Cool News
Moriarty’s Holiday Marathon Catch-Up Continues! LETTERS And SCANDAL And CHILDREN and MUSEUM And HALF NELSON, Oh My!
Oh, the days are strange right now.
I saw my first film of 2007 (officially, anyway) on Friday morning and my second on Friday night, so it feels like the year is off and running. In the meantime, I’m still mainlining everything I can. I’ve got about 28 films to go before I call it quits for the year, and it makes for some really strange days.
Take today, for example. I started the day with a barbecue with my family outside, playing ball with the baby and having fun. Then after lunch, Toshi hung out with me so we could watch CURIOUS GEORGE. My wife and I went out and did some stuff for a while, hung out until she went to bed, and then I watched Steve Soderbergh’s BUBBLE, which turned out to be a pretty appealing little experiment in naturalism that reminded me of early Errol Morris. I just finished watching Fabien Bielinsky’s last film, the noir thriller EL AURA from Argentina, and I have to say... I sort of loved it. I think it’s at least as good as NINE QUEENS, and it makes me sad to know Bielinsky’s gone now. Next up, I’m about to start TALLADEGA NIGHTS, which I somehow completely managed to miss while it was in theaters.
I love the punchy feeling that kicks in about four films into a marathon. I love this time of year, knowing that I’m revving up to write about it. It’s funny, though... I’m already getting attacked.
I haven’t written my list... haven’t even started with the actual writing of it, or even the ranking of it... and I’m getting angry e-mails. One person wrote me a scathing missive because of the way I categorize the films I see each year. “EXCELLENT, VERY GOOD, GOOD, NOT-SO-GOOD, and FUCKING AWFUL.” They were offended by the last category and irritated by the others. They wanted a star system or a number system. “Something quantifiable.” First of all, I’m not a consumer report card. I have strange, particular taste in film. I know what I like. I love films for a lot of reasons other people don’t, and there’s populist stuff that connects with audiences that drives me mental. I can’t tell you if a movie is worth your money/time or not. Only you can, and the only way you’ll ever really know is if you spend the money in the first place.
I hate using stars or numbers to “quantify” a film. I don’t get it. I don’t know the difference between a 4.2 and a 5.9, to be honest. I have broad reactions to films, but then within those broad reactions, I have a million different small reactions that can only be explained through a real discussion of the movie, and not through any arbitrary number I assign to the film.
Even having five categories already makes things a little rigid for my tastes, but in general, if it’s “good” or above, I can at least recommend giving the film a try. Beyond that, you’re on your own. There are some “NOT-SO-GOOD” films on my list that weren’t the worst films of the year by any means, and not really disasters... they just weren’t very good.
Is “FUCKING AWFUL” a little harsh considering ever other category is some degree of good, even if it’s not-so? Yeah, probably. But there are a handful of films every year that make me feel like I’ve been punished, and I reserve the right to punish them back. Just a little.
For now, though, I’m still just watching movies. Everything I can. I did pretty well in terms of seeing things in actual theaters. I went to several screenings in the last few weeks, but the holidays sort of crushed me, and I just didn’t have a chance to write about them.
After my extremely mild reaction to FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS this year, I can’t say I was really looking forward to LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA, the second half of his multi-perspective portrait of the battle of Iwo Jima. I think Eastwood, like most major directors, goes through different periods, different personalities, different voices. My favorite Eastwood was for a brief run including films like BIRD, UNFORGIVEN, and WHITE HUNTER BLACK HEART. During those years, his filmmaking achieved a sort of effortlessness, a purity of voice that I don’t think he ever had before or since. His current run of films, starting with MYSTIC RIVER, has obviously made some powerful connection with a section of the viewing public, but it leaves me cold, and that bothers me.
Even after having reviewed them and discussed them and even rewatched them, I’m hard-pressed to fully explain why I reject MILLION DOLLAR BABY and MYSTIC RIVER and FLAGS, but I do. On some fundamental level, I reject the very way they go about their business. They feel as forced and phony to me as UNFORGIVEN feels natural and even inevitable. With LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA, somehow Eastwood has tapped that earlier style again, and the resulting film is easily my favorite thing he’s made in over a decade.
Iris Yamashita’s screenplay is an exercise in primary colors, but within those broad character strokes she creates, she’s created a very delicate human story. The idea of telling the Japanese POV on a WWII battle is progressive enough from any American filmmaker, but it’s especially bold when you consider how Eastwood is a specifically American icon. His appeal for much of his career has been based on films like BRONCO BILLY or THE OUTLAW JOSEY WALES or HONKYTONK MAN or even the EVERY WHICH WAY BUT LOOSE films. His earliest fanbase is made up of the exact audience that may see this as audacious and challenging, the mere idea of experiencing empathy for our opposition in what most still consider the last truly moral war. It’s that empathy, the way Eastwood steps outside the American experience, that makes this a stronger film than FLAGS just on the conceptual level.
None of that would matter if we didn’t feel for the characters in the film, and that’s where Yamashita and Eastwood excel. Ken Watanabe had a fantastic year between his performance here and in the little-seen-but-equally-worthy MEMORIES OF TOMORROW. He stars as General Kuribayashi, the man in charge of making the island ready for attack. Kuribayashi is forward-thinking, progressive in his treatment of underlings and also in terms of his education, which took place in America. Baron Nishi (Tsuyoshi Ihara) is also an officer with American ties, having competed in the 1932 Los Angeles Olympics. The two of them bond immediately, unique among the officers. There’s a formal, hardline rigidity to the way most of the officers on Iwo Jima think, and the common soldiers are constantly bombarded with stories about what kind of monsters the Americans are. We see the enlisted men through the eyes of Saigo (Kazunari Ninomiya) and Shimizu (Ryo Kase), among others. Saigo is a baker who was pressed into service and who wants desperately to survive so that he can see his daughter, born after he left for the war.
The film takes its time, and so much of it is focused on everything except battle that when the war does finally intrude, it’s upsetting because you know things can’t go well for these people we’ve gotten to know so well. Knowing that you’re watching the losing side in a conflict plays havoc with expectations, and it makes it even more tense than usual. When it looks like all is lost and the only honorable out is suicide, Eastwood doesn’t flinch. He takes you inside the mentality of the men who are ready to do the unthinkable, and when they actually do it, it’s awful because you know there are options that their cultural conditioning just doesn’t allow them to see. For me, the whole movie boils down to a moment inside a cave, near the end of things, when the Japanese have taken a wounded American into their hiding place. He dies, and they find a letter home on his body. As they read the letter aloud, they suddenly get a totally different impression of Americans than what they’ve been told to expect, and they see themselves and their own hopes and fears in what he wrote, and they suddenly experience a shift in their perspective that illuminates what I believe Eastwood is trying to say here. It’s a piercing moment, and the film as a whole has lingered quite a bit with me in the two weeks since I’ve seen it.
Fox was good enough to send me several Academy screeners this year, allowing me to catch up with movies like LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE and THANK YOU FOR SMOKING and THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA that they didn’t bother inviting me to see when they screened originally. One of the titles that showed up was NOTES ON A SCANDAL. It’s an uneven film, but there’s a lot about it that I really liked, and it features one of the best human monsters since Tom Ripley in ’99.
Richard Eyre is one of those British directors who came out of decades of TV work, and who is professional, polished, with an almost invisible touch. There are some flourishes here that scream Scott Rudin to me, like the inappropriately portentous score by Philip Glass, but I guess that’s because Rudin though he was making a serious, highbrow lit flick like THE HOURS. NOTES is something much more gloriously trashy than that, though, camp that never once winks at you. The only person who seems completely in on the joke with screenwriter Patrick Marber is Dame Judi Dench, and the result is loads of sly, tart fun.
Dench plays Barbara, a thoroughly institutionalized teacher at an English school. She’s a private little lady with an acid tongue, but she saves her best bon mots for the journal she keeps, where she pours her rage and her wit into scathing dissections of everyone around her. It’s hyper-self-aware work, but at the same time, it’s an attempt by Barbara to romanticize her completely cold and loveless world, her one way of inflating herself while deflating the world around her until, perhaps, she actually fits.
She’s a lesbian, and a deeply closeted one, but the film isn’t about Dench struggling with the identity. There’s something that defines her more clearly than her sexuality. She’s a manipulator. She’s a stalker, and a damn good one. She identifies her prey, then gradually strips away anything that might keep her from her kill. She is a hunter, and the film really kicks in about the moment she sights something new she wants, something she needs... a new teacher, blonde and sultry and practically glowing. Cate Blanchett is probably sexier here than she has been in her last ten films. Dench begins to work her way into the life of this younger woman so she can see what she’s up against. She meets Blanchett’s husband, the obviously-older Bill Nighy, and she meets Blanchett’s kids, including one with Down’s Syndrome (who Dench describes to her journal as “the court jester”) and spends time with the family at meals. She doesn’t really see a way in until Blanchett does something stupid. Incredibly stupid. Self-destructive to an extreme. And Dench watches from the corner, a spider waiting in her web, pleased as pleased can be.
Blanchett makes some horribly frustrating choices in the film, but they’re the sorts of choices that you see people make in real life all the time, and I think Marber did admirable work adapting Zoe Heller’s novel. It’s not a perfect film, but it’s one of the strongest purely adult entertainments of the season, and well worth checking out.
I have to say... I’m confounded by the resistance that many people seem to have to Alfonso Cuaron’s magnificent, moving CHILDREN OF MEN. Working from a difficult novel by PD James, Cuaron has crafted a script along with Timothy J. Sexton, David Arata, Mark Fergus, and Hawk Ostby. That many writers must be a bad sign... right?
Normally, I’d say yes, but here, it seems like something really special happened. Even if I think there are some narrative problems in the last 20 minutes of the film, I admire how dense and subtle this script is. There are several different levels of perception which the film works on, and the more you study the backgrounds and the world and the details of things, the more you see how much careful construction went into making this the sort of experience that you can watch and rewatch, the single most effective vision of dystopia since Terry Gilliam’s BRAZIL.
Clive Owen was smart to resist the pressure to play James Bond, and I think what we’ll eventually see from him over the course of his whole career is that he’s more interested in eccentric, individual vision than he is in commercial credibility. The way he plays the hero of this film, there’s an awkward lack of physicality to him. Despite his size, he’s almost frail. He’s not a badass superhero by any means, and that makes his journey in the film more moving. The film’s failures occur most obviously when Owen and other actors stop playing characters and start playing types, especially in the film’s wrap-up. But at its best, the film has a shaggy charm that makes the sad, hopeless world of the movie seem even more bleak in a way.
It’s a very simple set-up. All around the world, at roughly the same time, women stop having children. A generation goes by, and the horror and sorrow of the situation sets in on a cultural level. That’s where the film picks up. Owen plays Theo, a man who is approached by his ex-wife, played by Julianne Moore, who wants him to help her obtain transport papers for a young woman (Claire-Hope Ashitey) who carries inside her the first baby in almost 20 years. That’s pretty much it. The script is deceptively simple, and because the screenwriters layered in so many things so gracefully, it’s possible to watch this different ways depending on you. If you want to watch the film to appreciate the social commentary that Cuaron has layered in visually, it’s a rich and rewarding experience, subtle and nuanced in all the ways V FOR VENDETTA was not. If you want to watch a character study about a walking dead man slowly brought back to life when he encounters hope in a hopeless world, the film works on that level, too. Maybe the only way you’ll leave frustrated is if you want hard SF answers to what has obviously been created as pure metaphor.
The real stars of the film are Alfonso Cuaron and his longtime cinematographer, Emmanuel “Chivo” Lubezki, and their collaboration here is one of the most technically thrilling things I’ve seen all year, a reminder of just how liquid reality can be in the hands of great film artists. Much has been made of the long uninterrupted takes that Cuaron favors in this film, but it seems like most people are only impressed because they are long uninterrupted shots. What I find most impressive about the technique is the way it grounds you in the middle of action sequences in a way that all the frantic MTV-style cutting the world never will. Cuaron makes you a part of these scenes in a way that never lets you off the hook, and his incredibly sure hand as a director combined with the real magic that Lubeski accomplishes is what makes this one of the year’s most compelling experiences in a theater, even if I’m not completely sold on some of the script’s choices in the last few minutes of the film. No matter, and a minor complaint. See this on the biggest screen you can, as soon as you can. It’s worth the effort.
Meanwhile, what the hell do you people see in NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM? I know families get desperate to find anything they can see together at the theater, but there has to be some other choice out there right now besides this generic, poorly-written nonstarter. It’s almost to the point where I wince when I see “Screenplay by Thomas Lennon and Ben Garant,” and that bothers me. I like those guys. RENO 911 makes me laugh very hard, and I enjoyed them on THE STATE. They are very funny people, no doubt about it. But lately, if they are the credited writers on a mainstream comedy, it’s going to be cookie-cutter garbage. HERBIE FULLY LOADED, the TAXI remake, THE PACIFIER, and now this... all I can think is that these guys are playing some elaborate practical joke on Hollywood, intentionally writing awful lowbrow crap just to see if they can get it greenlit. As long as there’s a tell-all book down the road called VIN DIESEL AND A DUCK, OR HOW WE RUINED HOLLYWOOD COMEDY AND GOT RICH DOING IT, then all will be forgiven. In the meantime, I guess this movie works if you want to watch Ben Stiller get into a slapfight with a monkey. I thought the cast was wasted, and that’s even more depressing when you’ve got vets like Dick Van Dyke and Mickey Rooney in the cast as well as genuinely good comic actors like Owen Wilson and Steve Coogan.
Obviously, the guy who deserves the most scorn here is Shawn Levy, whose work continues to define mediocrity. He has no flair with actors, no visual style to speak of, and his inexperience with shooting visual effects means that this movie is state of the art if it was made in 1983. Levy managed to direct two of the year’s worst films this year (the horrifying PINK PANTHER remake is the other), no simple task. CHEAPER BY THE DOZEN, JUST MARRIED, and BIG FAT LIAR are all perfect examples of how turning in completely anonymous work gets you rehired in this town. At least if you’re going to make films that suck, do so with some style. Suck out loud. This sort of quiet hackery is a perfect fit for the execs at 20th Century Fox these days, so it’s no wonder he keeps getting hired there. For me, the only question is when I’m going to wise up and just quit watching anything this guy makes. Even in IMAX, I had a hard time making it through this one.
I consider Phil Noyce to be one of those guys who has been very canny about his flirtations with Hollywood. He sells out just long enough to establish enough commercial credibility to make something personal, then starts again. Lately, he’s been in personal mode every time out, and the result has been a really strong run of movies. RABBIT-PROOF FENCE, then THE QUIET AMERICAN, and now this. It feels like he’s found his voice as an older filmmaker, and like he can’t go make the impersonal stuff like THE BONE COLLECTOR or THE SAINT anymore. Shawn Slovo’s script for CATCH A FIRE is simple, direct, and heartfelt, and I can see why Noyce wanted to do it. CATCH A FIRE’s great strength is the way it establishes the hearts of its characters in the first act. Derek Luke is phenomenal, and his connection with his family is so beautiful, so real. Then, when the world goes crazy about a half-hour into the film, it’s that much more of a nightmare. Tim Robbins plays a very human villain, and the way the film resolves the conflict between him and Derek Luke is quite moving, and it seems to me that one of the common threads I’ve seen in films with an authentic African voice in the last few years is that the ideas of forgiveness and redemption are very important to many of the cultures on that continent. Considering how violent and terrible their recent history is, that’s even more impressive to me. I commend CATCH A FIRE most for having the courage to have a black lead without feeling the need to introduce a white character to serve as “the audience’s viewpoint,” one of the most insulting things Hollywood does on a regular basis.
