17 replies to this topic

[HildebrandRarity]

So...I rented Babel the other night (the girlfriend wanted to watch it).

It was so boring and depressing that I could only watch 40 minutes of the 2h 20m 'film'.

Rotten Tomatoes gave it 69 (The Queen was number 1 with 98...CR was number 2 with 94) and I can see why.

We finished watching it last night and I could hardly wait for it to end...even did the dishes and the laundry while the piece of was on.

What do others here think about this movie, given that it was nominated for an award or two?

[Tarl_Cabot]

Funny. I avoided it because it looks like an international house of 'Crash' flavored pancakes.

Thanks for the tip. I will avoid it at the video store but probably catch it on cable(for free). Actually, I enjoyed 'Crash' but I don't like that new genre of unrelated story ensembled crap that started with Traffic, which I thought really sucked.

[Loomis]

I was blown away by BABEL. I saw it on the big screen, which is the only way to see it (even though it wasn't shot in Panavision or any other "widescreen" format).

Sure, it's not perfect. The Tokyo story is rather more dazzling and compelling than the other two (to which, in addition, it seems linked only in something of a contrived and tenuous way), and the film goes on about half an hour too long. It's also a bit---- how to put it? It's a film that you almost suspect was tailored specifically to appeal to Guardian readers and people who have Amnesty International posters on their walls (not that there's anything wrong with reading The Grauniad or supporting AI, of course).

The main thing, though, is that it's a mesmerising visual feast - and film is above all else a visual art form, is it not? The extraordinary final shot (surely destined to be one of the most talked-about final shots in motion picture history) is alone worth the price of admission.

While it reminds me of various things - for instance, SYRIANA, the novels of Haruki Murakami, CHUNGKING EXPRESS, and PARIS, TEXAS, all mashed up by some kind of sensory overload blender - it's quite unlike any other film I know of.

As for what it's "about", I'll hazard a guess that it's as much a study of ironic discrepancies between perception and reality as an examination of hidden consequences of apparently isolated actions.... In any case, it's well worth seeing, but mind you support your local fleapit on this one, not your friendly neighbourhood DVD dealer.

In conclusion: four out of five (being perhaps a little generous).

[Harmsway]

I too found BABEL to be fairly dull. All the main characters aside from Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett were mostly unlikeable. About thirty minutes into the film, I was ready to turn it off and walk away, but kept watching out of a sense of obligation.

The main thing, though, is that it's a mesmerising visual feast - and film is above all else a visual art form, is it not? The extraordinary final shot (surely destined to be one of the most talked-about final shots in motion picture history) is alone worth the price of admission.

While the last shot was great, I didn't think it was visually all that spectacular. It had the same kind of "indie film" look that I've seen countless other films have. To be fair, I didn't see it on a big screen, but if this film has nothing to offer beyond visuals, it's not really worth my time.

[Loomis]

They could have lost the Mexican story. It's the weakest, dullest and most preachy of the bunch. I also found Cate Blanchett pretty tough to take. Other than that, it's worth giving BABEL a go. Plenty of much, much, much worse movies out there. Including its Best Picture rivals, the puffed-up and ridiculous THE QUEEN, and the similarly puffed-up and ridiculous THE DEPARTED. BABEL does at least have a bit of oomph.

[HildebrandRarity]

About thirty minutes into the film, I was ready to turn it off and walk away, but kept watching out of a sense of obligation.

You have the correct phrase there, Harmsway!

I, too, on the second night watched it "out of a sense of obligation".


BTW, my girlfriend and I actually walked out of the movie theatre (and even got return coupons) 25 minutes into "Zodiac" just last week.

Zodiac...i'm not sure if its out in England/UK/Continent...made me almost sick. I HAD to leave...my girlfriend shared my own sentiments.

Hint to CBNers...don't blow your money on ZODIAC (directed by the guy who did Se7en)...I felt like puking.

[Loomis]

Tell us more. Why did you feel like puking? Have you seen SE7EN? If so, how were you with that film?

