28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[Philosophe_rouge]

The only way I can really describe Under the Volcano (1984) is that, it's as if later day, angrier, Fellini directed an Ernest Hemingway novel starring Albert Finney. Finney is wacko, and I'm not quite sure the performance deserves as much praise as it receives... then again, I'm not the best judge of acting, and gravitate towards what appeals to my own aesthetics. The film looks beautiful, the rich colours of the fiesta and the general surroundings are contrasted with the stark earthiness of Bisset and the bright, white suit that Finney is always sporting. The middle part of the film stands out for me as being the best part, it's probably the optimist in me saying that though, because it gives you hope for these people who are so obviously lost and hurt by the world around them, and each other might turn out okay in the end. The final sequence is something out of Satyricon, outrageous characters, prostitutes, coq fights... generally the stuff nightmares are made off. The film, however, is not quite as good as it sounds, but has it's moments, and it always interesting. It lags a bit, and the pacing is uneven. While for most of the film it balances it's excesses there are moments it veers into ridiculousness. 7/10

[Qrazy]

Get out!

So you prefer O Brother Where Art Thou, Intolerable Cruelty and The Hudsucker Proxy to Arizona?

[transmogrifier]

So you prefer O Brother Where Art Thou, Intolerable Cruelty and The Hudsucker Proxy to Arizona?

Yes, Yes and Yes.

[Qrazy]

Yes, Yes and Yes.

Bah, bah and bah.

[Spinal]

Raising Arizona is not only the best Coens film (*), but one of the funniest films evahhhh.










* Dude popping off on the internet has not seen No Country for Old Men.

[Qrazy]

Raising Arizona is not only the best Coens film (*), but one of the funniest films evahhhh.

* Dude popping off on the internet has not seen No Country for Old Men.

Does this post mean you haven't seen No Country? If so, I haven't either.

[Qrazy]

Tati's Traffic was fantastic, not Playtime level fantastic, but still fantastic.

[jesse]

I'll be checking this out then. I second the recommendation, and Wendy Hiller makes you completely forget Audrey Hepburn (though to be fair, My Fair Lady is far from one of Hepburn's shining moments).

[Philosophe_rouge]

I second the recommendation, and Wendy Hiller makes you completely forget Audrey Hepburn (though to be fair, My Fair Lady is far from one of Hepburn's shining moments).
I haven't seen My Fair Lady, even though I'm a huge Hepburn fan I've never had the urge.

[origami_mustache]

Secret Sunshine

Starts off an insightful, emotionally-affecting look at how religion is often used to fill a hole that is too painful to fill with anything tangible and real; spirituality as a distraction, spirituality as a salve. It even ups the ante, by showing how the deeply religious can actually tune themselves out of the humanistic wavelength, sitting in a circle praying when they could be aiding someone directly themselves. Up to this point, the film is neatly balancing character drama and grimly engaging melodrama to great effect - but then, as with so many other Korean dramas, the plot grinds to a halt in the 3rd act and the vicitimization machine starts spinning in place, with redundant, shrill scenes of the protagonist going through the psychological wringer, and coming out the other end less a real person and more a pinata for a good idea stretched too far into literalism with good intentions. It's a pity, because it's gorgeous to look at, the super wide compositions cinematically reprocessing smalltown ordinariness, quite the elegant visual metaphor for the heroine's spiritual makeover, and the acting is never less than excellent.

66


How did you expect the third act to go? She falls in love and forgets all of her pain? In my opinion a forced happy ending would have been even less cinematic and more superficial.

[jesse]

I haven't seen My Fair Lady, even though I'm a huge Hepburn fan I've never had the urge. You're not missing a thing.

[transmogrifier]

How did you expect the third act to go? She falls in love and forgets all of her pain? In my opinion a forced happy ending would have been even less cinematic and more superficial.

I never said anything about a happy ending, did I? Seems strange that you would attempt to shoot down an argument I never made in the first place.

I expected it to go...somewhere. Instead, it's merely a series of repetitive scenes that reinforce what was already blatantly clear when she visits the prison. There's no progression evident in the arrangement of the scenes - there is no crescendo, no build or release - it's stuck in neutral for the last 40 minutes or so.

[Sycophant]

As an avowed Coens fan, I know it's blasphemy, but my initial viewing of Raising Arizona left me with lukewarm feelings. Admittedly, I need to watch it again, and I expect to like it more, but going off initial impression, it may be my least favorite of their films.

[origami_mustache]

I never said anything about a happy ending, did I? Seems strange that you would attempt to shoot down an argument I never made in the first place.

I expected it to go...somewhere. Instead, it's merely a series of repetitive scenes that reinforce what was already blatantly clear when she visits the prison. There's no progression evident in the arrangement of the scenes - there is no crescendo, no build or release - it's stuck in neutral for the last 40 minutes or so.

I didn't mean to insinuate that's what you were arguing although I guess I did haha...just wondering how else you pictured it ending? It seemed fitting to me...less of a plateau and more of a regression after a psuedo recovery.

[megladon8]

So I actually found the unrated cut of Live Free or Die Hard to be a great improvement.

When I saw it in the theatre it really felt like an R-rated film which had been chopped up to be PG-13. In the unrated cut, there's more blood, lots more swearing, and it's generally more graphic.

That being said, I still really feel that it's a generic action film with the Die Hard license slapped on it, and what starts out as a really great techno-action film gets horribly ridiculous by the end.

It's alright.

[number8]

That being said, I still really feel that it's a generic action film with the Die Hard license slapped on it.

That's because it literally is. Or the script was, at least.

[MadMan]

I continue to be an unabashed fan of Live Free or Die Hard. That film and Grindhouse are my two favorite theater experiences this year.

[monolith94]

So you prefer O Brother Where Art Thou, Intolerable Cruelty and The Hudsucker Proxy to Arizona?
No, no and yes.

[Sven]

He still pwns in Kingdom of Heaven.

L. O. L.

Oh, Qrazy. You so crazy.

[Sven]

What's up with all these people not liking Raising Arizona? That's just... like, unfathomable. I don't get it. I can't get it. What's not to like? It's so zippy! So fun! So witty! So quotable! Everything the Coens are supposed to be. Not only is it friggin' hysterical, which it is, and that's pretty much an objective truth, but it's also got quite a lovely character transformation at its heart. It paints a noble picture of an ignoble man, and cherishes the ambitions of the heart. It is a moving movie (feel it burn when Ed calls out Smalls as "a warthog from hell!"), a picturesque picture (great cinematography by Sonnenfeld), and a filmy film (lots of cinematic in-jokes and experiments). What there is to hate is so far from my own understanding of the way cinema and the world and people work that I'm not even sure its possible, save for with the influence of mind-altering drugs or severe psychoses.

[transmogrifier]

What's up with all these people not liking Raising Arizona? That's just... like, unfathomable. I don't get it. I can't get it. What's not to like? It's so zippy! So fun! So witty! So quotable! Everything the Coens are supposed to be. Not only is it friggin' hysterical, which it is, and that's pretty much an objective truth, but it's also got quite a lovely character transformation at its heart. It paints a noble picture of an ignoble man, and cherishes the ambitions of the heart. It is a moving movie (feel it burn when Ed calls out Smalls as "a warthog from hell!"), a picturesque picture (great cinematography by Sonnenfeld), and a filmy film (lots of cinematic in-jokes and experiments). What there is to hate is so far from my own understanding of the way cinema and the world and people work that I'm not even sure its possible, save for with the influence of mind-altering drugs or severe psychoses.

I've watched it about three times and liked it less and less each time. Guess someone's either feeding me drugs without my knowledge, or I'm psychotic. Remember that the next time we agree :)

[DavidSeven]

Raising Arizona would be my least favorite Coen film as well. It's actually the only one I'd give an entirely unfavorable rating to.*

*Has not seen Intolerable Cruelty or The Ladykillers.

[Duncan]

From Ebert to Herzog:


A letter to Werner Herzog:
In praise of rapturous truth

/ / / November 17, 2007


Dear Werner,

You have done me the astonishing honor of dedicating your new film, “Encounters at the End of the World,” to me. Since I have admired your work beyond measure for the almost 40 years since we first met, I do not need to explain how much this kindness means to me. When I saw the film at the Toronto Film Festival and wrote to thank you, I said I wondered if it would be a conflict of interest for me to review the film, even though of course you have made a film I could not possibly dislike. I said I thought perhaps the solution was to simply write you a letter.

But I will review the film, my friend, when it arrives in theaters on its way to airing on the Discovery Channel. I will review it, and I will challenge anyone to describe my praise as inaccurate.

I will review it because I love great films and must share my enthusiasm.

This is not that review. It is the letter. It is a letter to a man whose life and career have embodied a vision of the cinema that challenges moviegoers to ask themselves questions not only about films but about lives. About their lives, and the lives of the people in your films, and your own life.

Without ever making a movie for solely commercial reasons, without ever having a dependable source of financing, without the attention of the studios and the oligarchies that decide what may be filmed and shown, you have directed at least 55 films or television productions, and we will not count the operas. You have worked all the time, because you have depended on your imagination instead of budgets, stars or publicity campaigns. You have had the visions and made the films and trusted people to find them, and they have. It is safe to say you are as admired and venerated as any filmmaker alive—among those who have heard of you, of course. Those who do not know your work, and the work of your comrades in the independent film world, are missing experiences that might shake and inspire them.

I have not seen all your films, and do not have a perfect memory, but I believe you have never made a film depending on sex, violence or chase scenes. Oh, there is violence in “Lessons of Darkness,” about the Kuwait oil fields aflame, or “Grizzly Man,” or “Rescue Dawn.” But not “entertaining violence.” There is sort of a chase scene in “Even Dwarfs Started Small.” But there aren’t any romances.

You have avoided this content, I suspect, because it lends itself so seductively to formulas, and you want every film to be absolutely original.

You have also avoided all “obligatory scenes,” including artificial happy endings. And special effects (everyone knows about the real boat in “Fitzcarraldo,” but even the swarms of rats in “Nosferatu” are real rats, and your strong man in “Invincible” actually lifted the weights). And you don’t use musical scores that tell us how to feel about the content. Instead, you prefer free-standing music that evokes a mood: You use classical music, opera, oratorios, requiems, aboriginal music, the sounds of the sea, bird cries, and of course Popol Vuh.

All of these decisions proceed from your belief that the audience must be able to believe what it sees. Not its “truth,” but its actuality, its ecstatic truth.

You often say this modern world is starving for images. That the media pound the same paltry ideas into our heads time and again, and that we need to see around the edges or over the top. When you open “Encounters at the End of the World” by following a marine biologist under the ice floes of the South Pole, and listening to the alien sounds of the creatures who thrive there, you show me a place on my planet I did not know about, and I am richer. You are the most curious of men. You are like the storytellers of old, returning from far lands with spellbinding tales.

I remember at the Telluride Film Festival, ten or 12 years ago, when you told me you had a video of your latest documentary. We found a TV set in a hotel room and I saw “Bells from the Deep,” a film in which you wandered through Russia observing strange beliefs.

There were the people who lived near a deep lake, and believed that on its bottom there was a city populated by angels. To see it, they had to wait until winter when the water was crystal clear, and then creep spread-eagled onto the ice. If the ice was too thick, they could not see well enough. Too thin, and they might drown. We heard the ice creaking beneath them as they peered for their vision.

Then we met a monk who looked like Rasputin. You found that there were hundreds of “Rasputins,” some claiming to be Jesus Christ, walking through Russia with their prophecies and warnings. These people, and their intense focus, and the music evoking another world (as your sound tracks always do) held me in their spell, and we talked for some time about the film, and then you said, “But you know, Roger, it is all made up.” I did not understand. “It is not real. I invented it.”

I didn’t know whether to believe you about your own film. But I know you speak of “ecstatic truth,” of a truth beyond the merely factual, a truth that records not the real world but the world as we dream it.

Your documentary “Little Dieter Needs to Fly” begins with a real man, Dieter Dengler, who really was a prisoner of the Viet Cong, and who really did escape through the jungle and was the only American who freed himself from a Viet Cong prison camp. As the film opens, we see him entering his house, and compulsively opening and closing windows and doors, to be sure he is not locked in. “That was my idea,” you told me. “Dieter does not really do that. But it is how he feels.”

The line between truth and fiction is a mirage in your work.

Some of the documentaries contain fiction, and some of the fiction films contain fact. Yes, you really did haul a boat up a mountainside in “Fitzcarraldo,” even though any other director would have used a model, or special effects. You organized the ropes and pulleys and workers in the middle of the Amazonian rain forest, and hauled the boat up into the jungle. And later, when the boat seemed to be caught in a rapids that threatened its destruction, it really was. This in a fiction film. The audience will know if the shots are real, you said, and that will affect how they see the film.

I understand this. What must be true, must be true. What must not be true, can be made more true by invention. Your films, frame by frame, contain a kind of rapturous truth that transcends the factually mundane. And yet when you find something real, you show it.

You based “Grizzly Man” on the videos that Timothy Treadwell took in Alaska during his summers with wild bears. In Antarctica, in “Encounters at the End of the World,” you talk with real people who have chosen to make their lives there in a research station. Some are “linguists on a continent with no language,” you note, others are “PhDs working as cooks.” When a marine biologist cuts a hole in the ice and dives beneath it, he does not use a rope to find his way back to the small escape circle in the limitless shelf above him, because it would restrict his research. When he comes up, he simply hopes he can find the hole. This is all true, but it is also ecstatic truth.

In the process of compiling your life’s work, you have never lost your sense of humor. Your narrations are central to the appeal of your documentaries, and your wonder at human nature is central to your fiction. In one scene you can foresee the end of life on earth, and in another show us country musicians picking their guitars and banjos on the roof of a hut at the South Pole. You did not go to Antarctica, you assure us at the outset, to film cute penguins. But you did film one cute penguin, a penguin that was disoriented, and was steadfastly walking in precisely the wrong direction—into an ice vastness the size of Texas. “And if you turn him around in the right direction,” you say, “he will turn himself around, and keep going in the wrong direction, until he starves and dies.” The sight of that penguin waddling optimistically toward his doom would be heartbreaking, except that he is so sure he is correct.

But I have started to wander off like the penguin, my friend.

I have started out to praise your work, and have ended by describing it. Maybe it is the same thing. You and your work are unique and invaluable, and you ennoble the cinema when so many debase it. You have the audacity to believe that if you make a film about anything that interests you, it will interest us as well. And you have proven it.

With admiration,
Roger

[number8]

That is one beautiful letter.

[Boner M]

WEEKEND:

the rest of Duck, You Sucker
Inside Paris
Retribution
Danger! Diabolik
Dark Blue

And maybe Apocalypse Now Redux on the big screen.

[Duncan]

Weekend:

Emitai
Youth Without Youth, if I have the time. I'm in the middle of finals.

[origami_mustache]

Weekend:
Steamroller and the Violin
The Color of Pomegranates
Ballad of a Soldier

[number8]

Oh, thanks for the reminder.

My Youth without Youth review. (http://www.justpressplay.net/movies/youth-without-youth/review/)

[Spinal]

What's up with all these people not liking Raising Arizona? That's just... like, unfathomable. I don't get it. I can't get it. What's not to like? It's so zippy! So fun! So witty! So quotable! Everything the Coens are supposed to be. Not only is it friggin' hysterical, which it is, and that's pretty much an objective truth, but it's also got quite a lovely character transformation at its heart. It paints a noble picture of an ignoble man, and cherishes the ambitions of the heart. It is a moving movie (feel it burn when Ed calls out Smalls as "a warthog from hell!"), a picturesque picture (great cinematography by Sonnenfeld), and a filmy film (lots of cinematic in-jokes and experiments). What there is to hate is so far from my own understanding of the way cinema and the world and people work that I'm not even sure its possible, save for with the influence of mind-altering drugs or severe psychoses.

:pritch::pritch::pritch::pritc h::pritch:

[Spinal]

"...and when there was no meat, we ate fowl and when there was no fowl, we ate crawdad and when there was no crawdad to be found, we ate sand."
"You ate what?"
"We ate sand."
...
...
...
"You ate SAND?"

[Morris Schæffer]

That being said, I still really feel that it's a generic action film with the Die Hard license slapped on it, and what starts out as a really great techno-action film gets horribly ridiculous by the end.

It's alright.

It's a really good action film period. Don't be so focussed on the Die Hard name. That's not the only yardstick. And while it does get ridiculous by the end (though I would say horribly inventive for a "generic action film"), the special effects keep up admirably while McClane is still the kind of character I wanted to cheer for. It's not Transporter 2.

[Boner M]

Duck, You Sucker is the best kind of mess; politically charged, full of great set pieces, and fraught with a deeply felt sense of humanity in the relationship between Coburn and Steiger, that easily overcomes the all-over-the-place narrative. The film plainly just doesn't work in the conventional sense, but as a grab bag of Leone goodness it's just fine - I've actually always found that creating a compelling rhythm was one of his weaknesses as a filmmaker, so the schizophrenic quality of this film ends up accomodating his strengths at action within the individual scene.

[Raiders]

I agree with your thoughts there on Leone's film. It is certainly better than Once Upon a Time in America at the very least.

:twisted:

[Boner M]

It is certainly better than Once Upon a Time in America at the very least.

:twisted:
negrep

[transmogrifier]

I've actually always found that creating a compelling rhythm was one of his weaknesses as a filmmaker.....

Man, OAATITW is all about the rhythm, boner

[Ezee E]

I'd really like to see that Herzog "documentary" on the frozen lake.

Weekend:
I Am Legend
Atonement
Juno
Cabaret
First Snow
The Shape of Things

[Sven]

I'd really like to see that Herzog "documentary" on the frozen lake.

I think that one, which I saw at Film Forum's retrospective back in May, may be my favorite 'zog doc. Maybe not. Hard to say, when there's so damn many great ones. But there's no way to overstate its amazingness.

[Sven]

Duck, You Sucker is the best kind of mess; politically charged, full of great set pieces, and fraught with a deeply felt sense of humanity in the relationship between Coburn and Steiger, that easily overcomes the all-over-the-place narrative. The film plainly just doesn't work in the conventional sense, but as a grab bag of Leone goodness it's just fine - I've actually always found that creating a compelling rhythm was one of his weaknesses as a filmmaker, so the schizophrenic quality of this film ends up accomodating his strengths at action within the individual scene.

The more I think about it, the more it may be my (maybe second) favorite Leone film, after The Good The Bad and The Ugly. Coburn is untouchably awesome here. The friendship between him and Steiger is rapturous. They're one's Queequeg to the other's Ishmael. One's Sancho to the other's Don Quixote. It is a mess, no doubt, but it is also audacious, politically and aesthetically. Plus, it has one of, if not the single greatest explosion in cinematic history.

[Rowland]

It's not Transporter 2.It only wishes. :)

[Rowland]

Man, OAATITW is all about the rhythm, bonerYou'd think that boner would know all about rhythm too.

[Watashi]

Weekend:

I am Legend
Amores Perros
The Lady Eve
Torn Curtain
The Road Warrior
Run Lola Run

It's good to have Netflix back.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Weekend
I'm not There
1900
Kill Bill Vol. 2
The Seventh Victim
Walkabout

[Sycophant]

Weekend:
Dororo
Le Samourai
I'm Not There
Real Life
Love on a Diet
The Golden Compass
The Good German
Princess Mononoke (rewatch)

[Kurosawa Fan]

Weekend:
Le Samourai


:pritch:

This is a first viewing? I can't wait to find out what you think.

[Morris Schæffer]

It only wishes. :)

Yeah yeah ;)

[Sycophant]

:pritch:

This is a first viewing? I can't wait to find out what you think.Indeed it is. I can't believe I've waited this long to watch this or any Melville. I'm stoked.

[D_Davis]

Weekend:
Dororo


I hope you like this. I think it is a lot of fun.

[Rowland]

I can't help wondering if Into Great Silence is a crock of shit. A beautiful, contemplative crock about a way of life that we cannot possibly understand. Whenever director Gröning allows us some degree of insight from their perspective, it backfires. Near the end of the punishing 160-minute running time, he offers us an interview with a monk who gives us a startlingly facile discourse on Christianity. For a monk who spends his waking life endlessly reflecting, this was just stunning to me, and rather humorously ironic too, given that the monk was literally blind. Perhaps Gröning realizes that their way of life isn't so much about any intellectual pursuit as it is a vague spiritual one, as they live from season to season, performing the same actions again and again by set schedules, so he set out to impressionistically capture the milieu of their monastic habits and the repetition therein. Whatever the case, it makes for a movie that is aesthetically arresting, particularly in its continual constrasting of rigorously composed Hi-Def footage with grainy, probing handheld 8mm, and admirably pure in its focus, but hardly profound. Maybe I just needed to see more footage of the monks sliding down snowy hills on their backs and less sequences of night mass. Still, as negative as I may sound, I can't deny how impressive of an achievement it is (Gröning's dedication is beyond question), and how ultimately empathetic it proves to be. Maybe this is why Gröning kept his focus on the surface.

[origami_mustache]

I can't help wondering if Into Great Silence is a crock of shit. A beautiful, contemplative crock about a way of life that we cannot possibly understand. Whenever director Gröning allows us some degree of insight from their perspective, it backfires. Near the end of the punishing 160-minute running time, he offers us an interview with a monk who gives us a startlingly facile discourse on Christianity. For a monk who spends his waking life endlessly reflecting, this was just stunning to me, and rather humorously ironic too, given that the monk was literally blind. Perhaps Gröning realizes that their way of life isn't so much about any intellectual pursuit as it is a vague spiritual one, as they live from season to season, performing the same actions again and again by set schedules, so he set out to impressionistically capture the milieu of their monastic habits and the repetition therein. Whatever the case, it makes for a movie that is aesthetically arresting, particularly in its continual constrasting of rigorously composed Hi-Def footage with grainy, probing handheld 8mm, and admirably pure in its focus, but hardly profound. Maybe I just needed to see more footage of the monks sliding down snowy hills on their backs and less sequences of night mass. Still, as negative as I may sound, I can't deny how impressive of an achievement it is (Gröning's dedication is beyond question), and how ultimately empathetic it proves to be. Maybe this is why Gröning kept his focus on the surface.

Nice review...I never had an interest in seeing this, despite the critical acclaim, for basically the reasons you've given. I just don't think I could handle observing monks for nearly three hours.

[Rowland]

Nice review...I never had an interest in seeing this, despite the critical acclaim, for basically the reasons you've given. I just don't think I could handle observing monks for nearly three hours.Well, it's still a lot more interesting to watch and think about than Flowers of Shanghai. :P

[monolith94]

Passing up Into Great Silence's theatrical showing is one of my great regrets of 2007.

[Rowland]

Passing up Into Great Silence's theatrical showing is one of my great regrets of 2007.I'm fairly certain that seeing the movie in a receptive theatrical setting makes all the difference immersion-wise. At least I imagine I wouldn't have been nodding off so much. :lol:

[monolith94]

Nodding off isn't necessarily a deal-breaker for me. I drowsed for a few minutes during The Passenger, but it was still a valuable experience. Indeed, watching it in a half-dazed state made the experience rather unique.

[Rowland]

Nodding off isn't necessarily a deal-breaker for me. I drowsed for a few minutes during The Passenger, but it was still a valuable experience. Indeed, watching it in a half-dazed state made the experience rather unique.It isn't necessarily a deal-breaker for me either. Note that I didn't mention this in my review. I simply meant that a theatrical viewing would almost certainly make the film more hypnotic, which I don't equate with a half-dazed state.

[origami_mustache]

Well, it's still a lot more interesting to watch and think about than Flowers of Shanghai. :P

negrep :evil:

[megladon8]

It's a really good action film period. Don't be so focussed on the Die Hard name. That's not the only yardstick. And while it does get ridiculous by the end (though I would say horribly inventive for a "generic action film"), the special effects keep up admirably while McClane is still the kind of character I wanted to cheer for. It's not Transporter 2.


But I am a huge, huge fan of Die Hard, so it's kind of hard to go into another film in the series and not hope for (and expect), well, Die Hard 4.

And actually, upon rewatching it last night, both my parents and I noticed how horrible the effects get when the segments of the cement bridge are collapsing on each other during the whole mack truck vs. jet fight. These enormous pieces of road which would realistically weigh many, many tons are falling and collapsing like they just weigh a few hundred pounds.

Anyways, I admit that's just being picky. But I stand by my rating, and I think it could have been much, much better. It definitely needed a better script, and a different director wouldn't have hurt, either.

I did really like Justin Long, though. He was probably my favorite part of the movie.

[Stay Puft]

Indeed, watching it in a half-dazed state made the experience rather unique.

Some movies beg to be viewed on the precipice of dreams. I'm convinced this is the only way Malick's The New World works, as one recent example of my own. If I was wide awake I may very well have thought it a crock of shit. But to drift through it half asleep at 2am was to achieve a kind of rhythmic synchronicity - a dreamlike enrapturement.

[Li Lili]

already thinking about the weekend! :eek: It feels that last weekend was only 2 days ago ...

[Li Lili]

You were right about A City of Sadness. Easily Hou's greatest accomplishment in filmmaking. Such a beautiful and important film both politically and for Taiwanese cinema.
:pritch: :)

You don't think it does... whatever it is you mean. Most movies have the presence of things and characters.:rolleyes::sad:
I may have not expressed myself very well, but "presence" of things and characters was meant on "spiritual" level, not in visual and material aspect, but beyond. So, no, not most movies have this particularity.

[MadMan]

Duck, You Sucker is the best kind of mess; politically charged, full of great set pieces, and fraught with a deeply felt sense of humanity in the relationship between Coburn and Steiger, that easily overcomes the all-over-the-place narrative. The film plainly just doesn't work in the conventional sense, but as a grab bag of Leone goodness it's just fine - I've actually always found that creating a compelling rhythm was one of his weaknesses as a filmmaker, so the schizophrenic quality of this film ends up accomodating his strengths at action within the individual scene.If I can't find this at my at any of my local video stores I'm just going to buy it (I know there's a new, nice looking DVD copy of the film out now). As a huge Leone fan I still need to view this and finally make time to watch Once Upon A Time in America.


And maybe Apocalypse Now Redux on the big screen.Despite its length I would go see that on the big screen. Hopefully there would be an intermission though :lol:


From Ebert to Herzog:


A letter to Werner Herzog:
In praise of rapturous truth

With admiration,
RogerGoddamn. What a letter. Awesome, awesome stuff indeed. If anything that letter makes me want to see Herzog's films even more.

Weekend:

No Country For Old Men(2007)-I will see this film. I must not let anything deter me from this goal.

And maybe finally some DVDs I own that I haven't watched yet. I donno.

[Spinal]

Weekend:


Run Lola Run

You haven't seen this yet?

[Rowland]

I may have not expressed myself very well, but "presence" of things and characters was meant on "spiritual" level, not in visual and material aspect, but beyond. So, no, not most movies have this particularity.What sort of spiritual sense are you referring to? Give me an example of the sort of spirituality in another Hou movie that is missing in Millennium Mambo.

[Boner M]

Man, OAATITW is all about the rhythm, boner
Within scenes, yes, but I've never felt it (or any of his films sans OUATIA) had a very cohesive rhythm from one scene to another. There's always a slight sense of choppiness, to me.

[Qrazy]

Within scenes, yes, but I've never felt it (or any of his films sans OUATIA) had a very cohesive rhythm from one scene to another. There's always a slight sense of choppiness, to me.

That's because you're a big bag of silly.

I'm quite fond of A Fistful of Dynamite too. I'd say it's my third favorite film of his, simply because it's such a blast! Pun not intended.

[Boner M]

I love Qrazy insults.

[lovejuice]

You're not missing a thing.

but i love my fair lady! i don't care what they do to the original text -- haven't read shaw's, but the music is really sweet, and it has audrey in a most befitting role.

[jesse]

1900 Ohhh, I like this one a lot.


Kill Bill Vol. 2 Ohhh, I wish I could erase this one from my memory.

[jesse]

but i love my fair lady! i don't care what they do to the original text -- haven't read shaw's, but the music is really sweet, and it has audrey in a most befitting role. I have nothing against the reimaging of Shaw's play, but I think that the music is terribly dull, it's much too long, too staid and its worst offense, it's the only Hepburn film I've seen where she doesn't shine (she seems somewhat paralyzed by the weight of the whole damn thing). It's a shame the part was stolen from Julie Andrews because she's about the only person who might have been able to pull this thing off as is (well, maybe Streisand too). Under most circumstances I think Cukor is a terrific, underrated director, but this one got away from him.

But I don't fault the film entirely, but think there's just inherent problems with the material--I saw it performed in a theater a few years back with two friends in the Higgins and Eliza roles and they were absolutely terrific, and yet I still found the entire thing painfully dull.

[Yxklyx]

Weekend:

O Lucky Man!

maybe 8 1/2

[balmakboor]

Within scenes, yes, but I've never felt it (or any of his films sans OUATIA) had a very cohesive rhythm from one scene to another. There's always a slight sense of choppiness, to me.

I understand what you are saying. As much as I like OUATITW, it feels more like a string of set pieces than scenes that flow smoothly from one to the next.

[Qrazy]

I understand what you are saying. As much as I like OUATITW, it feels more like a string of set pieces than scenes that flow smoothly from one to the next.

I don't understand this as a criticism. The same could be set for much of Fellini, Spielberg, and a host of others. There's nothing intrinsically problematic about an episodic narrative. It often allows for more freedom in relation to the overall story being told or the idea(s) being expressed. In OUTIW scenes crescendo to a climax and then we move onto the next segment of the story. Leone excises unnecessary denouements in favor of a more immediately grabbing and tension building manner of storytelling. His narrative styling never led to a sense of choppy storytelling for me.

[balmakboor]

I don't understand this as a criticism. The same could be set for much of Fellini, Spielberg, and a host of others. There's nothing intrinsically problematic about an episodic narrative. It often allows for more freedom in relation to the overall story being told or the idea(s) being expressed. In OUTIW scenes crescendo to a climax and then we move onto the next segment of the story. Leone excises unnecessary denouements in favor of a more immediately grabbing and tension building manner of storytelling. His narrative styling never led to a sense of choppy storytelling for me.

I didn't really mean it as a criticism I guess, although reading what I wrote makes it sound very much that way. I love lots of similarly episodic films such as 2001 and A.I. and I love OUATITW though not as much as TGTBATU.

I was really just trying to state that I know where he is coming from. Some films flow so smoothly from start to end that they feel like one long continuous scene.

[Qrazy]

I didn't really mean it as a criticism I guess, although reading what I wrote makes it sound very much that way. I love lots of similarly episodic films such as 2001 and A.I. and I love OUATITW though not as much as TGTBATU.

I was really just trying to state that I know where he is coming from. Some films flow so smoothly from start to end that they feel like one long continuous scene.

Russian Ark? :)

[Watashi]

You haven't seen this yet?
Nope

[Qrazy]

Nope

Damn, I was hoping Weitz had pulled off The Golden Compass.

I saw an interview with Gilliam a few years ago where he expressed interest in directing it, alas... but with his recent track record it probably wouldn't have been all that impressive anyway.

[Rowland]

I finally caught up with the extended Death Proof on DVD, and it definitely plays better outside of Grindhouse. I'm still not convinced that it's great, but its bifurcated narrative is more palatable without Planet Terror attached.

Run Lola Run was my favorite movie six years ago. I'm still pretty sure I like it a lot.

[Qrazy]

I finally caught up with the extended Death Proof on DVD, and it definitely plays better outside of Grindhouse. I'm still not convinced that it's great, but its bifurcated narrative is more palatable without Planet Terror attached.

Run Lola Run was my favorite movie six year ago. I'm still pretty sure I like it a lot.

Check out Kieslowki's Blind Chance. Run Lola Run is more or less a remake, and Blind Chance is a much more thematically nuanced execution of the central idea behind both films.

[Rowland]

Check out Kieslowki's Blind Chance. Run Lola Run is more or less a remake, and Blind Chance is a much more thematically nuanced execution of the central idea behind both films.Is it as invigorating?

Thanks for the recommendation, I'll toss it in my "to watch" log.

[Spinal]

Check out Kieslowki's Blind Chance. Run Lola Run is more or less a remake, and Blind Chance is a much more thematically nuanced execution of the central idea behind both films.

Doesn't have Franka Potente running though, does it?

I want to see it regardless.

[Qrazy]

Is it as invigorating?

Thanks for the recommendation, I'll toss it in my "to watch" log.

I suppose that depends on what you mean by invigorating. It's perhaps less accessible to the average viewer, but in my opinion yields a much more thought-provoking and ultimately meaningful experience.

[Qrazy]

Doesn't have Franka Potente running though, does it?

I want to see it regardless.

No, but it has Bogislaw Linda running, which is nearly as good.

[Spinal]

No, but it has Bogislaw Linda running, which is nearly as good.

That's hot.

[Rowland]

I suppose that depends on what you mean by invigorating. It's perhaps less accessible to the average viewer, but in my opinion yields a much more thought-provoking and ultimately meaningful experience.Invigorating, as in a punchy cinematic experience. The philosophical material in Run Lola Run gives it heft, but I liked it more as a simultaneously hyperactive and soulful techno-movie.

[Qrazy]

Invigorating, as in a punchy cinematic experience. The philosophical material in Run Lola Run gives it heft, but I liked it more as an equally hyperactive and soulful techno-movie.

No, it lacks the hyperactivity and punch.

--------

In other news...

Now Voyager was a mixed bag. While an excellent portrait of unrequited love and the need, necessity and desire for love in one's life, cinematically the film is underwhelming. There's never any sense of depth to the imagery, to a reality larger than the confines of the shot. It's abundantly obvious that nearly every scene was shot indoors and on a set and as a result the imagery rarely comes to life. The script also often becomes too didactic for it's own good, preaching the nature and issues of this, that and the other, when it ought to just let things be, to let things breathe. Still, Bette Davis turns in an excellent performance, and when the film loses itself in it's characters emotions, the constricted imagery becomes irrelevant and one loses oneself in the transporting eyes of the stars.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Agree about Now Voyager. Nice thoughts.

I watched The Cement Garden finally, and as you can note by the correct spelling of the title, I was quite impressed. I'm really surprised Andrew Birkin hasn't directed anything since. His vision of the novel was outstanding. It was a tad too short. Not enough time was spent with the boyfriend. It felt like it was rushing to its shocking conclusion, which is unfortunate. Also, some of the acting was a bit cringe-worthy at times. Gainsbourg was the only consistent performance. Still, it was a pretty remarkable experience.

Thanks for the recommendation Spinal.

[transmogrifier]

Bridge to Terabithia

For the first 75% of the running time, everything is off. The school scenes are forced and unnatural, with poor directorial beats syphoning off any potential mood setting (random example: boy is shy about his drawings, girl leans over to look, and he takes about 4 seconds to notice and close his book, when a truly defensive boy would have had the book closed as soon as the girl moved). It also does a terrible job incorporating the "fantasy" elements, being caught between trying to make it seem real for the kids yet always emphasizing that it is merely imagination, which of course leaves you fairly underwhelmed whenever something "magical" happens.

However, due to a key story point, the whole film bursts open and becomes something rather affecting by its end. It's a pity that everything leading up to that is so amatuerish in its execution.

55

[Philosophe_rouge]

No, it lacks the hyperactivity and punch.

--------

In other news...

Now Voyager was a mixed bag. While an excellent portrait of unrequited love and the need, necessity and desire for love in one's life, cinematically the film is underwhelming. There's never any sense of depth to the imagery, to a reality larger than the confines of the shot. It's abundantly obvious that nearly every scene was shot indoors and on a set and as a result the imagery rarely comes to life. The script also often becomes too didactic for it's own good, preaching the nature and issues of this, that and the other, when it ought to just let things be, to let things breathe. Still, Bette Davis turns in an excellent performance, and when the film loses itself in it's characters emotions, the constricted imagery becomes irrelevant and one loses oneself in the transporting eyes of the stars.
Pretty much, I love Davis, so I've seen many of her melodramas. I think my favourite is Dark Victory, but this is probably #2. Not great films, but worth seeing.

[Grouchy]

I'm a big fan of the Coens, and I've seen all of their work save for Raising Arizona and Hudsucker Proxy. I need to correct that.

Guys, I had no idea Coppola had directed a new movie until I looked Youth without Youth up. Why the fuck was this not advertised properly? I'd seen people talk about it as "Coppola's movie", but I thought it was Coppola as in Sofia.

Leone not cohesive? Bullcrap. Just look at Once upon a time in America. A movie over three hours where every scene serves a purpose.

[Rowland]

Bridge to Terabithia
I'll agree that it isn't always as convincing and expressive as it should have been, but I was too pleasantly surprised and moved by how contemplative and compassionate it wound up being for its less sure-footed features to leave much of a negative impression. The performances are pretty strong all-around as well.

[Qrazy]

I'm a big fan of the Coens, and I've seen all of their work save for Raising Arizona and Hudsucker Proxy. I need to correct that.

Guys, I had no idea Coppola had directed a new movie until I looked Youth without Youth up. Why the fuck was this not advertised properly? I'd seen people talk about it as "Coppola's movie", but I thought it was Coppola as in Sofia.

Leone not cohesive? Bullcrap. Just look at Once upon a time in America. A movie over three hours where every scene serves a purpose.

I don't think they mean each scene doesn't serve an essential purpose but that they feel separate from one another... something I don't agree with... but I think that's what they mean.

[Ezee E]

Coppola's movie isn't being mentioned anywhere because it's practically the Inland Empire for 2007.

[Qrazy]

Sokurov's Empire was terribly uninteresting, a very weak outing from old S-slice.

[Briare]

Hard Candy is one of the worst films I have ever seen. I am actually... appalled.

I just felt like sharing that.

[number8]

Hard Candy is one of the worst films I have ever seen. I am actually... appalled.

I just felt like sharing that.

Indeed.

[Winston*]

Hard Candy is one of the worst films I have ever seen. I am actually... appalled.

I just felt like sharing that.

It's a Clerks II alright.

[number8]

By the way?

How, how, HOW does one dislike Tekkon Kinkreet?

It is an impossibility.

[D_Davis]

By the way?

How, how, HOW does one dislike Tekkon Kinkreet?

It is an impossibility.

I can't fathom not liking it. It is brilliant. This and Mind Game have raised the bar so high in what I expect out of an animated film that I don't know if it will ever get topped.

[Briare]

Rather sad that I suffered through Hard Candy as earlier tonight I saw I'm Not There and adored every frame of it.

Quite interesting by contrast to see something so beautiful, so alive and wonderful and then see something so ugly and empty headed right after.

[Qrazy]

I can't fathom not liking it. It is brilliant. This and Mind Game have raised the bar so high in what I expect out of an animated film that I don't know if it will ever get topped.

Ponyo on a Cliff is in post-production.

[Qrazy]

Who else thinks Bela Tarr would do an amazing King Lear?

[lovejuice]

back from juno. thematically it's a mess. but over-all production is fine enough to keep me interested. i like it more than most people here do, it seems.

[Briare]

I didn't find Juno to be messy at all and Ellen Page is quite good, I found her portrayal to be devastating in its humanity. Basically, I love Juno.

[lovejuice]

I didn't find Juno to be messy at all and Ellen Page is quite good, I found her portrayal to be devastating in its humanity. Basically, I love Juno.

the movie is actually very good structurally. and the actings are fine all across the room. i just find it's rather weak thematically. seems like two really good concepts strung together. the bateman-garner and the cera storylines should stand alone as its own film. as it is, the movie feels half-baked.

but really, i like it a lot. judged from this and SMOKING, reitman seems quite talented. he just needs a right script.

[Spinal]

I watched The Cement Garden finally, and as you can note by the correct spelling of the title, I was quite impressed. I'm really surprised Andrew Birkin hasn't directed anything since. His vision of the novel was outstanding. It was a tad too short. Not enough time was spent with the boyfriend. It felt like it was rushing to its shocking conclusion, which is unfortunate. Also, some of the acting was a bit cringe-worthy at times. Gainsbourg was the only consistent performance. Still, it was a pretty remarkable experience.

Thanks for the recommendation Spinal.

Excellent! Glad you enjoyed it. After seeing Atonement, I know that I really need to read more McEwan.

[Spinal]

I finally saw a trailer for Juno today and I actually thought it looked like something I'd want to see.

[lovejuice]

I have nothing against the reimaging of Shaw's play, but I think that the music is terribly dull, it's much too long, too staid and its worst offense, it's the only Hepburn film I've seen where she doesn't shine (she seems somewhat paralyzed by the weight of the whole damn thing).

but how can you not like i could have danced all night? :cry: seriously, one of my favorite hobby is to pop in the dvd, turn on the english caption, and sing along. :)

speaking of julie andrews, i don't get the love for sound of music :twisted: speaking of dull, too long, and too staid.

[Qrazy]

Dear Diary felt very lite. Competent, perhaps even enjoyable, but a bit too simple... this was simultaneously it's greatest strength and it's greatest weakness.

Kozintsev's King Lear was quite good... at times it felt a little too distanced from it's characters and drama... but when it works, it sticks the landing beautifully. There's one shot that stuck in my mind, a tracking shot back as Lear walks towards the camera... beautifully realized.

[Qrazy]

Sweet jesus, why did Butterfly Mcqueen have an acting career?

[origami_mustache]

Steamroller and Violin (Andrei Tarkovsky, 1961)

http://www.sensesofcinema.com/images/directors/02/steamroller.jpg

A delightful short film about a seven year old boy from a wealthy family who plays the violin. Tarkovsky employs the ole "opposites attract" chestnut as the boy befriends a blue collar steamroller and becomes the envy of the children in the neighborhood until the two are forced to part ways due to circumstances beyond their control. This was Tarkovsky's graduate film and certainly lacks the dream-like style of his future efforts, but still remains an impressive piece foreshadowing things to come with rain and water motifs, along with the reflections (mirrors) in the puddles. The camera work, lighting, and shot selections are expertly chosen as well. The film obviously is a product of it's time and culture, as the themes of communism and the optimism of rebuilding a better Russia are less than subtle. An eye catching shot and perhaps the most poignant moment in the film comes when an old building in the foreground comes crumbling down after being struck by a wrecking ball, only to reveal a taller more beautiful building glistening in the sunlight.

[origami_mustache]

The Color of Pomegranates (Sergei Parajanov, 1968)

http://www.cas.buffalo.edu/classes/dms/cgkoebel/bc/images/Pom/books.jpg

The Color of Pomegranates is less of a film, than it is a visual arts piece, or perhaps a physically realized poem, which was Parajanov's intent. It's very unorthodox in nature, as it is a biography of the Armenian troubadour Sayat Nova told through the context of the poet's own imagination, only using the narration of his his poetry rather than any dialogue, and with a completely static camera. I found the film to be fascinating in it's bold approach and an eye opening account of ancient Armenian culture. The film is obviously gorgeous to look at a well, but hard to follow with all of the convoluted expressionism. It definitely deserves another look, as a lot of it was admittedly over my head.

[Qrazy]

Just finished Mildred Pierce. Michael Curtiz is the man.

[Yxklyx]

Kozintsev's King Lear was quite good... at times it felt a little too distanced from it's characters and drama... but when it works, it sticks the landing beautifully. There's one shot that stuck in my mind, a tracking shot back as Lear walks towards the camera... beautifully realized.

It would be very hard to top this version - it's nearly the definitive one.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Excellent! Glad you enjoyed it. After seeing Atonement, I know that I really need to read more McEwan.

I think you would really enjoy On Chesil Beach. It's a very short read too.

[Ivan Drago]

Weekend:

No Country For Old Men
Maybe I Am Legend

[Raiders]

I think you would really enjoy On Chesil Beach. It's a very short read too.

Isn't he the one who recommended it to you?

[Philosophe_rouge]

Just finished Mildred Pierce. Michael Curtiz is the man.
Yea, a great film fo sho. After Casablanca, probably my favourite Curtiz.

[Rowland]

How, how, HOW does one dislike Tekkon Kinkreet?

It is an impossibility.I didn't dislike it. I just didn't like it much either.

[Rowland]

Sweet jesus, why did Butterfly Mcqueen have an acting career?
At least she made for a great Boo Radleys song.

[balmakboor]

For anyone not reading the theory thread:

I find myself with some gift money to spend at amazon and I'm considering spending some of it on a good introductory book on film theories. But which one... Some I'm looking at are:

Film Theory: An Introduction by Robert Lapsley

Signs and Meaning in the Cinema by Peter Wollen

The Major Film Theories: An Introduction by J.D. Andrew

Film Theory and Criticism: Introductory Readings by Leo Braudy

Any suggestions? I'm talking about something that will help me finally understand things like semiotics and psychoanalytic theory as it applies to cinema. Theories of the spectator. Auteur theory. Feminist film theory. Something called "suture theory" that I once heard somebody toss about on a discussion board. That sort of thing.

[D_Davis]

At least she made for a great Boo Radleys song.

Major rep. Two reps in the same week for someone mentioning The Boo Radleys. This is an awesome week, the Boos should be mentioned more.

[monolith94]

The Color of Pomegranates (Sergei Parajanov, 1968)

http://www.cas.buffalo.edu/classes/dms/cgkoebel/bc/images/Pom/books.jpg

The Color of Pomegranates is less of a film, than it is a visual arts piece, or perhaps a physically realized poem, which was Parajanov's intent. It's very unorthodox in nature, as it is a biography of the Armenian troubadour Sayat Nova told through the context of the poet's own imagination, only using the narration of his his poetry rather than any dialogue, and with a completely static camera. I found the film to be fascinating in it's bold approach and an eye opening account of ancient Armenian culture. The film is obviously gorgeous to look at a well, but hard to follow with all of the convoluted expressionism. It definitely deserves another look, as a lot of it was admittedly over my head.
I'm glad you didn't hate this. I love this film, in its own special way. It isn't as exciting as "Shadows" but I think that as art it is as valuable: it is imagination food. The images you see are static, but they connect you with an artist and they connect you with a place: they bind you to a man of poetry. And this all is tremendously nourishing to one's own imagination. It is the sort of film that affects your dreams in a positive way.

[origami_mustache]

For anyone not reading the theory thread:

I find myself with some gift money to spend at amazon and I'm considering spending some of it on a good introductory book on film theories. But which one... Some I'm looking at are:

Film Theory: An Introduction by Robert Lapsley

Signs and Meaning in the Cinema by Peter Wollen

The Major Film Theories: An Introduction by J.D. Andrew

Film Theory and Criticism: Introductory Readings by Leo Braudy

Any suggestions? I'm talking about something that will help me finally understand things like semiotics and psychoanalytic theory as it applies to cinema. Theories of the spectator. Auteur theory. Feminist film theory. Something called "suture theory" that I once heard somebody toss about on a discussion board. That sort of thing.

The Major Film Theories is a pretty solid introductory book, and pretty easy to follow. We used it in my classic film theory class. It sounds to me like you are more interested in contemporary film theory. I can't speak on the other books you mentioned, but I'd suggest Film Theory and Criticism: Introductory Readings which is an anthology along with Susan Hayward's Cinema Studies: The Key Concepts as a companion for more rigidly defining the concepts discussed in the former.

[origami_mustache]

I'm glad you didn't hate this. I love this film, in its own special way. It isn't as exciting as "Shadows" but I think that as art it is as valuable: it is imagination food. The images you see are static, but they connect you with an artist and they connect you with a place: they bind you to a man of poetry. And this all is tremendously nourishing to one's own imagination. It is the sort of film that affects your dreams in a positive way.

I was caught off guard by the contrast between the two films. I went in with no prior knowledge of the film's history or reputation. I think this dramatic stylistic difference speaks volumes about Parajanov's unique directing talents. It's a shame he was imprisoned and unable to make films for so many years.

[balmakboor]

The Major Film Theories is a pretty solid introductory book, and pretty easy to follow. We used it in my classic film theory class. It sounds to me like you are more interested in contemporary film theory. I can't speak on the other books you mentioned, but I'd suggest Film Theory and Criticism: Introductory Readings which is an anthology along with Susan Hayward's Cinema Studies: The Key Concepts as a companion for more rigidly defining the concepts discussed in the former.

What are the major film theories I should be interested in? I guess I'm interested in a book or books that explain what was going through the heads of everyone from silent guys like Eisenstein to the latest theories, and how one lead to the next, and all the soapy historical stories about the fights that ensued when one new theory stepped on the toes of an earlier established one.

[origami_mustache]

What are the major film theories I should be interested in? I guess I'm interested in a book or books that explain what was going through the heads of everyone from silent guys like Eisenstein to the latest theories, and how one lead to the next, and all the soapy historical stories about the fights that ensued when one new theory stepped on the toes of an earlier established one.

The Major Film Theories pretty much covers everything from the silent period, Eisenstein, theories on sound, auteur theory, and Bazin. The problem with this book is that it lacks a bit on the more contemporary theories, especially psychoanalysis and feminism. So perhaps there is a more updated book that covers all of these. I personally find the classical theories to be more fascinating, and contrasting whereas with contemporary theory so many things start to overlap with one another such as spectator theory, feminist theory, psychoanalysis, etc.

[balmakboor]

The Major Film Theories pretty much covers everything from the silent period, Eisenstein, theories on sound, auteur theory, and Bazin. The problem with this book is that it lacks a bit on the more contemporary theories, especially psychoanalysis and feminism. So perhaps there is a more updated book that covers all of these. I personally find the classical theories to be more fascinating, and contrasting whereas with contemporary theory so many things start to overlap with one another such as spectator theory, feminist theory, psychoanalysis, etc.

Cool. Thanks. That book sounds like a decent place to start.

[Boner M]

The Color of Pomegranates is less of a film, than it is a carpet sampler
fixed

[origami_mustache]

fixed

The rugs ARE lovely. haha

[Rowland]

Part II of that Armond White interview I linked to a few days ago:

http://bigmediavandal.blogspot.com/2007/12/phonies-cronies-american-ironies.html

They refer to some image of a baby in The Darjeeling Limited being the most beautiful baby image ever. I don't even remember a baby in the movie... was that in the Indian village?

In any case, this interview is growing painful to read. And there is still a Part III.

[Ezee E]

First Snow: Mediocre thriller that wastes the talent of Guy Pearce. He singlehandedly makes the film almost good. Too bad it’s too drawn out for its own good.

The Shape of Things: No idea what to think of it. The ending gives me lots of questions as I’m not sure what it’s trying to say. Perhaps it wants us to tell us the answer, but it seems like Labute has something to say there. I’d like to hear some thoughts on this one as I know it’s been discussed a lot before. In the end, I’m pretty sure I liked it because I remained interested the whole way, even if I didn’t care for what the characters were doing. It felt a lot like Closer, only Closer worked better for me because of its dialog and acting from Clive Owen and Natalie Portman. Paul Rudd is great as usual, and shows why he should be getting more lead roles. Quite the ending though. I can’t say I saw it coming, and it perfectly works.

It’s weird, every time I had a question, such as, “Why does she have an interest in him?” It always came a few minutes later.

Yeah. It’s pretty good..

[origami_mustache]

Part II of that Armond White interview I linked to a few days ago:

http://bigmediavandal.blogspot.com/2007/12/phonies-cronies-american-ironies.html


In any case, this interview is growing painful to read. And there is still a Part III.


I think he makes a decent point about Spike Lee:

"The laughable irony about Spike Lee is he's always getting good reviews. I've enjoyed this circus for many years. His movies always get good reviews, but come the end of the year when critics give their ten best lists, his films are nowhere to be found. They're all playing that game, "oh, yes, we're open-minded, we're liberal. We love Spike Lee because he's a cantankerous Negro." But they really don't give a shit about his movies, when it comes down to it. Happens all the time."

