Miscellaneous Movie Musings

innerSpaceman · 01-28-2007, 11:16 AM

I hope I don't get in trouble with the mods for saying this, but I think Alex has ice water in his veins.

Firstly, imo, the point of The Illusionist was not it's mystery plot of "is it magic or fakery?" It's the romance of the story, no matter which plot point is true. mousepod alluded earlier to the unique art direction and cinematography of sepia-like imagery to evoke the time period and mood, and the sterling performances of Giamanni and Norton. I think Rufus Sewell was really good, too. Taken as a romance piece and not a mystery, I think the film turned out just perfect.

Secondly, the theme is the thing about Little Children, and not its lack of lots of plot. It's an exploration of adult immaturity and how that might -or might not- be grown out of or otherwise escaped. I'll agree with Alex that Winslet and Hailey were deservedly nominated for Oscars. But I must differ about the film as a whole. The script and direction are brilliant. It's a character piece, not a plot machine. That said, there is a distinct story being told, and a fascinating one - in this humble reviewer's opinion.

.

Alex · 01-28-2007, 11:32 AM

I did not see any romance in The Illusionist. There was zero chemistry. There was only love because we were told that there characters are in love. And with the few people I've talked to about the film, none of them really mention the romance but rather how blown away they were by the "reveal." I certainly won't claim to be the most romantic guy in the world (and since most movie romance rings false, it is difficult for movies to so move me) but I felt absolutely nothing of this romance. For example, the passion (though not romance) between Brad and Sarah in Little Children is real and moving.

I also agree with you on what the theme of Little Children is, but I don't think it really goes anywhere with that theme. Rather it paints a picutre of people who realize that they've got issues of immaturity (primarily the desire for escapism) to deal with but doesn't show them actually dealing with them. That is all left (except for one character) for after the credits roll and over dinner Lani and I had a nice discussion about what we though Brad and Sarah did the next day.

But ultimately, in my view, it is a movie that asks a question, not one that answers a question.

I said "unfortunately" before saying the movie doesn't do much without appropriate clarification. I meant "unfortunately for its chances of being seen by many people" more than "unfortunatley because I think this is a bad thing." Little Children is simply not the kind of movie most people enjoy watching. I think they should, and I did, but they don't.

01-28-2007, 11:16 AM	#1
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	I hope I don't get in trouble with the mods for saying this, but I think Alex has ice water in his veins. Firstly, imo, the point of The Illusionist was not it's mystery plot of "is it magic or fakery?" It's the romance of the story, no matter which plot point is true. mousepod alluded earlier to the unique art direction and cinematography of sepia-like imagery to evoke the time period and mood, and the sterling performances of Giamanni and Norton. I think Rufus Sewell was really good, too. Taken as a romance piece and not a mystery, I think the film turned out just perfect. Secondly, the theme is the thing about Little Children, and not its lack of lots of plot. It's an exploration of adult immaturity and how that might -or might not- be grown out of or otherwise escaped. I'll agree with Alex that Winslet and Hailey were deservedly nominated for Oscars. But I must differ about the film as a whole. The script and direction are brilliant. It's a character piece, not a plot machine. That said, there is a distinct story being told, and a fascinating one - in this humble reviewer's opinion. .
	Submit to Quotes

01-28-2007, 11:32 AM	#2
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	I did not see any romance in The Illusionist. There was zero chemistry. There was only love because we were told that there characters are in love. And with the few people I've talked to about the film, none of them really mention the romance but rather how blown away they were by the "reveal." I certainly won't claim to be the most romantic guy in the world (and since most movie romance rings false, it is difficult for movies to so move me) but I felt absolutely nothing of this romance. For example, the passion (though not romance) between Brad and Sarah in Little Children is real and moving. I also agree with you on what the theme of Little Children is, but I don't think it really goes anywhere with that theme. Rather it paints a picutre of people who realize that they've got issues of immaturity (primarily the desire for escapism) to deal with but doesn't show them actually dealing with them. That is all left (except for one character) for after the credits roll and over dinner Lani and I had a nice discussion about what we though Brad and Sarah did the next day. But ultimately, in my view, it is a movie that asks a question, not one that answers a question. I said "unfortunately" before saying the movie doesn't do much without appropriate clarification. I meant "unfortunately for its chances of being seen by many people" more than "unfortunatley because I think this is a bad thing." Little Children is simply not the kind of movie most people enjoy watching. I think they should, and I did, but they don't.
	Submit to Quotes