2001 has a pretty great story in it, I just found the manner in which it was told to be really boring. Parts of it were great though, and it was clearly made by a very skilled director.
I do think the length of the LSD bit was just a plain bad decision, though, and not a "just not for me" one. I don't think it accomplished anything that couldn't have been accomplished in a small fraction of the time.
My parents and anyone of their generation has always said it was awesome on the big screen while you were on drugs.
Frankly, I've found that's the entire film really. If you are high as a kite, the long boring parts are, I'm sure, tolerable.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
edited August 2013
Also, A.I. is pretty much a masterpiece and I think the "deeply flawed" crowd need to give it another look. The "man, if only Spielberg hadn't tacked on that sappy ending" crowd are out of their minds and can safely be dismissed.
Also, A.I. is pretty much a masterpiece and I think the "deeply flawed" crowd need to give it another look. The "man, if only Spielberg hadn't tacked on that sappy ending" crowd are out of their minds and can safely be dismissed.
I enjoyed AI, although I wouldn't call it a masterpiece.
The ending is something I really like the idea of and yet at the same time I find it doesn't quite work. And I think there may be no way to quite get it to work well.
0
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
Erased, this is up on Netflix and on demand, I don't think it got a release in the US but seemed to come out in Europe.
It's Aaron Eckhart essentially being in a movie that copies Taken 2 and Unknown and puts it all in Belgium, that steaming cesspool of crime and corruption. Guy works for a security company and brought his daughter to live with him in Brussels but after he finishes some counter-theft measures everything up and disappears and he has to figure out who's after him.
Eckhart does have the ability to be one of these older ex-CIA guys and be believable, much like he was in Battle: L.A., but it kind of hits a lull thirty minutes out from the ending because it tries to increase Olga Kurylenko's screentime and she just isn't believable in her role (I really don't get why she's this new go-to girl). It also falls into the usual plot pitfalls that accompany these type of movies in Hollywood, or in this case Londonwood (Essex, right?). You just aren't as smart as you think you are, screenwriters.
Worth a watch at least, the spy and fight stuff is well done, everything else is just your standard fare.
In other news, Kurt Russell is going to be in Fast 7, no doubt to be the one to kick the crap out of Tony Jaa. I'd be fine if he just plays 60 year old Cash (or maybe T&C actually took place in the F&F universe OMG!)
Also, A.I. is pretty much a masterpiece and I think the "deeply flawed" crowd need to give it another look. The "man, if only Spielberg hadn't tacked on that sappy ending" crowd are out of their minds and can safely be dismissed.
I enjoyed AI, although I wouldn't call it a masterpiece.
The ending is something I really like the idea of and yet at the same time I find it doesn't quite work. And I think there may be no way to quite get it to work well.
Was it too bleak or something?
I'm trying to remember how it was marketed, and if there's another movie that I've seen that dashed my expectations so thoroughly. Maybe Up? I definitely don't think it's deeply flawed though. I should re-watch it.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
2001 has a pretty great story in it, I just found the manner in which it was told to be really boring. Parts of it were great though, and it was clearly made by a very skilled director.
I do think the length of the LSD bit was just a plain bad decision, though, and not a "just not for me" one. I don't think it accomplished anything that couldn't have been accomplished in a small fraction of the time.
I don't think so. You have to convey the length of the journey, and the strangeness of it, and the length helps with that. A shorter sequence wouldn't have felt the same.
More than that, though, it's what makes the difference between the idea of a trippy scene and the actuality of one. Kubrick forces you to get past your initial reaction ("this is weird") and your second reaction ("oh, this is one of those weird LSD scenes"), because after that it's not a brief flash to be labeled, filed and dismissed, it's something that's happening, something you can have an honest emotional reaction to.
It's something Kubrick did all the time. The long trench shot in Paths of Glory, for instance, which goes on and on and on until we understand something of the weariness of endless, pointless war. The drill sergeant's verbal abuse in Full Metal Jacket, often imitated in concept ("this is one of those scenes where the drill sergeant yells") but not in actuality. Danny riding through the halls of the Overlook. Or those conversations in 2001, which exist mostly to show us that people are talking; it could have been one brief shot, or a couple of lines, but that wouldn't have felt the same.
It's one reason his films endure and will continue to endure, because if you can engage with them you can have a very deep and meaningful experience. But it's also the reason why people then and now have trouble with them. People these days are used to movies which throw out concepts like advertisements without actually showing you anything. Movies which tell you what to feel and when. Bay's rapid-fire cutting, for instance, or shaky-cam fight scenes that work like the shower scene from Psycho: you see the fist, you see the face, but you never clearly see the fist hit the face. You don't see a fight, but the visceral hand-held quick-cut action tells you to be excited because a fight is happening. Put enough of those together in a run and what you have is a bunch of signifiers, nothing more; a series of instructions and broad cues: feel angry here, then sad, then excited, then credits. People are used to emotional rides with big neon signpoints; passengers, they prefer watching the GPS to looking out the window. So they get confused or disengaged or simply bored when Kubrick hands them the wheel and points them toward the open road.
It's the difference between this:
and this:
+6
Options
scherbchenAsgard (it is dead)Registered Userregular
The Big Wedding - oh great. another I wish it was the 50s wedding comedy. I have seen this movie 4 or 5 times before. they all had DeNiro, Keaton, Sarandon, Williams and Heigl in it as well I think and the same music. but wait, this one is edgy! it has a latino kid (but it is ok because he is adopted and really well educated)! and divorced parents! how do they get this stuff past the censors? and isn't old people having sex funny...
I turned this off at 20:00 minutes and wished for Father Of The Bride.
so don't spoiler this bit for me... Heigl who faints at the sight of babies and is morning sick in the evening and pukes all over her dad and just seperated from her boyfriend. no way she is going to be pregnant, right? that would be such a twist.
what a piece of utter shit. unless it really turns around in the 70 minutes I refuse to waste my life on.
While I appreciate the video game analogy, no amount of well thought out and critically interpreted analysis will convince me that the LSD ending couldn't (and probably should) have been cut down by 75%. I fully appreciate all the other scenes you mentioned, but that one was just insufferable.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Also, A.I. is pretty much a masterpiece and I think the "deeply flawed" crowd need to give it another look. The "man, if only Spielberg hadn't tacked on that sappy ending" crowd are out of their minds and can safely be dismissed.
A masterpiece?
The film is visually fucking amazing. And I know Spielberg didn't tack on that ending, it was Kubricks decision.
But masterpiece? Of what?
Its no Shining or Full Metal Jacket. Or even Eyes Wide Shut.
@jungleroomx: I don't like AI myself. I think it's a deeply flawed film. What I'm talking about are the "Kubrick's films are bad" brigade. He's not perfect. Some of his films are less than good. But roundly condemning his films as bad makes me agree with Astaereth 100%: This thread needs some better opinions. (Also, apart from anything, AI is very clearly a film directed by Spielberg, even if it was originally a Kubrick movie.)
Edit: Astaereth, is Paths of Glory generally considered obscure? It's on telly all the time over here. I heard of it, and had the chance to watch it, way before Barry Lyndon, for instance.
AI's problem is that it should have ended 20 minutes earlier.
0
Options
Mike Danger"Diane..."a place both wonderful and strangeRegistered Userregular
I watched two movies today (this is what happens when you have to take ear drops and lie around, I might end up watching a third tonight):
The Cabin in the Woods: This was a lot of fun! It's hard to pick out something I don't like about this movie, as I thought everything was pretty well-constructed. I guess I'd say that I'm not really into the
"and then everyone died"
ending, even if it is subverting the genre, etc. I was hoping halfway through the movie that
with the kids dead, it would then become a horror movie about the staff of the facility being picked off one by one, with them being revealed as the real "alpha male", "intellectual", etc
. Definitely recommended.
Headhunters: This one I was more lukewarm on. I liked the cast and there were some wonderfully tense moments (the initial cell phone scene, the latrine, the semi truck), but I thought the plot was confusing
(I didn't understand why everyone was so hellbent on killing the main character at all)
and the tone of the ending didn't really seem to match the rest of the movie. Sort of recommended.
@jungleroomx: I don't like AI myself. I think it's a deeply flawed film. What I'm talking about are the "Kubrick's films are bad" brigade. He's not perfect. Some of his films are less than good. But roundly condemning his films as bad makes me agree with Astaereth 100%: This thread needs some better opinions. (Also, apart from anything, AI is very clearly a film directed by Spielberg, even if it was originally a Kubrick movie.)
Edit: Astaereth, is Paths of Glory generally considered obscure? It's on telly all the time over here. I heard of it, and had the chance to watch it, way before Barry Lyndon, for instance.
AI's problem is that it should have ended 20 minutes earlier.
Also the Chris Rock robot.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
@jungleroomx: I don't like AI myself. I think it's a deeply flawed film. What I'm talking about are the "Kubrick's films are bad" brigade. He's not perfect. Some of his films are less than good. But roundly condemning his films as bad makes me agree with Astaereth 100%: This thread needs some better opinions. (Also, apart from anything, AI is very clearly a film directed by Spielberg, even if it was originally a Kubrick movie.)
Edit: Astaereth, is Paths of Glory generally considered obscure? It's on telly all the time over here. I heard of it, and had the chance to watch it, way before Barry Lyndon, for instance.
AI's problem is that it should have ended 20 minutes earlier.
Also the Chris Rock robot.
HEY LETS TAKE THIS CONSUMER ELECTRONICS PRODUCT THATS PROGRAMMED TO LOVE US AND ABANDON IT IN THE WOODS.
2001 has a pretty great story in it, I just found the manner in which it was told to be really boring. Parts of it were great though, and it was clearly made by a very skilled director.
I do think the length of the LSD bit was just a plain bad decision, though, and not a "just not for me" one. I don't think it accomplished anything that couldn't have been accomplished in a small fraction of the time.
I don't think so. You have to convey the length of the journey, and the strangeness of it, and the length helps with that. A shorter sequence wouldn't have felt the same.
More than that, though, it's what makes the difference between the idea of a trippy scene and the actuality of one. Kubrick forces you to get past your initial reaction ("this is weird") and your second reaction ("oh, this is one of those weird LSD scenes"), because after that it's not a brief flash to be labeled, filed and dismissed, it's something that's happening, something you can have an honest emotional reaction to.
That "honest emotional reaction" is "bored now".
"this is weird" -> "oh, this is one of those weird LSD scenes" -> "and it's still going" -> "goddamn, when's this shit gonna end" -> "which one's the fast-forward button?"
It's one reason his films endure and will continue to endure, because if you can engage with them you can have a very deep and meaningful experience. But it's also the reason why people then and now have trouble with them. People these days are used to movies which throw out concepts like advertisements without actually showing you anything. Movies which tell you what to feel and when. Bay's rapid-fire cutting, for instance, or shaky-cam fight scenes that work like the shower scene from Psycho: you see the fist, you see the face, but you never clearly see the fist hit the face. You don't see a fight, but the visceral hand-held quick-cut action tells you to be excited because a fight is happening. Put enough of those together in a run and what you have is a bunch of signifiers, nothing more; a series of instructions and broad cues: feel angry here, then sad, then excited, then credits. People are used to emotional rides with big neon signpoints; passengers, they prefer watching the GPS to looking out the window. So they get confused or disengaged or simply bored when Kubrick hands them the wheel and points them toward the open road.
I'm not sure what you were trying to say here, but it sounds like alot of nothing to me.
Also, A.I. is pretty much a masterpiece and I think the "deeply flawed" crowd need to give it another look. The "man, if only Spielberg hadn't tacked on that sappy ending" crowd are out of their minds and can safely be dismissed.
I enjoyed AI, although I wouldn't call it a masterpiece.
The ending is something I really like the idea of and yet at the same time I find it doesn't quite work. And I think there may be no way to quite get it to work well.
Was it too bleak or something?
I'm trying to remember how it was marketed, and if there's another movie that I've seen that dashed my expectations so thoroughly. Maybe Up? I definitely don't think it's deeply flawed though. I should re-watch it.
I don't think it's too bleak. The bleakness is what I like about the ending. It's the ultimate end-cap to his destructive obsession.
It just feels very tacked on. It doesn't gel with the rest of the movie.
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
2001 has a pretty great story in it, I just found the manner in which it was told to be really boring. Parts of it were great though, and it was clearly made by a very skilled director.
I do think the length of the LSD bit was just a plain bad decision, though, and not a "just not for me" one. I don't think it accomplished anything that couldn't have been accomplished in a small fraction of the time.
I don't think so. You have to convey the length of the journey, and the strangeness of it, and the length helps with that. A shorter sequence wouldn't have felt the same.
More than that, though, it's what makes the difference between the idea of a trippy scene and the actuality of one. Kubrick forces you to get past your initial reaction ("this is weird") and your second reaction ("oh, this is one of those weird LSD scenes"), because after that it's not a brief flash to be labeled, filed and dismissed, it's something that's happening, something you can have an honest emotional reaction to.
That "honest emotional reaction" is "bored now".
"this is weird" -> "oh, this is one of those weird LSD scenes" -> "and it's still going" -> "goddamn, when's this shit gonna end" -> "which one's the fast-forward button?"
It's one reason his films endure and will continue to endure, because if you can engage with them you can have a very deep and meaningful experience. But it's also the reason why people then and now have trouble with them. People these days are used to movies which throw out concepts like advertisements without actually showing you anything. Movies which tell you what to feel and when. Bay's rapid-fire cutting, for instance, or shaky-cam fight scenes that work like the shower scene from Psycho: you see the fist, you see the face, but you never clearly see the fist hit the face. You don't see a fight, but the visceral hand-held quick-cut action tells you to be excited because a fight is happening. Put enough of those together in a run and what you have is a bunch of signifiers, nothing more; a series of instructions and broad cues: feel angry here, then sad, then excited, then credits. People are used to emotional rides with big neon signpoints; passengers, they prefer watching the GPS to looking out the window. So they get confused or disengaged or simply bored when Kubrick hands them the wheel and points them toward the open road.
I'm not sure what you were trying to say here, but it sounds like alot of nothing to me.
i think there's something to be said of his point. older movies - even great ones - feel absolutely ponderous to todays tastes. i don't think that kubrick foresaw the rise in hyperkinetic filmmaking, but his super long cuts really do kind of force you to settle in to the experience to some degree. i've found the same thing of kurosawa's stuff.
2001 has a pretty great story in it, I just found the manner in which it was told to be really boring. Parts of it were great though, and it was clearly made by a very skilled director.
I do think the length of the LSD bit was just a plain bad decision, though, and not a "just not for me" one. I don't think it accomplished anything that couldn't have been accomplished in a small fraction of the time.
I don't think so. You have to convey the length of the journey, and the strangeness of it, and the length helps with that. A shorter sequence wouldn't have felt the same.
More than that, though, it's what makes the difference between the idea of a trippy scene and the actuality of one. Kubrick forces you to get past your initial reaction ("this is weird") and your second reaction ("oh, this is one of those weird LSD scenes"), because after that it's not a brief flash to be labeled, filed and dismissed, it's something that's happening, something you can have an honest emotional reaction to.
That "honest emotional reaction" is "bored now".
"this is weird" -> "oh, this is one of those weird LSD scenes" -> "and it's still going" -> "goddamn, when's this shit gonna end" -> "which one's the fast-forward button?"
It's one reason his films endure and will continue to endure, because if you can engage with them you can have a very deep and meaningful experience. But it's also the reason why people then and now have trouble with them. People these days are used to movies which throw out concepts like advertisements without actually showing you anything. Movies which tell you what to feel and when. Bay's rapid-fire cutting, for instance, or shaky-cam fight scenes that work like the shower scene from Psycho: you see the fist, you see the face, but you never clearly see the fist hit the face. You don't see a fight, but the visceral hand-held quick-cut action tells you to be excited because a fight is happening. Put enough of those together in a run and what you have is a bunch of signifiers, nothing more; a series of instructions and broad cues: feel angry here, then sad, then excited, then credits. People are used to emotional rides with big neon signpoints; passengers, they prefer watching the GPS to looking out the window. So they get confused or disengaged or simply bored when Kubrick hands them the wheel and points them toward the open road.
I'm not sure what you were trying to say here, but it sounds like alot of nothing to me.
i think there's something to be said of his point. older movies - even great ones - feel absolutely ponderous to todays tastes. i don't think that kubrick foresaw the rise in hyperkinetic filmmaking, but his super long cuts really do kind of force you to settle in to the experience to some degree. i've found the same thing of kurosawa's stuff.
I've watched a bunch of older stuff though and there's a difference between the deliberate pace of many of them and shit like 2001 (or many scenes in it) that are glacial even by the standards of the time and lack any sort of ... well, meaning.
The LSD scenes in 2001 are a good example. It's just endless amounts of flashing colours that go on forever and don't really mean anything or add anything to the film.
shryke on
0
Options
Mojo_JojoWe are only now beginning to understand the full power and ramifications of sexual intercourseRegistered Userregular
Also, A.I. is pretty much a masterpiece and I think the "deeply flawed" crowd need to give it another look. The "man, if only Spielberg hadn't tacked on that sappy ending" crowd are out of their minds and can safely be dismissed.
AI is up there for the worst film ever made.
Yes, the ending was bad but it came at the end of such an unnecessary and rambling remake of the wizard of oz
Homogeneous distribution of your varieties of amuse-gueule
@jungleroomx: I don't like AI myself. I think it's a deeply flawed film. What I'm talking about are the "Kubrick's films are bad" brigade. He's not perfect. Some of his films are less than good. But roundly condemning his films as bad makes me agree with Astaereth 100%: This thread needs some better opinions. (Also, apart from anything, AI is very clearly a film directed by Spielberg, even if it was originally a Kubrick movie.)
Edit: Astaereth, is Paths of Glory generally considered obscure? It's on telly all the time over here. I heard of it, and had the chance to watch it, way before Barry Lyndon, for instance.
AI's problem is that it should have ended 20 minutes earlier.
Also the Chris Rock robot.
HEY LETS TAKE THIS CONSUMER ELECTRONICS PRODUCT THATS PROGRAMMED TO LOVE US AND ABANDON IT IN THE WOODS.
Also, A.I. is pretty much a masterpiece and I think the "deeply flawed" crowd need to give it another look. The "man, if only Spielberg hadn't tacked on that sappy ending" crowd are out of their minds and can safely be dismissed.
A masterpiece?
The film is visually fucking amazing. And I know Spielberg didn't tack on that ending, it was Kubricks decision.
But masterpiece? Of what?
Its no Shining or Full Metal Jacket. Or even Eyes Wide Shut.
If you're gonna compare a Hanzo sword, you compare it to every other sword ever made... that wasn't made by Hattori Hanzo.
In other words, I'm not saying it's the best Kubrick movie (if you can even quite call it a Kubrick movie). But I think it's a brilliantly directed, deep and meaningful film with very few extraneous elements. The tension between Kubrick's intellectualism and Spielberg's sentimentality puts the movie on a unique wavelength, not really like anything else. Not much in Spielberg is this dark or this bold; not much in Kubrick is this beautiful.
I've seen it three times now and every time I do, my estimation of the film goes up. I think it's a great movie.
Astaereth: funny, I agree with you pretty much entirely in your comments on 2001 while disagreeing on A.I.. I've read the interpretations of the people who defend the film, and I largely agree with what they think the film is trying to do - it's just that the film doesn't succeed at doing these things for me. When I saw A.I., the sentimental Spielbergisms in how it's done didn't produce meaningful, interesting friction, they grated, at least not for me.
My main problem with the film, though, is that I never bought David as the emotional core, because the film never convinced me that he's anything other than eminently well programmed to present the appearance of love. Again, that might be interesting, but for that the main character would have to be human, someone who can't figure out whether David really loves or whether he's just a machine that goes through the motions really convincingly. We're supposed to care about David (which doesn't mean that we can't be ambivalent about him), but I never did, because I never bought into him as anything other than a very advanced Furby.
Thirith on
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
I watched two movies today (this is what happens when you have to take ear drops and lie around, I might end up watching a third tonight):
The Cabin in the Woods: This was a lot of fun! It's hard to pick out something I don't like about this movie, as I thought everything was pretty well-constructed. I guess I'd say that I'm not really into the
"and then everyone died"
ending, even if it is subverting the genre, etc. I was hoping halfway through the movie that
with the kids dead, it would then become a horror movie about the staff of the facility being picked off one by one, with them being revealed as the real "alpha male", "intellectual", etc
. Definitely recommended.
Headhunters: This one I was more lukewarm on. I liked the cast and there were some wonderfully tense moments (the initial cell phone scene, the latrine, the semi truck), but I thought the plot was confusing
(I didn't understand why everyone was so hellbent on killing the main character at all)
and the tone of the ending didn't really seem to match the rest of the movie. Sort of recommended.
While I respect your opinion on the ending of CitW I wonder if maybe you missed why it ends the way it does?
Its very thematically consistent to the point that I would argue the rest of the film demands it end the way it does.
+1
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Astaereth: funny, I agree with you pretty much entirely in your comments on 2001 while disagreeing on A.I.. I've read the interpretations of the people who defend the film, and I largely agree with what they think the film is trying to do - it's just that the film doesn't succeed at doing these things for me. When I saw A.I., the sentimental Spielbergisms in how it's done didn't produce meaningful, interesting friction, they grated, at least not for me.
My main problem with the film, though, is that I never bought David as the emotional core, because the film never convinced me that he's anything other than eminently well programmed to present the appearance of love. Again, that might be interesting, but for that the main character would have to be human, someone who can't figure out whether David really loves or whether he's just a machine that goes through the motions really convincingly. We're supposed to care about David (which doesn't mean that we can't be ambivalent about him), but I never did, because I never bought into him as anything other than a very advanced Furby.
To his credit, Haley Joel Osment somehow makes me not sure which side of the Uncanny Valley he is on. He is immensely creepy in this movie (in a good way).
+3
Options
Mike Danger"Diane..."a place both wonderful and strangeRegistered Userregular
I watched two movies today (this is what happens when you have to take ear drops and lie around, I might end up watching a third tonight):
The Cabin in the Woods: This was a lot of fun! It's hard to pick out something I don't like about this movie, as I thought everything was pretty well-constructed. I guess I'd say that I'm not really into the
"and then everyone died"
ending, even if it is subverting the genre, etc. I was hoping halfway through the movie that
with the kids dead, it would then become a horror movie about the staff of the facility being picked off one by one, with them being revealed as the real "alpha male", "intellectual", etc
. Definitely recommended.
Headhunters: This one I was more lukewarm on. I liked the cast and there were some wonderfully tense moments (the initial cell phone scene, the latrine, the semi truck), but I thought the plot was confusing
(I didn't understand why everyone was so hellbent on killing the main character at all)
and the tone of the ending didn't really seem to match the rest of the movie. Sort of recommended.
While I respect your opinion on the ending of CitW I wonder if maybe you missed why it ends the way it does?
Its very thematically consistent to the point that I would argue the rest of the film demands it end the way it does.
Can you explain more? It's entirely possible I missed something.
I watched two movies today (this is what happens when you have to take ear drops and lie around, I might end up watching a third tonight):
The Cabin in the Woods: This was a lot of fun! It's hard to pick out something I don't like about this movie, as I thought everything was pretty well-constructed. I guess I'd say that I'm not really into the
"and then everyone died"
ending, even if it is subverting the genre, etc. I was hoping halfway through the movie that
with the kids dead, it would then become a horror movie about the staff of the facility being picked off one by one, with them being revealed as the real "alpha male", "intellectual", etc
. Definitely recommended.
Headhunters: This one I was more lukewarm on. I liked the cast and there were some wonderfully tense moments (the initial cell phone scene, the latrine, the semi truck), but I thought the plot was confusing
(I didn't understand why everyone was so hellbent on killing the main character at all)
and the tone of the ending didn't really seem to match the rest of the movie. Sort of recommended.
While I respect your opinion on the ending of CitW I wonder if maybe you missed why it ends the way it does?
Its very thematically consistent to the point that I would argue the rest of the film demands it end the way it does.
Can you explain more? It's entirely possible I missed something.
If I'm not mistaken, the old gods are the horror movie public. They lash out and destroy anything that attempts to change the genre, regardless of quality. Very possible there is something else as well though.
The kids are the horror movie tropes (subverted), the tech guys are the film makers and the gods are the people who, by buying tickets and DVDs or not decide whether the films in question have satisfied their sacrificial needs or not. I only got that third level the second time I watched the film; I originally thought the tech guys were the audience, mainly because of the scenes where they're waiting for the blonde to show off her boobs.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
+1
Options
scherbchenAsgard (it is dead)Registered Userregular
The kids are the horror movie tropes (subverted), the tech guys are the film makers and the gods are the people who, by buying tickets and DVDs or not decide whether the films in question have satisfied their sacrificial needs or not. I only got that third level the second time I watched the film; I originally thought the tech guys were the audience, mainly because of the scenes where they're waiting for the blonde to show off her boobs.
My main problem with the ending was just
how accepting the two leads were about the end of the world. It was a bit too self-aware, like they understood the metaphorical dimension of what was going on and considered that to be more important than the literal reality of themselves and everyone they know dying.
I'd rather they just fucked up the ritual by accident, like by having the gun go off by mistake and kill the virgin, rather than consciously deciding not to play along.
The kids are the horror movie tropes (subverted), the tech guys are the film makers and the gods are the people who, by buying tickets and DVDs or not decide whether the films in question have satisfied their sacrificial needs or not. I only got that third level the second time I watched the film; I originally thought the tech guys were the audience, mainly because of the scenes where they're waiting for the blonde to show off her boobs.
My main problem with the ending was just
how accepting the two leads were about the end of the world. It was a bit too self-aware, like they understood the metaphorical dimension of what was going on and considered that to be more important than the literal reality of themselves and everyone they know dying.
I'd rather they just fucked up the ritual by accident, like by having the gun go off by mistake and kill the virgin, rather than consciously deciding not to play along.
Marty: Society needs to crumble. We're all just too chicken shit to let it.
Jules: Alright, Mr. Rants!
Marty: You will come to see things my way.
I, for one, like the fact that it was a deliberate choice. Marty was already pretty misanthropic, and after the events of the climax, Dana coming to see things his way was not difficult for me to believe. If they had accidentally ruined the ritual, it would have changed the ending, yes -- it would have weakened it.
The kids are the horror movie tropes (subverted), the tech guys are the film makers and the gods are the people who, by buying tickets and DVDs or not decide whether the films in question have satisfied their sacrificial needs or not. I only got that third level the second time I watched the film; I originally thought the tech guys were the audience, mainly because of the scenes where they're waiting for the blonde to show off her boobs.
My main problem with the ending was just
how accepting the two leads were about the end of the world. It was a bit too self-aware, like they understood the metaphorical dimension of what was going on and considered that to be more important than the literal reality of themselves and everyone they know dying.
I'd rather they just fucked up the ritual by accident, like by having the gun go off by mistake and kill the virgin, rather than consciously deciding not to play along.
Marty: Society needs to crumble. We're all just too chicken shit to let it.
Jules: Alright, Mr. Rants!
Marty: You will come to see things my way.
I, for one, like the fact that it was a deliberate choice. Marty was already pretty misanthropic, and after the events of the climax, Dana coming to see things his way was not difficult for me to believe. If they had accidentally ruined the ritual, it would have changed the ending, yes -- it would have weakened it.
I'd buy it if they were all established to be friendless orphans, but they weren't.
cj iwakuraThe Rhythm RegentBears The Name FreedomRegistered Userregular
So there's a marathon of classic films at the Gateway in Ft. Lauderdale today. Maltese Falcon/Mr. Smith Goes to Washington/Dr. Strangelove. Only seen the third, but I'm hyped. How are the other two? (Stupid question I know.)
So there's a marathon of classic films at the Gateway in Ft. Lauderdale today. Maltese Falcon/Mr. Smith Goes to Washington/Dr. Strangelove. Only seen the third, but I'm hyped. How are the other two? (Stupid question I know.)
I like the Maltese Falcon. You can't really go wrong with Humphrey Bogart in a noir flick, and the supporting cast is fantastic (especially Peter Lorre).
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington is also a fun movie and a good example of Frank Capra's work, though the political landscape it depicts might not be recognizable.
Not quite sure why those three films would be grouped together, though.
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington is also a fun movie and a good example of Frank Capra's work, though the political landscape it depicts might not be recognizable.
Not quite sure why those three films would be grouped together, though.
Just a 'classic film festival'. There's also On The Waterfront, but I'll probably be done after Strangelove.
I'd recommend On the Waterfront over Mr. Smith if you haven't seen it. Mr. Smith is a feelgood bordering on schmaltzy, while Waterfront is more intense character drama.
