[bud]

would you guys say that hilarious is louis' weakest standup? i've only seen about 30 minutes of it--it was late that night, i ended up going to bed--but it didn't seem to have the same spark that shameless and chewed up had; it was no nowhere near as funny as the other two.

i haven't seen his most recent one, btw.

[icarus-daedelus]

I Stalk Alone: A for effort, but how did you like the film?

[Count Dookkake]

I Stalk Alone: A for effort, but how did you like the film?

Did you peep that Tsukamoto trailer that CaptYamato posted?

[swoon]

I agree that some of the action could be better choreographed (mostly when the wolves are attacking someone close but I am sure it was mostly to cover up CGI) but had no problem with any of the character's dialogue for these people were ex-convicts, trash, and etc and growing up around trash, I appreciate the way they speak in the Grey much more than the nonsense that was spewed in Winter's Bone. I felt that even though some characters weren't given much screen time that a lot of them had well rounded relationships that felt were established before being on screen which more often than that seems a bit lost.

i don't know if being an ex-convict makes you a bad actor - but the scene where no mas sits down and dies is some of the worst acting i've seen in a long time

the dialogue is flat in uninteresting, if they were going for realism, you might look to the indian whoops of the wolves as the ciricle the wagons before nailing the unsophisicated wit of excons. i personally like things like winter's bone because it feels more abstracted and odd, but whatever.

i like how the church is a bar and how it tweaks such western tropes to make the genre feel new.

[cajunator]

I just watched TRON and Tron Legacy for the first time ever.

[backflip10019]

would you guys say that hilarious is louis' weakest standup? i've only seen about 30 minutes of it--it was late that night, i ended up going to bed--but it didn't seem to have the same spark that shameless and chewed up had; it was no nowhere near as funny as the other two. i haven't seen his most recent one, btw.

Really? I'd say Hilarious > Chewed Up > Live at the Beacon > Shameless. The best hour of his, though, was the hour that he did when he was shooting the first season of Louie. I don't think this was ever released in its entirety. Saw him perform it live at Caroline's in NYC last January -- it was the funniest hour or so of my life.

[&Divius]

I just watched TRON and Tron Legacy for the first time ever.

and? How'd you like them?

[icarus-daedelus]

Did you peep that Tsukamoto trailer that CaptYamato posted?

I did! It reminded me that I still need to watch Vital, Bullet Ballet, Gemini, and the Nightmare Detective movies.

[AgentChris]

I just watched TRON and Tron Legacy for the first time ever.

I really enjoyed Tron Legacy. Daft Punk's OST is amazing.

[Max Armstrong]

yea. it's amazing that basics of film-making weren't lost.

Well I'm pretty sure that they don't make movies the same way they used to 90 years ago, so yeah, for me it's amazing that they were able to do something like that. Anyway, I'm not gonna argue with you guys, I'm no expert like some of you. I loved the movie, I thought they did a wonderful job and that's it.

[big ander]

Hilarious was just put up there as well. I think that's probably the better of the two.

Definitely. Chewed Up is awesome, but I think I like Hilarious, Beacon Theater, and even Shameless a bit more.
And daviyoung, my calling you an ass was not serious. I was messing around.

[daviyoung]

Definitely. Chewed Up is awesome, but I think I like Hilarious, Beacon Theater, and even Shameless a bit more. And daviyoung, my calling you an ass was not serious. I was messing around.

It's ok I'm not going to sue. This time.

Anyway, checked out Chewed Up and I concede. I laughed a lot.

[kinoki]

Being recently semi-single I decided to return to my old hobby of movies big-time.

So, I went and bought 16 movies that I felt either have missed out on or never got a chance to watch in the first place. I'll try to get back and review more as I watch them. The scores are out of five, for those intrested.

1. Away We Go
Rating: ★★★★

I'm at this point in my life. I'm almost 30 and the questions whether or not I owe a duty to reproduce is almost weighing down on me monthly. This movie manages to get to the root of the underlying questions and give them some solid answers. Real good movie. One of Sam Mendes' finest to date.

2. V for Vendetta
Rating ★★★½

Haven't read the graphic novel. I approached this as a political commentary re-imagined to be more consumer friendly. I was right on the money. Instead of the anarchy I was expecting there was liberal freedom. It didn't exactly convince me of the political movement. It felt more like defeating a bad guy and taking a stand than a political movie. Still managed to entertaining all the way through.

[Addi]

Shame Liked it, loved the acting (no nomination for Fassbender?!), and the longtakes were amazing! I didn't get very emotionally involved though, so I'm still not completely sure how I feel about this movie yet.

West Side Story I had never seen it before and was lucky enough to see it in 4k. Some cool stuff, loved the entire first half-hour, loved the movie's use of colors and many of the choreographies. Unfortunately, as most musicals, it's too simple and silly, and too long...

The illusionist On second viewing, I am convinced that this should have won the oscar for best animation last year. I was even more touched the second time around. I love how Chomet conveys emotions without the use of any close-ups.

MI4 A little bit long, but fun. Solid action and some funny moments. Last time I was in the mood for an actionpacked mainstream film, I went to see Sherlock Holmes 2, that one was painfull! MI4 on the other hand entertained me :)

The Artist I don't know. I have always loved Dujardin and liked his performance, but the movie is too predictable. Nice homage, but nothing more.

Castaway on the moon Absolutely loved it! I love the unpredictability of Korean movies, you never fully know what to expect. Funny and heartwarming :)

Midnight in Paris The only Woody Allen-film I had seen before this one was You will meet a tall dark stranger, which I found pointless. This one on the other hand was more interesting. No masterpiece, but I was never bored. But according to the acadamy this film is better than Drive, Melancholia and Shame?

[EmmanuelMunoz]

I just watched TRON and Tron Legacy for the first time ever.

I find them both pretty boring. The more recent one less so thanks to Daft Punk.

[nskinnear]

Well I'm pretty sure that they don't make movies the same way they used to 90 years ago, so yeah, for me it's amazing that they were able to do something like that. Anyway, I'm not gonna argue with you guys, I'm no expert like some of you. I loved the movie, I thought they did a wonderful job and that's it.

I just got back from this and thought it was really underwhelming. Bloated, predictable, and lacking in any sort of charm aside from the dog. I have no idea why it was shot as a silent movie either, for it seems to be more influenced by Citizen Kane than anything from the silent era. Just give it the Oscar and let me forget about it already. ** out of five.

[TheKaeptain]

Well I'm pretty sure that they don't make movies the same way they used to 90 years ago, so yeah, for me it's amazing that they were able to do something like that. Anyway, I'm not gonna argue with you guys, I'm no expert like some of you. I loved the movie, I thought they did a wonderful job and that's it.

See you don't understand. Outside of it being 4:3, b&w, and mostly silent it is the editing, lighting, and cinematography that really sets movies made in the 20's, and those that came before apart from everything afterwards.

[AlternativeUlster]

i don't know if being an ex-convict makes you a bad actor - but the scene where no mas sits down and dies is some of the worst acting i've seen in a long time the dialogue is flat in uninteresting, if they were going for realism, you might look to the indian whoops of the wolves as the ciricle the wagons before nailing the unsophisicated wit of excons. i personally like things like winter's bone because it feels more abstracted and odd, but whatever. i like how the church is a bar and how it tweaks such western tropes to make the genre feel new.

I liked that scene with the performance being suited to his lack of dynamic as a character. He realizes he hasn't amounted to much, has nothing, and is content with dying while being out in the Alaskan wilderness being his something which can be used as the one way to die as an atheist with the other way being of course refusing to die and no matter what, you need to live because there is nothing else.

I am fine with somethings having my suspension disbelieved since I really don't know how wolves really are but thought that wolves are really secondary to showing the grey (hey the title) area of between life and death with the wolves (or could be anything that isn't overly ridiculous) being death. I can understand wolves just because of having death always surrounding us and for the most part, us not realizing it.

I never saw it as a Western until you pointed out but would love for more films to treat genres in a more modern way like this.

[swoon]

I liked that scene with the performance being suited to his lack of dynamic as a character. He realizes he hasn't amounted to much, has nothing, and is content with dying while being out in the Alaskan wilderness being his something which can be used as the one way to die as an atheist with the other way being of course refusing to die and no matter what, you need to live because there is nothing else. I am fine with somethings having my suspension disbelieved since I really don't know how wolves really are but thought that wolves are really secondary to showing the grey (hey the title) area of between life and death with the wolves (or could be anything that isn't overly ridiculous) being death. I can understand wolves just because of having death always surrounding us and for the most part, us not realizing it. I never saw it as a Western until you pointed out but would love for more films to treat genres in a more modern way like this.

I guess i just saw that scene as script reading not tired or downtrodden or whatever. i think there needs to be some contrast in the characters to make the jack london ethos have any weight. i suppose they could assume the contrast is between the audience and the characters - but the movie is so far removed i doubt it's making any audience member second guess their life. and like i think the absurdity of the wolves would suit a more poetic approach to the dialogue. but they should have also just used once more unto the breach anyway.

i think the grey/wolves stuff mostly works though i think the tone gets a bit wacky in places and i think that's the acting's fault mostly, rather the direction or script.

[Ridley327]

Well, it seems like quite the hot topic these days, so I had to weigh in:

The Artist (dir. Michel Hazanavicius)

As an ode to a bygone era, I felt that Hugo managed to be a better film about silent films; Scorsese has nothing but the deepest reverence for those films (and film, in general), whereas I felt that Hazanavicius' film can come off as a bit condescending at times. It's been spoken about in great detail already by other posters (one in particular sure likes talking about it ;) ), but simply being black & white, in academy ratio and (mostly) silent does not make it evocative of the era it is trying to depict. Maybe I missed some important subtext that could act as the Rosetta stone for why things were they way they were, but I doubt since it's a largely fluffy film. And man oh man, do they really go over the top with how far George has fallen. Just when you think he's hit rock-bottom (thanks to the most conveniently easy-to-hate estranged wife in what might be all of cinematic history), they find a way to drum up another 10 minutes of misery for the poor bastard, including a rather bizarre subplot that paints our heroine as a bit of a psycho stalker.

