S i m i l o

Status
Not open for further replies.
You know, I have to say, I find it greatly irksome that some arguments and jokes are drawing attention from my heartfelt review simply because those posting are board regulars who are more respected, talented, accomplished, funny, and insightful than me.

Is that what we call justice these days?
 
I agree

Here it is again

Heyo. Well, I have to say, I like many others am swept away by the sheer visual beauty of this flick. Really amazing looking stuff. On every technical level it's great. The actors come off real, and I think the pure imager softened me up enough emotionally that I instantly cared about what was going on. Funny, thing, that, but just how darned pretty those sunsets looked created a mood and tone that drew me in regardless of the characters themselves.

Now, the characters themselves...

I've said before, I'm a wannabe writer, and it tends to be that I put story, characters, dialogue first. In this case, well... The monologue was well done, I certianly have no complaints, and it was well performed. But I don't think it expresses what it's trying to convey as well as it could. I think it's a question that's asked, but not greatly explored.

So, the question for me is, does that relative simplicity hurt the film or not?

At the moment, I don't think it does. I think as an experience, this movie is almost in a class by itself. It's something that just plays over the senses like poetry instead of spinning a Dickensian parable for us to consider.

Of course, I'd argue the very best films probably do both.

But doing one of them really poo pooing well isn't a bad thing, either.
Click to expand...
 
Does the photography course include nude models ?
If so, sign me up... Oh wait, "female" nudity right ?

And speaking of lovely nudity, back to SIMILO. :)

Ahhh, full circle. Ain't art grand. :beer:


Cheers.
 
Z B Brox said:
You know, I have to say, I find it greatly irksome that some arguments and jokes are drawing attention from my heartfelt review simply because those posting are board regulars who are more respected, talented, accomplished, funny, and insightful than me.

Is that what we call justice these days?
Click to expand...

Sorry, my bad.

On the plus side I do have another course coming out that can teach you to be more respected, talented, accomplished, funny, and insightful. I'll put you on my mailing list...
 
MattC said:
Sorry, my bad.

On the plus side I do have another course coming out that can teach you to be more respected, talented, accomplished, funny, and insightful. I'll put you on my mailing list...
Click to expand...

Hmm, I'm not sure I trust you... Wait a second, you have a Sideshow Bob avatar. And no one who speaks German could be an evil man! Sign me up!
 
Ausgezeichnet!

Look, I know I'm being a little goofy here but come on, we can't take these opinions too seriously, it is, as others before me have stated, art. It is also art that, like most art, exists within a technical medium. All we can really "judge" is the technical side of it. Was the audio recorded cleanly? Were the images exposed properly? Was the acting of a professional caliber? Were the edits cleanly executed (although even that is open to interpretation).

At the end of the day though it's really about what touches you.

Maynard Furgeson is one of the most technically advanced trumpet players to ever play jazz. I can't stand listening to him. Miles Davis was far less proficient, I could listen to him all day. John Coltrane was one of the most proficient and controversial sax players ever. Many think he was god, many think he ruined jazz. His playing touches me in ways I can't put into words.

If art appeals to EVERYONE, it's not really "art" at least as I define it. I say this because for something to move beyond the technical it has to take chances, it has to communicate a spirit, a message, it has to provoke feelings. Good art always does this. But that doesn't mean everyone will like it. Sometimes the feelings it provokes will be disgust, in some. But that same art will also provoke joy or solace in others.

I'm not commenting much on this film because what is there to say? I can repeat what others have said about it's technical proficiency, but we all know it's well made, so does Macgregor. I like the film because, for whatever reason, it touched me. That's it. The fact that someone else had a different response to it doesn't bother me, and shouldn't bother anyone else. It would be like someone you don't really know saying they wouldn't date your girlfriend because she has a big nose. What do you care?

At the end of the day it's really a private moment between the artist and the individual who witnesses the art and feels something. Not much more really needs to be said.
 
I find myself watching the film over and over again. Its hard to get past the visual beauty and pay attention to the story for some reason. However, once I did get past the visuals, I did feel a bit confused. I wanted to know why this woman would keep "reincarnating" the body of her dead loved one. Why doesn't she move on (especially if she cant really remember him) ? Was she in love with the robot? Was the original boyfriend/lover a real human , or was he too a robot? The direction of this film purposley or incedently avoided these points in my opinion. All in all, the film seems more like poetry in that we see a brief glimpse/observation of a story that leaves us with with more questions than answers. This is my subjective opinion.
 
MattC said:
Ausgezeichnet!

Look, I know I'm being a little goofy here but come on, we can't take these opinions too seriously, it is, as others before me have stated, art. It is also art that, like most art, exists within a technical medium. All we can really "judge" is the technical side of it. Was the audio recorded cleanly? Were the images exposed properly? Was the acting of a professional caliber? Were the edits cleanly executed (although even that is open to interpretation).

