28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[Kurosawa Fan]

The only movie moments that consistently choke me up are the conclusions to The Iron Giant and The Last of the Mohicans,

"Superman!"

and

the cliff face suicide

Other than that, I have a heart of stone.

Strangely enough, I'm affected by the end of Rudy. I know it's ridiculous, but something about that music and the fact that it's a sports film (for which I'm a sucker). It's quite embarrassing. That and Dancer in the Dark are the only two films I can recall that have made me cry.

[transmogrifier]

Dancer in the Dark was too aggressive in its bleakness/fantasy dicotomy for me to really care by the end. It was all histronics.

[transmogrifier]

Mars Attacks! is such a waste of a good idea. Everything up to the first attack is such a deadening waste of talent, a horrible script unable to muster any comic momentum at all. Once Mars does, in fact, attack, some of the shackles come free ("Don't run, we are your friends", Easter Island bowling, Tom Jones' back-up singers and especially the childish glee with which they set up a mammothly over-the-top ray gun to the head of a frail little old lady listening to her music), but then the film ends just as laugh-free and poorly as it started. Nicholson's second character with the fake nose is the very definition of useless (every single scene he is in grinds the film to a complete stop), with Bening and De Vito very close behind.

Shame. Would love to see it remade with a funny script.

[Mysterious Dude]

I'm a huge fucking crybaby at movies.

[Derek]

My wife is the same way with It's a Wonderful Life. We watched it together a few nights ago, it's our tradition every Christmas season, and she was bawling her eyes out again. I admit I get choked up, but it's never made me cry. I don't care what anyone says, I love that movie.

It's usually dissed by people unwilling to cut Capra any slack. Granted, his films are more often than not overly sentimental and somewhat ham-fisted, but he's capable of occasionally reaching great heights. This film and the final ten minutes of Lady for a Day are absolutely masterful - extremely tense and moving by drawing on real human emotions while not being coyly manipulative. Most of his other films have their highs and their lows, aside from Arsenic & Old Lace which I can't hate on enough, despite it being Christmas and all. :)

[DSNT]

Wow, The Simpsons Movie was a complete disappointment given the strong reviews. I found it overly preachy and almost completely unfunny. It didn't add anything to the show. In fact, it was far, far worse than any of the early episodes.

[Melville]

It's usually dissed by people unwilling to cut Capra any slack. Granted, his films are more often than not overly sentimental and somewhat ham-fisted, but he's capable of occasionally reaching great heights. This film and the final ten minutes of Lady for a Day are absolutely masterful - extremely tense and moving by drawing on real human emotions while not being coyly manipulative. Most of his other films have their highs and their lows, aside from Arsenic & Old Lace which I can't hate on enough, despite it being Christmas and all. :)
I've already repped you too many times today to give you more rep for this, but damn if this doesn't deserve some rep. People who dismiss It's a Wonderful Life for being too sentimental seem to be missing almost everything that's going on in the movie. And Arsenic and Old Lace was the most painfully shrill movie I've ever seen.

[Rowland]

I'm downloading Khadak from KG, which I believe is monolith's favorite movie of the year. I don't know anything about it, so my expectations are basically nonexistent. Hope it's good. :)

[Spinal]

I think that I don't like Frank Capra, but then I look at the films he's made that I have seen and I realize that I do.

[Philosophe_rouge]

I think that I don't like Frank Capra, but then I look at the films he's made that I have seen and I realize that I do.

Same here, he somehow wows me 90% of the time, although I'm very prone to forgetting it. I really need to rewatch It Happened One Night, it's been years. So many years.

[Watashi]

Wow, The Simpsons Movie was a complete disappointment given the strong reviews. I found it overly preachy and almost completely unfunny. It didn't add anything to the show. In fact, it was far, far worse than any of the early episodes.

:crazy:

[MadMan]

:crazy:I'm thinking the same thing. Damnit I'm agreeing with Wats too much lately. Must be the holidays.


A Christmas Story might have the best narration ever.

All of you are heathens.

HEATHENS!Damn straight. See people even Wats can see that the film is great. Why the hell can't you? :P


Sorry I'm being particularly obscure.

The picture of creepy Santa is from Gilliam's Brazil. Also in Brazil Sam has to figure out the anagram Ere I Am JH (Jeremiah) in order to reach the apartment of the administrator who is the man in the Santa suit. Which makes it somewhat interesting that the anagram for Santa is actually Satan. Also of interest is that in the bible the prophet Jeremiah is known as the broken hearted prophet. God told Jeremiah, "You will go to them; but for their part, they will not listen to you." Which ties together neatly with Brazil as both dystopian fiction, satire, and warning of things to come, as well as with the whole bit about Jeremiah in the film as the ghost in the machine. As an aside, another partial 'anagram' in the film is when Sam is fighting a large samurai that turns out to be him... Sam U Ar I. Oh and the script was written by Tom Stoppard (Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead) as well as by Gilliam.

Oh and my initials are JH... seemingly unrelated and yet...Ah, I see.....I really must view Brazil post haste.


Other bits I really like are the John Barry score ("Capsule in Space" is particularly strong), Nancy Sinatra's title song, Little Nellie, the locations which look and feel so much more authentic than most of the Brosnan Bonds, giant magnet + car, a Piranha-filled pond. My God, how could you forget about the piranhas? :)

I'd give it a ***.The score wasn't really noticable, the title song blew, the main Bond chick wasn't that hot or really cute (there are cute Asian girls but really to me there are only a few really hot ones), but yes I did forget about the piranha filled pound which was cool. The car with the magnet bit was merely okay at best though. The film should have been a hell of a lot better than it really was.

Oh and Its a Wonderful Life is indeed the best Christmas movie I have ever seen. Brilliant in every single way and those who hate it do have a heart of stone. I'd say my favorite part has to be "Hahaha! My mouth's bleedin' Burt!" which is just joyous-and those who have seen the film know what I'm talking about.

[number8]

AVP:R is not as awesome as I thought, but still fun.

[Justin]

AVP:R is not as awesome as I thought, but still fun.

So it is at least better than the first? My roommate is more than likely going to drag me to see this.

[number8]

So it is at least better than the first?

Well, easily.

I'm mainly disappointed that the movie is humorless and all the gore bits are already shown in the red band trailer.

[megladon8]

Saw Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem tonight.

It has ZERO plot, terrible acting and script, but holy CRAP is it ever a fun, super violent, gory time.

Infinitely better than the first.

Literally solid action from start to finish.

I have a few small gripes - it's often very, very dark and sometimes hard to see what's going on.

But all in all it was a great big dumb, fun action movie.

[Ivan Drago]

Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story is probably the best spoof in recent memory. It does more than make fun of music biopics, it also makes fun of musicians in general. The preludes to Dewey's run-ins with drugs and his fits of destruction (pulling the sink out of the wall :lol:) were hilarious IMO, and while a few of the songs are funny, most of them are just plain good. And Reilly is great, as always.

EDIT: And Superbad is still a masterpiece, and one of the best comedies in recent memory. Hell, with that and Walk Hard, Apatow and Co. made the two best comedies of the year.

[Li Lili]

Dancer in the Dark was too aggressive in its bleakness/fantasy dicotomy for me to really care by the end. It was all histronics.
I couldn't stand more than 20 minutes of it. I don't think I like Lars Van Trier.

[Li Lili]

Also I watched Shadows in the Palace, a Korean thriller/horror film directed by Kim Mi-jung (it's her first film) this year. The film is set during the Joseon Dynasty and focuses on the conspiracy and shows the austerity of the life in the palace and the strictness of its rules. I found the film was very average, even though the plot was conventionally well led, and almost the entire cast was woman (which could have made more interesting).

[Qrazy]

I couldn't stand more than 20 minutes of it. I don't think I like Lars Van Trier.

Yeah, I keep returning to his films for the formal mastery but I agree with both of you about Von Trier.

[baby doll]

Two things: First of all, my review of The Kite Runner is up. Secondly, after posting my essay on Trouble Every Day, I wondered if I was being too intellectual about film, and decided to take another look at Sunset Blvd. just to look at the tone of the film, and what I found is that the movie really hates Norma Desmond/Gloria Swanson. The movie basically sees her as a pathetic hasbeen, rather than somebody who's been used up and spit out by the Hollywood machine (when we see Cecille B. DeMille, playing himself, we're supposed to think he's this nice, sympathetic old man). Instead of hating Hollywood, the movie hates Norma Desmond. Veronika Voss, which deals with similar subject matter, sees the title character as a victim of German society, and I think that's a far superior film.

[Melville]

Two things: First of all, my review of The Kite Runner is up. Secondly, after posting my essay on Trouble Every Day, I wondered if I was being too intellectual about film, and decided to take another look at Sunset Blvd. just to look at the tone of the film, and what I found is that the movie really hates Norma Desmond/Gloria Swanson. The movie basically sees her as a pathetic hasbeen, rather than somebody who's been used up and spit out by the Hollywood machine (when we see Cecille B. DeMille, playing himself, we're supposed to think he's this nice, sympathetic old man). Instead of hating Hollywood, the movie hates Norma Desmond. Veronika Voss, which deals with similar subject matter, sees the title character as a victim of German society, and I think that's a far superior film.
Why can't the film see her as a pathetic has-been and as somebody who has been used up and spit out by the Hollywood machine? The concept of the pathetic has-been is presented in the film as being made possible by the nature of the Hollywood machine.

[baby doll]

Why can't the film see her as a pathetic has-been and as somebody who has been used up and spit out by the Hollywood machine? The concept of the pathetic has-been is presented in the film as being made possible by the nature of the Hollywood machine.Because she's not just a hasbeen but a pathetic one who's completely out of touch with reality. And I don't think the movie sees her as some one who was used up and spit out; at one point, the hero tells her "there's nothing pathetic about being fifty, unless you try to be twenty-five," so the movie is complicit in Hollywood's treatment of older actresses (the other woman, who the film sees as being on her way up, is the one who wants to work behind the camera).

[Melville]

Because she's not just a hasbeen but a pathetic one who's completely out of touch with reality. And I don't think the movie sees her as some one who was used up and spit out; at one point, the hero tells her "there's nothing pathetic about being fifty, unless you try to be twenty-five," so the movie is complicit in Hollywood's treatment of older actresses (the other woman, who the film sees as being on her way up, is the one who wants to work behind the camera).
But she's out of touch with reality because Hollywood has put her out of touch with reality. If Hollywood hadn't given her the illusion of being worshipped, she wouldn't be living in that illusion. By fleetingly aggrandizing its stars, Hollywood makes it too easy for those stars to grasp onto their grandeur long after its gone. Again, they can only be pathetic because of the way Hollywood works.

[baby doll]

But she's out of touch with reality because Hollywood has put her out of touch with reality. If Hollywood hadn't given her the illusion of being worshipped, she wouldn't be living in that illusion. By fleetingly aggrandizing its stars, Hollywood makes it too easy for those stars to grasp onto their grandeur long after its gone. Again, they can only be pathetic because of the way Hollywood works.Well, she wouldn't be living with that illusion if Erich von Stroheim weren't the one sending her fan letters. I think it's really indicative of the tone of the film when the hero sees her bury the monkey in the middle of the night, because the whole point of that sequence is to establish how batshit crazy she is.

[Grouchy]

AVP:R is not as awesome as I thought, but still fun.
Hmm. That's sad to hear. Based on the trailer alone, I'm shitting my pants to see it. They should base these movies directly on the comics.

And yeah, I don't live in the US and I'd never even heard of A Christmas Story before the Internet.

[Qrazy]

Because she's not just a hasbeen but a pathetic one who's completely out of touch with reality. And I don't think the movie sees her as some one who was used up and spit out; at one point, the hero tells her "there's nothing pathetic about being fifty, unless you try to be twenty-five," so the movie is complicit in Hollywood's treatment of older actresses (the other woman, who the film sees as being on her way up, is the one who wants to work behind the camera).

The hero is not necessarily the voice of the director or the screenwriter, and even when they are, the director's or screenwriter's opinions about their work of art are not just by virtue of them as creator, the final say-so on the matter.

I'm with Melville on this. Pity, and contempt often go hand in hand. And even Desmond aside, the film comments and satirizes the myth of Hollywood through the main character too and his status as a B-movie writer. Furthermore all other arguments aside, how can the film possibly be complicit in Hollywood's treatment of older actresses given the fact that it uses an amazing performance by an older actress in order to condemn older actresses? One ought to conclude based on this alone that it does not condemn older actresses. Plus there's the wonderful scene in the sound stage when the boom mic literally ruffles her feathers. I'd bet an Ace in the Hole against a stack of Fortune Cookies that you're meant to feel empathy there.

Also as you already know, I think Veronika Voss is a very middling film.

[Qrazy]

Well, she wouldn't be living with that illusion if Erich von Stroheim weren't the one sending her fan letters. I think it's really indicative of the tone of the film when the hero sees her bury the monkey in the middle of the night, because the whole point of that sequence is to establish how batshit crazy she is.

Is someone who is out of touch with reality somehow less human than someone who is in touch with reality? In so far as we are human, we are all to one degree or another out of touch with reality.

This line of argument for some reason reminds me of a conversation I had with maxuda way back when, when he was claiming that in Jules et Jim Catherine was clearly a megalomaniac and that he couldn't understand the characters' affection for her as a result of this and that the film was by and large about dealing with someone who possessed this mental illness.

