|
Post by pupdurcs on Feb 17, 2024 3:24:50 GMT
Apparently , man of the moment Austin Butler is getting standout notices for "stealing" the film as the villiain in this movie. Films like this always have a lot of hyperbole attached to early reactions, but still impressive how well Butler is keeping his momentum after Elvis.
|
|
|
Post by mhynson27 on Feb 17, 2024 4:29:03 GMT
Also seen a number of mentions saying that this is Timmy's best performance since CMBYN. Denis has always been terrific with his actors.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Feb 20, 2024 22:55:12 GMT
What's Rebecca Ferguson got to do to get some serious promo for this movie? Several of the early reactions say she (alongside Butler) steals the movie. Quite a few people felt that way about her in the first movie as well.
I do get why they are centering so much of the promo on grouping Chalamet, Zendaya, Pugh and Butler together, because it makes them seem like a cool, trendy current day bratpack of Young Hollywood (If they weren't trying to keep Anya Taylor-Joy's cameo role a secret, you know they'd have stuck her in that group for the press tour as well), but Ferguson does deserve more attention if she's delivering like this, even she is over 40, and not young enough to be in the trendy kids promo group.
|
|
|
Post by TylerDeneuve on Feb 20, 2024 23:53:01 GMT
I love the kittens! It seems that they liked working with Charlotte Rampling!
|
|
|
Post by Billy_Costigan on Feb 21, 2024 17:30:09 GMT
Debuts to 95% (8.6 avg rating) on RT with 66 reviews. Part 1 is at 83% (7.6 avg rating)
|
|
|
Post by Pavan on Feb 21, 2024 18:23:14 GMT
97% on RT with 88 reviews.
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Feb 21, 2024 18:36:57 GMT
80 on Metacritic with 40 reviews so far.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Feb 26, 2024 19:20:12 GMT
Sometimes, good directors should know when to say less.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Feb 26, 2024 19:24:36 GMT
Sometimes, good directors should know when to say less. I mean, I get what he's saying here. A picture says a thousand words, and all that.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Feb 26, 2024 19:33:57 GMT
Sometimes, good directors should know when to say less. I mean, I get what he's saying here. A picture says a thousand words, and all that. Saying, "I hate dialogue" and "I don't remember movies because of a good line" is dumb, no matter how you want to slice it. Some of the greatest films ever made have bits of dialogue that helped make those movies immortal. Try and imagine Goodfellas without that calibre of dialogue. It's ridiculous. Yes, images and visuals and sound are hugely important to cinema, but some movies are also defined by dialogue and performances. It's the marriage of all these aspects that make cinema great. Villeneuve is a talented director, but this make me think he's a bit of a philistine that's high on his own supply. It's also telling to me that I can't remember any dialogue from his films at all. Maybe that's why I admire his craftsmanship, more than I truly love his movies
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Feb 26, 2024 19:38:22 GMT
I mean, I get what he's saying here. A picture says a thousand words, and all that. Saying, "I hate dialogue" and "I don't remember movies because of a good line" is dumb, no matter how you want to slice it. Some of the greatest films ever made have bits of dialogue that helped make those movies immortal. Yes, images and visuals and sound are hugely important to cinema is hugely important, but some movies are also defined by dialogue and performances. Villeneuve is an talented director, but this make me think he's a bit of a philistine that's high on his own supply. It's also telling to me that I can't remember any dialogue from his films at all. Maybe that's why I admire his craftsmanship, more than I truly love his movies And some of the greatest films ever made don't. I see what you're saying and I think he's phrased it pretty ridiculously, but Villeneuve's whole thing has been about evoking feeling through his imagery, especially lately. If he could get away with making Dune as a silent film, I'm sure he would have (and to be honest, that would probably be pretty boss). He understands the necessity of dialogue, but as someone who started out writing his features before exclusively directing scripts written by others, it's a fascinating comparison point to make because I feel like Villeneuve recognized potential weaknesses in himself and decided to hone other skills rather than persist at it.
|
|
Nikan
Based
Posts: 3,212
Likes: 1,595
|
Post by Nikan on Feb 26, 2024 19:47:02 GMT
Sometimes, good directors should know when to say less. It's been a fun-to-follow awards season and I've been hyperactive about it maybe, but going to what I was about prior: honestly, this kind of take is why I escape to older movies... the auteurs/"big names" of our era; our Chazelles, McQueens and Eggers(es!)... all focus on imagery way more than their text... dialogue alone isn't Dennis' only fault, the second half of Prisoners is moronic. Imagery could be captivating and all but what's the point if the film ends for you right after it's ending?... or Okay, the visuals are cool enough that you'll be back for a second viewing max. Then we all go back to our Gone with the Winds, Chinatowns and The Godfathers... if anything, Dennis V has to learn from TV shows like Breaking Bad and something in sci-fi (haven't watched enough of them) to improve his screenplays; that's beside the fact that visually TV has become better than ever... I still remember how discussed the battle sequences throughout Game of Thrones were.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Feb 26, 2024 19:49:45 GMT
Saying, "I hate dialogue" and "I don't remember movies because of a good line" is dumb, no matter how you want to slice it. Some of the greatest films ever made have bits of dialogue that helped make those movies immortal. Yes, images and visuals and sound are hugely important to cinema is hugely important, but some movies are also defined by dialogue and performances. Villeneuve is an talented director, but this make me think he's a bit of a philistine that's high on his own supply. It's also telling to me that I can't remember any dialogue from his films at all. Maybe that's why I admire his craftsmanship, more than I truly love his movies And some of the greatest films ever made don't. I see what you're saying and I think he's phrased it pretty ridiculously, but Villeneuve's whole thing has been about evoking feeling through his imagery, especially lately. If he could get away with making Dune as a silent film, I'm sure he would have (and to be honest, that would probably be pretty boss). He understands the necessity of dialogue, but as someone who started out writing his features before exclusively directing scripts written by others, it's a fascinating comparison point to make because I feel like Villeneuve recognized potential weaknesses in himself and decided to hone other skills rather than persist at it. Yeah, I just found it weirdly arrogant and dismissive of so many of his peers for whom great dialogue is key. As I said, imagining Goodfellas without that level of dialogue is ridiculous. Tarantino, Sidney Lumet and so many others don't even have careers without the quality and memorability of their dialogue. Entry level filmmakers understand the value of imagery and that you can make great films with sparse dialogue. We don't need Villeneuve to come down from Mount Olympus to tell us that. But if all cinema were Terrence Malick style imagery over dialogue tone poems, cinema would quickly become a niche medium. It's the variety of things you can do within a cinematic landscape that makes cinema interesting.
|
|
dazed
Based
Posts: 2,652
Likes: 1,819
|
Post by dazed on Feb 26, 2024 19:56:41 GMT
in the same interview he also talked about how oppenheimer is a three hour long movie consisting of mostly talking and how it was the movie of the year for his kids. if i’m not wrong he also said how it’s one of his favorites of the year. so i think his wording sounds more dismissive vs how he actually feels. definitely could have worded it better.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Feb 26, 2024 19:58:35 GMT
And some of the greatest films ever made don't. I see what you're saying and I think he's phrased it pretty ridiculously, but Villeneuve's whole thing has been about evoking feeling through his imagery, especially lately. If he could get away with making Dune as a silent film, I'm sure he would have (and to be honest, that would probably be pretty boss). He understands the necessity of dialogue, but as someone who started out writing his features before exclusively directing scripts written by others, it's a fascinating comparison point to make because I feel like Villeneuve recognized potential weaknesses in himself and decided to hone other skills rather than persist at it. Yeah, I just found it weirdly arrogant and dismissive of so many of his peers for whom great dialogue is key. As I said, imagining Goodfellas without that level of dialogue is ridiculous. Tarantino, Sidney Lumet and so many others don't even have careers without the quality and memorability of their dialogue. Every entry level filmmakers understand the value of imagery and that you can make great films with sparse dialogue. We don't need Villeneuve to come down from Mount Olympus to tell us that. But if all cinema were Terrence Malick style imagery over dialogue tone poems, cinema would quickly become a niche medium. It's the variety of things you can do within a cinematic landscape that makes cinema interesting. I'm sure he's not being personal at criticizing, say, Tarantino or Lumet or Scorsese. But it's clear that what he finds interesting is the keystone of filmmaking: show, don't tell. In that interview, he even talks about wanting to "make a compelling movie that doesn’t feel like an experiment but does not have a single word in it either, . . . People would leave the cinema and say, ‘Wait, there was no dialogue?’ But they won’t feel the lack.” Do I feel there's a pretentious edge to what Villeneuve is saying? Yeah, sure. But he's speaking from his own personal perspective and biases, and I don't think it's personally dismissive in any way towards filmmakers who rely too heavily on dialogue. He's just coming at it from a different viewpoint, talking about what interests him about the craft and what he feels is probably a crutch or a roadblock for pure visualism. Doesn't mean that other filmmakers don't use that tool in their arsenal to great effect, but he seems to be saying that what he takes from Pulp Fiction or Goodfellas isn't the snappy one-liners, but rather the visual stylings of Tarantino and Scorsese, which sometimes are overlooked especially in the former's case in favour of the witty dialogue.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Feb 26, 2024 20:08:19 GMT
Yeah, I just found it weirdly arrogant and dismissive of so many of his peers for whom great dialogue is key. As I said, imagining Goodfellas without that level of dialogue is ridiculous. Tarantino, Sidney Lumet and so many others don't even have careers without the quality and memorability of their dialogue. Every entry level filmmakers understand the value of imagery and that you can make great films with sparse dialogue. We don't need Villeneuve to come down from Mount Olympus to tell us that. But if all cinema were Terrence Malick style imagery over dialogue tone poems, cinema would quickly become a niche medium. It's the variety of things you can do within a cinematic landscape that makes cinema interesting. I'm sure he's not being personal at criticizing, say, Tarantino or Lumet or Scorsese. But it's clear that what he finds interesting is the keystone of filmmaking: show, don't tell. In that interview, he even talks about wanting to "make a compelling movie that doesn’t feel like an experiment but does not have a single word in it either, . . . People would leave the cinema and say, ‘Wait, there was no dialogue?’ But they won’t feel the lack.” Do I feel there's a pretentious edge to what Villeneuve is saying? Yeah, sure. But he's speaking from his own personal perspective and biases, and I don't think it's personally dismissive in any way towards filmmakers who rely too heavily on dialogue. He's just coming at it from a different viewpoint, talking about what interests him about the craft and what he feels is probably a crutch or a roadblock for pure visualism. Doesn't mean that other filmmakers don't use that tool in their arsenal to great effect, but he seems to be saying that what he takes from Pulp Fiction or Goodfellas isn't the snappy one-liners, but rather the visual stylings of Tarantino and Scorsese, which sometimes are overlooked especially in the former's case in favour of the witty dialogue. I think you are being too soft on Villeneuve. He was being dismissive of his peers who rely heavily on dialogue...."It's for theatre and TV". If that's how the man feels, that's how he feels. I think he's full of shit on this, but that doesn't mean he's not a talented director. I get it. He's hugely successful. Critics love him, and he's developing his own Christopher Nolan style fanbase that finds his every utterance mesmerising. But he's still just a man, and is capable of talking complete nonsense and still doing good work
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Feb 28, 2024 5:39:53 GMT
Feels like Rebecca Ferguson looked at all the younger girlies on this film getting all the promo and red carpet press attention and said.... hold my beer
|
|
|
Post by Joaquim on Feb 28, 2024 12:19:57 GMT
Feels like Rebecca Ferguson looked at all the younger girlies on this film getting all the promo and red carpet press attention and said.... hold my beer
MOMMY
|
|
|
Post by Joaquim on Feb 29, 2024 15:07:44 GMT
What’s this news I’m hearing about someone screaming at mommy and making her cry?
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Feb 29, 2024 15:57:35 GMT
What’s this news I’m hearing about someone screaming at mommy and making her cry? The internet sleuths strongly believe it was Hugh Grant
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Feb 29, 2024 16:00:11 GMT
What’s this news I’m hearing about someone screaming at mommy and making her cry? The internet sleuths strongly believe it was Hugh Grant Plot twist: it was Jacob Tremblay.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Feb 29, 2024 16:13:40 GMT
The internet sleuths strongly believe it was Hugh Grant Plot twist: it was Jacob Tremblay. The signs were all there.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Feb 29, 2024 16:21:52 GMT
Plot twist: it was Jacob Tremblay. The signs were all there. Is Tremblay on Cameo? I will pay for him to read this tweet.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Feb 29, 2024 16:38:24 GMT
I love how in spite of it not being intended, this press tour has become so much about Rebecca Ferguson and how well liked she is by people. She's never impacted like this before....I feel she's now become much more of a "star" after this tour than she was before. She's managed to build a connection with people that was always lacking before, despite so much high profile work in the last decade. I can see an Oscar in her future, wheras she wouldn't have been much on my radar for that before this press tour.
|
|
rhodoraonline
Badass
Your Generosity Hides Something Dirtier and Meaner
Posts: 1,027
Likes: 506
|
Post by rhodoraonline on Feb 29, 2024 17:53:48 GMT
I just don't buy Rebecca EFFING Ferguson crying at freaking Jacob Tremblay scream-whining. My money is on Gyllenhaal.
|
|