28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[Chac Mool]

Signs is effective filmmaking, but the script is just so facile, contrived and telegraphed that I can't get myself to like it.

[MadMan]

Signs is damn good. However, the last act is a rather mixed bag. Showing the aliens was a poor choice on M. Night's part, and the miracle element with the son felt cheesy. But at the same time, it includes a very satisfying and awesome character arc for Gibson's brother, played by Phoniex, so I can't completely hate it.

Oh and while its merely creepy, not scary, the birthday party footage is hands down one of the freakiest things I've seen in a movie this decade. Also I like how the movie mediates on faith, as the alien invasion is merely the surface template for that anyways.

[Bosco B Thug]

Nah, it was pretty great. A thing of beauty really. The first hour especially is pretty spectacular in which we discover the characters and the town and what the film will be. So much fantastic physical comedy. So many great throwaway lines.

My favorite: "What kind of name is Olive Oyl? Sounds like a lubricant."

I'm less crazy about the second half in which we get a few dead spots and in which it seems that Altman reluctantly has to get the actual plot going. Also, it feels like maybe there's two or three too many songs. I love, love, love the dreamy minimalism of "He Needs Me". "I Yam What I Yam" and "He's Large" are also humorous, melodic and delightfully peculiar. By the time we get to the song for Popeye's pappy, the shtick seems a little familiar and repetitious.

Still, plenty to love. Great ensemble. Great adaptation of the comic's conventions. I'm on the bandwagon.

New rating: ***1/2 Very similar feelings to mine. I'm a definite adherent to the "less crazy about Popeye's second half" opinion. The last twenty or so minutes in recollect are so deflating... but I've had my say about poor Popeye.


I actually thought Signs was fantastically scary, seeing it opening weekend in theaters, but I agree with most all complaints. It's a simplistic, sappy movie. Well, like pretty much all of Shyamalan's films.

[StanleyK]

I agree with the consensus that Shyamalan is a better director than writer. However, I really enjoyed Signs and The Village, and am kind of looking forward to watching Lady in the Water.

[D_Davis]

I watched Hausu last night. Wild. It's like Uzumaki meets The Boxer's Omen meets Evil Dead 2, or something.

Totally creative. Tons of inventive things going on.

It's a shame it's not out on DVD here.

[number8]

Signs, to me, is a deft combination of atmospheric virtuoso and phenomenally bad writing.

[Sven]

I thought Signs was very well written. Great characters, tight structure... one of my favorites.

[dreamdead]

I procured a VHS copy of Shōhei Imamura's Black Rain and watched it yesterday. It's quite worthy of attention when it hits R1 in October, documenting both the immediate destruction of the atomic bomb and the lingering after-affects that continue to ravish Hiroshima's citizens years after the dropping. While the rest of the film cannot quite rise up to the first act's depiction of the blast and the chaos that followed, the film is never less than engaging and serves as both chronicler and memorial for a country's history. Indeed, it even lends greater legitimacy to the "help me" plea that underscores Kiyoshi Kurosawa's Pulse, for Black Rain examines the simplicity as well as the stark difficulty of the plea. However, while Kurosawa approached it allegorically, Imamura does it straightforwardly. When the lead male Hiroshima survivor meets an old neighbor, they converse on the destruction that they witnessed firsthand. The neighbor tells how his son had been caught in the wreckage wrought by the bomb, intoning "help me," to his father, who could only watch as the fires swept through the wreckage and consumed his son. Both texts approach this kind of national/international destruction, but somehow I find Kurosawa's allegory more impactful, even if the central struggle of the women's survival here is itself powerful and haunting.

[Ezee E]

The only thing I really don't like about Signs is the whole "swing away" thing.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Now I wanna watch The Happening again.

[number8]

Strong Bad explains the difference between Independent Films and Indie Films.
(http://www.homestarrunner.com/sbemail203.html)

[Mara]

Strong Bad explains the difference between Independent Films and Indie Films.
(http://www.homestarrunner.com/sbemail203.html)

That's pretty good.

[Dukefrukem]

It's amazing to me how MC can be at both ends of the spectrum on Signs. People either love it and think it's great, or hate it and think it's god awful.


Now I wanna watch The Happening again.

No you don't. You really don't.

[Dukefrukem]

Strong Bad explains the difference between Independent Films and Indie Films.
(http://www.homestarrunner.com/sbemail203.html)

That's really good. :lol:

[Rowland]

It's amazing to me how MC can be at both ends of the spectrum on Signs. People either love it and think it's great, or hate it and think it's god awful. I think that's an exaggeration, since it doesn't read like everyone who's criticizing the film necessarily hates it. I land somewhere in the middle, since it's by all means an immanently watchable piece of filmmaking. It's certainly nowhere near god awful, like his last two films were.

[Spun Lepton]

It's amazing to me how MC can be at both ends of the spectrum on Signs. People either love it and think it's great, or hate it and think it's god awful.

It doesn't help my opnion that the weakness the aliens had in Signs was the same weakness Invader Zim had only months prior. And they played the whole situation for laughs. All it did was highlight how fucking ridiculous Signs was.

[number8]

It doesn't help my opnion that the weakness the aliens had in Signs was the same weakness Invader Zim had only months prior. And they played the whole situation for laughs. All it did was highlight how fucking ridiculous Signs was.

Haha, "The Wettening"! I didn't see that episode until after Signs came out. Needless to say, it made it even funnier.

[Dukefrukem]

It's certainly nowhere near god awful, like his last two films were.

Well I def. agree with this.


It doesn't help my opnion that the weakness the aliens had in Signs was the same weakness Invader Zim had only months prior. And they played the whole situation for laughs. All it did was highlight how fucking ridiculous Signs was.

I don't know what your referring to.

[Spun Lepton]

I don't know what your referring to.

It was a brilliant, and therefore short-lived cartoon on Nickelodeon. Go to Google and search for "The Wettening" and look at the video results. You'll probably find bits of the episode, if not the whole thing, somewhere online.

[Skitch]

Now I wanna watch The Happening again.

Dude, you have every reason to live. You have lots of friends who love you. I think you're swell.

[number8]

I don't know what your referring to.

This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTFzBPANjgQ#t=16s) came out in 2001.

[Dukefrukem]

Hahahha so it was called the Wettening 7 years before the Happening came out???

[number8]

Far be it from me to accuse the man of plagiarism, but hey, he does watch Nickelodeon cartoons (http://www.match-cut.org/showthread.php?t=1568)...

[Dukefrukem]

That was a great episode. I enjoyed it immensely.

[Sycophant]

Duke, these sites may be of interest to to you:

Google (http://www.google.com/), a search engine where you can search for information on the Internet
Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org/), a user-contributed encyclopedia that contains a vast array of information, even (maybe especially) pop culture items like television shows of the last ten years.
Internet Movie Database (http://www.imdb.com/), an Internet movie database.

[Sven]

Strong Bad explains the difference between Independent Films and Indie Films.
(http://www.homestarrunner.com/sbemail203.html)

Interesting in light of their friendship with David Gordon Green.

[Ezee E]

The stuff about "the little movie that could" starting in 2000 theaters was the funniest.

Which city comma state movie comes to mind? Synecdoche, New York is the only one right now for me.

[Spinal]

The stuff about "the little movie that could" starting in 2000 theaters was the funniest.

Which city comma state movie comes to mind? Synecdoche, New York is the only one right now for me.

Mystery, Alaska?

[number8]

Well, I think that was a dig at Garden State.

[D_Davis]

Paris, Texas

[Spun Lepton]

That was a great episode. I enjoyed it immensely.

In that case, you would probably love the entire series, Duke. If you want other single episodes to whet your appetite, look for Dark Harvest, Invasion of the Idiot Dog Brain, Bloaty's Pizza Hog, and one of my all-time favorites, Megadoomer.

[right_for_the_moment]

Milwaukee, Minnesota

[megladon8]

I so love when Zim creates a water balloon that sucks up all the water off the face of the Earth, and aims it right at Dib.

So awesome.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Got Alphaville from Netflix yesterday. I can't remember a single thing about Godard from my film classes, nor do I remember if we watched any of his films.

Now that I think about it, why did I queue this thing?

:confused:

[dreamdead]

Duke, these sites may be of interest to to you:

Google (http://www.google.com/), a search engine where you can search for information on the Internet
Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org/), a user-contributed encyclopedia that contains a vast array of information, even (maybe especially) pop culture items like television shows of the last ten years.
Internet Movie Database (http://www.imdb.com/), an Internet movie database.

Rep. :lol:

[megladon8]

Got Alphaville from Netflix yesterday. I can't remember a single thing about Godard from my film classes, nor do I remember if we watched any of his films.

Now that I think about it, why did I queue this thing?

:confused:


baby doll got your account password.

[balmakboor]

Got Alphaville from Netflix yesterday. I can't remember a single thing about Godard from my film classes, nor do I remember if we watched any of his films.

Now that I think about it, why did I queue this thing?

:confused:

Probably because it is actually quite good and one of his most unfairly under-discussed films.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Probably because it is actually quite good and one of his most unfairly under-discussed films.

Eh, I'm leaning towards Meg's solution.

[Scar]

Got Alphaville from Netflix yesterday. I can't remember a single thing about Godard from my film classes, nor do I remember if we watched any of his films.

Now that I think about it, why did I queue this thing?

:confused:

Cocaine is a helluva drug.

[Sycophant]

Hey, I have a copy of Alphaville that I've had for a couple of years that I bought because I was like "Hey, I should watch more Godard!"

