28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[baby doll]

I thought you hated this movie.I only watched the first two hours before turning it off. After seeing Die Nibelungen and Spione again, I thought I'd give it another shot.

[Sven]

I only watched the first two hours before turning it off. After seeing Die Nibelungen and Spione again, I thought I'd give it another shot.

Well, do try to be smart about it this time. It's quite possibly Lang's most beautifully shot picture, and it's much more imaginative than Die Nibelungen, if not quite as exciting as Spies. Still, it's one of his best and a triumph of design.

[baby doll]

So now that I've viewed Exotica and The Sweet Hereafter, and enjoyed both, what are some other good Egoyan films?I like all of Egoyan's films, but Next of Kin, Speaking Parts and Ararat are especially interesting. I might've added Family Viewing to the list if it weren't for the lame ending, or Calendar for that matter, except it felt a bit too neat (the three characters are obviously stand-ins for different approaches to the issue of Armenian identity, making it Egoyan's most rhetorical film; it also happens to be his lightest and funniest). The Adjuster looks a lot better on second viewing (probably because I was watching it on DVD rather than VHS and cropped), though it still strikes me as somewhat forgettable, and it's been too long since I've seen Felicia's Journey to comment on it in any meaningful way. And Where the Truth Lies is definitely not lame; as grand, sleazy entertainment with one of Kevin Bacon's slimiest performances, it puts most Hollywood product to shame, although a second viewing confirmed for me that there's less here than meets the eye.

[Sven]

Yeah, Qrazy, I'd say go with Felicia's Journey. It's my favorite Egoyan.

[Raiders]

I think the point here is: just watch another Egoyan film. He's worth it.

[baby doll]

Well, do try to be smart about it this time. It's quite possibly Lang's most beautifully shot picture, and it's much more imaginative than Die Nibelungen, if not quite as exciting as Spies. Still, it's one of his best and a triumph of design.Well, I have to call you on Die Nibelungen being unimaginative; Lang's mise en scene (tight and orderly in Siegfried's Death, messy and energetic in Kriemhild's Revenge) and his use of motifs (notice how both Hagen Tronje and Brunhild are associated with dark birds by their hats, while Siegfried's ability to communicate with birds associates him with light ones) give the film a thematic unity so that the experience of both films seen together is much more than the sum of its parts. But on a much more modest level, it's just an exquisitely beautiful film to look at.

[megladon8]

Safety Last! was wonderful.

One of the funniest movies I've seen all year.

[megladon8]

Maxim's list of the 14 worst Christmas movies ever made includes movies like The Santa Clause 2 and Jingle All the Way.

It also includes It's a Wonderful Life.

:crazy:

[Grouchy]

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y121/HawleyGriffin/Bee_Movie.jpg?t=1197050315

Bee Movie
Simon J. Smith & Steve Hickner, 2007

I have a bit of an issue with animated movies that use their voice star power as a marketing tool, mainly because I think the star should be the animation and there are a lot of excellent (mostly unknown) actors who specialize in voice performances,. But there's no way to resist the offer of a movie starring (and co-written by) Seinfield, because ever since the greatest sitcom on Earth was cancelled, we see so little of him or his co-stars. And the voice acting is the main attraction of Bee Movie. Beyond the funny actors, sometimes making fun of themselves, there's not much else.

The premise can be traced back to every kid-friendly animated movie with animals of the past 10 years. There's this member of the hive, Barry B. Benson, who's different from everyone else and craves for more adventure than spending the rest of his life in the honey business, which, in real nature, the males take no part on, but hey, it's a movie. He escapes the colony and ends up befriending a NY florist with an annoying boyfriend. On his journey, he discovers that mankind has been eating and commercializing honey for private consumption for years, so he decides to sue the human race in a Marxist predicament. Cue hilarity and a courtroom, and guest cameos by Sting and Ray Liotta.

Even if the plot is totally familiar, Bee Movie kind of works like a satire of this animation sub-genre. Things go by too fast, there's little to nothing of the DRAMA these movies always reach for, and the whole premise is based on a series of impossible events, so much so that there's a sign at the beginning that claims that bees can fly despite the technical hindrances of their wings and physical structure. In fact, looking past the cute antropomorphic animals, I don't think anyone under 12 is gonna get much outta this movie. It's like every three seconds there's gotta be a punchline or a satire or something, mostly popular culture stuff. I also think it's a satire because of the contradictory "message" - it looks like the bee is gonna be awarded for his rebellious behavior, but at the end, when he wins the case he makes things tough both for bees and the ecological balance in general, and if he achieves victory at the end with a rescue plan is because the bees support him. So, what's the message here? Don't mess with stuff? Accept what's coming to you? The answer - there's no message. The movie is one big joke, and never tries to be anything else.

With a comedy ratio this high, sometimes it misses, but most of the time it scores. Ray Liotta is awesome, there's a moment where Winnie the Poo gets a bit of police brutality, and the dialogue, although unrealistically filled to the brim with satire, is sparky and funny. There's no Seinfield-like humor, though. This is far from comedy about nothing and most of the dialogue scenes are not funny by themselves or even by the word usage, they're funny because of the context they're said in. Still, the funniest character, a mosquito played by Chris Rock, is totally underused and in fact there's not much of a point in having him in the script at all besides token funny black guy. Bee Movie is a past-time and doesn't try to be anything else, but it left me with a disappointed aftertaste. Maybe I expected something hilarious beyond rational expectations, but I saw it yesterday and I've already forgotten most of it. It's a one-trick pony and a one-time viewing experience, a comedy that rises above the level of most animated stuff only because of the care put into the casting and the voice performances. There's nothing visually arresting or groundbreaking about the run-of-the-mill animation. I recommend it for a good, hearty laugh, but I think the trailers were actually funnier. If only Larry David had been on board for this, it might be a different song.

[balmakboor]

Maxim's list of the 14 worst Christmas movies ever made includes movies like The Santa Clause 2 and Jingle All the Way.

It also includes It's a Wonderful Life.

:crazy:

The first word of your post tipped me off that I was in for some :crazy:.

[megladon8]

The first word of your post tipped me off that I was in for some :crazy:.

:) Indeed.

I just find it hard to comprehend how :crazy: someone has to be to create a list like that.

[balmakboor]

:) Indeed.

I just find it hard to comprehend how :crazy: someone has to be to create a list like that.

Is the list online? Their reasoning behind It's a Wonderful Life might be interesting. I haven't seen the other two movies you mentioned, but the list does raise the question: "Why 14?"

[Raiders]

Is the list online? Their reasoning behind It's a Wonderful Life might be interesting. I haven't seen the other two movies you mentioned, but the list does raise the question: "Why 14?"

They don't explain any of the choices, but here it is:

http://www.maximonline.com/slideshows/index.aspx?imgCollectId=136

They also included Home Alone, which is a film I still enjoy.

[megladon8]

They don't explain any of the choices, but here it is:

http://www.maximonline.com/slideshows/index.aspx?imgCollectId=136

They also included Home Alone, which is a film I still enjoy.


Yeh, I love the first Home Alone.

[Ivan Drago]

Weekend:

Bratz: The Movie

You're kidding, right?

And I love the first Home Alone, it's a childhood favorite of mine. I remember some guy on RT calling it the 2nd worst movie of all time, and I have no idea what people find against it.

[balmakboor]

They don't explain any of the choices, but here it is:

http://www.maximonline.com/slideshows/index.aspx?imgCollectId=136

They also included Home Alone, which is a film I still enjoy.

You know, reading through those comments just raised the bar defining a waste of time. (Or is it lowered the bar? Ah, hell, you know what I mean.)

I hate Maxim.

[Rowland]

I used to love Home Alone as a kid, but something about it bugs the hell out of me now.

[Grouchy]

Macaulay Culkin is my favorite junkie child star of all time.

[balmakboor]

Don't you love how critics just always seem to see eye-to-eye?

http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=31611
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=31608

[Cult]

The opening sequence is excellent, Simon Yam is as always very good, and I must admit that the story is quite original (about women killing all men). I'm pretty sure you will like it.
I have this on deck also. Love the av btw.

Waitress was... I'd say a disappointment, but I didn't expect much to begin with.

[dreamdead]

You're kidding, right?


Nope. I'm interested if Bratz ends up being crap or if it's got some subversive value. Now, to be sure, I don't expect the latter quality to be there, but maybe it'll even be unintentionally hilarious.

I love the John Williams score to the Home Alone series... and I still enjoy the first two in the series...

[balmakboor]

I have this on deck also. Love the av btw.

Waitress was... I'd say a disappointment, but I didn't expect much to begin with.

If you didn't expect much to begin with and it was still a disappointment, that's not good.

[Cult]

If you didn't expect much to begin with and it was still a disappointment, that's not good.

Nah, I'd say it was about on par with what I expected. Though it was a bit more odd and bitter-toned than I would have guessed. It's not very funny, not very sweet, and not very interesting. Just really lifeless.

[Raiders]

I was actually very impressed with Waitress. Much better than I even expected it to be. I posted some short thoughts:

Waitress (http://www.match-cut.org/showpost.php?p=12358&postcount=2134)

[Ivan Drago]

I hate Maxim.

I do too. After all, any magazine that calls Lindsay Lohan the hottest woman alive has lost all credibility with me. She was even above Jessica Alba, for Pete's sake!

[MadMan]

Maxim's list of the 14 worst Christmas movies ever made includes movies like The Santa Clause 2 and Jingle All the Way.

It also includes It's a Wonderful Life.

:crazy:Jingle All The Way is hilarious. I actually want to see it again, and if I remember right there actually was a decent message in there about the shopping craze that happens during the holidays. Plus Arnuld vs. Sinbad and Arnuld getting chased by a drunk, rampaging reindeer=awesome. The Santa Clause 2 is decent at best, but also harmless-I don't see why its even on the list. The third film on the other hand look utterly terrible.

Their placement of Its A Wonderful Life on that list must be a typo as its the best X-Mas movie I've ever seen and its widely regarded as a classic. There's no other logical explanation for why it should be on there.


They don't explain any of the choices, but here it is:

http://www.maximonline.com/slideshows/index.aspx?imgCollectId=136

They also included Home Alone, which is a film I still enjoy.Okay they also have Scrooged on the list as well. That movie is pretty damn good and a nice twist on the old A Christmas Carol tale, plus they also put the A Miracle on 34th Street remake on the list, and that one was for the most part really solid as well.
And the first Home Alone is a good movie, or at the very least great fun.
Their mini-blurbs for some of the good films represented a cynical, cold side that not even I touch during the holidays. Stick to displaying hot women on your pages Maxim. On the other hand though I do like their blurb about The Grinch:
Usually, Jim Carrey prompts us to reach for a tranquilizer gun and a fresh supply of darts. In this case, we grabbed a rocket launcher and dipped the missile in anthrax juice.

[Derek]

Come on guys. An American Werewolf in London is great.

I haven't seen it in over ten years, but I don't remember thinking much of it. It's certainly not bad though, which is why, for now, I have it filed under "meh". I didn't realize people in these parts thought so much of it.

[Rowland]

Jingle All The Way is hilarious. I actually want to see it again, and if I remember right there actually was a decent message in there about the shopping craze that happens during the holidays. No.

[Philosophe_rouge]

The score for the Sweet Hereafter is so wow, I can't stop listening to it.

[number8]

No.

Why you be hatin' on Sinbad?

[Rowland]

Why you be hatin' on Sinbad?He's one of the least of its problems... which says a lot.

[MadMan]

No.Of all the people here on this site, in this thread, I thought you would like Jingle All The Way. So much for that...*shrug*

[Rowland]

Of all the people here on this site, in this thread, I thought you would like Jingle All The Way.Good lord, why would you think that?

