coraleat:

John Watson discovers the Internet. 

thatcerealkiller:

ironically-awesome-sunglasses:

scifantasy:

yunafire:

scifantasy:

luckystrikesme:

am i the only one that thinks reservoir dogs is a homoerotic love story poorly disguised as an action/drama/thriller? 

Whatever

image

gave you

image

that idea?

image

;)

I have

image

no idea

image

what you’re

image

talking about.

image

It’s a complete

image and total image mystery. image

yeah

image

no clue where that could come from

image

NO I SHOWED UP LATE BUT WHATEVER HERE I AM

image

image

Can’t forget these two.

image

image

Idk bro.

image

(Source: twentyprettytitties)

thatcerealkiller:

scifantasy:

whereigotowander:

sydcymbaline:

So, in the end he was really her lover

omg never noticed this before

So, is this confirmation that he really does have an enormous cock?

:)))

image

Days of Future Past Concept Art by Mathieu Duchesne x

(Source: xavierstea)

kino-obscura:

EYES IN FILM: 2014 EDITION

"I am eye. I am a mechanical eye. I, a machine, am showing you a world, the likes of which only I can see." — Dziga Vertov


Left to right, top to bottom:

Man With a Movie Camera
 (Dziga Vertov, 1929)
Un Chien Andalou (Luis Buñuel, 1929)
Meshes of the Afternoon (Maya Deren/Alexander Hammid, 1943)
The Lost Weekend (Billy Wilder, 1945)
Spellbound (Alfred Hitchcock, 1945)
The Spiral Staircase (Robert Siodmak, 1945)
Sunset Boulevard (Billy Wilder, 1950)
Vertigo (Alfred Hitchcock, 1958)
Psycho (Alfred Hitchcock, 1960)
Peeping Tom
 (Michael Powell, 1960)
Goldfinger (Guy Hamilton, 1964)
Woman on the Dunes
 (Hiroshi Teshigahara, 1964)
Alphaville
 (Jean-Luc Godard, 1965)
Repulsion (Roman Polanski, 1965)
The Russians are Coming, The Russians are Coming (Norman Jewison, 1966)
2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, 1968)
McCabe & Mrs. Miller (Robert Altman, 1971)
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (Tobe Hooper, 1974)
Deep Red
 (Dario Argento, 1977)
Rubens
 (Roland Verhavert, 1977)
The Spy Who Loved Me (Lewis Gilbert, 1977)
All That Jazz (Bob Fosse, 1979)
Blade Runner
 (Ridley Scott, 1982)
Goodfellas
 (Martin Scorsese, 1990)
Bram Stoker’s Dracula (Francis Ford Coppola, 1992)
Hard Boiled (John Woo, 1992)
Cube (Vincenzo Natali, 1997)
Titanic
 (James Cameron, 1997)
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
 (Terry Gilliam, 1998)
Requiem for a Dream
 (Darren Aronofsky, 2000)
Donnie Darko (Richard Kelly, 2001)
Mulholland Drive
 (David Lynch, 2001)
Vanilla Sky
 (Cameron Crowe, 2001)
Gangs of New York
 (Martin Scorsese, 2002)
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
 (Peter Jackson, 2002)
The Magdalene Sisters (Peter Mullan, 2002)
Minority Report (Steven Spielberg, 2002)
The Fountain
 (Darren Aronofsky, 2006)
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
 (Julian Schnabel, 2007)
Hunger (Steve McQueen, 2008)
Splice
 (Vincenzo Natali, 2009)
Let Me In (Matt Reeves, 2010)
Hugo (Martin Scorsese, 2011)
Looper
 (Rian Johnson, 2012)
Prometheus (Ridley Scott, 2012)

(via salesonfilm)

I watched “Filth” recently and it became immediately one of my feelgood movies.

