posted
According to Wikipedia: AFR may stand for: AFR, a fictional documentary depicting the death of the Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen Africa, UNESCO region The ICAO code for Air France Air Fuel Ratio Alternate Frame Rendering American Family Radio Annualized failure rate Australian Financial Review, the leading business newspaper in Australia ISO 639-2 code of Afrikaans language Advanced Filesize Regulation Accidental Faecal Release
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aros: Well, I thought I was crazy, but a there are a few critics that agree with me. So, good game? I thought Speech was a snoozer, but I've liked some boring flicks too.
I think I just intentionally choose the difficult side in any debate.
Perhaps you should try and choose the side that best fits your understanding of the topic, and which speaks truth to you. Because this excuse, while interesting, is not very flattering to you.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps you should look up the definition of petulance? I'm in a good humor. It's not that I necessarily enjoy egging you on. . . .
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know what it means. It was a petulant comment- and an intentional (I surmise) misreading of "flattering." Such misreadings, I often associate with petulance, but if not, then do know that flattering, as I used it means something like: "making one appear to best advantage," as in: "his suit is unflattering in this light." So a comment that reads as: "I'm just arguing out of an innate desire to be contrary," was, I thought, unflattering of the person who said it- especially considering that the comment also attempts to establish an ex-post-facto high ground by implying: "well, I was arguing the harder position, so you may have won on merit, but it's only because my side was a steeper climb." That's just not playing nice.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was criticizing a movie, not a person. That would be in poor taste.
Perhaps I misspoke. I didn't intentionally try to lampoon a critically acclaimed movie to try to show how awesome I was at debating. I don't post on this website because of a psychological need to boost me ego. I should have said that I found myself on the losing side, as I often do, due to my contrary opinions. It was a little late to change my post after the flaming dog turd of posts that followed.
It's a good thing I didn't mention how stupid I find Forrest Gump and Pink Floyd. For some reason people really take those criticisms personally.
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aros: It's a good thing I didn't mention how stupid I find Forrest Gump and Pink Floyd. For some reason people really take those criticisms personally.
The film and arts instructor at my college is with you in regards to Forrest Gump. He can't stand it and views it as maudlin pandering to a less artistically astute American audience than viewed films in earlier generations. Considering the popularity of Michael Bay's Transformers films, I lean towards agreeing with his notion in that regard. Posts: 6026 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers: He can't stand it and views it as maudlin pandering to a less artistically astute American audience than viewed films in earlier generations.
He sounds like a real peach.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
PS: So I don't really watch TV (outside of Hulu/netflix), and therefore I miss most movie trailers. So I hadn't heard of Hugo till you guys started talking about it, at which point I watched a trailer.
I have to say, it looks really, really unimpressive. So to those of you that saw it and liked it: Why? Anything in particular that you really liked? Any movies it reminds you of in style/stubstance/whatever?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aros: I was criticizing a movie, not a person. That would be in poor taste.
I see what you did there.
Of course, you could have dropped the discussion entirely instead of, you know, implying that it was beneath you, or all just some diverting exercise that didn't actually matter. That's personal, as well.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aros: Well, I thought I was crazy, but a there are a few critics that agree with me. So, good game?
uh, ok?
I don't have to win guys... you know... I'm just saying... I don't have that kind of pride! No siree bob... I don't... I didn't lose though... okay?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rrr. I thought Children of Men was ephemeral, self-congratulation tripe that was way prettier and better acted than the script and director deserved.
But then, I loved the original book, and the film kind of just dumps any sense that it's based on the book in the trash can at the conceptual stage. Like Starship Troopers, with more swearing and older leads.
But then, I thought Tangled was robbed of a nom for best animated feature last year.
Posts: 428 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: PS: So I don't really watch TV (outside of Hulu/netflix), and therefore I miss most movie trailers. So I hadn't heard of Hugo till you guys started talking about it, at which point I watched a trailer.
