Joined
·
16,014 Posts
Ebert says Charlize Theron delivers "one of the greatest performances in the history of the cinema".
http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_...01/010904.html
http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_...01/010904.html
Anyone seen 'Monster' yet?
- Status
1 - 20 of 43 Posts
Joined
·
19,586 Posts
From what I've been hearing, it's a lot more than that. She really evidently nailed this one.
Tour deForce or not, the movie will more than likely become reduced to just another device used in the debate against the death penalty by those who only get their "facts" from hollywood. I suspect that is the subconcious, if not concious, reason behind Ebert's gushing.
Joined
·
977 Posts
Ebert isn't the only one gushing about this film, it has received serious attention and praise from quite a few. This was not an easy part for anyone to take on, an certainly Ms. Theron's most difficult role in her short career. She's also backed by several first rate actors including Christina Ricci and Bruce Dern.
I'm quite interested in seeing this when it comes out on disc.
Howie
I'm quite interested in seeing this when it comes out on disc.
Howie
Joined
·
10,898 Posts
Quote:
I heard about this movie several months ago and have been eagerly awaiting its arrival, so I'm not waiting for the disc, I'll be seeing this next weekend. Until this weekend it was on a limited release (four theaters in the DC area), now there are many more added making it much more accessible.
| Originally posted by Digital Howie I'm quite interested in seeing this when it comes out on disc. |
Anyone else notice a pattern of "Critically Acclaimed" films coming out of nowhere and getting a huge oscar push. I think that this is part of the reason that award shows don't get the ratings they used to.
"WHO won best actor/actress for WHAT"
If you want the general public to give a tinker's damn give us a wide release please!
"From what I've been hearing, it's a lot more than that. She really evidently nailed this one."
I don't think it does "Oh wow you played one of the low people (white trash) you did it exactly how we thought they would act good job! Thumbs up!
"WHO won best actor/actress for WHAT"
If you want the general public to give a tinker's damn give us a wide release please!
"From what I've been hearing, it's a lot more than that. She really evidently nailed this one."
I don't think it does "Oh wow you played one of the low people (white trash) you did it exactly how we thought they would act good job! Thumbs up!
Quote:
Your saying the only reason (or the main reason) Ebert liked the movie and Theron's performance is to forward the anti-death penalty movement??? How did you arrive at that? Do you have anything to back that up?
| Originally posted by RBO Tour deForce or not, the movie will more than likely become reduced to just another device used in the debate against the death penalty by those who only get their "facts" from hollywood. I suspect that is the subconcious, if not concious, reason behind Ebert's gushing. |
Joined
·
6,227 Posts
Saw it for sale in town today... Didn't have time to check but I think it was a DVD5 and as such I doubt I will pick it up locally, may take the laptop down and see if the bitrate looks like it is recompressed of if the source and AC3 was
Joined
·
10,898 Posts
Quote:
| Originally posted by Phat Phreddy Saw it for sale in town today... Didn't have time to check but I think it was a DVD5 and as such I doubt I will pick it up locally, may take the laptop down and see if the bitrate looks like it is recompressed of if the source and AC3 was |
Joined
·
6,227 Posts
No I live in SE Asia.
Yeh its out. Dvds were sent to Academy Members since Monster is not being released by a major Studio the DVD went out
Monster
The Cooler
Wonderland
Lost in translation
Girl With The Pearl Earing etc..,
All of them were sent out on DVD and apparently available in Asia or off the net from those Asia bootlegging sites. As well as all other Major releases but those are VHS to DVD and would probably look like a complete turd.
Its really a shame, but theres apparently no way to stop it and honestly if Monster doesn't come out here the only way for me to see it is to order a disk or buy it off ebay
Monster
The Cooler
Wonderland
Lost in translation
Girl With The Pearl Earing etc..,
All of them were sent out on DVD and apparently available in Asia or off the net from those Asia bootlegging sites. As well as all other Major releases but those are VHS to DVD and would probably look like a complete turd.
Its really a shame, but theres apparently no way to stop it and honestly if Monster doesn't come out here the only way for me to see it is to order a disk or buy it off ebay
Joined
·
6,227 Posts
I also saw Lost in Translation was there... Is that not out yet in purchaseable form either ???
Joined
·
411 Posts
Phat Phreddy, ' Lost in Translation ' is out March 2 or 3
Mark
Mark
Joined
·
10,898 Posts
Powerful. Incredibly powerful. Bits of humor, and moments of brutality and sadness that will bring tears to some eyes. My wife cried several times it was that powerful and that moving. Charlize is this brutal, ugly, heavy, intimidating, trash talking street slut, and she pulls it off perfectly. Hand her the Oscar, it’s a done deal as far as I’m concerned. The makeup was absolutely perfect down to her scruffy fingernails. If anyone doubts this woman’s acting ability after viewing this you are seriously deranged. Of course we see those people on this site everyday, you know the ones who must find fault with everything, but this will challenge even those diehards. BTW, Christina Ricci turned in her usual excellent performance. Still cute, and still hanging on to some of that baby fat, but the two played well together.
Because it’s on such a limited release some of you wont be able to see this and it’s unfortunate. We took in the matinee at the local multiplex cinema, and it just so happens it was the smallest theater in the entire complex. The SQ was pretty bad and the PQ was nothing to write home about, so unless they are able to perform some sort of miracle, I wouldn’t look for the DVD to be of great quality. It will be worth buying for the movie alone, and I will, but not for the quality.
Because it’s on such a limited release some of you wont be able to see this and it’s unfortunate. We took in the matinee at the local multiplex cinema, and it just so happens it was the smallest theater in the entire complex. The SQ was pretty bad and the PQ was nothing to write home about, so unless they are able to perform some sort of miracle, I wouldn’t look for the DVD to be of great quality. It will be worth buying for the movie alone, and I will, but not for the quality.
i liked it primarily because it points out that, for the most part (i hate to use absolutes), people are not born "monsters." criminals are products of our society and this world. it's wrong to simply throw them away when we, as a collective whole, are the ones who made them who they are. that isn't to say that people who commit crimes should not be punished...in the end, the choice was theirs to make. however, some choices are made easier by a life of misery and abuse. as nonsensical as it might sound, criminals should be treated with compassion
Quote:
I only just now saw your query. Sorry for the belated reply.
You mean, like, evidence?
First off, my comment was put into proper contextual validity with the words "I suspect" and "the subconcious, if not concious, reason behind Ebert's gushing."
Those words should have made clear that I was expressing my opinion, not evidence. This is afterall the internet where what is bandied about willy nilly in the ether and filling probably 75% of the bandwidth is unsubstantiated drivel. You can put my comments into that category anytime you like; I won't be offended.
Second, what exactly did I say that was difficult to accept and would require further evidence? The evidence to substantiate my opinion or perspective as commented above is readily apparent if you keep alert. Just read the last couple of comments here on the movie to see that.
What should be obvious to anyone, is that the purpose of making a movie like "Monster" is not for any entertainment value, but rather to promote a political point of view. My comment above was just about that. Others here have made comments that I believe proves my point.
The movie is about a serial killer who is eventually put to death. The movie tries and apparently succeeds for some in presenting the fact that this serial killer is different than others who seldom, if ever, get a sympathetic movie made about them as "victims of society". The movie is intended to spark debate. Debate about what, one may ask? Is it merely because the killer in this case is female that we are supposed to feel more compassion for her as a "victim of society"? Is it that the killer's homosexuality is supposedly sympathetic in today's liberal social fervor for popular political correctness? It seems obvious to me that the debate is to be primarily about the use of the death penalty.
Ebert's very first paragraph of the linked review clearly demonstrates where his sympathies lie:
"What Charlize Theron achieves in Patty Jenkins' "Monster" isn't a performance but an embodiment. With courage, art and charity, she empathizes with Aileen Wuornos, a damaged woman who committed seven murders. She does not excuse the murders. She simply asks that we witness the woman's final desperate attempt to be a better person than her fate intended."
That paragraph is dripping with sympathetic irony. And it sets the tone for the entire review. What Ebert is saying is that the murders were inexcusable, including the "murder" of the killer. He is pointing out that because of Theron's performance, any viewer of the movie should walk away with the intended message of the movie: That the killer was victimized by society and denied any chances in life from her beginning to her end. Ebert has many times demonstrated publicly that he wears a very liberal political perspective on his sleeve. I believe it impossible that his political slant sometimes would not carry over into his movie reviews. It has seemed to me at times, his thumbs-up was awarded just because the movie presented a liberal viewpoint he agreed with or his thumbs-down was given because a movie might have presented a conservative viewpoint he couldn't accept. I am not going to research for any evidentiary examples of this belief to demonstrate here. Do I believe Ebert is against the death penalty? Yes. Can I prove it with evidence at hand? No. You will have to accept my assertion or dismiss it as internet drivel. Your choice.
I believe the movie is just propaganda.
Do you still not accept that my earlier comment has anything to back it up?
| Originally posted by max99 Your saying the only reason (or the main reason) Ebert liked the movie and Theron's performance is to forward the anti-death penalty movement??? How did you arrive at that? Do you have anything to back that up? |
You mean, like, evidence?
First off, my comment was put into proper contextual validity with the words "I suspect" and "the subconcious, if not concious, reason behind Ebert's gushing."
Those words should have made clear that I was expressing my opinion, not evidence. This is afterall the internet where what is bandied about willy nilly in the ether and filling probably 75% of the bandwidth is unsubstantiated drivel. You can put my comments into that category anytime you like; I won't be offended.
Second, what exactly did I say that was difficult to accept and would require further evidence? The evidence to substantiate my opinion or perspective as commented above is readily apparent if you keep alert. Just read the last couple of comments here on the movie to see that.
What should be obvious to anyone, is that the purpose of making a movie like "Monster" is not for any entertainment value, but rather to promote a political point of view. My comment above was just about that. Others here have made comments that I believe proves my point.
The movie is about a serial killer who is eventually put to death. The movie tries and apparently succeeds for some in presenting the fact that this serial killer is different than others who seldom, if ever, get a sympathetic movie made about them as "victims of society". The movie is intended to spark debate. Debate about what, one may ask? Is it merely because the killer in this case is female that we are supposed to feel more compassion for her as a "victim of society"? Is it that the killer's homosexuality is supposedly sympathetic in today's liberal social fervor for popular political correctness? It seems obvious to me that the debate is to be primarily about the use of the death penalty.
Ebert's very first paragraph of the linked review clearly demonstrates where his sympathies lie:
"What Charlize Theron achieves in Patty Jenkins' "Monster" isn't a performance but an embodiment. With courage, art and charity, she empathizes with Aileen Wuornos, a damaged woman who committed seven murders. She does not excuse the murders. She simply asks that we witness the woman's final desperate attempt to be a better person than her fate intended."
That paragraph is dripping with sympathetic irony. And it sets the tone for the entire review. What Ebert is saying is that the murders were inexcusable, including the "murder" of the killer. He is pointing out that because of Theron's performance, any viewer of the movie should walk away with the intended message of the movie: That the killer was victimized by society and denied any chances in life from her beginning to her end. Ebert has many times demonstrated publicly that he wears a very liberal political perspective on his sleeve. I believe it impossible that his political slant sometimes would not carry over into his movie reviews. It has seemed to me at times, his thumbs-up was awarded just because the movie presented a liberal viewpoint he agreed with or his thumbs-down was given because a movie might have presented a conservative viewpoint he couldn't accept. I am not going to research for any evidentiary examples of this belief to demonstrate here. Do I believe Ebert is against the death penalty? Yes. Can I prove it with evidence at hand? No. You will have to accept my assertion or dismiss it as internet drivel. Your choice.
I believe the movie is just propaganda.
Do you still not accept that my earlier comment has anything to back it up?
Joined
·
19,586 Posts
Quote:
Well, you obviously have it all worked out, but I for one don't see it as obvious. Exporing an issue and promoting a political point of view are not the same thing. Is Ben Hur exploring an issue or promoting a Christian point of view? People always think that a movie that is counter to their point of view is a political statement. Conservatives seem to think that every movie is counter to their point of view and a political statement. But everyone brings their own baggage ot a movie and leaves with either less or more than they came in with. Though I'm not particularly against the death penalty, I think that making people aware of the fact that there are people in this world who are FFB because of the cirumstances that we allow to exist, even in this richest country in the world, is worth doing. When a bunch of people get killed because such a person is FFB, and then we the people have to take on the added Karmic burden of frying the killer, that is something that we should think about. We're happy to spend hundreds of thousands to fry someone, but scream about spending a fraction of that to try to keep people from starting down the road that ends up with us having to spend the 100K to try and kill them.
| What should be obvious to anyone, is that the purpose of making a movie like "Monster" is not for any entertainment value, but rather to promote a political point of view. My comment above was just about that. Others here have made comments that I believe proves my point. |
1 - 20 of 43 Posts
- Status
Join the discussion
