28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[Russ]

Speaking of Blue Velvet, has anyone here seen River's Edge (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091860/)?
Yes. It's an excellent film. Crispin Glover is off-the-chart crazy (his most "interesting" performance ever) and even Keanu is pretty good. Director Tim Hunter (what the heck happened to him?) went on to direct episodes of Twin Peaks, Carnivale, and Breaking Bad, so at least he's got good taste.

I always found it amusing for that fabulous run Dennis Hopper had in 1986: from the revenge nutzoid in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2, to his phenomenal turn as Frank Booth in Blue Velvet, and then right into the role of Feck in River's Edge (uhh..Feck made Frank Booth seem normal). And then he capped it off with that Oscar-nominated role of the drunkard in Hoosiers: maybe the weakest of all four performances! (well, kidding about TCM2)

Not a bad year!

[soitgoes...]

Has Atlman ever made a bad movie?

Yes. Prêt-Ã*-Porter.

[soitgoes...]

I've seen about 25 Bergman films and I've yet to see one that I would call bad. Haven't seen Serpent's Egg though, which seems to be the one with the poorest reputation.
I'm about the same. Crisis is my least favorite Bergman film, and I'd still give it a 5.5.

I could say the same for Ozu and Naruse, though they are probably saved because most of their early, "getting their feet wet" works are lost.

[Mysterious Dude]

A Wedding and The Player come to mind.
Also, Popeye.

[soitgoes...]

The Toxic Avenger is pure gold. A film, like Flash Gordon, that really excels at being so-bad-it's-good. One of the funnier film sessions I've had in awhile.

[Amnesiac]

Yes. It's an excellent film. Crispin Glover is off-the-chart crazy (his most "interesting" performance ever) and even Keanu is pretty good. Director Tim Hunter (what the heck happened to him?) went on to direct episodes of Twin Peaks, Carnivale, and Breaking Bad, so at least he's got good taste.

Agreed. I think the general response to Glover's performance is pretty polarized but I thought it was actually good. Strangely effeminate and mercurial, but good. And Keanu is definitely given a role that is well suited to his talents. It's a pretty disconcerting inspection of the kind of apathy and disconnect that can emerge/fester within small towns filled with alcohol, drugs and clique mentalities.



I always found it amusing for that fabulous run Dennis Hopper had in 1986: from the revenge nutzoid in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2, to his phenomenal turn as Frank Booth in Blue Velvet, and then right into the role of Feck in River's Edge (uhh..Feck made Frank Booth seem normal).

Feck was a pretty strange character but I don't know if he actually beats out Frank's sheer weirdness/perversity. Feck at least had a tiny, little shred of humanity left in him... at least when compared to Samson (or 'John').

[Russ]

Feck was a pretty strange character but I don't know if he actually beats out Frank's sheer weirdness/perversity.
Don't make me post a picture of Feck's girlfriend.




:)

[Raiders]

Also, Popeye.

Incorrect.

[megladon8]

The Player is probably my favorite of the Altman films I've seen.

[Amnesiac]

Don't make me post a picture of Feck's girlfriend.




:)

Okay, true, this may just give him a slight edge in the crazy department. But let's just say both Frank and Feck are consummate sociopaths. :P

[Spinal]

The Toxic Avenger does not have Queen. Nor does it have Brian Blessed. Or Max von Sydow.

[D_Davis]

The Toxic Avenger is pure gold. A film, like Flash Gordon, that really excels at being so-bad-it's-good. One of the funnier film sessions I've had in awhile.

It's a great film, really fun.

My favorite is part IV, Citizen Toxie. That film is so wrong it hurts; I still can't believe some of the stuff they put on film.

[Melville]

Well I found both Laura Dern's dream about robins (and similarly the ending with the robin landing at the window) to be a little too obvious an analogy, especially since so many of the film's themes are presented in a way that require substantial thought from the audience.

While I've read interpretations of this saying that the obviously-fake robin eating the bug at the end is showing that this "love" brought into their lives is only a fleeting illusion, I find this a little hard to take. Personally I think it was just a poor effect, and the message conveyed was a very simple "Frank's gone, things are better" type thing which didn't sit well after all I'd seen prior.

It made the film feel almost like a fairy tale, which is interesting in concept but, again, coming after all that we have seen and experienced before-hand, to suddenly throw that in there was a little silly.
I love that robin scene. There's a great special feature (or maybe an easter egg) on the DVD, where the cinematographer describes shooting that scene. He says they originally tried to get a real bird, but when they ended up using the fake bird, he kept saying to Lynch, "we can't shoot this; it looks ridiculous", and Lynch responded, "yeah, it's perfect!"

The scene is definitely intended to be ironic, but I don't think its fakeness is supposed to show that the characters' happiness is a fleeting illusion. I think the whole point of the movie, which is emphasized by the hokey characters, the artificiality of the suburban setting, and the obvious fakeness of the bird, is that the happy everyday life that the characters briefly leave and then return to is an artificial construct. But that doesn't mean it's any less meaningful; the happiness that they find at the end is real, even if it is based on artifice. It's like an extension of Rousseau's description of the social contract: society is an expression of the general will. Blue Velvet extends that idea to the next level, in which the very reality of the everyday social world is a social construct. The robin is a fabrication, but it is a fabricated representation of social ideals; it is built from the ideals of the everyday people such as Dern. And as long as people live in terms of those ideals, they are real. They exist even if they are constructs.

Consider how that ties in with the role of blue velvet in the film. The blue velvet is vividly colored, but more importantly, it is textured, and Hopper pointedly feels it in the rape scene. It is a representative of the raw, visceral, tactile existence underlying the social construct. The robin, though a realization of Dern's dreams, is artificial; the velvet you can feel the texture of between your fingers. Also consider the fact that the town is a logging town: it removes the wildness of the forest, uncovers the darkness hidden there (a theme returned to in Twin Peaks), and turns the trees into tools for human construction. I think the movie does a great job of setting up and showing the interactions and attractions of both worlds: the artificial world built of common ideals and phony robins, and the mysterious, raw world built of primal and personal deviance and populated by Frank Booths.

[Amnesiac]

He says they originally tried to get a real bird, but when they ended up using the fake bird, he kept saying to Lynch, "we can't shoot this; it looks ridiculous", and Lynch responded, "yeah, it's perfect!"

Cool. I think the irony is clear whether or not you view the robin as a deliberate conceit, but this at least puts any ambiguity to rest.


The scene is definitely intended to be ironic, but I don't think its fakeness is supposed to show that the characters' happiness is a fleeting illusion. I think the whole point of the movie, which is emphasized by the hokey characters, the artificiality of the suburban setting, and the obvious fakeness of the bird, is that the happy everyday life that the characters briefly leave and then return to is an artificial construct. But that doesn't mean it's any less meaningful; the happiness that they find at the end is real, even if it is based on artifice. It's like an extension of Rousseau's description of the social contract: society is an expression of the general will. Blue Velvet extends that idea to the next level, in which the very reality of the everyday social world is a social construct. The robin is a fabrication, but it is a fabricated representation of social ideals; it is built from the ideals of the everyday people such as Dern. And as long as people live in terms of those ideals, they are real. They exist even if they are constructs.

Even going with this, the fleeting illusion idea still fits. Emphasizing their happiness as an artificial construct at the very least emphasizes its ostensible tenuousness.


Consider how that ties in with the role of blue velvet in the film. The blue velvet is vividly colored, but more importantly, it is textured, and Hopper pointedly feels it in the rape scene. It is a representative of the raw, visceral, tactile existence underlying the social construct. The robin, though a realization of Dern's dreams, is artificial; the velvet you can feel the texture of between your fingers. Also consider the fact that the town is a logging town: it removes the wildness of the forest, uncovers the darkness hidden there (a theme returned to in Twin Peaks), and turns the trees into tools for human construction. I think the movie does a great job of setting up and showing the interactions and attractions of both worlds: the artificial world built of common ideals and phony robins, and the mysterious, raw world built of primal and personal deviance and populated by Frank Booths.

Really good observations. Are those your own or did you find them somewhere else?

[Melville]

Even going with this, the fleeting illusion idea still fits. Emphasizing their happiness as an artificial construct at the very least emphasizes its ostensible tenuousness.
To some extent, yeah.


Really good observations. Are those your own or did you find them somewhere else?
My thoughts on the importance of the tactility of the blue velvet are partly inspired by a comment Lynch makes on the DVD (which I basically paraphrased above: he says something like "it's a color, but its also a texture"). Otherwise, they're all my own observations.

[Raiders]

Besides the Nazis, I don't think anything has gotten a greater bum rap than the suburbs in movie history.

[Amnesiac]

Another great, rarely seen dig at the suburbs is John Paizs' short, Springtime In Greenland (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088165/).

[Melville]

Besides the Nazis, I don't think anything has gotten a greater bum rap than the suburbs in movie history.
That's one reason I like Blue Velvet. Lynch doesn't just show the "dark underbelly" of the suburbs; he shows the suburbs as likable and actually beautiful, even if they are (or maybe specifically because they are) artificial.

[Spinal]

Besides the Nazis, I don't think anything has gotten a greater bum rap than the suburbs in movie history.

The Nazis have gotten a bum rap? I'm pretty sure that's not what you mean.

[Raiders]

Perhaps we can blame Reagan? Thinking back, the proliferation of pot shots at suburbs (and WASPs by extension) seems to really start in the '80s with filmmakers like Lynch, Craven and Dante getting in on it.

[Raiders]

The Nazis have gotten a bum rap? I'm pretty sure that's not what you mean.

How so? You mean Leni Riefenstahl is not to be trusted?

[MadMan]

I'm guessing that Raiders is joking. And Blue Velvet is awesome for another reason: how it just unflinchingly deals with sex, and perversion. In addition to the whole thing about the dark world beneath happy sunny small town suburbia, and the Frank Booths of the world. And I still think that Booth is easily the best thing Dennis Hopper has ever done. The "Love Letter" monologue is classic:


Don't be a good neighbor anymore to her. I'll have to send you a love letter! Straight from my heart, fucker! You know what a love letter is? It's a bullet from a fucking gun, fucker! You receive a love letter from me, and you're fucked forever! You understand, fuck? I'll send you straight to hell, fucker!... In dreams... I walk with you. In dreams... I talk to you. In dreams, you're mine... all the time. Forever.

Not sure if I should leave that unspoilered, as I don't remember if we're a "Family" website.

[Boner M]

That's one reason I like Blue Velvet. Lynch doesn't just show the "dark underbelly" of the suburbs; he shows the suburbs as likable and actually beautiful, even if they are (or maybe specifically because they are) artificial.
Hmm, I don't know if I'd call Lynch's vision of suburbia 'likeable'. Perhaps amusingly kitschy, at best. If anything, the facade is supposed to be be cranked to 11 to the point that it's just as unsettling as the underbelly.

[Winston*]

People read that long David Foster Wallace essay about Lynch in A Supposefly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again? Good stuff about Blue Velvet in there.

[megladon8]

Again, I understand these themes and the way Lynch implemented them.

I still think these bits of dialogue were clunky and unnecessary. Especially odd because I've found most of Lynch's other work to be pretty obtuse, so to have the characters outright say what he was communicating thematically was odd.

I liked the movie, I just didn't think it was Jesus.

[The Mike]

I liked the movie, I just didn't think it was Jesus.
But aren't all movies about Jesus? ;)

[Boner M]

I still think these bits of dialogue were clunky and unnecessary... to have the characters outright say what he was communicating thematically was odd.
http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll39/colpot10/dark.png

[Spinal]

It's ok to have characters convey themes through dialogue. There's really nothing inherently wrong with it.

[megladon8]

It's ok to have characters convey themes through dialogue. There's really nothing inherently wrong with it.


I agree.

But these two instances stood out huge for me, because the rest of the dialogue in the film didn't have this same tone.

It really did feel to me like Lynch was trying to present the film's themes in an easier way for the audience to understand.

A re-watch is definitely in order, but not for a while.

I have my first day at my new job tomorrow - it'll be the first time I've worked a full 8 hour shift since I was 14.

So yeah, going to sleep now. Will probably put on a re-watch of something to sleep to.

[Amnesiac]

I don't really see a big problem with it, either.

In the case we're talking about here, I think it actually adds something to Jeffrey's characterization. I've been thinking around it, but I don't know if I see it as that big a problem. Every time I consider how it might be deemed redundant (which isn't some outlandish claim, don't get me wrong), I keep thinking that it's also an entirely natural thing for the character to say. And that makes for a certain level of consistency.

And I don't know if it really doesn't add anything new, either. Surely the fact that he says something that is so particularly vapid, so terribly banal is... hilarious, for one, but also further consolidates his disavowing, 'golly gee' innocence. It actually takes it up a whole notch because, unless I'm mistaken, Jeffrey's ingenuousness doesn't really ever hit a similar low anywhere else in the film, does it?

I get how you could consider it spoon-feeding the audience and that's legitimate, but I can also see how that line may actually serve to further qualify Jeffrey's naivety just because of its sheer silliness. And there's also that whole tonally consistent thing, too.

Also, it's not like the film sacrifices a propensity for more esoteric, or obtuse, plunderings because of one line. But I do see how someone might prefer a more obstinately obtuse film like Mulholland Drive.

[BuffaloWilder]

Clark Gregg's Choke has a review up, at the blog below. It's very short, but -

[Melville]

Hmm, I don't know if I'd call Lynch's vision of suburbia 'likeable'. Perhaps amusingly kitschy, at best. If anything, the facade is supposed to be be cranked to 11 to the point that it's just as unsettling as the underbelly.
You don't like amusing kitsch? In any case, I think it's safe to say that Lynch does. All his films, from Eraserhead to Inland Empire, express a strong liking for simple, naive dreams and kitschy characters (and he himself expresses this liking even more so in interviews). Which isn't to say that his expression of the facade isn't cranked to the point of being unsettling; that's part of what makes the interrelationship between the movie's two worlds so interesting.


Again, I understand these themes and the way Lynch implemented them.
But the interpretation I gave above completely contradicted your interpretation.


I still think these bits of dialogue were clunky and unnecessary. Especially odd because I've found most of Lynch's other work to be pretty obtuse, so to have the characters outright say what he was communicating thematically was odd.
The opening scenes in the film already make the themes you're talking about completely obvious. It's not like the dialogue is any more explicit than that opening bit of symbolism. These obvious scenes are merely delineating the surface level of the film's themes; they are setting the stage on which the themes are at play. And I agree with Amnesiac that within the amusingly kitschy context, and given the characters doing the talking, the dialogue seemed perfectly natural.

[Melville]

http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll39/colpot10/dark.png
That's one of the best things ever posted on Match Cut. I already repped you and Winston for it, right?

[Amnesiac]

Um, it's a great film. If you like PTA definitely see it.

Yeah, balmakboor also misinterpreted what I meant by that. Here's what I said in response to him on the same page that I made the initial comment:



??

That was a strange and random post.

Was it really that strange? I meant I don't agree with your criticisms. I do not see the film that way. I guess I should have been clearer.

Anyways, Punch Drunk Love is actually one of my favorite movies and I am eagerly awaiting the recently announced Bluray.

[Winston*]

Speaking of David Lynch, he's releasing an album with Danger Mouse and Sparklehorse

http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/magazine/17-06/pl_music

[BuffaloWilder]

So, what film (or films) can the Match-Cut collective not go without mentioning, whenever the opportunity presents itself?

For my part, I think mine are semi-well known, by now. Your George Miller films, your Tarsem, as well as Jodorowsky and Kubrick, on occasion.

Oh, and anything with Gregory Hines. Obvious, in hindsight.

[Boner M]

You don't like amusing kitsch? In any case, I think it's safe to say that Lynch does. All his films, from Eraserhead to Inland Empire, express a strong liking for simple, naive dreams and kitschy characters (and he himself expresses this liking even more so in interviews). Which isn't to say that his expression of the facade isn't cranked to the point of being unsettling; that's part of what makes the interrelationship between the movie's two worlds so interesting.
I think he expresses a love/hate attitude to kitschy characters/behaviour/objects/etc, but the heightened way it's expressed renders them/it a source of odd bemusement rather than likeability. I think Sailor's snakeskin jacket, and its representation of his "individuality and belief in personal freedom" and the way his admission undermines the 'coolness' of the jacket (and in turn, himself) is a perfect example of that. Or the entirety of the second half of Lost Highway for that matter.


That's one of the best things ever posted on Match Cut. I already repped you and Winston for it, right?
Do it again.

[MacGuffin]

Hey Boner, did you notice I watched those Claude Chabrol movies?

[Boner M]

Hey Boner, did you notice I watched those Claude Chabrol movies?
I did, and silently expressed my approval.

Although I'd suggest you give Le Boucher another go, as I rewatched it a few weeks ago with my housemate (she wanted to watch an old-ish French film that was reasonably accessible) and was even more impressed.

[MacGuffin]

I did, and silently expressed my approval.

Although I'd suggest you give Le Boucher another go, as I rewatched it a few weeks ago with my housemate (she wanted to watch an old-ish French film that was reasonably accessible) and was even more impressed.

I think I just might. I didn't quite understand what was going on (emotionally speaking) until the last 20 minutes. I mean, frankly, Chabrol just threw us into a random ass town, literally. I was really just along for the ride. My favorite part? The music that played when those cops walked across the screen: the best overlapping of music/images in some time I've seen.

La cérémonie is quite the movie, also. And while I know that it is largely about social classes, I wonder if it's some vision of war in which the lower classes duke it out with the upper classes so to speak. I know it's subtle, but Chabrol doesn't really express approval of either class. I did appreciate the Melinda character who situated herself somewhere between both classes, as far as ideals went.

[baby doll]

Also, Popeye.No, it's one of the greatest films of all time. Seriously.

[Spun Lepton]

No, it's one of the greatest films of all time. Seriously.

Well, blow me down.

(*rimshot*)

[baby doll]

Well, blow me down.

(*rimshot*)For the record, here's how I rate Altman's work:

M*A*S*H (1970) / ***1/2
McCabe & Mrs. Miller (1971) / ****
The Long Goodbye (1973) / ****
California Split (1974) / ****
3 Women (1977) / ****
A Wedding (1978) / *1/2
Quintet (1979) / **
Popeye (1980) / ****
The Player (1992) / **
Short Cuts (1993) / ***1/2
Cookie's Fortune (1999) / ***
Gosford Park (2001) / ****
The Company (2003) / **
A Prairie Home Companion (2006) / ***1/2

[soitgoes...]

That film is so wrong it hurts; I still can't believe some of the stuff they put on film.
I watched 20 minutes of this tonight, and I had to turn it off. It didn't have the same feel to it. The film seemed as if it was trying to hard. I didn't laugh once.

[trotchky]

While watching In My Skin I was torn between finding its use of the rather serious subject of self-inflicted violence as a metaphor for the shittiness of capitalism offensive and finding it incidental, and ultimately I settled on the latter. The more I think about it, though, the less certain I am.

[Boner M]

I was torn between finding its use of the rather serious subject of self-inflicted violence as a metaphor for the shittiness of capitalism offensive and finding it incidental, and ultimately I settled on the latter.
I haven't seen the film yet, but I can't imagine any non-retarded filmmaker would contrive such a metaphor. Incidental it is!

[B-side]

The Blood of a Poet was delightfully surreal. The film hits a few snags along the way, mainly in the snowball fight segment, but Cocteau's imagery is fantastic. The effects on the statue are remarkable even by today's standards. Cocteau's pitting of the "standard" against the surreal is indicative of the movement as a whole. The desire to bring about a better, more textured and tangible sense of imagination and the state of mind of those that revel in the unreal.

[MacGuffin]

The film hits a few snags along the way, mainly in the snowball fight segment,

Bullshit. That's some of the greatest moments in cinema.

[Melville]

I think he expresses a love/hate attitude to kitschy characters/behaviour/objects/etc, but the heightened way it's expressed renders them/it a source of odd bemusement rather than likeability. I think Sailor's snakeskin jacket, and its representation of his "individuality and belief in personal freedom" and the way his admission undermines the 'coolness' of the jacket (and in turn, himself) is a perfect example of that. Or the entirety of the second half of Lost Highway for that matter.
I think the ridiculousness of Sailor's proclamation about his jacket is precisely what makes him likable. If it was presented as actually being cool, it would be irritating. Have you listened to the commentary on the Wild at Heart DVD? Lynch opines about how much he likes the two central characters and the beauty of their simple love for one another. I agree about the second half of Lost Highway; it's amusing, but definitely not likable. Though the headlight-lit love scene, with the ethereal music, again evokes Lynch's appreciation for simple ideals of love.


While watching In My Skin I was torn between finding its use of the rather serious subject of self-inflicted violence as a metaphor for the shittiness of capitalism offensive and finding it incidental, and ultimately I settled on the latter. The more I think about it, though, the less certain I am.
I didn't think it was a metaphor for anything. It was an expression of the character's unhappiness in her environment, and an attempt to overcome her alienation from herself by being unified with her own pain. Good movie.

[Raiders]

I couldn't stand much of In My Skin precisely because it seems grisly without any real intent. I think the film is too coy in its refusal to give Esther any real balance, by which I mean she is not shown obtaining any particular joy, fetishistic delight or freedom from her self-mutilation. The film only shows that "something" is happening, but we cannot rightly discern whether she is freeing herself or simply finding another means which to imprison herself. It has been a while, but I also remember being rather unimpressed by the film's formal trappings, particularly the useless instance of split-screen.

[Raiders]

The Company (2003) / **
A Prairie Home Companion (2006) / ***1/2

Hm, really? The former is among my favorites of his work. It seems so organic and defining for him as a creator and artist while the latter, more obviously "Altmanesque" and superficially spright, also feels more joyless. Instead of praising the creation it seems an extended death march. That isn't to say I don't like A Prairie Home Companion, but I much prefer The Company.

[ThePlashyBubbler]

Anyone know of a place I can watch Mind Game online?

[Qrazy]

Anyone know of a place I can watch Mind Game online?

Don't think so. Download it, better quality anyway.

[Mara]

I first fell in love with Ciaran Hinds after a film called December Bride, which is about Protestants in Northern Ireland. Sarah has an affair with two brothers, refuses to name the father, and the three have an odd, but workable, sort of family. Very interesting in terms of Irish culture and gender issues. I studied it for my MA comps.

And, after looking up the film to see if it's available at all (and worth my mentioning), I learned that it just recently was released on dvd! :pritch:

I liked this film much more than I expected. For being so short (slightly less than an hour and a half) it surprised me about four times. There's something to be said for watching a story you feel like you haven't heard before.

Boo, though-- the DVD doesn't have subtitles or closed-captions, and the accents are crazy thick. I got lost a few times.

[thefourthwall]

Saturday, I did a double feature of Terminator: Salvation and Star Trek. Amusingly, Anton Yelchin is in both of them.

http://www.contactmusic.com/pics/l/cinema_editors_awards_180208/anton_yelchin_1765245.jpg

He was pretty good in Charlie Bartlett, too; maybe there is some hope for young Hollywood to have talent beyond prettiness.

[thefourthwall]

I liked this film much more than I expected. For being so short (slightly less than an hour and a half) it surprised me about four times. There's something to be said for watching a story you feel like you haven't heard before.

Boo, though-- the DVD doesn't have subtitles or closed-captions, and the accents are crazy thick. I got lost a few times.

I'm so glad you liked it. The book is an interesting read, too. I find the main character Sarah very interesting since she acts in unexpected*, yet understandable ways. I haven't seen it in a number of years, so I'm excited to buy the dvd, even though the lack of basic features (like subtitles) is a bit disappointing.

Still, Ciaran Hinds is vunderbar here and worth the effort!

(*I wonder if it's because my name is Sarah, so I'm always a little more surprised when characters that share my name have a different thought process and approach to living than I do.)

[Sycophant]

(*I wonder if it's because my name is Sarah, so I'm always a little more surprised when characters that share my name have a different thought process and approach to living than I do.)

Intersting how many people I've heard this from (and not just Sarahs, mind you!). I guess I'm completely immune to it because my name is John, and approximately 80% of Western narratives feature a character named John.

[Qrazy]

My middle name is John. *rep whoring*

[Grouchy]

The only thing I have to add to the Blue Velvet discussion is that, even dismissing the "fake robin" thing, the irony of the ending is also shown in that it repeats the exact same shots of the town seen at the beginning. In that context, the kitsch in some of Jeffrey's dialogues is perfectly justified.

Stealing Beauty is not exactly memorable. It's a very very very slight plot about this girl trying to discover who is her real father and wanting to lose her virginity. I guess it has some accurate observations about teen sex and the emotions of 19-year-old girls, but it lacks the complexity and maturity of something like The Dreamers which came out not so long after. Jeremy Irons has the only even remotely interesting character. I'm probably being way too harsh on it, it's an amiable movie and an obvious excuse to oogle Liv Tyler in camera.

[Mara]

Stealing Beauty is not exactly memorable. It's a very very very slight plot about this girl trying to discover who is her real father and wanting to lose her virginity. I guess it has some accurate observations about teen sex and the emotions of 19-year-old girls, but it lacks the complexity and maturity of something like The Dreamers which came out not so long after. Jeremy Irons has the only even remotely interesting character. I'm probably being way too harsh on it, it's an amiable movie and an obvious excuse to oogle Liv Tyler in camera.

Isn't her poetry awful?

The film's just pretty pictures. That's all.

[Mara]

My name is Natalie, and Natalies in film and television are either fat or bitches.

Think about it. It's true.

[Grouchy]

Isn't her poetry awful?

The film's just pretty pictures. That's all.
Yeah, her writing is worth shit. I guess that's also accurate about most 19-year-old poets, though.

[Grouchy]

Has anyone seen something called Frostbitten? It appears to be the OTHER Swedish vampire movie.

I'm asking because it's being shown tonight. I was planning on finally seeing Star Trek, but I guess I can see than whenever I want. This looks more like a one-time chance.

[Mara]

My name is Natalie, and Natalies in film and television are either fat or bitches.

Think about it. It's true.

Whereas real-life Natalies and nice and pretty. And brunettes.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v254/maragirl/natalie_portman.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v254/maragirl/natalie.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v254/maragirl/natalie_imbruglia6.jpg

[Grouchy]

My first thought was Natalie Cole, so, rockin'.

[D_Davis]

Stealing Beauty is the only movie I've ever ran out of the theater from. It was so God-awful that I couldn't stand another second of it. My aisle was blocked so I had to jump over my row of seats. I ran all the way to my car where I sat for about 45 minutes while I waited for my friends who were still inside.

Did I over react for comedic impact? Perhaps.

But the point still stands: worst movie I've ever seen.

[Derek]

Stealing Beauty is the only movie I've ever ran out of the theater from. It was so God-awful that I couldn't stand another second of it. My aisle was blocked so I had to jump over my row of seats. I ran all the way to my car where I sat for about 45 minutes while I waited for my friends who were still inside.

Did I over react for comedic impact? Perhaps.

But the point still stands: worst movie I've ever seen.

But thank god Liv Tyler redeemed herself with Armageddon just a couple years later. :)

[Sycophant]

My middle name is John. *rep whoring*

Qrazy, if you were a real John, you'd know that the last thing I'd do would be to rep some other dude for being named John.

[D_Davis]

But thank god Liv Tyler redeemed herself with Armageddon just a couple years later. :)

She's my least favorite part of that movie.

:P

[Sycophant]

Sailor's snakeskin jacket is just about my favorite thing about that movie. The enthusiasm Cage shows when describing the jacket is sublime.

[jamaul]

I was like, watching Mulholland Dr. over the weekend, for . . . ehm, I dunno, the millionth time? -- newayz, yeah.

Best movie of the decade.

[Watashi]

I'm not a horror junkie, but all the positive reviews for Drag Me to Hell has me interested. The problem is that I've never seen a single Evil Dead film. Should I remedy that first or watch Drag Me to Hell and if I like it, then explore Raimi's earlier trilogy?

[MacGuffin]

I'm not a horror junkie, but all the positive reviews for Drag Me to Hell has me interested. The problem is that I've never seen a single Evil Dead film. Should I remedy that first or watch Drag Me to Hell and if I like it, then explore Raimi's earlier trilogy?

Evil Dead is creative, but the sequel is more of the same and not really in a good way.

[D_Davis]

I'd just watch Evil Dead 2 if I were you (it's more of a remake than a sequel). It contains the best parts of part 1, but made even better, and doesn't contain the lamest parts of Army of Darkness, which is mostly lame. AoD is more of a 'Bruce Campbell' movie, and it was hear that I lost interest in this group of filmmakers. It also felt more like a long Xena or Hercules episode than an Evil Dead film.

[Raiders]

Though it is more sci-fi and goofy action (but still with some over-the-top macabre), I would recommend a viewing of Darkman as essential early Raimi over any of the Evil Dead films.

[Grouchy]

I'm not a horror junkie, but all the positive reviews for Drag Me to Hell has me interested. The problem is that I've never seen a single Evil Dead film. Should I remedy that first or watch Drag Me to Hell and if I like it, then explore Raimi's earlier trilogy?
I think you should watch all three. Not to prepare yourself for this movie, which doesn't look anything similar. but because basically they're essential "cult" cinema.

My verdict is that Evil Dead is creative, the sequel/remake outdoes it in any possible way and is a manic masterpiece, and that Army of Darkness is good good stuff and more of an all-out comedy.

[lovejuice]

and i want to point out, as yet no one have given wat the same suggestion. :)

mine is that you should watch the adventures of priscilla, queen of the desert since that movie has agent smith dresses in drag.

[baby doll]

Hm, really? The former is among my favorites of his work. It seems so organic and defining for him as a creator and artist while the latter, more obviously "Altmanesque" and superficially spright, also feels more joyless. Instead of praising the creation it seems an extended death march. That isn't to say I don't like A Prairie Home Companion, but I much prefer The Company.I felt The Company lacked drama.

[lovejuice]

i felt the company doesn't need drama.

[Ezee E]

Raiders is in deep need of a good movie.

[Raiders]

Raiders is in deep need of a good movie.

I have Fuller's Street of No Return from Netflix and Up and Drag Me to Hell this upcoming weekend. I am also contemplating watching Denis' The Intruder sometime this week.

I'm certain there are at least a couple good movies in there.

[MacGuffin]

I am also contemplating watching Denis' The Intruder sometime this week.

Well, this one's definitely good.

[baby doll]

i felt the company doesn't need drama.It wouldn't have hurt. I mean, it wasn't a terrible movie, but I was just never that into it.

[trotchky]

I didn't think it was a metaphor for anything. It was an expression of the character's unhappiness in her environment, and an attempt to overcome her alienation from herself by being unified with her own pain. Good movie.

You could be right about that. Still, you didn't find it to be the least bit critical of her environment? How the first conversation in the movie involves her friend telling her to have sex with the boss so she can get ahead in her job? How her boyfriend "can't handle that"? The entire dinner scene with the mannequin arm? The fall-out with her friend that happens as a direct result of her promotion?

Maybe it's more specific than I'm making it out to be, but it's hard not to see at least some degree of blame being placed on the world she lives in.

[MacGuffin]

I mostly just thought In My Skin was a piece of shit. Not enough is shown from Esther's perspective, so we never really understand the inner workings of what she is doing. It's displayed more as an activity than an act of violence on the body. The movie is basically a theme that's not even explored.

[trotchky]

I mostly just thought In My Skin was a piece of shit. Not enough is shown from Esther's perspective, so we never really understand the inner workings of what she is doing. It's displayed more as an activity than an act of violence on the body. The movie is basically a theme that's not even explored.

Yeah, I kind of agree with that, which is what led me to think the movie was trying to criticize the culture as somehow responsible for or complicit in her acts. Of course that might not be the case and the film could just be really shallow.

[MacGuffin]

Yeah, I kind of agree with that, which is what led me to think the movie was trying to criticize the culture as somehow responsible for or complicit in her acts. Of course that might not be the case and the film could just be really shallow.

I don't really think the culture has anything to do with it. In fact, I don't even think the movie would agree with you that it is a culture, because it seems to look at self-mutilation as a psychological game one plays. Think of it this way, and to a much lesser extent: Why do people bite their nails? Not because of "culture", it's more psychological than that (and this is what the movie fails to explore). I think the movie is quite shallow, but I did find that dinner scene amusing.

[lovejuice]

It wouldn't have hurt. I mean, it wasn't a terrible movie, but I was just never that into it.
i am pushing the envelope here, but the approach fits the subject matter quite well. ballet has never been rich in drama. i used to attend a production of don quixote, and all the good don does is sitting on the side watching random characters strutting their legs.

[Qrazy]

i am pushing the envelope here, but the approach fits the subject matter quite well. ballet has never been rich in drama. i used to attend a production of don quixote, and all the good don does is sitting on the side watching random characters strutting their legs.

I haven't seen The Company. But The Red Shoes is very dramatic. My sister was also in dance for a long time (I took tap for three years) and there's a fair amount of in drama in relation to power dynamics (solo's etc) in the classes as well.

[megladon8]

I was watching Marathon Man last night.

It's OK I guess.

[baby doll]

i am pushing the envelope here, but the approach fits the subject matter quite well. ballet has never been rich in drama. i used to attend a production of don quixote, and all the good don does is sitting on the side watching random characters strutting their legs.Which would make sense except that it's about a ballet company, not a ballet performance. Even if there's not much drama in the show, that doesn't mean there isn't anything interesting happening backstage. And even if there isn't, it's a movie, so make something up.

[Melville]

I couldn't stand much of In My Skin precisely because it seems grisly without any real intent. I think the film is too coy in its refusal to give Esther any real balance, by which I mean she is not shown obtaining any particular joy, fetishistic delight or freedom from her self-mutilation. The film only shows that "something" is happening, but we cannot rightly discern whether she is freeing herself or simply finding another means which to imprison herself. It has been a while, but I also remember being rather unimpressed by the film's formal trappings, particularly the useless instance of split-screen.
I haven't seen it in years, so I can't really defend it. But I don't see why she should get any joy, fetishistic delight, or freedom from her self-mutilation. I would guess that most people who inflict violence on themselves don't experience any of those things. I think the most explanatory scene is the one at the dinner table, in which her arm momentarily detaches from her and she cuts herself in order to reattach it. This makes explicit her feelings of self-alienation; she feels divorced from her own body and experience. Her self-harm is a means of "pulling herself together": by mutilating herself, she feels immediate, localized pain that she can focus on, reuniting her with herself; at the same time, she asserts control, insists to herself that her body is hers—she has control over it. I don't think fetishism has anything to do with this; it's a compulsive, desperate act. The only joy it brings is a feeling of catharsis, a break in the tension. I guess maybe it also brings her a morbid joy in her own self-destructiveness, making her own body a ritualistic tableau of her self-harm. That seems to be the case at the end, when she completely isolates herself (and does she actually eat a piece of her skin? That definitely bespeaks a morbid fascination with her self-destruction.)

As for whether she was freeing herself or further imprisoning herself, at the end it seemed to me that she had successfully annulled her own self-alienation, and she was completely free of all social bonds, so in that sense she had freed herself. But she had also completely alienated herself from everything other than herself—and she had reduced herself to a hermetic cycle of self-destruction. I don't think she'd do too well when she left her room at the end.


You could be right about that. Still, you didn't find it to be the least bit critical of her environment? How the first conversation in the movie involves her friend telling her to have sex with the boss so she can get ahead in her job? How her boyfriend "can't handle that"? The entire dinner scene with the mannequin arm? The fall-out with her friend that happens as a direct result of her promotion?

Maybe it's more specific than I'm making it out to be, but it's hard not to see at least some degree of blame being placed on the world she lives in.
I agree that the movie was critical of her environment, but I don't think that her self-mutilation was a metaphor for the problems with the environment. She was alienated from herself, and her self-harm was a response to that. The cause of the alienation might be related to a traditional critique of the depersonalization in modern western society, but I never got the sense that her behavior was meant to represent society as a whole. I think it's simply that a person's psychology can't be decoupled entirely from his or her environment; the movie just focused, as is only reasonable, on particular aspects of society that tend to exacerbate feelings of self-alienation.

[Grouchy]

Well, it so happens I've just watched The Company and yeah, that was a good movie but very inconsequential. There are Altman's usual notes about abuse of power and comparisons to film business, but nothing really stood out. It's a pretty peaceful film, just a portrait of this group of dancers over a year-long period. And since I'm not really into ballet and a large chunk of the movie is filmed performances, it wasn't a big deal for me. McDowell was very good, though. By far the most Altmanesque moment was the company's quick reaction to the girl that broke her ankle.

[B-side]

Bullshit. That's some of the greatest moments in cinema.

Oh, I adored everything following the kid's death. The snowball fight itself was a bit of a drag, though.

[Ezee E]

I was watching Marathon Man last night.

It's OK I guess.
There's a good case of a movie that's been dated. I enjoy it, mostly for Olivier.

[Qrazy]

Yeah Marathon Man is really dated. I didn't like it much.

[Qrazy]

The first half of Hombre (Ritt) was alright. Many of the early scenes only half-assedly tie into what the film becomes. The second half was a damn tense, compelling film. Except for that final transition to a picture of Paul Newman as a child surrounded by all of his Native American brethren. That was hilariously silly.

[MadMan]

Marathon Man works best as a nightmarish thriller. Too much of it is over the top to be taken as anything else. I rather like it, but there are other thrillers from the 70s that are much better.

To me the Evil Dead series is one of the best horror trilogies, ever. The first one is essential for any horror fan, the second one a great sequel (and just flat out awesome), and the third is very fun to watch. I'd say that each one displays the kind of creativity that Rami has sort of unleashed in the Spiderman movies. I think though that going full blown Hollywood has hurt him a bit, but I'm hoping that Drag Me to Hell at least features him going back to his old ways.

[soitgoes...]

Ingmar Bergman's short film, Karen's Face, completely caught me off guard. To be honest I wasn't even aware of this film's existence, let alone that Bergman had made short films until I saw it pop up on a tracker a few days ago. Being that I'm pretty much a lover of all things Bergman, I thought I'd check it out. Wow! Good move on my part.

Bergman gives us 14 minutes of his family photos. Not just any photos, but photos with a definite focus on his mother. He starts with his mom's passport picture that was taken weeks before her death. Then he starts at her beginning, so to speak, and works his way back to that passport photo. There is no narration, just the occasional caption to help guide the viewer. The only real presence, besides the pictures is a melancholy piano piece. The film doesn't necessarily have the viewer relate to Bergman's mother Karen, but rather gets you thinking about your own mother, or even your own life. Karen, like every one else, was once young, once full of dreams, and you can almost see that fade away over time. Such a sad, sad film. To see one's life boiled down to a series of photographs. Was Karen happy? Probably not. Only one photo has even the smallest representation of a smile. Ingmar knew this, but she was after all still his mother, and this was his tribute to her.

[B-side]

Ingmar Bergman's short film, Karen's Face, completely caught me off guard. To be honest I wasn't even aware of this film's existence, let alone that Bergman had made short films until I saw it pop up on a tracker a few days ago. Being that I'm pretty much a lover of all things Bergman, I thought I'd check it out. Wow! Good move on my part.

Bergman gives us 14 minutes of his family photos. Not just any photos, but photos with a definite focus on his mother. He starts with his mom's passport picture that was taken weeks before her death. Then he starts at her beginning, so to speak, and works his way back to that passport photo. There is no narration, just the occasional caption to help guide the viewer. The only real presence, besides the pictures is a melancholy piano piece. The film doesn't necessarily have the viewer relate to Bergman's mother Karen, but rather gets you thinking about your own mother, or even your own life. Karen, like every one else, was once young, once full of dreams, and you can almost see that fade away over time. Such a sad, sad film. To see one's life boiled down to a series of photographs. Was Karen happy? Probably not. Only one photo has even the smallest representation of a smile. Ingmar knew this, but she was after all still his mother, and this was his tribute to her.

Yeah, I was a fan as well. Not quite to the extent you are, but it's good. Not sure how I found out about it. I think I was skimming his filmography on IMDb, seen it, clicked on it and figured since it was short, I'd see if it was online somewhere.

[Bosco B Thug]

I Am Legend -- Did they need to computer-animate all of the ghouls? It's ridiculous, isn't it? This embodies CGI age laziness for me. I really really hate it.


Speaking of Blue Velvet, has anyone here seen River's Edge (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091860/)? I really liked River's Edge. 8.5 liked it, even. Not sure what the statement's worth, but I'd take this one over Blue Velvet. I'd say there was more to it, and I remember being impressed by the off-kilter directorial work. Too bad Tim Hunter disappeared off the face of feature filmmaking.


Has Atlman ever made a bad movie? My first guess is no.[/IMG] Seriously, I am convinced I will never see a "bad" film from Altman, per say. Even with the innocuous Gosford Park and the channeled-in 'Prairie,' and the sinking mess that is Popeye (love unabashedly the first half, though), the Altman effort is just always an automatic 5.5+ for me.

Then again, I have yet to see those truly reviled Altman films. Those 80s/90s ones with the stagey, oh-so-theatrically clever titles like H.E.A.L.T.H., that people make out to be so rancid and overwrought, qualities which I could totally see Altman taking to a fever point of wretchedness.


My point has always been that there is indeed some "value", even to the bad ones; your mileage (read: Spinal) may vary, but...it's Altman. Yeah, I know BT's "bad" in a textbook sense, but I don't let that prevent it from being a film I really enjoy(a lot, and I ain't ashamed to admit it) for a plethora of reasons.

Case in point: H.E.A.L.T.H., a film (from memory of many years ago), that I utterly despise; however, from reading Sven's observations of a recent viewing he had, I remember certain highlights that were primo Altman. Oh I am so getting to some bad Altmans this summer. *rubs hands together*

Well, maybe not The Gingerbread Man. I really don't have much interest in that one. Do people like Cookie's Fortune?


Well, it so happens I've just watched The Company and yeah, that was a good movie but very inconsequential. There are Altman's usual notes about abuse of power and comparisons to film business, but nothing really stood out. It's a pretty peaceful film, just a portrait of this group of dancers over a year-long period. I don't know, man... It might've been just me, but this movie creeped me out bad. It came off as sinister for most of the running time, which is probably what kept me hooked, and the ending, literally, fucked with my mind. I felt like Altman was deliberately pulling a fast one on me. I felt he was making me expect that he was

going to somehow undermine the inhuman professionalism we see in this movie, but doesn't.

I read the film as Altman showing his respect and awe for the stoicism and pragmatism of this art, but simultaneously revealing a bit of a distaste for the disjunct and contrast there is between this art of the body with "other" arts - arts of the mind, where people tend to be drama queens, narcissistic about their ideas, not stoic or pragmatic, etc. (which would include Altman himself).

But then Altman is ultimately giving these latter arts the big middle finger by leaving the "athletes" (the dancer-athlete and the cook-athlete) well-adjusted and happy in the end. We're just waiting for some juicy and dramatic tragic flaw to be exposed about these characters we may want to label as "vapid" or "empty," but then they prove themselves even more extraordinary by mere virtue of the fact that they love and are good at what they do, and they just do it. There is no qualifications to that. Neve Campbell and James Franco in this movie are monsters of professional-world competence, they aren't victims of their creativity like Van Gogh, and while we may condescend to the non-cerebral nature of their artistic medium, the film rubs our faces in the non-event that is the ending and the happiness and naturalism we are left seeing them exhibit, without the expected payoff of seeing them undone. These people have all the purpose and self-worth they need, which I feel fascinates and horrifies Altman, since this is often more than can be said for the neurotic film director and artist of the traditional, perpetually "starving" sort.

[Sven]

I really liked River's Edge. 8.5 liked it, even. Not sure what the statement's worth, but I'd take this one over Blue Velvet.

Rep!


Seriously, I am convinced I will never see a "bad" film from Altman, per say.

Rep!


...and the sinking mess that is Popeye

NEG REP!


Well, maybe not The Gingerbread Man. I really don't have much interest in that one. Do people like Cookie's Fortune?

For the record, I've now seen everything that Altman has directed (save television shows) and I would only call TWO of them bad: 1) Quintet, which has the potential to turn around violently and be one of his best, but as I recall it, it's ambitious but flat, kind of like Zardoz, and 2) The Gingerbread Man, which is almost unrecognizable.

Cookie's Fortune is in my top ten of his.


We're just waiting for some juicy and dramatic tragic flaw to be exposed about these characters we may want to label as "vapid" or "empty," but then they prove themselves even more extraordinary by mere virtue of the fact that they love and are good at what they do, and they just do it.

Amazing thoughts, but this here captures, in my mind, what makes the film great.

[Bosco B Thug]

NEG REP! Fast, I like it. What is it, like an incantation with you? :pritch:


For the record, I've now seen everything that Altman has directed (save television shows) and I would only call TWO of them bad: 1) Quintet, which has the potential to turn around violently and be one of his best, but as I recall it, it's ambitious but flat, kind of like Zardoz, and 2) The Gingerbread Man, which is almost unrecognizable.

Cookie's Fortune is in my top ten of his. It's too bad about Quintet, it being another Altman genre pic, and we didn't get enough of those.

Cookie's Fortune sounds like a lot of fun, actually. It sounds like a premise that is too much fun. Oh, and I used to think it and that Bette Midler film Drowning Mona were the same movie. Moving CF up the queue.

[Boner M]

Hollis Frampton's (nostalgia) marks a good start to my exploration of that awesome new American Avant Garde IV box set. Can't wait to delve into the rest.

[MacGuffin]

Hollis Frampton's (nostalgia) marks a good start to my exploration of that awesome new American Avant Garde IV box set. Can't wait to delve into the rest.

I need to see more avant-garde stuff outside of Stan Brakhage: more Michael Snow, Ernie Gehr, Hollis Frampton, etc., etc. Let us know about any discoveries you make.

[jamaul]

There are times when I wonder if Robert Altman was the greatest director who ever lived (okay, hyperbole alert). He's had some misfires, but his greatest work is so phenomenally devoid of so many bullshit elements found in so many films (even the best ones). His non-intrusive style, observation and ability to allow things to develop in such an organic way is . . . stupefying. Nashville may be my favorite of his films, but that's not to discredit his re-imagining of the war film in M*A*S*H, of the western in McCabe (a film that, each time I watch it, I can't help but wonder if its the best movie I've ever seen), his vitriolic and delightfully hilarious send-up of Hollywood and the thriller genre with The Player and the rampant humanity, moral dilemma and human comedy/tragedy of Short Cuts. I’m quite fond of his last few films, from Cookie’s Fortune to Prairie Home. I also love 3 Women and Popeye. Oh! - and Secret Honor.

[Russ]

Hollis Frampton's (nostalgia) marks a good start to my exploration of that awesome new American Avant Garde IV box set. Can't wait to delve into the rest.
Have you seen anything by Harry Smith (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0808421/)? I really like his last film, Early Abstractions, an awful lot. I think I got it once off ubuweb.

He has a very interesting Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Everett_Smith) where he is described as "American magus, archivist, ethnomusicologist, student of anthropology, record collector, experimental filmmaker, artist, Bohemian, and Kabbalist "

"People who know him as a filmmaker often do not know of his 1952 Anthology of American Folk Music, while folk music enthusiasts often do not know he was "the greatest living magician" (according to Kenneth Anger)."

[origami_mustache]

I downloaded Godard's Histoires du cinéma which I'm pretty excited about. If it's anything like his piece in Ten Minutes Older: Cello (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtExlGG_fFM), it's going to be epic.

[Watashi]

According to his twitter page, Mike D'Angelo has retired (or given up) being a film critic and is now moving to LA to become a screenwriter.

[Dead & Messed Up]

According to his twitter page, Mike D'Angelo has retired (or given up) being a film critic and is now moving to LA to become a screenwriter.

So it's official: being an amateur screenwriter in Hollywood is a lower-risk career than film criticism.

Wow.

[MacGuffin]

71 Fragments of a Chronology of Chance is the only Haneke feature movie I have yet to see (not including television movies like The Castle). Is it any good?

[Derek]

71 Fragments of a Chronology of Chance is the only Haneke feature movie I have yet to see (not including television movies like The Castle). Is it any good?

It's good, but I prefer The Castle. Actually, it's my least favorite of the glaciation trilogy, but still very much worth seeing.

[Grouchy]

I don't know, man... It might've been just me, but this movie creeped me out bad. It came off as sinister for most of the running time, which is probably what kept me hooked, and the ending, literally, fucked with my mind. I felt like Altman was deliberately pulling a fast one on me. I felt he was making me expect that he was

going to somehow undermine the inhuman professionalism we see in this movie, but doesn't.

I read the film as Altman showing his respect and awe for the stoicism and pragmatism of this art, but simultaneously revealing a bit of a distaste for the disjunct and contrast there is between this art of the body with "other" arts - arts of the mind, where people tend to be drama queens, narcissistic about their ideas, not stoic or pragmatic, etc. (which would include Altman himself).

But then Altman is ultimately giving these latter arts the big middle finger by leaving the "athletes" (the dancer-athlete and the cook-athlete) well-adjusted and happy in the end. We're just waiting for some juicy and dramatic tragic flaw to be exposed about these characters we may want to label as "vapid" or "empty," but then they prove themselves even more extraordinary by mere virtue of the fact that they love and are good at what they do, and they just do it. There is no qualifications to that. Neve Campbell and James Franco in this movie are monsters of professional-world competence, they aren't victims of their creativity like Van Gogh, and while we may condescend to the non-cerebral nature of their artistic medium, the film rubs our faces in the non-event that is the ending and the happiness and naturalism we are left seeing them exhibit, without the expected payoff of seeing them undone. These people have all the purpose and self-worth they need, which I feel fascinates and horrifies Altman, since this is often more than can be said for the neurotic film director and artist of the traditional, perpetually "starving" sort.
I think Altman is making this movie much more "from the inside" than the way you describe. Sure, he shows the pain and sacrifice of the dancers, which is physically more imposing than the one (if any) of actors / producers / directors in cinema. But the comparisons to the cinema world are there, and specially, in the accidental way the Blue Snake ballet gets on its feet, to Altman's own personal way of making movies. The hypocrisy and morally incorrect behavior that gets a free pass because it gets the industry going is as present here as it is on The Player.

But, yeah, in its backstage approach, the movie is showing us a bunch of artists much more directly involved with the end result. The script focuses a lot on the risk situations on stage, too.

[Spinal]

71 Fragments of a Chronology of Chance is the only Haneke feature movie I have yet to see (not including television movies like The Castle). Is it any good?

Top 100 for me. Love it.

[MacGuffin]

It's good, but I prefer The Castle. Actually, it's my least favorite of the glaciation trilogy, but still very much worth seeing.

Top 100 for me. Love it.

Nice, maybe I'll check it out this weekend. I haven't seen The Castle, but I haven't heard much about it, probably because it's a made for television movie.

[Boner M]

Have you seen anything by Harry Smith (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0808421/)? I really like his last film, Early Abstractions, an awful lot. I think I got it once off ubuweb.
Heaven and Earth Magic (1962) is in my top 100. Great stuff; very clearly the influence for the Monty Python animated interludes as well. I think I saw Early Abstractions before it when a Smith retro played at my cinematheque a few years ago. Was that the one with all the jittery hand drawings? Didn't really care for it all that much, though it was bizarrely scored to some Beatles tunes, which detracted from the experience.

[Russ]

Heaven and Earth Magic (1962) is in my top 100. Great stuff; very clearly the influence for the Monty Python animated interludes as well. I think I saw Early Abstractions before it when a Smith retro played at my cinematheque a few years ago. Was that the one with all the jittery hand drawings? Didn't really care for it all that much, though it was bizarrely scored to some Beatles tunes, which detracted from the experience.
Probably was. Alternating between color and b&w sequences, and hyper-edited ala Brakhage? But I don't get the Beatles association at all. That's the one I wanted to cut to disc with Pole on the soundtrack.

Haven't seen Heaven and Earth Magic yet. I will seek it out.

EDIT: Once again, Youtube to the rescue. Man, you weren't kidding about the influence this must have had on Terry Gilliam. Pretty brilliant.

[baby doll]

It's good, but I prefer The Castle. Actually, it's my least favorite of the glaciation trilogy, but still very much worth seeing.While we're on the subject of The Castle, it's probably my least favorite Haneke in large part because I read the book first. On the other hand, La Pianiste is my favorite Haneke film, but maybe that's only because I haven't read the book. (Similarly, Terence Davies' The Neon Bible is amazing, but The House of Mirth is like way boring.) Once you've read the book, is there any reason to see the movie?

[MacGuffin]

While we're on the subject of The Castle, it's probably my least favorite Haneke in large part because I read the book first. On the other hand, La Pianiste is my favorite Haneke film, but maybe that's only because I haven't read the book. (Similarly, Terence Davies' The Neon Bible is amazing, but The House of Mirth is like way boring.) Once you've read the book, is there any reason to see the movie?

Yes, perhaps you just don't like the movies because the vision the director had while reading the book is different from your own.

[baby doll]

Yes, perhaps you just don't like the movies because the vision the director had while reading the book is different from your own.No, it just strikes me as kind of pointless to take a book and turn it into a movie. And the more faithful it is to the book, the more pointless it seems (for instance, Martin Scorsese's The Age of Innocence), because all the filmmakers are doing is hijacking the book's content.

[MacGuffin]

No, it just strikes me as kind of pointless to take a book and turn it into a movie. And the more faithful it is to the book, the more pointless it seems (for instance, Martin Scorsese's The Age of Innocence), because all the filmmakers are doing is hijacking the book's content.

I'm not even going to take this bait (haven't seen The Age of Innocence, by the way). Two completely different mediums.

[baby doll]

I'm not even going to take this bait (haven't seen The Age of Innocence, by the way). Two completely different mediums.So what if they're two different mediums? Do I really need to see Daniel Day-Lewis and Michelle Pfeiffer acting out scenes from a book I've already read? Even if Scorsese were doing something interesting stylistically (which he isn't), at best the film would be a stylistic exercise.

[Raiders]

As much as I love Waugh, I think I would rather watch Davies' film than read the book.

I agree with baby doll inasmuch as I find it pointless for a film to be a slave to the book. If you're going to adapt something, at least give it your own personality.

[StanleyK]

I rewatched Fargo. I used to hate it, but thankfully I've outgrown that. Something about it still bothers me though: Marge's final speech. It seems to me really out of place, stuff you'd say to a five-year-old you caught stealing cookies, not to a dangerous criminal you just shot in the leg! Am I missing something here?

[baby doll]

I rewatched Fargo. I used to hate it, but thankfully I've outgrown that. Something about it still bothers me though: Marge's final speech. It seems to me really out of place, stuff you'd say to a five-year-old you caught stealing cookies, not to a dangerous criminal you just shot in the leg! Am I missing something here?She's folksy.

[MacGuffin]

I agree with baby doll inasmuch as I find it pointless for a film to be a slave to the book. If you're going to adapt something, at least give it your own personality.

I was going to agree, but then I think we understand that a director is responsible for crafting visuals in order to tell the story, and this I feel automatically gives it his or her own personality. That seems to me like saying directors should always write their own scripts so they can give it their own personality.

[baby doll]

I was going to agree, but then I think we understand that a director is responsible for crafting visuals in order to tell the story, and this I feel automatically gives it his or her own personality. That seems to me like saying directors should always write their own scripts so they can give it their own personality.I guess the question is: how important is content to you? And to me, it's very important. In the case of Haneke's The Castle, the visual style of the film is all Haneke, but it's still only his spin on somebody else's old book.

[Raiders]

I know I'm as much a Demme nut as can be found, but my god, is any movie more unjustly reviled and due for a serious reconsideration than The Truth About Charlie? Such a sublime, effervescent film. I have never been a fan of the lead-footed Charade which coasted on a creaking Cary Grant and doe-eyed Audrey Hepburn for all of its chemistry, and Demme's film one-ups it in just about every way.

[baby doll]

I know I'm as much a Demme nut as can be found, but my god, is any movie more unjustly reviled and due for a serious reconsideration than The Truth About Charlie? Such a sublime, effervescent film. I have never been a fan of the lead-footed Charade which coasted on a creaking Cary Grant and doe-eyed Audrey Hepburn for all of its chemistry, and Demme's film one-ups it in just about every way.I haven't seen Demme's, but I've never been a fan of the Stanley Donen original, and the substitution of Thandi Newton for Audrey Hepburn could only be an improvement.

