28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[Philosophe_rouge]

Nashville is incredible, I've been meaning to buy it....

[Dead & Messed Up]

I don't know how you guys have the stamina for the extended debate thing. I write a full paragraph and I feel like taking the rest of the day off.

When you're young, you can keep it up and go for hours.

[balmakboor]

I've wrestled with and gone back and forth on the question: "Which is better? Nashville or Short Cuts?" I just dunno. They're both pretty amazing.

[megladon8]

Sexy Beast was pretty good. It was not at all what I had been expecting, which was a good thing actually.

Funny thing - while Ben Kingsley seems to have gotten all of the attention for his performance (which was astounding, for sure) I actually found Ian McShane to be the one I couldn't take my eyes off of whenever he was on screen.

A very good, darkly comedic gangster picture. Really enjoyed it.

[Qrazy]

I've wrestled with and gone back and forth on the question: "Which is better? Nashville or Short Cuts?" I just dunno. They're both pretty amazing.

I found Short Cuts to have more memorable characters and exchanges but Nashville is perhaps more formally precise.

[trotchky]

Read some of his recent posts.

Why don't you read some of my recent posts, pal? Have you seen that thread on Moon where I called it a great movie? How 'bout the TV Discussion Forum where I've done nothing but praise shows such as True Blood and Mad Men? What about that time, I think it was a few days ago, where I said Dazed & Confused was top 10 material? This was around the same time Qrazy went on record (http://match-cut.org/showpost.php?p=185818&postcount=31839) adjusting my signature for inflation.

To answer your question, I do like things, just not things that are pointless shit.

[balmakboor]

I found Short Cuts to have more memorable characters and exchanges but Nashville is perhaps more formally precise.

I think I agree with this completely.

[Sycophant]

Read some of his recent posts.

Yeah, man, I'm just sayin'. Saying "Do you not like anything?" is usually pretty bad, but if you're going to use it, maybe use in on like Annie Hall or Citizen Kane or Whisper of the Heart or something. Don't pick your battle over a Zach Snyder movie.

[Spinal]

Zach Snyder is cinema.

[MacGuffin]

Spinal, check your PMs!

[Qrazy]

Mad Monk was a crazy mess of a film, but it made me laugh.

[Spinal]

Spinal, check your PMs!

I wrote something on Onibaba for the top 100 thread on the old site. I thought it was lost, but it looks like that was one I happened to save on my computer. I'll post it on my blog in just a second.

[Sycophant]

Mad Monk was a crazy mess of a film, but it made me laugh.

Watched this again last month. Crazy mess indeed. It was less good than I remembered it being, but gave me quite a few laughs. Also, the only pre-1998 Johnnie To film I've seen so far.

Pity you didn't like Forbidden City Cop more. I've watched that film so much, I practically have it memorized, and I still laugh raucously every time I watch it.

[D_Davis]

Zach Snyder is cinema.

Obviously.

[Spinal]

Spinal, check your PMs!

OK, here you go. (http://filmepidemic.blogspot.com/2009/07/onibaba-shindo-1964.html)

[Qrazy]

Watched this again last month. Crazy mess indeed. It was less good than I remembered it being, but gave me quite a few laughs. Also, the only pre-1998 Johnnie To film I've seen so far.

Apparently the music that plays at the end of the film when he gets a promotion is from Miss HK, haha.

The Eight Happiness is funny. I'm watching Justice, My Foot! right now.


Pity you didn't like Forbidden City Cop more. I've watched that film so much, I practically have it memorized, and I still laugh raucously every time I watch it.

I actually liked it quite a bit, lots of little moments I loved... opening sequence licking the girl for instance. I could probably bump it up to a B- but I watched it on youtube so the poor image quality knocked it down (no fault of the film).

[Sycophant]

Have you seen Love on Delivery? You should see Love on Delivery.

[Qrazy]

OK, here you go. (http://filmepidemic.blogspot.com/2009/07/onibaba-shindo-1964.html)

In relation to Shindo I found this (http://www.filmref.com/directors/dirpages/shindo.html) website. Makes me want to get on his three or four well reputed later films.

[Qrazy]

Have you seen Love on Delivery? You should see Love on Delivery.

Yep, funny stuff but by far his least formally proficient film... still frequently hilarious though and that's the main thing with these films. The only one I haven't seen is From Beijing with Love and it appears from your post on that other thread that I'm not missing too much... but I'll watch it eventually.

[MacGuffin]

In relation to Shindo I found this (http://www.filmref.com/directors/dirpages/shindo.html) website. Makes me want to get on his three or four well reputed later films.

Strictly Film School rocks. Masters of Cinema has put out three of Shindo's most well-known movies on DVD and I'm probably picking up Onibaba is why I ask (and while I've heard The Naked Island is good, it doesn't particularly interest me right now, especially considering Janus/Criterion has the rights, which means a possible R1 DVD in the near future).

[Spinal]

In relation to Shindo I found this (http://www.filmref.com/directors/dirpages/shindo.html) website. Makes me want to get on his three or four well reputed later films.

Only seen two of his films, but I imagine he would be an exciting one to explore further. I tried watching The Island one time though and was bored out of my mind. Not sure what was up there since it has a high IMDb rating. Might have to try again sometime.

[MacGuffin]

I watched my first Agnes Varda film recently, which also happened to be her first film, La pointe-courte:

I haven't seen it, but I haven't heard too many good things.

[Qrazy]

Strictly Film School rocks. Masters of Cinema has put out three of Shindo's most well-known movies on DVD and I'm probably picking up Onibaba is why I ask (and while I've heard The Naked Island is good, it doesn't particularly interest me right now, especially considering Janus/Criterion has the rights, which means a possible R1 DVD in the near future).

They're both excellent.

[MacGuffin]

Only seen two of his films, but I imagine he would be an exciting one to explore further. I tried watching The Island one time though and was bored out of my mind. Not sure what was up there since it has a high IMDb rating. Might have to try again sometime.

If that's the one I was talking about earlier, then yeah, it didn't exactly look too exciting to me, although I'm sure it's not too bad, especially if you like those pseudo-documentaries. I guess it's basically Shindo and his film crew filming people who live on an island and how they live on that island (the island, I've heard was actually basically empty in real life). I guess it has room for poignancy.

[Qrazy]

Only seen two of his films, but I imagine he would be an exciting one to explore further. I tried watching The Island one time though and was bored out of my mind. Not sure what was up there since it has a high IMDb rating. Might have to try again sometime.

Hrm kind of surprised you felt that way, hope you like it more on a second viewing. My ranking...

1. Onibaba
2. Naked Island

3. Kuroneko


4. Children of Hiroshima

[Qrazy]

If that's the one I was talking about earlier, then yeah, it didn't exactly look too exciting to me, although I'm sure it's not too bad, especially if you like those pseudo-documentaries. I guess it's basically Shindo and his film crew filming people who live on an island and how they live on that island (the island, I've heard was actually basically empty in real life). I guess it has room for poignancy.

It's not like that at all. I mean yeah it's about filming the people who live on the island but there's also quite a bit of drama as well. It's a beautiful film. There's nothing documentary about the style. There isn't much dialogue though, it's a very visual film.

[MacGuffin]

It's not like that at all. I mean yeah it's about filming the people who live on the island but there's also quite a bit of drama as well. It's a beautiful film.

Yeah, I'll check it out sometime probably, especially if it comes out on Criterion.

[Amnesiac]

I haven't seen it, but I haven't heard too many good things.

It's worth a look as it's visually splendid and there are some very poignant and interesting moments. But yeah, something about it didn't quite resonate with me or provoke too much interest.

As a side note to my comments above, I should mention that I came across a nice-write up on Varda by A.O. Scott (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/28/movies/28scot.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&hpw) after first watching the film that discusses the film and her career. He eloquently reiterates some of what I had already observed on my first viewing ("a liberating willingness to find inspiration and even beauty in what might conventionally be dismissed as rough, ugly or commonplace.") and sheds light on some other things, such as the whole naturalistic/artifice binary that is apparently pretty intrinsic to her entire career.

She's garnered a lot of praise so I won't, of course, discount her based on her first feature (which, despite not being the most captivating film around, had some very interesting aspects and was visually quite strong).

[Spinal]

It's not like that at all. I mean yeah it's about filming the people who live on the island but there's also quite a bit of drama as well. It's a beautiful film. There's nothing documentary about the style. There isn't much dialogue though, it's a very visual film.

Doesn't the whole first half-hour consist of someone going up and/or down a hillside to fetch water? That's as far as I got.

[Qrazy]

Doesn't the whole first half-hour consist of someone going up and/or down a hillside to fetch water? That's as far as I got.

Yeah. I can sympathize with finding routine films monotonous but I found this one quite touching. Do give it another shot, the languorous beginning comes full circle by the end.

[Sycophant]

I watched After the Thin Man last night. It was fun! But not as fun as the first film. The dog antics were occasionally cute, but mostly irritating. The big Chinese dude's broken English hurt my mind, it was so bad. But at least he was actually Chinese, so go Hollywood. It's amazing how James Stewart was so James Stewart before he was James Stewart. Loy & Powell were a joy to watch. Some really good comic timing.

I like how what one does to recuperate from having one's loved ones killed is traveling around the country/world with Nick & Nora Charles on a train.

[Spinal]

Yeah. I can sympathize with finding routine films monotonous but I found this one quite touching. Do give it another shot, the languorous beginning comes full circle by the end.

I figured it was probably going somewhere since it had such a good reputation. Just wasn't in the mood on that particular night, I suppose.

[Skitch]

Yeah, man, I'm just sayin'. Saying "Do you not like anything?" is usually pretty bad, but if you're going to use it, maybe use in on like Annie Hall or Citizen Kane or Whisper of the Heart or something. Don't pick your battle over a Zach Snyder movie.

Oh I wasn't picking that movie, I just clicked 'new posts' the other day, and half a dozen upcoming and recent films he had the last response on, they were all either 'total shit' or 'looks terrible'. I only chose to comment on it there because he bought a film he saw almost twice in the theater. Does he have memory problems? I've never seen a movie more than once in the theater, then bought it the day it came out, to bitch about how terrible it is online. Just sayin'.

And trotchky? Relax. Sorry if I caught you on a negative mood. Sorry I reflected on what I perceived.

[Ezee E]

Read two pages of the Shining discussion, but then it got ridiculous, and I had to scroll through three other pages Phew.

Winston, tell me what you think of Flame & Citron. I liked it a ton.

[Sycophant]

Read two pages of the Shining discussion, but then it got ridiculous, and I had to scroll through three other pages Phew.

Come now. It was ridiculous long before two pages.

[transmogrifier]

Read two pages of the Shining discussion, but then it got ridiculous, and I had to scroll through three other pages Phew.

Winston, tell me what you think of Flame & Citron. I liked it a ton.

Tell me about it. I made an awesome crack about the deification of Kubrick, and it was lost in the ether.

*sulks*

[Duncan]

I read up to the point where the hotel had an Indian motif because it was in Colorado and then quit.

[BuffaloWilder]

So, nobody reads Cinephobia? Am I the only one?

[Sycophant]

So, nobody reads Cinephobia? Am I the only one?

Guess not. Got any compelling reasons why we should?

[BuffaloWilder]

He's an interesting writer, I think.

[balmakboor]

I watched my first Agnes Varda film recently, which also happened to be her first film, La pointe-courte:

http://serseliafam.files.wordpress.co m/2009/03/lapointecourte9.jpg



Isn't that shot like straight out of Persona or something?

[Amnesiac]

Isn't that shot like straight out of Persona or something?

Yeah, it reminded me of Bergman as well but it's been a while since I last saw Persona so I couldn't be sure and didn't bother mentioning it. If there is a similarity, Varda utilized the shot more than ten years before Bergman got around to it. Not that this matters.

[trotchky]

Oh I wasn't picking that movie, I just clicked 'new posts' the other day, and half a dozen upcoming and recent films he had the last response on, they were all either 'total shit' or 'looks terrible'. I only chose to comment on it there because he bought a film he saw almost twice in the theater. Does he have memory problems? I've never seen a movie more than once in the theater, then bought it the day it came out, to bitch about how terrible it is online. Just sayin'.

And trotchky? Relax. Sorry if I caught you on a negative mood. Sorry I reflected on what I perceived.

I have some memory problems, yes.

Anyway, it's all good, dawgg. I was mainly just being jocular.

[B-side]

I like you, Amnesiac. Just thought I'd say that.

Anywho, time to watch Sweet Movie.

[Winston*]

Read two pages of the Shining discussion, but then it got ridiculous, and I had to scroll through three other pages Phew.

Winston, tell me what you think of Flame & Citron. I liked it a ton.

Yeah, this was very good. Guaranteed to out moral ambiguity all competitor's Nazi killing pictures.

