Going to see this tomorrow, but if anybody else has seen it already, post up a review. Mine's coming after I see the movie, of course.
"...most sistahs only recognize a good man when he's a character in a shitty movie, a shitty play, their favorite daytime soap or a shitty book written by a homosexual."
From Reggie Eggert's online review of "Diary of a Mad Black Woman"

The movie looks excellent, and it's been racking up great reviews. I'ma try to catch it tonight.

Do yourself a favor,
Be your own savior.

Daniel Johnston

But Into The Blue comes out tonight!!

you cant skip that shit man...

I actually saw a commercial for "Into the Blue" that said "Jessica Alba gives a career making performance..."
Since it's PG-13, I'm guessing that doesn't mean nudity.
I'm doing a double feature of History of Violence and Serenity tomorrow.
"...most sistahs only recognize a good man when he's a character in a shitty movie, a shitty play, their favorite daytime soap or a shitty book written by a homosexual."
From Reggie Eggert's online review of "Diary of a Mad Black Woman"

I'm a firm believer that the theatre experience can make or break a movie, and unfortunately, the experience screwed this movie up for me.
I was thinking that since it's only playing in a couple of theatres and Serenity opened this weekend, that it wouldn't be so bad. However when I walked in the auditorium, sure enough, packed. Dammit...
Somehow I always manage to find a seat near the couple that feels the need to comment during the movie. These two people usually are a man and woman and the man feels the need to impress the woman by either attempting to predict what's going to happen or commenting on what just happened. This usually also gives the woman an excuse to either go "Unh..." after every action sequence in the movie or ask her date why something happened.
Seriously, there were 8 people in the auditorium when I went to see "G" last week and the talking couple sat right across from me.
Today's experience was also tempered by another couple behind me who were evidently fooled by the title of a movie called "A History of Violence" and were appropriately appalled by what they saw onscreen.
Now on to the review.
Let me start by saying I enjoyed the film for what it was. Viggo Mortensen was understated enough to make people wonder if he really was the guy everybody thought he was and Maria Bello (who can always be counted on to be naked) was pretty damn good as his wife.
If you don't know the story, Viggo plays Tom Stall, a mild mannered diner owner in a small Indiana town. He lives a simple life with his wife and two kids, until two ruthless killers show up in his diner to rob the joint.
Tom not only prevents the robbery, but kills both dudes almost effortlessly.
He ends up with a lot of unwanted media attention which attracts some mob guys to town who think he's a former comrade of theirs.
SPOILERS!!!

It would have been nice for the film to have gotten more into why Tom left his old life behind. This is probably something that the graphic novel the movie is based on delves into (anybody read it?).
There's a little bit of conflict between Tom and his wife and Tom and his son after his past comes into play. The kid that plays Tom's son is the standout here. He's a typical insecure teenager who idolizes his father and is trying to make his own path in the world. He has a couple of scenes that make the audience wonder if a violent nature is hereditary because I'm sure Tom didn't teach him advanced fighting techniques a la Bruce and Brandon Lee.
The climax of the film is a little anti-climactic, but at the same time the final scene of the movie, which has no dialogue says everything it needs to say about where the family is going after Tom's past life catches up with him and he deals with it in the only way he knows how.
Good flick for what it was, like I said before.

"...most sistahs only recognize a good man when he's a character in a shitty movie, a shitty play, their favorite daytime soap or a shitty book written by a homosexual."
From Reggie Eggert's online review of "Diary of a Mad Black Woman"

I didn't think it made such a profound statement on... whatever it is it was supposed to be making a statement on, which is what the critics would have you believe (I suppose the idea is how far one goes to protect their family or something).

Don't get me wrong, it was well-acted (but not really well-written, as the dialogue was a bit corny at times) and well-shot, and the violence was great to see (especially coming from the master Cronenberg), but overall for me, it was eh.

Maybe I should let it digest a while longer and come back.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
and you think i'm fake-up
wait around
till i take off my makeup
here we go again

somewhere in the idea of this film, there's something great. but it wasnt accomplished here. which is depressing.

oh god, this movie sucked. maybe it didnt suck as much as i believe it sucked, but i went in hyped. the critics ruined this movie for me. it was hailed as the "breakout movie of the toronto int. film fest"

every review ive read has sucked the dick of cronenberg, mortenssan, and the movie itself. and i have no idea why!!!!

the action. extremly limited, but the little it did have was good.

the dialogue is some of the most cliched, amateur, suck-my-dick-theres-no-way-they-actually-call-this-dialogue-type-of-dialogue!!!! im serious. i wanted to laugh at almost every line in this movie. i mean, if cronenberg wrote this as if it was supposed to be kinda funny and making fun of itself, then fine, it accomplished that. but that wasnt the case! this is supposed to be a serious movie.

my goodness, the emotional response i felt throughout the entire film can be summed up in one word. uncomfortable. thats how i felt the whole time.

the sex scenes- uncomfortable, disgusting
the score- awkward, poorly used and uncomfortable. not a bad score, it just wasnt used well here. howard shore should be upset.
the acting- uncomfortable
the dialogue- horrible/uncomfortable

i pretty much hated this movie. maybe im being harsh. honestly, i dont think i wouldve disliked it this much if it hadnt been for all the salivating reviews.

dont waste your time with this. if you do, and you like it, good for you. if you see it and hate it, well, you were warned (but i understand, cause i often disagree with the opinions in okayplayer)

sigh....

glad somebody agrees with me.

It was just a story about a dude on the run from his past and it catches up with him.
I would have liked to see bad ass Joey and what happened to make him give up his previous life. SOMETHING had to have made him give up the life and go straight.
It was kind of like Unforgiven, but not as well written, acted or put together.
In that flick we never saw William Munny's wife, but it was understood that she was the reason he gave up his previous life and tried so hard to not get back into it. If they had shown us why Tom changed his life, the movie would have been more profound. Maybe I need to read the graphic novel.
"...most sistahs only recognize a good man when he's a character in a shitty movie, a shitty play, their favorite daytime soap or a shitty book written by a homosexual."
From Reggie Eggert's online review of "Diary of a Mad Black Woman"

Movies like this don't go over well for the John and Richmond crowd. The audience was ass the night I was there.

Memphis.

"...most sistahs only recognize a good man when he's a character in a shitty movie, a shitty play, their favorite daytime soap or a shitty book written by a homosexual."
From Reggie Eggert's online review of "Diary of a Mad Black Woman"

and yeah, the audience might not have been ideal, but look, they knew what they were going to see. im sure most of them went on the critical praise and one or two ads they saw for it. which is great! it means they did their homework. all of these people were let down. people clapped at the end too! and not out of respect. it was the most sarcastic clap ive ever seen in a movie. i was so happy.

SC Richmond Hill! I spent a good deal of my youth there. People complain about black people at the movies. They got nothing on GTA ginos. Nothing. The loudest, most crass greaseballs in the world can be found in that theatre. I love it.

i tell you no lie. if there was one group of people id never like to associate in my lifetime again, its those women's jean, janus-wannabe acting italianish russian ginos. man, im jewish, and id rather associate with the kkk than ginos. atleast the KKK know how to stat dry from the rain. ginos just put more gel in their hair.

Ha! See, I grew up surrounded by them and have a psycho Hwy. 7 Gina for a sister-in-law, so I kinda find their repulsiveness a little endearing. They epitomize the term "knuckleheads". They're all a bunch of amped up, highly sexualized little Bruno Kirbys obsessed with pussy, fighting, hair gel and family. They're fun to be around, except when a movie's playing.

Check out this thread on GTA Ginos/Ginas. It began in 2002 and is still going strong -
http://www.latchkey.net/columns/archives/000045.html

the responses from seld proclaiming "ginos" and "ginas" were so funny. they just proved the points of valentino (the original poster).

thanks for the good read.

then i realized they were talking about Guidos.


