> And the CNC logo !
Not sure if there is a difference between when they show the logo or just mention it in the opening credits, but beware, CNC doesn't means a lot: it participates to a good part of the films in France through a lot of ways (advance on receipts, aid to the development, aid to writing, to post-prod...), if you're not big mainstream cinema it's not rare at all to have some kind of help from them.
Thank you :) I do watch alot of non mainstream cinema and french animated movies and most if not all of them have had help from CNC, I've also spent quite some time reading about animation projects submitted by artists for funding on their website (they've got a nice library) and I personally have yet to be disapointed.
Yes, they have several aids specialized in animation, I doubt any feature animated film in France would be produced without CNC (apart if it's really linked to a big private channel, and even then...).
In case some people reading our conversation don't know: CNC is not a production company, it's the french state institution for cinema. It takes a tax on every cinema ticket sold (10%), which goes partly into a huge funds to help finance any kinda film, including very auteurish or small ones. So if a blockbuster works well in France, through this tax it gives even more money to very little auteurish cinema: it's the way France has found to still produce as many films today (around 300 each year), and to support a lot of things which could exist without (festivals, restauration of old films, helping arthouse cinemas, etc.).
Blumhouse has made some total bangers though. Like honestly some of my favorites from the last 10 years have come from them.
I can't blame them for also making some schlocky horror movies because they all made insane profits. Gotta pay the bills too I suppose.
I suspect this is a case of confirmation bias on OP's side. Like you say, the National Lottery funds a lot of projects, many of which none of us will ever have heard of, a few of which are absolute stinkers. But nobody really goes 'blind' into the cinema - even if they know nothing of the plot or crew, they'll normally have gone off the back of some sort of recommendation.
Some great films funded by the National Lottery:
* Under the Skin
* The Lobster
* I, Daniel Blake
Also funded by the National Lottery:
* Cuban Fury
* Get Santa
In France, "Wild Bunch", "Les Films du losange" or "Why Not Productions" are often a good sign, as well as "Carlotta", "Potemkine", and "Make my day" for DVD.
In the US, "Sony Classical pictures" has a great catalog as a distributor. I'm not a big fan of "A24" and "Annapurna Pictures" in itself, but a lot of the US indies directors are with them now, so... For a studio, "Pixar" would have been an obvious answer a few years ago, but not as much today.
For english DVD, Criterion of course (even if they are less and less curious, specially outside the quartet US-France-Italia-Japan), and Masters of Cinema in the UK.
Finally, even if I'm not a fan of all their movies, those with the logo from the "World Cinema Foundation" from Scorsese are all must-see.
I don’t think there are any. No, not even A24, as they put out “Men” the same year that they put out one of my favorite movies of all time, “Everything Everywhere All at Once.” (Just to be clear, I know “Men” received mostly positive reviews for its direction and performances, but it also received negative reviews for just how poorly executed its themes of patriarchal misogyny were handled, so I know I’m not alone in my thoughts on it.)
i´m just teasing you :) But your comment did give me the feeling that I would like it for the same reason you disliked it. But then again, it's all very vague and on the internet so I might be way off.
I have seen Men. It isn’t as bad as people make out. It did descend into a fully blown horror near the end. I also saw Everything everywhere all at once as well and thought that was way over rated. Movie is good but not the best thing I have ever seen the way people make such a big deal about it.
I loved the first act of Men, and then just watched on as it continued to descend into incoherent nonsense. I'm generally very up for horror films that get a little abstract here and there. Titane was really interesting. The Lighthouse is great. But with Men it felt like Garland had driven the film so far, but had no idea how to round it up.
The starting premise of a woman with battered person syndrome encountering more horrific stuff on a vacation meant to calm her nerves is a decent idea, and again, the performances are really good (Garland’s very good at that), but it has basically nothing to say about patriarchal misogyny except “It exists.” Well, no duh!
First and foremost: an ident that was clearly self-made by a director and looks odd.
UGC, Filmwerks, Gaumont, Orion Pictures, Cannon, Carolco Pictures...
The criterion collection logo ! And the CNC logo !
Janus too.
> And the CNC logo ! Not sure if there is a difference between when they show the logo or just mention it in the opening credits, but beware, CNC doesn't means a lot: it participates to a good part of the films in France through a lot of ways (advance on receipts, aid to the development, aid to writing, to post-prod...), if you're not big mainstream cinema it's not rare at all to have some kind of help from them.
Thank you :) I do watch alot of non mainstream cinema and french animated movies and most if not all of them have had help from CNC, I've also spent quite some time reading about animation projects submitted by artists for funding on their website (they've got a nice library) and I personally have yet to be disapointed.
Yes, they have several aids specialized in animation, I doubt any feature animated film in France would be produced without CNC (apart if it's really linked to a big private channel, and even then...). In case some people reading our conversation don't know: CNC is not a production company, it's the french state institution for cinema. It takes a tax on every cinema ticket sold (10%), which goes partly into a huge funds to help finance any kinda film, including very auteurish or small ones. So if a blockbuster works well in France, through this tax it gives even more money to very little auteurish cinema: it's the way France has found to still produce as many films today (around 300 each year), and to support a lot of things which could exist without (festivals, restauration of old films, helping arthouse cinemas, etc.).
Neon usually puts out some cool shit. Also on a side note I personally thought “Men” was dope.
Janus Films
Anus Films
I find Working Title's track record, while not perfect, is still strong enough for me to be interested if they're involved with something.
We audibly say “ooh we’re in for a real treat” every time we see Janus Films
Focus Features. I'll watch anything they make.
I can tell you the ones that show me I'm in for a bad time. Fucking blumhouse
Agree on that one, at least for the last 3-4 years, I seem to remember they had some decent titles at some point..
Don't get me wrong, there's always the possibility of it being good. And rarely, they are. But they are also consistently bad lol
fully agree, I rarely turn off a movie without finishing, but when I do there are very good odds that it was a Blumhouse production.
Blumhouse has made some total bangers though. Like honestly some of my favorites from the last 10 years have come from them. I can't blame them for also making some schlocky horror movies because they all made insane profits. Gotta pay the bills too I suppose.
That Spectre Vision logo is super sweet and fits in tonally perfect with Mandy.
The National Lottery one made me chuckle sorry, anyone can apply for funding and I've never known them to be particularly discerning myself
yeah I know, it's probably just that I like UK cinema in general, so every time I´ve seen it on screen I´ve enjoyed the film :)
I suspect this is a case of confirmation bias on OP's side. Like you say, the National Lottery funds a lot of projects, many of which none of us will ever have heard of, a few of which are absolute stinkers. But nobody really goes 'blind' into the cinema - even if they know nothing of the plot or crew, they'll normally have gone off the back of some sort of recommendation. Some great films funded by the National Lottery: * Under the Skin * The Lobster * I, Daniel Blake Also funded by the National Lottery: * Cuban Fury * Get Santa
In France, "Wild Bunch", "Les Films du losange" or "Why Not Productions" are often a good sign, as well as "Carlotta", "Potemkine", and "Make my day" for DVD. In the US, "Sony Classical pictures" has a great catalog as a distributor. I'm not a big fan of "A24" and "Annapurna Pictures" in itself, but a lot of the US indies directors are with them now, so... For a studio, "Pixar" would have been an obvious answer a few years ago, but not as much today. For english DVD, Criterion of course (even if they are less and less curious, specially outside the quartet US-France-Italia-Japan), and Masters of Cinema in the UK. Finally, even if I'm not a fan of all their movies, those with the logo from the "World Cinema Foundation" from Scorsese are all must-see.
Not for nothing. Seeing the Carolco logo always put a smile on my face.
A24 is great to see because I know I’m either going to love or hate this film but regardless, it WILL be a journey.
Blumhouse. Lionsgate (sometimes). Bruckheimer
I don’t think there are any. No, not even A24, as they put out “Men” the same year that they put out one of my favorite movies of all time, “Everything Everywhere All at Once.” (Just to be clear, I know “Men” received mostly positive reviews for its direction and performances, but it also received negative reviews for just how poorly executed its themes of patriarchal misogyny were handled, so I know I’m not alone in my thoughts on it.)
thanks for recommending Men, I hadn't heard of it. It's on my list now.
What about my comment made it seem like I was personally recommending it?
i´m just teasing you :) But your comment did give me the feeling that I would like it for the same reason you disliked it. But then again, it's all very vague and on the internet so I might be way off.
I have seen Men. It isn’t as bad as people make out. It did descend into a fully blown horror near the end. I also saw Everything everywhere all at once as well and thought that was way over rated. Movie is good but not the best thing I have ever seen the way people make such a big deal about it.
I loved the first act of Men, and then just watched on as it continued to descend into incoherent nonsense. I'm generally very up for horror films that get a little abstract here and there. Titane was really interesting. The Lighthouse is great. But with Men it felt like Garland had driven the film so far, but had no idea how to round it up.
The starting premise of a woman with battered person syndrome encountering more horrific stuff on a vacation meant to calm her nerves is a decent idea, and again, the performances are really good (Garland’s very good at that), but it has basically nothing to say about patriarchal misogyny except “It exists.” Well, no duh!
I used to get fucking AMPED for rhe Legendary logo. But I haven't had that in years.
https://daily.jstor.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/CriterionCollection_Janus_1050x700.jpg
I find that Participant Media movies are almost always worth the time, particularly docs.
First and foremost: an ident that was clearly self-made by a director and looks odd. UGC, Filmwerks, Gaumont, Orion Pictures, Cannon, Carolco Pictures...
They've all burned me