(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scribegrrrl.com%2Fimages%2Fprecious_poster_sm.jpg&hash=f2eff31b66c7a6912c524bb51bff5bcaf67fc327)
Trailer here. (http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1809956188/trailer)
Release Date: November 6th, 2009 (limited)
Starring: Mo'Nique , Paula Patton, Mariah Carey, Gabourey Sidibe, Sherri Shepherd
Directed by: Lee Daniels
Premise: Clareece "Precious" Jones is an overweight, illiterate African-American teen in Harlem. Just as she's about to give birth to her second child, Jones is accepted into an alternative school where a teacher helps her find a new path in her life.
Mo' just won the Oscar from that trailer alone. ill never watch this.
oprah winfrey and tyler perry present
ahahaha are you serious
edit: holy shit my favorite color is purple?
everybody is good at something?
you've got to be fucking kidding me
edit: oh its based on the equally cliched ghetto dolores claiborne ripoff 'push'
all has become clear
Thanks for the Spoilers.
that wasn't spoilers, i was referring to the style in which it was written.
Quote from: 03 on October 03, 2009, 06:34:46 PM
that wasn't spoilers, i was referring to the style in which it was written.
I'm referring to the Stephen King novel that I know the ending to.
..i know, i'm saying that 'push' is written in the same style as 'dolores claiborne', not anything to do with the story.
Nobody here reads Stephen King, anyways.
I've been hearing good things about this. Tyler Perry is one of the WORST things going on in cinema right now. If this doesn't follow the same Tyler Perry formula, it could be great. It just better not lay it on too thick and shove it down our throats.
I read Stephen King. I am almost sure it will lay it on too thick. I don't mean to be horrendous, its just I heard from friends deep intrenched in the industry that it was.
it sounds like tyler perry didn't have much to do with the production itself - is this true?
Quote from: pete on October 04, 2009, 11:33:18 PM
it sounds like tyler perry didn't have much to do with the production itself - is this true?
It is my understanding that he and Oprah were involved both after the production and Lionsgate picked up distribution, and are mainly attaching their names to give the film support.
yeah i don't know what you ppl are talking about, this looks pretty u'nique.
and who cares what style the book was written in? since when does that have anything to do with how a movie turns out?
you don't have to resort to analysing the style of the BOOK to see that the movie is standard gritty high school genre fare. it's only difference is that it's about a fat chick who barely talks (according to the trailer) and has these ridiculous dreams. some good sappy scenes in there also show why oprah and tyler perry would be interested, but their involvement shouldn't speak for the film's sincerity.
oh and carey looks particularly horsey. that's something, i guess. :yabbse-undecided:
it's called a sentence. i'm not sure if you're aware of what that entails. if i want to compare the book's style of writing to anothers, i am more than welcome to.
and this has nothing to do with stephen king, are you people fucking retarded, would you have preferred me to reference finnegan's wake instead?
are you sure you know what a movie adaptation entails?
my comment is about your criticism of the film based on the style of the book. i don't have any special attachment to this film so i can't say i care if it turns out better or worse than anyone expects, but i would have commented the same in any other thread if you or anyone would pretend that the style of a book is worthy criticism of how the MOVIE turns out. see: kubrick.
i don't give a shit about stephen king or the book this is based on, i'm just saying that your criticism flawed. geez, sorry you haven't scored any smack today..
so evidently it's your job to turn every post into some sort of conflict.
you don't even understand what i was saying, and i wasn't even talking to you, embarrassing.
Quote from: 03 on October 05, 2009, 08:40:29 AM
so evidently it's your job to turn every post into some sort of conflict.
you don't even understand what i was saying, and i wasn't even talking to you, embarrassing.
listen up crack head, i wasn't trying to start conflict, (which in any event was already under way) i was merely pointing out what is patently obvious to anyone who is following this conversation: your observations of the trailer are as valid as anything else, but there is little evidence that a "cliche" book equals a "cliche" movie.. that was your initial assertion.
the use of stephen king is ironic given his kubrick association which proves my point. you may well be proven correct, but all the talk about the book is completely irrelevant as is this rule you made up about speaking only when spoken to. presumably, since your initial post was addressed to no one in particular, no one was allowed to reply. no one needs to be invited to a conversation to state their opinion. ridiculous.
and the only real embarrassment is that you are losing your shit in the PRECIOUS thread. that'd be kinda funny if it weren't also true that you just literally shat your pants on account of being a heroin addict.
ahahaha. nice.
when you learn to read i'll be more than willing to dignify that with a response.
Can we delete everything up until this point and actually talk about the film?
I really thought this was great. Lee Daniels does a great job of balancing the horrible, if melodramatic, facts of the film with fantastical coping sequences. The acting is just unbelievable. I couldn't watch Monique at certain points because she's just a complete monster, and I mean that as a testament to her acting. It's incredible. It's as powerful as DDL as Plainview. Mariah Carey was unrecognizable and pretty darn cute, and the lead is of course beyond perfect in this role. My only problem was the en vogue handheld + quick zoom effect to direct attention to someone's face, a la The Office (American) and any number of commercials. You sit through this movie and experience it, rather than watch it, and it was pretty much a perfect film.
I really, really did not like this. It's been a few months since I saw it, so details may be a bit fuzzy. I heard someone describe it as "misery porn", and while I'm weary of simplistic labels like that, it really struck me similarly. Slow motion shots of the television being thrown at precious. "I know you've got aids, but keep writing!". "I'm not worried about aids, I'm just worried about raising these kids". I thought that the acting was excellent, it started strong, and then just went overboard. For the first 20 minutes, I was convinced I had never seen anything like it. By the end, I felt it had become an incredibly disrespectful Hallmark movie of the week. It drives me CRAZY when someone uses something like aids to serve as some sort of life affirming motivational sermon. It felt like it was written by someone who couldn't even begin to fathom how serious precious' disease was.
Someone told me that they felt the ending was great (no spoilers) because it was a comment on the fact that life goes on. I guess I can respect that take, but for my taste, life going on for this poor girl is just as troubling as it is affirming, and the troubling part of it should be handled with so much more reverence than I saw here.
I liked so much about it, but in the end, the "I know you've got aids, but keep writing!" theme just killed it for me. This is one of those movies that I may be totally wrong about, so I'd love to hear some stuff from people who loved it.
SPOILS
For the character Precious, there is no affirmation. She's completely screwed at the end, and I don't think the movie paints it any other way. The best she can do is create a better beginning for her child, a childhood she didn't have. You don't find out about her having HIV until the end of the film anyhow, so it really doesn't beat you over the head with that point at all. I didn't know anything about it going, so maybe the trailer oversells that point, but it's really not about her having HIV at all. It's about turning the shit she's been dealt into something positive for the next generation. Precious is going to die, so her learning to read isn't about her own needs or wants out of life, it's so she can pass those on to her son so he can have a better life than she had.
I understand that thats the intention of the film, but I still feel like its disingenuous. Not finding out she has hiv until the end only makes it more manipulative in my opinion. It's like Job finding out that, once the boils have been cured, and he has his new children and land, now God has decided to give him the plague on top of it all. Oh, and there's hope! It feels criminally naive. Too Sunday School. Too D.A.R.E.
But it's nice to read something by someone who was affected by it. I wanted to be.
Quote from: Gamblour. on January 09, 2010, 02:35:41 PM
Monique (...) is as powerful as DDL...
to quote the infamous Pubrick... invalidated
She really is though. The first half of the movie she was unrecognizable as Mo'nique which can be attributed to fine acting, writing and makeup artists. It was only during the glamour sequences did I realize that she was in the movie.
The film is a powerful experience if you choose to go along with the ride and accept that these worlds exist. The films tone is as bleak as requiem for a dream and that is quite a task. It is worth seeing for the acting alone. The last 20 minutes feels rushed due to heavy voiceover, but the last scene in the welfare office is worth the payoff. I'm wondering how Daniels directed the scenes with the mentally ill child? It looks like she was just thrown in there and everyone played off of her.