Movie Reviews 2.0

It is a comedy/farce (albeit a very dark one) which isn't surprising as it's the excellent Armando Iannucci behind it. I agree, it was very entertaining.

It's worth watching pretty much everything he's written/been involved in over the years, though most in America would probably know him as the writer and director of Veep.
 
Re-watched The Last Samurai, excellent movie! Cinematography, pacing and soundtrack are standout, as are the performances :yes:
 
Watched the Death Wish remake. The fact that it got universally panned because hey, gun violence is a real thing y'all, and not because it was necessarily a bad film, made it all the more intriguing to me.
I thought it was a pretty damn entertaining film about vigilantism. It just didn't delve quite as much into the ethical and moral implications the way Super, or to a lesser extent, Kick-Ass did. It was just good old revengesploitation. It's really an 80s action flick at heart, only dressed up in contemporary garments. Thanks to schlock meister Eli Roth being the director, it was also punctuated by juicy 80s levels of excessive gore and violence. It was no Robocop in that regard, but really, nothing is. Quite a handsome looking film as well.
The most surprising thing was how Bruce Willis actually seemed like he gave a shit for once.

Also bought "A Quiet Place" on Blu Ray.
 
Last edited:
I will watch The Nun next week. I wanted to be in the mood and updated in all its related movies, so yesterday I watched Annabelle: Creation.

One thing that I can't stand in all these movies is when a character sees an undeniably paranormal phenomenon and they don't fucking explain it properly or they just don't even tell anyone at all! In yesterday's movie, there was this moment when Janice sees the little girl who was dead AND she talks to her AND the little girl asks her for her soul, transforming her face into something demonic and even grabbing Janice's legs (who fell to the floor), leaving her wounded and bleeding. Then, instead of explaining all this, she just says that they should leave the house because she feels a demonic presence. W T F.

There's also this moment when another girl hides herself in a space under the stairs and clearly sees the doll sitting on a chair and how something from behid grabs it quickly and makes it disappear in the dark, yet she tells nothing about it, even though all the girls are later talking about the weird things that happen in that house, and it's not the case of "oh, she doesn't tell anyone because she's scared and she knows that no one will believe her".

Despite all that, I still like this genre, but damn, that's so annoying...
 
Tomb Raider (2018).

Being a huge fan of the first games and hence of the main character in the old style (even though I really enjoyed the reboot game), I wasn't sure if I wanted to watch this movie. I had a fun time, though. The movie is quite entertaining, even though it's not exactly what I expect in a "proper" Tomb Raider movie. I hope the story and the character evolve more into the classic line (even though we'll have to keep it "real" and avoid any kind of political incorrectness for our present times... ¬_¬).

BTW, this is the second time I watch a movie starred by Vikander, and I must say that she does a pretty good job.
 
Also, I watched The Dark Knight today at the BFI in IMAX 70mm film and wow is all I have to say.
Not all scenes were shot in 70mm IMAX though. In total around 20 minutes were shot on 70mm, like the intro and Hong Kong scenes.

Rest of the movie were recorded on Panavision Panaflex Millennium XL and Platinum.
 
Not all scenes were shot in 70mm IMAX though. In total around 20 minutes were shot on 70mm, like the intro and Hong Kong scenes.

Rest of the movie were recorded on Panavision Panaflex Millennium XL and Platinum.

Yeah but the IMAX scenes were super impressive. The opening scene and the chase in the city were something else, same with the last part of the movie, almost entirely shot in IMAX.
 
Why do directors only shoot portions of a movie in different mediums?
 
Why do directors only shoot portions of a movie in different mediums?
It depends on if they have room to place the larger ones, and what kind of lighting they need to show any benefit. If there's a fight on a train, they might want to use the smallest ones they can get. For static scenes in a luxurious environment they might have the ability to mount the biggest ones that they can afford.
 
Why do directors only shoot portions of a movie in different mediums?

Proper IMAX cameras are extremely heavy and loud. Not very practical, but the end result looks amazing.

Size of the camera:
Director-Christopher-Nolan.jpg


Difference in the film between "normal" 35mm film and IMAX 70mm:
imax-frame-comparison.jpg


The digital IMAX equivalent is about 12K res.
 
IM always skeptical about the MP equivalent of film, i.e. when I look at a large poster the detail seems much better than a ~100 MP camera, maybe its just the lack of noise or whatnot, the smoother result but film just looks better
 
Back
Top