love

Author Topic: Respond to the last movie you watched (Jan 2011 - Nov 2013)  (Read 2532627 times)

FLYmeatwad

  • An Acronym
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 28785
  • I am trying to impress myself. I have yet to do it
    • Processed Grass
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #18590 on: May 18, 2013, 10:11:22 AM »
Doesn't happen often, but I shall compliment Spielberg's work: Jurassic Park is a good film.

Corndog

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17025
  • Oo-da-lolly, Oo-da-lolly, golly what a day!
    • Corndog Chats
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #18591 on: May 18, 2013, 04:19:34 PM »
I really like Milos Forman, but I have never gotten around to Man on the Moon. Always been curious. One day.
"Time is the speed at which the past decays."

StudentOFilm

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3778
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #18592 on: May 18, 2013, 05:12:15 PM »
Jurassic Park does seem to hold up with re-watches.

And I also echo the sentiment about each and every character in The Mortal Storm having strengths and weakness. As you point out, oldkid, the film is yes, Anti-Nazi, but as you also say that even then it seems to go beyond just "good guys" and "bad guys" and gives everyone a point of view on the subjects and themes that exist in the story.
"Be yourself, unless you suck."- Joss Whedon

My Switchboard

MartinTeller

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17864
  • martinteller.wordpress.com
    • my movie blog
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #18593 on: May 18, 2013, 09:47:11 PM »

To the Wonder - I was hoping to buck the trend of disappointed reactions to Malick's latest film.  He's a filmmaker I hold dear to my heart, and the divisive Tree of Life is one of my favorites, so I felt very much on his side.  So I waited for that transcendent rush of Malickian goodness to wash over me.  And waited.  And waited.  I could feel my eyelids growing heavier.  I was checking the time.  I was, for the first time ever with a Malick film, bored.

Bored with these empty characters.  Bored with Bardem's sleepy impression of Gunnar Bjornstrand in Winter Light.   Bored with Affleck with his relentless staring off into the distance, interrupted by inexplicable bursts of anger.  Bored with Kurylenko's endless twirling, dancing, skipping, and for heaven's sake STOP looking back over your goddamn shoulder.  Yes, it's so very photogenic when you do that.  But enough is enough.  Honestly, by the end I was starting to laugh every time she did it.

But aren't Malick's characters usually on the thin side?  Fair enough, but why do I care so much more about the people in those earlier films than I did for these people?  Maybe it was the voiceover, which -- although it does occasionally transmit a sort of eloquence -- often feels like leftover bits from ToL.  It's a phrase that's thrown around a lot in connection to this film, but it fits... this is bordering on "self-parody".  How many shots do we need of Affleck and Kurylenko oh-so-tellingly wandering around separate parts of the house?

It is frequently beautiful -- I'd say less visually appealing than most of his other work, but that's quite a record of visual splendor -- and there is heart in it.  I may have ripped on Bardem as a second-rate Bergman character, but I actually was somewhat interested in his religious struggles, and how the love of God compares and relates to the love between people.  It just seems like the effort isn't there.  The film looks like it's aiming for profound insights and sweeping emotion, but the work hasn't been done to make those things happen.  I didn't want to, but I'm afraid I have to jump on this particular bandwagon... it's the first truly disappointing movie I've seen by Malick, and the first I have no desire to see again.  Rating: Fair (65)

Devil

  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 863
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #18594 on: May 19, 2013, 01:58:31 AM »
That is basically my review only I had turned 30 by the time I saw the 3D re-release ;D

Doesn't happen often, but I shall compliment Spielberg's work: Jurassic Park is a good film.

Jurassic Park does seem to hold up with re-watches.


I'm further convinced of the films standing in my all time list by the fact that it is a day later and I am still riding a euphoric high from seeing it on the big screen for the first time in ages.
~You never say, "I'm gonna fight you, Steve." You just smile and act natural, and then you sucker-punch him~

Totoro

  • Guest
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #18595 on: May 19, 2013, 04:07:19 AM »

To the Wonder - I was hoping to buck the trend of disappointed reactions to Malick's latest film.  He's a filmmaker I hold dear to my heart, and the divisive Tree of Life is one of my favorites, so I felt very much on his side.  So I waited for that transcendent rush of Malickian goodness to wash over me.  And waited.  And waited.  I could feel my eyelids growing heavier.  I was checking the time.  I was, for the first time ever with a Malick film, bored.

Bored with these empty characters.  Bored with Bardem's sleepy impression of Gunnar Bjornstrand in Winter Light.   Bored with Affleck with his relentless staring off into the distance, interrupted by inexplicable bursts of anger.  Bored with Kurylenko's endless twirling, dancing, skipping, and for heaven's sake STOP looking back over your goddamn shoulder.  Yes, it's so very photogenic when you do that.  But enough is enough.  Honestly, by the end I was starting to laugh every time she did it.

But aren't Malick's characters usually on the thin side?  Fair enough, but why do I care so much more about the people in those earlier films than I did for these people?  Maybe it was the voiceover, which -- although it does occasionally transmit a sort of eloquence -- often feels like leftover bits from ToL.  It's a phrase that's thrown around a lot in connection to this film, but it fits... this is bordering on "self-parody".  How many shots do we need of Affleck and Kurylenko oh-so-tellingly wandering around separate parts of the house?