I'd buy it if they were all established to be friendless orphans, but they weren't.
Ending Cabin spoilers:
Morally, it's a tough situation. Keeping humanity alive by killing dozens of innocent KIDS every single year, forever? And it's not as if the people doing it are punished, they're basically pensioners. Marty isn't entirely wrong that humanity as a species is a sort of malformed entity in that situation.
I'd buy it if they were all established to be friendless orphans, but they weren't.
Ending Cabin spoilers:
Morally, it's a tough situation. Keeping humanity alive by killing dozens of innocent KIDS every single year, forever? And it's not as if the people doing it are punished, they're basically pensioners. Marty isn't entirely wrong that humanity as a species is a sort of malformed entity in that situation.
Also from Marty's perspective
"Maybe something good will come of this" is a paraphrase of his last line. So rather its correct or not he doesn't seem to think he's ending the world completely.
+1
Options
Mike Danger"Diane..."a place both wonderful and strangeRegistered Userregular
The kids are the horror movie tropes (subverted), the tech guys are the film makers and the gods are the people who, by buying tickets and DVDs or not decide whether the films in question have satisfied their sacrificial needs or not. I only got that third level the second time I watched the film; I originally thought the tech guys were the audience, mainly because of the scenes where they're waiting for the blonde to show off her boobs.
Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamn I did miss all of that and I assumed everything Thirith assumed, too.
Posts
My parents and anyone of their generation has always said it was awesome on the big screen while you were on drugs.
Frankly, I've found that's the entire film really. If you are high as a kite, the long boring parts are, I'm sure, tolerable.
I enjoyed AI, although I wouldn't call it a masterpiece.
The ending is something I really like the idea of and yet at the same time I find it doesn't quite work. And I think there may be no way to quite get it to work well.
It's Aaron Eckhart essentially being in a movie that copies Taken 2 and Unknown and puts it all in Belgium, that steaming cesspool of crime and corruption. Guy works for a security company and brought his daughter to live with him in Brussels but after he finishes some counter-theft measures everything up and disappears and he has to figure out who's after him.
Eckhart does have the ability to be one of these older ex-CIA guys and be believable, much like he was in Battle: L.A., but it kind of hits a lull thirty minutes out from the ending because it tries to increase Olga Kurylenko's screentime and she just isn't believable in her role (I really don't get why she's this new go-to girl). It also falls into the usual plot pitfalls that accompany these type of movies in Hollywood, or in this case Londonwood (Essex, right?). You just aren't as smart as you think you are, screenwriters.
Worth a watch at least, the spy and fight stuff is well done, everything else is just your standard fare.
In other news, Kurt Russell is going to be in Fast 7, no doubt to be the one to kick the crap out of Tony Jaa. I'd be fine if he just plays 60 year old Cash (or maybe T&C actually took place in the F&F universe OMG!)
Was it too bleak or something?
I'm trying to remember how it was marketed, and if there's another movie that I've seen that dashed my expectations so thoroughly. Maybe Up? I definitely don't think it's deeply flawed though. I should re-watch it.
I don't think so. You have to convey the length of the journey, and the strangeness of it, and the length helps with that. A shorter sequence wouldn't have felt the same.
More than that, though, it's what makes the difference between the idea of a trippy scene and the actuality of one. Kubrick forces you to get past your initial reaction ("this is weird") and your second reaction ("oh, this is one of those weird LSD scenes"), because after that it's not a brief flash to be labeled, filed and dismissed, it's something that's happening, something you can have an honest emotional reaction to.
It's something Kubrick did all the time. The long trench shot in Paths of Glory, for instance, which goes on and on and on until we understand something of the weariness of endless, pointless war. The drill sergeant's verbal abuse in Full Metal Jacket, often imitated in concept ("this is one of those scenes where the drill sergeant yells") but not in actuality. Danny riding through the halls of the Overlook. Or those conversations in 2001, which exist mostly to show us that people are talking; it could have been one brief shot, or a couple of lines, but that wouldn't have felt the same.
It's one reason his films endure and will continue to endure, because if you can engage with them you can have a very deep and meaningful experience. But it's also the reason why people then and now have trouble with them. People these days are used to movies which throw out concepts like advertisements without actually showing you anything. Movies which tell you what to feel and when. Bay's rapid-fire cutting, for instance, or shaky-cam fight scenes that work like the shower scene from Psycho: you see the fist, you see the face, but you never clearly see the fist hit the face. You don't see a fight, but the visceral hand-held quick-cut action tells you to be excited because a fight is happening. Put enough of those together in a run and what you have is a bunch of signifiers, nothing more; a series of instructions and broad cues: feel angry here, then sad, then excited, then credits. People are used to emotional rides with big neon signpoints; passengers, they prefer watching the GPS to looking out the window. So they get confused or disengaged or simply bored when Kubrick hands them the wheel and points them toward the open road.
It's the difference between this:
and this:
I turned this off at 20:00 minutes and wished for Father Of The Bride.
so don't spoiler this bit for me... Heigl who faints at the sight of babies and is morning sick in the evening and pukes all over her dad and just seperated from her boyfriend. no way she is going to be pregnant, right? that would be such a twist.
what a piece of utter shit. unless it really turns around in the 70 minutes I refuse to waste my life on.
A masterpiece?
The film is visually fucking amazing. And I know Spielberg didn't tack on that ending, it was Kubricks decision.
But masterpiece? Of what?
Its no Shining or Full Metal Jacket. Or even Eyes Wide Shut.
AI's problem is that it should have ended 20 minutes earlier.
The Cabin in the Woods: This was a lot of fun! It's hard to pick out something I don't like about this movie, as I thought everything was pretty well-constructed. I guess I'd say that I'm not really into the
Headhunters: This one I was more lukewarm on. I liked the cast and there were some wonderfully tense moments (the initial cell phone scene, the latrine, the semi truck), but I thought the plot was confusing
Also the Chris Rock robot.
HEY LETS TAKE THIS CONSUMER ELECTRONICS PRODUCT THATS PROGRAMMED TO LOVE US AND ABANDON IT IN THE WOODS.
That "honest emotional reaction" is "bored now".
"this is weird" -> "oh, this is one of those weird LSD scenes" -> "and it's still going" -> "goddamn, when's this shit gonna end" -> "which one's the fast-forward button?"
I'm not sure what you were trying to say here, but it sounds like alot of nothing to me.
I don't think it's too bleak. The bleakness is what I like about the ending. It's the ultimate end-cap to his destructive obsession.
It just feels very tacked on. It doesn't gel with the rest of the movie.
i think there's something to be said of his point. older movies - even great ones - feel absolutely ponderous to todays tastes. i don't think that kubrick foresaw the rise in hyperkinetic filmmaking, but his super long cuts really do kind of force you to settle in to the experience to some degree. i've found the same thing of kurosawa's stuff.
I've watched a bunch of older stuff though and there's a difference between the deliberate pace of many of them and shit like 2001 (or many scenes in it) that are glacial even by the standards of the time and lack any sort of ... well, meaning.
The LSD scenes in 2001 are a good example. It's just endless amounts of flashing colours that go on forever and don't really mean anything or add anything to the film.
Yes, the ending was bad but it came at the end of such an unnecessary and rambling remake of the wizard of oz
This is hilarious on so many levels.
???
Steam - Talon Valdez :Blizz - Talonious#1860 : Xbox Live & LoL - Talonious Monk @TaloniousMonk Hail Satan
If you're gonna compare a Hanzo sword, you compare it to every other sword ever made... that wasn't made by Hattori Hanzo.
In other words, I'm not saying it's the best Kubrick movie (if you can even quite call it a Kubrick movie). But I think it's a brilliantly directed, deep and meaningful film with very few extraneous elements. The tension between Kubrick's intellectualism and Spielberg's sentimentality puts the movie on a unique wavelength, not really like anything else. Not much in Spielberg is this dark or this bold; not much in Kubrick is this beautiful.
I've seen it three times now and every time I do, my estimation of the film goes up. I think it's a great movie.
My main problem with the film, though, is that I never bought David as the emotional core, because the film never convinced me that he's anything other than eminently well programmed to present the appearance of love. Again, that might be interesting, but for that the main character would have to be human, someone who can't figure out whether David really loves or whether he's just a machine that goes through the motions really convincingly. We're supposed to care about David (which doesn't mean that we can't be ambivalent about him), but I never did, because I never bought into him as anything other than a very advanced Furby.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
While I respect your opinion on the ending of CitW I wonder if maybe you missed why it ends the way it does?
To his credit, Haley Joel Osment somehow makes me not sure which side of the Uncanny Valley he is on. He is immensely creepy in this movie (in a good way).
Can you explain more? It's entirely possible I missed something.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
My main problem with the ending was just
I'd rather they just fucked up the ritual by accident, like by having the gun go off by mistake and kill the virgin, rather than consciously deciding not to play along.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Jules: Alright, Mr. Rants!
Marty: You will come to see things my way.
I, for one, like the fact that it was a deliberate choice. Marty was already pretty misanthropic, and after the events of the climax, Dana coming to see things his way was not difficult for me to believe. If they had accidentally ruined the ritual, it would have changed the ending, yes -- it would have weakened it.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
I like the Maltese Falcon. You can't really go wrong with Humphrey Bogart in a noir flick, and the supporting cast is fantastic (especially Peter Lorre).
Do... Re... Mi... So... Fa.... Do... Re.... Do...
Forget it...
Not quite sure why those three films would be grouped together, though.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Just a 'classic film festival'. There's also On The Waterfront, but I'll probably be done after Strangelove.
Ending Cabin spoilers:
Also from Marty's perspective
Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamn I did miss all of that and I assumed everything Thirith assumed, too.