We're here to play some Mississippi Delta Blues. We're in a horrible depression, and I gotta admit - we're starting to like it.
I haven't had big expectations for a David Gordon Green movie in many years, but this was the first one that I consider to be a genuine failure (even The Sitter was, at least, more amusing than its rep, even if it's no better than all the films Green used to savage back when he was a wunderkind artiste). Basically, I thought Joe was phony, visually dull (which, aside from The Sitter, has never been the case in Green's work before) and the opposite of cohesive. The first act with the guys in the field was pretty good, but almost none of those characters have any significance later in the film; the climax mainly revolves around two characters who have virtually no presence in the movie until well past the 90 minute mark. The father character is well-played, but his nature and actions make no sense from one scene to the next - not even in the context of his being an abusive drunk. The stuff with the hookers and the girl that foists herself onto Joe had no meaning. I liked Tye Sheridan's performance, but I thought Cage was terrible - he simply cannot play an authentic hard drinker (I don't give a fuck that the Oscars say otherwise), and he only got less convincing as the scenarios became more overwrought. Basically, the only way the film could hang together, for me, is looking at it as an intentional pastiche of all of DGG's previous movies - almost every one has some kind of connective tissue to what happens in Joe (though I couldn't find a match for All the Real Girls), but since I'm applying this thesis to one of the most disparate, what-the-fuck filmographies of the modern age, the result is a movie that seemed to have NO idea what the fuck it is. Plus, the photography is all drab standard film-school coverage, until the sudden voiceover montage in the middle (straight out of Green's early Malick-thieving) - so it doesn't even succeed as sensory experience.
I acknowledge that this will probably be a minority opinion, much like my take on Short Term 12.
Mysterious Skin is pretty good but extremely overwrought. You can make the points Araki was trying to make without the excess. And that ending was terrible.
You really think he had to go to the point of having two children fist a man to tell a graphic story of pedophilia? And as a huge Sigur Ros fan yourself you didn't find that ending completely forced and laughably sappy? I didn't dislike the film, but if anyone's going to prison it's Gregg Araki, having been found guilty on 9 counts of sensationalism.
You could not be more off-base. It's literally one of my favorite endings/movies of all time, and the bombastic style is essential to the film's (and Gordon-Levitt's) character. As for the first question, I have to flip it around - what is the purpose of asking films portraying violence or abuse to set boundaries and pull back on the harsher material?
Ahhh, now I remember, Mysterious Skin. I've dl'd it, but forgot I had it, cos I haven't been in the right frame of mind to watch it. Though, I'm not quite sure what the right frame of mind is that will assist me in watching this somewhat disturbing movie.
12/31 NYE w/ Chromeo @ Fort Mason
02/07 London Grammar @ the Fox Theatre
02/13 Breakbot @ The Mezzanine (?)
03/02 Caribou @ The Fillmore (?)
Exactly. Chris, I don't know what movie you're thinking of, but it's not as though Araki photographed Mysterious Skin in some Mel Gibson-esque, lovingly slow motion close-ups of heinous violent shit - basically all of the sexual acts involving children occur outside the frame. Which makes your unnerved reaction (akin to those who swore they saw nudity and knife-into-flesh in Psycho only further proof of how expertly it was achieved.
Yes, I must side with Gabe on this. The extremities of the abuses to me are necessary to illustrate the psychological and emotional impact they had on the characters.
You're right, it is subjective. For me, in this movie, I thought it all worked. Also, I hated the other Araki movies I have seen, so i am definitely not apologetic for him in general.
Well, I wouldn't say I do have a high threshold for watching depictions of child rape - it had the same horrifying effect on me. But it is a fact (not a subjective statement) that the child sex in Mysterious Skin occurs almost completely off-screen, and in conversations/narration that are graphic, but not substantially more so than many other movies (subjective), only more eloquent and nuanced than just about any of them (subjective).
Eat shit X-Men: Days of Futures Pederast...
Now a North Korean funded CGI reboot of Pulgasari and I can die happy
Last edited by Grandma; 04-28-2014 at 10:29 PM.
Hahahaha. You guys are still debating the "five dollar game." JGL won fair and square. Time to move on.
You are referring to a conversation that hasn't been continued for 5 days.
Adam Driver, Oscar Isaac and Max Von Sydow have been cast in the new Star Wars movie. Didn't recognize any of the other new cast members but I'm actually excited for this one.
now they just need to fire Abrams and hire anyone else and were set!
John Boyega played Moses in Attack The Block and it's about time he got part in something really big.
Andy Serkis is known for his amazing mo-cap work - he has played Golem in all the Lord of the Rings films, King Kong is Jackon's version, Caeser in the Planet of the Apes prologues.
Domhnall Gleeson is an irish actor whom has had a lot of small parts including one the Weasley brothers in the Harry Potter series. He was recently Levin in Ana Karenina and was great in it.
Daisy Ridley thus far has only had small roles in several BBC shows.
I'm not a huge fan of Abrams but his two Star Trek movies were a lot of fun. I'm cautiously optimistic. I'm hoping that Oscar Isaac is the new lead. I also hope that Max Von Sydow manages to stay alive for the duration of the project. They could have cast him as an old man during the original Star Wars in the early 70s.
EDIT: Fuck, I forgot about Serkis. Hopefully he just plays himself rather than voicing some stupid creature but the odds probably aren't high.
The odds are even more that he would do physical mocap of a character that someone else might voice.
The Empire Strikes Back is the best chapter of the Star Wars franchise mainly because it is the darkest. I think Christopher Nolan was ten years old when that movie came out so maybe you're overstating his influence on these types of movies. Lucas's three Star Wars prequels were terrible but they sure weren't lacking in whimsy.
I would argue that the dynamic between A New Hope and Empire is what made Empire the best. The dark twist in Empire wouldn't have been shit without all the wonderment of A New Hope.
Of Course Nolan's influence on the Star Wars franchise is insignificant because the franchise was done by the time he made Dark Knight. My point is that they cater to the same demographics, and what is being shoved down those demographics throat these days is movies that are dark. Somewhere along the lines nerd movies, following the comics, went from being whimsical tales to get lost in, to revenge porn. I would rather see a story like the original trilogy. As far as the new trilogy. Yeah, Lucas killed it with whimsy and a shitty story about intergalactic policy. That doesn't make a case for everything having to be like something Alan Moore wrote.