I'll tiebreak in a few hours...

Just watched it and while I don't think it is fair to call is style over substance, it is very superficial. It is only 90 minutes, and I feel it could have used another 15-20 minutes of character development. The plot makes sense, but they have a montage at the end as a main character lays it out, which I felt was necessary. They should definitely have fleshed the plot out more rather than focusing on the atmosphere, and leaving the plot as a last-minute exposition at the end.

Also the beginning of the movie is very flawed since they tell us nothing about the good guy or the bad guy, other than showing their interaction with one another. It also has alot of pregnant moments where shots linger on their eyes or expressions, but those are wasted since I literally don't know anything about them, and at that point I have absolutely no context for their emotions. A more straightforward start would have been alot better than the "jump right in" approach we get now. It's only 90 minutes so there was definitely room for it.

5/10, did not offend.

The grandma scene was pretty sweet I got to say, it was extremely well executed, I love when the filmmakers take care to really make you notice and experience each bullet and making them feel like they have "weight" to them with good sound editing as they impact things. Like a perfect Max Payne bullettime sequence. Though that scene didn't really carry any consequences for any of the characters to be honest, noone sustained an injury that became important later. It was maaaaaybe a bit too contained to be necessary, while still nicely done.
I guess I felt like alot was setup; here are the pieces. But then I had a very hard time engaging myself in any of it. Again since I felt that I didn't really know any of the characters at all. I like subtlety, but I felt like there was nothing at all I could infer things from. There was almost no banter amongst characters about what they did this weekend, "I'm late because my f*cking cat bit me in the balls", those types of things.

Still I didn't find anything to be "objectively" bad and it is well executed, just a matter of how it works individually. Thanks for the tip still. Mark Strong was by far the strongest player I felt, and I've only seen him mainly in Stardust/Kick-Ass/Sunshine before, where he didn't really get to show the softer side.

While I doubt I'll return to it, I did enjoy The Machinist quite a bit.

I liked it. Huge improvement on the second movie, with a much better villain, greater stakes, and a better arc for Stark.

Altitude (2010) - 3/10

A few (I forget how many because I don't even care) young people, most of them obnoxious, one outright racist douchebag jock asshat, all with an inconceivable sense of proportion, fly a tiny plane to some place for some reason. Unfortunately for them, they fly into the twilight zone.

Terrific looking film considering the relatively low budget it appears to have.
Some of the worst scripting and direction I've seen in a film in a long time. Too much to even begin to go into, but at one point not too far in I just started laughing uncontrollably, doubting what I was seeing and hearing. When the characters predictably start meeting their ends I was cheering and laughing (no, really, literally), which I don't think was the intention since the other characters in the film were sad and crying and stuff.

The casual racist character is the single most annoying character I can remember seeing. He also gets a slow motion "fall away from the camera" moment which is played as shocking and sad and all that stuff. An idiot, racist piece of shit asshole dies in the film and the film plays it absolutely, 100% straight. Everyone in this film, save one or possibly two, are absolutely impossible to watch without wanting to punch the wall, and the movie is so stupid it doesn't realize this.
This is the movie where "the annoying character" from 5 other movies are suddenly the heroes. It'll blow your mind.

I would actually recommend this. I saw the whole thing, it is competently made on some levels. But chances are you will be just shaking your head the entire second half of the film. I had a running riff going for the last half of it, where practically everything said and done by anyone is just wrong. Empirically, emotionally, logically. And the movie is constantly enabling them instead of punishing them.

- Flying blind in a storm, have no solid estimate of your bearings or altitude? Why not put the plane into autopilot and have a cry in the back of the plane for 5 minutes instead of avoiding mountains or terrain?

- Did someone just OD on motion sickness pills? Just give them mouth to mouth for 20 seconds, don't make them throw up and try and clear their stomach or anything. They will magically recover from the chemicals surging through their body.

- Did you just say that you were going to die a few minutes earlier? Don't worry, distract yourself by becoming hurt about some small lie your boyfriend was just caught in.

- Terrified that you are going to die in a planecrash? Why not blow off some steam and endager the lives of you and all others by having a fistfight with someone to the point that the PILOT is completely distracted?

This is "Hello!?: The movie". Meaning after every sentence by a person, you want to shout "Hello!? Do you realize where the f*ck you are? I'm sure you can deal with this shit later when you're not possibly dead in 5 seconds".

There is more elements to work with here than classics like "Terror at 20.000 feet", and in the hands of competent screenwriters and director it could have been great. It is not.

Overall, a great time for the whole family.

Last edited by TechNoir (2013-09-11 22:00:08)

It's essentially a play that takes place within a restaurant.
Hadn't seen this one since college, what a gorgeous movie, however, it's pretty damn uncomfortable. 
I really don't know anything about the director, but I'm curious to check out his other stuff.
Also, all the characters clothes change color, depending on what room they're in (red for dining room, green for the kitchen)...except the main character, who always wears the same brown suit. 
I'm sure there's a ton to unpack in this movie, but I haven't spent enough time thinking about it...still reeling from the end.

I've really lost track of what Peter Greenaway (the writer/director) has been doing since about the mid 90's, but in terms of where to go from here, I would probably start with The Draughtsman's Contract or, if you really feel like being messed with, Drowning By Numbers. 

I still remember my old pan-and-scanned videotape of The Draughtsman's Contract, which had been mysteriously retitled The aughtsman ontra.  Home video really has come a long way kids.

Pretty sure this will be next ep of Documentality along with Overnight.  Theme: Storytelling.

Sherlock Holmes (2009)

I rather enjoyed it. A bit CGI-in-your-face, but it overall looked amazing, and I always love Victorian London in movies. It reminded me a lot of From Hell, with a far less serious tone, of course.

Robert Downey Jr. nails it, no surprise here - but I was way more impressed by Jude Law, whose performance I wasn't expecting much of. Rachel McAdams provided me with a new crush, and Mark Strong was badass (as expected too).

Yup, two great hours of my evening. The sequel shall follow very soon.

Last edited by Saniss (2013-09-14 02:39:21)

Hadn't heard anything about this one. Will look into it further, it very well may go on my watchlist.

Also I checked IMDB a day ago and realized just how much I've seen Mark Strong. I always just remember 2-3 movies but I've seen him in close to 9-10.

I think he is the closest to a mancrush I will ever get. There, I said it.

Watched this too - thanks for the heads up, BDA.

Awesome. Just awesome. I've been trying to track down an original print of Cards as Weapons for... over ten years now. I look for it in every used bookstore I ever pass. I don't know what I'll do when I find it, I think I'll be a little disappointed.

Anyway, loved it, but it might be a bit dry for anyone who isn't nuts for magic.