| Casino Classic Best Online Casino! Get $500 free on the house! | Antidepressant Medications Handle stress, elevate the mood, treat anxiety disorders. | Shared Movies Over 80 Million Movies and TV-Shows No Charge per movie, No download limit! | Weight Loss Supplements Natural supplements that burn body fat, suppress appetite and support a healthy diet. |
|
Posted at December 31, 1969, 6:00 pm: I watched this three times last weekend. I've been waiting for my effusiveness over it to boil off a bit before trying to write a review, but so far I'm still telling everyone who'll listen that they NEED to see this movie. We're submerged in no less audacious business than Man's Inhumanity to Man, and the question of the possibility of redemption. Whee! Writer Guillermo Arriaga illustrates these issues with both sexes, how they interact with each other and with their own gender in ways that range from subtle to over-the-top, and the result is entertaining, charming, horrifying, heartwarming and inspiring. Oh, there I go starting a review. I'mna answer your excellent questions, D, and then go watch it again before I go further. 1. How did you think Tommy Lee Jones handled the directing duties after a 10 year gap from his only other movie at the helm (a TV movie that I either haven't seen or else forgotton all about called The Good Old Boys)? I think the direction of this film is perfect. I think Jones has an authentic connection to the tone, characters, and landscape of the film, that allows us to see them unvarnished, but imbued with some extra kick of color. I get the feeling from seeing the thing and from listening to the commentary that he assembled the people who could best do the job - the reward for such humility is greatness. I very much enjoyed his turn as Pete, as well. I have never seen that sort of vulnerability or innocence in him, and to see it under the wizened visage of Pete really deepens the character. He's not exactly the life of the party, but who wouldn't want to know this guy? 2. The rest of the cast. Any disagreements with the casting of Dwight Yoakam, January Jones, Barry Pepper, Julio Cedillo and Melissa Leo? I LOVED seeing Melissa Leo in this role. I'm a fan of hers from Homicide: Life on the Street and this couldn't have been more different. Her scary gargoyle grimace of a smile as she did her utmost to scare away her younger self..... her clarity in the scene where Rachel asks Bob how long they've been married.... this is an actress at the top of her game, in a role that is deeply meaningful. January Jones has a much less detailed character, but does a great job as lovliness personified (and devalued). Dwight Yoakum and Julio Cedillo were both spot on and yeah Levon... He was perfect. Tommy Lee Jones describes Barry Pepper as a "cinema soldier" in reference to the physicality of his role. His character undergoes an incredibly dramatic metamorphosis, and he does a brilliant job with it. 3. A basic one this - did you laugh? Many times. One of the most darkly hilarious things I've seen was Norton falling back into Melquiades' first grave, pinned under the corpse of his own making and screaming like a little girl. It's the first crack in Norton's overbuilt armor. Like many other important moments in the film, it has a light-hearted feel to it that keeps this movie from being a dirge, while allowing enormously important themes to play out. 4. The photograph - your take on it please. Was this a fantasy created by Melquiades (to hide his own lonliness, possibly) after stumbling upon a picture containing a family that he'd somewhow walked into the frame of? Was there something going on in the village concerning his supposed wife? Remember how the two girls started laughing when Pete mentioned her name in connection with another man. Or was there something else behind it? I sincerely and devoutly hope that that is the subject of a sequel. I know, I know... "sequels. Ew". But look. There is a pause.... the slightest of hesitations.... when Pete first meets Melquiades and asks him what sort of work he's looking for. I'd bet you half my shoes there's a hell of a story there. My fantasy is that Melquiades has walked away from a life of highly questionable morals and actions. I think he's probably done everything he is accused and suspected of. But he walked away. Somehow, he also has found redemption, or at least has repented and embraced some high ideals. And the photograph and the story of Jimenez is an idyllic life that he created as he rode away from his former life, and in the quiet hours of the evening in that little shack where he lived. I think all of that is one of the "three burials" - his burying his past. I think the woman Evelia/Rosa knows him, that they had a brief affair. But the ruins that Pete and Mike find are a century old, at least. And I think Pete gets all that when he finds the site. 5. Do you think Pete intended to kill Norton when they reached their destination and relented after seeing the genuine remorse, or was the journey always intended to be a lesson in life, loyalty and friendship for his younger compadre? I think Pete is going on gut impulse, mostly. I don't think he knows til the end what is going to happen, nor does it seem to concern him, past the final internment of his friend. When he walks over to Norton and sees him sleeping peacefully, I think he knows then that this is not the person who killed his friend. Had Mike still been an asshole at that point, it would have been <blammo>. Original of the message was taken from http://www.movieforums.com/community/ Previous Post: The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada (2005, Tommy Lee Jones) ... Next Post: Quote: Originally Posted by SamsoniteDelilah ... |