obliv

I watched this when I could have been getting a burrito. I will never get back that lost chance

I saw avengers endgame for the second time today. I then came home and watched twisted pair. It is difficult to decide which of these cinematic works is more important and will be held in higher esteem through the lens of history. Both are superhero movies, but maybe Breen deserves the nod for creating his own cinematic universe that did not exist prior to his films. While endgame was a tremendous summation to this phase of the MCU, we can all take pleasure in knowing that the BCU is just beginning.

In a series that has been almost uniformly excellent (with a couple clunkers), 'Survive and Advance" really sets a new bar for any upcoming episodes. As someone who watched the NC State team's run live in 83, it was fascinating to get a bit of the "behind the scenes" of what went on with Coach V. But the real power comes from seeing the players, now around 50, and the deep emotions they still have for Coach Valvano. As someone who grew up a Carolina fan, and worshipped at the altar of "Phi Slamma jamma", I still have a soft spot for that Wolfpack team. Seeing the last days of Coach V is almost too much to bear by the end of the film. This isn't just one of the best 30 for 30 films, but maybe the best film I will see this year.

So, let me say, up front, that I have not seen "we can't go home again", the film that this is the making of...of(?). And I am certain that I would jump at the chance to make a film with Nicholas Ray, which apparently is the subject of this film. The problem... no one involved in this film seems to know the first thing about making a film. while the intention is noble, and the idea is promising, i was astonished at the anecdotes. not because they were too odd or offensive or whatnot. instead they provided information that was of literally no value. for example, they seemed to be impressed by the fact that, as a class and a crew of the film, they all "pitched in and did whatever job needed to be done". Indeed, they make that point a number of times (i want to say more than ten). Now, I went to film school. I was in several classes no doubt extremely similar in composition and concept as the ones at SUNY Binghampton taught by Mr. Ray. I also crewed on several student films, and indeed have served as freelance crew on several independent features as well. On every one of those films, in ever single one of those situations, it would have been an act of exceptional rudeness to NOT help out in whatever way you were needed. Now, i know that the perception is on big Hollywood movies, that no one touches a piece of gear for fear of being reprimanded by the unions. I've never worked on a big budget movie, so it may be that way, but I can say that in every other situation I've encountered, it would be really rude and almost confrontational not to help out in whatever way possible.

another guy talks about the hardships encountered during the shot. He reported that they had to go to the trouble of setting up all the lights BEFORE they started filming! (gasp!) and that the camera would, on occasion, simply... RUN OUT of film during a take.

okay, let me qualify this by saying sure, you may be shooting a documentary or something where lighting set ups are either non existent or minimal. And yes, when shooting on video, esp on hd cards with a lot of memory, the idea of a finite run time on film reels might seems a bit antiquated. But in a situation where you are shooting a standard type of film with typical film lighting, and using your standard film camera, the above "hardships" occurred ON EVEY SINGLE FILM EVER MADE!!!!! in fact, the ENTIRE IDEA of using lights is to set them up so they create a desired effect. There is not just one, but indeed several members of the crew whose job is just ti set and juice lights. as for running out of film... yeah... depending on the size of the reel, it was about every 11 minutes. I'm not sure what this guy thought the process was like, but i guess he thought that movies were just, you know, shot all at once. 2 hour movie? Easy. 2 hour shot. we're all home by 5.

and even worse... these people don't seem to have anything interesting to say, even if its about themselves... a lot of "it was the 60s, and i was embarking on a search to find out exactly... who was this guy i saw in the mirror. so you've got pretentious people telling a story about which they seem to have zero understanding. It would be as if a WWII submarine battle were brought to the screen by a kindergarten class. It's probably a great story. Thy may even be excited by it, but they won't really be able to explain why its great, and though you may admire their pluckish verve and amateur spirit, its still not going to make a lick of sense. thats "don't expect too much". since this really is almost literally an amateur film, its probably unfair to be too harsh on it. The film the class made with Mr. Ray is described as experimental, and it would be fair to apply that label to this film as well. It is probably most accurate to imagine this as a class project, turned in for the grade, whereas Ray's feature is "extra credit". I'm sure they were nice people, and I'm sure it was a great experience. I hope they all got an "A", but unless you are scoring their tests, you should probably skip this.

first of all, i am a Christian. I am not one of those cultural Christians who have to bolster my belief by constantly surrounding myself w/reminders of my faith, however, and i include pop culture in that. i love movies, want to make them, and see just about everything that comes out.

i saw this b/c it was part of my job. and sorry...it is successful ONLy to people who don't like movies, and who only care about the values and themes present in it. this is a bad movie. good hearted? sure. made by nice people? fine. but it is bad. the acting is about the level you would find at a high school play. the script is predictable, and goes on for a good 30 minutes too long.

is there anything good about it? there are some nice tracking shots, but even that is inexplicable, as it does not match w/any other style established in the film. the main actor, while clearly not up to the task, at least LOOKS sincere. the best part of the film, though, is the absolutely adorably cute newborn that shows up near the end. that baby is extremely cute!

most people who will see this movie wont care about quality, but i have to say that these statements that this is better than any movie made in Hollywood and that Hollywood movies cant affect people and make them cry...uh, sorry. i cried last night watching the movie Friday night lights. you want tears? try watching the champ...i have yet to see that movie w/o blubbering like an infant...

as someone who loves movies, i have trouble standing by and doing nothing when people who have this embittered attitude towards some mythical perception of 'hollywood', as if an industry of thousands of people could be lumped into one monolithic group, use THIS as an example of what movies should be. well, sorry. this movie is no doubt made by nice people who have good hearts and mean well, but when people want to use it as some sort of crusade against 'hollywood' and proof of the superiority of their personal preferences, i just have to stop it. like i said, i have no desire to hammer this film and the people behind it, but when if you try to push this on people and, even worse, if you actually think this is as good as even the average student film, you are deranged.

if you do not have either an agenda, to try and force the point that Christian media is superior, or you know someone personally involved in this film, you wont make it through. to the people who claim that it is 'better' than anything 'hollywood' can do, well, you are sorely and sadly mistaken...and sure, you can say that it is a matter of opinion, but as someone who watches hundreds of movies, things like acting and the script and pacing do matter.

this movie is for people who hate movies. if you never watch movies, and you only care about the message, above EVERYTHING else, or you are one of those people who buys into the idea that movies are EVIL (along with hell-a-vision and rock and roll!) then this is for you. or, like i said, unless you personally know someone involved in the film, then you won't like it.

if you have any standards for movies that actually involve any objective level of quality, avoid this. its one of those movies by and for the highly religious that makes a wave in that community but would never get released were it not for its agenda. anyone not supporting the agenda will be bored stiff

i think south park is hilarious, and i have no problem w/them taking shots at people on the left, but you'd think that, after taking a whole movie to attack celebrities for risking their careers taking on an illegal war, and then being GASP right along, they would have the sense to start giving w. and the bastards ruining the country a shot or two. bush seems to get a pretty free run from these guys for as stupid and messed up as he is.

gore is fair game, but please, what do the republicans have to do, how bad do they have to f^&k up the country before these guys finally act like maybe they aren't just trying to do the best they can, and that they have done some true screwing up...or maybe just go after rush limbaugh...hes a good target...or even just make fun of condoleeza rice's gap teeth.

jon reiss spent a lot of time directing music videos, including some pretty cool ones (nin happiness is slavery. if you have the stomach, check it out, b/c nothing really served to establish a visual counterpont to the whole 'industrial' music boom of the 90s quite as well or as powerfully as this one)

that he wouold have the insight to make a documentary about the world of electronic music makes sense. this film is fascinating as anything you'll ever see, and really has a finger on the pulse of the electronic music scene, its past, and a style that will probably provide the soundtrack for the future

jon reiss gained some notoriety when he directed nine inch nail's controversial 'happiness is slavery' video. as a nin fan, i managed to track down a copy of that film back in the mid 90s. it struck me, and much of the imagery really hit a nerve. i made a note of reiss' name, and noticed when his videos would hit mtv. he always had an eye for powerful, visceral imagery.

when i saw his name on this film, i eagerly checked it out. reiss brings that same eye, plus a very solid understanding of human relationships, to bear on this, his non documentary feature debut. this film really hits the mark in a lot of ways, telling an unusual, if altogether human story, about completely real and deeply developed characters. its the kind of film critics are always clamoring for, but that we rarely see. it takes a rare talent, and a brave soul, to sail these uncharted waters. thank goodness reiss had the courage to take the ride. we have one exceptional film from that experience.

keep an eye out for jon reiss. he has a unique POV, and one that many people would connect with if they make the effort to seek him out.

in my review, i was trying to get people to maybe check out mike's book, since they might be piqued enough by the reviews and descriptions. since I've been called out now, guess that wont happen.

yeah, i was in it. my friend, mike west,who wrote and directed this movie, has since become a writer. he wrote a terrific little book called "the wide game". i posted a review of the film, and mentioned the book. my hope was that someone would come along, read the reviews, and maybe check out the book. since i would seem a completely impartial viewer, recommending something i liked, that would maybe count for something.

well, another friend decided to call me out, and tell the world, essentially, that i was a friend, not an impartial viewer, thus undermining what little sway my comments may have had at all. since they are now worthless, I've deleted them. sorry mike. i tried.

if you are reading this, do check out the wide game, and by all means, vitis www.bymichaelwest.com. if you are a fan of horror novels, a la stephen kind and what not, you'll at least find a lot of likemided folks there, plus lots of reviews of movies and TV, a lively discussion about "lost", and details on mike's other work, which is starting to appear in horror anthologies and the like.

let's just say this...this film, just like the first one, is a technically nice film. the editing and photography are top notch. the acting is decent, esp for a slasher film...the script, though...

i was hoping to see a film about leatherface, and how he got to be the way he was. instead, we get him on his last day working at an abattoir the day it is to close....i would actually like to have seen that. the people who worked side by side w/this guy, who comes to his job everyday. does he get along? does he have any friends? does he ever talk? but we don't get anything interesting like that. this film starts exactly;y where it should end, with leatherface inexplicably killing his boss and co worker...begging the question, why did he not just kill them before? he didn't seem to be too particularly upset by the closing of the slaughterhouse, and killed the boss and co worketr when they insulted him. given that they seem rather unpleasant people, i don't imagine that this was the first time they showered such abuse on leatherface...so, why does he decide to kill them now? also, do the co workers and boss feel even a little concerned by one of their co workers wearing a mask made from the skin of dead human beings to work everyday?

guess we're not supposed to think about that.

this film had the opportunity to show the origin and establish the backstory of the entire family. it skips that , opting instead for a rehash of every other slasher film, and more specifically the remake...only without any of the potential drama of that one. see, we know, this being a prequel, that certain characters survive, namely, the entire family. we also know, since there was no investigation prior to the one that bookends the first film after the survivor reported the house and the goings on out there, that no one had survived to tell the tale...thus, no dramatic tension whatsoever, and you are essentially watching a snuff film, the only variable being when the kids were going to get their comeuppance.

the least they could have done would be to introduce a bunch of other characters into the family that were not in the remake, giving at least the possibility that one of them might get killed.

i cant imagine a more poorly thought out, less interesting, less courageous way to continue this story...

thankfully for me, there was a screen next door showing the departed...

anyway, it looks nice, so as a photographic exercise, its got some value.

but this one is proof that studio execs are boring and cowardly

you know, i get what he's doing...it's brilliant satire of the whole 'fox news/reporter as advocate' thing, but you know, sometimes, in his performance, he just crosses over and becomes one of those guys...i have seen him interview some people, and his satire is so spot on, it ceases to actually differ much between what guys like o'reilly/hannity do for real. i actually agree w/colbert in real life, and i think fox news deserves constant mockery, esp since weak minded people, like this lady i used to work with, fail to realize that just b/c you say you're fair and balanced doesn't actually mean you are. so i would say, go WAY over the top and make that character look as bad as hannity and o'reilly look on their shows

its funny, good stuff...i would say, just be a little MORE broad

other than that, good stuff

some friends of mine showed this film as a group a few years ago, all gushing before hand about how wonderful it was. they really set me up for a great disappointment, as i was the only one who had not seen it...

well, as you can probably tell from the comments so far, i was disappointed. it wasn't a terrible film, but it was rather dull, esp. given the spectacular buildup it had been given. on the positive side, it did give me insight into something else. i had never been able to put my finger on what, exactly, kept me distanced from studio films from the 30s & 40s, and this film allowed me to nail it.

the mannered acting and dialects.everyone has polite, New England accents, and clipped speech (Thot willll be tyoo fah dinnahh?) seem a little more pronounced in this film. whenever i hear that accent, it strikes me as false. I don't know anyone who talks like that. I don't even hear it on TV. Yet, here it is, clearly meant to be indicative of 'breeding' and taste...again, a mystery for me. this dates the film as much as anything, as you never hear that accent anymore, even when dealing with characters in movies or TV that are 'well heeled new england' types.

to me,one of the greatest sins a movie can make is to be visually poor. if i had point to a single incidence of flat visual style from the studio era, this would be it. there is almost no contrast. the back of the set of as brightly lit as the front. the 'color' scheme (and yes, i realize it is b&w, but we are talking about shades and what not) is bland. i cant remember a single camera move or even a CU, although i am certain there were some...the point is, to me, this played like a play. when i think of this film, i think of the proscenium, with the action staged within, camera's flexible POV almost nonexistent. maybe some people don't mind, but to me, allowing a play to remain a staged act is almost criminally negligent, not allowing for a deeper examination of the material that the camera allows. not to mention reducing the performance, ridding the false, 'projection' necessary in the theatre...and which makes the theatre almost impossible to enjoy for me.

given the buildup it had been given by my friends, this film just felt phony . it was less funny that annoying. woolley was just a jerk, and rather than appreciating the poor family for putting up with him, i began to question the values of these society folk, who felt compelled t dedicate their lives to this guy after the accident or whatever...why? all of these things just serve to date it.

i don't remember a single laugh. i do remember thinking how dull these peoples lives must have been, and i do remember thanking the cinema Gods for film noir and the French and Italian new wave that killed off the studio system and its gentile flatness playing itself as comedy.

hey, a lot of people are able to look past this films dated, gentile veneer and appreciate the style of the humour...fans of the stage play would certainly have no issues with it, given that its essentially a camera in the audience at the performance. if you are partial to the studio factory style, and mannerisms and dated material don't bother you, hey , you'll probably dig it. i tend to think this film's real appeal is to a certain nostalgia in a segment of the audience, the 'they don't make 'em like they used to' crowd. new viewers, with no connection to the material, will most likely have trouble closing the gap, in style, in date, and in approach.

well, first off, i LOVE boogie nights. i think it is one of the best films ever made. anderson is my hero, and i basically get anything he does. it works for me.

that being said, this one is clearly the work of a teenager getting his feet wet. anderson is smart enough to utilize a form and story that would play into his lack of experience. there bis clearly something under the surface of this film.

still, it is a tough watch. first, my print was terrible, which is probably due to it being a nearly 20 year old film shot on 1/2" video and duped dozens of times. it is entirely understandable and excusable, but it doesn't make it any easier to watch. the color bleeds, shots are tough to see, and the sound is blown out. the performances are typical of such amateur films, and the actors are obviously not pros. it is dated a bit as well...note reeds mullet and 80s era gym clothes...remember, unlike boogie nights, this film is not a period piece, so all the embarrassing clothing / hairstyles are unitended, which makes them even funnier, if you ask me...this is proof if we ever needed it, that people actually though that mullets, those terrible fluorescent gym clothes and oakleys spoke for them. what they said, i have no idea, because i think all they could ever say would be "look at me, i'm a thick skulled idiot whose only accomplishments in life are my pumped up arms, my fake tan, and the ability to grow my hair, although i wont even full commit to that...go figure...

