Export thread

That may be the single best movie I have ever seen. Go see it in theatres. Don't wait for it to come out on DvD. You HAVE to see it in a theatre to get the best feel for it.

Good to hear that you enjoyed it. I'll likely have to wait until it is on cable though.

Well goddammit, I was waiting for it to go on DVD.

Though the last time I did that with an Aronofsky film was The Fountain and I sorely regretted it.

Damn it, Necronic.

I'm super excited for this movie, and I'm hoping to catch it next week after work some night.

This was the creepiest freaking movie I've ever seen. It was good, but holy hell.

MindDetective said:

This was the creepiest freaking movie I've ever seen. It was good, but holy hell.

Click to expand...

My girl said it best:

"That was one of the best movies I have ever seen. But I don't want to see it in theaters again."

I'm not saying you shouldn't see it in theaters. You absolutely have to. But its so powerful that its not necessarilly something you want to experience twice.

Once was definitely enough.

It's....a ballet movie. A movie about ballerinas. Starring Queen Amidala and Meg from Family Guy. Directed by the guy who planned to make Batman a crazy homeless dude. Are we...are we talking about the same movie here? A movie about ballet starring an actress whose best known role was super wooden and another one who is a sitcom star directed by a guy who thinks Frank Miller is still a good writer. How can this be good?

Portman was wooden in Star Wars because of the director, really. She does an amazing job in Black Swan and deserves the Golden Globe nomination she received. Also, Aranofsky is a bit on the pretentious side in most of his films but he knows his stuff. He used horror direction techniques more effectively than I've seen in actual horror films.

Damn, yo, ol' Georgie Porgie even made Liam Neeson and Samuel I-Will-Kick-Yo-Ass Jackson boring. I've loved the Port in every other role I've seen her in. Plus she's totally hot bald, yo. I mean goddamn. Not that she's bald in this movie, I just thought I'd mention it.

- Philo-B., who would see this in theatres if he currently had the scratch

Seriously, she can act, she can rock the shaved head look, and she never pays for her dry-cleaning:



I mean,
sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee-it,
what's not to like?

frankly I think she deserves an oscar for this movie, and I think the movie itself deserves the oscar. Inception doesn't even come close.

Norris said:

It's....a ballet movie. A movie about ballerinas. Starring Queen Amidala and Meg from Family Guy. Directed by the guy who planned to make Batman a crazy homeless dude. Are we...are we talking about the same movie here? A movie about ballet starring an actress whose best known role was super wooden and another one who is a sitcom star directed by a guy who thinks Frank Miller is still a good writer. How can this be good?

Click to expand...

Why do you think there's no way to tell a compelling story about ballet? Natalie Portman is an amazing actress. Mila Kunis was very good in Forgetting Sarah Marshall. Darren Aronofsky has never made a movie that wasn't really interesting at the very least, and the vast majority are outright great.

But nevermind, go ahead and use your narrow view of nerd shit like the awful Star Wars movies, Family Guy, and Batman movies that never even happened to talk about grown-up movies.

---------- Post added at 04:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:16 PM ----------

Necronic said:

frankly I think she deserves an oscar for this movie, and I think the movie itself deserves the oscar. Inception doesn't even come close.

Click to expand...

Also lol at Inception being the big other contender for Best Picture this year.

Got a 91% audience approval rating on rottentomatoes.com. To be honest I don't know much about this movie. Just watched a trailer. Is it a horror film/psychological thriller? There were a couple of scenes in the trailer that led me to believe so.

Yes, in an artsy way

The pressing question is, though....Do either of them get naked?

Seeing it New Year's Eve; Dream's willing to go a second time.

Dave said:

The pressing question is, though....Do either of them get naked?

Click to expand...

Yes, with each other.

HCGLNS;461661][QUOTE=Dave said:

The pressing question is, though....Do either of them get naked?

Click to expand...

Yes, with each other.[/QUOTE]

What, seriously? You get to see Portman and Kunis naked and in a lesbian scene? Oscar contender, baby!

HCGLNS;461661][QUOTE=Dave said:

The pressing question is, though....Do either of them get naked?

Click to expand...

Yes, with each other.[/QUOTE]

When's the next showing?

I have to watch it on Haji vision damn it! I wanted to be on leave when this came out, but it just wasn't in the cards for me, I'll go buy my $2 DVD of this when they get a watchable copy

Dave;461664][QUOTE=HCGLNS;461661][QUOTE=Dave said:

The pressing question is, though....Do either of them get naked?

Click to expand...

Yes, with each other.[/QUOTE]

What, seriously? You get to see Portman and Kunis naked and in a lesbian scene? Oscar contender, baby![/QUOTE]

They do, though you don't see any naughty parts. You do see one of them get to orgasm, though.

MindDetective;461720][QUOTE=Dave;461664][QUOTE=HCGLNS;461661][QUOTE=Dave said:

The pressing question is, though....Do either of them get naked?

Click to expand...

Yes, with each other.[/QUOTE]

What, seriously? You get to see Portman and Kunis naked and in a lesbian scene? Oscar contender, baby![/QUOTE]

They do, though you don't see any naughty parts. You do see one of them get to orgasm, though.[/QUOTE]

Aw! If I wanted to see someone fake an orgasm I'd just go home to the wife.

No naughty bits takes this back to video for me. (I'm only partially joking.)

He's going to see it in theater the other part is not the joke

This movie honestly looks dull to me... but who knows... maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised?

If so many of you are swearing that it's amazing I'll have to give it a look sometime... but not in the theatres... I'll wait for DVD.

Its about as dull as a cordless drill being pushed into your temple by Dr Giggles.

Haha, that's an awesome summary.

The Lovely Boehner said:

Why do you think there's no way to tell a compelling story about ballet? Natalie Portman is an amazing actress. Mila Kunis was very good in Forgetting Sarah Marshall. Darren Aronofsky has never made a movie that wasn't really interesting at the very least, and the vast majority are outright great.

But nevermind, go ahead and use your narrow view of nerd shit like the awful Star Wars movies, Family Guy, and Batman movies that never even happened to talk about grown-up movies.

Click to expand...

1) Didn't say "can't". But somehow the trials and tribulations of prima ballerinas really doesn't sound like an exciting film to me. Especially when the trailers make it look to me like it is about a rivalry between two ballerinas.
2) Three. Straight. Films. Of wooden ass acting. "Nerd shit" though it may be, it doesn't change the fact that those flicks were definitely her star making roles and poorly acted. And it is really hard for me to blame Lucas' writing or directing, seeing as the original Star Wars (more nerd shit) is on the AFI Top 100. He wrote and directed that, the dialogue is no less goofy, and yet somehow the actors pulled it off.
3) Mila Kunis was great in a romantic comedy that was very screwball and had a fair bit of raunchy humor, yes. I, however, didn't like her performance in Book of Eli. Her most well known well remains a sitcom character. She is great at humor. I've not yet seen her manage drama convincingly.
4) A Batman movie that didn't happen because it was a thunderously bad idea. Like "The Day The Clown Cried" bad. But I admit, I'm unfamiliar with most of his work.
5) Man, fuck this "nerd shit" angle of yours. Heath Ledger won an Oscar for "nerd shit". Christopher Nolan got huge Hollywood clout on "Nerd Shit". Eight movies on the AFI Top 100 are "Nerd Shit". Fuck this "nerd shit isn't good because it isn't artsy" shit.

Your movie snob reaction, rather than fucking explaining how the movie is worth seeing like I asked ("how can this be good?" is a question, you see), makes me not want to see this movie. I'll be at True Grit, thank you very much. Jeff Bridges, the Coen Brothers, can't go wrong.

My question is, why's the swan gotta be black?! Are they saying all black people are ... downy?!!!

Philosopher B. said:

My question is, why's the swan gotta be black?! Are they saying all black people are ... downy?!!!

Click to expand...

2) Three. Straight. Films. Of wooden ass acting. "Nerd shit" though it may be, it doesn't change the fact that those flicks were definitely her star making roles and poorly acted. And it is really hard for me to blame Lucas' writing or directing, seeing as the original Star Wars (more nerd shit) is on the AFI Top 100. He wrote and directed that, the dialogue is no less goofy, and yet somehow the actors pulled it off.

Click to expand...

Seriously, have you EVER seen a Natalie Portman movie other than Star Wars? You shouldn't need more proof than "Sam Jackson is bland" to completely discredit Lucas as a director, at least nowadays. There's a huge difference between being a young director with something to prove and lots of people to bounce ideas off of then

Go watch "V for Vendetta."

Or "The Professional" for that matter (when she was 12).

Raemon777 said:

Or "The Professional" for that matter (when she was 12).

Click to expand...

Even blizzard knows it's true.

Raemon777 said:

Seriously, have you EVER seen a Natalie Portman movie other than Star Wars? You shouldn't need more proof than "Sam Jackson is bland" to completely discredit Lucas as a director, at least nowadays. There's a huge difference between being a young director with something to prove and lots of people to bounce ideas off of then

Go watch "V for Vendetta."

Or "The Professional" for that matter (when she was 12).

Click to expand...

Fair enough. Though I've heard "V For Vendetta" is terrible if you enjoyed the graphic novel, so I'm not sure that would help me much.

