Phonebooth

[Liquid_Dreams]

exactly!!!! most of the films that Neo reccommends.. dont turn out to be that brilliant to me any way.. i too have my own taste and so does every body.. i might like something that every one hates and might hate a movie that every one thinks highly about.

[Invincible]

I just found him about contradictive. He first says movies depend on one's taste and then he criticises coconut's taste as if she's got no sense at all.

[coco]

Neo, what did you mean by the other side of the line? You see to be honest, i like either predictable films or intelligent ones. the reasons for this is because i am fed up of figuring out the end of a movie in the first few minutes. I have studdied the art of film and film theory and personally i did not find anything that wonderful or faboulous or original about Phonebooth. In fact, i found Keifer Sutherlands voice-over incredibly irritating as well as monotomous and it sounded as though he was recording his voice in a studio based voice-over booth and was not on the other end of the telephone at all. Farrell seemed to enjoy the fact that he spent most of the time with the camera focused on him, there were many connotations there which if one knows much about the actor will see that he was actually coming across as a little self absorbed in the sense that he wanted to say to britney "stuff you" i left you and "yes i did cheat on you" etc.etc..also he was trying to say "i'm a great actor", "i'm gorgoues, look at me" there was no real suspense there. He gave himself to much self importance to be quite honest, in the sense that the film was based on him, the close ups on him, he tried to make himself look like a saint when really he is not a saintly character at all he was nothing but trouble and created trouble for those around him. He was a lying, manipulating figure and he wanted to basically say to the audience, what you read about me in the press is not true. So from that point of view i found nothing original or out of the ordinary about this film. It was an ego boost for him. The promo for the film was brilliant because i beleived from it i would be scared, on edge and possibly would have learnt something perhaps slightly profound from it, all i learnt was farrells self induldgence and nothing more. It was very low budget too since there were few actors and it was basically in one location and was completed in about a week i beleive when it was sent for editing and the final touches.

However, that is my opinion! I believe it is a fair and reasonable one since this film certainly is far from oscar winning stuff! Furthermore Neo, what makes you such a movie buff? Or at least let me ask you a film critique? Discuss what connotations you derived from the plot? The mise en scene? The lighting? The character developement? What sub-narrative was there? Was there a sub text at all? I am just curious since your so quick to judge my opinion or rather should i say the "other side of the line" assesment! What gender relations did you perceive? Which teachings of masculinity where visible in the movie? I mean those would be valuable areas to decipher and consider when really analysing a film would you not say? Those are what after all critics assess in a movie when reviewing it! Simply i found Colin farrel to be thriving and drowning himself in self induldgence, it was all about "me me me" according to farrell. There was nothing extra-ordinary at all! Oh yes and if you were to look into it deeply, you would probably realise that farrell actually finds himself an object of desire, of fantasy, the signs are all there, would you not agree? In fact his self obbession to some can prove to be quite perverse! he seems to love himself more than anything else, i would believe he may have an althusarian outlook on himself in the sense of "an imaginary relationship" with himself, what do you think neo?

Cheers <img src="/threads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

[Liquid_Dreams]

loooooooool, poor Neo, this will teach you not to criticise peoples opinions and taste.

[Invincible]

Loooooooool; yeah, I feel sorry for Neo too.

Coconut,

Neo is a well engineer so dont be hard on him (I felt you were getting theoretical about analysing the movie - something only a professional can answer...hehe, like yourself). But it's good all what you said, I know I am enlightened by it although some of ur questions that are directed to Neo are hard to comprehend. Whatever the case is, I think you justified your opinion brilliantly. *Applauding*.

[Neo]

Coconut,



Previously, I thought you were on the other end of the line in comparison to my test, but after reading your reply above, I am convinced now even more that you are on the other end of the line TO ANY one’s taste. Girl, normally when I go to watch a movie, I am going to look for an entertainment, and not to conduct a case study. What I do at my work place is enough already, I mean what the hell, LIGHTENING, were you serious?



To me is the feeling I get once I am done watching a certain movie that I rate it accordingly, you see as SIMPLE as that. And what made this movie such facinating is the following:



- It taught me the art of listening, we human tend to judge people on the situation rather than to listen to them, understand them and hear the meaning of simple clues which might save our own lives to an extent

- Did you know that Farrel is Irish, did you see him actually speak on his mother tong accent, trust me, I couldnt follow him, saying that, did you notice his uncanny ability to mimic an American accent

- What about the fact the entire movie took place in a phone booth and yet manage to collect so much money out of it, this itself is ingenious to me

- What about the characheter change, from one arrogant publicist, ending as a broken man, spilling out his confession to his wife and at the same time actually feeling sorry for him



So what if Farrel enjoy the fact that he spent most of the time with the camera focused on him!?!??!



So what if Farrel wanted to say to britney "stuff you" i left you and "yes i did cheat on you" etc.etc..also he was trying to say "i'm a great actor", "i'm gorgoues, look at me" there was no real suspense there!?!!?



