I knew there was something sketch about the look that made it feel like a tv show.
They shot it on a RED camera. They couldn't even approve budget for an Alexa. 🤦♂️🤣
They shot it on a RED camera. They couldn't even approve budget for an Alexa. 🤦♂️🤣
I think it's purposefully shot that way for continuity as Sati (the young girl with the Oracle) rebuilt the Matrix with a sun to look like that at the end of Matrix 3. Sunny, sharp and colorful.. purposefully built for Neo for the 7th iteration of the Matrix.
By Frustrated_me Go To PostI think it's purposefully shot that way for continuity as Sati (the young girl with the Oracle) rebuilt the Matrix with a sun to look like that at the end of Matrix 3. Sunny, sharp and colorful.. purposefully built for Neo for the 7th iteration of the Matrix.
“We fed a bot 1000 Letterboxd reviews and let it write reviews for the Matrix 4, you’ll never believe what it said”
By JesalR Go To Post“We fed a bot 1000 Letterboxd reviews and let it write reviews for the Matrix 4, you’ll never believe what it said”
💀
I’m always surprised that posters on this forum seem daunted by people who use words as simple as ‘innovator’ or ‘aesthetic’ or ‘critique’. This isn’t the first time something very simple has been posted and some of you have acted like it’s word salad. Bit weird. You’re all educated. There is literally nothing wrong with that tweet above.
Maybe it’s the English teacher in me talking, but there isn’t one part of that tweet - grammatically, semantically, whatever - that makes me think it’s gobbledygook or pretentious or whatever else. They are very common words with something a tiny bit beyond basic and compound sentences. You should try reading Dickens, lads.
Maybe it’s the English teacher in me talking, but there isn’t one part of that tweet - grammatically, semantically, whatever - that makes me think it’s gobbledygook or pretentious or whatever else. They are very common words with something a tiny bit beyond basic and compound sentences. You should try reading Dickens, lads.
I don’t find it difficult, daunting, or inscrutable. I absolutely find it pretentious. That’s true of most reviews though, I feel like the language that is used to talk about shows, movies, games, books and whatever else has been honed into dour pull-quotes that don’t actually tell me a lot.
It’s review through mimicry, and I don’t enjoy it.
It’s review through mimicry, and I don’t enjoy it.
The person event spelt Resurrections wrongs so it’s not like this is some intellectual titan
The take sounds dumb as hell tho
The take sounds dumb as hell tho
I've not watched the full movie yet but having watched the trailers I don't know whether I'd describe it as anti-aesthetic necessarily. Other than that the rest of the thread actually explains what he means, which maybe people didn't click on.
By JesalR Go To PostI don’t find it difficult, daunting, or inscrutable. I absolutely find it pretentious. That’s true of most reviews though, I feel like the language that is used to talk about shows, movies, games, books and whatever else has been honed into dour pull-quotes that don’t actually tell me a lot.
It’s review through mimicry, and I don’t enjoy it.
I don’t understand what you mean by ‘review through mimicry’?
By n8 dogg Go To PostI don’t understand what you mean by ‘review through mimicry’?And there I thought you were an English teacher ;)
Honestly, I could be off the mark, but it feels like the same things I hear about most movies recently. Praise of bravery through abrasiveness, anti-something (aesthetic), onwards and onwards, it feels like a recombination of things I’ve read a lot in the past year. Maybe I’m tired and grumpy this morning, who the fuck knows.
By n8 dogg Go To PostI don't understand this tweet, why does the reviewer think Lana "deliberately chose an anti-aesthetic" when Matrix 4 simply buids on the new aesthetic we get a glimpse of at the end of Matrix 3?
Am I wrong here? I might be missing something.
By JesalR Go To PostAnd there I thought you were an English teacher ;)
Honestly, I could be off the mark, but it feels like the same things I hear about most movies recently. Praise of bravery through abrasiveness, anti-something (aesthetic), onwards and onwards, it feels like a recombination of things I’ve read a lot in the past year. Maybe I’m tired and grumpy this morning, who the fuck knows.
I think the homogenisation of the aesthetics of most blockbuster films, coupled with the fact that the mid-budget movie doesn’t really exist anymore, has turned a lot of critics into… I don’t know, counter-culture advocates.
The Marvel movies are good fun, but they all have exactly the same colour palettes, flatness of imagery, tone of script and dialogue, plot beats, characterisation across protagonists. When something comes along that is decidedly different, I don’t think it’s a surprise people respond to it (and there’s obviously more than a fair share of negative reviews for Matrix too).
I haven’t seen the film, but the polarised response makes me very interested in watching it. I didn’t like BvS or ZSJL, but I appreciated them being different and I’m not surprised so many did like it because it isn’t the same old safe movie that Marvel releases four or five times a year. And there’s nothing wrong with that, that’s what people like. But it’s wild to see someone be given $150-200m in this day and age to go and make something like what Matrix 4 sounds like, and I think that’s what people respond to. That counter of the standard and typical blockbuster form. It’s no different to those who pioneered early rock, or when games moved towards ultra-violence and open world environments, or when plays moved from the tragedies of kings and queens in Greek/Roman/Elizabethan theatre to the tragedy of the common man. It’s different and rebels against the norm, and that will always have fans.
I don’t know n8 m8, I think the problem here is that “It looks awful on purpose” is just a smoke screen. Yes it’s ugly, no it is not funny even though some of the stuff seems taken out of a Community episode, and to top it all for a movie that is trying to say nostalgia is a trap and it’s love that will move us forward, the love story here is completely dependent on nostalgia.
The idea behind it is being defended beyond reason, because the criticism is about the delivery and execution.
The idea behind it is being defended beyond reason, because the criticism is about the delivery and execution.
By cRrusheR Go To PostI don’t know n8 m8, I think the problem here is that “It looks awful on purpose” is just a smoke screen. Yes it’s ugly, no it is not funny even though some of the stuff seems taken out of a Community episode, and to top it all for a movie that is trying to say nostalgia is a trap and it’s love that will move us forward, the love story here is completely dependent on nostalgia.
The idea behind it is being defended beyond reason, because the criticism is about the delivery and execution.
I haven’t seen the film, but there can be a distinction between ‘the weaponisation of nostalgia’ (which seems to focus around the aesthetics of the Matrix, the philosophy of its ideas, and responds to the co-opting of some of its language by sources such as the alt-right) and ‘true love is not nostalgia or clinging to the past, but something that transcends that’. This seems to focus on human connection between Trinity and Neo - one instance of the original trilogy where, if you asked typical fans of the first film, I don’t know if that would automatically be one of the reasons they love it. They’d go for the action, the SFX, the music, the costumes, the aesthetics… I know I wouldn’t say it was the love story that made me enjoy it so much, so I’d hardly say that nostalgia for their relationship is or can be weaponised in the same way the material trappings of the Matrix universe can.
By n8 dogg Go To PostI think the homogenisation of the aesthetics of most blockbuster films, coupled with the fact that the mid-budget movie doesn’t really exist anymore, has turned a lot of critics into… I don’t know, counter-culture advocates.It’s mad how the film industry outside of whatever Hollywood produces doesn’t even exist to some people. The mid budget film totally exists and is thriving arguably better than ever before. I think your analysis is quite faulty because of this.
By n8 dogg Go To PostDisso is Jake and reilo is TomFucking hell Tom lol
By n8 dogg Go To PostI think the homogenisation of the aesthetics of most blockbuster films, coupled with the fact that the mid-budget movie doesn’t really exist anymore, has turned a lot of critics into… I don’t know, counter-culture advocates.I think this is a distillation of my broader point, so thanks for saying it more clearly. Maybe I’m just falling counter to the counter-culture here, but it rarely strikes well for me. If something in culture is dominant, I tend to get very little value from something being counter to that for the sake of dismissing it. At least that’s how it tends to read to me, with an air of snootiness.
The Marvel movies are good fun, but they all have exactly the same colour palettes, flatness of imagery, tone of script and dialogue, plot beats, characterisation across protagonists. When something comes along that is decidedly different, I don’t think it’s a surprise people respond to it (and there’s obviously more than a fair share of negative reviews for Matrix too).
I haven’t seen the film, but the polarised response makes me very interested in watching it. I didn’t like BvS or ZSJL, but I appreciated them being different and I’m not surprised so many did like it because it isn’t the same old safe movie that Marvel releases four or five times a year. And there’s nothing wrong with that, that’s what people like. But it’s wild to see someone be given $150-200m in this day and age to go and make something like what Matrix 4 sounds like, and I think that’s what people respond to. That counter of the standard and typical blockbuster form. It’s no different to those who pioneered early rock, or when games moved towards ultra-violence and open world environments, or when plays moved from the tragedies of kings and queens in Greek/Roman/Elizabethan theatre to the tragedy of the common man. It’s different and rebels against the norm, and that will always have fans.
If Matrix 4 worked well as a movie, and became something I enjoyed, maybe that tweet wouldn’t be as grating to me as I find it.
One of the problems, and its something I'm obviously guilty of, is that there are words in the tweet that have simple meanings, many syllables, and just don't need to be in there.
"There were so many things I loved about Matrix Resurections but the element that really got me was how courageously Lana W - famously an absolute innovator of film aesthetics - deliberately chose an anti-aesthetic to critique the modern world and to focus on intense emotion"
Just get rid of 'absolute' and 'deliberately,' and it instantly feels like an actual take that you could have watching the film, rather than something you had to strain to think about to ingrain yourself in the twitter film-criticsphere. Then again, the line between writing being too simple and being verbose is very thin, different for everyone, and changes depending what you're reading. I personally find that a lot of these tweets that get posted here trample all over that line, that's why I love them, and it's also why I'd never follow any of the cunts.
"There were so many things I loved about Matrix Resurections but the element that really got me was how courageously Lana W - famously an absolute innovator of film aesthetics - deliberately chose an anti-aesthetic to critique the modern world and to focus on intense emotion"
Just get rid of 'absolute' and 'deliberately,' and it instantly feels like an actual take that you could have watching the film, rather than something you had to strain to think about to ingrain yourself in the twitter film-criticsphere. Then again, the line between writing being too simple and being verbose is very thin, different for everyone, and changes depending what you're reading. I personally find that a lot of these tweets that get posted here trample all over that line, that's why I love them, and it's also why I'd never follow any of the cunts.
You lot take this stuff way too seriously.
A tweet of all things.
Resurrections has some technical flaws, whether they are intentional or not doesn't matter.
A tweet of all things.
Resurrections has some technical flaws, whether they are intentional or not doesn't matter.
By Perfect Blue Go To PostIt’s mad how the film industry outside of whatever Hollywood produces doesn’t even exist to some people. The mid budget film totally exists and is thriving arguably better than ever before. I think your analysis is quite faulty because of this.
I’m wrong to say that the mid budget film doesn’t exist, but I don’t know that ‘thriving’ is right considering their existence relies almost entirely on Spiderman making money.
How many of these mid budget films make money in the cinema? Very very little. I used to be able to go see every Oscar favourite, every foreign film I wanted, and every blockbuster in my local Odeon for 18 quid a month.
Now, I’d need to go to the Curzon for anything relatively small. If I look at my local cinema, this is what’s on this Tuesday:
Four showings of Clifford Big Red Fuck ($65m budget)
One showing of Encanto ($130m, Disney)
One showing of Ghostbusters ($75m)
One showing of Gucci ($75m)
Fifteen showings of Spiderman ($200m, Disney)
Six showings of King’s Man ($100m)
Six showings of Matrix ($175m)
Three showings of West Side Story ($100m)
Meanwhile Power of the Dog, Don’t Look Up and Tick Tick Boom rely on Netflix to throw huge wads of cash around for them because the sheer abundance of films can’t all share cinema space and can’t compete with Spiderman. They exist. But I’m not sure what you mean by thriving. The Last Duel and West Side Story both cost half of what Spidey did, and both have barely cracked $30m.
More films than ever are released, and they are all hidden away across a thousand different streaming platforms so I need to spend at least £25/30 a month just to access them all, let alone those in the cinema. This is largely because the cinemas exist now to serve the big budgets, and a lot of those big budgets are homogenous.
Star Wars is to blame for everything. I’m part of the problem.
By Daz Go To Post.Yeah. Intentional flaws are still flaws - stylistic choices can be bad.
Resurrections has some technical flaws, whether they are intentional or not doesn't matter.
The prime example of this year is that Snyder film The Army of the Dead where he chose to shoot the entire film wide open resulting in very out of focus images and busy bokeh. Stylistic choice and done intentionally but still looks awful.
Star Wars is to blame for everything. I’m part of the problem.
Now that's something we can all agree on
By n8 dogg Go To PostI’m wrong to say that the mid budget film doesn’t exist, but I don’t know that ‘thriving’ is right considering their existence relies almost entirely on Spiderman making money.Oh yeah if you want to adjust it to cinemas specifically then yeah you are right, they are disappearing from cinemas and relegated to art house theatres.
How many of these mid budget films make money in the cinema? Very very little. I used to be able to go see every Oscar favourite, every foreign film I wanted, and every blockbuster in my local Odeon for 18 quid a month.
Now, I’d need to go to the Curzon for anything relatively small. If I look at my local cinema, this is what’s on this Tuesday:
Four showings of Clifford Big Red Fuck ($65m budget)
One showing of Encanto ($130m, Disney)
One showing of Ghostbusters ($75m)
One showing of Gucci ($75m)
Fifteen showings of Spiderman ($200m, Disney)
Six showings of King’s Man ($100m)
Six showings of Matrix ($175m)
Three showings of West Side Story ($100m)
Meanwhile Power of the Dog, Don’t Look Up and Tick Tick Boom rely on Netflix to throw huge wads of cash around for them because the sheer abundance of films can’t all share cinema space and can’t compete with Spiderman. They exist. But I’m not sure what you mean by thriving. The Last Duel and West Side Story both cost half of what Spidey did, and both have barely cracked $30m.