Seriously though, can someone explain to me why this plot synopsis:

A New York City ballet company is producing Swan Lake, and director Thomas Leroy (Vincent Cassel) decides to replace prima ballerina Beth MacIntyre (Winona Ryder) and is in the process of casting for the lead role of the Swan Queen. Dancer Nina (Natalie Portman) lives with her overbearing mother, former ballerina Erica (Barbara Hershey), who puts pressure on her daughter to succeed where her career failed. Nina finds competition in new dancer Lily (Mila Kunis) and struggles with the stress by apparently mutilating herself.

Swan Lake requires a ballerina who can play the innocent White Swan, which fits Nina, and the sensual Black Swan, which fits Lily, but Nina gets the part after she violently rebuffs the sexual advances of Leroy. The dancers' rivalry changes into a bizarre friendship as the show's debut approaches, and Nina becomes overtaken by dark revenge fantasies against Lily and starts to lose her grip on reality.

Click to expand...

should be compelling to me? I really can't stand those movies that are about people with shitty lives being depressed for two hours (for example, "Precious" was a well made film with great acting...but I have no interest in watching it again) and I can't help but think that a film about a ballerina with an abusive stage mom at home, a sexual predator at rehearsal, and who cuts herself to deal with the pain would be just that. Sad and depressing for the sake of being sad and depressing. That is not to say that it can't be well written, well acted, well directed, that its usage of lighting and sound and color won't be masterful, that its mise en scene won't be masterfully handled. Hell, I'm sure that a movie getting this much positive buzz will have all that going for it and more. However, critics also seem to love movies about sad people being sad and making the audience sad. I think I'll stick to seeing "True Grit" instead.

It is definitely not a depressing movie. I would say a better description would be, "A perfectionist ballerina begins to psychologically unravel while trying to deal with the pressures of a conflicting lead role that demands she explore her uninhibited side."

That's not to say you will like it but it is definitely not about a girl who cuts herself.

@ Norris:

But somehow the trials and tribulations of prima ballerinas really doesn't sound like an exciting film to me.

Click to expand...

And that is why you fail. And also why you will love the movie. The characters are SO much more than ballerinas, yet at the same time do kind of fall into your description. The complexity of the characters is what makes it interesting (and is also what made Star wars so bad.) Lets look at some other incredibly good movies that have a similarly potentially boring set of characters:

American Beauty, Little Children, Revolutionary Road, Shortcuts - Incredibly boring americans

A Beautiful Mind - A mathmetician

Good Will Hunting - another mathmetician. Nothing more exciting than math theorems

Dead Poets Society - Prep school morons

The Good Earth - A FARMER! WOWZA!

The Great Gatsby - Pretentious rich pricks

The Breakfast Club - Teenagers

--------------

I could keep going. Its not the superficial excitment of the characters that make a story good. Its the depth of the character and the quality of the story they exist in.

Did star wars teach you nothing?

2) Three. Straight. Films. Of wooden ass acting. "Nerd shit" though it may be, it doesn't change the fact that those flicks were definitely her star making roles and poorly acted. And it is really hard for me to blame Lucas' writing or directing, seeing as the original Star Wars (more nerd shit) is on the AFI Top 100. He wrote and directed that, the dialogue is no less goofy, and yet somehow the actors pulled it off.

Click to expand...

School yourself on some cinema history please. Do you know how many people kept Lucas from screwing up the first movies? Do you know how many of them were there in the second batch? The second movies were bad, not because of the acting, but because of the directing and ultimately the cowardice of the producers.

3) Mila Kunis was great in a romantic comedy that was very screwball and had a fair bit of raunchy humor, yes. I, however, didn't like her performance in Book of Eli. Her most well known well remains a sitcom character. She is great at humor. I've not yet seen her manage drama convincingly.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. Her movie career is pretty young. This movie will define her career.

5) Man, fuck this "nerd shit" angle of yours. Heath Ledger won an Oscar for "nerd shit". Christopher Nolan got huge Hollywood clout on "Nerd Shit". Eight movies on the AFI Top 100 are "Nerd Shit". Fuck this "nerd shit isn't good because it isn't artsy" shit.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is saying that nerd movies are inherently bad. What they are saying is that your viewpoint comes across as someone who defines film based on that genre. Calling out Natalie Portman's career and ability based on a nerd movie that was clearly a failure due to another person doesn't do you any favors and makes you look like a myopic critic with the epicurian depth of a goat.

Your movie snob reaction, rather than fucking explaining how the movie is worth seeing like I asked ("how can this be good?" is a question, you see), makes me not want to see this movie. I'll be at True Grit, thank you very much. Jeff Bridges, the Coen Brothers, can't go wrong.

Click to expand...

Fair cop to a degree. The problem is that this movie is incredibly difficult to describe without ruining it. But I'll try.

