The next film's Discussion

[sla...@gmail.com]

I know some members wondered if their posts were read by everyone. In
an effort to remedy that please reply to Stranger Than Fiction on
this post.

Thank you, your honorable lordship,
Brian "b-real" Slaughter
***SuperStar***

[carl davis]

You are a horrible man and a rodent of a human being!

[milky]

editorial opinions notwithstanding...it appears that this movie was
either hard to find or not worth conversation...maybe i'm just
impatient...in any event, i shall submit my comments before i forget
what went on in the movie...

i had to watch this movie three times to see it once...movies are
wonderful sleeping aids...but i finally got through it...and...i agree
with professor hilbert (dustin hoffman) that the character should have
died at the end of the book...considering the chosen way to kill off
the character, it ruined the book entirely when she went soft on
him...

one of the first things i noticed about this movie (and it really
annoyed me) is that the word "wednesday" has 2 d's...and ms. eiffel
pronounced them both consistently during her narration...a little bit
anal to me, but i guess different dialects have their own offerings to
the experience of language.

i found it cool...and encouraging...to see those two guys from the
sonic commercial in the movie...perhaps this means that sonic will
soon be forced to replace that played out ad campaign...

this movie was better than that other selection, which shall remain
nameless...but it starts to wreak of chick-flick once it gets
going...but i voted for it, so...that's what i get...anyway, it may be
a while yet before will ferrell gets taken seriously as a non-comedic
actor...

i thought the concept of a guy hearing his life narrated was somewhat
original (note to self...check the truman show for similarities in
concept)...of late anyway...

using the following rubric, i would give this movie a 2...

0...avoid seeing at all costs
1...consider viewing if you have nothing else to do and your other
movies are on loan, lost or damaged
2...worth watching
3...great movie
4...must see

[Brian Slaughter]

you are right i thought there would be more chatter by now. People have been busy though. So are out of town and others started new jobs and such. Plus i guess people technically have to the end of the month to make comments. I will watch the movie soon and comment.

 

Members you do not only have to make comments about the movie. if you find something interesting that you feel the group would be interested in please feel free to send it the group. Just don't send anything about free ringtones, free gift cards, or porn sites. (unless it is really good and free porn) If you see a news story or something you think is funny it would be great if you send it. I know I am interested in anything Paris Hilton.

 

Your Fearless Leader,

Brian Slaughter

***SuperStar***

 

If leading were easy, then you could probably do it.

 

[reeses...@comcast.net]

i thought stranger than fiction was a good movie. much better than reefer madness of course, but that's an unfair comparison. still stranger than fiction was the type of movie i expected to see come out of this film group. it was original, it had good fiction insights, i liked the tragic/comic conflicts, the tax auditor, obsessed with numbers, made for a convincing, consistent protagonist. i agree with milky, that there was a hint of 'chickflick' in it, but at the same time, the human pair bond is a real phenomenon and thus provides for an engaging plot. these days it's tough to get a 'go picture' without love story potential. i thought that the changing of the story at the end, was the only logical conclusion, and it would have ruined the movie for me if she hadn't changed it. getting hit by a bus doesn't necessarily mean death, and therefore, the movie is no less convincing if the protagonist lives. the author was using the third person omniscient voice, so she reserves t
he right to do as she pleases. in fact, it seemed so easy to modify the ending, that it would of made the movie less believable if she didn't. whether she went soft or hard seems to me to be a value judgement, and is kind of irrelevant from an artistic point of view, as long as the writer maintains verisimilitude, i am fine with it. i was even disappointed that the protagonist, after reading about his untimely demise, would simply go along with it, for the sake of some sort of literary ethic. that aspect in itself struck me as a bit implausable since, he knew the boy was coming up on his right and could of simply grabbed the boy before he rode out into the street. but again, all things being equal, stranger than fiction gets two thumbs up from me, and i would recommend it to others.

reese

[milky]

verisimilitude...that word made it into my box of words back in 5th
grade...along with aplomb, conflagration, ennui, etc...other than in
my own practice, this is the first time i have ever seen it used in a
sentence...i love a well-used vocabulary...

at the risk of sounding shallow, your observations are quite valid and
bring points that i hadn't evaluated...probably because of my desire
to isolate subjects of evaluation within their own bubble...then i
invade the bubble with past experiences and personal tastes and
confound the whole idea...

there were details in the story that i made notes on but didn't
mention (such as...did harold have an existence before she started
writing the book or did she inject him into the story by evoking his
name through some sort of jinn magic?)...and what about having a
character that good at math in the same movie with the guy who was the
rainman?

[Brian Slaughter]

I had to ask the wife what verisimilitude meant too. this is the discussion that i was hoping for. the observations made outside of the plot and acting are giving me a woodie. i feel uplifted already and i have not even seen the movie. hopefully i can hook up my our dvd player tonight. I put together an exersaucer a dvd player should be a piece of cake. that's if jackson does not have other plans.

--
Brian Slaughter
***SuperStar***
  
"Do not arouse the wrath of the great and powerful Oz!"

[reeses...@comcast.net]

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "notimeforbooklearnin" group.
To post to this group, send email to notimeforb...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to notimeforbooklea...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/notimeforbooklearnin?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[DONG UK YI]

This film has its moments of existentialism and outright neuroticism. Will Ferrell's character is controlled by his routine and not the other way around. His watch and his OCD (counting and calculating) defined his bland, solid color boring shell of a life. He seemed content, until his watch and indeed his life's timing went awry that Wednesday. His existence became out of his control. Here was a man that was satisfied with being an IRS auditor and wearing is dark colored suits and not being a social butterfly. Then all of a sudden he has to live life to the fullest? Just because he hears voices? Was this a subliminal influence by his inner voice or a blatant attempt to rouse his inner inhibitions? From the movie there was a combination of both. AM I to believe that a simple watch malfunction was responsible for bringing an entirley new perspective on someone's life? If only reality were that simple and efficient. Do we control our own lives or does fate or luck or chance play more than we realize? Should Harlod thank Karen for getting him laid and learning a guitar chord or two?

 

The movie was indeed narrated in the third person, but why? Was I to believe that Karen Eiffel's chain-smoking persona could actually create richly developed characters and pathos? She was pathetic in my eyes as she was unsure of her own existence and had to control her character's lives with untimely deaths, per Prof. Hilbert. You mean to tell me Penny (Queen Latifah) was supposed to assume the role of Karen and whack poor Harold? Which brings to my point, was Penny necessary? I don't think so! The hospital scene where Karen and Penny search for patients was rather long and painful to endure. The entire Karen/Penny dynamic seemed more contrived and even more boring than the Harold/Ana romance. Don't get me started on this romance angle that opposites attract each other. Maggie Gyllenhall looked as out of place in this movie as that arm tattoo would at a Mormon church. Her bug-eyed appeal had little impact on me, I could not warm up to Ana, she seemed as fake as her Harvard-Law story, if you get a D, you flunk out and move on with the debt! Where was the spatula in the bakery? I can't condone a person touching foodstuff with her bare hands! I would not eat those cookies and brownies, if you get my drift! I think the health inspector should have visited Ana's bakery, right after the IRS! 
 

The movie did flow well and the soundtrack was good. Will Ferrell was tremendous, albeit minus the token nude shots he always provides in his movies. Dustin Hoffman (Prof. Hilbert) provided a good foil's role in this movie, but his advice strategy seemed to benefit literature rather than life itself. Emma Thompson was barely believable as a chain-smoker, but as a writer she passes mustard. Maggie Gyllenhall was sadly miscast and seemed to be the second weakest character in this line-up. She had her moment's to shine, but looking soulfully into Harold's eyes and 'falling in love' does not pass as acting for me. Give me pain, heartache and TEARS in a romance. Penny, Queen Latifah was a throw in as far as I am concerned. Her character was less developed than any other and her screen time was even less deserving. Personal assistant indeed!

 

Definitely rental material. An indie film in its concept, but a chick-flick at heart. I could not recommend this movie in a theater, but I would as a Friday night diversion with some popcorn. This is all I can add to this group, as this movie did not give me a woodie and I exist not to see chick-flicks disguised as indie films.  

