The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[CZAR]

Originally Posted by Gandalf Stormcrow

For CZAR, from one of the best movies of 2003 - Crash
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAmUPCbhkwo
Might be a bit NSFW, so keep that in mind.

Man I own that film. Like I said I know who she is but just forgot her name. I love Crash. Got Em!!

Originally Posted by Diesel

She's also in Mission Impossible 2. She was nice to look at in that one

Never seen any of the Mission Impossible films but Ive seen her in plenty other films. She is a bit skinny but still sexy. Got Em!!

[two40]

Originally Posted by Diesel

You should definitely invest in the Blu one day, its a great disc

It's currently about $16 on Amazon, it may drop for the holidays though.

Does it have many extras?

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Diesel

If we're talking character...yes.

If we're talking in other regards...no

Are you sure?

[iam1bearcat]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Are you sure?

[Show spoiler]

that is definitely not an attractive picture

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

that is definitely not an attractive picture

Are you Look at that classic bone structure.

What do you find unattractive?

[iam1bearcat]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Are you Look at that classic bone structure.

What do you find unattractive?

idk. she just... isn't... in that pic.
her hair looks all natty and gross like (although i'm sure it isn't and we can barely see it), her face is too... wide? idk something about her face just isn't at all attractive. looks almost manly in a way.

and that dress doesn't help the overall pic either. looks like a nightgown or something


EDIT! THANKS FOR ADDED A VERY GORGEOUS PICTURE ON ME AFTER I RAMBLE ABOUT HOW GROSS SHE LOOKS!
that pic, yes, is very attractive. the man / grandma gown thing in the first pic is horrid.

these two pics don't even look like the same person!

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by two40

Does it have many extras?

Not MANY, but about average I'd say. Here's the review with the details
https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-C...y/3981/#Review

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Are you sure?

[IMG]http://www.topnews.in/files/images/Alexa-Davalos1.jpg[/IMG

In that image...positive.

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Are you Look at that classic bone structure.

What do you find unattractive?

In that picture, she wins...by a lot.


To keep this related to the movies...with that image you may have given Bearcat a little incentive to make sure he sees Chronicles

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

idk. she just... isn't... in that pic.
her hair looks all natty and gross like (although i'm sure it isn't and we can barely see it), her face is too... wide? idk something about her face just isn't at all attractive. looks almost manly in a way.

and that dress doesn't help the overall pic either. looks like a nightgown or something


EDIT! THANKS FOR ADDED A VERY GORGEOUS PICTURE ON ME AFTER I RAMBLE ABOUT HOW GROSS SHE LOOKS!
that pic, yes, is very attractive. the man / grandma gown thing in the first pic is horrid.

these two pics don't even look like the same person!

Man? Grandma gown? I got one word for you.

[Show spoiler]optometrist

[Lepidopterous]

She is a total babe but I agree the middle pic of the three is not as sexy.

And since I popped my head in, I've always been a Pitch Black fan but never saw Chronicles because I heard it went in a different direction and lost the feel of the first one.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

She is a total babe but I agree the middle pic of the three is not as sexy.

And since I popped my head in, I've always been a Pitch Black fan but never saw Chronicles because I heard it went in a different direction and lost the feel of the first one.

It did. But it worked damn well.

[iam1bearcat]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Man? Grandma gown? I got one word for you.

[Show spoiler]optometrist

this is true. i had a pair of glasses about 4 years ago but broke them right before seeing Cloverfield. haven't gotten them replaced since!

[surfdude12]

More more thoughts

[Show spoiler]

I can only say that I didnt "chose" ANY way to watch the film, before watching it. I watched what was on the screen without choosing a lens. If I pick a lens BEFORE the movie, am I not already leaning in a thematic direction. Doesnt picking a lens defeat the purpose of starting with an empty canvas and having an open mind?

I don't believe its possible to start with an empty canvas/open mind. We all bring something to the table -- conconsiouly or subconsciously.

I said "I abandoned seeking themes and watched it as a literal work. Meaning, I took what was on screen as "it is what it is" and nothing deeper".

I'll be careful here as I realize I'm talking about your subjective state -- something I truly know nothing about. I'll use the caveat "It appeared to me that you chose..."

It appears to me that you still chose a lens. To watch it as a literal work / "it is what it is" / etc. That itself is a lens, IMO. It just has a different color/shade than others. Obviously, this context/lens precludes the possibility of any non-literal interpretation of the film, in the even that such an interpretation was intended. Movie title? can't have meaning since its definition is theological. Camp name? can't have meaning since its meaning would be biblical. etc etc. Like a green pair of shades, this lens filters out its own unique shade of colors, and only will allow specific colors to pass through.

Meaning, I didnt want to lean in any direction BEFORE the movie started. I didnt go in SEEKING themes, but if the themes present themselves, I will acknowledge, accept and appreciate them.

I agree with your latter part (i.e., the context we choose can be tweaked as the movie unfolds). And this happened to me in this film. First part of this film was very typical of a film taking place in a literal world. I was all about a literal/rational context, but then the film unmistakably nudged me to switch my shades.

Where did she come "resembling Christ"? Never depicted. Who was she trying to fool?

Where did she "spread evil on the world"? Never depicted

Where was she "killed in a martyr like ceremony?" She wasnt. Quietly, privately murdered by her husband

She brought "The beginning of sin on mankind". Where was this depicted? There was plenty of sin before her arrival and where did she bring it to ALL of MANKIND?

Again, it appears as though you're assessing a thelogical/spiritual interpretation within a literal/rational context. It doesn't make sense, IMO. Its like using a map of Detroit to navigate the streets of Chicago.

But within the theological/spiritual context:
-resembling Christ: in our world, Christ came and offered a way where mankind could live without sin, and because this was perceived as threatening to sinners, mankind killed him. "She" came and offered a way where mankind can live in sin, and because this was perceived as threatening to non-sinners (Dafoe. In Satan's world, a non-sinner is bad), mankind (Dafoe) killed her.

How did she offer this "way"? By inducing mankind (Dafoe) to sin. Christ did the opposite: induced mankind not to sin.

-spread evil on the world: the world being "mankind" = Dafoe. Look at him before and after the film. We disagree on who Dafoe is. But within this context, its no mistake that he represents mankind, and because of the Anti-christ, is now suffering in sin, as Satan intended. Its all flip-side of Christ: because of CHrist, mankind (at least those who chose to follow him) suffered less in sin, as God intended.

If anything, the opposite could be strongly argued. One could easily view HIM as the Antichrist. He proffessed the ability to rescue her. He claimed he could heal her. He claimed to have the ability to remove her pain and suffering. He presented himself as her saviour. Unknowingly she followed him. She did the tasks and exercises asked of her. She wanted to be sin free so badly that she cut of her clitoris so that she would no longer have the URGE to sin. In the end, his INABILITY to forgive shone through. HE failed on all his promises and He murdered her. A false prophet indeed. The Antichrist? Dunno. But she certainly isnt.

Great analysis here, but if he is the Antichrist, then all of the symbology (that I know you're not into ) connecting Eden to her PhD research to her genital mutilation is meaningless. Just take those 3 things. Even 2 of them being in a film and having no connection would be mind baffling. 3? Impossible. All of these coincidences (just those 3 for example) being in one film, having the same common theme (women = inherently evil), and having no significance in the film's interpretation would be mind boggling.

Von Trier has a very Anti-mysogynistic belief system. Maybe he made the movie to see how many religious men would again, blame the woman for their own shortcomings. I dunno.

I did watch a youtube interview he gave on the film. Not sure if its the same on the Extras. But he did emphasize the importance of defending in what you do NOT believe in?

Religious men blaming women for shortcomings? huh? Surely, some may do this, but I think one's interpretation of a film and one's personal views need not be one. In fact, with the spiritual/theological interpretation I discuss, it reinforces to me how revolting the biblical perspective of women is because it shows how ludicrous it is, taken to an extreme. This is hardly a poster child film that one should be proud that it advocates what one believes.

I think ANY movie can be seen (molded to fit) any desired context. Especially any good vs evil movie.

Example:

The Godfather is NOT a mafia family movie. Its clearly about God vs Satan, not a group of people. The family have all obviously rejected God because they all do evil (Satans work). They kill and steal and these themes of sin are clearly from the Bible. The Godfather himself is Satan and has spawned his clan from his loins to do the work of the devil and to recruit more evildoers to battle God. Law enforcement obviously represents God and his good followers as they eternaly struggle against the darkness. The metaphors are clear. And the title is an artsy twist because the director intends to send the message that man, left to his own devices, is evil, until he accepts God as his father.

Or, is it "just" a gangster movie.

Great analogy!! Wait...did you mean a sci-fi context of a mafia-titled film to compare to a psychological context of a theological-titled film or a theological context of a theological-titled film?

I would prefer a "Passion of the Christ" analogy where using a literal context Jesus merely has a mental illness and everything we see in the film is "in his head"

The title MUST mean something, you say. I say maybe. But if it does, does it have to mean a character? Couldnt it be abstract and artsy just like the movie? Von Trier was raised athiest. Maybe he is just saying "Look how shitty things can sometimes be, there is no Christ". Or maybe he is saying ALL people are the opposite of Christ. Is The Deerhunter about a deer hunter? Is Papillon about a butterfly? Is The Fountain about a fountain? Is The Postman about a mail delivery guy?

Interesting how you chose movies with non-obvious titles

As I read this I thought back to your initial part about not choosing a lens. Above I read a lot of "maybe" and "I dunno" that need not be said, as IMO a different context/lens would provide some answers to these questions. Hence, my choice of a lens/context can change during or even after I see a film if that lens/context answers such questions as those you ask above. I'm sure it has for you too, just not in this film.

I thought I read he was Catholic now? Do you think his athiest upbringing made him more or less likely to go with a theological/spiritual meaning? hard to say because the Satan world could be viewed as anti-God, hence pro-athiest.

Overall, I am only about 60% comfortable in my knowledge of this film, so need to watch it a few more times, and my views could easily change, so please know that I may dissappoint you and either come to the middle (mixed bag interpretation) or god forbid, agree with you 100%.

Great points as always!

[Lepidopterous]

If you are not familiar with it already, this film is about the affair between fashion designer Coco Chanel and legendary composer Igor Stravinsky shortly after her husband's death. Coco & Igor bursts with style, contrast, mesmerizingly patterned sets, beautiful costume design, and great lighting. I cannot stress enough the attention to detail given to the set in particular... it really speaks a language of its own. From grand rooms to discretely matching rugs to the design on Igor's tie to isolated colors around his wife Katarina. Sometimes the actors are literally shoved to the edge of the frame to take it all in (example:

[Show spoiler]

).

Mads Mikkelson gives a brilliant and subtle performance as Igor and Coco Chanel was an excellent cast, though Igor's character was much more fascinating than Chanel's in general.The editing is also quite good (an abrupt change to a sex scene and another sequence at the dinner table come to mind). It moves along at a snail's pace, almost as if forcing you to endure the brief affair and sink into the cinematography. I checked the time a few times and paused it once, so it earns a 4/10 on my boring meter (which is not sophisticated enough to be scaled out of 5 ). It runs a bit too long, but I loved how effectively it captured the emotional tension between the two. You can see the constraint in their faces while they are forced to remain civil and secretive until it erupts into so much passion within the sex scenes. The score is amazing. Subtle when it needs to be and powerful when necessary.

Bottom line, if you ever want to watch a visually enthralling film, this should be it, or at least one of them. Emotional involvement might not be there for some, but this is a captivating film nonetheless. Worth a watch for the visuals alone.

4/5

Some screenshots I took:

[Show spoiler]




Look at that suit!

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

It did. But it worked damn well.

Hmm...

[lDlisturb3d]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

More more thoughts

[Show spoiler]

I don't believe its possible to start with an empty canvas/open mind. We all bring something to the table -- conconsiouly or subconsciously.



I'll be careful here as I realize I'm talking about your subjective state -- something I truly know nothing about. I'll use the caveat "It appeared to me that you chose..."

It appears to me that you still chose a lens. To watch it as a literal work / "it is what it is" / etc. That itself is a lens, IMO. It just has a different color/shade than others. Obviously, this context/lens precludes the possibility of any non-literal interpretation of the film, in the even that such an interpretation was intended. Movie title? can't have meaning since its definition is theological. Camp name? can't have meaning since its meaning would be biblical. etc etc. Like a green pair of shades, this lens filters out its own unique shade of colors, and only will allow specific colors to pass through.



I agree with your latter part (i.e., the context we choose can be tweaked as the movie unfolds). And this happened to me in this film. First part of this film was very typical of a film taking place in a literal world. I was all about a literal/rational context, but then the film unmistakably nudged me to switch my shades.



Again, it appears as though you're assessing a thelogical/spiritual interpretation within a literal/rational context. It doesn't make sense, IMO. Its like using a map of Detroit to navigate the streets of Chicago.

But within the theological/spiritual context:
-resembling Christ: in our world, Christ came and offered a way where mankind could live without sin, and because this was perceived as threatening to sinners, mankind killed him. "She" came and offered a way where mankind can live in sin, and because this was perceived as threatening to non-sinners (Dafoe. In Satan's world, a non-sinner is bad), mankind (Dafoe) killed her.

How did she offer this "way"? By inducing mankind (Dafoe) to sin. Christ did the opposite: induced mankind not to sin.

-spread evil on the world: the world being "mankind" = Dafoe. Look at him before and after the film. We disagree on who Dafoe is. But within this context, its no mistake that he represents mankind, and because of the Anti-christ, is now suffering in sin, as Satan intended. Its all flip-side of Christ: because of CHrist, mankind (at least those who chose to follow him) suffered less in sin, as God intended.



Great analysis here, but if he is the Antichrist, then all of the symbology (that I know you're not into ) connecting Eden to her PhD research to her genital mutilation is meaningless. Just take those 3 things. Even 2 of them being in a film and having no connection would be mind baffling. 3? Impossible. All of these coincidences (just those 3 for example) being in one film, having the same common theme (women = inherently evil), and having no significance in the film's interpretation would be mind boggling.



I did watch a youtube interview he gave on the film. Not sure if its the same on the Extras. But he did emphasize the importance of defending in what you do NOT believe in?

Religious men blaming women for shortcomings? huh? Surely, some may do this, but I think one's interpretation of a film and one's personal views need not be one. In fact, with the spiritual/theological interpretation I discuss, it reinforces to me how revolting the biblical perspective of women is because it shows how ludicrous it is, taken to an extreme. This is hardly a poster child film that one should be proud that it advocates what one believes.



Great analogy!! Wait...did you mean a sci-fi context of a mafia-titled film to compare to a psychological context of a theological-titled film or a theological context of a theological-titled film?

I would prefer a "Passion of the Christ" analogy where using a literal context Jesus merely has a mental illness and everything we see in the film is "in his head"



Interesting how you chose movies with non-obvious titles

As I read this I thought back to your initial part about not choosing a lens. Above I read a lot of "maybe" and "I dunno" that need not be said, as IMO a different context/lens would provide some answers to these questions. Hence, my choice of a lens/context can change during or even after I see a film if that lens/context answers such questions as those you ask above. I'm sure it has for you too, just not in this film.

I thought I read he was Catholic now? Do you think his athiest upbringing made him more or less likely to go with a theological/spiritual meaning? hard to say because the Satan world could be viewed as anti-God, hence pro-athiest.

Overall, I am only about 60% comfortable in my knowledge of this film, so need to watch it a few more times, and my views could easily change, so please know that I may dissappoint you and either come to the middle (mixed bag interpretation) or god forbid, agree with you 100%.

Great points as always!

GREAT POST. I agree with most of what your are saying. You really hit some key points. The biggest thing that meant the most in a very basic way was "you cant use a map of Detroit to navigate Chicago" excellent way of putting it.

This film will always be religious in my eyes. Its very power and filled with allot of ???. Thats why i think that Trier is just a mad man trying to express deep feelings, but it turn out as a form of art.

[two40]

Originally Posted by Diesel

Not MANY, but about average I'd say. Here's the review with the details
https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-C...y/3981/#Review

Just went to my local near work. They didn't have it but I did find Pitch Black and saw that the man himself does the commentary. Have you heard it? Is it any good?

The extras review on this site says:

Two audio commentaries are included, the first featuring Writer/Director David Twohy and Actors Vin Diesel and Cole Hauser. The track is informative and moderately entertaining. The trio enjoy a fine rapport, complimenting one another nicely as they share behind-the-scenes anecdotes; filming techniques, including how various shots play into the themes of the film and the development of its characters; the performances and off-camera personalities of their co-workers; and more.

Sounds like a winner.

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by two40

Just went to my local near work. They didn't have it but I did find Pitch Black and saw that the man himself does the commentary. Have you heard it? Is it any good?

The extras review on this site says:



Sounds like a winner.

I only have Chronicles as I don't watch Pitch Black very often so I never bought it.

At least a few of the members of this thread have it and might have heard it though.

[lDlisturb3d]

Leon The Professional (Short Review)

Plot: Leon is a professional assassin that lives by 2 rules. No women and no kids and THATS IT. Killing is all he knows but he will run into a special little girl that might change that.

My Take: I like it overall and thought it was a fun movie that i could watch allot. Gary Oldman was amazing, and little Natalie Portman was great. I was entertained throughout the entire film, and especially when Oldman's crazy ass was on the big screen. I wish there could of been a little more action but i guess the story wasnt really about him being a hit man.

Conclusion: Cool film and i'd watch it again for sure. Kinda stuck between 3.5 or 4. But since im known a generous JACK ill bump it up to 4. Knowing when i watch this in the future i will probably drop it to 3.5 because there really isnt any emotional factor here (even though it might be to some) it didnt hit home on that level.

Recommended

4/5

[tbizzle]

Originally Posted by lDlisturb3d

Leon The Professional (Short Review)

Plot: Leon is a professional assassin that lives by 2 rules. No women and no kids and THATS IT. Killing is all he knows but he will run into a special little girl that might change that.

My Take: I like it overall and thought it was a fun movie that i could watch allot. Gary Oldman was amazing, and little Natalie Portman was great. I was entertained throughout the entire film, and especially when Oldman's crazy ass was on the big screen. I wish there could of been a little more action but i guess the story wasnt really about him being a hit man.

Conclusion: Cool film and i'd watch it again for sure. Kinda stuck between 3.5 or 4. But since im known a generous JACK ill bump it up to 4. Knowing when i watch this in the future i will probably drop it to 3.5 because there really isnt any emotional factor here (even though it might be to some) it didnt hit home on that level.

Recommended

4/5

Love this one. Haven't seen it in years though, and I've only seen the original version once (not the dumbed down American version). Can't wait to watch it again!

[tbizzle]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

this is true. i had a pair of glasses about 4 years ago but broke them right before seeing Cloverfield. haven't gotten them replaced since!

Yeah, you should get on that.

I'm nearsighted and I've had glasses since I was a kid, but I basically only wore them when I was looking at the board in class. I finally got tired of not being able to see the world and all of it's beauty, so I started wearing them all the time the summer before my senior year in high school. About 8 months ago I got contacts and I love them!!

Seriously, get new glasses or contacts