Datameister 2,041 Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 Your interpretation of the film's themes differs significantly from mine (and that of the people I saw it with). IMO, the first part shows a man who's had a good, long life, but who has lost someone very dear to him and has become so weighed down by all the wonderful memories that he has no grip on the present. Then his attempt to fly away - an extension of those same old memories - ends up accidentally teaching him to appreciate the present. There's never any indication that mortality isn't a very real part of life. On the contrary, the film suggests that life is short and we should make the most of the present, although we don't have to completely let go of the past. Those themes are as un-cynical as they come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintus 5,399 Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 Cynics will always find something to be cynical about. It was the cynics who originally bashed The Wizard of Oz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ollie 1,059 Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 It's a cartoon folks, a cartoon.Just because you get old doesn't mean you have to stop living. As long as you're physically able to, have fun.That's the message I got. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Datameister 2,041 Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 It's a cartoon folks, a cartoon.CGI flick, but who's counting?Just because you get old doesn't mean you have to stop living. As long as you're physically able to, have fun. That's the message I got.Bingo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neimoidian 14 Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 On the contrary, the film suggests that life is short and we should make the most of the present, although we don't have to completely let go of the past. Those themes are as un-cynical as they come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry B 50 Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 It's a cartoon folks, a cartoon.CGI flick, but who's counting?Does the cartoon medium preclude a film from possessing any nuance? I know the children's films that have stuck with me the most are the scary ones and the sad ones, e.g. Bambi. If we actually sat back and thought about it we'd realize how strange and terrifying childhood was; therefore films with a cornucopian ideology are unsuited for it and probably just commercial. Those warm and fuzzy cartoons without an iota of drama don't resonate with kids any more than stupid shit like Saw VI resonates with adults. We watch this stuff for menial entertainment, but it leaves hardly any impression. I think Pixar definitely deserves credit for daring to bring pessimism to its films. I haven't seen Up; I'd probably like the first half and dislike the second half. That's how it was with Wall-E.Obviously I'm generalizing... those mawkishly optimistic films do speak to certain audiences, but I think such audiences are headed for a rude awakening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Datameister 2,041 Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 Absolutely. Cheery optimism is great in moderation, but cartoons and their kin are capable of a lot more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morlock 11 Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 IMO, the first part shows a man who's had a good, long life, but who has lost someone very dear to him and has become so weighed down by all the wonderful memories that he has no grip on the present. Then his attempt to fly away - an extension of those same old memories - ends up accidentally teaching him to appreciate the present. There's never any indication that mortality isn't a very real part of life. On the contrary, the film suggests that life is short and we should make the most of the present, although we don't have to completely let go of the past. I think that's what the film tries to do, and does touch on that with the wonderful scrap book scene. But he never connects with the present. He connects with an adventure fantasy, pure escapism, from his youth. And they all live happily ever after. It's perfectly fine, but it's a huge step back from the mortality on display early on, and it's a step back from the blood that there is in reality. It pretends to be about connecting with humanity, managing to live on despite tremendous loss. But it preaches escapism, not connection. And I think that Pixar is cynical in assuming that this discord will be fine because so much of what they do, here and elsewhere, is so great. It's the same with the weaker parts of their previosu two film, but neither of those films contradicted themselves. And Quint, I am hardly a hard-edged cynic, always looking for stuff to bash. Mark is right about the film, it is a cartoon, with the cartoony moral of "Just because you get old doesn't mean you have to stop living. As long as you're physically able to, have fun." But it started out as so much more. The first 30 minutes are transcendant cinema. The rest is great fun. It's the distance between the two that bothers me. Incidentally, last week I sat down to watch The Wizard of Oz with my 3 1/2 year old niece. Rather, I saw about 3/4 of the films- I fast-forwarded all the stuff with the Wicked Witch and the Flying Monkeys. I never realized how scary it could be! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Datameister 2,041 Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 I'm not wholly following you. I thought it presented a very cohesive theme throughout. Where you see self-contradiction, I see dynamic characters. And you speak of escapism as if the film encourages us all to just literally fly away from our lives when we get old and tired, which is not at all what I got from the film. Carl initially is trying to escape - he's still rooted in the past. But through the adventure that follows, he accidentally becomes attached to this kid and forms a new relationship that grounds him in the present. In the end, he lets his house go - his house, the vehicle of his escapism, the strongest link to the past. "Happily ever after"? I guess...he still misses his wife. But he's better off than he was. If you think a film is flawed because it advocates that (and without being overly saccharine!), our moviegoing experiences are quite different indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morlock 11 Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 I might agree, if the kid meant a real connection to the present. Whatever real life this kid has, it's not the one Carl is becoming a part of. Carl is his old sidekick. And apparantly, according to the end credit, he will continue being his sidekick forever, as it goes on with them havign adventures. All fine, if the film hadn't already shown us that old people die. By ending with Carl and the kid living happily ever after, it refutes the initial notion of the film, which is- 'What do you do when your personal fairy-tale ends?'. The answer it gives is 'Find another one. THAT one will all be fine, and will never end.' Very comforting. But after the real stuff on display at the begining, 'comforting' just doesn't cut it for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Datameister 2,041 Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 So your claim is that whatever adventures Carl and Russel have together are not "real life"? They may be unconventional, sure, but going out and...I dunno, having fun is very different from wallowing in bittersweet memories of one's past. It's still real. Carl is engaged in the present, albeit in a way that's not particularly "normal." Normal doesn't usually make for interesting films anyhow.I'm also puzzled by your descriptions of their adventures continuing "forever." Just because Carl doesn't die in the film or in the snapshots shown in the credits doesn't mean he isn't going to die at some point. That's a fact of life - as you well know, the film has already made a point of that. But at the end of the film, Carl is no longer dwelling on it. He knows he's alive right now, and Russel is alive right now, and he's taking advantage of it.I'm just trying to get a feel for what you'd like to get out of the movie. I mean, should Carl have died at the end, driving home the point that we all die eventually, and that no adventure lasts forever? People know that. They have no trouble remembering that. (With the exception of certain kids who think they're invincible...) What's easier to do, at least for a lot of folks, is to hold onto the past without focusing on the here and now, and to that end, the film presents a very practical piece of implicit advice. But I guess the fundamental issue is that "comforting" doesn't "cut it" for you. Me personally, I like being comforted, as long as it's a realistic and genuine and practical sort of comforting. Up isn't my favorite Pixar film, but it does offer that. It doesn't shy away from mortality, yet it is still...uplifting, appropriately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeinAR 1,949 Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 I thought UP was terrific, and the opening montage was as good as it absolutely gets in these cartoons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koray Savas 2,251 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 New York, I Love YouA mixed bag of shorts that range from outright bad to brilliant. The worst easily had to be the one starring Hayden Christensen and Andy Garcia. Really bad dialogue and no chemistry between the actors. The best was, surprisingly, directed by Brett Ratner. I think the film should have ended on that one, it felt more appropriate, and would have the theater leaving on a hilarious, uplifting note. The one with Eli Wallach and Cloris Leachman was really great too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,331 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 Incidentally, last week I sat down to watch The Wizard of Oz with my 3 1/2 year old niece. Rather, I saw about 3/4 of the films- I fast-forwarded all the stuff with the Wicked Witch and the Flying Monkeys. I never realized how scary it could be!As far as I remember, the wicked witch is the only thing from the movies that my kid was ever scared of. And it's just simply a face painted green!Australia: Terrible! Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Datameister 2,041 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 The Wizard of Oz can be quite scary for young'uns! The tornado scene still makes me nervous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,331 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 The Wizard of Oz can be quite scary for young'uns! The tornado scene still makes me nervous. That doesn't surprise me since this scene is probably responsible for your fascination with theme park rides. Alex - giving free shrink sessions today Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Datameister 2,041 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 Hardly! I fell in love with Disneyland before I saw The Wizard of Oz for the first time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,331 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 You were doing rides before you saw movies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Datameister 2,041 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 I was doing some rides before I saw that movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crocodile 8,000 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 Australia: Terrible! AlexWasn't it supposed to be that way? After all it's Luhrmann...Karol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crichton 4 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 Return to Oz was way scarier for me as a kid than Wizard of Oz. And which one do I have on DVD now? Not the old one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,331 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 Australia: Terrible! AlexWasn't it supposed to be that way? After all it's Luhrmann...KarolI don't know. Who's Luhrmann and why do the biggest stars want to work with him? On the other hand, it really felt as if Jackman and Kidman acted against their will the whole time. I've never seen them playing that bad.Return to Oz was way scarier for me as a kid than Wizard of Oz. And which one do I have on DVD now? Not the old one.You prefer the movie that didn't make a difference? What a sad story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wojo 2,453 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 Baz Lurhmann is also known for Moulin Rouge and Romeo+Juliet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Brigden 7 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 Haven't seen MR but I can't stand R+J. Hated it.But hey, I love RETURN TO OZ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,331 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 Baz Lurhmann is also known for Moulin Rouge and Romeo+Juliet.Really? I switched off both Australia and Romeo+Juliet. What are the odds? Moulin Rouge was okay (for the colorful sets, that is). Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Brigden 7 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 I watched HALLOWEEN II on BBC iPlayer earlier. The old one. It's ok, Donald Pleasance is fun and it has some fairly decent suspense, but it's not great or anything. I think it's probably the series that had the quickest diminishing returns in terms of quality (although I do like SEASON OF THE WITCH). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintus 5,399 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 It ain't my cup of tea by any stretch, but Romeo+Juliet is a bloody good movie. I'm not arrogant or ignorant enough to proclaim a greatly adored movie as being shit just because it isn't my personal taste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,331 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 Every movie is admired. That doesn't mean Shitney Houston. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Brigden 7 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 Being arrogant and/or ignorant is who I am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marian Schedenig 8,191 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 Baz Lurhmann is also known for Moulin Rouge and Romeo+Juliet.Really? I switched off both Australia and Romeo+Juliet. What are the odds? Moulin Rouge was okay (for the colorful sets, that is).I adore Moulin Rouge and was really annoyed by R+J (though admittedly I've only seen the dubbed version of that). I rather liked the first half of Australia for what it was (unashamedly cheesy but nicely made), but it should have stopped right there in the middle, before it started turning into any number of separate movies which didn't seem to know where to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintus 5,399 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 Every movie is admired. That doesn't mean Shitney Houston.Some people adore Attack of the Clones, but even those poor fools understand that they are a filmic minority. A movie like R+J is not regarded as fanboy pursuit, on the contrary I believe it is seen as something of a quiet classic. Basically, young women love it. It is perhaps with no surprise that someone like yourself can't get one's head around that fact.Being arrogant and/or ignorant is who I am.Spoken like a true messageboard pro ie; insincerely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,331 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 Young women loved it because Dicaprio was the newest, cutest and hottest thing on the silver screen. That's hardly a reason to assume it's a classic. Also, just because a few JWfans happen to think that Attack Of The Clones isn't a good film doesn't mean its fanbase is small. I think you would be surprised how many admirers it has. In fact, I think it would scare the Shitney Houston out of you. Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wojo 2,453 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 Yesterday's word was half-ass, and today's word is Shitney Houston.Will each day somebody use a cuss word in an excessive amount? This could become fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintus 5,399 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 I don't know anything about Miss Houston, but Mr Cremers certainly talks a load of her first name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wojo 2,453 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 I never watched Romeo+Juliet, mostly because I never went out of my way to do so. I found Moulin Rouge absolutely unbearable, but only watched it because it was being played on a charter bus and I had limited options regarding escape or sleep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintus 5,399 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 I watched Romeo+Juliet with an ex. She loved it, I didn't mind it and I definitely appreciated it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Brigden 7 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 I watched it in college in English Lit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morlock 11 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 It ain't my cup of tea by any stretch, but Romeo+Juliet is a bloody good movie. I can understand the offense that many take to the film, but I really like the film. I think that it is an earnest attempt at something, not a hipster film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koray Savas 2,251 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 I'm watching Australia right now, it's bloody awful! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Penna 3,683 Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 Watched Paranormal Activity earlier.I'm not very good with dark places/bumps in the night/things moving, generally. I think I watched too many episodes of 'Strange But True' as a kid. But this film brought all of those to life in a terrifyingly realistic way.My brother thinks I'm over hyping it a bit, but I honestly think it depends on your imagination, and this movie scared the hell out of me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koray Savas 2,251 Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs in 3DReally funny and enjoyable, too bad the 3D was completely useless and just strained my eyes. But I got to see the new Avatar trailer in 3D, so that was cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crichton 4 Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 Will each day somebody use a cuss word in an excessive amount? This could become fun.Smnol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488 Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 Still Michael Keaton was better.Walken luring Penguin Devito down the stairs to press conference with raw fish. The campaign trailer rocking back and forth as he rides the mini ride-on Batmobile. DJ Keaton spinning the disc in the Bat CD player. Great speech, Oswald! A blur. I mean, not complete amnesia. I remember Sister Mary Margaret puking in church and Betsy Riley saying it was morning sickness. In HD. Best ever way to spend Halloween? Yes.Return to Oz was way scarier for me as a kid than Wizard of Oz. And which one do I have on DVD now? Not the old one.Another great flick. Too bad it failed. I was a fan of both the original and Return growing up. Return freaked me out, naturally. It's fascinating and sad to look bad at that film. The production was surely epic with tales of Disney literally shutting the whole thing down until George Lucas, Francis Ford Coppola and Steven Spielberg came over to the studio and gave it their endorsement. Of course, the thing still tanked. The music, special effects, sets and the various characters are all pretty wonderful. It's just awesome to see the Tin Man, Lion and Scarecrow as they were illustrated in the books. Also, Dorothy as a little girl. I don't own the original movie, but I do own Return. Now if Disney would just give it a more respectable release... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,331 Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 JCVD: Wow, that was a nice surprise! Easily JCVD's best movie! See it!Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marian Schedenig 8,191 Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 As every year on this day: V for Vendetta. Still brilliant, and it may actually still be getting better every time I watch it. Still relevant, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morlock 11 Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 JCVD: Wow, that was a nice surprise! Easily JCVD's best movie! See it! It's a weird little film, but compelling.As every year on this day: V for Vendetta. Still brilliant, and it may actually still be getting better every time I watch it. Still relevant, too. I love the film...it is such a dynamic idea, I find it irresisable. I've seen it an inordinate amount of times already. Clash by Night (1952). First non-German-silent-classic film I've seen from Fritz Lang. First of all, I was thrown for a loop. I was expecting a film noir. What I got instead was a Clifford Odetts melodrama with very interesting ideas about relationships. I was not compelled by this film at any point. Rented another Lang however, The Big Heat, which should indeed be a hard-boiled noir. An Education (2009). I was not expecting this, but I loved it. One of my favorite films of the year so far, it really hit home. One beautifully crafted scene after another, and it's all part of a whole. It's also interesting in that for most of the film, the cinematography and music is lying to the audience. Telling them that the relationship we're seeing is positive and romantic...it works almost like a horror movie, this young woman being preyed upon by the older man. Fine work by all the actors, terrific screenplay by Nick Hornby, both complemented by Lone Scherfig's direction (you could tell this film has a woman's touch). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,331 Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 JCVD: Wow, that was a nice surprise! Easily JCVD's best movie! See it! It's a weird little film, but compelling.Did you catch the Dog Day Afternoon references?Californication 2: I like this show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crocodile 8,000 Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 JCVD: Wow, that was a nice surprise! Easily JCVD's best movie! See it! It's a weird little film, but compelling.Did you catch the Dog Day Afternoon references?Californication 2: I like this show.Maybe, maybe... But what about Watchmen? Have you seen it? I'm very curious of your opinion. I myself can't decide...Karol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morlock 11 Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 I don't recall a sepcific reference, no. Saw Manhattan (1979). Didn't get with it nearly as much as I have in the past. Not sure why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,331 Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 Maybe, maybe... But what about Watchmen? Have you seen it? I'm very curious of your opinion. I myself can't decide...No, but I'm gonna love it!I did see Seven Pounds. It's one of those 'everything comes together at the end' movies with an overly dramatic tone and way too predictable.Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts