^^it’s not just that jaded=better. it just feels like more of an accomplished film to me. Before Sunrise is a product of its time as far as i’m concerned. and Linklater wasn’t anywhere near as confident a director back then. and Hawke’s performance in the first one isn’t that good.
But hey, each to their own.
I don’t think “jaded=better,” but I also don’t recall feeling that the second film is more accomplished, either. (@Joks—I’d be interested in hearing any specifics with regard to better acting by Hawkes or better directing by Linklater.) Part of the reason I sometimes think Sunset is a better film is that it was much more difficult to pull off—where the filmmakers took the film and how they ended it was quite an accomplishment, imo.
On the other hand, the situations and execution in Sunrise are wonderful as well. It’s a toss up for me.
I liked how in Sunrise you can see Ethan Hawke’s character progress from how do I get into her pants?, to falling in love. Makes me believe it actually actually happened.
Montsers (2010) follows a similar ark—except crossed with Jurassic Park, to a Martinez-esque soundtrack, set in central-south-America, on a budget of hey, let’s wing-it.
Sunset’s a bit, oh, our pants have been about a bit now, and it’s making me wear this awful shirt and a suit-jacket that says, “call me James.” And all foreshadows an awkward Nina Simone scene.
^^haha yeah, who picked that awful shirt for him to wear?!?!?!?
jaded?! oh hell no. if all you took from SUNSET was jadedness then i would strongly endorse a rewatch. the ending was so far from jaded. the ending says that there is an implacable beauty in our lives and it will not be denied. pretty much the opposite of being jaded…
A jealous Uma Thurman?Don’t listen to them, Ethan. It looks great! I’ll cover the dry-cleaning bill.
Both are masterpieces. For me, each film evoked just as strong a response. They both need to be packaged into a Criterion edition. Linklater is a master of dialogue.
Romantic idealist here.
I love them nearly equally, but because of the above I’m going with Sunrise.
glad to see the love still here for this thread 11 months. I wonder if the location will change?
I think Sunrise made Sunset a better film. I like them both equally as I see them as one film..though I have to agree that was an awful shirt, Ethan, sorry..
anyway, other than location, I wonder what the storyline would be. If it’s gonna be in America, wouldn’t it be a bit too cliche if it was done in New York? I’m just plucking shits out of random air..
JAZZ: i just think the film flows better, it’s more confidently directed, the editing is seamless etc. Occasionally i felt Sunrise was a little drawn out and laboured. not so this time. don’t remember specifics exactly. I think what’s great about Sunset is that it’s not really about the specifics. it’s about the whole experience. yes there are a few standout scenes, particularly towards the end, but it has a powerful cumulative effect. I really was not expecting to like it that much to be honest. It surprised me.
PETER: well there is no point starting a new thread when one exists is there? Figured i may as well post here ;-) and i did just watch them back to back so this is the ideal place to share my thoughts.
“I think Sunrise made Sunset a better film.”
well this is undeniable really. you can’t have one without the other. which is why i don’t get how you can hate one and like the other(that means you Ari!!! hehe)
Curtis, I meant more the characters are jaded than the film itself is jaded. I agree the ending is beautiful and optimistic.
Honestly I love them both so I can’t at all argue against Sunset.
All I can say is Sunrise makes me really, really happy. :)
I feel like I am the only one that didn’t like this movie. I honestly started watching it thinking I would love it as it sounds like exactly my type of film. I love long conversations and I love the idea of just spending a day exploring with someone and falling in love.
But I failed to connect with any of the conversations they had. I’m sorry to put it so bluntly, but I felt like they must have been high, especially the scene they spent talking on the bus. Also, the acting just felt unnatural to me. I didn’t buy the idea of them falling in love. However, even at the end I felt somewhat attached their story and wondering what would happen next, I think just because the concept of the film is so appealing to me.
I want to ask the people that like this movie, how much of your enjoyment comes from relating to and being intrigued by the characters’ conversations? I think maybe the reason I didn’t enjoy it was because I’ve never had a conversation like they do in my life. That style of speaking is just so foreign to me I found it hard to relate to, and also I found it pretty annoying. But I think that maybe my life of hanging out with football and basketball players (not known for their existential conversations) has contributed to this.
I wonder if it’s just the area of the world I come from that made me unable to relate to this style of speech? Or do people like this film for other reasons than the dialogue?
@rock and bull: Hey, sorry if Before Sunrise didn’t work for you, but I really hope that you will see Before Sunset, because it’s plain essential viewing. I believe the thing that makes Before Sunrise work perfectly is the subtext of time, a theme which Linklater was exploring in his early movies (i.e. Slacker, Dazed and Confused). It’s apparent that Jesse and Celine have this limited time to get to know each other, see if they can work out, all that stuff, even though it’s not treated as seriously in the beginning as it is in the last half. As the movie progresses, however, there’s a sense of urgency creeping into the conversations, as deeply intimate and personal things get talked about. It’s not really a movie about romance by conversation and matching philosophies as it is about the limited time that two seemingly matching souls have to get to know each other and how to spend that time as both know that they may never see each other again.
They are equal, Peter Smith.
That’s an interesting observation, Dude. I think I had trouble because I took the conversations at face value, and just felt kind of annoyed that they didn’t ever talk “normally” (like I said, I think some of this is culture shock). I think I may check out the sequel sometime, because while the first one made me frustrated a lot, I was never bored and always at least slightly intrigued.
I, too, see them as two parts of one film; so, Before Sunrise/Sunset is my answer.
But I failed to connect with any of the conversations they had. I’m sorry to put it so bluntly, but I felt like they must have been high, especially the scene they spent talking on the bus. Also, the acting just felt unnatural to me. I didn’t buy the idea of them falling in love….I think maybe the reason I didn’t enjoy it was because I’ve never had a conversation like they do in my life. That style of speaking is just so foreign to me I found it hard to relate to, and also I found it pretty annoying.
How did you respond to Woody Allen films like Annie Hall or Manhattan (if you’ve seen them)? To me, the conversations are in a similar vein—except recontextualized with Gen X characters. Indeed, initially, Ethan Hawke annoyed me because I thought he was imitating Wood Allen’s film persona—in a way that was obvious and annoying, as a result. But I acclimated myself to this, partly (or largely) because I enjoyed the dialogue and situations. (Plus, I liked Julie Delpy).
(If you haven’t seen Woody Allen films, what about a film like Diner or even Taratino films? They dialogue isn’t reallly “natural”—and there are similarities to the type of conversations in Before Sunrise/Sunset, I think. Oh, what about the dialogue in Seinfeld? Again, the dialogue and situations are similar—i.e., people hanging out, shooting the bull—especially making self-conscious observations about relationships and culture. The dialogue in Whit Stilman’s films are also in the same ballpark, imo.)
I love Annie Hall, but I think it’s because it has a sense of humor about itself and doesn’t take everything so seriously. Also, it’s not so heavily focused on just the dialogue, there are other aspects. I think what turned me off to Before Sunrise was that it seemed to take itself and it’s characters so seriously, which is fine, but sometimes I felt like the conversations were kind of ridiculous and there was no aknowledgement of that.
Definitely Before Sunset!
in 4 later
I just watched Before Sunrise for the first time. I wasn’t terribly impressed, although it’s clearly the product of a talented filmmaker who knows how to compose a shot. On the negative side, I found the film to be overwritten at times in that “brilliantly written screenplay” kind of way. It also had a complacent Gen-x navel gazing vibe to it that rubbed me cold. Just a few preliminary thoughts. At the same time, however, I can’t really tell whether the film is somewhat dishonest or I’m simply naive about the trajectory of my own life. I’m wondering whether or not I simply can’t relate to the film, since I’m not as “perfect” a man as Ethan Hawke and know myself well enough to know I wouldn’t end up with a woman as ‘neat’, ‘immaculate’, and “correcte” as Julie Delpy. I find I relate more to the male leads in Rohmer’s films, such as Trintignant in ’Maud’s’, Verley in ‘Chloe’, and the kid from The Aviator’s Wife.