The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[Al_The_Strange]

Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story

Of all the sports movies out there, Dodgeball could easily stand as one of the silliest and slappiest of the lot, on a level not to far off from The Waterboy. Dodgeball itself it not exactly a type of sport that screams out to be taken seriously, so watching a bunch of adults struggling so dramatically to win this sport has definite comedic potential. Fortunately, the film takes ever advantage of that potential, layering on plenty of great funny dialogue, ridiculous scenes, and some decent slapstick to induce laughter consistently. Whether watching Rip Torn throwing wrenches at people, or hearing Ben Stiller's inane lines, or seeing a bunch of men loosing to a team of girl scouts, the film suffers from very little drag.

The story for this is pretty light and fluffy. It does its best to raise up enough stakes to make the story and conflict count, but it ultimately feels a little contrived. Characters are fun to watch, but little more. The film follows the same formula of most other sports movies, and won't offer much originality in its narrative.

With standard photography and editing, the film looks alright, if not a little bright and colorful. Acting and writintg are quite funny and lively. Plenty of fine-looking sets, props, and costumes are utilized. Music is alright.

This viewing was for the unrated cut. I noticed quite a few swear words here and there, but otherwise, I can't remember what's new and what isn't.

4/5 (Entertainment: Very Good | Story: Average | Film: Good)

Recommendation: Sure, why not?

On Blu-Ray, this disc looks sharp and clean, with fine and dandy sound quality. The picture looked a bit noisy, and I suspect there's some EE to it as well.

PQ: 3.5/5, AQ: 3.5/5

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by volcomsocal

Alien - 1979

First time seeing it. Thought it was OK. IMO, Prometheus was better.

2.5/5

here comes the hate...........

That's probably the score I would have given the film when I first saw it. It always felt rather slow and dull to me.

Originally Posted by DjMethod

[Show spoiler]

Melancholia

Jeez, Lars, let some of your characters be happy.

If Darren Aronofsky directed Malick's The Tree of Life, we'd get something like Melancholia. The film presents a constant duality of life's immediate issues vs. the bigger picture of life on earth. Yet, like in Antichrist, we feel isolated. The only real connection to the rest of the world is in a brief internet search. This darkens the mood and reflects humanity's loneliness in the universe. The sense of impending doom fills the screen like an elephant in the room, but instead of going Deep Impact with the premise, Von Trier forgoes the "panic" stage so we can contemplate our existence.

The film is particularly devoid of emotion. If any is ever present, it is an overwhelming amount of pessimism. Even the smallest and most naive child in the film couldn't enjoy his pancakes. And for a film about humanity, it seems to ignore our inherent will to live, ridicule any budding spirituality, and reward a depressed pessimist with the gift of enlightenment. However, the chosen backdrop of a wedding is a brilliant clash with Justine's depression. She cannot find a way to be happy on what is supposed to be the happiest day of her life. It is an ideal setting for the theme of the film: pointlessness.

Lars Von Trier captures extraordinary (if a tad vague) cinematography, minimal dialogue, and a magnificient performance by Dunst that left me weak at the knees. Her behavior is not self-destructive, but simply apathetic, which is a feeling we can all relate to. Melancholia is a draining, thought-provoking, and visually striking experience. But above all, it is a meditation.

4.5/5

I didn't really like this film when I saw it, and I haven't bothered to revisit it yet. Still not sure if I want to. But, I think the more I read about it, the more agreeable it sounds. You've brought up some interesting points about its themes and characters.

If I do give the film another try, it'll all depend on whether or not I can get over how flaky these people are.

[volcomsocal]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

It felt rather slow and dull to me.

That's exactly what I was thinking when I was watching it.

[jvince]

Ferris Bueller's Day Off (1986)
dir. John Hughes

The Good: Memorable characters and performances. Witty writing. Love some of the shots and the editing. Great replay value.

The Bad: Tries too hard sometimes. A few cheesy moments. Things are resolved too easily.

The Bottom Line: Offbeat, lighthearted fun, Ferris Bueller's Day Off still remains an influential and essential coming-of-age film.

[jvince]

Originally Posted by legendarymatt92

This is probably the greatest short film I've ever seen. I watched it three times in a row, and each time was as deep and meaningful as the last. I love Christopher Plummer's voice-over and the way the animation accentuates the simplicity of the story. Thank you so much for sharing this undeniable gem.

IMO, it's also one of the greatest shorts I've ever seen, along with The Red Balloon and Sherlock Jr..

Originally Posted by DjMethod

I finally watched Kieslowski's Three Colors trilogy on blu over the weekend.

Blue 4.5/5
White 4/5
Red 5/5

Three Colors: Red has to be one of my absolute favorite films, not only of the trilogy but of all time. The narrative is a kind of cross between Lost in Translation and The Lives of Others. I loved every second of it.

Blind-bought this as well. Kieslowski is a master. Try to check out The Decalogue. It's 10 times better than the Three Colors Trilogy. Don't be deterred by the runtime; it's like a 10-episode miniseries. You don't need to watch it in one sitting.

Originally Posted by DjMethod

Vince, I forgot to say thanks for posting The Red Balloon last week. It sent waves of nostalgia down my spine.

Originally Posted by volcomsocal

Alien - 1979

First time seeing it. Thought it was OK. IMO, Prometheus was better.

2.5/5


here comes the hate...........

I also felt the same way the first time I saw it. I'm no fan of the Alien films, but I think if you keep watching it, you'll come to appreciate it like I did.

Originally Posted by DjMethod

Melancholia

[Show spoiler]Jeez, Lars, let some of your characters be happy.

If Darren Aronofsky directed Malick's The Tree of Life, we'd get something like Melancholia. The film presents a constant duality of life's immediate issues vs. the bigger picture of life on earth. Yet, like in Antichrist, we feel isolated. The only real connection to the rest of the world is in a brief internet search. This darkens the mood and reflects humanity's loneliness in the universe. The sense of impending doom fills the screen like an elephant in the room, but instead of going Deep Impact with the premise, Von Trier forgoes the "panic" stage so we can contemplate our existence.

The film is particularly devoid of emotion. If any is ever present, it is an overwhelming amount of pessimism. Even the smallest and most naive child in the film couldn't enjoy his pancakes. And for a film about humanity, it seems to ignore our inherent will to live, ridicule any budding spirituality, and reward a depressed pessimist with the gift of enlightenment. However, the chosen backdrop of a wedding is a brilliant clash with Justine's depression. She cannot find a way to be happy on what is supposed to be the happiest day of her life. It is an ideal setting for the theme of the film: pointlessness.

Lars Von Trier captures extraordinary (if a tad vague) cinematography, minimal dialogue, and a magnificient performance by Dunst that left me weak at the knees. Her behavior is not self-destructive, but simply apathetic, which is a feeling we can all relate to. Melancholia is a draining, thought-provoking, and visually striking experience. But above all, it is a meditation.

4.5/5

Loved this film. This is gonna be a classic.

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Clue

[Show spoiler]Based on the board game, Clue is a quaint little whodunit-style comedy; one of a very few, the only other good contender I know of being Murder By Death. As you can surmise, the Clue film draws in several characters who come across a murdered body, then spend the rest of the film roaming the house, trying to figure out the mystery. Just like the board game.

The film starts off a little stiff and dry, but gradually builds comedic momentum. There are a few funny scenes in the opening act, but by the film's end, it becomes a rolling onslaught of pratfalls, slapstick, and hilarious dialogue. The biggest standout might be the ending(s), in which the butler (played perfectly by Tim Curry) runs amok, spewing the whole explanation of what happens in the most lively manner possible. In between the dry beginning and the slappy ending, the film has its share of moments in between, and remains consistently entertaining without getting overly-silly (not the way Murder By Death seems to, anyway).