Dito Montiel’s autobiographical film A GUIDE TO RECOGNIZING YOUR SAINTS isn’t terrible. It’s got some solid performances, there’s a command of time and place to some stretches of the film, and Montiel works well with his DP, Eric Gautier. But there’s a familiarity to this sort of story that is hard to overcome, and Montiel’s film is a little too shaggy to pack any real punch. As crazy as it sounds, I think Shia LeBeouf is far more effective as young Dito than Robert Downey Jr. is as present-day Dito. That’s the fault of the writing first and foremost, though. LaBeouf is just given more to do, and there’s real integrity to his work. I’m not really sure why this guy takes a beating from our Talkbackers, unless it’s because they would hate anyone starring in the silly giant robots movie this summer, but I like LaBeouf, and I think a role like this is important to the way he’s growing as a performer. Channing Tatum, a complete black hole of charisma in the very silly STEP UP! this year, actually exhibits some personality here, and for that alone, I have to assume Montiel is some sort of magician with actors. Rosario Dawson makes a strong impression in just a few moments of screen time, and whoever found Melonie Diaz to play her character as a teen deserves a bonus. Overall, this is the sort of movie that will probably develop a small, passionate audience because they feel the movie speaks directly to them, but I feel like I’ve seen this and heard this and felt this all before, and without something new to add to the conversation, this isn’t a film I’d recommend.
I find myself torn in regards to HALF NELSON. I can see why people are crazy about the performance by Ryan Gosling. Ever since I saw THE BELIEVER in 2001 at Sundance, I’ve been sold on the idea that Gosling is one of the genuine talents of his generation, a gifted and intuitive performer who can generate empathy even when playing the most damaged characters. Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck do their very best to avoid the pitfalls of the “noble teacher helping troubled students” genre, and at times, they turn it on its head enough to keep me engaged. Dan Dunne (Gosling) is a junior high teacher at a tough inner city school, and when you see him in class, he’s witty and engaging and he seems to really reach his kids. But in his private time, he’s a world class fuck-up, a crackhead who can just barely keep his life on track. It’s a strong idea... but it never really adds anything beyond that idea.
The first half hour, it’s good. It’s chugging along. It’s not particularly new, but it’s authentic. It has a voice. And then about forty-five minutes in, there’s a scene. And, just... goosebumps. Gosling falls apart while spending a night in a shitty motel room with some woman he just met at a bar, and it’s a scary-real bit of free-fall on his part. It serves to show you just how hard he’s struggling to hold onto any sense of control in every other scene of the film. Scenes like that, and there are several in the film, are what kept me watching. The film is the performance, and the performance is the film. I don’t think it’s a great movie, but I think it’s a fascinating tightrope walk by an actor. He’s real in every moment, but the movie isn’t. It makes a lot of arbitrary choices, which is part of its naturalistic charm. I had a teacher just like this guy in high school, a genuinely good teacher at times, but a train crash in his real life. And the moments where Gosling gets it right, it was like I was seeing this guy again.
And even though I think much of what happens narratively with one of his students, a girl named Drey (Shareeka Epps), is fake and overcalculated, I’ve got to give Epps her due. She’s a great young actor, with a coiled presence that really gives Gosling what he needs in order to shine. She is the perfect person for him to play off of in most of the film, and it wouldn’t work if not for her. I just wish they’d figured out something else to do with her, because the material about her personal life derails the movie for me. Even so, you should see it so you understand the reputation that Gosling is building for himself, a reputation he definitely deserves.
I’ve got so much stuff I’ve been working on for you guys, including my ten best list as soon as I finish watching a few more films, a visit to the offices of TEENAGE MUTANT NINJA TURTLES, reviews of the first few films I’ve seen from 2007, and the return of the DVD column, which will be undergoing some changes as we gear up for the year ahead.
Guess I’d better go get some more of that ready to post for you, and I’ll also continue to review the holiday movies I’ve been catching up with. Should be a good January and a great 2007.
Drew McWeeny, Los Angeles
Drew McWeeny, Los Angeles
-
+ Expand All
-
Beats the hell out of Pan's Labyrinth any day.
-
and first
-
Now that'd be a book that would hit the AICN best seller list. And McWeeny: you stick your guns on the whole rating system kerfuffle. Star system, thumbs up, 7.5, yadda yadda yadda. If you must change it to please the masses, go with 'Small', 'Medium,' Large, 'Big Gulp', 'Super Big Gulp', and 'Harry Knowles.'
-
I did like Pan's but it is very seriously overrated. These are a few of the many issues I have with the film.
Careful of Spoilers!!
1. The ending is telegraphed from the first seconds of the movie leaving the climactic scene less powerful and long awaited. What purpose did this scene really have and tell me why it was needed?
2.The graphic violence, (really don't take kids) while showing us know the bad man is a BAD man, is unneeded. You can create a villian without showing someone getting there teeth smashed in with a bottle.
3. The sound design is so overblown as to be laughable. Listen to the amount of noise a sutuer makes in this film. It makes what is supposed to be real seem cartoony.
4. Why didn't Mercedes kill him? After the suffering she and everyone she has known all her life are put through she only left him alive because the plot demanded it.
5. The end is also a plot device that Del Toro used in Hellboy so I knew it was coming from the first trek to the Labyrinth.
6. The parallels between the key and the knife are never really used to any great effect.
7. Why did Orelia eat the grape? It's not like she was starving. Once more plot device.
8. Why did she draw the door on the ceiling instead of on the wall again or the floor? You guessed it, plot device so we can have cool creepy chase scene.
The list goes on.
Once again...I'm not saying it's bad, and to those that have seen it really think about the things I wrote and you'll be hard pressed to disagree. My job is to lower people's expectations so they can enjoy it more than I did. -
Really? Someone hired you to do that?
-
You were right on about Gosling in Half Nelson, Mori. His performance was the main thing I took away from the movie when I saw it in New York way back in the fall in the noisy-ass Angelika. But kudos too to the writing, giving us a character who doesn't easily overcome his flaws over the course of the film. The schoolteacher/drug addict genre mix could have been formulaic and wrapped up in tidy Hollywood fashion, but the filmmakers ducked under that obstacle and gave us something more... ambiguous at times, but true-feeling. Not a great film, but for its successes, I feel it is a very, very good one.
-
I just want to help people enjoy the film more but not promising them the sky. And if they can only see one go see Children of Men. You really nailed the reason the long shots are so incredible. It makes you wonder how long you can really hold your breath because after they finish you remember you need to do that.
-
sorry to burst your bubble, but this information was discussed on this site months ago. cuaron is cagey about how exactly he did it, but there was manipulation of the shots. and also sorry but *SPOILER!!* mercedes does kill the captain at the end of 'labyrinth.' this film is an adult fantasy, rated r. why would you think it would be OK to take children to see it?
-
Digitally "cheated" or not, the long takes in Children gave the impression of being stuck in those situations. Beautiful, thought-provoking and very entertaining flick. I wish we had more flicks of this calibre hitting on a regular basis. Speaking of "cheated" long takes, wasn't that crazy long one in Woo's "Hard Boiled" fixed up in some way?
