- 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 7:21 am to TulaneLSU
Posted on 11/16/11 at 7:21 am to TulaneLSU
Ides of March (cont.) One comes away from this movie with little more than cynicism toward the American political system. A few good scenes here and a few good scenes there, but the take home is that American politics is nothing but skulduggery. I think this is a terrible message to send to the public. There are times to be cynical about the world we live in, yes, but to make your message one of cynicism? I'm tired of people making comments like, "Who cares who wins. All politicians are in it just for themselves." How have we allowed that type of cynicism to enter our public conscience?
When movies don't have anything to say, or when what they have to say is entirely negative, that is when movies lose any worth they might have. Sin is everywhere in the world. I don't need to be reminded of it when I see a movie, and I don't need the director to shove his own pessimistic fatalism down my throat. In the end, all is broken, all is lost; friendship and honor give way to selfishness. Maybe I'm feeling the optimist today, but I think Ides is Clooney's disheartened way of throwing in the towel. 4/10
J. Edgar Near the end of the prophet Samuel's illustrious life, the elders of Israel were concerned with what was to become of their nation without Samuel's guidance. So they made a command: "Now appoint a king to lead us, such as all the other nations have" (I Samuel 8). For generations, the people had no king and "all the people did whatever seemed right in their own eyes." J. Edgar opens in the eyes of a man who sees a world of similar relativism and needs an elixir. The people need a king and J. Edgar is more than willing to take up that banner. So, the movie quickly moves from biography to fable with the Saint Bernard of Clairvaux's leitmotif, "L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontes et desirs, often translated as "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
This portrayal of the plenipotentiary Hoover shows a man sedulous in every way, agog with the excitement only one who knows/believes he is doing the will of God or one who is obsessively compelled to be Oedipus. In his obsession he becomes what he hated. This is the danger that all ideologues face: when we seek to do great things, pride is always waiting at the door. If we are not careful, if we are not always returning to the source of humility, the pride we have will cause us to miss the great good we are called to do. Gone is the good and present is the need to fill that empty, insatiable sack of pride that grumbles as an unfilled belly.
I must confess that I saw much of my own persona in Hoover: a grandiloquent, prideful megalomaniac who may use louche techniques in order to bring about the good as I see it. If I troll to bring down the empires of lust, gluttony, violence, and hatred, am I not of the same citizenship as those whose reign I seek to topple? It is true that we often hate in others what we hate in ourselves, and I think this is where J. Edgar is at its finest. The film is at its very worst in its immense speculative storytelling. The majority of the film is dedicated to what is supposed to be the contretemps homosexual relationship he had with his #2, Clyde Tolson. Although the majority of scholarship does not support this relationship, the movie is fixated on it. Hoover in the film is a puny, punitive man, frightened of the truth, always seeking to blackmail others because he is afraid of his own secrets. It is not a stretch to say that the movie hinges on the accuracy of this homosexual speculation. I don't buy it.
Perhaps the relationship he shared with Tolson is ineluctable for any biography, but the biography should not be built on it. Far more interesting and accurate is the depiction of Hoover's relationship to his mother. This is where psychologists have had a field day and I think the writer did a fantastic job of showing how much of Hoover's drive was the product of his mother. Hoover's mother was at the same time his rock and his chain. She gave him meaning, but she also enslaved him. And even after her death, he is not able to manumit himself from her words and ideas. I found the movie highly entertaining with its psychological analysis and its sweeping view of the early and mid-20th century. But the movie already has fleeted. I was not moved by it. And so, it is a borderline 6-7 movie. 7/10
When movies don't have anything to say, or when what they have to say is entirely negative, that is when movies lose any worth they might have. Sin is everywhere in the world. I don't need to be reminded of it when I see a movie, and I don't need the director to shove his own pessimistic fatalism down my throat. In the end, all is broken, all is lost; friendship and honor give way to selfishness. Maybe I'm feeling the optimist today, but I think Ides is Clooney's disheartened way of throwing in the towel. 4/10
J. Edgar Near the end of the prophet Samuel's illustrious life, the elders of Israel were concerned with what was to become of their nation without Samuel's guidance. So they made a command: "Now appoint a king to lead us, such as all the other nations have" (I Samuel 8). For generations, the people had no king and "all the people did whatever seemed right in their own eyes." J. Edgar opens in the eyes of a man who sees a world of similar relativism and needs an elixir. The people need a king and J. Edgar is more than willing to take up that banner. So, the movie quickly moves from biography to fable with the Saint Bernard of Clairvaux's leitmotif, "L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontes et desirs, often translated as "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
This portrayal of the plenipotentiary Hoover shows a man sedulous in every way, agog with the excitement only one who knows/believes he is doing the will of God or one who is obsessively compelled to be Oedipus. In his obsession he becomes what he hated. This is the danger that all ideologues face: when we seek to do great things, pride is always waiting at the door. If we are not careful, if we are not always returning to the source of humility, the pride we have will cause us to miss the great good we are called to do. Gone is the good and present is the need to fill that empty, insatiable sack of pride that grumbles as an unfilled belly.
