- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The Cabin in the Woods. TulaneLSU's 2011-12 movie review thread
Posted on 11/16/11 at 7:20 am to TulaneLSU
Posted on 11/16/11 at 7:20 am to TulaneLSU
Drive The Psalmist writes, "I was silent and still; I held my peace to no avail; my distress grew worse, my heart became hot within me. While I mused, the fire burned; then I spoke with my tongue: 'LORD, let me know my end, and what is the measure of my days; let me know how fleeting my life is'" (Psalm 39). The director of Drive uses what can best be described as monastic silence to draw viewers into the character played by Ryan Gosling. The impact is strong, for it is able somewhat to salvage a terrible movie. Although exciting, the first scene played out like a scene from Grand Theft Auto. Sure to please 20 and 30-something ribald males, to whom I'm sure this movie will become an unwarranted cult classic, there's very little to this film other than the silence of Gosling.
For Gosling's part, he is masterful. Through facial expressions, we see the most naive, innocent man who ever walked the terra firma. His adorable, childish smile makes us wonder. And in an instant the smile become a devastatingly violent kick to a head. And we wonder. What the hell created the person we see? The director uses a Hitchcockian technique: don't show and let the audience project. Let the audience come up with their own ideas of how this person came to be who he is. While it can stir the imagination, I came out wanting to know more about his childhood, and felt the movie's near complete avoidance of his past came across not so much as a religious mystery, which, by definition we can never know, but more the director and writer's inability to create a suitable and explicable history for a man so, well, mysterious. While the movie is adapted from a book, I think the audience deserved a hint to his past. We end up getting two hints. When Gosling is off-screen, we learn how long he has worked his job and how little he cares about money. The other hint comes from a scene with Gosling. And in that scene, we learn not to prod him regarding his past. If we do, we'll get our teeth kicked in. This character of internal burning can memorize thousands of streets on a map; he is a master at knowing how to get you where you need to go. But he is a mess who knows nothing about the streets of his life's map, primarily because he is afraid to remember his past. As a result, he will never get to where he needs to go.
Gosling's character is the only interesting one. And even though he is front and center, the director wasted too much time on the others. The cinematography has a feel of a foreign film and an 80s film. The lighting is well used as a character, reminiscent of Collateral. Keep an eye out for the symbols of wall paper and blood (cf. "My hands are a little dirty...So are mine"). I'm still trying to come up with a satisfying interpretation of the two. The music may be an important key to unlocking the mystery of Gosling's character, but I couldn't understand all the words. But the movie does end with a song about a hero who is an ordinary human being. Besides these strengths, and the intrigue associated with Gosling, the movie's plot is boring, the ending predictable, and the use of violence cloys. 5/10
For Gosling's part, he is masterful. Through facial expressions, we see the most naive, innocent man who ever walked the terra firma. His adorable, childish smile makes us wonder. And in an instant the smile become a devastatingly violent kick to a head. And we wonder. What the hell created the person we see? The director uses a Hitchcockian technique: don't show and let the audience project. Let the audience come up with their own ideas of how this person came to be who he is. While it can stir the imagination, I came out wanting to know more about his childhood, and felt the movie's near complete avoidance of his past came across not so much as a religious mystery, which, by definition we can never know, but more the director and writer's inability to create a suitable and explicable history for a man so, well, mysterious. While the movie is adapted from a book, I think the audience deserved a hint to his past. We end up getting two hints. When Gosling is off-screen, we learn how long he has worked his job and how little he cares about money. The other hint comes from a scene with Gosling. And in that scene, we learn not to prod him regarding his past. If we do, we'll get our teeth kicked in. This character of internal burning can memorize thousands of streets on a map; he is a master at knowing how to get you where you need to go. But he is a mess who knows nothing about the streets of his life's map, primarily because he is afraid to remember his past. As a result, he will never get to where he needs to go.
