|
Directed by: Matthew Barney Starring: Mathew Barney, Aimee Mullins, Richard Serra This is one of the best filmed and produced movies that I have ever seen. If you are unfamiliar with Mathew Barney's work you should really see the cremaster website. Cremaster 3 is the last of five films that barney has made that create the cremaster cycle. As a whole the cycle is about tension and release (as far as I can tell) but each of the individual films contains it's own narrative. Cremaster 3 is about the construction of the chrysler building in newyork city. This film is a bit hard to understand if you have no background into the cremaster cycle but it is still visually stunning. I'm curious what anyone else thought of this film. RATING: 5.0 PROS: Amazing cinematography, Sculpture, and production along with the systems that function within the entire cremaster cycle. CONS: it's very long and slow. not a problem for me but it is for some. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: http://www.cremaster.net/
|
#
?
May 14, 2004 17:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 09:53 |
|
|
This series of films is the peniultimate artfag circlejerk. They make no sense just for the sake of being "artistic". Complete and utter trash.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2004 19:07
|
|
|
This film has furries in it. That is all.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2004 19:36
|
|
|
These movies make no loving sense and you will be sorry if you watch them for any length of time. Well, at least if you're sober and attempt to make sense of them. Just watch any one of the trailers on the site any you'll know exactly what I mean.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2004 21:55
|
|
|
I torrented "The Order" a couple weeks ago. It's basically a 30 minute clip from Cremaster 3. I look at it not so much as a movie, but as a work of art. I don't mean to say that it is in any way above or beyond other movies, or that other movies aren't artistic, but what I mean is that Barney's approach was the same as most artists' approach to any art. It's an expression of himself. A very strange expression. It wasn't filmed to entertain in the way that most movies are. That being said I'm going to refrain from voting. I've only seed the thirty minutes of it and, although I've done lots of reading on it, I haven't had the opportunity to see the entire three hour movie (or the rest of the cycle for that matter.) It would be unfair to judge based on only a sixth of a movie. /not an artfag jototo fucked around with this message at 07:05 on May 16, 2004 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2004 07:02
|
|
|
this movie is where you go when you think that Eraserhead is too prosaic. Cremaster rocked my socks. It was like a meditation on a hallucination of vasaline. One of the most intelligent movies ever. Also, Matthew Barney has a child by Bjork. That HAS to count for something.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2004 14:01
|
|
|
quote:The Walrus came out of the closet to say: in many ways he's right, in many ways he's wrong. at the end of the day, GOOD LORD THIS IS THE PENULTIMATE ARTFAG CIRCLEJERK but at the end of the day this movie is hardly utter trash. i saw it up in LA without the slightest clue of what i was getting myself into and walked out inspired, angry, saddened, elated, and confused. pretty much in that order. i walked in not knowing it was three hours long. you could say i was kinda surprised when we got to THE INTERMISSION. THIS MOVIE HAD AN INTERMISSION. first let me clue everyone in as to what this movie is all about in the form of a handy list. THIS MOVIE CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING: SOME MAY CONSTRUE THE FOLLOWING AS SPOILERS. AS THIS MOVIE HAS ONLY THE SMALLEST SEMBLANCE OF A LINEAR NARRATIVE KNOWING THE FOLLOWING WILL NOT RUIN YOUR MOVIEGOING EXPERIENCE. ALL IN ALL, THE ODDS OF YOU ACTUALLY SEEING THIS PENULTIMATE ARTFAG CIRCLEJERK IN IT'S ENTIRETY ARE VERY VERY SLIM. WITH THAT IN MIND, CONTINUE AT YOUR OWN RISK. AMEN.
and, you know how jototo was talking about the section called "The Order"? THAT WAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING I LISTED ABOVE. and all this things i listed, they may seem comical out of context. in the movie, they sure ain't comical. and what doodles said "this movies has furries in"? that's not really true. at one point, which is actually in "The Order," this amputee model turns in to some kind of cat creature. from what i understand of the furry fetish (luckily, very very little) this'd be along the lines in the same way, i guess, that Teen Wolf is furry. what i mean is, not very(?) so without digging too deep here i hope i've sort of helped you, gentle reader, see that yeah this is THE PENULTIMATE ARTFAG CIRCLEJERK. (the circlejerk part coming from the fact that matthew barney put a bunch of other artists in this movie, and one hot amputee model chick. did i mention she was hot? i think i did. see it's weird because you expect her to have legs but she DOESN'T. this is what they call bait-and-switch.) now on to WHY THIS MOVIE ISN'T UTTER TRASH: this movie has a really nice look it, the cinematography (shot on one of these digital video cameras that look enough like film that when they're printe don to film to be projected you can't much see the difference) is on par with any big Hollywood production, the set design, costuming, special effects, and lighting are all FANTASTIC. the music, well, the music does leave much to be desired. saying this as a jaded electronic music fan who later learned this guy is like married to Bjork, he couldn't done MUCH MUCH better on the music tip. the beginning portion of the movie is just piercing drones that are surely absolutely annoying to somebody who hasn't been somewhat desensitized to that sort of thing. so the deal is that this movie isn't worthless because it's a PURE ART MOVIE that's ON PAR WITH A HOLLYWOOD MOVIE and makes NO COMPROMISES. i've been in a few film classes in my day and, lemme tell ya, this is exactly the kind of movie that suckers need to SEE. they don't need to enjoy it or even respect it, but shoot...knowing that stuff like this exists has gotta open up SOMEBODY'S point of view. Requiem for a Dream is not the pinnacle of art. Sure, Requiem kicks this movie's butt up and down the stairs...but for pure...i had never seen a movie like Cremaster 3 before and I'm afraid I never will again  what we've got here is a THREE HOUR MOVIE about NOTHING with NO DIALOGUE and, by god, it's ACTUALLY WATCHABLE. and why isn't this sitting on the shelf of every Blockbuster in the world? why can't kids see this and go "i'm going to make Cremaster, but BETTER" why won't somebody grab the baton from this thing and run with it? there's crazy Beksinski and Giger movies that can be extrapolated out of this thing! why can't people just SEE this movie? well, because this ultimately trashy penultimate artfag circlejerk is NOT AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC because Matthew Barney is..WHO KNOWS WHY. Maybe Palm Pictures will release the whole thing some day, who knows.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2004 11:53
|
|
|
You know, this whole thing seemed like a secret freemasons cermony to me. I should have been interested in the illicit poo poo that was going on, but really, I was just bored. Worst three hours of my life.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2004 13:50
|
|
|
This film, like the other Cremaster films, is meant as art. Like some literature, a lot can be drawn from subtle themes and from the usage of certain elements in conveying an image. If you enjoyed English 101 discussions, you'll enjoy watching this film with some intellectual friends and afterwards trying to decipher some of the messages.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2006 08:16
|
|
|
I saw his other film, Drawing Restraint 9, and make the mistake of inviting some of my friends/roommates/conversation partners to it because I said "Hmm this should be really different and strange, and I like new things!" WRONG. Horrible loving movie, oh my god, worst 3 hours of my whole life. I turned to my friends to ask if they wanted to walk out of it, but most of them were asleep in their movie chairs. Ugh.....gently caress that. As for the cremaster films, I hear a lot about them through artsy snooty magazines like the New Yorker, and these films are the reason I went to see Drawing Restraint 9. I wanted to see what all the artworld fuss was about. I will say though, those costumes are amazing, and the stuff always looks high budget.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2006 04:33
|
|
|
burmart posted:You know, this whole thing seemed like a secret freemasons cermony to me. I should have been interested in the illicit poo poo that was going on, but really, I was just bored. Worst three hours of my life. The movie is about(at least majorly) the freemasons and tells their history. It is very difficult to understand the symbolism in the movie if you aren't sufficiently versed in your masonic lore. There is a reason that the companion book/s for the series are about 5" thick. With that said. Cremaster 3 is absolutely beautiful visually with some occasionally shockingly graphic images. It is also very slow and tedious, especially if you have no idea what is going on/being shown. I would suggest seeing it(preferably the whole cycle), but reading up on the themes of the different movies. The other movies aren't as long and 2 has motherfucking DAVE LOMBARDO in it playing drums covered in bees. I'll give it a 4/5 for being uber pretentious but also awesome at the same time. Also, if this is the penultimate artfag circlejerk, what is the ultimate artfag circlejerk? Edit: I almost forgot about the amazing score as well. OlDirtyBehrmann fucked around with this message at 12:52 on Nov 27, 2006 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2006 12:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 09:53 |
|
|
I have seen most of this whole series and I spent a good deal of time at the exhibit which included the scultpures and additional work related to the films at NY's Guggenheim museum. I came away from the experience with nothing. The cinematography and production value are good, but this is a piece of artwork thats trying real hard to be indeciferable. Its clear that whatever Barney is trying to express here is something extremely vague and nebulous...otherwise there would be no excuse for obscuring the point to this degree. So I really have to assume he's got nothing tangible to say, just an idea or feeling or two, not in the least bit fleshed out, and he's done an expensive job of covering that up. On the more practical side of things: christ it can get repetitive. Its obvious that he hasn't the slightest inclination to appeal to his unfortunate audience. (excepting the hot athlete, i guess, but the fact that she's hot is incidental) Conclusion? Self indulgent bullshit. I've never once heard a single person utter anything approaching an idea of what the hell is supposedly being said in this work. Ugh.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2006 13:35
|
|
