|
 E: what a crappy snipe twernt posted:For me, this is a relatively easy win for The Pit and The Pendulum MacheteZombie fucked around with this message at 01:25 on Apr 12, 2021 |
#
?
Apr 12, 2021 01:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 04:09 |
|
|
No way! This is quality content.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2021 03:08
|
|
|
Mario Bava's Black Sunday vs. 15. (STAC Goat's Radio Silence) Glenn McQuaid's I Sell the Dead I Sell the Dead There are good ideas here and it's interesting to see the world of the supernatural from the perspective of working-class folks just scraping by. Unfortunately, it doesn't really coalesce into something compelling. It may not be fair, but I also can't help but compare I Sell the Dead to the What We Do in the Shadows TV series. The different short stories are loosely held together by the pre-execution interview, but they all sort of stand on their own and may have been better off kept separate. In many ways, I Sell the Dead feels like an extended pilot episode for a show that never got picked up. Overall, I wouldn't say it's terrible, but it's definitely not good enough for me to rewatch Black Sunday just to double check that it's the better movie. I'll be voting for Black Sunday in this matchup.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2021 14:43
|
|
|
Hey Deb are you showing The Pit and the Pendulum tonight?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2021 20:56
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Hey Deb are you showing The Pit and the Pendulum tonight? Oh I am, sorry! The TBA is just that I wasn't sure of the time Debbie Does Dagon posted:
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2021 21:05
|
|
|
Teke Teke vs. The Pit and the Pendulum This is one where I tuned into the stream for one of my favorites that I've seen several times, but ended up being really glad I was there to see the film I'd never heard of. Teke Teke is really cool and at times genuinely creepy take on a Japanese legend, and I really liked how the investigative aspect of it was emphasized. The ghost/vengeful sprit thing is treated almost like a cryptid animal, and the encounters with it unfold similarly to how you'd expect like, a Bigfoot movie or something like that. The spirit has a very striking silhouette and it's movements are stilted and off-putting but then surprisingly spry and animalistic in certain moments. I just thought all in all it was a really nice combination of spooky/creepy with more physical creature feature type stuff. It's not just the standard vengeful ghost, which I really appreciate. In many other matchups I'd probably be voting for it but the Price/Corman combination is too powerful. The Pit and the Pendulum isn't my favorite of their collaborations, but it has everything I love about gothic horror. The costumes, the sets, the neverending spider webs covering every inch of the place, the candles, the color palette, it's all extremely my thing and that's before we even get into Vincent Price. I feel like his performance here is underrated in that he's not completely over the top like the wizard battles in The Raven, and he's not Super Evil like he is in Witchfinder General or Masque of the Red Death. He's a bit understated here compared to some of those other films but when it's time to deliver he still does it in spades. And Price is one of the best facial reaction actors ever, he doesn't need a single line of dialogue to make an impression, his facial expressions do more than most actors can with entire monologues. The Pit and the Pendulum is a film where he uses that skill to the upmost. Anyway I'm voting for Corman but it's more out of personal preference for gothic horror and Vincent Price, and not really about the objective quality of Teke Teke, which I thought was very good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 14:33
|
|
|
Vote for Koji! You know what you're getting with corman like 99% of the time. With Koji it could be.... ANYTHING!!
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2021 14:40
|
|
|
The Pit and the Pendulum. I knew this was a winner from the first couple minutes on, with the lovely matte painting, physical sets and the spooky music. Does quite well with building up tension and characters for most of the movie before anything dramatic even happens, and it never feels like it’s dragging on because the short story didn’t provide enough material. I just wish there’d been more Pendulum action. The first time it is introduced by just its noise is quite spooky, the reveal of the absolutely gorgeous matte painting is definitely the highlight of the movie, but then nobody gets pendulum’d, everyone is unceremoniously pitted. A waste if you ask me. Teketeke Not bad, but not good either. The cinematography, while definitely TVish, is quite good in parts, the Teketeke is adorable, and the sound design of it is very nice. I also really like saying Teketeke. Teketeketeketeke. But there’s not really much substance to it, everything is very predictable, nothing’s really scary or interesting. P+P for me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 14:19
|
|
|
 Black Sunday AKA The Mask of Satan So it seems like Black Sunday is probably an easy winner here but I just want to make sure we appreciate what this movie brings to the table. It's interesting to think about how Mario Bava, a man who would become known as the Godfather of Italian Horror, didn't direct his first film until he was 46 years old. He'd sort of ghost-directed a few films before then, and was a well known cinematographer. But Black Sunday was technically his feature film debut as a director and you can tell that the man was extremely ready and prepared to do this. The film is meticulously designed on a visual level, even people in Deb's stream(I was lurking but couldn't participate because my blu ray hadn't arrived yet) who had trouble really engaging with the story couldn't help but appreciate the striking visuals. The atmosphere of every single scene is jacked up to 11 because at all times the sets are drenched in fog or full of flickering torches and cobwebs. There are zero opportunities missed for spookiness, this is probably one of the best films ever made for putting on in the background of a Halloween party.     Not every performance is great but Bava hit a home run with the casting of Barbara Steele. So you have the breakthrough of a legendary horror actress, some boundary pushing violence, and some excellent special effects that almost certainly were seen by Clive Barker before he upped the ante with the effects on Hellraiser. Sadly we only had Bava directing films for 20 years, which feels like not nearly long enough. Meanwhile, Dario Argento continues to sully his legacy 50 years after The Bird With the Crystal Plumage. I'd kill to see what Bava could've given us had he been directing films in the 1980s.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 16:28
|
|
|
Holy gently caress, its Wednesday. That crept up on me. There's about 39 hours left of this week's cycle. You can still vote or change your vote until 3 AM EST Apr 16th (or when I wake up). And hey, I'm actually sleeping for like a whole week now which is insane for me but maybe it continues and you get some extra hours. But don't chance it, get your votes in. And if you're like me and it turns out sleeping in a healthy way has made it harder to find time to watch movies you still have some time to get that last one in. Then new round on Friday.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 16:53
|
|
|
If you voted for Corman there's still time to change and correctly vote for Koji!
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 18:04
|
|
|
It turns out sleeping like a normal person gets in the way of watching movies. But I finally got them all in in so here’s what I got in the 11th hour. 2. Mario Bava’s Black Sunday vs. 15. (STAC Goat’s Radio Silence) Glenn McQuaid’s I Sell the Dead I dig Bava’s style. I think he’s kind of unique from other “auteurs” in that all the films I’ve seen him make are all mostly pretty difference from each other. There’s not that style or genre or crutches/signatures that make you go “a Bava movie.” But he does have a very alive way of filming and set/costume building that stands out to me. Whatever era or setting it feels very lush and real to me. I think Roger Corman really out Hammers Hammer with their signature style but I also think Bava has a taste of that here. There’s a lot of great mood and tension build in his little world and it sucks me in. I also really think Barbara Steele adds a lot just in the way she physically plays her roles. She’s playing the dual roles of identical women but I think you see a different, more ominous character when you see the witch and more innocent, demure one when you see Katja. That goes a long way for me and Steele just has a presence that really stands out to me and adds a lot. I’m not sure anyone else does but they all fill their jobs well. Black Sunday feels like the kind of film that could easily become one of my favorite go to Halloween films because it just has all that mood and feel I love that time of year. I like the idea behind I Sell The Dead, both as a film and in the production background. A number of my teams are built not around a theme but rather a collective of filmmakers who work together and help each other. The Moorehead/Benson Enemies of Horror team. The Rodriguez/Tarantino Grindhouse team. This team as built loosely around V/H/S but its turned out to kind of be the Larry Fessenden team so far with him appearing in both films. And in this case Glenn McQuaid is an employee for his studio house that Fessenden encouraged and helped write and make a film with help from friends including Ron Pearlman basically working for free between filming Hellboy II. I love that and I love these communities of filmmakers helping each other out. But as nice as that story is McQuaid’s film clearly feels unfinished and a tad amateurish. He’s got the starts of a bunch of interesting ideas here but none of them feel fully formed into a movie and they just don’t flow well with each other. McQuaid needed more experienced writers to pull the ideas together into a cohesive story and unfortunately it just doesn’t happen. There’s nice little moments and scenes and its an easy enough watch, but I get why I forgot it entirely from the last time I watched it. So Bava, easily. 7. Roger Corman’s The Pit and The Pendulum vs. 10. Kôji Shiraishi’s Teke Teke Now if Black Sunday kinda feels vague Hammeresque to me Corman is just fully “out Hammering Hammer” here. Its such a fun and rich mix of color and setting and Vincent Price being Vincent Price. I think this is arguably one of his strongest performances because he doesn’t spend the whole film in one of his scene chewing roles but transitions through them. Its just an absolutely marvelous joy to watch and has to carry much of the film because most of his supporting cast are just there. Barbara Steele is the exception as once again I just think she has a presence. But she doesn’t get a ton of time in this film (and apparently Corman overdubbed her dialogue because he didn’t like her accent). But like I said, there’s something about her and I think in those few moments she really hangs with Price as his equal and elevates the film. I could probably poke holes in this and I haven’t felt every Corman/Price film but I just had so much fun with this. This was a film I first watched this past Halloween and like Black Sunday I can see it becoming a go to favorite every year. Teke Teke was ok. I don’t mind its cheapness. I found that charming and really liked how it looked. But I’m unimpressed by some of the writing/directing choices made. There’s relatively small stuff like the choice to open on a bus with no steadicam for no reason (which really hosed with my already shaky stomach/balance from an allergic reaction and drugs) and some really confusing passing of time. Like did three days pass? Did they spend 2 days driving? Did they spend an entire day talking to those people? It was disorientating. But I think the big flaw is the choice to not feature the older cousin more in the first half of the film, compounded by the choice to heavily feature that boy who just disappears in the second half. Why do that? That seems completely backwards to me and does not impress me from Shiraishi. I can’t say I’ve been impressed in either of his outings. There’s some fun stuff and I think the film clicked when the cousins were on the road together. And a strong second half keeps it afloat and there was enough in the first half that it was never a bad watch. But I’m not terribly compelled to seek out more. Its an easy vote for me. Corman.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2021 00:28
|
|
|
Did you know that when you take too much Benadryl you get high and feel like you’re falling. Just like… constantly. That’s fun.  We have our second unanimous victory! Bava’s Black Sunday join’s Ghostwatch as the only two films to get a flawless victory and McQuard’s I Sell The Dead joins Aubrey Rose in the shameful 0 votes category. Bava’s 16 votes ties him for the highest movie and Director totals with Jonathan Glazer’s Under The Skin but one abstention keeps him from nailing that elusive 100%. Still 94% puts him 1st in that category. Amusingly Radio Silence had 12 votes in the prelims and needed only 2 votes to make the top 5. But whelp. On the other side Roger Corman just BARELY hangs on with just one vote. Talk about a contrast. Corman actually seemed to have this one in the bag early in the week but a late push for Teke Teke very nearly pulled this one off. But Shiraishi falls just short and loses to Corman for the second year in a row. Third time’s the charm? So that sets up for a pretty epic second round matchup between Bava and Corman. That one should be fun. Ok, new week. The first of our #1 seeds and the return of last year’s finalist. 1. Takashi Miike’s Terra Formars vs 16. (Franchescanado’s Team Vulgær) Gasper Noe’s Climax  Takashi Miike was drat near the champ last year. It was so close I forgot he didn’t win and named this bracket Champions for him. But he made it all the way to the championship round defeating Yoshiaki Kawajiri’s Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust, William Castle’s Tingler, Bob Clark’s Deathdream, Stuart Gordon’s Dolls, and Ishiro Honda’s The Human Vapor. An exhausting run of big names but he ultimately fell short. Miike clearly is this crew’s poo poo but does he have enough left in the tank after that marathon to repeat? Well he’s made over 100 films so he definitely has the number, but does he have the quality? He draws a rather recent film in Terra Formers that has rather mundane reviews and a weird rear end premise of giant roaches on Mars (that might be incredibly racist). But people here do like weird and we’re coming off a big Troma thing were “racist” and “transgressive” are much debated. So I wouldn’t count him out. His opponents are new to the tournament this year but already have their own list of victims as Gasper Noe’s I Stand Alone topped out Duccio Tessari’s The Bloodstained Butterfly and Charles Band’s Corona Zombies in the Play In round back in January. Noe gets the call again with his more critically acclaimed, partly improvised, drug and dance fueled technical marvel in Climax. I’ve seen Climax. I was blown away by it. It also made me hurt like few films have. So I probably just won’t be watching this. I’m NoNoe. But if Miike’s is near as racist as I’m reading I might just abstain from this whole round. But few movies have needed my vote this tournament to win so can Noe make it two in a row and knock off one of the biggest guns in this tournament? Or will Miike pick up the momentum from last year and start a new run? Terra Formars is on Arrow and free on TubiTV in the US. Climax is on Amazon Prime in the US. 8. William Friedkin’s The Guardian vs. 9. (Tarnop’s The Brutal Brits) Neil Marshall’s The Descent  This is a matchup of two first timers but one I’m kind of pumped for. Friedkin was a noticeable snub last year so he had to sit the entire tournament out without ever having his stuff tested. He doesn’t get one of his big guns here but I watched The Guardian like a decade ago and its lingered with me in a way very few films from that time period have. I barely even remember it really but I remember it affecting me greatly and I just haven’t shaken that feeling or the desire to rewatch it. Marshall’s Descent on the other hand is one of my absolute favorite films of the last 20 years and one I’ve seen many, many times. I think I’ve seen it twice in the last year. But I am game to watch again with the crew because I love it. Of course my enthusiasm for a film is usually a mark of death for films in this tourney so what happens when I’m excited for both films? Bad day for everyone else? Can Marshall bring Tarnop’s Brutal Brits partner Ben Wheatley into the second round or will Friedkin’s deep cut give him a chance to do some damage later with his deep cuts? The Guardian is free on IMDb TV in the US. The Descent is on Amazon Prime and Hulu and free on Hoopla, Plex, and Vudu in the US. That’s the week. Feels like a rough one for content but a diversity of the kind of rough. Take care. Vote until 3 AM EST Apr 23rd (or when I wake up) Bracket & Noms Spreadsheet Letterboxd List Next Week! - 1. Tarnop’s Agents Provocateur (Brian DePalma & Paul Verhoeven) vs 16. Tarnop’s Predation (Jonathan Glazer, Tomas Alfredson, David Robert Mitchell, Michael Powell, Gerald Kargl, and Alice Lowe) - 8. William Castle vs. 9. Franchescanado’s Team Rule Breaker (Ant Timpson, Jim Hosking, Harmony Korine, Nicolas Winding Refn)
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2021 09:21
|
|
|
Climax owns.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2021 14:21
|
|
|
 Week 16 Bracketology Streams!  Only on the CineD Discord All times are in EST and may not reflect reality. Saturday, April 17th  1900 The Guardian 2040 The Descent Monday, April 19th  1900 Terra Formars 2100 Climax Content Warnings The Guardian (1990) strong gory violence, horror, sex The Descent (2005) strong violence/gore and language Terra Formars (2016) strong language, bloody violence Climax (2018) strong threat, violence, sex references, drug misuse, very strong language
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2021 18:50
|
|
|
Wow I knew Teke Teke was better received than I Sell the Dead but I didn't expect it to be that close in the end. Happy to see Bava finally flexing his muscles like I knew he was capable of. As for this week, I like The Descent as much as the next guy but at the same time I've always felt it was a bit overrated so a solid Friedkin film could give it a run for it's money, at least for my vote. And I'm not really a Noe fan so "Miike does giant cockroaches" sounds like it could be an easy choice for me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2021 18:51
|
|
|
Giant racist cockroaches
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2021 19:39
|
|
|
Debbie Does Dagon posted:Giant racist cockroaches Best I'm able to find so far is the depiction of the giant roaches is what's considered racist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2021 01:15
|
|
|
M_Sinistrari posted:Best I'm able to find so far is the depiction of the giant roaches is what's considered racist. Well the good news is we're gonna be watching it and judging for ourselves. I'm a sucker for giant bugs, I must admit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2021 01:19
|
|
|
Stoked for these matchups, the Miike giant bug movie sounds especially wild. I might not actually want to watch the Descent - it's a ride but it's more intense with jumpscares and such than what I'm really willing to subject myself to at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2021 17:14
|
|
|
Takashi Miike’s Terra Formars vs 16. (Franchescanado’s Team Vulgær) Gasper Noe’s Climax Terra Formars Terra Formars is a big, dumb action movie that wouldn’t be out of place in Paul W.S. Anderson’s filmography. Except for the campy Honda and Komachi, the protagonist with the monumental hair, the characters are barely differentiated from one another. There are at least three different mysterious tough guys, once of which is secretly sad. It’s so bad that when one of the characters makes a surprise reappearance late in the movie, I didn’t really remember who they were. Then there’s the racism. I came into this movie hearing it was pretty problematic and even though the appearance of the Terra Formars themselves is toned down from the way they are depicted in the manga, it’s hard avoid the fact that the entire premise of the movie is racist. It’s about humans traveling to Mars, specifically to exterminate and replace a sentient species. That sounds like genocide to me. Climax I know this is a tepid take at best, but Climax is really two symbiotic short films. They’re even neatly separated by the credits at about 45 minutes in. The first is a story driven by light and movement. There are nice little breakout scenes where the dancers chat, revealing things about themselves to us and to each other. Aside from some of topics of conversation, it’s all bright and engaging. The second story is a waking nightmare. I can’t remember the last time a movie made me feel so nauseous, disoriented, and anxious all at the same time. It definitely wasn’t an easy watch for me, but I was really impressed. I really want to vote for Miike because Miike, but ugh.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2021 20:22
|
|
|
The Guardian was a serviceable, but ultimately forgettable mash-up of different things that Friedkin probably could've made great movies out of if he'd focused on just one of them. It wants to be a 90's erotic thriller but then it also wants to be Rosemary's Baby but oh also let's throw some Evil Dead poo poo in here too and trust the most bland cast imaginable to somehow make it all work. It's always frustrating when a terrible actor gets cast as the lead because he looks good with his shirt off but then someone like Miguel Ferrer is right there being wasted in a minor part with like three lines. The movie has it's moments though, I won't deny that. The Descent is one of the more intense films we've seen in a long time though, and so as an overall experience this is really no contest. I sometimes will push back on the idea that it's like the best horror movie of the 2000s, I don't think it's quite that good, but it's certainly not forgettable or mediocre. It's a movie with a LOT of confidence in what it's doing. The characters don't even go underground until more than 20 minutes in. The monsters don't show up until really the last act, the whole second act is just a really scary spelunking disaster movie. With all of that it would be forgiven for maybe not focusing too much on character development but actually the characters are probably the strength of the film and the reason why it was so successful. So yea, in the end it was an easy call, even though I went in with a completely open mind.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2021 13:59
|
|
|
Lmao the entire Discord sitting in nervous anticipation of Terra Formars, the movie that could have destroyed Takashi Miikes reputation in the CineD horror thread forever, debating whether the dreaded supposed racism and fascism were perhaps satire, and then it's THIS? This might be Miike's best troll so far.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 02:58
|
|
|
married but discreet posted:Lmao the entire Discord sitting in nervous anticipation of Terra Formars, the movie that could have destroyed Takashi Miikes reputation in the CineD horror thread forever, debating whether the dreaded supposed racism and fascism were perhaps satire, and then it's THIS? This might be Miike's best troll so far. Lol how could you not vote for it right? Right? Hello?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 03:19
|
|
|
I might just
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 03:24
|
|
|
1. Takashi Miike’s Terra Formars vs 16. (Franchescanado’s Team Vulgær) Gasper Noe’s Climax Terra Formars is a truly terribly written, edited, CGIed, acted, and conceived film. It isn’t racist on its face like the source material, but maybe just because its too drat stupid to have an actual point or idea or anything. Its so, so dumb. I hate it. I hate it so much. Climax is a masterful display of dance, camerawork, and a star making film carrying performance by Sofia Boutella. Its also one of the most painful collections of human misery, pain, and evil I’ve ever seen in a film. Having read quite a bit about Noe and this film I am convinced the point of this film is to lure people in with the gorgeous display and technical craft of its experimental success in order to subject them to as many triggers and ways to cause distress or offense as Noe could possibly conceive of fitting into his story. I hate that and I hate him and I hate it for that. I think its an amazing 5 star film in some regards and something worth seeing, but also something I’d never tell anyone to watch because whatever that thing is in Noe that makes him want to hurt people through his films is not in me. So I’m abstaining on this one. 8. William Friedkin’s The Guardian vs. 9. (Tarnop’s The Brutal Brits) Neil Marshall’s The Descent The Guardian’s kind of a mess. I didn’t mind its low rent quality