|
Post by bixaorellana on Jan 18, 2010 2:04:48 GMT
Oh I knew those were your own words, Spindrift, and very evocative and compelling words they are, too. Don't you like it when people on the forum say what they liked or disliked about a movie or bookk and why? Not only is it from someone we "know", but it allows us to ask questions for clarification.
No, I haven't seen either of those two movies. These movie threads are very valuable to me, as I find out about all kinds of wonderful films that would remain unknown to me otherwise. I can usually run them down online, even if I have to wait a while.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2010 7:10:28 GMT
I saw The Cave of the Yellow Dog when it came out a few years ago. I have been a big fan of Mongolian movies, but I must confess that I missed Tulpan, because I was starting to fear that it would be "more of the same."
My favorite Mongolian movie (but I forgot the title!) (It is called Urga - 1991 -directed by the great Russian director Nikita Mikhalkov) was about a man who leaves his nomadic lands and the family yurt because the authorities are putting on pressure for family planning. This is Chinese inner Mongolia, not the independent republic of Mongolia. He is told that you can get something called condoms in the big city. So he goes to the big city to buy some but he ends up getting sidetracked and buys a television instead, which he brings back with the help of a truck driver. He gets it all set up (they have a generator) and it become the center of family life. There is an old granny who doesn't talk anymore, but she spends all day popping the bubbles of the bubble wrap one by one. Anyway, it shows that the poetic lifestyle is coming to an end, and we can't keep these people living in a museum.
|
|
|
Post by spindrift on Jan 18, 2010 11:37:27 GMT
To be honest I think that you would find 'Tulpan' to be "more of the same".... I will see how much Urga costs on Amazon.
|
|
|
Post by lola on Jan 19, 2010 5:21:11 GMT
Good points, bixa, and I love this spoiler function. The dad seemed competent in the book, but all of his energy was focused on the boy (an extension of himself) while the boy wanted to reach out to others.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Jan 19, 2010 7:59:56 GMT
Yes, this is more fun than the secret de-coder ring, and should have been put on the forum long ago. Oh! That's a better, deeper interpretation, Lola! I was more taking it like a variation on the 4th Wise Man thing -- the one who misses the goal because he kind of doesn't get the directions right. On the other hand, when the 4th wise man finally arrives, we learn that because of his spiritual purity, he was on the right path all along, blah blah blah. With the dad, it was more like he took a wrong turn at Alburquerqué, as Bugs would say. Of course, looking at it from the son-as-extension-of-father angle, the death of the old allows new life to blossom -- poor coughing misguided paternal authority croaks, allowing the fresh young spirit to find hope and a new life. It also allowed for the ever-popular touching death scene with attendant grief, something that was well milked in this movie. You can tell this film did not really work for me.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2010 17:49:53 GMT
Today I saw Mr. Nobody, and I thought it was fantastic. It's about a guy who decides to never choose, so all of his alternate lives happen simultaneously. When his parents split, he goes with both of them. He loves 3 girls and marries all of them. He is shot dead in a bathtub, drowns in a car and lives to be 118. He works cleaning swimming pools and is a science specialist on television. He goes to Mars. He sleeps with his stepsister. He is in a coma after a motorcycle accident and cares for his invalid father. His life goes in every direction possible.
This is definitely Jared Leto's best role since he was in "My So Called Life" on television.
|
|
|
Post by spindrift on Jan 24, 2010 18:14:52 GMT
Tonight I am going to see 'The Prophet.... I'm anxious because it's going to be violent.... I'll report later..
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2010 18:50:25 GMT
It is a really, really excellent film. Tahar Rahim catches the screen on fire.
|
|
|
Post by lola on Jan 24, 2010 20:09:05 GMT
Mr. Nobody's plot is such an interesting notion. I'll have to look for that.
|
|
|
Post by spindrift on Jan 25, 2010 17:56:03 GMT
Sorry - the title is 'A PROPHET'....and it's in French with sub-titles. The film runs for two and a half hours that, in my case, meant two and a half hours of adrenaline-rush viewing unremitting violence within a prison, real and threatened. The theme is Poor Man Makes Good but within the confines of a prison in which are held mainly Corsican and Muslim prisoners.
As K says, Tahar Rahim does set the screen on fire. I never quite worked out why Tahar, the Muslim, aligned himself with the Corsicans....or why they offered to 'protect' him...and why they could not have found someone else to murder the witness. It seemed fairly obvious to me that, in the long run, Tahar would change sides.
Also, I do not understand why Tahar was named a Prophet...surely not just because he had a 'vision' of animals running in front of a vehicle....
Kerouac - any thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2010 18:13:29 GMT
I think that the Corsicans (and can you imagine that Niels Arestrup is actually DANISH -- well, of course you can, because of his name) chose him because that saw how vulnerable and malleable he was. And of course, once he was drawn away from his 'natural' group, there was no going back. He had no reason to align himself with the Muslims anyway, because he wasn't one, just of Muslim origin with no religious practice. Outsiders tend to forget that religious practice in France is only 10% among those born in France, no matter what the faith, because the country does everything possible to eradicate religion from daily life.
As for the title, that is open to lots of speculation, most of it based on the deer vision and his seemingly inexorable destiny. There has been a lot of talk about a sequel already, and the director is tempted, because rarely has there been a movie with such an ambiguous ending -- two groups following him out of prison, and he trying to choose an impossible neutral path, rejecting them both, to take care of his friend's wife. Obviously that is completely impossible, so what will happen next?
In terms of squirming, I went through a lot of reviews on the internet, and the general consensus is that the scenes of learning to juggle a razor blade in his mouth made absolutely everybody squirm as few scenes have ever done before.
|
|
|
Post by spindrift on Jan 25, 2010 19:15:54 GMT
About the razor blade - yes, I could nearly feel it in MY mouth when he was trying it for the first time. However, I did think there would have been more blood when he spat, knowing how a razor cuts.
As for the deer vision - just before that sequence Neils Arestrup had been gouging Tahar's eye with a teaspoon (that was a clue to me about what would happen next)...so I was confused as to whether Tahar was losing his sight and I didn't immediately recognise the running animals as a vision (although my companion did). I suppose we all register events in a different way. I didn't see his rise as inexorable until Tahar killed the ? boss.
As for the ending....maybe when he walked with his brother's wife and child and the vehicles were following him...maybe he was forcing his followers into a subservient role (as he had been in himself) or perhaps the wife hadn't noticed the cortege-like procession although it would be hard to miss. Perhaps the wife would marry him. I think the brother would have wanted this. Her simple life would then turn into a complicated one with death only one step around every corner. I doubt he was trying to walk a neutral path; if so, would he have indulged in so much murder and mayhem? A sequel would be interesting.
I found the film riveting. I was (nearly) scared to drive home alone.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Jan 28, 2010 17:29:06 GMT
Eeeeeeeeek!!!!
Spindrift -- have you seen the "Spoiler" feature here?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2010 11:07:30 GMT
The "brother" wasn't really his brother -- they just met in prison. Arab culture uses the word "brother" and "sister" a lot because we are all reputedly one big family.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2010 11:09:20 GMT
This morning I went to see "Up in the Air" and I thought it was one of the most completely depressing movies that I have seen in a long time -- the situations, the lifestyle, the depiction of American life, the family relations -- everything about it was depressing to me. I couldn't wait for it to end. Yes, it was well acted.
|
|
|
Post by lola on Jan 31, 2010 16:21:20 GMT
I enjoyed Up in the Air, partly because of the local scenes, but came away depressed. The Chicago twist was too improbable.
|
|
|
Post by spindrift on Jan 31, 2010 19:15:42 GMT
Kerouac - if it was not his "brother" why did Tahar have a coloured wedding photograph on his cell wall? Did you not see this? That's why I thought it was his brother. And why would Tahar care so much for the child of this couple. In my opinion he was the uncle.
