quote:

I honestly dont see Lost In translation as a WKW rip off. I see influence, but not rip off.

You're right, its not a simple rip-off. Its not even some hack Tarantino "homage" but it goes further to being a personal film, and the "influence" (thats the correct word for it) is from WKW, LiT was ok, back then, but when I want the real thing, grade-A i watch Happy Together and In The Mood For Love

I suspect Dunst is probably good in this seeing as the only other competent role from her was in Coppola's Virgin Suicides, and she, along with other actors who seem to suck now (Hartnett, Christiensen etc) did well too. Really makes you see how much a difference an honest subject, decently written script/plot and open director can have on a work.

quote:

Originally posted by Evan Kubota:
But criticizing the movie because you didn't learn anything seems to be sidestepping the issue, since it should be patently obvious that many well-liked movies don't teach anything either.

How many times do I have to say it? I DON'T CARE. The fact that many "well-liked" movies don't teach anything means jack to me. Don't you understand the concept of personal taste? I like movies that I gain something from, or movies that at least provide enough of an escape to excite or thrill me a little bit. Marie Antoinette was boring and anti-climactic. I don't go to movies to be bored. If I wanted to see something boring, I would sit in my room all day and not come out. If you're able to get your precious artistic pleasure out of it, then more power to ya, but I can't.

Furthermore, I think it's been clear for some time that your definition of "well-liked" differs from mine, so I don't see how you can presume to tell me what's good and what's not. Your opinion is not the be all and end all. Stop acting like it is.

The only reason I mentioned it is because that was the extent of your original post. If the real reason you disliked it had nothing to do with 'learning' or 'teaching' you could have just said that. Opinions are opinions and supporting them factually is not exactly necessary, especially since as you said no one is convincing anyone of anything here. I liked the movie. A lot. That's all.

I think it was more the double standard you hold to films Josh, you may not care and thats fine. But when I whether I'm watching The Departed, Down By Law, or Elmopalooza I hold it to the same set of standards.

I def have a double standard when it comes to films. Which is why I enjoy Last year at Marienbad AND wedding crashers. =]

quote:

I like movies that I gain something from, or movies that at least provide enough of an escape to excite or thrill me a little bit. Marie Antoinette was boring and anti-climactic.

You're a beer over wine kinda guy, aren't you?

quote:

Originally posted by Harris:

quote:

I like movies that I gain something from, or movies that at least provide enough of an escape to excite or thrill me a little bit. Marie Antoinette was boring and anti-climactic.

You're a beer over wine kinda guy, aren't you?

Depends on the circumstances. I see nothing wrong with having a double standard.

In the summer there is nothing like a cold beer.
Iam with Josh.

About the boring part...
There are some films that look boring at first sight but if you look closer you can gain something.

Gus Van Sant´s Gerry for example.Some people hate this flick but something lies beneath.

I dindt felt that in this Sofia Coppola "extravaganza". 80 million its a lot of money to show just that.

I´m seeing sofia going to his dad asking..."Can I have 80 million to make a film about some french queen?"

Just kidding

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Fellini77,

Where did you read $80 million?

Boxofficemojo indicates $40 million. And even a crappy Hollywood product like The Break-up probably cost in excess of $20 million with the salaries, etc.

oops sorry. The magazine says 40m without the promotion, publicity etc.
With Tv promotion around the globe could go around the 60m.
You could do 10 films with that money in Europe.And good ones!

I just dont get it...
The film only takes place at the Versailles Palace.
I bet the crew splet at the ritz for 3 months.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Fellini77,

Perhaps. But lodging, feeding, and paying the crew is very expensive even if they're staying at Motel 8.

And there's no guarantee that the 10 Eurimages (or whatever group) films would be all good... I have nothing inherently against the European production system but the argument that more money somehow makes Hollywood stuff worse doesn't hold up, IMO. I'm far from the first person to defend Hollywood, but Europe suffers in its own way from financial issues.

Actually the best Films I´ve seen this year were all american: departed,New World, miss little sunshine and science of sleep.

Most of them had "european budgets".
I think european cinema died long time ago.Just look at godard´s recent work. Almodovar´s "Volver was a remake of his latest films.
I like hollywood a lot. I cant wait for Malick´s 150 million project with mel gilbson.

...Malick and Gibson? What is the film?

The Departed and The New World *definitely* did not have 'European budgets,' unless that category extends to $25 million +. I think Science of Sleep and Little Miss Sunshine were surprisingly expensive as well - approaching or exceeding $20 million.

For comparison, I worked on a truly independent film some time ago that had a budget under $1 million, and it had some name actors. Will it show up on DVD at some point? I hope so - I want to see it! The point is that anything you see in mainstream theatres in the US likely costs at least $10-15 million.

While it's hard to say for sure on any specific example, a lot of those films will end up at $10m because of P&A. Before the studios buy them, they often have budgets of $500k to $2m.

quote:

Depends on the circumstances. I see nothing wrong with having a double standard.

You've more than shown that as a moderator.

Evan, according to the imdb science of sleep cost around 6.5 million USD.
City of God for example had only a 3 million budget.
About malick´s project: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0478304/.
I think Gibson is financing it. It makes sense because both are very big "catholic church preachers".

About MA, I´ve seen similar films with smaller budgets.

Is Killer Queen on this soundtrack?

quote:

Originally posted by Hill Dawson Kane:

quote:

Depends on the circumstances. I see nothing wrong with having a double standard.

You've more than shown that as a moderator.

And?

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Hill Dawson Kane:
quote:

Depends on the circumstances. I see nothing wrong with having a double standard.

You've more than shown that as a moderator.

And?

This is retarded. Everyone employs multiple standards for all sorts of judgments. It's why beer is better on a summer afternoon, and wine is better when you wake up next to a stranger. It's why nuns can slap their pupils, and pupils can't slap nuns. Speaking in sweeping generalities will always lead to arguments, and, yes, I realize there's great irony in this very statement.

Fellini, do you know anything about Tree of Life? Is it a Catholic The Fountain?

And, no, Killer Queen is not on the soundtrack. Pity.

quote:

and wine is better when you wake up next to a stranger.

LOL id love to hear your reasoning for this