#really liked this one i love an overly dramatic full of itself film <3< /div> Explore tagged Tumblr posts

[mandymovie]

You shouldn’t mess with boys that are bigger than you.

BRONSON (2008) Directed by Nicolas Winding Refn

[omgthatdress]

How to make Cats a good movie.

I watched Cats, and once I got over the initial horror, I was actually pretty entertained and found myself enjoying the shit out of it. Like god bless it, for as nightmare-inducing as much as it was, Tom Hooper was clearly *committed* to his vision and you gotta give him credit for that. The scenery was actually really beautiful and the cinematography was frequently breathtaking. Like it really did have a lot of elements that really worked for it. But for every bit of genius, there was something terrible that the movie just couldn’t overcome. So let’s dive in.

First of all, you kind of have to understand Cats: the musical. It’s an adaptation of poems that T.S. Elliott of nihilistic lost generation fame wrote for his godchildren about cats. And the poetry is charming af and totally captures the nature of cats and why they’re so lovable. In the in the 1970s, Andrew Lloyd Webber did a shit ton of cocaine and decided to make a musical out of these poems. As a result, Cats has no plot. It’s a bunch of cats singing their songs about who they are and doing a lot of dancing. The thinnest of narrative devices is created with the “jellicle” ball and the deciding of which cat gets to ascend to heaven or some shit. So yeah. Cats is actually pretty controversial among theater nerds, it’s very much a you either love it or hate it thing. Is it stupid? Yes.  Is it going to make everyone happy? No. Does it lend itself well to film adaptation? fuck no. I get the feeling that Tom Hooper was really going for deep, meaningful poetic cinema here and trying to make another Les Mis (which was way overly long and ultimately sank under its own sheer weight as a movie and probably is better viewed as a play). I’m operating under the assumption that Hooper was going for ground-breaking cinema that would have made millions and swept up during awards season and cemented him as a legendary director and gone down in movie history, because every little detail of Cats is clearly meant for maximum impact. You kind of need to drop all expectations going into Cats, so once you’re there, you can have fun with it. So how do you make it a good film?

1. The HORRIBLE hyper-realistic cgi human-cat hybrids. YES, it’s a technical marvel, and the CGI artists who made it all deserve a ton of credit for the work they did. And I understand why the actors were kept in their human shapes: live dance is a huge part of what makes Cats work. One of the smart decisions made was hiring theater veterans for the filler roles in the cat chorus, so when you have the choreographed numbers, it’s really spectacular. It’s just the end result was way too uncanny valley and bizarre for any of the film’s good parts to ever rise above it. I think a minimalist approach would have actually worked best. Cat ears and simple costumes with clean lines that show off the dancer’s bodies. Go for the suggestion of cats, and kind of let the viewer’s imagination take over, and showcase the cat’s personality. A huge part of what I enjoyed was hearing the poetry and imagining these cats and how they all relate to cats I’ve known. The dance and the music helped heighten this experience, but hybrids kept reminding me of the joke: what do you get when you cross a human and a cat? An immediate cessation of funding and a stern rebuke from the ethics committee.

2. The schlocky, honestly amateurish attempts at slapstick humor. I’m gonna come out and say it and say that Hooper is pretty deeply entrenched in *dRaMa* and has no sense of how comedy works. There was a lot of added in comedic bits from Rebel Wilson and James Corden, and it was honestly terrible. I mean really, a crotch hit? That kind of lowbrow comedy is so crude and base that it’s actually really hard to pull it off well. Slapstick comedy actually lends itself to the whimsical tone, and slapstick done well can be utterly sublime, but Cats seemed satisfied that fat people falling over is the height of comedy and should be left at that. And a second note on the comedy? Weirdly fat-shame-y. A saw a post about how odd it is to see James Corden, who has been very frank about how he’s struggled with dieting and come to accept that his body is fat and can’t be made not fat, playing this role where fat is added to his body, his CGI vest strains at the buttons, and he’s literally stuffing his face with garbage. The theme of fat people as lazy, stupid, and slovenly carried over from Rebel Wilson’s role, in which she also plays a fat lazy cat who is leaned on heavily for comic relief. I know the role is about a fat cat, and gently laughing at a fat lazy cat who loves to eat is fine, but, speaking as a fat person myself, this felt like a gleeful exploitation of a nasty and cruel stereotype. James Corden and Rebel Wilson are both extraordinarily funny people who happen to be fat, and their comedic gifts were tremendously mis-used here, reducing them to simply two fat bodies to be laughed at.

3. Jennifer Hudson. She’s a talented actress who can sing and emote like a motherfucker. And emote she did. She was clearly GOING for that second Oscar. I really don’t want to call her performance bad. The same level of emotion, tears running and snot flowing, in another movie, would have been devastating (Hello, Viola Davis in Fences). But this isn’t Fences, it’s fucking Cats. You need a level of character depth and development that Cats doesn’t afford to make those tears hit. All the crying and misery was an odd maudlin and over-dramatic break in the fun and whimsy. With a subtler performance and a hint of self-awareness, it could have actually brought in an emotional anchor for this light-as-air film, but Cats doesn’t make any attempt at nuance, and as a result the scenes just hit you out of nowhere like a load of bricks. 

4. Francesca Hayward. Okay, before we go anywhere, I want to say that this girl is not un-talented. She’s the principal ballerina of the Royal Ballet, and has a very long list of ballets that she’s lead in. So it makes sense that she’d be hired for a role that’s primarily ballet. This girl is a really really great DANCER. But Cats was clearly trying to make an A-list actress out of her. They tried to make her into Florence Pugh, who has been acting for a while and is blowing up right now because she’s very talented. Like everything about Francesca’s role in the film said “This is a star-making role.” A new song was written just for her to sing as an addendum to Cats’s show-stopping signature song. But the song was just okay, it didn’t carry nearly the emotional weight or all-around beauty of “Memories,” and all in all felt wedged-in and totally unnecessary and really just felt like a grab at that “best original song” Oscar. Francesca’s voice is high, thin, and child-like. It’s not unpleasant, but next to the richness and depth of Jennifer Hudson’s voice, it crumbles, and it’s not the sort of voice that I want to seek out to listen to over and over again. As for her overall performance, she largely keeps the same look of wide-eyed wonder throughout her numerous close-ups, so much so that I found myself thinking of the the MST3K “dull surprise” sketch. But I don’t know if that’s really entirely her fault. There was an attempted romantic storyline with the magic cat, but again, because of the nature of Cats and its lack of real character development or depth, the chemistry fell flat. There really isn’t much of a chance to show off a lot of dramatic range, so to keep going back to her character, it kept reinforcing the one-notedness of her performance. Really, I just kept wanting to see Francesca dance. Ironically, I think they really blew an opportunity trying to make an A-list actress out of her. All she really need to make people want to see more of her is one spectacular dance number, but for some reason, she never really gets that show-stopping moment. 

5. Dignity? I guess this goes back to the whole CGI cat thing, but there were a lot of moments when I felt this tremendous wave of second-hand embarrassment hit me on behalf of the talented actors in this film. Watching Gandalf lap up milk from a saucer was a wholly uncomfortable experience, like come on, grant the great Ian McKellan some fucking DIGNITY here. Which goes back to whatI said earlier that a suggestion and interpretation of cats would have worked better than all-out just being a cat. Or it could again just be how much Cats just fails its attempts at comedy. But then again there was no fucking reason at all for Idris Elba to be that fucking NAKED. I guess they were trying to make him sexy? But his sexy smolder and just being Idris Elba wasn’t enough they had to make sure that we all saw his chiseled pecs and thick thighs. And then at the end when he’s dangling off of the rope of a hot air balloon and what’s supposed to be a funny scene, I think, I kept thinking “I’m so sorry this is happening to you, Idris.” 

There’s a bunch of other small, nit-picky things that I could go into. Those cockroaches would have worked so much better if they weren’t humans with an extra set of arms. Watching them get eaten was some horror movie shit. Taylor Swift’s Macavity song would have worked a lot better if the cat chorus full of cats we’ve gotten to know had sung it, but instead Taylor Swift is brought in as a new cat we don’t know whose only purpose is to sing the Macavity song? but of course a big oscar-bait movie needs to have that pop star that draws in the people who wouldn’t otherwise see it and making her a part of the cat chorus would have had her performing throughout the whole movie and she would have floundered the way pop stars tend to do when performing musical theater around a bunch of musical theater actors. So I guess I get why she was thrown in.

So.... yeah? Is there anyone else who found themselves enjoying it in spite of everything? I’m glad I have dogs and didn’t have to watch this mess with actual cats around me.

[danijadegordon]

Top 10 (L)GBTQ Shows & Movies To Stop The Pining.

As someone who has been consuming as much LGBTQ media as I can, I feel I need to do something productive with the hours I have poured into this. Most of these are able to be streamed on Hulu, because as I’ve learned, Hulu is home to some of the best queer media. A fair warning, most of these are sapphic or mainly sapphic. Without further ado, here is my top ten favorite LGBTQ Films and TV Shows.

10. The L Word (stream on Netflix)

    I am pretty sure that no queer women under the age of 35 actually enjoys this show. However, I do think that every woman who likes women should watch this. The cheesy plotmlines and messy characters make the show interesting to watch even if other parts (*cough* Jenny *cough*) make it unbearable. Anyway despite its flaws and slightly biphobic undertones, I think at least a few episodes need to be watched.

9. The First Girl I Loved (stream on Hulu)

    Honestly this is just like a good chick flick but make it gay. High school unrequited love, dramatic kisses, it's pretty good, clearly not that memorable.

8. The Fosters (and Good Trouble) (stream on Hulu)

    Honestly, this show did so much for Gen Z queer people, or at least myself. The diverse main cast, interesting storylines, and head on approach to sexuality and gender, this show helped me learn about the LGBTQ community before I actively sought it out. As in, this show was some of the first representation on TV that I really saw. Steph and Lena showed a side of marriage that I hadn’t seen. Instead of just beautiful wedding photos I saw that love can be hard and messy and still be worthwhile.

    The subsequent spin-off show (Good Trouble), continues to showcase diverse people and (dramatized) real life situations. It feels like the show that first showed me that it was okay to be different, has grown with me as the show is life as a young adult. This show makes me feel like I am in middle school again in the best way, chock full of nostalgia.

7. Marvel’s Runaways (stream on Hulu)

    I am not a huge marvel fan, (*gasp* I said it!), it just feels like men showing off and creating chaos to fight chaos. I much prefer softer shows that make me laugh and have a large female presence (and it took me 19 years to realize I liked women....). But, twitter broke me down on this one and I am pretty obsessed. 

    The plot is exciting and fast paced, and it’s refreshing to see everyday concerns of young adults/ teens weaved in between the action. Each character has unique features and negative and positive traits and the cast is DIVERSE. The relationships between the characters are also complex and the slow build sapphic romance between two of the main characters is everything you could ever dream of.

6. Buffy The Vampire Slayer (stream on Hulu)

    I learned the other day that Dolly Parton produced this show, which for some reason makes perfect sense to me. Of course the show that I spent my formative years watching would be produced by a legend such as Dolly Parton. 

    I am not totally sure this counts as LGBT media but One Day at a Time (stream on Netflix because it’s good just not on my list) references it as something young lesbian (and bi) women do and I did so here it is. 

    I can pretty much sum up why I love this show in 3 words, Sarah Michelle Geller. I thought she was the coolest person ever, and wanted to be her so bad. Watching her kill the creepy vampires, just iconic. And in later seasons when Willow dates a witch, amazing, just *chefs kiss*. I was obsessed when I saw this show for the first time and I wish I could re-watch it for the first time. 

5. Vita and Virginia (stream on Hulu)

    Historical women being gay is one of the most validating things, and furthermore some of the most beautiful love stories. Vita and Virginia is based on letters sent between the two women (Author Virginia Wolff and Vita Sackville-West), and shows a high stakes and emotional relationship between the two. The 20s fashion and culture paired with the universal queer feeling of pining, this movie was everything. 