[MacGuffin]

I guess the question is: how important is content to you? And to me, it's very important. In the case of Haneke's The Castle, the visual style of the film is all Haneke, but it's still only his spin on somebody else's old book.

Content, to me, is only as important as the technical aspects that present it. Depending on how Haneke films the movie, the content could be completely different. I know you're saying it's pretty similar to the book, but you're also saying it's distinctively Haneke. Isn't that contradicting what you said earlier about movie adaptations of books not allowing a director to display their own personality? That's all I'm arguing. If a movie changes no aspect of the book, then that may be a bit dumb, but I find it very hard to believe Haneke transfers every aspect of The Castle to screen down to tone, flow, emphasis and style.

[The Mike]

I rewatched Fargo. I used to hate it, but thankfully I've outgrown that. Something about it still bothers me though: Marge's final speech. It seems to me really out of place, stuff you'd say to a five-year-old you caught stealing cookies, not to a dangerous criminal you just shot in the leg! Am I missing something here?I've always thought the last bit was a great representation of the difficulty the normal minded have in dealing with those with criminal mindsets. Sometimes you have to put things in simplest terms when dealing with those who lack moral reasoning.

[Boner M]

and the substitution of Thandi Newton for Audrey Hepburn could only be an improvement.
I'm not a Hepburn nut, but WTF.

[Watashi]

It's like babydoll goes out of his way to try to say something outlandish and off-the-mark in every one of his posts.

[baby doll]

Content, to me, is only as important as the technical aspects that present it. Depending on how Haneke films the movie, the content could be completely different. I know you're saying it's pretty similar to the book, but you're also saying it's distinctively Haneke. Isn't that contradicting what you said earlier about movie adaptations of books not allowing a director to display their own personality? That's all I'm arguing. If a movie changes no aspect of the book, then that may be a bit dumb, but I find it very hard to believe Haneke transfers every aspect of The Castle to screen down to tone, flow, emphasis and style.Maybe I'm just naïve, but I don't know how a director's style can completely transform the content. In this case, it's still fundamentally going to be a story about a guy trying to gain access to the castle. Haneke can film that in different ways (characteristically, he's opted for cool and clinical), but that's not making the story seem any fresher.

[baby doll]

I'm not a Hepburn nut, but WTF.You don't think Thani Newton's a more appealing actor than Audrey Hepburn?

[MacGuffin]

Maybe I'm just naïve, but I don't know how a director's style can completely transform the content. In this case, it's still fundamentally going to be a story about a guy trying to gain access to the castle. Haneke can film that in different ways (characteristically, he's opted for cool and clinical), but that's not making the story seem any fresher.

Oh my god, baby doll, so many film classics and basically a little under 50% of all movies are probably adapted from books. I think you're being very naïve, and while I can see where you might be coming from, I'm here to say I don't think it ever really works that way cinematically.

[baby doll]

Oh my god, baby doll, so many film classics and basically a little under 50% of all movies are probably adapted from books. I think you're being very naïve, and while I can see where you might be coming from, I'm here to say I don't think it ever really works that way cinematically.And most of those are books I've never read. But in those cases where I have read the books, I just don't see the point of making it into a film in the first place. It's like the filmmakers don't have any ideas of their own, so they simply hijack some one else's.

[Grouchy]

So, baby doll, stoned much?

[baby doll]

So, baby doll, stoned much?Never.

[Grouchy]

Never.
You should. Beats posting nonsense.

[MacGuffin]

And most of those are books I've never read. But in those cases where I have read the books, I just don't see the point of making it into a film in the first place. It's like the filmmakers don't have any ideas of their own, so they simply hijack some one else's.

So, before you read the book, the movie is good, but after you read it, the movie becomes objectively bad? I don't understand this logic. The directors have several ideas, as I have already expressed. The content becomes inherently different when they stylistically and visually evoke the material onscreen.

[Raiders]

I'm not a Hepburn nut, but WTF.

In this case, it's true.

[origami_mustache]

mamma mia me likey the new banner so much.

[The Mike]

I'm not a Hepburn nut, but WTF.Yeah, I'm not a big fan either, but wow. I've called a lot of things wrong in my life, but this is officially the wrongest of wrongs. For the rest of my life I'll hear someone say something wrong and think "Well, it's better than that one time when that dude said putting Thandie Newton in a remake could be an improvement over ANYTHING...and then used Audrey Hepburn as the example."

Just wow.

[hey it's ethan]

Don't know if I should post my introduction here. But yeah, just going to hang out while RT is down.

[Raiders]

Yeah, I'm not a big fan either, but wow. I've called a lot of things wrong in my life, but this is officially the wrongest of wrongs. For the rest of my life I'll hear someone say something wrong and think "Well, it's better than that one time when that dude said putting Thandie Newton in a remake could be an improvement over ANYTHING...and then used Audrey Hepburn as the example."

Just wow.

I recommend seeing the movie first. I'm not saying you'll find her an improvement over Hepburn, but she's outstanding in the movie, just as she has been in many movies. Her performance in W. is more the exception and not the rule I would say.

[Raiders]

Don't know if I should post my introduction here. But yeah, just going to hang out while RT is down.

Welcome! I recommend sticking around even when RT goes up again. It's pretty laid back, so you can always drop by now and again.

[Derek]

I don't know why people watch movies, when they're so often slaves to the script. Why not just read the screenplay?

[The Mike]

I recommend seeing the movie first. I'm not saying you'll find her an improvement over Hepburn, but she's outstanding in the movie, just as she has been in many movies. Her performance in W. is more the exception and not the rule I would say.

Oh, I've seen the movie. I thought it was one of the worst Mark Wahlberg remakes I've ever seen. :lol:

But, I also list Charade among my Top 40, and Newton as the worst actress of all-time, so I'm a bit biased.

(Marky Mark, on the other hand, has Good Vibrations.)

[StanleyK]

I thought Newton was okay in Crash, but then I loved that movie so what do I know.


I've always thought the last bit was a great representation of the difficulty the normal minded have in dealing with those with criminal mindsets. Sometimes you have to put things in simplest terms when dealing with those who lack moral reasoning.

That's an interesting reading. Maybe I mistook her tone as condescending, rather than genuinely puzzled.

[hey it's ethan]

Thandie Newton? (http://gawker.com/5068356/ricky-gervais-and-thandie-newton-add-british-class-to-sarah-palin-porn-film)

[MacGuffin]

I wish I could start again fresh on this website, without the pretentious asshole persona I made for myself about a year ago.

[Watashi]

You've gained a lot more respect out of me, Clip.

[Watashi]

I wonder how long silent ethan will last on Match Cut. Him and eternity will go nuts.

[Winston*]

I wish I could start again fresh on this website, without the pretentious asshole persona I made for myself about a year ago.

You could start by apologising for calling me an asshole some time back. I didn't appreciate that.

[MacGuffin]

You could start by apologising for calling me an asshole some time back. I didn't appreciate that.

I'm sorry. :cry: EDIT: I was probably the asshole.

[hey it's ethan]

I wonder how long silent ethan will last on Match Cut. Him and eternity will go nuts.
*take the high road, take the high road, take the high road, take the high road*

[Silencio]

I wonder how long silent ethan will last on Match Cut. Him and eternity will go nuts.He's already stolen one of the avatars I made for MadMan.

[hey it's ethan]

He's already stolen one of the avatars I made for MadMan.
It wasn't being used, so I figured it was okay. If MadMan wants me to stop using it, I'm cool with that.

[Winston*]

I'm sorry. :cry: EDIT: I was probably the asshole.

All is forgiven. Here have this painting of dolphins I made.

http://www.eclecticwonders.net/artwork/Children%27s_Murals/dolphins_closeup.JPG

Look how happy they are.

[transmogrifier]

The Truth About Charlie gave me a headache. I hope to never have to watch it again.

Rachel Getting Married, btw, was excellent, until you kind of realised that it wasn't really going any place that hadn't already been telegraphed 5 minutes into it. The Winger-Hathaway "fight" scene is unintentionally hilarious though.

[Sycophant]

Winston, did you really paint that? I HAVE MY DOUBTS.

Clipper, are you drunk?

[MacGuffin]

Clipper, are you drunk?

No, how's my posting?

[Sycophant]

No, how's my posting?

Remorseful and confessional like a drunk person.

[MacGuffin]

I figure I'm going to be watching a lot of movies this summer, and rather than sharing my thoughts with people who probably don't care, I'd rather apologize to the people who might, so we can share thoughts on movies!

Edit: That, and it's the right thing to do.

[Sycophant]

Clipper, you changing your avatar has already endeared me to you a little bit more. Your previous one was kind of menacing and distancing.

[MacGuffin]

Clipper, you changing your avatar has already endeared me to you a little bit more. Your previous one was kind of menacing and distancing.

I know what you mean, man. Bela Lugosi creeping up on someone's window in a sheet of purple mist is indeed pretty menacing.

[transmogrifier]

I think Raiders is the drunk one.

[eternity]

I wonder how long silent ethan will last on Match Cut. Him and eternity will go nuts.

Ethan's cohk om nom nom

[Boner M]

You don't think Thani Newton's a more appealing actor than Audrey Hepburn?
'Appealing' as in they're 'a-peeling me off the asphalt' after her intolerably shrill performances have caused me to willfully jump to my death, yes.

She is pretty, tho.

[chrisnu]

Ethan's cohk om nom nom
Have you been watching some Breillat lately

[Ivan Drago]

I wonder how long silent ethan will last on Match Cut. Him and eternity will go nuts.

And we will all lose IQ points by the dozens. ;)

Only kidding. I've said my share of stupid things as well.

EDIT: Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan is a great movie...I just wish I were able to have enjoyed it more. All of the film's signature moments have been spoofed and parodied to the nth degree (thanks Family Guy), and watching the actual moments after seeing the spoofs made me think "This is great...but I've seen it before." I hate it when that happens.

[eternity]

Have you been watching some Breillat latelyI watched Fat Girl a few months ago. :|

[jamaul]

You know it's a slow night when we're having conversations as elementary as book vs. movie and the point of adapting literary material. Like, Jesus -- so a couple of filmmakers want to adapt written material into a visual medium . . . like, with actors to play the characters, lights to manipulate the mood and tone, music to highten the emotion, costumes to solidify the pageantry. How pointless. Becuz it'z been done b4 in book form.

Here's a good arguement to counter attack the previouz onez: how about movies are just plain better becuz their fucking shorter and easier to sit through? Thank christ there's a medium to condense all that literary banter that takes so much time to sift through. In fact, maybe I can adapt my post into a short film to save you guys the trouble of having to read it.

[Sycophant]

Hey jamaul, what's with the z's and the 4's.

[jamaul]

I'm a drunkasauraz wreck, what can I say? - I get no respeck. What I do? -- I just bit off the tip of a ball point pen, I was like, 'oh shit, not again,' then just then it began to leak, I opened my mouth and poured the ink, my mouth was full and I couldn't speak, at that moment I began to think: 'oh shit!, this post probably belongs in The Kitchen Sink.'

Damn.

[B-side]

I'm a drunkasauraz wreck, what can I say? - I get no respeck. What I do? -- I just bit off the tip of a ball point pen, I was like, 'oh shit, not again,' then just then it began to leak, I opened my mouth and poured the ink, my mouth was full and I couldn't speak, at that moment I began to think: 'oh shit!, this post probably belongs in The Kitchen Sink.'

Damn.

wat

[Rowland]

I don't know if I've only just gone soft lately, or if I really have been enjoying a remarkable run of good-to-great movies, but I hope it keeps up.

[Qrazy]

I don't know if I've only just gone soft lately, or if I really have been enjoying a remarkable run of good-to-great movies, but I hope it keeps up.

First viewing of Akira?

[Rowland]

First viewing of Akira?Nope, and that score is actually a comedown from my last viewing several years back, but it's still remarkable enough as a whole to offset its clunky elements. I enjoyed Planet Terror a great deal more now than I did with my theatrical Grindhouse viewing as well, which was a most welcome surprise.

[Ivan Drago]

:eek:

I don't know whether to applaud Irreversible or go to the hospital and check if I'm having a seizure (after the final scene).

Oh well, if it's the latter I died after seeing an amazing film.

EDIT: Just woke up. Yup, still alive.

[B-side]

Nope, and that score is actually a comedown from my last viewing several years back, but it's still remarkable enough as a whole to offset its clunky elements. I enjoyed Planet Terror a great deal more now than I did with my theatrical Grindhouse viewing as well, which was a most welcome surprise.

Nice to see someone else love Planet Terror. I preferred it to Death Proof in cinema and I'm pretty sure I still do. It's a blast.

[Rowland]

Nice to see someone else love Planet Terror. I preferred it to Death Proof in cinema and I'm pretty sure I still do. It's a blast.Yeah, it's a great deal of fun, and more artful than I initially gave it credit for. I was particularly taken by Rodriguez's ingenious manipulation of the damaged celluloid aesthetic as a form of meta-expressionism.

[B-side]

Yeah, it's a great deal of fun, and more artful than I initially gave it credit for. I was particularly taken by Rodriguez's ingenious manipulation of the damaged celluloid aesthetic as a form of meta-expressionism.

Can you go into more detail?

[Bosco B Thug]

I don't know if I've only just gone soft lately, or if I really have been enjoying a remarkable run of good-to-great movies, but I hope it keeps up. Lots of good stuff in that 'Spongebob Squarepants' movie. The binge ice cream eating comes to mind.


Yeah, it's a great deal of fun, and more artful than I initially gave it credit for. I was particularly taken by Rodriguez's ingenious manipulation of the damaged celluloid aesthetic as a form of meta-expressionism. I'll give it the benefit of its art direction. The sets and lighting are very much gothic, 70s Italian horror perfection. But whenever I think back on it, all I could think about is the juvenile splatter gags (QT's exploding dick scene for one) and how unabashedly formulaic it is.

[Raiders]

I think Raiders is the drunk one.

Nope. Never better!

[Pop Trash]

So, re: the Altman conversation a while back, and at the risk of getting vitriol from Sven and other Altman lovers, I've never really been much of an Altman fan. I've read plenty of text on why I should like his films (revisionist genres, ensemble casts, multi-tracked sound, gliding camerawork, unsentimentality, etc.) but I find even his "good" films a bit meandering and kind of flat (both in looks -he tended to shoot with a telephoto lens from a far off distance and use zooms a lot, which literally flattens an image's depth of field, an aesthetic I don't like in still photography or films much- and in terms of dramatic flatness) After his films are over I'm just get a ho-hum feeling from them.

I can't be the only one on here that feels this way right?

[Duncan]

I rewatched The Killing of a Chinese Bookie last night. It was already in my top 100, but I think I'd move it up to top 20 material. It's a film I shouldn't like as much as I do. Cosmo is such a scumbag. I generally find films about strippers or hookers pretty tired. But there's something about the relaxed nature of this film that feels perfectly right. It's "comfortable," I guess. I've only ever seen the longer cut, but it seems to me that its rhythm is exactly as it should be. I wouldn't even cut the showdown scene that bothered me the first time I watched it. And that club, it must be the saddest strip club in the world. And I think the cinematography is great too. Soft colours, shallow focus field, drifting compositions. I think it's a really beautiful film.

[jamaul]

I can't be the only one on here that feels this way right?

When I watch Altman's films, I feel as if he's broken down the walls of enclosed romanticism and traded it in for something free-flowing and naturalistic. He watches his actors as if they were really people, pushing in, pulling out, overlapping dialogue as if you are entering into this scene and looking for its place in the narrative scheme of things. No one made films like that, for better or for worse. It's Altman's style. His are some of the most distinct of all time. I can understand not liking his films for the reasons you laid out, but to be honest, those are some of the very reasons I love his work.

[Ezee E]

:eek:

I don't know whether to applaud Irreversible or go to the hospital and check if I'm having a seizure (after the final scene).

Oh well, if it's the latter I died after seeing an amazing film.

EDIT: Just woke up. Yup, still alive.
You posted the beginning of that post in your sleep?

AWESOME.

[Ivan Drago]

You posted the beginning of that post in your sleep?

AWESOME.

Sorry to ruin the joke but I posted that before I went to sleep. I'm starting to regret watching it at midnight now though.

[Watashi]

I know this may sound cheesy, but I'm giddy as a schoolgirl right now for Up tomorrow. The release of a new Pixar film is a national holiday to me. I always request the day off work and make sure I see it first possible showtime. I will normally see it twice in one day.

I can't wait. The metacritic score for Up is 96!

[Qrazy]

The Spy Who Came in From the Cold was really good. Martin Ritt in general is damn good. Next up perhaps Sounder.

[Derek]

The Spy Who Came in From the Cold was really good. Martin Ritt in general is damn good. Next up perhaps Sounder.

Yeah, Hud was pretty great. Such a subdued, patient film that really accumulates a lot of emotional resonance. That last 15 minutes was quietly devastating. Ritt is officially on my radar.

[Raiders]

I did not much care for the morose, gloomy Spy Who Came in From the Cold and I don't have much fond memories of Hud beyond Newman, but it is due for a re-watch.

[Sycophant]

The only Ritt film I've seen is The Front, which I thought was pretty damned good. I thought someone had told me his other work was pretty useless. Looks like I'll have to look into him further.

[megladon8]

The Last Days of Disco is getting the Criterion treatment.

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/3187/lastdaysofdiscoartcopy0.jpg


Honestly I don't think I'd ever even heard of this until now.

Is it any good?

[origami_mustache]

The Last Days of Disco is getting the Criterion treatment.




Honestly I don't think I'd ever even heard of this until now.

Is it any good?

My friend has been telling me to see this for the last 7 years haha.

[Sycophant]

Some people think the film (http://match-cut.org/showthread.php?p=166555#post16 6555) and Whit Stillman are pretty good things. But I haven't seen any.

[dreamdead]

Chi-Hwa-Seon: Painted Fire is plenty solid in terms of a biopic. It covers a vast terrain of South Korean history and culture, tracing how artists grew from pure imitation of Chinese "masters" to cultivating their own national art. That unto itself was interesting, but Im Kwon-Taek gives plenty of attention to the artist drunkard and womanizing artist Jang Seung-up himself, drawing from Choi Min-sik a memorable performance. The layers of Jang's slovenly nature are given plenty of focus and it's often horrendous to view the way this man treated those around him. Moreover, Im's got a breathtaking rhythm and use of montage here, allowing triplets of nature imagery to constantly echo back as a potential commentary on the larger action. I'll be getting to Chunhyang sometime this summer.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button meanwhile is remarkable inert in terms of any connection between characters. The whole affair, which should feel like some huge panorama of emotion or history, instead feels like a mere trifle since Benjamin is such a static persona, and the events going on around him and Daisy feel so devoid of real conflict. The film gained a spark when Tilda Swinton appears and creates some actual dynamics for Benjamin and Daisy to have to react to, and Swinton is gorgeous in this film, but she disappears from the story too soon to swing the film's momentum for long. Her interactions with Benjamin had weight; Daisy's did not, since there was nothing really at stake without Swinton's character. And for the first time that I've noticed, Fincher's backgrounds look way too computer-generated rather than photo-realistic. Just a depressing film to see all that potential wasted on so slight a finished project.

[Rowland]

I've been reminded yet again that I need to devote more time to catching up with the countless past classics, canonized and otherwise, that I've neglected for too long. Holy crap, was Aguirre something else. I'm pretty sure my mouth was agape over all of its closing moments, for the sheer collective synthesis of primal imagery, sound, and performance, augmented by the cumulative power derived from the entire picture's unaffected beauty, its incisive microcosmic discourse that effectively parodies the colonial, self-serving instincts that drive human ambition, and Herzog's apparent self-analysis in light of his methods as a filmmaker. Indeed, the only "Wrath of God" by picture's end is Herzog's own, gliding around Kinski like an omnipotent force, surveying the detritus of the character's grand folly, his hubris mirroring the director's own, illustrating the dual nature of man in a most hauntingly self-reflexive manner. It's brilliant.

[Rowland]

Can you go into more detail?How he doesn't merely alter the image with random defects, but rather integrates the damaged celluloid motif into his aesthetic as an expressive device. Consider how the image warps on its right edge into a strip of red as a means of emotional punctuation while Tarantino threatens the girls with rape, or even when the reel literally bursts aflame from the sheer heat of Cherry and El Wray's sexual consummation. Moments like these abound throughout the picture that elevate its stature as art instead of witless pastiche.

[Sven]

Indeed, the only "Wrath of God" by picture's end is Herzog's own, gliding around Kinski like an omnipotent force, surveying the detritus of the character's grand folly, his hubris mirroring the director's own, illustrating the dual nature of man in a most hauntingly self-reflexive manner.

Hm. Really? I don't know... you find Herzog is being hubristic with Aguirre? Even so, how does this reflexive approach to man's duality communicate hubris?

[Rowland]

Hm. Really? I don't know... you find Herzog is being hubristic with Aguirre? Even so, how does this reflexive approach to man's duality communicate hubris?Just so you don't think I'm ignoring you, I'll elaborate my reasoning tomorrow, because I'm about to go out for the night. :)

[baby doll]

Weekend:

Besieged (Bernardo Bertolucci, 1998)
L'Enfant sauvage (François Truffaut, 1970)
The Graduate (Mike Nichols, 1967)
Opera Jawa (Garin Nugroho, 2006)
Sátánfuckingtangó (Béla Tarr, 1994)

[MacGuffin]

Sátánfuckingtangó (Béla Tarr, 1994)

I expect to see four stars.

[baby doll]

I expect to see four stars.Who knows?

[Boner M]

w/e

Husbands (Cassavetes)
I Can No Longer Hear the Guitar (Garrel)
more of that avant-garde boxset I recently acquired
One of last weekends viewing abortions (N. Ray's The Lusty Men or S. Ray's Mahanagar)

[Qrazy]

The only Ritt film I've seen is The Front, which I thought was pretty damned good. I thought someone had told me his other work was pretty useless. Looks like I'll have to look into him further.

My recent Ritt viewings:

The Spy Who Came in From The Cold - B+
Paris Blues - B-
Hombre - B
Hud (rewatch) - A-

I could see The Spy falling to a B eventually but I was really swept along by it on the first viewing. Paris Blues is rote but Newman, Poitier and Louis Armstrong all together jamming out as jazz musicians? Hard to say no to that combo. I said the same thing earlier but the second half of Hombre is a damn fine film.

[Sycophant]

Paris Blues is rote but Newman, Poitier and Louis Armstrong all together jamming out as jazz musicians? Hard to say no that combo.

Oh, hell yes.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Weekend
Drag me to Hell
Up
Something on DVD, I don't know what.

[Spun Lepton]

Weekend:

Packing. :confused:

[B-side]

How he doesn't merely alter the image with random defects, but rather integrates the damaged celluloid motif into his aesthetic as an expressive device. Consider how the image warps on its right edge into a strip of red as a means of emotional punctuation while Tarantino threatens the girls with rape, or even when the reel literally bursts aflame from the sheer heat of Cherry and El Wray's sexual consummation. Moments like these abound throughout the picture that elevate its stature as art instead of witless pastiche.

It's odd, I never noticed any of this. Likely because I never would've expected it. I'll certainly be on the lookout on my 3rd viewing.

[Ezee E]

Weekend:
The Reader
Jeremiah Johnson

Up

[MacGuffin]

Weekend:

Hiroshima mon amour
71 Fragments of a Chronology of Chance
Other things too, I'm guessing.

[Derek]

How he doesn't merely alter the image with random defects, but rather integrates the damaged celluloid motif into his aesthetic as an expressive device. Consider how the image warps on its right edge into a strip of red as a means of emotional punctuation while Tarantino threatens the girls with rape, or even when the reel literally bursts aflame from the sheer heat of Cherry and El Wray's sexual consummation. Moments like these abound throughout the picture that elevate its stature as art instead of witless pastiche.

I dunno, that seems like a rather blunt way of using the digital effects of decay. Perhaps not witless, but sex so hot it burns the screen is not something I would view as elevating it from pastiche to art. The best self-reflexive gag in the film was definitely the use of the missing reel.

[chrisnu]

The Brothers Bloom or Up in 3-D sounds good for this weekend. Wendy and Lucy is also a possibility.

[chrisnu]

There's a midnight screening of The City of Lost Children tomorrow night. Is it worth staying up until 4 AM on a work day?

[Derek]

There's a midnight screening of The City of Lost Children tomorrow night. Is it worth staying up until 4 AM on a work day?

It's not even worth seeing at 7pm on a weekend night or 2 hours of your time for that matter.

[Winston*]

City of the Lost Children is a great movie and don't let the Dereks or Qrazys of the world tell you otherwise.

[Qrazy]

Yeah, Hud was pretty great. Such a subdued, patient film that really accumulates a lot of emotional resonance. That last 15 minutes was quietly devastating. Ritt is officially on my radar.

Here. here. From what I've seen though Hud is far and away his best work. But I still like his other stuff well enough.

All you western fans owe it to yourselves to check out Bad Company (not Ritt but whatever) and Hombre. Not perfect films but unique and frequently powerful.

[Qrazy]

City of the Lost Children is a great movie and don't let the Dereks or Qrazys of the world tell you otherwise.

I don't think it's a bad film. I think I posted something that seemed to suggest that not too long ago. I just found it to be lacking on a dramatic/narrative/pacing/character level. I thought it built up a great atmosphere and environment and didn't capitalize upon it. Worth seeing though for sure. I'm not a Jeunet hater.

[Winston*]

I don't think it's a bad film. I think I posted something that seemed to suggest that not too long ago. I just found it to be lacking on a dramatic/narrative/pacing/character level. I thought it built up a great atmosphere and environment and didn't capitalize upon it. Worth seeing though for sure. I'm not a Jeunet hater.

Sorry. I didn't actually know your opinion of the film. I was just playing the odds.

[Derek]

I'm not a Jeunet hater.

I like Amelie a lot, though I hate Children and A Very Long Engagement is one of my least favorite films of the decade. I don't know quite what to make of him, but I haven't worked up the interest in checking out his other films. I'll see Delicatessen at some point.

[Qrazy]

I like Amelie a lot, though I hate Children and A Very Long Engagement is one of my least favorite films of the decade. I don't know quite what to make of him, but I haven't worked up the interest in checking out his other films. I'll see Delicatessen at some point.

My guess is you probably won't like Delicatessen. It's a lot like City of Lost Children tonally and stylistically. Alien 4 is below average but has it's moments visually. The script kind of sucks.

[lovejuice]

City of the Lost Children is a great movie and don't let the Dereks or Qrazys of the world tell you otherwise.
i like it too. but i kinda agree with the other side that it could have been much better as proved by his later movies.

[Philosophe_rouge]

All my posts about Some Like it Hot are nearly identical... so, I don't know what to say? I can never get tired of it. Let's put it that way, not necessarily original, but it conveys my experience very well.

[MadMan]

Weekend:

MSTK Vol 1: The Creeping Terror and The Skydivers
Walkabout Criterion Collection Edition

[Watashi]

The tracking shot in Forty Guns is insane. One of the best I've seen.

[soitgoes...]

Weekend:

I plan on seeing a few Satyajit films, maybe The Hero, The Music Room or Days and Nights in the Forest.

Otherwise, I've been in a bit of a viewing funk, so who knows?

[Qrazy]

The Long, Hot Summer (Ritt) - There was something fairly underwhelming about this one. Newman plays a real dick here, perhaps the dickiest dick I've seen him play yet. Orson Welles plays the loud, overweight, unloving father (not of Newman but of a different son... Newman becomes the surrogate son). It's fun to see Welles and Newman go at it but other than that... the film has a very Tennessee Williams vibe. After recently watching Cat on a Hot Tin Roof it's really quite similar.

[Qrazy]

Weekend:

I plan on seeing a few Satyajit films, maybe The Hero, The Music Room or Days and Nights in the Forest.

Otherwise, I've been in a bit of a viewing funk, so who knows?

Your last five viewings beg to differ?

[soitgoes...]

Your last five viewings beg to differ?
More of I haven't been in the movie watching mood. What I've seen I've loved, but my viewings have become much fewer this past month.

[soitgoes...]

The Long, Hot Summer (Ritt) - There was something fairly underwhelming about this one. Newman plays a real dick here, perhaps the dickiest dick I've seen him play yet. Orson Welles plays the loud, overweight, unloving father (not of Newman but of a different son... Newman becomes the surrogate son). It's fun to see Welles and Newman go at it but other than that... the film has a very Tennessee Williams vibe. After recently watching Cat on a Hot Tin Roof it's really quite similar.
Before I got to your last line, I knew I was going to reply to your post by telling you to see the somewhat similar, but more superior, in my eyes, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. :)

[balmakboor]

W/E

Up
Drag Me to Hell
Irreversible
Religulous

[origami_mustache]

Weekend:
The Room (second viewing...will throw spoons this time)
Up
Le Samourai

[Raiders]

Weekend:

Up
Drag Me to Hell
Street of No Return
The Intruder (Denis)

[Robby P]

The Long, Hot Summer (Ritt) - the film has a very Tennessee Williams vibe.

I think it's supposed to be based on a collection of Faulkner short stories.

[Rowland]

I dunno, that seems like a rather blunt way of using the digital effects of decay. Perhaps not witless, but sex so hot it burns the screen is not something I would view as elevating it from pastiche to art. The best self-reflexive gag in the film was definitely the use of the missing reel.I'm sure I could wing it with some half-baked analysis of the approach as something or another, but really I suppose it's just cool. There are many subtle examples throughout the picture that imbue the pastiche with additional resonance, beginning even with the opening sequence during which the celluloid literally quivers as if turned on by Cherry's scintillating performance, only to begin rotting as it pulls in to reveal the tears in her eyes.

[Qrazy]

I think it's supposed to be based on a collection of Faulkner short stories.

Indeed. It doesn't feel all that much like the Faulkner I've read though.

[Qrazy]

Before I got to your last line, I knew I was going to reply to your post by telling you to see the somewhat similar, but more superior, in my eyes, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. :)

Yeah, one imdb reviewer wrote:

"This movie takes the best of CAT ON A HOT TIN ROOF, A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE, SUMMER AND SMOKE, throws in more than a dollop of William Inge's PICNIC, borrows the basket auctioning bit from OKLAHOMA! and the digging-for-treasure-by-the-old-collapsing-house subplot from GOD'S LITTLE ACRE - hell, we even get a variation on the cotton gin burning from BABY DOLL - and somehow delivers an original and unforgettable entertainment, the kind of movie they truly don't make any more."

Perhaps I'll check out Summer and Smoke, Picnic and God's little acre now. I've been wanting to watch Picnic for a while now for Joshua Logan (director) and James Wong Howe (DP).

[Mara]

So, I'm sitting here thinking about how much I love A Room with a View and how I think I'll watch it for the billionth time, and it occurs to me what brilliant careers all those actors ended up having: Helena Bonham-Carter, Daniel Day Lewis, Judi Dench, Maggie Smith, and Denholm Elliot before his unfortunate passing.

And then I got all mad again that Julian Sands went down the flipping toilet.

[Rowland]

And then I got all mad again that Julian Sands went down the flipping toilet.Dario Argento's Phantom of the Opera... *barf*

[Qrazy]

So, I'm sitting here thinking about how much I love A Room with a View and how I think I'll watch it for the billionth time, and it occurs to me what brilliant careers all those actors ended up having: Helena Bonham-Carter, Daniel Day Lewis, Judi Dench, Maggie Smith, and Denholm Elliot before his unfortunate passing.

And then I got all mad again that Julian Sands went down the flipping toilet.

I really like how they handled Daniel Day Lewis character in the film and how Day Lewis played the role. He wasn't just an obstacle for the leads love. He was a real person and genuinely hurt when Bonham Carter left him. The character reminds me a bit of Alexei Karenin in Anna Karenina. Both characters approach life in an analytic, calculating way and as such can not provide their respective loves with the passion and affection they truly require. However, although they can not effecitvely communicate or demonstrate their love, they do care deeply for their respective women.

[Mara]

Dario Argento's Phantom of the Opera... *barf*

Gothic-- jeez, I couldn't even finish that piece of crap. But, then, we all know how I feel about Russell.

And I didn't see that Phantom... but this is from the synopsis.


Though not physically disfigured this time around, the Phantom (Julian Sands) harbors internal scars, having been raised by telepathic rats in the opera house basement.

Not disfigured?



Wait...



Telepathic rats?

[Qrazy]

Gothic-- jeez, I couldn't even finish that piece of crap. But, then, we all know how I feel about Russell.

And I didn't see that Phantom... but this is from the synopsis.



Not disfigured?



Wait...



Telepathic rats?

The rats beat him... with their miiiiiiinds.

[Mara]

I really like how they handled Daniel Day Lewis character in the film and how Day Lewis played the role. He wasn't just an obstacle for the leads love. He was a real person and genuinely hurt when Bonham Carter left him. The character reminds me a bit of Alexei Karenin in Anna Karenina. Both characters approach life in an analytic, calculating way and as such can not provide their respective loves with the passion and affection they truly require. However, although they can not effecitvely communicate or demonstrate their love, they do care deeply for their respective women.

Great observation. In his scene after being dumped when he puts on his shoes, Lewis conveys more about the character in 15 silent seconds than most actors could have done in the full two hours.

[Mara]

The rats beat him... with their miiiiiiinds.

Well, damn you, now I want to see it.

[Rowland]

Not disfigured?



Wait...



Telepathic rats?That doesn't even mention the evil midget exterminator who rides a clockwork brass go-cart that sucks, snatches and slices up the rats.

[Mara]

That doesn't even mention the evil midget exterminator who rides a clockwork brass go-cart that sucks, snatches and slices up the rats.

That's kind of funny. But mostly sad.