting character to me. Putting aside the parasite/human medical experiment... thing. He sort of drifts around like a ghost, just observing people, a bit like how the film does that itself. He's also recording sounds that we the audience hear, so he's sort of making the movie himself. There's also a big connection between sound he records and the lives of Kris and Jeff... but I'm not sure what. It's a really striking moment when Kris cuts one of her sewing threads and the Sampler like... loses his connection to her? Or loses interest? Or something?
I'm wondering whether Carruth is a cinephile, and maybe wondering if a lot of this movie is about how to make a movie in the first place. Like about the creative process. Kris is editing a movie, which is A Topiary, the film Carruth had begun before deciding to make Upstream Colour instead (thanks IMDB!). The Sampler is like someone who sort of just looks at people, I feel like he's sort of like (and here's where I really start going off on a tangent) representative of the audience or maybe the filmmaker. He just observes all these stories, and at the end it's like Kris and Jeff become aware of his presence (and then murder him), like it's Carruth saying this is not a movie that you just observe without thinking about it, like he's "killing" the usual kind of audience expectations or film-making conventions.
Yeah, it's flimsy, but Jesus what do you want? I'm not Quentin Tarantino. And I'm hungover. Double whammy. I do feel there is a lot of stuff that sort of points towards Carruth examining the process of creating a story. I don't think the movie gives any answers, just wants to make you think, which is how I think is a good way to operate.
Some other stuff, like colour is important (no duh, clue is in the title), like blue and especially yellow but I've written a lot already. Also don't think you can ignore the way the story has a lot about financial fraud, housing equity, bankruptcy, poverty, wealth, unemployment etc. Honestly you could talk all day about this movie, there's so much I'm leaving out.
One more thing, and that's how cleverly Carruth marketed and distributed the movie. Tiny budget, no stars, limited theatre release. But online distribution and great use of word of mouth have helped. He's really been successful in promoting himself as a trailblazing indie hero. And I hate to finish on a cyncical note... but I wonder if he purposely makes his movies so strange partly so the movie will generate buzz and discussion as a means of promoting the movie.
Kind of like how I just spent half an hour writing this post... Damn you Carruth! No, that's being unfair, I think he's genuine.
Probably.
I believe there are quite a few filmmakers who are doing, has done, or had done just that, and this movie might be one of those instances. You pointed out pretty well what the movie is trying to do, but all of them can still be done in a much more well-defined style. At this status I can't help but feel that it's just a massive cluster of shots that don't attach.
Captain Anderson ain't got no time for no sunglasses..
These were the best fight scenes I enjoyed most..
Cynthia Rothrock & Michelle Yeoh team up in Yes Madam
Magic Crystal fights
Who Am I - Rotterdam rooftop fight scene
I know this has probably been talked about to death at this point, but I wanted to get everyone's take on how this show has achieved both critical acclaim and what now looks like cult status.
http://www.metacritic.com/tv/battlestar-galactica-2003/season-3
Metacritic gave season 3 a 94 on the critics scale and an 8.9 user score. I'm halfway through season one, and while I'm entertained (sort of) there seems to be way too many glaring issues to consider this a worthwhile drama.
- The acting ranges from good (James Olmos) to downright terrible (90% of the cast).
- The dialogue sometimes feels like it was written by a 4th grade public school student. Commander Odama and President Roslin asking each other to take the cylon detection test was cringe inducing.
- The scope doesn't fit the budget. This is show about the human races survival yet the camera's can't seem to fit more than 3 actors in any one shot.
- Basic human logic is frequently not followed. For a show that tackles a variety of smart and interesting subjects, it doesn't believe it's audience has an IQ. SPOILER: 30 days have passed since the majority of the human race has been killed by machines. There's currently less than 50,000 humans in existence and an ex terrorist who's been in jail for 20 years climbs up the political ladder by preaching about legitimate government? Too make things even more unbelievable, a cataclysmic disaster strikes these survivors about twice a week it seems.
Do things improve at all? It just seems like a slightly more ambitious version of Star Trek TNG.
http://www.metacritic.com/tv/battlestar-galactica-2003/season-3
Metacritic gave season 3 a 94 on the critics scale and an 8.9 user score. I'm halfway through season one, and while I'm entertained (sort of) there seems to be way too many glaring issues to consider this a worthwhile drama.
- The acting ranges from good (James Olmos) to downright terrible (90% of the cast).
- The dialogue sometimes feels like it was written by a 4th grade public school student. Commander Odama and President Roslin asking each other to take the cylon detection test was cringe inducing.
- The scope doesn't fit the budget. This is show about the human races survival yet the camera's can't seem to fit more than 3 actors in any one shot.
- Basic human logic is frequently not followed. For a show that tackles a variety of smart and interesting subjects, it doesn't believe it's audience has an IQ. SPOILER: 30 days have passed since the majority of the human race has been killed by machines. There's currently less than 50,000 humans in existence and an ex terrorist who's been in jail for 20 years climbs up the political ladder by preaching about legitimate government? Too make things even more unbelievable, a cataclysmic disaster strikes these survivors about twice a week it seems.
Do things improve at all? It just seems like a slightly more ambitious version of Star Trek TNG.
Yeah it's 'Yes Madam'. There's another old movie with Cytnthia that I loved, but I forgot the title.
