come anticipate 'Brick' with me!

All the reviews online so far make a big deal about how it's noir transferred to high school, like updating genres (or, quite often, 400+ year old material) to a teen/young-adult setting is a new concept.

Ask Adam.

http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B000089ASU.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

http://www.filmdeculte.com/photo/film/elephant/2.jpg

Not an updated noir at all, just a noir.

Exactly. Minimally ironic (which is not to say that it's not capable of being funny, like the scene with the vice principal), very sly, incredible dialogue, and very well-directed. I admired it a whole heck of a lot.

This year's Donnie Darko?

I loved hearing VU in the credits though.

As I say, there was lots to savour. Like the camera - still a lot of the time, but jump-cutting when the detective (whose name, actor or character, I've clean forgotten) was starting to feel the effects of losing blood.

maybe tonight

think I'm going to see this in a week

anyway-great movie. i didnt like the scenes where actual "adults" appeared. too ironic, or whatever. i liked the idea of the self-enclosed adolescent world, and these scenes struck me as a wink at the audience.

did anyone else think The Pin looked like Momus?

No, but when the camera had Brendan at certain angles I kept thinking, "Ken C!".

No but he was the spitting image of the Pin(e)fox

Marvelous! I was feeling betrayed.

your gift for overstatement remains unparalleled in the entire history of humanity

I thought the mother was funny. Didn't mind the music either.

I liked some of the little touches like the blurred view when Brendan wasn't wearing his glasses. I liked the mother - reminded you that the kids were actually still kids.

(xpost, surprise!)

before seeing it i read on some other movie thread someone saying something about Sister Ray being "used realy well" in this movie. I I got my hopes up and was really let down when it turned out it was only used in the credits.

I watched this tonight and loved it - it is indeed one of the closest Chandler rips I've ever seen, despite the high school setting. I had a bit of trouble with the dialogue, but the plot was never in doubt because every archetype did exactly what was expected of them.

Can't believe no one's mentioned the awesomeness of the scene in the principal's office yet.

I was surprised at how much I liked this.

chaki OTM, unfortunately.

If the actors can't read Chandler/Hammet in their spare time, how can they be expected to speak their dialogue?

I hated this movie. Which is weird cuz I tend to love ripoffs of Chandler/Hammet, and I love teen movies that operate within their own little world (cf. Bugsy Malone!), but this just did not work. It's internal logic just didn't work for me - it switched back and forth between the rules of noir and the rules of teenage reality whenever it was convenient, which I found really annoying and distracting.

for example, the role of the assistant principal - the only adult role in the film, but if there's one adult, where are the others? DOES NOT COMPUTE

I just wish it had decided which world it was in - this total unreal neo-teen-noir world, or the real world. Flitting back and forth between one and the other just made it really irritating - internal consistency is important when the premise of a film requires the temporary suspension of disbelief.

There was also a mother.

But the Asst. Principal is The Man, or The Chief - the authority figure who intrudes upon the seedy underbelly Our Hero exists within.

There was no reason to have more adults, it wasn't about them.

unwatchable.

I understand each and every noir archetype fulfilled by the various characters Milo, but their usage was haphazard and sloppy - why did the Chief have to be an adult at all? There being one adult authority figure implies the existence of an outside world capable of influencing the teenage one - yet no one in the film worries about cops or anything like that, just the assistant principal? what the fuck.

I really did want to turn this off in the middle, which is pretty rare for something I rented.

There being one adult authority figure implies the existence of an outside world capable of influencing the teenage one

erm an outside ADULT world

What should the Asst. Principal have been instead in order to serve his role?

He had to be an adult because he had to come from outside the kids' world. There are no readily identifiable teenage figures who could play The Chief.

THIS MOVIE IS CRAP AND YOU ARE ALL CRAZY.

They coulda made up any kid as an authority figure, as long as logic's going out the window - an older sibling perhaps, a kid in charge of a place all the other kids frequent, there's an endless stream of possibilities.

But my underlying point is this: why bother setting the movie in a teenage world anyway, if its just gonna be a straight Chandler/Hammet plot, with all the adult motivations and chicanery, complete with faithful dialogue? If you aren't gonna have the characters operate in any of the standard way teenagers do, or have their world bear any resemblance to teenage life and motives and concerns, or have the plot hinge on any teenage concerns or character traits - why make it about teenagers at all? So gimmicky and pointless.

(x-post)

They couldn't 'make up any kid as an authority figure' because they would have to tell you. The audience immediately and clearly identifies the Asst. Principal as the The Man, just as they would the Chief of Police or someone in a traditional noir.

I haven't seen it in over a year, but I think you're overstating the adultness of the characters. The concerns and attitudes seemed teenager-centric, they didn't have the freedom of adults, they were still bound in by suburban life/school/parents.

oh come on, nobody's concerns in the movie had anything to do with being a teenager - they were all classic ADULT noir concerns: the femme fatale, the underworld criminal boss, the cocaine, murder, etc.

That's the point - femme fatales and drugs and lost love are equally teenage concerns in other respects, aside from the murder (and hell, I grew up in a pretty easygoing city so maybe not even that). The underworld criminal boss was a petty dealer with a couple of henchmen.

(see also: story behind Alpha Dog for the real-world version of "underworld criminal boss")

I would have been happy if they had chosen one or the other: either play the film weird all the way with no adults anywhere a la Bugsy Malone, or actually make it about teenagers (and not teenagers pretending to be adults) and place it in the ostensibly "real" world. This six-of-one, half dozen of the other approach was a mess.

x-post

"Teenagers pretending to be adults" = teenagers

There was no six-of-one. There were two adults and only one relevant (the other existed to remind you that the hardcore badass mastermind you refer to was actually 18 and living in Mom's basement) - and he had to be from outside their world, as per noir authority rules.

C'MON YOU KNOW THIS MOVIE SUCKS.

Shakey your point makes zero sense to me.

teenagers bein' all noir is far more plausible than adults acting that way, which is a giant fantasy.

...which would be ok, again, if the actors had been trained to deliver the argot.

i like this movie enough that i bought a copy.

haters OTM.

Although if it had actually been a high school play instead of a movie it would've been great!

SHIT SANDWICH.

Maybe clarifying Shakey's point a little: the teenage world is recognizable as the noir world (actions, motivations) but what's the point if the teenagers don't TALK like teenagers? (ie Alfred OTM). Not trusting the teenagers not to talk like the Continental Op and still come up noir --> unpleasant gimmick.

this movie is better teen noir than brick

http://www.digitallyobsessed.com/cover_art1/tart.jpg

seriously

so weird. I had no idea this was such a divisive movie.

ilxors only like contrived teen movies when theyre made in the 80s (ferris bueller etc)

... except when they're called "brick" and made in the 2000s? are you sure you read the thread?

kenan i really really wanted to like this and yet it's one of only like 3 movies i've ever walked out on, so when other people express mild enjoyment it's just perplexing to me.

New Best Friend >> The Smokers >> Tart

It's Joseph Gordon-Levitt's finest role since Angels In The Outfield

It's a really fun movie. A little amateurish at times. The fight scenes were very entertaining and the running scene culminating in the trip was very clever and well executed. The dialog was great, not for it's authentic delivery, but for the humor. I especially love the moment on the beach when the Pin asks him if he's ever read Tolkien. "His descriptions of things are really good. He makes you wanna be there."

Haters are sour and have no sense of fun.

Teen movies might as well be written and acted like this because they are almost all painful to listen to, even the good ones.

"She knows where I sit at lunch."

C'mon. That's awesome.

I hardly even think of it as a teen movie. It's pretty effective noir, down to the last cliche.

There's a little plot problem at the end, tho.

Since being a poseur has done so much for Tarantino, you can't blame the (much less talented) writer-director for trying it with this tripe.

Yeah I'm gonna have to join the haters on this one. The trailer got my girlfriend and I so hyped up, but when we finally rented it we were both pretty disappointed. I get that the stylized dialogue was sort of the point, but after Veronica Mars proved that you can do high school noir while still letting the characters talk like chatty modern teenagers, it just felt so ham-fisted and overcooked. I mean, I went to a high school were small-time dealers beat up and killed each other over drugs, so the plot didn't seem too far-fetched, they just made it feel ridiculous with poor exectution. And it felt very much like the rookie director's first effort that it was, hopefully his next one will be better.

it felt very much like the rookie director's first effort that it was

yes, but i'm kinda thrilled by that

hopefully his next one will be better

fingers crossed

RUFFALO

I wanna see John and Fluffy Bear At the Movies now.

roffalo

The Bros Bloomps?

I was all about this movie fwiw

John Justen and Fluffy Bear at the movies is in preproduction at the moment, but prominent names have been attatched to the project.

Wow, I'm also surprised there's a hater contingent for this one. The complaint that doesn't really make sense to me is Shakey's:

If you aren't gonna have the characters operate in any of the standard way teenagers do, or have their world bear any resemblance to teenage life and motives and concerns...

This is weird to me, since so much of the obvious surface-level fun and recognition of the thing comes from the way the high-school setting is already noir. Someone's already mentioned the "where have you been eating lunch" slang, which is a good example of that -- but it goes beyond the slang, really, into the idea of high schools as microcosms where there really is an importance to where you're eating lunch, with complex heirarchies and subterranean groups and social scheming that's as noir as anything from the get-go. Most of the great moments of crossover and recognition come from that, with the assistant principal scene probably chief among them -- the ass VP is the police of the high school world, the disciplinarian, the one adult who's actually (in the real world!) trying to keep track of how a high school's worlds operate (they have informants and shit!), and so it turns out to be a rather narrow exaggeration to have one taking on that role, right? I can't figure out why this bothered Shakey, rather than pretty well delivering the chuckly recognition it seemed meant for.

There was a review somewhere that basically said that this movie has no idea who their audience is which is probably otm. Most teenagers wouldn't get the Hammett/Chandler references and the people who do get it probably wouldn't get why they have to be placed in the context of a modern high school. My first impression was that they were pretty much saying that noir-speak is a lot like teenage-speak - impenetrable unless you're part of that world. Nabisco otm, it is pretty clear that Brick (and Veronica Mars as mentioned upthread) is basically pointing out that high-school is very noir. When I saw this, it really got me wondering why nobody thought about doing this earlier.

I kind of liked it, mostly because it is so obviously done by an amateur, you could see just how hard they were trying. And there were a lot of fun moments - how could you not appreciate all the physical comedy in this? All the fighting scenes were great! Plus, I liked the dorky kid who plays JGL's sidekick/man-on-the-inside but then again, I would.

I thought it was pretty well directed, though it's not like I really know about those things. The previously mentioned chase/trip scene stands out, as does the visual concept of the pin's dark basement with almost no furniture and the really low ceiling.

People think too much about stuff.

nabisco 8080 -- it's much more realistic than the obligatory 'newcomer is introduced to the taxonomy of highschool subcultures' lunch-room scene in every other teen movie

EVEN "TEN THINGS I HATE ABOUT YOU"!?!?!?

How many times has Joseph Gordon-Leavitt been introduced to the taxonomy of high school subcultures in a lunchroom?

the most obnoxious Sundance Concept Movie I've seen yet.

as opposed to regular Sundance, which is just after-school specials with a dash of "quirky"?

n/a: don't get me wrong, I thought it was quite well-directed myself. I just meant amateur-ish in the sense that it felt like someone's first real movie. As in you could really see how much love the director had for it, it was clear that he had thought a lot about the camera angles and the sets and detail. It just felt like it was a little too detailed.

I didn't get the sense that these kids were actually in high school at all - you never see anybody in class, or doing homework, or really ever even hanging out with other groups of kids, or doing anything that high school kids usually spend their time doing. Instead, they do all sorts of things that adults would ostensibly notice and intervene in (fights, murders, drug dealing), yet there is no significant adult presence. There is no internal logic in operation beyond MUST SHOEHORN IN EVERY HAMMET/CHANDLER TROPE.

Haha wait Shakey is your complaint that the lack of adult presence was UNREALISTIC?

Instead, they do all sorts of things that adults would ostensibly notice and intervene in (fights, murders, drug dealing) (sex, house parties, not doing homework) yet there is no significant adult presence.

FIXED

plz don't get all hifalutin about shoehorning in tropes, it's v boring

PLEASE can we PLEASE not use Hammett & Chandler as interchangable figureheads

Brick is much more Chandler than Hammett anyway

I think it did a good job of conveying what high school felt like at times, while making me wish that's what it was actually like.

