No, not at all, clearly he is at the forefront of cinema. There's no denying his brilliant contribution to film. :P
More like the foreskin.
Now if we could just get him circumcised. :tease: :hysterical:
Run Lola Run
My own review:http://www.dvdcollectorsonline.com/index.php/topic,3213.msg119988.html#msg119988 (http://www.dvdcollectorsonline.com/index.php/topic,3213.msg119988.html#msg119988)
A few comments on yours, I'm using spoilers just to be on the safe side.
Manni is a petty criminal who wants to be a proper criminal when he grows up. The money is from a drug deal. His first thought for a solution is to rob a supermarket. Because he has a gun and he’s a criminal. Am I being thick or something, but why the hell am I supposed to sympathise with his situation? It seems morally at odds with this fancy Buddhist notion of little things affecting big things and Lola’s Zen like ability to rewind time, narratively speaking (and later, save a heart attack victim by holding his hand).
Actually it is very much in tune with it. In the first run, Manni robs the supermarket and the punishment is Lola's death. In the second run, Lola robs the bank and Manni dies. Only in the third run, when she is completely in tune with the universe, does she succeed with everything.
Letting Manni get killed and seeing how Lola handles it, with her sense of fate and reason for living, would have been much more interesting.
You are missing the point. The movie shows exactly how Lola deals with such a situation. She doesn't let it happen!
The other problem I have, is that when Lola finally does succeed (sorry, should that be a spoiler?), what the hell did she actually do? The plot is self-serving. The only reason the first two attempts don’t work is because of her. In the end, the only thing she really does is the heart attack guy. And what’s with all the damn screaming to break glass? It’s all flash and no thunder.
What did she do? She did get the money. She caused Manni to get the money, because she didn't storm through the nuns, but walked around them, thus bumping into bike guy, etc. In the ambulance, she saves the bank security guard, which is the guy who started the entire game. And look again at the scenes between him and Lola at the bank.
Manni is a petty criminal who wants to be a proper criminal when he grows up. The money is from a drug deal. His first thought for a solution is to rob a supermarket. Because he has a gun and he’s a criminal. Am I being thick or something, but why the hell am I supposed to sympathise with his situation? It seems morally at odds with this fancy Buddhist notion of little things affecting big things and Lola’s Zen like ability to rewind time, narratively speaking (and later, save a heart attack victim by holding his hand).
Actually it is very much in tune with it. In the first run, Manni robs the supermarket and the punishment is Lola's death. In the second run, Lola robs the bank and Manni dies. Only in the third run, when she is completely in tune with the universe, does she succeed with everything.
Letting Manni get killed and seeing how Lola handles it, with her sense of fate and reason for living, would have been much more interesting.
You are missing the point. The movie shows exactly how Lola deals with such a situation. She doesn't let it happen!
The other problem I have, is that when Lola finally does succeed (sorry, should that be a spoiler?), what the hell did she actually do? The plot is self-serving. The only reason the first two attempts don’t work is because of her. In the end, the only thing she really does is the heart attack guy. And what’s with all the damn screaming to break glass? It’s all flash and no thunder.
What did she do? She did get the money. She caused Manni to get the money, because she didn't storm through the nuns, but walked around them, thus bumping into bike guy, etc. In the ambulance, she saves the bank security guard, which is the guy who started the entire game. And look again at the scenes between him and Lola at the bank.
I started to reply separately, but actually all these points are linked. I should say that in execution and ideas, I do like the film. It's a fundamental problem I have that essentially made me reverse the rating. By the end, it didn't sit right with me and I was left annoyed, despite the ingenuity of the production and especially the writing. This is the opposite of those rare occasions when you sit through a rather poor film and then in the final act it blossoms.
My basic fundamental issue is that Manni is a criminal. I don't like the fact that they do succeed without any concession to that fact. Lola is in tune with the universe... great... but that allows Manni to earn respect from a mobster and the inference is he will continue to rise through the ranks.
Hypothetical sequel: would Lola be granted similar tuning if her intentions were to aid Manni get away with murder for his boss?
I love the idea of Lola unlocking the correct run of events. And it is so much better than the awful sequence jammed in the middle of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button which shows how difficult it is to pitch this idea. It just feels a bit odd that such a revelation is used so much for personal gain. Is there some irony in the fact he is the embodiment of someone not in tune with society? The fact that both of them are punished in some way by the previous runs, makes it worse. Are we to take from this, that robbing a supermarket or a bank is so terrible, you will die. But drug dealing, gambling and handing guns to desperate tramps is fine?
What I meant by letting him die, was actually the plot to let him die and Lola to be frustrated; perhaps until she found the sequence of events to rescue the security guard and then she would realise that this near-stranger just doing his job was more important than Manni. Anyway it's a flippant suggestion that undermines what Zwycker was trying to do, but in a broad sense, I'd have been fascinated by her learning something more substantial.
I did appreciate the sequences with the guard. Lola saving his life was unexpected and profound, but the little touches in the previous runs had hinted at something and I really liked the mystery of what he represented. It's just the sort of obtuse writing I like and I wish there was more in general. It's an adult expression in what I otherwise see as a bit childish.
This really is a very clever film, but I think you have to be able to sympathise with the situation enough to appreciate it, which I certainly didn't. I also naturally distrust using such a strong fantasy element in a thriller. I know that was the point, but still, I prefer more grounded logic where you can feel it has an irrevocable impact.
While it's very hard to make any sort of comparison between the two, I find while we're talking about Run Lola Run, my mind keeps wandering back to The Constant Gardener. I suppose it's because it uses a narrative that goes backwards as well as forwards, as Ralph Fiennes' character has to come to terms with not only his wife's death, but who she actually was and who he was, before he can face the future. I wanted to take something like that away from Lola, but it wasn't there to be had.
Well, not for me anyway. ;)
:hmmmm:
Normally I stick to the principle to ether used English titles or use Original titles in the alphabet marathon. I already decided to the former when I watched Warrior King. But, now I want to break the rule and watch Lola rennt, rather than [b]R[/b]un Lola Run since I already did R but still have L available.
:hmmmm:
I remember this film to be a to me. While Jon getting bored with it is "fine" (we perceive different films differently), I don't remember this film being "pro-crime". I'll be more clear after I rewatched, but I thought that Lola was against Manni's criminal activities and that after the end of the film she'll have him become honest again. Apparently Tykwer did not make it strong enough (assuming I remember it correctly anyway). Maybe this is a cultural problem, this being a German film...? :hmmmm:
I am not entirely serious with my last comment...
I agree with KC and Antares on the rating.
Although, I always enjoyed De Niro in this, as well as in a few others of his smaller roles at the time (Angel Heart being the most memoprable to me).
There is lots of fun to be had with Untouchables, but it has too many little faults to make it a 5/5, for me.
Connery shooting a dead guy to make the other baddy talk :hysterical:
Great review and a great film. As much as I liked No Country for Old Men, this was the better film that year and should have won for Best Picture.
As to the ending...I am one of those who found fault with it, because Dano's character is reduced to a babbling idiot of sorts. If Anderson had made Dano portray it with a bit less absurdity, it may have worked. But to have him appear as a petulant, whiny child with ADD , throws all sense of believabilty right out the window.
You mentioned Altman earlier, and I could see Altman doing something like this, just to throw the audience a curve ball, but as it would have with Altman, here too, it doesn't work.
Well...
You say, "throw the audience", but I don't think that's the intention. It's a shocking change of pace, but on this second viewing I found it to be a natural progression of the themes.
By the end of the film, Eli has left to go to a mission, to spread his word and his faith, apparently. Daniel meanwhile is alone and bored in a very large Xanadu-esque mansion. He is clearly very successful, but restless. He sits there like he is waiting. He dismisses the grown-up H.W. like he was nothing. "A bastard in a basket". He already said he doesn't like most people and now H.W. has ceased to become useful to him. The difference with Eli, is that he used Daniel to get where he is. And Daniel had to use Eli, and they've been locked in a perpetual game ever since.
Eli has been reduced to a whiner, you are right. A desperate one. But if they had both stayed the same, there would have been no ending. Their game with each other had to conclude, and that's what Daniel is waiting for.
But as soon as Eli reveals his money problems, he proves that he is inherently weak and utterly false. He has finally confessed to Daniel that he is nothing. After all these years, Daniel sees the opportunity to utterly destroy him; he humiliates him and makes him denounce his faith, he kills him mentally ("Paul was the one"... "you slithered out on your mothers filth", etc) and then he kills him physically. It's a systematic, cathartic and, in Daniel's madness, a justified execution of a pointless weasel who never made anything of himself that wasn't a lie. That's why the brief cameo by Dano as Eli's brother is so important. Paul came first into the world, came to Daniel first and made a lot of money first. Eli has always just been one step behind and finally is proved to be of no use to anyone.
Hence: "I'm finished!"
He had to be portrayed that whiny and weak, because that's who he really was, right from their first meeting. Essentially, Daniel could have happily destroyed him right then, but he needed to be in a position of absolute power.
I think their relationship was fascinating and the ending, once I saw it again, natural and fitting.
By the way, have you seen the Jesse James film? I call it the "Jesse James film", because it's easier than having to type "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford"... oh. ;)
I reviewed it here: http://www.dvdcollectorsonline.com/index.php/topic,886.msg73730.html#msg73730 and was pleased to see it gather some local forum support. I would have said liking any of the three (with No Country) would predispose you to the other two, but Eric shook that the other day. He happened to see There Will Be Blood the same night as me last week, but found it very boring. Shame.
In the interests of balance, Rick also reviewed Jesse James: http://www.dvdcollectorsonline.com/index.php/topic,6526.msg118817.html#msg118817
The Road
I watched this last night and quite liked it. As you said, the acting is very good, the production design is marvelous and cinematography is also excellent.
The lack of a story, or I better say plot since there is a story, is a bit confusing at first.
I found it very interesting that there is only one short confrontation with bad guys, they always manage to escape. However, those escapes are done very intensely and had me on the edge of my seat.
Why aren’t people working together? How did all the bad guys find each other and get sort of organised, but the good guys don’t?
Because it all goes bad eventually... The good guys turn bad when hunger, greed or jealousy gets the better of them. So, in overall they stick to themselves to be safe.
Some dismiss it as depressing, but they were probably depressed because they couldn’t see past the lack of plot and set-pieces to find the genuine and substantial human drama within.
I think the "depressing" comes from showing that bleak world, where death can always be around the next corner. Everything is terribly grey; we only see bits of color in the flashbacks and with the son's blanket (:hmmmm:). And then of course the seemingly open end of the film...
I take it from your review that you opted for the "good ending", that guy Pearce's character is a good guy who will help the son rather than provide him as food for the family? Which weaves into into my other question: Did you also find it a bit strange that Guy Pearce had followed them around for a long time? And for what purpose? And if he did, why didn't he help against the black guy who stole everything?
I agree with your identification of the "carrying the fire" line being the key-point of this film. Two other great lines came from the son (I put some of it in spoilers, as it's best to discover the full extent of their meaning while watrching the film):
"I wish I could be with my mom."
Father: "So you wish you were dead?"
Son: "Yes."
and
Father: "You are not the one who has to carry all the responsibilities"
Son: "Yes I am the one!"
Especially the latter goes very close with what you said about the scene with Robert Duvall (his comment about the son being an angel).
The Road
I watched this last night and quite liked it. As you said, the acting is very good, the production design is marvelous and cinematography is also excellent.
...
I take it from your review that you opted for the "good ending", that guy Pearce's character is a good guy who will help the son rather than provide him as food for the family? Which weaves into into my other question: Did you also find it a bit strange that Guy Pearce had followed them around for a long time? And for what purpose? And if he did, why didn't he help against the black guy who stole everything?
I agree with your identification of the "carrying the fire" line being the key-point of this film. Two other great lines came from the son (I put some of it in spoilers, as it's best to discover the full extent of their meaning while watrching the film):
"I wish I could be with my mom."
Father: "So you wish you were dead?"
Son: "Yes."
and
Father: "You are not the one who has to carry all the responsibilities"
Son: "Yes I am the one!"
Especially the latter goes very close with what you said about the scene with Robert Duvall (his comment about the son being an angel).
Excellent use of spoilers there, Achim!
Within the context of the film, I didn't find it odd that Guy Pearce and his missus had been following them and not helping. It fits in with the rest of the film. Adults cannot and will not trust anyone. They focus on the children only. It isn't a perfect explanation, but then it isn't a perfect film and this is the aspect I found a little sentimental and naive. It's all to a purpose though and by being simple, it rams the idea home.
Where's that Whitney CD? All together now... "I believe that children are our future." :shutup:
This is the only film of De Palma's I would rate so high.
:o
:laugh: I need to take another look at Carrie and Scarface (though I definitely think it is overrated, despite it's classic icon status), but otherwise he's made some fantastic movies. I'm just making the point, contrary to belief, it isn't that easy to get a high-five from me!
I thought about this just a week ago myself. In fact, in order to use ratings from this forum for a purchase decision you must have been here for while, know what kind of films each reviewer likes and how he/she rates them. We discussed this in the past and agreed, that we want to make our rating personal.
If I were to use "real" ratings for the films I review I'd probably get more 3s rather than 4s and 5s. But, in the end it's about showing people how YOU rate the film, not how you think it should be placed within film history (which I think was the argument that let us to the result in before mentioned discussion). Actually, isn't that how you have to approach other reviews? Maybe you like films Ebert likes, but hate stuff Kael praises? Maybe films reviewed by Kermode fall in the middle? You still need to find a reviewer whose opinion matches yours.
Your reviews are clear on their purpose, as you use a different rating scale, which is placed below your reviews. Most of use our own scale, which is more about personal judgement. I guess your "complaint" is, that John uses a star rating (which indicates that he rates like you do) but then applies it in the same way the others use the smiley rating...
Yep, that's how I feel. I try to write in a manner that you can make your own mind up to a degree as well. I don't want you to agree with me, just so long as you do... understand what I say... ;)
There Will Be Blood
[...]
Daniel Plainview and son are independent oil men,
Interesting. Is this a real-life character...? Or did Rockstar games pay tribute to the movie in Red Dead Redemption? (There is an oil-site in the game which is called "Plainview".)
A quick Google seems to find people concluding that this is just a smart reference to the film. It is as well... :clap:
The film is based on a book called Oil!, I believe to be a work of fiction.
Excellent use of spoilers there, Achim!
Well, thanks. I found that the sentences themselves only carry their true meaning when seen in context with the questions/responses...
Within the context of the film, I didn't find it odd that Guy Pearce and his missus had been following them and not helping. It fits in with the rest of the film. Adults cannot and will not trust anyone. They focus on the children only. It isn't a perfect explanation, but then it isn't a perfect film and this is the aspect I found a little sentimental and naive. It's all to a purpose though and by being simple, it rams the idea home.
I watched it again yesterday with the audio commentary on.
It became clear very quickly that what you say is the actual truth; had you not said it, I would have now. In fact, apparently in the book the story continues somehow and it is made clear that The Boy grows up to bew an adult (from Hillcoat's commentary, well worth a listen, by the way).
Whatever you conclude, thanks for trying it. I always felt you would get something from it, even if not as much as I did.
I'm deeply suspicious about commercial message movies dealing with contemporary issues of this scale. And the le Carré quote at the end just rubs me the wrong way - if the issue really matters to you, why did you end up making just a "holiday postcard"?
But I do like the visual style and I agree that Fiennes and especially Weisz are pretty good, but their love story feels a bit shorthanded and some of their flashback scenes together are just... not exactly too clichéd, but too suitable, I guess.
I too am suspicious of such stories and I think any plot that relies on one is instantly handicapped, hence my comments that you have to subscribe to the writers point of view to get the full benefit of their idea. What I found with this film, at least on a second viewing, is that it mattered less how convinced we were by the conspiracy and more how much we believed in Tessa. We can accept that she is dedicated to this thing for us and so we can concentrate on her. If anything, we are like Justin, not paying attention to what she does, we're more interested in who she is.
I don't want to undermine that main plot, because the film certainly doesn't, but still, I think Fernando Meirelles was sharp enough not to make us rely on it...
In the end, Justin's apology (not sure if that's the right word, but you know what I mean) to Tessa is focused on the resolution of their relationship. There's a postscript scene about the drugs, but the emotion still sticks with the central characters in the films big showdown. The scene at Justin's memorial is silly, but functional, and it concentrates on what happened to Justin and Tessa, essentially accusing Nighy's character of plotting their murder.
We the audience can be reassured that Tessa's work will continue because of Justin, but it's more important we feel closure about them.
One thing worth bearing in mind concerning the end quote, is that Le Carre said the film bore little resemblance to his book. He meant that as a compliment. I read a couple reviews of the book and get the feeling he did do exactly what I don't like and made the drug plot front and centre. Critics seem to feel he fell into the authors trap of doing a "Flavour of the Month" where all his research and indignation came out too obvious. So maybe his original book did justify the quote more.
I'll admit the flashback scenes did come across too brittle to me, but again, that was the first time. I know it's cheap to keep saying "second viewing", but it is true for some films. This is a very nostalgic story, so it works best when you already know it!
It's no surprise that Tessa turned out to be faithful to Justin, but the film could have gone either way and been all edgy and ironic. It was perfectly feasible for Justin to find out she cared little for him. On seeing it again though, his memories are allowed to take on more substance and we can commit to them fully.