BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW said:
Well, I did start, but no-one joined in.
Anyone else got anything to say about 13 Tzameti?
-
CES Hands On - Samsung HW-Q990F review
- Status
Well, I did start, but no-one joined in.
Anyone else got anything to say about 13 Tzameti?
BenLaw
Well-known member
I love Moon, saw it at the cinema. Watched The Prestige the other day and thought it would make a good companion piece.
BenLaw said:
I'll look out for that Ben, though it does have Bale and Caine in it, and they're not favourites of mine.
Looks a good film though, so I'll try to ignore my personal feelings for the duration of the film.
BenLaw
Well-known member
Caine'a pretty restrained. Bale's wavering accent and general demeanour may annoy you but I thought it was a good film.
John Duncan
Well-known member
BenLaw
Well-known member
Hi-FiOutlaw
Well-known member
John Duncan
Well-known member
Yes we have. I found it to be one of the more gruelling films I've seen in terms of emotional involvement. Not since I watched United 93 and was thinking "donttakeoffdonttakeoffdonttakeoff" (rather optimistically) have I felt quite so sick with nerves.
I really like Tzameti.
Considering the obviously low budget, it's an incredible accomplishment, and although I haven't seen the remake 13 (with the same director), I'm almost certain that it will be superior in every way. For me, it's the low budget that gives the film that air of bleakness and desperation that it really needs (considering the subject matter), and as talented as the writer/director is, I think he may well struggle to surpass it
Considering the obviously low budget, it's an incredible accomplishment, and although I haven't seen the remake 13 (with the same director), I'm almost certain that it will be superior in every way. For me, it's the low budget that gives the film that air of bleakness and desperation that it really needs (considering the subject matter), and as talented as the writer/director is, I think he may well struggle to surpass it
Hi-FiOutlaw
Well-known member
BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW said:
I agree with you regarding beeing incredible accomplish in the low budget devision, but personaly i found it a disturded and perturbing movie, it's not my cup of tea...
it shows how low the human can get when is envolved making money by betting!
Hi-FiOutlaw said:
I'm afraid that's the reality of life, some people are so desperate that they will risk their lives for money, and some are so greedy, that they will do anything for the same money.
Who's to say that this game doesn't exist somewhere?
Hi-FiOutlaw
Well-known member
BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW said:
"Which came first, the egg or the chicken...?" :?
if it didn't exist sure give some good ideas to some degenerate minds...
I found myself imagining a British version, with plutocrats jeering, House of Commons style, at young and hopeless contestants.
BenLaw
Well-known member
I preface by saying I thought this was a good film, well acted and enjoyable (although not in the fun lovin' sense). I did, however, find it problematic. It seems to me two things have to be present truly to be gripped by the centre of the film: (i) belief in what was going on, or at least the willing suspension of disbelief, and (ii) investment in (at least one of) the characters.
Unfortunately, I felt the film failed in both regards. The central part of the film was certainly well directed and well acted and consequently tense. However, a couple of little things pulled me out of the 'reality' of it, which have to be put down to insufficient work on the concept and script. The betting made no sense. It seemed clear to me the filmmakers were aware of this and kind of tried to gloss over it, but they also tried to add tension via the minor players, suggesting extra pressure from the losing bosses negotiating to bet on those contestants left in. As I say, it made no sense.
There were a few other small things, but the other glaring one it seemed to me was the history of the other finalist. I can't remember the precise numbers but it was suggested he had won such events several times before and triumphed in the final duel several times. This was utterly implausible, as it remained fundamentally a game of chance, certainly in the early rounds. Were there rounds of 1, 2, 3 and 4 bullets before the duel? So 5/6 x 4/6 x 3/6 x 2/6 chance of survival? Less than 1 in 10? Repeated over many competitions? And why would betters be obssess over the calibre of the competitor when it was fundamentally a game of chance? I'm guessing people will disagree, but as I say this all pulled me out of the moment.
It also, of course, suffered the inevitable fate on the level of peril that these films can sustain, in that we know our protagonist is going to survive deep into the competition.
As for my second point, I should say I really enjoyed the opening part of the film, perhaps more than the competition part. However, the characterisation of the protagonist was limited and what there was didn't make me care about him. Pulling both points together, it seemed to me he had insufficient motivation to be heading off into the unknown as he did.
It's a long time since I watched it all the way through, but The Deer Hunter is the obvious comparison to this film. It seems to me that succeeded where this film failed. It spend upwards of an hour with the characters, allowing you get to know them, flaws and all, and the setup was more believable / capable of allowing suspension of disbelief.
Anyway, excellent choice and much enjoyed.
Unfortunately, I felt the film failed in both regards. The central part of the film was certainly well directed and well acted and consequently tense. However, a couple of little things pulled me out of the 'reality' of it, which have to be put down to insufficient work on the concept and script. The betting made no sense. It seemed clear to me the filmmakers were aware of this and kind of tried to gloss over it, but they also tried to add tension via the minor players, suggesting extra pressure from the losing bosses negotiating to bet on those contestants left in. As I say, it made no sense.