it is most interesting as an archive piece. if boogie nights hadn't been made, and anderson not become the powerful, original voice he is, this probably would not be that noteworthy.

he gets extra points in my book merely for finishing the work. anyone who has tried to make such a piece knows that finishing is an accomplishment in and of itself. and thank God he did finish, because this guy is the best hope for the future of cinema. kudos to him.

i was a big fan of dawn of the dead when i was younger, much of the reason being the almost "naughty" quality of seeing a film that featured so much gore and blood. unfortunately, being in my early teens, i sort of forgot about the dead films until they released day and dawn on great DVD special editions. i realize how much there was to this series once you got beyond the gore and violence. when i began to see ads for "lotd", i was enthusiastic.

in the past few years, we've had a zombie resurgence, and i liked many of those films (incl 28days later and the dawn remake). GAR gets his turn at the bat, and i think he knocks it out of the park. the plot is brisk, the pacing tight, with none of the occasional lulls and, lets admit it, embarrassing acting, esp found in day.

this is a brilliant addition to romero's oeuvre, but even more so, it shows that he is quite possibly just now reaching the top of his game. let's hope he jumps back in with both feet

i have to admit i was not a fan of the harry potter films. esp. when inevitably compared to the lord of the rings, the first film was so flat and dull that i didn't even bother watching the 2nd. in fact,i myself gave that first film a "1" rating here on IMDb.

the problem,i think was simple..it was a Hollywood board room product all the way, helmed by studio yes man chris columbus to drain all the surprise and interesting elements out of the books and make them bland and palatable...concerned more about the bottom line and who they were going to offend than telling the story in an interesting or exciting way.

thus, i was surprised by the 3rd entry. i literally walked in b/c i had nothing else to do that day, and a friend who i trusted had encouraged me to see it. after a few moments, i saw what the excitement was about. cuaron made all the difference, and his version of rowlings world is at once thrilling, fascinating, and magical. this is a place i could imagine wanting to spend several years of my life learning magic. i never felt the bland cardboard cut-out world of the first film. this film felt organic, as if anything could happen and very well might.

this just makes chris columbus all the more pathetic. those first 2 films could have been close to lotr quality, if a real director had been brought in. i, and others like me, will just have to rue the day columbus was allowed to taint this film series with his blandness.

this one, well, it has not only excited me for the impending release of the next film, but has made me consider reading the books.

absolutely one of the most brilliant films ever made. groundbreaking. awe inspiring. brilliant and amazing and a work of genius. hands down spectacular. i wont even bother explaining why.

one comment...if you are one of those folks who complains about violence, two questions...why did you see the movie? it is the very definition of "comic book violence". you had to know this going in. it is rated r. what more warning do you have to have? to complain about this particular film's violence is roughly akin to complaining about its stylized look for not being realistic. this is so over the top, and intentionally so, that no one in their right mind could ever or would ever mistake this as a real attitude towards violence or even a roughly accurate depiction thereof.

if you cant take violence, you should not see violent movies. it is your fault, not the movies, that you couldn't take it.

i have heard other such nonsense about its "degradation of women" and other rather PC concerns...look folks...it is a COMIC BOOK!!!! at what point do we stop judging every piece of entertainment as if it is a documentary style examination of everyday life in America and simply let it be what it is...

this is one of the single most brilliant uses of the cinematic form since the invention of celluloid and the discovery of persistence of vision, and beyond that, a damned entertaining movie. if this one didn't work for you, give it up. you don't like movies.

OK, i am able to get into the mindset to watch Italian horror. you sort of have to accept that the plot will unfold in an almost dreamlike way and try to let certain things (bad dubbing, bad dialogue, the occasional plot hole) just pass...

usually, you are rewarded by some genuinely interesting ideas and often brilliant imagery.

however....

IF you are trapped in a hospital which is apparently filled with the shuffling, groaning bodies of the recently deceased, and you repeatedly shoot them in the body to absolutely no effect...THEN you shoot a bunch of them in the head and watch them drop like a box of hammers...why would you then begin shooting them in the body again? ESPECIALLY when the main, crusty bad guy shows up...could it be that, if you nail him in the head, the movie is over, and therefore you cannot have the admittedly chilling (if somewhat expected) finale where our heroes end up in hell?

and like a few others, i have no problem with gore, generally...but really...does blood have to spurt several feet across the room, and the camera linger in closeup every time there's a wound?

fulci has had his moments. the image of the dead people shuffling through the hospital, esp. when they are in shadow, is very effective...much like the similar imagery at the end of zombi...but i think, unlike argento and a few other contemporaries, he was mostly a one trick pony...

i can be pretty forgiving of summer movies. if i get in the right mood, i can enjoy the mind dumbing loudness/visual explosiveness of big, dumb hollywood blockbusters. i liked jurassic park, for instance.

this movie was bad in that dumb blockbuster way, sure. it has no excuses. william hurt, mimi rogers, and heaher graham are all five star talents. the problem, here, is the script. not only is it so full of holes it could be used as a sponge, the dialogue was so terrible i actually cringed about every five lines. it is, honestly, the only movie i've ever seen which would be better withe EVERY line of dialogue removed. i would refuse to take any credit for that piece of garbage script.

i was familiar w/the goat from my early basketball days, mostly from his write up in the "in your face basketball book". i was interested in the story, and it was a good yarn.

the only qualms i have were some parts of the hoop scenes. in the midst of real nba ballers, we se eriq la salle, as allegedly, the best player on the court, unable to dribble without looking at the ball or use his left hand...his under the legs pass to a treaking player for a dunk was so laughable i almost stopped watching...

still, la salle is a fine actor, and he makes up for his weak balling w/a solid performance and workmanlike direction.

recommended for its unique tale of a lost legend, and some unintentionally humoroud basketball...

i can be pretty forgiving of summer movies. if i get in the right mood, i can enjoy the mind dumbing loudness/visual explosiveness of big, dumb hollywood blockbusters. i liked jurassic park, for instance.

this movie was bad in that dumb blockbuster way, sure. it has no excuses. william hurt, mimi rogers, and heaher graham are all five star talents. the problem, here, is the script. not only is it so full of holes it could be used as a sponge, the dialogue was so terrible i actually cringed about every five lines. it is, honestly, the only movie i've ever seen which would be better withe EVERY line of dialogue removed. i would refuse to take any credit for that piece of garbage script.

i can be pretty forgiving of summer movies. if i get in the right mood, i can enjoy the mind dumbing loudness/visual explosiveness of big, dumb hollywood blockbusters. i liked jurassic park, for instance.

this movie was bad in that dumb blockbuster way, sure. it has no excuses. william hurt, mimi rogers, and heaher graham are all five star talents. the problem, here, is the script. not only is it so full of holes it could be used as a sponge, the dialogue was so terrible i actually cringed about every five lines. it is, honestly, the only movie i've ever seen which would be better withe EVERY line of dialogue removed. i would refuse to take any credit for that piece of garbage script.

this film is obviously an attempt to craft a slower, more atmospheric, spooky thriller. if you are a fan of cinema, you know how tough an act this is to pull off. tension is always a tough cookie to crack, and when the pace of a film is slow, it is easy to slide right over into boredom.

anderson manages to navigate this particular tightrope fairly well. the film moves deliberately, but it always stays in motion. pieces of plot stir constantly, and thus the pacing never becomes tiresome.

in the end, however, there are a few failures. particular pieces of the film hold no narrative thread, really, and seem forced after seeing the ending. and about the ending...in the face of what came before,it is a bit of a let down, again, almost cheating, by letting itself out of the tense corner in which it had boxed itself.

still, it is an impressive piece of work. it is unfortuntate that this film did not get a wider release and a bigger budget than just about any film made this year. it contains a few moments of genuine all out fear and an excellent tense and creepy tone throughout. anderson and co. aim high, and come up a bit short, but still accomplish more than most films by mere dint of ambition. brad anderson is an excellent director/writer, and if this film, and 2001's fun and enjoyable "happy accidents" are any indication, he has HUGE things in front of him.

i recommend session 9.

i have not seen this movie, but everyone reading this should know that religious organizations have been encouraging their members to inflate the ratings of this film due to its content. if you check, you will see that the same people offer multiple reviews of the film. i can't comment on its quality, as i havent seen it, but the ratings and reviews are probably innaccurate.

honestly, i care about a film's quality of story, direction, acting and writing more than i care about whether it contains sex or violence. if you only care about g-pg ratings, then maybe these reviews matter to you. if you actually like movies, then many of the reviews on this film could, can, and should be ignored

very little of what passes for media, or even worse, art, actually does anything to confront society's ills. people constantly harp on "hollywood" as promoting violence and hastening the decay of society, when, in fact, hollywood is merely icing on an already rotten cake. fight club has the audacity not only to expose the abcess at the core of the modern world, but to also show how simple mindless reaction to that decay is equally evil.

fight club has the balls to actually confront the problems of the modern world. in a world where faction on both sides of the political spectrum peddle simple answers (just say no, violence in movies is killing us, etc) no one has ever bothered to even mention that our lives are hollow. in the film, tyler durden is created as a reaction to that. in claiming that rejection of materialism and a comfortable lifestyle in favor of a weekly dingy club where men beat the crap out of each other, fight club trades the nervous shell of comfort for the hard fist of real, honest feeling. pain, it says, is better than numbness, and there is some substance there. ultimately, though, it isn't fight club's violent reaction that saves "jack", but his connection with marla. this is another way of peeling back the disguise. simple mindless reaction to conformity is not what will save us. in the end, it's is our isolation which makes us hollow, and our connecting with other people that will save us.

this is tough for some people to see, and to accept. maybe alot of folks would like to have "jack's" life, full of pre-fab furniture and a dull day to day job. this has been promoted as the "american dream", and frankly, it sucks. lives of boring conformity and consumerism are not anywhere near as fulfilling as lives filled with passion, even if that passion comes with a struggle or a price. dullness, comfort, and hollwness are not something to aspire to, but something to avoid.

some people were bothered by the violence of fight club. to be honest, i didn't even notice. the story is so deep, and works on so many levels, that i was caught up in trying to take it all in.

i find it interesting to see how many people were not only upset by the content, but by the visual style of the film. it is gritty, muddy and dark. that isn't a mistake or a lack of insight. it is exactly how this movie should look. it is daring, and flies in the face of the soft focus, backlighting rampant in so much mainstream film making. I simply think its interesting to see people who can't accept that there is no guarantee that things, in story, theme, or style, must be "pretty".

most movies intend to make money. some aim a little higher. those are more important. those are art. art is under no obligation to make you happy. the fact that fight club continues not only to live as an organic document, but to become more and more relevant as time passes simply affirms its greatness. the fcat that many couldn't abandon their imprinted concepts of society, life, and what movies should "do" only makes it better.

so i get it. At its heart, this is obviously a touching subject, and hits really close to home for a lot of people. I had a really great co-worker who named this as his favorite film. It's too bad, because as a film, this is pretty weak.

As a screenplay, it displays extreme laziness. there are NO surprises in this movie. if it appears in the beginning of the movie, it will be used sometime later...characters are not so much developed as given quirks which will later fit some narrative need...

another thing that bothered me was its whole "embrace of middle-aged, yuppie values". honestly, you don't have to be mentally disturbed, angry, or on drugs to connect with punk, goth, or any other element of youth culture. just because a kid wears clothes from the gap instead of having a chin piercing doesn't make him better. this movie was so completely clueless about kids, hates them, in fact...

Its sad that such a powerful topic has to make due with a film so bland and by the books, and one which really presses the supposed value of conformity and judging by appearances. believe it or not, people with dyed hair and tattoos have, on occasion, not been criminals. And just because your wardrobe comes entirely from the gap doesn't mean that you are better than people who prefer color and denim.

2 out of 10