[megladon8]

Cocaine is a helluva drug.


http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/9123/normalcocainerickjames.jpg

[The Mike]

Lemme caution you about that movie, DAMU...it sucks.

Meanwhile, I just started Bring Me The Head of Alfredo Garcia. Am I supposed to understand what the dude's saying in non-English without subtitles when I speak (bad) English? WTF, Sam? :confused:

[Derek]

Lemme caution you about that movie, DAMU...it sucks.

No, it's awesome, but I'm with you on discouraging DAMU from watching it.

[Watashi]

Shyamalamadingdong

I know QT does it and it's all cool now but..... :|

[Raiders]

Lemme caution

I can't decide if this is funny ha-ha or funny as in the worst thing I've seen all day.

[The Mike]

I can't decide if this is funny ha-ha or funny as in the worst thing I've seen all day.

Like Megan Fox, I go both ways.

[Derek]

I know QT does it and it's all cool now but..... :|

QT wasn't the first.

[Watashi]

QT wasn't the first.
But when QT does it, it's acceptable.

[Derek]

But when QT does it, it's acceptable.

No, I've long considered it acceptable.

[Winston*]

It's not acceptable when QT does it. It's not acceptable when Derek does it. It's not acceptable on a boat. It's not acceptable with a goat.

[megladon8]

What about with a goat, in a boat?

Or is that something else?

[Dead & Messed Up]

No, it's awesome, but I'm with you on discouraging DAMU from watching it.

Your logic fascinates me. Why should I not watch this?

[Winston*]

What about with a goat, in a boat?

Or is that something else?

Neither there, nor with a fox in a box.

[Melville]

Neither there, nor with a fox in a box.
What about with a fox in socks who talks about beetles fighting battles with their paddles in a bottle on a poodle eating noodles?

[Pop Trash]

I can't decide if this is funny ha-ha or funny as in the worst thing I've seen all day.

No, that was pretty funny Mike.

[Winston*]

What about with a fox in socks who talks about beetles fighting battles with their paddles in a bottle on a poodle eating noodles?
I don't understand your reference.

[Melville]

I don't understand your reference.
You're not familiar with the works of Dr. Seuss? From The Fox in Socks:
Let's have a little talk
about tweetle beetles....

What do you know
about tweetle beetles?
well...

When tweetle beetles fight,
it's called
a tweetle beetle battle.

And when they
battle in a puddle,
it's a tweetle
beetle puddle battle.

AND when tweetle beetles
battle with paddles in a puddle,
they call it a tweetle
beetle puddle paddle battle.
AND...

When beetles battle beetles
in a puddle paddle battle
and the beetle battle puddle
is a puddle in a bottle...

...they call this
a tweetle beetle
bottle puddle
paddle battle muddle.
AND...
When beetles
fight these battles
in a bottle
with their paddles
and the bottle's
on a poodle
and the poodle's
eating noodles...

...they call this
a muddle puddle
tweetle poodle
beetle noodle
bottle paddle battle.

[Winston*]

You're not familiar with the works of Dr. Seuss? From The Fox in Socks:


Poor attempt at sarcasm on my part. I'm very sorry, Herman.

[Derek]

Your logic fascinates me. Why should I not watch this?

Because you remember nothing of Godard and have seemingly little interest in watching the film. Maybe you'll like it, but all signs point to anti-Godard and there's more than enough of that around this site.

[megladon8]

There's a lot of anti-Godard on this site?

I honestly thought I was one of the few (if not the only one).

[Derek]

There's a lot of anti-Godard on this site?

I honestly thought I was one of the few (if not the only one).

If you group indifference in with anti-, which in the case of a director as great as Godard, I do, then there is. Haven't you only seen 1 or 2 of his films? A bit early to dismiss the guy, isn't it?

[BuffaloWilder]

I think the pro-Godards are more dangerous, potentially.


Oh, and I think I broke my little toe.

[The Mike]

Oh, and I think I broke my little toe.

There could be an entire French New Wave film about this sentence. BEWARE!

[B-side]

Godard is aces. I used to be kinda eh on the guy, but I came back a little while later after doing a lot of research on the man and getting myself more experience in the film world and kinda fell in love.

[monolith94]

Anyone else seen "In The Loop"? Watched it at the local art-house the other night, and laughed my ass off. Highly recommended.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Anyone else seen "In The Loop"? Watched it at the local art-house the other night, and laughed my ass off. Highly recommended.
Seeing this friday, so excited, and I just can't hide it.

[monolith94]

Have you seen the tv show that it's a spin-off of?

Edit: prepare thyself for off-color language.

[right_for_the_moment]

In the Loop is pretty hilarious. I remember one line being among the funniest things I'd ever heard, but now I forget it.

James Gandolfini is the man

[number8]

In the Loop is still the funniest movie of the year for me.

[monolith94]

In the Loop is still the funniest movie of the year for me.
Yeah, I can definitely see it as being the sort of movie which is up your alley.

Probably my favorite scene was when:

Toby was trying to explain to his girlfriend why he cheated on her, and he used trying to prevent a war/invasion as an excuse...

[Dead & Messed Up]

Because you remember nothing of Godard and have seemingly little interest in watching the film. Maybe you'll like it, but all signs point to anti-Godard and there's more than enough of that around this site.

I was being a little jokey with it. I think the reason I queued it was because I wanted to see more French New Wave and it seemed like a good way to segue in - a good old-fashioned anti-authoritarian sci-fier.

And don't discount me just yet. I watched La Dolce Vita and was pleasantly surprised.

[Sycophant]

In the Loop actually went completely under my radar until today, when I saw an ad for it in the paper. Gonna see if I can see it this weekend.

[right_for_the_moment]

Yeah, I can definitely see it as being the sort of movie which is up your alley.

Probably my favorite scene was when:

Toby was trying to explain to his girlfriend why he cheated on her, and he used trying to prevent a war/invasion as an excuse...

That's it. Jeez that was great

[Dukefrukem]

Duke, these sites may be of interest to to you:

Google (http://www.google.com/), a search engine where you can search for information on the Internet
Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org/), a user-contributed encyclopedia that contains a vast array of information, even (maybe especially) pop culture items like television shows of the last ten years.
Internet Movie Database (http://www.imdb.com/), an Internet movie database.

Wow the internet is wonderful! THX!! ZOMGWTFBBQ!

[Boner M]

w/e

Ponyo
Feathers (Raymond Carver adaptation, only 13 votes on the IMDb... anyone seen it?
Strike
Tabu
Three Monkeys

[Eleven]

Yeah, In the Loop is muy hilarioso. It definitely feels just like an extended TV episode, but Capaldi as the most creative curse-smith since R. Lee Ermey is more than enough reason to see it. Even his physical mannerisms make me laugh, especially his penchant for running in and out of shots. And it's one of the few movies where I'm not miffed by the frequently dropped pop culture references.

For the last week since seeing it I've been desperately trying to deploy "difficult-difficult-lemon-difficult" into a conversation.

[Ezee E]

Weekend:
The Perfect Getaway

Adventureland
Le Duolos
Last Days of Disco

[Dukefrukem]

Weekend:

Nothing because I'll be in Detroit. :mad:

[ledfloyd]

i have a strange urge to watch eli roth's films.

[monolith94]

Yeah, In the Loop is muy hilarioso. It definitely feels just like an extended TV episode, but Capaldi as the most creative curse-smith since R. Lee Ermey is more than enough reason to see it. Even his physical mannerisms make me laugh, especially his penchant for running in and out of shots. And it's one of the few movies where I'm not miffed by the frequently dropped pop culture references.

For the last week since seeing it I've been desperately trying to deploy "difficult-difficult-lemon-difficult" into a conversation.
Given the quality of the tv show, though, I'd say "feels like an extended tv episode" isn't that harsh of a criticism. Heh, difficult difficult lemon difficult... my girlfriend loves that quote too, and uses it now in real life.

[Melville]

Poor attempt at sarcasm on my part. I'm very sorry, Herman.
You should go back to being sarcastic all the time, to avoid awkward moments like that.


Godard is aces. I used to be kinda eh on the guy, but I came back a little while later...and kinda fell in love.
Yeah, I used to like everything I saw by him, without really being wowed by any of them. But the last two I watched, Pierrot Le Fou and Masculin-Feminin, were pretty much as good as movies get: genuine human feeling brought out through nonstop invention.

[balmakboor]

Just a random observation. Gottfried John's Reinhold Hoffmann might just be the screen's all time greatest villian.

[dreamdead]

Yeah, I used to like everything I saw by him, without really being wowed by any of them. But the last two I watched, Pierrot Le Fou and Masculin-Feminin, were pretty much as good as movies get: genuine human feeling brought out through nonstop invention.

Interesting take, I found those two rather un-involving, despite their formal inventiveness. I much prefer the metaness about cinema that Contempt explores, with its melodramatic portrayal of relationships and so melancholic music, and My Life to Live, and its study of what makes us human in the middle as Anna Karina talks to the old man at the bar. In brief, I like the Godard films that end in car crashes or shootouts but not in huge explosions. :lol:

[Raiders]

Watching Scorsese's Shine a Light, I would not at all have been surprised to see a "Brought to you by Viagra" infomerical pop up in the middle. A redundant and rather facile ode to a band who admittedly can still rock out but who's music hasn't changed and who's personalities for me remain the same as when they were young. Watching Neil Young or CSN(sometimes Y) nowadays gives a nice glimpse and appeal into humanity and the wearing of time and age; but Scorsese's film fights against that, almost seemingly against the very concept of change and time. Ultimately, it is a rather annoying bit of preening; and what's up with the venue? Is this really the crowd the Stones cater to? I expected some more vigor and energy from the crowd than this. Maybe chosen to play up even further how vital this band still is. Yawn.