A corrupt cop manipulates and hallucinates his way through a bid to secure a promotion and win back his wife and daughter.” imdb.com

Filth is a 2013 Scottish crime comedy-drama film written and directed by Jon S. Baird, based on Irvine Welsh’s novel Filth.” wikipedia.com

Warped, grimy, and enthusiastically unpleasant, Filth lives up to its title splendidly.” rotten Tomatoes

Exhausting in its relentless depravity, “Filth” nevertheless is reminiscent of a much better movie also adapted from a novel by Irvine Welsh: Danny Boyle’s 1996 “Trainspotting.”” rottenTomatoes

Apparently, the last quote illustrates a big problem of “Filth”. It is not “Trainspotting”. And there are some other things that went wrong, which I’d like to point out. For example, its boldness is exercised in a rather awkward way.

Nevertheless, this is my attempt to explain why “Filth” deserves some love.

The comic timing in “Filth” is excellent! The emotional scenes were outstanding thanks to the performance of the leading actor. But the plot is predictable and the controversial stuff was the usual controversial stuff. The content, for sure, is dark and depressing, unfortunately it is not skillfully captured.  All the film’s edginess was rather cute. The horrid murder at the beginning seems like a joke. With Winter wonderland song played in the background it is no big deal and incredibly random. Violence presented in a nonchalant way is something the audience is already familiar with. But in this scene and every other scene with the potential shock value there is neither intensity nor edge.

A superfluous hand gesture of a dead child, awkward turning down and up the volume of the soundtrack and lazy transitions are details which make the film inferior to “Trainspotting”. Basically, there is nothing subtle about this film. Jim Broadbent is singing essentials background story information to the audience. The supporting characters are raw and hardly nuanced. The editing seems at times unskilful. However, the awkwardness complements the content of the film.

Filth” centers around Bruce Robertson. Everyone and everything that happens is Bruce’s perception. Since he has mental problems the viewer cannot rely on the images. The breaking of the forth wall and the voice over are essential. In this case, it is a weird combination of a cynical film noir like tormented hero and the charm of a cartoon character.

Indeed, the animation at the end is the clue to understand the film. Bruce is infantile. As the plot proceeds he is increasingly depicted as an extremely vulnerable and helpless human being. Throughout the film he behaves utterly immature. Of course some actions are brutal but his abuse of power is equally outrageous as well as laughable. He says a lot of filthy things but his actions are predominantly unethical pranks. Even the deeds that classify as criminal eventually turn out rather…small time, disgusting but wannabe mastermind bad.

He is still the little kid who killed by accident his brother and never received love and respect from his father. Although entitling himself the “man of the fucking house” he is a failure as patriarch of a clan, the Robertson clan. His wife abandoned him for another man and took his daughter away from him. He lets the potential new family with the son he never had slip away.

He feels threatened by homosexuality, different races, the opposite sex, different religions, and any human being in fact because of his overwhelming low self-esteem. Plus, he has problems with his virility.

Life taught him that he has to be the best to earn the respect of his father and love of his wife.

Bruce’s only mature moment is the recorded video for Bladesy. In the video he gives his friend a sincere piece of advice and finally is at peace with himself and the world.

Since the film is a character study the clumsy moments are not unbearably annoying. Not as memorable and well crafted as “Trainspotting”, still an amazingly enjoyable movie.

Bruce/“Filth” is like a kid trying to get recognition by misbehaving but instead ends up looking pitiful and a little adorable as well. But all he/it wants is to be loved and appreciated. Yes he/it is rather filthy but I want to hug the hell out of him/it anyway.

ps. noticed the pleasant Kubrick tribute?

"

