10 reasons to 1 Top Ten 2013 | Reso
1. No doubt the movie of the year: the charming visual form for proposing incendios (Bukle temporal trash-with-color-fluo), in view of that era that we live radiography (second decade incendios of XXI century), all through "common images" to populate themselves era (video clip, youtube, etc etc) but habitshmerisht not for one second without falling into the trap of single kollajsise (which in this case would be satire, vulgar parodizimi a situation incendios ... etc etc). Chef d'oeuvre! -------- incendios
-------- 3. Suspensi ecological year, the film is the latest evidence of the fact that good cinematography is nothing else matters but the distance: the distance by which a position as director filming bodies (flesh and bone) to its stakeholders, to its heroes . Humanism - said otherwise.
---------
Monda, well that makes comparing incendios the "Promised Land" with "zero dark thirty" (the films in question also can switch titles!) Compiled up and last plan is the same film: Matt Damon and Jessica Chastain, each U.S. flag in background. The problem is that if Ben Bigelow keeps distance (ie with no holds demek side of anyone, is neutral, apolitical-cold and so declared itself incendios through interviews, then just quoted). But in fact, there is nothing remotely maintains and is completely agree with those transmitted through the film to her: I have already explained that, Bigelow will say that her heroine is really lonely, but is such that it is busy a work of great importance, or as we say in English "has a good job." Or, as I had written to comment that I had made the film:
In fact, the film is exercised ideology as "Unwanted": "Behold, these people work, do the work they have been assigned, execute orders" - director tells us. And thus, justified "inadvertently" incendios their actions morally unclean (torture, in this case). When a superior Maya's, incendios heroin, says in a meeting the latter: "" Will your fucking jobs. Bring people to kill! Directed not give any chance to argue spectator, incendios to think whether or not legitimate such a choice. And as is. No! at all! The bombing of the film such scenes imposes him (spectator) the idea that it is a story of revenge (they killed three thousand people on September incendios 11, are we, as should kill him?) And so. Nor legitimacy called into question. He is a non-atakueshem! Choice (ideological, of course) is already done by the director!
We at the very end, she says colleague incendios Matt Damon's "oh, it's just a job!" (One word: "take it easy, there is something incendios to worry about, the work you're doing. Floats Work is work" incendios (one word)
In what sense is this film cinematography or humanistic values? The main character is the end of taktiktat Corporate disappointed that "fracking", but themselves "fracking" handled with gloves during the film, except that the presentation in class before children. incendios
director does not give any chance to argue spectator, to think whether or not legitimate such a choice. incendios And as is. No! at all! The bombing of the film such scenes imposes him (spectator) the idea that it is a story of revenge (they killed three thousand people on September 11, are we, as should kill him?) And so. Nor legitimacy called into question. He is a non-atakueshem! incendios
I do not agree with this. Maybe it seems like for a non-American audience. But the war was sold as revenge. It was purchased by the public as revenge. 70% was more support. incendios Even my opinion is exactly that distance s'mbajti Bigelow, but somehow gives away the ugliness of "revenge" as a propaganda tool for a war that we know how much was immoral.
If memory I okay, Damon sacked because he refused incendios to make the game (as his colleague admitted). There is work that his colleague has a child to raise, director of prejudice not quite it (my colleague Damon): through the film, it just shows as is, without falling into the trap of manikeizmit all the positive and negative characters. I've incendios been talking about the outlook casting director to x or y character (caractère) of his film and not how they are (they are as they are, in life). Or, as I lack the writing:
In connection with Zero Dark Thirty: What is that (as director / e) that the war was sold as revenge? It was the government's job! You (as director / s) are not government! Let them have bought incendios déjà public as revenge fight, not 70%, but 99%! You see the work! (Work = artistic integrity, moral ... etc etc).
