Ugh, I just spent two hours with two teenage girls' romantic fantasies and petty obsessions and liked it. Must watch Braveheart now!
Jackson couldn't keep his camera still for a second. Sometimes he went overboard, and sometimes it worked really well: how awesome was that sandcastle shot?
This movie had the strange ability to make me laugh without intention or incompetance. For instance, after Julie reads her 'risque' story in class, the students laugh and the teacher stands up quickly to chide Julie with a certain delayed reaction that made me laugh out loud. I don't think the delayed reaction was intended as a joke, and it wasn't bad filmmaking, but this kind of thing kept happening again and again. Maybe it's just that I laugh at certain New Zealand quirks. Or maybe somebody spiked my... icewater. The movie is also funny when it tries to be, so I was laughing alot.
Okay, seriously though: the most impressive thing to me about the film was the success Jackson had in manipulating tone. It's a comedy about murder, wild fantasies, and really screwed-up young women (I'm not referring to the fact that they were lesbian, I'm referring to the way they were way too obsessed with each other). This is a very dark tale, but it never felt that way, and somehow that worked.
It's strange that we should watch two movies in a row with such smooth transitions between reality and fantasy for the Listology Movie Club.
Young teenage lesbian relationships and matricide are terribly untapped subjects for film. And, quite a find in Kate Winslet. Double 'Bravo!', Jackson!
This movie, to me, is such a masterful piece of filmmaking, considering directing, storytelling and acting, that you can relate to the situation, no matter how far removed from it you are in real life, and gosh, it ends on a murder (not any kind of a murder, a matricide as you point out) but I felt happy for them both that they eventually went to the logical end of their relationship and never regretted doing it... now, I don't believe the real subject of the movie is homosexuality and how it was mercilessly repressed in the 50's but rather how inner worlds, especially when shared with a significant other, can quickly come close to schizophrenia and bring people to the delusion that nature, or god, or whatever else they see fit, allows them to have boundless desires and the right to do anything to attain them... Hmmm, I got carried away on a philosophical reading of the movie instead of praising its cinematographic qualities but hey, that's the kind of guy I am :)
I have such a love/hate thing with this film. It invites us into this weird, fascinating story, but then pushes us away by taking a moralistic and mocking attitude towards everything and everybody in it. The parents are either overbearing or inadequate, the clergy and psychiatrist are insufferable, and the girls, well, they commit matricide so we are forced to judge everything about their relationship through that knowledge. It doesn’t help that so much is narrated through the overwrought schoolgirl diction of Pauline’s diary.
A few scenes I like without reservation: 1) Juliet dressed like a princess on the bridge in the garden, totally caught up in her pretend world 2) when Juliet and Pauline create an altar to their saints of “the Fourth World” (a scene which, by the way, always makes me think they would have got along well with the guys from Dead Poets Society. Then again, they just might have thought these two were a few tenors short of a full choir.) 3) almost any time that Kate Winslet has to act self-absorbed and precocious, which she nails so well. I can't imagine anyone else in that role.
This is another instance where someone has said, "I felt the movie preached to me this way or mocked this character or..." and I must reply that I didn't feel that way about it. It's interesting how many different ways different viewers can interpret a movie, whatever the intentions of the filmmaker.
The sandcastle shot was really awesome. I also loved when clay figures killed real people. And the sheer absurdity of the Orson Welles stuff was brilliant. I really loved how Jackson handled the fantasy sequences. It definitely felt realistic to have Pauline and Juliet create whole new names and personas for each other.
I also agree with you on Jackson manipulating tone - note that the IMDB calls the film a drama / romance / crime / fantasy / thriller / horror. At the same time, I see what Penny is saying, though I don't think it's too big a flaw of the film.
This was pretty subtle, but did anyone else find it interesting how Pauline kept referring to it as a "moider", as if she was some 1930's gangster? Maybe she picked that up from watching The Third Man?
Definitely not. I'm not even sure if it appears in the film, it just seemed like a noirish kind of term. Actually, I doubt I've ever heard that word used in an actual film-noir; it seems more like something that would appear in parodies of film-noir or Bugs Bunny cartoons.
I love it when highly cinematic true stories that I've never heard anything about are put to film, like this and Hotel Rwanda, which I've yet to see. The real world can be a fascinating place, and often is stranger than fiction. I've seen enough films about WWII, thankyouverymuch.
Hey folks -- sorry about the tardiness of the reply. I feel like a negligent host, since this was "my" movie.
Where to begin...
