The political context dealt with several issues. One was radicalized and egoistic feminism created by times of extreme patriarchy and
It's a murder mystery. The story plays out in weird sequences. Doesnt help its in a different language. It is visually stunning though and there's a good soundtrack. Guess the genre is called Giallo.
I walked out of a screening after 40 minutes or so. For me it was just too postmodern and too full of disconnected ideas.
Opening scene was great with Ladd slapping a smutty maid for mistreating a kitten.The only moment that kind of twangs with me is when they're hiding away from the cops and he goes "Look, a kitten!" and gets all chirpy about it
Me too. At first he seemed almost too much of a comic book villain, but the rest of the movie caught up with the character with gasmasks and general weirdness.
We don’t do rental, so your theory just collapses like a house of cards.Listen Yotsuya, we all know that you run a video-rental-store in real life. This is obviously just an attempt at damage-control from your end, a fiendish deception to save the movie's reputation so that more people will buy/rent it from you. I mean, what is more likely, you actually liking Surpiria, or you faking a review so to increase the movie's profitability? Having seen Suspria myself due to @chickenluver's trickery, I think the answer is pretty obvious.
Sounds interesting. Apart from few scenes with Bogart and Bacall I didn’t care for To Have And Have Not that much. Especially the old drunkard character was almost unbearably sentimental.
I like Bruegel Sr. a lot and Mill and the Cross was a positive experience when it came out. It didn’t quite capture Bruegel’s style. He does have humor and keen eye for the lives of common folks in his works, but those aspects didn’t work all the time in the movie. Lovely production anyways.The Mill and the Cross (2011)
A cinematic re-staging of Pieter Bruegel The Elder's iconic painting from 1564 'The Procession to Calvary'. It looks at the artistic process behind the work, acting essentially as a kind of 'moving painting' while Bruegel (Rutger Hauer) occasionally offers some insight into it's composition. However, there is generally very little dialogue (the only other voices are those of Bruegel's wealthy patron, and the Virgin Mary). Instead, a regular, structured narrative is replaced by vibrant - but mostly wordless - tableaux which illustrate certain scenes from the painting, as well as the historical context behind it. There is a significant focus on the everyday lives of the Dutch/Flemish peasants at the time (as befits Bruegel's paintings of course), and their religious persecution at the hands of Catholic Spain. In this respect the director would seem draw on the idea that the Bruegel, in updating the scene to his contemporary Netherlands, was drawing parallels between the imperialist repression of the Romans and of the Spaniards. But of course there is an equal focus on the religious inspiration, and general humanistic feeling, behind the painting. Stylistically it's really interesting, and I think the approach works very well.
In order to tell the story and attempt to recreate the painting it uses a mixture of what seems to be live action location shots, painted sets and CGI. In it's use of tableaux to tell an artists story, it very much brought mind to Sergei Parajanov's The Colour of Pomegranates. Though the use of painted sets which, although they are pretty stunning, are also very self-consciously artificial reminded me of The Ballad of Narayama (the original 1958 version).
Hey I can understand that, I nearly stopped the film mid way through. But I feel toward the end it started to make sense. Maybe Im wrong, but I saw a subplot or another story behind the stories which I thought was very clever.
Good to know! It’s always a bit unfair to comment stuff one has not finished.
I haven't watched many movies lately - while writing a Steve Jobs essay I got sucked into Sorkinland and rewatched The West Wing on Netflix and I was disappointed in how badly it held up on a second run-through, literally every season was a bit worse than the last and Martin Sheen was the only cast member who was genuinely awesome episode-to-episode and season-to-season - but @Rimbaud82 and @chickenluver, you guys will be sad to learn that I gave up on Twin Peaks: The Return. Life is too short and that season is too stupid. When the doppelgänger Cooper got shot in the woods and then came back to life is when I gave up. I literally turned it off the second he sat up. That was the last straw. Just too dumb with zero fucking payoff.
That said, even though I threw in the towel, I'd still be interested to hear what happens. Can one or both of you guys give me the quick gist of how it wraps up? Does original Dale ever come back or does he do his Rain Man shtick the whole fucking season? Does anything else happen in/with the Black Lodge and/or with Bob? Is there ever an intersection between the two Dales and the Great Northern?
And then this is just the most obvious place for me to post this: I had an interview this week and I've been officially hired to teach my first film class in the fall. It's an adjunct post, so I still have to spend the summer hoping with my fingers crossed that enough kids sign up for it for it to actually run come the fall, but it's a class at one of the bigger community colleges around me called "Film and Society" that runs through the cinematic and cultural history of America from the invention of cinema to today. It's literally the perfect first class for me and I'm stoked to come up with my syllabus and pick which movies to screen