More films than ever are released, and they are all hidden away across a thousand different streaming platforms so I need to spend at least £25/30 a month just to access them all, let alone those in the cinema. This is largely because the cinemas exist now to serve the big budgets, and a lot of those big budgets are homogenous.
Star Wars is to blame for everything. I’m part of the problem.
They are thriving to me exactly how you said in that more films than ever are being released. Especially outside of Hollywood by smaller production companies never mind abroad in the art house scene.
fuck me, the way you guys are going on about matrix, i might just have to distro it so i can call it shit in 10 word reviews on letterboxd.
I am just annoyed by how spread out they all are. If I wanted to watch all the films released in one month I’d need Netflix, Amazon, Disney, Shutter, Criterion, HBOMax, a chain cinema, and an independent cinema (and probably some I haven’t remembered)
Or just a really good VPN 👴🏻
Or just a really good VPN 👴🏻
or an android tv player and a harddisk(or i guess, subsription to some random ass russian plex server)
By n8 dogg Go To PostI haven’t seen the film, but there can be a distinction between ‘the weaponisation of nostalgia’ (which seems to focus around the aesthetics of the Matrix, the philosophy of its ideas, and responds to the co-opting of some of its language by sources such as the alt-right) and ‘true love is not nostalgia or clinging to the past, but something that transcends that’. This seems to focus on human connection between Trinity and Neo - one instance of the original trilogy where, if you asked typical fans of the first film, I don’t know if that would automatically be one of the reasons they love it.
See the thing is that once again it’s just an idea, a poorly executed one. There’s a scene here that made me think you could make an entire movie about it, so interesting it was, but what happens? It goes nowhere with it, over that quick. Could’ve made a movie entirely around it really, or at least a black mirror episode. Instead the movie tells you Neo and Trinity’s love for one another is what is real, but it’s just telling you it’s not really showing you. They love each other because they love each other, exactly like the first one.
Watching The Holiday.
Fucking hell, there is so much Sony product placement.
Also prime lindsay lohan.
Fucking hell, there is so much Sony product placement.
Also prime lindsay lohan.
By bud Go To Postwhere the fuck are the usb ports of the lg cxThey are on the back right, m8.
edit: oops meant to post this on whatsapp
I thought killing off the DVD/BR market is causing mid budget movies to "fail" or make way less money than before.
There’s a scene where I thought the movie was going to breakout into a musical, and to be honest I wanted it to because it would’ve made it a whole lot better.
Anyway that’s enough of me, I said my PEACE.
Anyway that’s enough of me, I said my PEACE.
Liked ‘The Power of the Dog’ well enough, but it feels too restrained and distant to think any more than that. Smit-McPhee fares best of the actors because he’s the most naturalistic in a story that asks you to empathise with the plights of the characters, but there’s something too performative about them, something too stagey that contrasts too much with the setting and aesthetics (lol dont @ me). Far better in the second half when it reveals its true purpose, and there’s some really fantastic work from Campion in the framing of particular shots. Needed to be funnier, more lurid psychosexual drama; could have been more ‘Phantom Thread’ imo.
Stunning score though. Jonny Greenwood the god
Stunning score though. Jonny Greenwood the god
By Frustrated_me Go To PostWe've turned into Era, congratulations everyone. We finally did it.
I tried on the last page, nephew. But no one but us, are brave enough to challenge ourselves with an innovator like Mike Mills. Cmon Cmon was so fucking good, loved the perfect black and white aesthetic to reflect the underlying melancholic tones of the film, yet also somehow showing love for people and parenthood in just about every scene.
But more than anything, it's also pleasing to look at. The cityscapes shots in this are pulchritudinous and the street shots are just as invigorating. A film that truly demands underlying thoughts from the viewer, and intriguing conversations afterwards. This might just be the kino connoisseur in me talking, but it is also a perfect critique of modern films, being all about profits. The toned down style of all the trailers and scenes shown, together with being black and white, it's a clear signal that the director is not going for money or success. #UnclePilled.
By n8 dogg Go To PostDisso is Jake and reilo is TomThe Aviator is more technically complex than any MCU movie, you fucking idiot, Tom
It also cost $110m in 2004 like that is somehow a criteria for anything, in case he was wondering
Isn’t Scorsese’s newest movie $200m or something lol
Even Netflix thought it was too expensive and they fund fucking anything
Even Netflix thought it was too expensive and they fund fucking anything
I was thinking what movies Tom was on that were on the conversations for Oscars but then I remember he was in The Impossible when he was little.
By LFMartins86 Go To PostI was thinking what movies Tom was on that were on the conversations for Oscars but then I remember he was in The Impossible when he was little.
No Way Home to sweep the Oscars