Film Experience Blog

Thursday, May 20, 2010

23 comments:

notanotherblog said...: I've never laughed in a theatre so hard.; 3:45 PM
notanotherblog said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3:45 PM
Robert Hamer said...: Good heavens, that was a piece of shit.; 3:48 PM
Wild Celtic said...: Julianne Moore looks exquisite and her expression so raw... she should definitely win something soon.; 3:53 PM
NATHANIEL R said...: i still haven't seen this. what's wrong with me?

i love them both. must see on dvd soon.; 4:13 PM
Beau said...: Such an interesting film; not a great one, but intriguing. Never exactly sure what's going on inside Chloe's head, but Seyfried made me believe that she did. LOVE THAT LAST SHOT.; 4:38 PM
adelutza said...: The film started promising but it seriously derailed 30 minutes in.
Now having said that, Julianne Moore can do no wrong.; 4:51 PM
Walter L. Hollmann said...: Julianne Moore is such a pro, she doesn't even phone it in for this dull, uninteresting mess. Admirable, but a waste of time. Hot sex scenes, though, which seems to be the only reason it was filmed at all.; 5:03 PM
ferdi said...: Nathaniel... you must see this movie! It's not so bad as they are saying. There's great chemistry between the two ladies, the atmosphere is fascinating, and Julianne is astonishing in another complex character study (in full Amber Waves - Savage Grace mood: sexual psichological territory).
Movie: B. Acting: A
But I looove Julianne in this kind of roles.; 5:10 PM
Notas Sobre Creación Cultural e Imaginarios Sociales said...: That explains it Nate! I spent hours looking for your thoughts about this movie after I saw it, considering how it seems I'd been one of the only people out there who'd actually liked it.
I think you should check it out ASAP.

Ferdi: agree 100%; 5:23 PM
paco. said...: I liked it, it's not perfect by any means but I thought all the acting was great, especially Julianne it was actually a really great performance by her, too bad the movie didn't catch up.; 6:06 PM
paco. said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6:06 PM
John said...: I was engrossed by the first 30ish minutes before the plot descended into utterly ludicrous territory...and, as much as I love Seyfried, her utterly striking face was almost distracting. So many adoring close-ups. She faces the Pfeiffer syndrome- her acting will never be as respected as it should be (not to already compare her to Pfeiffer in terms of acting skills but she certainly has potential) because it is going to be nearly impossible for an audience to believe her as anything other than an incredibly beautiful and fascinating-looking creature. She's never going to be able to (believably) play a checkout girl at a supermarket. People who look like THAT can only ever be actresses. Normal people just don't look like Amanda Seyfried.; 6:18 PM
ferdi said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6:37 PM
ferdi said...: I think the movie is an erotic thriller (and a commercial effort from a widely recognized arthouse director) only at its most superficial level. It is, instead, a cold and intriguing autorial exercise. Egoyan is as brilliant as ever: he uses the thriller genre (and its narrative clichès) to look into the mechanism of desire and to analyse human behaviour in its most hidden pulses.
The Catherine's sexual fascination towards Chloe is the most interesting aspect of the story, thanks to the multi-layered performance of Moore. It is a kind of sexual tension that is present in a subtle way from the very beginning. The movie, at a certain point, chooses to follow the predictable thriller paths, turning in a female version of Fatal Attraction. Still it remains highly recommended for its visual elegance, the symbolic and emotional use of decor and spaces (the house, the garden, the city) and the performances. Moore delivers an electrifying turn but also Seyfried is good: she gives credibility to a very poorly written character.; 6:46 PM
cal roth said...: Random prediction: Seyfried is gonna win a Supporting Actress before 2015, or at least two nominations / or a single one for leading. The girl is the next best thing, see?

Didn't see this movie, btw.; 8:52 PM
mrripley said...: agreed amanda is the next big thing it kinda creeped up that didn't it,def an oscar nom before this decade in out.; 5:44 AM
verninino said...: It's really hard for me to get into Seyfried's beauty because she's got those buggy Betty Davis eyes.

I only tolerate them in Betty Davis because... well because she's Betty Davis.

All through Mean Girls I kept thinking "are those prosthetic?" She does look amazing in the PR stuff from Mamma Mia -- a movie I didn't see because ... "yikes, those eyes!" (Well, that and because if a musical isn't amazingly transporting, I don't want to see it.); 6:18 AM
Pat said...: I thought this was a great movie! Not as good as 'Exotica', but still one of Egoyan's stronger films, in my opinion.; 9:47 AM
notanotherblog said...: No. Don't. Save yourself, Nathaniel. The script goes into ridiculous without even going into camp. And Amanda Seyfried was so inconsistent. Save yourself.

And by the way, I'm a Torontonian.; 9:05 PM
cinephile said...: Watch it. It's still in cinemas in NY I believe.; 9:52 PM
Alex said...: Julianne Moore is amazing. It's like her soul is constantly leaking out of her face, when she's acting.

I will see it just for her.; 7:38 AM
judy holder said...: //She's never going to be able to (believably) play a checkout girl at a supermarket. People who look like THAT can only ever be actresses. Normal people just don't look like Amanda Seyfried.//

@John - But ordinary looking girls and women don't get jobs in films, period. (Even the "sidekick best friend") Except as extras.

But "de-glamming" for a role is practically a tradition by this point (Nicole, Charlize, etc). No one ever thinks to hire "normal/ordinary" looking women to play "normal/ordinary" looking characters because I doubt anyone in the industry has any idea what normal/ordinary looks like, unless it's their maids.; 10:04 AM