Movies

[irishjayhawk]

Yeah, so I saw a lot of movies this weekend.

Elizabeth: The Golden Age - Mediocre, at best. Slow and dragged on. Shorten it to 2 hours and it's golden. It's not, so it fails.

Michael Clayton - Amazing. Everything about it is awesome. However, it's VERY complex and mind bending. You have to think, so be prepared. I still feel like I'm missing key details of exactly what happened. Gotta see it again.

Across the Universe - Perfect is one word that comes to mind. It just works. And, contrary to many people I bet, the movie is best viewed sober. Trust me.

[Skyy God]

Shutter Island was as meh as the critics suggested. I considered turning it off halfway through while waiting for the twist. Glad I didn't, because Patricia Clarkson and Jackie Earle Haley were fantastic, as always.

[Red Brooklyn]

I read the book, which I thought was pretty 'meh' as well. I've been dragging my heals on seeing the film. I can't imagine what it has to offer outside of the performances.

[Skyy God]

Originally Posted by Red Brooklyn

I read the book, which I thought was pretty 'meh' as well. I've been dragging my heals on seeing the film. I can't imagine what it has to offer outside of the performances.

Ben Kingsley, Michelle Williams, Max von Sydow, and the guy who played Buffalo Bill turned in great performances. Too bad it was for a crappy movie.

The SFGate reviewer compared it to M. Night.

You'd get little out of it.

[Skyy God]

Originally Posted by Buck

I saw "There Will be Blood" last night. Good shit.

Daniel Plainview certainly went from Sane to Insane over the course of 25 years.

Daniel Day Lewis is a G.

Bought time, son. As much as I love the Cohen brothers and No Country, it should have won Best Picture.

Guardian named it picture of the decade, and it would fall somewhere in my all time top 50.

[Red Brooklyn]

There Will Be Blood was an interesting film, to say the least. I think I still prefer No Country though.

I felt like TWBB was too long and a little masterbatory (on PT's part). And without Day-Lewis's remarkable performance, I think the film falls apart a bit.

No Country is just solid through and through, from the ground up.

[Reaper16]

Originally Posted by Red Brooklyn

There Will Be Blood was an interesting film, to say the least. I think I still prefer No Country though.

I felt like TWBB was too long and a little masterbatory (on PT's part). And without Day-Lewis's remarkable performance, I think the film falls apart a bit.

No Country is just solid through and through, from the ground up.

But it didn't fall apart. You can't criticize it for something it didn't do.

"The Godfather would have sucked if Carrot Top replaced Brando, so..."

[luv]

Watched Wolfman last night. Meh.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by Reaper16

But it didn't fall apart. You can't criticize it for something it didn't do.

"The Godfather would have sucked if Carrot Top replaced Brando, so..."

Sure you can, if the plotting or the secondary character development or cinematography, etc. etc, was rescued by a strong performance.

Think The Blind Side without Bulloch or Erin Brokovich without Roberts. Everything else exactly the same, without those leads, are made for Lifetime fare.

[Red Brooklyn]

Originally Posted by Reaper16

But it didn't fall apart. You can't criticize it for something it didn't do.

"The Godfather would have sucked if Carrot Top replaced Brando, so..."

Fair enough.

Let me rephrase. TWBB only has one really strong element to it, and that is Daniel Day-Lewis. Granted, (arguably) Day-Lewis's performance in TWBB is singularly better than any single aspect of NCFOM. But that's still not enough to call it a great movie, especially not "best of the decade" as the Guardian did.

TWBB lacks definition. It's too long. The other actors are hamstrung by a sub-par script that tries to be open, but finds itself lost most of the time. Don't get me wrong, Day-Lewis's character on the page lacks definition and focus as well. DDL is just good enough to fill in the blanks. He delivers a character that (I believe) surpassed even PT's expectations.

And PT Anderson seems to like himself way too much in this effort. It's Day-Lewis that grounds the project and keeps us watching. That's what he does best and that's why he earned the big statue. Because without Day-Lewis, I think the movie comes across as nothing but pretentious, rambling and innefficent cinematic masterbation. Now, DDL dulls most of edges for us, so it's not as obvious. But the pieces are still missing elsewhere. We just don't care as much (or notice as blatantly) as we would if DDL were not present.
Luckily, for PT & Co, they do have Day-Lewis. He overcomes many of the film's inherent flaws.

Seriously, I like the film. But the film is really just a performance.

NCFOM on the other hand is esquisite on every level. Each actor turns in a career defining performance. Hell, Jones' career was as good as dead. I had no idea he had that kind of performance left in him.

On top of the performances you have a fantastic script. Simple. Sparse. Beautiful. Not a wasted line. The script enhanced all the other elements of the film and vice versa.

The camera work is beautiful. And unlike, TWBB where the shots felt like they were only for one man's benefit, there are no wasted frames here, either. The frames let you in. They invite... it's a trap (as we all come to find out) but who can resist such a beautiful invitation?

PT Anderson has made at least 2 films that surpass TWBB. NCFOM might be the Coen's best all around work. It's not as entertaining as Lebowski. Nor as whimsical as Hudsucker. Nor as quirky as Fargo. But I would argue that all of the elements combined make for a better over all film experience than those other efforts. Barton Fink is NCFOM's strongest contender. That movie's pretty damn near perfect also.

So, yes, you're right. I can't critize TWBB for falling apart, when it did not. But I can critize if for all the other things it does not do - like flow effectively, or use it's frames wisely, or rally together a better ensemble to support Day-Lewis, or deliver a clean, cohessive narrative. I can critize those things. Because those are things it wanted to do - or at least should have done - but largely failed to do. TWBB is pretty, to be sure. But just because I want to hang a movie on my wall doesn't make it a great movie.

TWBB is a good movie that contains a remarkable performance.

The bottom line is I think TWBB thinks it's better than it is. I think NCFOM has no idea how wonderful it is. NCFOM exists. It lives and breathes. TWBB is a show. It kicks and screams. But only so you won't notice what's missing.

[Red Brooklyn]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

Sure you can, if the plotting or the secondary character development or cinematography, etc. etc, was rescued by a strong performance.

Think The Blind Side without Bulloch or Erin Brokovich without Roberts. Everything else exactly the same, without those leads, are made for Lifetime fare.

Exactly.

Much more succint than my post, but the same point.

[Red Brooklyn]

Originally Posted by luv

Watched Wolfman last night. Meh.

The one with del Torro?

I'm sorry to hear that. But I can't say I'm surprised.

[Reaper16]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

Sure you can, if the plotting or the secondary character development or cinematography, etc. etc, was rescued by a strong performance.

Think The Blind Side without Bulloch or Erin Brokovich without Roberts. Everything else exactly the same, without those leads, are made for Lifetime fare.

I don't think those moves are good even with those performances.

TWBB wasn't rescued by Day-Lewis. Like all character studies it needs a very strong performance because the performance is the core of those kinds of films. TWBB does not fail at being a character study. It doesn't fail at anything.

[irishjayhawk]

Originally Posted by Red Brooklyn

Interesting. Did the movie add anything to the experience? Or would you just recommend reading the book?

I guess, something like Fight Club was a fairly faithful literal adaptation, but Fincher enhanced the experience by doing things that were very faithful (to the spirit of the book) that couldn't be done in a written format. He added to the book with tools that could only be employed with film. In many ways, I'd say FC the movie is superior to the book because of what Finch did.

Is Dragon Tattoo the same sort of thing, or is it just a (more or less) straight forward visual representation of the book?

The books are interesting. Book 1 sets up everything while telling a good stand-alone story. Books 2 and 3 are like two parts of the same novel. However, Book 3 seemed to finish with someone other than Steig writing it. It was out of his style and element. In many ways, it finished hollywood-y on the page, which books 2 and 3 are definitely not.

It's mainly a visual representation of the book. However, the book is pretty dark at times and the film didn't shy away from it. That's where I really emphasize it being a clinic. Also, it's the reason I'm interested in Finchers because American audiences don't usually like in your face darkness or violence, especially sexual.

So, are they worth reading? Yes.

Did book 3 hurt the series? A tiny bit. Consider it a lot like the finale of LOST. It wasn't series killing but it did take a hit because it felt different and out of character.

Would I recommend the movie? Yes, because you can follow it perfectly fine without having read it. Another hallmark of a good adaptation. (Potter, take note.)

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

Sure you can, if the plotting or the secondary character development or cinematography, etc. etc, was rescued by a strong performance.

Think The Blind Side without Bulloch or Erin Brokovich without Roberts. Everything else exactly the same, without those leads, are made for Lifetime fare.

Hence my hate for Seven Pounds. Without Smith, that movie never sees the light of day. Honestly, that would have been a good thing.

[Red Brooklyn]

Originally Posted by Reaper16

I don't think those moves are good even with those performances.

TWBB wasn't rescued by Day-Lewis. Like all character studies it needs a very strong performance because the performance is the core of those kinds of films. TWBB does not fail at being a character study. It doesn't fail at anything.

I completely agree with that statement.

[Ceej]

So, has nobody else seen Felon or Rampage?