|
|
Post by salomonj on Sept 2, 2018 8:32:36 GMT
Well, that was fucking depressing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir_Farty_Fartsalot on Sept 7, 2018 2:08:44 GMT
7/10
It was well-done but dreary and I suppose some of the existential themes went over my head. Maybe I'd have to take a philosophy course to fully appreciate it? I don't know.. |
|
|
|
Post by movielover on Mar 26, 2019 23:33:32 GMT
7/10 - I understand the point it to not understand what is real and what isn't, but it got to be a bit much in the 2nd half. That's my only complaint in otherwise pretty good movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Oct 1, 2020 21:10:49 GMT
During the early 2000s, many independent films had offbeat humor (usually involving characters saying everything they were thinking without any filter). Audiences got sick of it by the time SYNECDOCHE, NEW YORK (which is about a theatre director who blurs the line between reality and fiction) came out in 2008. A lot of jokes feel forced (the one about the double meaning of the word "stool" made me roll my eyes). Aside from a couple of shots here and there, Fred Elmes' cinematography is very standard. Jon Brion's music score is too intrusive and distracting. This isn't the first project Charlie Kaufman has worked in where the plot revolves around an introverted man with a sad life, but it's the first one where he doesn't handle the concept well. In BEING JOHN MALKOVICH, Craig Schwartz yearned for power, and once he got it, he went too far. In ANOMALISA, Michael Stone was constantly ruining his own happiness while blaming everyone but himself. The audience wasn't meant to like those characters. In ADAPTATION, the fictionalized version of Charlie Kaufman was very neurotic and it was presented through dark comedy. He was jealous of how successful his brother Donald was. Any other movie would've shown him as a better-looking guy (to create a contrast), but the Kaufmans were identical twins. Donald's achievements happened thanks to his talent(?) and his personality, but that didn't stop Charlie from whining about his own appearance. Although he was more likable than the other 2, the audience was meant to laugh at him and wish for him to develop confidence. In ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND, Joel Barish made impulsive decisions based on emotions rather than logic, even at the end. It was an exploration of how a person can confuse the thing they want with the thing they need. Even though he was the most likable of the 4, the audience was supposed to question his choices. Here, Caden Cotard doesn't know how to appreciate the good things in his life, but the portrayal doesn't feel negative. His actions are shown as self-sabotage, but in a sympathetic way, especially during the last part. It's a story with a lot of layers, but once you look past the symbolism, you realize that it's a 124-minute pity party for someone who didn't earn it. I don't want to trivialize a project that displays a lot of effort and creativity, but what's the point if it's rotten at its core? 5/10 ------------------------------------- You can read comments of other movies in my blog. |
|
