bradavon wrote:You didn't find that segment moving at all?
Not really, the idea that a reasonably attractive deaf teenager couldn't get her groove on in Japan, the country that perhaps sexualises schoolgirls more than anywhere else in the world, is quite frankly ludicrous.
We're talking Babel I assume (fuck reading back).
I'll counter you. Japanese society's sexualisation of schoolgirls is nothing in comparison to its adherence to norms and prejudical attitude against those with disabilities. I recall from the film that she approaches a group of teenage boys and then later the detective, I see nothing ludcicrous about neither progressing anywhere.
Not that I give a shit either way but it just seems a ludicrous criticism to make.
Watchmen
Hard to rate as the whole film is about the characters stories and backgrounds with the plot being secondary, and not particularly compelling. I reckon this would make for a very different experience the second time around with so much out of the way. But I liked it. I've long intended to read the graphic novel so I was well aware that it would be different but still I was surprised as all I'd seen of the film had been clips during Mark Kermode's negative review of it. It was very different, rather heavy and at times deep.
I watched it quite intently with my attention occasionally being broken by some of the comic book moments, whole gangs being beaten up - that sort of thing. Toward the end it did start to drag a little with Doctor Manhattan being somewhat tedious, and then the ending itself was quite underwhelming as I didn't feel the sense of drama the film had given me earlier on.
On the whole it's definitely a winner for Hollywood, a rare one amongst such crap. The source material is the real winner and what I presume the films reasonable adherence to it is what makes it different, and therefore good.
One thing I don't quite get why is it made obvious that Viedt is a villain the moment you first see him?.
Lourdes wrote:I'll counter you. Japanese society's sexualisation of schoolgirls is nothing in comparison to its adherence to norms and prejudical attitude against those with disabilities. I recall from the film that she approaches a group of teenage boys and then later the detective, I see nothing ludcicrous about neither progressing anywhere.
Yet at the same time their dramas deify romances between regular and disabled people. I don't deny that Japanese society is extremely prejudicial against people on the fringe of society in any form, but I stand by my comment that an attractive deaf girl could lose her virginity if she was desperate to.
This is one of the many reasons why I find Babel pretentious, most of the girl's gestures in the film are rather empty and half-arsed, and no this is not my only criticism of the film, I merely mentioned it as one criticism I have. I've not seen the film anywhere near enough to provide a complete and total argument as to why I dislike the film, quite frankly I'm astonished the love for this film is so great that it's starting to feel like I need to just to justify a personal opinion!
Lourdes wrote:I'll counter you. Japanese society's sexualisation of schoolgirls is nothing in comparison to its adherence to norms and prejudical attitude against those with disabilities. I recall from the film that she approaches a group of teenage boys and then later the detective, I see nothing ludcicrous about neither progressing anywhere.
Yet at the same time their dramas deify romances between regular and disabled people. I don't deny that Japanese society is extremely prejudicial against people on the fringe of society in any form, but I stand by my comment that an attractive deaf girl could lose her virginity if she was desperate to.
Maybe you're forgetting the entire JP segment is about one day only. It is not really suggested she ever tried to get rid of her virginity before that day. Getting turned down by a middle aged dentist (in the dentists office, when the door was open and his colleague was in the next room), a policeman, and a pretentious cool teen boy who wanted to impress his friends (actually she didn't even make a move on him, it was the boy who came to talk to her... and run away when he found out she is a "freak" and his friend were laughing at him) is not very surprising.
I think Brad is right saying she was looking for love and acceptance, not sex. The events seen in Babel were only the peak, the moment she finally got so sick of being misunderstood (the public, as well as her father) and rejected (even her mother abandoned her by commiting a suicide) that she was finally ready to have sex with almost anyone. She made two attempts, and they failed.
Lourdes wrote:I'll counter you. Japanese society's sexualisation of schoolgirls is nothing in comparison to its adherence to norms and prejudical attitude against those with disabilities. I recall from the film that she approaches a group of teenage boys and then later the detective, I see nothing ludcicrous about neither progressing anywhere.
Exactly. That's basically what I was trying to say .
Shingster wrote:but I stand by my comment that an attractive deaf girl could lose her virginity if she was desperate to.
Except she didn't want to lose her virginity, she wanted someone to love her. That's very different. She is using sex as a way to find affection.
Shingster wrote:This is one of the many reasons why I find Babel pretentious, most of the girl's gestures in the film are rather empty and half-arsed, and no this is not my only criticism of the film, I merely mentioned it as one criticism I have.
I agree it has faults and is pretentious in place. It's just I didn't find the Japanese segment in particular that.
I completely agree with Hung too. He's put it well.
I'm being misunderstood here, I completely agree that the underlying cause for her behaviour is a desperate need for acceptance, but it is manifesting itself in increasingly promiscuous behaviour, which in reality would bear much more fruit and be a much more prolonged and pyschologically subtle thing than we see in the film. This rather overt and bizarre physical/behavioural/sexual manifestation of an internal conflict is exactly the kind of sensationalised behaviour you see in many middle class, Sundance-friendly "intellectual" dramas on the indy circuit in America, and in Babel's case I thought it was particularly superfluous. I've got no problem with the themes the film explores, I just found the context in which they are explored to be over elaborate and ultimately unbelievable.
Suspiria 3/5 Arguably Argento's most famous film hasn't aged too well but still has a lot going for it. It's a little slow and wildly illogical and some performances are hammy to say the least.However it also has a superb soundtrack,the use of garish colours is superb,it's very atmospheric and has a couple of excellent set pieces. Still love the opening at the airport very much
Went to see Bruno for a second time this evening, managed to drag my dad along even though he's pretty homophobic hahaha, I enjoyed watching it again and he was also laughing throughout, wahey
Suspiria I was blown away at how bad it was, I sold it the next day mind you that was back in the days of VHS, may well have been cut as well, but no way blood could save that turd for me.
gasteropod wrote:Went to see Bruno for a second time this evening, managed to drag my dad along even though he's pretty homophobic hahaha, I enjoyed watching it again and he was also laughing throughout, wahey
I saw many people walk out what on earth did they think they were seeing
It's also rather condescending to the "ordinary people" he keeps referring to, as if they're too simplistic in their intellectual make up to hold the same PC opinions as the elitist middle class folk he talks about. The truth is films like Bruno are just as much aimed at you or me as any middle class journo.
I've not see Bruno, so cannot make my own judgement as to his opinions, but if the scenes are as he describes I do agree with his point with regards to satire, the talk show segment sounds like cheap audience baiting at best. The moral outrage does smack of hypocrisy coming from Tobey Young though, this is the guy who wore a T-shirt on his first day at Vanity Fair in New York that said "You Dumb and Full of Come", he also hired a strippogram for a work colleague on "Bring your families to work day".
What had promised to be a witty exposé of the rich and famous turns into a crude attempt to ridicule ordinary people for not being politically correct enough in their attitude towards gay men.
Since when? All the trailers I saw, I expect a piss take on being gay. Obviously meant as satire, with fashion using as a catalyst nothing more.
I'm surprised how surprised Toby is as that the fact it's mostly actors. This was exactly the same with Bruno.
Shingster wrote:I've not see Bruno, so cannot make my own judgement as to his opinions, but if the scenes are as he describes I do agree with his point with regards to satire, the talk show segment sounds like cheap audience baiting at best.
I've not seen it either so can't back up or refute his claims. I just thought that his points had a ring of truth about them. I've also heard similar complaints put elsewhere about BRUNO and it's lazy satire.
Lots of cheap and sleazy gay jokes and stereotypes -- but it's OK because the ultimate joke's on the bigots, right? Except are all these people really bigots? A lot of the stuff Bruno says and does would offend most people. So who really is being satirised? If anyone?
Sometimes you don't need to see a film to know that criticisms are wholly reasonable (unless Young and like-minded critics are lying). I'm willing to watch the movie and may check it out on DVD - I have a strong feeling that I'll wind up agreeing with them though.
I found parts of Borat very funny (like the naked wrestling), which is for real, nothing fake there but other parts very dodgy. Particularly the start in Kazakhstan.
I'm not going to criticise Bruno as I've not seen the bloody thing. Sure it sounds dodgy the TV part is fake but to otherwise criticise something when you've not seen the context it's in yourself seems like a stupid thing to do. I disagree Mark you do really need to have seen it, to know if the criticisms are justified.
Bruno does look funnier than Borat but like you'll check this one out on BD, probably the TV now as the BD will cost more than I want to spend on it and I've no interest in buying the DVD.
Brad, I wasn't criticising it myself. I haven't seen it. I'm saying that the criticism made by others rings true. And based on the clips I've seen (and previous form in Borat - which I have seen) I suspect I would agree with them. I could be wrong.
Brilliant. Great acting, production and impressive first time (feature) Direction from Duncan Jones. Engaging bit of sci-fi that kept my interest throughout.
Has a classic feel - highly recommended if you liked Silent Running/Dark Star/Alien etc.
Is Silent Running as good as they say? Kermode adores it.
I hear this is very good. I'm hoping I can go next week or maybe tomorrow evening but I'll be drinking from 4pm until er. 4am so doubt tomorrow I'll have much energy. I have two parties to go to, the first a BBQ (big ass marque thankfully) and the second a Birthday/Engagement party.
Brilliant. Great acting, production and impressive first time (feature) Direction from Duncan Jones. Engaging bit of sci-fi that kept my interest throughout.
Has a classic feel - highly recommended if you liked Silent Running/Dark Star/Alien etc.
I'm pissed off because my cinema had a poster for it, yet it hasn't come out for some bizarre reason.
I didn't know quite what to expect, but this was far better than I could have imagined. In a way I wish all superhero films were done this way. I don't know whether to double dip for the ultimate edition with tales of the black freighter woven into it, I can't tell whether that would work well or not. Silk Spectre is hot!
Targets (USA, 1968) – 3/5
Interesting and ambitious film that has only become more timely 40 years after its original release. The film tells two seeming unrelated stories. In one story horror film icon Byron Orlok (Boris Karloff in a role highly reminiscent of himself) decides to leave the movie industry. His classic horror film are now called camp. No one is scared of Victorian monsters anymore. At the same time a modern horror tale is taking place on the other side of the town. A well doing middle class young man (Tim O'Kelly) goes to a store and buys 300 rounds for his rifle. For no reason he decides to kill as many people in broad daylight as he can before he’s caught by the police. Inspired by real events, Targets begun as a cheap Roger Corman production. Karloff was was obliged to make this film because he owed Corman two working days as an actor. However, after Samuel Fuller had re-written the screenplay Karloff announced that he would work as long as needed and for free. Targets would be his final appearance in a US film. It was also director Peter Bogdanovich’s first film. According to the contract he was given free hands for half of the movie. The rest would consists of obligatory Karloff scenes and stock footage from The Terror (1963). But the final film ended up having more Karloff than intended, less stock footage than planned (most of which is actually seen in a Drive In scene where Orlok / Karloff attends a midnight screening of one of his old movies). Bogdanovich also has an acting role in the film; he plays a movie director.
.
what on earth did they think they were seeing 
