MovieChat Forums > filmgeek99

filmgeek99 (250)


anyone else hate the climax? what's up with the end credits? favorite scene in a film revolving around pizza? can't tell if I like this guy or not... Jackie and Owen have no chemistry together... famous directors you have yet to discover? does OHMSS render this film non-canon? tries too hard to be a mindfuck film she is not a good actress... "Great Scott, Batman take off his mask?!" View all posts >


That's my biggest problem with it as well. There's no sense of cohesion or coherency to it. It just shows you very quick glimpses of their lives, but without any of the proper character development to make it seem convincing. It felt very meaningless and hollow, yet somehow, critics and the Academy went nuts for it. Shooting it in black-and-white and in 4:3 seems to have really done its trick. What's so masterful about Haneke's direction? All he does is just shoot all his scenes in big long, master shots. That's pretty much what I did back when I had no concept of coverage. LOL Yeah, I thought The Piano Teacher was all right. It was told in that typically slow, tedious way he likes to tell stories, but the character Isabelle Huppert portrayed was actually fascinating and her actions throughout the film are definitely worth a deeper study of. It's really Benny's Video that failed to grab me in any way. I've seen two of his films so far, The Piano Teacher and Benny's Video, and neither of which have truly impressed me. You can tell he's a guy with a lot of things he's aching to say, I just don't agree with the way he tells his stories. He shoots everything in a long, master shot and while it works for some scenes (such as in the incredibly uncomfortable sex scenes in The Piano Teacher), he does it far too often. His films often come off as though they're slow just for the sake of being slow. On top of that, I find the guy very pretentious and unlikable in interviews. He seems to always want to say something that just breathes wisdom and intellect, but a lot of what he says just comes off as airy, pseudo-intellectual bullshit to me. His famous quote "a feature film is twenty-four lies per second", I'm still not sure do I entirely get (it's about how film is an artifice that ultimately reveals truths about the human condition beneath its superficiality in each frame, right?). By comparison, Kubrick managed to sound much more intelligent while never delving into such vague, abstract nonsense (and of course, was a better filmmaker too). Re-watching this right now and despite its reputation, I honestly don't think it's anywhere as good as the first film. This film starts the trend of Jet Li's Wong Fei Hung looking like a hypocritical, insecure, self-absorbed git. In the first film, Wong Fei Hung comes across as a strict, disciplined, dignified yet humble man. Here though, the way he barks orders at Leung Foon constantly and gets so easily jealous of Aunt 13 being in his student's arm, makes him come across as an asshole at times. Leung Foon too, is far too exaggerated and comical here, with his infatuation on Aunt 13 coming off more like an unhealthy crush than anything (there almost seems to be a recurring theme of sexual frustration in the film). The film also looks noticeably cheaper than the original, with the color palette being largely dominated by greys and piss brown. The sets too, lack much of the scale as seen in the first film. The story too, doesn't come across as well-developed as the original. It has its moments, but the first film is easily superior. Any. He's just a hired studio hand without any voice or vision of his own. Of course not. We are not yet at a stage where we understand what causes, let alone what cures pedophilia (if there exists such a thing), but your theory is blatantly retarded. Not all pedophiles go out in the middle of the night to snatch kids in the neighborhood, there do exist men/women who are sexually attracted to children, yet don't enact upon it. Declaring them all as psychopaths is unabashed stupidity on your part. Human beings tend to have all sorts of weird sex fantasies and strange turn-ons. Pedophilia is sadly, just another one of them. It doesn't make anyone a monster inherently, though. It's what you do with this condition that determines the quality of your character. The sad thing is, if pedophilia was more openly discussed in society, many potential molesters may be willing to go out and seek help and avoid becoming a predator in the process. Instead, we spend all our time pointing fingers and demonizing those who can't help but want something they shouldn't have. If we're willing to perhaps just listen, perhaps we'd actually be able to enact change. The one where she crawls on the bed in lingerie was like... damn. The other reason might also be that kids just didn't watch these movies that much when compared to things like LOTR or Harry Potter. The reason why those franchises (along with Spider-Man, Pirates of the Caribbean, Star Wars etc) are at the forefront of meme culture today, is because the kids who grew up watching those films have now grown up and are the ones making most of the memes on the Web. Those films practically became burned into the brain of every child that grew up in the 2000's, in a way that the X-Men films didn't. These films (the first two, anyway) just don't hold that much appeal for kids, as they are too serious and somber to ever thrill and excite kids the way those other mega-budget studio franchises did. Even Chris Nolan's Batman by comparison, had a lot more big-scale action that could potentially draw in older kids than what Bryan Singer's X-Men films had to offer. Most folks I know who worship the Dark Knight trilogy though, fell in love with them as teenagers, as opposed to the more kid-friendly audience Spider-Man and Star Wars had. The third film did ramp up the action considerably, but at that point, kids had probably already made up their minds that they preferred watching those other franchise films I mentioned, rather than the comparatively low-key, slower-paced X-Men films. That isn't to say that there no kids who grew up watching the X-Men films at all (I did, to some extent), it's just that most didn't find themselves obsessively re-watching it the way they did with Harry Potter or LOTR. I don't find it hysterical, but it gets just enough laughs out of me to give it a mild recommendation. There are some really funny ideas in the film's script, and Gene Wilder's performance is outstanding, but what bogs it down is its pacing. There are far too many lulls and silences in between each joke. It's as though Mel Brooks thought his movie was so funny that he needed to give his audience a break in between each gag he throws. Some of the jokes' setups go on for far too long as well. His later films would have this sorta thing figured out much better, I think he was still experimenting with his craft here. View all replies >