Million Dollar Baby Reviewed
Charles Beauchamp
good thing.
This movie is not the normal "boxing movie." Usually in those the primary
story is about the fighter getting ready for the big fight. Ultimately the
climax of the story is about the wining or losing and is entirely
predictable.
Not so here. This movie is more of the story of a haunted man named Frankie
Dunn (played by Clint Eastwood) and his annoying prodigy Maggie Fitzgerald
(Hilary Swank). The fact that she is a professional boxer is not of
ultimate importance.
Morgan Freeman plays Frankie's sidekick/conscience/confidant Eddie.
We see a humorous back and forth between Dunn and his priest as he battles
internally over a broken relationship with his daughter.
The fight scenes look genuine. Hilary Swank put up a creditable performance
in her fight scenes (which were still thankfully short). Lucia Riker the
greatest female boxer in history plays the villain to perfection in the
movie's ultimate fight sequence.
Clearly this movie is one of the best movies of 2004. It has gotten a Best
Picture nomination well deserved. This is not a "great boxing movie" rather
this is a great drama-tragedy that happens to be about a boxer.
--
Hey mister, I don't play those kind of games. No[one] sticks their head
under my skirts! - Brent
DL
<C.E.Be...@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote:
>
>Clearly this movie is one of the best movies of 2004. It has gotten a Best
>Picture nomination well deserved. This is not a "great boxing movie" rather
>this is a great drama-tragedy that happens to be about a boxer.
We saw it last week. I agree that it is good, and I once again
enjoyed Morgan as the wise older fellow. Did leave it disturbed, not
quite as much disturbed as I was by "A Beautiful Mind" but definitely
felt unsettled. So I guess it was effective. I recommend it.
- -
DL
http://www.geocities.com/dicklong14_ca/fanclub.htm
"Hopefully with the demon-spawn Whitsitt out of the
picture our scouts and coaches will be able to do their jobs."
::::::::::::::::
Halter Sucks!
Eden R
At this time of year I try to see all the nominated films and performances
(Aviator the big one still to see)
so really hadn't heard anything when i saw MDB and it blew me away.
Eastwood is stripping back his acting and directing to such little artifice
its like a noir film
from the 30's....thought it was magnificent and though I love Scorsese I am
pressed to see how Aviator
can be better...will have to see it next weekend :)
Cheers
OzEden
"DL" <Number1...@whocaresabit.com> wrote in message
news:icat01tbv625omb8s...@4ax.com...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.794 / Virus Database: 538 - Release Date: 11/11/2004
John Craven
"Charles Beauchamp" <C.E.Be...@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:Z8udnVI0Z7-...@comcast.com...
This movie is right up there with "The Aviator" and "Finding Neverland" for
the best of the year. I just plain can't choose between those three...
Charles Beauchamp
> Howdy,
>
> At this time of year I try to see all the nominated films and
> performances (Aviator the big one still to see)
> so really hadn't heard anything when i saw MDB and it blew me away.
>
> Eastwood is stripping back his acting and directing to such little
> artifice its like a noir film
> from the 30's....thought it was magnificent and though I love
> Scorsese I am pressed to see how Aviator
> can be better...will have to see it next weekend :)
>
I am doing the same thing. Saw Finding Neverland tonight. Will see the
Aviator this week sometime.
--
v/r Beau
Mike Kohary
>Eastwood is stripping back his acting and directing to such little artifice
>its like a noir film
>from the 30's....
Which, in today's movie climate, is a welcome breath of fresh air. :)
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com
Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com
Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
John Craven
"Mike Kohary" <n...@spam.please> wrote in message
news:s3k0119tbeupslgm9...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 01:21:16 GMT, "Eden R" <ed...@zip.com.au> wrote:
>
>>Eastwood is stripping back his acting and directing to such little
>>artifice
>>its like a noir film
>>from the 30's....
>
> Which, in today's movie climate, is a welcome breath of fresh air. :)
I've seen several very, very good movies over the past couple years. I'm not
sure what you're talking about here.
Mike Kohary
I've seen many good movies lately also. But few if any of them display the
kind of traditional stylings that Eastwood's films display, which are
deliberately-paced but not slow. I'm just glad that there's someone still
making movies who isn't trying to impress anyone.