It's not all bad, though; Jean Dujardin does a great job despite the writing team's efforts and pulls off the bravado required for his character with flying colors. Bérénice Bejo also handles herself nicely as our heroine (again, no help from the writing), bringing a much needed buoyancy when the film doesn't feel like it needs it. Credit also to that dog, who may have been the best actor in the whole thing. Some scenes do work quite well; one in particular that I won't spoil hinted at what could have been such a weirder and more interesting film had they decided to follow it up full steam was the sort of thing you'd been waiting the whole picture to see. It sums up the picture well, too; hints of greatness that retreats quickly into the safety of an awkward sort of middlebrow.

[big ander]

A Separation 9/10 I loved a lot of this. The acting is amazing all around, the use of ellipsis is genius, and every character is constructed wonderfully. Little touch I like most is how much Razieh fiddles with her hijab. And I did enjoy the theme and societal commentary, which I think I understood well enough despite being very uneducated on the subject. Simin's more progressive and forgiving ways contrast those of Nader, Razieh, and Hodjat (especially Hodjat). Those three are held back by antiquated codes of honor. Nader at least sticks to the code for the most part, but Razieh and Hodjat confusedly twist the rules in on themselves. They simultaneously break the rules and are the most devoted and obedient characters. Ultimately it's a tragic mistake, but the different handlings of the situation illustrate to Termeh that she needs to choose between breaking the code to live a fuller, happier life or obeying it because that's what everyone else does. It's illustrative of the current progression of Iranian society. Even with all of this, I find myself unable to commit to adoring the film. I think it's a result of its intentional treatment of spectators: so often in a scene a character is told to leave to let others talk, only to move 5 feet away and stare at the conversation from a window. It's unsettling in a way and implicates the viewer, I felt. Made me feel like I was wrong for having an opinion on any of these people, like I was just a mere voyeur that had no right to decide whether I liked anyone here. It kept me from connecting fully.

Well, it seems like quite the hot topic these days, so I had to weigh in: The Artist (dir. Michel Hazanavicius) As an ode to a bygone era, I felt that Hugo managed to be a better film about silent films; Scorsese has nothing but the deepest reverence for those films (and film, in general), whereas I felt that Hazanavicius' film can come off as a bit condescending at times. It's been spoken about in great detail already by other posters (one in particular sure likes talking about it ;) ), but simply being black & white, in academy ratio and (mostly) silent does not make it evocative of the era it is trying to depict. Maybe I missed some important subtext that could act as the Rosetta stone for why things were they way they were, but I doubt since it's a largely fluffy film. And man oh man, do they really go over the top with how far George has fallen. Just when you think he's hit rock-bottom (thanks to the most conveniently easy-to-hate estranged wife in what might be all of cinematic history), they find a way to drum up another 10 minutes of misery for the poor bastard, including a rather bizarre subplot that paints our heroine as a bit of a psycho stalker. It's not all bad, though; Jean Dujardin does a great job despite the writing team's efforts and pulls off the bravado required for his character with flying colors. Bérénice Bejo also handles herself nicely as our heroine (again, no help from the writing), bringing a much needed buoyancy when the film doesn't feel like it needs it. Credit also to that dog, who may have been the best actor in the whole thing. Some scenes do work quite well; one in particular that I won't spoil hinted at what could have been such a weirder and more interesting film had they decided to follow it up full steam was the sort of thing you'd been waiting the whole picture to see. It sums up the picture well, too; hints of greatness that retreats quickly into the safety of an awkward sort of middlebrow.

I think your opinion is the one I agree with most so far. I don't know that I found the film condescending towards silent film; instead I thought it was saying that silent and sound are near equals, really, so sound taking over should be seen as a loss. Which is still sort of ignorant. But the movie's so sweet at times that it's hard not to have fun with it. Not too much fun though.

[creativity]

A Separation Even with all of this, I find myself unable to commit to adoring the film. I think it's a result of its intentional treatment of spectators: so often in a scene a character is told to leave to let others talk, only to move 5 feet away and stare at the conversation from a window. It's unsettling in a way and implicates the viewer, I felt. Made me feel like I was wrong for having an opinion on any of these people, like I was just a mere voyeur that had no right to decide whether I liked anyone here. It kept me from connecting fully.

I completely agree with you about the lack of emotional connection. The film suffers a bit from being overly schematic and treating its characters too instrumentally.

Of course, I still think it's an excellent film overall.

[OrangeGrayBlue]

I completely agree with you about the lack of emotional connection. The film suffers a bit from being overly schematic and treating its characters too instrumentally. Of course, I still think it's an excellent film overall.

What? I've never seen a film in which I could so easily empathize with every character and not just the protagonist.

[&Divius]

Midnight in Paris The only Woody Allen-film I had seen before this one was You will meet a tall dark stranger, which I found pointless. This one on the other hand was more interesting. No masterpiece, but I was never bored. But according to the acadamy this film is better than Drive, Melancholia and Shame?

