eternal sunshine de l'mind spotless..

Started by Satcho9, February 03, 2003, 10:15:53 PM

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 ... 42
User actions

mutinyco

#345
March 24, 2004, 11:15:55 PM
I liked Kirsten.

I don't hate Charlie. I just think that a lot of his films contain creative ideas used as gimmicks instead of fully developing them.
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

Chest Rockwell

#346
March 25, 2004, 05:39:34 AM
I was never a fan of Human Nature. In my opinion, it's easily Kaufman's worst film.

pete

#347
March 25, 2004, 08:11:20 AM
I think Kaufman does have gimmicky premises, but he goes sooo far with them so in a way I really admire it.  For example, in Being John Malkavich he really covers all scenerios of what might happen if that were true--where do they go in, where they come out, what happens if more than one people go in there, what happens if malkavich goes in there...etc.  So in that sense I really admire it.  He's got a hell of an imagination to entertain people for two hours with premises that sound like SNL sketches.
"Tragedy is a close-up; comedy, a long shot."
- Buster Keaton

Kal

#348
March 25, 2004, 08:55:52 AM
Quote from: Chest RockwellI was never a fan of Human Nature. In my opinion, it's easily Kaufman's worst film.

Yep I agree

mutinyco

#349
March 25, 2004, 10:56:17 AM
I'm not talking about the thrust of the drama, per se. But the window dressing. That half floor in Malkovich got tired FAST. Same with the speech impediment. Or what about the puppet show at the beginning? Funny, and the story depicted does relate, but we're given no explaination for why he would choose such an obscure topic. Or the whole twins setup of Adaptation. Or the 3rd act turnaround with the drugs and affair, etc. Do you follow? They're things that seem to me gimmicks. They're never really developed. Just used enough to call attention to their strangeness and that's it. I think a better writer would be able to use these elements to some sort of dramatic progression, not just style.
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

SoNowThen

#350
March 25, 2004, 10:58:51 AM
Agreed.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

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

Gold Trumpet

#351
March 25, 2004, 11:33:19 AM
Quote from: NEON MERCURYgt,  what up??

Not much. nice hearing from you again. hey, if you want to at all, you can start up that Ask The Gold Trumpet thread again. I want to get back into those mini movie reviews big time again.

And yea, CBRAD, the usual applied image i've given, but way off. I really liked godardian's suggestion more. I think it was the guy who played Antoine Doinel in the Francois Traffaut films.

NEON MERCURY

#352
March 25, 2004, 12:32:39 PM
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet
Quote from: NEON MERCURYgt,  what up??

Not much. nice hearing from you again. hey, if you want to at all, you can start up that Ask The Gold Trumpet thread again. I want to get back into those mini movie reviews big time again.

And yea, CBRAD, the usual applied image i've given, but way off. I really liked godardian's suggestion more. I think it was the guy who played Antoine Doinel in the Francois Traffaut films.

.definately, ..in the next day or two i'll give you a list of 5.... i gotta look through that thread to make sure i don't ask you about the same ones twice....  8)

Tictacbk

#353
March 25, 2004, 02:25:38 PM
what about Confessions of a Dangerous mind? No gimmick there.  Sure it wasn't very well received, but i liked it.

Gold Trumpet

#354
March 25, 2004, 02:39:24 PM
Quote from: Tictacbkwhat about Confessions of a Dangerous mind? No gimmick there.  Sure it wasn't very well received, but i liked it.

Absolutely. Its really an excellent film and I think what kept Kaufman from using gimmicks is that he was adapting a book first and foremost. It has his standard quircky humor, but it seems more controlled and better distributed through out the film so moments of the film don't jump out as being "off the wall". When I first watched Being John Malkovich, points in the film just stood out for being too outrageous that the flow and development of the story suffered. Confessions is really the best handling of a story Kaufman has ever done and also, might I say, an impeccable job of filmmaking from Clooney.

SoNowThen

#355
March 25, 2004, 02:43:53 PM
Yep.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

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

Chest Rockwell

#356
March 25, 2004, 05:13:54 PM
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet
Quote from: Tictacbkwhat about Confessions of a Dangerous mind? No gimmick there.  Sure it wasn't very well received, but i liked it.

Absolutely. Its really an excellent film and I think what kept Kaufman from using gimmicks is that he was adapting a book first and foremost. It has his standard quircky humor, but it seems more controlled and better distributed through out the film so moments of the film don't jump out as being "off the wall". When I first watched Being John Malkovich, points in the film just stood out for being too outrageous that the flow and development of the story suffered. Confessions is really the best handling of a story Kaufman has ever done and also, might I say, an impeccable job of filmmaking from Clooney.
I've only agreed with you two times to my knowledge, GT. This and Irreversible.

matt35mm

#357
March 25, 2004, 07:53:01 PM
SPOILERS BELOW

I think Kirsten Dunst's story had some significance, even beyond the simple plot point of her sending out the letters.

Her story serves as an additional story to parallel the story of Joel and Clem.  The idea is that love always finds it's way back; those feelings never die, and if we lose the memories of our experiences, we'll still go and follow our true feelings to lead us back to what we had erased.

Mary loves the doctor.  She had their affair erased (they both decided that was the best thing to do) but those feelings never went away.  It lead her to start it up again by kissing him.  I think it's through the doctor's faith in the memory erasing that he allowed her to continue working there (otherwise, she would have been fired so as to just make a clean break).

I think that's part of the movie's ideas: that we're more than the sum of our memories, but rather, we truly have deeper emotions that could never disappear--and that partly dictates the actions that we take in our lives, and could very likely lead us back to what we tried to forget.

With Mary's story paralleling Joel and Clem's story (the romance always starts up again), it suggests that this is not unique to Joel and Clem, so it sort of broadens up this whole idea and applies it to probably nearly everyone who has had that procedure.

Chest Rockwell

#358
March 25, 2004, 09:07:46 PM
That's actually a good point, matt.

BonBon85

#359
March 25, 2004, 10:14:56 PM
I'm a very happy girl tonight because I've finally seen a Kaufman movie that hasn't let me down. I'll simply agree with comments prior to all this GT drama and spare you more repetitive gushing.
Print
Go Up Pages 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 ... 42
User actions