The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Oh no, for sure I agree that many/most directors do a TON of creative work during editing. Tweaks though. I just believe that most directors have a clear vision in their mind, and on story boards before they even begin shooting. The editing suite allows them to assemble, tweak and polish the final product. In Malicks case, it seems to me, that is the beginning of the creative process, which leads to waste.

I cant believe that Malick actually intended a 5-6 hour run time when he began shooting. If so, I cant believe that any of the studios involved were aware of his intentions, (Hollywood aint going that route) nor would they have approved it. Typically studios have a "Run Time Window" with a target so thay know how to market a film, and thats decided during the conceptual phases. Looking at the track record of the project, and Malick, I would sooner believe that he either proposed the 5 hour version after he captured so much footage, or he misled the execs the whole time. I cant see the studios reading the script, hiring multiple big names, paying for those names, and then forcing all that investment out of the film. No way.

Sure, in EVERY movie scenes are cut, and onscreen time is reduced. But in Brodys case I'd say his sour grapes were justified. His role went from Lead Protagonist to zilch AFTER he signed on. AFTER filming was completed. Thats not a "deleted scene". The entire "Movie" was changed after his ageements and after his work.

I think of a director as the man/woman holding the reigns of the project, and that includes marketing. Allowing Brody to hit The Tonight Show and make the media circuit pimping the film when he had no idea what the finished product was like was very unprofessional, lacked leadership and ultimately embarrassed both Malick and Brody.

I liken Malick to Herzog, an eccentric, scatterbrained genius. Malick has always delivered a "miss" for me, but I really like what he is trying to do in his films. I will be seeing The Tree of Life because I believe that sooner or later one of his works will be a "hit" for me.

Thanks for keeping it civil. I know you hold the guy in very high regard and I have been ragging on him pretty hard.

The civility is due to my respect for you and also due to the fact that you actually provide a basis for your opinion, which I appreciate.

Couple things:

Malick never proposed a 6 hour film, you're correct. However, he did not mislead anyone about that either. This was his first film since 1978 and during those twenty years he essentially disappeared. When he returned, the studios gave him free reign to do whatever he pleased because Badlands and Days of Heaven were both considered among the finest films of the 70s. There were actors literally lined up to work with him, and many of those who have very minor roles in the film have stated that they're just pleased they were in a Malick film.

As for Brody, I agree that sour grapes was justified. However, when there's sour grapes comments must be taken with a grain of salt (too many food references!)

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by two40

Oh nice. I have heard of it but yet to see it. Adding to my list.

I have sourced Spirited Away which is waiting for me at home. Good thing is I work in a bookstore where we stock a wide range of international films including the classics of anime so I kind of have my own private library here.

Cool.

Pics

[Show spoiler]

[tbizzle]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

i get crap for answering ONE phone call during ONE film while Disturbed constantly gives up updates on what he's watching while he's watching it and he doesn't get mocked?! where are you now surf and tbizzle?!

[Show spoiler]

I was only commenting on seeing people here on this forum when watching a film, which was right after both you and Disturbed posted. Never said anything about a phone call

[Diesel]

Sorry for the late responses to these posts, I logged on earlier, posted a few news stories in some movie threads and then logged off.

So...

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

100% whole-heartedly disagree. There are objective aspects of cinema. For instance, The Godfather is objectively a great film and Marlon Brando is objectively a great actor. Subjectiveness comes into play when you argue the degree of greatness of something or when you rank films/actors/etc.

So, saying The Godfather is a greater film than Apocalypse Now is subjective. Saying they're both great films is objective. Saying Jolie's performance is good is objective. Saying it was the best performance of the year is subjective.

There may be some objective aspects, but acting is certainly not one of those aspects.
Show me a checklist that determines a performance is factually great, and then I will say its objective. There isn't one though .
There is no stick to stack up every single performance ever given and say, ok, this one is good, this one is bad, this one is great, etc.

Every person will see things through their own eyes and make their own conclusions about whether or not a performance struck them as great or not.

A performance cannot be proven as a fact that it is great or poor, opinions and bias will ALWAYS be brought in. It's the nature of the subject.


As for movies being objectively great....well that depends on what you mean by that. As myself, CZAR and others have said before, if we do not like a film, we do not consider it great. Personally, I think its absurd to say a film is great, if you do not like it.

Now, if the film is well made, well acted, well directed, well filmed, and so on and so forth, I will give it its due credit in those specific areas. I have no problem admitting that a film contains things that are good/great even if I do not like the film overall.

But I will not throw a blanket over it and say it was a great film if I didn't like it. Things have to gel and work together and click for me to consider it a great film. If it doesn't, then it will just get credit from me for being great in whatever areas it may be great in.


But, that's the way I operate and think, doesn't mean everyone else believes that way

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

i kind of agree with Diesel here. what makes a great performance? i think that personally varies for everyone.

let's say you have 10 people who didn't hear anything about Changeling, and more specifically, the performance of Jolie which was nominated left and right all year (which i do agree with btw, but just using this as an example). and let's say you tell these 10 people "once the film is done, write down which performance you feel was best", which would be #1? Jolie? Malkovich? the police detective? the kid? someone else?

i personally don't really have anything that i measure what a "great performance" should be, i kind of just think there is a great performance when it hooks me into the film / character and the portrayal of the character is well done and doesn't take me out of the film. did Jolie's performance sink me into the film? definitely. did the performances in The Godfather do the same thing? no. i didn't feel they were GREAT performances.

but then again it might deal with the subject matter: Jolie in Changeling is a mother missing a child and whatnot, so her performance could probably be more recognizable by someone who's known someone who's even missed their kid for a few seconds. meanwhile in The Godfather, i don't know any gangsters so i don't know how they act, talk or their body language, so i have nothing to base it against so while i found it to be good acting, there was nothing that stood out to me.

just my 2 cents

Precisely

Everyone arrives at the conclusion of something being great differently. Like your examples, you may have a higher knowledge/interest/respect for a certain type of character/performance, so it strikes you more profoundly and consider it great. Someone else can see it and think its just ok.

Neither of them is wrong, and neither of them is right

Originally Posted by DjMethod

That's oxymoronic. Films can have objective qualities but to claim an entire performance as factually fantastic is pretty ridiculous. Sorry jhiggy, can't side with you on this one.

Originally Posted by DjMethod

Filmmakers, critics and scholars introduced film studies as a science, thus generating the idea that movie opinions can be considered truth. But film is so versatile as an art form, there isn't much that cannot be argued one way or the other. Both social and literary connotations of certain films like The Godfather are always with high regard because it excels in everything we have used to define films. Believe it or not though, to say someone is wrong about their honest assessment of a film is a perspective. You can ground your argument on facts but if a performance failed to capture the viewer, that's not necessarily the viewer's fault. While I agree that Jolie's performance was great, what I don't agree with is that you're arguing that it is fact. When I see your assessment on a film and believe it to be true, I don't say "you are right" I say "I agree." Because objectivity is regardless of perspective or opinion. Facts are impenetrable to argument. Your claim was that Jolie's performance being fantastic is impenetrable to argument.

I know this subject has carried endless debate. Just giving my stance on it.

You are right...I mean...I agree...Um....



As I've said before,
I love that we can completely disagree in this thread and keep it as a discussion instead of an argument or bickering

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

The civility is due to my respect for you and also due to the fact that you actually provide a basis for your opinion, which I appreciate.

Couple things:

Malick never proposed a 6 hour film, you're correct. However, he did not mislead anyone about that either. This was his first film since 1978 and during those twenty years he essentially disappeared. When he returned, the studios gave him free reign to do whatever he pleased because Badlands and Days of Heaven were both considered among the finest films of the 70s. There were actors literally lined up to work with him, and many of those who have very minor roles in the film have stated that they're just pleased they were in a Malick film.

As for Brody, I agree that sour grapes was justified. However, when there's sour grapes comments must be taken with a grain of salt (too many food references!)

Its my understanding that Penn essentially offered to work for free. And IIRC Harrelson stayed on set for a long time after his scenes were finished because he wanted to watch and learn.

Well, Einstein wore dirty underwear and forgot his socks, so.....

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Diesel

Every person will see things through their own eyes

Really? I cant use someone elses eyes? Thanks for your profound contribution.

Originally Posted by Diesel

Everyone arrives at the conclusion of something being great differently.

Thats all well and good, but if their opinion doesnt ultimately align with mine, then they are flat out wrong. And thats an objective FACT, not an opinion.