-
... as I said, I don't really care about the one-shot as a technical trick... for me, it's about the impact of those shots. Digitally manipulated? Duh. Even within the long tracking shots that haven't been seamlessly blended together, there are digital tricks going on. They are, for the most part, invisible and that's what is impressive to me.
-
I have to agree with you 100% on PAN'S, and I've been trying to tell people who are seeing it what they're getting into so they're not pissed off - though not for the plot points you mentioned, as those can be debated.
What can't be debated is that it's NOT a fantasy film - it's a war drama with a fantasy subplot that only encompasses about 15 minutes out of the entire two-hour film...and never once, at least in my opinion, made any significant parallel to the real-world story. I thought the war drama stuff would have been incredible on its own and I think the fantasy would have been amazing if del Toro had had a story in his head rather than a series of images and random situations. But he didn't know how to make the fantasy world into a polished narrative and it never fit together into a single tale with the war drama.
I realize no one at AICN is going to admit to a fault in the film because they're del Toro's friends, and I get that, but talking to people who've gone to see it...I'm finding they're disappointed for the same reasons I was - they were marketed something far different from what they got. -
I saw CHILDREN OF MEN this weekend and it totally floored me. If they make many movies this year as good or better than that, I'm pretty fucking excited.
-
but not one bit simpler." Einstein
That's how I felt about "Children Of Men". A wonderful little fable about a man thrown into a blind journey. A journey about faith and chance. Finding reason in a world without reason. This film really reminded me how good Cuaron is at conveying a big world while still keeping it low key and character driven. This actually reminded me alot of "Y Tu Mama Tambien". The way the camera drifts a little to the left or right revealing a little history of the characters environment.
If only Theo had a stronger arc. The movie seemed more about him coming to terms with the surroundings and yet I didn't feel that his mental journey was fully realized. I don't know. Enjoyable movie either way. Especially with the little nod to "The Animal" album. My cousin caught it seconds before I saw it. That was pretty funny.
This seems to be one of those films that you either really dig it, or not at all.
I mistakingly read the Pan's spoiler even after the spoiler warning noted above. I thought it was a "Children Of Men" spoiler. Oh well. -
I think Children of Men was the best film of the year -- but don't you think it had some pretty clunky exposition in the beginning, i.e. Michael Caine's 'fugee speech in the car to name one bit? I actually found the beginning of the film to be the weakest part, and the ending quite profound.
-
My angry sentiments exactly.
-
When I first watched "The Pink Panther" and saw that Shawn Levy directed it, I thought that he was the movie critic for "The Oregonian." But no, it's not him. Different Shawns. Dammit.
The directorial Shawn is certainly not the most inspired of directors, but all that hate directed his way for making mediocre movies seems a little hoity-toity to me. I mean, he could be Uwe Boll. He could be McG. Shit, he could even be the dumb shit that directed "Date Movie," the worst fucking movie I've seen since "Moron Movies" back in the day.
Anywho ... goodnight. Don't know why I'm trying to protect Shawn Levy ... he's a hack, sure, but he's not fucking Adolf Hitler. Moriarty, if you need someone to anally rape in your reviews, pick a target that's more deserving. -
Why did you have to bring up DATE MOVIE. That was a tough one to finish. Who knew suck could go so low.
-
Jan 08, 2007 5:10:14 AM CST
"things I wrote and you'll be hard pressed to disagree"
by talkbacker with no name
arrangedletters, for a start...
"Why did Orelia eat the grape? It's not like she was starving."
er well she was staving as she had been punished by not being allowed to eat that night if you remember (or paid attention to the film).
"The sound design is so overblown as to be laughable. Listen to the amount of noise a sutuer makes in this film. It makes what is supposed to be real seem cartoony."
Didn't feel that at all. In fact the sound was perfect for the 'fantasy' film it was...want me to go on?
If your job "is to lower people's expectations so they can enjoy it more than I did." they are over paying you! I suggest you watch the film again and this time concentrate!
-
Pertaining to the grape eating, I'll be kind enough to announce
************SPOILER**************
for everyone. As far as that scene goes, I would point it out specifically as a beat in the film where del Toro shows his incredible weakness as a storyteller (just so you know where I'm coming from...I find GDT to be an astonishingly good visual director/artist, but as a writer I think he's strictly Junior College). The fact that Ofelia was sent to bed without dinner didn't resonate with me at all because, compared to the atrocities going on around her, it seemed a minor act and I immediately forgot it.
So then she goes to do this job for Pan, who's she's alternately in awe of and scared shitless of, which takes her to a totally creepy, fucked up place with the most grotesque creature any of us have ever seen. Pan's told her SPECIFICALLY not to eat anything, and what does she do? Having missed just one fucking meal and being in a place that would make most rational people collapse simply upon viewing, she eats a fucking grape so there can be an ridiculous "chase" sequence that's neither harrowing nor nail-biting.
If you want to do this right, you make it so the Captain is starving the fucking kid. THEN she has a reason to do what she's doing. But taking a bite of food in the ultimate fright house after she's been specifically warned by a terrifying monster not to touch anything? That's lazy, and it's a small part of the bigger reason as to why this movie failed for me.
I understand why people like this movie - heck, I understand why people LOVE this movie - but for me the writing was so hit-and-miss that it can't be reconciled. And, frankly, it's not even an average script as far as overall story goes. -
all about it in an interview a few weeks ago. If i remember right has a lot of answers to your questions there.
I'll agree with you on one thing though - Children of men is fucking awesome! -
Its hard to know where to begin with this film. I saw this in the cinema. In the UK/Ireland this film came out before its US release. On a technical level and a production level the standard of the movie is very high indeed and that long tracking involving shot Clive Owen and the newly born child is the highlight of the movie. This film suffers from a very weak screen play. I would say a ramshackle plot. They took PD james Book went through, discovered they hadnt enough material, took some topical issues and threw them into the mix. The plot threw up questions that were not answered. It was never explained, why women stopped having children. It just happened. move on. Becuase your child dies of the bird flu, would that turn you into a paramilitary intent on brining down the govt. that was the rationale as to why Clive owen's ex wife turned into what she did. There had to be more reasons than that but they were never explained, so the audience was left the explaination given by caine, that their kid died in 2008 from the avian pandemic. that is it. This movie was all buildup and and no pay off at the end. the end was abrupt, they had signposted the end of the movie from the very beginning and when the film ended the way it did i was disappointed.
-
you didn't get out of it what a lot of others did. shame that. It blew me away on every level.
-
nothing special to say, just that I sent a review of it to both harry and mori more than 2 months ago. it didn't bash the movie but I pointed out the obvious flaws in it, mentioned also in this talkback. needles to say, the review was not run. I understand that they are friends with GDT and everything, but a little objectivity wouldn't harm this site from time to time. it is one thing promoting a movie but a completely different thing shutting the truth up. Pan's is a good movie but it isn't a miracle or a masterpiece or even close and selling it as such to john q. moviegoer could (and will) do more harm than good. as I see it the only movie this site really hype-helped in the last few years is rocky balboa (not that it needed any help, cause it is really good. thus, I fear for 300 and black snake moan. TOO HYPED! (sorry, I couldn't help it :o)
-
on Children of Men. I thought it was a very tense, gritty movie. And I think Theo's ex-wife's motives were more than just their child dying from bird flu (though having a child of my own, I can think of nothing else that would get me 'inspired', for lack of a better word, into doing something). I think that was the catalyst that led her down the path of resistence. I thought overall it was a pretty powerful film.
-
I think there's going to be a lot of people agreeing with you and I on CHILDREN OF MEN. However, on PAN'S...I read the interview with GDT. I was frustrated me even more because I thought his "explanations" were hollow, save for the parallels he drew between Pan, the Toad, the Pale Man and the Captain. I don't think he knew how to capture, on the page, the story that was in his mind. His associations came off as fuzzy and false, and I just don't think he'll ever be able to do much to become a worthy storyteller. Visually he's killing it all over the place, but narratively he's always been - PAN'S included - very weak. What's perhaps most frustrating is that SECTIONS of his films are written to the point where they're captivating...but there's too much crap holding it together to make it all stick. But look, that's just my opinion. People love this film all over the place so maybe it's just not for me. That said, I'm still disgusted that they're marketing this as a fantasy film when it's almost completely not.
-
that we'll ever get. But it sure doesn't disappoint. If you haven't seen the movie yet don't let these fools throw you aside by spoiling the ending. What I loved most about the film was its dark humor. It really came at the best places in the film and really balanced things out. "Baby Diego was a wanker", "Cough... what do you taste? Strawberries! I call it strawberry cough". "Pull my finger" "Tell Sid he's a fascist pig" I could go on. Yeah I guess its obvious my favorite character was Jasper. But what I really likes about the movie was that you have all these outside influences trying to have their way with the girl and her baby for whatever political means, and there's this London chub who blindly takes on a mission and protects the girl from these catalysts. I am in friggin love with Children of Men and I will surely see it many more times in theatres.
-
i will never ever see anything made by Levy again. that simple. Just like I'll never see another p WS anderson movie, or sit through an entire uwe boll offering. unless he does a 3 hour epic telling of "Ecco the Dolphin." Then I'm there opening night.
-
And call it Flipper?
-
Jan 08, 2007 7:49:23 AM CST
"I don't think he knew how to capture, on the page..."
by talkbacker with no name
"...the story that was in his mind"
Now i know you have no idea what you are talking about. Yeah it's really not for you, bud. Let's leave it at that. -
WHere I am was mixed. Maybe the reason why it is getting a better reception in the US has to do with Hollywood doesnt make edgy political films anymore.
-
Jan 08, 2007 7:58:01 AM CST
the story that was in his mind I wouldn't say that was
by talkbacker with no name
true. Look at V and Clooney's recent offerings agmonst others. They are making them, they are just not being seen by many people. And Children of men, while set in the UK is a 'universal' movie.
-
what with kids only pointing at body parts and laughing at the weed parts and going "eww! yuck!" when the baby was born(don't mean to spoil), and then a collective "what the fuck? that sucked!!!" at the end. REasons why I believe I don't belong in this joe schmo-movie-lovin town. I saw CoM as it is, which is by today's standard of filmmaking pretty damn GREAT if I may use the word.
-
She didn't have dinner for one night and that made her starving? I did see that scene and that doesn't satisfy me.
The film struggled so hard to be realistic in the war story that the cartoony sounds destroyed this feeling.
I remeber another thing why wouldn't the men destroy the lock on the supply door in the raid so as not to point a giant flaming arrow at the only other person who had a key?
Yes she killed him but why didn't she before?
-
I will say that if you want a huge sprawling story of the fall of man this movie is not for you. The purpose of this film is to tell the very small story of one man's journey. It is not here to tell you anything else. At the very heart it is simply a road movie.
-
If Del Toro has to post answers to questions about the film, the film obviously does not work since the film should tell you what you need to know.
-
cartoony sounds? It's like the ramberlings of a mad man!
I get the feeling people dislike the movie because lots of people love it. Trying to disguise that fact with a riddiculas argument is very sad. -
I wouldn't know.. I only live in suburbia.
-
I think Children of Men centered on the intimate story, but still told the wide picture, with immigration issues, patriot act...propaganda. I love the "Britain soilders on". God damn camps...I percieved it as a sprawling story from the eyes of one man. Then again, it's Monday morning and I may still be asleep as I type this crap.
-
Jan 08, 2007 8:25:15 AM CST
arrangedletters, no the film shouldn't tell you
by talkbacker with no name
what you need to know at all! Most of us here can work it out (or have an understanding or a meaning that speaks to us) without being told what to think or feel. It's about using your brain. It's the future of mankind I tells ya!
-
Jan 08, 2007 8:27:53 AM CST
off the subject here, but i finally saw Casino Royale
by just pillow talk
what a freak'n kickass Bond movie. Brutal, to the point, intense action scenes. And 'M' was good in this. It's too bad all of the Bond movies weren't like this.
-
See what happens when you try a bit of civility here and attempt to back up your opinions with a bit of data and an explanation? You get, "Now I know you have no idea what you're talking about." Twnn, at least I've attempted to point out WHY I thought what I thought - you've just babbled like an idiot and been a contrarian with no real views. So now people can't like the movie because it's popular? Jesus Christ.
I wish you had something of substance to say, attempted to refute even one of my points, because then at least I could accept that the unwarranted condescension came from someone with balls. As it stands, you're just a troglodyte with the Internets. -
I just feel sharing them with you would be a complete waste of time...as is this response. I'm done with you, mate.
-
I bring up honest points and I get "Don't look behind the curtain!" The film shouldn't tell me the answers? OK then, how about give me enough information to answer my questions, which it still does not do. I really wanted to like this film and if you people read what I wrote I said I liked it and am trying to let folks know that they shouldn't expect the cinematic masterpiece so many here claim it is.
-
or did you want to get out of your seat mid-film, find a 12-foot ladder, set it up in front of the theatre and screen-fuck Vesper? was it just me?
-
My wife kept telling me to sit the fuck down (all told, 7 times) during the tournament. Hey, Bond knows how to pick a dress, eh?
-
If I were you I'd avoid me too - mentally, as you you've admitted by offering no compelling argument whatsoever, you can't compete. But I think that's beside the point, as I'll go as far as to say this: I don't think you've even seen the film. I think you're parading an empty float, "mate" (Christ, even in your faked chumminess you're pedantic), and therefore you couldn't add something even if you were forced.
-
we'd all be screen-fucking Bond girls if it weren't for a counteropinion from a significant other.
-
god bless 'em though, god bless 'em!
"i'm not your type because I'm smart?" "because you're not married" classic. -
I referring to the critical reaction in the media.
-
I know that I've been thinking about it since I saw it (and not in 'why did i fuck'n see that piece of shit way), which in my opinion, means it had a pretty good effect on me. Any movie that makes you think and compare to how the world is now (and how it could be if we are not careful) is pretty good in my book.
-
Hi, I'm an asian american with an 8inch penises that can penetrate through a dart board. Maybe the reason that talkbackers are mad at shia is because he looks like every other average white boy i know. Loved children of men, illegal immigrants and juianne moore!!!!
-
my bad: i forgot to start my post with my finger pointing more specifically at arranged letters. i realize fully you knew the shots were manipulated, i was directing my comments to his.
-
Jan 08, 2007 10:35:32 AM CST
ZombieSolutions, never thought i'd say this...
by talkbacker with no name
But i agree! It was very kubrick in places but at the same time gave us something new on screen i've never seen before. Hell even Charlie Hunnam getting knocked into that hay bail in the bit where they escape amde up for his crap performance in 'Green Street'hehe that was a great stunt (maybe a stuntman with his cg face?). My friend was an extra on the movie and told me he was chatting to the guys under the floor in the baby scene. even they have no idea how it was done with the blending of puppet and cgi. The end shoot out took a day to shoot and was done around 4 times (with 4 hour set ups each take for all the squibs etc). He was one of the two guys looting the dead bodies just before Theo and the Kee go into the sewers. Can't wait for the dvd. There was a dvd extras camera guy on it throughout filming so they have to make a great making of!
