|
Post by Travis on Jul 31, 2008 12:04:25 GMT -1
Well the big one is...did he actually kill anyone or was it all in his head? Well I think it depends upon your interpretation. I saw it one way but it thought it could work another way too. Just looked at the IMdb forums and people look to be split between the same two interpretations. I personally thought that the final stretch of film is where people start to question the story, specifically from the moment the ATM tells Bateman to shoot the cat, from which point the mass killing spree ensues. I initally thought the whole night was the product of psychotic fantasy - how else do you explain him being such a perfect marksman, the exploding cars also seemed a bit extreme. Would he also be walking the streets the next day after such a night? Maybe the chainsaw sequence could also be open to such interpretation? The other view is in line with the theme of the film, about the vacuous, materialistic, soulless existence personified by the yuppie culture where nothing of substance (identity included) mattered. Throughout the film the characters mistook each other for other people, they were essentially egotistical but also anonymous. The fact that nothing was done perhaps reflected the indifference to humanity within these circles of people. In retrospect I'm leaning more towards this. The lawyer at the end who said Bateman couldn't have killed the first bloke? Again, two fairly similar explanations; he had lunch with the man who he thought was the victim, but ultimately he mistook him for someone else, in line with the theme of the film. Alternatively, you could go down the route of indifference to humanity and summise that the lawyer was playing on Bateman's seemingly delusional state and sweeping it under the carpet. Thought it was excellent as a critique of 80's greed as a whole. The scenes with the business cards were the perfect illustration.
|
|
|
Post by Mrs H on Jul 31, 2008 12:17:30 GMT -1
Well the big one is...did he actually kill anyone or was it all in his head? Well I think it depends upon your interpretation. I saw it one way but it thought it could work another way too. Just looked at the IMdb forums and people look to be split between the same two interpretations. I personally thought that the final stretch of film is where people start to question the story, specifically from the moment the ATM tells Bateman to shoot the cat, from which point the mass killing spree ensues. I initally thought the whole night was the product of psychotic fantasy - how else do you explain him being such a perfect marksman, the exploding cars also seemed a bit extreme. Would he also be walking the streets the next day after such a night? Maybe the chainsaw sequence could also be open to such interpretation? The other view is in line with the theme of the film, about the vacuous, materialistic, soulless existence personified by the yuppie culture where nothing of substance (identity included) mattered. Throughout the film the characters mistook each other for other people, they were essentially egotistical but also anonymous. The fact that nothing was done perhaps reflected the indifference to humanity within these circles of people. In retrospect I'm leaning more towards this. The lawyer at the end who said Bateman couldn't have killed the first bloke? Again, two fairly similar explanations; he had lunch with the man who he thought was the victim, but ultimately he mistook him for someone else, in line with the theme of the film. Alternatively, you could go down the route of indifference to humanity and summise that the lawyer was playing on Bateman's seemingly delusional state and sweeping it under the carpet. Thought it was excellent as a critique of 80's greed as a whole. The scenes with the business cards were the perfect illustration. Thank you I understand even less now ;D
|
|
|
Post by Travis on Jul 31, 2008 12:18:55 GMT -1
Well I think it depends upon your interpretation. I saw it one way but it thought it could work another way too. Just looked at the IMdb forums and people look to be split between the same two interpretations. I personally thought that the final stretch of film is where people start to question the story, specifically from the moment the ATM tells Bateman to shoot the cat, from which point the mass killing spree ensues. I initally thought the whole night was the product of psychotic fantasy - how else do you explain him being such a perfect marksman, the exploding cars also seemed a bit extreme. Would he also be walking the streets the next day after such a night? Maybe the chainsaw sequence could also be open to such interpretation? The other view is in line with the theme of the film, about the vacuous, materialistic, soulless existence personified by the yuppie culture where nothing of substance (identity included) mattered. Throughout the film the characters mistook each other for other people, they were essentially egotistical but also anonymous. The fact that nothing was done perhaps reflected the indifference to humanity within these circles of people. In retrospect I'm leaning more towards this. The lawyer at the end who said Bateman couldn't have killed the first bloke? Again, two fairly similar explanations; he had lunch with the man who he thought was the victim, but ultimately he mistook him for someone else, in line with the theme of the film. Alternatively, you could go down the route of indifference to humanity and summise that the lawyer was playing on Bateman's seemingly delusional state and sweeping it under the carpet. Thought it was excellent as a critique of 80's greed as a whole. The scenes with the business cards were the perfect illustration. Thank you I understand even less now ;D Brilliant!! Bollocks to trying to analyse the next film you can't comprehend!! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Mrs H on Jul 31, 2008 12:23:07 GMT -1
I think I've just got an aversion to Christian Bale. He's really starting to get on my wick.
|
|
|
Post by Travis on Aug 1, 2008 11:23:17 GMT -1
I think I've just got an aversion to Christian Bale. He's really starting to get on my wick. He's a bit weird isn't he? He can do moody, intense and broody, but just doesn't seem to have any screen charisma. Even in American Psycho, a role which was all about charisma, he still seemed pretty dull. Have you seen him in The Machinist? Scary!
|
|
|
Post by Dr LuKas on Aug 2, 2008 17:10:42 GMT -1
I watched WALL-E. Of the summer's biggest films I was keener to watch The Dark Knight than Wall-E. I just wasn't sure how a film about a robot falling in love with another robot on a dead human-less earth was going to work, in the end I enjoyed this film even more than The Dark Knight. I think what is incredible about this film is that you do feel for Wall-E, this robot who rarely speaks. With all the advertising I'm sure Wall-E's big eyes and "cute" look helped in finding people (especially children) warm to this character but what Pixar did really well was make you engage with the character on a much deeper level. I didn't warm to Wall-E because of the way he looks and his inherent "cuteness" I felt sympathy for a robot with personality, a longing for love and feeling of loneliness. This is what made the character engaging and I think most people should connect with him, doing this fairly early on is integral to enjoying the film and wanting to follow this character’s story. I was surprised at how much this film made me laugh, how deep it was (considering it's about robots) and how the story progressed from such quiet sparse beginnings (there's barely a word spoken for the first 25 minutes). If you have felt for talking fish in Finding Nemo I think you can feel for a trash crushing robot. It's an outstanding achievement. 10/10
|
|
|
Post by Travis on Aug 3, 2008 13:12:01 GMT -1
I guess we have a consensus here then?
|
|
|
Post by Dr LuKas on Aug 3, 2008 15:13:09 GMT -1
Notice it's my first 10/10 (at least I think it is and I'm quite a harsh critic), I've reviewed 25+ films on here and they're often only the ones I generally liked (because I feel there's something to say about them) so that shows what Dr LuKas thinks of this movie.
|
|
gt
Non League Player (someone crap, like Boston)
Posts: 51
|
Post by gt on Aug 5, 2008 11:09:20 GMT -1
I didn't watch a film last night so that feature was exempt from rating by the GTFBC (GT Film Board of Classification)
|
|
|
Post by Travis on Aug 5, 2008 11:15:14 GMT -1
CLUELESSCher (Alicia Silverstone) is one of those most common of US high school movie archetypes, she's a 'plastic'; pretty, rich and with little to concern her mind but clothes, cars and credit cards. When she finds she's unable to talk her debates tutor into upping her grades, Cher tries a different approach and tries a spot of matchmaking, bringing Mr Hall and together with the ditsy Miss Geist. The scheme works and her grades are lifted, but for Cher the act of bringing happiness to others has a profound effect and she next resolves to help the new girl in class, and social misfit Tai (Brittany Murphy). Although on the surface, Clueless appears shallow in the extreme, it is actually a film full of heart as Cher finds herself coming of age and finally discovering emotions she never realised she had. Very funny, and forever to be remembered in popular culture for contributing the dismissive use of "Whatever" to everyday conversation, it's a piece that looks dated - being that fashion was a key element of the story - and yet remains timeless. Alicia Silverstone has never been better, and watching her performance it again it seems almost incomprehensible that she never progressed in the way that her contemporaries like Reese Witherspoon did. A good soundtrack, a strong supporting cast and a main character called Travis - a sure sign of a good film! - make Clueless one of the best high school films ever made. 9/10
|
|
gt
Non League Player (someone crap, like Boston)
Posts: 51
|
Post by gt on Aug 5, 2008 11:19:11 GMT -1
That is a class film I must admit. Shame a lot of people missed the subtext which led to a glut of not as clever, not as good US High School 'comedies'.
|
|
|
Post by Travis on Aug 5, 2008 11:23:56 GMT -1
That is a class film I must admit. Shame a lot of people missed the subtext which led to a glut of not as clever, not as good US High School 'comedies'. Unfortunately subtext does seem to be a redundant term for most of the 'high school movie' audiences, though the best ones do tend to have some emotional substance or a strong subtext to them. Films like Fast Times At Ridgemont High, Election and some of the John Hughes stuff for starters.
|
|
gt
Non League Player (someone crap, like Boston)
Posts: 51
|
Post by gt on Aug 5, 2008 11:44:50 GMT -1
The last film I actually watched was 'Stardust'. Can't be arsed to write a full review though.
An at times overly complex 'children's fairy tale' this tells the story of a young man who sets out to win the heart of his vain and self centred object of affection by finding s sacred star. At the same time, a dying king sends his 3 murderously ambitious sons on a quest to find his successor by finding a sacred star. Also at the same time (!) 3 wicked witches embark on a quest to find a sacred star that will return their youthful looks. You guessed it, it's all the same star.
The star turns up in female human form and the young man, Tristan finds her first. What happens next is a telling of all three stories and their divergent and convergent paths.
At times simply indecipherable and toe curlingly cheesy, Stardust is never the less a more than creditable stab at a meaningful fantasy fable. Don't expect highbrow entertainment, and caution is advised if watching with very young kids as some scenes are a bit macabre. The film features many surprising cameos, including some top Brit comics as the ghostly Royal family.
The ending is amazingly predictable, but that's ok sometimes, and it certainly warmed this heart a little.
A strong 6/10 but no more for this piece of popcorn fantasy.
|
|
|
Post by URRZZZ!!! on Aug 5, 2008 21:26:17 GMT -1
The last film I actually watched was 'Stardust'. Can't be arsed to write a full review though. An at times overly complex 'children's fairy tale' this tells the story of a young man who sets out to win the heart of his vain and self centred object of affection by finding s sacred star. At the same time, a dying king sends his 3 murderously ambitious sons on a quest to find his successor by finding a sacred star. Also at the same time (!) 3 wicked witches embark on a quest to find a sacred star that will return their youthful looks. You guessed it, it's all the same star. The star turns up in female human form and the young man, Tristan finds her first. What happens next is a telling of all three stories and their divergent and convergent paths. At times simply indecipherable and toe curlingly cheesy, Stardust is never the less a more than creditable stab at a meaningful fantasy fable. Don't expect highbrow entertainment, and caution is advised if watching with very young kids as some scenes are a bit macabre. The film features many surprising cameos, including some top Brit comics as the ghostly Royal family. The ending is amazingly predictable, but that's ok sometimes, and it certainly warmed this heart a little. A strong 6/10 but no more for this piece of popcorn fantasy. I'd say this film is hilarious and thoroughly tongue in cheek with how cheesy it becomes at times. Robert De Niro's cameo is brilliant and I'd rate it 8/10, even if it is a girl's film.
|
|
|
Post by URRZZZ!!! on Aug 5, 2008 21:30:33 GMT -1
School of Rock - Out for ages but I only saw it last week. The lead character is tailor made for Jack Black as a hopeless musician who isn't making any money and is thrown out of his band. He then pretends to be his flat mate to get 6 weeks or so work as a supply teacher at a very highly rated, expensive private school. He then sets himself the task of turning a load of posh kids into a great rock band. I have to say it didn't quite live up to my expectations, considering I know a couple of people who rate this as one of their all time favourite films. It has it's amusing moments and a decent story line with a good ending. An easy, light watch but it won't have your sides splitting in two. 6/10.
|
|
|
Post by GresleyRam©®™ on Aug 5, 2008 21:32:23 GMT -1
I watched a couple in the last few days, but cant be arsed for big reviews so.....
Three Kings - Film about the Iraq War with George Clooney, Mark Wahlberg and Ice T (i think) - tis ok but lacks good characters. 6/10 (possibly a bit harsh)
Hannibal rising - Prequel to the silence of the lambs films, about the formative years of hannibal Lecter. I actually quite enjoyed it, and the teenage Hannibal was portrayed very well by some unheard of fella! 7/10
|
|
|
Post by Golden_Boy™ on Aug 5, 2008 21:44:46 GMT -1
I've also watched a few in the past few days, and also can't be arsed with a 'Trav like' review!
The Incredibles.
Love this film! Made me a bit sad tho as it reminded me of the last time I watched it. Apart from that it was great. 8/10
Starsky & Hutch (The newer one with Snoop Dogg as Huggy Bear)
It passed the time. 6/10
|
|
|
Post by GresleyRam©®™ on Aug 5, 2008 21:46:28 GMT -1
The incredibles is great, but its no WALL E
|
|
|
Post by cujo on Aug 5, 2008 21:58:57 GMT -1
Few Films watched and 1st reviews
Love Guru - typical Mike Myers shyyt - you will only laugh if you love him as an actor as the story is non existant. The jokes are childish and very close to the knuckle with racist comments etc. Myers seems to have drifted into the Jim Carey film academy where every one of his film characters now seems to be the same as the previous one. 3/10
Lost Boys 2 - The Tribe
After being a fan of the original Lost Boys film due to its originality mixing horror/good soundtrack and comedy all in one film i was looking for this to live up to the original. Similar plot as previous one of the cast falls in with wrong crowd of vampires and others have to kill the main vampire before transformation is complete. Just as the action seemed to be building nicely the film ended and i was left thinking that i what i was expecting to happen never did and it would have made the story far better. 4/10
|
|
gt
Non League Player (someone crap, like Boston)
Posts: 51
|
Post by gt on Aug 6, 2008 7:11:47 GMT -1
WTF?! Sacrilege! Why can't they just leave films alone
|
|