You should try Annie Hall for more Woody Allen. I also found both Drive and Melancholia better than MiP.

[Lafiel]

What? I've never seen a film in which I could so easily empathize with every character and not just the protagonist.

Yeah I really connected with them to, I think it was about how they were portrayed that really did it for me in a sense that it was hard to judge them as people, because they simply came of as people trying to do what's right according to their own moral beliefs despite what consequences came out of it.

[brianjones]

fish tank (2009) british underclass blues done right. andrea arnold's very personal and exquisitely acted, shot and paced film is totally worth your time. arnold and cinematographer robbie ryan shoot with handheld cameras but avoid the usual indie trappings of endless, ugly and unfocused shakey cam sequences and instead find genuine moments of quiet beauty rarely observed with this type of low-budget handheld approach. lead actress katie jarvis' performance is, much like the rest of the cast's, entirely believable and naturalistic - pretty much flawless. arnold's script is also less predictable and straightforward than initially thought, even if it might initially look like little more than another excursion into traditional loach or leigh territory. fish tank has its own voice and identity. give it a shot! it's also streaming on netflix right now!

uh.. wow

wasnt expecting this movie to go where it did

the sex scene was really creepy to watch.. and then her kidnapping his kid? wtf was she thinking.. nearly got her killed

pretty affecting though and great performances from katie katie jarvis and dat fass

the chav accent has to be one of the ugliest accents ever on a female

[The Culture Vulture]

It's sad that the movie is never as good as it's opening sequence. The casting was outstanding but the story and the direction didn't always work for me. I think I would have appreciated the film more if it wasn't for all the hype or that fantastic first scene.

RE: The Descendants

I laughed my ass off at all the comments from my saying "white people problems" yesterday. I guess I should have said "1st World or Rich People Problems" but you thin skinned babies would have cried that I was persecuting you for having a roof over your head. If anyone honestly felt "dehumanized" I sincerely apologize. Otherwise let's lighten up a little bit and try not to be stereotypical message board posters blowing everything out of proportion.

[Meliorism]

RE: The Descendants I laughed my ass off at all the comments from my saying "white people problems" yesterday. I guess I should have said "1st World or Rich People Problems" but you thin skinned babies would have cried that I was persecuting you for having a roof over your head. If anyone honestly felt "dehumanized" I sincerely apologize. Otherwise let's lighten up a little bit and try not to be stereotypical message board posters blowing everything out of proportion.

Or you could just be careful of what you say.

[BaronLundi]

A Separation 9/10 I loved a lot of this. The acting is amazing all around, the use of ellipsis is genius, and every character is constructed wonderfully. Little touch I like most is how much Razieh fiddles with her hijab. And I did enjoy the theme and societal commentary, which I think I understood well enough despite being very uneducated on the subject. Simin's more progressive and forgiving ways contrast those of Nader, Razieh, and Hodjat (especially Hodjat). Those three are held back by antiquated codes of honor. Nader at least sticks to the code for the most part, but Razieh and Hodjat confusedly twist the rules in on themselves. They simultaneously break the rules and are the most devoted and obedient characters. Ultimately it's a tragic mistake, but the different handlings of the situation illustrate to Termeh that she needs to choose between breaking the code to live a fuller, happier life or obeying it because that's what everyone else does. It's illustrative of the current progression of Iranian society. Even with all of this, I find myself unable to commit to adoring the film. I think it's a result of its intentional treatment of spectators: so often in a scene a character is told to leave to let others talk, only to move 5 feet away and stare at the conversation from a window. It's unsettling in a way and implicates the viewer, I felt. Made me feel like I was wrong for having an opinion on any of these people, like I was just a mere voyeur that had no right to decide whether I liked anyone here. It kept me from connecting fully.

I pretty much agree with your review except for the fact that I come to the opposite conclusion regarding the connection with the audience.

It's very clear from the very first scene that the viewer is not only put in the position of a witness but that of an umpire. And at first it's a very easy role to assume. As the viewer, you're confronted with a very nice couple both of which seem smart and loving and caring for the other. You're made to feel as if their separation will not last, that they will obviously overcome the difficulty they're facing. But as the movie progresses, as you said, the viewer is made to be more and more uneasy because he's more than a voyeur, he's a judge. And a judge who thinks he sees everything. In reality (but it's not that obvious while watching) you miss a great deal: almost all scenes end abruptly, with little to no closure and you only see in the following scene the ripples of the previous one.

The only true witnesses are the old man who can't express anything and the little girls who alternatively grow closer and apart from each other because of all the separation(s) they are victims of.

The way the movie treats the audience is truly remarkable : whether you want it or not you are to make a judgement based on what you're privy to, i.e. what happened, what you think has happened, what you remember happening or not. At the same time (or later) you also come to question your initial judgement. Why are you rooting for a particular character and is it really for the reasons you think ?

As for me, I was clearly supporting Nader and I thought it was a very reasonable position to hold. But was it ? Was I really favouring him because he was right ? Was I not forgetting his own weaknesses, shortcoming and lies ? As a judge wouldn't I rule in his favour because he represents what is closer to me ? West vs East. Secular vs. Religious. Uneducated vs. Instructed and so on. I came to challenge my own judgement regarding all these separations. Maybe because I'm a lawyer I was also particularly interested in the moving gaps between facts, beliefs and evidence and their respective role to one another. This movie makes you see that in very concrete terms: you were there and saw what happened and heard what they said, and yet...

All in all it makes the audience have a tough time choosing and supporting their own decision for the characters, all the while making them feel like they'd been dealt all the cards to serenely and firmly choose.

As the credits roll, echoing the final question left unanswered, you're just left wondering what would be the right choice and if there is any. You can't decide yet you have to. At this point it's been a long way since the opening sequences where it seemed so easy. The viewer has gathered much information to help him decide but is he actually closer from doing so ?


To me it's clearly the movie of the year, if not more.

[A less bigoted Deku]

Didn't hear much talk about it, but caught a matinee of Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close recently.

Much better film than I expected given the lukewarm reviews out there. I guess people don't like being manipulated to feel things, but a movie set in and around 9/11 and about loss is inherently going to evoke certian emotions.

I more or less agree with the contrivance aspect of the plot and I think relaving the core motivation somewhat unresolved may have been better to leave the question. Going for the happy ending is too cliche.

[Bootaaay]

On the Silver Globe (1988) by Andrzej Żuławski

This ambitious Polish science-fiction film first began production in 1975, but in 1977, with eighty percent of filming complete, the Polish government ordered production to stop and all sets, costumes and footage to be destroyed, over fears that some themes present in the film were an allegorical criticism of Poland's communist rule. The surviving reels of footage, smuggled out of Poland by the director and crew, lay dormant until the fall of communism and, although incomplete, the film was finally released in 1988. As much of the footage was lost or indeed never filmed, the narrative was incomplete and in a daring move Żuławski decided to narrate the missing scenes and include their destruction as part of the narrative, this narration being presented over footage of a busy Polish city that zips by the camera as Żuławski fills in the gaps, also providing clear dividing points between the three main acts.



The film itself deals with the cyclical nature of existence, the ethics of freedom, the power of belief and the dangers of allowing that belief to fuel ideology, all told through the anthropology of an emerging society created when three astronauts from Earth crash land on a distant planet. For the film's first act we follow the point of view Peter who records events on a video-camera, as he, Marta & Thomas attempt to survive and start a new life in the barren, alien wilderness. After Marta becomes pregnant and gives birth to Thomas' baby, the astronauts realise that the child is growing at an accelerated rate. The film jumps forwards erratically as we are presented with snippets of a society emerging in front of Peter's camera lens, as the astronaut's children grow to maturity and themselves begin to procreate. The children begin to deify their astronaut parents, who seemingly never age as generations pass. The first act ends with Marta and Thomas dead and Peter, now referred to only as 'The Old Man', alone in a society of his children who do not understand his ravings, nor why he will not die like the others and ultimately they begin to resent his presence. Eventually, Peter returns to his space-craft and sends his hours of recorded footage back to Earth.

The second act revolves around Marek, the owner of the space agency that funded the first mission, who himself heads to the planet to escape the pain of a lost love, only to find a savage, incomprehensible and divided society of people who have been awaiting his prophesied arrival. He is regarded as their messiah and through his eyes we are introduced to the advancements in the beliefs and structure of the society since we last saw them. Marek becomes embroiled in his role as deity, guiding the society under his rule and leading the charge against a race of bird-like creatures from across the sea called 'Sherns' who steal women to mate with and produce mutated half-human, half-Shern offspring. The final act takes place primarily on Earth, where another astronaut named Jack is attempting to discern what befell Marek's mission to the planet. He is caught up in an affair with Ava, the woman for whom Marek left Earth, and in a fit of drug addled depression he himself heads to the planet, only to find the people's messiah, Marek, crucified in grisly fashion. Ultimately, Żuławski is dealing with some heavy themes here, asserting that humanity has a need to continually create and destroy his gods, that without belief there cannot be understanding and that without understanding their can be no happiness.



The world Żuławski presents is stark and beautiful, the Baltic shores, Caucasus mountains and Mongolian desert providing the barren and isolated landscapes that so capture the imagination throughout the film, but also it's the wonderfully designed costumes and props and cold, grey-blue cinematography that lend these places a true alien feel. Overall 'On the Silver Globe' is as intriguing as it is impenetrable. The frenetic camera work launches us directly into the midst of the chaos on-screen, events later explained more by action than dialogue as characters descend further into erratic and emotional madness, exploring the reasons for their being and the world around them through pained and awkward ad-libbed philosophical diatribes. While the narrative is most certainly confused, partly because of the unique journey of the film's production and release, and partly because of the confounding dialogue, the over-reaching story told is one that still conveys a powerful message about the nature of belief in human society and the desire to comprehend our existence. While most certainly not a film for everyone, 'On the Silver Globe' is a tough two and a half hour experience to endure, but one that repays it's viewer's diligence with some compelling food for thought and some truly beautiful cinematic scenes.