 

On 7/20/07, reeses...@comcast.net <reeses...@comcast.net > wrote:

verisimilitude is a literary term, and i was taught that this is the ideal that every writer reaches for in a story.  the fact that milky encountered the word in fifth grade means that he must have went to a helluva damn good elementary school.
 

To: notimeforb...@googlegroups.com
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:43:54 +0000
Subject: Re: The next film's Discussion

--
Press nine if you were rapaciously over-billed!

[Brian Slaughter]

Sorry gentlemen. I have finally watched the film. I went to Radioshack
and got the part to make my new DVD player work with our old TV. My
impressions of this film were very good. I enjoyed the acting and the
plot. I thought the acting was very good. Dustin Hoffman and Emma
Thompson delivered their usual steady performances. Maggie Gellynhaal
was sexy. She is not bombshell sexy like Halle Berry or any of the
chicks on VIP but she definitely has a flare about her. Maggie was
also great as Lee Holloway in The Secretary (2002) with James Spader.
(The spanking scenes are great in that one) I was surprised by the
performances of Will Ferrell and Queen Latifah. They played the
straight man in this comedy??? Overall I must say I found this movie
very entertaining.

I also noticed a few other interesting points. In the film everyone
around Harold Crick saw him as the "crazy" one but he actually was the
calmest sanest person in the film. Karen Eiffel the genius writer that
controls all of Harold's actions was on the brink of insanity. Jules
Hilbert a totally rational professor is perfectly willing to see
someone he knows and seemingly cares about die because it would make a
better story. Then he is clearly disappointed that his friend's life
is spared. English professors, who can figure them out? I also thought
about how Karen only narrated Harold's life she was silent when
other's interacted with him. Who was controlling those characters?
Were they actual people, were they the heroines in other stories or
are they just extras in the story of Harold Crick? Do they even exist
outside of Harold? I hope they do because Ana Pascal could headline
any story. You cannot forget the theme of living your life while you
have it. Harold does not truly live until he realizes he is going to
die. Even though Harold realizes he is not in control of his life he
wants his life to have meaning.

As I thought about this movie I though back to my childhood when I
asked myself this question. Am I real? Did I do that or am I a
character in someone else's imagination. What if we are just the toys
of a child who controls our movements like we are in a Sims game? That
would truly be strange. To control the life of someone (in a video
game) while someone else is controlling you... Isn't that like watching
the screen of a video that you are shooting of yourself watching the
screen? The image could go on into infinity, thousands of smaller and
smaller TVs within one TV. I guess one could also ask himself another
question? Are we in control of our lives or do outside forces
determine our fates? What I mean is, does god come from within or is
god someone, or something that is outside of us?

On the above questions I would agree with René Descartes. He
popularized the statement, "Cogito, ergo sum" (Latin: "I think,
therefore I am") or Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum (Latin: "I doubt,
therefore I think, therefore I am"). We cannot be sure if this is the
right answer but it is a good starting point. The definitive answer to
the question of our existence will only come when we no longer exist.

> --
> Press nine if you were rapaciously over-billed!
>
> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "notimeforbooklearnin" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> notimeforb...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> notimeforbooklea...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/notimeforbooklearnin?hl=en
> -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
>
>

--

[Cheryl Squirrel]

The movie was good !!

Not as controversial as I wanted it to be!
Harold should have been killed off !!

> > On 7/20/07, reesesimm...@comcast.net <reesesimm...@comcast.net > wrote:
>
> > > verisimilitude is a literary term, and i was taught that this is the ideal
> > that every writer reaches for in a story. the fact that milky encountered
> > the word in fifth grade means that he must have went to a helluva damn good
> > elementary school.
>
> > > -------------- Original message ----------------------
> > > From: "Brian Slaughter" < sla...@gmail.com>
> > > > I had to ask the wife what verisimilitude meant too. this is the
> > discussion
> > > > that i was hoping for. the observations made outside of the plot and
> > acting
> > > > are giving me a woodie. i feel uplifted already and i have not even seen
> > the
> > > > movie. hopefully i can hook up my our dvd player tonight. I put together
> > an
> > > > exersaucer a dvd player should be a piece of cake. that's if jackson
> > does
> > > > not have other plans.
>

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -