Xixax Film Forum

hello all...


anyone know a release date for this sure to be  another solid film from the director of  -amores perros- staring sean penn, benicio del toro, and naomi watts and also plot info about this film.

thanksinadvance.

Release Date: Fall, 2003 (limited) (likely to eventually expand to a wide release)

Title Note: The title reportedly comes from the amount of weight that a human body supposedly loses when it dies, which some interpret as being the "weight" of the human soul as it leaves.

Cast: Benicio Del Toro (Jack), Sean Penn (Paul), Naomi Watts (Christine), Clea DuVall, Charlotte Gainsbourg, Teresa Delgado (Gina), Danny Huston, Melissa Leo, Eddie Marsan, Marc Musso (Freddy).

Premise: This film tells the complex interconnected story how the lives of a former drug addict and single mother, Christine (Watts), a terminally ill mathematics professor, Paul (Penn), and a spiritual ex-convict, Jack (Del Toro) intersect both tragically and redemptively, including the fact that Christine and Paul are (former?) lovers (Gainsbourg plays Paul's wife).

with this title and sean penn and benicio del toro in it, i thought this was gonna be the worlds second reality movie

i can see it now the two of them at the Chateau Marmont at 5 A.M  sweating a lot having a  conversation about doing a charles bukowski film

This sounds fantastic

Quote from: MacGuffinThe title reportedly comes from the amount of weight that a human body supposedly loses when it dies, which some interpret as being the "weight" of the human soul as it leaves.
.....
the lives of a former drug addict and single mother,
a terminally ill mathematics professor,
and a spiritual ex-convict,

Quote from: tremoloslothThis sounds fantastic

heavens yes, what'd i tell ya..

Quote from: PAlejandro González Iñárritu can kick all ur asses.

This film has a fucking great cast, and I think it's promising. I heard something about the three main characters' lives interwining after a road accident.  If this is the case, this film sounds rather simular to Love's a Bitch (Alejen-orwhateverthehellhisnameis' first film), which was a pretty good movie.

Quote from: Brock LandersIf this is the case, this film sounds rather simular to Love's a Bitch (Alejen-orwhateverthehellhisnameis' first film), which was a pretty good movie.

Yeah, and John Cusack is always running in the rain, and there's always a character in a PTA movie that calls him/herself a "Fucking Idiot", and people are still crashing in cars.

So what's the what.

:x (I still think Newtron is a dick)

Quote from: Mr. Greentheres no need to be a dick.

I wasn't being a dick. You are, though.

Nice first post,  :roll:  . What are you, another troll?

:x

Quote from: mogwaiI'm Brock Landers.

.... What?

Quote from: mogwaiI see green people.

He's my friend  :lol:

Quote from: mogwaiSo your "friend" uses the same computer, and even has the time to post under your alias and his own. That's something really extraordinary, but can you front when we admins can easily see your IP addresses? Sorry to be a such an asshole but I just wanted to clarify that.

Way to ruin my fun!  :x  Oh well, I guess I deserve it  :lol:

> I still think Newtron's a dick.

Quote from: Brock Landers> I still think Newtron's a dick.

cos he said sumthin that wasn't offensive?

ur psychotic. alter egos are ok but for pointless shit like this it's just lame.

sayin' tho, ruined a great thread about a great movie.

Quote from: _|P|_

Quote from: Brock Landers> I still think Newtron's a dick.

cos he said sumthin that wasn't offensive?

ur psychotic. alter egos are ok but for pointless shit like this it's just lame.

does a man have to explain?

k, im just fucking around. maybe i should stop. please don't ban me. :) i apologise.

Quote from: _|P|_
alter egos are ok but for pointless shit like this it's just lame.

Pointless shit like posting on the same thread under two names for no reason?

Finally I movie I want to see this fall!!!!!!! Man, I'm so excited. Does anybody know if this is an american production, where was it shot? I hope nobody fucked with the director. Amorres Perros was great.

yeah i cant wait for this.  i hope it gets a definitive release date for this fall soon.  rodrigo prieto!

Quote from: EL__SCORCHODoes anybody know if this is an american production, where was it shot?

Distributor Note: Focus Features won the rights to finance and release this film in a bidding war in July, 2002 with Miramax Films and New Regency (which has a distribution deal with 20th Century Fox) being the other contenders.

Production Company: This is That Productions (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind)

Filming: Production started on December 6th, 2002 in Memphis, Tennessee on a budget of $20 million, and wrapped up there on February 14th, 2003. Filming then moved to New Mexico (including Santa Fe and Albuquerque) where it wrapped up later that month.

I notice Focus Features, like Sony Pictures Classics, tends to consistently release very high quality films. Isn't Focus some sort of merger between the old USA Films and Paramount Classics or something?

Quote from: MacGuffin

Quote from: EL__SCORCHODoes anybody know if this is an american production, where was it shot?

Distributor Note: Focus Features won the rights to finance and release this film in a bidding war in July, 2002 with Miramax Films and New Regency (which has a distribution deal with 20th Century Fox) being the other contenders.

Production Company: This is That Productions (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind)

Filming: Production started on December 6th, 2002 in Memphis, Tennessee on a budget of $20 million, and wrapped up there on February 14th, 2003. Filming then moved to New Mexico (including Santa Fe and Albuquerque) where it wrapped up later that month.

Thanks for the info Mac, you seem to know everything. How the fuck do you do it?

they test screened this movie, and had a review over at aicn...

I just took in a screening of 21 Grams by Alejandro González Iñárritu, of Amorres Perros fame. It stars Sean Penn, Naomi Watts, and Benicio Del Toro, with a small role for Clea Duvall. The rest of the cast is "unknowns". All are terrific. I imagine the acting will be a big draw come release time. It does not disappoint.

I won't get into the story too much. "21 Grams" alludes to the supposed amount of weight lost by every human body at the time of death. Is it the soul departing? The movie does not address (or answer) this question. But the major themes are death, dying, loss, love, redemption, religion, etc... Not exactly comedy material. As my friend remarked, it nearly makes Schindler's List seem lighthearted. A grim, dark, depressing tale. It's a very trying couple of hours --for both the characters and viewers. But definitely worth the effort required.

The current cut is approximately 2 hours long. It was shown on a digital projector with all of the usual caveats: color not balanced, not final score, etc... Looked good to me. Very gritty, with lots of hand-held shots. The editing was very interesting. The story went back in forth through time, jumping between the interweaving stories of the three main characters. In fact, I'm not sure that there were even two consecutive chronological scenes. Sounds confusing but it works really well. Brilliant editing job. It actually serves to draw the viewer into the story, looking for clues as to why, when, and how these three characters lives become entangled. The music was fitting too. Sparse, minimalist, with solo organ and guitar. A nice contrast to the overblown Oingo Boingo shit in the Hulk. But I'm not going to go there.

Overall an impressive and uncompromising second film. Let's hope the studio doesn't screw it up before release.

i CANT WAIT for this.

Quote from: MacGuffinRelease Date: Fall, 2003 (limited) (likely to eventually expand to a wide release)

Title Note: The title reportedly comes from the amount of weight that a human body supposedly loses when it dies, which some interpret as being the "weight" of the human soul as it leaves.

Cast: Benicio Del Toro (Jack), Sean Penn (Paul), Naomi Watts (Christine), Clea DuVall, Charlotte Gainsbourg, Teresa Delgado (Gina), Danny Huston, Melissa Leo, Eddie Marsan, Marc Musso (Freddy).

Premise: This film tells the complex interconnected story how the lives of a former drug addict and single mother, Christine (Watts), a terminally ill mathematics professor, Paul (Penn), and a spiritual ex-convict, Jack (Del Toro) intersect both tragically and redemptively, including the fact that Christine and Paul are (former?) lovers (Gainsbourg plays Paul's wife).

Holy fuck! That sounds fantastic! :-D

whew, that was a close one. :oops:

Yeah right! :lol:

Or in the immortal words of that dunce on the cover of Mad magazine: "Why me worry?!"

man... ::feeling nostalgic::  i think this was my first post

thank you all for all the news about this film I am  HIGHLY eager to see THIS

yes (http://www.latinoreview.com/films_2003/focus/21grams/images/grams-1.jpg), it's green (http://www.latinoreview.com/films_2003/focus/21grams/images/grams-2.jpg)!

Quote from: MacGuffinNeither of your posts showed the pics:

http://www.latinoreview.com/films_2003/focus/21grams/21grams.html

That's odd, they did show them to me, now as you say they're not.

I guess is tougher than I thought trying to be a Mini-Mac. :wink:

I'm waiting for specifics on the release date. It'll likely hit a few cities (Ghostboy, no doubt, will see it first) and then go wide in a respectable way. Respectable enough I'm hoping to see it on that first weekend of a wide release. This, behind The Son, which has already come and gone in its minor release, is the most anticipated movie for me. The idea of Sean Penn and Naomi Watts given meaty roles is too much. And because of Penn alone, Mystic River is up there on that list as well. And to for the movie The Son, its a little known french movie that appeared in a few cities and left and now has gone since unheard of. I'm hoping for any marginal dvd release in the country. Even let it appear on Ebay once or twice in some unheard of Canadian release! I really want to see that movie.

~rougerum

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetI'm waiting for specifics on the release date. It'll likely hit a few cities (Ghostboy, no doubt, will see it first) and then go wide in a respectable way.

Release Date: November 14th, 2003 (LA/NY); expands to other cities at later dates; likely to eventually expand to a wide release.

From Entertainment Weekly:

Mexican director Alejandro González Iñárritu (2000's Oscar-nominated ''Amores Perros'') has decided to come out swinging in his $20 million English-language debut by casting some Hollywood heavyweights. Naomi Watts plays a grieving mother whose life intersects with terminally ill mathematician Sean Penn and ex-con Benicio Del Toro following a horrific tragedy. And that's about all Iñárritu will reveal. ''It's about three people dealing with their own personal hell, trying to survive their own demons,'' he says, sighing. ''It's just too complicated to describe.'' (Rounding out the cast is Charlotte Gainsbourg, who stepped in as a replacement when British actress Katrin Cartlidge died unexpectedly last September.)

Watts, however, will elaborate on the odd title: ''[Twenty-one grams] is the amount a body loses when one dies, and that's allegedly the weight of one's soul,'' she explains. (Perhaps the nod to the metric system will help when the film competes for the Golden Lion at the upcoming Venice film fest, where it's one of only two American contenders.) But if the plot seems awfully familiar -- a car accident was also the catalyst in ''Perros'' --it's because screenwriter Guillermo Arriaga penned both films. Warns Watts: ''['21 Grams'] is even more raw.''

The Killer Moment: ''A car accident that, for god-awful reasons, binds the three characters together,'' says Watts.

Quote from: AlguienEstolamiPantalones

with this title and sean penn and benicio del toro in it, i thought this was gonna be the worlds second reality movie

i can see it now the two of them at the Chateau Marmont at 5 A.M  sweating a lot having a  conversation about doing a charles bukowski film

i wrote this on may 9th and i still think its funny

Trailer is up at yahoo movies (http://movies.yahoo.com/movies/feature/21grams.html).

An Interview with Director Alejandro González Iñárritu
Source: Latino Review

Alejandro González Iñárritu is blazing a path into modern cinema. His directing style is raw, visceral, and gritty. He is not afraid to use every tool at his disposal to get a reaction. I was a huge fan of his debut film, Amores Perros (Love's A Bitch). He certainly got Hollywood's attention, because movie stars lined up to work with him after its release. His second film, 21 Grams, is another stunning achievement. Reteaming with screenwriter Guillermo Arriaga, who also wrote Amores Perros, Iñárritu has made a startling look at death and life. I had a chance to interview him while in Toronto. He came off as a very friendly, intelligent guy, who relished the opportunity to impact people through film.

Are you totally opposed to making a movie with a straight, linear narrative; or does mixing up the order have more of an impact?

Iñárritu: I would say that this structure, this way to tell the story, was shaped by the story itself. We cannot conceive this story in a chronological order. It would be like three short films crossing at some point. It would not be interesting. I find that one of the compromises or responsibility of a storyteller is to find the best way to tell the story. The most wonderful fables, tales, stories ever written have always hidden the truth and little by little revealed it. It's to get the audience to feel the spaces, lots of information, make them proactive in the experience. Make the audience alive, not passive, boring, dead. I think, I hope this structure allows that.

Do you spend a lot of time in the editing room?

Iñárritu: Let me tell you that I finished shooting the film in March and I'm here presenting it. (Laughs) I stay for the most part editing a film for seven months, just editing, but on this one I was really amazed, in four months I edited the film. We spent three years in a script, editing there. I was really aware. I was editing in the script, even the sounds. I had an interest in that. It's not completely faithful. I've taken like twenty scenes, forty minutes, I'd like to take twenty more (Laughs), but it's very faithful.

What is the scientific basis for 21 Grams?

Iñárritu: I read a novel ten years ago, a French novel that I cannot remember the name and everybody asks this question and I am ashamed I cannot remember. I want to give credit to this author. I don't even remember the name of the novel, but I had also read an article in this magazine discussing it some years later. I was really stunned by it because it was like the metaphor in the novel. Some scientists have discussed that thing, maybe it's 24, or maybe it's water. I had read that scientifically, we lose an amount, a weight very close to 21 grams when we die, anyone, big guys, small guys. Anyone can interpret this meaning. It's just the weight of the ones who leave us, our relatives or our families. They don't go. They stay here and that I feel is the amount of weight that stays with us. It stays here and that's a lot, 21 grams inside weighs a lot. For me it's like breathing, that inhale exhale we are doing represents life. When I have some meditation with this one guy he told me that. You have to concentrate with that. It's precisely life. If you don't get it, the breathing, that's life, if you don't do it you die. That amount of weight in your lungs, that goes in and out, is 21 grams, just to breathe.

I have a question about religion in the movie. What role does it play?

