Which non-Indian film did you watch recently

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kid-glove

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AravindMano

oru dhadava skim paNNi paaththappo this actress was pressing the same piano key in all scenes. seri nu vittuttEn. :lol:

---

:lol: Appadiya?! Don't remember that. But I don't think she ever plays the piano with conviction. Something eventful happens ! Hence why she couldn't get around to playing chords. Anyway, Piano doesn't appear in middle parts of the film.

---

No, was chumma exaggerating. :lol:

My Bloody Valentine :?

hey tarantino loves it very much.. who am i to argue.. :lol:

too much blood (even for a slasher).. more like a splatter. liked the (twist) ending. it deserves a sequel. No no not the awful remake.

Syriana - Very Good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AravindMano

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by P_R

Why does the judge open up to Valentine ?

---

Adhu dhaan padaththOda crux-ngradhu ennOda karuththu.

Let me first confess that most of my readings into the film happened after multiple viewing / discussing / reading about the film.

How did the judge send her the cheque to pay back for the dog's treatment, without knowing her name (forget even the address :) )? Why would he pay four times more than what actually could have cost there by bringing her to his home again? Every scene can turn out to be a "why"!

The Judge is the creator of the film who inserts himself into his creation and perfectly orchestrates his characters. (The obvious clue is of course the coin that gets flipped by the junior lawyer's lover). He knows what his characters talk ("eavesdropping"), he decides what his characters should to (when the lawyer's lover flips the coin to decide their trip, the Judge too flips one). His ultimate motive is, after all, to direct his two characters to find their match. (Whether the lawyer actualls *exists* is a different thing, he could be just the memory of the judge)

---

Thanks for that. I think the film is worth exploring more. The ending made it clearer that normalcy of plot doesn't interest him much as many of the themes. He is clearly packed with as many foreshadowing and clues to this.

I hadn't read much about "Red". But I read that in his first drafted script for "White", he had written a part where this suspicious boyfriend (Michel) meets Karol (the main character in "White"), but later it had been removed or edited out. Another vital moment in "White" which would be much of spoiler is missing from the final cut. I guess it's same with "Red". It had been consciously cut and put together.

Quote:

---

>>Ever since his 'betrayal' he has shut himself in and only 'observes' the world.
>>
Didn't get this betrayal thing, padam paaththu romba naaLaachu.

---

The old judge's wife betrays him. These concurrences with the young lawyer (About to turn into judge), I suspect, is what hits the sidenote, Whether the lawyer actually *exists* is a different thing, he could be just the memory of the judge, in your post.

Law abiding citizen.

Watchable for Gerard Butler.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kid-glove

Thanks for that.

---

My pleasure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kid-glove

I think the film is worth exploring more. The ending made it clearer that normalcy of plot doesn't interest him much as many of the themes. He is clearly packed with as many foreshadowing and clues to this.

---

Certainly. I remember reading a great analysis of the film. Though i remember most of it now, I haven't still mastered the art of putting thoughts very coherently & clearly. :) I shall rather dig up the link and post it here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaybaskar

Law abiding citizen.

Watchable for Gerard Butler.

---

What do you think the difference between this movie and Shawshank Redemption ? :D

RocknRolla (2008)

Easily this is the most accessible movie of Guy Ritchie for me. Tops over his other ventures hands down. This film has some fluid writing and performances and it flows so lucidly. A fantastic film with so many naughtly one liners and along with britees accent it makes them even funny. Thandie Newton is (S)excellent as Accountant Stella. That sex scene has to be one of the fastest, funniest and the most creative ones I have seen in movies. Gerard Butler, Tom Hardy and Idris Elba are cool as "The Wild Bunch". Mark Strong is very good as Archy.

The Russians chasing the Wild bunch scene is :rotfl2:. And in this film we have some of the coolest soundtracks. Eagerly awaiting "The Real RocknRolla" :thumbsup:.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by P_R

Screenwriting is one tough job I say. Kurosawa apparently would have co-writers whose only job would be to audit him: hey you are cheating. you just want the character to say that/react that way. It won't happen like that etc. I think that is a vital part of the process. This is how these characters are, and I have shown you some things that happen to them, you take it from here - is something I find unsatisfactory. Aphorism-kum Poem-kum irukkura vidhyAsam.

---

Oru tangent la poren:
Vera enga idha pathi pesaradhu nu therila. Ippo time-um frame of mind-um irukku. I'll register it here.

From another thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Equanimus

Some very interesting points there, especially the quote from Aristotle's Poetics (which, needless to say, I'm not familiar with!). I'd not disagree if you say that our filmmaking style is "sophomoric majority of the time" in a general sense, but would if it's said specifically about "packaging it's lack of logic." I think different kinds of films have their own universe of logic. Which is how the audience is able to seamlessly buy into it.

Again, as I argued earlier, that it is not true is always known. In the best of films, the "lack of logic" simply doesn't matter because you're busy watching the story unfold. It's only when watching bad films, we stoop to nitpicking. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by complicateur

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by equanimus

I'd not disagree if you say that our filmmaking style is "sophomoric majority of the time" in a general sense, but would if it's said specifically about "packaging it's lack of logic." I think different kinds of films have their own universe of logic. Which is how the audience is able to seamlessly buy into it.

---

I guess I have an issue with the "universe of logic" within most films and adherence to it. It is more of a relative issue than an absolute one.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by complicateur

I also didn't make the point I set out to make. Films that don't belong to the immediately fantastic genre - as in those that aren't immediately recognizable as requiring a whole new set of rules - coopt a semblance of the rules of immediate sensory reality. And it is a sort of implicit arrangement that the medium of film seems to have with the psyche. It is a very fundamental cognitive agreement the mind seems to have with the medium.

---

Very important point. Onnukku rendu thadava padikka vendirunchu, irundhaalum idha vida theliva eppadi solla mudiyum?! :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by P_R

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by equanimus

To put it differently, can this be seen as a characteristic of a sophomore film industry in any way? A big no.

---

Hmm.. I am not too emphatic about the 'no'. By calling it 'our' tradition we can't just brush it under the carpet.

The filmmaker has some work to get the reader - is something I will maintain till my kadaisi moochu.

He can't just take his megaphone and say "All of you report with your popcorns and suspensions of disbelief". That is pretty much what our sophomoric film tradition has been about. Whether 'our' films are indeed meant for us - is another market mechanical question. But I will be jumbling two many things if I get into that.

The 'internal logic' is the writer's job to establish. 'காபி சாப்பிட்டு முடித்துவிட்டு எழுந்த ராமசாமி, சிறகை விரித்து பறந்து போனார்'ஆப்பிடின்னு எழுதமுடியாது. Unless he is geting meta and trying to something on the lines of surreal/absurd etc., in which case too he has to do a good job of doing well or risk getting a ticket for reckless writing.

---

:rotfl3:

The question for Equa is, why shouldn't one expect "logic" within the framework set by the film? If that's taken away, what are the other things left in a film - things which can hold their own? How do we react positively or negatively in that case, and to what? It is possible to take something visually, aurally etc but in terms of writing? Isn't expecting characters and events to fall with the framework of logic (is it even the right word to use here?) set up by a film natural?

And as for the question of "if its acceptable in comedy, why not in 'serious' films?" - Typically, an important point of comedy is exaggeration, illaya? In fact, sometimes it is the whole point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aalavanthan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaybaskar

Law abiding citizen.

Watchable for Gerard Butler.

---

What do you think the difference between this movie and Shawshank Redemption ? :D

---

I have'nt watched it yet, buddy. Heard that the movie is one of the all time greats.. Will check that out..