Feb 22 2009, 06:03 PM
Anybody else out there watching the Oscar's tonight? I didn't get to watch nearly as many nominated films as I would have liked, but I'm hoping to catch up a bit more in the coming weeks.
If Kate Winslet does not win, there may be rioting in the streets.
Feb 22 2009, 08:20 PM
i figured you knew all of that anna-- it just got edited out of the post
Feb 22 2009, 08:39 PM
I am! Complete with hourly texts and phone calls from my friends saying: "She wore that!!??"
Feb 22 2009, 09:44 PM
Did anyone notice the brief camera shot of Peter Gabriel's face in the audience when the guy accepted the award for Wall-E winning best animated film? Wonder if he's performing tonight.
Feb 22 2009, 10:50 PM
I'm reading the live blog on Jezebel. The ladies are quite bored and, like me, are annoyed that they're doing some bizarre tribute to Jerry Lewis. I just wanna see Kate Winslet win already!
Feb 22 2009, 11:01 PM
I'm hoping for Melissa Leo from Frozen River. She lived that part.
Feb 22 2009, 11:06 PM
Another complaint from me: Peter Gabriel is in the audience. Why in the world did they have John Legend sing his song from Wall-E and wreck it? Gah! I am so disappointed.
Feb 23 2009, 12:12 AM
Peter Gabriel declined the opportunity to perform when he learned that they wouldn't let him play the entire song.
Feb 23 2009, 12:19 AM
the oscars; can see why ratings are low. i like how h-wood turns a blind eye on Grand Tarino...
Feb 23 2009, 09:53 AM
Snow White, that is surprising b/c usually Eastwood is the darling of the Academy. I didn't see Grand Torino, but I plan to. Looks like he did a great job in it.
I thought the fashion this year was below par. Anyone else agree?
I was really surprised Mickey Rourke lost.
Thirtiesgirl, I also loved Melissa Leo in Frozen River. Wow.
Feb 23 2009, 12:58 PM
I saw Rachel Getting Married last night. Can someone explain to me why so many people think this movie is so effin good? I thought it suh-huh-huh-hucked in a major way. The cinematography was jarring, the shots were ugly, like a home movie at best. The narrative....what can I say, did we really need an hour of toasts and rehearsal dinner speeches and live music performance in a feature film that seemed, imho, not adding to the story or character development AT ALL.
Also, is Jonathan Demme not aware that there are professional actors looking to work? The movie is filled with people who can't act, because they're not actors. Get a real casting director please.
I'm mad because Demme has directed two of my fav films of all time, and this just seemed like a gigantic, self indulgent jerk off of a movie.
Anyone see The Room yet? I saw it over the weekend and wow, it doesn't disappoint in how disappointing it is.
it's a bad, bad movie.
Feb 23 2009, 01:09 PM
QUOTE(zoya @ Feb 21 2009, 09:47 PM)
ok, this is about the furthest thing from high-brow cinema that you can get, but it was hilarious. I just saw "One Eyed Monster." it's just making the rounds of film festivals now, but will come out on DVD at some point in April.
the plot? Ron Jeremy's penis gets invaded by an alien, removes itself from his body, and goes on a killing spree. It was suprisingly good, and funny as all get out. A total tounge-in-cheek homage to alien, the thing, and porn. It was cheesy on purpose, but smart cheesy, if that makes any sense at all. Oh and drives the point home of the importance of doing your kegels.
i have never wanted to see a movie so bad in all my life. thank you for this, i am eternally grateful to you.
Feb 23 2009, 02:19 PM
What was up with that strange musical interlude with Beyonce and Zack Efron in the middle of the telecast last night? None of the songs had anything to do with any of the nominated films, it just seemed to be a "we love music in movies, yes we do!" kind of moment. The damn thing was 3.5 hours long, you'd think they'd try to trim the fat a little.
I also didn't much care for them bringing out the 5 past winners of the acting awards. It was way too touchy-feely for me, especially the women giving unsolicited advice out to each other. What a stupid, stupid idea. Just give the damn trophy out already!
Loved Ben Stiller doing Joaquin Phoenix!
I was disappointed that Mickey Rourke didn't win. Sean Penn was pretty damn good, but I thought Mickey Rourke was better. I guess I've got a soft spot for pro wrestlers and stories about them. The scenes that were supposed to be violent and shocking weren't anything I haven't seen before on any WWE PPV, except for maybe the staple gun... maybe.
Feb 23 2009, 03:53 PM
Divala, I agree. The past winners praising the nominees just felt way too personal and ego-stroking, it ate up a lot of time and just felt uncomfortable to watch.
I wasn't into Rachel Getting Married either. I wasn't impressed by Anne Hathaway, some of it felt too long and self-indulgent, and I didn't really care about the drama. Bill Irwin was my favorite of the cast.
I liked Gran Torino a lot, it was really unexpectedly funny in parts.
Feb 23 2009, 10:17 PM
QUOTE(anna k @ Feb 23 2009, 12:53 PM)
I wasn't into Rachel Getting Married either. I wasn't impressed by Anne Hathaway, some of it felt too long and self-indulgent, and I didn't really care about the drama. Bill Irwin was my favorite of the cast.
That's exactly the point of the movie. Anne Hathaway's character wasn't supposed to be particularly likable, and she was very self-indulgent and attention-seeking. I mean, everyone else at her sister's rehearsal dinner was making their toasts about her sister and trying to keep things upbeat, and then Anne's character made her toast all about *her.* But what else was she supposed to do with a father who doted on her every move, tried to protect her too much, and her insanely self-centered mother played by Debra Winger? It was obvious after the big family crisis (the death of the younger brother
) that happened years before, Winger's character could barely hold herself together and take care of her family. So she did what she knew how to do best, which was take care of herself, end the marriage and create a new life with a new husband, where she could exist without having to really be there for her children. It explained why Hathaway's character ended up as she did, but in addition to the self-centeredness was the huge amount of guilt she felt about the whole thing, still waiting to be forgiven by her mother. They were not supremely likable characters. But very humanly flawed.
And yeah, Gran Torino deserved an award, or at least a mention.
Feb 23 2009, 10:37 PM
I meant I wasn't impressed with her acting. I thought she was fine, but not great.
Feb 24 2009, 08:44 AM
In regard to the bag that QT's head is coming from,
watching Godard's Band of Outsider reminded me that J-LG is another input.
Godard's mix of homage, violence, farce, inane chatter, jumps in tone.
Quentin is also getting something similar from Russ Meyer's "Faster Pussycat."
In general, I don't like being jerked around (for the sake of being jerked around?), so I'm wary of all this busy mix.
Just saw W. Maybe Stone over-extended himself in trying to both capture the whole oedipal thing (the difficult father-son axis), and then also so much board-room machinations concerning the Iraq war, torture, Guantanamara (as Bush calls it, hilariously...) But I do respect Stone's ambition to make big movies.
(Oh, but his use of music was deplorable. The worst thing in it. Musical "commentary" that was so jejune.)
Trouble-Gal, much thanks for your push for Ferrara's BS. I'll go look for it. Bad Lieutenant did sound like a major wank, and another reason to be glad that I wasn't raised Catholic. We are faced with a crop of Catholic directors, Scorcese, Copolla, Ferrara, De Palma (&?) which goes hand in hand with grim notions of sex and women. (Here I am bitching about masculinity, again!)
In the Criterion package for "Band of Outsiders," someone, (Anna K, perhaps) was saying how Truffault worked in a "classic" style, as opposed to Godard's ad hoc impulse and pastiche. Perhaps that's why he has held up?
I was so charmed the first time I saw "Tirer sur le pianist."
Feb 24 2009, 01:29 PM
anyone see Slumdog Millonaire? i know it made a clean sweep but it reminds of last years big winner, No Country for Old Men. i was totally unimpressed by that movie and i'm not inticed at all to see Slumdog either.
i'm still pissed the obvious best movie of the year with the most cultural relavency, Grand Tarino, was ignored. but not surprised. sean penn was kinda a shoe-in after playing a gay man, right? i mean, this is hollywood (not that i don't find his film any less meaningful, but tell me that wasn't predictable). i guess h-wood has turned there back on eastwood all together (according to some papers and web sites).
Feb 24 2009, 02:46 PM
really? perhaps it's just me, but i cannot imagine grand torino is the best movie this year. i'll admit i've not seen it, but it looks like a rehash of eastwood's dirty harry, and even with a "twist." which from what i've heard is rather simplistic. i doubt it's an "obvious" pick. you might not have been impressed by no country, but that movie had a lot more under the hood than your average american movie. it was daring, audacious, and wasn't looking to appease the audience.
Feb 24 2009, 02:58 PM
QUOTE(girltrouble @ Feb 24 2009, 02:46 PM)
really? perhaps it's just me, but i cannot imagine grand torino is the best movie this year. i'll admit i've not seen it
seriously? you've got to at least watch it! i was impressed. granted, it may not be up everyone's ally but i loved that eastwood kicked ass in all the right ways. it was a nice break from the touchy-feely PC smoke screen our culture bathes in. btw, i'm assuming you've seen at least some dirty harry to make the comparison, right?
Feb 24 2009, 03:27 PM
Slumdog Millionaire is so far removed from No Country for Old Men; I'm curious to why you've made that comparison, snow white?
Speaking of the Coens... I watched Burn After Reading over the weekend and was impressed by the smart, dark humour.
Also saw The Wrestler (v good) and Kung Fu Panda (amusing).
Hope to see Grand Torino soon.
Feb 24 2009, 03:42 PM
QUOTE(bunnyb @ Feb 24 2009, 03:27 PM)
Slumdog Millionaire is so far removed from No Country for Old Men; I'm curious to why you've made that comparison, snow white?
the only comparison i ment to make was that they both won best picture. i was just wondering if anyone here had seen Slumdog and if it was any good.
p.s. brad pitt was hi-larious in Burn After Reading
Feb 24 2009, 04:34 PM
Hi Snow white,
Here my quick reaction to Slumdog, posted here back around Feb 2:
.... for a very mainstream thing (for me) I just saw Slumdog Millionaire... in a theater.
In the first place: Simply too cranked up. Too much movement, spinning and cutting. I'd rather watch Ozu than this pounding stuff that's put out by dudes who have graduated "cum loud" from Music Video U.
Apart from that, I respect it for focusing on Muslims (of a sort)-- and wonder how its Muslim vs. Hindu angle played out in India, esp. given that it's directed by a Brit. (Or a Scot?)
I VERY much liked that scene where they suddenly come upon the child Hindu deity, with his blue face, and bow & arrow. One bit of suddenness (in a flic with too much aggressive suddenness) that worked...
For the most, it was overload.
On the Other hand, my date and my sister really liked it.
I'm with Trouble Girl concerning No Country: Very impressive.
Feb 24 2009, 04:49 PM
I saw Slumdog, and was really, really impressed with it. I couldn't have imagined anything other than that movie winning best picture. I guess what I liked so much about it is that there were so many pieces that skewed a lot of different ways, but it was still very cohesive, and not too heavy on the romance. I haven't seen Grand Torino, but plan to rent it when it comes out, so I can't make a proper comparison, but from what I saw with Slumdog, the win was very much justified.
I was a little pissed that Sean Penn won best actor, again. He was good, but I don't really think it was that much of a stretch for him, and the Harvey Milk that he played wasn't really multifaceted like Mickey Rourke was in The Wrestler. He was a gay politician... and that's about it, and he played it just that way. That movie seemed a little textbook history lesson to me. Mickey Rourke was robbed. I do have to say that I loved Sean Penn's acceptance speech, though, and what he said about those who voted for Prop 8 in California, how they should be ashamed of themselves.
I saw No Country For Old Men awhile back and IMHO, it was awful. For me, it was an overly long cat and mouse chase, and didn't have as much story as I'd have expected for a movie with all the accolades it got. I don't see what the big deal was about it.
Feb 24 2009, 06:54 PM
HUZZAH! It sounds as though Michael Cera has finally tapped all the sand from his vagina & signed on to do the Arrested Development movie!
Feb 25 2009, 01:33 AM
graduated "cum loud" from Music Video U.
i love you dolesome!
my wrists are killing me so i'll make my defense of no country
brief. essentually, there are two modes of film: open and closed.
closed is older, taken from 'the well made play' which is a style in which there are no loose ends, the characters destiny is fated,and the story is tightly plotted. there is no real free choice. most american films are closed. the 6th sense
is a closed film. it is structured like a mystery. all shots point to the final "reveal"/climax/resolution. plot is central.
the newer mode is open, it's origin is with the european new wave films of the late 50's and 60's. it's goal was to make film more life like. it's populated by morally ambiguous people, there is more room for chaos, randomness, shots are held longer than needed, plots are looser, leaving more room for interpretation. their endings, while decipherable, are less clear cut. i haven't seen it, but i suspect rachel getting married
is more open form. character, mood, or even tone are more important than plot.
no country is a meditation on these twin poles, it starts out closed, but hints at the openess, and open ending later in the film. it's constantly criss-crossing the border between the two 'states, even doing it literally when they go to mexico. even the tone changes. the killer character sutures the two worlds together. he is unstoppable, random, but controlled. he kills chaotically, but leaves it to fate. even more ironic is that ultimately this agent of fate is killed by random chance....or is it fate?
even the western setting has meaning. they have open settings (big skies, nature), but closed stories. westerns are also about a myth of the past, a "closed" sanitized version of history, (which is where we start) and we move to a more "modern" chaotic world view. no country is a look at these two "belief systems" where they intersect, diverge and conflict. it's about film, world view, and the country, history and how we revise it.
i'm actually kind of excited cos cera is gonna be in the movie version of one of my fave comeek book/graphic novels--scott pilgrim vs. the world
. he better not screw it up either, or i will kick him in his....er... formerly sand filled vagina
Feb 25 2009, 09:43 AM
Plus, the story by Cormack McCarthy was great. Nick Cave and the team behind the movie The Proposition are taking another Cormack McCarthy book, The Road, and making a movie of it.
I should add: if you want to see a *really* good movie, rent Frozen River. Melissa Leo, who was nominated for best actress, but didn't win, is excellent in it.
Feb 25 2009, 09:35 PM
I am experiencing a Deja Vu about No Country for Old Men, what with all the "Don't like it? But look at it this way!" writing going on here...the best thing about it for me is placing it in context of the Coen Brothers' work over the years.
I love the many parallels (including some of the archetypal figures--Nathan Huffhinds/Arizona in the first film from 20 years ago, and the character the same actor plays just before the end of NCFOM--a kind of griot) in Raising Arizona, their first big commercial success as directors and filmmakers, to No Country for Old Men. This is the shadow version of the American Dream myth, as it's understood and presented by these filmmakers.
I'm repeating myself, so I'll stop, but I think GT's understanding of open and closed film narrative fits with both films, and to me that's telling in itself.
Feb 25 2009, 11:38 PM
i think cha's idea of placing it among the director/writer/auteur's work is probably a good idea, especially the coen brothers, whose first film, blood simple was self-consciously neo noir. it's obvious they have a firm grasp of genre as well as film tropes.
that said, divala, snow white, i don't mean to discount your point of view. your opinions are just as valid as mine, or anyone else.
Feb 26 2009, 03:46 AM
i think the queasiness in my stomach was a premonition--- the bad lieutenant was playing on ifc...
Feb 26 2009, 08:11 AM
gt, I find your film analysis of NCFOM really interesting but, charting the progression of the Coens, do you think that Burn After Reading holds up well to the theory? It seemed closed to me but then I may be looking at it two-dimensionally by thinking that closed = conclusion.
Feb 26 2009, 09:00 AM
Hey Girl Trouble,
I LOVED! your combining of open & closed narratives and (western) spaces.
You smart cookie, you.
Brings to mind movies where the enclosed-paranoid noir feel /story turns up in western spaces, like Walsh's Pursued, especially. And Anthony Mann's transitional "The Furies."
Are you the daughter of that "Trouble Man" that Marvin Gaye sings about?
I think I overheard you humming that tune... in the all-night Diner... over your last cup of coffee.....
PS After Xmas I skipped back to those western spaces: Death Valley, the Mojave, Zion...
The jaw droppeth. Their enormity cannot be grasped until they surround you.
Feb 26 2009, 02:38 PM
one thing about closed movies is they are plot driven-- people "accidentally" meet someone who "just so happens to be" the brother's cousin's shoemaker's dog walker, who, manages to.... these sort of contrivances, coincidences are definately closed-- think about it this way:theatrical, neat, tidy, no loose ends=closed; realistic, messy, unexplained, raises more questions = open.
so, i'm glad you asked, bunny*--BAR is an extreme closed movie. i'll go back to my favorite opening/closing shot-- the god shot--almost always how horror movies start. the camera descending from above to stalk the protagonists. the one i talked about when i mentioned funny games. it's also what bookends BAR. this shot infers there is a guiding "force" controlling the story you are about to see. it is for all intents "the god" of the film it can go anywhere, anytime, but it has a single purpose-- to tie all of these things in a nice neat bow. even if, as is the case with bbr, it's point is there is no point. with an open film, the camera is more mortal-- always at eye level. never knowing more than the protagonists. think of a documentary-- the zenith of an open movie. if bbr was an open movie the conclusion (it doesn't mean anything) would never have been spelled out so neatly. it would have ended in a way that told you "it all means nothing" in a more open way-- think of the end of slacker, where the camera skips off, slacking from giving us any conclusion at all. or, more to our discussion here to some degree, the end of no country for old men. the milk chocolate melts in our mouth, the end either way, but it's how it's done. americans like to be told and feel satisfied by a definite ending. europeans prefer symbolism where the viewer interprets.
that said, most movies are not strictly one or the other, genre movies pull heavily towards the closed, but this is what separates a good modern (or post modern) movie from a great one. the manipulation of open and closed systems to effect the viewer is part of the point. this might seem a bit contradictory considering my love of films like funny games, because they are, mostly closed, but it is the way a director like haneke uses open that makes FG all the more horrifying. most of the film is a rather relentless, claustrophobic closed system pushing this family towards their deaths which are announced near the start of the film (fate-- always strong in closed films). but after the murder of the parent's child, haneke uses an open technique: a much-too-long take in a wide shot of the whole living room. the mother partially unties herself hops over to the tv and the body of her child. she pauses, then turns off the tv, and collapses. the shot lingers before the cut. the change of pace, as well as the parts not needed in the frame indicate the shot/ sequence is open rather than closed. for this shot/sequence there is chaos. real time, real life intrudes and the audience must deal with the horrible situation at hand in all it's ugly messiness. (the symbolism is interesting too-- thru the movie violence is called "entertainment" or a "show" the turning off of the tv, is an end to the show, even if temporary.) a normal horror movie would have followed the killers or cut to 10 min later as they try to find help. fg does both, going back to the closed system, but not before giving the audience a dose of "reality" that will leave a bad taste in their mouth.
dolor, you sly thing you! thank you. i have to admit, i am not good w/westerns. i want to like them, but i just haven't found the time to see more than a handful. are there any starter westerns you'd recommend?
*rereading your question i realized i got side tracked from it. when looking at directors work using the 'auteur' theory (that a given director's films form a sort of cohesive whole, or singular concerns), i think it is very important NOT to expect consistantcy from one film to the next, strange as that sounds. but film number 8 may have more in common with films 2, 3 and 6 more than it does with films 7 and 9, the ones that preceed and follow it. the idea is to step back, and look at over all patterns, since stylistic choices might change over time.
if you are interested in reading more about open/closed narratives in film i'd recommend this book.
it's written for laymen, and if you love film it will be the best $20 you ever spent. it's my favorite film theory book, and a classic.
i'm back on netflix, and i love writing notes to friends about films in their queue, so if you want to add me just drop me a line and i'll send you the link.
Feb 26 2009, 05:18 PM
If you appreciated the movie, "W." Stone's commentary is highly recommended, for comments on Bush history, his interpretation of Bush's psychology, his notes on how they constructed the film, reworked the scenes, etc. Stone is articulate, and did much reading to put together the sorry story. (A closed narrative, alas.)
Of course the history is very fresh-- and still unfolding, given how much the Bush team are responsible for the unfolding economic disaster, unfolding mess in the middle east, etc... We'll be learning more about Bush and living through this disaster as the years go by.
Feb 27 2009, 04:31 PM
Has anyone seen a movie called Repo: A Genetic Opera? A friend of mine saw an ad for it while watching Saw V but she won't actually see the movie because it's a musical. I love musicals and think it looks interesting but wondering if there are any other musical movie lovers out there????
Mar 4 2009, 01:23 PM
QUOTE(girltrouble @ Feb 26 2009, 02:38 PM)
i'll go back to my favorite opening/closing shot-- the god shot--almost always how horror movies start.
I simply love reading your posts girl trouble.
Has anyone seen The Visitor? It's the flick Richard Jenkins got the best actor nod for this past year. It's a really nice story and Jenkins is fantastic in it. Oh, and plus, this deliciousness
Mar 5 2009, 11:18 PM
I watched Towelhead with my boyfriend last week, it's a girl's 'coming of age' movie guaranteed to make you squirm, laugh out loud and want to cry. It was interesting watching it with a man. Does anyone else find that there's a degree of incredulity from men when you try to describe what relating to men and boys can be like for a teenaged girl? The combination of curiosity, naivety, erotic energy, neediness, confusion and sometimes damage that makes a teenager tick, the reasons behind the strange, and heartbreaking but common, situations girls find themselves in. The main character's experience was not mine, but I felt like I understood the interior of that character, a girl's life and I felt like my boyfriend really got it too. It's a great movie.
Lola Rojo (I love your name) I haven't seen The Visitor. I've shied away from it...but deliciousness is in it your saying? He looks worth the price of admission.
I'm gunna see Watchmen tomorrow *does the chacha dance*
Mar 5 2009, 11:29 PM
Um, RD? Repo has Paris Hilton in it. And she got a best supporting actress Razzie for it. 'nuff said.
I wanna see the big blue schlong, but Watchmen isn't here yet.
Mar 6 2009, 10:36 AM
I, too, want to see Watchmen. But I think I'll wait until, oh, early Tuesday afternoon. I hate crowded theaters - there's a greater chance of sitting behind some jack-ass who insists on texting his idiot friends on his bright-as-hell blackberry throughout the movie.
Mar 7 2009, 11:07 AM
I watched part of Read My Lips last night. I'm going to write more about it, but what stood out for me was the slow pace, the tight close-ups of Carla and Paul, the haunting theme music, and the true sense of intimacy achieved through the interesting character development and many personal scenes between the two. I also liked how Carla makes a subtle transformation from a mousy secretary to a noir heroine, simply by putting on a little makeup, loosening her hair, and moving with sharper eyes and a self-assured walk. And that Paul, even though he fits the sexy ex-con look, is an awkward, shy mess, at one point misunderstanding Carla's intentions and fumbling through life.
What was also an inspired choice was reducing the sound whenever Carla had her hearing aids out, hearing faint sounds and blocking out the rest of the world, entering her mind. The film also used a lot of shadowy imagery, fading in and out, it was very mysterious and intriguing.
I had first seen this film in 2001 while working at an arthouse theater, and they had it in their video library. I watched it twice in one weekend, just mesmerized by the twisted love story, close-up shots, tight intimate moments, and just the whole spooky atmosphere of it all.
Mar 7 2009, 01:33 PM
jsmith, I usually watch movies on Mondays or Tuesdays for the very reasons you just mentioned. When I go to the movies on the weekend, the theater is always full of glowing phones from idiots who can't wait two hours to send a text message to their friends. Grrr. Luckily, I was able to see Watchmen on Friday afternoon with a trustworthy bunch of fanboys (aka Sheff's 60-some-odd co-workers).
I am a fan of the graphic novel, so it's impossible for my opinion of the film to not be colored somehow by that. That being said ...
I enjoyed it. It was great to see how closely the feeling of the graphic novel was reflected in the film. I was really impressed by that. Many of the scenes and much of the dialog seemed to be taken directly from the original, which is as it should be in my opinion. Yes, there were some changes - especially some of the details at the end - but somehow that didn't bother me. Actually, the ending of the film made more sense to me than the ending of the comic.
I was especially impressed by the casting of Night Owl and Rorschach. They were spot-on perfect. The same with The Comedian. Really great job. I was skeptical about Billy Crudup as Doctor Manhattan & I'll admit that it took me a while to accept him as that character, but I eventually got used to it.
There were a few things that bothered me.
1. The violence was far too gratuitous. It did NOT have to be that gory.
2. The sex scene. Waaaaaay TMI.
3. Some of the music choices felt very cliche to me. I'm sure they used those iconic songs in an effort to immediately put the audience into the correct time periods, but it felt a bit ham-fisted to me.
4. I think the comic did a better job of showing the power and wealth of Veidt/Ozimandias and basic ubiquity of his products & advertising in the world. He was like Richard Branson times 10. The power of this character in the real world is very important so it bothered me that he didn't seem as powerful in the film as he did in the graphic novel.
Despite those little things, I really really enjoyed it. I'd been worried about it, but I felt very satisfied with the results. I don't think we'll see it again in the theater, but I suspect we'll buy it.
Mar 7 2009, 03:14 PM
hey now, don't go dogging the whole damn movie just cause paris hilton's in the cast! there were plenty of other things going on that distracted from that hot mess, and the movie as a whole was pretty damned good. i likened it to rocky horror: good, campy, over-the-top silly fun with a hummable soundtrack. it also has sarah brightman, anthony stewart head, paul sorvina, and ogre nivek from skinny puppy. paris hilton sucks as a person (a slutty, spoiled socialite with no care for anything but her own fame and dubious singing career, yeah, that was a real stretch of her acting chops), but the movie as whole was fun and not a waste of my time.
Mar 7 2009, 04:31 PM
Watchmen See it!! And if you remember the 80's that'll add a little more sweetness to the experience for you too.
Roseviolet, I never read the comic. I strongly agree with your point 1, such a turn off.
2. I was a bit uncomfortable, but have to admit it's either really sexy, or really funny
3. Yeah I thought the iconic images they used were much more effective for that purpose
4. You're right. Not having read the comic I didn't grasp the breadth of that at all
I'm going to see it again.
AuralPoison, you weren't kidding about teh blue schlong; oh my.
Mar 7 2009, 04:59 PM
I enjoyed Watchmen despite being a big fan of Alan Moore's graphic novel. I think Moore's text contains an angry, dark political critique no Hollywood movie can pull off. However, I was disappointed in Malin Akerman who played Laurie, who came across as a Valley Girl more than anything else. I loved Jackie Earle Haley and Jeffrey Dean Morgan, particularly Haley as Rorschach: utterly perfect.
RV, some of the songs, such as the Dylan one at the start (and maybe All Along the Watchtower)were referenced in the graphic novel, which I think is why they were used here.
I preferred the book's ending but oddly enough I think both endings convey the same idea, even if they are different: that millions of people had to be destroyed to ensure the salvation of the rest. It's an extreme scenario in both cases.
Mar 7 2009, 05:08 PM
I didn't slam Repo just because I don't like Paris, I actually thought the film was quite bad. Paris was actually a highlight for me in it, but I do feel her prior film choices are an excellent barometer as to whether or not something is total shite.
Repo was quite ambitious, I'll give it that, but it fell far from the mark it was aiming for. It was trying too hard to get cult midnight movie status, so they just went the lame-ass calculated route rather than the honest one. It wasn't so much a rolicking, good-time, campy experience for me as it was an excercise in fodder for future Hot Topic merch tedium. I did like the sort of pop-comic imagery of the sets, the costumes, the colours, & a lot of the music was amusing. But I also felt that maybe they should have worked less on the look & more on the film itself.
And on the cast: The actress playing Shiloh sucked; Paris was actually better because she seemed to have had a better grasp of what the material called for than the other gal. She's just a kid, though. I've never been particularly enthused by Brightman but she was as good as expected, not a Buffy fan, so am not much of one for Anthony Head (Though I was very pleasantly surprised by his performance in Repo!.), & Paul Sorvino chews up scenery like a mad man. I guess in this case is actually a compliment for him. I'm pretty meh about the Skinny Puppy guy, too.
Mar 7 2009, 09:31 PM
Sybarite, the one music choice that bothered me the most was the use of "Ride of the Valkyries" during the scene with Doctor Manhattan in Vietnam. That was such a pathetic choice - such an obvious cliche - it was almost comical.
Mar 7 2009, 10:41 PM
i haven't seen the movie, but valkyries was mentioned in the comeek, if i'm not mistaken. considering the song is best known by modern audiences from apocalypse now, a film about the vietnam war, i would think it more a sardonic commentary/recasting/intertextual reference. that movie looms so large in terms of pop culture, and the duplication of the setting, i doubt it could be anything other than an intentional choice. i can see, however, how that would be painful/annoying/come across as plain stupid.
Mar 8 2009, 12:54 AM
well, i guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree here ap. you might have valid points, but i couldn't say whether that's so, because i choose movies more for their entertainment value than in-depth analyzation. i found repo entertaining, and that's good enough for me; your mileage obviously varies.
Mar 8 2009, 09:42 AM
We're already noted how much we both like "Read my Lips." I can't think of a recent movie which is more empowering in terms of how Carla takes control of her situation (in the face of those who would take advantage of her...)
Including that point when Paul makes his moves on her, because it's expected of him, and she pushes him away. She wants more than mere moves.... and gets it!
Another movie that I go for in a big way, and which is also empowering is King of Masks. It's more sentimental, focused upon a little Chinese girl, who is so put upon, so denigrated (just for being female)... and who rises to her occasion. Highly recommended.
Mar 8 2009, 04:51 PM
Grrrl, I simply wasn't much entertained by Repo! & you called me out for crapping on it. I wasn't over-analyzing things, I was simply stating my case as to why I thought it was shite in contrast to your defense of it. Repo! to me is not worth the effort of semiotics.