Page 2 of 3

Posted: Sat Apr 03, 2004 4:37 pm
by BladeRunner
I just saw the movie, and I'd have to say it's definitely one of my favorite movies.

As for the Elijah Woods argument, I shall bring it back up and I agree with LoveSickJerk. I think the point of Elijah Woods character was to introduce probably the main problem with the treatment of having the employee's ending up dating the patients as well as act as a variant to Joel.

Patrick and Joel, are sort of the same when it comes to relationships. They both reserve themselves, not really letting out their true feelings. Where they differ is that Patrick takes it one step further and lies about his feelings. Where as Joel just sort of shut's up about it, Patrick makes up stories, or use other peoples live to fill that void you get when you're alone.

I think the Patrick character would come off childish regardless of who played him. The character needed to come off as immature, selfish, and just a real loser. How many people felt like they were like that, or knew people like that?

Posted: Sat Apr 03, 2004 6:02 pm
by heather
Elijah Wood fuckin RULZ.

He was perfect for that part. And at least he doesn't look so fucking girly anymore. Jesus.

Posted: Sat Apr 03, 2004 6:15 pm
by BladeRunner
I don't know, that jacket was kinda tight on him...... Image

Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2004 12:25 am
by Unremarkable
Just got back from seeing the movie, and it was great, although painfully hard to watch at times. I mean that in a good way. Carey was brilliant, Winslet was smoking hot (it's the hair that does it for me), and I thought Elijah Wood's effort was admirable. I thought there were a few plot holes, but nothing too big. Overall, a beautifully filmed, touching story.

Out of curiosity, what are people's interpretation of the message of the movie? I felt that it was about fate, and how it is inescapeable. Anyone?

Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2004 1:03 am
by Karousme
There were a few i noticed. the obvious was the whole 'better to have loved and lost'

but playing off the fate thing, at the end when they just accepted their differences... that was cool too. yeah, we have things that we don't like... big deal, it's going to happen with everyone.

i'm going to see it sunday for the third time.

Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2004 1:45 am
by BladeRunner
I thought that the meaning behind the movie had to deal with exactly what Karousme said.

More importantly, that just because something is painful, it's usually better to accept it, rather then try to repress/ forget it. Like in the beginning of the film when Joel said that he had apparently not written in his journal for a few years. In reality we know that's false, but he didn't. But forgetting something/ one; we don't learn the moral of the story. Nothing is retained; no thoughts how to do things differently, or to better get a sense who you are. Instead you erase your memories, and essentually turn your back on yourself.

As for the end, again I agree with Karousme, that they were both admiting that they both have faults, but then you get this sense that even though this is the second "first" time they meet, they alright appear to have that understanding that just because it fucked up the first time doens't mean it'll happen again.

Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2004 8:04 am
by aj
BladeRunner wrote:
More importantly, that just because something is painful, it's usually better to accept it, rather then try to repress/ forget it. Like in the beginning of the film when Joel said that he had apparently not written in his journal for a few years. In reality we know that's false, but he didn't. But forgetting something/ one; we don't learn the moral of the story. Nothing is retained; no thoughts how to do things differently, or to better get a sense who you are. Instead you erase your memories, and essentually turn your back on yourself.

As for the end, again I agree with Karousme, that they were both admiting that they both have faults, but then you get this sense that even though this is the second "first" time they meet, they alright appear to have that understanding that just because it fucked up the first time doens't mean it'll happen again.


ok. forgive me. just saw it. have to get out some thoughts to someone.

First of all, the memory thing, I think BR is right on. We don't need Lacuna-- we do it to ourselves. Try to erase things instead of embrace the good and bad and use it to move forward instead of backward.

As for the end "just because it fucked up the first time doens't mean it'll happen again," I would disagree. It probably, most likely will. And I think that's a great point that is more consistent with the not turning your back on the memories thing. It will probably all go wrong and maybe they could get through it and maybe they can't because there is no ultimate happy ending. Acknowledging that it will probably get all fucked again and doing it anyway is saying "Yeah, this pain can and probably will happen all over again and it would be worth it anyway."

Damn. I need to call someone who has seen this movie. So many unfinished thoughts at this point.

Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2004 8:50 am
by hovering
in the words of mr. travis "i know how to gyrate my hips like it's nobody's business" morrison: the only thing worse than bad memories is no memories at all.

Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2004 12:31 pm
by BladeRunner
Well, I'd like to see that the characters are able to improve their relationship so that it doesn't fuck up. I at least get that sense because it appeared to me, as the memory was being erased, Joel saw all the faults he had in the relationship. Maybe it played out like that so the end could be justified that they'll eventually fuck the relationship up all over again, but with the tapes and all the Lacuna information, (everything that annoys the other and shit like that) that they will listen to each other, and even though they don't know why it fell apart between them, there s that sense that they don't want it to happen again.

Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2004 12:55 pm
by aj
I'm not so much an optimist.

I see what you're saying, but the message I got was that even though things will get all fucked up (which doesn't necessarily mean the same way-- I'm not saying they can't learn anything from it), its always worth doing it anyway. and worth having those memories. good and bad.

but I do catch your drift. I'm just not capable of buying into that thought camp. maybe one day I'll see a half full glass.

Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2004 6:44 pm
by BladeRunner
Nah, it's cool, if you don't. At least your mild-tempered about it.

Now if this was another board, and we were talking about the Matrix, holy crap, there'd be a lot of bull shit to shift through.

Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2004 8:53 pm
by hovering
the thing with a lot of movies is you never know whether it's open for interpretation or if kaufman and gondry feel the same way as you do. personally, i agree with both of you. a little more with bladerunner, i think. it's sort of one of those: if you knew that you could potentially hate this person in two years, would you still invest your time in them? i guess the movie made me think more about my own experiences instead of the actual plot development and thought process, etc, so i never put as much thought into this until i started reading that. it's one of those things where i think the ending was absolutely perfect, but i would've loved to seen it progressed a little more because i hate thinking of how it could've been. i was more shocked with the "WHY THE FUCK WOULD ANYONE WANT TO ERASE SOMEONE FROM THEIR MEMORY" than anything. i guess i still am. basically, not a day has gone by since i've seen it that i don't think about it. remember all the noise about lost in translation last year? eff that, guys. seriously. NOISE, NOISE, NOISE.

Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2004 4:37 am
by LoveSickJerk
hovering wrote:remember all the noise about lost in translation last year? eff that, guys. seriously. NOISE, NOISE, NOISE.

I agree. It was good, but not THAT good.

What seals the happy ending scenario for me is Joel's "Ok" to not being saved by another person in a relationship. Growth.

Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2004 3:32 pm
by Unremarkable
hovering wrote:remember all the noise about lost in translation last year? eff that, guys. seriously. NOISE, NOISE, NOISE.


Whatevuh, man! I farking loved that movie! If you want overrated, I would say Punch-Drunk Love. I don't think I've ever been more disapointed in a movie...

Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2004 3:54 pm
by jess
Come on Punch-Drunk Love was one of Paul Thomas Anderson's better movies, no crying, no frogs,and no Tom Cruise.

If you want to see a great movie which hasn't had alot of hype see "Wonderland" with Val Kilmer it is incredible acting, lighting...everything.

Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2004 5:44 pm
by BladeRunner
Unremarkable wrote:Whatevuh, man! I farking loved that movie! If you want overrated, I would say Punch-Drunk Love. I don't think I've ever been more disapointed in a movie...


Remarkable's potnetional market "cool" factor was declined 0.05%!

I am totally disagreeing with you man. I'd take Punck-Drunk Love over Lost in Translation, any day.

though I think we can agree on the medium; that Adaptation. was was a damn good film as well.

Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2004 6:45 pm
by hovering
Unremarkable wrote:
hovering wrote:remember all the noise about lost in translation last year? eff that, guys. seriously. NOISE, NOISE, NOISE.


Whatevuh, man! I farking loved that movie! If you want overrated, I would say Punch-Drunk Love. I don't think I've ever been more disapointed in a movie...



i loved lost in translation, too. i'm just saying the hype that surrounded it vs. the hype that is surrounding eternal sunshine? i'd take eternal sunshine ANY DAY vs. that. BUT ANYWAY! YOU DON'T LIKE PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE? CAN WE GET MARRIED? PLEASE?

Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2004 7:19 pm
by Unremarkable
hovering wrote:
Unremarkable wrote:
hovering wrote:remember all the noise about lost in translation last year? eff that, guys. seriously. NOISE, NOISE, NOISE.


Whatevuh, man! I farking loved that movie! If you want overrated, I would say Punch-Drunk Love. I don't think I've ever been more disapointed in a movie...



i loved lost in translation, too. i'm just saying the hype that surrounded it vs. the hype that is surrounding eternal sunshine? i'd take eternal sunshine ANY DAY vs. that. BUT ANYWAY! YOU DON'T LIKE PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE? CAN WE GET MARRIED? PLEASE?


Hmmmmm, ah what the hell, sure!

Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2004 7:36 pm
by hovering
it's just that I've never met a male (fuck, anyone) that was disappointed with punch-drunk love. I wanted to like it, I did. I get evil stares when people realize my true feelings.

Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2004 9:15 pm
by BladeRunner
ummm, what was so disappointing with that movie?