Wasn't there a Jingle All the Way discussion at the old forum? I think Trans liked it...

[lovejuice]

i kinda like jingle all the way in a sense that look, arnold is back doing teh ha-ha again.

[ledfloyd]

Jingle All The Way is hilarious. I actually want to see it again, and if I remember right there actually was a decent message in there about the shopping craze that happens during the holidays. Plus Arnuld vs. Sinbad and Arnuld getting chased by a drunk, rampaging reindeer=awesome.
rep. i thought i was alone in my opinion of this. probably my greatest guilty pleasure. TURBO MAN!

[eternity]

I bought a Turboman doll off Ebay for $90 a few years ago.

[Rowland]

My weekend viewings will be comprised of:

Exiled
The King of Kong
Into Great Silence

I have high hopes for all three. I hope that at least one is good enough to bump its way into my '07 top ten.

[Mal]

Weekend
Breakfast at Tiffany's
The Golden Compass
Starter for 10

[Derek]

My weekend viewings will be comprised of:

Exiled
The King of Kong
Into Great Silence

I have high hopes for all three. I hope that at least one is good enough to bump its way into my '07 top ten.

These are three I'm really looking forward too. I haven't heard much about Into Great Silence, but on premise alone, it sounds incredibly promising. I'm especially eager to see what you think of that one.

My weekend:

Cassandra's Dream (Allen)

and probably these:

Time (Kim)
Unfaithfully Yours (Sturges)

[MacGuffin]

Weekend Viewings (?):

Paprika (Satashi Kon)
I Don't Want To Sleep Alone (Tsai Ming-liang)
Lost in Translation (Sofia Coppola) [rewatch]
Pandora's Box (G.W. Pabst) [I will probably have to save this one for next weekend.]

[Ezee E]

Raiders, Out of the Blue thoughts.

That is the one with Alba and the guy that screwed the snow dogs right? I've only seen a bit of it on Encore but was pleasantly surprised.

[Watashi]

Raiders, Out of the Blue thoughts.

That is the one with Alba and the guy that screwed the snow dogs right? I've only seen a bit of it on Encore but was pleasantly surprised.
Uh... that's Into the Blue.

I would have negative repped Raiders if he actually saw that.

[Grouchy]

Azumi has convinced me that Kitamura is one of the greatest action directors alive and the Eastern answer to QT - this is how you make B cinema on purpose. I'm not all that knowledgeable of the classic samurai cinema, Sonny Chiba and the like, but this movie has to be the most action-filled chanbara I've ever seen, practically jumping from fight to fight, escalating on the gore and the gravity-defying moves. The hammering music is used to great effect, and villains and heroes alike all have distinctive qualities to them - they're exaggerated caricatures, sure, but who gives a flying fuck when the final boss is a white-dressing gay ronin who throws roses at his victims? My bizarro video store's manager told me the movie was good, but that the original manga was more complex and better written. That might be, but as a guy who never read it, the adaptation was a solid two hours of non-stop violence and moving showdowns. It made me want to rewatch Godzilla Final Wars, which I saw with a crowd of friends and I don't think I appreciated it enough besides its campiness. And Versus, of course.

[Grouchy]

Lost in Translation (Sofia Coppola) [rewatch]
Huh, you into masochism or something?

[Rowland]

That is the one with Alba and the guy that screwed the snow dogs right? I've only seen a bit of it on Encore but was pleasantly surprised.Into the Blue... it's no Blue Crush, but I enjoyed it as a sort of guilty pleasure.

[MacGuffin]

Huh, you into masochism or something?

No, it's one of my favorite movies. I've seen it about eight times.

[Grouchy]

No, it's one of my favorite movies. I've seen it about eight times.
Exactly.

[Qrazy]

Exactly.

*rimshot*

[MadMan]

rep. i thought i was alone in my opinion of this. probably my greatest guilty pleasure. TURBO MAN!Wahoo! :)


Good lord, why would you think that?

Wasn't there a Jingle All the Way discussion at the old forum? I think Trans liked it...Because you and I have been agreeing about movies more so lately, plus you tend to like films that most others don't. But I was mistaken apparently heh.

I didn't know there was a discussion about the film. It wouldn't surprise me if trans liked it.

Right now Jaws 2 is on some channel called MoviePlex right now. God I love how its both a serious film with some good stuff and also a hilariously cheesy sequel that fails to even remotely live up to the orginal. Roy Schrider sadly gives a pretty solid performance given the source material. Had the film cut out the subplots with the kids and made it look like Brody was crazy instead of actually right, the film could have actually been something more. In other words they should have tried something along the lines of what Halloween III attempted to do with the Halloween series. My favorite parts of the film:
*The woman on the boat who gets attacked by Bruce in a fit of paniac and stupidity decides to pour gasoline all over the boat and fire a flare gun at the shark, thus blowing herself up. Hilarious.
*When the burned woman pops up at Brody I actually jumped. That sadly is the only scary part of the movie.
*Brody freaking out and shooting into the water, mistaking a school of fish for a shark. It shows just how paranoid and freaked out he's become.
*The shark grabbing a chopper and draging it underwater. My favorite part of the film simply because it really isn't possible. Heh.

PS: I'm glad I wasted my 100th post in this thread on a review of Jaws 2. That's space well spent ;)

[baby doll]

Waitress was... I'd say a disappointment, but I didn't expect much to begin with.Haven't seen the flick, but I suspect if it weren't for Shelley's tragic death, no one would've noticed yet another romantic comedy set in one of those movie small towns where everyone spends all day in the local diner eating apple pie and providing the heroine with little nuggets of homespun wisdom.

[Yxklyx]

The score for the Sweet Hereafter is so wow, I can't stop listening to it.
Yeah, it's amazing that it has my favorite Jane Siberry song as well.

[Sven]

Well, I have to call you on Die Nibelungen being unimaginative; Lang's mise en scene (tight and orderly in Siegfried's Death, messy and energetic in Kriemhild's Revenge) and his use of motifs (notice how both Hagen Tronje and Brunhild are associated with dark birds by their hats, while Siegfried's ability to communicate with birds associates him with light ones) give the film a thematic unity so that the experience of both films seen together is much more than the sum of its parts. But on a much more modest level, it's just an exquisitely beautiful film to look at.

Please note that I did not call the film unimaginative but, rather, stated that Woman in the Moon is simply much more imaginative. You do not need to convince me of Lang's imagination.

[Raiders]

Haven't seen the flick, but I suspect if it weren't for Shelley's tragic death, no one would've noticed yet another romantic comedy set in one of those movie small towns where everyone spends all day in the local diner eating apple pie and providing the heroine with little nuggets of homespun wisdom.

:|

Try seeing the film first. It's much more Hartley than Marshall.

[Derek]

So, I'm gonna need a little time to reflect on the fact that Kim Ki-suck made one of the best films of the year. I guess there was a reason I kept returning to him, as this is the film I was always hoping for though I certainly didn't expect it.

[Spinal]

So, I'm gonna need a little time to reflect on the fact that Kim Ki-suck made one of the best films of the year.

As you reflect, consider the possibility that maybe it's you who has sucked all along. :)

[baby doll]

As you reflect, consider the possibility that maybe it's you who has sucked all along. :)No, 3 Iron was a piece of crap. Bad Guy was even worse. Even Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter... and Spring, which I liked, is ultimately less than the sum of its seasons.

[Derek]

As you reflect, consider the possibility that maybe it's you who has sucked all along. :)

No, I'm pretty sure most of those other films (aside from 3-Iron which is good and Spring, Summer, etc. which is decent, I guess) sucked pretty hard. It certainly helped that he dropped the silent protagonist schtick and integrated the symbolism into the story in subtle, complex ways. Ya know, actually showing growth as a filmmaker. :)

[Spinal]

No, I'm pretty sure most of those other films (aside from 3-Iron which is good and Spring, Summer, etc. which is decent, I guess) sucked pretty hard. It certainly helped that he dropped the silent protagonist schtick and integrated the symbolism into the story in subtle, complex ways. Ya know, actually showing growth as a filmmaker. :)

I'll get back to you after you've had time to reflect. Clearly this is the old you speaking.

[monolith94]

God, how I wish I had had a chance to see Time in theaters... Certainly my 2007 list will not be complete without at least giving it a chance.

[Derek]

I'll get back to you after you've had time to reflect. Clearly this is the old you speaking.

:)

Did you ever post thoughts about this one?

[Derek]

God, how I wish I had had a chance to see Time in theaters... Certainly my 2007 list will not be complete without at least giving it a chance.

It's out on DVD.

[Qrazy]

No, 3 Iron was a piece of crap. Bad Guy was even worse. Even Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter... and Spring, which I liked, is ultimately less than the sum of its seasons.

I agree more with Derek... except I felt hat 3-iron was very good... Spring, Summer - decent... The Isle - Above average but ultimately fails... Bad Guy - Crap, agreed.

I'd say... 3-iron>Time>Spring, Summer

[Qrazy]

:|

Try seeing the film first. It's much more Hartley than Marshall.

Can't stand Hartley.

[jesse]

Derek, was just going through your screening log... and did you ever write anything on 2 Days in Paris? (Your rating made me feel sad.)

[Yxklyx]

3-Iron is magnificent and Odd Man Out is much more fun than a 7.5.;)

[Derek]

Derek, was just going through your screening log... and did you ever write anything on 2 Days in Paris? (Your rating made me feel sad.)

No, I never wrote about that one. It's not particularly bad, just innocuous with a lot of the first-time filmmaker blemishes. What I liked most was the fact that while I expecting something of a vanity project or rehash of the Before films, she allowed her own character to be more flawed than Goldberg's. Some of the individual scenes were great, but I didn't think they came together into a fully cohesive film.

[Spinal]

:)

Did you ever post thoughts about this one?

Checking my website, it appears not. I think I may have written something short back at the old site.

[Derek]

Odd Man Out is much more fun than a 7.5.;)

It is a fun film and I love that a large portion of the film is James Mason becoming increasingly incapacitated and reliant upon others, who all reveal their own motives while trying to help him. I can't think of another film where a bullet to the arm was taken so seriously for such an extended period of time!

[Spinal]

What was interesting to me about Time were the comparisons to Eternal Sunshine. The former does for the face what the latter does for the mind. Or something. I think I put it much better when the film was fresh in my head.

[jesse]

No, I never wrote about that one. It's not particularly bad, just innocuous with a lot of the first-time filmmaker blemishes. What I liked most was the fact that while I expecting something of a vanity project or rehash of the Before films, she allowed her own character to be more flawed than Goldberg's. Some of the individual scenes were great, but I didn't think they came together into a fully cohesive film. Well, can't really argue with that since I agree and see where it could be problematic, but I really, really fell for it (actually, its still up there with my favorite films of the year so far).

I guess it helped that after reading most of her interviews over the years and listening to her music a lot, stylistically the film was almost exactly what I expected it to be--which means I expected a lot of interesting if flawed artistic decisions.

Reminds me, I never posted my own review in my blog. I'll do that now.

[Rowland]

It certainly helped that he dropped the silent protagonist schtick and integrated the symbolism into the story in subtle, complex ways. Ya know, actually showing growth as a filmmaker. :)Whoa now. Time is a lot of things, but subtle is not one of them.

It's an okay flick though. 3-Iron is better, as its conceptual goals are more within Ki-Duk's grasp. Time feigns depth more than anything, and ultimately with only marginal success, though the final metaphysical "twist" has a certain elegance to it.

[Qrazy]

Who else thinks Die Hard 4 is against net neutrality?

[Derek]

Whoa now. Time is a lot of things, but subtle is not one of them.

It's an okay flick though. 3-Iron is better, as its conceptual goals are more within Ki-Duk's grasp. Time feigns depth more than anything, and ultimately with only marginal success, though the final metaphysical "twist" has a certain elegance to it.

I never said the film was subtle, but that Kim (at least compared to previous efforts) works the symbolism into the film, lets say more gracefully rather than subtly. I'll try to get some lengthier comments up, but probably won't have time before Sunday night.

[Raiders]

Hm, I may have to see Time.

[Rowland]

I never said the film was subtle, but that Kim (at least compared to previous efforts) works the symbolism into the film, lets say more gracefully rather than subtly. I'll try to get some lengthier comments up, but probably won't have time before Sunday night.I don't know if it was too graceful either. All that sculpture-on-the-waterfront imagery, and the paper-mask conceit didn't feel earned to me.

[Boner M]

I just purchased an amazing book today, that I wouldn't have given a second look had it not been raved by bloggers (the cover made it look like another 'hit parade' type book):

http://www.ryerson.ca/mgroup/movies.jpg

Has contributions by Sicinski, Rosenbaum, Adrian Martin, Chris Fujiwara, and generally a bunch of people who know their shit. Very much worth adding to your X-mas list.

[Bosco B Thug]

Wow, Vertigo. Hitchcock makes the love lives of these middle-aged people so juicy (Novak's pretty striking, though). The Judy section is giddily provocative. I'm glad Hitch let us know what we know by that part. But then the movie goes from hilariously, excruciatingly karmic to downright terrifying in those last 10 minutes! That is an electrifying finale! Stewart (wow) and Novak (and Hitchcock) are perfect!

I don't know what's keeping me from giving it a 10/10. The story is pretty ridiculous, and the movie is awkward in its lulls sometimes. And it's not quite The Birds (but then what is?).

[MadMan]

I just purchased an amazing book today, that I wouldn't have given a second look had it not been raved by bloggers (the cover made it look like another 'hit parade' type book):

http://www.ryerson.ca/mgroup/movies.jpg

Has contributions by Sicinski, Rosenbaum, Adrian Martin, Chris Fujiwara, and generally a bunch of people who know their shit. Very much worth adding to your X-mas list.Very nice.


Who else thinks Die Hard 4 is against net neutrality?Against an overreliance on technology, yeah. But net neutrality? How so? That's a new one to me.

So I gave into laziness and am watching The Fog on AMC right now. I'm not proud of myself but I know I probably won't get around to renting it anytime soon and I'm tired of waiting to see it. The time is now! I'll confess I saw The Godfather Part II on TV instead of renting it. Hey it was free *shrugs* So far so good with Carpetner's 1980 flick. I'll post thoughts after the whole thing ends.

[jesse]

I just purchased an amazing book today, that I wouldn't have given a second look had it not been raved by bloggers (the cover made it look like another 'hit parade' type book):

http://www.ryerson.ca/mgroup/movies.jpg

Has contributions by Sicinski, Rosenbaum, Adrian Martin, Chris Fujiwara, and generally a bunch of people who know their shit. Very much worth adding to your X-mas list. Ohhhh...

*puts on Christmas list, but expects to have to buy himself in a month or so*

[Yxklyx]

It is a fun film and I love that a large portion of the film is James Mason becoming increasingly incapacitated and reliant upon others, who all reveal their own motives while trying to help him. I can't think of another film where a bullet to the arm was taken so seriously for such an extended period of time!

What makes this an amazing movie for me is how the passage of time is shown. The Third Man seems to take place at one point in time while this one shows the passage of time with the street environment changing appropriately. I think it evoked a run-of-the-mill day exceptionally well.

[Yxklyx]

Hm, I may have to see Time.

Eh, I was kind of disappointed with it. Kind of like Kim trying to do Hollywood and what's up with Koreans and self-mutilation?

[Qrazy]

Very nice.

Against an overreliance on technology, yeah. But net neutrality? How so? That's a new one to me.


Well, I'm only being half-serious here, but the fact that the networks are so open is what prompted the terrorist maneuverings. Beyond an over-reliance on technology the film seems to be espousing the notion that if big brother had stepped in and put the lock down on the 'opened-ness' of the internet, sectioning off and controlling the system better, than things wouldn't have gone so terribly wrong.

[Qrazy]

Eh, I was kind of disappointed with it. Kind of like Kim trying to do Hollywood and what's up with Koreans and self-mutilation?

It's so wrong but it feels so right?

[Sven]

I just purchased an amazing book today, that I wouldn't have given a second look had it not been raved by bloggers (the cover made it look like another 'hit parade' type book):

http://www.ryerson.ca/mgroup/movies.jpg

Has contributions by Sicinski, Rosenbaum, Adrian Martin, Chris Fujiwara, and generally a bunch of people who know their shit. Very much worth adding to your X-mas list.

There's a Music one that is equally awesome. I see them at work all the time.

[MadMan]

Well, I'm only being half-serious here, but the fact that the networks are so open is what prompted the terrorist maneuverings. Beyond an over-reliance on technology the film seems to be espousing the notion that if big brother had stepped in and put the lock down on the 'opened-ness' of the internet, sectioning off and controlling the system better, than things wouldn't have gone so terribly wrong.Oh, okay. I'll have to rewatch the film again but I think you might have made a valid point here. Although at the same time I still think the cyber terrorists would have broken in on through. That guy thought was able to hack into encrypted systems though if I remember right. So in a way I don't think that would have helped either.

I just finished The Fog(1980). Although not as scary as his other horror efforts, this piece is a highly effective ghost story with a great eerie atmosphere. I love how John Carpenter sets up the entire film, and creates early on a sense of dread and strangeness that is perfect for this film. Considering how many genres he's worked in Carpenter was meant to make a ghost story, and he adds some novel twists and notable differences, such as the fact that the ghosts here are murderous vengeful pirates who can actually knock on and open doors. Yes there's a good deal of violence and a little bit of gore here, but Carpenter wisely doesn't let it overtake the picture just like with Halloween and even with the more gory The Thing.
While the film lacks some notable tension and only contains one scene that actually made me jump and one scene that was sort of a shock to me, I still enjoyed the hell out of this film. The cast is complete with many of the actors/actresses who were in his previous films (seeing Janet Leigh here was a pleasant surprise) and the film's ending is something really cool and a bit un-nerving. To me The Fog is a great middle ground between Halloween and The Thing, lesser than the two and yet containing elements that appeared in both the former and the latter. I am committed to seeing more and more of the man's work (even his 90s stuff) if only because all of I've viewed so far has been either really great or at the very least really cool.

And I guess I give The Fog an 8.0 or a 7.5. I'm not really sure yet and I don't think its too important at this point.

[Derek]

And I guess I give The Fog an 8.0 or a 7.5. I'm not really sure yet and I don't think its too important at this point.

Right, the important thing now is to see the 50% of the film that wasn't on your TV. :) AMC can go fuck themselves, FWIW.

[MadMan]

Right, the important thing now is to see the 50% of the film that wasn't on your TV. :) AMC can go fuck themselves, FWIW.Eh I'll eventually rent it, but honestly I didn't miss that 50% that wasn't there. I love wide screen and such, but sometimes it doesn't matter. I have a friend who loves full screen. I think he's crazy but if he likes that instead of wide screen than I say more power to him *shrug*

[Qrazy]

Eh I'll eventually rent it, but honestly I didn't miss that 50% that wasn't there. I love wide screen and such, but sometimes it doesn't matter. I have a friend who loves full screen. I think he's crazy but if he likes that instead of wide screen than I say more power to him *shrug*

Unacceptable. You should be shunned and shot, or perhaps first shot then shunned, or perhaps both simultaneously.

[MadMan]

Unacceptable. You should be shunned and shot, or perhaps first shot then shunned, or perhaps both simultaneously.That would hurt. The shunning I mean. Getting shot ain't nuthin' down here in da hood yo :P

[Watashi]

While I think Michael Moore can go overboard with his political voice, I've always held respect for him even if I find myself on the opposing debate team. In Sicko, Moore's political slant is firmly aligned in regards to what America does wrong in its control of health care, but at the core of this film, the message is a very humane one. I currently don't have health insurance because I can't afford it and I haven't been to the hospital since I was three. I know I won't be able to live this perfectly healthy life for long, because my body will eventually breakdown and some illness will be bestowed on me whether I like it or not. I know that it will be impossible for me to live a debt-free life if I want to continue to live here without any health care. I think Moore drives home his point fair and square (gimmicks and all), by keeping usually snarky persona off-camera most of the time, and let the interviewees speak for themselves. Moore talks to the rich, poor, white, black, conservative, and liberals about the same damning issue and each one comes to the same general conclusion: Something needs to be done. I don't think Moore's film will cause any stir and will mostly be a small ripple in an ocean. If Moore couldn't stop Bush's reelection with his most finacially successful film to date, what is he going to accomplish here? Not much, but that's ok. The fact that it's out there for viewing is more than enough. There are probably facts hidden and few too many heartstrings pulled in Moore's propagandistic filmmaking, but his doings are admirable by me, someone who was never a big Moore supporter, because I admire people who stand for something than those who just sit down and do nothing.

Not to mention the film is endlessly entertaining while shocking.

[Spinal]

I wish I had seen the version of The Fog with 50% less.

[Li Lili]

Eh, I was kind of disappointed with it. Kind of like Kim trying to do Hollywood and what's up with Koreans and self-mutilation?
Yeah me too (about Time by Kim Ki-duk). I actually didn't like it.
Actually I think he's a bit too overrated, his body of works is mixed, some are interesting such as The Isle or 3 Iron, but I don't find his movies subtle at too as they are too much overloaded by symbolism, to me, his movies feel too "exotic" and pleasing (especially for western audience).

[Li Lili]

Weekend Viewings (?):

Paprika (Satashi Kon)
I Don't Want To Sleep Alone (Tsai Ming-liang)
Lost in Translation (Sofia Coppola) [rewatch]
Pandora's Box (G.W. Pabst) [I will probably have to save this one for next weekend.]

Ahh! I don't want to sleep alone is a must-see, but all Tsai's films are definitely must-see films. :P

[Mal]

Starter for 10 has an obvious outcome, but it's the journey along the way that makes it worthwhile. James McAvoy's Brian shows his range, from being a fawn to now a college kid who just wants to be in the "know". While it could have been a lot more predictable, the source material lends itself well to the 80s and varying class systems of Southern England.

[Rowland]

but honestly I didn't miss that 50% that wasn't there. That's because you have no aesthetic taste.

JK

[Rowland]

Regarding Sicko, I just wish Moore wasn't so damn condescending. The health care issue needed a No End in Sight-style approach. The fake Moore persona can shove it.

The scariest thing about the movie for me, more so than the health care issue, is that there are still people out there who are shocked by it.

[Qrazy]

Regarding Sicko, I just wish Moore wasn't so damn condescending. The health care issue needed a No End in Sight-style approach. The fake Moore persona can shove it.

The scariest thing about the movie for me, more so than the health care issue, is that there are still people out there who are shocked by it.

There can be only one! Health care system...

[Kurosawa Fan]

Regarding Sicko, I just wish Moore wasn't so damn condescending. The health care issue needed a No End in Sight-style approach. The fake Moore persona can shove it.

The scariest thing about the movie for me, more so than the health care issue, is that there are still people out there who are shocked by it.

This has been my complaint about Moore from the beginning. He's not nearly as effective as he should be because his approach is so smug and condescending that he turns people off before they even watch. It's a shame too, because he has important things to say. The worst part is I feel like he knows this, but doesn't care. I think he's in it for the money and fame above everything else.