[Sven]

They refer to some image of a baby in The Darjeeling Limited being the most beautiful baby image ever. I don't even remember a baby in the movie... was that in the Indian village?

Most likely they're referring to the scene where Brody's character is given a baby to hold while he's mourning the death of the young boy.

I love what they say about it. Great interview.

[Qrazy]

I think he makes a decent point about Spike Lee:

"The laughable irony about Spike Lee is he's always getting good reviews. I've enjoyed this circus for many years. His movies always get good reviews, but come the end of the year when critics give their ten best lists, his films are nowhere to be found. They're all playing that game, "oh, yes, we're open-minded, we're liberal. We love Spike Lee because he's a cantankerous Negro." But they really don't give a shit about his movies, when it comes down to it. Happens all the time."

Yeah, it's likely that happens to a certain degree, but also a lot of Spike's films are interesting cinematically, but not particularly impressive overall. She's Gotta Have It for instance, tells it's tale in a stylistically interesting manner, but I don't think it's an especially good film. Also Inside Man was an above average Hollywood outing, so yeah it's going to get good reviews, but it's not a great film. And I think he's just wrong about 25th Hour, and Malcolm X (and obviously Do the Right Thing but he admits the film is quality) because I've seen both of those films on many yearly top 10 lists.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Isn't he the one who recommended it to you?

No, he recommended The Cement Garden, both the book and the film. At least, I don't think he recommended it to me. I was planning to read it as soon as I saw McEwan had wrote a new novel.

[Derek]

For anyone not reading the theory thread:

I find myself with some gift money to spend at amazon and I'm considering spending some of it on a good introductory book on film theories. But which one... Some I'm looking at are:

Film Theory: An Introduction by Robert Lapsley

Signs and Meaning in the Cinema by Peter Wollen

The Major Film Theories: An Introduction by J.D. Andrew

Film Theory and Criticism: Introductory Readings by Leo Braudy

Any suggestions? I'm talking about something that will help me finally understand things like semiotics and psychoanalytic theory as it applies to cinema. Theories of the spectator. Auteur theory. Feminist film theory. Something called "suture theory" that I once heard somebody toss about on a discussion board. That sort of thing.

I'm only familiar with the Andrew and Braudy books, but the Wollen book is probably a good place to start for semiotics. Andrew's is fairly short and not terribly comprehensive. It's probably better for brushing up on the basics of certain theories than anything else. Braudy's, on the other hand, is a great collection that covers most of the major theories with great essays from the earlier theorists (Eisenstein, Arnheim, etc.) and more recent ones from the likes of Bordwell. I haven't read all of it, but it covers all of the theories you mentioned above aside from "suture theory" which I've never even heard of. :)

[origami_mustache]

Yeah, it's likely that happens to a certain degree, but also a lot of Spike's films are interesting cinematically, but not particularly impressive overall. She's Gotta Have It for instance, tells it's tale in a stylistically interesting manner, but I don't think it's an especially good film. Also Inside Man was an above average Hollywood outing, so yeah it's going to get good reviews, but it's not a great film. And I think he's just wrong about 25th Hour, and Malcolm X (and obviously Do the Right Thing but he admits the film is quality) because I've seen both of those films on many yearly top 10 lists.

Yeah, it's a broad generalization and not as "cut and dry" as he puts it here. Spike Lee has made some great, mediocre, and even some plain bad films. It's hard to prove definitively one way or another whether the reviews are genuine or not, but it's an interesting reverse racism argument and probably valid in many cases.

[Sven]

Most likely they're referring to the scene where Brody's character is given a baby to hold while he's mourning the death of the young boy.

I love what they say about it. Great interview.

Although I gotta say, ending the interview segment there with praise for Jared Hess makes me go "ehhhhhh..."

Because Hess sucks. Goddamned Utah-boys.

[Qrazy]

Yeah, it's a broad generalization and not as "cut and dry" as he puts it here. Spike Lee has made some great, mediocre, and even some plain bad films. It's hard to prove definitively one way or another whether the reviews are genuine or not, but it's an interesting reverse racism argument and probably valid in many cases.

I don't find it that interesting, I think it's fairly self-evident, in so far as it's actually true.

[Rowland]

Accusations of reverse racism have probably been being made since Spike's career began... many of them from his mouth too.

[Sycophant]

Although I gotta say, ending the interview segment there with praise for Jared Hess makes me go "ehhhhhh..."

Because Hess sucks. Goddamned Utah-boys.
I hope part three doesn't shine too much sun on Hess. Though maybe I should at least give his Nacho Libre as open-minded a shot as I possibly can. But goddamn. I did not like Napoleon Dynamite.

This is a great interview, though. I'm really, really enjoying it and as I read more and more of his stuff, I'm really coming to an appreciation of--if not an agreement with--Armond.

[Yxklyx]

The Shape of Things: No idea what to think of it. The ending gives me lots of questions as I’m not sure what it’s trying to say. Perhaps it wants us to tell us the answer, but it seems like Labute has something to say there. I’d like to hear some thoughts on this one as I know it’s been discussed a lot before. In the end, I’m pretty sure I liked it because I remained interested the whole way, even if I didn’t care for what the characters were doing. It felt a lot like Closer, only Closer worked better for me because of its dialog and acting from Clive Owen and Natalie Portman. Paul Rudd is great as usual, and shows why he should be getting more lead roles. Quite the ending though. I can’t say I saw it coming, and it perfectly works.

It’s weird, every time I had a question, such as, “Why does she have an interest in him?” It always came a few minutes later.

Yeah. It’s pretty good..

Yeah, theme wise there's not a whole lot there. The writing is what I thought was superb - the words coming out of the characters' mouths was a delight to hear.

[Ezee E]

Yeah, theme wise there's not a whole lot there. The writing is what I thought was superb - the words coming out of the characters' mouths was a delight to hear.
Good call. The dialog, while not something that people would say, flowed very well. Again, it was a lot like Closer, and the way David Mamet movies sound.

Gretchen Mol and Rachel Weisz are wonderful too. Rachel Weisz probably pulled off the dialog the best now that I think about it. Pretty much flawless.

[balmakboor]

I'm only familiar with the Andrew and Braudy books, but the Wollen book is probably a good place to start for semiotics. Andrew's is fairly short and not terribly comprehensive. It's probably better for brushing up on the basics of certain theories than anything else. Braudy's, on the other hand, is a great collection that covers most of the major theories with great essays from the earlier theorists (Eisenstein, Arnheim, etc.) and more recent ones from the likes of Bordwell. I haven't read all of it, but it covers all of the theories you mentioned above aside from "suture theory" which I've never even heard of. :)

Hey, thanks for the comments. Yeh, a google search on "suture theory" gave me as much about closing after surgery as about film studies. From the best I can tell so far, suture theory is a very complex way of looking at spectatorship.

[origami_mustache]

I don't find it that interesting, I think it's fairly self-evident, in so far as it's actually true.

His comments aren't particularly of great value, but I personally find the reverse racism topic interesting in general, especially when considering the alleged intellectuals shaping social thought are perpetuating such thought processing whether consciously or subconsciously.

(shrug) I find of interest at least, regardless of how long the subject has been debated.

[Qrazy]

I have a very general question about film aesthetic and texture. How do cinematographers and directors achieve such vastly different aesthetics in relation to other cinematographers and why do regional differences often seem to have such a striking effect on aesthetic?

Obviously some of this has to do with composition, staging and lighting, but even with these in mind it doesn't seem to account for the range of aesthetics... or perhaps the lighting does, I don't know, but why are there such regional similarities? Do they use a particular film stock that can only be found regionally? Is it types of cameras? Lenses?

For instance, compare some Japanese films by Ichikawa, Kobayashi, Suzuki, etc to Russian work by Kalotozov, Tarkovsky, Sokurov, etc. I find it highly likely that most, perhaps all of us would be able to identify from a frame or a few frames of a film, the region or close to the region the film came from.

Even regional differences aside, how do filmmakers achieve such widely varying aesthetics? For instance, the grainy feeling of a great deal of Herzog and Pasolini contrasted with the softer aesthetic of early Truffaut and Varda.

We all know and can pinpoint differences between German expressionism, Italian neo-realism, etc and so forth... but what of cinematic texture? Regional aesthetic congruence? Aside from general interest I'm particularly interested in these questions so that I can recreate these varying aesthetics and I'm curious how much is dependent on specific types of cameras and film stock vs. lighting and composition... and any other factors I may not even know about.

[Qrazy]

His comments aren't particularly of great value, but I personally find the reverse racism topic interesting in general, especially when considering the alleged intellectuals shaping social thought are perpetuating such thought processing whether consciously or subconsciously.

(shrug) I find of interest at least, regardless of how long the subject has been debated.

I don't mean it as a dismissal of you or anything. All I mean is that from what I read of the interview I don't find White's views particularly original or especially thoughtful.

[Sycophant]

I'm prioritizing all of Albert Brooks's films. I think there are three now that I haven't seen and I promise myself I will watch them within a month. This guy is rocking my world.

[origami_mustache]

I'm prioritizing all of Albert Brooks's films. I think there are three now that I haven't seen and I promise myself I will watch them within a month. This guy is rocking my world.

I've only seen his work on the first season of SNL and I wasn't that impressed. haha

[Sycophant]

There are not enough scenes in movies with people throwing themselves in front of the camera, looking into the lens, and screaming "BOOGEDY BOOGEDY BOOGEDY!"

In fact, I can't even think of one.

[Watashi]

Just saw Amores Perros. A lot better than 21 Grams, but I'm unsure if I'd place it above Babel. I'm still juggling all the possible themes in my head, but my reaction was a strong. I didn't find it as shocking as people hyped it up to be (coming from a big dog lover).

What do people think?

[Qrazy]

There are not enough scenes in movies with people throwing themselves in front of the camera, looking into the lens, and screaming "BOOGEDY BOOGEDY BOOGEDY!"

In fact, I can't even think of one.

There is however that great scene in Soderbergh's Schizopolis where an escaped lunatic wearing a t-shirt with the film's namesake on the front, smiles into the camera and then runs off into the background revealing that he doesn't have any pants on, or underwear for that matter.

[Sycophant]

There is however that great scene in Soderbergh's Schizopolis where an escaped lunatic wearing a t-shirt with the film's namesake on the front, smiles into the camera and then runs off into the background revealing that he doesn't have any pants on, or underwear for that matter.Well, that's as good and arbitrary a reason as any to move it up in my queue!

[origami_mustache]

Well, that's as good and arbitrary a reason as any to move it up in my queue!

My favorite part was the commentary for Schizopolis...be sure to listen to it...Hilarity ensues...

[Qrazy]

Just saw Amores Perros. A lot better than 21 Grams, but I'm unsure if I'd place it above Babel. I'm still juggling all the possible themes in my head, but my reaction was a strong. I didn't find it as shocking as people hyped it up to be (coming from a big dog lover).

What do people think?

I think Innaritu is systematically improving formally and structurally as a filmmaker. His films are becoming more complex and nuanced audio-visually, but his scripts aren't improving. They feel too one-sided and pessimistic... which is fine, but it often feels like he's forcing this pessimism upon his narrative and characters, and not letting it evolve naturally. The depth of his storytelling is improving but not yet his storytelling as a whole. He's actually at his strongest with the quiet moments of his films. The images that stick out in my mind most from those three films are the shot of the boys leaning into the wind in Babel and the light snow on the swimming pool at the end of 21 grams. I don't really know how to rank them. I feel that Amores Perros is more than the sum of it's parts in relation to the other two but that the individual parts in Babel are stronger than the parts in Perros. 21 Grams falls somewhere in the middle of that comparison.

[Yxklyx]

Good call. The dialog, while not something that people would say, flowed very well. Again, it was a lot like Closer, and the way David Mamet movies sound.

Gretchen Mol and Rachel Weisz are wonderful too. Rachel Weisz probably pulled off the dialog the best now that I think about it. Pretty much flawless.

Who needs realism? I'm comparing the dialogue to Shakespeare not that it's that good but would you call the dialogue in his plays realistic? Yet we are attracted to it. Throw realism out the window I say. I've found Mamet's dialogue too stilted. I prefer Hartley and LaBute. I've not seen Closer.

[jesse]

speaking of julie andrews, i don't get the love for sound of music :twisted: speaking of dull, too long, and too staid :eek:

I loves me some Sound of Music.

And I don't know how anybody could call it staid--I can understand somebody being turned off by the parade of sentimentality on display, but a staid film it is not. It's actually a surprisingly cinematic musical: Robert Wise, the underrated master filmmakers he is, really takes full advantage of all of the elements at his disposal--the beautiful locations, an iconic score, an obnoxiously talented bunch of youngsters, some dark undertones provided by Christopher Plummer, and yes, Julie Andrews herself, and crafts it into one of the great movie musicals.

I personally think it's a terribly underrated film among "film people."