Interpreting Blue Velvet, for example, as a film centrally concerned “with a boy discovering corruption in the heart of a town” is about as obtuse as looking at the robin perched on the Beaumont’s window-sill at the movie’s end and ignoring the writhing beetle the robin’s got in its beak. The fact is that Blue Velvet is basically a coming-of-age movie, and, while the brutal rape Jeffrey watches from Dorothy’s closet might be the movie’s most horrifying scene, the real horror in the movie surrounds discoveries that Jeffrey makes about himself—for example, the discovery that a part of him is excited by what he sees Frank Booth do to Dorothy Vallens. Frank’s use, during the rape, of the words “Mommy” and “Daddy,” the similarity between the gas mask Frank breathes through in extremis and the oxygen mask we’ve just seen Jeffrey’s dad wearing in the hospital—this stuff isn’t there just to reinforce the Primal Scene aspect of the rape. The stuff’s also there clearly to suggest that Frank Booth is, in a certain deep way, Jeffrey’s “father,” that the darkness inside Frank is also encoded in Jeffrey. Gee-whiz Jeffrey’s discovery not of dark Frank but of his own dark affinities with Frank is the engine of the movie’s anxiety. Note for example that the long and somewhat heavy angst-dream Jeffrey suffers in the film’s second act occurs not after he has watched Frank brutalize Dorothy but after he, Jeffrey, has consented to hit Dorothy during sex.

There are enough heavy clues like this to set up, for any marginally attentive viewer, what is Blue Velvet’s real climax, and its point. The climax comes unusually early, near the end of the film’s second act. It’s the moment when Frank turns around to look at Jeffrey in the back seat of the car and says “You’re like me.” This moment is shot from Jeffrey’s visual perspective, so that when Frank turns around in the seat he speaks both to Jeffrey and to us. And here Jeffrey—who’s whacked Dorothy and liked it—is made exceedingly uncomfortable indeed; and so—if we recall that we too peeked through those closet-vents at Frank’s feast of sexual fascism, and regarded, with critics, this scene as the film’s most riveting—are we. When Frank says “You’re like me,” Jeffrey’s response is to lunge wildly forward in the back seat and punch Frank in the nose—a brutally primal response that seems rather more typical of Frank than of Jeffrey, notice. In the film’s audience, I, to whom Frank has also just claimed kinship, have no such luxury of violent release; I pretty much just have to sit there and be uncomfortable.

And I emphatically do not like to be made uncomfortable when I go to see a movie. I like my heroes virtuous and my victims pathetic and my villains’ villainy clearly established and primly disapproved by both plot and camera. When I go to movies that have various kinds of hideousness in them, I like to have my own fundamental difference from sadists and voyeurs and psychos and Bad People unambiguously confirmed and assured by those movies. I like to judge. I like to root for Justice To Be Done without the slight squirmy suspicion (so prevalent and depressing in real moral life) that Justice probably wouldn’t be all that keen on certain parts of my character, either…

"

— David Foster Wallace, David Lynch Keeps His Head (via spectaculardistractions)

(via eyeprotein)

Partly, only partly I understand why so many people didn’t enjoy and liked “Trance”. I read that it is “style over substance”, “silly”, and that the story doesn’t make sense. Many claim that the characters are movie tropes (abusive boyfriend, vengeful heroine,) and completely unrelatable. Well, partly I agree.

The issue is the story obviously.

Simon (James McAvoy), a fine art auctioneer, teams up with a criminal gang to steal a Goya painting worth millions of dollars, but after suffering a blow to the head during the heist he awakens to discover he has no memory of where he hid the painting. When physical threats and torture fail to produce answers, the gang’s leader Frank (Vincent Cassel) hires hypnotherapist Elizabeth Lamb (Rosario Dawson) to delve into the darkest recesses of Simon’s psyche. As Elizabeth begins to unravel Simon’s broken subconscious, the lines between truth, suggestion, and deceit begin to blur. (c)Fox Searchlight (RottenTomatos)

Far fetched” is how some describe it. Well, I say there are far more implausible stories out there that are genuinely accepted.

There are a lot of art references and a predominant style is executed in this film, which seem to stir up negative emotions in combination with a more or less unconvincing storyline. Too much happens too fast in a too stylized way. The consequence are characters designed and written to be quickly recognized and understood (tropes).

I have a tender and loving view on Danny Boyle’s projects since “Shallow Grave” thus I’d like to point out why I think that Trance, although with some weaknesses, is a good and worth remembering film.

Anthony Dod Mantle (D.o.P) “Rush”, “The last King of Scottland”, “Dogville”„ 28 Days Later”, ..