Jersey Shore towns get their fair share of them. they're alternately hilarious and infuriating.

I used to work at a pizza joint on the beachfront, and one night working the 4 am shift, this shirtless guido came in and asked 'what else do you got besides pizza?'

a girl i worked with answered "well, we have fries...basically fried food."

the dude answered "Do I LOOK like I eat fried food?"


i started laughing. the girl tried to restrain herself but couldn't.

cause that sounds very much like what we call ginos. they're very very cocky folk who love to work out their upper body, but mostly have chicken legs as per to fit into womens jeans. its quite disturbing. they pretty much look the kids from growing up gotti.

it's an old racial slur for an Italian, but it's taken on a new meaning, which is exactly what you just described.

no wonder you thought it sucked

And what was in the suitcase?

>no wonder you thought it sucked



----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

(there may be minor minor spoilers, but nothing that will ruin it more than it ruined itself.)


...then thats the films first problem. i sat through the whole movie waiting patiently and begged for it to be the movie i was told it was. but that moment never came. it dragged, and made me uncomfortable to be there. i looked for something to like. viggo was not as profound as the critics have us to believe. he just did a lot of hard staring and quick killings. very little emotion. the dialogue made me want to laugh, but i didnt out of respect to the idea of this movie.

look, this movie sucked balls. if i have to sit in a theatre and feel uncomfortable watching it, that means i have not been drawn into the film. i was not drawn in in the slightest. it doesnt take a profound movie to draw me in either. i was drawn into the 40 year old virgin. i was drawn into batman begins. i was even drawn into wedding crashers. all of these were blockbuster smashes that for the most part got good reviews, but will not win any awards that arent refered to as 'moon men.' i didnt want to be there half through this film. i thought it was poorly acted (aside from the grossly underused in this role, ed harris, and minor exceptions from less significant characters). it was horrible scripted. and the last half hour was so fucking pointless and dull. that last scene many will argue "said it all, without saying anything." personally, i think the said nothing without saying anything. all it said was "hey honey, lets eat some meatloaf and pertend like i havent been living a lie and killing people left and right at the flick of a switch and been getting off scott clean cause this city is filled with nice people, and the cops protect nice people.

so please, tell me what i missed. PLEASE!!!!!! enlighten me. i want to know. i came out of the theatre begging my friends for something i missed that they might have caught.

Of course the artsy fartsies are going to spin a reason why this film was brilliant.

It wasn't.

You are right.

----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

Not 'Alexander' bad but a piece of rabbit shit nonetheless.

Viggo continues his post LOTR descent into a piece of shit. I mean goddamn, I know its hard to live up to, but he's approaching Travolta status.

The son's character could have been entirely eliminated and the film would have lost nothing. He's from the Keaunu Reeves school of terrible blank stares and the Demi Moore 'Ghost' school of watering eyes. His scenes did absolutely nothing for the movie.

This film had the least sexy sex scenes ever, and they looked very icky. All the sexual shit in this film was very just...ill placed, gratuitious...like ole boy said above...uncomfortable. Yuck. I felt like going home and watching porn to rescue my sexuality. This made fucking look very unfun and unarousing.

Old girl had snot in her nose in that one scene when she was crying. Edit that out, and shit. I don't wanna see snot in some bitch nose, especially when she posed to be the sex object.

Oh, and the story? The story fucked up in one major way: The actualy "History of violence" part of the film titled 'History of Violence' was poorly done. The action was good, but random, and the history wasn't well developed or even interesting, at all. Huge disappointment that the entire other half of the film was so shittily done.

Ed Harris is banned from playing characters who wear black suits and shades. Well, no he isn't. He's a great actor, but this movie was bad, so I'd talk about my momma if she was in this.

I'm waiting for the artsy fartsies to chime in on this film's brilliance.




>"...most sistahs only recognize a good man when he's a
>character in a shitty movie, a shitty play, their favorite
>daytime soap or a shitty book written by a homosexual."
>From Reggie Eggert's online review of "Diary of a Mad Black
>Woman"


----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

the site should play a "whoosh" sound, you know the one people make when they make the "over your head" gesture.

Yes it is.


>the site should play a "whoosh" sound, you know the one
>people make when they make the "over your head" gesture.



----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

But you got everything else right.

Mang.

----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

Ditto! It was badly made, bad dialogue, akward unneccessary extended scenes, and bad acting. Just like crash.

atleast crash had some good acting in it. it was all of the place story wise, and overly coincidental, but it should be placed in a higher class that HOV. this had nothing going for it other than the idea that this couldve been a good film if it was done right.

>This film had the least sexy sex scenes ever, and they looked
>very icky. All the sexual shit in this film was very
>just...ill placed, gratuitious...like ole boy said
>above...uncomfortable. Yuck. I felt like going home and
>watching porn to rescue my sexuality. This made fucking look
>very unfun and unarousing.

Umm ... have you ever seen any other David Cronenberg films? That "icky" sexual content could be considered a leitmotif in his work. That is to say, maybe that was the point.

>Old girl had snot in her nose in that one scene when she was
>crying. Edit that out, and shit. I don't wanna see snot in
>some bitch nose, especially when she posed to be the sex
>object.

It sounds to me like maybe you're holding onto too many of your own preconceptions regarding this film, or you were when you watched it.

>Umm ... have you ever seen any other David Cronenberg films?
>That "icky" sexual content could be considered a leitmotif in
>his work. That is to say, maybe that was the point.

I don't give a fuck if the "icky" content was a hidden tribute to Marvin Gaye.

It sucked.

Just because its the filmmaker's signature don't mean it can't suck.

That makes it a sucky signature.

>It sounds to me like maybe you're holding onto too many of
>your own preconceptions regarding this film, or you were when
>you watched it.

What the fuck does that mean?

Like, you mean, as I'm watching it, and the film sucks, I'm holding onto the conception that the previous scenes that I just watched sucked?

If that is your charge, than yeah, i did that.

If a film sucks, I judge it as sucky.

I can't stand when you pretentious film types try to judge cats just because we didn't like your stupid, lame, bland, bullshit.

That movie sucked. It ain't preconceived notions.

its about a lame 'history' portion of 'history of violence'. Its about unecessary, weird sexual undertones. Its about random-ass Ed Harris, and that useless son and his squabbles with that bully.

Old boy above broke it down -- the only thing good about this film is the idea.

I mean, just let me dislike the movie, and shit.


----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

The fuck is wrong with you all? This is one of the best American releases of the year.

What were you all expecting? A sexual marathon with some good action thrown in to get your dicks hard? Viggo nails it - his performance is convincing and unguarded. Maria Bello, well, she's always good. And Ed Harris deserves the Best Supporting Actor nod AT LEAST.

The cheesy elements in the script, particularly the introduction to the family, are intentional. The movie reminded me of Blue Velvet in those opening scenes (and some of the awkward acting was reminiscent of Mulholland Dr., especially the first half).

Anyway, fuck the haters, go see this movie.

>The fuck is wrong with you all? This is one of the best
>American releases of the year.

No, it wasn't.

>What were you all expecting? A sexual marathon with some good
>action thrown in to get your dicks hard?

Oddly, that is sort of what it was, except the sexual marathon was nauseating.

> Viggo nails it - his
>performance is convincing and unguarded. Maria Bello, well,
>she's always good. And Ed Harris deserves the Best Supporting
>Actor nod AT LEAST.

Uh. Hell, and no to Ed Harris. He played the EXACT same role as in Beautiful Mind, only he was an organized criminal this time. Same voice inflection. Same fucking clothing. Hell no.

>The cheesy elements in the script, particularly the
>introduction to the family, are intentional. The movie
>reminded me of Blue Velvet in those opening scenes (and some
>of the awkward acting was reminiscent of Mulholland Dr.,
>especially the first half).

No, I'm talking about the WHOLE FUCKING MOVIE'S BEING AWKWARD.

EVERYTHING.

Not just the beginning. I understood the beginning cheesiness.

The cheesiness, however, should not extend to the sex scenes and the entire "history" of the protagonist.

>Anyway, fuck the haters, go see this movie.

bunch of high school putz's mostly. They would laugh at the action and suddenly become quiet when the camera held on the damage caused.

Maybe its cause i got their so late but i thought the end of the movie was an intermission or something lol, seemed really short.

there was also alot of laughing in the theatre, this movie reminded me of road to perdition cause everyone hyped it up and it was just average.

>Maybe its cause i got their so late but i thought the end of
>the movie was an intermission or something lol, seemed really
>short.
>
>there was also alot of laughing in the theatre, this movie
>reminded me of road to perdition cause everyone hyped it up
>and it was just average.

k, i see where you're coming from totally, but disagree to a point. i completely agree about the intremission statement. but i didnt think it was short. it just shouldve been the first half of the story. the neglect to delve in to the "history of violence" is so stupid and missing, that it made the end feel like an intermission to the rest of the movie that wasnt made.

next, about the road to perdition aspect. i also got a feeling of road to perdition while watching this, but for a different reason. i thought of RTP because of the pacing of the movie. it felt very similar in its quietness, eeriness, and pacing. but mainly i was wishing i couldve been watching RTP which is a fantastic film. RTP will still rank number one in my books of cinematography in film. the acting in RTP is leap years beyond this.

RTP vs. HOV (i know this isnt necassary, and doesnt really relate that well, there's enough to compare, as shown below):

1. Family: both films are very family driven
2. Fathers: Viggo vs. Hanks, hands down hanks. they both played quiet, blank stared fathers with questionable parenting skills. hanks made me feel for him and son. viggo made me want to shoot him and his
3. Sons: the kid in RTP was sincere and likeable and well written. the kid in HOV was a horrible actor who acted like they picked him outta a high school drama class. i wanted to punch that kid so hard.
4. Cinematograhphy: hands down RTP. this isnt even an arguemnet. i mean, what the fuck was with the first scene of HOV? it was all one shot, where the one bad guy says "pull the car up to the office" he drives about 10 feet and puts it in park. i laughed to myself at this part. this is before the movie begins to suck, so i felt bad about laughing cause i didnt know if this was intended as a joke or if it was serious. if it was serious, i guess i just didnt get it.
5. Score: i forget who did RTP's score, but it was mesmerizing. it had the dark thoaty cello thoughout and really adapted to what was being filmed perfectly. howard shore's score in HOV was not bad. the guy knows what he's doing, but it was so poorly used here, that it seemed arbitrary to even have it. the movie was quiet and slow, and just painful to watch at times.
6. Sex Scenes: i dont remember RTP having a sex scene and it was rated R and im glad for it. it was the story of a father and son. there was no need. HOV on the otherhand had the most unsexy, disgusting, uncomfortable, hard to watch and not laugh at, lets throw a little 69 for shock value type of sex scenes ive ever scene. and goddammit!!!!! they actually used one of those stupid unrealistic cliched "no fuck you, no fuck you, slap, punch, oh baby, shut up and kiss me, lets fuck right here on the stairs" love scenes!!! WTF!!!???!!??!?

the more i rant, the more i hate this movie.

the focus on the effect of the violence really sent the message of violence being awful home.And I really dug the family falling apart.

That,and Maria Bello...if my wife looks like that at 40+,I'm comin home happy everyday.
____________________
www.myspace.com/chamilton

Michael: George Michael, I’m sure that Egg is a very nice person. I just don’t want you spending all your money...

George Michael: Ann.

