I went to this movie on the off-chance. While it was not in anyway narratively interesting, I am stunned by its visual impact. I don't give a flying fuck about its story, in fact. I just want to experience it again. Interestingly enough, the movie does destroy the possibility of narrative and takes it right down to the personal, visual experience.
Wonderful set-pieces here. Stunning movie.
Stunning.
I like the idea of a popular movie destroying narrative but keeping it all the same. I know that makes no sense, but you have to experience the movie to understand, I fear.
Now, that said, I think I was compelled by this movie, because it tried to establish a story (and that silly purpose remained throughout) but what really became important was how the visual becomes the sole purpose.
To me this movie was a very expensive art movie that someone got away with it.
That stuns me.
Analysis hat is on tight. Stay tuned for some pop-culture analysis.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Dean
Dean He was called Mean Dean By the school children Mean Dean was the name He Accepted He excelled at the Hot hair cut For any boys who Mis...
-
The trio vs. the pirate-ladyman Recently lis opined that no native Utard remembers Lighthouse 20, the kid show that was broadcast on UHF cha...
-
A flute Some woodwinds An announcer A fifteen year old Pianist What is
-
Cooking a Poem Is it cooking or baking? Baking, of course relies On mixing ingredients One By One (by two by thr...
No comments:
Post a Comment