Baseball Game
The H.S. Bully hits a 'can of corn' flyball and breaks into his homerun trot.
I loved this movie, but does Cronenberg know baseball?
Short Cut, Draw Blood
mont,
I thought it was clear that the bully was fairly sure that Jack would drop the ball. Also, there were men on base, it was the last inning, and i believe a one run lead by the team in the field. He did not need to run it out if hte ball fell.
I hear what you are saying. But, again, it was a can of corn.
He didn't hit the ball to Lupus from the Bad News Bears.
The guy hit a soft fly ball right at the rightfielder. For this guy to strut after an awful at bat was really, really saying that Cronenberg doesn't know baseball.
Not that there is anything wrong with that, unless you are making a movie that includes a baseball scene.
But otherwise, I like this movie very much. I usually watch it back-to-back with Appaloosa.
Short Cut, Draw Blood
Excuse me - but who's Carpenter? May I say it rather undermines your point when you can't get the director's name right.
The whole point of the scene (for me), is that he struts his stuff in front of his "fans", who are cheering him on to win the game. He then tries to make a winning hit and is humiliated when the catch is made by the guy who is everyone's choice to fail every time. Jack is fully aware how much of a fluke this is - don't forget that he tells his dad he sucks at baseball.
The reversal of fortune - the quiet guy who is hopeless at baseball embarrassing the bully - mirrors the other events of the film, where the quietest man in town turns out to be an efficient killer. It's one of a number of mirroring events.
Yeah, underline THIS, pal.
Stupid scene. The baseball stud going peacock because he hit a routine flyball.
Ridiculous. Should Jack have thrown his glove in the air and done the endzone shimmy?
Short Cut, Draw Blood
I don't need to underline anything, pal. The scene is far from stupid - you just need to be aware that more is happening than you are currently seeing.
And no, of course not. That would have made it stupid. As it is, it works very nicely with the rest of the film.
Pal.
I really like the film. But that scene sticks out like a sore thumb of ignorance.
And it doesn't work with the rest of the film, buddy.
Short Cut, Draw Blood
I see you've corrected your blunder with the director's name. It's always nice to see people backtracking from an error. I do it myself from time to time, though I have been known to thank the person who has corrected me.
There is nothing ignorant about the way the game has been shown - the bully is he's safe to hit the ball in that direction, because Jack will never catch it, because Jack's a loser. Even Jack knows he's useless - he's already said that to his dad. so when he catches the ball, pretty much by mistake, the bully cannot believe his big moment has been ruined. He takes it very personally.
This makes perfect sense, especially in the context of a film which is all identity, and the different roles we play.
And I am not your buddy, however sarcastically you mean that word. I am another human being debating your interpretation of the scene.
And we obviously have different interpretations of the scene.
I have talked about the scene with friends who have seen this movie and have watched and played baseball at all age levels.
Haven't found one that agrees with you.
Backed in Faith by the Holy Father, yours truly, your pal, buddy christ via Mooby's
Short Cut, Draw Blood
Really? Because now you've met three people who think the scene is both logical and fits with the rest of the movie.
Storywise it begins the subplot of the son's conflict with the bully. It establishes the two characters central to this plot, their relationship to each other, and shows that there is history between the two.
If you know that somebody drops the ball everytime you hit the ball to them, why wouldn't you be confident if you hit the ball in their direction? There isn't a soul on that field that believes he will catch the ball, and you can see it in the reaction shot after the catch. The other key thing to remember is that he is arrogant and ego-centric as all get out. If he was less arrogant he may have recognized that the ball he hit was entirely catchable, even though (given the catcher's skill) that the actual catch was improbable, or if the son was a more talented player such a fallout may not have occurred but the two factors compound in such a way as they did.
Sorry, but the bully going into his peacock strut after hitting an easy pop fly just doesn't fit.
And do we see Tom's son drop a pop fly in this movie?
Short Cut, Draw Blood
He's strutting well before he steps up to the plate, montrossboc-1. And, as two of us are now trying to tell you, he doesn't expect Jack to catch the ball. No one expects Jack to do so, probably Jack least of all.
And what doesn't it fit?
And no, of course we don't see Tom's son (ie Jack) to drop a catch - you're expected to have listened to him tell his father he's no good at the game, and to draw your own conclusions. You really don't need to SEE him drop a catch to know, from his body language and from what he says, that Jack is utterly astonished that he made the catch.
I really think you're arguing a point that doesn't have any foundation.
Well, think what you like.
I laugh at and call attention to that scene whenever I view it.
Short Cut, Draw Blood
Well, think what you like.
Thanks. I will. Especially when I know I am reading the scene in a way that makes sense of the scene,which I think shows some very important things about the characters.
I laugh at and call attention to that scene whenever I view it.
And were I sitting next to you, I'd be explaining that Cronenberg is not an idiot, and that you need to stop laughing and pay attention. Although I am sure we are meant to laugh at Jack's expression, and perhaps at Bobby's goes-before-a-fall storyline. share
Geez, it really upsets you that I & others think this scene is stupid and shows Cronenberg doesn't know baseball.
I guess that is something you'll have to learn to live with.
Short Cut, Draw Blood
What have I said that leads you to diagnose "upset"?
I enjoy discussing the scene - and I also know others who do not think the scene is stupid, or that it shows Cronenberg doesn't know baseball. For one thing, it isn't just Cronenberg who makes all this up and films it, and I am sure he would have consulted some knowledgeable person had he been unsure of the details.
As for your patronising comment - I'll live with it or not, as I choose - I don't need to learn how to live with stupidity.
Sorry, but if you think that scene fits, you don't have to learn to live with stupity, as it seems that it is already part of your lifestyle, and you are pretty good at it.
Short Cut, Draw Blood
Huh?
Come on, montrossboc, I'm sure you can write more coherently than that.
I believe you just made my point for me
Short Cut, Draw Blood
You're really scraping the bottom of the cliché barrel there, montrossboc.
Try re-reading your previous post. You might possibly have the ability for a little self-criticism, although I hold out no great hope for that.
Well, we could go on trading insults, but in the long run that's an empty use of everyone's time. So I'll stop here. I'm sure you'll want the last word, so have at it.
Nice that you know enough to quit when you're losing.
Short Cut, Draw Blood
Losing what? This isn't a battle, you know. You don't have to "win" in order to keep your manhood intact.
And I knew you'd want the last word.
You made it a battle, then you wish to withdraw. If that is not losing, it is at least quitting.
Short Cut, Draw Blood
I disagree, say so and say why, and it's a "battle"?
It's a discussion re: a scene in a film.
That is emphatically not a battle. Neither side wins nor loses - it's just an exchange of ideas. I do not accept your interpretation and you don't accept mine. That's fine. When both sides stick to their positions, there's no point in further discussion. It's not a win for one person and a loss for the other.
So let's leave it at that, shall we?
The baseball scene is so stupid. They should have made it more obvious the kid NEVER catches a ball. Or that he ALWAYS drops it. (Which are not the same thing, by the way.) Whatever the case, I dont think the kid saying "i suck at baseball" establishes it enough. They just needed someone, anyone, to say "look at that loser out there, he cant catch *beep* you know, actually SHOW him dropping several balls...maybe even one or two from the bully early in the game, and then ONLY catching that last one. In the context they show it, it looks poorly done...
and just silly...especially to people who played baseball.
Absolutely right, maniacbob.
shareAbsolutely wrong, petals.
Short Cut, Draw Blood
Gosh - you really don't know how to back down with any grace, do you!
Why would I consider backing down?
Short Cut, Draw Blood
PetalKat cannot stomach someone disagreeing with her, even if that someone claims that they like this film very much. The baseball scene has long been a contested point, despite all the facts she still won't let go, like a dog with a bone or a child trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. It is endless fun watching her strut her stuff like a peacock and try to walk the bases after hitting as you say a "can of corn" fly ball. She gets so mad when you prove her wrong that you can fry an egg on her head. You have to understand she thinks Cronenberg has hit a homerun in every single scene. This scene proves her wrong and she can't stand it.
sharePK is a woman? Now everything makes sense.
I CAN'T WAIT for the reply to this response.
Short Cut, Draw Blood
Oh, jolly old whasisname, thinking that playing with my name is some kind of insult. He never has been able to get it right.
I'm so sorry you had to wait, what, a whole day for a response to the nonsense posted by max - indeed, you'll have to wait a whole lot longer. So, deep breath now, patience is a virtue and all that.
And I'm so glad my gender has been the source of your revelation. Everything makes sense. Wow. That's sort of humbling.
Yes, you should feel humbled
Short Cut, Draw Blood
And what has been the result of your revelation, oh person of the opposite gender? Which you had only because you realised I was female.
I've always wondered why wearing one's genitalia on the outside makes one so anxious to proclaim superiority, but that seems to be the way with some over-sensitive males.
Never mind, montrossboc. Maybe one day you'll make fantastic films, and then you can put right any moments you feel are weak in films you like. Won't that be nice. I don't feel that was a weak moment, and find there's quite another part when the film sags in pace, but, well, that's not to do with this scene, which to me self-evidently works.
When the subject is baseball, males generally know more about it than females. That's what I meant.
Don't get your panties twisted over it.
Short Cut, Draw Blood
When the subject is baseball, males generally know more about it than females.
Good job males were involved in writing, acting, directing and generally overseeing this scene, then, otherwise it would have sunk without trace. Funny, you'd think one of the men involved would have said hold on, this isn't right ...
My underwear is completely in order, by the way. share
Of course, I said generally. There are some males that have no interest in different sports.
I have no in soccer, hockey, football or curling, although I once was a football fan and know many of the rules of the game, and can interpret game actions.
Cronenberg doesn't know baseball.
And I don't believe your statement about your underwear.
Short Cut, Draw Blood
Cronenberg doesn't know baseball.
Whether he does or he doesn't is immaterial. There are plenty of people there to advise him, and as you can see from the behind-the-scenes film, he's perfectly capable of listening to other people's views. I'm sure that, between them, they could have found at least one guy who can say, that's not how the pop fly rule works, guys, and people who play baseball will know that, so they'll miss the point we're trying to make - that the bully is not such a good baseball player as he thinks he is, and that Jack has hidden depths even he knew nothing about. He can catch a ball! Who knew!
The pay-off for all of this comes later.
You may not believe it, but it is true. share
I watched this film again last night. I think it’s a bit funny that this scene is drawing so much debate. I’ll offer my opinion, because that’s what it is, an opinion. Under normal circumstances, yes, I’d say the confidence of the bully after hitting a routine fly ball, would make for an awkward scene. However, it’s clearly mentioned in an early scene with his father that he’s awful at baseball and not looking forward to playing in gym class later that day.
Some people enjoy being spoon fed when watching films, having an earlier scene showing Jack dropping a baseball to prove he can’t catch, would be spoon feeding the audience in my opinion. The discussion with his father was pretty self explanatory, no? To me, the bully was confident because Jack dropping a fly ball is a regular occurrence. Everyone views things differently, but I had no problem with that particular scene. I understood it the way I believe Cronenberg meant it to be. It’s also true that there are many consultants on film sets. The director has final say, but there are hundreds of people working on set in all different departments tying everything together. Also, before anyone asks, yes, I’m a huge baseball fan and understand the game completely.
Skeletor to King Randor... come in, you royal boobshare
That's all nice, but it is a scene that shows ignorance of baseball and human behavior.
If you wish to view it in some other manner, knock yourself out.
Short Cut, Draw Blood
Well, the theme of the film isn't baseball. I'm not suggesting that's an excuse for ignorance. But, it was a high school gym class scene. If it were a MLB game and the character in the film acted the way the bully did in this, then sure, I'd agree that would be goofy and perhaps pull me out of the film. But this character is an arrogant teenage boy. I think his behavior ran with the theme of his character. It wasn't perfect, I do see some of what you're saying, but I'm not sold that Cronenberg lacks education on baseball and the scene is an error. They built conflict between Jack and his bully using a common theme of athlete versus non athlete. It was a big part of the storyline. Most films flex a little bit to make the overall storyline work. I suppose they could have gone a different way in showing how Jack is considered a loser, but it worked well enough for me.
shareArrogant teenage boys who are supposedly the team's stud do not make themselves the subject of being laughed at by going peacock when they hit a 'can of corn' fly ball.
And as I have stated, I love this movie. Excuse if I find this scene ridiculous.
Short Cut, Draw Blood
[deleted]
While I dont think the original poster has acted maturely the whole time in defending his point, I have to say that I agree with him.
No baseball player would strut after hitting a can of corn fly ball, regardless of whether or not the person settling underneath it is the worst player in the world. These balls can be caught by anyone by fluke (Ive personally seen many horrible players catch them), as it's just a matter of sticking a glove up. There is no way he would be that certain after hitting a ball like that, no matter what his natural level of arrogance is.
For me as a baseball fan, the realism level of this scene is extremely low.
Bobby sets himself up for a fall.
Now, as a baseball fan, perhaps you can tell me something I have wondered about. Not his second swing, but his first, when he doesn't make contact. Is that deliberate, teasing his audience, and is that grin cocky - or is it incompetence, and the grin is embarrassment?
Because I am prepared to trust that a whole cast and crew would say hey, this isn't realistic at all. And if that is so, then there must be a reason for his strutting.
In every scene, Bobby struts his stuff and loses. There's no scene in which he is a competent bully. There's no reason to suppose he's any good at baseball - maybe he's just good at strutting but is actually a sham. He goes into his batting with the promise that he'll win the game for his team. And just maybe his batting doesn't match up to his strutting.
Do you see what I'm getting at?
So to say "these balls can be caught by anyone by fluke" - you think that crossed Bobby's mind? He's watched Jack "sucking hard in right field" (Jack's own words) many times, judging by Jack's description of himself. His natural expectation is that, even if this is a "pop fly ball", he can strut all he likes, since Jack is going to drop it, miss it, whatever. But just maybe Jack was listening to his Dad's advice that morning at breakfast.
So, perhaps, it is actually more credible that he would be strutting his stuff after the hit than that he'd be standing there, worried that Jack might catch it. I can't see Bobby being worried in any way by such a prospect
You MUST understand what religious relevance this movie is held in the hearts of the faithful that NOT one moment can be view in contention. To truly LOVE this picture is to love every single bit of it. After all: “Love is NEVER having to say you’re sorry.”
And CatPetal being one of the High Priestesses of this film will spin any occurrence of illogical nonsense around with a virtual storm of “what ifs”. Because she has placed this film on such a high pedestal that it is safe in her mind of all - even to the most minor – attacks.
Well, at least to the irrational attacks of max. It's interesting -- mildly -- that he can hate so hard and spend so much time and energy at it, when
It's JUST a movie, however great.
Or perhaps he just hates CatPetal? Also mildly interesting, but more amusing -- still also mildly.
The Internet is simply fascinating.
Oh, I didn't forget about you Samantha! There is no one more worthy of the title High Priestess. Together you make quite the pair.
shareThen why do you continue to engage with us? I'd have put have both on ignore some time ago!
sharemax, you invest this board -- and my presence on it -- with far more importance and meaning than is really there. I do this for fun and out of appreciation for a film. You don't seem to be having any fun, and if you hate the film so much, why on earth do you hang around? You must have noticed by now that neither CatPetal nor I is likely to change our opinions and ideas according to what you think they ought to be. And then all those obsessive posts -- must take you hours out of your life. Is it so miserable as that? Pity.
And besides that, you got my title wrong.
Samantha, Highest Priestess of All
[deleted]
Funny how there is so much concern about me. I at the very least find it amusing that when someone, like the original poster claims that they love the entire film except for one small part there is a conniption fit. I just find it amusing – that is all.
shareNo one's having a "conniption fit" except you! I gather this kind of fit denotes anger or panic - I've never been angry at you, or panicked by you. I have found your posts kind of, well, oddly unseeing of what is being implied, but hey, that's how you see things.
But this endless "this is wrong with the film - no - that is wrong with the film", when each of the points you bring up are equally nonsensical - well, it's fascinating that you should want to do that. If I don't like something, I don't post about it. Don't see the point.
But hey, max, whatever floats your boat, as they say.
My posts have been oddly unseeing of what is being implied? Maybe when Edie walks out of a bathroom or vomits instead of using her words I find something oddly empty in the emotional department. Especially when Edie leaves the bathroom and that is the last time we see her until the last 5 seconds of the film. And since she didn’t say anything leaving the bathroom it is some time before that moment when we actually hear anything from her.
As far as the baseball game is concern it is you who is acting like they are unseeing and continue to gloss over the scene with a virtual storm of “what ifs”. A can of corn. That is what the original poster wrote. It was an awful hit. But you want to paint it as something good.
“Oh, he meant to hit that ball that way. He knew that Jack couldn’t catch it. Remember Jack told his father he wasn’t any good at baseball. Cronenberg set it up just right.”
But if Bobby had so much control over the ball then why hit a “can of corn” at all? The fact is that batters don't want to hit fly balls nor do they direct who they are hitting them to. I know enough about baseball to know that when a batter hits a fly ball they didn’t get a good piece of the ball and if you didn’t get a good piece of the ball you are not going to have much control over it. The surface of the bat is not a lot of real estate. When a speeding ball zips over the plate there is not much time to decide which side of the field it is going to go over. The biggest concern for the batter is connecting enough of the bat with the ball. I’ve heard it referred to as “the sweet spot”.
If you honestly watch the scene you see Bobby hitting a pitch one of the worst possible of ways. Now if Bobby got a good piece of the ball and it looked like it could have been a homerun and Jack caught that ball this would have been a different story. Not the best story in the whole world, but a better one.
My posts have been oddly unseeing of what is being implied? Maybe when Edie walks out of a bathroom or vomits instead of using her words I find something oddly empty in the emotional department.
Yes - that's exactly what I meant.
As far as the baseball game is concern it is you who is acting like they are unseeing and continue to gloss over the scene with a virtual storm of “what its”.
I presume you simply mis-typed "what-ifs". What what-ifs are those? All I have said is that the audience was primed for Jack to make a mess of the catch, however easy. That Bobby was expecting Jack to drop the ball and he didn't. Whatever you write about the niceties of baseball, that was the situation. No one ever said Bobby was any good at hitting the ball - he doesn't seem to be any good at all at this bullying business - so I really don't seem the problem you have with this scene.
So no what-ifs at all - but happy to deal with any you care to quote from my posts. I'm not going to go searching for any what-ifs there may be. Sorry. share
If it is possible to go back that many years to the point I was watching this film in the theater for the first time I believe I did not know what was going to happen. Sure Jack said he was no good at baseball, but he did have a chat with Dad and that seemed to be a good sign. I did wonder why Jack was on the baseball team if he wasn’t any good, little did I know that this was a physical education class, which would have make me wonder some more to why Jack was taking to his father about a PE class because who cares how well you do in PE? This whole scene really smells like a setup. The talk with Dad. The bully getting royally upset over a pop fly ball. It is really sloppy. There have got to be a thousand better ways to write this up.
Cronenberg could have had Jack ask his father about how to impress a girl and then later at school he might attempt to use that advice to flirt with a pretty girl, but little does Jack know that this girl had been starting to get the attention of Bobby. An instant problem.
A fact is a stubborn thing, I know, but when a batter hits a ball he is NOT going to stop and smell the roses. He is going to run to first base. If you understand baseball you know that had Jack dropped the ball he would have picked it up and thrown it to first base and got Bobby out. That is why you run. You only act the way Bobby did when you hit a homerun. Let me explain it to you like you were a child: See, little girl, when you hit a homerun there is no chance and no ball to throw to first base or any base for that matter to get you out. I know it is painful for you, but that is the truth.
Once in some distant future when you realize the basics of baseball I might move on to chess. In that game once a player is checkmated the game is over. Those are the breaks. There are no come backs after that, which is the position that you are in now. The only rationalization for your side is that either Bobby is an imbecile or Cronenberg is an ignoramus when it comes to baseball and has a lot of “yes men” working for him.
The planet Earth won't break up in a zillion pieces just because Cronenberg made some poor decisions on this film. I know because we are still here. On the bright side he could always pull a George Lucas and fix them, but that might make things worst. If you have seen the new and improved Star Wars you know what I am talking about.
max the troll is still at it, I see.
Get a life.
You don’t realize that I get a notification every time someone responds to my posts. I expect a certain ratio of thought to be made when replying to my posts. After the level of thinking I a put into a post I expect at least 25 percent in return.
Your post is banal and crass like a slur.
I would suggest that you only post in boards of the worst movies like “After Earth” (2013), but you are the kind of poster that NO board deserves. I would follow you around policing your misguided ways, but unlike you I don’t have the time.
Still for a laugh it might be a comical sight if I following you around and watched as you write down your thoughtless comments. You must walk in a constant blissful state with your head in the clouds free of any concern of the state of affairs like reading the words on the screen and understanding the arguments of others, logic is out the window for you and reason is not your concern; completely free of any obligation to support your claims with anything other than your boorish arrogance.
Max,
Don’t sweat the small stuff. If anyone is the TROLL it would be Ken-Boy and what a childish little brat he is. Where did he come from? It sounds like he has done this in the past – just randomly drop out of nowhere and call you a troll for commenting on a message board.
What a CABBAGEHEAD!
Cronenberg could have had Jack ask his father about how to impress a girl and then later at school he might attempt to use that advice to flirt with a pretty girl, but little does Jack know that this girl had been starting to get the attention of Bobby. An instant problem.
Works for me. I know I NEVER asked for my father's help in PE. That would be like asking him what I should eat for lunch. share
bleeder,
You do not know what you are talking about. I have contributed to the History of Violence board for over six years now. It happens to be one of my two favorite films of the first decade of this century. Max comes back again and again to attack the film, making the same ridiculous points over and over. He does not really come to discuss the film, only attack it. He is a troll. All you have in response, supporting him, is namecalling and a misunderstanding of my own history on this film's message board.
But of course how could anyone expect you to have any perspective on or knowledge about the history of this board since you have only been an IMDb member for two weeks. Heh.
Hi, kenny.
I don't think max is a troll, exactly. He's slightly mad, is all.
Apparently has nobody to listen to him when he rides the bus and mutters, but here, some kind person like Cat occasionally engages him, and voila! I know Cat thinks some of that is fun, but the poor man doesn't seem to realize when he's being played with.
As cats are wont to do.
Bat, bat, with my little paw, just like my cat dealing with spiders. Poor things, they all come out looking the worse for wear. And then she eats them. Crunch.
And she's so cute!
My first Abyssinian used to bring spiders upstairs in her mouth for my husband to play with. He has a mild spider phobia, and I guess she interpreted yips of surprise for cries of joy. Eventually she learned that he would kill them immediately and killed them herself first -- but she still brought them to him as gifts, once she had given them a good crunch.
Cats are cute.
Even those who play with slightly mad people on the internet.
Oh, am I supposed to cry because you poked fun of my name? You must be proud of yourself. Do you want a medal?
Your two favorite films? Why are you planning games? Am I supposed guess too? This guy has a lot of bravado. First he tries to make me cry and then he wants me to guess what his other favorite movie is? Well, if you are not going to tell me then don’t hang it over my head like I am some damn dog.
Don’t confuse my history here with naiveté.
What is the real difference between discussing a film and attacking it? Aren’t you just playing a game of semantics? Although you claim to think this film is wonderful, doesn’t it stand that someone else would exist on the opposite side of the bell curve with the same strong feeling? Far be it for me to patch thing up between the two of you.
bleeder,
First of all my other favorite film from the relevant period is not relevant to this discussion, which is why I did not mention it.
A discussion of a film can include attacks on it, of course. What I was criticizing Maxy for, and this is in response to samantha as well, is that maxy only attacks. He does not really engage in a discussion of points back and forth.
For myself I cannot say I never post negative comments on film boards here. But I tend to post a negative comment in a way that might elicit some clarification, a post pointing out something I might have missed. If I do not get a response somewhere along those lines, I move on and leave the board behind.
I simply do not understand the motivation of someone who hates a film and who does not understand the reasoning behind people liking it, who comes back again and again to post the same drivel of attacks on the film. What is the motivation for that sort of approach? Aside from seeming obsessive, one has to wonder what the object of the exercise is.
For example I tend to see little value in films that are primarily a sequence of special effects, usually violent images and loud explosions. Do I spend my time on boards for films like that telling the people who post there because they love that sort of film that they are wrong to do so?
Of course not.
I hope that clarifies the situation here.
I think I am starting to get the picture. Max doesn’t add anything positive. You are fine with his lists of grievances, but he should also be supportive too. Not so overhanded.
Perhaps he is on the lookout for others that support his views. Something about this film must have really bothered him if he keeps on coming back here. Maybe he thinks that he can change your mind about the film and get you to see the error of your ways. After all it really isn’t that great of a film anyway. That is why I tried to get you to mention your other favorite film. I wanted to know if it was better than this one. If you can list more than one film you really liked or love it would say a lot more about your movie picks than admitting you like this one film. I am inclined to believe max somewhat.
Frankly I would have to know more about you to understand how this feature is anything more than just your average bucket of movie popcorn.
HERE IS A LIST OF 2005 MOVIES THAT I THOUGHT WERE BETTER THAN THIS FILM:
Pride & Prejudice (2005) - FAR BETTER
Sin City (2005)
Batman Begins (2005)
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005)
Serenity (2005)
The Wedding Date (2005)
Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005)
Hard Candy (2005)
Kingdom of Heaven (2005) - FAR BETTER
King Kong (2005)
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (2005)
Into the Blue (2005)
Walk the Line (2005) - FAR BETTER
Lord of War (2005) - FAR BETTER
Cinderella Man (2005) - FAR BETTER
Personally, I think a little sock puppetry is going on here, by hey.
You think the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe is better? But how can they possibly be compared, when they're so different?
This is all arguing opinion. These are your choices - I might well disagree with them. Personally, I thought Kingdom of Heaven a notable failure, but that's just my opinion. Mr and Mrs Smith was - what phrase did you use? - movie popcorn, with the emphasis on the corn.
Oh well - there's no point in arguing taste. You liked these other films better while some people here liked this film better. The world goes on spinning.
How about the last three:
Walk the Line (2005) - FAR BETTER
Lord of War (2005) - FAR BETTER
Cinderella Man (2005) - FAR BETTER
Hey, these are movies that came out in 2005 - NOT of all time.
WALK THE LINE was a biographical film about Johnny and June Cash, made in part as a star vehicle for Joaquin Pheonix. It got awards because such films always do unless they just stink too badly. People love to see actors portraying real, actual people so they can judge the performance against a celebrity they think (mistakenly, of course) they know. This one was OK, but simplistic, as such films almost always are (can't think of one that wasn't, actually ).*
LORD OF WAR was an oversimplfied, moralistic film, not well done. I do think the filmmakers tried, but as Paul Simon once said of Billy Joel, they "didn't think enough." Nicolas Cage is not a good actor unless he is doing comedy.
CINDERELLA MAN was an "inspirational," simplistic sports film, one of Russell Crowe's last real efforts to act up to his reputation.
I can't see any way one might rewardingly compare these films with AHOV. If you preferred them, then that's a matter of taste. It says nothing about quality, for which there are deeper, more objective standards for comparison, used by film critics and even some regular ol' viewers.
*I'm reminded why the title of this one was truncated. If you want to see a really good, very old film, try I WALK THE LINE, not based on Johnny Cash but using his early music to fine effect, and with a number of terrific performances in ensemble style. Including the one that Gregory Peck hated because for once he acted (superbly) against his Star Persona.
Those are some reasonable summations of those three films. I don’t entirely agree with them, but that is a well thought out analysis none the less. Since it would seem that I don’t understand how AHOV can be much more than a 3 star film, it would help me in my understanding if I knew of a film that you thought was as equally well down as AHOV. In the past 10 years what film reached the same level of artistry? Maybe I could find the greatness in AHOV if I had something of equal value to compare it to. A yardstick if you will.
shareI don't compare films that way, actually. What I know is that AHOV is a complex, layered, tightly edited film, beautifully written and realistic (without the surreal touches of some earlier Cronenberg films) with excellent ensemble acting, superb technical and artistic direction, altogether a pleasure to watch. It's a film that really shows its merits best at a second viewing, which a number of critics and viewers pointed out. One watches it first for what happens, and then one watches again to see the handling of the story and the quality of the acting, especially by Viggo Mortensen. One major critic not given to easy praise said there were still new things to find in it after four viewings. The scholarly book written about it talks about some of the same things. This film was the first major critical attention to VM as one of our finest and most subtle actors, but it is the ensemble nature of the acting that is most impressive, IMO. The four central characters all know what is going on and are able to work in ensemble (including William Hurt, who some folks don't notice is doing ensemble, since his performance is so bravura. But it fits.) The director is known for getting and showing the best work from good actors.
I don't usually study films to this extent, because frankly most of them don't repay the effort. Even great films are often not very complex (CITIZEN KANE comes to mind). Even David Cronenberg films aren't usually this layered, though they are always technically superb and beautifully, tightly scripted. I really think this is the best film of the last decade.
But no reason you should think so. If you see different things in it -- or don't see them -- so be it.
Lists of favorite films for most people will contain some that are not at all like others on the list. Even admirers of certain directors will recognize that while the films may generally contain some similarities, think of Hitchcock and the manner in which his stories are explored more thematically than in a more narrative fashion, there will be substantially different films on the list. We might be able to see for example Stanley Kubrick's great attention to detail and certain thematic concerns from 2001 to A Clockwork Orange to Barry Lyndon, but of course the films themselves are rather different.
The point being that the reasons I found A History of Violence so appealing does not mean that other films I loved from the general period are all that similar, if similar at all. I guess if there is something that is more or less generally common among them is that they tend to be open to a sort of Existentialist undestanding or appreciation. I HoV that was manifested in the way the film explored the connection between ways of being and authenticity. I also loved No Country for Old Men, which examined in part the search for meaning in the everyday world, and the difficulty involved given the world's complexity, and particularly its capacity for violence and evil. Life's meaning in terms of relations to others, and a general sense of responsibility, seemed to inspire Gladiator.
But perhaps the film of the decade from 2000 to 2009 that inspired me the most was ironically one that I appreciated most on a more technical level, it was just made so well, and that was Lost in Translation. Of course that film was also heavy with some Existentialist concepts, such as how one's way of being will change how one cares for others, which is central to human existence and understanding. But I would hardly expect my list of favorites to certainly on the surface have much in common with A History of Violence. After all my favorite film is Lawrence of Arabia. Yes, I also love films by Bergman, Antonioni, Kubrick, Hitchcock and Fellini as well as Coppolla, Ford, Hawkes and others. I see here and there the influence of some of them in this film and on Cronenberg (although i am hardly a fan of all his films. Dangerous Methods I thought was very well done for the record, but Eastern Promises was somewhat disappointing, and his earlier films are a rather mixed bag, too).
YOU are the one who doesn't understand baseball and its many nuances but, being a football fan, I wouldn't expect you to.
shareThank you! At last, someone with an opinion who takes the time to elaborate on his point of view.
Thank you for taking the time to post.
Cheers
Unfortunately, most of the early discussion, which was quite extensive, has been dropped by IMDB, as is their practice, I guess because of room. Too Bad, too, since we had a lot of Cronenberg admirers and detractos posting.
Still kenny has always been one of the best posters.
Lol at this debate. I think that punk thought he got more of the ball than he really did. He's very cocky so is it unreasonable to think he is delusional about his own ability and the outcome? Of course that punk thought he hit the game winner...he's an arrogant bully.
shareYou don't understand the rules of baseball, do you?
share