This is SpodoKomodo's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following SpodoKomodo's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
SpodoKomodo
Recent Activity
My take on the bifurcated endings of Eyimofe is that it acknowledges that women get the shitty end of the stick, FWIW. Like you, I wasn't initially very taken with it, but it stuck with me. Giving away the supernatural twist in films is something of a mini-theme this year.
Ah, the Christmas interregnum means I have only just seen this - thanks for the shout!
Toggle Commented Jan 13, 2014 on MOSTLY FILM: Review Of 2013 at Spank The Monkey
@Glenn - Oh, for sure. One of the interesting things about the reception of Margaret is that I've seen aspects of it compared to all kinds of people - Pialat, Rohmer, Cassavetes...
I've missed the opportunity to see ABSD in London two years in a row now, but am just about to add that Terrorizers BluRay to my cart, so thanks for that michaelgsmith. I thought this piece was going to be about similarities between Margaret and Yang's films - I saw A Confucian Confusion at the BFI Yang season recently, and there's something of its multifaceted nature in Margaret.
Interesting comparison of Target to Southland Tales. And yes, I'd rather see Suothland Tales a thousand moer times than rewatch a single frame of Target.
I knew I should have called it something else! The Debrief? The Rubdown? The Creeping Sense of Post-Festival Ennui?
I was young and naive!
Toggle Commented Oct 30, 2011 on London Film Festival 2011 at Spank The Monkey
You know, I was there for that screening of Hearts in Atlantis, but I have completely erased the film from my memory.
Toggle Commented Oct 13, 2011 on London Film Festival 2011 at Spank The Monkey
Ah, no, I can't read that, but an early snippet of actual falsfiable argument pulled from the early paras: >> The film current was such that even a levelheaded (if mediocre) critic like New York magazine’s David Edelstein claimed director James Cameron “has an old-fashioned command of composition: strong foregrounds and layers of texture and movement reaching back into the frame and down to the teeniest pixel.” What? That more or less describes any shot taken by a motion-picture camera with a wide depth of field. Am I misremembering, or did Avatar in fact have notably shallow depth of field, as complained about (incorrectly IMHO) by Jim Emerson? Edelstein is talking about composition and cutting, not focus.
On the one hand: this article I never heard of before sure sounds like a load of old bollocks! On the other hand:
White's review is hard to read, he actually sounds borderline paranoid schizophrenic at this point.
SpodoKomodo is now following The Typepad Team
Mar 18, 2010