Films/DVD Asylum

I didn't like it

207.200.116.135

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Thread: Display All Email ] [ Films/DVD Asylum ]

Analog Scott

(A)

In Reply to: Match Point----- posted by patrickU on May 11, 2006 at 00:43:39:

The movie was a tedious endurance contest for me. The primary character was utterly unlikable and shallow. While the twist was clever it lost all impact when spent on a character I cared so little for. It also lacked texture. It was humorless and poorly paced. That probably added to the sheer tediousness of the movie over all.

Follow Ups:

"The movie was a tedious endurance contest for me." -Well, you'd better avoid Hitch's old films then. - Audiophilander 10:07:26 05/11/06 (3)
Alfred Hitchcock employed many of the same slowly evolving ("tedious") character developement techniques cleverly used in Match Point. He made his characters interesting, albeit flawed, and not always likable, just as Woody has done here. On the surface Hitch's character driven stories always seemed to have a slice-of-life quality to them, focusing on troubled relationships, with an underlying sense that something wasn't quite right and that some terrible event was going to happen at any given moment.
In Hitchcock's tales an interesting plot device was often employed, what he called a "McGuffin" or an object being sought that was only of importance to one or more of the characters, but not important to telling the story about the characters. Woody used this technique perfectly here.
Scott, you are certainly entitled to your dissenting opinion of this movie, but AFAIC, your analysis is dead wrong. The pacing was perfect and while Woody's intent was dramatic irony rather than comic irony there was sufficient situational humor for a story of this kind.
Cheers,
AuPh
- Re: "The movie was a tedious endurance contest for me." -Well, you'd better avoid Hitch's old films then. - Analog Scott 12:29:55 05/11/06 (2)
  "Alfred Hitchcock employed many of the same slowly evolving ("tedious") character developement techniques cleverly used in Match Point."
  
  I quite like Hitchcock. It was the character development that I found tedious it was the movie that I found tedious because I found nothing likable nor interesting in the primary character. I am more than happy to enjoy character development at a slow pace.
  
  " He made his characters interesting, albeit flawed, and not always likable, just as Woody has done here."
  
  Yes, his characters were interesting. That is where Matchpoint departs. There was nothing interesting about the main character at all. nothing to empathise with. He was shallow, soiapathic and humorless. It did not allow me to invest any interest in his fate.
  
  "Scott, you are certainly entitled to your dissenting opinion of this movie, but AFAIC, your analysis is dead wrong. The pacing was perfect and while Woody's intent was dramatic irony rather than comic irony there was sufficient situational humor for a story of this kind."
  
  Thank you for accepting my opinion while disagreeing with it. The problem I had with the pacing was it was to even. It felt like a two hour long Phillip Glass composition with a punchline. But some people love Phillip Glass don't they?
  - Re: "The movie was a tedious endurance contest for me." -Well, you'd better avoid Hitch's old films then. - patrickU 04:24:46 05/12/06 (1)
    Is Audiophilander not a generous man?
    You are allowed...To have an own opinion.
    - His opinion appears to be informed; your's, OTOH, as far as Hollywood goes, is shakier than the San Andreas fault line! - Audiophilander 05:36:47 05/12/06 (0)
      ;^)
Re: I didn't like it - patrickU 09:43:54 05/11/06 (10)
Neither did I!
But I supremely admire his way to reborn himself. After many years of serving us a cold warmed-up again dishes, with more or less sucess, this one is a new society critical one.
Like revenge, a dishes you may be served...Cold.
I will have some time another look at it.
Now that I bought the DVD...
Maybe...
- Re: "...warmed up again..." - rico 09:59:14 05/11/06 (9)
  Althoughi enjoyed it I feel that the film's theme was dealt with much better in Allen's "Crimes and Misdemeanors".
  - Re: "...warmed up again..." - patrickU 10:31:27 05/11/06 (8)
    Much more in a " Bermannesque " way, but I think the real WA tone is not the Greek tragic but much more suitable to him the ...WA tone.
    And you know what? I thought already at it yesterday as I saw it.
    There is an immense likeness between this picture and...
    So now, here is the question, and what other film?
    Guess.
    - Re: "...warmed up again..." - rico 10:44:36 05/11/06 (7)
      I haven't a clue. Tell me.
      - Re: "...warmed up again..." - patrickU 12:00:21 05/11/06 (6)
        
        In Reply to: Re: "...warmed up again..." posted by rico on May 11, 2006 at 10:44:36:
        
        Gosford Park. Altman�s film.
        The same critical view on upper class.
        
        But don't you think that was a much richer film? nt - Analog Scott 12:32:28 05/11/06 (5)
        
        In Reply to: Re: "...warmed up again..." posted by patrickU on May 11, 2006 at 12:00:21:
        
        nt
        
        Re: But don't you think that was a much richer film? nt - patrickU 00:13:29 05/12/06 (2)
        
        In Reply to: But don't you think that was a much richer film? nt posted by Analog Scott on May 11, 2006 at 12:32:28:
        
        Yes much richer, on different levels particulary on the social issue.
        Ultimatively also a failure, and that did hurt me reaaly hard.
        I think the way S. Fry act and the way Altman let him and the script ruin the second half of the film.
        My big loss.
        Anyway there are many similitudes between both films, don�t you think?
        
        Re: But don't you think that was a much richer film? nt - Analog Scott 08:15:15 05/13/06 (1)
        
        In Reply to: Re: But don't you think that was a much richer film? nt posted by patrickU on May 12, 2006 at 00:13:29:
        
        There certainly are parrallels in content but the feel of each is so different that I have a hard time calling them similar.
        
        Re: But don't you think that was a much richer film? nt - patrickU 08:46:29 05/13/06 (0)
        
        In Reply to: Re: But don't you think that was a much richer film? nt posted by Analog Scott on May 13, 2006 at 08:15:15:
        
        I would call them distant cousins.
        
        Re: But don't you think that was a much richer film? nt - rico 13:05:45 05/11/06 (1)
        
        In Reply to: But don't you think that was a much richer film? nt posted by Analog Scott on May 11, 2006 at 12:32:28:
        
        Yes, if youcould underststand what the hell they were saying.
        
        Re: But don't you think that was a much richer film? nt - patrickU 00:15:44 05/12/06 (0)
        
        In Reply to: Re: But don't you think that was a much richer film? nt posted by rico on May 11, 2006 at 13:05:45:
        
        He-he...I had the CC titles on...And a shot of single malt...( that is very necessary on this one...)

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

VH Audio

You can not post to an archived thread.