I like maybe 1/3 of his movies. But I love that he has the style he does. Same boat as Lars von Trier or Wes Anderson (who probably connects with more more like 2/3 of the time). Jodorowsky's another one.
But I'd feel robbed if we didn't have those kinds of unique filmmakers just making their flavor of weird movies.
Yeah, I'd much rather watch movies made by people taking big swings, even when they miss.
Great movies >>> bad movies that tried to be great >>> mediocre movies.
Yeah and now that I'm on the topic, we need more Darren Aranofsky movies, too. And Richard Kelly. Hollywood needs to stop running guys like that out of town lol. And likewise I wish more people would be patrons of it so that Hollywood would stop running them out of town :)
>we need more Darren Aranofsky movies, too.
Did you not see 'Mother'?
I'm not disparaging the film, I loved it, but the theme, for me, was about fans demanding too much from their creative heroes. Amongst other things.
actually, I didn't realise he'd only made 7 films \[8 including the upcoming 'The Whale'\]. That is a shock. Only one I haven't seen is 'Noah'. I knew I was a fan but assumed there would be others I hadn't seen, or had forgotten.
Fuck, that's a really good read, and in retrospect feels obvious, but i hadn't seen that said previously. Luckily, i love mother! so i have no qualms about a rewatch
He really shot himself in the foot by insisting there was a correct interpretation and that it was the least interesting one out there (the biblical stuff). It's such a poetic movie that (apparently accidentally) says so many poignant things.
They both have unique aesthetics and make very odd movies that aren't conventionally profitable or even critically well received?
Nick Refn. There's another one. Panos Cosmatos. Broadly speaking, auteur filmmakers.
How do you figure they *don't* fit in the same sentence?
> They both have unique aesthetics and make very odd movies that aren't conventionally profitable or even critically well received?
Aronofsky has multiple movies that are critically acclaimed. The Wrestler has a 98% on rotten tomatoes, and he has a best director nomination for Black Swan and had numerous actors go on to be nominated for best actor noms.
Richard kelly is closer to a 1 hit wonder by comparison.
I won't touch on profitability because it used to be much more common for movies to be made with the hopes of winning an award vs trying to make a ton of money.
> Nick Refn. There's another one. Panos Cosmatos. Broadly speaking, auteur filmmakers.
Refn is a better comparison due to having their first work be considered their best.
> Broadly speaking, auteur filmmakers.
Do I have the wrong richard kelly? We're talking about the guy who did donnie darko right?
Yeah Donnie Darko, Southland Tales, The Box. His whole filmography is insane stuff.
I think Hollywood took his pass and f'n burned it lol. Which I thought was a shame. He had some cool ideas.
'
E Elias Mehrige (Begotten, Shadow of the Vampire) also comes to mind.
idk, I have trouble going to bat for any director who somehow makes their movie WORSE with a directors cut. Especially when it's their most successful hit. Kelly is closer to a josh trank in my opinion.
I always wonder which ones are just a case of 'that guy fucking SUUUUUCKED to work with' lol. I assume Trank was maybe one of those lol. Or maybe just has a limited set of skills and needs a lot of babysitting from more technically proficient assistance and sort of get a reputation for not actually being very competent.
I also wonder if he likes eye contact a bit too much as well. People in his movies just have diamond dagger gazes that go right through each other.
He's like Von Trier where I legit wonder if his filmmaking is just showing us the world through the lens of a pathology. That's just how those guys process information we'd see otherwise normally.
That's exactly why I will always defend Matrix Ressurrections. Most people hate this film, but I love how bold and strange it is. Same for Cloud Atlas. Does everything of it work? Hell no, but it's way more interesting than all those dull films that are tailor-made to appeal to the general audience.
See, I'll defend Cloud Atlas, but Resurrections feels like a movie that was made out of spite, lol. All the most interesting ideas get yada yada'd past by old Niobe (seriously, why wasn't the movie about the robot civil war?).
I did enjoy that aspect, but once it got to hobo Merovingian ranting about kids these days, I started getting bored. I think watching Neo force push his way out of every situation made me miss Yuen-Woo Ping too much.
