list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Memento on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Memento/171936/default.aspx Title: Memento
Year: 2001
Director: Christopher Nolan
Plot: A man is determined to find justice after the loss of a loved one, even though he is incapable of fully remembering the crime, in this offbeat thriller. Leonard (Guy Pearce) is a man who is struggling to put his life back together after the brutal rape and murder of his wife. But Leonard's problems are different from those of most people in his situation; he was beaten severely by the same man who killed his wife. The most significant manifestation of Leonard's injuries is that his short-term memory has been destroyed; he is incapable of retaining any new information, and must resort to copious note-taking and Polaroid photographs in order to keep track of what happens to him over the course of a day (he's even tattooed himself with a few crucial bits of information he can't get along without). Leonard retains awareness that his wife was brutally murdered, however, and he's convinced that the culprit still walks the streets. Leonard is obsessed with the notion of taking revenge against the man who has ruined his life, and he sets out to find him, getting help from Natalie (Carrie-Anne Moss), who appears to be a sympathetic barmaid, and Teddy (Joe Pantoliano), who claims to be Leonard's friend, even though Leonard senses that he cannot be trusted. Writer/director Christopher Nolan adapted Memento from a short story by his brother Jonathan Nolan. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 178
Number of Lists: 174
Number of blog posts: 24
Number of discussion threads: 26
SpoutRating: 4
]]>Wed, 15 Jul 2009 07:54:46 GMTMemento2001Christopher NolanA man is determined to find justice after the loss of a loved one, even though he is incapable of fully remembering the crime, in this offbeat thriller. Leonard (Guy Pearce) is a man who is struggling to put his life back together after the brutal rape and murder of his wife. But Leonard's problems are different from those of most people in his situation; he was beaten severely by the same man who killed his wife. The most significant manifestation of Leonard's injuries is that his short-term memory has been destroyed; he is incapable of retaining any new information, and must resort to copious note-taking and Polaroid photographs in order to keep track of what happens to him over the course of a day (he's even tattooed himself with a few crucial bits of information he can't get along without). Leonard retains awareness that his wife was brutally murdered, however, and he's convinced that the culprit still walks the streets. Leonard is obsessed with the notion of taking revenge against the man who has ruined his life, and he sets out to find him, getting help from Natalie (<a href="/players/P___230666/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Carrie-Anne Moss</a>), who appears to be a sympathetic barmaid, and Teddy (<a href="/players/P____54919/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Joe Pantoliano</a>), who claims to be Leonard's friend, even though Leonard senses that he cannot be trusted. Writer/director <a href="/players/P___240025/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Christopher Nolan</a> adapted Memento from a short story by his brother Jonathan Nolan. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide178Tag Target (>10)17424264http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t81917zni0q.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Memento/171936/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/groups/Movie_Polls/Re_What_is_your_favorite_Independent_Spirit_Awards/657/41431/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Movie Polls
Post Date: 4/3/2009 1:48:48 PM
Body: I'll have to pick Memento too, that film was just executed so perfectly for it's concept. Lost in Translation was a bit of brillaince too. But Sideways got on my nerves too much for me to give it much praise.
]]>Fri, 03 Apr 2009 17:48:48 GMTRisseladaMovie Polls4/3/2009 1:48:48 PMI'll have to pick Memento too, that film was just executed so perfectly for it's concept. Lost in Translation was a bit of brillaince too. But Sideways got on my nerves too much for me to give it much praise. http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_March_23_Hotels_Motels_Inns/625/41407/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 4/2/2009 12:50:14 PM
Body: I'm not remembering some sleezy hotels with psychotic criminals One scene in From Dusk Till Dawn and another one in No Country for Old Men. It makes me kind of afraid to stay in one again. Oh and Leonard in Memento has been living in (and apparently renting several) hotel rooms for a while. Has anyone seen Tape? I'm not sure why I haven't seen it yet since Linklater's talky kind of dramas usually appeal to me quite a lot. But I see this one takes place in a hotel room, a Michigan hotel room nonetheless. Isn't there some movie where three famous people share a hotel room? I think one of them is a baseball legend, and one of them was Elvis or Einstein or something. Does anyone have a clue about what I'm talking about???
]]>Thu, 02 Apr 2009 16:50:14 GMTRisseladaWeekly Theme4/2/2009 12:50:14 PMI'm not remembering some sleezy hotels with psychotic criminals One scene in From Dusk Till Dawn and another one in No Country for Old Men. It makes me kind of afraid to stay in one again. Oh and Leonard in Memento has been living in (and apparently renting several) hotel rooms for a while. Has anyone seen Tape? I'm not sure why I haven't seen it yet since Linklater's talky kind of dramas usually appeal to me quite a lot. But I see this one takes place in a hotel room, a Michigan hotel room nonetheless. Isn't there some movie where three famous people share a hotel room? I think one of them is a baseball legend, and one of them was Elvis or Einstein or something. Does anyone have a clue about what I'm talking about??? http://www.spout.com/groups/Movie_Polls/What_is_your_favorite_Independent_Spirit_Awards_Be/657/41216/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Movie Polls
Post Date: 3/24/2009 1:16:32 PM
Body: Please reference this thread for the rules of this group. I received a few polls suggestions from group member tadiv. This is one of them. Thanks Tom! If anyone else has any suggestions, you can always send me a message. Please vote only once in each poll. Movies referenced in this poll:Brokeback MountainFar From HeavenJunoLittle Miss SunshineLost in TranslationMementoSidewaysThe Wrestler
]]>Tue, 24 Mar 2009 17:16:32 GMTRisseladaMovie Polls3/24/2009 1:16:32 PMPlease reference this thread for the rules of this group. I received a few polls suggestions from group member tadiv. This is one of them. Thanks Tom! If anyone else has any suggestions, you can always send me a message. Please vote only once in each poll. Movies referenced in this poll:Brokeback MountainFar From HeavenJunoLittle Miss SunshineLost in TranslationMementoSidewaysThe Wrestler http://www.spout.com/blogs/mconrad3/archive/2009/2/3/40221.aspx Post By: mconrad3
Post To: mconrad3 Blog
Post Date: 2/3/2009 9:20:32 PM
Body: I got to see Memento for the first time not too long ago. This was after I saw Batman Begins and The Prestige, so Nolan's style was well known to me, but I wasn't expecting what I got with Memento. It was disorienting, bizarre, funny, and most importantly thought provoking. My second time around I was aware of the full story. Where your first viewing experience of Memento is living main character Leonard's (Pearce) life, the second time around it is watching him live his life as his family and friends do. For those already lost, Leonard has anterograde amnesia. He can't form new memories and can only remember the events of his life leading up to the accident that caused his illness. To illustrate this disability, Memento's scenes play out in backwards order. The last chronological plot event is seen first, and we work our way back from there. This makes sure the audience, like Leonard, doesn't know what happened before what they're viewing and have to piece together information and rely on what Leonard's notes tell him. Aside from the editing choice, one of the best parts of this movie is the relationship between Leonard and his "friend" Teddy (Pantoliano). Leonard has no recollection of any relationship with Teddy, but the two still have this Odd Couple-esque chemistry. Leonard's disability makes it difficult, but despite all their issues they actually seem to make good friends. On the opposite end of the spectrum is Natalie (Moss) who has an ambiguous history with Leonard that is discovered and explored by the end of the film. When mixed together, these three characters make up the core of the story. I thoroughly enjoyed Memento. It injects some new blood into the film noir genre and can still reach a broad audience. It is definitely a film that requires repeated viewing to understand all of it's facets, but I don't count that in the negative. Replay value should never be considered a bad thing. I also am finding that I enjoy the occassional film that makes you think, and Memento definitely does. It only goes to show that Chris Nolan's talent does not fade with time, as evidenced by his more recent ventures.
]]>Wed, 04 Feb 2009 02:20:32 GMTmconrad3mconrad3 Blog2/3/2009 9:20:32 PMI got to see Memento for the first time not too long ago. This was after I saw Batman Begins and The Prestige, so Nolan's style was well known to me, but I wasn't expecting what I got with Memento. It was disorienting, bizarre, funny, and most importantly thought provoking. My second time around I was aware of the full story. Where your first viewing experience of Memento is living main character Leonard's (Pearce) life, the second time around it is watching him live his life as his family and friends do. For those already lost, Leonard has anterograde amnesia. He can't form new memories and can only remember the events of his life leading up to the accident that caused his illness. To illustrate this disability, Memento's scenes play out in backwards order. The last chronological plot event is seen first, and we work our way back from there. This makes sure the audience, like Leonard, doesn't know what happened before what they're viewing and have to piece together information and rely on what Leonard's notes tell him. Aside from the editing choice, one of the best parts of this movie is the relationship between Leonard and his "friend" Teddy (Pantoliano). Leonard has no recollection of any relationship with Teddy, but the two still have this Odd Couple-esque chemistry. Leonard's disability makes it difficult, but despite all their issues they actually seem to make good friends. On the opposite end of the spectrum is Natalie (Moss) who has an ambiguous history with Leonard that is discovered and explored by the end of the film. When mixed together, these three characters make up the core of the story. I thoroughly enjoyed Memento. It injects some new blood into the film noir genre and can still reach a broad audience. It is definitely a film that requires repeated viewing to understand all of it's facets, but I don't count that in the negative. Replay value should never be considered a bad thing. I also am finding that I enjoy the occassional film that makes you think, and Memento definitely does. It only goes to show that Chris Nolan's talent does not fade with time, as evidenced by his more recent ventures. http://www.spout.com/blogs/risselada/archive/2009/2/2/40144.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Risselada Blog
Post Date: 2/2/2009 12:43:12 PM
Body: If you are interested in cinematography, great cinematography, and great cinematographers, Cinematographer Style would probably be both a highly interesting and highly frustrating experience. Keep reading to find out why! First of all, as an irrelevant piece of information (you can skip this paragraph if you just want to hear about the movie itself) I first heard about this movie from one of my former roommates. He was quite a young guy that I found on craig's list who was studying cinematography at Columbia College in Chicago. He mentioned that he knew a guy who was working on this production, and I think he may have even visited the set one day they were filming one of the cinematographers in the film. Anyways he made the whole thing sound very exciting and epic. A couple months later, after never moving anything else into the apartment except for a few articles of clothing and his guitar and sleeping on our couch until 2 PM every day, and after failing to pay any rent, he showed up in the middle of the night bloody and beat up after going back to a mafia owned bar that he had recently been fired from. After that he never really showed up again. Just one of a series of interesting roommate stories I had at that apartment. But again, that's all irrelevant. Anyways, the structure of the movie Cinematographer Style is a montage of interviews with many famous cinematographers. And when I say many I mean one hundred and ten! This is actually not a number that you should be excited about, although the filmmakers don't seem to realize. With a running time of 86 minutes, this means that on average each person gets an average of fifty seconds of speaking time. Of course in actuality the more famous and respected cinematographers get more speaking time, but when you look at the special features and realize that at least for Vittorio Storaro and Gordon Willis that the filmmakers got at least close to an hour of quite interesting footage you