The thing about mental illness is that in a lot of ways it's all relative. The Psychiatric Catalogue of Mental Disorders has doubled in the past decade or so. This has more to do with pressure from drug companies pushing pills than it has to do with greater or more nuanced understanding of mental illness... although understanding has certainly increased, we now have categories of mental illness that are applicable to essentially no one.

[baby doll]

The hero is not necessarily the voice of the director or the screenwriter, and even when they are, the director's or screenwriter's opinions about their work of art are not just by virtue of them as creator, the final say-so on the matter.

I'm with Melville on this. Pity, and contempt often go hand in hand. And even Desmond aside, the film comments and satirizes the myth of Hollywood through the main character too and his status as a B-movie writer. Furthermore all other arguments aside, how can the film possibly be complicit in Hollywood's treatment of older actresses given the fact that it uses an amazing performance by an older actress in order to condemn older actresses? One ought to conclude based on this alone that it does not condemn older actresses. Plus there's the wonderful scene in the sound stage when the boom mic literally ruffles her feathers. I'd bet an Ace in the Hole against a stack of Fortune Cookies that you're meant to feel empathy there.

Also as you already know, I think Veronika Voss is a very middling film.I think here it is the voice of the screenwriter and director. What indication do we have in the film that we're not supposed to identify completely with the narrator/hero? Yes, he's a B-movie writer but, as we see in the scenes with the other woman, their collaboration brings out the best in him (as opposed to the script Desmond writes, which we're told repeatedly is atrocious; for instance, she objects to when the hero tries to cut one of her scenes in order to keep the story moving). As for casting an older actress, she hardly looks her age (I find her a lot more attractive than the younger actress, although the film clearly disagrees), but it's part of the film's behind the scenes intrigue that Wilder dug up all these old, forgotten faces from the silent era (Stroheim, Keaton et al). According to the film, the only character Swanson could play at fifty was a camp version of herself.

And as you already know, I think you're wrong about Veronika Voss.

[Grouchy]

According to the film, the only character Swanson could play at fifty was a camp version of herself.
That's a completely goofy assumption. If for nothing else, because Swanson was completely in on the joke, otherwise she would've been embarassed even to be offered the role. Wilder simply was aware that she was a great actress and it's thanks to him that her scenes in this movie are part of cinema's canon images.

[Grouchy]

Christmas and post-Christmas viewings:

He-Man and She-Ra: A Christmas Special was damaging stuff for my tired brain, and I don't think it will ever recover from the strain. Skeletor being overtaken by Christmas spirit is a sight I don't wish upon anybody, no matter how evil, Nazi or deformed they are. On retrospect, it's amazing how He-Man and She-Ra's entire dialogue is made of action one-liners and puns. They never say anything like "Hello" or "pass me the butter", only jokes and bravado sentences. Orko, as usual, deserves a painful death and everything that happens in this Christmas Special is absolutely his fault. Long live Filmatron and the Masters of the Universe.

On the subject of remakes that are actually better than the original versions, the 1978 Invasion of the Body Snatchers is a fucking masterpiece. Philip Kaufman has made a paranoia thriller that's both creepy, artistic, outlandish and, in many scenes, flat-out hilarious. A great cast lead by Donald Sutherland (his character has more personality than the generic hero in Siegel's movie), Dr. Spock and Jeff Goldblum also adds credibility to a movie that's typically '70s, as in all the good things about '70s filmmaking. One device that was used to great effect in this movie is sound editing - as the invasion progresses, the background noise goes down to zero, and some of the final chases happen in complete silence, the characters not speaking for fear of being spotted as humans with the silent pods behind. It's seriously unnerving. I'm glad I watched this.

If for nothing else, because now I know where those human-faced dog and screaming Donald Sutherland avatars came from.

And finally, Hatchet. Old-school Horror indeed, but I expected more. It had funny dialogues, and the Mardi Grass opening credits were inspired and energetic, but once the movie reaches killing ground it becomes very formulaic. It's funny how it inmediately picks up everytime the hatchet guy kills somebody, because the fx and the over-the-top gore are clearly the highlights of the show. Every part in the middle is dull, because you can predict not only every plot point and twist, but exactly how will it be executed. Still, it's a fun movie. This Adam Green character knows his Horror, but he needs to add his own voice to it.

I also rewatched all of the Pixar short films, since the DVD was one of my Christmas presents. Most of those I'd seen before, either in front of the films or in the Pixar exposition I caught in New York. Awesome stuff.

[Melville]

Well, she wouldn't be living with that illusion if Erich von Stroheim weren't the one sending her fan letters. I think it's really indicative of the tone of the film when the hero sees her bury the monkey in the middle of the night, because the whole point of that sequence is to establish how batshit crazy she is.
But Erich von Stroheim's character reinforces her illusion partly because he himself believes in it. He thinks that she should be worshipped for her past glories. And I don't think the sole point of the monkey burial is to show how crazy Norma Desmond is: it shows how wrapped up in her own absurd world she is, and the grotesqueness of that world, but it also shows how tragic that is for her. She is, after all, really mourning that monkey.


I think here it is the voice of the screenwriter and director. What indication do we have in the film that we're not supposed to identify completely with the narrator/hero?
Even if we are meant to identify with the narrator (which is somewhat questionable, considering how Wilder makes us question that narration), I don't see why that means the film hates Norma Desmond. Why does agreeing that she's pathetic because she pretends she's young imply that one hates her? Why not pity her, especially since her pretense is inextricably related to her social environment? Do you hate all tragic heroes that are brought to ruin by their flaws?


According to the film, the only character Swanson could play at fifty was a camp version of herself.
Like Grouchy, I have no idea how you'd extrapolate this from the film.

[Rowland]

On the subject of remakes that are actually better than the original versions, the 1978 Invasion of the Body Snatchers is a fucking masterpiece. Philip Kaufman has made a paranoia thriller that's both creepy, artistic, outlandish and, in many scenes, flat-out hilarious. A great cast lead by Donald Sutherland (his character has more personality than the generic hero in Siegel's movie), Dr. Spock and Jeff Goldblum also adds credibility to a movie that's typically '70s, as in all the good things about '70s filmmaking. One device that was used to great effect in this movie is sound editing - as the invasion progresses, the background noises goes down to zero, and some of the final chases happen in complete silence, the characters not speaking for fear of being spotted as humans with the silent pods behind. It's seriously unnerving. I'm glad I watched this. If for nothing else, because now I know where those human-faced dog and screaming Donald Sutherland avatars came from.
Yes, I like this more than the original as well. It's probably one of the best remakes ever.

[Qrazy]

According to the film, the only character Swanson could play at fifty was a camp version of herself.


I pretty much already reductio ad absurdum'd this. You can dislike Wilder's cynicism if you want to, but he clearly doesn't despise the character or old actresses in general.

[Raiders]

There seem to be a dwindling number of correct people who think the original Body Snatchers is better than the remake. This saddens me.

[baby doll]

But Erich von Stroheim's character reinforces her illusion partly because he himself believes in it. He thinks that she should be worshipped for her past glories. And I don't think the sole point of the monkey burial is to show how crazy Norma Desmond is: it shows how wrapped up in her own absurd world she is, and the grotesqueness of that world, but it also shows how tragic that is for her. She is, after all, really mourning that monkey.Yes, she is really mourning that monkey, who's never mentioned again afterwards, but the film doesn't give us any insight into her relationship with said monkey; it's merely a flamboyant eccentricity of a rich person.


Even if we are meant to identify with the narrator (which is somewhat questionable, considering how Wilder makes us question that narration), I don't see why that means the film hates Norma Desmond. Why does agreeing that she's pathetic because she pretends she's young imply that one hates her? Why not pity her, especially since her pretense is inextricably related to her social environment? Do you hate all tragic heroes that are brought to ruin by their flaws?Norma Desmond isn't the hero--if anything, she's the villain of the film for making the hero a kept man and her jealous possessiveness (i.e., her suicide attempts and phone calls to the other woman's apartment). I think the comparison with Fassbinder's film is instructive, because there the situation is that the doctor is keeping her alive so she can continue to exploit her, and the hero is sympathetic to her and tries to save her (what he doesn't understand is she's a willing victim), but here, he meets an old crazy and agrees to be her pet, which means giving up his own dreams of being a screenwriter. And how does the film make us question the hero's narration? In the opening sequence, he even tells us this is how it really happened, and since he's dead, what reason would he have to lie?


Like Grouchy, I have no idea how you'd extrapolate this from the film.What alternative does the film give Norma except being an old crazy? The hero has a very clear set of choices: be Norma's pet or take a risk and pursue his own career, and he chooses wrong and gets himself killed (he's a tragic hero, but the film doesn't hate him). When he tells her there's nothing pathetic about being fifty, he seems to be saying: give up any chance of a comeback because there are no parts in movies for old women. Wilder's film, although he casts an older actress to play an older actress, is incapable of imagining an alternative to stepping gracefully out of the spotlight once you get too old, except maybe the Bette Davis/Joan Crawford road of camping it up.

[Rowland]

There seem to be a dwindling number of correct people who think the original Body Snatchers is better than the remake. This saddens me.The remake is more dazzling, menacing, relatable (and thus moving), and courageously uncompromising in seeing its convictions through to their nightmarishly bitter end. The original is more concise, I'll give it that.

[Grouchy]

What alternative does the film give Norma except being an old crazy? The hero has a very clear set of choices: be Norma's pet or take a risk and pursue his own career, and he chooses wrong and gets himself killed (he's a tragic hero, but the film doesn't hate him). When he tells her there's nothing pathetic about being fifty, he seems to be saying: give up any chance of a comeback because there are no parts in movies for old women. Wilder's film, although he casts an older actress to play an older actress, is incapable of imagining an alternative to stepping gracefully out of the spotlight once you get too old, except maybe the Bette Davis/Joan Crawford road of camping it up.
I think you already have an opinion made and you want to fit the movie into it. Desmond is also a woman who has made a wrong choice - she can't find work in movies because she's deranged and egocentric, not because she's old or a hammy actress. I also don't think of a tragedy like Sunset Blvd. in terms or heroes or villains.

And about the De Mille scene you mentioned earlier, that's satire. I don't think he was acting very pleasant in that scene, or in any way like a "pleasant old man". I think he was being a fucking asshole.

[Melville]

Yes, she is really mourning that monkey, who's never mentioned again afterwards, but the film doesn't give us any insight into her relationship with said monkey; it's merely a flamboyant eccentricity of a rich person.
The fact that Norma Desmond is so upset about what others see as a mere eccentric affectation is what makes it tragic. We don't need any insight into her relationship with the monkey, because the point is that the funeral is absurd; but the fact that she's so absorbed in her "eccentricities" is sad in itself.


Norma Desmond isn't the hero
So? Why does that make her less pitiable?


And how does the film make us question the hero's narration? In the opening sequence, he even tells us this is how it really happened, and since he's dead, what reason would he have to lie?
You don't think the fact that he's dead calls his narration into question? Wilder is presenting the narration as a Hollywood artifice.


What alternative does the film give Norma except being an old crazy? ... When he tells her there's nothing pathetic about being fifty, he seems to be saying: give up any chance of a comeback because there are no parts in movies for old women. Wilder's film, although he casts an older actress to play an older actress, is incapable of imagining an alternative to stepping gracefully out of the spotlight once you get too old, except maybe the Bette Davis/Joan Crawford road of camping it up.
But this is part of the film's critique of Hollywood. Wilder is certainly cynical, in that he believes Norma and her like can't escape the nature of Hollywood, but why does that translate into hatred for Norma?

[baby doll]

I think you already have an opinion made and you want to fit the movie into it. Desmond is also a woman who has made a wrong choice - she can't find work in movies because she's deranged and egocentric, not because she's old or a hammy actress. I also don't think of a tragedy like Sunset Blvd. in terms or heroes or villains.

And about the De Mille scene you mentioned earlier, that's satire. I don't think he was acting very pleasant in that scene, or in any way like a "pleasant old man". I think he was being a fucking asshole.I think De Mille gets a free ride from the film. In fact, since Joe Gilles/William Holden is more or less absent during this sequence, I would even argue that De Mille takes over briefly as our point of identification. (Maybe it's a bit too dramatic to speak of heroes and villains, but Gilles is definitely the straight man to Norma's craziness.) The whole situation involving the car is essentially a mix-up, which gets the studio off the hook, and De Mille tries to break it to her gently ("I hope you still have your sense of humor..."). It's indicative of the film's sympathetic treatment of De Mille, who admittedly is a lot more sympathetic to Norma than Gilles (i.e., his line about knowing her as a promising seventeen year old), that the sequence concludes with him offering to buy the studio six or seven classic cars.

[Raiders]

The remake is more dazzling

Not sure what you mean. Better effects? OK, I'll give it that. I think the more muted tone of the original (helmed by hard-boiled Siegel) fit just as much as the more crafty camerawork here.


menacingDisagree here. It's scarier, but the original's villains just seemed more human, which considering the allegorical nature of it makes it far more potent and menacing to me.


relatable (and thus moving)I can't relate to either one, and it doesn't make any difference.


and courageously nightmarish in seeing its convictions through to their uncompromisingly bitter endI guess I have come to ignore the bookmarking coda of the original, so that may be a bit of a bias on my part. Still, the original script and vision was just as uncompromising. Nonetheless, it doesn't exactly end on a positive note, just one of uncertainty, which considering the entire film's tone of uncertain identity doesn't seem that much of a misstep.

