Official Film Discussion and Last Movie You Watched

[Line]

I agree with you points, but I found those themes uninteresting as there is only so much staring whistfully just to the left of the camera that you can take before the entire film feels like filler.

This is a bit hyperbolist. Especially when considering the film is one of depth and really delves into the main theme of legend versus reality. I feel there's enough thematic expository per scene to be interesting even if it's not the richest thing at times. Still, its narrative structure works almost as a tonal poem, providing patient viewers with a sense of immersion that coheres well with the beautiful photography and its other well-crafted aspects.

All of this could have been much stronger if it was done in 90-100mins instead of ~150mins it racked in at.

Disagreed, if only because the last half hour of the film is actually consistently dense, which would mean the rest of the film leading up to the assassination would be done in only an hour which isn't long enough to weigh the characters properly, nor would it be fitting with the aforementioned technical considerations. I think some time could be chopped off of it but an hour? No.

I think Casey Affleck was spot on, I think Brad Pitt actually acted for the first time in awhile

Affleck was better though I think this undermines Pitt's career a bit, or at least his efforts. He was fine in Babel, for one, and tried to act in Troy, though the weak script and tawdry direction didn't allow him much room to give a complex portrayal of Achilles. Those films are all about visceral stimulation anyway so I wasn't really bothered much - with him at least, the movie is garbage, yes. As for the Ocean pictures, eh, can't blame him for having fun.

I think the exploration of the fanboy, fame and notoriaty set against a historical figure without the myths was good. But what would have been wrong in making it feel as though it didn't drag along at a snails pace with entire scenes that were there more for historical accuracy and scenic pleasure than for storytelling and plot movement.

I don't think they were intended purely for historical accuracy but to better flesh out the ideas, giving the climax and epilogue, so to speak, more weight. A lot of people found nothing wrong with the pace and didn't mind getting swept up in the film's atmosphere, so who's right then? It's a proverbial stalemate. This is why I don't like many of these "conventional" criticisms because they're so easy to refute. There's other problems in the film, sure, and I certainly don't love it's length was of no real issue to me. Even a film like The Godfather isn't a monolith of narrative relevance either yet Coppola is celebrated for so aptly developing the cinematic world that frames his characters. I believe Dominik was going for something similar - that wasn't as successful mind you - and didn't botch it too badly.

I suppose what annoyed me the most was that there was a lot of hype surrounding this film, but 20mins in I was thinking "hurry up".

Sounds like you weren't in the right mindset to watch it.

 

[DriDDeRz]

The Fast And The Furious 4
http://www.wisevid.com/view_video.php?viewkey=7544af24a15ac79a1ef9

 

[jnutz19]

Fast and Furious

i think it was the best one of the 4 IMO

 

[DriDDeRz]

Fast and Furious

i think it was the best one of the 4 IMO

i thought it was a huge let down, considering i was expecting car racing etc
i'll have to watch it on DVD when it comes out

Spoiler

Fast and the Furious 5, cant wait!!

 

[jnutz19]

i thought it was a huge let down, considering i was expecting car racing etc
i'll have to watch it on DVD when it comes out

Spoiler

Fast and the Furious 5, cant wait!!

yea i guess you are right but i still loved it

Spoiler

I CAN'T WAIT EITHER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[FuManChu]

G.I. Joe The Animated Movie - *****
One of the greatest american cartoons ever made! You seriously cant go wrong with it.

 

[tim290280]

This is a bit hyperbolist. Especially when considering the film is one of depth and really delves into the main theme of legend versus reality. I feel there's enough thematic expository per scene to be interesting even if it's not the richest thing at times. Still, its narrative structure works almost as a tonal poem, providing patient viewers with a sense of immersion that coheres well with the beautiful photography and its other well-crafted aspects.

Hyperbole? Yes. Unfair? No!

I think a key word is patient. I think I can agree with a later point you make about my mood at the time of watching the film, as I was probably not in a patient/lazy mood. This though is the crux of the argument. At what point is the filmaker allowed to hand over all creative responsibility to the viewer for enjoyment? At what point can the director say "well if they don't get it it is due to their impatience not my lack of expedient story telling"? I'd say that this may be a great example of a film that probably has a lot to offer to a movie buff like me, but ultimately was too labour intensive to all but my most patient of film watching moods.

