|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: No offense Troy, but I beg to differ; at it's best this is an "okay" film. posted by Audiophilander on March 23, 2004 at 07:12:24:
Gee, I wish I saw that other thread about this movie before I started this one. This board seems to clutter up with a lot of noise and the worthwhile things get lost off screen.Here's why you're wrong:
http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/eternalsunshineofthespotlessmind/
It's one of the best reviewed movies in a long time. 15 reviews giving it a perfect "100", garnering an average score of 87 with 40 reviews? That's an average that you just can't ignore. But hey, it got a 50 in Balmer.Not the biggest fan of random camera movement myself because most of the time it has no point, but the effect was just right for this disorienting story.
I really connected with these people. I know people just like this, don't you? I, like the posters in that other thread, empathized with these characters quite a bit even though I'm closer in age to the doctor than I am to the stars.
Follow Ups:
nt
I don't know if that means 93% isn't that great or all 6 films are truly excellent.
I wasn't overwhelmed and the folks I was with were even less impressed than I was with the film. We'd read the reviews and I was the one who insisted in our seeing it; BTW, I was roundly blamed afterwards because neither my wife nor our guest really wanted to see this movie. Charlie Kaufman, it would seem, is an acquired taste which some folks will NEVER acquire; I'm one of them, which is my loss or gain dependent upon your viewpoint.
I did not care for "Human Nature or "Being John Malkovich". I love
"Adaptation". I like "Eternal Sunshine..." So it's not either/or, for me at least.
The abstract quirkiness of Being John Malkovich is at least challenging in a surreal imaginative way. I've never seen Human Nature, so I have no opinion on it, but I'm of the opinion that a film HAS to have characters that I care about in order to hold my interest, regardless of whether they're heroic or villainous. You are correct that it isn't an either/or situation; that's not exactly what I meant by "an acquired taste which some folks will NEVER acquire." I do assess films on a case by case basis, but my negative appraisal of Charlie Kaufman's writing skill is indicative of the general direction he seems headed, if we are to assume that he, as an developing screenwriter, is gravitating toward a certain style. In essence, his style appearsd to be moving farther and farther away from my particular tastes.Of course there are many filmgoers raving about Kaufman's writing. Lots of folks like what he's doing and I respect those differing opinions.
It fails on so many basic cinematic levels. The previously mentioned herky jerky camera, the tight cramped shots, the quick cuts, the lighting, the palette. But mostly the mundane characters.By whatever means that were employed, it seemed to be too much of an attemt to capture some of the lightning of Being John M.. Where many of the same elements previously used, did work.
The script (yes, certainly nice when a film actually has one), creates a not too believable mousy male, and a not too believable contrary female. I did enjoy the first twenty minutes inspite of the weakly scripted characters. I liked that the credits didn't roll until then, and that the third character wasn't introduced til then. I'm a fan of Carrey, loved Truman. Thoroughly enjoyed Being John M.. Carrey seems to be in search of the same magic of Truman, or Man on the Moon. I say relax, have fun, don't sweat it, you're trying TOO hard. And Kaufman should get out to a nightclub and have a drink. Shoot some pool, loosen up as well. Yes, the premise for the film was intriguing. But, that's as far as it went.
Some people don't like anchovies or wasabi either.
:o)
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: