|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 18, 2018 14:45:12 GMT
Lost in London Woody Harrelson's personal project (director, writer, actor) is a welcome addition to the small, but slowly growing, genre of one-take movies. It takes the actor, playing a fictionalised version of himself, through a series of increasingly fraught scrapes in London's small hours, over a number of locations, including a meeting with Willie Nelson in a prison cell. Part of the fun is that one inevitably holds one's breath, for without meticulous planning, a single slip and it would all have to be done over again. Best moment: Harrelson and Owen Wilson in an nightclub, pugnaciously comparing notes over which of their respective films they think worst. Beginning with Hitchcock's Rope, one-takers, or their close imitators like Running Time usually end up attracting cult or small followings, and this probably won't be any different. www.imdb.com/title/tt6338476/reference
|
|
|
|
Post by geode on Jun 18, 2018 18:04:16 GMT
Lost in London Woody Harrelson's personal project (director, writer, actor) is a welcome addition to the small, but slowly growing, genre of one-take movies. It takes the actor, playing a fictionalised version of himself, through a series of increasingly fraught scrapes in London's small hours, over a number of locations, including a meeting with Willie Nelson in a prison cell. Part of the fun is that one inevitably holds one's breath, for without meticulous planning, a single slip and it would all have to be done over again. Best moment: Harrelson and Owen Wilson in an nightclub, pugnaciously comparing notes over which of their respective films they think worst. Beginning with Hitchcock's Rope, one-takers, or their close imitators like Running Time usually end up attracting cult or small followings, and this probably won't be any different. www.imdb.com/title/tt6338476/reference I guess this begs the question, can a movie immediately be one that qualifies as having "cult" status or does some time have to pass before it can emerge as such? This is similar to the question that used to arise when the Disney Studios declared one of their brand new releases as an "animated classic" ... I guess "immediate" was a wrong word to use as this was released in Jan. 2017. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 19, 2018 9:56:51 GMT
Lost in London Woody Harrelson's personal project (director, writer, actor) is a welcome addition to the small, but slowly growing, genre of one-take movies. It takes the actor, playing a fictionalised version of himself, through a series of increasingly fraught scrapes in London's small hours, over a number of locations, including a meeting with Willie Nelson in a prison cell. Part of the fun is that one inevitably holds one's breath, for without meticulous planning, a single slip and it would all have to be done over again. Best moment: Harrelson and Owen Wilson in an nightclub, pugnaciously comparing notes over which of their respective films they think worst. Beginning with Hitchcock's Rope, one-takers, or their close imitators like Running Time usually end up attracting cult or small followings, and this probably won't be any different. www.imdb.com/title/tt6338476/reference I guess this begs the question, can a movie immediately be one that qualifies as having "cult" status or does some time have to pass before it can emerge as such? This is similar to the question that used to arise when the Disney Studios declared one of their brand new releases as an "animated classic" ... I guess "immediate" was a wrong word to use as this was released in Jan. 2017. Yes there is always a risk in announcing this sort of thing, especially when a film appears to have been 'pre-fabricated' to appeal to the late-night or cinephile market. When does a consistent, small group of enthusiasts of a particular title turn into a cult? I wouldn't like to draw the line. Speaking for myself I have a persistent enthusiasm for several of these 'One-takers', whether it be the present title, the Bruce Campbell one or, most arthouse and considered effort of all, Russian Ark. |
|
|
|
Post by geode on Jul 13, 2018 8:27:21 GMT
I guess this begs the question, can a movie immediately be one that qualifies as having "cult" status or does some time have to pass before it can emerge as such? This is similar to the question that used to arise when the Disney Studios declared one of their brand new releases as an "animated classic" ... I guess "immediate" was a wrong word to use as this was released in Jan. 2017. Yes there is always a risk in announcing this sort of thing, especially when a film appears to have been 'pre-fabricated' to appeal to the late-night or cinephile market. When does a consistent, small group of enthusiasts of a particular title turn into a cult? I wouldn't like to draw the line. Speaking for myself I have a persistent enthusiasm for several of these 'One-takers', whether it be the present title, the Bruce Campbell one or, most arthouse and considered effort of all, Russian Ark. This brings up an interesting topic, the relationship of "arthouse" and "cult" movies. Obviously some movies regarded as "arthouse" do have cult followings, but not all, or even most, in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by geode on Jun 20, 2019 9:50:33 GMT
|
|