I don't think ZODIAC is out yet in the UK. I'm not a Fincher fan, although I think SE7EN is a superb piece of work. I also like THE GAME. FIGHT CLUB is overrated drivel, while PANIC ROOM is a bore, and don't even get me started on ALIEN 3. Still, I had half a mind to see ZODIAC. Anyway, tell us more (but go easy on plot spoilers).

[HildebrandRarity]

Tell us more. Why did you feel like puking? Have you seen SE7EN? If so, how were you with that film?

I don't think ZODIAC is out yet in the UK. I'm not a Fincher fan, although I think SE7EN is a superb piece of work. I also like THE GAME. FIGHT CLUB is overrated drivel, while PANIC ROOM is a bore, and don't even get me started on ALIEN 3. Still, I had half a mind to see ZODIAC. Anyway, tell us more (but go easy on plot spoilers).

I have not fully seen Se7en.

In Zodiac the killings of the first couple and also of the second couple are too realistically gruesome and harrowing especially when they're lying on the ground getting repeatedly stabbed in the back by a chef's knife.

There.

[Loomis]

I too found BABEL to be fairly dull. All the main characters aside from Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett were mostly unlikeable. About thirty minutes into the film, I was ready to turn it off and walk away, but kept watching out of a sense of obligation.

The main thing, though, is that it's a mesmerising visual feast - and film is above all else a visual art form, is it not? The extraordinary final shot (surely destined to be one of the most talked-about final shots in motion picture history) is alone worth the price of admission.

While the last shot was great, I didn't think it was visually all that spectacular. It had the same kind of "indie film" look that I've seen countless other films have. To be fair, I didn't see it on a big screen, but if this film has nothing to offer beyond visuals, it's not really worth my time.

But there's a lot more to BABEL than pretty pictures, even though the pretty pictures are admittedly the main draw. (And, come on, how can you not concede the brilliance of this movie's visual style[s]? The Tokyo playground/nightclub episode, for instance, is shot and edited in a way that has a practically hypnotic effect, and will, I think, be remembered as one of the all-time great virtuoso sequences in motion picture history. It's like a modern version of the Tokyo nightlife tour in IKIRU. When my ship comes in and a really terrific giant plasma TV/high definition DVD combo is finally mine, BABEL will be my first HD disc purchase.)

The performances are exceptional and the characters by and large very interesting. An endlessly thought-provoking script that credits the audience with enough curiosity to want to fill in some of the blanks. Great use of music, too.

Still, even if BABEL did have "nothing to offer beyond visuals", why would that necessarily be a bad thing? Wouldn't you agree that film is - should be - 99.9% visual mood-setting and visual storytelling, and the rest is just gravy?

Now, BABEL does go on too long, and it's rather heavy-handed in places (the scenes with the brutal Moroccan cops spring to mind), but it's nonetheless packed with more quality than most directors manage over the course of entire careers. Like KOYAANISQATSI with a plot, or an intellectual, internationalist PULP FICTION (or, indeed, like SYRIANA with nothing to do with oil ), this is a poetic great novel of a film, groaning with weighty themes and sociological detail while being mesmerisingly beautiful at the same time.

[Harmsway]

But there's a lot more to BABEL than pretty pictures, even though the pretty pictures are admittedly the main draw.

I don't think that what is is there is done well, or that it's particularly insightful or interesting. BABEL has no story worth telling.

The performances are exceptional and the characters by and large very interesting.

A hoard of unlikeable characters who make jaw-droppingly stupid choices and then pay for them. I wish I could get into these characters, but even when I have sympathy for their initial situation, they make decisions so idiotic that I can't relate. They're by-and-large people who deserve most of what they get (aside from Cate Blanchett/Brad Pitt).

Still, even if BABEL did have "nothing to offer beyond visuals", why would that necessarily be a bad thing? Wouldn't you agree that film is - should be - 99.9% visual mood-setting and visual storytelling, and the rest is just gravy?

