What are you watching tonight?

[Verbal]

Watched 'Crash' last night, the one with Don Cheadle, Sandra Bullock, Matt Dillon and others in it. Unbelievable, I actually cried during one scene. One of only three films I've ever seen to make me go uneasy with its power.

[TANGODANCER]

Watched Liam Neeson in "Taken". All action stuff with Neeson taking no prisoners. Decent enough film.

[General Mannerheim]

Watched 'Crash' last night, the one with Don Cheadle, Sandra Bullock, Matt Dillon and others in it. Unbelievable, I actually cried during one scene. One of only three films I've ever seen to make me go uneasy with its power.

Awesome film! largely overlooked and under rated!

on a different note - yesterday I watched the entire first season of Curb Your Enthusiasm – I hadn’t seen it before I watched the episode on a plane last week where they go bowling with Ted Danson, and Larry has a crush on his wife. I thought it was hilarious so when I got back I got the dvds.

The episode where Larry writes the obituary in the paper for his wifes dead ‘Devoted Aunt’ is possibly the funniest thing I have ever watched!!!! Literally aching with a’laffin.

Genius.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Watched 'Crash' last night, the one with Don Cheadle, Sandra Bullock, Matt Dillon and others in it. Unbelievable, I actually cried during one scene. One of only three films I've ever seen to make me go uneasy with its power.

Awesome film! largely overlooked and under rated!

So underrated, in fact, that it won the Oscars for Best Picture, Best Original Screenplay and Best Editing in 2005.

For what it's worth, you're both absolutely wrong, along with Academy.

It's fantastically overrated - corny, artificial, clumsy in its use of stereotypes, and its underlying sense of self-importance is deeply unattractive.

Verbal, I can't imagine which part brought you to tears - rough week?!

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Just dug up my review in this forum in 2005, when it first came out:

Crash

In a film-making climate of sticking to franchises for a safe and predictable level of success (I notice that a Jurrassic Park IV is on its way out), it is with some regret that I find myself criticising this film for being a bit 'over-ambitious'. It tries to make incisive racial observations... but fails and tends to fall back on the portrayal of stereotype. It also tries to mix several storylines and characters into one film; it's not an easy trick to pull off and it's not one that this director did. The link between all these chracters is also an unsatisfying ending to it all: the idea that we're all connected in some way is far less ground-breaking than the film shows an appreciation of. There are a few interesting individual performances: Sandra Bullock plays a distinctly 'uncongenial' role, Matt Dillon plays the racist W.A.S.P. cop very well, an Jennifer Epositio plays a small, but visually pleasing part. I don't know where Ryan Phillipe's career has gone since his role in Cruel Intentions, but he was very unimpressive.

All in all, a watchable film, but it has far less to say than it thinks it does.

**

http://www.the-wanderer.co.uk/boards/vi ... 5810#45810

I re-watched it once it had won its Oscars to see if I had somehow erred in my first viewing.... I had not.

[General Mannerheim]

and Curb Your Enthusiasm wasnt funny either?

[Verbal]

Watched 'Crash' last night, the one with Don Cheadle, Sandra Bullock, Matt Dillon and others in it. Unbelievable, I actually cried during one scene. One of only three films I've ever seen to make me go uneasy with its power.

Awesome film! largely overlooked and under rated!

So underrated, in fact, that it won the Oscars for Best Picture, Best Original Screenplay and Best Editing in 2005.

For what it's worth, you're both absolutely wrong, along with Academy.

It's fantastically overrated - corny, artificial, clumsy in its use of stereotypes, and its underlying sense of self-importance is deeply unattractive.

Verbal, I can't imagine which part brought you to tears - rough week?!

The bit where the girl gets 'shot'...I don't usually well up at movies but this bit made me do.

Admittedly only seen it the once but...

