This film is boring
-
reisereise — 19 years ago(June 25, 2006 04:02 PM)
While the time-hopping may lead to some confusion, I don't really get the complaints about the film's plot and the difficulty in understanding it. It's really not that hard to follow. Even Roger Ebert compares it to deciphering coded texts, which baffles me.
I felt the movie perfectly captured the feelings of frustration and pain that comes with being a teenager. Also, I can hardly think of anything that matches its display of visual and aural beauty. It's just an astonishing film to see and hear. -
tweedly — 19 years ago(August 10, 2006 08:28 PM)
The plot is refreshing. How many other movies about a bullied kid who turns to his favorite musician and a chatroom to shut himself from the world can you think of? Ebert says only "highly evolved" filmgoers will care to understand the movie, so on that basis he cannot recommend it. What kind of bottom level pessimistic reasoning is that?
-
pacs-2 — 19 years ago(October 05, 2006 04:58 PM)
Roger Ebert is a bit of an idiot. He said something similar for Silent Hill, which wasn't great, but I think once ambiguity or something unusual is introduced in the theme or plot of a movie, he stops trying to understand
-
arabesuku — 19 years ago(September 12, 2006 08:51 AM)
I think the main problem is that this is a very profound, complicated movie for very deep/philosophical thinkers. If you don't like that in a movie, then Riri ShuShu No Subete is not for you.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/xsadavirusx/ << the diary of Sadako (my LiveJournal) -
mistedjule — 19 years ago(October 15, 2006 11:41 AM)
I am not a shallow, simple person I just could not got into this film.
I don't know if I was just not in the right mind-frame when I watched it, or if I had been expecting something totally different from it, I just could not find it interesting or enthralling in any way.
I was bored senseless for most of it and confused the rest of the time.
I probably should have been paying more attention to it (rewinding parts etc) or maybe it's just one Japanese film I don't enjoy.
I might give it another chance one day when I am feeling more relaxed or whatever. But I must say I found it very disappointing and dull as dishwater
.
Mischief managed
I am not young enough to know everything. -
mrpocketwatch — 19 years ago(October 20, 2006 03:06 AM)
I agree with two things stated in this post.
- Roger Ebert is an idiot
- This film is boring
The films pacing was horrible. And I'm not a shallow person. I loved "Do the Right Thing and Whisper of the Heart" DAMMIT.
-
ghiblimon — 19 years ago(November 10, 2006 12:43 PM)
everyone's opinions on this film are completely valid, be it was either boring or brilliant. i believe film in itself is an experience that delves into the audience's psyche, and is totally subjective in interpretation no matter what the context. i even regard the director's vision as just another opinion.
that's what i love about film. i've had my share of "boring" ones but nevertheless my experiences in watching them still work in that they were able to project prospectives unrealized had i not watched them (i.e. "goodbye, dragon inn" -tsai ming-liang ..wow). anyways, i guess you could say that i'm a cinephile in this sense of filmmaking.
and btw, this film "is" brilliant. -
alex_milano — 19 years ago(December 15, 2006 04:04 AM)
my friend did think it was boring when we were watching it, and he left halfway. but i watched and rewatched it and it did make sense. and i suppose its up to whether you want to pay attention and understand it.
the okinawa part still seemed kinda random to me though, what's with the guy secretly kissing hoshino? -
Zerose — 19 years ago(December 24, 2006 12:07 AM)
the okinawa part still seemed kinda random to me though, what's with the guy secretly kissing hoshino?
My friend came up with this weird theory:
He tried to give Hoshino a kiss of life, but was too timid. In Hoshino's head the guy was killed/seriously injured because he "took" Hoshino's life, e.g. Hoshino meant to die, not the guy. Hence Hoshino's downward spiral.
I'm still dubious, but there you go. -
mewsiqmunki — 19 years ago(January 08, 2007 08:32 PM)
the okinawa part still seemed kinda random to me though, what's with the guy secretly kissing hoshino?
I think that it emphasizes how much of himself Hoshino is suppressing by acting as a bully. Maybe he's gay or bi or whatever and maybe he's not, but either way he can't try anything publicly. If he had turned out to be gay, then the bullying could have been a way to hide his homosexuality. Although personally I don't think the he was really mature enough to know his sexuality or think about it, I feel like it was an important aspect for the writers/director to bring up because learning your sexual orientation is an important part of growing up, and in the environment portrayed in the movie, there are many obstacles that hinder one's ability to grow into a fully functioning person with a place in society namely a lack of openness and an abundance of hostility.
-
murphy-89 — 19 years ago(January 15, 2007 09:44 PM)
I think that once people stop having certain expectations about a film, it gets easier to view. People who first see 2001: A Space Odyssey may be expecting an intense, wildly futuristic story with fast moving images, and so many people hate it because they can't let go of the idea that 2001 is supposed to be like that. Once you just sit and view it as it isno preconceived notions, no waiting for actionit becomes a masterpiece.
Lily is definitely the same way for me. The first time I saw it, I could only see a slowvery slowdecline into depression. By the end, I thought I'd never be able to view it again, it was so thoroughly postmodern. But I've watched it about 7 or 8 times after that, and it just gets better each time. There is so much love and detail put into this film that it's astonishing, and I can pick up on a subtle nuance here and there that I hadn't previously noticed. Lily has things to offer for those who care to piece it apart. Think of it as a type of film version of Eliot's "The Wasteland". Although some cannot get past the obscure allusions, intricate scenes, and seemingly random passages, a great appreciation can be gained when one stops and pieces it apart. Films that view like quiet puzzles are not for everyoneI completely understand. Maybe give it another shot on a rainy day when you're bored. -
casio_balboa — 18 years ago(August 17, 2007 12:39 PM)
I don't think that the film is boring but, in my opinion, it isn't very good.
It reminds me of the kind of film a 17 year old who thought he/she was super-sensitive would make; by this I mean it's not very mature nor is it particularly genuine, but it does feel needlessly self-absorbed and pretentiously bleak. And that stuff about 'the Ether' and discussing pop musicians as if they make profound 'art' also felt like a teenager trying to be poetic and 'deep'.
I couldn't relate to the characters as I've never known people (adults or children) who are so violent and so nonchalent about it. I had no idea why the kids were so violent and where this rage came from. In a film like 'City of God' the same issue was far clearer - those character were poor, surrounded by violence and essentially had to fight to survive.
However, I do find it strange that this film was so popular in Japan not because I think it's a bad film but because it's not very mainstream. Similarly, Takashi Miike's 'Visitor Q' was apparently a big hit there. Kudos to the Japanese for having sophisticated tastes, although I don't think this was film particularly sophisticated. -
Flabrezu — 18 years ago(September 04, 2007 05:03 AM)
In what way is self-absorbed and pretentiosly bleak? You clearly didn't understand it if you think that the discussion was intended to be deep and profound. It was just showing how obsessed they and kids in general are with certain artists in Japan.
How is this the movie's fault? Again, it's a different culture. There are actually those problems in Japan. -
casio_balboa — 14 years ago(October 01, 2011 10:56 AM)
My point was that the film itself, not just the character, is self-absorbed and pretentiously bleak. For example, just as a film about a racist doesn't need to be racist, a film about a teen doesn't need to be immature.
So, to clarify once again, I find fault with the execution, not the topic itself.
I hope this answers your question, "How is this the movie's fault?" -
trentcyrusparker — 17 years ago(April 24, 2008 12:18 PM)
herpes_menendez wrote:
"It reminds me of the kind of film a 17 year old who thought he/she was super-sensitive would make; by this I mean it's not very mature nor is it particularly genuine, but it does feel needlessly self-absorbed and pretentiously bleak. And that stuff about 'the Ether' and discussing pop musicians as if they make profound 'art' also felt like a teenager trying to be poetic and 'deep'. "
Hi,
I think that was part of the point, that sensitive teenagers take their obsessions so seriously, and like to believe their obsessions are profound and poetic. They need to feel their adoration is justified by some unique meaning, and their idol is something special beyond this world. This is probably why idol worship usually does not permeate to adulthood, because we loose that blind and devoted enthusiasm in adoration of things and people. In this sense I think it perfectly captures the essence of sensitive teenagers, who do have a longing to feel poetic in their discovery of the world, and like to believe there is a deeper meaning to everything they do. Yes it is self-absorbed, but that is one of the fundamentals of being a teenager!