Hehe. I don't think I quite agree with myself on that one, either. But I enjoyed Love Song more than a I probably should have (I blame the weather and/or my mood that day!) and wasn't impressed enough by Life Aquatic to give it a 3.0. I still think that Anderson's is a better film, but there was something endearing, in a schmaltzy fairy tale way, about Love Song. But if I had to pick a film to watch again, there'd be no hesitation. Life Aquatic.
Pretty low for Hotel Rwanda. I admire that! Although I liked it quite a bit more than you, I think that just because it's about the genocide in Rwanda people (and me) tend to overrate it. Same goes for movies about the Holocaust or ones that are politically themed. Curious though: What did you think of Hotel Rwanda the first time you saw it?
I hope to have a longer review of it up soon, but there are quite a few things I didn't like about it.
1) The rather trite idea behind the film, that tragedy and comedy are always mixed, or in the "eye of the bolder", is undermined because the funny segments of the film aren't funny and the tragic parts either over-the-top or kept offscreen. They're alike because they're both bland.
2) Allen's touch at directing and usually pretty good cinematography is painfully absent from this film. It lacks style. And it's edited down in a way that makes it a mess. One of the first shots of the film is of the exterior of a restaurant that then begins to snake toward the entrance and then inside. Except, instead of completing the fluid motion, there's a jarring, very weird, fade (or is it a dissolve?) to a bunch of people at a table inside a restaurant. Seems the editors either didn't know what they were doing, or were struggling to cut down the film and ruined whatever rhythm it had.
3) The ensuing, and subsequent, conversations sound too much like Allen discussing "issues" with himself. I know, this happens in pretty much every Allen film, but it was never this painfully obvious. Even The Pacifier was less stilted.
4) So much talking... and so much of it is boring. Where's the wit? Must be back in the 90's somewhere.
5) Acting's much worse than Allen usually gets. Other than Will Ferrell, and a few of the supporting actors and actresses, the cast stumbles through. Radha Mitchell sulks and "emotes" all the time, while the others just sound awkward talking about classical music and theatre and dining in bistros. But I put the blame for that on the characters as much as the actors. Still, Amanda Peet is not Michael Caine or Mia Farrow (though Mitchell does kind of look like her).
6) The story's a rehash of the Mickey Sachs (Woody Allen) half of Hannah and Her Sisters, but it lacks the warmth of that film. Melinda and Melinda just ends, without ever finishing, and isn't supported enough by memorable or fresh characters to be satisfying. Most of what we find out about the characters in Melinda and Melinda is because of what they, or others, say about them. In good Woody Allen pictures, the characters are revealed and evolve because of what they do or how they react.
Uh oh... I'm rambling. But I really did dislike this film.
In agreement about Melinda. Tragic parts not tragic (or kept offscreen for some reason), and funny parts not funny. Plus, Allen's now almost completely lost his ability to direct. And the editing! The friggin' film starts on a tracking shot that suddenly, in the weirdest moment, dissolves to a close up of some talking heads. What happened to Woody Allen!?
That being said, equating 8 1/2 with Be Cool is cruel and unusual.
Depends on your sense of funny and, I guess, knowledge of Korean society and politics. I don't share the film's sense of humour and didn't understand a wink of it's satire. Might be like one of those Czech (Forman's The Fireman's Ball) or Polish (Piwowski's Rejs) Communist-era films that are a whole lot better if you understand the context in which they were made. But I still get a feeling I'm giving Attack the Gas Station! too much credit.
I've written a few full length scripts and several other short scripts. But nothing that's been produced or come close to production.
And thanks for checking out Un-undead!
Nope!
Fantom Kiler. Wow. I've only read about that one.
You're ruining my illusions! Shh!
Well put.
Hehe. I don't think I quite agree with myself on that one, either. But I enjoyed Love Song more than a I probably should have (I blame the weather and/or my mood that day!) and wasn't impressed enough by Life Aquatic to give it a 3.0. I still think that Anderson's is a better film, but there was something endearing, in a schmaltzy fairy tale way, about Love Song. But if I had to pick a film to watch again, there'd be no hesitation. Life Aquatic.
Thanks, I'm looking forward to diving into the book sometime soon. Any other Steinbeck you'd recommend?
...I bite. The Searchers!
Pretty low for Hotel Rwanda. I admire that! Although I liked it quite a bit more than you, I think that just because it's about the genocide in Rwanda people (and me) tend to overrate it. Same goes for movies about the Holocaust or ones that are politically themed. Curious though: What did you think of Hotel Rwanda the first time you saw it?
Nice!
I wanna see all those Takeshi Kitano films. But a '3' for A Scene at the Sea? I heard it was pretty great. I'll have to check it out.
And I hope you don't mind if I shamelessly rip your list off...
Fatih Akin's Head-On (Gegen die Wand) is about Turks in Germany and won some hefty festival prizes and awards.
Jim Sheridan's In America, too.
I hope to have a longer review of it up soon, but there are quite a few things I didn't like about it.
1) The rather trite idea behind the film, that tragedy and comedy are always mixed, or in the "eye of the bolder", is undermined because the funny segments of the film aren't funny and the tragic parts either over-the-top or kept offscreen. They're alike because they're both bland.
2) Allen's touch at directing and usually pretty good cinematography is painfully absent from this film. It lacks style. And it's edited down in a way that makes it a mess. One of the first shots of the film is of the exterior of a restaurant that then begins to snake toward the entrance and then inside. Except, instead of completing the fluid motion, there's a jarring, very weird, fade (or is it a dissolve?) to a bunch of people at a table inside a restaurant. Seems the editors either didn't know what they were doing, or were struggling to cut down the film and ruined whatever rhythm it had.
3) The ensuing, and subsequent, conversations sound too much like Allen discussing "issues" with himself. I know, this happens in pretty much every Allen film, but it was never this painfully obvious. Even The Pacifier was less stilted.
4) So much talking... and so much of it is boring. Where's the wit? Must be back in the 90's somewhere.
5) Acting's much worse than Allen usually gets. Other than Will Ferrell, and a few of the supporting actors and actresses, the cast stumbles through. Radha Mitchell sulks and "emotes" all the time, while the others just sound awkward talking about classical music and theatre and dining in bistros. But I put the blame for that on the characters as much as the actors. Still, Amanda Peet is not Michael Caine or Mia Farrow (though Mitchell does kind of look like her).
6) The story's a rehash of the Mickey Sachs (Woody Allen) half of Hannah and Her Sisters, but it lacks the warmth of that film. Melinda and Melinda just ends, without ever finishing, and isn't supported enough by memorable or fresh characters to be satisfying. Most of what we find out about the characters in Melinda and Melinda is because of what they, or others, say about them. In good Woody Allen pictures, the characters are revealed and evolve because of what they do or how they react.
Uh oh... I'm rambling. But I really did dislike this film.
In agreement about Melinda. Tragic parts not tragic (or kept offscreen for some reason), and funny parts not funny. Plus, Allen's now almost completely lost his ability to direct. And the editing! The friggin' film starts on a tracking shot that suddenly, in the weirdest moment, dissolves to a close up of some talking heads. What happened to Woody Allen!?
That being said, equating 8 1/2 with Be Cool is cruel and unusual.
;o)
Sometimes, I just don't know anymore...
Depends on your sense of funny and, I guess, knowledge of Korean society and politics. I don't share the film's sense of humour and didn't understand a wink of it's satire. Might be like one of those Czech (Forman's The Fireman's Ball) or Polish (Piwowski's Rejs) Communist-era films that are a whole lot better if you understand the context in which they were made. But I still get a feeling I'm giving Attack the Gas Station! too much credit.