[Yxklyx]

The first half of The Sound of Music is the best musical ever - but then comes the second half...

The second half is way too heavy on story at the expense of singing plus there are no new songs except for the Climb Every Mountain song which I don't care for that much. We just hear remakes of the originals!

[MacGuffin]

I think I finally get what Peter Greenaway is saying about cinema dying on September 21, 1983; and I most declare: he has a point. The remote control, an invention which came out on the aforementioned date provided the average moviegoer with the luxury of pausing the film, stopping the film, skipping ahead, and going back in the privacy of their own home. By doing this, however, we're ruining what makes a film a film. Since film is all about the transitions of images in order to express a theme, we are, by pausing the film and stopping the film to watch the rest for a later date (and I must admit, I do this often), we're ruining the directors intentions of creating an unparalleled unique experience, and really not giving the film the proper attention it deserves in gradually developing characters or building emotional impact. It doesn't matter if you're pausing it to use the restroom, or to go to the grocery store. You're pausing it. You're pausing the emotions being developed, and thus, ruining the momentum that the film is building.

[Rowland]

not giving the film the proper attention it deserves in gradually developing characters or building emotional impact. It doesn't matter if you're pausing it to use the restroom, or to go to the grocery store. You're pausing it. You're pausing the emotions being developed, and thus, ruining the momentum that the film is building.I always try to watch movies in a single uninterrupted sitting for this very reason. I used to argue very passionately over this, but now I find myself fragmenting my viewings at home more than I used to as well, so I'd feel hypocritical to make too big of a deal over it anymore.

[dreamdead]

So Fruit Chan's Dumplings? :eek: Holy freakin' crap. Obviously the cinematography by Doyle is marvelous, but what's interesting here is how Chan gets so much from insinuation, from sound design and close-ups, so that it's not until the final frames that the horror truly unfolds in any visceral way. The scenes on the bus with the 15 year old are also disturbing. So disturbing, this film, in pretty much every way. While others might point to the film's commentary on women, beauty, and the need to remain young, I'll nod my head politely but just do this on honor of the film's success: :eek:

[Yxklyx]

I think I finally get what Peter Greenaway is saying about cinema dying on September 21, 1983; and I most declare: he has a point. The remote control, an invention which came out on the aforementioned date provided the average moviegoer with the luxury of pausing the film, stopping the film, skipping ahead, and going back in the privacy of their own home. By doing this, however, we're ruining what makes a film a film. Since film is all about the transitions of images in order to express a theme, we are, by pausing the film and stopping the film to watch the rest for a later date (and I must admit, I do this often), we're ruining the directors intentions of creating an unparalleled unique experience, and really not giving the film the proper attention it deserves in gradually developing characters or building emotional impact. It doesn't matter if you're pausing it to use the restroom, or to go to the grocery store. You're pausing it. You're pausing the emotions being developed, and thus, ruining the momentum that the film is building.

What if the film is not interested in building momentum but is rather a series of vignettes that actually encourages you to pause at your leisure.

Greenaway is thinking of an unobtainable ideal. When you go to the cinema do you actually watch every single frame of the film? No, you are blinking every now and then, perhaps you glance away to your companion every now and then as well. You never see the entire film - what the director has created to show you.

[MacGuffin]

I always try to watch movies in a single uninterrupted sitting for this very reason. I used to argue very passionately over this, but now I find myself fragmenting my viewings at home more than I used to as well, so I'd feel hypocritical to make too big of a deal over it anymore.

The same with me. I feel like sometimes I just don't have the time. I get tired, and I save the rest of the movie for the next day. I think that what I was getting at (and what I believe Greenaway was getting at) is correct, but I don't really care.

That said, I was going to try to write some sort of refute to that argument as a review for This Is England, which is a film I found completely brilliant, and emotionally involving (with great acting), that I'm going to watch it again tonight. With regards to the remote control argument, I did, however, watch This Is England in two separate viewings, but still found it to be emotionally engaging.

[MacGuffin]

What if the film is not interested in building momentum but is rather a series of vignettes that actually encourages you to pause at your leisure.

That's what? One of every fifty films? (I'm assuming you're refering to films like Coffee and Cigarettes.)

[number8]

So Fruit Chan's Dumplings? :eek: Holy freakin' crap. Obviously the cinematography by Doyle is marvelous, but what's interesting here is how Chan gets so much from insinuation, from sound design and close-ups, so that it's not until the final frames that the horror truly unfolds in any visceral way. The scenes on the bus with the 15 year old are also disturbing. So disturbing, this film, in pretty much every way. While others might point to the film's commentary on women, beauty, and the need to remain young, I'll nod my head politely but just do this on honor of the film's success: :eek:

You are teh thumbs up.

[jesse]

The first half of The Sound of Music is the best musical ever - but then comes the second half...

The second half is way too heavy on story at the expense of singing plus there are no new songs except for the Climb Every Mountain song which I don't care for that much. We just hear remakes of the originals! Actually, I can't really disagree with this. The film does fail to build on the momentum it creates in the first half, though I personally don't find it enough to detract much from the overall experience.

[Qrazy]

I always try to watch movies in a single uninterrupted sitting for this very reason. I used to argue very passionately over this, but now I find myself fragmenting my viewings at home more than I used to as well, so I'd feel hypocritical to make too big of a deal over it anymore.

I had a brief period where I argued it too, and then I realized it was a bunch of crap. Sure you get something out of the film in an uninterrupted setting that you probably wouldn't get any other way, but the same can be said for listening to an album straight through or reading a book straight through. Granted film is more about the passage of time than reading a book is, and perhaps more than music (debatable), you can still get a great deal out of the film by breaking up your viewing, perhaps even notice and reflect upon things you wouldn't have had a chance to had you watched it straight through. Both approaches to viewing art have their merit, one is not intrinsically better.

To carry Klyx comments about blinking still further, film is essentially a series of still frames anyway. We're only ever really watching a series of stationary fragments. Remove (blink) from your experience, or forget about a fragment here or there and it doesn't destroy the essence of the film.

[Spinal]

What if the film is not interested in building momentum but is rather a series of vignettes that actually encourages you to pause at your leisure.

Greenaway himself made this movie. It's called The Falls.

[MacGuffin]

Sure you get something out of the film in an uninterrupted setting that you probably wouldn't get any other way, but the same can be said for listening to an album straight through or reading a book straight through.

That's a nice way of looking at it.

[baby doll]

Weekend... I'm flyin' to Toronto, bitches!

Before the Devil Knows Your Dead (Varsity)
Control (Carlton)
4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days (Carlton)
Gone Baby Gone (Bloor [2nd Run])
I'm Not There (Cumberland)
Juno (Varsity)
The Kite Runner (Varsity)
Margot at the Wedding (Cumberland)

[Winston*]

Weekend (and the following week)

The Scent of Green Papaya
Il Bidone
Tideland
Old Joy
Raising Arizona (r)

[Dillard]

I have a very general question about film aesthetic and texture. How do cinematographers and directors achieve such vastly different aesthetics in relation to other cinematographers and why do regional differences often seem to have such a striking effect on aesthetic?

Obviously some of this has to do with composition, staging and lighting, but even with these in mind it doesn't seem to account for the range of aesthetics... or perhaps the lighting does, I don't know, but why are there such regional similarities? Do they use a particular film stock that can only be found regionally? Is it types of cameras? Lenses?

For instance, compare some Japanese films by Ichikawa, Kobayashi, Suzuki, etc to Russian work by Kalotozov, Tarkovsky, Sokurov, etc. I find it highly likely that most, perhaps all of us would be able to identify from a frame or a few frames of a film, the region or close to the region the film came from.

Even regional differences aside, how do filmmakers achieve such widely varying aesthetics? For instance, the grainy feeling of a great deal of Herzog and Pasolini contrasted with the softer aesthetic of early Truffaut and Varda.

We all know and can pinpoint differences between German expressionism, Italian neo-realism, etc and so forth... but what of cinematic texture? Regional aesthetic congruence? Aside from general interest I'm particularly interested in these questions so that I can recreate these varying aesthetics and I'm curious how much is dependent on specific types of cameras and film stock vs. lighting and composition... and any other factors I may not even know about.Lest your intriguing questions fall to the wayside, you should start a new thread with these ideas in mind.

[Sven]

Robert Wise, the underrated master filmmakers he is, really takes full advantage of all of the elements at his disposal--the beautiful locations, an iconic score, an obnoxiously talented bunch of youngsters, some dark undertones provided by Christopher Plummer, and yes, Julie Andrews herself, and crafts it into one of the great movie musicals.

Sweeping hills, cute kids, and Rogers and Hammerstein do not, my friend, express cinema. And I'm afraid that's all this boring, glossy, cheap, and, yes, staid film has to offer. Terrible, terrible offal.

[Qrazy]

Lest your intriguing questions fall to the wayside, you should start a new thread with these ideas in mind.

Good call, thanks.

[Spinal]

And I don't think (if I recall correctly) that Greenaway was saying that the invention of the remote control was necessarily an evil. His major point was that modern filmmakers haven't (for the most part) done a suitable job of responding to the changes in the way viewers consume entertainment.

[Qrazy]

And I don't think (if I recall correctly) that Greenaway was saying that the invention of the remote control was necessarily an evil. His major point was that modern filmmakers haven't (for the most part) done a suitable job of responding to the changes in the way viewers consume entertainment.

The tyranny of the frame!!!

[Yxklyx]

And I don't think (if I recall correctly) that Greenaway was saying that the invention of the remote control was necessarily an evil. His major point was that modern filmmakers haven't (for the most part) done a suitable job of responding to the changes in the way viewers consume entertainment.

Well, that makes sense and explains The Falls.

[Yxklyx]

I never thought I'd see a scene inspired by Lynch's first film Six Men Getting Sick - but it's there in Fantastic Planet.

[Qrazy]

I never thought I'd see a scene inspired by Lynch's first film Six Men Getting Sick - but it's there in Fantastic Planet.

Which scene? Haven't seen the Lynch film.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Wow I adored I'm Not THere, it was super surreal though because I reckonized the places, and where most of it was shot. Didn't try to make Montreal look like London at all. Then the bigggest WTF came when this guy in my class suddenly pops up with a line, why don't people tell me things? I missed like 3 minutes wondering, Is it him? It can't be... but it is! Luckily my friend beside me realised the same thing or it probably would have bothered me the rest of the film. Personal things aside though, best movie I've seen (in theatres) for a while, and this is the year that brought me No Country. Just spectacular.

[Mysterious Dude]

I seriously doubt that anyone outside of the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts had seen Six Men Getting Sick by 1973. Did that movie actually have any kind of distribution during that time?

[jesse]

Sweeping hills, cute kids, and Rogers and Hammerstein do not, my friend, express cinema. And I'm afraid that's all this boring, glossy, cheap, and, yes, staid film has to offer. Terrible, terrible offal. Those elements I listed were more of what makes the film irresistable (or unpalatable, depending on your tastes), not what makes it cinematic. I think if you're paying attention it's very cinematic in its construction, as opposed to "staged theater," which I think is a category My Fair Lady falls into. Take a sequence like "Do Re Mi"--most people are so focused on the catchy song (either loving it or hating it) that it kind of fails to register how complex the second half of sequence is. I mean, I count ten separate locations depicted within the five minute number alone. Can you think of another classic musical with as much location work? Is there a sequence that compares in My Fair Lady?

[Yxklyx]

I seriously doubt that anyone outside of the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts had seen Six Men Getting Sick by 1973. Did that movie actually have any kind of distribution during that time?

Yeah, I was kind of joking but there's this scene in Fantastic Planet where four of those Draags in a line are meditating in this room and they keep changing color and shape as these little tendrils poke at them. The first thing it reminded me of was Lynch's film.

[MadMan]

Sweeping hills, cute kids, and Rogers and Hammerstein do not, my friend, express cinema. And I'm afraid that's all this boring, glossy, cheap, and, yes, staid film has to offer. Terrible, terrible offal.I agree with this post 100%. I hate, hate, hate The Sound of Music. I actually think I might despise that film more than Grease. Both are terrible, annoying, and are films I never ever want to see again.

[Ezee E]

I saw the trailer for Persepolis and it annoys the hell out of me. Please, please, let Ratatouille win Animated Film.

[Spinal]

Please, please, let Ratatouille win Animated Film.

That's pretty much guaranteed I think.

[MacGuffin]

So I watched This Is England twice now, and I really love it a lot. Who's with me on this one?

[MadMan]

That's pretty much guaranteed I think.Yep. I think Spirited Away and Happy Feet are the only non-PIXAR films to win Best Animation Movie at the Oscars.

[number8]

I saw the trailer for Persepolis and it annoys the hell out of me.

Uh, what? You are crazy.

(Don't really remember the trailer but the movie is fantastic.)

[number8]

So I watched This Is England twice now, and I really love it a lot. Who's with me on this one?

