CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › THE LOBSTER Discussion
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

THE LOBSTER Discussion

post #1 of 27
Thread Starter 
Next up.
post #2 of 27

Yeah it looks interesting.

post #3 of 27
Watched this recently on a plane. Really enjoyed it until the last act where it really runs out of steam. It strikes me as a great idea that Lanthimos couldn't quite figure out how to finish.

I really liked the principles, particularly Olivia Coleman who I'm in love with.

Like I said, I was on a particularly uncomfortable flight but I found myself getting increasingly frustrated by it, all the more so because I was enjoying it to begin with.
post #4 of 27

The second half definitely seems to be divisive among audiences, but I found it appropriate. The first half is a dystopia of couples, the second half is a dystopia of the singledom. I can see the pace becoming tedious as it goes on, and the second half is definitely a lot bleaker, and less overtly funny then the first half, but I was rapt and grinning all the way to the end.

post #5 of 27

So I read up on this and Dogtooth, since I'd heard about that before.  Thankful for Wiki; now I have a few hours that won't be wasted on these.

post #6 of 27
Thread Starter 
Anyone who uses a Wikipedia summary to pass judgment on a film is someone whose opinions I cannot in any way take seriously. I might especially find it offensive if they call themselves posting on a message board devoted to films.
post #7 of 27

A fine, quietly hilarious film.  Colin Farrell, Olivia Coleman and John C. Reilly are aces.  

post #8 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post

Anyone who uses a Wikipedia summary to pass judgment on a film is someone whose opinions I cannot in any way take seriously. I might especially find it offensive if they call themselves posting on a message board devoted to films.
What about judging it based on its inevitable FurAffinity subcommunity?
post #9 of 27

The film has a hard shell to crack.

post #10 of 27
Better to read up on something I can't really spare the time for, find it's almost certainly not to my liking, and save that time. If it was a Twilight Zone ep I might love it, but neither of these is a world I want to spend 90 minutes in.

I do it most for horror movies - get whatever story there might be out of it while not having to sit through any bad acting/writing, cheap jump scares, and gore/torture the director is getting off to.
post #11 of 27
Conversely, read up a little and made time for (most recently) Snowpiercer and What We Do In The Shadows, both of which i thought were great.
post #12 of 27

This movie takes a real long time to tell us that sometimes people do crazy things in order to preserve a relationship. Who would've thunk? 

post #13 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtomTastic View Post

This movie takes a real long time to tell us that sometimes people do crazy things in order to preserve a relationship. Who would've thunk?
Why is it that all the high-concept weird shit being made now is just coded missives about people's dating lives?
post #14 of 27

This one's GREAT. Funniest film since What We Do in the Shadows, and Farrell's best performance since In Bruges.

post #15 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by commodorejohn View Post


Why is it that all the high-concept weird shit being made now is just coded missives about people's dating lives?


because ummm...that's shit people actually deal with it.

post #16 of 27
Sure, but why is that pretty much all of it now?
post #17 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evi View Post

This one's GREAT. Funniest film since What We Do in the Shadows, and Farrell's best performance since In Bruges.

Yep. It's fantastic. Watched it last September and can't wait for another chance to see it one more time. The line about how and why children are added to the mix still kills me whenever I think of it.
post #18 of 27
Richard Brody really didn't like it:
Quote:
It’s a self-satisfied film about an issue that’s not an issue, depicting a dystopia that’s utterly apolitical. The lampooning of banquet-hall pomp around long tables with white tablecloths suggests no grand social critique but attendance at one family wedding too many.

I'd quote more of it (as always with Brody, even when he's at his most wrongheaded, he writes deliciously well), but won't, due to spoilers.
post #19 of 27

Definitely going to need some time to unpack this one. I love the bleak tone, and the consistently literal dialogue. And my god Rachel Weisz is adorable in the guitar scene.

 

I will also need to re-watch because of a personal issue. Every time I see Lea Seydoux in a film I forget her name and get distracted from the onscreen action while I try to remember it.

post #20 of 27

Finally saw this.  Well, talk about a change yesterday's personality-less film.

 

Mostly, I just really want to know about the backstory, because that has to have been a VERY specific set of circumstances to lead to society being like that.

 

Also, the literal dialogue amused me when I realized that basically every conversation is like terrible speed-dating.

post #21 of 27

Quite enjoyed this, especially the lobotomised dialogue. Reminded me vaguely of Weekend for whatever reason.

 

I do tend to agree it starts testing the patience the more the looser second half meanders on. Also they did the fucking Choose Your Own Adventure "Oh, I guess that's it then" arthouse ending! I'm so sick of that.

 

Quite amused to see this feel-good crossover hit managed to triple its budget.

post #22 of 27

Watched this last night with the wife. We both agreed that while it's weird as well, we're glad we watched it.

 

Also talked with CHUD alum Andre on Facebook and we both agree it's definitely Kubrickian in its cold sterility. I also have a bit of a theater background and one of my favorite playwrights is Samuel Beckett and the dialogue here is definitely reminiscent of him. It's like everyone is talking at each other rather than to each other.

 

Someone upthread said all the conversations are like speaddating and while that's true I'd also throw out online dating. It's like the hotel functions as a metaphor for OkCupid or eHarmony or anything like that, with people being designated by their dominant trait. The opening where Farrell has to tell the woman his preferences, like if he identifies as heterosexual or homosexual, all feel like filling out a dating site profile. 

 

While I enjoyed the whole movie and the second half is its own beast, the first half is superior. It felt like the 45 days was a real ticking clock and the movie would really draw that out, but Farrell escapes without any real threat from time and the movie becomes a whole other movie. I also wasn't sure what the Loners were trying to do to the hotel. Overthrow the system? 

 

I was also reminded of Wes Anderson in how it focused so bluntly on the mundane and everything had kind of a 1970s aesthetic and vibe to it. Also crossed with the 1970s idea, from the likes of Rollerball and such, of what the future would be. But this isn't exactly a dystopian future as much as it's our reality with a flavor of magical realism. Anyone that questions how things "got this way" isn't asking the right questions. There's no way things got this way, it just is. 

 

Anyways, worth a look as a curiosity. 

post #23 of 27

As Paul mentioned Weekend, yeah, I felt a huge Godard debt here. But where Godard's best films have ideas that are incredibly pointed/poignant (and are never quite as random as they might seem), I didn't get any of that from this movie. Its ideas, while often amusing and somewhat fresh, felt disconnected from each other and from any sort of real life resonance or satire. In that way it resembled some of Godard's lesser work, but much more formal and a bit less meta-textual in its execution.

 

I semi-enjoyed it on an aesthetic/vibe/wtf level and there were some interesting, committed performances, but overall I won't be rewatching this one any time soon.

post #24 of 27

I didn't like this.  It's the sort of forced weirdness I'm not at all interested in.  It's obtuse to the point of being irritating.  While I understand the literal choices behind things like the sterile speech and mannerisms and the absurd human-animal stuff, it kept me as a viewer at arm's length.  The central premise is fairly traditional in that a man is forced out of a dystopia and finds love among the madness.  Except these aren't really people... they don't like act like anything resembling human beings.  Yes, I understand that's kind of the point, but it's hard for me to sit through a 2 hour movie and stay engaged watching what are essentially robots.  

 

The film doesn't seem to have a point as it were, other than to bathe in its own weirdness, since it never really concludes with any catharsis or counterpoint to the madness since they end up as delusional as everyone else.  And I'm a bit old fashioned in that I want some catharsis in my movies, especially after so much bleakness.  So it ends up being a cold shower without a towel at the end.  

post #25 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post
 

I didn't like this.  It's the sort of forced weirdness I'm not at all interested in.  It's obtuse to the point of being irritating.  While I understand the literal choices behind things like the sterile speech and mannerisms and the absurd human-animal stuff, it kept me as a viewer at arm's length.  The central premise is fairly traditional in that a man is forced out of a dystopia and finds love among the madness.  Except these aren't really people... they don't like act like anything resembling human beings.  Yes, I understand that's kind of the point, but it's hard for me to sit through a 2 hour movie and stay engaged watching what are essentially robots.  

 

The film doesn't seem to have a point as it were, other than to bathe in its own weirdness, since it never really concludes with any catharsis or counterpoint to the madness since they end up as delusional as everyone else.  And I'm a bit old fashioned in that I want some catharsis in my movies, especially after so much bleakness.  So it ends up being a cold shower without a towel at the end.  

 

That's about how I felt too.  There are bits and pieces of weirdness that work on their own terms, and admirable commitment to the weirdness on all sides of the camera, but sometime in the second hour the level of obtuseness flips from fascinating to boring, all at once. 

post #26 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post

Richard Brody really didn't like it:
I'd quote more of it (as always with Brody, even when he's at his most wrongheaded, he writes deliciously well), but won't, due to spoilers.

 

"Lanthimos’s lachrymose lament..."

 

Thanks, New Yorker, for my next band name.

post #27 of 27

The only sticking point for me was the ending, which didn't seem to do anything that we hadn't already seen about three or four times; and in much more extreme, not to mention funnier, ways.   It's also possible I am unfairly comparing it to the ending of Dogooth, which is one of the best of the last decade.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Focused Film Discussion
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › THE LOBSTER Discussion