Does it really suck? - Naqoyqatsi (2003) Discussion

[–] datasage 20 years ago

Its art, everyone will have thier own opinion of it. I liked it, though i agree its not quite as good as the previous 2. Still worth watching, the music is awsome.

reply

[–] jabesmcgee 20 years ago

I went thru registration just so that I could reply.

I watched this the other night, the most grueling thing for me to sit through is commercials. I absolutely hate US marketing and the commercials that go along with it.

So, when Naqoyqatsi uses the US Commercials in the potrayl of society... welll... it made me crawl up the wall. I couldn't stand it. I thought that same idea of commercialism, exploitation of basic human values for monetary gain, and generally low grade media, could've been shown in a more efficient and less distracting manor. I usually have to endure those commercials when watching football, to see them in this highly artistic movie.. well. i was disappointed by that 1 choice by the filmmakers.

Other than that, the only similarity it shares to Baraka is ROUGHLY the format. The music to video relation isn't as strong as Baraka and in points completely contradicts what is occuring. Which could be expected in a project of this magnitude.

Thats not to take away from the score, its absolutely amazing, Phil Glass is by far on of my favourite contemparies and it was good to see his work applied to this media.

reply

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Byzantium92 20 years ago

I really enjoyed it. It definately has a different vibe than the other two "Qatsi" films, but they of course, were different from each other too. It is much more technologically based than the others, but I think that is a valid mode of expression given that the film deals a lot with technologies role in our lives. Glass' score is amazing, probably one of his best film scores.

reply

[–] tep24 20 years ago

I was rather disappointed with Naqoyqatsi. My favorite aspect of the first two was the way they portrayed everything with almost no manipulation of the footage whatsoever (other than speeding up/slowing down, obviously). With the exception of the introductory scene (possibly the most interesting in the entire film), there is nothing whatsoever like that in Naqoyqatsi. The CGI is lame, and everything else is stock footage that's been digitally manipulated. It is also incredibly heavy-handed in making its points.

Redeeming aspect: Philip Glass's score is phenominal, but if you thought the scores from the first two were cheesy you probably won't like this one either.

reply

[–] matthewing 20 years ago

yeah, I thought it sucked.

an hour and a half of stock footage run through either solarizing or color-inverting filters set to some sorrowful and simple droning cello... not a good time. It's like spending the afternoon with a stupid, depressed shut-in and being whined to about the end of the world.

The footage was trite and the relentless video filters seemed as just a cheap attempt to make the footage fresh.

I was hoping for something on par with Baraka, but more recent and relevent. I got a hodgepodge of poorly preserved, cliche video clips.

It would be a compliment to say that it was pretentious. It tried to be intellectual, but it was just cynical.

reply

[–] vyruss 20 years ago

But on the other hand, according to your nihilist world view, somebody should come out and say that Citizen Kane was a low-budget film with virtually no special effects and bad toupees.

reply

[–] seizure_dog 20 years ago

Citizen Kane was a low-budget film with virtually no special effects and bad toupees. There I said it. Citizen Kane is one of the worst movies ever.

reply

[–] Doomferret 20 years ago

OH! Well, glad to know we have you on hand to correct the cinematic worldview with insightful observations like that. You are probably a big Michael Bay fan.

reply

[–] seizure_dog 20 years ago

well, lets see. I have no idea who you're talking about....so no, I'm not.

reply

[–] anonymous124 18 years ago

the poster has said previously that "The Tuxedo" "kicked ass."

How did you get here and what are you doing here?

I was right in the middle of a reptile zoo, and somebody was giving booze to these goddamn things.

reply

[–] postbagboy 18 years ago

Rhetorical question time: Why do so many pretentious IMDb users get offended when someone has a different opinion to them (Often using lame insults insinuating they like Michael Bay just because of said different opinion), especially when that someone is obviously a troll? You'd think if they were smart enough to recognize that Citizen Kane is a good movie they'd recognize a troll when they see one.

reply

[–] Doomferret 18 years ago

Why do so many IMDb users feel the need to weigh in on ancient posts dating back almost 2 1/2 years?

Why do so many IMDb users attack other IMDb users as pretentious after they've called out pretentious IMDb users?

Why do so many IMDb users criticize other IMDb users for not detecting an "obvious troll" when they themselves respond to spectacularly obvious trolls who ask questions like "Does Fred Phelps really hate homosexuals?"

You'd think that someone smart enough to recognize a troll would recognize a troll.

And golly gee, if they were capable of error, so might others be?

Can't we all just get along and band together against Fred Phelps?

reply

[–] postbagboy 18 years ago

1. Dude this post was on the front page it's not like I went back a gajillion pages just to specifically attack you. I saw pretentious asshattery and I pointed it out.

2. You've called out people for being pretentious? Good for you. Sadly I didn't read your entire post history. =)

3. Although you've obvious read *my* entire post history. Was it that hard to find a comeback you looked for any post I made that makes me look even the slightest bit hypocritical?

4. As I recall (It's hard to recall however since it was at least a million years ago I made that post =[) I did in fact recognize it was a troll, however just for the hell of it I briefly typed in a witty remark and then moved on (Not realizing an overzealous IMDb user who takes the internets too seriously would use it against me to make him feel better about himself). I did not go "OMFG UR LIEK TEH BIGGEST IDIOT EVAR U LIEK BAD MOVIES AND YOU PROBABLY LIEK IT UP TEH POOPER LOL HOW ABOUT THAT POST YOU MADE BACK IN 2000 WHERE YOU SAID [something unrelated]?! OH YEAH BEAT THAT!!1".

5. I don't really get what you're trying to accomplish by talking about Fred Phelps. =)

reply

[–] matthewing 20 years ago

" ... according to your nihilist world view, somebody should come out and say that Citizen Kane was a low-budget film with virtually no special effects and bad toupees."

What nihilist world view??? I said that the film was cheap (in production cost and spirit) and cynical, I didn't state that I thought everything was pointless and that nothing is worthwhile. However, "Naqoyqatsi" is not worthwhile.

It's a peculiar transition from perceiving false nihilism to inferring some specific point about "Citizen Kane" and hairpieces. I don't see how this is in any way in accord with my point of view, be it nihilistic or otherwise.

I'd ask what you are talking about, but I don't care to know.
(Nihilism is creeping into this after all... go figure.)

reply

[–] Jack_Raffaello 20 years ago

That snob meant that you're superfluous.

I don't care, don't tell me about it.

reply

[–] vampiremeep 19 years ago

This post made me laugh out loud. But then I couldn't get the image of Flea and Peter Stormare throwing a marmot into the Dude's bath when I read it, so that's probably why.

reply

[–] dfilloy-1 18 years ago

"Hey dude...nice marmot"

Those germans, they are such a funny version of the Nietszche nihilism...

just in case ( i dont think you do) want to know my rating...

1) Koyaa
2) Powaqq
3) Naqoy
4....

1728937109283719023719237192371) Baraka

and thats it....

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] xeno_genesis 18 years ago

Personally, I thought "Baraka" was much more 'cheesy'. But then, I also reckon that Philip Glass is, next to Frank Zappa, the greatest contemporary composer of the late 20th century.

reply

[–] BalthCat 18 years ago

Belated response, sure, but I was disappointed enough to provide my 2c. For being released in 2002 the images and the quality of the computer editing were terribly dated. The director would have been more successful showing raw footage rather than using 10 year old CGI to muck the images about. I don't recall, at this point in time, my opinion of the music, except that it was obviously not memorably good or memorably terrible (not like the CGI).

And I did try to get meaning out of the film. To suggest that some one would go see, or rent, Naqoykatsi without that intent is silly, really, unless you expect everyone who saw it to have done so accidentally, or unawares.

I still intend to catch the previous two, in the hopes they live up to their reviews. This movie, however, gets a Fail.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] circusdei 18 years ago

I made the mistake of seeing this one first. This film blows, no way around it. See the other ones.

reply

[–] thedottedlion 17 years ago

Personally, the digital images didn't bother me.

The red white and blue White House was one of my favorite images in the movie.

The hundreds, if not thousands of digital filters the images go through are jarring, but it all goes back to the original intent.

People make the mistake of thinking that in the previous two films, the images weren't tampered with. That's wrong. Almost all of the images were slowed down, sped up, etc., but most of it was done in-camera.

The in-camera effects feel more organic, so everyone sorta accepted them. Now, in Naqoyqatsi, the technology rebelled against in the original two films has become commonplace. It's been accepted as an intricate part of our lives. The last cries of the beauty that Godfrey Reggio has searched for come from within the beast we've been made to fear.

If technology was the enemy of the previous two films, and it is now almost impossible to escape in modern life, the war is on. It's between the perfect angles on a grid and the imperfections in each of our faces. Recorded images of human beings vs. actual human emotion.

I don't know what to make of it exactly, but I liked it.

But hey, what do I know? I'm a Michael Bay fan.

reply

[–] grizzlibog 17 years ago

I finally saw this film.

I had head about "Life out of Balance" at a fundraiser where everyone was eating French bread and fondue. A crazy academic type was telling my friend, Lornie, the 6'2" guy with dreads about the flick.

I borrowed it form a friend, and prepared myself to watch it.

Amazing.

I am watching "Life as War" right now and am getting a cute buzz out of shots of two of my favourite video games enmeshed with images of unspeakable horrible and poor behaviour.

This film is very disjointed, in a bad way.

It took over an hour of--in my opinion--horribly overwraught, over-filtered images that barely connected with one another and a host of extremely overt (to the point of annoyance) critiques of American culture and politics to get to the meat of the issue.

"Life out of Balance" had a universal quality; anyone from any culture could find something of meaning. "Life as War" is predominantly an American film. If that was their aim, then I suppose they did all right. Otherwise, it pales in comparison with the first. If they are all part of a cycle, this one is weak.

I agree with people that the oversaturation and colour-bleeding techniques seem hackneyed. Yes, you can isolate images and their colours. Yes, you can portray negatives with alternative colours. Yes? Good for you. Yay cinematography.

I think that this film is a bit out of date compared to "Life out of Balance" because it is so specific. Further, I think that it really takes repeated viewings to appreciate. Thank the mad gods for the next button on the DVD player.

reply

[–] craig-brown-1 17 years ago

I reckon three things
1. It's not as good as the earlier ones. (It's rude to point.)
2. You probably should watch them in order to get the vibe of the artist's journey
3. You probably could skip this one and go rent that new Michael Bay movie (Aquaman 2) I heard it's aweome.

reply

[–] picasso2 15 years ago

Yes. It's AWFUL. The other two were really good, but this was a dissapointment.

reply

[–] cathyguy 12 years ago

Maybe that's what you are saying, but that certainly 'is' the point of the film.....
That we need the Cliff notes on everything before we do it...
That -the way- we have made for ourselves affords us the luxury of careful study and majority consensus at the tragic expense of pure experience. - Reflection

My experience:
After waking up again at 3 AMish to the cat clawing at yet another screen I will put off repairing, another documentary from my tablet on Napflix might just afford me a little sleep. That point was moot.
On all accounts B-Bere you are correct that the film needs some 'splaining' before viewing. Eight minutes in and I am thinking nice 'artsy' intro and now herrrre's the show. I even turned on the closed captioning so I wouldn't miss a word. Well I did! And that word was Naqoyqasti being chanted. The CC said chanting so that took me a while. About 20 minutes in I started fast forwarding just to see if there was any talking. About 5 FF into it I got it.. it's art. So I started hoping around. May Godfrey forgive me but art can be viewed this way. The definition at the end might have been better also at the beginning. The credits became extremely interesting at the end which led me to the website and here. So no sleep later here I am tossing my coins into the fountain of words thoughts and ideas.
And then the alarm went off, hi hooooooo.

"I believe in coincidences, I just don't trust them." Source debatable.

reply