4 more days, people! 4 MORE DAYS! 99 1/2 HRS ET!

Discussion in 'Movies, Entertainment & Various Music Genres' started by Brahman, Sep 14, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Brahman

    Brahman Mel Van Peebles

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Messages:
    17,544
    there is no character flaw

    you're still not getting it!

    he didn't have a "turn of heart". his heart was the same the whole time. pistol-whipping someone during an interrogation doesn't mean that you don't ultimately want to save their life. and, shooting back at them when they're shooting at you doesn't mean your biggest wish is not to apprehend them safely to get info out of them. how you jump to these conclusions i have no clue.

    how do you know his wife had more balls? she just had an emotional connection to the case ("she was my friend!") that he didn't have. we don't know how she would have proceeded had she been in his shoes without that connection.

    no character flaw... it's you who has the flaw in analyzing characterization

    oh so false

    if you didn't sense the reservation in guy pearce's character, there's nothing i can do to help you there... pearce gave a great nuanced performance to communicate that.

    ok, this is a matter of taste

    i think this movie is vastly superior to both you've mentioned

    no, i don't... at all

    however, i'm willing to concede that if you didn't connect with the mood and atmosphere of it, there may not be enough dialogue or exposition to satisfy you

    i think there's plenty of intellect in this film... it just isn't delivered explicitly

    the complicated themes are there... you have to identify and think about them

    and, repeating, although this film has intellect... it not having intellect wouldn't have made it a bad film

    that's your problem

    you're constantly thinking about what you yourself would have done in the character's shoes and are faulting the movie for having the character be different from you. i see these kinds of criticisms all the time, and they annoy me. dare i say it, but you and others who do this don't know how to really watch and critique a film. always complaining about "he/she should have done this that blah blah blah... that movie sucked"

    a terrible criticism

    you could tell from the beginning that guy pearce's character was going through moral change within himself. arthur was the ringleader of the gang dragging his brothers along with actions they may not wholeheartedly wanted to have participated in, but big brothers can have that type of influence.

    even though mikey was dead, charley came to the brink of wanting "no more", the very words he uttered when he shot arthur... he believed arthur was beyond a point of redemption, so he chose to end his life then and there to prevent him from carrying out more heinous acts




    Not arguing, having a conversation. You argue i'm trying to tell the didn't view point. I got the VIBE- drawn out, slow, repeat. atmospehere- It feelt dirty. I'm trying to tell you the poetic menace wasn't good enough for me. I needed more, alots more. I have the brain of quentin tarantino when it comes to hyped movies.

    well, you're in the minority. don't really mean that as a slight against you (although i think some of your criticisms are very boneheaded and anti-cinephilic), but you are in the minority. point blank. take it how you want it.

    i'm glad scores of critics and knowledgeable film fans are seeing this film for what it is
    test
  2. The Jeus

    The Jeus _________

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2002
    Messages:
    6,419
    no, i didn't buy it, mom rented it. I'll probably be buying it in the near future, however.

    The only gripe I had was with some of Nick Cave's music, same complaint I have about Wings of Desire, where we get stuck in a Nick Cave concert for an entire scene [maybe 2, i forget exactly]. He just seems to throwback to his ways of the 80's at some points [notably the points where there is speaking/narration in the music] and so some of the music had that 1980's vibe in 1880's australia and just took me out of the story. Other than that, though...it's hard to complain.

    It reminded me of Robert Altman's style of making a film about a particular place at a particular time and the people who inhabit that realm, with story as an undercurrent rather than a driving force, allowing the characters to act/react naturally, rather than being slaves to the machinations of the plot.
    test
  3. The Jeus

    The Jeus _________

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2002
    Messages:
    6,419
    Being a Tarantino fan, I believe you'll get the reference when I say, well allow me to retort.
    You are entitled to think the wife is a boring actress, but her character was one the strongest ones. She is still trying to hold onto her genteel background, keeping a garden out in the middle of this sprawling desert wasteland, serving English tea, walking about town with an umbrella. She is appalled they have Mikey imprisoned while he is so young. Thus, she is ostracized. Every time she goes to town people turn away from her, they don't like her. Then when she finds out who Mikey is [or at least who he is related to] AND that her husband's position may be at stake if he is not punished, she joins the horde in demanding he be flogged, though you must question whether he motivation is revenge, justice, trying to protect her husband, etc. Same with all of the characters. Take John Hurt's bounty hunter for instance, he was clearly an educated individual in a former life, but since ending up in Australia, he has turned to a life of crime and solitude, but he's still the same person, isn't he?
    But if you don't care to question character motivations I suppose it would be rather boring.
    I'm not trying to convince you to like/appreciate the film, just offering a counterpoint for those who may come in as yet undecided.

    I am interested though, in what "different lessons and ways of thinking" you get out of Fight Club on repeat viewings. I've seen it 3 or 4 times, and I like it less each time. I've heard/read your sentiment from several people, but it is never expanded upon. If you would please indulge me, the various lessons you've taken from it, and after which viewing you discerned what. To me, it's fairly threadbare, the anti-consumerist/anti-establishment rantings, the dangers of groupthink, the desire/need to belong. What am I missing?
    And you want to talk about irresponsible violence, the fact that Fight Club spawned a fighting video game, and that there are people out there who have started their own "fight club"s shows that people didn't get it.
    test
  4. Konscious

    Konscious Resident Sage

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 1999
    Messages:
    10,508
    Hey menaz, why do you keep comparing it to Fight Club? That's not a fair critique.

    Also, "boring" has got to be the worst criticism ever. It's a juvenile argument. Why was it "boring?"
    test
  5. Brahman

    Brahman Mel Van Peebles

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Messages:
    17,544
    my sentiments exactly, except not as well-informed of nick cave's music as yours

    i didn't at all like hearing words coming into the music at certain points... it should have been devoid of lyrics throughout
    test
  6. Brahman

    Brahman Mel Van Peebles

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Messages:
    17,544
    and, clerks of all films just because there are some scenes more focused on dialogue than others [funny]

    because he thinks he should have the right to tell the writer how to write characters

    he wasn't satisfied with guy pearce's character showing some enlightenment or moral development. he had to be gangsta and shoot up everybody in sight shown in camera movements and effects from kill bill



    edit: don't get me wrong... i have no problem with menaz or anyone else disliking this film, but some of the stuff he is saying makes absolutely no sense and should be offensive to anyone who takes the art of film seriously
    test
  7. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    Think about that for a second, You say pistol whipping someone is equal to wanting to save their life. Are you trying to tell me our government waterboards
    terrorist to save their lifes? You make no sense. Know I got why they keept him and his brother alive, But what I am saying is the proposition offered was stupid
    because You had no Idea what the storng connect between him and his older brother was. This movie had many character flaws.


    His wife sintched and got the boy flogged, He was trying to pervent it. that is how I know she had more balls and didn't give a fuck about the boy at all. All she cared about was it could have been her. LOL! I see a narcissistic connection.

    No, There were major character flaws, It is your bias opinion of the movie which will not acknowledge it. No history between the brother and older brother relationship was told. They just threw him in there with his older brother and some of his friends. No strong connection or relationship made me feel for his brother when he shot in thee end because of this. Not to mention, The general.

    I don't think he did, we can disagree to agree here.


    HAHAHAHA! NO!





    The mood was nonexistant. The atmosphere I got, but it was excessive. Too many flies shit started to look fake. especially when they flogged the boy and
    he people were just covered in flies.

    There is nothing intellectual about shooting people. there is nothing intellectual about a proposition, You either take it or you don't. In his case his brothers life was worth more than his older brothers, so He fucking took it. Not hard to figure out, Stop talking about this movie like it has many angles to it, It had one angle... Kill your older brother save your younger brother, I can see that type of choice in the batman forever movie.

    It shouldn't have even attempted intellect, I feelt like I was sitting through that movie the brown bunny, that is how bored I was. It should have just been balls to the wall everyone out for themselves movie. It could have been dead slient as long as the characters could of pulled off the clint eastwood eyes and if some of the dialogue could have been crude, blunt,manly, and atlest had one like able character. Never say the proposition is better than the good the bad and the ugly that is blasphemy.


    No, that isn't it. I was looking to be entertianed by western for 2.50. unlike you I do not sit throw boring ass movies and make more out of them than what they really are.

    Why was he going through it? exactly, never tells you what brought on the change.

    There was no history shown or explained properly, therefore I didn't get into the characters nor did i care about the boring tired out plot.



    WOW! how conpelxed. NO! how entertianing? NO! WOW what unrepeative morality in a movie? NO!




    minority? Yeah thats the samething the government says to the black man to keep him opressed. you're the miniority so your opinion doesn't matter, We are
    all this much more smarter on this side of the movie industry. WRONG!, You and
    the majority are probably indepenant film fans, Which means you enjoy boring pointless movie that are emotional.

    Critics are so out of tune with the regular people it isn't even funny.

    Critics bashed running scared, and running scared is a great movie.
    Critics are mostly gay too, so they enjoy boring emotional movies that
    show at film art festivals.

    Its a matter of taste, and you have none of it in my movie opinion.
    Hell, even The New World with Colin Farrell was better than this movie.
    The New World was about the same speed as this movie only The New
    World was interesting.
    test
  8. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807

    have you seen the movie?
    test
  9. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    Funny why?

    Because you can't admit your movie had terriblely boring dialogue?

    No, But I will tell you when the writer has done a piss poor job at explaing them.

    Not true, I wanted a back ground of his character so I would understand what brought on that enlightenment and what the hell went on with him and his older brother. And I know I didn't want him to shoot up everyone, But it was every anti- climatic, which isn't always a bad thing, but in this movies case it was.




    YES YOU DO!

    No it makes perfect sense, it is your bias opinion for the movie which will not allow you to comprehend my viewing point. I get what your viewing point is, But you are not seeing the flaws because you refuse to critize the movie honestly.
    test
  10. Brahman

    Brahman Mel Van Peebles

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Messages:
    17,544
    you're making less and less sense as you go along, dude

    i'm almost waiting for you to jump up and say "aha! gotcha! i wasn't being serious all along", because all of this seems like one big joke. i don't know why i even bother continue going back n forth with you, because you are one... stubborn... mule. but, the mental exercise is fun in itself. i like talking about this GREAT FILM!



    a pistol-whipping isn't going to kill someone. it's a way of sending a message. "either you give me the info or you'll keep enduring this pain". he may have beat the boy within an inch of his life, but he didn't want him dead nor was he going to kill him.

    the terrorist analogy doesn't work, because most terrorists who are apprehended are seen as guilty and will receive punishment no matter what they do, spilling information or otherwise. in the general's mind, arthur was the one mostly responsible for the brothers' crimes and mikey as the least being the youngest in the family and obviously a scared little bird.

    you didn't need to know the connect between arthur and charley... hell, the general himself didn't know, so why mention it? it's not a character flaw... it's a lack of exposition, something that didn't hurt the film in the least bit. he was only suspecting that giving charley the ultimatum of having his innocent younger brother killed or getting rid of the catalyst of the crimes would cause him to take action.

    i repeat, that doesn't mean she has more balls. it means she had a more emotional connection to what happened to the woman. she wasn't thinking from a diplomatic and governing standpoint. flogging the boy wasn't a good decision at all, because it ran the risk of charley finding out, not wanting to go through with the proposition, and absconding away with arthur for more bad deeds. luckily, he was undergoing moral development however.

    it didn't need to be told!!!

    anybody who knows how to read acting and body language can already understand how there was a fork in the path between arthur and charley. we don't need every little detail explained to us. charley was obviously at a crossroads.

    if you didn't feel for his brother when he got shot, that's you... i did. i felt an emotional impact. i didn't need to know all of the story. all i know is that they were brothers, and a brother feeling like it's time to kill his brother is a sad thing. period.

    you're damn right we'll disagree to agree here

    i can't agree with you... i think you're a terrible judge of acting and characterization. you're the type who needs every little thing spelled out verbosely.

    HAHAHAHA! YES!

    it's a better film than both of those

    nonsense

    that's not the only angle

    i'm not going to bother explaining any further on this

    hell, we've spent so much time talking about it having or not having intellect and bullshit claims of "character flaws" that don't exist, that we're completely ignoring how well crafted this film is. john hurt, ray winstone, danny huston, guy pearce... all delivered astounding performances. the cinematography was great, the photographic direction, the music... shit, it is one well-made film!

    besides it being flat-out WRONG, all of this bullshit you're talking about it "not having intellect" and "having character flaws", you're ignoring many ingredients to the recipe of a great film

    it attempted intellect and achieved it

    as i said above, i don't even want to waste time trying to explain it to you or convince you of it, because even if you did see it you'd want to keep arguing about it anyway

    did i say that?

    the good, the bad, and the ugly is my favorite western of all-time and will probably remain that forever

    not being as good as the good, the bad, and the ugly is no slight though... few films, regardless of genre, are

    the proposition is still a fine, fine film. i'm sorry its rich artistry isn't apparent to you. i mean, it's right there.. everybody with a good moviewatching brain can see it.

    that's not what i'm doing

    it didn't need to tell you... not all movies are supposed to hold your hand and take you for a nice little walk through everything in a characters' past or thoughts

    the performances, body language, and interactions between characters should have revealed the change to you
    test
  11. Brahman

    Brahman Mel Van Peebles

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Messages:
    17,544
    WOW! great film. YES! one for the ages as it's been noted by many? YES! WOW what a beautiful revival of the western genre in terms of style, mood, cinematography, etc.? YES!

    [funny] @ your analogies

    i clearly said take it how you want it. i'm not saying anything one way or another, but know that you are in the minority. i'm not some lemming who goes along with anything a critic says.. i could point out the many times i've disagreed. HOWEVER, i feel they nailed it on the head with this one. many many seasoned filmwatching minds, both critical and public, are recognizing this film. period.

    not making any kind of statement about you. stating the facts.

    so, "regular people" are the almighty authority on what makes a good film?
    critics aren't even the only ones liking the proposition! it's doing very well publicly. not everyone who visits the rottentomates forum is an "artsy fartsy" type. even the ones who like mainstream shit are digging this.

    your point? i can cite a lot of times critics have bashed films that didn't deserve it, or hyped films that didn't deserve it. means nothing.

    doesn't mean they never get things right, and their assessment of the proposition is one that clearly proves they can get things right. it's really a great work of art.

    hahahaha

    now, this is just retarded

    did you not say you liked the good, the bad, and the ugly?

    how are you going to let your little temper tantrum here say i have "no taste" when you've already agreed with me on other things?

    lol, acting straight bitch now


    i'm done with this though... not saying anything more to you. i've said all i need to say.

    (1) you failed to comprehend its characterization
    (2) you failed to recognize themes
    (3) you failed to look at the overall big picture of filmmaking and are nitpicking at minor complaints

    no, i don't

    it's your assinine reasoning that's irritating, not the dislike for the film
    test
  12. The Jeus

    The Jeus _________

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2002
    Messages:
    6,419
    look, charley has animosity toward his older brother because he was disgusted at what happened to the hopkins family. this is why he and mikey do not live up in the caves with arthur and his gang. He has no desire to kill him [in the beginning], he just wants to get away from him. but if you look around, there is really nowhere to go. The people in the town know who they are, so they can't go to the town and live "normal lives" because the town will want revenge. so they are stuck living on the fringes. The general offers the proposition to give them the opportunity to get out of there and start over because he knows arthur is the vile one of the bunch. He is also trying to maintain his old British sense of right and wrong when it comes to law. He wants to get the 'right' man, rather than just killing all of them, exacting revenge [like the mayor and the townspeople]. He is trying to do the right thing (which is why he is opposed to the flogging). Pistol-whipping someone isn't trying to save their life, but it isn't trying to take a life either. He did it to show he was serious and that he wasn't intimidated. Charley wants to protect young Mikey, his only family, so he agrees. He sets out to kill Arthur, but he can't, partly because he's not a killer [he almost gets killed himself twice, hence not wanting to live amongst Arthur] and partly because he gets up there and remembers what it was like when they were family. This is why they all go to try to save Mikey, hoping they could all get away. But when he sees Arthur cutting off the heads of the prison guards, and he sees him thrashing the bounty hunter he realizes that his brother is not redeemable. When Mikey finally dies, he pins that squarely on Arthur, because Mikey was killed because of the Hopkins thing, which was Arthur's action, so he goes to kill him because he "killed" Mikey (his sense of justice). This is that old theme of the man who's attempts to save the one(s) he loves ends up killing them. He tried to save Mikey by taking him away from Arthur, but Arthur was such a survivalist that they probably would've stayed alive staying with him. And so he takes the proposition, thinking he would be able to spare Mikey's life and he ends up dead. He didn't kill the captain because he believed the captain had held up his end of the proposition and once again, he's not a killer at heart.
    The townspeople call for the flogging of Mikey out of desire for revenge, not justice being served. There is no trial, just punishment. This is one of the interesting elements here. None of these people, were they still in England, would have stood for a man being convicted without a trial, none of them would have gathered around,demanding a public flogging of a potentially innocent man. And yet, here they are, ostensibly the same people, and yet they have lost that sense of justice. To me that is the big theme at work here. Are people naturally reprehensible, but we hold it back under the construct of 'civilization'?
    The captain repeats his mantra 'this place will be civilized' but who does he need to civilize? THe aboriginal people stay up in the hills and caves and don't bother them unless one of their people is killed or they feel threatened. They seem rather civilized. The townspeople, however, seem to have lost whatever sense of morality they may have once had.
    test
  13. Konscious

    Konscious Resident Sage

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 1999
    Messages:
    10,508
    No, but I know an unfair critique when I see one.
    test
  14. the Prince

    the Prince New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2004
    Messages:
    8,696
    great movie. well put the jeus
    test
  15. Brahman

    Brahman Mel Van Peebles

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Messages:
    17,544
    yes, incredibly well-put, jeus

    phew!

    i was holding my breath waiting on your thoughts in hopes that they would be +

    had you not liked it, i wouldn't know if i could carry on
    test
  16. TruKaos

    TruKaos I'll Box Your Ears

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2002
    Messages:
    8,372
    i've learned not to bank on hype too much, because often times i'm let down. so prior to my viewing i was expecting to see a decent movie basaed on the things i've heard. turns out that this is the best movie i've seen this year. every aspect of it was great; the acting, the cinematography, the setting... the outback happens to be the perfect location for a western. had the music been purely instrumental i'd have nothing negative to say about this film. when i would hear someone whispering with the music or singing it would throw me off course a little bit, but all in all it was a minor flaw.

    great film, appreciate it brahman

    oh, and i havent seen 'kiss kiss bang bang' yet, but i have a problem passing on $10 dvds
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)