28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[Scar]

Yeah, very smart I think to have originally cut that out.

It probably wouldn't have been as well received if they had left that chapter in, thats for sure.

[Mysterious Dude]

Why is that silly? Why is this a narrative convention that you are unwilling to accept?
I have a hard time taking him seriously. He's a man in medieval dress in a medieval setting speaking to a 20th century audience through the 20th century medium of cinema. In the battle scene, he is actually walking through the battlefield. Why is he there? His presence takes me away from the battle and makes it seem less real. Is that the desired effect?

When you're watching a play, there's less of an illusion of reality, so the presence of a narrator is not as jarring. That's why I hope they never make a movie out of Into the Woods.

[Rowland]

Badass extraordinaire Vern rightly defends Tsui Hark's delirious Double Team: http://www.geocities.com/outlawvern/

Just scroll down, it's the 2/24 part 2 update.

[lovejuice]

I think I would really like Stephen King's novella The Langoliers as I found many of the ideas in the made-for-TV movie rather interesting and compelling, at least inasmuch as they offered something relatively new in the perception of space and time (and by extension, time travel).
i love the novella, and by extension do the television/movie. but it has been a long time.

[Rowland]

Stuart Gordon's King of the Ants is as relentlessly grim a film noir as I've ever seen, with all the uncompromised brutality and nudity Gordon is known for. Economical, genuinely scuzzy, surprisingly well-performed by its B-level cast, and as nihilistic as they come, without losing sight of the humanity in its characters. Recommended.

[Kurosawa Fan]

:pritch: :pritch: :pritch:

I came in second place in that Oscar contest and won 52 free passes to the movie theater!!! My wife and I are going out to dinner and seeing Coraline afterward in celebration. That made my weekend. There are two theaters in my town that always have different movies, so it's not like I won't have to pay for a movie for the rest of the year or anything, but it's still huge. They're getting Watchmen too, so it looks like I'll be seeing that after all.

[D_Davis]

Badass extraordinaire Vern rightly defends Tsui Hark's delirious Double Team: http://www.geocities.com/outlawvern/

Just scroll down, it's the 2/24 part 2 update.

That's awesome - thanks for that. I really like that second paragraph - hilarious.

I recently defended Knock Off.

http://www.playtime-magazine.com/press/2009/02/king-of-the-knock-offs/

[Spinal]

I have a hard time taking him seriously. He's a man in medieval dress in a medieval setting speaking to a 20th century audience through the 20th century medium of cinema. In the battle scene, he is actually walking through the battlefield. Why is he there? His presence takes me away from the battle and makes it seem less real. Is that the desired effect?


So I assume that you would object to the use of iambic pentameter and rhymed couplets based on the fact that it makes things seem less real? I mean, at some point, realism can't be the sole basis for evaluating the worth of a filmed Shakespeare adaptation. Refusing to accept a director transferring basic theatrical conventions to the screen in order to bridge the gap between a 16th century text and a 20th century medium is more than a bit stubborn methinks.

[transmogrifier]

Are we counting The Hurt Locker as 2008 or 2009?

Cause either way, it's awesome.


Brick awesome or actually awesome?


;)

[eternity]

Brick awesome or actually awesome?


;)
80/100 awesome.

[Dukefrukem]

Right at Your Door is a serviceable little thriller done on a tight budget. Rory Cochrane plays an average Joe who freaks out when Los Angeles is hit with a number of "dirty bombs." After repeatedly calling his wife, to no avail, he goes to work sealing up his house with plastic and duct tape. Tension mounts when he encounters survivors and ominous men in hazmat outfits.

The film stays intimate, which is its only choice, but its apocalyptic tone doesn't jive with the low-key logic of its suspense and twists. In a sense, the film seems minor from the word go. And while the final twist is clever, it breaks down in retrospect.

Still, it's not too shabby, and the performances are effective, especially Mary McCormack as Cochrane's wife.

I agree and I loved that movie. The ending was totally unexpected.

[megladon8]

Stuart Gordon's King of the Ants is as relentlessly grim a film noir as I've ever seen, with all the uncompromised brutality and nudity Gordon is known for. Economical, genuinely scuzzy, surprisingly well-performed by its B-level cast, and as nihilistic as they come, without losing sight of the humanity in its characters. Recommended.


I've wanted to see this for a long time.

Your review has pushed me over the edge and I must see it ASAP now :)

So, thanks!

[balmakboor]

Rob Ager should watch some different movies, once and a while.

Some of his Kubrick film observations are brilliant and some are flat out nutty. But even his nutty ones are nowhere near as nutty as some I've seen over the years.

This particular one is both interesting and nutty.

My favorite of his is his interpretation of the sniper sequence in Full Metal Jacket as an examination of JFK assassination conspiracy theories.

[Derek]

Stuart Gordon's King of the Ants is as relentlessly grim a film noir as I've ever seen, with all the uncompromised brutality and nudity Gordon is known for. Economical, genuinely scuzzy, surprisingly well-performed by its B-level cast, and as nihilistic as they come, without losing sight of the humanity in its characters. Recommended.

This sounds fantastic - I'll be adding it to my queue. Have you seen Detour or The Big Heat? I'm not sure I'd classify them as nihilist noir, but certainly grim, uncompromisingly brutal and pretty great to boot.


:pritch: :pritch: :pritch:

I came in second place in that Oscar contest and won 52 free passes to the movie theater!!! My wife and I are going out to dinner and seeing Coraline afterward in celebration. That made my weekend. There are two theaters in my town that always have different movies, so it's not like I won't have to pay for a movie for the rest of the year or anything, but it's still huge. They're getting Watchmen too, so it looks like I'll be seeing that after all.

I know I should be happy for you and it'd be easy on these internet boards here to put on celebratory airs whilst shaking my fist in real life. But screw that. I hate you, you lucky bastard.

;)

[Qrazy]

Enjoyable article taking Pauline Kael to task.

http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/46/kael.htm

I don't agree with all of it (a slight of The Long Goodbye amongst other things) and there are a few cheap shots (claiming Kael has a small man/woman syndrome) but I do agree with the general gist of the piece.

[Ezee E]

Dear Zachary might be one of the best documentaries I've ever seen.

You come out incredibly angry, sad, shocked... Just so many emotions, and it's done so well. Incredible.

[Mysterious Dude]

So I assume that you would object to the use of iambic pentameter and rhymed couplets based on the fact that it makes things seem less real? I mean, at some point, realism can't be the sole basis for evaluating the worth of a filmed Shakespeare adaptation.I don't find iambic pentameter to be such a distraction (though I'll admit I've never seen it used skillfully in a movie that was not based on a Shakespeare play). The language is there throughout the film, whereas the narrator occasionally interrupts the film. And every time he does, I just plain find him silly.


Refusing to accept a director transferring basic theatrical conventions to the screen in order to bridge the gap between a 16th century text and a 20th century medium is more than a bit stubborn methinks.I think he did a poor job of transferring those conventions to the screen, and I think his film suffers from being theatrical instead of cinematic.

[chrisnu]

Crimes and Misdemeanors was fantastic. I shall watch it again tomorrow, and compose some thoughts. I love instant viewing.

[Spinal]

I think he did a poor job of transferring those conventions to the screen, and I think his film suffers from being theatrical instead of cinematic.

Never watch one of Olivier's Shakespeare adaptations. Branagh's work is like a Mike Leigh film by comparison.

[MadMan]

My friend gave me the DVD boxset "The Godfather: The Coppola Restoration" for my birthday this week. Which is pretty freakin' sweet, and means I'll finally get around to watching The Godfather Part III, which is the only part of the trilogy I haven't seen yet.

[Spinal]

Yeah, OK, I was definitely wrong about Re-Animator. Perhaps this time I was able to get beyond the gore and see more of the humor. "Who's going to believe a talking head?" :lol: Jeffrey Combs is spot-on as Herbert West and the score is fantastic.

Old rating: **
New rating: ***

[Dead & Messed Up]

Yeah, OK, I was definitely wrong about Re-Animator. Perhaps this time I was able to get beyond the gore and see more of the humor. "Who's going to believe a talking head?" :lol: Jeffrey Combs is spot-on as Herbert West and the score is fantastic.

Old rating: **
New rating: ***

Nice. It's a gem.

If you're on a Gordon kick, you should check out "The Black Cat," from Masters of Horror. Combs gives another awesome performance, and it's probably Gordon's most confident, stylish film.

[Sven]

Enjoyable article taking Pauline Kael to task.

http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/46/kael.htm

I don't agree with all of it (a slight of The Long Goodbye amongst other things) and there are a few cheap shots (claiming Kael has a small man/woman syndrome) but I do agree with the general gist of the piece.

I really don't want to make it a habit to post as much as I am these days, but I cannot silently go about allowing the touting of Alan Vanneman's "journalism." There are, as is typical with AV, so many instances of generalization and reduction that it reaches a point of unavoidable absurdity (considering that he's criticizing Kael for questionable reason). Any good points he makes (about anything) come entirely with one's preconceptions about the subject. I'm not even a huge Kael fan. To any who are listening or care at all about this link, here's a counterpoint to Qrazy's assessment: the article sucks.

[Qrazy]

I really don't want to make it a habit to post as much as I am these days, but I cannot silently go about allowing the touting of Alan Vanneman's "journalism." There are, as is typical with AV, so many instances of generalization and reduction that it reaches a point of unavoidable absurdity (considering that he's criticizing Kael for questionable reason). Any good points he makes (about anything) come entirely with one's preconceptions about the subject. I'm not even a huge Kael fan. To any who are listening or care at all about this link, here's a counterpoint to Qrazy's assessment: the article sucks.

Here's a counter-point to your counter-point, your taste is that of a contrarian and you enjoy contrarian criticism so it comes as no surprise that you seek to defend Kael, one of the precursors to the Armond White's of this world. Granted she's a much, much better and more intelligent writer than Armond.


So many instances of generalization and reduction that it reaches a point of unavoidable absurdity.



Any good points he makes (about anything) come entirely with one's preconceptions about the subject.


I cannot silently go about allowing the touting of Alan Vanneman's "journalism."

Good god man how can you critique a critique for generalizing, when that critique is critiquing something else for generalizing and then go and generalize in your critique! Perhaps you should cite some instances of generalization in the article and then we could have an actual discussion instead of just endless compounding of your contrarianism.

If you're referring to the 'small man syndrome' comments which open and close the article I agree that those are worthless. I also agree that in terms of many of the films brought up I am not on board about certain value judgments he makes about said films. In terms of his comments about her method and manner of criticism though I think he's not too far off although he becomes slightly assumptive about her personal life every once in a while.

Also of course it's not journalism, it's an opinion piece.

[transmogrifier]

I agree with Sven. Terrible article that pretty much wallows in the exact same excesses that it accuses Kael of.

[Qrazy]

I agree with Sven. Terrible article that pretty much wallows in the exact same excesses that it accuses Kael of.

Not really. It wallows in different problematic excesses, but not the same ones.

[Rowland]

If you're on a Gordon kick, you should check out "The Black Cat," from Masters of Horror. Combs gives another awesome performance, and it's probably Gordon's most confident, stylish film.Argento has an entertaining take on The Black Cat in Two Evil Eyes, starring Harvey Keitel. Another interesting Italian take on the Poe tale is Your Vice Is a Locked Room and Only I Have the Key, starring Edwig Fenech and directed by the underappreciated Sergio Martino.

[Morris Schæffer]

I enjoyed Gordon's Fortress a lot.

[balmakboor]

I love Pauline Kael. I have her book "For Keeps" and read something from it at least once a week. It's like four inches thick so I'll be at it for quite a while.

I don't really think of her as a critic though. She was just a great writer who had her own way of loving movies and her own unique way of expressing that love. I certainly don't go to her for insightful analysis and I probably only agree with her evaluations 50% of the time.

[D_Davis]

I love Pauline Kael. I have her book "For Keeps" and read something from it at least once a week. It's like four inches thick so I'll be at it for quite a while.

I don't really think of her as a critic though. She was just a great writer who had her own way of loving movies and her own unique way of expressing that love. I certainly don't go to her for insightful analysis and I probably only agree with her evaluations 50% of the time.

I agree - she was a fantastic writer. I turn to her more to learn about the craft of writing than I do for her film criticism.

[Dukefrukem]

How many Western fans do we have here? Watched Hang em High last night. But I haven't seen too many Clint films to compare it to. (aside from the popular Good Bad Ugly, Man with No Name series)

[Ezee E]

How many Western fans do we have here? Watched Hang em High last night. But I haven't seen too many Clint films to compare it to. (aside from the popular Good Bad Ugly, Man with No Name series)
His best non-Leone is Outlaw Josey Wales or Unforgiven.

[Raiders]

His best non-Leone is

High Plains Drifter.

[Kurosawa Fan]

High Plains Drifter.

Absolutely.

[Qrazy]

Paint Your Wagon FTW... only half joking.

[Dukefrukem]

Alright I'm adding those to my queue. And yeah Unforgiven I've seen. Who hasn't?

[D_Davis]

His best non-Leone is Outlaw Josey Wales or Unforgiven.


Josey Wales FTW.

Great book too - Gone to Texas.

"Dyin' ain't much of a livin' boy."

[Ezee E]

Absolutely.
Definitely right up there.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Argento has an entertaining take on The Black Cat in Two Evil Eyes, starring Harvey Keitel. Another interesting Italian take on the Poe tale is Your Vice Is a Locked Room and Only I Have the Key, starring Edwig Fenech and directed by the underappreciated Sergio Martino.

I've had Two Evil Eyes in my queue for a while. Perhaps I'll bump it up.

And thanks for the recommendation for YVIaLRaOIHtK.

[MadMan]

His best non-Leone is Outlaw Josey Wales or Unforgiven.These two, followed by High Plains Drifter. The Outlaw Josey Wales might be my second favorite film of Eastwood's.


Yeah, OK, I was definitely wrong about Re-Animator. Perhaps this time I was able to get beyond the gore and see more of the humor. "Who's going to believe a talking head?" :lol: Jeffrey Combs is spot-on as Herbert West and the score is fantastic.

Old rating: **
New rating: ***Still too low (:P), but I'll overlook it because you saw the light and actually enjoyed the film this time around.

[balmakboor]

In a moment of boredom, I was struck with a potential way of defining a great sound film.

A blind person should be able to experience the movie as a complete and meaningful experience from start to finish. A deaf person should be able to experience the movie as a complete and meaningful experience from start to finish. A person who can both see and hear should also have a complete and meaningful experience, but it would ideally be, not a sum of the blind and deaf experiences but, an entirely different experience altogether.

I know that I just described Sans Soleil, for instance. I wonder how a great film like Rear Window would hold up though.

[Ezee E]

In a moment of boredom, I was struck with a potential way of defining a great sound film.

Martin Scorsese says this is his approach to movies.

[balmakboor]

Martin Scorsese says this is his approach to movies.

Cool. I bet Raging Bull and GoodFellas would fair very well.

[Spinal]

Crank had just enough wit and free-spirited moxie to remain entertaining for an hour and a half. Kind of a one-note premise, but it's successful in being sort of an unofficial Grand Theft Auto film adaptation. Talking to the doctor on the phone while driving through the mall was probably my favorite bit. Statham is surprisingly charismatic.

[number8]

Crank had just enough wit and free-spirited moxie to remain entertaining for an hour and a half. Kind of a one-note premise, but it's successful in being sort of an unofficial Grand Theft Auto film adaptation. Talking to the doctor on the phone while driving through the mall was probably my favorite bit. Statham is surprisingly charismatic.

"Entertaining"? "Surprisingly charismatic"? That's a generalization and an obviously contrarian opinion. Therefore, your journalism sucks.

[Spinal]

"Entertaining"? "Surprisingly charismatic"? That's a generalization and an obviously contrarian opinion. Therefore, your journalism sucks.

I forgot to compare it to a completely unrelated yet beloved critical darling.

*ahem*

Crank, with its non-stop barrage of palpable tactility and its celebration of unfettered masculinity, outdoes The Reader in exploring the moralistic dilemmas in post WWII Germany through an assassin who must find life by flirting with death, and is more likely to draw attention to the plight of underprivileged children in Mumbai than a thousand Slumdog Millionaires.

[Winston*]

I like the bit where he runs out of the elevator screaming.

[number8]

I forgot to compare it to a completely unrelated yet beloved critical darling.

*ahem*

Crank, with its non-stop barrage of palpable tactility and its celebration of unfettered masculinity, outdoes The Reader in exploring the moralistic dilemmas in post WWII Germany through an assassin who must find life by flirting with death, and is more likely to draw attention to the plight of underprivileged children in Mumbai than a thousand Slumdog Millionaires.

Pretentious and assumptive. You're inventing "memory loss" as foil to your predetermined points. Your journalism sucks.


I like the bit where he runs out of the elevator screaming.

Unintellectual and lazy. You probably try too hard to don an infantile mask while secretly hoping to have your opinion validated despite your disguise. Your journalism sucks.

[Sven]

I get :sad: when 8s make fun of me.

But seriously, to respond to Q (why?), I will posit that I was ignorant of the necessity to, when offering a snippet of cautionary advice to those seeking out what is purported to be an enjoyable article from an online journal, illuminate the minutia of my own position, annotated and uncompromised. I had momentarily forgotten that I was posting on a message board and not part of any officiated discourse.

[Spinal]

Well, color me surprised. I checked out Walk Hard from the library with very low expectations. I mostly just wanted to see a film that had both Kristen Wiig and Jenna Fischer in it. I haven't even seen Walk the Line and I was worried I might miss out on some of the jokes. I thought it was excellent, a spot-on satire of the rise-and-fall-and-rise-again biopic. The writing is very good. Just about every scene works and I found myself laughing consistently throughout. Great use of cameos (with the exception of Jonah Hill, who I could have done without). Reilly is outstanding in the lead because he is buffoonish, yet still believably competent enough to be a successful recording artist. This is key. It's the reason why films like Anchorman don't work, because the lead is so moronic that it's impossible to believe him attaining any level of success. Not so with Reilly, who is a good enough actor (and singer) to create a plausible flesh-and-blood protagonist. Consequently, despite the comical elements, you get to the end of the film and really feel like you've been on a journey. I found myself actually moved by Cox's farewell concert.

[megladon8]

How many Western fans do we have here? Watched Hang em High last night. But I haven't seen too many Clint films to compare it to. (aside from the popular Good Bad Ugly, Man with No Name series)


Westerns are possibly my favorite genre. Only horror could beat it out, on a good day.

I actually don't like Hang 'Em High too much.

Check out the "Man With No Name" trilogy, if you haven't already. Also smack yourself in the face for not having seen the best movie trilogy in the universe.

[Spinal]

Oh, and Reilly's take on Bob Dylan is better than anything in I'm Not There.

[Rowland]

How about that last minute of Crank? So many unexpectedly poignant moments in such an absurdly OTT picture, cumulating in that awesome descent.

[Spinal]

How about that last minute of Crank? So many unexpectedly poignant moments in such an absurdly OTT picture, cumulating in that awesome descent.

Yeah, it definitely put a smile on my face to see that his most serene moment comes at a time that would cause any rational human being to completely lose it.

[megladon8]

The use of "If Only You Believe (in Miracles)" was awesome.

[Watashi]

I told myself I would never watch Hairspray in a million years, but I did last night at number8's place with consumed alcoholic beverages, and dammit, I had a really good time.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Well, color me surprised. I checked out Walk Hard from the library with very low expectations. I mostly just wanted to see a film that had both Kristen Wiig and Jenna Fischer in it. I haven't even seen Walk the Line and I was worried I might miss out on some of the jokes. I thought it was excellent, a spot-on satire of the rise-and-fall-and-rise-again biopic. The writing is very good. Just about every scene works and I found myself laughing consistently throughout. Great use of cameos (with the exception of Jonah Hill, who I could have done without). Reilly is outstanding in the lead because he is buffoonish, yet still believably competent enough to be a successful recording audience. This is key.

One reviewer (I can't remember who) pointed out that the film never plumbs the depths of other bio-pics. There are occasional freakouts (and subsequent sink-removals), but Cox never really goes as far as Ray or Cash in his pitfalls. The film, oddly, feels soft-pedaled and too in love with its teddy-bear protagonist.

I'd agree with that, but I'd respond by redirecting them to Cox's Bob Dylan phase.


It's the reason why films like Anchorman don't work, because the lead is so moronic that it's impossible to believe him attaining any level of success.

I can't remember the last time my brow was so furrowed.

[Qrazy]

I get :sad: when 8s make fun of me.

But seriously, to respond to Q (why?), I will posit that I was ignorant of the necessity to, when offering a snippet of cautionary advice to those seeking out what is purported to be an enjoyable article from an online journal, illuminate the minutia of my own position, annotated and uncompromised. I had momentarily forgotten that I was posting on a message board and not part of any officiated discourse.

I wasn't asking for a thesis, just a few salient points rather than a generalization after you just took him to task for generalizing after he purportedly took Kael to task for generalizing.

[Spinal]

There are occasional freakouts (and subsequent sink-removals), but Cox never really goes as far as Ray or Cash in his pitfalls.

Do Ray or Cash machete their brother in half? I don't think so.

[Qrazy]

I'm Not There >>>>>>>>>>>>> Getting hit in the face with a brick >> Anchorman >> First 20 minutes of Walk Hard which is all I could bear to watch

[Dead & Messed Up]

Do Ray or Cash machete their brother in half? I don't think so.

I meant more in reference to their journeys into egotistical rock-gods who suffer greatly from their excesses.

Obviously it's not a huge point. Your tongue-in-cheek spoiler says much about the film's inherent silliness. I just thought it was an interesting one, and it makes some sense. Despite its R-rating, the film is cheerful and strangely innocent, and the majority of the laughs come from the film's accurate lampoons of musical styles and icons.

Again, I liked it.

[Spinal]

Despite its R-rating, the film is cheerful and strangely innocent, and the majority of the laughs come from the film's accurate lampoons of musical styles and icons.


Couldn't this exact sentence be applied to This is Spinal Tap? I'm not trying to be difficult. Just trying to understand how being more ... gloomy and wicked, I guess ... would make for a better film. What would be an example of the type of film you're talking about?

[Rowland]

I told myself I would never watch Hairspray in a million years, but I did last night at number8's place with consumed alcoholic beverages, and dammit, I had a really good time.I found this passable but overly mediocre. A few catchy songs, some inspired performances, and an overly amiable vibe are dampered by how insistently didactic its simple-minded politics are, so that it comes across as more square than anything. And John Travolta sucks hard.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Couldn't this exact sentence be applied to This is Spinal Tap? I'm not trying to be difficult. Just trying to understand how being more ... gloomy and wicked, I guess ... would make for a better film. What would be an example of the type of film you're talking about?

I wouldn't agree with that conclusion, because, from my perspective, Spinal Tap derives the majority of its laughs from lampooning the specific characters: their arrogance and petulance and stupidity and relationship tensions.

I guess the point is just that the film might've felt simultaneously a little more authentic and cutting if we saw more of a descent. I can't think of an analogue. Most of my experience with "satire" is through spoof or parody movies that are too reverent or inconsequential to have any real bite.

[Boner M]

Bad thing that happened today: Stupidly confused the session times for W. and Frozen River on the cinema's website; turned up to the latter thinking I was 5-10 minutes late for the film and only afterwards realised I'd missed nearly the entire first half.

Good things that happened today: Missed half of Frozen River.

[number8]

I get :sad: when 8s make fun of me.

Don't be sad. I was making fun of both of you.

[transmogrifier]

Well, color me surprised. I checked out Walk Hard from the library with very low expectations. I mostly just wanted to see a film that had both Kristen Wiig and Jenna Fischer in it. I haven't even seen Walk the Line and I was worried I might miss out on some of the jokes. I thought it was excellent, a spot-on satire of the rise-and-fall-and-rise-again biopic. The writing is very good. Just about every scene works and I found myself laughing consistently throughout. Great use of cameos (with the exception of Jonah Hill, who I could have done without). Reilly is outstanding in the lead because he is buffoonish, yet still believably competent enough to be a successful recording audience. This is key. It's the reason why films like Anchorman don't work, because the lead is so moronic that it's impossible to believe him attaining any level of success. Not so with Reilly, who is a good enough actor (and singer) to create a plausible flesh-and-blood protagonist. Consequently, despite the comical elements, you get to the end of the film and really feel like you've been on a journey. I found myself actually moved by Cox's farewell concert.

