Not the Best Movies I've Ever Seen In My Life

looper · Post by **looper** » Sun Jun 08, 2003 1:17 am

Almost forgot: Requiem for a Dream is also a really awesome movie in the Magnolia-esque vein.

Roody_Yogurt · Post by **Roody_Yogurt** » Sun Jun 08, 2003 2:00 am

Well, yeah, I figured that no matter whatever cycle you figure you're stuck in, something will still come up just to show you you don't have it all figured out, as the frogs did. We shouldn't resign ourselves ourselves to whatever situations because something will come along to show us that there's more than meets the eye. I am Roody Yogurt, and I am a decepticon.

pinback · Post by **pinback** » Sun Jun 08, 2003 8:29 am

Ice Cream Jonsey wrote:I don't know if I've ever had a $35 steak before.

They are good.

We're going, right? I mean, we're definitely going. If it's within two hours of Vegas, we're fucking there.

There is not only one within two hours of Vegas, there are two within about five minutes of my hotel room.

(Roody, I think I speak for us all when I say that we gotchoo on this one

Whoa, whoa, hold up. You might want to check out the menu first.

Secondly, let's congratulate looper on his successful thread.

You mean his thread here? In the movie base? Which I am moderating, and which was my idea in the first place?

Absolutely! Way to go, looper!

bot · Post by **bot** » Sun Jun 08, 2003 8:30 am

looper wrote: The thing about Magnolia's prologue was that it was too obvious to me, a viewer, that there was a message being sent, and the message was: "sometimes things that appear to be accidental actually serve a greater purpose."

Magnolia is a great movie, but I had the same problem with it that looper describes. Yes, I also got the feeling that there was a "greater purpose" motif echoing around in the background, as if to say that our seemingly random and insignificant daily lives are actually being guided by some authorial intelligence, the same way the lives of the characters in the film were sculpted by the director.

And the problem with this sort of message is that I simply don't buy the suggestion that I am a character in a cosmic drama. Thanks anyway, P.T., but I'll stick with what works - nihilism.

pinback · Post by **pinback** » Sun Jun 08, 2003 8:34 am

looper wrote:Really? Wow. Funny how surprising it is to read a different take. :) What about the frogs? I got the impression that, say, the redhead chick, and the abusive father, and the addicted daughter, all hated themselves, right? For what they'd done. And things couldn't get better for them externally till they let things get better inside. Heh. Corny sounding. But, yeah, you can't exactly be happy while you're hating yourself. So they had to forgive themselves (and I guess that was symbolized in the movie by the frogs?).

I don't agree with any of this. I agree with Roody. But I'd like Jonsey to watch it before we engage in an in-depth analysis of the movie, otherwise his perspective will be TAINTED and BIASED going into it (even on top of the already present bias in which he wants to hate the movie right off the bat).

JONSEY DON'T READ ANY FURTHER IN THIS POST!

(And I also do not believe the frogs are symbolic. I believe they're quite literal.)

pinback · Post by **pinback** » Sun Jun 08, 2003 8:38 am

bot wrote:Yes, I also got the feeling that there was a "greater purpose" motif echoing around in the background

JONSEY DON'T READ THESE POSTS!!!!!!!!

You guys are wrong. I think the message of the movie is exactly the opposite of this, that being: "Shit happens. Get over yourself."

And the problem with this sort of message is that I simply don't buy the suggestion that I am a character in a cosmic drama. Thanks anyway, P.T., but I'll stick with what works - nihilism.

YHGMTPOM. HTH. HAND. FOAD.

forum delinquent · Post by **forum delinquent** » Sun Jun 08, 2003 10:36 am

ahhh... hehehehe. yea.

man that movie is retarded. and not the good retarded, like Corky from Life Goes On, but the bad retarded, like YOU dudes.

ahhhhh.... BURP! hehehe

looper · Post by **looper** » Sun Jun 08, 2003 11:44 am

pinback wrote:
bot wrote:Yes, I also got the feeling that there was a "greater purpose" motif echoing around in the background

You guys are wrong. I think the message of the movie is exactly the opposite of this, that being: "Shit happens. Get over yourself."

You've seen American Beauty, right? Do you know the scene where the boy is showing the film he made of the plastic bag blowing in the wind? And he says something like "Then I realized that there is this entire benevolent force behind things that wanted me to know that I didn't have to be afraid, ever"...And this is postulated in the movie as a kind of explanation or compensation for why there is violence and pain in the world. We see Lester come to the same sort of conclusion at the end of the movie. We also see Lester begin to enjoy life more when he starts 1) doing what he wants 2) changing his attitude, yada yada yada.

It seemed to me that many of the characters in Magnolia go through the same sort of transformation as Lester. They're miserable, and then, as you say, as they "get over themselves", things start to turn around for them.

So I don't disagree with you. They definitely had to get over themselves. But I thought there was this strong slant to Magnolia too, like American Beauty, implying that maybe the dim view (the "nihilistic" view) is not accurate.

Yeah, the frogs are literal. Of course. But they're also symbolic. They come at the climax of the movie. Coincidence? No, authorial intent. If I remember correctly, they affect many of the characters in the film: the little boy watches them just after telling off his Dad (something the boy probably thought would never happen, just like he thought he'd never see frogs doing...what they did). They prevent a suicide. They cause the cop to meet the guy with braces (Right? It's been a while). These are all crazy, unlikely things, all related to the frogs--so I think the frogs do have some value besides as props.

Eh, well...'s cool. Nice comments, pinback, all.

Cheers,

looper

pinback · Post by **pinback** » Sun Jun 08, 2003 12:09 pm

looper wrote:It seemed to me that many of the characters in Magnolia go through the same sort of transformation as Lester. They're miserable, and then, as you say, as they "get over themselves", things start to turn around for them.

They do? No they don't. They do?

JONSEY STOP READING THIS

Frank Mackey: Starts as a miserable father-hating woman-hating douchebag. Ends the same way.

William H. Macy: Starts as a self-hating, weasely little queer. Ends the same way (not with the bartender, as you remember). "I HAVE SO MUCH LOVE TO GIVE, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHO TO GIVE IT TO!?!?!!!!" is his last line. This is "turning around"?

Redhead: Starts as a miserably drug addict. Ends the same (and maybe dead, I couldn't figure it out.)

Cop: Starts as a giving, caring person, ends the same way.

The kid is maybe the only one who is "changed" by the end, but his life sure isn't going to get any better. "You need to treat me better," he says to his father -- who is, of course, not listening. And the wheel continues to turn.

I understand your interpretation of Magnolia as another "awakening" film like American Beauty (and, while we're at it, Fight Club), but once again, I disagree. It's an ensemble of largely miserable, disgusting people (and a few nice ones) reaping what they've sown, generally just dealing with the lives they've created for themselves, and doing so within the confines of one of the best written, acted, and directed movies I can remember seeing.

I liked American Beauty too, by the way.

dim view (the "nihilistic" view) is not accurate.

I think one need only listen to the "musical number" to answer this... It won't stop till you wise up, it won't stop till you give up.

things, all related to the frogs--so I think the frogs do have some value besides as props.

I just think it's a lot more *direct*. I don't think the frogs are meant to symbolize some "cleansing wave of redemption". I think the frogs are meant to symbolize (if you will) that chaos theory still rules the universe, five billion years later, so quit looking for meaning in every dumb thing that happens. In a way, it's almost anti-symbolic.

Roody_Yogurt · Post by **Roody_Yogurt** » Sun Jun 08, 2003 1:00 pm

I hate American Beauty, for the record.

pinback · Post by **pinback** » Sun Jun 08, 2003 1:12 pm

Well, I don't get that either.

Is this one of those BBSes where it's "hip" to hate good things?

bot · Post by **bot** » Sun Jun 08, 2003 1:19 pm

pinback wrote: YHGMTPOM. HTH. HAND. FOAD.

Pinback - Are you seriously saying what I think you're saying?

That the elder god Yhgmtpom can only be defeated in hand to hand combat (i.e. with palm strikes only, no feet)? And that the reward for this shall be a FOAD?

Roody_Yogurt · Post by **Roody_Yogurt** » Sun Jun 08, 2003 1:29 pm

Should have explained myself the first time round, but I guess I'll do it now. This will be pretty spoilery in case anyone hasn't seen it, but since everyone has I'm not going to leave a spoiler space. I didn't like being hit with the message like a hammer. I didn't like all of its cliches and stereotypes. I can't believe that people are so quick to bash M. Night shmawhatshisname's movies when the 'catch' doesn't meet their expectations. I mean, AB is 100 times worse about it with the personal revelations- 'omg the slut is a virgin lol' 'omg the homophobe is a fag0t lol' 'omg that bitch wife realizes she misses her husband's cock lol'.

Some of the movies mentioned in this thread so far have a special place in my heart because they they find a way to be sympathetic to all walks of life. I truly feel that the viewer isn't supposed to like or identify with the wife character at all until that moment when she comes around, and that's just way too over-the-top and simplistic for me. Oh, must be nice when you can just treat every character like it's just some big paint-by-numbers piece of shit.

Also, I don't exactly remember why, but camera-dude sort of came off as some sort of weird Jesus figure and I thought that was lame.