-
King King. I love that fucking movie and The Fountain was great. But fair enough. I get the feeling you are not just bushing them to try and be all cult and hip (unlike Mr. Whineston).
-
You, sir, are the reason I come to this site. You are seriously talented man. Your fucking writing is captivating. As soon as I see your name on it I know it won't suck. The only thing is that your writing is so good that it depresses me that you are here alongside Massiveturd (Massawyrm) and his ilk. Do you have another site, your own site?
-
And GOD DAMN did Children of Men just rock the house down. I hope we see more features that aren't as interested in cut cut cut cut because of this flick.
-
i'm so glad i'm not the only one who found the grape eating infuriatingly illogical as a dramatic beat. & so thrilled to hear all the positive vibes re: children of men. terry needham was the 1st AD on the movie; he did full metal jacket. it makes sense cuaron would hire him to help pull off the extended shots of choreographed anarchy.
-
Letters I definitely will check out on DVD, it definitely looks better than Flags. And speaking of war, caught some of Band of Brothers marathon this weekend (History channel I think) in between watching my Jets get whooped. What a freak'n brilliant mini-series. Battle of Bulge was just brutal.
-
saw it this weekend and was floored. A great film that I am recommending to everyone. Loved it!just pillow talk - Yes Band of Brothers is a kick ass miniseries. Back when it originally aired I really dug it and have been asking for it on dvd from my family for years and finally got it this past Christmas. Now just have to find time to watch it.
-
I'll eventually pick that badboy up. At least history channel airs it every once in a while.
-
So beautiful, I can't wait to watch it again. The scene where Clive is walking down the stairs with the baby and as soon as people fighting see her and stop fighting almost brought me to shed a tear, and I wouldn't normally do that unless it was at some sort of sappy manipulative romantic comedy. And I, on the other hand Moriarty, thought the last few minutes were fine. As for King Kong, it was just a big wack off session for Peter Jackson. While not to say it wasn't pretty to look at, the editing, especially in the first act, was atrocious. It definitely needed to be cut down. And as for Pan's, it was good, but no where near great, especially when you have movies that stand head and shoulders above it from '06, like The Departed, V, Children of Men, even Apocalypto.
-
If you could possibly ask him why he decided to go so cartoony and un-real -world-y with the movie. Because when I saw the teaser at Comic-Con, I was blown-away, finally, a new awesome TMNT movie that brought back the gritty realism of the first and second movie. But then when I saw the footage he brought, it had all these goofy cartoony monsters, that had neither the rough look of Toka and Razar from TMNT 2, nor the kick-ass-semi-serious look of the TV series - they just looked like some bs nickelodeon or disney weak-sauce crap. So Moriarty, try to see where Kevin Munroe, or whatever his last name is, is trying to go with it.
-
I saw it this weekend, and I'll be going back to see it again. I've read complaints elsewhere that the film doesn't adequately explain the infertility problem and the group working to solve it. But that's the whole point. The characters in the movie don't know why it happened, and the group has become a sort of fairy tale. The only thing that could have made this movie better was seeing it without the gaggle of bitch-ass teenagers sitting behind me.
-
I agree with most TBs, Pan's was overhyped to the point where I was dissappointed. I do think the movie was very good, but not a masterpiece and definitely not something I ever need to see again. However, the grape eating scene I actually did enjoy. She did exactly what most kids do. Kids are always pushing boundaries and seeing what they can get away with. I call it the "Red Button" effect. In most children fairy tales, the adult figure always tells the child that whatever you do, do not push the red button. Well, by saying that, that is exactly what the kid is going to do. Point being, I bought it. I actually bought most things about the movie, something was just missing. On a side note, I thought Blood Diamond was awesome. I can't wait for CoM, Alpha Dogs, and Smokin' Aces.
-
I fully expect Children of Men to be awesome, and even though I haven't seen the film, I am going to agree with the talkbacker that put the personal issues forefront in the movie, and backdropped it all with ideas about homeland security, immigration, etc.
Anyone who watched "Y Tu Mama Tambien" with their eyes reasonably open would have seen that the movie was fucking off the hook ... effortlessly multi-layered, effortlessly designed so that while the main plot about Tenoch and Julio's roadtrip with Luisa, you couldn't help but see all the poverty, hear the talk of classicism, discrimination, political upheavel, etc. It was, without another word to use, a beautifully executed movie that I could go on and on and on about - funny, sad, a picture-perfect take on life vs. death ... all told with an incredibly small idea. It's proof to Hollywood that you don't need some grand epic to be affecting.
If "Children of Men" is executed with the same heart and soul as that film, then I'm going to be fuckin' blown away ... might even build a starburst statue out of Cuaron's face and mail it to him. The man gets me moved about cinema. I'm psyched. -
Last summer I was sorting my crap into "Keep in parents' garage" and "Just burn this shit" piles, and I came across the videos of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles "trilogy". And I sat down and watched those motherfuckers for a whole afternoon. The third one has that gorgeous chick from the movie where Ewan McGregor gets his knob out and has it written on (as opposed to his other movies where he just gets his knob out) but the first two definitely have the edge. Sam Rockwell, and Elias Koteas in non-Atom Egoyan shocker! Ernie Reyes, Jr and Paige Turco! Plus my video of the first one has a trailer for every Laurel & Hardy movie ever made, The Simpsons, and some '80s flick called Electric Dreams which I have never seen, even though I love '80s movies. Has anyone seen Electric Dreams? Is it worth 15 years of anticipation? The point is, I will probably don a disguise and go and see this new Turtles cartoon, but the puppet versions will always hold a special place in my heart, just like my left ventricle and that girl who never called me back. Bitch.
-
You will not be disappointed. I met Cuaron when he did a Q&A with Y Tu Mama Tambien in Scotland, and announced his intentions to make Children of Men. He's a charismatic, down-to-earth dude. And Children of Men is similarly epic without being epic, if you know what I mean. As for the statue, I find that mildly heating the starbursts helps, as does a toothpick or cocktail stick for moulding purposes.
-
I have to agree with iamnicksaicnsn on this one. The intial "announcement" or whatever made me think it would be more adult, but that teaser trailer left me cold. It was overly catoony. Can't these bitchs just make it like the original comic which was fucking hardcore? For Christ's sake.
-
What was that fucking cow's head thing called in the comic? The only comic I ever had the chutzpah to purchase, and I can't remember much of it at all.
-
Now, I just need to wait for the Saints to win their playoff game against the Eagles, and I can hop off to the theater to take in some Children of Men. A perfect day!
Mmmm .... starbursts. -
Sweet, fella. To me, saints are solemn dudes in white robes and eagles are flying bastards who kill sheep, but I like your sports enthusiasm.Starbursts used to be called Opal Fruits in Scotland. I experimented once in turning an entire packet into a chain and giving it to my sister as a really cheap necklace. She had colouration on her neck for days, hehehe. But I reckon you could amass enough green ones (plus red, orange and purple) to make a three-quarters complete set of Ninja Turtles. And why are there no blue Starbursts? Is Leonardo too much of a wuss? The dude carries two swords, for fuck sake. Plus he was arguably the greatest of the Renaissance artists, and as I recall, drove the fucking Turtle van.
-
Actually, the new movie looks a little goofy to me. Not that I have much in the way of Ninja-Turtles saavy ... I've only watched the puppet films and had a single toy (Donatello).
I'm thinking that blue opal fruits would leave a sour look on folks, faces. It just doesn't evoke that tropical feel ... maybe if they made a batch of Starbursts modeled after the last advances I made toward my girlfriend, blue would fit in just fine.
