waitingforsuperman
annmarie says i'm snarky
Wow. This was probably the best film I've seen in the theatre all year.
It is an "art house film," so if you usually get annoyed, frustrated, or pissed off at these types of film, don't bother continuing to read this.
Okay, this film asked some questions that really haven't been asked by anybody in a long time. What impressed me most was that Croenenberg didn't answer the question for you. Nothing was shoved down your throat. Everything was precise, exact, and detailed, yet you were left totally open to draw all of your own conclusions.
The most interesting topic of discussion that has spawned from this film in my film geek circle of friends is the 69 scene. Croenenberg said that he wanted to show a married couple having a healthy sexual relationship, yet many saw this scene as gratutious, excessive, and offensive. But how often does Hollywood (and, while it was an "art house film," it's New Line Cinema, so it's still Hollywood) actually show husbands and wives having fun and sex together?
Everything about this movie seemed to be executed perfectly. While the graphic novel on which it was based had a rough, jarring look, the film was extremely exact and beautiful in every way visually. This, to me, seemed to convey the concept of a moving graphic novel (completely abandoned in most live-actions based on graphic novels, for instance "Ghost World"), much better than had Croenenberg kept the style.
The next paragraph contains spoilers. The "spoiler tag" is quite asthetically displeasing.
Again, do not continue unless you have seen the film or don't care about spoilers.
In the end, I felt like the question the film made (or, the most obvious/main question) was: Why is Tom considered a hero for killing, while Joey is, in essence, a sick fuck for doing the same thing? Both of them were killing for the same purpouse (to save others), yet society tends to view one as a hero, and the other as a villain. Personally, I didn't see Joey as the villain that everyone tended to see him as (again, nothing is force-fed: this character is so complex that many consider him a good guy, while many consider him a bad guy), but his role is obviously ambiguious at least.
Two scenes I was most impressed by: "We don't solve things by hitting in this family," and Evie throwing up at the hospital. Raw, unfiltered emotion oozing out of both, again in a very direct and exact way.
Impressive. Most Impressive.
Thumbs Up. Best movie this year other than March of the Penguins.
It is an "art house film," so if you usually get annoyed, frustrated, or pissed off at these types of film, don't bother continuing to read this.
Okay, this film asked some questions that really haven't been asked by anybody in a long time. What impressed me most was that Croenenberg didn't answer the question for you. Nothing was shoved down your throat. Everything was precise, exact, and detailed, yet you were left totally open to draw all of your own conclusions.
The most interesting topic of discussion that has spawned from this film in my film geek circle of friends is the 69 scene. Croenenberg said that he wanted to show a married couple having a healthy sexual relationship, yet many saw this scene as gratutious, excessive, and offensive. But how often does Hollywood (and, while it was an "art house film," it's New Line Cinema, so it's still Hollywood) actually show husbands and wives having fun and sex together?
Everything about this movie seemed to be executed perfectly. While the graphic novel on which it was based had a rough, jarring look, the film was extremely exact and beautiful in every way visually. This, to me, seemed to convey the concept of a moving graphic novel (completely abandoned in most live-actions based on graphic novels, for instance "Ghost World"), much better than had Croenenberg kept the style.
The next paragraph contains spoilers. The "spoiler tag" is quite asthetically displeasing.
Again, do not continue unless you have seen the film or don't care about spoilers.
In the end, I felt like the question the film made (or, the most obvious/main question) was: Why is Tom considered a hero for killing, while Joey is, in essence, a sick fuck for doing the same thing? Both of them were killing for the same purpouse (to save others), yet society tends to view one as a hero, and the other as a villain. Personally, I didn't see Joey as the villain that everyone tended to see him as (again, nothing is force-fed: this character is so complex that many consider him a good guy, while many consider him a bad guy), but his role is obviously ambiguious at least.
Two scenes I was most impressed by: "We don't solve things by hitting in this family," and Evie throwing up at the hospital. Raw, unfiltered emotion oozing out of both, again in a very direct and exact way.
Impressive. Most Impressive.
Thumbs Up. Best movie this year other than March of the Penguins.