Bixa, sorry...will be more careful next time.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2010 19:36:59 GMT
No, the Malik character had no family of his own -- that was made clear in the very first scene of the movie and then later with the Corsicans. That's why he needed protection, because he had absolutely no family, having grown up in foster homes.
|
|
|
Post by spindrift on Jan 31, 2010 22:07:49 GMT
I was sure that he was lying about that....for reasons I can't guess. On the other hand why would he tell the cops or the crims the truth?
|
|
|
Post by spindrift on Feb 3, 2010 10:36:28 GMT
The other night I saw the Coen brothers latest black comedy movie - A Serious Man. The lead character, Professor Gopkin, was admirably portrayed by Michael Stuhlbarg.
I've read some of the reviews on RottenTomatoes and this off-the-wall film got mixed reviews. It appears that critics tend to support it rather than the ticket-paying public.
The film is set in mid-west America during 1967. It was so well directed that I got the impression that it had been made during 1967! I wondered why my companion had taken me to an Old Movie... But no, it was made last year.
The Coens courageously presented numerous facets of Jewish life not normally seen by 'goys'...I found this riveting. Although I have been in the company of, and even lived with, Jewish people I found myself being enlightened at every turn. I wonder why there have not been objections from Jewish people but maybe there have been!
This film is in the category of "acquired taste" but as it's brilliantly made I urge you to see it for yourselves.
|
|
|
Post by lola on Feb 3, 2010 17:10:06 GMT
Serious Man was partly filmed on my daughter's MN college campus, and I wanted to like it, but I was seeing words like "unwatchable" in some reviews. I'll give it a try based on your rec, Spindrift.
|
|
|
Post by spindrift on Feb 3, 2010 17:27:37 GMT
Well it is certainly different perhaps even depressing.
So what part of America was it filmed in?
|
|
|
Post by lola on Feb 3, 2010 18:38:48 GMT
I think it's supposed to be set in the suburbs of Minneapolis Minnesota, the upper midwest, where the Coens grew up. The college is 45 miles south of there.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2010 18:58:01 GMT
I was going to see that movie last weekend, but I chose "Up in the Air" at the last minute.
|
|
|
Post by lola on Feb 3, 2010 20:10:34 GMT
so, your choices were between a depressing film set in the American midwest and a depressing film set in the American midwest ?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2010 20:40:23 GMT
It is horrible to say this, but when I go to a film at 9:05 a.m. on a Sunday morning, my main criterium is whether it is shorter than the other one or not, because I have a lot of things to do starting at around 11:30. Up in the Air let out sooner than A Serious Man.
|
|
|
Post by spaceneedle on Feb 3, 2010 21:04:59 GMT
I saw The Young Victoria over the weekend and it was quite good. What drives me crazy about going to the cinema is that before the film starts they torture you with commercials and previews that last at least 10-15 minutes...
This weekend I am finally going to see Avatar in 3-D IMAX. Should be fun.
|
|
|
Post by spindrift on Feb 3, 2010 23:40:17 GMT
Lola - I find it interesting that the Coens made the film near their hometown. I'd like to read more about their motivation for making the film at all. Indeed it might be considered unwatchable if one didn't have a rapport of any sort for Jews in general. The Jews in the film were portrayed as intense caricatures of themselves. This could be rather too much for some people. Some of it made me squirm.
|
|
|
Post by lola on Feb 4, 2010 0:38:59 GMT
Thanks, Spindrift. Knowing that could make it more watchable for me. I have the impression that there's an autobiographical element there.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2010 6:24:50 GMT
The Coens are famous for caricatures, but they generally make them endearing. Films like "Raising Arizona" or "Fargo" would have been very unsavory if the characters had not been completely over the top.
|
|