[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]

/hobby/ - Hobby

"Our hands pass down the skills of the last generation to the next"
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon

File: 1650874425515.jpg (1.47 MB, 3504x2336, 35mm_movie_negative.jpg)


First thread >>2278

I just watched the new Batman movie, it's about as boring and derived as you'd expect. The villain is a real psycho, apparently he hates Bruce Wayne's father because of his scam charity orphanage where children froze to death and the villain himself grew up in, and tries to publicly reveal his father's ties to organized crime and political corruption. Luckily Batman eventually teaches him the true meaning of love and forgiveness before the villain is thrown into an insane asylum for the rest of his days, and the credits roll.

I also watched Memoria, which was just as boring and I have nothing to say about.



Hidden Hitlerjunge Quex sequel.


"People still rob banks?"
90s-esque crime flick for those that are into that I guess


Snatch, kinda feels like a British adaptation of Belly in some ways


File: 1651896919012.jpeg (67.32 KB, 736x919, danoriddler forgive.jpeg)

>The villain is a real psycho, apparently he hates Bruce Wayne's father because of his scam charity orphanage where children froze to death and the villain himself grew up in, and tries to publicly reveal his father's ties to organized crime and political corruption. Luckily Batman eventually teaches him the true meaning of love and forgiveness before the villain is thrown into an insane asylum for the rest of his days, and the credits roll
Which is why the Riddler did nothing wrong
For real though I loved the movie and I'm not even a capeshit fan


dropped tarkovsky's solaris partway through
anamorphic is a dealbreaker, and dude just wants to shoot epic shots that makes me think a lot about god or mortality or whatever


Just watched pretty woman for the first time. Pretty insane movie were a rich guy gets a hooker who acts child like. He, I guess fell in love with her? The actor did well but he played the ridiculously rich guy almost villain like. The whole time it felt the other shoe would drop and Julia Roberts character was going to end up at an eyes wide shut party or being hunted most dangerous game style. Obviously that didn't happen, and they end up together. Very weird movie and interesting to watch. My favorite part is when Julia Roberts(the hooker) was picked up by hotel security the hotel manager gave her a cover story as their clients niece to cover for the guy. Who later on told the staff "no she's a hooker, get her whatever she wants". Flagrantly breaking the law in front of all these high end establishments and paying them absurd amounts of money to grovel and serve her. Which he seemed more amused by than hanging with Julia Roberts. Really weird movie, recommed watching it with a GF or wife. There's some soft sex scenes and you got a good chance at getting laid after suggesting a classic romcom.


Haven't watched any movie in like 2 years


File: 1652244541287.png (50.72 KB, 1611x191, hughesreagan.png)

the guy who directed it was a massive reaganite


>anamorphic is a dealbreaker


looks really really bad
focus all over the place, wonky aspect ratio… it’s just a bad compromise


File: 1652259622955-0.png (597.43 KB, 498x708, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1652259622955-1.png (217.04 KB, 528x288, ClipboardImage.png)

Watched the Johnny Got His Gun movie finally, read the novel a long while back and it scared the shit out of me. Both the movie and the book are like my nightmare scenario, like a bad dream you can't wake up from, but that just makes them the perfect anti-war propaganda. Dalton Trumbo, who wrote both the book and directed the film, was a gommie, and it shows.
I would say the book is better, the movie felt wayyyy too fast, but I liked that they did their best portraying the surreal nature of the book. Also, Jesus Christ shows up and he's the coolest dudebro


aren't anamorphic lenses like notoriously difficult to stay focused? but the images they produce are also like, flatter and wider; which is why they've always been a favorite by certain filmmakers. I think Solaris is a beautiful film, but I agree with your general criticism; Tarkovsky is a romantic.


File: 1652315066183.jpg (506.43 KB, 1600x899, l-intro-1649863272.jpg)

The Northman. Its good and yet very disappointing, in a way that almost feels intentional. Like there is next to no story (it is a proto-Hamlet), it starts with evil uncle killing protagonists father and taking the kingdom. But uncle looses the kingdom off screen, so most of the movie takes place on shitty farm where he now resides. There is a scene near the beginning of the movie that just serves to establish our protagonist as neigh-invincible and unlikable, thus defusing any tension or relatability. Characters act with no rhyme or reason to them, other than requirements of the plot. Why is Anya Taylor Joy helping Amlet? Why are they in love now? Why does 44 year old actor play a character who clearly should be in his early to mid 20s? The whole movie is schizophrenically split between serious historical drama and exciting fantastical scenes (highlights of the movie imho).


