Dubstepforum.com

Yeah exactly. Fuck that. You could make an infinitely more interesting film for that money instead of paying her to waffle on in front of a black background for three hours.

I mean does something really drastic happen at the end or something? I sat through an hour and a half of boring try hard nonsense and couldn't stand it any longer. I'm almost tempted to watch it in full but it's about feels about as exciting as reading the dictionary for three hours just in case I learn one useful word at the end.

Even then if it was the case that the plot actually goes somewhere I still don't see why it couldn't have been a play instead of a film.

You really need to fucking learn how to express yourself mate.
I'm sat here writing in a foreign language.


Whatever.

What's wrong with what I said? It's a lot of money to throw into a film which is basically like watching von trier have a wank for three hours.

I just don't see the creative merit in any of the decisions made regarding the making of the film. The lack of set design does nothing except make you aware you're watching a film and waste all the creative possibilities the medium allows for.

It's so boring I stopped watching half way through and so don't feel the urge to attempt watching it again because of this just to find out whether the plot actually reaches an interesting conclusion or not.

That's basically my point. I'm not sure how I can make it more simple.

There's a heap of points that I made for you that you missed. That's just one part of it. The next bit would be how you relate to those. Instead you just went back on that blind tirade of throwing shit around like a chimp and try to reinforce that pretty shallow estimation of what was going on while you watched half of it in a tired state.

That's the thing with art isn't it. That like with Mona Lisa it's not just what you are presented with immediately. When that principle is poorly done (which is fair to argue given the minimalism here), then it has to present itself in the critical thinking part or plainly put in the questioning, like with Mona Lisa where you have to come to the conclusion that she is purposely not smiling or smiling and what that says in the context. It's not for me to do that for you as it would ruin part of the experience. I'm taking that into consideration when responding.

One of the points of how dogville was made was to show you don't need that much of a budget/shallow cinematography etc to 'work' so criticizing it for that is missing the point atleast in the artistic principle of it all.
Same as with dogma 95 (festen, the idiots etc).
It IS a tough and highly pretentious watch- but so is stockhausen/reich/cage on the ears.

With certain people you need to watch the whole or a lot of the catalogue to make the most sence of it, they are few but that only says something about their body of work imo.

No I got that point. I just think that when the delivery of an artistic statement is done in such a dull and pointless fashion it damages the viewer's ability to actually bother looking for it. If you compared it to the Mona Lisa it would be as if the Mona Lisa was simply a stick figure.

My point regarding the budget is that it doesn't even succeed in what it's trying either. $10 000 000 (just realised I wrote that incorrectly before) is an awful lot to spend on what basically is a play that's been filmed.

Regarding the shallow cinematography I feel again that that's simply an artistic statement that holds little merit in the case of this movie. I can understand that it is possible to tell a story in a limited space or style (I mean this has has been done many times over the years, just look at Rope) but the stripping of all props away to just a few bits of furniture and markings on the floor just simply makes the film incredibly dry and awkward to watch.

I mean sure maybe I should give it another shot but I can't think of many films I have less of a desire to re-watch than this. I can't think of many films I've actually switched off mid way through

I'm not saying you don't have a point, I hope you got that.

incredibly dry and awkward to watch.

But provokingly so, right?
So if we assume you were a little tired which isn't the best plane (says the guy on an almost constant morroccan cream flex ) , then maybe you just where 'fooled'.
I mean 'breaking the waves is so unrelenting in how bleak and horrible it is, but it underlines the hilarious and incredibly honest fuckoff ending to a point where you just feel like you where almost (and you'll have to excuse my french) raped back into a nice provocation > leaving the bleak behind. Its in the provocative nature of that purposeful stroke that it 'sits' and finds its balance and begin to communicate.

I hate warhol and rothko - which isn't right. Just saying.

is air bud about weed? i want to watch a weed movie

signals wrote:is air bud about weed? i want to watch a weed movie

How High, So high that I can kiss the sky.

yes it's about 2 dogs who get stoned.

Just came back from Nymphomaniac.

Difficult to describe. it's definitely very good. MUCH better than Melancholia & Antichrist imo. Cinematography is next level, so many subtle & intelligent analogies both in the dialogues and the imagery. The explicit sex scenes are there but there's actually not many of them (production cut, will have to wait for the director's) and they always serve the film's purpose. Without being a pornophile or anything (didn't have a single boner) I actually think more of those would not be a bad thing. I sometimes felt like something was missing from the story fragments, like the film didn't go all the way into it. This will probably be answered in the director's cut.

Anyway that's my 2P, I think everyone needs to make their own opinion




Also they played some snippets from vol 2.... Looks much more violent than the first one

Just watched the trailer and saw her dribbling cum

That's about one of the most hardcore things you'll find in the movie though. They marketed it as an outrageous film and it may not be an easy watch, it can be disturbing at times, but it's definitely not what it was made out to be by either the ppl who criticized it before it came out nor by the marketing team themselves. the sex scenes are just like standard movie sex scenes except you see a few dicks

Any comparison to Shame?

The character feels no shame, at all. there's almost no focus on the impacts on social life. It's more about the inner psychology of Joe, the development of her sexual appetite through experiments and the subsequent failure to sustain any real feelings for anyone. You see a few of the problematics her behaviour leads to (there's that completely fucked-up scene with Uma Thurman) but it's mostly composed of reminiscences of her youth and discussions between present Joe and Skarsgard's character on why he should/shouldn't judge her, fly-fishing, polyphony in Bach's music and Edgar Allan Poe.

Ah cool, but I meant the film 'Shame'.

I know. IIRC Shame was more about Brandon's shame and him trying to conceal his addiction wasn't it ? Or are you asking in terms of explicit material ?

Rönin wrote:I know.

I had a feeling this was the case as soon as i'd hit 'submit'. Sorry.

I just meant how does it compare in general, if at all. But, yeah, asked and answered

I've always find it funny that when someone comes with something that's fucking up the standards of a genre he always get 'punished' for doing that. I've never saw so much hate from ppl that know the comics as from ppl that don't give a fuck about the comic like for this movie. And i really don't get it. I've never read the comic, so my knowledge is zero, but i still enjoyed the movie. True, the last half hour was a drag (definitely if you watch the DC that is like 3 hours) and the end was a bit meh, but 75% of the movie was just sick. Definitely how it looked. I've never though that a dark theme like that could work with that look. And troughout the movie i really could see the comparision with that quote of Nietzsche 'If you gaze into absys, absys gonna gaze into you', because those 'superheroes' played alot with the dark side of everything troughout the movie.

8/10.

Nihilism wrote: 'If you gaze into absys, absys gonna gaze into you'

lol its like the man himself is here