It's All About Love

Discuss former or new projects of Claire Danes ("Angela Chase") in this forum.
User avatar
TomSpeed
Marshall Wannabe
Posts: 1226
Joined: Jan 13th 2003, 3:37 pm
Location: Tampa, FL, USA
Contact:

It's All About Love

Post by TomSpeed » Mar 27th 2003, 11:28 am

I found some information on a movie Claire made sometime ago -- It's All About Love. It had its debut at the Sundance Film Festival this year. Does anyone know anything about it? Basically, all I've been able to find out about it is here.
TomSpeed

Patty: If Rayanne's not seeing you, and we're not seeing you, who is seeing you?
Graham: And how much of you?
Angela: Dad!
Graham: Oh, I'm sorry! I asked a question about your life, didn't I? Woah, what came over me?
http://www.last.fm/user/TomSpeed/

User avatar
Natasha (candygirl)
MSCL.com Team
MSCL.com Team
Posts: 5374
Joined: Dec 7th 2001, 3:05 am
Location: California

Post by Natasha (candygirl) » Mar 27th 2003, 2:28 pm

Sascha posted a link to the trailer here - other than that, I don't know much about it besides the ice skating :wink:
Natasha aka candygirl :: MSCL.com

Look, if this is weird for you, being tutored? I don't mind helping you a little longer.
You could have sex with me if you really want to help...I guess that's a "no"?

User avatar
sirhansirhan
Account Suspended
Posts: 76
Joined: Nov 18th 2003, 8:55 pm
Location: I love Jesus

Post by sirhansirhan » Nov 28th 2003, 4:49 pm

I don't know if anyone cares much about it anymore, seeing as how old these posts are, but I saw this movie at the London Film Festival about a month ago.

It was directed by Thomas Vinterberg, who was one of the creators of the Dogme 95 movement, and directed the best Dogme film, Festen (or The Celebration, if you prefer). IAAL is only his second movie. Aside from Claire, Joaquin Phoenix and Sean Penn are in it.

Man, does it suck. It's really ambitious and the total antithesis of the Dogme manifesto, but pretty much every aspect of it doesn't work. Claire gets to play multiple roles, though: she plays a world-famous ice skater who wants to stop skating, and gets cloned (or something like cloned, at least) several times over so that people can continue making money off of her image.

It's funny how Claire almost always works with great directors (like Vinterberg, Coppola, Stone, etc.), and yet the movies always suck. At least she has good taste in directors. You can't really account for bad luck.

eyeboogers

Post by eyeboogers » Dec 14th 2003, 4:27 pm

You definately need to watch this film again. In my opinion it's one of the best films ever made (and i'm a filmstudent so it's not like i haven't seen enough of them.). Also it's Vinterbergs third feature not his second. The script has some minor problems but when you try to tackle a subject this big in this manner it's hard not to stumple on the way. It's definately Claire's best work so far also.

User avatar
sirhansirhan
Account Suspended
Posts: 76
Joined: Nov 18th 2003, 8:55 pm
Location: I love Jesus

Post by sirhansirhan » Dec 14th 2003, 5:00 pm

eyeboogers wrote:You definately need to watch this film again. In my opinion it's one of the best films ever made (and i'm a filmstudent so it's not like i haven't seen enough of them.). Also it's Vinterbergs third feature not his second. The script has some minor problems but when you try to tackle a subject this big in this manner it's hard not to stumple on the way. It's definately Claire's best work so far also.
Man, this is one of the stupidest posts I've ever seen. Here's why:

1) What good is the claim that it is "one of the best films ever made" if you don't (can't) back it up? I gave reasons (albeit brief) why I thought it sucked; if you expect me to take you seriously, you ought to tell me why it was so good. The same goes for why it is Claire's best work so far. And while we're on the subject, why do you find it acceptable that because the film "tackle[s] a subject this big" that it falls short of meeting it? I'd much rather see Vinterberg make a film wherein his aspirations are lower and he succeeds. An inventive failure is still a failure.

2) Although I admit that in my first post I was outwardly wrong about it being Vinterberg's second feature, it is not his third, either. It is his fourth feature-length, non-TV movie.

3) What the hell is a "stumple"?

4) The fact that you claim to be a film student just makes you a pretentious ass who is trying miserably to add some validity to his hack opinions. It does not lend you any credibility at all. I can say this in earnest because I, too, am a film student. If you think you're going to get very far telling people that your opinion on a film is the correct one just because you went to film school, you're so, so wrong.

5) It's "definitely," not "definately."

If you want to come back and give me a valid reason why not to dismiss It's All About Love as the horrible failure that it is, I'd love to hear it. I just hope you give it some thought before I spend my time reading it.

eyeboogers

Post by eyeboogers » Dec 15th 2003, 2:24 pm

Ok, i'll wait until i have a chance to rewatch the dvd and then give you a decent analysis of the film. For now i will just say this is Vinterbergs third theatrically released feature film the first one was "The biggest heroes/de stoerste helte" from 1996. Your initial post didn't sound like the words of someone who knew anything about film making (and in your second post you champion mediocrity by suggesting that writers and directors should stick to what they already know they can achieve rather than to keep moving forward and aiming high..even if they don't quite master everything they set out to do it's still a lot more valuable than giving up without trying. I'd rather see someone try for something new and complex and fall flat on their back (ala "Book of shadows:blair witch2") than some name director playing it by the number decade after decade.(Woody Allen syndrome.)) anyway more to follow.

eyeboogers

Post by eyeboogers » Dec 15th 2003, 2:26 pm

and before you try to make yourself look superior by pointing out spelling mistakes try to keep in mind that we are not all native english speakers.

