Maps to the Stars(New David Cronenberg film)

stripedcatstripedcat Posts: 6,689
Forum Member
Anyone planning to - or have already seen this? Mark Kermode gave it a superb review - it looks interesting and with a good cast(Julianne Moore). Cronenberg's last film(Cosmopolis) didn't really work for me.

Comments

  • boogie woogieboogie woogie Posts: 16,418
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    My boss went to see it at the weekend and was totally grossed out by it. I think it was the defecation scene that did it. It's clearly not a film for the faint hearted!
  • TCD1975TCD1975 Posts: 3,039
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I saw it last night. It's pretty good, but not one of Cronenberg's best. 6.5/10
  • JCRJCR Posts: 24,064
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I liked it, but I'd imagine you need a sick sense of humour to get the most out of it.

    Even then I thought the 'na na na na hey hey hey goodbye' song was a bit much, given the circumstances it appears under. :o;-)
  • QuixoticQuixotic Posts: 668
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I'm not the biggest David Cronenberg fan, but I'll watch it for Julianne Moore.
  • stripedcatstripedcat Posts: 6,689
    Forum Member
    TCD1975 wrote: »
    I saw it last night. It's pretty good, but not one of Cronenberg's best. 6.5/10

    Yeah, I've just got back from seeing it. I'd probably go along with assessment. It's not from the top tier of his work - but it has its moments. I particularly liked some of the humour in it. It's sort of an interesting take on the whole "Sunset Boulevard/The Player/Mulholland Drive" type of film.

    Julianne Moore gave a very nuanced performance. She is really the standout of the cast - but that being said, there are some other good performances as well(John Cusack, Robert Patterison, etc.).

    After watching it - I was scratching my head a bit as to why it received an 18 certificate - as that is rare nowadays. It is an adult film - with sex, drug taking, violence, swearing, etc - but it's pretty tame - especially considering some of Cronenberg's past films! I think it probably should have got a 15. Does anyone else agree with me on that?
  • MrSuperMrSuper Posts: 18,532
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    stripedcat wrote: »
    After watching it - I was scratching my head a bit as to why it received an 18 certificate - as that is rare nowadays. It is an adult film - with sex, drug taking, violence, swearing, etc - but it's pretty tame - especially considering some of Cronenberg's past films! I think it probably should have got a 15. Does anyone else agree with me on that?

    I thought it was a 15? I've not seen any 18 certificates on any of the posters for it.
  • JCRJCR Posts: 24,064
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    MrSuper wrote: »
    I thought it was a 15? I've not seen any 18 certificates on any of the posters for it.

    It is 18 for strong sex, sexual abuse references, violence, very strong language.

    Under the bbfc guidelines films can still get an 18 for a single use of the dreaded c word, if it's aggressive enough or accompanied with violence. (Comic uses of it as in Withnail & I or Shaun of the Dead are fine at 15).
  • FusionFuryFusionFury Posts: 14,121
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Love his movies.
  • RAZORBACKRAZORBACK Posts: 371
    Forum Member
    To be honest I wasn't expecting this film to have much in the way of an actual narrative.

    So the fact that there was a coherent & really quite twisted storyline meant that it ended up being a pretty compelling viewing experience.

    Admittedly there weren't any characters in this that I could really describe as likeable but performance wise I thought everyone involved was on top form so overall this did just enough to get an 8/10 from me...
  • Jo MarchJo March Posts: 9,256
    Forum Member
    I didn't rate it at all...thought it was slightly ridiculous...a 5 out of 10 from me.
  • LMLM Posts: 63,478
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    On my list to see
    Purely for Julianne Moore, who i believe is an oscar contender for this.
  • MrSuperMrSuper Posts: 18,532
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    RAZORBACK wrote: »
    To be honest I wasn't expecting this film to have much in the way of an actual narrative.

    So the fact that there was a coherent & really quite twisted storyline meant that it ended up being a pretty compelling viewing experience.

    Same here. I saw this a few days ago as well and surprisingly liked it. It really is a black comedy of sorts with a really dark sense of humour and some of the subject matter and content is somewhat controversial and twisted.

    If it had been a 15 i wouldn't have thought twice about it, but since it's been given an 18 certificate i can sort of understand why they chose that.

    Julianne Moore is the standout and Pattinson doesn't appear a whole lot but he wasn't bad. I also really liked Mia Wasikowska who seems to be the only likeable character in the whole film but then you realise at the end that they're all f*cked up!

    There were quite a few WTF moments. The sitting on the toilet scene shitting had everyone cracking up! :D Shooting the dog had everyone gasp. There were quite a few funny scenes throughout the film.

    Miles better than Cronenberg's last film.
  • necromancer20necromancer20 Posts: 2,548
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    MrSuper wrote: »
    Same here. I saw this a few days ago as well and surprisingly liked it. It really is a black comedy of sorts with a really dark sense of humour and some of the subject matter and content is somewhat controversial and twisted.

