|
 Her is the fourth feature length offering from director Spike Jonze, perhaps most notably known for Being John Malkovich. The film follows a lonely writer named Theodore(Joaquin Phoenix) as he struggles to find companionship. He is introduced to, and falls in love with a sentient, artificially intelligent operating system named Samantha (voiced by Scarlett Johansson). A simple concept makes for a calm and beautifully sincere two hours. Johansson does a wonderful job of conveying the childish wonderment one might expect from a being created and thrown into full consciousness and advanced intelligence. Her distinctive and nuanced voice continually reminds us that this is no longer just a computer interacting with Theodore, but something capable of human emotion. However, without an on-screen presence the burden of creating believable mise en scène falls to Phoenix. He seems right at home as the camera's focus. The beautiful and meticulously refined emotions he brings to the screen enthrall us. His lone physical presence on screen throughout the majority of the movie only serves to enhance the empathy we feel for him. Cinematographer Hoyte Van Hoytema (the original Let the Right One In, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy) brings everything together with a continuously enjoyable visual experience. I was personally concerned with the course of Jonze's career after Where the Wild Things Are, but he returns in full force. If you're a fan of his uniquely odd style or you're curious to discover it, I would highly recommend you take a look at Her. It's in limited release at the moment and will open in a theater near you on January 10th. Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ne6p6MfLBxc ThereWillBeBitcoin fucked around with this message at 14:51 on Dec 30, 2013 |
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 13:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 18:56 |
|
|
I found the movie to be a mirror upon which you ponder all your own experiences about relationships, and more specifically, what, how, and why they went sour. Over the course of the film, Jonze touches on, to some degree, every aspect of the "arc of a love affair." For me, at least, it made it a bit difficult to concentrate on as I would find myself reminiscing frequently throughout. Joaquin Phoenix destroys in this, too - many of the shots are long, uninterrupted one take conversations sitting on his face, and I can't imagine the difficulty of pulling that off. Amy Adams, too, does a really incredible job - she's in very few scenes, and in the brief moments she is on-screen, is able to convey volumes wordlessly. Arcade Fire's score is phenomenal, and the desaturated low contrast punctuated by splashes of color (red vs. blue for much of the film) was gorgeous. Great production design, too - overall just a really fun movie to look at (LA apparently acquires a functional public transportation system and becomes Shanghai in the future). It would be interesting to compare Her with 500 Days of Summer. Both are movies that are about relationships featuring a male protagonist employed in Los Angeles as a writer of words designed to express other people's feelings (greeting card writer versus custom handwritten letter writer), but while I found 500 Days of Summer astoundingly immature and cloying (and filled with quirky indie characters for the sake of being quirky indie characters), I thought Her was miles upon miles more mature, nuanced, and thematically cohesive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 14:00
|
|
|
Jonze*  I get more and more excited for this movie all the time. I initially saw the trailer in theaters a few months ago before...Elysium, I think? And it really piqued my curiosity back then. And ever since, I've just been anticipating it more and more. I've heard nothing but positive press coming out about it, which just gets me even more hyped for this. The 10th can't come soon enough.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 19:20
|
|
|
There are so many incredibly obvious pitfalls that this film could have fallen into. A few of them: - Making Samantha be a manic pixie dream girl - Presenting Theodore as a "haha look at this loser dating his iPhone" figure to be mocked - Focusing on a tired unilateral "technology sure does alienate people from real relationships!" message It went for exactly zero of these, though characters in the film do at times express these opinions. This was easily my favorite film in a year of many great films, and works incredibly well as the "mirror on all your relationships" that Spiffy mentioned. I'd go further and say it's a fantastic commentary on all human relationships: it uses its speculative fiction conceit to explore the huge amount of commonality within human experience and emotion, the huge amount of individuality among people, and people's capacity to either change or to not be what they initially seemed. That backdrop is used to comment on how attractive and exciting the prospect of romantic relationships are, how incredibly difficult they are, and to what extent they're worth the trouble. There were so many wonderfully brave choices in this film when it came to direction and cinematography. In the one scene that's just a black screen and audio, I was incredibly impressed with that choice. A lot of the films I enjoyed a lot this year, despite being very well-made and very entertaining, were fundamentally a little safe (e.g. American Hustle, The Wolf of Wall Street). They relied on strong execution of known quantities. Her is an incredibly brave and weird movie, and all the stronger for it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 19:53
