Last movie you watched......

Good thoughts. I think I'd have actually probably been able to get that out of it more WITHOUT the beating of the dead horse that came afterward in the exchanges between Pi and the exposition vessel/author. He tried to hold the audience's hand, and, to me, muddled what on second thought was a pretty simple message about storytelling.

In fairness, on my list I keep, I gave this film three stars. I'm coming off as more hostile toward it than I actually am.

 

I saw it in theaters, and loved it. The ending was my only real issue with it. Life of Pi and Moonrise Kingdom were my two favorite movies of last year.

 

I think he missteps a little bit by making this a "story that will make you believe in God." That's the expectation set early on, and I don't think it delivers. Pi's story was ... OK. We've heard it before. "Castaway." "LOST." Also, in the nonfiction realm, Louie Zamparini. I haven't read the novel. Did it try to shoehorn religion into the narrative this awkwardly? I think what you said about the religious aspect of the story - that religion uses stories to explain the unexplainable - would have worked. Was Lee afraid of reducing religion to that? To mythology? Why does a story about why tell stories have to become why we actually believe in God? Why does it have to be an endorsement of religion, rather than an explanation of it?

 

I haven't read the novel. I don't think Lee is necessarily saying that this story would make one believe in God. That's not even what Pi says. That's what Pi's uncle told the author. Pi says that it's just his job to tell the story and then up to the author about what he believes. I felt like the religion aspect of things worked, and I'm not a religious person.

 

The movie falls well short of the novel.

Neither the novel nor the movie intend to make you believe in god.

There are things that cannot be explained, yet we are compelled by our natures to explain them.
There are things that are too horrific for the psyche to handle, yet the psyche does cope. That horror could be murder and survival while lost at sea, or that horror could be confronting that existence is pointless.

 

Which is why "Melancholia" is so great.

 

You keep a list?

 

Yeah.

 

Some thoughts on Iron Man Three for those who have seen it ...









I like that he was out if the suit for most of the movie. Cap asked Tony what kind of man he is without a suit. Part Three shows us Tony's still a bad ass without the suit. He can still think on his feet and MacGyver his way out of tough spots. He's a mechanic, but he's the world's greatest mechanic. He's just as brave without his suit. He's completely different from the Tony Stark prior to his capture by the Ten Rings in the first film.

I read the ending this way: Even if he could have done the surgery before then, he chose not to do it. He was too into being Iron Man. He let the chest piece define him, he let Iron Man define him, he let the suit define him.

Being "Tony Stark" and being "Iron Man" were fronts he put on for the people around him and himself. He found out what kind of man he is when stripped down to nothing but his intelligence. It was the same challenge he faced when trapped in the caves of Afghanistan. The man who made the Mark I from scraps is the man we saw in Part Three, he is Tony at his core. He doesn't need the suit to be Iron Man.

Being out of the suit the whole movie and still kicking ass allowed him to remove the chest piece, the suits and say "I am Iron Man." He doesn't need them anymore, they don't define him anymore.

 

Our son really wanted to see Iron Man 3.

He's a real big fan, but gave it two out of four stars.

He said it just didn't flow all that well.

I was a bit surprised by the mix of realistic and more cartoonlike violence.

And the gaping holes in some of the logic behind the plot and the failure, at least to my eyes, to fully develop the central themes.

 

The difference is one of execution, not theme.
'Life of Pi' is a terrific novel that was made into OK movie.
I'm not familiar with the source material for 'Melancholia,' if there was any, but the movie was atrocious. I'm not offended by its bleakness. I'm offended by it's self-aggrandizement.

 

Took my brother to see Iron Man 3 today because I needed to give it a second watch.
Spoilers below ...


So, the movie it is MUCH better on a rewatch knowing what's going to happen and knowing the twist. Being able to watch the plot unfold knowing all about Aldrich being the real threat and the real Mandarin makes the story flow much better. I still think the twist is, without question, the dumbest move Marvel has made in this series of movies and I think they ruined the character worse than any other comic book villain in history (even more than Venom in SM3) but it's not a terrible flick.
It's still not very good though and I think the primary reason is because this series has still not had a villain worth challenging Tony Stark.
The reason why the Nolan Batman films worked so well is because Ra's al Ghul, Joker and Bane were all serious threats to Bruce Wayne and the only villain who's even been close to a threat to Iron Man was Loki in the Avengers.
Marvel needs to stop playing to the kids and deliver more than a family-friendly popcorn flick if it wants to sustain its momentum from Phase One. As these characters evolve, audiences are going to want to see real challenges, real threats and real stakes and pulling a twist as bad as the Mandarin one was here not only spoils one of the best villains available for the company but shits all over years of comic lore and mythology that the core audience of these flicks have invested time in.
Mark my words: While Marvel may be raking in the dough right now, if they don't fix this crucial issue of lackluster bad guys, these movies are going to see diminishing returns.