Jels
Team Member
Posts: 385
|
Post by Jels on Jan 26, 2007 11:02:24 GMT -5
Ummmm.... in a word....
Wow!
It's a crime that it only received one Academy Award nomination for adapted screenplay. The direction (some AMAZING single shot scenes) and Clive Owen's acting - wonderful. I even liked Julianne Moore in it!
I read the book when it first came out, and the screenwriters did a great job in updating it.
If you are going to see one dystopian movie this year.... make it this one.
Now - a few comments [and spoilers].....
- I would like to have seen just a tad more exposition. I read the book and know why there were slaughtered cows and burned them in the fields (they didn't want the young generation to be overrun with livestock and animals as they grew older). Maybe the image was enough for those unfamilar with the source material. It definitely served its purpose by setting up a creepy mood - even in a sunny, green field.
Also, it probably wouldn't have been worth it - but the book had some powerful scenes with people and their pets. We only got barely a hint of it with a Gap ad that featured the newest line of dog clothes in the first few minutes of the movie. Because the movie was updated for today's world, it focused on immigration issues, terrorism and torture. That was a great choice; it really raised the stakes.
The director was a little heavy-handed with visual references to Abu Ghraib (hooded person standing on a box with arms stretched out; dogs terrorizing almost naked men in the refugee camp) - but by that point in the movie you were either fully buying this world or you weren't.
One of my favorite scenes was when the midwife was telling Clive Owen how she was there "for the end" when her appointment book seven months out was empty.
Another favorite Clive Owen scene when Kee and Michael Caine were talking when Clive wasn't in the room. Michael Caine told the story how Clive met Julianne Moore and the death of his son. The camera stayed on Clive the whole time and you just saw him react to the happy memories and seconds later, the bad ones. Brilliant scene brilliantly shot.
In the Jelsy rating system:
I would pay full price to see this again. (High praise indeed from Jels McTightwad.)
|
|
|
|
Post by THE Ferg on Jan 26, 2007 11:26:46 GMT -5
Jelsy, it also got nominated for Cinematography. Rightly so.
|
|
Chris O. Biddle
Team Member
Official Member of the Showmen's League Of America since 2007.
Posts: 495
|
Post by Chris O. Biddle on Mar 27, 2007 23:30:47 GMT -5
I just saw this on DVD. (It came out today.)
I thought it was mesmerizing. I regret missing this on the big screen.
There are genuine moments of suspense and intensity that just tore me up. I liked that this world and these concepts were all totally new to me. I genuinely didn't know who would survive or how this would end.
And yes, there is some bravura film-making in here that absolutely thrilled me. The scene Jels mentioned above. The car scene. The bombing. All the extended, single shot steady-cam work. I love it all.
I really want to read the book now. (I want to know what the deal was with the Arts Ministers son. That was creepy and fascinating.)
I also want to tell everyone I know to go see it. It's a brilliant movie. Just brilliant.
COB
|
|
|
|
Post by Don Hall on Mar 29, 2007 8:44:34 GMT -5
I agree with you both.
I thought it was like watching an Alan Moore graphic novel (specifically <i>Watchmen</i>).
Brilliant and moving.
|
|
|
|
Post by dan on Mar 29, 2007 9:27:15 GMT -5
PM me if you had beefs with this movie. I'm so alone!
|
|
Chris O. Biddle
Team Member
Official Member of the Showmen's League Of America since 2007.
Posts: 495
|
Post by Chris O. Biddle on Mar 29, 2007 9:34:44 GMT -5
Telf,
I'd be very interested in hearing your beefs. I had a few sniggling concerns about a few minor details, but the breathtaking film-work totally overshadowed those for me.
I'd be curious to hear what bothered you.
(And I promise not to rebuttle. Just listen. I'm not so die-hard that I have to defend the film.)
Cheers,
COB
|
|
|
|
Post by aaroneous on Mar 29, 2007 11:17:41 GMT -5
heads up CoM fans, now out on DVD.
|
|
Jels
Team Member
Posts: 385
|
Post by Jels on Mar 29, 2007 11:31:10 GMT -5
Dan -
I would love hear your thoughts on the movie. I won't personally be offended if you disagree with me, and I won't belittle your views for disagreeing with me.
But, I understand your reticence for posting publicly. More of an excuse to bend your ear in person about this.
I still stand by my comment that this movie was robbed in the awards area. Robbed, I say!
|
|
|
|
Post by dan on Mar 29, 2007 14:14:10 GMT -5
Imagery, cinematography, all great. You won't see me touching on that, and I give the film complete credit for it. Even the tension built well. Whoopy.
I kind of had the same problems that I had with 12 Monkeys (another movie all my friends loved but I didn't go wild for). A terrible future is something I nitpick. Is that fun of me to do? No. Hey, fiction is my passion and I want to love it.
But the dead livestock, the fighting, the state of the other countries of the world: these are all things that were left blurry. In the case of the livestock you're left with "this is here for imagery", the fighting was "this is here to impose an opinion about human nature", the rest of the world's silence was "we won't explain it and it will lend to the atmosphere to touch on it briefly". But all of it made me think "either you don't trust your audience or it was in the book and you didn't have time to flesh it out".
The story was fakey and hard to suspend my disbelief in. Julianne Moore looked like she was cast purely as famous face that they couldn't afford for a longer portion of the movie. She shows up, seems American only because Julianne Moore is American not because it furthers the story, then she's out of the picture. All to draw audiences, in my opinion. It doesn't help that I have yet to really be impressed by her as an actress.
The midwife got on my nerves. She wasn't very good in her role.
And the end was just stupid.
So I guess it comes across to as a story that isn't particularly compelling, an okay adaptation for the screen, and a masterful directing job by Cuarón. He made stupid plot points as visually interesting as possible, and can film an action film like nobodys fucking business. Let him make more action movies, seriously! But Cuarón was also one of five screenwriters, and at least 3 of those screenwriters shouldn't have been involved, and I'm pretty sure I would either love the novel or despise it. If the ending is similar to the film's, I'd probably despise it.
|
|
Jels
Team Member
Posts: 385
|
Post by Jels on Mar 29, 2007 14:37:01 GMT -5
Thanks, Dan. I totally understand the criticism about Moore and some of the plot points.
I don't think you would like the book. This is a case where I thought the movie was better than the book. Book ending was more pat and, believe it or not, unbelievable (in my opinion).
I also happen to be a sucker for futuristic, dystopic stories, so I was probably already sold from the beginning on this.
|
|
|
|
Post by dan on Mar 29, 2007 15:25:08 GMT -5
Thanks Jels, I probably won't read the book then. I knew you'd understand!
|
|
Chris O. Biddle
Team Member
Official Member of the Showmen's League Of America since 2007.
Posts: 495
|
Post by Chris O. Biddle on Mar 29, 2007 15:32:20 GMT -5
I have to say that Moore's unneccesary American-ness also caught my attention. When she and Theo are walking in that tunnel and are talking and Theo is VERY British and she's VERY American and there's no reason or explanation for it. Whatsthamatta? Can't she do a British dialect?
For me, the success of the movie is also in the details...
I catch my self re-thinking about the Art Curator and the flying pig balloon (which was a brilliant nod to Pink Floyd) and his son and either the disease that the kid had and how wierdly he was dressed and acted. I thought that was fascinating.
Cuaron's Harry Potter movie was the one that turned around my opinion of that franchise too. That guy just may be effing brilliant.
Cheers,
COB
|
|
bob
Sit-In
serious cowboy.
Posts: 158
|
Post by bob on May 11, 2007 10:03:30 GMT -5
Stacey and I saw this movie in the theater while in Portland.
All of our friends had told us how great it was, so we had high hopes.
We spent more time laughing AT the movie than we did enjoying it.
It had a lot of cool moments, but many of the little specific things were stupid.
Michael Caine's character, for instance...
He is a hippy from the 1960's? I say that because of the music he listens to.
He listens to hippy music - yet, this is the future... wouldn't he listen to more updated hippy music and feel nostalgic?
tastes like strawberries...
|
|
|
|
Post by dan on May 25, 2007 12:11:30 GMT -5
Yes!!!@#
|
|
|
|
Post by wowposter on Sept 4, 2008 23:54:10 GMT -5
|
|
