criterionforum.org

Your wish is my command, Jean-Luc.

See the "New Films" list.

I foresee this being moved to the Navel Gazing forum, which is like only a few inches to the right of the topic at hand as it is.

This'll really help bring in the ladies.

Does iTunes offer a raincoat skin when you download this?

Her ass is excellent, which is to say it delievered on the promise of what I thought Natalie Portman's ass could be. I'm more from the Lopez school in terms of my preferences, however, but I was not disappointed and I enjoyed seeing her. I am also a short-hair fetishist (don't know where that came from) so all in all her aesthetic impact was forceful.

And her acting wasn't bad, either. I actually believed her this time, and usually I don't, fully. I've given her many chances over the years, because she's so goddamn cute, but beyond, you know, Beautiful Girls, she just doesn't have any weight to me. Did anyone seriously think she was the damaged stripper she said she was in Closer? I even went to NY to see her (among others) do The Seagull in the park under Mike Nichols' direction... granted, the cast was comprised of Streep, Kevin Kline, Phil Hoffman, and others, but she was so paper-thin as to be transparent. Perhaps she just needs to age some more, shake off a bit of the privileged Long Island background. Get her heart crushed. Or at least get better at transmitting that kind of pain and life experience through a performance.

But she is goddamn cute. And maybe that's enough.

Cuteness is all!

Barmy wrote:Ok, it's not that bad.

The Portman short, which screened before the feature, is asinine. A couple of things from the short are referenced in the feature but whatever.

DE itself is trivial, but enjoyable enough. It is way more toned down than "American Express Commercial" (famously booed at MoMA) and "Zissou" (possibly one of the worst films ever made). Towards the end there is a bit that reminded me of the end of KK's "Blue", but it didn't really work. The treatment of India and its people could be regarded as racist. Jason Schwarzmann is really really short.

Ah this flip, sarcastic and desparately shallow internet style of posting, the only point of which is to try to show off how cool and supposedly clever you are, rather than any meaningful discussion of the subject. How I hate it.

Hrossa wrote:Are there any other threads here where roughly 80% of the content is people talking about how much they dislike the thing in question?

Or with this many invocations of the word "twee"?

godardslave wrote:

Barmy wrote:Ok, it's not that bad.

The Portman short, which screened before the feature, is asinine. A couple of things from the short are referenced in the feature but whatever.

DE itself is trivial, but enjoyable enough. It is way more toned down than "American Express Commercial" (famously booed at MoMA) and "Zissou" (possibly one of the worst films ever made). Towards the end there is a bit that reminded me of the end of KK's "Blue", but it didn't really work. The treatment of India and its people could be regarded as racist. Jason Schwarzmann is really really short.

Ah this flip, sarcastic and desparately shallow internet style of posting, the only point of which is to try to show off how cool and supposedly clever you are, rather than any meaningful discussion of the subject. How I hate it.

I like the knee-jerk defensive hero-worship rebuttal style of posting better. There isn't a minimum word count requirement, Barmy should be allowed to post a short reaction without bellyaching from the Anderson Brigade. I can't believe it's come to me defending Barmy, but here we are.

And shouldn't there be a flip, sarcastic and desperately shallow response to such flip, sarcastic and desperately shallow filmmaking?

Antoine Doinel wrote:The Life Obsessive With Wes Anderson

Something about his picture in that rubs me the wrong way. It's probably the yellow tie.

I haven't seen the film, nor am I fan of Anderson but applaud Domino for this post. Barmys review was quite clever but I never got the feeling he was passing himself off as cool. Perhaps if Slave questioned Barmy on his review instead of being threatend there could have been a meaningful discussion.

Barmy, would you mind telling us the crowd's reaction at the end of the film? Any detractors or booing?

Does Anderson want us to hate these characters enough to kick their teeth in?

Yes, in the sense that he wants us to think better of it and not do so at the last minute.

Hrossa wrote:I thought Hotel Chevalier was a good sketch of an abusive relationship. It's got some great elements (some of which I didn't pick up on until I watch the film a second time)

Very nice observations Hrossa, and I really liked the short as well. These are two characters who are still trying to jockey for position in a relationship that is ostensibly over. But for me, the final shot of them looking out onto Paris was a melancholy moment of two people, completely wrong for each other, trying to remember the good moments they might've had together.

bearcuborg wrote:I haven't seen the film, nor am I fan of Anderson but applaud Domino for this post. Barmys review was quite clever but I never got the feeling he was passing himself off as cool. Perhaps if Slave questioned Barmy on his review instead of being threatend there could have been a meaningful discussion.

The words "meaningful discussion" and "Barmy" do not compute.

I imagine that anyone who's actually been in an abusive sexual relationship is going to have the same laughable reaction to Anderson's handling of the subject as I did. It's like the kid in 5th grade telling sex jokes in the back of the bus but mixing up what the words mean. And I strongly object to calling these two Urban Outfitter models "characters."

Macintosh wrote:Barmy, would you mind telling us the crowd's reaction at the end of the film? Any detractors or booing?

I was there also, and it was a blowjob from the audience to Anderson after the film (to steal Domino's phrase from a few posts back).

Not one boo or catcall...and no tomatoes either, so I guess Barmy ate them instead.

Was my post deleted? LOL.

Yes the crowd blew Wes. I think they enjoyed the film (there was even some chortling during the "tragic" part), but I did get the feeling that they found the short to be unremarkable.

Wes Anderson forever!!!

^Perhaps your post was moved?

Barmy wrote:Was my post deleted? LOL.

Looks like it was. I'm not sure how or why. But I did agree: Jason Schwartzman is really really short.

cdnchris wrote:

Barmy wrote:Was my post deleted? LOL.

Looks like it was. I'm not sure how or why.

My two recent posts were deleted, and they weren't offensive or even slightly controversial. Can someone explain why, I would hate to think our lovely forum is being censored!

domino harvey wrote:I imagine that anyone who's actually been in an abusive sexual relationship is going to have the same laughable reaction to Anderson's handling of the subject as I did...

Masturbation isn't a "relationship"