Movie Review Thread

[koko]

I recently saw Love story

 

Great movie!Everyone should see it.

 

Quote: love is to never to say you're sorry

[Anoushik]

I've seen the piano teacher. I am not sure if it was the actual movie who made me feel like it was awful, and discusting. I really disliked it.

Im not sure If i was just very sensitive and was in a bad state of mind at the time as when i was watching the film.But i only remember thinking that NObody should see that film!It  was just a lot of violence without any reason to show it really...

 

It was a long time ago I did see it, but I just remember how absurt it was. She was clearly a psykopath.she slept wit her mother, for what reason! ?

the most stupid and most voilent film i ever saw, wich was really really bad!

style_images/master/snapback.png

Like I said, I don't know whether I like it or not but I know I don't hate it. I think if people see it that's fine, but I also don't want to advertise it too much.

 

I think overall the story line is interesting. It exposes the darkness in all of us, that we as human beings have. From the outside she looks like a strict, conservative classical musician/piano professor, and if anyone should have values when it comes to sex (and have a very boring private life because of that) we assume it should be the classical musician. Yet this movie shows that no one escapes those sexual lusts and desires that we all posses naturally. I think from that perspective it's very interesting.

 

Overall the movie is beautifully made, with a wonderful cast, and Isabelle Huppert is an amazing actress.

 

Oh, by the way, she doesn't actually "sleep" with her mother; they just share the same bed.

[nairi]

21 Grams

 

Interesting. It's worth watching a few times to get the details out. Quite symbolic and a lot of themes to deal with including destiny vs. accidental, life vs. death, religion vs. atheism, Jesus and the Redeemer, washing the past/moving on with life, dealing with loss, guilt, forgiveness and more.

The form is the usual fragmented type of movie. The scenes are short and mixed, but there is still some sense of chronology, even with the many flashbacks. Within the scenes there is also fragmentation, i.e. we see one scene from different angles. The camera keeps "jumping" from one angle to the next, giving that sense of subjectivity: everyone sees and tells this scene from a different perspective.

 

And yes, Benicio is simply hot.

[DominO123]

21 Grams

 

Interesting. It's worth watching a few times to get the details out. Quite symbolic and a lot of themes to deal with including destiny vs. accidental, life vs. death, religion vs. atheism, Jesus and the Redeemer, washing the past/moving on with life, dealing with loss, guilt, forgiveness and more.

The form is the usual fragmented type of movie. The scenes are short and mixed, but there is still some sense of chronology, even with the many flashbacks. Within the scenes there is also fragmentation, i.e. we see one scene from different angles. The camera keeps "jumping" from one angle to the next, giving that sense of subjectivity: everyone sees and tells this scene from a different perspective.

 

And yes, Benicio is simply hot.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

It used to be Egoyans style before Ararat.

[nairi]

Egoyan had long scenes where nothing happens for minutes on end. Maybe that's why I found "The Sweet Hereafter" so boring to watch. "Krapp's Last Tape" (my favorite Egoyan so far, and one of the best movies all time), is one setting, one scene, one actor, shot from different angles.

[Harut]

Մեր Մանկության Տանգոն

 

Mer Mankutyan Tangon

 

Very interesting but depressing film. have seen it dozens of times, yet am glued to the tv right now, watching it once more...

[Nané]

Մեր Մանկության Տանգոն

 

Mer Mankutyan Tangon

 

Very interesting but depressing film. have seen it dozens of times, yet am glued to the tv right now, watching it once more...

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

'Keghni me or@m vor verevits nayem es ashxrqin u tesnim te es ashxarn @nchi e espes tsur ... '

[Siamanto]

The form is the usual fragmented type of movie. The scenes are short and mixed, but there is still some sense of chronology, even with the many flashbacks. Within the scenes there is also fragmentation, i.e. we see one scene from different angles. The camera keeps "jumping" from one angle to the next, giving that sense of subjectivity: everyone sees and tells this scene from a different perspective.

style_images/master/snapback.png

It used to be Egoyans style before Ararat.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

It is true that Egoyan - as well as others - used more extensively and obviously an "interlaced editing" style before Ararat - especially in his early movies; but, Ararat is also edited in a way where many stories are interlaced! It was for a different audience.

 

For the record, to the best of my knowledge, Egoyan never used the "Point of View" or "Subjective Camera" technique. (Assuming that I did not misread nairi!)

Edited December 6, 2004 by Siamanto

[Nakharar]

Does anyone else think that these so-called Historical epics are really crap? Troy was a bummer. Alexander the Great is even more awful. I never have high expectations from such movies, but for $150 million you'd expect something worthwhile. I've seen much better documentaries on Alexander than this pathetic excuse for a movie. Plus they definitely had more entertainment value. I'm not a stickler for historical accuracy, but a bleachy blonde Alexander and actresses with bad accents won't save the day either.

[dianjan]

Does anyone else think that these so-called Historical epics are really crap? Troy was a bummer. Alexander the Great is even more awful. I never have high expectations from such movies, but for $150 million you'd expect something worthwhile. I've seen much better documentaries on Alexander than this pathetic excuse for a movie. Plus they definitely had more entertainment value. I'm not a stickler for historical accuracy, but a bleachy blonde Alexander and actresses with bad accents won't save the day either. 

style_images/master/snapback.png

I totally agree with you. I didn't see Alexander, because I heard that it was horrible, but I watched "Troy" and it was awful. I think that instead of wasting $150 mil. on scenery and special effects, directors need to focus on dialogue, characters and the history.

Edited December 6, 2004 by dianjan

[dianjan]

Did anyone see movie "Closer"

I saw it, and I'm having very mixed feelings about it. Wanted to hear your oppinnions.

[Armen]

Ray  - I went to see it last night. Great movie.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Agree! Had an increadible time ...

[nairi]

For the record, to the best of my knowledge, Egoyan never used the "Point of View" or "Subjective Camera" technique. (Assuming that I did not misread nairi!)

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Isn't all camera work subjective? What is true is that Egoyan doesn't "jump" from cameras in one scene and from scene to scene. Everything goes more smoothly.

Btw, in 21 Grams, I would say that it also gives the feel of "stream of consciousness".

Edited December 7, 2004 by nairi

[Siamanto]

Isn't all camera work subjective? What is true is that Egoyan doesn't "jump" from cameras in one scene and from scene to scene. Everything goes more smoothly.

Btw, in 21 Grams, I would say that it also gives the feel of "stream of consciousness".

style_images/master/snapback.png

It is true that one may argue that most "camera work" is subjective; but "Point of View" or "Subjective Camera" is a well defined technique. Please see below.

Egoyan sequences the different scenes in an interlaced manner: that is achieved when editing the footage. "Point of View" or "Subjective Camera" is a characteristic of how the scenes are captured : that is achieved when shooting the footage and is independent from the editing style.

In other words "Subjective Camera" determines how one describes the scenes, not how they are sequenced .

I apologize if I repeated myself!

 

 

POINT-OF-VIEW CLOSE-UPS are usually filmed

 

with the camera positioned at the eye-level of the

 

character whose point of view is being taken. A tall

 

man looking down at a small boy would have a P.O.V.

 

Close-Up angled down on the small boy.

 

Subjective Close-Ups are filmed with the

 

camera at the eye-level of the characters being filmed.

 

By subjective is meant a shot which seeks to

 

get the audience further involved by making the

 

audience a part of the action. A rollercoaster ride,

 

where the camera captures what the audience might see

 

if they were on it would be a subjective camera angle.

 

Most of a movie is usually filmed from an

 

objective viewpoint, as if the audience is on the

 

sidelines looking on. People appear unaware of the

 

camera. They never, for instance, look directly into

 

the lens as this would give the audience the impression

 

that the character is suddenly looking at them.

 

The POINT-OF-VIEW (P.O.V.) shot is actually

 

not a true point of view. If two characters were

 

looking into each other's eyes, a true P.O.V. shot

 

would have a character looking into the camera lens the

 

way news broadcasters do. The audience would suddenly

 

feel that the person is looking at them.

 

So instead, a P.O.V. shot is positioned at

 

the side of the character whose point of view is being

 

represented. In this way, the audience still maintains

 

the feeling that they are an observer looking on, and

 

not an actual character in the action. A P.O.V. shot

 

is as close to a subjective camera angle that one can

 

come and still maintain objectivity. It allows the

 

audience to identify more with a character and yet does

 

not have the jarring effect that a true subjective

 

camera angle causes for the audience because it tends

 

to make them suddenly aware of the camera.

 

You want to get the audience emotionally

 

involved with a story and P.O.V. shots help to achieve

 

this. At the same time, with P.O.V. shots, the viewer

 

is not asked to become actively involved with the

 

characters the way subjective camera angles demand that

 

they do.

 

To understand this jarring effect, imagine

 

that a group of characters were staring suspiciously at

 

one character. A subjective camera shot would show

 

this group of characters staring directly into the

 

camera lens. As a member of the audience, you would

 

feel that they were staring at you. You have switched

 

places with the character whom you had just seen in a

 

previous shot. That is startling and doesn't work well

 

in most circumstances.

 

So making it a P.O.V. shot, the audience sees

 

almost what the character sees, but doesn't suddenly

 

find that they have switched places with the character.

 

Entire films have been shot with subjective

 

camera angles. But in this case, the audience never

 

sees the protagonist unless he is looking into a

 

mirror. This is not what audiences are used to,

 

however, and it doesn't necessarily get the audience

 

emotionally involved with the story. And that is what

 

you are going for as a screenwriter--the emotional

involvement of the audience.

[nairi]

It is true that one may argue that most "camera work" is subjective; but "Point of View" or "Subjective Camera" is a well defined technique. Please see below.

Egoyan sequences the different scenes in an interlaced manner: that is achieved when editing the footage. "Point of View" or "Subjective Camera" is a characteristic of how the scenes are captured : that is achieved when shooting the footage and is independent from the editing style.

In other words "Subjective Camera" determines how one describes the scenes, not how they are sequenced .

 

Hmm, from what I understand Egoyan uses "Point of View" or "Subjective Camera" all the time!

And yes the sequencing is what 21 Grams and Egoyan (and many others) have in common. The difference is that the scenes are shot in a different way.

[ED]

We just saw the “big fish” again on HBO, simply a marvelous movie and an instant classic.

I can’t get enough of watching this peace of art, brilliant!

[Siamanto]

Hmm, from what I understand Egoyan uses "Point of View" or "Subjective Camera" all the time!

style_images/master/snapback.png

That may be the case! For some, I did not have that impression. If that is the case, then I should either see an eye doctor

or make sure that I focus on the movie and/or don't fall asleep!

Egoyan is the first Armenian director that really impressed me. I enjoy - and respect - the work of many other Armenian directors who produced quality movies like Parajanov, Pelechian, Dovlatian, Verneuil etc. but Egoyan's Work - and World - touched me in many ways: it's also about affinity!

I always wanted to buy his DVDs, your "challenge" may be a good excuse to finally do so. I will do buy and watch them again!

The other Armenian director that really impressed me is Edgar Baghdasaryan:

http://www.barsmedia.am/independ.html#land

It is not the theme but the Photography, the Music and the editing that impressed me.

 

For the record, I have mixed feelings about Don Askarian's work. If I remember correctly, "The Old Roman Road" - or one of his movies - was partially shot in the Netherlands!

He's a technically accomplished director, but...

 

By the way, earlier today, I was watching someone create a synthetic photo on his computer: it is always a pleasure to watch a skillful worker. That reminded of two movies that I would recommend:

1- The Mystery of Picasso (It shows Picasso at work.)

http://www.milestonefilms.com/movie.php/picasso/

2- ?????? (It's a movie that shows New York painters at work. Unfortunately, I don't remember the title. I will try!)

 

If you enjoy paintings and/or "creativity," both are "must" see!

[Sasun]

Siamanto, have you seen all of Paradjanov's movies? I think he is unsurpassed in artistic quality and beaty by any of the Armenian directors.

[ED]

Siamanto, I would also sudgest get acuainted with works of Henrik Malyan, he is if not the most, one of the most well known Armenian director, he is the outhor of such films as, "Menq enq mer sarer@", "Yerkankuni" and many others Edited December 8, 2004 by Edward

[Siamanto]

Siamanto, have you seen all of Paradjanov's movies? I think he is unsurpassed in artistic quality and beaty by any of the Armenian directors.

style_images/master/snapback.png

No! I have only seen "Sayat Nova" and "Hreghen Tsier@" if my translation is correct! Of course, I don't know the film directors from Soviet Armenia as well as you do. I only know what was exported! I only know bits and pieces.

Maybe, I should also buy some of Parajanov's DVDs! Good idea!

Needless to say that I highly respect his work, but Egoyan's World is somehow closer to mine. As I said earlier, it's also about affinity!

[Siamanto]

Siamanto, I would also sudgest get acuainted with works of Henrik Malyan, he is if not the most, one of the most well known Armenian director, he is the outhor of such films as, "Menq enq mer sarer@", "Yerkankuni" and many others

style_images/master/snapback.png

Edward,

Thanks!

I have seen "Menq yev mer sarer@!" I also remember seeing a movie called something like "Gdor m@yergink????" I'm not sure, but I think??? it was directed by Henrik Malian?????

To be honest, I did not pay much attention to the artistic merits. I was so deeply moved as an Armenian. My objectivity could have been influenced.

[Siamanto]

Siamanto, I would also sudgest get acuainted with works of Henrik Malyan, he is if not the most, one of the most well known Armenian director, he is the outhor of such films as, "Menq enq mer sarer@", "Yerkankuni" and many others

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

I believe that I've also seen "Nahabed." I really like it!

[Anoushik]

Did anyone see movie "Closer"

I saw it, and I'm having very mixed feelings about it. Wanted to hear your oppinnions.

style_images/master/snapback.png

I saw "Closer" this weekend. Since I had just finished my Sociology final (dealing with changing family forms) that morning my first thoughts were that this movie would be a great movie to analyze and write papers on in Sociology. "Closer" shows today's relationship between a man and a woman, when one is not dependent financially on the other and the emphasis of the relationship is on love and chemistry. Other than that the movie was OK. It was definitely entertaining

[vava]

Loved the Incredibles. 9/10

 

A modern twist on an classic comic book tale - wall to wall action & humour. You can help but laugh and cheer on our amazing heroes!

 

And the little animated short that was screened just before the main feature was a hoot as well - something about a dancing sheep. Really well done.

[ED]

for thos who are in LA couty turn on your PBS chanal NOW, its concert tribute to george, late George Harisson