Rate The Last Movie You Saw

[drinkanddestroy]

Uh . . . yuck.

The whole point of the story is that Christie's initial expectations of love are unrealistic. Therefore, she rejects Bates's offer. Therefore, she plays head games with Peter Finch. Therefore, she has her disastrous fling with Terrence Stamp.

Meanwhile, Bates stays near her, watching out for her interests. His love is silent, but it expresses itself through many deeds. The audience notices--how can Christie not? We don't need to be shown something we can infer. At some point, Christie changes--that change is interior and not demonstrated. Nonetheless, we know it happens. All that remains is a declaration of love from Bates. It comes at the exact moment when she is ready to hear it.

Courting? Nothing says love more than hard work and slavish devotion. Jacob worked 14 years for Rachel (including the seven he put in first to marry her older sister Leah). We don't need to see a scene showing when Jacob and Rachel fell in love--the 14 years is enough.

well, even if we don't literally see the courting, the point is that at least there should be the cinematic moment, that moment where the camera zooms in on her face, and then zooms in on his, etc. , just those 5 seconds, to let us know, something is going on in their minds, in their emotions, (or more specifically, in hers).  During the past few minutes (or past few months in the movie), she's acted no different toward Bates than she has throughout the entire movie. Yes, when someone acts one way for 3 hours and then suddenly makes an about-face at the end, I think the movie should "clue us in," on their thoughts. Not that I can't handle surprises, (or that it even is a surprise that she winds up with Bates), just that I don't feel satisfied if someone suddenly and unexplainedly (now a word) reverses course.

Maybe "far from the madding crowd," Bates is pretty much her last decent chance: if she doesn't take him now, her only chance at ever getting any action again is leaving the country.

and btw, Rachel wanted Jacob all along; the analogy there would be if she had refused him for 6 1/2 years but suddenly said "yes" at the end of 7 

[dave jenkins]

well, even if we don't literally see the courting, the point is that at least there should be the cinematic moment, that moment where the camera zooms in on her face, and then zooms in on his, etc. , just those 5 seconds, to let us know, something is going on in their minds, in their emotions, (or more specifically, in hers). 

This is called bad filmmaking. I'm glad that Schlesinger knew better.

[dave jenkins]

and btw, Rachel wanted Jacob all along;

Chapter and verse, please.

[drinkanddestroy]

Chapter and verse, please.

  well, actually, in those days, a girl just married whomever her father married her off to; it wasn't about her "falling in love." I didn't mean that the Bible itself literally says "Rachel desired Jacob," but my point was that at no point does the Bible state that she initially did not want him, or that she "grew to love him because she saw his devotion" or anything like that


This story is written in Genesis, Chapter 29, from verses 1-30.

[noodles_leone]

Mystic River (2003) 10/10 (blu ray, first time viewing of the movie).

This may well be the greatest movie of the millenium and the greatest movie Eastwood ever directed. Has a movie ever done a better job of portraying grief?

I don't know if the final parade scene was necessary; or the very minor subplot with Bacon's wife (I guess that's an attempt to show how he was also somehow emotionally affected by that day as a child). But otherwise, this movie is about as perfect as it gets. And the blu ray looks beautiful.

 

The parade scene works for me. Everybody is at his/her new place.

[dave jenkins]

well, actually, in those days, a girl just married whomever her father married her off to; it wasn't about her "falling in love." I didn't mean that the Bible itself literally says "Rachel desired Jacob," but my point was that at no point does the Bible state that she initially did not want him, or that she "grew to love him because she saw his devotion" or anything like that

And my point was that for years one way a man demonstrated his worthiness for a bride was by working for her. And Gabriel does that (note, biblical name!). And Bathsheba must have recognized that (note, biblical name!). Gee, do you think maybe Hardy was getting at something by NOT giving us "close-ups" of meaningful looks between the characters?

[drinkanddestroy]

The parade scene works for me. Everybody is at his/her new place.

I just watched some of the bonus features:

 The author of the book mentions that when he saw the first draft of the script, it did not have that final scene between Penn and Linney (where she tells him that no matter what he had to do, he was right...) and he told the scriptwriter that that scene is the whole story!

The author also mentioned how the 3 guys have 3 types of marriage, and the most healthy marriage (Penn-Linney) is actually the most evil one; while what is seemingly the most good and decent marriage (Robbins-Harden) falls apart due to mistrust.

Kevin Bacon says that he asked Eastwood the meaning of that little finger-gun he points at Penn across the parade: is it supposed to mean, "I'll nail you for this one," or "Your secret is safe with me?" Eastwood's response: "Let the audience decide that."  

And finally, I forgot to mention the most important take-away from the movie: that chick who plays Bacon's wife has a fine mustache. It's fucking enormous. And doubly noticeable inasmuch as her appearances in the movie are almost entirely closeups of the lower half of her face. This ain't just someone who's a day late for a waxing: that is a fucking 'stache  


-------------------------

RE: the ending of Mystic River

At first, when Brendan accuses his brother"you loved me so much you killed my girlfriend," I thought the brother killed her cuz he knew she was taking Brendan away from him, as they were gonna run away to Vegas. But as Bacon described it to Penn, it was all an accident, he was just trying to scare the girl, etc/? Really? Was Bacon intentionally distorting the truth for Penn's sake?

[noodles_leone]

Haha actually I think it's more the angle/lightening that doesn't help her. It's a close up on her lips the whole film, from profile, the shot is dark and I THINK she's back-lighted (which, alone, would be sufficient in a regular female shot to show "some" facial hair).

But yeah, it strikes me every time:)

[noodles_leone]

At first, when Brendan accuses his brother"you loved me so much you killed my girlfriend," I thought the brother killed her cuz he knew she was taking Brendan away from him, as they were gonna run away to Vegas. But as Bacon described it to Penn, it was all an accident, he was just trying to scare the girl, etc/? Really? Was Bacon intentionally distorting the truth for Penn's sake?

I always thought he really doesn't get it.

[drinkanddestroy]

Haha actually I think it's more the angle/lightening that doesn't help her. It's a close up on her lips the whole film, from profile, the shot is dark and I THINK she's back-lighted (which, alone, would be sufficient in a regular female shot to show "some" facial hair).

But yeah, it strikes me every time:)

well that's only if there is some facial hair to show. If there's no hair, then no matter how much back-lighting there is, there's no 'stache.

It was difficult to watch

She's a pretty woman whose work I believe consists almost entirely of either film shorts or minor appearances http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0205581/ How does that happen? Look to the 'stache

[noodles_leone]

well that's only if there is some facial hair to show. If there's no hair, then no matter how much back-lighting there is, there's no 'stache.

Their is always hair, believe me Usually to little to notice, but with the right light and the right angle you cannot miss them!
However... she still has a damn lot of them, lol.

[Groggy]

Picnic at Hanging Rock - 8/10 - 2nd viewing. More interesting on a rewatch, still maddeningly opaque.

[dave jenkins]

Picnic at Hanging Rock - 8/10 - 2nd viewing. More interesting on a rewatch, still maddeningly opaque.

Yep.

[Groggy]

Skyfall - 7/10 - Largely more of the same: "realistic" (read: CGI-laden) action interspersed with iffy character development. What elevates this above its predecessors is Javier Bardem: it's about time Craig's Bond gets a decent villain to play off. The scene with 007 and Bardem target shooting feels more Bondish than anything in the past two films. Albert Finney's cameo is a hoot. It loses points though for lazy plotting: after The Dark Knight and The Avengers do we need *another* villain deliberately getting caught? At least it hangs together well and I did like the finale.

[Groggy]

The Last Wave - 7/10 - Lawyer Richard Chamberlain defends a quintet of Aboriginal murderers. Somehow this tunes him into his mystical side, resulting in striking visions of floods, tsunamis and hail from cloudless skies. But what does it mean? This film's more interesting in concept than execution: unlike Picnic at Hanging Rock there is a definite supernatural explanation, which is less satisfying. The finale is particularly disappointing; Chamberlain socks a random shaman and falls through a sewer, hallucinates, roll credits. Chamberlain is good, David Gulpilil makes his required appearance. Despite some powerful imagery I don't see myself rewatching this anytime soon.