Well, it's very funny to me now that I used to consider this Jackson's "subtle" movie. I guess coming after Dead Alive -- a movie that has half a human head spinning around a food processor -- anything is going to seem subtle. But the LOTR movies are much more restrained than this. Jackson is always moving the camera, sometimes by crane, sometimes handheld, and it gives the story a sense of unrestrained, crazy energy, putting us visually into the heads of two girls, bursting with imagination, even before we really get to that part. I was also surprised on this (third? fourth? first in about eight years, at least) viewing to see as much gore and violence as there was. I'm not thinking of the murder, which was just as gut-wrenching as I remember it. I'm thinking of Pauline's fantasy of her parents dying, the murderous prince killing the guy with the gate, the fantasy of the therapist with the sword through the gut. Very typical Jackson, the combination of gore and violence with dark humor.
I also love how much mileage the film gets from just positing Pauline and Juliet as a binary pair -- dark vs. light, overweight vs. skinny, lower-class vs. upper-class, New Zealand vs. England, reactive vs. active -- that, despite these differences (or because of them) come together. For me, it's just as much fun watching these binary elements bump against each other as it is watching the plot unfold.
This was also the first time I really noticed how much class plays a part in the narrative. Well, it's certainly obvious on a basic level: Pauline is embarrassed by her lower-class family and wants to run away and be part of Juliet's family. But this time, I fully took in how it's Juliet's dad that sits down with Pauline's parents and suggests that if there's a problem, it's coming from Pauline. What an ass.
However, I wasn't as impressed with it this time around as I had been in the past (while still thinking it an excellent movie). The Jacksonisms began to grate against the well-observed and -acted relationship between the girls. There was a level of cartoonishness that didn't need to be there. I suppose there was no way for him to know, really, that his two young actors (both first-timers, I believe) would deliver such incredible performances, and maybe he thought he needed all his tricks to put the story across. Can't blame him if he did think that. But while Pauline's sex scene with the boarder is remarkably shot and edited, I can't help but think that all we really needed to see was Pauline's face to understand what was going on. I also think that the last half-hour is a bit lacking -- too much of it is reduced to short shots accompanied by Pauline's narration. Fine if you're talking about the internal workings of a casino, but here it really dissipated the narrative buildup for me, and it isn't until "The Day of the Happy Event" that it calms down and gets back to the characters.
This is the paragraph where I gush about Melanie Lynskey. I'm perhaps one of the few people who walked away from the theater in '94 thinking that Lynskey, not Winslet, would go on to be a star. Don't get me wrong: Winslet is absolutely fantastic, able to express her character's sense of class, girlish enthusiasm, naivete and intelligence all at one go, and the movie wouldn't work without her. I daresay that this performance may be her best; at least, it rivals the one in Eternal Sunshine. But Lynskey's performance is the one that holds the movie together, which is interesting, because Pauline is a fairly passive character. Still, Lynskey holds our attention simply through her reactions, through her face, and she never strikes a false, or "acted" note -- it's like whatever happens to her is a genuine surprise, that's she honestly reacting to for the first time. I think it's a damned shame that Lynskey hasn't found success, or even halfway decent roles, in the 11 years since. (She was quite good in a very small role in the otherwise criminally awful Abandon.) And I think it's even more of a shame that she's had to use an American accent, which turns her voice all squeaky and Kewpie doll. Where's that lovely, earthy New Zealand accent I fell in love with? ("I think your drawring's fentestic"). Free the accent!
Was there major 'cartoonishness' outside of their fantasies? I think the fantasies play best when cartoonish.
"...all we really needed to see was Pauline's face... " Really? What facial expression would've clearly communicated all that, even with us knowing that she likes to fantasize? I can't think of one that wouldn't be easily misinterpreted by the audience.
"[Winslet's performance] rivals the one in Eternal Sunshine." Blasphemy!
Was there major 'cartoonishness' outside of their fantasies? I think the fantasies play best when cartoonish.
Probably not -- but I'm not sure I agree with the second statement, at least re: this movie. I think what bothers me is that there was a perfectly fine "naturalistic" movie here, and the fantasy sequences, in the way that they were presented, just rubbed up against this "other" movie the wrong way. Or I'm just cranky. :-)
...I can't think of one that wouldn't be easily misinterpreted by the audience
If I were to do it, I'd try putting some of the fantasy elements into the soundtrack, and leave it at that (while being fully aware that such a strategy simply might not work). From a technical standpoint, her fantasy sequence is excellent, but it felt a little "on the nose" to me this time around. Again: a plea for more focus on the actor than the cinematic technique, or just crankiness? You make the call!
"[Winslet's performance] rivals the one in Eternal Sunshine." Blasphemy!
I think your distaste for Pauline's fantasy during sex walks hand-in-hand with your distaste for the general way you feel the fantasy sequences grate against the naturalistic 'reality' of the film. I felt the fantasy and reality played well together - they are binary as you say Pauline and Juliet are. Disagree? Agreed.
If I was a crappy director, I'd show Pauline's face in closeup, a blissful expression on her face, with the fantasy music playing. Then, there'd be that annoying 'scratched record' sound effect and Pauline would realize with horror what was 'happening to her'. Then she'd close her eyes tightly and the fantasy music would swell up again but stutter like a radio station going out of range as Pauline struggles to escape to her fantasy world.
1) Very true! -- they are binary. But yeah, the fantasy sequences (or more specifically, Jackson's style in the presentation of said fantasy sequences) chafed me this time 'round. Of course, it aint Finding Neverland by a long mile; maybe I should be thankful for what I got.
2) See, I don't think you're suggestion's half-bad, really. It could be done really horribly, of course -- but I suppose that could be said of any idea. Yet, I think it could be pulled off. Again, it really goes back to the actor, and what they're able to pull off. (Actors can be surprising, I've found.)
I immediately thought of the scene in Woody Allen's Husbands and Wives that focuses only on Judy Davis's distracted face and gives us her thoughts in voiceover about which of Archilochus's categories her friends fit into (speaking of binaries). Something like that might also work here.
Dammit, I was going to post Jonathan Rosenbaum's dismissive review of HC -- thought it would be fun to poke and prod -- but I can't seem to find it. The Chicago Reader search engine seems to be... different now.
I should also add that I hadn't read this capsule in years, so it's a weird, weird coincidence that both J. Ro and I used the word "cartoonish". Makes me wanna back off from using the word, actually.
Greetings, Listology Movie Clubbers. I'm sad to say I must quit the Listology Movie Club. If someone else would like to grab the wheel, I'd love to see the Listology Movie Club continue. If not, then... thanks for the memories. :-)
Huhwhuh? This is the room for comments on Heavenly Creatures, our March movie. It's your turn to pick the nominees for April, so whenever you're ready, give us five and the rest of us will vote.
Alright, let's get some voting up in here. In order to lessen the potential of a tie, I'll only suggest four films. What do all the following flicks have in common? They're the kind of films a friend of mine had in mind when she accused me of only recommending mentally scarring movies -- these are all fairly tough watches for one reason or another. But they're also fantastic, thematically rich films that should provide spirited discussion.
Well, if everyone else is abstaining, it looks like Battle Royale is the winner. I'll give you guys another 48 hours to vote, but after that, I'll officially declare a winner.
Well, I got no problem with that, as I was gonna vote for "Battle Royale" anyways. But does this mean it'll just be me, you and Penny on this one? Come on Listology, you know you want to see this movie!
I've seen it already as well -- in fact, I've seen all the films I nominated -- but that don't mean I won't relish a chance to see it again. Heck Jim, why don't you chime in?
It's official: Battle Royale is the Listology Movie Club selection for April. So get your hands on it, watch it, and we'll start up discussion soon enough.
Oh, shit. You see, lukeprog? You leave and everything falls apart.
Okay, to make up for my stupidity, I'm going to commence discussion on Battle Royale on May 16th, the exact center of the month. If you haven't seen it yet, try to do so, and if you saw it a while ago, try to remember everything about it.
Ugh, I just spent two hours with two teenage girls' romantic fantasies and petty obsessions and liked it. Must watch Braveheart now!
Jackson couldn't keep his camera still for a second. Sometimes he went overboard, and sometimes it worked really well: how awesome was that sandcastle shot?
This movie had the strange ability to make me laugh without intention or incompetance. For instance, after Julie reads her 'risque' story in class, the students laugh and the teacher stands up quickly to chide Julie with a certain delayed reaction that made me laugh out loud. I don't think the delayed reaction was intended as a joke, and it wasn't bad filmmaking, but this kind of thing kept happening again and again. Maybe it's just that I laugh at certain New Zealand quirks. Or maybe somebody spiked my... icewater. The movie is also funny when it tries to be, so I was laughing alot.
Okay, seriously though: the most impressive thing to me about the film was the success Jackson had in manipulating tone. It's a comedy about murder, wild fantasies, and really screwed-up young women (I'm not referring to the fact that they were lesbian, I'm referring to the way they were way too obsessed with each other). This is a very dark tale, but it never felt that way, and somehow that worked.
It's strange that we should watch two movies in a row with such smooth transitions between reality and fantasy for the Listology Movie Club.
Young teenage lesbian relationships and matricide are terribly untapped subjects for film. And, quite a find in Kate Winslet. Double 'Bravo!', Jackson!
This movie, to me, is such a masterful piece of filmmaking, considering directing, storytelling and acting, that you can relate to the situation, no matter how far removed from it you are in real life, and gosh, it ends on a murder (not any kind of a murder, a matricide as you point out) but I felt happy for them both that they eventually went to the logical end of their relationship and never regretted doing it... now, I don't believe the real subject of the movie is homosexuality and how it was mercilessly repressed in the 50's but rather how inner worlds, especially when shared with a significant other, can quickly come close to schizophrenia and bring people to the delusion that nature, or god, or whatever else they see fit, allows them to have boundless desires and the right to do anything to attain them... Hmmm, I got carried away on a philosophical reading of the movie instead of praising its cinematographic qualities but hey, that's the kind of guy I am :)
I have such a love/hate thing with this film. It invites us into this weird, fascinating story, but then pushes us away by taking a moralistic and mocking attitude towards everything and everybody in it. The parents are either overbearing or inadequate, the clergy and psychiatrist are insufferable, and the girls, well, they commit matricide so we are forced to judge everything about their relationship through that knowledge. It doesn’t help that so much is narrated through the overwrought schoolgirl diction of Pauline’s diary.
A few scenes I like without reservation: 1) Juliet dressed like a princess on the bridge in the garden, totally caught up in her pretend world 2) when Juliet and Pauline create an altar to their saints of “the Fourth World” (a scene which, by the way, always makes me think they would have got along well with the guys from Dead Poets Society. Then again, they just might have thought these two were a few tenors short of a full choir.) 3) almost any time that Kate Winslet has to act self-absorbed and precocious, which she nails so well. I can't imagine anyone else in that role.
This is another instance where someone has said, "I felt the movie preached to me this way or mocked this character or..." and I must reply that I didn't feel that way about it. It's interesting how many different ways different viewers can interpret a movie, whatever the intentions of the filmmaker.
The sandcastle shot was really awesome. I also loved when clay figures killed real people. And the sheer absurdity of the Orson Welles stuff was brilliant. I really loved how Jackson handled the fantasy sequences. It definitely felt realistic to have Pauline and Juliet create whole new names and personas for each other.
I also agree with you on Jackson manipulating tone - note that the IMDB calls the film a drama / romance / crime / fantasy / thriller / horror. At the same time, I see what Penny is saying, though I don't think it's too big a flaw of the film.
This was pretty subtle, but did anyone else find it interesting how Pauline kept referring to it as a "moider", as if she was some 1930's gangster? Maybe she picked that up from watching The Third Man?
I bet some thorough research on the real Pauline might reveal the answer. But the term isn't specific to The Third Man, is it?
Definitely not. I'm not even sure if it appears in the film, it just seemed like a noirish kind of term. Actually, I doubt I've ever heard that word used in an actual film-noir; it seems more like something that would appear in parodies of film-noir or Bugs Bunny cartoons.
I love it when highly cinematic true stories that I've never heard anything about are put to film, like this and Hotel Rwanda, which I've yet to see. The real world can be a fascinating place, and often is stranger than fiction. I've seen enough films about WWII, thankyouverymuch.
Gee, anybody watch the movie this time?
Hey folks -- sorry about the tardiness of the reply. I feel like a negligent host, since this was "my" movie.
Where to begin...
Well, it's very funny to me now that I used to consider this Jackson's "subtle" movie. I guess coming after Dead Alive -- a movie that has half a human head spinning around a food processor -- anything is going to seem subtle. But the LOTR movies are much more restrained than this. Jackson is always moving the camera, sometimes by crane, sometimes handheld, and it gives the story a sense of unrestrained, crazy energy, putting us visually into the heads of two girls, bursting with imagination, even before we really get to that part. I was also surprised on this (third? fourth? first in about eight years, at least) viewing to see as much gore and violence as there was. I'm not thinking of the murder, which was just as gut-wrenching as I remember it. I'm thinking of Pauline's fantasy of her parents dying, the murderous prince killing the guy with the gate, the fantasy of the therapist with the sword through the gut. Very typical Jackson, the combination of gore and violence with dark humor.
I also love how much mileage the film gets from just positing Pauline and Juliet as a binary pair -- dark vs. light, overweight vs. skinny, lower-class vs. upper-class, New Zealand vs. England, reactive vs. active -- that, despite these differences (or because of them) come together. For me, it's just as much fun watching these binary elements bump against each other as it is watching the plot unfold.
This was also the first time I really noticed how much class plays a part in the narrative. Well, it's certainly obvious on a basic level: Pauline is embarrassed by her lower-class family and wants to run away and be part of Juliet's family. But this time, I fully took in how it's Juliet's dad that sits down with Pauline's parents and suggests that if there's a problem, it's coming from Pauline. What an ass.
However, I wasn't as impressed with it this time around as I had been in the past (while still thinking it an excellent movie). The Jacksonisms began to grate against the well-observed and -acted relationship between the girls. There was a level of cartoonishness that didn't need to be there. I suppose there was no way for him to know, really, that his two young actors (both first-timers, I believe) would deliver such incredible performances, and maybe he thought he needed all his tricks to put the story across. Can't blame him if he did think that. But while Pauline's sex scene with the boarder is remarkably shot and edited, I can't help but think that all we really needed to see was Pauline's face to understand what was going on. I also think that the last half-hour is a bit lacking -- too much of it is reduced to short shots accompanied by Pauline's narration. Fine if you're talking about the internal workings of a casino, but here it really dissipated the narrative buildup for me, and it isn't until "The Day of the Happy Event" that it calms down and gets back to the characters.
This is the paragraph where I gush about Melanie Lynskey. I'm perhaps one of the few people who walked away from the theater in '94 thinking that Lynskey, not Winslet, would go on to be a star. Don't get me wrong: Winslet is absolutely fantastic, able to express her character's sense of class, girlish enthusiasm, naivete and intelligence all at one go, and the movie wouldn't work without her. I daresay that this performance may be her best; at least, it rivals the one in Eternal Sunshine. But Lynskey's performance is the one that holds the movie together, which is interesting, because Pauline is a fairly passive character. Still, Lynskey holds our attention simply through her reactions, through her face, and she never strikes a false, or "acted" note -- it's like whatever happens to her is a genuine surprise, that's she honestly reacting to for the first time. I think it's a damned shame that Lynskey hasn't found success, or even halfway decent roles, in the 11 years since. (She was quite good in a very small role in the otherwise criminally awful Abandon.) And I think it's even more of a shame that she's had to use an American accent, which turns her voice all squeaky and Kewpie doll. Where's that lovely, earthy New Zealand accent I fell in love with? ("I think your drawring's fentestic"). Free the accent!
Was there major 'cartoonishness' outside of their fantasies? I think the fantasies play best when cartoonish.
"...all we really needed to see was Pauline's face... " Really? What facial expression would've clearly communicated all that, even with us knowing that she likes to fantasize? I can't think of one that wouldn't be easily misinterpreted by the audience.
"[Winslet's performance] rivals the one in Eternal Sunshine." Blasphemy!
Was there major 'cartoonishness' outside of their fantasies? I think the fantasies play best when cartoonish.
Probably not -- but I'm not sure I agree with the second statement, at least re: this movie. I think what bothers me is that there was a perfectly fine "naturalistic" movie here, and the fantasy sequences, in the way that they were presented, just rubbed up against this "other" movie the wrong way. Or I'm just cranky. :-)
...I can't think of one that wouldn't be easily misinterpreted by the audience
If I were to do it, I'd try putting some of the fantasy elements into the soundtrack, and leave it at that (while being fully aware that such a strategy simply might not work). From a technical standpoint, her fantasy sequence is excellent, but it felt a little "on the nose" to me this time around. Again: a plea for more focus on the actor than the cinematic technique, or just crankiness? You make the call!
"[Winslet's performance] rivals the one in Eternal Sunshine." Blasphemy!
Hee!
I think your distaste for Pauline's fantasy during sex walks hand-in-hand with your distaste for the general way you feel the fantasy sequences grate against the naturalistic 'reality' of the film. I felt the fantasy and reality played well together - they are binary as you say Pauline and Juliet are. Disagree? Agreed.
If I was a crappy director, I'd show Pauline's face in closeup, a blissful expression on her face, with the fantasy music playing. Then, there'd be that annoying 'scratched record' sound effect and Pauline would realize with horror what was 'happening to her'. Then she'd close her eyes tightly and the fantasy music would swell up again but stutter like a radio station going out of range as Pauline struggles to escape to her fantasy world.
1) Very true! -- they are binary. But yeah, the fantasy sequences (or more specifically, Jackson's style in the presentation of said fantasy sequences) chafed me this time 'round. Of course, it aint Finding Neverland by a long mile; maybe I should be thankful for what I got.
2) See, I don't think you're suggestion's half-bad, really. It could be done really horribly, of course -- but I suppose that could be said of any idea. Yet, I think it could be pulled off. Again, it really goes back to the actor, and what they're able to pull off. (Actors can be surprising, I've found.)
I immediately thought of the scene in Woody Allen's Husbands and Wives that focuses only on Judy Davis's distracted face and gives us her thoughts in voiceover about which of Archilochus's categories her friends fit into (speaking of binaries). Something like that might also work here.
Dammit, I was going to post Jonathan Rosenbaum's dismissive review of HC -- thought it would be fun to poke and prod -- but I can't seem to find it. The Chicago Reader search engine seems to be... different now.
Is this it?
Sure is. Damn, my google-fu is weak, yo.
I should also add that I hadn't read this capsule in years, so it's a weird, weird coincidence that both J. Ro and I used the word "cartoonish". Makes me wanna back off from using the word, actually.
I thought my Google-fu was strong, but then I saw this: How To Find MP3s With Google. That's some Bruce Lee-level Googling there.
Oh, I'm no blackbelt, either. But I am an ignorant American who doesn't know the difference between karate and kung-fu!
Greetings, Listology Movie Clubbers. I'm sad to say I must quit the Listology Movie Club. If someone else would like to grab the wheel, I'd love to see the Listology Movie Club continue. If not, then... thanks for the memories. :-)
Thank you all for participating!
Bummer. I enjoyed reading the club discussions, even if I didn't participate myself. Why you hanging up the gloves after only two movies?
For perhaps the first time in recorded history, I must choose not to reveal the answer to your question. Thanks for your comment.
I agree with Jim - I thought you were doing a great job. Though if you're set on quitting, I'd be happy to take over.
That would be fentestic. I hope current members are able to maintain their participation better than I.
Alright. In that case, I think it's Cosgrove's turn to pick five nominees and have the rest of us vote on them. Cosgrove?
Is it now? What's going on here? Where'd this room come from? Why haven't I (re)seen "Heavenly Creatures" yet, anyway? What the hell does brass know?
Huhwhuh? This is the room for comments on Heavenly Creatures, our March movie. It's your turn to pick the nominees for April, so whenever you're ready, give us five and the rest of us will vote.
Alright, let's get some voting up in here. In order to lessen the potential of a tie, I'll only suggest four films. What do all the following flicks have in common? They're the kind of films a friend of mine had in mind when she accused me of only recommending mentally scarring movies -- these are all fairly tough watches for one reason or another. But they're also fantastic, thematically rich films that should provide spirited discussion.
Funny Games (1998, Michael Haneke)
Battle Royale (2001, Kinji Fukasaku)
Sick (1997, Kirby Dick)
Run and Kill (1993, Billy Tang)
I liked Tora, Tora, Tora!, and I usually enjoy movies about delinquents, so Battle Royale gets my vote.
Well, if everyone else is abstaining, it looks like Battle Royale is the winner. I'll give you guys another 48 hours to vote, but after that, I'll officially declare a winner.
Well, I got no problem with that, as I was gonna vote for "Battle Royale" anyways. But does this mean it'll just be me, you and Penny on this one? Come on Listology, you know you want to see this movie!
I managed to catch that one already, but I'm certainly eager to see the discussion!
I've seen it already as well -- in fact, I've seen all the films I nominated -- but that don't mean I won't relish a chance to see it again. Heck Jim, why don't you chime in?
When's the discussion slated to begin?
Early April.
It's official: Battle Royale is the Listology Movie Club selection for April. So get your hands on it, watch it, and we'll start up discussion soon enough.
Reminder: everyone should be finding Battle Royale and watching it before April 1st.
Say, did the discussion on Battle Royale ever happen?
Oh, shit. You see, lukeprog? You leave and everything falls apart.
Okay, to make up for my stupidity, I'm going to commence discussion on Battle Royale on May 16th, the exact center of the month. If you haven't seen it yet, try to do so, and if you saw it a while ago, try to remember everything about it.
Well, great! Although it's going to be a challenge to recall much detail about a movie with 30+ characters dressed in identical school uniforms.
That's why it helps to have seen it twice. :-)