    If it had been a 15 i wouldn't have thought twice about it, but since it's been given an 18 certificate i can sort of understand why they chose that.

    Julianne Moore is the standout and Pattinson doesn't appear a whole lot but he wasn't bad. I also really liked Mia Wasikowska who seems to be the only likeable character in the whole film but then you realise at the end that they're all f*cked up!

    There were quite a few WTF moments. The sitting on the toilet scene shitting had everyone cracking up! :D Shooting the dog had everyone gasp. There were quite a few funny scenes throughout the film.

    Miles better than Cronenberg's last film.

    Urgh, Cosmopolis. Cronenberg went up his own ass with that one. I've always found him to be a hit and miss director anyway (most of his misses coming from 2000 onwards I suppose) so it was a pleasant surprise at how much I enjoyed Maps to the Stars.
  • TCD1975TCD1975 Posts: 3,039
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    MrSuper wrote: »
    Miles better than Cronenberg's last film.
    Urgh, Cosmopolis. Cronenberg went up his own ass with that one.

    Looks like I'm the only one round here who preferred Cosmopolis then.
  • stripedcatstripedcat Posts: 6,689
    Forum Member
    On the subject of the 18 certificate, I think what might have tipped it that way is
    the part where Julianne Moore's character is set on fire. That's probably what did it. The BBFC seem to get very strict on "fire violence" - think back to The Towering Inferno and also License to Kill with the burning Sanchez at the end - that nearly ended up as an 18!
    .
  • MrSuperMrSuper Posts: 18,532
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    stripedcat wrote: »
    On the subject of the 18 certificate, I think what might have tipped it that way is
    the part where Julianne Moore's character is set on fire. That's probably what did it. The BBFC seem to get very strict on "fire violence" - think back to The Towering Inferno and also License to Kill with the burning Sanchez at the end - that nearly ended up as an 18!
    .

    What's funny about that scene is that it looked all CGI to me and not actual real fire! The scene didn't even look genuine because the 'fire' was so off-putting.
  • necromancer20necromancer20 Posts: 2,548
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    TCD1975 wrote: »
    Looks like I'm the only one round here who preferred Cosmopolis then.

    It has its fans. Personally I thought it was a huge misstep on Cronenberg's part (surprisingly Pattinson is the best thing about it).
    stripedcat wrote: »
    On the subject of the 18 certificate, I think what might have tipped it that way is
    the part where Julianne Moore's character is set on fire. That's probably what did it. The BBFC seem to get very strict on "fire violence" - think back to The Towering Inferno and also License to Kill with the burning Sanchez at the end - that nearly ended up as an 18!
    .

    You mean Olivia William's character right? She's the one
    who gets burned alive. Julianne Moore gets hammered to death by Mia Wasikowska.
    MrSuper wrote: »
    What's funny about that scene is that it looked all CGI to me and not actual real fire! The scene didn't even look genuine because the 'fire' was so off-putting.

    I thought it was deliberately cartoonish at first, given the dark humour before in the film. But then it just may have been terrible CGI :D
  • GortGort Posts: 7,466
    Forum Member
    stripedcat wrote: »
    On the subject of the 18 certificate, I think what might have tipped it that way is
    the part where Julianne Moore's character is set on fire. That's probably what did it. The BBFC seem to get very strict on "fire violence" - think back to The Towering Inferno and also License to Kill with the burning Sanchez at the end - that nearly ended up as an 18!
    .

    Correction:
    That was actually Christina Weiss, played by Olivia Williams, who self-immolated herself. Julianne Moore's character, Havana Segrand, was bludgeoned to death by Mia Wasikowska's character, Agatha.

    Quite liked this film, which was darkly humorous and twisted. Yeah, the CGI was badly done. Part of me wondered if this was intentional, to go with the psychological nature of the film, but maybe it was just badly done. Still, a minor gripe that doesn't really detract from the film.

    Edit - Answered above by necromancer20. Even share the same opinion about the CGI. Wish I didn't go off and do something before finally clicking the post button. :D
  • stripedcatstripedcat Posts: 6,689
    Forum Member
    Whoops - my bad on Gort's correction front.
  • necromancer20necromancer20 Posts: 2,548
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Gort wrote: »
    Correction:
    That was actually Christina Weiss, played by Olivia Williams, who self-immolated herself. Julianne Moore's character, Havana Segrand, was bludgeoned to death by Mia Wasikowska's character, Agatha.

    Quite liked this film, which was darkly humorous and twisted. Yeah, the CGI was badly done. Part of me wondered if this was intentional, to go with the psychological nature of the film, but maybe it was just badly done. Still, a minor gripe that doesn't really detract from the film.

    Edit - Answered above by necromancer20. Even share the same opinion about the CGI. Wish I didn't go off and do something before finally clicking the post button. :D

    Eerie, very eerie :p
Sign In or Register to comment.