Admittedly, the plot for this film is pretty thin. Coming from a board game, perhaps that's to be expected. In order to layer on the mystery element, the film never really gets all that deep with its characters, but instead tacks on a huge helping of political intruige and connections that can be a strain to understand. In fact, I'm certain that the film has plot holes, if you look deeply into it (chief among them,

[Show spoiler]if the butler was Mr. Boddy the whole time, why did the other Mr. Boddy act the way he did in the film's beginning? Are we to believe it was all truly an act? Seems like a stretch to me

). Regardless, it can be fun to try and figure out the plot, and to try and figure out who could have done what before one of the film's three possible endings comes up.

The film has some rather plain photography and editing. Acting and writing are quite fun. This production makes use of some rather simple, plain-looking sets, props, and costumes. Music is strangely catchy.

4/5 (Entertainment: Good | Story: Average | Film: Good)

Recommendation: Sure, why not?

Even though I have this on Blu-Ray now, I had to watch my DVD copy since I was on the road this weekend.

Loved Madeline Kahn's flames speech. I busted a gut laughing.

[legendarymatt92]

I'll just leave this here:

http://www.salon.com/2013/02/18/why_...rve_the_oscar/

I haven't seen it yet so I can't comment, but Salon has never been one of those sites that I ever take much notice of. The author makes some interesting points but, on the whole, it just seems like he wants to bash Affleck a little.

[jd_from_da_80s]

Either the reviewers from What The Flick post here a lot or members watch their reviews on Youtube & agree with what they say so much, they decide repeat what they say. Literally, line for line, I mean jeez. I don't see it in this thread but in each individual movie's thread. Especially for Looper, Dredd & Skyfall. Don't get me wrong, it's possible to feel the same way about a movie, or a part of a movie like somebody else, but I feel like I've been reading a bunch of plagiarized reviews. Sorry, had to say it.

[Abdrewes]

Armageddon (1998)

(A little bit of Pain & Gain prep)
Damn near close to the stupidest film ever made. It's no less stylized than a Wes Anderson film, in fact it's much more stylized and heightened as it's among the most aggressive examples of non-classical filmmaking.*Every second is completely divorced from realism, which is it's strength and ultimate weakness.*

Frenetic editing, Dutch angles and unmotivated camera movement & editing comprise nearly every frame of this film. Michael Bay assaults your eyes and ears in ways that sporadically do impress though. It may be his most "gorgeous" film, in that his sense of framing and lighting has never been better. The first hour, which I think works best, is the best example of this. There are a number of stunning shots (which is a key word). When hastily slopped one on top of another, they can be overwhelming, but I can't doubt the fact that he has a keen eye.

A keen eye for Choosing good scripts, he hasn't. I'm not even going to get into the logic and script errors which may be among the most empty headed I have ever seen, nearly every second in the asteroid portion is not only stupid but insulting. It makes Prometheus look like Primer. I mean, he worked with "the smartest man on the planet," he could have asked for advise.*

I know Michael Bay tried to infuse the film with a light and winking touch. It has nods to Pulp Fiction, Die Hard and even Dr. Strangelove (in a pretty funny scene where Buscemi rides the nuke). But under the hand of someone that wants you to masturbate over every shot, nothing registers except for the fun you have derive from your ironic detachment. It's fun, but for reasons Michael Bay didn't intend. He's the farthest thing from a smart or moral filmmaker but I have a perverse need to occasionally indulge in his films once in a while.*

1.5-3/4

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story

Of all the sports movies out there, Dodgeball could easily stand as one of the silliest and slappiest of the lot, on a level not to far off from The Waterboy. Dodgeball itself it not exactly a type of sport that screams out to be taken seriously, so watching a bunch of adults struggling so dramatically to win this sport has definite comedic potential. Fortunately, the film takes ever advantage of that potential, layering on plenty of great funny dialogue, ridiculous scenes, and some decent slapstick to induce laughter consistently. Whether watching Rip Torn throwing wrenches at people, or hearing Ben Stiller's inane lines, or seeing a bunch of men loosing to a team of girl scouts, the film suffers from very little drag.

The story for this is pretty light and fluffy. It does its best to raise up enough stakes to make the story and conflict count, but it ultimately feels a little contrived. Characters are fun to watch, but little more. The film follows the same formula of most other sports movies, and won't offer much originality in its narrative.

With standard photography and editing, the film looks alright, if not a little bright and colorful. Acting and writintg are quite funny and lively. Plenty of fine-looking sets, props, and costumes are utilized. Music is alright.

This viewing was for the unrated cut. I noticed quite a few swear words here and there, but otherwise, I can't remember what's new and what isn't.

4/5 (Entertainment: Very Good | Story: Average | Film: Good)

Recommendation: Sure, why not?

On Blu-Ray, this disc looks sharp and clean, with fine and dandy sound quality. The picture looked a bit noisy, and I suspect there's some EE to it as well.

PQ: 3.5/5, AQ: 3.5/5

Nobody makes me bleed my blood. LOL

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

I didn't really like this film when I saw it, and I haven't bothered to revisit it yet. Still not sure if I want to. But, I think the more I read about it, the more agreeable it sounds. You've brought up some interesting points about its themes and characters.

If I do give the film another try, it'll all depend on whether or not I can get over how flaky these people are.

What didn't you like about it? I thought it was a pretty strong experience, if a little lopsided.

Originally Posted by jvince

Blind-bought this as well. Kieslowski is a master. Try to check out The Decalogue. It's 10 times better than the Three Colors Trilogy. Don't be deterred by the runtime; it's like a 10-episode miniseries. You don't need to watch it in one sitting.

I Netflixed the first disc a few years ago and saw the first episode (frozen pond one), but never got around to the rest. I liked it quite a bit so I know I'll watch them at some point.

[Abdrewes]

A Good Day to Die Hard (2013)

A miserable experience. On more than one occasion I found myself Studying the faces in the audience thinking, "Are they enjoying themselves?", "Does this classify as entertainment?" I recalled the trailers of Fast 6, After Earth, The Heat and longed for the day when those would grant me a morsel of entertainment (thought, if were lucky). After the first and unforgivably immoral action sequence in the first act, I knew I was in poor hands.

It's no surprise that the fifth entry in the franchise would be such a lifeless and dull affair without a shred of artistry or craft. There are only a few things I could say in it's favor. Director John Moore gives the "talking scenes" or the "scenes between the unrealistic action", which are very few, a fair sense of time. The first five minutes were a tight piece of exposition. There are also a few interesting, if totally unnecessary, shots within the action, but we're talking about one out of fifty. At least he didn't employ Dutch angles.*

To the film's credit there's an interesting dynamics scenario in the final action sequence that takes place on a helicopter. The setup and idea are interesting, but like all the other action sequences, the scene buckles under it's outlandishness and weightlessness. Dropping fifteen stories, jumping off of buildings, John McClane driving over cars in traffic without a care in the world. Which brings me to the xenophobia... no wait, I don't even want to go there. Why bother, when it's obvious nobody in the production did. A Good Day to Die Hard is a shameless cash grab and one of the most soulless sequels to have come down the pike in quite some time, that is until Hangover 3.

1/5

[Lepidopterous]

Vanilla Sky

Vanilla Sky is about a drug. It's a familiar drug that every man tries once in his life whether consciously or not. In the film, that drug is Sofia (Penelope Cruz). She embodies love—that intoxicating drug that gives David (Tom Cruise) a high that permanently shifts his normal. In other words, his mood will never be the same again without it.

David, a guy so perfect that a single gray hair is unacceptable, is seemingly forced towards humility after suffering a disfiguring accident shortly after meeting Sofia. However, it is not humility he achieves, but a curse that transcends any kind of physical deformity. David has to have that drug again, so he desperately seeks out his previous normal state, taking drastic measures to make it a reality.

Both Cruise and Cruz play idealized characters. Cruise plays a meticulously perfect big shot, who is only likable because of his abundance of confidence and charm. Meanwhile, Cruz is the natural kind of perfect, and is as desirable as she is pure

[Show spoiler](she met Brian at a library! ).

It is no surprise that they were a pair in real life because their puppy love is authentic and palpable (an emotional stage on par with A Lot Like Love and Like Crazy). I could not help but smile. And Cameron Diaz is utterly frightening as the irrationally clingy stalker—every man's worst nightmare.

The film just exudes replay value. It is a cerebral ride along the lines of The Butterfly Effect, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Source Code, and The Fountain—all loose-reality films where a man obsesses over a woman. And all among my favorite films.

Vanilla Sky is pure ecstasy and an enthralling cinematic escape. It's a drug I want to take again and again.

5/5

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

What didn't you like about it? I thought it was a pretty strong experience, if a little lopsided.

Previously reviewed here:

Next greatest rental: “Melancholia.”

[Show spoiler]
This is a film about a wedding gone to hell, followed up by Earth colliding with a rogue planet. Seems odd to mish-mash these subjects together; I figure that the thematic parallels and imagery would make this film a sure-fire winner. It has indeed won much praise and garnered many accolades. But does the film really deserve it?

To be fair, “Melancholia” is a gorgeous film. Its opening slow-motion montage scene is a sight to behold in itself; the imagery is quite striking. From then on, there are occasional moments of visual brilliance, especially when planet Melancholia comes into the frame.

As the film progressed through two acts, I expected a solid story to accompany the solid visuals. Especially following in the footsteps of “Antichrist,” which also featured a gorgeous opening montage, before heading down a downward spiral of madness and conflict. While I didn’t expect “Melancholia” to go all bat-s**t crazy like “Antichrist” (as I’m sure most sane people will be relieved to know), I really expected “Melancholia” to go through a similar spiral of conflict. Perhaps I set up the wrong expectations for myself, because the film was pretty flat all the way through. What conflict existed was very subdued; the film overall just comes off as dreary and dull. While this may be a fine expression of the director’s depression and nihilism, it makes for a rather uneventful picture.

Ultimately, my biggest complaint is in the story. Without the conflict to drive the story, the plot structure is practically nonexistent, and it’s populated with characters I absolutely cannot care about or even understand. What really stand out are the themes, which are successfully expressed. It’s an expression of outright nihilism, pure and simple: people don’t deserve to live, we are alone in the universe, and if the Earth were wiped out, nobody would care. Justine even says this flat out in the middle of the film, and I believe this reflects the very beliefs of the director (among most other nihilist artists).

I feel the story fails even further because it could have been very different. Never mind the fact that the film fails to show the typical chaotic reactions that other apocalyptic films show (no rioting cities, no political or militaristic panic, no scientists rushing to figure things out, no religious fanaticism, nothing). The film just focuses on the two sisters. But when the film shows the world ending right in the opening montage, I’m left wondering why I even care about these people if they’re going to die anyway. I understand it was the director’s choice to show the world ending first, to stop audiences from wondering whether or not it would happen; I believe this is actually a mistake, because the second half of the film did focus so much on the anxiety Claire felt upon watching Melancholia approach. So while she fretted about it, I just sat there and said, “yep, it’s coming.” Now, if we didn’t know what would happen, these scenes would have had the suspense ramped up really well; instead, I just couldn’t care, and it comes off as boring. The director seemed to think that the audience would take an interest in how the characters coped with the situation…I didn’t.

I haven’t even touched upon the first half of the movie, which focuses solely on a botched wedding. This in itself presents some interesting nihilistic ideas about how shallow the ritual of weddings are, and ultimately reflecting on the futility of human relationships. But then, I’m still left wondering why the wedding played so much into the story. I understand that it turned Justine into a fruitcake, but surely, this could have been done in a shorter time. With this section soaking up half the film, it just feels irreverent.

Despite everything, the film is well-made. Photography shows plenty of gorgeous imagery; it does get rather shaky even in the dullest of scenes, but it rarely bothered me personally. Editing is good. Acting is not particularly lively, but everybody does a good job at expressing melancholy. Kirsten Dunst shows decent skill throughout (and she has a fine nude scene). I didn’t mind the performances of Charlotte Gainsbourg, Kiefer Sutherland, or Alexander Skarsgard, even if they failed to play great or likable characters. Writing is okay. This production has decent enough sets, props, costumes, and good-looking special effects. Music is quite nice.

Time will tell regarding whether or not I’ll want to see this again, or whether or not my opinion will change.

3.5/5 (Entertainment: Average | Story: Marginal | Film: Very Good)

Recommendation: Despite the acclaim, I see that not all audiences particularly care for it either. Therefore, I recommend it just as a rental.

The lopsidedness of the film probably threw me off on the initial viewing.

The actual plot struck me as being really flat, dull, unmoving, lacking in structure or conflict.

Couldn't relate to the characters. Found them flakey and idiotic. I was especially not fond of the lengthy wedding scene, Justine messing it all up, Claire freaking out all the time, and

[Show spoiler]Kiefer Sutherland comitting suicide for no good reason and then his wife threw hay on him

.

I felt the director's choice in showing the planetary collision first was a mistake, because it took away from the potential suspense the rest of the film has. It was his intention to divert the audience's attention away from the planetary collision and focus on the characters, but since I didn't like the characters, it didn't work for me.

On the plus side, I do remember thinking it was a nice-looking film with decent acting and strong, well-stated themes.

I got to admit, I'm starting to feel the urge to rewatch the film now, see if my opinion changes.

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Previously reviewed here:



The lopsidedness of the film probably threw me off on the initial viewing.

The actual plot struck me as being really flat, dull, unmoving, lacking in structure or conflict.

Couldn't relate to the characters. Found them flakey and idiotic. I was especially not fond of the lengthy wedding scene, Justine messing it all up, Claire freaking out all the time, and

[Show spoiler]Kiefer Sutherland comitting suicide for no good reason and then his wife threw hay on him

.

I felt the director's choice in showing the planetary collision first was a mistake, because it took away from the potential suspense the rest of the film has. It was his intention to divert the audience's attention away from the planetary collision and focus on the characters, but since I didn't like the characters, it didn't work for me.

On the plus side, I do remember thinking it was a nice-looking film with decent acting and strong, well-stated themes.

I got to admit, I'm starting to feel the urge to rewatch the film now, see if my opinion changes.

It looks like you know what he was going for but it didn't work for you. One problem I definitely agree with is

[Show spoiler]the scientist's suicide.

That was Lars Von Trier taking a dump on faith. Everything else seemed relevant to me. The characters were that way because of the heavy burden of doom in the air. Hell I was in a dark mood myself. And everything about the wedding made sense to me because Von Trier is trying to highlight that our immediate stresses are ultimately insignificant. Everyone was stressed out. The boss. The new hire. The mom. The dad. Even the butlers were stressing about the beans. All for nothing because the world was about to blow up.

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

I felt the director's choice in showing the planetary collision first was a mistake, because it took away from the potential suspense the rest of the film has. It was his intention to divert the audience's attention away from the planetary collision and focus on the characters, but since I didn't like the characters, it didn't work for me.

That was the only way to do it imo. If the theme is pointlessness, then the audience has to know that everything that happens in the movie is for nothing. He wants us thinking about that while we're watching the film.

[Abdrewes]

DjMethod, have you seen the original, Abre Los Ojos? It's far superior, even as I've come to like the sloppiness if Crowe's film.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

It looks like you know what he was going for but it didn't work for you. One problem I definitely agree with is

[Show spoiler]the scientist's suicide.

That was Lars Von Trier taking a dump on faith. Everything else seemed relevant to me. The characters were that way because of the heavy burden of doom in the air. Hell I was in a dark mood myself. And everything about the wedding made sense to me because Von Trier is trying to highlight that our immediate stresses are ultimately insignificant. Everyone was stressed out. The boss. The new hire. The mom. The dad. Even the butlers were stressing about the beans. All for nothing because the world was about to blow up.

Good points. The more I think about these characters, the more it seems to make sense.

Looking at the older posts, I saw surfdude talking about Melancholia as a metaphor for any impending sense of doom a person may experience in a lifetime, and the characters represent our natural reactions. I'm kinda experiencing that now; got an upcoming business trip that feels like the coming of Melancholia. I'm trying my best to be like Justine and just let things go.

Like I said, chances are that my next viewing may be more favorable (I think it took a couple of viewings to appreciate Antichrist as well).

Originally Posted by DjMethod

That was the only way to do it imo. If the theme is pointlessness, then the audience has to know that everything that happens in the movie is for nothing. He wants us thinking about that while we're watching the film.

I think I was getting hung up on the plot progression in that regard, but you do bring up a good point about the themes.

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

DjMethod, have you seen the original, Abre Los Ojos? It's far superior, even as I've come to like the sloppiness if Crowe's film.

Both films felt very close and similar to me. Practically the same level as comparing the American and Swedish GwtDT. Even though I found both Open Your Eyes and Vanilla Sky pretty weird and probably won't want to revisit them, I remember liking them both equally.

EDIT:
Well, heck, I might revisit them again at some point. If they hit Blu-Ray.

[Abdrewes]

^^^^Wow! I think all four films are drastically different. Each pair of sequels are united in script, but on a formal level, the directors are doing vastly different things. David Fincher's visual strategy on GwtDT is more about collecting data, with little judgement, his eye is much more focused on process and detail than the Swedish version, which is well mounted, but without superb craftsmanship. Abre Los Ojos has a much harder and colder edge than the pretty and loud Vanilla Sky, in tone they are polar opposites. Where the original had me feeling absolutely sick and devastated, Crowe's film has a slick, overproduced and impersonal feel.

I've come to just submit to the artifice of Crowe's film and just appreciate each distinct overcranked element including performances and soundtrack.

[jvince]

"COPS " ' Buster ' Keaton - YouTube

Cops (1922)
dir. Edward F. Cline, Buster Keaton

The Good: Buster Keaton. Ladder seesaw. Fantastic musical score.

The Bad: Not as imaginative or amusing as Buster's other films.

The Bottom Line: Cops is basically a smaller-scale version of Seven Chances, only instead of angry brides, it's angry, well, cops.

[jvince]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

I felt the director's choice in showing the planetary collision first was a mistake, because it took away from the potential suspense the rest of the film has. It was his intention to divert the audience's attention away from the planetary collision and focus on the characters, but since I didn't like the characters, it didn't work for me.

Originally Posted by DjMethod

That was the only way to do it imo. If the theme is pointlessness, then the audience has to know that everything that happens in the movie is for nothing. He wants us thinking about that while we're watching the film.

I agree with Dj. That was the perfect (and only) way to start the film, because it basically sets up the inevitable doom of these characters. The world is about to end, and there's no escaping that. The film is about how different people would react to such finality.

Also, if I remember correctly, the opening is Justine's nightmare, which is probably one reason why she's been so depressed. But by the end, she comes to grips with it, while her sister, who only realizes that they are indeed about to die very soon as she sees the planet fast approaching, goes into panic mode; Almost like a role reversal.

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

I got to admit, I'm starting to feel the urge to rewatch the film now, see if my opinion changes.

I gotta watch it again as well to see if it holds up, but this film really blew me away.

Originally Posted by DjMethod

And everything about the wedding made sense to me because Von Trier is trying to highlight that our immediate stresses are ultimately insignificant. Everyone was stressed out. The boss. The new hire. The mom. The dad. Even the butlers were stressing about the beans. All for nothing because the world was about to blow up.

This is the type of film that sticks in your head, and the more I kept thinking about it, I also realized that and a bunch of other stuff, and I went, "Damn... That was one f*cking brilliant film."