![]() Well, aimlessness is all but unavoidable in a film that simply meditates upon an extended dialogue exchange in real time, and, again, I understand that something had to be done in order meet the tight runtime demands of distributors who decided whether or not this 80-minute pseudo-fluff piece was cinema material, but there's just no way around how unfocused this storytelling gets to be at times, if you could say that there is an actual story being told so aimlessly. Really, the film could do without plenty of touches to its plot structure, or rather, dialogue structure, which drives this film's unconventional narrative style, and can therefore not be tightened up too much, even when you take out of account the fact that the final product runs a startlingly brief 80 minutes, but still gets fatty around the edges with more than just the aforementioned inconsequentially fluffy breaks from primary discussion focus, trying to run out the clock with a touch too much exposition, until it slips into aimlessness. The intentionally under conversations that sometimes break from discussions' tops for comic relief or whatever are more realistic, but they remain distancing from a storytelling standpoint, so the final product could have done without certain fluffy touches that annoy and loosen the assurance that the predecessor didn't lose as often. This film may have earned more money than "Before Sunset"-I mean, "Before Sunrise", but, as much as I joke about folks' bad assumptions when they hear the premise to this film, people rambling on for well over an hour doesn't exactly make for solid commerical entertainment, and for a couple reasons.Īs endearing as the leads were in the predecessor, and still are here, they had obnoxious occasions that can also be found in this follow-up, whose pseudo-intellectual babblings get to be a little questionable, and whose intentionally nervous moments to the interactions are even more prominent than those in the predecessor, being far from a big problem, but sometimes problematic, particularly when the ramblings get unevenly focused. ![]() Yeah, it can't be easy to get all that serious with Jack Black in the room, yet that didn't stop Peter Jackson from working on an extra dramatic "King Kong" while this film was on the tongues of everyone. I would say that one might also expect Richard Linklater to hold onto the pretentious "art" filmmaking styling that he applied to "Waking Life", but if Linklater wasn't on enough of a high with grounded entertainment when he did "Before Sunrise" after "Dazed and Confused" (Notice that I said "high" and "after" after "Before" that's about as trippy as "Dazed and Confused"), this film was his follow-up to "School of Rock". I can understand why you would fear that this film would be like that, even though the predecessor didn't get all that artistically overblown, not just because this film actually takes place in Paris, French, your one-stop shop for some of the most stereotypical art films ever toked out of an art student's head, but because a title like the ones attached to this film and its predecessor aren't going to get any less pretentious-sounding in nine years. in real time.Granted, they only talk for around 80 minutes, so don't worry too much, people expecting this to be, like, two-and-a-half hours of abstract ramblings and imagery and whatnot. ![]() No, this is a distinguished sequel, as it is distinctly more well-shot, and plus, where "Before Sunset"-I mean, "Before Sunrise" would have times where it cut to later points in the afternoon of non-stop talking between Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy, this sequel really hardcore and focuses on the entire interactions between Hawke and Delpy. I don't know about you guys, but I feel like this film's title is too similar to its predecessor's, so much so that I keep getting them confused, although that might just be because the films themselves are also too similar. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |