2012 Movie

[Andalublue]

I think you're right, you seem to have an almost...film critic professor view of movies; you dont like them because they're pedestrian or because they dont strictly fall under the standards of the auteur theory of film.

This is not meant as an insult, but this is the way you're coming across.

You're right and wrong about that. Sometimes I'm happy to let a film just wash over me, to take it simply as a piece of entertainment. Then there's only one way of criticising it, "Was I entertained, or wasn't I?" In that respect The Lady in the Water failed, but, strangely, Apocalypto succeeded. I really enjoyed it, even though it was a hokey as hell.

More often however, I watch a movie hoping that I will enjoy it for a variety of reasons: that it entertained, that the plot and script were well constructed, that the perfromances were genuine and believable, that it makes me think about an issue in a different way, that the director and DP have looked for beauty and truth, and whole load of other things that challenge my critical faculties. That might sound (and might be) a bit professorish, but that's what makes cinema such a great art form.

The films I hate the most are those that either pretend to have some depth, but haven't (Avatar, Signs) or those which pretend to be just about entertainment but which fail to entertain because they are poorly made or manipulative of my baser instincts (anything by McG, Bay or any of those schlock horror or shoot 'em up blood fests).

If that is the case, then yes we have radically different views on film because I tend to take film for what it is. I dont try to classify or quantify it. I try to read subtext if I can find it, wonder if it was intentional, consider concepts presented in the movie, and toy with new ideas film presents, but beyond that I think you get into over-analyzing something that really shouldnt be.

Everyone experiences a movie at the level they choose to do so. That's okay. I'm certainly not saying everyone should look for the things I look for.

I like to think I can find something enjoyable in ANY film, even the worst films on earth. I was even able to find aspects of Apocalypto (one of the worst films on earth) enjoyable.

No, not ANY film. Some are just intolerable, but of course that's 100% subjective. I found absolutely nothing to enjoy in Moulin Rouge. A musical in which the music is unbearably badly performed, the story is both a cliche and so thin as to be virtually undiscernable and which brought out uniformly dreadful performances from some very, very talented actors is something that is more a torment than a pleasure to sit through. I'm sure you must have sat through some films and come out thinking, "Well, that's two hours of my life I won't get back!"

I highly recommend Push, it's quite good. And again, Camille Belle, cant go wrong with her.

I'll try to get hold of it.

You seem to be missing some key points of some of these people's career. I cant comment on the more exotic names on the roll sheet, but Paul Haggis I know worked on movies like the last 2 James Bond movies (which were atrociously bad) and Terminator Salvation, very Michael Bay territory. Paul Greengrass worked on two or three of the Bourne movies and I wouldnt have nominated them for screen glory and you're toeing the Michael Bay-style line right there anyways.

You may be right. I'd debate you on the two JB movies, however. Casino Royale was the best Bond movie ever, except for Live and Let Die. QoS, although I haven't seen it, seems to have been universally panned. You're right, perhaps Haggis has made a bad film.

The Bourne movies are terrific, all three of them. They are what some of those mediocre Bond movies (most of the Brosnan era) should have been like, with a bit of character development and really clever plot twists.

Both had very good potential. Aeon was somewhat redeemed by Theron's performance, she was quite good in her role and the portrayal of the society and technologies involved were very interesting.

I might give them a go, one dark and stormy winter's night.

 

[Hoplite]

You're right and wrong about that. Sometimes I'm happy to let a film just wash over me, to take it simply as a piece of entertainment. Then there's only one way of criticising it, "Was I entertained, or wasn't I?" In that respect The Lady in the Water failed, but, strangely, Apocalypto succeeded. I really enjoyed it, even though it was a hokey as hell.

My problem was a little more with the seriously racist undertones of the entire movie.

More often however, I watch a movie hoping that I will enjoy it for a variety of reasons: that it entertained, that the plot and script were well constructed, that the perfromances were genuine and believable, that it makes me think about an issue in a different way, that the director and DP have looked for beauty and truth, and whole load of other things that challenge my critical faculties. That might sound (and might be) a bit professorish, but that's what makes cinema such a great art form.

I think there is a danger of forgetting why you enjoy it.

Maybe it's something I personalize a bit, the best way to illustrate it is an encounter I had when I was a teenager. We were at the Getty and we were getting a tour from someone who stopped in front of a beautiful piece of art (the name I have long since forgotten). He went on for over ten minutes explaining how the piece filled all the classical dimensions, it was a shining example of it's period in art, the figures were perfectly proportioned according to style, and even the brush strokes were lined up perfectly.

I asked the man if he liked it and he said yes, proceeding to tell me MORE about how many academic criteria it fulfilled and that was what appealed to him. I asked him if he thought it was beautiful, and...it was like I'd asked a penguin to do higher mathematics. He just... couldn't understand the question, he repeated his previous answer even after I asked him what, aesthetically, appealed to him.

That's when I realized, he probably couldn't appreciate the work for simple beauty anymore. He'd spent so much time analyzing and categorizing that the overall picture became this miasma of styles and dates with no real meaning. There was no real emotional impact when he saw the picture, he'd analyzed art so much that he couldn't help but see these different facts.

I went home that day thinking about that and cried. That kind of thinking...absolutely terrifies me, to be honest. If I am ever at a point where I can no longer discern the overall picture because I've spent too much time analyzing and dissecting that I can no longer actually find an aesthetic appeal in something, I'd probably kill myself.

The films I hate the most are those that either pretend to have some depth, but haven't (Avatar, Signs) or those which pretend to be just about entertainment but which fail to entertain because they are poorly made or manipulative of my baser instincts (anything by McG, Bay or any of those schlock horror or shoot 'em up blood fests).

Every movie pretends to have depth. If a movie said "Yeah, this is just a ****-around movie with no point other than watching **** go boom" no one would watch it.

Everyone experiences a movie at the level they choose to do so. That's okay. I'm certainly not saying everyone should look for the things I look for.

I know, and I'm trying not to superimpose my outlook on you.

No, not ANY film. Some are just intolerable, but of course that's 100% subjective. I found absolutely nothing to enjoy in Moulin Rouge. A musical in which the music is unbearably badly performed, the story is both a cliche and so thin as to be virtually undiscernable and which brought out uniformly dreadful performances from some very, very talented actors is something that is more a torment than a pleasure to sit through. I'm sure you must have sat through some films and come out thinking, "Well, that's two hours of my life I won't get back!"

I feel like if someone actually enjoys movies as entertainment, then they should be able to find SOMETHING interesting in the movie.

I hate Apocalypto above probably all other movies, yet I admit I found the recreation of the locations and the costuming in the movie quite interesting, even though most of it was bass-ackwards wrong and the movie itself was racist and sensationalist.

You may be right. I'd debate you on the two JB movies, however. Casino Royale was the best Bond movie ever, except for Live and Let Die. QoS, although I haven't seen it, seems to have been universally panned. You're right, perhaps Haggis has made a bad film.

The last two Bond movies were...atrocious. Quantum of Solace especially, there was less than no plot but they sort of tried to make us sympathetic to bond, Daniel Craig is NOT a good Bond, and the movie seemed to be riding on the CG alone. Bond films themselves aren't SUPPOSED to have particularly deep meaning, Bond himself isnt a particularly deep character.

The Bourne movies are terrific, all three of them. They are what some of those mediocre Bond movies (most of the Brosnan era) should have been like, with a bit of character development and really clever plot twists.

Nothing really stuck out of the Bourne movies. Damon was very good in them and the martial arts was great fun to watch, but it just seemed like they took a bag of plot elements from 80's movies, dumped them onto a table, picked a few at random, and called it a day.

 

[Andalublue]

My problem was a little more with the seriously racist undertones of the entire movie.

Can you elaborate?

I think there is a danger of forgetting why you enjoy it.

Well, you can't forget why you enjoy it if you don't, but you can try to analyse why you didn't.

Maybe it's something I personalize a bit, the best way to illustrate it is an encounter I had when I was a teenager. We were at the Getty and we were getting a tour from someone who stopped in front of a beautiful piece of art (the name I have long since forgotten). He went on for over ten minutes explaining how the piece filled all the classical dimensions, it was a shining example of it's period in art, the figures were perfectly proportioned according to style, and even the brush strokes were lined up perfectly.

I asked the man if he liked it and he said yes, proceeding to tell me MORE about how many academic criteria it fulfilled and that was what appealed to him. I asked him if he thought it was beautiful, and...it was like I'd asked a penguin to do higher mathematics. He just... couldn't understand the question, he repeated his previous answer even after I asked him what, aesthetically, appealed to him.

That's when I realized, he probably couldn't appreciate the work for simple beauty anymore. He'd spent so much time analyzing and categorizing that the overall picture became this miasma of styles and dates with no real meaning. There was no real emotional impact when he saw the picture, he'd analyzed art so much that he couldn't help but see these different facts.

I went home that day thinking about that and cried. That kind of thinking...absolutely terrifies me, to be honest. If I am ever at a point where I can no longer discern the overall picture because I've spent too much time analyzing and dissecting that I can no longer actually find an aesthetic appeal in something, I'd probably kill myself.

I think that's right, but I think that simply to leave a movie (or gallery, theatre, concert hall) and to simply dwell on the overall impression that the art left you is to miss the subtleties and the nuances of the work you've just experienced. I love discussing all the aspects of a movie after seeing it. That exchange of ideas about a piece is almost as exciting and rewarding as experiencing the art in the first place. Perhaps that's weird.

Every movie pretends to have depth. If a movie said "Yeah, this is just a ****-around movie with no point other than watching **** go boom" no one would watch it.

'Pretends' is the right word. So few actually achieve any depth. Some movies really don't try however, and that's fine, provided that what they do do, they do well. I'm not looking for depth in Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle, but I do expect ideas and invention and wit, and there was none.

I know, and I'm trying not to superimpose my outlook on you.

I never thought you were. This is an interesting chat.

I feel like if someone actually enjoys movies as entertainment, then they should be able to find SOMETHING interesting in the movie.

Only if there actually IS something there.

I hate Apocalypto above probably all other movies, yet I admit I found the recreation of the locations and the costuming in the movie quite interesting, even though most of it was bass-ackwards wrong and the movie itself was racist and sensationalist.

I enjoyed the attempt at recreating how that society might have looked, little else. I am interested why you felt it was unredeemably racist, however.

The last two Bond movies were...atrocious. Quantum of Solace especially, there was less than no plot but they sort of tried to make us sympathetic to bond, Daniel Craig is NOT a good Bond, and the movie seemed to be riding on the CG alone. Bond films themselves aren't SUPPOSED to have particularly deep meaning, Bond himself isnt a particularly deep character.

You are wrong about Casino Royale. The plot was stronger than any Bond film since Goldeneye, I'd say. Daniel Craig has given Bond a personality, which few previous actors have done, and a bit of creditbility. Who could really believe Brosnan was a secret agent? Craig, yes. You can believe he is a cold, amoral narcisist pretending that he's serving his idea of his country's interests. There was less CG in CR than in any of the Brosnan movies.

Nothing really stuck out of the Bourne movies. Damon was very good in them and the martial arts was great fun to watch, but it just seemed like they took a bag of plot elements from 80's movies, dumped them onto a table, picked a few at random, and called it a day.

I don't agree. It was hardly John LeCarré, but had some complexity which most spy movies don't have. Have you seen The Constant Gardener? Now there is depth and meaning in the form of a spy movie.

 

[Hoplite]

I think that's right, but I think that simply to leave a movie (or gallery, theatre, concert hall) and to simply dwell on the overall impression that the art left you is to miss the subtleties and the nuances of the work you've just experienced. I love discussing all the aspects of a movie after seeing it. That exchange of ideas about a piece is almost as exciting and rewarding as experiencing the art in the first place. Perhaps that's weird.

My issue is more with people who CANT enjoy the overall view because they can no longer see it.

'Pretends' is the right word. So few actually achieve any depth. Some movies really don't try however, and that's fine, provided that what they do do, they do well. I'm not looking for depth in Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle, but I do expect ideas and invention and wit, and there was none.

There really are no new ideas left. Everything new is a blend of old ideas and concepts. Why expect ideas and invention in movies that obviously arent intended to be taken as serious works?

I never thought you were. This is an interesting chat.

Im glad you think so, I'm finding it much more difficult than I had previously anticipated.

Only if there actually IS something there.

There are dozens of aspects to a movie that you might find interesting aside from the major things; a particular costume, an idea, a character, the music, setting, whatever.

I enjoyed the attempt at recreating how that society might have looked, little else. I am interested why you felt it was unredeemably racist, however.

Except their society didnt really look like that. Maya society was INCREDIBLY evolved, in some aspects as much as Europeans. They were not the bloodthirsty barbarians portrayed in the movie. Human sacrifice was utilized by the Maya, though not nearly in the way the movie depicted and not on the scale it hinted at.

You are wrong about Casino Royale. The plot was stronger than any Bond film since Goldeneye, I'd say. Daniel Craig has given Bond a personality, which few previous actors have done, and a bit of creditbility. Who could really believe Brosnan was a secret agent? Craig, yes. You can believe he is a cold, amoral narcisist pretending that he's serving his idea of his country's interests. There was less CG in CR than in any of the Brosnan movies.

Bond IS a cold, amoral narcissist. He's also mysoginistic and overly-macho. That's the character, trying to transform him into a troubled anti-hero just doesnt work, especially when it conflicts almost totally with all other portrayals of bond.

I don't agree. It was hardly John LeCarré, but had some complexity which most spy movies don't have. Have you seen The Constant Gardener? Now there is depth and meaning in the form of a spy movie.

Cant say I have seen it, but then again I dont usually dig spy movies.

 

[Goshin]

I watched the movie last night after we got it from the library.

I cannot believe someone actually made this into a movie.

I mean, the 2012 stuff is dumb to begin with but then you try to lever it into a movie with science so soft you can spread if on a sandwich and it just gets even MORE irritating.

This movie HAS eroded all faith in movie critics though. This is apparently the 33rd highest grossing movie in the world....and yet was described by most critics as a lame-fest non-parallel which I have to agree with.

Suspension of disbelief is a fragile thing and having people watch your movie who AREN'T complete idiots will break that suspension if your grasp on science is that shaky.

Good gods I'm glad I never paid to go see it.

Once in a while, we agree on something. :mrgreen:

 

[Andalublue]

There really are no new ideas left. Everything new is a blend of old ideas and concepts. Why expect ideas and invention in movies that obviously arent intended to be taken as serious works?

I don't believe that at all. No new ideas left? People said that about rock music in the 1970s, then along came Punk and showed that new ideas could flourish.I think the problem with movies is that, in Hollywood and Bollywood at least, they are now seen as nothing more than 'product'. Innovation is actively discouraged, formula, marketing and product placement is the raison d'etre for much mainstream movie-making. There are still people around with ideas, they just don't get green-lit in this risk-averse economic environment.

Im glad you think so, I'm finding it much more difficult than I had previously anticipated.

I wouldn't have guessed. You know what you mean and mean what you say. All good.

I think appreciation of any art form can take place on any number of levels. You can say, "Well, that book/picture/movie made me feel this and hence I like it or don't like it accordingly." Or you can try to analyse why it made you feel what you felt. Or, as you mention below, you can break it down into it's constituent parts and appreciate aspects of it and be critical of others. These are all valid ways to talk about art, it just really depends on what turns you on.

There are dozens of aspects to a movie that you might find interesting aside from the major things; a particular costume, an idea, a character, the music, setting, whatever.

Quite, see my comment above.

Except their society didnt really look like that. Maya society was INCREDIBLY evolved, in some aspects as much as Europeans. They were not the bloodthirsty barbarians portrayed in the movie. Human sacrifice was utilized by the Maya, though not nearly in the way the movie depicted and not on the scale it hinted at.

True, it only concentrated on those barbaric aspects of the society, but I suspect looking at their sophisticated writing system, agriculture and industry wouldn't have been as good at the box office.

Bond IS a cold, amoral narcissist. He's also mysoginistic and overly-macho. That's the character, trying to transform him into a troubled anti-hero just doesnt work, especially when it conflicts almost totally with all other portrayals of bond.

I think Craig's reworking of the character was good news. I'm more interested in Bond the character now. Brosnan bored me senseless.

Cant say I have seen it, but then again I dont usually dig spy movies.

It's not really what you'd call a spy movie, although secret services are involved. It's a powerful indictment of the way in which western pharmaceutical companies use the developing world both testing and dumping grounds for their products. It's also a great drama. Please give it a go.

 

[liblady]

I watched the movie last night after we got it from the library.

I cannot believe someone actually made this into a movie.

I mean, the 2012 stuff is dumb to begin with but then you try to lever it into a movie with science so soft you can spread if on a sandwich and it just gets even MORE irritating.

This movie HAS eroded all faith in movie critics though. This is apparently the 33rd highest grossing movie in the world....and yet was described by most critics as a lame-fest non-parallel which I have to agree with.

Suspension of disbelief is a fragile thing and having people watch your movie who AREN'T complete idiots will break that suspension if your grasp on science is that shaky.

Good gods I'm glad I never paid to go see it.

see, i didn't expect facts.

 

[LaughAtTheWorld]

The 2012 prediction is a pile of dung. The people who claim that the Maya predicted that the world would end in 2012 should have their IQ tested. The Maya indeed claims that something will happen in 2012, but only that the fifth time stage or whatever starts. There was no mention of "doomsday" or something. Anyway, if it does come true, then I'll commit suicide instead of painfully die by crashing rocks, falling buildings, or cracking ceilings. I'd prefer to die by my own means, thank you.