Visual beauty is a good thing for film, but visuals alone cannot make a good picture. After all, you do call it visual storytelling - and therefore, it's the underlying story that's the most important thing. The visuals are what bring it to life, but the story is the single most important aspect.

I say this with all honesty... I never hated watching a film as much as I hated watching BABEL. I can't entirely explain why that was, but it was the most awful film experience of my life. I won't watch it again unless it's at gunpoint.

[Loomis]

A hoard of unlikeable characters who make jaw-droppingly stupid choices and then pay for them. I wish I could get into these characters, but even when I have sympathy for their initial situation, they make decisions so idiotic that I can't relate. They're by-and-large people who deserve most of what they get (aside from Cate Blanchett/Brad Pitt).

I don't think the characters are supposed to likeable or unlikeable. They mostly just feel, well, real to me. Although I concede that some are just stock characters and ciphers, which doesn't particularly serve the film - those Moroccan cops, for instance, who are so much the black-hatted bad guys that things start to feel contrived and simplistic when they're around. One of BABEL's flaws is that "types" are shoehorned in at points where the narrative is already sufficiently strong and the subtext sufficiently clear, which betrays a certain lack of confidence on the filmmakers' part: another example is the blowhard border patrolman, an obvious symbol of Fortress America, and it's at such junctures that the film seems to start editorialising.

Still, what I'd call the "main" characters are, by and large, rounded and realistic, and consequently interesting. They're not supposed to be Hollywood leading men and women (even though, ironically enough, this is a picture that stars Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett ), but neither are they total dopes or the scum of the earth. As I see it, at least. And jaw-droppingly stupid choices are an inevitable part of life.

I say this with all honesty... I never hated watching a film as much as I hated watching BABEL. I can't entirely explain why that was, but it was the most awful film experience of my life. I won't watch it again unless it's at gunpoint.

Wow. I'm very surprised by this. I guess there's no selling you on this one, then.

[Harmsway]

I say this with all honesty... I never hated watching a film as much as I hated watching BABEL. I can't entirely explain why that was, but it was the most awful film experience of my life. I won't watch it again unless it's at gunpoint.

Wow. I'm very surprised by this. I guess there's no selling you on this one, then.

Yeah... this is one I'm not willing to revisit.

[HildebrandRarity]

I started the thread not because I "hated" this movie...but because I don't understand why such an underwhelming movie would get a best picture Oscar nomination.

Actually an Oscar isnt what it once was...so forget the above.

[Loomis]

I don't understand why such an underwhelming movie would get a best picture Oscar nomination.

That's how I feel about THE DEPARTED.

Still, the Oscars are a joke.... and probably always have been, really.

BABEL was nominated for seven Oscars, winning one, but I just can't understand why it wasn't even nominated in the one category it truly shines in: cinematography. I think even you and Harmsway would concede that it's stunningly shot.

[The Richmond Spy]

They could have lost the Mexican story.

I felt the same way about the story of the Japanese girl.

[Harmsway]

I think even you and Harmsway would concede that it's stunningly shot.

Indeed I would. It deserved a cinematography nomination moreso than it deserved anything else.

[HildebrandRarity]

I think even you and Harmsway would concede that it's stunningly shot.

Indeed I would. It deserved a cinematography nomination moreso than it deserved anything else.

Fine...but best picture?

I 'spose it was:

"Look, Brad's in an arthouse flick! Let's give the best pic category some Brangelina Glam for the 'ole red carpet paparazzi to eat up...some guaranteed extra free pub for the Academy around the world...and the suckers will stay tuned in 'till the end of the show for shots of the Hollywood couple of the year..."

Edited by HildebrandRarity, 19 June 2007 - 04:29 PM.

[0024]

I think it was a good movie. I didn't like it, but I could see why it was revered. I was not a great advocate for the movie Crash, partly because I thought it made it's point early and then dwelled on it the rest of the film. Babel was a good movie and improves on the multi story arc better then Crash, but I certainly will not buy it. Once is enough, I think.

And I agree, it is beautifully shot.