Starts off alright, shows a bunch of scenes from a bunch of different cities, and a few of the people in them (they're usually unemployed and in their 20s), then suddenly veers into nazi race war documentary #3985724023 about a third of the way through. It makes the subculture come across as gang-like and tight-knit. The producer/narrator also seems like a pseud and is clearly exploiting a lot of the subjects (he meets with some leftist skinheads in Chicago but they back out once they realize he also interviewed neo-Nazis). All in all, just a boring documentary exploiting a fascination of the time when it came out with a bunch of nonsense intellectual language about "globalization" or whatever narrated on top of it.


rewatched come and see
still technically impressive and epic in scope, but it's still very lib and humanistic
more vaguely "anti-war" than even anti-fascist or anything


>split between serious historical drama and exciting fantastical scenes (highlights of the movie imho).
This is because it is based on sagas as well and they are told in the same way with the same elements of the supernatural


Haven't seen DR Strange yet and the more clips I see the less I seek to. Just saw the Black Bolt scene that has "the smartest man" tell Wand BB's ability and they do the Matrix mouth seal scene before his power blows his brain out in a gut-churning disgusting way. This scene is beyond retarded. BB literally trained to keep completely silent at all times and has the experience NOT to panic like a retard. Moreover his power shoulda just blown his mouth open, but the visible gore'd make it not PG enough. Honestly annoying as fuck and a perfect example of this movie's retarded nature.


>Come and see
Ты чё ахуел?
>vaguely "anti-war" than even anti-fascist


godspeed anon


File: 1652832750866.jpg (115.54 KB, 486x720, 0114540.jpg)

Yeah lol only on leftypol can you see people accusing a soviet movie whose director lived trough the siege of Stalingrad as a kid of being lib.

Anyways just saw Everything Everywhere All At Once and it's a real masterpiece. Perfect blend between humor and tragedy, characters feel real, movie is wacky but authentic at the same time. Loved Raccacoonie and the dialogue between rocks. Best movie about a struggling family trying to pay their taxes in the multiverse.


I watched it (only because friends did) and that part is a groaner. "Let's tell a clearly powerful person what our superweapon is!"
Look, shallow fun, I don't regret going but I wouldn't regret missing it either.


>only on leftypol can you see people accusing a soviet movie whose director lived trough the siege of Stalingrad as a kid of being lib
I've seen redditors and /pol/ (i.e. the same people) claim that too, or even claiming the nazis in the movie had been right, so not the stupidest take at least.

Yeah, it's like the reverse of the "monologueing villain" trope.


>experiencing the siege of stalingrad when you were a kid makes you a hecking epic marxist-leninist
dude regularly battled with soviet authorities throughout his career and was a fan of perestroika, but that's just the context of the director anyways


>experiencing the siege of stalingrad when you were a kid makes you a hecking epic marxist-leninist
Imagine being such a fucking hack that you can't make a rebuttal that doesn't use pure strawmen. The point isn't that "hurr he's uber-communist cuz he survived Stalingrad" it's that he lived through hell and high water and its experiences shaped him as a man. People aren't divided into "le based commies" and "le stoopid libs" you terminally-online dichotomist.
>regularly battled with soviet authorities throughout his career
And? Soviet bureaucracy hardly was perfect and anyone that lived then can attest to that, even hardline communists.
>as a fan of perestroika
Citation? Also even assuming this, you have no comprehension of the Perestroika and the support of it. People thought it'd be a return to Lenin's ideals and supported it because Soviet Bureaucracy had become too heavy and essentially took power from the people, and they sought change. This isn't an excuse for Gorbachev and Yeltsin's betrayals, but it is an explanation as to the support of it. Hindsight is 20:20
>that's just the context of the director anyways
Yes, it has NO bearing on the film at all. A literal Belorus Partisan had been the inspiration and advisor of the film and so it had been made close to reality, nothing lib about it.


>In 1986, fresh from the success of Come and See, and with the changes brought by perestroika in the air, Klimov was chosen by his colleagues to be the First Secretary of the Filmmakers' Union following the V Congress of the Soviet Filmmakers. During the congress all previous heads of the Filmmakers' Union — including Lev Kulidzhanov, Sergei Bondarchuk, Stanislav Rostotsky and others — were overthrown in favor of "liberal" activists. According to some critics and filmmakers, the congress was conducted by Alexander Yakovlev, one of the grey cardinals of Perestroika who was unofficially presented there, consulting the activists from time to time.
>Klimov's leadership saw the belated release of many of the previously banned films and the reinstatement of several directors who had fallen out of political favor. This period is widely considered as the start of decline of Soviet cinema and the rise of the so-called "chernukha", namely artists and journalists, who, freed by glasnost, exposed Soviet reality in the most pessimistic possible light.
keep coping
like I said, it's still an impressive movie, but it is aggressively apolitical about the Eastern Front and is largely indifferent to the Soviet opposition. it opts instead for long mystical almost religious sequences and atrocity porn that seek to instill a general feeling of vague pie-in-the-sky humanism, it's very much influenced by Tarkovsky's similar stuff, and there's a good chance it was more of a commentary on the Soviet-Afghan War using the more politically correct "Great Patriotic War"


>no source
post the source, and it better not be vikipedia
Over what, you demented ideologue? I don't care about his political ideology because it has no real impact on the film. The creator the 28 Panfilovits film is a Russian Nationalist, yet his politics have ZERO influence on the film because it is divorced from his personal politics and in films that do have the creators insert their political ideologies it is blatantly obvious. The main and only influence from Klimov isn't his bureaucratic life but his personal experience of the terror and hurt that war carries, that is all that matters.
>it is aggressively apolitical
1) That's a goddamn contradiction, it not going into politics is just apolitical, it doesn't attack political messages at all, it just doesn't go into them.
2) The only aggressive part of the film is the brutality of the Nazis and their Nazi ideology
>largely indifferent to the Soviet opposition
It's not a film depicting the heroic struggle but the horrors of the war for people from the perspective of the veterans. They do not feel glory trying to fight nazis, they are just fighting, surviving and struggling Не на жизень а насмерть. Films glorifying Soviet troops in the war are for the people that did not fight or had not seen it to recognize and commemorate the heroic struggle, but this film is about the perspective of the actual war - glory has no place in this, because that is not the point of the film
>long mystical almost religious sequences and atrocity porn
<Artform symbolism contrasted to harsh realistic depiction of the realities is 'religious' and 'atrocity porn'
Блять англо-саксонская мышленость это просто полный Ахтунг
>seek to instill a general feeling of vague pie-in-the-sky humanism
No, no it doesn't you fucking clod. It is a film, a visual medium of depiction, it's not supposed to be a philosophical essay deconstructing an ideology, it is a presentation of concepts and emotions through a story. There term "Drama" is a poor translation of the term "Художествтвиный Фильм" the term used for such a film in Soviet and Russian film circles. The humanism is not defined in exact terms because that's not needed, you understand it all just by seeing it, as if you are experiencing its horror and grimness from the side, and see the main character - a child for all real intents and purposes struggle to hold on to sanity and humanity in a dehumanizing meatgrinder, and despite it all he and his allies do no stoop to the level of his torturers in their struggle.
>a good chance it was more of a commentary on the Soviet-Afghan War
You have no evidence to that and given that in that VERY SAME Perestroika there existed SEVERAL films directly depicting the harsh realities of that conflict - most notably Афганский излом and the director did not even mention Afghanistan as even a remote reason for his film, you´re just finding inane and irrelevant reasons or speculations to put down the film.


>muh source
>muh definitions
>muh evidence
i thought we were discussing art, not an academic paper


Nice goal post shifting.


>Yeah lol only on leftypol can you see people accusing a soviet movie whose director lived trough the siege of Stalingrad as a kid of being lib.
Now that you mention it, "listen to my lived experience" is lib rhetoric, remember that progressive stack praxis they did at Occupy Wall Street?
>Anyways just saw Everything Everywhere All At Once and it's a real masterpiece
new cult classic indie movie just dropped, movies are back baby!


Just watched the Fyre Festival doc, which brought on a bunch of people that were involved in its organization as talking heads, and the narrative is kind of like there were a bunch of obvious red flags it was just a scam, but they apparently went along with it anyways and then acted like victims or that they were looking out for people or something. Anyways, kind of a funny scamming of Instagram rich kids. Billy McFarland is just one of those low-effort grifters that can somehow get by in a place like gentrified NYC nowadays.


I watched the new Dr. Strange
It was pretty good
Scarlet Witch was the villain


I want to make sex with her, if you catch my drift

did you get scared at all by the movie?


File: 1653315976198.png (285.34 KB, 275x407, ClipboardImage.png)

was good


Watch Everything Everywhere All at Once instead. The multiverse concept was really under utilized.

Its a marvel movie bro.


jesus camp
very nice deconstructive documentary from 2006
i didn’t like the bits where they had some talk show radio host ranting about how they’re not true christians, i think he’s just uncomfortable over how they bare the true ugliness at the core
dvd rip with english subs: https://anonfiles.com/b6Cdx2j9yb/Jesus_Camp_2006_zip



also just checked what they’re like now and they seem to just have become your standard petty bourgeois normie and even stayed in christianity somewhat, except for the bowl cut kid who took the hippy path
pretty uncanny


I watched "Old" (2021). It was pretty mediocre. Not abysmal, but just not good - M. Night Shyamalan might be one of the few directors who gets worse over time. Unlike his other movies, there was no typical twist, that revelation in the end can barely called anything like that, because you can see it from a mile coming.

The concept of aging rapidly isn't new per se, and not bad per se, but he didn't really know what to do with it. The only classical trope was lady obsessed with her own beauty going mad over aging, and then died in a horrific twisted way - that was the only really creepy scene. Other than that, the movie was surprisingly PG-13, they wouldn't even show a skeleton. Also, the main characters that escape will not be okay, imagine you are a 6 year old in the body of a 50 year old - you'd be diagnosed as clinically infantile and get a warden. The dialog was rather awkward and the ending felt weirdly anticlimatic - so they are doing those super secret experiments, but don't even have security?

If you have nothing else to watch you can give it a try. It's not bad but is just really kinda there, it doesn't really do anything with its premise.


If you are ever in the mood for a modern but classic gothic horror movie with a decent budget, beautiful gothic cinematography, evil landlords and dead peasant daughters, gipsy folklore and "tell don't show" creepy scenes that still come with decent effects and gore and body horror - give this one a try.

All-around good, classic horror movie. It doesn't really have a deeper meaning I think, but it is really good at what it does.


Saw that with my gf in fact, better movie admittedly, very funny and surprisingly heartfelt
Saw Dr. Strange with my best friend while blazed
> Its a marvel movie bro.
No, that’s specifically Elizabeth Olsen who is a stacy


Accidental Death of an Anarchist english performance

Was not prepared. Highly recommend.


I read the play it's a fun one


Anyone watched Top Gun 2 yet? It'll be naked US military propaganda, but I think it'll look cool when the jets go swooooosh


>Johnny Got His Gun




>he's a product of your profession, not mine


Rewatched on Netflix
I remember when I first watched it in theatre, the cinema has a mild crowd of boomers and fake-hip young people that probably only saw the trailer and didn’t know who Scorsese was and how he trolls people like them. It was fun watching their reactions alongside the great 3 and a half hour movie. They were not amused lol. Props to Scorsese for also taking money from Netflix.


Wish a theater near me had it. Perfect capstone to Scorsese's mob flick career tbh.


>I remember when I first watched it in theatre,
How did your bladder survive?


haven't seen it yet but I dig Scorsese movies. Even the "bad" ones like Gangs of New York. How does he troll the boomers?


It’s basically a subtle and not-so-subtle deconstruction of nostalgia for the 50s-70s


The movie opens with a Scorsese Long Single Shot with the main character doing a monologue, except instead of it being a scene of glamor and excess it's a sad and empty nursing home. The whole movie is about reflecting on where the main character is left after all his mob shenanigans and is basically holding you down and asking you what any of it was for.


Oh, and I feel like he fucks with people who probably expected a Goodfellas/Casino 3.0



so why is he deconstructing them?
is he not happy with the place the people have expected of him


His movies were always about how mobsters are scumbags who kill and get killed over nothing. Probably the most famous example is the "funny guy" scene (RIP Ray Liotta). Mobster movies are usually just romanticizing these people (since their origin involves the actual mob getting involved in film production to make the movies more propagandistic in their favor). Scorsese would usually show that these people actually suck. But the problem with doing this in hollywood is that actors are supposed to be able to give a compelling performance and have some kind of magnetism to them, so when you have these cool dudes playing these assholes it makes them seem cool, however insecure and psychotic you write them to be. I love watching these guys do their work but if I'm being honest, having charismatic and talented actors play these roles is a mistake for what Scorsese is trying to convey.