wonder why they felt the need to pack so many people into this movie. And the first five minutes of the movie are just all of the 110 cinematographers in the movie reciting their name (for some of them this is probably about a fourth of the time they'll even get on screen, so why bother?). And at the end of the movie there is actually a piece of text stating something to the effect that due to scheduling there were many cinematographers they wanted in the movie that they couldn't get, and they suggest that maybe there should be a sequel! What's the point of stuffing more people in there if that just means that everyone else gets less time to talk? The reason I'm frustrated by this is because many of the people clearly have very interesting things to say, but they cut back and forth between people that we don't really get any sense of these people individually or their fully story. Again, you can watch the specials features to hear Vittorio and Gordon speak longer, but you lose that chance with a lot of other people in the film. One other frustration is that, although you know these people have done some amazing work and they are making a lot of specific comments about their work, you never seen a single shot from any of their movies. Maybe the filmmakers couldn't get the rights to show segments from these movies. Or maybe they thought it wouldn't be fair to select which movies to show and which not to. Either way, it's hard to hear these people talking about their artwork which is in the same medium in which their interview is being shown to you, and yet you don't get to see any examples of it. A lot of the cinematographers come to the same conclusions, and in the special features you can hear the director kind of prompt the interviewee to say certain things such as "the idea is more important than the tool or technique." But to hear each artists approach to this conclusion is what's interesting, not hearing a 110 headed monster coming to one single conclusion. So in conclusion if you are are interested in cinematography at all you should watch this movie, but you may be frustrated by the quantity of interviews over the chance to really focus on any one person and the lack of examples of their work. Spout usually asks us to include recommendations for other movies if you like the one that is being reviewed. In this case, I would recommend some of the movies that these great cinematographers actually worked on: O Brother, Where Art Thou? (Roger Deakins), Memento (Wally Pfister), Apocalypse Now (Vittorio Storaro), One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (Haskell Wexler), The Godfather Part II (Gordon Willis) Rating: 7/10
]]>Mon, 02 Feb 2009 17:43:12 GMTRisseladaRisselada Blog2/2/2009 12:43:12 PMIf you are interested in cinematography, great cinematography, and great cinematographers, Cinematographer Style would probably be both a highly interesting and highly frustrating experience. Keep reading to find out why! First of all, as an irrelevant piece of information (you can skip this paragraph if you just want to hear about the movie itself) I first heard about this movie from one of my former roommates. He was quite a young guy that I found on craig's list who was studying cinematography at Columbia College in Chicago. He mentioned that he knew a guy who was working on this production, and I think he may have even visited the set one day they were filming one of the cinematographers in the film. Anyways he made the whole thing sound very exciting and epic. A couple months later, after never moving anything else into the apartment except for a few articles of clothing and his guitar and sleeping on our couch until 2 PM every day, and after failing to pay any rent, he showed up in the middle of the night bloody and beat up after going back to a mafia owned bar that he had recently been fired from. After that he never really showed up again. Just one of a series of interesting roommate stories I had at that apartment. But again, that's all irrelevant. Anyways, the structure of the movie Cinematographer Style is a montage of interviews with many famous cinematographers. And when I say many I mean one hundred and ten! This is actually not a number that you should be excited about, although the filmmakers don't seem to realize. With a running time of 86 minutes, this means that on average each person gets an average of fifty seconds of speaking time. Of course in actuality the more famous and respected cinematographers get more speaking time, but when you look at the special features and realize that at least for Vittorio Storaro and Gordon Willis that the filmmakers got at least close to an hour of quite interesting footage you wonder why they felt the need to pack so many people into this movie. And the first five minutes of the movie are just all of the 110 cinematographers in the movie reciting their name (for some of them this is probably about a fourth of the time they'll even get on screen, so why bother?). And at the end of the movie there is actually a piece of text stating something to the effect that due to scheduling there were many cinematographers they wanted in the movie that they couldn't get, and they suggest that maybe there should be a sequel! What's the point of stuffing more people in there if that just means that everyone else gets less time to talk? The reason I'm frustrated by this is because many of the people clearly have very interesting things to say, but they cut back and forth between people that we don't really get any sense of these people individually or their fully story. Again, you can watch the specials features to hear Vittorio and Gordon speak longer, but you lose that chance with a lot of other people in the film. One other frustration is that, although you know these people have done some amazing work and they are making a lot of specific comments about their work, you never seen a single shot from any of their movies. Maybe the filmmakers couldn't get the rights to show segments from these movies. Or maybe they thought it wouldn't be fair to select which movies to show and which not to. Either way, it's hard to hear these people talking about their artwork which is in the same medium in which their interview is being shown to you, and yet you don't get to see any examples of it. A lot of the cinematographers come to the same conclusions, and in the special features you can hear the director kind of prompt the interviewee to say certain things such as "the idea is more important than the tool or technique." But to hear each artists approach to this conclusion is what's interesting, not hearing a 110 headed monster coming to one single conclusion. So in conclusion if you are are interested in cinematography at all you should watch this movie, but you may be frustrated by the quantity of interviews over the chance to really focus on any one person and the lack of examples of their work. Spout usually asks us to include recommendations for other movies if you like the one that is being reviewed. In this case, I would recommend some of the movies that these great cinematographers actually worked on: O Brother, Where Art Thou? (Roger Deakins), Memento (Wally Pfister), Apocalypse Now (Vittorio Storaro), One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (Haskell Wexler), The Godfather Part II (Gordon Willis) Rating: 7/10 http://www.spout.com/blogs/smooth_j/archive/2009/1/17/39619.aspx Post By: Smooth_J