Michael: ... getting her all glittered up for Easter, you know?

and the changes it influences (the son)...the sex scenes showed that..the first one loving and the others..not so loving.. the whole movie IMO is about breaking down to the core of who u (the main character) truly is.
______________________________________

www.myspace.com/3rd_i

.

it's a completely true statement.

i agree with what she said, cause that is the idea of the film. but this was not portrayed well in any way. this film is hot garbage. i continue to protest my love of the idea of this movie. the trailer was fantastic. i wanted to see it based on 3rdi's review. but that isnt the movie i saw.

I know what the film was supposed to be about. It was supposed to be about profound things.

It just happened to be a bad, bad, movie.

That dosen't change what it was "supposed" to be about.

Hell, 'Alexander' was "supposed to be about" some really cool things. It dosen't change the fact that the film gave me pink-eye.


>and the changes it influences (the son)...the sex scenes
>showed that..the first one loving and the others..not so
>loving.. the whole movie IMO is about breaking down to the
>core of who u (the main character) truly is.

>www.myspace.com/3rd_i


----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

i know it was bad, but i just got angry i paid for it! you got pink eye! you have much more validity in your complaints then me! i never knew you could get an eye infection from trashy films.

I was a little disappointed that Ed Harris was dispensed so early. I didn't mind the pace too much (I wasn't expecting tons of actions and fighting). The bully was actually hilarious to me. The brief action scenes were cool.

But the ending was very lame (the scene w/ him returning home to his fam at the dinner table). Everyone looking uncomfortable and then the daughter silently placing a plate for him. I'll admit, I almost always fall for the heart-string-pulls in movies (slight water of the eyes, awkward shifting lol), but that one just seemed stupid and so obvious.

I KNEW I should have seen Into the Blue.

______________________________
--I'M not a chicken...YOU'RE A TURKEY!!-

"Don't judge me; I'm just doin' my thing!" (c)greased-up deaf guy

Nas>Rakim

what should have been done differently? He killed everybody that needed to die. He explained why he hid his past. The only missing link was why he changed his identity(which was important to me).

And I looked up the spoiler, and I guess I didn't miss much.

It was too deep for me I guess.

one
k. orr

no it wasnt. it just sucked. you didnt miss shit. god awful over rated piece of cronenberg horse shit. dont let anyone tell you're 'not getting it'

yeah the sex scenes were a little awkward, especially the one in the middle of their fight, but when he was staring ever so tenderly into her eyes and she just smacks him and walks away, the whole theatre was rollin...hilarious.

and i was happy to see the son whoop on the andrew kegen-from-10 things i hate about you-knock off, not because i liked the sons character but just because i hate the small town jock bully characters (well kegen was a pretty boy model, but the character is the same)

and ritchie was comedy as well...."HOW do you fuck that up?????"

i enjoyed it despite its myriad of flaws... i was left wondering what happened to make him turn- all we found out was that joey wrecked shop on dudes eye, trahsed his house and beat up his men...

i'd call this the most unintentionally funny movie i have ever seen.

This weeks nigga please goes to:

bski: Brandy sings her tail off, man. LISTEN...I don't know how you could even consider her average. She's been consistently impressive since jump.

A nice idea turned into one of the most boring cinematic experiences of my life. The first act was excruciating (not satiric like Blue Velvet as somebody claimed) and I was dying for Ed Harris to show up. While he was decently entertaining, everybody else were empty holes of characters.

...terrible artwork, and a cliched, contrived story.

I haven't seen the movie yet though. Maybe that'll be better.

I just came back from seeing this and I dug it.

There were a few gaping plot holes, but any movie with Mario Bello getiing 69'd in a CHEERLEADING outfit has to be on my Top Ten list.

Plot: B minus

Gratuitious Nudity & Violence: A+

- Plus William Hurt didnt Ham it up as much as he could have. A nice turn. IMO.

Great flick, certainly one of the best of the year. Amazing discussion starter.

Saw it on a Friday a couple of weeks ago and have since recommended it to everyone I know. The acting is universally excellent, the tension is well executed and the violence/sex seem to fit in perfectly with the story. They are never there merely to have some tits and blood but rather to further complicate the story.

When he's firing, Cronenberg can do no wrong. Easily one of the most interesting (read NOT the best) of the last 20 years, right up there with Lynch and Eastwood (Yes, Eastwood. Has three bonafide classics with Unforgiven, Mystic River and Million Dollar Baby, all dark, complex adult minded films).

It reminded me of Blue Velvet at times with its depictions of a small, serene Americana town that has strong dark undercurrents of violence. Not nearly as surreal as Lynch's masterpiece but certainly touched on the same themes.

As for an earlier post about the dialogue being corny, I believe thats entirely on purpose to create this Norman Rockwell-esque idea of this small town. These people are meant to represent the everyday American people. Lynch uses this same technique in both Blue Velvet and Mulholland Drive. For Velvet, it works like it does in Violence to create this sense of classical suburban American where everyone speaks in classic Americana speak. For Mulholland Drive, it helps to create the dreamlike feeling and also nods to some of the tame dialogue of studio-era Hollywood, since after all, at its heart, Mulholland Drive is a movie about the movies.

~ The acting was good, I believed everybody was
who they were supposed to be, and i was caught up
in these people's lives.

~ The action scense were engrossing...the violence
was 'real' violence, not hollywood violence. When
folks got hit or shot or even fucked, I felt it
in my seat. The physical parts of this movie were
definitely conveyed to me, the viewer.

~ I dug the POINT the movie was making to me,
which was a simple one: a dude who used to be
fucked up is trying to get his life together and
outrun his past. And - unlike a lot of Hollywood
fare - the movie didn't DODGE the central question
of the first part of the movie, which was 'is this
guy really the fucked up cat ed harris says he is.'
we find out

::: spoilers :::

yes, he is.


i liked that. i liked the question of whether or
not his family would take him back. i liked the
fact that his wife - on a primarl level - liked
the killer side of him (see, the sex scene on
the staircase.)

i recommended this movie to everybody that asked
me about it.
<--- that new hotness...

F.R.O.D.O. = FOR RIDE OR DIE ONLY

“The spirituality of which I speak in principle, I have never attained to.” (c) wesley

why the fuck did this get a wide release

____________________
www.myspace.com/chamilton


Home - is where I want to be
But I guess I'm already there
I come home - -she lifted up her wings
Guess that this must be the place

but clearly not meant for the masses. no disrespect to the masses. but they're not ready to keep it that real.

this quote from rotten tomatoes sums it up:

"With no real heroes, no real lessons and no real resolution, it leaves a lingering sense of 'huh?' But damnit if those exit wounds aren't memorable."
-- Mike Ward, RICHMOND.COM

from what i saw in this post, it was like people thought they ordered the pelican brief from amazon but were delivered bonfire of the vanities instead.

as for mike ward of richmond.com, i would suggest 'superman' to him and that he definitely try to steer clear of the next wong kar wai.

the end is ridiculous. the build up is way better than the end.

could you break it down for me like i'm a retarded 5th-grader?

1) why the offensively bad acting? everyone was playing their characters WAY over the top...almost like a really bad local theater performance. but then viggo was pretty much playing it straight the whole movie. the little daughter seemed especially terrible. was this intentional?

2) what was the point of overplaying the whole idylic, laughably-rockwellian, Everytown USA (the scene where the whole family comes to comfort the little daughter in bed...wtf?) when you've already started the movie with an over-the-top violent scene (the slaughter at the motel)?

3) graphic, awkward sex...why?

4) stilted, badly-choreographed actions scenes...why?

from the opening frame, this was really hard to sit through. i'm really stumped as to how so many critics could be so completely wrong. is this just a case of major plea-copping for cronenberg?

>1) why the offensively bad acting? everyone was playing their
>characters WAY over the top...almost like a really bad local
>theater performance. but then viggo was pretty much playing
>it straight the whole movie. the little daughter seemed
>especially terrible. was this intentional?

Don't know what you were watching.

>2) what was the point of overplaying the whole idylic,
>laughably-rockwellian, Everytown USA (the scene where the
>whole family comes to comfort the little daughter in
>bed...wtf?) when you've already started the movie with an
>over-the-top violent scene (the slaughter at the motel)?

Contrast. His history can't be outrun even there.

>3) graphic, awkward sex...why?

It's realistic.

>4) stilted, badly-choreographed actions scenes...why?

This is a movie about how much trauma violence causes, not a Michael Bay movie. Murders don't tend to be nicely-choreographed in real life.

>from the opening frame, this was really hard to sit through.

Good, it's supposed to be.

>i'm really stumped as to how so many critics could be so
>completely wrong. is this just a case of major plea-copping
>for cronenberg?
>

>>1) why the offensively bad acting? everyone was playing
>their
>>characters WAY over the top...almost like a really bad local
>>theater performance. but then viggo was pretty much playing
>>it straight the whole movie. the little daughter seemed
>>especially terrible. was this intentional?
>
>Don't know what you were watching.

ok...i guess you enjoyed the acting. but did you honestly think it was realistic? if not, why did they choose to overplay it like that?

>>2) what was the point of overplaying the whole idylic,
>>laughably-rockwellian, Everytown USA (the scene where the
>>whole family comes to comfort the little daughter in
>>bed...wtf?) when you've already started the movie with an
>>over-the-top violent scene (the slaughter at the motel)?
>
>Contrast. His history can't be outrun even there.

again, why did they overplay it THAT much? i mean, the scene where the whole family meets in the daughter's bedroom to console her was worse than a Lifetime movie of the week.

>>3) graphic, awkward sex...why?
>
>It's realistic.

what narrative purpose did it serve?

>>4) stilted, badly-choreographed actions scenes...why?
>
>This is a movie about how much trauma violence causes, not a
>Michael Bay movie. Murders don't tend to be
>nicely-choreographed in real life.

no...i meant badly-choreographed as in high-schoolers-filming-a-school-project bad. it almost looked like a video of a rehearsal...like they were still practicing the moves...everyone was stiff as hell and i assume cronenberg used so many quick cuts to hide the awkward choreography. otherwise, he's just really fucking horrible at filming fight scenes.

>>from the opening frame, this was really hard to sit through.
>
>Good, it's supposed to be.

so i *was* supposed to laugh at all of the serious scenes?

Didn't expect that kinda action.

.

cant believe some of the okps co-signing this.
then again most of y'all cosigning are some uppity bitches. guess it makes sense.

V.

I guess if it had a MF Doom or Large Professor soundtrack it would be a certified OKP classic.

TERRIBLE second hour

I either really agree with dude or totally miss his taste

as some of ya are making out

i think the premise of the film was really good. execution was pretty good. what gets me is that because this is a cronenberg film, everyone gets all defensive or overly critical about it.

i do think its a movie you either love or hate. doesn't seem to be much in between.

but i'm not gonna bag it cos i aced one of my film subjects on the back of an essay i wrote on it so its served me well

I don't love or hate it. Its ok, but in my opinion the premise of the film is really pretty poor and unoriginal. However I would agree its well made.

Best thing that came out that film however was my ticket. It said A History of Violence with student underneath. When they ripped it on entry it just said A History Student. Which is exactly what I was at the time! Kept that on my wall.

Some how I went into this not knowing a DAMN THING about the movie thinking it was going to be a literal "History of Violence", like some gladiator shit, purely based on the name. A movie like this the more you know going into it the worse off it is for you. In the begining I honestly had no idea that any of that shit was coming and honestly thought that the dude was who he said he was and they had the wrong guy or some shit...because I knew nothing about the movie. Shit even reading the back of the DVD is to much information.

Anyone who hasn't seen the movie yet and is reading any part of this thread has already fucked themselves because it wont seem nearly as good.

I enjoyed it for the most part but was a little disappointed at how abrubtly it ended with some questions left unanswered. But if I would have come in here first I probably would have sat down to watch it expecting it to be horrible and probably agreeing.