There were a few other small things, but the other glaring one it seemed to me was the history of the other finalist. I can't remember the precise numbers but it was suggested he had won such events several times before and triumphed in the final duel several times. This was utterly implausible, as it remained fundamentally a game of chance, certainly in the early rounds. Were there rounds of 1, 2, 3 and 4 bullets before the duel? So 5/6 x 4/6 x 3/6 x 2/6 chance of survival? Less than 1 in 10? Repeated over many competitions? And why would betters be obssess over the calibre of the competitor when it was fundamentally a game of chance? I'm guessing people will disagree, but as I say this all pulled me out of the moment.
It also, of course, suffered the inevitable fate on the level of peril that these films can sustain, in that we know our protagonist is going to survive deep into the competition.
As for my second point, I should say I really enjoyed the opening part of the film, perhaps more than the competition part. However, the characterisation of the protagonist was limited and what there was didn't make me care about him. Pulling both points together, it seemed to me he had insufficient motivation to be heading off into the unknown as he did.
It's a long time since I watched it all the way through, but The Deer Hunter is the obvious comparison to this film. It seems to me that succeeded where this film failed. It spend upwards of an hour with the characters, allowing you get to know them, flaws and all, and the setup was more believable / capable of allowing suspension of disbelief.
Anyway, excellent choice and much enjoyed.
Since we're discussing plausibility, the film was loaded with contrivances.
I found the circumstances leading to the protagonist's involvement in the competition just as implausible as the denouement, since both relied on extraordinary coincidences.
Certainly we could guess that the protagonist would survive most or all of the film's running time, but the same criticism can be levelled at the great majority of narrative cinema. (I guess the filmmakers could have performed the Hitchcock trick and killed off the protagonist early, then focused on another character's story.)
Narratively, therefore, the film is rather silly; though perhaps we shouldn't be discussing the film in terms of realism, despite an ostensibly realist aesthetic. (The film mixed a realist style with more subjective, expressionistic flourishes.)
Perhaps more importantly, and taking the writer/director's background into account, it was a film about a numbing of the moral sense and incapacity for empathy. With this in mind, I thought the film worked as social critique in two ways:
1. The competition was a form of spectacle, with customers paying (albeit through a form of gambling) to watch extreme and exploitative violence. If not as overtly self-reflexive as a Michael Haneke film, the film made a similar point and asked spectators to reflect on their position.
2. As allegory the film dealt with themes of social order, with a wealthy elite callously gambling with less fortunate characters' lives. This message resonates in a multiplicity of contemporaneous (and historical) socio-political contexts, hence my British translation above.
Beyond the above, the film packed more tension than many recent blockbusters. In my experience, most recent large budget action spectacles are unbearably bombastic, featuring never-ending near-misses, rapid shot transitions, endlessly pulsating soundtracks, and little else. I tune out when people shout loudly about little indeed.
That a polemicist's view of the state of cinema, and I don't want to perpetuate a mainstream-art cinema binary, but I'd still rather watch Tzameti than Transformers.
I found the circumstances leading to the protagonist's involvement in the competition just as implausible as the denouement, since both relied on extraordinary coincidences.
Certainly we could guess that the protagonist would survive most or all of the film's running time, but the same criticism can be levelled at the great majority of narrative cinema. (I guess the filmmakers could have performed the Hitchcock trick and killed off the protagonist early, then focused on another character's story.)
Narratively, therefore, the film is rather silly; though perhaps we shouldn't be discussing the film in terms of realism, despite an ostensibly realist aesthetic. (The film mixed a realist style with more subjective, expressionistic flourishes.)
Perhaps more importantly, and taking the writer/director's background into account, it was a film about a numbing of the moral sense and incapacity for empathy. With this in mind, I thought the film worked as social critique in two ways:
1. The competition was a form of spectacle, with customers paying (albeit through a form of gambling) to watch extreme and exploitative violence. If not as overtly self-reflexive as a Michael Haneke film, the film made a similar point and asked spectators to reflect on their position.
2. As allegory the film dealt with themes of social order, with a wealthy elite callously gambling with less fortunate characters' lives. This message resonates in a multiplicity of contemporaneous (and historical) socio-political contexts, hence my British translation above.
Beyond the above, the film packed more tension than many recent blockbusters. In my experience, most recent large budget action spectacles are unbearably bombastic, featuring never-ending near-misses, rapid shot transitions, endlessly pulsating soundtracks, and little else. I tune out when people shout loudly about little indeed.
That a polemicist's view of the state of cinema, and I don't want to perpetuate a mainstream-art cinema binary, but I'd still rather watch Tzameti than Transformers.
BenLaw
Well-known member
I agree with a lot of what you have to say, but . . .
This is only true to an extent. The brother team are clearly not divided economically, they are acting as a partnership (bad toss of the coin to lose, I summise). The dead house owner also appears to be relatively well off and my recollection of the opening scenes is that it was suggested he carried out a variety of criminal jobs, not exclusively the russian roulette game. Also, a couple of the betters / handlers are themsleves represented as economically desperate, certainly when they no longer have a 'player' in the game. Given that the 'house' is clearly involved in the betting and stakes and the enforcement of the rules of the game, maybe there is at least the suggestion of the casino - gambler type relationship, with the parties being economically exploited by those with capital.
