Cold Mountain

[Gold Trumpet]

Getting past the bland romance that suffocates the first half of the movie, I couldn't help but feel the second half (Law's odyssey home) was the dramatic equivalent of Apocalypse Now and how it tried to encapusalate every controversy of the Civil War, like Apocalypse Now did for Vietnam. Every stop by Sheen's boat in his journey to Kurtz wasn't just another stop, but a new avenue of perspective on the insanity of the Vietnam War and some large doses of symbolism in some very minor scenes. The heavy symbolism was the problem because many scenes seemed to hinder on just whether you got the implied meaning or not, cutting away from the flow of the journey and making the the scenes drag more after the first viewing.

Cold Mountain does the same, but makes the symbolism more unbearable. The worst was the scene with Natalie Portman and her child. In the course of a night and a morning, many points are covered. Portman goes into dialogue about the hardships she's faced with losing her husband and then expresses her loss by having Law sleep with her and then crying because it reminds her of who she lost. In the morning, Union soldiers show up and threaten her and her baby with death unless they feed her, expressing the desperation of the union soldiers at the end of the war. She can't because she has little food, expressing her strained situation on food. Then a Union soldier attempts to rape her and orders the baby to freeze outside, showing their ruthlessness against people on the opposition's side of the war. To give some something nice to the winning side, one of the Union soldiers is compassionate to the baby. Law's rescue is over-exaggerated heroics. With all this in such a little scene with little importance to the bigger story of Jude Law's character, I couldn't help but be pulled along to feel every single injustice in the war that the writers could cram into every scene. The movie seemed to be pressing the emotional button all the time that kept the movie from being organically whole.

On more emotional pulling, Zelwegger's character was comic relief to the drama. Though she was given a history of abuse at the end, it was useless to combat the cheap jokes her character stood for in a portion of the story that the producers likely felt was too slow for the audience to accept. There were a lot more abusements of plot twisting than just this. Zelwegger's acting, again, unbearable. The plight of Kidman's character could be spotted solely in the scenes when she wasn't wearing make up. Jude Law just played general hero.

[Redlum]

GT, I suppose you took this as being predominantly a war-film? I'm more inclined to think it being mostly about what Samsong said:

The fact that they could love each other and pretty much live for each other after a few glances and encounters emphasizes how powerful love is, even in fleeting moments. It reminded me a lot of In the Mood for Love, which does take more time to show them getting to the point of falling in love, but also relies heavily on the quick meetings in the halls or how thehy pass each other by. Inman even is confused as to why he tries so hard to get back to Cold Mountain for a women he loves that he hardly knows. But again I thought that spoke of the power of love and its unpredictability.

Your analysis of the Natalie Portman section is a fairly reasonable one but you missed out the redeeming moment in it - when she shoots the "compassionate" Union soldier.

I neither found Zellweger's character to be that amusing or too obviously a relief from the drama of it all. I think it would be cynical and wrong to think of her character as the latter; in other circumstances yes but here she was far from being just a cinematic tool. In fact the relationship between Zellweger, Nicole and the older woman was one of the more interesting and original aspects of the film. Well why wasn't that aspect given more screen time? Well, just as much as this isnt a war movie; neither is it story of women on the homefront.

I thought this was one of the best I've seen this year. I also liked how Nicole got to flip her scene at the end of Moulin Rouge.

[Gold Trumpet]

GT, I suppose you took this as being predominantly a war-film?

I just dismissed the love story in the movie. The scenes dealing with war seemed more interesting to me. Samsong's interpretation speaks highly of the love story, but I just don't believe it. This love story is the kind of airy love story in movies that is given validity not by character interactions, but by countless hopeless speeches in which one preaches to the other of their "undying, eternal love" or whatever. For me, it is the words of hollow emotions I've heard countless times over in bad fiction, poetry, and movies. Instead of expressing their love through drama, we are given letter readings through out the entire film that grope this approach to love. Something most untruthful to me. Also, the meeting of Law and Kidman seems like standard movie set up only. Why did Kidman notice Law above all the other men? Simply because he was already taken with her beauty? The movie hardly seems to dig at any desire the one may have for the other at all. They are just thrown together for conveniance. So, all in all, a bad beginng and execution for me.

Your analysis of the Natalie Portman section is a fairly reasonable one but you missed out the redeeming moment in it - when she shoots the "compassionate" Union soldier.

I definitely forgot that. Apologies. It speaks for her anger toward the soldiers.

I neither found Zellweger's character to be that amusing or too obviously a relief from the drama of it all. I think it would be cynical and wrong to think of her character as the latter; in other circumstances yes but here she was far from being just a cinematic tool. In fact the relationship between Zellweger, Nicole and the older woman was one of the more interesting and original aspects of the film. Well why wasn't that aspect given more screen time? Well, just as much as this isnt a war movie; neither is it story of women on the homefront.

Like I said, at the beginning, she wasn't given any history and just thrown into the situation that her "honest" remarks toward Kidman seemed pretty comical only. Everyone in my theatre were laughing out loud. Then the movie started to give her credibility with spotlighting a history of abuse and showing her kindness to others in harm. I just didn't buy the transition of her character because the beginning was such a device operation.

[modage]

GT, I suppose you took this as being predominantly a war-film?

I just dismissed the love story in the movie.

its a love story.  not a war movie.  so you dismissed the movie.

[godardian]

GT, I suppose you took this as being predominantly a war-film?

I just dismissed the love story in the movie.

its a love story.  not a war movie.  so you dismissed the movie.

This is true... but I still thought it was an awfully bland movie, a lot of conventionally done syrupy-strings big-deal moments for not much. The actors were all fine- particularly Kidman and Zellweger-, but this is not even close to a good movie. It's maybe a slightly okay one. I'd never sit through it again.

[Gold Trumpet]

GT, I suppose you took this as being predominantly a war-film?

I just dismissed the love story in the movie.

its a love story.  not a war movie.  so you dismissed the movie.

It has elements of a lot of things in it. There's even a touch of the western at the end. I did dismiss a large portion of the movie, but not all of it obviously when I was still able to write a large review of the film.

[Redlum]

GT, I suppose you took this as being predominantly a war-film?

This love story is the kind of airy love story in movies that is given validity not by character interactions, but by countless hopeless speeches in which one preaches to the other of their "undying, eternal love" or whatever.

So you don't think that the characters often questioning the validity of their love themselves raises it above your standard airy love story. Didn't they include a reading from Wuthering Heights because of this theme.

[Gold Trumpet]

GT, I suppose you took this as being predominantly a war-film?

This love story is the kind of airy love story in movies that is given validity not by character interactions, but by countless hopeless speeches in which one preaches to the other of their "undying, eternal love" or whatever.

So you don't think that the characters often questioning the validity of their love themselves raises it above your standard airy love story. Didn't they include a reading from Wuthering Heights because of this theme.

I don't agree with the film's placement of this approach. it can have merit, but it shouldn't be the main thing that drives the relationship. It should have a more minor role in speaking for the relationship. It was just too out front for me.

[Redlum]

Ah okay. The significance of it came to me naturally during a completely random scene so it felt kind of right to me. I can understand how it would feel a bit hollow, otherwise.

[Pozer]

Getting past the bland romance that suffocates the first half of the movie, I couldn't help but feel the second half (Law's odyssey home) was the dramatic equivalent of Apocalypse Now and how it tried to encapusalate every....blah, blah, blah

just a few kind words of advice:
maybe if you stopped comparing like this in your head while watching movies you might find the time to actually enjoy them.
no?

I so badly want you to like movies

[Gold Trumpet]

Getting past the bland romance that suffocates the first half of the movie, I couldn't help but feel the second half (Law's odyssey home) was the dramatic equivalent of Apocalypse Now and how it tried to encapusalate every....blah, blah, blah

just a few kind words of advice:
maybe if you stopped comparing like this in your head while watching movies you might find the time to actually enjoy them.
no?

I so badly want you to like movies

You so badly want me to like your movies.

[Pubrick]

that's deep man.

[Pozer]

Getting past the bland romance that suffocates the first half of the movie, I couldn't help but feel the second half (Law's odyssey home) was the dramatic equivalent of Apocalypse Now and how it tried to encapusalate every....blah, blah, blah

just a few kind words of advice:
maybe if you stopped comparing like this in your head while watching movies you might find the time to actually enjoy them.
no?

I so badly want you to like movies

You so badly want me to like your movies.

it would be a trip to review movies with you. we could be the next Ebert & Roper.
I CALL EBERT!
No, wait....I mean Roper....
dude, are you fat or skinny?

[SHAFTR]

There are parts I loved in this film and parts that I despised.


*SOME SPOILERS*

I dug the whole Odyssey Jude Law sequence and I thought flaws and all it was a strong film until the final act (once they meet up again onward).  Their kiss in the beginning I thought was strong and powerful only to be trivialized at the end with a cheesy softcore sex scene.  I was waiting for some new age guitar music to kick in.  Law, Natalie Portman and PSH were excellent.  I honestly thought Jack White was bad.  I still hate Renee, can you say overactor?  The civil war scenes were great, but once the third act sets in...I found myself cringing.  I just loss all interest in the characters after that sex scene.

[modage]

SPOILERS

i found myself offput by the love scene too, until i realized the only reason they're going into such detail showing us this is probably because she has to be pregnant when he dies.  plus the whole movie was like a damn romance novel, there has to be the consumation!