Brick

Valmont

I googled for a previous thread on this but couldn't find one so here I am. I saw that ioxy called it the most over-pretentious film of 2006. Understandable considering the directors name is Ryan but he changed the spelling to Rian :rolleyes:, says a lot.

Regardless I really enjoyed this movie and thought it was successful in it's originality and style. I think there is always the possibility that a film striving for originality can come across as contrived but I think it worked. I liked the film noir aspect and thought that the dialogue was excellent if a little trying at times. I also found the various characters brilliant especially 'the pin'. Oh and the main theme tune was great.

Anyone else enjoy this?

Miguel_Sanchez

Enjoyed it immensely.

I can see how people could be annoyed by it by I think it manages to walk a fine line and get away with it.

Joesph Gordon Levitt sure can take a beating!

BlitzKrieg

Regardless I really enjoyed this movie and thought it was successful in it's originality and style. I think there is always the possibility that a film striving for originality can come across as contrived but I think it worked.

I hated it because it wasnt original...

When I originally heard about it, it sounded brilliant.

A Film Noir storyline but with high school characters.


But what we got was a Film Noir film with a high school background...the originality of it went as far as the back setting and stopped there.

In the end without the details such as all the characters looking under 20 and the existence of school lockers it is in fact a very by the books and unoriginal film noir with bits and pieces from classic films.


The fact that a disney cartoon series which combined school and police dramas outdoes the film on almost every level just adds salt to its wounds.

randomchild

I loved it. I tought it was a n excellent old school private eye movie, given a modern twist. The only way it could have been better was to have nicholson or bogart playing the lead ( Inoticed the little throwback to the big sleep at the end of the movie)!

johnny_ultimate

Big fan of this film. Havent watched it since release but I remember being particularly impressed by it. A film that just oozes style, if lacking substance. But thats the point really.

Galvasean

johnny_ultimate wrote:

A film that just oozes style, if lacking substance. But thats the point really.

A large amount of style can never compensate for a lack of substance.
Remember Revolver?

Now thats not to say I didn't enjoy Brick. I liked the dialogue although at times it did feel a little forced in its quest to be really sharp. There were some genuinely funny bits:

the guy running into the pole after tripping over the protagonists shoes was worth seeing

.
The film's main flaw was how terribly predictable it was:

The girl in the red dress was clearly behind it all. I guessed this the first time I saw her. Now I know she's supposed to be the femme fetale but surely they should have given the audience some credit.
It was also obvious from the word go the protagonist (whatever his name was) was the unborn baby's father.

johnny_ultimate

Galvasean wrote:

A large amount of style can never compensate for a lack of substance.
Remember Revolver?

Sin City totally illustrates the opposite. Three revenge genre stories that are worth watching simply because they look so damn cool.

Galvasean

johnny_ultimate wrote:

Sin City totally illustrates the opposite. Three revenge genre stories that are worth watching simply because they look so damn cool.

Interesting you should say that. The first time I saw Sin City it was in a bar with no sound. I kept thinking "What a visula tour de force, i can't wait to watch it properly!" Since then I watched it with sound and parts of it that I liked before now irritated me.

RAIN

Loved brick not mad on sin city .I was looking forward to sin city so much but to me it looked like it was shot like one of those sunday evening telly plays from years ago . Mite have been cus i was such a huge fan of the comics before hand .LOVED brick have seen it a few times since. if it wasent set in a highschool it would play like a rip off of about a thousand noir movies but style good dialoge and great performances usually keep me captivated . One of my fave last scenes ever aswell .

spacecoyote

i wanted to enjoy Brick, but I just didn't. I did find some of the funny moments quite amusing but other than that I didn't find it really interesting. I don't think that most of the attempts at stylish smart dialogue came off and as stated, it was all quite predictable in the end.

It was ok, but definitely pretentious over-rated

Valmont

BlitzKrieg wrote:

I hated it because it wasnt original...

When I originally heard about it, it sounded brilliant.

A Film Noir storyline but with high school characters.


But what we got was a Film Noir film with a high school background...the originality of it went as far as the back setting and stopped there.

Yes because it is the latest in a spate of film noir murder mystery high school flicks:rolleyes:

There is nothing quite like a 'film critic' imploding;)

ixoy

Valmont wrote:

Yes because it is the latest in a spate of film noir murder mystery high school flicks:rolleyes:

There is nothing quite like a 'film critic' imploding;)

Umm Blitz is saying that the high school setting was merely a back drop to a "film noir" movie. The fact it was in high school didn't really add much to the plot itself or the way the characters acted (who generally sounded far older than their years).

It's quite a valid critical point I feel - drop a cigarette onto the lead's head, throw a trenchcoat on him and stick in a voice-overed office and you're not really removed at all from many movies that've gone before. If the high school setting had actually played more influence on the movie, other than a bit of window dressing, then we might've had a more original and interesting piece. Instead it merely seemed arty for the sake of it and that whiff of pretension puts me off it (amonst other elements).

BlitzKrieg

Yes because it is the latest in a spate of film noir murder mystery high school flicks

There is nothing quite like a 'film critic' imploding

ixoy pretty much summed it up. What effect on the film did it being set in a high school have on the plot? Did any of the lifestyles of your typical highschooler show up in the film?

Look at the film's imdb page its full of valid questions.

Where are the parents?

When do they go to class? (a similar problem plagues Elephant)

What sort of high school party has poetry and jazz?

None of the characters act like teenagers.

All of those wouldnt really have bothered me, if it was an entertaining and clever film noir, but the director openly admits to lifting entire scenes from other film noirs, and the plotline is excessively unoriginal.

nodger

This says it all:

http://www.bigempire.com/filthy/brick.html

Valmont

BlitzKrieg wrote:

ixoy pretty much summed it up. What effect on the film did it being set in a high school have on the plot? Did any of the lifestyles of your typical highschooler show up in the film?

Look at the film's imdb page its full of valid questions.

Where are the parents?

When do they go to class? (a similar problem plagues Elephant)

What sort of high school party has poetry and jazz?

None of the characters act like teenagers.

All of those wouldnt really have bothered me, if it was an entertaining and clever film noir, but the director openly admits to lifting entire scenes from other film noirs, and the plotline is excessively unoriginal.

I think it was somewhat surreal with the abscence of parents and whatnot, and when you see him in on the school grounds there isn't half as much students as there should be but it didn't bother me because I enjoyed it. Empire and all those magazines said it was the most original film of 06, etc... while I agree with your points can you not see even a little bit of originality? In it's style and dialogue considering it's a modern high school flick of sorts. Ah sure it's just a matter of taste anyway:)

Valmont

nodger wrote:

This says it all:

http://www.bigempire.com/filthy/brick.html

While I understand the views of those who dislike the movie this is just another self-glorifying cynical bastard. (not nodger, the filthy critic):D

BlitzKrieg

I think it was somewhat surreal with the abscence of parents and whatnot, and when you see him in on the school grounds there isn't half as much students as there should be but it didn't bother me because I enjoyed it.

thats where we differ, I didnt enjoy it so these faults became all the more apparent

Empire and all those magazines said it was the most original film of 06, etc...

You slap nodger down for quoting one critic yet confirm your argument by saying other cynical self glorifying critics are calling it the most original film of 2005?

while I agree with your points can you not see even a little bit of originality? In it's style and dialogue considering it's a modern high school flick of sorts. Ah sure it's just a matter of taste anyway

A) High school has absolutly no effect on this film at all
The dialogue isnt original its based off most film noirs set in the 1950's
c) the plotline is a collection of references to other film noirs, entire scenes are lifted from other films and film noir books, the storyline itself is a mixing of numerous film noir films.

Honestly this is nothing surprising because filmmakers openl admit creating films from influences of other classics, they reference all the time, nd in some cases scenes from one film will be a node of respect to a scene from another film. Quentin Tarintino does it all the time.

The difference with Brick is, once you remove the references, the characters that were originally from other stories and give the plot back to the books and films it was assembled from. What you are left with is...

-A few moments worth a chuckle in humour
-And a half baked poorly used backdrop for the film.

that's it.

Regardless of Tarintino's robbery of plotlines and characters from other films you are forced at the end of the day to hand over the script back to him because its all him and tends to be the strongest aspect of his films anyway.

