Schoolio's Movie Corner

[kitt kat]

What? Am I supposed to write a ten page review, double-spaced and turn it into the TA by Friday?

Also, I wasn't aware that 'aesthetic' was such an obscure word that I had to define it. I'm assuming you just want me to give a detail by detail play of the entire film, giving examples that, by your standards, will successfully convince you of the film's postmodernity. (And fuck you. I've had to sit through enough bullshit critical studies classes with Drew Casper that I am fully and legally obligated to be able to use this word. Give me some fucking credit.) Besides, if you knew what 'postmodern' REALLY meant in relation to cinema, I wouldn't HAVE to explain myself because you would completely understand and know the criteria by which a film is deemed 'postmodern'; my explanations would be moot. Since my post obviously confused you (I'm interpreting your douchebagginess as improperly channeled confusion) I am going to assume you have no clue what determines 'postmodern cinema,' which explains why you called it a "meaningless descriptor."

[wmgaretjax]

Also, I wasn't aware that 'aesthetic' was such an obscure word that I had to define it. I'm assuming you just want me to give a detail by detail play of the entire film, giving examples that, by your standards, will successfully convince you of the film's postmodernity. (And fuck you. I've had to sit through enough bullshit critical studies classes with Drew Casper that I am fully and legally obligated to be able to use this word. Give me some fucking credit.) Besides, if you knew what 'postmodern' REALLY meant in relation to cinema, I wouldn't HAVE to explain myself because you would completely understand and know the criteria by which a film is deemed 'postmodern'; my explanations would be moot. Since my post obviously confused you (I'm interpreting your douchebagginess as improperly channeled confusion) I am going to assume you have no clue what determines 'postmodern cinema,' which explains why you called it a "meaningless descriptor."

This is funny. So the film's aesthetic was what was post-modern? And by this I'm assuming you think the films visual language was non-discursive? And in that case you (or the teacher you just name dropped) are referring to Lyotardian notions of aesthetics? If that's the case, then you should stop appropriating abject philosophy to cinema and just read some Deleuze.

Or did I completely misread the little you said? Graduate already... It'll help you realize that you have no clue about what you are talking about. A class or two on film theory or critical analysis doesn't give you the right to continue to improperly re-appropriate terms that you have no fucking clue about.

edit: All I was asking for was a meaningful review, not some attempt to try and show that you are intelligent.

[bmack86]

As a Cuban, I am obligated to let you know that I am horribly ashamed of you.

It looks interesting, so I'm interested. I'd watch a Hitler movie, despite German protests, because I was interested. Interesting people are interesting, despite (or because of) what they did to other people.

[kitt kat]

It looks interesting, so I'm interested. I'd watch a Hitler movie, despite German protests, because I was interested. Interesting people are interesting, despite (or because of) what they did to other people.

I'm just "obligated" due to all the anti-Che stuff I was fed over the years.

edit: All I was asking for was a meaningful review, not some attempt to try and show that you are intelligent.

Ugh. I am so not in the mood for this right now.

OKAY. Briefly:

First of all, it wasn't so much that the film was non-discursive in its narrative structure; it was notably nontraditional in the manner by which the story was told, but not entirely without linearity. The movie (I don't know how much you know about it) concerns a poor young man's appearance on the Indian version of "Who Wants to Be A Millionaire." After reaching the game show's final question, he is jailed on suspicion of cheating. As such, the film ricochets back and forth between his inquisition with the chief of police and the moments in time which prove how he acquired the knowledge which allowed him to successfully answer the questions on the show. After some time, the movie returns completely to "the present," but, as it were, it takes great liberty in moving between several 'present' storylines under the umbrella of the 'complete immediate present.' (Making sense so far?) Disjointed narrative and playing with the space/time structure of a story is a key component of postmodern cinema.

Similarly, in nearly every scene---and it really got annoying---the camera work and editing would unexpectedly shift from a standard style to one where the actions became stilted, the camerawork shaky, and the colors visibly more saturated and distorted. (The closest thing I can liken it to is if someone were to play with the shutter speed on a film camera.) A lot of postmodern films play with visual effects like this simply for the sake of doing so; as these shifts in style were, a majority of the time, without purpose, I feel it's safe to add it into the postmodern basket.

I think, though, the most significant aspect of the film that supports its postmodernity (Goddamnit, I feel like such a douchebag writing all this) is the pop-culture nature of the film's subject matter. It's about Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, for god's sake. How self-referential can you get? Pop referencing pop? It's practically worse than Pulp Fiction (which is pretty much the most self-referential film of all time).

Also, in case you haven't noticed, I really wasn't referring to Lyotard's postmodern discourses in any way; I was mainly drawing from the theories concerning postmodernism in cinema, not on a 'grand scale' as Lyotard did. In fact, from what I understand of his theory of postmodernism, there is a general lack of the 'hero' or the 'underdog' on an 'epic journey' of sorts. If we're going to apply this to Slumdog, it won't hold up. (After all, in the film world, a lack of a 'goal' and a 'protagonist'---despite the nature of their character---makes it hard to have a film at all. Postmodern film has these thing within the narrative skeleton---at least a majority do. Postmodernism in film really concerns itself with the visual style and subject matter of the film.)

I'm rambling now. See what you did?

[Down Rodeo]

God, what a load of academic bullshit that was.

Seriously, Jared, you'll probably like the film but I'm warning you - there's a not-so-subtle schmaltziness in this film that you might find offensive (judging by your previous comments). The film is very uplifting but still quite ridiculous (maybe that makes it postmodern too). I loved it, by the way.

[wmgaretjax]

I'm rambling now. See what you did?

Yes. I illustrated you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

You were referring to Lyotardian ideas... And you kept doing so in your post. Most critical theory (if it can even fucking be called that) written by cinematic theorists on "post-modernism" comes from his philosophical ideas. That's the problem with pretty much every fucking class you'll take on film theory. You'll read or be taught about film by people who don't understand the philosophical ideas they are re-appropriating.

I started out as a cinema studies student only to fucking bail after a couple quarters because I realized not only did my professors not get what they were talking about, any prominent texts were clueless as well. As far as I'm concerned Roger Ebert is a more informative source on cinema than most "academics." It's either that or straight to the philosophers themselves. I think we are lucky enough to have a few that have directly talked about cinema (Deleuze and Jameson), and they've blown the lid off of it in a way that film theory jackoffs will never touch.

I'm all about theory and academic analysis, but cinema is one of those arenas that is polluted with the worst kind of academics... An unfortunate mixture of self-importance and talking a whole lot without having any clue what you are talking about.

Oh, and your knowledge of Lyotard might be suffering for 1 or 2 reasons (maybe both)... Your introduction to him came via a film theorist. Or you've never actually read an entire text by him. But that's ok because you still feel comfortable summing up his entire "theory." The reality is that majority his work concerned this idea of metanarratives (I don't think you called it as such) that you feel so comfortable mis-appropriating.

Again... I wanted a review. Stop masturbating.

[wmgaretjax]

Seriously, Jared, you'll probably like the film but I'm warning you - there's a not-so-subtle schmaltziness in this film that you might find offensive (judging by your previous comments). The film is very uplifting but still quite ridiculous (maybe that makes it postmodern too). I loved it, by the way.

I'm a big fan of Danny Boyle's optimism. I thought Millions was a fucking fantastic film.

[RotationSlimWang]

First of all, it wasn't so much that the film was non-discursive in its narrative structure; it was notably nontraditional in the manner by which the story was told, but not entirely without linearity.

After some time, the movie returns completely to "the present," but, as it were, it takes great liberty in moving between several 'present' storylines under the umbrella of the 'complete immediate present.' (Making sense so far?) Disjointed narrative and playing with the space/time structure of a story is a key component of postmodern cinema.

A lot of postmodern films play with visual effects like this simply for the sake of doing so; as these shifts in style were, a majority of the time, without purpose, I feel it's safe to add it into the postmodern basket.

I think, though, the most significant aspect of the film that supports its postmodernity (Goddamnit, I feel like such a douchebag writing all this) is the pop-culture nature of the film's subject matter. It's about Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, for god's sake. How self-referential can you get? Pop referencing pop? It's practically worse than Pulp Fiction (which is pretty much the most self-referential film of all time).

Also, in case you haven't noticed, I really wasn't referring to Lyotard's postmodern discourses in any way; I was mainly drawing from the theories concerning postmodernism in cinema, not on a 'grand scale' as Lyotard did. In fact, from what I understand of his theory of postmodernism, there is a general lack of the 'hero' or the 'underdog' on an 'epic journey' of sorts. If we're going to apply this to Slumdog, it won't hold up. (After all, in the film world, a lack of a 'goal' and a 'protagonist'---despite the nature of their character---makes it hard to have a film at all. Postmodern film has these thing within the narrative skeleton---at least a majority do. Postmodernism in film really concerns itself with the visual style and subject matter of the film.)

HEY FOI. PAGING FOI. DOES THIS GIVE YOU ANY FUCKING INDICATION WHY WE THINK THIS GIRL IS A DUMB CUNT? HUH?

Jesus Christ, you make me want to put a pair of big sunglasses on a horse and fucking strangle it to death.

[RotationSlimWang]

By your definitions Kat, Citizen Kane fits into a postmodern timeline, except that it couldn't possibly be postmodern as this shit has existed for a long time. Also, you have no concept whatsoever of what "self-referential" means. In fact, your understanding is so incredibly facefucked that it just makes me fucking livid. HOW IN THE FUCK IS A MOVIE ABOUT WHO WANTS TO BE A MILLIONAIRE SELF-REFERENTIAL, YOU DIZZY SHIT? And Pulp is the most self-referential film of all time? How goddamn stupid are you? You don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about, you film school buzzword-spewing cooz.

[sonofhal]

It's not often i completely agree with Randall, but Yes!

[RotationSlimWang]

My own personal hell would be Jared and Kitt Kat tag-teaming me with film analysis, one in each ear, for eternity. =)

[wmgaretjax]

you film school buzzword-spewing cooz.

Cooz... I like that one. And for the record... We are on the same page on this one. That doesn't happen often.

[ShyGuy75]

can we disect how great Amy Smart was in Crank yet, or does that not fit the self-referential vibe that is going on right now?

[roberto73]

I'm a big fan of Danny Boyle's optimism. I thought Millions was a fucking fantastic film.

If you liked Millions, I think you'll like Slumdog. It's definitely got an uplifting vibe, but it never gets cloying like, say, Patch Adams (which made me want to spray the screen with Lysol).

[mountmccabe]

Jared, to be fair Kitt Kat started with a succint opinion of the film and you knocked her for using the word "postmodern." It isn't terribly surprising that what she's been doing since has been defending that.

Also her latest post on the subject (#10263) really does describe the film and various aspects of it; I would certainly call that a review even though the focus is elsewhere.

Though maybe you are attempting to demonstrate that problem with overly academic/literate reviews for films; they tend to __________ (degenerate) into arguments about terminology and tangentially related philosophy.

[mountmccabe]

I really like Danny Boyle. Slumdog itself, however, hasn't done much to draw me in.

[PotVsKtl]

'As it were' makes absolutely zero sense in that context. It's just alphabet soup going on up there.

[vinylmartyr]

I saw Baby Mama last night.

[Donaldj]

I saw The curious case of Benjamin Button and loved it. Great movie!

[real talk]

My own personal hell would be Jared and Kitt Kat tag-teaming me with film analysis, one in each ear, for eternity. =)

Wmgaret's analyses have insight.

[wmgaretjax]

Wmgaret's analyses have insight.

I hate my username...

[SoulDischarge]

I hate my username...

There's always Ignition Remix.

[real talk]

I hate my username...

You can always change it, become reborn.

[wmgaretjax]

Though maybe you are attempting to demonstrate that problem with overly academic/literate reviews for films; they tend to __________ (degenerate) into arguments about terminology and tangentially related philosophy.

Well, that's part of why i'm irked... the other part being that I honestly don't think that kitt katt understands what she's referencing. And that's ultimately my problem, like you said what she says above does provide a relative accurate description of the film, maybe with some interesting insight for all I know. It's when she tried to connect it to these academic ideas that (in her defense) are fucked and confused in the first place that it all starts to unravel. My primary point is that this is a fundamental flaw in the way that film theory is taught, most of the people teaching it don't even understand the (as Randy put it) buzz words that they spew incessantly. Or their understanding of it is so limited, that they end up using the words in a broader context than they should. It ends up confusing any kind of reasonable description or analysis of a film. It makes it impossible for people to be even close to the same page when having a discussion.

I apologize for being so hostile. It's not personal, it just a long-standing frustration I've had. And to be honest, I'm sure I've been guilty of it numerous times on this board alone. So consider the hostility directed at myself as well...

[wmgaretjax]

You can always change it, become reborn.

how about Bill?

fuck it... a username can't be shorter than 5 characters.

[slipmode]

Honestly, Slumdog Millionaire is a film to best go into without any expectations. If you genuinely enjoy Danny Boyle's optimisim & like his film Millions you should have no trouble enjoying this film. It is truly, in my eyes, his masterpiece. Now there, I said too much. Don't expect it to be a masterpiece. It has it's foibles, but that is the beauty of going into this film without any preconceived notions. The less you know the better. It is a film that reminds us how exciting & fun it can be to visit the cinema. The story & the way it is told is so extremely refreshing in this day & age that it's hard not to fall in love with it as it moves along. Unless, you are overanalyzing it or are smug bitch. Go in with a clear head, let the film wash over you, don't get caught up on it's little faults & enjoy the spectacle. It's worth your time & money to see it in a theater.

That's the best I could do.

[wmgaretjax]

Honestly, Slumdog Millionaire is a film to best go into without any expectations. If you genuinely enjoy Danny Boyle's optimisim & like his film Millions you should have no trouble enjoying this film. It is truly, in my eyes, his masterpiece. Now there, I said too much. Don't expect it to be a masterpiece. It has it's foibles, but that is the beauty of going into this film without any preconceived notions. The less you know the better. It is a film that reminds us how exciting & fun it can be to visit the cinema. The story & the way it is told is so extremely refreshing in this day & age that it's hard not to fall in love with it as it moves along. Unless, you are overanalyzing it or are smug bitch. Go in with a clear head, let the film wash over you, don't get caught up on it's little faults & enjoy the spectacle. It's worth your time & money to see it in a theater.

That's the best I could do.

I think I will go see it tonight.

[kitt kat]

Well, that's part of why i'm irked... the other part being that I honestly don't think that kitt katt understands what she's referencing. And that's ultimately my problem, like you said what she says above does provide a relative accurate description of the film, maybe with some interesting insight for all I know. It's when she tried to connect it to these academic ideas that (in her defense) are fucked and confused in the first place that it all starts to unravel. My primary point is that this is a fundamental flaw in the way that film theory is taught, most of the people teaching it don't even understand the (as Randy put it) buzz words that they spew incessantly. Or their understanding of it is so limited, that they end up using the words in a broader context than they should. It ends up confusing any kind of reasonable description or analysis of a film. It makes it impossible for people to be even close to the same page when having a discussion.

I apologize for being so hostile. It's not personal, it just a long-standing frustration I've had. And to be honest, I'm sure I've been guilty of it numerous times on this board alone. So consider the hostility directed at myself as well...

GAHHHHHHHHHH OH MY FUCKING GOD
HOW IS IT THAT EVERY TIME I OPEN MY MOUTH HERE EVERYONE IS QUICK TO BOMBARD ME WITH ATTACKS AND INSULTS?! I COULD SAY THAT THE SKY IS FUCKING BLUE AND SOMEONE WOULD HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY ABOUT IT!

"How are you SURE the sky is blue? It's more of a pale blue, and anyway, you don't know anything about color. You've never taken a color class!"
"Oh, look at the stupid cunt who thinks the sky is blue! Oh, and she looks like a horse! LOLOLOLOLOL I AM SO FUNNY!"

Seriously. It's FUCKING ANNOYING.

wmgaretabcdefghijklmnop: Did I ever say that I knew EVERYTHING about film studies or that I took it for the be-all, end-all of discussing movies? NO. I said I had learned enough of the BULLSHIT and was using that bullshit to discuss a film. I wasn't here to review. You know what? I think critical studies is BULLSHIT. At least you were smart enough to realise that and didn't continue with it. But you know what's funny? I have to spend every fucking day with critical studies students who are JUST LIKE YOU. Pompous idiots who are so desperate (hah!) to defend their opinions they walk all over everyone else, and suddenly, their original intent for said argument is completely lost. At least I've stayed on track here.

Someone had it right when they said you didn't like how I didn't give a review. WHY DIDN'T YOU SAY THAT IN THE FIRST GODDAMN PLACE? I said it was good. Interpret that as you will. I had some problems with the STYLISTIC points of the film, hence the usage of the word "aesthetic," which also seemed to piss you off.

But, you know what? That's probably not good enough for you. So I'm going to put it in plain, simple English so you can get off my back and go act horribly pretentious elsewhere.

THE MOVIE WAS GOOD. IT WAS ENJOYABLE. I was much more satisfied sitting in this movie than all the other movies I watched in theaters this year (which wasn't much). The music was amazing. I did not like some of the stylistic choices because they came out of nowhere and were without reasoning. Also, I think it's insulting that the film has TWO directors, and yet, only Danny Boyle was given the acclaim and the nominations. Chew on that.

[wmgaretjax]

GAHHHHHHHHHH OH MY FUCKING GOD
HOW IS IT THAT EVERY TIME I OPEN MY MOUTH HERE EVERYONE IS QUICK TO BOMBARD ME WITH ATTACKS AND INSULTS?

Because you can't hold a conversation without acting like you are backed into a corner. You make everything ridiculously personal and act like the world is out to get you.

Notice how you misrepresent my points and call me names but I still don't respond with a post in all caps? That's how normal, civilized people deal with disagreements.

edit: and I was under the impression that the 2nd director credit was simple a nod, kind of like Frank Miller with Sin City. I could be wrong though. It still seems weird that he's the only one mentioned in association with the film.

[kitt kat]

Ouch, that was a low blow. So when someone's upset, they're suddenly not "normal" or "civilized?" I guess human emotions are just a concept far off your radar. Maybe you can find a philosopher to teach you about them.

And, if I were you, I'd re-read your last post. You think I turn everything around onto myself? Yeah. Nice try, "Well, IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII didn't do this! IIIIIIIIIIIIIII am normal and civilized."

[slipmode]

Also, I think it's insulting that the film has TWO directors, and yet, only Danny Boyle was given the acclaim and the nominations. Chew on that.


This is the first I'm hearing this & I could be wrong, but could it be that the "co-director" was there in India simply to translate for Danny boyle? In that case I wouldn't think it is insulting.

[kitt kat]

No. She actually was a co-director. Danny Boyle himself has been quoted as saying Tandan was an integral part in creating and shaping the film:

http://www.womenarts.org/reviews/SlumdogMillionaire.htm#co_director

I just think she should be given credit where credit is due. It's not hard to change the Golden Globe list to say "Director, Danny Boyle, Co-Director, Loveleen Tandan."

[wmgaretjax]

Ouch, that was a low blow. So when someone's upset, they're suddenly not "normal" or "civilized?" I guess human emotions are just a concept far off your radar. Maybe you can find a philosopher to teach you about them.

And, if I were you, I'd re-read your last post. You think I turn everything around onto myself? Yeah. Nice try, "Well, IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII didn't do this! IIIIIIIIIIIIIII am normal and civilized."

I was offering a possible reason as to why people respond to you the way they do. It's the tantrums that seem to be the problem, not that you simply get upset. Take it as you will...

As far as the co-directing credits, if what you say is true, it is pretty fucked that she isn't getting any real acknowledgement.

[SoulDischarge]

It's called frozen pilgrim syndrome.

[real talk]

Very observant, Soul Discharge.

[RotationSlimWang]

I don't believe the award ceremonies recognize multiple directors, or at least the Oscars don't. And being a co-director is not the same thing as being a director, same way a co-star isn't really the star.

Kat, my problem with you is that you're utterly full of shit. Instead of just expressing a simple opinion about what you liked about the movie or didn't like you felt compelled to throw around a bunch of words you don't understand that make absolutely no sense in the context of your constructions. This all goes back to that problem you bugged me both in PMs and IM about numerous times where you don't understand how anyone could think you're not smart.

Stop being so concerned with looking intelligent, because in doing so you reveal your shortcomings. You confuse self-referential with postmodern (a term only douchebags use to begin with). There is absolutely nothing self-referential about Pulp, and I doubt there's much postmodern about Slumdog except that it might jump around in timeline a bit.

There's nothing more insulting to actually creative people than hearing failed experiments in overeducation like yourself try to vomit up an overly verbose deconstruction of art.

[Somewhat Damaged]

I don't believe the award ceremonies recognize multiple directors, or at least the Oscars don't. And being a co-director is not the same thing as being a director, same way a co-star isn't really the star.

Wrong on the first part. The Coens won Best Director for No Country for Old Men just this past year. The rule against co-directing credit stems from the DGA. Per Wikipedia (and I've read about it before on the DGA website, so it's not bullshit just because it's from Wiki):

"The rule that a film can only have one single director, adopted to avoid producers and actors lobbying for a director's credit, is strongly defended by the DGA and is only waived for recognized directorial teams (as determined by the DGA) such as the Wachowski Brothers, Hughes Brothers, Brothers Strause, and the Coen Brothers."

[wmgaretjax]

Coen's both got director credits... Everything I've looked at for Slumdog has Boyle as director and then her as co-director... If that makes a difference...

[Somewhat Damaged]

More on Oscars nominating 2 directors:

"In the past, Joel and Ethan Coen have had to split the producer and director credits due to guild rules that disallowed co-sharing of the director credit to prevent rights and ownership issues. The only exception to this rule is if the co-directors are an "established duo". Now that they are able to share the director credit (as an established duo), the Coen brothers have become only the third duo to be nominated for the Academy Award for Best Director. The first two pairs to achieve this were Robert Wise and Jerome Robbins (who won for West Side Story in 1961) and Warren Beatty and Buck Henry (who were nominated for Heaven Can Wait in 1978)."

I don't have time right now to read through the rest of the argument leading up to this discussion, just wanted to share this bit of trivia.

[PotVsKtl]

I've read a few reviews of Slumdog from people familiar with Bollywood movies that indicate that Boyle is getting a lot of credit for what is, essentially, a collection of Bollywood cliches Westernized and offered up for audiences that aren't willing to trudge through the 6000 movies they make a day.

[Bug's Sister]

I don't believe the award ceremonies recognize multiple directors, or at least the Oscars don't. And being a co-director is not the same thing as being a director, same way a co-star isn't really the star.

Kat, my problem with you is that you're utterly full of shit. Instead of just expressing a simple opinion about what you liked about the movie or didn't like you felt compelled to throw around a bunch of words you don't understand that make absolutely no sense in the context of your constructions. This all goes back to that problem you bugged me both in PMs and IM about numerous times where you don't understand how anyone could think you're not smart.

Stop being so concerned with looking intelligent, because in doing so you reveal your shortcomings. You confuse self-referential with postmodern (a term only douchebags use to begin with). There is absolutely nothing self-referential about Pulp, and I doubt there's much postmodern about Slumdog except that it might jump around in timeline a bit.

There's nothing more insulting to actually creative people than hearing failed experiments in overeducation like yourself try to vomit up an overly verbose deconstruction of art.

Man, you're sensitive. Just because she called your girlfriend ugly....look at how mean you get?! Ohhhhhhhhhh......

[kitt kat]

Ok. Weird. It double posted over an hour later. Ignore this.

[sbessiso]

It's kinda scary in here but....

What did you guys think of "Tropic Thunder"? I finally got around to watching it and I dunno. Maybe I my expectations were too high for it but I just didn't find it very funny. I felt like way too much attention was being put into making it look like an actual war movie (A+ for that). It had its moments, and RDJ is just fucking amazing, I cannot think of many actors that can do what he did in that movie. Everyone else is somewhat forgettable, especially Stiller.

What say you?

[slipmode]

I've read a few reviews of Slumdog from people familiar with Bollywood movies that indicate that Boyle is getting a lot of credit for what is, essentially, a collection of Bollywood cliches Westernized and offered up for audiences that aren't willing to trudge through the 6000 movies they make a day.

The same can be said of Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, but with Hong Kong cinema. Doesn't necessaily mean it's an entirely bad thing. If so though, I blame Loveleen Tandan.

I'll admit I have not seen a lot of Bollywood films, but have seen a few of Ram Gopal Varma's, which some of this film definately reminded me of.

To switch back to the subject of female directors, I really wish they would give Kathryn Bigelow's The Hurt Locker a U.S. release date already, being that it's been shown in other parts of the world & is up for some Spirit Awards. sure could use an English trailer....

yct-sm_vw04

[RotationSlimWang]

Man, you're sensitive. Just because she called your girlfriend ugly....look at how mean you get?! Ohhhhhhhhhh......

Let the record show that I was a vicious cunt to Kitt Kat long before I ever balled Ivy.

[amyzzz]

It's kinda scary in here but....

What did you guys think of "Tropic Thunder"? I finally got around to watching it and I dunno. Maybe I my expectations were too high for it but I just didn't find it very funny. I felt like way too much attention was being put into making it look like an actual war movie (A+ for that). It had its moments, and RDJ is just fucking amazing, I cannot think of many actors that can do what he did in that movie. Everyone else is somewhat forgettable, especially Stiller.

What say you?
I didn't like it.

[PotVsKtl]

The same can be said of Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, but with Hong Kong cinema. Doesn't necessaily mean it's an entirely bad thing.

That was exactly the reference point used in the review. Crouching Tiger is only as impressive if you've not seen other wuxia films.

[slipmode]

That was exactly the reference point used in the review. Crouching Tiger is only as impressive if you've not seen other wuxia films.

That's fair, but at the same time I can appreciate a film that opens people up to another world of cinema. Particularly if it is made well. Which I think Slumdog is.

[kitt kat]

such as the Wachowski Brothers, Hughes Brothers, Brothers Strause, and the Coen Brothers."

Game: What's wrong with this picture?

[wmgaretjax]

Game: What's wrong with this picture?

Boyle and Tandan aren't related?

[bmack86]

They should be listed as the Strauss Brothers?

[Bug's Sister]

Let the record show that I was a vicious cunt to Kitt Kat long before I ever balled Ivy.

Let the record show that you have a flat penis.

[Bug's Sister]

Let the record show that you have a flat penis.

Like a cut bike tube that just sits there in the wind flapping back and forth.

[iv3rdawG]

Baz Luhrmann (Australia) has officially acquired rights to "The Great Gatsby," says The Hollywood Reporter. Luhrmann sees the pre-Depression story as a wake-up call as the economy comes crashing down and another gilded age, as he sees it, comes to an end.

"If you wanted to show a mirror to people that says, 'You've been drunk on money,' they're not going to want to see it. But if you reflected that mirror on another time they'd be willing to."

He added, "People will need an explanation of where we are and where we've been, and 'The Great Gatsby' can provide that explanation."

He said that he wants to move quickly on the "Gatsby" project. "I'm going to move faster than I have before. I'd be surprised if it's another seven years," he said, referring to the period between Moulin Rouge! and Australia. The project also might not be with Fox.

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=51413

[MassiveChemicalPunk]

This has to be the most idiotic thing I have come across this month. For realz

According to THE SUN:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/bizarre/article2048300.ece

"FUNNYMAN EDDIE MURPHY will play The Riddler in the next Batman movie, The Sun can reveal.

The Beverly Hills Cop star, 47, has been signed up by British director CHRISTOPHER NOLAN to reprise the role played by JIM CARREY in 1995’s Batman Forever.

Execs have also signed up rising Transformers star SHIA LABEOUF, 22, to play Robin.

CHRISTIAN BALE will return as Bruce Wayne, while MICHAEL CAINE will again play Bruce’s assistant Alfred.

Meanwhile, Brit RACHEL WEISZ is said to be up for the Catwoman role. "

[Bug's Sister]

This has to be the most idiotic thing I have come across this month. For realz

According to THE SUN:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/bizarre/article2048300.ece

"FUNNYMAN EDDIE MURPHY will play The Riddler in the next Batman movie, The Sun can reveal.

The Beverly Hills Cop star, 47, has been signed up by British director CHRISTOPHER NOLAN to reprise the role played by JIM CARREY in 1995’s Batman Forever.

Execs have also signed up rising Transformers star SHIA LABEOUF, 22, to play Robin.

CHRISTIAN BALE will return as Bruce Wayne, while MICHAEL CAINE will again play Bruce’s assistant Alfred.

Meanwhile, Brit RACHEL WEISZ is said to be up for the Catwoman role. "

I didn't know the sun talked! lol.

Who's that in your picture? Kinda pretty.

[CalmerThanYou]

Kitt Katt hated Uffies set because she thought Uffie looked ugly, for the record.

I was there for about two songs...But then I saw she wasn't looking hot and that she had three more chins than I do. (?!?!!!) Thus, I left, saddened.

<-- just stoking the fire...

[bmack86]

This has to be the most idiotic thing I have come across this month. For realz

According to THE SUN:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/bizarre/article2048300.ece

"FUNNYMAN EDDIE MURPHY will play The Riddler in the next Batman movie, The Sun can reveal.

The Beverly Hills Cop star, 47, has been signed up by British director CHRISTOPHER NOLAN to reprise the role played by JIM CARREY in 1995’s Batman Forever.

Execs have also signed up rising Transformers star SHIA LABEOUF, 22, to play Robin.

CHRISTIAN BALE will return as Bruce Wayne, while MICHAEL CAINE will again play Bruce’s assistant Alfred.

Meanwhile, Brit RACHEL WEISZ is said to be up for the Catwoman role. "

Smokescreen is my guess.

[Bug's Sister]

Smokescreen is my guess.

Whats your pitcure about?

[kitt kat]

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=51413

OH GOD NO. PLEASE.

Kitt Katt hated Uffies set because she thought Uffie looked ugly, for the record.



<-- just stoking the fire...

Hey hey hey. Of course I wasn't there for the music.

[shakermaker113]

This has to be the most idiotic thing I have come across this month. For realz

According to THE SUN:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/bizarre/article2048300.ece

"FUNNYMAN EDDIE MURPHY will play The Riddler in the next Batman movie, The Sun can reveal.

that's even more retarded than the rumor that will smith will play captain america in an upcoming movie.

the sun. I'm surprised they haven't picked up on the story that palin shot a bigfoot.

[ivankay]

Will Smith as Captain America? Stupid. Eddie Murphy as the Riddler also has problems primarily because Mr. Murphy can not get beyond the fact he is too big a personality and not a skilled enough actor for the role. That was the same problem for Jim Carrey and one of the things that turned that Batman movie into a joke. He was playing Jim Carrey in a Riddler costume (same thing he did in the atrocious Grinch piece of shit). Guy Pierce would be a cool choice for the Riddler. If the role has to be filled by someone of a darker complexion to reflect some enlightened view on the film makers' parts, then please go for Don Cheadle.

[ghettojournalist]

too bad Don Cheadle has replaced Terence Howard as War Machine for the Iron Man sequels.

I know paper are trying to sell, but I think that everyone who cares knows that Warner Bros. is letting Nolan take his time with the project at the moment. It'd be interesting to know if these names are actually coming from the actor lists studios usually come up with for big-budget films like this.

[ivankay]

The Jim Rhodes role change for Iron Man gives me mixed feelings. i like the job Howard did in the first movie and thought his expanded role as War Machine would be cool. i'm sure Cheadle will do a good job, but "replacements" always have a little obstacle of acceptance to overcome with the audience.

[MeowMixer]

Terrence Howard was pretty good. And Cheadle is more of a dramatic actor in my mind, not really the action type. Whalever...

[Somewhat Damaged]

Terrence Howard apparently got replaced because he's a primadonna and wanted to be paid way more for the sequel than the producers felt he was worth. Hence, Don Cheadle.

EDIT: http://io9.com/5073602/was-howard-replaced-on-iron-man-2-for-more-than-just-money

[Cpt. Funkaho]

Will Smith as Captain America? Stupid. Eddie Murphy as the Riddler also has problems primarily because Mr. Murphy can not get beyond the fact he is too big a personality and not a skilled enough actor for the role. That was the same problem for Jim Carrey and one of the things that turned that Batman movie into a joke. He was playing Jim Carrey in a Riddler costume (same thing he did in the atrocious Grinch piece of shit). Guy Pierce would be a cool choice for the Riddler. If the role has to be filled by someone of a darker complexion to reflect some enlightened view on the film makers' parts, then please go for Don Cheadle.

Guy Pearce for the Riddler is the best thing I've heard in months. I would never have thought of it myself, but it's perfect.

[Boourns]

So last night I saw Let the Right One In. Wow.

[real talk]

Terrence Howard apparently got replaced because he's a primadonna and wanted to be paid way more for the sequel than the producers felt he was worth. Hence, Don Cheadle.

EDIT: http://io9.com/5073602/was-howard-replaced-on-iron-man-2-for-more-than-just-money

It really doesn't seem like Don Cheadle would take a role that paid less than Terrence Howard would take. If that makes sense. I mean to say that I believe the link contains the correct scenario. I didn't make it through Iron Man though, I got bored.

[Blinken]

I bet they decided to pay what Terrence Howard wanted but just not to him.

[shakermaker113]

Will Smith as Captain America? Stupid. Eddie Murphy as the Riddler also has problems primarily because Mr. Murphy can not get beyond the fact he is too big a personality and not a skilled enough actor for the role. That was the same problem for Jim Carrey and one of the things that turned that Batman movie into a joke. He was playing Jim Carrey in a Riddler costume (same thing he did in the atrocious Grinch piece of shit). Guy Pierce would be a cool choice for the Riddler. If the role has to be filled by someone of a darker complexion to reflect some enlightened view on the film makers' parts, then please go for Don Cheadle.

I actually liked jim carrey as the riddler. but I seem to be a minority in that respect. guy pierce would be AWESOME. I wonder if that's slightly more likely since nolan has worked with him in the past. let the rumor begin. someone whip up a poster.

I have yet to see iron man. damn you netflix queue.

[schoolofruckus]

Fucking quit it...

But seriously. Please don't just drop words like that without providing some insight. They aren't meaningful descriptors on their own. At all... They are meaningless without context. Along the same lines as calling a film "good" and leaving it at that.

Not to mention your use of the word "but" is confusing, like somehow post-modernism guarantees to detract from entertainment. It's not an "icky word," it's just misused way too often, and just dropped into a vacuum the rest of the time.

Also, I'd like to simply hear more about the film. I'm on the fence about paying to see it in the theater and would like to know a little more about the film. A lot of people have been praising it without giving a whole lot of insight into what they enjoyed about it. I'm probably just frustrated by that... So please... Tell me more?

I thought Slumdog Millionaire was excellent. It's a crowd-pleaser, and it's possibly too sentimental for your taste, but it's an energetic, exciting film that doesn't hesitate to get ugly before it gets pretty. I had a couple problems with the resolution that would require massive spoilers....but they didn't derail the film overall because it was overall very satisfying.

[real talk]

We're going to see it tonight.

[roberto73]

I thought Slumdog Millionaire was excellent. It's a crowd-pleaser, and it's possibly too sentimental for your taste, but it's an energetic, exciting film that doesn't hesitate to get ugly before it gets pretty. I had a couple problems with the resolution that would require massive spoilers....but they didn't derail the film overall because it was overall very satisfying.

I think its optimism works precisely because it does go so dark so quickly at the beginning. The first few sequences I found myself thinking, "This is not the movie I thought I was going to see." A movie has to earn its sentimentality, and I think Slumdog absolutely does just that.

[schoolofruckus]

Guy Pearce for the Riddler is the best thing I've heard in months. I would never have thought of it myself, but it's perfect.

Daniel Day-Lewis for The Riddler was my favorite rumor.

None of this shit is even remotely true.

[schoolofruckus]

I think its optimism works precisely because it does go so dark so quickly at the beginning. The first few sequences I found myself thinking, "This is not the movie I thought I was going to see." A movie has to earn its sentimentality, and I think Slumdog absolutely does just that.

It's not my favorite movie of the year, but it's good enough that I won't be pissed if it does clean house during awards season.

[wmgaretjax]

I think its optimism works precisely because it does go so dark so quickly at the beginning. The first few sequences I found myself thinking, "This is not the movie I thought I was going to see." A movie has to earn its sentimentality, and I think Slumdog absolutely does just that.

I couldn't make it last night, but I'd really like to go tonight.

[real talk]

You can come with us if you want. We're going to Van Ness AMC.

[wmgaretjax]

You can come with us if you want. We're going to Van Ness AMC.

If I hop in the car right now I might be able to make it... Although with the snow up here maybe not...

[chairmenmeow47]

Daniel Day-Lewis for The Riddler was my favorite rumor.

None of this shit is even remotely true.

that would be fucking awesome if it were.

[Bug's Sister]

that would be fucking awesome if it were.

TOATATATLLLLLYYYYYY.

[Gonshman]

Just got back from seeing a restored print of the Godfather at Valley Art here in Arizona.

What a great movie.

[chairmenmeow47]

Just got back from seeing a restored print of the Godfather at Valley Art here in Arizona.

What a great movie.

sweet, early christmas gift for my dad!

do you know if they intend on showing 2 as well at any point? i might actually get my mom out to tempe if they do, lol.

[Dr.Nipples]

was planning to see delgo but tickets for the showing i had planned are sold out

[indietron]

The rumor that Murphy is gonna be the riddler and Lebeouf as robin is ridiculous. Please please please no.

Daniel Day-Lewis is such a great idea. Wow that would be amazing

[coldstart]

Just watched Harakiri. I highly recommend this movie, very well done, awesome story. A true classic.

[wmgaretjax]

Saw Slumdog Millionaire. I enjoyed it a lot. For people that accuse it off essentially being Bollywood, I think that's a little bit true but mostly a load of crap. The film was clearly inspired by Bollywood and has moments of homage, but the reality is that it isn't stylistically like a Bollywood film at all. What it does draw most from Bollywood films is the story, and the sense of constant joy regardless of circumstance. But this is something that goes deeper than Bollywood and into the heart of Asian folklore, and I think the director(s) demonstrated a fairly clear understanding of that.

As far as the heavy stylistic elements go, I feel that they were probably my favorite part of the film. Anyone that's lived in a large Asian city knows that nothing feels aligned or symmetrical, and the camera language followed that to a tee. At times it got to be a little much, but for the most part I feel like it captured that energy and disorientation that comes along with living in those kinds of cities. The sound design was incredible. The music was good, but possibly a little much in places.

SPOILERISH

Man I fucking hated the montage at the end. I was totally fine with the optimism and sweetness until they had go and beat me over the head with how all the previous moments in the film lead up to that moment. Give the audience just a little bit of credit? That moment really bummed me out because I was totally with them until that point.

[RotationSlimWang]

How was the postmodernism? Non-discursive enough for you?

[wmgaretjax]

How was the postmodernism? Non-discursive enough for you?

It wasn't post-modern at all.

[schoolofruckus]

Slumdog Spoilers:

The thing I didn't like was that he won the 20 million. I know, I know.....I just feel like the movie would have been a little stronger if he'd gotten the last question wrong and all he had at the end of the whole ordeal was Latika.

[RotationSlimWang]

It wasn't post-modern at all.

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE AESTHETIC?!!!

[Boourns]

The rumor that Murphy is gonna be the riddler and Lebeouf as robin is ridiculous. Please please please no.

Daniel Day-Lewis is such a great idea. Wow that would be amazing

I remember way back in 1999 after the first Batman, some tabloid claimed to already know the details for the sequel: Joker lived because he had his lucky deck of cards, and Fred Savage was to play Robin. Seriously.

[wmgaretjax]

Slumdog Spoilers:

The thing I didn't like was that he won the 20 million. I know, I know.....I just feel like the movie would have been a little stronger if he'd gotten the last question wrong and all he had at the end of the whole ordeal was Latika.

SPOILERS

I think that could have gone either way for me. I probably would have liked it more that way, but wasn't particularly upset that it didn't. For me, him winning indicated the hope that existed for everyone else. It consummated everyone else's joy in a way. Winning clearly didn't mean anything to him, but it clearly meant something to everyone else.

[schoolofruckus]

I saw Gomorra last night. It was pretty good. It's a new Italian release that episodically covers five different facets of the Comorra - the "new breed" of crime family that has taken over Naples and turned it into, apparently, a festering shithole of materialistic aggression. That's the most accurate way I can conjure to describe what the film is up to, because there's almost zero attempt to unite these stories - which have been chosen here to represent the various levels (corporate, artistic, familial, old breed, next generation) of societal impact - in any tangible way beyond geography. It was a bit of a drag for the first hour, seemingly content to depict brutality, machismo, loud music, vanity, and corruption as ends unto themselves. But it's a huge credit to the film's storytelling power that it holds its cards and reveals unexpected depth - and, shockingly, story momentum - as it progresses. It's not a masterpiece-level crime saga along the lines of City of God, but I would recommend that foreign film fans who have run out of things to see give it a shot.

[schoolofruckus]

SPOILERS

I think that could have gone either way for me. I probably would have liked it more that way, but wasn't particularly upset that it didn't. For me, him winning indicated the hope that existed for everyone else. It consummated everyone else's joy in a way. Winning clearly didn't mean anything to him, but it clearly meant something to everyone else.

I agree that it didn't ultimately mean much in the way of derailing my enjoyment or emotional investment. It's just something that occurred to me about 10 minutes before the end as a potentially perfect touch.

[shakermaker113]

I remember way back in 1999 after the first Batman, some tabloid claimed to already know the details for the sequel: Joker lived because he had his lucky deck of cards, and Fred Savage was to play Robin. Seriously.

you mean 1989, right? I would love to find an archived copy of that article somewhere. that's hilarious.

[RotationSlimWang]

Robin isn't non-discursive enough for my tastes, I dunno about you guys.

[shakermaker113]

Robin isn't non-discursive enough for my tastes, I dunno about you guys.

yeah he's a bit pre-modern.

[whynotsmile99]

i loved Slumdog Millionaire. What a fantastic film. Danny Boyle is easily one of my favorite directors and he really knocked it out of the park with this one.had the kinetic energy of "City of God" "Millions" and "Trainspotting" Superb sound, music and cinematography along with everything else. Very rewarding film, I was rooting for him the whole time.

Not much else to say except that I loved the shit out of it.

and Frida Pinto .... stunning

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0gsd4KF4Cr3Zt/340x.jpg

[schoolofruckus]

Synecdoche, New York is my new favorite film of the year. I'm hesitant to discuss it on one viewing, and I have a feeling I've missed a LOT of discussion on here from when it came out two months ago. But holy SHIT, was it great.

Wendy and Lucy is also going on my best of the year list. It's a minimalist drama about a young woman (Michelle Williams) whose car breaks down in a small Oregon town, and then her dog runs off. This is a beautiful film about desperation on the most basic, fundamentally human level, nearly perfect at every turn of the story.

[roberto73]

I finally saw Let the Right One In today. I found that the non-discursive nature of the film's narrative dovetailed nicely with its traditional visual aesthetic, where the director clearly eschewed the choice to be non-self-referential and instead adopted a decidedly non-postmodern take on the vampire tale. Indeed, one might even call it positively anti-Lyotardian in the way director Tomas Alfredson appears to abhor the adoption of any trace of a sublime grand narrative, instead focusing on the micro-narrative between the two pre-adolescents placed at the film's locus. Most interestingly, Alfredson's narrative technique seems to reinforce the Deleuzean notion of transcendental empiricism (while at the same time inverting both Kant and Schelling), where the anachronistic nature of the film's narrative structure forces the viewer to take into account the dichotomous relationship between his expectation and the film's reality, and in the process invent a new epistemology by which he can evaluate future cinematic works. THIS MOVIE WAS RADTASTIC!! LOL!

Okay, actually I loved it (except for some poorly animated feral cats). I always write much more intelligently about movies I hate, so I'll just say that it's one of the most unconventional vampire movies I've ever seen. In fact, you could probably make a convincing argument that it's got more in common with teenage romances than it does with other vampire flicks. It manages to successfully tread the line between the two genres so that I genuinely felt for the two characters, yet still found myself with an anxious knot in my stomach at all the right spots. One of the best foreign films of the year.

[wmgaretjax]

hahahahaha. I saw Let the Right One In as well. I enjoyed it a lot. It was definitely a teen romance film, but in the best possible way.

Gabe, yay at #1 and I really want to see #2. I think it comes here soon.

[miscorrections]

Thoughts on things I've recently seen:

Milk: thumbs up.

Inland Empire: thumbs down.

Slumdog Millionaire: thumbs up.

Dark Days: thumbs up.

[kitt kat]

I want to see Wendy and Lucy, but I've heard pretty terrible things about it. It seems up my alley, though...

And I FINALLY saw Wall-E. (Yeah, I know. I'm late.) I could have done without the fat people in hover chairs political message whatever...I basically wanted the whole movie to be robots in love/robots in love in space/robots in love in a garbage-filled world.

[faxman75]

I watched Milk and The Visitor. I liked them both. Performance wise Penn was a standout in Milk, he was really all in on this performance. I didn't know the story but it was damn compelling and Harvey was important and effective to the cause. Sean Penn was pretty damn great. Gonna be tough to top that performance.

The Visitor was interesting. Middle aged guy decides to start living. It told a nice story with a crappy ending but it was inevitable. If you love diversity like I do you will like The Visitor.

Next up...Frost/Nixon.

[kitt kat]

I have the Visitor here from Netflix, but I'm not sure my mom will dig it.

[RotationSlimWang]

What phase of modernity is it that she'll find distasteful about it?

[RotationSlimWang]

I hate pre-modern film most of all, incidentally. Like, movies from the 1800s really suck. I swear it's practically like they're not even moving pictures. So discursive.

[kitt kat]

Nice try. Except I don't use the word "incidentally."

[Neutral Milk Hotel]

I want to see Wendy and Lucy, but I've heard pretty terrible things about it. It seems up my alley, though...

*shrug* It's been getting really good reviews. I myself saw it at AFI Fest, and thought it was incredible. If it wasn't 1:12 AM I'd get into it more, but definitely see it if you have the chance.

[ivankay]

i can only add to the like of Slumdog Millionaire. Great destiny story. i glance over reviews before seeing a movie to avoid spoilers as much as possible. For some reason i was expecting a very "sunny" movie. i appreciated the darker elements that gave more romance to the protagonist's determination and hope. i look forward to seeing it again at some point. i like how consistent Boyle is as a filmmaker. Nice to see he is getting kudos all around.

[Dr.Nipples]

for those who have seen milk...are there twinkies*? please tell me there are twinkies*!






*the snack cake, im sure twinkie is some sort of gay slang

[Neutral Milk Hotel]

Nope.

[Dr.Nipples]

what the fuck!

[schoolofruckus]

I want to see Wendy and Lucy, but I've heard pretty terrible things about it. It seems up my alley, though...


It's not. It was directed by a woman and it's better than you, so you subconsciously (or not) hate it.

[RotationSlimWang]

Nice try. Except I don't use the word "incidentally."

Do you not use it because it's a word you might actually use correctly?

Actually, nevermind. You wouldn't.

[bmack86]

1800s pictures are the bestest. All the cool kids are watching them.

[RotationSlimWang]

THEY'RE 1800sTASTIC!

[chairmenmeow47]

so i watched death becomes her on tv yesterday, and had to look up the scoring. this guy (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0006293/) has done a lot of stuff i like apparently. i freaking love the score for back to the future too. i just think it's weird it took that movie to finally look him up.

[sbessiso]

YOU BLEW

A HOLE

IN MY STOMACH!!!!

[whynotsmile99]

death becomes her is a true classic. I loved that movie as a kid

[sbessiso]

death becomes her is a true classic. I loved that movie as a kid

Dude, seriously! I wish Robert Zemeckis would take a little break from this stop-motion binge he's been on and make another one of these sort of movies

[schoolofruckus]

I wish he would make something as good as Contact again.

[sbessiso]

I really enjoyed Cast-Away too, and I saw What Lies Beneath in the theater and it freaked me out (I was only 11 :)). Damn, can't forget Roger Rabbit either. I fucking love this guy

[ivankay]

I wish he would make something as good as Contact again.

ew. You is making fun i suspect.

[wmgaretjax]

Inland Empire: thumbs down.


ohhhh, don't do that... It's so much fun!

[SoulDischarge]

Do the locomotion.

[schoolofruckus]

ew. You is making fun i suspect.

Negative. Contact is one of my favorite movies.

[ivankay]

Negative. Contact is one of my favorite movies.

You make me wonder. So the next time i have a chance, a second viewing i will endure to see if my initial thoughts and feelings are incorrect. i was let down by the payoff, didn't buy into McConaughey and it played a little long.

[RedThom]

I dont know if anyone has posted on this but apparently Universal Home Video has had a terrible realization and they wanted to share it with the world.

http://www.dvdactive.com/news/releases/howard-the-duck2.html

[rage patton]

I saw Yes Man tonight. I quite enjoyed it. That is all.

[stuporfly]

I watched Milk and The Visitor. I liked them both. Performance wise Penn was a standout in Milk, he was really all in on this performance. I didn't know the story but it was damn compelling and Harvey was important and effective to the cause. Sean Penn was pretty damn great. Gonna be tough to top that performance.


I saw Milk yesterday, and was quite impressed. Penn deserves all the accolades, but the entire ensemble is wonderful. I think this is Gus Van Sant's finest work, and once I sit down and look at all the films I've seen in 2008, this may wind up my favorite of the year.

[indietron]

I'm seeing Slumdog Millionare tomorrow (today). I'm really excited, and its for me and my gf's one year anniversary too =)

[ghettojournalist]

I dont know if anyone has posted on this but apparently Universal Home Video has had a terrible realization and they wanted to share it with the world.

http://www.dvdactive.com/news/releases/howard-the-duck2.html

Holy balls, that is awesome. The worst comic film of all-time.

[RedThom]

I'm seeing Slumdog Millionare tomorrow (today). I'm really excited, and its for me and my gf's one year anniversary too =)

this is really high on my "too see" list. but Let the Right One In might take precedent due to the how long its been out.

Also I saw The Wrestler this week and Gran Torino.

I highly recommend The Wrestler

[thatfinkleygirl]

slumdog millionaire is AMAZING. movie of the year for me, hands down.

[RedThom]

slumdog millionaire is AMAZING. movie of the year for me, hands down.

as it stands? its still The Dark Knight for me.

but thats the general consensus

[roberto73]

as it stands? its still The Dark Knight for me.

but thats the general consensus

Define "general consensus." According to Metacritic, The Dark Knight is the 12th best-reviewed movie of the year. On Rotten Tomatoes, it's the 19th. The general consensus actually seems to be that it's not the best movie of the year.

[RedThom]

Define "general consensus." According to Metacritic, The Dark Knight is the 12th best-reviewed movie of the year. On Rotten Tomatoes, it's the 19th. The general consensus actually seems to be that it's not the best movie of the year.

I actually meant that the general buzz was for "Slumdog Millionaire"

so... yeah

[roberto73]

A-ha. Gotcha. Apologies.

[RedThom]

no worries. if anything I'm bummed that I haven't seen slumdog

Danny Boyle hasn't let me down once. (the beach DOES NOT count)

[Gonshman]

I just got back from Slumdog Millionaire. What an aesthetic!

But in all seriousness, it was great. The part I liked the most was how the music and editing and general frantic atmosphere created a sense of authenticity. I felt like I was in India the entire time, never watching false emotions or actions.

Right now, in terms of Academy Award possibilities, the films I've seen rank

1. Milk
2. Slumdog Millionaire
3. Wall-E
4. Doubt
5. The Wrestler
6. Dark Knight

I still need to see Gran Torino, Synecdoche, Rachel Getting Married, Happy Go Lucky, and I've Loved You So Long, and then I think I'll have a handle on all the Oscar probables. Any others to add to the list?

[psychoc&ndy]

just got back from slumdog and I must say it is my favorite movie of the year by far. i recommend this movie for everyone. danny boyle is a god!

[PotVsKtl]

Shrooms. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0492486/) Pretty good modern slasher, somewhere between the Chain Saw remake and the Descent. That's a broad range but your mother.

[wmgaretjax]

that sounds worth a watch....

[Dr.Nipples]

Shrooms. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0492486/) Pretty good modern slasher, somewhere between the Chain Saw remake and the Descent. That's a broad range but your mother.

that movie was fucking awful

[wmgaretjax]

or not...

[coldstart]

You can watch it instanly on NetFlix.

[SoulDischarge]

The trailer looked fucking awful.

[wmgaretjax]

Speaking of horror movies I watched From Beyond the other day and loved it. It got a little over the top towards the end, but what Lovecraft story is complete without that?

[SoulDischarge]

Greatest horror movie of all time: Frankenhooker.

[wmgaretjax]

My vote is for Sleepaway Camp.

[SoulDischarge]

Your just what I've been looking fooooooooooooor. No other boy could love you moooooooore.

[RedThom]

Greatest horror movie of all time: Frankenhooker.

"you wanna date!?"

[indietron]

Alright so we ended up not being able to see Slumdog last night, which was a bummer. So, we saw Seven Pounds instead. I absolutely loved it. Ive heard that it got some crap for being over-dramatic or whatnot, but I thought it was just magnificent. I couldn't hold back the tears. An excellent date movie IMO.

[roberto73]

Shrooms. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0492486/) Pretty good modern slasher, somewhere between the Chain Saw remake and the Descent. That's a broad range but your mother.

Here's a message board post on IMDB about this movie:

"This movie disregards all of the beauty, love and art that mushrooms have given birth to. This is a shame and a disgrace to film making and it's relevance as an artform.

Honestly if you have done shrooms you understand how beautiful the world can be. You understand the value of life. I don't understand how this production staff could have done this...associating murder and violence with shrooms...that is so far from what you feel....and tying the two together makes me think that this piece of s--t film was back by the f--king DEA to further spread propaganda about shrooms and pot."

I don't know. Historically, I think the DEA has been responsible for some pretty kick-ass movies.

[humanoid]

I personally feel that the experience on mushrooms can be incredibly beautiful or terribly evil and horrifying

[amyzzz]

Yeah...shrooms could go either way.

I saw Twilight last night--it was entertaining for what it was. Really great soundtrack and hot actors.

[Backwater]

Shrooms was seriously one of the worst movies I've ever seen in my life.

[Tylerdurden31]

anyone seen this trailer yet?

http://www.apple.com/trailers/focus_features/9/

looks pretty awesome if you ask me.

Also, I'm currently watching Brick. Modern day Film Noir? I'm enjoying it so far.

[SoulDischarge]

Also, I'm currently watching Brick. Modern day Film Noir? I'm enjoying it so far.

I just watched that the other week. It's not bad or anything, but I just felt like it was kind of pointless after the novelty of the concept wore off. I've seen the plot a million times before, and it doesn't really have that atmosphere that makes film noir enjoyable.

[coldstart]

Agreed.

[sbessiso]

Plus everyone hardcore whispers/mumbles in that movie! Captions are your friend

[coldstart]

It's the best scene in the whole movie if you ask me.

(got the right thread this time)

jhfq7DAnoh4

[sbessiso]

Meg is just awful in the scene though

[Tylerdurden31]

and i'll be annoying and ask again

http://www.apple.com/trailers/focus_features/9/

It's a new animated Tim Burton movie. Looks really good.

[bmack86]

I'll add to the Slumdog love. I saw it two nights ago and thought it was brilliant. Well acted, well shot, great atmosphere, just an all around fantastic movie-going experience.

[ghettojournalist]

I don't know about the "9" trailer. I want to give it credit because of Burton and Timur, but I don't want to throw my full support behind it yet. And what's with the Hot Topic baiting by having a Coheed and Cambria track in the trailer?

[Gonshman]

Watch the full 9 original short. It's brilliant. I watched it about 4 years ago at UCLA, forgot the name, and then was reminded of it by someone on this board. I'm very excited to see the full length (and you will be too after watching the short). It's on Youtube, get to it.

[amyzzz]

ohhh, that was that movie you were talking about before, Gonsh.

I saw a trailer for this movie Coraline when I watched Bolt a month or so ago, and I really want to see it (since we're talking about animated stuff).
http://heartofadream.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/coraline-comiccon.jpg

Oh, and it's not "in theatres 2008." I think it will be released in Feb 09.

[iv3rdawG]

http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/8939/ggdc4.jpg

[Gonshman]

ohhh, that was that movie you were talking about before, Gonsh.

I saw a trailer for this movie Coraline when I watched Bolt a month or so ago, and I really want to see it (since we're talking about animated stuff).
http://heartofadream.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/coraline-comiccon.jpg

Oh, and it's not "in theatres 2008." I think it will be released in Feb 09.

This one also looks quite good. I like the alternate universe concept, and so much can be done with that in animation

[canexplain]

I watched Crank on a movie channel last night ... yikes was that flick out there .... cr****

[patsfan5454]

Amy Smart is very hot in that movie! ^

[amyzzz]

My kids and I watched Pee Wee Herman's Big Adventure last night. They loved it, especially the chase scenes.

Also, Jacob was watching Death Becomes Her (which he loves), and Ivy's right--the score for that is great. Actually the score for that movie and for Pee Wee are startingly similar in theme: overdramatic "scary" orchestral music that totally adds to the hilarity of the story.

[Gonshman]

My kids and I watched Pee Wee Herman's Big Adventure last night. They loved it, especially the chase scenes.

Also, Jacob was watching Death Becomes Her (which he loves), and Ivy's right--the score for that is great. Actually the score for that movie and for Pee Wee are startingly similar in theme: overdramatic "scary" orchestral music that totally adds to the hilarity of the story.

I love that beginning scene in Pee-Wee where he cooks this huge elaborate breakfast, then just pours a box of cereal over everything.

[amyzzz]

...and then he eats only a few pieces of Mr T cereal and doesn't even touch the pancakes, eggs, or bacon.

[ghettojournalist]

ohhh, that was that movie you were talking about before, Gonsh.

I saw a trailer for this movie Coraline when I watched Bolt a month or so ago, and I really want to see it (since we're talking about animated stuff).
http://heartofadream.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/coraline-comiccon.jpg

Oh, and it's not "in theatres 2008." I think it will be released in Feb 09.

yeah, Feb. 6
I like Neil Gaiman.
definitely interested.

[iv3rdawG]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/25/business/media/25fox.html?_r=1

LOS ANGELES — In a surprise ruling, a federal judge in Los Angeles said he intended to grant 20th Century Fox’s claim that it owns a copyright interest in the “Watchmen,” a movie shot by Warner Brothers and Legendary Pictures and set for release in March.

The decision was disclosed in a five-page written order issued on Wednesday. Gary A. Feess, a judge in the United States District Court for Central California, said he would provide a more detailed order soon.

Fox has been seeking to prevent Warner from releasing the film. The superhero adventure, based on the “Watchmen” graphic novel, is being directed by Zack Snyder (who also directed “300”) and has shaped up as one of most eagerly anticipated releases for next year.

A Warner spokesman, Scott Rowe, declined to comment on the ruling and the studio’s plans.

At an earlier hearing, the judge said he believed that issues in the case could be settled only at a trial, which was scheduled for late January. On Wednesday, however, Judge Feess said he had reconsidered and concluded that Fox should prevail on crucial issues.

“Fox owns a copyright interest consisting of, at the very least, the right to distribute the ‘Watchmen’ motion picture,” the ruling said.

Fox acquired rights to the “Watchmen” graphic novel in the late 1980s for the producer Lawrence Gordon, but eventually dropped its own plan to make a movie from its story, about the underside of life for superbeings.

Mr. Gordon later pursued the project with Universal Pictures, and then with Paramount Pictures, before shooting it with Warner and Legendary under an arrangement that allows Paramount to distribute the film abroad.

In ruling on Wednesday, Judge Feess advised both Fox and Warner to look toward a settlement or an appeal.

“The parties may wish to turn their efforts from preparing for trial to negotiating a resolution of this dispute or positioning the case for review,” he said.

[Neutral Milk Hotel]

Oh boy.

[shakermaker113]

I love that beginning scene in Pee-Wee where he cooks this huge elaborate breakfast, then just pours a box of cereal over everything.

...and then he eats only a few pieces of Mr T cereal and doesn't even touch the pancakes, eggs, or bacon.

dinosaurs!

[indietron]

Seeing Benjamin Button tommorow afternoon. Im super excited.

While im at it, I just want to say that I LOVE The Polar Express. Hands down my favorite Christmas movie. Its just... magical.

[faxman75]

I have Slumdog and Frost Nixon ready to watch and an HBO doc called Baghdad High.

[paulb]

anyone see The Spirit yet?

[Gonshman]

I have Slumdog and Frost Nixon ready to watch and an HBO doc called Baghdad High.

Hope you didn't download Slumdog and Frost/Nixon. Not because I'm against downloading, because I download music all the time. But there are definitely some movies that have to be seen in a big screen atmosphere to fully appreciate, and I think Slumdog is one of those movies. On the other hand, Frost/Nixon isn't necessarily a movie that has to be viewed on the big screen but is so good I feel like the filmmakers deserve the nine dollars I'm shelling out, unlike Yes Man or Seven Pounds.

Bottom line is, movies aren't made with the intention that viewers watch them on a small computer screen (or a three inch iPod screen for that matter).

Enjoy the movies anyway, I watched Frost/Nixon today. I'm not old enough to appreciate how well rank Langella disappears into the role of Nixon, but it's damn fun to watch nonetheless. Right now my predictions for Best Actor are: Sean Penn, Mickey Rourke, Frank Langella, Leo Dicaprio, and Philip Seymour Hoffman (with Eastwood and Dev Patel as longshots).

[indietron]

Benjamin Button was a beautiful movie. It was expecting a bit more from it, and I think the ending couldve been better, but it was still great.

[wmgaretjax]

Benjamin Button was like a prettier Forrest Gump. It was gorgeous but lacked any real substance... Either Fincher needs to experiment a little more, or it needed to be a little more focused (like most of his movies are)... Instead it was kind of meandering. I enjoyed it, but it's nothing special...

[chairmenmeow47]

My kids and I watched Pee Wee Herman's Big Adventure last night. They loved it, especially the chase scenes.

Also, Jacob was watching Death Becomes Her (which he loves), and Ivy's right--the score for that is great. Actually the score for that movie and for Pee Wee are startingly similar in theme: overdramatic "scary" orchestral music that totally adds to the hilarity of the story.

yes, both have great scores :)

one of my favourites from pee-wee's big adventure...

simone: do you have any dreams pee-wee?
pee-wee: yeah i'm all alone rolling this giant donut, and this snake in a vest...

i saw doubt yesterday with the family. i loved it. meryl streep could read the phone book and i'd probably be fascinated though.

*possible spoilers, i'm trying not to though*

what i loved most about the movie was all these people of faith demanding proof of sister aloysius' claims. also, i have known someone for about 15 years that we all suspect is a pedophile. of course none of us have actually seen anything blatant, it's all a series of various, small, inappropriate moments. i loved that this movie presented the story line to us in that manner as well. it wasn't a cut-and-dry case, which made it more realistic to me. i couldn't imagine being in a position of power and having to fight against something like that i had never actually seen.

i think the whole story line made my dad really uncomfortable though.

[Donaldj]

I saw The Wrestler yesterday with my parents. I am a pretty big Darren Aronofsky fan in general so I had high hopes going in. It was definitely his most straight forward film so far and that was not a bad thing. I was pretty impressed with both Mickey Rourke and Marisa Tomei. It was obvious that both of the leads put a lot of energy into working out for their roles. I thought Marisa Tomei was hot as hell. The movie is definitely a downer though.

I still like The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button the best so far from the holiday movie season.

[allyjoy]

i saw doubt yesterday with the family. i loved it. meryl streep could read the phone book and i'd probably be fascinated though.
i think the whole story line made my dad really uncomfortable though.

My mom wants to see that movie. I had to veto it yesterday on the grounds that I have no desire to be depressed on Christmas. We ended up not seeing a movie at all.

[amyzzz]

slumdog millionaire is AMAZING. movie of the year for me, hands down.
That one and In Bruges are my favorites so far.

[Somewhat Damaged]

i saw doubt yesterday with the family. i loved it. meryl streep could read the phone book and i'd probably be fascinated though.

*possible spoilers, i'm trying not to though*

what i loved most about the movie was all these people of faith demanding proof of sister aloysius' claims. also, i have known someone for about 15 years that we all suspect is a pedophile. of course none of us have actually seen anything blatant, it's all a series of various, small, inappropriate moments. i loved that this movie presented the story line to us in that manner as well. it wasn't a cut-and-dry case, which made it more realistic to me. i couldn't imagine being in a position of power and having to fight against something like that i had never actually seen.

i think the whole story line made my dad really uncomfortable though.

SPOILER-heavy discussion

Ivy, so do you think Father Flynn was guilty of pedophilia? Jennifer and I were pretty convinced of it. I thought what was especially indicative of that was the focus on his long fingernails, which I took to resemble predatory claws. (Among other things, like the panic-stricken look on his face when the subject was first broached, but this detail struck me in particular.)
I thought it was novel on John Patrick Shanley's behalf to have the identity of the protagonist and antagonist shrouded in such ambiguity over the course of the entire film. Sister Aloysius is presented as the villain, particularly in the trailers/TV spots, but if her conviction about his guilt is correct, then she's actually the protagonist. Operating under this interpretation, I took her final line -- "I have such doubts" -- to be in reference to her faith in the Catholic church. If a child molestor like Father Flynn can continue making his way up the ranks, what does that say about justice in the Church?
But then I read a review by David Poland that asserted that Father Flynn was simply gay, that Sister Aloysius was indeed the villain for persecuting him so, and that her final line was indicative of the victory Father Flynn achieved: though he may have been essentially run out of the parish, Sister Aloysius's heart was opened to the possibility that she may have been wrong. I haven't really sought out too many other reviews to see which opinion is the prevailing one, but I'm curious about your interpretation.

[chairmenmeow47]

SPOILER-heavy discussion

Ivy, so do you think Father Flynn was guilty of pedophilia? Jennifer and I were pretty convinced of it. I thought what was especially indicative of that was the focus on his long fingernails, which I took to resemble predatory claws.
I thought it was novel on John Patrick Shanley's behalf to have the identity of the protagonist and antagonist shrouded in such ambiguity over the course of the entire film. Sister Aloysius is presented as the villain, particularly in the trailers/TV spots, but if her conviction about his guilt is correct, then she's actually the protagonist. Operating under this interpretation, I took her final line -- "I have such doubts" -- to be in reference to her faith in the Catholic church. If a child molestor like Father Flynn can continue making his way up the ranks, what does that say about justice in the Church?
But then I read a review by David Poland that asserted that Father Flynn was simply gay, that Sister Aloysius was indeed the villain for persecuting him so, and that her final line was indicative of the victory Father Flynn achieved: though he may have been essentially run out of the parish, Sister Aloysius's heart was opened to the possibility that she may have been wrong. I haven't really sought out to many other reviews to see which opinion is the prevailing one, but I'm curious about your interpretation.

that's a very interesting interpretation. my feelings on pedophilia is that overt sexual activity is not the only inappropriate behavior. there is other inappropriate behavior that is not quite as bad as sexual activity, but is still a problem.

i personally believe that the father was engaged in inappropriate behavior. i just choose not to define what happened specifically. like i said, i know someone who i would believe is a pedophile. i've known him since i was a child and he's 3 years older than me. when i was like 11 or 12 and he was 14 or 15, he was always asking girls and boys younger than i was to sit on his lap and things like that. he was also in a teaching position at our theatre and it was inappropriate for him to do that. along with countless "alone time" with children younger than i was. he was also fired from this theatre when he closed down the box office one night and the next morning there was tons of kiddie porn found on the printer. and he's a happy hardcore dj and as he got older started taking 11 year old girls to parties with him saying they were people's sisters and the sisters knew the child was there, as though that made it alright. my point is that the behavior was inappropriate, regardless of whether or not actual sexual activity occured. it doesn't mean it's defined as pedophilia, but it's still inappropriate.

and that's how i felt about the father in this movie. i felt the father was engaged in some shady behavior with the child, and i feel his reactions to her questioning and the general way he acted are what tipped me towards believing this. it may have just been that he was gay. maybe he had no sexual interest in the child. he very well may have just been a mentor, but he was defensive and felt guilt for something regarding the child. he also felt he needed to hide his relationship with the child. and like the sister said, he was more concerned with being a friend than an authority, which is why i think it was appropriate for him to leave the church. this is a church that at that time would NOT have been ok with him being gay and influencing members of their congregation. this is also a religion that is really concerned with the "chain of command" and respecting authority. i think that's wrong, but a club has the right to say who's a member and who's not, so it was inappropriate that this man was working with these kids in this environment, bottom line.

had he gone to jail over this, i would have been disappointed as there was no proof. but this wasn't a jail, this was a church. and since when have churches ever cared for actual proof? it's about belief and her belief and sister james' intial suspicions that something was going on were enough to where they shouldn't have been working together. i know that if i had a kid, i would not want them around a man after seeing the things the sister's saw. i am a bit more paranoid than most people, but i also don't believe pedophilia starts with sexual activity, it starts with inappropriate relationships.

i also took her "doubt" to be a doubt of faith as well, but more importantly that this doubt finally made her human. she finally was able to relate to sister james as a, well, sister instead of a "mentor" or whatever. she was finally human.

good topic though, it is all about the interpretation :)

[thatfinkleygirl]

That one and In Bruges are my favorites so far.


i really regret not having seen in bruges; my friends are constantly raving about it and telling me i have to watch it. ima netflix that shit right now.

i saw benjamin button yesterday with my family and some friends. it was visually stunning and i enjoyed watching it, but i was a bit disappointed. i guess i expected something with a bit more substance from david fincher, or at least something more exciting.

[amyzzz]

In Bruges was astonishingly good.

[faxman75]

Hope you didn't download Slumdog and Frost/Nixon. Not because I'm against downloading, because I download music all the time. But there are definitely some movies that have to be seen in a big screen atmosphere to fully appreciate, and I think Slumdog is one of those movies. On the other hand, Frost/Nixon isn't necessarily a movie that has to be viewed on the big screen but is so good I feel like the filmmakers deserve the nine dollars I'm shelling out, unlike Yes Man or Seven Pounds.

Bottom line is, movies aren't made with the intention that viewers watch them on a small computer screen (or a three inch iPod screen for that matter).


The size of the screen isn't always the issue though. I could be watching on a 19" LCD monitor and be a foot away and have a pretty good perspective. It's not the movie theater but then again the Cine Capris which is the largest screen in AZ can be too big and annoying in certain seats so distance plays a role in optimal viewing as well. They are downloaded and I will be watching on my computer screen unfortunately.


Enjoy the movies anyway, I watched Frost/Nixon today. I'm not old enough to appreciate how well rank Langella disappears into the role of Nixon, but it's damn fun to watch nonetheless. Right now my predictions for Best Actor are: Sean Penn, Mickey Rourke, Frank Langella, Leo Dicaprio, and Philip Seymour Hoffman (with Eastwood and Dev Patel as longshots).

What's Leo in? I thought he did fine a few years ago in blood diamond but didn't deserve the praise he got as his accent was pretty terrible. I will see The Wrestler on the big screen though.

That Eastwood movie looks good but it made me chuckle...the preview made it look like they created a whole move with the "stay off my lawn" premise. heh.

[iv3rdawG]

Leo's in Revolutionary Road. I finally got around to seeing Happy-Go-Lucky. Sally Hawkins was fantastic in it.

[Gonshman]

that's a very interesting interpretation. my feelings on pedophilia is that overt sexual activity is not the only inappropriate behavior. there is other inappropriate behavior that is not quite as bad as sexual activity, but is still a problem.

i personally believe that the father was engaged in inappropriate behavior. i just choose not to define what happened specifically. like i said, i know someone who i would believe is a pedophile. i've known him since i was a child and he's 3 years older than me. when i was like 11 or 12 and he was 14 or 15, he was always asking girls and boys younger than i was to sit on his lap and things like that. he was also in a teaching position at our theatre and it was inappropriate for him to do that. along with countless "alone time" with children younger than i was. he was also fired from this theatre when he closed down the box office one night and the next morning there was tons of kiddie porn found on the printer. and he's a happy hardcore dj and as he got older started taking 11 year old girls to parties with him saying they were people's sisters and the sisters knew the child was there, as though that made it alright. my point is that the behavior was inappropriate, regardless of whether or not actual sexual activity occured. it doesn't mean it's defined as pedophilia, but it's still inappropriate.

and that's how i felt about the father in this movie. i felt the father was engaged in some shady behavior with the child, and i feel his reactions to her questioning and the general way he acted are what tipped me towards believing this. it may have just been that he was gay. maybe he had no sexual interest in the child. he very well may have just been a mentor, but he was defensive and felt guilt for something regarding the child. he also felt he needed to hide his relationship with the child. and like the sister said, he was more concerned with being a friend than an authority, which is why i think it was appropriate for him to leave the church. this is a church that at that time would NOT have been ok with him being gay and influencing members of their congregation. this is also a religion that is really concerned with the "chain of command" and respecting authority. i think that's wrong, but a club has the right to say who's a member and who's not, so it was inappropriate that this man was working with these kids in this environment, bottom line.

had he gone to jail over this, i would have been disappointed as there was no proof. but this wasn't a jail, this was a church. and since when have churches ever cared for actual proof? it's about belief and her belief and sister james' intial suspicions that something was going on were enough to where they shouldn't have been working together. i know that if i had a kid, i would not want them around a man after seeing the things the sister's saw. i am a bit more paranoid than most people, but i also don't believe pedophilia starts with sexual activity, it starts with inappropriate relationships.

i also took her "doubt" to be a doubt of faith as well, but more importantly that this doubt finally made her human. she finally was able to relate to sister james as a, well, sister instead of a "mentor" or whatever. she was finally human.

good topic though, it is all about the interpretation :)

I wrote this a few pages back, but I'll recap some of my opinions

SPOILERS


When I saw the play I thought he was guilty. When I saw the movie I thought he was innocent. The main reason is the scene where he asks to see William Londons nails, and the boy pulls away. Sister Aloysius later cites that incident as the reason she suspects the priest of wrongdoing (even though she didn't see the context of the situation while watching from her office window. In addition, the scene where he hugs Donald Muller after William London knocks his books out was powerful as well. I got the sense that here was a man so committed to his position as comforter/protector to the boy he does not care how the situation would be perceived. A guilty man, in my opinion, would have surely seen the occurrence, weighed the risks of comforting the boy, and decided to just walk past rather than risk more suspicion.

I also think they played up the homosexuality as a main theme of the movie, whereas in the play it was only a peripheral issue about the boy. In the movie, there was Father Flynns comments about how if none of the girls say yes to dance with you, then you become a priest. In addition, the boy who had asked if it's okay to say no to the girl was later the one who was standing up for Donald. Interestingly enough, he was also the same boy watching Father Flynn and Donald after the opening service when we first see Flynns interactions with Donald. I interpreted that scene and the continual importance of that other boy to intimate a prior relationship with him and the priest, before Muller. But then again, you have to ask yourself, was that prior relationship wholesome or of a sinister nature. All in all, a great movie to spark discussion


(I'm interested what others have to say about my interpretation as well).

[Somewhat Damaged]

I wrote this a few pages back, but I'll recap some of my opinions

SPOILERS


When I saw the play I thought he was guilty. When I saw the movie I thought he was innocent. The main reason is the scene where he asks to see William Londons nails, and the boy pulls away. Sister Aloysius later cites that incident as the reason she suspects the priest of wrongdoing (even though she didn't see the context of the situation while watching from her office window. In addition, the scene where he hugs Donald Muller after William London knocks his books out was powerful as well. I got the sense that here was a man so committed to his position as comforter/protector to the boy he does not care how the situation would be perceived. A guilty man, in my opinion, would have surely seen the occurrence, weighed the risks of comforting the boy, and decided to just walk past rather than risk more suspicion.

I also think they played up the homosexuality as a main theme of the movie, whereas in the play it was only a peripheral issue about the boy. In the movie, there was Father Flynns comments about how if none of the girls say yes to dance with you, then you become a priest. In addition, the boy who had asked if it's okay to say no to the girl was later the one who was standing up for Donald. Interestingly enough, he was also the same boy watching Father Flynn and Donald after the opening service when we first see Flynns interactions with Donald. I interpreted that scene and the continual importance of that other boy to intimate a prior relationship with him and the priest, before Muller. But then again, you have to ask yourself, was that prior relationship wholesome or of a sinister nature. All in all, a great movie to spark discussion


(I'm interested what others have to say about my interpretation as well).

The scene where Father Flynn hugs Donald after his books get knocked to the ground was the primary citation of evidence that David Poland used in his review, and he argued your same point, that a person who was guilty of wrongdoing and who had been accused of impropriety would have avoided such a public act of intimacy.
The thing that sticks in my head is the scene when Father Flynn puts Donald's shirt in his locker. What was he doing with the boy's shirt? Under what pretenses would it have come into his possession? And the thing with the alcohol was curious, too, especially in light of the allegations against Michael Jackson and his "Jesus Juice." So Donald was in the rectory drinking wine, seen by the janitor (or whatever that guy happened to be), went to class and seemed normal, got called into Father Flynn's office where he was presumably given a stern talking to for having been caught drinking wine, returned to class upset and now feeling the effects of the alcohol, which Sister James then noticed? That just seems so much more complicated than Father Flynn calling him into his office, liquoring him up, then sending him back to class.
Another thing I noticed was which characters were shown first: the film opens on Jimmy Hurley (I believe that's his name, the kid who sits next to Donald in class), the next child we see is William London, and the last we see is Donald. In my interpretation, that order was significant in that those were the boys who Father Flynn had been involved with (in whatever way that happened to be). Starting with Jimmy (who seemed to share Donald's affinity for the Father), moving on to William (who clearly didn't like Father Flynn), and ending with Donald. (Just re-read what you wrote and see that we're essentially in agreement about there having been a prior relationship between Jimmy and Father Flynn.)
I perceived William's recoiling from Father Flynn when he's asked to show his nails the same way Sister Aloysius did, and felt that whatever improper relationship had been had (or attempted) between him and the Father was responsible for his acting up. Yeah, I know, he's a teenager and some kids start acting rebellious at that age, but he seemed so disdainful of Father Flynn, like in that scene you mention where the boys ask him about talking to girls. Everyone else looks at Father Flynn with respect but William would obviously rather be anywhere but in the man's presence.
The first shot of Father Flynn is also interesting: high angle from the top of the staircase as he paces before his sermon. This shot is returned to later on, when Father Flynn is doing something with Jimmy Hurley after church, and we then see that it's from Donald's perspective. Admittedly, this could also simply draw the parallel between their homosexuality, although the homosexuality is a given in Father Flynn's case if he is indeed molesting the boys.

Ivy: the irony of the demanding of proof didn't strike me during the movie but now that you mention it, it's pretty funny.

[Gonshman]

The scene where Father Flynn hugs Donald after his books get knocked to the ground was the primary citation of evidence that David Poland used in his review, and he argued your same point, that a person who was guilty of wrongdoing and who had been accused of impropriety would have avoided such a public act of intimacy.
The thing that sticks in my head is the scene when Father Flynn puts Donald's shirt in his locker. What was he doing with the boy's shirt? Under what pretenses would it have come into his possession? And the thing with the alcohol was curious, too, especially in light of the allegations against Michael Jackson and his "Jesus Juice." So Donald was in the rectory drinking wine, seen by the janitor (or whatever that guy happened to be), went to class and seemed normal, got called into Father Flynn's office where he was presumably given a stern talking to for having been caught drinking wine, returned to class upset and now feeling the effects of the alcohol, which Sister James then noticed? That just seems so much more complicated than Father Flynn calling him into his office, liquoring him up, then sending him back to class.
Another thing I noticed was which characters were shown first: the film opens on Jimmy Hurley (I believe that's his name, the kid who sits next to Donald in class), the next child we see is William London, and the last we see is Donald. In my interpretation, that order was significant in that those were the boys who Father Flynn had been involved with (in whatever way that happened to be). Starting with Jimmy (who seemed to share Donald's affinity for the Father), moving on to William (who clearly didn't like Father Flynn), and ending with Donald. (Just re-read what you wrote and see that we're essentially in agreement about there having been a prior relationship between Jimmy and Father Flynn.)
I perceived William's recoiling from Father Flynn when he's asked to show his nails the same way Sister Aloysius did, and felt that whatever improper relationship had been had (or attempted) between him and the Father was responsible for his acting up. Yeah, I know, he's a teenager and some kids start acting rebellious at that age, but he seemed so disdainful of Father Flynn, like in that scene you mention where the boys ask him about talking to girls. Everyone else looks at Father Flynn with respect but William would obviously rather be anywhere but in the man's presence.
The first shot of Father Flynn is also interesting: high angle from the top of the staircase as he paces before his sermon. This shot is returned to later on, when Father Flynn is doing something with Jimmy Hurley after church, and we then see that it's from Donald's perspective. Admittedly, this could also simply draw the parallel between their homosexuality, although the homosexuality is a given in Father Flynn's case if he is indeed molesting the boys.

Ivy: the irony of the demanding of proof didn't strike me during the movie but now that you mention it, it's pretty funny.

Interesting comments about the angles, it makes sense. You can also notice that throughout the movie, whenever there is deception (or not letting on everything they know, holding their true words back) occurring in conversation between the three main characters the camera angles are shifted to be slightly slanted, and then corrected when their conversation become straightforward and unsheathed.

[Somewhat Damaged]

Interesting comments about the angles, it makes sense. You can also notice that throughout the movie, whenever there is deception (or not letting on everything they know, holding their true words back) occurring in conversation between the three main characters the camera angles are shifted to be slightly slanted, and then corrected when their conversation become straightforward and unsheathed.

I noticed that, too, and actually felt that maybe Shanley was overusing the device. What did you think about the light going out in Sister Aloysius's office? The first time it does is when Sister James is passionate in Father Flynn's defense. Sister Aloysius replaces the bulb before Donald's mother comes to talk with her; the bulb remains illuminated the whole time and by the end of the scene (though it moves to another location), Mrs. Miller is willing to accept whatever Father Flynn may be because he at least cares for her son. In the final confrontation between Father Flynn and Sister Aloysius, the bulb again goes out, this time when Father Flynn is passionately defending himself. I think it's clear what my interpretation of the significance of that is, though after writing it out, I can see how Shanley could have also meant for that to indicate Sister Aloysius's resistance to being reasoned with. Guess it's one of those things one can have an opinion on but can never truly KNOW for sure (unless Shanley ever decides to reveal the answer).

[Gonshman]

I noticed that, too, and actually felt that maybe Shanley was overusing the device. What did you think about the light going out in Sister Aloysius's office? The first time it does is when Sister James is passionate in Father Flynn's defense. Sister Aloysius replaces the bulb before Donald's mother comes to talk with her; the bulb remains illuminated the whole time and by the end of the scene (though it moves to another location), Mrs. Miller is willing to accept whatever Father Flynn may be because he at least cares for her son. In the final confrontation between Father Flynn and Sister Aloysius, the bulb again goes out, this time when Father Flynn is passionately defending himself. I think it's clear what my interpretation of the significance of that is, though after writing it out, I can see how Shanley could have also meant for that to indicate Sister Aloysius's resistance to being reasoned with. Guess it's one of those things one can have an opinion on but can never truly KNOW for sure (unless Shanley ever decides to reveal the answer).

Yeah, he absolutely overused it. Some of the other symbolism was definitely heavy-handed as well, including the importance of the lightbulb. My approach to the lightbulb was more emotionally based than anything based on his defense. I felt the lightbulb was a representation of Sister Aloysius doubts. Every time she stubbornly continued to defend her views, another person would just as passionately try and refute them, continually putting chinks into her armor of invincibility, and chipping away at her strong convictions to create less and less certainty. I believe the last blown out lightbulb was right before he asks her if she had never sinned, and her response (I think) is really indicative of her tough veneer fading away.

Apparently, Hoffman told Shanley he wouldn't play the role unless he knew if the priest was guilty or not. So two people know (Maybe Brian F. O'Byrne as well).

[Gonshman]

For more Doubt fans who want to read further more into symbolism and the priests guilt/innocence, here's a link to the climactic showdown between Father Flynn and Sister Aloysius

http://www.apple.com/trailers/miramax/doubt/

[schoolofruckus]

Benjamin Button was like a prettier Forrest Gump. It was gorgeous but lacked any real substance... Either Fincher needs to experiment a little more, or it needed to be a little more focused (like most of his movies are)... Instead it was kind of meandering. I enjoyed it, but it's nothing special...

That's unfortunate, albeit right on board with everything else I've read about it so far. I'm bummed that this one will apparently be irrelevant in the race to be my favorite movie of this year.

[thatfinkleygirl]

Benjamin Button was like a prettier Forrest Gump. It was gorgeous but lacked any real substance... Either Fincher needs to experiment a little more, or it needed to be a little more focused (like most of his movies are)... Instead it was kind of meandering. I enjoyed it, but it's nothing special...


funny you should compare benjamin button and forrest gump ... eric roth wrote the screenplay for both! i'd like to read the short story bb's based on, it sounds pretty fascinating, more so than the movie was at least. perhaps fincher could have done something more interesting with it if he'd had a different screenwriter...

[indietron]

Yeah I didn't know Ben Button was based off of a story by F Scott Fitzgerald until i the credits at the end of the movie. That is really awesome though.

[paulb]

I enjoyed Benjamin Button...

[Donaldj]

Yea I loved Benjamin Button. I am quite surprised and a bit confused by the negative comments. I found it very magical and endearing.

[indietron]

Yea I loved Benjamin Button. I am quite surprised and a bit confused by the negative comments. I found it very magical and endearing.

I agree that it was a beautiful film and a fantastic story, I think I just expected more from it for some reason. I can't even say what it is, I just feel like something was missing in the movie.

[thatfinkleygirl]

it was a perfectly decent movie, but i felt somewhat let down by it. i thought it was ... well, boring. and a tad sappy. i expected something more from david fincher.

EDIT: for anyone who's interested in reading f. scott fitzgerald's short story the movie is based on, you can find the full text here:
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/Fitzgerald/jazz/benjamin/benjamin1.htm
i'm about to read it myself.

[indietron]

I kinda felt letdown too. I didn't get bored at all, and i don't think it was "sappy." I think it may have been the ending. It definitely could have been done alot better. I wish they would have ended it with baby benjamin closing his eyes and dying, or maybe after that piece with all of the movie's characters talking.

[Boourns]

My favorites so far are The Dark Knight and Let the Right One In. I haven't seen a lot of things yet, though. But I found both of those to be amazing.

[Backwater]

I finally just saw Dark Knight and I honestly thought it was a total piece of crap. That script was garbage. Easily the most overrated movie of the year. On the other hand, I just saw Slumdog Millonaire and it was great. I didn't realize it was directed by Danny Boyle until the end credits. It's no Trainspotting or anything but definitely worth seeing. I liked it better than the past few films I've seen of his. I can't wait to see The Wrestler.

[BlueDevil50]

I finally just saw Dark Knight and I honestly thought it was a total piece of crap. That script was garbage. Easily the most overrated movie of the year. On the other hand, I just saw Slumdog Millonaire and it was great. I didn't realize it was directed by Danny Boyle until the end credits. It's no Trainspotting or anything but definitely worth seeing. I liked it better than the past few films I've seen of his. I can't wait to see The Wrestler.

piece of crap? way to lose all credibility =)

[menikmati]

I agree, Dark Knight is WAY overrated, perhaps the most overrated film ever, and is generally pretty crappy overall.

[BlueDevil50]

sorry...it's one of the five best flicks from '08

[menikmati]

haha that's laughable

[ivankay]

i liked Dark Knight a lot. i'm wondering why it is a crappy film overall. It's a good looking movie, so it's not the photography. The action is pretty top notch. Good acting. The second time i saw it, appreciation for the dialogue and the script increased. Music worked. What am i not seeing here?

[menikmati]

The whole plot is pretty fucking stupid, and the film loses focus about 5,000 times....the whole Hong Kong part? Unnecessary. It just added to the length of the film which was at least a half hour too long....and the whole Two-Face section? Retarded. I know a lot of fanboys love it and hail it as the best ever, but really, look at the plot, look at the length...everything was just so over done....it's a horrible film. People just got excited over a "dirty punk pyscho" version of the Joker.

[amyzzz]

I agree. Overrated. Although I did like Heath Ledger. Christian Bale kinda sucked this time though.

[ivankay]

The HK part was part of the plot and made for something really excellent to look at (especially in Imax). The shot on top of the building was impressive and led to a nice action sequence. That part had a place in the film not only to retrieve something and get it back to the US, but to also inject some more kick ass in an action movie. The Two Face part did not live up to the rest of the film, but "retarded" it was not. This reminds me of people who say "Titanic" is the "worst movie ever". Is that opinion based on the actual merits of the film? Or is it a statement about how "different" the critic is from the "masses of idiots". It is fairly common for people to use "success" as a reason to dislike things. When you use extreme negatives to describe something that has some beauty and skill on display, it makes me wonder why you're being so harsh.

i saw the movie 2 times and had no problem with the time it played. Ledger's psycho depiction of the Joker was something that merited the excitement. The praise would have been smaller if he was alive, but it still would have been one of the most talked about performances of the year.

i'm still going with Spiderman 2 for best comic movie.

[rage patton]

Benjamin Button was amazing. Not only one of the best films of the year, but one of the best films I have ever seen. Not gonna lie, I cried.

[blakely]

I agree. Overrated. Although I did like Heath Ledger. Christian Bale kinda sucked this time though.

YES.

[menikmati]

The HK part was part of the plot and made for something really excellent to look at (especially in Imax). The shot on top of the building was impressive and led to a nice action sequence. That part had a place in the film not only to retrieve something and get it back to the US, but to also inject some more kick ass in an action movie. The Two Face part did not live up to the rest of the film, but "retarded" it was not. This reminds me of people who say "Titanic" is the "worst movie ever". Is that opinion based on the actual merits of the film? Or is it a statement about how "different" the critic is from the "masses of idiots". It is fairly common for people to use "success" as a reason to dislike things. When you use extreme negatives to describe something that has some beauty and skill on display, it makes me wonder why you're being so harsh.

i saw the movie 2 times and had no problem with the time it played. Ledger's psycho depiction of the Joker was something that merited the excitement. The praise would have been smaller if he was alive, but it still would have been one of the most talked about performances of the year.

i'm still going with Spiderman 2 for best comic movie.

I don't think Titanic is the worst movie ever, in fact I really like Titanic. But TDK? It's seriously just an example (a perfect example actually) of a film that is so overhyped and has so many fanboys, that most people are blind to how shitty it really is. I understand most fans are gonna overlook and ignore the length (in fact most will probably think the longer the better), and not care about the lack of focus and pointless parts (Hong Kong, Two-face etc...) as long as the Joker gets screen time and there are chase sequences and such....I mean it is an "action" film and all....but to blatantly ignore all the flaws and call it one of the best ever is just dumb. I'm not judging and calling this film shitty based on it's success.....the plot, acting, and other things take care of that already.

[bmack86]

I liked the movie. A lot. To my eyes and ears, that doesn't make it overrated, in my opinion. I thought it was fantastic, and I rate it accordingly. Seems like people tend to get very pissed off when something they don't like does well and gets critical recognition. I enjoyed the plot, I thought the acting was good to great and the film just looked good. Dizzamn y'all.

[Donaldj]

Anybody that says movies like Titanic and The Dark Knight are the worst movies ever have CLEARLY not seen many movies.

Take something like Southland Tales. That one is so bad on such a monumental level it's almost genius.

[ivankay]

I don't think Titanic is the worst movie ever, in fact I really like Titanic. But TDK? It's seriously just an example (a perfect example actually) of a film that is so overhyped and has so many fanboys, that most people are blind to how shitty it really is. I understand most fans are gonna overlook and ignore the length (in fact most will probably think the longer the better), and not care about the lack of focus and pointless parts (Hong Kong, Two-face etc...) as long as the Joker gets screen time and there are chase sequences and such....I mean it is an "action" film and all....but to blatantly ignore all the flaws and call it one of the best ever is just dumb. I'm not judging and calling this film shitty based on it's success.....the plot, acting, and other things take care of that already.

To be as negative in your criticism reminded me of the "Titanic" discussions where someone hates it a extra than if it was just playing in one art house and no one saw it. i also do not ascribe to TDK being the best ever, but i do place it in that really good range. i don't see the lack of focus you are mentioning. All the parts of the film are connected and push the story forward. The first time i saw the film, i might agree with the lack of focus happening in the interrogation piece, but changed my mind on the second viewing.

Personally i try to avoid using the critiques "overhyped" and "overrated". Those words alone mean the basis of the criticism is how other people are responding to it. i don't mind it so much in passing discussion (which these exchanges are), but it appears as if most people use these as a cornerstones for their feelings and "thoughts' on things.

[rage patton]

Mr fav movies of the year:

Bejamin Button
In Bruges
Wall-E
The Dark Night

[Gonshman]

I just got back from Gran Torino, and it had some of the worst acting I've seen in movies this year. Clint Eastwood was great (expect a Best Actor nod), but he was essentially playing a parody of his Dirty Harry character, only without the irony. The Hmong girl was the only other good actor. Tao and the priest were just laughably bad, wooden and poor timing (which they clearly attempted to mask with equally-poorly timed cuts).

Apparently the movie was Eastwoods goodbye to movie acting, and he has said that it is his last onscreen role ever. If it's true, then he has done well personally. But the movie itself is weighed down by a slogging first 3/4 and repetitious devices. We get the point already, you don't need to show different variations of the same encounter five times!

Also, the entire thing is a blatant Christ allegory. Nothing wrong with that, but if you don't see it then you aren't looking very closely. This just continues Eastwoods heavy interest in religion that has been reflected in his most current movies.

[mountmccabe]

I just looked up and realized that while I have liked Danny Boyle's films I have only seen the ones with Andrew MacDonald producing. Granted, that only takes away Millions and Slumdog Millionare but hmm. But also I haven't seen anything else Andrew MacDonald has produced so I don't really have the information necessary to go anywhere with this.

And since it is the time of year for ranking things:


Sunshine
Trainspotting
Shallow Grave
28 Days Later
A Life Less Ordinary
The Beach

[mountmccabe]

Also wait what? They made a movie out of The Tesseract? I need to find out how to see this! [YAY Netflix!]

Also Alex Garland wrote a script for Halo? Whoah.


I love IMDb.

[paulb]

Benjamin Button was amazing. Not only one of the best films of the year, but one of the best films I have ever seen. Not gonna lie, I cried.

hehe, ya, it was a really emotion movie... I had to hold back... I expect to see Brad Pitt get a best actor nomination.

[garrett222]

I just looked up and realized that while I have liked Danny Boyle's films I have only seen the ones with Andrew MacDonald producing. Granted, that only takes away Millions and Slumdog Millionare but hmm. But also I haven't seen anything else Andrew MacDonald has produced so I don't really have the information necessary to go anywhere with this.

And since it is the time of year for ranking things:


Sunshine
Trainspotting
Shallow Grave
28 Days Later
A Life Less Ordinary
The Beach


i didn't like sunshine...is it worth a second viewing?

[amyzzz]

I just looked up and realized that while I have liked Danny Boyle's films I have only seen the ones with Andrew MacDonald producing. Granted, that only takes away Millions and Slumdog Millionare but hmm. But also I haven't seen anything else Andrew MacDonald has produced so I don't really have the information necessary to go anywhere with this.

And since it is the time of year for ranking things:


Sunshine
Trainspotting
Shallow Grave
28 Days Later
A Life Less Ordinary
The Beach

Oh man I forgot about A Life Less Ordinary. What a stinker.

[faxman75]

i liked The Beach.

[shakermaker113]

wow the dark knight arguments will never end. for the record I'm not a fan boy and I like it. I took some friends along who hadn't even seen the first christopher nolan batman until earlier the same afternoon. so they're pretty far from being fan boys. they didn't think it sucked, they really liked it. I think it has some merit beyond fanboy hard-ons. it's not perfect, but the anti-fanboy hate is a bit much.

[RotationSlimWang]

TDK was fucking preposterous. Lord knows I listed almost every single reason why when it came out, but I'm still surprised after all this time that nobody else is irked by its tremendous flaws.

[Boourns]

wow the dark knight arguments will never end. for the record I'm not a fan boy and I like it. I took some friends along who hadn't even seen the first christopher nolan batman until earlier the same afternoon. so they're pretty far from being fan boys. they didn't think it sucked, they really liked it. I think it has some merit beyond fanboy hard-ons. it's not perfect, but the anti-fanboy hate is a bit much.

Seriously. It's just always cool to hate on things that unite so many people in enjoyment.

[mountmccabe]

i didn't like sunshine...is it worth a second viewing?

I loved Sunshine nearly immediately. I found it visually rich; quite arresting, in fact. It has flaws - there are some standard sci-fi silly parts to the story and some overdone tropes - but it worked for me. I loved the music by Underworld, too.

So while I think it is worth many, many, many viewings if you did not enjoy it the first time I don't know what would be different the second, etc.


Oh man I forgot about A Life Less Ordinary. What a stinker.

I remember liking it but being disappointed that it wasn't near as good as Trainspotting. It isn't bad, though. Also I don't remember it, much. The music was still really good, though.


i liked The Beach.

I was let down. I really liked the book - and now really like Garland as a novelist - but the changes just struck me as bizarre and negative. Also I thought actually showing Apocalypse Now instead of just referring to it visually/stylistically was poor film making. I also thought DiCaprio gave a rather weak performance.

I wouldn't mind revisiting it, though. It is possible that after 8 years of looking down on it I would be pleasantly surprised.

[Somewhat Damaged]

Benjamin Button was amazing. Not only one of the best films of the year, but one of the best films I have ever seen. Not gonna lie, I cried.

If this is one of the best films you've ever seen, have you not watched very many movies then, Josh? I mean, the film is fine and all, has great photography and the performances are pretty strong, but it's probably the worst film David Fincher has made to date. I wanted to feel emotional about the relationship between Benjamin and...whatever Cate Blanchett's character's name is, but I couldn't. The closest I came was when he visited her in New York and she was dancing with her boyfriend. I almost wonder if it's because Fincher's heart wasn't in showing the emotion of their relationship (he's on record as saying he didn't want the film to be just a love story); I got the distinct impression that he was more interested in the relationship between Benjamin and his father. (Fincher's a lot like PT Anderson in that their best works revolve around characters who either had scumbag fathers or were abandoned by them.) The film is a marvel to look at and deserves every technical accolade it'll receive, I just find it very difficult for anyone to LOVE the story. One of cinema's great romances, this is not.

[RotationSlimWang]

Also, The Wrestler was awesome. First good movie I've seen in a theatre in 2008.

[wmgaretjax]

Also, The Wrestler was awesome. First good movie I've seen in a theatre in 2008.

Yay. Gonna watch it tonight.

[faxman75]

I wouldn't mind revisiting it, though. It is possible that after 8 years of looking down on it I would be pleasantly surprised.

I went in with really low expectations just watching it on cable. I never read the book either so that probably helped. I also like looking at pretty locations and loved the cinematography.

[tessalasset]

i just got back from seeing last chance harvey. don't go see it. it's not good. the only reason i bought tickets was cause dustin hoffman did a q&a afterwards which totally made up for the movie and made it worth my $12. he is a very thoughtful, articulate, down-to-earth guy. it was pretty much just a q&a between him and a film critic from USA Today, but towards the end they opened it up to a couple audience questions and he took a solid ten minutes to answer each one. the entire thing ended up being about an hour long, which i wasn't expecting at all. his handlers kept trying to tear him away to go to the next q&a and he kept answering more questions. what a great guy.

[Donaldj]

it's probably the worst film David Fincher has made to date.

Over Panic Room?

[Donaldj]

Also, The Wrestler was awesome. First good movie I've seen in a theatre in 2008.

Yea, I liked that one too.

[wmgaretjax]

Over Panic Room?

Panic Room wasn't great, but it was effective. Button wasn't.

[mountmccabe]

Panic Room wasn't great, but it was effective. Button wasn't.

ytoZhPsNsJA

[mountmccabe]

fWptXUblA4E

Iu4NcgQZucE

[mountmccabe]

I haven't seen Benjamin Button... but I am not sure what would be my least favorite Fincher.