Waking life

[Quester]

In case some one hasn't seen it. A 10 part film. It's pretty good. http://www.youtube.com/results?searc...&v=XNGbxk71Hp8

[O'nus]

In case some one hasn't seen it. A 10 part film. It's pretty good. http://www.youtube.com/results?searc...&v=XNGbxk71Hp8 I am happy that this movie still pops up every now and then. One of my favorites. ~

[Emerald Wolf]

I remember watching this some years ago (before I knew about lucid dreaming actually), and have been meaning to watch it again. Thanks for the link.

[Quester]

Your welcome.

[Identity X]

I've seen a sizable amount of this film and all I can say is that it is pretentious, poorly acted, dull and the script, minus Timothy LeVeitch's skit, could've been written by one monkey on one typewriter in one hour.

[O'nus]

I've seen a sizable amount of this film and all I can say is that it is pretentious, poorly acted, dull and the script, minus Timothy LeVeitch's skit, could've been written by one monkey on one typewriter in one hour. Every now and then I come across someone who criticises this film. While they claim that the movie is pretentious and pseudo-intellectual, you simultaneously are subject to the same criticism for not giving any reason to believe such judgements. Saying "I didn't like it" is one thing and "It sucked" is another. So if you are going make such claims of judgment onto a movie that others hold dear, at least have enough courage to justify your judgments to avoid the "holier-than-thou" condescending image. ~

[27]

I didn't like it because I felt it had no focus. It didn't really go into great detail about lucid dreaming and jumped around from idea to idea throughout the whole film.

[O'nus]

I didn't like it because I felt it had no focus. It didn't really go into great detail about lucid dreaming and jumped around from idea to idea throughout the whole film. Yup - I certainly agree. It was not so much a movie so much as a documentary, huh? ~

[Jdeadevil]

I've seen a sizable amount of this film and all I can say is that it is pretentious, poorly acted, dull and the script, minus Timothy LeVeitch's skit, could've been written by one monkey on one typewriter in one hour. Lol, that reminds of that episode of the Simpsons. I agree with you on all of those points, it is a very boring film.

[Identity X]

Every now and then I come across someone who criticises this film. While they claim that the movie is pretentious and pseudo-intellectual, you simultaneously are subject to the same criticism for not giving any reason to believe such judgements. Saying "I didn't like it" is one thing and "It sucked" is another. So if you are going make such claims of judgment onto a movie that others hold dear, at least have enough courage to justify your judgments to avoid the "holier-than-thou" condescending image. ~ This is a fair comment. I'll illustrate this with a couple of clips: Poorly acted; I am not refering to the entire cast, but I can certainly say the actor playing the lead is completely unworthy of that role. This clip is a definition. He has a weak voice. He finishes a sentence with righ.. or ya kno' righ... like he's forgotten how to end one properly. And to many uhs and ahs and uurs. He's as pathetic as this throughout the proportion of the film I have watched. He should go back to being a nobody, if he hasn't already. He has no talent whatsoever. Pretentious, poorly scripted: just watch the first few minutes of this. Have you ever had this discussion? No. It's misplaced, vague and ineffectual existensialism in a context in which it simply does and should not appear, even in the most surreal slants. And, it is poorly written. The hopeless lead bumbles through it like he's drunk and the woman does not impress either. The writer quotes authors and inspirations as if that's a method of excusing himself of doing the hard work himself; it reads like a last-minute essay of a slightly free-spirited GCSE student. That's 16 years old. Dull; well, you'll have to decide that one for yourselves. Watching a poorly made film sounds kinda dull to me, unless it's "so-bad-it's-good". But this isn't bad, it's mediocre. And mediocre is never good. The method of animating this film - rotoscoping - took immense effort. Visual style changes often - perhaps suiting its subject matter - but only few (which ones is a subjective choice) impress. The rest are weak, ugly, and distracting. Those that do impress end too quickly, and those you think are ugly are undoubtedly going to feel overused. And just to get an idea of how much of a waste of man hours this was, these 40 seconds took 1000 man hours in MS Paint. Of course Waking Life wasn't made in MSPaint, but every frame required drawing (the computer technology used could only go so far). Stragely the director/writer/whatever went on to use in A Scanner Darkly. I haven't seen the film.

[lizmunchausen]

im watching it on youtube nearly finished the film. i think its alright.. its true its a bit all over the place but i like some parts, probably mostly because its interesting to see a film on lucid dreaming. some bits i skipped though when its getting a bit boring and drawn out

[grasshoppa]

I didn't like it because I felt it had no focus. It didn't really go into great detail about lucid dreaming and jumped around from idea to idea throughout the whole film. Very dream like isn't it?

[O'nus]

This is a fair comment. I'll illustrate this with a couple of clips: Poorly acted; I am not refering to the entire cast, but I can certainly say the actor playing the lead is completely unworthy of that role. This clip is a definition. He has a weak voice. He finishes a sentence with righ.. or ya kno' righ... like he's forgotten how to end one properly. And to many uhs and ahs and uurs. He's as pathetic as this throughout the proportion of the film I have watched. He should go back to being a nobody, if he hasn't already. He has no talent whatsoever. lol.. I agree. For the sake of entertainment, they are not impressionable. However, it does not take away from what he said. So let's consider what else you say here... Pretentious, poorly scripted: just watch the first few minutes of this. Have you ever had this discussion? No. It's misplaced, vague and ineffectual existensialism in a context in which it simply does and should not appear, even in the most surreal slants. And, it is poorly written. The hopeless lead bumbles through it like he's drunk and the woman does not impress either. The writer quotes authors and inspirations as if that's a method of excusing himself of doing the hard work himself; it reads like a last-minute essay of a slightly free-spirited GCSE student. That's 16 years old. You're right - I always had a problem with this part. There is nothing really being said here. You might as well say, "Well, it's unfortunate, but that's just the result of society" and then they both have nothing left to say. Dull; well, you'll have to decide that one for yourselves. Watching a poorly made film sounds kinda dull to me, unless it's "so-bad-it's-good". But this isn't bad, it's mediocre. And mediocre is never good. The method of animating this film - rotoscoping - took immense effort. Visual style changes often - perhaps suiting its subject matter - but only few (which ones is a subjective choice) impress. The rest are weak, ugly, and distracting. Those that do impress end too quickly, and those you think are ugly are undoubtedly going to feel overused. And just to get an idea of how much of a waste of man hours this was, these 40 seconds took 1000 man hours in MS Paint. Of course Waking Life wasn't made in MSPaint, but every frame required drawing (the computer technology used could only go so far). Stragely the director/writer/whatever went on to use in A Scanner Darkly. I haven't seen the film. True, it was pretty lazy at times. In fact, it just looked like they slopped it and sometimes background images just simply disappear! I think it was definitly intended for people while they were high, don't you agree? In fairness, A Scanner Darkly was done a lot better. (The content of the movie, disputable). However, can you not say that there are still parts of the movie that still offer good reason for discussion that is worth considering? (ie. free will vs. determinism, psychology of the futile self-destructive man, the evolution of man and their paradigms, etc.) Because, I certainly agree that several parts held nothing substantial at all (ie. "like you know.. I'm a human being, I don't want to be an ant, y'know?"....... LOL). ~

[lizmunchausen]

finished watching it. overall i liked it