Meatwadsprite's Slow Review Thread

→ in
Tools    





I felt kind of bad for Jack at the end , just because Nicholson is a really likable guy - even when he's trying to murder his family with an axe
__________________



Will your system be alright, when you dream of home tonight?
I must say that Paths of Glory is really good and definitely worth at least one watch.

Second, have you TAPS? It's a pretty solid movie. I really think you'd enjoy it.
__________________
I used to be addicted to crystal meth, now I'm just addicted to Breaking Bad.
Originally Posted by Yoda
If I were buying a laser gun I'd definitely take the XF-3800 before I took the "Pew Pew Pew Fun Gun."



Short Cuts (1 view)



This expansive ensemble piece ties in many great acting performances into each other much better than it ties it's own themes together.

You are introduced to about 14 different characters within the opening credits , it's a lot to keep up with - but it's a really enjoyable balancing act. So many great actors in one film , it's an impressive feat of it's own - and there are moments of brilliant writing throughout.

However even at three hours long , the ending hits you out of nowhere - there's so much left open and you realize Short Cuts isn't supremely put together when you arrive at it's conclusion. Even if it is inferior to others of the type , it's still very entertaining because of it's realistic acting and massive amount of characters.

So what is the point of the movie , what questions does it ask ? Unlike other giant films that thread multiple narratives together , it doesn't have any huge underlying themes - rather it is simply a enormous character driven story.




I'm not sure what themes aren't very pronounced in Short Cuts. It seemed crystal clear to me.

Much of the thematic elements of Short Cuts come from death, fidelity, chance and luck. There is a lot to say about the film, as it is not an immediately accessible piece. I find it somewhat ironic that you enjoyed Magnolia, which is just a poor man's Altman piece - but you feel Short Cuts lacks any underlying theme.

Both Magnolia and Short Cuts are extremely messy. One main difference between the two is that the silliness of Magnolia's ending ruins the film entirely.



I don't see anything silly about Magnolia's ending , I thought it was great how the whole time there are multiple stories all running their own paths grounded to realism and then - BAM ! - one impossible event shakes all of them at once.

Unlike Short Cuts , I found Magnolia to be tightly wound together - it's music always fits the amount of excitement and the more action-esque scenes are found together , then allow the more singular scenes to happen in more linear fashion.

Either way I'm not sure how you could enjoy one and hate the other.



As for the ending of Magnolia, it was cheap and a cop-out. It was incredibly pretentious. It wasn't anything brilliant or profound, just silly and lacked subtly.

Magnolia
does have a tighter structure than Short Cuts (which isn't saying much), but that's the problem. A tight story inevitably leads to a contrived feeling - rather than the natural events occurring in Short Cuts.

Too many films follow a rigid, manipulated structure and it feels incredibly fake. When everything comes together in a neat package, I don't feel satisfied. I feel I've been fooled.



Lawrence of Arabia (1 view)



This four hour deconstruction of war epic takes place across the heavily symbolic and beautiful Arabian dessert , it's acting performances are those of the highest caliber and it's cinematography alone conveys a huge array of emotions.

Lawrence of Arabia is a movie that requires patience , more than any film I've ever enjoyed so much. It does not ever misplace it's excitement , but it's sometimes camel pacing can produce the rare boring moment (which fits well in the context , but keeps this from being perfect in my impatient eyes).

The two halves of this movie are also very different , the first following only one character (Lawrence) on his long travels through the desert and is backed by an abundant musical score. The second half follows two different factions , the Arab and British and takes place in many different locations. They both tie in well together and I'm sure I will enjoy the first half more now , already knowing what happens in the second.

Visually this is gigantic , so many overly ambitious shots of hundreds of things happening at once - I was instantly reminded of another older film that did similar things The Bridge on the River Kwai , which was also directed by David Lean. You think how many things can do they do in the desert ? Apparently a lot. Feelings of emptiness , scenic marvel , spirituality , destiny - all derived from the truly captivating camera work. Tornadoes in the distance , canyons far beyond reach , and the horizon of sand all the pleasures of shooting on location.

Certainly not perfect. Certainly enjoyable.




2001 : A Space Odyssey (1 full and 2 half viewings)



I'm not sure why I would give this another shot , but since I'm giving Kubrick's films a second chance - why not this one. I'm surprised to say I actually enjoyed it this time around , even though many of my problems with the movie still keep it from ever being a favorite - I found this overly symbolic science fiction space film indeed "good".

I'll break my review down , for each chapter of the film

The first of four acts is described right from the moment you see the text preceding. "The Dawn of Man" follows a group of apes first intellectual breakthroughs. You can appreciate and compare the apes with how humans act , they have some intelligence and argue , bond , and pursue their enjoyment. Upon the discovery of weapons , a bone is tossed in the air and falls as a spaceship thousands of years later.

So starting the second act which is a simple introduction to the futuristic vision of 2001 - from the perspective of 1968. Then we see humans and their ability to communicate with words (not ape grunts) and all the marvelous things they have made. Video communication , space travel , and a mysterious discovery. When the small group of restricted personal find this black monolith (which was introduced in the first act) - it creates a piercing sound perhaps symbolizing an over abundance of information and the lack of human ability to understand our existence.

Now you arrive at the third act "The Jupiter Mission" , which is also the longest of them all. The "ghost in the machine" idea has been done so many times in film , but 2001 is special because it's machine the HAL-9000 has the strongest emotional pull of anything in the whole movie , more than the humans. Once HAL has apparently ruined the mission after a mathematical defect , the sole survivor on board's destiny is left in the hands of the viewer.

"Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite" , one could assume Dave is stuck on his ship - unable to go back home or to Jupiter and spends the rest of his life contemplating life in general. You could assume he goes to Jupiter and discovers the monolith - sending him on a completely abstract experience similar to the viewers. Whatever is going on here , it doesn't appeal to me. A completely random mess , it's as engaging and thought provoking as a white piece of paper.

So my final opinion on this highly regarded film - it's masterfully framed and shot. There are numerous scenes that drag on far too long (I didn't really mind until the third act , where we see him take the communications thing off the ship) that test the patience of the most calm man. It's final act is ridiculous and lazy , but as for the rest it's pretty enjoyable.




Give it time young meatwad, the film will continue to grow in its appeal. The final act is certainly not a completely random mess, I've semi-explained it once before on this forum, it is very philosophical. Glad you liked Lawrence of Arabia, have you seen The Bridge on the River Kwai? And since you're watching Kubrick films, listen to Mark and Lennon, and me for that matter, check out Paths of Glory.
__________________
"Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."



28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
Glad to see someone else think that 2001 isn't the masterpiece people claim it is.
__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews



Paths of Glory (1 view)



Kubrick's second feature length film (albeit still a very brief 87 minutes) is a very cynical war film and even perhaps darkly humorous. As fun as this movie was , I believe he mastered the same film later in Dr. Strangelove.

The French army morality is in question when military ranks become a mixed bag and suggest that every man is of equal importance no matter how many men they command. A mixture of great far and close range cinematography and the introduction of several camera techniques - make this an easy film to look at. My biggest problem with this movie is that Kubrick later made a movie that takes every major theme from this one and then complicated it further - while adding more extravagant touches.

Either way enjoying one , leads to enjoyment of the other. It's definitely a worthwhile film and offers a couple of truly unique scenes if not completely unique messages.




Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
Most "lay" viewers would see that Paths of Glory is far-more humanistic than Dr. Strangelove... . Maybe this is a good time to bring this up, meaty. Do you ever cry at movies? I'm sure you didn't cry at Strangelove, but what about the ending of Paths of Glory? Honestly, I see Paths of Glory as a strict anti-war film throughout its length, and if it's not, then at least it's pro-life, at least life below the rank of General. Now, I realize that Strangelove revolves around similar subjects such as politics and war, but it actually tries to get you involved and pumped up by all the insanity of not only war but its logical conclusion, the end of the world. There is no way for the destruction of the world in Paths of Glory because Mankind hadn't gotten smart enough to know how to completely obliterate itself. During the entirety of Strangelove, the viewer is almost "cheering on" the death and destruction which ensues, and it's only at the end that you realize that you wanted the world to end. In Paths of Glory, I know of no viewer who wants anybody at all to die, especially for something so utterly pointless.
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page



I thought the last scene was powerful , but I didn't feel that Paths of Glory was much more humanistic than Strangelove. Both of them have people in high places making decisions that result in the deaths of many and both mix a sense of true human good into their concoction of absurd mechanical motivations (and the humor that they are coming from humans themselves).

It seemed that Paths was clearly taking itself more seriously , but I felt it was done better when you mix insanity with comedy. There were moments that I felt Paths was dabbing in humor - where you saw it deadly serious , I guess I should reveal now that I am in fact a robot - not a human.

"It's in your nature to destroy yourselves." - The Terminator



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
You kinda looked like a robot in that video review you posted a long time ago when you had something akin to four broken red dots under your user name. Of course, you've matured since then into a better robot...



Let the Right One In (1 view)



To call this the best vampire movie isn't much of a statement , but it is a pretty enjoyable drama with the veil of a horror film in front of it.

Bland visuals (except for the last scene) and a slew of terribly thin characters are what I don't enjoy about this. What I did enjoy was the love story told in the fashion of a mystery. It's hard to understand why these people enjoy each other so much right up until the final scene , I thought it was done very well. I would probably have a much different view on the two main characters now , knowing how it ends.

That being said , there is a severe lack of stand alone brilliant scenes and the always ridiculous "school bully' theme is present here. The supporting characters are all crafted to be hate-able , which supports the concept of the relationship of the two kids while making the movie less enjoyable.

Overall I enjoyed it , but occasionally there were some really dumb moments and the film itself is completely underwhelming. Even if it's avoidance of excitement fits the context of the two lovers , it works against the enjoyment of viewers who love the bold cinema.




Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
I think the visuals are rather well-composed and unusual and add to the eeriness of the plot and setting. I also think you can make bold cinema by being calm and quiet just as often as you can by being loud and frenetic. I think making a film like Let the Right One In is really very bold; if you don't believe me, try comparing it to other recent films in the genre.

Hey meaty, are you trying to tell me you never had any run-ins with the "school bully", especially when you were 12? You have to remember that most vampire films qualify as fantasy anyway, so look at it as something along the line of a fairy tale.

I will agree with you though that Paths of Glory is better...