The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

3.5? Ouch, that hurts my heart! haha

here's my take on the meaning of the film:

[Show spoiler]finding the beauty in the world around us, to save us from the mundane and from the rote lives many of us fall into. it's about enjoying each minute, whether it's working out, doing a good job at work, eating ice cream, buying a new sports car, etc. the film also deals blatantly with the misconception that suburban life is idealistic and free from conflict. the point there is that we all have issues inside, whether it's self-image, suppressed sexual feelings, unhappiness at work or in marriage, etc. the film seeks to point out how blessed life can be if we just step back for a minute and appreciate what we have, rather than go through life in an a safe routine.

Great synopsis of the meaning here Jhiggy! I agree with all of that. I guess I'm still hung up on Spacey's specific case, as it seemed his character

[Show spoiler] had responsibilities to others that were affected by his "enjoying every minute". Perhaps his daughter didn't starve by him quitting the job or start using drugs based on his using drugs, but she felt isolated enough to run away, and his choices in this film would have severely damaged 9/10 kids in her situation. Is the film suggesting our responsibilities to others evaporate when we choose this route? That the consequences to minor dependents of a parent choosing this path aren't relevant? Surely not. I presume there is an exception that we can't engaged in self-enjoyment at any cost, if minor dependents are involved? yet the films characters seemed to violate this exception?

Just want your take on this, as the facts of the film don't seem to permit me to jump onto your well written synopsis.

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

See thats where a lot of my problems were. I have always loved Cruz and I think shes a good actress. The character however...

[Show spoiler]She loves her Mom and Dad. She tries to be kind and helpful. So I am liking her. Then its revealed that she has a history of prostitution. Then she shacks up with her boss the old man. Was that to "repay" him for his kindnesss and paying for her Dads surgery? They didnt explain that well. She appears to care for him. Then when she meets "Harry" she flip flops and is quite mean to her partner. We never really know why she was there, and if it was so bad, why didnt she just leave? Was she staying just for the upscale lifestyle, making her a gold digger?

I love a good steamy sex scene, but the opening one served no purpose IMO. The rest of the movie, told in a nonlinear fashion fleshed out Harrys character and personality just fine. I couldnt see any reason for the scene other than to put some nudity on the screne. It was nice nudity but it didnt do much for the story.

Anyway, different tastes and all that. Cool.

As far as Cruz's character,

[Show spoiler]I think her intentions were not supposed to be clearly demonstrated, but assumed. She watched her father thrown on the street by his own surgeon and watched her parents suffer because they weren't of class or money. In the end, that longing for power so as not to be defaced of dignity was the root of her desire for marrying the old man. She didn't leave him at first because she was afraid of him. It wasn't until she was secure enough with Harry that she gained enough courage to face him. And maybe she hadn't realized until she met Harry how unreal her relationship has been with the old man. So there is some complexity but it's all woven in there for the viewer to contemplate.

It wasn't Harry's sex scene that was important but the scene leading up to it.

[Show spoiler]His seduction demonstrated the importance of sight through the description of beauty to him. To the very end of the film, we see nothing does beauty as much justice as sight.

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Breathless (1960)

[Show spoiler]
Cast:Jean-Paul Belmondo, Jean Seberg, Daniel Boulanger, Jean-Pierre Melville, Henri-Jacques Huet, Van Doude, Claude Mansard, Jean-Luc Godard, Richard Balducci, Roger Hanin

Director:Jean-Luc Godard

Thats my last effort on Godard.

Call it art, groundbreaking, edgy, whatever.

Plain and simple, I call it poor filmmaking. Period.

Camera work. Artsy? I say clumsy and poorly planned. Crappy actually. Composition that defeats the purpose of the shot instead of enhancing it. You want to see beautiful framing and composition? Go watch the trailer for the Coens new movie True Grit. Thats ART.

Editing. New and stylistic? No, its just crap as well. Jarring hack job. Its the "Shakey-Cam" of the 1960s. No reason for the chomped off cuts. It adds nothing, not mood, not tension, not urgency, its just weak and unprofessional.

Story. If that was a story, uh, well, color me bored. Weve seen it a million times and nothing was done to make it fresh or unique.

