I'm really not sure what I thought of this movie. It was masterfully well-made, and incredibly well-crafted, but I was left with this underwhelming sense of convolution and insincerity. Basically everyone I know loved it, so maybe it's just me.
I was simply never engaged on a very strong level. It felt like a genre film, except for the fact that the genre doesn't exist. The way an average action movie, or sci-fi movie, will always do the same things. It felt like this was doing that, even though these things haven't been cliched already.
| PerryKroll.com | TRC | "If not actually disgruntled, he was far from being gruntled." Wodehouse
Posts: 5197 | Location: Tisch at New York University | Registered: June 03, 2003
thats kinda how i felt when watching Serenity. I always feel this with most movies and its interesting you mention how genres will always do the same things. its a magic trick all together and i think its trying to make us not go to the movies.
Posts: 3927 | Location: Sacramento, CA | Registered: July 21, 2003
Serenity is a perfect example. That was a bad genre film, and it used every colloquialism of the genre. This movie felt like it was using genre cliches, even though it wasn't.
I kept saying to myself, "it feels insincere, because the characters aren't sincere. They're cheating everyone. It's supposed to be like this." But it wasn't true.
| PerryKroll.com | TRC | "If not actually disgruntled, he was far from being gruntled." Wodehouse
Posts: 5197 | Location: Tisch at New York University | Registered: June 03, 2003
I've been dying to see this for quite some time, partly due to Christopher Nolan and partly due to the fact I read the book. Does anyone here know if it follows the book at all?
When I walked out of this theater I would have given it a 6 out of 10. A mild recommendation with the caveat that it was excessively mean-spirited and nasty with no rooting interest for the audience to grab onto. It's since elevated itself to an 8 out of 10.
It grows on you. You have to accept the fact that you will feel like **** during a good part of it. The fact of the matter is that it is a movie about an ugly subject: Petty rivalry and how easily it can escalate into catastrophic obsession with a single catalyst.
On a less analytical note, it was just a damn cool film. Great plotting and acting, especially by the two leads. Scarlett Johannson still can't act. Great movie that would be better if either of the characters had at least been fun to watch. Two despicable sods are a hard sell. Still I can't argue with the craftsmanship.
But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
Posts: 237 | Location: Orange, CA | Registered: March 03, 2006
I liked it a lot. The pacing bothered me at first, and the weight of coincidence is a little too heavy, but it's still a cool film, and it's extremely well-made.
Mostly I just had trouble following the story because I kept staring at Scarlett Johansson's boobs.
Posts: 598 | Location: Mobile, AL | Registered: May 10, 2005
oh dang, I forgot about Ghost World. Okay she has a very limited range. Well she's 2 for 9 for me. She was good in Lost in Translation and Ghost World but she was a big nothing in The Island, Match Point, In Good Company, Spongebob, Eight Legged Freaks, The Man Who Wasn't There, and The Prestige. My friend said she was pretty poor in The Black Dahlia as well, but I haven't seen that.
But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
Posts: 237 | Location: Orange, CA | Registered: March 03, 2006
I've always believed that taking good roles in good films, more often than not represents the actions of a good actor, although how many of those do u get? I'm just glad Chloe Sevigny wasn't in any of those heaps of sh*t!
Posts: 2173 | Location: n/a | Registered: May 06, 2003
Studentfilms.com Filmmaking Forums 