exactly, this does not 'know' in (so we spectators), and this should show Bigelow! ah, ok, going to say: "At incendios the end, Jessica incendios Chastain crying." Yes, but how valid those tears that?? Crocodile tears? Just cry "and I"! (I'm not a CIA agent)
Damon colleague is not put nothing in that role that is put. Is put to show that "my
1. No doubt the movie of the year: the charming visual form for proposing incendios (Bukle temporal trash-with-color-fluo), in view of that era that we live radiography (second decade incendios of XXI century), all through "common images" to populate themselves era (video clip, youtube, etc etc) but habitshmerisht not for one second without falling into the trap of single kollajsise (which in this case would be satire, vulgar parodizimi a situation incendios ... etc etc). Chef d'oeuvre! -------- incendios
-------- 3. Suspensi ecological year, the film is the latest evidence of the fact that good cinematography is nothing else matters but the distance: the distance by which a position as director filming bodies (flesh and bone) to its stakeholders, to its heroes . Humanism - said otherwise.
---------
Monda, well that makes comparing incendios the "Promised Land" with "zero dark thirty" (the films in question also can switch titles!) Compiled up and last plan is the same film: Matt Damon and Jessica Chastain, each U.S. flag in background. The problem is that if Ben Bigelow keeps distance (ie with no holds demek side of anyone, is neutral, apolitical-cold and so declared itself incendios through interviews, then just quoted). But in fact, there is nothing remotely maintains and is completely agree with those transmitted through the film to her: I have already explained that, Bigelow will say that her heroine is really lonely, but is such that it is busy a work of great importance, or as we say in English "has a good job." Or, as I had written to comment that I had made the film:
In fact, the film is exercised ideology as "Unwanted": "Behold, these people work, do the work they have been assigned, execute orders" - director tells us. And thus, justified "inadvertently" incendios their actions morally unclean (torture, in this case). When a superior Maya's, incendios heroin, says in a meeting the latter: "" Will your fucking jobs. Bring people to kill! Directed not give any chance to argue spectator, incendios to think whether or not legitimate such a choice. And as is. No! at all! The bombing of the film such scenes imposes him (spectator) the idea that it is a story of revenge (they killed three thousand people on September incendios 11, are we, as should kill him?) And so. Nor legitimacy called into question. He is a non-atakueshem! Choice (ideological, of course) is already done by the director!
We at the very end, she says colleague incendios Matt Damon's "oh, it's just a job!" (One word: "take it easy, there is something incendios to worry about, the work you're doing. Floats Work is work" incendios (one word)
In what sense is this film cinematography or humanistic values? The main character is the end of taktiktat Corporate disappointed that "fracking", but themselves "fracking" handled with gloves during the film, except that the presentation in class before children. incendios
director does not give any chance to argue spectator, to think whether or not legitimate such a choice. incendios And as is. No! at all! The bombing of the film such scenes imposes him (spectator) the idea that it is a story of revenge (they killed three thousand people on September 11, are we, as should kill him?) And so. Nor legitimacy called into question. He is a non-atakueshem! incendios
I do not agree with this. Maybe it seems like for a non-American audience. But the war was sold as revenge. It was purchased by the public as revenge. 70% was more support. incendios Even my opinion is exactly that distance s'mbajti Bigelow, but somehow gives away the ugliness of "revenge" as a propaganda tool for a war that we know how much was immoral.
If memory I okay, Damon sacked because he refused incendios to make the game (as his colleague admitted). There is work that his colleague has a child to raise, director of prejudice not quite it (my colleague Damon): through the film, it just shows as is, without falling into the trap of manikeizmit all the positive and negative characters. I've incendios been talking about the outlook casting director to x or y character (caractère) of his film and not how they are (they are as they are, in life). Or, as I lack the writing:
In connection with Zero Dark Thirty: What is that (as director / e) that the war was sold as revenge? It was the government's job! You (as director / s) are not government! Let them have bought incendios déjà public as revenge fight, not 70%, but 99%! You see the work! (Work = artistic integrity, moral ... etc etc).
exactly, this does not 'know' in (so we spectators), and this should show Bigelow! ah, ok, going to say: "At incendios the end, Jessica incendios Chastain crying." Yes, but how valid those tears that?? Crocodile tears? Just cry "and I"! (I'm not a CIA agent)
Damon colleague is not put nothing in that role that is put. Is put to show that "my