Disagreed, if only because the last half hour of the film is actually consistently dense, which would mean the rest of the film leading up to the assassination would be done in only an hour which isn't long enough to weigh the characters properly, nor would it be fitting with the aforementioned technical considerations. I think some time could be chopped off of it but an hour? No.

Hour probably is harsh, and I agree that the last half hour is probably the most important part of the film. In fact I could have stood to have less narration in this part and more of it played out.

But I still think it would have been very easy to cut a lot of scenes down by a noticeable amount and yet have the same film (well aside from the "taking a ride" kill scene, that was about the right length to conjour up the correct sentiments, etc). There were even some scenes that could have been skipped entirely as they just added unneeded repetition.

Affleck was better though I think this undermines Pitt's career a bit, or at least his efforts. He was fine in Babel, for one, and tried to act in Troy, though the weak script and tawdry direction didn't allow him much room to give a complex portrayal of Achilles. Those films are all about visceral stimulation anyway so I wasn't really bothered much - with him at least, the movie is garbage, yes. As for the Ocean pictures, eh, can't blame him for having fun.

See I remember Pitt acting in Across the Tracks and A River Runs Through It. But since then he has had scant call for his talents. It is usually when he is called on to do something left of field like Snatch that you are reminded that he doesn't just turn up and do deadpan lines. But these are not what he has hung his hat on in his career. I think the same of Johnny Depp. Both are very capable and bring characters to life well, but Depp would be "unknown" without POTC and ditto Pitt without the paparazzi/sexiest man tag. It is just a pity that both get raised on "best actor" lists when you don't walk away from the cinema thinking of the character they played rather than who the actor was. But I suppose there is plenty of that going around......

I don't think they were intended purely for historical accuracy but to better flesh out the ideas, giving the climax and epilogue, so to speak, more weight. A lot of people found nothing wrong with the pace and didn't mind getting swept up in the film's atmosphere, so who's right then? It's a proverbial stalemate. This is why I don't like many of these "conventional" criticisms because they're so easy to refute. There's other problems in the film, sure, and I certainly don't love it's length was of no real issue to me. Even a film like The Godfather isn't a monolith of narrative relevance either yet Coppola is celebrated for so aptly developing the cinematic world that frames his characters. I believe Dominik was going for something similar - that wasn't as successful mind you - and didn't botch it too badly.

I was referring to the way that they essentially recreated most of the "important" events in the entire timeline of the movie. This felt that rather than trim down to what was needed for the story they had left in a lot of ancilliary stuff in order to cover all the events. We didn't really need to see all of the gang members get killed off. We didn't need to see the various to-ing and fro-ing scenes. I don't want to try and recall all of it, but I think you get my point. I think anyone can tell a very long winded story *cough*Tolkein*cough*Jackson*cough* but it takes a bit more skill to keep up the pace and movement of the film/narrative.

Also I agree that Coppola managed to make the long movie work. But I think that is because of more judicious use of the scenes and better pace and movement. I don't think I've ever sat down to the Godfather movies and not been completely drawn in.

Sounds like you weren't in the right mindset to watch it.

I'd probably agree. But like I said above; isn't that partly the filmakers fault for essentially not creating a better pacing to the film. I wasn't the only one who felt the film played long (and it isn't a hugely long film like Dances With Wolves or Ben Hur or the Lord of the Rings Films - although The Return of the King was another overlong film). So clearly the director/producer/etc could have trimmed down the length and created a tighter narrative. It may have only have been 5-10mins but correct pacing can completely change with that. It's not like I'm a movie snob or a brain-dead moron that can't enjoy great cinema..... well at least I like to think so. Time to watch Will Ferrel 'cause he's so funay.

 

[Line]

I think a key word is patient. I think I can agree with a later point you make about my mood at the time of watching the film, as I was probably not in a patient/lazy mood. This though is the crux of the argument. At what point is the filmaker allowed to hand over all creative responsibility to the viewer for enjoyment?