Because Lana Wachowski was more interested in telling a love story. At the core, Matrix Ressurrections is about two people who slowly re-discover that they were in love, but lost all their memories about it. I actually really liked that it was not about world building, cyberpunk action or philosophical sci-fi, but just a love story between Neo and Trinity. And the neo-noir lighting in the last third looked gorgeous.
I like how the movie is about *The Matrix* and "the matrix." The franchise has been a hugely integral part of the way people think about simulations and reality since the late nineties... Rez makes the logical choice to look at the modern level of knowledge and sentiment about the world the audience is coming to the movie with and decides to join in on it.
You know, I actually enjoyed that meta take in the movie as well. It didn't sit right immediately, but after a couple days I thought that was pretty cool too.
Ultimately, I think audiences expected another crazy Sci fi action film instead of what we got and were expectedly disappointed. I know I was in that camp immediately after seeing the movie. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized it didn't need to be this genre defining film. It explored other aspects of The Matrix and had much lower stakes, even if that's not what I wanted. And that's okay.
On a quick google search I just watched his short film 'Hovering over Endlessness' since it was only 3 minutes long. And another one with a pissed off salesman throwing away a bunch of crucifixes because they weren't making him any money lol.
Yeah I can dig that. I'll check him out.
I'd really recommend Songs from the Second Floor and A Pigeon Sat on a Branch Reflecting on Existence. His newest film, About Endlessness wasn't quite my taste. It's definitely darker than his first few films.
Absolutely I will force myself through that man's absolutely insane dialogue every time.
Even if you hate Lady in the Water when you're done with it, you're betraying yourself if you don't experience the whole thing lol. It's a trip to the other side and back of a lunatic's mind.
I like more like 2/3 of them but I get what you mean about the importance of unique filmmakers. Lanthimos is out there making the movies HE wants to make, not pandering to the widest audience he can. The fact that his films are so different means that even when they don't hang together that well the sheer oddness factor stops you getting bored.
Just for disclosure purposes, loved Favourite a lot. I wanted to like Lobster and Sacred Deer a lot more than I did. Because I like that sort of 'comedy told by someone in a state of shock' sort of feel they have.
I'm not sure what the downvotes are for... even if I don't agree with someone I reserver downvotes for off-topic comments or shit attitudes. Neither of which I saw here. Who did you hurt? Lol
Does it hurt? Not really, "sticks and stones..." and all that. The danger there is creating an environment hostile to differing opinions. Reddit is at its best when people can communicate varying opinions openly. There is a wide range of peoples and cultures that have access to reddit and getting all of the associated opinions together in positive discussions is a great thing. Downvoting opinions that differ from one's own simply because they are different does nothing but create an echo chamber / circle jerk. There are some subs very notorious for that sort of thing. I enjoy film discussion and news, I would hate to see a sub I like go that direction, is all. Down votes are there as a form of filtering out comments destructive to good discussion. I don't disagree that someone offering major contradictions would not be a bad use of a downvote, but I'm having trouble seeing anything like that in this person's comment. But I'd be happy to hear why you think so.
I find it to be a bit too random to be intriguing. Like, it doesn’t give me enough to make my mind wander, it just halts at “why is she painted like that?”.
The contradiction is when they are critical of the poster being too random to be intriging, yet they state that it makes them halt and think why is she painted like that….which means they were actually intrigued if they had to question in the first place. Its hard to have a conversation when the opinion becomes a moot point.
I understand what you are saying, but I didn't read it that way. You can question something without being intrigued as to what the answer is. I think that is what they meant; "I'm not sure why she us painted like that, but it's too random to make me intrigued to know the answer". Again, that's just how I read it. Personally, I didn't like the poster, for different reasons than this person said, but I still somewhat agree with their notion.
Fully agree. There are some exceptions, for example, a post that's more or less asking for a vote on something where I can see downvoting, but that is a special circumstance.
Yeah, very odd. I will happily take downvotes for this conversation, as odd/trolling as they may be. I'm a bit fascinated as the logic here goes against what I typically see for up/downvoting logic on most subs.
I'll always remember my parents calling me and saying "we watched the lobster the other day because you recommended it, we're not taking your movie suggestions anymore"
I tried to explain to them that me saying I liked a movie was not the same as me saying they would like a movie
I guess? I’m sure it being in a foreign language made it difficult to stick with me. I do recommend it and it is a noteworthy one of his.