as much as some of the other streamers did, but its weirdly scripted and edited. Its terribly paced, characters disappear for periods of time, scenes end without you really knowing how, passages of time just happen with unclear framing, there’s this whole extended scene in the middle focused on some guy who really doesn’t matter to the film at all, and I was SHOCKED to find out it was only 90 minutes because it felt so much longer and I thought it had like 30 minutes to shave off to make it good. And yet it also felt like every other scene was missing as if a much longer film had been trimmed brutally. It was all so weird and off. I love the Descent. Its a great, action packed thriller ride that uses light and shadow better than drat near any film I’m seen to create a claustrophobic atmosphere and massive world in a small space. Its got great drive that sets up characters and relationships and story drive flawlessly and letting them and the setting do the work long before the monsters come. That allows them to go full throttle on the monsters giving it a breakneck pace that also pays off character and story work laid out. And yet the most pivotal and one of the most memorable scenes happens early on when Sarah gets stuck and is told the film’s mission statement, “What are you afraid of? You’ve already had the worst thing that can happen happen to you and you’re still here.” The core of the film is Sarah and Juno, two of the best constructed foils in a modern horror IMO. Ostensibly Sarah is the hero and Juno is the villain and those labels fit if you look loosely. Juno is selfish and a liar and betrays her friend and puts the others in danger through her arrogance. And Sarah has been through hell, betrayed by the people she loves, and is fighting to survive as the scars are ripped open and more trauma comes her way. But it goes deeper than that. Juno is selfish and arrogant, but she also seems to genuinely love her friends and feel guilt for what she’s done. Nothing she does is malicious, including her greatest sin. She’s too selfish. She tells lies to protect herself while also trying to protect and control her constructed family. But she can’t protect them and herself and, the lies she tells to protect herself undermine the actions she makes to protect them and prove her undoing. Sarah on the other hand, for all her pain and anguish commits the one true act of malice. She has her reasons. She has solid reason to distrust Juno and assume the worst. But she still chooses to kill her, and in no small part due to the anger of infidelity. And that’s murder, plain and simple. And as soon as Sarah escapes this nightmare she’s immediately confronted by the “ghost” of Juno, a reminder that for the rest of her life the guilt of what she’s done will be right there compounding all the grief and trauma she already has. And to me that’s way darker and fitting of an ending than some nihilistic takeout and quick death in delusion. I love the Descent and I could probably talk about it for paragraphs and paragraphs if I wasn’t tired and a little fuzzy, maybe the effects of that covid vax today kicking in. But I’m hopefully it won’t need a hard push in this matchup. Its got my vote.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 03:40
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:Having read quite a bit about Noe and this film I am convinced the point of this film is to lure people in with the gorgeous display and technical craft of its experimental success in order to subject them to as many triggers and ways to cause distress or offense as Noe could possibly conceive of fitting into his story. I felt like Noe didn’t go far enough in that regard to satisfy me. My nervous system was so jacked in to the film when I saw Climax in the theater that he really could have hurt me if he’d decided to, but what he went for was relatively tame IMO. I don’t know about the bug movie, but in regards to racism I thought Climax was a little suspect. IIRC all the violence is committed by black people against non-black people, and at one point two black guys are yukking it up talking about something distasteful they’d really like to do— I don’t remember, are they salivating about rape? It’s been a couple years since I’ve seen the movie so I don’t remember specifics, I just remember that scene putting me off. Terra Formars was terra-bad and I quit watching it forty minutes in because I felt like a fool giving any time to it. I’m at least thirty years older than its target audience and I didn’t see the point. An easy vote for Climax despite my misgivings. STAC Goat did a good job summarizing the ways in which The Guardian is such a mess. An easy vote for The Descent there. Edit: I guess the bug people are all giant brown brutes? That didn’t register to me while I was actually watching the film. Servoret fucked around with this message at 06:43 on Apr 20, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 05:44
|
|
|
Servoret posted:Edit: I guess the bug people are all giant brown brutes? That didn’t register to me while I was actually watching the film. In the stream someone posted some of the original source material and it was much, much worse there. The bugs had afros and one of them was carrying a basketball.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 14:15
|
|
|
Yeah, Miike clearly turned it way down to just the basic design and plot. The source material seems way, way, way worse and while maybe you can ask why Miike thought it deserved being adapted he seems to have recognized its racism and largely expunged it.Servoret posted:I don’t know about the bug movie, but in regards to racism I thought Climax was a little suspect. IIRC all the violence is committed by black people against non-black people, and at one point two black guys are yukking it up talking about something distasteful they’d really like to do— I don’t remember, are they salivating about rape? It’s been a couple years since I’ve seen the movie so I don’t remember specifics, I just remember that scene putting me off. STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 14:33 on Apr 20, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 14:27
|
|
|
A wild movie
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 14:31
|
|
|
Servoret posted:I felt like Noe didn’t go far enough in that regard to satisfy me. My nervous system was so jacked in to the film when I saw Climax in the theater that he really could have hurt me if he’d decided to, but what he went for was relatively tame IMO. STAC Goat posted:Its been awhile but I think the cast is largely POC and they were mostly hired for their dancing ability and Noe's point is to kind of drag all of them down so its probably just an unintended consequent? Then again I Stand Alone had a troubling element of islamophobia in it. So I dunno. Nothing stood out to me but I was also distracted by everything else. Most of the characterization is also improvised and the characters were developed by the actors. A film with racist characters doesn't make the film inherently racist. France isn't devoid of racism. The film is about the destruction of society and societal norms, so characters becoming racist or showing racism doesn't feel out of place in a film where people are also becoming murderers, rapists, incestuous, and other ugly aspects of mankind's depravity. STAC Goat posted:Climax is a masterful display of dance, camerawork, and a star making film carrying performance by Sofia Boutella. Its also one of the most painful collections of human misery, pain, and evil I’ve ever seen in a film. Having read quite a bit about Noe and this film I am convinced the point of this film is to lure people in with the gorgeous display and technical craft of its experimental success in order to subject them to as many triggers and ways to cause distress or offense as Noe could possibly conceive of fitting into his story. I hate that and I hate him and I hate it for that. I think its an amazing 5 star film in some regards and something worth seeing, but also something I’d never tell anyone to watch because whatever that thing is in Noe that makes him want to hurt people through his films is not in me. I just don't agree that Noe is an edgelord--you're defining him as an edgelord here--just because he's interested in pursuing disturbing stories. It's like calling Edgar Allen Poe or William S. Burroughs or Thomas Ligotti an edgelord. In a way he does enjoy pushing boundaries and shocking people, but so does John Waters, so did Alfred Hitchcock, so did Stanley Kubrick (Noe's favorite director). Climax is especially an interesting case because it's inspired by true events. Everything in it is fictionalized, and all the of the actors got to decide their own characters and character arcs, and therefore the ways their characters would become depraved, so it's not even like it's entirely him writing all this stuff. But there really was a dance troupe that was locked in a place and secretly dosed with LSD and they really did turn on each other. It's a story that horrified and fascinated Noe, and he made a film about it. https://www.candidmagazine.com/climax-an-interview-with-director-gaspar-noe/ posted:What was the interest in this particular story? You can read countless interviews with him about this movies and others. I'd say, sure, Noe doesn't avoid horrific ideas and terrible things, and a younger Noe probably as more aggressive about offending, but I personally find him very thoughtful with his subject matters, and respectful of his audience. He's not making movies for everyone. Climax is incredibly restrained in a lot of ways. The most horrific things happen off-screen. The sound design is the most gruesome aspect, and then the implications, and the effectiveness in which the viewer is sensitive to the terrors that are happening. https://www.indiewire.com/2019/03/gaspar-noe-interview-climax-netflix-1202048144/ posted:Usually, your movies are met with divided reactions, but “Climax” has been well-reviewed across the board and really plays well with all kinds of audiences. What’s that like for you? I just don't read or watch any interview where Noe doesn't come off as a sincere dude that's just fascinated with making films that bring visceral reactions to himself and others. Franchescanado fucked around with this message at 15:31 on Apr 20, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 15:18
|
|
|
I see your point but I also consider this guy's point.Franchescanado posted:My favorite story about Climax is that Noe was ready for a bunch of controversy, but it was universally liked and enjoyed, so he spent a lot of the premiere disappointed that no one was upset or offended.  No, seriously, I hear what you're saying and I don't think Noe isn't a curious and talented filmmaker. I haven't seen a lot of what he's made but its evident in what I have seen. But its also pretty evident that he's a provocateur. And I don't know what the difference between a provocateur and an edgelord is. Intent? Malice? This feels like it goes back in ways to the Troma argument and is clear I'm pretty prudish and out of line with the general standard here when it comes to pushing boundaries and offending. But to me I think the main difference I can look for is whether or not there was a greater point. Was the director trying to shock to highlight something or reveal something? If so maybe I see something more to it. But if they were trying to shock to shock, I dunno. I don't find appeal, I don't respect it. I don't know what the "message" of Climax is. I think last time we discussed it you suggested "the fragility of society" as a theme. But I dunno, that just feels like nihilism to me, and I find nihilism intentionally boring as a concept. We all know people can do terrible things. These people weren't acting on their own they had been drugged. I just don't know. I don't get it. Its an excellently made film. Its gonna win this without my vote. I was prepared to vote for it if Miike's had turned out to be racist, but its just dumb so I'm just abstaining from two films I disliked watching. But you know... I know I'm the nerd here. And Noe will have the last laugh. STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 15:47 on Apr 20, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 15:42
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:I see your point but I also consider this guy's point. You can find exploring nihilism boring as a concept, but that doesn't mean the thing doing it is devoid of a concept. Fragility of society. A dance troupe that performs together. It is a collective of individuals expressing themselves through movement and artistry for a greater function that is served from them being together. Dance is an absurd art, it often lacks true definitive explanation, only interpretation or entertainment. Why does anybody tango? Why does anybody do the worm? Why does anybody do the bernie, the wobble, the electric slide? As a function, a dance troupe is impressive because it is the individuals working together for a greater purpose. Just like a band, or a corporation, or an animation department, or the Avengers. Wouldn't it be interesting in one small change could crumble that and make it self-destruct? In this case, a few drops of a mind-altering substance (added to an already mind-alterting substance, alcoholic sangria). How can a tiny tincture of chemicals alter switches in your brain? Fragility of mental states. The irony that we are self-conscious and intelligent creatures that can be mentally felled by a tiny drop of liquid or a piece of blotter paper, or alcohol, or any drug, and we pursue that for entertainment. Most mammals (but also birds and reptiles) like to alter their mental states with psychedelics. Animals with mental facilities providing awareness want to change that awareness. For fun! And it often backfires! I'm reminded of the man in Miami, Florida who, under the influence of "bath salts", chewed off the face of a stranger. Would this person do this sober? Probably not, right? But what if the underlying parts of his brain that were willing to chew the face of a human being were always there, and the bath salts just awakened the neural pathway that allowed that function to happen? Would he have done it if it were PCP instead? Or crack? Or Four Locos? Societal norms. We know that cannibalism is bad because we live our whole lives knowing cannibalism is bad. What happens if you enter a building full of cannibals, who have never been subjected to the moral stance that cannibalism is bad? Is cannibalism still bad? Say it is. Does it matter, if you're the only one that thinks that? What defines our moralities, but our mental functions? Our memories and what has been ingrained mentally is what we are. So then, what about when we introduce substances that change the way our brains work? Once, I took psychedelic shrooms and while I was tripping, could not comprehend the function of money in society. I couldn't comprehend why humans go and do things to get little pieces of paper that says we did stuff and this is how it's valued, and I use that to get beer and food and maintain a place to live. I thought, "What is being arrested? I go from one box, to a smaller box, until someone says I don't have to be in the box anymore?" Jail and prisons still existed, the system of capitalism and money still existed, but to me, they were now stupid and vapid and just a waste of existence in their absurdity. Then I sobered up. But for those hours, I was in a completely different world. That's fascinating. Dancing. The opening of the film is dancing. As mentioned earlier, dancing is absurd, it does not really make sense, but it is beautiful, and it is entertaining, and it can be funny, and it can be scary, and it can be disturbing. It can be performed alone, or done with others. It is a means for horny teenagers to feel each other. It is a means for a couple to show they love each other. Birds do it. Lizards do it. Monkeys do it. Red Pandas do it. It is a symbol of being alive. It is self-expression. It is used to introduce the characters. We know their personalities, in a way that can't be expressed through the interviews, because we are seeing it performed. The movie has messages, themes and ideas. You either don't like them or don't want to engage with them. That's fine, because that's your interest or choice as a viewer. But saying it's vapid or empty is what rustles my feathers. "This movie is about nihilism, so I'm not going to engage in it." Okay, but what if you did? What do you think it says about nihilism? Or, ignore the idea that it says anything about nihilism. What does it say about anarchy? What does it say about democracy? What does it say about friendship? What does it say about the human's drive for survival? I watched this movie recently called Ice Queen. That is a film devoid of meaning, of message, of theme, of ideas, of anything. CLIMAX, to me, has a lot to say. And also, I should correct my earlier post about Climax, because I can't find a source for Noe saying that. He premiered the film without providing a synopsis, and it was universally praised. He was surprised, but not disappointed. Franchescanado fucked around with this message at 16:39 on Apr 20, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 16:07
|
|
|
Franchescanado posted:Many thoughtful and thought provoking words These are great posts Fran, and I appreciate the effort you've gone to
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 16:15
|
|
|
I apologize for saying that the film is ONLY about shocking the audience. I didn't mean to demean his work or the appreciation of viewers. In my head the fact that everyone disagrees with me is proof positive that I'm wrong. Its self evident to me. But I can see how my comments read way more condescending or reductive than I intended and I apologize for that. I truly don't begrudge anyone getting more from this than I do. I'm glad they did. I'd hate to know that everyone experience the pain that I experience from this film. And something struck me and its an idea I've danced around and joked about but never outright said because I know what it makes me. I've never intentionally taken a recreational drug. I don't find the effects of it fascinating, i find them terrifying. And a big part of that is because a lot of the stuff in Climax is stuff I've seen happen to people I knew and loved. I saw the negative consequences very young and in very vivid degrees and it shaped me. So maybe I just can't engage with this film on its merits because I don't find its ideas interesting. I just find them as terrible reminders and ordeals. I still don't know what the difference between "edgelord" and "provocateur" is. I don't know why Lloyd Kaufman offends me so and not others, or what the pass he's given is. I think Noe unquestionably wants to shock, and I don't find "shocking" interesting or impressive. A child knows how to shock you. Now Noe's Climax certainly achieves what a lot of things don't and puts that shocking in a quality film. And on some level I respect that. But on some level I suppose I also resent that I can't just appreciate Noe's skill because he also does a brain storming session with his cast about what the most shocking thing they were willing to do was. But you know... maybe that's a me problem. I still don't like him though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 16:25
|
|
|
Another point I should clarify about how I approach themes, symbols and motifs in a film. Often I completely disregard a director's intentions, if they have any. If they overlap with how I read the film, then that's neat, but often I try to find evidence in the films themselves. I will, however, use a director, writer, or actors own words in an effort to convey ideas I've formulated to support them. This is semiology, the use of semiotics, the study of signs and symbols and their use in interpretation. Here is an article about how people analyze and study film through a semiotic lens. How to Analyse Movies #2: Signs, Codes & Conventions The point is, the meanings I derived from CLIMAX I posted above are from my viewings of the film. There's no cheat sheet, there's no right answer. I engaged the movie and through a semiotic process derived meaning from the film beyond a literal experience of it's story. That also means my interpretation is not infallible. Someone could provide another interpretation and it could be perceived as contradictory to my own interpretation, or more accurate to my interpretation. I may even agree and change my own interpretation from their experience and insights of the film. So, that's why I push so hard against most films being labelled as having or not having "a greater point". It's literally up to you to find that. All movies, even the aforementioned Ice Queen, can be put into a semiotic approach and have insights and meaning derived. However, that movie sucked and was stupid, so I don't want to put it through a semiotic approach. The experience, to me was vapid, so I can call it as much, but I also must acknowledge I'm not engaging with it, or want to engage with it, enough to find a "greater point". K. WASTE and SMG are two notorious and interesting posters because they are willing to engage films (often silly films seemingly "lesser" of being deserving of film analysis; or classics like Star Wars being deconstructed in unusual ways) beyond their literal story. Many people find that frustrating, but it's not wrong, and when I was mod, that was a constant battle, because there's also (seemingly) a need from a reader to understand the sincerity of an interpretation. But sometimes an insincere, but still well-written and interesting interpretation or meaning derived from a film, is still interesting, even if some of them have made me grind my own teeth in disagreement. Franchescanado fucked around with this message at 16:58 on Apr 20, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 16:27
|
|
|
For me, Climax was more about the exuberance and confidence of youth coming up against experience. There’s a lot of hope expressed in the interviews and rehearsals and then a small variable turns their plans into poo poo really quickly. I don’t know if that’s a nihilistic idea, but that’s reality.
Servoret fucked around with this message at 17:19 on Apr 20, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 17:15
|
|
|
My biggest issue with Climax is how much physical energy all of the characters have on an acid trip, particularly after they've already gone through physical exertion earlier in the evening.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 17:17
|
|
|
That was an interesting interview, thanks for posting it Fran. A little surprising, too, to hear Noe's thoughts on Climax and about its reception - I thought one of the most striking things about it was that the movie didn't feel like it was having any fun or in on any of the jokes. Plenty of the characters were having a blast, but there's never any editing or camera-play tied to what's happening, which to me gave it a very clinical feeling. Certainly not as funny as Funny Games. I would not previously have described my sense of humor as more interested in structure than content, but it seems fair.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 18:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 04:09 |
|
|
"Edgelord" obviously carries with it a tone of judgement, but I think it's basically inarguable that Gaspar Noe is a provocateur. Of his movies that I've seen, I found the provocations in I Stand Alone to be pretty corny and stupid, the ones in Irreversible to be surprisingly thoughtful and well done, and the ones in Enter the Void to be a little of both.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 18:57
|
|
