The main storyline is straightforward, yes, but what about I'm reminded of Holy Motors and Schnecdoche, New York, in that all three films are beautiful but perhaps any explanation exposes more about the viewer than anything else.

Crazy Eight wrote:

Vader182 wrote:

Crazy Eight wrote:Cilogy, Vader's arguments often revolve around how being in minority in holding a feeling for a film generally discredits said feeling, work that into your counter. Just a friendly tip.

lol, you're just mad I said Routh sucks.

Anyway, I'm actually in the minority in this case. Even critics that loved it said it's baffling. It isn't, they just weren't trying hard enough.


-Vader

You always use that as a point for why someone disagreeing with you is absurd. lol You did it to me twice today, and Dave cites it as one of the most annoying and stupid ways you argue.

It's relevant in the context I use it, I never hang an actual argument on it. Considering how often I'm in the minority against critically acclaimed films (READ: No Country, Kane, Vertigo, and anything by Melville), majority/minority isn't relevant to me in the way you're phrasing it. I use it as a point of context since, generally, if something connects to a lot of people, there's a reason, good or bad. For instance, if someone says a movie was incomprehensible but plenty of people didn't think it was, it probably makes more sense than you give it credit for and it's something about 'you' that didn't connect with it. I hold this standard to myself as much as anyone, which is why I occasionally revisit films I can't stand but everyone else loves on the off chance something about it connects with me in that special way because I recognize the possibility I might just not be getting it. I did this recently with District 9, Vertigo, and No Country for Old Men, the most recent of which was last Sunday night.


Sandy, -Vader

Most people connected to it, I just think it's answers are easier to comprehend than most. I felt the same way about The Fountain. These 'impossible to understand' movies usually deal with a challenging concept rather than challenging content, and critics and viewers create a self-fulfilling prophecy of putting the film on a mind-fuck pedestal that makes it this eternal ambiguity.

This idea should be familiar to many of you, since it's what happened with Inception.


-Vader

Vader, I agree with what you're saying regarding revisiting films and such, and I did read That's the scene that sticks out.

After reading about it and talking about it, I do like the film a lot more. It leaves a mark, that's for sure. I also agree with you about the challenging concept, which is why I wish we could fit some of the conceptual pieces together, rather than the plot pieces, but I'm not sure it is possible. I just feel that Carruth has something he's getting at, and I'd like to really know what it is, beyond all the standard tropes and such that we've already discussed.

Perhaps I should throw Walden on the reading list.

Sandy wrote:Vader, I agree with what you're saying regarding revisiting films and such, and I did read

the explanation above regarding the farmer. Now what's really on my mind is the scene with the bearded guy and the redhead, and him leaving over and over and the ambulance.

That's the scene that sticks out.

After reading about it and talking about it, I do like the film a lot more. It leaves a mark, that's for sure. I also agree with you about the challenging concept, which is why I wish we could fit some of the conceptual pieces together, rather than the plot pieces, but I'm not sure it is possible. I just feel that Carruth has something he's getting at, and I'd like to really know what it is, beyond all the standard tropes and such that we've already discussed.

Perhaps I should throw Walden on the reading list.

I half expected Christopher Mccandless to burst out onto the scene and start playing guitar. Seriously, it was more seemingly pro-transcendentalist than Into the Wild. That said, I think the general point of the film was to show an inescapable interconnectivity between all things on multiple levels, from the way people meet and fall apart, to the good and bad 'energies' guiding us throughout life. It's all very mushy and touchy-feely, but I go for that kind of thing when it's done this abstractly. I think some people are forgetting that this film's being marketed as an experimental film, not as a typical art house motion picture.

I have no clue about the so if you come up with a theory yourself let me know.


-Vader

Upstream Color.

While this film undeniable features better photography, I still can't help but feel as though Chris Noonan's 1995 revelation, Babe, is still the best film about pig's. Granted it's sequel, Babe: Pig in the City nears its predecessors perfection. Upstream Color's riveting narrative about a group of pigs fighting back against it's psychotic farmer does rank highly amongst the genre, though. Charlotte's Web is an obvious classic, however it's craftsmanship was less than par. The normally on-point Gary Winick failed to deliver a compelling piece of cinema in Web, and despite it's fame and general approval, I have to take the daring and unpopular step of saying Upstream's bacon tale is it's better.

Now, let us not forget the Muppet's. While not a traditional pig tale, an argument can be made that the Muppet film's are an important part of the now popular and competitive genre. Miss Piggy is not only an icon for all of puppetry, but she's likely the most famous pig character in the history of film and television. While I think Upstream's star's, Pig #1 and Pig #2, likely give Miss Piggy a run for her money based purely on talent, I can't deny her cultural reach, and thus must give all the Muppet films the edge over Carruth's hammy film.

Crazy Eight wrote:Upstream Color.

While this film undeniable features better photography, I still can't help but feel as though Chris Noonan's 1995 revelation, Babe, is still the best film about pig's. Granted it's sequel, Babe: Pig in the City nears its predecessors perfection. Upstream Color's riveting narrative about a group of pigs fighting back against it's psychotic farmer does rank highly amongst the genre, though. Charlotte's Web is an obvious classic, however it's craftsmanship was less than par. The normally on-point Gary Winick failed to deliver a compelling piece of cinema in Web, and despite it's fame and general approval, I have to take the daring and unpopular step of saying Upstream's bacon tale is it's better.

Now, let us not forget the Muppet's. While not a traditional pig tale, an argument can be made that the Muppet film's are an important part of the now popular and competitive genre. Miss Piggy is not only an icon for all of puppetry, but she's likely the most famous pig character in the history of film and television. While I think Upstream's star's, Pig #1 and Pig #2, likely give Miss Piggy a run for her money based purely on talent, I can't deny her cultural reach, and thus must give all the Muppet films the edge over Carruth's hammy film.

Jack the Giant Slayer (2013)
Level of Admiration: 7.4/10
Level of Personal Interest: 8.2/10


A decent piece of entertainment with likeable characters you can care about and fun to watch villains played or voice acted by great actors. You can watch it with the whole family and enjoy it. Not quite the light hearted kid stuff some might expect though.

Also there is a bit of PJ's touch in this. At least that's what I felt. CGI is not really in the level of atrocity we saw in trailers but they are still pretty week for a 190$ production. There are some terrible CGI moments that may harm experience for some but are not really a problem for me.

I got exactly what I wanted, I don't really know what other might feel.£

Master Virgo wrote:Jack the Giant Slayer (2013)
Level of Admiration: 7.4/10
Level of Personal Interest: 8.2/10


A decent piece of entertainment with likeable characters you can care about and fun to watch villains played or voice acted by great actors. You can watch it with the whole family and enjoy it. Not quite the light hearted kid stuff some might expect though.

Also there is a bit of PJ's touch in this. At least that's what I felt. CGI is not really in the level of atrocity we saw in trailers but they are still pretty week fr 190 production. There are some terrible CGI moment that may harm experience for some but are not really a problem for me.

I got exactly what I wanted, I don't really know what other might feel.£

Thoughts on Hoult?

IWatchFilmsNotMovies wrote:

Master Virgo wrote:Jack the Giant Slayer (2013)
Level of Admiration: 7.4/10
Level of Personal Interest: 8.2/10


A decent piece of entertainment with likeable characters you can care about and fun to watch villains played or voice acted by great actors. You can watch it with the whole family and enjoy it. Not quite the light hearted kid stuff some might expect though.

Also there is a bit of PJ's touch in this. At least that's what I felt. CGI is not really in the level of atrocity we saw in trailers but they are still pretty week fr 190 production. There are some terrible CGI moment that may harm experience for some but are not really a problem for me.

I got exactly what I wanted, I don't really know what other might feel.£

Thoughts on Hoult?

He's good for what is expected from him in this. He can play likeable leads and that's enough for now.

There is no great performance in this but everybody were pretty good and the best one was definitely Tucci.

Singer's difficult job was to keep everything on a simple minded level without slipping into the dumbness territory and he succeeds imo.£