The druggies are doing pot behind the local coffeeshop, drama kids in lame high school theatre, Brendan talks about his English teacher with the Asst VP ("Tough teacher?" "Tough but fair."), the jock is bragging to everyone who would listen and Brendan's buddy hangs out in the library because his bus comes too early. What's not high school about it?!

Anyway, the Pin's mum serves them orange juice, completely doesn't notice that her kid is a big-time dealer = every oblivious suburban parent ever?

I mean, this movie is all about a very airy and improbably combination of forms and moods, it seems incredibly weird to think that anyone would expect it to operate in any kind of serious real-world way!

(My favorite aspect of that, BTW = drama-club femme fatale being in scene-appropriate costume for each appearance, despite said club clearly not staging full-dress performances of like four different productions in the same two days.)

Brick is much more Chandler than Hammett anyway

It seemed kind of Red Harvest-y to me, but I've never read any Chandler.

(incidentally, if I were going to read any Chandler, what should I read?)

The Big Sleep & The Long Goodbye are good points to start

2nd thought, go for Farewell, My Lovely over Long Goodbye

People think too much about stuff.

Sparkling.

Nabisco, I don't have a problem with real-world correspondences; the actors were just hopeless and the staging awkward, all matters of opinion.

Haha wait Shakey is your complaint that the lack of adult presence was UNREALISTIC?

no, like I said before my complaint is that the film tries to have it both ways - its basic trope (the dialogue and the plot) is totally implausible and unrealistic, but then it also acknowledges a recognizable and realistic teenage world when it suits it (the VP, the refs to "eating lunch" or whatever). I wished the film would pick one or the other - or warp the two together in a more interesting way - but the film engages in a continuity-of-convenience that I found irritating and very off-putting. (If there's a VP, where are the cops, for example? The police don't care that there's a dead body/girl missing? wtf)

(and Alfred's right the acting IS terrible, but that's a separate thing - none of the actors knew how to handle this kind of rapid-fire dialogue with any credibility)

Okay, Shakey, I suppose I can kinda see where you're headed, but I have to mention that your list there strikes me as totally bizarre! You're separating the dialogue and plot out as improbable noir and then claiming that it gets realistically teenaged when it suits it -- "the VP, the refs to 'eating lunch'." But of course the VP talks in the same improbably noir terms as everyone, and his plot function is total noir deal-making. The references to "eating lunch" are a part of the noir argot.

So I don't really follow this idea that it picks and chooses -- part of the fun for me was that they were very well wound together, and the fact that your examples of "recognizable / realistic" strike me as so noir-bound themselves just kinda reaffirms that to me, I guess.

My complaint with the movie is that I tried to watch it twice and couldn't get more than 20 minutes in without being aggravated to the point of turning it off.

I might make it through if there is an English subtitle option, because between the mumbling and shitty background noise/dialog ratio, I think I only caught about half of the lines.

look the reason I brought up the VP is cuz the presence of one adult authority figure implies the presence of an external, ostensibly real/adult world - and if there is an adult world aspect to the film, the rest of the movie doesn't make any sense. Where are the girl's parents - they didn't notice she's gone? The cops don't care that someone's moving coke at a high school? No adults care that none of these kids seem to spend any actual time in class/at school? No adult/parent notices the main character's getting the shit beaten out of him all the time? We're supposed to believe that the VP (and the mom) are the only other adults in this world?

NO WE ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE ANY OF THAT

as was pointed out, the VP is the cop who cuts deals with the PI. And like I said, the movie is pretty much just a noir, and parallels to "real" high school life will only trip you up if you start thinking of it as a teen movie. It's really not. It's a wink-winky clever-clever crime drama.

If you're going to be bothered by a plot point anywa: the cops WERE looking for the dead girl. The VP pretty much called Brendan and told him that the cops were coming around asking questions and that he knew about Brendan and his dead ex-gf, so he'd better come up with something or else he'd be going down himself.

I'm still not sure what makes Brick any less realistic than any other teen movie which involves crime. I mean, besides the dialogue, how is this any less realistic than say, Save the Last Dance? There were barely any parents in that one either, and in that, kids apparently spent all their time either in dance studios or shooting each other.

Everyone in this movie does mumble though.

er, anyway.

xpost

Dude, I'm sure her parents noticed she was gone by the time it was in the paper, you know? But it sounds like you just didn't feel like swallowing the VP's whole plot function in this -- as an analog for "Police Chief" and therefore "Authority Conduit for High-School Noir World," his whole function there was to call off the world of authority and then send it pressing back.

(No, this is not plausible in a real-world sense, but this is high school as the entirety of the world, more or less, which is why I'll find it kind of charmingly / dreamily appropriate that the VP exercises this power, rather than worrying around it -- I suppose to me this just isn't a "believe" movie, it's an "enjoy" movie. I'm not sure I've ever seen a "believe" movie, to be honest.)

Or anyway I can actually see why the big stretch with the VP would bother someone in this -- it kinda begs your indulgence on that point, I think -- but as for the type of movie this is, getting too worried over those points seems a little like watching City of Lost Children and being all "hey, where are Child Protective Services in this? and what kind of federal regulatory agency gave a zoning go-ahead for that evil laboratory?"

The cops don't care that someone's moving coke at a high school? No adults care that none of these kids seem to spend any actual time in class/at school? No adult/parent notices the main character's getting the shit beaten out of him all the time?

dude, did you GO to high school? ALL OF THESE THINGS HAPPENED!

i mean--there were half a dozen coke dealers (some of whom were moving real weight) and SURE the cops would have cared if they had KNOWN about it--and like, how many times did you skip class in high school (not to mention that all of the action in the movie explicitly takes place AFTER SCHOOL or during LUNCH)?--and srsly i got in a couple fights in high school and my parents noticed and i just told them that i fell and stuff. not talking to your parents about trouble is pretty fucking standard at age 18

half a dozen coke dealers at my school, i mean

Could've worked as a flat-out comedy; the funny stuff is the best in it (Mom with the OJ, the way he baits the football player into the fight), but I had the feeling I was supposed to be moved occasionally, and also give a shit about characters besides JG-L.

If you want some high-school noir where the adult world is fully represented and a lunchroom scandal leads all the way to City Hall, stick with Veronica Mars

VM is insufficiently dreamy, I always thought -- I wouldn't have minded if it'd gotten more Brick-like from its start point, instead of way less Brick-like.

Morbs, the "moved" thing is interesting -- I actually can't tell if movies like this want to move you or not! Take old noir: there's a level of dramatic intensity, but it seems more aiming to thrill than to move; sometimes it's on the edge and I can't tell what it intends; and sometimes I suspect there are things that read as thriller tropes in present that may have had more dramatic poignancy back at the time (e.g., the ruined woman). I really can't tell in any direction.

max - there were dealers at my high school - they got busted and were constantly having run-ins with the school and local authorities. I got in fights a lot - I got sent to the VPs office and my parents definitely knew about it, almost every single time (adults notice when there's a crowd of kids yelling and screaming in a circle). I can't remember ever actually skipping class cuz there were like on-campus cops and hall monitors and shit who busted any kid that wasn't where they were supposed to be. And I went to a suburban high school in SoCal, not far from where this movie ostensibly "takes place" in fact.

watching City of Lost Children and being all "hey, where are Child Protective Services in this? and what kind of federal regulatory agency gave a zoning go-ahead for that evil laboratory?"

the difference is City of Lost Children makes ZERO gestures towards the action taking place in "the real world". With something like that, its clear from the get-go that you're operating in a mythical/fictional framework - which still has to have its own internal logic - but concerns about "realism" are reasonably set aside.

give it up, Shakey. Essentially this debate comes down to: great job of creating alternate high school universe vs shitty alternative universe

I WILL NOT POST PICTURES OF JGL FOR EVERY SILLY POST

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/focus_features/brick/_group_photos/joseph_gordon_levitt5.jpg

http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2006-04-06/cover_story-1.jpg

oh god, the kid in the glasses irritated me more than anything. it was pretty clear what kind of noir archetype his character was a surrogate for, but they made no effort to even figure out what his role in the plot should be.

the only thing that really bothered me about that character was the "RUBIX CUBE + GLASSES == BRAINIAC" short-hand

If this were a kiddie Out of the Past the boy with the glasses would have been Rhoda Fleming.

VM is insufficiently dreamy, I always thought -- I wouldn't have minded if it'd gotten more Brick-like from its start point, instead of way less Brick-like.

VM does the Brick thing the right way though, during the comedy noir argot sparing matches between Keith & Veronica.

Reading Chandler, Hammett, Thompson etc. now the dialogue's aggressiveness and wit is still exciting DESPITE the goofy pre-war slang. I mean, I love the goofiness but why import all these hoary "dames" and "moles" or whatever into a contemporary setting? Obviously the characters in VM don't talk like real teenagers, but they capture a lot of that noir energy of gamesmanship without resorting to anachronism. I guess I feel like the people who made this have no idea what makes noir work.

Chandler's dialogue =/= Joss Whedon-style dialogue

the difference is City of Lost Children makes ZERO gestures towards the action taking place in "the real world".

the VP, the mom, the references to things kids actually do at school (eat lunch, etc.) = gestures towards the real world

I don't think VM is very Whedony, aside from the pop culture references. Besides, it's not "doing" Chandler; it cherrypicks from the noir & teen after-school special templates to create its own world. Brick is like one whole noir cloth stitched to half a teen rag in the most hackneyed and amateurish manner. YMMV c'est la vie.

veronica mars is not high art, ppl

So when the characters in Star Wars hit up a bar, that's a gesture toward the action taking place in "the real world"?

shakey it's weird to me that you're demanding that movies take place either in an entirely realistic world (whatever that might mean) or one that has ostensibly no connection to "reality," as though, like, every film ever doesn't occupy a nebulous space between strict reality and strict fantasy.

yeah milo has it--isnt the fact that the characters in brick are human beings a "gesture toward reality"?

So when the characters in Star Wars hit up a bar, that's a gesture toward the action taking place in "the real world"?

uh, that movie begins "A LONG LONG TIME AGO IN A GALAXY FAR FAR AWAY", that should clue you in right there.

anyway Alfred's OTM - Essentially this debate comes down to: great job of creating alternate high school universe vs shitty alternative universe, and I think this was a shitty alternative universe. I was unable to do the supension-of-disbelief thing cuz it has no internal logic.

Shakey, you should realize that picking apart inconsistencies in rhetorical references (especially those chosen for humor) really makes you come across as an insufferable jerk.

eh whatever - pretty much everybody on internet message boards comes off like an insufferable jerk

xpost

the VP, the mom, the references to things kids actually do at school (eat lunch, etc.) = gestures towards the real world

This is just repeating what I said upthread, but these are such bizarre examples!

VP = a hardboiled police-chief archetype who negotiates with the main character as a private dick / one-time informer (i.e., not a realistic gesture)

Eating lunch = part of a self-conscious hardboiled argot where lunch is representative of what world/underworld you're spending your time in, such that a statement like "I know where you've been eating your lunch" could be a withering accusation (i.e., not a realistic gesture)

Why both of these things seem interesting to me = they're anything but realistic in fact -- they're noir genre standards -- and yet they're cleverly matched to high-school situations where they may as well be fact, where your lunch-eating choices really do constitute a huge portion of your place in the world, and where your VP really does serve as "the law," and you may well be called into his office and interrogated or asked to inform. (Only in the real world it'll be about who spray-painted the gym, not a murder.)

This is JGL responding to this thread:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/02/14/magazine/19perf.slide15.jpg

P.S. Shakey I think (seriously non-sarcastically) you might enjoy the fiction-logic of this one cartoon about a reformed juvenile delinguent who becomes a middle-school detective, because his big yelly chief is ALSO a middle-school kid (and because the characters' names are all San Francisco references) (and because he looks and dresses a little like ME, seriously:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/09/FIL_HOTDOG.jpg/200px-FIL_HOTDOG.jpg

nabisco I was just using shorthand there: the mom, VP = adults implying the existence of an external adult world (and power structure). The lunch thing being a reference to something the character would actually do were he a real teenager at a real high school.

but we're just circling around the same point here, neither of us is going to convince the other...

wait that cartoon looks familiar

(Also his Safety Patrol partner looks about like the kind of imaginary girlfriend I'd have had when I was in middle school.)

(did I mention how much I love Bugsy Malone?)

omg JGL daaaaaamn

If Rian Johnson wasn't trying to move me, I don't understand what the whole lost-love plot (and the last scene) is doing there; cuz it either has to play funny or 'straight,' otherwise it's just an empty exercise in style. Which is what I found it to be.

they're cleverly matched to high-school situations ...where your lunch-eating choices really do constitute a huge portion of your place in the world

Yes, but it's the very ludicrousness of those immature teenage values put into the language of wisened adults (from the '40s) that makes the concept wearying in anything but a 5-minute comedy sketch.

JG-L looks like he's beefing up a little from the photos from that (last) failed (/) noir he was in.

Everyone go watch Red River.

It was on TCM yesterday.

Well, "the language of wisened adults" in the hands of Chandler and Hammet was pretty silly too, but what works on the page doesn't on screen, etc, unless your actors are wizened adults.

one of the other things that bored me about it was that it stuck so close to the noir playbook - I knew exactly where the plot was gonna go, what each twist was gonna be, who was gonna die, etc. - and with the teenage subtext so unconvincing, there was nothing else there to convince.

Complain as some might about the Coen Brothers, by comparison Miller's Crossing at least added a couple key factors to the noir template to keep things interesting - good actors who could handle the dialogue well, and the gay love triangle subtext.

and with the teenage subtext so unconvincing, there was nothing else there to convinceengage

fixed

veronica mars is not high art, ppl

pow! right in the kisser.

Demosthenes
by Ron Kurtus (26 August 2001)

Demosthenes (384-320 BC) was one of the greatest orators in ancient Greece and a contemporary of Plato and Aristotle. He was motivated to overcome a speaking handicap and learn to write logical and moving speeches. His skill in being able to deliver his speeches with conviction allowed him to become a political power in Athens. But his political work also led to his downfall.

Motivated to study speaking
His strong desire to sue the scoundrels led him to study legal rhetoric and train himself as an orator.

Had speech defect
The problem was that Demosthenes had a speech defect. He was inarticulate and had a stammering pronunciation. He sought to overcame his handicap by practicing speaking with pebbles in his mouth. Doing this forced him clearly enunciate his words, instead of rushing and stammering. He learned to control his speaking.

Demosthenes also practiced reciting verses when running or out of breath. Again, he was able to control his speaking, as well as his breathing. Another thing he did was to practice speaking before a large mirror. In those days before microphones, the speaker had to have a strong voice and use dramatic gestures for effect.

HAS HOLLYWOOD LEARNED NOTHING FROM THE ANCIENT GREEKS?

Nabisco was OTM!

holy shit it's pinefox

And yes, Nabs most definitely OTM here.

Gotta see this again.

holy shit it's pinefox

-- BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Sunday, November 25, 2007 1:55 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Link

^^^^

Just watched this, it reminded me of every single high school-set kids show where one of the characters is writing an assignment for school and they play it with the characters from the show. A+ for Sister Ray tho, also JGL is top 5 do-able in this. What do I gotta do to get a fine lookin' dame that's rotten to the core tho?

i enjoyed this as a hollow stylistic exercise for the first 30 minutes and then got very, very bored

i like how the bad guy with the walking stick reminded me of Mr. Bean...!?

I can only think about this movie as one of JGL's Serious Moves; to watch it again would give me a migraine.

this movie is gaytarded

totally don't get the strong reactions to this film. it wasn't the best thing ever, but it certainly wasn't a bad film by any stretch of the imagination. i thought it was fun seeing young actors attmempt this kind of dialogue, on the whole, it worked. there were only a few moments where i thought it felt clunky, i remember reading JGL saying it was the hardest thing he'd ever done in terms of learning the lines etc. the set pieces were great. i don't think it would have worked as well without the adult world lurking in the background. it needed that sense of greater consequence so you'd to give a shit about what was going on. it needed to be there and was only used three or four times throughout. maybe that's why it felt so wrong to some people.

was this hyped to fuck or something? it's def not the sort of film that was bad enough to be switched off or would provoke any kind of omg this is the worst shit ever type reaction.

things i didn't like: the brain, the glass rattling motif during the first 30 mins of the film and the final scene, bit of a let down.

I don't think it's a bad film -- it's a failed attempt at something, which is preferable to a wholly bankrupt enterprise.

still love this.

yeah, thought it was great

fuck this movie

don't remember a thing about it

definitely more skeptical about recommendations from whomever it was that said this was a really great, innovative movie (not an ILXor). It wasn't awful, but it wasn't great.