So what in real life he is a bad person?!!?!, I dont care about that, I am not there to judge Farrel as he is, I went to watch the movie to judge Farrel as a movie charachter, and HE DID A GOOD JOB AT IT as well



So what? nothing of the above had anything to do with the movie itself, on contrary I think it made it even better, atleast this way it refelcted the arrogancy part he had to play as the publist





No wonder the movie producers hate critics, they dig too deep where in actual fact a movie should be simple. Again this movie is not an A type movie compared to others, one need to know to what movie this one should be compared to. And the obvious answer would be the budget, I understand this movie cost around one million, you compare this movie with those movies of the same budget, THAN TRUST ME, THIS MOVIE IS AT THE VERY TOP OF THE RANKING.



Coconut,



I am not critic, nor I wish to be one, I am a simple man, who pays simple money to try and enjoy a movie after a long busy week at work. My opinion mostly goes along with the amount of money the box office make, so if I say a movie is brilliant, than most of the time it turns out to be a good one at the box office, not at the critics point of view.



Simply because I more or less represent the average viewers who dont dig into detail when watching a movie, and big precentage of the movie veiwers are average, that wont give the detail their time of the day, because at the end of the day, is entertainemnt we are looking for.



One more thing, it also depend what movie I am going to watch, if its a 200 million budget movie than my expectaion would be high, only than I will focus on the detail on top of my enjoyment, if the budget of the movie is low, than I switch my detail part of the brain off and cocnentrate on enjoying the movie instead.



With Phone Booth, it was merely enojyment, because they didnt spend that much on the details as you clearly pointed them out, and yet they manage to stand side by side with the giants from the amount of money they made. To me THAT fabnouls, unique and ORIGINAL that you missed to pin point

[Invincible]

Wow Neo, coconut must have had an effect on you for you to write such a long post! that's the longest post I've ever seen you post.

Neo, drop it man. You loved it, she hated it. End of subject. Personally, I feel somewhere in the middle about it. We've all got different taste so leave it at that.

[Neo]

Exactly invici,


Its a matter of taste, and originally I didnt mean to say that coconut taste was bad, I was comparing hers to mine thats all, I am sure if we compare coconut taste to someone else maybe would be the same. See what I mean, so no disrespect intended

[Liquid_Dreams]

from your post Neo you should have known that both of you are talking about the film from different angels.. she sees more in a movie than just a dialogue and pretty faces.. and you have your own criterias.. so every one judges it the way they know best..

i mean take one of muscati's posts for intance, when he goes on and on about the cinematography, screen play, director, i dont know what else.. he too looks for such things when judging a film..me on the other hand i'll just sit, enjoy my nachos while watching the pretty faces talking and doing some action.. that's my entertainment and i judge it according to that.

any way, next time we should all be more careful when criticising others opinion and taste.

[Neo]

But guys, a COMPELTE WASTE OF TIME, I think that was a bit extreme considering the movie was on top 10 for at least five weeks on a raw!!

And from her review above, all I can see she is basing her end result towards this movie mainly on how she portrayed Farrel as in his true self rather than the character he played. If I did that, than I would hate every single movie Russel Crow made, as and as everyone knows, he is a prick in real life to an extent it cost him a second Oscar although his performance in “Beautiful Mind” deserved him an Oscar far more than his performance in the “Gladiator”. And this what I meant we shouldn’t dig deep, although I agree the notion that everyone has an opinion, but at least it should be limited to the movie itself and not go beyond the boundary of the movie, what the actors does in the real life is not of my concern and it shouldn’t be in anyone’s concern, as long they entertain us and do their job as per the director liking than thats enough for me. Again it’s an entertainment and not a case study!

[Liquid_Dreams]

Neo,

what do u think of pulp fiction? To me it was a total waste of time.. i didnt enjoy it one bit.. yet a lot would bite my head of just because i said so.. because to them Pulp fiction was one brilliant movie.. see.. i didnt dig too deep.. yet i found one of the most favoured movies to be a total waste of time ..it's my taste! get my drift!?

[Invincible]

Neo,

Take a break brother. You just said everyone has their own taste so why are you judging the way she assesed the movie? Why are you criticising in a way that clearly insinuates that you know better or that you would make a better critic?

Pick any movie at the top of your head and randomly select 10 critics who wrote a brief review about that particular movie. I bet you anything the views are almost contrasting.

[Neo]

Exactly you didnt dig to deep, hence your opionion is well justified. ITs those who dig to deep that I dont understand, get my drift!.


Furthermore, Pulp fiction is one of those movie you either LOVE IT or HATE there is no middle grounds about it. Same thing applies to "Fight Club", "Blair's Witch Project" etc etc. You either GET IT or YOU DONT.