[OrangeGrayBlue]

I pretty much agree with your review except for the fact that I come to the opposite conclusion regarding the connection with the audience. It's very clear from the very first scene that the viewer is not only put in the position of a witness but that of an umpire. And at first it's a very easy role to assume. As the viewer, you're confronted with a very nice couple both of which seem smart and loving and caring for the other. You're made to feel as if their separation will not last, that they will obviously overcome the difficulty they're facing. But as the movie progresses, as you said, the viewer is made to be more and more uneasy because he's more than a voyeur, he's a judge. And a judge who thinks he sees everything. In reality (but it's not that obvious while watching) you miss a great deal: almost all scenes end abruptly, with little to no closure and you only see in the following scene the ripples of the previous one. The only true witnesses are the old man who can't express anything and the little girls who alternatively grow closer and apart from each other because of all the separation(s) they are victims of. The way the movie treats the audience is truly remarkable : whether you want it or not you are to make a judgement based on what you're privy to, i.e. what happened, what you think has happened, what you remember happening or not. At the same time (or later) you also come to question your initial judgement. Why are you rooting for a particular character and is it really for the reasons you think ? As for me, I was clearly supporting Nader and I thought it was a very reasonable position to hold. But was it ? Was I really favouring him because he was right ? Was I not forgetting his own weaknesses, shortcoming and lies ? As a judge wouldn't I rule in his favour because he represents what is closer to me ? West vs East. Secular vs. Religious. Uneducated vs. Instructed and so on. I came to challenge my own judgement regarding all these separations. Maybe because I'm a lawyer I was also particularly interested in the moving gaps between facts, beliefs and evidence and their respective role to one another. This movie makes you see that in very concrete terms: you were there and saw what happened and heard what they said, and yet... All in all it makes the audience have a tough time choosing and supporting their own decision for the characters, all the while making them feel like they'd been dealt all the cards to serenely and firmly choose. As the credits roll, echoing the final question left unanswered, you're just left wondering what would be the right choice and if there is any. You can't decide yet you have to. At this point it's been a long way since the opening sequences where it seemed so easy. The viewer has gathered much information to help him decide but is he actually closer from doing so ? To me it's clearly the movie of the year, if not more.

Exactly. Other characters being told to step outside does not alienate the viewer, it alienates that character. The viewer is always given a rather straight forward view of what's happening and is propelled to understand all the characters presented before them. I never EVER felt like I was being punished for getting too close or being shunned out of the proceedings. How anyone could come to that conclusion is beyond me outside of, maybe, how uncomfortable that necessity to make a decision is combined with how difficult that decision is to make. If you ask me, though, that only speaks well for how finely-crafted the film is. You SHOULD feel uncomfortable knowing that every character is right in their own way, yet not everyone can win out for doing what they think they should.

[Frankenstrat]

Watched The Artist. Doesn't stray too far from the predictable, and some of it is just plain illogical, but I really enjoyed it all the same. Walked in not knowing what to expect, came out satisfied overall.

[big ander]

I pretty much agree with your review except for the fact that I come to the opposite conclusion regarding the connection with the audience. It's very clear from the very first scene that the viewer is not only put in the position of a witness but that of an umpire. And at first it's a very easy role to assume. As the viewer, you're confronted with a very nice couple both of which seem smart and loving and caring for the other. You're made to feel as if their separation will not last, that they will obviously overcome the difficulty they're facing. But as the movie progresses, as you said, the viewer is made to be more and more uneasy because he's more than a voyeur, he's a judge. And a judge who thinks he sees everything. In reality (but it's not that obvious while watching) you miss a great deal: almost all scenes end abruptly, with little to no closure and you only see in the following scene the ripples of the previous one. The only true witnesses are the old man who can't express anything and the little girls who alternatively grow closer and apart from each other because of all the separation(s) they are victims of. The way the movie treats the audience is truly remarkable : whether you want it or not you are to make a judgement based on what you're privy to, i.e. what happened, what you think has happened, what you remember happening or not. At the same time (or later) you also come to question your initial judgement. Why are you rooting for a particular character and is it really for the reasons you think ? As for me, I was clearly supporting Nader and I thought it was a very reasonable position to hold. But was it ? Was I really favouring him because he was right ? Was I not forgetting his own weaknesses, shortcoming and lies ? As a judge wouldn't I rule in his favour because he represents what is closer to me ? West vs East. Secular vs. Religious. Uneducated vs. Instructed and so on. I came to challenge my own judgement regarding all these separations. Maybe because I'm a lawyer I was also particularly interested in the moving gaps between facts, beliefs and evidence and their respective role to one another. This movie makes you see that in very concrete terms: you were there and saw what happened and heard what they said, and yet... All in all it makes the audience have a tough time choosing and supporting their own decision for the characters, all the while making them feel like they'd been dealt all the cards to serenely and firmly choose. As the credits roll, echoing the final question left unanswered, you're just left wondering what would be the right choice and if there is any. You can't decide yet you have to. At this point it's been a long way since the opening sequences where it seemed so easy. The viewer has gathered much information to help him decide but is he actually closer from doing so ? To me it's clearly the movie of the year, if not more.

All of this I completely agree with; I was feeling all of this during the film and you put it down better than I ever could have. I loved being questioned on my original unabashed support of Nader, which waned as the film continued. I also at multiple points actively disliked Razieh, only to catch myself doing so. Then I'd think about how 30 minutes ago I was so happy for her and her pregnancy, and how she had then tragically lost a child. It was brilliant and impacting, being molded into a judge only to have my every decision second-guessed.

At the same time: I still think it's slightly alienating. I misspoke last night when I said that I couldn't connect. But as you put it, I connected as a referee. I had absolutely no trouble approaching the conflict from all sides, reversing opinions, and being amazed at the construction of the narrative. But I never walked in their shoes, to use a tired phrase. I always felt like a third party. Which is the goal of the film, I think. And it's pulled off astoundingly well and I can appreciate it. But I think, as a result of personal taste, it kept me from unreservedly loving the film.

Exactly. Other characters being told to step outside does not alienate the viewer, it alienates that character. The viewer is always given a rather straight forward view of what's happening and is propelled to understand all the characters presented before them. I never EVER felt like I was being punished for getting too close or being shunned out of the proceedings. How anyone could come to that conclusion is beyond me outside of, maybe, how uncomfortable that necessity to make a decision is combined with how difficult that decision is to make. If you ask me, though, that only speaks well for how finely-crafted the film is. You SHOULD feel uncomfortable knowing that every character is right in their own way, yet not everyone can win out for doing what they think they should.

We don't know everything during the film, though. The most obvious example is, of course, Razieh being hit by the car. I even thought during that scene "Oh shit, she's going to be hit." And then between the cuts, I filled it in myself and though "phew, she's okay." It's perfect because we don't know everything and none of it is straight-forward. It's very tangled. Repeated viewings of the film would give scenes radically different moods, I'm sure.

That's what lent it the feeling of unease (I'd argue for the character AND the viewer, since we're placed into the film as a mediating party). And that lack of comfortability is a sort of punishment, which is essentially what I said: it unsettled me. And like I said above, that sentiment is the aim of the film and I value that one hundred percent. However, there's a difference between valuing it appreciating it and wholly loving it.

[creativity]

I actually agree with everything being said in favor of the film as well. I didn't mean to suggest that it has no emotional power at all, just that I had some minor reservations owing to how it seems to prioritize its narrative agenda over characterization---that's what I meant when I said it uses its characters instrumentally. It's hard to voice any reservations about such an exceedingly clever and conscientious film, but I didn't love it as absolutely as I might have, and I think the reason was precisely that sense of a narrative agenda while watching it. So the inevitable progression of events felt not simply tragic and affecting, but also intentional.

[big ander]

I actually agree with everything being said in favor of the film as well. I didn't mean to suggest that it has no emotional power at all, just that I had some minor reservations owing to how it seems to prioritize its narrative agenda over characterization---that's what I meant when I said it uses its characters instrumentally. It's hard to voice any reservations about such an exceedingly clever and conscientious film, but I didn't love it as absolutely as I might have, and I think the reason was precisely that sense of a narrative agenda while watching it. So the inevitable progression of events felt not simply tragic and affecting, but also intentional.

Whoops, totally missed your first post while I was in class.
Exactly what you have here is what I mean. To reiterate: still a fantastic film.

[brianjones]

its probably been said but kill list was really fascinating until the disappointing ending

one of the better horror films in recent memory though.. well worth a view

[big ander]

funny, I watched that tonight as well.
I don't think the ending was awful like so many seem to think, but it did seem undercooked. and maybe nobody'll believe me, but a lot of it was predictable? So many said things like "you'll never see it coming" but (big spoilers)a symbol like that immediately brings a cult to mind because of the way it looks slightly religious, the employers were weird, and the victims made it seem like a big game. so the possibility that it was a cult grooming Jay to do something wasn't exactly at the back of my mind. anyway, I did kinda like how the film serves as an example of the extreme result war can have on people, but the plotting was unfocused and wheatley doesn't really swing through.

[BaronLundi]

Good discussion guys, thanks for the replies. One of the reasons I love the movie so much is that it makes you want to talk about it.

[Addi]

Blow up
Loved it! Red Desert wasn't my kind of movie, but this film definetly made me want to check out more of Antonioni's work. I loved the stylishness, it was aesthetically pleasing (Seeing and old worn out 35mm-version only added to the experience), but it also underlined the main character's flawed world view. Even though I knew the premise of the film, I loved how the picture developing-scenes were handeled, no rush, just thrilling. The end was wonderful too, no conclusion about the murder or anything, just the fact that the photografer has to keep on living the masquarade

4/5

[Wilbur]

I think No Country for Old Men is the most deserving winner since probably Annie Hall.

Yeah, this. I thought Jesse James and maybe Diving Bell were both better but it was fantastic. I can't think of the last time I agreed with an Oscar winner.

On the subject of The Artist, I thought it was pretty good but lightweight and forgettable. I get the impression people that love it have never seen a silent movie. It's just so derivative.

My Hugo review from a uni newspaper:



The notion that children’s film is normally saccharine, oversimplified and unappealing to adults was certainly never impressed upon Martin Scorsese. A director whose winning combination of brains, busts and bloodied bodies has led to acclaim around the world, has turned his hand to adapting ‘The Invention of Hugo Cabret‘ by Brian Selznick. While at first the combination of director and source material doesn’t necessarily fit, there is a strong thematic link that resonates throughout Scorsese’s work which is as prevalent in Hugo as anything else; a determined and resourceful protagonist, the guilt and pain of loss, and the importance of family (surrogate or otherwise). What stands out in Hugo however, is that the Scorsese that exists outside the movies has transported every idea and ounce of love that he holds for the medium of cinema into cinema itself, creating possibly his most deeply personal movie.

Hugo tells the tale of the titular Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield), a young boy who resides in a Parisian railway station after the loss of his father, with only a broken mechanical man for company. Hugo relies on quick wits and even quicker fingers to snatch, swipe and steal from the station, catching the attention of a number of people including Chloe Moretz’s Isabelle and her curmudgeonly grandfather, Georges (Ben Kingsley).

Butterfield and Moretz make for endearing child leads while Kingsley and Sacha Baron Cohen are fantastic support. The script contains enough slapstick to entertain the children whilst having enough intelligence about it as not to patronise adults, and some of the cinematography (especially as it proves to be possibly the only validation for 3D existing) is impeccable – though it is Martin Scorsese who again stands out on top providing the directorial vision to make a history lesson become anything but a chore. For those uneducated in cinema’s history, Scorsese provides a child’s viewpoint from which to learn from and yet never makes it feel like being a child is anything to be frowned upon. As a young boy he fell in love with cinema and it is as an old man that he transfers that adoration onto film. You would expect nothing less from a conductor like Scorsese.

Pros: The sprawling direction, mass appeal to all audiences and the fact you leave the cinema knowing about its history.

Cons: the first half is a tad slow in unravelling the plot and a subplot concerning the love life of Baron Cohen’s ticket inspector is extraneous.

Overall: the finest children’s film in years and another masterpiece to add to Scorsese's ouvre.

[Speevy]

Honestly, there aren't these huge deserving films this year.

The Artist is going to win best picture, and even though some people here did not like it, 2011 was an awful year for movies.

If the academy is that out of touch with the films out there, then it must take something truly extraordinary to make them take notice. And let's be honest. 2011 just didn't have it.

[Buckethead]

Honestly, there aren't these huge deserving films this year. The Artist is going to win best picture, and even though some people here did not like it, 2011 was an awful year for movies. If the academy is that out of touch with the films out there, then it must take something truly extraordinary to make them take notice. And let's be honest. 2011 just didn't have it.

[Speevy]

Well uh...it is.

The only other film that has a chance is Hugo, and being a film made for children, that hurts it a lot.

[Nappuccino]

Saw Wanted again. It's been about 4 years since I saw it the first time.

I think I liked it better this time around (I didn't mind the Fight-Clubby aspect of the narration as much. I did wish that James McAvoys narration was a bit more... dis-affected though. He stresses odd words at times which makes the narration seem more cheesy than they wanted it to be... I think. Still, his actual performance in the movie is great and the action is fun. I was also surprised how well (most) of the CG held up.

I really need to check out Timur's other movies though. Night Watch being the main one.

[Buckethead]

Well uh...it is.

When's the last time a foreign film won best picture?

But then again they'll probably choose it so they can spin that they're progressive or some shit.

[TheKaeptain]

2011 wasn't awful even in the slightest of ways. It was the year of the small movie though.

[Speevy]

When's the last time a foreign film won best picture? But then again they'll probably choose it so they can spin that they're progressive or some shit.

When was the last time the highest rated movie of the year had such formidable competition as "Moneyball" and "The Help"?

Maybe it'll be another "Crash" level shocker. And the Oscar goes to..."Extreme Loud and Incredibly Close"?

[Expendable.]

When's the last time a foreign film won best picture? But then again they'll probably choose it so they can spin that they're progressive or some shit.

The chances are extremely slim that The Artist doesn't win Best Picture. And it's been that way since September. It's won almost every guild award. Plus, it's not very foreign. Out of all the Best Picture noms, it was the only one filmed completely in Hollywood. And it features a bunch of Hollywood actors.

The Descendants and possibly The Help are the only true contenders.

[Buckethead]

When was the last time the highest rated movie of the year had such formidable competition as "Moneyball" and "The Help"? Maybe it'll be another "Crash" level shocker. And the Oscar goes to..."Extreme Loud and Incredibly Close"?

That's true. The field is pretty weak.

Then again Dances With Wolves.

And Sean Penn beating out Mickey.