LateReg

Appears to be shot in one take though, and that, coupled with its sheer exuberance and every moment of the sequence being better/more complex than the last, make it worthy of the hype imo. It's the relationship between the camera, the setting (and accompanying props - cars, bikes, etc) and the choreography that make the scene.

Yes, it's very funny actually. But that's Kenneth Lonergan's beautifully light and balanced touch.

You must not like or have never seen any Bela Tarr films. Or Jeanne Dielman. Or any other masterpiece of the sort. I love the rhythms of simply living onscreen.

I think it's as smart as a piece of pure popcorn gets, actually.

I think Fifth Element and Lucy are about equal. Fifth Element is sprawling, glorious, stupid fun; Lucy is tight, deceptively smart pure pop. For what it's worth, Lucy has a higher metascore...by 9 points. Fifth Element had to grow into a sort-of classic; Lucy will grow as well.

EXACTLY. It's very French and serves a very specific aesthetic. And Lucy is one of Besson's best movies and one of the smartest pop entertainments of the past few years.

I appreciate this discussion very much, especially because I don't think there's anything black and white about it. Contrary to what @That One Guy said in a different thread, I think the ONLY way to be a movie buff is to pirate movies. I've engaged in discussions with people where they've detailed a long history of rare films that could only be seen through bootlegs. Distribution of foreign and indie and art films is a major problem that needs to be resolved. Given the choice between not seeing something and seeing something is a no-brainer. Sometimes there's no other choice but to find a way to trade. And it's important to have passion, to search high and low for a movie. That said, I don't believe in watching anything on a cam-rip as artistic integrity must be preserved. I don't believe in pirating any movies that are down the street at your local multiplex or even an hour away. But I absolutely will not wait three to six to sometimes nine months for a foreign film to get home video treatment in the United States. For example, Toni Erdmann. There's no way in hell this movie is coming near me, and I've been waiting for it since its Cannes premiere. I'm going to watch it any way I can the moment I can. And then when it comes out on Blu-ray, I'm going to buy it. That's why I feel perfectly fine with my own piracy. I go to the theater whenever possible, and I own a region free Blu-ray player and upwards of 6000 movies. Lately, as with The Handmaiden, some companies are not putting movies on Blu-ray, but only DVD. If the movie is released on Blu-ray in another country, I will buy that. But if it is only released on DVD here, I will no longer buy it because I think that company is doing cinephiles a great disservice, essentially dumbing down the medium to cut their costs. A movie as beautiful and acclaimed as The Handmaiden...not coming out on Blu-ray in the US? The company putting that out deserves to be punished, in my opinion. The problem is that the filmmakers are also being punished if I don't buy the disc. But by not buying it (an inferior DVD) I would hope that I send a message of my own. In the case of The Handmaiden, I will buy the Korean CJ Entertainment digipak Blu-ray. But in the case of something like The Americans, which FX only puts out on DVD since the second season, I refuse to buy it in hopes of a Blu-ray boxset once the show concludes. (The first season has a Blu-ray, which I own, but the second season is only on DVD, and it looked horrid in comparison to the first season as well as many other dvds on the market.) So yeah, I think piracy is a vital part of cinema knowledge since distribution is such a problem unless you live in New York or LA. But I also feel I'm in the clear from any immorality or illegality because I only pirate to see something that otherwise can't be seen, and then buy the physical copy when it is finally made available in the proper format. I fully understand that most people don't do it this way, but I'd still rather that others sought out everything they can - however they can - rather than remain ignorant.

I'd say the final third of the Wailing (meaning the slow burn of the last part) is the opposite of generic and is in fact quite ambiguous and strange.

I don't even understand what this so called problematic plot point is. Someone enlighten me as to why people are up in arms. I've seen the movie and didn't find the movie unethical or misogynistic, but rather that it offered an interesting moral and ethical question to ponder. And I thought the movie stunk, but I still wouldn't equate the movie with misogyny. Pratt's actions are supposed to be questionable. It must come down to the easy going cop out of an ending and how it's handled and what it says about the whole situation. That ending is very bad in every way.

I thought that @EmpireCity also had said that WB was very happy with the film. His comment was what got me thinking this would probably be at least pretty good.

Random question: Does anybody have any idea on the budget of Manchester by the Sea?

Oculus is great. The editing turns the back half of the movie into something truly original, imo, a fantastic journey into the protagonists' pasts AND psyches, like memory come to life on screen. It's tremendous and effectively disorienting. And you gotta love how there is absolutely no escape.

I haven't seen it yet, but I thought the trailer looked good...and then when I found out it was Mike Flanagan directing, I had high hopes. I can't comment to your copy and paste function re: Ouija 2, but I can say that Flanagan has written and edited every movie he's directed so far, and he's a master craftsman beyond just about any horror director working today. Copy and paste doesn't even register for me with his past work (Oculus, Hush, Absentia, even Before I Wake) because the craft is so high and the editing so sharp, which really elevates his films. I think with Hush and this film, he put in the work where there was work to be done and did so effectively, and now he will hopefully get to direct his next truly original film. I'm with @CJohn all the way on Flanagan. He's proven himself so these reviews don't surprise me at all.

It's a very effective horror film if you can get into its subtle though nightmarish tone.

I just meant gets rave reviews from the first people to see it and then turns out to get mixed to poor reviews from everybody else.

I know there's a few big time publications already saying this is good, but isn't it possible we get Blair Witched again by these early reviews?

I actually think in some ways it's kinda smart in how it expands the lore in ways that reminded me of a certain classic 70s Russian Sci fi movie, and I don't think the characters do anything at all stupid throughout the movie, unless you count going into the woods in the first place. And it does follow the same general path of the original film, but it's no more a remake than any hundreds of horror sequels.

I think the go pro headsets really took care of any gripes with characters still recording in this movie. I didn't have one. That said I also agree with one of the above posters. Even if this wasn't found footage, I think they would have shot it the same exact way. And I think how it's shot is amazing. Wingard et al really tap into pure nerve shredding viscera via the camera movements and the overall way the inescapable nighttime looks. And for better or worse given the found footage subgenre, the sound design ends up playing a large role in achieving that effect, especially due to the characters' screams. That was my experience anyway.

Not if you don't like found footage, but it is phenominally viscerally scary for a sustained amount of time toward the end.

I actually do think that some of what they did in terms of the visceral aspects of the movie (via cinematography and sound design) as well as the enhancements of the mythology were quite smart and bold. It's all meant to disorient and I think it did its job.

I thought the first half was bland, mostly because the characters were blandly played by bland actors in a bland way (I do like the Lisa character though). Their performances lacked the compelling realism needed. But the second half was absolutely terrifying! It almost seems to be an experiment in terror, pulling out all the stops and combining elements and tactics and disorienting the viewer. Even when the camera pixelates it's in an aggressively jarring way, and some of the shots, even when blurry, seem meant to create this claustrophobic visceral blur. A similar feeling to what Wingard was going for in Pop Skull, though via different, more visceral means here. I don't expect that to work on everyone, much like the original Blair Witch didn't work for everyone, but I think that's what they were going for, and it really worked for me. I agree that the hype was blown out of proportion, but I actually agree with those initial reviews or comments from the screening in May stating how intensely scary it is. And I think the little additions to the lore were more than enough, especially when some were used to create such disorientation. As I said, for me the problem was simply the lack of compelling performers. Though, like @Baumer loves Oogieloves I did wish the film had a done a few things that it didn't that I actually expected it to do given some of the new additions to the mythology.

The budget is 5 mil. Still, I'm disappointed that a Blair Witch sequel is being predicted to make under what Don't Breathe did. Something got messed up somewhere along the line.

Variety reported that Lions Gate is anticipating 15 - 18 mil, but that rival studios are predicting around 23 mil. http://variety.com/2016/film/news/box-office-sully-blair-witch-bridget-jones-1201859604/

And yet it scared me as though I was watching It for the first time throughout all four of my viewings, and seriously stands as the scariest movie of the past five years for me. So much tension that my left shoulder hurt for days following my fourth viewing! It's a masterpiece of the genre. The script, the editing, the all time performance from the lead, all incredible. It's subtle and, like the Babadook itself, it lingers. I'd say it gets everything right and that it's everything that's lacking in most of today's horror films, and I say that as a horror lover. To me it's pure viscera and artistry. But this is the Blair Witch thread, so here's hoping I can say similar things about the new movie come Thursday.

By the way, I just received in the mail a scary bit of viral marketing. I signed up for a darknet newsletter a few weeks ago, and a couple weeks ago somebody named Dark Truth asked me for my address so he can send me some information that he's uncovered and I thought, yeah, ok, why not. So I open this box and there's one of the Blair Witch stick figures, and I freaked out! Also included is what appears to be an article of clothing wrapped in rope, some kind of wooden box with symbols on it that I can't figure out how to open, and a map! Along with a crap-ton of leaves and grass. So I'm hyped.