The Film Thread

Discuss music, movies, TV shows and video games

Moderator: GH Moderators

Michael
Mal Meninga
Posts: 29146
Joined: May 2, 2007, 3:44 pm
Location: Clovelly

Post by Michael »

greeneyed wrote:I thought Blood Diamond was great... however. Truly gripping.

I also liked Blue Velvet... but I can't remember why anymore... too long ago!
I'm pretty sure you liked it because it has a drug-addled Dennis Hopper getting his rocks off by putting an oxygen mask over his face and eating a velvet dressing gown cord. :D

Also, Casino is awesome - and if you actually read about the whole story of Vegas and the Mafia, the film is strikingly similar to what happened. David Rosenthal, the man who was the basis for De Niro's character, said the film pretty much got it right.
Image
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 145091
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Post by greeneyed »

I don't think that's why Michael. :)
Image
Michael
Mal Meninga
Posts: 29146
Joined: May 2, 2007, 3:44 pm
Location: Clovelly

Post by Michael »

greeneyed wrote:I don't think that's why Michael. :)
Hey it worked for me...
Image
User avatar
Azza
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10526
Joined: February 16, 2005, 10:12 am

Post by Azza »

Michael wrote:I agree with you Azza about ambiguous films being felated because people don't understand them and don't have the minerals to call it crap - look at any of David Lynch's movies!!! In all seriousness though, I loved Mullholland Drive, after a couple of viewings it actually makes sense and you get the sensation of being trapped in a horrible dream - Blue Velvet is similar too. But I've seen Lost Highway about three times, and if anyone can tell me what the f**k it is about I'll eat my hat. :lol: I haven't seen Inland Empire yet but I hear its along similarly confusing lines...

I think ambiguity can be great in films though - sometimes its nice not be beaten over the head with a resolution eg. the end of Taxi Driver. Its completely up the the viewer to decide whether the final sequence is Travis Bickle's dying dream, or whether he survives and is literally living out that scenario.

I think the ambiguity works well in No Country too - I mean how do you kill a man like Chigurh? The whole story is so bleak and nihilistic it would have been farcical if anyone, let alone TLJ, had stopped him. I think the ending hit the right note...
As always, I think the Simpsons has the best social commentary on this whole issue of trying to make audiovisual storytelling too ambiguous, all in the name of being artsy fartsy. Remember the old Mr Plow episode? Barney raids Homer's plow business with his own "Plow King" and Homer pays for a new ad to be run advertising Mr Plow. The ad is a whole bunch of shadows, prima donna singing, haziness and it ends with a crystal ball being broken and the words "Mr Plow " briefly appearing. Lisa asks: was that your TV ad dad?

Homer (confused and worried tone): "I don't know."
:lol:

Ultimately, movies are there to tell a story. A bit of ambiguity is fine - I certainly don't need to spoonfed - but I think there are more and more films that just go too far and end up becoming just a bunch of stuff that happens with absolutely f**k all meaning.
Michael
Mal Meninga
Posts: 29146
Joined: May 2, 2007, 3:44 pm
Location: Clovelly

Post by Michael »

:lol: Yeah that episode is gold.

I know what you mean - I suppose that I'm all for an ambiguous film as long as there is some sort of narrative that can be followed and not just a hodge-podge of ideas cobbled together from the director's dog-eared notebook.
Image
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 145091
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Post by greeneyed »

Azza wrote:
Michael wrote:I agree with you Azza about ambiguous films being felated because people don't understand them and don't have the minerals to call it crap - look at any of David Lynch's movies!!! In all seriousness though, I loved Mullholland Drive, after a couple of viewings it actually makes sense and you get the sensation of being trapped in a horrible dream - Blue Velvet is similar too. But I've seen Lost Highway about three times, and if anyone can tell me what the f**k it is about I'll eat my hat. :lol: I haven't seen Inland Empire yet but I hear its along similarly confusing lines...

I think ambiguity can be great in films though - sometimes its nice not be beaten over the head with a resolution eg. the end of Taxi Driver. Its completely up the the viewer to decide whether the final sequence is Travis Bickle's dying dream, or whether he survives and is literally living out that scenario.

I think the ambiguity works well in No Country too - I mean how do you kill a man like Chigurh? The whole story is so bleak and nihilistic it would have been farcical if anyone, let alone TLJ, had stopped him. I think the ending hit the right note...
As always, I think the Simpsons has the best social commentary on this whole issue of trying to make audiovisual storytelling too ambiguous, all in the name of being artsy fartsy. Remember the old Mr Plow episode? Barney raids Homer's plow business with his own "Plow King" and Homer pays for a new ad to be run advertising Mr Plow. The ad is a whole bunch of shadows, prima donna singing, haziness and it ends with a crystal ball being broken and the words "Mr Plow " briefly appearing. Lisa asks: was that your TV ad dad?

Homer (confused and worried tone): "I don't know."
:lol:

Ultimately, movies are there to tell a story. A bit of ambiguity is fine - I certainly don't need to spoonfed - but I think there are more and more films that just go too far and end up becoming just a bunch of stuff that happens with absolutely f**k all meaning.
Jesus Christ. Now I've heard everything! The Simpsons is the epitome of intelligent comment on the small or large screen. I saw a dumb movie on the weekend...

Owen Wilson is frozen and he ends up waking up in the future and he's the most intelligent man on earth... as the population has dumbed down so much... the dumb people reproduce and the smart people don't. I imagine them watching The Simpsons in the future in this world and treating it like the Ten Commandments.

The movie was rubbish too by the way!
Image
Michael
Mal Meninga
Posts: 29146
Joined: May 2, 2007, 3:44 pm
Location: Clovelly

Post by Michael »

Get out of my thread :arrow:
Image
Nick
Mal Meninga
Posts: 54995
Joined: January 6, 2005, 7:21 pm
Favourite Player: Jack Wighton

Post by Nick »

Michael wrote:I agree with you Azza about ambiguous films being felated because people don't understand them and don't have the minerals to call it crap - look at any of David Lynch's movies!!! In all seriousness though, I loved Mullholland Drive, after a couple of viewings it actually makes sense and you get the sensation of being trapped in a horrible dream - Blue Velvet is similar too. But I've seen Lost Highway about three times, and if anyone can tell me what the f**k it is about I'll eat my hat. :lol: I haven't seen Inland Empire yet but I hear its along similarly confusing lines...

I think ambiguity can be great in films though - sometimes its nice not be beaten over the head with a resolution eg. the end of Taxi Driver. Its completely up the the viewer to decide whether the final sequence is Travis Bickle's dying dream, or whether he survives and is literally living out that scenario.

I think the ambiguity works well in No Country too - I mean how do you kill a man like Chigurh? The whole story is so bleak and nihilistic it would have been farcical if anyone, let alone TLJ, had stopped him. I think the ending hit the right note...
dude, you remind me of an old english teacher... not cool :lol:
Michael
Mal Meninga
Posts: 29146
Joined: May 2, 2007, 3:44 pm
Location: Clovelly

Post by Michael »

Image Oh dear...
Image
User avatar
Canberra Milk
Laurie Daley
Posts: 15203
Joined: January 6, 2005, 8:44 pm
Favourite Player: Leipana

Post by Canberra Milk »

I watched No Country for Old Men, and I can't see how that ending can be justified. Absolutely dreadful ending.

And Michael, how can you say that Mulholland Drive makes sense after a couple of viewings? Do you mean that every character and scene has a clear meaning? I'm not sure if I see that. I still enjoyed the movie but I don't think it's supposed to make complete sense.
Michael
Mal Meninga
Posts: 29146
Joined: May 2, 2007, 3:44 pm
Location: Clovelly

Post by Michael »

Canberra Milk wrote:I watched No Country for Old Men, and I can't see how that ending can be justified. Absolutely dreadful ending.
I think the point of the ending was the Tommy Lee Jones realises his time has past, and he can no longer fathom the violence, or the motivation for the violence, in his world. He is, if nothing else, a sensible man who understands he is no match for Javier Bardem's character, who is described as being like a 'ghost', and driven by different values to everyone else.

His ramblings were a reference to his voice-over at the start where he talks about his dad being a law-man, and how he loved hearing about the old-timers and their war stories. In his dream at the end he talks about his father riding past him on horseback in the desert, and feeling that one day he'll meet up with his father further along the trail - I think this is meant to be taken that he feels 'finished' and ready to join his old man, not in the sense that he wants to die, but that his purpose in life is over ( he says that he no longer feels he can make a difference).

Its bleak and nihilistic, but I don't see how they could have ended the movie any other way - Javier Bardem's character is such a merciless, brutal killing machine that it would be laughable if TL Jones had defeated him. I think the Coen Brothers were trying to avoid the obvious cliches of the old-timer out for 'one last hurrah' - instead giving the message that America is in the toilet, and the bad guys have won.

Canberra Milk wrote:And Michael, how can you say that Mulholland Drive makes sense after a couple of viewings? Do you mean that every character and scene has a clear meaning? I'm not sure if I see that. I still enjoyed the movie but I don't think it's supposed to make complete sense.
No Mulholland Drive does not make sense in terms of each character and each sequence making literal sense, but think of it like this - the first part is Naomi Watts' imagined journey through Hollywood, and from the moment she puts the key into the blue box and the camera swirls inside it, from the point is the story is reality. Thats how the story gets around characters apparently dying and re-appearing as different people etc.
Image
thickos
Laurie Daley
Posts: 14032
Joined: January 8, 2005, 1:05 pm

Post by thickos »

The ending for NCFOM is exactly how it is in Cormac McCarthy's novel that the Coen brothers adapted. They are very faithful to the book. It's abrupt and bleak, but I agree with your take on it Michael. When I left the movie I had to think about it a lot as initially the ending upset me, but after considering the story I realised how appropriate the ending was.
User avatar
Canberra Milk
Laurie Daley
Posts: 15203
Joined: January 6, 2005, 8:44 pm
Favourite Player: Leipana

Post by Canberra Milk »

It just seemed to me throughout the movie that the real battle was between Brolin's character and Sugar, not Tommy Lee Jones and Sugar. So ending it as if it were between those two still doesn't make sense to me, not to mention its sudden-ness.
Michael
Mal Meninga
Posts: 29146
Joined: May 2, 2007, 3:44 pm
Location: Clovelly

Post by Michael »

Canberra Milk wrote:It just seemed to me throughout the movie that the real battle was between Brolin's character and Sugar, not Tommy Lee Jones and Sugar. So ending it as if it were between those two still doesn't make sense to me, not to mention its sudden-ness.
Chigurh won, Moss lost - that's about all their is to it. Moss was caught up in the carnage, and his one decent act of human kindness was what got him into trouble. His battle with Chigurh pushes the story along, but I don't think the movie is about him, in that sense.
Image
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 145091
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Post by greeneyed »

I see Cast Away with Tom Hanks is on Nine on Saturday night.

Has there ever been a worse movie that Americans thought was intelligent, smart and amazing?

Forrest Gump came close.

But Cast Away surely is worse than The Postman and Heaven's Gate?

How many other Tom Hanks movies could make it on a Top 10 list of Worst Ever American Blockbusters?

What would your list be?
Image
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 145091
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Post by greeneyed »

Worst Hollywood blockbusters...

Waterworld with Kevin Costner.

The Postman with Kevin Costner.

The Body Guard with Kevin Costner.

Forrest Gump with Tom Hanks.

Cast Away with Tom Hanks.

The Ladykillers with Tom Hanks.

The Da Vinci Code with Tom Hanks.

The Terminal with Tom Hanks.
Image
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 145091
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Post by greeneyed »

Here's some more:

Rocky V with Sylvester Stallone.

Rocky Balboa with Sylvester Stallone.

Speed 2 Cruise Control with Sandra Bullock.

The Matrix Revolutions with Keanu Reeves.

Jaws 3D.
Image
Infamous GH!
Brett Mullins
Posts: 1571
Joined: February 7, 2008, 2:56 pm
Location: Blue Mountains

Post by Infamous GH! »

Thinking of seeing 21 tomorrow. Looks alright.
Image

It Takes A Nation Of Millions To Hold Us Back - 'We Are The Raiders Army'
thickos
Laurie Daley
Posts: 14032
Joined: January 8, 2005, 1:05 pm

Post by thickos »

Infamous GH! wrote:Thinking of seeing 21 tomorrow. Looks alright.
It's predictable but I was entertained :cool:
User avatar
Chickas shoe
John Ferguson
Posts: 2475
Joined: May 23, 2007, 10:28 am

Post by Chickas shoe »

Speed 2 Cruise Control is hands down the worst movie I've ever seen, a galling waste of money and my time. The bit where the ship hits the dock and continues inland for half a mile is as stupid a scene as I have ever seen and they save the big oil tanker but, in true Hollywood blockbuster fashion, can't miss out on showing a megaton explosion, they blow it up anyway, thus creating the ecological disaster the whole point of the plot was to avert! monumentally stupid film-making.
Michael
Mal Meninga
Posts: 29146
Joined: May 2, 2007, 3:44 pm
Location: Clovelly

Post by Michael »

greeneyed wrote:
Waterworld with Kevin Costner.
GET OUT OF MY THREAD :arrow: - anything featuring Dennis Hopper with an eye-patch as the bad guy is very watchable.
Image
User avatar
Sasha
Laurie Daley
Posts: 15428
Joined: January 6, 2005, 9:27 pm
Favourite Player: Woodgers

Post by Sasha »

Epic Movie is easily the worst movie in the history of Cinema..

I pity anyone else that has wasted 90 minutes of their life watching it.
Image
Michael
Mal Meninga
Posts: 29146
Joined: May 2, 2007, 3:44 pm
Location: Clovelly

Re: The Film Thread

Post by Michael »

I just went and saw Indian Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, and I am speechless with rage.

The first three quarters of it was great, albeit pretty ridiculous, but hey, that goes with the territory right? Some good laughs, some decent chase scenes and some intriguing plot-lines - I'm thinking this might turn out ok after all, even though H. Ford is now a geriatric.

Then George Lucas (its his fault, he wrote and produced the f**ker) decided to ruin everything with the most ridiculous, lame, pathetic, non-sensical, astounding gay ending in the history of cinema - thus completing the second motion in his quest to leave huge turds on anything decent he has been involed in (i.e. the original Star Wars).

I feel violated - I just want to go and watch Raiders of the Lost Ark to cleanse myself of the garbage I just spend two hours wallowing in.

Just for that, George Lucas deserves to be banished to Dante's seventh level of purgatory, where he can spend eternity having a threesome with Pol Pot and Jeffrey Dahmer.

I'm off to bed to sulk - goodnight and good luck.
Image
EdgeC
Brett Mullins
Posts: 1234
Joined: May 21, 2007, 1:36 pm

Re: The Film Thread

Post by EdgeC »

I watched Cloverfield on the weekend.

Im not sure whether i liked it or hated it. I didn't like the camcorder vision but it wouldn't have been the same without it.

You don't really get any closure.

It kinda remined me of playing resistance on PS3. 1st person view, same aliens....

Has anyone who has seen it able to give me another viewpoint?
Michael
Mal Meninga
Posts: 29146
Joined: May 2, 2007, 3:44 pm
Location: Clovelly

Re: The Film Thread

Post by Michael »

I gave my opinion about it in the first or second page of this thread.
Image
Nick
Mal Meninga
Posts: 54995
Joined: January 6, 2005, 7:21 pm
Favourite Player: Jack Wighton

Re: The Film Thread

Post by Nick »

I've herd that about the new indie flick
Peter Garrett saw the first half hour the other day, was telling me about it, absolutely laughable
needless to say if australia is ever under threat of a neclear device, ill be emptying the fridge!
Michael
Mal Meninga
Posts: 29146
Joined: May 2, 2007, 3:44 pm
Location: Clovelly

Re: The Film Thread

Post by Michael »

Thats not even the worst part:

-There is also a boy who swings across vines of trees (for the first time in his life) and catches up with a bunch of Jeeps who left about 5 mins earlier - then monkeys attack the Commies.

-Indiana's party get down a three-tiered waterfall with nary a scratch, but soaked and their boat gets ruined, but 5 mins later the Commies just appear and the bottom of the waterfall in no sort of water-going craft and completely dry.

-The huge military base guarding America's secrets is guarded by about 6 dudes.

-The Commies set a new benchmark for the 'bad guys who can't shoot to save their lives' award. Just ridiculous - at one stage they are in Jeeps spraying thousands of rounds at Indiana's party, who are about 15 feet away in some other Jeeps, and can't hit a single thing.

There are more that I've managed to block out - just awful...
Image
EdgeC
Brett Mullins
Posts: 1234
Joined: May 21, 2007, 1:36 pm

Re:

Post by EdgeC »

Michael wrote:Just watched Cloverfield after a night out with the girl:

Overall, pretty average. The whole concept of telling the story via handicam where the viewer only every knows as much as the participants is a good one, it gives things a different, edgier slant.

But seriously, this is 2008 and we're still making movies about huge monsters invading Manhattan Island (its always Manhattan Island too for some reason) - please, King Kong was made in about 1933 and its never been improved upon. If Manhattan was struck by some sort of other crisis, even similar to the plot of I am Legend, then it might have had legs.

There was no attempt at back-story at all, no attempt to explain how the monster got there, what it was doing there etc - I'm sure it was deliberate, but it just made you care less. It was well-made and decently acted, but instantly disposable - I can't wait to see No Country for Old Men tomorrow night and watch the Coen Brothers at their finest.
Ok so it wasn't just me.

I just got this ovewhelming feeling that i was missing something.
Michael
Mal Meninga
Posts: 29146
Joined: May 2, 2007, 3:44 pm
Location: Clovelly

Re: The Film Thread

Post by Michael »

I'm currently watching Raiders of the Lost Ark in an attempt to get over the shattering disappointment that was Indiana Jones 4.
Image
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 145091
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: The Film Thread

Post by greeneyed »

I just watched "Lions for Lambs" with Tom Cruise, Meryle Streep and Robert Redford.

I thought this comment summed it up best.

". . . if you want to be bored by pompous-asses, watching 'Meet the Press' on TV is free."
Image
User avatar
-LG-
Steve Walters
Posts: 7002
Joined: February 15, 2006, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Clinton Schifcofske
Location: Seer Green, UK

Re: The Film Thread

Post by -LG- »

I saw the Danish film After the Wedding last week.

Damn fine film.
Begbie
Laurie Daley
Posts: 14381
Joined: February 25, 2008, 3:02 pm
Favourite Player: Smash Williams

Re: The Film Thread

Post by Begbie »

Just watched Blow, with Johny Depp starring as George Jung. I rate it highly. That Kiwi actor that played Jake the Muss is Pablo Escobar in this one - really interesting stuff, and well directed.

GE, another Tom Hanks flopbuster for you "Joe V's the Volcano" But not quite as bad as Cast Away. There's something about Hanks that rubs me up the wrong way. His voice? Expression? Dunno...
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 145091
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: The Film Thread

Post by greeneyed »

Begbie wrote:Just watched Blow, with Johny Depp starring as George Jung. I rate it highly. That Kiwi actor that played Jake the Muss is Pablo Escobar in this one - really interesting stuff, and well directed.

GE, another Tom Hanks flopbuster for you "Joe V's the Volcano" But not quite as bad as Cast Away. There's something about Hanks that rubs me up the wrong way. His voice? Expression? Dunno...
That was a shocker!
Image
Michael
Mal Meninga
Posts: 29146
Joined: May 2, 2007, 3:44 pm
Location: Clovelly

Re: The Film Thread

Post by Michael »

I like it how Rachel Griffiths and Ray Liotta play Depp's parents in Blow, despite the fact that both of them are younger than him. :shock:

Its not a bad movie, but a little pointless.
Image
Begbie
Laurie Daley
Posts: 14381
Joined: February 25, 2008, 3:02 pm
Favourite Player: Smash Williams

Re: The Film Thread

Post by Begbie »

Michael wrote:I like it how Rachel Griffiths and Ray Liotta play Depp's parents in Blow, despite the fact that both of them are younger than him. :shock:

Its not a bad movie, but a little pointless.

True - engaging none the less.

Have they shown "Smith" with Ray Liotta in Australia yet? I thought it was good, had to laugh when I saw Simon Denny from A Country Practice in it though. I'm still waiting for part 4...
Post Reply