John Craven
"Mike Kohary" <so...@no.spam> wrote in message
news:curjkj$scp$0...@pita.alt.net...
> I've seen many good movies lately also. But few if any of them display
> the kind of traditional stylings that Eastwood's films display, which are
> deliberately-paced but not slow. I'm just glad that there's someone still
> making movies who isn't trying to impress anyone.
A few deliberate-but-not-slow movies off the top of my head:
Unbreakable (by a large margin, M. Night Shymalan's best film)
Memento
The Whale Rider
American Splendor
The Royal Tennenbaums
Rushmore
Pieces of April (if you haven't seen this yet, SEE IT NOW)
Before Sunset (I'd list Before Sunrise, but calling that a "recent" film is
probably pushing it)
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (this might not qualify under the
"movies that aren't made to impress" criterion, but it's anything but fast
paced)
Lost in Translation
Garden State
Sideways
In America
I know that stuff like The Passion, Star Wars, and the LOTR trilogy get more
press, but there are a *lot* of really good movies getting made nowadays
that don't constantly shock you with explosions, swashbuckling, and boobies.
In terms of traditional stylings... I'm not sure what you mean by that.
"Million Dollar Baby" is as much a movie of the 2000s as Garden State is.
It's not geared for the MTV, channel-flipping crowd, but again I can say
that about a lot of movies. In fact, one thing that I would say about film
of today is that there's a lot more intellectual fare than I believe there
used to be. There was a time when "Taxi Driver" and "Raging Bull" were
practically the only deliberately-paced things you could find out there.
Today, you can go out and rent 10 things from the last year that move like
that. That is, I am sure, due in large part to the way the business has
expanded in the last quarter century. But nobody ever said bigger wasn't
better. :)
Chris Hafner
news:curjkj$scp$0...@pita.alt.net...
> > "Mike Kohary" <n...@spam.please> wrote in message
> > news:s3k0119tbeupslgm9...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 01:21:16 GMT, "Eden R" <ed...@zip.com.au> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Eastwood is stripping back his acting and directing to such little
> >>> artifice
> >>> its like a noir film
> >>> from the 30's....
> >>
> >> Which, in today's movie climate, is a welcome breath of fresh air. :)
> >
> > I've seen several very, very good movies over the past couple years.
> > I'm not sure what you're talking about here.
>
> I've seen many good movies lately also. But few if any of them display
the
> kind of traditional stylings that Eastwood's films display, which are
> deliberately-paced but not slow. I'm just glad that there's someone still
> making movies who isn't trying to impress anyone.
What bother me nowadays is how filmmakers are flocking to the shaky
hand-held cam look. Yeah, I get it - you're edgy and hip.
In limited usage, it's great as a change of pace, but it's really easy to
overuse and get distracting.
Cheers,
Chris Hafner
KiwiHawk
> What bother me nowadays is how filmmakers are flocking to the shaky
> hand-held cam look. Yeah, I get it - you're edgy and hip.
>
> In limited usage, it's great as a change of pace, but it's really
> easy to overuse and get distracting.
At first I enjoyed it in the Battlestar Galactica miniseries - they used a
handheld style with 100% CGI scenes - but then it got a bit overused. A
little goes a long way.
--
Michael Johnson
"I was coughing up a little blood, but it was nothing serious."
- Ken Lucas
M. Zaiem Beg
->What bother me nowadays is how filmmakers are flocking to the shaky
->hand-held cam look. Yeah, I get it - you're edgy and hip.
->
->In limited usage, it's great as a change of pace, but it's really easy to
->overuse and get distracting.
"Okay, they're - they're in the woods. The camera keeps on moving. Uh, I
think they're looking for some witch or something. I don't know. I wasn't
listening. Nothing's happening... Nothing's happening... Something about a
map. Nothing's happening... It's over. A lot of people in the audience
look pissed."
--
M. Zaiem Beg zb...@iglou.com
Mike Kohary
Yeah, I'm talking about minimalism. All the movies you listed are smart,
deliberate movies that are likely to turn off the Ahnold crowd, the same way
Eastwood's movies are - but they're all very stylish and undeniably
contemporary. And there's nothing wrong with that - I *love* modern film.
All of my favorite movies are post-60s. But Eastwood stands out from the
crowd by making movies that stylistically could have come straight out of
the 1940s - no big swooping crane shots, no fancy camerawork, often using
only available light, heavy focus on the actors - much of his work could be
pure stage and still succeed. I'm not saying he's the best modern director
because of that (I think there are several directors who are better, and one
of them is likely to get beaten at the Oscars once again by Eastwood this
year), I just think he makes movies quite unlike anyone else today, and I
appreciate it. That's all. :)
> In fact, one thing that I would say about film of today is
> that there's a lot more intellectual fare than I believe there used
> to be. There was a time when "Taxi Driver" and "Raging Bull" were
> practically the only deliberately-paced things you could find out
> there. Today, you can go out and rent 10 things from the last year
> that move like that. That is, I am sure, due in large part to the way
> the business has expanded in the last quarter century. But nobody
> ever said bigger wasn't better. :)
I agree. Many observers think movies are getting worse for some reason. I
don't see what they're seeing - I think movies in general are just getting
better and better. Even the big-budget studio blockbuster fare is improving
by leaps and bounds; the recent LOTR trilogy is ample evidence of that.
There will always be crap dominated by sfx, but who cares as long as
terrific movies like MDB and The Aviator are coming down the pike? I just
focus on enjoying the good stuff, which is plentiful, and ignore the
garbage. It's no skin off my nose.
Mike Kohary
Like any other technique, it can be a real crutch. David Fincher is a
frequent offender that comes to mind. Still, when it's well-used, I find it
highly effective. "The French Connection" really wrote the textbook on this
one. A recent movie that I loved the handheld work in (and it's among the
most frenetic also, which I know turned a lot of people off) was "The Bourne
Supremacy", which wasn't used as a gimmick, but was actually integral to the
entire feel of the movie, and was much more coordinated and deliberate than
it might have appeared on a single casual viewing.
Good handheld is actually very deliberate with its motion. Crappy handheld
is just...held by the hand, with no further thought given to it.
John Craven
"Mike Kohary" <so...@no.spam> wrote in message
Really? I feel like I'm always "correcting" people when they start going on
and on about how film has gone downhill since Hitch died, and yet... some of
my favorite movies are "Citizen Kane", "Rope", "Rear Window", "Casablanca",
"North By Northwest", "The Maltese Falcon", "The Third Man", "Vertigo", "The
Seven Samurai", "Rashomon", "The Thin Man", and "Philadelphia Story." And
then there is my irrational love of cheese that reflexively causes me to
enjoy "It's a Wonderful Life", "Oklahoma", and "South Pacific", but that's
another story...
> But Eastwood stands out from the crowd by making movies that stylistically
> could have come straight out of the 1940s - no big swooping crane shots,
> no fancy camerawork, often using only available light, heavy focus on the
> actors - much of his work could be pure stage and still succeed. I'm not
> saying he's the best modern director because of that (I think there are
> several directors who are better, and one of them is likely to get beaten
> at the Oscars once again by Eastwood this year), I just think he makes
> movies quite unlike anyone else today, and I appreciate it. That's all.
> :)
Okay, I see what you're saying now. Although I'd still put "Pieces of April"
on the "minimalist" list (though it's uses those handheld cameras that
everyone seems to hate - granted that in this case they were used to keep
costs low).
>
>> In fact, one thing that I would say about film of today is
>> that there's a lot more intellectual fare than I believe there used
>> to be. There was a time when "Taxi Driver" and "Raging Bull" were
>> practically the only deliberately-paced things you could find out
>> there. Today, you can go out and rent 10 things from the last year
>> that move like that. That is, I am sure, due in large part to the way
>> the business has expanded in the last quarter century. But nobody
>> ever said bigger wasn't better. :)
>
> I agree. Many observers think movies are getting worse for some reason.
> I don't see what they're seeing - I think movies in general are just
> getting better and better. Even the big-budget studio blockbuster fare is
> improving by leaps and bounds; the recent LOTR trilogy is ample evidence
> of that. There will always be crap dominated by sfx, but who cares as long
> as terrific movies like MDB and The Aviator are coming down the pike? I
> just focus on enjoying the good stuff, which is plentiful, and ignore the
> garbage. It's no skin off my nose.
I also think it's because of the Flynn Effect - people are getting smarter,
so their entertainment has to as well, right?
Mike Kohary
Yeah, really. :) I think those people are just jaded, part of the "things
were better in my time" syndrome we see so often. I think movies today are
better than ever, and keep pushing the envelope. Contrast with modern
rock/pop music, which really *was* better in my time and before. ;)
> and yet... some of my favorite movies are "Citizen Kane", "Rope",
> "Rear Window", "Casablanca", "North By Northwest", "The Maltese
> Falcon", "The Third Man", "Vertigo", "The Seven Samurai", "Rashomon",
> "The Thin Man", and "Philadelphia Story." And then there is my
> irrational love of cheese that reflexively causes me to enjoy "It's a
> Wonderful Life", "Oklahoma", and "South Pacific", but that's another
> story...
I love the classics too. But I grew up with modern film, and I love it
unabashedly. The 1970s are probably my all-time favorite period. Give me
"The Godfather", "Taxi Driver" or "Jaws" any day. But I've also enjoyed the
last 10 years probably more than any other period of my movie-watching life,
what with great films like "L.A. Confidential", "Crouching Tiger Hidden
Dragon" and "Ghost World" to prove that film continues to be the pinnacle of
modern popular art.
> Okay, I see what you're saying now. Although I'd still put "Pieces of
> April" on the "minimalist" list (though it's uses those handheld
> cameras that everyone seems to hate - granted that in this case they
> were used to keep costs low).
There are other minimalist pieces as well. Eastwood has made it his style,
and I'm grateful for it. I love modern film, but I also think a lot of
filmmakers could learn a lot by watching Eastwood.
>> I agree. Many observers think movies are getting worse for some
>> reason. I don't see what they're seeing - I think movies in general
>> are just getting better and better. Even the big-budget studio
>> blockbuster fare is improving by leaps and bounds; the recent LOTR
>> trilogy is ample evidence of that. There will always be crap
>> dominated by sfx, but who cares as long as terrific movies like MDB
>> and The Aviator are coming down the pike? I just focus on enjoying
>> the good stuff, which is plentiful, and ignore the garbage. It's no
>> skin off my nose.
>
> I also think it's because of the Flynn Effect - people are getting
> smarter, so their entertainment has to as well, right?
Good point. :)
Chris Hafner
news:ccsQd.1630$1S4.1...@news.xtra.co.nz...
> Chris Hafner wrote:
> > What bother me nowadays is how filmmakers are flocking to the shaky
> > hand-held cam look. Yeah, I get it - you're edgy and hip.
> >
> > In limited usage, it's great as a change of pace, but it's really
> > easy to overuse and get distracting.
>
> At first I enjoyed it in the Battlestar Galactica miniseries - they used a
> handheld style with 100% CGI scenes - but then it got a bit overused. A
> little goes a long way.
I agree. I can enjoy it in small doses to convey immediacy, panic, etc. But
regardless of the theory behind something like that, at the point where it
becomes a distraction, it becomes counter-productive.
Cheers,
Chris Hafner
Chris Hafner
news:Pine.GSO.4.33.0502151600060.29154-100000@shell1...
<grin>
"That girl ... did she just snot all over the camera? Why won't they shut
up? These kids are annoying, I hope they die soon."
Actually, I didn't mind it that much in Blair Witch, because it was new and
innovative then and it fit the plot (we're actually watching the videotape
left behind by some mysteriously missing young film makers). The movie was
meant to be somewhat first-person. In most of its other applications, it's
not as if we're being asked to believe that we're watching film from an
eyewitness watching the events happen.
It's just another filming style that, in moderation, can be interesting and
make a point but when overused makes me want to just watch the movie without
the distraction and the headache.
Cheers,
Chris Hafner
Chris Hafner
Sure. I sense that my tolerance for the hand-held look is slightly lower
than yours, but I agree - it can be effective when used well (and
sparingly!) but can be overused. And in no way should the "tension" and
"edginess" of the filming ever in any way replace emotions actually being
conveyed by the acting and the script.
Though it's been some time since I've seen it, the intro to _Saving Private
Ryan_ was an excellent use of the style, I think, because it wasn't a
substitute for anything; it wasn't a crutch. It was also effective in
bringing home the danger of the situation to everybody on the beach and gave
the whole thing a first-person view of the situation that made you instantly
sympathetic to the heroes.
> "The French Connection" really wrote the textbook on this
> one. A recent movie that I loved the handheld work in (and it's among the
> most frenetic also, which I know turned a lot of people off) was "The
Bourne
> Supremacy", which wasn't used as a gimmick, but was actually integral to
the
> entire feel of the movie, and was much more coordinated and deliberate
than
> it might have appeared on a single casual viewing.
Could be. My wife and I watched it in the theater and were slightly
disappointed - because we had high expectations going in (which is always a
killer), because we were disappointed in the formulaic inclusion of the
Russian Mafia as a major player (ooh!), and because the filming, especially
during the chase and fight sequences in Russia, were so incredibly
distracting that we just stopped caring.
I should probably give it another chance, since I respect your opinion on
this, but at some point even though I knew the handheld cam was meant to
convey the immediacy and stress of the situation, as well as be stylish, it
just felt too much like work. I just wanted to watch a movie I could enjoy
watching, and it really detracted from the experience for me.
What I *did* like about it was the grittiness and graininess of the look.
That, as film tone and richness generally do, really conveyed atmosphere.
Cheers,
Chris Hafner
Chris Hafner
news:37fucoF...@individual.net...
>
> "Mike Kohary" <so...@no.spam> wrote in message
> news:cuu7u1$ni4$0...@pita.alt.net...
> > John Craven wrote:
> >> "Mike Kohary" <so...@no.spam> wrote in message
> >> news:curjkj$scp$0...@pita.alt.net...
<snip>
> Really? I feel like I'm always "correcting" people when they start going
on
> and on about how film has gone downhill since Hitch died, and yet... some
of
> my favorite movies are "Citizen Kane", "Rope", "Rear Window",
"Casablanca",
> "North By Northwest",
Rear Window and North by Northwest are two of my favorites of all time.
Great choices.
I've seen most of these, but I'm adding the rest of them to my Netflix
queue.
> "The Maltese Falcon", "The Third Man", "Vertigo", "The
> Seven Samurai", "Rashomon", "The Thin Man", and "Philadelphia Story." And
> then there is my irrational love of cheese that reflexively causes me to
> enjoy "It's a Wonderful Life", "Oklahoma", and "South Pacific", but that's
> another story...
>
> > But Eastwood stands out from the crowd by making movies that
stylistically
> > could have come straight out of the 1940s - no big swooping crane shots,
> > no fancy camerawork, often using only available light, heavy focus on
the
> > actors - much of his work could be pure stage and still succeed. I'm
not
> > saying he's the best modern director because of that (I think there are
> > several directors who are better, and one of them is likely to get
beaten
> > at the Oscars once again by Eastwood this year), I just think he makes
> > movies quite unlike anyone else today, and I appreciate it. That's all.
> > :)
>
> Okay, I see what you're saying now. Although I'd still put "Pieces of
April"
> on the "minimalist" list (though it's uses those handheld cameras that
> everyone seems to hate - granted that in this case they were used to keep
> costs low).
<snip>
Alas, you're probably talking about me. I don't *hate* the use of handheld
cameras, per se, so much as I'd like to see their use limited and used *with
reason.*
If a movie is just actually low budget and not just trying to look low
budget, I find that easier to stomach.
Cheers,
Chris Hafner
Mike Kohary
>
> Sure. I sense that my tolerance for the hand-held look is slightly
> lower than yours, but I agree - it can be effective when used well
> (and sparingly!) but can be overused. And in no way should the
> "tension" and "edginess" of the filming ever in any way replace
> emotions actually being conveyed by the acting and the script.
>
> Though it's been some time since I've seen it, the intro to _Saving
> Private Ryan_ was an excellent use of the style, I think, because it
> wasn't a substitute for anything; it wasn't a crutch. It was also
> effective in bringing home the danger of the situation to everybody
> on the beach and gave the whole thing a first-person view of the
> situation that made you instantly sympathetic to the heroes.
Absolutely. Any technique in any art form should be used for a reason, not
just for its own sake. Good handheld has a reason for being handheld, and
most poor handheld is just trying to look chic. ;)
>> "The French Connection" really wrote the textbook on this
>> one. A recent movie that I loved the handheld work in (and it's
>> among the most frenetic also, which I know turned a lot of people
>> off) was "The Bourne Supremacy", which wasn't used as a gimmick, but
>> was actually integral to the entire feel of the movie, and was much
>> more coordinated and deliberate than it might have appeared on a
>> single casual viewing.
>
> Could be. My wife and I watched it in the theater and were slightly
> disappointed - because we had high expectations going in (which is
> always a killer), because we were disappointed in the formulaic
> inclusion of the Russian Mafia as a major player (ooh!), and because
> the filming, especially during the chase and fight sequences in
> Russia, were so incredibly distracting that we just stopped caring.
"Supremacy" could have been just another action thriller, and the plotting,
while smart, followed most of the conventions of the genre, as you point
out. But I thought the filmmaking was very unconventional for the genre,
almost documentary-style, and it doesn't suprise me at all that director
Paul Greengrass was also the guy who did "Bloody Sunday", also filmed in a
highly documentary style. Most action thrillers are much more "slick",
largely eschewing handheld in favor of cranes and dollies, with precise pans
and smoother camera movement, even during action scenes. I loved that BS
wasn't afraid (much like "Saving Private Ryan") to show the chaos of the
whole thing - in real life, that stuff wouldn't be slick and highly
choreographed. Greengrass said that the intention was to put the viewer
there, in the middle of the action, and to feel what it would feel like to
be one of these characters involved in intense physical activity. I thought
he succeeded very well at that.
> I should probably give it another chance, since I respect your
> opinion on this, but at some point even though I knew the handheld
> cam was meant to convey the immediacy and stress of the situation, as
> well as be stylish, it just felt too much like work. I just wanted to
> watch a movie I could enjoy watching, and it really detracted from
> the experience for me.
It is work to watch, but many great movies are challenging to watch, and
can't be casually viewed. Again this is unconventional for the genre, but
BS challenges you to really watch it, and if you watch it closely and
carefully, you will be rewarded when you begin to see that the chaos really
does have a method to the madness, and that the filmmaking is actually very
deliberate.
An example: watch the setup to the final chase scene. Bourne approaches a
taxi (a taxi!) to commandeer for his getaway, and when he climbs in, he
takes off while unfolding a map on his lap. He's looking at the map, he's
trying to figure out where he is and where he's going - he looks up -
there's a sign! - but the camera is shaky, and we can't read it, and now we
pass it - Bourne looks confused, he can't read it either! That's what he
saw. He's a talented and skilled killer, but he's not Superman. The entire
sequence covers about 15 seconds and maybe half as many shots, but it all
makes perfect sense and conveys everything you need to know - Bourne is
desperate to escape but couldn't figure out a route and will have to
improvise his way out of it. The film is just loaded with sequences like
that, brilliantly assembled and edited. You can't watch it casually,
because you'll never follow it if you do, but if you watch it carefully, the
movie will guide you along and put you with the characters. I was entranced
on first viewing, and enchanted on my second viewing because I could follow
it even better. Amazing editing.
> What I *did* like about it was the grittiness and graininess of the
> look. That, as film tone and richness generally do, really conveyed
> atmosphere.
Yeah. I really expected to dislike this movie, so I went in with a negative
bias. I didn't much care for the first movie. I walked out of BS just
raving about it. That it won me over so easily really speaks volumes. Best
action movie I've seen in many years.
Chris Hafner
> Chris Hafner wrote:
<snip>
> > I should probably give it another chance, since I respect your
> > opinion on this, but at some point even though I knew the handheld
> > cam was meant to convey the immediacy and stress of the situation, as
> > well as be stylish, it just felt too much like work. I just wanted to
> > watch a movie I could enjoy watching, and it really detracted from
> > the experience for me.
>
> It is work to watch, but many great movies are challenging to watch, and
> can't be casually viewed. Again this is unconventional for the genre, but
> BS challenges you to really watch it, and if you watch it closely and
> carefully, you will be rewarded when you begin to see that the chaos
really
> does have a method to the madness, and that the filmmaking is actually
very
> deliberate.
After being away from Usenet for a few days (apologies for the
necroposting), I had some time to think about this.
My first inclination is to think, "If a movie just feels like too much work
to watch and stops being fun, what's the point?"
But then I realize that I don't really even think that way. Many of my
favorite movies are difficult to watch, although for different reasons -
more for the concepts and things that happen rather than because the filming
makes things tough. And many of the movies I'm hoping most to see through
Netflix fit that vein - they're a bit more funky in one way or another.
In music, too, much of what I enjoy listening to isn't necessarily the
easiest or most accessible music out there. Some of it takes a great deal of
work. I even like stuff that isn't recorded to modern quality - especially
stuff like old jazz, blues, and folk music. I suppose that's sort of an
anologue to the hand-held cam.
Perhaps I'm still just a very early-on movie buff, whereas I'm a full-on
music buff.
> An example: watch the setup to the final chase scene. Bourne approaches
a
> taxi (a taxi!) to commandeer for his getaway, and when he climbs in, he
> takes off while unfolding a map on his lap. He's looking at the map, he's
> trying to figure out where he is and where he's going - he looks up -
> there's a sign! - but the camera is shaky, and we can't read it, and now
we
> pass it - Bourne looks confused, he can't read it either! That's what he
> saw. He's a talented and skilled killer, but he's not Superman. The
entire
> sequence covers about 15 seconds and maybe half as many shots, but it all
> makes perfect sense and conveys everything you need to know - Bourne is
> desperate to escape but couldn't figure out a route and will have to
> improvise his way out of it. The film is just loaded with sequences like
> that, brilliantly assembled and edited. You can't watch it casually,
> because you'll never follow it if you do, but if you watch it carefully,
the
> movie will guide you along and put you with the characters. I was
entranced
> on first viewing, and enchanted on my second viewing because I could
follow
> it even better. Amazing editing.
OK - you've convinced me to give it another shot. That does sound like good
filming.
> > What I *did* like about it was the grittiness and graininess of the
> > look. That, as film tone and richness generally do, really conveyed
> > atmosphere.
>
> Yeah. I really expected to dislike this movie, so I went in with a
negative
> bias. I didn't much care for the first movie. I walked out of BS just
> raving about it. That it won me over so easily really speaks volumes.
Best
> action movie I've seen in many years.
Isn't it amazing what kind of effect the level of expectation can have?
Cheers,
Chris Hafner
Mike Kohary
>
> My first inclination is to think, "If a movie just feels like too
> much work to watch and stops being fun, what's the point?"
>
> But then I realize that I don't really even think that way. Many of my
> favorite movies are difficult to watch, although for different
> reasons - more for the concepts and things that happen rather than
> because the filming makes things tough. And many of the movies I'm
> hoping most to see through Netflix fit that vein - they're a bit more
> funky in one way or another.
>
> In music, too, much of what I enjoy listening to isn't necessarily the
> easiest or most accessible music out there. Some of it takes a great
> deal of work. I even like stuff that isn't recorded to modern quality
> - especially stuff like old jazz, blues, and folk music. I suppose
> that's sort of an anologue to the hand-held cam.
I think a lot of people (i.e. "the masses") don't like work in their
entertainment. ;) Which is perfectly fine, of course! Some people just
want to be entertained, and there's nothing wrong with that. But those
willing to take the time to absorb challenging works, and try to understand
what's going on, are invariably rewarded. Learning a little about a craft
can go a long way towards gaining appreciation to what goes into that craft.
> OK - you've convinced me to give it another shot. That does sound
> like good filming.
I'll admit it's not for everyone. But it was a challenge I enjoyed.