| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| TitanPa |
Posted - 09/13/2006 : 19:54:06
I first saw the trailer on Tv. I thought it looked pretty interesting, yet I never heard anything about it. I started hearing good things about it. Oscar contender and all. It only opened in select theaters a couple weeks ago and opened nation wide last week. So it only got to 5th place on the movies list.
I asked my wife to see it with me. It would be our Anniversary date movie. She neevr heard of it. She didnt trust my pick for a movie. I am one of those guys who picks a movie to rent or see and it always bombs. Maybe because I pick independent movies or B type movies. So on her better judgement she agreed. She heard good things about the movie too. Yet we never found anyone who watched the movie. We even asked the cashier who we bought the tickets from. She didnt see it. But she heard good things to.
Of course this was an independent movie. We never heard or saw of the beginning openers. It was looking pretty bad when the movie started.
But we stayed awake the whole time and the movie kept progressing. It kept our interest the whole time. It kept me on the edge of our seats. I loved the movie. Only after did I fond my wife loved it too. This was a great cast to have. I loved everything about the movie. I suggest other watch it too. I cant say anything more abotu it. Too much would be given away. Anyone else who saw it and loved it? Maybe its just us.
|
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Sean |
Posted - 06/24/2007 : 00:30:38
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
Looks like Salopian had the last word, given those aren't words.  |
| randall |
Posted - 06/22/2007 : 16:10:40
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
Your logic is reaching circularity
That is simply not true. The main trick does not involve any of the sci-fi aspects. It only involves things which could also be done in the real world.
quote:
as you probably wish, I quit.
Not true either.
quote:
Go ahead and take your last word.
This has become a favourite trick of yours. People only say it when in fact they want the last word. It is completely unreasonable to do, especially after making a specific point that it is perfectly reasonable to counter. In a previous thread, I went to the trouble of answering your specific point in an earlier post of mine, so that you didn't feel I was having the last word (as if this were anything to care about), only for you to then go ahead and post that I had had the last word! I really hoped the irony was not lost on you, but apparently it was.
|
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 06/22/2007 : 14:13:28
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
Your logic is reaching circularity
That is simply not true. The main trick does not involve any of the sci-fi aspects. It only involves things which could also be done in the real world.
quote:
as you probably wish, I quit.
Not true either.
quote:
Go ahead and take your last word.
This has become a favourite trick of yours. People only say it when in fact they want the last word. It is completely unreasonable to do, especially after making a specific point that it is perfectly reasonable to counter. In a previous thread, I went to the trouble of answering your specific point in an earlier post of mine, so that you didn't feel I was having the last word (as if this were anything to care about), only for you to then go ahead and post that I had had the last word! I really hoped the irony was not lost on you, but apparently it was. |
| randall |
Posted - 06/22/2007 : 13:56:15
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
You don't want your magical illusions to be impressive? I sure do.
I meant that the film equates to stating that the tricks are impressive - the tricks themselves are not impressive, since there are not any. (Well, there may be some minor ones, but all the main tricks are special effects.) In contrast, the main trick in The Prestige could be recreated in real life.
I'm flabbergasted at this statement. Not that you prefer THE PRESTIGE, that's your opinion and you're welcome to it, but my main beef with it is that the ultimate reveal is not possible and is a science-fictional copout. What trick exactly are we talking about?
That is not the main trick at all - that is an attempt to recreate the main trick, which is the twins. The whole point of that film (which all magic fans should appreciate) is that it presents the 'magic' version of teleportation (i.e. the dedication that takes, the neatness of it and its moral preferability) as superior to achieving it in reality. (The sci-fi aspects are real in the world of the film.)
Your logic is reaching circularity, so, as you probably wish, I quit. Go ahead and take your last word. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 06/22/2007 : 10:54:37
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
I'm sorry the picture didn't satisfy you, but please, don't call the audience idiots.
Nope, I still think anyone who would visualise the organic orange tree when watching the most sophisticated machine that could have been possible would have been an idiot - in any time. We are not talking about slight differences here. Only exagerration accounts for it, and I just find that rather dull. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 06/22/2007 : 10:51:06
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
You don't want your magical illusions to be impressive? I sure do.
I meant that the film equates to stating that the tricks are impressive - the tricks themselves are not impressive, since there are not any. (Well, there may be some minor ones, but all the main tricks are special effects.) In contrast, the main trick in The Prestige could be recreated in real life.
I'm flabbergasted at this statement. Not that you prefer THE PRESTIGE, that's your opinion and you're welcome to it, but my main beef with it is that the ultimate reveal is not possible and is a science-fictional copout. What trick exactly are we talking about?
That is not the main trick at all - that is an attempt to recreate the main trick, which is the twins. The whole point of that film (which all magic fans should appreciate) is that it presents the 'magic' version of teleportation (i.e. the dedication that takes, the neatness of it and its moral preferability) as superior to achieving it in reality. (The sci-fi aspects are real in the world of the film.) |
| randall |
Posted - 06/22/2007 : 10:46:32
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
but even when you choose to resist the possibility an audience could be fooled by these (your loss, I feel) there's still the inspector's recounting of the facts (with human nature's habit of exaggeration)
It really has to rely on the latter aspect - only an audience of idiots could watch a workable version of the tree and think that they see what the film shows.
Come on, the whole point about suspension of disbelief is that the film takes one on that path - this film does not incline one to do that at all. It just demands that one suspends disbelief, without offering entertainment or a consistent world in return.
But it does rely on the latter aspect! Furthermore, if they used the true Victorian methods, our audience -- much more sophisticated at Covert Operations -- would remain unimpressed. What you are seeing are the impressions of one audience member: the Inspector. And, frankly, I imagine THE ILLUSIONIST depicts the effect of these illusions on a normal Victorian audience member, one who is not so savvy as we. I'm sorry the picture didn't satisfy you, but please, don't call the audience idiots. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 06/22/2007 : 10:42:48
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
Please tell me anything that has been done in the last 50 years of cinema that is innovation of the century(s). It's all been done before, it's just a question of the filmmaker choosing what narrative method works best for the story. For my money, it was a smart way for the filmmakers to go about this the way they did- there were certainly some bad ways they could have done it.
Agreed - I just meant that there is nothing at all impressive about this choice. I would have favoured having the same instance of a trick being shown a couple of times (i.e. different audience members' views or the inspector recounting it twice), each varying from the reality in somewhat different ways.
quote:
Note that I said about the Inspector recounting facts. As someone who appreciates the work of Derren Brown, you of all people should appreciate the power of planting false memories and (as I already said) human nature's habit of exaggeration after the event.
What I find impressive is seeing this taking place. Just claiming that it has been done (and in fiction at that) is not the same.
quote:
All I can say is that it took me on that path. In this sense, the film worked for me (plus others- granted not all, but a large proportion I've discussed it with). I'm sorry you didn't enjoy the same journey I did 
At the time, I thought it was fine (although I like it in retrospect less and less), but I found The Prestige far superior, and am glad to see that the I.M.D.B. score agrees (at least that it is significantly, if not massively, better).
Luckily, I saw The Usual Suspects a few weeks ago, or you would just have given me a huge spoiler - you might want to amend your post in case others read it.  |
| randall |
Posted - 06/22/2007 : 10:36:38
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
You don't want your magical illusions to be impressive? I sure do.
I meant that the film equates to stating that the tricks are impressive - the tricks themselves are not impressive, since there are not any. (Well, there may be some minor ones, but all the main tricks are special effects.) In contrast, the main trick in The Prestige could be recreated in real life.
I'm flabbergasted at this statement. Not that you prefer THE PRESTIGE, that's your opinion and you're welcome to it, but my main beef with it is that the ultimate reveal is not possible and is a science-fictional copout. What trick exactly are we talking about? |
| benj clews |
Posted - 06/22/2007 : 10:24:31
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
As with anything in life, it's easy to say something is an obvious thing to do after it's been done.
Yeah, but a film presenting specific people's perspective is not exactly Innovation of the Century.
Please tell me anything that has been done in the last 50 years of cinema that is innovation of the century(s). It's all been done before, it's just a question of the filmmaker choosing what narrative method works best for the story. For my money, it was a smart way for the filmmakers to go about this the way they did- there were certainly some bad ways they could have done it.
quote:
quote:
Some people have suggested ways the tree could work
Sure, a much more basic version could work, but what we see is far too organic and complicated - the plans we see at the end are also much simpler.
quote:
but even when you choose to resist the possibility an audience could be fooled by these (your loss, I feel) there's still the inspector's recounting of the facts (with human nature's habit of exaggeration)
It really has to rely on the latter aspect - only an audience of idiots could watch a workable version of the tree and think that they see what the film shows.
Note that I said about the Inspector recounting facts. As someone who appreciates the work of Derren Brown, you of all people should appreciate the power of planting false memories and (as I already said) human nature's habit of exaggeration after the event. The realisation of this was a nice twist for me- when you think about it, it's effectively what The Usual Suspects achieved, but without (comparatively speaking) hammering the point home like that did.
quote:
quote:
and that old favourite 'suspension of disbelief'...
