The Movies

[Mark Rippetoe]

I watched Arrival yesterday. It was a thoughtful sci-fi film, and despite the usual leftist accouterments, it was enjoyable. I'll probably watch it again.

[George Christiansen]

I watched Arrival yesterday. It was a thoughtful sci-fi film, and despite the usual leftist accouterments, it was enjoyable. I'll probably watch it again.

I watched it last week and was quite underwhelmed. It had some good ideas that someone could turn into a decent film, but I felt like it was a three act play where the first and last act blew by in a couple of minutes while the second dragged on forever.

It was also just kind of unpleasant visually. It was almost like they were trying to save on the need for decent sets by using that perpetual fogginess look.

I'd love to see someone run with the lead's dilemma (don't want to spoil anything) and how knowing what she knew would affect living her life going forward.

[spacediver]

It was also just kind of unpleasant visually. It was almost like they were trying to save on the need for decent sets by using that perpetual fogginess look.

I thought it was visually stunning. Did you not get goosebumps during the extended, slow, circular dolly shot as the helicopter is approaching the base? It was one of the most generous and beautiful shots I've ever seen in film. You get a sheer sense of the scale of the "artifact", an appreciation of the gorgeous backdrop (those clouds flowing down the side of the valley), and an intelligent visual synopsis of the layout of the base. All this coupled with a haunting score full of mystery.

And I thought the "gravity tunnel" was really cool.

Denis Villeneuve has done some good stuff. Sicario is a real treat.

[Dag]

The last action movie I saw in the theatre was Jason Bourne and the shaky-cam, 500-cuts-per-minute action scenes were so incomprehensible that I just totally checked out to the point that I started falling asleep in my seat.

I agree. Not only does watching it give me a seizure, you can't tell anything that's going on. Actually, I hate it

[George Christiansen]

[QUOTE=spacediver;1489798]I thought it was visually stunning. Did you not get goosebumps during the extended, slow, circular dolly shot as the helicopter is approaching the base? It was one of the most generous and beautiful shots I've ever seen in film. You get a sheer sense of the scale of the "artifact", an appreciation of the gorgeous backdrop (those clouds flowing down the side of the valley), and an intelligent visual synopsis of the layout of the base.[QUOTE=spacediver;1489798]

There were a few good shots, but the color palette blew.

[QUOTE=spacediver;1489798]All this coupled with a haunting score full of mystery./QUOTE]

Pretty similar to the cinematography, in my opinion.

Denis Villeneuve has done some good stuff. Sicario is a real treat.

I liked Sicario quite a bit. Didn't realize it was the same guy.

[spacediver]

There were a few good shots, but the color palette blew.

My recollection is that the main storyline had a lot of greens and greys, somewhat muted (i.e. not vivid and saturated). But I think the flashbacks and flashforwards, for example where she's near the shore with her daughter explaining why her father left her, and when she's giving a speech towards the end of the movie, are more colorful. Perhaps this was done for effect on purpose, given the nature of the story - maybe it was meant to suggest that the past and future are more real than the present. Dunno, just going off the top of my head here.

[George Christiansen]

My recollection is that the main storyline had a lot of greens and greys, somewhat muted (i.e. not vivid and saturated). But I think the flashbacks and flashforwards, for example where she's near the shore with her daughter explaining why her father left her, and when she's giving a speech towards the end of the movie, are more colorful. Perhaps this was done for effect on purpose, given the nature of the story - maybe it was meant to suggest that the past and future are more real than the present. Dunno, just going off the top of my head here.

You're correct and some of the memory scenes had a broader palette, but I guess maybe it was the filter that turned me off to even most of those scenes. The scene with the general had probably the most contrast to the main parts of the film, but it came across as the same mistake in the opposite direction to me.

[tbennett]

Just saw this, and I completely agree about how it was shot and edited. It's so great to see an action movie where the characters seem to exist in physical space and you can clearly follow what is happening and it makes sense. Makes it actually exciting and fun to watch. The last action movie I saw in the theatre was Jason Bourne and the shaky-cam, 500-cuts-per-minute action scenes were so incomprehensible that I just totally checked out to the point that I started falling asleep in my seat.

Not sure if this has been posted earlier in this thread - but here's the archetype for what you refer to in such (deservedly) scathing tones - a sequence in Taken 3 where there are something like 15 cuts in a *7* second sequence. :-O

Bryan Mills jumps a fence - YouTube

[Mark Rippetoe]

I really REALLY hate this kind of editing and cinematography. When I watch Quantum of Solace I just fast forward through the action scenes because they are all presented that way. I really do. The entire final third of the first Star Trek reboot movie was this way, and I will not watch it. I don't know when this became fashionable, but it needs to stop.

[MBasic]

I saw a 2 min. clip of Transporter 3 w/ Jason Latham on cable.

The fight scene was chopped up so bad, and so fast-forward-1980's-Kung-Fu-movie in spots it was a joke.

Are the Transporter movies like some kind of parody thing / goof ? . . . or are they supposed to be a serious action movie?

Transporter 3 (2008) | Train Scene (Final Fight) | 1080p - YouTube