Saw Once upon a time in Hollywood. Good god what a letdown

Quote from: kiehozero on February 11, 2020, 10:55:59 AM
Uncut Gems is something else

I thought it looked like shite from the ad.  Worth a gander?

Adam Sandler pretty much ruled it out for me.

Watched both Parasite and Uncut Gems over the weekend and thought both were very good. I wouldnt let the fact its Adam Sandler put anyone off it as your just spiting yourself and missing a great watch.

Quote from: Carnage on February 11, 2020, 12:26:47 PM
Adam Sandler pretty much ruled it out for me.

I haven't seen it, but guessing it's more in his Punch-drunk Love style of work. That was a great film, I seem to remember.

Rewatched Interstellar for first time since cinema, having loved it. Still loved it; the metaphor of books being a technology we use for conversing across time is great, and funny too since it seems silly on the surface. Excellent movie to get high and trip out too.

Finally got a chance to see "The Lighthouse" last night.

Very enjoyable overall. Great score and cinematography. The two leads both go for broke in their roles and while it is certainly bleak it is also darkly funny.

How this film didn't receive a single Oscar nomination is beyond me.

It did, it was nominated for cinematography.

Quote from: Carnage on February 13, 2020, 10:22:22 AM
It did, it was nominated for cinematography.

I stand corrected.

Just had a look at what it was up against. I've seen everything bar "1917" in the cinematography category. Some serious competition there. Every film there looked incredible. I would have thought that Robert Richardson would have been a shoe-in (just for the huge crane shot over the houses alone) in "Once Upon A Time In Hollywood".

To be fair to 1917 (I just watched it last night), it generally looked brilliant - though how much of it is CGI and how much is in-camera is an interesting one. Giving the same award to Life Of Pi a few years ago was ridiculous, as enormous amounts of that film were CG - necessarily so, given the subject matter - and surely in the domain of visual effects as opposed to cinematography.

They're not mutually exclusive at all. Some cartoons have incredible cinematography but it's all just pictures. It's about what the artist decides to put in the eye of the camera, which is just a proxy for the viewer.

I'd associate cinematography more with lighting and composition of the shot than anything else, that's my take on it.

Quote from: Carnage on February 13, 2020, 11:12:14 AM
I'd associate cinematography more with lighting and composition of the shot than anything else, that's my take on it.

They're both things that should be thought about whether it's all CGI or not. Akira, just to take one example, has phenomenal (what I would call) cinematography in terms of lighting and composition of the shot. Just saying that visual effects and cinematography overlap in a way that explains why Life of Pi (which I've never seen actually) could win best cinematography even though it's loaded with effects. That's my take on it.

Life of Pi was OK but a really good book.

Yeah,  the book was very good.  One of its strengths was that you were never really sure if it was supposed to be reality or a fever dream.  Hard to capture that in a film without explicitly saying it so the film became a bit one dimensional by comparison.

I really enjoyed Parasite and am delighted it win the Oscar..but I'm not sure it's the earth shattering masterpiece its being made out to be??Am I just too dumb to understand it properly?