The director has a responsibility as an artist to himself and his material. The viewer mainly interprets his vision, and "enjoyment" is highly subjective and too broad a way of describing specific satisfaction in a film. The work could be lauded for many reasons, whether they're visceral/sensational or cognitive. Many of the best films ever made aren't what the layperson would label as "enjoyable" but that doesn't undermine their importance. These arbitrary, commonplace criticisms are oftentimes disregarded because they fail to see the intent of the director and what the film is truly trying to express both implicitly and explicitly.

At what point can the director say "well if they don't get it it is due to their impatience not my lack of expedient story telling"? I'd say that this may be a great example of a film that probably has a lot to offer to a movie buff like me, but ultimately was too labour intensive to all but my most patient of film watching moods.

This is largely up to the audience and it assumes that it was made for mainstream acceptance. There are many fans of the film and it's not uncommon to hear essayists label it as one of the best films of 2007, a year that also gave us There Will Be Blood and No Country for Old Men. I, for one, wouldn't place it amongst my top 10 of that year but still didn't find it hard to sit through...at all. The movie we watched was the same, as was the movie that you and its biggest fans watched. The discrepancy seems to be with the individual here, which is fine. Films shouldn't be made with the intent of appeasing everyone, as they'd become to broad and superfluous of theme. It's an impossibility, really. Still, there's two perspectivist layers to the film and I find it justifies the picture's length, at least somewhat. There's the immediate, intimate layer that shows the more personable, humanistic concerns, and there's the distanced, observant layer that it ultimately meshes with in the epilogue. The latter narrative element is also the more poetic and evocatively photographed and has a lyricism to its words. I find the parallels between these narrative movements to be pretty fascinating as I was often seeing if the characters' actions qualified the narration and vise versa.

Hour probably is harsh, and I agree that the last half hour is probably the most important part of the film. In fact I could have stood to have less narration in this part and more of it played out.

As would I, if it were a slightly different film. What I've written above basically indicates my feelings of it, theorizing that this is meant to illustrate a mesh of the film's more grounded and sensational narrative aspects.

But I still think it would have been very easy to cut a lot of scenes down by a noticeable amount and yet have the same film (well aside from the "taking a ride" kill scene, that was about the right length to conjour up the correct sentiments, etc). There were even some scenes that could have been skipped entirely as they just added unneeded repetition.

I don't recall specific scenes that could be wasted but it's been a while since I've viewed it.

See I remember Pitt acting in Across the Tracks and A River Runs Through It. But since then he has had scant call for his talents. It is usually when he is called on to do something left of field like Snatch that you are reminded that he doesn't just turn up and do deadpan lines. But these are not what he has hung his hat on in his career. I think the same of Johnny Depp. Both are very capable and bring characters to life well, but Depp would be "unknown" without POTC and ditto Pitt without the paparazzi/sexiest man tag. It is just a pity that both get raised on "best actor" lists when you don't walk away from the cinema thinking of the character they played rather than who the actor was. But I suppose there is plenty of that going around......

I see that you used quotation marks to qualify Depp's popularity but I'm not sure this is entirely appropriate. His work in the Pirates movies certainly elevated his popularity substantially but he was already a widely known figure in America. Again though, you can mention Pitt and Depp being included in top actors lists but this means little considering the people who are putting them on such lists. I don't think either is stupendous, but both are certainly apt; they just seem to be better at capturing the more excessive personalities they're asked to play, and they leave the stoic introverts to Bill Murray and the like. That's fine by me. Still, I disagree with the bolded as being inherently negative. Characters can have complexities and sometimes these must be fleshed out within one's mind before you can begin seeing how well the actor brought these to life.

...gotta go to class. I'll comment on the rest later.

 

[brendan]

Joshua.(2007)
strange movie.

 

[tim290280]

I'm enjoying this discussion

The director has a responsibility as an artist to himself and his material. The viewer mainly interprets his vision, and "enjoyment" is highly subjective and too broad a way of describing specific satisfaction in a film. The work could be lauded for many reasons, whether they're visceral/sensational or cognitive. Many of the best films ever made aren't what the layperson would label as "enjoyable" but that doesn't undermine their importance. These arbitrary, commonplace criticisms are oftentimes disregarded because they fail to see the intent of the director and what the film is truly trying to express both implicitly and explicitly.

Yes if all that was made was Will Ferrel and action films we really would live in a pretty bland society. I don't really want to go into an art discussion, as I have a love/hate thing with artistic theology that will just lead us no-where.

I think though that while I agree that the director is creating a work to be an expression of the material and others are meant to draw their interpretations (lest it become another biased polemic) there is still a level of responsibility that the artist/director has in their work. Creating something that is too open to interpretation leaves the audience with too much scope to misinterpret or create their own themes. This works against the movie/art (unles it was the goal). As it is with sprawling a work out and thus not engaging the viewer means that the messages are ultimately lost. The engagement is most important to any work of art, without it the artist and art work has no audience. And in this case, would we have watched it if Brad Pitt and the surrounding marketing hadn't told us he was in it? Not likely. They already understand the need to engage the audience but didn't necessarily do enough. I'm not saying dumb it down to become yet another mindless escapest sojourn, but at least acknowledge that the engagement comes from maintaining the audiences attention.

This is largely up to the audience and it assumes that it was made for mainstream acceptance. There are many fans of the film and it's not uncommon to hear essayists label it as one of the best films of 2007, a year that also gave us There Will Be Blood and No Country for Old Men. I, for one, wouldn't place it amongst my top 10 of that year but still didn't find it hard to sit through...at all. The movie we watched was the same, as was the movie that you and its biggest fans watched. The discrepancy seems to be with the individual here, which is fine. Films shouldn't be made with the intent of appeasing everyone, as they'd become to broad and superfluous of theme. It's an impossibility, really. Still, there's two perspectivist layers to the film and I find it justifies the picture's length, at least somewhat. There's the immediate, intimate layer that shows the more personable, humanistic concerns, and there's the distanced, observant layer that it ultimately meshes with in the epilogue. The latter narrative element is also the more poetic and evocatively photographed and has a lyricism to its words. I find the parallels between these narrative movements to be pretty fascinating as I was often seeing if the characters' actions qualified the narration and vise versa.

Yes you can't please everyone. Otherwise this would have had a car chase and Jessica Alba in a bikini in it.

I just don't feel that the length was justified. Complex issues can be explored, multiple layers can be delved into without having to tell a long winded tale. I think Pi or Cube or The Collector are all examples of shorter films that move at great pace while having a multitude of explorations of character, society and human nature. I think the most direct comparison would have to be a Dances With Wolves or Godfather movie. Trying to tell a long tale, cover a lot of material, explore a lot of themes. All long films, but they still move briskly and maintain your attention. The success of the said same has been in their ability to maintain all audiences through these epics. I don't think the same can be said for this one.

But you are probably right that it did need to be a long film and I'm just annoyed that I didn't like the film.

I don't recall specific scenes that could be wasted but it's been a while since I've viewed it.

There were several scenes to show RF's obsession with JJ. Merely making the one and then a line or two in the "embarrass" scene (I'm 5'8" your 5'8") to rile the character and make reference to rather than show the several we did have. There were some others as well, but I can't remember them. I just remember thinking that we'd covered this ground and point already.

I see that you used quotation marks to qualify Depp's popularity but I'm not sure this is entirely appropriate. His work in the Pirates movies certainly elevated his popularity substantially but he was already a widely known figure in America. Again though, you can mention Pitt and Depp being included in top actors lists but this means little considering the people who are putting them on such lists. I don't think either is stupendous, but both are certainly apt; they just seem to be better at capturing the more excessive personalities they're asked to play, and they leave the stoic introverts to Bill Murray and the like. That's fine by me. Still, I disagree with the bolded as being inherently negative. Characters can have complexities and sometimes these must be fleshed out within one's mind before you can begin seeing how well the actor brought these to life.

I think Depp is a good actor. But lets face the facts that most of his best roles have been in arthouse flicks like Deadman (What % of POTC fans do you think have seen that one?). Yet the fawning adulation he got for POTC was almost embarrassing. His popularity as an actor is not necessarily because of his acting skills (as those films are much ignored) but rather his longevity in a variety of TV and movie roles that have created his fanbase (teen hearthrob...... etc). He and Pitt fill a niche in the movie industry where they can do a Thelma and Louise film (which required no actual acting) and attract an audience to watch their next flick. When they do something of substance we over applaud it as we have sat through Meet Joe Black.

I think my highlighted statement was to say that we never truely see the character with some actors. We see the actor first the role second. I know that this is often hard to shake, but some are very successful at doing it (William Defoe at times, Brando, Ledger in TDK). It is a negative statement as often times it is one of the largest failings of true acting appearing on screen. But I agree that I've never mistaken Brad Pitt for being intelligent or a complex person, yet he often portrays characters that are. Clearly there is something to this acting thing but his star status and the hyping of movies he is involved with does tend to override the actual portrayal on screen.

At least they didn't get Ben Affleck......

 

[Pain]

I think my mind just exploded reading all that.

 

[Line]

I was referring to the way that they essentially recreated most of the "important" events in the entire timeline of the movie. This felt that rather than trim down to what was needed for the story they had left in a lot of ancilliary stuff in order to cover all the events. We didn't really need to see all of the gang members get killed off. We didn't need to see the various to-ing and fro-ing scenes. I don't want to try and recall all of it, but I think you get my point. I think anyone can tell a very long winded story *cough*Tolkein*cough*Jackson*cough* but it takes a bit more skill to keep up the pace and movement of the film/narrative.

Well, I'm glad you don't want to recall all of it because I actually can't; I haven't seen the film since 2007. Still, I don't really remember anything I'd dub as utterly pointless. As for Tolkein, not much I can say as I haven't read the books. In terms of the films' shortcomings though, I blame Peter Jackson almost entirely, but his faults are different from the ones you cite in Assassination. In the LOTR movies there's little scenic cohesion and everything element of the story works against each other, as if trying to gain iconic status in its own right. This broad complaint hardly carries over to the picture we're discussing but, again, I haven't read the books.

Also I agree that Coppola managed to make the long movie work. But I think that is because of more judicious use of the scenes and better pace and movement. I don't think I've ever sat down to the Godfather movies and not been completely drawn in.

Some haven't though, so who's "right"?

I'd probably agree. But like I said above; isn't that partly the filmakers fault for essentially not creating a better pacing to the film. I wasn't the only one who felt the film played long (and it isn't a hugely long film like Dances With Wolves or Ben Hur or the Lord of the Rings Films - although The Return of the King was another overlong film). So clearly the director/producer/etc could have trimmed down the length and created a tighter narrative. It may have only have been 5-10mins but correct pacing can completely change with that. It's not like I'm a movie snob or a brain-dead moron that can't enjoy great cinema..... well at least I like to think so. Time to watch Will Ferrel 'cause he's so funay.

Correct, you weren't the only one that felt that way but people would have similar complaints about films such as L'avventura, Dogville, Andrei Rublev, Fanny och Alexander, Satantango, etc, and these are some of the greatest achievements in cinematic history. They're slow movies that test the patience of nearly every viewer that sees them, yet they include nothing arbitrary and all complex, intellectual expositions. This is why I really don't like arguments regarding pace, because they tend to lean heavily on the side of subjectivity - as if we can "feel" or "sense" when a movie is running too long, which has little to do with cognitive analysis. I will say though, we're either at or approaching the point where you'd have to mention specific scenes and I'd have to rewatch the film to see if they are worthy of making the final cut. I doubt either of us are up to that.

I'm enjoying this discussion

As am I.

Yes if all that was made was Will Ferrel and action films we really would live in a pretty bland society. I don't really want to go into an art discussion, as I have a love/hate thing with artistic theology that will just lead us no-where.

Fair enough.

I think though that while I agree that the director is creating a work to be an expression of the material and others are meant to draw their interpretations (lest it become another biased polemic) there is still a level of responsibility that the artist/director has in their work.

I'm interrupting a bit prematurely here just to say that, yes, the director does have a responsibility, many in fact, though in the case of a weighty art picture such as this, "entertainment" really isn't one of them.

Creating something that is too open to interpretation leaves the audience with too much scope to misinterpret or create their own themes. This works against the movie/art (unles it was the goal).

Again premature on my part but I like breaking these down to more manageable sizes because A) the above isn't much but it's a mouthful, and B) something isn't sitting right here. It's not that I disagree with the quoted passage, but I find there's little validity here. I find this particular description more indicative of more surrealist filmmakers such as David Lynch, who quasi-tease the cognitive crowd with theorem while creating a decidedly visceral motion picture. Assassination was neither overtly experiential in intent nor markedly intellectual, but something in between. Anyway, I'll continue on.

As it is with sprawling a work out and thus not engaging the viewer means that the messages are ultimately lost. The engagement is most important to any work of art, without it the artist and art work has no audience.

I thought you wanted to avoid talks of what does and does not constitute art?

I actually had a paragraph typed out here but I decided to scrap it. Yes, art needs an audience. No, making a film that runs slightly too long won't alienate people as a whole. As I've said, many enjoyed it in its entirety.

And in this case, would we have watched it if Brad Pitt and the surrounding marketing hadn't told us he was in it? Not likely.

Um, I would have.

They already understand the need to engage the audience but didn't necessarily do enough. I'm not saying dumb it down to become yet another mindless escapest sojourn, but at least acknowledge that the engagement comes from maintaining the audiences attention.

I'm not sure what kind of marketing you guys had for it in Australia but I never saw as much as a television commercial here in the states. They might have hired Pitt because he was damn good in the role and is an underrated actor. Maybe Pitt wanted to do the film because he loved the script because it obviously wasn't for a paycheck. I find you're assigning intent a little too freely here.

Yes you can't please everyone. Otherwise this would have had a car chase and Jessica Alba in a bikini in it.

Some bastards would still complain.

I just don't feel that the length was justified. Complex issues can be explored, multiple layers can be delved into without having to tell a long winded tale. I think Pi or Cube or The Collector are all examples of shorter films that move at great pace while having a multitude of explorations of character, society and human nature.

Different styles of filmmaking. Of course complex issues can be studied rather quickly, but this pigeonholes what the artist is trying to accomplish with the medium aside from telling a story with evocative subtext. Methinks you'd hate Bela Tarr.

I think the most direct comparison would have to be a Dances With Wolves or Godfather movie. Trying to tell a long tale, cover a lot of material, explore a lot of themes. All long films, but they still move briskly and maintain your attention. The success of the said same has been in their ability to maintain all audiences through these epics. I don't think the same can be said for this one.

I wouldn't really label this as an "epic" despite it's length but I don't really feel like quibbling over labeling. Remember, my main point isn't that the length was entirely justified, I could see some of it being cut, as I've said in the past.

But you are probably right that it did need to be a long film and I'm just annoyed that I didn't like the film.

That's part of it, sure. I don't love it myself, though I appreciate it in some senses that you did not, which is what I'm defending.

There were several scenes to show RF's obsession with JJ. Merely making the one and then a line or two in the "embarrass" scene (I'm 5'8" your 5'8") to rile the character and make reference to rather than show the several we did have. There were some others as well, but I can't remember them. I just remember thinking that we'd covered this ground and point already.

And the film might have covered that ground. I can't say for sure as I don't recollect specific scenes too well, though I do recall the one you've mentioned here.

I think Depp is a good actor. But lets face the facts that most of his best roles have been in arthouse flicks like Deadman (What % of POTC fans do you think have seen that one?). Yet the fawning adulation he got for POTC was almost embarrassing. His popularity as an actor is not necessarily because of his acting skills (as those films are much ignored) but rather his longevity in a variety of TV and movie roles that have created his fanbase (teen hearthrob...... etc). He and Pitt fill a niche in the movie industry where they can do a Thelma and Louise film (which required no actual acting) and attract an audience to watch their next flick. When they do something of substance we over applaud it as we have sat through Meet Joe Black.

I don't disagree with any of this, I just don't think first examining the character instead of the actor is an inappropriate approach to addressing performance. If anything good has come out of Depp's surge in popularity, it's that said teeny boppers are now renting films like Dead Man because he's in it, which I find hilarious. Now Jarmusch's work is being seen by new audiences! Will they hate it? Of course! I don't know, I get some sort of sick pleasure from that I guess.

I think my highlighted statement was to say that we never truely see the character with some actors. We see the actor first the role second. I know that this is often hard to shake, but some are very successful at doing it (William Defoe at times, Brando, Ledger in TDK). It is a negative statement as often times it is one of the largest failings of true acting appearing on screen.

Example? I'm not sure what you mean here.

But I agree that I've never mistaken Brad Pitt for being intelligent or a complex person, yet he often portrays characters that are. Clearly there is something to this acting thing but his star status and the hyping of movies he is involved with does tend to override the actual portrayal on screen.

At least they didn't get Ben Affleck......

But what if he is?

Yeah, I know I just blew your mind. :gaysign:

 

[DriDDeRz]

The Guardian
3.5/5
good movie to watch

 

[tim290280]

I will say though, we're either at or approaching the point where you'd have to mention specific scenes and I'd have to rewatch the film to see if they are worthy of making the final cut. I doubt either of us are up to that.

I think we have to leave it here too. We're through the looking glass otherwise.

Methinks you'd hate Bela Tarr.

I had to Wiki.........

I don't disagree with any of this, I just don't think first examining the character instead of the actor is an inappropriate approach to addressing performance. If anything good has come out of Depp's surge in popularity, it's that said teeny boppers are now renting films like Dead Man because he's in it, which I find hilarious. Now Jarmusch's work is being seen by new audiences! Will they hate it? Of course! I don't know, I get some sort of sick pleasure from that I guess.

They'd be put off by Neil Youngs soundtrack for starters. I really loved Michael Wincott in Deadman.

Example? I'm not sure what you mean here.

George Clooney. When is he not George Clooney?

One of my favourite roles of his was in Michael Clayton. But I don't know that he was playing Clayton rather than "George Clooney is - Michael Clayton".

Do you see what I mean? Not that GC hasn't done some great films and championed some greenlights on works that wouldn't have happened otherwise.

But what if he is?

Yeah, I know I just blew your mind. :gaysign:

 

[tim290280]

Ok finally got to see all of Quantum of Solace.

Very enjoyable flick and Daniel Craig continues to bring a grittiness to the role that I enjoy.

Next flick will be Burn After Reading.

 

[Braaq]

Twilight - 8/10 Great movie. I was actually surprised, I didn't think it was going to be as good as it was. It may be just my opinion but I enjoyed it. I like how they portrayed the vampires, but the ending wasn't very good.

Yes Man - 6/10 Hilarious, but nothing special about it. I enjoyed it though, good message as well.

 

[Line]

Twilight - 8/10 Great movie. I was actually surprised, I didn't think it was going to be as good as it was. It may be just my opinion but I enjoyed it. I like how they portrayed the vampires, but the ending wasn't very good.

You may now turn in your testicles at our front office.

 

[Braaq]

You may now turn in your testicles at our front office.

Yeah, I was thinking it was going to be a chick flick. But I liked it, I think it could be taken both ways. Actually all my friends that saw it thought the same thing as me, we went in thinking it was going to be a girly movie and it was actually really good.

 

[Line]

Yeah, I was thinking it was going to be a chick flick. But I liked it, I think it could be taken both ways. Actually all my friends that saw it thought the same thing as me, we went in thinking it was going to be a girly movie and it was actually really good.

I watched it.

2/10

Thankfully I avoided having to write an actual review.

 

[Zigurd]

Twilight - 8/10 Great movie. I was actually surprised, I didn't think it was going to be as good as it was. It may be just my opinion but I enjoyed it. I like how they portrayed the vampires, but the ending wasn't very good.

That estrogen you are taking for your sex change is working ;D