Probably best stick to 'based on a true story' films
Come on, the whole point about suspension of disbelief is that the film takes one on that path - this film does not incline one to do that at all. It just demands that one suspends disbelief, without offering entertainment or a consistent world in return.
All I can say is that it took me on that path. In this sense, the film worked for me (plus others- granted not all, but a large proportion I've discussed it with). I'm sorry you didn't enjoy the same journey I did |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 06/22/2007 : 10:09:34
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
As with anything in life, it's easy to say something is an obvious thing to do after it's been done.
Yeah, but a film presenting specific people's perspective is not exactly Innovation of the Century.
quote:
Some people have suggested ways the tree could work
Sure, a much more basic version could work, but what we see is far too organic and complicated - the plans we see at the end are also much simpler.
quote:
but even when you choose to resist the possibility an audience could be fooled by these (your loss, I feel) there's still the inspector's recounting of the facts (with human nature's habit of exaggeration)
It really has to rely on the latter aspect - only an audience of idiots could watch a workable version of the tree and think that they see what the film shows.
quote:
and that old favourite 'suspension of disbelief'...
Probably best stick to 'based on a true story' films
Come on, the whole point about suspension of disbelief is that the film takes one on that path - this film does not incline one to do that at all. It just demands that one suspends disbelief, without offering entertainment or a consistent world in return. |
| benj clews |
Posted - 06/22/2007 : 09:45:53
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
I actually think this was a clever approach to take. Had the tricks been performed as they were back then, given our greater understanding of technology/ smoke and mirrors techniques, we wouldn't have been able to go with the story at all (or the camera would have to be rather boringly fixed in the audience for a good portion of the film).
This is generally true except that (i) it isn't clever - it's a pretty obvious thing to do and (ii) some of the tricks are so clearly not possible to the degree that the audience 'sees' (e.g. the orange tree) that it actually fails to take us (me, at least) along with them.
As with anything in life, it's easy to say something is an obvious thing to do after it's been done.
Some people have suggested ways the tree could work but even when you choose to resist the possibility an audience could be fooled by these (your loss, I feel) there's still the inspector's recounting of the facts (with human nature's habit of exaggeration) and that old favourite 'suspension of disbelief'. If you really can't sit back and try to accept the reality with which you're presented for a measly 90 minutes then I think you're going to be sadly disappointed in a great deal more trips to the cinema.
Probably best stick to 'based on a true story' films |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 06/22/2007 : 09:15:46
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
I actually think this was a clever approach to take. Had the tricks been performed as they were back then, given our greater understanding of technology/ smoke and mirrors techniques, we wouldn't have been able to go with the story at all (or the camera would have to be rather boringly fixed in the audience for a good portion of the film).
This is generally true except that (i) it isn't clever - it's a pretty obvious thing to do and (ii) some of the tricks are so clearly not possible to the degree that the audience 'sees' (e.g. the orange tree) that it actually fails to take us (me, at least) along with them. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 06/22/2007 : 09:09:20
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
You don't want your magical illusions to be impressive? I sure do.
I meant that the film equates to stating that the tricks are impressive - the tricks themselves are not impressive, since there are not any. (Well, there may be some minor ones, but all the main tricks are special effects.) In contrast, the main trick in The Prestige could be recreated in real life.
quote:
EDIT: Just went back and searched through the PRESTIGE thread. I had forgotten that you don't like magic.
I don't dislike - I'm just not into it, as it rarely seems impressive. Conversely, I love Derren Brown's stuff because that is enormously impressive. |
| benj clews |
Posted - 06/22/2007 : 08:10:53
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Presenting the audience's self-deluding perspective (i.e. showing the tricks as being impressive instead of rubbish) is just a lazy and dull cop-out.
I actually think this was a clever approach to take. Had the tricks been performed as they were back then, given our greater understanding of technology/ smoke and mirrors techniques, we wouldn't have been able to go with the story at all (or the camera would have to be rather boringly fixed in the audience for a good portion of the film). We'd be too busy going "Oh- it's obvious how he's doing it". Either that or he would have been performing the modified variations of these tricks we get nowadays which would have left the film a highly inaccurate recreation of the times.
It's important for the film that we are as amazed and curious about how a trick is done as the audiences back then were. The most straightforward solution to this problem is to make them seamless (by whatever means) for today's audiences. |
|
|
