Goodbye to Language 3D Blu-ray (2014) [Region Locked] [forced subtitles in UK]

[dartfrog298]

Rotten Tomatoes has some very interesting reviews and comments about this film. I'm curious so I will definitely pick this one up.

[Taygan315]

I plan on getting it. Cant wait.

[Vladimir777]

I see this is at the moment still playing here in LA. Since I don't have a 3D TV, I better catch this before it leaves theaters.

[Dubstar]

noted yesterday that Landmark Bethesda had the trailer for this as a 'coming soon' trailer before "Timbuktu" - finally! the DC metro area gets a theatrical 3D engagement - better late than never.

EDIT: opening March 20th

[Impossible]

Originally Posted by Taygan315

I plan on getting it. Cant wait.

Seriously dude, don't!

[Todd Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

in the literal 'visual' sense or the pejorative sense?

this movie seems like it was made for critics and not the masses, Film Comment noted that a lot of critics dug this, but gathering from what I'm reading here and elsewhere - it's just really really odd.

It gave me a real achy-head headache.

I would say the film is made for a certain type of cineaste rather than for critics, because that would be a little pointless. Godard is still held in high esteem by many, but his cold intellectualism just don't connect with me or at least it hasn't since the late 60s.

[Paul H]

Originally Posted by Impossible

Seriously dude, don't!

My experience of the movie was to put it in a "special interest only" category for 3D visual experimentation having an intense mixture of strong parallax, confusion in left and right image viewpoints and nudity for interest expression. Personally wouldn't show this for entertainment purposes.

[Impossible]

Originally Posted by Todd Tomorrow

It gave me a real achy-head headache.

I would say the film is made for a certain type of cineaste rather than for critics, because that would be a little pointless. Godard is still held in high esteem by many, but his cold intellectualism just don't connect with me or at least it hasn't since the late 60s.

I love a good faux intellectual mind wank as much as anyone, but this was just too much for me. Thank God for the headache or I may have wasted more than 15 minutes of my life on it.

[Taygan315]

Originally Posted by Impossible

Seriously dude, don't!

Originally Posted by Paul H

My experience of the movie was to put it in a "special interest only" category for 3D visual experimentation having an intense mixture of strong parallax, confusion in left and right image viewpoints and nudity for interest expression. Personally wouldn't show this for entertainment purposes.

Originally Posted by Impossible

I love a good faux intellectual mind wank as much as anyone, but this was just too much for me. Thank God for the headache or I may have wasted more than 15 minutes of my life on it.

Hmmm...maybe I should reconsider purchase,lol

[Dubstar]

just came back from seeing this - and I kind of dug it - in a dreamlike stance that only Godard can achieve (and pull off).

as for the 3D - I thought that the native shot 3D was quite remarkable (I loved the one shot of the two hands playing the piano) - only in a couple of instances where the objects were so extreme in the foreground - like the blades of grass, did I feel like my eyes were going crosseyed (as one pointed out on page 1 of this topic). The use of the two images overlaying one another was quite inventive too.

as for the soundmix - ugh ... that was probably the one aspect that I found grating. Soft, silence, LOUD, move dialogue from the left to the right speaker and back, [... repeat]. The sound mixer obviously didn't adhere to not giving one an aural or head exploding migrane.

I'd give it a B rating

[infiniteCR]

Originally Posted by Taygan315

Hmmm...maybe I should reconsider purchase,lol

lol, me too.

I have this feeling my wife would beat me if I put this in one night

[Interdimensional]

I caught screening of this last week.

Some interesting ideas, and I think there might've been a story in there somewhere, underneath all the pontificating, casual nudity and defecation. It was shot in a way where I think they deliberately embraced almost every kind of technical issue they could come across, both in the 3D, the photography, the cameras used, the sound editing, the framing. While some of the 3D is a little hard on the eyes, some of the audio is hard to listen to, and some of the visuals are uncomfortable to look at for any number of reasons. I liked that they had devised some camerawork that can only work in a 3D movie, although it was essentially a bit of a trick technique.

I remember noticing one scene where an old American movie is playing on a tv in the background with French subtitles, while English subtitles displayed the dialogue of the French-speaking characters in the actual film. It seemed deliberate, I was unsure of the significance, but I thought it was an interesting choice.

I don't like to dismiss experimental film-making, I was glad to have seen it. Would I recommend it to someone looking for a good time? Not so much. It's won awards, it probably has some merit... I wouldn't really describe it as entertainment.

[Dubstar]

Godard - entertaining? that's a misnomer no I agree calling the 3D a "trick technique" is very appropriate (film IS a visual medium) - and in Godard's hands he takes it a step further and brings some new-ness to it all. The more I've reflected on this movie the more I'm seeing why the movie won the awards and acclaim - yes the story is fragmented and 'experimental' as only as Godard can deliver but it's the afterward effect that lingers and instills in the brain.

with all that mind now I have to see the Peter Greenaway 3D film.

[Interdimensional]

What I mean is it shouldn't be approached as entertainment. It's more of a challenge than that. It seems like the intent was more to paint a picture rather than to tell a story.

The trick technique I was referring to is where they break the stereoscopic effect momentarily as one of the two cameras pans around the scene before returning to the same focus as the other camera. It's an innovation that hasn't been done before, although one that might be difficult to incorporate into a film that was more story-driven.

[Paul H]

Goodbye to Language 3D Blu-ray Review by Brian Orndorf:

Jean-Luc Godard's "Goodbye to Language" is a film that defies explanation, and that appears to the point of the work. It's a swan dive into images, conflicts, and sound, loosely tied together with the story of a combative relationship and the adventures of a dog. It's philosophy and experimentation, light and dark, love and poop. Yes, bowel movements do factor into the flow of "Goodbye to Language," which takes on the weight of the world with Godard's finely-tuned esoteric vision, asking viewers to completely devour a cinematic experience that's not about interpretation, but complete and utter submission.

The 3D journey doesn't have a specific shape, with Godard mixing intellectualism and mischief to build an odyssey into far reaches of nature and emotion. "Goodbye to Language" doesn't bother telling a story, it just breathes, demanding that viewers soak up layered imagery and follow subjects that range from Godard's own pet to author Mary Shelley. Some of it resembles a traditional French art piece, ornamented with nudity and cigarettes, and the rest looks like a Beastie Boys video, finding them helmer fiddling with color timing dials and making extensive use of GoPro-style cameras.

[nycomet]

^^^^^^

Yeah, this movie is too avante guard for me. I cancelled my amazon preorder.

[terrychapman69]

Does the movie come with a slip cover? Please let me know... I just got mine in and no slip cover so I want to be sure... Thanks

[dartfrog298]

Originally Posted by Todd Tomorrow

I watched this the other night and have to admit that like much later Godard I found it a chore to sit through and I'm no stranger to experimental film-making. He does push the 3D to its extremes which is probably the only interesting thing about the film, but that also means it's one of only two 3D films I've seen to give me a headache.

OMG, what the hell did I just watch? This has to be the worse film I have ever sat through in my life. Not only did it give me one of the worse headaches I've had in quite sometime, it literally made me so nauseous I had to take breaks after some of the shots. After paying $19.00 for it I was determined to watch the whole movie and don't know how I accomplished that. I would have to be offered major bucks to sit through this mess of a movie again. lol

[DB5]

I watched it a couple of weeks ago and wasn't really sure what to make of it, there were a few good shots I liked, notably the hands on the cell bars which I thought was very immersive and a shot where the woman looked like she walked right out of the screen, as for the guy with the dodgy feet and showing his meat and veg.

[Dragun]

Finally got to see this a few weeks ago, when a local theater was showed it in 3D. Frankly I didn't understand the film, but the use of 3D was interesting, especially the parts where one camera on the rig pans away, so you're seeing two completely different images at the same time. I actually liked the textures that using the lower end cameras gave to the image. If nothing else at least it felt like 3D was always a creative and aesthetic consideration, and he did use it in an extreme way.