I'd rather watch almost anything than Transformers. Did you see Rise of the Planet of the Apes? For me that was a rare recent example of a 'blockbuster' with a bit of thought and intelligence behind it.
strapped for cash said:
This is only true to an extent. The brother team are clearly not divided economically, they are acting as a partnership (bad toss of the coin to lose, I summise). The dead house owner also appears to be relatively well off and my recollection of the opening scenes is that it was suggested he carried out a variety of criminal jobs, not exclusively the russian roulette game. Also, a couple of the betters / handlers are themsleves represented as economically desperate, certainly when they no longer have a 'player' in the game. Given that the 'house' is clearly involved in the betting and stakes and the enforcement of the rules of the game, maybe there is at least the suggestion of the casino - gambler type relationship, with the parties being economically exploited by those with capital.
I'd rather watch almost anything than Transformers. Did you see Rise of the Planet of the Apes? For me that was a rare recent example of a 'blockbuster' with a bit of thought and intelligence behind it.
That's the thing with allegory, though, as opposed to literalism.
In a broad sense, there was a form of economic exploitation taking place that involved lethal violence as spectacle. I was really arguing that the film invited such appropriation.
I certainly wouldn't suggest that all blockbusters are brainless, hence my not wanting to perpetuate a mainstream-art cinema binary comment. However, many big-budget spectacles I've seen of late had me wondering if Ritalin would've helped.
Rise of the Planet of the Apes had more soul than most recent blockbusters.
In a broad sense, there was a form of economic exploitation taking place that involved lethal violence as spectacle. I was really arguing that the film invited such appropriation.
I certainly wouldn't suggest that all blockbusters are brainless, hence my not wanting to perpetuate a mainstream-art cinema binary comment. However, many big-budget spectacles I've seen of late had me wondering if Ritalin would've helped.
Rise of the Planet of the Apes had more soul than most recent blockbusters.
BenLaw
Well-known member
I also thought Super 8 was great, although I'm not sure if it was sufficiently mainstream to be called a blockbuster.
Apologies, Ben. It perhaps feels like I'm going out of my way to be disagreeable. (I'm honestly not.)
I was pretty underwhelmed by Super 8. It felt like a facsimile of an Amblin film, touched-up by CGI. I was left wondering quite what the point was.
By comarison, despite its obvious connection to large movie franchise, Rise of the Planet of the Apes felt fresher and more inventive, to me at least.
I also thought Moon fell apart in the final act, though Rockwell put in a very good performance.
I often disagree with critical consensus, however. For instance, I really hated The Cabin in the Woods.
I'm ducking for cover...
I was pretty underwhelmed by Super 8. It felt like a facsimile of an Amblin film, touched-up by CGI. I was left wondering quite what the point was.
By comarison, despite its obvious connection to large movie franchise, Rise of the Planet of the Apes felt fresher and more inventive, to me at least.
I also thought Moon fell apart in the final act, though Rockwell put in a very good performance.
I often disagree with critical consensus, however. For instance, I really hated The Cabin in the Woods.
I'm ducking for cover...
Incidentally, did anyone get any films as Christmas presents?
I got Battleship Potemkin and The Night of the Hunter on Blu-ray. I also treated myself to Zero Dark Thirty, since I still haven't seen it and the BD had dropped sufficiently in price. In fact, there's nothing on TV, so I think I'll pop it in the Blu-ray player now...
I got Battleship Potemkin and The Night of the Hunter on Blu-ray. I also treated myself to Zero Dark Thirty, since I still haven't seen it and the BD had dropped sufficiently in price. In fact, there's nothing on TV, so I think I'll pop it in the Blu-ray player now...
BenLaw
Well-known member
strapped for cash said:
I'm sure you're not being deliberately disagreeable. It doesn't bother me if someone else doesn't like a film that I do. Given your dislike of feeling manipulated it doesn't surprise me that you dislike Super 8 but I liked the gentle Spielberg-esque sentimentality.
I should probably rewatch Moon. I have the blu but haven't seen it since the cinema. Not seen Cabin.
BenLaw
Well-known member
strapped for cash said:
I have bought quite a few for myself and others at and just after Christmas. After a 'hot deal' posted on here I bought Breaking Bad (complete blu ray) and Clodagh and I are absolutely loving it, really compelling stuff.
I also finally got some decent prices on Das Testament Des Dr Mabuse and The Elephant Man. I also found a few films I've been looking to upgrade from DVD to blu in an Amazon 3 for £17 deal, so got 12 Angry Men, Groundhog Day and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Happy days
BenLaw
Well-known member
I should say that over the last year or so I've been trying to balance my DVD books by getting rid of roughly as many discs as I purchase. I went through a phase of buying all the best picture Oscar winners. Neither is a bad movie, but why on earth did How Green Was My Valley? and From Here to Eternity ever win best picture?!
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I'm an AV expert, here are the most exciting TVs I saw at CES 2025- Started by What Hi-Fi?
- Replies: 2
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram