| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Downtown |
Posted - 10/17/2006 : 02:37:51
(Spoilers. You've been warned)
I saw it a second time over the weekend, the first time being when it first came out in theatres.
First off, I should say I always liked this movie. But it was mostly because of the visual aspects, and the way the story was told: Joel is slowly realizing that what he's "experiencing" is actually just old memories inside his brain, and this fact is being revealed to the audience in the same slow way it's being revealed to him.
But outside of how it was told, the story itself didn't really grab me. I even checked the time once in the middle of the movie, before things started getting a little more interesting as he started running away from the nothing. But I had a different appreciation of it the second time, because I think what this movie is about it really hidden at the end. The VERY end...once you find out (if you don't miss it), the movie's over.
This movie is not really about whether or not it would be a good idea to remove those unpleasant memories we carry around, although it sort of pretends to be...and it's a little boring in that vein. You find out what this movie's about when Joel is pleading with Clementine for them to get back together, even though now they both know exactly why they broke up (and probably will again)...and she's telling him he's crazy because they have nothing in common and she's too wild for him and she'll eventually end up feeling trapped in their relationship...and he just says, "okay." Because this film is about how futile it is to go against your heart - even when it's wrong - and how even if you could you'd just end up miserable anyway.
Anyway maybe I'm dense but it took two viewings to really get it. |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| demonic |
Posted - 04/04/2008 : 23:25:19
Definitely a favourite movie of mine. Just a brilliant idea, expertly done. Makes me wish Gondry would work with Kaufman again and stop directing his own competent, but inferior, scripts.
|
| Montgomery |
Posted - 04/03/2008 : 18:30:48
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
An instant classic, one of the greatest films of all time. Whippersnapper couldn't be more wrong about this.
There is honestly very little I find confusing or ambiguous about this movie, except for the part at the beginning where you have to figure out that you're going backward. It honestly seems pretty straightforward to me, this isn't Mulholland Dr. or anything.
quote:
This movie is not really about whether or not it would be a good idea to remove those unpleasant memories we carry around, although it sort of pretends to be...and it's a little boring in that vein. ...this film is about how futile it is to go against your heart - even when it's wrong - and how even if you could you'd just end up miserable anyway.
Downtown is also wrong. It's about both, and in fact, both are the same thing. They've erased their memories and they've learned nothing from the experience and since they hit reset on their life, they have to go through all of it again.
Okay, here, Mister Bad, we agree. I didn't find this movie confusing in the least. And I enjoyed it very much.
There are many problems with wiping one's memory of a lover. As shown in the film, you are likely to repeat that same behavior. (This happened with both Jim Carey and Kirsten Dunst's characters). But also, you don't just lose the bad memories. You lose all of them. And love and relationships, even bad ones, are about the good times. There is a reason you fall for someone. And there are good times there. So, just erasing all, leaves you with nothing -- reset button, as you said.
Also, you lose other vital information, like what a Clementine is (tasty fruit) or the song from Huckleberry Hound (useful information when playing Trivial Pursuit).
I got the message clear. Life is ups and downs. Good and bad. You don't want to erase your memories, because you would lose both. And when you are losing memories of someone you once loved (or possibly still do love) even the bad memories are worth holding onto.
I've taken that advice and not wiped my memory once since seeing the film. 
Although, I would like to wipe it of that The Mist movie. 
EM :) |
| Montgomery |
Posted - 04/03/2008 : 18:18:31
quote:
Originally posted by MguyX
I don't remember whether I saw the movie or not.
|
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 04/03/2008 : 16:31:44
It's a rare event indeed when I couldn't be more wrong.
Usually I leave a little leeway to get more wrong at a later time. 
 |
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 04/03/2008 : 16:09:39
An instant classic, one of the greatest films of all time. Whippersnapper couldn't be more wrong about this.
There is honestly very little I find confusing or ambiguous about this movie, except for the part at the beginning where you have to figure out that you're going backward. It honestly seems pretty straightforward to me, this isn't Mulholland Dr. or anything.
quote:
This movie is not really about whether or not it would be a good idea to remove those unpleasant memories we carry around, although it sort of pretends to be...and it's a little boring in that vein. ...this film is about how futile it is to go against your heart - even when it's wrong - and how even if you could you'd just end up miserable anyway.
Downtown is also wrong. It's about both, and in fact, both are the same thing. They've erased their memories and they've learned nothing from the experience and since they hit reset on their life, they have to go through all of it again. |
| damalc |
Posted - 04/03/2008 : 00:06:58
i saw "Eternal Sunshine ..." for the first time last night and i loved it. yeah, i know -- late, late, late.
i will also coattail redPen on the originality angle.
when i see a film, one of my biggest demands is to see something new. please, just show me something i haven't seen before, and ESotSM did.
watching the special features, it was amazing how they pulled off some of the (non)special effects.
|
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 11/08/2006 : 07:09:09
quote:
Originally posted by Willy Shakes
4Words: I love this movie!
Welcome, Willy! Hope you get some reviews accepted soon. Looking forward to seeing what someone with this handle and avatar can do!
|
| Willy Shakes |
Posted - 11/08/2006 : 06:17:11
4Words: I love this movie! |
| Beanmimo |
Posted - 10/27/2006 : 16:58:20
I'm with RedPen on this one. After seing the movie for the first time the first thought was
I bet he wrote this after breaking up with a long term partner.
It's like a love letter to get him/her back.
There was love there once no matter how many problems cropped up in the meantime, if you could just erase the problems all you are left with is the initial attraction. |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 10/18/2006 : 09:20:49
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
(Spoilers. You've been warned)
I saw it a second time over the weekend, the first time being when it first came out in theatres.
First off, I should say I always liked this movie. But it was mostly because of the visual aspects, and the way the story was told: Joel is slowly realizing that what he's "experiencing" is actually just old memories inside his brain, and this fact is being revealed to the audience in the same slow way it's being revealed to him.
But outside of how it was told, the story itself didn't really grab me. I even checked the time once in the middle of the movie, before things started getting a little more interesting as he started running away from the nothing. But I had a different appreciation of it the second time, because I think what this movie is about it really hidden at the end. The VERY end...once you find out (if you don't miss it), the movie's over.
This movie is not really about whether or not it would be a good idea to remove those unpleasant memories we carry around, although it sort of pretends to be...and it's a little boring in that vein. You find out what this movie's about when Joel is pleading with Clementine for them to get back together, even though now they both know exactly why they broke up (and probably will again)...and she's telling him he's crazy because they have nothing in common and she's too wild for him and she'll eventually end up feeling trapped in their relationship...and he just says, "okay." Because this film is about how futile it is to go against your heart - even when it's wrong - and how even if you could you'd just end up miserable anyway.
Anyway maybe I'm dense but it took two viewings to really get it.
Eternal Sunshine, like the other Charlie Kaufmann films, is about a lot of things to a lot of different people. I came out with something close to your second interpretation the first time I saw it, but I'm sure every single person who saw it made slightly different connections to the material. That's what makes it great art. It allows its viewers to do that.
I've only seen the film once, but I've got to say that ambiguity or confusion or obfuscation does not necessarily make great art. I'd be prepared to try and watch it again, but my first interpretation was one of having watched a pretentious, confused and confusing piece of cinema.
No, ambiguity or obfuscation does not necessarily make great art. And certainly confusion makes bad art. However, even when I was confused in Eternal Sunshine, I never lost interest, and I feel like I understood as much of it as I was meant to understand. Kaufmann's films are not ambiguous in the sense that it could mean "anything," but they are ambiguous in the sense that it could mean a number of different things to a number of different people, or it could mean nothing. I seem to be alone in feeling that way about Adaptation. I didn't get it and it didn't hold my interest nor did it allow me to reflect upon my own experiences in the way that Eternal Sunshine did.
It's my view that anything meaningful the film might say about human relationships - e.g. some love relationships just don't work - is hampered by the artificial premise of memories being voluntarily erased by a magical process, and could have been said far more effectively - not to mention clearly - by more straightforward means. Such magical devices can work effectively when everything else is simple but not I think when the director is quite so busy trying to convince us how clever he is by chopping up the narrative into achronological pieces.
The film held my interest largely because I was trying to make sense of it. Ultimately, for me, this is a cheap ploy.
If you want to see a good film about a relationship that doesn't work I'd strongly recommend "Paris, Texas" as an antidote to "Eternal Sunshine". There the only interruptions to a chronological narrative are the plausible device of a home movie and monologues about the past.
|
| redPen |
Posted - 10/18/2006 : 09:02:18
Ambiguous or not, pretentious or not, obfuscous (heh, I invented a word!) or not, one thing I love in films (because it's so rare) is originality, and "Eternal" had me on its side from the first frame on that subject. After I saw it and really liked it in the theatre, I learned that there were NO special effects, and I had to rent it again! For example, when the "laying on the ice" scene is erased, and Clementine slides out of view, that was actually What's-er-name Boring English Chick being pulled on a rope! It's so smooth you don't even guess that, tho!
I find the film enjoyable, and a great flick to see with your significant other right after a BIG fight. Makes you appreciate the other, despite the problems.
