Movie Discussion! - Page 164

So it is a movie about dual reality universe. One is about a rookie rising star and the other about a failed actress. And both of these surrealism reflects the life of one single central character. If this is was the premise and the message that David Lynch is trying to convey, then I feel that those two universes could be intertwined with more homogeneous substance instead of solely separating the acts.

Mulholland Drive is a very ambitious movie, that will obviously not be for everyone; it attempts and succeeds to break new ground in cinema.

Requiem for a Dream on the other hand, is a movie that uses the simplest tricks in order to create false empathy, and the only reason people think it's good is because of cheap shock value. The cheap ripoff of Tarantino's genericism of the main characters (Reservoir Dogs, colors instead of names, limited backstory) in order to force people to identify with the characters (or at least identify their archetypes), the throw-away plot which could have (and indeed has) been written many times over by many other filmmakers to make people get into it easier because it is familiar, the MTV-influenced visual style that fits commercials and music videos more than an actual story, the complete lack of twists and turns to make the film as unintellectual as possible so morons could understand it, the lack of any meaningful message (drugs are bad m'kay? you shouldn't do drugs, because they're bad, m'kay?), the mediocre (at best) acting, and the only thing that actually stood out as positive was the soundtrack, and even there, it's not at the absolute highest level, lacks a unique style, and seems to have been put together to fit a formula and not a film. Requiem for a Dream is the Nickelback of films. It's just edgy enough to not seem mainstream, but not edgy enough for people to think it's crap due to it's style. It's just outside the range of lack of depth of The Expendables and Adam Sandler movies, but still simple enough to hammer what little is in there into the brain of even the dumbest people who watch. It's not completely lacking a plot as to be Michael Bay level of recyclable crap, but lacks any density as to not confuse anyone. The characters are just enough to be outside the norm (drugs! hurr!), but so simple as that anyone could identify with them. But people can't say they hate it, because nothing about it REALLY sucks, instead it's just generic, mediocre, shock-oriented, low-brow, shoddily made, completely unambitious, presumptuous and in general not better than generic rom-coms and action films. The movie is made for people that are stupid, but want to feel smart; the same crowd that thought The Matrix was "deep", that Michael Moore is "edgy", that having an iPhone is an expression of personality, that knowing the Lyrics to "Smells Like Teen Spirit" makes you dark, and that reading is "awesome" but they haven't read a book in over a year.

If you think this movie is the best, you are not only wrong, you have been duped by marketing and the shit you see in front of you every day to think that this is any different than the rest of the hollywood approved (tm) films that happen every month. You lack any true taste of your own, but like what is supposed to be good. Now watch it again. See it for the cheap manipulative piece of shit that it is. You are better than this movie.

drugs can lead into insanity.

"Oh yeah it was just Diane dreaming the whole time about her sad life and how it would be awesome to be someone else."