28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[Grouchy]

If I did the Top20 both Total Recall and Starship Troopers would be in there.

[Sven]

If I did the Top20 both Total Recall and Starship Troopers would be in there.

I would hope Robocop as well, no? All three would be in my top 10 probably.

[The Mike]

Okay, 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?

I totally could have substituted Recall (or Robocop, too) in the Verhoeven spot there. But as much as I love Arnie, giant bugs with vaginal faces are too awesome to resist.

[Rowland]

Don't get me wrong, I like Total Recall, but I'm greatly partial to Starship Troopers and especially Robocop.

[baby doll]

Hah, no.Say what? Total Recall is so much better than Children of Men it's not even funny. The story is full of fun ambiguities, and it's action-packed and gory. And it has a woman with three boobs.

[Rowland]

Say what? Total Recall is so much better than Children of Men it's not even funny. The story is full of fun ambiguities, and it's action-packed and gory. And it has a woman with three boobs.Its ambiguities have never struck me as all that interesting or developed, while the action-packed second half has always been a considerable comedown from the intrigue of the first half, playing more like a generic '80s actioner than the more ambitious sci-fi it seemed to have been building itself up as. Satisfying as pulp, but it fails to resonate or impart any really coherent ideas. Children of Men, even with its action sequences, maintains a coherent, adult drama from beginning to end, and moved me to tears with its thematic culmination in the final reel, as exciting as it was emotionally rich and philosophically profound in its almost buddhist simplicity. And it's much better made too; Total Recall has always looked like one of Verhoeven's tackier efforts.

[Melville]

Top 5 Sci-Fi

1. 2001: A Space Odyssey
2. Solaris (Tarkovsky)
3. Metropolis
4. Blade Runner
5. La Jetee

Minority Report might make the top 10. I think its completely nonsensical story is one of the best things about it. It's mind-warpingly nonsensical. The villain sets an elaborate plot in motion simply by putting some photos in a room, even though nobody even sees the photos. That's crazy.

[baby doll]

Its ambiguities have never struck me as all that interesting or developed, while the action-packed second half has always been a considerable comedown from the intrigue of the first half, playing more like a generic '80s actioner than the more ambitious sci-fi it seemed to have been building itself up as. Satisfying as pulp, but it fails to resonate or impart any really coherent ideas. Children of Men, even with its action sequences, maintains a coherent, adult drama from beginning to end, and moved me to tears with its thematic culmination in the final reel, as exciting as it was emotionally satisfying and philosophically profound in its almost buddhist simplicity. And it's much better made too; Total Recall has always looked like one of Verhoeven's tackier efforts.I dunno if "developed" is the right word; what the film does is it undermines our certainty as to whether what's happening in the film is real or all in the protagonist's imagination. That's not something that can really develop. As for interesting, in of itself no, this ambiguity isn't particularly interesting, but to go back to that scene where Arnold totally kills that dude for sweating, it's not cut-and-dried as to how we're supposed to feel about that. The film works as a straight-ahead actioner, but there are additional layers of interest on top of that.

As for Children of Men's allegedly adult drama, what exactly makes it adult? The sombre tone? I'll grant that the film's unambiguously happy ending, with a literal beacon of light showing the way to salvation is emotionally satisfying, in contrast with Verhoeven's sly undermining of his own happy ending through comic exaggeration, as well as the aforementioned uncertainty. However, was it really the film's thematic culmination (whatever that is) that moved you to tears, or the stuff that's actually onscreen? Furthermore, a simple story isn't necessarily profound or Buddhist.

[Milky Joe]

Children of Men's ending, unambiguously happy? What?

[Qrazy]

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

I didn't forget, it's not. ;)

[baby doll]

Children of Men's ending, unambiguously happy? What?He saves the baby. Happy ending.

[Qrazy]

He saves the baby. Happy ending.

You fail at watching movies.

Note:

His death and the death of most of the major characters.

A hopeful ending is not the same as an unambiguously happy ending. It is in fact, vastly different.

[baby doll]

You fail at watching movies.

Note: His death.Rick doesn't get on that plane at the end of Casablanca (do I need to put that one in spoiler tags?), but it's still a happy ending.

[Winston*]

You fail at watching movies.

Note: His death and the death of most of the major characters.

And the fact that we still don't know at the end if humankind is going to be saved.

[baby doll]

A hopeful ending is not the same as an unambiguously happy ending. It is in fact, vastly different.Hopeful is probably a more exact way of putting it, but it's definitely unambiguous that he saves the baby, and therefore the world.

[Qrazy]

Rick doesn't get on that plane at the end of Casablanca (do I need to put that one in spoiler tags?), but it's still a happy ending.

No but do put the quoted text from me in spoiler tags please, sorry I forgot to do it before.

No, Casablanca doesn't have a happy ending either. It has an ending with both sad and happy moments mixed in together.

[baby doll]

And the fact that we still don't know at the end if humankind is going to be saved.Oh, we know.

[Qrazy]

And the fact that we still don't know at the end if humankind is going to be saved.

Yes, that also.

[Winston*]

Oh, we know.

How?

[Qrazy]

Oh, we know.

We know that there is potential for survival now, only that.

[Sycophant]

Remotely happy endings are for mental midgets anyway, amirite?

[baby doll]

No but do put the quoted text from me in spoiler tags please, sorry I forgot to do it before.

No, Casablanca doesn't have a happy ending either. It has an ending with both sad and happy moments mixed in together.He does the right thing and puts the greater good above his own feelings, which is all the more remarkable because at the beginning of the film his motto is, "I stick my neck out for no one." That's hardly a sad ending. It's uplifting, that's what it is.

[BuffaloWilder]

Children of Men's ending, unambiguously happy? What?


You don't tell baby doll his post makes no sense - what kind of man be you?

[baby doll]

How?I haven't seen the film since its release, but I remember there being a beacon of light, which I guess represents hope for the future. And whatever it was they were trying to get the baby to all along. Anyway, what kind of movie ends with a baby starving to death? It's a happy ending but the film doesn't want to admit it.

[Qrazy]

He does the right thing and puts the greater good above his own feelings, which is all the more remarkable because at the beginning of the film his motto is, "I stick my neck out for no one." That's hardly a sad ending. It's uplifting, that's what it is.

Well, that's noble, not happy. So there's that and there's also that he's beginning a beautiful new friendship, a fun light note to end the film on... but there's also the heartbreaking element of the way the love triangle finally works out.

[Watashi]

Top 5 Sci-Fi

1. The Empire Strikes Back
2. Minority Report
3. Blade Runner
4. 2001: A Space Odyssey
5. Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome

[Raiders]

2001: A Space Odyssey
Invasion of the Body Snatchers ('56)
WALL-E
Stalker
The Thing

[Watashi]

Oh yeah, WALL-E. That would be on there.

[Spinal]

This Children of Men discussion has nothing to do with blood splatter on the camera lens. Therefore, I have no interest.

[Grouchy]

I think the endings of Total Recall and Children of Men are not really comparable. I mean, the former is a satire of the Hollywood happy ending which includes an element of uncertainty (is this actually happening?). Children of Men's is about hope and there's zero metatextuality involved. It's about the struggle of all human life. So yes, it's a happy ending, but it's not like that's a bad thing.

I think the tone of both films is different enough as to make any comparison pointless.

[Sven]

Children of Men absolutely has a happy ending. What's wrong with you people?

[BuffaloWilder]

For posterity's sake -

The Mad Max Trilogy - as one whole (for the sake of space)
Children of Men
A Clockwork Orange
The Thing
Blade Runner
Brazil
Robocop


There.

[Winston*]

This is one of these semantics discussions where everyone weighs in because they're bored at work but no one really actually gives a shit. A lot of Match Cut discussions seem to be this way.

[transmogrifier]

This is one of these semantics discussions where everyone weighs in because they're bored at work but no one really actually gives a shit. A lot of Match Cut discussions seem to be this way.

This is absolutely true.

[Grouchy]

I would hope Robocop as well, no? All three would be in my top 10 probably.
This post actually sparked me to make a Top30 Sci-Fi. I did it, then deleted the post because I realized it's fucking impossible. For one thing, I had overlooked Mad Max.

[Qrazy]

This post actually sparked me to make a Top30 Sci-Fi. I did it, then deleted the post because I realized it's fucking impossible. For one thing, I had overlooked Mad Max.

So make a top 100, I don't think there are much more than 100 excellent sci fi's. Although there are over 100 enjoyable ones.

[MacGuffin]

So make a top 100, I don't think there are much more than 100 excellent sci fi's. Although there are over 100 enjoyable ones.

Seriously? 100? That seems like a lot of goddamn science-fiction movies. I didn't think the genre was that prolific.

[Qrazy]

Seriously? 100? That seems like a lot of goddamn science-fiction movies. I didn't think the genre was that prolific.

Well there probably aren't even enough excellent ones for a 100 but I think I could make one with 100 films I like.

Here's one list:

http://home.austarnet.com.au/petersykes/topscifi/lists_film.html

There are a number there I wouldn't include and would substitute out for others.

[MacGuffin]

Well there probably aren't even enough excellent ones for a 100 but I think I could make one with 100 films I like.

Here's one list:

http://home.austarnet.com.au/petersykes/topscifi/lists_film.html

There are a number there I wouldn't include and would substitute out for others.

Yeah, but the thing is, a lot of the movies on that list aren't really worth-watching. I mean, not only does it feature stuff like I, Robot, but in retrospect, I can think of many other things I'd rather be watching than the things on that list, whether they are entertaining or not.

[Qrazy]

Yeah, but the thing is, a lot of the movies on that list aren't really worth-watching. I mean, not only does it feature stuff like I, Robot, but in retrospect, I can think of many other things I'd rather be watching than the things on that list, whether they are entertaining or not.

Yeah that would not be my list, just posted it to show that such a list could be made, but there are a number of films they did not mention which I would (foreign films). I'll start compiling a list at some point.

[BuffaloWilder]

Well there probably aren't even enough excellent ones for a 100 but I think I could make one with 100 films I like.

Here's one list:

http://home.austarnet.com.au/petersykes/topscifi/lists_film.html

There are a number there I wouldn't include and would substitute out for others.

...why is Batman on there?

[BuffaloWilder]

I don't know how you guys are able to compile these lists and rankings. Gives me the heebie-jeebies, really.

[Grouchy]

As per audience request, a Top50:

http://www.ubercharged.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/2001_dave.jpg

1. 2001: A Space Odyssey
2. Akira
3. Brazil
4. Children of Men
5. A Clockwork Orange
6. Terminator 2
7. Mad Max 2
8. Videodrome
9. WALL-E
10. Close Encounters of the Third Kind

http://www.moviesonline.ca/movie-gallery/albums/userpics/TheThing11.JPG

11. The Thing
12. Alien
13. Blade Runner
14. Invasion of the Body Snatchers ('78)
15. Metropolis
16. The Terminator
17. Seconds
18. 12 Monkeys
19. A.I.: Artificial Intelligence
20. Starship Troopers

http://fusionanomaly.net/xenomorph.jpg

21. Aliens
22. Enemy Mine
23. The Fly
24. Paprika
25. Planet of the Apes ('68)
26. Total Recall
27. They Live!
28. Re-Animator
29. The Invisible Man
30. The Man Who Fell to Earth

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_bSLIuMbYY3Q/SfHNbrPEuxI/AAAAAAAAC1o/4RH4cwHN0us/s400/predator1.jpg

31. Predator
32. Robocop
33. A Trip to the Moon
34. E.T.
35. Escape from New York
36. Frankenstein ('31)
37. Invasion of the Body Snatchers ('56)
38. Scanners
39. Dark City
40. Mission to Mars

http://www.dharmaflix.com/w/images/2/23/Starman.jpg

41. Starman
42. Sunshine
43. The Thing from Another World
44. Timecrimes
45. Fahrenheit 451
46. From Beyond
47. Mars Attacks!
48. The Matrix
49. Minority Report
50. THX 1138

Let the criticism begin.