Post To: Smooth_J Blog
Post Date: 1/17/2009 12:18:18 PM
Body: Over the past decade or so, the film community has watched a surge of independent directors make outstanding films that get absolutely no awards recognition except perhaps on the festival circuit. Some of these directors include David Fincher, Darren Aronofsky, Christopher Nolan, and Danny Boyle. Their movies prior to this year's releases expressed their talent significantly, and yet have been largely ignored by most "major" organizations, most notably the Academy and the Golden Globes--however, they have received awards or nominations from several of the other prestigious associations: aside from various critics awards, Christopher Nolan has a DGA nomination under his belt for Memento; Danny Boyle has been praised and awarded multiple times in the UK, most notably the BAFTA awards; David Fincher, apart from critics awards, has won a DGA for commercials (of all things); and Darren Aronofsky has tragically been shut out of all major awards circles. And then there's this year. Christopher Nolan has another DGA nomination for The Dark Knight, and that along with the multitudes of accolades that the film's receiving, with the exception of the lack of love the Globes showed (cue self-indulgent and inevitable reference to Heath Ledger's Joker...); David Fincher now has a BAFTA nomination to brag about as well as two more DGA nominations (one for commercials), a Golden Globe nomination, and an NBR win--all for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button; Darren Aronofsky has directed one of the most acclaimed performances of the year in one of the most acclaimed films of the year (The Wrestler), although he has been mostly shut-out of recognition (his most well-known appearance has been flipping off Rourke); and Danny Boyle, a director no longer to be ignored, has been raking in endless attention, from a Golden Globe win, to a DGA nomination, to another BAFTA nomination, and all the way to what is shaping up to be a definite Oscar nomination, and if all goes well, a win. And now to the movie that is the catalyst of his exaltations: Slumdog Millionaire, a film about an Indian "slumdog" who is chosen to be a contestant on India's version of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? However, most people know almost everything there is to know about this movie already, so I won't continue to bombard you with the same synopsis and review. It's a terrific movie. It's interminably entertaining, with great performances and a love-story that can only be described by the film's overlying theme: destiny. The love between the two leads is not necessarily fully developed, but that's the point. Jamal knows he loves Latika, and would go to the end of the earth to be with her, but the viewer never receives much explanation. Because of this, the film is mystical; it's a seemingly doomed romance, pushing onwards against all odds, with nothing but fate to tie it together. Latika at first seems confused at Jamal's passion, as is the audience, but she is soon enveloped in it, realizing with maturity beyond her age that it will never work. But Jamal sticks with his belief in love and destiny, and that is what brings him to the final round of the show, and an ultimate reunion with his love, and a tragic sacrifice by his brother. Kevin Buist on Spoutblog referred to the film as "hectic and sloppy." I did not perceive that in the least. Slumdog Millionaire definitely has a frenetic, insatiable energy--but I saw it as the allure of youthfulness, which the characters all maintain despite their encounters with situations far beyond their levels of maturity. A particularly magnificent scene occurs when there is a montage of Jamal and Salim, his brother, hustling people on a train, with MIA's Paper Planes blaring on the soundtrack. It brings what I previously knew as a stoner tune, one to blast while driving down a college avenue in a shitty SUV, a whole new level of meaning; it was music and image meshed beautifully to form a scene of childlike wonder. Danny Boyle's masterful direction, as well as miraculously timed editing and grainy, dreamlike photography, allows the film to maintain the viewer's concentration, to captivate them, up to the final shot (of the story), where the magical realism of the film is summed up in a corny, cliched, and wonderful final exchange between lovers, including lines such as "It is destiny" and "Kiss Me." Needless to say, the Bollywood dance sequence slaps a huge goofy smile on your face, no matter what your feelings about the film are--an intoxicatingly happy ending, punctuated by a final tribute to the country that the film owes its liveliness. The film is becoming the subject of slight backlash, like Little Miss Sunshine and Juno before it--however, unlike those two films, I don't feel that Slumdog is deserving of the contrarian treatment. Crash began an era of awards contention is which films undeserving of major awards speculation are pushed to the top of year-end lists and critics awards. The awards season is driven not necessarily by quality of films but by the frenzied, rabid support that they draw from the louder patrons of Hollywood; Crash may not have even been nominated had it not been for an aggressive campaign strategy and an anti-Brokeback backlash. Crash was not a good film. It was an unsubtle, in-your-face anti-racism film--in other words, nothing but white noise. Little Miss Sunshine was a cute, entertaining little film that made it to the top through the support it gained at film festivals. Juno just rode the independent film wave, effortlessly driving its way to the top of contention despite it being corny fluff piece, a crowd pleaser that hid behind a too-hip-for-its-own-good script. Juno isn't necessarily a festival film even--it seemed to pretend it was, but it's my belief that it pretended to be to give it a lovable underdog status. I don't dislike any of the films I just mentioned (except Crash--Paul Haggis sucks). However, I agree with the cynics in that all of them were undeserving of the infinite praise that they received. Slumdog Millionaire is slightly different. It really is an underslumdog (I'm sorry) film--it was made with a low budget in the actual slums of Mumbai, with an entirely Indian cast and a British/Indian film crew. The only reason it is being recognized is because it is being loved consistently by (nearly) all that see it. It is incredible entertainment, a crowd-pleaser with timeless themes of love and destiny, as well as a genuine aesthetic achievement. Something about the film works in a way that none of the aforementioned films do--it is not in the least self-important, and despite its reliance on coincidence and fate, it never once feels forced. It flows, from the chase scene through the slums to the beautiful sequence on the train to the hokey Bollywood finale. It's escapism at its best. Although some Indians are claiming the film as their own with pride, others are denouncing the film for depicting India as a slum. The movie is called SLUMdog Millionaire. It's about a kid from a slum who makes it on a gameshow. It's not claiming to represent India as a whole. It's merely depicting the struggles someone from a slum in Mumbai may face. And do people really begrudge Danny Boyle the attention he's getting? The distinguished auteur behind Trainspotting, 28 Days Later, and Sunshine is getting his due for a film that almost no one had heard about less than a year ago. That's amazing. I'm not saying the film is perfect--it has its flaws. I would not call it the best film of the year--yet. The Dark Knight was magnificent, and Christopher Nolan is overdue for some attention (although he has an Oscar nomination for writing already), as was Benjamin Button, and David Fincher is aching for a statue with such an impressive repertoire (let's just forget Panic Room). I have yet to see The Wrestler, let alone most of the other films in contention. This year is going to be a tight race for the Oscars. I'm suggesting that people not focus on the mania behind films and actually watch the movies and make their own opinions about them. It isn't fair to renounce a movie just because of the attention it's getting; see the movie, and find out for yourself if it's deserving. Seeing movies with an open mind is the key to enjoying them, and fanatical incrimination of films prevents unbiased movie-watching from happening. It's a shame, because when it's time for a movie to receive its due, its achievements are often clouded by rancid smoke, expelled from the black and unwelcoming lungs of deliriously pretentious critics.
]]>Sat, 17 Jan 2009 17:18:18 GMTSmooth_JSmooth_J Blog1/17/2009 12:18:18 PMOver the past decade or so, the film community has watched a surge of independent directors make outstanding films that get absolutely no awards recognition except perhaps on the festival circuit. Some of these directors include David Fincher, Darren Aronofsky, Christopher Nolan, and Danny Boyle. Their movies prior to this year's releases expressed their talent significantly, and yet have been largely ignored by most "major" organizations, most notably the Academy and the Golden Globes--however, they have received awards or nominations from several of the other prestigious associations: aside from various critics awards, Christopher Nolan has a DGA nomination under his belt for Memento; Danny Boyle has been praised and awarded multiple times in the UK, most notably the BAFTA awards; David Fincher, apart from critics awards, has won a DGA for commercials (of all things); and Darren Aronofsky has tragically been shut out of all major awards circles. And then there's this year. Christopher Nolan has another DGA nomination for The Dark Knight, and that along with the multitudes of accolades that the film's receiving, with the exception of the lack of love the Globes showed (cue self-indulgent and inevitable reference to Heath Ledger's Joker...); David Fincher now has a BAFTA nomination to brag about as well as two more DGA nominations (one for commercials), a Golden Globe nomination, and an NBR win--all for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button; Darren Aronofsky has directed one of the most acclaimed performances of the year in one of the most acclaimed films of the year (The Wrestler), although he has been mostly shut-out of recognition (his most well-known appearance has been flipping off Rourke); and Danny Boyle, a director no longer to be ignored, has been raking in endless attention, from a Golden Globe win, to a DGA nomination, to another BAFTA nomination, and all the way to what is shaping up to be a definite Oscar nomination, and if all goes well, a win. And now to the movie that is the catalyst of his exaltations: Slumdog Millionaire, a film about an Indian "slumdog" who is chosen to be a contestant on India's version of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? However, most people know almost everything there is to know about this movie already, so I won't continue to bombard you with the same synopsis and review. It's a terrific movie. It's interminably entertaining, with great performances and a love-story that can only be described by the film's overlying theme: destiny. The love between the two leads is not necessarily fully developed, but that's the point. Jamal knows he loves Latika, and would go to the end of the earth to be with her, but the viewer never receives much explanation. Because of this, the film is mystical; it's a seemingly doomed romance, pushing onwards against all odds, with nothing but fate to tie it together. Latika at first seems confused at Jamal's passion, as is the audience, but she is soon enveloped in it, realizing with maturity beyond her age that it will never work. But Jamal sticks with his belief in love and destiny, and that is what brings him to the final round of the show, and an ultimate reunion with his love, and a tragic sacrifice by his brother. Kevin Buist on Spoutblog referred to the film as "hectic and sloppy." I did not perceive that in the least. Slumdog Millionaire definitely has a frenetic, insatiable energy--but I saw it as the allure of youthfulness, which the characters all maintain despite their encounters with situations far beyond their levels of maturity. A particularly magnificent scene occurs when there is a montage of Jamal and Salim, his brother, hustling people on a train, with MIA's Paper Planes blaring on the soundtrack. It brings what I previously knew as a stoner tune, one to blast while driving down a college avenue in a shitty SUV, a whole new level of meaning; it was music and image meshed beautifully to form a scene of childlike wonder. Danny Boyle's masterful direction, as well as miraculously timed editing and grainy, dreamlike photography, allows the film to maintain the viewer's concentration, to captivate them, up to the final shot (of the story), where the magical realism of the film is summed up in a corny, cliched, and wonderful final exchange between lovers, including lines such as "It is destiny" and "Kiss Me." Needless to say, the Bollywood dance sequence slaps a huge goofy smile on your face, no matter what your feelings about the film are--an intoxicatingly happy ending, punctuated by a final tribute to the country that the film owes its liveliness. The film is becoming the subject of slight backlash, like Little Miss Sunshine and Juno before it--however, unlike those two films, I don't feel that Slumdog is deserving of the contrarian treatment. Crash began an era of awards contention is which films undeserving of major awards speculation are pushed to the top of year-end lists and critics awards. The awards season is driven not necessarily by quality of films but by the frenzied, rabid support that they draw from the louder patrons of Hollywood; Crash may not have even been nominated had it not been for an aggressive campaign strategy and an anti-Brokeback backlash. Crash was not a good film. It was an unsubtle, in-your-face anti-racism film--in other words, nothing but white noise. Little Miss Sunshine was a cute, entertaining little film that made it to the top through the support it gained at film festivals. Juno just rode the independent film wave, effortlessly driving its way to the top of contention despite it being corny fluff piece, a crowd pleaser that hid behind a too-hip-for-its-own-good script. Juno isn't necessarily a festival film even--it seemed to pretend it was, but it's my belief that it pretended to be to give it a lovable underdog status. I don't dislike any of the films I just mentioned (except Crash--Paul Haggis sucks). However, I agree with the cynics in that all of them were undeserving of the infinite praise that they received. Slumdog Millionaire is slightly different. It really is an underslumdog (I'm sorry) film--it was made with a low budget in the actual slums of Mumbai, with an entirely Indian cast and a British/Indian film crew. The only reason it is being recognized is because it is being loved consistently by (nearly) all that see it. It is incredible entertainment, a crowd-pleaser with timeless themes of love and destiny, as well as a genuine aesthetic achievement. Something about the film works in a way that none of the aforementioned films do--it is not in the least self-important, and despite its reliance on coincidence and fate, it never once feels forced. It flows, from the chase scene through the slums to the beautiful sequence on the train to the hokey Bollywood finale. It's escapism at its best. Although some Indians are claiming the film as their own with pride, others are denouncing the film for depicting India as a slum. The movie is called SLUMdog Millionaire. It's about a kid from a slum who makes it on a gameshow. It's not claiming to represent India as a whole. It's merely depicting the struggles someone from a slum in Mumbai may face. And do people really begrudge Danny Boyle the attention he's getting? The distinguished auteur behind Trainspotting, 28 Days Later, and Sunshine is getting his due for a film that almost no one had heard about less than a year ago. That's amazing. I'm not saying the film is perfect--it has its flaws. I would not call it the best film of the year--yet. The Dark Knight was magnificent, and Christopher Nolan is overdue for some attention (although he has an Oscar nomination for writing already), as was Benjamin Button, and David Fincher is aching for a statue with such an impressive repertoire (let's just forget Panic Room). I have yet to see The Wrestler, let alone most of the other films in contention. This year is going to be a tight race for the Oscars. I'm suggesting that people not focus on the mania behind films and actually watch the movies and make their own opinions about them. It isn't fair to renounce a movie just because of the attention it's getting; see the movie, and find out for yourself if it's deserving. Seeing movies with an open mind is the key to enjoying them, and fanatical incrimination of films prevents unbiased movie-watching from happening. It's a shame, because when it's time for a movie to receive its due, its achievements are often clouded by rancid smoke, expelled from the black and unwelcoming lungs of deliriously pretentious critics. http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_December_1_The_Anti_Hero/625/37943/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: csprague
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 12/4/2008 2:07:10 PM
Body: Don't hold back Merc. Let it all out. Anyway, I have been kind of thinking for a long time that all Christopher Nolan leads are kind of anti-heros, if not from the beginning, definitely by the end of the movie. Usually they are in love with a girl who ends up dying and they are consumed by the need for revenge. I think Memento, The Prestige, and The Dark Knight all follow this pattern.
]]>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 19:07:10 GMTcspragueWeekly Theme12/4/2008 2:07:10 PMDon't hold back Merc. Let it all out. Anyway, I have been kind of thinking for a long time that all Christopher Nolan leads are kind of anti-heros, if not from the beginning, definitely by the end of the movie. Usually they are in love with a girl who ends up dying and they are consumed by the need for revenge. I think Memento, The Prestige, and The Dark Knight all follow this pattern. http://www.spout.com/blogs/smooth_j/archive/2008/8/11/33856.aspx Post By: Smooth_J
Post To: Smooth_J Blog
Post Date: 8/11/2008 11:32:05 AM
Body: Something about Insomnia just did not work. I mean, it had the makings of a great movie, and to be honest, it almost was a great movie. But there was just something missing, something lacking from the basic feel of the movie that couldn't really be made up for, no matter how hard Pacino, Williams, and director Chris Nolan tried. The story is pretty obviously a remake of a Norwegian film made in the 90s, which apparently is pretty superior to this; one thing that this film succeeded at was making me put that film on the top of my list of films to see. The general idea of the story is excellent, with the guilt and insanity of the murder case thrown in with Dormer's (Pacino's) own guilt for the accidental murder of his partner and his shady tactics used to put a child murderer behind bars in LA. The insomnia of the midnight sun is absolutely perfect. It seems as though insomnia is a great subject for Nolan to tackle, since in each and every one of his movies to date involves his depiction of the acute sensory details of his characters' illusions and flashbacks. In Memento, it's Guy Pearce's momentary flashbacks of his wife being brutally beaten. In The Prestige, there are very specific images of drowning and guilty flashbacks. Even in Batman Begins he uses a very acute, jumpy imagery to portray the effects of Scarecrow's hallucinogen. In Insomnia, he manages to use most of these tricks the entire movie--the jumpy eye movements, the flashes of light, the strange sounds of everyday life echoing in the ears. On the level of Nolan's direction, the film in beautiful. However, something is just wrong with the script. Nothing is really ever played out as it should be--it's not as though there's much to be desired. I can't really even place my finger on it. I mean, the film is a taut, nearly explosive thriller. But why did I feel so disconnected from it? My only explanation is that the pacing of the film was just slightly off, and the ending was a pretty cliched, making use of a awfully bland and textbook performance by Hilary Swank (bleh). I mean, even she sort of contributed to the film's overall lackluster feel, and she should have been a huge asset. Pacino and Williams are great...it's actually really interesting to see Pacino play a role like this, since his character's are usually so collected and outspoken, while in this he is forced to downplay and portray a man who is slowly going insane from lack of sleep. ("Six days," says Williams. "You beat my record.") The film is worth watching, because it's surely entertaining and well-made. Nolan really tries his hardest, and there's nothing you can say to criticize his direction. But the script is lacking, and Hilary Swank pretty much sucks.
]]>Mon, 11 Aug 2008 15:32:05 GMTSmooth_JSmooth_J Blog8/11/2008 11:32:05 AMSomething about Insomnia just did not work. I mean, it had the makings of a great movie, and to be honest, it almost was a great movie. But there was just something missing, something lacking from the basic feel of the movie that couldn't really be made up for, no matter how hard Pacino, Williams, and director Chris Nolan tried. The story is pretty obviously a remake of a Norwegian film made in the 90s, which apparently is pretty superior to this; one thing that this film succeeded at was making me put that film on the top of my list of films to see. The general idea of the story is excellent, with the guilt and insanity of the murder case thrown in with Dormer's (Pacino's) own guilt for the accidental murder of his partner and his shady tactics used to put a child murderer behind bars in LA. The insomnia of the midnight sun is absolutely perfect. It seems as though insomnia is a great subject for Nolan to tackle, since in each and every one of his movies to date involves his depiction of the acute sensory details of his characters' illusions and flashbacks. In Memento, it's Guy Pearce's momentary flashbacks of his wife being brutally beaten. In The Prestige, there are very specific images of drowning and guilty flashbacks. Even in Batman Begins he uses a very acute, jumpy imagery to portray the effects of Scarecrow's hallucinogen. In Insomnia, he manages to use most of these tricks the entire movie--the jumpy eye movements, the flashes of light, the strange sounds of everyday life echoing in the ears. On the level of Nolan's direction, the film in beautiful. However, something is just wrong with the script. Nothing is really ever played out as it should be--it's not as though there's much to be desired. I can't really even place my finger on it. I mean, the film is a taut, nearly explosive thriller. But why did I feel so disconnected from it? My only explanation is that the pacing of the film was just slightly off, and the ending was a pretty cliched, making use of a awfully bland and textbook performance by Hilary Swank (bleh). I mean, even she sort of contributed to the film's overall lackluster feel, and she should have been a huge asset. Pacino and Williams are great...it's actually really interesting to see Pacino play a role like this, since his character's are usually so collected and outspoken, while in this he is forced to downplay and portray a man who is slowly going insane from lack of sleep. ("Six days," says Williams. "You beat my record.") The film is worth watching, because it's surely entertaining and well-made. Nolan really tries his hardest, and there's nothing you can say to criticize his direction. But the script is lacking, and Hilary Swank pretty much sucks. http://www.spout.com/blogs/porterlangley/archive/2008/8/8/33740.aspx Post By: porterlangley
Post To: porterlangley Blog
Post Date: 8/8/2008 9:09:31 AM
Body: I'm finally going to get out to see the Dark Knight tomorrow. My buddy is taking me to go see it on the IMAX for my birthday. The film looks amazing. I love what Christopher Nolan did to Batman Begins. Someone made a brilliant decision in handing off a floundering franchise to a bold and dynamic storyteller like Nolan. It was a big risk, with his only known work to be such a bizarre and unconventional story that is Memento. It will be interesting to see what happens to the franchise if Nolan does not come back for another film. Will the pendulum swing back the other way? Will the grittiness of the last two Batman films yield to its campy television days as it did with Schumaker? I hope not, but we'll see...
]]>Fri, 08 Aug 2008 13:09:31 GMTporterlangleyporterlangley Blog8/8/2008 9:09:31 AMI'm finally going to get out to see the Dark Knight tomorrow. My buddy is taking me to go see it on the IMAX for my birthday. The film looks amazing. I love what Christopher Nolan did to Batman Begins. Someone made a brilliant decision in handing off a floundering franchise to a bold and dynamic storyteller like Nolan. It was a big risk, with his only known work to be such a bizarre and unconventional story that is Memento. It will be interesting to see what happens to the franchise if Nolan does not come back for another film. Will the pendulum swing back the other way? Will the grittiness of the last two Batman films yield to its campy television days as it did with Schumaker? I hope not, but we'll see... http://www.spout.com/groups/Filmgaming/Re_Cast_BATMAN_3/563/33717/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: andrewoh
Post To: Filmgaming
Post Date: 8/7/2008 7:09:02 PM
Body: I'm not all too familar with the Batman universe but of what I do know, the Mad Hatter would make a great addition to the new batman movies. And as soon as I thought who could play him, the first name that popped into mind was Guy Pearce. Seeing him in Memento, I know he could pull off the delusional, schizophrenic, homicidal maniac.
]]>Thu, 07 Aug 2008 23:09:02 GMTandrewohFilmgaming8/7/2008 7:09:02 PMI'm not all too familar with the Batman universe but of what I do know, the Mad Hatter would make a great addition to the new batman movies. And as soon as I thought who could play him, the first name that popped into mind was Guy Pearce. Seeing him in Memento, I know he could pull off the delusional, schizophrenic, homicidal maniac. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Loved-It/MemberTagFilms.aspxLoved-It
Number of films tagged: 509

Number of people who tagged: 179

Number of times used: 921

]]>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:56:35 GMT509179921Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/murder/MemberTagFilms.aspxmurder
Number of films tagged: 8748

Number of people who tagged: 157

Number of times used: 830

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:57:25 GMT8748157830Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/amazing/MemberTagFilms.aspxamazing
Number of films tagged: 179

Number of people who tagged: 156

Number of times used: 253

]]>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 05:49:13 GMT179156253Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/revenge/MemberTagFilms.aspxrevenge
Number of films tagged: 5189

Number of people who tagged: 145

Number of times used: 489

]]>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:13:41 GMT5189145489Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/death/MemberTagFilms.aspxdeath
Number of films tagged: 4306

Number of people who tagged: 140

Number of times used: 526

]]>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:27:13 GMT4306140526Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/brilliant/MemberTagFilms.aspxbrilliant
Number of films tagged: 179

Number of people who tagged: 137

Number of times used: 285

]]>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:28:43 GMT179137285Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/dark/MemberTagFilms.aspxdark
Number of films tagged: 223

Number of people who tagged: 137

Number of times used: 390

]]>Wed, 23 Sep 2009 22:40:47 GMT223137390Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/masterpiece/MemberTagFilms.aspxmasterpiece
Number of films tagged: 226

Number of people who tagged: 102

Number of times used: 215

]]>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 01:28:28 GMT226102215Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/mystery/MemberTagFilms.aspxmystery
Number of films tagged: 154

Number of people who tagged: 82

Number of times used: 206

]]>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:51:33 GMT15482206Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/intense/MemberTagFilms.aspxintense
Number of films tagged: 162

Number of people who tagged: 81

Number of times used: 249

]]>Mon, 12 Oct 2009 04:07:45 GMT16281249Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/time/MemberTagFilms.aspxtime
Number of films tagged: 310

Number of people who tagged: 79

Number of times used: 101

]]>Fri, 03 Jul 2009 12:27:45 GMT31079101Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/crime/MemberTagFilms.aspxcrime
Number of films tagged: 401

Number of people who tagged: 70

Number of times used: 303

]]>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:51:32 GMT40170303Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/suspense/MemberTagFilms.aspxsuspense
Number of films tagged: 129

Number of people who tagged: 66

Number of times used: 189

]]>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:28:43 GMT12966189Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/obsession/MemberTagFilms.aspxobsession
Number of films tagged: 1134

Number of people who tagged: 64

Number of times used: 136

]]>Tue, 13 Oct 2009 15:00:49 GMT113464136Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/favorite/MemberTagFilms.aspxfavorite
Number of films tagged: 85

Number of people who tagged: 62

Number of times used: 127

]]>Sat, 15 Aug 2009 02:22:58 GMT8562127Tag