User avatar
grim4746
Krakow
Posts: 391
Joined: Aug 8th 1999, 2:14 am
Location: Canada

Post by grim4746 » Dec 15th 2003, 8:11 pm

eyeboogers wrote:and before you try to make yourself look superior by pointing out spelling mistakes try to keep in mind that we are not all native english speakers.
I think pointing out spelling mistakes is petty but it seems that your earlier post really pushed Sirhansirhan's buttons for some reason. English is my native tongue and my spelling is not perfect. Actually "definitely" is one of those words I have to stop and think about every time I use it (which is often). There are some things I never learn, one I find especially frustrating is that I can never remember which direction to turn the cold water tap to make my shower hotter (I stop to ask myself at least once a day and always mentally reply to myself: "turn it towards hot to make it colder and away from hot to make it hotter") I know that's really not that relevant but it infuriates me and I never can find the proper venue to vent about it. Anyway back to spelling. I usually cut and paste my messages to my email or Word and spell check before posting, it cuts down on people taking cheap shots when you post something they don't like. It's sort of a waste of time but I figure if I have time to post on tv message boards I probably have a minute or two to spare to check my spelling. Plus running a spell check multiple times a day helps my spelling as there are many words I am capable of learning to spell for some reason "definitely" has been problematic. I'm not sure what to make of your argument that it's better to try something new than to rely on the tried and true. On the surface your argument is convincing but I'd definitely rather watch any woody allen film than blair witch 2, a movie I would really prefer had not been attempted. I haven't seen It's All About Love and this debate has be sufficiently curious. I'll attempt to check it out soon so that I can more properly chime in on this debate.

User avatar
Natasha (candygirl)
MSCL.com Team
MSCL.com Team
Posts: 5374
Joined: Dec 7th 2001, 3:05 am
Location: California

Post by Natasha (candygirl) » Dec 15th 2003, 9:12 pm

grim4746 wrote:I usually cut and paste my messages to my email or Word and spell check before posting, it cuts down on people taking cheap shots when you post something they don't like. It's sort of a waste of time but I figure if I have time to post on tv message boards I probably have a minute or two to spare to check my spelling.
FYI - http://www.iespell.com is a spell checker that works with internet explorer. I know there are other programs for non IE users too.
Natasha aka candygirl :: MSCL.com

Look, if this is weird for you, being tutored? I don't mind helping you a little longer.
You could have sex with me if you really want to help...I guess that's a "no"?

User avatar
grim4746
Krakow
Posts: 391
Joined: Aug 8th 1999, 2:14 am
Location: Canada

Post by grim4746 » Dec 15th 2003, 9:38 pm

candygirl wrote:FYI - http://www.iespell.com is a spell checker that works with internet explorer. I know there are other programs for non IE users too.
thanks candygirl, I'll start searching for a non IE spell checker, I knew these existed but it had for some reason never occurred to me to bother to get one. It's sure to save me valuable seconds, allowing me to push even more of my opinions out into the vast web. One thing that is easy to learn: candygirl always has the answers. :D

User avatar
TomSpeed
Marshall Wannabe
Posts: 1226
Joined: Jan 13th 2003, 3:37 pm
Location: Tampa, FL, USA
Contact:

Post by TomSpeed » Dec 15th 2003, 11:21 pm

I will probably buy this movie when it comes out on DVD. I just can't think rationally when it comes to Claire.

Thanks for the IeSpell tip, CG. Using it is easier than cutting-and-pasting.
TomSpeed

Patty: If Rayanne's not seeing you, and we're not seeing you, who is seeing you?
Graham: And how much of you?
Angela: Dad!
Graham: Oh, I'm sorry! I asked a question about your life, didn't I? Woah, what came over me?
http://www.last.fm/user/TomSpeed/

User avatar
sirhansirhan
Account Suspended
Posts: 76
Joined: Nov 18th 2003, 8:55 pm
Location: I love Jesus

Post by sirhansirhan » Dec 16th 2003, 3:24 am

Whoa, okay, I haven't visited the board all day, and now I don't know where to start.

First of all, I'm just going to drop the spelling thing right away. Wait, no I'm not. It may be (and probably is) nitpicky, but it is a total pet peeve. And hiding your bad spelling behind the fact that English is apparently not your native language is lame, and no excuse. English is my native language, bad spelling is a pet peeve, and yet it isn't altogether uncommon that I spell things wrong. When I do, I own up to it, feel stupid about it, and try not to make the same mistake again. It'll be a lot harder to start spelling things correctly on a regular basis if you let yourself think it's because English is not your native language.