Shooting for Scorsese’s next movie, about the Osage Indian Murders, already started April of last year
He also has a biopic about the Grateful Dead in development
Dude is still kicking it


New Fantastic Beasts. Becoming even less surprised at JK Rowling being a reactionary TERF. This is literally like Queer-Coded Villain: The Franchise. Sure, Dumbledore is gay, but who does his love interest end up being? The fucking predecessor to Voldemort. There’s a clear subtext here that his love is a regretful sickness that makes him amoral and selfish. Voldemort/Tom Riddle himself was kind of cast as an asexual or some kind of libertine, which is purposefully atypical in a narrative where all of the Good characters end up in an unnecessary heterosexual monogamous romance or the other. There’s also some orientalism in this and the previous movie. Overall, just a dumb look into the mind palace of some rich conservative British woman.


Also, worth mentioning how under the radar and un-promoted these movie are lol. I only found out the first 2 even existed last year, and I found this one out when it appeared on rarbg’s recommended torrents. They also appear to be unacknowledged as valid Harry Potter lore by a lot of the fan sites.


> Some sixty or more wealthy, full-blood Osage Native Americans were reported killed from 1918 to 1931

Why and how
Do you know more

I haven't watched those movies but it's really cool that weird euro guy plays Grindlewald


you googled the wikipedia article for the murders and read it and need an explanation for why it happened?


yes, i don't want to spoil myself

was it class issue? did the poorer native americans kill them or was it corporations


white settlers


File: 1654318532066.png (805.61 KB, 1017x1500, ClipboardImage.png)

very funny stupid flick with some cool cinematography and macaulay culkin


File: 1654528416493.jpg (12.82 KB, 220x330, fresh-2022.jpg)

Just watched Fresh (2022) torrented, fuck Hulu and it was great. One of the best films I've seen in recent years. Big recommend, especially to this audience.
Themes: social alienation, nuclear family v little-to-no family, dating app anti-sociality, commodification v friendship/solidarity, sociopathy, the lumpen petite-bourgeoisie, the black market, cannibalism, proletarian feminism


File: 1654574109405.png (781.29 KB, 640x948, ClipboardImage.png)

Feels like someone jamming all of their post-9/11 racist jokes into a script sometimes, but also a funny satire of the mass pathos around terrorism at other times.


File: 1654574500442.jpg (62.18 KB, 259x384, AlexGarlandMenPoster.jpg)

This was awesome aesthetically throughout but the script was very underwheling before the final scene which was the best body horror not directed by David Cronenberg


File: 1654579184855.png (27.06 MB, 3888x5724, ClipboardImage.png)

movie about fed entrapment. kinda flat acting, terrible pacing, but it was kind of alright and not too long


Chris Morris is fucking brilliant, what are you on about


He is, I loved The Day Today/Brass Eye, but these movies kinda fell flat for me.


Awful pastiche of The Exorcist but with epic Steadicam tracking shots and computer-generated water ripples. Movies from around the late 2000s and early 2010s are gonna be remembered for being laughably low-effort schlock, even among all of the other eras of low-effort schlock. At least I hope for the future.


more aughties evangelical bleakness


File: 1655552883676.png (6.57 MB, 2025x3000, ClipboardImage.png)

is this really as poetic as people describe it as?


not on rarbg yet so can't say
sounds really cool though


File: 1655766153352.jpeg (17.67 KB, 300x424, images.jpeg)

just watched pic related; grew up religious and still have a soft spot for it tbh so very moving.


Heretical trash made by Hollywood encouraging Christians to give up their faith upon experiencing pain/suffering/death when there's an explicit bible passage saying that to do so will deny you salvation.


Japan was right to kill christoid converts



Thought it was dull torture porn to be honest.


religious people enjoy that


Christian here, I didn't.


this is the most unhinged short movie i've ever seeen
how is this oscar worthy

and why tf are all the boomers in the comment section praising this?

shit's like outta some moral, fable tale
>the smart and wise kid pulled a gun on the bf to reveal his true nature when faced WITH DEATH

<omg so true! only a bad person would swear and get angry under a gun!

what the fuck was this shite


>Christian here

nah see i thought that was the point, christian missionaries get off to martyrdom fantasies, more than they want to actually "do good" by the people they meet.

Course for scorcese personally, i got the feeling he was trying to talk about what it's like to be a christoid in Hollywood, but w/e


Watched Who Framed Roger Rabbit? for the first time. Very charming movie that I was surprised to learn is also based and public transport-pilled.


this is literally nonce propaganda


Project X. Basically Superbad but actually funny and clever, at points.

Unique IPs: 40

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]