Last movie seen — Page 289

Mondess122 said:

Mulholland Drive (2001) - ?. ?, ? ? ? ?. ?: ? ?. ? ?! ? ? ? ? ?? ?, ?. ? out of ?.

I agree. Mulholland Drive's pretty conventional compared to some of Lynch's earlier, better work, so this is a pretty fair rating. 

Taxi Driver (1976) - A+

The Magnificent Seven (1960) - B

Blood Diamond (2006) - B

The Aviator (2004) - A+

Comic Book Confidential (1988) - B+

Casino (1995) - C

Hotel Rwanda (2004) - B+

Donald's Better Self (1938) - B

Der Fuehrer's Face (1942) - A

Steamboat Willie (1928) - B

Blast from the Past (1999) - B+

Forever Young (1992) - C+

Skwerl (2011) - C

C.R.A.Z.Y. (2005) - B+

DuracellEnergizer said:

Mulholland Drive's pretty conventional

 This is why I hate Lynch...

No, you hate Lynch because your miniscule Homo sapien mind can't withstand the transcendental music of the spheres that is (most of) his oeuvre.

Sometimes I think you are actually Lynch.

Possessed said:

Atheists can love... and it's a movie not something to base your life around.

Still though, I found it to be extremely emotional and touching.

 I don't remember saying atheists can't love.  Nor did I say that film is something to base one's life on.  What I am saying is this: we all hope to some extent that love reaches deeper than our understanding, that it can bring us truth that science alone cannot.  Most religious people embrace this, while atheists will value love for its evolutionary/survival value, but ultimately "know" that humanity is a single species on a small planet orbiting an average sized star in a smaller than average galaxy out of billions of galaxies, and that our love does not surpass the cold, harsh reality imposed by science.

This movie exemplifies that hope that I think most of us really have.  People want to have faith in something greater, even if they do not actually have such faith.

TV's Frink said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

Mulholland Drive's pretty conventional

 This is why I hate Lynch...

 To be honest, I was pretty 'eh' towards it. Most people either love it or hate it (a vast majority seems to love it however), but I was just in the middle. Some parts were very clever, some parts were really stupid. I get that it's a dream, a commentary on Hollywood culture and whatnot, but I generally just didn't care. Films like this (which also includes most of Kubrick's filmography) just don't do anything for me. I love analyzing themes in films like Barton Fink or The Big Lebowski, but analyzing the themes in this film and many of Kubrick's films (with possibly the only exception being (the American cut of) The Shining) very much feels like homework to me.

TV's Frink said:

Sometimes I think you are actually Lynch.

We are all Lynch. 

Mondess122 said:

TV's Frink said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

Mulholland Drive's pretty conventional

 This is why I hate Lynch...

 To be honest, I was pretty 'eh' towards it. Most people either love it or hate it (a vast majority seems to love it however), but I was just in the middle. Some parts were very clever, some parts were really stupid. I get that it's a dream, a commentary on Hollywood culture and whatnot, but I generally just didn't care. Films like this (which also includes most of Kubrick's filmography) just don't do anything for me. I love analyzing themes in films like Barton Fink or The Big Lebowski, but analyzing the themes in this film and many of Kubrick's films (with possibly the only exception being (the American cut of) The Shining) very much feels like homework to me.

I prefer not to analyse most of Lynch's films. Taking them at face value -- as if they're literally about people being caught in worlds where the laws of physics are breaking down around them, unleashing all sorts of pseudo-Lovecraftian horrors -- just works better for me. 

I said I didn't want to debate it, not that I didn't want to discuss it, silly.  I know what you are saying.  I know how scientific Matthew McConaughey's character is (though I don't remember anything specifically anti-religious), and how extremely scientific the film is.

Let's see what I said, since it is apparently causing offense:

darth_endersaid:

Frozen clouds and mile high tidal waves in a 3 foot deep ocean are the most obvious issues, since the relativistic physics are largely beyond most people's full grasp and were actually handled pretty well from my limited understanding and research following my viewing.  Definitely a touching movie.

I must say that I find it interesting how many atheists enjoy the movie, when the movie itself makes such a case for love breaking barriers imposed by cold, precise, exacting physics.  To me, if one can buy the hope of such a premise, one can buy the hope of a Being whose very purpose is based on love which, according to Interstellar, can surpass our knowledge of physics.  I don't want to get into any religious debates over this, but it's just a bit of food for thought.

Note again, I don't want to debate.

But I am just saying that if one can appreciate the movie, one can appreciate faith.  That is all.  I'm not saying you have to have it.  I only "find it interesting."  Keep on as you were.  Just don't get offended by what I am not saying.

Yet another round of bickering sparked off by a Nolan film. *le sigh*

DuracellEnergizer said:

Yet another round of bickering sparked off by a Nolan film. *le sigh*

But not about the film's quality, thankfully!

I see Interstellar as a film about evolution and compassion and the triumph of the human spirit. 

The film is certainly touching on the religious tenants of faith and love (note the prominent organ - Nolan as admitted as much, but as far as I know the man himself is nonreligious), but, as Ryan said, it is essentially areligious. It's of course interesting to look at it from a religious perspective. It's almost like the closest thing you can get to an atheist's religious movie. We don't believe in God, but we do believe that there will be something after us, and that, someday, humanity will evolve. I have faith, or at least I hope, that, when we do evolve into greater beings, that love, peace, compassion, and altruism will be our primary values.

Of course, part of the beauty of the film is that you don't have to view that way. You can easily see it as a reflection of religious values and I'm sure Nolan would be okay with that. At the end of the day, it's really a story about a man who loves his daughter, and a woman who loves her father. I think anyone, regardless of religious affiliation, can see the beauty in that.

I don't think we are bickering and I don't want to argue.  I don't even see why people keep coming to conclusions I clearly did not type or intend.  I just find it interesting that people, even atheists, find value in a movie that promotes faith, in spite of the fact that they themselves do not have such faith, at least in a religious sense.  It to me shows that people want to believe in something greater, even if it's not God.  Or in other words...

Ryan McAvoy said:

Faith is a strong theme....Religion doesn't have a monopoly on that, or love, or imagination.

The only point where I see a departure in Ryan's and my points of view is that I think a belief in God is no big leap when most atheists already want to believe in something greater, whether they've acknowledged such or not.  But I'm not compelling anyone to believe such, nor am I saying that a belief system should be built around a movie.

SPOILERS:

I've been wanting to discuss this, and since the line that "humanity saved itself" was already brought up, I want to point out the inherent paradox.  How did humanity save itself?  By already having been saved, they are able to evolve and come back and save humanity.  But how could they have been saved and thus come back, unless someone saved them.  Oh, but someone did: humans who had already been saved and then evolved, thus saving those humans and allowing them to evolve.  It's a paradox!  Oh no!  It's like the watch in Somewhere in Time.  Where did it first come from???  Just thought I'd point that out.

DominicCobb said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

Yet another round of bickering sparked off by a Nolan film. *le sigh*

But not about the film's quality, thankfully!

I see Interstellar as a film about evolution and compassion and the triumph of the human spirit. 

The film is certainly touching on the religious tenants of faith and love (note the prominent organ - Nolan as admitted as much, but as far as I know the man himself is nonreligious), but, as Ryan said, it is essentially areligious. It's of course interesting to look at it from a religious perspective. It's almost like the closest thing you can get to an atheist's religious movie. We don't believe in God, but we do believe that there will be something after us, and that, someday, humanity will evolve. I have faith, or at least I hope, that, when we do evolve into greater beings, that love, peace, compassion, and altruism will be our primary values.

Of course, part of the beauty of the film is that you don't have to view that way. You can easily see it as a reflection of religious values and I'm sure Nolan would be okay with that. At the end of the day, it's really a story about a man who loves his daughter, and a woman who loves her father. I think anyone, regardless of religious affiliation, can see the beauty in that.

 Thanks Dom.  As I said above, I just see a little tiny leap to go from areligious to religious.  But in the essentials, my initial point is what you were saying, and I don't want anyone to get offended at that.  It's common ground, not division.  We both want more, believe in more, see greatness in humanity's capacity, see something far reaching in love.  And it is a beautiful and touching film.  I really enjoyed it.

captainsolo said:

Do you guys think I should try the Captain America films?

YES. The first one isn't the greatest but it has a certain old fashioned sense of adventure that you can't find in any other Marvel film so I really love it. The second one is fantastically thrilling and probably the best movie Marvel has done.

Anyway, haven't done this in a long time. So here goes (will be brief):

Late Spring (1949) - Beautiful filmmaking of the sort you can only expect from Ozu. A

Murderball (2005) - Engaging documentary about something that I didn't even know existed. Exciting, funny, touching, but not sentimental. Good stuff. A-

Apocalypse Now Redux (2001) - I've put off watching this for a long time. My reasoning was that the theatrical was perfect, so I had no need to watch any other version. Well, the theatrical is still more perfect, but this is a good example of how more of a good thing is a good thing. Not sold on the French plantation scene, but everything else is great. A

A Taste of Cherry (1997) - Riveting and oddly rewarding. A little-seen gem. A

The Homecoming (1973) - Quite strange but definitely good. Wasn't familiar with the Pinter play, but this seems to be a good adaptation of a funny and thought-provoking work. A-

Furious Seven (2015) - All that I could ask for. Amazing. Not the best of the franchise, but definitely a high point. B+

The Lives of Others (2006) - Well produced, but not as powerful as it wants to be. B

The Sacrifice (1986) - Exactly as powerful as it wants to be. Incredible filmmaking. A+

Careful (1992) - What the fuck is this movie. Probably the weirdest thing I've ever seen. Funny, but not quite good. Still, they went for an aesthetic and kept with it. I saw it at a Q&A with the screenwriter and, well, it explained a lot. C

Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief (2015) - Eye opening. A must see. A

I've Heard the Mermaid Singing (1987) - Nice little picture. Yep, that's about it. B

Playtime (1967) - Intriguing and delightful. A comedy like no other. Will be watching more Tati films now. A-

Wanda (1970) - Hard to watch but also hard to look a way. B+

Mr. Death (1999) - Quirky documentary with an endlessly interesting subject. B+

Life is Sweet (1990) - Highly hilarious and effective. Brilliantly acted. And, yes, quite sweet. A-

The Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) - The novelty of the first film is nowhere to be found, but this is as fun as any movie the studio has made. B

captainsolo said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

Mondess122 said:

Mulholland Drive (2001) - ?. ?, ? ? ? ?. ?: ? ?. ? ?! ? ? ? ? ?? ?, ?. ? out of ?.

I agree. Mulholland Drive's pretty conventional compared to some of Lynch's earlier, better work, so this is a pretty fair rating. 

 One of the worst pictures I've ever seen. I still don't get it, nor do I really want to. Never will I understand people's admiration for it.

Honestly, I don't admire it all that much myself. Not that I hate it, but after a certain point, it just becomes rather meh for me. It's not one of Lynch's films I'd really care to see again. 

Oh, and I guess I should use this time to clarify to Frink that my comment on the movie being conventional compared to his earlier work wasn't at all serious. It isn't even close.

bkev said:

I am more than a little tired of how needlessly connected this universe is, personally.

This is probably the main reason why I'll never bother with the MCU ever again. I hate the shared universe concept, especially when it's played up.