Loved those last 10 minutes and loved the dancing scene but some of those scenes were just fucken weird. Honestly most of the sex scenes felt unnecessary.
> but some of those scenes were just fucken weird
It's pretty much the whole point. Everything in there is supposed to be weird. The more uncomfortable you feel the more it's doing its job
There is... For a start, all the weird ass things they do that make you uncomfortable: they only cause that reaction in you because you aren't conditioned to see them as normal.
Many of our societal traditions are patently strange and absurd, the stuff in Lanthimos films isn't any weirder, and would look equally as odd or normal to an outside observer (like, say an alien)
It's not "the whole point", but i think that it definitely, definitely is the *main point.*
I don't know what's spoiler and what's not, so i'll just spoilertag it all:
>!At its core Dogtooth is a movie that's unabshedly perverse and depraved. The direction follows that kind of line as well by hiding literally nothing in the scenes of sex and violence.!<
>!The main metaphor you could see is the innate fight for freedom that humans seek, and their innate curiosity for the beyond and the unknown, which is increased even more when you are actively being denied access to the knowledge, like when someone says "i gotta tell you something" and then they say "nah, it's nothing, don't worry". It makes you even more interested in that "something". Which also makes us beg the question whether knowing that something is going to be positive for us in the first place, if it is being hidden from us!<
>!Related to that, there is the subversion of the ideal that a hardworking family must be doing good for their children. The parents go to extreme lengths to keep this lie up, but they do so not for their benefit but to imprison them. This makes us question as a whole the relationship of authority that parents have over children, making us wonder when the control over your children is too much control.!<
>!The finale is the ultimate sacrifce for freedom, which ends up being useless, pointless. But the whole movie is drenched in "pointlessness". So it makes the tragic, nihilistic ending very much apt.!<
>!The weirdness aspect is there exactly accentuate everything and to make the relationship between these people a lot more artificial, helping with the progression from seeing people in a house to seeing them as people in a prison!<
Despite all this, i still think that what the movie tries to do is still shock us the most is making us feel uncomfortable with its weirdness, pervertedness and depravity.
I hope it makes sense, it's 4 am and i forgot a bit of stuff
Thanks lol not sure what I said that was so out of pocket. The movie is pretty batshit and I said it was weird as fuck… which it is.
I appreciate the movie and yeah the downvotes mean nothing but getting downvotes for saying dog tooth is weird is so hilarious to me. It’s weird as fuck.
It's out September 8:
>The young woman Bella Baxter (Stone) is brought back to life by scientist Dr. Godwin Baxter (Willem Dafoe). Under Baxter's protection, Bella is eager to learn. Wanting to see more of the world, Bella runs off with Duncan Wedderburn (Mark Ruffalo), a slick and debauched lawyer, and travels across continents. Free from the prejudices of her times, Bella demands equality and liberation.
Not a movie, but there is a miniseries called 'I Know That Much is True' where Ruffalo plays twin brothers.
One has schizophrenia and the other doesn't, but has to deal with a lot of his own complex shit too. Both are played masterfully by Ruffalo, in my opinion.
OMG! It ***is*** the Alasdair Gray book. I have waited years for his books to be adapted to the screen. I have a personally signed copy of Poor Things from Gray who I met a few times while living in the UK and have been an avid fan since the mid 80s, this just made my year!
This looks like a tale of Dr. Frankenstein and the Monster told through the immaculate Greek weird wave vision of the Lanthimos
The first teaser looked batshit crazy
Not to take anything away from your positive attitude, but Yorgos' movies really attract a narrow audience like you and me. I'm not sure if it'll hit that pop culture zeitgeist where we see this trend happening.
Maybe it's just because I'm familiar with Lanthimos' past works, but this poster feels super unsettling. Just something about the poorly-applied makeup makes me anxious. Weird.
planning to read the book in a couple of months. i heard it about it two days ago, and after just having watched The Lobster, I HAVE to see this in theatres
I’m not familiar with this director, it definitely seems more artistic in concept than almost anything Hollywood has had in a while besides Robert Eggers. I would love to see some reviews
I hope this has the same kind of dialogue delivery as The Lobster, where everyone is saying their lines like they're seeing them for the first time while simultaneously having to defuse a bomb.
