bbs.bunglefever.com

Yeah I know, there was a thread about this in Misc, but I didn't read it because I hadn't seen the film. Now I have.

As you can tell by avatar, I dug it...lots.

I also love strong 90-minute films. Not every film needs to be two hours to be taken seriously.

This film really shot its wad (so to speak) half through.

ReverseEngineer";p="785328 wrote:

Peeping Tom";p="784933 wrote:brilliant

no.
half the movie was an incredibly well-told, interesting story.
the other half was unnecessary falling action.

They could (should) have ended it just after Ed Harris got greased. Nothing after that shocked me.

Hrn. I didn't really see it like that. I did wonder where it was going to go when Ed got done, but I didn't feel the rest was unecessary.

If anything, I thought the first five minutes or so was a bit clunky, but soon got over that.

Yes, I dig it as well! I like pretty much all of Cronenbergs films, but this one really suprised me!

From the outset, the film was very predictable and immensely cheesey. It was impossible tto enjoy. It was badly written and (the first half) was especially badly executed. The action sequences were alright, but if you've seen Last Boyscout then these scenes were nothing to write home about. Very dissapointing film, expected so much more. The film was a pretender in pyjamas. Not one single redeeming feature apart from the fact that the Jonathon Ross show was on when I stopped the DVD player.

I much prefer Spider, if I've got my Cronenberg druthers.

To be completely honest, I've never liked a single Cronenberg film but I judge the films individually anyway. Same as I do with music. Problem is there is always going to be a bit of residual predjudice that builds up after each dissapointment.

did you see Spider?

No. Should I? (Herein I am registering my interest and wish to be furnished with further information about said film)

I think it's Cronenberg's most "mature" work, in that he doesn't do his usual shock-o stuff and goes for the more subtle approach. I also thought that Fiennes was great in it, a really nuanced performance. The way he's muttering through the whole movie is never distracting...

Thank you. I am suitably interested.

Your opinion is verging on SHIT, Chris!

What about Naked Lunch????

Concur re: Spider

One of those films that slips under the radar in a good way.

One thing I hate more than formulaic commercial films are films which try to be clever and fail. When a film's biggest selling point is a plot twist, or a violent climax and they fail to shock or suprise, what the fuck is left?

This is why pacifier is better than A History Of Violence. Doesn't try to be clever so doesn't fail miserably at it. See Slevin as another case in point.

No thanks.

And I think you're wrong. I didn't think History of Violence was trying to be all that. You just took too much with you when you watched it.

See? Wrong.

Cronenberg seems confused. Does he like violence or does he hate it? Does he want us to celebrate it or shun it? Looking back at his filmography, you have to assume that he's either a hypocrite or a schizophrenic as the message of A History Of Violenve is not consistent with the message transmitted by the rest of his films. The handling of the violent scenes seemed quite pantomime and pedomorphic, and Cronenberg has lavished a lot of attention to these scenes leading me to believe the fucker enjoys the violence a bit too much. I feel the film is self defeating because of this. A hypocritical story teller-come-preacher? Doesn't work. The main flow of the film was predictable with the script in particular suffering from prosaism and triteness which made for quite uncomfortable viewing. Character building was flawed which is to be expected from a comic book adaption. I enjoyed the ending. It too was predictable, though I found the resolution to be quite satisfying. As a whole, I found the film confused and childish. Pacifier was just childish.

I thought the violence was done well. Especially the son getting back at the bully.
The whole film was slow not just the first 45.
I don't think I'll watch it again.

What do you think of Eastwood's films, esp. Mystic River and Million Dollar Baby?

Mystic River: He forgot to end the film, and kept it running for at least twenty minutes past the acceptable end-point. I wasn't really enjoying the movie much in the first place, as I found the pacing off (probably more suitable to retirees), and then he puts an extra unecessary ending on the end of it.

Million Dollar Baby: Wasn't what I was expecting, but still Hollywood, and became quite predictable. I did get a bit emotional towards the end, though that may be partly explained by the fact that I was watching it on a 12-hour plane flight, on a tiny screen 20 cm from my face. I kind of hope they release a version without Morgan Freeman's narration at some stage.

...which is a nice segue into films with Morgan Freeman's narration...

Have not/do not want to watch Million Dollar Baby - I actually own a copy of it though.. Mystic River was a good film (not great though) film from what I can recall. Cannot for the life of me remember the ending in any detail. I ***spoiler*** remember Tim Robbins getting killed but nothing beyond it. I'll watch it again to find out.

I think that was around about where he was supposed to end it. But he didn't.

judasmuppet";p="804088 wrote:...which is a nice segue into films with Morgan Freeman's narration...

Fuck penguins.

Fuck yeah. I hated the penguins because of Freeman's narration.

MDB was utterly loathsome. Mystic River I thought was fuckin' great. It makes a good old-run cinema double with 21 Grams. The other Eastwood that was not bad was Blood Work, with yer typical 'finding the piece of evidence that saves a guilty man from the needle' thing. Still, done quite well.

Mystic River was clearly adapted from a book, since so many litereary things happen in it, most memorable for me being young Tim Robbins' character not finishing writing his name in cement before he gets molested, therefore being "not all there" (WHOA, deep)... I thought it was an okay movie, despite knowing that the deaf kid was up to something the whole time.

I haven't seen History of Violence yet, but I will.

I really loved Crash the book, but the way Cronenberg turned into a tacky gorefest upset me. I did like Existenz though.