Everyone goes to the movies

Joined: 18 Feb 2007 Posts: 1297 Location: realismland

no, i mean there was definitely meaningful stuff happening. i was pretty frustrated with it yesterday when i was writing so i probably exaggerated how much of a mess it was, but i still maintain that it was kind of a mess. and that i didn't like it. doing away with realism to the extent that kaufman did just seems like a cop out to me. like if you can't get your point across in the context of a real story, then just screw it and do whatever you want. also i felt kind of misled by the beginning that it was going to be a very different kind of movie than it ended up being.

like i got that he was kind of stuck in his past without ever really coming to terms with it, trying to recreate it with his production, and also in his second marriage. and then how his wife and daughter die without him ever really repairing his relationships or even making much of an effort to reconnect. but then finally with hazel he does things right i guess? and then maybe the burning house was supposed to represent that hazel had decided to take what was convenient in order to avoid caden despite the obvious fact that she was dooming herself, but i'm not really sure.

and there was plenty i didn't understand, like what it was supposed to mean that the outside world became filled with crime and violence or why all the actors were killed just before caden dies. maybe that was representing that he had gotten over being so focused on his own life, but i don't know. also why was sammy following him for his entire life? it doesn't make sense to me that the character who kills himself because caden is too obsessed with his own life was also obsessed with caden's life. also i don't know what the significance of the marriage counselor was. or what was with the shower right at the front of adele's apartment, or what was the deal with his illness that seemed to be forgotten about halfway through the movie. or why the movie was titled what it was when it ends up having nothing at all to do with schenectady.

christ i feel like i am in a high school english class

Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:42 pm

I don't know the answers to most of those questions either.

The movie begins in Schenectady though. Also I feel like synecdoche as a concept fits what happens in the movie pretty well.

Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2008 11:00 am

I thought the burning house was pretty ham-handed and I didn't really like it, but I took it to be a dramatization of one of the things they said -- "The ending is enclosed in the beginning." (Or something like that.) In other words, the instant Hazel bought that house she already knew how it would end.

And I agree with Miles about the title. I didn't even notice the similarity between Schenectady and Synecdoche until you mentioned it.

Christmas came early Joined: 16 Feb 2005 Posts: 9225

going to see frost/nixon tonight knock on wood

first time i've gone out to the movies since burn after reading

Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2008 10:43 pm

Okay time to make my preliminary "best of 2008" list. There's still a few movies I haven't seen yet, so this may change as time goes by.

I'd say the top five right now are:

1. Rachel Getting Married
2. 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days
3. The Visitor
4. Let the Right One In
5. Synecdoche, New York (by a hair)

Other contenders to fill out the top twenty slots include: Tell No One, WALL-E, The Dark Knight, Vicky Cristina Barcelona, A Christmas Tale, Burn After Reading, Hellboy II: The Golden Army, Changeling, RocknRolla, The Ruins, Australia, The Happening, Funny Games, Frozen River, OSS 117: Cairo - Nest of Spies, Quarantine, The Fall, Paranoid Park, Roman de Gare, and Tropic Thunder.

I haven't seen Slumdog Millionaire, Doubt, Revolutionary Road, The Wrestler, Milk, Frost/Nixon, Timecrimes, or Gran Torino yet, but they look like they might be pretty good. There's also a few movies from earlier in the year I need to rent -- mostly Baghead, X-Files, and The Promotion. Hopefully I can see most of everything and make a definitive list by the end of January.

Joined: 27 Dec 2005 Posts: 9989 Location: Personal Space

haven't seen any of your top far yet...

Joined: 11 Nov 2005 Posts: 8693

I decided to catch up on stuff from this year that had made it to video, but when I went to the shop The Visitor was out.

Boorishly why did you leave me hanging as regards Australia?

Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 2:53 am

I saw part of The Visitor on the flight to Hawaii but it was boring so I went to sleep.

Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 2:53 am

While watching Synecdoche, I found myself reading it not like I would a piece of narrative fiction, but rather a piece of contemporary art. (Which is what I do most of the time for school).

I think if one tried to think about it as a piece of narrative fiction it would be really unsatisfying. As a piece of art, in the medium of film, I thought it was genius. I loved it.

Joined: 19 Jul 2005 Posts: 16347 Location: TaBB Graveyard

didn't you already post that

Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 3:25 am

Pretty much but in the other thread, and people weren't talking about this movie there, and it turns out they are here. Or, were.

Also I am really excited about it and just wanted to post about it.

I'm sorry Melissa

Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 8:14 am

Tom Meade wrote:

Boorishly why did you leave me hanging as regards Australia?

Well, I liked it okay mostly because I like the actors and because we don't get many movies about Australia over here. Also the first few scenes at least are all like, "Hey check out this rich color mates!"

But the first half of the movie is basically The Cowboys, but not as good. And honestly I expected it to be over before the second half began because I didn't realize it was going to be three hours. It was a decent story with an interesting setting and some pretty shots and Hugh Jackman is cool, but nothing that really blew me away. Also it is way too long.

Re: The Visitor. I remember thinking, "Man this should be so boring but it is actually really good." So I think in slightly different circumstances I very well could have been more like, "Man this is really boring." Also, I am pretty disappointed that none of my favorite movies this year were in wide release. Usually I like more of those, but it just seemed to be a really disappointing year for Hollywood flicks. As good as WALL-E and The Dark Knight were, there were still parts of them that annoyed me in the theater.

Re: Synecdoche, New York. I try pretty hard just to watch movies as movies, rather than as pieces of modern art. But a couple times a year there is something weird and ambitious enough that it is just a totally different movie-going experience from other movies -- and whether I like it or not, I usually end up remembering it long after I've forgotten about other more traditional movies that are more enjoyable at the time.

This year those movies were Synecdoche, New York and The Happening. (And, to a lesser extent, Funny Games.) But it's kind of a dicey thing since I can also see how movies like The Fall or My Winnipeg could have been the same kind of thing, but for some reason just weren't for me. Sometimes I think when you get to particular kinds of movies that don't work like normal movies, it really just depends if you're in the right kind of mood when you watch it. I could definitely see watching Synecdoche, New York again and just not feeling anything.

Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 4:56 pm

So Slumdog Millionaire is a very enjoyable movie, but I hate the way that the emotional core to the whole thing is an offensively stupid love story with a message about how some things are just destined BLAAAAARF.

It's really good otherwise though.

Christmas came early Joined: 16 Feb 2005 Posts: 9225

Boorishly P. Foundry wrote:

If you like to have fun at the movies, then I think you should go see Hellboy II: The Golden Army!

so i finally saw this and I enjoyed some parts of it but really looking over this thread there were complaints about wall-e, iron man, and the dark knight being too heavy handed or over-rated and those movies all had a lot more going for them than just Guillermo del SteampunkJimHenson's imagination.

it needed wall-e's heart, iron man's sense of humor, and the dark knight's ability to create dramatic tension out of pointless plot devices. but the current tween generation needed its own 'Labyrinth' so at least it got it.

Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 8:40 am

I don't really think it's much of a criticism to say that Hellboy II is not near as good as either The Dark Knight or WALL-E, which were two of the best movies of the year. Even though I have complaints about both, I think they are in a completely different category from Hellboy in terms of overall quality.

But I do think Hellboy is way better and often way more fun than most of the other summer action movies that came out this year -- Hancock, Indiana Jones, Wanted, Death Race, and even Iron Man (which really kind of sucked in every part that wasn't Robert Downey Jr.). Anyway I don't care that much about humor and heart so what do I know. I'll take dark scary fantasy over robot suit hijinks any day of the week.

Joined: 11 Nov 2005 Posts: 8693

Two points! Firstly, 99% of that movie was Robert Downey Jr. Secondly, Gwyneth Paltrow was really great too.

I have only seen eleven 2008 movies, apparently, and The Band's Visit and The Orphanage only count as 2008 movies because that's when they were released over here. Nonetheless, I am continuing to brush-up, and at this point my top five looks like:

1. The Visitor
2. The Band's Visit
3. The Black Balloon
4. Quantum of Solace

With Iron Man, Burn After Reading and Australia tied for fifth place.

