28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[Grouchy]

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.
I read them regularly to hate him more thoroughly. Seriously. I'm weird like that.

And come on. That quote is wrong in any context. Here you have a film that's ineptly made for many reasons, some of which he will mention himself later in the review, and it's ONLY flaw is that it's disgustingly violent?

[Ezee E]

I want a movie theater where people can smoke in it again. Not because I smoke, but because the smoke looks so damn cool with the projector beaming through it.

[Winston*]

I got to the "sex" scene in Starting out in the Evening and decided this is not a movie I need to be watching.

[chrisnu]

I got to the "sex" scene in Starting out in the Evening and decided this is not a movie I need to be watching.
I thought it was flippin' hilarious. I guess I'm pretty twisted.

[megladon8]

I watched Natural Born Killers last night. This is the second time I've seen it - the first time was probably 8 years ago, and I hated it.

With this viewing I have to say that I really thought the script was fantastic. There are some brilliant ideas there, and it's all a very smart commentary on media saturation.

But I really hate the actual movie itself. The filming, the editing, the direction. It's caustic and abrasive and I just don't find it enjoyable to watch in any way.

[megladon8]

A neat video outlining how special effects have advanced over a period of 100 years. (http://www.break.com/index/the-history-of-special-effects-in-movies.html)

It's on Break.com, so there's a possibility of NSFW ads.

[Ezee E]

A neat video outlining how special effects have advanced over a period of 100 years. (http://www.break.com/index/the-history-of-special-effects-in-movies.html)

It's on Break.com, so there's a possibility of NSFW ads.
I wish they actually took more time with it, because they skipped over a lot of stuff.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I wish they actually took more time with it, because they skipped over a lot of stuff.

No kidding. That clip needs a complete overhaul, with every movie cited onscreen, many more pre-Star Wars features, and more depth of "effects." Where's the love for the makeup effects of Dick Smith, Rick Baker, and Jack Pierce? Or the use of matte paintings, rear projection, and forced perspective? Or motion control? Or go-motion?

Honestly, it kinda bothers me. Like someone jumped on Wikipedia, picked out ten DVDs, and called it a day. Why bother if you're gonna quarter-ass it?

[megladon8]

No kidding. That clip needs a complete overhaul, with every movie cited onscreen, many more pre-Star Wars features, and more depth of "effects." Where's the love for the makeup effects of Dick Smith, Rick Baker, and Jack Pierce? Or the use of matte paintings, rear projection, and forced perspective? Or motion control? Or go-motion?

Honestly, it kinda bothers me. Like someone jumped on Wikipedia, picked out ten DVDs, and called it a day. Why bother if you're gonna quarter-ass it?


Indeed. I just thought it was a neat concept, going from the hat effect at the beginning (which was really frickin' cool, by the way) to modern CGI.

[megladon8]

Wow, Columbia's recent "Toho Icons of Sci-Fi" DVD release is insultingly packaged.

It's three discs, and they're just stacked on top of each other on a single ring.

Nice.

[Ezee E]

No kidding. That clip needs a complete overhaul, with every movie cited onscreen, many more pre-Star Wars features, and more depth of "effects." Where's the love for the makeup effects of Dick Smith, Rick Baker, and Jack Pierce? Or the use of matte paintings, rear projection, and forced perspective? Or motion control? Or go-motion?

Honestly, it kinda bothers me. Like someone jumped on Wikipedia, picked out ten DVDs, and called it a day. Why bother if you're gonna quarter-ass it?
That reminds me of the worst retrospective "tribute" that I've ever seen. Last year's Denver Film Festival gave a tribute to Richard Jenkins and it was one of the worst (probably the worst) I've ever seen. They changed locations several times to where a good amount of the ticketbuyers didn't know where it was at, the host asked awful questions, and the series of clips was as if someone just looked at IMDB, and rented those movies and found the first scene that Jenkins was in. He has a hilarious moment in Witches of Eastwick and Flirting with Disaster, but instead they took scenes where he was practically in the background.

Horrible.

[balmakboor]

Saw Taking Woodstock today. Loved it.

[Dukefrukem]

Pride and Glory is an intense movie. I didn't know much about it when I started watching it but god damn. Thinking about doing what Farrell's character did at the end makes me cringe. It's prob Farrell's best performance next to Phonebooth. Norton, like always, doesn't disappoint.

[Qrazy]

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)...

Shayamalan's train of thought: 'So I thought to myself, I thought, well what would it be like if the wettening happened in real life and what if... it wasn't funny.'

http://content.ytmnd.com/content/2/d/4/2d44f9ce671d79cc60674c2c8279f3 85.jpg

[Qrazy]

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.

I disagree.

[Qrazy]

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 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.

The film does not condemn drug use just as Thompson did not condemn drug use, that's precisely why it is the most successful film about drug use ever made. It presents both the highs and the lows (I suppose Trainspotting does this as well). It doesn't only show the violent, selfish, ugly element of drug abuse. It also presents the purely sensual joy and the state of semi-constant hilarity which lead (amongst other things: escape, to avoid the pain of being a man, etc) people to use drugs in the first place.

So yeah I realize you said the film is critical and I agree that it is, but your comments seem to suggest that it condemns, which it doesn't in the slightest. The film is much more critical about superficial, capitalist concerns, gambling, violence and authoritarian narrow mindedness.

As to whether or not you'll get more out of it high, in my experience you do. But I get nearly as much out of it sober and I still think it's an excellent film.

[Qrazy]

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.

I don't think it would have been that interesting. Depp nailed Thompson much better than Murray did.

[Qrazy]

"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.

The lizard blood orgy is primarily a critique of the lounge lizards inhabiting the lounge.

[Qrazy]

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.

His self-loathing is as much a product of being human (thus his need to escape with drugs) as it is that he is a drug user (the use of drugs creates it's own problems).

How can you not discern what it has to say about the American dream? It says exactly what so many films have said before it. It says that it's a hollow and ugly dream. It says this the environment of the film and the characters that inhabit it. The American Dream is to become very wealthy, have a family, etc. The film shows the ugly reality of gamblers chasing that dream in the wee hours of the morning, of lounge lizards (which include women prostituting themselves to make money), militaristic biker units, valets and hotel clerks where money solves everything, lonely police officers who are just seeking a little bit of human contact, etc.

[Qrazy]

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.


Everything connects. If your problems are rather that you find it too thematically ugly or you don't find the humor hilarious than that's a subjective issue and I can understand your problems with the film but I don't have them. However in terms of structure, content, and purpose the film succeeds admirably in my eyes. Alternatively please elaborate why you feel the film's content is a) insufficient or b) contradictory or hypocritical.

[Qrazy]

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

As in rolling down the side of a cliff approaching the jagged rocks at the bottom?

[Dukefrukem]

I'm quite pissed they don't have the Matrix or American Werewolf in London in here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LP_hAszQPgk). But it's still awesome.

[Ezee E]

Yeah, I'm a big Bill Murray fan and all, but Johnny Depp IS Hunter Thompson. Bill Murray is eh.

[Sven]

Alternatively please elaborate why you feel the film's content is a) insufficient or b) contradictory or hypocritical.

Nothing I've said has suggested that I found the film hypocritical or contradictory. And content can only be insufficient as it relates to meaning and subtext (or base attraction, which is what I suspect why most people actually dig this movie). I do not think that shooting middle class Westerners with canted angles and hyperactive pacing adequately comments (or really, says anything that isn't superficial) on the delusions of the American dream. Is that reductive? Probably. My frustration with the film comes with my inability to discern how the film connects so many disparate threads. I'm sure that in theory it has much more merit than it does when looked at as a piece of cinema. But I'm thinking more that it's just an instance of the text needing to stay in print.

Also, in response to: "As to whether or not you'll get more out of it high, in my experience you do," it is in my own experience that you get more out of anything high. Isn't that why they call it "high"?

[megladon8]

I'm quite pissed they don't have the Matrix or American Werewolf in London in here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LP_hAszQPgk). But it's still awesome.


I like, just posted that.

On this page.

Look up.

[Dukefrukem]

I like, just posted that.

On this page.

Look up.

Ah yes. I've been gone the whole weekend and didn't read anything that was posted while i was gone.

[Qrazy]

Nothing I've said has suggested that I found the film hypocritical or contradictory. And content can only be insufficient as it relates to meaning and subtext (or base attraction, which is what I suspect why most people actually dig this movie). I do not think that shooting middle class Westerners with canted angles and hyperactive pacing adequately comments (or really, says anything that isn't superficial) on the delusions of the American dream. Is that reductive? Probably. My frustration with the film comes with my inability to discern how the film connects so many disparate threads. I'm sure that in theory it has much more merit than it does when looked at as a piece of cinema. But I'm thinking more that it's just an instance of the text needing to stay in print.

As a piece of cinema it's frequently hilarious (opening, numerous moments throughout), often sobering (diner scene, certain driving scenes) and an excellent rendering of what it's like to be on drugs (hilarity, paranoia, time lapse, visual distortion, auditory distortion, hallucination). It's also a postcard to the hopeful energy of a bygone era, an encapsulation of that era (the soundtrack), a self-criticism and a portrait of a city.

The film's structure strikes me as a fairly integral element of it's construction as an expression of drug use (time lapses, time shifting, etc). I guess I don't understand which threads you feel remain unconnected by the film's end.


Also, in response to: "As to whether or not you'll get more out of it high, in my experience you do," it is in my own experience that you get more out of anything high. Isn't that why they call it "high"?

I don't know about that. One of the many reasons I stopped smoking (other reasons include general health concerns and apathy) was because I became hyper-critical of films when I was high. Minor aesthetic issues that I could get over sober really bothered me and ruined films for me when I was stoned (this happened later, not when I first started smoking).

[megladon8]

I'm having a hard time getting through A Scanner Darkly.

I'm finding it, well, kind of tedious. It seems like for every dialogue sequence I greatly enjoy (the stuff about the bicycle, for instance) there are one or two sequences I can't stand (the stuff where Reeves, in his scramble-suit, is talking to another agent in a scramble-suit).

[Dukefrukem]

A Scanner Darkly is highly overrated and slow paced.

[megladon8]

A Scanner Darkly is highly overrated and slow paced.


I hope you're not inferring that the two are inter-twined.

Slow-paced movies are totally a-OK. Hell, my top 10 of all time has probably 6 or 7 films on it that are very slow.

[Dukefrukem]

I hope you're not inferring that the two are inter-twined.

Slow-paced movies are totally a-OK. Hell, my top 10 of all time has probably 6 or 7 films on it that are very slow.

Not at all. It's only a problem when you combine uninteresting movies with a slow pacing.

[megladon8]

Not at all. It's only a problem when you combine uninteresting movies with a slow pacing.


Well, an uninteresting movie seems slow regardless of the pacing. I really don't think pacing has anything to do with it.

I found the two Pirates of the Caribbean sequels to be some of the most boring stuff I've ever seen - and they never stop moving, there's rarely a lull in the action.

Similarly, Stevne Soderbergh's Solaris is one of the most engaging movies I've ever seen. And to say it moves like a snail would be giving its pace too much credit.

[megladon8]

Steven Segal is...BLADE!!!


http://img.amazon.ca/images/I/51Fglnc4YHL._SS500_.jpg


Well, not really...

[Dukefrukem]

Well, an uninteresting movie seems slow regardless of the pacing. I really don't think pacing has anything to do with it.

I found the two Pirates of the Caribbean sequels to be some of the most boring stuff I've ever seen - and they never stop moving, there's rarely a lull in the action.

Similarly, Stevne Soderbergh's Solaris is one of the most engaging movies I've ever seen. And to say it moves like a snail would be giving its pace too much credit.