[B-side]

Sweet Movie was great. I liked it even more than Mysteries of the Organism. Really strong Jodorowsky vibe with Sweet Movie. It felt like a combination of The Holy Mountain and Salo. Not as good as the former, but possibly better than the latter.

[BuffaloWilder]

There's a segment of that Hunter S. Thompson omnibus documentary, Fear and Loathing In Gonzovision, where he and Ralph Steadman are driving through town, and the radio is playing some weird, angelic orchestral piece of music.

Does anyone have any idea what that piece of music might be?

[BuffaloWilder]

Wait, no need.

It's Thomas Tallis, Spem in Alium.

[Derek]

Catching up:

I'd read the latest baby doll misinterpreting a post/argument and starting a 3-page argument, but I'll catch the next one in a few days.

Naked Island is indeed great and nothing like what Clipper described. It is very much about the rhythms and repetitions of the family's life on the island, so if you don't give yourself over to it, it will likely be boring rather than poetic. Like Q, I found it accumulated poignancy by the second half.

People who ask the question "Do you like anything?" should probably ask the question "Do I dislike anything?" to themselves first.

Brightside's new avatar makes me want to watch a Makavejev film while eating a jelly doughnut.

[trotchky]

Sweet Movie was great. I liked it even more than Mysteries of the Organism. Really strong Jodorowsky vibe with Sweet Movie. It felt like a combination of The Holy Mountain and Salo. Not as good as the former, but possibly better than the latter.

Word, it's a masterpiece. Probably the funniest and saddest and most astute socio-political allegory I've seen.

[balmakboor]

Sweet Movie was great. I liked it even more than Mysteries of the Organism. Really strong Jodorowsky vibe with Sweet Movie. It felt like a combination of The Holy Mountain and Salo. Not as good as the former, but possibly better than the latter.

Gotta be some kind of record. Four of my favorite films all gathered together in one post. That's rep worthy.

[Grouchy]

A Man Vanishes was weird. If the director (Imamura, first one of his movies I've seen) wanted me confused, flabbergasted and frustrated, well, he did it. It starts out as a "straight" documentary about a businessman who has vanished in Tokyo and gradually reveals its fakeness as stuff gets more and more outrageous - like a medium scene or a part where one of the interviewed girls falls in love with the interviewer. Best moment is the end when the walls of the set fall apart, Imamura appears on screen and the disappeared man walks in the background smiling. I guess as early as 1967, this must have been shocking. Now it has its value as early experimental cinema, but it's mostly stale.

Ponyo on the Cliff by the Sea, on the other hand, was a joy to watch. A lot more child-oriented than the recent Miyazaki I've seen (Howl and Porco Rosso) but it greatly benefits from its simplicity, as opposed to Howl which sometimes is too difficult to follow. Typical Miyazaki weirdness such as Ponyo's impotent father (the hell was up with that guy?) and the physical effect Ponyo's magic causes on her. At the screening I was in a boy cried so much when Ponyo appeared to be missing that the parents took him away. If I ever have children and something like this happens to them, I'll force them to man up and wait for the happy ending.

[Spinal]

Naked Island is indeed great and nothing like what Clipper described. It is very much about the rhythms and repetitions of the family's life on the island, so if you don't give yourself over to it, it will likely be boring rather than poetic. Like Q, I found it accumulated poignancy by the second half.


You know how much I LOVE poetic repetition.

But seriously, I'll try to make it through next time because I respect the director.

[Qrazy]

All this love for Sweet Movie lately! My perspective. It works as arthouse pornography (chocolate scene nom nom). But conceptually, as allegory, social commentary, etc. It's glib, half baked and hollow. Mysteries of the Organism is a much more thoughtful film.

[Amnesiac]

I like you, Amnesiac.

Random and possibly unearned, but appreciated. :)

[Mara]

Okay, so I didn't so much want to watch The House Bunny as it happened to be on Netflix instant watch when I had multiple pages of scribbled notes that I needed to transpose and I wanted to distract myself, and I was looking for something mindless.

Even so, it was stupider than I expected. It makes a pain in my headspace.




Anna Faris has a cute butt.

[balmakboor]

All this love for Sweet Movie lately! My perspective. It works as arthouse pornography (chocolate scene nom nom). But conceptually, as allegory, social commentary, etc. It's glib, half baked and hollow. Mysteries of the Organism is a much more thoughtful film.

Oh but that chocolate scene is so tasty.

[Spinal]

Anna Faris has a cute butt.

Awesome.

You didn't think it was funny when Anna was doing her demon voice to remember people's names? I thought that was funny.

[Skitch]

People who ask the question "Do you like anything?" should probably ask the question "Do I dislike anything?" to themselves first.

There are no stupid questions, only inquisitive idiots.

[Qrazy]

Oh but that chocolate scene is so tasty.

Indeed. At some point in my life I will live out that fantasy... have a beautiful girl in the chocolate I mean... not be in the chocolate myself.

[trotchky]

All this love for Sweet Movie lately! My perspective. It works as arthouse pornography (chocolate scene nom nom). But conceptually, as allegory, social commentary, etc. It's glib, half baked and hollow. Mysteries of the Organism is a much more thoughtful film.

I haven't seen Mysteries of the Organism but I disagree with you that it's half-baked and hollow. It's glib where it needs to be, yes, but I found the ending scenes of the anarcho-socialist collective reduced to its base ideological goals, these incestuous children of Potemkin and Cap. Ann puking and shitting on each other and laughing nonsensically, incredibly poignant and sad and tragic.

[Derek]

You know how much I LOVE poetic repetition.

But seriously, I'll try to make it through next time because I respect the director.

Note that unlike Qrazy, I did not recommend you return to it a second time. I expect a comment along the lines of it being a type of realism which you cannot abide. :)

[Mara]

You didn't think it was funny when Anna was doing her demon voice to remember people's names? I thought that was funny.

I felt that, objectively, I should think that it was funny. But I wasn't laughing. I think the only line that made me giggle was: "Your eyes are like the nipples of your face."

[baby doll]

Mikey & Nicky (May, 1976) 54
The International (Twyker, 2009) 52

La Ceremonie (Chabrol, 1995) 69
Lorna's Silence (Dardenne Bros., 2009) 70What the hell's going on here, dude?

[MacGuffin]

What the hell's going on here, dude?

He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that Derek is overly ecstatic about Claude Chabrol. Myself, I've seen two of his movies and Le boucher was close to being a masterpiece, and if I saw it again like I did La cérémonie, it just might be.

[B-side]

Simon of the Desert tonight. Looking forward to it.

[MacGuffin]

La grande illusion tonight. Feeling kind of stupid for not having seen it already, but so it is. I caught about fifty or so minutes a few nights ago, but got tired. I saw some great stuff though, to be sure. I'm gonna start it from the beginning though, for pacing's sake.

[B-side]

Watched Vigo's first two films tonight. A Propos de Nice is really great. Jean Taris is a neat experiment, but not much more. Does feature a cool twist at the end I can't quite grasp, though.

[EvilShoe]

Wow, just read what the twist ending to Orphan (Vera Farmiga & Peter Sarsgaard) is. :lol:

http://gawker.com/5322122/youll-never-guess-orphans-surprise-ending-because-its-completely-ridiculous

[B-side]

Watched Vigo's first two films tonight. A Propos de Nice is really great. Jean Taris is a neat experiment, but not much more. Does feature a cool twist at the end I can't quite grasp, though.

I did a quick write-up on this for my blog for anyone that's interested.

[MacGuffin]

I did a quick write-up on this for my blog for anyone that's interested.

Okay, okay. But for the love of God, stop centering your reviews.

EDIT: Nice review. I'll probably see this if I ever end up getting The Jean Vigo Collection from Artificial Eye.

[B-side]

Okay, okay. But for the love of God, stop centering your reviews.

EDIT: Nice review. I'll probably see this if I ever end up getting The Jean Vigo Collection from Artificial Eye.

Is it bad? I'll change it. I appreciate the feedback. I need it. I'm really looking forward to his other 2 films.

[MacGuffin]

Is it bad? I'll change it. I appreciate the feedback. I need it.

Well, my eyes are used to reading from the very left to the very right, and having the words all mushed together like that isn't very appealing. (In fact, I think the center button is really only used for titles and such.)

[B-side]

Well, my eyes are used to reading from the very left to the very right, and having the words all mushed together like that isn't very appealing. (In fact, I think the center button is really only used for titles and such.)

Right. I understand. Anyway, I appreciate someone offering some critique. Now that I've changed them to sit on the left, it does look better. Thanks.

[MacGuffin]

Right. I understand. Anyway, I appreciate someone offering some critique. Now that I've changed them to sit on the left, it does look better. Thanks.

Yeah, it does look better. No problem.

[Winston*]

For the love of God, write your reviews in pink Comic Sans, Brightside

[Mysterious Dude]

I started to watch Pasolini's Teorema last night, but I stopped about halfway through and instead watched WarGames and Stand By Me on TCM.

I miss the 80's.

[Pop Trash]

I started to watch Pasolini's Teorema last night, but I stopped about halfway through and instead watched WarGames and Stand By Me on TCM.
I miss the 80's.

Wow, me too! I was flipping through and it was nice to see it on TV unedited ("I'm going to rip your head off and shit down your neck!") and no commercials. Damn I love that movie.

[Amnesiac]

http://wondersinthedark.files.wordpre ss.com/2009/05/andrei-1.jpg

So, I finally watched Andrei Rublev (note: I wanted to just give a few, brief comments as most long write-ups on films don't seem to get read around here, but I got carried away).

I thoroughly enjoyed it. This contains some of the most powerful moments of any Tarkovsky film I've seen so far (however, I have only seen Ivan's Childhood and Solaris so far). It also felt a lot more challenging than his other work, it demands your patience and your faith, not to put too twee a note on it... but it does require your belief that all these minutes will lead somewhere worthwhile, to some truthful or meaningful end. And it certainly does this. This faith is necessary for every film, of course, but perhaps this film makes it a little bit more difficult. Judging from the comments I've read on the internet, many have given up about an hour in, thereby missing out on some of the film's most astounding moments. It is certainly not a film that makes any concessions to the audience in order to make the film more digestible or palatably paced. There are curiosities, peculiarities, and moments of confusion and disorientation (who is this now? Where are we now? What's going on with him? That sort of thing). Of course, you have to do a little work for meaning here, despite the occasionally taxing run time. And yet it has a lot to say about the responsibility of any artist, the dangers of rote conformity, and the importance of being true and faithful to one's self. Most of the wonderful and disparate moments and experiences do seem to fit wonderfully into one thematic tapestry by the end, with the opening prologue beautifully informing a film that is really a study in the courage, struggle and danger concomitant with artistic creation.

In terms of the performances, I found them to be pretty great. Some believe that Tarkovsky had a really good eye for faces, and that in this regard he could be compared to Eisenstein's proclivity for 'typage' — that is, choosing actors based on their general physical qualities and the social group or archetype these physical characteristics evoke. This film seems to uphold that theory fairly well. There is something about Anatoli Solonitsyn (Rublev) that carries such appropriate and immediate presence. Of course, the costume and make-up department are partially to credit here. I feel that the same can be said for Nikolay Burlyaev (Boriska). He has a unique look that served him well here and in Ivan's Childhood Then again, Burlyaev and Solonitsyn showcase some phenomenal acting in this film and their achievements should not be reduced to their fitting looks alone. But I still cannot help but feel there is something inherent to the actor's faces that just seems so especially appropriate, bold and evocative, but the nuances of their acting clearly contribute to this effect as well.

I am sure I am not alone in thinking that the prologue, the Tatar attack on Vladimir, and Boriska's story in the last act of the film are the some of the most memorable aspects of the film. There are many others, but these are the ones that I will likely most immediately recall when thinking back on the film in the future.

The prologue is just utterly sublime and haunting, showcasing great technical capability and some resonating thematic merit. Especially in hindsight, when you realize the kind of topic and issues that Tarkovsky is interrogating in this film. Highly memorable and a phenomenal way to open the film.

The Tatar attack is brutal, almost excessively so, and pretty damn shocking. But, for anyone who has watched Rublev, these observations will only seem utterly banal. But, really, it showcases some of the cruelest behaviour I have ever seen put onto the screen. And yet, it doesn't feel gratuitous but actually functions as an important catalyst; a truly formative moment in Rublev's life that influences his journey from a man of timid iconoclasm, to a man of self-loathing and resignation, until finally, he becomes a man who has wholeheartedly embraced the importance of his vocation and the responsibility inseparable from his talent.

Boriska's story was just phenomenal and pathos-infused. Man, I loved this part of the film so very much. Touching, beautiful, grandiose. That shot of Boriska pulling up the root only to discover the large tree as the camera lifts up majestically into a high-angle shot; the grand indifference of nature rendering him entirely and tragically impotent ... another case of Tarkovsky's intriguing reverence for nature, but executed here in such sublime fashion. Beyond this, I don't recall a single false note during this part of the film. Some have said this is an allegory for Tarkovsky's own struggles with Russia's bureaucracy and the myriad delays and edits that Andrei Rublev was forced to endure. Others have said that the union between the weary faith of the bell maker and artist represents two important halves of the same artist. The struggle and ambition, and the eventual spiritual conviction. As Vida T. Johnson and Graham Petrie note, "Roublev is perhaps the artist as Tarkovsky would like to imagine and present himself, Boriska the artist that he recognized from his own working experience; and, as he saw well enough, the two need to complement eachother". Perhaps then, one possible reading is that Rublev eventually represents the ideal and transcendental artist (who has ascended beyond life's hardships and pain in order to succeed in wholeheartedly committing to a work of art) while Boriska represents the tumultuous, messy, strained existence that is a necessary prerequisite to such artistic serenity.

This is a fascinating piece of work that has left me hungry to understand more, to mine its secrets and meanings. There is likely a lot more I will learn about this film that will only increase my appreciation for it. There is likely a lot I missed. And yet it also works so magnificently on a visceral, immediate, affecting level and cannot be passed off as some arthouse enigma (most of it is actually pretty straightforward) but heralded as an emotional and resonating tour de force. I don't want to succumb to the kind of rote reverence that filmmakers like Tarkovsky, Bergman, Fellini, and so fourth, tend to receive but I can't help but stress how many moments of astounding and indelible beauty can be found in this strange, patient film.

[Rowland]

On the list of video game movies I've seen, Max Payne ranks rather low.

Silent Hill
Mortal Kombat
DOA: Dead or Alive
Resident Evil
Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within
------------------------
Resident Evil: Apocalypse
Resident Evil: Extinction
Doom
Max Payne
Super Mario Bros.
Street Fighter
House of the Dead
Mortal Kombat: Annihilation
Alone in the Dark

It's fairly ambitious in its attempted topicality, sober-minded in its execution, and not without pleasures both aesthetic and camp. Nevertheless, it feels incredibly weightless, which proves all the more galling for its contrast with the picture's deathly serious tone, while the action is uninspired when it isn't mostly nonexistent, the use of slow-motion results in one of last year's most ludicrous scenes (as well as an admittedly neat one overplayed by the advertising campaign), and a visual design that, while coherent and occasionally quite lovely, is utterly distancing, its lacquered polish lacking either the tangible atmosphere of a real movie or the outright pomo abstractions of obvious inspiration Sin City. Furthermore, the performances don't sell the drama and the narrative is a dismally predictable collection of noir/revenge tropes with only the aforementioned topical elements (and the surreal if immediately transparent Valkyrie motif) to enliven it at all, so the film ultimately feels noticeably longer than it actually is, right up to its dramatically inert closing scene. Why is Mark in this instead of Donnie?

[megladon8]

Nice to see someone else on the positive side for Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within.

I liked it a lot.

[BuffaloWilder]

I'm surprised by how low Super Mario Bros. is. Yes, it's bad, but it's 'b-movie' bad, with a couple of redeeming qualities here and there, and Bob Hoskins.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Video game movies?

Mortal Kombat
Lara Croft: Tomb Raider
Silent Hill
---------
Resident Evil
Street Fighter
Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within
Resident Evil: Extinction
Doom
Resident Evil: Degeneration
Super Mario Bros.
Mortal Kombat: Annihilation

[Spinal]

The Intruder is one of the most disappointing films I've seen in a while. Not captivating or mysterious. Just long, dull and opaque. At some point, about 90 minutes in, I thought, "Is that all she's going to do with this premise?" And yes, yes it was. The second thought I had was "I bet Derek really loves this movie." And yes, yes he does. This has to be my least favorite aesthetic. This minimalist poetry stretching out 5 minutes of content over 2 hours of film nonsense. The best parts of the film are the scenes with the young couple at the beginning and then they completely disappear. I wish the film had been about them instead of this old piece of granite that we're stuck with. I see reviews saying it's a puzzler. Is it? Or is it the fact that we assume a major director couldn't possibly make a film about so little? I've seen the kind of film that Denis can make when things work well (Friday Night, Trouble Every Day). I don't think this one works.

[MacGuffin]

This minimalist poetry stretching out 5 minutes of content over 2 hours of film nonsense.

A man traveling the world looking for his son and who needs a heart transplant as well as a representation of the changing of seasons is five minutes of content?

[Spinal]

A man traveling the world looking for his son and who needs a heart transplant as well as a representation of the changing of seasons is five minutes of content?

This film doesn't have much to say. Nor does it have much to show us. It is basically a William Carlos Williams poem as cinema. Some people think that's a great way to spend two hours. I don't.

[MacGuffin]

This film doesn't have much to say. Nor does it have much to show us. It is basically a William Carlos Williams poem as cinema. Some people think that's a great way to spend two hours. I don't.

It's understandable that you should feel this way. It seems like a movie I could have probably guessed you wouldn't like. I think it has plenty to show us, but as for what it has to say, I can't really remember. I don't think very many of Denis' movies "say" very much, but they "show", and I don't know how you could argue that as a fan of Friday Night.

[Rowland]

Nice to see someone else on the positive side for Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within.

I liked it a lot.I was only barely positive, probably just over the fence with a 50 or 51 with my current scale, as I appreciated it more in theory than in execution, admired more than enjoyed.

[Milky Joe]

I'm more interested in your putting Silent Hill on top of that list. I haven't seen it since theaters, but I really enjoyed it at the time (big fan of the game) and remember being confused by the venemous hate it inspired in so many. I thought it did a pretty good job of being a game-movie, the best one I've seen anyway.

[Rowland]

I'm more interested in your putting Silent Hill on top of that list. I haven't seen it since theaters, but I really enjoyed it at the time (big fan of the game) and remember being confused by the venemous hate it inspired in so many. I thought it did a pretty good job of being a game-movie, the best one I've seen anyway.I liked that Gans was respectful of the series without dutifully replicating it, infusing his own worthy spin on the material while also remaining reasonably faithful to its nightmare-logic phantasmagoria, at least until he over-indulged in exposition with the second half. It looks and sounds great, the cast acquits themselves solidly enough, Gans explores some loaded thematic material, and in the end has the confidence to conclude his high-budget, conceptually eccentric videogame adaptation with a decidedly unconventional degree of moral/narrative ambiguity.

[megladon8]

You guys had better pray that D_Davis doesn't catch wind of this conversation...

[Sven]

It's fairly ambitious in its attempted topicality, sober-minded in its execution, and not without pleasures both aesthetic and camp. Nevertheless, it feels incredibly weightless, which proves all the more galling for its contrast with the picture's deathly serious tone, while the action is uninspired when it isn't mostly nonexistent, the use of slow-motion results in one of last year's most ludicrous scenes (as well as an admittedly neat one overplayed by the advertising campaign), and a visual design that, while coherent and occasionally quite lovely, is utterly distancing, its lacquered polish lacking either the tangible atmosphere of a real movie or the outright pomo abstractions of obvious inspiration Sin City. Furthermore, the performances don't sell the drama and the narrative is a dismally predictable collection of noir/revenge tropes with only the aforementioned topical elements (and the surreal if immediately transparent Valkyrie motif) to enliven it at all, so the film ultimately feels noticeably longer than it actually is, right up to its dramatically inert closing scene. Why is Mark in this instead of Donnie?

Pretty much the only thing with which I agree here is that Donnie probably would've been better, though he absolutely cannot scowl like Mark. I'm confused about calling the Valkyrie motif "transparent," which slow motion scenes you're referring to, and what evidence you have to sustain the "lacquered"-polish-as-a-bad-thing criticism.

[Rowland]

I'm confused about calling the Valkyrie motif "transparent,"It's immediately apparent to be a hallucination as plot device, which the film never really does anything with, besides allowing for the scene with the charismatically offbeat performance by the tattoo parlor dude with the mythology tome within arms length, and the Constantine-style Hell-on-Earth visuals.
which slow motion scenes you're referring toThe good one being the horizontal tracking shot as Payne tries to rescue the suicidal junkie, the ludicrous being the utterly unremarkable death-by-shotgun that felt like two seconds stretched out to half a minute.
and what evidence you have to sustain the "lacquered"-polish-as-a-bad-thing criticism.Instead of being infused with personality or a really artful formal control, it's buffered to a sheen of anesthetized hyper-stylization, which lends the film an airless, blandly show-offy quality. It almost feels like a CGI-animated movie, with a few dazzling flourishes amidst an otherwise derivative aesthetic. Frequently beautiful, but empty calories.

[Qrazy]

The Intruder is one of the most disappointing films I've seen in a while. Not captivating or mysterious. Just long, dull and opaque. At some point, about 90 minutes in, I thought, "Is that all she's going to do with this premise?" And yes, yes it was. The second thought I had was "I bet Derek really loves this movie." And yes, yes he does. This has to be my least favorite aesthetic. This minimalist poetry stretching out 5 minutes of content over 2 hours of film nonsense. The best parts of the film are the scenes with the young couple at the beginning and then they completely disappear. I wish the film had been about them instead of this old piece of granite that we're stuck with. I see reviews saying it's a puzzler. Is it? Or is it the fact that we assume a major director couldn't possibly make a film about so little? I've seen the kind of film that Denis can make when things work well (Friday Night, Trouble Every Day). I don't think this one works.

I'm guessing I'll have the exact same reaction.

[MacGuffin]

I'm guessing I'll have the exact same reaction.

I would've guessed you'd be a fan, but I guess if you go into it like that...

[Spinal]

I don't know how you could argue that as a fan of Friday Night.

I concede that it's fairly fine line between the two films. Friday Night has those moments of magic and subtle humor that keep it afloat for me. It's also a fairly clearly defined situation right from the outset. The Intruder is miserly with exposition to the point where it became difficult for me to become invested in anything at all. Too much coyness for too little payoff.

[MacGuffin]

I concede that it's fairly fine line between the two films. Friday Night has those moments of magic and subtle humor that keep it afloat for me. It's also a fairly clearly defined situation right from the outset. The Intruder is miserly with exposition to the point where it became difficult for me to become invested in anything at all. Too much coyness for too little payoff.

It's been years since I've seen The Intruder and I really owe it another watch, but is there really that much exposition, or is it more or less just a lot of establishing shots? Because I recall many establishing shots; sweeping shots of the snow-covered mountains and the likes. But I still maintain that Denis is more of an observer than she is a commentator, but will still make a point or two in a few of her movies (which is why The Intruder's theme, as it were, I cannot remember). For example, her comments on the lives of lower-class citizens in modern-day Paris in 35 Shots of Rum.

[Spinal]

It's been years since I've seen The Intruder and I really owe it another watch, but is there really that much exposition, or is it more or less just a lot of establishing shots?

No, I said "miserly". Meaning there's barely any at all.

[MacGuffin]

No, I said "miserly". Meaning there's barely any at all.

Oh, okay. Is exposition really needed in this movie? I mean, there's hardly any in Friday Night if any at all. It seems clear to me that Denis works off moods.

[Melville]

How does The Intruder compare to Beau Travail? Though I really liked the latter, I think it went pretty much to the limit of my enjoyment of the minimalist style that Spinal described.

[Spinal]

Oh, okay. Is exposition really needed in this movie? I mean, there's hardly any in Friday Night if any at all. I mean, it's clear that Denis works off moods.

By exposition, I don't necessarily mean dialogue. The Deep End is a good example of a film that has basically dialogue-free exposition. And yes, I would say that the information that Denis withholds in this film is really not worth withholding.

[MacGuffin]

How does The Intruder compare to Beau Travail? Though I really liked the latter, I think it went pretty much to the limit of my enjoyment of the minimalist style that Spinal described.

The Intruder is in the same style as Beau travail, although some may find it easier to watch for its changing scenery; some may find it more challenging for its greater overall ambiguity.

[trotchky]

On the list of video game movies I've seen, Max Payne ranks rather low.

Silent Hill
Mortal Kombat
DOA: Dead or Alive
Resident Evil
Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within
------------------------
Resident Evil: Apocalypse
Resident Evil: Extinction
Doom
Max Payne
Super Mario Bros.
Street Fighter
House of the Dead
Mortal Kombat: Annihilation
Alone in the Dark

It's fairly ambitious in its attempted topicality, sober-minded in its execution, and not without pleasures both aesthetic and camp. Nevertheless, it feels incredibly weightless, which proves all the more galling for its contrast with the picture's deathly serious tone, while the action is uninspired when it isn't mostly nonexistent, the use of slow-motion results in one of last year's most ludicrous scenes (as well as an admittedly neat one overplayed by the advertising campaign), and a visual design that, while coherent and occasionally quite lovely, is utterly distancing, its lacquered polish lacking either the tangible atmosphere of a real movie or the outright pomo abstractions of obvious inspiration Sin City. Furthermore, the performances don't sell the drama and the narrative is a dismally predictable collection of noir/revenge tropes with only the aforementioned topical elements (and the surreal if immediately transparent Valkyrie motif) to enliven it at all, so the film ultimately feels noticeably longer than it actually is, right up to its dramatically inert closing scene. Why is Mark in this instead of Donnie?

