General Chat / Films to anticipate in 2004

Pointless to even respond...

But fun...

2. The Passion of the Christ

Finally saw this... man, I wasn't even close. **1/2/****, a mediocre movie in just about every way.

Any particular reasons (though I can see why you'd think that way, but I'm interested in your opinions).

Oh yeah, and go see Hellboy or something. (just so you can actually be current when you see a flick)

Ah! Glad this thread was brought back, cause I got to check out some of the trailers that have come out since.

"I, Robot" looks incredible. Will Smith has always been one of my favorite actors because he is so fluid. Watching the trailer, you almost come to believe the robots are real, although they are not quite realistic. Great visual effects though.

"The Whole Ten Yards" actually comes out tommorow, and it doesn't look like the typical sequel. They were able to bring back Matthew Perry, which was essential to retaining the comic chemistry. (Well Bruce too, but they weren't going to make a sequel without him )

Did you happen to mention "Saved!" anywhere? I assumed it was going to be retarted, seeing as it was a Mandy Moore flick and although I haven't seen Chasing Liberty, well, it was a Mandy Moore flick. Also, did you know Mac Caulkin was still alive? Incredible. Anyway, I am really anticipating this. It looks awesome. I am so happy someone is finally putting out a movie like this, because that's really how it is. Go watch the trailer.

Ahhh...lets see...the sound for Lemony Snicket didn't work, but Jim Carry's visuals were great (when isn't he great) and the books are absolutely genious. They are short enough to practically be the screenplay, which can really make for magic. Although probably they are combining a few books...

Can't wait for The Ringer (sick shit)...
Can't wait for The Brothers Grimm...
Can't wait for The Polar Express (I love that book )...
Looking forward to that Johnny Depp flick and that "Terminal" one...
DEFINATELY can't wait for filming to start on "Tintin."

Oh yeah, and go see Hellboy or something.  (just so you can actually be current when you see a flick)

I've seen it. I posted my thoughts in the hellboy thread a few days ago.

***/****- Good movie but not great... more than its share of problems that are sometimes covered up by the first-rate character interaction... It was worth the 8.50 and I'd pay for a sequel.

I loved Perlman as Hellboy, he was charasmatic and interesting... I felt the same for all the scenes between him and Liz Sherman... and the scenes where he is on the rooftop spying on her and Myer's are some of the best in the film.

Otherwise, it was pretty standard fare that was really brightened up by Perlman and his one liners. Action was solid, though there was too much of it.

Kroenen was cool in the Darth Maul sort of way. Rasputin was really worthless and the big fight at the end of was anti-climactic and felt too easy.

I didn't have many problems with the editing as some did... though I felt it ran a little too long for what actually happened (the story is really just a sieve for the main characters). Maybe cut out some of the Sammael fights.

As I said, most of it was standard... but there were glimpses of briiliance (not the least of which was the art direction which was amazing). I wanted to get past the action so I could get back to the unique and beautiful and/or hilarious scenes that dotted the film... Stuff such as the aforementioned Hellboy spying on the "date" scene with his discussion with the 9 year old boy... the cigar lighting scene, or something as simple as the beautifully shot scene of (spoiler) Professor Broom's funeral procession.

Special note also has to be given to Marco Beltrami's worthy musical score and main theme. I wasn't reallly a fan of him before, but he really delivered here. I didn't know he had it in him.

Any particular reasons (though I can see why you'd think that way, but I'm interested in your opinions).

Well, first of all... the whole thing felt like it was preaching to the choir. A secret club (albeit a rather large one at that) that only the initiated can understand. It succeeds somewhat despite essentially being bad filmmaking in many cases. Just because it's Jesus does not exempt it from such things as character introductions (if I didn't know before hand, I would have just sat there wondering why we keep getting shots of Monica Belluci (as the prostitute Mary) crying.

Then there was the completely laughable ideas such as "Satan" and his damn demon children that was, for lack of a better word... laughably bad. Let us also not forget King Herod's throne room, which felt like it was lifted from the beginning of Return of the Jedi. Too much cheese going around too often. The slow-motion was overdone... and having to watch Jesus drag the crucifix up the hill for about 30 minutes really didn't need to be that long. In fact, the whole idea of focusing on only the death drew the film out way too long. It would have been less monotonous to actually see Jesus from "inception" to death. It would have made it more involving. Maybe someone will come along and do this.

That said, there was stuff worth liking. The crufixition scenes atop Mt. whatever was great drama (I especially loved Cavaziel's delivery of the "forgive them father, for they know not what they do" line. The atmosphere and production values were excellent, as was John Debney's musical score.

And throughout the crap, my being sorta-versed in what was going on kept me interested. Some of it was absolute crap, some of it was beautiful, most of it was just competant. I wish someone beside Mel would have made this film... because it would have been so much better to see his whole life, than just this.

On a side note, it wasn't nearly as gory or bloody as I thought it would be. Flesh wounds don't unnerve me, so the scouring scene was pretty easy to take. The only thing that made me cringe just a little bit was when the first nail was driven through his hand.


-----------------------------------------------------------

Now that that's dealt with...

I've also seen Eternal Sunshine, which unfortunately turned out to be the worst thing I've seen so far this year. (**/**** )
The best thing I could say about it is that it was "clever". Too quirky for it's own good, it skims the surface of all the relationships and never gives us anything to really care about. I've come to the conclusion that it was only partially Kaufmann's fault... but mostly, Michael Gondry is just a hack who should probably stick to music videos.

I would have just sat there wondering why we keep getting shots of Monica Belluci (as the prostitute Mary) crying. 


Now that that's dealt with...

I've also seen Eternal Sunshine, which unfortunately turned out to be the worst thing I've seen so far this year. (**/**** )
The best thing I could say about it is that it was "clever".  Too quirky for it's own good, it skims the surface of all the relationships and never gives us anything to really care about.  I've come to the conclusion that it was only partially Kaufmann's fault... but mostly, Michael Gondry is just a hack who should probably stick to music videos.

I think the general consensus among religious scholars now is that Mary Magdelene was not a prostitute. That was a misinterpretation brought in sometime much later. Who Mary Magdelene actually was, however, is a topic surrounded in much controversy.

As for Eternal Sunshine, I liked it more than I expected to even. I still like Adaptation more because that was a genius script with no equal, but I don't understand where you get off labeling Gondry a hack. The fact that it skims the surface of the relationships sounds to me like a problem you saw in the script not the direction. Too clever for it's own good, and emotionally shallow are (in this case) script deficincies. You want to talk about a hack, let's talk about Kill Bill. You want to talk about a film with no emotional depth in it's characters and needlessly gimmicky direction, Kill Bill again. I don't know what you were expecting, but I thought the two main characters in Endless Sunshine were very well developed. And the other characters weren't supposed to me. In fact, it had one of the most believable relationships I've ever seen in a film. I don't think the movie was brilliant in any way, but I do think it was quite good which puts it in stark contrast to everything else I've seen in the theater in the past few months. And I don't see how you can call the characters in Eternal Sunshine shallow when you praise a hoary Hollywood cliche called The Last Samurai which doesn't even have any characters. It has charicatures masquerading as characters.

Oh, great. I thought The Day After Tomorrow was going to be based in like 7000 AD, with the title as a metaphor and a warning as to the proximity of those events happening. The premise looks almost as improbable as The Core now.

My Most See List(No Order)

1. Troy
2. Hellboy(It was ok but didn't do the comics justice.)
3. Passion of the Christ(Lived up to the contraversy.)
4. Secret Window(It was great my favorite movie so far this year.)
5. Eternal Sunshine
6. Ladykillers
7. Van Helsing
8. King Arthur
9. The Village
10. The Forgotten

I would have just sat there wondering why we keep getting shots of Monica Belluci (as the prostitute Mary) crying. 


Now that that's dealt with...

I've also seen Eternal Sunshine, which unfortunately turned out to be the worst thing I've seen so far this year. (**/**** )
The best thing I could say about it is that it was "clever".  Too quirky for it's own good, it skims the surface of all the relationships and never gives us anything to really care about.  I've come to the conclusion that it was only partially Kaufmann's fault... but mostly, Michael Gondry is just a hack who should probably stick to music videos.

I think the general consensus among religious scholars now is that Mary Magdelene was not a prostitute. That was a misinterpretation brought in sometime much later. Who Mary Magdelene actually was, however, is a topic surrounded in much controversy.

As for Eternal Sunshine, I liked it more than I expected to even. I still like Adaptation more because that was a genius script with no equal, but I don't understand where you get off labeling Gondry a hack. The fact that it skims the surface of the relationships sounds to me like a problem you saw in the script not the direction. Too clever for it's own good, and emotionally shallow are (in this case) script deficincies. You want to talk about a hack, let's talk about Kill Bill. You want to talk about a film with no emotional depth in it's characters and needlessly gimmicky direction, Kill Bill again. I don't know what you were expecting, but I thought the two main characters in Endless Sunshine were very well developed. And the other characters weren't supposed to me. In fact, it had one of the most believable relationships I've ever seen in a film. I don't think the movie was brilliant in any way, but I do think it was quite good which puts it in stark contrast to everything else I've seen in the theater in the past few months. And I don't see how you can call the characters in Eternal Sunshine shallow when you praise a hoary Hollywood cliche called The Last Samurai which doesn't even have any characters. It has charicatures masquerading as characters.

You're alot more hostile than I remember... and a little less organized.

Anyway... hack is definitely harsh (probably a measure of my disappointment), between this and "Human Nature", it seems to me that Gondry's strength is not cinema... either that or he needs to get scrpts from someone other than Kaufman.

I also never said to clever for it's own good. Clever was the compliment I gave it. "Too quirky" was above all a problem with the direction.

And I don't see how you can call the characters in Eternal Sunshine shallow when you praise a hoary Hollywood cliche called The Last Samurai which doesn't even have any characters. It has charicatures masquerading as characters.

That's the thing with opinion. It doesn't make sense. As for The Last Samurai, I loved it mostly as a visual work... no different than your love for the immensely shallow Blade Runner.

I couldn't connect with their relationship. The film seemed to skim across the surface but never penetrated my emotions. I wanted to feel for the characters but there was never a pause in the film's attack of the senses to allow me to do so. Does that make sense? In the end I felt I missed something. Maybe the intent was to be on the outside looking in and not given the chance to access the characters, but I was left wanting.

Eternal Sunshine had the feel of an elongated music video.

In fact, it had one of the most believable relationships I've ever seen in a film.

Believable? Sure, but I didn't really care.

You want to talk about a hack, let's talk about Kill Bill. You want to talk about a film with no emotional depth in it's characters and needlessly gimmicky direction, Kill Bill again

Then again, I don't see how you're comparing the two. It's quite obvious they are not meant to be enjoyed in the same way.

To continue this orgy of incoherent thought that I have going... can someone explain to me how exactly Winslet's character is able to keep a steady conciousness of coherent thought in Carey's memories? It makes sense for Joel, but not for Clementine.

Anyway, arguments aside... it's my opinion that the best thing about Eternal Sunshine was the sublime trailer for "Garden State" that played in front of it.

Don't you hate it when you make a long well-reasoned post and then because of the glories of the internet the site won't load and you lose it all? Now I've got to try to pick up the pieces and reconstruct what I already said and I know it isn't going to make any sense. Oh well.

Firstly, you may have a valid point with Gondry being a better music video director. What excites me about Gondry's work is that it's all refreshingly original and technically impressive and usually doesn't use any special effects. What he does with a camera and some props is more convincing than what a lot of guys do with expensive CG effects. On the other hand, a lot of those ideas work better in a music video format where they don't wear out their welcome. I haven't seen Human Nature yet and I know just as many people that love it as I know people who don't like it so I don't know what you saw or didn't see in that film exactly. Even you must admit that calling him a hack is unjustified and that's what got me to respond in the first place (as you must have known it would have).

As for Blade Runner, I will repeat at any time that I think the film is deeply flawed. The production company didn't have faith in Ridley so the schedule was rushed, the budget reduced, and the film suffers as a result. It has more continuity errors than any other movie I can think of because it had to be re-edited to clear up story problems where scripted scenes were either unshot or unusable. In addition to the story problems, the main character is totally unemotional and unsympathetic. This works with the theme of the movie though as it is about what it means to be human and the robots in the film are more emotive than the main character. In fact, that's essential to the theme of the film. So while I agree that the film has a lot of problems, I also think it is profound thematically. The themes in Blade Runner have shown up in hundreds of sci-fi films since many of which have been much more succesful than Blade Runner, but all of which are inferior. Originality is what matters to me. You should read some of the production history on that film. Ridley Scott's visual genius is not just the result of a good eye and formal training in drawing. His speculative world for Blade Runner is amazingly detailed. Anyway, all I'm trying to say is that I love Blade Runner despite it's flaws because the flaws (editing problems, unclear story) are far outweighed by the strong points and I'm willing to excuse story incoherency for other aspects in any film. With The Last Samurai, poor characterization seemed to me a big flaw in the movie and to critisize one film for it's lack of characterization and then excuse it in another seems inconsistent to me.

As for why I brought up Kill Bill, it's because you used the word hack. For me a hack is someone who doesn't care at all about content or originality, but takes all the style and content which were personal to others and uses it to make soulless products. To me, Kill Bill fits that description perfectly. Maybe you have a different definition than I do.

I'm not totally unsympathetic. I can see why you wouldn't like Eternal Sunshine. It's a movie that goes out of it's way to seperate you from the characters. For a movie about relationships, it's very dry and academic. I like dry and academic because the issues are what interests me. The characters exist to explore a broader concept so the goal of the movie is not for you to empathize with them, but to think about their situation. Not everyone likes dry and analytical. I understand that. I could say something about Bertolt Brecht and intentional alienation of the audience. I tend to think melodramtic films are suspect anyway because they have a particular message in mind and they make it their goal to convince the audience of that view. That's dishonest and disrespectful to me. When the main character dies and there's this big swell of sympathetic music. Bah, give me a break. You should present ideas in a way that people can think about them on their own. Yes I hate Eisenstein and everything he stood for. But what I enjoy about movies is not what everybody enjoys.

Perhaps I was a bit overzealous. Kill Bill and The Last Samurai are two films I hate with a passion. I hate them because to me they represent everything that is bad about movies. Any opportunity I get to slam them tends to make me look hostile. I think in that discussion we had when Kill Bill first came out, if you remember, I was at my most hostile so this isn't exactly a new thing.

So anyway, yes I think the intent of Eternal Sunshine was to keep you on the outside looking in. Maybe you see aspects of the characters that you identify with (as I did) so you think about how the themes apply to you. Maybe you don't. But ultimately it's a theoretical film. It's going to be a little dry like all Kaufman films tend to be. As for the Winslet character developing as Carrey's thoughts went backward, it's one of those things where I just accept that it makes sense within the world of the story. Again, I'm willing to overlook little story inconsistencies like that because I got the major themes out of the film so beyond that, the details aren't that significant. It's just nitpicking to me to pull a film apart in that way. That wasn't the point of the film so why make it the point of the film?

______

Damn it, I told you that would be too confusing. The stupid internet deleted my coherent post.

Don't you hate it when you make a long well-reasoned post and then because of the glories of the internet the site won't load and you lose it all? Now I've got to try to pick up the pieces and reconstruct what I already said and I know it isn't going to make any sense. Oh well.