Correct. Very, very correct.

[transmogrifier]

I'm Not There >>>>>>>>>>>>> Getting hit in the face with a brick >> Anchorman >> First 20 minutes of Walk Hard which is all I could bear to watch

Wrong. Very, very wrong.

[Milky Joe]

Ron Burgundy might have been moronic, but he had all kinds of charisma. That's all a news man needs. That and to be able to read.

[Winston*]

Election 2 is kind of unbelievable brutal and hopeless. It's like the entire movie is an extension of the final scene in the first one.

I must see more Johnny To movies. Dude's something.

[Sven]

Don't be sad. I was making fun of both of you.
:pritch:


I wasn't asking for a thesis, just a few salient points rather than a generalization after you just took him to task for generalizing after he purportedly took Kael to task for generalizing.

Pretend, then, that I just said: "That article isn't very good. The author is accusing Kael of generalization while generalizing himself." While I understand that this is a generalization, its pithiness justifies my lack of inclusion of salient points.

Okay, I'm disappearing again. *poof*

[Mara]

I just saw Man on Wire (finally) and was really impressed. I thought it did a great job of meshing reenactments, real footage, and retrospectives by the people involved. I also really enjoyed the fact that they used non-linear storytelling to rachet up the tension. Fantastic.

My one complaint isn't major, but I felt that it was a completely avoidable flaw. I'll spoiler just in case anyone cares...

I appreciated that the filmmakers showed "le coup" as both a creative and destructive force that both emmeshed these people and then, subsequently, drove them apart.

So, I understand why they included the bit about Petit ditching his friends and girlfriend to have sex with a groupie.

But the reenactment footage they used, along with the music and dialogue over it, was incredibly silly and distracting, and ruined the moment for me.

[D_Davis]

I must see more Johnny To movies. Dude's something.

Yes he is. One of the best directors working today.

[megladon8]

Yes he is. One of the best directors working today.


I must agree with this.

Even though I've seen a limited number of his films, his style, pacing and storytelling ability is impeccable.

I don't think it's a stretch to rank him among Scorsese and Mann in the annals of best crime film makers.

[Ezee E]

Maybe it's a good thing that Midnight Meat Train was treated so crappily on its theatrical release. It's stylistically better than the Showtime 'Master of Horror' series, but can fit right with them. Good as a quick fix, but still bad as a whole.

'Cept Takeshi Miike's Imprint. That's legitimately good.

[Ezee E]

I must agree with this.

Even though I've seen a limited number of his films, his style, pacing and storytelling ability is impeccable.

I don't think it's a stretch to rank him among Scorsese and Mann in the annals of best crime film makers.
I'll have to see more of his. I think I've only seen one and wasn't too impressed.

[megladon8]

I'll have to see more of his. I think I've only seen one and wasn't too impressed.


Was it Full-Time Killer? If it was, I'm right with you. I thought it was a very bad movie, but I was still impressed with how he handled the material visually.

Check out PTU. It's a simple little crime thriller - the plotting is nothing new (an incompetent cop loses his gun) but it's done with such grace. He lights scenes very specifically, with street lights acting as the actual lighting in the film, illuminating these small pockets of action, and echoing the actual "small pocket of action" that is the film's story.

The Election films are fantastic, too, as others have been saying here.

I still haven't watched my copy of Exiled. I want to do so when I can sit and watch the whole thing start-to-finish. I watched about 20 minutes of it last year when I bought the DVD, and I remember being very put off by how terribly inaccurate the subs were.

[D_Davis]

The Mission and Exiled are To's two defining films.

[Spinal]

Ron Burgundy might have been moronic, but he had all kinds of charisma. That's all a news man needs. That and to be able to read.

I thought he had whatever the opposite of charisma is. I thought he was a repulsive figure. Precisely the kind of asshole that I would never want to spend any time with, either in person or through my television.

Also, just noticed that in my brief write-up on Dewey Cox, I said he could be believed as a 'successful recording audience'. I, of course, meant 'successful recording artist'. Oy, senility.

[Mara]

I said he could be believed as a 'successful recording audience'. I, of course, meant 'successful recording artist'.

HAHA! MOCK, MOCK, MOCK!

[Derek]

Bad thing that happened today: Stupidly confused the session times for W. and Frozen River on the cinema's website; turned up to the latter thinking I was 5-10 minutes late for the film and only afterwards realised I'd missed nearly the entire first half.

Good things that happened today: Missed half of Frozen River.

:pritch:

[Kurosawa Fan]

I thought he had whatever the opposite of charisma is. I thought he was a repulsive figure. Precisely the kind of asshole that I would never want to spend any time with, either in person or through my television.


I'm really surprised that, of all people, you are concerned with believability in a movie like that.

[Qrazy]

Wrong. Very, very wrong.

Two wrongs make a right.

[Qrazy]

:pritch:



Pretend, then, that I just said: "That article isn't very good. The author is accusing Kael of generalization while generalizing himself." While I understand that this is a generalization, its pithiness justifies my lack of inclusion of salient points.

Okay, I'm disappearing again. *poof*

So I should pretend you said what you already said? There is, was and never will be anything pithy about either statement. But by all means continue to heap adulations upon yourself from the shadows of the forums. Also why is the spell check for this site so mediocre?

[NickGlass]

Bad thing that happened today: Stupidly confused the session times for W. and Frozen River on the cinema's website; turned up to the latter thinking I was 5-10 minutes late for the film and only afterwards realised I'd missed nearly the entire first half.

Good things that happened today: Missed half of Frozen River.

So, I'm assuming you were still exposed to the dead baby cliffhanger? Oy. You saw the wrong half, man.

[Qrazy]

The Mission and Exiled are To's two defining films.

What I love most about To is that he makes two or three films a year so we have so much to look forward to. His last two decades of work have been much stronger than his 80's work. It looks like he's hit his stride.

These are his best films imo roughly ordered from favorite to least favorite.

... aka Triad Election (USA)
... aka Election (International: English title) (UK)
... aka The Mission (Hong Kong: English title)
... aka Exiled (International: English title) (USA: new title)
... aka PTU (2003)
... aka Throwdown (Singapore: English title)
... aka Sparrow (Hong Kong: English title)
... aka Mad Detective (Hong Kong: English title) (USA: new title)
... aka Breaking News (Hong Kong: English title) (Philippines: English title)

[Sycophant]

Have you seen Running on Karma, Qrazy? Or is it not there because it's not one of his "best"?

Otherwise, I pretty much agree with your ordering, though I'd probably swap Mad Detective and Breaking News.

[MadMan]

Anchorman>Walk Hard. And of course Spinal Tap is better than both films. I love all of them, however, and each of them brings something truly hilarious to the table. I must admit that where as "Tap" works largely because of its jokes and the overall cast, without Reilly for "Walk Hard" and Ferrell for "Anchorman" neither film would have been as successful. Although granted each one has pretty awesome supporting casts.

[balmakboor]

So, I'm assuming you were still exposed to the dead baby cliffhanger? Oy. You saw the wrong half, man.

Thanks for the warning. I'll be seeing this in the next day or two.

[Qrazy]

Have you seen Running on Karma, Qrazy? Or is it not there because it's not one of his "best"?

Otherwise, I pretty much agree with your ordering, though I'd probably swap Mad Detective and Breaking News.

Yeah actually I had Breaking News and Mad Detective switched originally but changed it for reasons I will never fathom.

Yeah I've seen Running on Karma but I'm not a fan. I like that it's zonked out but I don't find it to be as stylistically precise or interesting as the other films on the list.

I've also seen... and very roughly ranked following after the above list.

... aka Where a Good Man Goes (Hong Kong: English title)
... aka Running Out of Time (International: English title)
... aka Running on Karma (International: English title)
... aka The Eighth Happiness (Hong Kong: English title)
... aka All About Ah-Long (Hong Kong: English title)
... aka Fulltime Killer (Hong Kong: English title)
... aka A Hero Never Dies (Hong Kong: English title)
... aka Love on a Diet (International: English title)
... aka Running Out of Time 2 (USA)
... aka The Heroic Trio (Hong Kong: English title)
... aka Triangle (Hong Kong: English title) (International: English title)

[megladon8]

Is it just me or was that a fucking huge Frozen River spoiler, NickGlass? :|

[NickGlass]

Is it just me or was that a fucking huge Frozen River spoiler, NickGlass? :|

I would say it is more a "caveat" than a "spoiler." Unless you consider a spoiler to be an ostensibly minor moment that represents a crassly manipulative, pernicious whole, then yes, maybe it is a spoiler.

[Sycophant]

Running on Karma has a few scenes that have stuck with me, but otherwise, I can't remember it very well. I have a friend who liked it quite a bit and our celebrations of its strengths may have idealized it somewhat.

The only one on your second list that I'd want to promote to the first list would be A Hero Never Dies. It's ridiculous, over the top, brazen, and kind of cheesy, but it was a solid exercise in hard-boiled badassery that featured gangsters triumphantly pissing on the trees of a crooked spiritual leader.

I haven't actually seen much of To's eighties work. In fact, A Hero Never Dies may be the earliest film of his I've seen. I've got a copy of All About Ah Long that I've been sitting on for a couple years that I should get around to.

[Spinal]

I'm really surprised that, of all people, you are concerned with believability in a movie like that.

I think it's essential to have some level of plausibility for the comedy to work.

[Rowland]

Yeah actually I had Breaking News and Mad Detective switched originally but changed it for reasons I will never fathom. Meh. I find Mad Detective a much more rewarding picture than the often-interesting but comparatively mediocre Breaking News.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I think it's essential to have some level of plausibility for the comedy to work.

Ah. This is where you and I differ. One of my favorite comedies is Airplane, which has zero plausibility. And Monty Python and the Holy Grail, which, again, has almost no plausibility.

[Qrazy]

Meh. I find Mad Detective a much more rewarding picture than the often-interesting but comparatively mediocre Breaking News.

I'm in between both of you. They're a toss up for me. Both have elements I like and elements I dislike.

[Qrazy]

Running on Karma has a few scenes that have stuck with me, but otherwise, I can't remember it very well. I have a friend who liked it quite a bit and our celebrations of its strengths may have idealized it somewhat.

The only one on your second list that I'd want to promote to the first list would be A Hero Never Dies. It's ridiculous, over the top, brazen, and kind of cheesy, but it was a solid exercise in hard-boiled badassery that featured gangsters triumphantly pissing on the trees of a crooked spiritual leader.

I haven't actually seen much of To's eighties work. In fact, A Hero Never Dies may be the earliest film of his I've seen. I've got a copy of All About Ah Long that I've been sitting on for a couple years that I should get around to.

Ah Long is a deeply mediocre film but like most of To's work it has it's moments. The eighth happiness is poorly made but it's also kind of hilarious.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Ah. This is where you and I differ. One of my favorite comedies is Airplane, which has zero plausibility. And Monty Python and the Holy Grail, which, again, has almost no plausibility.

Hell, both of those movies have the trick of presupposing some level of plausibility, then ripping it apart.

[Spinal]

Ah. This is where you and I differ. One of my favorite comedies is Airplane, which has zero plausibility. And Monty Python and the Holy Grail, which, again, has almost no plausibility.

No, stop right there. You're being sneaky and substituting a very different type of film and assuming that it should follow the same rules. The two you cite are anarchic comedies bordering on the surreal. The comedies I was referring to are not. They are centered on constructing a central character who is in some way recognizable as a particular type and therefore ripe for parody. Will Ferrell, in my opinion, pitches his character too far outside recognizable humanity to be a successful parody of a TV newsman. Airplane! is a parody of a particular type of film and the extravagances therein. The Holy Grail is an outrageous skewering of a legend usually treated with reverence. Reilly's performance succeeds because he finds truths about his character amidst the silliness. Ferrell fails because his character is all bluster and mugging. There is no soul beneath the goofy wig.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Ferrell fails because his character is all bluster and mugging. There is no soul beneath the goofy wig.

It's not his fault a she-devil stole it.

[Spinal]

It's not his fault a she-devil stole it.

Ah, well, my face is red.

[D_Davis]

Running on Karma is one of the strangest films I've ever seen. I can't really make heads or tales of it. It has some brilliant moments scattered throughout, but tonally it's just a mess. It's either brilliant, or incredibly silly, maybe both, but I can't tell.

Glad to see Where a Good Man Goes placed so highly on your list Qrazy - that's a great movie.

[Qrazy]

Running on Karma is one of the strangest films I've ever seen. I can't really make heads or tales of it. It has some brilliant moments scattered throughout, but tonally it's just a mess. It's either brilliant, or incredibly silly, maybe both, but I can't tell.

Glad to see Where a Good Man Goes placed so highly on your list Qrazy - that's a great movie.

Yeah it just missed the cut of my top To's.

Hmm... Top To's... I like the sound of that.

[Derek]

I wasted hours of my life watching these films and additional time writing about them, so I might as well waste more time posting them so you can waste your own time reading them.

The Devil & Daniel Webster (William Dieterle, 1941)

This updated Faustian tale brings with it a bitter sense of humor and pervasive evilness that seems a bit surprising for 1941. Not that there aren't a number of other films far darker than this one (though many of these would be noirs as opposed to outright dramas), Jabez's cruelty and blatant affair with Simone Simon verges on emotional abuse towards his wife to a degree rarely hinted at in most other films. Walter Huston is deliriously entertaining as the cackling Mephisto-via-leprechaun (not entirely sure what was going on with his garb), whose appearances are intelligently limited as he serves his function nearly as well when his presence is inferred, physically invisible yet evident in the various ways Jabez changes from wholesome to greedy and arrogant. An age old tale reinvigorated by a creative resetting and cinematography that can be as forebodding in the possible abyss that lies in waiting as it is beautiful in its loving portrayal of pastoral beauty and communal bonding.

The Butcher (Claude Chabrol, 1969)

I can tell from this film that Chabrol will demand a few more films for me to find his wavelength. I found much of this enjoyable or at least oddly intriguing, though its abstractions left too little to hold onto for a few extended stretches. More reminiscent of Bunuel than any other French New Wave director, his purposeful distancing techniques and the subdued acting styles took me by surprise, yet there is an odd warmth given to the remarkably strange relationship between Helene and Paul. Though his style has some Bunuelian touches, he seems more keen on empathy than irony or mockery. Enough to like to leave me wanting more of Chabrol, who at this point must remain a work in progress for me.

Blindness (Fernando Meirelles, 2008)

A mostly laughable attempt at social commentary, or I don't know, maybe satire was what the filmmakers were going for, but it fails as both. It's pretty clearly a concept that could only work on the page, because the visualization of the blind internment camp, internal strife and rebellion can be taken about as seriously as a game of dodgeball where everyone is blind-folded. It strives so hard for profundity, for finding something bold and challenging to say about the thin line between order and total chaos when a widespread virus interrupts the possibility of normal social discourse/interaction, yet we're left with the conclusion that self-interest and survivalism, perhaps even fascist factions, would surface and demand counteraction in order to recreate a sense of overall equilibrium. Well yeah, Fernando, if nearly everyone goes blind in a matter of weeks, I'm fairly certain that the fan and the fecal matter would create a mess as well. It's bad enough seeing one actor feign blindness, but here you a large majority of the cast doing for most of the film, but that's only part of the embarrassment. It's hard to get a handle on what Meirelles' actual intent was, since aside from the painfully contrived and mostly insubstantial Bernal sub-plot, there's little attempt at a coherent statement. Julianne Moore embracing and reassuring the woman she has just caught screwing her husband is the perfect moment to point to re: its shoving glimpses of kindness and stick-to-itiveness, to quote Seymour Skinner, that Meirelles is so deadset on conveying is still alive and well in those dark, oh-so-difficult times.

Little Odessa (James Gray, 1994)

The set-up is simple - older brother stays on the outskirts of his home town after commiting a murder only to find himself drawn back in because of an assigned hit. Reconnections with family and old flame ensue, yet none of this accounts for Gray's ability to form slightly offbeat characterizations and a strong sense of community and place and how these individuals struggle to carve out of their own comfort zones. Tim Roth begins and ends as an enigma, feelings of guilt and regret never tipping him towards a true desire for a clean slate. This resignation never veers towards fatalism and makes room for some rather potent encounters with his brother (Edward Furlong bringing about as much as Edward Furlong can be expected to bring) and hypocritical, yet borderline orthodox father. It is very much a film of the moment, yet it allows scenes to linger in silence while still cutting out most of the fat that could've led this towards a verbose, overly emotional "family DRAMA". It never quite coelesces into all it promises to be, but it's damn strong for a debut. I wasn't completely sold on We Own the Night, but this has be questioning my initial ambivalence and heightens my expections for the rest of Gray's output.

Mannequin (Frank Borzage, 1937)

Pretty much the opposite portrait of martyrdom as Man's Castle and all the better because of it. Where Loretta Young's Trina was a most extreme example of turn-the-other-cheek/ stand-by-your-man/charity-over-autonomyis that defines Christian sacrifice, Crawford's Jessie is a far more fully drawn character, as if she were actually living on the same planet as the rest of us rather than a thinly conceived platitudinal ideal. Her family, caricatured as they are, is a nice counterbalance creating a meaningful struggle, not only to escape the same fate as her mother but her eventual succubus of a husband who attempts to turn her self-empowerment against her. Rather than being defined and restricted by the personality and desires of her husband a la Man's Castle, Jessie sticks to her principles, becoming what could, at least by 1937 standards, be seen as an ultra-modern feminist. Spencer Tracy is himself granted a more rewarding role, giving a fully-rounded portrayal of a wealthy man with mostly good intentions without stepping in many of the steaming pile cliches such a part would immediately lead you to expect. Overall, it may not have any truly stand-out moments, but Borzage is clearly more than an ordinary craftsman and mines empathy not pity from a situation begging for the latter.

[Boner M]

Faces – Wasn’t quite as taken in by this on first viewing as I was by Cassavetes’ later films; the endless bouts of laughing and dancing and lame-joke-telling struck me as a spurious actor’s workshop conceit rather than anything truthful/spontaneous/whatever, but it’s a testament to the film’s power and emotional specificity that I was inspired to revisit it immediately following a night during which the film’s obscured muddle of feelings came back to mind. Indeed, the elements that rubbed me wrong the first time around are just as excruciating and embarrassing to watch as they were at first, but what I wasn’t paying attention to is the extent to which the people in the film use their flamboyant, actor’s-workshop-ish theatrics as a defense mechanism. Moreover, the first and second halves form an almost dialectical structure that examines the separate, gender-reversed configurations quite devastatingly, in part because of the emotional neediness that surfaces in every one of the characters, however differently they attempt to conceal it. Incidental pleasure: Cassel escaping through the window, descending quickly the rooftop, and then down the steep cliff onto the nearby street might be cooler than the stunts that a lot of filmmakers have obviously labored over.

Katzelmacher – Stasiscore at its most static, and I have to admit that my tolerance for cinematic inertia was tested by the very blunt ways that Fassbinder expresses his thematic concerns here. At the same time, it’s actually kinda bracing to be reminded of the power that the long take and has to annoy and provoke, even though the compositions are often quite rigorous and transfixing in spite of the punk-ish, young artiste sensibility that informs them. The repeated sequences of reverse tracking shots of different couplings of characters, as they stroll down a nearby promenade, are ingenious and quite hilarious; initially they suggest some kind of digression from sequences of the banal chitchat between the different cliques, but the conversations at these intervals are just as focused on gossip and banality as elsewhere, only this time more intimately expressed, and with the lo-fi tackiness of the execution undermining the superficial ethereality. I think Bruno Dumont’s The Life of Jesus is a more effective depiction of the thin line between ennui and racial prejudice and violence, but this is still a pretty worthwhile early feature for the ‘binder.

[Kurosawa Fan]

No, stop right there. You're being sneaky and substituting a very different type of film and assuming that it should follow the same rules. The two you cite are anarchic comedies bordering on the surreal. The comedies I was referring to are not. They are centered on constructing a central character who is in some way recognizable as a particular type and therefore ripe for parody. Will Ferrell, in my opinion, pitches his character too far outside recognizable humanity to be a successful parody of a TV newsman. Airplane! is a parody of a particular type of film and the extravagances therein. The Holy Grail is an outrageous skewering of a legend usually treated with reverence. Reilly's performance succeeds because he finds truths about his character amidst the silliness. Ferrell fails because his character is all bluster and mugging. There is no soul beneath the goofy wig.

I assure you I wasn't trying to be sneaky. Whether their intentions are similar or not, I think Anchorman's realism is better compared to Airplane or Holy Grail than it is Walk Hard. Walk Hard is trying to skewer the biopic and the cliche of the celebrity life. Walk Hard is trying to exaggerate real life stories. Anchorman is nothing like that. I think Anchorman is archaic. I think it's complete and utter silliness that isn't intended to be taken seriously or reflect real life in any way, shape, or form. I think it's Ferrell just riffing. I think he created a character he thought he could work with and make humorous, put him in an era he also thought would be humorous, and went from there. Now, I won't argue with anyone who doesn't think Anchorman is funny. I can easily understand how it would annoy people, and frankly Ferrell has worn out his welcome with me to the point where I haven't watched his last couple films. But for me, Anchorman works perfectly and I think it's hilarious.

My comment wasn't a cheap shot or intended to be underhanded at all. I just thought it was bizarre that you found fault in Anchorman because it didn't reflect reality, when I'd be willing to bet that it wasn't intended to reflect reality at all, aside from a few zings about the seventies. And I also found it strange because on many occasions I've seen you argue that posters too often rely on whether a film was realistic, most recently when discussing Branaugh's film (I'm pretty sure that was the film you were discussing).

[balmakboor]

Katzelmacher – Stasiscore at its most static

I found Katzelmacher a Tony Scott film compared to Love is Colder than Death.

(That's an exaggeration of course. Katzelmacher is very static, but it does move and breathe every so often with those reverse tracking shots you mentioned. LiCtD is just plain static. It's one of the very few Fassbinders I've had difficulty liking.)

[lovejuice]

Blindness (Fernando Meirelles, 2008)

A mostly laughable attempt at social commentary, or I don't know, maybe satire was what the filmmakers were going for, but it fails as both...

your review supports my skepticism. the novel works as a microcosmic look at the end of the world scenario through moore's character as a savior and a few individuals surrounding her. kinda like what cloverfield is to monster movie. any attempt to hammer down social commentary or "building a big picture" only dooms the movie.

[Winston*]

This Bridge to Terabithia movie has some crummy child acting in it.

[Kurosawa Fan]

This Bridge to Terabithia movie has some crummy child acting in it.

Yes it does.

[Winston*]

Yes it does.

I thought the father of the girl was Bob Odenkirk from afar. But then they showed him up close and it wasn't Bob Odenkirk.

[Sycophant]

I thought the father of the girl was Bob Odenkirk from afar. But then they showed him up close and it wasn't Bob Odenkirk.

This happened to me, too.

[Kurosawa Fan]

This happened to me, too.

:lol:

That's three of us.

[Raiders]

This Bridge to Terabithia movie has some crummy child acting in it.

Didn't notice this, really. Very good movie though.

[Winston*]

This is a funny Bob Odenkirk video I discovered while watching Bridge to Terabithia (http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/f3a2605847/craigslist-penis-photographer-featuring-bob-odenkirk-from-fod-team)

[Mysterious Dude]

This Bridge to Terabithia movie has some crummy child acting in it.

Well, it was slightly better than the acting in the 1985 version (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxsfUL6klzc).

[Spinal]

I assure you I wasn't trying to be sneaky. Whether their intentions are similar or not, I think Anchorman's realism is better compared to Airplane or Holy Grail than it is Walk Hard. Walk Hard is trying to skewer the biopic and the cliche of the celebrity life. Walk Hard is trying to exaggerate real life stories. Anchorman is nothing like that. I think Anchorman is archaic. I think it's complete and utter silliness that isn't intended to be taken seriously or reflect real life in any way, shape, or form. I think it's Ferrell just riffing. I think he created a character he thought he could work with and make humorous, put him in an era he also thought would be humorous, and went from there. Now, I won't argue with anyone who doesn't think Anchorman is funny. I can easily understand how it would annoy people, and frankly Ferrell has worn out his welcome with me to the point where I haven't watched his last couple films. But for me, Anchorman works perfectly and I think it's hilarious.

