I Didn't Like It
-
-
peyton_27104 — 21 years ago(August 24, 2004 10:40 AM)
There is a reason why this movie swept all of the important awards at the Cannes film festival - it's a masterpiece, plain and simple. As is the case with most masterpieces, especially the movies that try something different, a certain number of people simply don't get it. That is particularly true with this movie because of its reliance on the dialogue. If you don't like the movie, maybe you could just say "I didn't get it" rather than trashing the movie. I didn't get Magnolia, a movie even more highly regarded than this movie, but I don't trash the movie. I simply admit that I didn't get it.
My favorite line from the movie, from Graham. "Problems? Do I have problems? I look around in this town, and I see you, and I see John, and I see Cynthia, and I feel comparatively healthy." -
Krustallos — 21 years ago(October 11, 2004 09:41 AM)
I liked it very much but a friend of mine didn't. But it wasn't because she wanted to be "led around by the hand". She just thought the insights about sexuality and relationships were banal.
But then she was a hooker by trade, so it may have been a case of coals to Newcastle. -
PessimisticGrace — 21 years ago(January 02, 2005 04:31 PM)
I guess we're even, then. I didn't see the big deal about Pulp Fiction. It was an absolutely beloved movie on everybody's top 10 list, but I watched it and came away with a shrug. My conclusion? Everyone has their own "thing." Labeling something "boring" is erroneous, because I thought Pulp Fiction was ho-hum. Instead of calling it terribly "boring," why don't you say you just didn't enjoy it? Because I bet you'd be irritated if someone called Pulp Fiction boring.
And as for James.. I honestly don't know how anyone could dislike him. He's a brilliant, versatile actor who inspires admiration in the most low-key roles. He's not an action star or your average leading man, yet he infuses such depth and thought into each of his roles. I like blockbusters like anyone else, but it takes very little thought to play an action hero or a typical romance movie. But he takes roles that are very subdued, yet captivates audiences. Clearly not you, clearly not some.. But you don't win Cannes with a "boring" movie. Just say it was "too slow and uneventful." Because obviously, many people didn't find it the least bit boring. it's refreshing for me to see a movie in which there's no gunfight, no gore, no gratituous sex scenes and no.. well, Hollywood! Somebody called him a "dorky-looking douche-bag." I personally think James Spader is one of the most attractive celebrities I can name, and I don't even date men! I'll take him over Brad Pitt, George Clooney, Matt Damon or Keanu Reeves any day of the week! I'm not attracted to hunky and muscled and manly. I think he's absolutely gorgeous, largely because of his eyes. I watched an episode of Boston Legal lately in which, following a love confession by a woman, he said nothing for what seemed like two or three minutes. Yet he conveyed shock, wonder, disbelief and confusion, without speaking a single word. Eyes that can do that will always win out over "handsome hunks" for me. -
nottheingenue — 21 years ago(March 06, 2005 01:01 PM)
I love this movie. There are some movies that I can watch over and over again, and this happens to be one of them. I think the dialogue is very interesting, it may not be very deep but it seems sincere and reveals a lot about the characters. I'd have to agree that it is up there with Peeping Tom. I don't understand how someone could find this movie boring. Also, the sound is amazing! The scene with Graham and Ann at the end is wonderful. I really love the mood of the room and the fact that Soderbergh decided not to use overpowering music was a great choice. Because that scene was so much about the characters and not necessarily what was happening in the scene, I thought the music really emphasized the emotion. I usually watch that movie while I paint, it's wonderful just to listen to. The very last scene is beautiful.
Also, I did see House of Sand and Fog, and though I didn't think it was boring, I would not compare it to SLAV. I found "House" to be rather dramatic. It could have been much better had it been more understated.
As for James Spader, I love him. I happen to like Stargate, but maybe it's simply more of a sentimental thing or maybe I'm just too keen on sci-fi. -
kid-8 — 21 years ago(March 07, 2005 01:22 PM)
I was channel-surfing last night, and happened upon this movie, which I had seen on the big screen when it came out in 1989. Watching it again, I was reminded of its brilliance. Yes, it is like a play, but in movie form: long scenes, but mostly character development stuff. In those long (some say boring) scenes, we come to know (and care) about the characters. I felt like at the end of the film, I really knew these people.
My take, simplistic though it may be, is that this is a story about the insidiousness of lies:
Ann and John fall in love and marry. Ann has never experienced an orgasm; John is too self-centered and insensitive to notice, or even care.
Ann's sister is much more open sexually, but her openness manifests itself in an insecure way: by having an affair with her older sister's husband, her sister whom she's always felt inferior to, looks-wise, intellectually and morally.
Graham, one of John's old school friends, shows back up in town. Graham was much like his friend Johna liar, a philandererand as a result lost his first love, never to be retrieved. Graham and Ann meet; instinctually, they are drawn to one another, but at first don't quite understand why or how. When Graham "interviews" Cynthia (Ann's sis), and we later see him watching the tape of that interview, rather than be turned on by it, he turns away in pain, because he sees in John's betrayal of Cynthia his own self-loathing: for his lies and deceit in the relationship with his former love, Elizabeth.
When Ann finally figures out that her sister and husband are having an affair, she goes to Graham, whom she has conflicted feelings about, and confronts him with this news. Graham already knows John's a liar, and already knows what she tells himand in their revelations to one another, during Ann's "interview", they connectemotionally, at first, and then physically (off-screen).
Graham, the reformed liar, and Ann, the innocent, her eyes now open to her husband's betrayal, come together, to form a relationship based upon both emotional and physical intimacy, as well as integrity.
THE ENDor in Graham's and Ann's case, THE BEGINNING.
It seems pretty clear to me. -
Radiant_Rose — 20 years ago(November 22, 2005 05:34 AM)
Excuse me, donniedarker, but "Stargate" was great until they started all the boring fighting. "Supernova" I also like very much despite rather than because of a whole load of stuff. I especially like the ending of "Supernova".
-
Radiant_Rose — 20 years ago(December 16, 2005 05:21 AM)
Hallo, donniedarker. If you like the first two acts of "Stargate", do you agree with me that the fighting bit spoilt it? I think amazon.co.uk lists it as the best selling item with Spader in it.
There is also too much fighting in "Supernova", but I like it anyway. I like it almost in spite of itself, as it could have been so much better. -
Martina_Helene — 20 years ago(June 05, 2005 07:56 AM)
i have mixed feelings about this film-it's a very strange movie-but I sort of liked it. I really didn't like what was going on, with the affair between john and cynthia, it was just so wrong-and I think Anne was so sweet, I just felt so sorry for her.
I thought the whole videotaping the women thing was very strange, and i thought that graham was strange in general-sweet? yes! strange? defenitly!?!
~But that's just me~ -
thecellomistress — 20 years ago(June 30, 2005 10:00 PM)
I liked the move ALOT! Infact, I think it may be my favorite! Besides the fact that I absolutely ADORE Spader, The movie is alot like real life. It's not glamorized and overdone like alot of movies. Plus, the subleness of the acting gives the film a big meaning.
-
triassicdan — 20 years ago(October 06, 2005 02:57 PM)
Don't people use boring to describe a film they don't understand because they're not intelligent enough to criticise it in any kind of constructive way?
I would say so, but in this case i can see why some people would describe it as boring, it seemed like a film that should have been 'boring', the seemingly exploitative premise, the grim sets, steven soderburgh who has made a host of bad movies and lack of music and James Spader who was in the abysmal Crash all convinced me that this wouldn't be the greatest of movies. But despite the grim canvas that the movie is set against, there is something about it that sparks it into life - the performances are superb, i found myself really sympathising with ann's husband for some reaon cheating aside and i like the ambiguities that exist in all the characters. i like the fact that its a movie about sex with no gratuitous sex scenes that ruin so many a movie. I liked the fact that it was trying to say something different, but what bugged me was that the point it ended up making about relationships wasn't a very good one. Although there are a lot of ambiguities in meaning, it seemed like it was trying really hard to say something profound but ultimately failed. There are a lot of interesting ideas in the movie, but some which could have been explored more, some which could have been toned down (the sexual awakening of ann which seemed to be the central theme was well handled, but an unoriganl and cliched idea i felt) It could have been a great movie, instead it was just a good one.