28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[MacGuffin]

Something incredible happened yesterday. We were walking with my friend when we stumbled across eight garbage bags filled with old VHS. There was everything in there, from hilariously titled porn (Catgirl and Batwoman) to obscure '70s and '80s classics. So we started shuffling around and soon we were walking with two full bags. I'll be making a return to VHS technology just to watch all this stuff.

That's awesome. I wish something like that would happen to me. VHS collecting is sweet, although I don't do it. You should have taken everything because some of these VHS tapes people look for are ultra-rare, and plus the covers for the stupid stuff usually redeems the lack of quality overall.

[megladon8]

What the hell is with Clive Owen's face on the revised artwork for The International DVD?? (http://www.dvdactive.com/news/releases/the-international.html)

[Ezee E]

Oceans Trailer (http://www.apple.com/trailers/disney/oceans/)

Not worth its own thread, but worth looking for the action shot of three penguins hopping from the water onto the ice like they're Batman. I died laughing.

[Sven]

Oceans Trailer (http://www.apple.com/trailers/disney/oceans/)

Not worth its own thread, but worth looking for the action shot of three penguins hopping from the water onto the ice like they're Batman. I died laughing.

I think it looks pretty boss.

[megladon8]

I thought Quantum of Solace was pretty OK. I didn't think it was as effective as Casino Royale, but it had some spectacular action sequences.

I just felt that Bond lost some of his human relatability, which was odd since the film is based on the very human emotion of revenge. It seems Olga Kurylenko's only purpose was to provide that human connection for the audiences.

Thematically it could have worked, to see Bond lose this humanity. But it was like the movie had a "class overdrive" - the nice suits, cars, banquets, rich folk. It made Bond and his world unrelatable to most of the population, so combining that with his inhumanity made it hard to sympathize with him on any level at all.

Mathieu Almaric was good as he always is, but didn't really have much to do here.

All in all I thought it was OK. Could have been better, but was far from being bad.

[balmakboor]

I'm having a lot of fun discovering the '70s work of John Boorman. Watched Exorcist II: The Heretic tonight and found it a beautiful and fascinating movie. I know that, if I was given the choice of re-watching it or Friedkin's original, I'd pick Boorman's film. It is 100x more visually interesting for starters.

Can't wait to see Excalibur tomorrow.

On another note, I watched Craig Baldwin's Mock Up on Mu today (he made Sonic Outlaws) and found it to clearly be his masterpiece. His form of paranoid science fiction by way of recycled found footage has reached its zenith of creativity -- only close to equalled by his Tribulation 99. Mock Up on Mu had me marveling at the genius and perfection of its editing at every moment.

Its main characters include L. Ron Hubbard, Lockheed Martin, Jack Parsons, and Aleister Crowley and it is set partially in Las Vegas and partially on the moon and partially in lots of other places. It includes footage from Star Trek, Japanese monster movies by Ishiro Honda, North by Northwest, Inauguration of the Pleasure Dome, and various obscure films noir along with all sorts of delightfully dated educational science films.

And yes, it's just as loopy and mind-boggling and interesting as that hopefully sounds. It even uses musical cues from Once Upon a Time in the West.

[balmakboor]

Oceans Trailer (http://www.apple.com/trailers/disney/oceans/)

Not worth its own thread, but worth looking for the action shot of three penguins hopping from the water onto the ice like they're Batman. I died laughing.

I saw Earth today. Gorgeous movie although I did have some problems. A local alternative monthly asked me to review it for their next issue so I'll have to spit out a review somehow by tomorrow night.

[BuffaloWilder]

I saw Earth today. Gorgeous movie although I did have some problems. A local alternative monthly asked me to review it for their next issue so I'll have to spit out a review somehow by tomorrow night.

Be overly cynical. Just be as mean-spirited as you can. You'll thank me.

[Sven]

I'm having a lot of fun discovering the '70s work of John Boorman. Watched Exorcist II: The Heretic tonight and found it a beautiful and fascinating movie. I know that, if I was given the choice of re-watching it or Friedkin's original, I'd pick Boorman's film. It is 100x more visually interesting for starters.

You are officially my new favorite Match Cutter. Enjoy some rep.

[Ezee E]

I swear that I've seen the same shots from Earth on Planet Earth. Am I crazy?

[balmakboor]

I swear that I've seen the same shots from Earth on Planet Earth. Am I crazy?

I thought that Earth was an edited for theatrical length reworking of the same footage as Planet Earth. Maybe I'm wrong.

[Qrazy]

Ashes of Time Redux was a disappointment. I was hoping it would solve all of the problems of the original version but it doesn't quite succeed. The transfer is amazing and the footage is great. Christopher Doyle's work here is absolutely astounding. That being said the pacing of the film really doesn't work. It didn't work in the original and it still doesn't here. I don't know why precisely, something to do with the musical cues perhaps. You think a scene is building to some sort of climax and then it just transitions onward. I recognize that to a certain degree Kar Wai is trying to deconstruct the genre.

He seems to attempt to do this by building up to action scenes which are robbed of the solidity of their central conflict. However, both here and in Fallen Angels I got the feeling that his stylistic choices in relation to violence are as much a product of his uneasiness about effecively shooting the material as they are about specific aesthetic/thematic deconstructive statements. Basically his action scenes are a mess. Which is a shame since they're composed of such stunning imagery. Also, when it comes to the story and the characters, we're meant to buy into certain melodramatic outbursts that simply have not been effectively substantiated. Cut aways to sand blowing, pooling water and drifting grass while often beautiful, are not conducive to character development.

[MacGuffin]

Gonna be going on another Godard fix over the coming months, so here is what I have seen with ratings:

In Praise of Love (2001) ***1/2
Hail Mary (1985) **1/2
First Name: Carmen (1983) ***1/2
Sympathy for the Devil (1968) ***1/2
Week End (1967) ****1/2
Masculin féminin (1966) ****1/2
Pierrot le fou (1965) ****
Alphaville (1965) ***1/2
Band of Outsiders (1964) *****
Contempt (1963) *****
Les Carabineers (1963) ***
Le petit soldat (1963) ***1/2
My Life to Live (1962) ****
A Woman is a Woman (1961) ***1/2
Breathless (1960) ***1/2

Ratings are tentative as I will be revisiting some and watching many others; plus, I don't really recall my original ratings, these are how I feel about the movies now. He's probably my favorite director, since I not only like basically everything I've seen by him, but he got me into movies and I also think he's a really interesting individual.

[Sycophant]

I thought that Earth was an edited for theatrical length reworking of the same footage as Planet Earth. Maybe I'm wrong.

No, you're right, for the most part.

[B-side]

Definitely check out Notre Musique, Clipper. I liked it a lot better than In Praise of Love.

[BuffaloWilder]

Incidently, what led me to this board by way of incident was a debate I was having - still having - with animation historian Michael Barrier about that penguin-y film of Miller's. By way of complete coincidence, here I am.

You can check it out at his site (http://www.michaelbarrier.com)(I'm mentioned on the front page, as Henry Baugh). Alternately, I'm also preparing a transcript of it all once it's finished for my next post on the blog below, since - hopefully - this next response will be the last.

[transmogrifier]

Incidently, what led me to this board by way of incident was a debate I was having - still having - with animation historian Michael Barrier about that penguin-y film of Miller's. By way of complete coincidence, here I am.

You can check it out at his site (http://www.michaelbarrier.com)(I'm mentioned on the front page, as Henry Baugh). Alternately, I'm also preparing a transcript of it all once it's finished for my next post on the blog below, since - hopefully - this next response will be the last.

I'm with Barrier. I disliked Happy Feet. Silly, over-produced film with a rote, one-dimensional story.

[Qrazy]

I'm with Barrier. I disliked Happy Feet. Silly, over-produced film with a rote, one-dimensional story.

I found it to be entertaining but entirely disposable. It's slightly better than other films of it's ilk (Dreamworks CGIfests in general) but I can't see any reason to get excited about it one way or another.

[BuffaloWilder]

I'm with Barrier. I disliked Happy Feet. Silly, over-produced film with a rote, one-dimensional story.

One-dimensional?


but I can't see any reason to get excited about it one way or another.

There's a French film review I read once, a while back, that sums it up pretty well - I'll have to find it.

Quick Edit - Ah, here it is (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.critikat.com/Happy-Feet.html&ei=JA_0SbeGLOLflQf0wozZDA&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dcritikat%2Bhappy% 2Bfeet%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff% 26client%3Dopera%26rls%3Den%26 hs%3DSae%26num%3D50), albeit translated with the help of the Google, so it reads a bit roughly.

[transmogrifier]

One-dimensional?


Unique individual doesn't fit in to a conservative society. OMG, what's gonna happen!? Is he going to be shunned and die a cold and lonely death? Is he going to change and become an automaton as well? Or is he going to stay true to himself and have others accept him for who he is? OMG, I can stand the suspense!?

....aaaannnd scene.

[BuffaloWilder]

Unique individual doesn't fit in to a conservative society. OMG, what's gonna happen!? Is he going to be shunned and die a cold and lonely death? Is he going to change and become an automaton as well? Or is he going to stay true to himself and have others accept him for who he is? OMG, I can stand the suspense!?

....aaaannnd scene.


That's a bit of a simplification. But even so, that's a very archetypal story skeleton - I mean, that is, basically, the monomyth in a nutshell from which so many others have risen. If you're going to foist that complaint on this film, then you should do so for the others, as well - including the rest of Miller's filmography, which are all examples of Campbellian myth; even Lorenzo's Oil fits this mold.

[Qrazy]

One-dimensional?



There's a French film review I read once, a while back, that sums it up pretty well - I'll have to find it.

Quick Edit - Ah, here it is (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.critikat.com/Happy-Feet.html&ei=JA_0SbeGLOLflQf0wozZDA&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dcritikat%2Bhappy% 2Bfeet%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff% 26client%3Dopera%26rls%3Den%26 hs%3DSae%26num%3D50), albeit translated with the help of the Google, so it reads a bit roughly.

'Happy Feet is powered by an absolute desire for cinema'? Ahh the rhetoric! It burns!

[BuffaloWilder]

I thought that Earth was an edited for theatrical length reworking of the same footage as Planet Earth. Maybe I'm wrong.

No, you're correct.

[BuffaloWilder]

'Happy Feet is powered by an absolute desire for cinema'? Ahh the rhetoric! It burns!

While that may not be a direct translation, I'm at a loss, here. :confused:

[transmogrifier]

That's a bit of a simplification. But even so, that's a very archetypal story skeleton - I mean, that is, basically, the monomyth in a nutshell from which so many others have risen. If you're going to foist that complaint on this film, then you should do so for the others, as well - including the rest of Miller's filmography, which are all examples of Campbellian myth; even Lorenzo's Oil fits this mold.

But a story skeleton needs muscle and skin and wrinkles and personality, and HF doesn't have that for a second. Even when it seems to think its being clever (i.e. the environmental angle) it undercuts it with a ridiculous self-deating conceit - conformity is bad, except when it's the conformity of our hero and it is a convenient story out for a movie that was going nowhere.

[Winston*]

Thanks to that article, I now know that the French word for "claptrap" is "mièvrerie".

[BuffaloWilder]

But a story skeleton needs muscle and skin and wrinkles and personality, and HF doesn't have that for a second.

See, I disagree. But, there's no real way I can verify this, or vicey versey. So, this is a little empty.


Even when it seems to think its being clever (i.e. the environmental angle)

That's a bit much, don't you think?


it undercuts it with a ridiculous self-deating conceit - conformity is bad

Follow you so far, though I don't think that was the intent of that subtext in totality.


except when it's the conformity of our hero

See, I'm not sure I saw it that way, really. But, even then - this has also been mentioned numerous times by other reviewers who've seen it as dramatic irony, even. Which, when you cut it off from the next section, is kind of what it seems like.



and it is a convenient story out for a movie that was going nowhere.

That's a little reaching, I think. When you say it's going nowhere, what do you mean? The film has a clear forward thrust, and seems to know where it's going. When you say it's convenient, that seems a little disengenuous, in this instance as it's not deus ex machina, and it has a logical connection to the rest of the story.

[BuffaloWilder]

Thanks to that article, I now know that the French word for "claptrap" is "mièvrerie".

I miss taking French class.

[number8]

No, you're correct.

Yeah, it's actually a pretty old film, too, since it was released in other countries like several months after Planet Earth finished its first run in 2007.

Apparently it took them two years to replace Patrick Stewart's narration with James Earle Jones.

[BuffaloWilder]

Apparently it took them two years to replace Patrick Stewart's narration with James Earle Jones.

I think it was - basically - months of indecisiveness:

"-but it's Patrick Stewart!"
"- but, it's James Earle Jones!"
"- but, it's Patrick Stewart!"
"- but, it's James Earle Jones!"


Repeat.

[Ezee E]

And are they doing the same thing with these next movies too? What a way to cash in on the same thing twice I guess.

[lovejuice]

happy feet is a movie so laughable i can't help but love it. (being an amature tap dancer helps.) so the geist is dancing's way cooler than singing. how anymore non sequitur can you get than this. and it features one of the most impossible resolving climax in the history of cinema.
a penguin changes the world by dancing behind an aquarium.
oh and did i mention it has penguin singing Queen?

[balmakboor]

Definitely check out Notre Musique, Clipper. I liked it a lot better than In Praise of Love.

The first and last sections of Notre Musique are extraordinary. I more or less knew what he was doing in between, but it sure bored me to death.

You are right though. It is much better than In Praise of Love.

[MacGuffin]

Thanks, I will do that.

[Russ]

Just saw Charles Burnett's Killer of Sheep, unquestionably the finest film I've seen in quite some time. An open window to the soul of a side of America that one should feel privileged to view. I can throw out superlatives like moving, touching, poetic, devastating...but it hardly seems worthwhile as words can't do a film like this justice. This would have easily made the upper tier of my top 100.

[BuffaloWilder]

happy feet is a movie so laughable i can't help but love it. (being an amature tap dancer helps.) so the geist is dancing's way cooler than singing. how anymore non sequitur can you get than this. and it features one of the most impossible resolving climax in the history of cinema.
a penguin changes the world by dancing behind an aquarium.
oh and did i mention it has penguin singing Queen?


Facepalm.


Because it has come to this.


;)

But, yes. Dancing is far, far cooler than singing. We're both dancers. We can admit to this.

[BuffaloWilder]

And are they doing the same thing with these next movies too? What a way to cash in on the same thing twice I guess.

I can't tell if Oceans is the same thing or not, but it wouldn't surprise me.

[Sven]

I can't tell if Oceans is the same thing or not, but it wouldn't surprise me.

Get a friggin' avatar.

[Sycophant]

Yeah, get an avatar, hippie.

[BuffaloWilder]

Get a friggin' avatar.


Yeah, get an avatar, hippie.


I hope you're happy.

[megladon8]

I went to sleep with 2001: A Space Odyssey last night.

Wasn't a good idea.

I forgot how frightening that movie is.

[Amnesiac]

I went to sleep with 2001: A Space Odyssey last night.

Wasn't a good idea.

I forgot how frightening that movie is.

Indeed. A big part of it for me is György Ligeti's "Requiem" set against the monolith. Unsettling.

[Ezee E]

Our hippie pales in comparison to D's ironic avatar

[The Mike]

I went to sleep with 2001: A Space Odyssey last night.

Wasn't a good idea.I can't see how it would be. The holes in those DVDs are small, dude.

Wait....what were we talking about? :confused:

[number8]

I think it was - basically - months of indecisiveness:

"-but it's Patrick Stewart!"
"- but, it's James Earle Jones!"
"- but, it's Patrick Stewart!"
"- but, it's James Earle Jones!"


Repeat.

Maybe they're nerds.

"Picard can totally kick Darth Vader's ass!"
"Are you out of your frickin' mind?!!"

Repeat.

[megladon8]

I can't see how it would be. The holes in those DVDs are small, dude.

Wait....what were we talking about? :confused:


:lol:

[BuffaloWilder]

Maybe they're nerds.

"Picard can totally kick Darth Vader's ass!"
"Are you out of your frickin' mind?!!"

Repeat.

I agree with the second guy. Vader's got a light-saber. And throat crushing mind-powers.

Now, Picard does have an astonishingly shiny bald-head, but in the end, I think the scale falls on Vader's side.

[Winston*]

It depends what universe they are fighting in. The force doesn't exist in the Star Trek universe so Picard could just shoot him with a phaser or something.

[BuffaloWilder]

It depends what universe they are fighting in. The force doesn't exist in the Star Trek universe so Picard could just shoot him with a phaser or something.

He's still got a light-saber. And, armor.

Oh, lordy.

[number8]

He's still got a light-saber. And, armor.

Oh, lordy.

Yeah, but Picard can just outwit Vader, who we know from the prequels is really quite an idiot. Vader could get his ass kicked, and Picard would make it so.

[lovejuice]

But, yes. Dancing is far, far cooler than singing. We're both dancers. We can admit to this.
what kind of dancer are you? i did a lot of ballroom (standard/latin) in the past. after breaking up with my last partner -- who is a bitch and a dance slut -- i decided to lay off couple dancing. for the last four years, i have been doing only thai traditional dance and tap.

[Spinal]

dance slut

:pritch:

[Ezee E]

But what if the Force does exist?

[lovejuice]

who is a bitch and a dance slut


:pritch:

my relationship with her is very complicated. imagine if your ex-wife were an ex-cocaine addicted that were rehabilitated through your help. later on you two got married. and then she cheated on you by sleeping with your brother so you retaliated by sleeping with her mother. then she found out you were actually the guy who sold her the cocaine when she was in collage. and then imagine if she looked like zhang ziyi.

it's quite not that complicated.

[transmogrifier]

....and then imagine if she looked like zhang ziyi.


Suddenly everything you mentioned beforehand becomes exceedingly irrelevant?

[BuffaloWilder]

what kind of dancer are you? i did a lot of ballroom (standard/latin) in the past. after breaking up with my last partner -- who is a bitch and a dance slut -- i decided to lay off couple dancing. for the last four years, i have been doing only thai traditional dance and tap.

Oh, I'm a tap-dancer. One of those pretentious 'hoofer' types.

[MacGuffin]

I found a batch of flicks at my public library:

Harakiri (The Criterion Collection)
Seven Samurai (The Criterion Collection, rerelease version)
Army of Shadows (The Criterion Collection)
The 36th Chamber of the Shaolin
The Vanishing (The Criterion Collection; I know some posters here told me I'd like this)
Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance

[Sycophant]

I hope you're happy.

That's cute and all, but I think you deserve an image. Just a few days in and you're already proving yourself a welcome asset to the community.

So I thought to myself "Buffalo Wilder... hmmm... what does that put me in mind of?" The Wilder probably comes from Billy Wilder, I thought. And the buffalo? Well maybe it has something to do with buffalo (or bison!).

So then I made this.

You don't have to use it, but here it is.

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

[baby doll]

So... The Reader was actually pretty good.

[soitgoes...]

I wanted to like Ashes and Snow, really I did. Going into it I was thinking that I might be in store for something special. The opening shot was absolutely stunning, as were many throughout the following hour. The problem for me was how contrived everything felt and looked. Man and animal seemed to be forced together. An elephant lying on its side with a boy sleeping on it. When would this ever happen? What is it supposed to be telling me? That someone dragged an elephant down so that some guy could get a sepia-toned slo-mo shot to place in his film about the poetics of man and his "interactions" with animal? Great music, and individually some beautiful photography, but I just can't buy into it being a great piece of film art.

[MacGuffin]

Hey, baby doll, do you use French titles in conversations? Just curious. It annoys me when people do that to me. Particularly if there is an English title available. It's like: 'Oh, thanks for recommending me a movie I'll never be able to see because I don't speak French and don't know at all which movie you're talking about'.

[Boner M]

So... The Reader was actually pretty good.
No it wasn't & plz explain the 2-star rating for Jerichow that came and went in your sig a few days ago.

[MadMan]

I just finished watching Shoot the Piano Player about 10 minutes ago. What a near great movie, even though I could sense how its ending coming. A very well made depressing movie, achingly so in a very tragic sort of way. This was also my first Truffaut movie, and I look forward to seeing more from him. Especially Jules and Jim, which I'm going to stop putting off and then watch. And of course using Netflix to finally see The 400 Blows.

[Sven]

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

Oh my stars.

[Spinal]

Nobody's perfect.

[baby doll]

Hey, baby doll, do you use French titles in conversations? Just curious. It annoys me when people do that to me. Particularly if there is an English title available. It's like: 'Oh, thanks for recommending me a movie I'll never be able to see because I don't speak French and don't know at all which movie you're talking about'.Yes, because it makes me sound more cultured. Also, most Canadians speak a little French, so it's not a problem.

[baby doll]

No it wasn't & plz explain the 2-star rating for Jerichow that came and went in your sig a few days ago.Too predictable. Of course, so was The Reader, but I'm not claiming to be consistent.

[Sycophant]

Oh my stars.

Yeah, I'm sittin' here, bein' pretty satisfied with myself.

[Amnesiac]

http://i704.photobucket.com/albums/ww46/Amnesiac7/3monkeys3.jpg

Nuri Bilge Ceylan's Three Monkeys follows a group of taciturn characters who grapple with ennui, infidelity, imputed blame, and unabashed self-interest... among other things. The film begins with a Turkish politician, Servet, who shifts his culpability in a fatal hit-and-run onto his driver, Eyüp (who wasn't even present at the time). Eyüp's family — his wife Hader, and teenage son Ismail — is left behind while he serves a nine month sentence that was meant for Servet. Their only consolation is the promise of a lump sum, and some bribe money. However, things get decidedly more complicated when Hader begins to have an affair with Servet. And thus, the fermenting undercurrent of anger, obsession and heartache begins...

However, I should be careful to not characterize this film as volcanic. This is a fair description but only to a certain extent. By and large, this is a film of pregnant silences. Characters often lose themselves in contemplative (or vacuous) reverie, weary of the world or of themselves. They are often located within astutely composed long shots. They stand idle and despondent against beautifully shot architecture, whose inorganic and static grandeur seems to trivialize and obscure their anguish. For this reason, some have compared Ceylan's visual style to that of Antonioni and the kind of obscured misery that can be found during the final moments of L'Avventura.

http://i704.photobucket.com/albums/ww46/Amnesiac7/3monkeys1.jpg

Ceylan's film is also full of captivating ambiguity. The wraith of Servet's young son, the details of whose death can be guessed at but never confirmed, still haunts his family. The appearances of this young boy account for only a few of the film's disconcerting moments. These ghostly visits inflect the film, which is otherwise decidedly naturalistic, with a disconcerting air of magic realism.

Then there is the psychology of Ceylan's characters, which is particularly guarded (both here and in his other film, Climates). Even so, Ceylan has crafted a film that is replete with assured visuals and a careful narrative that offers just the right amount of information. The silent moments, the bold visuals... these are the means by which Ceylan is able to indicate what the characters seem unable or unwilling to say. Thus, this is not really a film that culminates in a grand, histrionic crescendo. Even with its nearly palpable undercurrent of torment and bubbling anger, there are no excessively verbose exorcisms of anguish here... and the closest we get to one is observed from a long-shot, clinically. There are moments of rage and expression, sure, but they are few and far between and are made all the more powerful because of this.

http://i704.photobucket.com/albums/ww46/Amnesiac7/3monkeys4.jpg

This points towards one of the salient virtues of the film. Ceylan's visual style serves as an excellent translator for the silent and interior anguish of his characters. Of course, I would be remiss if I did not emphasize the staggering beauty of this film. Ceylan began in still photography (see his work here (http://www.nuribilgeceylan.com/photography/turkeycinemascope1.php?sid=1), you won't regret it) and he has taken his talent for arrestingly beautiful still shots into the realm of cinema. Marvelous visuals. And, as aforementioned, his style is far more than just exquisite decoration.

The taciturnity of the suffering characters seems to have forced their repressed anguish onto nature itself. The noise of nature (and more broadly, Ceylan's over-all style) compensates for the reticence of these miserable characters. Booming thunder punctuates moments of tense silence, as if interior turmoil has had to seek recourse to a more primal release: the resounding moodiness of nature itself. Rumbling trains hang over characters, exacerbating already stagnant tension. Dark, moody clouds absorb the agony of the characters. With no non-diegetic music, this is a film that really makes great use of noise (there's an uncomfortable scene with a cell-phone that is well-executed). Furthermore, the washed out aesthetic of Ceylan's visuals, with its predominantly golden tinge, casts its characters under what seems to be unrepentant heat (tempered by the occasional 'relief' of tumultuous thunder storms). Hader and Ismail are often dimly lit, set against the harsh brightness of the outside world. The shot pictured below is a great example — the shallow depth of field, the luminosity of the outside world, and the dissonance of Ismail's darkly lit silhouette. As their domestic mire deepens, it is shots like these that seem so astutely chosen... it is as if Ceylan wants to picture these characters as deteriorating figures, burning up against the brightness of an outside world that has become exponentially more wearisome than invigorating.

http://i704.photobucket.com/albums/ww46/Amnesiac7/3monkeys-.jpg

The style of the film is aptly employed. Especially since this is a story that focuses on weary characters who seem to be pass the doldrums of life by callously hurting one another (this film evokes the thematic concerns of Days of Heaven at times).

Again, this is not to say that there are no moments of release in the film. While Ceylan's characters are often reticent, passive, even pathetic (almost inexplicably so)... they are not beyond expressing their own vexation. Just as the film is littered with intermittent moments of visual beauty, there are certain moments of narrative progression that are just as startling. In the March issue of Sight and Sound, Ceylan mentioned that he is interested in the latent evil that lies dormant in every human-being. There are moments in the film where he explores such ideas (he goes even further in Climates), and the naturalistic aims of Ceylan's narrative ensures that these rare moments are effectively disarming. They are alarming, but hardly overused. However, the film is ultimately reserved (one of its most important developments occurs off-screen).

It's a fantastic film, and having recently seen Climates (which is also great), I'm now definitely more interested in exploring the rest of Ceylan's work.

[Grouchy]

I watched Zombie Strippers with Jenna Jameson and Robert Englund. So, yeah, lotsa strippin' and some corny jokes. The political satire was too on-your-face and overwritten to be taken seriously. Englund is always a blast to see, but he's more or less reprising the same role from the Masters of Horrors episode Dance of the Dead with a funny streak.

http://sp2.fotolog.com/photo/34/20/68/bellacard0/1236655246335_f.jpg

I had a higher opinion of Los Cronocrimenes [Timecrimes] than most of you seem to have formed. The script is really good, addressing the problems of time travel with a bluntness and intelligence that proves that the expected audience is made of sci-fi people who have thought often about it. I think this movie does a number of things right that few others achieve - it sets up the time machine plot without delving into any lenghty explanation other than it exists and it serves the plot; its protagonist is an everyman with distinct personality traits which influence the plot. Although this film probably has near zero replay value, it makes for an entertaining ride the first time around. While I was watching it, knowing there was a remake on the works, I could picture the film studio execs watching it and thinking "I see Robert Pattinson in the role". Oh Bog, how I hate those money-making pigs.

Jungle Fever is commercial Spike Lee, but it's still fun. I had a problem with the film, which is that the romantic relationship at its centre is not believable enough to warrant everything that goes on around it. In fact, I found Turturro's romantic subplot a lot more interesting and grounded, and it unfortunately doesn't occupy almost any screentime. I also found the Sam Jackson subplot dealing with drug addiction the strongest part of the drama, and Jackson's performance a blast to watch. As for the main couple, I think the problem is that they played their characters very out of tune. Wesley Snipes spends the movie saying he thinks the white girl was attracted to him only because she was "curious about black". Annabella Sciorra, on the other hand, plays her character as genuinely in love or, at least, romantically swooned over, and I'm not sure if Spike or Snipes ever acknowledged this. To sum it up, Jungle Fever is a sum of many different elements that haven't really found a comfort zone together. But you go to Spike's movies for the over-the-top social commentary and the characters, and in that sense, it's watchable.

[Wryan]

...and Picard would make it so.

You son of a bitch.

[number8]

You son of a bitch.

What? You don't think he'll engage?

[Rowland]

Frost/Nixon is no great shakes, and yet it's probably the best picture I've seen by Howard. At least it's more consistent as mainstream cinema than I deemed some of last year's spottier art fare. That said, I'll have probably forgotten most of it within a week.

On the other hand, both The Bear That Wasn't and especially The Dot and the Line: A Romance in Lower Mathematics are spectacular examples of short form animation. Sophisticated, witty, and gloriously experimental, they're both exquisite pieces, and reminders that I need to catch up with more of Chuck Jones' work.

[Derek]

The Phantom Carriage (1921) ****

So what's this, two **** films out of the last four you've seen, Mr. I Have No Great Films Left To See? :)

[D_Davis]

Since the conception of cinema, do you think there are more great films or more great music to experience?

[megladon8]

The Backwoods was...odd. A case of the movie finishing and an overwhelming "so what?" feeling coming over me.

Gary Oldman's good as always, as is Paddy Considine. Honestly, Virginie Ledoyen plays the ultimate "Wife From Hell", and even the film's attempt at explaining her behaviour doesn't cover it. She could have been the poster child for justifiable homicide.

But the fact that the entire plot develops from the main characters - one of which (Oldman) is supposed to be a pretty intelligent guy - making ridiculous decisions really takes away a lot of credibility, and the ultimate conclusion felt like, as I said earlier, "yeah...so what?"

It's a well made film from a technical standpoint, and the acting is fine...it's just bland and lifeless.

And if IMDb is anything to go by, more than 1/3 of the film was cut for the American DVD release. So I can't help but feel I didn't see the movie the way it was intended.

[BuffaloWilder]

You don't have to use it, but here it is.

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

What kind of a forum poster would I be if I didn't?

Much thanks, indeed. :)

[lovejuice]

So... The Reader was actually pretty good.

you mean Der Vorleser? :P

[BuffaloWilder]

Since the conception of cinema, do you think there are more great films or more great music to experience?


Oh, the two are related.

[Derek]

Since the conception of cinema, do you think there are more great films or more great music to experience?

Simply by sheer volume, it'd have to be music by a wide margin. So many people learn to play an instrument in their childhood and it's significantly less expensive to purchase even a quality guitar or drum set than a mediocre video camera. Music is also something that can be pursued by oneself whereas filmmaking requires outside funding and group cooperation. It's really not a fair comparison unless you talk in terms of percentages - ie, is there a higher percentage of great films than percentage of great albums within their respective wholes. To that, I'd say they're about the same.

[lovejuice]

Since the conception of cinema, do you think there are more great films or more great music to experience?

don't know about music, but speaking as a book guy.

http://cn1.kaboodle.com/hi/img/2/0/0/a4/a/AAAAAnsqO7gAAAAAAKSgUw.jpg

[Bosco B Thug]

And music is just generally more versatile. There are countless types and genres of music. Also, the remaking of instrumentation is also very accepted in music. People feel covers can successfully re-imagine previous works. Now everyone knows how people react to remakes of films. It automatically implies degraded and commercialized instrumentation.

[BuffaloWilder]

Well, I'm not all that sure Mr. Barrier enjoyed talking to me.

Yeesh, what an ordeal that was.

[Sycophant]

Since the conception of cinema, do you think there are more great films or more great music to experience?

Not enough information. How are we quantifying? Hours or percentage or what?

Can't really say the question even makes sense to me.

[Sycophant]

What kind of a forum poster would I be if I didn't?

Much thanks, indeed. :)

Looks snazzy on you!

[BuffaloWilder]

Looks snazzy on you!

Oh, everything looks snazzy on an Irishman!

[chrisnu]

Dead RingersEnjoy this. Currently sits in my top 10.

What the hell did I just watch? :eek:

Need to think about this some more. I'm puzzled by what I have seen.

[megladon8]

What you just watched was David Cronenberg's best film.

Cherish it.

[D_Davis]

And music is just generally more versatile. There are countless types and genres of music. Also, the remaking of instrumentation is also very accepted in music. People feel covers can successfully re-imagine previous works. Now everyone knows how people react to remakes of films. It automatically implies degraded and commercialized instrumentation.

Interesting, and probably true. If a band covers a song, it is usually out of love and respect for the original. Can the same be said for a remake of a movie, or are these approached in a more cynical, cash-in way?

[Sycophant]

Interesting, and probably true. If a band covers a song, it is usually out of love and respect for the original. Can the same be said for a remake of a movie, or are these approached in a more cynical, cash-in way?

People generally believe the latter. I question whether or not that's accurate, but it's certainly the perception.

[BuffaloWilder]

People generally believe the latter. I question whether or not that's accurate, but it's certainly the perception.

The 2013 film roster includes:

Children of Men, starring Zac Efron. Directed by Kenan Wayans.

You ask a glass of woh-ta.

[D_Davis]

People generally believe the latter. I question whether or not that's accurate, but it's certainly the perception.

Could be.

[Dead & Messed Up]

People generally believe the latter. I question whether or not that's accurate, but it's certainly the perception.

It's no secret that Hollywood studios are responsible for the vast majority of remakes, and the marching order at those studios are to work with previously established properties, so as to minimize the risk. So regardless of the potential quality (which I would say is awfully rare), the basis for such films is most often rooted in ROI, rather than love of the original.

Passion for the material certainly can emerge, and I respect recent remakes like Snyder's Dawn of the Dead, Soderbergh's Ocean series, and Scorsese's The Departed.

[Sycophant]

The ultimate reason--the dollars--for instigating a remake project is, of course, money. It's always money. Original projects are sent out to theaters for money. I just don't like the idea that the people writing and directing and otherwise making these movies don't at least want to make a good movie and care about their material.

Passion doesn't always a good movie make.

[D_Davis]

Passion doesn't always a good movie make.

This is true.

[Dead & Messed Up]

The ultimate reason--the dollars--for instigating a remake project is, of course, money. It's always money. Original projects are sent out to theaters for money. I just don't like the idea that the people writing and directing and otherwise making these movies don't at least want to make a good movie and care about their material.

Nobody wants to make a bad movie, but it seems to me that remakes often foster uninspired results. The essential foundation of a remake is unoriginality; the studio wants to duplicate what has worked. Passion is not intrinsically good, but, in my experience, it's almost always more fascinating than efficient, workmanlike fare like Dark Water, The Day the Earth Stood Still, and The Stepford Wives.


Passion doesn't always make a good movie.

I fixed your sentence structure. ;)

[megladon8]

All movies are made with the goal of racking in coin, remake or not, Hollywood or not.

At least from the studio's point of view.

[Dead & Messed Up]

All movies are made with the goal of racking in coin, remake or not, Hollywood or not.

At least from the studio's point of view.

I don't think anyone's disputing this.

[megladon8]

I don't think anyone's disputing this.


Just throwing it out there.

I find when the whole remake-bashing-train begins, it sometimes veers off into territory that doesn't make a lot of sense, as if remakes' being made to score a profit is some oddity.

As (I believe it was D_Davis) has said when this discussion came up in the past, anyone who has ever, does, or will ever consider themselves a "career artist", regardless of whether it's painting, music, film or literature, works their craft to earn money.

I guess what I'm saying is that the "Hollywood is an evil money-making machine" thing is really, really old.

[Sycophant]

Uh-oh.

It's that time again.

Don't think I can hold it in!

:pritch: ~HOORAY FOR HOLLYWOOD!~ :pritch:

[Spinal]

All movies are made with the goal of racking in coin, remake or not, Hollywood or not.

At least from the studio's point of view.

I don't think Shoah was made with the goal of making money.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Just throwing it out there.

I find when the whole remake-bashing-train begins, it sometimes veers off into territory that doesn't make a lot of sense, as if remakes' being made to score a profit is some oddity.

Yeah. My only point was that remakes have an inauspicious start, in that there's little to no presumption of creativity or originality. For lack of a better phrase, it feels like they're phoning it in.

[Qrazy]

I wanted to like Ashes and Snow, really I did. Going into it I was thinking that I might be in store for something special. The opening shot was absolutely stunning, as were many throughout the following hour. The problem for me was how contrived everything felt and looked. Man and animal seemed to be forced together. An elephant lying on its side with a boy sleeping on it. When would this ever happen? What is it supposed to be telling me? That someone dragged an elephant down so that some guy could get a sepia-toned slo-mo shot to place in his film about the poetics of man and his "interactions" with animal? Great music, and individually some beautiful photography, but I just can't buy into it being a great piece of film art.

I agree with your complaints although I wouldn't rate the film as harshly. I still prefer it to Decasia though.

[soitgoes...]

I agree with your complaints although I wouldn't rate the film as harshly. I still prefer it to Decasia though.
I didn't buy into Decasia either, though I prefer it to this. Decasia works a bit better with the movement of film, whereas Ashes and Snow would make for a better photography exhibit.

[soitgoes...]

I'm getting ready to watch Yog: The Space Amoeba. How can one not excited to see this:
http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee171/soitgoes22/yogthespaceamoeba1970dvqz6.jpg

This has the prospect of being as awful in a good way as Frankenstein Conquers the World. I'm stoked.

[Qrazy]

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f50/croaker-bc/Bad_company_poster.jpg

Bad Company - I think quite a few people here would like this. It's a very interesting little Western. It features a young Jeff Bridges (Jake) as a small time crook who leads a ragtag band of Draft Dodgers out West to find their fortune. Needless to say it doesn't go very well. I won't spoil too much of the plot but the film revolves around a friend/enemy dynamic between Jeff Bridges and Barry Brown (Drew). Drew begins his travels as a stalwart Christian but after falling in with Jake and his crew his moral standards slowly begin to unravel. I didn't particularly like the film's use of music, it often undercut important dramatic sequences. The film may also be slightly too episodic for it's own good, but overall it works. It's not as graphic or gritty as a Peckinpah film but it's clearly influenced by him and focuses on a harsh and brutal version of the West. Directed by Robert Benton (Kramer vs Kramer) Bad Company features some solid and every once in a while outstanding Gordon Willis cinematography.

[Qrazy]

Just throwing it out there.

I find when the whole remake-bashing-train begins, it sometimes veers off into territory that doesn't make a lot of sense, as if remakes' being made to score a profit is some oddity.

As (I believe it was D_Davis) has said when this discussion came up in the past, anyone who has ever, does, or will ever consider themselves a "career artist", regardless of whether it's painting, music, film or literature, works their craft to earn money.

I guess what I'm saying is that the "Hollywood is an evil money-making machine" thing is really, really old.

There's an enormous difference between making an art driven film, and pouring all your time, money and resources into it and hoping to make enough money off of it to be able to survive and continue to make more films... and churning out some focus group, producer fueled cash grab.

[megladon8]

I don't think any director out there makes a movie just hoping to make a few bucks to get by.

The movies are a business, and every director knows this.

That a movie is more artfully made does not suddenly make the director's aspirations purer than another's. They all work in hopes of being successful.

[Sycophant]

Yes, they do. Especially first time or early career directors, directors trying to break in, or successful directors with dream projects.

But we're in danger of abstracting this conversation into complete irrelevance. So I'm out of here!

[megladon8]

But guys, every movie requires a pitch to the studio.

You know what a pitch is?

Where the studio decides if the movie will be made, and if so how much money they're willing to pour into it.

And what's the deciding factor?

A prediction on how much the movie will make.

Every studio does this, no matter how large or small.

It's a fact - movies are made to make money.

[Sycophant]

Movies get made outside of studios. :)

[Qrazy]

I don't think any director out there makes a movie just hoping to make a few bucks to get by.

The movies are a business, and every director knows this.

That a movie is more artfully made does not suddenly make the director's aspirations purer than another's. They all work in hopes of being successful.

Hoping to be successful and hoping to make large sums of money are not the same thing.

There are tons of directors who've sunk a great deal of their own money into financing their passion projects. Projects which are not specifically designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator or to appeal to the largest demographics. People don't make films like Last Year at Marienbad or Sans Soleil to make money. It's absurd to say that they do. Sure they hope that the film does well and even makes a profit but the film is not designed to make money.

[megladon8]

Movies get made outside of studios. :)


Indeed, but the original discussion was remakes, Hollywood movies, and general studio fare.

A studio movie can be just as artful, powerful and socially relevant as any foreign indie flick. That the aspiration on the studio's part is more coin doesn't cut down on the film's overall worth.

I think of a director like David Cronenberg who has spent a large chunk of his career working for studios, but maintains indie sensibilities and strives to make a film of worth. But he also realizes that movies are a business, and if he wants to keep getting studio backing and seeing posters for his movies in big theatres, he needs to make something that will appeal to a significant chunk of the public.

Directors like this make the money-hungry Hollywood system work for them, instead of letting it pose itself as an obstacle to be overcome.

[Ezee E]

Clarification: Americans make movies to make money.

[Qrazy]

But guys, every movie requires a pitch to the studio.

No, it doesn't.


You know what a pitch is?

Yes, I do.


Where the studio decides if the movie will be made, and if so how much money they're willing to pour into it.

Ok then.


And what's the deciding factor?

Pray tell.


A prediction on how much the movie will make.

Not really.


Every studio does this, no matter how large or small.

No, they don't.


It's a fact - movies are made to make money.

No, they aren't.

[megladon8]

Hoping to be successful and hoping to make large sums of money are not the same thing.

There are tons of directors who've sunk a great deal of their own money into financing their passion projects. Projects which are not specifically designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator or to appeal to the largest demographics. People don't make films like Last Year at Marienbad or Sans Soleil to make money. It's absurd to say that they do. Sure they hope that the film does well and even makes a profit but the film is not designed to make money.


But these films are picked up by studios and distributed in hopes to make a profit.

Maybe the initial concept was not "let's make money", but somewhere down the line, any movie you see that's released to the public via theatre, DVD or whatever, was done so because someone thought they could turn a profit from it.

[megladon8]

You have your head really far up your ass if you really think Hollywood is the only place where profit is king.

[Sycophant]

People found film and video distribution companies in the hopes that they will at least make enough money to stay afloat and keep releasing movies? Uncontroversial statement?

[Qrazy]

But these films are picked up by studios and distributed in hopes to make a profit.

Maybe the initial concept was not "let's make money", but somewhere down the line, any movie you see that's released to the public via theatre, DVD or whatever, was done so because someone thought they could turn a profit from it.

Alternatively they thought... 'Here's a wonderful work of art, I hope others feel the same way so that we can stay in business and make a living, but not make mass sums of money.' If we are restricting ourselves to American films Criterion's distribution of Brakhage films was certainly not driven by a desire for profit. Criterion releases Michael Bay and other such films sparingly, but they do so precisely so that they can make enough money to release the works of Brakhage and others.

[Qrazy]

You have your head really far up your ass if you really think Hollywood is the only place where profit is king.

You have your head really far up your ass if you really think all art or in this case film is driven by profit.

[megladon8]

People found film and video distribution companies in the hopes that they will at least make enough money to stay afloat and keep releasing movies? Uncontroversial statement?


Yep.

A company cannot exist if it's not making a profit.

[Ezee E]

Yep.

A company cannot exist if it's not making a profit.
America! Yes we can!

[Raiders]

Yep.

A company cannot exist if it's not making a profit.

That's actually not true. But almost all companies want to turn a profit, unless they're non-profit organizations.

[megladon8]

You have your head really far up your ass if you really think all art or in this case film is driven by profit.


You need money to live.

So far you haven't proven me wrong other than being a snarky dick.

If you see a movie outside a film festival, it was distributed by a company. Said company did so in order to make money. If they did not make money, they would not exist.

[Winston*]

You people are arguing about nothing.

[Sycophant]

Winston* is right.

[Ezee E]

I'm getting tired of this 4-star rating. Maybe I should go to a grade scale, or 1-100. I really don't know what's best. Can someone chime in?

[Spinal]

You people are arguing about nothing.

Indeed.

[megladon8]

I'm getting tired of this 4-star rating. Maybe I should go to a grade scale, or 1-100. I really don't know what's best. Can someone chime in?


A scale of 1 - Pi.

[Spinal]

I'm getting tired of this 4-star rating. Maybe I should go to a grade scale, or 1-100. I really don't know what's best. Can someone chime in?

:lol: Nice try.

[BuffaloWilder]

So, here's something not-film related:

I feel sick.

[Mysterious Dude]

So what's this, two **** films out of the last four you've seen, Mr. I Have No Great Films Left To See? :)
I actually had seen The Phantom Carriage before. But I think I must not have been paying attention the first time. I think if John Cassavetes had made a movie in the 20's, it would have been something like that.

And while I did give four stars to Lovers and Lollipops (and I'm delighted that you've been paying attention), is it a truly great film? I suspect not. Despite my high rating, I have to admit I don't think it compares all that favorably to the greatest films of the fifties.

I don't know if I can explain where I'm coming from very well. But I'll try. This year, I've been trying to watch one movie from every decade in a row (and when I'm done, I go back and start over). That way, I give a roughly equal chance to all time periods. The decade I'm having the most trouble with is the 1940's. I've seen a few film noir's and other films, and they're alright, but they're just not as good as the movies from the 40's I've already seen like Citizen Kane, Casablanca, Double Indemnity, etc. I'd like to believe there's some gem that I haven't discovered yet, but I'm starting to think I have exhausted the decade's great films.

[The Mike]

I like money. And I work for a non-profit agency. What does that make me? :confused:

[Ezee E]

I like money. And I work for a non-profit agency. What does that make me? :confused:
Nonexistant.

[The Mike]

Nonexistant.

Whoa.

[Sycophant]

I'm getting tired of this 4-star rating. Maybe I should go to a grade scale, or 1-100. I really don't know what's best. Can someone chime in?

Oh, goody! This again!

E, I'm kinda going to respond to this seriously. I'm not really sure why.

I had similar thoughts about the 4-star rating system about a year or so ago. I switched over to a 100-pt. rating system. And then a few months later I stopped rating movies altogether.

If I had to suggest an alternate, perhaps rate based on the phases of the moon?

[Ezee E]

Oh, goody! This again!

E, I'm kinda going to respond to this seriously. I'm not really sure why.

I had similar thoughts about the 4-star rating system about a year or so ago. I switched over to a 100-pt. rating system. And then a few months later I stopped rating movies altogether.

If I had to suggest an alternate, perhaps rate based on the phases of the moon?
But crescents are cool, as are the full moon. So everything is cool. So really, it'd be a Sxottlan scale.

[Ezee E]

Whoa.
...

Hear something?

[Qrazy]

You need money to live.

So far you haven't proven me wrong other than being a snarky dick.

If you see a movie outside a film festival, it was distributed by a company. Said company did so in order to make money. If they did not make money, they would not exist.

Actually I've proven you wrong a few times now.

I'm being a snarky dick because you're being a noodle poodle.

Your argument is the equivalent of the statement... 'There is no unselfish act.'

The person doing the arguing in that case falls back on the notion that every even seemingly altruistic act is done because it benefits the doer in some way. The individual in this case is conflating wide scope and narrow scope definitions of a term. OK, let us accept that there is no unselfish act under a wide scope definition. That does not mean that one such act is equivalent to another such act. Saving a family from death because it may make you feel good is not the same as killing a family in order to steal their money. There are gradations here.

In relation to your argument the connection is this. You are using a wide scope definition to say that every film is made for profit. We can accept this in the same way we accepted the wide scope definition of an unselfish act. However, making a remake such as Disturbia which reformulates Rear Window for a younger demographic is not in any way equivalent to Brakhage's Window Water Baby Moving in terms of these films relation to profit.

The problem however is not the use of the wide scope definition of the term. The problem is using that definition to formulate a specious conclusion. In the first case the individual often uses the unselfish act argument to argue for the rejection of altruistic behaviors. In your case you are suggesting that it is unreasonable to condemn films which act purely as cash grabs (if you don't like the Disturbia example substitute some other film which fits the cash grab definition)... because you presume that all films are created to make a 'profit' and thus they are in this manner the same.



I find when the whole remake-bashing-train begins, it sometimes veers off into territory that doesn't make a lot of sense, as if remakes' being made to score a profit is some oddity.

As (I believe it was D_Davis) has said when this discussion came up in the past, anyone who has ever, does, or will ever consider themselves a "career artist", regardless of whether it's painting, music, film or literature, works their craft to earn money.

[Qrazy]

Winston* is right.

Actually, you're both wrong.

Edit: All three of you.

Unless your definition of nothing is just 'something I'm not interested in'. Because I'm certainly arguing against a statement that was made which I disagree with.

[Amnesiac]

Ugh.

[soitgoes...]

The decade I'm having the most trouble with is the 1940's. I've seen a few film noir's and other films, and they're alright, but they're just not as good as the movies from the 40's I've already seen like Citizen Kane, Casablanca, Double Indemnity, etc. I'd like to believe there's some gem that I haven't discovered yet, but I'm starting to think I have exhausted the decade's great films.
There are some great films form the 40's, but as you said there really is a whole lot compared to other decades. I've stated before that obviously the war had a huge effect on world cinema. It is interesting how different countries tackled propaganda during the war, and how they also tried to rectify their involvement after the war was over. This can be interesting for a historical viewpoint, but for the most part, they aren't really "great."

Outside of a couple critically acclaimed films left to see, I'm pretty much in the same boat as you. Not a whole lot left to get excited about, but a number of filmmakers that I love have quite a few minor films in the 40's that I still want to check out.

[Winston*]

I'm really looking forward to The Limits of Control.

[transmogrifier]

Oh, goody! This again!

E, I'm kinda going to respond to this seriously. I'm not really sure why.

I had similar thoughts about the 4-star rating system about a year or so ago. I switched over to a 100-pt. rating system. And then a few months later I stopped rating movies altogether.

If I had to suggest an alternate, perhaps rate based on the phases of the moon?

Or you could do what I have done recently, and stop watching movies altogether. This makes rating them all the easier.

Watchmen - na
Andrei Rublev - na
Ikiru - na
Observe and Report - na

Easy-peazy!

[soitgoes...]

Yog: The Space Amoeba was disappointing. A few moments of unintentional hilarity, but mostly it's just bad. Still a man walking around in a giant cuttlefish/squid rubber suit has to rank among the high points in film history.

[Philosophe_rouge]

I don't know if I can explain where I'm coming from very well. But I'll try. This year, I've been trying to watch one movie from every decade in a row (and when I'm done, I go back and start over). That way, I give a roughly equal chance to all time periods. The decade I'm having the most trouble with is the 1940's. I've seen a few film noir's and other films, and they're alright, but they're just not as good as the movies from the 40's I've already seen like Citizen Kane, Casablanca, Double Indemnity, etc. I'd like to believe there's some gem that I haven't discovered yet, but I'm starting to think I have exhausted the decade's great films.
I'm not sure how much help this is, but some "underseen" or at least undermentioned films from th 40s I think are pretty swell;

Tobacco Road (1941)
Went the Day Well (1942)
Stormy Weather (1943)
The More the Merrier (1943)
Hangmen Also Die! (1943)
All Val Lewton
I'll be Seeing You (1944)
State Fair (1945)
A Diary for Timothy (1945)
The Picture of Dorian Gray (1945)
Cluny Brown (1946)
Odd Man Out (1947)
Ride the Pink Horse (1947)
Portrait of Jennie (1948)
Secret Beyond the Door (1948)
The Set-Up (1949)
The Reckless Moment (1949)
The Queen of Spades (1949)

[MadMan]

When it comes to decades I haven't seen much from, the 10s, 20s, 30s and 40s take the cake. And I'm still behind on 50s viewing. Too much time spent seeing movies from the 60s onward.

[Dead & Messed Up]

The Picture of Dorian Gray (1945)

Yes to this one. In the same genre, Dead of Night and The Spiral Staircase are well-regarded but rarely seen.

Outside the genre, I don't have much to offer, so I'll take those recommendations.

[Philosophe_rouge]

I'm really weak in the 90s, 80s and to a lesser extent the 40s and 20s.

[balmakboor]

Excalibur is a masterpiece.

[The Mike]

One can argue for art all they want, but when a dude casts his daughter in a topless near rape scene early in the movie, it weirds me out.

Thus, I've never finished Excalibur.

[MacGuffin]

One can argue for art all they want, but when a dude casts his daughter in a topless near rape scene early in the movie, it weirds me out.

Thus, I've never finished Excalibur.

By this logic, you are missing out on one of Argento's greatest films. It may be strange, yes, but we have to see past the people who made the movie, and look at the movie by itself. Never seen Excalibur, by the way.

[The Mike]

By this logic, you are missing out on one of Argento's greatest films. It may be strange, yes, but we have to see past the people who made the movie, and look at the movie by itself. Never seen Excalibur, by the way.

Argento makes sense though. He's Italian. They're weirder. :lol:

[BuffaloWilder]

Argento makes sense though. He's Italian. They're weirder. :lol:

Oh, the Italians are fine next to the Russians, comparitively.

[Spinal]

One can argue for art all they want, but when a dude casts his daughter in a topless near rape scene early in the movie, it weirds me out.

Thus, I've never finished Excalibur.

The director's commentary for this section of the film is fairly interesting.

[BuffaloWilder]

One can argue for art all they want, but when a dude casts his daughter in a topless near rape scene early in the movie, it weirds me out.

Thus, I've never finished Excalibur.

Hey, hey. Don't be so quick to judge. Mario Van Peebles lost his virginity on screen in a similar situation, and I dare you to find me a manlier director.

Who isn't terrible, I mean.

[BuffaloWilder]

Review of Nick Castle's "Tap" is up, at the blog below.

Oh, Gregory Hines. We miss you.

Also, my transcript of my discussion with Michael Barrier should be up in a few nights or so, once I figure out how it is I'm going to post it, exactly. The particulars, and all of that.

[megladon8]

Though it never stopped me from seeing any of either of their movies, I have to say that I am also a bit weirded out by the Argentos' father-daughter relationship.

[lovejuice]

Review of Nick Castle's "Tap" is up, at the blog below.

love the film. although i'm not sure i approve of the disco/tap device at the end.

[BuffaloWilder]

love the film. although i'm not sure i approve the disco/tap device at the end.

Savion Glover isn't, either. He's a very 'traditionalist' dancer - but, it could have merit if used correctly.

[Derek]

Review of Nick Castle's "Tap" is up, at the blog below.

If you want to actually make that a link, rewrite it as The Filmist with no space between the "url" and "=". It'll save us all the trouble of cutting and pasting. :)

[BuffaloWilder]

If you want to actually make that a link, rewrite it as The Filmist with no space between the "url" and "=". It'll save us all the trouble of cutting and pasting. :)

Problem solved, with good ol' Irish ingenue.

[Amnesiac]

I just watched North By Northwest for the first time. Pretty great. I suspected I was in for a fun time once Grant got kidnapped (and then proceeded to drunkenly careen down the road) and my faith was continually rewarded. It was interesting to see a younger Martin Landau in a particularly slimy role. He has an interesting presence... a very bold face that fit his character well. And Eva Marie Saint really gives the other Hitchcock blondes a run for their money — good performance, too (although, her passionate make-out scene on the train isn't really that passionate but this probably wasn't their fault).

The big set-piece finale was pretty neat. Reminded me of the ending to Saboteur, although I suppose this one was better. Very abrupt ending though... I guess I got caught up on how awkward the transition was from near-death cliffhanger to romantic tryst that I didn't really clue into the phallic symbol of the train going into the tunnel. Just read that on imdb, actually. That's a nice touch. And that abrupt, and slightly awkward, cut doesn't ruin the charm and grace of the rest of the film... it's a really well constructed adventure with a good sense of fun (a stand-out scene for me was when Grant slipped into a anonymous woman's bedroom, and her alarmed "Stop!" followed by a lascivious "Stop..." :)).

Also, the transfer on the DVD wasn't too bad at all. This certainly wasn't one of the gaudier technicolor films (i.e., Curtiz's The Adventures of Robin Hood). The technique really wasn't excessively ostentatious. The palette of the film didn't indicate a desperate attempt to take advantage of the technique. But this is to be expected, I suppose, considering when the film was made. But, when the technicolor was more showcased, it really worked marvelously.... particularly in the case of Marie Saint's dress in the later half of the film.

Great film, great sequences... I really should have watched this one a long time ago.

[lovejuice]

Savion Glover isn't, either. He's a very 'traditionalist' dancer - but, it could have merit if used correctly.

you should check out my astarie & rogers thread.

[number8]

Late, but...

There are distribution companies that work exclusively to cater to film enthusiasts and carry art films they know wouldn't make any money. Companies like Film Movement work with membership fees, like book clubs, to stay afloat. They don't use a profit-gaining model.

This is why we have film societies. It's a bunch of rich white people gathering around watching indie and foreign movies, and they get to show how socially conscious they are and make a name for themselves by donating thousands of dollars into the indie film "cause." It's being a patron of the arts. These people also hand out grants for avant garde filmmakers to make movies that they know aren't going to attract a large audience. Their decision is usually based on what social message or how experimental these movies are, rather than how successful they can be.

So no, not all movie companies are out to make monetary profit.

[soitgoes...]

I just watched North By Northwest for the first time...
God, I wish I could watch some of Hitchcock films with virgin eyes.

[origami_mustache]

my banner...sweeet.

[Sven]

Oof. A rewatch of Forgotten Silver was not good to it.

Alas, perhaps I am not looking forward to my final paper on The Frighteners. Haven't seen it in a while, and with my current Jackson track record...

[Raiders]

Oof. A rewatch of Forgotten Silver was not good to it.

:frustrated:

[D_Davis]

The last time I tried to watch The Frighteners I couldn't make it all the way through; the bombastic, never-stopping score completely ruined it for me.

[Qrazy]

Oof. A rewatch of Forgotten Silver was not good to it.

Alas, perhaps I am not looking forward to my final paper on The Frighteners. Haven't seen it in a while, and with my current Jackson track record...

It's not very good, but not awful either.

[Sven]

I saw it twice when it first came out on video and I remember being intrigued by its color palette, unique story, and, of course, Jeffrey Combs. I am now locked into having to write on it, so here goes nothing...

[Sven]

:frustrated:

They can't all be Life Aquatics.

[Qrazy]

I saw it twice when it first came out on video and I remember being intrigued by its color palette, unique story, and, of course, Jeffrey Combs. I am now locked into having to write on it, so here goes nothing...

When's your rewatch?

[balmakboor]

I just watched North By Northwest for the first time. Pretty great. I suspected I was in for a fun time once Grant got kidnapped (and then proceeded to drunkenly careen down the road) and my faith was continually rewarded. It was interesting to see a younger Martin Landau in a particularly slimy role. He has an interesting presence... a very bold face that fit his character well. And Eva Marie Saint really gives the other Hitchcock blondes a run for their money — good performance, too (although, her passionate make-out scene on the train isn't really that passionate but this probably wasn't their fault).

The big set-piece finale was pretty neat. Reminded me of the ending to Saboteur, although I suppose this one was better. Very abrupt ending though... I guess I got caught up on how awkward the transition was from near-death cliffhanger to romantic tryst that I didn't really clue into the phallic symbol of the train going into the tunnel. Just read that on imdb, actually. That's a nice touch. And that abrupt, and slightly awkward, cut doesn't ruin the charm and grace of the rest of the film... it's a really well constructed adventure with a good sense of fun (a stand-out scene for me was when Grant slipped into a anonymous woman's bedroom, and her alarmed "Stop!" followed by a lascivious "Stop..." :)).

Also, the transfer on the DVD wasn't too bad at all. This certainly wasn't one of the gaudier technicolor films (i.e., Curtiz's The Adventures of Robin Hood). The technique really wasn't excessively ostentatious. The palette of the film didn't indicate a desperate attempt to take advantage of the technique. But this is to be expected, I suppose, considering when the film was made. But, when the technicolor was more showcased, it really worked marvelously.... particularly in the case of Marie Saint's dress in the later half of the film.

Great film, great sequences... I really should have watched this one a long time ago.

Yes, one of Hitch's greatest. I always look forward to the scene in the Mt. Rushmore lodge when the gun is fired...

... and a boy is standing in the background with his fingers in his ears.

I'm sure he always wished he'd used rear-projection in that scene.

[Qrazy]

So is anyone planning to watch Bad Company now?

Also, another reminder to check out Brighton Rock.

[Grouchy]

Duplicity is a movie so smart that it completely lost me by the halfway point. I still think Tony Gilroy is an excellent "people with suits" director, as evidenced by the hilarious slow-motion credits sequence with Wilkinson and Giamatti beating the crap out of each other at an airport. The rest of the movie gets progressively more complicated in that tricky-smart way which means you're never sure who's telling the truth and why should you care. Ultimately, and this might be a little spoiler-ish, the final twist on the story is such that it renders most of the story void, since it seems as if we were following the wrong set of characters instead of focusing on the actual plan. I appreciate Gilroy's attempt - making a modern spy comedy with a Golden Hollywood feel - but I don't have to like it. Soderbergh is better at this type of thing. And Gilroy is better at making stuff like Michael Clayton.

http://auteurs_production.s3.amazonaw s.com/stills/6299/Film_230w_3Women.jpg

Altman's 3 Women, on the other hand, almost doesn't rely on conventional logic and plot. It starts off in a rational way, with Spaceck and Duvall's characters becoming friends and roommates more through Spaceck's persistence than actually liking each other's company. These scenes are beautifully made and, about the halfway point, the movie and Spaceck jump into insanity. The birth scene is a real highlight, since it's affecting and scary despite its obvious theatricality. Spaceck and Duvall are a perfect match for each other, and it makes me wonder how it hasn't happened before or ever since. Spaceck in particular (one of my favorites) goes through such a range of attitude and emotion in this movie she's mesmerizing to watch. Ultimately, I admit to not understanding most of what happens in the film or the ending - Altman's explanation, which I have read about, explains the more obvious fact, but not what happens as a whole in that scene -, but it doesn't make me any less fascinated with it.

[Grouchy]

So is anyone planning to watch Bad Company now?
Me.

[Qrazy]

Me.

Nice, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

[Sycophant]

So is anyone planning to watch Bad Company now?

I'd like to watch it. Not quite the same thing as "planning to watch" it, but still.

[Qrazy]

I'd like to watch it. Not quite the same thing as "planning to watch" it, but still.

Fair. I don't know how easy it is to get a hold of, I got it off of Karagarga.

[Duncan]

I'm planning to watch it. I really want to find out why that guy on the horse isn't sitting in the saddle.

[Sven]

When's your rewatch?

Probably in the next few days. Might have to wait 'til the weekend. I'm really curious about my response.

Which Bad Company, by the way? Benton's? I love that movie.

[transmogrifier]

The Frighteners = awesome. Fox's best performance.

Svensos will despise it, of course.

[Qrazy]

Probably in the next few days. Might have to wait 'til the weekend. I'm really curious about my response.

Which Bad Company, by the way? Benton's? I love that movie.

Yep.

[Sven]

The Frighteners = awesome. Fox's best performance.

Svensos will despise it, of course.

I think I gave it an 8 in the Jackson consensus. Do we still have the numbers from that far back? E? Raiders?

[Sven]

To Match Cut, I offer a review, not an excerpt, but Luke Hickman's entire review of the film Milk, as featured in the Utah Valley University Review (the school paper):

Note: I wrote movie reviews for this paper briefly (one or two semesters). They were not great, but compared to this guy (who was my competition for the movie editor), they were practically Shakespeare. Please don't let this man's writing give you a wrong impression of who they let into universities in Utah. Fact is, it was a community college that graduated. He's merely a residual. Sadly, I'm sure that's all he'll ever be.


Milk, easily one of the best films of the year, tells the story of gay people fighting for the exact same civil rights that the blacks fought for just one decade earlier. It doesn't matter where you stand on Proposition 8 or same-sex marriage: Milk is made for anyone who values equality.

Harvey Milk was the first openly gay man elected to major office in the United States. It took him several years to be elected, but when he was, he started the revolution that asked gays to come out of the closet and stand up for equality. History tells the rest of the story from there.

Director Gus Van Sant left his unconventional storytelling ways and returned to his Good Will Hunting style for Milk. With his beautiful direction and natural way of telling the story, combined with brilliant acting from Sean Penn (as Harvey Milk), Emile Hirsch, Josh Brolin, James Franco and a nearly unknown brilliant cast of no-names, Milk powerfully secures a designation I rarely offer: perfect.

No matter how good Milk is, a sizeable group of ignorant people will refuse to see it simply because of the recent controversy surrounding Proposition 8, gay characters and the arguable stand on gay rights. You can be for or against it, but there's no denying that Milk is a one-of-a-kind beautiful film that you won't soon forget.

[Sycophant]

Actually, this is probably one of Hickman's best reviews.

[Sven]

Actually, this is probably one of Hickman's best reviews.

Oof.

[Sycophant]

I move that we adopt the moniker "a nearly unknown brilliant cast of no-names."

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

[Sven]

I can't even wrap my mind around that one.

[NickGlass]

Fun question: how many of you, dear Match Cutters, wrote for--or edited--film reviews for your college newspaper?

[megladon8]

I hosted the movie show on my college radio station.

Does that count?

[Stay Puft]

Report card for Jesus Franco's Paroxismus AKA Venus in Furs:

Writing 3
Direction 4
Lead performances 5
Supporting performances 5
Editing 4
Music 4
Cinematography 4
Locations 3
Special effects 4
Sound clarity 3
Sound effects/surround niftiness 2
Costume design 3
Craft services 1

Final score: 45

[number8]

I decided to check out this Luke Hickman feller's blog. Looks like he could be the next Ben Lyons.

[Sycophant]

THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE.

[transmogrifier]

Fun question: how many of you, dear Match Cutters, wrote for--or edited--film reviews for your college newspaper?

Yep, for a semester.

[Qrazy]

I did two reviews and then decided I had too much on my plate at the time.

[Wryan]

I wrote for my college paper for a summer and a year, or thereabouts. You can read my reviews at the Appalachian State University's newspaper website (www.theapp.appstate.edu) in the archives for the summer of 04 (I think) onward until I stop appearing or the website stopped archiving (the latter came first unfortunately). I think some of my op-ed pieces are scattered around as well. Website design not one of their strong suits in 04 (or today, or ever).

EDIT: I often had no say in the headline.

[Wryan]

I move that we adopt the moniker "a nearly unknown brilliant cast of no-names."

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

Awesome.

[BuffaloWilder]

Michael Barrier.

The Filmist.


It's on, like Donkey Kong.

[EvilShoe]

I wrote some TV/movie reviews for my college website, but gave up on it as I got annoyed by the way my editor (a teacher) kept giving them pun-tastic titles.

[Amnesiac]

I watched Solaris for the first time tonight. Overwhelming film. I feel like having a discussion about it, but really, I don't where to start or what road to even go down. But this isn't necessarily a bad thing.

This is one I'll likely be returning to via various sources in an attempt to get a surer handle on it. Not in the search of one grand answer, but perhaps several to relate to my own thoughts/reactions. But, even on a first viewing, without looking to anything written on it or Tarkovsky interviews or anything.... I can at least say it is a remarkably surreal and unsettling film. The slow zooms, long takes and tracking shots, the (near) lack of diegetic music, the strange digressions... it reminded me of 2001 at times. It explored some especially interesting ideas, particularly the notion of reproduction (which is really a meta topic that is endemic to most of the arts, especially cinema) and our pursuit of (and relationship with) surrogate, yet total, realities. Hari's fixated glance on the painting that slowly came (audibly) to life was a particularly curious scene — one among many — that seems to be exploring the vitality and worth of representations. That is, both as a means of escapism and in regards to their strange iconic power...

I have the Criterion, so I think I'm going to dig into the special features.

[Watashi]

http://www.theasylum.cc/images/posters/megashark_large.jpg

[MadMan]

I did write reviews for my high school paper. I was an editor for my college newspaper for two years, mostly for A&E and Opinion. So yeah, I have. But I consider most of the reviews I wrote for high school to be piss poor, or weak at best.

[chrisnu]

I admit to not understanding most of what happens in the film or the ending - Altman's explanation, which I have read about, explains the more obvious fact, but not what happens as a whole in that scene -, but it doesn't make me any less fascinated with it.
That's how I want to feel about Dead Ringers. Not there yet. I'm glad you liked 3 Women. I'd enjoy seeing a comparison between the relationships in that film, Mulholland Dr. and Persona. Similar, but different.

[Lucky]

Closer held up better than I remembered it. The motifs are easier to dissect once you have an idea of where the movie is heading, and viewing it through the "truth/reality" focus makes an interesting study for all four characters, especially Portman's. The script is still the standout, although now I feel it has more depth than I originally believed. Owen and Portman are charged and crackling throughout, but I can now see the validity in the criticism of Portman overacting at times. I have no idea why I decided to watch this again, but I'm kinda glad I did.

[transmogrifier]

Okay, due to a huge workload, I haven't watched a movie in almost a month. This weekend though, I'll get time to breathe. I have the following films available (in various forms) to watch. I want to watch three eclectic movies this weekend. Of the following, what should they be, and in what order? (I haven't seen any of them)

1941
After the Wedding
Ali: Fear Eats the Soul
All Quiet on the Western Front
Amarcord
The Awful Truth
Bad Education
Beau Travail
Belle De Jour
The Boss of It All
The Brood
Caberet
City Lights
Darling
Dressed to Kill
Even Dwarfs Started Small
Exiled
The Fall
Happiness of the Katakuris
A Hard Day's Night
The House of Mirth
House of Usher
Hustle & Flow
Jeremiah Johnson
Killer of Sheep
Laura
Lilja-4-Eva
Little Murder
Offside
The Parallax View
Playtime
Pulse
Milk
Rachel Getting Married
Le Samourai
Scarlet Street
Seven Days in May
Shampoo
Shoot the Piano Player
Sitcom
Songs from the Second Floor
The Spy in Black
Stroszeck
Suicide Club
Super Vixens
Suspira
Taxidermia
The Triplets of Belleville
Volver
The Wayward Cloud
A Woman Under the Influence

Remember, I may not watch another movie for another month after this.

[Ezee E]

-Belle de jour
-Le Samourai
-Rachel Getting Married

That's what I say.

[B-side]

So unless I'm missing something pretty huge, Stroszek was a massive disappointment. It was thin, predictable and cliche. Eva's entire storyline felt like an afterthought. She isn't much of a character. Neither is Bruno. It trods along contriving one predictable, manipulative scenario after another with nothing much in between. I won't assume the film asks us to sympathize with Bruno, as I can't imagine being asked to sympathize with someone so selfish and immature.

[Sven]

So unless I'm missing something pretty huge, Stroszek was a massive disappointment. It was thin, predictable and cliche. Eva's entire storyline felt like an afterthought. She isn't much of a character. Neither is Bruno. It trods along contriving one predictable, manipulative scenario after another with nothing much in between. I won't assume the film asks us to sympathize with Bruno, as I can't imagine being asked to sympathize with someone so selfish and immature.

:eek:

[Sven]

All Quiet on the Western Front
A Hard Day's Night
Playtime
Scarlet Street
Stroszeck
The Triplets of Belleville

One of these five, in any order.

[MacGuffin]

So unless I'm missing something pretty huge, Stroszek was a massive disappointment. It was thin, predictable and cliche. Eva's entire storyline felt like an afterthought. She isn't much of a character. Neither is Bruno. It trods along contriving one predictable, manipulative scenario after another with nothing much in between. I won't assume the film asks us to sympathize with Bruno, as I can't imagine being asked to sympathize with someone so selfish and immature.

I can't remember characters or anything like that, but I basically remember hating it also.

[Mara]

Watched Badlands last night for the first time, and I'm torn. On the one hand, it has one of the most fascinating uses of an unreliable narrator that I've seen. I was also impressed with how understated the film was given the subject matter. I kept expecting someone to get angry, or passionate, or yell, or cry. It never happened. Everyone was sleepy and polite throughout.

Although I admired that quality, it made the film seem somewhat distant and remote to me. I found it a little tricky to engage.

[The Mike]

The Awful Truth
Dressed to Kill
The Fall
House of Usher
SuspiraThese.

[Yxklyx]

continuing with the negative vibes....I thought Fort Apache (d. John Ford) was pretty dismal. A cookie cutter film from the late 40s. Apart from The Searchers, The Grapes of Wrath and Stagecoach I find his films either awful or forgettable.

[Yxklyx]

I just find it funny that there's a new movie out called Hunger directed by Steve McQueen and starring Michael Fassbender. Have we run out of names in the cinema world? :)

[Qrazy]

continuing with the negative vibes....I thought Fort Apache (d. John Ford) was pretty dismal. A cookie cutter film from the late 40s. Apart from The Searchers, The Grapes of Wrath and Stagecoach I find his films either awful or forgettable.

The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance? My Darling Clementine? How Green was My Valley?

Not sure why I'm defending because I'm not a particularly big Ford fan (haven't seen Ford Apache though) but those other three are all pretty good I think.

[Melville]

I can't remember characters or anything like that, but I basically remember hating it also.
How can you hate a movie that ends with a dancing chicken? That just doesn't seem possible.

[Raiders]

continuing with the negative vibes....I thought Fort Apache (d. John Ford) was pretty dismal. A cookie cutter film from the late 40s. Apart from The Searchers, The Grapes of Wrath and Stagecoach I find his films either awful or forgettable.

Have you seen 3 Godfathers or 7 Women? Likely my two favorites of his, along with The Searchers and Liberty Valance, which I would assume you have seen.

I still need to see The Sun Shines Bright.

[Qrazy]

I agree with the lack of enthusiasm for Stroszek. I don't think it's cliche exactly since it inverts the road movie staples. But final scene aside, I don't think it's very good. I prefer Woyzeck when it comes to films that end in ze(c)k.

[Qrazy]

I can't say I cared for Young Mr. Lincoln much at all. Not even sure why, it has some beautiful shots, and a decent enough story. Perhaps there's just something about Ford's dramatic tact and general tone that puts me off.

[Melville]

I agree with the lack of enthusiasm for Stroszek. I don't think it's cliche exactly since it inverts the road movie staples. But final scene aside, I don't think it's very good. I prefer Woyzeck when it comes to films that end in ze(c)k.
Yeah, I prefer Woyzeck overall. But still...nothing beats that dancing chicken.

[balmakboor]

Holy crap! I feel like I've stumbled into a land of silly people. Stroszek is easily one of my favorite films, start to finish. I pop it in often just to sit back and bath in its goodness.

I haven't seen Woyzeck yet so I can't really comment on its relative value. Been meaning to though.

[Qrazy]

Yeah, I prefer Woyzeck overall. But still...nothing beats that dancing chicken.

http://ursispaltenstein.ch/blog/images/uploads_img/dancing_chicken.jpg

[Sycophant]

Happiness of the Katakuris
City Lights
Playtime

This would probably tide me over for a month.

[thefourthwall]

Rachel Getting Married
The Awful Truth or Playtime
Caberet


I'd say start with RGM because it's contemporary, then I can't choose between TAT or P (I actually am in the middle of viewing Playtime, and while I'm appreciative of it and what it does, thus far it's not compelling me to finish immediately), finally end with Caberet because it's the best of all of them (that I've seen on your list).

[Qrazy]

Playtime
City Lights
Amarcord

For the sake of seeing films from a bunch of different regions. Otherwise Le Samourai and Shoot the Piano Player may have also been my recs. But you have about 15 damn good films on that list.

[Ezee E]

Reading d_davis' admiration for the Uma/John diner scene in Pulp Fiction made me wonder.

If Match Cut existed in 1993, would we have a three page discussion on the "square" part that Uma draws with her fingers, with little dots indicating that she indeed made a perfect square? Distracting? Odd, but cool? An attempt at cool, but stupid? Discuss.

[Qrazy]

Reading d_davis' admiration for the Uma/John diner scene in Pulp Fiction made me wonder.

If Match Cut existed in 1993, would we have a three page discussion on the "square" part that Uma draws with her fingers, with little dots indicating that she indeed made a perfect square? Distracting? Odd, but cool? An attempt at cool, but stupid? Discuss.

I wonder where he borrowed it from. I know Oldboy later borrowed it from him.

[Sven]

If Match Cut existed in 1993, would we have a three page discussion on the "square" part that Uma draws with her fingers, with little dots indicating that she indeed made a perfect square?

It really is more of a rectangle.

[Mysterious Dude]

I wonder where he borrowed it from. I know Oldboy later borrowed it from him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1DX3hw_9A0

[Qrazy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1DX3hw_9A0

Ahh thanks.

[Amnesiac]

I thought he borrowed it from a French New Wave film.... I can't remember which one. Perhaps I'm wrong.

Edit: Nevermind, I was remembering a comparison from this this page (http://www.imagesjournal.com/issue03/features/tarantino3.htm) that had to take do with breaking the illusion of reality in general, not the square in particular.

[Russ]

Holy crap! I feel like I've stumbled into a land of silly people. Stroszek is easily one of my favorite films, start to finish
Yes. For a moment there, I thought I had come across this "Bizarro-world" of which I'd heard Raiders speak. Sheesh.

[Qrazy]

Yes. For a moment there, I thought I had come across this "Bizarro-world" of which I'd heard Raiders speak. Sheesh.

SPOILERS

The final twist of the story is that it turns out you are actually the one from Bizarro world.

[Mara]

Hey, I was remembering that same clip that Antoine just showed, but I hadn't clicked on it. Never mind.

[Derek]

Belle De Jour
City Lights
Playtime
Shoot the Piano Player

Any 3 of these 4.

[Grouchy]

The Great
Amarcord
Belle De Jour
Exiled
Even Dwarves Started Small
Happiness of the Katakuris
Laura
Rachel Getting Married
Le Samourai
Suspiria
The Triplets of Belleville
A Woman Under the Influence
House of Usher - the Corman/Price one, right?

The Good
The Brood
Dressed to Kill
A Hard Day's Night
Pulse
Milk
Volver

The Ugly
Bad Education
Shoot the Piano Player
Suicide Club

[Derek]

The Ugly
Shoot the Piano Player

I agree with Suicide Club, but WTF?

[Qrazy]

I agree with Suicide Club, but WTF?

Seriously.

Bad Education isn't that bad either. It's just average.

[balmakboor]

I thought Bad Education was great.

I'll just recommend Even Dwarfs Started Small.

[Sycophant]

I want to watch three eclectic movies this weekend. Of the following, what should they be, and in what order? (I haven't seen any of them)

You people suck at reading.

[Ezee E]

You people suck at reading.
I'd say they went above and beyond.

[Grouchy]

I agree with Suicide Club, but WTF?
I don't know. Maybe too whimsical and unsubstantial for my tastes. But by Gawd, was that film boring for me despite the occasional laugh.

I should clarify I'm really not a big Truffaut fan except for The 400 Blows and (to a reasonable extent) Jules and Jim. Everything else I've seen for him (The Bride Wore Black, The Last Metro, Fahrenheit 451, Adele H., the remaining Antoine Doinel films) has been very dull.

[balmakboor]

You people suck at reading.

Well, to be honest, I don't consider any of the movies listed to be eclectic, let alone three. So I did my best.

[Grouchy]

You people suck at reading.
Huh... Good point.

[Ivan Drago]

- City Lights
- Volver
- The Triplets of Belleville

[balmakboor]

Ok. I'd say:

First watch A Woman Under the Influence. It's pretty heavy.

Then watch Even Dwarfs Started Small. Beware though that you may die laughing at the end.

Then finish with 1941. It's light. It's underrated.

[Sycophant]

Well, to be honest, I don't consider any of the movies listed to be eclectic, let alone three. So I did my best.

By "eclectic," I supposed he meant that he wanted to watch three films that were substantially different in tone and form and possibly period.