The Oscars, the Films and everything in between.
Disturbing. Feel the tension mount.
Looks like a flick that will get under my skin.
Damn! The more I see, the more I want to see. This looks absolutely amazing. I cannot wait for November 14. As from a post a little while back, I HOPE this isn’t “Too Dark” for the Academy voters.
Damn. I never thought Tatum would have a performance like this in him. This and Nolan’s “Interstellar” look to be a great November.
Yeesh, really intense. If they’re still doing the nine or more than five this will get in “too dark or not” it’s really meaty and the performances look to be really great. This trailer really showcases Tatum well so all we can do is dream and wait and see how far the film goes.
On my third attempt, I finally finished WHITE MATERIAL. I liked it.
I saw IDA. It’s the best black and white film since TABU. That tells you nothing? See it. See both.
I saw OBVIOUS CHILD. It’s awful. I didn’t ask for a refund because I know this particular ‘art house’ is struggling.
I feel very strong about this film’s contention in the acting categories. True story. Obvious excellent leads. Director who gets the best from his actors. Nominations in the acting categories are all but guaranteed. Plan to see Tatum (unbelievable) and Carell walking the red carpet for a nomination next year.
De précieux conseils que je met dans un coin de ma petite tête et qui
vont m’aider, c’est sur! Et ce blog est wahou, bravo!
n’hesiter pas de rendre visite à mon blog qui donne des conseils à porpos
de la la mutuelle asaf afps , c’est interessant
Bryce, What I love about IDA is how the compositions make that austere 1.33:1 frame feel like freakin IMAX. The most basic alleyways and narrow corridors become cathedrals. It’s like a lost and rediscovered film by Carl Th. Dreyer.
Why would you ask for a refund to a film you watched all the way through? That’s not how it works. It’s not a meal. You wouldn’t get a refund for a meal you ate entirely.
“What I love about IDA is how the compositions make that austere 1.33:1 frame feel like freakin IMAX. The most basic alleyways and narrow corridors become cathedrals. It’s like a lost and rediscovered film by Carl Th. Dreyer.”
Ryan this is so spot on. First the film is about a journey, and about a search, and the aftermath of the journey, so why the austerity? Because it’s a tunnel, and in the tunnel realizations about faith and identity will bring our protagonist to edge of crisis to which the *physical* journey itself is secondary — but as you said, at the same time it’s so big, like the soul. I’m no expert on lenses but that’s what you get when you choose the widest focal range (i.e., ultra primes) then give it the height of 1:33, and you get Notre Dame. But why?! And how do you pull off such a visceral punch while being so visually economical? Well the height of the frame (the walls, the pillar, the structures, the vast sky in the rural exterior scenes, etc) for lack of a better word “conveys” the oppressive weight on their shoulders. And what a performance, at times I couldn’t tell between and strangeness or innocence. Dreyerian? She never tells us, she and Pawlikowski just let us *see* what she’s thinking after the journey, all the new doubts, disturbance, and bewilderment. For instance: There was an all-too short sequence of Anna in the kitchen putting together a wreath headband that reminded me of Patsy in 12 YEARS A SLAVE making the corn-husk dolls. Though the circumstances are not comparable, both scenes suggest isolation and inquisitive spirits. and. Anyways, I also love that they weren’t prudish in making it look filmsy in post.
I knew Tatum had this in him. He was fantastic in A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints and had this sort of thing in him then. But I wasn’t sure if he’d venture to this sort of role. Glad he has.