That's probably why I resisted watching it because it was about teen pregnancy. But y'know, sometimes you watch something that's outside your world scope and it's enjoyable. But I get it.

Huh. Well, I liked it. Thought it was really well-made and pretty original.

I’m really partial to art-house movies that sort of masquerade as horror movies and get away with it because there’s one or two proper horror sequences.

There’s another one.. AHHH, I forget the name!

It’s about a severely autistic (maybe schizophrenic as well) adult child living with his parents — a duke and duchess of some fancy English villa — and when he goes off his medication shit starts to get crayyyyyyzy.

I fucking can’t remember for the LIFE of me what it’s called, but it’s billed as horror, but it’s really not. It’s just a goddamn psychological trip.

Fuck, anyone know what I’m talking about?

i felt the opposite. that it masqueraded as arthouse but was just a gorefest (literally at one point ha ha ha).

i didn’t hate it or anything. i just wanted a better plot and more contrast in the image cuz i could not see shit at times.

Now I’m totally freaking out because I can’t remember the name of the movie about the schizophrenic earl of whatever and his son who goes off his meds and GODDAMMIT.

Saw it in 2010, British, schizophrenia ... main actor looks like Napoleon dynamite guy I think. What the hell.

Shit.

Feel like the name might have had “flowers” in it, or the word “dead,” but wasn’t marketed as a horror movie

Hell!

The Living and the Dead?

I don't think it was masquerading as anything. Just one of those films that doesn't really fit comfortably in any category.

Also don't remember noticing any issue with the picture.

i used that just as a mirror to reverse severian’s statement but yeah it was no masquerade. i got caught up in rhetorical flourishes.

however i did think i was gonna find a period piece and found myself instead in some sort of hostel.

so much gore with little to no motivation i found problematic, and would not call it arthouse

eta: but then again, learning that it all came from folktale, it opened up for me some


i didnt run it through a vectorscope, but the signal for this one was definitely darker than any other thing available on my screen. had to tweak luma and gamma hard to get a clear image.

sometimes people do that for aesthetic purpose. e.g. marcia macy marlene whatever the name of that was, used a desaturated/ underexposed film stock on purpose, but to me made it unwatchable. and i watched it at the movies actually but just looked bad.

with this one i wondered a lot if it was intended as an ancient would have seen inside a barn in the shadows... but see, the eye adapts to darkness more so than the camera. so maybe it was meant to convey their desperate state in visual form.

whatever the case, i had to tweak it way out of thx settings into overbright sports territory so that i could distinguish shapes

Captain Marvel yesterday


I had never seen any of those "Superhero" movies but this one was surprisingly entertaining.

No no no no no!!

Are you sure?

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0483719/

A Fistful of Dollars

I don’t know why I said “no,” it just didn’t sound right but

YES WHAT FUCK!!!

THANK YOU!!
Also ... HOW?!

Love "Shirkers" One of my very favorite films from last year. And while we're at it, a complete list:

1. Gemini
2. Ryuichi Sakamoto: Coda
3. Suspiria
4. You Were Never Really Here
5. Happy As Lazzaro
6. Shirkers
7. Loveless
8. Assassination Nation
9. Les enfants du 209 rue Saint-Maur, Paris
10. First Man
11. Widows
12. The King
13. Madeline's Madeline
14. Support the Girls
15. 1985

Actually rewatched this a couple weeks back myself. It was one of those where I might as well be watching it for the first time I'd forgotten so much. Anyway, great film. It's not Leone's best film but it's up there.

Yeah, just one of those evergreen greats. I tend to prefer the classic American westerns but you can't argue with a bit of Leone.

Do you mean how did I know? You described it pretty accurately and I saw it around the same time you did.

I just put on my DVD copy and scanned to some of the darker scenes and it seemed fine. I wonder if it was just a bad transfer you saw.

hmmmm...

well the film was shot in digital so there are no more transfers to speak of, but encodes... a lot less difficult than scanning film. should generally not be a problem...

it was not all of the movie i had trouble with. mostly indoors scenes, and some of those grey woods

maybe my old plasma is dying at the edges of the spectrum or something. i need to get me a 4k thing, they are so cheap right now it’s crazy. but i think the witch...


ok no see... i just started googling the witch cinematography

https://www.indiewire.com/2016/03/ho...e-witch-61934/

they did push limits. maybe my monitor breaks at some of those edges. but yeah... hahaha. my eye don’t lie. a very grey low-contrast film on purpose



i can see them there but once indoors holy moses


this is in the woods. yes i get it that we dont see well in the woods and this does that effectively



this is clear enough thoug. maybe an artifact of streaming too as things sometimes lose definition over mediocre internet.

Black Mass

WOW.

You have no idea ... just ... wow.

I have some serious compulsive issues and a fuckton of other anxiety-based ticks and not knowing the name of this movie was FUCKING DRIVING ME INSANE.

I should show you a screenshot of the google searches I did. I called my girlfriend — or ex-girlfriend or whatever — and asked her, and she didn’t know. I went through probably 20 “most disturbing movie” lists trying to find it, because that’s where I *think* we found it the first time.

I was obsessing like mad, trying to describe it to people who had no clue what the fuck. And then .. you just handed it to me!

Rep points.