The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[Steve46]

Originally Posted by Foggy

I missed the chance to watch Philomena, but I should be able to see the rest of the best picture nods before beginning of March.

Seen (ranked in quality)

12 Years a Slave
Nebraska
Gravity
Captain Phillips
American Hustle

And I should be checking out Wolf of Wall Street tomorrow night.

I am hoping to see Wolf of Wall Street, August: Osage County, Inside Llewyn Davis and maybe a couple of others.

Already seen Gravity, American Hustle and Captain Phillips.

Blue Jasmine BD arrived in the mail today along with Captain Phillips.

[Abdrewes]

The Hunt may be one of the most shamelessly manipulative movies of last last year, but as an edge of your seat button-pusher, one has to give it credit. It knows which ones to press and in what order to achieve maximum effect. Even if you can spot the disingenuous hands of the writer at work, its still hard to resist being moved by the thing because of Mads Mikkelsen's exceptionally strong performance and the dead on lensing that provides an entryway into his character's unbalanced mind. You're never quite sure whether he committed the sins that his quaint Danish community damns him for, but you feel the way their cold stares and attacks batter his weary heart.

Mikkelsen plays Lucas, a middle-aged kindergarten teacher that is in a custody battle with his ex-wife for his adolescent son. He drinks, hunts, and frolics at the lake with his gray-haired frat-boy peers on weekends. And on weekdays, if his best friend Theo and wife are in a bind (or simply arguing), he volunteers to walk their daughter Klara to and from the school. In short, he is the definition of small town decency and normalcy.

However, on one afternoon before Klara's mother picks her up from daycare, she makes a startling revelation to her principal. She claims that Lucas exposed her to his penis, whose erectness she likens to that of a pipe. There is an air of uncertainty about this accusation on a few levels. First, Klara is considered to be an imaginative girl and Lucas' reputation is strong enough to dispel ill-founded hearsay. Second, though this never leaves the confines of the situation, we are left to gather that this could have been an imaginative reconstruction tied to the incident where her older brother's boorish friend flashed pornography emanating from an iPad screen before her eyes.

A parent-teacher conference that entertains the possibility that Lucas may have perpetrated similar acts of misconduct with the other children singlehandedly tarnishes his reputation with the community. He is rendered an outcast of the highest order and nobody outside of his closest friends and son are willing to accept with his muted pleas of innocence. Of those that once occupied Lucas' close circle, Theo now sides with his daughter's fuzzy memory of the event and his girlfriend's apprehension basically excuses herself from their living arrangement. Throughout, cinematographer Charlotte Bruus Christensen's long takes capitalize on the underpinnings of insecurity and threat. An atmosphere of paranoia is created as we are left to ponder over the folds of uncertainty in the plot. Did Lucas really do it? Was Klara was making it all up? Was hypnotism a factor? Was it all a ploy of Lucas' ex-wife in the heated custody battle? Does Nadja, the extremely pushy love interest, have anything to do with it? These questions bubble in the mind the further we get to the finish.

Director Thomas Vinterberg, who cofounded the Dogme 95 film movement with Lars Von Trier, brandishes the screenplay's grabby sledgehammer essence like an hulking demolisher while, conversely, treating the performances with the care of a china doll doctor. He allows Mikkelsen to explore every crevice of the defined space he is given in the narrative. There is an incredible scene set in a grocery store which manages to provide violent catharsis without ever betraying the character's taciturn and reticent bounds. That the performance was not recognized with an Academy Award nomination says more about the number of exceptional performances in 2013 than his abilities as an actor. It may not have been evident in all the villainous roles that make up a good chunk of his body of work, but he is an acting powerhouse. If images of his stern gaze don't occupy your mind in the hours after seeing this film, you clearly weren't watching.

[SilentDawn]

Great review Andrew!

The ending is so powerful!

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by SilentDawn

Great review Andrew!

The ending is so powerful!

Thanks, Silent.

There's no doubt the ending feels powerful (even if we've seen something similar to it plenty of times before)

[Steve46]

August: Osage County (2013)
Drama, 121 minutes
Directed by John Wells
Starring Meryl Streep, Julia Roberts, Chris Cooper, Ewan McGregor, Julianne Nicholson, Margo Martindale, Abigail Breslin, Dermot Mulroney, Juliette Lewis, Sam Shepard and Benedict Cumberbatch

I was surprised to find my local theater almost full for today's viewing of August: Osage County. I had assumed that with the movie being in the second week of its run, and the NFL Championship games on TV, I would have the place to myself. That says a lot about the appeal of Meryl Streep, who is probably the best actor we will ever see. The first thing I noticed was that there was a lot of grey hair present in the audience, and I briefly enjoyed the fact that most audience members were older than me for once.

Despite being listed as a drama, the movie produced plenty of laughs. However, most were in sympathy or shock at the darkness of the subject matter. The laughs came because the movie so keenly observes how dysfunctional families can be. The Weston family takes that theme to the extreme and cannot boast a single member that comes close to what we would consider normal.

If you have seen Eraserhead and remember the scene where Henry Spencer meets his girlfriend's family, you might begin to approach how uncomfortable the atmosphere in the Weston household can be. The opening scene introduces us to Beverly Weston (Sam Shepard), who writes poetry when his alcoholism allows. We quickly realize why he feels the need to escape reality when we meet his wife, Violet (Meryl Streep). She's almost permanently high on a cocktail of pills, and has the appearance of a zombie in these opening shots. Her husband decides to leave in the first few minutes of the story, and we eventually learn that he has committed suicide. This sets off an incredible chain of events as family members start showing up to offer their condolences and attend the funeral.

The movie was adapted from a play, and it feels like it throughout the two-hour running time. This is a story which only uses two or three settings, and most of the time we are in the Weston's home. The acting on display is terrific across the board. As much as I admired Cate Blanchett in Blue Jasmine, Streep's performance was better. I highly doubt that she'll beat Blanchett on Oscar night because of the nature of the story, but the performance is the best I have seen all year. Despite Streep's towering performance, her supporting cast had a lot to contribute. Julia Roberts deserved her Supporting Actress nod, but I would have to say that every character was portrayed well.

Some of the confrontations in this movie are powerful and memorable. Streep's showdown with Phillip Seymour Hoffman in Doubt came to mind a few times as some of the arguments in August: Osage County sizzled and boiled over. One of my favorite scenes involves Chris Cooper saying grace, and in a way it's a microcosm of the entire movie. There are also a couple of major surprises along the way, and I certainly won't reveal them here, but if you're a fan of dialogue and the portrayal of human interaction, you'll admire this movie. That doesn't necessarily mean you will want to see it repeatedly and add it to your home movie collection, but it's worth seeing at least once.

The reason I think it will be ignored at the Oscars is Streep's previous track record and the fact that this story is so unsettling and ugly to experience. That said, the acting took my breath away at times, and I enjoyed seeing the story unfold. I loved listening to Streep, Roberts, Chris Cooper and Julianne Nicholson deliver their lines. I wouldn't consider the movie a fun watch, despite the dark humor, but it does a lot of things extremely well. Like Lincoln, this is one you'll grab from the shelf when you are starving for intelligent dialogue and masterful acting, rather than the sheer pleasure of some movie plots. You'll might well be reminded of chaotic conversations you've had with your own friends or family.

I'll always be amazed at how Meryl Streep seems to become the person she is playing on the screen. It's different every time.

[Al_The_Strange]

My proper review of Prisoners:

At first glance, I would have pegged Prisoners as a dull, run-of-the-mill drama. It may take a few minutes to gain momentum, but once it does, this film becomes a rather bleak and gripping descent into a prison of desperation and despair.