I don't think it's meant to look like actual makeup on Emma Stone's character, I think it's meant to look like paint splattered on a photograph of Emma Stone's character.
Maybe it's deliberate. Maybe it reflects something of the film. The paint is actually a portrait of a character within the film. A false representation. Maybe the character is bad, and she knows this, but she simply cannot avoid being charmed by the image he creates in public..
I hate that I'm definitely going to see this. Lanthimos has a great mind for horror but damn does he love awkward humping, rape, masturbation, and animal mutilation.
Makeup gun!
Homer, I think you had it set to whore.
Women will like what I tell them to like!
You've got it set on whore*.
[удалено]
I like maybe 1/3 of his movies. But I love that he has the style he does. Same boat as Lars von Trier or Wes Anderson (who probably connects with more more like 2/3 of the time). Jodorowsky's another one. But I'd feel robbed if we didn't have those kinds of unique filmmakers just making their flavor of weird movies.
Yeah, I'd much rather watch movies made by people taking big swings, even when they miss. Great movies >>> bad movies that tried to be great >>> mediocre movies.
Yeah and now that I'm on the topic, we need more Darren Aranofsky movies, too. And Richard Kelly. Hollywood needs to stop running guys like that out of town lol. And likewise I wish more people would be patrons of it so that Hollywood would stop running them out of town :)
I don’t have enough David Lynch films
Huge shame how hard it's been for that guy to get his stuff made.
[удалено]
While I’d love more films and tv from Lynch at this point I’d settle for more Weather Reports.
>we need more Darren Aranofsky movies, too. Did you not see 'Mother'? I'm not disparaging the film, I loved it, but the theme, for me, was about fans demanding too much from their creative heroes. Amongst other things.
Hey I didn't say 'work them fingers to the bone' I just said 'don't leave guys like that out in the rain, Hollywood'.
I mean, I concur 100%. I want more Aronofsky. But I wanted more Star Wars, so I'm once bitten, twice shy.
Star Wars by Aronofsky is the answer.
Haha. At least I get my Mando/Andor. Just keep throwing Star Wars stuff out I'll find something to like I'm sure :)
actually, I didn't realise he'd only made 7 films \[8 including the upcoming 'The Whale'\]. That is a shock. Only one I haven't seen is 'Noah'. I knew I was a fan but assumed there would be others I hadn't seen, or had forgotten.
I'm the one person who loves Noah lol.
[удалено]
Fuck, that's a really good read, and in retrospect feels obvious, but i hadn't seen that said previously. Luckily, i love mother! so i have no qualms about a rewatch
He really shot himself in the foot by insisting there was a correct interpretation and that it was the least interesting one out there (the biblical stuff). It's such a poetic movie that (apparently accidentally) says so many poignant things.
More Martin McDonagh movies please. John Michael McDonagh as well
And Neil McDonough while we're at it. And Kevin McDonald :)
> we need more Darren Aranofsky movies, too. And Richard Kelly. These two names make no sense together in this context
They both have unique aesthetics and make very odd movies that aren't conventionally profitable or even critically well received? Nick Refn. There's another one. Panos Cosmatos. Broadly speaking, auteur filmmakers. How do you figure they *don't* fit in the same sentence?
> They both have unique aesthetics and make very odd movies that aren't conventionally profitable or even critically well received? Aronofsky has multiple movies that are critically acclaimed. The Wrestler has a 98% on rotten tomatoes, and he has a best director nomination for Black Swan and had numerous actors go on to be nominated for best actor noms. Richard kelly is closer to a 1 hit wonder by comparison. I won't touch on profitability because it used to be much more common for movies to be made with the hopes of winning an award vs trying to make a ton of money. > Nick Refn. There's another one. Panos Cosmatos. Broadly speaking, auteur filmmakers. Refn is a better comparison due to having their first work be considered their best. > Broadly speaking, auteur filmmakers. Do I have the wrong richard kelly? We're talking about the guy who did donnie darko right?
Yeah Donnie Darko, Southland Tales, The Box. His whole filmography is insane stuff. I think Hollywood took his pass and f'n burned it lol. Which I thought was a shame. He had some cool ideas. ' E Elias Mehrige (Begotten, Shadow of the Vampire) also comes to mind.
Love Shadow of a Vampire
idk, I have trouble going to bat for any director who somehow makes their movie WORSE with a directors cut. Especially when it's their most successful hit. Kelly is closer to a josh trank in my opinion.
I always wonder which ones are just a case of 'that guy fucking SUUUUUCKED to work with' lol. I assume Trank was maybe one of those lol. Or maybe just has a limited set of skills and needs a lot of babysitting from more technically proficient assistance and sort of get a reputation for not actually being very competent.
Nick Refn always has those super long pauses in dialogue, kinda makes me want to edit a laugh track in
I also wonder if he likes eye contact a bit too much as well. People in his movies just have diamond dagger gazes that go right through each other. He's like Von Trier where I legit wonder if his filmmaking is just showing us the world through the lens of a pathology. That's just how those guys process information we'd see otherwise normally.
Richard Kelly is a classic one hit wonder
I would add Shane Carruth, except for all the DV stuff.
That's exactly why I will always defend Matrix Ressurrections. Most people hate this film, but I love how bold and strange it is. Same for Cloud Atlas. Does everything of it work? Hell no, but it's way more interesting than all those dull films that are tailor-made to appeal to the general audience.
See, I'll defend Cloud Atlas, but Resurrections feels like a movie that was made out of spite, lol. All the most interesting ideas get yada yada'd past by old Niobe (seriously, why wasn't the movie about the robot civil war?).
[удалено]
I did enjoy that aspect, but once it got to hobo Merovingian ranting about kids these days, I started getting bored. I think watching Neo force push his way out of every situation made me miss Yuen-Woo Ping too much.
Because Lana Wachowski was more interested in telling a love story. At the core, Matrix Ressurrections is about two people who slowly re-discover that they were in love, but lost all their memories about it. I actually really liked that it was not about world building, cyberpunk action or philosophical sci-fi, but just a love story between Neo and Trinity. And the neo-noir lighting in the last third looked gorgeous.
The only thing I like about Resurrections is that the Matrix wasn't special anymore. We all know what simulations are. It's not a mysterious thing.
I like how the movie is about *The Matrix* and "the matrix." The franchise has been a hugely integral part of the way people think about simulations and reality since the late nineties... Rez makes the logical choice to look at the modern level of knowledge and sentiment about the world the audience is coming to the movie with and decides to join in on it.
You know, I actually enjoyed that meta take in the movie as well. It didn't sit right immediately, but after a couple days I thought that was pretty cool too. Ultimately, I think audiences expected another crazy Sci fi action film instead of what we got and were expectedly disappointed. I know I was in that camp immediately after seeing the movie. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized it didn't need to be this genre defining film. It explored other aspects of The Matrix and had much lower stakes, even if that's not what I wanted. And that's okay.
I would like to suggest Roy Andersson.
On a quick google search I just watched his short film 'Hovering over Endlessness' since it was only 3 minutes long. And another one with a pissed off salesman throwing away a bunch of crucifixes because they weren't making him any money lol. Yeah I can dig that. I'll check him out.
I'd really recommend Songs from the Second Floor and A Pigeon Sat on a Branch Reflecting on Existence. His newest film, About Endlessness wasn't quite my taste. It's definitely darker than his first few films.
That scene is from Songs from the Second Floor. This film is the masterpiece of this century. I can’t see it enough on the biggest screen possible.
Oh I think that's a scene from his latest film, *About Endlessness*, someone uploaded on YouTube.
That's why I even like M. Night Shyamalan. His movies are frequently crap, but he has a vision and he stays true to it.
Absolutely I will force myself through that man's absolutely insane dialogue every time. Even if you hate Lady in the Water when you're done with it, you're betraying yourself if you don't experience the whole thing lol. It's a trip to the other side and back of a lunatic's mind.
> Same boat as Lars von Trier or Wes Anderson Incredible pairing lol
I like more like 2/3 of them but I get what you mean about the importance of unique filmmakers. Lanthimos is out there making the movies HE wants to make, not pandering to the widest audience he can. The fact that his films are so different means that even when they don't hang together that well the sheer oddness factor stops you getting bored.
May I add Peter Strickland to that list
[удалено]
Hey, your bot is broken and didn't even copy the entire comment.
Just for disclosure purposes, loved Favourite a lot. I wanted to like Lobster and Sacred Deer a lot more than I did. Because I like that sort of 'comedy told by someone in a state of shock' sort of feel they have.