My comment wasn't a cheap shot or intended to be underhanded at all. I just thought it was bizarre that you found fault in Anchorman because it didn't reflect reality, when I'd be willing to bet that it wasn't intended to reflect reality at all, aside from a few zings about the seventies. And I also found it strange because on many occasions I've seen you argue that posters too often rely on whether a film was realistic, most recently when discussing Branaugh's film (I'm pretty sure that was the film you were discussing).

This discussion is becoming more complicated than it really needs to be. There's no contradiction in what I am arguing.

All of the good films that we have mentioned so far (Walk Hard, This is Spinal Tap, Henry V, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, even Airplane!) are grounded with central characters that are close enough to reality to reveal that the artists truly understand their subject matter and can offer meaningful insights. None of them are what you would call naturalistic; however, each of them (Dewey Cox, the Tap boys, Hal, Arthur and Striker) are in tune with recognizable humanity so that we are able to become invested with their journeys. Now, around them, the filmmakers have placed extraordinary and sometimes absurd situations (Henry's film is not a comedy, but we do have a Chorus who is aware of the audience and speaks directly into the camera). But, because the conventions of each particular film are established skillfully and clearly, we allow for their universes to behave in ways different from ours (sometimes slight ... sometimes extreme), all the while connecting with that recognizably human core.

All of the bad films we have mentioned (that would be Anchorman) lack that basic level of honesty, truth and understanding. Anchorman is not funny for several reasons, but most importantly because it does not have a grasp on the truth of its own central character. It thinks it does, but the 'comedy' springs mostly from the quirks and mannerisms of its lead actor, who we are expected to presume to be hilarious. Ferrell's characterization is insular. It bears too little resemblance to that which is being parodied to be of any use. Another example of this would be Dana Carvey's atrocious George Bush impression which over time became so self-referential and bizarre that it may as well been designed for an alien race.

So, in brief, this is not a question of reality. The expectation for realism in all art is one of the most banal positions imaginable. It is, on the other hand, a question of truth. You can create a anarchic comedy that defies human laws of decorum, logic and gravity and still connect with meaningful truths. You can create a gritty kitchen sink drama (based on a true story!) and still be full of shit.

[Qrazy]

This discussion is becoming more complicated than it really needs to be. There's no contradiction in what I am arguing.

All of the good films that we have mentioned so far (Walk Hard, This is Spinal Tap, Henry V, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, even Airplane!) are grounded with central characters that are close enough to reality to reveal that the artists truly understand their subject matter and can offer meaningful insights. None of them are what you would call naturalistic; however, each of them (Dewey Cox, the Tap boys, Hal, Arthur and Striker) are in tune with recognizable humanity so that we are able to become invested with their journeys. Now, around them, the filmmakers have placed extraordinary and sometimes absurd situations (Henry's film is not a comedy, but we do have a Chorus who is aware of the audience and speaks directly into the camera). But, because the conventions of each particular film are established skillfully and clearly, we allow for their universes to behave in ways different from ours (sometimes slight ... sometimes extreme), all the while connecting with that recognizably human core.

All of the bad films we have mentioned (that would be Anchorman) lack that basic level of honesty, truth and understanding. Anchorman is not funny for several reasons, but most importantly because it does not have a grasp on the truth of its own central character. It thinks it does, but the 'comedy' springs mostly from the quirks and mannerisms of its lead actor, who we are expected to presume to be hilarious. Ferrell's characterization is insular. It bears too little resemblance to that which is being parodied to be of any use. Another example of this would be Dana Carvey's atrocious George Bush impression which over time became so self-referential and bizarre that it may as well been designed for an alien race.

So, in brief, this is not a question of reality. The expectation for realism in all art is one of the most banal positions imaginable. It is, on the other hand, a question of truth. You can create a anarchic comedy that defies human laws of decorum, logic and gravity and still connect with meaningful truths. You can create a gritty kitchen sink drama (based on a true story!) and still be full of shit.

Ehh... I don't know about these appeals to truth and honesty as validation for one's taste. Anchorman is a bad film because it's terribly made. It's laughs (when they occur) stem solely from absurd non sequiturs not from compelling comedic timing, inventive staging or wit. The filmmaking is hollow and lifeless. Solo character close-ups and mid-shots compose the majority of the film. One character stiltedly delivers their lines and then we cut to a second close-up of another character stiltedly responding, and back, etc. It barely seems that these characters are inhabiting the same space. It is the absolute laziest way to visually convey a story. It doesn't help matters that the close-ups are horribly flat, almost two-dimensional. The director has zero comprehension of proper scene construction or of world building. A few quotable inanities is the only thing this film has going for it. Aside from those inanities the writing is just bad, bad, bad.

[Spinal]

Ehh... I don't know about these appeals to truth and honesty as validation for one's taste.

It's not validation for my taste. It's a definition of it.

[Kurosawa Fan]

This discussion is becoming more complicated than it really needs to be. There's no contradiction in what I am arguing.

All of the good films that we have mentioned so far (Walk Hard, This is Spinal Tap, Henry V, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, even Airplane!) are grounded with central characters that are close enough to reality to reveal that the artists truly understand their subject matter and can offer meaningful insights. None of them are what you would call naturalistic; however, each of them (Dewey Cox, the Tap boys, Hal, Arthur and Striker) are in tune with recognizable humanity so that we are able to become invested with their journeys. Now, around them, the filmmakers have placed extraordinary and sometimes absurd situations (Henry's film is not a comedy, but we do have a Chorus who is aware of the audience and speaks directly into the camera). But, because the conventions of each particular film are established skillfully and clearly, we allow for their universes to behave in ways different from ours (sometimes slight ... sometimes extreme), all the while connecting with that recognizably human core.

All of the bad films we have mentioned (that would be Anchorman) lack that basic level of honesty, truth and understanding. Anchorman is not funny for several reasons, but most importantly because it does not have a grasp on the truth of its own central character. It thinks it does, but the 'comedy' springs mostly from the quirks and mannerisms of its lead actor, who we are expected to presume to be hilarious. Ferrell's characterization is insular. It bears too little resemblance to that which is being parodied to be of any use. Another example of this would be Dana Carvey's atrocious George Bush impression which over time became so self-referential and bizarre that it may as well been designed for an alien race.

So, in brief, this is not a question of reality. The expectation for realism in all art is one of the most banal positions imaginable. It is, on the other hand, a question of truth. You can create a anarchic comedy that defies human laws of decorum, logic and gravity and still connect with meaningful truths. You can create a gritty kitchen sink drama (based on a true story!) and still be full of shit.

It's obvious you and I aren't going to agree on this, which is fine, and frankly, I don't care enough about Anchorman to draw this out any further than this post, but these bolded sections of your reply are where you and I see the film differently, as I mentioned in my last post. I don't think Anchorman believes there is any truth in its central character, nor do I believe it's parodying anything other than the styles of the era in which it took place. The film felt like nothing more than a bunch of friends getting together and shooting a movie for fun. It works for me. Is it good filmmaking? No. Is it worthy of admiration? Nope. Does it make me laugh? Yes. That's as far as it needs to go for me.

[Spinal]

It's obvious you and I aren't going to agree on this ...

Not so fast!



The film felt like nothing more than a bunch of friends getting together and shooting a movie for fun. It works for me. Is it good filmmaking? No. Is it worthy of admiration? Nope. Does it make me laugh? Yes. That's as far as it needs to go for me.

I can agree with all of this! :)

[Kurosawa Fan]

Not so fast!



I can agree with all of this! :)

:lol:

Even the part about it making you laugh, and that being all you need! Yay!!!

I'm holding you to that, as my signature now shows.

[Spinal]

:lol:

Even the part about it making you laugh, and that being all you need! Yay!!!

I'm holding you to that, as my signature now shows.

Oh, now you're using the slippery pronoun gambit on me? For shame!

[Qrazy]

It's not validation for my taste. It's a definition of it.

So all of the things you like are honest and truthful and the things you dislike are not. Right, good definition.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Oh, now you're using the slippery pronoun gambit on me? For shame!

Whatever it takes Spinal. Whatever it takes.

[Sycophant]

K. Fan, I very nearly started a major OH YEAH? argument about "Is it worthy of admiration? Nope. Does it make me laugh? Yes." and how I believe that things that make me laugh are worthy of admiration, but then I realized that I know what you mean, even though I wouldn't phrase it that way, and probably more or less agree with you and decided to just mention that I went through this thought process instead.

[Kurosawa Fan]

K. Fan, I very nearly started a major OH YEAH? argument about "Is it worthy of admiration? Nope. Does it make me laugh? Yes." and how I believe that things that make me laugh are worthy of admiration, but then I realized that I know what you mean, even though I wouldn't phrase it that way, and probably more or less agree with you and decided to just mention that I went through this thought process instead.

Yeah, I should clarify by saying that I admire the film for making me laugh, but I don't really admire anything else about the film. How's that? It feels overly-complicated, but more accurate.

[Sycophant]

Yeah, I should clarify by saying that I admire the film for making me laugh, but I don't really admire anything else about the film. How's that? It feels overly-complicated, but more accurate.

I can agree with all of this! :)

[Kurosawa Fan]

I can agree with all of this! :)

YES!!!

[Spinal]

So all of the things you like are honest and truthful and the things you dislike are not. Right, good definition.

Oh for goodness sake, not every conversation on this site needs to involve you being prickish towards people.

[Winston*]

Laugher is the best medicine

Agree / Disagree

[megladon8]

Laugher is the best medicine

Agree / Disagree


I prefer laughter.

[Sycophant]

Typo aside, I DISAGREE.

Give me antibiotics or radiation therapy or Advil or something.

[Winston*]

I prefer laughter.

Fuck off.

[megladon8]

Fuck off.


:pritch:


Ah, amore.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Laugher is the best medicine

Agree / Disagree

Agree with Spinal's latest assessment, disagree with laughter being a better medicine than actual medicine.

[Sycophant]

Patch Adams

http://www.whatnotstudios.com/shit/patchadams.jpg

Patch Adams

[Kurosawa Fan]

Patch Adams

http://www.whatnotstudios.com/shit/patchadams.jpg

Patch Adams

I'm confused. Is this a "misery loves company" type reference?

[Sycophant]

I'm confused. Is this a "misery loves company" type reference?

If I told you I really don't know, would you believe me?

[Qrazy]

Oh for goodness sake, not every conversation on this site needs to involve you being prickish towards people.

No, not every conversation needs it, but this one does.

[Qrazy]

Agree with Spinal's latest assessment, disagree with laughter being a better medicine than actual medicine.

http://content.pyzam.com/funnypics/sports/funny_soccer.gif

[D_Davis]

Agree. Laughter and a positive outlook are more powerful than any medicine.

[MadMan]

Patch Addams is one of the worst films I have ever seen. Robin Williams deserves to be kicked in the nuts for that movie

[Dead & Messed Up]

I just saved all of you ninety minutes, because The Dunwich Horror was boring as hell, and I know it was at the top of many a queue.

[origami_mustache]

Weekend:
That Obscure Object of Desire
The Yakuza Papers: Proxy War
Belle de Jour

[soitgoes...]

Weekend:

Le Petit soldat
Alphaville
Le Samouraï
Léon Morin, Priest
I've Loved You So Long
A Tale of Springtime

French weekend.

[Ezee E]

Weekend:
Watchmen
The International

Chocolate
What Just Happened
Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome

[Boner M]

Weekend:

Driller Killer
Tell No One
Crime & Punishment (Kaurismaki)
Ugetsu

[Boner M]

Good god, Satan's Brew is absolutely :eek:/:lol:. Loses steam toward the end, but the first half is just nonstop manic grotesquerie gold.

Meanwhile, I don't really have anything to say about Chinese Roulette (though its characters sure did). Just didn't feel inspired or impassioned in anyway, despite Fassbinder's mise-en-scene and camerawork being as meticulous as ever.

[Yxklyx]

Weekend (some of these):

Walkabout
Underground
They Live
Code Unknown

[NickGlass]

Patch Addams is one of the worst films I have ever seen. Robin Williams deserves to be kicked in the nuts for that movie

Good timing, buddy. (http://www.miamiherald.com/news/breaking-news/story/933065.html)

[dreamdead]

Weekend/next week (boo-ya for Spring Break freeing up my schedule):

Watchmen
I Know Where I'm Going!
Late August, Early September
Harikari
Soul of the Game
Bingo Long Traveling All-Stars

The last two are baseball films that focus on African-American integration for a possible write-up project of mine.

[balmakboor]

Weekend:

Dear Zachary
Frozen River
Watchmen

Boys High School State Swimming Finals (our boys have their best shot in 10 years)

Another swim meet (my daughter's final competition before her state meet on 3/20-3/22)

I wonder if I'll really watch any movies.

[Amnesiac]

Kind of random, but...


"I'm one of the few directors - it seems like a dying art - that actually shoot a lot in the camera" - Michael Bay.

Can someone explain this quote for me? Does he mean that he prefers not to use camera operators?

[number8]

Kind of random, but...


"I'm one of the few directors - it seems like a dying art - that actually shoot a lot in the camera" - Michael Bay.

Can someone explain this quote for me? Does he mean that he prefers not to use camera operators?

I think it means he likes practical effects? As in, actually blowing shit up on set?

[Amnesiac]

I think it means he likes practical effects? As in, actually blowing shit up on set?

I guess that makes sense.

[megladon8]

Haven't seen the movie, but a friend on another forum posted this, and I really like this poster...

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd6/Schlockpocalypse/banl.jpg


...I love the strong '70s vibe.

[Kurious Jorge v3.1]

Meanwhile, I don't really have anything to say about Chinese Roulette (though its characters sure did). Just didn't feel inspired or impassioned in anyway, despite Fassbinder's mise-en-scene and camerawork being as meticulous as ever.

Peer Raben's score is about the only good thing about this film. Anna Karina looks like a gypsy hag in this film (not a compliment). The worst Fassbinder film I have seen by far.

[balmakboor]

Peer Raben's score is about the only good thing about this film. Anna Karina looks like a gypsy hag in this film (not a compliment). The worst Fassbinder film I have seen by far.

I would say it's also my least favorite Fassbinder. He got too hung up on the complexity of his mise-en-scene and forgot to make it engaging in any other way. I even like his much maligned Rio Das Mortes much better. At least that film has the memorable scene of Fassbinder and Schygulla dancing to Elvis on a jukebox.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Meanwhile, I don't really have anything to say about Chinese Roulette (though its characters sure did). Just didn't feel inspired or impassioned in anyway, despite Fassbinder's mise-en-scene and camerawork being as meticulous as ever.

Man I hated this movie.

Where the hell is Derek so I can yell at him again?

[Rowland]

...I love the strong '70s vibe.It's just too bad that single image is more evocative than any visual moment in the actual movie, but it's passably entertaining all the same.

[Derek]

Man I hated this movie.

Where the hell is Derek so I can yell at him again?

Are we going there again!? I'd say your bailing on our Wire/Deadwood trade and the film swap is more than enough revenge on your part. :)

I'd give it a 7.0 and found it engaging outside of its mise-en-scene, but it's been too long for me to go into much detail. I never did or would recommend this to someone who was not already a Fassbinder fan and maintain my innocence in the charges against me. At this point, I might check it out again so I can muster up a defense of it.

[Yxklyx]

I thought Chinese Roulette was fine. The one I hate is The Niklashausen Journey. I found Satan's Brew a bit tedious after a while.

Rate Fassbinder's films from 1970:

Why Does Herr R. Run Amok? - 8
Gods of the Plague - 6
The American Soldier - 3
The Niklashausen Journey - 1

[MadMan]

Good timing, buddy. (http://www.miamiherald.com/news/breaking-news/story/933065.html)This is why you do not post drunk. Um....my bad....yeah....

[balmakboor]

Rate Fassbinder's films from 1970:

Why Does Herr R. Run Amok? - 10
Gods of the Plague - 7
The American Soldier - 8
The Niklashausen Journey - 5

I'll go right down the middle on NJ. It's been a long time for me, but I do remember enjoying its long take approach and its relationship to his anti-theater roots. Ultimately, it's an experiment though that he thankfully learned from and didn't repeat. American Soldier though is, I think, the apex of his "gangster trilogy."

My favorite early experiments from F are Herr R. (which I actually identify with to a scary degree) and Whity.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Are we going there again!? I'd say your bailing on our Wire/Deadwood trade and the film swap is more than enough revenge on your part. :)

Deadwood is on its way from Netflix, so you can stop holding that over my head!

[Derek]

I've only seen 20% of the films Fassbinder directed in 1970. :)

Why Does Herr R. Run Amok? - 8.0

Glad to see some love for this one.

[Winston*]

You should make Deadwood a family viewing event IMO, KF.

[Derek]

Deadwood is on its way from Netflix, so you can stop holding that over my head!

It's for your own good, KF. The show is great!

[Qrazy]

Bobcat Goldthwait is so fucked up. But it's grown on me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTZthUTYPQ0

[Bosco B Thug]

I just saved all of you ninety minutes, because The Dunwich Horror was boring as hell, and I know it was at the top of many a queue. It's definitely not a good film, but I watched this not too long ago and was sufficiently entertained. I thought it was amusingly pretentious, which I attributed to the director formerly being an art designer. He pulls off some good moments, though - it's a good-looking and well-photographed film, and I really enjoyed Dean Stockwell's performance. I said it once and I'll say it again: Sandra Dee really gets it stuck to her in this film, though; the whole thing is pretty much about her getting date-raped continuously throughout the running time!

WEEKEND: Sexy Beast, Pierrot Le Fou

[Dead & Messed Up]

It's definitely not a good film, but I watched this not too long ago and was sufficiently entertained. I thought it was amusingly pretentious, which I attributed to the director formerly being an art designer. He pulls off some good moments, though - it's a good-looking and well-photographed film, and I really enjoyed Dean Stockwell's performance. I said it once and I'll say it again: Sandra Dee really gets it stuck to her in this film, though; the whole thing is pretty much about her getting date-raped continuously throughout the running time!

There were a few creative and/or lovely little moments, but I need more than that. Call me selfish.

[Rowland]

Well huh, I didn't expect Dellamorte Dellamore to be so... existential. I'm slightly underwhelmed in contrast to my heightened expectations, but maybe I just went into it expecting something different, because as a genre piece it has proven remarkably difficult for me to pin down. I felt distanced by the whole thing, but its imagery is often lavishly evocative, its unorthodox tonal modulations are audacious (if not always all that successful), its thematic ambitions are strikingly outsized, and it remains compelling throughout, in large part because I had no idea where it was going right up until the very end, which in retrospect wasn't as far out of left field as it felt at the time. I suspect another viewing would further improve my feelings towards the film.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Well huh, I didn't expect Dellamorte Dellamore to be so... existential. I'm slightly underwhelmed in contrast to my heightened expectations, but maybe I just went into it expecting something different, because as a genre piece it has proven remarkably difficult for me to pin down. I felt distanced by the whole thing, but its imagery is often lavishly evocative, its unorthodox tonal modulations are audacious (if not always all that successful), its thematic ambitions are strikingly outsized, and it remains compelling throughout, in large part because I had no idea where it was going right up until the very end, which in retrospect wasn't as far out of left field as it felt at the time. I suspect another viewing would further improve my feelings towards the film.

After my feelings settled from the initial viewing, I was (and continue to be) completely intoxicated by the film.

[Yxklyx]

I have to say. They Live is now my favorite John Carpenter film. Loads of fun, looks great, excellent script and ideas, not to mention Meg Foster playing a transvestite. Now, why didn't Watashi like it so much - seems it would be right up his alley.

[Yxklyx]

I've only seen 20% of the films Fassbinder directed in 1970. :)

Why Does Herr R. Run Amok? - 8.0

Glad to see some love for this one.

Hmm, seems like he had 5 films that year. The last one is The Coffeehouse. Dammit, when is that going to be released!

[megladon8]

Well huh, I didn't expect Dellamorte Dellamore to be so... existential. I'm slightly underwhelmed in contrast to my heightened expectations, but maybe I just went into it expecting something different, because as a genre piece it has proven remarkably difficult for me to pin down. I felt distanced by the whole thing, but its imagery is often lavishly evocative, its unorthodox tonal modulations are audacious (if not always all that successful), its thematic ambitions are strikingly outsized, and it remains compelling throughout, in large part because I had no idea where it was going right up until the very end, which in retrospect wasn't as far out of left field as it felt at the time. I suspect another viewing would further improve my feelings towards the film.


I was torn with this one too, Rowland...but mostly (and in a simpler vein than you, I think) because I found its going back and forth between near-slapstick, dark comedy, and all-out horror to be jumpy at best.

I was left with the same feeling at the end as you, in that I think I liked what I saw, but just had to see it again with "different glasses" on.

We should coordinate a second viewing of the film one day, then both write about it afterwards :)

[D_Davis]

I love Dellamorte Dellamore, so much. It's a genre-busting freak out.

[balmakboor]

Hmm, seems like he had 5 films that year. The last one is The Coffeehouse. Dammit, when is that going to be released!

The Coffeehouse is a television movie. The Fassbinder Foundation is slowly rolling those out -- if good materials still exist. His science fiction/virtual reality two-part series World on a Wire is being restored right now.

I would expect Eight Hours are Not a Day to be next.

http://www.fassbinderfoundation.de/PDF/Newsletter2005-2009_en.pdf

What I'm dying to see is Despair.

[D_Davis]

A Lonely Cow Weeps at Dawn
http://www.hkflix.com/xq/asp/filmID.549673/qx/details.htm


A young widow, Noriko, lives with her senile father-in-law, Shukichi, on a farm. He believes his favorite cow, long gone, is still alive. So Noriko pretends to be the cow and lets him milk her--a satisfying arrangement for them both...

[Qrazy]

A Lonely Cow Weeps at Dawn
http://www.hkflix.com/xq/asp/filmID.549673/qx/details.htm

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1155765/

[megladon8]

*sigh*

...only in Japan.

[Sycophant]

Thanks for the heads-up, Qrazy. Somehow, that Ishii film dropped off my radar. I'll have to import it soon. And looking into that has revealed that Kore-eda Hirokazu has something new out, too, Still Walking. Awesome.

I'm also curious about this Lonely Cow Weeps at Dawn. I've been meaning to watch more Japanese pink films and it looks like this one has a pretty good reputation. Should probably catch up with the Wakamatsu I've got lying around first, though.

[number8]

I find pink films pretty boring in their genre apings. I think I much prefer HK sex comedies.

[D_Davis]

I find pink films pretty boring in their genre apings. I think I much prefer HK sex comedies.

I don't know if I prefer one over the other, but Sex and Zen is an awesome movie.

[Sycophant]

Well, I haven't watched all that much of either (though I've been trying to track down a good English subtitled copy of Sex & Zen for a while now), but Go Go Second Time Virgin was pretty great.

[MadMan]

I have to say. They Live is now my favorite John Carpenter film. Loads of fun, looks great, excellent script and ideas, not to mention Meg Foster playing a transvestite. Now, why didn't Watashi like it so much - seems it would be right up his alley.I really want to see it again, as I remember loving the hell out of it. Just a good, campy pulp film that also seems to be Carpenter's commentary on the Reagan era and the 1980s in general. It also sports what I consider to be the greatest street fight, ever. All over a pair of sunglasses.

[Rowland]

I'm a huge Carpenter fan, but They Live has always struck me as his weakest pre-90's effort.

[Qrazy]

I'm a huge Carpenter fan, but They Live has always struck me as his weakest pre-90's effort.

It ranks in the upper middle of his filmography for me... personally I prefer it slightly to all of the below.

# Prince of Darkness (1987)
# Big Trouble in Little China (1986)
# Starman (1984)
# Christine (1983)
# The Fog (1980)
# Dark Star (1974)

[Rowland]

I've always found its pacing sludgy, the lead performance by Roddy Piper terribly uncharismatic, the rock score generic, and the direction unpolished, portending the declining formal aptitude of his later work. It still has many charms of course.

They Live < Prince of Darkness < Christine < Big Trouble in Little China < The Fog

[Qrazy]

I've always found its pacing sludgy, the lead performance by Roddy Piper terribly uncharismatic, the rock score generic, and the direction unpolished, portending the declining formal aptitude of his later work. It still has many charms of course.