[Qrazy]

30. The Man Who Fell to Earth
38. Scanners
47. Mars Attacks!


These are the only ones that I feel are quite awful.

Not my list, but a solid one on the whole.

I have not seen these, spare a few thoughts (on the ones which are not Frankenstein or The Thing from Another World... those I already planned to get to at some point).

22. Enemy Mine
28. Re-Animator
36. Frankenstein ('31)
43. The Thing from Another World
44. Timecrimes
46. From Beyond

[Grouchy]

...why is Batman on there?
There is plenty of wrongness on that list. I deliberately excluded superhero films because it's another genre entirely which obviously depends on a degree of science-fiction to exist. But of all the superhero movies they could've chosen, they put in one of the few that has absolutely ZERO sci-fi.

And Dr. Strangelove? What the fuck? Speculative political fiction, if anything.

[Qrazy]

There is plenty of wrongness on that list. I deliberately excluded superhero films because it's another genre entirely which obviously depends on a degree of science-fiction to exist. But of all the superhero movies they could've chosen, they put in one of the few that has absolutely ZERO sci-fi.

And Dr. Strangelove? What the fuck? Speculative political fiction, if anything.

As a sci fi fan you should check out Losey's These are the Damned. I think you'd like it.

[BuffaloWilder]

There is plenty of wrongness on that list. I deliberately excluded superhero films because it's another genre entirely which obviously depends on a degree of science-fiction to exist. But of all the superhero movies they could've chosen, they put in one of the few that has absolutely ZERO sci-fi.

And Dr. Strangelove? What the fuck? Speculative political fiction, if anything.

We should correct this.

I call for a board-wide consensus - Match Cut's Top 100 Sci-Fi films. I will thusly make a thread for it.

[Watashi]

Dr. Strangelove is definitely a sci-fi film.

[Winston*]

And Dr. Strangelove? What the fuck? Speculative political fiction, if anything.

A doomsday device isn't a thing that exists to my knowledge.

[BuffaloWilder]

Dr. Strangelove is definitely a sci-fi film.

How?

[Grouchy]

These are the only ones that I feel are quite awful.

Not my list, but a solid one on the whole.

I have not seen these, spare a few thoughts (on the ones which are not Frankenstein or The Thing from Another World... those I already planned to get to at some point).

22. Enemy Mine
28. Re-Animator
36. Frankenstein ('31)
43. The Thing from Another World
44. Timecrimes
46. From Beyond
Enemy Mine is good stuff, but I think I placed it that high on the list more because of personal attachment to it than because it's really that superior. Still, it's solid.

Re-Animator and From Beyond are Horror at heart, but since they both involve science (Frankenstein-like experiments and gates to other dimensions) I threw them on there. If you've never seen any Stuart Gordon, that's a good place to start. If you haven't read any Lovecraft, that's a good place to spark interest, which is always good.

I know some people didn't like Timecrimes around here, but I think it's a smart time-travel story and I respect it the more because it's an original script and because it's clearly well made within a tiny budget.

You made me realize I forgot all about The Brood, which is a good deal better than Scanners. Like I said, impossible.

[Winston*]

Your list lacks Back to the Future btw, Grouchy.

[Watashi]

How?
What Winston said.

It deals in the science of world domination and the upcoming destruction of earth set in a fictional Cold War scenario.

[Grouchy]

What Winston said.

It deals in the science of world domination and the upcoming destruction of earth set in a fictional Cold War scenario.
But nuclear weapons exist. Maybe the effects near the end where heightened for comic effect because it's a comedy, but just because it shows political developments which haven't happened doesn't mean it's sci-fi.

1. Sorry about Back to the Future
2. I support the idea of a MatchCut Top100 Sci-Fi (and the upcoming other genres)
3. Thanks for the rec, Qrazy
4. I'm off to play poker

[BuffaloWilder]

But nuclear weapons exist. Maybe the effects near the end where heightened for comic effect because it's a comedy, but just because it shows political developments which haven't happened doesn't mean it's sci-fi.

1. Sorry about Back to the Future
2. I support the idea of a MatchCut Top100 Sci-Fi (and the upcoming other genres)
3. Thanks for the rec, Qrazy
4. I'm off to play poker

Speaking of which, there's now a thread, e'abody. Go post in it.

I was thinking of doing a "Match-Cut Top 100 Animated Films," but that's not really a genre. Still - hmmmmmm.

[Sycophant]

Just today, I was thinking about starting up a top 50 musicals.

[Spun Lepton]

Calling Strangelove sci-fi is really pushing it. The existence of one "science"-based fictional device in the story does not denote sci-fi.

[Milky Joe]

Calling Strangelove sci-fi is a pretty good way of robbing it of all its actual potency, don't you think?

[Grouchy]

Calling Strangelove sci-fi is a pretty good way of robbing it of all its actual potency, don't you think?
True that.

[Derek]

I don't know how you guys are able to compile these lists and rankings. Gives me the heebie-jeebies, really.


I was thinking of doing a "Match-Cut Top 100 Animated Films,"

Wouldn't doing that latter give you the heebie-jeebies?

[MacGuffin]

Too many lists.

[Sycophant]

Too many lists.

Um. Where do you think you are?

[MacGuffin]

Um. Where do you think you are?

True that.

[Derek]

Top 5 List Threads on the First Two Pages of MatchCut:

1) Derek presents HIS top 100 movies, to prove to us all his dedication to lists!
2) 25 Great Films That You (Probably) Haven't Seen
3) Top 10 Films First Seen During 2009
4) Your Top 10 of 2009
5) Match-Cut's Top 100 Sci-Fi Films

[BuffaloWilder]

Wouldn't doing that latter give you the heebie-jeebies?

I'm willing to overcome my heebie-jeebieness, just for that.

[Qrazy]

Top 5 List Threads on the First Two Pages of MatchCut:

3) Top 10 Films First Seen During 2009


You rated this too high.

[Derek]

You rated this too high.

Would you really put it below "Your Top 10 of 2009"? That one's only for newer films and thus more childish. "Top 10 Films First Seen During 2009" is more for adults. Let's argue about the semantics regarding the value of these two threads for the next 2 pages...

Go!

But really, don't.

[Rowland]

It was funny that Verhoeven came up tonight, because I was halfway through Starship Troopers when I took a break and came upon the discussion. Yep, still awesome. Doogie Howser fully adorned in SS-style Nazi garb is the coup de grace.

[Dead & Messed Up]

If I'd have a top twenty of science-fiction, it'd include:

2001: A Space Odyssey
Akira
Alien
Blade Runner
The Brother From Another Planet
Children of Men
Close Encounters of the Third Kind
The Day the Earth Caught Fire
The Day the Earth Stood Still
Forbidden Planet
The Incredible Shrinking Man
Invasion of the Body Snatchers
Metropolis
Minority Report
Primer
The Time Machine
Total Recall
A Trip to the Moon
X - the Man With the X-Ray Eyes

The bolded flicks are ones that more people should see. They're super awesome.

[Raiders]

X - the Man With the X-Ray Eyes


Indeed. I love me some Corman. Speaking of whom, I don't know if Gas-s-s-s is really a sci-fi film, but if so, it would be an HM for my top five. Glorious film.

[Rowland]

The Incredible Shrinking Man
I'll second this, primarily for its adventure-heavy second half that holds up remarkably well. The explicitly philosophical epilogue feels a bit out of nowhere in relation to the largely B-movie antics that precede it, but it still makes for an unexpectedly thoughtful sendoff.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I'll second this, primarily for its adventure-heavy second half that holds up remarkably well. The explicitly philosophical epilogue feels a bit out of nowhere in relation to the largely B-movie antics that precede it, but it still makes for an unexpectedly thoughtful sendoff.

If you watch it in conjunction with X-Ray Eyes, you'll get two surprisingly philosophical movies about men driven to extremity by the threat of scientific advancement...and two completely different conclusions.

[megladon8]

Not sci-fi, but A Bucket of Blood is a wonderful Corman movie.

[Qrazy]

Kin Dza Dza is also a wonderful sci fi.

[Amnesiac]

Has anyone seen this?

http://www.folk.com.pl/Allegro/DVD/seks1.jpg

[Qrazy]

No, but I've been meaning to for a long time.

[MacGuffin]

Bright Future


Amazing.

[trotchky]

Amazing.

Yeah, it is. It's also my favorite Kurosawa film (though I need to revisit them all).

[B-side]

I downloaded The Dot and the Line. Tonight, it shall be viewed.

[baby doll]

I think I could expand my top five SF films to a top ten, but fifty is absurd. There just aren't that many great science fiction movies.

A.I. Artificial Intelligence (Steven Spielberg, 2001)
Alphaville, une étrange aventure de Lemmy Caution (Jean-Luc Godard, 1965)
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (Michel Gondry, 2004)
La Jetée (Chris Marker, 1962)
Mauvais sang (Leos Carax, 1986)
Metropolis (Fritz Lang, 1927)
Solaris (Andrei Tarkovsky, 1972)
Total Recall (Paul Verhoeven, 1990)
2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, 1968)
Videodrome (David Cronenberg, 1983)

[BuffaloWilder]

I think I could expand my top five SF films to a top ten, but fifty is absurd. There just aren't that many great science fiction movies.

A.I. Artificial Intelligence (Steven Spielberg, 2001)
Alphaville, une étrange aventure de Lemmy Caution (Jean-Luc Godard, 1965)
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (Michel Gondry, 2004)
La Jetée (Chris Marker, 1962)
Mauvais sang (Leos Carax, 1986)
Metropolis (Fritz Lang, 1927)
Solaris (Andrei Tarkovsky, 1972)
Total Recall (Paul Verhoeven, 1990)
2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, 1968)
Videodrome (David Cronenberg, 1983)


It's a kid's book. Grownups should want to read something a little more demanding.

Every time you post, I'm going to quote this.

[baby doll]

Every time you post, I'm going to quote this.Go for it.

[B-side]

The Dot and the Line was kinda brilliant. It oozes charm and what felt like a sort of ode to animation, even in its simplest of forms. My favorite part was the line showing off by displaying its places in sports, geography and such. Really neat stuff.

[Rowland]

The Dot and the Line was kinda brilliant. It oozes charm and what felt like a sort of ode to animation, even in its simplest of forms. My favorite part was the line showing off by displaying its places in sports, geography and such. Really neat stuff.Excellent. This is one of the best first viewings I've had this year, wrote this about it:

"It's a masterpiece of short animation, employing an exuberantly experimental aesthetic to tell a simple love story in a manner most exhilarating, with a delightful surplus of dry wit (both visual and in its literate narration) and an unabashedly sophisticated sensibility that's never esoteric enough to alienate its target audience, as it stresses the importance of maximizing one's intellectual and creative potential while implicitly revealing the accessibility and ecstatic potential of both mathematics and avante-garde cinema to its impressionable younger viewers. Plus it's just charming as hell, which always helps."