The overall tone, style, and pacing of the film strikes a perfect balance, much akin to films like Zodiac, Silence of the Lambs, or Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. Prisoners is every bit as dark and moody as these films. It also handles the brutal violence with just the right level of skill and effectiveness; it rarely lingers on graphic details, but it is still hard-hitting. The experience overall is mesmerizing and emotionally taut.

The story covers familiar ground, for there are plenty of films, books, and TV shows that focus on missing persons and kidnapped children. Prisoners excels at telling this simple story, however, because it emphasizes the emotional despair of the case, and it feels all the more real because of it. In spite of that, it maintains a perfect level of pathos, allowing the audience to connect to the characters and really feel for them (including both the parents of the victims, who go to any length to find their children, and the cops, who want to do their jobs but inevitably clash with the parents). The conflict shifts in some surprising directions, and it becomes apparent that the real prisoners of this story are not necessarily the kidnapped victims. After a number of twists and turns, it all leads to a starkly bittersweet ending.

This film uses some simple, but highly effective, photography and editing. Lighting can be very dark and drab, lending the film a perfect look and style to accentuate the tone. Acting is what really propels this film above-and-beyond though, thanks to a surprisingly emotional and nuanced performance by Hugh Jackman, and an earnest portrayal from Jake Gyllenhaal. Everybody else pulls their weight really well. Writing is good. This production uses good-looking sets, props, and costumes. Music is appropriate as well.

Prisoners is a dark and bleak mystery thriller that mesmerizes and hits hard, on a level not too far off from Zodiac or Silence of the Lambs. If you enjoy these types of thrillers, then this film is a must-see.

4.5/5 (Entertainment: Good | Story: Very Good | Film: Perfect)

Recommendation: Yes.

[Spirit Zero]

Robocop 3 (1993)

With the imminent release of the new Robocop film I thought a rewatch of the notorious trilogy bookend was in order. Directed by Fred 'The Monster Squad' Dekker and written by graphic novel icon Frank Miller how could it go wrong?. Well in all fairness I don't think they did go that far wrong abeit a few obvious changes.

First of all as we all know the overall violence had been watered down hugely. Of course there are some that will argue that blood n bullets don't equal a good film, and they'd be right, but in the case of this franchise I personally think you need it. Like various other classic adult franchises ('Alien', 'Predator', 'The Crow' etc...) they simply work better without restrictions on who will be watching them, free reign...because they are for adults.

So straight off the bat all the dark satirical graphic novel type violence and blood has almost been taken out. I say almost because the film does have some good moments. You can tell its an old 90's film because it does still manage to squeeze in some violence and edgy bleakness. A small scene where an OCP suit leaps out of their tall skyscraper due to their stock crash. Next scene we see a 'blink and you'll miss it' shot of him hitting the ground, well you don't actually see that. Plus during some actions scenes where bad/good guys are gunned down you do get some good old fashioned bloody squib hits just like the first two films. Most don't have any squibs but they are in there so the film isn't all PG-13, pretty sure you get that these days.

The actual plot isn't too bad in all honesty, its not too unfamiliar but it works for this franchise. OCP control the cops and now have this special unit specialising in clearing out this specific urban region in Detroit to make way for Delta City, yep the're STILL trying to make Delta City. Naturally OCP are trying to make out this is a positive thing for Detroit and they're actually helping people relocate, but of course in reality they are acting like Nazi's and stormtrooping everybody off in buses without a care for families, property, well being etc... The concept works but its a forced one, most of these OCP guys are dressed like Nazi SS officers with long trench coats in militaristic fashion. They round everyone up just like the Jews were in WWII, many end up getting shot but all that is covered up by news propaganda. Their leader played by Brit John Castle is a decent Euro villain who snarls perfectly.

So you throw Robo into the mix and at first, like the cops, he's following OCP rules but eventually he sees how wrong it is, as do the cops, and they all change sides. Its all very predictable, there are a few predictable sequences where the drama is suppose to be heightened to rouse your emotions, like when the cops turn up to help the civvies or when Robo goes after the bad guy who kills 'Lewis', but the film never really manages to charge you up as it should. It tries hard to do so but just feels flat. There are some nice visual moments (Robo's intro sequence) but nothing as iconic as the first film, hell even 'Robocop 2' couldn't quite give us anything that visually iconic.

I think the worst part of the film was the inclusion of the Japanese company working with OCP. This really didn't need to be in there and I don't think you would of missed it if it wasn't. The most heinous crime for the film had to be the Japanese samurai assassin cyborg which was like something out of a trashy low budget ripoff flick. The daft part being this cyborg looked infinitely more advanced and sophisticated than Robo, more like a Terminator, and could have easily kicked his ass all over. Well he could of if he didn't just do martial arts flying kicks on him. He does manage to slice Robo's forearm off but somehow Robo is able to just stick that gun enhancement back on, despite his arm being half sliced off by a katana.

The killing of Officer Lewis definitely meant the end of the road for this franchise though. I was still quite impressed they got quite a few cast members back for classic characters, OCP suit Johnson, Casey Wong, Bixby Snyder and Sgt. Reed are all back, as is a nice well done cameo from ED 209 (unaltered too). I was also impressed with the makeup on Robo's face when his visor is off. They managed to get Burke looking exactly like Weller! no dilution anywhere, the effects are spot on and look great as does the rest of the suit. I also think Burke did a good job as Robo, he accentuates his walking and mouth movements a bit too much if you ask me but apart from that he was good. All sound effects on Robo's movement, his gun, ED 209 and visual graphics for Robo's vision are all perfectly recreated, good continuity.

Yeah so jet pack Robo felt a bit too much like a merchandising ploy but...damn I'll admit it I quite liked the idea. Its not too incredible an idea and it did look quite cool. I think the limitations on budget and effects hampered what could of been something pretty neat. All in all this film isn't as bad as I recall to be honest, it carries on nicely from the previous films, story is OK, effects all look as good as previous films...had Weller been involved who knows. Bottom line for me is the lack of graphic violence, grimy seediness and dark satire, a must in a Robocop film.

5.5/10

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by Steve46

Her (2013)

[Show spoiler]Her is a very unusual movie with some interesting observations about the way in which people are becoming more reliant on technology. It's set in Los Angeles in the not too distant future, and tells the story of Theodore Twombly (Joaquin Phoenix). He works as a writer, producing flowery love letters for people who who lack the ability to express their feelings. He's good at his job.

Unfortunately, Theodore's own relationship is failing and he is soon to be divorced from his wife, Catherine (Rooney Mara). When he buys a new computer operating system, his life changes dramatically. The program adapts to his personality and needs, and evolves at a tremendous rate. This screen persona names 'herself' Samantha, and is voiced by Scarlett Johansson.

To his surprise and delight, Theodore finds that he is able to connect with Samantha in ways that he never could with a physical person. Communication is everything in his relationship, and he finds it easy to express his deepest thoughts and feelings to Samantha. At the outset, it's probably a form of self-analysis, but as the relationship develops, it's clear that Samantha is real to Theodore.

I think modern technology is under the microscope in this movie, and director Spike Jonze is observing how so many people are open to sharing their feelings on the Internet. It seems that many of us are less guarded and willing to risk revealing our secrets when we don't have to do it face-to-face. That's certainly true for me. The movie also deals with the irony of Theodore's success in writing about other people's feelings while struggling to communicate in his own personal life.

Theodore's best friend, Amy (Amy Adams), is the only real person he feels comfortable talking with about the things that really matter in life. These are the kind of friends who are there for each other when they are most needed, no matter how hard it is to listen.

I don't want to spoil any of the surprises, so I'll stop talking about the plot. The story is intelligent and thoughtful in its observations, and Phoenix is exceptional as Theodore. If you're used to seeing him cast as a villain, you might find his performance refreshing. He's vulnerable and rather likable, and it's easy to empathize with the things he experiences. Despite being nominated for Best Picture, Her won't win any awards. But I'm not sure that I've seen a better acting performance all year. Phoenix has to show considerable range in the role, and does it without ever seeming as if he is acting. Amy Adams plays one of the lovable characters that we see in most of her movies, and she's perfectly cast. I could imagine myself spending the rest of my life talking to her character.

The movie raises plenty of questions about modern society. What constitutes a real relationship? Is physical contact essential? Can we exist without technology?

I found myself thinking of the Ender's Game sequels (Speaker for the Dead, Xenocide, and Children of the Mind) for much of the story. If you have read them, you'll know that Ender's most trusted friend was a computer program that he accessed through a jewel in his ear. His friend Jane is not too dissimilar to Samantha. I urge you to read the whole series if you enjoyed the Ender's Game movie.

As the movie ended, the audience quickly filed out, and people began accessing their cell phones. As for me, I rushed home to share my thoughts with you. We live in the virtual world far more than some of us are willing to admit.

If you like original ideas, good acting, and thoughtful stories, go and see Her. If you need a fast-paced story with plenty of action, give this one a miss.

Overall score 4.5/5

Great observations. There is a lot to appreciate here and I anticipate it'll hold up well to many subsequent viewings.

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

Definitely. I don't expect much in the way of special features, though. It seems WB saves those for their blockbusters.

Found a neat clip to share with you all

Her: Love In The Modern Age (Trailer) - YouTube

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

[Show spoiler]The Hunt may be one of the most shamelessly manipulative movies of last last year, but as an edge of your seat button-pusher, one has to give it credit. It knows which ones to press and in what order to achieve maximum effect. Even if you can spot the disingenuous hands of the writer at work, its still hard to resist being moved by the thing because of Mads Mikkelsen's exceptionally strong performance and the dead on lensing that provides an entryway into his character's unbalanced mind. You're never quite sure whether he committed the sins that his quaint Danish community damns him for, but you feel the way their cold stares and attacks batter his weary heart.

Mikkelsen plays Lucas, a middle-aged kindergarten teacher that is in a custody battle with his ex-wife for his adolescent son. He drinks, hunts, and frolics at the lake with his gray-haired frat-boy peers on weekends. And on weekdays, if his best friend Theo and wife are in a bind (or simply arguing), he volunteers to walk their daughter Klara to and from the school. In short, he is the definition of small town decency and normalcy.

However, on one afternoon before Klara's mother picks her up from daycare, she makes a startling revelation to her principal. She claims that Lucas exposed her to his penis, whose erectness she likens to that of a pipe. There is an air of uncertainty about this accusation on a few levels. First, Klara is considered to be an imaginative girl and Lucas' reputation is strong enough to dispel ill-founded hearsay. Second, though this never leaves the confines of the situation, we are left to gather that this could have been an imaginative reconstruction tied to the incident where her older brother's boorish friend flashed pornography emanating from an iPad screen before her eyes.

A parent-teacher conference that entertains the possibility that Lucas may have perpetrated similar acts of misconduct with the other children singlehandedly tarnishes his reputation with the community. He is rendered an outcast of the highest order and nobody outside of his closest friends and son are willing to accept with his muted pleas of innocence. Of those that once occupied Lucas' close circle, Theo now sides with his daughter's fuzzy memory of the event and his girlfriend's apprehension basically excuses herself from their living arrangement. Throughout, cinematographer Charlotte Bruus Christensen's long takes capitalize on the underpinnings of insecurity and threat.

An atmosphere of paranoia is created as we are left to ponder over the folds of uncertainty in the plot. Did Lucas really do it? Was Klara was making it all up? Was hypnotism a factor? Was it all a ploy of Lucas' ex-wife in the heated custody battle? Does Nadja, the extremely pushy love interest, have anything to do with it? These questions bubble in the mind the further we get to the finish.

[Show spoiler]

Director Thomas Vinterberg, who cofounded the Dogme 95 film movement with Lars Von Trier, brandishes the screenplay's grabby sledgehammer essence like an hulking demolisher while, conversely, treating the performances with the care of a china doll doctor. He allows Mikkelsen to explore every crevice of the defined space he is given in the narrative. There is an incredible scene set in a grocery store which manages to provide violent catharsis without ever betraying the character's taciturn and reticent bounds. That the performance was not recognized with an Academy Award nomination says more about the number of exceptional performances in 2013 than his abilities as an actor. It may not have been evident in all the villainous roles that make up a good chunk of his body of work, but he is an acting powerhouse. If images of his stern gaze don't occupy your mind in the hours after seeing this film, you clearly weren't watching.

I thought the sequence of events painted his innocence quite strongly. Or is that what you mean by manipulation? I perceived it as dramatic irony.

[Steve46]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

Found a neat clip to share with you all

Her: Love In The Modern Age (Trailer) - YouTube

Good stuff

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

I thought the sequence of events painted his innocence quite strongly. Or is that what you mean by manipulation? I perceived it as dramatic irony.

I thought the whole premise was rather manipulative, DJ. But that is no great knock on the film as it played me like a fiddle.

[Show spoiler]I don't think the film ever completely clears him and this is what rather frustrated me. The terrific ending suggests as much: whether he did it or not isn't exactly the point. What's of importance is that the allegations will always hang over his head.

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

I thought the whole premise was rather manipulative, DJ. But that is no great knock on the film as it played me like a fiddle.

[Show spoiler]I don't think the film ever completely clears him and this is what rather frustrated me. The terrific ending suggests as much: whether he did it or not isn't exactly the point. What's of importance is that the allegations will always hang over his head.

But manipulative how? And when does any good film that respects its audience spell things out for us?

[Show spoiler]The sequence of events leading up to the girl's accusation was enough for me to conclude he was indeed innocent. She felt betrayed by him and in a momentary lapse of judgment, accused him of something she had no concept of. Afterwards, she tried multiple times to overturn her initial accusation. That was the essence of the film to me: a lesson in the ignorance of the hive mind. How one small statement can make up their minds for them and destroy him from the inside out.

I found the film brilliant but quite torturous under the weight of knowing (inferring) his innocence the whole time.

[Lepidopterous]

After a second viewing, I uncovered far more from Her than initially realized and was moved twice as much by its beauty and depth. The ending is my favorite, but even the extremely weird and uncomfortable

[Show spoiler]surrogate

scene left me with far more meaning this time around.

[Show spoiler]The sheer purity of her intention to bring only love and happiness to them resonates with me. (Or she was just a free wh0re. )

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

But manipulative how? And when does any good film that respects its audience spell things out for us?

[Show spoiler]The sequence of events leading up to the girl's accusation was enough for me to conclude he was indeed innocent. She felt betrayed by him and in a momentary lapse of judgment, accused him of something she had no concept of. Afterwards, she tried multiple times to overturn her initial accusation. That was the essence of the film to me: a lesson in the ignorance of the hive mind. How one small statement can make up their minds for them and destroy him from the inside out.

I found the film brilliant but quite torturous under the weight of knowing (inferring) his innocence the whole time.

The way the film progresses and snowballs it's taboo premise for effect. Yes, it is about the town's eagerness to vilify him, you are right, and the way the film operates is like a sledgehammer. Everyone outside of Mads is really one-dimensional (despite the air of confusion that I spoke of). It fleshes out that stacked deck the town has against him to the highest degree and, really, that's all "The Hunt" does. So yeah, I recognized it's lack of subtlety, but couldn't help but be moved by it anyway. That's why I say manipulative. Further, the more I think about the film, the more I am keep to label it as "exquisitely produced and acted schlock."

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

But manipulative how? And when does any good film that respects its audience spell things out for us?

[Show spoiler]The sequence of events leading up to the girl's accusation was enough for me to conclude he was indeed innocent. She felt betrayed by him and in a momentary lapse of judgment, accused him of something she had no concept of. Afterwards, she tried multiple times to overturn her initial accusation. That was the essence of the film to me: a lesson in the ignorance of the hive mind. How one small statement can make up their minds for them and destroy him from the inside out.

I found the film brilliant but quite torturous under the weight of knowing (inferring) his innocence the whole time.

I'm struggling to come up with how the film was manipulative. I think DJ hits the nail on the head here with his explanation.

Perhaps I'm getting caught up in your use of the word "manipulative" here.

[Show spoiler]Was the town manipulated into believing that he indecently exposed himself to a little girl? In a way, yes, but manipulate is a strong word. But in a situation like this, why wouldn't any town or gathering of people react like this? That to me is what made the film so brilliant. You knew people were acting very ignorantly, but it's very hard to argue against their actions. I figure many of us would react the same way.

EDIT:

Ok, for some reason my browser didn't have your post directly above mine when I originally read through this thread.

I guess I can see a little where you are coming from. I will respectfully disagree on the grounds that I found the film very realistic in the way the situation was portrayed.

[Abdrewes]

Romulus, thanks for the response.

It's been topsy turvy here at work, so the limited time to write my rebuttal didn't fully express my thoughts.

Manipulation: Hollowness of emotionally charged elements. It's less about nuance than effect. For Spielberg, this comes through with the over-cranked score and romantic look. For Vinterberg, this comes through in the lack of intellectual curiosity towards the premise. I think the scandal at the center is just dangled there to make us react. The narrative that is built around it only exists to anger us, not to offer anything resembling insight.

[Romulus]

Ah, okay, your point makes 100% to me now.

So if I understand your point, you feel like Vinterberg made a scenario that it's primary focus was to illicit a reaction from the audience, rather than approach it in an intellectual manner.

To me, I thought it was a fantastic insight.

[Show spoiler]I think that you and I will agree that the very nature of film touches on very serious subject matter. A child that is has or could have been presented to indecent exposure is something that is not taken lightly in any circumstance.

I felt that the film was a perfect storm of events to cause this to all unfold. To me, one of the biggest aspects of the film was that the child's parents could not believe that their child would lie about this event happening. However, the alternative to this scenario is much, much worse: the idea that parents don't think she is telling the truth when in fact she has been exposed to a horrible event. And truth be told, that last sentence is extremely common.

I think it puts the parents in a certain position where they could only act in one way. That would be to believe that she is telling the truth. One thing is for certain, the parents know their daughter has grasped the idea of an erect penis and they certainly believe that she didn't learn it from them. In the context of the film, the parents can only connect the dots and believe that their friend has indecently exposed himself to their daughter.

You definitely hit a big part of the film with the idea of anger as well. We know that Mads Mikkelson is innocent. What makes it so infuriating for the viewer is that it's hard to argue against the actions of a town. I know for certain that if male that worked a school indecently exposed himself and lived in my neighborhood, he wouldn't get treated kindly. Who in their right mind would want to stand up for that kind of individual? It seems like if you do, you're as bad as the culprit themselves.

I think the insight for me personally comes in the fact that a family is so willing to protect the innocence of their young daughter that it obscures the truth from them. But I like I stated earlier, it's much better than the alternative of a family not believing their daughter when said event actually occurred.

For myself, I was angry while watching it, but at the same time thought to myself "how would I react in this situation?" And the fact is, I would probably react like most of the people in the town.

So for one, I actually applaud the film for looking at a situation and not afraid of asking these types of questions.

Also, we both agree on the ending. While he may be innocent of his actions, he will never be innocent in his actions to some people. Which I found to be a fascinating and heart breaking ending.

Unfortunately, like yourself, I'm a little busy today so I wasn't quite able to flesh out some of the thoughts like I initially wanted... but I can always go back and elaborate on it further.

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

Romulus, thanks for the response.

It's been topsy turvy here at work, so the limited time to write my rebuttal didn't fully express my thoughts.

Manipulation: Hollowness of emotionally charged elements. It's less about nuance than effect. For Spielberg, this comes through with the over-cranked score and romantic look. For Vinterberg, this comes through in the lack of intellectual curiosity towards the premise. I think the scandal at the center is just dangled there to make us react. The narrative that is built around it only exists to anger us, not to offer anything resembling insight.

Hmm I didn't feel tooled, mostly because I believe that is how mass paranoia would have really taken place. While I'm inclined to agree that the film's theme could have been handled in a more complex fashion, its perspective provokes self-reflection and stresses the importance of innocent until proven guilty (burden of proof). Ignorance itself is one-dimensional. It is the infuriating truth about the hive mind, even if it was delivered straightforward and perhaps overbearing.

Yet even under burden of proof, what parent would take the risk of possibly dropping off their kids to a pedophile? That is a complex issue in itself.

[Walts Ghost]

'The School of Rock' review:

"I have been touched by your kids... and I'm pretty sure that I've touched them."

So many people dismiss this film as just another Jack Black comedy, when another Jack Black comedy, and that couldn't be farther from the truth. 'School of Rock' is one of those films that is actually much better than it deserves to be, and that's thanks to the direction of director Richard Linklater, and a strong script by Mike White. Wile this could have been just another "loser-to-hero" comedy, the film is actually a great character driven film full of heart, fun, and great music. It's also arguably one of Jack Black's best performances.

Black's character Dewey Finn may look like like every other movie slacker you've ever seen, but in a way, he's more than that. Dewey is a guy who isn't ready to lose his friend, and his past, to the future. He's trying so hard to hold onto all of it, that he's let his life completely stall out, and that is something we can all relate to. It's a great performance, and he's not the overly obnoxious side character he has been type cast as for so long. This is a more mature version of Black's career, and one that would be great to see him do more of, much like his role in 'King Kong'. Black isn't the only one who is good here, it's his entire supporting cast of younger kids that really stands out. Each and every one of them has a standout scene in the film, and you care and like all of them. They're not just stock characters, and that's all thanks to Mike White's script, and Linklater's direction. Mike White also stars in the film as Dewey's best friend Ned, and Sarah Silverman plays Ned's pushy girlfriend, Patty. Both are very good in their roles.

It's thanks to Linklater and White that this film is even nearly as good as it is. In a way, it's really an indie film masquerading as a studio comedy. Linklater has been a favorite amongst cinemaphiles for some time, thanks to his work on films like 'Dazed and Confused', and the 'Before Sunrise' trilogy. He's a director who excels at character work, and really making sure every character in his film gets a chance to standout and be remembered. He's never let go of his indie sensibilities, and that's what makes the movie so special. Thanks to White's script, which is very clever and well written, the film features excellent dialogue and character interactions as well. The chemistry between all the characters feels real and natural, and not over the top and fake. The final part that makes this film so great is the soundtrack. They've secured so much great classic rock for the film, it really gives some extra character and flow to the film. It really defines many parts and scenes, and brings the film fully alive.

'The School of Rock' is a special little film. What is sadly considered a standard studio by comedy is actually much more than that. It's a great character film with great music, an excellent script, and an indie movie vibe. Thanks to Black's great leading man performance, White's script, and Linklater's direction, the film fires on all cylinders, breaking out of its shell to create something memorable. It's too bad many look over the film, and it really deserves to be watched and evaluated on its own merits. They just might be surprised just how feel good the film turns out to be, and how much they really enjoy it.

4/5

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by Romulus

Who in their right mind would want to stand up for that kind of individual? It seems like if you do, you're as bad as the culprit themselves.

So for one, I actually applaud the film for looking at a situation and not afraid of asking these types of questions.

Many good points, particularly the above quoted. Vinterberg puts us in an undesirable place and enlightens us.