    It is also important to note that Vita is a tiny top and Virginia is a beautiful soft giantess bottom (she’s like 6ft or something crazy), and I think that is enough reason to watch this movie in itself

4. The Girl King (stream on Hulu)

    Based on Christina of Sweden, who ruled over Sweden for 10 years before marrying the Pope and becoming the Virgin Queen Of Rome, is breathtaking. The juxtaposition of Christina harsh exterior to the world and her court, and the softness she shows her lady in waiting is captivating. This movie gave me the strong female leader that doesn’t get shown nearly enough in today’s media. This movie made me laugh, cry, and hold my breath in anticipation. It is beautiful and makes me proud to be a queer women.

3. Little Fires Everywhere (stream on Hulu)

    This 8 part series based on the NY Times best seller written by Celeste Ng, is dramatic and poignant. It forces you to think critically about moral areas that we like to think we have the right answer to, and it makes me rethink your own privilege. 

    The dance around the subject of sexuality and romance, and motherhood throughout every aspect of the film is enchanting. What is a perfect life, what is a perfect mother, and how do you move on and grow from mistakes. This show is beautiful and regardless of gender or sexuality this series is worth the watch.

2. Motherland: Fort Salem (stream on Hulu)

    There is no match quite like that of lesbians and witchcraft, and this show does both brilliantly. This show is female dominated and exciting. The characters are interesting and all have different things that motivate them. The history behind the world the show lives in is deep and fleshed out. It’s the fantasy TV show that I have been waiting for my whole life without knowing.

    With a strong queer women as the main character, who has a complex and passionate love story with ANOTHER strong queer women, this show is just amazing. Unlike male dominated media (production included) this show gives viewers the tender and tension filled moments that aren't given to sapphic love stories usually. It doesn’t feel overly sexual (looking at you Blue is the Warmest Color) but it’s not just friendship under a different label. 

    It releases new episodes every Wednesday so, get caught up because this show is worth it!

Portrait of a Lady On Fire (stream on Hulu)

    I never understood why french was a romantic language, until I watched this movie. The score is beautiful and the slow burn romance between the two main characters is captivating. I don’t know what more to say, painters and ladies just go together it seems and this movie proves that. It’s a bit long but it doesn’t feel like that long of a movie.

[spacepaladinranger]

Engame Spoiler-y Review

READ THIS ONLY IF YOU WANT TO BE SPOILED. I just need to let my feelings out because I’m a nerd who has nothing better to do.

I don’t think the MC can make another movie like this. That is not to say that the MCE will never be able to make a film bigger or more spectacular than this, because they might. But it will never top the emotional impact of this film.

The MCU has been criticized (justly, I may add) to be series of “junk food” films – full of spectacle, but low on character development. This film is anything but that. The film feels more like a love letter to the characters and the fans. The spectacle was there, of course, but this time it was eclipsed by the small, minute scenes that give insight to our beloved superheroes.Before that, here are the films you probably should watch. Although the references are easy to spot, you might want to brush up on your knowledge of these films.

Avengers (2012)

Thor: The Dark World (I know. They really reminded us the worst MCU film exists lol)

Dr. Strange

Age of Ultron

Capt. America: TWS

Capt. America: Civil War

Iron Man 3

(EVERYTHING AFTER THIS IS SPOILER TERRITORY PLEASE STOP READING IF YOU DON’T WANT TO BE SPOILED. I MEAN IT.)

The film begins before the infamous Thanos snappening, with Hawkeye. The first scene itself was telling to what the movie aims to be. It was emotional and reminded us of the stakes – of what the heroes are fighting for. It was a good mood setter and on the get go, separates itself from Infinity War. If Infinity War was Thanos’ journey of gathering the Infinity Stones, then Endgame is the journey of the original six Avengers in their goal to undo Thanos’ handiwork. Now finally, I understand why this is not called Infinity War Part 2 – because it is not. The structure of the film itself is vastly different from IW because the focus is shifted from the plot to the characters themselves.And this was a tall order. We are talking about a decade long franchise of 20 plus films, all with their own tone and structure, and weaving them together into a coherent film with a solid plot and development is difficult. The Russo brothers, luckily, shine in this kind of storytelling. There is something so enticing with the way they handle the arcs of these characters without it feeling overly dramatic or feeling like a caricature. My second favourite emotional arc was Natasha/Black Widow’s story. Arguably, she had the biggest role to play in the Avengers’ success in the film.  Her sacrifice in Vormir to get the Soul Stone was gutting. I literally cried partly because no one expected her to die – she was never in anyone’s death prediction list – and partly because you expect a spy like her to be anything but self-sacrificing. Her fight with Clint/Hawkeye on who between them should be sacrificed to get the stone was hard to watch. They are bestfriends who are willing to die for each other; but they understand the necessity of the sacrifice because they are also heroes who have to do whatever it takes for them to win. Their dialogue was the best of the film, and Natasha’s “I don’t judge people on their worst mistake” is a sober reminder that these two go way back and has been each other’s strength and support all throughout the film franchise. It’s devastating to see Natasha plummet to her death, but it served an indispensable push for the heroes to succeed.

My favourite arc was Steve/Cap (SURPRISE! Lmao). Steve’s role was noticeably reduced in IW and this film made up for it in a major way. Let me just get this out of the way, but the styling team really did god’s work in dressing up Steve this film and the Russo brothers’, bless them, choice to have every outfit of Steve showcased is the very definition of fan service. It was gratuitous but honestly, I am not complaining. There was a running joke about Steve’s butt being “America’s Best Ass”™ (Thank you Scott Lang for that) and having Steve himself recognize it was not only satisfying to watch but also the truest, realest thing that has been uttered in the film. LolKidding aside, Steve’s journey was the most important. People argue that Tony was the foundation of the Avengers but it was Steve that kept them together. And Steve kept them together. It’s more than just him giving rousing, inspiring speeches – Steve has always served as the moral compass of the group. Somehow, Steve always knew the right thing to do, but it never felt deus-ex-machina esque, instead it always felt like it was coming from a place of wisdom and compassion. It’s not that Steve knows what to do, it’s just that Steve sees that there is something that can be done, and actually does it. Steve has always been a hero. That was the journey that was set-up for him since his first outing in the MCU, and Endgame paid that off big time. When Steve wielded the Mjolnir, I tell you, I screamed loudly. It was so satisfying to see this straight-laced hero being recognized as someone worthy. His toe-to-toe with Thanos was amazing to watch and really reminds you that Steve’s physicality and fight scenes are some of the best in all of the MCU. So when Steve returns to Infinity Stones in their proper timeline and decides not to come back to the present to, in his words, “live life”, I shed a tear. It was well deserved. This man who has been fighting wars all his life deserve a life of peace. Steve doesn’t die, but he gives up his mantle and gives his shield to Sam/Falcon. It was a good way to bookend his journey. And I am excited to see how Anthony Mackie handles this huge role in the future.

Tony Stark is the first Stark casualty this April. After his rescue from deep space, we find out that Tony and Pepper got married and have a daughter. When the daughter came to the screen, I knew immediately that Tony Stark is unlikely to survive. Tony dies a hero, sacrificing himself so that Thanos is defeated. It was Tony who wielded the stones to snap Thanos and his alien army out of existence, and his death, although emotional to watch, was really not surprising for me. Tony came to us first being this selfish, brash, genius billionaire and his journey ended with him making the sacrifice that deals the final blow against Thanos. 

Scott Lang shined in this film. His funny one-liners provide a welcome reprieve from the heaviness of the film. And he was actually instrumental in the Avengers winning. Nebula was also a stand out and played an important role in moving the plot forward. Who knew a robot had so many conflicting emotions lol. Kudos to Karen Gillan for bringing complexity to her character and I cannot wait to see her in future MCU films again. All the ‘dusted’ characters come back. All of them. And not just them everyone in the MCU almost made a cameo. Hoping this film rakes in billions because it’s probably expensive having so many of the cast in the same scenes. Haha.

Some stand-out moments:

1. Thor’s beer belly 

2. Wanda/Scarlet Witch and Thanos rematch (Thanos got beat, BTW)

3. The all-female team-up of Capt. Marvel, Scarlet Witch, Okoye, Pepper Potts, Valkyrie, and Mantis

4. Thor double wielding Stormbreaker and Mjolnir

5. Stephen Strange having like one line and being a badass

6. Spider-Man being… Spider-Man

7. Peter Quill being kicked in the balls by Gamora

8. Everytime the camera pans to Steven Grant Rogers

9. The close-up of Steven Grant Rogers’ ass

There are flaws to this film. But honestly, I leave that to the actual critics. It gave me what I wanted to see and showed me things I did not expect to see. It was emotional. As a fan who has watched all the films multiple times, as someone who obsessed over the details and made theories, as someone who holds these comic book characters close to my heart, I truly enjoyed this film. It was worth it.

[smileandasong]

Not sure if anyone cares (hell, i barely do!), but here are some quick Spider-Man: Far From Home thoughts. All in all, I thought it was pretty decent, but nothing to write home about (for me personally, of course!)

- This was MUCH better than Spider-Man: Homecoming. I should probably say that I didn’t really care for that movie much in general. Homecoming, for me at least, always felt a bit dull and too simple. I get what they were trying to do, with the whole emphasizing the “neighborhood” aspect of the Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man title, but meh, it just kinda bored me. It felt like it was more interested in being like an 80′s style teen movie than it did a superhero movie and idk, wasn’t for me. So I was glad that FFH was more action-packed and with higher stakes.

- Tony was used in the plot just the right amount. Whenever the characters brought him up or talked about him, it felt very natural and not overly forced. I was worried they were going to be cramming it down our throats like the trailers made it out to be, but it was actually very balanced! I especially liked how Iron Man was in the background so often, like with the collection of Spider-Man drawings in Peter’s classroom at the beginning. It was a nice, subtle reminder that he’s not really gone and the idea fo Iron Man lives on <3. I was selfishly hoping for a new scene with him, like a flashback of sorts, but I’ll take what we got!

- Jake Gyllenhaal’s Mysterio was GREAT! Granted, I didn’t like his whole origin and that we have yet another supervillain that Tony’s actions inadvertently created. I also hated the “twist” villain aspect of it, but man, once he went full supervillain it was AWESOME. He was so crazy and over the top, and his performance reminded me a lot of Willem Defoe’s Green Goblin in the Raimi trilogy (which is one of my favorite supervillain performances in any superhero film ever!). I really love a campy, dramatic supervillain, and man was he great!!! Origins aside, I liked this take on the character a lot!

- ALSO thank fucking GOD that he was lying about the whole multiverse thing and that MCU =/= Earth-616. I let out the loudest sigh of relief because I was stressed af about that.

- Zendaya was, once again, perfect, but come on, you already know this!

- I could have done without the whole love triangle plot and other “teen movie” bits, but again, that’s just a personal preference.

- The ending fight dragged on a little too long and was starting to lose me. I think about seven minutes or so could have been cut.

- JK SIMMONS AS J. JONAH JAMESON WAS THE BEST PART OF THE WHOLE MOVIE! I cheered so loud, oh my god, that end credit scene was worth the cost of admission alone!

So yeah, I liked it just fine! I do think it still suffers from a lot of the same problems that Homecoming did, in that it’s trying SO hard to fit into the MCU and differentiate itself from the Raimi and Webb films that it loses a lot of the emotional core of what makes Spider-Man great (the whole Tony Stark more or less taking Uncle Ben’s role as Peter’s reason for his moral compass, absence of key characters in the Spider-Man mythos, etc.), but I think we’ll see more of the Spidey tropes as the series develops further! 

It definitely feels like it came from that manufactured “MCU box office gold” formula, which holds me back from truly loving it, as someone who has become very exhausted by MCU repetitiveness. Nothing groundbreaking and not the best Spider-Man movie ever, but it’s certainly not the worst! 7/10! 

[luluvonv]

My thoughts on Tomb Raider 2018 movie

Forgive me, Lord, for I have sinned! :D

Some part of me must have gone crazy when I decided to watch the new Tomb Raider movie yesterday. I wasn’t even interested in it after I had saw its trailer and some scenes, and given my aversion to current franchise direction. Yet my curiosity was stronger. And my favourite Alicia probably did the magic.

I did not expect anything from the film. I tried to watch it without my judgemental attitude towards Laraboot. I tried to watch it as something that does not pretend to be Lara Croft or Tomb Raider.