[B-side]

Excellent. This is one of the best first viewings I've had this year, wrote this about it:

"It's a masterpiece of short animation, employing an exuberantly experimental aesthetic to tell a simple love story in a manner most exhilarating, with a delightful surplus of dry wit (both visual and in its literate narration) and an unabashedly sophisticated sensibility that's never esoteric enough to alienate its target audience, as it stresses the importance of maximizing one's intellectual and creative potential while implicitly revealing the accessibility and ecstatic potential of both mathematics and avante-garde cinema to its impressionable younger viewers. Plus it's just charming as hell, which always helps."

Ah. Yes. Your words speak for both of us. It's definitely a gem.

[Grouchy]

Has anyone seen this?

http://www.folk.com.pl/Allegro/DVD/seks1.jpg
Yeah, I have.

Weird shit territory. The final shot is awesome.

[soitgoes...]

Some quick hits on stuff I watched while my internet was away.

Burning Soil - An early Murnau. Some great imagery of the snow-covered landscape. Fairly run-of-the-mill story.

Deconstructing Harry - An absolute joy. Some of Allen's best writing and ideas melded into one. Dare I say the funniest film he's made? Dare I?

L'argent - My first film by L'Herbier. At times it looks like the film is filmed by a three year old. Other times it looks like it could be among the best things ever put on film. Two or three scenes had a wonderful build-up of tension. This films biggest flaw in the end is its almost 3 hour running time.

Bad Boy Bubby - My second de Heer film is right on par with his other film I've seen, The Tracker. Completely different, Bad Boy Bubby is led by an amazing Nicholas Hope (who the fuck is he and why don't I see him in other stuff?). Probably a little unsettling for some, I loved how de Heer gave Bubby a backstory that make you able to actually empathize with him while he does cringe-inducing things. The film does peter out towards the end.

The Salvation Hunters - Von Sternberg does some experimental stuff. The more traditional aspects of this film are what holds it back.

Two Lovers - Great job by all involved, especially Phoenix who is the king of awkward in this film. I loved how the Tay Sachs/Paltrow's non-Jewishness kinda intertwined. Rossellini has too little screen time, but what she does have is great.

Orphan - Yikes. So it's been close to a hundred degrees, and our house, like many in this part of the world, lacks AC. With the thought of having my balls swimming in their own sweat or the opportunity to bask in the glory of AC at a theater, well let's just say it was an easy choice. Our option was one film, as it was the last film playing tonight, and it was Orphan. What a manipulative piece of trash. Let me give a brief synopsis: Esther is an orphan who is bad. The only person who can see she's bad is given a backstory that makes her opinion on the matter equal to crap. Everyone else in the film is incredibly stupid, especially the character played by Sarsgaard. The writing in this film is insulting. Halfway through I actually turned to my girlfriend and said, "I hate this movie." This film is pretty much a lock for the worst film I'll see in 2009. Next time I'll let my balls wallow in a pool of sweat.

[Sycophant]

Deconstructing Harry - An absolute joy. Some of Allen's best writing and ideas melded into one. Dare I say the funniest film he's made? Dare I?

Dare! Dare!

[Dead & Messed Up]

The King of Kong was depressing and enjoyable in equal measure, although the depression kept threatening to overturn the fun. Sorry, but there's something crushing and sad about many of these characters, from the video game ref who writes folk songs to Billy Mitchell himself, who holds onto his pitiful empire with power ties and glower. He's the dorkiest despot ever. Steve Wiebe is endearing to a degree, since his life as depicted is the most normal and functioning: he has a kind, too-understanding wife and kids who want him to turn off the damn arcade games. Funnily, the ultimate prize Wiebe's shooting for is really just bragging rights, as the height of Donkey Kong dominance is a plaque and a potential guest spot on the local news affiliate. At least Mario got Pauline.

B

[NickGlass]

Orphan - Let me give a brief synopsis: Esther is an orphan who is bad.

Pssst...don't forget that she's...foreign (and in case you didn't know she was Eastern European, the scene where she wants to play Russian Roulette with an adorably deaf 6-year-old sums her horrible 'otherness' up well). I had to whisper since she might be listening in the other room, since she's always within earshot of every conversation. Oh, her face is really going to change from one facial expression she can do (smile) to the other (wince angrily, menacingly).

I left the movie theater late Saturday night and all I could think was "American culture is fucked." The most frightening aspects of the film are (1) that someone thought to write it, (2) that someone wrote it, (3) that someone read it and didn't subsequently burn it, (4) that someone agreed to fund such trash, (5) that someone participated in its creation, (6) and, most horrifying, that I paid to see it.

It contorts from a clichéd borefest, to explicit exposition (thanks, granny!), then to a grotesque film of implausible stupidity, and ultimately implodes with a completely ludicrous denouement. Vile, just vile.

[megladon8]

This is pretty late, but I have to say that "a simplistic plot" is one of the stupidest criticisms I've ever heard.

[BuffaloWilder]

So, Apocalypto. Why did this piss me off so badly?

[Sycophant]

I don't know, BW. I more or less liked it. Any more thoughts?

[BuffaloWilder]

I don't know, BW. I more or less liked it. Any more thoughts?

Maybe I was just blindsided by the ending. I mean, wait-a-minute, now.

[NickGlass]

This is pretty late, but I have to say that "a simplistic plot" is one of the stupidest criticisms I've ever heard.

"Simplistic" is a solid word in criticism, but referring to a plot as simplistic doesn't make much sense. Then again, I think it's stupid when people focus on plot within criticism, unless they're saying there's too much of it.

[Mara]

The other night my sister and I decided to show my mother The Last Unicorn, which she had never seen. Besides the occasionally cheap animation and the deeply annoying butterfly, the film was actually much better than I remembered it. It's creepy and contains some surprisingly complex moral issues.

My mother was completely horrified by the tree-with-breasts.

[Raiders]

God I hated Apocalypto. One of the worst theatre experiences I have ever had. I have done my best to purge it from my mind.

[Bosco B Thug]

Orphan - What a manipulative piece of trash.

Vile, just vile. I am curious. Anyone care to spoil what's so reprehensible about the ending for me to maybe, maybe not read? Would spoiling myself the ending make me feel like I don't have to watch the actual movie anymore? And I do feel an obligation to, as Vera Farmiga's dual demented-child movie.

[Sycophant]

I watched Funky Forest: The First Contact in full for the third time with some friends over the weekend. It's absolutley one of my favorite films. Since I first watched it, I've popped it in numerous times to watch certain sequences. "Takefumi's Dream" is something very special, and "Home Room!" represents some of the funniest/awesomest bits I've ever seen in movies.

[Dead & Messed Up]

"Simplistic" is a solid word in criticism, but referring to a plot as simplistic doesn't make much sense. Then again, I think it's stupid when people focus on plot within criticism, unless they're saying there's too much of it.

I dunno. When I discuss James Cameron, I love discussing his unerring sense of plot simplicity and direction. He manages to craft cinematic stories that demand continual build of action for their resolutions. If you watch Terminator 2 or Aliens, you're watching fantastic plotting. And considering how those films work first and foremost as breathlessly paced adventures, the plotting is key.

[NickGlass]

I dunno. When I discuss James Cameron, I love discussing his unerring sense of plot simplicity and direction. He manages to craft cinematic stories that demand continual build of action for their resolutions. If you watch Terminator 2 or Aliens, you're watching fantastic plotting. And considering how those films work first and foremost as breathlessly paced adventures, the plotting is key.

That's fine; alas, "simple" and "simplistic" are two very different words.

As for discussing (or, rather, praising) plot--I'm mostly just irked when someone uses plot as a harsh criticism ("it had a bad plot") as if they're making an incisive point regarding a film's quality. It doesn't make sense to me since it doesn't factor into the reason why I enjoy films.

[Mara]

As for discussing plot--I'm mostly just irked when someone uses plot as a harsh criticism ("it had a bad plot") as if they're making an incisive point regarding a film's quality. It doesn't make sense to me--or, at least, due the way I watch films.

You don't think that plot has anything to do with film quality?

[NickGlass]

You don't think that plot has anything to do with film quality?

I'm pretty sure this topic has been exhausted over the years in the Film Discussion Thread, but personally it does not factor much into my enjoyment of a certain film.

[Mara]

I'm pretty sure this topic has been exhausted over the years in the Film Discussion Thread, but personally it does not factor much into my enjoyment of a certain film.

Perhaps we're thinking differently.

Can you tell me a film that you consider to have a bad-or-not-good plot? If possible, one that is still a good film.

[Qrazy]

Yeah I think that plot is important, at least in a film that is concerned with plotting (experimental work aside). Some films are well rendered but the story doesn't go anywhere and if this isn't for any particular meta-textual purpose and just because the author did not have an interesting story to tell, then this is a flaw. Some novels are worse than others because the story just isn't well paced, the plot threads don't come together effectively or what's happening is not expressive or interesting. This can be true of film as well. People certainly say the plot is uninteresting when it may actually not be (the criticism is too broad for it's own good: what about the plot did not work?) and there can be a lot of argument about this, but I don't think there's anything wrong with valuing plot and plotting in and of itself. One is not valuing it above atmosphere, theme, etc but it's not a negligible element of the artwork.

So I mean if someone says Last Year at Marienbad or Beau Travail have no plot or an uninteresting plot than yeah, this is not a particularly reasonable criticism. They would have to look for other criticisms for these and similar films. But if they say they felt Quantum of Solace or The Phantom Menace had a bad or uninteresting plot, or something to that effect, then their could be an argument/discussion about this but it would be a reasonable criticism.

[soitgoes...]

I am curious. Anyone care to spoil what's so reprehensible about the ending for me to maybe, maybe not read? Would spoiling myself the ending make me feel like I don't have to watch the actual movie anymore? And I do feel an obligation to, as Vera Farmiga's dual demented-child movie.What's so reprehensible about the ending is that it follows a pile of shit. I could care less what was happening by the time the ending sequence came into play. The little innocent deaf daughter could have been nailed to a wall and eviscerated, and I would have been as happy as a clam as long as the credits rolled up over her little splayed open corpse. The "twist" is just another eye-rolling event in a series of eye-rolling events.

[NickGlass]

Perhaps we're thinking differently.

Can you tell me a film that you consider to have a bad-or-not-good plot? If possible, one that is still a good film.

I don't know if I could, really. Bad plot? Of course that's subjective. A viewer might describe Before Sunrise, or Lost in Translation, as having a "bad plot" because "nothing happens," but I may criticize an overly plotted murder mystery, or some legal thriller with TWISTS and TURNS, like Runaway Jury, as having a "bad plot" because "everything happens and nothing happens." Worst of all, though, are films that think they need a plot.

I'm trying my best not to launch this into a semantics debate, but what a film is about concerns me very, very little. What happens bores me; what happens with what happens interests me. And, yes, I may be speaking gibberish.

[EvilShoe]

I am curious. Anyone care to spoil what's so reprehensible about the ending for me to maybe, maybe not read? Would spoiling myself the ending make me feel like I don't have to watch the actual movie anymore? And I do feel an obligation to, as Vera Farmiga's dual demented-child movie.
If you want to know:
http://gawker.com/5322122/youll-never-guess-orphans-surprise-ending-because-its-completely-ridiculous

(yes, this is a repost)

[Qrazy]

I don't know if I could, really. Bad plot? Of course that's subjective. A viewer might describe Before Sunrise, or Lost in Translation, as having a "bad plot" because "nothing happens," but I may criticize an overly plotted murder mystery, or some legal thriller with TWISTS and TURNS, like Runaway Jury, as having a "bad plot" because "everything happens and nothing happens." Worst of all, though, are films that think they need a plot.