Gosling's character is the only interesting one. And even though he is front and center, the director wasted too much time on the others. The cinematography has a feel of a foreign film and an 80s film. The lighting is well used as a character, reminiscent of Collateral. Keep an eye out for the symbols of wall paper and blood (cf. "My hands are a little dirty...So are mine"). I'm still trying to come up with a satisfying interpretation of the two. The music may be an important key to unlocking the mystery of Gosling's character, but I couldn't understand all the words. But the movie does end with a song about a hero who is an ordinary human being. Besides these strengths, and the intrigue associated with Gosling, the movie's plot is boring, the ending predictable, and the use of violence cloys. 5/10
This post was edited on 11/16/11 at 7:27 am
2
Posted on 11/16/11 at 7:21 am to TulaneLSU
Everything Must Go Everything that Larry Crowne is not, Everything Must Go is. Here is a man many on TD can relate to: an alcoholic; accused of sexual harassment; left by wife for being a cheater; wandering aimlessly through this life. I picture several OT members specifically, though I will not name them. But you know who you are. The gravitas and soul searching left out by Hanks is filled, surprisingly, by Will Ferrell. Many have said this is Ferrell's Bill Murray breakthrough, showing that he can act more than dufus roles. I'm proud of Ferrell because behind his comic appearances, I think there is a Nick Halsey there. The most warming relationship in the movie is the one he shares with the young kid on the bike. Moments of levity spice the movie when the sadness of loss and despondence weigh heavily. 8/10
The Fighter A really enjoyable movie that grows on you the more you think about the performances. It is entirely character driven and the two leads are exceptional. The movie isn't about boxing - it's about family, brothers, conflicting allegiances, and triumph over weakness. The boxing scenes are bad and a waste of time. 9/10
Footloose An adequate remake of a classic about the dangers of parental protection and adolescent rebellion. It tries too hard to make a moral point, even worse than the original. It is, nonetheless, a fun, sing-a-long, tap-your-feet-in-the-aisles romping good time. 5/10
Glee the 3D Movie Concert Earlier this month, three Mandeville teenagers planned an attack on their schoolmates and teachers. The plan was to murder others and then murder themselves. While it is an extreme case, it illustrates a major social problem we face: exclusion which pushes people to do anything for acceptance. Some people act with meanness to gain acceptance by the group, as we saw in socialites in The Help; others turn to vice, such as doing illegal drugs and posting threads that debase women like WOWHI threads. Everyone in this world yearns for acceptance. The Christian doctrine of justification is essentially a description of this deep desire within us to be accepted, not just by others but by God.
Glee 3D is essentially a cheesy pop-culture retelling of that doctrine: a movie of acceptance despite, and perhaps, because of our flaws. In that sense, it was, in this world of such high standards of beauty and talent, quite a refreshing surprise to watch. I had never seen the show before, so I went into the film only knowing it was a concert movie about a TV show about singers. Unlike the J.B. Never Say Never movie where I walked out a full-fledged Belieber, I don't know if I'm ready to count myself part of the Gleek membership. It might be because the producers of Glee 3D essentially stole the Never Say Never movie format and put in their cast instead of J.B.
Although the movie is an emotional high from start to finish, I felt that the stories, while strangely beautiful, were also contrived and manipulative with the audience's emotions. Speaking of manipulative, the guy in the wheelchair doesn't need a wheelchair? What? I just didn't get that sequence or why he was in a wheelchair in the first place. For me, the highlight of the movie was the opening scene: Don't Stop Believe In. From there, the songs were good, but did not match the intensity and fervor of that first song. The 3D was rather unnecessary, with the majority of the 3D being scenes of the crowd to make you feel like there were fans in front of you. I must say, however, that at times I forgot I was in a theater and thought I was at a concert.
The overall message of the movie is positive, if not a little pop-culture, self-help preachy. Essentially it tells us that it's okay to be a loser. We'll love you anyway, indeed, because you are a loser. Very similar to the idea of God accepting us while we are still sinners, and the Church being a collection of sinners. Glee replaces the idea of sinner with the idea of a loser. The Christian understanding is much more realistic because it teaches people that there's something we must do after we realize our sin. Glee teaches that we should be happy to accept being a loser. We are accepted and nothing else matters. There we find the version of hyper-justification: being accepted is all that matters. Life stops with acceptance. In a society of laziness, it's a very tempting alternative to the notion of justification/acceptance giving us meaning and energy to become better. Just because we have flaws, IMO, does not mean we should be content to live with them. Perhaps, though, due to our society that is so exclusionary and turns normal people into monsters who seek acceptance, this hyper-justification has a place. 6/10
The Fighter A really enjoyable movie that grows on you the more you think about the performances. It is entirely character driven and the two leads are exceptional. The movie isn't about boxing - it's about family, brothers, conflicting allegiances, and triumph over weakness. The boxing scenes are bad and a waste of time. 9/10
Footloose An adequate remake of a classic about the dangers of parental protection and adolescent rebellion. It tries too hard to make a moral point, even worse than the original. It is, nonetheless, a fun, sing-a-long, tap-your-feet-in-the-aisles romping good time. 5/10
Glee the 3D Movie Concert Earlier this month, three Mandeville teenagers planned an attack on their schoolmates and teachers. The plan was to murder others and then murder themselves. While it is an extreme case, it illustrates a major social problem we face: exclusion which pushes people to do anything for acceptance. Some people act with meanness to gain acceptance by the group, as we saw in socialites in The Help; others turn to vice, such as doing illegal drugs and posting threads that debase women like WOWHI threads. Everyone in this world yearns for acceptance. The Christian doctrine of justification is essentially a description of this deep desire within us to be accepted, not just by others but by God.
Glee 3D is essentially a cheesy pop-culture retelling of that doctrine: a movie of acceptance despite, and perhaps, because of our flaws. In that sense, it was, in this world of such high standards of beauty and talent, quite a refreshing surprise to watch. I had never seen the show before, so I went into the film only knowing it was a concert movie about a TV show about singers. Unlike the J.B. Never Say Never movie where I walked out a full-fledged Belieber, I don't know if I'm ready to count myself part of the Gleek membership. It might be because the producers of Glee 3D essentially stole the Never Say Never movie format and put in their cast instead of J.B.
Although the movie is an emotional high from start to finish, I felt that the stories, while strangely beautiful, were also contrived and manipulative with the audience's emotions. Speaking of manipulative, the guy in the wheelchair doesn't need a wheelchair? What? I just didn't get that sequence or why he was in a wheelchair in the first place. For me, the highlight of the movie was the opening scene: Don't Stop Believe In. From there, the songs were good, but did not match the intensity and fervor of that first song. The 3D was rather unnecessary, with the majority of the 3D being scenes of the crowd to make you feel like there were fans in front of you. I must say, however, that at times I forgot I was in a theater and thought I was at a concert.
The overall message of the movie is positive, if not a little pop-culture, self-help preachy. Essentially it tells us that it's okay to be a loser. We'll love you anyway, indeed, because you are a loser. Very similar to the idea of God accepting us while we are still sinners, and the Church being a collection of sinners. Glee replaces the idea of sinner with the idea of a loser. The Christian understanding is much more realistic because it teaches people that there's something we must do after we realize our sin. Glee teaches that we should be happy to accept being a loser. We are accepted and nothing else matters. There we find the version of hyper-justification: being accepted is all that matters. Life stops with acceptance. In a society of laziness, it's a very tempting alternative to the notion of justification/acceptance giving us meaning and energy to become better. Just because we have flaws, IMO, does not mean we should be content to live with them. Perhaps, though, due to our society that is so exclusionary and turns normal people into monsters who seek acceptance, this hyper-justification has a place. 6/10
This post was edited on 11/16/11 at 7:27 am
Posted on 12/13/11 at 12:53 pm to TulaneLSU
quote:
Drive The Psalmist writes, "I was silent and still; I held my peace to no avail; my distress grew worse, my heart became hot within me. While I mused, the fire burned; then I spoke with my tongue: 'LORD, let me know my end, and what is the measure of my days; let me know how fleeting my life is'" (Psalm 39). The director of Drive uses what can best be described as monastic silence to draw viewers into the character played by Ryan Gosling. The impact is strong, for it is able somewhat to salvage a terrible movie. Although exciting, the first scene played out like a scene from Grand Theft Auto. Sure to please 20 and 30-something ribald males, to whom I'm sure this movie will become an unwarranted cult classic, there's very little to this film other than the silence of Gosling.
For Gosling's part, he is masterful. Through facial expressions, we see the most naive, innocent man who ever walked the terra firma. His adorable, childish smile makes us wonder. And in an instant the smile become a devastatingly violent kick to a head. And we wonder. What the hell created the person we see? The director uses a Hitchcockian technique: don't show and let the audience project. Let the audience come up with their own ideas of how this person came to be who he is. While it can stir the imagination, I came out wanting to know more about his childhood, and felt the movie's near complete avoidance of his past came across not so much as a religious mystery, which, by definition we can never know, but more the director and writer's inability to create a suitable and explicable history for a man so, well, mysterious. While the movie is adapted from a book, I think the audience deserved a hint to his past. We end up getting two hints. When Gosling is off-screen, we learn how long he has worked his job and how little he cares about money. The other hint comes from a scene with Gosling. And in that scene, we learn not to prod him regarding his past. If we do, we'll get our teeth kicked in. This character of internal burning can memorize thousands of streets on a map; he is a master at knowing how to get you where you need to go. But he is a mess who knows nothing about the streets of his life's map, primarily because he is afraid to remember his past. As a result, he will never get to where he needs to go.
Gosling's character is the only interesting one. And even though he is front and center, the director wasted too much time on the others. The cinematography has a feel of a foreign film and an 80s film. The lighting is well used as a character, reminiscent of Collateral. Keep an eye out for the symbols of wall paper and blood (cf. "My hands are a little dirty...So are mine"). I'm still trying to come up with a satisfying interpretation of the two. The music may be an important key to unlocking the mystery of Gosling's character, but I couldn't understand all the words. But the movie does end with a song about a hero who is an ordinary human being. Besides these strengths, and the intrigue associated with Gosling, the movie's plot is boring, the ending predictable, and the use of violence cloys. 5/10
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News