(This film review/relationship counseling session has been brought to you by Focus Films.  ) |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 10/18/2006 : 08:46:42
quote:
Originally posted by MguyX
I don't remember whether I saw the movie or not.
My copy came on a DVD+RW and has now been wiped clean.
|
| GHcool |
Posted - 10/18/2006 : 07:54:13
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
(Spoilers. You've been warned)
I saw it a second time over the weekend, the first time being when it first came out in theatres.
First off, I should say I always liked this movie. But it was mostly because of the visual aspects, and the way the story was told: Joel is slowly realizing that what he's "experiencing" is actually just old memories inside his brain, and this fact is being revealed to the audience in the same slow way it's being revealed to him.
But outside of how it was told, the story itself didn't really grab me. I even checked the time once in the middle of the movie, before things started getting a little more interesting as he started running away from the nothing. But I had a different appreciation of it the second time, because I think what this movie is about it really hidden at the end. The VERY end...once you find out (if you don't miss it), the movie's over.
This movie is not really about whether or not it would be a good idea to remove those unpleasant memories we carry around, although it sort of pretends to be...and it's a little boring in that vein. You find out what this movie's about when Joel is pleading with Clementine for them to get back together, even though now they both know exactly why they broke up (and probably will again)...and she's telling him he's crazy because they have nothing in common and she's too wild for him and she'll eventually end up feeling trapped in their relationship...and he just says, "okay." Because this film is about how futile it is to go against your heart - even when it's wrong - and how even if you could you'd just end up miserable anyway.
Anyway maybe I'm dense but it took two viewings to really get it.
Eternal Sunshine, like the other Charlie Kaufmann films, is about a lot of things to a lot of different people. I came out with something close to your second interpretation the first time I saw it, but I'm sure every single person who saw it made slightly different connections to the material. That's what makes it great art. It allows its viewers to do that.
I've only seen the film once, but I've got to say that ambiguity or confusion or obfuscation does not necessarily make great art. I'd be prepared to try and watch it again, but my first interpretation was one of having watched a pretentious, confused and confusing piece of cinema.
No, ambiguity or obfuscation does not necessarily make great art. And certainly confusion makes bad art. However, even when I was confused in Eternal Sunshine, I never lost interest, and I feel like I understood as much of it as I was meant to understand. Kaufmann's films are not ambiguous in the sense that it could mean "anything," but they are ambiguous in the sense that it could mean a number of different things to a number of different people, or it could mean nothing. I seem to be alone in feeling that way about Adaptation. I didn't get it and it didn't hold my interest nor did it allow me to reflect upon my own experiences in the way that Eternal Sunshine did. |
| MguyXXV |
Posted - 10/18/2006 : 02:36:25
I don't remember whether I saw the movie or not. |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 10/18/2006 : 01:16:15
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
(Spoilers. You've been warned)
I saw it a second time over the weekend, the first time being when it first came out in theatres.
First off, I should say I always liked this movie. But it was mostly because of the visual aspects, and the way the story was told: Joel is slowly realizing that what he's "experiencing" is actually just old memories inside his brain, and this fact is being revealed to the audience in the same slow way it's being revealed to him.
But outside of how it was told, the story itself didn't really grab me. I even checked the time once in the middle of the movie, before things started getting a little more interesting as he started running away from the nothing. But I had a different appreciation of it the second time, because I think what this movie is about it really hidden at the end. The VERY end...once you find out (if you don't miss it), the movie's over.
This movie is not really about whether or not it would be a good idea to remove those unpleasant memories we carry around, although it sort of pretends to be...and it's a little boring in that vein. You find out what this movie's about when Joel is pleading with Clementine for them to get back together, even though now they both know exactly why they broke up (and probably will again)...and she's telling him he's crazy because they have nothing in common and she's too wild for him and she'll eventually end up feeling trapped in their relationship...and he just says, "okay." Because this film is about how futile it is to go against your heart - even when it's wrong - and how even if you could you'd just end up miserable anyway.
Anyway maybe I'm dense but it took two viewings to really get it.
Eternal Sunshine, like the other Charlie Kaufmann films, is about a lot of things to a lot of different people. I came out with something close to your second interpretation the first time I saw it, but I'm sure every single person who saw it made slightly different connections to the material. That's what makes it great art. It allows its viewers to do that.
I've only seen the film once, but I've got to say that ambiguity or confusion or obfuscation does not necessarily make great art. I'd be prepared to try and watch it again, but my first interpretation was one of having watched a pretentious, confused and confusing piece of cinema.
Of course, I can't be sure that these are true memories of the film...
|
|
|
