|
|
Post by rockkid on May 8, 2005 8:43:34 GMT -5
Hotel Rwanda…..
Wow not for the faint hearted be prepared to be very angry.
Totally exposes the UN for the useless organization it has become.
Having read Dallards [sic]? book prior to watching I must say shame involved in knowing my country also just “stood by”
The French effect………. Don’t even get me started…… just listen closely for the 3 lines (dispersed through out the film) that show their involvement.
These are the very people who hued & cried over Iraq?
Much as I adore Clint Eastwood this is where the best actor Oscar should have gone.
Even the “extras” are good.
And presently history repeats its self (i.e. Sudan)
After viewing this I’d really like to see the UN either get its shit together or be disbanded.
It can not stay with its present mode of operation.
Highly recommended viewing for those who haven’t seen this yet.
It zooms to a full 10 rk popcorns & at least the same for the two worthy extras “making of & return to”.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockkid on May 8, 2005 8:47:22 GMT -5
Hmmmmmmmmm I just noted in our news that we are sending 150 to Sudan.
I hope history truly does not repeat.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ampage on May 8, 2005 10:10:56 GMT -5
Cliint didn't win Best Actor, Jamie Foxx did. Hotel Rwanda is on it's way to me thanks to NetFlix. That and The Woodsman and Sideways (finally).
|
|
|
|
Post by rockkid on May 9, 2005 7:32:57 GMT -5
Geese you’re right Foxx for Ray (perhaps I secretly wanted Clint over him)
Either way this was more deserving IMO.
Watched Spanglish.
Cute fluff.
I will say Tea plays self consumed preppy like no body’s business. Better than Parker Posey who IMO had that market cornered.
Paz is beyond beautiful.
Let down…….. I did so want Sandler to end up with Flor.
4 rk corns for a pleasant afternoon diversion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ampage on May 9, 2005 8:37:46 GMT -5
Don’t get me started on that drivel. Although Tea was terrific, NOBODY one ups Posey. I love her so.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mary on May 9, 2005 12:48:13 GMT -5
OK - now that I've had time to think about it, I can actually formulate why I loathed and detested Palindromes so much.... so please skip this post unless you want to read a long and bitter rant about a contemptible dungheap of a movie (though there are no real "spoilers" involved - how can you possibly "spoil" a Todd Solondz movie, when everything in every one of his movies is utterly 100% predictable and always exactly the fucking same??)
Ostensibly, Palindromes is about a 13 year old girl, Aviva (note - a palindrome! ahhh! how clever!) who desperately wants to get pregnant, for barely developed reasons. She is the cousin to Dawn Weiner, the chubby, clueless anti-heroine of Solondz' first movie, Welcome to the Dollhouse, whose funeral opens this new movie (we learn that Dawn became obese and had terrible problems with acne, committing suicide after getting pregnant by a date rapist - anyone who finds this relentless mockery of his own characters provocative or darkly funny suffers from serious arrested development - this is junior high school humor). Aviva manages to get herself knocked up by an equally awkward, dim-witted, overweight boy who is the son of family friends, and her parents don't want her to have the baby.
That's the motor which drives the whole movie and allows Solondz to start peeling back the layers of exterior suburban-bourgeois beneficence and family values to expose the hideously corrupt and hypocritical moral monsters who lurk just beneath the placid surface. This is the only note in Solondz' one-note symphony of misanthropy: all humans, except perhaps dim-witted 13 year olds whose only saving grace is their utter imbecility, which prevents them from having the sophistication to be hypocritical or grotesque - are equally contemptible monsters. "Pro-choice liberals" are horribly materialistic, shallow, nasty, self-absorbed shrews who don't really believe in choice at all since Aviva's mother absolutely compels her to get an abortion against her will. "Pro-life Christians" are skewered just the same, as they plot gruesome murders of abortion doctors (with "collateral damage" I might add) and inhabit a sickly, treacly world of faux-sunshine and utterly vacuous faith. Solondz thinks by exposing the darkness at the heart of all of us, by unmasking us all, whether left or right, blue state or red state, as despicable wastes of flesh, he is engaging in some kind of savvy social satire. The problem is that satire needs to satirize something and because all of his Solondz' characters are ludicrous, one-dimensional caricatures of "types", there's no real object of his satire. These people could not exist ouside of Solondz' solipsistic universe. Solondz is no better than one-dimensionally upbeat American-style optimists - he's only flipped their optimism into its absolute antithesis - a bleak, dark, boundlessly cynical and misanthropic pessimism - which is every bit as superficial, shallow, and unrealistic. Solondz is congenitally incapable of offering a single complex character to us. Everyone and everything is a mindless, knee-jerk caricature.
Ah, and I haven't even gotten to the movie's central gimmick yet - Aviva, our young heroine, is played by multiple actresses (I lost count, but there's 6 or 7 of them) and even, briefly, a young actor. Thus her age, race, and body type vary wildly from scene to scene - she begins as a barely-able-to-speak 4 or 5 year old black girl, morphs into a variety of awkward middle-school-aged white girls, morphs into a 350-pound black woman, morphs into Jennifer Jason Leigh, etc etc. If you want to be a good self-congratulatory liberal (of the type Solondz himself relentless skewers) you might say the point of this gimmick is to say something about the commonality of human experience, as we learn throughout the movie to sympathize with (except we don't, because she's such a dull blob) Aviva despite the many forms she takes. So age, race, gender, and body type are insignificant, hooray, we can pat ourselves on the back for overcoming our prejudice. This being a Todd Solondz movie, though, that's not really what's going on. The endless parade of Avivas mostly allows him to throw in yet more impossibly offensive and ultimately mindless humor - if we're really supposed to overlook the fact that Aviva suddenly weighs 400 pounds and is black, then perhaps Solondz shouldn't immediately turn this new actress into the butt of a fat joke, as "Mama Sunshine" tells her she "looks like she could use some good home-cooking." Cue audience snickering. When Aviva morphs back into the 5 year old black girl who began the movie, it's immediately after she's gotten fucked in the dirt by the same awkward fat kid who initially knocked her up, thus Solondz gets to present us with a post-coital 5 year old telling us how she thinks she's finally been impregnated. If there's a point to this beyond pathetic and empty shock value, I've missed it. Do I get to be called a visionary auteur if I film a bunch of 5 year olds talking dirty about fucking? Or am I just another pathetic purveyor of vacuous shock art?
And I haven't even gotten to the freak show Christian home of Mama Sunshine into which Aviva stumbles midway through the movie. Mama Sunshine is a Christian woman who, alongside her abortion-doctor-murdering husband, takes physicallly and mentally disabled children who have been abandoned or run away into her home. Portraying such children isn't offensive in and of itself, obviously. Turning them into a total fucking freak show for the audience to laugh at is rather more offensive. Having them sing assinine "Christian pop songs" about how "every baby deserves to get born" while the camera focuses on their disabillities is yet more offensive. Of course, Solondz' smug response to any such criticism is that, by making the audience laugh at these children, he's forcing the audience (mostly consisting of blue state liberals no doubt) to confront their own fucked up prejudices. This is utter nonsense. You turn your characters into punchlines for the audience to laugh at, you don't get to condemn your audiences for laughing. Just because Solondz is a 45 year old nerd doesn't mean jokes about fat people and disabled people are any more sophiticated than they would be on a junior high school playground - which, ultimately, is where Solondz' "humor" really belongs.
Is there a moral to all this? At the end of the movie, after Aviva has returned from her adventures with pedophile truck drivers and crazy Christians, she encounters Dawn's older brother (now accused, possibly falsely, of child molestation - is every suburbanite in Todd Solondz' world a pedophile?? is THAT his great insight into the human condition??) at her welcome-home party and he gets to deliver a lengthy monologue which appears to sum up the lesson of the movie - he tells Aviva, now played by Jennifer Jason Leigh, that nobody ever changes, nobody ever grows, nobody ever learns from their mistakes, we have no free will, we're all doomed by our genetics to be exactly the same (miserable, pathetic, and despicable) person - the same "backwards and forwards" - ahhhh, now the title of the movie makes sense, see? Unfortunately this diatribe reads like a 7th grader trying to write a provocative paper to offend his goody-two-shoes english teacher. The fact that Solondz needs a character to pontificate shamelessly about the "moral" of the movie - like those atrocious monologues in the middle of Ayn Rand novels - is bad enough, as an insult to his audience's intelligence. Even worse is that the moral itself pretty much exposes Solondz' career for the obnoxious sham that it is - he's made the same damn movie about the same contemptible characters 4 times now, no one has changed, no one has grown - New Jersey still sucks, Dawn Wiener (or Aviva) is still a pathetic loser with an atrocious junior high fashion sense, her parents are still self-absorbed and materialistic hypocrites, and suburbia is still full of self-loathing pedophiles - all right. We fucking get it. Can he just shut the fuck up already??
Funnily enough, many years ago, I love Welcome to the Dollhouse. I had a more mixed reaction to Happiness, but even there, I found aspects of the movie to be commendable. The singular accomplishment of Palindromes was that it was such an atrocious car-wreck of a movie that it made me like these earlier movies less. Solondz has produced such an unthinking shallow turd here that he's actually managed to render his previous art equally dubious. Now, when I receive this assinine articulation of the Solondz worldview, all his earlier work seems equally puerile, one-dimensional, and vacuous. If you're the sort of person who feels all transgressive just by sitting through a movie that presents a rogues gallery of monstrous human beings doing monstrously offensive things, then by all means, go see Palindromes and pat yourself on the back for being so superior to all the moralistic hypocrites in the movie. If, on the other hand, you're the sort of person who appreciates moral complexity in art, and likes multi-dimensional renderings of human bengs in all their confused inner turmoil, then Palindromes is every bit the dumbshit equivalent of Father Knows Best minus the camp value - stay the fuck away.
M
|
|
|
|
Post by Ampage on May 9, 2005 13:04:38 GMT -5
So thumbs up?
|
|
|
|
Post by pattentank24 on May 9, 2005 14:31:48 GMT -5
I just got back from seeing Kingdom of Heaven and for my money it was a good 2 1/2 hours spent. I know next to nothing about the Crusades or the time period in which the film's events follow so I can't comment on any liberties the film takes yet I also can't fault it if I knew the facts. About the film, it was noted that it would seem controversial as it is released in a heated political or religious climate but when is the climate anything but? Truth be told, the film depicts both the Christian and Muslim sides with intelligence and care, although the Muslims are seen in a better light. As expected, the Christian army in Jerusalem has some bad apples, namely fanatics like the character of Guy de Lusignan (Marton Csokas), an influential figure in the king's court and greedy war-mongerer. Some of his comrades believe that since the Christian God is on their side, they can take the Muslim army anywhere, anytime. So what really makes shit hit the fan is the greedy wanting to expand the Christian empire, so sooner or later, they get what's coming to them. Although the film has sumptous sights of empires past, roaring armies, realistic violence, and recurring themes of codes of honor, Ridley Scott is not trying to play on the strengths of Gladiator. As enjoyable as I felt that film was, it was really just a revenge tale told with sweeping, cinematic gestures and style. Kingdom of Heaven is a different story and is concerned with personal conflicts of another nature, of finding one's worth when you consider your soul damned and your life expendable and unfit when the things you love are taken away. Orlando Bloom has not the commanding presence of Russell Crowe in Gladiator, nor will he ever; let's not kid ourselves. But he is more convincing here than in Troy, which I hate with a purple passion. The supporting players are terrific as well: Liam Neeson, although very brief; Jeremy Irons, whose screen time is only a little longer than Neeson; Eva Green, who is always easy on the eyes and interesting (too bad her chemistry with Bloom is not as strong); Ghassan Massoud as Saladin, the leader of the Muslim army; and Alexander Siddig as his right-hand man. I've read that the film's original running time was 3+ hours and it shows. Some smaller subplots and motivations among the major and supporting characters are murky and the film, while tightly paced at 2 1/2 hours, seems like it's missing more meat instead of fat. All in all, KOH managed to entertain despite several obstacles. I've grown weary of battle scenes yet the choreography of two battles preceding the seige at Jerusalem (and the siege itself) is expertly choreographed. And the film manages to make its points without preaching. Recommended. I Feel The Pain thru that review of having to see KOH this week so to avoid the nonsense of yet another "Boring Sword Movie",I'll spend my own money on Crash or Kung-Fu Hustle just to dull the pain I have that same feeling about KOH as I had about Troy where do I put my pillow in the multi-plex Ridley Scott needed to make another flim like this like the world needed a Backstreet Boy reuinon tour Good News it will lose money $150 millon to make only $20 millon made ;D new Will Ferrell comedy(shoe-in for top of the box office next week) Then You know Star Wars ***crosses fingers KOH doesn't make $100 millon*** Sorry Orlando without the hobbits your box-office draw is a mirage Studios will learn eventually For Those who would say just don't go then I get paid on the show for reviews so it's MANDATORY  |
|
|
|
Post by Ampage on May 9, 2005 14:37:20 GMT -5
Why would they send you to a movie that looked like a snoozefest from day one?
|
|
|
|
Post by patlogi on May 9, 2005 23:48:19 GMT -5
The World According To Garp.
5 out of 5 Patlogi stars
|
|
|
|
Post by lumencandle on May 10, 2005 9:55:16 GMT -5
Sorry to interrupt. Feel free to skip this completely off-topic rant:
surely some of you have seen Looking for Mr. Goodbar??
WElll, it sufficiently terrorized me for a few days, the end leaving a kind of indelible mark on my brain, the last grimy scenes running a loop the way songs do over and over again. But otherwise it was really boring up to the end and the actors were soooo cliched (Richard Gere? I just kept thinking, "Shouldn't you be wearing a suit, Mr?")...Do people like this movie? WHY is it always on HBO?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ampage on May 10, 2005 9:59:43 GMT -5
Lumabooma, that is a classic of sorts. And it’s also one of the last movies Ms Keaton made before becoming a caricature of herself.
|
|
|
|
Post by lumencandle on May 10, 2005 12:45:45 GMT -5
well, it's like I was saying to I dunno, someone I was ranting about it to...I was saying, I liked Diane Keaton, I usually do...I just felt that whoe nervous girl "I want to party/but I don't want to party" thing was played out early on in the movie...she had one level...
But dear LORD it was appalling and unsettling.
I also recently saw Love and Death, also with Keaton...LOVED it. I may be getting to the point where I appreciate Woody Allen a bit more than I once did. But we'll see...
|
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on May 10, 2005 13:16:17 GMT -5
[glow=red,2,300]If you're the sort of person who feels all transgressive just by sitting through a movie that presents a rogues gallery of monstrous human beings doing monstrously offensive things, then by all means, go see Palindromes and pat yourself on the back for being so superior to all the moralistic hypocrites in the movie. If, on the other hand, you're the sort of person who appreciates moral complexity in art, and likes multi-dimensional renderings of human bengs in all their confused inner turmoil, then Palindromes is every bit the dumbshit equivalent of Father Knows Best minus the camp value - stay the fuck away.
[/glow]
Whatever am I to do if I don't fit into either of these [bleak] categories, pray tell.
Perhaps I will see the new Solondz movie without packing any baggage into the theater. *shrugz*
|
|
|
|
Post by luke on May 10, 2005 13:48:38 GMT -5
That Solondz movie sounds like an absolute piece of shit. I mean, even if Mary were being objective, and not ripping the thing a new one, just the description of that miserable plot alone would be enough for anybody to say "fuck no."
Right before reading Mary's post, I read the review for the new Weezer over on Pitchfork. Granted, Mary doesn't come off as a jack-off too-cool-for-school hipster douchebag like everyone over on Pitchfork, but the part about "the current work being so terrible that it diminishes the value of the older works" was almost exactly the same. I dunno, struck me as interesting, reading two reviews like that one after another.
|
|
