Re: Wtf with these quirky movies?
Um, I thought There Will Be Blood was actually somewhat surreal throughout, just not in typical ways.
|
Originally Posted by Deadite (Post 874456)
Um, I thought There Will Be Blood was actually somewhat surreal throughout, just not in typical ways.
|
Re: Wtf with these quirky movies?
Natural Born Killers was the only film that made me turn off the TV. Does anybody consider it to be quirky? I really disliked that movie, the hour I spent while watching that film was a real torture for me, it was just... so bizarre.
Should I give it another go? |
Re: Wtf with these quirky movies?
I love NBK. If you didn't enjoy it for its stylish excess, I doubt you have much reason to go back.
|
Re: Wtf with these quirky movies?
I adore 'quirky' films, the more surreal the better for me when it's that type of film. :)
|
Originally Posted by BlueLion (Post 874462)
Natural Born Killers was the only film that made me turn off the TV. Does anybody consider it to be quirky? I really disliked that movie, the hour I spent while watching that film was a real torture for me, it was just... so bizarre.
Should I give it another go? |
If Magnolia was too surreal for you, don't watch The Master. Personally, I love quirky movies. David Lynch is one of my four or five favorite directors. The collision of fantasy and reality has always fascinated me and I love seeing those ideas brought to life on the screen in unique, creative ways. Unfortunately, I haven't seen Synecdoche, New York, but I figure I ought to check out some of Kaufman's other work first.
Originally Posted by bluedeed (Post 874461)
While Magnolia was explicitly surreal at the end, There Will Be Blood and The Master definitely have an underlying surreal quality. It may be the way Anderson has a sometimes Kubrickian mesmerizing quality. I definitely agree with you though.
|
Re: Wtf with these quirky movies?
NBK isn't really "based" on anything; it uses a Bonnie & Clyde story to portray a media-corrupted world in a very surreal way that mixes potent imagery with hyperactive editing to reflect the bombardment on its populace. Everyone is on ego overload, and absurdly de-sensitized by the saturation of a lethal concoction of sex, violence and thrill-seeking fame worship.
Superficially, the film is presented as the very thing it seeks to deconstruct and indict, using M & M as our entrance into its reality, and following them on their bloody journey. The film ironically uses them to symbolically destroy the system that hyped them and their evil, NOT to endorse their murderous natures and actions but to show how it is evil and harmful in its own way, and essentially no better. |
Originally Posted by Deadite (Post 874456)
Um, I thought There Will Be Blood was actually somewhat surreal throughout, just not in typical ways.
|
Originally Posted by Deadite (Post 874482)
NBK isn't really "based" on anything; it uses a Bonnie & Clyde story to portray a media-corrupted world in a very surreal way that mixes potent imagery with hyperactive editing to reflect the bombardment on its populace. Everyone is on ego overload, and absurdly de-sensitized by the saturation of a lethal concoction of sex, violence and thrill-seeking fame worship.
Superficially, the film is presented as the very thing it seeks to deconstruct and indict, using M & M as our entrance into its reality, and following them on their bloody journey. The film ironically uses them to symbolically destroy the system that hyped them and their evil, NOT to endorse their murderous natures and actions but to show how it is evil and harmful in its own way, and essentially no better. |
Re: Wtf with these quirky movies?
Ultimately though, M & M are the epitome of anti-heroism because they go through a transforming journey and come to represent the least evil and corrupt people in NBK's fictional dystopia. They are destruction embodied as a force for positive change who strike a blow against a stagnantly self-absorbed and totally corrupt system.
They are NOT heroes, let me be clear. They are anti-heroes who are the lesser of two evils, but a lot of viewers missed the point because they thought the world of NBK was the real world, thus those viewers had no reason to identify with its mass-murdering couple. That in itself has scary implications and shows how close we are to NBK's dark vision. |
Re: Wtf with these quirky movies?
Originally Posted by Camo (Post 874486)
Well i'm not exactly sure if it's true or not but i read somewhere bot NBK and Badlands were based on this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Starkweather
|
Re: Wtf with these quirky movies?
NBK is less frantic in its second half, so you might like it better the second time, but you'll still have to deal with first part or see what its point is, if you can find any.
|
Re: Wtf with these quirky movies?
Yes, the second half, actually from the part where they meet the indian onward, focuses the film more on its themes and less on presentation, but as I said, it clearly has a point and its themes are present throughout, just more latent in its first half which is more about giving you a feel for its reality and the blitz on the senses that it is.
The meeting with the indian and what happens is the turning point which focuses M & M's killing spree into a transformative journey and sets up their direct confrontation with the system that has used them to its own ends. |
Originally Posted by bluedeed (Post 874461)
It may be the way Anderson has a sometimes Kubrickian mesmerizing quality. I definitely agree with you though.
Originally Posted by HitchFan97 (Post 874476)
I sincerely believe Paul Thomas Anderson will come to be known as the Kubrick of my generation- a non-prolific, challenging, and uncompromisingly ambitious young filmmaker with strong studio backing.
|
Re: Wtf with these quirky movies?
Or... other people genuinely enjoy those films.
|
On the subject of There Will Be Blood, while I didn't think it was a great film as a whole, I was enraptured by the movie while watching it. And that's mainly due to Daniel Day-Lewis and Paul Dano's performances. Don't know if I'd buy it, but I'm glad I saw it. Day-Lewis is great in just about anything.
|
Originally Posted by cricket (Post 874413)
Yes, I like surreal films. But it's when something like that pops out of nowhere in what I think is not a surreal film that drives me nuts.
|
Things I really like:
Violent films Woody Harrelson Juliette Lewis Rodney Dangerfield Tom Sizemore Tommy Lee Jones Robert Downey Jr. What I didn't like: Natural Born Killers I love the cast and violent crime films are my favorite. Before I saw this, I wouldn't have guessed in a million years that I would dislike this film. Probably the most disappointing film I've ever seen. |
Originally Posted by donniedarko (Post 874483)
I didn't feel much surrealism out of the film. Perhaps the concluding scene, but even that was more drama to me.
|
All times are GMT -3. The time now is 12:52 PM. |
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright, ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Movie Forums