4. "This shit is excellent." In response to Reply # 0
I have a lot of thoughts that I need to sort through but for now, this has (so far) the best score and cinematography of the year. Claire Foy deserves Best Supporting Actress. And the sound design is incredible.
If you live near a real IMAX that can has Laser see it that way. Trust me.
5. "I'm sure both Smithsonian museums will have this playing" In response to Reply # 4
Just need to sort out which one to go and see this. Really intrigued.
<-- Dave Thomas knows what's up... __________________________
Jay: Look here homie, any nigga can get a hit record. This here is about respect. Game: Like Gladys Knight. Jay: Aretha Franklin. Game: Word, I like her too. Jay: Nigga...
6. "I *almost* nodded off near the end." In response to Reply # 0
Second time this year I've been incredibly hyped for a movie then barely made it through to the end (the first was You Were Never Really Here), and that had never happened to me before this year. Turning 30 is rough.
Personally, I wasn't sure why I saw this in IMAX. Most of the movie takes place on the ground, and most of the shots are close-ups of people's faces. I was reminded of the Friday Night Lights NBC series so often by the cinematography, I was shocked by how often scenes were just a person's face and little else. Gosling and Foy are beautiful, sure, but it was a lot for a screen that big IMO.
I'm also mad I watched that initial launch footage when it was put up on Youtube, since it's easily the best scene in the movie. I was expecting a lot more of that sort of mechanical dread but it only crept up in small bits from then on.
From the falling asleep comment it probably comes across like I liked this movie a lot less than I did; unlike You Were Never Really Here, I feel like I really enjoyed this one, I just felt like the IMAX viewing was being a bit extra and by the end of the film I was feeling both underserved in terms of what I wanted and overserved in terms of how long the movie was overall considering it was kind of light on details.
I also think the prestigious approach to the cinematography helps mask the ways in which this often feels like pretty standard biopic material. Since it's not about a musician or set to the tune of contemporary hit music of the era or light-hearted in any way it doesn't feel like that at surface level, but that feeling of sort of methodical moving forward toward an inevitable moment. Another reason I want to see it a second time, probably on a regular screen, is to see if I was just starting to look for flaws in the movie or if that feels thematically consist with an otherwise robotic, mechanical, pretty stark journey for Armstrong.
Frank Longo Member since Nov 18th 2003 86672 posts
Sun Oct-21-18 09:51 AM
7. "One of the best biopics of the last few years. Terrific movie." In response to Reply # 0
I agree with bwood, Foy is incredible in what should be a rote, cliched role. What Gosling and Chazelle do with Armstrong is genuinely bold-- most actors/filmmakers wouldn't have the balls to have such an internalized character as the lead of a major prestige studio film (of course, this is likely one of the reasons it's not doing well at the box office, but it's a terrific choice artistically). The production value is exceptional-- I expect Oscar noms for the excellent score, sound design, sound editing, costumes, production design, maybe editing. So much better than the usual "Oscar biopic."
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
Pass The Popcorn
