Movie Discussion Thread

[hobbes2053]

[Dr. Gonzo]

Originally Posted by Brodeur

Man, you are really buying into the pretentious as all hell movies this year.

I buy into 'pretentious' movies every year because I am not a sad, self concious shell of a man who feels the need to not like good movies in order to be cool.

Don't forget, one of my very favorite films is Synecdoche, New York.

[OSUGiants17]

Originally Posted by hobbes2053

She is such a dufus

[Brent]

[Job Reborn]

what in hell is a "pretentious" movie anyway?

[pierce2walker]

Originally Posted by OSUGiants17

She is such a dufus

Would bang said dufus.

[Brodeur]

Originally Posted by Job Reborn

what in hell is a "pretentious" movie anyway?

Whatever Gonzo praises.

[Job Reborn]

Originally Posted by Brodeur

Whatever Gonzo praises.

I don't see what was so pretentious in Life of Pi.

[SuperMcGee]

Originally Posted by Job Reborn

what in hell is a "pretentious" movie anyway?

[Vikes99ej]

Really fantastic, quirky little movie. Jack Black was great.

[SuperMcGee]

I was curious to check that one out. I've said that about a number of things McConaughye has been in, lately. Really digging some of his career moves in the past couple years. Will be interesting to see him in Scorsese's next picture.

[josh07039]

The fascinating part about Bernie is that it the plot is structured around interspersed interviews and they are with people from the town where it happened who knew the real bernie.

I was about to mock all the ones calling Maggie Grace a dufus because i thought the only correct spelling was doofus, but apparently thats another word we can't agree on how to spell so we all just say **** it. For what its worth, I think doofus is more acceptable for future reference.

Job to answer your question regarding pretentious movies. Tree of Life. I also think there is nothing wrong with some pretentious movies, but that is not one of them.

[Vikes99ej]

Originally Posted by Job Reborn

what in hell is a "pretentious" movie anyway?

Anything by PTA or Wes Anderson

[Bert Macklin]

J.J. Abrams Set to Direct Next 'Star Wars' Film (Exclusive)

J.J. Abrams will direct the next "Star Wars" film for Disney, taking stewardship of one of Hollywood's most iconic and lucrative film franchises, an individual with knowledge of the production told TheWrap.

"Argo" director Ben Affleck was also in contention, another individual with knowledge of the talks told TheWrap.

Ever since Disney bought Lucasfilm last year and announced it would make new "Star Wars" films, fans, members of the media and industry executives have speculated about which director would take the job. Abrams' name always came up, but he told Entertainment Weekly in November that he wasn't going to take the job.

He did say "Star Wars" was the first movie that "blew my mind" in terms of special effects.

Lucasfilm Chief Kathleen Kennedy has been courting Abrams, one of the most successful directors and producers in Hollywood -- and a man beloved by fanboys. He runs one of the industry's top production companies, Bad Robot, and created or co-created television franchises like "Lost," "Fringe" and "Alias." He has also directed film spectacles "Mission: Impossible III," "Star Trek" and "Super 8."

The lure of the Jedi was too strong, and it will no doubt complicate his relationship with Paramount, where Bad Robot is a top supplier. Abrams has been feverishly working on "Star Trek Into Darkness," his second Star Trek film since he rebooted the franchise in 2009. "Into Darkness," still in post-production, opens May 18.

Though he has several producing jobs in front of him, Abrams had been uncommitted as a director. He will have to jump right into "Star Wars," which Disney has slated for a 2015 release. "Little Miss Sunshine" screenwriter Michael Arndy is penning the script.

mobile.thewrap.com/thewrap/pm_105952/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=BkYkMY2c

[Jvig43]

That is rather interesting. Star Trek was awesome, and how bad ass is it going to be to say you directed both a new era of Star Trek and Star Wars.

[Ness]

Abrams always wanted to direct a Star Wars film. Star Trek was the best thing he got though, and there are even subtle references to Star Wars in that movie...which I'm not necessarily a fan of (that and the plot holes in that film).

[A Perfect Score]

I'm a little disappointed by that choice, honestly. Star Trek and Star Wars? It's a science fiction monopoly. I would have liked something a little different. Apparently Ben Affleck was the second choice, which would have been REALLY interesting IMO.

[josh07039]

Originally Posted by Vikes99ej

Anything by PTA or Wes Anderson

Nah, because, especially in the case of PTA, those movies are sensationally well made and aren't full of false sense of self importance. PTA has these weird artistic elements but none of his movies try to be more than they are. His movies don't try to ask big questions or even leave you with answers,they just tell a story.Magnolia is the exception because it gets bogged down in trying to be profound and huge in its story.I think it is oddly both his best work and his most pretentious.
In the case of Wes, his shooting style ,that makes you feel like you are watching through the wall of a dollhouse, makes it clear how small the scale is. Its Wes Anderson's little world. Yes there are crazy quirks and plaid and esoteric music, but that is not pretentious, people always use pretentious wrong. Im not going to look up the defenition cause this is the internet, but the gist is that its about projecting a false sense of importance.
I confess to not having seen all of Tree of Life because i couldn't get through it, but I think it is a perfect example of the other side of the coin. I find Terrence Mallick very often pretentious since his early few films. He muses about all of life and history and those are all interesting questions to ask, but within any film, to impose that level of scale and importance is pretentious in a way that the small world of wes isn't.

Just to not Mallick bash, 2001 is kinda pretentious in some of the same ways Tree of Life is and the rest of Kubricks work is not.

Sorry I wrote a book, but Ive been watching a ton of movies lately and I guess my mind looked for any excuse to purge out thoughts about film.

[Jvig43]

Originally Posted by A Perfect Score

I'm a little disappointed by that choice, honestly. Star Trek and Star Wars? It's a science fiction monopoly. I would have liked something a little different. Apparently Ben Affleck was the second choice, which would have been REALLY interesting IMO.

At least we'll get some light shed onto what the force really is. LIGHT CAVES!

[Dr. Gonzo]

Originally Posted by josh07039

Nah, because, especially in the case of PTA, those movies are sensationally well made and aren't full of false sense of self importance. PTA has these weird artistic elements but none of his movies try to be more than they are. His movies don't try to ask big questions or even leave you with answers,they just tell a story.Magnolia is the exception because it gets bogged down in trying to be profound and huge in its story.I think it is oddly both his best work and his most pretentious.
In the case of Wes, his shooting style ,that makes you feel like you are watching through the wall of a dollhouse, makes it clear how small the scale is. Its Wes Anderson's little world. Yes there are crazy quirks and plaid and esoteric music, but that is not pretentious, people always use pretentious wrong. Im not going to look up the defenition cause this is the internet, but the gist is that its about projecting a false sense of importance.
I confess to not having seen all of Tree of Life because i couldn't get through it, but I think it is a perfect example of the other side of the coin. I find Terrence Mallick very often pretentious since his early few films. He muses about all of life and history and those are all interesting questions to ask, but within any film, to impose that level of scale and importance is pretentious in a way that the small world of wes isn't.

Just to not Mallick bash, 2001 is kinda pretentious in some of the same ways Tree of Life is and the rest of Kubricks work is not.

Sorry I wrote a book, but Ive been watching a ton of movies lately and I guess my mind looked for any excuse to purge out thoughts about film.

I can get behind some of this. That said I love 2001 and Kubrick is a genius in every sense of the word. The best director to date imo. I happen to love the works of PTA and Wes Anderson as well with PTA being easily my favorite living director.

It's funny I loved Tree of Life but I just don't get bogged down in this whole pretentious debate. I either like a movie or I don't. I am not going to fault any filmmaker for telling a grand and ambitious story. I mean I love films like Melancholia and The Fountain which I have heard being called pretentious but to those people I just say you are dumb.

The whole argument is dumb, if you are going to judge a great film as pretentious it is you who is being pretentious.

[Dr. Gonzo]

Originally Posted by A Perfect Score

I'm a little disappointed by that choice, honestly. Star Trek and Star Wars? It's a science fiction monopoly. I would have liked something a little different. Apparently Ben Affleck was the second choice, which would have been REALLY interesting IMO.

Safe choice. I won't say it was a bad choice but there are so many better directors for the job. This is why the prequels were not good, it isn't about making the best Star Wars movie, gotta sell those action figures. I did really enjoy Star Trek so I will hold out hope he would have done a good job.

I think Affleck would have been a great choice. Dude is talented as hell and I think he would have made an excellent film.

[Rosebud]

It's not dumb to judge a film for being pretentious if that pretentiousness impedes the enjoyment of the film. And I fully recognize the irony of saying this as an Aronofsky fanboy who also loves Kubrick. But still, there's many films that ruin their own enjoyability by marveling at their own profoundness.

[Dr. Gonzo]

Originally Posted by Rosebud

It's not dumb to judge a film for being pretentious if that pretentiousness impedes the enjoyment of the film. And I fully recognize the irony of saying this as an Aronofsky fanboy who also loves Kubrick. But still, there's many films that ruin their own enjoyability by marveling at their own profoundness.

But those movies are ******. Brodeur is arguing great films like The Master, Life of Pi, and Cloud Atlas are not good and pretentious. That is ******* crazy talk.

[Rosebud]

There's people who'd argue von trier's films are great films, same for Almodovar and Bertolucci. And I have found a number of films by those guys to be too pretentious for me to enjoy.

[josh07039]

I was merely saying that there is a distinction because ambitious/artistic and pretentious. Obviously it was sarcasm, but to basically say that PTA and Wes Anderson are perfect examples of pretentious is ludicrous as far as I'm concerned.

And just because Kubrick is a genius doesn't mean aspects of 2001 weren't pretentious. That also doesn't mean 2001 isn't great.