Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

Capone takes a look smaller films opening this week--SUGAR, AMERICAN VIOLET, and HUNGER!!!

Just got an Art house in town by liljuniorbrown	Apr 17th, 2009 10:09:46 AM
Sugar sounds like a good film,Half Nelson was very under rated.
Sadly, I was not a big fan of Hunger. by a goonie	Apr 17th, 2009 11:10:02 AM
I saw the movie at a special screening two nights ago and I had high hopes. But while the camerawork (and the aforementioned long single shot) are very impressive, I never felt pulled in by the characters. It is a movie of good moments, but none of those moments added up to something truly special for me. If you care to read my far more detailed response to the movie, check out this URL: http://tinyurl.com/dm4lyg
Hunger by biffy88	Apr 17th, 2009 12:36:30 PM
Superb film. Doesn't leave your thoughts for a couple of days afterwards though. It definitely had an impact, really tough watch.
Hunger - Fassbender is awesome by npjs55	Apr 17th, 2009 12:40:42 PM
Great direction and an acting moment of the year.
HUNGER was one of the hardest films to watch in years... by FuckMichaelBay	Apr 17th, 2009 01:11:14 PM
...but no less brilliant.
Sugar could've benefited from some judicious editing by Garbageman33	Apr 17th, 2009 01:58:43 PM
Trim 15 minutes and you have a fantastic movie. It's still pretty darn good, but it drags in places.
I agree with the goonie on Hunger by Projectedlight	Apr 17th, 2009 09:33:20 PM
I'm big on film aesthetics, but I knew something was wrong as soon as the camera cut to a shot of crumbs piling up on a napkin a few minutes into the film. The movie is big on ridiculous spectacle (the nursing home scene is a great example, way too blunt and stupid for what the film demands) and cliches too (the flashbacks to the boy towards the end). It's ultra stylized to no great end. It's ugly/pretty watching a man overtaken by crater sores, but the film gives little reason to care. There's practically nothing to the politics, and what little is there is too simplistic and one sided. The 20 minute single take shot is great, but it comes off as a stunt in the context of the film. Somewhat aesthetically interesting, but not nearly as striking as has been said, it's quite an empty film. There isn't much depth of thought behind the images, so the direction comes off as the showing off of a first time director who isn't really invested in his subject.
And the characters by Projectedlight	Apr 17th, 2009 09:37:08 PM
are zero. Any real force other than "ew, gross" that might be found in watching a man fall apart is undone by the way he is left as a cypher, combined with the lack of a sense of context or of any vision or subtlety. I wouldn't recommend the film personally, but lots of people I respect enjoyed it. I suppose it's worth checking out. But a lot of other films are as well that aren't getting nearly the attention Hunger is receiving.
Projectedlight: I couldn't agree more. by a goonie	Apr 18th, 2009 12:45:23 AM
Everywhere I look, I see glowing reviews for Hunger. And the few places on the web where people have posted negative responses on their blogs, readers have lambasted them in the comments below, calling them idiots and accusing the writer of not "getting" the movie. I don't think anyone's an idiot for liking or disliking the movie, but I find it interesting that I have had such a completely different experience with the movie than most people I've come across. Either way, I think you really sum up the problems with the movie in your two posts and I think you really nail it when you say that "It's ultra stylized to no great end." I completely agree.
Haunting imagery. and THAT convo is epic.. by couP	Apr 18th, 2009 08:52:25 AM
Well worth a look. Can't believe Australia got it so much earlier.

Talkbacks

Capone takes a look smaller films opening this week--SUGAR, AMERICAN VIOLET, and HUNGER!!!

User login

Quick Talkback

Talkbacks