Rate That Movie Part IV: Movies Never Sleep

[transformers2]

HIgh-frame rate is shit. It's really distracting to watch as it makes the entire film feel like it was filmed in slow motion and it also makes the visual effects look AWFUL. There's a reason pretty much no one else besides Peter Jackson dares to use it.

[Buscemi]

Why would projecting at 48 fps make it look like it was projected in slow-motion? If you projected it at 24 fps without the shutters, it would look like slow-motion (it would be also double the run time). But it is not projected at 24 fps so that is an invalid argument. Also, CGI on most of these movies look bad on any format. Even on a small TV, it looks fake. You can't blame that on the decision to show it a different format.

Anyway, why should all movies look like 24 fps? Live television is not 24 frames. Real life is not 24 frames either. Have you even watched a sporting event shot with a 24 frame camera? It doesn't look right. The same with reality television. So why should a movie be forced to comply to the same format every time?

If Peter Jackson had a set, he would have forced all of the prints to be in high-frame rate. If you want to see it in 24 fps, wait for the Blu-ray.

[JohnErle]

It's almost Christmas, and your new avatar is adorable, so I won't rip you to shreds like I normally would. Instead I'll simply refer you to everything I said on the subject the last time a Hobbit movie was released in this soon-to-be-dead format.

[Geezer]

Its because when we watch reality tv or a live event, we expect it to look like real life. When we watch a film, we expect it to look like a film. We expect it to look just like every other film we've watched for our entire lives. Because fictional works aren't supposed to look real. If they look real, we feel like we are watching actors, not characters, and it loses the magic that is the movies. That, and it just looks weird, which becomes very distracting.

[Buscemi]

But why should movies be forced to comply to the long-established standards of the past and not innovate? If we stuck to the same concepts, every movie would still be silent, black and white and filmed in Academy ratio (can you imagine a movie like Interstellar in a square with only a player piano as sound?). Innovation has allowed for sound, color, widescreen aspect ratios and even 3-D or the testing of new ideas (for example, William Castle loved new ideas and even though many of his ideas were impractical, he had the balls to try them). Movies are an escape to a new world so why not make it feel real? With innovation as well as experimentation, we can do that.

Anyway, back to the reviews.

Big Eyes ***.5/****

This is a pretty slow starter (it's much more dramatic than Ed Wood) but it really manages to pick up in the second half. Both Adams and Waltz are great in their roles (Waltz probably gives his best performance since Inglourious Basterds and shows why Hollywood loves to cast him as villains) and it's nice to see Tim Burton getting out of his comfort zone (anyone notice how most of his best movies don't have Johnny Depp?). Danny Huston is also well-cast as a gossip columnist who teams up with Waltz to create the lie that sets off the plot (Huston also narrates much of the film). My only major faults were that it's not as good as Ed Wood (but then again, Ed Wood is a tough act to follow) and Krysten Ritter was not in it for very long (the trailer basically showed most of her scenes).

When I went to see it, the theatre itself was swamped but the movie was hardly sold out. I'm not surprised as the decision to open wide was a late decision (it was set as a limited opener until the Golden Globe nominations came out) and Burton fans were all pre-occupied with The Hobbit or Into the Woods. Also, the screenwriters typically specialize in hard-to-sell biopics (Ed Wood, The People vs. Larry Flynt and Man on the Moon didn't exactly set the box office alight). But a biopic on Margaret Keane is far more interesting of a concept than say, doing another Steve Jobs movie.

[BanksIsDaFuture]

Foxcatcher - B-

A dreary, visually ugly film anchored by two decent performances (Ruffalo and Carell) and one not so much (Tatum). Not a whole lot is explained and there's subplots that are hinted at, but never given a chance to be explored. The pacing is totally off as it drags in one gear for way too long, before reaching the inevitable conclusion and then quickly wrapping up with little conclusion. I'm not exactly sure how Carell is getting OSCAR buzz as the prosthetic nose seems to do all the heavy lifting. It has to be simply the novelty of such a goofy comedy actor turning serious, but it's not enough to overshadow the films many shortcomings.
I'm sure the true story of John du Pont is exciting and interesting, and maybe one day we'll get a movie that tries to be anything worth watching.

[JohnErle]

I saw The Battle Of The Five Armies for a second time today and thoroughly enjoyed it. I was able to score a seat near the back of the theatre this time, which is always my preference, so that probably helped, and Peter Jackson's Middle Earth movies always seem to grow on me. The first time I watch one of these movies I want them to be perfect, but they never are. The flaws always stick out like sore thumbs, sometimes overshadowing what's great about the series, but on the second or third viewing I'm prepared for the moments of misplaced humour or Legolas' gravity-defying agility and I'm able to just sit back, lose myself in Middle Earth, and feel like a kid again rolling d20s in my head. I look forward to having all of these movies at home in three months time so I can have a marathon viewing session some weekend, because I think that's ultimately how they'll have the greatest impact and how they should be judged.

[Chienfantome]

Still haven't seen it. But yesterday I've seated at the last raw of the theater for the first time in ages, to see the French film "La French" starring Jean Dujardin as the judge who battled the Marseille mob in the 70's and 80's who ran the french side of the French connection (that's a lot of "french" for one sentence).
When I was a kid I used to prefer to take place in the back seats of the theater because I loved to actually see the theater, but growing up I've chosen rows that were closer to the screen, and now, most often, I sit around the 5th row.
At the time of mobile phones we now live in, I find myself very angry at all those people checking their phones during the film and all those lights it brings in the theater, and when you're in the back, you see every phone getting checked in the theater. When you're closer to the screen, you don't see them. Besides, at the back of the theater is where all the chatty old ladies seat, and I hate chatty old ladies in a theater. And first and foremost, I guess I prefer to be immersed in the film, while when I'm at the back, I feel like I'm watching the film on my TV.

[numbersix]

Two surprisingly good movies...

I Origins: 6/10
I think the ambition and surprise factor of this film is its real quality. Starting off as a romance it's really about the ongoing war between faith and science. This film takes an obvious stance, in which a scientist of the eye falls for a mysterious woman and a series of coincidences challenge his beliefs and his emotions. It's like an esoteric version of Signs, in some ways. The characters are interesting (although Brit Marling's character feels a little too weak - especially as she has a lot to lose later in the film and we get no access to it), and the film ends a little too early - there was more drama to be made of the aftermath of the big reveal. But it's certainly different.


Get on Up: 6/10
A perfect example of how a disappointment in the box office can ruin a worthy film's award prospects. Biopics are hard to get right. Usually the good ones have focus and stick to a strong theme, and the bad ones try to cover the life of a famous person from rise to ruin. While this film leans towards the latter, and risks telling us nothing we couldn't glean from Wikipedia, its the structure that works to the subject matter's advantage. The film jumps between eras, often going back and forth, not sticking to any linear form of storytelling. This rhythm comes across as an attempt to replicate Brown's focus on rhythm, and often being counter-intuitive to the norm in order to produce something distinct. There are some great sequences and transitions here in the film's attempt to portray a complex and often contradictory character. Despite his passion we do see the dark aspects - the demanding boss, the overbearing wife-beater, etc.

All this is anchored in what is probably the best performance of the year. Chadwick Boseman is superb, not just at replicating Brown's voice and moves, but by often saying so much without uttering a word. At times he stares into the camera, a device that can ruin a film but Boseman's range in these glances is astonishing. Some of the other performances aren't as strong (particularly Dan Ackroyd's) and some of the direction is a little dull when it could have been more ostentatious (to match the script and editing). But it's a great ride and i regret not seeing this int he cinema to hear the full power of the iconic songs (also a shame is the composed score, which feels all the more dull in between Brown's tracks).

[Chienfantome]

I Origins is one of the best surprises of the year for me. I didn't know what to expect of the film and its ambition certainly took me by surprise.
Unfortunately I missed Get on up.

[JohnErle]

It all depends on the size of the room versus the size of the screen, but I generally prefer the back half of the auditorium, about 3/4 of the way up.

When I sit too close my eyes are constantly darting back and forth like I'm in REM sleep, and I find that uncomfortable, so I prefer to be able to take in the whole screen at once without craning my neck. I also find that the screen can seem unfocused if I sit too close, but all that could just be because of my crappy eyesight.

You make a good point about the cell phones, but that's not a major problem here. Vancouver audiences seem to do a good job of shaming anyone who ruins the moviegoing experience, and I tend to pick movies that appeal to a more mature audience anyway, and they usually know better.

And if I had to choose between the chatty old ladies in the back or the obnoxious teenagers in the front, I'll choose the chatty old ladies every time. The people who shout things out in the theatre usually sit up front, and the farther I am away from them the less likely I am to punch them in the back of the head and end up with an assault charge. The first time I saw The Battle Of The Five Armies some moron shouted out "Movie's over!" after Smaug's early death. Luckily there were only a handful of his fellow morons in the room so it didn't get a big laugh and he wasn't encouraged to offer any more high-larious commentary.

As for I Origins, I find Brit Marling hopelessly dull, and Another Earth was a terrible movie, so the prospect of her re-teaming with the same director for another indie sci-fi guarantees I'll never watch it.

[Buscemi]

Another Earth was a waste of a good plot. A movie where an ex-convict goes to a parallel Earth has many possibilities (my personal idea: the parallel Earth is a prison colony where criminals are switched out with a double that's their exact opposite who takes the original's place on Earth) but they went with one of the least interesting where it's more talking about it than actually going there.

[numbersix]

On the cinema position...

I tend to sit at the very back. While this does have the problem if not immersing you 100% into the movie, I always feel if the movie is good enough it'll do it. That said, I'm glad I was closer to the screen in Interstellar. But I sit at the back because I get far more distracted by people behind me. If someone whispers they usually project that forward, so if they're behind you you hear more, and in front you hear it a little less. Also I'm sensitive to people kicking my chair by accident, so the back suits me best. I also like the edge for legroom but not in larger screens where my neck will be in agony afterwards.

Screen glare is becoming a problem, even in arthouse theatres, and I've had to wave a few people to make them stop. I think it's manageable at the moment but it will get worse. Funnily enough, at the It Follows screening in Cannes a viewer almost got into a fight with another due to lens glare. The Frenchies take their cinema experience seriously!

[Buscemi]

That or he has a thing for Maika Monroe.

[BanksIsDaFuture]

Tusk - F

Holy shit, someone stop Kevin Smith. At least with his terrible comedies, there's still usually something to laugh at.