They Live > Prince of Darkness > Christine > Big Trouble in Little China > The Fog

Do you mean that the other way around?

[Rowland]

Do you mean that the other way around?
Oops. Indeed I did.

[Sven]

I've always found its pacing sludgy, the lead performance by Roddy Piper terribly uncharismatic, the rock score generic, and the direction unpolished, portending the declining formal aptitude of his later work.

The final reason with which I will describe my withdrawal from being a proliferate presence here is because I was tired of being around so many wrong opinions so frequently.

[Rowland]

The final reason with which I will describe my withdrawal from being a proliferate presence here is because I was tired of being around so many wrong opinions so frequently.Watch your words buddy. I'm one of the few around here who shares your enthusiasm for Escape From LA. ;)

[Dead & Messed Up]

I'm a huge Carpenter fan, but They Live has always struck me as his weakest pre-90's effort.

Hrm. It's definitely not his strongest, but I'd consider The Fog his least impressive: a humdrum, pedestrian affair. Technically well done, to be sure.

The Thing > Big Trouble in Little China > Starman > They Live > Christine > Escape from New York > Prince of Darkness > The Fog

[megladon8]

I'd rank Carpenter like this...

Halloween
The Thing
Prince of Darkness
Masters of Horror: Cigarette Burns
In the Mouth of Madness
Vampires
Ghosts of Mars
They Live
The Fog
Escape From New York
Big Trouble in Little China
Masters of Horror: Pro-Life


So yeah, They Live is around middle-tier Carpenter.

And I still have no shame in really enjoying Ghosts of Mars. That movie is fun, fun, fun.

"Cigarette Burns" is the best MoH I've seen, and it's better than about 80% of feature-length horror films out there.

[Raiders]

Assault on Precinct 13 > The Thing > Halloween > Prince of Darkness > They Live > In the Mouth of Madness > Starman > Escape from L.A. > Dark Star > Escape from New York > Vampires > The Fog > Big Trouble in Little China > Village of the Damned > Ghosts of Mars

Still need to see Christine.

[Qrazy]

Assault on Precinct 13 > The Thing > Halloween > Prince of Darkness > They Live > In the Mouth of Madness > Starman > Escape from L.A. > Dark Star > Escape from New York > Vampires > The Fog > Big Trouble in Little China > Village of the Damned > Ghosts of Mars

Still need to see Christine.

I think you'll like it. Judging by your rankings I'm going to guess less than Halloween but somewhere above Starman.

[balmakboor]

I haven't seen much Carpenter, but Halloween and Christine are great and Starman and Big Trouble are pretty good but not so great.

[Sven]

Watch your words buddy. I'm one of the few around here who shares your enthusiasm for Escape From LA. ;)

That movie's fucking awesome.

[D_Davis]

So I just heard on a podcast that the new Blu-Ray of Akira is presented in Hyperaudio. This new kind of audio transmits subliminal frequencies that trick the viewer into having a more robust and engaging experience with the movie, thus perceiving the audio and video to be more, er, hyper or something. I guess it's some new kind of tech, or, er, something. I guess there is a thing about it in the liner notes.

Anyone have this?

I guess you need special hyperaudio speakers or something....

[D_Davis]

My turn:

The Thing
Big Trouble in Little China
Starman
Prince of Darkness
Assault on Precinct 13
Vampires
In the Mouth of Madness
Escape from New York
They Live
Halloween
The Fog
Ghosts of Mars
Village of the Damned

[megladon8]

So I just heard on a podcast that the new Blu-Ray of Akira is presented in Hyperaudio. This new kind of audio transmits subliminal frequencies that trick the viewer into having a more robust and engaging experience with the movie, thus perceiving the audio and video to be more, er, hyper or something. I guess it's some new kind of tech, or, er, something. I guess there is a thing about it in the liner notes.

Anyone have this?

I guess you need special hyperaudio speakers or something....


That...kind of sounds like bullshit.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Separated between good and bad with the space break.

Halloween
The Thing
Cigarette Burns
In the Mouth of Madness
Big Trouble in Little China
Assault on Precinct 13
Starman
They Live
Christine

Escape from New York
Prince of Darkness
The Fog
Ghosts of Mars
Vampires
Village of the Damned
Pro-Life

[Qrazy]

It seems that many of you have not seen Christine.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Ta Da:

Halloween
The Thing
Assault on Precinct 13
Big Trouble in Little China
In the Mouth of Madness
Vampires
Escape from New York
Christine
Ghosts of Mars
The Fog

The only two I actively dislike are the last two.

EDIT: Basically the top five on my list I consider great films. The next three are good. The bottom two are horrid.

[D_Davis]

The Fog is crap. I found it hilarious when fans started bitching about the remake, as if the original is some great horror film or something.

[Yxklyx]

I'm a bit surprised of the lack of enthusiasm for They Live. Of his films for me this has the most interesting/entertaining story. I had no problems with any of the acting - I especially liked Meg Foster's performance. I loved the music. The film looked very crisp. The big fight scene was stupendous and hilarious. I liked the whole mood of the film - it didn't take itself too seriously as well. The ending was very memorable. The Thing and Halloween come close. I've also seen Christine, Escape from New York, and Assault on Precinct 13.

[Scar]

Watch your words buddy. I'm one of the few around here who shares your enthusiasm for Escape From LA. ;)

Five times in the theatres. FIVE. TIMES.

[Winston*]

I think The Fog is good.

[Scar]

I'm a huge Carpenter fan, but They Live has always struck me as his weakest pre-90's effort.

I've tried to like that movie, but it just doesn't work for me. The long ass street fight is hilarious, but the rest of the movie just doesn't work too well.

[Watashi]

I like They Live. I just wouldn't call it great.

1. Starman
2. Assault on Precinct 13
3. The Thing
4. They Live
5. Escape from New York
6. Big Trouble in Little China

Need to see more.

[D_Davis]

I think The Fog is good.

I think you're good.

[Winston*]

I think you're good.

*hugs*

[Qrazy]

Very good to Great

# The Thing (1982)
# Halloween (1978)
# Assault on Precinct 13 (1976)
# Escape from New York (1981)

OK to Good

# They Live (1988)
# Christine (1983)
# Prince of Darkness (1987)
# In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
# Starman (1984)
# Dark Star (1974)

Weak to Bad

# Escape from L.A. (1996)
# The Fog (1980)
# Big Trouble in Little China (1986)
# Vampires (1998)

[Yxklyx]

LOVE THEY LIVE

[Pop Trash]

I'll play just cuz I'm bored. This is completely subjective and often ruled by good or bad memories of the movies in the 80s/90s:

1. They Live
2. Halloween
3. Starman
4. Christine
5. Prince of Darkness
6. The Thing
7. Memoirs of an Invisible Man
8. Big Trouble in Little China
9. Vampires
10. Village of the Damned

[Ivan Drago]

The Thing 8.5
Halloween 8
Christine 7.5

I want to see Escape From New York and Assault on Precinct 13.

[Rowland]

So much hate for The Fog. It's one of his most intoxicatingly atmospheric pictures, stunningly composed in a formal sense, operating with a dream logic I find irresistible, and it's as deceptively political as most Carpenter pictures. I think I'm its biggest fan here. *shrug* Anyway...

1. Halloween
2. Assault on Precinct 13
3. The Fog
4. The Thing
5. Big Trouble in Little China
6. Escape From LA
7. Escape From NY
8. Christine
9. Someone's Watching Me!
10. Prince of Darkness
11. They Live
12. In the Mouth of Madness
13. Vampires
14. Ghosts of Mars

[Winston*]

The Fog. It's one of his most intoxicatingly atmospheric pictures...
lolololol

[Qrazy]

Stunningly composed in a formal sense,

This is where I disagree.

http://a4.vox.com/6a00cdf7e37f6d094f00e398b79bbc 0005-500pi

I find weak compositions such as the above plague the film.

[Amnesiac]

Why is that shot weakly composed?

[Rowland]

This is where I disagree.

http://a4.vox.com/6a00cdf7e37f6d094f00e398b79bbc 0005-500pi

I find weak compositions such as the above plague the film.That doesn't look like 2.35:1 anamorphic widescreen to me.

[transmogrifier]

Carpenter is one of those weird directors who is justly ignored by most middle-of-the-road movie watchers but inexplicably celebrated by cineastes without any apparent ironical distance. He's a really poor director who every now and then stumbles across an entertaining B-movie script.

[Winston*]

Carpenter is one of those weird directors who is justly ignored by most middle-of-the-road movie watchers but inexplicably celebrated by cineastes without any apparent ironical distance. He's a really poor director who every now and then stumbles across an entertaining B-movie script.

You think Halloween and The Thing's strengths are in the script?

[Rowland]

Kitamura unsurprisingly squandered most of the potential inherent to The Midnight Meat Train's source material, but it's almost passable for exuberantly stylized slasher mayhem and an admirable courage of conviction in its brazenly fatalistic final reel. Still, a more convincingly omnipresent sense of existential dread would have been preferable to the gimmicky murders and camera trickery, which results in tonal schizophrenia, and it feels padded even at 90 minutes. This either needed to be played straighter, requiring more fleshed out writing and disciplined direction, or goofier, in which case Kitamura could have made the sort of movie I suspect he wanted to.

[transmogrifier]

You think Halloween and The Thing's strengths are in the script?

Not really a fan of Halloween, so that's moot, and The Thing has a good premise and a script that doesn't get in the way of that. Carpenter keeps out of the way as well.

[The Mike]

1.Halloween
2. Assault on Precinct 13
3. Escape from New York
4. The Thing
5. Prince of Darkness
6. Big Trouble in Little China
7. They Live
8. Christine
9. The Fog
10. Starman
11. Vampires
12. Dark Star
13. In the Mouth of Madness
14. Ghosts of Mars
15. Escape from L.A.
16. Cigarette Burns
17. Pro-Life
18. Village of the Damned
19. Someone's Watching Me!
20. Body Bags
21. Memoirs of an Invisible Man

Love the Top 8, Like the next 8, Not a fan of the rest. Need to find Elvis.

[Qrazy]

That doesn't look like 2.35:1 anamorphic widescreen to me.

Sizing aside, the positioning of the characters in the frame and the general layout of objects in the frame remains the same.

[Rowland]

Oh yeah, and I nearly forgot that I watched Sex Drive two days ago. That about says it all.

[Qrazy]

Why is that shot weakly composed?

Because it's off-kilter and somewhat flattened but to no apparent end. The placement of the characters side by side like that is visually monotonous. Staggering them or opting in favor of greater symmetry would make for a more striking composition.

[Qrazy]

Carpenter is one of those weird directors who is justly ignored by most middle-of-the-road movie watchers but inexplicably celebrated by cineastes without any apparent ironical distance. He's a really poor director who every now and then stumbles across an entertaining B-movie script.

I find his films are almost always entertaining but his strengths are pacing and finding dread in the mundane. His best films are also terrifically shot.

http://tenpercent.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/kurt-russell-john-carpenter-the-thing11.jpg

[Bosco B Thug]

There were a few creative and/or lovely little moments, but I need more than that. Call me selfish. No no, TDH definitely is lacking. No disagreement here. Multi-color light tinting acting as literal manifestation of the creature attack is a nice, thoughtful Lovecraftian conceptualization, but in execution, Daniel Haller definitely fails.


lolololol Maybe it has been too long since I first saw the film, but I remember The Fog being pretty damn elegant, visually and tonally. I've always assumed there was consensus that The Fog was Carpenter going for unabashed polish and class, even if it is weightless in any other aspect. But again, maybe it's really been too long since I first saw it.


Carpenter is one of those weird directors who is justly ignored by most middle-of-the-road movie watchers but inexplicably celebrated by cineastes without any apparent ironical distance. He's a really poor director who every now and then stumbles across an entertaining B-movie script. Really? There are tons of should-be-a-blast B-movie-type films out there that are complete duds. It's Carpenter's mastery of directing that gives his films their thrills and affects that's given him such a critical and popular following.


Not really a fan of Halloween, so that's moot, and The Thing has a good premise and a script that doesn't get in the way of that. Carpenter keeps out of the way as well. So what makes his films so revered? Ironical distance only goes so far.

