You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Movie Thread
- Thread starter hcour
- Start date
I saw Inland Empire this past weekend, the funny thing was that during the first reel the voice track was all garbled and funky, but since there were subtitles in the beginning most people in the audience thought it was intentional.
It wasn't until the subtitles went away and some guy angrily got up to tell the manager that the rest of us figured out something was wrong. Apparently he'd seen the movie 2 times before, it's 210 minutes long but really doesn't feel like it at all. A must see if you like Lynch.
It wasn't until the subtitles went away and some guy angrily got up to tell the manager that the rest of us figured out something was wrong. Apparently he'd seen the movie 2 times before, it's 210 minutes long but really doesn't feel like it at all. A must see if you like Lynch.
Oh, well I have to see it now. She was sexy as hell in KB, in an adolescent-schoolgirl/forbidden-fruit/makes-you feel-like-a-dirty-old-man kind of way, of course.The actress who played Gogo in Kill Bill is in that, I think that's how the movie got in my dvd player.
Haven't seen Inland Empire. I do like Lynch. If you're a Dern fan I take it you've seen Citizen Ruth? She was soooo good in that.
H
Monster
I avoided this film when it first came out because I'd always thought Theron was an adequate actress at best and I'd seen several clips of her performance as she was getting all kinds of acclaim and none of them altered my opinion. To me this looked like one of those cases where it's actually the makeup job that earns the Oscar nod.
So I just watched this on IFC and I believe my first impressions were correct. Pauline Kael once wrote "...there are a few ambitious performances so spectacularly bad that there are immediate cries for the performer to get an Oscar..." and then goes on to name a few including Cliff Robertson in Charly, Shelley Winters in A Patch of Blue, and Helen Hayes in Airport. I'd have to add Theron to that list, perhaps putting her at the very top. Her manic performance is so over-the-top, built out of tics, mannerisms, and grimaces, that at times it is indeed "spectacularly bad", embarrassingly so. In this modern era of realistic, even naturalistic acting, watching Theron flail about in her ridiculous impersonation is bizarre, she sets acting back 50 yrs. It doesn't help that she's paired w/Christina Ricci, who is believable, natural, especially considering she's sharing the screen w/Theron, who apparently took the title "Monster" as the starting point for her acting style here.
Theron has improved, she was surprisingly good in North Country. The quality of her work and her growth as actress in that film reminded me of Nicole Kidman, another beauty who gave a string of mostly ordinary performances for yrs and then finally did blossom into a real talent. But Kidman deserved her acclaim for her "breakthrough role" in The Hours, not so Theron in Monster. A great makeup job doesn't make a performance and impersonation is not acting.
Harold
I avoided this film when it first came out because I'd always thought Theron was an adequate actress at best and I'd seen several clips of her performance as she was getting all kinds of acclaim and none of them altered my opinion. To me this looked like one of those cases where it's actually the makeup job that earns the Oscar nod.
So I just watched this on IFC and I believe my first impressions were correct. Pauline Kael once wrote "...there are a few ambitious performances so spectacularly bad that there are immediate cries for the performer to get an Oscar..." and then goes on to name a few including Cliff Robertson in Charly, Shelley Winters in A Patch of Blue, and Helen Hayes in Airport. I'd have to add Theron to that list, perhaps putting her at the very top. Her manic performance is so over-the-top, built out of tics, mannerisms, and grimaces, that at times it is indeed "spectacularly bad", embarrassingly so. In this modern era of realistic, even naturalistic acting, watching Theron flail about in her ridiculous impersonation is bizarre, she sets acting back 50 yrs. It doesn't help that she's paired w/Christina Ricci, who is believable, natural, especially considering she's sharing the screen w/Theron, who apparently took the title "Monster" as the starting point for her acting style here.
Theron has improved, she was surprisingly good in North Country. The quality of her work and her growth as actress in that film reminded me of Nicole Kidman, another beauty who gave a string of mostly ordinary performances for yrs and then finally did blossom into a real talent. But Kidman deserved her acclaim for her "breakthrough role" in The Hours, not so Theron in Monster. A great makeup job doesn't make a performance and impersonation is not acting.
Harold
Babel
I keep reading reviews and posts about the themes of this movie. But films are about stories, not themes. Yes, stories illustrate themes, but we're there to watch what happens to the people. One could say the theme of Die Hard, a classic action flick, is about the redemption of a man, but who gives a shite? Let's blow some stuff up, shoot some bad guys, and watch the underdog triumph over overwhelming odds. That's a great story. The Chieko sequence in Babel isn't only about our inability to communicate, it's the specific story of one sad, confused adolescent girl's very real, natural, awakening need for human interaction on something other than a superficial level. As others in her peer group are learning to bond naturally, Chieko is set apart, she is isolated. Isolation is a major theme of the movie, emotionally, culturally, physically. The children and nanny are isolated in the desert; the wounded wife and her husband are isolated from even the most basic modern conveniences like medical care or reliable communication; the Moroccan family is isolated from pretty much the rest of the modern world. They seem to exist in another time (remember the dinner, as they each eat from the same bowl w/their fingers). But Chieko, ironically, exists in that same isolation w/literally millions of people around her in the heart of one of the biggest cities in the world and the most modern technology. Talk about illustrating themes, what a brilliant juxtaposition that is! Chieko's story is the true heart of the film. I was amazed to read the following comments by Mick Lasalle, "professional" critic for the SF Chronicle:
Unfortunately, the film's adherence to an arbitrary storytelling mannerism obligates it to cut from the life-and-death crisis in Morocco to banal scenes of the Japanese girl flirting with boys.
Think about it: One character is bleeding to death in Morocco. Do you really care if Chieko has a boyfriend -- or if the nice nanny gets to go to her son's wedding in Mexico? Moreover, should you?
Is he serious? Is he watching the same movie, or does he think it's several different movies? The real tension in the Pitt-Blanchett sequence isn't whether she will live or die, she may or may not, it's whether these two will be able to reconcile their troubled marriage following the death of their baby and his subsequent abandonment. "If Chieko has a boyfriend"? Is that what he thinks the sequence was about? I realize he's being sarcastic, but he's also serious. And utterly clueless.
This film is several interlocking stories, illustrating several interwoven themes from various points of view, each working on its own and together, and that harmony is what takes it beyond just a good film to greatness.
H
I keep reading reviews and posts about the themes of this movie. But films are about stories, not themes. Yes, stories illustrate themes, but we're there to watch what happens to the people. One could say the theme of Die Hard, a classic action flick, is about the redemption of a man, but who gives a shite? Let's blow some stuff up, shoot some bad guys, and watch the underdog triumph over overwhelming odds. That's a great story. The Chieko sequence in Babel isn't only about our inability to communicate, it's the specific story of one sad, confused adolescent girl's very real, natural, awakening need for human interaction on something other than a superficial level. As others in her peer group are learning to bond naturally, Chieko is set apart, she is isolated. Isolation is a major theme of the movie, emotionally, culturally, physically. The children and nanny are isolated in the desert; the wounded wife and her husband are isolated from even the most basic modern conveniences like medical care or reliable communication; the Moroccan family is isolated from pretty much the rest of the modern world. They seem to exist in another time (remember the dinner, as they each eat from the same bowl w/their fingers). But Chieko, ironically, exists in that same isolation w/literally millions of people around her in the heart of one of the biggest cities in the world and the most modern technology. Talk about illustrating themes, what a brilliant juxtaposition that is! Chieko's story is the true heart of the film. I was amazed to read the following comments by Mick Lasalle, "professional" critic for the SF Chronicle:
Unfortunately, the film's adherence to an arbitrary storytelling mannerism obligates it to cut from the life-and-death crisis in Morocco to banal scenes of the Japanese girl flirting with boys.
Think about it: One character is bleeding to death in Morocco. Do you really care if Chieko has a boyfriend -- or if the nice nanny gets to go to her son's wedding in Mexico? Moreover, should you?
Is he serious? Is he watching the same movie, or does he think it's several different movies? The real tension in the Pitt-Blanchett sequence isn't whether she will live or die, she may or may not, it's whether these two will be able to reconcile their troubled marriage following the death of their baby and his subsequent abandonment. "If Chieko has a boyfriend"? Is that what he thinks the sequence was about? I realize he's being sarcastic, but he's also serious. And utterly clueless.
This film is several interlocking stories, illustrating several interwoven themes from various points of view, each working on its own and together, and that harmony is what takes it beyond just a good film to greatness.
H
neophyte321
Guest
It's a beautiful thing, three three+ star movies in a row for me.
Superman Returns *** 1/4
Beowulf and Grendel *** 1/2
LA Confidential ****
Many have probably seen LA confidential, and perhaps Superman returns. Beowulf is a must for all you anglo-saxon, morality tale lovers.
http://imdb.com/title/tt0402057/
Superman Returns *** 1/4
Beowulf and Grendel *** 1/2
LA Confidential ****
Many have probably seen LA confidential, and perhaps Superman returns. Beowulf is a must for all you anglo-saxon, morality tale lovers.
http://imdb.com/title/tt0402057/
Fast Food Nation
After about 30 mins into FFN, which is a fictionalized story made from a non-fiction book, one can imagine exactly how this film started out, w/the filmmakers writing out a list of all the Evils they wanted to point out about fast food and related industries like meat-packers:
1) Animal Cruelty.
2) Low, unfair wages.
3) Contributes to illegal immigration and exploitation.
4) Unsanitary conditions.
5) Dangerous working environment.
6) Deceptive advertising.
7) Exploits children.
8) Contributes to the nation's health problems.
Oh, and did I mention, they're EVIL!
Now, I have no doubt this is all truth, and it needs to be said, but this is nothing on which to base a dramatic film if you don't have an interesting story and characters to carry it along. As the film plods on and on you can practically tic each off point one by one, "Ok, they showed this, now this, now that, now this..." And so on. The 3 interweaving plots, as much as one could call them "plots", are just arbitrary, something to hang the themes on. The stories, one about immigrants working at a meat-packing plant, another about a fast food executive's supposed awakening to the corruption in his industry, and the last about a teen who realizes her job at "Mickey's" makes her part of the Evil Empire, are so weak and poorly worked out that you keep waiting for more, but you never get it.
That plot w/the Mickey's teen is the weakest and that's really saying something. There's a sequence that goes on forever involving the girl's uncle coming to visit and supposedly opening her eyes as he babbles endlessly about McDonald's and The Gap and all those other stores at the mall that are apparently destroying our souls. At first I thought, "Surely this isn't all there is to this?", something else was going to have to happen to make it a real plot; maybe he was going to come on to her, or there was going to be some friction between him and his sister, the girl's mother, but eventually it becomes apparent that the character exist only as a mouthpiece for the author and nothing else. There's no conflict between the characters, there's no dramatic tension, it's just conversation and then some more conversation. It's a lecture disguised as a plot. And since all the points have already been made and we don't really care, it's redundant.
The filmmakers set everything up in their favor, it's all so one-sided that there's no room for spontaneity, there's no real life, just follow-the-numbers to a climax that could never be anything but what it is because it's not about characters, it's about a point of view. In the story about the immigrants being exploited at the meat-packing plant the disturbing fact that it's dangerous work is made about 10 times until we're finally just waiting for something horrible to happen and when it inevitably does it's like the filmmakers are saying "See, we TOLD you so!"
The story of the fast food executive involves him realizing there is a high degree of animal feces in their burgers because the plant is speeding-up the line so they can put out more product and therefore regulations cannot be properly followed. Naturally he covers it up to save his job, selling his soul in the process, boo-hoo. What might have worked as satire comes across as flat and fake, an afternoon soap-opera, since there was never any question of what he would do. I realize the filmmakers had the best intentions at heart, but as drama, this thing just lays there like a piece of cold dead meat, w/a considerable bit of shit itself.
H
After about 30 mins into FFN, which is a fictionalized story made from a non-fiction book, one can imagine exactly how this film started out, w/the filmmakers writing out a list of all the Evils they wanted to point out about fast food and related industries like meat-packers:
1) Animal Cruelty.
2) Low, unfair wages.
3) Contributes to illegal immigration and exploitation.
4) Unsanitary conditions.
5) Dangerous working environment.
6) Deceptive advertising.
7) Exploits children.
8) Contributes to the nation's health problems.
Oh, and did I mention, they're EVIL!
Now, I have no doubt this is all truth, and it needs to be said, but this is nothing on which to base a dramatic film if you don't have an interesting story and characters to carry it along. As the film plods on and on you can practically tic each off point one by one, "Ok, they showed this, now this, now that, now this..." And so on. The 3 interweaving plots, as much as one could call them "plots", are just arbitrary, something to hang the themes on. The stories, one about immigrants working at a meat-packing plant, another about a fast food executive's supposed awakening to the corruption in his industry, and the last about a teen who realizes her job at "Mickey's" makes her part of the Evil Empire, are so weak and poorly worked out that you keep waiting for more, but you never get it.
That plot w/the Mickey's teen is the weakest and that's really saying something. There's a sequence that goes on forever involving the girl's uncle coming to visit and supposedly opening her eyes as he babbles endlessly about McDonald's and The Gap and all those other stores at the mall that are apparently destroying our souls. At first I thought, "Surely this isn't all there is to this?", something else was going to have to happen to make it a real plot; maybe he was going to come on to her, or there was going to be some friction between him and his sister, the girl's mother, but eventually it becomes apparent that the character exist only as a mouthpiece for the author and nothing else. There's no conflict between the characters, there's no dramatic tension, it's just conversation and then some more conversation. It's a lecture disguised as a plot. And since all the points have already been made and we don't really care, it's redundant.
The filmmakers set everything up in their favor, it's all so one-sided that there's no room for spontaneity, there's no real life, just follow-the-numbers to a climax that could never be anything but what it is because it's not about characters, it's about a point of view. In the story about the immigrants being exploited at the meat-packing plant the disturbing fact that it's dangerous work is made about 10 times until we're finally just waiting for something horrible to happen and when it inevitably does it's like the filmmakers are saying "See, we TOLD you so!"
The story of the fast food executive involves him realizing there is a high degree of animal feces in their burgers because the plant is speeding-up the line so they can put out more product and therefore regulations cannot be properly followed. Naturally he covers it up to save his job, selling his soul in the process, boo-hoo. What might have worked as satire comes across as flat and fake, an afternoon soap-opera, since there was never any question of what he would do. I realize the filmmakers had the best intentions at heart, but as drama, this thing just lays there like a piece of cold dead meat, w/a considerable bit of shit itself.
H
There were some laugh out loud moments in LMS, but I would not classify it as a comedy. I found the father the most intriguing character. He can't see the world outside his own self-help technique, and everything about him is tragic.
Quote from fxtwins:
For a good laugh, don't miss Little Miss Sunshine -- hang in till they get out on the road and you won't regret it. It's a road trip charmer
No wonder it won the Screen actors Guild's equivalent of best picture award.
Cheers
fxtwins