eternal sunshine de l'mind spotless..

[modage]

your robotic movie-reviewing auto-reactions don't allow you to enjoy this film.

whoa, weird. GT, your reviews tend to sometimes be circlejerks; they just go round and round without ever getting anywhere.  you seem to be way more concerned with the style of your writing than you are with actually having an opinion on anything that means anything.  if you dont like the movie because you dont find the acting believable, just say so. or if you dont like the movie because you dont feel the premise doesnt ever really take off, just say so. or if you dont like it because you feel the direction is not coherent, just say so.  but your reviews dont say anything.  all that writing without ever really saying whether or not you liked the movie.  or with its faults, found it worthwhile, or any good?  or better than other kauffmans movies?  or whether you connected with it on any sort of emotional level?  all of your complaints/complements seem to cancel each other out.  'yes the film acheived this, but it also did this.' 'yes, the film was trying to do this but it also did this.'  you said its superficial, but didnt say what was wrong with being so.  you said carrey was playinga  character too close to himself, but whats wrong with that?  reading your reviews are like reading what it would be like if computers could review a movie.  i'm sure there are plenty of people who would love to have discussions or debates with you about the film if they even knew where to begin.  you dont seem to have any OPINION on the film that anyone can discuss.  you just bring things up and dismiss them. whats the point?

[cowboykurtis]

your robotic movie-reviewing auto-reactions don't allow you to enjoy this film.

whoa, weird. GT, your reviews tend to sometimes be circlejerks; they just go round and round without ever getting anywhere.  you seem to be way more concerned with the style of your writing than you are with actually having an opinion on anything that means anything.  if you dont like the movie because you dont find the acting believable, just say so. or if you dont like the movie because you dont feel the premise doesnt ever really take off, just say so. or if you dont like it because you feel the direction is not coherent, just say so.  but your reviews dont say anything.  all that writing without ever really saying whether or not you liked the movie.  or with its faults, found it worthwhile, or any good?  or better than other kauffmans movies?  or whether you connected with it on any sort of emotional level?  all of your complaints/complements seem to cancel each other out.  'yes the film acheived this, but it also did this.' 'yes, the film was trying to do this but it also did this.'  you said its superficial, but didnt say what was wrong with being so.  you said carrey was playinga  character too close to himself, but whats wrong with that?  reading your reviews are like reading what it would be like if computers could review a movie.  i'm sure there are plenty of people who would love to have discussions or debates with you about the film if they even knew where to begin.  you dont seem to have any OPINION on the film that anyone can discuss.  you just bring things up and dismiss them. whats the point?

its called PIP: psuedo intellectual plague

[Ernie]

I also know real girls like her and they're corny in real life too.

Yea but that's the thing, like her or not, Clementine is a truthful character. Sure, she's kinda corny in a Penny Lane type way but I don't really see how she could be found to be annoying. I thought she was really funny actually. I laughed at some of the scenes with her solely because of how fucking real they were. Just out of total disbelief that I was watching a film and not real life. I swear to god I must have walked with some girl on an icy road while she says "slidey slidey". That's probably happened to me, I swear, I wouldn't be surprised at all, lol.

anyone wanna bone clementine when she played joel's house-sitter in that sexy black dress. that was probably one of my favorite scenes in the movie.

Lol, nice name SmellyBoob Fungues....yea, she was pretty fucking hot in that scene. But what about at the end when she bends over with that thong on to look at her black and blue mark in the mirror? You must remember that scene.

[Gold Trumpet]

your robotic movie-reviewing auto-reactions don't allow you to enjoy this film.

whoa, weird. GT, your reviews tend to sometimes be circlejerks; they just go round and round without ever getting anywhere.  you seem to be way more concerned with the style of your writing than you are with actually having an opinion on anything that means anything.  if you dont like the movie because you dont find the acting believable, just say so. or if you dont like the movie because you dont feel the premise doesnt ever really take off, just say so. or if you dont like it because you feel the direction is not coherent, just say so.  but your reviews dont say anything.  all that writing without ever really saying whether or not you liked the movie.  or with its faults, found it worthwhile, or any good?  or better than other kauffmans movies?  or whether you connected with it on any sort of emotional level?  all of your complaints/complements seem to cancel each other out.  'yes the film acheived this, but it also did this.' 'yes, the film was trying to do this but it also did this.'  you said its superficial, but didnt say what was wrong with being so.  you said carrey was playinga  character too close to himself, but whats wrong with that?  reading your reviews are like reading what it would be like if computers could review a movie.  i'm sure there are plenty of people who would love to have discussions or debates with you about the film if they even knew where to begin.  you dont seem to have any OPINION on the film that anyone can discuss.  you just bring things up and dismiss them. whats the point?

OK, thats better, so in essence, I have the problem of James Agee, a film critic notorious for calling something bad but then speaking of the good that is within that bad? Fine.

I still disagree though. Its likely just sloppy writing on my part and some were able to comprehend my opinion (Ghostboy) and some not. I was in a rush to write it and get it done. I thought I clearly stated how the writing was superficial but yet how it was better than Kaufman's earlier original stories because it did get past the gimmick dominating the film. Maybe you just didn't get that out of my writing. OK. Your responce just really sounded prickish.

You also quoted RK and if he responded to me and deleted his post, grow some balls. You continually complain about the tone of my writing and assume its my character in real life. Hardly. Its just me not wanting to live my through a fucking message board. I keep as impersonal as I can here.

[cowboykurtis]

gold trumpet just out curiosity where in northern michigan are you -- is it the UP? i have a cabin around eagle river.

[RegularKarate]

You also quoted RK and if he responded to me and deleted his post, grow some balls...blah blah blah

whoah... GT, you and I haven't had beef in months.  This quote was out of context from a different thread... I wasn't even referring to you, I was referring to Weak.  I haven't even seen this effing movie yet.

[Gold Trumpet]

You also quoted RK and if he responded to me and deleted his post, grow some balls...blah blah blah

whoah... GT, you and I haven't had beef in months.  This quote was out of context from a different thread... I wasn't even referring to you, I was referring to Weak.  I haven't even seen this effing movie yet.

Then I'll impale modernage again for false quotations. Apologies.

[Gold Trumpet]

gold trumpet just out curiosity where in northern michigan are you -- is it the UP? i have a cabin around eagle river.

I'm in the UP and (risks stalkers) and Escanaba is the city I currently live in. I don't think I'm anywhere near you.

[Chest Rockwell]

Well I personally (think I) understood GT's comments. A lot of times I can't stand reading his reviews, but this one was fine. He reminds me of this guy on IMDb, tedg, who writes some of the coolest reviews ever and with the fanciest language I've seen in film critiques. Perhaps GT = TedG....hmm....
Either way, I respect your opinions there, GT, though I don't necessarily agree. I'm not in the mood for a debate though, and need a couple more viewings to have a complete grasp on the film in the first place before I can ever dream of debating about it.

[ono]

No offense to GT, but where tedg is concerned there is no comparison.  tedg has written some of the most creative, unique film criticisms I've ever read, whereas GT simply criticizes everything without any rhyme or reason.  And the writing isn't that strong, either.  I just wish for once he would respond to a film on an emotional level.  Then maybe just for once we could get a sense of where he's coming from.

what i like about GT is that he can write and write without really ever saying anything.

Agreed.  It really boggles the mind.  His exact complaints were why I loved the movie.  Most of the time he seems to dislike something just to be the only one to do so, and his criticisms are rarely founded in any sort of valid logic.  Carrey proved himself here to be a great actor; he literally disappeared into the role when it was called for, and used his comedic skills when it was necessary in his dreams.  I forgot it was him most of the time.  A sign of true talent.

GT's reviews are almost as painful to read as this: http://www.timecube.com/  The only thing I agree with him about is Ruffalo's character being given nothing to do.  But as for Dunst being extraneous, he couldn't be more off.  And remember, it's OKAY to like a movie, GT.  Sure, they can be art, but they're supposed to be fun, they're supposed to be entertainment, and you're not Pauline Kael.

It really is painful/annoying/infuriating seeing someone dedicate so much time to movie discussion but seem to hate most of them so much.  And these are all quality movies that he's hating on.  Point being, try as I may to respect GT's opinions (and I do mostly for the time taken to formulate them), the poor writing and circular tendencies in his posts greatly detract from all of that.  It would be great if he took a writing course or two or something.  Getting an editor would be a bit over-the-top.  Hehe.

[Gold Trumpet]

No offense to GT, but where tedg is concerned there is no comparison.  tedg has written some of the most creative, unique film criticisms I've ever read, whereas GT simply criticizes everything without any rhyme or reason.  And the writing isn't that strong, either.  I just wish for once he would respond to a film on an emotional level.  Then maybe just for once we could get a sense of where he's coming from.

what i like about GT is that he can write and write without really ever saying anything.

Agreed.  It really boggles the mind.  His exact complaints were why I loved the movie.  Most of the time he seems to dislike something just to be the only one to do so, and his criticisms are rarely founded in any sort of valid logic.  Carrey proved himself here to be a great actor; he literally disappeared into the role when it was called for, and used his comedic skills when it was necessary in his dreams.  I forgot it was him most of the time.  A sign of true talent.

GT's reviews are almost as painful to read as this: http://www.timecube.com/  The only thing I agree with him about is Ruffalo's character being given nothing to do.  But as for Dunst being extraneous, he couldn't be more off.  And remember, it's OKAY to like a movie, GT.  Sure, they can be art, but they're supposed to be fun, they're supposed to be entertainment, and you're not Pauline Kael.

It really is painful/annoying/infuriating seeing someone dedicate so much time to movie discussion but seem to hate most of them so much.  And these are all quality movies that he's hating on.  Point being, try as I may to respect GT's opinions (and I do mostly for the time taken to formulate them), the poor writing and circular tendencies in his posts greatly detract from all of that.  It would be great if he took a writing course or two or something.  Getting an editor would be a bit over-the-top.  Hehe.

"It really is painful/annoying/infuriating seeing someone dedicate so much time movie discussion but seem to hate most of them so much." I am pessimistic, but I think I've been kinder to movies than you say I have. The main reason I am replying is because your accusation of my posts being endless in the same points and filled with fury feels exactly like this post here. You make your point and just continue on, repeating it in every way you can imagine, just about putting my face in the mud by the end of it all. I'm trying to improve, really, but this I can't take serious.

[ono]

Repetition/parallelism is usually used to make a point.  I'm not trying to beat it in to you or anything.  I'm not that sadistic.  But I think this is something we've all pointed out in the past.  At least you understand it now.

[Pubrick]

he's understood it for at least a year.. here's how i dealt with GT's english problems in the Clockwork Orange thread.

did u get through school with this same style of writing? i mean, surely ur teachers must've said sumthing. or at least failed u.

i can't be the only one that feels sick after reading ur over-simplified to the point of losing the meaning of the sentences that ur trying to explain in words that u make into long winded things that in the end there's really no point in any long stretch of writing that u've begun cos in the attempt to make it unambiguously expressive u seem to hav settled on the notion that writing like an undisciplined 5yr old is good enuff to pass for english communication of ideas. i can't be the only one.

we might believe in the same things, i think, from the times i've managed to not fall asleep while reading ur stuff, but this is no minor point. i would like to argue with u non-sarcastically about why u hate A Clockwork Orange and other dumb shit u say, and maybe talk sum sense into ur babbling, but i really really can't stand the way u would reply. so i'm tellin ya, i hav points that counter what u've written in a serious manner, but when i [write] with ppl i like it to be a 2-way thing.

sorry dude, i know u prolly talk like a normal person. it's just a shame, u know.

so i think the real annoyance is not the writing, cos u've improved a little, ur using sentences now.. it's that the style in which u write is still so irritating that everyone would like to argue with u about sumthing but u leave no room for it. i think that's what i came to realise. ur reviews are so mechanical and dull that to argue with them would only bring on more of the thing that ppl hate about them.

but on the whole, i enjoy ur bad reviews way more than mutinyco's ones. his problems go beyond his writing.

[mutinyco]

This isn't turning into another GT circle jerk thread. It's turning into another attack GT circle jerk thread.

I think the overwhelmingly positive praise here is out of line. I liked the movie. But it certainly had problems. Kaufman has a general inability to ground his stories. It's like they're sealed off and exist unto themselves -- even though they seem to take place in reality. Also, I never bought Joel and Clementine's romance. I thought there was no chemistry between Carrey and Winslet (miscast). And considering that's the point of the drama -- even though they've both been brainwashed they still find each other -- it kind of hampers the film a bit.

I haven't been a fan of Kaufman's till now. I usually find his work to be a bunch of gimmicks that don't really develop in any significant way. But like I said, Sunshine will probably get better with repeat viewings.

[Ravi]

While I liked the film, I too had some problems with it.  The whole Kirsten Dunst subplot with the doctor didn't seem at all important.  I liked the idea that Dunst, Mark Ruffalo, and Elijah Wood were goofing around, drinking beer, etc. while Jim Carrey was sleeping, but I don't think any more significance should have been written for their characters.  As for the Carrey-Winslet chemistry, I don't remember having a problem with it.

I definitely liked the film a lot and I want to see it again soon, but Adaptation is probably my favorite Kaufman film so far.