Granted, all of my opinions here were formed on my first viewing, and I did try to give the movie a second chance but just couldn't sit through it again. And I even had chemical help that time.

Ice Cream Jonsey · Post by **Ice Cream Jonsey** » Sun Jun 08, 2003 2:36 pm

Page two is all about Magnolia spoilers, right? I only saw Pinback's pink-flavoured text and haven't read anything yet.

I guess I need to see this movie in order to participate.

looper · Post by **looper** » Sun Jun 08, 2003 11:49 pm

pinback wrote:
looper wrote:It seemed to me that many of the characters in Magnolia go through the same sort of transformation as Lester. They're miserable, and then, as you say, as they "get over themselves", things start to turn around for them.
They do? No they don't. They do?

Ok, I see what you're saying. It's a lot more open-ended than American Beauty. But, check this:

Frank Mackey: agrees to see his father for the first time in years, cries (hey, that's an accomplishment for such a macho guy, eh?)

The Wife (Julianne Moore): feels remorse

Cokehead Blonde Girl: hooks up with the cop (presumably)

Kid: Maybe the dad won't listen to him, but if he doesn't, the kid will certainly remember it.

Many of these characters have been repeating themselves for a long time. The redhead has. Mackey has. The cokehead daughter has. The gay guy has. The movie catches them all at the moment they have to deal with their behavior. I think we're agreed on that. Although, yeah (you made a good point), it's questionable with some of them whether they *will* deal with the shit in their lives.

pinback wrote: I understand your interpretation of Magnolia as another "awakening" film like American Beauty (and, while we're at it, Fight Club), but once again, I disagree. It's an ensemble of largely miserable, disgusting people (and a few nice ones)

But that's the thing, which ones are disgusting and which ones aren't? Is the cokehead daughter disgusting? Is Mackey? Sure, they're fucked up, but it seems the whole film is about second chances and the need for love/connection underneath these people's behavior.

pinback wrote: reaping what they've sown, generally just dealing with the lives they've created for themselves, and doing so within the confines of one of the best written, acted, and directed movies I can remember seeing.

True 'dat.

pinback wrote:
looper wrote:dim view (the "nihilistic" view) is not accurate.
I think one need only listen to the "musical number" to answer this... It won't stop till you wise up, it won't stop till you give up.

To 'give up' is not necessarily a bad thing. If you give up a bad habit... Also from that song: "You think one drink/will shrink you till you're underground/and living down/But it's not going to stop/It's not going to stop/till you wise up"

I always interpreted 'wise up/give up' as 'give up your retarded behavior' (such as the drinking described above).

Ugh. · Post by **Ugh.** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 12:45 pm

Walrustitty again.

Here to again poop on everyone's opinion.

First off - can't believe everyone's here yanking on Fagnolia's dysfunctional dick. Much less American Beauty. C'mon, no one for a minute believes that Hollywood can come up with a truly serious, meaningful movie? Right? Please, tell me that.

You want bitter movies to make you feel shitty, but are incredibly well-made? Go see a Peter Greenaway movie. I specifically recommend "The Cook, The Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover" - top-notch miserable movie.

The last time Hollywood could turn out legitimate, serious moviemakers was in the '70s - the current system punishes challenging movies and encourages easy-to-digest crap, like Independance Day, Mummy Returns, and Matrix Reloaded. It's not coincidence that the best directors (Gilliam, Greenaway, Herzog, etc) don't like working in the Hollywood system.

Those who take the time to venture outside the multiplex fare will find plenty of reasons not to return - why see Phone Booth when you can see Run Lola Run? Why see Sixth Sense when you can see The Eye? (OK, The Eye is much newer - but far superior and holy SHIT is it scary.) Etc, etc.

Oh, and for Christ's sake - Mothman Prophecies?????? A "true" movie made because people were mistaking an own for a flying monster - who, in the movie, has the ability to destroy bridges like fucking Rodan? If you want a monster movie, watch a monster movie, not some slick Hollywood production that barely even shows you the monster.

That being said, I do agree (mostly) with Pinback on Ebert being the best reviewer due to his writing, but he's not always clear on what is and is not a good movie. His "great movies" series is pretty reliable, though.

Ehhh, dunno why I bother. Jonsey will certainly never take my opinions seriously, as I think Mallrats sucks balls (despite having the best J&SB content of any of Smith's movies) and Clerks is overrated, and BTW, Smith is a bit of a big fat blowhard, selling a DVD of him yammering for four hours; and he's convinced that I think Starship Troopers is the height of perfect and meaningful moviemaking, which I don't.

