Miscellaneous Movie Musings - Page 154

Gemini Cricket · 01-17-2007, 11:32 PM

'Children of Men' = Wow.
I loved this film.'
It's gritty, it's powerful, it's just wonderful.

Word of advice: If you get motion sickness, I'd sit in the back of the theatre if I were you. A lot of this film is hand-held. I had to move back a bit...

Clive Owen. I love him so much.

The direction and the sound of this film is great.

See it.

innerSpaceman · 01-18-2007, 08:43 AM

Was it released at the end of '06 or not until '07? I thought it was the earlier, and I was shocked it got no Globes nominations. Maybe it was ineligible. Clearly one of the best movies of the year, whichever year it was released.

My pick of the week: The Illusionist with Edward Norton as a 19th Century magician / wizard. A romantic gem. It's on DVD. Rent it.

Alex · 01-18-2007, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

My pick of the week: The Illusionist with Edward Norton as a 19th Century magician / wizard. A romantic gem. It's on DVD. Rent it.

I think there was some discussion of it here when it was theaters but I didn't like it at all. Mostly I found it extremely boring since the "surprise" of the movie was telegraphed from just about the beginning of the movie. Some movies with "surprises" are good regardless of whether they're blown but this is not one of them. Plus there was zero chemistry between Norton and Biel and Rufus Sewell is lame as is his standard.

The Prestige is vastly superior. I recommend renting that when it is on DVD and ignoring this one.

Gemini Cricket · 01-18-2007, 10:16 AM

'COM' is listed as being released in 2006 per imdb.com. (Released on Dec 25, 2006 per boxofficemojo.com.)
Maybe it will get some Oscar noms?
Don't know.

I was thinking last night about how bleak the future is in this film. In fact, it was bleak in 'V for Vendetta' as well. But I guess there's no story if the future is just fine and dandy... but I guess it's fine in 'Meet the Robinsons'.

Bornieo: Fully Loaded · 01-18-2007, 11:38 AM

I saw "THE THIRD MAN" last night on DVD for the first time. A film I'd really rather have seen on the big screen. The photography was so wonderful and a small(er) screen doesn' tcut it. The music was very swanky and there was a small piece on the subject on the DVD. It was an obscure instrument that gained huge popularity overnight because of the film and it's theme. Orson was wonderful with what he had. I think the intro by Peter Bogdonovich said it best is Orson's part was a "Star part,' where they talk about him thru the whole film and we just get to see h im at the end. In retrospect it wasn't a great piece of acting by Orson, but the set up is what made it great.

9 bornieo's out of 10!

Alex · 01-18-2007, 01:38 PM

As I said before, I laughed a lot at Borat and simultaneously felt bad about it (and even worse when I found out that some of the sections I assumed were staged weren't).

This bit in the New Yorker well captures many of the things about Borat responsible for my ambiguousness on it.

Ghoulish Delight · 01-18-2007, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

As I said before, I laughed a lot at Borat and simultaneously felt bad about it (and even worse when I found out that some of the sections I assumed were staged weren't).

This bit in the New Yorker well captures many of the things about Borat responsible for my ambiguousness on it.

I would love to know exactly what was and wasn't staged and in what ways.

For example, seeing as they weren't arrested, I have to believe that the naked wrestling scene in the convention hall was staged. At the very least, they had things arranged with the hotel, and the attendees were aware that there would be something filming, but were kept in the dark/told something else about the nature.

I get the feeling that's the case for a lot of what we saw. People were told they were going to be filming and doing X, so they were prepared for some sort of filming process, but then Borat comes in and does something completely different than they were told.

innerSpaceman · 01-18-2007, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

]This bit in the New Yorker well captures many of the things about Borat responsible for my ambiguousness on it.

Your ambiguousness?!?!?!?

I didn't see anything in that story to suggest ambiguity ... but rather only complete loathing and contempt for this film, and plenty of reason to never give the filmmakers one red cent of my money.

Alex · 01-18-2007, 10:04 PM

Yes, I was simultaneously amused and appalled. Maybe conflictedness would have been a better word.

Alex · 01-19-2007, 05:02 PM

Saw The Last King of Scotland, starring Forrest Whittaker as Idi Amin (and winning him the Golden Globe the other night).

It is a powerful performance by Whittaker. I've said in the past the actors playing real people start out at something of a disadvantage for me, but it helps that other than pictures I have absolutely no idea how Amin sounds when he talked, how he walked, or anything else about him.

But still, I handicap him a bit for it compared to other great performances last year where the actor had to create the character out of whole cloth.

It is a very interesting story. The post-colonial '60s and '70s are just generally interesting times, historically speaking, and the repercussions continue with us to this day.

But, for me, the films fatal flaw is something I mentioned when discussing Blood Diamond. That is the tendency to require that the problems of Africa be filtered through white eyes. It is inherited from the novel on which it is based, but the movie's protagonist is a fictional character (a Scottish doctor who serendipitously falls into Amin's favor) set among real events (though seemingly time compressed).

In the end, per the movie (which opens with the "based on real events" title) it is this white doctor who eventually escapes Uganda to reveal to the world what a horrible man Amin was (as opposed to the eccentric buffoon most thought him). This is something of a slap in the face to Henry Kyemba, Amin's black health minister who managed to defect and did all the revealing in his 1977 book A State of Blood.

I finally went to see the movie based on a strong recommendation from a friend. I've now talked a bit more with him and he had no idea that the main character is entirely fictional. He assumed that the movie was based on the man's memoir, not an award winning piece of fiction.

Finally, I have another gripe about the main character. He is presented as too much of a rube, beguiled by Amin's charm and completely unaware of the atrocities until sudden revelation and escape. So not only do we filter the story through the eyes of a white observer but we make him pure as well (pure through naivety rather than goodness, but nonetheless). To the extent that there was a real "Nicholas Garrigan" it was a white British military officer who gained Amin's trust and was much more complicit in the atrocities.

So, my final conclusion is: powerfully acted, slightly morally bankrupt, and victim to certain ugly tendencies in the Western view of Africa (it only matters if white people are involved).

01-17-2007, 11:32 PM	#1
Gemini Cricket ... Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,244	'Children of Men' = Wow. I loved this film.' It's gritty, it's powerful, it's just wonderful. Word of advice: If you get motion sickness, I'd sit in the back of the theatre if I were you. A lot of this film is hand-held. I had to move back a bit... Clive Owen. I love him so much. The direction and the sound of this film is great. See it.
	Submit to Quotes

01-18-2007, 08:43 AM	#2
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Was it released at the end of '06 or not until '07? I thought it was the earlier, and I was shocked it got no Globes nominations. Maybe it was ineligible. Clearly one of the best movies of the year, whichever year it was released. My pick of the week: The Illusionist with Edward Norton as a 19th Century magician / wizard. A romantic gem. It's on DVD. Rent it.
	Submit to Quotes

01-18-2007, 10:16 AM	#4
Gemini Cricket ... Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,244	'COM' is listed as being released in 2006 per imdb.com. (Released on Dec 25, 2006 per boxofficemojo.com.) Maybe it will get some Oscar noms? Don't know. I was thinking last night about how bleak the future is in this film. In fact, it was bleak in 'V for Vendetta' as well. But I guess there's no story if the future is just fine and dandy... but I guess it's fine in 'Meet the Robinsons'. Last edited by Gemini Cricket : 01-18-2007 at 10:27 AM.
	Submit to Quotes

01-18-2007, 11:38 AM	#5
Bornieo: Fully Loaded Lego Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Disneyland, USA Posts: 3,704	I saw "THE THIRD MAN" last night on DVD for the first time. A film I'd really rather have seen on the big screen. The photography was so wonderful and a small(er) screen doesn' tcut it. The music was very swanky and there was a small piece on the subject on the DVD. It was an obscure instrument that gained huge popularity overnight because of the film and it's theme. Orson was wonderful with what he had. I think the intro by Peter Bogdonovich said it best is Orson's part was a "Star part,' where they talk about him thru the whole film and we just get to see h im at the end. In retrospect it wasn't a great piece of acting by Orson, but the set up is what made it great. 9 bornieo's out of 10!
	Submit to Quotes

01-18-2007, 01:38 PM	#6
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	As I said before, I laughed a lot at Borat and simultaneously felt bad about it (and even worse when I found out that some of the sections I assumed were staged weren't). This bit in the New Yorker well captures many of the things about Borat responsible for my ambiguousness on it.
	Submit to Quotes

01-18-2007, 10:04 PM	#9
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Yes, I was simultaneously amused and appalled. Maybe conflictedness would have been a better word.
	Submit to Quotes

01-19-2007, 05:02 PM	#10
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Saw The Last King of Scotland, starring Forrest Whittaker as Idi Amin (and winning him the Golden Globe the other night). It is a powerful performance by Whittaker. I've said in the past the actors playing real people start out at something of a disadvantage for me, but it helps that other than pictures I have absolutely no idea how Amin sounds when he talked, how he walked, or anything else about him. But still, I handicap him a bit for it compared to other great performances last year where the actor had to create the character out of whole cloth. It is a very interesting story. The post-colonial '60s and '70s are just generally interesting times, historically speaking, and the repercussions continue with us to this day. But, for me, the films fatal flaw is something I mentioned when discussing Blood Diamond. That is the tendency to require that the problems of Africa be filtered through white eyes. It is inherited from the novel on which it is based, but the movie's protagonist is a fictional character (a Scottish doctor who serendipitously falls into Amin's favor) set among real events (though seemingly time compressed). In the end, per the movie (which opens with the "based on real events" title) it is this white doctor who eventually escapes Uganda to reveal to the world what a horrible man Amin was (as opposed to the eccentric buffoon most thought him). This is something of a slap in the face to Henry Kyemba, Amin's black health minister who managed to defect and did all the revealing in his 1977 book A State of Blood. I finally went to see the movie based on a strong recommendation from a friend. I've now talked a bit more with him and he had no idea that the main character is entirely fictional. He assumed that the movie was based on the man's memoir, not an award winning piece of fiction. Finally, I have another gripe about the main character. He is presented as too much of a rube, beguiled by Amin's charm and completely unaware of the atrocities until sudden revelation and escape. So not only do we filter the story through the eyes of a white observer but we make him pure as well (pure through naivety rather than goodness, but nonetheless). To the extent that there was a real "Nicholas Garrigan" it was a white British military officer who gained Amin's trust and was much more complicit in the atrocities. So, my final conclusion is: powerfully acted, slightly morally bankrupt, and victim to certain ugly tendencies in the Western view of Africa (it only matters if white people are involved).
	Submit to Quotes