Sure (http://www.justpressplay.net/movies/this-is-england/review/). :P

[Qrazy]

Well, Jarman's Caravaggio was much better than Jubilee, which is one of the worst films I've ever seen. It wasn't particularly good though, or maybe I just can't stand postmodern anachronistic mash ups in general, but I don't think that's necessarily the case. With postmodernist stylings one has the potential to distill a man, an artist, a story down to it's essence or to pack the tale to the brim with esoteric connections and references in order to communicate in an all inclusive manner. I see neither on display here. A series of nods and references to art, fashion, the life of Caravaggio, the gods, Jesus, etc... some of the references are meaningful, most are provocation. I didn't come away from the film with much insight into Caravaggio, or art in general... which is a pity given that the artist in question was renowned for his psychological realism.

[origami_mustache]

So I watched This Is England twice now, and I really love it a lot. Who's with me on this one?

It was my second favorite film of the year not long ago, but continued to slip just out of the top ten.

[Spinal]

Yep. I think Spirited Away and Happy Feet are the only non-PIXAR films to win Best Animation Movie at the Oscars.

Shrek?

[Winston*]

Shrek?

Wallace and Gromit too.

[lovejuice]

:eek:

I loves me some Sound of Music.


:lol::lol:

see, i always know there are sound-of-music and my-fair-lady people.

i don't think only because it's outdoor will make one superior to the other. in fact, i prefer a more stagey feeling of MFL to SoM. and as already mentioned, the second half of SoM is rather weak.

[Sycophant]

Ratatouille (2007, Bird/Pinkava)The way you credit this is interesting.

[Qrazy]

Ehh Family Plot was pretty stupid, but I liked the way Joe wrote himself out of the picture.

[Qrazy]

Punishment Park - Solid film-making (cinematically); One-dimensional characters

[Qrazy]

Does anyone else here find the kangaroo court at the end of Oklahoma (the play, I assume the film is the same) absolutely despicable?

[Raiders]

Punishment Park - Solid film-making (cinematically); One-dimensional characters

:|

They seemed frightfully real to me, particularly after such incidents like Kent State which are clearly what inspired the film. I initially was a little unsure of the authority figures, but when they took the lunch break and the camera interviews some of them, I thought it developed them extremely well, giving a fairly clear glimpse into their beliefs. Characters need not express both sides of the equation to avoid being one-dimensional; they merely need to be able to express their side with more than one tone and argument, and the film accomplishes this very well.

[Raiders]

I saw the trailer for Persepolis and it annoys the hell out of me. Please, please, let Ratatouille win Animated Film.

I really think you deserve negative rep for this, but I'll refrain. I mean, it is a freakin' trailer. In the end, I like both films about the same so I don't care which one wins, but to make this kind of idiotic statement based on a trailer is just lame to the nth degree.

[Ezee E]

I really think you deserve negative rep for this, but I'll refrain. I mean, it is a freakin' trailer. In the end, I like both films about the same so I don't care which one wins, but to make this kind of idiotic statement based on a trailer is just lame to the nth degree.
I don't like the movie because of what the trailer presents, I don't get what's so bad about that.

[EvilShoe]

I don't like the movie because of what the trailer presents, I don't get what's so bad about that.
Then I like Pearl Harbor, because of what that teaser presented? :confused:

Anyway, Persepolis was a good one. I'd like to see it again with the original voice work sometime. Sean Penn's "performance" bothered me mightily.
I preferred the storytelling in Ratatouille though, as Persepolis often lost itself in exposition.

That doesn't mean I would mind it winning though.

[Boner M]

I watched Inside Paris earlier today. For it's running time, I found it mostly annoying, pretentious, precious, sluggish, tonally uncertain, and slavishly devoted to evoking Godard/Truffaut but only in the most facile and calculated ways. Yet the family scenes have real truth to them and make me wish that Honore was less emptily formalist in his treatment of such a human-based story. HOWEVER! his compositions and directorial choices, when not aping his heroes, are fresh and interesting, and the feel for the city is present in every frame. An frustrating film in that the gap between form and content is so large, yet it's so accomplished at both ends. And few actors in modern cinema can play narcissism and opacity better than Romain Duris.

Anyone seen it? (Jesse?)

[Raiders]

I don't like the movie because of what the trailer presents, I don't get what's so bad about that.

Are you serious? Do you really think a film can be judged based on its trailer? Do you really think two minutes of spliced footage not controlled by the director is indicative in any way of the end result?

[Derek]

Are you serious? Do you really think a film can be judged based on its trailer? Do you really think two minutes of spliced footage not controlled by the director is indicative in any way of the end result?

What's the saying...always judge a book by its cover?

:confused:

[dreamdead]

Though I'll be in a car for an eight drive back to Ohio, this week(end)'s viewings look like this:

2nd half of Children of Paradise (first half = excellent)
I Don't Want to Sleep Alone
Once
Damnation

[Spinal]

Punishment Park - Solid film-making (cinematically); One-dimensional characters

It's not really a film about character development. It's a film about expressing a potent political message, which it does masterfully in my opinion. Watkins' films work in a different way than a typical drama. They are staged like journalistic pieces. The conceit is that we only know the characters as well as someone might who was covering the events for a news agency.

[monolith94]

I think I finally get what Peter Greenaway is saying about cinema dying on September 21, 1983; and I most declare: he has a point. The remote control, an invention which came out on the aforementioned date provided the average moviegoer with the luxury of pausing the film, stopping the film, skipping ahead, and going back in the privacy of their own home. By doing this, however, we're ruining what makes a film a film. Since film is all about the transitions of images in order to express a theme, we are, by pausing the film and stopping the film to watch the rest for a later date (and I must admit, I do this often), we're ruining the directors intentions of creating an unparalleled unique experience, and really not giving the film the proper attention it deserves in gradually developing characters or building emotional impact. It doesn't matter if you're pausing it to use the restroom, or to go to the grocery store. You're pausing it. You're pausing the emotions being developed, and thus, ruining the momentum that the film is building.
I don't know. I think alot of filmmakers are pretty stupid, and I know better than them when their film needs an intermission.

[number8]

Anyway, Persepolis was a good one. I'd like to see it again with the original voice work sometime. Sean Penn's "performance" bothered me mightily.

They showed the english version in Belgium?!

I saw it in the original voicework. It's wonderful.

[monolith94]

I saw the trailer for Persepolis and it annoys the hell out of me. Please, please, let Ratatouille win Animated Film.
Bah, one minute of Persepolis was worth more cinematically than an hour of Ratatouille.

[Watashi]

I like the Persepolis trailer. It shows a bit too much though.

[monolith94]

I like the Persepolis trailer. It shows a bit too much though.
Have you read the books?

[Watashi]

Have you read the books?
No.

[NickGlass]

I watched Inside Paris earlier today. For it's running time, I found it mostly annoying, pretentious, precious, sluggish, tonally uncertain, and slavishly devoted to evoking Godard/Truffaut but only in the most facile and calculated ways. Yet the family scenes have real truth to them and make me wish that Honore was less emptily formalist in his treatment of such a human-based story. HOWEVER! his compositions and directorial choices, when not aping his heroes, are fresh and interesting, and the feel for the city is present in every frame. An frustrating film in that the gap between form and content is so large, yet it's so accomplished at both ends. And few actors in modern cinema can play narcissism and opacity better than Romain Duris.

Anyone seen it? (Jesse?)

Ermm. It's one of my favorites of 2007. (I don't believe Jesse has seen it yet)

Below are my initial thoughts from June (July?). It's aged well in my mind, which is odd because I found myself enjoying the film on a spiritual level more than an intellectual one.

A francophile’s dream.

Sure. The opening is a bit troubling, and immediately worried me, as the film begins with direct address narration about his brother's depression that is way, way too self-aware (and repeatedly states its self-aware quality, like a French Kiss Kiss Bang, Bang, excusing the absent narrator's omniscience--but I don't believe stating a flaw makes the flaw any less objectionable). Soon, however, I caught onto its wavelength and Garrel's opening monologue-of-sorts completely worked for me. It's that type of seriousness that is undercut with jubilant joy that charmed the hell out of me. Honoré takes a completely different, and more refreshing, approach to this subject matter than he did with the shocking, yet empty, Ma Mere. The familial love here is just as dysfunctional, yet less bluntly oedipal and more psychologically complex and plausible.

It's hard for a film about depression to be anything but overbearing and dull, but Honoré and Romain Duris manage to realistically depict the ailment without it being unbearably frustrating (Garrel is also to thank). Here, Honoré takes chances mixing loneliness and familial instability with exuberant subplots involving Garrel's charismatic ladies man that paid off for me, although I can't predict it will work for everyone. Perhaps I admire Honoré the most for his balancing of multiple moods. He composes scenes that are both melancholy and frothy, strings them together, and still manages to avoid jarring intonality.

As I've said, Garrel adds a playful lightness (he's an absolute hoot), while he and Duris lend universality as brothers while still maintaining the gravitas necessary to handle the weighty subject matter. There's an absolutely wonderful scene which I won't spoil (but I'll let you know that it takes place over the phone that ranks as my favorite of the year so far). The film isn't always consistent, and some of its allusions to the French New Wave are pretty shallow, but damn it's an odd sort of pleaser.

Oh, and I swear there's a stipulation in Louis Garrel's contract that says he must be able to drop trou in any film in which he appears. I swear, the amount of peen shots in that guy's oeuvre is only rivaled by Gael Garcia Bernal.

[EvilShoe]

They showed the english version in Belgium?!

I saw it in the original voicework. It's wonderful.
That was also my reaction. Apparently the other version played here a couple of months ago, but in select theaters in Brussels.

It got a wider release with the English version.

[jesse]

:lol::lol:

see, i always know there are sound-of-music and my-fair-lady people.

i don't think only because it's outdoor will make one superior to the other. in fact, i prefer a more stagey feeling of MFL to SoM. and as already mentioned, the second half of SoM is rather weak. Actually, that might very well be the case. :)

I didn't say that its location work makes it a superior film, I said it makes it's one of the ways in which SoM is a highly cinematic film. And as I think the entire playbook of MFL has some major weaknesses, I think that trumps SoM's weaker second half.

[jesse]

Sweeping hills, cute kids, and Rogers and Hammerstein do not, my friend, express cinema. And I'm afraid that's all this boring, glossy, cheap, and, yes, staid film has to offer. Terrible, terrible offal. And thinking more about this I have to say that this serves as a good example of how many "film buffs" are so wrapped up in their dislike of of SoM's sentimental streaks that they overlook what merit the film might actually have.

[Qrazy]

:|

They seemed frightfully real to me, particularly after such incidents like Kent State which are clearly what inspired the film. I initially was a little unsure of the authority figures, but when they took the lunch break and the camera interviews some of them, I thought it developed them extremely well, giving a fairly clear glimpse into their beliefs. Characters need not express both sides of the equation to avoid being one-dimensional; they merely need to be able to express their side with more than one tone and argument, and the film accomplishes this very well.

Perhaps it was just bad acting that didn't sell it for me, but I think it was also the way the character's were drawn that put me off. I don't mean that they had to express both sides of the equation, but that they should have had more nuance. If I was a documentarian in this context I would have asked the characters about their feelings and their pasts, not just about their politics and their situation. That is to say that I feel Watkins opts away from a sense of temporal and psychological depth in favor of keeping the tension high. I don't want to hear about how the pigs are just gonna kill us over and over again, that's fine and makes sense given the context but I also want to hear about the history of the character's beyond their transient reality as a student or a political leader. If Watkins had delved into the history of these characters, and made them into someone's children, actually made them into that (I hope you know what I'm attempting to express when I say this) vs. citing the fact as an argument against the way they were being treated... if he had done that, I feel the film would have been much stronger in it's execution. As it is I feel instead it undermines (not completely but to a degree) it's devastating message about the very real suspension of habeus corpus, jury by peers, etc and so forth. There was potential for some quiet moments such as these during the nights, but instead Watkins opts for a cut from dusk to dawn to keep the focus on the chase scene and on the tension.

[Sven]

And thinking more about this I have to say that this serves as a good example of how many "film buffs" are so wrapped up in their dislike of of SoM's sentimental streaks that they overlook what merit the film might actually have.

I'm not adverse to sentiment. I am adverse to bland.

[Qrazy]

It's not really a film about character development. It's a film about expressing a potent political message, which it does masterfully in my opinion. Watkins' films work in a different way than a typical drama. They are staged like journalistic pieces. The conceit is that we only know the characters as well as someone might who was covering the events for a news agency.

Perhaps, but watch any single scene from an Errol Morris documentary and you'll see a greater range of psychological and emotional depth demonstrated than I felt was on display in the entire picture. The problem for me is that because of the weak acting and sketchily drawn characters I felt that it undermined it's potent political message.

[Sven]

I'm not adverse to sentiment. I am adverse to bland.

Oh, and just for the record, I don't like My Fair Lady either. But I am a fan of Annie, which is quite sentimental.

[jesse]

I watched Inside Paris earlier today. For it's running time, I found it mostly annoying, pretentious, precious, sluggish, tonally uncertain, and slavishly devoted to evoking Godard/Truffaut but only in the most facile and calculated ways. Yet the family scenes have real truth to them and make me wish that Honore was less emptily formalist in his treatment of such a human-based story. HOWEVER! his compositions and directorial choices, when not aping his heroes, are fresh and interesting, and the feel for the city is present in every frame. An frustrating film in that the gap between form and content is so large, yet it's so accomplished at both ends. And few actors in modern cinema can play narcissism and opacity better than Romain Duris.

Anyone seen it? (Jesse?) Unfortunately, it never made its way to San Diego, and so I'm eagerly awaiting the DVD release on January 8.

Caught Chansons d'amour (Songs of Love) at TIFF though, and it confirmed that for all of his shortcomings as a filmmaker he's one of the most interesting around, and once he finds his own style he's going to come up with something really, really great. So far I'm 2/2 with Honore, and I'm fully expecting Dans Paris will make 3/3.

[Yxklyx]

I didn't find Valley of the Dolls campy, trashy, so-bad-it's-good, or badly made. It was just overlong and dull. Meh.

[Watashi]

http://www.criterion.com/content/images/full_boxshot/426_box_348x490.jpg

http://www.criterion.com/content/images/full_boxshot/424_box_348x490.jpg

http://www.criterion.com/content/images/full_boxshot/425_box_348x490.jpg

[Philosophe_rouge]

I didn't find Valley of the Dolls campy, trashy, so-bad-it's-good, or badly made. It was just overlong and dull. Meh.
Does anybody think it's so bad it's good? I'm with you, I couldn't even finish it. SOOOO boring.

[Qrazy]

Whoever does the cover art for Criterion kicks so much ass.

[jesse]

Does anybody think it's so bad it's good? I'm with you, I couldn't even finish it. SOOOO boring. Ohhh... yes, yes, I think it's so bad it's amazing.

Maybe it's a gay thing. :lol:

[Bosco B Thug]

Perhaps, but watch any single scene from an Errol Morris documentary and you'll see a greater range of psychological and emotional depth demonstrated than I felt was on display in the entire picture. The problem for me is that because of the weak acting and sketchily drawn characters I felt that it undermined it's potent political message. Haven't seen any Errol Morris so not sure if I know exactly what you mean, but developing the characters in PP would've been at the risk of losing its punch. Allegory tends toward representational types anyway instead of nuanced character, but also the broadness of the characters speaks volumes thematically of the gap or void that separates the mindsets and unthinking personalities of both the detainees and the panel (and the cops caught in the crossfire). As Spinal said, we learn of these people only what we would learn from media that functions to extrapolate their salient political views, and so the movie gives us the same sense of that hopeless irreconcilability we get from reading (mundanely impassioned, most likely narrow-minded) right-wing and left-wing tracts or editorials. Plus, it would be at the risk of banality. What guarantees these people are more interesting or more substantial in any way past the political crusading they feel they need to do? But then that's a horrible, horrible point of view. :lol:

[Ezee E]

Are you serious? Do you really think a film can be judged based on its trailer? Do you really think two minutes of spliced footage not controlled by the director is indicative in any way of the end result?
We do it all the time in the Upcoming Movies thread don't we? We judge whether we'll see a movie based off the trailer.

[MadMan]

Oh, and just for the record, I don't like My Fair Lady either. But I am a fan of Annie, which is quite sentimental.I hate Annie (the movie) as well. I'm trying to see more musicals but with the exception of some films featured in it (South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut, The Wizard of Oz) I really can't seem to get into it. I once saw a scene from West Side Story where the characters in it were dance fighting, and instead of enjoying I started laughing. That's not a good sign...

And due to the weather and the fact that the truck I drive in my home town (its my dads-my previous car no longer exists) I will not be seeing No Country for Old Men today. And since I was going to hang with friends tomorrow a viewing of it probably won't happen on Sunday either. Nuts.

[Melville]

Has anybody watched the clip from Youth Without Youth at RT? It's awesome. All the negative reviews complaining about the film's high levels of bizarreness and incomprehensibility also have me intrigued.

[MacGuffin]

I originally had called Godard cinema, and while he's a great and prolific director, looking back, I realize just how foolish that statement is. I'm not really sure what cinema is, but I think, after a break from watching movies, I'm willing to have a more open view of things. That said, apologies to anybody I may have offended with my elitist comments and pretentious intentions.

[Philosophe_rouge]

I originally had called Godard cinema, and while he's a great and prolific director, looking back, I realize just how foolish that statement is. I'm not really sure what cinema is, but I think, after a break from watching movies, I'm willing to have a more open view of things. That said, apologies to anybody I may have offended with my elitist comments and pretentious intentions.

I forgive you.

[Rowland]

Has anybody watched the clip from Youth Without Youth at RT? It's awesome. All the negative reviews complaining about the film's high levels of bizarreness and incomprehensibility also have me intrigued.I'm worried more by how explicitly literal and dialog-intensive its detractors are accusing Coppola of being in his philosophical ruminations. Nevertheless, Coppola at his most baroque is always a sight to behold.

[Rowland]

I originally had called Godard cinema, and while he's a great and prolific director, looking back, I realize just how foolish that statement is. I'm not really sure what cinema is, but I think, after a break from watching movies, I'm willing to have a more open view of things. That said, apologies to anybody I may have offended with my elitist comments and pretentious intentions.http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/8663/spidermanforgivems8.jpg

[Spinal]

Godard isn't cinema. He's a very naughty boy.

[Boner M]

Awesome Cinematheque program for the summer.

Force of Evil
Nightmare Alley
Portrait of Jennie
Peter Ibbetson (which came with the Gary Cooper set I bought recently, so I might not catch it)
Kings Row
Angels With Dirty Faces
Plus a lineup of classic silent comedy shorts, a Peter Whitehead double, and a bunch of Grindhouse obscurities.

:pritch:

[Qrazy]

Haven't seen any Errol Morris so not sure if I know exactly what you mean, but developing the characters in PP would've been at the risk of losing its punch. Allegory tends toward representational types anyway instead of nuanced character, but also the broadness of the characters speaks volumes thematically of the gap or void that separates the mindsets and unthinking personalities of both the detainees and the panel (and the cops caught in the crossfire). As Spinal said, we learn of these people only what we would learn from media that functions to extrapolate their salient political views, and so the movie gives us the same sense of that hopeless irreconcilability we get from reading (mundanely impassioned, most likely narrow-minded) right-wing and left-wing tracts or editorials. Plus, it would be at the risk of banality. What guarantees these people are more interesting or more substantial in any way past the political crusading they feel they need to do? But then that's a horrible, horrible point of view. :lol:

The experience just struck me as ultimately false, a constructed reality in order to export it's message, rather than an honest reality which would have exposed the true horror of a very possible potential reality. I concede that much of this had to do with the weak acting, but the entire construction of the film, perhaps even the punch itself, the waving and dodging camera, the abrupt cuts, providing the detainees with all of the substantial philosophical rhetoric, etc... further cemented for me the conclusion that the film was somehow missing it's own point. The tribunal in The Passion of Joan or Arc was as one-sided and condemnatory as the one here, but in the former the facial expressions on display presented emotional justification for their willful inhumanity. I didn't feel that psychological depth on display in punishment park, and I don't think this lack can be sufficiently attributed to the film's approach as a faux-documentary.

[Qrazy]

I originally had called Godard cinema, and while he's a great and prolific director, looking back, I realize just how foolish that statement is. I'm not really sure what cinema is, but I think, after a break from watching movies, I'm willing to have a more open view of things. That said, apologies to anybody I may have offended with my elitist comments and pretentious intentions.

Just don't let it happen again. :evil:

I kid.

[Derek]

Nightmare Alley

This one was a lot of fun to see in theater, as you'd imagine from a film where Tyrone Power bites the heads off of chickens. :)

[Sven]

I originally had called Godard cinema, and while he's a great and prolific director, looking back, I realize just how foolish that statement is. I'm not really sure what cinema is, but I think, after a break from watching movies, I'm willing to have a more open view of things. That said, apologies to anybody I may have offended with my elitist comments and pretentious intentions.

Good start. Now apologize about Wes Anderson! :)

[MacGuffin]

Good start. Now apologize about Wes Anderson! :)

Never! :)

Now, I'm in the mood to try and start articulating my thoughts and writing about films in the form of essays, and I even got a book called "A Short Guide to Writing About Film" by Timothy J. Corrigan to help me out. So my question is, if I felt the need to start a thread where people could exchange links to their favorite essays, reviews, or general film criticisms, or links to their own essays, reviews, or general film criticisms, would it be more appropriate to put the thread in the General Film Discussion or the Literature forum? Keeping in mind, I'd like to actually put a focus on the writing styles themselves while still maintaining a stronger focus on views and theories.

[Sven]

Never! :)

Now, I'm in the mood to try and start articulating my thoughts and writing about films in the form of essays, and I even got a book called "A Short Guide to Writing About Film" by Timothy J. Corrigan to help me out. So my question is, if I felt the need to start a thread where people could exchange links to their favorite essays, reviews, or general film criticisms, or links to their own essays, reviews, or general film criticisms, would it be more appropriate to put the thread in the General Film Discussion or the Literature forum? Keeping in mind, I'd like to actually put a focus on the writing styles themselves while still maintaining a stronger focus on views and theories.

1) That's a real good book you got. I used it in my Film Theory class.

2) Start it in the GFD.

[MacGuffin]

1) That's a real good book you got. I used it in my Film Theory class.

2) Start it in the GFD.

Good to know. I've already read the preface and Chapter 1, and have skimmed through the rest of it. I'll probably reread Chapter 1 tomorrow, but I have a feeling I'm going to want to be doing some writing on I Don't Want to Sleep Alone, which I will be watching tonight. So we will see.

[Raiders]

Frank Langella's performance in the surprisingly poignant, effective Starting Out in the Evening is simply marvelous. Easily the most memorable I have seen all year.

[Melville]

Sirk's Imitation of Life was terrific. It wove together its two narrative threads about a pair of mothers and daughters with amazing finesse, continually expanding its scope from a beginning as a seemingly minor melodrama to a truly epic ending, imbuing the relationship between the two families with ever more meaning about race, family, social roles, and performance. I'm amazed at how much ground it covered in its two hour running time, and at how smoothly it covered it. Great stuff.

[Qrazy]

Sirk's Imitation of Life was terrific. It wove together its two narrative threads about a pair of mothers and daughters with amazing finesse, continually expanding its scope from a beginning as a seemingly minor melodrama to a truly epic ending, imbuing the relationship between the two families with ever more meaning about race, family, social roles, and performance. I'm amazed at how much ground it covered in its two hour running time, and at how smoothly it covered it. Great stuff.

Really want to see this and All that Heaven Allows after having seen Written on the Wind about a year ago.

[Boner M]

So Alpha Dog was pretty awful, but Ben Foster's absurd twitchfest performance and random kung-fu moves, Sharon Stone oscarbaiting in a fat suit, and Harry Dean Stanton being senile and comically misogynist at least ensure it isn't entirely dull. There's a scene where the main character watches Austin Powers on TV during the extended, funny-through-perseverance scene where Myers tries to turn his vehicle around in a narrow corridor, and sometimes John's untalented son will attempt the same thing but with the film's drama; stretching scenes further than necessary and having his actors act themselves hoarse in the hope of some sort of truth(?) emerging... but few of them have the chops for that kinda thing, so the effect is merely exasperating. I pretty much tuned out during the Bully-aping coda, and have no intention on revisiting it.

[Grouchy]

Diamonds are Forever is the weakest entry in the Connery 007 canon. It has many problems, but I think the main one is that the producers had finally sold out in not paying good fees to writers and just making a movie out of location shooting, women and chases - which isn't a bad idea, if only those were good. Instead, Diamonds self-destroys in its quest to be entertaining, because it creates impossible scenarios for Bond to escape, which he does absolutely effortlessly (the coffin scene), and basically throws all rhyme and reason out of the window (the diamonds activating the ray, the moon buggy); Guy Hamilton is a competent enough director, but he doesn't do anything out of the ordinary here. There's a weird scene near the beginning where M is unusually abusive to Bond, and the scene also reveals that the film shares some half-assed continuity with On her Majesty's Secret Service. Charles Gray as Blofeld is 100% charisma-free and a piss-poor Telly Savallas replacement, though. The best part of this movie are the female bodyguards Bambi and Thumper.

Inspired by the praise here at Matchcut I rented Johnnie To's Exiled. Fuck me oh Jesus, what a movie. It has some of the themes and pacing of a Western, and it's all perfectly adapted to Macau soil. The four exiled hitmen are a wonderful selection from To's usual troupe of actors, and they really look like friends as they mock each other and shoot their way out of their fucked-up situation. And the shoot-outs aren't any regular action scene, either - they're visually striking, graceful, and they look and sound just right. This is a superior action movie, filled with emotion and the kind of tight editing every movie based on constant gunfire needs. The masterful acting and To's own poetic and cynical brand of humor adds the needed depth to the tale of honor, friendship, misguided revenge and Triad loyalties. It's a Shakespearean tragedy starring awesome gunslingers.

[Scar]

Why oh why must I stop and watch Jaws: The Revenge when its on cable. Good Lord, what an abomination.