this is a must.
no connection...but props to the modern 3:10 Yuma. I thought this was one of the finest westerns I've ever seen.
that's a fun one, you seen the original? i really liked how they updated the ending, i wasn't expecting it and it kind of worked (certainly better than the original ending did). i've come to the belief that russell crowe kind of owns.
did you see the assassination of jesse james? i think it has the modern masterpiece tag written all over it but there's no accounting for taste. i watched them quite close together when they came out and the contrast is pretty startling.
I thought this one was pretty good.
i hated it but not really 'cause of clint (though i gotta say that whilst clint's latter day sentimentality is responsible for the existence of the major classic that is unforgiven and the minor classic that is gran torino, it's also responsible for those films not quite being as great as they could've been), it's that pompous ass paul haggis i can't stand - all his movies are just sentimental middlebrow preaching dressed up in what i like to call 'mainstream grit' (most common property of mainstream grit is what's known as the morgan freeman righteous black man voiceover).
I've never heard a Harry Potter film described like that, nor have I ever truly thought them to be that complex. Great review!
yeah, that guy's my favourite movie critic - he also totally justified my love of finding nemo (which i incidentally rewatched last night) for me
. only like 1% of movie critics are actually worth reading, but there are some gems out there who totally open up new perspectives towards these things.
re: synecdoche new york
i find it's too close to home in many ways for me to talk about easily. to me it feels more real than any conventional 'realism' ever does because it externalises a subjective perspective and forces you to share it rather than simply showing you things from the outside and making you a passive viewer - this means that even when the narrative is stretched to near-madness the film retains its pulling power because it feels like the actual experience of falling into madness, rather than simply becoming meaningless through loss of clarity. at least for me. i don't find it forced either, i find virtually every progression totally logical within the mental landscape that kaufman's created.
i think synecdoche new york encapsulates with pinpoint clarity the horror of aging, the recognition that everything is temporary and fleeting, the essential loneliness of that process. it's a relentlessly despairing film, no doubt about that, but only because it's relentlessly true in its revelations of the way that happiness (include creative satisfaction in that) is necessarily built upon delusion and artifice, and that a human life viewed as a whole seems a disturbingly tragic endeavor. when i look at my favourite films--synecdoche new york, mulholland drive, perfect blue, dead ringers, aguirre: the wrath of god, dogville, unforgiven, no country for old men, there will be blood, eyes wide shut, mccabe and mrs miller, treasure of the sierra madre and on and on and on (plus my favourite music and literature)--they're unified by the way they evaporate the thin layer of ice and dive into the ocean of chaos and darkness (though what they do in that ocean may differ - much of metal, for example, romanticises it), to paraphrase herzog's quote about the artificial, evasive nature of civilisation and, by implication, the likes of identity and sanity as well. the dark stuff--or rather, the stuff that comes from a place of darkness, even if it turns it into light--is the only stuff that feels true to me and so is capable of making me feel something.
and let's paraphrase kubrick as well in his belief that art is inherently anti-civilised, because it follows that the most artistic films are those which most completely shatter as many comfortable lies as possible and force the viewer to confront the things they've been avoiding. that's really what we mean when we say 'challenging', 'difficult', etc, it's a matter of dragging us into considering perspectives that for one reason or another we haven't made the step into ourselves. one thing synecdoche new york (along with antichrist, most recently) has suggested to me is that not 'getting' a film is better described as
resisting a film (in these particular cases some of the negative reactions seem to have been intensely physical). there are a number of films that i've probably resisted in this way (eraserhead comes to mind as a possible example), but i recognise that 99% of the movies i dislike these days i 'get', or feel as though i get, far too easily - they're taking me to places i know far too well to get excited about. this is why i like to read good film criticism; sometimes it shows me either that there's an entry point for the stuff i've resisted, or that i haven't 'got' a film as easily as i initially thought - that there's something more dangerous lurking under the surface.
and now that i'm back to talking about criticism, it might be appropriate to link to
this brilliant charlie kaufman interview, and mention that the DVD includes the interviewer (my aforementioned favourite critic walter chaw) in a special feature wherein a few bright movie bloggers discuss the film.
Can someone PLEASE name a couple movies that do not have extremely predictable endings etc
lol, just stop watching shitty movies man. most of the stuff we rave about on here doesn't indulge in this kind of bullshit. the invention of lying was pretty bad, i agree - most of that other stuff i wouldn't even download. the wrestler is cool but even that's not right among the best stuff the last few years have offered in my opinion. did you see/like no country for old men? sure as hell can't call that ending predictable or hollywood.
ps regarding philip seymour hoffman: SHUT UP! SHUT THE FUCK UP! shut up; will you SHUT UP SHUT UP! SHUT SHUT SHUT SHUT SHUTUP... SHUT UP!