Printable View
Punch Drunk Love 4.0/4.0. Haven't seen There Will Be Blood yet but PDL's the fourth movie I saw from PT Anderson. It's a great departure from Boogie Nights and Magnolia, and most of his mainstay cast are gone. I've never liked Adam Sandler but in here's an exception. As for Emily Watson, an actress I admire, it's fun to see her sane after countless viewings of Breaking the Waves (I've seen Gosford Park though she's only a bit player there).
i heard there was this long sex scene in the Wings of the Dove.
:thumbs_up Love that movie, too, Antiquarian; it is one of my favorites. I am glad you finally got to see it. I have not yet read the book, but I ran out to buy it, right after I saw that film. I own the film; saw it at the video rental real cheap, when they sold out the VHS tapes. It is great film; loved the scene at the church with the doves, didn't you? and wasn't there a voice over in the end of that scene or a reading? I just know it was an emotional scene.Quote:
Originally Posted by Antiquarian
The sex scene at the end is in shadows; no big deal anymore, as you said. You do see Helena in all her naked spendor, but is that really anything to gawk at? She is merely 'au naturale'.
I loved the acting and thought everyone was cast perfectly in the film. It is such a beautiful film. Cinematography is wonderful and setting superb and romantic.
I can't write any more. My eye is still hurting me badly and this bright screen is a killer. Just checking in quickly and will resume my listening to "Women in Love" on MP3 - I love it!
Watching tonight:
"No Country for Old Men" - so far I am finding it intriguing. I will let you all know later what I thought of it.
Notes on a scandal (2006)
Absolutely loved Judi Dench in this one. Cate Blanchett was ok, not her best though.
But the ending....hmm.
8/10
I haven't seen it yet but what you wrote made me think of Looking for Mr. Goodbar. I found the ending of that movie to be very disturbing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Antiquarian
Wow, I know I keep thinking about that ending also, Antiquarian. I felt angry at first, or let down, but then I thought more about it. At first, I thought, 'oh my, that is it?' Now I realise something - it was much more disturbing this way. I felt because of the ending, one could now empathise with the Sheriff and his situation in his life. I especially liked what he told his wife at the end. I thought, before I viewed the film, that the title meant the old men that were murdered; then I realised at the end of the film, that the title took on a whole new significance and because of that ending. I liked the film, but I felt as I have been feeling lately - why must we always be awakened by such violence? We are never awakened as keenly by kindness or goodness, as we are by these intricate characters who exude this unworldly quality we cannot relate to humanly. I felt at times that the main perpetrator acted out like a robot or a ghost, as Jones pointed out, even though I felt Bardem's performance unbelievably fine, and I also felt that Tommy Lee-Jones deserved an Oscar. I thought he was very complex and just great in this film. He is such a pro. Even the Coen Brothers admit the film is a sort of horror film; others on the Extras on the DVD say it has it's own unique genre..who knows? It is funny, looking back now on the film, I feel I saw more humanity in the monster in "Frankenstein"; I actually felt sorry for Frankenstein's creation sometimes, but I could not find this, in the character of Anton in this film. The suspense and cinematography and the acting in the film were all great; it kept one on the edge of your seat, for certain, truly suspenseful...very scary at times. I felt it reminescent also, of moments in "Fargo", which I really loved; especially the tiny bits of 'real' life humor, throughout the film. The casting seemed to me to be excellent. As a well crafted movie, I felt it excelled. It is definitely a finely made thriller.Quote:
Originally Posted by Antiquarian
I just don't think I would go out of my way to view this film a second time; maybe it just was not my type film. I thought it 'wowed' me in many ways, so that last statement of mine is hard to explain. I did think it one of the Coen Brother's finest films; but I am not a huge fan of theirs, personally. I think the content is what I found to be truly disturbing. I think they did make tasteful choices and cuts at the right moments mostly. I think they could have refrained from showing the man bleeding from his neck and the other spurting blood...what else can I say? I preferred the scenes that suggested the violence or one did not see it so blantantly. That is just personal preference, I know.