[Yxklyx]

Weekend:

Adventureland
Jeanne Dielman

maybe Inglorious Basterds

[balmakboor]

Watching Scorsese's Shine a Light, I would not at all have been surprised to see a "Brought to you by Viagra" infomerical pop up in the middle. A redundant and rather facile ode to a band who admittedly can still rock out but who's music hasn't changed and who's personalities for me remain the same as when they were young. Watching Neil Young or CSN(sometimes Y) nowadays gives a nice glimpse and appeal into humanity and the wearing of time and age; but Scorsese's film fights against that, almost seemingly against the very concept of change and time. Ultimately, it is a rather annoying bit of preening; and what's up with the venue? Is this really the crowd the Stones cater to? I expected some more vigor and energy from the crowd than this. Maybe chosen to play up even further how vital this band still is. Yawn.

The Stones were at their peak during the whole Satanic Majesties through Exile stretch with all of the Performance and Altamont and Crowley and Kenneth Anger stuff swirling around them. Recording whole sloppy albums at Keith's house because he was too strung out to leave. That's rock 'n' roll baby.

They can still put a tune together, more or less, but they've seemed too polished and calculated from about It's Only Rock and Roll onward. By stuff like Steel Wheels and Bridges to Babylon, they ceased to matter much at all even though there's nothing terrible about either album.

It's unfortunate that that's the state the band was in when Scorsese finally got around to making a concert film. Probably why I haven't seen it yet. I just keep returning to Gimme Shelter which is a masterpiece.

[Ezee E]

Watching Scorsese's Shine a Light, I would not at all have been surprised to see a "Brought to you by Viagra" infomerical pop up in the middle. A redundant and rather facile ode to a band who admittedly can still rock out but who's music hasn't changed and who's personalities for me remain the same as when they were young. Watching Neil Young or CSN(sometimes Y) nowadays gives a nice glimpse and appeal into humanity and the wearing of time and age; but Scorsese's film fights against that, almost seemingly against the very concept of change and time. Ultimately, it is a rather annoying bit of preening; and what's up with the venue? Is this really the crowd the Stones cater to? I expected some more vigor and energy from the crowd than this. Maybe chosen to play up even further how vital this band still is. Yawn.
Yeah. I was pretty bored by this as well.

[Sven]

Like Rushmore, that other 1998 film that I will never understand, Fear and Loathing remains utterly confounding to me even after three viewings. It's so piecemeal... I can't figure out what it is supposed to be. Moment for moment, there are some laughs, shocks, and interesting things said. But all the drug stuff doesn't work with the sex stuff which doesn't work with the America stuff... *in unison now* it doesn't cohere. It falls flat when the wonky visual stuff is dubbed over with Thompson's journalism... it becomes heavy-handed, like why am I supposed to be taking his addict's drug trip seriously? The reality of Vegas is never made clear, which is sad because I would find that a much more interesting topic than this gonzo perspective, which by definition is fleeting and obscured. And the TV footage stuff was weak because it was so vague and disconnected, but too frequent in the design to be simple decoration. The final scene of his writing in that imaginary hotel room with the strange flag art on the wall goes a slight way towards tying it all up, but it's too little too late I'm afraid. I also get really bored with Gilliam's tendencies toward canted angles and pukey visual design.

I love the shot, though, when Depp takes the adrenochrome and starts freaking out with the towel on his head while in the background del Toro imagines being attacked. And I do give props to the film for crafting one of the most horrific movie characters ever.

[Ezee E]

I like its visuals and all, but it's very tough to watch that entire movie.

[Melville]

Interesting take, I found those two rather un-involving, despite their formal inventiveness. I much prefer the metaness about cinema that Contempt explores, with its melodramatic portrayal of relationships and so melancholic music, and My Life to Live, and its study of what makes us human in the middle as Anna Karina talks to the old man at the bar. In brief, I like the Godard films that end in car crashes or shootouts but not in huge explosions. :lol:
In Pierrot le fou, I thought scenes such as Karina looking into the camera and telling Belmondo she'll never leave him (knowing that she and Godard would soon break up in reality), along with the entire deconstruction of the lovers-on-the-run, doomed-romance genre, were very emotional. In Masculine-Feminine, I thought all the inventiveness did a great job of creating the social climate in which the characters lived, and numerous scenes, such as the movie-theater scene and the final interview, and little moments such as the protagonist caressing his lover's arm as she ignores him, were very affecting. In both cases, the exuberant inventiveness worked in itself to make the movies a joy, but it also worked to bring the central relationships into a new light.

But I agree that My Life to Live is also great, and it definitely deserves a second viewing. I didn't like Contempt (contrary to the post in which I just said that I liked all the Godard movies I'd seen...), but it also deserves a second viewing.

[Milky Joe]

Fear & Loathing is probably best watched like the third or fourth time you ever smoke pot. Then it's a revelation.

[Raiders]

Fear & Loathing is probably best watched like the third or fourth time you ever smoke pot. Then it's a revelation.

This is untrue. Unless you mean it's a great film while your high, and that may be true but it is hardly indicative of a quality movie.

[Sven]

Fear & Loathing is probably best watched like the third or fourth time you ever smoke pot. Then it's a revelation.

I would not think it would be a revelation because the film itself is critical of such perspectives.

[Milky Joe]

It's not a revelation as in it's the best movie ever, it's a revelation in the way it plays on your own altered state: "how could a movie be this messed up?" It gets the point where you don't even believe that what you're seeing could actually be a part of an actual movie. This was my experience anyway.

I disagree that it's critical of this perspective. I think it's made for this perspective. It's critical of the 1960s acid culture, sure, but that's different.

[Sven]

It's not a revelation as in it's the best movie ever, it's a revelation in the way it plays on your own altered state: "how could a movie be this messed up?" It gets the point where you don't even believe that what you're seeing could actually be a part of an actual movie. This was my experience anyway.

I am relatively inexperienced with drugs, but I think this is probably the case with most people watching anything. One could hardly compliment the film for that.


I disagree that it's critical of this perspective. I think it's made for this perspective. It's critical of the 1960s acid culture, sure, but that's different.

I doubt that Gilliam made the film specifically FOR altered states and know that the film itself is critical of the concept--check out the last scene with him in the hotel room. He's not talking about psychedelics specifically.

[number8]

Goddamn, when is In the Loop coming on DVD, because I am dying to watch it 5 more times.

[balmakboor]

I just read both Armond White's pan and Roger Ebert's highly positive reviews of Taking Woodstock. Both convinced me that I'll love the movie.

[Sycophant]

I'm pretty stoked for Taking Woodstock (and have been since I first found out about it). It's a lonely boat we're in, balmakboor.

[D_Davis]

I'm pretty stoked for Taking Woodstock (and have been since I first found out about it). It's a lonely boat we're in, balmakboor.

I think it looks pretty cool. Probably won't ever watch it, but it looks good.

[Milky Joe]

I am relatively inexperienced with drugs, but I think this is probably the case with most people watching anything. One could hardly compliment the film for that.

Well I just did. What of it? It does this better than almost any other film, and I'm certain this was intentional (though of course not its only intention).


I doubt that Gilliam made the film specifically FOR altered states and know that the film itself is critical of the concept--check out the last scene with him in the hotel room. He's not talking about psychedelics specifically.

Acid culture ≠ psychedelics specifically. It's a blanket term. The film is, like the book, deeply critical of drug culture in the 60s (whilst also being deeply nostalgic towards it), but I don't think it's critical of drug use in general. That would make it one of the most hypocritical films of all time.

[Sven]

I don't think it's critical of drug use in general. That would make it one of the most hypocritical films of all time.

Why would it be hypocritical? I don't think there's anything in the film that actually condones the use of drugs.

[Winston*]

You should go back to being sarcastic all the time, to avoid awkward moments like that.


Nah, from now on I'm going to start being awkwardly sincere so iosos will like me.

[Milky Joe]

Why would it be hypocritical? I don't think there's anything in the film that actually condones the use of drugs.

Meaning that because the film works so well while under the influence (and whether or not you think this is praiseworthy, the film has undeniably gained this reputation of being a "drug film"), to be critical of the very thing that makes it tick would seem to me to be pretty hypocritical, or at the very least ironic.

[Sven]

Meaning that because the film works so well while under the influence (and whether or not you think this is praiseworthy, the film has undeniably gained this reputation of being a "drug film"), to be critical of the very thing that makes it tick would seem to me to be pretty hypocritical, or at the very least ironic.

A lot of things, a good many things, work well under the influence. Many, many things. Most things, I would even venture to say. Gilliam has gone on record as never having taken acid, so I don't think he was crafting the film with the idea of drugs in mind as the necessary key to its "ticking."

[Sven]

Nah, from now on I'm going to start being awkwardly sincere so iosos will like me.

It's the only way...

[Milky Joe]

A lot of things, a good many things, work well under the influence. Many, many things. Most things, I would even venture to say.

Not true at all. Things that are bad just have their badness accentuated, mediocre things their mediocre-ness, etc. Altered states do not take away one's powers of discernment, unless you had no such powers to begin with.


Gilliam has gone on record as never having taken acid, so I don't think he was crafting the film with the idea of drugs in mind as the necessary key to its "ticking."

I find that very, very hard to believe. Of course he's going to deny having taken acid. He isn't the first celebrity to do this. He doesn't want to turn himself into a walking stereotype like Oliver Stone did. Imagine if David Lynch admitted to taking lots of acid? He'd never live it down. Gilliam is just smart.

[Ezee E]

Fear and Loathing is loved by every stoner I know.

[BuffaloWilder]

Fear and Loathing was one of the best films of 1998. Still, it would have been interesting if they'd made it back in the eighties with Bill Murray and Tom Sellack like they'd planned, instead of Where the Buffalo Roam.

[BuffaloWilder]

Also, I don't really think it condemns or condones drug use. I mean, hell - would any of you really like to enjoy a trip through "pure adrenochrome?"

[Spun Lepton]

I would not think it would be a revelation because the film itself is critical of such perspectives.

WHAAAT?! HAHAHAHAHAHAAA!! Have you read the book, Sven? Oh, man, I am laughing so hard right now ... phew!

[Sven]

I find that very, very hard to believe. Of course he's going to deny having taken acid. He isn't the first celebrity to do this. He doesn't want to turn himself into a walking stereotype like Oliver Stone did. Imagine if David Lynch admitted to taking lots of acid? He'd never live it down. Gilliam is just smart.

I don't know, man... I think a lot of my problems with the film is that it is too sober. I saw the film before I had taken any drug and it looked to me like the kind of perspective that I would a sober person would have of a drug trip. Your assertiveness to the necessity of inebriation about this film is only indicative of its lack of reasonable, rational operation. In other words, if you need drugs, which it sounds like you're saying is the case, I'm certainly not going to praise it and, from the content of the film itself, as well as what I know about Gilliam, it appears that the film is not trying to be that at all.

[BuffaloWilder]

Well, the book - like the film - doesn't really comment on whether or not it's a good or bad thing, one way or another.

Interestingly, I'm trying to work out a short based around Thompson's prelude to this, "Strange Rumblings In Aztlan," which took place around the same time-frame -although, it'd be a less heightened story by design.

[Amnesiac]

Three Monkeys

I just might like Ceylan's Climates better, but Three Monkeys is quite good. Amazing, moody visuals.

[Spinal]

WHAAAT?! HAHAHAHAHAHAAA!! Have you read the book, Sven? Oh, man, I am laughing so hard right now ... phew!

I don't think that's laughable. The book and the film have very different perspectives.

[Sven]

WHAAAT?! HAHAHAHAHAHAAA!! Have you read the book, Sven? Oh, man, I am laughing so hard right now ... phew!

"That was the fatal flaw in Tim Leary's trip. He crashed around America, selling "consciousness expansion"... without ever giving a thought to the grim meat-hook realities that were lying in wait... for all those people
who took him seriously. All those pathetically eager acid freaks... who thought they could buy peace and understanding for three bucks a hit.

But their loss and failure is ours too. What Leary took down with him was the central illusion of a whole lifestyle that he helped create. A generation of permanent cripples, failed seekers, who never understood the essential
old-mystic fallacy of the acid culture: the desperate assumption that somebody, or at least some force, is tending the light at the end of the tunnel."

While that speaks mostly of the acid culture that Milky Joe mentioned, I believe that the film's (not the book, I have not read it) applicability, as well as the central schema of deglamourizing use through horrific means (lizard blood orgies, etc), falls on the more critical side of drug use in general. What kind of work would conclude like that but still condone things like marijuana? I don't get it.

[Spun Lepton]

Acid culture ≠ psychedelics specifically. It's a blanket term. The film is, like the book, deeply critical of drug culture in the 60s (whilst also being deeply nostalgic towards it), but I don't think it's critical of drug use in general. That would make it one of the most hypocritical films of all time.

This is pretty much right. Thompson was extremely critical of hippy culture, but also loved indulging in ridiculous amounts of drugs. He was in a class all by himself.

[Spun Lepton]

I don't think that's laughable. The book and the film have very different perspectives.

I've watched the movie several times, also read the book. I noticed no disparity between the attitudes presented in either.

[BuffaloWilder]

This is pretty much right. Thompson was extremely critical of hippy culture, but also loved indulging in ridiculous amounts of drugs. He was in a class all by himself.

He was a unibigot, don't you know.

[Milky Joe]

What kind of work would conclude like that but still condone things like marijuana? I don't get it.

You do realize there is a major difference between acid and marijuana, yes? And that there is a major difference between being twisted on acid for days/weeks at a time and smoking pot a couple times a day? That famous passage you quote (practically verbatim from the book) is talking about the former: the grim, meat-hook realities of thinking you can just "turn on, tune in, drop out" every day and still have some semblance of a life remaining afterwards. It was a narrow-minded, deeply naïve way of looking at things, and that is what the film/book is critical of, not smoking pot. Isn't Depp smoking pot as he's writing in that scene, anyway?

[Sven]

You do realize there is a major difference between acid and marijuana, yes? And that there is a major difference between being twisted on acid for days/weeks at a time and smoking pot a couple times a day? That famous passage you quote (practically verbatim from the book) is talking about the former: the grim, meat-hook realities of thinking you can just "turn on, tune in, drop out" every day and still have some semblance of a life remaining afterwards. It was a narrow-minded, deeply naïve way of looking at things, and that is what the film/book is critical of, not smoking pot. Isn't Depp smoking pot as he's writing in that scene, anyway?

Well, the self-loathing of the protagonist to me is clear in the film. Depp's Duke is not a man that is necessarily a champion for that in which he indulges.

And of course I do know the difference. But the language used at the end there I think adequately describes a lot of the mentalities of those around me that promote reality enhancers, of which I would include marijuana. It is psychotropic, so it does distort reality. It seems like Thompson is onto something bigger than just a specific culture surrounding a specific drug (in the movie, he doesn't even interact with anyone from inside that culture, save Gonzo, who, from my understanding, is largely fabricated anyway).

It all seems like so much a side issue anyway, given that the movie doesn't even seem concerned with the acid culture of the 70s. It waxes heavy-handed about "the American dream" more than anything else, and of which I cannot discern what it has to say.

[BuffaloWilder]

(in the movie, he doesn't even interact with anyone from inside that culture, save Gonzo, who, from my understanding, is largely fabricated anyway).


Not at all, actually. "Gonzo" was the pseudonym that Thompson used for Oscar Zeta Acosta, the Chicano lawyer/civil rights advocate - the book being based on their trip to Vegas to get out of L.A. and discuss the Ruben Salazar murder case that Thompson was working on, at the time. Depending on who you talk to, the book is either "all true -- and more!" or it's a kind-of halfway point between fiction and the kind of gonzo journalism that Thompson was attempting.

Interestingly, this almost kept the book from being published. Acosta called Thompson up about a week before the book was set to print, and he was angry -- not because of the book's content, but because by god he felt he deserved co-authorship credit. But, he realized it would've been a dick thing to do, holding the book up as it would've done, so he settled for having his photo on the backflap.

[Winston*]

I saw the Gonzo documentary of Thompson last night. They focused surprisingly little on Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. Worth seeing IMO.

[BuffaloWilder]

I've been debating myself on watching that for a while.

[Milky Joe]

It all seems like so much a side issue anyway, given that the movie doesn't even seem concerned with the acid culture of the 70s. It waxes heavy-handed about "the American dream" more than anything else, and of which I cannot discern what it has to say.

Huh? First of all, what's known as the "acid culture" was purely a 60s thing. It was gone by the 70s, which is when the film takes place. The whole thing is simultaneously a love letter to that bygone era and a scathing indictment of it. When it is waxing on the American dream, it is waxing on it through the lens of the acid culture, by a particularly astute observer of/participant in said culture, about what the one had to do with the other. Hardly a side issue.

[Sven]

Huh? First of all, what's known as the "acid culture" was purely a 60s thing. It was gone by the 70s, which is when the film takes place. The whole thing is simultaneously a love letter to that bygone era and a scathing indictment of it. When it is waxing on the American dream, it is waxing on it through the lens of the acid culture, by a particularly astute observer of/participant in said culture, about what the one had to do with the other. Hardly a side issue.

Well, the book came out in the early 70s, so I said 70s. Secondly, I reiterate: who else in the film is a part of this culture? How can it be an exploration of the culture when the culture is largely unrepresented? It seems like a relic of the culture, attempting to respond to something OUTSIDE of the culture. Which is fine. But it complicates things in a way that I don't feel the film reconciles well. At all.

Anyway, I'm uncomfortable talking about this, because I know next to nothing about Thompson's work and personal life. All I know is that the film is a clusterfuck that is sometimes engaging but largely doesn't work (I know, I know, unless you're doped up).

[Spun Lepton]

All I know is that the film is a clusterfuck that is sometimes engaging but largely doesn't work (I know, I know, unless you're doped up).

I don't get this suggestion that you need to be on something to love the movie. It probably helps to have some experience with psychedelics, but certainly not a requirement -- and certainly not needed while watching the movie. Gilliam never touched the stuff, but he pulled off quite a feat, nailing the book pretty much dead-on.

[BuffaloWilder]

Anyway, I'm uncomfortable talking about this, because I know next to nothing about Thompson's work and personal life. All I know is that the film is a clusterfuck that is sometimes engaging but largely doesn't work (I know, I know, unless you're doped up).

Crank 2, dude. Sigh.


My only problem with the film is they removed the one scene from the book that would've really sent the "search for the American Dream" aspect home. Duke and Gonzo are asking around for the location of the American Dream, and they're given an address -- it's a broken down, burned out psychiatrist's office.

[Sven]

I don't get this suggestion that you need to be on something to love the movie. It probably helps to have some experience with psychedelics, but certainly not a requirement -- and certainly not needed while watching the movie. Gilliam never touched the stuff, but he pulled off quite a feat, nailing the book pretty much dead-on.

Well, that's a Milky Joe thing. Which means it's largely questionable.

[Spun Lepton]

I saw the Gonzo documentary of Thompson last night. They focused surprisingly little on Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. Worth seeing IMO.

Is it called Gonzo? I'll have to check that out.

[Milky Joe]

You're being pretty obtuse about this. I have a good feeling you know next to nothing about drug culture in the 60s, either. The book came out in the 70s so it can't be about the 60s? What? So it can't be an exploration of acid culture without being set in that culture? The point of the film is that the culture is gone. It's over. Kaput. Duke and Gonzo are relics of a bygone era. They set out to recapture that former glory, and find nothing but 10 cent tacos and a whole bunch of neon lights and slimy reptiles.

And now I regret saying what I said about being loaded and watching this film. Obviously it's not a requirement to liking it, but it certainly worked for me.

[Sven]

You're being pretty obtuse about this. I have a good feeling you know next to nothing about drug culture in the 60s, either. The book came out in the 70s so it can't be about the 60s? What? So it can't be an exploration of acid culture without being set in that culture? The point of the film is that the culture is gone. It's over. Kaput. Duke and Gonzo are relics of a bygone era. They set out to recapture that former glory, and find nothing but 10 cent tacos and a whole bunch of neon lights and slimy reptiles.

And now I regret saying what I said about being loaded and watching this film. Obviously it's not a requirement to liking it, but it certainly worked for me.

When I said "...so I said 70s," I wasn't implying that I was correct for doing so. I was just offering my reasoning, which I will admit was not terribly sound. I do know very little about drug culture in general, let alone about a specific era, so perhaps the film is not for me. Still, I've never seen that as an adequate reason for dismissing a film when one is educated about the craft, like I purport to be. I dismiss it because it is not a good film, structurally or thematically. One can have as much personal investment in it as one likes, but I still think that it's a confusing story terribly told with obnoxious visuals and a poor sense of dramatic rhythm. Some exceptions here and there, of course (I love Sven).

[Winston*]

Is it called Gonzo? I'll have to check that out.
Yeah, Gonzo: The Life and Work of Dr. Hunter S. Thompson. I like that it took a level headed approach rather than going for a gonzo style, that would've been annoying.

[BuffaloWilder]

I'm confused. When you say it's not well-structured, I must ask - how so? I mean, it seems pretty obvious from the outset that it's going to have a free-wheeling narrative.

Also, I'd probably say that a lot of the visuals were intentionally obnoxious. I mean, that was kind of the point. Loud rhythms and garish colors in the place. Stay calm - keep moving.

[Sven]

I'm confused. When you say it's not well-structured, I must ask - how so? I mean, it seems pretty obvious from the outset that it's going to have a free-wheeling narrative.

Like I said before, I found it piecemeal. Too disparate at times. Nothing seemed to connect. Freewheelin' is fine (I love Easy Rider), but I found barely anything to take from this one.


Also, I'd probably say that a lot of the visuals were intentionally obnoxious. I mean, that was kind of the point. Loud rhythms and garish colors in the place. Stay calm - keep moving.

"intentional" does not mean "tolerable." I'm sure Bay makes loud, crazy fast movies on purpose... doesn't mean I can stand watching them.

[BuffaloWilder]

Like I said before, I found it piecemeal. Too disparate at times. Nothing seemed to connect. Freewheelin' is fine (I love Easy Rider), but I found barely anything to take from this one.

Watch it again.


"intentional" does not mean "tolerable." I'm sure Bay makes loud, crazy fast movies on purpose... doesn't mean I can stand watching them.

I don't think his intentions are the problem, though. He just can't direct - and, on those rare occasions when he happens upon a nice shot, he doesn't know how to hold it. Gilliam, by contrast, knows what he's doing.

[Milky Joe]

I do know very little about drug culture in general, let alone about a specific era, so perhaps the film is not for me. Still, I've never seen that as an adequate reason for dismissing a film when one is educated about the craft, like I purport to be. I dismiss it because it is not a good film, structurally or thematically.

Ignoring the structural thing for a moment, I don't see how you can dismiss it as thematically poor when you yourself admit to having very little idea of the intellectual grounding on which the film is laid. Would you read an essay about a topic you know next to nothing about and then dismiss it as bad because you were confused while reading it? A certain amount of familiarity with 60s drug culture is needed to enjoy this film's thematic concerns, if not the drugs themselves (those help with the visuals though).

[Sycophant]

Crank 2, dude. Sigh.This has nothing to do with anything.

[BuffaloWilder]

This has nothing to do with anything.

Actually, his summation of the film reminded me of exactly what I thought of Crank 2, thus - well, Crank 2.

[Sven]

Watch it again.

I've seen it three or four times now. I think I'm done with it.


I don't think his intentions are the problem, though. He just can't direct - and, on those rare occasions when he happens upon a nice shot, he doesn't know how to hold it. Gilliam, by contrast, knows what he's doing.

"holding it" is a fallacy, I believe, that many film people like to hold close to their hearts. Gilliam is a far from perfect filmmaker. Better than Bay, surely, but I think succumbs to similar temptations.

[Sven]

Ignoring the structural thing for a moment, I don't see how you can dismiss it as thematically poor when you yourself admit to having very little idea of the intellectual grounding on which the film is laid. Would you read an essay about a topic you know next to nothing about and then dismiss it as bad because you were confused while reading it? A certain amount of familiarity with 60s drug culture is needed to enjoy this film's thematic concerns, if not the drugs themselves (those help with the visuals though).

Of course not. But I could certainly dissect the essay for its ability to write coherently, which I don't think, analogously, Gilliam was able to do directorially. Sure some of its themes may be sound and of interest, but I do not think that the film developed or executed them well.

[ledfloyd]

i love fear and loathing in las vegas and have never imbibed any illegal substances.

[BuffaloWilder]

"holding it" is a fallacy, I believe, that many film people like to hold close to their hearts.

How so?


Gilliam is a far from perfect filmmaker.

You are correct. His Grimm brothers film was terrible, but I think every good filmmaker deserves one strike-out or two. Keeps 'em on their toes.


Better than Bay, surely, but I think succumbs to similar temptations.

I don't know, I mean - I've yet to see a Gilliam film that's filled with crude, scatological humor and racial caricatures screaming at me while the camera has a seizure. I just - haven't. And, those are some of Bay's most prominent weaknesses.

[Sven]

How so?

The idea that somehow, duration = good and rapid cuts = bad.


You are correct. His Grimm brothers film was terrible, but I think every good filmmaker deserves one strike-out or two. Keeps 'em on their toes.

Yeah, in full disclosure, I'm about 1:1 love:hate with Gilliam.


I don't know, I mean - I've yet to see a Gilliam film that's filled with crude, scatological humor and racial caricatures screaming at me while the camera has a seizure. I just - haven't. And, those are some of Bay's most prominent weaknesses.

Well, the humor and caricatures are not what keeps me away from Bay. In fact, personally, none of those things really bother me. It is the bombast, of which Gilliam is certainly guilty.

[BuffaloWilder]

The idea that somehow, duration = good and rapid cuts = bad.

Depends on the context, really. Unfortunately, Bay doesn't really seem to have any notion of this.



Yeah, in full disclosure, I'm about 1:1 love:hate with Gilliam.

'Kay.


Well, the humor and caricatures are not what keeps me away from Bay. In fact, personally, none of those things really bother me. It is the bombast, of which Gilliam is certainly guilty.

What's wrong with bombast?

[Sven]

Depends on the context, really. Unfortunately, Bay doesn't really seem to have any notion of this.

Yes. And while I am inclined to think that longer cuts are more attractive, I am also aware of the multitude of functions quick-cutting can serve.


What's wrong with bombast?

Anyone who knows me knows that I have no problem with bombast itself (Verhoeven and De Palma, FTW!). But it's got to be appropriately handled otherwise it's just craziness. And I think Gilliam too frequently falls into the "just crazy" category.

[Spun Lepton]

You are correct. His Grimm brothers film was terrible, but I think every good filmmaker deserves one strike-out or two. Keeps 'em on their toes.

And, in all fairness, it's because Gilliam purposely sabotaged the movie to get back at the Weinsteins when they took over the project and forced him to remove Samantha Morton from the cast.

[BuffaloWilder]

Anyone who knows me knows that I have no problem with bombast itself (Verhoeven and De Palma, FTW!). But it's got to be appropriately handled otherwise it's just craziness. And I think Gilliam too frequently falls into the "just crazy" category.

When you say "just crazy," what exactly are you referring to?

[Sven]

When you say "just crazy," what exactly are you referring to?

Zaniness with no discernible meaning beyond its strangeness factor. If your artistic interests are inclined to side with the bizarre, surreal, or otherwise "wild and crazy" elements of art that include things like warped visual perspective, shrill comedy, and/or anarchistic tendencies, that's cool. Mine are not.

[BuffaloWilder]

Zaniness with no discernible meaning beyond its strangeness factor. If your artistic interests are inclined to side with the bizarre, surreal, or otherwise "wild and crazy" elements of art that include things like warped visual perspective, shrill comedy, and/or anarchistic tendencies, that's cool. Mine are not.

I don't really see how any of this applies to Bay's work, though. All of his stuff is largely pedestrian in plot, and characters, and etc.

And, while Gilliam's work could certainly be called "zany" and "surreal," I don't think there's anything unmeasured about it.

[Sven]

I don't really see how any of this applies to Bay's work, though. All of his stuff is largely pedestrian in plot, and characters, and etc.

I was talking specifically about Gilliam there. Re: Bay, I think his "just craziness" comes in the form of too little coherence in his action scenes and action sensibilities. Not only can I not understand what's going on in a Bay action sequence, but they are always so cordoned off from the rest of the film, stylistically. Nothing about Bay's films feel natural or unified.


And, while Gilliam's work could certainly be called "zany" and "surreal," I don't think there's anything unmeasured about it.

I think "measured" is where we find our fundamental difference with Gilliam: I find his craziness to be largely unchecked. It's just too much. I always find myself wanting him to calm down.

[BuffaloWilder]

I was talking specifically about Gilliam there. Re: Bay, I think his "just craziness" comes in the form of too little coherence in his action scenes and action sensibilities. Not only can I not understand what's going on in a Bay action sequence, but they are always so cordoned off from the rest of the film, stylistically. Nothing about Bay's films feel natural or unified.

Yes, indeed.


I think "measured" is where we find our fundamental difference with Gilliam: I find his craziness to be largely unchecked. It's just too much. I always find myself wanting him to calm down.

Well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, on this.

EDIT: I'm back!

[Sven]

I also really liked the part where they first go on the ether and gradually start to walk like marionettes from the valet parking to the hotel. Hilarious. I guess I liked this film for the physicality of the performances.

[BuffaloWilder]

Yes, Depp's performance as Thompson is probably one of his best. It's an impression, but seriously, it's like an impossibly good impression.

Also, I find it a little weird that no one else has posted in this thread in an hour and a half.

[Sycophant]

That happens all the time, especially when two posters are back and forthing like that.

[Raiders]

I like the give Sven run of the house when he's on a roll.

[megladon8]

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is one of the films I'm going to re-watch in the next short while to determine whether or not it still has a place in the upper tiers of my all-time favorites list.

[BuffaloWilder]

I propose that, after this A.I. group rewatch business is all finished, that we do the same thing with Fear & Loathing.

[Rowland]

The best scene in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas was with Ellen Barkin in the bar. I do wish the film had enough guts to stray further from the source material, but Gilliam does capture the book's satirical elements with kitschy aplomb.

[Milky Joe]

I propose that, after this A.I. group rewatch business is all finished, that we do the same thing with Fear & Loathing.

Co-signed!

[Skitch]

I love Fear & Loathing. I didn't feel the point of the movie had anything to do with drug culture. The point of the whole mess seemed to me, to be the short narritive he relays when sitting at his typewritter midway through the film after a heavy bender...it was something along the lines of the following, reminiscing on a time past:

"...and if you look west, with the right sort of eyes, you can almost see the high water mark...the point when the wave finally broke...and rolled back..."

I love that part of the film. I believe it was followed closely by:

"The decision to flee came suddenly."

:lol:

[BuffaloWilder]

Co-signed!

Yes, indeed.



Extra points will be received for anyone who watches Where The Buffalo Roam.

[origami_mustache]

Taking Woodstock is pretty bland and predictable. It covers every hippy stereotype along with it's fair share of Jewish stereotypes and the overused Vietnam flashback. However there is about a 15 minute stretch where the film is close to brilliant. Ang Lee briefly abandons dialogue and plot points, and follows Demetri Martin's character through the never-ending crowd of hippy madness. There is one particular tracking shot that is reminiscent of Week-End The acid trip scene was ok too. I saw it for free, but I can't recommend paying to see this.

[B-side]

http://i26.tinypic.com/ifmnhv.jpg

[Kurious Jorge v3.1]

AH, MY EEYES!!

[B-side]

AH, MY EEYES!!

Orson commands you. Obey the face. The face that appears to be crying, laughing and performing a death rattle all at once.

[Spinal]

I'm going to give Death Proof another chance as a stand-alone film. We'll see how it goes.

[Bosco B Thug]

I'm going to give Death Proof another chance as a stand-alone film. We'll see how it goes.
Gna-gna-gna-gna. Doing my best Curly here.

WEEKEND: Starman, Redacted, Salo, Trouble Every Day

[Milky Joe]

I love Fear & Loathing. I didn't feel the point of the movie had anything to do with drug culture. The point of the whole mess seemed to me, to be the short narritive he relays when sitting at his typewritter midway through the film after a heavy bender...it was something along the lines of the following, reminiscing on a time past:

"...and if you look west, with the right sort of eyes, you can almost see the high water mark...the point when the wave finally broke...and rolled back..."

Um, what do you think he's talking about in that quote? Fail me if you're being facetious.

[Spinal]

Gna-gna-gna-gna. Doing my best Curly here.


I don't know what this means.

Anyway, re-watch didn't help. I admit the film has technical merit. The cinematography and the editing are both super. But as far as the actual content goes, I think it's utterly dopey. And not in a fun, emulating-trashy-movie way. Just inane. The Tarantino films that work mix in exciting situations and captivating characters amidst the pop culture fetishism. This film is about 45% jibba, 45% jabba and about 10% stuff that is actually exciting. I think there is one scene that completely works: the one with Rose McGowan in the car. The dialogue is still mannered, but it serves to build the sense of dread. It's cruel in its flippancy. Too much of the film's endless chatter is dedicated to self-consciously designating the line between hip and unhip. It quickly grows tiresome.

[Skitch]

Um, what do you think he's talking about in that quote? Fail me if you're being facetious.

Nah, it felt more to me like he was talking about a time and place where everyone was gathered together with a common ideal. I guess, yes, drugs were a part of that, but the drugs didn't seem like the point of the memory. It seemed to me he was reflecting back on that time as a happy memory of unification, not a joyous reflecting of smoking a joint.

Better?

[B-side]

Hopefully seeing Inglourious Basterds tonight. Excited.

[Ivan Drago]

Weekend:

Moon
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra

[balmakboor]

I propose that, after this A.I. group rewatch business is all finished, that we do the same thing with Fear & Loathing.

I'm for this. I've seen A.I. about ten times and may or may not take this opportunity to add one more. Fear & Loathing, on the other hand, i've only seen once. And that once was a mostly miserable experience. I couldn't figure out just what exactly Gilliam was trying to do. But, a lot of time has passed since then ...

[D_Davis]

Anyway, re-watch didn't help. I admit the film has technical merit. The cinematography and the editing are both super. But as far as the actual content goes, I think it's utterly dopey. And not in a fun, emulating-trashy-movie way. Just inane. The Tarantino films that work mix in exciting situations and captivating characters amidst the pop culture fetishism. This film is about 45% jibba, 45% jabba and about 10% stuff that is actually exciting. I think there is one scene that completely works: the one with Rose McGowan in the car. The dialogue is still mannered, but it serves to build the sense of dread. It's cruel in its flippancy. Too much of the film's endless chatter is dedicated to self-consciously designating the line between hip and unhip. It quickly grows tiresome.

I think this is fair.

[megladon8]

With a re-watch of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, I still love it but I'm not as crazy in love with it as I once was.

It begins to drag at about the 2/3 mark until they reach the diner with Ellen Barkin, which is a great scene.

But I think it has one of the greatest opening 15-20 minutes of all time. Really fantastic stuff.

[Bosco B Thug]

I don't know what this means. Oh, heh. Yeah, I was trying to emulate that often parodied "nervous" sound attributed to Curly from the Three Stooges, under the idea it's something people do when they have their finger stretching their shirt collar, or are apprehensive about a future event.


I still don't feel like there's very much pop culture fetishism in there.

[Eleven]

Dear DVD distributors/packagers,

"Scene Selection" is not a special feature, even for the most rinky dink, bare bones release.

Sincerely,

Me

[Sven]

Dear DVD distributors/packagers,

"Scene Selection" is not a special feature, even for the most rinky dink, bare bones release.

Sincerely,

Me

What about animated menus?

[Milky Joe]

Nah, it felt more to me like he was talking about a time and place where everyone was gathered together with a common ideal. I guess, yes, drugs were a part of that, but the drugs didn't seem like the point of the memory. It seemed to me he was reflecting back on that time as a happy memory of unification, not a joyous reflecting of smoking a joint.

Better?

Yeah I suppose that makes sense. But the time and place and communal spirit were so irrevocably wrapped up in drugs that it seems crazy to try to ignore it to me.

[megladon8]

What about animated menus?


And subtitles en espanol!

[Eleven]

What about animated menus?

Eh, I don't think there's anything special about those either.

Subtitles usually have their own section on a DVD package.

[SirNewt]

Can some folks around here recommend some documentaries? The genre is really growing on me.

Some I've really liked are

Ken Burns the Civil War
The Life of Birds (as well as most other BBc wildlife stuff)
Carl Sagan's Cosmos
F for Fake
Harlan County U.S.A.
Man on Wire
King of Kong
American Movie

Spinal Tap

and Confessions of a Superhero I kind of liked but it felt purposefully exploitative.

[Yxklyx]

Can some folks around here recommend some documentaries? The genre is really growing on me.

Some I've really liked are

Ken Burns the Civil War
The Life of Birds (as well as most other BBc wildlife stuff)
Carl Sagan's Cosmos
F for Fake
Harlan County U.S.A.
Man on Wire
King of Kong
American Movie

Spinal Tap

and Confessions of a Superhero I kind of liked but it felt purposefully exploitative.

Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills
My Kid Could Paint That
Sicko
Capturing the Friedmans
The Weather Underground
Sherman's March

[Milky Joe]

Can some folks around here recommend some documentaries? The genre is really growing on me.

The Thin Blue Line (staple)
I Like Killing Flies (hilarious)
9/11: Press For Truth (see this)
The Corporation (staple)
American Drug War: The Last White Hope (see this)
When the Levees Broke (riveting)
Word Wars (hilarious)
The Devil and Daniel Johnston (powerful)
Bukowski: Born into This (excellent writer doc)
Baraka (transcendent)
Beyond the Mat (w00t)
Who Killed the Electric Car? (informative)

[Rowland]

Just wanted to point out that John Kenneth Muir, a wonderful film critic who Bosco turned me on to, has been writing remarkably insightful essays on De Palma films over at his blog (http://reflectionsonfilmandtelevision .blogspot.com/). If you're into the filmmaker, I suggest checking them out.

[Spinal]

The War Game
Grey Gardens
The Atomic Cafe
Baseball
The Up Documentaries

[Rowland]

My two favorite documentaries from the last few years, both sadly overlooked for the most part, would be Deep Water (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/10008507-deep_water/) and Operation Homecoming (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/operation_homecoming/). Consider both highly recommended.

[Sven]

Just wanted to point out that John Kenneth Muir, a wonderful film critic who Bosco turned me on to, has been writing remarkably insightful essays on De Palma films over at his blog (http://reflectionsonfilmandtelevision .blogspot.com/). If you're into the filmmaker, I suggest checking them out.

I do not like this guy's writing style.

[soitgoes...]

Jonathan Demme's The Agronomist and Jimmy Carter docs are both great as well. Especially the first one, which I think has only been seen by a couple other posters (maybe only Raiders?) here.

[Sven]

I do not like this guy's writing style.

This guy is a total apologist. His defense of De Palma's alleged sexism is a sad, sad series of words. And he's only barely insightful. Lots of obvious surface stuff. I think I'm done with him.

[Melville]

My favorite documentaries are

Titicut Follies,
Crumb,
and Capturing the Friedmans.

[Dead & Messed Up]

My favorite documentaries are

Titicut Follies,
Crumb,
and Capturing the Friedmans.

For me, it's The Atomic Cafe, Gates of Heaven, and Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room.

[Grouchy]

On the Fear and Loathing discussion:


It is one of the finest of the '90s for sure, and one of the few cases in which both the movie and its source material are equally impressive achievements.
Johnny Depp's best performance and Gilliam's second best film after Brazil.
Thompson is neither a drug apologist nor an oppositor - he's a drug user. Remember the quote: "I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me". The movie definitively isn't a warning against drug use.
The movie is, like someone else said, not so much about the drugs than about the decade of the '70s and the death of the '60s "wave". This is the obvious theme of the story and can be seen both in the visuals (lots of American iconography used with irony) and in Thompson's own words.
It's a great idea to watch it under the influence, though. Or at least under most influences.

[Grouchy]

Gomorra was great. Long time since I'd been blown away by an Italian movie, which just goes to show how stale and uneventful the old country's cinema has become. Loved the long, detailed takes and the feeling of realism that distills from the art direction and performances. I also liked that, unlike Hollywood's formula for the ensemble film (I'm talking about stuff like Crash or Babel), this one never tried to bring all the stories together in an obvious and contrived manner - it just let each one speak by itself and the final effect is devastating. Garrone is a director to watch out for, although he already seems to have a quite big body of work under his arm.

[balmakboor]

I do not like this guy's writing style.

I strongly agree with you. I was pulling my hair out after one paragraph and going crazy after two. I'm afraid if I keep reading I'll end up in a straight-jacket.

I recommend some of the guys on the following site for good De Palma criticism:

http://www.thehousenextdooronline.com/

Such as this one:

http://www.reverseshot.com/article/carlitos_way

I also recommend Robin Wood's essay "The Politics of Castration," if you can put your hands on his book Hollywood From Vietnam to Reagan.

[Spun Lepton]

I really like American Movie, Crumb, and Jesus Camp. I would include Super-Size Me, but that seems to fall somewhere between documentary and entertainment as far as I'm concerned. Docutainment.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I really like American Movie, Crumb, and Jesus Camp. I would include Super-Size Me, but that seems to fall somewhere between documentary and entertainment as far as I'm concerned. Docutainment.

Love American Movie too, and Jesus Camp was creepy as fuck.

[balmakboor]

I really like American Movie, Crumb, and Jesus Camp. I would include Super-Size Me, but that seems to fall somewhere between documentary and entertainment as far as I'm concerned. Docutainment.

Are you saying documentaries can't be entertaining?

(Pssst, provide your answer in the Documentary Thread, now on page one...)

[Spun Lepton]

Love American Movie too, and Jesus Camp was creepy as fuck.

I briefly met Borchardt last summer. He was in a local low-budget horror flick (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1339098/) and I met him after the premier. It was a terrible movie, and I honestly don't know how they expected him to carry an entire movie when the poor guy can't act to save his life.

[Sycophant]

I have not seen The Thick of It, but it apparently wasn't vital to In the Loop's success. Frenetic and profoundly funny. I'll be seeing The Thick of It soon.

[eternity]

I made a wholly worthless list.

Top 20 of 2008/2009 (so far)

1. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008)
2. Cloverfield (2008)
3. Speed Racer (2008)
4. Adventureland (2009)
5. Wendy and Lucy (2008)
6. The Brothers Bloom (2009)
7. Moon (2009)
8. Synecdoche, New York (2008)
9. Rachel Getting Married (2008)
10. (500) Days of Summer (2009)
11. Watchmen (2009)
12. Inglourious Basterds (2009)
13. Hamlet 2 (2008)
14. The Wrestler (2008)
15. Burn After Reading (2008)
16. Wall-E (2008)
17. Repo! The Genetic Opera (2008)
18. World's Greatest Dad (2009)
19. Snow Angels (2008)
20. The Soloist (2009)

[BuffaloWilder]

So, I like the older Animal Farm animated film, but I don't remember Orwell painting Snowball as negatively - especially in the beginning, with it making a note to say 'he was sure to get a good seat at the front,' and all that - as the film does. Maybe it was because I'm a dirty communist, I don't know.

[Yxklyx]

I thought I would hate Jeanne Dielman, 23 Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles but actually ended up liking it a lot. The film is quite simple I think - though extremely subtle. The way I read it, Jeanne is simply a lonely and depressed woman who uses routine to help her make it through each day. On day one we see a normal uninterrupted routine - then on day two her clock malfunctions and things start being thrown out of joint. She also now starts having these brief episodes of introspection, which she quickly represses. These moments though become more and more frequent as the film transpires until at the very end she finally lets go.

It reminded me a lot of Fassbinder's Why Does Herr R. Run Amok? from a few years earlier. Interior camerawork very reminiscent of Ozu's films. I would think that this film influenced Ming-liang Tsai quite a bit.

I didn't find it monotonous even with its 3 1/2 hour length, there are quite a few different scenes outside and in. I did lose interest a few times here and there early on but once I caught on to some of the subtle changes that were going on I was transfixed. For some odd reason one of my favorite scenes was when she simply makes a pot of coffee. An excellent performance by Delphine Seyrig.

[MadMan]

On the Fear and Loathing discussion:


It is one of the finest of the '90s for sure, and one of the few cases in which both the movie and its source material are equally impressive achievements.
Johnny Depp's best performance and Gilliam's second best film after Brazil. Thompson is neither a drug apologist nor an oppositor - he's a drug user. Remember the quote: "I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me". The movie definitively isn't a warning against drug use.
The movie is, like someone else said, not so much about the drugs than about the decade of the '70s and the death of the '60s "wave". This is the obvious theme of the story and can be seen both in the visuals (lots of American iconography used with irony) and in Thompson's own words.
It's a great idea to watch it under the influence, though. Or at least under most influences.Aside from the second point, which I can't agree with as I haven't seen enough Depp and have yet to watch Brazil (and I'm woefully behind on seeing Gilliam's movies), this post is 100% dead on. I'm also starting to regret not buying the Criterion copy of the movie when it was on sale at Barnes and Noble earlier this month.

Oh and the book is slightly better, although I prefer the ending that the movie goes with. It just works in a more satisfying fashion. I wouldn't say that "Fear and Loathing" is Top 10 of the 90s materia, but it would probably crack my Top 25 and its one of the best movies of 1998.

[BuffaloWilder]

Oh, the Criterion edition is wondrous. Three separate commentaries, one by Gilliam, one by Depp and Del Toro, and one by Thompson. Two separate documentaries about Thompson, one dating back to the early eighties from the British Omnibus television show. An entire section dedicated to the botched advertising campaign for the film. And, so on.

[Kurious Jorge v3.1]

9 of 13 episodes done with the epic Kevin Brownlow documentary "Hollywood" and although quite few episodes feel like quickies compared his more in depth docs about Lloyd, Keaton, DeMille, Garbo, etc., the series has great interviews with those silent era stars still around in the late 60's/early 70's, including the wonderfully articulate Louise Brooks and Jackie Coogan (the kid from "The Kid").

I highly recommend Brownlow's "Cinema Europe: The Other Hollywood" if anyone hasn't seen it.

Of the Brownlow docs I have seen, ranked:

Cinema Europe: The Other Hollywood
Buster Keaton: A HArd Act to Follow
Abel Gance: The Charm of Dynamite
Hollywood
Garbo
Harold Lloyd: The Third Genius

[balmakboor]

Oh, the Criterion edition is wondrous. Three separate commentaries, one by Gilliam, one by Depp and Del Toro, and one by Thompson. Two separate documentaries about Thompson, one dating back to the early eighties from the British Omnibus television show. An entire section dedicated to the botched advertising campaign for the film. And, so on.

It's one of the very few dvds that I've almost purchased on many occasions just for the bonus materials. If I had liked the movie, it would've been mine years ago.

[Skitch]

Capturing the Friedmans is an excellent doc. Still my favorite would have to be Riding Giants.

[Amnesiac]

I saw The Cove recently. Not really in the mood to do a write-up, but it was pretty damn great. See it if you can.

[Watashi]

After being underwhelmed by Mike Nichols's more prestigious works (The Graduate, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf), I was quite surprised how blown away I was by Carnal Knowledge. The direction, lighting, acting here are all superb. It's almost Bergmanesque.

[origami_mustache]

9 was alright, but only about 70 minutes. I was shocked when it ended. I thought they could have done a lot more with it.

[Mara]

I just saw 28 Days Later and liked it quite a bit. I didn't feel like it was a horror film, though. Like it was suffering from genre confusion.

[The Mike]

I just saw 28 Days Later and liked it quite a bit. I didn't feel like it was a horror film, though. Like it was suffering from genre confusion.

Maybe you're suffering from genre confusion? :P

[Mara]

Maybe you're suffering from genre confusion? :P

I'm a giraffe.

[Rowland]

Perhaps your parameters for what constitutes a horror film are too constricted. I'd say it's definitely a horror film, albeit an action-centric one. Whatever the case though, it's a pretty great movie.

[balmakboor]

Anyone see Zombie Girl: The Movie yet? It looks like another American Movie.

[The Mike]

I'm a giraffe.

Well then, my point is moot.

Semi-related query for all. The statement "I wasn't scared, so it wasn't a horror movie". I've heard this in the realz. Is it as stupid as I think it is?

[The Mike]

Anyone see Zombie Girl: The Movie yet? It looks like another American Movie.

I really want to see that one.

[Mara]

Semi-related query for all. The statement "I wasn't scared, so it wasn't a horror movie". I've heard this in the realz. Is it as stupid as I think it is?

Hard to say. Is it an obligation of the genre to scare people?

28 Days Later did have some scary moments, but I'm scared by not-horror movies all the time.

[Mara]

Would the criticism "I didn't laugh, so it wasn't a comedy" make sense?

Or, "I didn't laugh, so it wasn't a good comedy"?

[Watashi]

I don't think I ever really laugh out loud in a theater or by myself. I really hate the people who laugh uncontrollably and clap their hands like a baboon. It's really ridiculous on what some people find funny.

I usually just slightly chuckle or appreciate the comedic value in my head and just smile in approval.

[BuffaloWilder]

Yes, yes damn those people for - showing emotion!

How terribly human of them!

[Mara]

I giggle if something is something is genuinely funny. I keep it respectful in theaters, but if I'm home I'll laugh until I cry and have to pause the movie/show to get a hold of myself. I'm a laugher.

[Ezee E]

I don't think I ever really laugh out loud in a theater or by myself. I really hate the people who laugh uncontrollably and clap their hands like a baboon. It's really ridiculous on what some people find funny.

I usually just slightly chuckle or appreciate the comedic value in my head and just smile in approval.
I've heard you got one of the worst laughs in existence.

[Watashi]

I've heard you got one of the worst laughs in existence.
Uh... what?

[Milky Joe]

Wow, even laughing is off-limits now?

[Ezee E]

Uh... what?
Or perhaps the most annoying laugh. Something that's been recorded.

[Skitch]

After being underwhelmed by Mike Nichols's more prestigious works (The Graduate, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf), I was quite surprised how blown away I was by Carnal Knowledge. The direction, lighting, acting here are all superb. It's almost Bergmanesque.

Agreed. The Graduate is extremely overrated, and Carnal Knowledge is fantastic.

[balmakboor]

The Graduate is extremely overrated, and Carnal Knowledge is fantastic.

Well, at least you got the second part right.

[megladon8]

Would the criticism "I didn't laugh, so it wasn't a comedy" make sense?

Or, "I didn't laugh, so it wasn't a good comedy"?



Not really, no.

The Royal Tenenbaums has only a few moments where I get a good chuckle, but it ranks among the best comedies of all time.

It's just the type of comedy the film is going for - subtler, less LOL-inducing stuff. Young Frankenstein makes me howl with laughter, but I'd rank it about even with The Royal Tenenbaums.

And as for the "it didn't scare me, so it wasn't a good horror", yeah, that's ridiculous for the same reasons.

Dog Soldiers is a horror movie, but it's not scary. I don't think it was really trying to be scary anyways.

[Mysterious Dude]

I think a lot of horror movies are not even trying to be scary, especially since they started emphasizing boobs and gore, neither of which is particularly scary.

[Spun Lepton]

I don't think I ever really laugh out loud in a theater or by myself. I really hate the people who laugh uncontrollably and clap their hands like a baboon. It's really ridiculous on what some people find funny.

:|

[Dead & Messed Up]

I love laughing/gasping/screaming along with a movie, and I love hearing the audience react positively to a movie...so long as the movie is good.

[Spinal]

Communal laughter is a beautiful thing.

[ledfloyd]

I think a lot of horror movies are not even trying to be scary, especially since they started emphasizing boobs and gore, neither of which is particularly scary.
boobs are terrifying.

[BuffaloWilder]

So, I've watched the animated Animal Farm, and up next is Michael Radford's 1984. I was also thinking of downloading the Hallmark Animal Farm that everybody hates, just to see what's up with that, as well as trying to find a copy of Michael Anderson's 1956 1984 movie.


Any thoughts on any of these?

[Scar]

boobs are terrifying.

I'm sorry.

[Mara]

I've seen... what?... three versions of 1984 and they were all terrible.

[Ezee E]

I love laughing/gasping/screaming along with a movie, and I love hearing the audience react positively to a movie...so long as the movie is good.
Yup. Many Inglorious Basterds all the better.

[Scar]

I love laughing/gasping/screaming along with a movie, and I love hearing the audience react positively to a movie...so long as the movie is good.

I do enjoy this. But I've been driven away from theatres by all the chatty motherfuckers.

[Spun Lepton]

I've been driven away from theatres by all the chatty motherfuckers.

Yup! People think the theater is their goddamn living room these days.

[balmakboor]

Yup! People think the theater is their goddamn living room these days.

There just isn't anything special about seeing a movie nowadays. You watch them on your television. You watch them in bed on your laptop. You watch them on your iPod. You tell your kids to watch them in the car to keep them from arguing and fighting. You can even watch them on your fucking phone (nods toward David Lynch). Seeing them in a theater is just an extension of all this casual, passive viewing.

When I was a teenager, audiences were much more respectful. Until I was about 21, the only way you could see a movie was in the theater -- or on television if the networks felt like showing something you wanted to see and you happened to be free at that time to sit and watch.

[megladon8]

Communal laughter is a beautiful thing.


Not if you're Watashi.

[number8]

I've always wanted to open an arthouse cinema named NOT YOUR FUCKING LIVING ROOM EMPORIUM. I will install a cell phone signal jammer and insist on a classy dress code.

[megladon8]

I've always wanted to open an arthouse cinema named NOT YOUR FUCKING LIVING ROOM EMPORIUM. I will install a cell phone signal jammer and insist on a classy dress code.


And people aren't allowed to laugh during comedies, or gasp during horrors?

[balmakboor]

I was just instant viewing Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and absolutely loving it for the first 20 minutes and then either I got tired or it suddenly loses itself because the next thing I knew my daughter was waking me up. I think I'm going to try this thing again in the morning with some coffee.

[number8]

And people aren't allowed to laugh during comedies, or gasp during horrors?

That seems harsh. Why would you want that? I think it's rude to behave like you and your peers are the only ones that matter in a movie theater, and I find it disrespectful on a higher level when people go to a theater and not let the movie be the main event that you are but a guest to. However, a reaction is a reaction, and if people feel compelled to react a certain way, it can't be helped. It's a natural human response, which are the feelings that movies—or art in general—try to incite. It's no different from crying when faced with an emotional film. Why prevent that? I mean, why would you want that? It's not the same as being chatty, which is a controlled action that shows a lack of consideration for your surroundings. That's more akin to taking off your shoes and putting up your feet while cutting a fart in a movie theater. That's the natural extension of talking with friends and/or operating electronic devices. Laughter and gasps are completely different. If people expressing themselves bother you so much, meg, I suggest you stay away from public gatherings altogether—especially when it's something meant to be enjoyed by a large audience. But no, I will not have that kind of rules in my Emporium. That's fucking bullshit, man.

:P

[Philosophe_rouge]

I've screamed at a horror film at the movies before, I think it's the only time I've ever screamed in my entire life... and the film wasn't even good.

[Grouchy]

I love natural audience reactions. I still remember when the first half of Kill Bill ended, there was this collective "fuck" being spoken all around the theater.

Just finished watching Punisher: War Zone. Pretty terrible stuff. Ray Stevenson is an excellent Frank Castle, even better than Jane because of his physical build and expression. But the movie is a pile of shit. Cheesy Italian and Asian stereotypes, absolutely laughable dialogue ("If I see you anywhere near hell, I'll kick your ass" - what the fuck does that even mean?) and a totally formulaic and unengaging storyline populated with bad acting. The only good thing that can be said about this movie is that it's pretty violent. But unlike the comics, the violence was reiterative instead of funny. They should just let Garth Ennis write the Punisher movie and find a director who doesn't want to make a garish neon fest in every location (the church in this looks like a fucking amusement park) and focuses on the story.

Heh. Ebert reviews the movie and says it's "only flaw is that it's disgusting". How do they even let that guy publish his scribblings?

[Mysterious Dude]

Heh. Ebert reviews the movie and says it's "only flaw is that it's disgusting". How do they even let that guy publish his scribblings?
There is nothing wrong with what Ebert wrote in context.

Why do you even read Ebert's reviews? You are almost as one-note as Barty.