In any case, I'm actually a bit lukewarm on Carpenter myself, so I'm not meaning to argue your negative feelings on Carpenter as a director, but even if he's not a tantalizingly think-outside-the-box filmmaker, you make it sound like he's a schlockmeister who just lucked out when it's actually very hard (I've tried) to argue that Halloween (or Christine) doesn't prove quite the contrary.

My take on him: Carpenter's cool and all, my favorite being 'Assault' and my least favorite (of what I've seen) being 'In the Mouth of Madness,' but I've always considered him a master craftsman - but little more. I've never felt compelled to go back and dig deeper underneath one of his films. My recent viewing of Christine, though, tempers that ambivalence - I was surprised by that film's dramatic verve, and I did gather a caustic sensibility behind it. But Halloween, while awesomely unnerving, I struggle to extract much meaning from the film outside its function as a slick, well-oiled machine-type film. Same with The Thing, whose pessimism and bleakness is a sensibility, but one which just sort of sits on the surface. Those two films just benefit from being so epic and ambitious (technically). Even what I could label "striking imagery" in those two watermark films (e.g. dogs brutally splitting open, hellish creatures in a dank mess hall, etc.) seem merely mechanical and indebted to the plot, and its hard to pinpoint any emotional prerogative behind his films.

Anyway, my unreliable rankings:

1. Assault on Precinct 13 - 8.5
2. Halloween - 8
4. Christine - 7
5. The Thing - 7
6. The Fog - 7
7. Big Trouble in Little China - 6.5
8. Escape from New York - 6
9. In the Mouth of Madness - 4.5


Because it's off-kilter and somewhat flattened but to no apparent end. The placement of the characters side by side like that is visually monotonous. Staggering them or opting in favor of greater symmetry would make for a more striking composition. I see... I was confused as well; you make it seem like there's some definitive way a shot should be composed without context of the film, taking a shot that seems likely to have been given some considerable effort and thought by the director to tear apart. But your critiques are valid, even if it deprives Carpenter of the benefit of the doubt (which I think he deserves), that he did in fact consider staggering to ghosts, or being more symmetrical (it looks pretty symmetrical to me...). If I think of what the problems might be with the overall film, your critiques do gain even more ground. E.g., the film is an inconsequential, innocuous "ghosts on the prowl" horror flick, I can definitely see how any alleged flatness and banality in shot compositions could make the villains look like men in bad Halloween costumes, which I kind of get from that single still picture.

[Amnesiac]

Because it's off-kilter and somewhat flattened but to no apparent end. The placement of the characters side by side like that is visually monotonous. Staggering them or opting in favor of greater symmetry would make for a more striking composition.

I haven't seen the film, but I would think that purposively "off-kilter and somewhat flattened" or "visually monotonous" compositions can work given the right circumstances. In fact, I can see how in the right circumstances, a shot like the one above may not be "striking" in the sense that you prefer but perhaps effectively disconcerting. But, you think this kind of composition isn't going for any deliberate affect or aim, so, I guess that's your criticism.

[Bosco B Thug]

His best films are also terrifically shot. Right! Although I'm off-put by the fact that I may have put The Fog under this grouping of "his best (terrifically shot!)" for a good number of years and be actually well off-the-mark.

The Fog's opening credits. I remember being wowed by the opening credits in the ghostly empty city streets. Everyone agrees those opening credits are awesome, right? No?

[Winston*]

Maybe it has been too long since I first saw the film, but I remember The Fog being pretty damn elegant, visually and tonally. I've always assumed there was consensus that The Fog was Carpenter going for unabashed polish and class, even if it is weightless in any other aspect. But again, maybe it's really been too long since I first saw it.


My prior "lolololol" was referring to Rowland's inadvertent atmospheric pun when discussing The Fog.

[Ezee E]

Watched Twilight Zone: The Movie, and while the Lithgow on a Plane segment was the best before, I never really remembered the others.

All are great.

[Rowland]

Maybe it has been too long since I first saw the film, but I remember The Fog being pretty damn elegant, visually and tonally. I've always assumed there was consensus that The Fog was Carpenter going for unabashed polish and class, even if it is weightless in any other aspect. But again, maybe it's really been too long since I first saw it.
Nah, you're right, and that is the general critical consensus. Carpenter was shooting for a horror movie more along the lines of a classical ghost story with an extra heaping of pulp. It's gorgeously evocative from beginning to end as far as I'm concerned, and the score isn't as immediately unsettling as Halloween's, but just as haunted in its appropriately low-key way.

[Rowland]

The Fog's opening credits. I remember being wowed by the opening credits in the ghostly empty city streets. Everyone agrees those opening credits are awesome, right? No?
http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/7382/thefog1980pic1.jpg

[Bosco B Thug]

My prior "lolololol" was referring to Rowland's inadvertent atmospheric pun when discussing The Fog. Ooh yeah, way too subtle for me, apparently. It really is pretty funny looking at it now (despite it also being a respectably not-humorous use of critical descriptors, of course).

lolololol

[Qrazy]

I see... I was confused as well; you make it seem like there's some definitive way a shot should be composed without context of the film, taking a shot that seems likely to have been given some considerable effort and thought by the director to tear apart. But your critiques are valid, even if it deprives Carpenter of the benefit of the doubt (which I think he deserves), that he did in fact consider staggering to ghosts, or being more symmetrical (it looks pretty symmetrical to me...). If I think of what the problems might be with the overall film, your critiques do gain even more ground. E.g., the film is an inconsequential, innocuous "ghosts on the prowl" horror flick, I can definitely see how any alleged flatness and banality in shot compositions could make the villains look like men in bad Halloween costumes, which I kind of get from that single still picture.

No of course there isn't a single way a shot should be composed, but I find it odd how strikingly uneven Carpenter's cinematography can be from film to film. What elevates Assault on Precinct 13 for me personally is the lighting. Carpenter's use of shadows in many of the interior shots creates some absolutely masterful minimal imagery. Contrast that work with something like Vampires and the laziness of the visual execution in the latter film sticks out like a sore thumb.

The Fog isn't all bad on a visual level but I just remember being repeatedly underwhelmed by much of what I saw. Even if I gave Carpenter the benefit of the doubt in terms of thematic justifications for such imagery the image still does not work on an aesthetic level. Obviously that is a very contentious issue and arguing aesthetics is akin to arguing taste in food. Beyond form/content comparisons I can only speak to that which I find aesthetically pleasing. Someone asked me once why I love Andrei Rublev. There are many reasons but foremost among them is that I find it to be stunningly visually beautiful. Sometimes I try to articulate what it is about the composition or lighting of an image that seems to work so well, but ultimately I find aesthetic judgments are something which hit you in the gut.

[Bosco B Thug]

Nah, you're right, and that is the general critical consensus. Carpenter was shooting for a horror movie more along the lines of a classical ghost story with an extra heaping of pulp. It's gorgeously evocative from beginning to end as far as I'm concerned, and the score isn't as immediately unsettling as Halloween's, but just as haunted in its appropriately low-key way. Ooh, so The Fog not being classy enough for Match-Cut is the conclusion we're all headed toward.

[Qrazy]

I haven't seen the film, but I would think that purposively "off-kilter and somewhat flattened" or "visually monotonous" compositions can work given the right circumstances. In fact, I can see how in the right circumstances, a shot like the one above may not be "striking" in the sense that you prefer but perhaps effectively disconcerting. But, you think this kind of composition isn't going for any deliberate affect or aim, so, I guess that's your criticism.

Yeah Bosco summed it up for me in that the banality of the composition gave the scene a hokey vibe. Carpenter works hard at building atmosphere in other ways to preserve an ominous sentiment but the shot framing really isn't helping anything.

[Derek]

Mark me down as a fan of The Fog. I agree with Rowland that it's incredibly atmospheric and outside of The Thing, it's his most impressive visual achievement. How anyone can watch these films and see poor compositions or the absence of a directorial stamp is beyond me.

1) The Thing
2) Assault on Precinct 13
3) They Live
4) Christine
5) The Fog
6) Halloween
7) Vampires
8) Escape from New York
9) Dark Star

[Bosco B Thug]

No of course there isn't a single way a shot should be composed, but I find it odd how strikingly uneven Carpenter's cinematography can be from film to film. What elevates Assault on Precinct 13 for me personally is the lighting. Carpenter's use of shadows in many of the interior shots creates some absolutely masterful minimal imagery. Contrast that work with something like Vampires and the laziness of the visual execution in the latter film sticks out like a sore thumb.

The Fog isn't all bad on a visual level but I just remember being repeatedly underwhelmed by much of what I saw. Even if I gave Carpenter the benefit of the doubt in terms of thematic justifications for such imagery the image still does not work on an aesthetic level. Obviously that is a very contentious issue and arguing aesthetics is akin to arguing taste in food. Beyond form/content comparisons I can only speak to that which I find aesthetically pleasing. Someone asked me once why I love Andrei Rublev. There are many reasons but foremost among them is that I find it to be stunningly visually beautiful. Sometimes I try to articulate what it is about the composition or lighting of an image that seems to work so well, but ultimately I find aesthetic judgments are something which hit you in the gut. Got it. I can relate, in that my attachments to many genre-trapped films lessens when viewing them, say, in the midst of a viewing-spree of Tarkovsky, or Godard, etc.

[Ezee E]

Going back to Twilight Zone, I'll say that what Spielberg does here is ten times better than what he tries to do over again in Hook. Maybe it's the Scatman Crothers.

All four are wonderful though on their own. It might be the best "multi-director" movie I can think of.

[Rowland]

Flight of the Red Balloon (Hou Hsiao-hsien, 2008) 78

The best I've seen by Hou, this is a gorgeously impressionistic ode to the power of art as a balm for the drudgery of the mundane, a means of expression for the physically/emotionally dislocated, and a universal source of communication that defies cultural and generational rifts, anchored by Juliette Binoche's impassioned performance and Hou's breathtakingly calibrated formal mastery, all reflective surfaces and a deceptively straightforward technique that proves slyly expressive, so that every movement and cut feels ripe with meaning. I could just watch lovely footage of the red balloon, itself an obvious but elegant metaphor, floating all about Paris, the contrast between its stark red and the earthly color scheme of the city a sight to behold, but this is a thematically loaded picture that I imagine offering something new with each viewing, as every work of art as multi-faceted and generous as this one does. Hell, Hou somehow manages to make the mere discovery of a heretofore hidden room of the apartment that most of the film resides in feel profound with a single elegant motion of his camera. And best of all, there isn't a single malicious bone in its body, purely humanistic without ever condescending to the audience. Just fantastic... writing about this in retrospect, I'm tempted now to raise my score even higher, but another viewing is warranted just to be safe. There was a scene or two I felt could have been condensed or excised entirely, and I was split about the blatantly surrogate function of the Chinese nanny character, however appropriate given the nature of the project.

[dreamdead]

Took in Quarantine, and I think my threshold for stories told blatantly through the use of a subjective, documentary-style camera has hit its peak. Between this and fare like The Zombie Diaries, which similarly aims for verisimilitude, it's becoming too rote to shock anymore. The film does play with our knowledge of the shock scare without exploiting it cheaply too much, but this whole tradition of the nihilistic ending, where our last character is pulled away from the camera, is dead to me and holds no impact. While the finale nicely exploits our sense of primal survival, the last frame, done in the stereotypical night-vision green-tinting, is too cheap and simplistic for the story's arc. If I wasn't totally tired of this trend, I'd be curious to see how Rec. finishes up to see its handling...

[megladon8]

Took in Quarantine, and I think my threshold for stories told blatantly through the use of a subjective, documentary-style camera has hit its peak. Between this and fare like The Zombie Diaries, which similarly aims for verisimilitude, it's becoming too rote to shock anymore. The film does play with our knowledge of the shock scare without exploiting it cheaply too much, but this whole tradition of the nihilistic ending, where our last character is pulled away from the camera, is dead to me and holds no impact. While the finale nicely exploits our sense of primal survival, the last frame, done in the stereotypical night-vision green-tinting, is too cheap and simplistic for the story's arc. If I wasn't totally tired of this trend, I'd be curious to see how Rec. finishes up to see its handling...


Apparently [REC] is very much worth seeing, even if one hates this trend in horror and/or hated Quarantine.

Some people are calling it a new horror classic, like The Descent.

I'll let you know how it is in a couple of days :)