ILF's 21 Grams thread

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Milo started one over on ILE, but I want us film nerds to discuss it in isolation over here.

I won't mince words- it is an utter sham. Cosmetically, everything is in place to lure the "serious filmgoer" in from the street - the actors, the hot director, the super-grainy, washed-out cinematography (why wasn't this shot on DV), the gloomy symbolism, and a lofty script. But this film is hollow to the core, a laboured and self-conscious exercise in style.

― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Friday, 12 December 2003 15:16 (twenty-one years ago)

but is the style good? ;)

hopefully i can see this soon and contribute

― ryan (ryan), Friday, 12 December 2003 16:23 (twenty-one years ago)

On second viewing, Amorros Perros loses steam after about 1/2 hour. Besides, a retired hit man? If that was the plotline of a British movie, it would be instantly ridiculed.

― Chuck Tatum (Chuck Tatum), Friday, 12 December 2003 19:22 (twenty-one years ago)

amoros perros loses steam from the end of the first story on first viewing I'm afraid. the retired hit man was one of the three plotlines but the second one (with the model) was a bit ridiculous (couldn't they call someone to dig that dog out of the hole in the flat).

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Sunday, 14 December 2003 13:22 (twenty-one years ago)

i liked that one! it was kinda surreal almost.

― ryan (ryan), Monday, 15 December 2003 01:45 (twenty-one years ago)

As I wrote in a year-end thingy recently, 21 Grams is one of the most exquisite and bold not-very-good films ever made. (The Hulk is another.) I really wanted it to be good, so it's doubly disappointing. It asks you to give it a lot of faith--that the story will eventually make sense despite the crazy ending, that all these outrageous coincidences tie together in some way, that all of these rather horrible people are somehow redeemed, or maybe even punished--and then in the denouement it all comes down to that. So, yeah, sham.

― Lee G (Lee G), Monday, 15 December 2003 16:30 (twenty-one years ago)

"crazy ending" = "crazy editing," although it has a crazy ending too

― Lee G (Lee G), Monday, 15 December 2003 20:58 (twenty-one years ago)

"crzy editing" = "help! our film is shit, how do we hide that fact?"

― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Monday, 15 December 2003 21:20 (twenty-one years ago)

one month passes...

so should i bother seeing this?

― ryan (ryan), Friday, 23 January 2004 00:25 (twenty-one years ago)

I admit it, I was suckered. I mean, I understand all the charges that @d@m enumerates up top, and might agree with them to some extent, but I found all of those things (the editing/chronology, the grainy cinematography, the acting) pretty compelling.

― jaymc (jaymc), Friday, 23 January 2004 01:45 (twenty-one years ago)

Interesting.

― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Friday, 23 January 2004 09:07 (twenty-one years ago)

Because I'm not exaggerating. A month and a half later I still feel much the same way, especially now I see the pre-Oscar marketing campaign calling it a "suspense thriller" (wha?).

― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Friday, 23 January 2004 09:08 (twenty-one years ago)

maybe the most unpleasant two hours i have ever spent in a theater. absolutely horrible. i think i've mentally blocked out the last half hour!

― ryan (ryan), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 07:08 (twenty-one years ago)

oh and i just knew i was going to be treated to a quite horrific accident, but no, we dont even get to see that.

plus it has like the most pretentious final shot in history.

― ryan (ryan), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 07:11 (twenty-one years ago)

one month passes...

having just seen this i thought i'd ask this:
why does she go through a big emotiuve crying thing (in the kitchen)(
*again* after we saw her do that about 4 times already?
its like we GET it fer gods sake!! it felt like a dvd extra
that had accidentally been left in.

this is a whole thread of it's own - scenes that should
have been dvd extras and aren't. i mean when u *think* about
the quality of what's removed from say, the 6th sense (or insert
own fave dvd extra here), some of what's being left in these days
takes the biccies.

a v modern phenomenon this though.

it also really applies to mystic river. talk about a movie
in dire need of pruning.

― piscesboy, Tuesday, 9 March 2004 13:30 (twenty-one years ago)

I thought the thing was that she hadn't broken down until that point. Sure, she grieved a bit, but it was all internalized, or she turned to drink/drugs. It's only after that scene that she sort of wakes from the stupor and decides to take action. (At least that's how I saw it.)

― BabyBuddha (BabyBuddha), Tuesday, 9 March 2004 15:58 (twenty-one years ago)

I finally saw this yesterday.

Good things - Naomi Watts performance
Bad things - everything else

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Tuesday, 9 March 2004 19:26 (twenty-one years ago)

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