[Legolas813]

Originally Posted by jjacob

It's the new Woody Allen movie, and before you say "Oh right, who cares?", it's actually gotten some extremely good reviews here in the Netherlands, so I'm dying to see it. Crash is a 2004 movie, no matter how badly I'd want it in my top-ten

I've never seen anything with Woody Allen so I can't judge.

As for Crash, considering it's just now up for the Oscars next month, I consider it a 2005 movie.

[jjacob]

With a title such as A History of Violence, I'd say I wasn't expecting less. And with Cronenberg as director, I must say I was very disappointed. Don't get me wrong - this film would not have been saved by more violent or 'gory' scenes. There was no suspense, at all, present in even one of the scenes. How am I supposed to force any suspension of disbelief in the face-off scene with Joey's brother? How the hell does a violent experienced gangster miss several gunshots from no more than six feet away? Why is the movie so badly paced and without climax? What was the point of this movie, if there ever was one? (Darwin my ass ). The character development lacked any depth, and it really shows that this movie is based on a graphic novel. Sin City was too, but atleast it didn't try to be pretentious about it, it literally bathed in it. Also, ninety nine percent of the scenes in this movie were so incredibly predictable - I was thinking to myself throughout the entire film "I seriously hope that's not going to happen, that'd be so incredibly cliched and done-to-death, Cronenberg wouldn't, no, couldn't!" - And then it happened. I was waiting for this miracle twist to come to the film's rescue, but that never happened. I'm actually surprised this film made it to cinemas at all, as it left me with the distinct impression of a badly done straight to video/film channel flick.

[jjacob]

Originally Posted by Legolas813

I've never seen anything with Woody Allen so I can't judge.

As for Crash, considering it's just now up for the Oscars next month, I consider it a 2005 movie.

Odd, I remember seeing it in 2004 Bloody Oscar people

If you haven't seen any Woody Allen movies (that's almost impossible, you probably have but didn't realise it), anyway, go see these films: (exclamation mark!!one1eleven!!)
Annie Hall. 8/10
Mighty Aphrodite. 8/10
Manhattan Murder Mystery. 9/10
Everything you always wanted to know about sex but were afraid to ask. 7/10
Stardust Memories. 8/10
New York Stories. 7/10
Crimes and Misdemeanors. 9/10
The Curse of the Jade Scorpion. 9/10
Everyone Says I Love You. 7/10
Hollywood Ending. 8/10
The Purple Rose of Cairo. 9/10

Trust me, you won't be disappointed - his films are almost always hilarious and have amazing depth

[Spiwak]

Well...again, I don't see it as mainstream a flick as it was marketed as. It experimented too much with the viewing experience itself. And I don't see how you can just shoo off the Darwinian theory. This is a paraphrased quote from Cronenberg on the title of the film: "It refers (1) to a suspect with a long history of violence; (2) to the historical use of violence as a means of settling disputes, and (3) to the innate violence of Darwinian evolution, in which better-adapted organisms replace those less able to cope." There are three ways of viewing the movie right there. My theory would be somewhere between the second two, I guess, the view in the film that violence is innately human and instinctual.

As for cliched-ness and predictability, I already explained my thoughts on that. Blame it on the graphic novel if you want, but Cronenberg is a skilled director and doesn't mind deviating from the source to make his own point (Naked Lunch, anyone?). Just saying, because while it is based off a pulpy graphic novel (which I haven't read) and while he didn't even write the screenplay, you have to remember that this director is largely known precisely because he does his own thing, away from mainstream Hollywood. I mean, it's possible he's just losing his edge after so many years, or tripped up this once, but I really didn't view the movie as either case.

EDIT: that's a pretty food list of Allen films. I'd have to add Manhattan in there, though. Awesome photography and writing on par with Annie Hall.

[jjacob]

It wasn't marketed as mainstream, it was marketed as "Cronenberg's new independent film", which is even more worrying. I really don't see why he would explain the movie in such a way (the Darwinian thing) - if he really wanted to touch that subject he should've chosen different material to base a movie on, not the so-many-nth ex-gangster is confronted with his former life flick. I enjoyed Naked Lunch because it was different, I hated this film because it's been done to death. I can't find your comments regarding predictability, so you're going to have to quote that to me.

I do think he's losing his edge, and I don' think he was doing his own thing with this film, it caters to much to Hollywoodesque cliches to be viewed in such regard. Now tell me if I'm wrong or crazy here, but isn't a film supposed to be entertaining and possibly thought provoking? (which is exactly what I expected this to be after reading some reviews) To me this film is neither, and the predictability just adds to that.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Spiwak

That's surprising, I thought the violence in this movie was incredibly shocking! Seeing the thug's blown-away face bubbling on the floor in a pool of blood as the guy's trying to breathe...smashing the one thug's nose with his palm/fist repeatedly...the boy-fight...the violent sex scene and resulting bruises...I dunno, I really can't imagine it not being shocking even to desensitized viewers. And it felt especially perverse because of how idyllic the first act is, it felt unnatural and wrong...

The only really shocking moments for me was the first scene, with the thugs.
From then on, the movie went slowly but inexorably downward, as far as the story and the shocking/interest factors are involved.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Spiwak

EDIT: that's a pretty food list of Allen films. I'd have to add Manhattan in there, though. Awesome photography and writing on par with Annie Hall.

That's one of my (if not my) favorite Allen's movies.

And jjacob, be warned that Match Point isn't hilarious, and probably not really deep in the usual Allen sense. In fact, if it weren't for some dialogs, it could very well be a movie by some other director (Altman came to my mind immediately).

[jjacob]

How could I forget Manhattan

Ninth; I read the reviews, so don't worry, I'm not expecting any typical Allen comedy - save for a little irony here and there, if what a friend told me was correct. It may be a thriller, but I hope some classic Allen shines through

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by jjacob

How could I forget Manhattan

Ninth; I read the reviews, so don't worry, I'm not expecting any typical Allen comedy - save for a little irony here and there, if what a friend told me was correct. It may be a thriller, but I hope some classic Allen shines through

I'd say there's more than a little irony. Irony shines through all the movie... and it feels good to see Allen get back his bite (can I say that?) after the good but not so surprising last three comedies he made.

[jjacob]

Okat that's it, I have to see this movie today Yeah his last movies were a bit bland for my taste, though Hollywood Ending was enjoyable, didn't see Melinda and Melinda yet.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by jjacob

Okat that's it, I have to see this movie today Yeah his last movies were a bit bland for my taste, though Hollywood Ending was enjoyable, didn't see Melinda and Melinda yet.

Oh yeah, I didn't see it either, I was thinking about the cookie movie, which I hated, and the Jade Scorpion and Hollywood Ending, which I found very funny but not really impressive.

I heard that Melinda , Melinda was very good...

EDIT: Oh, and there's also the one with the American Pie actor, which was really good too. But still I would personnally rate Match Point higher.

[Spiwak]

Yea I was actually going to say Anything Else is worth watching as well.

And jjacob: here was what I wrote regarding the cliched-ness of the plot

Originally Posted by the coolest guy in the universe

I basically feel that it wholly works with the movie because one of Cronenberg's goals was to comment on how inherrant and Darwinian violence is for humans. For me, Cronenberg was presenting a story that seems wholly unoriginally or borrowed from various influences, for instance the Western hero thrown into his violent past after trying to leave it behind when it suddenly catches up to him, the whole school bully plot, the comforting small town rocked by the big city immorality, etc, on purpose. The groteque and gory violence (which I think succeeds in both thrilling and disturbing the audience), wrapped up in such a cliche-ridden plot seemed to comment on how violence entertains, or rather, intrigues us even though modern society tries to repress it. The fact that in general the violence in the movie was one of the more intriguing aspects of the viewing experience while also going so far as to disgust me only helped me come to that conclusion. That and the fact that Cronenberg isn't any ordinary director; he's both incredibly intelligent (just listen/read to some of his interviews) and interested in things like inhumanity-from-humanity themes. So I don't know if it was necessarily intended, but that's how I read it, and in general the subversiveness of his film in dealing with several layers of narrative interpretation made it one of the top movies of the year for me. Match Point only barely beat it.

You probably did see it but it probably just didn't do anything to change your mind about it. In any case, it seems your complaints are mostly in what I discuss there briefly, so maybe it'll work.

[squarejawhero]

I heard Melinda and Melinda was one of his better films, if not his best in recent memory. A lot of the criticism towards Match Point seems extremely vehement although, on reading, justified... mainly that it's a very cold movie with characters you really don't care about, particularly Rhys-Myers.

The Guardian really didn't like it and I usually trust their reviews, saying that it didn't really nail British humour or dialogue on any level. Total Film, another one usually on the money, also called the dialogue "clunky". Empire, of course, loved it, but they usually do love the films they're supposed to - their forum on this film weighs heavily on the negatives. The twist is supposed to be the life-saver.

I need to see it myself. I really wanted to see it since the trailer, but I'd rather wait for DVD after doing the research. I didn't explain earlier but it's quite a trip to get to a cinema from here. On another note, I'm a big fan of Sweet and Lowdown...

[Karmillo]

Just watched Napolian Dynomite and Corpse Bride

Napolian Dynomite was great nothing really happened in it but it was hillariouse....though it was kinda creepy how much the guy reminded me of myself

I loved the Corpse Bride, the style and animation was great. I couldnt help but think of Grimm Fandango when I was watching it, seriously Schaffer and Burton should really do a project together

[squarejawhero]

Yes, it's very much Grim Fandango. However, much as I love the style of Corpse Bride, the characters of Grim are actually better designed imo.

...and forget Schafer and Burton together! That'd be a clash of ego. I'd rather see Schafer attempt a short film beyond what he's done in Pschonauts.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

I heard Melinda and Melinda was one of his better films, if not his best in recent memory. A lot of the criticism towards Match Point seems extremely vehement although, on reading, justified... mainly that it's a very cold movie with characters you really don't care about, particularly Rhys-Myers.

The Guardian really didn't like it and I usually trust their reviews, saying that it didn't really nail British humour or dialogue on any level. Total Film, another one usually on the money, also called the dialogue "clunky". Empire, of course, loved it, but they usually do love the films they're supposed to - their forum on this film weighs heavily on the negatives. The twist is supposed to be the life-saver.

I need to see it myself. I really wanted to see it since the trailer, but I'd rather wait for DVD after doing the research. I didn't explain earlier but it's quite a trip to get to a cinema from here. On another note, I'm a big fan of Sweet and Lowdown...

Just for your information, you can see the main french magazine's opinions here:
http://www.allocine.fr/film/fichefil...ilm=57866.html
(there's a Critiques Presse thing where they translate each magazine's rating into 4 stars ratings)
So it was considered excellent by the majority here.

Of course, there may be a difference between what the french and british press will expect from this kind of movie, especially since it's taking place in England.

About: "it's a very cold movie with characters you really don't care about"
That's a matter of taste. I found the main character very charismatic, and very interesting, because you don't know whether you want to love or hate him.

About: "it didn't really nail British humour or dialogue on any level"
That may be the case, but is it a problem? I'm not sure that's what Woody Allen wanted to do... His movie nails the (west coast) american humor and dialog perfectly, with a british flavour to add to it, and I think it gives something really nice in the end.

[squarejawhero]

I think it's dependent on where you come from. If an American movie sets a film in Paris, yet it doesn't translate in terms of what you know of Paris in the dialogue and setting, I'm sure it'd be a problem for you regardless of the plot. If a film fails to convince, it fails on a very fundamental level.

The majority of user reviews on Empire say that the main character is unconvincing in performance terms - in fact it's a criticism shared by many reviewers. I don't know if you saw it in English or dubbed but I'd say that's nothing to do with taste. Unless you enjoy bad acting. I've yet to see it, naturally, but I'll let you know when I do.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

I think it's dependent on where you come from. If an American movie sets a film in Paris, yet it doesn't translate in terms of what you know of Paris in the dialogue and setting, I'm sure it'd be a problem for you regardless of the plot. If a film fails to convince, it fails on a very fundamental level.

The majority of user reviews on Empire say that the main character is unconvincing in performance terms - in fact it's a criticism shared by many reviewers. I don't know if you saw it in English or dubbed but I'd say that's nothing to do with taste. Unless you enjoy bad acting. I've yet to see it, naturally, but I'll let you know when I do.

I saw it in english, and it didn't shock me, meaning that it wasn't ridiculous (like Heather Graham as an enligh prositute, for example). And accent apart (that's rather hard for me to judge, obviously), I thought his performance was great, as he manage to be impressive, intimidating and pitiful at the same time.

As for the settings, well, I don't know, I'd say that you have to be picky to mind the slight offset with reality, given the fact that the settings are mostly a background for the characters' love games. Of course, critics are supposed to be picky, so it's no wonder they would focus on that offset. And you might as well, that's for sure...

[Stoofa]

I finally got around to watching 2046 last night. Meh. I didn't get anything out of it at all, it was SO shallow and I despised Tony Leung's character. Self-centred bastard uses a string of women to entertain himself. YAWN. It was laid on so thick there at the end of the movie that I couldn't stop giggling. Two beautiful women cry while Chow sulks along in taxi (he's in black and white, of course).

Also someone needs to teach Leung to kiss properly, he slams his face into the woman he's kissing so hard that it looks more like a headbutt than a make out session.

[Karmillo]

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

Yes, it's very much Grim Fandango. However, much as I love the style of Corpse Bride, the characters of Grim are actually better designed imo.

You mean the visual design or the characters themselfs?

I ageree about the characters themselfs, Corps Bride felt like it had a whole lot of story that needed more than 70 minutes to tell. It would have been better if he made it into 6 episodes of a series or maybe 2 movies.