quote:

briggsjazzgroup posted

WARNING: SPOILER

...like you've never seen this film though...

I hope I don't get burned alive for this one...
I think the ending is the one thing High Fidelity (both the book and the movie) get wrong.
Any guy who's ever been dumped can feel Rob's pain right up until Laura's dad's funeral. Their getting back together is so clunky and we never get a reason why she takes him back. She does give a reason but it doesn't really mean anything. I don't think the actress knows why her character is doing what she's doing, so we don't know either.
When I was a sophomore in college I'd watch this film almost daily (hard times), and I'd always turn it off when Laura said, "my dad died."

There wasn't much I wanted to watch on television and I had VHS copy of High Fidelity (2000) close by so I watched it again for perhaps the fourth time. In response to briggsjazzgroup, one must remember that this movie (I haven't read the book) is an above average, strongly narrative romantic comedy and as such most of them have a certain structure that this movie included follows. The ending if one takes if from the father's funeral is a rather long one so that really the ending is more towards the climax of Black's band playing at the record store.

In dealing with love and patterns of behavior, the usual set up is that the emotion of love creates all sorts of relationships, many that were exhibited in the movie. The relationship between Rob and Laura begins and ends the movie from the beginning break-up scene to the final scene involving Rob and Laura again. Laura uses the reason of avoiding the pain of her father's death in order to involve herself back into Rob's life, either that or cut herself to feel something physically more painful to stiffle the emotional pain. It is assumed that Rob's and Laura's past relationship was strong and certain emotional bonding occurred. It's difficult to say precisely why any two people come together, fall in love, fall out of love and many times continue the pattern. Sometimes the pattern continues with new partners, but ending an old one, isn't always that difficult. Rob (John Cusack) explains it best towards the end of the movie in his conversation with Laura and one of the deleted scenes on the VHS show them both together and connecting when it comes to music. By the end of this movie there is a simple but important coming of adult age message while in the meantime, Rob's past relationships are presented in a rather innovative and off-beat fashion as well as more loosely, uneven way not always so nicely tied up as Rob hoped for, but better than when the movie started.

Overall, I can't say that the movie ended badly and it comforms for the most part to most romantic comedy, making for a delightful date movie with a heightened sophistication of the part of the movies approach and content/storyline. I'd be interested in what other ending might have been more appropriate or consistent with the earlier narrative, storyline.

quote:

Originally posted by mark f:
I don't have any axes to grind, but I find it difficult to accept that just because a movie is underdeveloped and elusive that it somehow works at a higher level of art than a "mainstream" film which "we've all seen too many times". Art is very subjective. Just because somebody thinks it's meaningful to them doesn't mean it's not boring and pretentious to others. What is that you may be missing from good old-fashioned storytelling?

For sure, this is one that could go back and forth forever. I found Lost In Translation to be incredibly moving: a small-scale, delicately rendered, believably human story that didn't talk down to its audience like... well, geez, throw a rock and hit an example.

You know how it goes: our battered hero is knocked straight through a brick wall and lies sprawled out, seemingly dead, in the shadowy alley, surrounded by onlookers. Then he stirs, and for some reason it's incredibly necessary to have someone in the crowd say "He's alive!" 95% of movie releases - 98.65% of Hollywood movies - are so desperately scared, so paranoid about the sheer possibility of not being understood by absolutely every single person in the theatre that they end up with these huge chunks of unnecessary exposition - or voice-over narration that explains exactly what happened in the previous scene.

The original studio cut of Blade Runner was a prime offender there, full of clunkers like "Gaff had been there, and let her live". Yeah, we know, Harrison, it was ten seconds ago that you were holding one of his little origami thingies that the movie set up earlier. We don't need to be told; as a matter of fact, it's insulting to be told, like they extended some credit to the audience's intelligence and then went "Nah, better make sure the eight-year-olds got it too." The most egregious recent example that comes to mind was in "Kill Bill, Vol. 1": Uma comes out of her coma, she's not pregnant anymore, and she's therefore extremely distressed. It's a beautifully-acted scene right up until the moment where she says "My baby!", which wrecks it because it's clearly there to throw a sop to the dullards in the audience saying "Why's she crying?"

Anyway, that should be a whole different topic ('MOMENTS OF DUH!' perhaps?) and we were talking about Lost In Translation. The mere fact that folks want to know what was said between the characters at the end of the film is a testament to the power of it, I think, but the most apposite response came from Bill Murray when asked what they said: "It's between lovers."

It's definitely an interior-worlds piece, and that's not to everyone's taste; more importantly, for me at least, it's an interior film that doesn't overplay its hand. I get very antsy when films make a pretense at "ooh, he's a bottled-up kinda guy" characters, only to have them deliver an incredibly significant lengthy monologue that sums their own state of mind up just in time for the last act.

By the way, I don't mind three-act structure - or any storytelling fundamentals - being used to service the story that's being told; film is inherently an artificial medium, after all. But it shouldn't go the other way, with story and characters at the mercy of structure, because then it just becomes painfully, painfully predictable. Films that set out their ideological stall and then betray it all in a rush to come up with a Happy Ending or a predictable Big Finish - yes, The Matrix, I'm looking at you - really get my goat, because they're just trying to go "aren't we so hip and credible" without evincing the slightest understanding of where that credibility might come from - like making hard choices, for example. Like not selling out your central premise for a cheap end-credit fix that drains the depth out of everything that went before. (Move along, Mister Spielberg.)

For me, Lost In Translation made gestures towards realism and followed through on them enough to ground it. At the same time, it is very much a three-acter, and those whispered words constituted a Big Finish to me. It struck me as one of the least superficial films of the last few years, because it really was about all the important stuff.

But hey, horses for courses and all that, and I respect anyone else's right to be misguided and disagree with me.

quote:

maxwelledison
Posted 02 December 2005 07:21 AM

The original studio cut of Blade Runner was a prime offender there, full of clunkers like "Gaff had been there, and let her live". Yeah, we know, Harrison, it was ten seconds ago that you were holding one of his little origami thingies that the movie set up earlier. We don't need to be told; as a matter of fact, it's insulting to be told, like they extended some credit to the audience's intelligence and then went "Nah, better make sure the eight-year-olds got it too." The most egregious recent example that comes to mind was in "Kill Bill, Vol. 1": Uma comes out of her coma, she's not pregnant anymore, and she's therefore extremely distressed. It's a beautifully-acted scene right up until the moment where she says "My baby!", which wrecks it because it's clearly there to throw a sop to the dullards in the audience saying "Why's she crying?"

I agree with the comments regarding Lost In Translation but at the same time, I really enjoyed the narrative voice-over in Blade Runner which is why a prefer it over the director's cut and I also liked Uma Thurman's pronouncement "My baby" in Kill Bill No. 1. There is something about movie genre, that the film noir style of detective voice-overs is something that really ties Blade Runner to the style. It's been a source of controversy ever since. For me, there are legitimate movies where the director can use heavy voice over or commentaries just because that is the nature, the expected form of the movie - it's like having a sundae with whipped cream and a cherry on top, the cherry doesn't add alot of flavor, but it just doesn't seem complete without one.

quote:

Originally posted by tabuno:

I agree with the comments regarding Lost In Translation but at the same time, I really enjoyed the narrative voice-over in Blade Runner which is why a prefer it over the director's cut and I also liked Uma Thurman's pronouncement "My baby" in Kill Bill No. 1. There is something about movie genre, that the film noir style of detective voice-overs is something that really ties Blade Runner to the style. It's been a source of controversy ever since. For me, there are legitimate movies where the director can use heavy voice over or commentaries just because that is the nature, the expected form of the movie - it's like having a sundae with whipped cream and a cherry on top, the cherry doesn't add alot of flavor, but it just doesn't seem complete without one.

I hear ya. I actually thought there was already enough in Blade Runner tying it to noir without having to go for the voiceover - y'know, the disaffected ex-whatever being dragged in for one more case, the femme fatale, the grime and so on. But my problem wasn't really with the existence of a voiceover, it was with the content of it; it either explained what had just happened ("But then I'd rather be a killer than a victim. And that's exactly what Bryant's threat about little people meant." etc.) or operated as a source of strange reversals and, let's face it, one of the more ludicrous dei ex machina around ("Tyrell had told me Rachael was special: no termination date"... wha? Stop me before I tumble back into another rant about films that betray their professed ideological underpinnings in the desperate lunge for a Happy Ending... oh, too late!)

For me, a good noir voiceover - hell, a good voiceover, period - tells you more about the person speaking it than whatever they might be trying to communicate. For example, the sardonic, gallows-humour tone of the voiceover at the start of The Third Man tells you that it's a movie about disaffection, about the kind of cynical environment where folks tell stories like this about other folks' misfortunes for their own amusement. The voiceovers in Election tell you about the prejudices and assumptions of the characters who speak them. I didn't get any kind of subtextual flavour off the one in Blade Runner other than "detective noir films have voiceovers like this".

I'm amazed, by the way, that I find myself defending Ridley Scott's vision of the film here, because I think he's one of the most overrated directors working today. Alien, Blade Runner and Thelma & Louise I've got time for, and everything else you could burn without hearing a whimper from me. Matter of fact, I'll light the match for Gladiator and Hannibal.

Anyway, I'm sure my opinions keep Sir Ridley up at night.

Do you really want to burn The Duellists?

quote:

maxwelledison posted:

For me, a good noir voiceover - hell, a good voiceover, period - tells you more about the person speaking it than whatever they might be trying to communicate. For example, the sardonic, gallows-humour tone of the voiceover at the start of The Third Man tells you that it's a movie about disaffection, about the kind of cynical environment where folks tell stories like this about other folks' misfortunes for their own amusement. The voiceovers in Election tell you about the prejudices and assumptions of the characters who speak them. I didn't get any kind of subtextual flavour off the one in Blade Runner other than "detective noir films have voiceovers like this".

I'm amazed, by the way, that I find myself defending Ridley Scott's vision of the film here, because I think he's one of the most overrated directors working today. Alien, Blade Runner and Thelma & Louise I've got time for, and everything else you could burn without hearing a whimper from me. Matter of fact, I'll light the match for Gladiator and Hannibal.

I have to admit that I haven't really been interested in film noir and haven't seen or remember much of any 50s detective shows so the use of the voice-over that you describe is likely very appropriate and that I have no comparison to base my opinion on - it's a film noir layperson's enjoyment of it in Blade Runner and besides I'm an original 60's Star Trek fan just so you know my level of performance integrity.

As with Ridley Scott as a director, I'm biased having ranked Alien (1979) as sixth on my all-time favorite list along with Blade Runner (1982) as eighth on my all-time favorite list, no other director has been able to do that. Then after having read Future Noir The Making of Blade Runner written by Paul M. Sammon, 1996, I had little choice to admire what Mr. Scott had accomplished between these two movies. Since then

Legend (1986) seemed light-weight.
Black Rain (1989) seemed appropriately mysterious detective style in a traditional sense but nothing that rose to the level of greatness.

I skipped his 1492: Conquest of Paradise (1992) and White Squall (1996) both of which didn't make too big a mark when they came out.

Personally, when I saw the trailer of the fake special effects tiger overlaid in the coliseum with Russell Crowe in Gladiator (2000), it soured me so much, particularly for Ridley Scott allowing to remain in like that soured the entire movie for me when I went to see it that it really put a damper of my opinion of Mr. Crowe, rightly or wrongly, by association.

I have to admit I did enjoy Scott's direction and Demi Moore's admirable performance in G.I. Jane (1997) another follow-up to strong female performances found in Scott's earlier classic Thelma and Louise (1991).

Again when it came to Scott's Hannibal (2001), again I had to weigh my particularly strong bias of Michael Mann's Manhunter (1986), Hannibal Lector's first major movie debut, that I've ranked as my second most favorite movie of all time. Thus, Hannibal was a pale comparison to what I consider to a great movie in all aspects.

However, finally, when it comes to his more recent films: Black Hawk Down (2001) and Matchstick Men (2003), both these films were solid, strong films. The intensity and riveting war film was powerful while Nicholas Cage and the twist at the end of the latter movie was so awesome, it made my top 100 films.

Lastly, I skipped Ridley's recent work Kingdom of Heaven (2005) because its theme was just too similar to previous movies I've been subjected to.

I don't believe that Ridley's really overrated, he has demonstrated himself as an A-rated director, though he has had some flops and average movies like most good directors have had. He can be expected on the whole to make competent movies most of the time which is what the industry expects. He's directed some great movies. I don't think overall historically he can be considered one of the all-time greats as of yet, we'll just have to see if he can direct several of those lifetime movies that would solidify himself into that top-tier.

quote:

Originally posted by tabuno:

I don't believe that Ridley's really overrated, he has demonstrated himself as an A-rated director, though he has had some flops and average movies like most good directors have had. He can be expected on the whole to make competent movies most of the time which is what the industry expects. He's directed some great movies. I don't think overall historically he can be considered one of the all-time greats as of yet, we'll just have to see if he can direct several of those lifetime movies that would solidify himself into that top-tier.

Yes, I fully cop to my anti-Ridley jones being a little unreasonable (though I can't agree on G.I. Jane). It's the film-buff-mag desire to cast him as a rarefied auteur that bugs me. He's a solid journeyman director and, as you say, "he can be expected on the whole to make competent movies most of the time", but c'mon, that's not worth an A, except perhaps in studio thinking (which is a bit sad, I would have thought competency would be mandatory at that level - of course we are furnished with proof to the contrary virtually every day).

Personally, I couldn't get Ridley up any higher than C+/B-; there are too many directors in the world who don't just go "this'll make a cool-looking shot" but, y'know, talk to the actors occasionally, insert the kind of subtext that remains "sub" rather than going "clang!", etc. etc.

OK, I'm getting carried away again, so I'll take a few deep breaths. And I've gotta say, while we've got the grade book out, I would've thought a legitimate contender for an A would be someone like Soderbergh, but while Sir Ridley didn't make Out Of Sight or Traffic, he sure as shit didn't make Ocean's Twelve either. Know what I mean?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: maxwelledison,

Yeah, but WHAT do you guys think of the friggin' Duellists??

quote:

Originally posted by mark f:
Yeah, but WHAT do you guys think of the friggin' Duellists??

Oh yeah, good point mark f! I liked The Duellists, I'd forgotten about that one. For me, there's a definite downturn in quality post-Blade Runner, but I don't know whether to blame that on the studio struggles or... what, exactly? Normally I blame it on Tom Cruise. He broke Sir Ridley's spirit.

(Yeah, yeah, I know, Thelma And Louise... perhaps he had a momentary recovery?)

quote:

maxwelledison posted:

OK, I'm getting carried away again, so I'll take a few deep breaths. And I've gotta say, while we've got the grade book out, I would've thought a legitimate contender for an A would be someone like Soderbergh, but while Sir Ridley didn't make Out Of Sight or Traffic, he sure as shit didn't make Ocean's Twelve either. Know what I mean?

Using Soderbergh as one criteria for A-listed directorship contention, of his 14 movies, I'veseen half of his movies (7), and I can't say that they really distinguish themselves much differently than Ridley's 16 movies in terms of quality or success.

Apparently, Soderbergh broke out big with his first movie sex, lies, and videotape
1989, considered by most to be a solid, innovative, independent work and worthy of considerable respect. Yet several of his movies that I've seen are probably in the same league as Ridley Scotts, including Out of Sight (1998), Erin Brockovich (2000), and Ocean's Twelve (2004). I definitely am impressed with Soderbergh's Traffic (2000), remake of Ocean's Eleven (2001), and Solaris (2002) for which Soderbergh probably was underappreciated and didn't get much credit for this last movie.

Even I can't see, however, that Ocean's Eleven is a heavy-weight movie of significant qualitative, A-Listing substance. I'd rank both Scott's Black Hawk Down (2001) to Soderbergh's Traffic 2000, Ridley's Matchstick Men (2003) to Soderbergh's Solaris (2002). I'd even be willing to match Soderbergh's Erin Brockovich with Scott's G.I. Jane (1997). Even Scott had his Hannibal (2001) to Soderbergh's Oceans Eleven or Oceans Twelve.

From my reading of Ridley Scott, he has been considered by the industry as having a keen eye for detail, visualization, integrity to quality, and immersion of his actors into the environment - a demanding director to requires a lot from his actors. If Soderbergh is to be considered a good director, I still don't see that much distinguishing him from Scott in the movies that they've made.

quote:

If Soderbergh is to be considered a good director, I still don't see that much distinguishing him from Scott in the movies that they've made.

Sorry, Tabuno, I clearly didn't express myself well enough: that's exactly what I meant, that every director that any of us might care to deify has their share of woofers on the resume. So I might choose to say Soderbergh is an A-grade, but I'd be deliberately ignoring the fact that Ocean's Twelve is, for me, just such a woofer - unbelievably self-indulgent pap that almost plays as a parody on unbelievably self-indulgent pap, except for the fact that it's unbelievably self-indulgent pap! I wasn't trying to compare them, just commenting on the subjectivity of such judgements.

Since we've dipped our toe into the water of such subjectivity, though: I'm happy with the Matchstick/Solaris trade-off - I think they're both interesting diversions - and Hannibal/Ocean's Twelve belong in the same category, certainly - but I think I need more than G.I. Jane for Brockovich. I'm reluctant to ask for Thelma for it, because I think Thelma's a slightly better and more original film, but I think that's a closer match for Brockovich than G.I. Jane. Tell you what, let's say you give me G.I. Jane and Someone To Watch Over Me for Brockovich, and I'll swap The Underneath for Black Rain as a sweetener... that's a good deal, man, have you seen The Underneath?

Traffic, however, should've won Best Picture the year that Gladiator did, and I'm still bitter, so I'd have to hold out for one of the old, good Ridleys to trade it off. Black Hawk Down is out of its depth in that company, I reckon. Anybody else trading? I just wanna make a deeeeeeal!

(Now if anyone enters this thread saying "Alright, I've got the back catalogue of Billy Wilder"/"Howard Hawks"/"Alfred Hitchcock"/"Francois Truffaut" etc., then they'll own everything I got in a few simple moves. I'm not proud of it, but so it goes.)

Oops! We seem to have drifted a long, long way off-topic, so: Someone mentioned the original War Of The Worlds as a bad film ending, because the story's got an anticlimactic conclusion. But I put forward the remake as an example of a filmmaker saying "You thought that was a bad ending? No, buddy, this is a bad ending!"

quote:

maxwelledison posted:

but I think I need more than G.I. Jane for Brockovich. I'm reluctant to ask for Thelma for it, because I think Thelma's a slightly better and more original film, but I think that's a closer match for Brockovich than G.I. Jane.

Well said and very much I agree. It's past two in the morning here, what do you expect?

quote:

Traffic, however, should've won Best Picture the year that Gladiator did, and I'm still bitter, so I'd have to hold out for one of the old, good Ridleys to trade it off. Black Hawk Down is out of its depth in that company, I reckon. Anybody else trading? I just wanna make a deeeeeeal!

I also feel that Traffic was a stronger contender than Gladiator, but I do feel that Black Hawk Down was a contender for best Director and best Cinematrography in the 2001 Oscar race but how could anybody cope with the popular backlash against Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring for Cinematography? I think when it came to A Beautiful Mind that year, it was the unusual twist and the subject matter that won out.

There's this old Rod Steiger movie-- (well I guess they're all old, right?)-- called the Pawnbroker. A Sidney Lumet I believe. The movie was gripping the entire time. You just KNEW they had something big planned for the end. Then they didn't. I suspect the budget had been spent for a week and a studio suit ended the movie for them.

I found the ending of The Pawnbroker to be moving and very powerful. The film did specifically build to that final confrontation where Sol Nazerman's emotions had to be released again. Rod Steiger did a beautiful bit of acting with his "silent scream" at the end.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mark f,

quote:

Originally posted by mark f:
Do you really want to burn The Duellists?

Hey, sorry mark f! It was only when rereading the thread now that I saw this post... I must've just skimmed the thread and missed it when originally replying.

Anyway, as I indicated below (now above ), no, I certainly wouldn't burn The Duellists. Or Alien, Blade Runner (irrespective of my reservations about the studio cut, it's still a beautiful-looking film) or Thelma and Louise. In fact, truth be told, and in the cold sober light of reposting, the world's too small, and there are too many people making 2 Fast 2 Furious, know what I mean? I wouldn't really want to burn any of Sir Ridley's films.

...except Hannibal <sound of match striking>.

How did you know that I'd respond? Because I already have several times here? I doubt that. I'm the only sick puppy at this site (I know of) who enjoys Hannibal as a delicious black comedy. Pun intended.

Go ahead; spank away!

quote:

Go ahead; spank away!

Hehehe... far be it from me, sir. No, that was total fluke, but sometimes it's better to be lucky than good - just responding to the Duellists comment.

In any case, there are many who make the same kind of argument about Forrest Gump, to which I say: whatever floats yer shrimpin' boat. The best kind of satire is served up with the straightest of faces, after all. (I'm disappointed to discover that there's no 'straight-face' emoticon. I shall have to improvise... :-| )

It has to be War Of The Worlds. The one with Tom Cruise. I'm not a big fan of his; the only thing I really like with him is Jerry Maguire. Despite Tom Cruise it's a pretty good movie most of the time, until you get to the end. One minute, you have a battle raging, and the next, it's over because of germs. I can see germs taking the aliens out, but not that fast.

quote:

Originally posted by iluv2viddyfilms:
"Signs" had a horrible ending. I appreciate what they went for with the kid having asthma. That was kind of a cool thing. But the aliens dieing by water was absurd. Why in Heavens name invade a planet that is 2/3 water then?

Signs being one of my favorite movies, and myself being a huge M. Knight Shyamalan fan, I can answer that for you. At least this is my theory. You are operating under the assumption that aliens are the superior race. Why are you doing this? Aliens have always been portrayed as the dominant species. They have been portrayed as smarter and more advanced. What happened in Signs was that the director went against what everyone expected about how aliens were always more powerful, and even though they seemed dominant for a while, he made them the lesser species. Why did they come to a planet that was 2/3 water? They didn't know any better. The movie has gotten a lot of flack for this and it always bothered me because all M. Knight did was step away from what you expect (which is what he always does, of course) and switched it up, showed it the other way. Why do the aliens always have to be the dominant species? Simple answer. They don't. Maybe the ending seems silly to you, but if it ended just like every other alien film, you would be complaining that all those films are the same and that the writers have no imagination. This one does.

You probably won't take what I'm saying seriously since I also liked The Village. People didn't get that movie ei