And maybe your newly-discovered English language deficiency explains why you failed to notice how bad the dialogue was (or how wooden the delivery) in It's All About Love. You had to know that I was going to say that.

Secondly, I am not at all saying that filmmakers should not attempt new things; far from it. If they did stop, moviegoing as we know it would deteriorate into total suckitude within a matter of months. I'm just saying that ambitious movies that suck still suck, and formulaic movies that hit the mark still hit the mark. From a consumer standpoint, I (and pretty much everyone else in the world) would much prefer to see the latter. From a filmmaking standpoint (and I'll go on the record now and say that I am not a filmmaker, which perhaps explains my purported lack of knowledge on the subject, as demonstrated in my initial post on this thread), an ambitious movie that fails can plant the seeds of good ideas to be used in future films that may work. This I can understand. And while we're on the subject, it is just as hard to pull off an ambitious movie as it is to succeed in a movie that has been done a million times before.

Besides, anyone who has seen it knows that Festen is sufficiently ambitious, and Vinterberg pulled it off in a major way. This just makes me all the sadder that It's All About Love sucks as much as it does.

Also, I'm curious as to where and when you (eyeboogers) saw it. I'm not accusing you of not having seen it, nor do I intend to try and turn your answer around on you in any way; it just hasn't gotten much of a release anywhere that I know of, and I'm curious.

And by the way grim4746, as you have probably noticed by now (as you were one of the original Jordan:Angela::Angela:Brian participants), it doesn't take much to push my buttons.

User avatar
grim4746
Krakow
Posts: 391
Joined: Aug 8th 1999, 2:14 am
Location: Canada

Post by grim4746 » Dec 16th 2003, 5:44 am

sirhansirhan wrote:And by the way grim4746, as you have probably noticed by now (as you were one of the original Jordan:Angela::Angela:Brian participants), it doesn't take much to push my buttons.
I did have the impression that you may be easily bothered but I wasn't sure. I still don't understand what happened on the Jordan:Angela::Angela:Brian topic, I have a bit clearer an idea of what irritated you here but I really enjoy that I find your annoyances so unpredictable. For some reason I delight in the annoying. I love other peoples pet peeves and on many levels I even enjoy being annoyed myself. I find it irresistibly comical. So much so that I'm tempted to not run this message through a spell checker. Which incidentally would still be a cut and paste job as my search so far has indicated that there is no such spell checker *yet* for Netscape/Mozilla, my current browser of choice. The spell checker is almost enough to convince me to switch back to IE, but first I'll have to find that topic here that mentioned a good pop-up blocker to use. Hmm, I've wandered even further off topic, perhaps I should try to find a babble blocker while i'm at it. At any rate, I will spell check this message because I have an obsessive need to.
and rather than edit my previous post, I'll just add an unnecessary clarification here (basically just for practice using the quote function by typing the code myself).
I wrote: I haven't seen It's All About Love and this debate has be sufficiently curious.
I should have wrote:...has me sufficiently curious.

sine
Three Rivers Resident
Posts: 58
Joined: Jan 16th 2002, 2:06 pm

Post by sine » Dec 16th 2003, 7:43 am

sirhansirhan wrote:Also, I'm curious as to where and when you (eyeboogers) saw it. I'm not accusing you of not having seen it, nor do I intend to try and turn your answer around on you in any way; it just hasn't gotten much of a release anywhere that I know of, and I'm curious.
According to http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0273689/releaseinfo the movie has been released, well, mostly only in European countries. And the list is missing at least one other European theatrical release date.

I saw the film in theatre -- the audience of the screening consisted of me and my friend alone, which was quite nice :) So, not a massive financial success at least here in my town.

It's been a while since watching the movie, but if I recollect right it was a pleasure to look at (must have been the colours..?) and had that magical scene where the glass filled with water cracks. And yes, the reason I went to see the film was that it had Claire in it :twisted:

User avatar
sirhansirhan
Account Suspended
Posts: 76
Joined: Nov 18th 2003, 8:55 pm
Location: I love Jesus

Post by sirhansirhan » Dec 16th 2003, 12:24 pm

sine wrote:According to http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0273689/releaseinfo the movie has been released, well, mostly only in European countries. And the list is missing at least one other European theatrical release date.

I saw the film in theatre -- the audience of the screening consisted of me and my friend alone, which was quite nice :) So, not a massive financial success at least here in my town.

It's been a while since watching the movie, but if I recollect right it was a pleasure to look at (must have been the colours..?) and had that magical scene where the glass filled with water cracks. And yes, the reason I went to see the film was that it had Claire in it :twisted:
Hmm...you're right. I figured since the London Film Festival got it so recently that it hadn't gotten much of a Western European release, but it looks like it has. Funny that the UK hasn't gotten it (yet; it looks like it's being released this February) when it is English language.

And yeah, a lot of the scenes in the snow looked great. Also the final shot is hilarious (although awful looking on a technical level). I never intended to make it sound like this film has no redeeming qualities; it's just mind-blowingly disappointing. Movies that could have been good but aren't are always more disappointing than movies that never stood a chance to be good.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests