What's The Last Movie You’ve Seen?

[Safetydan]

It was a heist movie. It engages in all the tropes of the genre, right down to lines about "one last job" and reasons why, for the leader of the heist, this is the most important job he's ever pulled.

On those terms, it's a success. But people are acting like it's bigger than that. It's not. There's nothing mind-blowing about it.

Nolan directs this movie the way Earl Boykins played point guard: it's all one speed all the time. No dynamism to the pacing of his film, and that's exhausting when it's two and a half hours long. It's even more exhausting when he compounds the singular pacing of the film with a very aggressive musical score. It's an assault on the viewer.

Marion Cotillard is the best part of the movie and is featured significantly in its best two scenes: the ledge jump, and the venture to the basement level with Ellen Page.

Speaking of Ellen Page: naming her "Ariadne" is Nolan thinking he's too clever by half. New rule when making movies: if you're going for a parallel to mythology and you need to include a character name that's four syllables long just stop right there. Anyone named "Ariadne" would be going by a nickname. In this instance, the use of the Ariadne name is particularly heavy handed given that Ellen Page uses the word labyrinthe multiple times.

Speaking of heavy handed, DiCaprio's world is literally crumbling? Wow.

I could go on, but that's enough for now.

Thank you for your thoughts

 

[VINYLONE]

Some of you might think this is cool...

https://www.originalalamo.com/Signature.aspx?id=88

Once again, the Alamo Drafthouse Cinema takes to the road, departing from Austin, Texas on a whirlwind tour and hosting free 35mm screenings of famous movies in famous places. Known as The Rolling Roadshow Tour, it has been to the FIELD OF DREAMS in Iowa with Kevin Costner live in person, Devil's Tower in Wyoming for a screening of CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND and Alcatraz Island for a screening of ESCAPE FROM ALCATRAZ. Now, the Alamo Drafthouse and Levi's partner to champion stories of our most celebrated celluloid workers. Throughout Augusts’ hazy summer nights, the Alamo and Levi’s will be taking the Rolling Roadshow to the people under the unified banner of ‘We Are All Workers.’

All posters here:

https://omgposters.com/2010/07/31/olly-moss-2010-rolling-roadshow-poster-series/

 

[Jazzfannut83]

"The Uninvited", was the last one I saw. Certainly kept my attention, didn't get bored, but it was another one of those with a somewhat convoluted storyline where things are happening...that really, aren't happening,and are made up of delusions of the main character.

 

[sirkickyass]

The new metropolis cut at the Seaholm power plant is the coolest thing on their calendar.

 

[Cece]

The thought of seeing RoboCop in bombed out Detroit gives me the chills. There Will Be Blood would be cool but still not cool enough to go to Bakersfield.

 

[YB85]

Hit Girl kicks ***, mother ****ers.

 

[dodo]

Great movie.

 

[prodigy]

underrated

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

Wow! Great ****ing movie!

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

Meh. I liked it but thought its ending was awful.

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

It was a heist movie. It engages in all the tropes of the genre, right down to lines about "one last job" and reasons why, for the leader of the heist, this is the most important job he's ever pulled.

On those terms, it's a success. But people are acting like it's bigger than that. It's not. There's nothing mind-blowing about it.

Nolan directs this movie the way Earl Boykins played point guard: it's all one speed all the time. No dynamism to the pacing of his film, and that's exhausting when it's two and a half hours long. It's even more exhausting when he compounds the singular pacing of the film with a very aggressive musical score. It's an assault on the viewer.

Marion Cotillard is the best part of the movie and is featured significantly in its best two scenes: the ledge jump, and the venture to the basement level with Ellen Page.

Speaking of Ellen Page: naming her "Ariadne" is Nolan thinking he's too clever by half. New rule when making movies: if you're going for a parallel to mythology and you need to include a character name that's four syllables long just stop right there. Anyone named "Ariadne" would be going by a nickname. In this instance, the use of the Ariadne name is particularly heavy handed given that Ellen Page uses the word labyrinthe multiple times.

Speaking of heavy handed, DiCaprio's world is literally crumbling? Wow.

I could go on, but that's enough for now.

Now imagine Tarantino had directed it, what would your thoughts be? My point? You're hating on the film and Nolan for the same fan-boy reasons that people love him and suck at his teet. Seriously, it's sort of pathetic dude. Your crush on Tarantino that is. I expect better from you.

That said, the film is bigger than just a heist. For me personally, the scene where Murphy encounters his dead father, comes to the realization of his "disappointment" and opens up the safe to take out his childhood toy was powerful as ****. Very Citizen Kane-ish. An embodiment of the film and what it stands for as a whole. IMO.

 

[Craig K. Manscill]

Yeah, his criticisms of the use of the name "Ariadne" and a crumbling dreamworld are pretty flippin' weak. Like, just because he figured out what Nolan's referring to there means they make the film bad in some way. You're supposed to get what he's saying there, it's not "heavy-handed". They aren't particularly amazing parallels that he's making, but they work.

Also, he criticizes the aggressive musical score and the "singular pacing" being an assault on the audience, but if that's true, why does this method seem to be extremely successful with the audience. They seemed to be entertained thus far. Maybe the audience likes being "assaulted" and Kicky would prefer a more low-key flick.

-Craig

 

[sirkickyass]

Now imagine Tarantino had directed it, what would your thoughts be?

Impossible. Tarantino's version of the film would be almost unrecognizable from its current state. You're basically asking me to imagine if Back to the Future was directed by Ingmar Bergman.

I already threw out in the Inception thread that I think the film would have been greatly improved had it been directed by Tarsem Singh, but that has more to do with his directorial style already being proven to be amenable to dream like fantasies and impossible geometry.

You're hating on the film and Nolan for the same fan-boy reasons that people love him and suck at his teet.

I don't think I'm hating on the film at all. I even went out of my way to compliment Cotillard.

I think it's a good heist movie and it's not so great beyond that. I thought it was about as good as something like Ocean's Eleven or the Italian Job (Marky Mark edition). Those are pretty good movies, but they're not anywhere near the best of all time conversation that Inception has been put in.

I wrote a lot of more specific criticisms because I thought that's what safetydan was asking for. I note you have no real response to those criticisms.

Very Citizen Kane-ish.

I literally laughed out loud very hard. I sincerely hope that was a joke.

 

[sirkickyass]

Yeah, his criticisms of the use of the name "Ariadne" and a crumbling dreamworld are pretty flippin' weak. Like, just because he figured out what Nolan's referring to there means they make the film bad in some way. You're supposed to get what he's saying there, it's not "heavy-handed".

Those are heavy-handed because they are pounded into your skull. It's false symbolism because it's structured to be so obvious that it's no longer actually symbolic anymore. It might as well be stated to you verbally (and in the case of Ariadne, it basically is through her dialogue). There is no real insight there. A five year old could understand it. By definition, it's playing to the lowest common denominator.

Compare, for example, Martin Scorsese's works where he much more subtlely uses Catholic imagery in his earlier films. Whether its having the gun dealer in Taxi Driver lay out all the guns in specific shapes and orders so that they resemble the arranging of an altar prior to mass, or burning flowers before the act of killing, or in "Mean Streets" when the liquor is poured into glasses over crossed fingers. These are images that aren't explicitly explained, but mean a lot within the universe that the characters inhabit and as a result are more powerful thematically.

I think about imagery and symbolism in films that same way that P.T. Anderson talks about proper nouns in films that he writes: if you're spending too much time on them or defining their terms verbally, you're going down the wrong path. What we're talking about here is sort of like the difference between writing a christ-like figure into your story, and feeling the need to give that Christ-like figure the initials JC to make sure that people understand what you're trying to do. They both go the same route, but one is the far more obtrusive way of going about it.

Also, he criticizes the aggressive musical score and the "singular pacing" being an assault on the audience, but if that's true, why does this method seem to be extremely successful with the audience. They seemed to be entertained thus far. Maybe the audience likes being "assaulted" and Kicky would prefer a more low-key flick.

This is a variation on the popular = good argument. Audiences also clearly loved Transformers 2.

I don't think it's much of a stretch to make the claim that a film that would be less one-note for 2.5 hours would be an improvement.

Think about it this way, Nolan's best film is probably Memento. That film is structured so that it proceeds at a different pace and even at a different direction in time through its black and white "Sammy Jankis" sequences than the main narrative in the present tense. The rest of the film works better because of the breaks in pacing of those black and white sequences. If the film were cut to eliminate those sequences or tell them all at the beginning consecutively and then proceed with the main narrative it wouldn't be as effective, in part because it makes the film less dynamic.

 

[Craig K. Manscill]

Fair enough. That was such a thoughtful/civil reply to my post that I'm going to admit I agree with your points to some degree now. The first point regarding symbolism can be debated. I see what you're saying about naming a Christlike character JC, but having his dreamworld crumbling isn't quite the same. Obvious, yes, but that's why I don't think he was trying to make any flashy symbolism there.

-Craig

 

[moevillini]

Yeah, his criticisms of the use of the name "Ariadne" and a crumbling dreamworld are pretty flippin' weak. Like, just because he figured out what Nolan's referring to there means they make the film bad in some way. You're supposed to get what he's saying there, it's not "heavy-handed". They aren't particularly amazing parallels that he's making, but they work....

Those are heavy-handed because they are pounded into your skull. It's false symbolism because it's structured to be so obvious that it's no longer actually symbolic anymore....

...What we're talking about here is sort of like the difference between writing a christ-like figure into your story, and feeling the need to give that Christ-like figure the initials JC to make sure that people understand what you're trying to do. They both go the same route, but one is the far more obtrusive way of going about it....

Fair enough. That was such a thoughtful/civil reply to my post that I'm going to admit I agree with your points to some degree now. The first point regarding symbolism can be debated. I see what you're saying about naming a Christlike character JC, but having his dreamworld crumbling isn't quite the same. Obvious, yes, but that's why I don't think he was trying to make any flashy symbolism there.

-Craig

there's got to be some irony hidden somewhere in these posts....

LOL

 

[prodigy]

Dumb action at it's finest, first half is so-so(even though the cameos were pretty sweet), second half is just all awesome action sequences

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

Impossible. Tarantino's version of the film would be almost unrecognizable from its current state. You're basically asking me to imagine if Back to the Future was directed by Ingmar Bergman.

I already threw out in the Inception thread that I think the film would have been greatly improved had it been directed by Tarsem Singh, but that has more to do with his directorial style already being proven to be amenable to dream like fantasies and impossible geometry.

I obviously was not asking you to imagine the film as directed by QT. It was a lead.

I don't think I'm hating on the film at all. I even went out of my way to compliment Cotillard.

I think it's a good heist movie and it's not so great beyond that. I thought it was about as good as something like Ocean's Eleven or the Italian Job (Marky Mark edition). Those are pretty good movies, but they're not anywhere near the best of all time conversation that Inception has been put in.

I wrote a lot of more specific criticisms because I thought that's what safetydan was asking for. I note you have no real response to those criticisms.

Your "compliment" was of Cotillard, not the film. Vast difference. That is, unless you consider saying it was a "success" as far as heist movies go and comparing it to Ocean's Eleven and Wahlberg's The Italian Job a compliment. Pretty back-handed. Even for you.

Regarding my lack of response to your criticisms, I wasn't avoiding them. I simply addressed the overall tone to your message. However, regarding your points, I'll say this. I strongly agree with you on Page's name and the "heavy-handed' symbolism. For a director of his caliber and experience to be that thin is ****ing weak.

Regarding the sound to the movie, I agree in many ways and in others, not so much. The aggressive and just flat-out loud volume of the music was a bit much at points. Upon my first viewing I couldn't even hear what the **** Watanabe was saying as he brushed his face on his shag rug. I'll agree with it being relentless as well. However, that's not necessarily a bad thing. For me, it was effective overall, though it could have been tuned down here or there.

I literally laughed out loud very hard. I sincerely hope that was a joke.

I was not saying the movie was very Citizen Kane-ish. I said that scene was.

CK: Insanely rich newspaper magnate dies, uttering his last word "Rosebud," which we later find out was his sled from his childhood, essentially the last time he was truly happy. He's full of regret, having been consumed by greed and power, and was stripped of his innocence and the love of family and the sled is symbolic of such.

I: Insanely rich energy tycoon dies, uttering his last word "disappointment." His son later discovers (though it's really all just a false seedling) that his father wants him to live his own life and leaves him his most valuable asset to tell him such, his childhood paper wind-wheel. His father did not want him to grow up like Charles Foster Kane consumed by his own greed and drive for power. This was the deceased telling Cillian Murphy's character such. Like Charles Foster Kane, his son had not been happy since his childhood, before his mom died, and the toy/fan best embodied that innocence he had lost. A time when his whole life still lay out ahead of him for him to live.

While the two do not identically parallel one another, the same themes are there.

And yes, I don't have a ****ing clue how to do multi-quotes.

 

[sirkickyass]

That is, unless you consider saying it was a "success" as far as heist movies go and comparing it to Ocean's Eleven and Wahlberg's The Italian Job a compliment. Pretty back-handed. Even for you.

At a certain point the issue becomes whether I'm complimenting it "enough." I'm saying it was an above average film and good in particular for its genre. I don't think I will believe it was among the best films of the year come December, although this year isn't exactly showing strong competition so far. I'm not certain you can ask for more from me, but I think I'm being quite fair in saying that I'm not trashing the film just to trash it. I purposely waited a month so I would be less grumpy and wouldn't be subject to a million people telling me it was awesome the second I walked out of the theater. I saw it under the best possible circumstances on a very high quality screen that was a True-IMAX size and I had premium seating. I went out of my way to make sure I had a good experience and wouldn't be grumpy just to be grumpy about the movie.

I was not saying the movie was very Citizen Kane-ish. I said that scene was.

Disagree. Thematically they're very different. Rosebud is about a life that, though extraordinary, was in some sense wasted. It ends up being the most important item out of a vast storehouse of all the most important and expensive treasures from Europe imaginable. It is the last relic of a boyhood home that no longer exists, and it is destroyed in a fire without anyone knowing its subjective value. There is nothing cathartic about finding that sled.

The pinwheel is a catharsis by design, and explicitly so. I'm not sure there's another object in the entire movie that could have been in its place given that its the only object that I can think of that's identifiable to that relationship. The pinwheel scene strikes me as far more Spielbergian to be honest. It wouldn't surprise me if the entire dream sequence was structured around creating that scene during the writing process.

FWIW: I think the time dilation in Inception was truly pretty unique, and Nolan should get some credit for that. I will say I think he might have taken it too far by having at least one hour of the film occur in the time between the van hitting the rail and the van hitting the water.

Have you seen the hilarious article charging that the plot of Inception is stolen from a Scrooge McDuck comic?

https://comicbookmovie.com/fansites/blinkuldhc/news/?a=21055

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

At a certain point the issue becomes whether I'm complimenting it "enough." I'm saying it was an above average film and good in particular for its genre. I don't think I will believe it was among the best films of the year come December, although this year isn't exactly showing strong competition so far. I'm not certain you can ask for more from me, but I think I'm being quite fair in saying that I'm not trashing the film just to trash it. I purposely waited a month so I would be less grumpy and wouldn't be subject to a million people telling me it was awesome the second I walked out of the theater. I saw it under the best possible circumstances on a very high quality screen that was a True-IMAX size and I had premium seating. I went out of my way to make sure I had a good experience and wouldn't be grumpy just to be grumpy about the movie.



Disagree. Thematically they're very different. Rosebud is about a life that, though extraordinary, was in some sense wasted. It ends up being the most important item out of a vast storehouse of all the most important and expensive treasures from Europe imaginable. It is the last relic of a boyhood home that no longer exists, and it is destroyed in a fire without anyone knowing its subjective value. There is nothing cathartic about finding that sled.

The pinwheel is a catharsis by design, and explicitly so. I'm not sure there's another object in the entire movie that could have been in its place given that its the only object that I can think of that's identifiable to that relationship. The pinwheel scene strikes me as far more Spielbergian to be honest. It wouldn't surprise me if the entire dream sequence was structured around creating that scene during the writing process.

FWIW: I think the time dilation in Inception was truly pretty unique, and Nolan should get some credit for that. I will say I think he might have taken it too far by having at least one hour of the film occur in the time between the van hitting the rail and the van hitting the water.

Have you seen the hilarious article charging that the plot of Inception is stolen from a Scrooge McDuck comic?

https://comicbookmovie.com/fansites/blinkuldhc/news/?a=21055

1. Fair enough.
2. IMO, the themes are very, very similar. Their roots are different. The mood and their effect (as you state) is different. And the photograph is very Spielbergian, very Americana, good call. But their themes are extremely similar imo. I'd actually take it a step further and say I'd be shocked if Nolan didn't think of CK when developing this specific component to the movie. It would be tough not to.
3. From the little I saw on TMZ one night (I know, I know), the movie does sort of eerily resemble the cartoon. I'm not saying Nolan stole the idea but ****, the concept, the fire burning down his estate much like Watanabe's digs came crashing down, the kick via the chair. Pretty weird. ****in' Duck Tales. Wu-ooo-oo!!