Iñárritu: I think that the problem with guilt is in every religion, especially in the Catholic Church where I was raised, guilt is a universal thing. In my experience, they tell you that have to forgive people, but no one tells you how to forgive yourself; which is the most difficult thing. I was really inspired by an anecdote. A friend of mine, who is a psychoanalyst, told me of a woman that had an abortion and was feeling guilty. The mother and the priest, everybody, said it was the circumstance and blah blah blah. She was in such depression with herself. Finally my friend saw it for what it was and said to her that she killed her son, you're a murderer, you did it, as part of the therapy. She started to cry like crazy, but that's how she got cured. To accept it and confront it. It's not a magical thing but it is a long process. We cannot be addicted to religion, which is another kind of addiction. It's this kind of emotional religion attached to sensorial things. Drugs and alcohol block your emotions, stops it from hurting a lot. Religion is like this.

You have said that sound is more powerful than image, something I've never heard any filmmaker say. Do you spend more time working with the sound than the images?

Iñárritu: I spend a lot of time with sound. I love the clash of sounds. The clash of one sound to the other is as powerful or more powerful than an image. I love how environments sound to each other; it's a musical piece that takes you from one place to another. The ear is more powerful than the eye. I have an extraordinary ear, really. I have an amazing memory in my ears. I'm very bad with my eyes. I don't remember faces or things like that, but my ear can remember a tune I heard when I was four years old. I really have a sensitive ear and I've always loved that.

With your love for sound, how did you end up in film and not music?

Iñárritu: I don't know why. It's a fortunate destiny where I find myself not going into music. I scored for Mexican films, very bad ones. I loved what I was doing, some jingles. I had a band and played drums. I'm a pretty straight musician.

Are you a practicing Catholic?

Iñárritu: In a very particular, personal way. My religion is a social movement, what's the word, hmm, how would you say it...my ethics, my structure! I know how to drive my plane without that structure. I cannot work without that structure. I love to read Oriental philosophers. I really admire them.

Other filmmakers try to shy away from this subject.

Iñárritu: I think that life is a spiritual journey. I cannot conceive life as just biological, chemical coincidence of two little things that were in the water millions of years ago. We are here. I feel that. It's incredible, I don't know, there are some many things. This experience of living is not limited by my senses, my eyes, my ears. I feel there is something beyond that and that is what I believe. Just because I don't understand it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. So, I believe in interior journeys. That's why I love Jack's [Benicio Del Toro's character] journey. This film is about hope and how we can confront extraordinary losses. Whether we like it or not. Life is a chain of loss. We lose very day. That is the deal when we are born. We lose childhood innocence, our hair, our jobs, our beliefs, our hopes, our health, and then our lives. It's how we deal with that every day. How we can make or give meaning to our lives through hope. I am a true believer in that. We are survivors about that. This is why I work with these actors. Each one of them had this big strong interior life. You could see it inside. A good actor and a great actor have the same skills, but when I put a camera in front of them, you see that life, the traveling inside.

Your last film had some extreme imagery, as does this movie. Is their something about our lives now that led to this?

Iñárritu: I think we have grown up in a global consciousness where we can disappear in one moment or another. Now is real. We are living in a time, where the politicians that are managing the world are working hard to get everything close to disintegration. They are really working hard for this to happen. It seems so; they are working to make our lives science fiction on film. And we are not doing anything. That consciousness of the vulnerability we are living in everyday when I read the newspaper is really scary. I think we are having that feeling to be on the edge.

So you do feel the need to address it and confront it?

Iñárritu: Yes, I feel sometimes mad and frustrated and I don't know what to do. I feel like everyone wants to do something, but we don't know what. I have to do what I can do though my work. To do something not in a vulgar propagandistic way or to play rhetoric demagogic games. I watch and try to find meaning in the characters I express.

Mac u forgot one question..

QuoteAlejandro González Iñárritu, can you kick all of our asses?

Iñárritu: You betcha.

my shitty town, and shitty corporate movie theater will not get this.....i hope nobody breaks down my shitty walls

i'm waiting for the next great film, this could be it

Quote from: moonshinermy shitty town, and shitty corporate movie theater will not get this.....i hope nobody breaks down my shitty walls

i'm waiting for the next great film, this could be it

..i honesly believe it will ..as soon as i heard of the cast, director, writer, ..it just seems right....

Higher quality Quicktime Trailer:

Hi-Res (http://www.focusfeatures.com/clips/21_grams/trailer-480x270.mov)
Lo-Res (http://www.focusfeatures.com/clips/21_grams/trailer-320x180.mov)

Very nice. Like the music too.

You all should e-mail Godardian and ask him to come back here and talk about it, since he's already seen it.

I do miss Godardian.

~rougerum

21 Grams is so very powerful. That's all I'm gonna say about it. There might be a few problems, but the performances and the direction completely subsume them.

This item is going to explode when this movie is released.

Larger poster:

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hundland.com%2Fposters%2Ft%2F21Grams.jpg&hash=55b0c03d3c08a5efa6c2f662d3c514bc0a0459e3)

Too much explaining.

Poster notwithstanding, this will rock your world.

Yeah, and he's got a sweet ass name too (there's a thread for it if I remember correctly)

Are you somehow related to meatwad?

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmembers.fortunecity.com%2Fthemodernage%2F21penn.jpg&hash=804b8910dfa782a9e8858f169b94f149a1292d83)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmembers.fortunecity.com%2Fthemodernage%2F21watts.jpg&hash=52250c2ab04451d16707c03241ac1da926773f27)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmembers.fortunecity.com%2Fthemodernage%2F21benicio.jpg&hash=9c647da4119bfbd509bb372ebb5bc60a50ad07da)

I've seen it twice. I wrote a blurb about it at the link below and got some photos of director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu.

http://movienavigator.org/day13.htm

Quote from: mutinycoI've seen it twice. I wrote a blurb about it at the link below and got some photos of director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu.

http://movienavigator.org/day13.htm

I pretty much agree with what you say, if I interpret it correctly. There are some problems, but they are well overshadowed by the excellence of the performances and, I think, the setting of mood/atmosphere by the director. The problems I had are in the story overtwisting, but I always, always go by Andrew Sarris's "It's not what, it's how," and by that standard, I think the film is phenomenal.

For my NAOMI WATTS interview go to:

http://movienavigator.org/21grams.htm

astonishingly impressive movie.

Quote from: Slobh
Are you somehow related to meatwad?

Nope.

Quote from: cowboykurtisastonishingly impressive movie.

it kicked ur ass didn't it..

Quote from: meatball

Quote from: Slobh
Are you somehow related to meatwad?

Nope.

He's a fake.

Quote from: P

Quote from: cowboykurtisastonishingly impressive movie.

it kicked ur ass didn't it..

yea, i really loved this movie -- something about the tone, the atmosphere -- there were techtures and colors that you could almost smell. there were no "fabricated elements" to the proudction -- almost to the point of verite.
so powerful. i think naomi watts has a chance to win the oscar. i am being far from articulate, i think it still has to wash over me for a while -- would love to see it again.

Quote from: cowboykurtis

Quote from: P

Quote from: cowboykurtisastonishingly impressive movie.

it kicked ur ass didn't it..

yea, i really loved this movie -- something about the tone, the atmosphere -- there were techtures and colors that you could almost smell. there were no "fabricated elements" to the proudction -- almost to the point of verite.
so powerful. i think naomi watts has a chance to win the oscar. i am being far from articulate, i think it still has to wash over me for a while -- would love to see it again.

I think Watts was robbed of all the awards she deserved for Mulholland Dr., which I still think is the best performance of the new millennium.  She is pretty well-honored by the people who know what they're talking about, but it would be nice for the Institutions to acknowledge her excellence, too. She's quickly turning into a Julianne-caliber actor.

Her performance in this movie will destroy you.

i am so unbelievably excited about this movie, and if nothing goes wrong ill be seeing it tomorrow. i cant wait.

Quote from: godardian
I think Watts was robbed of all the awards she deserved for Mulholland Dr., which I still think is the best performance of the new millennium.  She is pretty well-honored by the people who know what they're talking about, but it would be nice for the Institutions to acknowledge her excellence, too. She's quickly turning into a Julianne-caliber actor.

Her performance in this movie will destroy you.

Agree 100% with you, it hugely surprised how her performance in M.Dr. was overlooked by the academy; I went to look up if she received any recognition by other awards and was pleasantly surprised that she indeed received some (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0166924/awards).

Now that I saw this, it pissed me off that Ron H. got it that year,   :yabbse-angry: .

As for 21 grams, it was a really great film, the puzzle like editing was great, I wonder had it been edited in a linear way would work as good as it did, I had some problems with the cinematography, although I have a feeling that the theater screwed up the projection of the film.

i had such a wonderful night last night. Okay, so went to go see party monster at my local madstone, when i asked for the tickets he told me the show was cancelled, but he said he would get me some comp. tickets for anyother show whenever, okay, okay, so then i was just hanging out when i found out party monster was cancelled for a  press showing of 21 grams. After telling the guy how stoked i was about this movie he then got me and my lady tickets to see that as well. all for free. So, and now.

21 grams was, by far, the best movie of the year. Words can't even explain this movie. please go see it. It will change you.
 thanks for reading.

Quote from: stalllovei had such a wonderful night last night. Okay, so went to go see party monster at my local madstone, when i asked for the tickets he told me the show was cancelled, but he said he would get me some comp. tickets for anyother show whenever, okay, okay, so then i was just hanging out when i found out party monster was cancelled for a  press showing of 21 grams. After telling the guy how stoked i was about this movie he then got me and my lady tickets to see that as well. all for free. So, and now.

21 grams was, by far, the best movie of the year. Words can't even explain this movie. please go see it. It will change you.
 thanks for reading.

Seeing 21 Grams instead of Party Monster?

You were rescued from movie hell and swooped up into movie heaven, my friend. Party Monster is awful, just awful.

i know, i didn't really want to see it. But i thought i would give it a try. No matter. I saw 21 grams. the best.

Quote from: stalllovei know, i didn't really want to see it. But i thought i would give it a try. No matter. I saw 21 grams. the best.

It really is possible that this will be the best movie of the year, unless something equally great or better (that'll be very difficult) comes along.

do you really think anything better will come out this year? really? because i doubt it. this movie is very, very, very good.

Quote from: stalllovedo you really think anything better will come out this year? really? because i doubt it. this movie is very, very, very good.

No, but it's a possibility. This one definitely seems a shoo-in for tops of the year at this point, though. It's still early in "quality" season, though; it might have some competition. More great films wouldn't diminish this one so much as it would just be a bounty for us movie-lovers.

your right.
god, i just can't get this movie out of my head. it was amazing, huh?

Quote from: godardianI think Watts was robbed of all the awards she deserved for Mulholland Dr., which I still think is the best performance of the new millennium.

I've been saying the same thing since 2001.

Björk's performance in Dancer in the Dark comes close.

agreed that her performance was overlooked in mulholland -- howevedr, i think this performance is greater. much more depth ( i hate that term, but its true). she did kill me, she will break the hearts of those whose are already broken.

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman

Quote from: godardianI think Watts was robbed of all the awards she deserved for Mulholland Dr., which I still think is the best performance of the new millennium.

I've been saying the same thing since 2001.

Björk's performance in Dancer in the Dark comes close.

Yeah, that was pretty amazing, as well...

As far as "depth" goes... I can see where maybe there is more forcefulness required of the character in 21 Grams, but to ace the emotional scales across two different (?) characters in Mulholland Dr. and just make every little gesture so perfect... the kind of understanding and craft she demonstrated there indicated the kind of intelligence and heart that's beyond most people, let alone actors.

Quote from: godardian

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman

Quote from: godardianI think Watts was robbed of all the awards she deserved for Mulholland Dr., which I still think is the best performance of the new millennium.

I've been saying the same thing since 2001.

Björk's performance in Dancer in the Dark comes close.

Yeah, that was pretty amazing, as well...

As far as "depth" goes... I can see where maybe there is more forcefulness required of the character in 21 Grams, but to ace the emotional scales across two different (?) characters in Mulholland Dr. and just make every little gesture so perfect... the kind of understanding and craft she demonstrated there indicated the kind of intelligence and heart that's beyond most people, let alone actors.

i remembering hearing that Lynch did not release the whole script for mulholland to the actors. they went moment by moment. if this is the case, the ranges in her perfomance should be more credited to Lynch's direction. If she did not know the final outcome of the film, the "insight" into the dual performance would be non-existant. I remember reading an interview with therauoux commenting on how he had no idea where the film was going, they'd take it occurance by occurance. im not sure that he used the same approach with naomi. also taking into considering that much of the film was shot for the pilot, with out the intention of have the current ending. it was only when he knew it was becoming a feature that he conjoured up the ending in order to "make it work".

Quote from: cowboykurtis

Quote from: godardian

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman

Quote from: godardianI think Watts was robbed of all the awards she deserved for Mulholland Dr., which I still think is the best performance of the new millennium.

I've been saying the same thing since 2001.

Björk's performance in Dancer in the Dark comes close.

Yeah, that was pretty amazing, as well...

As far as "depth" goes... I can see where maybe there is more forcefulness required of the character in 21 Grams, but to ace the emotional scales across two different (?) characters in Mulholland Dr. and just make every little gesture so perfect... the kind of understanding and craft she demonstrated there indicated the kind of intelligence and heart that's beyond most people, let alone actors.

i remembering hearing that Lynch did not release the whole script for mulholland to the actors. they went moment by moment. if this is the case, the ranges in her perfomance should be more credited to Lynch's direction. If she did not know the final outcome of the film, the "insight" into the dual performance would be non-existant. I remember reading an interview with therauoux commenting on how he had no idea where the film was going, they'd take it occurance by occurance. im not sure that he used the same approach with naomi. also taking into considering that much of the film was shot for the pilot, with out the intention of have the current ending. it was only when he knew it was becoming a feature that he conjoured up the ending in order to "make it work".

You're partly right, but I know they didn't go "moment by moment." They had a significant chunk at first (for the pilot), and then when he regrouped them, they got another chunk. At some point, connections were being made and she shaped a performance.

I don't claim Lynch doesn't deserve some of the credit, but it'll take a helluva lot of convincing to make me think that Watts wasn't amazingly, extraordinarily intuitive in her Mulholland role. Which isn't to diminish her great work in 21 Grams; this is definitely her best role since Mulholland, and I'm speaking as someone who actually bought a ticket for Le Divorce. Yes, I went just for her, and yes, it pretty well sucked.

Quote from: godardian

Quote from: cowboykurtis

Quote from: godardian

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman

Quote from: godardianI think Watts was robbed of all the awards she deserved for Mulholland Dr., which I still think is the best performance of the new millennium.

I've been saying the same thing since 2001.

Björk's performance in Dancer in the Dark comes close.

Yeah, that was pretty amazing, as well...

As far as "depth" goes... I can see where maybe there is more forcefulness required of the character in 21 Grams, but to ace the emotional scales across two different (?) characters in Mulholland Dr. and just make every little gesture so perfect... the kind of understanding and craft she demonstrated there indicated the kind of intelligence and heart that's beyond most people, let alone actors.

i remembering hearing that Lynch did not release the whole script for mulholland to the actors. they went moment by moment. if this is the case, the ranges in her perfomance should be more credited to Lynch's direction. If she did not know the final outcome of the film, the "insight" into the dual performance would be non-existant. I remember reading an interview with therauoux commenting on how he had no idea where the film was going, they'd take it occurance by occurance. im not sure that he used the same approach with naomi. also taking into considering that much of the film was shot for the pilot, with out the intention of have the current ending. it was only when he knew it was becoming a feature that he conjoured up the ending in order to "make it work".

You're partly right!

I agree with a part of that.

..this is limited release right now..right???..(ny/la)

gotta wait till it hits more theatres...hopefully soon..

i like all the positive feedback..i had a feeling about this one.... 8)

it opened in 4 theatres today in the dc/maryland/va area and i went to see it tonite.  i was looking immensely forward to it as i loved amores perros, and from the plot/cast of this one it had been one of my 10 most anticipated movies of the year.  although like lost in translation, a bit of a dark horse, since there was very little about the movie released until it came out.  it was really really sad/heartbreaking/emotionallydraining.  i thought that one of the themes of the movie was really, you know what weighs more: death, guilt, love?  as in, look how miserable everyone is, and who do YOU think has it the worst.  and i dont know that i could decide, because all three of them were in a situation that was not their fault. and there wasnt anything they could do about it, and it was terrible.  the movies narrative was like a puzzle with the pieces spilled all over the floor assembled in pretty much random order for most of the film.  what i kept asking myself during the movie was, does showing us this out of order actually do anything?  like, would this have been just as good or made any real difference in telling this story had it just been told in order?  and i am not sure of the answer.  my fear is that sine people seem to be running out of stories to tell, a quick and easy way to put a new spin on the storytelling is to mess up the order.  which i dont have a problem with, if it seems like it needs to be (memento, all tarantino, etc.)  but like i said, i'm still not clear on what telling it out of order acheived other than masking what would've been an otherwise straightforward story.  regardless, it didnt blow my mind ( like i hoped it might've), but was still easily one of my top 5 films of the year.  the acting was great all around.  naomi watts seemed especially torn apart, but really like i said, i dont think i could choose who had it worst.  they all were the victims of terrible terrible circumstance and this movie really bummed me out. :yabbse-thumbup:
do my reviews suck, or what?

Very good review, man.

I'm really looking forward to seeing this movie at my local Nuart.

I just got back from seeing it, and am still mulling over it. I think it is simultaneously brilliant and semi-successful. Godardian makes a good point when he quotes Sarris about the what and the how, and the 'how' is what I would call brilliant, but like themodernage, I wonder if that brilliance hurts the 'what.' I loved assembling the pieces as the story proceeded, and the way they come together is just amazing and graceful....my supreme kudos to the editor. But there is that problem that the emotional impact is somewhat shattered. The story is depressing, but all of the unhapiness is predetermined, and we're privvy to most of it before it happens. This prolongs the pain, but also dulls it. In the end, I felt sad for the characters, but I wasn't depressed, nor was I terribly moved. I'm wondering now, what should have been more valuable to this film -- the drama or the filmmaking itself?

Whatever the case, the performances are...well, everyone's already said what needs to be said -- no disagreements there. And Rodrigo Prieto is quickly becoming my favorite DP. There's that shot during the sex scene of Naomi Watt's torso arching into the sunlight that is just amazing.

I didn't know beforehand that Danny Huston was in the film; the size of his role wasn't a problem, but seeing him onscreen did make me long for another great performance from him (anyone see ivansxtc?).

Despite by misgivings, I too would call this one of the best of the year. The amount of time that I'm spending (and will spend) thinking about it is justification alone.

Well... I have to watch this again, and see what I think.

But my first impression is... Great acting. Ineffective editing.

I keep wondering how this movie would play if all the events were linear. The editing as it is now kept me thinking and on my toes.. but since it jumped from the end to the middle to the end to the beginning to the middle to the end... some of the emotional scenes... felt less powerful then they could have been.

Maybe it was just me. I heard plenty of sniffles around me. Yet, it wasn't really jerking any tears out of me. I felt for them, but by the end.. I felt detached... like I was judging them all for their sins and pitying them for their troubles. And... I didn't really want to feel that way.

spoiler

I didn't like that shot in the end with naomi watts happily holding her belly, it stuck out and kinda left a sour taste, and the dave matthews thing didn't help.
I liked everything else about it.  well, I thought sometimes the editing was too obvious in trying to mislead the viewer (the first three shots fired was obvious to me that he didn't shoot benecio), but that was about it.
oh and the dave matthews song in the end.

but liked everything else.

Quote from: Ghostboy
Whatever the case, the performances are...well, everyone's already said what needs to be said -- no disagreements there. And Rodrigo Prieto is quickly becoming my favorite DP. There's that shot during the sex scene of Naomi Watt's torso arching into the sunlight that is just amazing.

mine too.

This may or may not have already been posted, but I'm too lazy to go through this whole thread... does anyone know the name of the track (instrumental) that plays throughout the film at various points, and in the trailer for 21 grams? I absolutely love it, and it reminds me a lot of Cliff Martinez, though I know it's not him.

Thanks in advance.

Quote from: billybrownThis may or may not have already been posted, but I'm too lazy to go through this whole thread... does anyone know the name of the track (instrumental) that plays throughout the film at various points, and in the trailer for 21 grams? I absolutely love it, and it reminds me a lot of Cliff Martinez, though I know it's not him.

Thanks in advance.

is it the Kronos>>>>>........????????

spoiler

i didnt like the way it was edited (non linear) it just gave everything away

..well..after 7 months later i finally saw this and it was good......

it's REALLY PHUCKING GOOD.....


AND billybrown...that song(the instrumental)...i don't know the name of it but if you do a web search it is the first song on the soundtrack.....

Quote from: NEON MERCURY..well..after 7 months later i finally saw this and it was good......

it's REALLY PHUCKING GOOD.....


AND billybrown...that song(the instrumental)...i don't know the name of it but if you do a web search it is the first song on the soundtrack.....

I think it's called 'Do We Lose 21 Grams?' I'm gonna try and sample the soundtrack soon enough.

And, yes, it is a really phucking good movie. It's a great film in terms of inspiring the creative juices for any aspiring artists out there, such as myself.  I love films that have qualities like that. So much energy and emotion. Great stuff. It's a toss up for me between this movie and Lost In Translation as my fave of the year. Elephant runs a modest third.

I've heard a few people mention how they're not sure if the fractured, back and forth structure actually did anything for the film, and my only real comments to that are that there are many different ways to tell a story. More often than that, linear is the accepted method, so why not do it the opposite way, even if it just may be for the sake of breaking the same old mold. I don't really feel the film lost any of it's emotional resonance in this non-linear fashion as it kept the energy level up and was just a great way to introduce characters/situations and work your way around to how things got to where they were. It's kind of mysterious and disorienting at first, and I enjoy that in films. From a character POV, all the majors in the theme of the film, never really get the grand epiphany or moment of sheer emotional release or catharsis during the film, and this fractured narrative I feel taps into their psyches far better than just a straightforward story, with a beginning to end, told chronologically.

Definitely an immediate DVD purchase when it comes out.

Quote from: billybrown
I've heard a few people mention how they're not sure if the fractured, back and forth structure actually did anything for the film, and my only real comments to that are that there are many different ways to tell a story. More often than that, linear is the accepted method, so why not do it the opposite way, even if it just may be for the sake of breaking the same old mold. I don't really feel the film lost any of it's emotional resonance in this non-linear fashion as it kept the energy level up and was just a great way to introduce characters/situations and work your way around to how things got to where they were. It's kind of mysterious and disorienting at first, and I enjoy that in films. From a character POV, all the majors in the theme of the film, never really get the grand epiphany or moment of sheer emotional release or catharsis during the film, and this fractured narrative I feel taps into their psyches far better than just a straightforward story, with a beginning to end, told chronologically.

Definitely an immediate DVD purchase when it comes out.

.....i agree.....perfect post.

another thing about AIG's films.....they both are harsh, agressive, fast, etc..but he unnnderlines the ffilm with grace and beauty....its cool sh*t......

Quote from: NEON MERCURYanother thing about AIG's films.....they both are harsh, agressive, fast, etc..but he unnnderlines the ffilm with grace and beauty....its cool sh*t......

I echo those sentiments exactly.  21 Grams and Amores Perros have a great great energy and vitality to them, yet they are grounded by a soulful grace and delicate, assured hand. BTW,  thanks for the song info Neon.  Cheers. :)

Absolutely MUST Go see This. Even if it doesnt live up to my expectations it should still be Great!

On the whole, I loved the film. The performances were all fucking incredable. The cineamtography was perfect, just perfect. The story itsself was nearly flawless. Simple but spot on dialogue, great, great music...

But I'm one of those people who just isn't sure the structure was helpfull in any way. I think Amorres Perros' structure worked perfectly, because we got to know each character one at a time, which allowed each story to break our hearts. I think they would've been better served sticking to a simmilar structure with this film. I can't even say it feels gimmicky because I'm just not sure what the radical non-linear thing was about. It seems almost like watching a dvd with the chapters set on random mode.

Some of it was for suprise, and set up & pay off which is fine. I think they could have been more linear without being completely linear.

This is my only compliant but it's a semi big one.

ooooooooooooooooooh man.

i hate how i'm always the last one to see everything, but this one was tooooo much.

if i were to make a top ten, it would be on it, high-like.

Finally saw this, I have to say, this is one intense movie. Physically and emotionally draining. I pretty much agree with all the praise everyone's given it... I specially felt for Penn's character.

At first I was a bit annoyed at the editing, but I got into about 30 min into the movie, and really enjoyed how they tied it all together.

I was pretty annoyed at both Jack and Pauls' wives... biatches!

Quote from: ProgWRX

I was pretty annoyed at both Jack and Pauls' wives... biatches!

All the boys on this board always seem so annoyed with women going through rough times who behave a little unsympathetically... even Roller Girl is made out to be some kind of monstrous entity, which is NUTS!

Clearly, these (21 Grams) women had every reason in the world to do the things they did, whether they were right or wrong (and in this movie, everyone, but everyone, is a little bit of both). That hardly qualifies them as bitches... hmmmph.

I agree that it was a great movie, though.

Actually, Jack's wife was one of my favorite characters. Charlotte Gainsbourg gave a very nuanced performance there that's been completely overlooked (understandably, considering the rest of the performances). I didn't even realize it was her at first.

i was being a bit exagerated of course, but i just found them to be grating. I guess I put myself too much in the place of Jack and Paul. I guess I feel too strongly about the decision of having or not having a child, and i believe that it has to be something that BOTH parents have to agree upon, and the whole thing with her having the abortion when they were separated and now wanting the child so badly just seemed incredibly selfish and it just rubbed me the wrong way.

I've been torturing myself the last few hours, after seeing this, wondering if it's better than City of God. I think it is.

It was emotional, but not swelling conflict/resolution emotional. It was numbing.

I liked how it was constructed like painful memories, shattered and broken, unwilling to resolve.

I see now what you're saying about Watts' performance, Godardian... She will win things for this, and it was great, but Mulholland Drive was better.

FINALLY got to see this movie.

Most has, of course, been discussed.

As far as the question of City of God VS. 21 Grams... I think that for the first viewing, 21 Grams is better because of the maze you get to experience, but City of God will probably hold up just a little better for additional viewings.

I still think Alejandro González Iñárritu gets the gold for best new director though, I'm really looking forward to his future efforts.

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman
I see now what you're saying about Watts' performance, Godardian... She will win things for this, and it was great, but Mulholland Drive was better.

SPOILERS:



I disagree, only for one part of Watts' performance: when the doctor comes in and tells her that her whole family is dead...she makes this face, of horror, confusion, anger, disgust, repulsion, and I honestly nearly threw up when she did because I found it difficult to watch her become so distraught and destroyed by the news from the doctor. I think I instantly started crying, I don't think that's ever happened.

But yeah, finally saw this movie, didn't see it coming, the nonlinear structure, everything was so good. Reminded me of Traffic mixed with Atom Egoyan.

As far as the basic interactions in the movie, how Penn is saved by del Toro's actions and Watts' loss, how he benefits from someone else's misfortune in an unintentional way...did this remind anyone of another film? I keep getting the impression that another movie had a similar path characters moved through, but of course it must've been completely different than 21 grams.

BIG SWEATY SPOILERS

Quote from: Gamblor du JourI disagree, only for one part of Watts' performance: when the doctor comes in and tells her that her whole family is dead...she makes this face, of horror, confusion, anger, disgust, repulsion, and I honestly nearly threw up when she did because I found it difficult to watch her become so distraught and destroyed by the news from the doctor. I think I instantly started crying, I don't think that's ever happened.

That was a really really great scene, and I can't remember a better death reaction scene. I didn't cry at all during the movie, only because it was so emotionally numbing and I was in awe of how great the whole thing was. Just like Magnolia.. I've never cried during that. It's deeper somehow.

But I'm just saying her Mulholland Drive performance is too thoroughly classic to be surpassed by this one.

Quote from: Gamblor du Jourhow he benefits from someone else's misfortune in an unintentional way...did this remind anyone of another film? I keep getting the impression that another movie had a similar path characters moved through, but of course it must've been completely different than 21 grams.

The only thing I can think of is Live Flesh, but that's completely different. I just get the same feeling.

Quote from: godardianClearly, these (21 Grams) women had every reason in the world to do the things they did, whether they were right or wrong (and in this movie, everyone, but everyone, is a little bit of both). That hardly qualifies them as bitches... hmmmph.

SPOILERS

Absolutley.  Mary has come back to Paul (after his many affairs) to reconcile their differences and take care of him while he's sick.  Marianne sticks with Jack through his troubles with the law and tries to keep the family together.  

These are the sympathetic characters in the movie, and I think Iñárritu would agree with me on this.

Yes, but as i mentioned before, personally i found the way Mary acted towards their offspring/possible offspring was extremely selfish and competely prevented me from being sympathetic to her... Marianne was a different story though, in retrospect, i've changed my opinion toward her character..  not mary's though.

*spoilers*

I just saw it, I liked everything about it. I didn't like it more then Amores Perros, but still, it kept me interested and was solid throughout. Really, I only have one complaint. Or two, although the second complaint is related to the first complaint.

For one, I have no problem with non-linear storytelling, I thought it worked brilliantly in Amores Perros. But in this one, it seemed like Inarritu was just doing it for the sake of doing it. It was like he didn't have enough confidence in the story to tell it in sequence, so he told it out of sequence to distract people from it. Although I'm sure this wasn't the case, because it's a great story and he doesn't have anything to hide. It just seems pointless when the audience is doing all the work for you, when they don't particularly need to do any work. It's about as pointless as telling Taxi Driver (for instance) out of sequence.

I also think it hurt the story a lot more than it helped it. I pretty much knew the whole story after about an hour and fifteen minutes. Story-wise, the only reason to watch the extra 45 minutes was just to see how each of the incidents, that you already know are going to happen, actually play out - and to find out Naomi Watts' character is pregnant.

And okay... Maybe it's just me, maybe I come from the small group of people who think films are meant to be enjoyable, like most artforms in the world. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a total "feel good movie of the year" kind of guy. I believe most movies need a little sadness to connect some kind of emotion to the viewer. But jesus christ, I just don't see how someone can make a movie so depressing. It just makes the whole thing extremely unenjoyable. I mean I realize not all movies have to be completely happy. I can name a million great movies that have sad endings or depressing plots. One movie this year in which I loved was Mystic River, which, I know, wasn't a very happy movie either. But I found Mystic River to be a lot more enjoyable, because with movies like Mystic River, there's at least a chance that every thing's going to turn out okay, there's hope. I don't know if that's just because they are linear, but if you look at 21 Grams, it begins with scenes that aren't particularly heart-warming, and then within the first ten minutes it shows you parts of the end of the movie - which are also pretty fucking depressing, and then it asks you to enjoy the movie. But you can't, because you know everything you watch is just going to turn out for the worse. Me and a friend went into it cracking jokes and having fun, we walked out more depressed than we could ever imagine. I'm sorry, I just don't see the point of making a movie that just depresses most of the people who see it. No matter how nicely the movie is directed, no matter how great the actors are, no matter how great the writing is - creating 2 hours of solid depression just seems pointless.

Good movie, though.

thedog ..i see your point but i lok at it like this ....

yeah it was depressing buy so was requiem.......its just "how" it s done is what make it ennjoyable........i can watch requiem a billion just for it s sheer brilliance in cinematography....and score ..and burnstein's acting .....

as wi th 21 grams i can watch it and "ennnjoy" if for the score/music ...and the acting is as solid as anthing i/we have ever seen......also other factors come to minnd.....


but kids which is depressing is comeplete garbage and has no redeeming qualities to it .unnless you want to show it to aspiring directors on how not to make a film......

Oh yeah, it's definitely one of the best movies I've seen in a while. But I think my biggest problem with it is the non-linear storytelling. I just think it really holds back the impact of the story and ruins any chance of hope. But that's it, really.

Quote from: ProgWRXYes, but as i mentioned before, personally i found the way Mary acted towards their offspring/possible offspring was extremely selfish and competely prevented me from being sympathetic to her... Marianne was a different story though, in retrospect, i've changed my opinion toward her character..  not mary's though.

It always kind of scares me when people moralize like this about characters in movie, especially movies like 21 Grams, where they're trying to get these people to behave like "real" people. Is this how you judge people in real life? Imagine how dicked around Mary felt by her husband... imagine the prospect of raising a child without the father, without that support. This burden of proof for this kind of judgmental approach lies solely with the viewer being judgmental, not with the characters in the film or the way they're depicted, even, unless the film or performance is a really bad one. Most good films aren't little moral popularity contests between the characters, "Oh, I like him- oh, I don't like him, like her, don't like her." That just seems silly to me. Even Jimmy Gator, despite his wrongdoing finally being irredeemable, was not made out to be some MONSTER, but rather proof that even "likeable" people can do monstrous, unforgivable things.

Quote from: thedog
Maybe it's just me, maybe I come from the small group of people who think films are meant to be enjoyable, like most artforms in the world. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a total "feel good movie of the year" kind of guy. I believe most movies need a little sadness to connect some kind of emotion to the viewer. But jesus christ, I just don't see how someone can make a movie so depressing. It just makes the whole thing extremely unenjoyable. I mean I realize not all movies have to be completely happy. I can name a million great movies that have sad endings or depressing plots. One movie this year in which I loved was Mystic River, which, I know, wasn't a very happy movie either. But I found Mystic River to be a lot more enjoyable, because with movies like Mystic River, there's at least a chance that every thing's going to turn out okay, there's hope.

Ugh, I couldn't disagree more with this kind of approach to movies or art. See Ms. Watts's inarguable quote below for my feeling on this. And I absolutely don't think Mystic River lives up; it's very much like In the Bedroom, something nice and not bad but much, much, much safer and more ordinary than anyone's making it out to be. 21 Grams is something vastly more beautiful and resonant than Mystic River is.

I honestly didn't even think for a moment about the "non-linear" thing vs. the "linear" thing when I was watching the film. I don't think it makes much difference either way, except for adding a certain amount of tension (not with the "what" but with the "how"). This Rubiks-cube way of looking at and interpreting movies- as if they're all occurrence-based plot-puzzles to figure out- is extremely limited and inapplicable to many of the greatest films, 21 Grams included. It doesn't take into account the emotional tension and impact a film can have, even with a "predictable" "story" (quotation marks around both of those intentional).

Ultimately, I thought the nonlinear structure was the one bruse in an otherwise amazing film. Obviously not because it was too difficult. I agree whole heartedly with Miss Watts' statement regarding that. For me it hurt the character development and my connection with each character. That's all.

For the record, I sympathized with each and every one of the main characters in this film. Boys AND girls.

QuotePeople say, '21 Grams is such a difficult film.' To me, difficult is watching a bad film. That's depressing.

Well to me, that's only difficult, there's nothing depressing about that. At least I can laugh at how bad Die Another Day was. Depressing is watching a movie so real and so heartbreaking that it will make you unhappy. It's not really a bad thing, I imagine it would be hard to make a movie so strong it will actually make people depressed after they see it. But there was nothing difficult about 21 Grams, there was never a point where I wanted to walk out. It was just... depressing.

QuoteUgh, I couldn't disagree more with this kind of approach to movies or art.

Sorry I didn't mean to offend anyone. Maybe it's a personal taste thing. I guess sometimes watching a well made movie can affect the way I feel for the time being. If that's a bad approach towards movies and art then I'm guilty as charged. In a case like 21 Grams, it made me depressed. I don't remember any movie ever making me depressed. And because of that, it made it difficult for me to actually enjoy it. Personally I just can't imagine making a movie so grim in tone that it will make some people depressed. But maybe that's why I'm not making movies...

Good movie, though.

did you not see the word personally on my post ? When did I try to moralize "like that" ?  I simply stated that it was difficult for me personally to connect with her character, because of personal beliefs.  

Quote
It always kind of scares me when people moralize like this about characters in movie, especially movies like 21 Grams, where they're trying to get these people to behave like "real" people.

when the movie is obviously done in a way to present real characters with flaws, (like 21 grams) there is always going to be some characters that connect with some people, while others simply wont.  this is obviously not like a crappy rom-com with characters designed to delight everyone in their target audience, hence why people will judge the characters like people judge others in real life. It happens. People ARE judgemental of others, some act accordingly, others can look past it and dont.

Hypothetically, instead of Mary, my post could had been aimed at Jack Jordan's character, saying that i could not muster any sympathy for him because i felt he was blinded by religion and i have trouble tolerating  religious fanatics. Would that make any difference? No, i would just be stating a personal reason why a character could not connect with me.

Quote from: thedogI found Mystic River to be a lot more enjoyable, because with movies like Mystic River, there's at least a chance that every thing's going to turn out okay, there's hope.

Quote from: godardianUgh, I couldn't disagree more with this kind of approach to movies or art.

Me too.

The world is full of sad endings, and if you don't tell the truth, you become obsolete and meaningless.

I don't think art should compromise, especially not for the comfort of the viewer.

Quote from: ProgWRXdid you not see the word personally on my post ? When did I try to moralize "like that" ?  I simply stated that it was difficult for me personally to connect with her character, because of personal beliefs.  

Quote
It always kind of scares me when people moralize like this about characters in movie, especially movies like 21 Grams, where they're trying to get these people to behave like "real" people.

when the movie is obviously done in a way to present real characters with flaws, (like 21 grams) there is always going to be some characters that connect with some people, while others simply wont.  this is obviously not like a crappy rom-com with characters designed to delight everyone in their target audience, hence why people will judge the characters like people judge others in real life. It happens. People ARE judgemental of others, some act accordingly, others can look past it and dont.

Hypothetically, instead of Mary, my post could had been aimed at Jack Jordan's character, saying that i could not muster any sympathy for him because i felt he was blinded by religion and i have trouble tolerating  religious fanatics. Would that make any difference? No, i would just be stating a personal reason why a character could not connect with me.

But you said you "didn't like" Mary. I would never live like Jack and I do find his kind of zealotry to be frightening and potentially destructive (hitting that little boy, man... come on), yet I still "liked" him, wanted him to come out okay in the end, and believed he was trying to do what was best, in the best way he knew how. Just like Mary. Of course people are judgmental, but this categorical dismissal just bugs me. It doesn't seem at all in keeping with the spirit of the film. It's kind of a double standard, really, in my view, to single out one bit of selfishness or ill-advised action on the part of one character, when every character in the film is cut from that same (human) cloth.

I wasn't offended by anyone saying they think art/movies shouldn't be "depressing." I was just saying that I couldn't ever see it that way, and that it's about 180 degrees from the way I do see it. Do want it to be a disagreement, don't want it to be an unfriendly disagreement.

I like the recurring "Good movie, though." It's like the "Not that there's anything wrong with that" on Seinfeld.  :)

after watching this movie, i wanted to give naomi watts a hug. i get too involved in these types of movies. people wonder why movie stars are so revered in our society. my obsession with actors comes from a good performance that makes me want to sit down not with the actor but the character and say, "you okay, buddy? you want a soooooda?"

dard, you said something about mystic river before, i'd like to know what you thought about it.

Well maybe i didnt express myself correctly from the get go. I could certainly feel for her character in the way she chose to stick to Paul during his sickness, which has to take incredible strength, but lets say that the issue i had with her "selfishness" prevented me to move that important notch from simple pity, to empathy.

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman

Quote from: thedogI found Mystic River to be a lot more enjoyable, because with movies like Mystic River, there's at least a chance that every thing's going to turn out okay, there's hope.

Quote from: godardianUgh, I couldn't disagree more with this kind of approach to movies or art.

Me too.

The world is full of sad endings, and if you don't tell the truth, you become obsolete and meaningless.

I don't think art should compromise, especially not for the comfort of the viewer.

It sounds like you guys didn't exactly understand what I said.

*mystic river spoilers*

The reason I made the comparison to Mystic River, along with it being fresh in everyone's minds, is because you don't know how it's going to end, because it's told in sequence. It's definitely a sad movie, no doubt. There's nothing very happy about the movie. But the reason it's easier for me to enjoy is because while I'm watching the movie, even though in the back of my mind I know it will probably have a sad ending, there's still that small chance that the end will actually be happy, that they'll find out who the real killer is before Sean Penn gets the chance to blow Tim Robbins' brains out. Of course, this wouldn't necessarily be a good ending, it just makes the experience easier and more enjoyable to watch.

But what if Mystic River decided to take the non-linear structure, and within the first ten minutes or so they showed Sean Penn killing Tim Robbins? The movie would be depressing, because I know for a fact that everything is going to turn out for the worse even before I understand exactly what's going on in the story.

*end spoilers*

I do agree that sad endings are a part of life and no life is perfect. Everyone dies. But lets say you found out that you were going to be run over by a truck in one week, every moment leading up to that sad ending of your life would be extremely depressing. Because it isn't natural to know how things are going to turn out, if everyone knew how their lives were going to turn out, everyone would be depressed. That's what 21 Grams was kind of like for me. Before I got a chance to say "I hope everything turns out okay", it showed me that it isn't going to turn out okay, and that was in the first ten minutes or so.

Don't get me wrong, it's not bad. Actually it's kind of clever. But it definitely makes a sad story even sadder.

It's not like they give you the exact ending...

in fact, it reveals more and more to make you feel like you don't really know how it's going to end... besides, the end of 21 Grams was happy and wasn't shown anywhere BUT the end.

I finally saw this movie.  It was exactly what I expected it to be and nothing more.  I think I may have read too much about this movie, so it lost a little bit of its edge on me.  But I still found it engrossing and powerfully acted.  Benicio del Toro is brilliant and I think he was the best in this movie.  Sean Penn and Naomi Watts were also really great, but I think it was Benicio that really took over.   Each of the characters were portrayed in such an indifferent light, which was refreshing.  The audience wasn't beat over the head with bad/good guy roles.  We were left with our own opinion on the characters and the decisions they had to live with.  I wish I didn't know so much about the film when I went in to see it, but I still found it deep and moving at times.

Spoilers possible.

Just saw this tonight, along with five other films in the past two days.  It's been a great weekend.

Quote from: themodernage02 and otherswhat i kept asking myself during the movie was, does showing us this out of order actually do anything? like, would this have been just as good or made any real difference in telling this story had it just been told in order? and i am not sure of the answer.

Same thing I was thinking.  And for me, this movie didn't work nearly as well as I was led to believe it was.  The first 30-40 minutes were really clunky, and it was all because of the director's insistence on telling a story in this non-linear fashion.  Soon enough though, I did get in a groove and was able to follow without thinking about it, but I felt the technique was more distracting than helpful.  I'd want to see a linear cut of this movie to measure it on its own.  Yeah, Naomi Watts was amazing.  The swimming scenes reminded me of Kieslowski's Blue, but I don't know if that's just a coincidence.  There's a lot that this movie could make you think about, but a lot more that makes you wonder if the actions of the characters are really believable.  Since we must suspend disbelief in a film, that really is a moot point, but if we've thought about it, it brings up a weakness in the film.  So I'm not sure what to make of that.  Needless to say, the ending was weird, bittersweet, and gave us a bit to think over, and I felt a bit cheated at the little surprise twist at how Penn's character got shot.

I really don't know how to "evaluate" this film.  It seems in some ways to belie that because it is so unique.  I admire it a lot, and finally felt some sort of smile of appreciation creep up on my face once Penn's and Watts' characters interacted more.  Don't know why that is.  But still, I feel a lot of people are overpraising this, just like they overpraised City of God.  Still, a good film.  ***½ (8/10)

Quote from: OnomatopoeiaBut still, I feel a lot of people are overpraising this, just like they overpraised City of God.

:(

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman1. 21 Grams
2. City of God

Heh, yeah.  The only reason I brought that up is I noticed the same people who seem to absolutely love this movie love City of God as well.  It's a funny parallel to draw, but somewhat true, because both films employ techniques that the people who love the film call "revolutionary" and "brilliant," while the detractors say that these elements hold the film back and mask a much simpler, less compelling story.

But don't get me wrong, this film works, and it does so because Naomi Watts and Sean Penn are astounding.  Del Toro makes you hate him good, so he should get props, too.  It really made me sick seeing his crazy interpretation of Christianity, as it probably should have.  And that was just one of the many compelling elements of the film.  My gripe, as I said before, is hard to put my finger on, but it does lie somewhere within the choice of technique.  And since I've read Inarritu's opinions on technique (forget where, I think it was in a local independent weekly newspaper), I can see where he's coming from and still disagree.  The phrase "eschew obfuscation" fits well here, I was thinking during the film.

Man, y'all have really got me questioning the necessity behind this film's structure. At first, I thought it was just as valid for it to be nonlinear rather than linear. I mean there is no actual reason driving the structure like a movie like Memento, that provided an extra insight into what Lenny's life was like, it was completely useful and well-used, I think. But now, the restructuring of 21 Grams seems almost unnecessary and pointless. But maybe that is the point, perhaps this is just an exercise for Inarritu, he's showing that nonlinearity can work just as well as linear storytelling.

I want to talk about comparisons to the benefits Resevoir Dogs gets from its structure, but I haven't fully thought about it yet.

Also, Ono, what are Inarritu's thoughts on technique?

Quote from: Gambloren das ManhörenMan, y'all have really got me questioning the necessity behind this film's structure . . . now, the restructuring of 21 Grams seems almost unnecessary and pointless.

I still think the structure is perfect...

Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanI liked how it was constructed like painful memories, shattered and broken, unwilling to resolve.

yes i finally saw this... and i loved it. everything has been said already
as for the structure i guess it had both its good and bad points. for me, structure wise it started working better toward the ending. but yes it does make the movie predictable, but i guess innaritu knew this wasnt really important.  i guess he wanted to show more how these were all merely incidents in the lives of these 3 people that had happend and no matter what happens or goes on first youll always reach the same dest. whats important was the specific incidents itself which happend to the characters . and although yes at times some (few) parts lose its power, i think its really meant to be a steady emotional build up to the end which is its emotional peak. its like he built it up till the very end so you can walk out of the theatre with that emotion made to last. such a powerful story , and still powerful storytelling.

....i have heard that the reasoning of the nonlinear structuring of the film ...was to keep it  like real life.....to explainnn....the writer who i think his last name is Arrigia....explained that when you overhear bits of connnveration(i.e. evesdroping)....you donnn't hear the "beginnning".but rather the middle then if you keep on listening to the connnversation you can pick up on past details and present...etc......this could paralell also when you youirself first enngage in connnversatioon with someone you meet.....ffor example-when you first meet someone you donn't ask....."when were you born and where"?.......most people  "small talk"....which openns doors for fleshing out deatails and sh*t .like that......so when you unnderstannnd that the Arrigia's method of the story was to envoke ...a "real life cinnematic connnvesation per se".......the structure is completely valid IMO.......
also as a bonus i had a "funn" time peicing the puzzle together......usually the nonlinear ennnvolves more of an participant of the filmgoer......which is cool....

understandably, but it felt like kind of a cheat since it was done for no discernable reason other than to 'quickly and easily' make a 'difficult art' film that engages the viewers.  i didnt see it as an aid to that particular story other than to mask an otherwise possibly melodramatic standard story of loss with that 'quick art' method.

Quote from: themodernage02understandably, but it felt like kind of a cheat since it was done for no discernable reason other than to 'quickly and easily' make a 'difficult art' film that engages the viewers.  i didnt see it as an aid to that particular story other than to mask an otherwise possibly melodramatic standard story of loss with that 'quick art' method.

...i see what you mean..
i guess its like how do you pronounce "caramel"
do say "care-ra-mail"
or.."car-ra-mail"

its just after knowing the writers intentions of going nnonlinnear....and unnderstanding its purpose....i'm satisfied....and i thought the he was right on about when people first meet ...you don't start from the begining....and when this method was applied to 21 grams... i thought IMO it was unique from the writer's persective.....to tell his story the way he did......

Neon, that really helps understand their reasoning for doing this, and I like it a lot more for it. But it is asking too much of an audience when this isn't an element of the story. Just in principle, but I still love this movie.

Just saw this on the weekend.

Overrated.


Lighting (w/ bleach bypass process) was great. But everybody and their dog wants to use the hand-held camera + quick cuts, and after a while it becomes apparent that a boring cliche is still a boring cliche even if it's shaky and cut fast.

That being said, when Innarutu (sp?) restrains himself, as he did with the WS of the leafblower guy during the car accident, wonderful things happen. Someday I hope he gets a great script that can be transcendent -- this one just didn't quite make it.

I did enjoy seeing naked NM, however. Funny, the people in the theatre were more comfortable during the gratuitous sex scene than they were during the mention of "Jesus" at the start...

I had to laugh at the looks of helpless confusion on most people's faces, as they struggled to deal with the nonlinear structure. Why does that throw so many for a loop? Oh well. Oh, that's another I liked about it, it did the flashback-flashforward stuff with a nice flair.

Quote from: SoNowThenJust saw this on the weekend.

Overrated.


Lighting (w/ bleach bypass process) was great. But everybody and their dog wants to use the hand-held camera + quick cuts, and after a while it becomes apparent that a boring cliche is still a boring cliche even if it's shaky and cut fast.

That being said, when Innarutu (sp?) restrains himself, as he did with the WS of the leafblower guy during the car accident, wonderful things happen. Someday I hope he gets a great script that can be transcendent -- this one just didn't quite make it.

I did enjoy seeing naked NM, however. Funny, the people in the theatre were more comfortable during the gratuitous sex scene than they were during the mention of "Jesus" at the start...

I had to laugh at the looks of helpless confusion on most people's faces, as they struggled to deal with the nonlinear structure. Why does that throw so many for a loop? Oh well. Oh, that's another I liked about it, it did the flashback-flashforward stuff with a nice flair.

That seems a fair assessment, though I disagree that it's overrated...
Coupla things, though: I didn't find the sex scene gratuitous at all, and I'm usually quite opposed to truly gratuitous sex scenes... I guess that's subjective.

Also, you didn't mention anything about the roundly outstanding performances or the emotional impact coming from the combination of them and the style, which I think worked like matches in a tinderbox. The style alone might've been cliched, as you said, but I thought it worked extroardinarily well with the acting/mood/pacing.

To me, the linear/non-linear thing is a fairly moot issue. Who knows, it might've worked just as well telling it in order. But since it works so damn well told this way, why worry about it?

I liked the non-linear style.

I however, found very little emotional impact.

And aside from the three leads, I thought a lot of the secondary performances showed that the director was not English-as-a-first-language, as they perhaps needed some fine-tuning to be less fake.

The drug dealer scene in the bathroom (especially that actress) was just outright bad.

Quote from: SoNowThenI liked the non-linear style.

I however, found very little emotional impact.

And aside from the three leads, I thought a lot of the secondary performances showed that the director was not English-as-a-first-language, as they perhaps needed some fine-tuning to be less fake.

The drug dealer scene in the bathroom (especially that actress) was just outright bad.

Wow... I clearly remember that scene, and it didn't seem bad at all. Seemed very much like two people who haven't seen each other in a while and have just the one thing in common trying to be friendly and casual with this underlying thing in the room. The other actor didn't have much to do, but she was fine, I thought. I never got the ESL feeling at all, not once in the movie.

And this is the first movie since Magnolia that got to me on such an intense emotional level. If you don't see or feel the emotion in it, though, then yeah- I can see where you'd find it overrated. I mean, I find the film to be infinitely more than any kind of technical exercise, though as I said, I have no problem with any of the style/technique, some of which is rather impressive. My only problem was the over-reliance on coincidence and aberrant occurrence in the story, which I felt was well overcome by the execution.

Quote from: SoNowThenJust saw this on the weekend.

Overrated.

But everybody and their dog wants to use the hand-held camera + quick cuts, and after a while it becomes apparent that a boring cliche is still a boring cliche even if it's shaky and cut fast.

...oh no!!..you donn't like this one either..... :wink:

ahh......but one thing though about the handheld ...in recent times NNO ONE CAN ROCK A HANDHELD LIKE RODRIGO PRIETO(sp).....Amores Perros justified that so......i'm cool with it in 21 grams...and for me if used correctly..the handheld  heightens the dialogue...and mood..of the film...and in 21 grams it worked.....IMO........

City Of God did it so well (and had a unique and interesting story to back it up). Other than that, I'm skeptical of this style.


Narc got over its cliche-ridden story by using some of the most hardcore hand-held I've seen in awhile. I kinda dug that.

All I'm saying about the hand-held is that it seemed to me like a very thin mask, overtop some plastic themes that were supposed to be important. I've read all the previous posts, and everyone seems to think it was such an emotional experience. I got none of that. The only thing that exhilerated me in this movie was the fact that they let the highlights blow out so much in their exposure.

Quote

...oh no!!..you donn't like this one either..... :wink:

ahh......but one thing though about the handheld ...in recent times NNO ONE CAN ROCK A HANDHELD LIKE RODRIGO PRIETO(sp).....Amores Perros justified that so......i'm cool with it in 21 grams...and for me if used correctly..the handheld  heightens the dialogue...and mood..of the film...and in 21 grams it worked.....IMO........

true, true, also the tv show 24 has some of the best hand-held ive seen as well!

Quote from: SoNowThen

All I'm saying about the hand-held is that it seemed to me like a very thin mask, overtop some plastic themes that were supposed to be important.

But aren't these the same kinds of "important" themes (mortality, family, human connection) that also permeate Magnolia? That's the exact same criticism I heard from people who hated Magnolia (for better reasons than "confusing" or "frogs" or "too depressing"): "It's Terms of Endearment with fancy camerawork and editing and a good dollop of pretension." All I'm saying is, I didn't find 21 Grams's THEMES to be any less "plastic" than those of Magnolia or any film that deals with these kinds of obviously very frequently recurring (in any fictional media) human stories. It didn't have the most unique execution, but it wasn't in a contest to see who could be most unique. It was trying to tell its story in the most effective and unflinching way, and I think they hit it right on the head.

Magnolia pulled the themes off and the whole proceedings became (to use my old, tired expression) transcendent.

21 Grams ended.

That was the difference for me. I was looking at that snow covered pool at the end, thinking "I should be feeling something right now, but I don't at all". PTA shows way more heart and wisdom, and, well, trust to the mystical unknown, for his age.

On the flip side, City Of God had all the style and a much cooler, more interesting story than 21 Grams, and that director didn't feel the need to justify it with any heavy "important" themes and bog himself down. When Lil Z had that tiny kid in the corner, with the gun to him, and he was crying and babbling, I just about puked from nerves. When NW heard about her family dying, I thought, "well, yeah, that happens all the time, she's gonna cry now, what else is new... man this lighting looks nice".

I don't think it was a bad movie. Just far from a brilliant one.

Today, I saw a man operating a leaf blower outside a quaint little inn.  I immediately thought of 21 Grams.  So kudos for Inarritu for that.  Now if he could only focus that kind of skill to a more solid, tight story.  I see the potential 21 Grams had, but still, I feel it's overrated.

i'm not sure if this is in the thread already because i haven't read it (don't want any spoiler at all)  but i'm posting it, just in case.

from AINC:

Question and Answer session with Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, director of 21 Grams

At the Museum of Latin American Art (MOLAA) in Long Beach, California

November 25, 2003

First, I didn't have a recorder, nor am I that fast at writing in the dark, so I'll just say that I'll give you an impression and paraphrase of all that happened that night, very few actual quotes.

First the Museum director introduced AGI, saying that his background is in music, drama and comedy. The director was very casual in dress (black jeans, boots, black leather jacket) and relaxed. He stated the following:

The process was not a rational one, it was more of an intuitive one.

It took 3 years to be made from script to shooting.

Motion conveyed emotional states of characters. Graininess in the film conveys extreme emotion. When people are calm, the grain is clear. When the characters are in extreme emotional states you'll see that the grain is very gritty.

He tried very hard for it not to seem an intellectual piece and for the audience to forget about the structure the piece was being told in and to concentrate on the emotions of the characters.

The plot is universal and the story could be told in any country in the world

That spiritual connection all people can feel is an awareness present at the end of the movie

He had a freehand with the studios and as such has a positive experience with Hollywood which many had warned him was a corrupting influence. He has artistic lisence.

He got to pick the city he wanted to film in. Felt as independent as in Mexico in the U.S. only difference were all the red tape and rules of the unions in the U.S.

He mentioned two directors he admired were Polanski and Coppola

Was asked what the significance of the car crashes in both films he said that both films have a tragedy element and something that's our of our hands. Death can happen at any time you just need to be in the wrong place at the wrong time or conversely at the right place at the right time and "the bad guy is God". What he liked to see is what people will do with their free will after. He said he thinks "accidents are our payment for using technology." Cars are the number one metaphor of how an accident can change your life in one second and he uses that.

When asked why he liked to come up on people's faces and get right in there, he says that it he likes the handheld because it gives movement to everything. "I see things like you. I have never been a tripod or a dolly", and he likes that feeling the handheld gives like our own body where we look down just an inch and we see a difference and it adds meaning to it. "a little movement says things about you." He said he has the best DP(Director of Photography) in the world. He says Rodrigo makes himself invisible. The actors loose consciousness of the camera after a while which is hard with the hand held (made little hissing sound of film rolling next to his ear)

He feels telephathically connected with those he cares about. For example, he was in love with a German production designer, Bridgette Rock, also did Moulin Rouge and pulled a book out for R to see and he also pulled out the book.

His film works like a cubist painting or "puntis" where you see just dots up close but as you stand back further and further you see more and more of the picture until finally you see the entire picture.

Someone asked if Rulfo was an influence on him (Mexican director) but said he would like to "big time" but he didn't feel that feeling of existentialism and loneliness was so from "el campo" (the country) of solitude. He felt his work has a more urban feel to it.

When asked who chose the script he said Guillermo dreamt in on a train ride in Spain and called him up immediately to pitch the story to him and he was in.

When asked if there were any other choices for the main actors he said he has done a broad search of unknowns in the theater but said there's a reason why people don't get discovered after 30 years. He heard Marlon Brando say Sean Penn was one of the most brilliant actors of our day and he felt Marlon Brando should know. He always wanted to work with him. When he sent Penn the script he would call him every twenty pages he was so jazzed about the script "like a child" wanting to know how it would all play out and (laughing) was told "keep reading". He liked Del Toro's work in Traffic and Naomi Watts in Traffic.

On being asked about the dedication at the end he said it's to his wife who was a constant consultant on the film and a brutal necessity in the editing process. It refers to their third child being born. Apparently they had lost a child the year before this and he had had a really bad time dealing with it and she helped him through it. It reads something like, Maria who planted a crop while my corn plants burned, or something to that affect.

When asked if the script was written completely in Spanish and then translated, he said yes and it was fairly easy translated once it was finished. He said an hour was lost from the three hours on the cutting room floor and when someone asked if there was any improvisation he said the script was solid and it really wasn't the type of film you could improvise in.

There was a little bit more, but I'm sorry, my pen ran out. I hung around for a little while after and overheard him say to a fan that commented on the fact that the rain at the end was a brilliant piece to signify the renewal process that the rain (though I could swear he said snow) was an accident. The sun was out and it was chilly and for about five minutes it suddenly turned and the camera crew filmed it. He saw it while editing, liked it and put it in. Also, the birds were real; someone commented that it was brilliant the way they were shot and the fact that they were going down instead of up, he just grinned and broke in to a laugh. Some people brought their copies of AP for him to autograph and he did. Then the man was being gracious, but kept inching to the door, so not to add to the nuisance factor, I left.

Quote from: OnomatopoeiaNow if he could only focus that kind of skill to a more solid, tight story.

That kind of sense and order would be completely wrong for 21 Grams. It would forsake the whole unreliable and unresolving feeling of the movie.

Quote from: OnomatopoeiaSpoilers possible.

Just saw this tonight, along with five other films in the past two days.  It's been a great weekend.

Quote from: themodernage02 and otherswhat i kept asking myself during the movie was, does showing us this out of order actually do anything? like, would this have been just as good or made any real difference in telling this story had it just been told in order? and i am not sure of the answer.

Same thing I was thinking.  And for me, this movie didn't work nearly as well as I was led to believe it was.  The first 30-40 minutes were really clunky, and it was all because of the director's insistence on telling a story in this non-linear fashion.  Soon enough though, I did get in a groove and was able to follow without thinking about it, but I felt the technique was more distracting than helpful.  I'd want to see a linear cut of this movie to measure it on its own.  Yeah, Naomi Watts was amazing.  The swimming scenes reminded me of Kieslowski's Blue, but I don't know if that's just a coincidence.  There's a lot that this movie could make you think about, but a lot more that makes you wonder if the actions of the characters are really believable.  Since we must suspend disbelief in a film, that really is a moot point, but if we've thought about it, it brings up a weakness in the film.  So I'm not sure what to make of that.  Needless to say, the ending was weird, bittersweet, and gave us a bit to think over, and I felt a bit cheated at the little surprise twist at how Penn's character got shot.

I really don't know how to "evaluate" this film.  It seems in some ways to belie that because it is so unique.  I admire it a lot, and finally felt some sort of smile of appreciation creep up on my face once Penn's and Watts' characters interacted more.  Don't know why that is.  But still, I feel a lot of people are overpraising this, just like they overpraised City of God.  Still, a good film.  ***½ (8/10)

Without repeating my previous posts on how I think this an exceptional film, I'll just speak to how you "felt a bit cheated" by the "little surprise twist" about how Penn's character got shot. Through the various flashbacks and flash forwards during the film, you can more or less discern what happened to Penn before the grand reveal, so to speak, so I don't quite see how that would qualify as a knock against the film.

GOD...FUCKING...DAMNIT

we need big fat fucking spoiler warnings all over the place here,....FUCKqasdjfasdpupq9wero
especially on that fucking billy brown post..

Quote from: Pedro the WombatGOD...FUCKING...DAMNIT

we need big fat fucking spoiler warnings all over the place here,....FUCKqasdjfasdpupq9wero
especially on that fucking billy brown post..

Sorry Sir Pedro, but there's been plenty of spoilers on this subject way before that post. The movie's been out at least a good month and a half already, so hurry up and go see it, or, better yet, if there are films you want to go see, DO NOT read up about them, but just go in fresh. Little spoilers are always going to slip when you are on a message board discussing a film.  :?

Apologies again...

Quote from: billybrownyou can more or less discern what happened to Penn before the grand reveal, so to speak,

No you can't.  Sure you see that he got shot, but you don't see how, and there's NO WAY to guess right unless you're psychic.  And since the evidence is setting up some sort of conflict with Del Toro's character, that's what's expected.  Some variation of that.

Quoteso I don't quite see how that would qualify as a knock against the film.

What is disappointing about that is how it happens.  Because I can see both sides of the story.  The side where Jack would just want to end his misery, and the side that wants to live.  I don't see him just blowing himself away right there, considering all that's happened.  And the twist element on top of all the other trickery in the film left a bad taste for me.  But like I said, I do see the other argument, where he's in pain, and wants it all to end.

Universal Studios Home Video has just announced the release 21 Grams on March 16th. The film, starring Sean Penn and Naomi Watts, will come with a 1.85:1 anamorphic transfer, along with Dolby Digital 5.1 and DTS Surround tracks. Bonus materials are still TBA. Retail is $26.98.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.calsmodels.com%2Fimages%2FXIXAX%2F21gramssmall.jpg&hash=6616171e0a2dbd3f770464fa442fc7ae9c336899)

Quote from: themodernage02Universal Studios Home Video has just announced the release 21 Grams on March 16th. The film, starring Sean Penn and Naomi Watts, will come with a 1.85:1 anamorphic transfer, along with Dolby Digital 5.1 and DTS Surround tracks. Bonus materials are still TBA. Retail is $26.98.

reading that was like finding 100 buckaroos on the last day of school while you're on your way to a party.

Further Details
Universal have also provided us with details on 21 Grams which stars the highly talented Sean Penn, Naomi Watts and Benicio Del Toro. The disc will be available to own from the 16th March this year, and should retail at around $26.98. The film itself will receive a 1.85:1 anamorphic widescreen transfer and both English Dolby Digital 5.1 and DTS tracks. Extras will include a 21 Grams: In Fragments featurette as well as a Making of 21 Grams featurette.

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.  It was so incredible moving, with the help of amazing, amazing performances.  The non-linear style made it seem like a bit of a puzzle, but it didn't take away, at least it made me think a little more about the movie.  It had me second guessing quite a few times.  And it seemed like a whole lot of confusion, with that particular style, and it presented unressolved issues thoughout the film, which helped the mood of the story and the characters, in my opinion.  So it was good in that it kept you second guessing and thinking during the movie and that it never let you forget just what these people were going through or had gone through, etc.  
So I feel like I just missed out on the huge discussion, but that's my two cents.  Also, I'd like to ask a question, but it contains such a huge SPOILER....I'll type it in white a few lines down.

Just in case it doesn't show up in white.... SPOILER'S BELOW, DO NOT CONTINUE READING IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THIS FILM....





I argued with my friends that NW's character got pregnant from SP's character, but they thought that there wasn't enough time from when they were sleeping together to when they knew she was pregnant, so the doctor wouldn't be able to tell she was pregnant....but you're not exactly sure how much time has past since they slept together and when she found out.  They thought it was her dead husband's baby, but it seems like she would have had signs of her pregnancy, because we know at least a couple months has passed since he died ("I haven't spoken to anyone in months...") probably longer.  So what do you guys think?

Damn, I'm really sorry, I chose for that text to be white...but i'm seeing it in black...

Quote from: classical gasI 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.  It was so incredible moving, with the help of amazing, amazing performances.

Now, that's the proper response to this film! Glad you loved it as much (and in much the same way) as I did, cg.

i thought it was SP's, and it was there to give her a reason to live again and make her unable to be selfish.

Damn this was one powerhouse of a film! It packed quite a punch to the senses. Outstanding performances by all, but I kinda wished that Del Toro won his Oscar for this, or hopefully will another one. I wasn't as blown away with it as I was with "Amores Perros" but Inarritu is one director to follow. I liked the non-linear editing and structure, but at times I found myself thinking, "okay, now we need a scene of how he tells her who he is" or something along those lines, rather than "how will he tell her who he is". But for every one of those, there were scenes that resonated better with the broken structure - seeing Watts receive the fateful phone call and then later seeing how the incident happen; it was a great reminder of what she lost.

I saw three walkouts, maybe because of the was the story was told, but I found it to keep a viewer on his/her toes and pay attention and invest one's self in the story and characters.

I'm gald to see all the positive responses for this film. I truly loved it, and I can honestly say it's my second favorite of the year. Favorite drama, certainly. I thought it was very powerful, and I thought the non-linear quality was a nice touch, despite Ebert's crazy ramblings. What's with that guy, anyway? He always goes paranoid whenever a non-linear story comes up.

Quote from: Chest Rockwell, despite Ebert's crazy ramblings. What's with that guy, anyway?

......he's  doesn't know when a film is a masterpiece..(i.e. Blue Velvet).....

....remember this is the guy who thinks Dark City was brilliant.... :roll:

and if anyone else likes this it is only b/c ebert gave it raves and by a "repectable" film critic giving the film props you feell validated to like it also..when in actuallity dark city is  B-movie material.....

Quote from: NEON MERCURY

Quote from: Chest Rockwell, despite Ebert's crazy ramblings. What's with that guy, anyway?

......he's  doesn't know when a film is a masterpiece..(i.e. Blue Velvet).....

....remember this is the guy who thinks Dark City was brilliant.... :roll:

and if anyone else likes this it is only b/c ebert gave it raves and by a "repectable" film critic giving the film props you feell validated to like it also..when in actuallity dark city is  B-movie material.....

I agree that 21 Grams was brilliant and that that large slob of a movie critic does at times makes you wonder if he's over-buttered his popcorn before reviewing a film, but while not brilliant, Dark City is a far better than mere B-movie material.

Quote from: billybrownwhile 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?

Quote from: NEON MERCURY

Quote from: billybrownwhile 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.

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

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.

Quote from: Pthis 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.

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

Quote from: Pas Rapport

Quote from: Pthis 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)

Quote from: molly

Quote from: Pas Rapport

Quote from: Pthis 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

Quote from: classical gasI 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.

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....

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.

Quote from: SHAFTRI 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.

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.

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetI thought I'd like this one, but I didn't...blah blah blah...in the process.

Err....I disagree on every point.

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

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet

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.  :wink:

Just got back from it and I really liked it alot. I'll have to seek out Love's a Bitch now.

Quote from: billybrownThe 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.

The problem wasn't that the actors were denied this release, but that with each scene of a fragmented emotion, I sometimes thought they weren't carrying their character over. These charges mainly lie with Naomi Watts though. I thought her performance of happy family going mom was just that, a cliche in which the mom always laughs at the little things her children does, the perfect household and situation as typified by bad movies. I saw a different character in the drug bing scene, a different character when she was planning the murder, a different character when she was isolated and alone. Now, Watts did have to deal with a script that realistically, to detail emotional impact, should have left out most of the bad things in this movie, but I got the feeling she approached each scene generally, maybe thinking, "OK, I'm now going to drug binge scene, how do i play the drug seductress?" I realize I'm breaking hearts here so remember its just an opinion. People compare this movie to Magnolia and in my mind, as with all things happening in that emotional roller coaster ride, the characters at least felt to me organically whole through out the entire film.

Quote from: billybrownf anything, the Emma Thompson scene you identify is far less organic and far more "Oscar Acting 101."

Disagree with the performance, fine, but a better description exists than 'Oscar Acting 101'. Those guys make it a habit to honor Renee Zelwegger. Thompson's acting would be labeled as more theatrical.

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetI realize I'm breaking hearts here

you're winning mine.  :kiss:

REVISED (SLIGHTLY BETTER/WORSE) COVER ART
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.calsmodels.com%2Fimages%2FXIXAX%2F21gramssmall.jpg&hash=6616171e0a2dbd3f770464fa442fc7ae9c336899)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^.....much better..excpet for the "An extroadinary story......."...thats stupid...to put that there.....

***a note to marketers.....loose the cheesy "tagline".....


....BTW...del toro does have the most "film-like" eyes.......

Good cover, but there's a spoiler in the middle.

Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanGood cover, but there's a spoiler in the middle.

But wasn't that the opening shot of the film?

Still.

Quote from: MacGuffin

Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanGood cover, but there's a spoiler in the middle.

But wasn't that the opening shot of the film?

I was thinking the exact same thing, Macguffin.

That's why it's a spoiler!  :cry:

for some reason, that looks really Christmasy to me.

Of all the important film people whose year-end picks Film Comment saw fit to share with us, only Paul Schrader mentioned 21 Grams. Hooray for Paul, shame on the rest of them. A great many mentioned Mystic River, which I find more unbearably overestimated each time I read yet another effusion about it. It's solid, nothing special. You'd think people had never seen a well-crafted, straightforward, good little movie before. I was hardly blown away; in fact, because of the expectation built up for the damn thing, I was very underwhelmed and had to talk myself into accepting that it's a good movie, however far it falls short of the disproportionate praise.

GT, I couldn't disagree with you more about Naomi Watts in this film. "Organic" and "restrained" are not synonymous, and the idea that "organic" is automatically the highest achievement in any creative endeavor seems extremely suspicious to me.

Quote from: godardianGT, I couldn't disagree with you more about Naomi Watts in this film. "Organic" and "restrained" are not synonymous, and the idea that "organic" is automatically the highest achievement in any creative endeavor seems extremely suspicious to me.

I never said organic is the highest achievement for anything. I'm just dealing with my points in relation to just this performance. Watts was emotional, tragic and believable as a woman in turmoil, but I think the script and her performance just failed to capture higher vision. It was too fragmented for me.

Basically what I said before.

The movie was good, it just failed to take off, it never managed to become transcendent. That's the pitfall of this type of style, I think. There's never any restraint, so it's hard to have that shining moment at the end. However, that was the beauty of the windblower shot, it was such a different presentation than the rest of the film, that's what helped make it the high point.

Quote from: SoNowThenBasically what I said before.

The movie was good, it just failed to take off, it never managed to become transcendent. That's the pitfall of this type of style, I think. There's never any restraint, so it's hard to have that shining moment at the end. However, that was the beauty of the windblower shot, it was such a different presentation than the rest of the film, that's what helped make it the high point.

I'm not even sure I'd fault the style though. Like I said, I thought the film didn't edit that well when it could have. Half the cuts seemed warranted on connecting emotional strands, half didn't. I also think the story lingered too long on emotional outburst than it should have. Limiting that may have made the them even more powerful and shocking. Also, too many different avenues of extremes searched out in the movie where it seemed like just an exercise on how far the film could go. I wouldn't say I had anything against the style on basis, but this movie didn't amaze me.

Disjointed structure and elliptical editing count as style, I believe. And I don't fault it as much as I say 'you make a bed and sleep in it'. I don't mind this style when it really meshes and creates an incredible movie (City Of God). And I think it was very well done here, it just didn't really have that great a script, it seems.

it's his first english movie, give him a break!  :(

u can tell from the awkward phasing of most lines "god even knows when a single hair on ur head moves".. total foreign english.

meanwhile i think that didn't matter cos of what he did with the editing. i'll make a short point here on sumthing i've been saying since the days of Mullholand Drive. everyone is so concerned with "piecing it together", that they forget what is being pieced together. the transcendant aspect of this film is what is not bound by structure or dialogue, and that's the IDEA that the title refers to, and the style echoes: the whole is more than the sum of its parts.

i mention mul drive cos that's another instance where ppl are just obsessed with "piecing it together" like that's the whole point. in that film it played a purpose because of its dream logic, but the content was much more heavy than whatever order it was placed in. that's how it is in 21 Grams. the transcendant moment is the crash, and is even presented so, u are made to think of the real world of the film by focusing through a "frozen moment".. the final shot fits with that idea.

those two shots are the key to the film, if u are not feeling anything at those points then u hav every right to say the film was a failure. that was the risk it took. following the ideas i proposed, i did feel sumthing, so i can't deny that there was something transcendent. it's not pretending to be the only movie ever to show emotion, but it is intending to be one of the few films that makes u think consciously about what it is to feel, where this feeling came from, and where it might go.

Quote from: SoNowThenDisjointed structure and elliptical editing count as style, I believe.

Why do people feel the need to separate style from substance?

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman

Quote from: SoNowThenDisjointed structure and elliptical editing count as style, I believe.

Why do people feel the need to separate style from substance?

like filmmakers?

I found it was pretty good. But the whole bouncing around the timeline kinda bothered me and threw me out of the story. It jsut felt like the film was meant to be linear, then they decided it didn't have enough to it, so they broke up the timeline in post. It didn't really serve a purpose in the overall piece. Plus, I'm all for doing sometihng different, but at one point, we were following  I think 4 to 6 different timelines. It got a bit confusing, even though they did try to keep it clear by having the actors with different haircuts and facial hair, etc.
They kind of cheated in the trailer too, throwing in the whole 'you loose 21 grams when you die' thing. It convinced all the old people that it was a deeply philosophical film so they all wanted to see it. Which is funny, cause it really isn't the type of film that would appeal to your average old person. Hell, even my mother wanted to see it cause of that, and she never sees anything. I had to tell her that she wouldn't like it, otherwise she would have been mad at me for letting her go see it.
Although, still a very good film.

Quote from: Reccedeeply philosophical film

it was.

but that's fine, don't anyone read what i wrote or nothin. if i don't make any sense please tell me so i can give up on being serious. this refers to both my reviews.

Quote from: P
but that's fine, don't anyone read what i wrote or nothin. if i don't make any sense please tell me so i can give up on being serious.

nah, don't stop.

lately it seems that a lot of peeps around here are simply making posts rather than reading them.

Quote from: P
but that's fine, don't anyone read what i wrote or nothin. if i don't make any sense please tell me so i can give up on being serious.

no, P.  keep writing what you want.  although recently it seems like a lot of people arent reading many of the posts...

hahahah.

my case has been rested.

Quote from: MacGuffin

Quote from: ©bradlately it seems that a lot of peeps around here are simply making posts rather than reading them.

Quote from: themodernage02although recently it seems like a lot of people arent reading many of the posts...

I dunno if it was intentional, but what's funny is you guys said the same thing but it looks like mod-age didn't read cbrad's post.

IT WAS A JOKE!  sheez... :roll:  wasnt it ironic?

Quote from: P

Quote from: Reccedeeply philosophical film

it was.

but that's fine, don't anyone read what i wrote or nothin. if i don't make any sense please tell me so i can give up on being serious. this refers to both my reviews.

you write beautiful reviews, don't stop

Quote from: ©brad

Quote from: P
but that's fine, don't anyone read what i wrote or nothin. if i don't make any sense please tell me so i can give up on being serious.

nah, don't stop.

lately it seems that a lot of peeps around here are simply making posts rather than reading them.

Well soooorrry. Like I wanna read through 14 pages of posts to make a comment. Jeeez.

Quote from: RecceWell soooorrry. Like I wanna read through 14 pages of posts to make a comment. Jeeez.

just the first page and the last page would be fine.

Quote from: P

Quote from: RecceWell soooorrry. Like I wanna read through 14 pages of posts to make a comment. Jeeez.

just the first page and the last page would be fine.

That's my way of doing things. Seems to have worked well for me so far.

Bunch of judgemental pricks.

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman

Quote from: SoNowThenDisjointed structure and elliptical editing count as style, I believe.

Why do people feel the need to separate style from substance?

:roll: I didn't exactly separate them. But if you wanna discuss cinema, you gotta choose a film grammer that has some clairification. I think it's fair to say that style is a part of substance, but they are not equal, nor the same. One can be contained in the other, but is not wholly that.

I think P's post (last page I believe) summed it up well. If you don't have the emotional reaction to those few special moments, you're not gonna like the film. That's very cool that some did get that reaction, I unfortunately did not.

Also, there's some films where style is meant to be pretty much ALL the substance (eg. DePalma, or to a certain extent the later Melville movies). I don't feel this is one such movie. It seems that the filmmakers were trying to invoke some feeling of spirituality that was definitely not reliant on the camera movement & cutting, but more on the actors and the situations. They may be related to one another, and aided by one another, but they are NOT the same, and if we're gonna have any kinda worthwhile discussions, then we have to have categories, call it separation if you must.

Quote from: SoNowThen

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman

Quote from: SoNowThenDisjointed structure and elliptical editing count as style, I believe.

Why do people feel the need to separate style from substance?

:roll: I didn't exactly separate them. But if you wanna discuss cinema, you gotta choose a film grammer that has some clairification. I think it's fair to say that style is a part of substance, but they are not equal, nor the same. One can be contained in the other, but is not wholly that.

I think P's post (last page I believe) summed it up well. If you don't have the emotional reaction to those few special moments, you're not gonna like the film. That's very cool that some did get that reaction, I unfortunately did not.

Also, there's some films where style is meant to be pretty much ALL the substance (eg. DePalma, or to a certain extent the later Melville movies). I don't feel this is one such movie. It seems that the filmmakers were trying to invoke some feeling of spirituality that was definitely not reliant on the camera movement & cutting, but more on the actors and the situations. They may be related to one another, and aided by one another, but they are NOT the same, and if we're gonna have any kinda worthwhile discussions, then we have to have categories, call it separation if you must.

A good way to look at it is that you might be able to isolate them for the purposes of discussion, but you couldn't have one without the other (the same way we discussed "signifiers" and "signifieds," but we couldn't really have either without a sign). A film must always have a "style" and must always have a "content." I think the lines are usually pretty promiscuously blurred, myself, so I do try to avoid speaking of them as discrete bits. I will say that I felt all the creative choices made by the artists involved with 21 Grams seemed exactly right, whether they were from intuition or really good planning (or, most likely, a combination of both).

Quote from: godardianbut you couldn't have one without the other (the same way we discussed "signifiers" and "signifieds," but we couldn't really have either without a sign).

Mmmm... quote some Derrida for me...

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman

Quote from: godardianbut you couldn't have one without the other (the same way we discussed "signifiers" and "signifieds," but we couldn't really have either without a sign).

Mmmm... quote some Derrida for me...

I'll try to slip some in, but Barthes is more my man. I'm not that "intellectual!"  :wink:

holyshitijustreversedthetrailermusicanditsoundsEXACTLYTHESAMEBACKWARDSOMG

Quote from: Pit's his first english movie, give him a break!  :(

u can tell from the awkward phasing of most lines "god even knows when a single hair on ur head moves".. total foreign english.

meanwhile i think that didn't matter cos of what he did with the editing. i'll make a short point here on sumthing i've been saying since the days of Mullholand Drive. everyone is so concerned with "piecing it together", that they forget what is being pieced together. the transcendant aspect of this film is what is not bound by structure or dialogue, and that's the IDEA that the title refers to, and the style echoes: the whole is more than the sum of its parts.

i mention mul drive cos that's another instance where ppl are just obsessed with "piecing it together" like that's the whole point. in that film it played a purpose because of its dream logic, but the content was much more heavy than whatever order it was placed in. that's how it is in 21 Grams. the transcendant moment is the crash, and is even presented so, u are made to think of the real world of the film by focusing through a "frozen moment".. the final shot fits with that idea.

those two shots are the key to the film, if u are not feeling anything at those points then u hav every right to say the film was a failure. that was the risk it took. following the ideas i proposed, i did feel sumthing, so i can't deny that there was something transcendent. it's not pretending to be the only movie ever to show emotion, but it is intending to be one of the few films that makes u think consciously about what it is to feel, where this feeling came from, and where it might go.

..all you 21 grams haters out there read this ...then read it again .....then one more time and let it soak into your thick heads.........especially the fact that its his FIRST ENGLISH LANGUAGE FILM.......that was a good read P...... 8)

I have to admit, that scene where we see the husband and kids walk down the street and we stay on the gardner, then the car speeds by, still on the gardner, then you hear the tires screetching was pretty intense. That scene got me.

this movie was intense, beautiful, emotionally involving.

best film of 2003.

Quote from: Pedro the Wombatbest film of 2003.

Best Drama maybe...but let's not kid ourselves: Cabin Fever kicked 21 Grams's proverbial ass. DEE-ZAM.

Quote from: Chest Rockwell

Quote from: Pedro the Wombatbest film of 2003.

Best Drama maybe...but let's not kid ourselves: Cabin Fever kicked 21 Grams's proverbial ass. DEE-ZAM.

I'm guessing that was a joke Chest...

i saw this yesterday.  scene : naomi watts goes to the place where her family was killed.  in the street there's a BMW SUV,  a car like  Goya Toledo's character in amores perros,  and a man taking his dog for a walk.

Just wait, don't buy the dvd .  and try the babel fish if you're curious.

Sale 21 Gramos en formato DVD




MÉXICO, DF, (SUN-AEE).Aunque una primera versión en DVD de la película "21 gramos" será estrenada en marzo próximo, Alejandro González Iñárritu y Universal Pictures trabajan en conjunto para sacar este año la edición especial de la cinta protagonizada por Sean Penn, Naomi Watts y Benicio del Toro.

Salvador Arango, director general de Universal Pictures en México, entrevistado después de presentar la cinta animada "Sinbad" en formato casero, señaló que todavía no se definen bien los materiales que contendrá el disco doble del segundo largometraje de González Iñárritu.

Sin embargo, destacó que en el producto que será puesto a la venta justo después de la 76 entrega del Oscar, simplemente se buscará explotar la calidad del filme.

"Como la acabamos de estrenar, y la verdad lo que deseamos es adelantarnos a todos, el DVD de '21 gramos' que sacaremos en marzo será muy sencillo, porque después en el transcurso del año vamos a lanzar la edición especial, donde estamos trabajando con Alejandro González para que haga un diseño de lo que será esta producción", indicó.

"Todavía no definimos al 100%, pero deseamos que Alejandro nos haga un mensaje especial para México, que nos platique en el DVD de su experiencia de filmar en Hollywood; también deseamos que Guillermo Arriaga (guionista) nos hable de la película y de cómo se siente ahora que su trabajo ha sido comprado en EU", señaló Arango.

El ejecutivo de Universal Pictures México agregó que la compañía quiere dar al público la visión que figuras como el escritor y el también director del cortometraje "Detrás del dinero" tienen sobre la internacionalización, ya que "puede ser muy glamuroso estar en Hollywood, pero no necesariamente todos lo van a conseguir o nadie sabe qué se debe hacer para ello".

Además del lanzamiento en DVD de "21 gramos", la transnacional tiene para el 2004 el estreno en las salas y también en formato casero de "Fantasías", cinta dirigida por Jorge Araujo, protagonizada por Luis Felipe Tovar, Mónica Dionne, Manuel Ojeda y Alexis Ayala.

Arango señaló que la premier de la cinta, que será la primera mexicana que distribuya Universal Pictures, se prevé para el 23 de abril, en tanto que el lanzamiento en DVD se realizará a mediados de julio.

http://translation.langenberg.com

Although one first version in DVD of the film "21 grams" will be released in next March, Alexander González Iñárritu and Universal Pictures works altogether to remove to this year the special edition from the tape carried out by Sean Penn, Naomi Watts and Benicio del Toro.  Salvador Arango, chief of a main directorate of Universal Pictures in Mexico, interviewed person after presenting/displaying the animated tape "Sinbad" in homemade format, indicated that still the materials are not defined well that the double disc of the second film of González Iñárritu will contain.  Nevertheless, he emphasized that in the product that will be put right on sale after the 76 it gives of the Oscar, simply will look for to operate the quality of films.  "As we finished it releasing, and the truth what we wished is to go ahead to all, the DVD of 21 grams?  that we will remove in March will be very simple, because later in the course of the year we are going to send the special edition, where we are working with Alexander González so that it makes a design of which will be this production ", it indicated.  "Still we did not define to the 100%, but we wished that Alexander does a special message to us for Mexico, that us platique in the DVD of its experience to film in Hollywood;  also we wished that Guillermo Arriaga (scriptwriter) speaks to us of the film and of how he feels now that its work has been bought in EU ", indicated Arango.  The executive of Universal Pictures Mexico added that the company wants to give to the public the vision that figures as the writer and also the director of the cortometraje "Behind the money" have on the internationalization, since "it can be very glamuroso to be in Hollywood, but not necessarily all they are going it to obtain or nobody knows what is due to do for it".  In addition to the launching in DVD of "21 grams", the transnational company also has for the 2004 opening in the rooms and in homemade format of "Fantasies", tape directed by Jorge Araujo, carried out by Luis Felipe Tovar, Mónica Dionne, Manuel Ojeda and Alexis Ayala.  Arango indicated that premier of tape, that will be the first Mexican that distributes Universal Pictures, is anticipated for the 23 of April, whereas the launching in DVD is made in the middle of July.

What?

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.

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

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

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

Quote from: Onomatopoeia
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.

Quote from: cronopiotwo 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)

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.voidspace.org.uk%2Fimages%2Fseven4.jpg&hash=d3ca62048c86214cf67d4dc803ba2d623f3440c4)

"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.

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

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




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

Quote from: meatballGood 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.

Quote from: meatballSo.. again... wait for a special edition DVD?

yes.

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.

disgusting.

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..

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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote from: Weirdo1769movieMikeYep 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..

Why oh why.

The box I'm holding has no mention of said feature.  There's not even a blasted trailer on here.  Bollocks.

Bought the DVD. No insert of any kind this time around. And it looks like it has NO features. There better be some sort of re-release.

yeah usually with a movie i really like i dont have the patience to just wait, (like Kill Bill I wont be able to resist), but this is one case where i'm just going to use self-control.  bare bones with another version on the way REALLY pisses me off.  us geeks need to start taking a stand.

How soon? And what will it look like?

Quote from: Chest RockwellHow soon? And what will it look like?

sometime later this year.  it will look like it has extras.

.....man   its been months since i last saw this film until i bought the dvd the other day....and does it still hold up ....even better actually....i liked it better the second time..and hopefully the third and so on......but i have to say that this was definately the best acted film all around in 2003..penn, watts, del toro, leo, and penns wife..who i forget her name ..but she i thought was fantastic......and the more i watch this film the more i like the fractured narrative..there are a couple of quotes that concern this for  example  here is what writer quillermo arriaga was quoted as saying about the fractured narative:
"first of all, i didn't want an intellectualized structure-i wanted an emotional structure.  i think that audiences are much more sophisticated day by day.  i think cinema is a very young medium.  its very young.  its not like literature or architecture or painting.  because with picasso you have one eye here and a nose there- you pull back and you can see it is a woman.  i think you must risk to find new languages, because as i said, every story has a way to be told.  for me, this was the best structure to tell the story emotionally.  it was not my intention to make an intellectual game, but to make an emotional experience where the audience is participating more than in other types of films."

...after the couple of viewings of this film i agree......its so phucking emotional....also, the more i think about it the more it differs from amores perros even though both films center around a "tragic car accident".....at the end of amores perros bernals characters has nothing, the lady w/ the leg amputated has lost, and only el chivo receives some sort of redemption.....i know you can read more into that films final outcome with the characters but i'm just doing it basic for times sake in order to show that these films aren't essentially the same......but in 21 grams penn is dead, and both watts and del toro are redemptive characters......they have  the same road ahead of them as el chivo.....also the situations these characters are  thrown into in 21 grams are way different from amores perros ......and amores perros is much more of an agressive film ....while 21 grams takes it easy in  away......but 21 grams is more emotional.......almost every scene needs your attention and all things are energized in each frame.....partly due to the stellar acting, also, due to the script and editing, pacing...and FRACTURED NARATIVE.......plus  21 grams' score is one of the best things that i have heard that complements the film(i.e. requiem for a dream) and gives it that erie mood.....and loss.....of........feeling.....

still the best film in 2003.....

My dad watched the last half hour or so and, after finally getting past the fractured plot, commented: "...Really depressing..."

Yes, it is depressing to an extent. It reminded me a little bit of Magnolia in the way that these people's miserable lives are intertwined.

Magnolia seemed to have a sense of hope.  21 Grams didn't give me that feeling.

I'm agreeing with Thrindle, but only because she's a girl.

Quote from: Chest RockwellI'm agreeing with Thrindle, but only because she's a girl.

I already told you "no" to cyber sex.  You can stop kissing my ass now...  :P

Quote from: Thrindle

Quote from: Chest RockwellI'm agreeing with Thrindle, but only because she's a girl.

I already told you "no" to cyber sex.  You can stop kissing my ass now...  :P

Is that a promise?

Quote from: Chest Rockwell

Quote from: Thrindle

Quote from: Chest RockwellI'm agreeing with Thrindle, but only because she's a girl.

I already told you "no" to cyber sex.  You can stop kissing my ass now...  :P

Is that a promise?

So what, now you're going to act like you never asked for private Canoodle Lessons?!  Dude, you even told me you were dying!  I had to watch a "dying" man beg!

Sick Bastard  :lol:

ouch.

harsh words

HaHaHa. She called Chest a "man".

Quote from: MacGuffinHaHaHa. She called Chest a "man".

See Everybody: Mac understands the joke...  

There are no ouches, or harsh words... only good times.   :P

(Thinking I should stop wasting my time putting in smilies if no one's willing to pay any fucking attention  :twisted: )

Quote from: Thrindle

Quote from: MacGuffinHaHaHa. She called Chest a "man".

(Thinking I should stop wasting my time putting in smilies if no one's willing to pay any fucking attention  :twisted: )

now those are harsh words

Are we done stroking our libidos now?

She's just playing hard to get. That much is obvious.

i finally saw this.



*SPOILERS*

are we supposed to believe that Penn slipped and shot himself in the hotel room? i just don't see the suicide motive........but if i remember correctly, doesn't Del Toro(sp?) state to someone that he shot him? (which would seem he would want to cover the shame of suicide)
or am i totally off base?

SPOILERS.

Remember, Jack wasn't in any mood to live.  He was just facing death, got a new lease on life, then was told that he had to go back to the hospital and wait again.  He didn't want to do that, and he didn't want to face a miserable death (remember, he was vomiting a lot already), so he did have plenty of motive for suicide.  It was just an odd time to decide to go out.

Quote from: meatballAre we done stroking our libidos now?

In the public "community" of this board, some of us never started... others never seem to stop.  :(  There has been a slight overall improvement. But believe me, I'll be baking a cake and bringing out the party favors the day it happens for real. Libido-stroking could be my least favorite thing about Xixax.

What kind of behavior does libido-stroking encompass?

SPOILERS

ok. that makes sense. i was thinking it was showing the first time the doctor told him about his condition, so it really confused me when he was breathing the way he did before the transplant. but now it jives. thanks.

"A María Eladia, pues cuando ardió la pérdida, reverdecieron los maizales",

don't you love this quote as Gustavo Santaolalla's melancolic guitar comes in just before the end credits.

Quote from: Roman Cibeles"A María Eladia, pues cuando ardió la pérdida, reverdecieron los maizales",

don't you love this quote as Gustavo Santaolalla's melancolic guitar comes in just before the end credits.

i would like it better if i knew spanish......

tranzlator pleaze

To Maria Eladia, because when the loss burned, the cornfields turned green again.  

(i think, although that doesnt make any sense.)

he's saying that good things can grow from pain.

ardio is more like stung, a feeling also associated with guilt. hence the quote is about redemption.

Maria Eladia is AGI's wife. A few years ago they had a son who unfortunately past away when he was only a few weeks old.
I like the quote because it is not a conventional metaphor for life yet it's beautiful without being pretentious and it's simple. Cornfields bring to mind work, care, goods, a sense of hope and a poetic reality...
No matter how devastating was the fire the harvest can grow again...

From IGN.DVD:

This DVD was supposed to have two extras: 21 Grams: In Fragments and The Making of 21 Grams. However, these were removed at the last minute and all we get is a bare bones DVD. There's nothing here.

Columnist Jeffrey Wells of Movie Poop Shoot knows Inarritu and inquired what happened with the disc. Inarritu replied that he didn't have time to do proper extras for the DVD, then said:

"There will definitively be a second edition [of the 21 GRAMS DVD] with at least some making-of material and deleted scenes, along with some commentaries on them. Thanks for sharing your frustrations with me, which I completely understand."

Quote from: MacGuffin"There will definitively be a second edition [of the 21 GRAMS DVD] with at least some making-of material and deleted scenes, along with some commentaries on them. Thanks for sharing your frustrations with me, which I completely understand." [/i]

yeah, thanks a lot innaritu.  its not like you didnt know this was coming?  like, first you put it into theatres, then it comes out on dvd.  i dont see how this comes as a surprise?  if you needed a little more time for the extras you should've probably talked to focus about that, and made trying not to rip off any possible fans of your movie a higher priority than allowing focus to rush out the movie on dvd in hopes the diminished oscar buzz can get a few rentals.

i don't know how u ppl still bought the dvd when u KNEW that there would be no extras. it's ur fault, that info was posted here before the dvd was released.

that's why i'll wait for the region 2 release in november of 2011.

Quote from: Pubricki don't know how u ppl still bought the dvd when u KNEW that there would be no extras. it's ur fault, that info was posted here before the dvd was released.

i didnt buy it, i'm waiting.  but i think filmmakers should be aware/prepared for the dvd as pt knows it is an important part of your movie.  its in the theatres for a few months, but on dvd forever, so they should put a little more thought into it.

yep, fully. but in cases where for whatever reason they slip up (tardiness, laziness, stupidity), the consumer should be aware of any possible screw-ups and well, not willingly screw themselves.

ur right tho, the director should prevent this.

..

You should:

a) put in another movie

or

b) go outside

stupid lame question...

is this dvd SE?
http://www.loaded247.com/index.php?s=1&id=14609

I know it doesn't say but it has a making of...don't wanna buy one if there's a meaty SE DVD coming out... :?

Quote from: kottedon't wanna buy one if there's a meaty SE DVD coming out... :?

Go nine posts up.

Ok, so it is a SE disc.

It doesn't say but it has a making of...

then I know.

Quote from: modage on March 27, 2004, 11:04:41 AM

Quote from: Pubricki don't know how u ppl still bought the dvd when u KNEW that there would be no extras. it's ur fault, that info was posted here before the dvd was released.

i didnt buy it, i'm waiting.  but i think filmmakers should be aware/prepared for the dvd as pt knows it is an important part of your movie.  its in the theatres for a few months, but on dvd forever, so they should put a little more thought into it.

Title: 21 Grams
Released: 3rd October 2006
SRP: $19.98

Further Details:
Universal Home Video has revealed early details on a new special edition of the critically acclaimed 21 Grams which stars Naomi Watts, Sean Penn, and Benico Del Toro. This single-disc release will be available to own from the 3rd October, and should set you back around $19.98. As before, the disc will carry a 1.85:1 anamorphic widescreen transfer, along with both English Dolby Digital 5.1 and DTS 5.1 Surround tracks. Universal has yet to reveal the extras - but we'll bring you further details very shortly.


fiiiiiiiiiiiiinally, jeez.  when they wait 2 years it almost seems like it wasnt planned from the beginning!

i don't regret using the 12.99 used unspecial disc for two years.

Quote from: modage on May 24, 2006, 08:34:52 AMUniversal has yet to reveal the extras - but we'll bring you further details very shortly.


fiiiiiiiiiiiiinally, jeez.  when they wait 2 years it almost seems like it wasnt planned from the beginning!

2 years for a Collector's Edition and all we get is a 19 minute making-of doc that was supposed to be included on the previous release to begin with! That's it. No commentary. No deleted scenes.  :yabbse-angry:

Quote from: MacGuffin on October 05, 2006, 09:09:02 PM

Quote from: modage on May 24, 2006, 08:34:52 AMUniversal has yet to reveal the extras - but we'll bring you further details very shortly.


fiiiiiiiiiiiiinally, jeez.  when they wait 2 years it almost seems like it wasnt planned from the beginning!

2 years for a Collector's Edition and all we get is a 19 minute making-of doc that was supposed to be included on the previous release to begin with! That's it. No commentary. No deleted scenes.  :yabbse-angry:

...and you bought it anyways! why?

i'll hold out another 2 years then.  :elitist: