Reviews written by registered user
|7 reviews in total|
I just watched this movie as a part of CU's International Film Series, and I
am bowled over by what I saw. The animation style is dazzling -- the effect
is to defamiliarize you from the everyday world, display the emotional
texture of the scene, and recreate the world--dare I say it?-- magically.
The plot is minimal, and a brilliant scene in a movie theater displays the rationale for avoiding plot -- plot is a literary device while cinema shows the Holy Moments of life -- deliciously meta-referential. The philosophy speeches are intriguing, and so what if any "first-year philosophy student" would know it -- how often do you see a movie try to reach these intellectual levels?
I was most impressed with the experience, of course, there were parts that seemed unnecessary (the man in the jail, for example), but on the whole Linklater succeeds in creating a vision of our reality that is multifaceted and complex, but sensitive and hopeful (in its way), unlike Slackers.
After reading some of the comments here, I wonder if we all saw the same movie. Nonstop sex and violence? Sweetback a radical? I don't think so. Sweetback is almost a nonentity who passively goes along with his environment -- ever notice how his hips never move while we has sex? He's hardly a part of the act and his so-called sexual prowess is a construct of the other person. He hardly speaks and is often spoken for, by Beetle the pimp, by the white cops. He snaps at long last and makes a statement against the whole crappy world around him. The transformation he makes is made while on the run, through the agony of always being on the run. I thought the cinematography and use of the choir chanting from afar was brilliant -- showing the world of his soul in painful transformation. Don't think blaxploitation, when you see this -- and see it you should -- but it is NOT a blaxploitation movie. It is mythology in the making.
This is a fantastic movie -- there's not much to it, some guys hanging out
in their neighboorhood. What it is does and observe all those things we
normally too much in a hurry to see. It shows people with quirks and
details that make them interesting, and enriches the experience from that.
People talk and get to know each other -- Just take it for what
it is. My favorite people in the movie were Craig's dad and the little
crackhead guy (Was his name Ezekiel?)
Just take it for what it is.
What can add to the comments here? The cameos were great (especially
Dogg's) and Dave Chapelle is one of my favorite stand-up comedians who
actually bearable to watch as an actor. The descriptions of the different
kinds of smokers is classic! The ending is disappointing -- but you know
the every single comedy movie released in the last 20 years wasn't -- but
you what? You don't watch these kinds of movies for their dramatic
The stuff that happens a long the way is what's funny. One of the best
parts of the movie happens where Jim Breuer is explaining the real story
their pit bull Killer is dead. Hilarious! Rent it now!
Is anybody really surprised that this is not the deepest, darkest or most superbly acted movies of this year? Please, people, grow up in a hurry. TR was fine for what you're expecting -- a loud, video-game style movie. Although it was not as good as say The X-Men or The Mummy, it was a thousand times better than Face Off or Mission Impossible 2. Angelina Jolie looked like Lara right down to the super-big feet -- even her expression was perfect. It could have been faster and darker -- sure, any movie could be -- but it's a teen-focused movie that I'd actually feel comfortable showing to a teen. The violence was cartoony, A-Team style stuff -- which is fine. I had a good time, and that's all I was expecting. A suggestion to the whiners is go see cheesy movies at a matinee or a dollar theater, so you can spare yourself the heartbreak of blowing eight dollars and then needing to come here and complain.
I would perhaps really liked this movie if it had just stuck to the idea of the son & dad talking -- the son gets a chance to re-examine his life and find out what an alcoholic mess he's become -- discovers something life-affirming in the shared struggles of being a man in a America -- but instead we get this self-absorbed whiney loser who's possessed with the idea that he can bring his Dad back and then gets involved in this whole Nightingale thing which comes out of nowhere. I kept asking myself, where was the intersection between the Dad & the Nightingale which caused the sudden focus and if this was a random crossing then why weren't the Mets games different? The script should have focused on one aspect and went with it. Also, though I must say I am not the kind of person who thinks entertainment should be family-oriented, I think many people saw this movie thought it might be a nice family-type story, brought the kids and spent most of the movie looking at crime scenes photos -- which is wrong. My final comment is that this show is just another example of current movie-making philosophy -- grab a few big actors, throw in some computer effects at random and cross-stitch about six different plots together and you have a story! It's just pathetic really...
I am appalled that CHOCOLAT was nominated for an Academy -- not that they are any guide to quality in movies, but this simply was not one of the five best movies released last year. Am I the only person to have noticed the BOOM MIKE dangling in several interior scenes? I didn't want to believe it was there -- but it kept popping in over people's heads as they were talking. That's what editing is for! Also, the movie is as predictable as they come -- liberally adapting from Like Water For Chocolate and Fried Green Tomatoes. I love magic realism and LWFC was an exceptional example of how it can work onscreen, but this was so wooden and measured. The attacks on the village's way of life were obvious and puerile, and the antagonists so silly and trivial. But there always positives with the negatives -- the visuals of the village were beautiful, the food was extremely sensual, and Juliette Binoche really looked the part -- mysterious, sensuous -- there just wasn't enough script to give her anything really profound or insightful to say. Disappointing, and certainly not Best Picture material.