Roma (2018)

[Pyfish+]

Roma (2018)
Dir: Alfonso Cuarón

Our next film comes from @nudge and it's one that she says she has always wanted to watch but has never found the time. And the good news? It's on Netflix everywhere!

It has a Rotten Tomatoes rating of 96% and has also won 3 Oscars.

Running Time: 135 minutes
Watch It Here: https://www.netflix.com/title/80240715

 

From here on, we are going to try and allocate a maximum of 2 weeks to watch the film and discuss before moving onto the next film so Monday 24th February will be when the next film is chosen. 

[Eco]

I'm down for this. 

I'll try and watch it this week. 

Thank you @Pyfish

[Mel81x+]

Its quite good. I'll wait for everyone to finish watching it then we can start discussing. Thanks for the choice @nudge

[Pyfish+]

I've stuck the trailer in the original post too.

 

[nudge]

1 minute ago, Mel81x said:

Its quite good. I'll wait for everyone to finish watching it then we can start discussing. Thanks for the choice @nudge

Oh you've seen it already?  

[Mel81x+]

Just now, nudge said:

Oh you've seen it already?  

Thats okay I'll watch it again. Its good to watch movies like this again and I think its a good reco.

[CaaC (John)]

Not seen this but it sounds like one me and the wife can watch together and the trailer looks good.

[CaaC (John)]

Started to watch it last night but it's a no from me, it's sub-titled and in Spanish and there are not many films I can enjoy that's not in English and sub-titled, I wish I was someone like @nudge who can speak/read and listen to multiple languages. 

[Pyfish+]

Going to try and watch it over the next couple of days. I don't mind films in a foreign language with subtitles so should be fine!

[nudge]

I'll try to watch it tomorrow night. 

[Cicero]

Watch it over the weekend 

[Rick]

Give it a watch over the weekend 

[nudge]

Well this is a real slow burner for sure... I'm halfway through and enjoying it but I can see it not being everyone's cup of tea.

[Pyfish+]

I watched the first 30 minutes on Saturday night but then I was falling asleep (not because of the film). I'll give it another more focused attempt later this week!

[nudge]

Yeah I think it turned out to be a bit of a poor choice by me. I enjoyed the film; think it's very beautiful cinematography-wise and it's great as a "slice of life" movie but if you're not into that then it's likely going to bore the crap out of you.

[Pyfish+]

1 hour ago, nudge said:

Yeah I think it turned out to be a bit of a poor choice by me. I enjoyed the film; think it's very beautiful cinematography-wise and it's great as a "slice of life" movie but if you're not into that then it's likely going to bore the crap out of you.

That's what this is all about though. Watching films that we enjoy but also ones that can be outside of what we would perhaps normally watch. 

[nudge]

Just now, Pyfish said:

That's what this is all about though. Watching films that we enjoy but also ones that can be outside of what we would perhaps normally watch. 

True but still, we're doing this for fun so watching a movie shouldn't feel like a chore... I know I'd quit in the middle of a movie if it didn't appeal to me enough; so I understand that working your way through a 2+ hour slow-paced movie with little plot might seem like an unnecessary waste of time...

[nudge]

So... I think it might be time to choose a new film @Pyfish   

[Pyfish+]

I forgot, sorry @nudge Been away for a few days. Who would you like to nominate for next choice?

I'll message the person you nominate for their choice and then we can keep this thread open if anyone decides to watch it at a later date.

[nudge]

17 minutes ago, Pyfish said:

I forgot, sorry @nudge Been away for a few days. Who would you like to nominate for next choice?

I'll message the person you nominate for their choice and then we can keep this thread open if anyone decides to watch it at a later date.

Oh just anyone really; I think @Mel81x was supposed to choose before me so let's nominate him.

[Dr. Gonzo]

Thanks, I hated it.

[Mel81x+]

Some snappy customers in here haha. It is a slow movie though and hard to really stay focused on it unless you want to really watch it. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

Hang on, and sorry @Pyfish because I know you've started the next one. But since this is a film club, I've got a bit of discussion I want to have about this film because... well... I've got questions.

For those of you that think this film is good... why do you think it's good? I genuinely want to know what I'm missing from it.

And here are my thoughts:

I'll start with a positive, because this film isn't going to get much positivity from me. I thought the cinematography was top tier. Really really nice looking film.

But I don't think visuals alone make a film tell a great story. And considering how highly rated this flick was, I was expecting some moving and compelling story. But ultimately, the main drama of the story here is straight out of a Mexican telenovela - and yeah, I get that's why soaps are popular on TV - it's drama that a lot of people can find "relatable" but, I guess I was expecting something a little more interesting for that main bit of drama.

And then secondly, the choice to make this a slow burner was to just put in a shitload of filler before they unfold the film's actual drama. There's stuff that happens, I suppose the idea is to capture that these are people trying to live their lives as traumatic real world events happen around them. But the thing is... these events happen and then the story just keeps going - it doesn't do anything for character development or moving the story along. They just happen for the sake of it happening - the time where the events around the characters seems to matter most is the protests slowing them down on their way to have the baby delivered.

I think I mentioned character development... and here's I think my biggest flaw with this beautiful film with it's long and (imo) uncompelling story. Cleo barely speaks the whole film - and most of what she says isn't really important to driving along the plot. And by the time we are given insight into Cleo's desires/wants/personality... it's so late in the film that I didn't care about her as a character.

So what did I miss? Because it doesn't get good reviews for nothing, I assume?

Although it's directed by the same guy who did Gravity, which everyone fucking loved, and then I watched it and thought "uhhh… is this the same film everyone's talking about?" Another visually impressive flick with... a story and characters I had a hard time caring about.

[Pyfish+]

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Hang on, and sorry @Pyfish because I know you've started the next one. But since this is a film club, I've got a bit of discussion I want to have about this film because... well... I've got questions.

For those of you that think this film is good... why do you think it's good? I genuinely want to know what I'm missing from it.

And here are my thoughts:

I'll start with a positive, because this film isn't going to get much positivity from me. I thought the cinematography was top tier. Really really nice looking film.

But I don't think visuals alone make a film tell a great story. And considering how highly rated this flick was, I was expecting some moving and compelling story. But ultimately, the main drama of the story here is straight out of a Mexican telenovela - and yeah, I get that's why soaps are popular on TV - it's drama that a lot of people can find "relatable" but, I guess I was expecting something a little more interesting for that main bit of drama.

And then secondly, the choice to make this a slow burner was to just put in a shitload of filler before they unfold the film's actual drama. There's stuff that happens, I suppose the idea is to capture that these are people trying to live their lives as traumatic real world events happen around them. But the thing is... these events happen and then the story just keeps going - it doesn't do anything for character development or moving the story along. They just happen for the sake of it happening - the time where the events around the characters seems to matter most is the protests slowing them down on their way to have the baby delivered.

I think I mentioned character development... and here's I think my biggest flaw with this beautiful film with it's long and (imo) uncompelling story. Cleo barely speaks the whole film - and most of what she says isn't really important to driving along the plot. And by the time we are given insight into Cleo's desires/wants/personality... it's so late in the film that I didn't care about her as a character.

So what did I miss? Because it doesn't get good reviews for nothing, I assume?

Although it's directed by the same guy who did Gravity, which everyone fucking loved, and then I watched it and thought "uhhh… is this the same film everyone's talking about?" Another visually impressive flick with... a story and characters I had a hard time caring about.

Don't need to apologise! It's why the threads stay open, in case people.want to go back and watch or discuss the previous films.

I only got 30-45 minutes in and just could not stay interested. The look of the film was great but the narrative let it down.

[nudge]

17 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Hang on, and sorry @Pyfish because I know you've started the next one. But since this is a film club, I've got a bit of discussion I want to have about this film because... well... I've got questions.

For those of you that think this film is good... why do you think it's good? I genuinely want to know what I'm missing from it.

And here are my thoughts:

I'll start with a positive, because this film isn't going to get much positivity from me. I thought the cinematography was top tier. Really really nice looking film.

But I don't think visuals alone make a film tell a great story. And considering how highly rated this flick was, I was expecting some moving and compelling story. But ultimately, the main drama of the story here is straight out of a Mexican telenovela - and yeah, I get that's why soaps are popular on TV - it's drama that a lot of people can find "relatable" but, I guess I was expecting something a little more interesting for that main bit of drama.

And then secondly, the choice to make this a slow burner was to just put in a shitload of filler before they unfold the film's actual drama. There's stuff that happens, I suppose the idea is to capture that these are people trying to live their lives as traumatic real world events happen around them. But the thing is... these events happen and then the story just keeps going - it doesn't do anything for character development or moving the story along. They just happen for the sake of it happening - the time where the events around the characters seems to matter most is the protests slowing them down on their way to have the baby delivered.

I think I mentioned character development... and here's I think my biggest flaw with this beautiful film with it's long and (imo) uncompelling story. Cleo barely speaks the whole film - and most of what she says isn't really important to driving along the plot. And by the time we are given insight into Cleo's desires/wants/personality... it's so late in the film that I didn't care about her as a character.

So what did I miss? Because it doesn't get good reviews for nothing, I assume?

Although it's directed by the same guy who did Gravity, which everyone fucking loved, and then I watched it and thought "uhhh… is this the same film everyone's talking about?" Another visually impressive flick with... a story and characters I had a hard time caring about.

I think it's a bit of a niche genre; a sort of "slice-of-life" movie, so it's more focused on being a portrayal of a place and time (in this case daily life in Mexico of the 70s) rather than telling a compelling story with a clear narrative. I understand that it's not everyone's cup of tea, but personally, I really appreciate them for what they offer - a unique opportunity to immerse in a different society and culture by simply observing seemingly mundane daily lives of common people for some time from a distance. I get really engrossed in that for some reason when I'm in a right mood. I think it also has something to do with the existentialist angle those movies tend to have; it's the same in Roma's case. As you said, "these events happen and then the story just keeps going", "they just happen for the sake of it happening". I think that is purely deliberate by design; both larger scale events happening in the background and characters surviving their own personal crises and tragedies and moving on are used to subtly show the futility and absurdity of existence as both life and death are presented in a simple matter-of-fact manner all throughout the movie; both in dialogues and the portrayal of events as well as the general feeling of detachment created by the unmoving camera and the nature of shots. 

I also disagree with you about lack of character development; especially when it comes to Cleo. She doesn't have a voice in the movie because she doesn't have one is society either. She might not have a lot of "meaningful" dialogue but by showing us Cleo’s story the movie gives a voice to all domestic workers and servants in a Mexican society of the 70s whose desires, wants and needs often get pushed aside in favour of the wants and needs of the families they serve. Her story is so generic on purpose - it could literally be any other indigenous house maid with a different name working for a different family; I think the audience is not supposed to care particularly about Cleo but more about millions of people with similar lives and similar stories. So it's both detached and empathetic at the same time. I think there are a lot of observations about the society, culture and relationships in the movie and that's kind of the point of it.

As for Cuarón in general, I didn't like Gravity but Children of Men is one of my favourite movies ever. Highly recommended if you loved the cinematography of Roma (which I think is absolutely amazing!) but want a proper story to go with it.