I got halfway through Max Payne before turning it off out of boredom. It looks better than Sin City but is just as weightless.

[megladon8]

Traitor was bland, bland, bland. It began promising enough - I thought it may have some thoughtful insight into the controversial idea of "Islamic extremism", and Don Cheadle is certainly charismatic. Certain lines and bits of dialogue hint at criticism of American policy and the general belief that Americans are "the good guys".

But then it turns out to be just as bad a case of fear-mongering American propaganda as any other in the slew of Arab terrorist-themed films over the last near-decade.

Guy Pearce is under-utilized, as is Jeff Daniels. Neal McDonough's character is unnecessary. And the film spouts out preachy, almost laughable attempts at intellectualism throughout. Lines like "Where I grew up the Klan burned crosses in front of people's houses and called it Christianity. Then my daddy and the folks from the church would drive over and put them out. Seems every religion has more than one face."

I was just left with a "so what?" feeling at the end. So we get yet another movie that shows us how neither side is righteous in this war? How those who kill in the name of God, Allah or whatever are wrong? So what? The movie says nothing new, does nothing new, and has the same impact as watching any American news channel.

[Derek]

The Intruder is one of the most disappointing films I've seen in a while. Not captivating or mysterious. Just long, dull and opaque. At some point, about 90 minutes in, I thought, "Is that all she's going to do with this premise?" And yes, yes it was. The second thought I had was "I bet Derek really loves this movie." And yes, yes he does. This has to be my least favorite aesthetic. This minimalist poetry stretching out 5 minutes of content over 2 hours of film nonsense. The best parts of the film are the scenes with the young couple at the beginning and then they completely disappear. I wish the film had been about them instead of this old piece of granite that we're stuck with. I see reviews saying it's a puzzler. Is it? Or is it the fact that we assume a major director couldn't possibly make a film about so little? I've seen the kind of film that Denis can make when things work well (Friday Night, Trouble Every Day). I don't think this one works.

Ellipses > you. I'd have to watch it again to respond in depth (and maybe I will since I haven't watched it since I did on back-to-back days when it came out on DVD), but your response to this is about as surprising is not surprising. It's my favorite Denis precisely because it is so captivating and mysterious, intimate yet sprawling, it's vision stretching across seasons and continents, the protagonists journey powerful because of the intensity of his quest. I honestly believe there is nothing more overvalued in films than story/plot.

Screw it, I will rewatch and review it when I get back into town.


I'm guessing I'll have the exact same reaction.

I can absolutely guarantee you will, though I know this feeble attempt to dissuade will fail and I will have to shake my head at the D+ in your signature for a week. ;)


How does The Intruder compare to Beau Travail? Though I really liked the latter, I think it went pretty much to the limit of my enjoyment of the minimalist style that Spinal described.

Personally, I found Beau Travail the more frustrating/opaque film, though I still like it. I can honestly understand why people would be turned off to either of them, but that doesn't stop me from being disappointed. I might have to watch some nudie cutie films and give them negative scores for Spinal.

[BuffaloWilder]

So I downloaded Death Race 2000 and it's Paul W.S. Anderson remake, to watch back-to-back.

Is this wise?

[Rowland]

So I downloaded Death Race 2000 and it's Paul W.S. Anderson remake, to watch back-to-back.

Is this wise?The original has more balls than actual quality, but I'd still rate it as positive, while the remake isn't necessarily bad, but it's a drastically different movie, so comparing the two should make for an interesting, perhaps even instructive exercise.

[Derek]

Wow, me too! I was flipping through and it was nice to see it on TV unedited ("I'm going to rip your head off and shit down your neck!") and no commercials. Damn I love that movie.

I saw the last 5 minutes a couple years ago and I may have to re-evaluate my love of the film.

"I never had any friends later on like the ones I had when I was twelve. Jesus, does anyone?"

Jesus, what a depressingly stupid way of viewing the world and an overtly manipulative and treacle way of conveying that view. Fortunately, that's a very small portion of the film, but it did leave a sour taste in my mouth.


What the hell's going on here, dude?

Those are ratings of films I've seen. The higher the number, the more I like the film.

And I like La Ceremonie quite a bit, hence the relatively high rating.

[MacGuffin]

And I like La Ceremonie quite a bit

I should hope so. Did you write about it yet?

[megladon8]

Those are ratings of films I've seen. The higher the number, the more I like the film.



So that's how it works!!

http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/5049/21921929562396facab1o.jpg

[BuffaloWilder]

The original has more balls than actual quality, but I'd still rate it as positive, while the remake isn't necessarily bad, but it's a drastically different movie, so comparing the two should make for an interesting, perhaps even instructive exercise.

...Interesting.


I would call the latter film a bad movie however. Very, very bad.

[baby doll]

Those are ratings of films I've seen. The higher the number, the more I like the film.

And I like La Ceremonie quite a bit, hence the relatively high rating.Come on, dude, only two points difference between Mikey and Nicky and The International? Granted, those locations in Istanbul were awesome, and there's a certain perverse thrill in seeing a mindless shoot-out staged in an art gallery. But why is your score for May's film so low, and your score for the Dardennes' film (easily their least compelling, especially after Jérémie Renier leaves the film) so high?

[Derek]

Come on, dude, only two points difference between Mikey and Nicky and The International? Granted, those locations in Istanbul were awesome, and there's a certain perverse thrill in seeing a mindless shoot-out staged in an art gallery. But why is your score for May's film so low, and your score for the Dardennes' film (easily their least compelling, especially after Jérémie Renier leaves the film) so high?

I already briefly posted why I didn't care much for Mikey and Nicky. I'd repost it for you, but I can't find it.

I'm not sure I understand the purpose of your comparisons. What does Lorna's Silence being the Dardennes least compelling (I disagree, at least with the "easily" part, since I think it may be their strongest script) mean that it should be rated lower than Mikey and Nicky, aside from the fact that you prefer the latter. :) I do have a review for LN, so I'll post a link for that when it goes online, hopefully next week, so we can discuss it more in depth then.

[baby doll]

I already briefly posted why I didn't care much for Mikey and Nicky. I'd repost it for you, but I can't find it.

I'm not sure I understand the purpose of your comparisons. What does Lorna's Silence being the Dardennes least compelling (I disagree, at least with the "easily" part, since I think it may be their strongest script) mean that it should be rated lower than Mikey and Nicky, aside from the fact that you prefer the latter. :) I do have a review for LN, so I'll post a link for that when it goes online, hopefully next week, so we can discuss it more in depth then.I think a seventy for Le Silence de Lorna is high regardless of what you thought of Mikey and Nicky, and regardless of what you think of the Dardennes' other films.

[Raiders]

The Intruder is one of the most disappointing films I've seen in a while. Not captivating or mysterious. Just long, dull and opaque. At some point, about 90 minutes in, I thought, "Is that all she's going to do with this premise?" And yes, yes it was. The second thought I had was "I bet Derek really loves this movie." And yes, yes he does. This has to be my least favorite aesthetic. This minimalist poetry stretching out 5 minutes of content over 2 hours of film nonsense. The best parts of the film are the scenes with the young couple at the beginning and then they completely disappear. I wish the film had been about them instead of this old piece of granite that we're stuck with. I see reviews saying it's a puzzler. Is it? Or is it the fact that we assume a major director couldn't possibly make a film about so little? I've seen the kind of film that Denis can make when things work well (Friday Night, Trouble Every Day). I don't think this one works.

I need to stop delaying and just watch this.

[Stay Puft]

It appears I've missed a bit of TIFF news recently. Midnight Madness lineup was announced earlier this week:

Jennifer's Body Karyn Kusama, USA
A Town Called Panic Stéphane Aubier and Vincent Patar, Belgium/Luxembourg/France
Bitch Slap Rick Jacobson, USA
Daybreakers Michael Spierig and Peter Spierig, Australia/USA
Survival of the Dead George A. Romero, Canada
The Loved Ones Sean Byrne, Australia
Ong Bak 2: The Beginning Tony Jaa, Panna Rittikrai, Thailand
[REC] 2 Jaume Balagueró, Paco Plaza, Spain
Solomon Kane Michael J. Bassett, United Kingdom
Symbol Hitoshi Matsumoto, Japan

Not all that exciting on paper compared to previous years. Jennifer's Body? Zzzz. I'm not interested in catching films like Daybreakers at festivals. I've already seen Ong Bak 2. More Romero zombie movies is not exactly an exciting prospect. Etc.

Still, all of this is irrelevant with the international premiere of Symbol. I didn't even know Hitoshi Matsumoto had a new movie! Quite exciting. Maybe he'll actually be there this year? Probably not.

[baby doll]

It appears I've missed a bit of TIFF news recently. Midnight Madness lineup was announced earlier this week:

Jennifer's Body Karyn Kusama, USA
A Town Called Panic Stéphane Aubier and Vincent Patar, Belgium/Luxembourg/France
Bitch Slap Rick Jacobson, USA
Daybreakers Michael Spierig and Peter Spierig, Australia/USA
Survival of the Dead George A. Romero, Canada
The Loved Ones Sean Byrne, Australia
Ong Bak 2: The Beginning Tony Jaa, Panna Rittikrai, Thailand
[REC] 2 Jaume Balagueró, Paco Plaza, Spain
Solomon Kane Michael J. Bassett, United Kingdom
Symbol Hitoshi Matsumoto, JapanThanks for the head's up. I'll try to avoid all of these.

[Stay Puft]

Oh, you're no fun, baby doll. :)

I just found out Koji Yakusho's directorial debut will be playing in Toronto, too! The english title is Toad's Oil. Should at least be an interesting curiosity.

[balmakboor]

Awesome. I can't wait to see Survival of the Dead. I loves me a new dose of Romero every year or so.

[B-side]

Groucho Marx may be the funniest man that has ever lived. A Night at the Opera is my 2nd Marx bros. film after Duck Soup and likely not as good as that, but still hilarious and supremely enjoyable. I love the film's ode to music in all its various forms. Kaufman's screenplay venerates music as a form of escape in a time of great despair. The Marx bros. must've been some sort of gift from the heavens for depression-era America.

[MacGuffin]

Oh, you're no fun, baby doll. :)

I just found out Koji Yakusho's directorial debut will be playing in Toronto, too! The english title is Toad's Oil. Should at least be an interesting curiosity.

Enter the Void will be at TIFF. I'm jealous of anyone who gets the opportunity to see it before me.

[baby doll]

Enter the Void will be at TIFF. I'm jealous of anyone who gets the opportunity to see it before me.Don't sweat it, it's not even getting good reviews. I think Mark Peranson called it the stupidest film in the history of the Cannes Film Festival.

[MacGuffin]

Don't sweat it, it's not even getting good reviews. I think Mark Peranson called it the stupidest film in the history of the Cannes Film Festival.

Yeah, but who the hell is Mark Peranson? All I can say is that I saw this screenshot, and now I have to see the movie:

http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/6006/enterthevoidjpg595x325c.jpg

[baby doll]

Yeah, but who the hell is Mark Peranson?The editor of Cinema-Scope. Incidentally, the new issue (which is devoted to Cannes) doesn't have anything in it about The White Ribbon because nobody wanted to write about it.

Here's his Cannes round-up. (http://cinema-scope.com/cs39/spot_peranson_stupid_cannes.ht ml)

[MacGuffin]

The editor of Cinema-Scope. Incidentally, the new issue (which is devoted to Cannes) doesn't have anything in it about The White Ribbon because nobody wanted to write about it.

Oh, huh. Yeah. I used to subscribe to that magazine, and it was really pretty good (although, I recall not really recognizing at least a quarter of the movies I was reading about), but it was too expensive. I sometimes glance at the content on their website.

[baby doll]

Dude, I just saw the rating for I Walked With a Zombie. What the hell?

[baby doll]

although, I recall not really recognizing at least a quarter of the movies I was reading aboutThat's exactly what I like about it.

[MacGuffin]

That's exactly what I like about it.

Allow me to direct you to my thoughts on the movie (http://www.match-cut.org/showpost.php?p=188343&postcount=644).

[baby doll]

Allow me to direct you to my thoughts on the movie (http://www.match-cut.org/showpost.php?p=188343&postcount=644).I could respond to that, but I don't even know what you're talking about. No atmosphere? Stale dialogue? Jacques Tourneur is less of a filmmaker than Dario Argento? I'm going to bed.

[MacGuffin]

I could respond to that, but I don't even know what you're talking about. No atmosphere? Stale dialogue? Jacques Tourneur is less of a filmmaker than Dario Argento?

Just because Tourneur knows how to turn off a light switch and shine lights through venetian blinds doesn't make the movie atmospheric. As for the dialogue, I already knew the drums in the distance were relatively "eerie" and I didn't need one of the characters to tell me so. On top of that, there are too many laugh-worthy and overly stagey lines: "My wife is a mental case." Funny for a while, but not fitting for a movie like this one.

[B-side]

The editor of Cinema-Scope. Incidentally, the new issue (which is devoted to Cannes) doesn't have anything in it about The White Ribbon because nobody wanted to write about it.

Here's his Cannes round-up. (http://cinema-scope.com/cs39/spot_peranson_stupid_cannes.ht ml)


... Ang Lee made what probably can be called both the stupidest and gayest film about Woodstock imaginable...

That's not homophobic.

[MacGuffin]

That's not homophobic.

I don't see how that statement is homophobic, if homosexuals played a significant part at Woodstock and that part, to this point, simply hadn't been displayed onscreen.

[B-side]

I don't see how that statement is homophobic, if homosexuals played a significant part at Woodstock and that part, to this point, simply hadn't been displayed onscreen.

He seems appalled that homosexuality was portrayed on the screen at all. Half his criticism of the film seems to come from it being too "gay" for his liking.

[trotchky]

I haven't read the article, but given that he groups "gay" with "stupid" in the conjunctive phrase it sounds pretty homophobic to me.

[MacGuffin]

He seems appalled that homosexuality was portrayed on the screen at all. Half his criticism of the film seems to come from it being too "gay" for his liking.

Well, I wouldn't use those words exactly, but one of the reasons I find Brokeback Mountain to be such a terrible movie is precisely because it's about the exact opposite of subtle.

[B-side]

Well, I wouldn't use those words exactly, but one of the reasons I find Brokeback Mountain to be such a terrible movie is precisely because it's about the exact opposite of subtle.

What about it needed to be subtle? Surely you're not talking about its portrayal of homosexuality.

[MacGuffin]

What about it needed to be subtle? Surely you're not talking about its portrayal of homosexuality.

Surely, I am.

[B-side]

Surely, I am.

Oh dear.

[trotchky]

I can't comment on Brokeback Mountain, but as a general rule, the gayer (more transgressive) a movie is, the better. Maybe Brokeback Mountain's lack of subtlety just isn't gay enough, because it surely can't be too gay.

[B-side]

I can't comment on Brokeback Mountain, but as a general rule, the gayer (more transgressive) a movie is, the better. Maybe Brokeback Mountain's lack of subtlety just isn't gay enough, because it surely can't be too gay.

Indeed. I would hate to declare one of our own posters as homophobic, but dude, that sounded bad. The fact that Brokeback Mountain was as explicit as it was in displaying homosexuality and made as much money and got as much recognition as it did is a breakthrough of sorts. I'm reminded of a conversation I had earlier regarding Dr. Manhattan in Watchmen. So many people flipped out over him being shown fully nude acting as if his dick was flopping all over the screen and in extreme close-up. Nobody cared that Akerman was topless, but one naked dude and everyone flips their lid.

[MacGuffin]

I can't comment on Brokeback Mountain, but as a general rule, the gayer (more transgressive) a movie is, the better. Maybe Brokeback Mountain's lack of subtlety just isn't gay enough, because it surely can't be too gay.

I don't know. It's been a while since I've seen it, but I almost remember string music playing over the gay sex scenes. I don't have any problem at all which homosexuality in cinema (just right now, I can think of liking the two movies I've seen by John Cameron Mitchell and I'd also consider Tropical Malady among the best movies I've ever seen), but those movies don't exploit homosexuality as a selling point.

[MacGuffin]

Indeed. I would hate to declare one of our own posters as homophobic, but dude, that sounded bad.

Would it have sounded bad if I had called the sex scenes in Twentynine Palms too unsubtle? It's not that I feel that way, but what difference does it make the sexuality of the people having sex in scenes I choose to criticize? This seems borderline reverse-homophobic, especially considering Lee doesn't have much to say about the homosexuality of his characters except that "people don't like it".


The fact that Brokeback Mountain was as explicit as it was in displaying homosexuality and made as much money and got as much recognition as it did is a breakthrough of sorts.

I don't think it's at all logical to claim to like a movie because it's critically accepted. That's far more narrow-minded that disliking a movie that is critically accepted.


I'm reminded of a conversation I had earlier regarding Dr. Manhattan in Watchmen. So many people flipped out over him being shown fully nude acting as if his dick was flopping all over the screen and in extreme close-up. Nobody cared that Akerman was topless, but one naked dude and everyone flips their lid.

Well, I'm sure both scenes of nudity are equally unsubtle, considering who directed it. I don't think your example is helping your argument much: I wouldn't really care, because those two scenes probably make up thirty seconds in a movie with I can only guess has much bigger problems going on.

[B-side]

Would it have sounded bad if I had called the sex scenes in Twentynine Palms too unsubtle? It's not that I feel that way, but what difference does it make the sexuality of the people having sex in scenes I choose to criticize? This seems borderline reverse-homophobic, especially considering Lee doesn't have much to say about the homosexuality of his characters except that "people don't like it".

The fact that you seem so concerned with these people remaining clothed is problematic. Considering there was little in the way of homosexual sex acts in Brokeback Mountain, I really can't comprehend your problem.


I don't think it's at all logical to claim to like a movie because it's widely critically accepted. That's far more narrow-minded that disliking a movie that is critically accepted.

I wasn't saying that. I wasn't even referring to you.


Well, I'm sure both scenes of nudity are equally unsubtle, considering who directed it. I don't think your example is helping your argument much: I wouldn't really care, because those two scenes probably make up thirty seconds in a movie with I can only guess has much bigger problems going on.

Once again, that wasn't directed at you.

[Duncan]

Ellipses > you. I'd have to watch it again to respond in depth (and maybe I will since I haven't watched it since I did on back-to-back days when it came out on DVD), but your response to this is about as surprising is not surprising. It's my favorite Denis precisely because it is so captivating and mysterious, intimate yet sprawling, it's vision stretching across seasons and continents, the protagonists journey powerful because of the intensity of his quest. I honestly believe there is nothing more overvalued in films than story/plot.

Screw it, I will rewatch and review it when I get back into town.

I can absolutely guarantee you will, though I know this feeble attempt to dissuade will fail and I will have to shake my head at the D+ in your signature for a week. ;)

Personally, I found Beau Travail the more frustrating/opaque film, though I still like it. I can honestly understand why people would be turned off to either of them, but that doesn't stop me from being disappointed. I might have to watch some nudie cutie films and give them negative scores for Spinal.

I agree with most of what's here. I used to like Beau Travail more, but I rewatched L'Intrus and really fell in love with it. My writeup from the top 100 that I never finished:


The dogs survive by eating a woman’s heart. Alright. That’s the only answer I was truly concerned about having. It’s a good answer from a film that inspires questions with every shot and cut because the answer furthers our ignorance. Why was this woman killed? Who killed her? Why is her heart lying in a field? How does grass stay green under snow?

L’Intrus is essentially a globe trotting thriller. Our protagonist, the mysterious Louis, travels about Switzerland, various parts of East Asia, and Tahiti. What we learn of his background is implied by a lingering shot of the interior of his shed in which his laptop lies amidst dishes and magazines. He’s a casual spy. Or a casual criminal. Whichever. The conflicts Claire Denis is interested in are not legalities or the protection of national secrets. Many scenes seem set up to promote traditional filmic discord but never deliver. In the opening border crossing scene we expect to see a shot of the driver being arrested, or at least a narrowing of the eyes. Denis cuts to the female border guard playfully congratulating her dog. Meanwhile, the scenes of intense conflict are sudden and confounding such as when Louis acts as his own horse-drawn sleigh. It could be flashback, it could be flashfoward, it could be dream. Nevertheless, there are aspects of certainty to the scene: the brightness of the snow; the flatness of the trees shot with a telephoto lense; the texture of a horse’s half-frozen mane. These are what bind us to the film – not plot or anticipation.

Anticipation is to be assuaged. Relax. There’s nothing coming but the next 24th of a second. Perhaps this is why the images of L’Intrus have been so gently washed in ambiguity by extraordinarily talented DP Agnes Godard. Never are we standing steady. Always are we asking questions. But then a strange shift in perception happens. We’ve still no footing, but there are also no forces acting on us. There’s just light moving fluidly as water and air will appear to move around a ship should you rigidly attach a camera to it. And those questions become not-questions. Not-answers. Same thing. It isn’t quite Jeopardy! since there is no distinguishing between the two. Shades of green vie with one another as a hospital sheet is pulled tight. A purple pink wave makes the illusory shift from two to three dimensions. We’ve switched places with the environment now, and it’s being thrown back past us by the feet of sled dogs. Their tails are up and wagging, and their assholes are exposed. It’s kind of funny. How does grass stay green under snow? How does grass stay green under snow.
The point of that kind of pretentious review (I had to write so many and it was getting boring) being that the film works on a sensual, emotional, present-tense level. If you're constantly asking, "is this all that's going to happen?" then you're probably not going to like it. You've got to get into the not-questions mode. Just dig those colourful ribbons and float along. That scene I mention with the camera rigidly attached to the boat taking in the purple sea with the threatening but ethereal score in the background...now that is cinema. Not everyone's definition, obviously, but to me it contains a pure and visceral emotional current found in far too few films. The opening of Andrei Rublev, especially the slow-mo shot of the horse, would be another example (btw, good review, Amnesiac)

On the other hand, I think there's a lot going on intellectually as well. Ideas such as our Selves being not quite ourselves, that perception may partially define us and, following that along, then what we perceive (purple oceans, for example) could also define us. As in, our Selves could be both without and within, and objects (like a stranger's heart) could be received and accepted as Self. And in that case, both person and world would, ahem, intrude upon one another. Or something. Also, that our children could be chosen for us (and they sort of are, aren't they?). The exhilaration of the moment contrasted with the inescapable past, too. I like that idea. Basically, I think it's an amazing film.

Qrazy, do you like Tarkovsky's The Mirror? Because I think there are definite similarities there, although L'Intrus is overall brighter, less hermetic, more expansive, and its metaphysical concerns are different. But not completely different, I would say.

[Duncan]

People who talk about exploiting homosexuality as a selling point are kidding themselves.

[MacGuffin]

The fact that you seem so concerned with these people remaining clothed is problematic. Considering there was little in the way of homosexual sex acts in Brokeback Mountain, I really can't comprehend your problem.

It's not that I am concerned with them keeping their clothes on (as I said a few posts up, I didn't have a problem with John Cameron Mitchell's display of frank homosexuality in Shortbus), it's how the sex scenes and the overall relationship between the two men seems to be designed exploitively to sell tickets. The whole movie isn't very deep: two men who love each other, and who cheat on their wives, can't find peace in a society that is against their sexuality. Lee's conclusion is fairly reasonable (homophobia is bad, because it doesn't allow homosexuals to embrace their true feelings), but is ultimately superficial. If people find this movie to be some sort of breakthrough, then I will remain astonished at that. But part of me isn't surprised: this kind of thing was bound to win Oscars awards, just because they usually equate controversial subject matter with profoundness.


I wasn't saying that. I wasn't even referring to you.

Once again, that wasn't directed at you.

That's fine. Maybe I felt the need to defend myself after your implied and terribly misinformed accusation. Also, I'd appreciate it if you didn't post my words on other websites without my permission.

[MacGuffin]

People who talk about exploiting homosexuality as a selling point are kidding themselves.

Obviously not all movies do it — just this one.

[Amnesiac]

(btw, good review, Amnesiac)


Thanks for giving it a look.

[MacGuffin]

Okay, maybe the whole selling tickets thing might be a little extreme. But seriously, it's not a very deep movie. It seems to be to homosexuality what Crash is to racism.

[B-side]

It's not that I am concerned with them keeping their clothes on (as I said a few posts up, I didn't have a problem with John Cameron Mitchell's display of frank homosexuality in Shortbus), it's how the sex scenes and the overall relationship between the two men seems to be designed exploitively to sell tickets. The whole movie isn't very deep: two men who love each other, and who cheat on their wives, can't find peace in a society that is against their sexuality. Lee's conclusion is fairly reasonable (homophobia is bad, because it doesn't allow homosexuals to embrace their true feelings), but is ultimately superficial. If people find this movie to be some sort of breakthrough, then I will remain astonished at that. But part of me isn't surprised: this kind of thing was bound to win Oscars awards, just because they usually equate controversial subject matter with profoundness.

It's a breakthrough that it made so much money. It's a Hollywood film centering on an explicit homosexual relationship. I'd say it's restrained if anything. Also, since when has homosexuality been a selling point for a film? Last I checked, this was America where half or more of our country is homophobic.


That's fine. Maybe I felt the need to defend myself after your implied and terribly misinformed accusation. Also, I'd appreciate it if you didn't post my words on other websites without my permission.

Heh. Alright. My bad.

[MacGuffin]

It's a breakthrough that it made so much money. It's a Hollywood film centering on an explicit homosexual relationship. I'd say it's restrained if anything. Also, since when has homosexuality been a selling point for a film? Last I checked, this was America where half or more of our country is homophobic.

I don't think I really articulated that point well enough, nor do I think it is as true as I may have thought (I question a lot of things about the Hollywood film industry, so if I saw things that relate to it sometimes that sound outlandish, you'll have to excuse me), but sometimes it seems movies are handcrafted for the Academy. I remember when that movie Sherrybaby came out and some critic was quoted in the trailer as saying: "Looks like Oscar bait to me!" as if that was a good thing.


Heh. Alright. My bad.

It's okay. It's one thing if it's for some essay or something on a blog, but there's a reason I don't post on Rotten Tomatoes anymore (and from looking at the website and having made a post when it was revamped, god, what a terrible, terrible, abysmal forum it has turned into).

[B-side]

I don't think I really articulated that point well enough, nor do I think it is as true as I may have thought (I question a lot of things about the Hollywood film industry, so if I saw things that relate to it sometimes that sound outlandish, you'll have to excuse me), but sometimes it seems movies are handcrafted for the Academy. I remember when that movie Sherrybaby came out and some critic was quoted in the trailer as saying: "Looks like Oscar bait to me!" as if that was a good thing.

I don't doubt that Lee had controversy in mind when making it, but then again, how could you not when making such a film?


It's okay. It's one thing if it's for some essay or something on a blog, but there's a reason I don't post on Rotten Tomatoes anymore (and from looking at the website and having made a post when it was revamped, god, what a terrible, terrible, abysmal forum it has turned into).

Well, I shouldn't have posted it. I was just honestly blown away by what so blatantly appeared to be homophobia coming from you. Anywho, I don't think anyone paid any attention. As for the site "upgrade", it's been near-universally denounced, so you're not alone there. I managed to snatch a custom Stylish layout made by a fellow RT'er that improved its look exponentially. I'm assuming most people didn't grab it, but it is a big difference. The posters are, well, what they've been since I can remember, albeit a bit worse. I'm forgiving of noobs if only because they're usually pretty intent on fitting in, but half of the ones we get can't even spell properly. It gets silly. Everyone who can debate and discuss film resides in the IYPC and most of them don't care to discuss it much.

[MacGuffin]

I don't doubt that Lee had controversy in mind when making it, but then again, how could you not when making such a film?

Yeah, which is why I question the motives behind the filmmakers. I always feel obliged to questioning not only the Hollywood film industry, but films like this, where there doesn't appear to be much else there except for controversy.


Well, I shouldn't have posted it. I was just honestly blown away by what so blatantly appeared to be homophobia coming from you. Anywho, I don't think anyone paid any attention. As for the site "upgrade", it's been near-universally denounced, so you're not alone there. I managed to snatch a custom Stylish layout made by a fellow RT'er that improved its look exponentially. I'm assuming most people didn't grab it, but it is a big difference. The posters are, well, what they've been since I can remember, albeit a bit worse. I'm forgiving of noobs if only because they're usually pretty intent on fitting in, but half of the ones we get can't even spell properly. It gets silly. Everyone who can debate and discuss film resides in the IYPC and most of them don't care to discuss it much.

I still don't really know why you think the comment was homophobic, and I still maintain there is a sort of illogical reverse-homophobia going on here in how you seem to think it is okay to criticize a straight sex scene, but not homosexual sex scenes. But I can assure you that I am by no means a homophobic.

As for RT, well, it's not the upgrade itself I don't like, but the content itself. On the first page alone, we have a thread called "Is Roland Emmerich Retarded?" which tips me off right away the forums aren't striving for intellect, but then multiple threads about superhero movies, a thread about internet browsers, and on the second page, there are more irrelevant threads, including one without completely inappropriate and disgusting humor (are there even mods on these forums?), and basically useless thread after useless thread.

[B-side]

I still don't really know why you think the comment was homophobic, and I still maintain there is a sort of illogical reverse-homophobia going on here in how you seem to think it is okay to criticize a straight sex scene, but not homosexual sex scenes. But I can assure you that I am by no means a homophobic.

I never said you can't criticize a film's usage of sex. It was the way you worded it that made it sound like you took issue with the film's homosexuality.


As for RT, well, it's not the upgrade itself I don't like, but the content itself. On the first page alone, we have a thread called "Is Roland Emmerich Retarded?" which tips me off right away the forums aren't striving for intellect, but then multiple threads about superhero movies, a thread about internet browsers, and on the second page, there are more irrelevant threads, including one without completely inappropriate and disgusting humor (are there even mods on these forums?), and basically useless thread after useless thread.

That's the norm. It's a lot less serious than match-cut, and often to a fault. I enjoy some laughs here and there, too, and Gorb is usually the one to bring about those laughs when it comes to the bigger laugh-centered threads, but it is getting ridiculous.

[MacGuffin]

I never said you can't criticize a film's usage of sex. It was the way you worded it that made it sound like you took issue with the film's homosexuality.

So now I can't take issue with the film's homosexuality without taking issue to homosexuality in general?


That's the norm. It's a lot less serious than match-cut, and often to a fault. I enjoy some laughs here and there, too, and Gorb is usually the one to bring about those laughs when it comes to the bigger laugh-centered threads, but it is getting ridiculous.

Well, when bigger "laugh-centered" threads feature so-called "humor" that is pedophiliac and violent like the thread on page 2, I don't find that funny at all, I find it sick.

[B-side]

So now I can't take issue with the film's homosexuality without taking issue to homosexuality in general?

I didn't say that.


Well, when bigger "laugh-centered" threads feature so-called "humor" that is pedophiliac and violent like the thread on page 2, I don't find that funny at all, I find it sick.

You're taking it too seriously. RT is the 4chan of film forums. The humor is outlandish and offensive simply because they find it funny that people get so up in arms about it.

[MacGuffin]

I didn't say that.

Well, I never took issue with homosexuality in general.


You're taking it too seriously. RT is the 4chan of film forums. The humor is outlandish and offensive simply because they find it funny that people get so up in arms about it.

I don't really understand offensive humor, and the shock value has always appeared to be more off-putting and never funny.

[B-side]

I don't really understand offensive humor, and the shock value has always appeared to be more off-putting and never funny.

I don't mean to antagonize, but aren't you widely known as being a massive troll on RT? This seems kinda ironic in light of that.

[MacGuffin]

I don't mean to antagonize, but aren't you widely known as being a massive troll on RT? This seems kinda ironic in light of that.

I only trolled because I was a better poster than nearly everyone else. The trolling was never meant to be funny. Now that I post at Match Cut, I generally don't have to worry about bad posters with people who truly like movies like I do. I don't see how this has anything to do with offensive humor.

[B-side]

I only trolled because I was a better poster than nearly everyone else. The trolling was never meant to be funny. Now that I post at Match Cut, I generally don't have to worry about people who truly like movies like I do. I don't see how this has anything to do with offensive humor.

Because your assumed self-importance is inherently very condescending and you made no attempt at humility. That's offensive to me, and I'm sure numerous others felt the same way.

[Grouchy]

I only trolled because I was a better poster than nearly everyone else.
Eh. If you say so.

[MacGuffin]

Because your assumed self-importance is inherently very condescending and you made no attempt at humility. That's offensive to me, and I'm sure numerous others felt the same way.

I'm not trying to be funny. I don't like Rotten Tomatoes and I don't care to discuss it anymore, because I don't want to turn this into a ten-page discussion again, as it is irrelevant to film discussion.

[MacGuffin]

Eh. If you say so.

Well, I don't think you posted there anymore at that point (nor did most of Match Cut). ;)

[B-side]

I'm not trying to be funny. I don't like Rotten Tomatoes and I don't care to discuss it anymore, because I don't want to turn this into a ten-page discussion again, as it is irrelevant to film discussion.

I didn't say you were trying to be funny. If you were, that'd almost appear forgivable, but your condescension is beyond ridiculous.

[Winston*]

Stop it.

[Grouchy]

Well, I don't think you posted there anymore at that point (nor did most of Match Cut). ;)
No, no, I still posted there. You were pretty fucking far from the best the site had to offer.

[Ezee E]

Leaving for Vegas at the right time I see.

[Spinal]

I might have to watch some nudie cutie films and give them negative scores for Spinal.

Oh, now that was low! :lol:

[B-side]

Zero for Conduct was a bit of a disappointment in the wake of the extreme promise of A Propos de Nice. It's still an interesting film, though. It feels compromised, which makes sense given Vigo was forced to cut its running time. What we're left with is a bit of a mess, but fortunately, it has its good moments and ideas.

[Qrazy]

I would've guessed you'd be a fan, but I guess if you go into it like that...

His criticisms make it sound stylistically similar to Beau Travail and similar to my criticisms of Beau Travail.

[Qrazy]

Qrazy, do you like Tarkovsky's The Mirror? Because I think there are definite similarities there, although L'Intrus is overall brighter, less hermetic, more expansive, and its metaphysical concerns are different. But not completely different, I would say.

Yes, I do. I'll give it a shot at some point but from the one film I've seen from her (Beau Travail) I"m much less enthusiastic about her style than I am about Tarkovsky's. But to be clear I do not dislike her style so I will give it a look.

[Derek]

I need to stop delaying and just watch this.

Please do and help me talk some sense into Spinal. :)


I think a seventy for Le Silence de Lorna is high regardless of what you thought of Mikey and Nicky, and regardless of what you think of the Dardennes' other films.

Then what you think would be wrong. It's no Rosetta, but it's certainly good enough to make my top 15-20 of the year.

[Derek]

Oh, now that was low! :lol:

Yeah, I know. It was probably a lie too since I think I could find enough to *ahem* admire to give it a positive score.

[Melville]

So, I finally watched Andrei Rublev

you have to do a little work for meaning here, despite the occasionally taxing run time.
That's how I felt the first time I watched it. The second time, I was completely enthralled throughout.


The point of that kind of pretentious review (I had to write so many and it was getting boring) being that the film works on a sensual, emotional, present-tense level. If you're constantly asking, "is this all that's going to happen?" then you're probably not going to like it. You've got to get into the not-questions mode. Just dig those colourful ribbons and float along. That scene I mention with the camera rigidly attached to the boat taking in the purple sea with the threatening but ethereal score in the background...now that is cinema. Not everyone's definition, obviously, but to me it contains a pure and visceral emotional current found in far too few films. The opening of Andrei Rublev, especially the slow-mo shot of the horse, would be another example (btw, good review, Amnesiac)

On the other hand, I think there's a lot going on intellectually as well. Ideas such as our Selves being not quite ourselves, that perception may partially define us and, following that along, then what we perceive (purple oceans, for example) could also define us. As in, our Selves could be both without and within, and objects (like a stranger's heart) could be received and accepted as Self. And in that case, both person and world would, ahem, intrude upon one another. Or something. Also, that our children could be chosen for us (and they sort of are, aren't they?). The exhilaration of the moment contrasted with the inescapable past, too. I like that idea. Basically, I think it's an amazing film.

Qrazy, do you like Tarkovsky's The Mirror? Because I think there are definite similarities there, although L'Intrus is overall brighter, less hermetic, more expansive, and its metaphysical concerns are different. But not completely different, I would say.
Okay, that sounds like the best movie ever.

[BuffaloWilder]

So, something I noticed when I was watching WALL-E this last time - check out the post on the blog, incidentally. It's gotten the most traffic of any post, evar! - is that there's a pretty thick divide in tone between the first and second halves. I don't necessarily consider that a bad thing, but the first half is mostly comedic in tone, while the second half really takes the brunt of all the drama and whatever iconography they were trying to achieve (that is, WALL-E is Jesus, according to Stanton), whereas something like a Happy Feet or a Miyazaki film or even Brad Bird's The Iron Giant - to an extent - keeps both of these things in balance, the entire way through. Drama will segue into comedy, or vicey versey.

Still, interesting film. I'm starting to enjoy bits and pieces of it more and more than I did, initially.

[Melville]

So, something I noticed when I was watching WALL-E this last time - check out the post on the blog, incidentally. It's gotten the most traffic of any post, evar! - is that there's a pretty thick divide in tone between the first and second halves. I don't necessarily consider that a bad thing, but the first half is mostly comedic in tone, while the second half really takes the brunt of all the drama and whatever iconography they were trying to achieve (that is, WALL-E is Jesus, according to Stanton), whereas something like a Happy Feet or a Miyazaki film or even Brad Bird's The Iron Giant - to an extent - keeps both of these things in balance, the entire way through. Drama will segue into comedy, or vicey versey.

Still, interesting film. I'm starting to enjoy bits and pieces of it more and more than I did, initially.
The strong divide was actually one of the things I quite liked about the movie. It made both halves more interesting by having them reflect on one another. And it made the impact of the zaniness and urgency of the second half stronger, due to its contrast with the first half. Also, it made the film more interesting simply by being somewhat unusual.