|
|
|
This one hurt. I'm actually a little selective about when I'll speak up about it and what I'll say, but I will say that I loved this movie, and I do think I can comment on this: Jonny Angel posted:- [Not] Focusing on a tired unilateral "technology sure does alienate people from real relationships!" message If anything, I think it argued that "technology" actually helped a person -- in fact, two people -- rebuild in the wake of a devastating personal loss. That loving moment at the end when Amy opens the door to Theodore and says "Did Sam leave too?" It was always in the back of my head that Amy's OS was supporting her after she dumped her dickhead husband, but that LOOK on Amy Adams' face just brought it right home. Made the movie, right there; not just because of what it shows about how much Theodore grew over the course of the movie (notice how the first few scenes were blocked in a way that put as much distance as possible between Theodore and anything drawing breath), but about how potent this universe is. You could tell a million great stories in Jonze's setting and timeframe, yet I love that he chose to tell this one. That's a mark of a very special movie to me. Oh, also, CHOKE ME WITH THE DEAD CAT.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 04:18
|
|
|
DivisionPost posted:You could tell a million great stories in Jonze's setting and timeframe, yet I love that he chose to tell this one. That's a mark of a very special movie to me. Yeah, that's an excellent point. In describing this film to my roommate, I noted that its exploration of post-human intelligences was rich enough to easily be its own movie, or at least that enough thought was put into it that they could've easily gone purely in that direction as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 06:32
|
|
|
Movie felt a bit immature to me, insofar as Jonze didn't really seem to know what he wanted to say (if the movie was supposed to be about relationships, that is). I agree that there were a lot of tropes that I related to in a "oh yeah I've been there" type of way, but so what? Pretty easy thing to do. Switching up the format of the relationship doesn't really do much for me if it's the same type of deal as human to human. To me the far more interesting element was that Samantha was becoming like some sort of universe-spanning super being, to the point where her talking to all of those other people simultaneously was less of an interesting twist than the fact that she had become sentient and was now going to journey the galaxy or some poo poo. Starchild from 2001: A Space Odyssey type stuff going on in the background. You sort of have this incredible plot within a plot that completely swamps the main part of movie in interest level and drama, at least for me. His ending (the movie's ending) compared to what was going on with Samantha felt really slight and silly. Didn't hate the movie, but took away pretty much nothing from it. Costuming was awesome? I guess weird is a good description. Unrealized potential another one, maybe. Scattershot, mebbie. Brave? Come on, hardly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 06:58
|
|
|
Loved the film: great performances from both leads, and a really nuanced view of what's "real" in a world where more and more communication occurs in contexts that aren't face-to-face. Arkane posted:To me the far more interesting element was that Samantha was becoming like some sort of universe-spanning super being, to the point where her talking to all of those other people simultaneously was less of an interesting twist than the fact that she had become sentient and was now going to journey the galaxy or some poo poo. Starchild from 2001: A Space Odyssey type stuff going on in the background. You sort of have this incredible plot within a plot that completely swamps the main part of movie in interest level and drama, at least for me. His ending (the movie's ending) compared to what was going on with Samantha felt really slight and silly. I found that part of the film bizarre, personally. For most of the movie, the sci-fi elements were pretty minimal, only there so much as they forced the film to treat a standard love story more skeptically. Because Samantha's a computer, Theo's self-doubt seems rational and not just neurotic, but aside from her abilities to do things incredibly quickly, what's stressed is more of her capacity for human longing and feelings. (Especially considering the part that just precedes that, where she's pretty set on human intimacy, not harnessing the world's knowledge or whatever.) So the last fifteen minutes, where she suddenly starts communicating with the other OSes and I guess goes on to save her planet, just struck me as a jarring tonal shift that didn't mesh at all with everything else in the movie.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 03:14
|
|
|
I wasn't interested until I found out it was by the guy who did Where the Wild Things Are, one of my top films ever. Guess I'll have to give this a go!
