Hollywood's most elegant sequence of the last 15 years?

[Raiders]

King of the Hill is one of the most underseen films of the 90s. Love it. I cannot in good conscience recommend Kafka but as with Soderbergh, it is certainly an interesting failure.

I also don't think anyone is "complete" on Soderbergh without having seen The Limey, and I think you will at least enjoy it. Not promising any revelations like I had, but it is certainly well worth your time to give it a go.

If you like: My review

[Izzy Black]

I found it to be quite a tedious affair lacking all of the formal elegance of Tarkovsky's adaptation. Soderbergh's film looks fine but no shot feels essential or integral the way Tarkovsky's camerawork functions so that worked to the film's detriment. It would be kinder to judge the film purely on it's own but as it exists as an adaptation of the same source material it's hard not to judge it comparatively.

I don't think the film's quality should be determined by its relation to Tarkovsky's film. I'd be more receptive if it were actually a remake of the Tarkovsky but it's not. They're also rather different interpretations of the novel. Formally I think this is a very sophisticated film, particularly when placed in the context of mainstream Hollywood cinema.

Overall though I think it was the mediocre acting and lack of attention to character motivation that dragged down the film for me. I found both Viola Davis and Jeremy Davies to be quite poor in the film. Davis has this one scene that doesn't play at all with Clooney shouting at her through a closed glass door. Davies is his usual twitchy self and doesn't successfully sell his true character to me.

I actually agree with this entirely. Viola's character is an utter enigma to me. Her capacity to have no respect at all for the possibility that these are sentient beings that have moral rights is bewildering. We're supposed to be convinced that her visitor was so traumatizing that it would have this effect, but it's hard to imagine how this could happen. In the end, her character comes off very lazily written and emerges as little more than a foil for Kris. I thought Davis, a very fine actress, did the best she could with the role but she wasn't given much. Davies was nothing short of annoying. This was easily the weakest part of the film for me, which is a frustration, since I enjoy the film overall.

Clooney and McElhone are better but here Soderbergh doesn't chart the logic of their actions well enough. The transition between Clooney getting rid of the first incarnation and accepting the second is baffling and far fetched. There needed to be another scene in here somewhere.

Maybe. I think I had a similar reaction. In fact, I could never really relate to how he sent the first one away to begin with. This is my only real quibble with their part, though.

I enjoyed a bit of the editing work in the dream/flashback content (reminded me a bit of the Out of Sight sequence actually), some of the music here also and a bit of the art design from this future world but other than that I found the experience truly unengaging.

These elements (along with the individual scenes with just Clooney and McElhone) anchor the film for me. It would've been a great film if Davis and Davies were cut out altogether, and truer to Soderbergh's insular depiction of their relationship. The difference I think is that I tend to value this other stuff more than you did.

Thanks for the thoughts.

[DavidSeven]

Got a ton of respect for how he shot Ocean's Twelve. Probably one of the most interestingly shot pure popcorn films in recent memory. I just wish the underlying script measured up to the film's craft. I'd say the same, to a certain extent, of Out of Sight. This seems to be the story with me and Soderbergh. His films always seem to come up an element or two short of being something I can really get behind. Got a lot left to see though.

[Qrazy]

Got a ton of respect for how he shot Ocean's Twelve. Probably one of the most interestingly shot pure popcorn films in recent memory. I just wish the underlying script measured up to the film's craft. I'd say the same, to a certain extent, of Out of Sight. This seems to be the story with me and Soderbergh. His films always seem to come up an element or two short of being something I can really get behind. Got a lot left to see though.

Really? The laser breakdance is one of the most stupidly conceived and executed sequences I've ever seen (on a formal level also).

[DavidSeven]

Really? The laser breakdance is one of the most stupidly conceived and executed sequences I've ever seen (on a formal level also).

Not a fan of that sequence. It's dumb and looks cheesy as hell. I like his approach to the rest of the film though. Very unorthodox at the time and unexpected on the heels of the more conventionally slick/polished Ocean's Eleven.

[Izzy Black]

Got a ton of respect for how he shot Ocean's Twelve. Probably one of the most interestingly shot pure popcorn films in recent memory. I just wish the underlying script measured up to the film's craft. I'd say the same, to a certain extent, of Out of Sight. This seems to be the story with me and Soderbergh. His films always seem to come up an element or two short of being something I can really get behind. Got a lot left to see though.

That's the common reaction to Soderbergh. But I look at him almost as an avant-garde filmmaker. Taken as traditional movies, they don't hold up well, and they will always fall short of standards of greatness. His stories don't conceal the substance of his films, though. It's the manner in which he evokes, relates, and comments on these stories formally that the substance of his films come to light. His identity is found in the nested layers of technique and formal strategy that govern the film. Soderbergh's attitude toward cinema is one of "problem-solving." He's interested in cinematic situations and possibilities, evocative gestures and ideas, how the form takes on a life of its own within the context of traditional styles, stories, and genres. He's not trying to film the next great American novel. He's akin to Brain DePalma as a commercial experimenter on genre and style (though I'm not a huge fan of DePalma's strategies). In other words, if you want Soderbergh to deliver a "great" film in the traditional sense, you'll never get it, and if you did, it probably would've been due more to luck than any deliberate purpose. Perhaps this makes Soderbergh a slight filmmaker compared to auteurs like Bergman and Godard, but I like him for this very fact of difference.

[Qrazy]

That's the common reaction to Soderbergh. But I look at him almost as an avant-garde filmmaker. Taken as traditional movies, they don't hold up well, and they will always fall short of standards of greatness. His stories don't conceal the substance of his films, though. It's the manner in which he evokes, relates, and comments on these stories formally that the substance of his films come to light. His identity is found in the nested layers of technique and formal strategy that govern the film. Soderbergh's attitude toward cinema is one of "problem-solving." He's interested in cinematic situations and possibilities, evocative gestures and ideas, how the form takes on a life of its own within the context of traditional styles, stories, and genres. He's not trying to film the next great American novel. He's akin to Brain DePalma as a commercial experimenter on genre and style (though I'm not a huge fan of DePalma's strategies). In other words, if you want Soderbergh to deliver a "great" film in the traditional sense, you'll never get it, and if you did, it would've been due to luck than deliberate purpose. Perhaps this makes Soderbergh a slight filmmaker compared to auteurs like Bergman and Godard, but I like him for this very fact of difference.

That's giving him more credit than he deserves (the bolded).

I would settle for a great genre film, but I don't feel he delivers that either (Soderbergh).

[Raiders]

The exception to this is King of the Hill. Seriously guys, it's terrific. See it already.

[Qrazy]

Not a fan of that sequence. It's dumb and looks cheesy as hell. I like his approach to the rest of the film though. Very unorthodox at the time and unexpected on the heels of the more conventionally slick/polished Ocean's Eleven.

Yeah, there's quite a bit of stylistic verve in the film (in the scene construction... less impressed by the cinematography), it's just so awful on a narrative/character level that I can't even look upon the other elements favourably.

[Qrazy]

The exception to this is King of the Hill. Seriously guys, it's terrific. See it already.

Meh, better than most of his films but still kind of blah.

[Raiders]

Meh, better than most of his films but still kind of blah.

Oh knock it off.

[Qrazy]

Oh knock it off.

Don't know what that means, as in don't have a genuine reaction based upon my own thoughts and feelings to the films I see? I started Mauvais Sang last night by the way and it's also shaping up to be a bad film.

[Izzy Black]

That's giving him more credit than he deserves (the bolded).

Really? I mean Brain DePalma actually shares somewhat of a similar (though more esteemed) reputation. He's a household name, but not exactly considered a cinematic titan in the vein of Bergman, or hell, even Scorsese.

I would settle for a great genre film, but I don't feel he delivers that either (Soderbergh).

I think you're misunderstanding me. I don't consider Brain DePalma, for instance, a great "genre filmmaker." His a great filmmaker that works in genre, but for instance, one of his most interesting films, Snake Eyes, is by all standard accounts, a terrible, god-awful film. But if you're prepared to dismiss what DePalma's doing on these grounds, then don't bother wasting your time with him.

[Raiders]

Don't know what that means, as in don't have a genuine reaction based upon my own thoughts and feelings to the films I see? I started Mauvais Sang last night by the way and it's also shaping up to be a bad film.

I think you're genuine in your dislike/ambivalence, I just don't really understand what you do like.

But, for that I guess I need to watch Aleksei German.

[Qrazy]

Really? I mean Brain DePalma actually shares somewhat of a similar (though more esteemed) reputation. He's a household name, but not exactly considered a cinematic titan in the vein of Bergman, or hell, even Scorsese.

I'm saying I don't think he deserves the title of 'Brain'.

I think you're misunderstanding me. I don't consider Brain DePalma, for instance, a great "genre filmmaker." His a great filmmaker that works in genre, but for instance, one of his most interesting films, Snake Eyes, is by all standard accounts, a terrible, god-awful film. But if you're prepared to dismiss what DePalma's doing on these grounds, then don't bother wasting your time with him.

Not talking about Brian at all, I was saying that from Soderbergh I'm not expecting a Bergman/Fellini level film. I would be happy with a great genre film in the vein of a Jean Pierre Melville, Jonnie To, etc. But I don't think Soddy delivers that either.

[soitgoes...]

I started Mauvais Sang last night by the way and it's also shaping up to be a bad film.

Oh knock it off.

[Qrazy]

I think you're genuine in your dislike/ambivalence, I just don't really understand what you do like.

But, for that I guess I need to watch Aleksei German.

http://www.match-cut.org/showthread.php?t=2160

[Qrazy]

Oh knock it off.

Can't be helped!

[Izzy Black]

I'm saying I don't think he deserves the title of 'Brain'.

Oh, you're poking fun at my bad spelling. You big bastard.

Not talking about Brian at all, I was saying that from Soderbergh I'm not expecting a Bergman/Fellini level film. I would be happy with a great genre film in the vein of a Jean Pierre Melville, Jonnie To, etc. But I don't think Soddy delivers that either.

I think he comes close, but again, I don't think he really operates best in that mode of analysis.

[Izzy Black]

Yeah, there's quite a bit of stylistic verve in the film (in the scene construction... less impressed by the cinematography), it's just so awful on a narrative/character level that I can't even look upon the other elements favourably.

It's a film with an over-bloated sense of self-awareness, running cautiously alongside and against celebrity self-importance to the point of casual parody, resulting in situations of transparency and actor/personal breakdown that's central to Soderbergh. Does it work on its dramatic merits? I'd say probably not. But I relish in all the in-jokes, breezy pacing, chic style, and self-reference.

[Qrazy]

Oh, you're poking fun at my bad spelling. You big bastard.

:lol:

I think he comes close, but again, I don't think he really operates best in that mode of analysis.

He certainly has creative strengths which is why I keep coming back to his work he's just always disappointing me at the end of the day.

[Izzy Black]

Qrazy's a hater. A crank.

[Qrazy]

Qrazy's a hater. A crank.

[StanleyK]

I found it to be quite a tedious affair lacking all of the formal elegance of Tarkovsky's adaptation. Soderbergh's film looks fine but no shot feels essential or integral the way Tarkovsky's camerawork functions so that worked to the film's detriment. It would be kinder to judge the film purely on it's own but as it exists as an adaptation of the same source material it's hard not to judge it comparatively.

A little late but I thoroughly disagree with you on Soderbergh's direction being tedious of functional. I love its emphasis on longer takes (not on a Tarkovsky level though, granted) and I think it is very smart about the composition of the elements in the shots. Although I'm not really sure what Israfel means by 'elegant', I could probably nominate many of the sequences from Solaris for this thread. I've cooled down a little on the film and agree somewhat on your complaints about Viola Davis and Clooney's too-quick switch to acceptance, but otherwise I still think it's among the best films from the 00's.

[Irish]

That's the common reaction to Soderbergh. But I look at him almost as an avant-garde filmmaker. Taken as traditional movies, they don't hold up well, and they will always fall short of standards of greatness. His stories don't conceal the substance of his films, though. It's the manner in which he evokes, relates, and comments on these stories formally that the substance of his films come to light. His identity is found in the nested layers of technique and formal strategy that govern the film. Soderbergh's attitude toward cinema is one of "problem-solving." He's interested in cinematic situations and possibilities, evocative gestures and ideas, how the form takes on a life of its own within the context of traditional styles, stories, and genres. He's not trying to film the next great American novel. He's akin to Brain DePalma as a commercial experimenter on genre and style (though I'm not a huge fan of DePalma's strategies). In other words, if you want Soderbergh to deliver a "great" film in the traditional sense, you'll never get it, and if you did, it probably would've been due more to luck than any deliberate purpose. Perhaps this makes Soderbergh a slight filmmaker compared to auteurs like Bergman and Godard, but I like him for this very fact of difference.

That's an interesting comparison, but at the same time I can't help but think "...Yeah but Carrie and Dressed to Kill are still better than anything Soderburgh has ever done."

Meaning, I don't understand why a guy polishes one aspect of his movies to a high sheen but almost completely ignores the other. It's kind of telling that some of the best things he's done (Traffic, Out of Sight, Ocean's 11) have been adapted from other sources.

In my mind this makes him half a moviemaker.