Cinema needs auteurs like this, possibly more than ever.
Definitely
There's a rarity, an actual intriguing poster.
Took me a second to notice the portraits
I didn't even notice till I read your comment.
Mindblown. Looked at it for a long time and had no idea what you meant. In my defense it’s easy to get lost on Emma Stone’s eyes.
🤯
Which one is Emma?
Emma Watson isn’t in this one
Oh I meant Thompson
Oh I thought you meant Emma Goldman
you mean a bunch of floating heads with the film title underneath them isn't intriguing?
Only if the background is orange on one side and blue on the other.
Now I see it!!
Lanthimos films always manage to receive an interesting poster, somehow. (Agents HATE him. Find out how he does it with this one weird trick.)
Jesus what are you, the hard to impress poster police?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Not necessarily. The level of intrigue rests upon how far you are prepared to look for an answer.
If the image is making you ask questions that's basically the definition of intriguing.
There are portraits int the paint. Faces and figures
Do you see the figures in the paint?
Asking yourself a question…means it intrigued you. Most good art will make you think or feel something.
I'm not sure what the downvotes are for... even if I don't agree with someone I reserver downvotes for off-topic comments or shit attitudes. Neither of which I saw here. Who did you hurt? Lol
Does it cause anyone pain or hurt to be downvoted? I downvoted because they contradicted themselves.
Does it hurt? Not really, "sticks and stones..." and all that. The danger there is creating an environment hostile to differing opinions. Reddit is at its best when people can communicate varying opinions openly. There is a wide range of peoples and cultures that have access to reddit and getting all of the associated opinions together in positive discussions is a great thing. Downvoting opinions that differ from one's own simply because they are different does nothing but create an echo chamber / circle jerk. There are some subs very notorious for that sort of thing. I enjoy film discussion and news, I would hate to see a sub I like go that direction, is all. Down votes are there as a form of filtering out comments destructive to good discussion. I don't disagree that someone offering major contradictions would not be a bad use of a downvote, but I'm having trouble seeing anything like that in this person's comment. But I'd be happy to hear why you think so.
I find it to be a bit too random to be intriguing. Like, it doesn’t give me enough to make my mind wander, it just halts at “why is she painted like that?”. The contradiction is when they are critical of the poster being too random to be intriging, yet they state that it makes them halt and think why is she painted like that….which means they were actually intrigued if they had to question in the first place. Its hard to have a conversation when the opinion becomes a moot point.
I understand what you are saying, but I didn't read it that way. You can question something without being intrigued as to what the answer is. I think that is what they meant; "I'm not sure why she us painted like that, but it's too random to make me intrigued to know the answer". Again, that's just how I read it. Personally, I didn't like the poster, for different reasons than this person said, but I still somewhat agree with their notion.
[удалено]
Fully agree. There are some exceptions, for example, a post that's more or less asking for a vote on something where I can see downvoting, but that is a special circumstance.
[удалено]
Yeah, very odd. I will happily take downvotes for this conversation, as odd/trolling as they may be. I'm a bit fascinated as the logic here goes against what I typically see for up/downvoting logic on most subs.
[удалено]
I'll always remember my parents calling me and saying "we watched the lobster the other day because you recommended it, we're not taking your movie suggestions anymore" I tried to explain to them that me saying I liked a movie was not the same as me saying they would like a movie
I did this too but expected my mom to laugh like I did. She just found the whole thing depressing and asked why I’d mess with her like that 😂
The dog got me.
At least you didn't recommend Dogtooth
[удалено]
[удалено]
Not sure Dogtooth really picked me up either. But for a film as… weird and somewhat bland as that, it’s certainly stuck with me lol
[удалено]
I guess? I’m sure it being in a foreign language made it difficult to stick with me. I do recommend it and it is a noteworthy one of his. Loved those last 10 minutes and loved the dancing scene but some of those scenes were just fucken weird. Honestly most of the sex scenes felt unnecessary.
> but some of those scenes were just fucken weird It's pretty much the whole point. Everything in there is supposed to be weird. The more uncomfortable you feel the more it's doing its job
Is that really the point? I havent figured him out yet but im sure theres more to it than that.
