Come Anticipate 21 Grams With Me

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Incredible cast, thus-far great director, trailer makes it look interesting.

But I've got a bad feeling about this one.

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Friday, 7 November 2003 13:35 (twenty-two years ago)

Is this the film where they clone Gram Parsons and try to take over the country music industry?

― Pete (Pete), Friday, 7 November 2003 13:42 (twenty-two years ago)

Hahaha!

New Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu. I am one of the few people not to have absolutely *loved* Amores Perros, though I did think it was good. The trailer for 21 Grams makes the movie seem a little overwrought, but I'll still probably be first in line to see this when it comes out.

― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Friday, 7 November 2003 16:10 (twenty-two years ago)

I was one of the people who though Amorres Perros was a rip-off of all three Three Colours films put in one film with dog fighting. I liked it and all but...

(I just remember being in Mexico and the queues round the block for it. But much of what I have head about 21 Grams sounds a touch portentious).

― Pete (Pete), Friday, 7 November 2003 16:38 (twenty-two years ago)

port/pret entious

― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Friday, 7 November 2003 16:41 (twenty-two years ago)

Pret a portentious.

― Pete (Pete), Friday, 7 November 2003 16:42 (twenty-two years ago)

i loved amores perros, but i loved his bmw film thing even more. i cant wait for this film. watts and benecio are a couple of my faves. i really want to see the director's submission to the 9'11 project thing.

― todd swiss (eliti), Friday, 7 November 2003 21:15 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.fr-dawson.com/dossiers/d11_s6-2_o.jpg

― the surface noise (electricsound), Saturday, 8 November 2003 05:56 (twenty-two years ago)

one month passes...

Flat out awful. Even more overwrought, contrived, and duplicitous than the trailer might suggest, running scared from anything even approximating a story. By all means go and see it, but I will be telling my good friends to avoid this one like the plague.

― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Monday, 8 December 2003 04:53 (twenty-two years ago)

I liked it. Quite a bit, in fact. Suitably engaging, interwoven storyline, fine acting from the leads, and presented well, IMO.

― Baked Bean Teeth (Baked Bean Teeth), Monday, 8 December 2003 05:21 (twenty-two years ago)

two weeks pass...

I liked it, too, but I'm worried now, after reading a few reviews, that I mainly bought into all of the art film accoutrements. I'll defend all three lead performances, though, which I thought were very good.

― jaymc (jaymc), Friday, 26 December 2003 20:37 (twenty-two years ago)

not so hot. dialogue was often clunky, and no one in it recognized how bizarre their situation was; another Very Serious movie that needed a little air let into it. clearly meant to be a wringer; i wasn't moved much at all. the bizarreness was interesting (as well as the asynronous presentation) up until the revenge plot kicked in, then it lost me. also, everything shot in dishwater grey, so you know it's reeeal.

s: the various doctors
d: b del t, pointing to own head: 'hell is IN HERE'

― g--ff (gcannon), Monday, 29 December 2003 08:09 (twenty-two years ago)

naomi watts!

p.s. this film looks to be of dubious interest

― amateur!st (amateurist), Monday, 29 December 2003 10:18 (twenty-two years ago)

I haven't read a good thing about it, but the trailer seemed interesting, and the cast looks great. Naomi Watts was tremendous in Mulholland Drive, but she may well be a Kim Novak, Tippi Hedren, etc.

― Sean (Sean), Monday, 29 December 2003 10:35 (twenty-two years ago)

The sense of confusion that reigns for the first 20-25 minutes as you try to reconcile the non-linear strands ends up being the greatest quality of the film; once it all starts to fall into place it's not as rich as you think. Mind you, the leaf-blower scene is extraordinary - it reminded me of the schoolbus sliding across the ice in The Sweet Hereafter for some reason. I suspect the cinematography is gorgeous but I saw it once as low-res MPG and once as low-contrast B&W.

― Michael Jones (MichaelJ), Monday, 29 December 2003 11:13 (twenty-two years ago)

two months pass...

I thought it was a lot better than I expected.

I liked the fact (though people seem to be using this as a point of attack) that he used a fractured narrative again and had all three stories pivot round a car crash. though I never saw amores perros so I didn't have to endure the contrivance. could just soak in its, uh, 'meaning', yeah, meaning.

he has such a restless camera which he puts to use in a weird kinda mood-correlative way. e.g. the blue hues fr naomi's story, or the chattery jittery hand-heldisms of the penn / watt romance climax.

manages to get a bubbling tense performance out of del toro too who just seems to ripple with ill will and foreboding every time he comes on screen. the air seems to quiver around him.

sean penn good too. who'd a thought it?

does watts have a bump near her mouth or am I imagining it?

― cozen (Cozen), Wednesday, 10 March 2004 20:45 (twenty-two years ago)

nice bleach-bypass photography as well! tho it is a bit 'use other tricks please' too, I guess.

falls really flat for the last thirty minutes, due to some reason I can't quite seem to articulate, and doesn't manage to reinvigorate itself with its 'twist' ending.

― cozen (Cozen), Wednesday, 10 March 2004 20:47 (twenty-two years ago)

also I saw 'electra glide in blue' last night and it is k-classic. the ending!

― cozen (Cozen), Wednesday, 10 March 2004 20:48 (twenty-two years ago)

very soderberghy i thought (and not just in the steadycam and saturation), possibly better than that makes it sound though (and i quite like soderbergh)

― m., Wednesday, 10 March 2004 20:51 (twenty-two years ago)

um, yeah had those difft filters fr different stories cinematography. but I think in soderbergh that's used more just to delimit the different stories whereas in this film it was used to suggest some of the character and content of the individual stories. (obv. 'used' doesn't equate w. 'received' - but.)

― cozen (Cozen), Wednesday, 10 March 2004 20:54 (twenty-two years ago)

"I have to be honest with you - I've got your husband's heart!!!"

It was better when I was watching it than when I got into daylight.

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Wednesday, 10 March 2004 20:56 (twenty-two years ago)

Milo, there were audible titters all round the cinema when at that line when I saw it. I've got to agree with many of the posters above, the 3 leads were all good. I'm normally a sucker for anything that fractures the time-line this way, loved Amores Perres & Memento but I couldn't help feeling that in this case it was used to paper over gaping chasms in the character development. The Naomi Watts character goes from not being interested in prosecuting her husband's killer to demanding someone murders him with no reason given for the change of heart. I think the constant scene-shifting disguises the fact that the characters don't develop in any kind of natural way.

― winterland, Thursday, 11 March 2004 14:39 (twenty-two years ago)

I liked Amores Perros, didn't much like this one. The fractured narrative didn't really seem to have a point here. Lots of the heavily emoting school of acting. Plus I'm sure I've seen the "I've got your husband's heart" plot device in some other recentish movie or telefilm (British I'm thinking).

― Jonathan Z. (Joanthan Z.), Thursday, 11 March 2004 14:45 (twenty-two years ago)

Anyone remember a fantastic "Tales of the unexpected" where a woman's new lover had her dead husband's transplanted eyes?

― winterland, Thursday, 11 March 2004 14:47 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.