Shout by SkinnyFilmBuff
VIP8Even though I've only seen two Miyazaki films before this (Nausicaä and The Wind Rises), I still felt like a I had a pretty good idea of what to expect and thought I would enjoy this one. Unfortunately, that wasn't the case. Way too abstract for my tastes. Didn't feel like a cohesive story and I didn't connect to any of the characters. You can have the cutest, most impressive animation in the world, but if the story and characters aren't working, it just feels empty. Once we enter the tower, all semblance of relatable story-telling is jettisoned and instead we get a random collection of "wouldn't it be cool if..." visual ideas in service of vague thematic elements. Clearly I'm in the minority here, but this one was just not for me.
loading replies
I completely respect your opinion, but wanted to point out that Nausicaa and The Wind Rises are really not good indicators of Miyazaki's works. Interestingly enough, I would never tell someone to watch these from the director first, so it is very curious that you picked these two to watch, especially because overall, they really don't represent his worlds and works that well (even though The Wind Rises is a summary movie of everything, his "previous farewell"). I would probably recommend Spirited Away and Howl's Moving Castle for the magic of it all (my two favourites), Mononoke Hime for the underlying topics (Nausicaa suits here too), and maybe Totoro for an easier introduction into his worlds.
I don't know if its just a matter of age, but this film did not work for me. The central pairing between Michael Douglas and Glenn Close was almost a complete deal breaker. I understand style and beauty standards change from decade to decade, but I was not seeing any attraction, fatal or otherwise. And that's not to say the performances were bad. I actually think they both did solid work. Maybe too solid in the case of Glenn Close, as her character struck me as the type to avoid almost immediately. Job well done I suppose. As far as the story goes, there wasn't much to it. It's a simple premise, and once the train is on the tracks it doesn't really offer many surprises. I spent much of the movie speculating on the next big sequence and was correct more often than not. The ending also suffers from a couple problems. I felt it borrowed a bit too much from the slasher/horror genre (especially with the cliché not-dead-yet Glenn Close jumping out of the bath tub for a final scare. I also think it would have benefitted from a less tidy/happy ending. As an aside, my girlfriend and I had been specifically looking to watch an erotic thriller and were quite disappointed in this film's offerings in that regard. However, we did get a good laugh out of the strange sex scene where the sink accidentally starts running and Michael and Glenn frantically start splashing water onto each other. Not sure we'll be incorporating that move, but definitely something to think about. As one final note, there are a couple scenes featuring casual racist stereotypes that are enough to make any modern audience grimace. They aren't a major part of the film, and are downright tame compared to something like Mickey Rooney's character in Breakfast at Tiffany's, but it's always interesting to see how things have changed over the last 30+ years.
loading replies
@skinnyfilmbuff Just rewatching Fatal Attraction now and I agree with you on most points. Although Ellen (Ellen Hamilton Latzen) was worth the 2 hours—what a sweetheart!! (Latzen doesn't seem to have done much more work after.)
To my mind, what made Fatal Attraction such a runaway smash at the time, is precisely what dates it, and washes it out inan old trope, namely that of the psychotic ex-girlfriend. What a hoot—haha (not).
It would be interesting for you (and your girlfriend) to elaborate on any further erotic thrillers you might have picked up recently? There are so many good ones.. even a few with Douglas that stand up better than Fatal attraction. Of course the iconic Basic Instinct (1992), Disclosure (1994), A Perfect Murder (1998/Hitchcock remake). And Close has a few of her own, the outstanding Dangerous Liaisons (1988), Jagged Edge (1985), Reversal of Fortune (1990). There's the Pacino/Ellen Barkin thriller that's pretty good. etc. etc.
While some will undoubtedly criticize the perhaps overly meta set-up that accounts for the first 30 minutes of this film, relative to the rest of the movie, that portion was actually my favorite part and I can't help but wish they had just gone all in on the idea. The story of a game designer who is losing his grip on reality felt fresh and unique. The rest of the movie... not so much. At the conclusion of the original trilogy, the Matrix lore was already an incomprehensible mess, but skipping ahead 60 years and dropping a whole new collection of buzzwords and exposition dumps only made things worse. All the more reason to cut ties with all of that baggage and tell some new story in which the Matrix is simply a series of videos games created by a troubled mind. Alas, that's not the movie we got, and after those first 30 minutes the film turns into an unsuccessful rehash of various elements of previous Matrix films. To make matters worse, the action is also not up to par. Even just finishing the movie minutes ago, I'm having a hard time thinking back to any memorable set pieces or sequences.
Luckily, things aren't all bad. The cast are pretty much universally solid, including both new and returning characters/actors. Jonathan Groff leans into his role as the new Agent Smith, Yahya Abdul-Mateen II sells his version of Morpheus, and Neil Patrick Harris delivers some fun monologues as the Analyst. Unfortunately, great acting can only take you so far, enough to sell hammy dialogue or even save individual scenes, but not enough to save the overall plot.
loading replies
@skinnyfilmbuff just finished it & decided to read some comments here. So far, yours is the only one I agree with. I wanna be friends with you lol.