[BuffaloWilder]

The strong divide was actually one of the things I quite liked about the movie. It made both halves more interesting by having them reflect on one another. And it made the impact of the zaniness and urgency of the second half stronger, due to its contrast with the first half. Also, it made the film more interesting simply by being somewhat unusual.

I think I might agree with you, but I'm not sure just yet.

[MacGuffin]

Once again, I regret getting into that previous argument here, but I don't regret most of the things that I said.

[Derek]

Zero for Conduct was a bit of a disappointment in the wake of the extreme promise of A Propos de Nice. It's still an interesting film, though. It feels compromised, which makes sense given Vigo was forced to cut its running time. What we're left with is a bit of a mess, but fortunately, it has its good moments and ideas.

It's really good with some amusing and beautifully surreal moments, but I prefer A Propos de Nice as well.

I assume you've seen L'Atalante already, because if not, you're missing out on one of the best films evah.

[megladon8]

So, something I noticed when I was watching WALL-E this last time - check out the post on the blog, incidentally. It's gotten the most traffic of any post, evar! - is that there's a pretty thick divide in tone between the first and second halves. I don't necessarily consider that a bad thing, but the first half is mostly comedic in tone, while the second half really takes the brunt of all the drama and whatever iconography they were trying to achieve (that is, WALL-E is Jesus, according to Stanton), whereas something like a Happy Feet or a Miyazaki film or even Brad Bird's The Iron Giant - to an extent - keeps both of these things in balance, the entire way through. Drama will segue into comedy, or vicey versey.

Still, interesting film. I'm starting to enjoy bits and pieces of it more and more than I did, initially.



These are all movies for children.

You should really try watching something more demanding.

[[ETM]]

These are all movies for children.

You should really try watching something more demanding.

Srsly?

[megladon8]

;188470']Srsly?


Not really. (http://match-cut.org/showpost.php?p=188347&postcount=260)

[MacGuffin]

What is that from, Amnesiac?

[Winston*]

What is that from, Amnesiac?

Tim and Eric Awesome Show, Great Job. Probably the best sketch I've seen from it.

[MacGuffin]

Tim and Eric Awesome Show, Great Job. Probably the best sketch I've seen from it.

Do you know which season? I kinda want to rent the DVD out of curiosity because I've heard so many good things about the show.

[[ETM]]

Not really. (http://match-cut.org/showpost.php?p=188347&postcount=260)

Yeah, I read that right afterwards. Madness.

[Melville]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZrvzdPV3Ms

Comedy gold.

[Winston*]

Do you know which season? I kinda want to rent the DVD out of curiosity because I've heard so many good things about the show.

The third I'm pretty sure. Be forewarned, the are a lot of horrible sketches on this show.

[Milky Joe]

There are also a lot of awesome sketches, though.

[BuffaloWilder]

These are all movies for children.

You should really try watching something more demanding.


I know you are in jest, but incidentally, I did just finish watching Neil Marshall's Doomsday. And, I wish I could scrub my eyeballs.

[Skitch]

Nice to see someone else on the positive side for Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within.

I liked it a lot.

...and Silent Hill.

[balmakboor]

I watched Made in USA and 2 or 3 Things I Know About Her today. I liked both a lot, but 2 or 3... is simply incredible. Not quite up there with Contempt or Pierrot le fou for me (both of which are more entertaining) but it certainly rivals other personal favorites like La Chinoise and Week End.

[MacGuffin]

I watched Made in USA and 2 or 3 Things I Know About Her today. I liked both a lot, but 2 or 3... is simply incredible. Not quite up there with Contempt or Pierrot le fou for me (both of which are more entertaining) but it certainly rivals other personal favorites like La Chinoise and Week End.

Nice, I bought 2 or 3 Things I Know About Her.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Robocop

Verhoeven's infamous robot revenge tale is a mostly-delightful variant on the Frankenstein story, with Peter Weller giving real poignancy to his clunky, armor-covered hero. The rest of the cast is game, especially Miguel Ferrer as a slimy yuppie and Kurtwood Smith as the ebullient gangster secretly in league with corporate interests. Verhoeven's distaste of the body corporate extends into wearying, if occasionally clever, satirical barbs ("I'd buy that for a dollar!"), but this story has real heart. And, beneath all the gore and action, that's what makes it work.

B+

[Derek]

There are also a lot of awesome sketches, though.

Yeah, it's rare there's a whole episode without at least one nugget of gold. There are plenty that are absolutely abysmal, but that's to be expected with the absolute go-for-broke surrealist comedy sketch shows.

Speaking of which, I miss Wonder (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Gfnke34LQw) Showzen (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a73uTAyml_c&NR=1). :(

[B-side]

It's really good with some amusing and beautifully surreal moments, but I prefer A Propos de Nice as well.

I assume you've seen L'Atalante already, because if not, you're missing out on one of the best films evah.

Nah, I'm saving that for last. Can't wait, though.

[EyesWideOpen]

The third I'm pretty sure. Be forewarned, the are a lot of horrible sketches on this show.

Nonsense.

[Robby P]

Coraline was enjoyable enough but the 3-D gimmick didn't do much for me. Beyond giving me a headache, anyways.

[baby doll]

I watched Made in USA and 2 or 3 Things I Know About Her today. I liked both a lot, but 2 or 3... is simply incredible. Not quite up there with Contempt or Pierrot le fou for me (both of which are more entertaining) but it certainly rivals other personal favorites like La Chinoise and Week End.I suppose I'll have to give this one another look, but I found that Godard's embrace of the day's theoretical orthodoxy (narrated in hushed tones by the filmmaker himself) not only dates the film (because structuralism is, like, so 1967) but is totally impenetrable as well.

[DrewG]

Re-watched Drugstore Cowboy and The Ruins last night...I'd like to talk about the latter a bit.

I think it went down a notch or two on the 2nd viewing considering the shock value of the sudden gore was not as profound, but I still found the entire experience to be rather unnerving and claustrophobic. A lot of the complaints leveled towards the movie were that it's not really that scary and doesn't have any kind of social metaphor or allegory apart from the "YOUNG AMERICANS! PLACE THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND! BAD SITUATION!" that is being bludgeoned to death in recent years. However, I think it does a lot of things that deserve appreciation in their execution. The aforementioned sudden gore isn't overkill but it isn't too little either; but apart from that the gore is creative...

The leg amputation still gave me the heebie jeebies and the vines coming out of the legs and skin still made for uncomfortable viewing.

Back to those complaints that the movie isn't scary...I never really found it nail biting in terms of terror but rather in terms of watching the group slowly deteriorate mentally and physically specifically with the help of the 4-5 young actors really pulling their weight with the material. I still found Stacy to be haunting and sympathetic as her anxiety gives way to insanity, eventually giving us what may be the best scene of the movie as Jeff is forced into a unenviable decision as the plants howl and scream. Now THAT was still scary to me.

Granted, some of the relationships may be underdeveloped and the whole Mattias angle only lends itself to really be a valuable emotional factor in 1 or 2 scenes but apart from this small gripe I think this was definitely an overlooked little movie. Really an incredibly simple concept with an interesting, almost singular setting (I love "one-room" kind of movies) that has good acting, good gore, an atypical "villain" and some really unnerving scenes.

Also; forget the theatrical ending. Gimmie the Unrated version (which also includes the inexplicable hand job scene...someone wanna help me out there?).

[Watashi]

I'm back from Comic Con! Had an amazing time.

Highlights include:

Meeting and talking to Stan Lee
Seeing Johnny Depp and Tim Burton on stage together
Laughing at the ridiculousness of the New Moon footage
Seeing 24 minutes of Avatar and being blown away (James Cameron said this was his "Lawerence of Arabia")
Seeing 10 minutes of absolutely beautiful Where the Wild Things Are footage.
Seeing Megan Fox, Michael Fessbender, and Josh Brolin at the Jonah Hex panel (footage looks terrible) have a great time
SEEING HAYAO FUCKING MIYAZAKI IN THE FLESH. I almost cried. One of the best moments in my life.
Seeing Ray Bradbury. The man is so inspirational.
Seeing the Watchmen Director's Cut live with Zack Snyder providing commentary on nearly everything. I got to meet him after the show.

[Watashi]

Oh yeah, and seeing Rachel McAdams.

*drools*

[baby doll]

SEEING HAYAO FUCKING MIYAZAKI IN THE FLESH. I almost cried. One of the best moments in my life.Did he look as awkward as he did in John Lasseter's DVD intro for Spirited Away?

[Dead & Messed Up]

Did he look as awkward as he did in John Lasseter's DVD intro for Spirited Away?

Yes, but only because after crying, Wats blew his nose on Hiyao's pant leg.

[baby doll]

Yes, but only because after crying, Wats blew his nose on Hiyao's pant leg.So I'm not the only one who thought Miyazaki looked really uncomfortable standing next to Lasseter, right?

[Dead & Messed Up]

So I'm not the only one who thought Miyazaki looked really uncomfortable standing next to Lasseter, right?

I never saw it - I just used your comment to springboard into a joke about snot.

[baby doll]

I never saw it - I just used your comment to springboard into a joke about snot.Okay, it's been a while since I've seen it, so I was looking for some outside confirmation.

[Ivan Drago]

Coraline was enjoyable enough but the 3-D gimmick didn't do much for me. Beyond giving me a headache, anyways.

Did you watch it on standard DVD or Blu-Ray? Because when I rented it on standard DVD, I wasn't getting anything resembling 3D - nothing came out at me, no better depth of field...nothing. Just the movie in 2D and a hell of a lot of purple from the glasses that came with it.

[BuffaloWilder]

So, what did Mayazaki think of you, Wats?

[megladon8]

So, what did Mayazaki think of you, Wats?


American fanatic give great helmet!

[Watashi]

So, what did Mayazaki think of you, Wats?
He bowed to the entire audience.

I nearly fainted.

[Robby P]

Did you watch it on standard DVD or Blu-Ray?

The former. I, too, had difficulty seeing anything particularly three dimensional most of the time.

Amusingly, the video store expects me to return the glasses with the movie. Don't these things cost about three cents to manufacture? What happens if I don't return them? Will they charge me a nickel?

[Qrazy]

Because structuralism is, like, so 1967.

Not really.

[MacGuffin]

Not really.

It's true, it's true. Structuralism has gone mainstream!

Library rentals:
Bright Future
Chungking Express
La ciénaga
Dolls
Oasis
Some Like it Hot
Séance
Blue Velvet
M. Hulot's Holiday
Fellini's Roma

Chungking Express and Blue Velvet are repeats; I wanted to rent Fellini - Satyricon, but Fellini's Roma will have to do for now.

[Amnesiac]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_TL0AkyHCtJs/SQyvmqFss4I/AAAAAAAADmY/jsQeidNiQaA/s400/stalker.jpg

I watched Stalker the other day. Not surprisingly, there is so much to admire here. The languid and meditative tramcar ride into the Zone, set against those haunting synth beats... that potent shot of all the military vehicles covered in moss... Writer slowly advancing down that dark tunnel... the golds and reds that become enchantingly prominent as the camera tracks backward and away from Writer, Professor and Stalker following their final argument at the threshold... the unreality that carries the sequence in which the three of them take a rest... the slight and careful camera movements...

And, once again, the look of these actors just feels so particularly apt and evocative. For instance, there is something about Stalker's look of perpetual consternation that just seems to perfectly define the character. Not to repeatedly return to Johnson and Petrie, but I am reading their book on Tarkovsky and can't help but cite some of their observations: "Tarkovsky, like Bergman, also creates a landscape out of the human face and body and is not afraid to let his camera linger and explore it". I feel that this is very true, and that there is something tragic, world-weary, and potent about the faces he found. That tramcar ride is bizarrely fascinating and hypnotic due to the presence of these actors but it also remains a testament, both to Tarkovsky's technical proficiency (and surely that of his team of cinematographers) and the film's interesting sound design.

And in terms of dialogue and pontifications, this film feels particularly rich. Writer, Professor and Stalker each tackle some particularly heavy and intriguing issues, returning to some of Tarkovsky's former concerns (the struggle inherent in becoming a genuine, rather than a rote and populist, artist as well as this pressing need to rectify society's spiritual dearth). On this latter note, the film seems to do a nosedive into bleak pessimism before suddenly rising up majestically just before the end of the film in what is probably destined to be one of my favorite film endings ever. It is a finale that implores the audience's faith while still making concessions to the skeptical Writer in each of us. Personally, I felt Tarkovsky was more pointing toward an optimistic possibility with the ending. After all, he himself said that art should not be strictly and relentlessly bleak but should instead provide some sort of positive thrust forward. This seems to account for what I thought was a genuine gesture of hope and compassion in the last few moments of the film.

