scream25281
Joined Jan 2002
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews14
scream25281's rating
This is a suprisingly affecting, and understatedly powerful portrayal of growing up. Its a about the need for answers, finding our way and some role in life, as we begin to explore ourselves making the transition from young adulthood to the next unknown. Personally, to me, its about finding our place in the world and being contented with that. The film doesn't provide any answers though, just a breathtakingly poignant, some might say pointless examination into that stage in our lives. The film is stylistically directed. Certainly there are similarities to the work of the 50-60s by the french new wave of Truffaut, Godard and co, in its simple yet effective (and seemingly) improvised use of creative camera technique i.e. freeze frame, slo mo etc. The performances (apparently improvised - well some of it) are absolutley astonishing in their realism. All the characters have an amazing rapport and chemistry with each other - you really do believe they have been friends for a lifetime. Thraves is marvellous but no more so than the other cast. So realistic are they, that no doubt you will have met similar individuals at some point in your life.
A mini masterpiece of a debut from a promising director. 9/10
A mini masterpiece of a debut from a promising director. 9/10
Marnie is a misunderstood masterpiece from the Hitchcock. Often cited as an example of a messy, flawed genius - it can be off putting to some since its quite talky. However stick with it and you will be intrigued and itching to discover all about Marnie (contrary to what most say, played with understated brilliance from Tippi Hedren).
The direction and cinematography is exceptional with Hitchcock and his usual crew i.e. Rob Burks etc on form. The atmosphere generated (apart from being 'Hitchcocky') is unique, dark, gloomy and at times akin to a horror film, yet it is utterly appealing and compelling. Theres an almost creepy, artificial humanless feel to proceedings as a result of the direction and how the actors have been directed to act as is briefly highlighted by a Hitchcock scholar in the documentary on the disk. Hitchcock knows the art of cinema, no flashy fast cuts or fast moving camera's as we see nowadays, but measured, inspired direction laced with flourishes of creative genius (thats Hithcock for you). Atmosphere, emotion is built up like poetry. Witness for example some moments of genius such as the final revelation, in what is one of Hitchcocks most underrated, powerful and shocking pieces of direction; the riding sequence which culminates in Marnies fantastic yet disturbing line of dialogue, " there there....", and also sinister momnets such as when Marnies mother wakes here from her nightmare- her voice disturbingly artificial in its lack of emotion and empathy for a clearly distraught Marnie.
Speaking of the mother, Louise Latham -the actress behind the role effortlessly steals the show from an already superb Hedren and Connery. Latham eleicits an absolutely breathtaking performance. Her character is frighteningly creepy, tragic, powerful and marvellously played to keep up the suspense and intrigue. You don't know what to make of the character except of the fact she knows or has played a part in Marnies psychological condition. In fact I would go as far as to say it is one of the greatest performances in a Hitchcock picture - an example of genius casting. Similarly her character is arguably the greatest 'mother' character in any Hitchcock film beating Pyscho and Notorious' madame Sebastion.
Marnie is a truly great picture and definetly Hitchcocks last great although Frenzy is a nice enough distraction. Not as good as Vertigo or Rear Window but certainly up there in the higher echelons of Hitchcocks work.
9/10
The direction and cinematography is exceptional with Hitchcock and his usual crew i.e. Rob Burks etc on form. The atmosphere generated (apart from being 'Hitchcocky') is unique, dark, gloomy and at times akin to a horror film, yet it is utterly appealing and compelling. Theres an almost creepy, artificial humanless feel to proceedings as a result of the direction and how the actors have been directed to act as is briefly highlighted by a Hitchcock scholar in the documentary on the disk. Hitchcock knows the art of cinema, no flashy fast cuts or fast moving camera's as we see nowadays, but measured, inspired direction laced with flourishes of creative genius (thats Hithcock for you). Atmosphere, emotion is built up like poetry. Witness for example some moments of genius such as the final revelation, in what is one of Hitchcocks most underrated, powerful and shocking pieces of direction; the riding sequence which culminates in Marnies fantastic yet disturbing line of dialogue, " there there....", and also sinister momnets such as when Marnies mother wakes here from her nightmare- her voice disturbingly artificial in its lack of emotion and empathy for a clearly distraught Marnie.
Speaking of the mother, Louise Latham -the actress behind the role effortlessly steals the show from an already superb Hedren and Connery. Latham eleicits an absolutely breathtaking performance. Her character is frighteningly creepy, tragic, powerful and marvellously played to keep up the suspense and intrigue. You don't know what to make of the character except of the fact she knows or has played a part in Marnies psychological condition. In fact I would go as far as to say it is one of the greatest performances in a Hitchcock picture - an example of genius casting. Similarly her character is arguably the greatest 'mother' character in any Hitchcock film beating Pyscho and Notorious' madame Sebastion.
Marnie is a truly great picture and definetly Hitchcocks last great although Frenzy is a nice enough distraction. Not as good as Vertigo or Rear Window but certainly up there in the higher echelons of Hitchcocks work.
9/10
I believe this film has got bad ratings due to the fact it is a war picture - most people expect action, action, action or CHEAP melodramatic moments for emotional involvement i.e. every soldier bites the dust during the course of the film except the main star(hmm Saving Private Ryan). Furthermore, the influx of new war films of late, have led to many revisiting past ones such as the Thin Red Line. This is where the negative comments stem from since Thin Red Line deviates so much from the other batch of war films. It is a film more about human soul and nature, set in the backdrop of war rather than an out an out 'war' film with a set goal (e.g. secure the fort!). For the record I have seen it with 2 other people and they didn't get it, so they didn't like it. The Thin Red Line is like fine wine, you have to taste enough of (and a variety of) it before you can really appreciate a fine one. And this is one.
This film is so much more. This was the first film I saw from Malick. I have since seen Days of Heaven, and that is even more accomplished as an example of poetic moving imagery (although not as good as The Thin Red Line since it lacks the any real substance, intelligence, characterisation - merely a series of beautiful moving images, albeit extroadinary ones). I must say Malick is an outstanding visionary. The Thin Red Line is magnificently shot with its long sweeping shots and panoramic views. Expect a certain stillness and beautiful calmness to the cinematography, which complements the somewhat philosophical nature of the film. However Malick does make use of a more frantic camera motions and movements during the 'cleanup' of the japanese camp - but not just for the sake of it (i.e. the MTV style so prevalent today), but to emphasise the sheer terror, chaos, brutality of the battle. It makes you question the justification and futility of such barbaric acts of war. This is in stark contrast to his more measured thoughtful direction of the hill siege for example. Thank goodness the more thoughtfully still and relaxed art of directing, is still around.
Others have argued the film is pretentious. Me? I hate pretension in films if abused. I'm an Bergman fan but even he is sometimes prone to too much 'arty poetic' talk in his films. I hated Apocalypse Now since the actors would break in a long boring philosophical speeches at every opportunity. The film is very overrated and not a patch on The Thin Red Line. Many find this an enigmatic statement since I love philosophy, plus Apocalypse Now and the Thin Red Line are considered to be from the same mold of film. For me, Apocalypse Now seemed more like an out of control binge on pointless philosophy just for the sake of it. Not all of it really added to the film (thats just me). In the Thin Red Line I could connect to the philosophy narratives, they revealed insights into the psyches and feelings of its characters, rather than just being there to make the film 'philosophical'. They elicited feelings and emotions from its viewers (from me at least). The Thin Red Line is never manipulative in the same ways that Saving Private Ryan is (a film which has its detractors from those stuck up elitist circle of critics I detest so much; but for all its negatives its still an accomplished film).
Clearly Malick put his heart and soul into this film (his first for 20 years) to craft a profound, unforgettable and dreamlike piece of melancholic, poetic art. It may not have the most realism. It may be unconventional in both its narrative and plot, but those who understand it, those who yearn something a little different, something with a little more intelligence will find that it is a film which resonates a sense of euphoria through the mind and soul.
Incidently others who like this should try the other James Jones film 'From Here to Eternity' (53). Not the same type of film (in a philosophical sense), although like The Thin Red Line its a war film concentrating on its characters rather than the war. Its a prime e.g. of a Hollywood film, but its an absolutely CRACKING one with the same type of theme, i.e. a somewhat rebellious soldier who, while treated/punished bad by the army still loves it. Also planned is 'Whistle' form Sidney Lumet. Not yet released but considered part of a trilogy to From Here to Eternity and The Thin Red Line. Can't wait.
This film is so much more. This was the first film I saw from Malick. I have since seen Days of Heaven, and that is even more accomplished as an example of poetic moving imagery (although not as good as The Thin Red Line since it lacks the any real substance, intelligence, characterisation - merely a series of beautiful moving images, albeit extroadinary ones). I must say Malick is an outstanding visionary. The Thin Red Line is magnificently shot with its long sweeping shots and panoramic views. Expect a certain stillness and beautiful calmness to the cinematography, which complements the somewhat philosophical nature of the film. However Malick does make use of a more frantic camera motions and movements during the 'cleanup' of the japanese camp - but not just for the sake of it (i.e. the MTV style so prevalent today), but to emphasise the sheer terror, chaos, brutality of the battle. It makes you question the justification and futility of such barbaric acts of war. This is in stark contrast to his more measured thoughtful direction of the hill siege for example. Thank goodness the more thoughtfully still and relaxed art of directing, is still around.
Others have argued the film is pretentious. Me? I hate pretension in films if abused. I'm an Bergman fan but even he is sometimes prone to too much 'arty poetic' talk in his films. I hated Apocalypse Now since the actors would break in a long boring philosophical speeches at every opportunity. The film is very overrated and not a patch on The Thin Red Line. Many find this an enigmatic statement since I love philosophy, plus Apocalypse Now and the Thin Red Line are considered to be from the same mold of film. For me, Apocalypse Now seemed more like an out of control binge on pointless philosophy just for the sake of it. Not all of it really added to the film (thats just me). In the Thin Red Line I could connect to the philosophy narratives, they revealed insights into the psyches and feelings of its characters, rather than just being there to make the film 'philosophical'. They elicited feelings and emotions from its viewers (from me at least). The Thin Red Line is never manipulative in the same ways that Saving Private Ryan is (a film which has its detractors from those stuck up elitist circle of critics I detest so much; but for all its negatives its still an accomplished film).
Clearly Malick put his heart and soul into this film (his first for 20 years) to craft a profound, unforgettable and dreamlike piece of melancholic, poetic art. It may not have the most realism. It may be unconventional in both its narrative and plot, but those who understand it, those who yearn something a little different, something with a little more intelligence will find that it is a film which resonates a sense of euphoria through the mind and soul.
Incidently others who like this should try the other James Jones film 'From Here to Eternity' (53). Not the same type of film (in a philosophical sense), although like The Thin Red Line its a war film concentrating on its characters rather than the war. Its a prime e.g. of a Hollywood film, but its an absolutely CRACKING one with the same type of theme, i.e. a somewhat rebellious soldier who, while treated/punished bad by the army still loves it. Also planned is 'Whistle' form Sidney Lumet. Not yet released but considered part of a trilogy to From Here to Eternity and The Thin Red Line. Can't wait.