21 Grams

[ono]

I caught 21 Grams again tonight, and I liked it better the second time around, though some problems still shone through.

The issue I take with the film is that its title's idea isn't fleshed out here.  It's merely mentioned in the ending voiceover to try to give some sort of credence to all the ironies in the movie so far.  The key scene, I believe, in this film, is the one where Paul and (Naomi) sit down to lunch.  Paul finally starts talking about his career, and his passion.  This would have been such a great chance for Paul to tell Christina more about his passion as a mathematician, and at least make an attempt at weaving in this theme of 21 Grams rather than just trying to wax philosophical about the nature of death as it's already happened.  The story is great, but it's this one glaring thing that jumps out and really makes the film fall short of greatness.

Naomi Watt's performance was even more stellar the second time around, and I only wish Castle-Hughes would act again so she'd have a chance at an Oscar again.  Because even if Naomi Watts doesn't win, you haven't heard the last of her.  She has true talent.  The scene in the kitchen with Paul as she erupts and says they must kill Jack is one of the best ever, reminding me of another Paul from Last Tango in Paris, where Brando breaks down over his sick wife's body.  Theron can't touch this.  It's that good.

One minor gripe about audiences.  I wish there was some sort of screening policy for maturity levels in the people admitted to certain films.  There were three idiots sitting a row or two ahead of me, and they kept laughing at parts that weren't even funny.  When Paul reveals to Christina that he has her husband's heart, they actually laughed.  Other times this happened too, though that was the one that stood out.  Oh yeah, and pretty much every time Watts' nipple made an appearance.  You can guess their reaction when Penn started sucking on it.  Yeah.  Sometimes I hate people, too.

[meatball]

Like . . . we should wait for the special edition ?  

[phil marlowe]

...i...just...took...a...125...minute...beating...

...best...movie...of...the...year...

[cron]

There were three idiots sitting a row or two ahead of me, and they kept laughing at parts that weren't even funny.  When Paul reveals to Christina that he has her husband's heart, they actually laughed.  Other times this happened too, though that was the one that stood out.  Oh yeah, and pretty much every time Watts' nipple made an appearance.  You can guess their reaction when Penn started sucking on it.  Yeah.  Sometimes I hate people, too.

C'mon... i couldn't avoid smiling at the scene where Paul and Cristina are fighting in the kitchen. I remembered an interview with Jean Pierre Jaunet where he talked about  movies with fights in kitchens. So far, Alejandro Gonzales' movies have had  kitchen fights, all two of them. They've also had car accidents.  Nipples. 3 main stories/characters. Manipulative narrative. Point in fact, even the themes where the same. Guilt, Love and Revenge.   What is it with that? It was very hard for me to take it seriously, being aware of that.
Also ,  Guillermo Arriagas' novels have the same themes over and over over again,  the "weight of the death over the living"   .

"It is interesting when you considering that those who can think, the living , are  afraid of those who cannot: the dead"


two final words: Guy Ritchie.

[Pubrick]

two final words: Guy Ritchie.

let's see..

guy ritchie makes meaningless claptrap mishmashes of confusing editing techniques made to razzle and dazzle the viewer much like this sentence. Alejandro González Iñárritu has tried to make sumthing of value. the repetition of themes although apparently STOLEN from his previous films are not made for commercial gain ("gee this made a lot of money let's do it again").

amores perros explored 3 storylines, disconnected in time from each other. the characters didn't really enter each other's lives outside of the point of impact, it showed the gravitational force of the centre as a space/time field.. notice the significance of el chivo venturing across a void, leaving the emptiness behind, like some sort of particle at the edge of a black hole. (yes this means sumthing)



"Because energy cannot be created out of nothing, one of the partners in a particle/antiparticle pair will have positive energy, and the other partner negative energy. The one with negative energy is condemned to be a short-lived virtual particle because real particles always have positive energy in normal situations. It must therefore seek out its partner and annihilate with it."
- A Brief History of Time, chapter 7.

sumtimes physics has the most manipulative plots. the characters in 21 grams are pathologically, and seemingly eternally, entwined with their moment of loss. the exact force that blew everyone apart in amores perros, brings everyone together here. the way in which we see the story (a problem to some) is simple if u look to the sky, there we see the creation and destruction of stars as if they had always been there. and what are we left with, here on earth? a burst of new life inside naomi, started by penn, whose own life was redeemed by naomi's loss, which was caused by del toro during his own redemption thus completed. that's full circle for AGI, inside through out. not twice around the block.

if it makes u feel any better, in case u didn't understand any of that, i can promise the next film AGI makes won't be so identical to his previous. tho it might appear so, to the unequipped observer.

"The whole history of science has been the gradual realization that events do not happen in an arbitrary manner, but that they reflect a certain underlying order, which may or may not be divinely inspired."

the more i think about all of this, the more i feel there is to say. i look forward to explaining the movies of AGI over and over from infinite angles hopefully towards a singularity, like with kubrick.

[NEON MERCURY]

that was ..brilliant..good job...P

[meatball]

Good response to his "two words: guy ritchie."




So.. again... wait for a special edition DVD?

[Pubrick]

Good response to his "two words: guy ritchie."

actually i was replying to everything he or anyone else has ever said. ritchie was the starting point.

So.. again... wait for a special edition DVD?

yes.

[MacGuffin]

Source: DVD Answers

Universal appear to have scrapped all extra material from the release of 21 Grams which stars Sean Penn and Naomi Watts. The disc was originally set to include a 21 Grams: In Fragments featurette as well as a Making of 21 Grams featurette. This will no longer be the case. Our suspicions were raised initially, when Universal sent over a menu shot that didn't feature an extras menu. Since then, Universal have sent out review copies - which again feature no extra material to speak of. Perhaps a two disc special edition is on the cards? This featureless disc will be available to own in two weeks time, and should retail at around $26.98.

[modage]

disgusting.

[Weird. Oh]

Yep I have a rental version of the dvd right now. No extras at all. The irony is that on the back of the rental box I have it in it says: " DVD includes a "making of" featurette and "21 grams: In fragments. Very Misleading..

[cron]

although the words "Guy" and "Ritchie" do sound a little harsh, please know  that i was using it because - well,  there are some striking similarities between those two gentlemen's body of work.  Of course Mr. Madonna's movies are as banal as it gets , and Inarritu is saying something,  but,  my beef with those two movies (21g et amores perros) goes beyond all of your filosophical interpretations ;

let me try to explain myself.

 i've said this many times but  i went to a conference with Guillermo Arriaga , and his attitude  was the attitude of the stereotypical  beatnik  arrogant artist (he asked us to refer to him as "Puro Cabron ="Though Motherfucker")  and after that conference, i knew that he had written some books, i read them and  they where pointless.

that may be as personal as it gets. pas question.


i am of the idea that an artist shouldn't be singing the same song all the time.

i don't see the relation between Hawking and Inarritu. perhaps you mean metaphysics.

and please P, stop treating (some) people like you were an all-knowing figure and we were just drones.

[Pubrick]

wow u don't hav to take it so personal.

i only speak with confidence about things i know a bit about.

i didn't think u'd be way offended by my interpretation of why 21 G/AP makes sense to me, regardless of the writer's attitude. i got no beef with u, so don't try to perpetuate whatever bullshit fallacy.

i don't get it, ppl cry when i say one-line wonders, and when i put too much thought into what i say. fuck this.

ps. metaphysics has nothing to do with physics.

[cron]

yeah, don't get me wrong either.

impossible for me to not take something personal.
it's not a contest, is it? - you liked it, i didn't .

and   i knew the metaphysics  and physics difference part, that's why i said that  i didn't understand the relation between A Brief History of Time and 21 Grams. my friend's mum makes a living out of that.  esoterism.


cool.  now, let's have a beer.

-phewwww that fell good.

[Pubrick]

there's a parallel between the actions of particles and the actions of  characters in AGI movies, that's what i was establishing. the relevance is that i originally compared 21 Grams to an atom in an earlier review.

yes beer sounds good.