I watched it a few days ago. It was good. I'm big on lucid dreaming and I already knew a lot of that content beforehand, but it was still a nice interpretation.
As for the more philosophical parts, yeah it could get a bit confusing, the scene with the guys walking down the alley or whatever just went over my head.
Other than that scene I pretty much agreed with everything that was said, except for maybe the guy on the bridge with the squeaky voice, he was fairly annoying.
I thought it was OK, but it was too damningly elitist for it's own good.
I mean, they talk about Sartre, Neitzsche, Truffaut, and other existentialists within the first 10 minutes, yet don't explain them to the average watcher. The vast majority of viewers won't understand the movie, which isn't a good thing at all.
It seems as if the creators were intent on making a movie that says "Hey! I'm smarter than you, you uncultured swine!" I *don't* like movies bent on stroking the egos of pseudo-intellectuals.
Reject the basic assumption that all movies have to filtered to be watched by a contemporary yet stupid audience.
Popular doesnt mean that a moive is good on its own merits.
Most good moives that come out work on a number of levels, there is a level for the popcorn munching masses, but also more for those who watch films to learn and experience.
Waking Life has no pretention, it isnt aimed for people who want to see explosions, one dimensional characters and a love scene.
It is deeply thoughful, but beyond this it is art, a some what abstract piece of art and its one of the most wonderful cinematic experiences I have had.
It isnt a movie for everyone and it never pretend to be. You cant critise it for that.
It's not that I have anything against its lack of "mass appeal." I totally agree that it wasn't meant for everyone.
I just can't stand the fact that the entire movie basically establishes the fact that "if you watch this and find it enjoyable, you're better than those cretins who don't understand it."
I *did* enjoy the movie - I found it very thought provoking and insightful - but when it was over, I thought to myself "damn, they sure worked hard to throw in as many obscure references to prevent people from understanding it." That's not good.
well, i'm going to watch it over a few more times... i understand some of it, and some of it just makes me say "what are YOU smoking?"
the 4 guys walking around (that encounter the old man on the pole) made sense to me... you have to take each person, for themself, what they say as a collective, don't make sense, but if you stop watching it as a viewer, and incourperate yourself as lika a "ghost" and see thw four of them from all directions, you can sort of flaot between the statements, and understand a little more...
the guy on the bridge... well...kinda made me want to push him off the side... grrr.... squaky voice = teh anoy
I'm curious as to what this movie is actually about, sounds like one that makes you think. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Quite, it has no semblance of plot but is more like a philosophical documentary. It's done entirely in rotoscoping, so the effect of midbending philosophy and the cartoonish effect is rather intriguing.
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin--D'Artagnan+May 11 2003, 09:13 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (D'Artagnan @ May 11 2003, 09:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Quite, it has no semblance of plot but is more like a philosophical documentary. It's done entirely in rotoscoping, so the effect of midbending philosophy and the cartoonish effect is rather intriguing. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> philosophical documentary as in Koyaanisqatsi, or something less artsy?
<!--QuoteBegin--AllUrHiveRBelong2Us+May 11 2003, 09:24 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRBelong2Us @ May 11 2003, 09:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--D'Artagnan+May 11 2003, 09:13 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (D'Artagnan @ May 11 2003, 09:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Quite, it has no semblance of plot but is more like a philosophical documentary. It's done entirely in rotoscoping, so the effect of midbending philosophy and the cartoonish effect is rather intriguing. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> philosophical documentary as in Koyaanisqatsi, or something less artsy? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Not quite Koyaanisqatsi, but pretty close. The whole thing is done with a "holier than thou" narration. It's still good, just extremely condescening, IMHO.
Comments
As for the more philosophical parts, yeah it could get a bit confusing, the scene with the guys walking down the alley or whatever just went over my head.
Other than that scene I pretty much agreed with everything that was said, except for maybe the guy on the bridge with the squeaky voice, he was fairly annoying.
I mean, they talk about Sartre, Neitzsche, Truffaut, and other existentialists within the first 10 minutes, yet don't explain them to the average watcher. The vast majority of viewers won't understand the movie, which isn't a good thing at all.
It seems as if the creators were intent on making a movie that says "Hey! I'm smarter than you, you uncultured swine!" I *don't* like movies bent on stroking the egos of pseudo-intellectuals.
I just ignored the references mostly, and focust on the ideas, predictions, and so on.
The notions of evolution were fairly interesting, despite their possible lack of validity.
Popular doesnt mean that a moive is good on its own merits.
Most good moives that come out work on a number of levels, there is a level for the popcorn munching masses, but also more for those who watch films to learn and experience.
Waking Life has no pretention, it isnt aimed for people who want to see explosions, one dimensional characters and a love scene.
It is deeply thoughful, but beyond this it is art, a some what abstract piece of art and its one of the most wonderful cinematic experiences I have had.
It isnt a movie for everyone and it never pretend to be. You cant critise it for that.
On its merits it is an erethral film experience.
I just can't stand the fact that the entire movie basically establishes the fact that "if you watch this and find it enjoyable, you're better than those cretins who don't understand it."
I *did* enjoy the movie - I found it very thought provoking and insightful - but when it was over, I thought to myself "damn, they sure worked hard to throw in as many obscure references to prevent people from understanding it." That's not good.
the 4 guys walking around (that encounter the old man on the pole) made sense to me... you have to take each person, for themself, what they say as a collective, don't make sense, but if you stop watching it as a viewer, and incourperate yourself as lika a "ghost" and see thw four of them from all directions, you can sort of flaot between the statements, and understand a little more...
the guy on the bridge... well...kinda made me want to push him off the side... grrr.... squaky voice = teh anoy
philosophical documentary as in Koyaanisqatsi, or something less artsy?
philosophical documentary as in Koyaanisqatsi, or something less artsy? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not quite Koyaanisqatsi, but pretty close. The whole thing is done with a "holier than thou" narration. It's still good, just extremely condescening, IMHO.