Firstly, you may have a valid point with Gondry being a better music video director. What excites me about Gondry's work is that it's all refreshingly original and technically impressive and usually doesn't use any special effects. What he does with a camera and some props is more convincing than what a lot of guys do with expensive CG effects. On the other hand, a lot of those ideas work better in a music video format where they don't wear out their welcome. I haven't seen Human Nature yet and I know just as many people that love it as I know people who don't like it so I don't know what you saw or didn't see in that film exactly. Even you must admit that calling him a hack is unjustified and that's what got me to respond in the first place (as you must have known it would have).

As for Blade Runner, I will repeat at any time that I think the film is deeply flawed. The production company didn't have faith in Ridley so the schedule was rushed, the budget reduced, and the film suffers as a result. It has more continuity errors than any other movie I can think of because it had to be re-edited to clear up story problems where scripted scenes were either unshot or unusable. In addition to the story problems, the main character is totally unemotional and unsympathetic. This works with the theme of the movie though as it is about what it means to be human and the robots in the film are more emotive than the main character. In fact, that's essential to the theme of the film. So while I agree that the film has a lot of problems, I also think it is profound thematically. The themes in Blade Runner have shown up in hundreds of sci-fi films since many of which have been much more succesful than Blade Runner, but all of which are inferior. Originality is what matters to me. You should read some of the production history on that film. Ridley Scott's visual genius is not just the result of a good eye and formal training in drawing. His speculative world for Blade Runner is amazingly detailed. Anyway, all I'm trying to say is that I love Blade Runner despite it's flaws because the flaws (editing problems, unclear story) are far outweighed by the strong points and I'm willing to excuse story incoherency for other aspects in any film. With The Last Samurai, poor characterization seemed to me a big flaw in the movie and to critisize one film for it's lack of characterization and then excuse it in another seems inconsistent to me.

As for why I brought up Kill Bill, it's because you used the word hack. For me a hack is someone who doesn't care at all about content or originality, but takes all the style and content which were personal to others and uses it to make soulless products. To me, Kill Bill fits that description perfectly. Maybe you have a different definition than I do.

I'm not totally unsympathetic. I can see why you wouldn't like Eternal Sunshine. It's a movie that goes out of it's way to seperate you from the characters. For a movie about relationships, it's very dry and academic. I like dry and academic because the issues are what interests me. The characters exist to explore a broader concept so the goal of the movie is not for you to empathize with them, but to think about their situation. Not everyone likes dry and analytical. I understand that. I could say something about Bertolt Brecht and intentional alienation of the audience. I tend to think melodramtic films are suspect anyway because they have a particular message in mind and they make it their goal to convince the audience of that view. That's dishonest and disrespectful to me. When the main character dies and there's this big swell of sympathetic music. Bah, give me a break. You should present ideas in a way that people can think about them on their own. Yes I hate Eisenstein and everything he stood for. But what I enjoy about movies is not what everybody enjoys.

Perhaps I was a bit overzealous. Kill Bill and The Last Samurai are two films I hate with a passion. I hate them because to me they represent everything that is bad about movies. Any opportunity I get to slam them tends to make me look hostile. I think in that discussion we had when Kill Bill first came out, if you remember, I was at my most hostile so this isn't exactly a new thing.

So anyway, yes I think the intent of Eternal Sunshine was to keep you on the outside looking in. Maybe you see aspects of the characters that you identify with (as I did) so you think about how the themes apply to you. Maybe you don't. But ultimately it's a theoretical film. It's going to be a little dry like all Kaufman films tend to be. As for the Winslet character developing as Carrey's thoughts went backward, it's one of those things where I just accept that it makes sense within the world of the story. Again, I'm willing to overlook little story inconsistencies like that because I got the major themes out of the film so beyond that, the details aren't that significant. It's just nitpicking to me to pull a film apart in that way. That wasn't the point of the film so why make it the point of the film?

______

Damn it, I told you that would be too confusing. The stupid internet deleted my coherent post.

[font="Times"]
THE PIECES?!!
OMG.
[/font]

With The Last Samurai, poor characterization seemed to me a big flaw in the movie and to critisize one film for it's lack of characterization and then excuse it in another seems inconsistent to me.

Well, you should know that's not the way things go. Inconsistency is at the heart of opinion and taste. Every film is a different experience and you can never count on the same exact reaction just because of the existence of similarities. That would make the idea of actually experiencing the film moot would it not? I'm sure if you look at Roger Ebert's reviews, you would not find a speck of consistency, as it should be.

As for why I brought up Kill Bill, it's because you used the word hack. For me a hack is someone who doesn't care at all about content or originality, but takes all the style and content which were personal to others and uses it to make soulless products. To me, Kill Bill fits that description perfectly. Maybe you have a different definition than I do.

Saying that Quentin is a hack who doesn't care about content or originality because of one film doesn't hold up when you add in the rest of his catalogue. Jackie Brown, despite being my least favorite QT film is filled with content... and the same can be said of Pulp Fiction. Anyway, I used hack in a more general sense... in that I feel his direction has been a major problem in what could have been one decent (Human Nature) film and one great film (Eternal Sunshine). But hack was probably too strong, and as I said more a measure of my dissapointment than anything.

I'm not totally unsympathetic. I can see why you wouldn't like Eternal Sunshine. It's a movie that goes out of it's way to seperate you from the characters. For a movie about relationships, it's very dry and academic. I like dry and academic because the issues are what interests me. The characters exist to explore a broader concept so the goal of the movie is not for you to empathize with them, but to think about their situation. Not everyone likes dry and analytical. I understand that. I could say something about Bertolt Brecht and intentional alienation of the audience. I tend to think melodramtic films are suspect anyway because they have a particular message in mind and they make it their goal to convince the audience of that view. That's dishonest and disrespectful to me. When the main character dies and there's this big swell of sympathetic music. Bah, give me a break. You should present ideas in a way that people can think about them on their own. Yes I hate Eisenstein and everything he stood for. But what I enjoy about movies is not what everybody enjoys.

What I like about Spike Jonze is that he, in his two Kaufman films has been able to take those "clever" scripts that he writes and first and foremost make me care... Because if I don't care, I'm not interested. I'm not sure how he does it, but he does. Adaptation was my fourth favorite of 2002 (as I've told you). At the end I couldn't help but think this would have been better in the hands of a more mature and less haphazard director like Jonze.

Perhaps I was a bit overzealous. Kill Bill and The Last Samurai are two films I hate with a passion. I hate them because to me they represent everything that is bad about movies. Any opportunity I get to slam them tends to make me look hostile. I think in that discussion we had when Kill Bill first came out, if you remember, I was at my most hostile so this isn't exactly a new thing.

Then you'll probably hate my list because they both make appearances in the Top 10. And I can understand that... My interest in film is somewhat of a more visceral reaction than yours tends to be.

So anyway, yes I think the intent of Eternal Sunshine was to keep you on the outside looking in. Maybe you see aspects of the characters that you identify with (as I did) so you think about how the themes apply to you. Maybe you don't. But ultimately it's a theoretical film. It's going to be a little dry like all Kaufman films tend to be.

Dry and academic is not what I've experienced from all the other Kaufman films I've seen (except for Human Nature, which kind of felt like an abortion by all involved to me)... either this script is an aberration, or it's the director's fault.

As for the Winslet character developing as Carrey's thoughts went backward, it's one of those things where I just accept that it makes sense within the world of the story. Again, I'm willing to overlook little story inconsistencies like that because I got the major themes out of the film so beyond that, the details aren't that significant. It's just nitpicking to me to pull a film apart in that way. That wasn't the point of the film so why make it the point of the film?

I should probably clarify... I wasn't using it to pick apart the film. It's just something odd and nonsensical that kept popping up. It didn't bother me when I was watching it.

Don't mind the complete disorginization of this thread... this is how I think.

I wish I could join in, but I haven't seen any of those movies.
Let's just talk about "Dodgeball."
Comedy of the year.