Tarkovsky apparently used a fair bit from Arkadi and Boris Strugatsky's novel but also markedly departed from that text by laying on the ambiguity of the Zone a bit more thickly. I think this worked really well and I ended up especially loving the way the Zone was presented due to this lack of definitive exposition or detail. It's such an ethereal, confounding and otherworldly place. On a related note, Tarkovsky made good use of both black & white and color film stock. The sepia-toned opening, while showcasing a great amount of beauty and texture, contrasts wonderfully with the mystical and verdant Zone. I also love how the actors handled themselves with such authenticity upon arriving at, and dealing with, the Zone. Of course, this veracious feeling spread outward to the Zone itself. From the production design to the shot length to the camera movements to the music... Tarkovsky managed to capture a sense of atmosphere and place that didn't feel at all disingenuous.

[MacGuffin]

When they enter the zone and the film changed to color, my heart basically skipped a beat. The scene where Stalker blows a gasket in the room is amazing. Great write-up, too. The movie is a masterpiece.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Okay, so I was sitting on the toilet earlier, and I returned, as I sometimes do, to Minority Report.

If you remember, the one big plothole in the picture is where the original report of Anderton's murder came from. Basically, it seems that the reason he kills Leo Crow is because he was predicted to. Much like Oedipus, he fulfills his destiny by trying to avoid it. But if his destiny is predicated on the prediction, where does the prediction originally come from? After all, the prediction must happen for the future to be predictable.

For the longest time, I was under the impression that somehow Burgess had implanted the circumstances of the crime, and Agatha accommodated him. But this seemed flimsy.

Then I suddenly thought, what if Agatha herself provoked the murder for her own purposes? Think about it. Agatha wants justice for her mother, freedom for herself, and punishment for Burgess. She tries to provoke this initially by showing Anderton her vision. He doesn't do much about it. So she takes things a giant step forward by coercing Anderton into unraveling the system (by implicating him as a murderer). He takes her, she gets out, she can tell him the truth (however obliquely).

It's perfect! It explains the circumstances of the initial prediction as a result of Agatha's desire to escape, it makes her the vital player in the saga, operating behind the scenes, and it gives additional meaning to her final look out the window at the end of the picture. It makes the film as much about its women as its men. It furthers the parallel to Chinatown by using the ostensible main mystery to hide a more important one in plain sight. What a great conclusion.

But alas! I remembered that Leo Crow explicitly mentions how somebody "set it up," shifting the blame from Agatha back to Burgess. Which means that the big plot hole remains. Which pisses me off, because I suddenly thought I had it all figured out. I thought it was now a perfect film. And now it's back to being "almost" perfect, with that big glaring confusing element mocking me every time I sit down to watch it.

Then I wiped and flushed.

[megladon8]

Minority Report is in my top 5 sci-fi films of all time.

Like a time-travel plot, I think that unfortunately it's just one of those conundrums that can never work perfectly. No matter how well written to be flawless, there is always some angle in which it isn't quite right.

I still think it's superb. 2001/2002 were great years for Tom Cruise.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Minority Report is in my top 5 sci-fi films of all time.

Like a time-travel plot, I think that unfortunately it's just one of those conundrums that can never work perfectly. No matter how well written to be flawless, there is always some angle in which it isn't quite right.

Yeah, but I totally just fixed it in my head. Eliminate Crow's confession, Witwer's "orgy of evidence" scene, and it's good. It doesn't even have to get more explicit than that. Burgess is now someone taking advantage of a situation, Anderton's moral choice becomes even more difficult, and an awesome feminist subtext is added to an already-rich film.

I'm so goddamn smart.

[Pop Trash]

I only trolled because I was a better poster than nearly everyone else.

The hell? I'm quite sure Hello Heino and that dude with the Thomas Pynchon avatar (to name just two) are better posters on RT than you dude. Liking Gasper Noe movies and having no sense of humor doesn't exactly make you a great poster.

[baby doll]

Minority Report is in my top 5 sci-fi films of all time.Hyperbole alert! Granted, it's definitely one of Spielberg's better efforts, but for me it doesn't reach the sublime heights of A.I. Artificial Intelligence, which reminds us of how small and transient human life on earth is. The film imagines an earth in which human beings have been wiped out by a second ice age. Similarly, Tarkovsky's Stalker takes place mainly in a zone where the only evidence of human life consists rusted out tanks and decaying bunkers, giving us a glimpse of a post-human landscape.

[baby doll]

For the record (and because I'm bored), my top five SF films:

A.I. Artificial Intelligence (Steven Spielberg, 2001)
Alphaville, une étrange aventure de Lemmy Caution (Jean-Luc Godard, 1965)
La Jetée (Chris Marker, 1962)
Metropolis (Fritz Lang, 1927)
2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, 1968)

[Duncan]

The hell? I'm quite sure Hello Heino and that dude with the Thomas Pynchon avatar (to name just two) are better posters on RT than you dude. Liking Gasper Noe movies and having no sense of humor doesn't exactly make you a great poster.

Does this dude have an av that is an actual picture of Thomas Pynchon? Because that seems weirdly contrary to anything Pynchon himself would want. Or so I would assume, at least.

[MacGuffin]

For the record (and because I'm bored), my top five SF films:

A.I. Artificial Intelligence (Steven Spielberg, 2001)
Alphaville, une étrange aventure de Lemmy Caution (Jean-Luc Godard, 1965)
La Jetée (Chris Marker, 1962)
Metropolis (Fritz Lang, 1927)
2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, 1968)

La Jetée and Metropolis would definitely make my list. I'm excited to see the new footage for Metropolis, but I've heard parts of the found print were practically unusable. Still, I think I heard it was to premiere late-2010, so we'll probably see a DVD release in 2011. As for A.I.: Artificial Intelligence, I haven't seen it since the theatrical run, but I'm in no real hurry to see it again, even though I own the DVD. I want to see Alphaville again, because although it was great, it struck me as a more minor Godard. Still, it'd probably make my list by default. If someone re-released a good transfer of it, I'd probably consider buying it. I need to re-watch 2001: A Space Odyssey.

[Pop Trash]

Does this dude have an av that is an actual picture of Thomas Pynchon? Because that seems weirdly contrary to anything Pynchon himself would want. Or so I would assume, at least.
It's the one photo out there of him. Back when he was in the navy.

[Dead & Messed Up]

For the record (and because I'm bored), my top five SF films:

A.I. Artificial Intelligence (Steven Spielberg, 2001)
Alphaville, une étrange aventure de Lemmy Caution (Jean-Luc Godard, 1965)
La Jetée (Chris Marker, 1962)
Metropolis (Fritz Lang, 1927)
2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, 1968)

You can just call it Alphaville. :)

My own:

2001: A Space Odyssey
Children of Men
Invasion of the Body Snatchers
Metropolis
Primer

[MacGuffin]

Children of Men
Primer

Nice. I also forgot about Stalker. So... my list would probably look like this:

1. Metropolis
2. La Jetée
3. Stalker
4. Alphaville
5. Children of Men

[Dead & Messed Up]

Nice. I also forgot about Stalker.

A top five of anything is generally unsatisfying. I'd need a top fifteen or twenty to come close to what I love.

[megladon8]

2001: A Space Odyssey
Blade Runner
Minority Report
Invasion of the Body Snatchers ('78)
The Day the Earth Stood Still ('51)

Alien would also make the list, but I am very back-and-forth on whether it's sci-fi or horror.

[baby doll]

5. Children of MenReally, dude?

*Shakes head in disappointment*

[MacGuffin]

Really, dude?

*Shakes head in disappointment*

Consider it a place-holder until I take another look at 2001: A Space Odyssey. It's probably not a great movie, but then, I admittedly haven't seen very many science-fiction movies. They're not really my thing.

[megladon8]

What's wrong with Children of Men?

[MacGuffin]

What's wrong with Children of Men?

There's nothing really wrong with it inherently, I just thing some moments in the movie are better than others. Maybe I'll watch it again tonight since I own the DVD and I'll get back to you on it; I've been meaning to take another look and have owned the DVD for about a year, just never watched it again. I loved it when it first came out, for the record.

[megladon8]

I thought it was fantastic.

Not "top 5 sci-fi films of all time" fantastic, but a great movie nonetheless. And its so very rare that a film can combine both arthouse sensibilities with mass-market appeal.

It's a movie that people on MatchCut and my non-movie-enthusiast friends enjoyed.

[baby doll]

What's wrong with Children of Men?For one thing, the story is pretty simplistic: a man tries to save a baby, and in the process learns to hope again. It's an okay action movie, but not especially memorable or challenging.

[MacGuffin]

but not especially memorable

Probably the reason I don't think as highly of it as I once did: the most memorable scene to me was the one with Michael Caine in his awesome cabin in the woods.

[Qrazy]

1. Stalker
2. 2001: A Space Odyssey
3. Brazil
4. Close Encounters of the Third Kind
5. Metropolis

The top two are the only sci fi films I feel are completely undeniable.

Just missed the cut:

Aliens
A Clockwork Orange
Akira

[transmogrifier]

1. Alien
2. Aliens
3. Alien 3
4. Alien Resurrection
5. My Stepmother is an Alien

[Grouchy]

1. 2001: A Space Odyssey
2. Akira
3. Brazil
4. Children of Men
5. A Clockwork Orange

HM: Terminator 2 / Videodrome / Close Encounters of the Third Kind

[Mysterious Dude]

Some time ago, I made a thread in which I listed my top 20 science fiction films. The list has changed a little.

1. Metropolis (1927)
2. Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956)
3. The Fantastic Planet (1973)
4. Children of Men (2006)
5. A Trip to the Moon (1902)
6. The Man in the White Suit (1951)
7. E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial (1982)
8. The Incredible Shrinking Man (1957)
9. Tron (1982)
10. Planet of the Apes (1968)

11. Twelve Monkeys (1995)
12. Alien (1979)
13. Gattaca (1997)
14. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)
15. The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951)
16. Akira (1988)
17. The Terminator (1984)
18. The Prestige (2006)
19. The Matrix (1999)
20. Contact (1997)

[Grouchy]

http://lunaydragon.files.wordpress.co m/2007/05/ciruelo7.jpg

Outlander (which I hesitated to rent for more than a month) turned out to be a pretty good movie. Sure, it runs wild with clichés, but at its core, it's an action epic with sci-fi elements which touches many of the fantasy elements I've grown to love. I think the movie's finest achievement is yuxtaposing what the Vikings tend to think of the outlander (that he comes from the Gods) with the science fiction background. This is hardly an original concept, but it was specially well used in the scene where he tells his family history to the girl. The monster(s) were another high mark, because there was always the sense that they were a plausible otherworldy animal while at the same time they had enough outlandish powers to make them surprising. Best pop corn flick I've seen in a while.

Then I saw Birdman of Alcatraz, which has to be one of the most on-your-face "message" movies ever. Of course, when you combine the talents of Frankenheimer and a cast consisting of Burt Lancaster, Telly Savalas and Karl Malden, it's hard not to enjoy it. It did remind me too much of that scene in Zelig where we see the movie Hollywood made out of the real person and, sure enough, Wikipedia told me that the real Bob Stroud was a dangerous psychopath instead of the mild-mannered intellectual Lancaster portrayed. Still, this doesn't invalidate the movie's thesis, which is that the prison system does nothing to change people, instead just turning them into establishment-dependent robots which are safe to handle. This was specially poignant in the ending scenes which feature some of Lancaster's best work that I have ever seen.

[Spun Lepton]

Top 5 Sci-Fi

1. Blade Runner (Final Cut)
2. The Day the Earth Stood Still ('51)
3. A Clockwork Orange
4. 2001: A Space Odyssey
5. 12 Monkeys

Honorable Mention:
Forbidden Planet

I would have included The Thing and Alien, but they already land on my favorite horror list and I didn't want to be redundant. :P

[baby doll]

HM: VideodromeGood call.

[The Mike]

Top 5 Sci-Fi we say?

Alien
Blade Runner
Flash Gordon
Close Encounters of the Third Kind
Soylent Green/Forbidden Planet/The Day the Earth Stood Still

HM: The Incredible Shrinking Man, Predator, Serenity, Starship Troopers, Rollerball, The Brother from Another Planet

I want to put King Kong up there, but not sure about classifying it.

[Spun Lepton]

G-Force was #1 this weekend? (*slaps forehead*) :lol:

[baby doll]

Starship TroopersOkay, this is seriously wrong. It's not even Paul Verhoeven's best SF film. Total Recall is a good deal more accomplished as storytelling, and it's far better acted. Plus...

Arnold totally kills that dude when he sees the bead of sweat running down his face. Isn't that like the most awesome movie moment ever?

[MacGuffin]

Total Recall

I forgot about this one, but it may be better than Children of Men.

[Spun Lepton]

Total Recall is my favorite Governator flick. I'm surprised I forgot it, too. Damn, I also forgot about Robocop. I lurve that movie.

[Rowland]

I forgot about this one, but it may be better than Children of Men.Hah, no.

[MacGuffin]

Hah, no.

Hah, maybe.