It is frequently beautiful -- I'd say less visually appealing than most of his other work, but that's quite a record of visual splendor -- and there is heart in it.  I may have ripped on Bardem as a second-rate Bergman character, but I actually was somewhat interested in his religious struggles, and how the love of God compares and relates to the love between people.  It just seems like the effort isn't there.  The film looks like it's aiming for profound insights and sweeping emotion, but the work hasn't been done to make those things happen.  I didn't want to, but I'm afraid I have to jump on this particular bandwagon... it's the first truly disappointing movie I've seen by Malick, and the first I have no desire to see again.  Rating: Fair (65)

Yeah.

I feel ya.

I wanted to like/love it too. If Like Someone in Love is "cinema sans bone, all flesh" then To the Wonder is cinema sans bone AND flesh; it's all spirit. Far more divisive than The Tree of Life. I have a few friends that love it. I don't get why.

ArmenianScientist

  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 753
  • They don't think it be like it is, but it do.
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #18596 on: May 19, 2013, 05:32:01 AM »

for heaven's sake STOP looking back over your goddamn shoulder.

 ;D Felt the same way

But aren't Malick's characters usually on the thin side?  Fair enough, but why do I care so much more about the people in those earlier films than I did for these people?

Think it's because Malick invested his other characters with a very specific eccentricity that's completely missing from the characters in To the Wonder. Malick generally deals with ciphers, but he tends to imbue them with unique physical characteristics that we don't get so much of in TTW; Kurylenko is something of an exception to this, but her physical gestures start to feel like tics after a while. So much of this film is Malick letting his characters relate to each other physically, expressing the ineffable nature of love in a way that more conventional romantic dialogue could not.  I admire this approach, but can't help but feel that it becomes limiting when the film starts to veer into melodrama and angst for no particular reason. Malick's refusal to give us the bare minimum of why the characters start to bicker, aside from his vague sense of angst and ennui, is frustrating.

I will say though, that I was on the verge of tears for stretches of the first 30 minutes. Malick captures the joy of their first romantic encounters so well. Most of all, he beautifully conveys the melancholy when Kurylenko's yearning from transcendence is thwarted by the banal reality of the Southern suburbs. Something about the way Malick shoots the scene of a woman asking Kurylenko about her daughter while watering her lawn captures this sadness perfectly. He mutes the sound and focuses upon Kurylenko, whose dejected face reveals that she is unable to be in the moment and embrace the world around her. The way Malick captures these moments is incredible, but some kind of structure is needed to make all these disparate moments cohere into something more substantive.

FLYmeatwad

  • An Acronym
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 28785
  • I am trying to impress myself. I have yet to do it
    • Processed Grass
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #18597 on: May 19, 2013, 09:43:36 AM »
Thought that girl who played the daughter in To The Blunder was great. I also did find some of the visual touches that the film used in conjunction with the way it questioned faith and the universal struggle with certainty to be compelling. Again, feels a bit like Malick blew his load on TToL, but still enjoyed a good amount of TtW.

MartinTeller

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17864
  • martinteller.wordpress.com
    • my movie blog
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #18598 on: May 19, 2013, 01:54:41 PM »
I wanted to like/love it too. If Like Someone in Love is "cinema sans bone, all flesh" then To the Wonder is cinema sans bone AND flesh; it's all spirit. Far more divisive than The Tree of Life. I have a few friends that love it. I don't get why.

I still haven't seen LSIL  :-[


it becomes limiting when the film starts to veer into melodrama and angst for no particular reason. Malick's refusal to give us the bare minimum of why the characters start to bicker, aside from his vague sense of angst and ennui, is frustrating.

Yes, yes, yes. 

I will say though, that I was on the verge of tears for stretches of the first 30 minutes. Malick captures the joy of their first romantic encounters so well. Most of all, he beautifully conveys the melancholy when Kurylenko's yearning from transcendence is thwarted by the banal reality of the Southern suburbs. Something about the way Malick shoots the scene of a woman asking Kurylenko about her daughter while watering her lawn captures this sadness perfectly. He mutes the sound and focuses upon Kurylenko, whose dejected face reveals that she is unable to be in the moment and embrace the world around her. The way Malick captures these moments is incredible, but some kind of structure is needed to make all these disparate moments cohere into something more substantive.

There are undoubtedly great moments, which is why I didn't rate the film in the "Poor" region.

Thought that girl who played the daughter in To The Blunder was great. I also did find some of the visual touches that the film used in conjunction with the way it questioned faith and the universal struggle with certainty to be compelling. Again, feels a bit like Malick blew his load on TToL, but still enjoyed a good amount of TtW.

I don't know if he "blew his load" on TToL, but I wonder if he needed more distance from it.  Maybe the reason TTW came out so quickly (especially for Malick) is because he had these leftover bits he needed to get out of his system.  I still have plenty of hope that he has more great films in him.

Sam the Cinema Snob

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26795
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #18599 on: May 19, 2013, 02:27:09 PM »
Well, after making ToL, anything was going to be a disappointment from Malick for most people. I'm hoping I'm not most people. Gonna wait for a home video release because online video rental standards are not good enough for a first viewing of a Malick film.

 

love