First thing that needs to be said: it is way better than the games. The story is based on the game plot but they took, let’s say, the best from it and thus for fans that love the rebooted series it must be perfect.  After the made-upintroduction to Laraboot’s life (biking, kick-box), they follow Reboot plot quite faithfully (at least from what I remember) - the shipwreck, the island, parachutte scene, her pierced stomach, the first kill, her axe... I think Reboot fans got what was needed for a good adaptation. 

!!! SPOILERS AHEAD !!!

The film definitely has its light moments. 1) Alicia I really do think she was the right pick. She is a fantastic actress and I find her truly resembling Laraboot. She fully gave herself to the role and I enjoyed her acting very much (except for one scene which I’ll mention later). Mainly, she is not annoying as game Laraboot, there is no necesary moaning and that was very important to me - I did not have to mute or turn the movie off after 20 min. I am only sorry that somebody like her had to play such a shallow character. And yes, her sick abs were impressive as hell, she was a beast there... She was the reason that make it worth watching.

2) First kill scene Now that was a highlight of the film for me. Damn it was intense! I found this decisive moment in game very irritaiting - game Laraboot cried and had a mental breakdown when shooting the bad guy in the face. Which is understandable. If only she was not killing hundreads of men three seconds later, it would be also believable. Instead it was amusing. Not in the movie. The decision to use for this a hand-to-hand fight instead of gun was a good move. They showed movie Laraboot’s fighting skills and made it more dramatic. And Alicia’s performance in it was phenomenal. I loved her there. It made a really good impact on me and I caught myself really watching with interest. (also the fact she didn’t become a killer-machine a minute later helped a lot)

3) Soundtrack Not that it would be a masterpiece but some pieces were very nice, it underlined the movie well. Definiely better than the game soundtrack which was too simple, depressing and overly dramatic. 

4) Lu Ren He didn’t get much space in the film and I wished he got more scenes there. I don’t know what specifically drew me to him but I got hooked on him. I did not see any sexual chemistry between him and Laraboot as many other people did apparently. But they bonded over their shared clichéd ‘I-lost-my-parent-too’ past and surprisingly it was not forced but natural. I liked his character very much tho we did not get much of him. Shame.  yeah and I found him cute, I couldn’t help it

5) Main advantage? No Sam!!!! That speaks for itself.

So much for the pros of the movie. Now what I did not like at all ... 

1) Plot Generally speaking I think it is a film that one does not have to see more than once. You can’t make gold from the plot that is average even from its source. It lacks originality, there are typical hollywood whims of every action-adventure movie, e.g., diary, valuable documents that has to be destroyed in order not to be seized by the villain - ‘surprisingly’ the villain will obtain the notes very quickly and easily based on main protagonist’s decision to keep them; father figure without which the heroine could not found her true adventurous self etc. Simple and straighforward. On the other hand I ask myself what did I expect when I knew it was game-based and I knew the plot? 

2) Faaaaatheeeeer Another thing that annoyed me - they drained the father story to its maximum. He was alive. Living on the island as hairy castaway. And of course he had to die at the island. I ask why they had to give so much time for Richard. I took it they wanted to make it so dramatically emotional, a tearjerker, but for me it did not have the effect. It was too Hollywood. They so much forced the father-daughter stuff, they wanted to drain you emotinally but it appeared so plain and ordinary.

3) Stunts, Effects Also the stunts and some effects were very poor. Like the parachutte scene where Laraboot flew to the forest. Or the jumps. OMG the jumps! I lauged so hard. They should hire a better stunt director. He must have been drunk when working on the movie. The jumps Laraboot makes?!!! Ridiculous! I mean she always looked like this:

Of course Alicia was pulled by some ropes or anything for security but it appeared so absurd - it is like they dragged her earlier than she got a chance to actually take off some surface. Honestly, the directors failed big time here. 

4) Plot holes Maybe it was due to my non-full concentration but all characters claimed there is no way how to get away from the island. BUT WHY? We did not get an answer.. And what next, is it a stand-alone movie? They started the ROTTR storyline, revealed Ana to be the bad guy. Which brings me to the fact why Richard did not say anything about Ana to his daugher?

5) ‘I’ll take two.’’

Now I get to the famous ending scene of the movie. That was probably the only scene Alicia acted badly. I didn’t believe her. I didn’t belived she became badass. I didn’t believe she can wield dual pistols. I don’t know why they put this scene in the film in the first place. A bait to classic fans? Didn’t work. Just because they gave her duals does not make her to be the Lara. It takes so much more to be Croft. It was forced, useless, unnecesary. If it wasn’t there it’d be better because they mixed apples with pears and it doesn’t go well together.

In conclusion, as a common viewer it didn’t offend me as I knew what to expect knowing the Reboot series. It was better than the game and I wasn’t bored as I thought I’d have been. As a Lara Croft fan it didn’t offend me either because I don’t consider this film to have anything in common with Tomb Raider or Lara Croft so to speak. It was just another film about another very plain and ordinary girl. It just appears to have a name of a famous character.

[buzzdixonwriter]

Chillin’ With Netflix (2018 edition)

LOST IN SPACE

Really well done, family friendly space opera.  Top notch production values, good / smart writing, superlative cast.

And despite all this, it couldn’t keep my attention past episode 4.

I put the blame on me, not this new series by writers Matt Sazama and Burk Sharpless.  

As a preteen, I was in the prime target audience for the original Lost In Space back in the mid-1960s, and that series -- despite its wildly varying tone -- created an iconic show that, try as they might, every subsequent re-make struggles to overcome.

Seriously, it’s like trying to remake I Love Lucy only without Lucille Ball, Desi Arnaz, Vivian Vance, and William Frawley.

Yeah, it can be done, but why bother?  Use that talent and energy to do something in the same vein but different.

That being said, I deny no one their pleasure.  If you haven’t seen / loved the original, try this version; you might very well like it.

. . .

THE HAUNTING OF HILL HOUSE

Excellent production / writing / cast / performances.

I started out really liking it.

That enthusiasm faded.

I ended up enjoying this new retelling of The Haunting Of Hill House but came away feeling it fell short of 1963’s The Haunting, the first and still best adaptation of Shirley Jackson’s classic ghost story.

First off, a definition of terms (which will explain my enthusiasm fade):  In order to work, a ghost story must take place in the audience’s head.

That is to say, the reader / viewer must be left with two equally possibly yet mutually exclusive possibilities:  There are such things as ghost, or the haunting is purely psychological in the mind/s of the character/s.

Even in stories such as the original novel or the 1963 film where the possibility is presented that at least one of the characters is mentally unstable and is either imagining / causing the manifestations, the book / movie / series must never come down concretely in either camp.

To make it purely psychological turns it into a drama about mental illness, the make it supernatural moves it from the realm of “ghost story” into “monster movie” where the monster happens to be a ghost.

A ghost story doesn’t have to be scary, simply…haunting.  Portrait Of Jenny is a bitter-sweet romance that despite a lack of spookiness remains a bona fide ghost story.

(Ghost comedies such as Topper, Blythe Spirit, Ghost Busters, etc. are a different genre entirely akin to leprechaun / alien comedies where a fantastic being disrupts the lives of the human protagonists.)

This version works well, even though it doesn’t maintain the high level it starts with.  The family dynamics are well done, the performances excellent.

For the first couple of episodes the series tries to walk the line, raising the possibility and eventually confirming that mental illness runs through the family that moved into Hill House, but the moment the ghosts begin manifesting themselves, it paradoxically stops being a ghost story and becomes a booga-booga story).  Virtuosity for the sake of virtuosity also works against the production, occasionally dragging audiences out of the story to admire how clever the film makers are.

It also gets a little too convoluted and overly melodramatic towards the end, however (ghost stories work best at their simplicity.

And it is not an upbeat ending but a really horrific one as the family in question literally consumes itself.  

This version inhabits a godless universe, and the apparent “good” ending is really a terrible one of eternal damnation (albeit not in the Christian sense).

I recognize and appreciate the level of craftsmanship that went into this, and recommend it to people who like scary stories.

But it ain’t what I’d call a ghost story, and it sure ain’t what Jackson would call one, either.

. . .

SHE-RA AND THE PRINCESSES OF POWER

I'm not the target audience for She-Ra in either incarnation.

That being said, I watched episodes 1-3 and 12-13.

It looks good to me.  The story was familiar, but like old B-Westerns it's the kind of genre where familiarity breeds affection, so no complaints there.

Pacing seemed slow, but the design and animation was good, voices top notch. Clearly a heavy anime influence.

Really liked the wide range of physical types and acknowledgement of LGBT characters. Lots of fun with the various interpersonal relationships and characterizations, especially Swift Wind, the smartass flying unicorn.

They did a really good job with this show and the characters seemed more like real teens than the previous incarnation.

. . .

THE BALLAD OF BUSTER SCRUGGS

Well, this one I can recommend whole heartedly and without reservation.  

Joel and Ethan Coen have shown a remarkable penchant for period films and a strong affinity for Westerns in the past, and this anthology film offers a dazzling grab bag of good / off beat stories that range from the ridiculous to the realistic, though a couple of them are Westerns by location only as they don’t really rely on any of the themes that define the Western genre. 

The stories are:

“The Ballad Of Buster Scruggs” -- a hilarious send up of old Hollywood Western clichés starting with the quintessential sing cowboy trope and spiraling into full bore craziness from there.

“Near Algodones” -- a would-be bank robber has a really bad day.  Despite its dazzling editorial style, one of the more conventional stories -- and yet it manages to evoke both classic Buddhism, the crucifixion, and the ultimate sardonic joke all in the last 30 seconds.

“Meal Ticket” -- a Twilight Zone-ish story about a backwoods impresario and his limbless performer, told almost entirely silently except for quotes from poems and dramatic works and the occasional song.  While it makes good use of its Western locale, there’s really nothing in the story to tie it to the West; it could just as easily occur on a Mississippi riverboat, the back alleys of White Chapel, or the slums of Mumbai.

“All Gold Canyon” -- based on a story by Jack London, it’s a look at how hard and demanding a prospector’s life could be (with a virtually unrecognizable Tom Waits as the grizzled old prospector).  The Coen Brothers use their location to the fullest advantage, recreating the feel of what such land must have felt like before the first settlers moved in.

“The Gal Who Got Rattled” -- the longest, most realistic, and most bitter-sweet of the stories, set on a wagon train heading to Oregon, and focusing on a young woman who is definitely not the sort who should be making such a trip.  While we can look back from our safe vantage point in the 21stcentury and recognize the Indian Wars were the direct result of rapacious land grabbing by Western settlers, this story does an excellent job of showing just how terrifying it would be to sit on the receiving end of a tribal attack.  The ending is a morally complex one, well worth pondering, and especially ambiguous given the nature of the story’s framing element.

“The Mortal Remains” -- weakest of the stories, but salvaged by strong performances.  Another Twilight Zone style story, and if you didn’t guess the ending by the one minute mark I’ve got a bridge in Florida made of solid gold bricks I’d like to sell you.

. . .

AMERICAN VANDAL

Yowza!  This is one of the best series I’ve ever seen, and it’s perfect in damn near every way.

On the surface it’s a parody of various true crime documentary series, especially Netflix’ own Making A Murderer.  It’s told from the point of view of two students in their high school’s audio-visual club who make a documentary about an act of vandalism directed at the school’s teachers and the student who is blamed for it.

Of course, as they investigate, they turn up evidence that the accused student did not commit the vandalism, and in their pursuit of the truth uncover several more secrets on their way to the big reveal.

At first blush, the makings of a solid show.

But what co-creators Tony Yacenda and Dan Perrault manage to pull off with this is nothing short of astounding, a fun parody of a genre that raises interesting questions about both the genre they’re parodying and the issue of truth and guilt, while on top of that adding an incredibly complex yet easy to follow overlay of conflicting characters and emotions.

They get every single detail right, and even seemingly throw away lines / scenes / characters get fleshed out in amazing and unexpected ways (for example, one extremely minor character, with no significant dialog, who appears only briefly on camera as comic relief in one or two early episodes is later revealed to be severely alcoholic, and in recalling his earlier appearances, one realizes the character must be suffering through a genuinely hellish existence).

Dylan, the accused student, starts out as a character of fun and amusement, a high school goofball of Spicoli proportions, only to come to a sad and ultimately terrifying end as he realizes just how dumb and dead-end his life is.

I cannot praise thise series enough.  Very rarely will I look at someone else’s work and say “I wish I had done that.” American Vandal is one of the rare exceptions.

The series has two seasons, the first involving Dylan and the vandalism of the teachers’ cars, the second involving a food poisoning incident at a private school the original two students are invited to investigate.  Season two is very strong but lacks “the shock of the new” that season one provided; it’s high quality and entertaining, but not as compelling as the original.

. . .

© Buzz Dixon

[staygoldenlightning]

An exciting new review experience in three parts! It’s gonna be a long one!

It was only a matter of time until I addressed this elephant in the room: I’m a little bit obsessed with To All the Boys I’ve Loved Before — both the Jenny Han novel and the Netflix original movie. And I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one. To All the Boys is the story of Korean-American, high school junior Lara Jean, whose personal love letters to each of the five boys she’s loved are accidentally sent out, all while she’s dealing with the challenges of her older sister leaving for college (and leaving behind an ex boyfriend that Lara Jean has always had an eye for). In an act of mutual damage control, Lara Jean and her former crush Peter Kavinsky enact probably the best (and definitely my favorite) rom-com cliche of all time: they pretend to be a couple.

I received a copy of the book (the first in a trilogy I haven’t read the rest of yet, NO SPOILERS) as a Christmas gift last year, and I read it back around February or March. Now that the Netflix film has taken Twitter the world quite literally by storm, I figured it was time I launched my thoughts right out into the eye of it. So without further ado, here’s everything I have to say about To All the Boys I’ve Loved Before, presented in three parts.

To All the Boys I’ve Loved Before: The Movie

When I’m out of town for the night, Matt has a ritual where he gets a pizza or some snacks and watches a movie I wouldn’t like with the cat. Last week, on a night when Matt was going to be out late and my cat and I were home alone, I decided to do the exact same thing myself (except now I’m pretty sure that he would actually enjoy this movie too). Actually, there are a lot of reasons why this movie is good for EVERYONE, even us “grown ups.” I was feeling a little down on that particular day, and I needed something lighthearted and a little bit indulgent to get my mind off of it, so I put on To All the Boys, because even though I knew I wanted to watch it, I’d been putting it off, in a way.

While some nights since its premier I just didn’t have the time to sit and watch a whole movie, hype scares me away from things. Not in a hipster sense of “If too many people like it, then it must not be good,” but I fear the bandwagon effect. I don’t want to like it just because other people do and I want to fit in. But I have nothing against liking something popular if I actually connect with it. With this movie, I was actually expecting it to be a little cliche, a little cheesy, and a little silly, but in all actuality, it’s just the best rom-com I’ve seen in a really long time. Seriously.

The casting, the characterization, and the pacing all impressed me in their own ways, but what actually stood out to me about the movie was the cinematography and the storytelling choices. I’m not pretending to know anything about movies, but this could have easily been a movie that focused on the plot to give the people what they want: ROMANCE. While that’s still the main focus, the creative direction of the movie really surprised me with the handling of all the side conflicts circling around the main arc. Visually, it was way more interesting than you’d expect from a rom-com: the shots are interesting, and a little bit conceptual, and all meant to capture Lara Jean’s state of mind, not just what she’s doing or what she looks like.

I also give the movie huge props for something a lot of teen movies weirdly fail at, which is writing dialogue that actually sounds the way teens talk. There was no awkward slang, no overly-rehearsed sounding monologues, and even Kitty sounds appropriately mature for her age without going overboard. Even with it’s modern inclusion of social media, To All the Boys actually nailed it in the dialogue department.

I’ve only got one real bone to pick with the writing overall, and that’s the scene in the first act of the movie that, in my opinion, pretty obviously gives away the twist at the end. I read the book; I knew what happened already. But for someone that didn’t, I think they showed their hand too early. (Notice how I’m speaking in generalities to avoid spoilers). The reveal wasn’t explicitly stated, but I think it was too heavily implied. What Kitty says on the couch is enough. If there was a way that the dramatic irony of us knowing the secret that Lara Jean doesn’t could have enhanced the movie, I would have been all for it, but I don’t think they pulled that off. But this is still a small enough gripe not to ruin the movie for me.

And one more thing: the movie didn’t treat really any character as merely an expendable plot device. Lara Jean is and incredibly well-developed protagonist who I came to love almost immediately (how couldn’t I when she daydreams in regency-era period dress?). But the important thing is that we never stop learning about her; not all the information is dumped into exposition, we have to earn our full understanding piece by piece. While I did feel that Gen was reduced a little bit to the “mean girl” stereotype, we do eventually find out why she acts the way she does, and it’s actually a game changer, if only subtly. (Actually, it’s my opinion that the movie needed more Chris, too.)

This is also part of what makes Peter K. such a great character in his own right, not just as “the love interest.” What’s refreshing about Peter is that he’s a softer form of masculine lead that we don’t see too often, but the kicker is that he’s not afraid to show it from the very start (and to be honest, I didn’t get this as strongly from Book Peter). No “tough guy” layers to dig through—his heart’s pretty much on his sleeve, even though he’s still the cool guy all at the same time. Plus, Noah Centineo is a dreamboat (we were all thinking it). I’m telling you, he’s going to be the Chad Michael Murray of his time.

This is unfair and their outfits match.

While of course there wasn’t time for book-length dives into every character, even Lara Jean herself, the characters were portrayed in a way that encourages the audience to make a connection.

https://twitter.com/ivyjune12/status/1037885481302847488

I’m a firm believer that a movie is not a book. Obvious, but what I mean is that a movie doesn’t just have to be a direct retelling of the book in exact detail. In my opinion, if that’s all a movie does, it was unnecessary. I did all that in my head already. What I think makes a great movie adaptation is that it has to have something to say, some interpretation of the characters, plot, and themes, while still capturing the overall idea and spirit of the book from whence it came. I understand the cuts that were made for the sake of real-estate (though I’m hoping a certain deleted kiss surfaces in the sequel I’m praying for). What they did was tailor down the story to make it more self-contained, more refined, and more to the point so that it fit the medium and told they story it needed to tell while really letting us live inside Lara Jean’s head for a while.

But also, how much do you think Subway paid for that product placement?

To All the Boys I’ve Loved Before: The Book

You’ll have to excuse my copy of the book, for it has the leftover residue of a “soon to be a major motion picture” sticker that didn’t quite come off all the way. Switching gears, To All the Boys I’ve Loved Before by Jenny Han is just about everything you want in a YA read: a quirky, relatable (and diverse!) main character, a pseudo-love triangle with ~nuance~, and a family secret or two threatening to fracture some relationships when it erupts. I’d known about the book for a few years (thanks, Tumblr), and I made pretty short work of it once I actually had a copy in my hands. The romance arcs made it a page turner in a lot of ways, with the way they criss-crossed and changed shape and came to a heated point.

That being said, I found the book itself a little slow in places in terms of pacing. It’s on the longer end of the YA spectrum, and while I can’t say I ever lost interest, I got a twinge every now and then when I finished a chapter without learning anything new, per se.

My other issue had much ado about Margot, Lara Jean’s older sister, who, despite not being present for the majority of the story, never truly leaves us. I completely understand why Lara Jean thinks of Margot often: she misses her sister, is distressed about keeping the secret, and worries that she’s not ready to fill Margot’s shoes as a caretaker. But in the book, Lara Jean is so preoccupied with Margot that I have to admit that there were moments I was sick of hearing about her.

What I loved most about the books was that Lara Jean’s romance was surrounded by several subplots dealing with friends, family, responsibility, family, and growing up. While a movie only has so much time before it loses us to sleep or boredom, a book can go on, night after night, expanding the main character’s world that we’re lucky enough to be living in. In the book, we get to see a lot more of what Lara Jean’s mom, and her Korean culture, means to her. We also get to see a lot more of how her family has grown from the past until now, and how they’ve all taken on changes before and after Margot’s departure. And maybe the thing I was the most heartbroken about was the letter in Margot’s desk and all the implications it held. Lara Jean wasn’t the only one with a secret, and I love the complexity it added to the sisters’ relationship.

https://twitter.com/ivyjune12/status/1037856493410897920

If you’re wondering about that Tweet, I was quickly disappointed and then overcame it.

Moving on, I’d be so interested to see what more movies would do with the material we have, because there’s a choice to be made at this point: do they go back and pick up the conflicts they didn’t have time for the first time around, or do they move on to whatever new ideas are hidden inside books 2-3? No matter what happens, sequel or not, the movie has actually really nudged me towards picking up the rest of the series—something I wasn’t totally convinced (Peter Convince-sky? No, but A for effort) I’d do before.

2 Outfits Inspired by Lara Jean Covey

I saved this little bonus section for last, mostly just to amuse myself. It was impossible not to notice how amazing Lara Jean’s style was in the movie; every outfit was a SENSATION and I haven’t stopped thinking about a single one. So, for giggles, I dug around in my closet and came up with the two closest Lara Jean outfits I own.

https://twitter.com/gicatam/status/1035720646196510720

1. Skirts and Stripes

A tried and true Lara Jean combo, a button front skirt paired with a cute (often striped) top can be found during a few scenes in the movie, but I would say I came closest to the airport outfit. While my color scheme is off, the spirit is there: I even braided my hair as much as possible. Fun fact: I am a cartoon character who owns this shirt in two different colors, and these boots are old enough that I can ~almost~ call them vintage (not really).

2. The Pink Power Suit

All right, it’s not a suit, but the soft pink blazer paired with skinny black jeans and a black choker was almost certainly a confidence move for the first ride in Peter’s Jeep. I don’t wear this pink blazer enough, and I wasn’t sure if I’d love it with this outfit because it’s more of a salmon than a blush (I want to introduce my best friend Squidward to everybody in town wearing a salmon suit).  Actually, this combo worked out surprisingly well, minus the fact that I’m wearing a literal shoe string as a choker.

Actually, I’ve left the house wearing it like that before, and I love it. Fight me.

^This is the best image I could find of this outfit and I’m bummed about it. 

Lara Jean’s style is the perfect combination of vintage revival and current trends, which is really everything I want to be in my life. I’m already making my list of things I need to add to my own closet: a yellow beret, a lot more bomber jackets, a gorgeous red ballgown. Maybe by the end of autumn, I’ll have the full collection. From now on, every time I go shopping, I’m doing so with the motto: “What would Lara Jean wear?”

If you made it to the end of this post, I salute you. Know of any other books/movies with outfits I should try and copy?

To All the Boys I’ve Loved Before: Movie, Book, and 2 Lara Jean Outfits An exciting new review experience in three parts! It's gonna be a long one! It was only a matter of time until I addressed this elephant in the room: I'm a little bit obsessed with…

[strangeremembrances]

Is the film as good as the book Megan? 🙏

WORLDS COLLIDE! Hannah! 

Oh god, this is a question. I have a free evening so you’re getting my full attention and I’m always in the mood to talk CMBYN and unleash my ridiculous love so here goes!

First off, I will try not to be spoilery…. BUT THIS IS HUGE AND I HAVE OFFICIALLY GONE INTO HEART EYES MODE BUT HERE IS MY OVERVIEW.

I have loved the novel for so many years that it holds such a special and important significant for me so that’s difficult to compare anything to. I was 19 when I first read the novel and I’m nearly 29 now so that’s nearly 10 years of adoration….

That’s why I was terribly nervous when I heard they were making a movie. That kind of changed when I saw Armie’s instagram wayyyyyyyy back when in January 2017 around the same time as Sundance and he tagged it #billowyblueshirt - I pretty much lost my mind!!! I mean, THAT IS OLIVER. That’s how I pictured him  (minus baby Harper of course!). He was a little younger looking in my head but Armie looked SO MUCH like the Oliver in my mind.

And then this came out:

I was so stunned because I didn’t really know much about Timmy. I recognised him from Homeland but that was it and yet, he looked like Elio. Again - I had the same response! He looked like the Elio I’d imagined in my head and that tiny clip made me so excited. It still didn’t stop me from being nervous as you can’t get much from a little clip but by the time the main trailer came out, I was BEYOND excited because so much of what I’d imagined was in front of me and so close to how I’d always pictured in my mind. Plus, the shots were so pretty and almost art house that it didn’t feel like they’d cheapened it or gone for the obvious adaption they so easily could have. 

The trailer I first saw was this one:

I swear to you, the moment I saw the part where Elio says “listen, when the time comes, this is how he’ll say goodbye to us…Later”, I stopped being nervous. Completely. That scene still kills me.

I desperately tried to get tickets to the BFI screenings but they sold out so I could only see the movie opening night in the UK on 27 October but it was one of my favourite and one of the most memorable cinema experiences I’ve ever had, second to possibly seeing Titanic when I was a kid.

Yes, there are parts of the book that I wish were in there that sadly didn’t make the cut. I made a post about that ages ago. I have a tag on here that has all my ramblings under (HERE!) but I think I talked about that. 

Does it have some flaws? Of course! There are a few editing moments that I thin would make non-novel readers unsure and some of the dialogue remains unexplained… unlike in the novel but I do wonder whether some of that is by choice to allow the viewers the ability to make up their own mind. I am definitely able to cast a critical eye but I am so fond of the movie as a whole and a novel!fan that I can’t help but be overly descriptive and gushy haha. It’s a marmite kind of thing for many and none of the characters are perfect in the book or movie but that’s what I love. They just happen to be fascinating and interesting to me.

SO NOW FOR THE RAMBLING……

The movie is different from the novel. There is about 1/3 of the novel in the movie. The entirety of Ghost Spots is gone. Most of San Clemente Syndrome is also gone. But yet the movie doesn’t suffer because of it. Luca has talked endlessly (and oh god i have wanted every single interview he’s done for this movie, I’m sure. I’m sure an admirer) about his decisions for the movie and one of the big ones is that he wanted the audience to grow with Elio. He didn’t want the novel’s reflective nature or the Proustian thing clouding the audience’s judgement of what was happening. He didn’t want voice overs or a narrator and, in my view, it is HANDS DOWN the best thing he did. You experience EVERY SINGLE MOMENT with Elio. From start to finish, you’re with him during his summer and you disappear. The movie is so immersive and beautiful for that, I’m so grateful to him. 

PLEASE GO SEE THE MOVIE IN A CINEMA. That’s the best advice I can give. I hope it’s showing in the UK still where you are. Just take that time out and go see it. I can’t tell you how wonderful it is. From the second the credits start (and i swear, they’re some iconic bloody credits. The second I hear Hallelujah Junction *goosebumps*) it’s just the kind of movie that lifts you out of your life, drops you into Italy in the Summer and you spend every moment experiencing every second with these characters.

As for the comparison of the characters in the novel to those on screen. THIS IS WHERE I GET EMOTIONAL. Elio. Oh Elio Perlman is my sweetheart. The first time I read the book, I got him. He taught me so much about being brave. But novel!Elio is DRAMATIC as I’m sure you’re aware if you’ve read the book. He is hormonal and ridiculous and weird as hell. He’s so OTT and it the world’s most unreliable narrator so to play THAT right is just the most difficult task and it was what I was most frightened of. Let me tell you…. everything, EVERYTHING, that critics said about Timmy’s acting and his portrayal of Elio is spot on. It is one of my favourite piece of acting I’ve ever had the pleasure of witnessing. All of those Elio thoughts and feelings in the novel, all the internalisation and the intense thoughts he has… getting that across is a TASK and you read them all on Timmy’s face. I can’t even list them. It’s every damn scene. Moments of note are the dinner table scene where Oliver doesn’t show up. I even made a post of this because it stunned me to much (HERE!). The scene in Mr P’s office when Oliver’s showing off about his apricot knowledge and novel readers know that Elio is already enamoured and thinking filthy thoughts…. it’s ALL THERE on Timmy’s face. I could go on and on and on about him and how he quite frankly blew my mind but the main thing I keep coming back to is that movie!Elio is a JOY. He is an absolute delight to behold. Novel!Elio is so intense and because you’re inside his mind, it’s difficult to see him the way the world does. Movie!Elio is so lovely. He’s every bit as intense and kind of difficult and bold and hormonal as novel!Elio but he’s also light and fun and playful and SWEET. He’s EXTREMELY SWEET. There are some tiny little moments that are so effervescent and make me smile so much because Elio sparkles on screen. He dances and shimmies and lazes about, he touches everything in sight, he climbs Oliver like a tree, he smiles and argues and fusses and swoons and is just PERFECTION. I’m not going to go on and on because I’d spoil stuff…. the ending thought. The very final 2 seconds of the movie are forever etched into my brain. 

As for the movie itself. It’s blissful. The cinematography is breathtaking. You feel part of the home and the landscape and Luca’s heart is in every frame. It’s like a painting. The music is wonderful and fills every scene with nostalgia and this sense that the Perlman’s are effortlessly cultured. The editing AHHHHH. GOD. There are some editing choices that I could kiss Walter Fasano for. It has an arthouse feel (MY FAVOURITE), and is SO LONG. It’s a very long movie and that was the biggest treat. There are directorial choices that I want to cuddle Luca for, namely how certain scenes are framed - especially the nosebleed scene and the entire MIDNIGHT sequence. That sequence is long and drawn out but constructed with little details so beautifully.

The other characters are so RICH and I was devastated to let them go when the movie ended. Annella is so much more than in the novel and I adore her. Marzia is WONDERFUL. Mafalda is every bit as sassy and great as the novel even if her part is smaller. But the VP is Mr Perlman. Reading the novel, anyone will remember and feel moved by his speech to Elio about life and love and letting yourself experience life: good and bad. The movie version moves me to tears from start to finish, every single time I see it. Mr Perlman is a GIFT in this movie. Every single character was so real and warm and the family moments are some of my favourites from movie.

Finally, the chemistry. Everyone has chemistry with EVERYONE. Notably, Elio and his parents. The level of affection in this movie is off the charts. Everyone hugs and kisses and cuddles and touches and it’s the most refreshing thing. But obviously the chemistry everyone wants is between Oliver and Elio and it’s so natural and almost unstaged (especially the midnight scenes) that I was speechless. They are wonderful together. It’s so clear that Timmy and Armie became friends. They shot the movie chronologically and much of the way the movie developed and occurred was how Timmy and Armie met and became friends. Watch any interview… haha. They are special on screen together.

My absolute FAVOURITE thing though is how the movie is so thin on dialogue. Compared to most movies, it is sparce and treats the audience intelligently because so many of the BIG moments are simple and delivered through nuanced acting (specifically by Timmy and notable by Armie in the goodbye portion of the movie). There’s no exposition, very little emotional talk as it is SHOWN and that is hands down the reason this movie resonated with me so well because that’s what I wanted from an adaption of the book. I didn’t want Elio TELLING us, I wanted to see it. And you do. VERY WELL.

So yeah, ESSAY DONE. I could ramble on and on. I truly ADORE the movie. It is up there with my all time favourites and I said after seeing it for the first time, that gratitude is the overwhelming thing I felt when I walked out of the cinema and after I’d picked my broken heart up off the floor…. my feelings haven’t changed.

If Luca sticks by his intention on sequels to follow Elio’s life, well I’m on board. I’d have NEVER said that last year. I’d have never wanted anyone to touch the novel or expand on the novel for a second. But I trust Luca. I’m pretty much a bloody disciple at this point hahaha. I fell head over heels for these characters and I don’t want to never see them again - especially Elio. Once you’ve seen Timmy’s Elio, I’d defy anyone to NOT want more.

So, in summary. THE MOVIE IS MAGICAL. It is different from the novel in some areas, in some it brings to life the pivotal moments in the first portion of the novel and although it misses out some of my most cherished portions of the novel, in my view, the movies doesn’t suffer for it. I hold them both dear for different reasons and they compliment one another in the loveliest way!

[chrisoncinema]

Chris on Cinema’s Top Films of 2019

Before we go any further: the best movies of the 2010s that is about the 2000s is The Social Network. The best movie of the 2010s that is about the 2010s is Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse. No other film captured, with pop-art colors and four-quadrant appeal, the greatness – and great responsibility – that has been thrust upon Generation Z. In the past few years I have been so inspired by the brave, tireless work of people like Mari Copeny, David Hogg, and Greta Thunberg. They teach us that we all have a role to play in improving our world. In fighting for what is right. I hope that our art in 2020 reflects their courage and lives up to the idea that tomorrow will be brighter if we choose to make it so.

Anyway, here are the movies I couldn’t stop thinking about this year.

10. An Elephant Sitting Still

One could spend the entirety of An Elephant Sitting Still’s four-hour runtime debating whether director Hu Bo’s tragic death diminishes, elevates, or simply distracts from the film itself. It’s a thought that is hard to ignore given that the film is steeped in malaise and haunted by death. An Elephant is difficult to watch but impossible to ignore or look away from; it is full of characters who are difficult to love but impossible not to empathize with. On paper, nothing could seem more one-note or more disheartening than this film and yet its existence challenges us to consider the why of our hurt and our selfishness and our apathy.

9. The Report

The Report is not really interested in being a movie and since it cannot be a documentary it decides to be a dramatic reenactment. It is doggedly journalistic and its matter-of-factness stands in stoic opposition to cathartic sensationalism. The Report owes much in form and function to Steven Soderbergh, for whom Scott Z. Burns, its writer and director, has previously written four screenplays. Soderbergh has made a career of information delivery that is cool and frictionless but still compelling. The Report never quite reaches those heights but it benefits greatly from Adam Driver who is endlessly interesting to watch. Sometimes that’s all you need: the facts and America’s most compelling actor under 40.

8. The Farewell

We can complain about movie ticket prices, we can complain about the number of ads and trailers that delay a movie’s screening, but the fact remains that movies are cheaper than plane tickets and easier to swallow than a semester studying sociology. And therein lies their beauty. The Farewell gives us a seat at the dinner table of a loving but dysfunctional Chinese family. We learn, as with any family, the layers of emotion and meaning embedded beneath seemingly simple conversations. In this way, a simple conceit – the inevitable death of a family member – is imbued with complex and bittersweet repercussions. The Farewell is ensemble piece but it is carried on the slumped shoulders of the charming, emotive Awkwafina. She was new to me here – I look forward to her becoming an old friend.

7. The Lighthouse

Midway through Robert Egger’s new horror two-hander, The Lighthouse, Willem Dafoe gives a dramatic monologue that is so intense, so impassioned, and, most importantly, so long that I could not help but burst out laughing. Despite the film’s cold, miserable, gross conditions, The Lighthouse may have been the most fun I had at the movies this year. Pair that with the film’s astoundingly ecstatic penultimate scene and the aforementioned Dafoe’s craggy face filling the high-contrast black-and-white frame, and you have something purely, simply cinematic. Even if there isn’t much going on below the torrential surface.

6. Uncut Gems

Upping the darkly comic ante is Josh and Benny Safdie’s new film, Uncut Gems. I love the Safide Brothers and I love how much they clearly love film. I love that they know exactly how to use Adam Sandler’s manic, desperate energy. I love that they are constantly daring me not to throw up upon witnessing their exquisitely nauseating characters and cinematography. I do hope their style evolves. Those who have seen the Sadie Brothers’ previous film, Good Time, will not be too surprised by anything here. But the cinematic schadenfreude works for me. As Qui-Gon Jinn said, “Whenever you gamble, my friend, eventually you lose.” Sandler’s Howard loses in the spectacular fashion of a firework malfunction where everything explodes at once. We leave covered in soot, ears ringing, hands shaking, laughing nervously for the rest of the night.

5. Ad Astra

Ad Astra snuck up on me in a way that only James Gray movies seems capable of. It was one of my most anticipated movies of the year but when the lights came up I felt perplexed and disappointed. Days later, though, I could not shake the image of Brad Pitt floating alone in his spaceship. I realized upon reflection that no other film has captured the banal, isolating imprisonment that space travel so obviously portends. Suddenly, what seemed like saccharine melodrama was reframed as the necessary tether back to a humanity so easily lost in the din of industrialization. Before worrying about whether or not we are alone in the universe, we must find reconciliation for those with whom we already occupy space.

4. The Last Black Man in San Francisco

The Last Black Man in San Francisco is odd and specific and observational and soulful. It is about gentrification and race and the performative nature of identity without ever becoming preachy or overly obvious. San Francisco may have benefited from a shorter runtime but what you gain in expediency you undoubtedly lose in atmosphere and in the overflowing humanity and warmth developed by director Joe Talbot and lead Jimmie Fails. The film quietly and gently teaches us that our endless and exhausting irony is often just a mask to hide our ignorance. It’s easy to claim to hate that which you do not know or understand. Love is hard. But investing in something – a relationship, a place – means that against all odds it’s harder not to.

3. Marriage Story

Remember that time Kylo Ren smashed a wall fighting Black Widow and also Alan Alda was there? What a time for movies. Marriage Story’s thesis can be summed up thusly: “Criminal lawyers see bad people at their best, divorce lawyers see good people at their worst.” We all deserve agency and autonomy but what do we owe each other? And what do we allow others to tell us we’re owed? And what, by our actions, do we tell others they deserve?

2. Parasite

It seems that every year there is a movie that, for my skeptical self, does not live up to the hype. Kindly cancel me for stating that Under the Skin, Fury Road, and Annihilation are among them. I respect these movies for their singular vision and for not being made by Disney, but my interest goes that far and no farther. Parasite should have joined that list but I found myself completely engrossed in its intricate twists and turns. I won’t bother reiterating what everyone else has already said about it. It’s one of the best movies of the year.

1. A Hidden Life

The best movie, however, can only go to A Hidden Life. Because when Terrence Malick is good, he’s the best. And his latest film includes an element that has been missing from some of his recent works: necessity. The true story of Franz Jägerstätter, an Austrian farmer who refused to pledge loyalty to Hitler, is an important story for our time and for all time. As with so many movies on this list, A Hidden Life is about the cost of doing what is right rather than what is easy or safe. It is an overwhelming film not only because of its subject but because of the beauty in every fluid shot’s composition. There is a heaviness in A Hidden Life but it is never hopeless. It is a rallying cry for the inherent value and beauty in life. I struggle to write more about it not because it is undeserving but because a Gesamtkunstwerk like this is almost untranslatable. It must be seen. If one of the few theaters that is actually playing A Hidden Life is near you – see it. Full stop.

[sejinpk]

So for that top 5 ask meme thing... How about top 5 live action films?

Thanks for the ask! I don’t often talk about live-action movies, so I’m glad you asked this! ^_^ There are only four entries because there are really only four live-action movies that I feel like I can confidently say are truly favorites.

1. American Psycho

American Psycho is the first (maybe the only?) satire where I feel like I’m actually able to see/get the satire for myself, though, admittedly, this was only after the commentary initially told me as much. >.

This clip highlights what I’m talking about regarding multiple levels, specifically the part starting right around the 1:15 mark (note: the clip is VERY NSFW!!!!).

On the one hand, it’s a horrifying scene in which a crazed Christian Bale is chasing a prostitute through his apartment building with a chainsaw. She bangs on other residents’ doors and screams loudly, but nobody comes to help her, or even to see what’s going on. And eventually Bale kills her with the chainsaw, just as you think she might have been able to get away. It’s heartbreaking.

But on the other hand, right at that 1:15 mark, you see Christian Bale sort of *giggle* trot into view covered in blood and wearing nothing but *snort* socks and tennis shoes, carrying a *kheheheeheaahhhaahahahahaaa* chainsaw in front of him like a *full-blown laughter and cackling* demented phallic symbol, running buck naked through his apartment complex, and he somehow has perfect aim to be able to drop the chainsaw down the middle of what looks like three or four stories of spiral stairs so that it actually hits the woman he’s chasing. The absurdity of the scene is absolutely hilarious.

I love Christian Bale’s acting as Patrick Bateman. I also really like Willem Dafoe’s performance. In fact, I like most of the performances in the movie. Regarding Bale in particular–and this is something said by the movie’s director in interviews–he really understood the dorkiness and the pathetic nature of Bateman. I think thefirst video clip above highlights some of this (random interesting fact: apparently Christian Bale can sweat on cue, as he broke out in a sweat at the exact same time in every take of that scene), as does this clip of Bateman’s music monologues, which are hilarious (I wanted to include the video in this post, but Tumblr apparently has a 5-video-per-post limit, so this is the one that got cut).

The movie is legitimately funny, both because of Bale’s portrayal of Bateman, and because of the satire. I think it does a really good job of getting you to laugh at him, rather than with him (in this case, that’s the intended effect). The movie also handles its tone very well, which was super-important for creating the effect the filmmakers wanted.

I also think the movie’s themes and social commentary are interesting and still relevant today, even though the story is set in the 80′s, the movie was released in 2000, and the book the movie is adapted from was published in 1991. It’s only been on the last one or two re-watches (I’ve watched the movie several times) that I’ve started to understand how the movie uses physical violence and the horror elements as a metaphor for class- and economic-based systemic violence.

2. Dawn of the Planet of the Apes

I also really like Rise of the Planet of the Apes, which this movie is a sequel to, but I like Dawn of the Planet of the Apes a little more. The key thing I love about these movies (and especially Dawn) is the humanity they give both the human and ape characters, which is what makes the drama and action so compelling. Both sides of the conflict, humans and apes, are given so much depth and nuance. Their conflict isn’t black and white, and you’re able to understand, and empathize and sympathize with, both sides equally strongly.

I think the character work in the movie is incredible. Practically all the characters we get any kind of time with are developed–we can see how they think, what motivates them, what their priorities are, even if they’re given very little screentime. One of my absolute favorite emotional scenes in the movie is when Dreyfus, Gary Oldman’s character, turns on his phone after the humans get power back, and as he’s looking through old pictures of his family, who have died, he just completely breaks down. It’s such a moving, heartbreaking scene.

Also, Andy Serkis + motion capture = Dawn is a poster child for this.

3. Tai Chi Master

So far, there have only been two works of fiction that have had a significant influence/impact on my life in some way. One is the Monogatari Series. Tai Chi Master (called Twin Warriors in the U.S.; original Chinese title 太極張三豐(Tàijí Zhāng Sānfēngin Mandarin)) is the other. This movie is what got me interested in learning tai chi, which eventually led to my broader interest in health, which in turn led me to where I am today, in school studying to become a Registered Dietitian.

It’s the story of the supposed legendary founder of tai chi, Zhang Sanfeng (played by Jet Li), though I don’t know how closely it adheres to the actual legend. I find the movie generally enjoyable, but the main reason it’s on this list is because of the impact it had on my life.

This sequence in particular, in which Jet Li’s character is figuring things out, testing ideas, and going through the initial process of creating tai chi, is what enamored me so much and got me interested in learning it (of course, the tai chi in the movie is stylized and exaggerated to varying degrees):

On a somewhat related note, I’ve heard of a movie called Pushing Hands (the name of an essential practice for developing sensitivity in internal martial arts), which has at least a tangential connection to tai chi (but sounds interesting even if the connection is really weak), but I have yet to get around to seeing if I can find it to watch.

4. How the Earth Changed History

(I wasn’t overly fond of any of the video clips I found, so that’s why there’s not one here.)

How the Earth Changed History, originally called How Earth Made Us in Britain (it’s a BBC production), narrated/presented by geologist Iain Stewart, is easily my favorite documentary. It’s about how planetary forces have shaped human history. It’s broken up into five parts. The first four parts each focus on a planetary force: water, the deep earth, wind, and fire. The fifth part focuses on how humans have influenced/affected the planet.

One thing I really like about this documentary is that it’s entertaining. In addition to just making the narration interesting, Stewart goes the extra mile to take the viewer into some really neat places, such as inside holes and tunnels dug to get at groundwater; a crystal cavern (a giant chamber that was initially sealed and filled with water, in which enormous crystals grew); on a catamaran in the ocean; the middle of the Sahara desert; various archaeological and historical sites; through a literal fire; etc.

I also found the information itself really interesting. Here are a few of what I thought were the highlights:

In the wind/air segment, he talks about how the Sahara desert (which is formed and maintained by large-scale wind patterns) acts as a natural barrier, which, in the past, inhibited trade between civilizations on different sides of it. As a result, a town/city (I don’t remember the name) in a key mid-desert location became an important trade hub. Centuries later, Christopher Columbus discovered the trade winds (more large-scale wind patterns), which ultimately led to a new trade route/cycle that bypassed the mid-desert city. Thus, the wind was influential in both the city’s rise and fall.

In the deep earth segment, he talks about the relationship humans have with fault lines: they enable us to more easily get at the various minerals that arise from within the earth, such as copper, but they’re inherently dangerous (earthquakes). Humans now have the ability to shield our buildings from the impact of earthquakes; it’s all a matter of choosing to do so.

The “Human Planet” segment is where I learned about the Svalbard Global Seed Vault. He also talks about an Indonesian mud volcano, which is still erupting. In the documentary, Stewart says it was caused by human activities (drilling), but it sounds like there’s still debate about that, with some scientists supporting drilling as the cause, and others saying it was caused by an earthquake. Either way, the documentary shows that the incessant mud bubbling up from inside the earth literally buried the nearby town, and that was six to seven years ago (the documentary was released in 2010, and the mud volcano began erupting near the end of May, 2006). I can’t imagine how much worse it’s gotten.

In addition to what I’ve said about the documentary, I came across a very well-written review on Amazon that does an excellent job of describing the content and discussing why I find it so interesting.

I don’t normally like to do this, but I really want more people to watch this documentary (honestly, though, it’s only like $10 - $15 new on Amazon), so here are links to each segment on YouTube:

Water

Deep Earth

Wind

Fire

Human Planet

Again, thanks for sending me this ask! I really enjoyed making this post! ^_^ If there’s anything you want to respond to, please feel free to do so! :D

[theinvinciblenoob]

For hobbyist photographers like myself, Hasselblad has always been the untouchable luxury brand reserved for high-end professionals.

To fill the gap between casual and intended photography, they released the X1D — a compact, mirrorless medium format. Last summer when Stefan Etienne reviewed the newly released camera, I asked to take a picture.

After importing the raw file into Lightroom and flipping through a dozen presets, I joked that I would eat Ramen packets for the next year so I could buy this camera. It was that impressive.

XCD 3.5/30mm lens

Last month Hasselblad sent us the XCD 4/21mm (their latest ultra wide-angle lens) for a two-week review, along with the X1D body and XCD 3,2/90mm portrait lens for comparison. I wanted to see what I could do with the kit and had planned the following:

Swipe right on everyone with an unflattering Tinder profile picture and offer to retake it for them

Travel somewhere with spectacular landscapes

My schedule didn’t offer much time for either, so a weekend trip to the cabin would have to suffice.

[gallery type="slideshow" link="none" columns="1" size="full" ids="1722181,1722182,1722183,1722184,1722185,1722186,1722187,1722188,1722201"]

As an everyday camera

The weekend upstate was rather quiet and uneventful, but it served to be the perfect setting to test out the camera kit because the X1D is slow A. F.

It takes approximately 8 seconds to turn on, with an additional 2-3 seconds of processing time after each shutter click — top that off with a slow autofocus, slow shutter release and short battery life (I went through a battery within a day, approximately 90 shots fired). Rather than reiterating Stefan’s review, I would recommend reading it here for full specifications.

Coming from a Canon 5D Mark IV, I’m used to immediacy and a decent hit rate. The first day with the Hasselblad was filled with constant frustration from missed moments, missed opportunities. It felt impractical as an everyday camera until I shifted toward a more deliberate approach — reverting back to high school SLR days when a roll of film held a limited 24 exposures.

When I took pause, I began to appreciate the camera’s details: a quiet shutter, a compact but sturdy body and an intuitive interface, including a touchscreen LCD display/viewfinder.

[gallery type="slideshow" link="none" columns="1" size="full" ids="1722796,1722784,1722775"]

Nothing looks or feels cheap about the Swiss-designed, aluminum construction of both the body and lenses. It’s heavy for a mirrorless camera, but it feels damn good to hold.

XCD 4/21mm lens

[gallery type="slideshow" link="none" columns="1" size="full" ids="1722190,1722191,1722489,1722490"]

Dramatic landscapes and cityscapes without an overly exaggerated perspective — this is where the XCD 4/21mm outperforms other super wide-angle lenses.

With a 105° angle of view and 17mm field of view equivalent on a full-framed DSLR, I was expecting a lot more distortion and vignetting, but the image automatically corrected itself and flattened out when imported into Lightroom. The latest deployment of Creative Cloud has the Hasselblad (camera and lens) profile integrated into Lightroom, so there’s no need for downloading and importing profiles. 

Oily NYC real estate brokers should really consider using this lens to shoot their dinky 250 sq. ft. studio apartments to feel grand without looking comically fish-eyed.

XCD 3,2/90mm lens

The gallery below was shot using only the mirror’s vanity lights as practicals. It was also shot underexposed to see how much detail I could pull in post. Here are the downsized, unedited versions, so you don’t have to wait for each 110mb file to load.

[gallery type="slideshow" link="none" columns="1" size="full" ids="1722193,1722194,1722195,1722196"]

I’d like to think that if I had time and was feeling philanthropic, I could fix a lot of love lives on Tinder with this lens.

Where it shines

Normally, images posted in reviews are unedited, but I believe the true test of raw images lies in post-production. This is where the X1D’s slow processing time and quick battery drainage pays off. With the camera’s giant 50 MP 44 x 33mm CMOS sensor, each raw file was approximately 110mb (compared to my Mark IV’s 20-30mb) — that’s a substantial amount of information packed into 8272 x 6200 pixels.

Resized to 2000 x 1500 pixels and cropped to 2000 x 1500 pixels: 

While other camera manufacturers tend to favor certain colors and skin tones, Dan Wang, a Hasselblad rep, told me, “We believe in seeing a very natural or even palette with very little influence. We’re not here to gatekeep what color should be. We’re here to give you as much data as possible, providing as much raw detail, raw color information that allows you to interpret it to your extent.”

As someone who enjoys countless hours tweaking colors, shifting pixels and making things pretty, I’m appreciative of this. It allows for less fixing, more creative freedom.

Who is this camera for?

My friend Peter, a fashion photographer (he’s done editorial features for Harper’s Bazaar, Cosmopolitan and the likes), is the only person I know who shoots on Hasselblad, so it felt appropriate to ask his opinion. “It’s for pretentious rich assholes with money to burn,” he snarked. I disagree. The X1D is a solid step for Hasselblad to get off heavy-duty tripods and out of the studio.

At this price point though, one might expect the camera to do everything, but it’s aimed at a narrow demographic: a photographer who is willing to overlook speediness for quality and compactibility.

With smartphone companies like Apple and Samsung stepping up their camera game over the past few years, the photography world feels inundated with inconsequential, throw-away images (self-indulgent selfies, “look what I had for lunch,” OOTD…).

My two weeks with the Hasselblad was a kind reminder of photography as a methodical art form, rather than a spray and pray hobby.

Reviewed kit runs $15,940, pre-taxed:

X1D Medium Format body: $8,995.00 (currently on sale at BH for $6,495.00)

XCD 4/21mm lens: $3,750.00

XCD 3,2/90mm lens:” $3,195.00

via TechCrunch

[releasesoon]

For hobbyist photographers like myself, Hasselblad has always been the untouchable luxury brand reserved for high-end professionals.

To fill the gap between casual and intended photography, they released the X1D — a compact, mirrorless medium format. Last summer when Stefan Etienne reviewed the newly released camera, I asked to take a picture.

After importing the raw file into Lightroom and flipping through a dozen presets, I joked that I would eat Ramen packets for the next year so I could buy this camera. It was that impressive.

XCD 3.5/30mm lens

Last month Hasselblad sent us the XCD 4/21mm (their latest ultra wide-angle lens) for a two-week review, along with the X1D body and XCD 3,2/90mm portrait lens for comparison. I wanted to see what I could do with the kit and had planned the following:

Swipe right on everyone with an unflattering Tinder profile picture and offer to retake it for them

Travel somewhere with spectacular landscapes

My schedule didn’t offer much time for either, so a weekend trip to the cabin would have to suffice.

As an everyday camera

The weekend upstate was rather quiet and uneventful, but it served to be the perfect setting to test out the camera kit because the X1D is slow A. F.

It takes approximately 8 seconds to turn on, with an additional 2-3 seconds of processing time after each shutter click — top that off with a slow autofocus, slow shutter release and short battery life (I went through a battery within a day, approximately 90 shots fired). Rather than reiterating Stefan’s review, I would recommend reading it here for full specifications.

Coming from a Canon 5D Mark IV, I’m used to immediacy and a decent hit rate. The first day with the Hasselblad was filled with constant frustration from missed moments, missed opportunities. It felt impractical as an everyday camera until I shifted toward a more deliberate approach — reverting back to high school SLR days when a roll of film held a limited 24 exposures.

When I took pause, I began to appreciate the camera’s details: a quiet shutter, a compact but sturdy body and an intuitive interface, including a touchscreen LCD display/viewfinder.

Nothing looks or feels cheap about the Swiss-designed, aluminum construction of both the body and lenses. It’s heavy for a mirrorless camera, but it feels damn good to hold.

XCD 4/21mm lens

Dramatic landscapes and cityscapes without an overly exaggerated perspective — this is where the XCD 4/21mm outperforms other super wide-angle lenses.

With a 105° angle of view and 17mm field of view equivalent on a full-framed DSLR, I was expecting a lot more distortion and vignetting, but the image automatically corrected itself and flattened out when imported into Lightroom. The latest deployment of Creative Cloud has the Hasselblad (camera and lens) profile integrated into Lightroom, so there’s no need for downloading and importing profiles. 

Oily NYC real estate brokers should really consider using this lens to shoot their dinky 250 sq. ft. studio apartments to feel grand without looking comically fish-eyed.

XCD 3,2/90mm lens

The gallery below was shot using only the mirror’s vanity lights as practicals. It was also shot underexposed to see how much detail I could pull in post. Here are the downsized, unedited versions, so you don’t have to wait for each 110mb file to load.

I’d like to think that if I had time and was feeling philanthropic, I could fix a lot of love lives on Tinder with this lens.

Where it shines

Normally, images posted in reviews are unedited, but I believe the true test of raw images lies in post-production. This is where the X1D’s slow processing time and quick battery drainage pays off. With the camera’s giant 50 MP 44 x 33mm CMOS sensor, each raw file was approximately 110mb (compared to my Mark IV’s 20-30mb) — that’s a substantial amount of information packed into 8272 x 6200 pixels.

Resized to 2000 x 1500 pixels and cropped to 2000 x 1500 pixels: 

While other camera manufacturers tend to favor certain colors and skin tones, Dan Wang, a Hasselblad rep, told me, “We believe in seeing a very natural or even palette with very little influence. We’re not here to gatekeep what color should be. We’re here to give you as much data as possible, providing as much raw detail, raw color information that allows you to interpret it to your extent.”

As someone who enjoys countless hours tweaking colors, shifting pixels and making things pretty, I’m appreciative of this. It allows for less fixing, more creative freedom.

Who is this camera for?

My friend Peter, a fashion photographer (he’s done editorial features for Harper’s Bazaar, Cosmopolitan and the likes), is the only person I know who shoots on Hasselblad, so it felt appropriate to ask his opinion. “It’s for pretentious rich assholes with money to burn,” he snarked. I disagree. The X1D is a solid step for Hasselblad to get off heavy-duty tripods and out of the studio.

At this price point though, one might expect the camera to do everything, but it’s aimed at a narrow demographic: a photographer who is willing to overlook speediness for quality and compactibility.

With smartphone companies like Apple and Samsung stepping up their camera game over the past few years, the photography world feels inundated with inconsequential, throw-away images (self-indulgent selfies, “look what I had for lunch,” OOTD…).

My two weeks with the Hasselblad was a kind reminder of photography as a methodical art form, rather than a spray and pray hobby.

Reviewed kit runs $15,940, pre-taxed:

Source

Two weeks with a $16,000 Hasselblad kit For hobbyist photographers like myself, Hasselblad has always been the untouchable luxury brand reserved for high-end professionals.

[roberttbertton]

For hobbyist photographers like myself, Hasselblad has always been the untouchable luxury brand reserved for high-end professionals.

To fill the gap between casual and intended photography, they released the X1D — a compact, mirrorless medium format. Last summer when Stefan Etienne reviewed the newly released camera, I asked to take a picture.

After importing the raw file into Lightroom and flipping through a dozen presets, I joked that I would eat Ramen packets for the next year so I could buy this camera. It was that impressive.

XCD 3.5/30mm lens

Last month Hasselblad sent us the XCD 4/21mm (their latest ultra wide-angle lens) for a two-week review, along with the X1D body and XCD 3,2/90mm portrait lens for comparison. I wanted to see what I could do with the kit and had planned the following:

Swipe right on everyone with an unflattering Tinder profile picture and offer to retake it for them

Travel somewhere with spectacular landscapes

My schedule didn’t offer much time for either, so a weekend trip to the cabin would have to suffice.

As an everyday camera

The weekend upstate was rather quiet and uneventful, but it served to be the perfect setting to test out the camera kit because the X1D is slow A. F.

It takes approximately 8 seconds to turn on, with an additional 2-3 seconds of processing time after each shutter click — top that off with a slow autofocus, slow shutter release and short battery life (I went through a battery within a day, approximately 90 shots fired). Rather than reiterating Stefan’s review, I would recommend reading it here for full specifications.

Coming from a Canon 5D Mark IV, I’m used to immediacy and a decent hit rate. The first day with the Hasselblad was filled with constant frustration from missed moments, missed opportunities. It felt impractical as an everyday camera until I shifted toward a more deliberate approach — reverting back to high school SLR days when a roll of film held a limited 24 exposures.

When I took pause, I began to appreciate the camera’s details: a quiet shutter, a compact but sturdy body and an intuitive interface, including a touchscreen LCD display/viewfinder.

Nothing looks or feels cheap about the Swiss-designed, aluminum construction of both the body and lenses. It’s heavy for a mirrorless camera, but it feels damn good to hold.

XCD 4/21mm lens

Dramatic landscapes and cityscapes without an overly exaggerated perspective — this is where the XCD 4/21mm outperforms other super wide-angle lenses.

With a 105° angle of view and 17mm field of view equivalent on a full-framed DSLR, I was expecting a lot more distortion and vignetting, but the image automatically corrected itself and flattened out when imported into Lightroom. The latest deployment of Creative Cloud has the Hasselblad (camera and lens) profile integrated into Lightroom, so there’s no need for downloading and importing profiles. 

Oily NYC real estate brokers should really consider using this lens to shoot their dinky 250 sq. ft. studio apartments to feel grand without looking comically fish-eyed.

XCD 3,2/90mm lens

The gallery below was shot using only the mirror’s vanity lights as practicals. It was also shot underexposed to see how much detail I could pull in post. Here are the downsized, unedited versions, so you don’t have to wait for each 110mb file to load.

I’d like to think that if I had time and was feeling philanthropic, I could fix a lot of love lives on Tinder with this lens.

Where it shines

Normally, images posted in reviews are unedited, but I believe the true test of raw images lies in post-production. This is where the X1D’s slow processing time and quick battery drainage pays off. With the camera’s giant 50 MP 44 x 33mm CMOS sensor, each raw file was approximately 110mb (compared to my Mark IV’s 20-30mb) — that’s a substantial amount of information packed into 8272 x 6200 pixels.

Resized to 2000 x 1500 pixels and cropped to 2000 x 1500 pixels: 

While other camera manufacturers tend to favor certain colors and skin tones, Dan Wang, a Hasselblad rep, told me, “We believe in seeing a very natural or even palette with very little influence. We’re not here to gatekeep what color should be. We’re here to give you as much data as possible, providing as much raw detail, raw color information that allows you to interpret it to your extent.”

As someone who enjoys countless hours tweaking colors, shifting pixels and making things pretty, I’m appreciative of this. It allows for less fixing, more creative freedom.

Who is this camera for?

My friend Peter, a fashion photographer (he’s done editorial features for Harper’s Bazaar, Cosmopolitan and the likes), is the only person I know who shoots on Hasselblad, so it felt appropriate to ask his opinion. “It’s for pretentious rich assholes with money to burn,” he snarked. I disagree. The X1D is a solid step for Hasselblad to get off heavy-duty tripods and out of the studio.

At this price point though, one might expect the camera to do everything, but it’s aimed at a narrow demographic: a photographer who is willing to overlook speediness for quality and compactibility.

With smartphone companies like Apple and Samsung stepping up their camera game over the past few years, the photography world feels inundated with inconsequential, throw-away images (self-indulgent selfies, “look what I had for lunch,” OOTD…).

My two weeks with the Hasselblad was a kind reminder of photography as a methodical art form, rather than a spray and pray hobby.

Reviewed kit runs $15,940, pre-taxed:

X1D Medium Format body: $8,995.00 (currently on sale at BH for $6,495.00)

XCD 4/21mm lens: $3,750.00

XCD 3,2/90mm lens:” $3,195.00

Source TechCrunch https://ift.tt/2R8dERr

Two weeks with a $16,000 Hasselblad kit – BerTTon For hobbyist photographers like myself, Hasselblad has always been the untouchable luxury brand reserved for high-end professionals.

[fmservers]

Two weeks with a $16,000 Hasselblad kit

For hobbyist photographers like myself, Hasselblad has always been the untouchable luxury brand reserved for high-end professionals.

To fill the gap between casual and intended photography, they released the X1D — a compact, mirrorless medium format. Last summer when Stefan Etienne reviewed the newly released camera, I asked to take a picture.

After importing the raw file into Lightroom and flipping through a dozen presets, I joked that I would eat Ramen packets for the next year so I could buy this camera. It was that impressive.

XCD 3.5/30mm lens

Last month Hasselblad sent us the XCD 4/21mm (their latest ultra wide-angle lens) for a two-week review, along with the X1D body and XCD 3,2/90mm portrait lens for comparison. I wanted to see what I could do with the kit and had planned the following:

Swipe right on everyone with an unflattering Tinder profile picture and offer to retake it for them

Travel somewhere with spectacular landscapes

My schedule didn’t offer much time for either, so a weekend trip to the cabin would have to suffice.

[gallery type="slideshow" link="none" columns="1" size="full" ids="1722181,1722182,1722183,1722184,1722185,1722186,1722187,1722188,1722201"]

As an everyday camera

The weekend upstate was rather quiet and uneventful, but it served to be the perfect setting to test out the camera kit because the X1D is slow A. F.

It takes approximately 8 seconds to turn on, with an additional 2-3 seconds of processing time after each shutter click — top that off with a slow autofocus, slow shutter release and short battery life (I went through a battery within a day, approximately 90 shots fired). Rather than reiterating Stefan’s review, I would recommend reading it here for full specifications.

Coming from a Canon 5D Mark IV, I’m used to immediacy and a decent hit rate. The first day with the Hasselblad was filled with constant frustration from missed moments, missed opportunities. It felt impractical as an everyday camera until I shifted toward a more deliberate approach — reverting back to high school SLR days when a roll of film held a limited 24 exposures.

When I took pause, I began to appreciate the camera’s details: a quiet shutter, a compact but sturdy body and an intuitive interface, including a touchscreen LCD display/viewfinder.

[gallery type="slideshow" link="none" columns="1" size="full" ids="1722796,1722784,1722775"]

Nothing looks or feels cheap about the Swiss-designed, aluminum construction of both the body and lenses. It’s heavy for a mirrorless camera, but it feels damn good to hold.

XCD 4/21mm lens

[gallery type="slideshow" link="none" columns="1" size="full" ids="1722190,1722191,1722489,1722490"]

Dramatic landscapes and cityscapes without an overly exaggerated perspective — this is where the XCD 4/21mm outperforms other super wide-angle lenses.

With a 105° angle of view and 17mm field of view equivalent on a full-framed DSLR, I was expecting a lot more distortion and vignetting, but the image automatically corrected itself and flattened out when imported into Lightroom. The latest deployment of Creative Cloud has the Hasselblad (camera and lens) profile integrated into Lightroom, so there’s no need for downloading and importing profiles. 

Oily NYC real estate brokers should really consider using this lens to shoot their dinky 250 sq. ft. studio apartments to feel grand without looking comically fish-eyed.

XCD 3,2/90mm lens

The gallery below was shot using only the mirror’s vanity lights as practicals. It was also shot underexposed to see how much detail I could pull in post. Here are the downsized, unedited versions, so you don’t have to wait for each 110mb file to load.

[gallery type="slideshow" link="none" columns="1" size="full" ids="1722193,1722194,1722195,1722196"]

I’d like to think that if I had time and was feeling philanthropic, I could fix a lot of love lives on Tinder with this lens.

Where it shines

Normally, images posted in reviews are unedited, but I believe the true test of raw images lies in post-production. This is where the X1D’s slow processing time and quick battery drainage pays off. With the camera’s giant 50 MP 44 x 33mm CMOS sensor, each raw file was approximately 110mb (compared to my Mark IV’s 20-30mb) — that’s a substantial amount of information packed into 8272 x 6200 pixels.

Resized to 2000 x 1500 pixels and cropped to 2000 x 1500 pixels: 

While other camera manufacturers tend to favor certain colors and skin tones, Dan Wang, a Hasselblad rep, told me, “We believe in seeing a very natural or even palette with very little influence. We’re not here to gatekeep what color should be. We’re here to give you as much data as possible, providing as much raw detail, raw color information that allows you to interpret it to your extent.”

As someone who enjoys countless hours tweaking colors, shifting pixels and making things pretty, I’m appreciative of this. It allows for less fixing, more creative freedom.

Who is this camera for?

My friend Peter, a fashion photographer (he’s done editorial features for Harper’s Bazaar, Cosmopolitan and the likes), is the only person I know who shoots on Hasselblad, so it felt appropriate to ask his opinion. “It’s for pretentious rich assholes with money to burn,” he snarked. I disagree. The X1D is a solid step for Hasselblad to get off heavy-duty tripods and out of the studio.

At this price point though, one might expect the camera to do everything, but it’s aimed at a narrow demographic: a photographer who is willing to overlook speediness for quality and compactibility.

With smartphone companies like Apple and Samsung stepping up their camera game over the past few years, the photography world feels inundated with inconsequential, throw-away images (self-indulgent selfies, “look what I had for lunch,” OOTD…).

My two weeks with the Hasselblad was a kind reminder of photography as a methodical art form, rather than a spray and pray hobby.

Reviewed kit runs $15,940, pre-taxed:

X1D Medium Format body: $8,995.00 (currently on sale at BH for $6,495.00)

XCD 4/21mm lens: $3,750.00

XCD 3,2/90mm lens:” $3,195.00

Via Veanne Cao https://techcrunch.com

[jimivaey]

For hobbyist photographers like myself, Hasselblad has always been the untouchable luxury brand reserved for high-end professionals.

To fill the gap between casual and intended photography, they released the X1D — a compact, mirrorless medium format. Last summer when Stefan Etienne reviewed the newly released camera, I asked to take a picture.

After importing the raw file into Lightroom and flipping through a dozen presets, I joked that I would eat Ramen packets for the next year so I could buy this camera. It was that impressive.

XCD 3.5/30mm lens

Last month Hasselblad sent us the XCD 4/21mm (their latest ultra wide-angle lens) for a two-week review, along with the X1D body and XCD 3,2/90mm portrait lens for comparison. I wanted to see what I could do with the kit and had planned the following:

Swipe right on everyone with an unflattering Tinder profile picture and offer to retake it for them

Travel somewhere with spectacular landscapes

My schedule didn’t offer much time for either, so a weekend trip to the cabin would have to suffice.

As an everyday camera

The weekend upstate was rather quiet and uneventful, but it served to be the perfect setting to test out the camera kit because the X1D is slow A. F.

It takes approximately 8 seconds to turn on, with an additional 2-3 seconds of processing time after each shutter click — top that off with a slow autofocus, slow shutter release and short battery life (I went through a battery within a day, approximately 90 shots fired). Rather than reiterating Stefan’s review, I would recommend reading it here for full specifications.

Coming from a Canon 5D Mark IV, I’m used to immediacy and a decent hit rate. The first day with the Hasselblad was filled with constant frustration from missed moments, missed opportunities. It felt impractical as an everyday camera until I shifted toward a more deliberate approach — reverting back to high school SLR days when a roll of film held a limited 24 exposures.

When I took pause, I began to appreciate the camera’s details: a quiet shutter, a compact but sturdy body and an intuitive interface, including a touchscreen LCD display/viewfinder.

Nothing looks or feels cheap about the Swiss-designed, aluminum construction of both the body and lenses. It’s heavy for a mirrorless camera, but it feels damn good to hold.

XCD 4/21mm lens

Dramatic landscapes and cityscapes without an overly exaggerated perspective — this is where the XCD 4/21mm outperforms other super wide-angle lenses.

With a 105° angle of view and 17mm field of view equivalent on a full-framed DSLR, I was expecting a lot more distortion and vignetting, but the image automatically corrected itself and flattened out when imported into Lightroom. The latest deployment of Creative Cloud has the Hasselblad (camera and lens) profile integrated into Lightroom, so there’s no need for downloading and importing profiles. 

Oily NYC real estate brokers should really consider using this lens to shoot their dinky 250 sq. ft. studio apartments to feel grand without looking comically fish-eyed.

XCD 3,2/90mm lens

The gallery below was shot using only the mirror’s vanity lights as practicals. It was also shot underexposed to see how much detail I could pull in post. Here are the downsized, unedited versions, so you don’t have to wait for each 110mb file to load.

I’d like to think that if I had time and was feeling philanthropic, I could fix a lot of love lives on Tinder with this lens.

Where it shines

Normally, images posted in reviews are unedited, but I believe the true test of raw images lies in post-production. This is where the X1D’s slow processing time and quick battery drainage pays off. With the camera’s giant 50 MP 44 x 33mm CMOS sensor, each raw file was approximately 110mb (compared to my Mark IV’s 20-30mb) — that’s a substantial amount of information packed into 8272 x 6200 pixels.

Resized to 2000 x 1500 pixels and cropped to 2000 x 1500 pixels: 

While other camera manufacturers tend to favor certain colors and skin tones, Dan Wang, a Hasselblad rep, told me, “We believe in seeing a very natural or even palette with very little influence. We’re not here to gatekeep what color should be. We’re here to give you as much data as possible, providing as much raw detail, raw color information that allows you to interpret it to your extent.”

As someone who enjoys countless hours tweaking colors, shifting pixels and making things pretty, I’m appreciative of this. It allows for less fixing, more creative freedom.

Who is this camera for?

My friend Peter, a fashion photographer (he’s done editorial features for Harper’s Bazaar, Cosmopolitan and the likes), is the only person I know who shoots on Hasselblad, so it felt appropriate to ask his opinion. “It’s for pretentious rich assholes with money to burn,” he snarked. I disagree. The X1D is a solid step for Hasselblad to get off heavy-duty tripods and out of the studio.

At this price point though, one might expect the camera to do everything, but it’s aimed at a narrow demographic: a photographer who is willing to overlook speediness for quality and compactibility.

With smartphone companies like Apple and Samsung stepping up their camera game over the past few years, the photography world feels inundated with inconsequential, throw-away images (self-indulgent selfies, “look what I had for lunch,” OOTD…).

My two weeks with the Hasselblad was a kind reminder of photography as a methodical art form, rather than a spray and pray hobby.

Reviewed kit runs $15,940, pre-taxed:

X1D Medium Format body: $8,995.00 (currently on sale at BH for $6,495.00)

XCD 4/21mm lens: $3,750.00

XCD 3,2/90mm lens:” $3,195.00

Tech Stories Are Here.

Two weeks with a $16,000 Hasselblad kit For hobbyist photographers like myself, Hasselblad has always been the untouchable luxury brand reserved for high-end professionals.