[Show spoiler] ISHY

[Show spoiler]I Still Hate You

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Really? I cant use someone elses eyes? Thanks for your profound contribution.

Well if your name is

[Show spoiler]John Anderton

you can

Thats all well and good, but if their opinion doesnt ultimately align with mine, then they are flat out wrong. And thats an objective FACT, not an opinion.

Click for my smart*** response

[Show spoiler] ISHY

[Show spoiler]I Still Hate You

I'm not going to watch Troy then

[Show spoiler]

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Diesel

Well if your name is

[Show spoiler]John Anderton

you can



Ha ha ha

Click for my smart*** response

Good one

I'm not going to watch Troy then

[Show spoiler]

Just skip it. I was just trying to get you to waste time on a bad movie. The fight scenes suck.

[rkolinski]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

Btw, I picked up Red Desert, El Norte (thanks surf) and Paths of Glory at Barnes and Noble on Monday. As surf knows, I originally decided againsts Paths because I haven't seen it. However, due to both his and rkolinski's recommendation and being that they're both at the very top of my respect list on this site, I decided to take the chance on it. Not to mention it's Kubrick.

Glad to see you picked up Paths of Glory; please let us know what you think of the film and I hope you enjoy it. I picked up El Norte too based on recommendations from others on this site but haven't had a chance to watch it yet. I'm also waiting to receive Seven Samurai, Merry Christmas Mr Lawrence, Paris Texas and The Night of the Hunter (I can't wait to see that last one on BD - I wish more Robert Mitchum was available on our favorite format).

BTW, I enjoyed reading both your and SquidPuppet's views on both The Thin Red Line and on Malick. That was a lot of information to digest. For me, I just happen to think he is one really fantastic director and I LOVE the cinematography in his more famous films. Also, I'm not bothered by the fact that he spends more time than most directors in editing and polishing his films. I'm glad he is not a Roland Emmerich or Michael Bay. That's just MHO!

[iam1bearcat]

Originally Posted by Diesel

Well if your name is

[Show spoiler]John Anderton

you can

what an awesome response Diesel! good thing you watched Minority Report the other day so you remembered that

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Just skip it. I was just trying to get you to waste time on a bad movie. The fight scenes suck.

That's what I figured. I mean come on, why would I want to watch Benjamin Button dress up and role play for 3 hours

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

what an awesome response Diesel! good thing you watched Minority Report the other day so you remembered that

Indeed, if I hadn't I wouldn't have had a witty response for that one

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Thats all well and good, but if their opinion doesnt ultimately align with mine, then they are flat out wrong. And thats an objective FACT, not an opinion.

We are in need of a great quote here -- on the profound level of Ebert's NSE.

Justice Scalia - 60 minutes, regarding a legal issue: "Well, that's my view...and it happens to be correct." (arrogant grin) INTERVIEWER=OWNED


Time to start using that quote on our posts!! NSE is great, but this is sick!!

Here's a simple example of why subjectivity is king. I'll use a

[Show spoiler]puppy

example, since i got teased on that last week.

Person A: thinks

[Show spoiler]dogs

are great because he's grown up with them since he was a kid and has had great relationships with them. A very rationale opinion, from person A's perspective.

Person B: thinks

[Show spoiler]dogs

are bad because as an age 8 kid, he suffered a horrific

[Show spoiler]attack from a dog

and hence has an immense fear of all

[Show spoiler]dogs

. Again, a very rationale opinion, from person B's perspective.

So who is "correct"? Are

[Show spoiler]dogs

good or bad? (yes, a trick question)

[iam1bearcat]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

We are in need of a great quote here -- on the profound level of Ebert's NSE.

Justice Scalia - 60 minutes, regarding a legal issue: "Well, that's my view...and it happens to be correct." (arrogant grin) INTERVIEWER=OWNED


Time to start using that quote on our posts!! NSE is great, but this is sick!!

Here's a simple example of why subjectivity is king. I'll use a

[Show spoiler]puppy

example, since i got teased on that last week.

Person A: thinks

[Show spoiler]dogs

are great because he's grown up with them since he was a kid and has had great relationships with them. A very rationale opinion, from person A's perspective.

Person B: thinks

[Show spoiler]dogs

are bad because as an age 8 kid, he suffered a horrific

[Show spoiler]attack from a dog

and hence has an immense fear of all

[Show spoiler]dogs

. Again, a very rationale opinion, from person B's perspective.

So who is "correct"? Are

[Show spoiler]dogs

good or bad? (yes, a trick question)

there's too much philosophy and intelligence in this thread today, i'm gonna go watch somethin simplistic and not deep at all, like Barry Lyndon

(which, yes, surf, i am planning on possibly watching tonight for the first time thanks to your raving review )

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

there's too much philosophy and intelligence in this thread today, i'm gonna go watch somethin simplistic and not deep at all, like Barry Lyndon

(which, yes, surf, i am planning on possibly watching tonight for the first time thanks to your raving review )

dude!!! can't wait to read your post. All natural lighting throughout! (candle, sun). YOu'll love the landscape shots! I grew up in rural Ireland so its especially awesome from that standpoint, but anyone will find it gorgeous!

just remember that awesome comment by CorporateCoffee to this filM: "god this film was more epic than losing my virginity"


i'm about to watch Darjeelling LImited and House (nutty horror film I've heard a lot about)

[iam1bearcat]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

dude!!! can't wait to read your post.

i'm about to watch Darjeelling LImited and House (nutty horror film I've heard a lot about)

right back at ya for Darjeeling Limited. i think it's #3 or 4 for my Wes Anderson favorites order, but last time i saw it was right when it came out on dvd years ago and i wasn't nearly as in to the type of film that it is as i am now, so i have to revisit it soon.

hope you enjoy!

i should be able to start Lyndon in about an hour so at the latest, so hopefully i can have a review up by morning, as if it's a requirement when i have them up

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

right back at ya for Darjeeling Limited. i think it's #3 or 4 for my Wes Anderson favorites order, but last time i saw it was right when it came out on dvd years ago and i wasn't nearly as in to the type of film that it is as i am now, so i have to revisit it soon.

hope you enjoy!

i should be able to start Lyndon in about an hour so at the latest, so hopefully i can have a review up by morning, as if it's a requirement when i have them up

I've only seen Bottle Rocket of Wes Anderson. It was decent. 3.5/5. I don't have huge expectations. Bottle Rocket was good, not great. I'll watch this with an open mind!

[iam1bearcat]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

I've only seen Bottle Rocket of Wes Anderson. It was decent. 3.5/5. I don't have huge expectations. Bottle Rocket was good, not great. I'll watch this with an open mind!

i've somehow managed to see all his work. and while nothing stands out as "really great" that i loved, they've all been quirky, adventurous worthwhile rides

his films in my order of favorites:

The Royal Tenenbaums 4.5/5
Fantastic Mr. Fox 4.5/5
The Life Aquatic with Steve Zassou 4/5
Bottle Rocket 3.5/5
Rushmore 3/5
The Darjeeling Limited 3/5

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

i'm gonna go watch somethin simplistic and not deep at all, like Barry Lyndon

Time for another Vin Diesel movie!


I've been wanting to watch The Fast and the Furious again since you reviewed it. Might possibly do that some time in the next week...that or Chronicles of Riddick.


I've been slacking on my watching/reviewing

[iam1bearcat]

Originally Posted by Diesel

Time for another Vin Diesel movie!


I've been wanting to watch The Fast and the Furious again since you reviewed it. Might possibly do that some time in the next week...that or Chronicles of Riddick.


I've been slacking on my watching/reviewing

2 Fast 2 Furious is on netflix instant, and i might fire that up after Barry Lyndon... or before. i've been watching a lot of heavy, serious films lately and i'm debating if it's time for a short break. as weird as it may sound to some, i think it's wearing me out watching so many serious dramas in a row

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

2 Fast 2 Furious is on netflix instant, and i might fire that up after Barry Lyndon... or before. i've been watching a lot of heavy, serious films lately and i'm debating if it's time for a short break. as weird as it may sound to some, i think it's wearing me out watching so many serious dramas in a row

I said Vin Diesel, not Paul Walker



Sometimes you need to watch something 'light hearted' and fun to change things up and 'reboot' your brain
....which 2 Fast is probably right on the money for that sort of thing. Just kick back and watch the cars and stunts, laugh and of course there's Eva Mendes
It's not the most profound movie and certainly not that difficult to follow