Keith Jones19 said:Exactly—it’s sitting right in that sweet spot between a feature film and a philosophical essay. Here are a few links for you (though I have zero doubt most of you have already Googled this yourselves) 😉 I actually downloaded the screenplay after my first viewing, and honestly, there was something really rewarding about sitting down and reading through it...
Waking Life
screenplay
🙂 I have to say, I remember Ebert mentioning how he watched the film three times, yet insisted he wouldn't dream of reading the script... and he might have a point there. The dialogue doesn't feel nearly as complex when you're revisiting it for a second time. Plus, it's much better to just sit back, let the ideas sink in, and process them while you're actually watching. And then there's the score—like Cop 663 mentioned... everything works together to create this perfect, seamless whole. That being said, I’ve definitely found myself tempted to download the script too...😍
Robert Cooper41 said:I think a more accurate title would be "Immortal." The film was directed by the famous comic artist Enki Bilal (Enes Bilalovic)... based on his own graphic novel. From what I've heard, it’s visually spectacular, but the plot is pretty "thin."
Extremely thin. Even if it looks phenomenal, it gets repetitive. Once you experience that signature "plastic" look of his art style—which is gorgeous, don't get me wrong—you realize you don't necessarily want to stare at it for a full two hours.😁 Plus, from a directing standpoint, it relies way too heavily on comic book tropes. I honestly think it could have been so much more... I might have even overlooked some clunky pacing if the direction had actually been solid.
Regardless, it’s always a treat to see the comic books I love brought to life...🙂))
The movie is an absolute disaster. While certain individual segments might have worked as standalone short films—maybe even been somewhat cool on their own—as a complete package, the whole thing is just pathetic. The dramatic structure is non-existent, there's zero plot to speak of, and you can't follow a single thread; ultimately, it fails to land any of the intended emotional beats. It’s honestly such a shame for Steven Soderbergh—he really didn't need to go this far down the wrong path.
And that one part, where we get to see Vincent Cassel dancing through those laser beams... it was 😂 though I will say, the soundtrack is decent enough 😁\
It’s just bizarre—the actor who plays the older brother actually drowned in that lake from the second movie, just a few months after filming. It's such a dark coincidence. To make matters even stranger, they shot the first film out in the Puget Sound area and then moved production over to LaDogi for the sequel.
Carol Jackson45 said:Just some incredibly stupid teenage flick that used to be my absolute, total, utter 😍
nonsense 😬
(I have to confess something to you all: about six years ago, I was picking up something at a Marco Polo shop over in downtown Chicago... and that song "Dreams are my reality" was playing... and I actually had the nerve to ask the guy if he could give me the cassette... thinking I'd just bring it back the next day once I finished copying it... I've never been more embarrassed, honestly, but it's sitting somewhere at the bottom of a drawer right now... just collecting dust...😁 ).
slyrider16 said:then you have this "almost one-take" side program—films that were submitted for competition which are high quality, even if they don't strictly stick to a single shot, despite being characterized by those long, complicated takes.
😂 This whole festival is just plain overreaching. Last year—or was it the year before?—when it launched, it was actually pretty great because they had works from Andrei Tarkovsky, but now they're biting off way more than they can chew. It’s not like it's easy to find a massive pile of actual one-take films... so now we have "almost one-take"... and in a couple of years, we'll probably be watching some Schizopolis directed by Soderbergh (doesn't matter that it isn't a one-take, it's still a good movie!) 😁
I agree that it's nice to have a chance to see what people are doing with single shots... but calling itself OneTakeFF... that's... well, if nothing else, it's certainly bold.😍
They've got The Rope by Alfred Hitchcock in the mix, so I wouldn't be surprised if they eventually added a section for retrospective one-take classics...😍
In the meantime, though, we're basically turning into Colombia. *Tsk tsk.* 😁
Haha, yeah, when they're just lying in bed talking... 🙂))
And regarding that whole philosophical rambling bit—there’s definitely a specific moment in the movie where it feels like typical American pseudo-intellectual crap. But somehow, I managed to swallow it; mostly because of Linklater's touch, and honestly, because the movie is actually good.
I haven't heard that quote you mentioned, but it definitely sheds a different light on the film.
It’s been a long time since I watched it, so the fine details are a bit fuzzy, but the movie leaves a massive impact. 🙂
Honestly, the screenplay for this movie is an absolute disaster. Most of the scenes could be cut entirely—they’re visually decent enough, sure, but they don't actually move the needle. You could strip them out and the story wouldn't lose a single ounce of substance.
The only reason anyone would even bother sitting through this is because it features The Doors and their music. Everything else is just... 🙂
Look, there’s a massive distinction between a TV spot and a theatrical trailer... personally, I find the ones way more engaging when they don't just cycle through clips from the movie—I mean, give me some clever wordplay, a single striking still, or killer graphics paired with a hard-hitting punchline instead.
Yeah, at the end of the day, a trailer is really about the edit—it's much more dependent on the cutting room than the actual film itself (Richard Hernandez13).
Exactly. I'll take a trailer built around a core concept—something designed specifically to sell the movie, regardless of whether the film actually holds up—over those tedious montages that just play movie images back at you any day of the week.
Do you view them as genuine pieces of art, or just glorified commercial promos? (I know they’re technically both, but there has to be a limit to how much "art" can fit into something designed solely to sell a product, right?) Which side carries more weight for you?
And then there's those 25 hours from Rodrigo Prieto—even though he did Frida, which I just couldn't get into... honestly, even at 21, nothing hits quite like those 25 hours. Though, if I'm being honest, I can't tell if that's just because I think the movie is such a masterpiece... maybe I've lost my objectivity here. 😁
*Wait, let me correct myself—I just realized the actual title of this thread. I'm not saying this is the BEST photo ever, just that I personally think it's fantastic. I'm sure there are better ones out there, objectively speaking.