The movie was just really bland, the characters where not complex at all and we barely got to see who they are. The story was also lacking and was very predictable.
GoSpeedGo!
quote:
Originally posted by Julz
The movie was just really bland, the characters where not complex at all and we barely got to see who they are. The story was also lacking and was very predictable.
See, that's better! Now I know why you're wrong.
Yes, the story was predictable (you get to see how it ends right in the beginning for god's sake), but that's because von Trier is interested in what happens prior to the apocalypse, not in following genre tropes of disaster movies where they send Bruce Willis on a suicide mission to save the world. The predictability is completely intentional so you don't have to worry how it ends and can focus on other things. You didn't like the story because of your inappropriate expectations, not because it sucked.
The key to watching (and at least partly getting) Melancholia is not to follow the narrative, but to look for symbolic meanings. The basic interpretation is that it's all about the end of the Western world that is based on materialism (the mansion) and science (the Kiefer Sutherland character who coincidentally owns the place). Characters don't have to be complex, they can be archetypal which is what Trier's been working with for a long time, most visibly in Antichrist. Justine (Justice?) is Melancholia, for example, the destructive force that ruins the opulent wedding (western values) and then acts calmly when the actual apocalypse begins.
It's a bit like when people kept saying that Avatar is because it's just Pocahontas with smurfs when in fact it was again consciously archetypal and what actually mattered was how the story was told, not what the story was.
LAdazeNYnights
quote:
Originally posted by meriter
I didn't think it was the best movie ever but the subject matter was intriguing. I'm looking forward to future works from the director I liked the way it was put together
you should dig into his back catalog.
i'm not particularly fond of dancer in the dark, but i'd suggest dogville (hate the message and the idea of the film as it's quite anti-american, but love the methhod) and antichrist.
EgosXII
quote:
Originally posted by GoSpeedGo!
.
Dude, another sucker punch rant?
cbf essay ranting back to you; I agree with Julz- It was boring, and, as I already said, pretentious, in that it tried WAYYY tooo hard to be something it wasn't (interesting, and complex most centrally). It didn't achieve what it wanted to, and though you seem to give anything that TRIES to achieve ANYTHING 5 stars, I definitely don't.
quote:
Originally posted by meriter
I didn't think it was the best movie ever but the subject matter was intriguing. I'm looking forward to future works from the director I liked the way it was put together
Antichrist is bloody awesome. THIS movie was astounding, and definitely made him a filmaker worth watching. Melancholia was just a miss imo.
LeopoldStotch
i think this interview may clear up some doubts and feelings about 'Melancholia'. He did this interview a couple of months back.
^haha he seems like an awesome guy. I love how he's like "its not at all important that its about me"
Kaidreas
The rise of planet of the apes! actually pretty good!
LeopoldStotch
quote:
Originally posted by EgosXII
^haha he seems like an awesome guy. I love how he's like "its not at all important that its about me"
yeah. while watching the interview the first time around, i was thinking to myself that lars is a pretty modest guy who didn't put much of the spotlight on himself. he had very good words about kirsten dunst.
GoSpeedGo!
quote:
Originally posted by EgosXII
Dude, another sucker punch rant?
cbf essay ranting back to you; I agree with Julz- It was boring, and, as I already said, pretentious, in that it tried WAYYY tooo hard to be something it wasn't (interesting, and complex most centrally). It didn't achieve what it wanted to, and though you seem to give anything that TRIES to achieve ANYTHING 5 stars, I definitely don't.
Again, this says absolutely nothing about the film.
What do you think it "tried to achieve"? Why do you think it failed? How can a movie try hard to be something it isn't?
I stopped the video when the guy asked the question about scientific plausibility which suggests he didn't get the movie at all. The point of Melancholia is precisely that it isn't scientifically plausible; that there are forces beyond the Newtonian-Cartesian paradigm that will destroy us. According to von Trier, the "man of science" (Defoe in Antichrist, Sutherland in Melancholia) is in crisis.
It's useless to talk about any movie in terms of its adherence to scientific principles and physical laws; films follow their own set of rules and are always inherently unrealistic.
EgosXII
hoooollllyyyy shiiiiitttt LOL.
Lars Von Trier totally didn't get melancholia either. He missed the whole ing point of the movie!
Like, seriously man; I know there's 100% no point talking to you, but Lars himself said he ing DID consult a heap of scientists, and was extremely interested in that side of it. .
GoSpeedGo!
He may have consulted Stephen Hawking for all I know; the point is, it's still not important. Instead of arguing ad hominems and making unsubstantiated claims, maybe you could tell me how exactly is this aspect of scientific plausibility relevant to any kind of interpretation of Melancholia or even to its passive viewing.
What a director (especially Trier) says in an interview does not matter.
LAdazeNYnights
New Wes Anderson flick:
What an amazing cast!!
Bill Murray & Jason Schwartzman, of course, but Edward Norton + Bruce Willis + Frances Mcdermot + Tilda Swinton :eyespop:
