Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
DOMINO- Tony Scott, Keira Knightley
#1
This is one confusing film. Tony Scott at his most distracting. It took me a second viewing to understand the "First Ladies" plot.

It sure has a star studded cast though and I enjoyed it in overall. Mickey Rourke, Tom Waits, Christopher Walken, Mena Suvari, Jacqueline Bisset and Brian Austin Green (as himself).

Especially loved Rourke here. That and the "Take off the arm" scene with the music blarring in the background.
Reply
#2
I still don't get the complete plot, except I could care less for Monique. I agree on Rourke being the standout. He's tops in this flick. It's a mess, but I dig the flick.
Reply
#3
I stopped watching at the half way mark. Couldn't stand it.
Reply
#4
Yeah, this was a hoot for the get-go. Finding the bounty hunting in the desert and the sex in the desert as well. The last shoot-out was frenzied and I really wanted to like this - but Tony Scott is just on something else these days.
Reply
#5
Not even Tom Waits could rescue this piece of shit.
Reply
#6
That "Desert Prophet" scene was great though.

Face it. If you were lost in the desert, who would be the coolest guy you want driving up the Highway to rescue you?
Reply
#7
I think it's a masterpiece. Hollywood filmmaking stretched to its limits stylistically. Like a Tarantino flick on speed and whatever else. But it's a hard movie to defend; what's easily loathed about it is loved by myself. There is nothing tepid about this movie at all. Where the likes of Michael Bay kind of toe around, at times, taking hyper-stylization to an extreme, this film enters avant-garde territory with its editing. Like if Guy Maddin decided that, instead of making his flicks old and ragged like they were lying in vaults, he exploited every current Hollywood trope to its logical extreme for an exaggeration of the Film of the Future. Or something.
Reply
#8
What Commando was to the 80's, this is to the 00's. As self-parody, it's pretty brilliant. Whether or not it was intended, who gives a fuck?
Reply
#9
Oh, gimme a break. This is a pile of crap. Even if you look at it as some kind of postmodern masterpiece, it's still unwatchable like a Warhol film.
Reply
#10
Quote:

Originally Posted by felix natalya
View Post
That "Desert Prophet" scene was great though.

Face it. If you were lost in the desert, who would be the coolest guy you want driving up the Highway to rescue you?

I enjoyed it, but I could watch video of Waits shaving his legs and proclaim it the best thing ever.
Quote:

Originally Posted by BobClark
View Post
Oh, gimme a break. This is a pile of crap. Even if you look at it as some kind of postmodern masterpiece, it's still unwatchable like a Warhol film.

Yep. You guys are giving this one way too much credit.
Reply
#11
I can concede that.
Reply
#12
Trivia: Tony Scott asked Richard Kelly to write the script after he read the script for Southland Tales, and liked it.

This movie was fucked from the word "go."
Reply
#13
http://www.ejumpcut.org/currentissue...napp/text.html

I don't even know with this fucking movie anymore.
Reply
#14
It was also one of Tarantino's favorite films of 2005.
Reply
#15
In his defense, he was probably REALLY high when he watched it.
Reply
#16
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jake
View Post
In his defense, he was probably REALLY high when he watched it.

This is true, when is Tarentino not really really high?

But this film is such a jarring mess. Even Commando was hilarious with it's craziness. This isn't.
Reply
#17
I don't know why but I actually loved this film, sure I was high but that doesnt matter, I really think there was something interesting going on in this film, it was trying to deconstruct the hyperkenetic laced films albeit in a very clumsy way.
Reply
#18
BobClark's right. It's absolutely unwatchable. Literally. Plot and acting aside, my eyes just could not bear to look at the screen.

I'm still not thoroughly convinced this wasn't actually Lanyard Gates' THE POSSESSOR.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nabster
View Post
I don't know why but I actually loved this film, sure I was high but that doesnt matter, I really think there was something interesting going on in this film, it was trying to deconstruct the hyperkenetic laced films albeit in a very clumsy way.

Now I could buy the intention, but then it would have fell into the same trap that Stone's NATURAL BORN KILLERS avoided. When you de-construct something effectively, you don't sink into exploiting the very same rut you claim to be holding up to scrutiny. It's a very fine line, I know, but it can be done. DOMINO didn't deliver.

Actually Tony Scott is proving more and more to have been adopted.
Reply
#19
Poor Tony, he must despise his brother. Yea there were a number of strange atempts at deconstruction, they even played with the nature of true story adaptations by poking at their own authenticity. Its an insane film, but an enjoyable one for me.
Reply
#20
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nabster
View Post
Its an insane film, but an enjoyable one for me.

And that's what matters. Trust me, I enjoy a whole host of films that many cineastes around here would turn their noses up at. Let me put it this way...two words: Joe Patroni.
Reply
#21
I guess I don't get the love. Every time I try to watch it I feel like Rourke slipped a hit of acid into my drink, plugged my dick into an electrical outlet, and stood there laughing at me while smoking cigarettes and petting his jar of cremated Chihuahua.
Reply
#22

Watched this for the first time today. Well, I tried to. It's a cliché to say a film is headache-inducing, but holy shit this film literally gave me a headache. And it's rare for me to give up on a film halfway, I rarely do it, but I had to just stop about an hour in. It's awful in every way. My instinct to avoid this in 2005 proved true! What the fuck was that Jerry Springer sequence all about? Man, easily Scott's worst film.

Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)