Home Cool News Coaxial Reviews Zone Chat Contact Us Sign in

Talkbacks

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.
Click for previous story Talk Back More on this story Click for next story

User login

Quick Talkback

Please login to post talkback.