And yeah ... why does Casey Jones look like a total dipshit in the trailer? I always thought him as more of a Bruce Campbell or Glenn Danzig type of guy. -
If you ask me, it's nature's fault for not providing us with sweet-tasting blue tropical fruit.I think I had a lot of the toys, although I can't remember how many I bought and how many I stole from my mates. I definitely had the whole set of turtles. Casey Jones? I haven't seen the trailer, but for me he will always be Elias Koteas, and the reason I actually watched those Atom Egoyan movies. Bruce Campbell would have been better, though, if only because it would have drawn me to Evil Dead 2 at a slightly younger age.
-
We don't know what caused the sterility because the CHARACTERS don't know. And ultimately, it doesn't matter why. It really doesn't. Does knowing why bad things happen make living afterwards any better or easier? Not really. The question isn't "why did this happen?" It's: "What do we do now?"
-
same scene had me feeling the ducts well up a bit and thats a rare thing.
-
great post! The movie was so captivating that I didn't want a dummied up explanation presented to me. It worked so well that I didn't need one or even care to have one after the credits rolled and I had time to take it all in.
-
I was quite pleased to see you bring up V for Vendetta in comparison with Children of Men. I couldn't help but compare the two when I saw COM either. Children has a subtlety and intelligence that V *wishes* it had. Or perhaps just that I wish it had. I'd have loved to see V taken on by someone of Cuaron's calibre because as it is V was quite a disappointment to me. I honestly can't believe the love it gets.
-
I submitted a review of Pan's Labrynth that was absolutely glowing... And it wasn't put up. I believe it was well-written, so I can't speak fully for the objective nature of what is put up, but I believe that jumping to the conclusion they did post your review because you had some criticisms might be a little presumptious. (They had posted many already.)
-
you nailed it about the grape. that's an old element of fairy tales...kind of hearkening back to the apple and the garden of eden, the idea of doing something forbidden even if it seems (from a story point of view!!) illogical. i feel like he used a lot of very simple plot elements - the bit about planting the antibiotic, the grapes, the tasks - because they are important in how a fairy tale unfolds. they play into very deep-set [dare i say it] jungian concepts that have been part of storytelling, cross-culturally, for centuries upon centuries. i think del toro did an elegant, touching job of giving us a genuine fairy tale without pandering.
-
SPOILERS!!!!
For those complaining about the lack of explanation re: the infertility, you have to think long and hard to yourself why, if at all, this would make anything better. What reasonable explanation could possibly be given that wouldn't seen either a) far-fetched or b) pressing a strong political agenda unnecessary in terms of the screenplay's story? It's a MacGuffin, a catalyst. We are to care about the central characters, not the catalyst itself.
For those who don't like the ending and think it comes too soon, ponder this: the story, we are given the basic plot early on--bring the pregnant girl to the boat. He does. The end. -
I completely forgot, Mori, to exclaim that I agree with you 100% on HALF NELSON. Gosling is reaching something of a savant-level capacity as an actor. I haven't seen him in anything where he's not tremendous. But the film was frustrating because it built up this unique student/teacher relationship (not in a Mary Kay LaTourneau way) via two fascinating characters...and then gives them nowhere to go and nothing to do. It's actually one of the facets of independent film that I find most fascinating and most frustrating - all of these writers and directors manage to create the most compelling characters and forget to involve them in an equally compelling story. In fact, I'd strike out so far as to say that this, in the end, is what keeps most independent film from being accessible to the masses. That and the fact that most people are of blinding stupidity.
-
HUGE Clint fan here, yes, up to and including his recent stuff that you've had issues with, Drew. But have you read Kenneth Turan in recent months in the Times? If I love the recent Clint flicks and can STILL get embarrassed by KT'S fawning, it must drive you absolutely mental. Turan is stodgy beyond belief anyway, but recently he seems to have devoted himself to pimping Clint nonstop-- he not only reviewed both films, not only included FLAGS and LETTERS as his number one film of the year, but he also wrote an embarrassing diatribe lambasting Mel Gibson's directorial output in comparison to the work of God (Clint, to Turan.) Come on, Moriarty, make one talkbacker's day and gimme your take on OLD MAN TURAN.
-
Seriously, go and check out Alfonso Cuaron's message board on IMDB. There's a moronic teenage girl on there who spends two hours EVERY DAY burning any thread which remotely supports Cuaron to the ground. What's even funnier is watching the other members attempting to argue with her instead of using their fucking brains and putting her on ignore.
That said, some of the arguments with her are pretty funny. She loves to use the word "Filth", "Trash", "Garbage" or combinations! "Filthy garbage", "Trashy Filth".
I am GREATLY amused. -
I fear that if I go through thread after imdb thread trying to look for a troll on the boards, I may lose my mind and start punching bitches left and right. Save me some time so I can properly focus my anger?
-
Her boyfriend has currently taken to logging on as well, I'll leave it up to you to guess which one he is. She's also completely obliterated the Prisoner of Azkhaban board. Apparently she's been doing this daily for two years.
-
... you made me belly laugh. Congrats. Please go start punching bitches left and right on the IMDb boards. I'm sure they need it.
-
I personally liked the ending of Children of Men. As Lenny stated it showed Theo's journey, beginning to end. Much like no explanation was needed for how she got pregnant, there is no further need to elaborate as to what happens once she is rescued by the boat. Does the world 'bounce' back? Perhaps, perhaps not. Isolated incident or the beginnings of a 'rebirth' of society?
-
hoping that'll provide me with some laughs, because Will has been a little hit and miss with me. I just couldn't get into Anchor Man (thought Steve Carrell was the funny bastard in that), thought he was perfect for Elf (wife loves that one), and he had some great fuck'n scenes in Old School.
-
I loved this film... one of the best movies I've seen in some time... but I have a question: What was the whole thing with Clive Owen and animals about?
-
cats..and bitches (dogs) too. They could sense a 'good' soul. Beats the fuck outta me. Maybe on weekends he donated his time to the local pet shelter?
-
actually, I don't mind my review not being put up and I suppose that it wasn't good enough or whatever. I'm not bitchin' because my ego was hurt. that's not my point, but just an example. to make it short, all the coverage of pan's on this site was a non-plus-ultra glorifying ado about it being shy of a miracle. and it is not the first movie that's being overblown because of marketing, financial or other reasons that have nothing to do with the actual quality of the given movie. think king kong, the fountain, kiss-kiss, hostel, cabin fever (eli roth in general) and similar stuff. I love this site, but it seems that it has lost it's edge somehow. seems that the head geeks have sold their souls for a few pieces of silver on more than one occasion and that bothers me. mainly because I was always coming to this site to get a straight and honest word about a movie. movies are made to make money, it's a business after all, but they are also made for us to enjoy them. if you believe someone and that get lied once, twice, three times and so on, how log will it take for you to start questioning their integrity? that's just my opinion, it doesn't mean I'm right. by the way CoM is a excellent movie. I agree at least on that one.
-
the online post-release HYPE for children of men is fucking big. maybe, though, it's just a novum, that I can really share this feeling of having seen a great movie, because our german release was even before the US release. it's great to live through these glorious times.
-
... is not a lie, Ziondragon. And with all the films you've listed, it's not like there was any one concensus here on the site, one opinion and no others. I hated CABIN FEVER, for example, even when others here loved it to death, and my KING KONG review was mixed, not ecstatic.
I can tell you that we stopped running reviews for some films this year because we just go so fucking many of them that it was pointless. We don't "kill" bad reviews, and I've put up so many reviews I disagree with on this site that I've lost count.
