- 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 2/17/12 at 3:13 pm to TulaneLSU
Posted on 2/17/12 at 3:13 pm to TulaneLSU
Iron Lady - This movie was so unremarkable, so unsophisticatedly put together, so unmemorable that I will not even update this thread title or spend more than three minutes reviewing it. Iron Lady goes to show that in life, no one is worth immortalizing. This goes for biographic movies as well as statues. The unknown that exists in death and distance from a person's life makes that person interesting. When the person still lives, such interest is not there. We are a society so keen on making and being a part of history. We are so eager to form history that we end up making only a shadow of history. History cannot be done in the present. History requires distance. This movie is to be a historical biography, but such is impossible at this point.
The movie itself was boring, even with Streep's best and stoic attempts to salvage something unsalvageable. Analepsis has never been more poorly used. Far too much time was spent on Thatcher's current state. Instead of focusing on what she did and who she was, we're forced to watch the confusion of Alzheimers. That's not what the Iron Lady would have wanted and it's not what the audience wants. If the British filmmakers believe they can lazily produce rubbish and have it praised by Americans merely because it is British, they have something coming to them. 2/10
The movie itself was boring, even with Streep's best and stoic attempts to salvage something unsalvageable. Analepsis has never been more poorly used. Far too much time was spent on Thatcher's current state. Instead of focusing on what she did and who she was, we're forced to watch the confusion of Alzheimers. That's not what the Iron Lady would have wanted and it's not what the audience wants. If the British filmmakers believe they can lazily produce rubbish and have it praised by Americans merely because it is British, they have something coming to them. 2/10
Posted on 2/17/12 at 3:18 pm to TulaneLSU
Damn, around 200 words and nary a religious reference. That must've been very difficult for you.
Posted on 2/17/12 at 3:21 pm to DanglingFury
Here's a really great review of The Vow
Posted on 2/17/12 at 3:21 pm to DanglingFury
I was going to discuss the human tendency to focus on the negative instead of what is good as well as compare the rise and fall of Thatcher to that of King David and to the book of Judges, but the movie's quality didn't deserve such efforts. And I'm tired. I should have seen that munchkins in the cupboard fairy film.
Posted on 2/17/12 at 3:28 pm to TulaneLSU
quote:
was going to discuss the human tendency to focus on the negative instead of what is good as well as compare the rise and fall of Thatcher to that of King David and to the book of Judges
Of course you were. I'm sure it would've been quite the homily.
Posted on 2/17/12 at 3:35 pm to DanglingFury
It would have been an invigorating and edifying discourse, that's for certain.
Low, 2/5 = 4/10. Looks like my ratings are being plagiarized.
Low, 2/5 = 4/10. Looks like my ratings are being plagiarized.
Posted on 2/17/12 at 3:38 pm to TulaneLSU
quote:
The movie itself was boring, even with Streep's best and stoic attempts to salvage something unsalvageable.
Yeah Streep is Streep...but I've heard even she couldn't save this picture.
For the first time, I believe your review.
Posted on 2/24/12 at 4:07 pm to TulaneLSU
Good Deeds Many of my fellow Arts Board posters already know the Kierkegaard's parable of the rich king. By the chance that some of you do not, I will tell it in my own words. There was once a very rich and powerful king whose name was known throughout the lands. He was a panjandrum of panjandrums, living in a magnificent castle, but duty called him to the town center to attend to public matters. Once finished, he returned to his castle, but on his way back, he saw a glimpse of a peasant woman. He thought her absolutely beautiful and fell smitten of her instantly.
He could not get her off his mind. He wanted to meet her and for her to fall in love with him. He began thinking about how he might accomplish it. He first thought he would send out his royal guards to find her and and make her debouch to his castle. There she would be ordered to marry him. But after second thought, he thought this a bad idea because how could he ever know if she really loved him or not? One cannot force another to love. So he thought so more. He decided he could find where she lived, arrive on his finest horse wearing his most exquisite clothes with his royal jewelry. There he would sweep the peasant woman off her feet by a show of his wealth. But after thinking about this plan, it lost its flavor because if he did that, how could he ever know that she loved him, not his money?
At last the king realized what he had to do. He would trade his royal robes for peasant rags. He would renounce the throne and give his brother all his estates. And then he would approach the woman, as a peasant, and win her love. He did all this and he won her heart. In the same way, God wondered how he might win our hearts and realized the only way we could truly come to love him was if we met him as a peasant, as the lowliest of all. God became one of us, in the person of Jesus, born in a lowly manger in a no-name town in a wasteland in the Roman Empire.
Mr. Deeds, the main character played by Tyler Perry, about whom I knew nothing before watching this movie (a lady next to me in the audience said he was from New Orleans incidentally), has no such divine or noble aspirations. His jejune, disconsolate character with a penchant for a contemporary noblesse oblige whereby wealth is viewed as boring and freedom from wealth is viewed as excitement, is as boring as the script. In the opening scene it is clear to anyone who has watched more than twenty movies during 2011, and therefore, should be given the privilege of speaking about the "best of 2011," what will happen. Why bother mentioning because if you see it, you'll know too?
What's most bothersome is that this Tyler Perry character is so infatuated with himself he put his name in the title. I'm noticing a trend that if a movie has the director's name in it, it's going to be terrible. Think Last Airbender. I could understand the self promotion if the script and movie had any amount of comprehensibility, consistency, concision and concinnity, but this movie is thoughtless and I could have written a better script than his in thirty minutes of constipating pain on the toilet. Every single actor and actress in this movie, except the fiance, is absolutely appallingly bad. Those crocodile tears at the end were embarrassing. Making matters worse is the cheapness the cameras and of the sets. Were they working on a Lifetime made for TV budget? There are made-for-Youtube videos out there that are more professional than this movie.
Good Deeds succeeds at being what lonely, desperate, struggling middle-aged women want in their fairy tale. But it fails miserably at providing anything of value to culture and at entertaining. This movie and the success of Jimmy John's make me scratch my head about the type of world around me. May the next story I see or read or hear be one of humility and virtue.1/10
He could not get her off his mind. He wanted to meet her and for her to fall in love with him. He began thinking about how he might accomplish it. He first thought he would send out his royal guards to find her and and make her debouch to his castle. There she would be ordered to marry him. But after second thought, he thought this a bad idea because how could he ever know if she really loved him or not? One cannot force another to love. So he thought so more. He decided he could find where she lived, arrive on his finest horse wearing his most exquisite clothes with his royal jewelry. There he would sweep the peasant woman off her feet by a show of his wealth. But after thinking about this plan, it lost its flavor because if he did that, how could he ever know that she loved him, not his money?
At last the king realized what he had to do. He would trade his royal robes for peasant rags. He would renounce the throne and give his brother all his estates. And then he would approach the woman, as a peasant, and win her love. He did all this and he won her heart. In the same way, God wondered how he might win our hearts and realized the only way we could truly come to love him was if we met him as a peasant, as the lowliest of all. God became one of us, in the person of Jesus, born in a lowly manger in a no-name town in a wasteland in the Roman Empire.
Mr. Deeds, the main character played by Tyler Perry, about whom I knew nothing before watching this movie (a lady next to me in the audience said he was from New Orleans incidentally), has no such divine or noble aspirations. His jejune, disconsolate character with a penchant for a contemporary noblesse oblige whereby wealth is viewed as boring and freedom from wealth is viewed as excitement, is as boring as the script. In the opening scene it is clear to anyone who has watched more than twenty movies during 2011, and therefore, should be given the privilege of speaking about the "best of 2011," what will happen. Why bother mentioning because if you see it, you'll know too?
What's most bothersome is that this Tyler Perry character is so infatuated with himself he put his name in the title. I'm noticing a trend that if a movie has the director's name in it, it's going to be terrible. Think Last Airbender. I could understand the self promotion if the script and movie had any amount of comprehensibility, consistency, concision and concinnity, but this movie is thoughtless and I could have written a better script than his in thirty minutes of constipating pain on the toilet. Every single actor and actress in this movie, except the fiance, is absolutely appallingly bad. Those crocodile tears at the end were embarrassing. Making matters worse is the cheapness the cameras and of the sets. Were they working on a Lifetime made for TV budget? There are made-for-Youtube videos out there that are more professional than this movie.
Good Deeds succeeds at being what lonely, desperate, struggling middle-aged women want in their fairy tale. But it fails miserably at providing anything of value to culture and at entertaining. This movie and the success of Jimmy John's make me scratch my head about the type of world around me. May the next story I see or read or hear be one of humility and virtue.1/10
Posted on 3/8/12 at 3:13 pm to TulaneLSU
The Secret World of Arrietty In the online world, where many attempt to puff up their intellectual standing emblazoning their messages with witty, thoughtful quotes of giants of the past, often people they've never read themselves, I have noticed that many people on Facebook have keyed on a quote attributed to Plato. "Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle." Forget that Plato never said anything like it and that it was a 20th century Scottish minister who first used the phrase; it is still an important concept. Who does not, as the accused felon and recent cancer diagnose', Aaron Broussard, said, have a cross or two to bear? That religious phrase, by the way, has come to have much political currency in Louisiana, after John Maginnis' Cross to Bear, a fabulous look at the Edwin Edwards and David Duke gubernatorial election.
Whether we recognize it or not, who is not fighting a hard battle? Even in the best of times, something besets us and separates us from our Elysium. Many suffer their battles silently and we never know about them. Others are proud of their battles and will tell anyone within earshot. The Secret World is a delightful little tale about two adolescents on the brink of a new life learning that in our shared suffering, we can find common ground.
As most of you know, I am an avid reader of Simone Weil, and I have grown to love what she says about the purpose of suffering. Reading Weil led me to read Edith Stein, the nun who was born a Jew but became a Roman Catholic. She was nonetheless murdered in the gas chambers at Auschwitz. One idea that is so beautiful in her writing is the idea that love is stronger than hate, and that through hate, we may come to know love better. She describes love as analogous to the resurrection and hate as analogous to the crucifixion, and in this juxtaposition, there is almost a necessity of hate before love. That is to say, that when we are surrounded by hate, that hate is not merely a random, ineffectual piece of chaos, but rather, it exists so to bring us a point of contact with the hated Christ who was nailed to a cross.
Those who share their sufferings with one another can often become the most intimate of friends because suffering reveals something more intimate than happiness and leisure ever will. The two protagonists in this film share their sufferings and begin to establish something that is eternal, something that will never die: their friendship. It is a friendship of tears and sacrifice. It is a friendship that involves one conversion. When we learn of the young lad's lachrymose condition in his Clint Eastwoodesque tone, we see two philosophies at play: first, his, which is a blend of Marcus Aurelius and Mahayana Buddhist thought. And second, a sort of chipper, pull-your-boots-up and do something about it American Republicangical toughness. Action rather than willful acceptance wins out in this clash -- the movie, after all, is intended for American audiences.
The ending of this beautifully painted and scored film is enough to move my fin de siecle emotions, nearly to the point of shared tears. Friendship is eternal, and children and adults alike would do well to remember this truth. When so few movies have new messages and messages that are creatively told, there is no excuse accepted in my book for you to see any other movie at the theater right now. 7/10
Whether we recognize it or not, who is not fighting a hard battle? Even in the best of times, something besets us and separates us from our Elysium. Many suffer their battles silently and we never know about them. Others are proud of their battles and will tell anyone within earshot. The Secret World is a delightful little tale about two adolescents on the brink of a new life learning that in our shared suffering, we can find common ground.
As most of you know, I am an avid reader of Simone Weil, and I have grown to love what she says about the purpose of suffering. Reading Weil led me to read Edith Stein, the nun who was born a Jew but became a Roman Catholic. She was nonetheless murdered in the gas chambers at Auschwitz. One idea that is so beautiful in her writing is the idea that love is stronger than hate, and that through hate, we may come to know love better. She describes love as analogous to the resurrection and hate as analogous to the crucifixion, and in this juxtaposition, there is almost a necessity of hate before love. That is to say, that when we are surrounded by hate, that hate is not merely a random, ineffectual piece of chaos, but rather, it exists so to bring us a point of contact with the hated Christ who was nailed to a cross.
Those who share their sufferings with one another can often become the most intimate of friends because suffering reveals something more intimate than happiness and leisure ever will. The two protagonists in this film share their sufferings and begin to establish something that is eternal, something that will never die: their friendship. It is a friendship of tears and sacrifice. It is a friendship that involves one conversion. When we learn of the young lad's lachrymose condition in his Clint Eastwoodesque tone, we see two philosophies at play: first, his, which is a blend of Marcus Aurelius and Mahayana Buddhist thought. And second, a sort of chipper, pull-your-boots-up and do something about it American Republicangical toughness. Action rather than willful acceptance wins out in this clash -- the movie, after all, is intended for American audiences.
The ending of this beautifully painted and scored film is enough to move my fin de siecle emotions, nearly to the point of shared tears. Friendship is eternal, and children and adults alike would do well to remember this truth. When so few movies have new messages and messages that are creatively told, there is no excuse accepted in my book for you to see any other movie at the theater right now. 7/10
This post was edited on 3/8/12 at 3:14 pm
Posted on 3/8/12 at 3:30 pm to TulaneLSU
I am becoming disillusioned with this board. For every review of a movie there are 100 posts on stupid, mindless TV shows. I searched to see if anyone on this board had said a single word about this movie yet, which has been in wide release for over a month. Not a single mention. Meanwhile, every worthless TV show under the show has its own thread. Please, people, please!
Posted on 3/8/12 at 3:34 pm to TulaneLSU
There was a thread about Stalker not too long yet somehow you missed it. It's ok, that film is probably too smart for you anyway.
Posted on 3/8/12 at 4:28 pm to TulaneLSU
There was a thread a couple days ago about it. There are many Studio Ghibli fans here. The fact that the search sucks and you were busy trolling the O-T as charles357 or whatever is probably why you missed it.
Thought this was funny
quote:
In the online world, where many attempt to puff up their intellectual standing emblazoning their messages with witty, thoughtful quotes of giants of the past, often people they've never read themselves,
Thought this was funny
Posted on 3/8/12 at 5:34 pm to TulaneLSU
quote:
I am becoming disillusioned with this board. For every review of a movie there are 100 posts on stupid, mindless TV shows. I searched to see if anyone on this board had said a single word about this movie yet, which has been in wide release for over a month. Not a single mention. Meanwhile, every worthless TV show under the show has its own thread. Please, people, please!
Don't let the door hit you on the way out, Joseph Smith.
Since you pretend not to watch TV, you are unaware of The Wire-the greatest work of art in history of America.
Posted on 3/12/12 at 2:59 pm to Josh Fenderman
Pina "What are we longing for? Where does all this yearning come from?" Think seriously about this question for a moment before proceeding, both with this review and with your life. The 20th century gave rise to the obnoxious belief that even to ask such a question was a sacrificium intellectus, but we here know better. We know that to ask such a question is indeed the pinnacle of the function of nous.
For Kierkegaard, we are longing for "infinite happiness," a yearning that comes from the Infinite, as understood in Kantian terms rather than Thomistic. The yearning is what helps us ascend from the ethical realm to the religious realm. But the yearning is not what gets us over the hump. The yearning just reminds us how dissatisfied we are with both the aesthetic and ethical realms, and thus, pushes us to the precipice of faith.
When Pina Bausch asked this question to her students at the Tanztheater Wuppertal, I do not know if she had an answer in mind or if she asked to get her students to think or if she wanted her students to answer the question for her. After watching her students' mesmerizing and felicitious film lamentation and encomium to her I wonder if the answer to the first question is "to communicate." Communication appears to be at the heart of all of Pina's work. Her métier was movement, not words. Dance became a language of first resort under her. I confess that I do not appreciate interpretative dance as much as others and that I think it can be bedaubed with immaterial confusion and incoherence cloaked in golden raiments. But it's hard to deny that Pina was a cognoscente, able to penetrate the world, see what we lack in language, and develop a new way to communicate.
There are so many scenes in the movie that watching it can feel like a burden. I admit I fell asleep in a movie for only the second time in the last year. The other, if you've forgotten, was during the 0/10 Winnie the Pooh. I blame my somnolence on my ignorance for understanding better the movements of this dance, but I also blame the dancers, who shifted and gave far too much for most dance neophytes to swallow in one sitting. I will mention two scenes that I found most meaningful: the teacher who enters the picture and provides muscle memory, or is it spiritual memory?, to two lovers who only want to hold each other. That scene captures so much of what I see God being in the Old Testament. The cyclical movements of the lovers show Israel and the loving teacher quick to return to reprove and instruct show a God who finally leaves the stage once satisfied that his children have learned their roles. The other scene I found fascinating was the one with the woman tethered to an unseen anchor yearning for freedom, getting ever so close, but never completing her Sisyphean struggle. As with Pina's own philosophy, there is little speaking in this movie, so it likely will have a limited audience to which it appeals. However, if you can learn to speak a new language, learn to communicate without words, you may find this movie a highly rewarding two hours.
I will end by answering the question with which we began, using a quote from the most recently departed Roman bishop of the Church. “It is Jesus that you seek when you dream of happiness; he is waiting for you when nothing else you find satisfies you; he is the beauty to which you are so attracted; it is he who provoked you with that thirst for fullness that will not let you settle for compromise; it is he who urges you to shed the masks of a false life; it is he who reads in your heart your most genuine choices, the choices that others try to stifle. It is Jesus who stirs in you the desire to do something great with your lives, the will to follow an ideal, the refusal to allow yourselves to be ground down by mediocrity, the courage to commit yourselves humbly and patiently to improving yourselves and society, making the world more human and more fraternal.” 7/10
For Kierkegaard, we are longing for "infinite happiness," a yearning that comes from the Infinite, as understood in Kantian terms rather than Thomistic. The yearning is what helps us ascend from the ethical realm to the religious realm. But the yearning is not what gets us over the hump. The yearning just reminds us how dissatisfied we are with both the aesthetic and ethical realms, and thus, pushes us to the precipice of faith.
When Pina Bausch asked this question to her students at the Tanztheater Wuppertal, I do not know if she had an answer in mind or if she asked to get her students to think or if she wanted her students to answer the question for her. After watching her students' mesmerizing and felicitious film lamentation and encomium to her I wonder if the answer to the first question is "to communicate." Communication appears to be at the heart of all of Pina's work. Her métier was movement, not words. Dance became a language of first resort under her. I confess that I do not appreciate interpretative dance as much as others and that I think it can be bedaubed with immaterial confusion and incoherence cloaked in golden raiments. But it's hard to deny that Pina was a cognoscente, able to penetrate the world, see what we lack in language, and develop a new way to communicate.
There are so many scenes in the movie that watching it can feel like a burden. I admit I fell asleep in a movie for only the second time in the last year. The other, if you've forgotten, was during the 0/10 Winnie the Pooh. I blame my somnolence on my ignorance for understanding better the movements of this dance, but I also blame the dancers, who shifted and gave far too much for most dance neophytes to swallow in one sitting. I will mention two scenes that I found most meaningful: the teacher who enters the picture and provides muscle memory, or is it spiritual memory?, to two lovers who only want to hold each other. That scene captures so much of what I see God being in the Old Testament. The cyclical movements of the lovers show Israel and the loving teacher quick to return to reprove and instruct show a God who finally leaves the stage once satisfied that his children have learned their roles. The other scene I found fascinating was the one with the woman tethered to an unseen anchor yearning for freedom, getting ever so close, but never completing her Sisyphean struggle. As with Pina's own philosophy, there is little speaking in this movie, so it likely will have a limited audience to which it appeals. However, if you can learn to speak a new language, learn to communicate without words, you may find this movie a highly rewarding two hours.
I will end by answering the question with which we began, using a quote from the most recently departed Roman bishop of the Church. “It is Jesus that you seek when you dream of happiness; he is waiting for you when nothing else you find satisfies you; he is the beauty to which you are so attracted; it is he who provoked you with that thirst for fullness that will not let you settle for compromise; it is he who urges you to shed the masks of a false life; it is he who reads in your heart your most genuine choices, the choices that others try to stifle. It is Jesus who stirs in you the desire to do something great with your lives, the will to follow an ideal, the refusal to allow yourselves to be ground down by mediocrity, the courage to commit yourselves humbly and patiently to improving yourselves and society, making the world more human and more fraternal.” 7/10
Posted on 3/12/12 at 3:30 pm to TulaneLSU
Id give Pina something like a 9.1 out of 10. It was really incredible
Posted on 3/12/12 at 3:39 pm to Leauxgan
Do you perform interpretative dance?
This post was edited on 3/12/12 at 3:56 pm
Posted on 3/12/12 at 3:48 pm to TulaneLSU
I do a thing in clubs I call "whiting out."
Since i'm a white male, i dont have much going against me--except I lack the ability to dance. So I drink enough alcohol as to erase inhibition and gain courage to dance, where I proceed to interpret whatever house or rap song is blaring. I never remember it well because my memory is obscured by drink, but I'm left with the impression that I had fun, even if I looked like a giraffe on roller skates. Whiting out
Since i'm a white male, i dont have much going against me--except I lack the ability to dance. So I drink enough alcohol as to erase inhibition and gain courage to dance, where I proceed to interpret whatever house or rap song is blaring. I never remember it well because my memory is obscured by drink, but I'm left with the impression that I had fun, even if I looked like a giraffe on roller skates. Whiting out
This post was edited on 3/12/12 at 3:49 pm
Posted on 3/12/12 at 3:54 pm to Leauxgan
One cannot dance while drunk. One can decreate himself by becoming drunk, cowardly casting off his own persona. Without his own person at the fore, he puts on a mask of another, which enables him to humiliate himself by making ridiculous motions at brothels of despair where loud noise is played and other cowards are happy to partake in a shared communion of misanthropy.
Posted on 3/12/12 at 4:00 pm to TulaneLSU
quote:
brothels of despair
Oh shite you've been to DCs infamous Brothels of Despair? Nice venue, even if drinks are a little pricey and the communion of misanthropy sorta distracting
Posted on 3/12/12 at 4:01 pm to Leauxgan
I gather you were trying to be witty.
Popular
Back to top


2