Script: Yawn. Laughable. All the meandering, pointless, repetative dialog was excruciating and comes from Godard. Oh, but he wrote a lot of it himself each morning over coffee before they shot scenes. So what. He made it up on-the-fly and it shows. It isnt good, why should I forgive him because he wrote it each day? Bad is bad, and it was bad.

Poor preparation for shooting. EVERY scene on the streets of Paris and in the large hotels was swarmed by non-crewmembers getting in the way of the dollies and STARING at the crew and camera. Totally pulled me out of the movie to see dozens of curious onlookers watch a film being made.

Characters: Who cares really. Underdeveloped and uninteresting.

Score: Beyond ridiculously bad. Dont tell me it was the 1960s. Almost every tune was the exact wrong choice for the mood of the scene it was used in. If it was done intentionally, the reasons were lost on me. Grating and annoying.

Subtitle problems: I dont know if it was the filmmakers or Criterions fault, but the subtitles suck. I dont speak French fluently, but I know enough to know that there were constantly pieces of dialog that were translated wrong, or left out altogether. Sometimes the subs "led" or "followed" the dialog enough to make it annoying. But hey, that went hand in hand with the hacksaw editing.

A low budget and "creativity" are not excuses for technically poor movies. If the Germans can Deliver Metropolis 33 years prior, and Hollywood can deliver Gone With The Wind 21 years prior, there is no excuse for this. And trying to pass it off as art is just like selling blue jeans for $280.00, insulting.

Film 1.5/5
PQ 3.75/5 nothing special
AQ 2.5/5 Tons of sounds just never appeared. Cars, doors closing, footsteps etc. I dont know if thats the film or the BD, but it was really empty. Void af almost all natural ambient sounds.

Perhaps I am Not Sufficiently Evolved to appreciate French New Wave. Frankly I am tired of making the effort to "Get it". Fine. I'll keep breathing through my mouth and dragging my knuckles on the ground and enjoying films that are not utter rubbish.

Good thing Godard wasn't in the room, he'd be eaten alive.

As a director, Godard did everything he could aesthetically to make a non-traditional movie so as to make the statement: movies have no bounds. Breathless launched the French New Wave movement for this very reason. In a way, your review is precisely why this film is so famous. It is controversial arthouse cinema. It was so different from anything at the time that it captivated moviegoers and film critics alike (and infuriated many of them as well). They didn't really understand what it was, because it was Breathless... not just a new standard, a different standard: style over substance. A film that would go on to inspire some of the best filmmakers today.

Understandably though, Godard is not your cup of tea. You do get what his films are supposed to be, but you cannot bring yourself to acquire such a perspective because it is not your taste.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

They didn't really understand what it was, because it was Breathless... not just a new standard, a different standard: style over substance.

True -- but mustn't we have some basic criteria that the art must include? Otherwise, the boundary between art based on legitimate creativity and art based on transient-laziness disappears. Anyone could randomly cook up some super-random film genre in a matter of minutes, or just grab a video camera and shoot something never shot before in a matter of minutes. Can they now demand Godard-like praise?

I know I know...who defines "legitimate creativity"? I guess there are no hard rules, hence why its art. THis is just another whining Godard diatribe from someone who doesn't "get it"

I love The 400 Blows, which is French new wave, right? How come that resonates with me but not Godard? I guess its an easier nut to crack? Squid: have you seen 400 Blows?

[dag]

Interesting discussion here about Godard. I just finished watching Louis Malle's Au Revoir les Enfants.

Earlier this year I watched Godard's Breathless, Vivre Sa Vie, and Contempt, and found them all very intriguing, and definitiely worthy of my time. Zip has mailed me Pierrot le Fou, which I expect to watch next week.

However, I also saw Film Socialism at TIFF - now that is truly wretched filmmaking.

[Chaotic]

The Social Network 1/5

[Lepidopterous]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

True -- but mustn't we have some basic criteria that the art must include? Otherwise, the boundary between art based on legitimate creativity and art based on transient-laziness disappears. Anyone could randomly cook up some super-random film genre in a matter of minutes, or just grab a video camera and shoot something never shot before in a matter of minutes. Can they now demand Godard-like praise?

I know I know...who defines "legitimate creativity"? I guess there are no hard rules, hence why its art. THis is just another whining Godard diatribe from someone who doesn't "get it"

I love The 400 Blows, which is French new wave, right? How come that resonates with me but not Godard? I guess its an easier nut to crack? Squid: have you seen 400 Blows?

There is a standard basis to judge films, but that is exactly what Godard disliked. It was his jail cell, so to speak. The point was not that it is random crap... it's that he showed the world something that has never been done before in film, and how we can use this medium to express ourselves aesthetically, rather than through rigid guidelines. He sees movies as an art rather than a science. It brings a sense of comfort and flexibility to the table that has previously never been exercised.

Truffaut's (director of 400 Blows) filmmaking differed a lot from Godard. Godard had his own thing going for his own reasons, but they joined for a common cause: rebelling against the norm. With Breathless in particular, Godard wanted to push it as far as he could, exploring what has not been done before. Truffaut was on the same level (he even wrote Breathless), but explored it in his own way. He made a film about childhood rebellion with obvious parallels to his own filmmaking, and the intelligent and timeless portrayal of adolescence.

Trying to relate the two films to each other directly is sensible but their historical significance is more about how they each contributed to the New Wave movement in particular.

It comes off snobbish for me to even give credit to Godard for such an abstract, yet literal achievement. But I do enjoy his films, especially with the right perspective. To answer your question about creativity, you can only find cold hard facts in its historical impact. For example, the film was inevitably unique at the time. Its personal impact, however, is entirely within the opinion of the viewer. Just because you and Squid do not enjoy it, doesn't mean you don't get it. That's just my opinion.

Btw, if you do give Godard another chance, I would suggest Band of Outsiders or Contempt. If you do not find interest in those, you can save yourself time from the rest of his filmography

[brps3]

Frozen

3 out of 5. Not great but it had its moments.

[Freekman]

Let Me In - 10/10
I really loved this movie.

[CZAR]

Hatchet - 2nd viewing but first time on blu and it was even better the 2nd time around. Kane Hodder makes for a great horror icon whether he is playing Jason or Victor Crowley. It had all the great slasher horror elements. Hot chicks, wise cracks, great kills and jump moments. Deon Richmond was very funny in the film and he carried the comedy portion very well. Tamara Feldman was very hot and I liked her character. Just a good overall feel to the movie and the setting was perfect for a out in the woods slasher film. Cant wait to see part 2!

Film Rating - 4 stars (out of 5)

PQ - 4 stars (out of 5)

AQ - 4 stars (out of 5)

Got Em!!

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

Great synopsis of the meaning here Jhiggy! I agree with all of that. I guess I'm still hung up on Spacey's specific case, as it seemed his character

[Show spoiler] had responsibilities to others that were affected by his "enjoying every minute". Perhaps his daughter didn't starve by him quitting the job or start using drugs based on his using drugs, but she felt isolated enough to run away, and his choices in this film would have severely damaged 9/10 kids in her situation. Is the film suggesting our responsibilities to others evaporate when we choose this route? That the consequences to minor dependents of a parent choosing this path aren't relevant? Surely not. I presume there is an exception that we can't engaged in self-enjoyment at any cost, if minor dependents are involved? yet the films characters seemed to violate this exception?

Just want your take on this, as the facts of the film don't seem to permit me to jump onto your well written synopsis.

ahhh you bring up great points and I think your points show a fundamental weakness in the story as conveyed in the film, while it does not alter the underlying thematic conveyance. Interesting to think about.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

True -- but mustn't we have some basic criteria that the art must include? Otherwise, the boundary between art based on legitimate creativity and art based on transient-laziness disappears. Anyone could randomly cook up some super-random film genre in a matter of minutes, or just grab a video camera and shoot something never shot before in a matter of minutes. Can they now demand Godard-like praise?

I know I know...who defines "legitimate creativity"? I guess there are no hard rules, hence why its art. THis is just another whining Godard diatribe from someone who doesn't "get it"

I love The 400 Blows, which is French new wave, right? How come that resonates with me but not Godard? I guess its an easier nut to crack? Squid: have you seen 400 Blows?

Well, I don't think anyone would argue that Truffaut or 400 Blows is style over substance, as is the case to an extent with Godard. It's certainly not an experimental film and is not French new wave, as it is pretty straight forward (despite the ending), which of course is the opposite of Godard.

We all know I'm a Godard fan though

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by dag

Interesting discussion here about Godard. I just finished watching Louis Malle's Au Revoir les Enfants.

Earlier this year I watched Godard's Breathless, Vivre Sa Vie, and Contempt, and found them all very intriguing, and definitiely worthy of my time. Zip has mailed me Pierrot le Fou, which I expect to watch next week.

However, I also saw Film Socialism at TIFF - now that is truly wretched filmmaking.

Au Revoir Les Enfantes is an incredible film with one of the most memorable final scenes I've seen. An absolute must see and I wish it would get a Criterion blu release.

[iam1bearcat]

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

more proper title: The Uninteresting and Drawn Out Life Story of Boring Button

as a few members on this website will tell you, i'm a huge David Fincher fan. i praise his masterpieces Fight Club and Zodiac (two of my 10 5/5's by the way) up and down this very thread. but Button? my god what was snoozer

this was my third viewing of Button and it took just as long to get through (if not longer) than the first 2 viewings. it's remarkable the number of times i looked at my watch to see how much time was left. for a film containing one of my favorite actors, made by my favorite director, i really, truly have no feelings about this film: except for anger.

i didn't / don't and couldn't care less about Benjamin's story. aside from aging backwards, there was nothing special here. and the love story always irks me as remarkably creepy. and i HATE Cate Blanchett no real reason why, i just hate her as an actress. so every scene she's in all i can think is how much i wish she wasn't on screen.

i felt nothing for any of the many characters we meet. not sad. joy. pain. sorrow. nothing. and actually when Benjamin's "step mother" (or whoever she was) dies i said to myself, "good. one less character they can have useless scenes with" - that's how much i resent this 'work of art'.

i can't really place why i dislike it, i just don't like it. it's way too long, way too slow, and extremely uninteresting. i didn't feel at all swept up in the story of Benjamin and couldn't care less what he was doing or deciding.

the ONLY reason i will keep this blu-ray is because it's a David Fincher film and i want to own all his films on blu-ray. that is it. there's a 99% chance i will never watch this again, not even planning on listening to the commentary. and i love commentaries!

usually when a film makes me want to gouge out my own eyes it's pretty terrible. this isn't a terrible film by any means, i just found absolutely nothing redeeming about it.

gets points for the acting, solid atmosphere (even though i hated the atmosphere), directing decisions and some other stuff i can't recall off hand because i just want to go to bed and forget i wasted another 3 hours on this.

2/5

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by Chaotic

The Social Network 1/5

What an engaging review...

[Foggy]

I watched Fargo, I really couldn't get into it.

I'll write more after but at the moment I would give it a 5/10

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

i haven't seen either film yet, but that sentence is extremely humorous simply because i know how you feel about that little indie Inception film

The article actually goes on to say that Inception is quite clever, but it has many layers and is complex. And Buried is clever yet simple.

But you read that one sentence the same way I did.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

Funny, I find French films to be arguably my favorite. Aside from Godard, you have Summer Hours, Tell No One, Last Year at Marienbad, Au Revoir Les Enfantes, Cache, Jean de Florette, 400 Blows, Amelie, etc etc etc.

Feel free to vote. Here are your options.

This is me, pondering, and not grasping French New Wave.



Or, this is French New Wave.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by lDlisturb3d

Have you guys seen a Glimpse of RESTREPO!! I cant wait to see this!!!!

I have it saved in my Netflix queue. Just waiting.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by DjMethod

Good thing Godard wasn't in the room, he'd be eaten alive.

As a director, Godard did everything he could aesthetically to make a non-traditional movie so as to make the statement: movies have no bounds. Breathless launched the French New Wave movement for this very reason. In a way, your review is precisely why this film is so famous. It is controversial arthouse cinema. It was so different from anything at the time that it captivated moviegoers and film critics alike (and infuriated many of them as well). They didn't really understand what it was, because it was Breathless... not just a new standard, a different standard: style over substance. A film that would go on to inspire some of the best filmmakers today.

Understandably though, Godard is not your cup of tea. You do get what his films are supposed to be, but you cannot bring yourself to acquire such a perspective because it is not your taste.

Thats it in a nutshell. Its how my head is wired and my core belief system that prevents from accepting it and enjoying it. I am a huge fan of style, but without substance, style is meaningless. I'm not saying thats a fact, thats just how my brain perceives the relationship between the two.