|
|
The Intelligent Film Conversation ThreadThis thread has been blessed by Roadblock on 9/23/2007.
This thread is dedicated to sharing, discussing, and dissecting films with a focus on award winning, ground breaking, foreign, and avant garde cinema.
The Ruels: If you do not read these rules before you post, we will know and that does not bode well for you. The rules apply as such:
 Talk about film in an intelligent manner: "THAT MOVIE BLOWS" comments and their owners will be flushed out, embarrassed, humiliated, flamed, and shunned. "THAT MOVIE ROCKS" is not a conversation. It is a statement. And while your enthusiasm for film is wonderful, we are looking to delve further into why that movie rocks. The focus will be more about:
The Aspects of Film Making (Cinematography, Editing, Score, Dialog, Direction, Set Design, Art Direction, etc.)
Performances
Symbolism
Themes
Subtext and the deeper meaning of what is being displayed
Scene Deconstruction
Competent opinions/interpretation will be received with nothing less than standard courtesy. it is all right to disagree with what a film's possible theme is or what its symbolism stands for. Good films warrant discussion film makers are pleased as punch when people draw different conclusions about their art. It shows that people are paying attention and humbly honoring their efforts by showing they are looking past the surface. Art is subjective. We might all be right, we might all be wrong. Only the film maker knows for sure. And even if a film maker states in some article "This film is about....", people are still allowed to draw their own conclusions because it is quite possible a film maker may have constructed something that gives off mixed messages or affects somebody differently.
Generally, big budget Hollywood movies aren't going to cut it in here, but that doesn't mean you can't try. The Departed was a big budget movie but is an exception to the rule. Transformer comments belong in the Transformer thread. Alien can rest in here comfortably, but Alien vs. Predator cannot. It is a toss up with some films. So you can try to argue your case but the people in here may not see things your way. Don't get butt hurt. The Status Quo is going to inform you, hopefully politely. If you become hostile, then expect to receive hostility back. Movie opinions are sharp and heartfelt. I am hoping we can all play as nice as humanly possible.
Someone other than myself kick this off. Pick a film. We will see where this goes from there.
|
|
|
|
I feel that Donnie Darko is incredibly overrated.
When I first saw it I thought it was a pretty good movie.
But as I watch it now, I see how many flaws it really has...
The acting isn't all that great, and comes off as incredibly silly.
The shots aren't very nice looking, and the story had so much potential that went to waste.
(Am I doing it rite?)
This film has a lot to talk about. Unfortunately, I haven't seen it in many moons. There is debate over which version is better: The original theatrical release or the Director's Cut. It's like Blade Runner all over again.
They say the director's cut explains a lot more, but people that like to dig and not be handed every detail of what's going on do not like it.
Of course you are doing it right. Just be prepared to be met with some resistance.
The directors cut is for retards and has fireworks. Let's not forget PURGE PURGE PURGE PURGE!
All right. Tell the class why Butterfly Effect was good. Go into detail, specifics. This is why we are here. Sell us on it.
Yeah, from how you always talked about the Directors Cut it sounds like it was Donnie Darko for Dummies.
Time travel is inherently messy to deal with because it seems whatever rules you set up, you end up breaking them. If no one else notices when he alters the time line, why would his cell mate notice that he suddenly got scars on his hands? That alone can throw me off of a movie.
That movie could have been better with someone else. It was the story itself that made the movie, I think Ashton Kutcher is a terrible actor.
Yeah, but all movies have flaws. I think that a good movie is based on emotion and how deeply you can associate with the protagonist or even the antagonist. This movie showed you the pain of failing at everything you do until you realize that it takes sacrifice. These movies that get you to relate to the characters on a deeper level than two hours of entertainment are what makes a good flick.
That scene really did cause some problems for the movie.
I also feel that the rest of the movie was pretty solid, the acting was decent if not good.
I was interested in the story, and I could somewhat empathize with the characters.
As for Citizen Kane, I think I have seen that film enough times now and have dissected it enough to feel like I never want to see it again, at least not for a long time.
It was groundbreaking for its technical attributions in advancing Renoir's theory of deep focus among other things, but the story structure, which relies on flashbacks and accounts from possibly unreliable sources, was also very groundbreaking and broke from the traditional narrative of the time.
That film was probably one the most influential movies....back in the day. It's hard to hold it in such high regard if you weren't around back then. I own it and have watched it twice and can see what all the old time directors and critics see in it. But the truth of the matter is that Orson Welles made this movie to mock W. Randolph Hurst....over a woman.
Rosebud was the nickname W.R.H. gave to his girlfriend's vagina. Knowing the film is a slam piece kind of takes away some of the merit...for me. And all the stuff that Welles pioneered has been used so much now that it's hard to appreciate because you had to have been a film buff in the forties to really grasp the leaps he made. Still, overall it is a decent film, but not my personal number 1.
The Director's cut spoon feeds things waaaaay too much.
Citizen Kane's gigantism and shadow work was decades ahead of its time.
I will add...
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind,
By far my favorite movie, I've watched it so many times I can almost quote the movie out of the room.
I feel that the story is incredible, it was something new, interesting, and it was executed very well imo.
The acting was spectacular, Jim Carrey really convinced me with his character.
Kate Winslet also did a terrific job portraying the "weird" spontaneous girl.
I really liked the shots the director used.
Specifically the one where they are both under the blanket, something about that shot is just breathtaking.
Lastly, the soundtrack was flawless.
Charlie Kaufman + Michel Gondry = instawin
This is fact.
I did not realize Kaufman wrote Being John Malkovich.
That was also a brilliant film.
Post edited 9/23/07 12:36PM
I <3 Charlie Kaufman
His directoral debut looks like it could be good.
See I wonder if it truly was. Most likely it is, but a lot of American "Style" is cribbed from Foreign directors as you well know. But if he had borrowed that style from someone else, I am certain there would novels about the theft online by ardent fans of the director he swiped it from. I have not seen any to date.
In regard to Eternal Sunshine: I was blown away that a British Actress could embody a quirky American woman probably better than most American actresses could.
I'm going to watch Eternal Sunshine.
Like when Brian Cox says never use a deus ex machina even though he himself is one, and how when Charlie asks Donald how he would end the movie it switches into action movie cliche time.
I really dug that aspect of the film, but a lot of Kaufman hating critics (clearly people with no imagination or screen writing ability) chastised him for be a complete narcissist.
It's a skilled move to make something out of nothing (A book about an orchid expert.). The fact that he broadcast every fear of his onto the screen yet wrote a very compelling and interesting and entertaining film is a testament to his weird brilliance.
So?
Welles was a narcissist too.
It works for artists.
I don't take issue with it. I was pointing out what you liked is what others hated. That what one person perceives as brilliance is another man's garbage.
This idea will be the challenge of this thread.
A lot of people marvel at how Welles had never directed a film before Kane. While some choose to believe he gained all his film knowledge from "watching John Ford's Stagecoach several dozen times prior to filming," he had already established himself as a wunderkind of innovative British theatre and American radio.
In Barbara Leaming's biography on Welles she mentions how he and a hired RKO adviser spent months pouring over archives of films and jotting down techniques into a sort of reference manual. When people say he used every trick in the book, they couldn't have been more right.
Unlike Welles, Kaufman doesn't appear to be a Sisyphus.