Loved this in the cinema, thoroughly enjoyed it on DVD. Will watch again. The scene that clinched it for me was the one halfway in when JGL faces off with the headmaster - can't remember exactly what it was, but have a feeling that one line in that exchange made me totally fall into this film's world.

i liked it a lot as an exercize -- trying to pull off something a little silly and difficult, that's not a bad thing at all. but i think the big problem was the "noir" plot wasn't that interesting. oh, the girl did it? wow, didn't see that coming.

yeah, it definitely conjured up images of youth theater with kids wearing fedoras and trenchcoats that didn't quite fit.

Made it about 30 minutes in before I was tired of the shtick and hit eject; vaguely interesting concept hung on a weak coat rack of a story.

yeah, it definitely conjured up images of youth theater with kids wearing fedoras and trenchcoats that didn't quite fit

but that's kinda awesome!

i keep expecting the revive on this thread to be about the brothers bloom and then get annoyed when it's all ppl explaining how clever they are for not liking it tbh

brothers bloom sucked too

was Ornaldo Bloomps in it

^^ off topic here, but that guy just does not make a credible blacksmith.

yeah, it definitely conjured up images of youth theater with kids wearing fedoras and trenchcoats that didn't quite fit

but that's kinda awesome!

Only in Bugsy Malone (which, by the way, was much better than the part of this I was able to get through).

i think i said this upthread but i'm a sucker for hammett ripoff dialogue no matter the context. it's just mega mega fun to me.

bugsy malone is deeply unsettling

Johnny Dangerously is seriously unsettling.

Bugsy Malone shits all over this movie from a great height

diffr'nt movies doin diffr'nt things. would rather watch this at least twice as often.

Shakey Mo channeling Alex In NYC speaking truth to power.

love this movie. hate brothers bloom.

oh there is a brothers bloom thread i didn't remember

I may be the only person anticipating The Brothers Bloom

thought the way cars were shot in this was really awesome jsyk the bit where the cigarette gets thrown is kinda scary even though you don't know why yet and also the face off in the car park is top five. kinda like how the pin's mom was the oblivious edie falco character, a lot of really nice little stylish shots too, the bit where the football player puts on his jacket is okay. full of eye candy too if you know what i'm saying i think you do you dog you

two cents on bugsy is that its highly disturbing how hot they try to make jodie foster in it and also how freakishly adult like she is in it, sortof condoning pedo impulses implicitly

have you heard of this movie Taxi Driver

saw a friend in a production of bugsy malone as an actual child, have trouble mentally overwriting this with film version

kind of wanting to rewatch brick now

jodie foster plays a precocious 13 yr old whose taxi driver father suffers a heart attack and can't continue to work, so she takes over his taxi business in his stead.

prequel to Herbie Goes Bananas...

some interesting stuff here about Jodie and her role: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgzGqO07yzI&feature=related

r u sure? iirc her and her father mysteriously swap places and he is a taxi driver and she is a teenage hooker lolz include her bad driving skills and his zany attempts at turning tricks

... with Danny Devito as the manager of the cab company.

do not even slightly believe that scott baiou and the fost were making out

hey Dr. Morbius quick question: do you hate Joseph Gordon-Levitt?

(purely out of curiosity)

its cool how clicking on this thread gives me a malware warning - prob a commentary on the film if u think about it

get rid of Google Chrome

why, chrome owns

right on

I don't understand... you'rs edning mixed mesagges Drugs A. Money...

when I opened this thread in chrome I got the malware warning, but I now have it open in Opera and it's working fine for me...

so that's why I said it. but I also noted that you thought the malware warning was a little bit cool & lolworthy, so I figure if you dig Chrome, and you think the mware warning is symbolically appropriate, then have at it.

oh word son

:D

really love the scene with the assistant principal, underlines the absurdity of the whole enterprise of a high school noir while also making it work completely

love how when direct language is used in this it cuts through the coded world we're presented with. like the scene with Laura where JGL says he needs her. a lifting the veil moment

hey Dr. Morbius quick question: do you hate Joseph Gordon-Levitt?

― ellj versus deej (Drugs A. Money), Sunday, February 6, 2011

I would do all kinda sexy things to him, mostly bcuz i stopped watching his godawful movies like this one and that Nolan dreck w/ Leo

Likewise. Sigh.

First watch in years, still love this thing.

Still one of the worst movies I’ve ever seen

Lol at that 1-2

Happy new year shakey

its magic imo

You knowwwww