The story itself is about ballerinas, but only in a superficial sense. Its more about how a person can be flawed in their perfection, and perfect in their flaws. Its a story told with both subtlety and force, and this is seen both in the acting as well as in the script itself. There are no characters that are entirely predictable, they all have many layers.

At the same time, the film has a level of intensity that is hard to stomach. The sights and sounds hammer down into you at a very deep level that is very hard to identify. It reminds me of Japanese Horror films in a way.

You'll notice that I'm not talking about the plot, and that's because the plot itself isn't complicated and arguably isn't that important to the quality of the film. In a way its a bit of a Taoist attempt. The story is pure in its simplicity which allows more effort to be put into the depth of the characters and the manipulation of the audience through sense.

This entire description sounds incredibly douchey. Just see the damn movie.

Damn, Norris

You should have spoiler marked the the review you posted.

I can never stand reviewers that give so damned much of a story away with their reviews.

Necronic said:

Fair cop to a degree. The problem is that this movie is incredibly difficult to describe without ruining it. But I'll try.

The story itself is about ballerinas, but only in a superficial sense. Its more about how a person can be flawed in their perfection, and perfect in their flaws. Its a story told with both subtlety and force, and this is seen both in the acting as well as in the script itself. There are no characters that are entirely predictable, they all have many layers.

At the same time, the film has a level of intensity that is hard to stomach. The sights and sounds hammer down into you at a very deep level that is very hard to identify. It reminds me of Japanese Horror films in a way.

You'll notice that I'm not talking about the plot, and that's because the plot itself isn't complicated and arguably isn't that important to the quality of the film. In a way its a bit of a Taoist attempt. The story is pure in its simplicity which allows more effort to be put into the depth of the characters and the manipulation of the audience through sense.

This entire description sounds incredibly douchey. Just see the damn movie.

Click to expand...

Thank you. That says more to me, and does more to make it sound good, than any of the "just go see it" recommendations or the basic synopsis I found. That sounds like a film that has a point beyond depressing the audience (I would argue that for example, Precious doesn't due certain elements of its ending). The trailers and especially the plot synopsis really don't communicate that it is a more darkly psychological ride. Thank you. I may be able to make some time for before the holidays are over.

Sixpackshaker: I apologize, but I do point out that this is a movie talkback thread. Since spoilers aren't mentioned in the thread title, I should have hid them. Additionally, that's just the bare bones plot summary from Wikipedia.

Norris, no one's forcing you to see the ballerina movie. But consider that you're bitching about movie you haven't seen and know nothing about. You're ranting about subjects, and then admitting you're unfamiliar with them, or haven't gotten around to it yet (for example, comparing what went on behind the scenes with the original Star Wars vs what happened behind the scenes of the prequels as an argument for Lucas as a good director shows complete ignorance behind the facts of the series).

escushion said:

Norris, no one's forcing you to see the ballerina movie. But consider that you're bitching about movie you haven't seen and know nothing about. You're ranting about subjects, and then admitting you're unfamiliar with them, or haven't gotten around to it yet (for example, comparing what went on behind the scenes with the original Star Wars vs what happened behind the scenes of the prequels as an argument for Lucas as a good director shows complete ignorance behind the facts of the series).

Click to expand...

I'm not bitching, I'm asking. The trailers make it look an incredibly boring piece about ballet with what I have seen to be middle of the road talent. Here I find people saying it is one of the best movies of year and a must see. I am trying to reconcile these two disparate views and figure out if the ad campaign is shitty or if people on this board just fucking love self harming ballerinas. It would appear to the former. My original post was intended as somewhat tongue in cheek, then I had to defend the genre of science fiction/fantasy (AKA "nerd shit") and explain in more detail WHY I feel the flick didn't look that good. Low and behold, when someone explains it is not exactly what the commercials paint it as, I change my tune. Fancy that.

And while I know that Lucas had far fewer people editing his work every step of the way on the later trilogy, that does not negate the fact that he directed not one but two movies on the AFI Top 100, both of which he also wrote. Not only that, but they were his second and third features. So while he may have had less oversight, I find it incredibly hard to believe that he is the only or even the main reason his actors were so wooden in the prequels. The original cast did far more with far less.

Sorry for the double post but I just returned home from seeing the movie. The acting was great, the cinematography was great, the story was great, but Jeely Cly it was a hard to watch film. Like outright painful at times. Not due to lack of quality, but instead because of the quality of the visuals and acting. I would not exactly recommend this film, nor would I recommend against it. It is a fine film but I do not personally find films that are uncomfortable to entertaining.

So....if your choice is between this and True Grit, see True Grit. If you can see both, you probably should.

I say it is worth seeing. Once.

Yeah I enjoyed the hell out of the movie but I would not watch it again in theatres.