21 Grams

[billybrown]

while not brilliant, Dark City is a far better than mere B-movie material.

.true ...but the fact that he could call this film a masterpeice and not blue Velvet....he looses some credibility...whouldn't one  think?

As I had said in the previous post, I agree that sometimes his popcorn is a lil over-buttered, which speaking of, here goes a true story: I volunteered at the TO Film Fest a few years back, the year Requiem For A Dream debuted, anyways, as I'm wandering about one of the venues, I spot the lower half of a pair of short, pudgy, cackie-sporting legs, and as I look up to see who it is, it is none other than that slob Ebert bear hugging a large assortment of snacks that would make Marlon Brando blush.

[Chest Rockwell]

I enjoy reading his essays on the "Great" films.

[Pubrick]

he knows what he's talking about, but sumtimes his popcorn is a little over-buttered.

21 Grams (just saw it).. kicked my ass, like i said it would. i dunno bout anyone else, but when i stayed during the credits watching all the ppl leave the theatre, i kept thinking of how they're all doomed, cos they didn't believe anything about the movie. i wonder how many ppl were really touched by it.

i love what Alejandro González Iñárritu is doing, he's bringing the truth to the ppl and his editing style is his sleight of hand. the one thing that bothered me since the poster, is the 21 grams explanation.. i guess he knew the only way americans would think about it is if he made it about money and candy. i forgive him for that. he continues stealing my thoughts and that's ok too. the whole leafblower shot, the "faith car"...etc..

i could hear sum ppl laughing nervously during a lot of benicio's scenes. even if they don't believe what he believes, or understand his destiny, can they not relate on the basis of faith in anything? what is wrong with everyone? i won't accept the crap about "cinema is not the place for spiritual catharsis", well Iñárritu is making it so. this film is conclusive proof that there is a God because we recognize we are still alive, and when we are not, our bodies may become worthless in this physical world,, but our souls still hold value.

blah blah naomi's nipples were spectacular.

[Pas]

this film is conclusive proof that there is a God because we recognize we are still alive, and when we are not, our bodies may become worthless in this physical world,, but our souls still hold value.

blah blah naomi's nipples were spectacular.

Your second argument is even a better proof of god's existence if you ask me.

[SoNowThen]

Yeah, the couple that I went with thought they were "too big". I said "whadda ya mean, too big? They look great to me..."

[molly]

this film is conclusive proof that there is a God because we recognize we are still alive, and when we are not, our bodies may become worthless in this physical world,, but our souls still hold value.

blah blah naomi's nipples were spectacular.

Your second argument is even a better proof of god's existence if you ask me.

you think that God has nipples like that?
(i haven't seen the film)

[Pas]

this film is conclusive proof that there is a God because we recognize we are still alive, and when we are not, our bodies may become worthless in this physical world,, but our souls still hold value.

blah blah naomi's nipples were spectacular.

Your second argument is even a better proof of god's existence if you ask me.

you think that God has nipples like that?
(i haven't seen the film)

Yeah

[Myxo]

I just got back from this film and I think it's easily the best movie I've seen this year.  Not since seeing Magnolia in the theaters have I been so emotionally attached to a film.

Ya know.. I always find that where I am at in life has a pretty large effect on how I feel about a film.

I saw Magnolia once by myself and I was floored. I loved it so much that I dragged some friends one at a time to go see it a 2nd, and 3rd time.

I just saw 21 Grams this past weekend. It is a terrific film, but it didn't do it for me like Magnolia did. I'm not sure anything will for a long time.

[Chest Rockwell]

The only films that have TRULY affected me to the point of obsession are:
Mulholland Drive
Magnolia
Lost in Translation

21 Grams is starting to approach that territory....

[SHAFTR]

so I'm way late on this...but I finally saw this.

Recap, performances were absolutely amazing.  I liked the structure a lot...it showed how crazily things are connected (if that makes any sense).  I had a nice discussion with my g/f about this film (she saw it with me) and she picked up on somethings I didn't notice and vice versa.

Some other stuff...
Sean Penn is looking more and more like Al Pacino.
In a strange way...this film reminded me of Hard Eight.  How on incident can affect 3 different people, etc.
Excellent film, clearly top 10 for me and I have never been excited about an actress before (when it comes to looking forward to their movies, etc) but I am officially a Naomi Watts fanboy now.