I agree fully on the Pirates example. Good call. I couldn't have been more bored watching those movies. Solaris is slow, but what keeps your attention is the content. It's freaky! Freaky things are interesting.

[megladon8]

I agree fully on the Pirates example. Good call. I couldn't have been more bored watching those movies. Solaris is slow, but what keeps your attention is the content. It's freaky! Freaky things are interesting.


Also the phenomenal performances from everyone involved, the emotional impact of the writing and the revelation of what happened in Chris and Rheya's relationship, the phenomenal and sparse effects work.

It's f-ing brilliant.

[Dukefrukem]

Also the phenomenal performances from everyone involved, the emotional impact of the writing and the revelation of what happened in Chris and Rheya's relationship, the phenomenal and sparse effects work.

It's f-ing brilliant.

Can you grade both movies for me please?

[D_Davis]

I think ASD is nearly brilliant.

[megladon8]

Can you grade both movies for me please?


Both movies?

You mean the '70s Tarkovsky one, and Soderbergh's from 2002?

In that case...

Solyaris (Tarkovsky) - 7
Solaris (Soderbergh) - 10

[baby doll]

Solyaris (Tarkovsky) - 7
Solaris (Soderbergh) - 10This is just wrong.

[Sycophant]

This is just wrong.

Sorry to pick on you, baby doll, but can we (as a forum) seriously, seriously, seriously, seriously curb this kind of glib retort? It's the cancer that's killing the FDT.

[Ezee E]

So, from what I've been researching, here's a possible lineup for Telluride:

The two Herzog films
The Road
Bright Star
Life During Wartime (new Solondz)
Lebanon
Something from Ken Burns
A Prophet

Nice. Fox Searchlight has had great success at Telluride, so Up in the Air is possible as well.

[megladon8]

This is just wrong.


So is your constant hypocrisy.

[Ezee E]

Sorry to pick on you, baby doll, but can we (as a forum) seriously, seriously, seriously, seriously curb this kind of glib retort? It's the cancer that's killing the FDT.
Funny. I called baby doll a cancer to the site a few days ago.

[megladon8]

Quite possible the best animated short I've ever seen. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86wKWjvUD50)

[Stay Puft]

Quite possible the best animated short I've ever seen. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86wKWjvUD50)

ULTIMATE ROLLER MUSCLE LEGEND!

(Somebody posted that on RT a couple days ago. It's hilarious.)

[Dead & Messed Up]

Sorry to pick on you, baby doll, but can we (as a forum) seriously, seriously, seriously, seriously curb this kind of glib retort? It's the cancer that's killing the FDT.

http://www.kaosklub.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/wiggum.jpg

"Baby Doll is a cancer on this city, and I am the...uh, Lou, what cures cancer?"

[baby doll]

Sorry to pick on you, baby doll, but can we (as a forum) seriously, seriously, seriously, seriously curb this kind of glib retort? It's the cancer that's killing the FDT.I see your point, and will make a note to try to avoid doing this in the future, but I was just taken aback that anyone would prefer Soderbergh's version over Tarkovsky's. Not only is it so much less impressive formally (there's no room here for Tarkovsky's non-narrative atmospherics), but even as a streamlined piece of storytelling, Soderbergh seems less engaged by his content than Tarkovsky. His attempts to flesh out the relationship between Kelvin and his wife via rote flashbacks is only the most obvious example of his characteristic lack of interest in his material. The only type of content that seems to truly engage him are masturbation fantasies involving technology; the rest of the time, he's merely a glib formalist.

[Skitch]

I see your point, and will make a note to try to avoid doing this in the future, but I was just taken aback that anyone would prefer Soderbergh's version over Tarkovsky's. Not only is it so much less impressive formally (there's no room here for Tarkovsky's non-narrative atmospherics), but even as a streamlined piece of storytelling, Soderbergh seems less engaged by his content than Tarkovsky. His attempts to flesh out the relationship between Kelvin and his wife via rote flashbacks is only the most obvious example of his characteristic lack of interest in his material. The only type of content that seems to truly engage him are masturbation fantasies involving technology; the rest of the time, he's merely a glib formalist.

This is just wrong.

Someone had to do it. :lol:

[Qrazy]

So apparently they're filming a scene for Barney's Version directly outside of my house. And I don't mean across the street, I mean like right in front of and perhaps on my doorstep. Filming starts tomorrow and goes through the 4th, just got the letter in the mail today.

[megladon8]

Since Soderbergh made Ocean's 11 simply so he could independently fund Solaris because he wanted to make it so badly, I'm pretty sure he didn't have a "lack of interest" in the material.

His version of the film is superior to Tarkovsky's in every way, and he communicates the themes of the story in a manner that's both more powerful and more attractive, and does so in an hour less time.

[StanleyK]

Wow, Lady in the Water was irredeemably terrible. It's stunning, really, how it can tell a story this silly and ask you, with the straightest face, to buy it.

Is The Happening really even worse? I'm having trouble imagining how that could be.

[Raiders]

Wow, Lady in the Water was irredeemably terrible. It's stunning, really, how it can tell a story this silly and ask you, with the straightest face, to buy it.

How is that really any different from most any other fairytale though? They all have an inherent ridiculousness. I mean, there's plenty of reasons to hate the film (though I rather like it), but silliness seems a poor excuse.

[StanleyK]

How is that really any different from most any other fairytale though? They all have an inherent ridiculousness. I mean, there's plenty of reasons to hate the film (though I rather like it), but silliness seems a poor excuse.

I don't think Pan's Labyrinth was silly at all.

[Rowland]

How is that really any different from most any other fairytale though? They all have an inherent ridiculousness. I mean, there's plenty of reasons to hate the film (though I rather like it), but silliness seems a poor excuse.That pat excuse glosses over matters of execution. Sure, fairytales arguably have an inherent ridiculousness, but fairytales that work don't inspire ridicule, whereas I found Lady in the Water laughably inept when it wasn't outright infuriating.

And yes, The Happening is somehow even more incompetent.

[Winston*]

I don't understand why the naff names that Shyamalan gives his creatures sound so un-Korean.

[balmakboor]

Sorry to pick on you, baby doll, but can we (as a forum) seriously, seriously, seriously, seriously curb this kind of glib retort? It's the cancer that's killing the FDT.

He's far from the first person to leave such a glib retort. I've seen such retorts from just about everyone here including myself. Why is he being singled out on this particular occasion? Does every opinion have to be supported by an essay?

(That last bit is an homage of sorts. Back in my RT days, I once moaned and groaned that people were just tossing retorts back and forth rather than engaging in discussion. I got hit over the head from all directions by people saying they don't have time to support what they say with essays and telling me to lighten up.)

[Spun Lepton]

He's far from the first person to leave such a glib retort. I've seen such retorts from just about everyone here including myself. Why is he being singled out on this particular occasion? Does every opinion have to be supported by an essay?

(That last bit is an homage of sorts. Back in my RT days, I once moaned and groaned that people were just tossing retorts back and forth rather than engaging in discussion. I got hit over the head from all directions by people saying they don't have time to support what they say with essays and telling me to lighten up.)

NUH-UH!!!

/my contribution to the discussion

[Sycophant]

He's far from the first person to leave such a glib retort. I've seen such retorts from just about everyone here including myself. Why is he being singled out on this particular occasion? Does every opinion have to be supported by an essay?

(That last bit is an homage of sorts. Back in my RT days, I once moaned and groaned that people were just tossing retorts back and forth rather than engaging in discussion. I got hit over the head from all directions by people saying they don't have time to support what they say with essays and telling me to lighten up.)

I'm in a mood today.

But the volume of it lately has been really frustrating. I understand that you can't write me an essay every time you want to dissent or whatever. But... god, it's just so anti-social/condescending.

[BuffaloWilder]

I don't think it would have been that interesting. Depp nailed Thompson much better than Murray did.

I agree. Depp's performance was more of a transformation than Murray's was. But, I do like Murray's performance, however.


Speaking of, after watching some of the footage of him that was included in Gonzo, you know who I think would make a good Oscar Acosta/Dr. Gonzo right now, though? Jimmy Smits.

I mean, look (he's the guy in the middle, in the gray suit). It's not that hard to imagine him screaming, "I do what I want! When I want! COUNT ON IT!" is it?

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/8607/shot0079.png

[Derek]

I disagree.

And this is why you fail. Pierrot le Fou is an incredibly romantic film, meta as it is.

[Amnesiac]

But... god, it's just so anti-social/condescending.

The anti-social bit is easy to fix but no matter how much we wash it, I don't think we'll be getting that bit of condescension out of match-cut. :P

[Qrazy]

And this is why you fail. Pierrot le Fou is an incredibly romantic film, meta as it is.

It has a romance with sucking.

Just kidding I don't hate the film but I'm not much of a fan either, I posted thoughts a few weeks ago.

[Ezee E]

Oscars changing how you nominate Best Picture. I don't fully understand it:


nstead of just voting for one nominee, the way Academy members have almost always done on the final ballot, voters will be asked to rank all 10 nominees in order of preference — and the results will be tallied using the complicated preferential system, which has been used for decades during the nominating process but almost never on the final ballot.
As a result, a film could be the first choice of the largest number of voters, but find itself nudged out of the top prize by another movie that got fewer number one votes but more twos and threes.
It sounds crazy, but there’s good reason to make the change at a time when dividing the vote among an expanded slate of 10 nominees could otherwise allow a film to win with fewer than 1,000 votes (out of the nearly 6,000 voting members).

[Sycophant]

Isn't that how we've done some stuff her at Match Cut?

Like #1 is worth 10 points and #10 is worth 1 point?

[Melville]

Isn't that how we've done some stuff her at Match Cut?

Like #1 is worth 10 points and #10 is worth 1 point?
No, the Oscar system is much more complicated. Here's (http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=awardcentral&jump=article&articleid=VR1117978689&starting=16) how the nominees are selected. Here's (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3i7ad1fc69c534525240a03a6ee4c 981a1) how the winner will be selected.

[Winston*]

I think they should just write alll the American films released in the past year with at least 70% on the tomatometer (not including horror or sci-fi) on a big pile of bananas, position them in a large circle, put a monkey in the middle and let him pick the winner.

[Melville]

I think they should just write alll the American films released in the past year with at least 70% on the tomatometer (not including horror or sci-fi) on a big pile of bananas, position them in a large circle, put a monkey in the middle and let him pick the winner.
I'm out of rep. Remind me to rep you tomorrow.

[Ezee E]

Isn't that how we've done some stuff her at Match Cut?

Like #1 is worth 10 points and #10 is worth 1 point?
It's much more complicated than that. Something about how they simply go off the #1's that are gathered, and if it's a certain percentage, it automatically moves on.

[dreamdead]

Though I salute the directness with issues of latent racism and discrimination, 12 Angry Men's rather overt speechifying wherein we get dichotomies of good and evil, even as the film tries to get beyond those categories, is the central flaw that prevents the film from becoming anything more revolutionary than a solid, earnest film. Lumet's stark photography and sustained shots are well orchestrated, but the overall affect is still somehow muted by the film's broad (or, more appropriately, mid-1950s) approach that tries so hard to humanize that the film becomes bogged down in that mindset.

[baby doll]

Since Soderbergh made Ocean's 11 simply so he could independently fund Solaris because he wanted to make it so badly, I'm pretty sure he didn't have a "lack of interest" in the material.

His version of the film is superior to Tarkovsky's in every way, and he communicates the themes of the story in a manner that's both more powerful and more attractive, and does so in an hour less time.Maybe "lack of interest" was a poor choice of words; what I should've said is that the only content he seems capable of conveying with any conviction is mastubation fantasies involving technology. How 'bout that explanation of the anti-matter gizmo (or whatever it was), which is purely functional exposition?

As far as attractive, you can't mean the cinematography (no Russian landscapes in 'Scope here) or the generic art direction (everything looks like it was bought used from Star Trek: Deep Space Nine), so you're going to have to explain that one. And in terms of being more powerful, I personally prefer the lingering mysteries and enigmas of Tarkovsky's film to Soderbergh's tendency to spell it all out for us.

[megladon8]

Maybe "lack of interest" was a poor choice of words; what I should've said is that the only content he seems capable of conveying with any conviction is mastubation fantasies involving technology. How 'bout that explanation of the anti-matter gizmo (or whatever it was), which is purely functional exposition?

I really don't understand this at all. Aside from the explanation of the anti-matter gun to get rid of the "ghosts", there is absolutely no "technology masturbation fantasy" in the film.

All the futuristic technology shown in the film is simply used to convey the fact that it takes place in the future, and it's all background stuff. It's not like there are showcases of "look how cool this gadget is!".



As far as attractive, you can't mean the cinematography (no Russian landscapes in 'Scope here) or the generic art direction (everything looks like it was bought used from Star Trek: Deep Space Nine), so you're going to have to explain that one. And in terms of being more powerful, I personally prefer the lingering mysteries and enigmas of Tarkovsky's film to Soderbergh's tendency to spell it all out for us.

Yes, that's exactly what I mean.

The cinematography in Soderbergh's film was much more attractive to me. More dynamic use of colour and lighting, and the planet Solaris itself, its changing colour and its overall presence was more effective.

I really didn't see much special in Tarkovsky's cinematography or overall "look" other than very slow pans and some nice framing.

[Ezee E]

It's taken me ten years to see it, and it's one of those movies where people are like, "YOU, Mister Film Buff have not seen The Green Mile? WTF?"

Its three hours scared me, but it's one of the quickest three hour movies that I can think of. It's also very traditional in its storytelling, progressing like a John Ford movie. We get to know each person in that prison, and I love that. Not many movies do that now.

Good stuff.

The main thing I don't like, and I don't like this technique in most movies, is the "present day" of the movie. It starts off with an old man doing some stuff, he sees something, and starts talking. Movie begins. "The Present Day" doesn't really offer me anything whether it was there or not. I got it all in the 2 hour 45 minute flashback. Benjamin Button was the worst at this.

[baby doll]

I really don't understand this at all. Aside from the explanation of the anti-matter gun to get rid of the "ghosts", there is absolutely no "technology masturbation fantasy" in the film.

All the futuristic technology shown in the film is simply used to convey the fact that it takes place in the future, and it's all background stuff. It's not like there are showcases of "look how cool this gadget is!".Actually, what I meant when I cited that scene is that it shows Soderbergh's inability to truly engage the material. It's a flat, perfunctory bit of exposition. Similarly, the relationship between Clooney and McElhone strikes me as more abstract than concrete, even though enhancing the relationship between husband and wife is supposedly the whole reason for remaking Tarkovsky's film in the first place. Conversely, however, the technology masturbation fantasy of sex, lies & videotape is deeply felt and not at all abstract. Sorry for being so confusing.


Yes, that's exactly what I mean.

The cinematography in Soderbergh's film was much more attractive to me. More dynamic use of colour and lighting, and the planet Solaris itself, its changing colour and its overall presence was more effective.

I really didn't see much special in Tarkovsky's cinematography or overall "look" other than very slow pans and some nice framing.Most of the film is set on a crumbling spacestation, so the bright colours and perfume ad lighting of Soderbergh's film would be a misstep. That's another reason why remake feels more theoretical than concrete; the spacestation doesn't feel at all lived in, especially compared with Tarkovsky's. And following this train of thought, Tarkovsky's film spends a lot of time establishing the characters' environment, particularly in the long opening sequences set on earth, while Soderbergh's film--which is, as I said, a more streamlined piece of storytelling--only spends enough time on earth to establish a handful of essential plot points, rather than really giving us any sense of what Kelvin's life on earth is like, or how it differs from outer space.

To use an SAT analogy, Solaris (2002) is to Solaris (1972) what Year of the Dragon is to The Deer Hunter.

[Sven]

Year of the Dragon is to The Deer Hunter.

Are you just speaking qualitatively? Because these two films are incredibly dissimilar, except stylistically, which is the opposite of what you are talking about.

[number8]

The Year of Living Dangerously is a good movie.

[Grouchy]

To use an SAT analogy, Solaris (2002) is to Solaris (1972) what Year of the Dragon is to The Deer Hunter.
That's the worst comparison I've read on my 5+ years of internet posting about movies.

Here, have a cookie:

http://groggett.com/images/OreoCookies.jpg

[Qrazy]

The Year of Living Dangerously is a good movie.

Agreed.

[number8]

Goddamn, I love The Devil's Rejects so much.

[Spun Lepton]

Was lent Windy City Heat on DVD, a movie that I've seen at least twice on Comedy Central. It never fails to make me laugh my head off. Haven't seen it in 5 years. :D

[transmogrifier]

Nothing happens in the third Pirates of the Caribbean, and it takes three hours to do so. That's why it is boring.

[/late to the party]

[transmogrifier]

He's far from the first person to leave such a glib retort. I've seen such retorts from just about everyone here including myself. Why is he being singled out on this particular occasion? Does every opinion have to be supported by an essay?

(That last bit is an homage of sorts. Back in my RT days, I once moaned and groaned that people were just tossing retorts back and forth rather than engaging in discussion. I got hit over the head from all directions by people saying they don't have time to support what they say with essays and telling me to lighten up.)

I never understood the urge to stop people from posting one-line retorts. Far from hurting the thread/board, I think it keeps it humming, because, you know, sometimes I don't really have time to formulate a full response. And posting something, to at least show that you have read and reacted to another poster, is much preferable than posting nothing. Syco is totally wrong on this point.

[transmogrifier]

I'm in a mood today.

But the volume of it lately has been really frustrating. I understand that you can't write me an essay every time you want to dissent or whatever. But... god, it's just so anti-social/condescending.

It's the opposite of antisocial, actually. It's an invitation to socialise.

[transmogrifier]

It's the opposite of antisocial, actually. It's an invitation to socialise.

PS: Is this response long enough for you? Is there a minimum word count that prevents a response from being dismissed as glib? :)

[transmogrifier]

Oscars changing how you nominate Best Picture. I don't fully understand it:

I've always been partial to the "Hand out 100 points to 10 films in any pattern you like" type voting. I truly think it is the most useful consensus builder.

[baby doll]

Are you just speaking qualitatively? Because these two films are incredibly dissimilar, except stylistically, which is the opposite of what you are talking about.What I was trying to get at is that the earlier film is more Tarkovskyian in its slow, meditative storytelling, while Year of the Dragon is a straight-ahead action picture.

[Dukefrukem]

Both movies?

You mean the '70s Tarkovsky one, and Soderbergh's from 2002?

In that case...

Solyaris (Tarkovsky) - 7
Solaris (Soderbergh) - 10

Wow!! I guess you really DO like Soderbergh's version better. I myself would probably reverse those grades and change the 10 to a 9.9

[Dukefrukem]

Wow, Lady in the Water was irredeemably terrible. It's stunning, really, how it can tell a story this silly and ask you, with the straightest face, to buy it.

Is The Happening really even worse? I'm having trouble imagining how that could be.

The Happening is much much worse. I'd at least watch Lady in the Water again.

[Dukefrukem]

He's far from the first person to leave such a glib retort. I've seen such retorts from just about everyone here including myself. Why is he being singled out on this particular occasion? Does every opinion have to be supported by an essay?

(That last bit is an homage of sorts. Back in my RT days, I once moaned and groaned that people were just tossing retorts back and forth rather than engaging in discussion. I got hit over the head from all directions by people saying they don't have time to support what they say with essays and telling me to lighten up.)

I've noticed this too. The singled out part and other members taking one-liners to display their displeasure with a statement. The more common response I've seen is "neg repped" or something to that effect.

[Dukefrukem]

Nothing happens in the third Pirates of the Caribbean, and it takes three hours to do so. That's why it is boring.

[/late to the party]

Was the wheel fight in that one or the 2nd one? Whichever one it was, it was stupid. So was the giant sea monster.

[balmakboor]

I think they should just write alll the American films released in the past year with at least 70% on the tomatometer (not including horror or sci-fi) on a big pile of bananas, position them in a large circle, put a monkey in the middle and let him pick the winner.

This made me laugh.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Nothing happens in the third Pirates of the Caribbean, and it takes three hours to do so. That's why it is boring.

[/late to the party]

What's funny is that, despite the fact that I remember a gigantic sea goddess, a whirlpool, swordfights, and marriage proposals...you're right. Nothing happens.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I finished up a re-viewing of High Fidelity last night, and I love it almost as much as the first time I saw it. I thought just a little less of it last night, though, because Rob Gordon's more of a jerk than I remember - even though viable excuses exist for his bad behavior, it's still remarkable how awful he is. What's especially odd is how he eagerly jumps into bed with Marie De Salle but becomes indignant when Laura hooks up with Ian/Ray.

Speaking of which, can we get more comedic Tim Robbins? His work on this film and Anchorman is impeccable.

Anyway, in honor of High Fidelity, here are my all-time, top five romantic films from the 2000's:

Before Sunset
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
The Forty-Year-Old Virgin
High Fidelity
Punch-Drunk Love

[Dukefrukem]

Speaking of which, can we get more comedic Tim Robbins? His work on this film and Anchorman is impeccable.


You see him in The Pick of Destiny?

[megladon8]

So I actually ended up liking A Scanner Darkly quite a bit as a whole. Not perfect, but a highly above-average sci-fi with style and substance.

[number8]

You see him in The Pick of Destiny?

"Come over here so I can stab you!"
"...No."
"Okay. I'll come over there. Stay still!"

[Watashi]

Fans of Zodiac, check out Memories of Murders. It's scary how indentical these two movies are from their true-story detective angles, to the structure, and even the ending is similar.

Great movies both of them. I think I like Zodiac a bit more.

[dreamdead]

Fans of Zodiac, check out Memories of Murders. It's scary how indentical these two movies are from their true-story detective angles, to the structure, and even the ending is similar.

Great movies both of them. I think I like Zodiac a bit more.

Bah. One is Asian, one is not. Go with the Asian Cult. Plus, one has Song Kang-ho. Go with that one.

[Eleven]

Great movies both of them. I think I like Memories of Murder a bit more.

Although they're each my favorite film of their respective years.

Also, I'm assuming this is apropos of the Kevin Lee podcast, but the semi-gratuitous Kim Ki-duk swipe made me smile.

[Watashi]

Bah. One is Asian, one is not. Go with the Asian Cult. Plus, one has Song Kang-ho. Go with that one.
Not until you raise that ridiculously low Lumet rating.

It's in my Top 10 list.

[number8]

Zodiac has Jake Gyllenhaal drawing cartoons.

Memories of Murder has Song Kang-ho dropkicking a suspect.

Memories of Murder wins.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Love Memories of Murder and Zodiac, not sure which I prefer.

[Eleven]

There is admittedly a dearth of Korean dropkicking in non-Korean movies.

[Raiders]

I still don't like the very end of Memories of Murder, but I'll re-watch it at some point to see if this changes.

[Amnesiac]

Can someone tell me if there's a Toronto International Film Festival thread already up? I tried using the search function already but I want to be absolutely sure.

I think I'm going to be checking it out for a day or two. It will be my first film festival. Exciting stuff if it all works out.

[Dukefrukem]

"Come over here so I can stab you!"
"...No."
"Okay. I'll come over there. Stay still!"

:lol::lol:

[megladon8]

Memories of Murder is a frickin' masterpiece.

One of the best of the decade.

[Sycophant]

I loved Memories of Murder, but I would also say that I prefer Bong's other two features.

[Stay Puft]

Can someone tell me if there's a Toronto International Film Festival thread already up? I tried using the search function already but I want to be absolutely sure.

I think I'm going to be checking it out for a day or two. It will be my first film festival. Exciting stuff if it all works out.

Not yet. I'm still thinking of making a seperate thread for my own personal, informal "festival coverage" as I'm going to be attending the festival in its entirety (by which I mean simply I will be there for all ten days, as it is not logistically possible to take in everything).

Let me know if/when you're there. I'm no festival veteran or anything but I've been going to TIFF for three years so I can try and offer advice/suggestions or whatever.

Alternately, you can find plenty of "guides" on the net, such as this one:
http://www.pronetworks.org/index.php/independent_films/post/how_to_do_the_toronto_film_fes tival_-_real_tips_for_real_people

[Amnesiac]

Not yet. I'm still thinking of making a seperate thread for my own personal, informal "festival coverage" as I'm going to be attending the festival in its entirety (by which I mean simply I will be there for all ten days, as it is not logistically possible to take in everything).

Let me know if/when you're there. I'm no festival veteran or anything but I've been going to TIFF for three years so I can try and offer advice/suggestions or whatever.

Alternately, you can find plenty of "guides" on the net, such as this one:
http://www.pronetworks.org/index.php/independent_films/post/how_to_do_the_toronto_film_fes tival_-_real_tips_for_real_people

Thanks for this. I'll let you know more when things are more confirmed as I would certainly appreciate any suggestions. I'm hoping to catch An Education, White Ribbon and A Serious Man at least. Possibly Antichrist.

If you start your thread sooner than later, I'll be sure to post there with the list of screenings for the day(s) I'm planning to attend and see what recommendations you or anyone else can throw my way.

[Sycophant]

On their way to me by way of Netflix: Looney Tunes: Back in Action, Big Man Japan, Frivolous Lola. Pretty excited about this batch.

[Spun Lepton]

You see him in The Pick of Destiny?

He and Ben Stiller are the only really funny parts of that snoozer. And this is coming from somebody who thinks the D is quite kickass.

[ledfloyd]

i definitely prefer zodiac to memories of murder. but i enjoyed the latter quite a bit.

[Mara]

I was inspired to rewatch Popeye, and this plot is simply insane.

[Mara]

What a crazy grab-bag. The physical comedy is fantastic and the music is very catchy (particularly when Duvall sings.) The set is amazing. The costume design and make-up are excellent. And Bill Irwin is scarcely human in his contortions.

But... it's insane.

[Raiders]

And Bill Irwin is scarcely human in his contortions.

I have always wanted to see one of his vaudeville performances.

[baby doll]

I liked Memories of Murder, but have a hard time understanding all the raves for it. I know, subtlety is over-rated and all that, but after a certain point the pounding score and dramatic tracking shots that circle around the characters' heads just started to get on my nerves. By comparison, Mystic River looks like freakin' Jean Renoir.

[Sven]

I was inspired to rewatch Popeye, and this plot is simply insane.

I like how I seem to have inspired this sudden rash of Popeye interest. Also, the slate of recent Max Payne viewings one could also attribute to me. Makes me feel effective, if not exactly loved. Like the plague. :cool:

[Boner M]

I haven't seen Barking Dogs yet, but count me among the Bong fans. I thought Mother was a slight step down from his previous two, mostly due to it getting bogged down in plot mechanics in its middle section, but it has probably one of the most perfect endings in recent years. I'm dying to see it again.

[balmakboor]

That was trippy. I Googled my old user name of altgodkub to try to find some things I once wrote about A.I. I didn't really find anything I was looking for, but I did find snippets of random conversations about me. Unfortunately, neither of these pages still exists, so I can't read more than the Google search results pull quote:

"I don't think there's anything new to discuss about AI, but then again, I could always invite altgodkub over here."

"Kevin, this might be a stupid question, but are you 'altgodkub' at rottentomatoes? The guy's obsessed with Fassbinder and Kill Bill, and his prose kind of ..."

I've never heard of either forum that these were posted on. The Internet is a strange place.

I do want to know how that second quote ends though. My prose is kind of what?

[Watashi]

A lot of cool Criterion releases are coming out next year:

Che
Hunger
Summer Hours
Still Waking
Y Tu Mama Tambien
Following

[Ezee E]

A lot of cool Criterion releases are coming out next year:

Che
Hunger
Summer Hours
Still Waking
Y Tu Mama Tambien
Following
A Christmas Tale is apparently one too.

[Amnesiac]

A lot of cool Criterion releases are coming out next year:

Che
Hunger
Summer Hours
Still Waking
Y Tu Mama Tambien
Following

Y Tu Mama Tambien, cool.

[Winston*]

I do want to know how that second quote ends though. My prose is kind of what?

"...reminds me of yours." would be the way that sentence would end. That or "...makes him seem like a big bumface.".

[Spinal]

A lot of cool Criterion releases are coming out next year:


Following

The Christopher Nolan film? That hardly seems necessary.

[Watashi]

The Christopher Nolan film? That hardly seems necessary.
It's just the warm up for the 10-Disc The Dark Knight Criterion Collection where Christian Bale physically pops out of the DVD case and performs fellatio on you.

[SirNewt]

Rep to all for the documentary recs, except for some (I ran out?).

Some I'd already seen

Crumb
The War Game
My Kid Could Paint that

some were already in my queue

The Thin Blue Line
Sicko
Grey Gardens
The Devil and Daniel Johnston

but I ended up with a nice pile of recs

Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills
The Weather Underground
Sherman's March
I Like Killing Flies
9/11: Press For Truth
The Corporation
American Drug War: The Last White Hope
When the Levees Broke
Word Wars
Bukowski: Born into This
Baraka
Beyond the Mat
The Atomic Cafe
Baseball
The Up Documentaries
Deep Water
Operation Homecoming
Man From Plains
Titicut Follies

I'll be watch as soon as I can. I've just watched two and am already impressed. The Agronomist, which I thought was particularly brilliant and Living with the Friedmans which was funny/strange/surprising/disconcerting. . . and so on.

[SirNewt]

That was trippy. I Googled my old user name of altgodkub to try to find some things I once wrote about A.I. I didn't really find anything I was looking for, but I did find snippets of random conversations about me. Unfortunately, neither of these pages still exists, so I can't read more than the Google search results pull quote:

"I don't think there's anything new to discuss about AI, but then again, I could always invite altgodkub over here."

"Kevin, this might be a stupid question, but are you 'altgodkub' at rottentomatoes? The guy's obsessed with Fassbinder and Kill Bill, and his prose kind of ..."

I've never heard of either forum that these were posted on. The Internet is a strange place.

I do want to know how that second quote ends though. My prose is kind of what?

Yeah, that second one is kind of perfect.

[Amnesiac]

Watching Rob Zombie on Jimmy Fallon right now. Did everyone already know that the Michael Myers mask was just a Shatner mask from Star Trek with the sideburns taken off? So, it's technically Shatner's face that has evoked so much terror in countless audiences.

[number8]

Yeah, it's a pretty well-known trivia nugget.

[Amnesiac]

I've never watched any of the movies all the way through and I certainly wouldn't call myself a fan... so, it was at least news to me.

[Dukefrukem]

He and Ben Stiller are the only really funny parts of that snoozer. And this is coming from somebody who thinks the D is quite kickass.

Oh I completely agree. I'm a HUGE D fan. And I thought the movie was mediocre at best. The entire movie SHOULD have been what the opening and ending scenes were. Almost like a musical, or even if it was a musical. THAT would have been epic.

[balmakboor]

"...reminds me of yours." would be the way that sentence would end. That or "...makes him seem like a big bumface.".

I was figuring the sentence probably ends "...sucks balls like yours."

[MadMan]

Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas - *1/2This rating is all kinds of wrong, and then some.

And Pick of Destiny was utterly hilarious.


It's just the warm up for the 10-Disc The Dark Knight Criterion Collection where Christian Bale physically pops out of the DVD case and performs fellatio on you.Does he scream something about breaking your lights, too?

[Ezee E]

Heh. This will be my last Telluride post before I create the thread when I get there tomorrow, but I guess Edgar Wright's Scott Pilgrim VS. The World will also be there.

Tonight, I'll watch Sugar and Goodbye Solo.

[Sycophant]

Heh. This will be my last Telluride post before I create the thread when I get there tomorrow, but I guess Edgar Wright's Scott Pilgrim VS. The World will also be there.

Damn! Is that done already? I thought they just wrapped a couple weeks ago or something.

[Ezee E]

Damn! Is that done already? I thought they just wrapped a couple weeks ago or something.

All unreliable sources. Some say no, so who knows.

This is part of the appeal of this festival for me. I have no idea what I'll be seeing until it starts.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Tonight, I'll watch Sugar and Goodbye Solo.

Good man. Can't wait to get your reaction on both.

[Amnesiac]

http://houseofmirthandmovies.files.wo rdpress.com/2009/04/le-bonheur.jpg

I'm not so sure that I really appreciated La pointe-courte or Cleo from 5 to 7 all that much. I didn't outright dislike them, and they're both visually well put together, but the recently viewed La bonheur certainly left the stronger impression. This is partially related to the film's deliriously vibrant palette, which accounts for the film's many arresting visuals. It's gorgeous. Juxtaposed with the film's ups and downs, the gorgeousness of the visuals is sometimes apt and sometimes darkly ironic. Also, its ostensible controversies, stemming from the ideas the films attempts to subvert and interrogate, are potent and intriguing.

Varda is definitely attempting to be a little bit more audacious and controversial here than she was with the other two aforementioned features. With La pointe-courte, she seemed most interested in aggrandizing the proletarian minutiae of a fishing village (finding beauty in that which is ugly, or at least unassuming) as well as the cyclical nature of relationships. It had an Italian neo-realist vibe and a compassionate touch that can certainly be appreciated, but it didn't have too much of a compelling edge to it. The malaise that beset the couple in that film is handled (or corrected) here differently, with Varda pointing towards the cathartic (yet dangerous) possibilities of polygamous abandon. Thus, in this film a married man falls in love with another woman, yet he claims not to have lost one ounce of love for his original spouse, and proceeds experiences ecstatic happiness at the prospect of sharing his love with two women. Even more agreeable to him, both women seem willing to tolerate his desirous excesses if only for the sake of seeing him happy. It is thereby easy to dismiss this film, up to a certain point, as a curious male fantasy of sorts. Of course, without spoiling too much of it for those who have not seen it yet and certainly should, Varda approaches this idea a bit more critically. When all is said and done, the implications of the film are distressing and somber, and its portrait of the insatiability that ostensibly erodes the nuclear family is quite strong and affecting.

http://i27.tinypic.com/2d9u4u9.jpg

Short Cuts, my first Robert Altman feature. Having long been a fan of PTA's Magnolia, I've heard many mention that it is a film that has owes a lot to Altman's picture. I can definitely see the influences, right down to the contingency of a natural phenomenon connecting and affecting disparate lives, some of which happen to be at their worst moments. I still prefer Magnolia, however, both for its operatic heights, its wonderful histrionics, the way its shots are more kinetically charged and pressing, and for its superior characters/performances.

I mean, the characters/performances in Short Cuts weren't necessarily bad. But they weren't as compelling or interesting as Magnolia's cast, and they didn't evoke half as much pity (barring a few exceptions). Even the grieving couple seems to fall apart when they visit the bakery. What was up with that scene? Didn't work for me. The acting seemed to fall short there and it suddenly became this awkward and slightly absurd little encounter. That may be Altman's point, but it was a bit too quaint and poorly handled. Andie MacDowell and Bruce Davison just seemed awkward in their parts, particularly at the Bakery, and the former especially didn't do a great job of selling the grieving mother. Even on a narrative level, that visit to the Bakery seemed a little too contrived and affected.

Besides that crippling factor, there is a lot to admire. In terms of other performances (I'll go through a few, but not at all of them).... Jack Lemmon's attempt at explaining past infidelities was just superb, as was that pitiable walk away from the hospital once Casey's situation went from bad to worse. His scenes were pretty standout for me. I hadn't seen Matthew Modine in anything besides Full Metal Jacket and the kind of caustic bite carried over from that film worked well here. Like most of the characters here, he isn't quite likable, but he's undeniably human, and the performance seemed just right for the type of character he was playing. And Tim Robbins played one of the most annoying, detestable characters I've ever seen, but he played him well. But, really, gosh, did that guy ever suck. Chris Penn was also excellent, a veritable ticking time bomb.

What I found to be one of the film's most salient and well handled ideas was the fluctuating and cyclical nature of life. Some might pass this off as too banal or trifle, but I thought the film was very insightful in this regard. With all of its ups and downs, life and the relationships therein, are in constant flux, at the mercy of happenstance and the pettiness of human behaviour. And, as this film goes on to showcase, sometimes it's pretty hard to navigate one's way through all the unfortunate dreck that comes with life and any attempt to live peacefully with one another. And yet there is a sort of regenerative, yet pitiable cycle, that Altman observes that ultimately seems authentic and pathos infused. After all, many couples begin the film bickering and hating each other, only to later reinvigorate some modicum of camaraderie (i.e, Lily Tomlin & Tom Waits, Tim Robbins & Madeleine Stowe, and to a lesser degree, Modine and Julianne Moore). Viewed from a far, this repeat of detestable behaviour, attempts at decency, stagnating relationships, and intermittent joy, and compromises seems like the stuff of life. Sure, it might feel like a horribly slight account of humanity, but it also permeates with an undeniable touch of truth. There is also a undeniably human purpose/meaning, however slightly elusive, to the cycle of skirmishes and joys that inhabit Short Cuts and this is part of what lends the film a quality that is all too true to life.

The film also has something to say about a certain infectious, yet contemptible, myopia that is an inherent part of life. You never quite know what's going on the other side of the fence, and it is precisely that fence that this film attempt to omnisciently navigate beyond, tracking those moments and privacies that none of us can be fully privy to. As Ebert effectively puts it in his review:


Imagine the rage of the baker (Lyle Lovett), for example, when he gets stuck with an expensive birthday cake. We could almost comprehend the cruel anonymous telephone calls he makes to the parents (Andie MacDowell and Bruce Davison) who ordered the cake, if we didn't know their child missed his birthday because he was hit by a car. Imagine what they would say to the unknown driver (Lily Tomlin) who struck their child. But we know that she wanted to take him to a doctor; the boy refused because he has been forbidden to get into the cars of strangers, and besides, he seemed OK. If you knew the whole story in this world, there'd be a lot less to be angry about.

All in all, it is a pretty great film that is so rich and variegated, that I'll likely keep returning to its characters and implications as time goes on. There are a certainly few weak points here and there, but that doesn't stop the film from delivering resonating and moving moments of truth and authenticity.

[megladon8]

I've never watched any of the movies all the way through and I certainly wouldn't call myself a fan... so, it was at least news to me.


For shame.

[kuehnepips]

I like how I seem to have inspired this sudden rash of Popeye interest.

French Connection here ...

[Amnesiac]

I watched Mirror for the first time tonight. While having read Sculpting In Time beforehand did help shed some light on certain aspects of it, I was still left thoroughly confused. A re-watch is in order.

[MadMan]

A PBS special on John Ford and John Wayne made me realize truly how awesome director/actor (or actress) collaborations really are. Even when they are taken to an unhealthy level, such as how Tim Burton keeps casting Johnny Depp in everything he directs these days.

[B-side]

I watched Mirror for the first time tonight. While having read Sculpting In Time beforehand did help shed some light on certain aspects of it, I was still left thoroughly confused. A re-watch is in order.

I'm unclear on some aspects of the narrative myself even having seen it twice. I still adore it, though. The mood and the cinematography are outstanding.

[Amnesiac]

Is Boner the only one who has seen The White Ribbon around here? If that's true, Boner, could you link me to your thoughts on it (if you already did a write up on it, that is)?

[Spun Lepton]

Windy City Heat is a tough film to love.

Don Barris and Tony Barbieri have been pranking a man named Perry Caravello for 11 long years. We're talking about pranks on a cosmic scale. The best example is that Perry has never known Tony by his real name during the entire 11 years he's known him. He's only known Barbieri as his alter-ego, Walter "Mole" Molinski.

Together, they had a show on public access with Jimmy Kimmel. They would frequently prank Carvello on the show because Caravello is the ultimate rube. A man who seems intensely naive and gullible. More on that later.

Windy City Heat is one long and intricate prank played on Caravello. Barris and Barbieri (as Mole -- ALWAYS as Mole), lead Caravello to believe they landed parts in a big Hollywood action movie about a "sports private eye" named Stone Fury. When the film begins we're watching as they drive Perry to the audition. Perry auditions in front of Bob Goldthwait (playing the director of the movie-within-the-movie and the actual film itself), and Dane Cook who is playing the producer of the film, and going by the name Roman Polanski. Perry never gets that he's not actually Polanski. Perry may not even know who Polanski is. People are paraded by Caravello throughout the picture, people with names like "John Quincy Adams," and "Nagasaki Hiroshima." None of it sinks in.

The audition is a setup, of course. The whole thing is a setup to put Caravello into a series of humiliating and uncomfortable situations for the audience's entertainment. Most of the situations are harmless fun, but a few border on difficult-to-watch. In one scene, Perry is "filming a scene" where Stone is thrown into a dumpster. They actually throw him into a dumpster several times. Goldthwait is never happy with it and finally demands they "need more manure." So they fill the dumpster with manure and throw Perry in there a few more times. When the ordeal is over, Perry asks for a stunt-double. This comes back to haunt him later. When he's about to "film a love scene" with the busty "lead actress," Goldthwait calls cut and calls for Caravello's stunt-double. Don and Mole pull Perry away and tell him, "You asked for a stunt double, and a sex scene is a stunt!" Later, it's suggested that the sex scene is unusable because there was "full penetration," and Perry is livid that he missed his chance. Also, throughout the movie, Perry's "assistant" is constantly bringing him food, even when he's in front of the camera. Caravello tries to be nice, but after a while he loses it with the assistant. It's damn hilarious, too. The scene where Perry, Mole, and Don are driving to the premier of the movie is one that has to be seen to be believed.

The whole movie is like this. Perry is unbelievably naive about the inner-workings of a set and just in general. He never questions some of the most outlandish pranks they play on him, he just accepts it as real. After a while, you might start to feel a little bad for the poor guy. But, again, some of the pranks are so funny and so well-played, that my stomach muscles hurt from laughing so hard.

A cursory search of Caravello's name on the internet reveals that the man suffered from a serious head-injury as a kid, which goes a long way in explaining why he never figured out what they were doing. In that light, what happens in the movie seems quite cruel and heartless. And if you felt that way, I could not blame you. I know that I felt some pretty major guilt about laughing so hard as some of the things they do to poor Caravello.

But, there's an extra on the DVD where Caravello is shown the actual movie. It's a strange site to behold. He doesn't seem to fully comprehend, even while watching the movie, that he's been pranked. He has obviously suffered from some kind of long-term brain trauma -- a fact that they dance around in the movie itself. He appears to be very proud of the film and in one part seems rather overwhelmed with happiness. Much to my surprise, when this was happening, both Don and Mole were encouraging; repeating his own dialogue back to him, telling him, "Look at this part! Watch this part!" and exchanging brotherly hugs. This turned the whole cruel exercise on its head, as you could see that perhaps Don and Mole knew what they were doing for their little brother. That maybe through this strange, somewhat cruel, and round-about way they've brought a suffering man some real happiness in an otherwise painful and difficult life.

7/10

[Winston*]

Is Boner the only one who has seen The White Ribbon around here? If that's true, Boner, could you link me to your thoughts on it (if you already did a write up on it, that is)?

I've seen it, Amnesiac.

[Amnesiac]

I've seen it, Amnesiac.

Ah, cool. Thoughts? Also, where did you see it at?

[Winston*]

Ah, cool. Thoughts? Also, where did you see it at?

I don't write thoughts about movies. The film's really great though. Saw it at New Zealand Film Festival.

Here's Boner's blurb on it. (http://www.match-cut.org/showpost.php?p=192410&postcount=49)

[Amnesiac]

I don't write thoughts about movies. The film's really great though. Saw it at New Zealand Film Festival.

Here's Boner's blurb on it. (http://www.match-cut.org/showpost.php?p=192410&postcount=49)

Much thanks.

[dreamdead]

Not until you raise that ridiculously low Lumet rating.

It's in my Top 10 list.

Can't do it. :sad: The film feels like a forerunner to material like Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, where it delivers a self-satisfied reprimand on any character who exhibits the least trace of racism, and allows for all of the immigrant characters to display their humanity, but in such a contrived way that the entire attempt at humanizing the minorities becomes glb and artificial. It's a film that technically is solid enough, but the script oversells too many exchanges and doesn't trust a smaller dialogue exchange or gesture of kindness between jurors--instead, it all becomes a moment for a speech and a sudden remembered detail that absolves the boy's guilt. It began to feel too orchestrated and mapped-out, and at that point my trust in the work waned.

[ledfloyd]

i've watched Cat People and it's sequel over the last couple days. i think the sequel is ultimately a better film. but Cat People's examination into superstition/religion causing sexual repression that manifests itself as violence is pretty engaging. i just felt like the ending wasted all that by confirming the protagonists fears.

[dreamdead]

I need to get into Cat People soon. I've sadly avoided a lot of 30's/40's horror, and really need to begin examining that period of the genre more.

Meantime, I can watch Irene Dunne in just about anything. It's not like Theodora Goes Wild is anything phenomenal beyond what it did to advance her career, but what a fun movie for her to develop characteristics that would then be better suited in The Awful Truth.

http://www.divasthesite.com/images/Diva_Eyes/Irene_Dunne_eyes.jpg

She is as gorgeous as ever here, exhibiting that playful laugh that convinces you that she's definitely smarter than anyone else who's trying to play to her level. And just as importantly, she gets the chance to more than ridicule her sparring partner in this romantic comedy, which is good because here Melvyn Douglas destroys her social life a little too much in the first half and then flees, and such a response initially had me bristling rather than laughing. Thankfully, the film recognizes and lowers his status far more than hers, even if that final reveal of the baby is more problematic than charming, as he again fails to trust or even seek her explanation before trying to dart off.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Irene Dunne is a joy, I need to see more of her films. I more or less agree on your assesement of Theodora Goes Wild, I think it has a lot of drawbacks, but Dunne makes them almost forgetteable.

[Boner M]

w/e

My Dinner With Andre
Historie(s) du Cinema
The Roaring Twenties
Ponyo
Tabu
Up

[Winston*]

Stuff I have on DVD that i may or may not watch this weekend

Winter Light
The element of Crime
The Brave One
Code Unknown

[Mara]

i've watched Cat People and it's sequel over the last couple days. i think the sequel is ultimately a better film. but Cat People's examination into superstition/religion causing sexual repression that manifests itself as violence is pretty engaging. i just felt like the ending wasted all that by confirming the protagonists fears.

I liked the first one better. The second had an interesting dream-like quality, but I felt like the first was more tightly-made.

[Raiders]

Weekend:

Inglourious Basterds
Charley Varrick
Let the Right One In
Wheel of Time
Masters of Horror: Chocolate

[kuehnepips]

Rewatched War. I like both, Jason Statham and Jet Li, but this film is just bad. Why?

[Boner M]

Charley Varrick
4 stars or I negrep you every day for the rest of your posting life.

[Raiders]

4 stars or I negrep you every day for the rest of your posting life.

I triple dog dare you to do it right now.

...

Oh wait, you can't.

:twisted:

[Bosco B Thug]

i've watched Cat People and it's sequel over the last couple days. i think the sequel is ultimately a better film. but Cat People's examination into superstition/religion causing sexual repression that manifests itself as violence is pretty engaging. i just felt like the ending wasted all that by confirming the protagonists fears. Sweet. Cat People is probably the least impressive directorial effort by Tourneur in his Lewton run, so if you haven't seen his other two, do! My signature is all the happier for it.

Love Cat People, though. Alice is an outrageous character, and one doesn't really know what to do with Oliver. That love triangle is a lot of fun. Don't really have a take on the ending, but glad you liked it overall. So you would've preferred her not have been an actual cat woman?


I liked the first one better. The second had an interesting dream-like quality, but I felt like the first was more tightly-made. It's kind of amazing how good and interesting and cogent 'Curse' is when, if you pare the plot down in your head, it very well could've been the most pointless movie ever made.

[Ivan Drago]

Weekend:

Gamer
The Hurt Locker
Ponyo
Maybe G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra

[Spun Lepton]

Been invited to see Extract this weekend, so that's probably going to happen.

[Qrazy]

Holy shit!!! Paul Giamatti was just sitting on my front doorstep. Dustin Hoffman is sitting on a chair a few feet away on the curb.

[Spun Lepton]

Holy shit!!! Paul Giamatti was just sitting on my front doorstep. Dustin Hoffman is sitting on a chair a few feet away on the curb.

Now's your oppotunity to foist your screenplay upon them, Q.

"Mr. Hoffman, would you like to read my zombie pengiun story? I'm sure it'll be a hit."

[Qrazy]

Haha I don't actually have a finished screenplay although I'm guessing that would be a good ice breaker. 'Hi big fan, I was just wondering if you could take a look at this screenplay of mine haha jk srsly though what's up.'

But I did actually say hi to Giamatti and that I loved him in American Splendor. He wasn't very talkative I think he's trying to stay in character. He just said thanks very much. He has a wife beater on, back hair sticking out, looking rather gruff. I believe his character is supposed to be an alcoholic.

[megladon8]

I don't see Paul Giamatti being a very personable, talkative guy even when he's not in character.

I'd be happy he even acknowledged me.

[MadMan]

Weekend:

*Videodrome(1983)
*The Friends of Eddie Coyle(1973)

[Spun Lepton]

Weekend:

*Videodrome(1983)

Awesome.

[Qrazy]

Director sighting... should I say I really liked the dramatic beats you were able to capture in CSI episode 60?

[Watashi]

Haha I don't actually have a finished screenplay although I'm guessing that would be a good ice breaker. 'Hi big fan, I was just wondering if you could take a look at this screenplay of mine haha jk srsly though what's up.'

But I did actually say hi to Giamatti and that I loved him in American Splendor. He wasn't very talkative I think he's trying to stay in character. He just said thanks very much. He has a wife beater on, back hair sticking out, looking rather gruff. I believe his character is supposed to be an alcoholic.
I'm sure he was in character alright.

[Qrazy]

I'm sure he was in character alright.

I can't gauge the tone of this post.

[Amnesiac]

Holy shit!!! Paul Giamatti was just sitting on my front doorstep. Dustin Hoffman is sitting on a chair a few feet away on the curb.

That must have been kind of surreal (and awesome).

[Qrazy]

That must have been kind of surreal (and awesome).

It was. I wish I had the chutzpah to ask for a picture but I feel like they're working and that might be asking too much, perhaps after they wrap.

[Amnesiac]

It was. I wish I had the chutzpah to ask for a picture but I feel like they're working and that might be asking too much, perhaps after they wrap.

I'd say go for it. Ostensibly a once in a life time opportunity, after all.

[Watashi]

Try and see if you can spot Bruce Greenwood.

[Winston*]

I think that movie will end up having good performances but being mostly unremarkable. Tell Paul Giamatti I said that.

[Watashi]

I think that movie will end up having good performances but being mostly unremarkable. Tell Paul Giamatti I said that.
I can see it now.

"Um, Mr. Giamatti, this random person named Winston asterisk on a movie forum I post on says that the movie that your filming will likely only feature good performances and nothing else. kthnx bye"

[Qrazy]

I think Winston is probably right but we should give the director the benefit of the doubt. It is after all his first film and there are quite a few directors who started in television and went on to great things... then again their first films weren't necessarily great. The DP has done some well reputed stuff (I've only seen The Barbarian Invasions but Leolo and Un Zoo La Nuit are supposedly quality Canadian films).

[Qrazy]

Try and see if you can spot Bruce Greenwood.

Good call, haven't seen him or Minnie Driver. I"m guessing they're not in this scene.

[MadMan]

If I met Bruce Greenwood I'd tell him that he was awesome as Jack Kennedy in Thirteen Days. Damn good movie.


Awesome.I sure hope so. I'll try and watch it tomorrow night. College football is on right now.

[trotchky]

Brightside, the "Surreal" under your username and your signature font are both grating on me. Change them, please?

oh man, i can't believe i missed this.

is clipper ship captain a joke account or something?

[Sven]

So... holy wuzza-wow. My official top 10 four hours ago:

Fata Morgana/Lessons of Darkness/Wild Blue Yonder
Sans Soleil
Children of Paradise
Nashville
Yellow Submarine
Popeye
Black Orpheus
2001: A Space Odyssey
The Man Who Would Be King
The Vanishing

My official top 10 now:

Fata Morgana/Lessons of Darkness/Wild Blue Yonder
Sans Soleil
Children of Paradise
Nashville
Yellow Submarine
Popeye
Black Orpheus
A Star is Born
2001: A Space Odyssey
The Man Who Would Be King

I'm sorry, Mr. Cukor, for anything I've ever said suggesting that you are bland.

[B-side]

oh man, i can't believe i missed this.

is clipper ship captain a joke account or something?

I got that impression a few times, then I started to simply settle on him just being a bit of a cock.

[Winston*]

Have you ever written thoughts about The Man Who Would Be King? I think that movie is terrible and would like to know why you don't.

[Winston*]

Clipper Ship Captain is a teenager.

[BuffaloWilder]

How old is he?

[Sven]

Have you ever written thoughts about The Man Who Would Be King? I think that movie is terrible and would like to know why you don't.

I have not, but in all honesty, your curiosity does not inspire me to defend it because your position on the film is, to me, insane crazy rambling. However, I have been wanting to watch it again, so perhaps I will do so soon and offer up some thoughts. Won't start a thread about it, though, even though I rewatched both of the films that have rewatch threads (before the threads were started!).

[megladon8]

I'm sorry, Mr. Cukor, for anything I've ever said suggesting that you are bland.


Rep.

[Winston*]

I have not, but in all honesty, your curiosity does not inspire me to defend it because your position on the film is, to me, insane crazy rambling.

Fair. To me it is just the film that managed to make Michael Caine give a bad performance.

[Sven]

Fair. To me it is just the film that managed to make Michael Caine give a bad performance.

?!?!?

Peachy is a fine creation!

[Winston*]

?!?!?

Peachy is a fine creation!

Peachy is a hammy creation like some godawful pork sculpture.

[Sven]

Rep.

I loathe My Fair Lady, and I've always been so bored by The Philadelphia Story, which, like Rushmore and Fear & Loathing and Blade Runner, I've seen numerous times thinking "This is going to be the time" and it never is.

Still, I loved this one immensely, and I really like It Should Happen To You (Judy Holliday is one of my favorite gals), and he manages to make Hepburn sufferable with the Tracy/Hepburn vehicles. I will approach his work with much less trepidation.

Now, if only something could convince me of William Wyler's non-boringness. I suppose I do love Ben-Hur's direction, and The Desperate Hours is well-produced...

[Philosophe_rouge]

I guess I should see A Star is Born :/ I've always though Cukor was bland until I saw his version of Little Women, which is just about perfect.

[Sven]

Peachy is a hammy creation like some godawful pork sculpture.

http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/confused/confused0044.gif

[Philosophe_rouge]

My Fair Lady is terrible.

As for Wyler, I'd actually consider myself a fan of sorts. The Best Years of Our Lives is one of my favourite films, as is Roman Holiday. Assuming you've seen either one, I'd also recommend The Heiress. It's about a young woman who is crushed by a domineering father, who critisizes her for being meek... something he really made her out to be. She falls for a man who her father believes to be a gold digger, because he could never imagine anyone falling for his daughter. The film is not really a thriller, but more a compelling character study. Beautiful deep focus photography and one of the best final scenes in classic Hollywood. Plus it has Olivia De Havilland and Montgomery Clift, two of my favourite actors.

[Qrazy]

I also quite like Roman Holiday and The Best Years of Our Lives. I'd like to see Dodsworth. Ben Hur I haven't seen since I was a kid but I remember really liking it. Wuthering Heights is pretty solid but indeed somewhat boring.

[Raiders]

Cukor is rather bland, and though it's a damn good movie I'm not sure why A Star is Born changes this. However, I will always envy the man for making Sylvia Scarlett, a fascinating and bizarre film that certainly I'm sure looks far better in retrospect than it probably did in its day.

[Sven]

I'm not sure why A Star is Born changes this.

It's one of the best-directed films I've ever seen. Nothing workmanlike about it at all, provided that "workmanlike" excludes the ability to craft meaningful art without flair or investment.

I thought Roman Holiday and Best Years... were both quite dull. I will check out The Heiress.

[Amnesiac]

The Best Years of Our Lives

This is the only Wyler I've seen. Pretty good, and a refreshing ending insofar as it lacks excessive sugarcoating.

[Philosophe_rouge]

I also quite like Roman Holiday and The Best Years of Our Lives. I'd like to see Dodsworth. Ben Hur I haven't seen since I was a kid but I remember really liking it. Wuthering Heights is pretty solid but indeed somewhat boring.
I am still upset with myself for not seeing Dodsworth, been high priority for years. I remember loving Wuthering Heights, but I saw it 4 or 5 years ago, and I don't trust that opinion. I also have an unnatural crush on Laurence Olivier. Which as far as other literary adaptations of the era goes, was a terrible Darcy in Pride and Prejudice (1940)... honestly, just a terrible adaptation all around. It's kinda funny though, because they re-used costumes from GWTW, and it's painfully obvious. I was sure of it right away, and when I looked it up, I was very much right.


Cukor is rather bland, and though it's a damn good movie I'm not sure why A Star is Born changes this. However, I will always envy the man for making Sylvia Scarlett, a fascinating and bizarre film that certainly I'm sure looks far better in retrospect than it probably did in its day.
I forgot he did Sylvia Scarlett, I liked that one too.

[Raiders]

I really want to see Wyler's The Collector which seems a very different film from his usual.

[Philosophe_rouge]

I really want to see Wyler's The Collector which seems a very different film from his usual.
I've seen it, it's pretty good, but nothing special. Terence Stamp gives a fascinating performance, but overall the film doesn't feel as though it justifies it's running time, and doesn't quite instill the same claustorphobia that I feel some of Wyler's films excelled at. It's very similar to Psycho, even Stamp's character is psychologically similar to Bates in his almost gentle madness, motivated by some kind of sexual repression (though not a taxidermist, he collects butterflies). It's not really a horror though, and by comparison, is fairly "artless"... it's worth seeing, but I wouldn't expect too much.

[Qrazy]

Speaking of Stamp I quite liked Far From the Madding Crowd. I'm going to keep diving into Schlesinger. Perhaps I'll check out Darling next.

[Philosophe_rouge]

I really want to see Billy Liar and Far from the Madding Crowd. My video store has the latter but I've never picked it up. I've never actually seen a John Schlesinger film :/

[Qrazy]

I really want to see Billy Liar and Far from the Madding Crowd. My video store has the latter but I've never picked it up. I've never actually seen a John Schlesinger film :/

Midnight Cowboy, Day of the Locust, Billy Liar and Far from the Madding Crowd are all very good. I see you enjoying all of them. Day of the Locust because I know you like Lynch. Midnight Cowboy because... well... I just think you will and you need to see some great Hoffman performances. Far from the Madding Crowd because it's a well told period piece with (sometimes) tragic romance(s).

[Philosophe_rouge]

Midnight Cowboy, Day of the Locust, Billy Liar and Far from the Madding Crowd are all very good. I see you enjoying all of them. Day of the Locust because I know you like Lynch. Midnight Cowboy because... well... I just think you will and you need to see some great Hoffman performances. Far from the Madding Crowd because it's a well told and sometimes tragic romance(s).
You know me pretty well, all very well reasoned (reasons?) for me to see them. I'm surprised I've managed to avoid some of those for so long.

[B-side]

My initial response to Brakhage's painted work was not good at all, but that was then, this is now. Delicacies of Molten Horror Synapse was great. Pretty and somewhat unsettling. The latter part perfectly describes I... Dreaming as well.

[Watashi]

Weekend:

Gamer
The Crying Game
The Class

[Sven]

Have you ever written thoughts about The Man Who Would Be King? I think that movie is terrible and would like to know why you don't.

I'm halfway through it and realizing that I need to go to sleep. But so far:

1) you are 100% incorrect about Caine's performance
2) I like the rapscallions-performing-mischief-on-an-epic-scale scenario
3) The fantastical elements intrigue me
4) The bond between Connery and Caine is very charming... I like films about plans, plots, and processes, and I also like films about friendship (two forces united under common interests, loyal to each other throughout... piloting characters into enmity in order to cheaply resolve it for good feelings is among my least favorite narrative tropes).
5) Huston's visual sense is spot-on, communicating everything through impossibly good framing and editing. The rhythm of Connery and Caine's speech (and the smooth confidence of Plummer's) is brisk and full of wit.

I'm not sure if it'll stay in my top ten, but it's certainly up there. More tomorrow.

[B-side]

My initial response to Brakhage's painted work was not good at all, but that was then, this is now. Delicacies of Molten Horror Synapse was great. Pretty and somewhat unsettling. The latter part perfectly describes I... Dreaming as well.

And Window Water Baby Moving is still amazing.

[transmogrifier]

I'm not sure I'm down with any top 10 list containing Wild Blue Yonder.

[Sven]

I'm not sure I'm down with any top 10 list containing Wild Blue Yonder.

I'm sure I feel similarly about The Emperor's New Groove. Snap! I'm not sure if that's actually in your top ten, but the joke remains.

But seriously, gorgeous, expressive photography, a soundtrack that will make your chest rumble, Brad Dourif all crazy-like, a unique narrative, and that uncanny elation one feels watching these aesthetic, performative elements combine and dance around each other... yes, it is certainly one of the greatest. There's that one moment of the diver re-emerging, shot from under the water, where as he is getting closer to the surface, the combination of the brightness and air bubbles creates a disintegration-into-light effect that may be the most incredible photographic moment I've ever seen on film.

[balmakboor]

My initial response to Brakhage's painted work was not good at all, but that was then, this is now. Delicacies of Molten Horror Synapse was great. Pretty and somewhat unsettling. The latter part perfectly describes I... Dreaming as well.

This just reminded me that I'm really stoked that Criterion is doing a By Brakhage II.

[Sven]

I'm halfway through it and realizing that I need to go to sleep. But so far:

1) you are 100% incorrect about Caine's performance
2) I like the rapscallions-performing-mischief-on-an-epic-scale scenario
3) The fantastical elements intrigue me
4) The bond between Connery and Caine is very charming... I like films about plans, plots, and processes, and I also like films about friendship (two forces united under common interests, loyal to each other throughout... piloting characters into enmity in order to cheaply resolve it for good feelings is among my least favorite narrative tropes).
5) Huston's visual sense is spot-on, communicating everything through impossibly good framing and editing. The rhythm of Connery and Caine's speech (and the smooth confidence of Plummer's) is brisk and full of wit.

I'm not sure if it'll stay in my top ten, but it's certainly up there. More tomorrow.

I just finished it. It's an excellent film. I'm not sure why you're so hostile toward it, W*. It's strongest element to me is what I was talking about here in number 4. The bond between Daniel and Peachy is strong and moving and never phony. I like what the bond means in the context of the film's scope: their grand scale fraudulence and larceny is grounded in their unorthodox maturity. Meaning that their bond, secure and sincere, without justifying their appalling con (the battle scene with the whimsical music is very disturbing in its irony), justifies their lives. In the avalanche scene, they wonder if their existence matters. The film says yes and places its reason in brotherhood (hence all the masonry stuff, extending that fraternity through time and geography) and friendship. And the gestures taken by its characters, such as the dialogue at the end when they are surrounded and the fact that Peachy would make such a journey (to Kipling) with such a haul (the head), reinforce, expressively, the film's concern with purpose found through platonic (celebate) connection. This is moving to me.

Plus, it's funny and exciting.

[megladon8]

Last night I was watching Murder, My Sweet - a '44 film noir in which Dick Powell plays the famous detective Philip Marlowe.

I wasn't overly impressed, to be honest. There are some moments of brilliant characterization where I was thinking to myself "this may be one of the finest detective films I've ever seen"...but honestly, I found the constant analogies, metaphors and other "gritty" figures of speech used in Marlowe's narration to be a bit much.

Perhaps it is simply the many parodies of this kind of gritty detective story narration I've seen/heard/read that have spoiled my ability to appreciate it when it is used earnestly, but I'd be lying if I said it didn't bother me.

If you're not sure what I'm talking about, it's lines like these constantly being spoken either in narration by Marlowe or in his conversation that really started to bug me after about the half hour mark...

"I caught the blackjack right behind my ear. A black pool opened up at my feet. I dived in. It had no bottom. I felt pretty good - like an amputated leg."

"He was doubled up on his face in that bag-of-old-clothes position that always means the same thing: he had been killed by an amateur."

"She had more than a figure too. Not a beautiful face, but a good face. She had a face like a Sunday School picnic."


It's a beautiful movie, formally, and like I said there is some fantastically subtle characterization...but I just couldn't really dig it.

[megladon8]

Oh man, Jen and I have a mother of a thread we'll be working on together.

The thread will be up in about 3 weeks' time to begin preliminary discussions, then we'll start working on the content.

Gonna be fun :D

[Philosophe_rouge]

I'm not a huge fan of Murder, My Sweet... I think it's admirable, and Powell actually does a good job with the material. I also thank the film for being a success so he could be in such wonderful films as The Bad and the Beautiful. I thought it had a few nice ideas, but when it comes down to it, is just not a very good adaptation. Though, because of Chandler's first person narrative, there is some logic in the voice-over... I prefer my film Marlowe's inner voice "silent", with the exception of something like The Long Goodbye, where Marlowe has no qualms about revealing those hidden feelings and thoughts... perhaps because no one is listening anyway.

[Yxklyx]

Weekend:

Michael Clayton
Payday
The Friends of Eddie Coyle

[megladon8]

I really want to see The Bad and the Beautiful :)

Great post, Philosophe. I love what you wrote about Marlowe in The Long Goodbye.

[Sven]

One last word re: The Man Who Would Be King, I'm very upset that apparently the DVD version does not possess the effects shot of Connery falling towards his crown at the end. That is one of the most resonant images I've seen in film, and to omit it like that... confusing and sad. To all those who saw the film on DVD, try to see it elsewhere for that shot. So sad, so elating.

[Qrazy]

One last word re: The Man Who Would Be King, I'm very upset that apparently the DVD version does not possess the effects shot of Connery falling towards his crown at the end. That is one of the most resonant images I've seen in film, and to omit it like that... confusing and sad. To all those who saw the film on DVD, try to see it elsewhere for that shot. So sad, so elating.

When does it occur?

[Amnesiac]

The TIFF tickets I wanted are sold out. Their phone lines were perpetually backed up and their website crashed this morning so I couldn't do much about it. After trying for an hour, I went back to bed and tried back every little bit or so... when I finally got through, there were no more tickets remaining for A Serious Man or The White Ribbon. Damn it. Is this ridiculousness (http://cgi.ebay.ca/TORONTO-FILM-FESTIVAL-COEN-A-SERIOUS-MAN-SAT-SEP-12_W0QQitemZ120466052192QQcmdZ ViewItemQQptZUS_Tickets_all_in _one?hash=item1c0c561460&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14#ht_954wt_ 1167) my only alternative? Ugh.

[balmakboor]

The TIFF tickets I wanted are sold out. Their phone lines were perpetually backed up and their website crashed this morning so I couldn't do much about it. After trying for an hour, I went back to bed and tried back every little bit or so... when I finally got through, there were no more tickets remaining for A Serious Man or The White Ribbon. Damn it. Is this ridiculousness (http://cgi.ebay.ca/TORONTO-FILM-FESTIVAL-COEN-A-SERIOUS-MAN-SAT-SEP-12_W0QQitemZ120466052192QQcmdZ ViewItemQQptZUS_Tickets_all_in _one?hash=item1c0c561460&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14#ht_954wt_ 1167) my only alternative? Ugh.

I have a feeling that A Serious Man will be their masterpiece, but $189.00 for two tickets? I'd pass on that.

[Amnesiac]

but $189.00 for two tickets? I'd pass on that.

Indeed...

[chrisnu]

Got my midnight screening of Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me tonight. I haven't seen the film in 3 1/2 years. It should be sweet.

[Pop Trash]

How underrated is Risky Business? It's by far the most stylish of 80s teen comedies and for me ranks up there with Fast Times, Ferris Bueller, and Say Anything as the best of that decade (you can say what you want about 80s cinema but this is by far the best decade for that genre). But the film has much more of a directorial stamp than any of the other movies I mentioned (Ferris Bueller comes close). Paul Brickman is on a short list of people that made an eye popping debut then, well, just disappeared. The scene with Tom Cruise and Rebecca DeMornay fucking on the train is gorgeously shot and uses the same flickering slow motion that Wong Kar Wai used later (and cinephiles creamed themselves over). I also love the dreaminess of it all, like the tracking shot that starts on leaves blowing around then gets closer and closer to Tom Cruise's face so that you can make out his eyeball beneath his famous Ray Bans. And then there is the satire of consumerism. I'm starting to think that the whole plot, which involves Cruise's character making lots of funny money then losing it all just as quick and stupidly, is an allegory for the fickle nature of the stock market itself. The way society depends upon this house of cards and bogus investments that can crumble just as fast as it gets built up. Anyhoo, great movie.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Last night I was watching Murder, My Sweet - a '44 film noir in which Dick Powell plays the famous detective Philip Marlowe.

I wasn't overly impressed, to be honest. There are some moments of brilliant characterization where I was thinking to myself "this may be one of the finest detective films I've ever seen"...but honestly, I found the constant analogies, metaphors and other "gritty" figures of speech used in Marlowe's narration to be a bit much.

Perhaps it is simply the many parodies of this kind of gritty detective story narration I've seen/heard/read that have spoiled my ability to appreciate it when it is used earnestly, but I'd be lying if I said it didn't bother me.

If you're not sure what I'm talking about, it's lines like these constantly being spoken either in narration by Marlowe or in his conversation that really started to bug me after about the half hour mark...

"I caught the blackjack right behind my ear. A black pool opened up at my feet. I dived in. It had no bottom. I felt pretty good - like an amputated leg."

"He was doubled up on his face in that bag-of-old-clothes position that always means the same thing: he had been killed by an amateur."

"She had more than a figure too. Not a beautiful face, but a good face. She had a face like a Sunday School picnic."


It's a beautiful movie, formally, and like I said there is some fantastically subtle characterization...but I just couldn't really dig it.

There's something I kinda love about that dialogue. Yes, it's cheesy, but it's also endearing in a way. Everyone in the film acts like the conversations are rote, when in fact they're so damn baroque.

It reminds me of my favorite line from Double Indemnity:

"She knew more tricks than a car full of monkeys."

[megladon8]

I love that kind of dialogue, too...but used sparingly.

Double Indemnity had a few lines like that, but that's just it...a few lines.

This felt like a '40s precursor to Sin City...like every line in the script had to sound so badass and quasi-lyrical.

Like I said, the occasional line like that is awesome and adds some nice style. Nearly EVERY line like that, and it's just silly.

[B-side]

This just reminded me that I'm really stoked that Criterion is doing a By Brakhage II.

How many movies does he have available for release? The first has 26 films of his. They could probably do several anthologies with his work.

[balmakboor]

How underrated is Risky Business? It's by far the most stylish of 80s teen comedies and for me ranks up there with Fast Times, Ferris Bueller, and Say Anything as the best of that decade (you can say what you want about 80s cinema but this is by far the best decade for that genre). But the film has much more of a directorial stamp than any of the other movies I mentioned (Ferris Bueller comes close). Paul Brickman is on a short list of people that made an eye popping debut then, well, just disappeared. The scene with Tom Cruise and Rebecca DeMornay fucking on the train is gorgeously shot and uses the same flickering slow motion that Wong Kar Wai used later (and cinephiles creamed themselves over). I also love the dreaminess of it all, like the tracking shot that starts on leaves blowing around then gets closer and closer to Tom Cruise's face so that you can make out his eyeball beneath his famous Ray Bans. And then there is the satire of consumerism. I'm starting to think that the whole plot, which involves Cruise's character making lots of funny money then losing it all just as quick and stupidly, is an allegory for the fickle nature of the stock market itself. The way society depends upon this house of cards and bogus investments that can crumble just as fast as it gets built up. Anyhoo, great movie.

Yes, I've always enjoyed Risky Business. It probably isn't talked about much because Brickman did pretty much just vanish after making it.

[balmakboor]

How many movies does he have available for release? The first has 26 films of his. They could probably do several anthologies with his work.

Hundreds of movies.

This is what I know so far about volume II:

BRAKHAGE, Vol.II - A second anthology of Brakhage films will be released in 3-disc set according to Marilyn Brakhage; “The Criterion set will be DVDs, but as all transfers are in high definition they would be able to, and may consider re-releasing them in Blu-ray at a later date. For now, not sure of the initial release date yet. We're probably still some months away, but the titles will be: (The Wonder Ring; The Dead; Two: Creeley/McClure; 23rd Psalm Branch; Scenes From Under Childhood (Part One); The Machine of Eden; Star Garden; Desert; The Process; Burial Path; The Domain of the Moment; Murder Psalm; Duplicity III; Arabic 12; Visions in Meditatiion 1-4; Unconscious London Strata; Boulder Blues and Pearls And; The Mammals of Victoria; From: First Hymn to the Night - Novalis; I Take These Truths; The Cat of the Worm's Green Realm; Yggdrasill: Whose Roots Are Stars in the Human Mind; Ellipsis #5; Persians 1-3; Chinese Series)

[B-side]

Hundreds of movies.

This is what I know so far about volume II:

BRAKHAGE, Vol.II - A second anthology of Brakhage films will be released in 3-disc set according to Marilyn Brakhage; “The Criterion set will be DVDs, but as all transfers are in high definition they would be able to, and may consider re-releasing them in Blu-ray at a later date. For now, not sure of the initial release date yet. We're probably still some months away, but the titles will be: (The Wonder Ring; The Dead; Two: Creeley/McClure; 23rd Psalm Branch; Scenes From Under Childhood (Part One); The Machine of Eden; Star Garden; Desert; The Process; Burial Path; The Domain of the Moment; Murder Psalm; Duplicity III; Arabic 12; Visions in Meditatiion 1-4; Unconscious London Strata; Boulder Blues and Pearls And; The Mammals of Victoria; From: First Hymn to the Night - Novalis; I Take These Truths; The Cat of the Worm's Green Realm; Yggdrasill: Whose Roots Are Stars in the Human Mind; Ellipsis #5; Persians 1-3; Chinese Series)

Damn. Nice. I'll be picking both up.

[Sven]

When does it occur?

Last five to ten minutes.

[Ezee E]

How is Toronto with noshows? Do they have a line of people waiting if ticketholders don't show up?

[Stay Puft]

The TIFF tickets I wanted are sold out. Their phone lines were perpetually backed up and their website crashed this morning so I couldn't do much about it. After trying for an hour, I went back to bed and tried back every little bit or so... when I finally got through, there were no more tickets remaining for A Serious Man or The White Ribbon. Damn it. Is this ridiculousness (http://cgi.ebay.ca/TORONTO-FILM-FESTIVAL-COEN-A-SERIOUS-MAN-SAT-SEP-12_W0QQitemZ120466052192QQcmdZ ViewItemQQptZUS_Tickets_all_in _one?hash=item1c0c561460&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14#ht_954wt_ 1167) my only alternative? Ugh.

Saw your PM before your post.

The website was acting up like crazy this morning, but it rewarded the persistent. Just keep submitting over and over and eventually it would let you through and take your order. Apparently box office lines were crazy, too, but hey, that's TIFF.

What day(s) are you trying or planning to be in Toronto? Opening weekend is a lot busier than closing, so you'd probably have a decent chance of still making the Haneke on closing. The White Ribbon was off sale to being with, btw, so I don't have tickets either. If the screenings don't go back on sale I'm just going to rush line it opening weekend and, if that doesn't work, try again on closing.

I can't remember but I think A Serious Man is a Gala or SP? That might mean $40 tickets.

[Stay Puft]

How is Toronto with noshows? Do they have a line of people waiting if ticketholders don't show up?

Yeah, rush lines. They look at how many seats are available just before screenings start and send people up. Quite often ticketholders who cannot make screenings will be selling their tickets in rush lines, too.

[Ezee E]

Depending on the wait, I'd just try and do that.

How close are their venues?

[Eleven]

Yeah, rush lines. They look at how many seats are available just before screenings start and send people up. Quite often ticketholders who cannot make screenings will be selling their tickets in rush lines, too.

I got to see more movies at Sundance '06 through this method than through actually having tickets. Awfully fun to talk to people too.

[transmogrifier]

I'm sure I feel similarly about The Emperor's New Groove. Snap! I'm not sure if that's actually in your top ten, but the joke remains.
.

It's on my Top 10 of the decade, but unfortunately doesn't make it to the big leagues.

[Amnesiac]

The website was acting up like crazy this morning, but it rewarded the persistent. Just keep submitting over and over and eventually it would let you through and take your order. Apparently box office lines were crazy, too, but hey, that's TIFF.

Yeah, I was a newbie to the whole thing and, naturally, I got fed up way too quickly. Oh, well.



What day(s) are you trying or planning to be in Toronto? Opening weekend is a lot busier than closing, so you'd probably have a decent chance of still making the Haneke on closing.

Unfortunately, if I go, it will only be for the opening weekend. :sad:



The White Ribbon was off sale to being with, btw, so I don't have tickets either.

Really? That sucks. I wonder if it was the same case for A Serious Man.



I can't remember but I think A Serious Man is a Gala or SP? That might mean $40 tickets.

It's SP. So, it's $40, which is high, but I'd gladly pay it if I was given the chance. Thanks for the help, BTW. I'll probably try that rush line thing.

[Stay Puft]

Depending on the wait, I'd just try and do that.

How close are their venues?

The entire festival is centrally located downtown, so usually a 10-20 minute walk between each. But it depends. Varsity, Cumberland and the ROM are all basically a hop, skip and a jump from each other. Ten minutes or less to Carlton. Another 10 or so to AMC. Cumberland to Scotiabank would be a bit of a trek (maybe 20-30 mins?). It's all quite doable, though.


I got to see more movies at Sundance '06 through this method than through actually having tickets. Awfully fun to talk to people too.

Yeah, that's how I usually do TIFF. I'll buy a small selection of advance tickets just to lock a few things down; for example, I found out there is only one public screening (!) of My Son My Son What Have Ye Done, so I bought a ticket for that. Otherwise, rush lines. I actually went on opening weekend last year with no tickets at all, and ended up still being able to see everything I got in line for (often because I managed to buy a ticket off of someone else).

[Stay Puft]

Unfortunately, if I go, it will only be for the opening weekend. :sad:

Well, keep your eyes on it and see if it goes back on sale. Like I said in the PM, sales are often staggered, so there's a good chance they'll hold some and even put them on sale 7am on the day of the screening. Otherwise, rush line. Just get there early as possible.



Really? That sucks. I wonder if it was the same case for A Serious Man.

Safe to assume yes. With high profile screenings like these, there is always the chance that seats will disappear entirely to the lotteries. People who buy festival packages back in July get to "program" their choices a few days before single tickets go on sale. I think those VISA screenings go on sale earlier, too, to donors and such.

[Amnesiac]

Well, keep your eyes on it and see if it goes back on sale. Like I said in the PM, sales are often staggered, so there's a good chance they'll hold some and even put them on sale 7am on the day of the screening. Otherwise, rush line. Just get there early as possible.

Yeah, I'll try calling at 7am the day of and if that doesn't work out, I'll attempt the rush line. Good advice.

Somebody actually bought out that ridiculously exorbitant Ebay auction for A Serious Man (http://cgi.ebay.ca/TORONTO-FILM-FESTIVAL-COEN-A-SERIOUS-MAN-SAT-SEP-12_W0QQitemZ120466052192QQcmdZ ViewItemQQptZUS_Tickets_all_in _one?hash=item1c0c561460&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14#ht_954wt_ 1167). Quick work. TIFF or not, I can't imagine paying that much money for a film that's getting a wider distribution a month later. Sure, the festival is the ideal venue to see it in, but it's not worth that much money.

I just called another ticket seller and they're selling A Serious Man tickets at $195 each. Haha.

[Spun Lepton]

Extract's just-barely-passing score on RT does not have me jumping out of my seat to see the movie this weekend. Bleh.

[Pop Trash]

Extract's just-barely-passing score on RT does not have me jumping out of my seat to see the movie this weekend. Bleh.

Yeah that screams DVD rental for me. Honestly, there isn't a whole lot coming out that I want to see in theaters until the double weekend awesomeness (hopefully!) of Where the Wild Things Are and The Road. Why do they both have to come out on the same weekend? Poopy!

[Amnesiac]

the double weekend awesomeness (hopefully!) of Where the Wild Things Are and The Road. Why do they both have to come out on the same weekend? Poopy!

I see where you're coming from in regards to the money, but heck, that sounds like a really great weekend to me. I wasn't aware they were both being released on the same weekend.

[eternity]

I would be underwhelmed by the reviews for Extract, but then I remember how funny I think Idiocracy is. Toss up.

[Spun Lepton]

I was pulling for District 9, but one of the people in the group has already seen it.

[number8]

"Ray Bradbury pointed out that Star Wars is not science fiction, it's an adventure story set in space. Singing in the Rain is a science fiction film, because you have the world as it is, then sound is introduced. What happens to people now that this new thing is there? That's all science fiction is."

- Patton Oswalt