Citizen Rules...Cinemaesque Chat-n-Review

→ in
Tools    





Master of My Domain
You say most of the dialouge is pointless, as a Pulp Fiction fan I would say only a small portion of it can be removed (but it shoudn't ), you do have a good argument.

I want to refute by pointing out that all Tarantino films are an exploitation of some sort. In Pulp Fiction the thing being "exploited" is the dialouge. The dialogue of the film is a writer's nightmare- conversations pop out of nowhere and the events are out of basic order, and so on. The cleverness and daringness, almost obnoxiousness behind it is awesome.

Plus I really like when dialogue isn't used to drive the plot, instead sit back, relax, and seem to chat with the audience. It's entertaining, fresh, and way more enjoyable. It still is a revolution today.

Considering your film taste disliking parts of Pulp Fiction is understandable, just wanted to let you know that not everything thrown in the long 150 minutes is a waste.



Which part of the PCT where you on? In the movie she starts at Mojave, which looked very dry and hot.
I've been on the portion that passes through Castle Crags in Northern California. Here is a brochure: http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/454/fi...ochure2014.pdf

I'd be very interested if you see that quality in the movie. That's what I was hoping to see, but didn't find it. Cool, that you're going to watch it, let me know what you think.
Watched it this afternoon and after reading your review wasn't sure how I'd feel about it. Turned out I liked it a lot.

Firstly, I’m not a hugely experienced hiker but I love it every time I’m out surrounded by nature- even when I’m a disgusting mess and I feel like I’m going to pass out or vomit from exhaustion. For me, I’m pushing myself out of my comfort zone physically but also mentally. I love hiking because of how connected I feel with myself and everything around me but what always surprises me are the random thoughts that will pop into my mind. That’s what the flashbacks during the movie reminded me of and Cheryl was reflecting on everything that brought her to where she was, as a person and in that moment on the PCT.

I may have felt a more personal connection with Cheryl because I could relate to some of the significant events in her life. My dad passed away a month after I turned 21 and it has been the most devastating event I have experienced. I won’t spoil the scene for others who may still want to view the movie, but the day after my dad died someone called extremely early in the morning; My mom and I picked up the phone at the same time but she responded to the caller first. The caller was asking my mom if she would donate my father’s eyes. I was frozen and speechless because it was such a heartbreaking conversation to have and also overhear. Needless to say, I started sobbing when I saw one specific scene in the movie.

Found this article that included most of the quotes I liked:

http://www.ranker.com/list/wild-movi...-and-tv-quotes

My favorite quote was: “Cheryl, if there's one thing I can teach you, it's how to find your best self and when you do, hold on to it for dear life."

There were many moments I related to but what stood out the most was how a person can become unrecognizable to others and even themselves when they are grieving.

I could probably go on and on about this film but I’m going to stop here: Wild may not be the best movie I have ever seen but I liked it a lot and highly recommend it.

Thanks CR for peaking my interest and getting me to watch it sooner!

I thought about watching Wild, but thought it might be one of those films that worked much better in the original book. Is it worth reading FF?
Haven't finished it yet, but so far it is worth reading. My best friend also enjoyed the book.

You might want to check Cheryl's Dear Sugar column from The Rumpus if you are curious to see how she writes:

http://therumpus.net/sections/blogs/dear-sugar/



Thanks for posting your thoughts Funny Face. I'm glad you liked it and found some personal truth in it. It seems you made a personal connection to the story that I didn't. I can only image your reaction to the eye donation scene, that must have been hard to watch for you.

On a lighter side, I did have one connection to the movie. In the scene where Cheryl takes off her shoes, then loses one as it rolls down the mountain side...happened to me. When I was in my early 20s, me and two friends were climbing in the Cascades in Washington state. We reached this rocky outcropping that was very steep and I did not want to climb it. I was nervous about it as it was a free climb (no ropes) and a fall would be deadly. So I took off my shoes and got half way up, then got stuck and accidentally dropped a shoe just like Cheryl did. It must have rolled a couple hundred feet down so there was no way I could get it. I tossed my other shoe as it wasn't no good to me, and I went to the top and back down bare foot! To make matters worse I then had to walk a mile up a gravel road to reach the car. My feet were sore! and bleeding.



At least you were able to give it another go, CR. As others have said, I find merit in your criticism. I myself haven't watched the film for a long time now and, in part, that's because I just don't want to sit through The Gold Watch segment. Even when I absolutely adored the film I felt it was the weakest part and that degenerated down to not wanting to see it.
__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.



I must have seen Pulp Fiction at least ten times in full and more than twenty in parts. The last time I saw it was at the cinema last year, that was fantastic. It's a shame you don't enjoy it that much
__________________



...I want to refute by pointing out that all Tarantino films are an exploitation of some sort. In Pulp Fiction the thing being "exploited" is the dialogue. The dialogue of the film is a writer's nightmare- conversations pop out of nowhere and the events are out of basic order, and so on. The cleverness and daringness, almost obnoxiousness behind it is awesome.

Plus I really like when dialogue isn't used to drive the plot, instead sit back, relax, and seem to chat with the audience. It's entertaining, fresh, and way more enjoyable. It still is a revolution today.
Gatsby, this might surprise you but I agree with what you said about the dialogue in Pulp Fiction. I actually really liked it and for the same reasons you mentioned.... but only up to the point of the last scene in the diner where Samuel Jackson goes on and on with his speeches. That felt to me like a rehash of what Quentin had wrote earlier in the film and felt contrived. So did Quentin's scene with Harvey Keitel.


... I myself haven't watched the film for a long time now and, in part, that's because I just don't want to sit through The Gold Watch segment. Even when I absolutely adored the film I felt it was the weakest part and that degenerated down to not wanting to see it.
Any specific part of the Gold Watch segment or all of it? I really liked Bruce Willis and Maria de Mederiros scenes together. I noticed their relationship and dialogue felt much different than the rest of the movie. They spoke to each other gently and with affection, that was believable. However the scene inside the pawn shop was just disgusting. I don't care to see a man being raped by another man. Not to mention the whole bondage thing and the Gimp character was just too over the top.

Without that scene and Quentin's scene with Harvey Keitel and the scene in the junk yard with Julia Sweeney, I would have gave the film a 4/5



On a lighter side, I did have one connection to the movie. In the scene where Cheryl takes off her shoes, then loses one as it rolls down the mountain side...happened to me. When I was in my early 20s, me and two friends were climbing in the Cascades in Washington state. We reached this rocky outcropping that was very steep and I did not want to climb it. I was nervous about it as it was a free climb (no ropes) and a fall would be deadly. So I took off my shoes and got half way up, then got stuck and accidentally dropped a shoe just like Cheryl did. It must have rolled a couple hundred feet down so there was no way I could get it. I tossed my other shoe as it wasn't no good to me, and I went to the top and back down bare foot! To make matters worse I then had to walk a mile up a gravel road to reach the car. My feet were sore! and bleeding.
That sounds like quite an experience! Hope you didn't lose any toenails! Do you still go out hiking? What parts of the PCT have you been on? The Pacific Northwest is beautiful. My family lived in Washington about a year before we moved to California. In the last few years I've been taking trips to Oregon and I've completely fallen in love with the state. I hope to move there one day.

Have you seen Redwood Highway? It's on my watchlist and looks like it has similar themes to Wild.



No lost toenails just sore feet! Do I still go hiking? Sadly I haven't in the last 3 years. After getting married me and my wife would go to Mt Rainer at least once a month for a good hike. I'm long over due.

I don't remember what part of the PCT trial it was. I was on another trail and it intersected the PCT trail and I seen the sign and though it was cool, but I don't remember where. I really like Oregon too. I have thought about moving there. What part of Oregon do you want to move to?....I haven't seen Redwood Highway.



The scenes between Willis and de Mederiros the only scenes which worked pretty well in that segment, IMO, but really, the whole segment doesn't really work for me and I feel the writing is the worst of the three segments, too. The scene with Quentin in the house is silly, but I quite like it and once Keitel turns up and starts ordering the hitmen about, he steals the whole scene and makes it work well for me.

Don't get me wrong, the first 10 or 20 times I saw PF, though it was always me least favourite part, it didn't dread it like I do now.





Pollock
(2000)

Director: Ed Harris
Cast: Ed Harris, Marcia Gay Harden, Tom Bower
Genre: Biography Drama
Length: 122 minutes

Premise: A biography of the life and career of acclaimed American painter Jackson Pollock. The film follows him from his early days as a struggling artist, through his success and recognition as an avant garde painter. Finally ending in his demise, as he falls out of favor with the critics and his personal life falls apart.

This is a sincere look at Jackson Pollock. Directed and starring Ed Harris who not only physically looks like Pollock but as a skilled actor gives us a frank look at one of the most important painters to come out of America. Don't expect high drama, the film is shot in realistic style. The music score when present is light and none obtrusive. There's no attempt by Ed Harris the director or Ed Harris the actor to tug at our heart strings or invoke sentimentally. This is a clean film. Some might find it dry. I found it refreshing.

Ed Harris is a fine actor and as he's directing himself he really gets to shine. And yet he keeps the reins on his emotions, that's his strength as an actor.

Marcia Gay Harden is Lee Krasner a unknown painter and confidant of Pollock. Latter she moves in with him and becomes his wife. She's the rock to his rocky personality. She's good in this role as she too looks and feels like the real deal.

One of the high points of the film is seeing Pollock create his art. He was famous for the free form, drizzle method in which the canvas is laid on the ground and he drizzles paint onto it. There are many scenes that show the processes that went into creating his art.

Pollock was a quiet man, so in a way he remains an enigma in the film. He appears to suffer from some form of mental or emotional difficulties. One thing is clear he had a drinking problem that not only effected his marriage but held back his artistic endeavors.

Ed Harris shows us the sad, but brilliant reality of Jackson Pollock.



Attachments
Click image for larger version

Name:	Pollock 2000.jpg
Views:	233
Size:	96.3 KB
ID:	49145  



I really like Oregon too. I have thought about moving there. What part of Oregon do you want to move to?....I haven't seen Redwood Highway.
I love Bend, but realistically I'm thinking Portland because there may be more opportunities for me there careerwise; Also, only a 3 hour drive to Bend so I could visit easily (vs the 6.5 hour drive I have now!). Any specific areas of Oregon you like?

I'm adding Pollack to my watchlist! Marcia Gay Harden is a great actress.





Time After Time
(1979)


Director: Nicholas Meyer
Cast: Malcolm McDowell, Mary Steenburgen, David Warner
Genre: Sci Fi Adventure, Drama, Romance
Length: 112 minutes

Premise: In London 1893 inventor H.G. Wells has gathered together a group of his friends to tell them of his latest invention, a time machine. Elsewhere, Jack the Ripper has struck again. Fleeing the police he manages to steal the time machine, escaping into the future, 1979. Wells then pursues the Ripper to San Francisco in attempt to stop him.

Review: The art direction of Victorian era London was well done. One could almost feel like you were there. We see cobble stone streets, covered in eerie fog, with puddles of water afoot. The lamps are gas lamps, you can see them flicker.

The opening shot starts with a first person perspective from behind a low, wrought iron fence. Then as a prostitute walks down the street, the camera approaches her, as if it was the eyes of her unknown stalker. We even see the hands of this first person come into the frame. Reminiscent of the film noir Lady in the Lake (1947).

When the mystery man finally speaks to the prostitute she seemed to recognize him which cleverly throws the audience of guard. Another good touch was the Rippers musical pocket watch that the camera cuts to as he 'rips' her.

Cheers to Malcom McDowell who pulled off playing the intelligent free thinker, Victorian gentlemen H.G. Welles...he played him to a tee.

This was Mary Steenburgen second major film and she does have a weird way of talking in this film. She spoke very slowly, almost like she was dazed or dimwitted. But her character was supposedly a smart, self made woman. I liked her in this film anyway. Her and Malcom had good chemistry. In fact they married shortly after this film.

Perennial bad guy character actor, David Warner plays the infamous Jack the Ripper. A man of taste and intelligence but lacking a conscious. Warner is a strong point in this film and the perfect juxtaposition to McDowells H.G. Wells character.

The time machine looked good too. It was different than the time machine used in the The Time Machine (1960). The special time travel effects were pretty bad even by 1979 standards. Oh well, the movie isn't about effects, it's about romance and about ideas and adventure too.

The film had an underlying theme...in the beginning of the film Wells tells his house guest that the future will be a peaceful utopian society. This then sets the stage as the idealistic dreamer Wells, meets the fast pace, aggressive late 20th century.

There were a few plot holes that bugged me as Wells goes about matching wits with Jack the Ripper. Overall it was an enjoyable ride.






Attachments
Click image for larger version

Name:	Time After Time (1979).jpg
Views:	293
Size:	63.5 KB
ID:	49146  



Hi GBG, no I don't mean time travel holes. I mean

WARNING: "spoiler" spoilers below
the scene where Amy has seen a newspaper with her own death in it. Then back in her apartment Wells tells her to check into a hotel so that the Ripper can't find her. What does she do? She takes a Vallium and drinks some booze and then takes a nap!



You can't make a rainbow without a little rain.
Hi GBG, no I don't mean time travel holes. I mean

WARNING: "spoiler" spoilers below
the scene where Amy has seen a newspaper with her own death in it. Then back in her apartment Wells tells her to check into a hotel so that the Ripper can't find her. What does she do? She takes a Vallium and drinks some booze and then takes a nap!

WARNING: "SPOILERS!!!" spoilers below
Yeah, that wasn't the brightest thing to do, but remember, Wells didn't expect to get arrested and detained by the police. He was supposed to be back to protect her long before the Ripper was supposed to show up there.



WARNING: "spoiler" spoilers below
I know the script writer had her sleeping so that the Ripper would have time to catch her in her apartment, making a suspenseful scene as the door handle turns.

OK here is my modified version that achieves the same thing.

The scene starts the same way with Wells telling her to meet him in the hotel but instead of taking Vallium, she hurriedly gathers a few things to leave. She fumbles around in a desk drawer trying to find keys, having a hard time finding them she gets nervous. Then she grabs her purse and then drops it as starts to leave the room. She is so scarred that she quickly heads for the door and trips, banging her head and knocking her self out. She only comes too when the door handle turns and awaken her.

That achieves the same thing and is more exciting and fits more with the story. But as I tell my wife I'm 36 years to late to rewrite the movie



You can't make a rainbow without a little rain.
WARNING: "spoiler" spoilers below
I know the script writer had her sleeping so that the Ripper would have time to catch her in her apartment, making a suspenseful scene as the door handle turns.

OK here is my modified version that achieves the same thing.

The scene starts the same way with Wells telling her to meet him in the hotel but instead of taking Vallium, she hurriedly gathers a few things to leave. She fumbles around in a desk drawer trying to find keys, having a hard time finding them she gets nervous. Then she grabs her purse and then drops it as starts to leave the room. She is so scarred that she quickly heads for the door and trips, banging her head and knocking her self out. She only comes too when the door handle turns and awaken her.

That achieves the same thing and is more exciting and fits more with the story. But as I tell my wife I'm 36 years to late to rewrite the movie

Yes, that would have worked too, and it would have made more sense than what she did.

WARNING: "SPOILERS" spoilers below
I thought he should have brought copies of his books back with him. That would have made it much easier for him to write them.