[Chest Rockwell]

I have never been excited about an actress before (when it comes to looking forward to their movies, etc) but I am officially a Naomi Watts fanboy now.

So glad you finally decided to join. IMHO she is a lot better than Nicole Kidman.

[Gold Trumpet]

I thought I'd like this one, but I didn't. My main problems with the movie were things everyone loved: the editing and acting. The problem with the editing wasn't that it tried to make the movie abstract, but that in its whirlwind of back and forth editing, half of the cuts really weren't necessary and the movie failed to coherently edit along the path of a certain quality vision. It was too much of a shoveling process of terrible emotions onto a film. An early scene with Penn walking and then a quick cut to Penn *spoiler* dying and then a cut back the original scene was unrelated emotionally and situationally. With every cut that was related emotionally to really abstract the film, another was made that wasn't.

Also, as usual with movies, the matter of story. Barebones, the story isn't anything that Hollywood hasn't done before. Its just the temperature this one is done is what is making the film be looked at. Obviously, with all the cliches of story gone, the film would have been better for all the emotional distress it has. It had the cliches so I thought the film should have been more more articifical, in terms of structure, to free a lot of the performances up. Because the film is so tangled in its editing, because the film is compounded with so many scenes of emotional grief, scenes of development in character are minimized to the point for where Naomi Watt's character has to show the happy family life in single scenes like the one in the movie where she is surrounded by her children in the kitchen laughing with them. Benecio Del Toro gets the most realism, but many single scenes are trying to sum up big things because the movie is so focused on emotional grief.

With this, I thought many of the actors were just simply acting for requirements of each scene. Take Naomi Watts, for example. She hits extremes of family happiness, drug binging, manaical murder thoughts, emotional crying and extreme isolation, each conveyed in their own scenes separated from the others. Compare her entire performance to the small one of Emma Thompson's in Love Actually. In one scene, Emma Thompson, dealing with the knowledge her husband possibly having an affair, plays loving mother to her children in a public place, but when she has the chance, breaks down in front of her husband for his misdoings and then quickly picks herself up to just keep the children in check and not embarass herself in public. In just this scene, Emma Thompson conveys the larger identity of the problems that modern day mothers face in relation to cheating and what society still forces upon them as acceptable emotions to show. More importantly, Emma Thompson keeps the character organically whole while I felt Naomi Watts was acting for the extremes of each scene and losing consistency of vision in the process.

[Chest Rockwell]

I thought I'd like this one, but I didn't...blah blah blah...in the process.

Err....I disagree on every point.

[Pedro]

hahaha, gt, that was the worst spoiler warning ever.

[billybrown]

With this, I thought many of the actors were just simply acting for requirements of each scene. Take Naomi Watts, for example. She hits extremes of family happiness, drug binging, manaical murder thoughts, emotional crying and extreme isolation, each conveyed in their own scenes separated from the others. Compare her entire performance to the small one of Emma Thompson's in Love Actually. In one scene, Emma Thompson, dealing with the knowledge her husband possibly having an affair, plays loving mother to her children in a public place, but when she has the chance, breaks down in front of her husband for his misdoings and then quickly picks herself up to just keep the children in check and not embarass herself in public. In just this scene, Emma Thompson conveys the larger identity of the problems that modern day mothers face in relation to cheating and what society still forces upon them as acceptable emotions to show. More importantly, Emma Thompson keeps the character organically whole while I felt Naomi Watts was acting for the extremes of each scene and losing consistency of vision in the process.

I think your problem here may have more to do with your perceived shortcomings of the script than the actual performances. The film was about emotional extremes fragmented off into different scenes and not hitting every emotional note in every scene to show a wider range acting ability. The three principals in this film were denied a cathartic release of the emotional pendulum sometimes experienced, and that was precisely the point- taking various snapshots of life, all different and varied, the highs and lows, but all of which are infinitely tied together to examine the human condition. If anything, the Emma Thompson scene you identify is far less organic and far more "Oscar Acting 101." I think over time, you too will appreciate the beauty and brilliance of 21 grams.