Joe G Posted July 19, 2003 Report Share Posted July 19, 2003 (edited) I see about one or two movies, at the most, per year. I'm not sure what made me go see this one (I didn't even know it existed until I saw the newspaper ad yesterday), but I'm glad I did. Keisha Castle-Hughes, in the central role, gives an incredible performance. So natural and warm, with great sincerity and depth. This movie had me nearly sobbing, even in the car ride home. The themes are developed with such sublety and nuance, unlike typical Hollywood fare that just beats you over the head. The rest of the cast turns in equally touching and human performances. So to reiterate: Go see The Whale Rider. Edited July 19, 2003 by Joe G Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlhoots Posted July 19, 2003 Report Share Posted July 19, 2003 I see lots of movies, and Whale Rider is a great one. Off topic but for something very different go to see Winged Migration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooster_Ties Posted July 21, 2003 Report Share Posted July 21, 2003 My wife and I saw "Whale Rider" yesterday. I think she liked it better than I did. I still thought it was very good, and we both thought the performances were generally outstanding, all the way around (the girl, especially). But (to mention another film already mentioned in this thread), I probably liked "Rabbit Proof Fence" quite a bit better. It wasn't that "Whale Rider" was lacking in any particular way. It's just that there were several plot-points where I had some serious trouble suspending my disbelief (I won't mention them here, for the sake of not giving away any of the plot). And I think my inability to suspend my disbelief, was in part because most of the film is so low-key, and 95% of it is totally believable, without any suspension of disbelief required. Anyway, it's a good film, to be sure - but probably not on my top-10 list for the year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe G Posted July 21, 2003 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2003 It wasn't that "Whale Rider" was lacking in any particular way. It's just that there were several plot-points where I had some serious trouble suspending my disbelief (I won't mention them here, for the sake of not giving away any of the plot). And I think my inability to suspend my disbelief, was in part because most of the film is so low-key, and 95% of it is totally believable, without any suspension of disbelief required. I totally understand what you mean, and had to think that one through myself. I finally came to the conclusion that the movie is meant as a fable. But yeah, it was weird having to shift mental gears like that-"Oh, it's this kind of movie..." I'll have to check out Rabbit Proof Fence. I remember seeing the name; is it also a New Zealand produced film? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Alfredson Posted July 21, 2003 Report Share Posted July 21, 2003 Rabbit Proof Fence is Austrailian... about the Aborigenies (sp?). With music by Peter Gabriel!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe G Posted July 21, 2003 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2003 Aborigenies (sp?) Instead a lamp, you rub a magic didgeridoo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander Posted July 21, 2003 Report Share Posted July 21, 2003 This film is at the center of a contraversy involving Roger Ebert and the MPAA. "Whale Rider" has a PG-13 rating (the same rating as "Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle"). Ebert said, in his review, that there was absolutely nothing objectionable about "Whale Rider", and that parents should take their children to see it. This quote was mentioned in the print ads for the film. Now the MPAA is suing the production company to make them remove the Ebert quote BECAUSE of the PG-13 rating (which says that children under thirteen cannot be admitted without a parent). Ebert is hopping mad, and slammed the MPAA both in print and on his TV show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Alfredson Posted July 21, 2003 Report Share Posted July 21, 2003 What, does it show 1/4 of a nipple or something? Lord knows we can't have our children looking at the human body. But gunshots, explosions, people getting their face kicked in... that's all fine and dandy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe G Posted July 21, 2003 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2003 (edited) There's a momentary drug reference, and... that's about it. Maybe a wee bit of colorful language, but nothing more than kids hear in their own homes, I'm sure. Probably much more mild, in most cases. There's no sex at all. I agree with Ebert; there's nothing here I'd be worried about showing to a child. Edited July 21, 2003 by Joe G Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Wheel Posted July 21, 2003 Report Share Posted July 21, 2003 (edited) I thought everything short of an R rating was merely a suggestion, not a ban on kids in the theater. "PG-13: Parents Strongly Cautioned." Can anyone point me to Ebert's quote? All I can find after searching Google News and Lexis-Nexis are a couple of sentences where he yells at the MPAA for viewing sex as more objectionable than violence. But that's nothing new for him. Edited July 21, 2003 by Big Wheel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe G Posted July 21, 2003 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2003 I was just looking for it as well. All I found was his review. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Man with the Golden Arm Posted July 22, 2003 Report Share Posted July 22, 2003 So is this suitable for a young eight year old? I thought it was just a PG. My wife and I were planning on taking her next weekend. She'll no doubt start hoarding allowances for some nice maori tattoos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Chaney Posted July 22, 2003 Report Share Posted July 22, 2003 Sidebar of sorts: My eight year old niece spent the weekend at my place and she wanted to rent a DVD. Letting her pick (fool!) -- and me not being familiar with this franchise -- she chose the third Austin Powers movie, Goldmember. CRIPES! More that once I had to distract her attention ("Fook") and at times, jokingly (but seriously) cover her eyes. A movie made for adolescents no doubt but what a piece of trash. It's been ages since I've been in the habit of going to the movies and it seems that I've really missed the boat on the current translation of the rating system. I (hopefully) made up for it though and took her to see Finding Nemo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe G Posted July 22, 2003 Author Report Share Posted July 22, 2003 So is this suitable for a young eight year old? Most certainly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooster_Ties Posted July 22, 2003 Report Share Posted July 22, 2003 So is this suitable for a young eight year old? Most certainly. Definitely!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.