While I respect you enjoyed the film, I will not stand quietly by while people parade its originality when that is the one aspect the film is most sorely lacking.

rabid

I thoroughly enjoyed Brick. What a debut film eh?
The whole idea of using the back drop of high school for a film-noir style movie was inspired. Character development was well thought out, even though the dialogue may have been a bit cheesey at times.

One of the highlights was when the main protagonist was been chased by one of the Pins hired assasin's....eventually trips him up and he headbutts a steel pole. Saw it coming but still nearly choked on the slice of lime in my Corona...

More of this stuff please. Jerri Bruckheimer can suck my cakehole. Mind you, am really looking forward to seeing Hot Fuzz...but after that....less is more!

shatners basoon

I'd agree with Blitz on this one. Superbly edited piece of work but an awful script and plot which really tried too hard to be clever. Went way over board on the 50s detective lingo. Its very watchable though and if I didn't like film noirs so much i probablyly would have enjoyed it much more.

For anyone who did enjoy the film i urge you to rent some of the golden oldies. Or just read some Raymond Chandler or something!

Hopefully his next film combines the good direction and superb editing with a better plotline and script.

Valmont

BlitzKrieg wrote:

You slap nodger down for quoting one critic yet confirm your argument by saying other cynical self glorifying critics are calling it the most original film of 2005?

to be fair one look at that filthy critics list of films he's reviewed shows he's quite negative on the whole at least empire dish out good reviews every now and then.

Considering I know absolutely nothing about film noir or have never even seen a film noir, this film appears quite original to me, as it does to a lot of people that aren't aware of scenes, characters and plot lines of older 50's movies. What movie does it lift scenes and plots from? I wouldn't mind looking at some of the old movies considering I liked this one.

Maybe it's unoriginality is hidden from the less well rounded movie fan?

The difference with Brick is, once you remove the references, the characters that were originally from other stories and give the plot back to the books and films it was assembled from. What you are left with is...

Remove the references? Giving the plot back? Why would you do that? You're basing your argument on a completely unneccessary dissection of the movie, could you not just see it for what it is in it's entirety?

I could say if you remove the references, characters and 'give the plot back to the book' from 'apocalypse now' all you're left with is...a formulaic vietnam movie. But that would be stupid.

BopNiblets

Cool film, I liked the plot and the settings, lingo, acting and all.
At least it's something different and original (for me) I can't remember hearing about (let alone seeing) a noir film in a high school setting.

BlitzKrieg

to be fair one look at that filthy critics list of films he's reviewed shows he's quite negative on the whole at least empire dish out good reviews every now and then.

to be fair I peaked around that reviewers reviews and I found some of his reviews to be on the ball, a bit agressively written, but fair in his conclusion (his Pan's Labrynth review is one) and i'm pretty sure you will find that empire only give good reviews every now and then.

But thats the life of critics, they can and will like films you or I hate, thats the thing with films. But its pretty stupid to shoot down one person for using a review to show how they felt about the film, and then when you defend the film use a review by a different person to justify your stance.

And on the topic of reviewers, here's one who i find hits alot of the points I felt were wrong with the film http://bad.eserver.org/reviews/2006/2006-6-1-7.53PM.html

Considering I know absolutely nothing about film noir or have never even seen a film noir, this film appears quite original to me, as it does to a lot of people that aren't aware of scenes, characters and plot lines of older 50's movies. What movie does it lift scenes and plots from? I wouldn't mind looking at some of the old movies considering I liked this one.

Just off the top of my head, the scene with the princepal? (or was it vice princepal?) is word for word lifted from the maltese falcon.

Remove the references? Giving the plot back? Why would you do that? You're basing your argument on a completely unneccessary dissection of the movie, could you not just see it for what it is in it's entirety?

I dissected the film after I watched it, I dissected the film because in its entirety the film didnt seem to appeal to me. I tried to find out why in my head and those were th conclusions I came to. I didnt make them before I watched the film, I didnt pause the film after every scene and dissected it.

I watched it, I didnt feel satisfied and like with every film I have ever watched I asked why? And what I wrote above (and before in the reviews forum) is the conclusion I came to as to why the film in its entirety didnt satisfy me.

I could say if you remove the references, characters and 'give the plot back to the book' from 'apocalypse now' all you're left with is...a formulaic vietnam movie. But that would be stupid.

...

very different, the actual change in setting from africa to vietnam had a profound influence on the films plot and atmosphere, compared to brick where the change of setting had no effect on the plot, the film's atmosphere or the characters.

Not to mention the obvious flaw that the film was an adaptation so of course the plots match up (though Apocalypse now does go far far far away from the book at times.)

And even if you remove all the references and the actual plot it will still not be a formulaic vietnam film because it was released only 4 years after the war ended annnnnnd all the films that were set during the vietnam war before it were Propaganda films. Apocalypse now was actually very critical of the war.

Oh there were films about the vietnam war before it and were critical, but they were not set during the vietnam war and alluded to the war by its topic and characters (example Kelly's heroes, set during ww2, but the attitude and opinions of the soldiers were more like that of vietnam veterens.


Honestly now, i'm getting more trouble with my opinion of this film, then when I said Episode 3 was the worse film of the star wars prequel trilogy.

Crucifix

I liked it a lot. And I for one actually thought that the sloppy way they combined the setting and the genre was better than the more careful matching up I was expecting.

Valmont

BlitzKrieg wrote:

to be fair I peaked around that reviewers reviews and I found some of his reviews to be on the ball, a bit agressively written, but fair in his conclusion (his Pan's Labrynth review is one) and i'm pretty sure you will find that empire only give good reviews every now and then.

But thats the life of critics, they can and will like films you or I hate, thats the thing with films. But its pretty stupid to shoot down one person for using a review to show how they felt about the film, and then when you defend the film use a review by a different person to justify your stance.

And on the topic of reviewers, here's one who i find hits alot of the points I felt were wrong with the film http://bad.eserver.org/reviews/2006/2006-6-1-7.53PM.html



Just off the top of my head, the scene with the princepal? (or was it vice princepal?) is word for word lifted from the maltese falcon.



I dissected the film after I watched it, I dissected the film because in its entirety the film didnt seem to appeal to me. I tried to find out why in my head and those were th conclusions I came to. I didnt make them before I watched the film, I didnt pause the film after every scene and dissected it.

I watched it, I didnt feel satisfied and like with every film I have ever watched I asked why? And what I wrote above (and before in the reviews forum) is the conclusion I came to as to why the film in its entirety didnt satisfy me.




...

very different, the actual change in setting from africa to vietnam had a profound influence on the films plot and atmosphere, compared to brick where the change of setting had no effect on the plot, the film's atmosphere or the characters.

Not to mention the obvious flaw that the film was an adaptation so of course the plots match up (though Apocalypse now does go far far far away from the book at times.)

And even if you remove all the references and the actual plot it will still not be a formulaic vietnam film because it was released only 4 years after the war ended annnnnnd all the films that were set during the vietnam war before it were Propaganda films. Apocalypse now was actually very critical of the war.

Oh there were films about the vietnam war before it and were critical, but they were not set during the vietnam war and alluded to the war by its topic and characters (example Kelly's heroes, set during ww2, but the attitude and opinions of the soldiers were more like that of vietnam veterens.


Honestly now, i'm getting more trouble with my opinion of this film, then when I said Episode 3 was the worse film of the star wars prequel trilogy.

I'm sure if I saw a film noir I might think differently. I might have a look at the maltese falcon, I heard about it before. Ah sure nothing like a good debate and I thought episode three was by far the best prequel:p

shatners basoon

Was it the "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO"
that swung it for you too?!

BlitzKrieg

Ah sure nothing like a good debate and I thought episode three was by far the best prequel

Indeed debate is good. But Episode 3 was a disgraceful display of masturbation by auld georgie.

nodger

Valmont wrote:

While I understand the views of those who dislike the movie this is just another self-glorifying cynical bastard. (not nodger, the filthy critic):D

He does love himself all right, but his views seem to match up pretty well with most folks who didn't enjoy the movie. Looking back through his archive, I'd agree with the vast majority of his reviews, so I guess that makes me a cynical bastard too