I have to say, it looks really, really unimpressive. So to those of you that saw it and liked it: Why? Anything in particular that you really liked? Any movies it reminds you of in style/stubstance/whatever?
So . . . from a cinematography perspective it was gorgeous, a master class really. If you're a graphics nut, it's a must see.
The plot was somewhat slow. It's a period film, and it takes itself rather seriously. The first half is mostly from a young boy's perspective as he makes a new friend and unravels a mystery. The second half becomes heavily involved in a plot that is very "pro" old movies and movie preservation. It is at times morose and at times delightful.
The acting is outstanding, especially -- well, everyone.
That being said, I'm not sure that many mainstream viewers will be satisfied. It's hard to tell. It's a bit of a slow moving, thinking piece. It's kind of a kids movie, and it kind of isn't. If children are challenged by anything deeper than Diary of a Wimpy Kid, they may not enjoy it. Grown ups that don't enjoy slightly challenging movies also may not enjoy it. Where the Wild Things Are (though a completely different type of movie) is an example of a challenging movie that really isn't suited for mainstream audiences. If it left you scratching your head, Hugo might too (though Hugo isn't nearly as challenging as Wild Things).
If I were to compare it to something, maybe a mix of The City of Ember and The Prestige with the pacing of a (Michel)Gondry movie.
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why is Source Code being omitted from critics' early pics? I'd say it was stronger than Inception, one of last year's nominees.
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers: He can't stand it and views it as maudlin pandering to a less artistically astute American audience than viewed films in earlier generations.
He sounds like a real peach.
He's actually been teaching here since the 70s. He's exactly the sort of nutcase you hope would be teaching an art course at a college.
Posts: 6026 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aros: Why is Source Code being omitted from critics' early pics? I'd say it was stronger than Inception, one of last year's nominees.
Sorry for the double post, but I just saw this comment. I think Source Code was pretty neutrally received by those whose opinions matter during award season.
Posts: 6026 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Guess you're right. It got a 73 on Metacritic. Doesn't even beat out the Muppets. At least Hugo's at the top of the list in theaters (at least among wide-release movies).
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My opinion of Forrest Gump dropped significantly after I saw The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. The two movies are very similar, and the latter was so terrible that it kind of dragged Gump down with it.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aros: Guess you're right. It got a 73 on Metacritic. Doesn't even beat out the Muppets. At least Hugo's at the top of the list in theaters (at least among wide-release movies).
For what it counts, I really enjoyed Source Code personally, but I think some people took the openness of the screenplay as a negative while some interpreted it as being a necessary and enjoyable element of the narrative. The science is kinda gibberish, but I felt the story was the more important element. I think some critics had a harder time suspending disbelief.
I haven't watched the director Duncan Jones's other movie Moon yet, but the majority of the coverage of his two films paint him as a filmmaker to keep an eye on for the future.
Posts: 6026 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's a real bummer about Source Code. Definitely one of my favorite films of the year - smart, stylish, and in tone, setting, and scoring reminiscent of a sci-fi version of a Hitchcock thriller.
Posts: 428 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've watched the three of Inception, Source Code, and Moon. While all three have shades of pre-existing stories*, I actually enjoyed Inception the most.
$ $ $$$$ on the three movies $$$$$ $ $
Inception: Holodeck within a holodeck adventures with Moriarty, although I'm sure there are other stories where a character "wakes up" as a fake-out and then wakes up again. Source Code: Quantum Leap, Assassin's Creed Moon: The "oh noes, I'm a clone" that I enjoy the most would probably be the O'Brien episode on DS9 along those lines. (Done poorly on Voyager, think there was a Stargate)
$ $ $
I don't really fault the stories for re-mixing existing science fiction elements, but I did feel that Inception explored the consequences and ramifications of it's premise the best while still being entertaining.
That said, I'm glad to have watched at least the first two. I guessed the "reveal" in Moon way way too early and I liked previous takes on the idea too much I think.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Corwin: Well, that makes me not want to see Benjamin Button. I liked Forrest Gump too much!
Agreed. I had already decided Button was low on the priority list; now it's just off it.
Oh, it's not so bad. Nice visuals, and Brad Pitt looks like a greek god for some of it, if you like that kind of thing.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: My opinion of Forrest Gump dropped significantly after I saw The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. The two movies are very similar, and the latter was so terrible that it kind of dragged Gump down with it.
I'm sorry, but Shawshank Redemption should have won. It was a better movie and it didn't manipulate emotions.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: My opinion of Forrest Gump dropped significantly after I saw The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. The two movies are very similar, and the latter was so terrible that it kind of dragged Gump down with it.
I'm sorry, but Shawshank Redemption should have won. It was a better movie and it didn't manipulate emotions.
I think I probably agree that Shawshank is a better flick (that's my gut reaction, it's been a long time since I've seen either, so a more measured and critical analysis might reach a different result). However, I think it's patently absurd to say Shawshank did not manipulate the viewer's emotions. It most certainly did.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, it wasn't as OBVIOUS. Like Forrest Gump was just full of things designed to make people go "awwwww" but it didn't have quite the substance of Shawshank in my opinion.
Though Shawshank did have that opera scene. But I love opera. I should watch that movie since my cable box seems to have exploded.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wonderful, though, that we have some arcane ruleset about number of allowed nominations that lets us see exactly what they're going to put over tangled.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw Hugo on Tuesday. I thought it was fair to good. Not Excellent, not solidly good, but fair to good.
The biggest problem with it was that it didn't fully hang together. Someone mentioned that it did have a "first half" and a "second half" and while they were tied just about enough to work as a whole film there was a definite divide and sense of disjointedness between these dual stories.
The way the movie was designed was quite pleasing, although quite stylized colourfully-- the old blue and yellow was back with red, white and the occaisional pale green thrown in to make you think it wasn't a blue and yellow movie.
The script was tight; it didn't show us unnecessary scenes and instead asked us to fill in the gaps and make assumptions, which is good.
I also liked that it was in some ways a love letter to old film; in the first half, I wondered why Scorsese had taken on the film, but it became very clear as the movie developed into this more film-centric plotline. I liked that connections were made between life and the films and once we got into that early film based section the movie came alive.
*
This will contain some mild spoilers:
As I said above, the major problem with the film is the disjointedness. I got the sense watching it that there were several quite separate stories tucked into one.
First thing you have to know is that the more important story of the film (not the story of the boy but the story of the man) is a true story. Going in knowing this would actually definitely have affected the way I perceived the story. True Stories are never as well tied up as ones that have little to no requirement to match up with reality.
This real story is actually a really lovely one and I know why Scorsese chose it. What the problem is (and this may be a problem with the book as well) is that the titular boy Hugo actually is largely a conduit through which we can get to this other character's story. Yes, the boy has a story of his own, but it's very much as a supporting role.
Now, this is fine as a concept. I actually really like it. The trouble is that the film actually doesn't really fully realise it. One of my favourite quotes from a film maker is from Sidney Lumet who talked about a good film being the product of people who were all making the same movie. This means that everyone is onboard with a single vision. All the parts work together perfectly to tell a single, or set of matching, stories. Hugo doesn't quite pull this off.
The movie is centered on the train station, partly because of the True Story, but this is used to make it a convergence of stories. There is a line in it somewhere along the lines of, "This is a train station. People are either getting on trains or off them. Nothing else goes on here." Clearly, the movie says, it does. To an extent, the stories pulled together but maybe an inch more cohesion, a tiny bit more woven together at any point in the movie, would have really pulled this story together.
As it stands there were a few loose threads that I thought were a little too loose.
First, Sasha Baron Cohen. Cast for humour and within his own story, he was quite good, but as part of a cohesive whole he was in a different film. Part of this is the fact it was Sasha Baron Cohen, and there is something a little too satirical about him. The rest of it was simply that I'm not sure Scorsese really knew what to do with him. He was also the only villain in the film but lacked any real convincing villainy. He was simply there to get in the way when the film was getting a little too easy for the characters. It would have maybe been good to have him connect more with the early film plot through some more obvious device and also connect with Hugo through something slightly less simple.
Secondly, the tug of war between Hugo as the main character and Georges was a bit unstable and unbalanced. I would have liked to see more of the early-on story lines converge on or (perhaps more subtley) circle arond Georges. The use of a montage to establish the relationship between Hugo and Georges was especially weak. A single strong scene probably would have done a better job. Perhaps Georges should have been more visually and philosophically part of the train station, even if it wasn't immediately obvious that this was the case.
Thirdly, the girl was I felt a decidedly weak point. She was a tool with character traits, not a full character. I nearly guffawed at some of her more cliched lines and actions. I suspect that this is a flaw of the book rather than simply of the film or the actress. She could have been more key to the story (if you've seen the film, pun intended). Given she was at the station frequently, she could have provided the central character between Georges and the disparate station characters, and clearly did interact with them (teaching all the children to dance), but never became the rounded and full character she could have been.
I may be showing my feminism a little, but I fear part of her problem is not simply that she is a bit of a tool between Hugo and Georges and nothing more, but also that she's a female character in a book about two male characters, by a male writer, made into a movie by a male director. Very little about her rang true for me and I feel this was a significant loss of what could have been a crucial glue that would hold the story together. In fact, as I write this I am becoming more and more convinced that more than anyone she is the most important character in the story and as such should have been much more fully developed and this is a huge problem for the story that she isn't. After all, it's her who creates the mystery by uttering the fateful paraphrased line, "Pere Georges won't let me watch movies, and I don't know why."
!
Lastly, where the girl should have been the literal and central person linking Georges and Hugo, Hugo's invention should have been the philosophical/emotional link. These two people share something very important that is represented by the invention, and we never really got that sense. Partly, I think, because Scorsese was playing his Georges cards very close to the chest, but also because the focus became on early film. The original title suggests that there was also this other key part of Georges-- encapsulated in the invention-- that actually represented him as a person so much so that it was the object chosen to cause [/i]the whole plot to happen[/i]. And yet, it was the film that got centre stage and all the glory. It should have been the invention!
This last problem is possibly/probably an artifact of the movie being filmed by Scorsese, who is clearly and perhaps inevitably more interested in the early film aspect of the story.
What a shame! This was one of these films/stories that was so close. However, I think it used to people and objects as just tools, rather than full developing them. It needed a woman's eye looking at that girl and punching the male writers before pushing her further into the plot to provide more glue between the different parts. It needed someone to remind Scorsese that the story is first about the invention, not about the films.
I'm actually really annoyed about that girl, now. Dammit! Screwed up there, Scorsese.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just read OSC's review. Aside from the crusty, high and mighty condemning of Scorsese as a person, turns out I kind of agree with him.
It's just a shame OSC now sees the world in political terms, because I don't think is review was overal so absurd. However I don't think the direction of the actors was the main problem, I think there was a whole conceptual problem with the story and the characters first. Any problem with direction of the actors was far secondary.
Also, I don't have a personal vendetta against Scorsese.
Obviously you've thought quite a bit about this. I find it a bit odd that you feel a movie that came "so close" was only "fair to good".
Something that annoys you about a movie can ruin the whole experience. It seems that Chloe did that for you. I didn't get that.
I thought the disjointedness worked and fit in with the train station motif. If you look at it, there were other stories being told -- the man woman and their dogs, the inspector, etc. It was a tapestry of sorts, almost a series of vignettes that were twisted together.
And it speaks to my original point: both you and Mr. Card saw humor in Cohen's performance. I didn't. I saw a sad yearning and melancholy. I thought his was actually one of the better performances, along with Mr. Kingsley's.
Even with some of the arguing that has gone on in this post, I guess that's been my point all along (with this movie, King's Speech, Forest Gump). Two people can see the same movie and yet see entirely different movies.
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, but the world of criticism doesn't value that which is not well supported. So you are entitled to your opinion, but the value of that opinion is nevertheless based on how appealing it is to other people.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:the world of criticism doesn't value that which is not well supported
Well, that's not quite true. The world of criticism also values that criticism which is written in an amusingly quirky way and produced by someone with the right sort of reputation. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I thought the disjointedness worked and fit in with the train station motif. If you look at it, there were other stories being told -- the man woman and their dogs, the inspector, etc. It was a tapestry of sorts, almost a series of vignettes that were twisted together.
I recognise the vignette/tapestry element of the movie. In fact, I talked about it a bit. However, the fact that there were other storeis being told does not necessarily make those stories useful, relevant or important to the main story-- that clearly existed.
Yes, Sasha Baron Cohen was playing a slightly tragic role, but he was also intended to be slightly funny. Maybe as an adult you found it more tragic--I find Mr. Bean apallingly tragic-- but I still recognised that Sasha Baron Cohen was intended to be slightly amusing.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:the world of criticism doesn't value that which is not well supported
Well, that's not quite true. The world of criticism also values that criticism which is written in an amusingly quirky way and produced by someone with the right sort of reputation.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Of course, but the world of criticism doesn't value that which is not well supported. So you are entitled to your opinion, but the value of that opinion is nevertheless based on how appealing it is to other people.
I'm not certain that the value is the level at which it's well supported. I'm more inclined to believe that it's the level at which you find consensus. But it's all relative, isn't it?
I find that I tend to agree with professional reviews somewhere along the spectrum between Ebert and the Christian Science Monitor. But I might recommend a movie that someone else feels is rubbish. My relative value toward that person loses value . . . but that is all. My sister, as an example, only watches super-mainstream movies (she'll probably see that new Jack and Jill movie). If I recommended Party Monster, Where the Wild Things Are, The Fall, The Beginners, or any number of other slightly challenging movies, she'd likely not listen to me again. I'd be hit or miss with edgy movies like Scott Pilgrim or Inglorious Basterds. Along those lines, I'm not going to listen when she recommends a Micheal Bay, Jason Stratham, or M Night Shyamalan flick.
People are going to listen to other people when they like the same movies. Period. No matter how well you try to "support" the fact that the King's Speech is a good movie -- even if every professional critic agrees -- your argument is going to fall on (my) deaf ears and have no value. But if we both loved Igby Goes Down, Shaun of the Dead, Charlie Bartlett, and What Dreams May Come . . . I might rethink your argument.
posted
I have occaisionally been made to see that my reviews are flawed by people. I hated Star Trek, for example, but people made a good case for them liking it and I can understand that.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: I have occaisionally been made to see that my reviews are flawed by people. I hated Star Trek, for example, but people made a good case for them liking it and I can understand that.
Blasphemy! Now I shall verbally assault you for no reason other than the fact that I disagree with you!
You, sir, smell of dingleberries. That is all.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aros: Guess you're right. It got a 73 on Metacritic. Doesn't even beat out the Muppets. At least Hugo's at the top of the list in theaters (at least among wide-release movies).
I haven't watched the director Duncan Jones's other movie Moon yet, but the majority of the coverage of his two films paint him as a filmmaker to keep an eye on for the future.
I thought Moon was outstanding, but it moved slow as well. I watched it late at night after reading about it here on Hatrack, and I think that was the perfect way to get into it.
I also loved The Man From Earth, which was a fascinating character study, but basically was a bunch of people talking the whole time.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Man From Earth was pretty awesome indeed. When my brother told me about it I thought he was kidding, no way he'd sit through such a movie no matter how fascinating the subject was to him. I was wrong.
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
