On rewatching 'three colours blue' i just noticed...

You may have to like her more than that!

a portentous Europudding

This is why it is good!

Blue is laughable. "Art" cinema for the Miramax crowd.

Red is yet another example of old director creating a fantasy about a young woman. Yawn.

White is the only interesting one of the three. Could it be because it's set in Poland (mostly)?

For those here that love the trilogy -- are you familiar with his Polish output?

Give me Camera Buff, Blind Chance or Dekalog over those three gloss-fests any day!

Red is yet another example of old director creating a fantasy about a young woman. Yawn.

That's it, is it? How is Red a "fantasy" in the way that you describe? I think it makes Dekalog in particular look rather leaden, uneven and pretentious.

Red has the fashion model and the judge, brought together by fate. Please. She’s not a character, she’s a fantasy figure.

Chabrol has done it, Rohmer has done it, Claude Berri has done it, Louis Malle has done it – give me some time, I’ll think of more.

I forgive you for your comment about Dekalog. Clearly that was said in a fit of anger, for there’s no way you could be serious about that.

Antonioni's Beyond the Clouds springs to mind.

I fancy Irene Jacob most of the three BWR women, but I think Red is the weakest film. It really did just seem to be glossy grasping. Well I didn't get anything out of it anyway - maybe it was me at fault. I found Blue the most moving and White was easiest not to mock, being grimly humourous and Polish and all.
But it's years since I saw them.

White is also great.

I will say that on first encounter, the whole thing might seem a little delicate and polite, but there is much more to the film than there might initially appear.

Incredibly complex and profound. It was so deep and meaningful I can't even begin to explain the subtlety and complexity of its brilliant profoundness. A deep, complex, masterwork full of meaningfulness. Profound, as well.
-- tarden (scrape10...), July 13th, 2001.

Admittedly, I'm fairly new to this board, but we seem to have radically different criteria for what makes a great film. You insist Red is dense and profound, and on another thread you defend Cold Mountain.

I am by no means insulting your opinions -- there's no right or wrong here -- emotional response is what it is. I just hope that over time we can perhaps establish (maybe start a new thread?) a framework for what we all look for and expect from a film -- at least when we are considering a film for a status higher than simple entertainment.

If we were to remove every close-up (or medium shot) of Binoche, Delpy and Jacob staring forlonly into the camera, we wouldn't be left with a whole lot. If there is denseness to Red, you'll need to expose it.

Admittedly, I'm fairly new to this board, but we seem to have radically different criteria for what makes a great film. You insist Red is dense and profound, and on another thread you defend Cold Mountain.

Let us celebrate our differences! Of course we have radically different criteria, otherwise this board (and the world outside of it) would be a very boring place indeed. It seems you are suggesting -and I by no means take this personally- that my opinions are somehow inconsistent. I would suggest that they are highly consistent, given that they both borne of my brain and body, instinctive reactions that I cannot hope to have any control over. Taste is personal and subjective and I stand by what I said about both of the films you have mentioned. (I never used the word "profound" - an icky word if ever there was one - except in jest, I should add).

Of course, you DID say as much here:

I am by no means insulting your opinions -- there's no right or wrong here -- emotional response is what it is.

But I think what you suggest here is more or les impossible:

I just hope that over time we can perhaps establish (maybe start a new thread?) a framework for what we all look for and expect from a film -- at least when we are considering a film for a status higher than simple entertainment.

I think I mentioned "rockism" in response to another of your posts. I guess this is something of an ILX meme, but my fellow moderator s1utsky put it best when he said that he would like to see a reaction to "film rockism" of this kind - During the last year, I enjoyed Charlie's Angels:Full Throttle and Master And Commander more than I did 21 Grams, Ireversible, or Morvern Callar, films that perhaps aspire (to their detriment?) towards this "status" of which you speak. That said, I know a piece of crap like The Hulk when I see one. There's simply no guilt involved, which is how everything should be.

If we were to remove every close-up (or medium shot) of Binoche, Delpy and Jacob staring forlonly into the camera, we wouldn't be left with a whole lot. If there is denseness to Red, you'll need to expose it.

You're clearly an intelligent person, so you must see this for the reductive bit of provocation that it is. If I'm to "expose" why I personally enjoyed in this film, perhaps you in turn could come up with a more honest and incisive reason for why you didn't?

If I'm to "expose" why I personally enjoyed in this film, perhaps you in turn could come up with a more honest and incisive reason for why you didn't?

Perhaps, but beyond our own enjoyment (or lack thereof) we can speak about the film in terms of A or B or C etc. At that point simple subjectivity will take a backseat while we discuss the triumphs/shortcomings of the film's handling of A or B or C.

Did that make any sense?

I too enjoy this type of discussion. While I will admit to being a tremendous film snob, I'm not above admitting my love for grand pieces of entertainment -- Charlie's Angels II was great fun -- probably because it didn't take itself seriously (unlike the bloated Matrix sequels with their quasi-philosophical ejaculations.) It didn't make my top 10 of 2003, but was well worth the $10.

Thankyougoodnight.

In Red, does the coin that the Judge flips end up heads or tails?