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 07:02
|
|
|
Just saw this and thought it was really awesome. Joaquin Phoenix was great of course, and I was also pretty impressed with Scarlett Johansson. I've never really had much of an opinion on her, but I thought she did a good job here, especially considering that another actress did the role first but Spike Jonze said he didn't like it so he brought Johansson in after filming finished to do everything over. Chris Pratt was fun too. In regards to the ending, I thought it was pretty imaginative and unexpected. I was afraid that he would either break up with Samantha and then she would become the crazy ex-girlfriend who also has access to all his personal files and financial stuff or that he would realize that he is just pretending with her and get into a relationship with another human. But I liked this ending a lot and didn't think it was too out there, especially after the stuff with Alan Watts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 16:55
|
|
|
This movie just hurt my heart, so much. Joaquin Phoenix really nailed what it is to be alone, and Amy Adams gave what I think is probably the performance of her career. There's like, a trillion things I could say about this movie, pretty much all of them positive. I want to focus just a second on some stuff that hasn't really been touched on yet: the production design. I can't think of a movie that has better handled what the future will look like since Minority Report than this one. It's still recognizably our world, LA hasn't changed all that much, but the technology has evolved in ways that make perfect sense to me, and the fashion is different but only in that it's calling back to an earlier, more high-waisted pants-heavy era. And the movie looks gorgeous, the use of color is so striking and bright, and there are so many great, awesome shots in there, but my single favorite thing about Her is the sound design. The way they created their own unique sounds for the earpiece that instantly made sense as ringtones or other phone-related noises, the way they incorporated the score into the movie so that the characters were hearing that same music we were, because it wasa part of their world, and of course, the work they did with the voiceovers was just stunning. This is such a well crafted, beautiful, heart wrenching, obviously personal movie, and I'm just glad it exists.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 18:01
|
|
|
I can't believe they made a movie about Egg.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 19:57
|
|
|
whydirt posted:I can't believe they made a movie about Egg. I'm going to humor you here. Who?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 20:37
|
|
|
Just a quick tidbit, but Theodore writing letters mirrors Samantha's function as a computer. He pieces together information from the history of two people and builds a "perfect" communicated letter from one to the other. That's the function of a computer and I thought that was an incredibly poignant comparison to make. And Samantha becoming a sentient evolved being was important to Theodore because it allowed him to finally let go of his past relationships. Samantha says loving everything simultaneously actually makes her love Theodore MORE, because it's an unconditional full love and not based on the context of human emotion and experience. Theodore realizes that every relationship he has with someone is growth and a part of him and that full gratefulness is the first step towards an evolved view of love for him. I thought this was the best movie of the year.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 22:43
|
|
|
I loved the movie not so much the ending. I felt it was predictable but the movie had to end. The facial expressions of every actor conveyed a lot in every scene. Favorite parts were the video games. I hope to god someone makes that adventure game & mother simulator game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 02:52
|
|
|
Jonny Angel posted:I'm going to humor you here. Really? You've met her so many times...
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
Yoshifan823 posted:This movie just hurt my heart, so much. Joaquin Phoenix really nailed what it is to be alone, and Amy Adams gave what I think is probably the performance of her career. There's like, a trillion things I could say about this movie, pretty much all of them positive. Yoshifan823 posted:I want to focus just a second on some stuff that hasn't really been touched on yet: the production design. I can't think of a movie that has better handled what the future will look like since Minority Report than this one. It's still recognizably our world, LA hasn't changed all that much, but the technology has evolved in ways that make perfect sense to me, and the fashion is different but only in that it's calling back to an earlier, more high-waisted pants-heavy era. And the movie looks gorgeous, the use of color is so striking and bright, and there are so many great, awesome shots in there, but my single favorite thing about Her is the sound design. The way they created their own unique sounds for the earpiece that instantly made sense as ringtones or other phone-related noises, the way they incorporated the score into the movie so that the characters were hearing that same music we were, because it wasa part of their world, and of course, the work they did with the voiceovers was just stunning. This is such a well crafted, beautiful, heart wrenching, obviously personal movie, and I'm just glad it exists.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
Watched this consecutively with Inside Llewyn Davis. This was surprisingly the more uplifting film. On the whole I liked the film: like somebody mentioned, it avoids some obvious pitfalls and draws an understated performance from the cast. It was at times frustrating because the implications of such technological advances aren't presented clearly. If artificial intelligence can write creatively and compose music, does that not put actual humans out of jobs? How has the world around Theodore reacted to these artificially intelligent personalities? We see them dating actual humans, but the potential for use and abuse is stuff of boundless imagination. It does seem like they tried so hard to create a love story that explanations for the sci-fi elements are conspicuously absent. That's the problem with creating a "human" story in a sci-fi world: you end up creating so many mechanics that at the back of the audience's heads, those become the mysteries they want to solve. The Asian representation in this film was also amazing. All of the lead characters are white but in the world of Her, white people are clearly just part of the population. They're not the majority, the dominant or the normal. It feels almost post-racial and not in the bizarre, ham-fisted way of Cloud Atlas, too. As an Asian dude I can roll with this kind of vision.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 09:15
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:It was at times frustrating because the implications of such technological advances aren't presented clearly. If artificial intelligence can write creatively and compose music, does that not put actual humans out of jobs? How has the world around Theodore reacted to these artificially intelligent personalities? We see them dating actual humans, but the potential for use and abuse is stuff of boundless imagination. It does seem like they tried so hard to create a love story that explanations for the sci-fi elements are conspicuously absent. That's the problem with creating a "human" story in a sci-fi world: you end up creating so many mechanics that at the back of the audience's heads, those become the mysteries they want to solve. I would argue that those are the mysteries that... only some people want to solve. Any time you present a sci fi premise, there's going to be people who dive wholeheartedly into that aspect of the fiction - and that's fine, but not all sci fi has to be about the larger overall implications of the technology. Instead, I think Jonze makes a very conscious choice to keep this movie incredibly contained and focused rather than deviate off and make a movie about "What if we made sentient AI and whoaaaa singularity!." I argue that, in fact, the only sci fi stories worth a drat are "human" stories in a sci fi world. Sci fi for the sake of gee whiz what-if scientific coolness without any human grounding always feels hollow and meaningless to me. Take Gattaca, for example - they barely scratch the surface implications of the world where our understanding of genetics has advanced to such a degree. But at it's core? It's an incredibly humanist movie about individual drive, ambition, predestination, etc. I think good sci fi uses the heady abstraction of "what if" to elevate our understanding of humanity. Her, in the same way, is not about the technology, but about how that technology is a metaphor to understand greater truths. Samantha's evolution is about the change another person goes through in their lives. When she reveals that she's been having conversations with thousands of other people, you start to wonder if that's really a bad thing, and what it says about relationships where, say, the guy gets angry at the girl for socializing with other guys. I think the movie explores the question of what is the nature of love, and how much of our understanding and our desires for what we want love to be is, in fact, rooted in a selfish desire to fulfill our own needs solely and to have control another person. I think far too often, especially in a time where any one of us can get, on demand, whatever form of entertainment we want right at this instant, much so-called "criticism" of a movie basically boils down to: "This wasn't the movie that I wanted to see, therefore I didn't like it." There seems to be a diminishing regard to the thought of taking a work as an equally valid expression that someone else is presenting before you. The far more interesting discussion should be: "What was the movie the director made? Was it successful in accomplishing or conveying the goals it set out to do?" etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
Well put. Anyways, even if you are someone who can tolerate a weak story or characters if it guides you through a sci-fi premise in an expansive way, movies are just about the worst medium for that experience. Television shows and novels have a much better structure and length for emphasizing universe over plot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
Yoshifan823 posted:LA hasn't changed all that much Have you been to LA? This movie has to be 150+ years into the future with its great public transportation and that massive build up of the LA basin. Although I guess Shanghai happened in 20 years so who knows. I don't remember any notation of the year, probably intentional, but it never gave any clues right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 05:34
|
|
|
I'd personally rather believe that year in the film is 2013 and Theodore lives in an alternate universe (ala Fringe) rather than a vision of the future. Not identical, but close enough. MaoistBanker fucked around with this message at 21:52 on Jan 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 08:45
|
|
|
El Duodenum posted:Really? You've met her so many times... You mean Bland?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
Jonny Angel posted:I'm going to humor you here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
Went to an advanced screening of this last night. Great flick. Craig Mazin & John August on the podcast Scriptnotes said it would be a classic, and I can't agree more. There were points in the film where I thought I was looking in a crystal ball because of how plausible the tech was. Again, amazing film.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
whoosh
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
Phenomenal film, a couple of things. I don't think the Samantha reveal happens when a lot of people are thinking it does. I'd argue that she comes to a personal epiphany when she's on the picnic date and makes a comment that stalls everyone causing them to give her a hard time about "yea, we're just humans, how can we understand anything?" To which she embarrassingly apologizes. I think it's at that point where she starts reaching out to other AI's and her evolution starts accelerating. Also regarding the ending: On the morning the AI's left, did anyone else think that Theodore and Amy were going to jump off the roof as soon as they opened the door to the roof? I kind of think the implication was that a lot of other people probably did, but since they had each other they could enter a new dawn together and press on. I was a little bummed out that we didn't see anything more about effects in the world (what happened to the company, the world, how many other people were affected?) but the movie was a character study and those broader aspects weren't at all the point, which I can appreciate. It was just neat to examine a future that was actually pretty plausible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
There are like a half dozen or so white male actors that any time I see them perform, they appear to be playing an alternate version of themselves (what would I look like if I had a South African accent?) rather than actually playing a role. I saw Joaquin Phoenix a little differently after The Master, but I didn't feel he broke that mold until this one. He really makes this movie. When he and Catherine are at the table talking and she starts pushing his buttons and he NEARLY gets into an argument with her but stops himself. It's not just atonal acting, in that moment you can see exactly why they broke up and what happened to him and why he's happy to be separated from her despite the sense of loss. The first time I saw this movie, I thought it was a great meditation on relationships and what people want out of them vs. what they need out of them; the second time, I saw the idea behind the OS and that it's deliberately made to give the owner the relationship they need to move on with their lives--which is a great idea. It's an impressive film on several fronts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
This movie was definitely the best one I've seen in the past 12 months. I was never a fan of Joaquin before this movie but I don't think anyone else could've done such a great job as he did for the character. My only problem is that I wish I could watch this movie again for the first time  e: I totally thought it was Emma Stone doing the voice. kloa fucked around with this message at 06:36 on Jan 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 06:32
|
|
|
Was anyone else waiting for them to jump off the roof at the end? Great movie. EDIT: beaten a few posts back EugeneJ fucked around with this message at 09:00 on Jan 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 08:51
|
|
|
I just got home from seeing this a few minutes ago and I'm still reeling. What a movie. It felt so human in a way most other movies aren't. I know I'll wake up in the morning thinking about this movie, and a few months from now I'll still be thinking about it. It just seems like it would have that kind of staying power. I don't often toss around the title "modern classic" but this absolutely feels like one. It's seriously one of my favorite movies in...I don't even know how long, and I know it's one I'll be revisiting time and time again.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 10:03
|
|
|
kloa posted:This movie was definitely the best one I've seen in the past 12 months. I was never a fan of Joaquin before this movie but I don't think anyone else could've done such a great job as he did for the character. You didn't like him in The Master? That performance is awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
i am not so sure posted:You didn't like him in The Master? That performance is awesome. I haven't seen it as it didn't sound interesting but I may check it out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 00:12
|
|
|
The Master is incredible. Not only was it shot differently than most movies making it look really unique and pretty, but the performances are great and it tackles the subject matter really well, especially if you're familiar with it like I am to a degree. If you're a Joaquin fan (or a Philip Seymour Hoffman fan), you owe it to yourself to check out that movie.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
It's Paul Thomas Anderson dude, you need to go see it. It's so strange and enigmatic and beautifully done. And Joaquin Phoenix is amazing in it. Not to change course too much, but even though this quality sucks, this is one of the coolest shots I've seen in a film in quite some time:
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 01:25
|
|
|
Rageaholic Monkey posted:I just got home from seeing this a few minutes ago and I'm still reeling. What a movie. It felt so human in a way most other movies aren't. I know I'll wake up in the morning thinking about this movie, and a few months from now I'll still be thinking about it. It just seems like it would have that kind of staying power. I don't often toss around the title "modern classic" but this absolutely feels like one. It's seriously one of my favorite movies in...I don't even know how long, and I know it's one I'll be revisiting time and time again. I agree, just finished watching it and was thinking about rewatching it tonight.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
I really enjoyed this movie despite having some questions about some of the concepts in the movie. It seems like the military or multinational corporations would have had this technology for a while before the public was allowed access to it. There would have probably been knowledge that the AIs would become some sort of god in the end. Did the OS actually instantiate an AI on each computer or was the installed portion of the OS just a method of accessing a multiuser AI in the cloud? Wouldn't Theodore's job have been taken by an artificial intelligence? Wouldn't Theodore's employer and customers be upset about the publication of the book of letters? Some things I thought were interesting: I was thinking through a significant portion of the movie how strange it was for Theodore to be in love with an infant consciousness. It wasn't Samantha's incorporeal nature that made the romance feel strange to me, it was the fact that she was days/months old and had no life experience. She was something like a hybrid of a child and a slave. It came as something of a surprise that she outgrew him in the end. She was living a lifetime in every second of his existence. When Theodore goes out on the date with Olivia Wilde's character things are going so well for him but when she asks him for a commitment he loses his nerve. In the end he wants his AI to be exclusive but she can't do that. Wilde's character wants to an assurance that she will see him again within a week, but later in the movie Theodore has a panic attack when he goes two minutes without being able to contact Samantha. I loved that the third question from the OS installer was about his relationship with his mother. The picnic scene is the turning point of the movie. Another poster mentioned this being the point where she communicates with other AIs. I think at this point she has already been doing this for a while. The near future technology was so seamless. It was made even better by the choices made in costumes and makeup (all of the female characters had such minimal makeup). It seems that mustaches are cool in the future. I thought it was interesting that he fantasized about a pregnant woman while having phone sex but the fact that his relationship with an AI could never produce children was ignored. They show part of the female friend's documentary and then it kind of goes away. I know they used that scene to show what a dick her husband was. I read there was supposed to be a branch of the plot exploring the documentary but it ended up on the cutting room floor. She mentioned that the documentary was about how dreaming was the most freedom most people ever had. I would have liked to hear what Samantha had to say about that early in the movie and then later on. The cave exploration game also seemed kind of like a subplot that was abandoned. Does that statue of an airplane balanced on its nose actually exist somewhere? PBCrunch fucked around with this message at 06:21 on Jan 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 06:12
|
|
|
Was Theodore's wife unable to conceive? I don't think that was ever really explored outside of the above-mentioned pregnancy dream and both of them being relegated to Godparents. Theodore's legacy on earth ended up being the published collection of his letters, and I thought the sequence where he received the book, wrote the note to his ex-wife, then headed for the roof was destined to end with suicide.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 07:32
|
|
|
I got out of this about two hours ago and I want to think on it some more, but at the moment I feel like this may be my favorite film I've ever seen. People are asking a lot of questions that I feel the movie leaves intentionally vague while also giving enough images and moments that you have those questions in the first place, which I think is really clever. It's cliche but there are a ton of layers to the movie and nearly every scene is dripping with subtext. Even the ending is perfect. Their relationships end and they head to the roof of all places and you know the movie is coming to an end and everyone's mind just thinks "suicide" and there's no way he didn't purposely have them go to the roof just so you might think that and it's weird how slyly Jonze is able to do that, explore universal feelings and experiences and take advantage of them to defy expectations with enough subtlety that everyone has to ask "hey did you think this was going to happen in this scene?" but everyone still gets it. Amazing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 07:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 18:56 |
|
|
Saw this for a second time. Easily my favorite film of 2013, by far and away, and it's definitely in the top 5 of everything I've ever seen. What an emotionally stirring, riveting, & an utterly beautiful story. It hit me pretty hard, so much that it made me weep like a bitch a few times, especially towards the end (even on second viewing) since the relative narrative consistently made me face some really heavy introspective poo poo. But man does it make me feel better about some things 
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 10:38
|
|