[dreamdead]

So the Bratz Movie isn't as fabulously bad as the reviews promised. That's not to say, however, that the film doesn't engage in spectacularly regressive ethnic prejudices. It often does, thinking that such practices are shorthand for character development, but the ideas often expose the characters as just as superficial as those characters the film seeks to indict. And the fact that the minorities all still acquiesce to the "white girl" in their group is indeed troubling. Despite a wondruous WTF song-n-dance number at the end, the film ends up pretty much blowing.

Also took in Dead and Breakfast yesterday. In terms of being self-aware of the horror genre conventions, it's entertaining enough, and the guitar-playing narrator keeps things moving, but some of the meta-ness gets distracting and reduces the effectiveness that the film would possess if it were just a horror film without comedic postmodern awareness. Pretty solid given the limited budget, though, and the ending gets humorously over-the-top.

[Watashi]

The scariest thing about the movie for me, more so than the health care issue, is that there are still people out there who are shocked by it.

This is a rather silly and cynical thing to say (but coming from you, this isn't a surprise). I can recognize Moore's theatrical stunts, but unlike his ice cream truck recruitment gimmick in Fahrenheit, I don't think he was attention-starved as KF thinks (considering Moore approves of people pirating his film, I don't think Moore really cares about how much money the film makes, as long as people see it one way or the other). Most of his smugness was left off-camera in Sicko and this is by far his most mature and genuine effort to get something done in America. Does he really expect everyone to move to Canada and France after they see the film?

[Kurosawa Fan]

I agree that this was his most mature, and his best film thus far. But that doesn't change the fact that he's smug. And my perception of him stems from things he's said and done around his precious Michigan which he always makes a point to say he cares so much about. But we don't need to get into that.

[Qrazy]

(as long as people see him one way or the other).

:P

[Rowland]

This is a rather silly and cynical thing to say (but coming from you, this isn't a surprise). I can recognize Moore's theatrical stunts, but unlike his ice cream truck recruitment gimmick in Fahrenheit, I don't think he was attention-starved as KF thinks (considering Moore approves of people pirating his film, I don't think Moore really cares about how much money the film makes, as long as people see it one way or the other). Most of his smugness was left off-camera in Sicko and this is by far his most mature and genuine effort to get something done in America. Does he really expect everyone to move to Canada and France after they see the film?I think his attitude still comes across as condescending. It's the tone of his narration, those stupid mock-surprise reactions, and what not. Granted, it is toned down in Sicko, but still.

Regarding the part of my post that you quoted, my point was that we obviously still have a long way to go if people are shocked by what should be very common knowledge. People shouldn't need Michael Moore's proselytism to explain why the U.S. health care system sucks, when that information is endlessly documented and available, free and untarnished by Moore's questionable documentary antics.

[Qrazy]

I think his attitude still comes across as condescending. It's the tone of his narration, those stupid mock-surprise reactions, and what not. Granted, it is toned down in Sicko, but still.

Regarding the part of my post that you quoted, my point was that we obviously still have a long way to go if people are shocked by what should be very common knowledge. People shouldn't need Michael Moore's proselytism to explain why the U.S. health care system sucks, when that information is endlessly documented and available, free and untarnished by Moore's questionable documentary antics.

Never underestimate the stupidity of the public.

[Watashi]

I think his attitude still comes across as condescending. It's the tone of his narration, those stupid mock-surprise reactions, and what not. Granted, it is toned down in Sicko, but still.

Regarding the part of my post that you quoted, my point was that we obviously still have a long way to go if people are shocked by what should be very common knowledge. People shouldn't need Michael Moore's proselytism to explain why the U.S. health care system sucks, when that information is endlessly documented and available, free and untarnished by Moore's questionable documentary antics.
The reason why you think it's common knowledge that everyone knows the U.S. health care system sucks is because it's fogging your mind on how the general "America rules!" public understands these basic government systems. We have to remind ourselves that world exists outside an internet message board.

[Sven]

I think his attitude still comes across as condescending. It's the tone of his narration, those stupid mock-surprise reactions, and what not. Granted, it is toned down in Sicko, but still.

Regarding the part of my post that you quoted, my point was that we obviously still have a long way to go if people are shocked by what should be very common knowledge. People shouldn't need Michael Moore's proselytism to explain why the U.S. health care system sucks, when that information is endlessly documented and available, free and untarnished by Moore's questionable documentary antics.

Gotta side with Wats. Why is Michael Moore any less of a vehicle for public awareness than statistics on the internet? All stats are politically loaded, all methods for acquiring them are politically loaded, all informative television programs are politically loaded, all newspapers are politically loaded, on and on and on. I agree that it should be common knowledge, but I disagree that Moore is an unacceptable mouthpiece by which to raise that awareness. Because at least he's reaching out to be heard.

[Watashi]

Gotta side with Wats.

I may just sig this. It will be awhile until these words will ever be typed again.

[Qrazy]

Does anyone have that gif of the guy typing faster and faster until his hands turn into bloody stumps and then he bashes his head against the computer? I just remembered it for no apparent reason and want to show my roommate.

[origami_mustache]

Michael Moore dumbs down the documentary film so much, his movies are like "pop docs."

[Winston*]

Does anyone have that gif of the guy typing faster and faster until his hands turn into bloody stumps and then he bashes his head against the computer? I just remembered it for no apparent reason and want to show my roommate.
http://i21.tinypic.com/2mza8b8.gif

[Spinal]

Michael Moore dumbs down the documentary film so much, his movies are like "pop docs."

What are you trying to say here? Clearly his films are accessible because they reach a wide audience. But why do you need to frame that in a negative way? Why does he need to strive for some intangible ideal of what a documentary film is supposed to be? He does what he does. I don't understand the rigid expectations for what a documentary film must be.

[Spinal]

The reason why you think it's common knowledge that everyone knows the U.S. health care system sucks is because it's fogging your mind on how the general "America rules!" public understands these basic government systems. We have to remind ourselves that world exists outside an internet message board.

It reminds me of when people said that the message of Super Size Me was obvious. Well, clearly it's not obvious enough, because there's still loads of people out there eating fast food and getting big booties.

[Raiders]

It reminds me of when people said that the message of Super Size Me was obvious. Well, clearly it's not obvious enough, because there's still loads of people out there eating fast food and getting big booties.

That's not exactly the same. Eating McDonald's every meal, every day for a month is not only an exaggeration, but even fat people would give a "duh" to Spurlock's decline in health. Besides, who says that people didn't get it? A message similar to what Blanchett's Dylan said in the film I saw today, a piece of music (here a film) isn't really going to change anything.

[dreamdead]

Took in Kon's Paprika this afternoon. What a wonder of visual design and fantasy. I know it's got a source material, but the film serves as the perfect encapsulation of Kon's exploration of identity, doubles, and psychology. The whole quasi-rape elicited a :eek: at how Kon conveyed Paprika's body and the split between selves. Also really enjoyed how the ending subverts our expectation of a traditional romance, choosing instead to parlay the romance into something more unexpected and (oddly) meaningful in terms of relationsships. I'm pleased to finally view a film from "this year" that dazzles me on every level.

Tsai's I Don't Want to Sleep Alone will also take place this week, so I'm hoping to dovetail quality viewings...

[Rowland]

I'm just bemoaning how maddening it is that something as integral to our lives as health care is perceived through such a cloud of ignorance in the U.S., most of it the result of government propaganda.

And as for Moore, I simply believe that a documentary about the health care crisis without his celebrity personality hanging over it, which is itself inseparable from his intrinsically questionable filmmaking approach/angle, would be more credible and effective.

[Rowland]

That's not exactly the same. Eating McDonald's every meal, every day for a month is not only an exaggeration, but even fat people would give a "duh" to Spurlock's decline in health. Besides, who says that people didn't get it? A message similar to what Blanchett's Dylan said in the film I saw today, a piece of music (here a film) isn't really going to change anything.Yeah, Spurlock's stunt in Super Size Me was pointless. If anything, I was surprised that he didn't wind up more unhealthy than he was at the end of it. For someone who ate three large McDonald's meals a day for a month, he wasn't doing too bad.

That movie is pretty toothless as an exposé compared to the Fast Food Nation book.

[Philosophe_rouge]

As I continue my exploration of British cinema, I watched Went the Day Well? (1942), a somewhat implausible although very well executed film. The acting is all around great, and it's an effective thriller. As it is a propaganda tool it has bookends that feel somewhat out of place and tone. The film is not overglorified however, and really it's not glaringly obvious in it's pro-British gun-hoeness. Also has David Farrar, who is as wonderful as always. I'm still trying to track down more of his films.

[origami_mustache]

What are you trying to say here? Clearly his films are accessible because they reach a wide audience. But why do you need to frame that in a negative way? Why does he need to strive for some intangible ideal of what a documentary film is supposed to be? He does what he does. I don't understand the rigid expectations for what a documentary film must be.

It's not just that they are accessible, but rather informative facts and education are secondary to the entertaining and comedic nature of his films, not to mention the propaganda tactics and manipulation of pathos. Granted propaganda is part of almost any documentary aside from the observational or cinema verite style, but Moore seems to abuse it more than most. I'm not asking for conformity, and I understand "he does what he does," but it's hard to even consider what he does to be documentary filmmaking. If he didn't wear this condescending veil of morality, perhaps I wouldn't have such a problem with it, but in many ways I feel he is disgracing the documentary film by using that label.

[MadMan]

http://i21.tinypic.com/2mza8b8.gif:lol:


That's because you have no aesthetic taste.

JKI donno. That might be true ;)

As for Moore, I do agree that his films display a strong level of bias, and that at times he gets in the way of his message by appearing in his films. Sometimes that works though, sometimes it doesn't. I have a bigger problem with people who think his movies are the gospel truth though, that they don't contain even the slightest liberal slant.

That said, my favorite film of his isn't even one of his documentaries. Its Canadian Bacon(1995). So far the best film I've seen from him is Fahrenheit 451(2004).

[Watashi]

It's not just that they are accessible, but rather informative facts and education are secondary to the entertaining and comedic nature of his films, not to mention the propaganda tactics and manipulation of pathos. Granted propaganda is part of almost any documentary aside from the observational or cinema verite style, but Moore seems to abuse it more than most. I'm not asking for conformity, and I understand "he does what he does," but it's hard to even consider what he does to be documentary filmmaking. If he didn't wear this condescending veil of morality, perhaps I wouldn't have such a problem with it, but in many ways I feel he is disgracing the documentary film by using that label.

Of course it's a documentary. What exactly is he doing by "disgracing" the documentary film? Moore knows his general audience doesn't want a fact sheet of statistics and numbers showcasing each country's strengths and weakness regarding health care. A documentary is not a genre. There aren't any rules stating what you can and cannot include in your film. I don't see why the fact that it's funny and entertaining make any difference. Despite his clown-like antics, Moore is not turning the issue of health care into one giant circus act. Sometimes to get your point through, you have to hammer it home even if it's unsubtle as possible. Just look at the scene near the end where Moore mails his anti-fan a check for 12,000 dollars to help his ill wife because he can't afford health care. Was it manipulative? Sure. However, it stated Moore's point that everyone gets affected by this and if he didn't step up and say something, some other filmmaker would have.

[origami_mustache]

Of course it's a documentary. What exactly is he doing by "disgracing" the documentary film? Moore knows his general audience doesn't want a fact sheet of statistics and numbers showcasing each country's strengths and weakness regarding health care. A documentary is not a genre. There aren't any rules stating what you can and cannot include in your film. I don't see why the fact that it's funny and entertaining make any difference. Despite his clown-like antics, Moore is not turning the issue of health care into one giant circus act. Sometimes to get your point through, you have to hammer it home even if it's unsubtle as possible. Just look at the scene near the end where Moore mails his anti-fan a check for 12,000 dollars to help his ill wife because he can't afford health care. Was it manipulative? Sure. However, it stated Moore's point that everyone gets affected by this and if he didn't step up and say something, some other filmmaker would have.


I don't want to discredit your points, but it's just a personal preference for me I suppose. I like to see both sides of the story. I'd prefer to watch something unbiased or read up on the subject rather than watch a fat buffoon with an annoying voice narrate to me like he's reading a children's fairy tale. I've seen a lot of fantastic documentaries, most of which were made prior to Moore's canonizing of the medium. I find his popularity unfortunate and detrimental to nonfiction filmmaking as many filmmakers today are now adopting and embracing his style. In fact it's hard for me to watch contemporary documentaries lately. If I had to be subjugated to such propaganda, I'd much rather see these biased opinions being expressed through subversive fictional films.

[Philosophe_rouge]

I've just witnessed Picnic at Hanging Rock ... wow, very few films have had such a visceral effect on me. It's incredibly disturbing, at the very least unsettling. The imagery and the mood is incredible, while the mystery is impenetrable in the best way possible. It's positively haunting.

[Rowland]

I've just witnessed Picnic at Hanging Rock ... wow, very few films have had such a visceral effect on me. It's incredibly disturbing, at the very least unsettling. The imagery and the mood is incredible, while the mystery is impenetrable in the best way possible. It's positively haunting.Yes, this is a seriously evocative and creepy movie.

[Yxklyx]

Yes, this is a seriously evocative and creepy movie.

Yeah, rewatched this amazing movie last week. I think there's a longer version that is no longer available. I think I saw that a long time ago.

[balmakboor]

Speaking of longer cuts, anyone have any rough cut viewing stories? My only one was an on campus screening of an early 3+ hour cut of the ZAZ film Top Secret. It was interesting. Zucker, Abrams, and Zucker were in the audience taking notes. Basically, if the crowd laughed, they kept it in. I'd say the final runtime of 90 minutes was about right.

[Spinal]

And as for Moore, I simply believe that a documentary about the health care crisis without his celebrity personality hanging over it, which is itself inseparable from his intrinsically questionable filmmaking approach/angle, would be more credible and effective.

Here's the big point:

No else did it. Michael Moore did.

This is the same point that can be made about all his films. No one else was willing to do what he did at the time he did them.

[Rowland]

No else did it. Michael Moore did. That's everyone else's problem. It doesn't change the fact that the issue deserves to be Moore-free.

[Spinal]

It's not just that they are accessible, but rather informative facts and education are secondary to the entertaining and comedic nature of his films, not to mention the propaganda tactics and manipulation of pathos. Granted propaganda is part of almost any documentary aside from the observational or cinema verite style, but Moore seems to abuse it more than most. I'm not asking for conformity, and I understand "he does what he does," but it's hard to even consider what he does to be documentary filmmaking. If he didn't wear this condescending veil of morality, perhaps I wouldn't have such a problem with it, but in many ways I feel he is disgracing the documentary film by using that label.

Most problems people have with his films seem to have to do with a comparison to what a documentary film 'should' be.

Just call it something else. That seems like a silly thing to get hung up on.

[Spinal]

That's everyone else's problem. It doesn't change the fact that the issue deserves to be Moore-free.

You can wish for a perfect spokesperson or you can just be glad that the spokesperson is effective at getting attention to the subject. I think the latter is more important.

[Ezee E]

I showed Children of Men to one of my roommates today. I probably overhyped it for him, but in the end, all he could say is, "I thought movies are suppose to be entertaining first and foremost. And it should've at least explained why there weren't any babies, and why SHE had a baby then."

Ugh, so frustrating. Especially the "entertaining" aspect. When I went on to make logic sense of why there weren't any babies, he still says, "There's gotta be one scientist out there that would know."

Are you kidding me?

What a waste of a showing. Maybe I should show him The Golden Compass.

[Spinal]

I have a bigger problem with people who think his movies are the gospel truth though, that they don't contain even the slightest liberal slant.

Does that person actually exist? I'm skeptical.

[Rowland]

You can wish for a perfect spokesperson or you can just be glad that the spokesperson is effective at getting attention to the subject. I think the latter is more important.That has nothing to do with the man's filmmaking.

If anything, Moore being the "spokesperson" for the issue is only going to make those right-leaners who are skeptical feel vindicated, and perhaps for good reason. That medical-bill-paying stunt was nothing short of smug exploitation.

[Sycophant]

Until 73 minutes into the film, James Caan's father character was the only sympathetic one in Elf. Then he stupidly quits his job and the last standing bits of the plot went straight to hell. Even Ferrell and Deschanel were pretty much batting zero in this film (though I suspect with this material and under Favreau's inconsistent and confused hand, no one could have fared well). I can't believe how many montages there were and how there weren't even any jokes in them. The script isn't even remotely coherent and I couldn't get a pulse on anyone's angle throughout.

Remember how much I hated Enchanted (a film actually quite similar in premise)? Despite my problems with that movie, it eked a smile or two from me. At least Adams was cute. This didn't even warrant one (okay, one: the one dude in the mail room's reaction to something Ferrell said worked for me). Every idea that could have worked is squandered, every performer is flattened, and everything sucks.

[balmakboor]

I showed Children of Men to one of my roommates today. I probably overhyped it for him, but in the end, all he could say is, "I thought movies are suppose to be entertaining first and foremost. And it should've at least explained why there weren't any babies, and why SHE had a baby then."

Ugh, so frustrating. Especially the "entertaining" aspect. When I went on to make logic sense of why there weren't any babies, he still says, "There's gotta be one scientist out there that would know."

Are you kidding me?

What a waste of a showing. Maybe I should show him The Golden Compass.

Actually his concerns sound similar to those of everyone I've talked to about the film outside of an Internet forum full of film geeks. I loved it for many reasons, but I've found that few if any of those reasons mean a damn thing to most moviegoers.

[Ezee E]

Actually his concerns sound similar to those of everyone I've talked to about the film outside of an Internet forum full of film geeks. I loved it for many reasons, but I've found that few if any of those reasons mean a damn thing to most moviegoers.
Many others didn't love it like I did, but most people have generally liked it, or at least pretended to so that they wouldn't see me have the mentioned reaction.

[Spinal]

Regarding Super Size Me, again, you guys are treating it like it's supposed to be a research project for an Ivy League school. It's an attention getter. A stunt. The bait to get people to listen to the opinion that the filmmaker wants to express. Of course no one really eats like that. He was trying to recreate in a microcosm what people might experience over the course of a lifetime -- and here's the key part -- in a humorous way.

[Spinal]

That has nothing to do with the man's filmmaking.

Sure it does. The content of the film is what people are discussing on talk shows, in the media, etc.

[Ezee E]

Regarding Super Size Me, again, you guys are treating it like it's supposed to be a research project for an Ivy League school. It's an attention getter. A stunt. The bait to get people to listen to the opinion that the filmmaker wants to express. Of course no one really eats like that. He was trying to recreate in a microcosm what people might experience over the course of a lifetime -- and here's the key part -- in a humorous way.
Plus, he touches on many other subjects besides the fact that it's bad for us all. He goes into the thought that, despite knowing its bad for us, why do we keep on eating it? That part of the movie is pretty interesting to me.

I never saw any of his TV show, were they as good as the movie?

[Watashi]

*shrug*

I really liked Elf.

[Ezee E]

I liked Elf too until they had to wrap it all up.

[Spinal]

Plus, he touches on many other subjects besides the fact that it's bad for us all. He goes into the thought that, despite knowing its bad for us, why do we keep on eating it? That part of the movie is pretty interesting to me.

I never saw any of his TV show, were they as good as the movie?

The thing from the film that really stuck with me was his point about all the fast food in schools. That was the most disturbing part to me.

I only saw a little bit of his TV show, but it was really good. There was a great one about atheism and people's conceptions of what that means.

[balmakboor]

If I were to make a list of my favorite comedic scenes, one would come from Elf. In fact, that's a list I may start putting together.

[Ezee E]

The thing from the film that really stuck with me was his point about all the fast food in schools. That was the most disturbing part to me.

I only saw a little bit of his TV show, but it was really good. There was a great one about atheism and people's conceptions of what that means.
Yeah, the fast food part in schools ties in to what I liked the most about the movie as well. I was always one class ahead of when they started serving those types of food every day. We'd get it once a month and I thought it was the coolest thing ever at the time.

[Ezee E]

If I were to make a list of my favorite comedic scenes, one would come from Elf. In fact, that's a list I may start putting together.
Which part? THe jack-in-the-box still gets me.

[Spinal]

Which part? THe jack-in-the-box still gets me.

My guess would be the snowball fight.

[Boner M]

Ahem, the Peter Dinklage bit.

[Rowland]

Sure it does. The content of the film is what people are discussing on talk shows, in the media, etc.I'm judging what I see in the movie. I don't like Moore, and his fingerprints are all over Sicko. And mind you, I don't even outright dislike the movie. I simply think it could have been better. I don't care about how effective it is at sparking discussion over an issue, as I'm in no position to judge that. In any case, if Moore wasn't involved, people would probably be less skeptical about it, since that's what half of the media discussion was about.. but then nobody would be talking about it without Moore's involvement. This is a conundrum that can't sensibly be applied to an evaluation of the movie on its own merits.

[balmakboor]

One of you got it right. :)

[origami_mustache]

Most problems people have with his films seem to have to do with a comparison to what a documentary film 'should' be.

Just call it something else. That seems like a silly thing to get hung up on.

Definitely not my only beef with the guy. If it's silly to be bothered by a guy who is perpetuating one sided arguments, using ad hominem logical fallacies, accommodating his films for the lowest common denominator and then calling them nonfiction films, then call me silly.

[Sycophant]

One of you got it right. :)

IMPLICATE YOURSELF.

[Rowland]

Regarding Super Size Me, again, you guys are treating it like it's supposed to be a research project for an Ivy League school. It's an attention getter. A stunt. The bait to get people to listen to the opinion that the filmmaker wants to express. Of course no one really eats like that. He was trying to recreate in a microcosm what people might experience over the course of a lifetime -- and here's the key part -- in a humorous way.I just don't think it was a terribly effective stunt. Maybe if I hadn't read Fast Food Nation beforehand, I would have been more impressed. He wasted too much time on nonsense. Oh no, a hair in the yogurt!

[Rowland]

You're just a Scrooge, Sychophant.

I don't like Elf either. Farrel's unhinged performance and a few bits of bizarre whimsy bordering on the surreal are just about all it has going for it. The climax in particular is just excruciatingly forced.

[origami_mustache]

Here's the big point:

No else did it. Michael Moore did.

This is the same point that can be made about all his films. No one else was willing to do what he did at the time he did them.

Referring to Michael Moore as a pioneer is as much of a joke as George Clooney calling Hollywood trailblazers in the Civil Rights movement.

[Spinal]

Definitely not my only beef with the guy. If it's silly to be bothered by a guy who is perpetuating one sided arguments, using ad hominem logical fallacies, accommodating his films for the lowest common denominator and then calling them nonfiction films, then call me silly.

I don't go to a Michael Moore film for a history lesson or a news report. I go to a Michael Moore film to see a funny, passionate, angry guy popping off about a subject he cares about. That's it. I don't know why people go in expecting Ken Burns or Walter Cronkite.

[Spinal]

Referring to Michael Moore as a pioneer is as much of a joke as George Clooney calling Hollywood trailblazers in the Civil Rights movement.

He's not a pioneer. I would not call him that. He's someone who is willing to speak up. And that's an important thing to have.

[origami_mustache]

I don't go to a Michael Moore film for a history lesson or a news report. I go to a Michael Moore film to see a funny, passionate, angry guy popping off about a subject he cares about. That's it. I don't know why people go in expecting Ken Burns or Walter Cronkite.

Point taken. I'd rather listen to stand up comedians like Bill Hicks or to a lesser extent Lewis Black, but I guess it's just not my thing.

I'm washing my hands of this discussion now...haha

[Rowland]

I go to a Michael Moore film to see a funny, passionate, angry guy popping off about a subject he cares about. Maybe this is what you don't understand about my perspective. See, I'd love what you just described too. I'm not looking for Burns or Cronkite. I just wish Moore's humor wasn't so smug, his anger so self-righteous, and his passion so calculated. I don't believe in him.

[Spinal]

Maybe this is what you don't understand about my perspective. See, I'd love what you just described too. I'm not looking for Burns or Cronkite. I just wish Moore's humor wasn't so smug, his anger so self-righteous, and his passion so calculated. I don't believe in him.

Now I know. And knowing is half the battle. :)

[origami_mustache]

I am now the last poster in each of the forum subdivisions.
muahahaha.

...so bored. :cry:

[Qrazy]

http://i21.tinypic.com/2mza8b8.gif

Thank ya.

[Qrazy]

Also, Michael Moore is low brow propoganda. The end.

No offense meant, although I'm sure it will engender some.

[Morris Schæffer]

Eastern Promises was really good, but the reveal that Mortensen is an undercover agent is kind of lame. I was fascinated by this morally dubious character and his rotten environs, but by making him essentially a good guy, all shades of gray are thrown out the window, undermining a potentially wonderful character arc in the making into something cheap and inorganic. Especially because Mortensen was so damn good.

[Spinal]

Also, Michael Moore is low brow propoganda. The end.

No offense meant, although I'm sure it will engender some.

You say 'lowbrow'. I say 'populist'. You say 'propaganda'. I say 'polemic'. Let's call the whole thing off.

[Qrazy]

Indeed.

Watching Fail-safe wasted... the tension!

[origami_mustache]

Indeed.

Watching Fail-safe wasted... the tension!

Oh the dramatic adaptation of Red Alert. I don't know if I could take it seriously after watching Dr. Strangelove so many times.

[Qrazy]

Oh the dramatic adaptation of Red Alert. I don't know if I could take it seriously after watching Dr. Strangelove so many times.

Mathau's character is such an ass, much preferred his turn in Taking Pelham One, Two, Three... not to say he's bad here but the character, god damn. I have a difficult time believing a political scientist would be recommending his course of action.

[Li Lili]

You say 'lowbrow'. I say 'populist'. You say 'propaganda'. I say 'polemic'. Let's call the whole thing off.
Unfortunately, this kind of documentaries doesn't bring anything new to the genre, I found even a bit "old fashion" considering of how much variety and renewal it has been made in the documentary nowadays. And it's not because the documentary deals with social, political issues that it has to follow this old classic form, and some documentary filmmakers prove that it can be historical, political with a strong statement and a certain point of view and undertake a new, original cinematic research. The Last Communist by Amir Muhammad (a Malaysian filmmaker) is one of them, it's a pity that his films are harder to get outside than the festival circuit, like most of these interesting documentaries...

[Mysterious Dude]

Oh the dramatic adaptation of Red Alert. I don't know if I could take it seriously after watching Dr. Strangelove so many times.Fail-Safe is not based on Red Alert.

And I'm starting to think of Michael Moore as more of a pundit than a filmmaker.

[balmakboor]

IMPLICATE YOURSELF.

Round and round the cobbler's bench
The monkey chased the weasel,
The monkey thought 'twas all in fun
Pop! Goes the weasel.

A penny for a spool of thread
A penny for a needle,
That's the way the money goes,
Pop! Goes the weasel.

A half a pound of tupenny rice,
A half a pound of treacle.
Mix it up and make it nice,
Pop! Goes the weasel.

Up and down the London road,
In and out of the Eagle,
That's the way the money goes,
Pop! Goes the weasel.

I've no time to plead and pine,
I've no time to wheedle,
Kiss me quick and then I'm gone
Pop! Goes the weasel.

[balmakboor]

Fail-Safe is not based on Red Alert.



That's interesting. I always thought it was. I notice that Peter George -- the author of Red Alert -- is credited on the scripts for both Fail-Safe and Strangelove. I'd image there is at least as much Red Alert in Fail-Safe as there is in Strangelove. I have no idea though. I've never read the book and have only seen bits and pieces of Lumet's film which looked to me like a really dull remake of Strangelove.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I have a question for those of you who say that Spurlock's experiment was useless. Had he used a food that we know isn't good for us that wasn't fast food, say eating pasta for every meal, or Chinese food, something else that in moderation is okay, but not okay in excess, do you think his health would have deteriorated as quickly?

I completely agree with Spinal and E on the film, but I also believe his experiment and the results had merit. That his health would decline is no surprise at all. That it would decline that quickly, to the point where doctors were worried about long term damage if he didn't stop, was surprising to me, and still to this day makes me think twice about pulling into a fast food restaurant.

[Mysterious Dude]

That's interesting. I always thought it was. I notice that Peter George -- the author of Red Alert -- is credited on the scripts for both Fail-Safe and Strangelove.According to IMDB, George is uncredited as a writer for Fail-Safe. I would be interested in learning why he was uncredited. But in all honesty, I don't believe he had any part in the screenplay for that film, which was based on a different novel (called Fail-Safe).


I'd image there is at least as much Red Alert in Fail-Safe as there is in Strangelove. I have no idea though. I've never read the book and have only seen bits and pieces of Lumet's film which looked to me like a really dull remake of Strangelove.I think it's an excellent film.

[Doclop]

Eastern Promises was really good, but the reveal that Mortensen is an undercover agent is kind of lame.
This didn't bother me because the story does not hinge on the element of surprise. There's no huge, dramatic reveal scene, no comedy of errors or misunderstanding. It's a cliché plot device, but it was appropriate and extremely downplayed.

[jesse]

So Punishment Park is kind of leaving me conflicted, but not in the way that I expected (and yes, it's as great as everyone says, so lets get that out of the way). But the structure of the film--the editing, the multiple storylines, huge cast of characters, the sound--it all kind of makes Nashville (which I've long considered one of cinema's supreme acheivements) seem, well, a bit less impressive. Granted, Altman was able to create a much more nuanced film and it's certainly a step up in overall technical complexity, but it just doesn't seem quite as groundbreaking as it used to. Especially considering that Peter Walker was working with half the amount of time Altman granted himself, probably a fraction of the budget and much more adverse working conditions...

[Spinal]

Unfortunately, this kind of documentaries doesn't bring anything new to the genre...

Again, your criticism begins with genre expectations and how Moore's film do not conform to those expectations.

[Spinal]

And I'm starting to think of Michael Moore as more of a pundit than a filmmaker.

Yes!

[megladon8]

I have a question for those of you who say that Spurlock's experiment was useless. Had he used a food that we know isn't good for us that wasn't fast food, say eating pasta for every meal, or Chinese food, something else that in moderation is okay, but not okay in excess, do you think his health would have deteriorated as quickly?

I don't think it even had to be something "bad".

Anything eaten in the volumes and frequency that he had McDonalds would lead to deterioration of health, because your body needs the vitamins, minerals, proteins, etc. associated with variety.

If he only ate apples every meal of every day for a month, he'd be in horrendous shape. Yet apples are great for you.

[Spinal]

Granted, Altman was able to create a much more nuanced film and it's certainly a step up in overall technical complexity, but it just doesn't seem quite as groundbreaking as it used to. Especially considering that Peter Walker was working with half the amount of time Altman granted himself, probably a fraction of the budget and much more adverse working conditions...

Not to mention that Watkins is working primarily with non-actors.

[Sven]

So Punishment Park is kind of leaving me conflicted, but not in the way that I expected (and yes, it's as great as everyone says, so lets get that out of the way). But the structure of the film--the editing, the multiple storylines, huge cast of characters, the sound--it all kind of makes Nashville (which I've long considered one of cinema's supreme acheivements) seem, well, a bit less impressive. Granted, Altman was able to create a much more nuanced film and it's certainly a step up in overall technical complexity, but it just doesn't seem quite as groundbreaking as it used to. Especially considering that Peter Walker was working with half the amount of time Altman granted himself, probably a fraction of the budget and much more adverse working conditions...

It seems like this reaction is taking into effect an expectation that Altman was aiming for "groundbreaking" and "innovative", which I'm pretty sure he wasn't. That's simply the reputation of the film. From what I've read regarding his approach to Nashville (and most of his other stuff in general), he was just trying to make a good movie the way he knew how to make movies. He has admitted confusion that he's become popular because of ensemble and overlapping dialogue.

I say, be impressed with Nashville because it's excellent, not because it's groundbreaking.

[Rowland]

I have a question for those of you who say that Spurlock's experiment was useless. Had he used a food that we know isn't good for us that wasn't fast food, say eating pasta for every meal, or Chinese food, something else that in moderation is okay, but not okay in excess, do you think his health would have deteriorated as quickly? It depends on any number of variables, including what the food is, how much he eats for each meal, how much exercise he gets while eating (didn't he stop exercising during the experiment?), etc. And as Meg said, our diets depend on a variety of nutritional sources, so any such experiment would lead to diminishing health.


I completely agree with Spinal and E on the film, but I also believe his experiment and the results had merit. That his health would decline is no surprise at all. That it would decline that quickly, to the point where doctors were worried about long term damage if he didn't stop, was surprising to me, and still to this day makes me think twice about pulling into a fast food restaurant.Most people only eat fast food once every long while on a whim, and they usually order no more than $3-$4 worth of food. In moderation, fast food is relatively harmless. One meal every once in a while is a lot different than adjusting an entire diet to fast food. We also have to consider that some food on the menu is obviously more unhealthy than other items. And besides, most people maintain regular diets that are unhealthy enough on average so that the occasional fast food meal doesn't make a difference. People who eat fast food on a regular basis tend to be the sort who don't take much care of their bodies in general.

My problem with the experiment is that it is a stunt for which the findings don't really apply to many of us, and he devotes soooo much time to it, while segments like fast food in schools are allotted five minutes.

[Spinal]

Most people only eat fast food once every long while on a whim, and they usually order no more than $3-$4 worth of food.



How do those companies make so much money then?

[Rowland]

How do those companies make so much money then?Volume of customers and certain items sold for a lot more than they're worth, if we're just talking about the money earned strictly through food sales. A little known fact is that fast food restaurants make most of their money from drink sales, particularly soda.

[jesse]

It seems like this reaction is taking into effect an expectation that Altman was aiming for "groundbreaking" and "innovative", which I'm pretty sure he wasn't. That's simply the reputation of the film. From what I've read regarding his approach to Nashville (and most of his other stuff in general), he was just trying to make a good movie the way he knew how to make movies. He has admitted confusion that he's become popular because of ensemble and overlapping dialogue.

I say, be impressed with Nashville because it's excellent, not because it's groundbreaking. Have you read Jan Stuart's The Nashville Chronicles? Really fun, engaging book if you haven't. And I guess that's what really emphasized how technically impressive Nashville is, mostly because I'm not literate/aware enough of the technical end of filmmaking that I tend not to notice something like sound editing until it is directly pointed out at me.

But I think you're right--from all indication, it does seem like Altman was just trying to get some kind of film made, and a lot of the major innovations seen in Nashville were born out of necessity.

And of course its still an excellent film. I always seem to have some issues with it during and just after I watch it again, but a few days later I can hardly seem to remember them.

[jesse]

Not to mention that Watkins is working primarily with non-actors. But granted there's really not much acting actually on display in the film...

[Spinal]

Volume of customers and certain items sold for a lot more than they're worth, if we're just talking about the money earned strictly through food sales. A little known fact is that fast food restaurants make most of their money from drink sales, particularly soda.

So your assertion is that there is no serious problem in America with people eating too much fast food? That sounds as specious as anything in Spurlock's film.

[Spinal]

But granted there's really not much acting actually on display in the film...

In that people are mostly playing themselves, I suppose. But there are certainly performances which are passionate, captivating and plausible.

[Rowland]

So your assertion is that there is no serious problem in America with people eating too much fast food? That sounds as specious as anything in Spurlock's film.Whoa, now you're pulling a Fox News and extrapolating my comments into something I didn't say. :P

Fast food is a huge problem, but it is only one facet of a much larger, cultural problem. Blaming everything on fast food is the sort of "easy answer" stance that people unfortunately tend to take. Sort of like my myopic focus on Wal-Mart during that memorable argument however many months ago it was. http://www.match-cut.org/images/smilies/lol.gif

[Raiders]

Spurlock's film offers a couple nuggets or asides worth mentioning, and he's an entertaining guy, but my problem remains that he presents a situation pretty far removed from reality for about 99% of the population. So, in the end, he has given most people an out to shrug his film off as useless. Any experiment of this sort would lead to malnutrition, not just fast food. The effects are likely worse with fast food than others, but in the end I don't think such a drastic experiment is really going to convince much of anybody to stay away from fast food.

[balmakboor]

According to IMDB, George is uncredited as a writer for Fail-Safe. I would be interested in learning why he was uncredited. But in all honesty, I don't believe he had any part in the screenplay for that film, which was based on a different novel (called Fail-Safe).



I believe that "un-credited" means a person worked on the project but did not get screen credit. So, basically, he is credited by imdb with working on Fail-Safe.

[jesse]

In that people are mostly playing themselves, I suppose. But there are certainly performances which are passionate, captivating and plausible. Not to discredit at all the accomplishments of Watkins or those who appear in the film, but it's essentially people yelling at each other, long shots of groups wandering in the desert or snippets of responses to questions in interview format. Personally, I have as hard a time saying that the people in PP are acting as I would say that individuals appearing in a documentary are acting. There's certainly an argument to be made (and I'd be willing to be convinced in this particular situation), but it remains a fuzzy topic.

That said, I'm assuming that the scene with the young National Guardsman was indeed acting, and that was a very impressive display of acting, however it was accomplished.

[Mysterious Dude]

I believe that "un-credited" means a person worked on the project but did not get screen credit. So, basically, he is credited by imdb with working on Fail-Safe.
I know what it means. I think it's incorrect, though. I don't believe he had anything to do with Fail-Safe. If he did, I'd like to see it from a non-IMDB source.

[Spinal]

Whoa, now you're pulling a Fox News and extrapolating my comments into something I didn't say. :P




Most people only eat fast food once every long while on a whim, and they usually order no more than $3-$4 worth of food.

Am I? :confused:

[balmakboor]

In moderation, fast food is relatively harmless.

I don't know. This line just stuck out for me. I think all fast food restaurants should use it in their marketing:

EAT HERE. OUR FOOD IS RELATIVELY HARMLESS.

[Spinal]

Spurlock's film offers a couple nuggets or asides worth mentioning, and he's an entertaining guy, but my problem remains that he presents a situation pretty far removed from reality for about 99% of the population.

So you're saying that only 1% of the population eats too much fast food over the course of their lifetime?

The assertions you guys are making to shoot down Spurlock's wildly misleading film are not very convincing. :lol:

[Rowland]

Am I? :confused:Yes, you are. Only 20% of fast food sales are to "regular customers." Otherwise, people tend to eat fast food on a whim every now and then. I should also specify that when I said ordering $3-$4 worth of food, I meant that per person. As such, someone may go through drive-thru and order food for five people, spending around $20 in the process. How this has anything to do with me somehow arguing that fast food is a-okay is beyond me.

[balmakboor]

I know what it means. I think it's incorrect, though. I don't believe he had anything to do with Fail-Safe. If he did, I'd like to see it from a non-IMDB source.

Fair enough.

[Raiders]

So you're saying that only 1% of the population eats too much fast food over the course of their lifetime?

The assertions you guys are making to shoot down Spurlock's wildly misleading film are not very convincing. :lol:

:|

Uh, no. I'm saying that only 1% of the population easts fast food to the point of being able to identify with Spurlock's experiment. There's a difference between eating it everyday and eating it too much.

[Spinal]

EAT HERE. OUR FOOD IS RELATIVELY HARMLESS.

* Our food has consistently outperformed rat poison, battery acid and animal feces in scientific tests with regard to nutrition and customer satisfaction. Ask any of our employees for a fact sheet if you'd like to hear more.

[Rowland]

EAT HERE. OUR FOOD IS RELATIVELY HARMLESS.It is relatively harmless in moderation, for the reasons that I described. In fact, the occasional fast food meal is healthier (which mind you doesn't necessarily mean healthy) than the occasional meal at restaurants like Applebees. Their food is generally worse for you.

[balmakboor]

:|

There's a difference between eating it everyday and eating it too much.

Naw, I'd say those two are synonymous.

[Spinal]

:|

Uh, no. I'm saying that only 1% of the population easts fast food to the point of being able to identify with Spurlock's experiment. There's a difference between eating it everyday and eating it too much.

What's your source on that? ;)

What about that Jared? He ate Subway every day and he looks great!

[Raiders]

Naw, I'd say those two are synonymous.

Then you'd be wrong.

[Spinal]

Yes, you are. Only 20% of fast food sales are to "regular customers." Otherwise, people tend to eat fast food on a whim every now and then. I should also specify that when I said ordering $3-$4 worth of food, I meant that per person. As such, someone may go through drive-thru and order food for five people, spending around $20 in the process. How this has anything to do with me somehow arguing that fast food is a-okay is beyond me.

One out of five people seems like enough to constitute a problem. And you said that fast food was a-okay in moderation. I'm not making this stuff up. You made it seem like something that Spurlock's was just hyping up into a problem.

[Raiders]

What's your source on that? ;)

What about that Jared? He ate Subway every day and he looks great!

What does any of this have to do with my point? My only point and the only one I have ever made regarding this is that the experiment leaves too much room for an overweight individual who eats fast food maybe 5-7 times a week to say that eating it 21 times a week is far more than they are and Spurlock's health concerns don't apply to them. I know for a fact this is what many people say regarding the film.

[Watashi]

I like Taco Bell.

[Rowland]

One out of five people seems like enough to constitute a problem. And you said that fast food was a-okay in moderation. I'm not making this stuff up. You made it seem like something that Spurlock's was just hyping up into a problem.I'm talking about fast food as an a cultural and business institution. And yes, fast food every now and then is okay. As I said, people tend to have diets poor enough outside of fast food consumption that a hamburger and fries is only a facet of a larger problem. My problem with Spurlock's approach is that he was too reductive and, to use one of your words, specious. His movie only scratches the surface, so to speak, wasting most of its time with a stunt designed to capture attention more than make a relevant point.

[Spinal]

What does any of this have to do with my point? My only point and the only one I have ever made regarding this is that the experiment leaves too much room for an overweight individual who eats fast food maybe 5-7 times a week to say that eating it 21 times a week is far more than they are and Spurlock's health concerns don't apply to them. I know for a fact this is what many people say regarding the film.

Those people would be pretty dopey then to not see that Spurlock is isolating the fast food in the diet in order to make a point that is (let's not forget) also humorous. Those people would have to be awfully literal and likely not that much fun at parties.

[Raiders]

Those people would be pretty dopey then to not see that Spurlock is isolating the fast food in the diet in order to make a point that is (let's not forget) also humorous. Those people would have to be awfully literal and likely not that much fun at parties.

You say this like it doesn't describe the majority of our population.

[Spinal]

I'm talking about fast food as an a cultural and business institution. And yes, fast food every now and then is okay. As I said, people tend to have diets poor enough outside of fast food consumption that a hamburger and fries is only a facet of a larger problem.

So Spurlock did not make it clear enough for you that the subject he chose for his film was a part of a larger cultural problem? Just asking. I'm not saying he did or didn't. Just want to understand your criticism.

[Spinal]

You say this like it doesn't describe the majority of our population.

On to more important things ...

68 is far too low.

[balmakboor]

What's your source on that? ;)

Nobody has been providing any sources for anything.

Then again, the only source I need is my own body. I know that most "fast food" makes me not feel so well -- especially McDonalds and Burger King. I can extrapolated for me that eating at McDonalds every day is synonymous with eating at McDonalds too often.

[dreamdead]

Not to discredit at all the accomplishments of Watkins or those who appear in the film, but it's essentially people yelling at each other, long shots of groups wandering in the desert or snippets of responses to questions in interview format.

This is why you need to consider the role of the camera and the BBC reporter (Watkins himself), rather than the dissidents and tribunal members' "dialogues." It's in the camera and in the reporter that Watkins solidifies his argument. I'm working on an essay on Punishment Park and should have it finished tonight/tomorrow, but I'll post it when it's done...

[Rowland]

So Spurlock did not make it clear enough for you that the subject he chose for his film was a part of a larger cultural problem? Just asking. I'm not saying he did or didn't. Just want to understand your criticism.I edited my post to make my point clearer. The movie just strikes me as toothless. He's too busy goofing around, when the subject deserves a beared-fangs approach.

[Spinal]

Nobody has been providing any sources for anything.


I was just teasing Raiders, of course.

[Sven]

I say forget the experiment that Spurlock pulls and focus on Spurlock's attention to the reasons WHY people eat so much fast food, and what it says about our nation's people and general attitudes towards things beyond the scope of fast food. The movie is about much more than just McDonalds. Complacency, laziness, ignorance, media, advertising, public institutions, etc, etc.

[Spinal]

Does it amuse you guys in the slightest that you're debating a monkey? I hope it does.

[balmakboor]

... wasting most of its time with a stunt designed to capture attention ...

Without the stunt, we would never have had the movie. Spurlock and Moore both seem to realize that bringing issues to light that play against corporate America need a very high concept to exist at all. I admit they pay a price. What I think people are arguing is if that price was too high to pay.

[Spinal]

I say forget the experiment that Spurlock pulls and focus on Spurlock's attention to the reasons WHY people eat so much fast food, and what it says about our nation's people and general attitudes towards things beyond the scope of fast food. The movie is about much more than just McDonalds. Complacency, laziness, ignorance, media, advertising, public institutions, etc, etc.

That's what I thought too. But then it's been a while since I've seen it, so I thought maybe I was remembering it wrong.

[Rowland]

The movie is about much more than just McDonalds. Complacency, laziness, ignorance, media, advertising, public institutions, etc, etc.You're right. As I said, I just wish that he skipped the stupid stunt and cutesy tone, because the movie isn't as impactful as it should be, IMO.

[Sven]

That's what I thought too. But then it's been a while since I've seen it, so I thought maybe I was remembering it wrong.

No. You are right.

[Spinal]

Without the stunt, we would never have had the movie. Spurlock and Moore both seem to realize that bringing issues to light that play against corporate America need a very high concept to exist at all. I admit they pay a price. What I think people are arguing is if that price was too high to pay.

Thank you for your clarity. Yes, this is what I am ineffectively trying to communicate.

[jesse]

In fact, the occasional fast food meal is healthier (which mind you doesn't necessarily mean healthy) than the occasional meal at restaurants like Applebees. Their food is generally worse for you. I'm going to need something resembling a source for this. I'm incredulous. To say the least.

[Rowland]

Without the stunt, we would never have had the movie. Spurlock and Moore both seem to realize that bringing issues to light that play against corporate America need a very high concept to exist at all. I admit they pay a price. What I think people are arguing is if that price was too high to pay.Meh. No End in Sight doesn't need stunts and goofy personalities to be informational and devastating. And mind you, I have no problem with humor in documentaries, it's just that Moore and Spurlock are sorta dopey and forceful about it.

[Mal]

My problem with the experiment is that it is a stunt for which the findings don't really apply to many of us, and he devotes soooo much time to it, while segments like fast food in schools are allotted five minutes.

Um what? The entire purpose of the film, as stated in the opening sequence, was to figure out of the fat teenagers who inspired the documentary had standing to sue McDonalds, not to educate everyone about the garbage they serve in schools. I'm assuming you, and most here, are not fat teenagers. So of course it doesn't fully apply to you and I- complaining about supplemental and rather lovely carrots of knowlege that actually came with this McDocumentary seems pointless to me.

[Rowland]

I'm going to need something resembling a source for this. I'm incredulous. To say the least.Compare the Nutrition Facts for their menus. This information isn't too hard to find.

[balmakboor]

I was just teasing Raiders, of course.

I know.

[balmakboor]

I'm going to need something resembling a source for this. I'm incredulous. To say the least.

Yeh, this was the "fact" that worried me. I feel mildly sick after eating McDonalds. I eat at Applebees once a month or so and never have those feelings. It definitely wouldn't make my day if research showed that Applebees is actually worse than fast food.

[Spinal]

OK, so what would be comparable meals at Applebee's and McDonald's?

If I put Teriyaki Steak and Shrimp skewers vs. a Quarter Pounder with Cheese, does that work?

Skewers:

Calories 370
Calories from fat 63
Total Fat 7g
Carbs 33
Dietary Fiber 7g
Protein 44g

Quarter Pounder with Cheese:

Calories 510
Calories from fat 230
Total Fat 26g
Carbs 40
Dietary Fiber 3g
Protein 29g

If this isn't a fair comparison, offer something else. I'm not a scientist.

[jesse]

Compare the Nutrition Facts for their menus. This information isn't too hard to find. Alright, I did, and I still don't see it. (The chicken sandwich with the least amount of calories at McDonalds still has about 100 more than the one at Applebees, which also takes into account other additions like marinara souce...)

And one way or the other, I think more people go through the drive-thru at a fast food restuarant than take the time to order an entire meal at a sit-down restaurant like Applebees... so fast food is more likely to be consumed regularly anyway.

Not that I think that Applebees is a particularly healthy option or anything, I just don't believe this.

[Spinal]

And one way or the other, I think more people go through the drive-thru at a fast food restuarant than take the time to order an entire meal at a sit-down restaurant like Applebees... so fast food is more likely to be consumed regularly anyway.

In my personal experience, it also seems to be less filling too, so I'm more likely to want to eat something else on top of it later.

[balmakboor]

OK, so what would be comparable meals at Applebee's and McDonald's?

If I put Teriyaki Steak and Shrimp skewers vs. a Quarter Pounder with Cheese, does that work?

Skewers:

Calories 370
Total Fat 7g
Carbs 33
Dietary Fiber 7g
Protein 44g

Quarter Pounder with Cheese:

Calories 510
Total Fat 26g
Carbs 40
Dietary Fiber 3g
Protein 29g

If this isn't a fair comparison, offer something else. I'm not a scientist.

I suppose the Cowboy Burger would be a fair comparison with the Quarter Pounder.

I usually split an Orange Chicken Bowl with my daughter. I'd be curious about that one too.

[Spinal]

I suppose the Cowboy Burger would be a fair comparison with the Quarter Pounder.

Cool. Let me see if I can find that one.

[jesse]

This is why you need to consider the role of the camera and the BBC reporter (Watkins himself), rather than the dissidents and tribunal members' "dialogues." It's in the camera and in the reporter that Watkins solidifies his argument. I'm working on an essay on Punishment Park and should have it finished tonight/tomorrow, but I'll post it when it's done... Hmmm, are you saying that Watkins's voiceover role constitutes an acting performance? Or that it is the camera that creates "acting" and not the actions of the performer?

I don't think I disagree with what you're saying, but I'm not catching how it's linked to what I was saying...

Interested in reading your essay, one way or the other.

[jesse]

I usually split an Orange Chicken Bowl with my daughter. I'd be curious about that one too. I usually get that too. And that sucker's portion is two times as big as any burger...

[Ezee E]

It depends on any number of variables, including what the food is, how much he eats for each meal, how much exercise he gets while eating (didn't he stop exercising during the experiment?), etc. And as Meg said, our diets depend on a variety of nutritional sources, so any such experiment would lead to diminishing health.

Most people only eat fast food once every long while on a whim, and they usually order no more than $3-$4 worth of food. In moderation, fast food is relatively harmless. One meal every once in a while is a lot different than adjusting an entire diet to fast food. We also have to consider that some food on the menu is obviously more unhealthy than other items. And besides, most people maintain regular diets that are unhealthy enough on average so that the occasional fast food meal doesn't make a difference. People who eat fast food on a regular basis tend to be the sort who don't take much care of their bodies in general.

My problem with the experiment is that it is a stunt for which the findings don't really apply to many of us, and he devotes soooo much time to it, while segments like fast food in schools are allotted five minutes.
I wonder where you are getting your facts from considering the average value meal is around $5.99 or so.

[Spinal]

This is interesting:


Applebee's suggests that anyone interested in nutritional information on their favorite items can call 888-59APPLE. Applebee's® provides nutritional information on all of their Weight Watchers® items, including fat, fiber and calorie counts and Weight Watchers Points® values. Applebee's® does not provide nutritional information on other Applebee’s® items. According to Applebee's® with over 1,600 locations in the U.S. with many different vendors, menus, producers and suppliers it's extremely difficult to obtain nutritional information for their items.

[Spinal]

Crispy Orange Chicken Bowl

Calories 544
Calories from fat 78
Total Fat 8g
Carbs 56.1
Dietary Fiber 0g
Protein 56.5g

http://www.thedailyplate.com/nutrition-calories/food/generic/applebees-crispy-orange-chicken-bowl

[balmakboor]

Crispy Orange Chicken Bowl

Calories 544
Calories from fat 78
Total Fat 8g
Carbs 56.1
Dietary Fiber 0g
Protein 56.5g

http://www.thedailyplate.com/nutrition-calories/food/generic/applebees-crispy-orange-chicken-bowl

Damn good thing we split it then.

[Spinal]

Still having trouble finding the Cowboy Burger. Must be a closely guarded secret.

[balmakboor]

Still having trouble finding the Cowboy Burger. Must be a closely guarded secret.

Or maybe it's only on the menu up here in North Dakota. I don't know.

One thing I do notice with almost all restaurants is the portions are 2-3 times the size they should be. Americans would probably see their health improve simply by either always splitting restaurant meals or eating half and boxing the rest for the next day.

[MadMan]

Does it amuse you guys in the slightest that you're debating a monkey? I hope it does.Damn I already gave you rep a few pages ago :lol:


*shrug*

I really liked Elf.So did I, despite the weak 3rd act.


Does that person actually exist? I'm skeptical.Well maybe not to that extreme but I have some liberal friends who think the man is right about well everything. They love him more than I do though anyways. And I imagine the extreme liberals think he's God. That last comment may be overblown, but not too far off (the flip side of this being that conservatives overly love Rush Limbaugh).

This whole debate makes me want to watch Sicko even more and revisit Super Size Me. I'd say its done good. Also last night I decided to check out AMC's DVD_TV, which is where they put interesting facts about a certain movie at the bottom of the screen while the movie is playing. This was done for Blazing Saddles, and most of the info was actually very enlightening. I think one shouldn't view that though if they haven't seen the movie before ("Saddles" is one of my favorite comedies).

[Rowland]

I wonder where you are getting your facts from considering the average value meal is around $5.99 or so.Not as many people order value meals as you'd think. But yeah, I'm probably undervaluing a bit. I'd have to adjust for whatever value meals cost these days, because I don't really know, especially given that the costs have been rising dramatically as of late.

[Rowland]

I hope I haven't come across as a fast-food apologist with all of this. Trust me, as exploitative corporate institutions, I think the industry is absolutely abhorrent. I've just been trying to fashion an argument around why I believe the movie to be less effective than I wish it was, which has inadvertently resulted in all these tangents. If anything, I believe the movie should have been so much more vicious, and more thoughtful in its approach as such. :)

[Qrazy]

That's interesting. I always thought it was. I notice that Peter George -- the author of Red Alert -- is credited on the scripts for both Fail-Safe and Strangelove. I'd image there is at least as much Red Alert in Fail-Safe as there is in Strangelove. I have no idea though. I've never read the book and have only seen bits and pieces of Lumet's film which looked to me like a really dull remake of Strangelove.

Yeah, it was only average all in all. But it had it's moments, there were quite a few interesting stylistic flourishes.

[Qrazy]

I don't think it even had to be something "bad".

Anything eaten in the volumes and frequency that he had McDonalds would lead to deterioration of health, because your body needs the vitamins, minerals, proteins, etc. associated with variety.

If he only ate apples every meal of every day for a month, he'd be in horrendous shape. Yet apples are great for you.

Feast your eyes gentlemen, this man has only eaten peas for three months! (/woyzeckishness)

[Qrazy]

Whoa, now you're pulling a Fox News and extrapolating my comments into something I didn't say. :P

Fast food is a huge problem, but it is only one facet of a much larger, cultural problem. Blaming everything on fast food is the sort of "easy answer" stance that people unfortunately tend to take. Sort of like my myopic focus on Wal-Mart during that memorable argument however many months ago it was. http://www.match-cut.org/images/smilies/lol.gif

On the other hand, if people don't focus on the concrete, tangible, microcosmic issues of larger problems, nothing will ever get done. This at least puts some pressure on the companies to shape up a little bit.

[Rowland]

On the other hand, if people don't focus on the concrete, tangible, microcosmic issues of larger problems, nothing will ever get done. This at least puts some pressure on the companies to shape up a little bit.Sure, but I don't think anything significant will really get done until a sort of cultural paradigm shift occurs, which requires people to understand fast food's place on a broader sociological scale. Or our culture will naturally evolve to a more heightened state of awareness, which it arguably has been.

[Raiders]

Kurosawa's Loft is more or less another Doppelganger. What starts out as a serious, creepy horror film quickly becomes a series of anti-horror film gestures that are ridiculous and absurd, none moreso than the wonderful shot of a man turning face to face with a ghost, and casually walking right by it. The ending was also hilarious.

[Qrazy]

The assertions you guys are making to shoot down Spurlock's wildly misleading film are not very convincing. :lol:

I have problems with his film and those types of (food) stunts in general but I agree that the figures being thrown around here about the relatively 'harmless' fast-food industry are entirely arbitrary. Even regardless of the nutrition issues here, the industry is absolutely terrible for the environment.

[Qrazy]

It is relatively harmless in moderation, for the reasons that I described. In fact, the occasional fast food meal is healthier (which mind you doesn't necessarily mean healthy) than the occasional meal at restaurants like Applebees. Their food is generally worse for you.

Stats? And even with the stats, their effect on the environment is significantly worse.