|
|
Post by JCriquet on Nov 3, 2003 13:28:18 GMT 10
Just thought I'd share this with you guys. us.imdb.com/CommentsAuthor?ur1669627I came across this reviewer while reading something about Woodstock (1970). He writes the most backwards reviews ever! His location is everchanging, so he's obviously taking the piss, but.... oh God, how it does make me laugh! Check out the reviews of Mulholland Drive and "Wheel of Fortune", they're totally swell! Now we just need to get him to write reviews of F&G and Undeclared! It's hog-boiling time! ;D James |
|
|
|
Post by harvey on Nov 3, 2003 16:48:20 GMT 10
that Woodstock movie rocks.
yeah that dude is pretty funny.
right now hes in lagos Nigeria
(btw who else felt that Mulholland Drive was a stinking pile of rubbish?)
|
|
|
|
Post by JCriquet on Nov 3, 2003 19:13:55 GMT 10
Mulholland Drive is certainly not a movie that follows the hallowed path of the "classic Hollywood narrative" (that's my Screen Studies class kicking in). I don't know - it was certainly like no movie I'd seen, but that was one of its plusses. I like when movies are 'different'.
I hafta say though, there was a helluva lot that I didn't understand. (Blue box, anyone?) I think I'd like to watch it again, perhaps with David Lynch sitting next to me, explaining exactly what the fuck he was going on about. Or what he was on.
I also don't really like that the first hour of the movie was, in fact, the pilot for a TV show that Lynch wasn't able to get off the ground. They just tacked on the rest when Lynch got some more money to turn it into a film! It doesn't seem right!
In my opinion(s):
this movie begs further enquiry/watching on my part;
the F&G DVD should be released here in Australia (but that's not gonna happen); and
chowderhead is God.
James
chowderhead disciple
|
|
|
|
Post by harvey on Nov 4, 2003 15:31:00 GMT 10
there are more surreal movies ive seen that are more enjoyable.
i didnt see whats so hard to "Get" about the film alot of it seemed straightforward and while there were individual scenes that didnt make sense as a whole it became coherent, i think the confusing scenes adding to the "dreamlike" quality of it.
i just didnt find it very appealing, it was long and boring with no laughs, no excitement, no intrigue, no nothing, frankly the more mysterious elements of the film i didnt find compelling and so it just didnt engage me.
it also seemed to "film student"ish.
like some smart assed 23 year old punk filmmakers kind of movie
and the ending was shitty.
as you can tell i didnt like it very much at all, although i have seen worse films.
|
|
|
|
Post by Splash on Nov 4, 2003 17:56:52 GMT 10
(btw who else felt that Mulholland Drive was a stinking pile of rubbish?) I'm afraid that if you're gonna slag off one of the best movies of all-time then we're gonna have to take this out to the carpark. "Mulholland Dr" might seem like some 23 year-old punk's arty self-indulgence, but you'd be hard pressed to find such a punk who could make something even half as good. It's one thing for a film to be expressionistic, but to do that so skillfully within a continuity structure that combines flashbacks and surreal dream logic is another step up. |
|
|
|
Post by harvey on Nov 5, 2003 10:45:14 GMT 10
i dont udnerstand why people love this film so much, apart from Naomi Watts's breasts there was nothing enjoyable in this film.
the surrealistic element was subpar i thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by Splash on Nov 5, 2003 10:59:47 GMT 10
i dont udnerstand why people love this film so much, apart from Naomi Watts's breasts there was nothing enjoyable in this film. Ok, for a start Naomi Watts is a little too scrawny for my tastes, and Laura Elena Harring is way hotter in that film. Naomi Watts' breasts? What breasts? Let's talk about Lynch in general - are you a fan? If you like films with surrealistic elements, which ones do you like? I don't really see MD as a purely surrealistic film. Did you get to see it in a theatre? It's a film which relies so heavily on creating mood. |
|
|
|
Post by harvey on Nov 5, 2003 15:00:54 GMT 10
i like small breasts/...well not ridiculously small but lets say petite.
shes got cute breasts i think.
i like erasurehead, although i did see it ages ago and cant remember much but it was good but apart form that lynch sucks.
i saw it on dvd.
granted there were some interuptions but by about one hour in i kind of lost interest in it. aesthetically the film doesnt appeal to me, and i didnt find any of the characters remotely likeable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Splash on Nov 5, 2003 20:08:32 GMT 10
Apart from "Eraserhead" Lynch sucks? Oh dear oh no oh no oh d-d-dear Harvey. One day your eyes will be opened. One sweet day...  I can get a little emotional arguing Lynch with people, so maybe we shouldn't get into this. I think he's one of the best directors working today. Easily. You can tell he's a painter. Anyway I'm sure there's not a lot I can say to change your mind. You're either on the same wavelength as the Lynchian World or it doesn't grab you. Anyone else out there on the board love/loathe Lynch? I know Cabineer is a "Twin Peaks" fan... |
|
|
|
Post by Splash on Nov 5, 2003 20:32:16 GMT 10
I hafta say though, there was a helluva lot that I didn't understand. (Blue box, anyone?) I think I'd like to watch it again, perhaps with David Lynch sitting next to me, explaining exactly what the fuck he was going on about. Or what he was on. It occurs to me that I've completely ignored you in this thread, and as the board's self-appointed Lynch guru I could probably take you through MD scene by scene if you could stand it. But right now you need to see it again. I assure you that it does all have meaning, and that Lynch (probably) wasn't on drugs when he made it. It's very carefully constructed, but if you're not used to a film like it then it might take a while for things to click. The main piece of advice I'd give you is to understand how expressionism works. It's all about capturing the emotional truth as opposed to the literal truth. There is a scene in Lynch's first feature "Eraserhead" where the main character steps into a lift and the doors stay open for an agonising eternity before they close and the lift goes up. Since the film is from his perspective, what you see on screen is how he experiences an event. So, it's not that the doors stayed open for 13 seconds, it's just that to the main character, it felt like they stayed open for that long. Maybe he was in a hurry and the wait bugged him. The point is that reality is exagerated to communicate to the audience how a character feels. So, in the case of MD, you need to work out whose perspective you're seeing this story from, and decipher the events keeping that in mind. Soon, the blue box will make perfect sense. Hey, get back to us as you figure things out or if you want to ask more questions, but take care with posting spoilers for those who haven't seen it. |
|
|
|
Post by harvey on Nov 5, 2003 22:20:11 GMT 10
bah hes overrated....i think there are much directors around.
have you heard that terrence malick might be making a movie about Che Geveura?
hes never made a bad movie (although hes only made 3)
id probably rate him as my fave director.
|
|
|
|
Post by JCriquet on Nov 6, 2003 0:34:21 GMT 10
I assure you that it does all have meaning, and that Lynch (probably) wasn't on drugs when he made it. It's very carefully constructed, but if you're not used to a film like it then it might take a while for things to click. Sorry, the "drugs" comment was a foolish thing to say. It was just a throwaway line, and I didn't really mean it. But no, I'm not really used to Lynch - this was my first experience, and as such I'm not used to it. I hadn't really considered it like this... I'm an art student of sorts, so I know something about Expressionism, but not in film... I will definitely give it another look or three! And sorry about that, too. Sorry to anyone who hasn't seen the movie! I hate when people reveal anything about a movie I haven't seen, and it was entirely inconsiderate of me to mention said box. No matter how ambiguous, a spoiler is still a spoiler. Apologies. Splash, I'll see the movie again, then get back to you. Thanks! James |
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Nov 6, 2003 2:01:16 GMT 10
I love this film! No, no, no Harvey :-p Why does everything turn into the lowest common denominator with you?  Don't worry, I don't think 'blue box' was much of a spoiler for those who haven't seen the film. I think Splash was referring to that if you want to discuss the film further here and ask more questions that would be cool as long as you note spoilers. The whole pre-emptive thing. Has anyone here not seen it? I don't think you are the first or the last person to accuse Lynch of being on drugs |
|
|
|
Post by Splash on Nov 6, 2003 11:37:16 GMT 10
I love this film! I think Splash was referring to that if you want to discuss the film further here and ask more questions that would be cool as long as you note spoilers. I don't think you are the first or the last person to accuse Lynch of being on drugs Firstly, Hooray! Secondly, yeah I was referring to discussing it further - I don't think Blue Box would mean anything to those who haven't seen it yet. Thirdly, I wasn't being bitchy about saying Lynch was on drugs. When I say I'm an emotional fan it doesn't mean I'm going to search for insolence within every sentence!  So James, what exactly is an art student of sorts anyway? "You like art?" "Oh yes. Especially . . . late . . . art." |
|
|
|
Post by harvey on Nov 6, 2003 15:54:19 GMT 10
because theres nothing else in this film to enjoy besides that.
|
|
