Triplets of Belleville - How Fucking Cool Does This Look?!!

Started by SoNowThen, November 16, 2003, 08:08:10 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6
User actions

SoNowThen

#60
February 17, 2004, 03:51:19 PM
Didn't you read what I posted? I addressed some things about it that made it a good watch, imo.

What more can I say?

Ask any question, try and be slightly specific, and I'll try to answer without giving too much plot away.


And I doubt this movie is overrated, as only small amount of people will ever get to see it.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

Ghostboy

#61
February 17, 2004, 03:58:21 PM
Well, alot of people were amazed by the visual qualities present in the trailer, and between that and the hype from Cannes, they got excited about it. If you don't think the animation looks great, that's fine. You probably won't like the movie. But since the movie is visually amazing (to me) AND has a wonderfully whimsical narrative drive, those of us who've seen it really like it -- but it's oddness prevents some of us from describing it completely. I imagine you'd find a lot of similar responses in the old C&C boards after people first saw PDL, before it had been analyzed to death. It's just something that's new and weird and exciting, in which those qualities AMPLIFY the film and are not its sole reason for existence. If that had been the case with this film, or any film, we'd be talking about how it squandered its potential on excessive visuals and pointless curiosities.

It is definitely not simply a cinematic collage, and if anyone is expressing frustration with you for calling it that, it's just because we've been trying to explain why it's more than that.

But again, if the animation in the trailer annoys you, the movie won't be your cup of tea and you should skip it.

snaporaz

#62
February 17, 2004, 04:02:15 PM
Quote from: GhostboyBut again, if the animation in the trailer annoys you, the movie won't be your cup of tea and you should skip it.

it doesn't annoy me. i just don't like it.

are you suggesting i'm not capable of enjoying something if it doesn't look pretty? don't be a snob.

SoNowThen

#63
February 17, 2004, 04:05:06 PM
Actually, the animation is quite beautiful, at least the background drawings and city stuff and such.

The thing that makes this movie so visually interesting is that it gets back to the fundamentals of what cartoons are, more in the caricature vain -- of expanding and distorting reality. Like the best of Fellini films, it's that certain flair that makes it so fun.

A perfect example of this would be the grandson's leg muscles. That made me laugh almost everytime they showed it.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

The Perineum Falcon

#64
February 17, 2004, 04:08:22 PM
Quote from: snaporaz
Quote from: GhostboyBut again, if the animation in the trailer annoys you, the movie won't be your cup of tea and you should skip it.

it doesn't annoy me. i just don't like it.

are you suggesting i'm not capable of enjoying something if it doesn't look pretty? don't be a snob.
Well, if you're not into it's style then you'll probably be "not into the movie" for 90 mins. Wouldn't that be boring?
We often went to the cinema, the screen would light up and we would tremble, but also, increasingly often, Madeleine and I were disappointed. The images had dated, they jittered, and Marilyn Monroe had gotten terribly old. We were sad, this wasn't the film we had dreamed of, this wasn't the total film that we all carried around inside us, this film that we would have wanted to make, or, more secretly, no doubt, that we would have wanted to live.

Ghostboy

#65
February 17, 2004, 04:11:18 PM
Exactly. For example, I don't like anime that much, so I don't watch many of those films. I don't disregard them as an art form, and I don't think it makes me a lesser person or lowers my opinion of the movie. I wasn't attacking you, I was just trying to let you know that it's fine if it's not your cup of tea.

modage

#66
February 17, 2004, 04:16:12 PM
Quote from: GhostboyExactly. For example, I don't like anime that much, so I don't watch many of those films. I don't disregard them as an art form, and I don't think it makes me a lesser person or lowers my opinion of the movie. I wasn't attacking you, I was just trying to let you know that it's fine if it's not your cup of tea.
me neither.  i think the animation looks awesome for triplets though.  the style just appeals to me.
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

snaporaz

#67
February 17, 2004, 05:03:17 PM
Quote from: ranemaka13Well, if you're not into it's style then you'll probably be "not into the movie" for 90 mins. Wouldn't that be boring?

no, not really.

i tend to judge a movie for what is, rather than how it looks. now of course the animation itself can/does/is most of the time an inherently important artistic element to animated movies, but if i watch the triplets of belleville, i hope i can walk away and love the movie, having my only complaint being about the animation style.

pete

#68
February 17, 2004, 05:15:26 PM
I still think that you're being too hard on a film that you haven't seen based on what we can/can't say about it.  People get excited when they talk about things they have never seen before with other people that share the same sentiments.  I don't think this thread is benefitting you just because you've entered so late into it, and unless someone can articulate the film better, you're obviously going to be skeptical, since everyone is raving about the "unspoken" and unfortunately words like "I've never seen anything like it before" has been way too abused in this society, amongst radio spots and newspapers, to describe shit like The Fast and the Furious or well-made movies that don't deserve the hyperbole like Moulin Rouge and such.
But, as someone who has seen the film, I can only tell you that it's wonderful.  There is so much energy and so much weirdness in it.  You can doubt us, but you can't disagree with us yet, 'cause you haven't bloody seen it.
"Tragedy is a close-up; comedy, a long shot."
- Buster Keaton

Chest Rockwell

#69
February 17, 2004, 05:21:20 PM
Quote from: snaporaz
Quote from: ranemaka13Well, if you're not into it's style then you'll probably be "not into the movie" for 90 mins. Wouldn't that be boring?

no, not really.

i tend to judge a movie for what is, rather than how it looks. now of course the animation itself can/does/is most of the time an inherently important artistic element to animated movies, but if i watch the triplets of belleville, i hope i can walk away and love the movie, having my only complaint being about the animation style.

Trust us, snaporaz: it really is worth seeing. The animation is gorgeous if not really kooky. It's hilarious. The dialogue's great ::snickers::. What more do you need to hear?

SoNowThen

#70
February 17, 2004, 05:30:04 PM
Quote from: snaporaz
Quote from: ranemaka13Well, if you're not into it's style then you'll probably be "not into the movie" for 90 mins. Wouldn't that be boring?

no, not really.

i tend to judge a movie for what is, rather than how it looks.

Isn't film inherently a visual art, therefore what it looks like is very much a part of what it is.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

snaporaz

#71
February 17, 2004, 05:55:08 PM
Quote from: peteyou can't disagree with us yet, 'cause you haven't bloody seen it.

i never did bloody disagree about the quality of the film with anyone, so get off my bloody back.  :roll:

Quote from: SoNowThenIsn't film inherently a visual art, therefore what it looks like is very much a part of what it is.

very true. as you say, it's very much a part of what it is.

RegularKarate

#72
February 17, 2004, 07:30:18 PM
You're not going to like this movie...

You obviously just want to argue about it, so go see it and then you can fight over it with reason.

snaporaz

#73
February 17, 2004, 08:23:47 PM
Quote from: RegularKarateYou're not going to like this movie...

You obviously just want to argue about it, so go see it and then you can fight over it with reason.

yeah, i'm the one arguing.  :roll:

this is funny how pissed you guys can get. really.

you don't know me. condescending ass.

The Perineum Falcon

#74
February 17, 2004, 08:38:12 PM
Quote from: snaporaz
Quote from: RegularKarateYou're not going to like this movie...

You obviously just want to argue about it, so go see it and then you can fight over it with reason.

yeah, i'm the one arguing.  :roll:

this is funny how pissed you guys can get. really.

you don't know me. condescending ass.
I really don't think that's going to make things any better.
I actually don't think anything said/discussed based on your original question will become any clearer, for that matter. I'm sorry that no one can provide you the elusive answer that you're searching for.
Please, drop it.
We often went to the cinema, the screen would light up and we would tremble, but also, increasingly often, Madeleine and I were disappointed. The images had dated, they jittered, and Marilyn Monroe had gotten terribly old. We were sad, this wasn't the film we had dreamed of, this wasn't the total film that we all carried around inside us, this film that we would have wanted to make, or, more secretly, no doubt, that we would have wanted to live.
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6
User actions