Ice Cream Jonsey · Post by **Ice Cream Jonsey** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 1:27 pm

Ugh. wrote:Ehhh, dunno why I bother. Jonsey will certainly never take my opinions seriously, as I think Mallrats sucks balls (despite having the best J&SB content of any of Smith's movies) and Clerks is overrated, and BTW, Smith is a bit of a big fat blowhard, selling a DVD of him yammering for four hours; and he's convinced that I think Starship Troopers is the height of perfect and meaningful moviemaking, which I don't.

??? How does disagreeing with you mean that I don't take your opinions seriously?

I disagree that Mallrats is a bad movie. I understand that you think it is, but my opinion not changing doesn't imply a lack of respect from where yours is coming from.

Mallrats is a great movie due to the protagonist. Hundreds of thousands of kids grew up in the 80s sucking down comic books and video games and were made to feel like a fucking tool by every.fucking.body.else. for having these interests. A kid could spend every minute from the time he got home from school to the time that he went to bed shooting basketballs in this country and there isn't a single parent or person that would say a word. If this same kid was out playing Ultima 6 or something, well HORRORS that kid has a problem and his somehow wasting his time.

Well, fuck that shit.

Brodie Bruce is an empowerment figure for geeks and tools -- a figure that just happened to blow away every sports-based character in every movie, ever. I come from a background where I spent just as much time playing football in the backyard as I did reading Spider-Man, and while both hobbies have their own degrees of worthlessness, saying you caught the latest issue of a comic used to get you all sorts of weird looks (it's still this way, but not as bad) whereas throwing a football around did not.

Furthermore, Jason Lee's performance was also inspiring to these self-same kids: carry yourself with confidence, don't be horrifically over or underweight and you'll get some fucking chicks, too. Regardless of what you're into.

Mallrats is a great movie because it speaks to a generation and type of kid that I was. I was getting by fine before catching that movie and if it were never made or if I had never seen it, on the whole, large sections of my life would not dramatically different. But having seen it, I am glad that the flick has entered my life and given me some perspective that I would not have otherwise have.

If anything, you're the one not showing any respect to people's opinions -- Jesus, following Jenny over here and giving her shit because her opinion of Blade Runner (an opinion, by the fucking way, that ONLY YOU happen to hold -- at least out of everyone on our BBSs) : what the shit is that? Why are you trying to twist what she says? How do you respond to those allegations, Senator?

Yeah, Blade Runner has some slow parts and Scott fucked up by not telling his lead to act like a replicant. That doesn't change the fact that it's a gorgeous, important, fulfilling film in just the same way that just because you don't like Jeremy London it doesn't mean that everything in Mallrats is shit.

As for Starship Troopers: you either have faith that the screenwriters and director were engaged in parody and "in" on the joke, or you don't. I don't buy that the guy who gave us "Hollow Man" and MOTHERFUCKING "SHOWGIRLS" has an ironic bone in his body. The book itself successfully demonstrated why just maybe fascism isn't the greatest government that mankind -- rather, one man -- could slop together without beating its reader over the head. Herr Verhacken thinks we're all a bunch of fucking morons who won't get the complex message of the book unless he's banging us on the head with it. Well, fuck him, fuck his arrogance, and fuck Basic Instinct (another retarded flick to his credit, which is completely unremarkable except for the beaver shot) while we're at it as well.

Freddie · Post by **Freddie** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 1:33 pm

Jonsey, how would you define the "magic" of Jeff twisting around what Jenny said?

pinback · Post by **pinback** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 1:41 pm

I have a few comments I would like to make, in regards to the recent discussion in this thread, particularly regarding JQW's posts and the replies thereto.

I will now make those comments:

1. On the subject of Starship Troopers, JQW is right and Jonsey is a moron.

2. On the subject of Blade Runner, JQW is a moron and Jonsey is right, for the most part. Violet is partly right and partly a moron and also not logged in.

3. On the subject of Magnolia, JQW is a moron, as is anyone else who doesn't like that movie.

4. Also on the subject of Magnolia, anyone (like looper) who liked the movie but disagrees with my interpretation is not a moron, but also definitely not right, because I am right, and if you do not agree, you are a moron.

5. On the subject of Mallrats and various other Kevin Smith movies, Jonsey is a moron because he rates movies based on how much they "meant" to him, instead of rating them on how good they are. Nobody cares how much a movie "meant" to you. We want to know if the movie is any good. We are not morons, you know. (Except for those exceptions listed above.)

Ice Cream Jonsey · Post by **Ice Cream Jonsey** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 1:42 pm

Excellent question, Freddie! In my opinion (and I should mention that I don't like you) the "magic" of Jeff's twisting around what Jenny said is all in Jethro's on-line sleight-of-hand and serpent-like juxstapositioning of comments that Jennifer made regarding the "beauty" of Blade Runner. Poof! Just like that! A three card monty of misrepresentation!