|
|
Post by Head Mutant on Aug 5, 2005 7:00:54 GMT -5
I just want to say that I fully back Sue up on this review. This seems to be an incredibly well-loved movie that (in my opinion) fails completely in being watchable. It's slow, it's not really that touching, just a marathon of starvation and heartstring pluckings. Why is that worth watching? I've always had problems with movies that are only out to depress and sadden you without any redeeming aspect, and it stymies me how audiences can chew through these types of films and say "Thank you sir, may I have another?"
|
|
|
|
Post by siegeshot on Aug 5, 2005 8:45:13 GMT -5
Misery loves company.
|
|
|
|
Post by DocD83 on Aug 5, 2005 9:14:42 GMT -5
After watching "Bowling for Columbine," I decided there's a huge chunk of American society that are just masochists who like being insulted and belittled by stuff they paid to see.
|
|
|
|
Post by bladestarr on Aug 5, 2005 9:55:21 GMT -5
I like the fact that there are movies out there that DON'T end happily. While I do appreciate a good ending, sometimes we need to have movies that make you sick, depressed, extremely upset. For example, while this movie and The Passion of the Christ will never be accused of being the 'feel good movie of the year', I think they were both worth one viewing, and in my case one viewing alone. But then again, I like to wallow in the worst of humanity as well as roll in the best of it, so I'm strange.
|
|
|
|
Post by siegeshot on Aug 5, 2005 12:09:43 GMT -5
lolololololol. I laughed so hard when I read that.
Anyway, the point here I'd like to make, is that regardless of what happened in the movie... (and I agree with Disney killing off whoever or whatever they want after reading this review) never EVER EVER EVER show who died at the beginning, it RUINS it... almost...
House of the Dead anyone? Within the first what, 5 minutes of the movie it starts out at the end?
Very lame. Shows off a very newbish director that does that. And usually gets a complimentry, "THE END" from me right after said scene. Infact I think I said that in Lord of the Rings a few times, when the end of the scene would actually look like the end of the movie cuz Peter was a dork sometimes. Oh well. my 2 coppers.
|
|
|
|
Post by pfrsue on Aug 5, 2005 15:53:23 GMT -5
Moulin Rouge! is a great example of a flick where you know who died right from the beginning, and that has an unhappy ending and yet is still terrific and watchable. Grave of the Fireflies just sucked. Thanks for the back-up on this one, J.!
|
|
|
|
Post by TheOogieBoogieMan on Aug 5, 2005 18:04:09 GMT -5
American Beauty is another good example of that.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarOpal on Aug 5, 2005 21:41:53 GMT -5
Sunset Boulevard
|
|
|
|
Post by Spiderdancer on Oct 11, 2005 16:13:39 GMT -5
Um... I don't think GOTF and Passion are really comparable. In any way. I mean, many films (Braveheart, Donnie Darko and Titanic, anyone?) feature pyrrhic victories based on Biblical, Shakespearean, etc., archetypes. Many are both popular and critically acclaimed. Most involve some measure of deliberate self-sacrifice. Passion took this up a few notches with the gore, but the theme is unchanged. This is not the same as watching the horrible starvation of small children.
|
|
|
|
Post by bladestarr on Oct 11, 2005 17:28:04 GMT -5
They are similar in the way that they both depict humans dying slowly and painfully. In both movies you could argue that the point of the deaths was to show the value of every moment of life, and the simple pleasures that we take for granted when we no longer have them. Like eating (in the case of GOTF) or keeping your blood IN your body (in the case of the Passion).
|
|
|
|
Post by Spiderdancer on Oct 11, 2005 18:57:16 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure the point of Passion was fairly specific in terms of its message. In fact, there was a huge public furor over ditto. So I think it's safe to say it's not about how great it is not to die slowly and painfully, any more than Braveheart is about how great it is to not be beheaded by the English or Titanic is about how great it is not to freeze to death. All three are films about the fact that some things, whether it's saving the human race, your girlfriend, or your FREEEEDOOOOM, are worth any cost. This is very different from saying "Hey, look, this really sucks! You should pity us and be glad it's not happening to you!"
|
|
|
|
Post by bladestarr on Oct 11, 2005 20:45:59 GMT -5
So are you saying that a movie can only have one message in it?  |
|
|
|
Post by pfrsue on Oct 11, 2005 22:37:11 GMT -5
So are you saying that a movie can only have one message in it? I don't think she said that. She was using specific examples, you're rebutting by asking about a generalization. Even so, the purpose and message of The Passion is clearly documented. The purpose of GOTF was apparently to make me nauseous. |
|
|
|
Post by Spiderdancer on Oct 16, 2005 23:20:26 GMT -5
LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by Head Mutant on Oct 17, 2005 8:51:23 GMT -5
ROFL
|
|