I'm trying my best not to launch this into a semantics debate, but what a film is about concerns me very, very little. What happens bores me; what happens with what happens interests me. And, yes, I may be speaking gibberish.

I don't think you're speaking gibberish so much as I don't believe that you actually would respond that way. I think you favor how something happens over what is happening, as do I, but there are cases where what is happening is so uninteresting (not because it's slow, but because the story is not well put together and doesn't express much) that it doesn't matter how well it is expressed. It just so happens that for the most part if an artist can express something very well, they're often expressing something worth expressing.

Tangentially, The Matrix sequels for instance, they have many flaws but the largest one in my eyes is the plot.

[Mara]

I think I see. I think a "simple plot" (i.e., "nothing happens") isn't a bad thing, necessarily. A "bad" plot would be one that doesn't make sense, is unconvincing, poorly structured, or thoughtless. I can't think of a good movie with a bad plot.

[Bosco B Thug]

What's so reprehensible about the ending is that it follows a pile of shit. I could care less what was happening by the time the ending sequence came into play. The little innocent deaf daughter could have been nailed to a wall and eviscerated, and I would have been as happy as a clam as long as the credits rolled up over her little splayed open corpse. The "twist" is just another eye-rolling event in a series of eye-rolling events.
If you want to know:
http://gawker.com/5322122/youll-never-guess-orphans-surprise-ending-because-its-completely-ridiculous

(yes, this is a repost) Hmmm thanks. "You'll never guess Orphan's surprise ending because it's completely ridiculous." So it does have a twist ending. I think I'll wait, since I'm sure the movie is indeed complete trash and I prefer to be surprised by my trash.

Sounds like a plot convolution twist instead of a conceptual, Sleepaway Camp-ish twist, which I was suspecting a bit. Those are often benefited by spoilage.

[Spinal]

Rewatched The Empire Strikes Back. Kind of disappointing to see how much of the film's lasting value is technical. The lighting is probably the film's stand-out quality. All that stuff on the cloud city looks really cool. The effects are great. Yoda is refreshingly puppet-like and funny. Boba Fett is kind of exciting.

The dialogue though ... mostly not good. The Han-Leia lovey stuff is grating apart from Han's touching farewell. Yoda's training of Luke is kind of dopey and silly. But what aggravates me most about these films is that there's so many moments that don't make sense when you watch them knowing about the identity of Vader's children. For example, how does Vader not know that the Millennium Falcon is hiding on the Star Destroyer when Leia is inside? Can't he 'sense' those close to him? You may say that he does know and that he allows them to escape so that Luke can be trapped. But in that case, the film lies to us. It tells us that Boba Fett is the one who tracks them down. And later, Vader is in the same room with Leia, but there is no real interaction with them at all. Why? Because it's not time to reveal the secret yet. Or ... this part of the film was written before they knew there was going to be a connection. That's what it feels like. Great films are able to couch their secrets and still play fair with the audience. I don't think these films do. The family connection feels like such a sloppy afterthought, even with three prequels made to justify the back story. I have said it before, but I'll say it again: I would have loved to see what these films would be like if they had thought to construct a scenario in which Leia developed her own powers. Whose side would she take? It would have been so much more exciting than her role as Han Solo love interest/occasional blaster shooter.

At any rate, I'm now of the opinion that the original Star Wars -- with its wealth of invention, with its simple yet well-crafted drama of good vs. evil, with its heavy dose of Alec Guinness, with its gloriously explosive finale -- is the best film of the series.

[Dead & Messed Up]

For example, how does Vader not know that the Millennium Falcon is hiding on the Star Destroyer when Leia is inside?

The Falcon isn't on his Star Destroyer. He's in the massive one that "shadows" the others.


And later, Vader is in the same room with Leia, but there is no real interaction with them at all. Why? Because it's not time to reveal the secret yet.

This complaint makes sense, though.

[Ivan Drago]

God I hated Apocalypto. One of the worst theatre experiences I have ever had. I have done my best to purge it from my mind.

I don't even remember Apocalypto.



I left the movie theater late Saturday night and all I could think was "American culture is fucked." The most frightening aspects of the film are (1) that someone thought to write it, (2) that someone wrote it, (3) that someone read it and didn't subsequently burn it, (4) that someone agreed to fund such trash, (5) that someone participated in its creation, (6) and, most horrifying, that I paid to see it.

It contorts from a clichéd borefest, to explicit exposition (thanks, granny!), then to a grotesque film of implausible stupidity, and ultimately implodes with a completely ludicrous denouement. Vile, just vile.

My sister told me what the big twist was. Everything you said above is about right.

[Spinal]

The Falcon isn't on his Star Destroyer. He's in the massive one that "shadows" the others.



Fair enough. Still, it seems that he is at least as close as he is to Luke when he senses him in the third film. The overall point being that Leia's involvement in this whole deal doesn't seem very well thought out.

[Sven]

At any rate, I'm now of the opinion that the original Star Wars -- with its wealth of invention, with its simple yet well-crafted drama of good vs. evil, with its heavy dose of Alec Guinness, with its gloriously explosive finale -- is the best film of the series.

More rep for you, you already-rep-filled master. The original is really the only one I can stand.

[Sycophant]

This reminds me that I'm scared to actually sit down and watch the first three Star Wars films because I'm skeptical that I'll be able to stomach them. It's been at least nine years since I've watched any part of the original trilogy.

[Rowland]

The Abominable Dr. Phibes (Fuest, 1972) 64

Obvious reference points for Saw and Seven here, with outrageous art-deco-cum-'70s art/costume design picking up much of the slack from often flat, if hardly incompetent, direction. Given its reputation as a comedy-pitched horror film, I was pleasantly surprised by how seriously it often took itself, with a tragic ending that borders on touching. That said, it's most successful as grand guignol, as we anticipate what diabolical murder method related to the Nine Plagues of Egypt Dr. Phibes will dream up next. An air of predictability does begin to saturate the proceedings around the mid-point, but this is made up for by the magnificently baroque climax. My favorite touch? Almost no typical horror scoring is used here, the soundtrack instead comprised of classical pieces that imbue the picture's off-kilter tone with a touch of class.

[Stay Puft]

An air of predictability does begin to saturate the proceedings around the mid-point, but this is made up for by the magnificently baroque climax.

Yeah, and really...

Who sees the death by catapult unicorn coming?

So awesome. I love this movie.

[Grouchy]

Dr. Phibes is a fucking masterpiece.

http://auteurs_production.s3.amazonaw s.com/stills/16757/husbands-1970.jpg

So you guys were speaking about plot. Well, today I saw a movie which stubbornly refused to have one - Husbands is about the farthest Cassavetes has gone from what a movie is supposed to be like and confirms my theory that, for all of his unique talent, he really didn't know what he was doing when he started filming. The movie is singularly enjoyable as a parade of Cassavetes-Gazzara-Falk scenes where they try to upstage each other during an impossibly long drunken trip. The scenes are loosely connected by street clips of the trio fighting or running. Husbands is exhausting to watch and to stomach, and it has no structure, but it features some really great highlights such as a singing contest that becomes vicious all of a sudden and a scene between Falk and a Chinese girl that's both ridiculous and touching. My favorite Cassavetes movies are probably among his later stuff which has more refinement and gives us more closure, like A Woman Under the Influence and Killing of a Chinese Bookie, but those movies would have been impossible without the breakthrough this one signified.

[Derek]

I don't know if I could, really. Bad plot? Of course that's subjective. A viewer might describe Before Sunrise, or Lost in Translation, as having a "bad plot" because "nothing happens," but I may criticize an overly plotted murder mystery, or some legal thriller with TWISTS and TURNS, like Runaway Jury, as having a "bad plot" because "everything happens and nothing happens." Worst of all, though, are films that think they need a plot.

I'm trying my best not to launch this into a semantics debate, but what a film is about concerns me very, very little. What happens bores me; what happens with what happens interests me. And, yes, I may be speaking gibberish.

Allow me to translate (and correct me if I'm wrong) to a phrase that someone on another site has used, and which I agree with: What a film is about interests me less than how it's about it. To further translate, I'd rather see a film take a synopsis that may seem relatively uninteresting and do something inventive or exciting with it cinematically than take a great story and tell it using boring, predictable techniques. IE, the "fascinating" true-to-life stories that are often transformed into lifeless and dull bio-pics.


Dr. Phibes is a fucking masterpiece.

What do fucking masterpieces fuck? Only other masterpieces or do they slum it and take sloppy seconds from the plain old **** films some nights? Inquiring posters want to know.

[Sycophant]

Isn't that a Roger Ebert quote? Or was Roger Ebert quoting?

[Derek]

Isn't that a Roger Ebert quote? Or was Roger Ebert quoting?

Ebert may very well have said it first. I mostly remember it since he mentioned it in regards to the newer non-Milk Van Sant's film.

Either way, it's a great point.

[Sycophant]

Either way, it's a great point.

Absolutely.

[Grouchy]

What do fucking masterpieces fuck? Only other masterpieces or do they slum it and take sloppy seconds from the plain old **** films some nights? Inquiring posters want to know.
They clearly only shag Vincent Price.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/findagrave/photos/2001/222/pricevincentbio.jpg

[D_Davis]

This reminds me that I'm scared to actually sit down and watch the first three Star Wars films because I'm skeptical that I'll be able to stomach them. It's been at least nine years since I've watched any part of the original trilogy.

I had a hard time watching them the last time I did, and since decided to keep them in the nostalgia bin of my brain. I'd rather remember them fondly, then face the very real fact that I don't really like them much any more.

However, if you do watch Star Wars, make sure to watch this version:

Star Wars: Revisited (http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/STAR-WARS-EP-IV-2004-REVISITED-ADYWAN-DVD-9-VERSIONS-NOW-AVAILABLE/topic/5942/)

It's the definitive version of the film. It's really quite amazing. The f/x look better than ever (even better than in the re-released versions), and the mix of the special and regular editions is fantastic. The DVDr version also includes a pop-up video style commentary detailing the hundreds of changes.

[Qrazy]

Dr. Phibes is a fucking masterpiece.

http://auteurs_production.s3.amazonaw s.com/stills/16757/husbands-1970.jpg

So you guys were speaking about plot. Well, today I saw a movie which stubbornly refused to have one - Husbands is about the farthest Cassavetes has gone from what a movie is supposed to be like and confirms my theory that, for all of his unique talent, he really didn't know what he was doing when he started filming.

Ehh, since I find Faces to be his best film and Shadows to be quite an excellent debut I'm going to go ahead and disagree. He knew exactly what he was doing with Husbands, which is of course not to say that everything works. I agree with you that the film could be quite a bit stronger, but his approach is still very much intended. I've actually read somewhere that he's been known to go back and re-edit his films to make them more challenging/difficult for an audience... for instance in Minnie and Moskowitz he'll cut away just before someone finishes a story, or in many of his films focus on long reaction shots when someone is talking, that kind of thing.

[BuffaloWilder]

Personally, ISYFDT, I think we should talk about Full Moon Video's z-movie opus, Hell Asylum.

That's what I think.

[Qrazy]

Nah, I'm good. You can talk about movies in my sig though, that's cool with me.

[Watashi]

I see the Star Wars OT at least once a year.

I also never grew up on them so nostalgia is not a factor of my immense geek love for the trilogy.

[soitgoes...]

Some reverberations from Deconstructing Harry are still rattling around in my head. It has prompted me to check out another of his unseen by me, Alice. It also occurred to me that an Allen rate/rank thread had appeared here not too long ago, so I checked it out. Yikes! Not many fans of Deconstructing Harry or I should say it rates either very highly or very lowly in his filmography. My question to those who didn't like it is, why? What is wrong with you people? Why have I been gifted with a special something that allows me to see true comedy, whilst others are walking through life in a cloud of not-laughter?


*I don't really think I'm better or more gifted than those of you who didn't like the film.

[MadMan]

Dick Tracy (Warren Beatty, 1990) - **I think its highly entertaining, campy fun. I enjoy its use of strikingly beautiful and remarkable colors, and the fact that Pacino is able to exercise his right to overact in a hilarious fashion. A good movie from a year I still find to be somewhat weak overall.

Anyone taking advantage of Barnes and Nobles' 50% sale on Criterions? I bought The Friends of Eddie Coyle, The Life Aquatic, The Third Man and Eyes Without a Face. If I had more money to burn I'd probably buy a couple more.

[B-side]

Made in USA = yet another great Godard.

[baby doll]

My question to those who didn't like it is, why?The film has some good ideas, and stylistically it's uncharacteristically graceless (the jump cuts and all-to-brief presence of Judy Davis call to mind the far superior Husbands and Wives), but it's simply too crowded for any of the actors to do anything with their parts.

[Skitch]

At any rate, I'm now of the opinion that the original Star Wars -- with its wealth of invention, with its simple yet well-crafted drama of good vs. evil, with its heavy dose of Alec Guinness, with its gloriously explosive finale -- is the best film of the series.

Episode III brought me to this conclusion as well. E3 brought together so many aspects of the saga (for me), that it makes me look at A New Hope with completely different eyes.

[Mara]

RE: Dick Tracy.

Jim Cash (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Cash), who wrote it, was my neighbor in East Lansing for about six years. He was a nice, sweet-tempered man with a funny wife and likeable kids. They lived in a modest house that they decked out to the nines for Christmas and were good neighbors, actively involved in the community.

But, Lord love a duck, the man couldn't write.

[NickGlass]

Allow me to translate (and correct me if I'm wrong) to a phrase that someone on another site has used, and which I agree with: What a film is about interests me less than how it's about it. To further translate, I'd rather see a film take a synopsis that may seem relatively uninteresting and do something inventive or exciting with it cinematically than take a great story and tell it using boring, predictable techniques. IE, the "fascinating" true-to-life stories that are often transformed into lifeless and dull bio-pics.


Yes. Bio-pics are a great example, too.


I think I see. I think a "simple plot" (i.e., "nothing happens") isn't a bad thing, necessarily. A "bad" plot would be one that doesn't make sense, is unconvincing, poorly structured, or thoughtless.

Oh, I see, like The Dark Knight.

[Mara]

Oh, I see, like The Dark Knight.

As much as I enjoyed that film, I will freely admit it had plot problems.

So did Batman Begins.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Oh, I see, like The Dark Knight.

http://coreygilmore.com/uploads/2007/08/beating_a_dead_horse.jpg

[Spinal]

I kind of like the first-person perspective horror film genre, but in the future can we avoid this conversation?:

"What's a camera doing in here? Stop filming!"
"We have to record this! People need to know!"
"Damn it! Turn that camera off!"
"It's off! It's off!" (camera is not really off)

[Sven]

I kind of like the first-person perspective horror film genre, but in the future can we avoid this conversation?:

"What's a camera doing in here? Stop filming!"
"We have to record this! People need to know!"
"Damn it! Turn that camera off!"
"It's off! It's off!" (camera is not really off)

Cloverfield was seriously the worst movie of last year.

That I saw.

[megladon8]

Cloverfield was seriously the worst movie of last year.

That I saw.


:cry:

[Kurosawa Fan]

LIST OF FILMS FROM MY CRAPPY TOWN'S FILM FESTIVAL IN AUGUST:

Afghan Star
The Borinqueneers
Food, Inc.
Girl from Monaco
Goodbye Solo
Harvard Beats Yale
Horse Boy
Lemon Tree
Moon
Paper Covers Rock
Paris 36
Sin Nombre
Sita Sings the Blues
Sugar
Summer Hours
The Way We Get By


I prioritized Moon, Sugar, and Summer Hours. What else should I see?

[Qrazy]

I have not seen it but Sin Nombre looks interesting to me.

[Mara]

I really kinda liked Sita Sings the Blues. And Moon is a must-watch.

[soitgoes...]

I prioritized Moon, Sugar, and Summer Hours. What else should I see?
Lemon Tree was good, but not something you need to prioritize.

[BuffaloWilder]

I still can't fathom it. What was Gibson thinking?

[Kurosawa Fan]

Tentative schedule:

Thursday@9 - Moon
Friday@12 - Food, Inc.
Friday@3 - Sin Nombre
Friday@6 - Goodbye Solo
Friday@9 - Paris 36
Sat.@12 - Sita Sings the Blues
Sat.@3 - Summer Hours
Sat.@6 - Afghan Star
Sat.@9 - Sugar
Sun.@3 - Lemon Tree

Some of these are expendable, but I'm not missing Moon, Sin Nombre, Summer Hours, Sita, and Sugar.

[D_Davis]

I still can't fathom it. What was Gibson thinking?

Maybe he was thinking he wanted to make a tense and well shot action film using an era and location not often used. And he totally succeeded. The historical inaccuracies are irrelevant to me, and I did not watch the film to learn about Mayan civilization. To me, this film was basically Mad Max in a jungle, and I loved it.

[Skitch]

LIST OF FILMS FROM MY CRAPPY TOWN'S FILM FESTIVAL:

...

...I don't even get a film festival!

[Qrazy]

I still can't fathom it. What was Gibson thinking?

Give it a go suggests give it a watch...

[Qrazy]

Maybe he was thinking he wanted to make a tense and well shot action film using an era and location not often used. And he totally succeeded. The historical inaccuracies are irrelevant to me, and I did not watch the film to learn about Mayan civilization. To me, this film was basically Mad Max in a jungle, and I loved it.

I haven't seen the film but one thing I do respect about Gibson is his use of the original language. Some people think it's unnecessary, indulgent, etc but I think it's quite valuable.

[BuffaloWilder]

The historical inaccuracies are irrelevant to me, and I did not watch the film to learn about Mayan civilization. To me, this film was basically Mad Max in a jungle, and I loved it.

But the thing is, it's not that it's historically inaccurate by itself, it's that he's using such inaccuracies to bolster a picture of a people to support a thematic viewpoint, where it could not have done so otherwise. That's why it matters, in the context of the film.

Plus, aside from all of that, there are some gaffes that are too big to ignore. When you have the Spanish landing in the Americas some three hundred years earlier than recorded, then something's wrong, here.

[BuffaloWilder]

Give it a go suggests give it a watch...

Please, g'head.

[Qrazy]

Please, g'head.

I thought you did not like the film? I'm saying your phrasing suggests give it a watch. Give it a miss would convey your meaning.

[Rowland]

I liked Apocalypto. A lot. It's borderline sociopathic, but that's part of its charm, because it feels like the genuine product from an artist with series issues, and unlike The Passion, it's a rousing epic, brimming with kinetically executed action set pieces and wild excesses of cheesy violence.

[BuffaloWilder]

I thought you did not like the film? I'm saying your phrasing suggests give it a watch. Give it a miss would convey your meaning.

That's really referring more to the article, but - yeah, give it a watch. There's some stunning photography there by Dean Semler, of the Mad Max films. And Waterworld, but we don't talk about that.

[Qrazy]

That's really referring more to the article, but - yeah, give it a watch. There's some stunning photography there by Dean Semler, of the Mad Max films. And Waterworld, but we don't talk about that.

Ah k, I thought you disliked it.

[Qrazy]

I liked Apocalypto. A lot. It's borderline sociopathic, but that's part of its charm, because it feels like the genuine product from an artist with series issues, and unlike The Passion, it's a rousing epic, full of kinetically executed action set pieces and wild excesses of cheesy violence.

I really need to see The Crowd.

[BuffaloWilder]

Ah k, I thought you disliked it.

Oh, I did. But, if there's any reason to see the film, it's Semler's photography.

[D_Davis]

Plus, aside from all of that, there are some gaffes that are too big to ignore. When you have the Spanish landing in the Americas some three hundred years earlier than recorded, then something's wrong, here.

I couldn't care less about historical accuracy in this film. By the time the film ended I was totally wrapped up in Jaguar Paw's personal adventure, and the epic chase and action sequence that I had just seen; the film has a very tangible kinetic energy to it. The only thing I dislike about the ending is that the Spanish rob Jaguar Paw of his ultimate revenge.

[Rowland]

I really need to see The Crowd.It's amazing. I dread writing much more about it for fear of not doing justice to its myriad of brilliant elements, and because it cut me deep, with surgical precision, in a particularly personal spot.

[Grouchy]

Ehh, since I find Faces to be his best film and Shadows to be quite an excellent debut I'm going to go ahead and disagree. He knew exactly what he was doing with Husbands, which is of course not to say that everything works. I agree with you that the film could be quite a bit stronger, but his approach is still very much intended. I've actually read somewhere that he's been known to go back and re-edit his films to make them more challenging/difficult for an audience... for instance in Minnie and Moskowitz he'll cut away just before someone finishes a story, or in many of his films focus on long reaction shots when someone is talking, that kind of thing.
I'd forgotten Faces came out before Husbands, so there goes my theory. That one feels a lot more unified and succesful. I didn't know that about editing his films to make them more uncomfortable, but it makes a lot of sense. The one thing I think sinks Husbands a little is that it asks too much of the audience and gives back way too little. Movie just ends as if they'd ran out of film stock.

And when I meant that Cassavetes "didn't know" what he was doing I was mostly talking about the technical shortcomings on his films, which might be deliberate but still go a little overboard. On a bathroom scene in this one, for example, you can clearly see Peter Falk grabbing a tripod.

[Rowland]

Just rented:

Paths of Glory
I Confess
When a Stranger Calls ('79)
/Tremors/

[Qrazy]

I'd forgotten Faces came out before Husbands, so there goes my theory. That one feels a lot more unified and succesful. I didn't know that about editing his films to make them more uncomfortable, but it makes a lot of sense. The one thing I think sinks Husbands a little is that it asks too much of the audience and gives back way too little. Movie just ends as if they'd ran out of film stock.

I agree. The film effectively conveys a feeling, and it has some solid dialogue but the structure really isn't there as it is in Cassavetes best films.


And when I meant that Cassavetes "didn't know" what he was doing I was mostly talking about the technical shortcomings on his films, which might be deliberate but still go a little overboard. On a bathroom scene in this one, for example, you can clearly see Peter Falk grabbing a tripod.

Haha I missed that, seems like the kind of thing he might leave in on purpose to break the fourth wall (Elaine May has a lot of obnoxious boom stuff in Mikey and Nicky) but if it is intentional I think it's wholly unnecessary and if not then yeah, amateurish. More likely it wasn't intentional initially but then they saw it in the edit and liked the take enough for other reasons to keep it in.

Husbands was also only Kempler's (the DP's) second film so there's that as well. Kempler went on to a solid career but some DP's work better with directors than others. Al Ruban is really Cassavetes go to guy and he made his best films with him imo.