At the end of the day though it's really about what touches you.

Maynard Furgeson is one of the most technically advanced trumpet players to ever play jazz. I can't stand listening to him. Miles Davis was far less proficient, I could listen to him all day. John Coltrane was one of the most proficient and controversial sax players ever. Many think he was god, many think he ruined jazz. His playing touches me in ways I can't put into words.

If art appeals to EVERYONE, it's not really "art" at least as I define it. I say this because for something to move beyond the technical it has to take chances, it has to communicate a spirit, a message, it has to provoke feelings. Good art always does this. But that doesn't mean everyone will like it. Sometimes the feelings it provokes will be disgust, in some. But that same art will also provoke joy or solace in others.

I'm not commenting much on this film because what is there to say? I can repeat what others have said about it's technical proficiency, but we all know it's well made, so does Macgregor. I like the film because, for whatever reason, it touched me. That's it. The fact that someone else had a different response to it doesn't bother me, and shouldn't bother anyone else. It would be like someone you don't really know saying they wouldn't date your girlfriend because she has a big nose. What do you care?

At the end of the day it's really a private moment between the artist and the individual who witnesses the art and feels something. Not much more really needs to be said.
Click to expand...






" "




That's me not saying much more.

I'm grounded from my Laptop at my GF's house. Save me.

No really-- Everyone's entitled to an opinion, even if I don't care about it.

Kidding again.

Don't mind me, I like to insight e-fights.

Okay, I'm done.
 
kyledroid said:
I find myself watching the film over and over again. Its hard to get past the visual beauty and pay attention to the story for some reason. However, once I did get past the visuals, I did feel a bit confused. I wanted to know why this woman would keep "reincarnating" the body of her dead loved one. Why doesn't she move on (especially if she cant really remember him) ? Was she in love with the robot? Was the original boyfriend/lover a real human , or was he too a robot? The direction of this film purposley or incedently avoided these points in my opinion. All in all, the film seems more like poetry in that we see a brief glimpse/observation of a story that leaves us with with more questions than answers. This is my subjective opinion.
Click to expand...

Here you raise some really good points. I agree with all of them, and for me it's part of why I like the film. It's also part of what I meant when I said this was a European film. Most films in the US spoon feed us everything. They take us by the hand as if we were children and lead us through the story. Many European films take a different tack. I like films with ambiguity. Life is ambiguous after all. I feel it makes me a part of the experience because I haven't been told what to think, my thoughts, my interpretations become part of the art itself. So the art will be a little different for everyone, like reading a poem. It is that very relationship between artist and viewer that, for me, is rewarding.
 
These area ll great points. The funny thing is that initially I had this rated a full 10 but as most curves tend to develop some of the others started pushing certain categories around; score, screenplay, acting, etc etc...............

Nevertheless, I'd hire Macgregor anyday to be my DP !
 
I guess it goes to show how subjective viewing a short like this can be.

For me, a LOT of the answers were in it. Basic premise as I interpret it: She's been disappointed/hurt by "real" men in the past... so when she first saw robot-man she knew he'd treat her right (as he was programmed to)... that he'd never shout at her, leave her (she says this)... he will always be at her side... "that's why I bought you" as she says.

She didn't "reincarnate" him... since she bought him, he was always there (she also says this in the film). He just got smashed up and broken, and by replacing him (with the same model robot) she lost something because he is not the same actual robot... OR... by fixing him, reprogramming him and repairing his broken mechanics, it changed his memory of her. Could be either, and that is open to interpretation.

This is the ultimate question she is asking him... "do you remember me?"
 
Last edited:
That's how I interpreted it too, EditPhish. For me the weakness, if there is one, is that it asks this question but not only doesn't answer it but doesn't give us a huge amount of information to try and answer the question for ourselves, either. Now, to me that's a weakness, but I tend to be very idea-oriented and cerebral in sci-fi. (As I said somewhere else, if I hadn't been working with Jim (insightblue) to write his movie it would've been a 6 minute diatribe on the nature of desire and gratification.) On the other hand, art doesn't have to explain, it can just be experienced, it I think this piece conveys the emotional baggage of that question really well.
 
Envision said:
Edit, I didn't get that she FIXED him. She even says, "You are new" ... not, Jimbob did a fine job o' fixin' you up!. :)
Click to expand...

I interpreted that as that whatever personality changes resulted from the repairs made him essentially a different person. Raising a question of, do we love who we love because of who they are, because of what we remember of them, because of what we share in terms of experience? Ever wonder if you met your friends again today if you'd hit it off as well? Or if you'd even like your family if you didn't, y'know, love them? Does this guy suddenly being changed, even if he still has the same qualities she loved, make him so different that she can't love him anymore?

Maybe this is all just me reading into it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top