Phone Booth, doesnt fit in that category at all, the plot is very simple and no confusion about it, hence your either LOVE IT, OR SO AND SO, but a complete waste of time is a bit too strong, but looking at coconut assumption, she apparently focused on Farrel way of acting that reflect the person he is in real life, that what I mean digging to deep, what the actor do in their personal life has and should not have any impact of how good the movie is!.

[coco]

Neo, sorry dear but not just total waste of time but total waste of time. yes i see your point of watching a film for entertainment, you see film critics believe in two viewers, the intelligent viewer and the passive viewer, most people fall in the catagory of the passive viewer, since the focus more on the story line and do not read into the film ie the sub text. You asked if i was serious about the lighting, yes, lighting is one of the most important elements in a movie, in fact if there is no lightining there would be no film to put it simply, look at horror films for example, did you notice how dark and eerie they are? did you notice the shadows on peoples faces in horror films? this creates suspense. if you study film noir, you will see that in that particlar genre lightining and mise en scene are the most important ascpects of the greater picture and bring to surface more of the sub text. I am not here to criticise your point of view, but i think for myself i did find it a waste of time, there was nothing original about the film, the fact that it was low budget is ok too, there are many low budget films which are much more amazing than phonebooth. i did not see anything out of this world, yes it is up to an individuals taste and we simply look for differnt things.

it is also fine if it was a self indugent film on farells behalf but that is the reason i was put off it. i do not care about him as a person/actor after watching this film. I also think there is more to critique than the acting it is about the hidden text, the deeper meaning and does not necessarily have anything to do with the narrative and the dialogue.

[Liquid_Dreams]

My God Neo.. Give it up man.. u r just repeating ur self and u do not want to understand what we are trying to say.

[Invincible]

I dont dig too deep because Im not a movie guru. People who dig deep are ppl like Muscati, Coconut etc...and I actually appreciate their opinion. I find it interesting and mind-opening to see how they look at a movie from a completely different perspective. Many times I would be dissapointed by a movie, then I'd read muscati's way of looking at the movie, watch it again and actually appreciate it.



Many people told me to stay away from adaptation (it's boring etc) but muscati said it was brilliant so I thought to myself 'yeah, there are times when I hated the movies muscati loved, but Im going to watch adaptation and try to see the things he mentioned about it' and guess what? I totally loved the movie.



Now back to what you said about pulp fiction. Are you implying that those who loved it got it and those who hated didnt get it....meaning those who hated it were too stupid to understand it?!



I dont think coconut cares about farrel's life so why are you making too many assumptions? just ask her....just shoot with questions instead of assuming and accusing.



Stop it man, you're being such a meanie! <img src="/threads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

[coco]

Pulp Fiction broke the rules of traditional hollywood scriptwriting, it started at the end and then told the story jumping back and forth until again we find ourselves at the end of the film. This film is hard to analise for very differnet reasons. For myself, i had to watch the film a few times before seeing it as something amazing and deeper than anything else i had watched but to begin with i was uncertain of it. The music carried the film, the acting and dialogue was excellent too as was the sub text. i can also understand why many may have viewed it as something horrible or some would have even struggled with it.

adaptation was fantastic i agree with you on that point, it was incredibly sad and beautifuly shot. one of my favourite films and a film that i would consider to be intelligent.

[Neo]

Coconut deary,

but you woudl agree with me, the extent of how deep one should go in a certain movie should depend on the budget imposed to create that movie,correct?

So if a movie cost 1 million to make, obviously the expectation and what to look at should be less rather than a movie made for 200 million?. Otherwise, if one decide to use the same tool of critcizing for any movie than I just sense unfairness, hence one would might as well not watching the movie to begin with, because for sure, it would turn out to be a bad movie anyway.

I a nutshell, one should based their opinion to how much money was imposed to create that movie. Because money, buys great actors, it buys lightening, it buys great writers and hence great plot etc etc.

[coco]

Neo sweety,

No i would disagree with you about how deep to analyse a film based on the budget. did you see irreversible, a very disturbing french movie, well that was even less the $1m and had a much deeper meaning to it. Some action movies cost tens of millions and are terrible, budget has nothing to do with the deepness of a movie, the script is where you will find that, the way something is shot is how you will see that, the characters development and the setting is how you will see that. The fact that phonebooth was shot in a phonebooth is actually a waste of $1m in my opinion, they could have built the set in a hollywood studio for less than that and filmed it there and superimposing much of the background, the idea that budget determins the depth of the movie is wrong. low budget movies can have extremely deep meanings. budget is seperate from script.

[Neo]

Invi,

There you go again, putting words in my mouth. Movie such as Pulp Fiction, Fight Club or even Memento. Mainly depend on how expereineced one has towards watching movies. As coconut nicely put it in her example of pulp ficition, it was a revoultionary movie, it break the traditional way of scriptwritting. Hence it made it such a fantastic movie, because to review such movie requires different tools all together.

So no, No stupid, but rather in expereince, or used to the normal way of a movie plot