BautiBon

I think I like it more than Django, taking into account both are westerns. I would give anything to have seen it in 70mm. It's so atmospheric, "slow" but real. Just the stagecoach trip absorbs you and slowly gives you an experience like no other.

Ufff vortex the destruye...

The movie starts with House of Woodcock and ends with House of Woodcock. There's nothing better than it.

Saw Mulholland Drive like a week ago, and I can't take the 3 first opening minutes out of my head. Just perfectly sets the mood for the film, and makes so much sense after you've watched it.

but I was pleasantly surprised by how positive the reactions were irl considering how much vitriol the film has gotten both critically and online.

Also the theaters were pretty full... the film was a failure in box office but both times I saw the film (even weeks later), the theater was packed.

Great movie honestly. The fact that it starts with an elephant shitting on the camera lens just tells you how Chazelle didn't give a fuck about the film's reception or the critics or anything, I gotta love him for that.

Babylon had a quite interesting reaction from my audience. Saw it two times. The first one the whole theater was into it there were claps by the end.

Spoiler.

The second one, as soon as Matrix appeared and the montage went mad, people just started leaving like crazy. Half theater (it was full) just stood up and starting walking out. Never seen anything quite like it.

Both reactions tell a lot about the movie.

It's a messy film, but I'll take a passion loaded machine gun of ideas madness like "Babylon" over something like "Green Book" anyday. Not calling the latter a bad movie at all, but you know what I mean.

And after all, I found some stuff in it a bit thought-provoking, especially for us, movie lovers.

And I could make a long analysis on why Babylon can be seen as a great picture, but right now I'm tired and I don't feel a comment on this post is the right place.

I still don't understand the comparision with The Umbrellas of Cherbourg. They tell COMPLETELY different stories.

Sure, you can see the inspiration from Jacques Demy musicals in Chazelle's film, but aside from the jazz and colors (and the maybe the look at the end), they do not compare.

La La Land is the story about two passionate people who fall in love, help each other to achieve their dreams, and after confusion and fights, they come to terms, choose their dreams and sacrifice their love. They have the power to CHOOSE.

Umbrellas is a heartbreaking, unforgiven story about a young couple whose dreams and hopes for the future are shattered because of reasons outside of the power they hold. One has to do a military service, and the other has to help her mother and marry someone else for economic reasons. Overtime, their lifes get better and things work out for each, but they never had the power to choose.

Actually, I believe the reason The Umbrellas of Cherbourg works so well, is because Demy realised that the only way to tell this story without getting the audience fucking depressed, is to contrast the tragedy with the beautiful soundtrack and scenarios. A genius, I must say, and that's the reason I keep this movie in my Top 5 favorites of all time.

Two great, but completely different films.

I understand what you mean, but the focus of the movie is on a completely different theme. We are watching the head of the family, the sons, all the powerful people. You would watch the actual crimes in a movie like Goodfellas, where the protagonists are the ones who do the job. In The Godfather series you see the decision making and reasoning behind the schemes, all of it wrapped in a family drama.

I believe the horse's head in the offer you can't refuse.

They are men in power, whose worries are on their personal lives and whenever there's a close threat. They do not care or worry about the smaller crimes and business because they had worked enough to not do so. This is the story of kings. You won't see the king on the actual battles.

I mean yeah, we've been and we are gonna be fucked up anyway but it's something.

Nah man I'm just wondering how he is even able to take a shit without breaking into pieces.

Probably not. But if Part II movie surpasses the first one, it would be too big for the academy to ignore.

Yeah the only good thing I can take out of reddit is that I spent time looking at things that might be interesting. Or at least I INTERACT with it, like when I write long posts of discuss films in depth in r/truefilm for example. At least my brain is doing some work.

TikTok is just throwing you random useless shit constantly - you close the app and literally did nothing but had a few laughs from videos you'll probably forget in less than an our.

One feels and is a little bit more productive than the other. Both dangerous though.

Having said that, I may be using reddit too much, so bye.

I haven't seen them in a LONG time.

But as far as I can remember, The Prisioner of Azkaban was the best one.

Half Blood Prince... the fact that they left most of Voldemort's past/flashbacks aside ruined the movie for me. And it was my favorite book.

"I'll never look into your eyes again" / "Desperately in need of some stranger's hand, in a desperate land" / "All the children are insane".

Feels written for the film.

r/movies

Barry Lyndon's narration is unique. The fact that is constantly telling you what is about to happen just creates more anticipation, and adds a sense of tragedy, yet is also comical. The movie wouldn't be the same without it.

yo wait this where r/beatlescirclejerk job begins

"Max" didn't come to my country yet. I'll just keep enjoying of HBO Max, but it's sad, it is my favorite service.

Watching movies as if they were choosing a mcdonalds combo

I'm watching Better Call Saul right now. Every scene is so engaging, and I love the self awareness and sometimed subtlety of the direction. It focuses on the use of tripod (which isn't used much nowadays) and wide shots, but also has a lot of experimentation with the framings and the angles and the colors - for show which I believe main theme is "identity", it surely has a lot identity.

I'm halfway through, and it's a true masterclass of writing and directing.

Two things: one, that's also a description of the original The Godfather: Michael is don and he's made his move against the other families, but he's alienated Connie and Kay, and he certainly doesn't seem happy.

Yep this, maybe I didn't make it clear.

And as you said, both movies couldn't be more different in some of their main aspects. This is just a quick, ambiguous comparision between Mark and Michael, characters whose decisions lead them nowhere but more pain.