I didn't think it stereotyped much, if at all. Fair enough the Ludacris character goes out at length to point racial differences/tensions out, but he changes a sh*tload through the film. It just seemed to highlight the prejudices people harbour, whoever they are. Nearly all the main characters are put into situations where they can make the 'right' and 'wrong' decision, with the film showing the effects of these - the director (in the film), the shopkeeper's daughter, the two cops, ludacris, cheadle...not all of them the correct ones and none of them coming out with more than when they started. It was brilliant seeing Dillon's partner showing his own prejudices by the end, the culmination of it all.

Agree with you on bullock, did very well at being the insular b*tch who turned into the most isolated person ever.

[ratbert]

Crash is a good film if a little self important and lacking in subtlety.

But the performances and photography can't be faulted.

I have borrowed a copy of 'Iron Man' - is it any cop?

[jmjhb]

Charlie Brooker's Screenwipe on iPlayer. So funny, Charlie Brooker so true

[William the White]

Just dug up my review in this forum in 2005, when it first came out:

Crash

In a film-making climate of sticking to franchises for a safe and predictable level of success (I notice that a Jurrassic Park IV is on its way out), it is with some regret that I find myself criticising this film for being a bit 'over-ambitious'. It tries to make incisive racial observations... but fails and tends to fall back on the portrayal of stereotype. It also tries to mix several storylines and characters into one film; it's not an easy trick to pull off and it's not one that this director did. The link between all these chracters is also an unsatisfying ending to it all: the idea that we're all connected in some way is far less ground-breaking than the film shows an appreciation of. There are a few interesting individual performances: Sandra Bullock plays a distinctly 'uncongenial' role, Matt Dillon plays the racist W.A.S.P. cop very well, an Jennifer Epositio plays a small, but visually pleasing part. I don't know where Ryan Phillipe's career has gone since his role in Cruel Intentions, but he was very unimpressive.

All in all, a watchable film, but it has far less to say than it thinks it does.

**

http://www.the-wanderer.co.uk/boards/vi ... 5810#45810

I re-watched it once it had won its Oscars to see if I had somehow erred in my first viewing.... I had not.

Not totally wrong, but almost.

It suffers from a feeling of being schematic, and, although mummy doesn't express it this way, I think this is what he means, and it is a damaging criticism. There's that feeling of having a checklist of archetypes (worth checking the distinction between that and stereotypes, it's important - of course you may mean stereotypes, mummy, but, if you do, I think you are way wrong.).

It is rescued by a screenplay that overcomes its own agenda, gives genuine particularity to its characters, often in surprising ways, and gives a real and surprising redemptive journey to its cop character, with a structure that has confidence and daring.

It isn't Citizen Kane. But what was the film of 2005 that was better, mummy?

[General Mannerheim]

[quote="ratbert"]Crash is a good film if a little self important and lacking in subtlety.

But the performances and photography can't be faulted.

I have borrowed a copy of 'Iron Man' - is it any cop?[/quote]

Probably not but i thouht it was great!?

[Verbal]

Charlie Brooker's Screenwipe on iPlayer. So funny, Charlie Brooker so true

good call. Only managed to catch the opening gambit about Manuelgate, well funny.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Just dug up my review in this forum in 2005, when it first came out:

Crash

In a film-making climate of sticking to franchises for a safe and predictable level of success (I notice that a Jurrassic Park IV is on its way out), it is with some regret that I find myself criticising this film for being a bit 'over-ambitious'. It tries to make incisive racial observations... but fails and tends to fall back on the portrayal of stereotype. It also tries to mix several storylines and characters into one film; it's not an easy trick to pull off and it's not one that this director did. The link between all these chracters is also an unsatisfying ending to it all: the idea that we're all connected in some way is far less ground-breaking than the film shows an appreciation of. There are a few interesting individual performances: Sandra Bullock plays a distinctly 'uncongenial' role, Matt Dillon plays the racist W.A.S.P. cop very well, an Jennifer Epositio plays a small, but visually pleasing part. I don't know where Ryan Phillipe's career has gone since his role in Cruel Intentions, but he was very unimpressive.

All in all, a watchable film, but it has far less to say than it thinks it does.

**

http://www.the-wanderer.co.uk/boards/vi ... 5810#45810

I re-watched it once it had won its Oscars to see if I had somehow erred in my first viewing.... I had not.

Not totally wrong, but almost.

It suffers from a feeling of being schematic, and, although mummy doesn't express it this way, I think this is what he means, and it is a damaging criticism. There's that feeling of having a checklist of archetypes (worth checking the distinction between that and stereotypes, it's important - of course you may mean stereotypes, mummy, but, if you do, I think you are way wrong.).

It is rescued by a screenplay that overcomes its own agenda, gives genuine particularity to its characters, often in surprising ways, and gives a real and surprising redemptive journey to its cop character, with a structure that has confidence and daring.

It isn't Citizen Kane. But what was the film of 2005 that was better, mummy?

Perhaps some of your lingo is better than that which I deployed unthinkingly three years ago! Do I mean 'archetypes'... possibly, though I think 'stereoptype' might be more based on the perceptions of others, which I think is what I wanted to say! Feel free to expound the subtleties you think I am missing if you want... always willing to learn, and all that.

As ever, these things are all about opinion... Verbal and General M loved it - fair enough. You thought it was confident; I thought it was self satisfied!

Was there a better film in 2005? I really can't remember.

Fairly safe to say that I probably wouldn't have gone for Brokeback Mountain in that year though... I have posted this on here before, but here's an email review I sent to a friend at the time!

>>>>>>>>Yes, I've seen Brokeback Mountain
> > > > > > and found it unpersuasive, shallow, and almost entirely undeserving
> > > > > > of the vast credit that's fashionably heaped upon it. As a film I
> > > > > > wouldn't recommend seeing it, but as a sociological phenom you
> > > > > > might as well check it out (if only to roll your eyes knowingly
> > > > > > when friends drone on about its wonderfulness). The story (as I'm
> > > > > > sure you've heard) is simple: two rough, taciturn cowboys (or,
> > > > > > sheepboys, more accurately) get paired up to work. They don't know
> > > > > > each other, say little to one another, and spend some time staring
> > > > > > off into the distance, kicking some dust, glancing at each other,
> > > > > > etc until one cold evening alone atop Brokeback Mountain they end
> > > > > > up f*cking. (I'm no expert on gay seduction practices, but I found
> > > > > > this to be rather unconvincing, in that they went from barely
> > > > > > communicating with one another to full-on gay ass-sex in about 4.5
> > > > > > seconds.) So they part ways but years later hook up again, stealing
> > > > > > away every once in awhile for fishing trips which allow them, as
> > > > > > one of them puts it, 'a few high altitude f*cks'. This to me is the
> > > > > > essence of the film: while the promos include lush orchestral
> > > > > > scores and the melodramatic tagline 'love is a force of nature', 'a
> > > > > > few high altitude f*cks' is a much better summation of their
> > > > > > relationship than anything involving love. And so the tale of
> > > > > > 'love' ends tragically: one of them wastes his life by slutting
> > > > > > around with Mexican rent-boys, while the other's marriage and
> > > > > > family dissolves. And while the tale is undoubtedly tragic, I'm not
> > > > > > sure it's tragic in the way the producers intended it to be: are
> > > > > > the men neglectful parents and sad lonely creatures because society
> > > > > > has forced them to live a lie, or are they losers because they are
> > > > > > prisoners of their own self-destructive sexual appetites?> > > >
> > > > > > The film, for all its 'courage' and 'avant-gardeness', is really
> > > > > > just a failed rehash of cliched genres and stereotypes. The
> > > > > > dramatic orchestral score and taglines suggest your classically
> > > > > > romantic, manly western, but with a gay makeover: Queer Eye for the
> > > > > > Straight Western Guy? (ha). But the gay characters themselves are
> > > > > > entirely hetero-like and masculine -- indeed a gay (or straight
> > > > > > woman's) fantasy: Straight Western Guy for the Queer Eye? Or
> > > > > > perhaps simply the equivalent of lesbian porn for straight men (ie.
> > > > > > the equivalent of hot, hetero-like women eating eachother out).> >
> > > > > > > > So why all the fuss? I suspect that Brokeback is the liberal's
> > > > > > equivalent of Mad Mel's Passion of the Christ: just as evangelicals
> > > > > > wanted of a good thumper of a Christian film that did not ridicule
> > > > > > their faith, gays and self-righteous liberals wanted a mainstream
> > > > > > film that focused on their lifestyle and angst. Qua Christian, you
> > > > > > have to profess your love of The Passion, as not doing so would not
> > > > > > be Christian; qua liberal/gay you have to love Brokeback, as not
> > > > > > doing so would not be progressive. Sadly, in their fervour to
> > > > > > advertise themselves as socially-liberal progressives, too many
> > > > > > have conflated a bleak movie about two horny men intent on using
> > > > > > each other for their own sexual releases with a genuine love story.
> > > > > > But it will probably win an Oscar, because Hollywood likes nothing
> > > > > > more than congratulating itself for self-righteous, unimaginative
> > > > > > tripe.

