The Dreamers

Started by MacGuffin, December 19, 2003, 09:28:32 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
User actions

godardian

#75
March 10, 2004, 01:39:16 PM
Quote from: Chest Rockwell
Quote from: MacGuffin
Quote from: Chest RockwellI want to see this sooo much. Is there a chance it will ever see a wide release?

NC-17 rated movies never get wide releases.
Well I guess that's better than seeing it come here and then not being able to see it because of my short 5'9" stature.

By whose standards is 5'9" SHORT?

I'm 5'7", and I don't feel so short. I guess 5'9" is "average" and I'm a bit shorter than average... but I'm still much taller than Tom Cruise, Madonna, or Ben Stiller.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

SoNowThen

#76
March 10, 2004, 02:00:12 PM
Hahaha, I have a buddy who's about 5'8". Me, I'm 6'1". Now, people are always calling me 'tall', and him 'average', I think because of those stupid surveys that put men between 5'7"-5'11". I don't know where these surveys find their midgets, but when I walk around in a public place, besides old men (and Asians), all guys TOWER over me. My friend is particularily touchy about this, because of his so-called 'average' height, he feels he is owed more company among other 'average' height people, so he doesn't look so short.


But I digress...
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.

Henry Hill

#77
March 11, 2004, 11:11:15 AM
:oops:

Chest Rockwell

#78
March 13, 2004, 02:41:16 PM
I'm really angry. Yesterday I tried to sneak into the Dreamers and was caught inside the theater, so close to my goal. I just typed up an awesome and incredibly lengthy account of the whole thing but then my computer fucked up and erased it all, so now I'm even angrier than before.

mogwai

#79
March 13, 2004, 02:42:30 PM
pfft, kids today...

artfag

#80
March 13, 2004, 08:17:28 PM
The Dreamers, first and foremost, is a fantastic tribute to classic cinema and classic acting.  From the discussions regarding Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplin to mimicking dances with Ginger Rogers and Fred Astaire, this films shows the respect that Bertilucci has for the classics.

Secondly,  the inner conflict of Danielle is fantastically laid out without giving us too much information.  I loved that the end of this film allowed the viewer to use his/her imagination to explain the decision that Danielle makes.

Ultimately, this is a simple story involving a one complex decision that the centerpiece character must make.  Fortunately for some and unfortunately for others, she makes the unlikely decision to follow what her mind tells her to do as opposed to following what her heart tells her to do.  Though it was not necessarily a decision I would have made, I admired the girl for making it just the same.

One downfall, however, was that the nudity in the movie, in my opinion, was not entirely necessary.  I feel that some was important.  For example, when the girl loses her virginity, it was important for us to notice the impact that it made on her.  However, the naked bathtub scenes were just for the purpose of showing the "hot girl" naked again.  

Finally, I thought this was a great film that showed both tribute and class in every aspect of it's existence.  I would recommend this movie to anyone with a respect for the art of film.

--Pictures are Pals

Pubrick

#81
March 13, 2004, 09:23:14 PM
Quote from: Pictures are PalsFinally, I know I have probably bored all of you with my opinions on the film, but tough shit.  You didn't have to read it if you didn't want to.  Bottom line:  This movie doesn't suck.  That is about as good a review summary as you will ever get from me.
wtf. relax dude, a week into ur posting career and already ur having paranoid dellusions.
under the paving stones.

artfag

#82
March 13, 2004, 09:44:44 PM
apparently one of my statements was offensive, so I edited a bit to fix it.  Sorry.

Gold Trumpet

#83
March 13, 2004, 10:25:59 PM
Quote from: Pubrick
Quote from: Pictures are PalsFinally, I know I have probably bored all of you with my opinions on the film, but tough shit.  You didn't have to read it if you didn't want to.  Bottom line:  This movie doesn't suck.  That is about as good a review summary as you will ever get from me.
wtf. relax dude, a week into ur posting career and already ur having paranoid dellusions.

cut him some slack, P. Its his first week of posting. as he eases into the place, feels up the people (and 2% female population) and realize how discarded his opinion really is, he'll be fine. Besides, he's a close buddy of mine (yes, from the real world) and he's cool. After 100 posts, assault him.

Pubrick

#84
March 13, 2004, 10:40:34 PM
i'm not assaulting anyone, dont' start that bullshit.

is his reaction not bizarre? i didn't know he was ur buddy, that explains little, it's just weird that in the middle of a review that was otherwise fine he goes all defensive, when no one has said anything.

i'm weary of those kinds of attitudes, cos like u said when he actually finds reason to be that defensive i'm afraid it'll escalate to unfortunate levels.
under the paving stones.

artfag

#85
March 14, 2004, 09:34:04 AM
Isn't this website supposed to be mindless bitching about movies and not mindless bitching about other people?  I just won't post anymore if people are going to get all riled up.  It's no hair off my sack. I just wanted people to know that I enjoyed a movie very much and sometimes when this happens I get a little over-excited.  I already apologized once and retracted that statement, so let's just drop it.  I know I came across sounding like a horse's ass, so there is no need to argue anymore.

artfag

#86
March 14, 2004, 09:36:50 AM
Please read my review again.

Chest Rockwell

#87
March 14, 2004, 09:39:59 AM
It's OK, Pal. You'll soon realize no one reads anything around here anyway. The only long and boring posts people read around here come from either Godardian or The Gold[en] Trumpet. Anyone else is just wasting time. That said, I enjoyed your review, and it just makes me want to see it more (and more angry that I was caught.  :evil: )

Pubrick

#88
March 14, 2004, 09:52:24 AM
Quote from: Pictures are PalsIsn't this website supposed to be mindless bitching about movies and not mindless bitching about other people?  I just won't post anymore if people are going to get all riled up.  It's no hair off my sack. I just wanted people to know that I enjoyed a movie very much and sometimes when this happens I get a little over-excited.  I already apologized once and retracted that statement, so let's just drop it.  I know I came across sounding like a horse's ass, so there is no need to argue anymore.
no one is bitching about anyone. well u were but now it's cleared up and there's nothing to argue about.

i agree. let's chill and continue the good reviewing. i only posted after ur retraction to clear up GT's argument-perpetuating "assault" comment.

for those just tuning in, everything after PaP's review is meaningless.
under the paving stones.

Thrindle

#89
March 15, 2004, 04:50:53 PM
It's hard to review a movie when it's only played in local theatres for, oh, say, a fucking week.  There is no culture in the suburbs.  I'm dying to see this.
Classic.
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
User actions