Main Menu

Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 29, 2024, 12:37:20 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Top 5 of 2014

Started by Noodle Lizard, December 06, 2014, 06:49:36 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Johnny Textface

Quote from: Kolba on December 10, 2014, 11:55:56 PM
Under the Skin's ending was spoiled for me. Has it ruined the film?

No, there's no twist. The ending is simply where the story ends.  The journey of the girl is really what the film is about (apart from subtext).

Junglist

Quote from: Johnny Textface on December 10, 2014, 11:10:16 PM
1, Fruitvale Station

Fruitvale that good then? I've had it for a while but never got round to it.

Johnny Textface

Quote from: Junglist on December 11, 2014, 12:32:29 AM
Fruitvale that good then? I've had it for a while but never got round to it.

Yeah I loved it - I like a good uncontrollable sob sesh.

Bad Ambassador

Quote from: Nibbsy on December 10, 2014, 04:17:12 PM
I got bored and compiled a list of the most selected films in the thread:

1. Under The Skin                    16
2. The Grand Budapest Hotel   8
3. The Lego Movie                    7
4. Nymphomaniac                    4
5. Pride                                    4
6. Mr Turner                            4
7. Calvary                                4
8. Boyhood                             3
9. Two Days, One Night          3
10. Guardians of the Galaxy    3
11. Nightcrawler                      3
12. Locke                                3

I've changed my list, sorry.
Pride is out, Wake in Fright moves up to 4 and Nightcrawler is in at 5.

Bad Ambassador

Updated league table.

1. Under the Skin                    18
2. The Grand Budapest Hotel   8
3. The Lego Movie                    7
4. Nightcrawler                         6
5=. Calvary                                4
5=. Nymphomaniac                    4
5=. Pride                                    4
5=. Mr Turner                            4
9=. The Babadook                     3
9=. Boyhood                             3
9=. Dawn of the Planet of the Apes     3
9=. Guardians of the Galaxy    3
9=. The Guest                          3
9=. Locke                                3
9=. The Raid 2                          3
9=. Two Days, One Night          3

2 votes each

Alan Partridge: Alpha Papa
Her
Inside Llewyn Davis
Nebraska
They Came Together
We Are the Best!

1 vote each

12 Years a Slave
22 Jump Street
All This Mayhem
Birdman
Black Sea
Blue is the Warmest Colour
Blue Ruin
Camille Claudelle
Captain America: The Winter Soldier
Dallas Buyers Club
The Dirties
Edge of Tomorrow
Exhibition
Final Cut
Frank
Fruitvale Station
A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night
Gone Girl
Goodbye to Language 3D
The Great Beauty
How To Train Your Dragon 2
Ida
Jodorowsky's Dune
Leviathan
Listen Up Philip
Maps to the Stars
Miss Violence
Mood Indigo
Night Moves
Norte, The End of History
Peter De Rome: Grandfather of Gay Porn
Predestination
Prisoners
St. Vincent
The Skeleton Twins
Sound of Noise
A Spell to Ward Off the Darkness
Stranger by the Lake
Tom at the Farm
A Touch of Sin
Wake in Fright
You Are the Night

Pit-Pat

Calvary
The Babadook
Locke
Inside Llewyn Davis
The Grand Budapest Hotel

Custard

#66
Pity The Raid 2 isn't getting more love, as I thought it was ace, but I can see why people would consider it a bit too different to the first film, and overly talky. And overly long too, probably

Yet somehow it worked for me. Maybe cos I saw it at the pictures, so had no choice but to give it my full attention

Wonder how it'll hold up on a second watch

EDIT - Wait, it has 3 votes. That's not too bad. Thought it was 1!

Hooray for the films!

Paaaaul

The Raid 2 definitely holds up to another watch. The pacing is unusual for an action film in that it builds speed for the first 90 minutes, and is like an unstoppable juggernaut from the car chase onwards. On my second watch at home,I found myself focused a lot more on the plot and characters than my cinema visit.

weekender

I did really enjoy The Raid 2, but it didn't make my top 5 of the year.

Maybe individual films should have their own thread?

Squink

Quote from: Puce Moment on December 10, 2014, 07:21:13 PMI have to say that this thread does not represent the views of those I know well, the majority of which thought Under the Skin was pretentious nonsense, including a handful of film studies professors.

I didn't like Under the Skin, but I would have liked the pretentious nonsense factor to be upped in it. Mostly I thought it was pretty dull, with a soupçon of moodiness masquerading as depth.

Ja'moke

Quote from: Kolba on December 10, 2014, 11:55:56 PM
Under the Skin's ending was spoiled for me. Has it ruined the film?

No. The cinematography, sound, tone and atmosphere are what makes the film great.

newbridge

I didn't find the cinematography particularly remarkable, but I knew the basic spoiler (?)
Spoiler alert
(that she is an alien)
[close]
of Under the Skin and it didn't ruin it. The plot isn't very important.

undeliberated

I hardly watched anything new this year.

Of those things I did see

Were Great:
Ida
We are the Best!

Were Fine:
Birdman
Alpha Papa
Dear White People

Was Terrible:
Inbetweeners 2

So add the top 2 to the overall list.  And the middle three can go on if it's a matter of precise calibration that every nominator must have five films of weight. But I wouldn't go out of my way to recommend them to anyone...

Noodle Lizard

Quote from: newbridge on December 12, 2014, 03:21:12 AM
I didn't find the cinematography particularly remarkable, but I knew the basic Spoiler (?)
Spoiler alert
(that she is an alien)
[close]
of Under the Skin and it didn't ruin it. The plot isn't very important.

So wait, you didn't find the cinematography to be much cop and the plot isn't very important.  What was it that earned it the number 4 spot on your list?

Personally, I think the cinematography and score is the best thing about it.  There's some lovely-looking stuff in there.

Puce Moment

The Guardian's Top Ten is in:

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/dec/12/top-10-films-of-2014-complete-uk-chart

The only surprises are that they include 12 Years a Slave which I had assumed was a 2013 film (but would not have made my list anyway due to being pony), the inclusion of Inside Llewyn Davis which I thought was perfectly fine but hasn't made many top 10 lists, and Under the Skin taking the top spot which makes it a CaB-friendly top 10, but most other lists have placed it lower.

Hank Venture

Quote from: Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth on December 08, 2014, 12:56:25 AM
3. The Guest
'80s style action thriller with a cracking lead performance and quite possibly the best soundtrack of the year. See here for a (slightly) more detailed review.

That was a cracking flick. Like a mix of Funny Games and Drive, with a bit more self-awareness.

studs

12 Years a Slave won the 2013 Oscar for Best Picture like a year ago, are there no rules??

El Unicornio, mang

It didn't get released in the UK until 2014 though, so is eligible.

newbridge

Quote from: Noodle Lizard on December 12, 2014, 10:50:50 AM
So wait, you didn't find the cinematography to be much cop and the plot isn't very important.  What was it that earned it the number 4 spot on your list?

Personally, I think the cinematography and score is the best thing about it.  There's some lovely-looking stuff in there.

I'm distinguishing plot from the concept of the movie, the atmospherics, and how it is executed. The entire plot can be summarized in 1-2 sentences, I don't think it matters much to know it in advance.

There are some interesting visuals, but to me they were more on the special-effects side. I didn't notice the cinematography or camera work while watching it.


newbridge

Nope, not really. Doesn't mean I didn't like it.

Puce Moment

Quote from: newbridge on December 13, 2014, 05:58:29 PMNope, not really. Doesn't mean I didn't like it.

Of course not, I like a lot of films for reasons other than cinematography. But to not notice it in such a visual film is surprising to me.

newbridge

Quote from: Puce Moment on December 13, 2014, 06:01:46 PM
Of course not, I like a lot of films for reasons other than cinematography. But to not notice it in such a visual film is surprising to me.

Interesting visuals is not necessarily the same thing as interesting cinematography.

Puce Moment

So you noticed the visuals but not the cinematography or camera work?

Sam

Quote from: newbridge on December 13, 2014, 07:18:30 PM
Interesting visuals is not necessarily the same thing as interesting cinematography.

For fuck's sake.

newbridge

#85
If I snap a polaroid of Ronnie Corbett wearing clown makeup while he is participating in a gang bang, that is visually interesting, but it doesn't mean I've taken a well-composed or commendable photograph.

Sam

Yes but we're talking about Under the Skin, a film universally applauded for its cinematography, not your imaginary shit picture. As it is, the things in the frame are arresting and then the framing itself is arresting. In this case they go hand in hand. Failure to see that would seem less a subjective opinion and more a lack of faculties or an impairment in perception.

Puce Moment

Quote from: newbridge on December 14, 2014, 12:58:50 AMIf I snap a polaroid of Ronnie Corbett wearing clown makeup while he is participating in a gang bang, that is visually interesting, but it doesn't mean I've taken a well-composed or commendable photograph.

Just to be clear, I didn't think you were commenting on how well composed or commendable the photography is in Under the Skin, I simply thought you were saying you didn't notice the cinematography or camera work. Which is a quite different thing, and potentially quite a compliment to Daniel Landin.

I appreciate the difference between, say, mise-en-scène and art direction, and cinematography and camera work, but I was just interested in what it was you noticed visually, that managed to exclude the photography. 

newbridge

Quote from: Sam on December 14, 2014, 01:23:06 AM
Yes but we're talking about Under the Skin, a film universally applauded for its cinematography, not your imaginary shit picture. As it is, the things in the frame are arresting and then the framing itself is arresting. In this case they go hand in hand. Failure to see that would seem less a subjective opinion and more a lack of faculties or an impairment in perception.

Hey dum dum, people can have different opinions on things. I liked the film very much. But the cinematography itself was not something I found particularly compelling or impressive. A wide shot of the Scottish countryside can be incredibly beautiful but for me personally that is different than saying it is a great piece of cinematography. As a matter of fact, since we are belaboring the point, I thought there were some scenes that were noticeably under-lit to the point that it was somewhat distracting. But again, I liked the movie!

Quote from: Puce Moment on December 14, 2014, 01:27:35 AM
I appreciate the difference between, say, mise-en-scène and art direction, and cinematography and camera work, but I was just interested in what it was you noticed visually, that managed to exclude the photography. 

For example,
Spoiler alert
I thought the scenes with Scarlet Johansson and her victims in the abandoned house, and the scene of the entombed men with the one who collapses/dissolves, were very interesting. I didn't jump out of my seat and say, "Wow, what cinematography!"
[close]

Puce Moment

QuoteFor example, I thought the scenes with Scarlet Johansson and her victims in the abandoned house, and the scene of the entombed men with the one who collapses/dissolves, were very interesting. I didn't jump out of my seat and say, "Wow, what cinematography!"

Yep, Daniel Landin is a wonderful cinematographer.