i'm with Anna, Requiem for a dream reaaaallly fucked with me. would have rather not seen it. and i agree with whoever said it was pretty commonplace concept. kids are happy, drugs ruin lives , the end. the worst for me was probably what happened to the mom tho. i saw that movie alone about a month ago and i had to go friends up after i saw it on some "i just wanted to hear your voice. tell me everythings all right". what a fuckin downer. i
I sat on the couch with friends watching the theme music and credits come on at the end, asking what the fuck on requiem!?
The POV on the actor running on wayons was phenominal at the time, still is. Total horror style.
I liked Pi, and am going to see the Swan flick tonight.
You should see Pi if you ever read the bible code. :/
I like movies.
Not to hijack this thread, but the couple of things i dislike about Aronofsky's style are 100x worse with Christopher Nolan. Inception was so pretentious and lame. I thought Memento was Mehmento. I was entertained by the Dark Knight when I watched it in the theater, but it seemed hollow to me and way too long on subsequent viewings. I know this sentiment is not popular here.
was anyone here seriously taken in by this silliness?
poor portman is like the chick who anwsers the ad for "modeling: very artistic, some nudity required."
Im sure she "trusted his vision" or whatever. she really fell for it.
newfound respect for arronovsky I guess.
crap movie tho.
(feel free to dismiss my rantings as those of a known arronovsky hater. I prefer to think of it as a known arronovsky hater VINDICATED.)
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
rootlesscosmo said:
edith head said:
I thought Memento was Mehmento.
I don't agree, but this statement is great.
+1 and a :latte: to myself for only just clocking it now.
Personally, I think Nolan is the anti-Aronofsky. I didn't find Inception as impressive as some folks did, but I still thought it was a hugely entertaining, absorbing movie - on one level at least, the most original sci-fi actioner since The Matrix (yeah, yeah, I know - but who wouldn't concede that it brought some new shit to the genre?). For me, Nolan's unchallenged right now as the only director making big studio pictures that are visually impressive, have mainstream appeal, are smart without being clever-clever, and which credit the viewer with a bit of intelligence. All the targets Aronofsky aims for, Nolan consistently hits, and it's not an easy trick to pull off. Aronofsky is far too obviously in thrall to The Grand Artistic Statement for my taste. For its entire duration, Requiem For A Dream seemed to constantly yell at the viewer, "YOU DO REALISE THIS IS ART, DON'T YOU?!" - presumably in the hope of drawing attention away from what a tawdry, unpleasant film it actually is.
I love Aronofsky's first three movies. Saw Black Swan recently and I was kind of bored. I think I was expecting a certain kind of tension that never materialized. (Some of the imagery was amazing, though.) Felt a similar way about The Wrestler.
DocMcCoy said:
Aronofsky is far too obviously in thrall to The Grand Artistic Statement for my taste. For its entire duration, Requiem For A Dream seemed to constantly yell at the viewer, "YOU DO REALISE THIS IS ART, DON'T YOU?!" - presumably in the hope of drawing attention away from what a tawdry, unpleasant film it actually is.
I agree with the Nolan/Aronofsky comparison - but not this last part. I don't think he's trying to draw attention away from "tawdry, unpleasant" (emotional?) aspects of Requiem. I think he's trying to immerse you in those emotions - to convey and drive the plot in terms of those emotions - which is why I love that movie in spite of how awful it makes me feel. For example, the way the TV guy, the sound design, the camera work and Ellen Burstyn's freakish acting (as "mom", no less!) tell her story is scary as hell to me. The totally debilitating, pathetic, dream-crushing nature of addiction is visceral in the movie - in a way that Selby's book can't be. So in that respect, it's a really genuine contribution for a movie to make. Analogous to how Kubrick's 2001 was a perfect visual counterpart to Clarke's novel.
It brings me to another point, which is that I really appreciate movies that force you to admit that - try as hard as Hollywood might - some of us just can't easily understand what it's like to be someone else. Slight detour, but on a related note, did anyone see Tarnation by Jonathon Caouette? It's unwatchable to some people, but it was incredibly powerful in making me accept that - until seeing it - I had very little idea of what it would be like to grow up in middle America (a) gay, (b) with mental illness dominating my family, (c) with abuse dominating my family, and most importantly, (d) all of the above (it's an autobiographical documentary).