I must confess that I saw much of my own persona in Hoover: a grandiloquent, prideful megalomaniac who may use louche techniques in order to bring about the good as I see it. If I troll to bring down the empires of lust, gluttony, violence, and hatred, am I not of the same citizenship as those whose reign I seek to topple? It is true that we often hate in others what we hate in ourselves, and I think this is where J. Edgar is at its finest. The film is at its very worst in its immense speculative storytelling. The majority of the film is dedicated to what is supposed to be the contretemps homosexual relationship he had with his #2, Clyde Tolson. Although the majority of scholarship does not support this relationship, the movie is fixated on it. Hoover in the film is a puny, punitive man, frightened of the truth, always seeking to blackmail others because he is afraid of his own secrets. It is not a stretch to say that the movie hinges on the accuracy of this homosexual speculation. I don't buy it.
Perhaps the relationship he shared with Tolson is ineluctable for any biography, but the biography should not be built on it. Far more interesting and accurate is the depiction of Hoover's relationship to his mother. This is where psychologists have had a field day and I think the writer did a fantastic job of showing how much of Hoover's drive was the product of his mother. Hoover's mother was at the same time his rock and his chain. She gave him meaning, but she also enslaved him. And even after her death, he is not able to manumit himself from her words and ideas. I found the movie highly entertaining with its psychological analysis and its sweeping view of the early and mid-20th century. But the movie already has fleeted. I was not moved by it. And so, it is a borderline 6-7 movie. 7/10
This post was edited on 11/29/11 at 10:19 pm
2
Posted on 11/16/11 at 7:21 am to TulaneLSU
The King's Speech A great triumph of cinematic docu-drama. It brings history and drama together like never before. You will leave this movie identifying with at least one character at least at some point in your life. The soundtrack is almost as marvelous as the performances. 9/10
Larry Crowne You know what, Hanks and Roberts have a real chemistry in this movie, but it's not romantic. It's more like the relationship Hanks has with that toy exec chick in Big. They try to force the romance angle, but it's acute and eventually it closes as a straight line. While I appreciate Hanks' positive, go-get-em attitude, it doesn't come off as very sincere and fails to plumb the depths of human disappointment. Are there people who are so look-on-the-bright-side in this world? Perhaps, but movies about them aren't good theater. 4/10
Little Fockers Meet the Parents should have stopped with the original. This movie does nothing new and repeats the same, tired jokes again and again. Do comic writers think audiences are so unfunny? I didn't chuckle once and found every character to be annoying. Alba is terrible. 3/10
Margin Call Several years ago, unbeknownst to me at the time, I had lunch with one of the foremost investors of the 20th century. When one of my friends had seen with whom I had lunch, he rushed to ask me questions, specifically about money. "Did he tell you how to invest?" and so forth. "No, no he didn't. Money did not enter our conversation once." One might say that the conversation had been on spirituality. Specifically, we talked about what we can know about God and what can be learned about God through many religions. Money for this man, in my brief encounter with him, was not why he lived. At least not at that point in his life.
In an important conversation near the end of Margin Call, the cormorant owner of this investment group has these words to a disillusioned, surly stock pusher, a man who felt, in the words of Hugo, "the perpetual plaint of a soul in agony": "It's just money; it's made up. Pieces of paper with pictures on it so we don't have to kill each other just to get something to eat. It's not wrong." His words ring as truth, a thought uttered by many of the saints of the world: money is nothing. And those who devote their lives to it become nothing. That much is consistent with all the world's major religions. But his words also ring as platitudinous, for that man had clambered all his life for money and there was no regret or turning from this idol. This man and the man with whom I shared lunch were not of the same ilk.
Margin Call, like Wall Street II and Company Men, is placed in the troublesome days of early Autumn, 2008 when the world's economic bubble was ready to burst. Each of these movies has tried to capture the greed that led up to the financial collapse, but none has been as successful as Margin Call. Why? Precisely because in the other two movies, we are given characters that the hoi polloi, the occupant 99%, are supposed to hate. The motivation with their main characters is personal greed. Margin Call is not so simplistic, and so, much more believable. The film is at its finest when developing the complex characters involved in this fictitious histo-drama. We get to know seven characters very well, a feat in itself for a movie of this length. And for each, our initial impressions are not our final impressions. The movie, in that sense, is shocking. A man we believe to be a terrible villain in the opening scenes, we will come to pity at the end. Because at the end, we see that the Jewish vision of labor has triumphed over the Roman view, which has since been adopted by the West, sadly, and to the detriment of culture and charity. This character brings us there, the place where button pushing is replaced by heart-breaking, back-breaking work. The entire cast is formidable and impressive except Demi Moore. She gives an encore performance to Disclosure, which is equally as bad. She doesn't deserve to be in another film.
Is this a movie about money? Only in form. In substance, it is a movie about our own motivations in life. By examining the motivation of others, their raison d'être, reason for being, it gives each of us a good opportunity to re-examine what motivates us. And I hope we will be able to move past money, obviously, but even past building bridges and digging holes. Our reason is far greater than our work of this sort. Only when our work is solely a work of love has our reason become exalted and pleasing. 8/10
Larry Crowne You know what, Hanks and Roberts have a real chemistry in this movie, but it's not romantic. It's more like the relationship Hanks has with that toy exec chick in Big. They try to force the romance angle, but it's acute and eventually it closes as a straight line. While I appreciate Hanks' positive, go-get-em attitude, it doesn't come off as very sincere and fails to plumb the depths of human disappointment. Are there people who are so look-on-the-bright-side in this world? Perhaps, but movies about them aren't good theater. 4/10
Little Fockers Meet the Parents should have stopped with the original. This movie does nothing new and repeats the same, tired jokes again and again. Do comic writers think audiences are so unfunny? I didn't chuckle once and found every character to be annoying. Alba is terrible. 3/10
Margin Call Several years ago, unbeknownst to me at the time, I had lunch with one of the foremost investors of the 20th century. When one of my friends had seen with whom I had lunch, he rushed to ask me questions, specifically about money. "Did he tell you how to invest?" and so forth. "No, no he didn't. Money did not enter our conversation once." One might say that the conversation had been on spirituality. Specifically, we talked about what we can know about God and what can be learned about God through many religions. Money for this man, in my brief encounter with him, was not why he lived. At least not at that point in his life.
In an important conversation near the end of Margin Call, the cormorant owner of this investment group has these words to a disillusioned, surly stock pusher, a man who felt, in the words of Hugo, "the perpetual plaint of a soul in agony": "It's just money; it's made up. Pieces of paper with pictures on it so we don't have to kill each other just to get something to eat. It's not wrong." His words ring as truth, a thought uttered by many of the saints of the world: money is nothing. And those who devote their lives to it become nothing. That much is consistent with all the world's major religions. But his words also ring as platitudinous, for that man had clambered all his life for money and there was no regret or turning from this idol. This man and the man with whom I shared lunch were not of the same ilk.
Margin Call, like Wall Street II and Company Men, is placed in the troublesome days of early Autumn, 2008 when the world's economic bubble was ready to burst. Each of these movies has tried to capture the greed that led up to the financial collapse, but none has been as successful as Margin Call. Why? Precisely because in the other two movies, we are given characters that the hoi polloi, the occupant 99%, are supposed to hate. The motivation with their main characters is personal greed. Margin Call is not so simplistic, and so, much more believable. The film is at its finest when developing the complex characters involved in this fictitious histo-drama. We get to know seven characters very well, a feat in itself for a movie of this length. And for each, our initial impressions are not our final impressions. The movie, in that sense, is shocking. A man we believe to be a terrible villain in the opening scenes, we will come to pity at the end. Because at the end, we see that the Jewish vision of labor has triumphed over the Roman view, which has since been adopted by the West, sadly, and to the detriment of culture and charity. This character brings us there, the place where button pushing is replaced by heart-breaking, back-breaking work. The entire cast is formidable and impressive except Demi Moore. She gives an encore performance to Disclosure, which is equally as bad. She doesn't deserve to be in another film.
Is this a movie about money? Only in form. In substance, it is a movie about our own motivations in life. By examining the motivation of others, their raison d'être, reason for being, it gives each of us a good opportunity to re-examine what motivates us. And I hope we will be able to move past money, obviously, but even past building bridges and digging holes. Our reason is far greater than our work of this sort. Only when our work is solely a work of love has our reason become exalted and pleasing. 8/10
This post was edited on 11/16/11 at 7:37 am
Posted on 12/13/11 at 12:56 pm to TulaneLSU
quote:
Ides of March (cont.) One comes away from this movie with little more than cynicism toward the American political system. A few good scenes here and a few good scenes there, but the take home is that American politics is nothing but skulduggery. I think this is a terrible message to send to the public. There are times to be cynical about the world we live in, yes, but to make your message one of cynicism? I'm tired of people making comments like, "Who cares who wins. All politicians are in it just for themselves." How have we allowed that type of cynicism to enter our public conscience?
When movies don't have anything to say, or when what they have to say is entirely negative, that is when movies lose any worth they might have. Sin is everywhere in the world. I don't need to be reminded of it when I see a movie, and I don't need the director to shove his own pessimistic fatalism down my throat. In the end, all is broken, all is lost; friendship and honor give way to selfishness. Maybe I'm feeling the optimist today, but I think Ides is Clooney's disheartened way of throwing in the towel. 4/10
J. Edgar Near the end of the prophet Samuel's illustrious life, the elders of Israel were concerned with what was to become of their nation without Samuel's guidance. So they made a command: "Now appoint a king to lead us, such as all the other nations have" (I Samuel 8). For generations, the people had no king and "all the people did whatever seemed right in their own eyes." J. Edgar opens in the eyes of a man who sees a world of similar relativism and needs an elixir. The people need a king and J. Edgar is more than willing to take up that banner. So, the movie quickly moves from biography to fable with the Saint Bernard of Clairvaux's leitmotif, "L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontes et desirs, often translated as "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
This portrayal of the plenipotentiary Hoover shows a man sedulous in every way, agog with the excitement only one who knows/believes he is doing the will of God or one who is obsessively compelled to be Oedipus. In his obsession he becomes what he hated. This is the danger that all ideologues face: when we seek to do great things, pride is always waiting at the door. If we are not careful, if we are not always returning to the source of humility, the pride we have will cause us to miss the great good we are called to do. Gone is the good and present is the need to fill that empty, insatiable sack of pride that grumbles as an unfilled belly.
I must confess that I saw much of my own persona in Hoover: a grandiloquent, prideful megalomaniac who may use louche techniques in order to bring about the good as I see it. If I troll to bring down the empires of lust, gluttony, violence, and hatred, am I not of the same citizenship as those whose reign I seek to topple? It is true that we often hate in others what we hate in ourselves, and I think this is where J. Edgar is at its finest. The film is at its very worst in its immense speculative storytelling. The majority of the film is dedicated to what is supposed to be the contretemps homosexual relationship he had with his #2, Clyde Tolson. Although the majority of scholarship does not support this relationship, the movie is fixated on it. Hoover in the film is a puny, punitive man, frightened of the truth, always seeking to blackmail others because he is afraid of his own secrets. It is not a stretch to say that the movie hinges on the accuracy of this homosexual speculation. I don't buy it.
Perhaps the relationship he shared with Tolson is ineluctable for any biography, but the biography should not be built on it. Far more interesting and accurate is the depiction of Hoover's relationship to his mother. This is where psychologists have had a field day and I think the writer did a fantastic job of showing how much of Hoover's drive was the product of his mother. Hoover's mother was at the same time his rock and his chain. She gave him meaning, but she also enslaved him. And even after her death, he is not able to manumit himself from her words and ideas. I found the movie highly entertaining with its psychological analysis and its sweeping view of the early and mid-20th century. But the movie already has fleeted. I was not moved by it. And so, it is a borderline 6-7 movie. 7/10
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News