John Harris (Cutter) “Snatch”, “The Descent”, “Stardust”, “Woman in Black”,..

Danis Schnegg and Katharina Dunn (Art Department) “28 weeks later”, “Happy-go-lucky”, “T.I.o.Doctor Parnassus”,..

…just saying.

Trance” is a shattered mirror like visual rollercoaster. Defragmented, illusionary, glossy, bright-coloured and specular images jump for about a 100 minutes at your throat. It is not to everyone’s delight I am sure. However, me being a fan of visual overload and boldness, don’t have a problem with it. As impudent as the imagines are, they are absolutely legitimate in context of the story.

All the shiny surfaces, mirrors and other reflections emphasize the transient and fragile memories. We are sure that our memories are solid and cannot be taken from us, but the truth is our memories are altered constantly by ourself. There is not one memory telling us how and what really happened. The reflections correspond to the duality of the main characters of the film. The well-dressed and sophisticated art auctioneer is overwhelmed by his anxieties, insecurities and inabilities. He insist to control everything in his live and fails which makes him escape into gambling and brutal behaviour.

The prudent and reserved Therapeutist turns out to be a witchlike woman who uses her mind and body to regain control of her life….. aaaaaand she succeeds. Due to her knowledge of human character, patience and beauty she not only gets rid of a man who made her life a living hell but gets compensation as well. Compensation in form of everlasting subjective value which is art. Compensation not in the form of a new lover, a tender gangster boss lover. He is just a potential bonus. The piece of art, the painting “Witches up the air” by Goya is the reward. The symbol of power regained after being taken away by Simon, her boyfriend. The reappearing defragmentation of human body in the film conveys the image of a fragile condition of human identity. It shows how we pick each other apart and thus often miss the whole picture of other people’s personality.

Furthermore, the mirror theme of the film implies how we see often merely an illusion and not the real person in front of us. We impose our own ideals on others and see them fail to live up to what we expect of them. Elizabeth is a woman of flesh and blood not a painting. She as his therapist exercised a strong power over him and he gladly succumbed to the image of her as a healer, lover and finally a potential goddess. She has the power to alter his live and to lead him as she wishes. Ultimately, Simon cannot obtain the image that he created of her. She is not inclined to take the role of his own personal Goddess, he has to deal with her being an “ordinary” woman as well as with his failure to cope with his issues in life on his own. He is obsessed with something illuminating his life and making it perfect.

This in my opinion justify the orgy of shiny and mercilessly constructed images.

Control as a theme. Look at the painting “Storm of the Lake G” by Rembrandt. Do you see the man in the middle who stares directly at us? Do you see how he holds on to the rope while the storm rages? We see in this painting the fear of losing control. The storms makes the sailors struggle to keep a steady course and to survive. Simon is one of those sailors. And his insecurities are the storm. He is surrounded by an extremely controlled and defined. The auction house has all sorts of devices to control every move of the people inside it. Everything has to go according to plan. (In Biblical the meaning of the name Simon is: That hears, that obeys.http://www.sheknows.com/baby-names/name/simon). “I have free will” he shouts at one point. He is desperate to be in control of events in his life. He is desperate for perfection. Simon is the man on Goya’s painitng as well, the one with the cloth above his head, hiding from the witches.

Simon’s work as well as Elizabeth’s work is very much about control. The difference is that Simon has to endure control while Elizabeth exercises it. Although her name is Lamb, she is definitely a shepherd.

Finally, “No piece of art is worth a human life”.

No construction however flawless and divine is going to surpass the peculiar charm of a flawed human existence.

This are my thoughts about the film “Trance”. This topic is one of many aspects of the film that I find interesting and enjoyable. I really enjoyed the tone of the film and its vivid opulent visuality. Needless to say, an other enjoyable aspect is James McAvoy.

If someone is still reading, Thank you and God bless you.

"Jarosław Iwaszkiewicz was a very famous Polish writer, and he adapted the story of the devils of Loudun for Polish circumstances. But it was a problem to make that particular film, because under Communism the state felt that the subject was too religious, while paradoxically the church felt that it was anti-Catholic. I wondered what crime I had committed! A film like Mother Joan of the Angels could only have been made in Poland in that particular political framework. […] I wanted the film to be about the nature of man, the nature that resists imposed restrictions and dogmas. The most important thing is the feeling we call love. Mother Joan of the Angels is, after all, a story of love between a priest and a nun.”

Jerzy Kawalerowicz on Mother Joan of the Angels

(Source: strangewood)

Robert Altman: It’s true that I dreamed [3 Women], but it was not the content of the film or any emotion in it, just that it was about personality theft. I had a film cancelled on me at Warner Brothers. I needed to make a film badly, and then my wife Kathryn got very sick. We took her to the emergency hospital at four in the morning, and it seemed very serious at the time, though it all turned out fine in the end. But I returned to my house on the beach in Malibu and went to bed feeling kind of desperate, and I dreamed I was making this film. I dreamed the title, the location and that there were three women, and I knew two of the cast, Shelley Duvall and Sissy Spacek. Part of the dream was that I kept waking up and writing these things down on a notepad. And then I told two of my production people, Tommy Thompson and Bob Eggenweiler, to check out Palm Springs. When I really woke up, there was sand in the bed, because my son Matthew, who was eleven then, had joined me, and he was spending all of his time on the beach. So that’s probably where the desert location came from… I had no story at that point, just the ambience and an atmosphere.

Sissy Spacek: I remember he told us about his dream. I did little drawings, little sketches about his dream. Bob would get the seed of an idea and he would let the people he was working with become a part of that… He told me everything he knew about my character, Pinky, and then it was like he would give actors a track, a blueprint. ‘Now work within these parameters and put yourself into it.’ He didn’t need to have all the answers. He didn’t have that disease where as a director you have to know everything. There was a lot of improvisational stuff. He would give us a scene in the morning and then it would grow. It was so freeing working with him after having worked with other directors. The way he works is all very naturalistic. Everything is natural and the sets are happy and relaxed and he seemed to always be the happiest and the most relaxed. I don’t think I ever knew what the film was about. I remember Bob would say, ‘Well, if you confuse people enough in the first twenty minutes they’ll give up trying to figure out what it’s about and they’ll just go with it and enjoy it.’

Shelley Duvall: I wrote all my own monologues. Bob would say, ‘Why don’t you write a monologue just in case we can use it?’ And we’d use it. He knows I always do my homework. I had been reading Apartment Life, Redbook, Readers Digest, and Woman’s Day. It’s easy to write. Monologues just came out in 15 minutes. Well, I put a lot of myself in, but I’m not a consumer like Millie. I played her like a Lubitsch comedy—people taking themselves very seriously. It is great fun to watch, as long as it isn’t you.

(Source: strangewood)

(Source: est1495)

sassy-hook:

pleasant-trees:

aprilsvigil:

manticoreimaginary:

Watching this (and fearing broken ankles with each loop) I can’t helping thinking about that old quote Ginger Rogers did everything Fred Astaire did, except backwards and in high heels.

But no, if you watch closely you’ll see she doesn’t even step on the last chair. That means she had to trust that fucker to lift her gently to the ground while he was spinning down onto that chair. That takes major guts. I’d be pissing myself and fearing a broken neck if I were in her place. Kudos to her. 

I can’t stop watching this. 

#I watched this for too long to not reblog

sassy-hook:

pleasant-trees:

aprilsvigil:

manticoreimaginary:

Watching this (and fearing broken ankles with each loop) I can’t helping thinking about that old quote Ginger Rogers did everything Fred Astaire did, except backwards and in high heels.

But no, if you watch closely you’ll see she doesn’t even step on the last chair. That means she had to trust that fucker to lift her gently to the ground while he was spinning down onto that chair. That takes major guts. I’d be pissing myself and fearing a broken neck if I were in her place. Kudos to her. 

I can’t stop watching this. 

(Source: ohrobbybaby, via humbl3pie)