I watched Requiem with my gf-at-the-time and when it ended she seriously said something like, "You see, the hot girl always gets what she wants in the end."
Dumbfounded, I said, "Yeah, now she gets to be a smack-ho."
While I was quickly realizing that I would have to break up with her soon, she was thinking what a great band name "The Smack-Hos" would be.??
Comments
I sat on the couch with friends watching the theme music and credits come on at the end, asking what the fuck on requiem!?
The POV on the actor running on wayons was phenominal at the time, still is. Total horror style.
I liked Pi, and am going to see the Swan flick tonight.
You should see Pi if you ever read the bible code. :/
I like movies.
I don't agree, but this statement is great.
I also had the urge to write bah-ZINGGGGGGGG to it.
Same here, I've had the dvd since the release and have not watched a full viewing, was fun in the movies but not on the tv.
I think the statement is great, and I also agree with it.
Then again, I thought Pi was decent, which seems to be a minority opinion here.
and all I can say is....
LULZ.
for days.
was anyone here seriously taken in by this silliness?
poor portman is like the chick who anwsers the ad for "modeling: very artistic, some nudity required."
Im sure she "trusted his vision" or whatever. she really fell for it.
newfound respect for arronovsky I guess.
crap movie tho.
(feel free to dismiss my rantings as those of a known arronovsky hater. I prefer to think of it as a known arronovsky hater VINDICATED.)
+1 and a :latte: to myself for only just clocking it now.
Personally, I think Nolan is the anti-Aronofsky. I didn't find Inception as impressive as some folks did, but I still thought it was a hugely entertaining, absorbing movie - on one level at least, the most original sci-fi actioner since The Matrix (yeah, yeah, I know - but who wouldn't concede that it brought some new shit to the genre?). For me, Nolan's unchallenged right now as the only director making big studio pictures that are visually impressive, have mainstream appeal, are smart without being clever-clever, and which credit the viewer with a bit of intelligence. All the targets Aronofsky aims for, Nolan consistently hits, and it's not an easy trick to pull off. Aronofsky is far too obviously in thrall to The Grand Artistic Statement for my taste. For its entire duration, Requiem For A Dream seemed to constantly yell at the viewer, "YOU DO REALISE THIS IS ART, DON'T YOU?!" - presumably in the hope of drawing attention away from what a tawdry, unpleasant film it actually is.
Well, that's saved me a few quid.
I agree with the Nolan/Aronofsky comparison - but not this last part. I don't think he's trying to draw attention away from "tawdry, unpleasant" (emotional?) aspects of Requiem. I think he's trying to immerse you in those emotions - to convey and drive the plot in terms of those emotions - which is why I love that movie in spite of how awful it makes me feel. For example, the way the TV guy, the sound design, the camera work and Ellen Burstyn's freakish acting (as "mom", no less!) tell her story is scary as hell to me. The totally debilitating, pathetic, dream-crushing nature of addiction is visceral in the movie - in a way that Selby's book can't be. So in that respect, it's a really genuine contribution for a movie to make. Analogous to how Kubrick's 2001 was a perfect visual counterpart to Clarke's novel.
It brings me to another point, which is that I really appreciate movies that force you to admit that - try as hard as Hollywood might - some of us just can't easily understand what it's like to be someone else. Slight detour, but on a related note, did anyone see Tarnation by Jonathon Caouette? It's unwatchable to some people, but it was incredibly powerful in making me accept that - until seeing it - I had very little idea of what it would be like to grow up in middle America (a) gay, (b) with mental illness dominating my family, (c) with abuse dominating my family, and most importantly, (d) all of the above (it's an autobiographical documentary).
Dumbfounded, I said, "Yeah, now she gets to be a smack-ho."
While I was quickly realizing that I would have to break up with her soon, she was thinking what a great band name "The Smack-Hos" would be.??