It is currently Mon May 20, 2013 1:35 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 163 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 11:54 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:09 pm
Funny how a genre film, a vampire film is being attacked for sloppy filmmaking for featuring CGI kitties. The emotions of the film are so incredibly realistic and that's why anything "fake" on the surface could throw you off. The film's color palette is very restricted, the whole world the film wraps around seems so far away, a lost town from some winter fantasy. A white French poodle in the white snow encountering a man hung upside down bleeding, cats deforming into killers, looking very animated...think of it like The Night of the Hunter, with its gloriously child-like/cartoonish treatment of the world surrounding the main children - half real half way off.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 3:07 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 3:51 pm
Location: California
Michael wrote:
The emotions of the film are so incredibly realistic and that's why anything "fake" on the surface could throw you off.

That is precisely why it bothered me, it was building so beautifully and they throw that scene in. It definitely caught me off guard. But again, I loved the film and still see it as a genre masterpiece. It is just strange how the filmmaking could be so realistic up to that point and they decide to throw something like that it. I was offended by it to be quite honest.

The film was so beautiful that even an homage to a traditional vampire film would just me an insult to the project. Especially one that took away from the atmosphere. All I know is that when it happened I felt immediately offended and upset.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 3:27 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 2:25 pm
Location: Distrito Federal, Mexico
Like I said, I don't have that much of an issue with the cats per se since the whole subplot with characters out of the background in a Roy Andersson or Kaurismaki movie involves a certain degree of suspension of disbelief for being less real than the main characters. Not that I'm complaining, I find it a beautiful way to point out the children as being far more mature than the grown-ups (furthermore, grown-ups that are fangs fodder).
So. Killer kitties are both charming and disquieting. All moviscope is pointing out is he wishes the CGI wasn't such a rush job.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 3:44 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:32 pm
Location: Vancouver
I knew this thread would turn into a discussion about cats.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 4:56 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 3:51 pm
Location: California
FILM JUNK - SEAN wrote:
I count myself among the people who found the ending somewhat unsatisfying; this, along with an earlier scene involving a group of badly CG-ed cats, are really the only glaring flaws that didn’t quite mesh with the rest of the flick.

He took the words right out of my mouth.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 5:44 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:09 pm
I'm sorry you're no longer the only person in the world who feels this way about CGI kitties.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 6:07 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 3:51 pm
Location: California
Michael wrote:
I'm sorry you're no longer the only person in the world who feels this way about CGI kitties.

It is encouraging to see that I wasn't the only one pissed that the filmmakers did that with such an amazing film.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 12:28 am 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 8:46 pm
Finally got to see the film for a second time down here in L.A. at the Laemmle Sunset 5, and I still love everything about it. The title, the cats, the ending, everything. But I swear up and down that the film's soundtrack has been augmented since the festival screening where I first saw it. I could be wrong, but I don't remember there being any bass heavy bombastic sound effects leading up to and during the kill scenes -- can anyone else corroborate this? Maybe the sound in that first theatre was crappy compared to this one, but I thought the soundtrack was fairly restrained during those scenes, making the horror all the more chilling. But now it feels like they are punctuating the scenes with all the subtlety of being hit in the head with a hammer. "They" as in the distributor I presume, and not the director. (I hope!)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 1:17 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:32 pm
Location: Vancouver
Galen, I believe your first theater must have had crappy sound.
[Reveal] Spoiler:
1. Male victim in the woods: sinister music, mildly subtle sounds.
2. Jocke: dramatic music, with LOUD, bass-heavy sound effects.
3. The former lover: low-key music, subtle sound effects, followed by the loudest bang I've ever heard for any fallen object.
4. Virginia (attempted killing): dramatic music, with LOUD, bass-heavy sound effects.
5. Lacke: brief dramatic music notes only at the beginning and the end, with LOUD, bass-heavy sound effects.
6. Jimmy/Conny/Martin: no music, subdued sounds (well, it's underwater...)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 2:38 am 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 8:46 pm
franco wrote:
I believe your first theater must have had crappy sound.
You're probably right. The difference is stunning though. Damn, I need to go see it again! :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 12:13 pm 

Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 10:54 am
Location: Washington, DC
franco wrote:
I knew this thread would turn into a discussion about cats.

yes, it seemed something like Fulci would have thrown into a film of his as pure shock, here though, minus the over the top gore.

I thought the monochrome cinematography worked effectively to the film's advantage.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:11 am 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 7:51 am
Location: West Chester, PA
I desperately need to see this again. Thinking back on it the morning after is like grasping at wisps of a beautiful dream; because of the remarkable way it was filmed I feel like I saw most of the film out of the corner of my eye, periodically through a veil of tears. I was moved in ways that I really can't articulate, and I appreciate the thoughts left here by others who have seen it, they help me gather up my own...! My only only complaint, and it's not a particularly fair one at that... is that the subplots, especially that with the bitten woman, took me away from the lovely and precious spell that Eli and Oskar cast over me. I remember distinctly being disappointed, hmmph!ing in my head when the film cut away to the man in bed with his wife, grieving for his friend. I had eyes only for Oskar & Eli!

How an actress as young as Lina Leandersson can be so perfect is beyond me.

I can't wait to see it again.
[Reveal] Spoiler:
By the way, the pool scene. WOW ....is all I can say


Last edited by LQ on Thu Nov 20, 2008 11:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 11:22 am 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
For me, this was the best [live action] film of the year so far. I've never been quite as entranced by the performance of a young actress, and while I definately have a nitpick or two...
[Reveal] Spoiler:
the cat attack, the bursting into flames, basically that whole subplot - plus I'm still curious as to how exactly her husband deduced that he wanted to go in that apartment to have a look around
...there was still a lot to be enjoyed here. Another film to add to my favorite films in the "real life depictions of mythical afflictions" genre, along with Ginger Snaps. In a weak year, it's great to see that films like this can get a packed audience on a Wednesday night, as this one did last night.

Sadly, we have this shit to deal with (from the director of last year's most grating film):

Matt Reeves to remake Let the Right One In
Also: Reeves gives a terrible explanation as to why he thinks this is a good idea


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 11:36 am 

Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 1:55 pm
Location: Toronto
A wonderful film... & having it still freshly in my head, it feels doubly awful to see that it's already lined up for a crappy remake (I know, shouldn't prejudge, but the quote linked-to there does not inspire much hope). Sigh.

Re: the husband:

[Reveal] Spoiler:
He simply had a good hunch about where to find the vampire because (1) he'd just witnessed the results of exposing one to sunlight and (2) noticed the apartment window with cardboard over it. -- Yes, that whole subplot is the only big false note (Lewton & Tourneur did the whole freaked-out cat thing so much better without crummy CGI!!). -- The other major loose end--not annoying/disruptive like that, just a bit enigmatic--is the mysterious egg/golden orb/rings. Maybe they figure more strongly in the original novel, I dunno.

Despite minor caveats, it's still one of the best things I've seen this year.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 11:41 am 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 7:51 am
Location: West Chester, PA
Has anyone read the novel from which this was adapted?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 11:51 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:32 pm
Location: Vancouver
In fact, I like Matt Reeves' explanation. I even consider it the only reason I'd accept for anyone to remake the film. If I were a filmmaker, I'd remake it too without a second thought, for the same principle.

I got the novel a few days ago and have now donated it to the library. The writing is pedestrian at its best and trite at its worst. Lots of useless information and unnecessary backstory. The staging of the penultimate scene makes completely no sense. Tomas Alfredson has adapted a horrible book into a great movie.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 12:04 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 7:51 am
Location: West Chester, PA
franco wrote:
I got the novel a few days ago and have now donated it to the library. The writing is pedestrian at its best and trite at its worst. Lots of useless information and unnecessary backstory. The staging of the penultimate scene makes completely no sense. Tomas Alfredson has adapted a horrible book into a great movie.

Thanks for that information. Interesting, considering it was the author himself who wrote the film's screenplay!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 12:29 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:32 pm
Location: Vancouver
Yeah, that's the reason I got interested in the novel. Who knows? Maybe I have lost all my literary skills after years of film watching, so don't let my quick dismissal prevent you from having your own experiences.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:00 pm 

Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 7:56 am
Me from a page back:

Quote:
[Reveal] Spoiler:
Removing the vampire mythology from the film, what you have is essentially a revenge fantasy without making Oskar culpable.

Matt Reeves:

Quote:
I see the film as essentially being the fantasies of this 12 year old who’s having such a hard time.

Regardless of our similar take on the film, this is such a horrible idea. Cloverfield is pretty much everything wrong with cinema.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:09 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:09 pm
Grand Illusion wrote:
Cloverfield is pretty much everything wrong with cinema.

I couldn't get through Cloverfield after 20 min.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 30, 2008 11:06 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:59 pm
Location: Somewhere between here and there
This is the best film I've seen so far this year, both haunting and charming in its depiction of a lonely child in need of friendship. The cold climate of Sweden combined with Leandersson's incredible performance create an eerie ambiance that aided the film well. I just can't get over Leandersson's distant gaze and almost zombie-like walk as she moves about, each time Eli was in attack mode I was thrown by how contrasting her violent side was with her "normal" side, truly effective in every conceivable way.

[Reveal] Spoiler:
In spite of myself, I couldn't help but delight in the bully's comeuppance, as sick as that is. Whenever I see a film where bullies get their own I'm thrown back to my school days and the bullies they contained.

One question that I've had a hard time trying to answer: what was the killer's relation to Eli? I know he killed in order to feed her, but I don't understand why he did this. Was Eli somehow holding him prisoner? I feel like I missed a major part of the film since I can't understand why they were together originally.


Last edited by Murdoch on Mon Dec 29, 2008 7:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 12:27 am 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 2:25 pm
Location: Distrito Federal, Mexico
Murdoch wrote:
[Reveal] Spoiler:
One question that I've had a hard time trying to answer: what was the killer's relation to Eli? I know he killed in order to feed her, but I don't understand why he did this. Was Eli somehow holding him prisoner? I feel like I missed a major part of the film since I can't understand why they were together originally.

[Reveal] Spoiler:
The killer's relationship to Eli is very clearly implied to be precisely the same relationship that Eli has with Oskar, except that this one has run its course because of the killer's advanced age and how uselessly pitiful he has become in the carrying out of the tasks necessary for Eli's survival.
Think of him as Eli's Renfield, with Oskar being his successor.
It's quite possible the conception of the story had it's starting point in the fleshing out of the "What kind of relationship does Dracula have with his lackey?" question.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 1:01 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:59 pm
Location: Somewhere between here and there
Ah, that's what I thought, a truly interesting parallel.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 7:52 am 

Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 1:55 pm
Location: Toronto
That's exactly the reading I had too.

[Reveal] Spoiler:
Interestingly, I gather (via IMDB) that in the original book it's quite different: the man is some kind of pedophile attracted to Eli, & hasn't even been with her that long. This sounds like another example of why the film is superior to the source novel. The film's final scene wouldn't have anything like the same power if we couldn't sit there thinking back to the start of the film & know exactly where this relationship is headed (& how Eli's protectively sparing Oskar from having to murder for her sake is surely not going to last very long).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 12:00 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO
Another thing that I gather was emphasized in the book and was only alluded to in the movie with a couple of lines and a two second shot was the fact that:

[Reveal] Spoiler:
Eli (Elias) was a eunuch boy.


I read an interview with the director which mentioned that he shot scenes that made this more explicit, but decided to cut them.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 163 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group




This site is not affiliated with The Criterion Collection