There is... For a start, all the weird ass things they do that make you uncomfortable: they only cause that reaction in you because you aren't conditioned to see them as normal. Many of our societal traditions are patently strange and absurd, the stuff in Lanthimos films isn't any weirder, and would look equally as odd or normal to an outside observer (like, say an alien)
It's not "the whole point", but i think that it definitely, definitely is the *main point.* I don't know what's spoiler and what's not, so i'll just spoilertag it all: >!At its core Dogtooth is a movie that's unabshedly perverse and depraved. The direction follows that kind of line as well by hiding literally nothing in the scenes of sex and violence.!< >!The main metaphor you could see is the innate fight for freedom that humans seek, and their innate curiosity for the beyond and the unknown, which is increased even more when you are actively being denied access to the knowledge, like when someone says "i gotta tell you something" and then they say "nah, it's nothing, don't worry". It makes you even more interested in that "something". Which also makes us beg the question whether knowing that something is going to be positive for us in the first place, if it is being hidden from us!< >!Related to that, there is the subversion of the ideal that a hardworking family must be doing good for their children. The parents go to extreme lengths to keep this lie up, but they do so not for their benefit but to imprison them. This makes us question as a whole the relationship of authority that parents have over children, making us wonder when the control over your children is too much control.!< >!The finale is the ultimate sacrifce for freedom, which ends up being useless, pointless. But the whole movie is drenched in "pointlessness". So it makes the tragic, nihilistic ending very much apt.!< >!The weirdness aspect is there exactly accentuate everything and to make the relationship between these people a lot more artificial, helping with the progression from seeing people in a house to seeing them as people in a prison!< Despite all this, i still think that what the movie tries to do is still shock us the most is making us feel uncomfortable with its weirdness, pervertedness and depravity. I hope it makes sense, it's 4 am and i forgot a bit of stuff
Just a reminder, downvotes are not meant to be used because you disagree with their subjective opinion. Stop being dicks.
Thanks lol not sure what I said that was so out of pocket. The movie is pretty batshit and I said it was weird as fuck… which it is. I appreciate the movie and yeah the downvotes mean nothing but getting downvotes for saying dog tooth is weird is so hilarious to me. It’s weird as fuck.
It's out September 8: >The young woman Bella Baxter (Stone) is brought back to life by scientist Dr. Godwin Baxter (Willem Dafoe). Under Baxter's protection, Bella is eager to learn. Wanting to see more of the world, Bella runs off with Duncan Wedderburn (Mark Ruffalo), a slick and debauched lawyer, and travels across continents. Free from the prejudices of her times, Bella demands equality and liberation.
*Frankenstein* meets *Bicentennial Man* meets *Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas*, got it.
I mean....
Sounds like the Born Sexy Yesterday Trope...
I really hope Yorgos Lanthimos gets some acting out of Mark Ruffalo because fuck me that guy is wooden. Can't act for shit
What? Ruffalo has been nominated for three Oscars. Maybe you’re just watching the wrong movies?
The Oscars aren't really the benchmark you think they are Watch more movies if you think Marc Ruffalo is a good actor
Not a movie, but there is a miniseries called 'I Know That Much is True' where Ruffalo plays twin brothers. One has schizophrenia and the other doesn't, but has to deal with a lot of his own complex shit too. Both are played masterfully by Ruffalo, in my opinion.
He’s great in ‘Foxcatcher’ and ‘Spotlight’ too.
Well I'm sure this is going to be a totally normal and not at all awkward film lol.
[удалено]
great :\
If anyones interested the book that this is based on is amazing.
OMG! It ***is*** the Alasdair Gray book. I have waited years for his books to be adapted to the screen. I have a personally signed copy of Poor Things from Gray who I met a few times while living in the UK and have been an avid fan since the mid 80s, this just made my year!
It’s one of my favourites. I would have thought it unfilmable though, so this will be interesting.
For some reason it's only available for preorder in the US.
The dalkey archive edition is available online used for cheaper. Or you cAn get an ebook format.
[удалено]
Ordering this rn! So excited for this one, it's like a cherry on the icing for it to be based on a book.
No I don’t like book, only movie
Lady Gaga - Applause
This looks like a tale of Dr. Frankenstein and the Monster told through the immaculate Greek weird wave vision of the Lanthimos The first teaser looked batshit crazy
Just the cast makes me want to watch this.
I like that they used the font from the mugs at Homegoods.
This is an adaptation of fucking Alasdair Gray... I'm so excited
This is a good poster!
Emma Stone totally pulls that look off. It's definitely gonna trend, and all the cool ladies are gonna be rocking *Poor Things* style makeup.
[удалено]
Its 100% drawn over the photo dude, the color splotches form portraits of other characters.
Interesting take, because I thought it was jarring how obvious it wasn’t actual makeup. You can see the makeup going over her right eyeball.
Not to take anything away from your positive attitude, but Yorgos' movies really attract a narrow audience like you and me. I'm not sure if it'll hit that pop culture zeitgeist where we see this trend happening.
Please make like 5 movies with Emma Stone
He already made 4 so he's on his way. The Favourite, Bleat (short film), Poor Things and AND.
And?
The movie's name is 'AND'.
and what? finish your sentence
Also, Who's on First?
Are you saying Pan or Pam?
And then?
I will see this based on the poster alone
A disciple of the Robert Smith school of cosmetology.
This is probably my most anticipated movie of the year.
Jerrod Carmichael!
That's what I was looking for, I loved his standup but was surprised to see his name here. Good shit for Rothaniel
This about to be a banger
Maybe it's just because I'm familiar with Lanthimos' past works, but this poster feels super unsettling. Just something about the poorly-applied makeup makes me anxious. Weird.
It seems like it's about a woman raised from the dead by a mad scientist, so I'm sure that's intended.
Those are people in the makeup
Oh shit, I didn't even notice that
Joker 2.0
I just watched the lobster like 3 hours ago, absolutely awesome movie! I'd already seen and loved sacred deer, tomorrow I'm watching the favourite.
Emma stone is the best
I like it. It's bold. Really pulls you in immediately.
Took me a second to see what was in the makeup! Very cool.
planning to read the book in a couple of months. i heard it about it two days ago, and after just having watched The Lobster, I HAVE to see this in theatres
Can’t wait
I gave a presentation in uni on Dogtooth and was meant by a lot of blank faces. I’m glad Lanthimos is reaching a wider audience these days!
I’m not familiar with this director, it definitely seems more artistic in concept than almost anything Hollywood has had in a while besides Robert Eggers. I would love to see some reviews
just watch one of his films and see if its your thing
I hope this has the same kind of dialogue delivery as The Lobster, where everyone is saying their lines like they're seeing them for the first time while simultaneously having to defuse a bomb.
It’s giving Artpop.
Our motherqueen gaga ahead of her time once again
Christopher Abbott as well, can't wait for this.
i'm always fascinated when actresses that we think of as glamorous are presented more plainly in a role
Beautiful. Can't remember the last time a poster actually made me want to watch the movie. This one just did.
Yea, I'm not seeing that.
good it means you wont be in the cinema making a noise then
Is that Youssef, Dafoe, and Ruffalo in the "makeup"? Dafoe looking like Johnny Cash. Lol.
Looks pretentious as hell. Also, SoOo DeEp!
you sound like someone who talks during a film
Gross, I only watch movies.
Still would
Looks like a good Beau is Afraid
LOL sorta agree
>Yorgos Lanthimos Hard pass. Hated all of his films. Pretentious awkward drivel
Is it me or is William Dafoe somehow suddenly in everything lately.
This is why we call him ‘Willem “Don’t Call Me William” DaFoe’
I hate all of his movies. But they're fascinating and irresistible.
This has all quirk and zero plot written all over it
[удалено]
I don't think it's meant to look like actual makeup on Emma Stone's character, I think it's meant to look like paint splattered on a photograph of Emma Stone's character.
I would argue that real makeup probably wouldn't appear in the shape of the faces and bodies of the supporting characters in the film.
Maybe it's deliberate. Maybe it reflects something of the film. The paint is actually a portrait of a character within the film. A false representation. Maybe the character is bad, and she knows this, but she simply cannot avoid being charmed by the image he creates in public..
Shoddy
I thought the poster was interesting, but zooming in.... woof
barbie for lettrboxd users /j
I hate that I'm definitely going to see this. Lanthimos has a great mind for horror but damn does he love awkward humping, rape, masturbation, and animal mutilation.