[Grouchy]

http://www.calendarlive.com/media/photo/2004-07/13585690.jpg

She Hate Me is crazy shit. Stuff just happens and keeps happening. The movie is inmensely watchable because Spike Lee can direct and he's got a huge ensemble of great actors, but it's a little like a collection of Spike's greatest hits instead of a proper story. I also think I found out something about his style of "blocking" the characters into focused shots where they bluntly speak their mind, sometimes facing the camera. It only properly works when the material the movie covers is urging and inmediate, like Do the Right Thing or Malcolm X. But in his comedies where the character's conflict is more internal (like this one or Jungle Fever) the approach really destroys the drama of some moments for me. As a result, I feel some scenes really work (Turturro as an Italian crime lord, the protagonist's family issues) and others just look goofy and staged, like the ethics discussions with Ellen Barkin or the bank scene. The courtroom resolution in this movie comes out of nowhere and feels rushed in to finish the goddamn story.

Also, what kind of fucktard includes a sex scene with Monica Bellucci and cuts it out of the film? I swear, long as it is, this movie could have used all of its deleted scenes back, specially the Monica one. Epic fail from Spike.

[Grouchy]

Haha I missed that, seems like the kind of thing he might leave in on purpose to break the fourth wall (Elaine May has a lot of obnoxious boom stuff in Mikey and Nicky) but if it is intentional I think it's wholly unnecessary and if not then yeah, amateurish. More likely it wasn't intentional initially but then they saw it in the edit and liked the take enough for other reasons to keep it in.
Most likely.


Husbands was also only Kempler's (the DP's) second film so there's that as well. Kempler went on to a solid career but some DP's work better with directors than others. Al Ruban is really Cassavetes go to guy and he made his best films with him imo.
Obviously I don't go to Cassavetes for stand-out cinematography, but I guess if one aspect of the film falls apart you start noticing the stitches everywhere.

[MadMan]

Just rented:

Paths of Glory
I Confess
When a Stranger Calls ('79)
/Tremors/I love Tremors, and I actually saw some of I Confess once on AMC. Never seen the others, sadly.


Cloverfield was seriously the worst movie of last year.

That I saw.Really? Really really? :|

Mona Lisa was my first viewing from Neil Jordan, and I liked it a good deal. This a very well made movie, but I felt that something was missing, at least to a small degree. Still Bob Hoskins is really terrific here, as this role was truly tailor made for his style of acting. I'm not sure there was much noir involved, although it certainly works as a strange love story with a rather surprising ending.

[Sycophant]

I enjoyed how Apocalypto went all Home Alone at its ending.

[Mara]

When a Stranger Calls is not good. Sorry charlie.

[baby doll]

LIST OF FILMS FROM MY CRAPPY TOWN'S FILM FESTIVAL IN AUGUST:

Afghan Star
The Borinqueneers
Food, Inc.
Girl from Monaco
Goodbye Solo
Harvard Beats Yale
Horse Boy
Lemon Tree
Moon
Paper Covers Rock
Paris 36
Sin Nombre
Sita Sings the Blues
Sugar
Summer Hours
The Way We Get By


I prioritized Moon, Sugar, and Summer Hours. What else should I see?I really liked Food Inc., actually. It's definitely cut from the same activist cloth as An Inconvenient Truth (one activist they talk to was motivated by a personal tragedy, and it ends with lots of text telling us what we can do with the important parts highlighted in green), but unlike that film, it does more showing than telling. And really, could there be a more relevant topic for a movie than the food we're all eating on a daily basis? Moon is also terrific, and Sugar is worth checking out but don't expect too much.

[Spinal]

When a Stranger Calls is not good. Sorry charlie.

I'm calling up my friend, Fred Walton, and I'm telling him you said that. :)

[Spinal]

Hmmm ... new yellow smilie has kind of a vacant stare. Like a cult member or something.

[baby doll]

Week:

The Deer Hunter (Michael Cimino, 1978)
Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room (Alex Gibney, 2005)
L'Ivresse du pouvoir (Claude Chabrol, 2006)
Lacombe, Lucien (Louis Malle, 1974)
The Soul of a Man (Wim Wenders, 2003)
Touchez pas au grisbi (Jacques Becker, 1954)

The Chabrol and the Gibney might make a good double bill.

[baby doll]

Hmmm ... new yellow smilie has kind of a vacant stare. Like a cult member or something.A Don McKellar avatar? Not even I like Canada that much, and I live here. Also, I still haven't forgiven him for Blindness. I mean, it takes a lot to write the worst Canadian movie ever.

[Spinal]

A Don McKellar avatar? Not even I like Canada that much, and I live here. Also, I still haven't forgiven him for Blindness. I mean, it takes a lot to write the worst Canadian movie ever.

Yeah, that was not a good movie. He wrote that wacky Glenn Gould movie though. That's supposed to be good. Haven't seen it yet. Mostly he's just awesome on Slings and Arrows.

[Spun Lepton]

A second viewing of Watchmen was not kind.

Positives:
-The shortcut they used for the SQUID still works as far as I'm concerned, but it works to a lesser effect than it did in the book.
-Haley and Morgan were their characters. Their performances were spot-on. Wilson and Crudup were very good until there was a piece of dialogue that wasn't in the original story.
-Most of the stuff lifted straight from the comic worked. Snyder's love for recreating panels of the comic still makes me smile.

Negatives:
-Malin Ackerman was uneven. At times she delivered her lines well, other times -- usually when her dialogue held some level of importance -- she dropped the ball. Her worst moment was when she was on Mars. Instead of sounding urgent and pained, she came off as whiney.
-The non-Alan-Moore dialogue landed with a dull THUD much of the time, partially because the writers would blatantly say and summarize something that was actually demonstrated in the book. As in Dr. Manhattan coming right out and telling Silk Spectre:

"The Comedian was your father."

The only lead character spared a bit of clunky dialogue was Rorschach -- or maybe he was just so fantastic (and he was) that he made the clunky dialogue work.
-Snyder's occasional bit of self-indulgence really made my eyes roll. The worst was the extended sex scene. I also rolled my eyes when he showed that The Comedian's apartment number was 300 -- in slow-motion no less. Come on, Snyder, you're not Hollywood Jesus, here.

I noticed that Snyder's commentary track is more about him standing there and talking to a camera, breaking the movie down scene-by-scene instead of a regular commentary track. I haven't watched it, yet, but this seems extremely self-indulgent to me.

[Sycophant]

Yeah, that was not a good movie. He wrote that wacky Glenn Gould movie though. That's supposed to be good. Haven't seen it yet. Mostly he's just awesome on Slings and Arrows.

Oh my goodness, Don "Darren Nichols" McKellar co-wrote Thirty-Two Short Films About Glenn Gould?! *swoon*

[Spun Lepton]

Yeah, that was not a good movie. He wrote that wacky Glenn Gould movie though. That's supposed to be good. Haven't seen it yet. Mostly he's just awesome on Slings and Arrows.

Don McKellar did Twitch City and Last Day, correct? I really enjoyed those.

[baby doll]

Don McKellar did Twitch City and Last Day, correct? I really enjoyed those.I think you mean Last Night (or at least I don't remember him being in the Gus Van Sant film). Twitch City was Can-Con gold, but his career has gone downhill fast since the late 90s. His directorial follow-up to Last Night, Childstar was just painfully bad. And then Blindness... What can you say about a movie with blind people slipping on their own poop?

[Spun Lepton]

I think you mean Last Night (or at least I don't remember him being in the Gus Van Sant film). Twitch City was Can-Con gold, but his career has gone downhill fast since the late 90s. His directorial follow-up to Last Night, Childstar was just painfully bad. And then Blindness... What can you say about a movie with blind people slipping on their own poop?

Last Night! I knew I was off somehow, but too lazy to check IMDb. Yeah, I enjoyed that one.

I haven't seen Blindess. People slipping on their own poop sounds like a great gag for an Apatow movie.

[Sycophant]

Two things.

1) Haven't seen Blindness, but regardless of quality, that seems a terribly reductive statement that alone doesn't carry any real qualitative appraisal. I can imagine it being in a decent film.

2) Say what you will about Judd Apatow films, but that kind of slapstick juvenalia seems to be more up the alley of Kevin Smith, Adam McKay, or apparently Harold Ramis. Granted, Apatow has produced some of the films of the latter two, but his own films don't really play that instrument.

[Spun Lepton]

2) Say what you will about Judd Apatow films, but that kind of slapstick juvenalia seems to be more up the alley of Kevin Smith, Adam McKay, or apparently Harold Ramis. Granted, Apatow has produced some of the films of the latter two, but his own films don't really play that instrument.

I like Apatow and I was only kidding around.

[baby doll]

Two things.

1) Haven't seen Blindness, but regardless of quality, that seems a terribly reductive statement that alone doesn't carry any real qualitative appraisal. I can imagine it being in a decent film.Fair point. How's this for a qualitative appraisal: It's dumber than Pink Flamingos (which was trying to be dumb), and it's almost as unpleasant.

[Sycophant]

Fair point. How's this for a qualitative appraisal: It's dumber than Pink Flamingos (which was trying to be dumb), and it's almost as unpleasant.

Again, haven't seen the film, but it sits better with me. :pritch:

[bac0n]

A second viewing of Watchmen was not kind.

Positives:
-The shortcut they used for the SQUID still works as far as I'm concerned, but it works to a lesser effect than it did in the book.
-Haley and Morgan were their characters. Their performances were spot-on. Wilson and Crudup were very good until there was a piece of dialogue that wasn't in the original story.

Right on. Haley NAILED Rorshach. The very last scene of his was especially striking. That is going to be the #1 thing I carried away from this movie. Morgan was awesome too. Wilson had the most work to do for me, as the last film I had seen him in was the very striking Hard Candy, and the character he played in that movie was hard to shake out of my head. Nonetheless, and in all regards, his performance as Nite Owl 2 was out of the ballpark.

[Spinal]

Anyone willing to recommend Last Night? Been curious about it, but haven't heard anyone here discuss it.

[Pop Trash]

So weekend options:

-500 Days of Summer
-Funny People
-Food Inc.

I'll probably wind-up seeing all of them, but dear Match-Cutters, which one should I point my retinas at first?

[Spinal]

Oh my goodness, Don "Darren Nichols" McKellar co-wrote Thirty-Two Short Films About Glenn Gould?! *swoon*

Deal with that.

[Sycophant]

Deal with that.

Hmph!

Srsly, that's one of my all-time favorite films. He also co-wrote The Red Violin with Girard, which I've been meaning to see for years. Despite the scorn being heaped upon him in this thread, I'm going to be checking out as much of his work as I can.

[Spinal]

Hmph!

Srsly, that's one of my all-time favorite films. He also co-wrote The Red Violin with Girard, which I've been meaning to see for years. Despite the scorn being heaped upon him in this thread, I'm going to be checking out as much of his work as I can.

Blindness really does suck though. That point should not be lost.

[Winston*]

Weekend
Antichrist
The White Ribbon
(suck it, Spinal)

Also might finish off The Staircase. Anyone seen this? Pretty fascinating.

[Sycophant]

I'm going up to Idaho for the weekend to visit my mother for her birthday. I'll probably be watching a few mediocre PG-13 movies from the last year that I skipped, or perhaps some excellent movies made pre-1970.

[Spinal]

Weekend
Antichrist
The White Ribbon
(suck it, Spinal)


What, you couldn't fit in a screening of the recently discovered Metropolis footage as well? :evil:

[Philosophe_rouge]

I'd recommend Last Night, because there is a lot of good in it. I'm not sure if I'm particularly fond of the way they approached a potentially interesting premise but they do make good of it. It also has Sarah Polley and David Cronenberg. In the end, it doesn't amount to too much, but it's worth seeing.

[balmakboor]

W/E

Throwing a party for 600+. Shit I'm stressed out.

I might watch a movie to relax sometime.

[baby doll]

So weekend options:

-500 Days of Summer
-Funny People
-Food Inc.

I'll probably wind-up seeing all of them, but dear Match-Cutters, which one should I point my retinas at first?I've seen Food Inc., and think it's worth going out of your way to see. I'll have to go out of my way if I want to see 500 Days of Summer because it's only playing locally in an area where there's no public transit or sidewalks (just massive parking lots, Wal-Marts, and a multiplex). Anyway, it looks like a cute, conventional rom-com, but looking at the previews, I can't figure out why Joseph Gordon-Levitt is talking like Batman. I'll probably skip it. Funny People is playing downtown, so maybe I'll give it a shot, although I'm not really expecting much from that either.

[baby doll]

Weekend
Antichrist
The White RibbonI'm only sort-of anticipating these, more out of auteurist brand loyalty than genuine enthusiasm.

[Russ]

Throwing a party for 600+.
My largest parties only hit 100 or so. I don't know how you do this. No wonder you're stressed.

Good luck.

[MacGuffin]

I'm only sort-of anticipating these, more out of auteurist brand loyalty than genuine enthusiasm.

I'm excited because The White Ribbon, shockingly, has a narrator.

[Qrazy]

Hmph!

Srsly, that's one of my all-time favorite films. He also co-wrote The Red Violin with Girard, which I've been meaning to see for years. Despite the scorn being heaped upon him in this thread, I'm going to be checking out as much of his work as I can.

I liked it when I saw it before I was into film but I think it's a decent perhaps a bit too Oscar vibe-y film.

[balmakboor]

My largest parties only hit 100 or so. I don't know how you do this. No wonder you're stressed.

Good luck.

That's just the term I use for it because that's what it feels like. I'm president of the host club for a state swim meet. 271 athletes. Brothers and sisters. Their moms. Their dads. Aunts. Uncles. Grandparents. Three long days starting Friday. And all the complaints ending up in my lap. "The building is too hot." "The food lines are too slow." "The programs and t-shirts are too expensive." "My kid's times are screwed up in the program." (Okay, I can blame that last one on the kid's coach.")

So much on my mind, I almost don't have time to worry about how my own kid is going to do. Almost.

You've had a real party of 100? I was never anywhere near that popular.

[balmakboor]

Bruno - C
Enamorada - C-
Flatland - C
Harry Potter 6 - B-
Mad Monk - C
Hurt Locker - B-
Forbidden City Cop - C+
Harold and Kumar 2: Escape from Guantanamo Bay - D
Wanda - C
A Real Young Girl (Breillat) - C-
Buffet Titanic (Kusturica) - C-

Sheeesh. Don't you see any good movies?

I'm actually really anxious to see Hurt Locker. And I thought Wanda was pretty darn great.

[Qrazy]

Sheeesh. Don't you see any good movies?

I'm actually really anxious to see Hurt Locker. And I thought Wanda was pretty darn great.

Dry spell. But I have high hopes for Landscape in the Mist (filmswap). I'm also hoping to watch Siddhartha soon as well as The Third Generation, When a Woman Ascends the Stairs, some Juzo Itami films, Three Times and Salo.

I'm also almost finished Letters from a Dead Man which will probably get a B at this rate (good score for me).

[Qrazy]

That's just the term I use for it because that's what it feels like. I'm president of the host club for a state swim meet. 271 athletes. Brothers and sisters. Their moms. Their dads. Aunts. Uncles. Grandparents. Three long days starting Friday. And all the complaints ending up in my lap. "The building is too hot." "The food lines are too slow." "The programs and t-shirts are too expensive." "My kid's times are screwed up in the program." (Okay, I can blame that last one on the kid's coach.")

So much on my mind, I almost don't have time to worry about how my own kid is going to do. Almost.

You've had a real party of 100? I was never anywhere near that popular.

I should have done a head count of a party I had just out of high school but instead I started freaking out when 20 people I didn't know showed up. Then I was convinced to calm down by smoking some opium. I guess it worked.

[MadMan]

Weekend:

*Gone Baby Gone
*Le Samourai
*Public Enemies-Maybe
*The Friends of Eddie Coyle

[Philosophe_rouge]

Weekend
Babette's Feast
Food Inc.
Hair Extensions
My Night at Maud's
The Last Mistress
Irma Vep

Most of them at least :/

[Rowland]

Irma VepFunny you should mention this, because I've decided that once I start my Netflix account up again, I'm first gonna rent Les Vampires up, and then Irma Vep. Should make for an interesting experiment.

[Qrazy]

So I saw it a while ago but Gosford Park was quite awesome. Altman does Rules of the Game. I loved his use of double misdirection and how the murder mystery ties so directly into the class struggle by the end. The plot reveals are so effortless and precise.

[MacGuffin]

Funny you should mention this, because I've decided that once I start my Netflix account up again, I'm first gonna rent Les Vampires up, and then Irma Vep. Should make for an interesting experiment.

Too bad Netflix doesn't have Les vampires.

[B-side]

I'm thinking I'll watch Broken Blossoms tonight. My first Griffith film.

[MacGuffin]

Tokyo Drifter: Mind-numbingly awful. A borderline incomprehensible mess of actors running around some of the ugliest interior sets in all of cinema yelling and shooting at each other. Those yellow walls make me want to vomit; the over-the-top colors are over-emphasized long past the point that they are in Youth of the Beast and it's a very ugly movie both thematically and technically. I'm shocked this is made by the same director who did Gate of Flesh.

[Milky Joe]

So I saw it a while ago but Gosford Park was quite awesome. Altman does Rules of the Game. I loved his use of double misdirection and how the murder mystery ties so directly into the class struggle by the end. The plot reveals are so effortless and precise.

I like this movie but have always thought that the murdery-mystery plot was the weakest part. It felt the opposite of precise to me, shoehorned in and, despite Helen Mirren's heroics, resolved so hastily as to feel like a complete afterthought, which it probably was given Altman's tendencies when it comes to plot. Also, more Kelly MacDonald, please (though what film couldn't that be said about).

[Qrazy]

Tokyo Drifter: Mind-numbingly awful. A borderline incomprehensible mess of actors running around some of the ugliest interior sets in all of cinema yelling and shooting at each other. Those yellow walls make me want to vomit; the over-the-top colors are over-emphasized long past the point that they are in Youth of the Beast and it's a very ugly movie both thematically and technically. I'm shocked this is made by the same director who did Gate of Flesh.

Meh.

Anyway, watch Story of a Prostitute.

[MacGuffin]

Meh.

Anyway, watch Story of a Prostitute.

I'm astonished that anyone could like this movie. But yeah, I'll see that one later.

[chrisnu]

Anyone willing to recommend Last Night? Been curious about it, but haven't heard anyone here discuss it.
Definitely. I wouldn't call it a great movie, but it is quite good.

[Qrazy]

I like this movie but have always thought that the murdery-mystery plot was the weakest part. It felt the opposite of precise to me, shoehorned in and, despite Helen Mirren's heroics, resolved so hastily as to feel like a complete afterthought, which it probably was given Altman's tendencies when it comes to plot. Also, more Kelly MacDonald, please (though what film couldn't that be said about).

What? Are you kidding me? It's so intricately laid out.

First he sets up the distinction between the classes. Then close-ups of poison. Then he sets up all the enemies McCordle has. Then there's a gun shot during hunting. More shots of poison. McCordle chases girls. The faux-butler chases girls. A watch is polished with poison with a clever bit of dialogue. Finally a number of people leave the room with the music and McCordle is killed. All of this is set to meta-textual riffing concerning the murder via phone call commentary in relation to a Charlie Chan film. The four primary suspects all return to the drawing room, but are they the real suspects? The class distinctions continue. OK so we know he was knifed and the phone call suggests this was the valet. However, shortly thereafter we discover he was first poisoned. So it wasn't the valet who actually killed the guy, was it McCordle's primary servant because he hates his life of servitude and how he's treated so much? Was it an accident? No! The mystery lies in McCordle's treatment of his servant women which we witnessed early on. His greed and inhumanity is his undoing. It's not even his bastard son who kills him. The son's mother (which was also established... initially we were to think it was a romantic interest on her part) kills her former lover and master (who has bed at least three of the staff members) to protect her child from harm and we even witnessed the murder itself. There's so much brilliant misdirection in the film.

[Qrazy]

I'm astonished that anyone could like this movie. But yeah, I'll see that one later.

You will probably not like Branded to Kill.

[MacGuffin]

You will probably not like Branded to Kill.

I saw like the first half or so of it before I even really gave Suzuki a second chance and turned it off. Since then, I'd always felt like I was missing something; now, not so much.

[Qrazy]

I saw like the first half or so of it before I even really gave Suzuki a second chance and turned it off. Since then, I'd always felt like I was missing something; now, not so much.

I find Suzuki and Godard quite similar so I'm surprised you have this reaction. Godard is more politically minded but they're both interested in visual experimentation and above all rule breaking.

[MacGuffin]

I find Suzuki and Godard quite similar so I'm surprised you have this reaction.

I don't really see the comparison.

[MacGuffin]

Godard is more politically minded but they're both interested in visual experimentation and above all rule breaking.

I found the visual experimentations of Youth of the Beast admirable as well as the politics of Gate of Flesh, but if Tokyo Drifter is what you would call visual experimentation, then it fell completely flat and felt like a student production from someone who watched a few too many Quentin Tarantino movies in a row. Frankly, I still don't see much support to the comparison.

[Milky Joe]

There's so much brilliant misdirection in the film.

That's for sure. Maybe too much, as I can barely even follow your little capsule summary there. The mystery is so cloudy that it's barely even visible. Then when the big emotional reveal comes at the end (sloppily brought about, I might add, with Mrs. McCordle conveniently dropping the crucial piece of information in an offhand remark just as everyone is leaving) it's just... blah. Thematically maybe not so much, but dramatically it left me cold.

[Qrazy]

I found the visual experimentations of Youth of the Beast admirable as well as the politics of Gate of Flesh, but if Tokyo Drifter is what you would call visual experimentation, then it fell completely flat and felt like a student production from someone who watched a few too many Quentin Tarantino movies in a row. Frankly, I still don't see much support to the comparison.

Pure anachronistic nonsense.

His extreme use of color, tonal and character kineticism, staccato/jazzy editing, subverting audience expectation, fourth wall breaking, art films which break down their genre with their approach, self-mockery of genre, generalized contempt, playful sense of humor, cynicism... really, a better question is how is he not like Godard.

[Qrazy]

That's for sure. Maybe too much, as I can barely even follow your little capsule summary there. The mystery is so cloudy that it's barely even visible. Then when the big emotional reveal comes at the end (sloppily brought about, I might add, with Mrs. McCordle conveniently dropping the crucial piece of information in an offhand remark just as everyone is leaving) it's just... blah. Thematically maybe not so much, but dramatically it left me cold.

Erm no because the film is also enormously about gossip between classes, so of course that's how the reveal would occur. The mystery isn't cloudy at all, it's all right there. The film is as tight as can be. And her break down at the end is incredibly touching.

[Milky Joe]

Why do I feel like if we were to meet and attempt a chest-bump we would both be flung across the room in opposite directions? Good point about the gossip though.

[Qrazy]

Why do I feel like if we were to meet and attempt a chest-bump we would both be flung across the room in opposite directions? Good point about the gossip though.

Because I carry an enormous magnet in my chest and it seems... so do you... stealing my fashion sense thunder I see.

[MacGuffin]

Pure anachronistic nonsense.

His extreme use of color, tonal and character kineticism, staccato/jazzy editing, subverting audience expectation, fourth wall breaking, art films which break down their genre with their approach, self-mockery of genre, generalized contempt, cynicism... really, a better question is how is he not like Godard.

The colors in the movie are over-emphasized. Where in Youth of the Beast, I may be able to agree with your comparison to Godard in terms of visual experimentation (although, I think the experiments were not at all similar — it'd be like saying that Argento and Godard are similar for their visual experimentations... in fact, I think that Suzuki is more similar to Argento than Godard), in Tokyo Drifter, the sets are all poorly decorated and the colors aren't fitting. They're also ugly.

As for characters: what characters? Suzuki doesn't bother even developing any of these worthless, interchangeable characters, and for a movie that is largely centered around the narrative, characters are a must. Godard's movies are not even concerned with narrative, but with technique. Suzuki doesn't have technique, his editing is awful. The continuity problems are all over the place and the camera work is laughable. Suzuki doesn't break down the gangster genre either. He's too concerned with his own style, which feels more like a fluke here. It's, as you say, self-mockery. But as a critic, Godard won't dream of mocking genres (although studios, sure); he had the utmost respect for classical cinema.

Suzuki also subverts my expectations because I thought the movie would be good. But in all seriousness, there was really no way for him to subvert my expectations because the movie didn't have any logic. Suzuki's too concerned with his own style to care about plot or politics. Godard is interested in craftsmanship. Plot comes third for him, after sociopolitical commentary. I do not recall any fourth wall breaking in Suzuki's movies so far. And as for generalized contempt, I don't not see any similarities between Godard and Suzuki. If you bring up the topic of women in their movies, Suzuki's women are more objects and while it's been argued that Godard's cinema is frequently about the women in his life (most notably, Anna Karina) it merely mirrors his experiences. Suzuki's cinema could never be that personal because it feels too much like an exercise in stylish moodiness.

So yeah. Still not really seeing the Godard/Suzuki comparisons, although if you want to argue that they subjectively broke genre boundaries (I don't think Tokyo Drifter did, I just thought it was a mess, and not an avant-garde mess or anything like that; just a mess, where, I'd say Godard objectively did break genre boundaries with his essay like style), then I'd probably be more okay with that.

[BuffaloWilder]

Zero stars for Tokyo Drifter? That's some ridiculousness, right there.

[B-side]

Broken Blossoms was OK. Too much title card exposition, and so little left to the imagination. It's relatively powerful, though concerning the subject matter it'd be hard for it to not hit on some level in that department.

[MadMan]

Gone Baby Gone really lived up to the hype, and is a very powerful, maybe even moving, film. Ben Affleck should give up acting and just direct movies, at least ones in this similar vein, and Casey Affleck is fantastic here. I like how he acts as much with his expressions and eyes as well as with dialogue and his actions. It results in a much better, more well rounded performance, and is something I seem to notice in many actors/actresses as I watch more films. Quite possibly a by-product of seeing foreign cinema, also.

As for the movie's last act, I'm not really sure what the hell to think in terms of whether or not I agree with what happened. I like how it never tells you what to think, but rather lays out the arguments for both sides and leaves you to decide. That is both refreshing and rather intelligent for a crime drama/thriller/neo-noir.

Naturally the cast was awesome all together, but that's really a given when you have Morgan Freeman and Ed Harris in a movie together. Michelle Monaghan and Amy Ryan were both quite good, although I felt that they were secondary characters and thus not really focused on. Finally, I have to note the movie's strong Catholic themes, and its take on Boston, which was similar to The Departed in terms of guilt and all that. A theme that was less important here, though.

This could be the best movie I've seen so far from 2007. Or that title could still go to No Country For Old Men. I'm not really sure. "Baby" deserves perhaps a better, more well rounded review, but I just felt like scattering my thoughts to the wind after watching it. Something I haven't done in quite a while.

[B-side]

Ben Affleck is set to direct a romantic thriller called The Town starring Jon Hamm and Rebecca Hall.

[Sven]

I have twice compared Suzuki to Godard and both times have been challenged. I'm not sure what that means, but goodness... denying the comparison is like denying similarity between PT Anderson and Robert Altman.

And decrying the "poor" qualities of Tokyo Drifter so fervently is to jump through hoop after hoop after hoop of stilted, inconsistent criticism. CSC, why lambaste character here when you praise something like Miami Vice specifically for its absence of "character development?"

Suggesting Suzuki doesn't have technique is just about the most ridiculous thing I've ever read on this board and is going to need a looooooot of defense. However, you should know right now that your attempts to illustrate his absence of technique are going to fail. Because that doesn't mean anything.

I'm so baffled right now. Tokyo Drifter is one of the most beautiful, exciting films I've ever seen.

[Sven]

Hmmm... maybe not Anderson and Altman, because there's a direct correlation there. Perhaps something like: De Palma and Argento. The point is, they have similar ways of going about trying to do similar things.

[Pop Trash]

Zero stars for Tokyo Drifter? That's some ridiculousness, right there.

I didn't think much of it either (I think I gave it a 6) but zero stars seems like hyperbole. It should get at least a 2 or 3 for that ridiculous bar fight alone. But yeah...the screenplay was mostly garbage.

[Raiders]

White Dog (Samuel Fuller, 1982) **½
Tokyo Drifter (Seijun Suzuki, 1966) No stars
Séance (Kiyoshi Kurosawa, 2000) **
I Walked with a Zombie (Jacques Tourneur, 1943) *½
This is the most depressing thing I have read in a long, long time.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Ben Affleck is set to direct a romantic thriller called The Town starring Jon Hamm and Rebecca Hall.

I'll see it... Jon Hamm.

[Qrazy]

The colors in the movie are over-emphasized. Where in Youth of the Beast, I may be able to agree with your comparison to Godard in terms of visual experimentation (although, I think the experiments were not at all similar — it'd be like saying that Argento and Godard are similar for their visual experimentations... in fact, I think that Suzuki is more similar to Argento than Godard), in Tokyo Drifter, the sets are all poorly decorated and the colors aren't fitting. They're also ugly.

With Suzuki in general there's much more than experimentation with color. With this film alone the sets intentionally become more theatrical as the film progresses. In other films he breaks down the image and plays with film stock.


As for characters: what characters? Suzuki doesn't bother even developing any of these worthless, interchangeable characters, and for a movie that is largely centered around the narrative, characters are a must. Godard's movies are not even concerned with narrative, but with technique. Suzuki doesn't have technique, his editing is awful. The continuity problems are all over the place and the camera work is laughable.

Both are. The continuity 'problems' are intentional. Both directors also frequently use characters as avatars for concepts/archetypes within genre (Lemmy Caution/No. 1 Killer).


Suzuki doesn't break down the gangster genre either. He's too concerned with his own style, which feels more like a fluke here. It's, as you say, self-mockery. But as a critic, Godard won't dream of mocking genres (although studios, sure); he had the utmost respect for classical cinema.

Perhaps mock is too strong a word in both cases, poke fun at rather, which both do.


Suzuki also subverts my expectations because I thought the movie would be good. But in all seriousness, there was really no way for him to subvert my expectations because the movie didn't have any logic. Suzuki's too concerned with his own style to care about plot or politics.

He's concerned with limiting plot/narrative in favor of aesthetic. Unfortunately you did not like this aesthetic. But there is also a plot there which makes sense, it's just not the focus.


Godard is interested in craftsmanship. Plot comes third for him, after sociopolitical commentary. I do not recall any fourth wall breaking in Suzuki's movies so far. And as for generalized contempt, I don't not see any similarities between Godard and Suzuki. If you bring up the topic of women in their movies, Suzuki's women are more objects and while it's been argued that Godard's cinema is frequently about the women in his life (most notably, Anna Karina) it merely mirrors his experiences. Suzuki's cinema could never be that personal because it feels too much like an exercise in stylish moodiness.

Suzuki had contempt for the studio he was working for, Godard had contempt for the American studio system... the bourgeois lifestyle, anyone who has read less or seen less films than him, etc.


So yeah. Still not really seeing the Godard/Suzuki comparisons, although if you want to argue that they subjectively broke genre boundaries (I don't think Tokyo Drifter did, I just thought it was a mess, and not an avant-garde mess or anything like that; just a mess, where, I'd say Godard objectively did break genre boundaries with his essay like style), then I'd probably be more okay with that.

Godard and Suzuki are very similar, I just gave roughly ten reasons why. Your hatred for one Suzuki film is blinding you to these similarities. I did not say Tokyo Drifter is similar to any given Godard film. It is their approach to art and direction which is similar (not their overall aesthetic)... even Suzuki's political concerns come out in Gate of Flesh or Story of a Prostitute.

For Godard Breathless, Band of Outsiders, Alphaville, Pierrot le Fou and others are all unique reexaminations of genre... some crime, some lovers on the run/crime (Bonnie and Clyde), sci fi... alternatively, given his situation, Suzuki was mostly concerned with examining one genre (yakuza).

[Skitch]

A Suzuki film with zero stars?!

*kills self*

[Spinal]

I just thought it was a mess, and not an avant-garde mess or anything like that; just a mess ...

That's pretty much how I felt about it. It didn't provoke any sort of reaction in me at all except bewilderment that anyone could consider it artistic or entertaining.

[Raiders]

Alright... I'm reinstating negative rep.

[Spinal]

Alright... I'm reinstating negative rep.

:lol:

[Skitch]

Now I have to watch Pistol Opera for the umpteenth time.

[baby doll]

Now I have to watch Pistol Opera for the umpteenth time.That sounds like a good plan. But it's still not Godardian. It's like westerners don't know how to situate Asian filmmakers within their respective national cinemas without a western counterpart (i.e., Akira Kurosawa is the Japanese John Ford). Nagisa Oshima was so sick of being called the Japanese Godard, he once suggested that they call Godard the French Oshima.

[Sven]

That sounds like a good plan. But it's still not Godardian. It's like westerners don't know how to situate Asian filmmakers within their respective national cinemas without a western counterpart (i.e., Akira Kurosawa is the Japanese John Ford). Nagisa Oshima was so sick of being called the Japanese Godard, he once suggested that they call Godard the French Oshima.

YYYYYYYYYYYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWW WWWWWWWNNNNNNNNNN

Ah. That felt good. But seriously.

[Spinal]

Yeah, grating post, man. Smug and condescending. They were just trying to contextualize Suzuki's style. No need to make blanket statements about cultural insensitivity.

[Rowland]

This is, like, soooo three weeks ago.

[Raiders]

That is a funny quote from Oshima though.

[Qrazy]

Godard is the only Godard Godard of the Godard Dard Dard.

[megladon8]

I love Ed Wood more and more every time I see it. Funny, both inspiring and frustrating, and filmed beautifully by Burton who infuses it with style without reaching his usual excesses.

It may dethrone Batman Returns as my favorite Burton film.