6575. AceofSpades - 3/24/00 10:14:03 AM

Niner:

The Limey was a good film, but not great. The experimental editing style -- cross-editing flash-backs and flash-forwards, superimposing dialogue onto the faces of characters who aren't currently talking -- was annoying and ineffective.

The characters and dialgoue were good enough, if the plot was a bit thin and a bit too obviously influenced by Res Dogs/True Romance/Pulp Fiction. (I am speaking especially of the ludicrous presence of the Comedian Hitman and his Retarded Partner at the Beach House at the end.)

One note: The Comedian Hitman is a real find. I rewound and watched his scenes over and over again. Funny guy.

6576. Raskolnikov - 3/24/00 10:14:12 AM
"By the way, arguably the best film of the year and the best lead male performance of the year is now out on video - The Limey."

I watched this last night. It really is a very good movie. Stamp is wonderful, and Soderbergh is one of the few active directors who knows how to make flashy editing gimmicks work *for* the story instead of distracting from it.

But speaking of breathtakingly beautiful, I need to find out who played Peter Fonda's girlfriend. She looks like a Denise Richards without the trailer park background.
6578. AceofSpades - 3/24/00 10:15:51 AM

"Soderbergh is one of the few active directors who knows how to make flashy editing gimmicks work *for* the story instead of distracting from it."

In what way, exactly, did the the editing gimmicks work *for* the story as you say?

I found them annoying, distracting, and absolutely ineffective.

6580. AceofSpades - 3/24/00 10:16:37 AM

The Limey's ending also pretty much sucked, if I do say so myself.

6581. Raskolnikov - 3/24/00 10:16:51 AM
"(I am speaking especially of the ludicrous presence of the Comedian Hitman and his Retarded Partner at the Beach House at the end.)"

Yeah, that part was just silly.

6582. 109109 - 3/24/00 10:17:03 AM
Ace

I disagree with you, and would rebut, but Rask said it best for me. I thought the experimental cuts were seemless and added a great deal to the narrative. I also think Fonda's performance was in some ways better than that of Stamp - he personified the aging 60s hipster, and the patheticism of the aging American male hanging on to youth, very gracefully.

6583. AceofSpades - 3/24/00 10:18:13 AM

"I thought the experimental cuts were seemless and added a great deal to the narrative."

Added what?


6585. 109109 - 3/24/00 10:19:27 AM
Ace

I'll admit to difficulty in explaining how the editing worked, so apologies for lack of clarity (it just seemd to work). I just found that introduction of some of the snippets and characters added something to the scenes where there was complete exposition.

As to the ending, it was noirish. What do you want?

6590. 109109 - 3/24/00 10:22:24 AM
Reading my explanation, I realize that I basically ipse dixited.

By "something," I felt I was getting more out of the story by having seen the glimpses and foreshadowing. It was a second opportunity, in many ways to view the character. The first was without context and it told you something about that person, no matter the scene. the second gave you a second crack at the character, and I found myself more interested in Stamp because of the effect. Given his silent mannerisms and his rage, I thought the second look was valuable. And I didn't find it obstrusive in the least, but rather, may have made the picture less chunky.

6592. AceofSpades - 3/24/00 10:23:13 AM

"I'll admit to difficulty in explaining how the editing worked, so apologies for lack of clarity"

No apologies necessary. It was a loaded question which couldn't be answered. You either dig the experimental cuts or you don't.

But I didn't, and I fail to see how the experimental cuts added anything. The story & characters were interesting enough for straight-shooting. No need to pimp it up.

The ending was a cop-out. Sonderburgh, ahem, fagged out at the end. He threw in a silly, dopey psychologically-"charged" revelation ("She was going to call the police!" Waaaah! It's MY fault! Waaaaah!) and didn't even have the balls to fucking kill Peter Fonda.

6593. AceofSpades - 3/24/00 10:24:04 AM

SPOILER in the above.

6596. AceofSpades - 3/24/00 10:25:59 AM

"I felt I was getting more out of the story by having seen the glimpses and foreshadowing. It was a second opportunity, in many ways to view the character. The first was without context and it told you something about that person, no matter the scene. the second gave you a second crack at the character, and I found myself more interested in Stamp because of the effect. Given his silent mannerisms and his rage, I thought the second look was valuable."

This is a silly bit of blathering. Did you feel sort of embarassed writing it?

Leave it at: "I liked it." I think that's best. It's like trying to describe why you like strawberries. Any explanation will devolve to purest bullshit.

6597. 109109 - 3/24/00 10:26:16 AM
Ace

SPOILER

But it placed Stamp in a synonymous position with his daughter - a relationship that was non-existent and was exemplified only by his duty to her memory. By not killing Fonda, he was finally synonymous with his daughter. It became their relatiuonship after her death. Without that end, he is just a pissed off limey and he may have well been shooting folks up for money or jewels.

6598. 109109 - 3/24/00 10:27:12 AM
Ace

I tried. I failed.

But damn you and your sarcasm.

You won't keep me from trying again!

6615. Raskolnikov - 3/24/00 10:37:09 AM
"In what way, exactly, did the the editing gimmicks work *for* the story as you say?"

For one thing, a lot of the cutaways were shots of Stamp showing some sort of forward movement. Since he is a relentless bugger, the editing serves to emphasize this fact.

A lot of the editing only makes sense in retrospective. For instance, we eventually discover that a lot of the film is a flashback - a recollection of Wilson's while flying back to London, which explains why the narrative jumps around - it is a stream-of-consciousness thing. Note that these editing devices aren't used (at all? as much?) when Fonda is the focus.

Ace, you have a great sense of story and screenwriting, but I really think you underappreciate editing and photographic techniques. Yes, they sometimes (lately in the MTV-era, very frequently) are just substance-free style, but occasionally a film uses them to enhance the story.

6616. AceofSpades - 3/24/00 10:37:59 AM

Niner:

Ah. I see. You are saying-- "Well, it's still one of the best movies this year."

Maybe. I can't remember what the hell came out this year, and maybe The Limey would make the Top Ten. But I really didn't enjoy it anymore than, say, a Notting Hill.

6623. AceofSpades - 3/24/00 10:42:26 AM

"For instance, we eventually discover that a lot of the film is a flashback - a recollection of Wilson's while flying back to London"

1) Nonsense. We don't "learn" this. This is one interpretation, but there's so much jumping around, one could just as easily conclude it's all a flash-FORWARD of what he expects to happen. Or perhaps it doesn't mean a damn thing.

2) Even if we learn it's a flashback (which we don't), there's no good reason to tell the story in flashback.

Bottom line-- didn't work for me. Found it annoying, aggressively funky and attention-seeking. Did not see how it "commented on" or "reinforced" or "added to" the action in the film, which was quite compelling enough.

6628. AceofSpades - 3/24/00 10:50:43 AM

"Bottom line-- didn't work for me. Found it annoying, aggressively funky and attention-seeking."

Addendum: And though I disagreed with this choice, and found it off-putting, it quickly receded into the background. I just stopped noticing it altogether (especially because he uses it less and less as the story progresses).

It didn't really mar the film too much for me. I didn't like the technique, but it didn't stick in my craw, either. I thought the decision showed a certain lack of taste and confidence in the story itself, but it certainly wasn't an *egregiously* aggressive editing technique.

6629. Raskolnikov - 3/24/00 10:51:30 AM
"1) Nonsense. We don't "learn" this. This is one interpretation, but there's so much jumping around, one could just as easily conclude it's all a flash-FORWARD of what he expects to happen. Or perhaps it doesn't mean a damn thing."

The first shot of him is on the plane, and the last shot of him (before flashing back to a scene from that sixties film) is of him on the plane. The plane bookends the film, is chronologically the last sequence in the film, and it is cut to very frequently during the film. By far the most plausible explanation is that everything else in the film is a flashback.

"2) Even if we learn it's a flashback (which we don't), there's no good reason to tell the story in flashback."

Sure there is. It demonstrates that Wilson is being very reflective. He is re-playing the events in the film. This is brought home stronger than it would have been if the film had been shot chronologically. Of course, you first have to *get* that the film is a flashback in order to see this reason.

6630. AceofSpades - 3/24/00 10:55:13 AM

Well, Rask. Okay. He was being "reflective."

Seems pretty much any old story could be told as a "reflection." People would reflect on the dramatic events told in a movie. Still, no reason to shoot a movie like that. Just to show that character remembers what happened to him over the past week, and thinks about it a little?

Nah. I'll pass.


But are we all in agreement on the Comedian Hitman?
6632. AceofSpades - 3/24/00 10:56:35 AM

I love that guy. He looked like such a dirtbag, but he was so articulate. A bit of a surprise, there.

Plus, he could crack the kind of nasty jokes to perfect strangers that I just can't get enough of.

6634. Raskolnikov - 3/24/00 10:58:46 AM
"Seems pretty much any old story could be told as a "reflection." People would reflect on the dramatic events told in a movie. Still, no reason to shoot a movie like that. Just to show that character remembers what happened to him over the past week, and thinks about it a little?"

I think for his character, it is more important than that. We are given no other indication in the film that he has ever really considered the consequences of his life.

"But are we all in agreement on the Comedian Hitman?"

We was good, but I think it was more the character than the actor.

6635. Raskolnikov - 3/24/00 10:59:21 AM
*He* was good.

6637. AceofSpades - 3/24/00 11:00:49 AM

Rask:

No, it was the actor. The guy is very definitely a stand-up comedian, or has done stand-up comedian. Actors can deliver lines, but they can't deliver them funny. Not unless the actor himself is inherently funny.

Could Harrison Ford have gotten a laugh with the Hitman's lines? Nope, he couldn't have.

6638. AceofSpades - 3/24/00 11:07:52 AM

That's all just my opinion, of course.

And more of my opinion: His lines at the shoot were improvised. I've read a lot of scripts, and I'm getting a feel for what's improvised and what's written. (Example: In Something About Mary, the Crazy Hitchhiker's funniest lines were almost all improvised-- not in the final shooting script. "Seven little squirrels twirlin' on a branch, eatin' sunflower seeds at my Uncle's ranch. You remember that? That children's song from the Sea? Step into my office. Because you're fucking fired." You can't write shit like that.)