Wow! Janine, that was an excellent review!! I didn't see the movie actually, but I'm planning to. Your review is just amazing. You made me wanna watch the movie even more now :D
Nossa, gee, thanks - and here I thought I would be strung up for that review or attacked. I was trying to be honest and I had to really force myself to see this film, but my son and his wife both highly recommended it. The film is 'dark', and I guess by now, I was a little bit leary of watching a truly dark film again this week; I just saw the Jesse James film and that was dark in nature. The thriller aspects of this film cannot be beat. It is, as my son told me, 'unlike anything you have seen before' - even the setting. It is not contemporary, but rather set in the 1980's. I did not realise that fact, until I watched the 'Extra Features', on the DVD. I guess I was so engrossed in the movie plot, that I did not even think about the time period in Texas, although there are many little symbols and important details of set, I should have noticed as in the past. I liked that about the film and always do. They did a good job, depicting these areas in Texas 20 yrs, or so, ago. The set designer said, it is actually harder to depict a time period, not that far from present day, than it would be to do period piece that is set further back, perhaps the 1800's. I thought that was an interesting fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nossa
Nossa, after you view the film, let us know what you thought of it.
I totally agree - it seems they got it right in some scenes. I even thought the handcuff strangling scene amazing, but then they showed it on the 'Extras' and you could actually see blood spurting out - oh gross! I really had not noticed that before, since I was concentrating on Bardem's expression, which was truly amazing. That also looked so totally scary and real. But where I really thought the Coen Brothers excelled, were in scenes like in the hotel, with Woody Haroldson; first off Woody was creepy himself, and so 'cool and calm and collected' and cocky-sure of himself, and then that phone ringing created such tension; the way it all played out was perfect timing, and one did not see much in blantant violence - imagining was much worse. It was enough. I also felt other scenes that cut right before the violence, were better played out that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Antiquarian
Exactly, and I thought I would be crucified on this thread, if I said so. I wish I could have seen something to indicate the man was anyway human or had a reason to be as he was. But truly, that was the idea of the film and I know that Bardem definitely pulled that off well. I think next Bardem should play Frankenstein...haha...however he would bring some humanity to the role. Yes, the kind of killer he was one could not comprehend. He did play that perfectly and well deserved the Oscar.Quote:
I felt Javier Bardem gave an amazing performance (Tommy Lee Jones as well), but Bardem's character, Anton Chigurgh, was robotic in his ability to kill and kill and kill.
Me either. Too scary too. Yes, all the talk about it, I am glad I did see it even though I found it disturbing.Quote:
I have no desire to see the film a second time, though I am glad I watched it.
I would too. You know that to be true, Antiquarian. I like thrillers when I am in the mood but I would prefer a film that is a little more uplifting or restores my faith in human beings.Quote:
I don't understand what's with all the violence, either. I'd rather watch a Jane Austen period piece or something by Merchant/Ivory.
Thanks, Antiquarian for the suggestion; I must find that and watch it. I don't mind Lee Remick. I recall her from years ago. How old is this film? I love beautiful cinematography! I like Henry James and the films made from his books; I love films set in autumn - they are so vibrant.Quote:
Oh, speaking of Merchant/Ivory films, if you ever get a chance to see "The Europeans" don't pass it up. It's not the best film or the most engrossing, and Lee Remick was a little too old for the role she played, but the cinematography is the best I've ever seen, even eclipsing "Atonement." The Henry James book takes place in springtime, but Merchant/Ivory changed it to autumn to take advantage of a New England autumn and it is gorgeous. Worth it for the cinematography alone.
Ever see the Henry James adaptation of "The Bostonians" - I really liked that film and saw it twice now. It's merits really rest heavily on the fine performances. It is an interesting film. Vanesa Redgrave is amazing in her role - worth it just to see her in this part; she is so convincing.
LOL. Well I haven't seen the movie yet, so I can't oppose you yet ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
But sometimes, even when a review isn't 100% in favor of the movie, it's an excellent one. I guess now that I wanna watch the movie, it's a total contradiction to your purpose of the review, ha? :lol:
I have a comment on something you said, on how the serial killer in the story is acting like a robot. I think this is pretty realistic. I mean, a killer is a killer, that's what he does, it's more of a routine to him, he doesn't feel guilt and so his killings are more of habits by time. At least that's how I see it. Maybe when I watch the movie I'll get more insight into his character.
I still think you provided a great review.
I have one question though. Is the movie different from MacCarthy's novel?!
I think that maybe in a movie, there's exaggeration sometimes, or maybe it's beacuse you see the actions rather than read them(if you read the original novel). I know an Egyptian movie that was in theatres a few months ago. It claims that it depicts the Egyptian reality now, but it's like reality X100...it doesn't scare you, but it just made me feel depressed for a whole week. This might be a downside in the movie, I'll still have to watch it to decide, but I agree on the concept.Quote:
Originally Posted by Antiquarian
Nossa, that is true - you might be the one to condemn my review instead of applaud it.;) :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Nossa
I feel that way also. I can see the value in a good movie even if it does appeal to me personally. I recall seeing "Bonnie and Clyde" when I was young and I we all thought that movie was extraordinary at the time. Now I don't think I would take the time to view it. It just does not interest me and I think it won many awards; and was well done. It is all personal taste.Quote:
But sometimes, even when a review isn't 100% in favor of the movie, it's an excellent one. I guess now that I wanna watch the movie, it's a total contradiction to your purpose of the review, ha? :lol:
No, I meant my review to be impartial in a way and I tried to be quite honest. I could see some flaws but basically I thought it was a good film and very well constructed and played out. Let me know what you thought of it when you have viewed it and be honest with me.
It probably is realistic and that is what actually makes the story so scary and gives it it's impact as a film. One cannot explain the killer. I think that is the point. He definitely feels no guilt and no remorse at all; one wonders if he feels anything; you will see. He even walks robatically I think. I don't think there is any insight into the charcter that Bordem plays - that is not to say he plays the role badly - to the contrary - he plays the role spendidly. Who could show no emotion at all? He pulls it off perfectly.Quote:
I have a comment on something you said, on how the serial killer in the story is acting like a robot. I think this is pretty realistic. I mean, a killer is a killer, that's what he does, it's more of a routine to him, he doesn't feel guilt and so his killings are more of habits by time. At least that's how I see it. Maybe when I watch the movie I'll get more insight into his character.
I still think you provided a great review.
Ah, I did not read the book; I know Virgil did; he mentioned that once in his film review. You would have to ask him; I believe he loved the book.Quote:
I have one question though. Is the movie different from MacCarthy's novel?!
That is true. That Egyptian movie sounds funny - reminds me of something. I befriended someone on this site, who lived in China; she told me the movies that I mentioned to her, were all 'unrealistic' to the real China and it's history. These were fine acclaimed films. I had to laugh, but I did think it probably true, that they were way 'off' in reality', when I watched them. One was "The Last Emperor" and another was "Raise the Red Lantern". So, you can't believe everything you see on the silver screen, either; for any country this applies. Yes, 'exaggeration' is a 'by word' in the movie industry I am sure. It is all done for effect, not realism.Quote:
I think that maybe in a movie, there's exaggeration sometimes, or maybe it's beacuse you see the actions rather than read them(if you read the original novel). I know an Egyptian movie that was in theatres a few months ago. It claims that it depicts the Egyptian reality now, but it's like reality X100...it doesn't scare you, but it just made me feel depressed for a whole week. This might be a downside in the movie, I'll still have to watch it to decide, but I agree on the concept.
Yeah I agree. I only saw the trailer to the movie and Bardem looked scary, with that weird hairdo they gave him too :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
I agree that the exaggeration is done for effect not realism. But something about this Egyptian movie was just...disgusting to a certain extent. Without going into details, there's this trend in the country these days that some people (who're supposedly wiser than all of us) say that the society is corrupted and many moral and ethical problems are spreading in it, and that the role of cinema is to uncover these problems for the purpose of healing them. I agree on that the society has problems, whatever these problems are, but it's been there forever not just now. My take on any movie like the one I talked about is that they don't show the problems in their real size. I mean if you make a movie about a certain moral problem in society, this probelm has to be some sort of a phenomenon, it has to be on a wide scale in order for people to understand and identify with it. That movie wasn't a thriller or a horror movie where some issues can be 'made' and depicted. But in a movie they call 'social drama' or whatever they call it, you gotta make the viewer believe that these things actually happen. Not to mention that the movie is obviously rated NC 17, it's got heavy sexual content and and heavy bad langauge (some words that were said there, was the first time for me to hear them..lol), they let kids go to the movie, like 8,9 and 10 kinda kids. It was weird hearing the questions the kids asked their parents during the movie.Quote:
That is true. That Egyptian movie sounds funny - reminds me of something. I befriended someone on this site, who lived in China; she told me the movies that I mentioned to her, were all 'unrealistic' to the real China and it's history. These were fine acclaimed films. I had to laugh, but I did think it probably true, that they were way 'off' in reality', when I watched them. One was "The Last Emperor" and another was "Raise the Red Lantern". So, you can't believe everything you see on the silver screen, either; for any country this applies. Yes, 'exaggeration' is a 'by word' in the movie industry I am sure. It is all done for effect, not realism
I'm sorry I went off-topic...lol...but I hope you get my point.
Kurosawa's The Hidden Fortress 3.0/4.0