Anyway, a few more Crash reviews that might get to the point better than me!

http://efilmcritic.com/review.php?movie ... viewer=392

http://www.combustiblecelluloid.com/2005/crash05.shtml

http://filmfreakcentral.net/dvdreviews/crash2005.htm

http://www.observer.com/node/50803

http://sandiegometro.com/reel/index.php?reelID=808

[William the White]

Blimey, mummy, talk about a tough critic.

I was unconvinced by the emotional intelligence of Brokeback Mountain. It just wasn't brave or complex enough.

I didn't read all the review links on Crash - but the first two seemed motivated as much by political hostility as dramatic analysis.

But yes, all a matter of opinion. Provided some thought has gone into making that opinion. Which it obviously has in yours.

[Lord Kangana]

Series called WWII on i-player (hardly bother with tv these days cos of this).

Really good look at the political machinations behind the scenes, puts a lot of meat on the bones of previous theories. Very interesting, particularly the very close Nazi/Soviet relationship that went much further than merely signing treaties to carve up Poland.

Its on Beeb 2 on monday nights if anyones interested.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Blimey, mummy, talk about a tough critic.

Ha, I actually don't think I am. I just react particularly strongly to things that are overrated or that have an inflated sense of self-importance/self-righteousness.

Strange personality trait, really.

[William the White]

Anyone watch The Devil's Whore on C4 tonight?

I've really been looking forward to this. I think Peter Flannery, the writer, comes out with a work of real dramatic power, with hugely important things to say, about once every eight years - which is when Brit TV decides they can risk him.

I just love his refusal to compromise.

Some may remember 'Our Friends in the North' - brilliant and, if you have a few more years in you, remember the just ferocious and stunning 'Blind Justice'. The episode 'The One About the Irishman' in that series was the best drama on TV that year. (1992, maybe?).

I thought tonight was a very fine start - but had reservations. I have a degree in history, and have looked at, partially studied, the English Civil War/Revolution. and reasonably closely. I had no difficulty following the story - but I found myself wondering if the drama was clear if you hadn't done this, if the viewer would understand the great divide between the two sides, or be able to identify the protagonist's history.

But I'll be there next week. For sure.

[ratbert]

I forgot to Sky+ that. Flannery is a terrific writer, Our Friends being one of the very, very best TV dramas of recent years.

[William the White]

I forgot to Sky+ that. Flannery is a terrific writer, Our Friends being one of the very, very best TV dramas of recent years.

Yep. Does C4 have an equivalent of iPlayer?

[jmjhb]

I'm going to watch this for the sole reason that Dominic West is in it