I quite liked The Dark Knight but it's very bloated and often pretty stupid, and I suspect that it's rewatch value isn't very high. Parts of it were the best film I've seen in years, but unfortunately they were buried in just another big, dumb action movie. I really wish they had just gotten rid of Two-Face and the stupid love triangle and the badly-handled political subtext and the magical mobile phones and the faux-batmen and Wise Old Mr Freeman and all that crap, and just made a really cool crime film about an insane detective trying to catch the Joker. But no, they managed to stink the whole thing up.

Actually this is my main problem with the Batman movies. They keep on approaching them as superhero films, when they should just be old-fashioned crime films in which the protagonist happens to dress as a bat.

Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2008 3:00 am

I just saw The Spirit and I think I really liked it despite a handful of thuddingly awful parts. But it was way more interesting than the average movie, and that goes double for superhero movies. I don't know nothing about the Spirit comics and never saw Sin City in case that makes any difference.

Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2008 12:12 am

Boorishly, maybe you reviewed it previously, but I really want to hear about interpreting The Happening as a piece of modern art. My friend and i could not wrap our heads around it. Eventually we just started laughing cause all we could see was a filmmaker imploding. Afterwards my friend spent a week trying to find something else in the film, something we missed, but he gave up.

I've been home with family this weekend, watching so many movies.

Step Brothers - i was suprised how over the top it was, so rediculous
Benjamin Button - really in love with it, left me crying for the entire last act
Shop Around The Corner - really need to do a Lubitch marathon
Dream Team - CLASSIC
Bottle Rocket - haven't seen it in a long time, made me feel like a film student in the 90's all over again
Tropic Thunder - director's cut...can't say it was better than the theatrical cut

Tomorrow we're seeing Slumdog Millionare and still have Dark Knight to show my parents and a half dozen flicks we want to see in the theater.

Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2008 12:27 pm

I don't think The Happening is modern art (did I say that somewhere?) but I am 90% sure that it is M. Night Shyamalan just screwing with everybody -- with the studio, with the actors, with the audience. That is the only conceivable way I can explain some of the things that happen in the movie.

But, on the other hand, M. Night Shyamalan has never ever ever ever ever previously shown that he has any kind of sense of humor whatsoever and especially not about his own movies so that is where the 10% of doubt comes in. And I think that is what makes the movie so amazing for me. I want to believe that it is supposed to be a Z-movie homage done with a completely straight face and big-name actors and really good production values -- like M. Night is totally out-Grindhousing Tarantino and Rodriguez by blowing a big budget on a ridiculous movie and not including any winks or nods at all. But there is still part of me that believes it is just a horrible movie, since that was the direction that his movies have been trending ever since The Sixth Sense anyway.

So I guess that is what made the experience of watching the movie so unique for me. I kept trying to figure out if this was really the best movie that M. Night could make, or if he was making it bad intentionally, or if it was some mixture of the two. Regardless, it is one of those movies (like The Fountain, Southland Tales, Youth Without Youth, and Synechdoche, New York) that kept me in a state of befuddlement the whole time I was watching and that I keep trying to figure out long after I have seen them. And since there are so many movies that I promptly forget after seeing them -- even if they are pretty "good" ones -- I tend to feel pretty sympathetic to the ones that seemingly get stuck in my brain for one reason or another.

Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2008 3:11 pm

I think, cause you all were talking about Synecdoche as modern art, then you put Synecdoche and The Happening in the same sentance, I was just associating it.

My friend still holds a theory similar to yours, but couldn't find any evidence to back it up, and M. Night's filmography more supports the other theory of a filmmaker losing his touch.

My mom and I saw Slumdog Millionare this morning. Danny Boyle spins a good tale. He does a better job controlling the sap and mixing in the darkness than he did with Millions.

Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2008 3:54 pm

Somebody else was talking about Synechdoche, New York as modern art. That wasn't me. I just said it was an unusual viewing experience.

Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2008 5:56 pm

thew wrote:

Dream Team - CLASSIC

With Michael Keaton? That movie is spectacular. Good lord, when are we going to get the Michael Keaton comeback we all deserve? That is my wish for 2009.

Last night I watched Out of the Past with Robert Mitchum and Kirk Douglas and it ruled. Right now I'm watching Escape from Witch Mountain b/c apparently Ted Turner got married to Walt Disney or something and TCM is playing all these old live action Disney movies and I've never seen this one. It kind of blows, but Donald Pleasence is keeping me watching.

I also caught The Simpsons Movie. Blech. I'm trying to decide if Charlie Wilson's War is worth an evening. Also, thinking about going to the movies too but everything out right now feels like homework and/or seems like it has a huge, probably fatal flaw, and so there's nothing I really want to see. This discussion hasn't really changed my mind about anything. Except for the fact that I need to re-watch Dream Team.

Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2008 6:40 pm

Boorishly P. Foundry wrote:

Somebody else was talking about Synechdoche, New York as modern art. That wasn't me. I just said it was an unusual viewing experience.

That was me!

(Even though I don't think it is Modern art, but that is just art history semantics.)

Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2008 7:29 pm

Professor Stevie Freezie wrote:

With Michael Keaton? That movie is spectacular. Good lord, when are we going to get the Michael Keaton comeback we all deserve? That is my wish for 2009.

YES

Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2008 1:13 am

just showed Dark Knight to my parents. it's the first time i've seen it since this summer. it's still damn good.

part of me wishes it was split into two films so we could have more harvey dent, but at the same time, the movie has such a strong momentum that i go along with the decision to do it all in one film.

i think the cop watching the door in the same cell as the joker bugged me (it bugged me the first time too). it seemed too convenient to put the cop in the room. i would have rather the joker set his trap talking through the glass.

the cell phone gadget was unnecessary, it seems like they could have gotten to where they wanted to be without it. and batman doesn't need Daredevil's sonar, they already gave him "flight."

the rachel dawes character was underwritten.

didn't really like them hiding Gordon's daughter, it was like they wrote her off, not planning on doing Batgirl, but for some reason awkwardly kept her in the films while choosing to focus on his son.

the ferry boat scenes are as clunky as can be. but i think what might have brought it together, is if Zeus had shown up earlier in the film as one of the mob henchmen. then there might have been something to care about.

that's all kind of nitpicky. cause the movie pretty much has me hooked beginning to end and so many possibilities for the third.

Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2008 10:43 am

I watched Brothers Solomon last night based on thew's comments above.

It's basically just Dumb and Dumber made by funnier people, but, then again, it's Dumb and Dumber made by funnier people.

Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2008 10:43 am

thew wrote:

Professor Stevie Freezie wrote:

With Michael Keaton? That movie is spectacular. Good lord, when are we going to get the Michael Keaton comeback we all deserve? That is my wish for 2009.

YES

You guys could maybe write Tarantino a letter and then we will get one good Michael Keaton movie and ten years of crappy ones where he plays angels and Bill Clinton and stuff.

Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2008 1:17 pm

Actually Tarantino and Soderberg already did that with Jackie Brown and Out Of Sight, then we got ten years of First Daughter, Herbie Fully Loaded and Cars.

Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2008 1:27 pm

Benjamin Button was pretty good but I think it was too long. Like, I'm fine with 3 hour movies in general, but I think in this one it was tough because the narrative conceit means you always know about how much of the movie is left. So like you've been watching for a while but then you're like "crap he's still pretty old, there's a lot of this movie still to go." The film was always making me aware of its running time, which is not the same as boredom, but it's a pretty good substitute.

On the other hand I could probably watch Cate Blanchett twirl around for three hours anyway.

Christmas came early Joined: 16 Feb 2005 Posts: 9225

justinpie wrote:

I saw Hamlet 2, which tried to give the "Strangers With Candy" treatment to Dangerous Minds kind of movies, but it had a lot of "Robot Jesus Monkey Monster SoOoO crazy!" moments that were pretty blowful.

man i found myself embarrassed to be watching this about halfway through. so many bad decisions made so frequently