>it's one of those
>films where people come out of it so proud to have sat through
>a long, pretentious french film they only halfway understood
>that they rave about it to all their friends.

How is this film pretentious? It is a very direct film about a couple dealing with one of them dying. Pretentious does not mean slow.

Just say you find it boring. No one will think you are less smart.


>but the raves
>aren't about the quality of the film itself, they're about--
>like the spilled lattes have turned into-- bragging on which
>boring and obscure films they've successfully sat through,
>adding notches to a belt no one cares about.

So if someone told you, as I am doing now, that they were genuinely moved by the film and uninterested in bragging about going through some ordeal, would you say I was lying?

Who is bragging about seeing this movie like they've just eaten the world's spiciest chile? Film snobs have their faults, but pretending to like movies that everyone secretly finds boring is not one of them.


> but like i said,
>it's to haneke's credit that he's created a film that caters
>perfectly to the "desperate to look smart and cultured" crowd.

I saw it with a crowd of 80% people over 65. Pretty sure they could care less about looking smart and cultured. I think they were genuinely interested in the subject matter and craft. And, judging by their emotional state and conversations afterwards, were generally moved. Were they cranking out the tears hoping I'd take their photo and blog about it later?


> his oscar nod is one of the greater frauds perpetrated on the
>american public, though i admire it in the way i admire the
>cold precision and guile of a bernie madoff.

Yes, you got him. Michael Haneke, the slick con man. His filmography is full of shameless Oscar bait. When will the American public catch on to this trickster?

--------

hell-below.com