stylistically so fantastic it justifies the film entirely
you sound like vikram
you say it like it's a bad thing
I only used the word stylistically because it was a response to a post using the word style.
no, it was the statement rather than the word 'stylistically'
maybe
but it was one out of about six words
?
I was suggesting
that the use of stylistically might have dominated your reading of the sentence given its placement and how many words were used in total.
urgh
can't be bothered to think
no, it wasn't because of the word 'stylistically'. it was just the sweeping nature of the statement
hope you had a good night
sweeping
but only applied to one film. I think it is one of the best looking films I have ever seen. Do you disagree?
it looks good, but at the cost
of any believable characterisation, or writing. i'll have to watch it again, but the ending offended me, greatly. i suppose it fulfilled its point as a modern-day melodrama, but i've seen melodramas that are far more emotionally affecting without sacrificing camera-work or style (well, relatively if you can compare classic cinema to aronofsky's MTV visuals)
saying that, i saw it once, in the cinema when it came out, so perhaps i need to see it again
* classical Hollywood cinema
see Sunset Boulevard or something
honestly
it was so enjoyable visually that I couldn't care less about the other components. Obviously it would have been improved if all elements had been good.
I need to watch it again though.
i appreciate that
am trying to think of films which have made me feel the same (there are lots - waking life, a scanner darkly, a few other things recently) but it was just the ending of the film that really got me. it was just ....ergh, i so didn't CARE that jordan catalano's arm dropped off, jennifer was ass-dancing, and that that guy's on a chain gang. it was like watching an MTV rehab show. it was so moralistic while at the same time celebrating the things that it condemned its characters for )
those other films i mention
because they look so incredible. i mean, collateral could have been utter crap, i just loved the visuals so much - but one of my points is that it WASN'T
fair
Collateral manages to be great despite Cruise twat. Although I guess Michael Mann casted him.
cast
unnghhhh
casted
sounds like a sex act
I'm still not so
sure about Collateral. I wanted to like it (probably one of Cruise's best ever performances), and I thought some the cinematography was outstanding (I love nocturnal films), but a lot of the dialogue was really, really ropey. I think if a movie like that is going to take itself so seriously, it needs to be really sharp, and scenes like the one in the jazz bar (specifically the conversation about Miles Davis) made me feel a little ill. But I still enjoyed it. Weird.
ahahahahahahahah
style over substance overrated piece of crap
style over substance overrated piece of crap
!!!!
Just wait until you witness his subsequent film "The Fountain": dear o dear o me, it's like a group of French Intellectuals tried to "intellectualize" Fantasia-- I didn't know what the fuck was happening, something about resurrection and The Tree of Life, which he blatantly plaguarised from the ending FMV from Summoner 2 or just about any other final fantasty "denouement" .
but the film ending has lost somewhat since sky sports news adopted the music
preachy, point-missing shit
Not as bad as the end of
Breaking The Waves, or even Dancer In The Dark :( :(
i cried so bad at the end of dancer in the dark
even though the film made no sense and the characterisation was a joke
my favourite scene is bjork coming forward in the darkness, earlier on, her spazzy glasses glinting, and being the only visible things on the screen. It made me laugh, as it would do in real life - she was both vulnerable and ridiculous
'spazzy glasses'
:D
indeed.
i liked it alot.
massive multiple downward spiral
FTW
actually your thread
made me think of the ending
she's probably the jennifer connelly character right now :""""""""""""""(
ew!
: )
sorry, this restless leg syndrome has taken over my whole personality tonight. it's like david cronenberg
I always imagine film directors looking more like Coppola or Scorcese in their youth.
he looks totally perverse
is that 'the barracuda' or 'shocker' he's flashing?
i dunno, dude
but it freaks me out when people with really crazy ideas look relatively kind of normal. i mean, he looks like a sleazebag, but not like someone who makes films with exploding heads and mutant flies
For 65
he still looks kinda young and mentally capable of some rare madness
Scorcese described him
as looking like a gynacologist which is why he plays the role of one in The Fly!
ASS 2 ASS
HEART 2 HEART
:)
@daisey steiner
"ergh, i so didn't CARE that jordan catalano's arm dropped off, jennifer was ass-dancing, and that that guy's on a chain gang. it was like watching an MTV rehab show. it was so moralistic while at the same time celebrating the things that it condemned its characters for )"
how on EARTH was any of that desolation celebrated?
the film was about desperate people; that's all. It wasn't a didactic advert against drugs or anything really; just a film exploring depressing desperate people. Moralistic = kidulthood
I think your kinda point of view would be similar to someone saying "graveyard of fireflies is simply an over the top anti-war movie"
when in actual fact its about more than that.
how was it not moralistic?
do drugs= your arm falls off or you'll end up being a ho or you'll end up in prison. and most of all, you won't be as good-looking or cool. drugs are therefore ultimately bad.
It has the emotional depth of a GCSE play. The characters are mere ciphers. Desperation is a theme in a lot of films - I'm not sure how that distingushes RFAD from any other film?
'Grave of the Fireflies' has characters you can believe in, and is well-written. It's emotionally gruelling - RFAD is just exhausting and ultimately boring. I don't really give a shit, because none of the characters are going to get out of their ruts.
It seems to be the kind of film people feel compelled to like.
It was probably the most exhausting film I've seen.
Save for erm, Open Water.
@daisy
Showing a person doing drugs and ending up in a terrible situation doesn't immediately have to be seen as didactic; to be honest i think you've come to the movie with a certain opinion about the moral relativism of drug taking.
So we can never show that eventuality? how would you have shown a desperate empty guy taking drugs and not having it end up so desolately; he starts with nothing ends with nothing.
Hell the film starts with him trying to take away his mothers tv to pawn it. You can see he cares about her but is willing to exploit her love for him. If it was as didactic as you are strangely suggesting the film was; the guy would start robbing people n stuff.
Did you pay any attention?(not meaning to sound rude) but the film explored quite deeply how empty all the characters were.
I suggest you watch the movie again.
Saying "how that distinguishes RFAD from any other film" is profoundly silly; so were not allowed to pursue already pursued topics? I can't make a chilling dystopia because THX 1138 has been made?
No film should ever be made again then.
As I said the film was about desperate people
if the film was heavily moralistic jared leto would've started off not desperate
maybe he would've been a lawyer with a wife n kids
then drugs makes him horrible to people
he cheats on his wife
he beats his kids
then all of that happens to him because of drugs
okay, I will watch it again
I suppose my absolute disinterest in any characters really made the ending seem gratutious. WHAT was he trying to say? They're profoundly empty - they die badly. If you take it on the level of visuals, then great. I'm not a aesthete, can't live off the surface of something.
It's necessary to feel SOME kind of connection with characters, whether its something macro on the level of them being treated badly by circumstance or whether its on the level of some confounding personal trait....I felt nada, with this film.
Moralistic - that's the only way I can see it. Basically, the film could have ended the way it finished, but in each instance we ARE asked to make a moral judgement - do they deserve to be in the situations they finally find themselves in? And therefore, ultimately, were their actions bad?
I've seen better films about desperation, that seemingly have no emotional arc, but are at least justified by some greater point.
*an, not a
actually
my argument totally depends on whether you'd even expect films to have a moral point, and films don't have to, like books don't have to.
but RFAD is still trite
crap film i thought
the book by hubert selby was good though
ASS TO ASS
cheered me up
I like this film
and much of the criticism of it in this thread seems to me at least to miss the point of the film. I'm not so sure characterisation is supposed to be important to it, and I'm pretty sure melodrama is.
how is characterisation not relevant to a melodrama?
I'm not sure I understand your point.
Characters don't have to be particularly
deep or 'human' to engage in melodrama. Indeed, if they don't resonate so much with the viewer, it is arguably easier to create melodrama (which itself doesn't aspire to be realisitc)
yeah, but they have to SOMETHING engaging about them
I mean, otherwise why should you show any interest at all? I think you're wrong about not resonating with the viewer - Bette Davis was made through melodrama, as was Joan Crawford (if we're going to use the term).
Anyway, I saw this film about eight years ago now... so I'm sure my opinion may have changed from when I was 20 years old.
Vice, naivety, loneliness, fear of failure etc
Plenty if stuff in that film you could engage with. But if you don't like it, you don't like it.
Thread Hijack ahoy.
Who's seen Aaronovsky's previous film? pi? Although I think that RfaD is good, pi (squiggly maths symbol to you sir) is superior in pretty much every way.
Pi is pretty much my favourite film
I'm not sure how good it actually is, but i loved it.
RFAD has better music though.
but but but
12:45 restate my assumptions
followed by crushing Clint Mansellcore?
C'mon!
yeah but
I just love the RFAD music, and i refuse to be swayed by the fact it's been RUINED by sky sports. Melody always wins over beats for me.
As i say though, i love Pi. Have you seen his new (ish) one, the Tower (or something) about 3 relationships with the same people in each but spread over 3 time periods?
it's the fountain
and it's brilliant. the person who lambasted it as toss didnt get it.
& it's not 3 relationships or 3 different periods; it's the same relationship covered through 3 separate layers of reality. basically the husband intrapyshic confict with his wife's impending death and his inability to accept mortality and his powerlessness over it.
and the soundtrack is
written by Clint Mansell and played by Mogwai, so it wins on that score (no pun intended) also.
style over substance overrated piece of crap
^since you asked
sorry, don't know where that vitriol came from.
indeed
but I like the style
nope
stylistically so fantastic it justifies the film entirely
you sound like vikram
you say it like it's a bad thing
I only used the word stylistically because it was a response to a post using the word style.
no, it was the statement rather than the word 'stylistically'
maybe
but it was one out of about six words
?
I was suggesting
that the use of stylistically might have dominated your reading of the sentence given its placement and how many words were used in total.
urgh
can't be bothered to think
no, it wasn't because of the word 'stylistically'. it was just the sweeping nature of the statement
hope you had a good night
sweeping
but only applied to one film. I think it is one of the best looking films I have ever seen. Do you disagree?
it looks good, but at the cost
of any believable characterisation, or writing. i'll have to watch it again, but the ending offended me, greatly. i suppose it fulfilled its point as a modern-day melodrama, but i've seen melodramas that are far more emotionally affecting without sacrificing camera-work or style (well, relatively if you can compare classic cinema to aronofsky's MTV visuals)
saying that, i saw it once, in the cinema when it came out, so perhaps i need to see it again
* classical Hollywood cinema
see Sunset Boulevard or something
honestly
it was so enjoyable visually that I couldn't care less about the other components. Obviously it would have been improved if all elements had been good.
I need to watch it again though.
i appreciate that
am trying to think of films which have made me feel the same (there are lots - waking life, a scanner darkly, a few other things recently) but it was just the ending of the film that really got me. it was just ....ergh, i so didn't CARE that jordan catalano's arm dropped off, jennifer was ass-dancing, and that that guy's on a chain gang. it was like watching an MTV rehab show. it was so moralistic while at the same time celebrating the things that it condemned its characters for )
those other films i mention
because they look so incredible. i mean, collateral could have been utter crap, i just loved the visuals so much - but one of my points is that it WASN'T
fair
Collateral manages to be great despite Cruise twat. Although I guess Michael Mann casted him.
cast
unnghhhh
casted
sounds like a sex act
I'm still not so
sure about Collateral. I wanted to like it (probably one of Cruise's best ever performances), and I thought some the cinematography was outstanding (I love nocturnal films), but a lot of the dialogue was really, really ropey. I think if a movie like that is going to take itself so seriously, it needs to be really sharp, and scenes like the one in the jazz bar (specifically the conversation about Miles Davis) made me feel a little ill. But I still enjoyed it. Weird.
ahahahahahahahah
style over substance overrated piece of crap
style over substance overrated piece of crap
!!!!
Just wait until you witness his subsequent film "The Fountain": dear o dear o me, it's like a group of French Intellectuals tried to "intellectualize" Fantasia-- I didn't know what the fuck was happening, something about resurrection and The Tree of Life, which he blatantly plaguarised from the ending FMV from Summoner 2 or just about any other final fantasty "denouement" .
but the film ending has lost somewhat since sky sports news adopted the music
preachy, point-missing shit
Not as bad as the end of
Breaking The Waves, or even Dancer In The Dark :( :(
i cried so bad at the end of dancer in the dark
even though the film made no sense and the characterisation was a joke
my favourite scene is bjork coming forward in the darkness, earlier on, her spazzy glasses glinting, and being the only visible things on the screen. It made me laugh, as it would do in real life - she was both vulnerable and ridiculous
'spazzy glasses'
:D
indeed.
i liked it alot.
massive multiple downward spiral
FTW
actually your thread
made me think of the ending
she's probably the jennifer connelly character right now :""""""""""""""(
ew!
: )
sorry, this restless leg syndrome has taken over my whole personality tonight. it's like david cronenberg
he means business!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Cronenberg
It's like a before shot for Just 4 Men
I always imagine film directors looking more like Coppola or Scorcese in their youth.
he looks totally perverse
is that 'the barracuda' or 'shocker' he's flashing?
i dunno, dude
but it freaks me out when people with really crazy ideas look relatively kind of normal. i mean, he looks like a sleazebag, but not like someone who makes films with exploding heads and mutant flies
For 65
he still looks kinda young and mentally capable of some rare madness
Scorcese described him
as looking like a gynacologist which is why he plays the role of one in The Fly!
ASS 2 ASS
HEART 2 HEART
:)
@daisey steiner
"ergh, i so didn't CARE that jordan catalano's arm dropped off, jennifer was ass-dancing, and that that guy's on a chain gang. it was like watching an MTV rehab show. it was so moralistic while at the same time celebrating the things that it condemned its characters for )"
how on EARTH was any of that desolation celebrated?
the film was about desperate people; that's all. It wasn't a didactic advert against drugs or anything really; just a film exploring depressing desperate people. Moralistic = kidulthood
I think your kinda point of view would be similar to someone saying "graveyard of fireflies is simply an over the top anti-war movie"
when in actual fact its about more than that.
how was it not moralistic?
do drugs= your arm falls off or you'll end up being a ho or you'll end up in prison. and most of all, you won't be as good-looking or cool. drugs are therefore ultimately bad.
It has the emotional depth of a GCSE play. The characters are mere ciphers. Desperation is a theme in a lot of films - I'm not sure how that distingushes RFAD from any other film?
'Grave of the Fireflies' has characters you can believe in, and is well-written. It's emotionally gruelling - RFAD is just exhausting and ultimately boring. I don't really give a shit, because none of the characters are going to get out of their ruts.
It seems to be the kind of film people feel compelled to like.
It was probably the most exhausting film I've seen.
Save for erm, Open Water.
@daisy
Showing a person doing drugs and ending up in a terrible situation doesn't immediately have to be seen as didactic; to be honest i think you've come to the movie with a certain opinion about the moral relativism of drug taking.
So we can never show that eventuality? how would you have shown a desperate empty guy taking drugs and not having it end up so desolately; he starts with nothing ends with nothing.
Hell the film starts with him trying to take away his mothers tv to pawn it. You can see he cares about her but is willing to exploit her love for him. If it was as didactic as you are strangely suggesting the film was; the guy would start robbing people n stuff.
Did you pay any attention?(not meaning to sound rude) but the film explored quite deeply how empty all the characters were.
I suggest you watch the movie again.
Saying "how that distinguishes RFAD from any other film" is profoundly silly; so were not allowed to pursue already pursued topics? I can't make a chilling dystopia because THX 1138 has been made?
No film should ever be made again then.
As I said the film was about desperate people
if the film was heavily moralistic jared leto would've started off not desperate
maybe he would've been a lawyer with a wife n kids
then drugs makes him horrible to people
he cheats on his wife
he beats his kids
then all of that happens to him because of drugs
okay, I will watch it again
I suppose my absolute disinterest in any characters really made the ending seem gratutious. WHAT was he trying to say? They're profoundly empty - they die badly. If you take it on the level of visuals, then great. I'm not a aesthete, can't live off the surface of something.
It's necessary to feel SOME kind of connection with characters, whether its something macro on the level of them being treated badly by circumstance or whether its on the level of some confounding personal trait....I felt nada, with this film.
Moralistic - that's the only way I can see it. Basically, the film could have ended the way it finished, but in each instance we ARE asked to make a moral judgement - do they deserve to be in the situations they finally find themselves in? And therefore, ultimately, were their actions bad?
I've seen better films about desperation, that seemingly have no emotional arc, but are at least justified by some greater point.
*an, not a
actually
my argument totally depends on whether you'd even expect films to have a moral point, and films don't have to, like books don't have to.
but RFAD is still trite
crap film i thought
the book by hubert selby was good though
ASS TO ASS
cheered me up
I like this film
and much of the criticism of it in this thread seems to me at least to miss the point of the film. I'm not so sure characterisation is supposed to be important to it, and I'm pretty sure melodrama is.
how is characterisation not relevant to a melodrama?
I'm not sure I understand your point.
Characters don't have to be particularly
deep or 'human' to engage in melodrama. Indeed, if they don't resonate so much with the viewer, it is arguably easier to create melodrama (which itself doesn't aspire to be realisitc)
yeah, but they have to SOMETHING engaging about them
I mean, otherwise why should you show any interest at all? I think you're wrong about not resonating with the viewer - Bette Davis was made through melodrama, as was Joan Crawford (if we're going to use the term).
Anyway, I saw this film about eight years ago now... so I'm sure my opinion may have changed from when I was 20 years old.
Vice, naivety, loneliness, fear of failure etc
Plenty if stuff in that film you could engage with. But if you don't like it, you don't like it.
Thread Hijack ahoy.
Who's seen Aaronovsky's previous film? pi? Although I think that RfaD is good, pi (squiggly maths symbol to you sir) is superior in pretty much every way.
Pi is pretty much my favourite film
I'm not sure how good it actually is, but i loved it.
RFAD has better music though.
but but but
12:45 restate my assumptions
followed by crushing Clint Mansellcore?
C'mon!
yeah but
I just love the RFAD music, and i refuse to be swayed by the fact it's been RUINED by sky sports. Melody always wins over beats for me.
As i say though, i love Pi. Have you seen his new (ish) one, the Tower (or something) about 3 relationships with the same people in each but spread over 3 time periods?
it's the fountain
and it's brilliant. the person who lambasted it as toss didnt get it.
& it's not 3 relationships or 3 different periods; it's the same relationship covered through 3 separate layers of reality. basically the husband intrapyshic confict with his wife's impending death and his inability to accept mortality and his powerlessness over it.
and the soundtrack is
written by Clint Mansell and played by Mogwai, so it wins on that score (no pun intended) also.