That's what I love about writing here, and that's why I won't leave. AICN isn't one opinion... it's about the meeting of many opinions.
And my soul's perfectly intact, thanks for asking. -
I honestly don't know what the fuck has all of you going cuckoo bananas over this film. It's a warmed-over 1984 without any of the understanding for how we approached this level of dystopian hopelessness. Women all of a sudden stop having babies, and we are supposed to believe that the only people working on figuring this out is a covert group called "the human project." As if there wouldn't be about a billion corporations looking to cash in on a cure. Also, have all other mammals stopped reproducing? This is never addressed. I found it highly annoying that the woman who can help redeem humanity is named "key" - give me a fucking break. Moore's character is thrown into the mix to try to give a bit of much-needed backstory to Clive Owen's depressed pot-fiend Theo, but she only winds up adding a lot of unanswered audience questions. I didn't even flinch or care when her on-screen time was cut short. I felt the same with other characters, some of whom were supremely annoying. And while I'm having a rant, what was the point of trying to show Theo's job in the first few minutes of the movie? It's not as if he ever goes back there, or that they even explain what his job entails. The only good thing in this movie were the fire-fights. And if that's what you're looking for, rent Saving Private Ryan (which they stole from anyway - won't say how). I'd also recommend 28 days later for a similar feel. I know lots of you don't mind having a thousand unanswered questions - I find it supremely annoying.
-
That's cool that you didn't dig the film. I do not recall if they said the "human project" was the only group that was trying to figure it out, but perhaps the only group that could be 'trusted'. And I saw the point of Theo being shown at work as his indifference to the world's situation. While everyone was grieving over the loss of Diego, he gave two shits. I think they were just trying to establish a starting point for his frame of mind, to where he ends up at the end of the film. And the point of the movie wasn't the fire-fights like Saving Private Ryan, so I would never compare the two in that regard. It was the introduction of another situation that Theo and Key needed to get through. Hey, the unanswered questions bothered my wife, but that's because she's an engineer and they are strange like that.
-
Yeah, I know that this movie can't really be compared to SPR, the only reason I brought it up was for the feeling of "being there" in the nitty-gritty feeling of a good ol' fashioned firefight (and also because of the opening sequence with that bombing victim who emerged screaming clutching...*spoiler* well...nevermind what she was clutching).
I know what Cuaron was trying to accomplish with this piece, but ultimately I felt that the annoying characters and multitude of unanswered/unaddressed issues detracted from the story to the point where I found myself simply losing interest.
I didn't think too much of the dialogue, either - I don't have a problem with swearing but some directors use it in place of true character development. I think Cuaron flirted with that here. -
It's pretty obvious the animals haven't stopped reproducing. Everyone has dogs and cats, like they're replacing the babies. There's a kitten that hangs off Clive Owen's leg in one scene. There's a deer, and a barn full of animals, and several young dogs. The only thing I noticed that shows animal death was the burning horses. Who knows why the horses were being burnt. So I think it's safe to say it's just humans that have stopped reproducing. I think it's better that it's left kind of ambiguous, too much exposition would be intrusive to the narrative. They've all been living in that reality, they wouldn't have the situation explained to them all day every day. Its the kind of film that can be watched 50 times before you get all the details sorted out.
-
...is a good starting point for a healthy discussion. Maybe my choice of words was a bit too strong (english is not my native language) when I said "lie", but I consider my self a fanatic movie lover and when I see a safe harbor for fanatic movie lovers like this site turn into a extension of a studio marketing office I get a bit nervous. Seen this happening too often in the last year or so, so I might be a bit sour. As far as your soul & integrity are concerned I believe You, for if there wasn't for You, the mighty Vern and Capone, I'd left this site a long time ago. Fairness is the key word here, let's show things as they are because no hype could turn king kong into king kong, superman returns into superman, or whatever. I thank GDT for delivering us a very good movie but it is not a masterpiece, not even close.
-
I also think that we have no idea of what's going on in the rest of the world in Children of Men. We just see one piece of propoganda, Britain Marches On or whatever, and assume that this is as peaceful as it gets. Refugees and immigrants have been rounded up in concentration camps. An island empire has completely internalized. Who knows if the Human Project is the best hope for humanity, it's not clear what is going on at all as society has lapsed into complete chaos. They clearly don't have a scientific explanation for the lack of reproduction, you would assume that many corporations would be "working on it". We haven't cured AIDs or cancer, have we? To have all the questions answered point blank would take all the fun out of the movie, because most of those blanks can be filled in yourself if you think about it long enough.
-
I'm on the side of the fence that didn't want any of this explained. They've arrived at that shitty time, and now perhaps an answer/opportunity has presented itself. How people choose to handle it is what the movie presents. Some for political gain, others for just a way out, while others have a pure motive to help.
-
I'd like to hear more input on the poor narrative in the last minutes, because I couldn't disagree more as it stands. Well, the way in which I disagree is that the narrative by that point, in and of itself is purely subtext brought out in the full light of day. But that makes it the crowning of the entire effort where these looming themes had been running along in lesser streams before they coalesced. But even more, the glory of the final moments is in visually bringing together all the strings of cinematic experiments for a unique sequence of pure movements that shift us from the disembodied stae of embedded journalism, to becoming the locus of attention and even bending the environment back upon ourselves. It's as if to say: "Now that you have tried to comfort yourselves in believing you are an immaterial participant in this brutal noir opera, the world has stopped and turned all its eyes upon you. You have affected this world by your presence, but this world has also mortally wounded you after all." And then with the next tank explosion, we are shifted again via tunnel (passageway to the next cinematic world of pure space). Although the director has borrowed many elements from the masters, he has in that last scene brought together something altogether new and defining in the history of cinema. We haven't seen anything like this before, period. Gilliam shouldn't even be considered a valid comparison because Gilliam was fueled by his gut not the intelligence of film mechanics. just my thoughts
-
Children of Men works better than other visions because the blame game is not so cut and dry. We have competing interpretations of the state of the world: pure chance or the trials of faith. Unexplainable circumstances, you know "this is something that just happened", clear the air for the real drama: how are individuals and worldviews reacting to it? What sort of character will be expressed and intensified in these hyperbolic situations? How will society redefine itself due to something over which it has no control? Are we learning something more pure and unveiled about basic human nature? Political and blunt social issues currently under debate are only there to obscure the real investigation. So the fact that the story doesn't completely depend on political debates and overt social issues makes it way more ominous in what we are being asked to face.
-
Yeah I thought about the pets, et al, after I posted that last comment. I did find it sort of stupid how they don't at least give some sort of explanation for the surge in xenophobia which leads to extermination camps for illegal immigrants in England. Of all the daunting issues facing a world in which people have lost the ability to reproduce, would we really be so caught up in rounding up illegals? How come no one ever mentions human cloning, for example?
-
The problem with most sci fi films is the unnatural lulls in the script used to teach and explain to us all the reasons why we should be convinced of their vision of the future. And it opens up more potential for holes in the script the more that is explained. Children of Men says, "this is just the way it is". Don't ask for reasons, because everyone's got all their own theories and that's the best we can do. So in that sense, the world here is more convincing because we can already easily relate to aspects of reality that don't seem to have good explanations, while many political and philosophical sectors will give their own answers or criticisms. In this kind of sci fi, the air is cleared for a purer development of simple narrative that dances on the roaring undercurrents of existential dilemmas. j
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 273 total posts 271 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 92 total posts 92 posts
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 160 total posts 69 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 151 total posts 63 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 67 total posts 59 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 60 total posts 57 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 484 total posts 49 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 69 total posts 42 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 120 total posts 32 posts
- SPACE 2099!! -- 183 total posts 24 posts