The board's server will undergo upgrade maintenance tonight, Nov 5, 2014, beginning approximately around 10 PM ET. Prepare for some possible down time during this process.
Joined: Sun May 25, 2014 9:32 pm Posts: 31614 Location: Garbage Dump
Rewatching The Post. Man, this movie kinda floors me. Spielberg's natural intuition for composition - and I mean everything that entails: blocking, framing, lighting, camera movement, editing - is just unparalleled. I didn't even notice the first time (and no one seems to be talking about) how many floating long-takes are used, which I think is because they are so organic and seamless - the opposite of the show-stopping showiness of someone like Alfonso Cuaron. He always thinks about how each shot and cut will affect the whole of the work. There's one beautiful one near the beginning where the camera tracks characters while being separated by a row of desks before cutting through an aisle to get closer and then following them into an office and gracefully moving around them to the other side of the room. Just effortless, fluid, magnificent. Never calls attention to itself - it simply breathes naturally. The film is buoyed by constant, subtle visual vitality.
On top of that, Spielberg's love of character idiosyncrasies is in full effect; again, I keep noticing things I didn't catch the first time around, especially with Streep's character. Taking off her large earring to answer a phone call, for example. Just an consistent stream of tiny details to give the characters (and the movie) a sense of life and personality. My god, what a talent he is.
Joined: Tue September 24, 2013 5:56 pm Posts: 47149 Location: In the oatmeal aisle wearing a Shellac shirt
LoathedVermin72 wrote:
Rewatching The Post[...]Man, this movie kinda floors me. Spielberg's natural intuition for composition - and I mean everything that entails: blocking, framing, lighting, camera movement, editing - is just unparalleled. I didn't even notice the first time (and no one seems to be talking about) how many floating long-takes are used, which I think is because they are so organic and seamless - the opposite of the show-stopping showiness of someone like Alfonso Cuaron. He always thinks about how each shot and cut will affect the whole of the work[...]The film is buoyed by constant, subtle visual vitality.
LoathedVermin72 wrote:
[A] consistent stream of tiny details to give the characters (and the movie) a sense of life and personality.
Joined: Tue September 24, 2013 5:56 pm Posts: 47149 Location: In the oatmeal aisle wearing a Shellac shirt
Tom Hanks is usually great, but here he just looks tired. Meryl Streep is a snoozer in this movie. How many times did he go: "Oh...oh..." while trying to process the implications of whether or not she would let them run the story? Is hand-wringing-via-face what qualifies for top-shelf acting now?
But honestly, I don't blame either of them, I think the script was probably quite anemic. All of Spielberg's master craftsmanship holds up in spite of the thin material.
Rewatching The Post. Man, this movie kinda floors me. Spielberg's natural intuition for composition - and I mean everything that entails: blocking, framing, lighting, camera movement, editing - is just unparalleled. I didn't even notice the first time (and no one seems to be talking about) how many floating long-takes are used, which I think is because they are so organic and seamless - the opposite of the show-stopping showiness of someone like Alfonso Cuaron. He always thinks about how each shot and cut will affect the whole of the work. There's one beautiful one near the beginning where the camera tracks characters while being separated by a row of desks before cutting through an aisle to get closer and then following them into an office and gracefully moving around them to the other side of the room. Just effortless, fluid, magnificent. Never calls attention to itself - it simply breathes naturally. The film is buoyed by constant, subtle visual vitality.
On top of that, Spielberg's love of character idiosyncrasies is in full effect; again, I keep noticing things I didn't catch the first time around, especially with Streep's character. Taking off her large earring to answer a phone call, for example. Just an consistent stream of tiny details to give the characters (and the movie) a sense of life and personality. My god, what a talent he is.
Verm can you tell me more about the ghost/skeleton/shrouded figure please.
Tom Hanks is usually great, but here he just looks tired. Meryl Streep is a snoozer in this movie. How many times did he go: "Oh...oh..." while trying to process the implications of whether or not she would let them run the story? Is hand-wringing-via-face what qualifies for top-shelf acting now?
But honestly, I don't blame either of them, I think the script was probably quite anemic. All of Spielberg's master craftsmanship holds up in spite of the thin material.
Im glad Im not the only one that may have been a little let down by the overall movie. There were moments I enjoyed and generally, its always a pleasure to watch these actors manage their craft, but there was a missing intensity of sorts. It fell a little flat for me.
Ill have no problem watching it again. Im a bit distracted these days. Maybe my opinion shall change.
Meryl Streep was best when expressing insecurity and doubts, but couldnt really drag me on board with much of her performance. Which is strange.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 91 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum