Movies and TV

[Doolio]

Is this a TV and movie show thread or an evangelion diatribe?

I didn't see the thread got derailed because of it or that those posts were off topic. Nor I see that exchange as a diatribe. Also, the thread pretty much moved on.
And it would be perfectly normal if, for example, Tarkovsky, became the "sub-topic" for a period, because you mentioned him and somebody could respond to that (and should respond to that if they want to).
I think it's perfectly fine for a thread about cinematography to have multiple topic arcs about specific movies and series and not to simply boil down to members listing favourite titles. On the contrary, I would find such "voyeuristic-exhibitionistic" topic rather pointless.
Also, the topic is only three pages long, it's normal for a single sub-topic to be a relatively large part of it.

I am sorry for this digression, but your comment just seemed too sarcastic, however light its intended weight was. I might be wrong though, but then again, that aside, I do believe that topic is intended to be part listing and part discussion, not just listing, from the start.
And it's not about seeing "evangelion" in red letters, your comment would still confuse me, regardless of what title you've mentioned:)


Speaking of which, I'll do my listing part for a bit (stuff I can put down from the top of my head at least lol).

One flew over the cuckoo's nest - I've always loved this movie, although I think it's objectively excellent but short from being a masterpiece, mainly because of some "americanny" cheesiness. But, it's pretty much toned down and the movie is good enough to override that. On a personal level, objectiveness aside, this movie is among top of the crops for me:)

Alexander Nevsky - I was blown away when I saw it for the first time, it's just too masterfully done for its time. Photography is simply abnormal. I really think I've never seen better shots in any other movie, new or old.

Monkeybread, you mentioned Tarkovsky and Kurosawa. I praise both of them to no limits:) I find it a bit sad that in these "turbo times" people often simply can't watch Tarkovsky, unless they are " serious movie watchers" and have the ability to "get in a serious focus mode". With Kurosawa that of course is not a problem:)

Kubrik I don't like personally, though I do like the rendition of Clockwork orange. Kubrik stuff doesn't click with me emotionally, I don't get any buttons pressed when watching his movies:)

The wire I guess I would have to watch sometime. I developed this teenage anti-hype thing about stuff that promise characterization and such, because nine times out of ten I get disappointed, as standards for that are EXTREMELY low lately. But about the wire I've heard good stuff even from the people I know they know what they're talking about. One thing I'm afraid of is that grittyness and authenticity could "emulate" characterization, because they can be effective in themselves, but I would feel "cheated":). So, Monkeybread, could you elaborate a bit more on the wire on that regard? Not much, just like two sentences.

Apocalypse now

Valhalla rising - surprisingly good movie, for me at least. With this one I am not so sure about whether I could break it down objectively. The stuff I find it so good for, they're just too vague and I'm simply not sure whether they are brilliant or it's myself that's connecting random gibberish and getting delighted over bunch of suspicious material:D


Interesting thing is that in recent, like, five years, I got really fed up with the kind of cheesiness in hollywood movies (yes, the kind of cheesiness, not cheesiness itself:) ) and I usually can't stand it for a milisecond, even if the movie is just mindless or not so mindless fun which you watch and accept that stuff at face value. But sometimes I can get myself in a "mood" and enjoy various stuff. So, I got entertained by, for example, Nolan's movies, because they are expensive, large and well directed.