[Rowland]

Not sure what you mean. Better effects? OK, I'll give it that.In a cinematic sense, with its expressive visuals, editing, and sound design. Which isn't to say that the original doesn't have those, I just feel the remake is more impressive on this front.


Disagree here. It's scarier, but the original's villains just seemed more human, which considering the allegorical nature of it makes it far more potent and menacing to me.It's the aesthetic of the remake that I find more menacing, along with its leisurely build-up and constant underlying quality of being slightly "off", to an almost surreal extent. The effects being more visceral helps as well.


I can't relate to either one, and it doesn't make any difference.The characters are more developed in the remake, which makes them more relatable and their plight more involving. It's the immersion factor.


I guess I have come to ignore the bookmarking coda of the original, so that may be a bit of a bias on my part. Still, the original script and vision was just as uncompromising. Nonetheless, it doesn't exactly end on a positive note, just one of uncertainty, which considering the entire film's tone of uncertain identity doesn't seem that much of a misstep.Even when ignoring the studio-sanctioned bookends of the original, I just find the remake's ending so much more disturbing and impactful. Kaufman's realization of the ending sequence is absolutely brilliant.

[Grouchy]

I think De Mille gets a free ride from the film. In fact, since Joe Gilles/William Holden is more or less absent during this sequence, I would even argue that De Mille takes over briefly as our point of identification. (Maybe it's a bit too dramatic to speak of heroes and villains, but Gilles is definitely the straight man to Norma's craziness.) The whole situation involving the car is essentially a mix-up, which gets the studio off the hook, and De Mille tries to break it to her gently ("I hope you still have your sense of humor..."). It's indicative of the film's sympathetic treatment of De Mille, who admittedly is a lot more sympathetic to Norma than Gilles (i.e., his line about knowing her as a promising seventeen year old), that the sequence concludes with him offering to buy the studio six or seven classic cars.
But you're still seeing the scene (and the film) in completely black vs. white terms. It's not "Norma Desmond vs. Hollywood", it's the story of a woman whose entire life was Hollywood, and once that was all over went insane. Sure, she's an awful human being, but Gilles isn't such a saint either, since he uses her for his advantage at the beginning. I don't think Wilder intended anyone to choose sides. That's what tragedy is all about - understanding antagonistic, unreconciliable (sp) characters and suffering for both of them. I think that the audience caring for Desmond stems directly from her insanity and the cause of it, not from any hostile treatment she receives.

And I completely disagree about De Mille in that scene. You obviously have the movie much more fresh in your mind, but I think he was being a terrible hypocrite, nice, rich and everything.

[baby doll]

The fact that Norma Desmond is so upset about what others see as a mere eccentric affectation is what makes it tragic. We don't need any insight into her relationship with the monkey, because the point is that the funeral is absurd; but the fact that she's so absorbed in her "eccentricities" is sad in itself.Here's where it gets difficult, because I liked Norma a lot more than Gilles, but that's something I'm bringing to the film, which is narrated from Gilles' point of view, and the monkey funeral (which is photographed from his perspective) is meant to show her as a woman who's totally out of touch with other people, but instead of feeling sorry for her, Gilles simply regards her as a castrating old crazy.


So? Why does that make her less pitiable?I'm just responding to your comment about tragic heroes. She's not a tragic hero.


You don't think the fact that he's dead calls his narration into question? Wilder is presenting the narration as a Hollywood artifice.The movie belongs to that genre of behind the scenes stories, like The Bad and the Beautiful, where we're supposed to be getting the real inside dirt. The opening narration even makes mention of the distortions of newspaper stories, as if Gilles' story is the real truth of what happened. So what if he's dead? (Incidentally, when we first see him in the pool, he talks about himself in the third person.) And even without the narration, Gilles is still our on-screen identification figure for most of the picture.


But this is part of the film's critique of Hollywood. Wilder is certainly cynical, in that he believes Norma and her like can't escape the nature of Hollywood, but why does that translate into hatred for Norma?It translates into hatred for Norma because she wants to continue acting, and since their are only parts for young women (except the Crawfords and Davis' of the world, who are never mentioned in the film anyway), Norma's desire to act is equated with a desire to be young.

[Ezee E]

There seem to be a dwindling number of correct people who think the original Body Snatchers is better than the remake. This saddens me.
which remake? I assume you mean Kaufman, but I know you're a Ferrera fan too.

[monolith94]

I'm downloading Khadak from KG, which I believe is monolith's favorite movie of the year. I don't know anything about it, so my expectations are basically nonexistent. Hope it's good. :)

I hope you like it, but warn you that it's an experience which I feel is best experienced in an actual theater. Ironically, it is films like Khadak, art films that deserve to be seen in actual theaters, that often have the hardest time getting wide releases.

Also, it's a little languorous. Bring a cup of joe.

[Rowland]

which remake? I assume you mean Kaufman, but I know you're a Ferrera fan too.He is responding to Grouchy's post, which was referring to the Kaufman movie. The Ferrera one isn't bad either, but easily the least of the three.

[Rowland]

I hope you like it, but warn you that it's an experience which I feel is best experienced in an actual theater. Ironically, it is films like Khadak, art films that deserve to be seen in actual theaters, that often have the hardest time getting wide releases.Absolutely. Taiwanese cinema suffers a great deal in this regard, I suspect.

[Qrazy]

In the opening sequence, he even tells us this is how it really happened, and since he's dead, what reason would he have to lie?


Rashomon.

[baby doll]

But you're still seeing the scene (and the film) in completely black vs. white terms. It's not "Norma Desmond vs. Hollywood", it's the story of a woman whose entire life was Hollywood, and once that was all over went insane. Sure, she's an awful human being, but Gilles isn't such a saint either, since he uses her for his advantage at the beginning. I don't think Wilder intended anyone to choose sides. That's what tragedy is all about - understanding antagonistic, unreconciliable (sp) characters and suffering for both of them. I think that the audience caring for Desmond stems directly from her insanity and the cause of it, not from any hostile treatment she receives.

And I completely disagree about De Mille in that scene. You obviously have the movie much more fresh in your mind, but I think he was being a terrible hypocrite, nice, rich and everything.Well, as I said, Gilles is given the choice between two women--one who wants him to ghost write her terrible script and one who wants to collaborate with him on a good one--and he makes the wrong choice and dies. The tragedy of the story isn't that Norma goes completely insane at the end (if anything that's a mercy), but that Gilles didn't pick the younger girl on her way up (behind the scenes, that is) over being pampered by Norma.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Well, as I said, Gilles is given the choice between two women--one who wants him to ghost write her terrible script and one who wants to collaborate with him on a good one--and he makes the wrong choice and dies. The tragedy of the story isn't that Norma goes completely insane at the end (if anything that's a mercy), but that Gilles didn't pick the younger girl on her way up (behind the scenes, that is) over being pampered by Norma.

Grouchy apparently forgot the rule that only one tragedy is allowed per film.

[baby doll]

Rashomon.I knew that would come up eventually, since both films came out the same year, but Rashomon gives us testimony that contradicts the dead man's story. I mean, you can look at any movie with a first person narration and say the hero's an unreliable narrator, but here there's no really no indication in the film that what we're seeing isn't the objective truth. Obviously, the tone of the film isn't objective (even without the narration, there are more than enough reaction shots of Gilles to tell us how to feel about the story), but what in the film, apart from being dead (which I don't think makes you less reliable than a living person), would lead us to question his account of the story? In Kurosawa's film, we identify with the the characters listening to the story--not the woodcutter or the bandit or the woman or the dead man. Here, apart from De Mille in the sequence I just mentioned, Gilles is a classic protagonist.

[Philosophe_rouge]

About reasons to lie, the same thing appears time and time again in Dante's Inferno. Here people are burning in hell for being liars and sinners, and what do they do? They continue to lie, not only because it's in their nature but to secure their "earthly" reputation. I don't see how that's much different in the case of Gillis. I don't see how death would change him enough for him to decide suddenly to tell the truth, and to stop being an opportunist.

[Watashi]

So, uh, The Road Warrior fucking rocks?

That is all.

[baby doll]

About reasons to lie, the same thing appears time and time again in Dante's Inferno. Here people are burning in hell for being liars and sinners, and what do they do? They continue to lie, not only because it's in their nature but to secure their "earthly" reputation. I don't see how that's much different in the case of Gillis. I don't see how death would change him enough for him to decide suddenly to tell the truth, and to stop being an opportunist.But isn't that an interpretation you're imposing onto the story? If Wilder wanted us to doubt his narration, wouldn't he find some way of signalling that? Just the idea implies a degree of critical distance from the protagonist that's nowhere in evidence in the film itself. Yes, he has flaws like any good protagonist, but that doesn't necessarily make him unreliable.

[Qrazy]

I knew that would come up eventually, since both films came out the same year, but Rashomon gives us testimony that contradicts the dead man's story. I mean, you can look at any movie with a first person narration and say the hero's an unreliable narrator, but here there's no really no indication in the film that what we're seeing isn't the objective truth. Obviously, the tone of the film isn't objective (even without the narration, there are more than enough reaction shots of Gilles to tell us how to feel about the story), but what in the film, apart from being dead (which I don't think makes you less reliable than a living person), would lead us to question his account of the story? In Kurosawa's film, we identify with the the characters listening to the story--not the woodcutter or the bandit or the woman or the dead man. Here, apart from De Mille in the sequence I just mentioned, Gilles is a classic protagonist.

Even if I agreed with all this, saying that he may not be unreliable does not then lead us to the conclusion that he must therefore be reliable. It could still be either or and to varying degrees. Someone once told me that all dream sequences have to have the character who's dreaming the dream somewhere in the shot otherwise it's not a dream sequence... I responded... What?

[Melville]

Here's where it gets difficult, because I liked Norma a lot more than Gilles, but that's something I'm bringing to the film, which is narrated from Gilles' point of view, and the monkey funeral (which is photographed from his perspective) is meant to show her as a woman who's totally out of touch with other people, but instead of feeling sorry for her, Gilles simply regards her as a castrating old crazy.
I agree that the film definitely wants us to view her from an outsider's perspective, rather than giving us her subjective view of the world. But I don't think that means we have to completely adopt the narrator's perspective. And Gilles does frequently feel sorry for Norma, even if he finds her stifling.


I'm just responding to your comment about tragic heroes. She's not a tragic hero.
My comment about tragic heroes was just meant to point out that the character's flaws needn't be intended to make us hate the character. (Although Norma's characterization could easily be read as a Romantic hero as viewed through modern cynicism.)


The movie belongs to that genre of behind the scenes stories, like The Bad and the Beautiful, where we're supposed to be getting the real inside dirt. The opening narration even makes mention of the distortions of newspaper stories, as if Gilles' story is the real truth of what happened. So what if he's dead? (Incidentally, when we first see him in the pool, he talks about himself in the third person.) And even without the narration, Gilles is still our on-screen identification figure for most of the picture.
"So what if he's dead?" How can that not be an indicator of the self-conscious artificiality of his narration? And, yes, Gilles is obviously the protagonist, regardless of the objective truthfulness of his narration, but I still don't see why that means the film must agree entirely with his viewpoint.


It translates into hatred for Norma because she wants to continue acting, and since their are only parts for young women (except the Crawfords and Davis' of the world, who are never mentioned in the film anyway), Norma's desire to act is equated with a desire to be young.
I'm still not following how any of this leads to hatred of Norma. Wilder is pretty pessimistic, and hence he presents the structure of Hollywood as a given that cannot be changed. Norma doesn't see the reality of that structure, or seeks to hide from it, and thinks or hopes that she can recover her lost youth and glory. Since she can't, her delusion is tragic, but I don't see how you conclude that the film hates her just because it's pessimistic enough to think that her hope is delusional.

[baby doll]

Even if I agreed with all this, saying that he may not be unreliable does not then lead us to the conclusion that he must therefore be reliable. It could still be either or and to varying degrees. Someone once told me that all dream sequences have to have the character who's dreaming the dream somewhere in the shot otherwise it's not a dream sequence... I responded... What?I think the difference is that Kurosawa makes it clear that the various narrators in Rashomon are unreliable, while never entirely dismissing their version of the story (although, as Jonathan Rosenbaum has pointed out, he reverses the theme of the short story, so instead of concluding that everyone's telling the truth, he winds up concluding that everyone lies). Even if he's dead, no part of his story is ever called into question. What part of the film don't you believe happened? Like Philosophe Rouge's Dante comparison, I feel like you're imposing this reading onto the film rather than looking at the on-screen evidence.

[Boner M]

So, uh, The Road Warrior fucking rocks?

That is all.
I don't usually rep correct opinions unless they're supported with some thought... but I'll make an exception here.

[Sven]

I don't usually rep correct opinions unless they're supported with some thought... but I'll make an exception here.

Yup. I did the same.

[Melville]

Grouchy apparently forgot the rule that only one tragedy is allowed per film.
Yeah, it really does seem like baby doll is willfully oversimplifying things.

[Melville]

Even if he's dead, no part of his story is ever called into question. What part of the film don't you believe happened?
Why does one need to believe that a part of the film never happened in order to recognize that the film's narration is self-consciously artificial? By acknowledging that it's narrator is mortal, i.e. limited, the film makes explicit the division that is always implicit in first-person narrations: the film's narrator is not in the omnipotent position of the film's creator. Conversely, since the narration is presented as occurring after the narrator's death, the film also acknowledges that its narration is a pure artifice, that the narrator is not "really" narrating the film at all, and hence that the words are entirely the creator's. The point being that the narrator's death explicitly points to the ambiguities inherent in narration.

[baby doll]

I agree that the film definitely wants us to view her from an outsider's perspective, rather than giving us her subjective view of the world. But I don't think that means we have to completely adopt the narrator's perspective. And Gilles does frequently feel sorry for Norma, even if he finds her stifling.What other perspectives are we given besides Gilles' account of what happened? As for him feeling sorry for her, I think the point where he's the most sympathetic to her is just after she tries to slit her wrists--since she used his razor he feels somewhat responsible, but since this is the point in the story where Norma's being the most manipulative, it's also the point where we're the most alienated from Gilles because we don't share his sympathy for her.


"So what if he's dead?" How can that not be an indicator of the self-conscious artificiality of his narration? And, yes, Gilles is obviously the protagonist, regardless of the objective truthfulness of his narration, but I still don't see why that means the film must agree entirely with his viewpoint.As I said earlier, what other viewpoint is there?


I'm still not following how any of this leads to hatred of Norma. Wilder is pretty pessimistic, and hence he presents the structure of Hollywood as a given that cannot be changed. Norma doesn't see the reality of that structure, or seeks to hide from it, and thinks or hopes that she can recover her lost youth and glory. Since she can't, her delusion is tragic, but I don't see how you conclude that the film hates her just because it's pessimistic enough to think that her hope is delusional.I don't think the movie really interrogates the structure of Hollywood (if the younger woman is meant to represent an alternative not just for Gilles but for women in Hollywood in general, the conclusion the film draws is it pays off to work behind the scenes, and it's Norma's delusions of stardom that hold her back as a writer). But more than that, I think it's really a matter of tone: dead or undead, reliable or unreliable, Gilles' story doesn't give us any reason to feel empathize with Norma. At one point, De Mille is asked if she was a terror to work with and he replies "Only towards the end," suggesting that part of the reason she can't get a job is that no one wants to work with the old bitch.

[baby doll]

Why does one need to believe that a part of the film never happened in order to recognize that the film's narration is self-consciously artificial? By acknowledging that it's narrator is mortal, i.e. limited, the film makes explicit the division that is always implicit in first-person narrations: the film's narrator is not in the omnipotent position of the film's creator. Conversely, since the narration is presented as occurring after the narrator's death, the film also acknowledges that its narration is a pure artifice, that the narrator is not "really" narrating the film at all, and hence that the words are entirely the creator's. The point being that the narrator's death explicitly points to the ambiguities inherent in narration.I think you're reading way too much into Gilles' beyond the grave narration. Yes, the story is pure artifice--all stories are. But when we talk about the tone of the piece, the film wants us to sympathize uncritically with Gilles as the hero and narrator, and how he feels about what happened, regardless of whether he's dead. Wilder does nothing to distance us from Gilles' point of view.

[Qrazy]

I think the difference is that Kurosawa makes it clear that the various narrators in Rashomon are unreliable, while never entirely dismissing their version of the story (although, as Jonathan Rosenbaum has pointed out, he reverses the theme of the short story, so instead of concluding that everyone's telling the truth, he winds up concluding that everyone lies). Even if he's dead, no part of his story is ever called into question. What part of the film don't you believe happened? Like Philosophe Rouge's Dante comparison, I feel like you're imposing this reading onto the film rather than looking at the on-screen evidence.

I don't think the on-screen evidence particularly suggests either interpretation really and I don't think it's especially relevant to the overall thrust of the film.

[baby doll]

I don't think the on-screen evidence particularly suggests either interpretation really and I don't think it's especially relevant to the overall thrust of the film.I think on that point we agree. Even if the truthfulness of Gilles' account is called into question by his being dead, in terms of how we're supposed to feel about the story, I don't see any indication that we're supposed to feel sorry for Norma, because we only see her from Gilles' point of view.

[Sven]

Trans, excellent Saboteur rating!

[Bosco B Thug]

I like mean, judgemental films. Sunset Boulevard doesn't gloss over the ugliness and selfishness of either Gilles or Norma, nor does it clearly delineate the choices its characters make by picking a side. And we can't ask that of it or we'd be favoring melodrama over judicial but empathetic admonition. Norma's sympathetic, but I don't see any fault in the film presenting her as part "villain."

Watched Ali: Fear Eats the Soul (first Fassbinder!). Bless that turn of the screw a third into it. Should've seen it coming, but pushed the pic from good to great. Fassbinder's strange, ironical formal technique magically clicks when the film's relentless prejudice romance-drama is finally ambushed by realities like the nature of uppity old womanhood, rowdy and prideful young manhood, and stubborn cultural values and language-intelligence barriers. Then it's awesome how the film regresses back to melodrama then back flips again at the last second to serve bummerific immigrant labor social realities.

[monolith94]

Part of Sunset Boulevard's tragedy is the main character's inability to buy into Norma's "world". If he had abandoned reason and moved into the realm of lived fantasy he might have had a happy life. He attempted to live in both realms, fantasy and reality, and his failure to choose one or the other is, I think, what really damns him.

[Qrazy]

I like mean, judgemental films. Sunset Boulevard doesn't gloss over the ugliness and selfishness of either Gilles or Norma, nor does it clearly delineate the choices its characters make by picking a side. And we can't ask that of it or we'd be favoring melodrama over judicial but empathetic admonition. Norma's sympathetic, but I don't see any fault in the film presenting her as part "villain."

Watched Ali: Fear Eats the Soul (first Fassbinder!). Bless that turn of the screw a third into it. Should've seen it coming, but pushed the pic from good to great. Fassbinder's strange, ironical formal technique magically clicks when the film's relentless prejudice romance-drama is finally ambushed by realities like the nature of uppity old womanhood, rowdy and prideful young manhood, and stubborn cultural values and language-intelligence barriers. Then it's awesome how the film regresses back to melodrama then back flips again at the last second to serve bummerific immigrant labor social realities.

I love how he shot that outdoor scene with all the tables with parasols.

[Melville]

I think you're reading way too much into Gilles' beyond the grave narration. Yes, the story is pure artifice--all stories are. But when we talk about the tone of the piece, the film wants us to sympathize uncritically with Gilles as the hero and narrator, and how he feels about what happened, regardless of whether he's dead. Wilder does nothing to distance us from Gilles' point of view.
Even if all stories are pure artifice, they don't all begin by admitting to that artifice. I don't know how you can ignore such an overt metatextual gesture in your analysis. We're immediately distanced from Gilles' point of view by the fact that he's dead.


What other perspectives are we given besides Gilles' account of what happened? As for him feeling sorry for her, I think the point where he's the most sympathetic to her is just after she tries to slit her wrists--since she used his razor he feels somewhat responsible, but since this is the point in the story where Norma's being the most manipulative, it's also the point where we're the most alienated from Gilles because we don't share his sympathy for her.
Didn't you just say that we are never distanced from Gilles' point of view? Gilles clearly pities Norma in that scene of the movie (and in others, as I recall), and we are momentarily distanced from him in the aftermath (and in many other scenes). Obviously those two facts indicate that the intended relationship between the audience, the narrator, and the other characters is more complicated than you will admit.


I don't think the movie really interrogates the structure of Hollywood (if the younger woman is meant to represent an alternative not just for Gilles but for women in Hollywood in general, the conclusion the film draws is it pays off to work behind the scenes, and it's Norma's delusions of stardom that hold her back as a writer). But more than that, I think it's really a matter of tone: dead or undead, reliable or unreliable, Gilles' story doesn't give us any reason to feel empathize with Norma. At one point, De Mille is asked if she was a terror to work with and he replies "Only towards the end," suggesting that part of the reason she can't get a job is that no one wants to work with the old bitch.
It doesn't directly interrogate the structure of Hollywood: as I said, it takes that structure as a given. But it does present a type of person that arises only within that type of structure. And certainly it's Norma's delusions of stardom that hold her back (not necessarily as a writer, but as a moderately functional person, and as you suggest, even as an actor); that's the whole point.

At this point it seems to me that you're not only simplifying this movie, but all first-person narratives in general. Even if a text doesn't obviously point out the unreliability of its narrator, it doesn't always intend us to agree with its narrator, nor does it imply that the author agrees with the narrator. As a simple example, at many points in a detective story the audience is made aware of facts that the narrator is not aware of. This does not imply that the narrator is "unreliable". It simply acknowledges that the narrator, the author, and the audience are distinct.

[Melville]

Part of Sunset Boulevard's tragedy is the main character's inability to buy into Norma's "world". If he had abandoned reason and moved into the realm of lived fantasy he might have had a happy life. He attempted to live in both realms, fantasy and reality, and his failure to choose one or the other is, I think, what really damns him.
Nice. It's Midge and Scottie's relationship in Vertigo all over again. Although I do agree with baby doll that the movie never gives Norma's world enough subjective reality to make it seem like a good option for Gilles—it is definitely viewed as unreal.

[baby doll]

Even if all stories are pure artifice, they don't all begin by admitting to that artifice. I don't know how you can ignore such an overt metatextual gesture in your analysis. We're immediately distanced from Gilles' point of view by the fact that he's dead.We're made aware of the artifice of the film, but in terms of point of view, we're clearly meant to identify with his perspective on the story.


Didn't you just say that we are never distanced from Gilles' point of view? Gilles clearly pities Norma in that scene of the movie (and in others, as I recall), and we are momentarily distanced from him in the aftermath (and in many other scenes). Obviously those two facts indicate that the intended relationship between the audience, the narrator, and the other characters is more complicated than you will admit.We're distanced a little, but not enough to cause a major rupture. Watching the film, we're likely to understand Gilles' feelings of guilt even if we don't sympathize with them because Norma is so obviously crazy. There's a difference between this slight disconnect between viewer and narrator, and genuine critical distance.


It doesn't directly interrogate the structure of Hollywood: as I said, it takes that structure as a given. But it does present a type of person that arises only within that type of structure. And certainly it's Norma's delusions of stardom that hold her back (not necessarily as a writer, but as a moderately functional person, and as you suggest, even as an actor); that's the whole point.

At this point it seems to me that you're not only simplifying this movie, but all first-person narratives in general. Even if a text doesn't obviously point out the unreliability of its narrator, it doesn't always intend us to agree with its narrator, nor does it imply that the author agrees with the narrator. As a simple example, at many points in a detective story the audience is made aware of facts that the narrator is not aware of. This does not imply that the narrator is "unreliable". It simply acknowledges that the narrator, the author, and the audience are distinct.In screenwriting classes, when the audience knows more than the protagonist, they call it dramatic irony because there's a disconnect between the viewer and the hero. Here, there's no dramatic irony; the film (and therefore the viewer) doesn't know anything more about the story than what Gilles is showing us (the one exception is the sequence with De Mille, where he briefly takes over as our point of identification).

[baby doll]

I love how he shot that outdoor scene with all the tables with parasols.Great film but I can never figure out how these restaurants manage to stay in business.

[Melville]

In screenwriting classes, when the audience knows more than the protagonist, they call it dramatic irony because there's a disconnect between the viewer and the hero. Here, there's no dramatic irony; the film (and therefore the viewer) doesn't know anything more about the story than what Gilles is showing us.
My point isn't that in this movie the audience knows more than the protagonist, my point is that we are not meant to assume the narrator's points of view. If we were, then the movie would not only hate Norma (if it does), it would also be a failure: since every person involved in this discussion has stated that they sympathize with Norma, doesn't that represent a colossal failure on Wilder's part?

The film presents us with a story from the perspective of one of its characters; each member of the audience has a different perspective. Nothing in the film tries to beat us over the head with the universal validity of that one character's perspective; it is simply a useful perspective because it is that of an outsider looking into Norma's world. And there is nothing in the film to indicate that Gilles' perspective is the same as Wilder's. Wilder is not involved with Norma, she is not trying to control him, so why would I assume that he has the same resentment toward Norma that Gilles does?

[transmogrifier]

Trans, excellent Saboteur rating!


Great film. Remove some of the speechifying ("There are millions of us, and we won't stop until we defeat blah, blah, blah"), find a better lead actor, and you'd have a masterpiece.

I love that it is a trip through Americana, through all of these landmarks and stereotypes, probing at the subversiveness and innate goodness that is intertwined underneath. Plus it just has some great set-pieces.

[Qrazy]

Great film but I can never figure out how these restaurants manage to stay in business.

Then finally, when there's nothing left...when you can't borrow another buck from the bank...you bust the joint out. You light a match.

[Bosco B Thug]

I love how he shot that outdoor scene with all the tables with parasols. That was cool. Though I was kinda going, "Whoa there, Rainer, what you doing there? Okay okay, sure why not, I'm feeling it... I think." Good stuff.

I love that it is a trip through Americana, through all of these landmarks and stereotypes, probing at the subversiveness and innate goodness that is intertwined underneath. Hmmm, I like... I should totally start revisiting Hitchcock's older films.

[baby doll]

My point isn't that in this movie the audience knows more than the protagonist, my point is that we are not meant to assume the narrator's points of view. If we were, then the movie would not only hate Norma (if it does), it would also be a failure: since every person involved in this discussion has stated that they sympathize with Norma, doesn't that represent a colossal failure on Wilder's part?

The film presents us with a story from the perspective of one of its characters; each member of the audience has a different perspective. Nothing in the film tries to beat us over the head with the universal validity of that one character's perspective; it is simply a useful perspective because it is that of an outsider looking into Norma's world. And there is nothing in the film to indicate that Gilles' perspective is the same as Wilder's. Wilder is not involved with Norma, she is not trying to control him, so why would I assume that he has the same resentment toward Norma that Gilles does?I think the fact that everyone seems to sympathize with Norma reflects that Swanson brings more to the role than is required of her. And I think you've been watching too many egalitarian, Bazinian art films, because classical Hollywood filmmaking isn't about having an individual experience with the work where everyone has a different perspective, but a collective experience (think of Hitchcock's statement that he wanted to play the audience like a piano). The whole point of having a narrator and a clear protagonist that we identify with uncritically is that everyone is on exactly the same page.

[Sven]

I love that it is a trip through Americana, through all of these landmarks and stereotypes, probing at the subversiveness and innate goodness that is intertwined underneath. Plus it just has some great set-pieces.

If only more people were able to see what you see. Though I actually quite liked Robert Cummings as the lead, because he's much much more of an everyman than Jimmy Stewart and Cary Grant, both of whom are superstars with distinct personalities. Sure he's bland, but such is the everyman.

[transmogrifier]

If only more people were able to see what you see. Though I actually quite liked Robert Cummings as the lead, because he's much much more of an everyman than Jimmy Stewart and Cary Grant, both of whom are superstars with distinct personalities. Sure he's bland, but such is the everyman.

Is it not well-liked? I really don't know how early Hitchcock is received by the consensus. But I do know that Lifeboat and Saboteur are probably my two favorite Hitchcock's so far (though I have a hell of a lot yet to see). I enjoy them far more than his celebrated biggies like Psycho, Vertigo, and North By Northwest

[Watashi]

Saboteur is by far the worst Hitchcock I've seen.

[Sven]

Is it not well-liked? I really don't know how early Hitchcock is received by the consensus. But I do know that Lifeboat and Saboteur are probably my two favorite Hitchcock's so far (though I have a hell of a lot yet to see). I enjoy them far more than his celebrated biggies like Psycho, Vertigo, and North By Northwest

I'm on your side. My favorite Hitchcock films tend to be his British stuff, mostly, but Saboteur > Psycho, Stage Fright > North By Northwest, and (oh, boy, the flack I'm gonna get for this...) Under Capricorn > Vertigo. I do quite love The Birds and Rear Window. And my esteem for Topaz knows no bounds.

[megladon8]

Jen and I are going to finish watching The Night of the Hunter tonight - she gave me the DVD for Christmas.

It's incredible so far. Mitchum is very menacing, especially since before now I hadn't seen him in anything where he wasn't the handsome, likable leading man.

[Rowland]

The 39 Steps > most Hitch, including its unofficial remake North By Northwest

I'd like to revisit Northwest though, having read somewhere that a part of Hitch's sly subversiveness was that we were supposed to see Grant as a creep. I may like the movie more with that perspective.

[Sven]

The 39 Steps > most Hitch, including its unofficial remake North By Northwest

Yeah, it rules. North by Northwest I've given about four chances now and each time it bores me more. I will never understand the love for that one.

[Melville]

I think the fact that everyone seems to sympathize with Norma reflects that Swanson brings more to the role than is required of her.
I'm not sure I see your point. Swanson's performance is there on the screen, regardless of whether she was required to give such a good one. Her performance is part of the film. Why are you discounting it when you talk about what "the film" hates?


And I think you've been watching too many egalitarian, Bazinian art films, because classical Hollywood filmmaking isn't about having an individual experience with the work where everyone has a different perspective, but a collective experience (think of Hitchcock's statement that he wanted to play the audience like a piano). The whole point of having a narrator and a clear protagonist that we identify with uncritically is that everyone is on exactly the same page.
I've never read Bazin, so I'm not sure if I follow you. But forget my mention of "each" member of the audience. My point is that the audience, singly or collectively, needn't adopt the viewpoint of a single character, even if that character is the narrator. Certainly a narrator and a clear protagonist offer a clear perspective and point of identification to the audience. But hoping that the audience will simply adopt that one perspective is a naive idealization. Given that the film opens by announcing the artificiality of the narration, and given that the strength of Norma's characterization transcends the narrator's perspective (as you admit), I don't see why you would assume that the film has such a hope.

[Qrazy]

Can this conversation end yet? It's making me want to drown a small bag of kittens.

[Yxklyx]

Young and Innocent is one of my fave early Hitchcock films.

[Yxklyx]

Young and Innocent (1937, Hitchcock)
Wish I had a copy of this now because I'm in the mood to watch it. Two very good leads (very cute gal) plus very good supporting cast (bum, rich relatives, family,...). More lighthearted than typical Hitchcock but still lots of suspense. Lots of scenes in the beautiful English countryside plus a few very good special effects (mine shaft). Has noirish aspects (bum house by train) plus the wronged man theme. Some excellent camera work in parts (finale). Rapid fire pacing throughout. Cute dog. A must see.

[balmakboor]

I'm on your side. My favorite Hitchcock films tend to be his British stuff, mostly, but Saboteur > Psycho, Stage Fright > North By Northwest, and (oh, boy, the flack I'm gonna get for this...) Under Capricorn > Vertigo. I do quite love The Birds and Rear Window. And my esteem for Topaz knows no bounds.

I don't know about everything you said. (I haven't yet seen Saboteur, Under Capricorn, or Topaz.) But I definitely found Stage Fright to be as fascinating as any Hitchcock. And on the topic of seldom mentioned Hitchcocks, I also found Dial M for Murder pretty damn great.

[Melville]

Under Capricorn > Vertigo
I've never seen Under Capricorn, but I'm pretty sure that inequality must be wrong.


Can this conversation end yet? It's making me want to drown a small bag of kittens.
Aw. I was just starting to understand what Domino is basing his opinion on...

[balmakboor]

I've never seen Under Capricorn, but I'm pretty sure that inequality must be wrong.

I don't know. That's what I thought about Stage Fright and The Wrong Man based on their reputations -- or lack of reputations. But I think both definitely deserve to sit at the table next to such acknowledged classics as Vertigo and Rear Window.

[Melville]

I don't know. That's what I thought about Stage Fright and The Wrong Man based on their reputations -- or lack of reputations. But I think both definitely deserve to sit at the table next to such acknowledged classics as Vertigo and Rear Window.
Yeah, I'm just biased by my love of Vertigo. I actually haven't seen any of the lesser known Hitchcock films people have been mentioning (except The Wrong Man, which doesn't really count as lesser known around here), so I guess I have some catching up to do.

[Qrazy]

Aw. I was just starting to understand what Domino is basing his opinion on...

Well to be fair most conversations make me want to drown a small bag of kittens... carry on I suppose.

[Sven]

I've never seen Under Capricorn, but I'm pretty sure that inequality must be wrong.

Mind you, I acknowledge that I'm probably the only person in the known universe that thinks this. Also, do note that I quite like Vertigo, I just find it a bit stodgy, impenetrable, and slow at certain moments.

Oh yeah, Jamaica Inn > all. Top 5 Hitch's easily. Can't believe I forgot about that one, though as I said, I generally like his British stuff better than his American stuff and that was the last of the British period I believe. British The Man Who Knew Too Much is damn fantastic, as well as The Secret Agent, Sabotage, Blackmail, The Lodger, etc...

[monolith94]

Vertigo impenetrable? I would've never used that adjective to describe it when I saw it. To me, it was like a cold gust of pure, refreshing reason. Every element of it - image, music, dialogue, made sense to me in a primal way.

[baby doll]

I'm not sure I see your point. Swanson's performance is there on the screen, regardless of whether she was required to give such a good one. Her performance is part of the film. Why are you discounting it when you talk about what "the film" hates?Ever see a movie where you're constantly being told that one girl is really hot and the other girl is not so hot, even though you think the nerdy girl is more attractive? Actually, that happens in Sunset Blvd.: Gloria Swanson is far more attractive than the younger woman (who's name I can't be bothered to remember). I think Swanson gives a remarkable performance, but there are all these cues that we're supposed to find her pathetic.


I've never read Bazin, so I'm not sure if I follow you. But forget my mention of "each" member of the audience. My point is that the audience, singly or collectively, needn't adopt the viewpoint of a single character, even if that character is the narrator. Certainly a narrator and a clear protagonist offer a clear perspective and point of identification to the audience. But hoping that the audience will simply adopt that one perspective is a naive idealization. Given that the film opens by announcing the artificiality of the narration, and given that the strength of Norma's characterization transcends the narrator's perspective (as you admit), I don't see why you would assume that the film has such a hope.Bazin's whole thing was deep focus cinematography that gave the audience more room to decide what they felt was interesting in the frame. This is the kind of freedom that a filmmaker like Tati gives the viewer to explore the frame, but Wilder isn't that kind of filmmaker obviously. Of course it's naive since that everyone brings different baggage to a film (past experiences, expectations, alertness, etc.), but there's a difference between a film that everyone experiences differently based on what they bring to the film (like Sunset Blvd.) and one everyone experiences differently because the film is more of an open text.

[megladon8]

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix was very good. I'd even say it's the second best of the whole series (behind Prisoner of Azkaban).

I think the reason for this is because it has such strong messages behind the story - similar to Prisoner of Azkaban. It tackles issues of teenage identity crisis without resorting to overly sentimental or angsty dialogue or scenes.

Some of the effects are a bit spotty, but for every lackluster effect there are 3 or 4 very well executed ones, so it all evens out in the end.

Chracters continue to grow and change, and the ever-evolving (and very Star Wars-esque) story of title character Harry Potter continues to interest me, though I admit I still have no desire to read the books.

And the events in this movie are such that they make the last film feel like less of a disappointment, and more of a transition piece between Prisoner of Azkaban and this latest installment.

It was great.

[Melville]

Also, do note that I quite like Vertigo, I just find it a bit stodgy, impenetrable, and slow at certain moments.
That's crazy talk. Stop talking crazy.


Ever see a movie where you're constantly being told that one girl is really hot and the other girl is not so hot, even though you think the nerdy girl is more attractive? Actually, that happens in Sunset Blvd.: Gloria Swanson is far more attractive than the younger woman (who's name I can't be bothered to remember). I think Swanson gives a remarkable performance, but there are all these cues that we're supposed to find her pathetic.
Oh, so you're saying that her performance actually works against the rest of the film. Well, since Norma's personality dominates the whole movie, and since the narrator's view of her is mixed in any case (it's certainly not as simple as that of the hero in a bad teen movie, from which your example is probably drawn), and since I don't think that the film encourages us to adopt the narrator's viewpoint wholeheartedly, I think that interpretation seems a bit forced. And I don't think that the character being viewed as pathetic implies that she is viewed with hatred.


Bazin's whole thing was deep focus cinematography that gave the audience more room to decide what they felt was interesting in the frame. This is the kind of freedom that a filmmaker like Tati gives the viewer to explore the frame, but Wilder isn't that kind of filmmaker obviously. Of course it's naive since that everyone brings different baggage to a film (past experiences, expectations, alertness, etc.), but there's a difference between a film that everyone experiences differently based on what they bring to the film (like Sunset Blvd.) and one everyone experiences differently because the film is more of an open text.
Okay. Hopefully I've made clear that I'm not talking about differing viewpoints between audience members, but about differences in viewpoints between the protagonist and the audience. I think that in the case of Sunset Blvd., the dead narrator, the dominance of Swanson's performance, and the last shot basically allowing Norma's delusions to reach a height of grandiosity in which they swallow up the whole film, suggests that the audience is not intended to unambiguously adopt Gilles' viewpoint.

Unless you want me to clarify a specific point, I'd say it's time to bow to Qrazy's wishes.

[chrisnu]

PAPRIKA! :pritch:

My mind is reeling a bit right now; reading the discussion thread on the old site...

[monolith94]

Ever see a movie where you're constantly being told that one girl is really hot and the other girl is not so hot, even though you think the nerdy girl is more attractive? Actually, that happens in Sunset Blvd.: Gloria Swanson is far more attractive than the younger woman (who's name I can't be bothered to remember). I think Swanson gives a remarkable performance, but there are all these cues that we're supposed to find her pathetic.

Same thing happens in "An American in Paris."

I would dispute this idea that deep-focus cinematography gives an audience more "freedom" to decide what is important in a frame. The great cinema-artists move beyond this whole thought-process in order to, simply, construct the image that is appropriate for the effect, whether deep or shallow.

[Melville]

PAPRIKA! :pritch:

My mind is reeling a bit right now; reading the discussion thread on the old site...
Speaking of Kon, I was a bit let down by Millenium Actress (only because my expectations were really high). It wasn't nearly as complex as I had heard, the central love was undeveloped, considering that it drove the entire narrative, and it had a serious lack of marching refrigerators.

[megladon8]

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

a review by Braden Adam


There was a span of about two or three years during my life as a teenager where I felt increasingly conflicted about the person I am, and whether I really liked me. I would look at myself and wonder whether or not I would want to be friends with me, had I been someone else. Of course, my parents’ great wisdom - which I refused to accept at the time - turned out to be right. Everyone feels this way at some point in their life. It’s just part of being human, and of growing up. In fact, there are probably greater problems if one doesn’t ever questions their actions or their development as a person. Angst is one of those strange things where you can do all you want to try and help a teenager to see their lives more clearly, but in the end it is only they who can really understand their own inner workings.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v496/megladon8/phoenix3.jpg

It’s good that the Harry Potter films have been able to incorporate these feelings of disillusionment with ourselves and the world around us. Without this, they wouldn’t feel nearly as authentic as they do and, as a result, they surely wouldn’t be as popular as they are. After all what is a story if it doesn’t have some sort of personal connection to you? I’m all for rowdy, soulless entertainment - but for that, there is a time and a place. For a story in any medium to be truly great it has to grab you and touch your heart, making you feel like this story - however fantastic - is real. Peter Jackson did this wonderfully in the Lord of the Rings films, which feel so authentic at times that it seems perhaps these events really did happen sometime hundreds or thousands of years ago.

The Order of the Phoenix works best as a continuation of the events of The Prisoner of Azkaban - the third film in the series, and also quite arguably the best. Voldemort’s back and his army is growing stronger by the minute, dividing loyalties in the world of witches and wizards. Harry Potter is beginning to see elements of darkness creep into his life and his own personality - manifested physically in the form of hallucinations of Voldemort appearing randomly before his eyes. Knowing that Voldemort is gaining power, Potter is unsure of whether these visions are the Dark Lord’s doing, or simply Potter’s own personal demons slowly taking him over.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v496/megladon8/phoenix1.jpg

Throughout the course of the story we see the as so far hidden back-stories of many of the characters, revealing much about their nature and why they have such prominent characteristics. The most interesting thing about these revelations is that each one reveals something about them that seems totally unlike their character, yet simultaneously explains so much about why they are the way they are. In the end it’s all a rather unsubtle sort of “yin yan” message - good cannot exist without evil and vice versa. All good people have some evil in them as well, and the evil ones also have an inherent goodness.

But what the film lacks in subtlety of message it more than makes up for in poignancy. Like Prisoner of Azkaban, it has many scenes which are genuinely affecting - something which seems to be lacking in the recent boom of child-oriented fantasy adventure films. Scenes where Harry questions his actions and his own nature feel like a much more effective version of Anakin Skywalker’s descent into evil in the Star Wars prequels. And that’s not where the parallels between these two series’ end. It seems J. K. Rowling has based many of the story arcs and character types off of those found in Star Wars, with Harry Potter being sort of a mixture of Anakin and Luke Skywalker. This has been subtly acknowledged in the final conflicts of the last two films, which both feature duels where the wizards’ powers manifest themselves in coloured light beams. In The Goblet of Fire, Voldemort’s beam was green and Harry’s red, then in the final showdown of this latest installment, the beams are red and blue. We all remember that the red lightsaber was the signature of Darth Vader - previously Anakin Skywalker - so this is a nice little visual nod to those geeks among us who would see this as yet another symbol of Harry’s darkness within.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v496/megladon8/phoenix2.jpg

It’s great that the Harry Potter films continue to have something to offer beyond their special effects and imaginative “wizard technology” - which is admittedly cool, but not enough to carry a whole film. Daniel Radcliffe has been perfect in embodying both the heroic and venomous traits of Harry Potter, and the supporting characters remain rich and their ever-evolving back-stories are always adding a little more without feeling tacked-on. Since most films geared towards teenagers these days are mindless action romps or torturous gore-fests filled with “pretty people” getting naked at every chance they get, it’s good to know that someone can still make a film which fulfills one’s need for spectacle while also giving kids someone to relate to and grow up with.

[baby doll]

Same thing happens in "An American in Paris."

I would dispute this idea that deep-focus cinematography gives an audience more "freedom" to decide what is important in a frame. The great cinema-artists move beyond this whole thought-process in order to, simply, construct the image that is appropriate for the effect, whether deep or shallow.Well, I loved what Leos Carax did with long lenses in Les Amants du pont-neuf, where the reduced depth of field and flattened space relates to the characters' self absorbtion, and more recently, Wong Kar-wai's 2046, where he basically subverts the whole idea of shooting a movie in 'Scope by having two-thirds of the frame eaten up by a giant wall so the drama gets pushed to the very edge of the frame almost. Lucrecia Martel, who's one of the most exciting filmmakers on the planet right now, has attributed her very distinctive visual style to having myopia.

That said, when you look at a film like Feuillade's Les Vampires (incidentally, Bazin's favorite film of all time), he shoots I would say eighty percent, if not more, of the film in static long shots, so instead of having one narrow focal point, you do have this incredible freedom to really look at what's in the image instead of being directed as forcefully as you would in a film by Hitchcock, who uses a lot of close-ups and inserts to direct our gaze in a much more aggressive manner. In Feuillade's films, there's stuff happening in the foreground, middleground and background, and it requires a more active form of spectatorship to decide what's relevant and what's irrelevant.

[chrisnu]

Speaking of Kon, I was a bit let down by Millenium Actress (only because my expectations were really high). It wasn't nearly as complex as I had heard, the central love was undeveloped, considering that it drove the entire narrative, and it had a serious lack of marching refrigerators.
Perfect Blue is available for instant viewing on Netflix, but is unavailable on DVD. I'll take it. :pritch:

[baby doll]

Oh, so you're saying that her performance actually works against the rest of the film. Well, since Norma's personality dominates the whole movie, and since the narrator's view of her is mixed in any case (it's certainly not as simple as that of the hero in a bad teen movie, from which your example is probably drawn), and since I don't think that the film encourages us to adopt the narrator's viewpoint wholeheartedly, I think that interpretation seems a bit forced. And I don't think that the character being viewed as pathetic implies that she is viewed with hatred.

Okay. Hopefully I've made clear that I'm not talking about differing viewpoints between audience members, but about differences in viewpoints between the protagonist and the audience. I think that in the case of Sunset Blvd., the dead narrator, the dominance of Swanson's performance, and the last shot basically allowing Norma's delusions to reach a height of grandiosity in which they swallow up the whole film, suggests that the audience is not intended to unambiguously adopt Gilles' viewpoint.

Unless you want me to clarify a specific point, I'd say it's time to bow to Qrazy's wishes.I'm just curious where the film departs from Gilles' point of view, with the exception of the De Mille sequence where he takes over as our point of identification. Yes, Gilles is dead and that calls attention to the artifice of filmmaking, but from the point where he says "let's go back to six months before," which is when he starts to refer to himself in the third person, to the scene where Norma shoots him (we're not supposed to hate her for that?), where does the film step outside Gilles' subjectivity, let alone offer an alternative view? (I feel like we're going in circles, so maybe I need to be clearer: just because the narrator is dead doesn't mean the film doesn't identify with him uncritically. If the film were to show us something Gilles didn't see that complicates or contradicts his view of the situation, then there would be a small measure of dramatic irony.) Even after he dies and Norma goes totally insane, he continues to narrate the story from beyond the grave.

And I don't think his view of her is particularly mixed (it's only when De Mille starts talking about her as a young woman that the film introduces a measure of sympathy for her). I think he clearly hates Norma for making him her pet (he effectively comes to replace the dead monkey), though he lacks the confidence to grab the life preserver the younger woman is throwing him. That Swanson gives such a commanding performance ultimately works against the grain of the film.

[Duncan]

I watched It's a Wonderful Life for the first time ever yesterday. It was nice.

I also watched Ozu's Equinox Flower. Very good. Rigid formalism, as usual, but somehow relaxed and funny as well. I love being in Ozu's emotional limbo. Not many filmmakers are capable of holding happiness and melancholy so close to one another. In It's a Wonderful Life, for instance, George goes from one extreme to the other, and back again. Ozu shows both at once (and sometimes Capra does as well, I do not deny). I like that.

I'm looking forward to making it through the rest of this box set.

[jesse]

About reasons to lie, the same thing appears time and time again in Dante's Inferno. Here people are burning in hell for being liars and sinners, and what do they do? They continue to lie, not only because it's in their nature but to secure their "earthly" reputation. I don't see how that's much different in the case of Gillis. I don't see how death would change him enough for him to decide suddenly to tell the truth, and to stop being an opportunist. Really? I just reread Inferno and I came across nothing that would make it seem as if any of the sinners were continuing their sins while suffering in hell. In fact, quite the opposite--they always seem compelled to tell Dante and Virgil the truth, even at is most sordid. Yes, some beg Dante to say good things about them when he returns to earth, but I I never got the impression that they were lying...

But I do agree with you that it doesn't seem likely Gillis would change his nature much in death.

[jesse]

Under Capricorn > Vertigo. Didn't the New Wave critics think this? Or at least consider Under Capricorn one of his finest? And I've been wanting to give Topaz another look since someone said it was Hitchcock's take on the 60's art film in Film Comment a few months ago.

I Confess is probably my favorite "lesser" Hitchcock. As well as To Catch a Thief, and Family Plot, both which are muchly underrated.

But I found Saboteur damn near unwatchable. But then, I think the same about North by Northwest.

[Barty]

Mighty Morphin Power Rangers: The Movie is one of the most atrocious things I've ever seen.

[megladon8]

Watched two movies tonight with Jen...

The Night of the Hunter was fantastic, due in large part to Robert Mitchum's frightening performance.

The music is wonderful, and there are some beautiful shots throughout.

I have to say, though, that there is some very poor editing in the film.

Other than that, I'd say it is one damn fine movie.



Memories of Murder is one of the best police dramas I have seen since Se7en - though it's an entirely different beast.

Emotional and utterly haunting. That musical score kills me, as does the final shot of Kang-ho Song's face.

Many Asian films deal out the melodrama in huge doses, and I couldn't be happier that this film completely avoids that. It would have ruined it.

This is the second time I've seen it, and it is even better.

[Melville]

I'm just curious where the film departs from Gilles' point of view, with the exception of the De Mille sequence where he takes over as our point of identification. Yes, Gilles is dead and that calls attention to the artifice of filmmaking, but from the point where he says "let's go back to six months before," which is when he starts to refer to himself in the third person, to the scene where Norma shoots him (we're not supposed to hate her for that?), where does the film step outside Gilles' subjectivity, let alone offer an alternative view? (I feel like we're going in circles, so maybe I need to be clearer: just because the narrator is dead doesn't mean the film doesn't identify with him uncritically. If the film were to show us something Gilles didn't see that complicates or contradicts his view of the situation, then there would be a small measure of dramatic irony.) Even after he dies and Norma goes totally insane, he continues to narrate the story from beyond the grave.

And I don't think his view of her is particularly mixed (it's only when De Mille starts talking about her as a young woman that the film introduces a measure of sympathy for her). I think he clearly hates Norma for making him her pet (he effectively comes to replace the dead monkey), though he lacks the confidence to grab the life preserver the younger woman is throwing him. That Swanson gives such a commanding performance ultimately works against the grain of the film.
Okay, I just rewatched the movie, and here are my thoughts:

First, I think we simply disagree on the nature of first-person narratives. In my mind, when a story is presented from a particular character's perspective (either as a narrator or as a protagonist), that doesn't mean that the audience is meant to stand in the character's shoes; it merely means that the audience is standing alongside the character. The character is coloring events in a certain way, but the creator of the story has a lot of leeway in making us see things in a different way. And I'm not talking about really obvious unreliable narration. I'm just talking about things like in Sunset Blvd. when the camera looks at Gillis' cigarette case from the point of view of Betty. That shot obviously requires the audience to momentarily adopt Betty's point of view. Such a switch is predicated upon the creator's knowledge that the audience does not completely identify with a single character, that the "identification" is, as I said, a standing-alongside in which the audience maintains its autonomy from the narrator. As another example, when Gillis first meets Norma and she rants about the downfall of silent cinema, she is shot in soft focus, the candles behind her blurred and smeared as if they were elements of her mad world. According to Gillis' narration, he thinks of Norma as merely a rich old nut at this point, but the camera slightly alters this viewpoint by showing us a glimpse of the grandeur of her madness. As yet another example, Gillis' petty anger toward his agent at the golf course is shot in a completely objective way, from medium distance and not favoring either character's actions or reaction. The following scene gives us a very subjective voiceover somewhat justifying Gillis' anger, but this comes as an addendum to the objective view that we were already given.

The fact that the narrator is known to be dead from the beginning encourages the audience to recognize this leeway. However, within this leeway, I agree Gillis' perspective is the dominant one, at least in the first act (which I assume is everything before the suicide attempt): the camerawork follows a consistent pattern of showing us some other character doing something, followed by Gillis' reaction, and each scene is bookended by Gillis' voice-over. But it's equally obvious in Gillis' narration that Gillis has some pity for Norma. When she first shows him her script, he says "it meant so much to her" and refers to her as "a bundle of raw nerves". Later, he describes her as "afraid of the world". These are hardly words of hatred. And the funeral for her chimp (which he first mocks by saying that the chimp must be "the grandson of King Kong" to deserve such solemnity) he describes as the "laying to rest of an only child," and which makes him ask if Norma's "life is as empty as that?" Even at the end, after Gillis has been shot, he expresses sympathy for her, referring to the newspeople swarming her as "heartless so-and-so's" who will kill her with their headlines. I don't see how you extract pure hatred from such narration.

In any case, the film goes beyond this voice-over sympathy. When Max reveals that he writes Norma's letters, there is no emphasis on the absurdity of maintaining Norma's illusion: the context of the revelation is Norma's despondency over her lost glory. Later, during the New Year's dance scene, when Norma reveals her infatuation with Gillis—her "sad, embarrassing revelation," as Gillis calls it—the mood is melancholy, and the camera focuses on her face, or at least her reactions, rather than on Gillis'. Her look is wistful, and Swanson brilliantly shows the latent despair and hope in her eyes. This scene is clearly intended to make us sympathize with Norma. The suicide attempt two scenes later only builds this sympathy. And following that, most of the focus in the second act is on Norma; Gillis, rather than getting constant reaction shots, merely lingers next to Norma looking pensive. In particular, during Norma's beautifying treatments and her Chaplin impersonation (and her meeting with DeMille, which I'll get back to), the focus is entirely on her and is entirely sympathetic. Gillis is completely excluded,
even if we assume this pitying view of Norma to be his.

It's only in the final act, after Max reveals that he was Norma's first husband and thus reveals the extent of her narcissism, that the tone of the film becomes antipathetic towards Norma. At this point the narrative shifts back toward Gillis, focusing on his attempts to escape from Norma. Things that
previously made us sympathize with her transform into sources of antipathy: for example, she now threatens suicide explicitly as a means of control. Indeed, this whole act leads up to Gillis giving Betty a tour of Norma's mansion that completely decimates its mystique (and by extension, Norma's entire
world). Things such as the movie screen, which was previously shot in highly dramatic lighting and with no architectural context, are filmed in this scene as completely banal; the movie screen is shot from an angle dictated by Gillis movements, just like any other meaningless object in Norma's house. And this
scene itself leads to Gillis' confrontation with a particularly haggard-looking Norma Desmond, shot at a low angle to accentuate her sagging chin, her face covered in "beautifying" oil. Norma begs Gillis to stay, while the camera sits by passively, and then, of course, Norma shoots Gillis in the back when he tries to leave. All of which makes Norma seem pretty pathetic.

I'm guessing that this last act is what makes you think the film hates Norma Desmond. But, given what has come before, and what comes in the denouement, I don't think we should interpret the film so harshly. By the time that Norma's worst behavior is revealed, we have already built up enough sympathy for her that we can't be expected to suddenly despise her. Instead, the revelations of the magnitude of her narcissism and of the completely illusory nature of her life serves to reinforce our sympathy for Gillis. This
complexifies the situation, amplifying the tragedy: we are aware of Norma's faults, and we hope that Gillis can escape her grasp, but we also pity her. The audience can feel sad that Gillis dies, but can't help pitying Norma at the same time—in the end, as Gillis says in his final voice-over, even life pities
Norma.

And life pities Norma precisely because her life is made possible by Hollywood. I'm pretty sure that DeMille is not meant to be a point of identification for the audience, since we are never given any reason to identify with him; rather, he is the voice of wisdom, as one who has survived within Hollywood. And he lays down the thesis of the whole film, which is that "press agents working over time can do terrible things to the human spirit." (Note that this line immediately follows the one about Norma only becoming hard to work with towards the end of her career. DeMille is not saying that Norma is an old
bitch, and so nobody wants to work with her; he's saying that she was groomed to assume her role as a megalomaniac.) You said that the film despises Norma for being old, and that it sympathizes with the
young. But I see the central contrast between young Betty and old Norma not as young versus old, but as real versus unreal. The life of the star is construed as an illusory construct of the Hollywood dream factory, while Betty's path as a writer is a life outside the illusion (although abetting it). When Betty and Gillis walk through the studio sets, the contrast between their reality and the non-reality of the movies is emphasized. When Gillis goes from Norma's party to Betty's boyfriend's party, the two are contrasted by how alive the attendees at the latter party are, how concerned with everyday difficulties and how involved with other people they are. Norma is isolated from this world because the nature of stardom has pushed her away from it.

I had some more things I wanted to say about the ending, but it's 4:30 and I'm starting to get tired.

[Winston*]

What Ocean's 13 lacks in entertainment value, it sure makes up in endless exposition. Terrible, I finally gave up after about an hour.

[Li Lili]

Lucrecia Martel, who's one of the most exciting filmmakers on the planet right now, has attributed her very distinctive visual style to having myopia.
Sorry to only quote this short sentence, but I do not think at all that she's one of the most exciting filmmakers on the planet right now, because she only made 2 films, the last one being in 2004 and I would have mentioned instead Lisandro Alonso, another Argentinian filmmaker, far more interesting and definitely a very promising great director to follow.

[Qrazy]

Speaking of Kon, I was a bit let down by Millenium Actress (only because my expectations were really high). It wasn't nearly as complex as I had heard, the central love was undeveloped, considering that it drove the entire narrative, and it had a serious lack of marching refrigerators.

I agree.

Also Family Plot is crap.

[Li Lili]

I watched Glory to the filmmaker, I like the first half, the self derision and his special humour, the film is sometimes funny, but a bit too long. Not my favourite Kitano's films.
Also I watched the new film by Royston Tan, from Singapore, 881, about getai. It's quite refreshing, funny, and colourful, for some reasons it reminds me of Wisit Sasanatieng's films (the style, the colours...). However 881 is different from his previous films, 15 and 4:30 which I much prefered, but 881 is fun to watch.
And only because I like Jet Li and Stephen Chow, I watched Dragon Fight, set in San Francisco, but the film is really bad.

[transmogrifier]

What Ocean's 13 lacks in entertainment value, it sure makes up in endless exposition. Terrible, I finally gave up after about an hour.


Ocean's 12 is still the best of the three.

[/audience gasps]

But then again, The Empire Strikes Back is the best of the Stars Wars trilogy and TTT is the best of the LOTR trilogy, and Aliens is the best of the Alien trilogy (yes, there are only three films in that series, don't pretend otherwise).

But then again again Attack of the Clones and The Temple of Doom are by far the worst of their respective series (serii? seria?).

Why can't generalizations be cleaner? It would sure simplify debate.

[Winston*]

Aliens is not, in fact, the best film in the Alien motion picture trilogy. In that respect your opinion is incorrect, transmogrifier.

[transmogrifier]

Aliens is not, in fact, the best film in the Alien motion picture trilogy. In that respect your opinion is incorrect, transmogrifier.


Don't through the baby out with the bathwater, my old chum. Celebrate that which I got correct. Do not dwell on the negatives. Let the light in.

[Morris Schæffer]

Aliens is not, in fact, the best film in the Alien motion picture trilogy. In that respect your opinion is incorrect, transmogrifier.

It's just as great as Alien so they're both the best. ;)

[Rowland]

What Ocean's 13 lacks in entertainment value, it sure makes up in endless exposition. Terrible, I finally gave up after about an hour.Yes, it really is a dull, endlessly talky movie. How anyone can like it more than the first two is beyond me.

[Rowland]

Millennium Actress wasn't about the specifics of the love story between the actress and her shadow man, but the romanticism of cinema on a historical level. Maybe it's not as cool as Paprika, which has all that surreal business going on, but it's still astonishing and hauntingly beautiful. Millennium Actress has the most emotional resonance of any Kon I've seen.

[Rowland]

Deep Water is the best documentary I've seen this year. Consider it highly recommended.

[Melville]

Millennium Actress wasn't about the specifics of the love story between the actress and her shadow man, but the romanticism of cinema on a historical level. Maybe it's not as cool as Paprika, which has all that surreal business going on, but it's still astonishing and hauntingly beautiful. Millennium Actress has the most emotional resonance of any Kon I've seen.
But it would have worked a lot better (for me) if the romanticism of cinema on a historical level had been more varied and nuanced (which would have simultaneously made the actress's undying love more resonant). Still, I agree it had some beautiful scenes. I especially liked the scene where the young girl throws snow balls at a wall, which had an awesome, melancholy wintry atmosphere.

[Grouchy]

Wow, it might've entered insanity land, but I love that a Sunset Blvd. discussion like that one can actually take place, because it means the forums, at least 2% of the time, are not complete time-wasters. That was a pretty educational argument between you two guys.

I haven't got much to add, except that I don't think the point was if Gilles was an unreliable narrator or not - he's probably not, and that's deviating from the issue. My humble opinion is that at least the complexity and duality of the movie can't be denied.

[Rowland]

But it would have worked a lot better (for me) if the romanticism of cinema on a historical level had been more varied and nuanced (which would have simultaneously made the actress's undying love more resonant). Still, I agree it had some beautiful scenes. I especially liked the scene where the young girl throws snow balls at a wall, which had an awesome, melancholy wintry atmosphere.I think it's plenty nuanced. I was certainly oversimplifying it with that statement, though that is how I perceive the essence of the movie. I'd have to see it again to go in-depth, since it has been a few years. Still, there are political and cultural connotations as well IIRC, and a lot of the passion and nuance is expressed through Kon's visual storytelling, which is boundlessly witty and humanistic.

[Raiders]

WEEKEND!

Warm Water Under a Red Bridge
Juno
The Namesake

[Mr. Valentine]

Mighty Morphin Power Rangers: The Movie is one of the most atrocious things I've ever seen.

i remember seeing that in theaters and yes it is atrocious but also awesome.

[chrisnu]

Weekend:

A re-watch of Paprika
There Will Be Blood
Atonement

[Kurosawa Fan]

Weekend:

The Hole (film swap)

That's probably all. We have our friends up from Chicago, plus my wife's birthday is Saturday, so I'm pretty booked.

[Melville]

I haven't got much to add, except that I don't think the point was if Gilles was an unreliable narrator or not - he's probably not, and that's deviating from the issue. My humble opinion is that at least the complexity and duality of the movie can't be denied.
Well, it only took me a couple thousand words to say the same thing.:)

[Rowland]

Weekend:

The Savages
The Screwfly Solution
Revolver
Flanders
Zoo

[Ezee E]

Weekend:

There Will Be Blood
AvP: Requiem
Sweeney Todd

Cabaret
Interview
whatever else Netflix sends

[Ivan Drago]

Mighty Morphin Power Rangers: The Movie is one of the most atrocious things I've ever seen.

Come on. Any movie that uses Dreams by Van Halen is deemed awesome.

[Mal]

weekend
Le Samourai
Howl's Moving Castle
Band of Outsiders (i'll really watch it this time)

[Boner M]

w/e:

I'm Not There
The Darjeeling Limited
Regular Lovers
If...
Spirit of the Beehive
Design For Living
The River (Tsai)

[baby doll]

Sorry to only quote this short sentence, but I do not think at all that she's one of the most exciting filmmakers on the planet right now, because she only made 2 films, the last one being in 2004 and I would have mentioned instead Lisandro Alonso, another Argentinian filmmaker, far more interesting and definitely a very promising great director to follow.She's only made two films, but the two films were La Ciénaga and The Holy Girl which aren't anything to sneeze at. I haven't seen any of Alonso's films, but I'll definitely check them out when I get a chance to.

[MacGuffin]

Has anybody seen The Skywalk Is Gone, and is it good? It's on the Goodbye Dragon Inn DVD, right?

[baby doll]

Has anybody seen The Skywalk Is Gone, and is it good? It's on the Goodbye Dragon Inn DVD, right?It's okay. Don't expect it to be a masterpiece or anything.

[baby doll]

Weekend:

AtonementDon't do it, man!

[Duncan]

w/e:
Spirit of the Beehive
:pritch:

First (and last?) time I've ever used that smilie.

Weekend:
Tokyo Twilight
Late Autumn
Charlie Wilson's War
Y Tu Mama Tambien

...but probably not really.

[soitgoes...]

Weekend:
Offside
Eastern Promises
Some other stuff. Those are the only definites.

[baby doll]

It wasn't until reading Michael Atkinson's review of The Kite Runner that it hit me: the actor who plays the father is the dude from Taste of Cherry. I wonder if it was the beard, or how completely different the two films are that caused me not to recognize him?

[jamaul]

Jonathan Rosenbaum is retiring from the Chicago Reader in February. :(

http://www.timeout.com/chicago/blog/out-and-about/?p=3482

[baby doll]

Jonathan Rosenbaum is retiring from the Chicago Reader in February. :(

http://www.timeout.com/chicago/blog/out-and-about/?p=3482Does that mean there's a job opening at the Chicago Reader? (Whips out resume.)

[Stay Puft]

Has anybody seen The Skywalk Is Gone, and is it good? It's on the Goodbye Dragon Inn DVD, right?

Haven't watched it, but yes, it's on the Goodbye Dragon Inn DVD.

I've actually been trying to watch Tsai's films in order, as best I can, starting with Rebels of the Neon God and Vive L'Amour (I haven't been able to find anything earlier). I have access to most of his other films, so I'm just waiting for a copy of The River (which should be here this week) before I continue.

I realize this project is arbitrary, but it has also been a good excuse to not watch more Tsai films until I could emotionally cope with Vive L'Amour, which I saw a couple months ago and which made me feel terribly depressed.

[chrisnu]

Don't do it, man!
I really enjoyed Pride & Prejudice, so I figured I'd see this as well. I have intentionally not been keeping up with the reviews.

[Mal]

Wriscutters : A Love Story lets itself run with the quirky possibilities of a world made for successfully suicidal folk- while its not the most imaginative story, focusing on lost love via road trip, the journey doesn't try and be anything other than the strange trip it is for the main character Zia (Patrick Fugit, playing the right level of broody gloom). Shannyn Sossamon and Tom Waits show up, just adding more enjoyment to the dead reality of the bleak environment. The ending was just perfect enough for me to let out an "awwww" over it, even when the film itself wasn't as good as the performances.

[Li Lili]

Has anybody seen The Skywalk Is Gone, and is it good? It's on the Goodbye Dragon Inn DVD, right?
Yes I saw it, of course it's good! It's a short, it goes well with Goodbye Dragon Inn but it's more related to What Time is it There? as it's a following or a continuity of this film.

[Li Lili]

Haven't watched it, but yes, it's on the Goodbye Dragon Inn DVD.

I've actually been trying to watch Tsai's films in order, as best I can, starting with Rebels of the Neon God and Vive L'Amour (I haven't been able to find anything earlier). I have access to most of his other films, so I'm just waiting for a copy of The River (which should be here this week) before I continue.

I realize this project is arbitrary, but it has also been a good excuse to not watch more Tsai films until I could emotionally cope with Vive L'Amour, which I saw a couple months ago and which made me feel terribly depressed.
Vive L'Amour! is my favourite, the last scene is unforgettable.

[Li Lili]

She's only made two films, but the two films were La Ciénaga and The Holy Girl which aren't anything to sneeze at. I haven't seen any of Alonso's films, but I'll definitely check them out when I get a chance to.
Yes, I know. I saw those two when they came out. I particularly think that La Cienaga is better, I still remember the opening scene which was very well directed.
Lisandro Alonso's films are more radical : raw, real, minimalist in a sense that there are no dialogue, no professional actors, no much narrative, no music... I highly recommend them, La Libertad and Los Muertos (here also the opening scene is amazing), both set in natural environment (La Pampa in Libertad, Parana River in Los Muertos). Unfortunately I still haven't seen Fantasma, which apparently has to be seen if you have already seen his 2 previous films.

[baby doll]

I really enjoyed Pride & Prejudice, so I figured I'd see this as well. I have intentionally not been keeping up with the reviews.I didn't see Pride and Prejudice, but it was my last day in Toronto for moviegoing, so I decided to see a bunch of stuff and hopefully something would surprise me (nothing did). I didn't follow the reviews either, but when I checked some out after seeing the movie, I was surprised to find myself more or less in complete agreement with A.O. Scott (except I liked the score).

[Sven]

Weekend:

I've already got tickets to see Give a Girl a Break and All That Jazz at the Walter Reade. I. Can't. Wait. I haven't been this excited for a double feature since ever.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Weekend
The Flowers of St. Francis
Samurai Assassin
Sweeney Todd
Others probably

[Sven]

Hey soori, too bad you're not in NYC because Film Forum is about to run a 23 film retrospective of Preminger. Too bad I think he's overrated or I'd be excited! :P

I might try to catch a few.

[Boner M]

Hey soori, too bad you're not in NYC because Film Forum is about to run a 23 film retrospective of Preminger. Too bad I think he's overrated or I'd be excited! :P

I might try to catch a few.
Daisy Kenyon is supposed to be amazing, I'd try and check that one out.

[Raiders]

Hey soori, too bad you're not in NYC because Film Forum is about to run a 23 film retrospective of Preminger. Too bad I think he's overrated or I'd be excited! :P

I might try to catch a few.

I'd recommend the underrated Bonjour tristesse, but you'd probably dislike it anyway.

[Li Lili]

I watched Translyvania by Tony Gatlif, anyone have seen it ?
I'm not surprised that Asia Argento plays in it.
Years ago I saw Gadjo dilo (so long ago, I hardly remember anything). This week-end I will watch Exiles.

[Sven]

Daisy Kenyon is supposed to be amazing, I'd try and check that one out.

It's playing on a double bill with Laura, which I've already seen (and didn't quite understand what was so great about it). Plus, I will be 2000 miles away that day. Sadly.


I'd recommend the underrated Bonjour tristesse, but you'd probably dislike it anyway.

Actually, that one does sound interesting, and I do like the Niven. Any reason you think I'd hate it? Because I'm not adverse to seeing more from Preminger, as I did quite like Anatomy of a Murder, and Advise and Consent, while more of the same, was watchable.

I think I'm definitely going to try to get in a double bill of Angel Face and Fallen Angel. Anyone seen either of these?

[Raiders]

Actually, that one does sound interesting, and I do like the Niven. Any reason you think I'd hate it?

Not really. Just that I love it. I hope you do see it. Either way, it'd be nice to have someone to discuss it with.


I think I'm definitely going to try to get in a double bill of Angel Face and Fallen Angel. Anyone seen either of these?

I have seen Angel Face, but if you're not much for Laura I'm not sure I can really recommend it. Still, it is worth checking out.

[Rowland]

I imagine he suspects you'd hate Bonjour Tristesse because its lead is a bratty teenage girl. I dug it as well, so I recommend it too.

[Raiders]

I imagine he suspects you'd hate Bonjour Tristesse because its lead is a bratty teenage girl.

Heh. That too.

[Yxklyx]

It's playing on a double bill with Laura, which I've already seen (and didn't quite understand what was so great about it). Plus, I will be 2000 miles away that day. Sadly.



Actually, that one does sound interesting, and I do like the Niven. Any reason you think I'd hate it? Because I'm not adverse to seeing more from Preminger, as I did quite like Anatomy of a Murder, and Advise and Consent, while more of the same, was watchable.

I think I'm definitely going to try to get in a double bill of Angel Face and Fallen Angel. Anyone seen either of these?

Fallen Angel is better than Laura (though that's not a tall order).

Mike D'Angelo gave Daisy Kenyon some astronomical value. I think something similar to his 0 given to Elephant is at work here. IMDB shows it at only 6.6 with 213 votes and those are probably mostly from Preminger fan boys as well - but perhaps Mr. D'Angelo noticed something the others didn't...

My favorites are Where the Sidewalk Ends and The Man with the Golden Arm.

That Niven flick is very very meh.

[Qrazy]

Aliens is not, in fact, the best film in the Alien motion picture trilogy. In that respect your opinion is incorrect, transmogrifier.

Actually everything in that post except Empire Strikes Back being the best seems wrong to me.

[transmogrifier]

Actually everything in that post except Empire Strikes Back being the best seems wrong to me.

I assume you chose your screen name for a reason.

[megladon8]

Upon a second viewing, I think I'd be hard-pressed to find a film more heart-warming and, dare I say, life-affirming than Ratatouille this year.

The first time I saw it in the theatre, I took it as a beautiful story of a rat realizing his dreams of becoming a cook and how food can bring us all together in such incredible ways.

This second viewing gave me a lot more. It almost feels like an allegory for the success of Pixar. There's so much symbolism in there with regards to their beginnings - how Disney had begun to "sell out" and lose the magic they once had. Along come these guys with ideas for 3-D animated movies and they're practically laughed at, especially by critics and the fans of traditional animation who are frightened by this new idea. Then their films come out and they turn out to be a return to the magic that Disney once had, pleasing fans old and new alike, all because these "new guys" had both an appreciation for the magic of the old films, and an understanding that times are changing.

A wonderful movie, and definitely Pixar's best so far.

[transmogrifier]

The discussion champions:

Rowland 403
Qrazy 306
Sycophant 176
Spinal 155
iosos 150
Philosophe_rouge 143
fasozupow 140
Raiders 132
Boner M 127
Watashi 126

[Qrazy]

I assume you chose your screen name for a reason.

'In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane.' - Wilde

[Qrazy]

A wonderful movie, and definitely Pixar's best so far.

Ehh, I'd say about middle of the pack.

[BirdsAteMyFace]

Weekend:

Wristcutters: A Love Story
Before the Devil Knows You're Dead
La Vie en Rose

[Melville]

The discussion champions:

Rowland 403
Qrazy 306
Sycophant 176
Spinal 155
iosos 150
Philosophe_rouge 143
fasozupow 140
Raiders 132
Boner M 127
Watashi 126
I demand a recount based on number of words rather than number of posts. My post on Sunset Blvd. alone should put me in the lead.

[Qrazy]

I demand a recount based on number of words rather than number of posts. My post on Sunset Blvd. alone should put me in the lead.

Don't be a sore loser.

[Qrazy]

Thoughts on Soderbergh's King of the Hill? I found it to be pretty average... although the scene where he eats magazine clippings made me realize that I'd actually seen the film before, or at least this scene.

Gonna check out The Limey, Out of Sight and Solaris sometime soon... is other more recent efforts have no real appeal for me... although I've heard a bit of positive buzz on Bubble overall.

[Sven]

Gonna check out The Limey, Out of Sight and Solaris sometime soon... is other more recent efforts have no real appeal for me... although I've heard a bit of positive buzz on Bubble overall.

Bubble is easily his worst film. Terrible, pandering nonsense.

The Limey is real cool, though I'm afraid it's a little too hip in its elliptical style. It comes off as semi-meaningless. Out of Sight, I should see again, but I recall standard cool-crime-caper flick. Solaris is one of his best, though I've grown colder on him overall so I don't know how much I'd like it if I watched it again.

[Melville]

Don't be a sore loser.
:P
It actually took me a minute to figure out what those numbers meant. At first I thought maybe trans had devised an elaborate method of scoring people's discussion skills.


Thoughts on Soderbergh's King of the Hill? I found it to be pretty average... although the scene where he eats magazine clippings made me realize that I'd actually seen the film before, or at least this scene.

Gonna check out The Limey, Out of Sight and Solaris sometime soon... is other more recent efforts have no real appeal for me... although I've heard a bit of positive buzz on Bubble overall.
I've never seen King of the Hill, but the other four are all good-but-not-great.

[Raiders]

I would rank King of the Hill up there with Out of Sight and The Limey.

[Philosophe_rouge]

After a string of really meh films (Pretty Persuasion, Eternal Love, and a few others that I'm just forgetting) I've been won over by my first Rosselini, The Flowers of St. Francis. It did take me a while to get into it, I honestly find films centered on religion impenetrable most of the time... this one though was so human and sincere I couldn't help falling in love with the characters. I don't think I've ever seen a film about a saint that portrays them with as much humility as this, it's funny, real and affirming. The chapter where St. Francis encounters the Leper, as well as the films finale are probably my favourite moments. Really just an all around lovely film.

[transmogrifier]

:P
It actually took me a minute to figure out what those numbers meant. At first I thought maybe trans had devised an elaborate method of scoring people's discussion skills.



Nah, I'm not doing lists anymore.





Until I think of a good one.

[transmogrifier]

A wonderful movie, and definitely Pixar's best so far.

*counts on fingers*

Nah, 7th best.

[Boner M]

Mission statement, trans. Remember.

[transmogrifier]

Mission statement, trans. Remember.

Oh yeah. There's nothing wrong with 7th place though. Seven is a lucky number, after all.

[monolith94]

After a string of really meh films (Pretty Persuasion, Eternal Love, and a few others that I'm just forgetting) I've been won over by my first Rosselini, The Flowers of St. Francis. It did take me a while to get into it, I honestly find films centered on religion impenetrable most of the time... this one though was so human and sincere I couldn't help falling in love with the characters. I don't think I've ever seen a film about a saint that portrays them with as much humility as this, it's funny, real and affirming. The chapter where St. Francis encounters the Leper, as well as the films finale are probably my favourite moments. Really just an all around lovely film.
My favorite sequence was the one where that monk has to deal with the evil warlord.

[Philosophe_rouge]

My favorite sequence was the one where that monk has to deal with the evil warlord.
That was my third favourite :P. It was deliciously fun, and yet strangely frightening. The warlord had an incredible face, and I love how their meeting in the tent is completely wordless... works in context of what St. Francis told him, but also makes for a great comedy routine.

[megladon8]

Eastern Promises was good, but a little disappointing - mostly just due to its lack of Cronenberg-ness.

I have to ask - does anyone know if Naomi Watts' character was supposed to be seen as incredibly stupid, or did she just come across that way due to poor writing? Because man-oh-man...I wanted to smack some sense into her many times.

It was good. Better than the average crime thriller, but not by much, and there's definitely better out there, especially from Cronenberg.

[Sxottlan]

I wasn't expecting much from Hot Rod, but was pleasantly surprised by it. The main character is a bit of an idiot, but all the characters are portrayed warmly and the humor was wonderfully absurd and at times surreal ("Cool beans!"). What snippets I've seen of Adam Sandberg's stuff on SNL and online hinted at the possibility that I'd like his sense of humor and it did not disappoint.

I could see it having a long life on DVD and television ala Adam Sandler's earlier, and funnier, films or Ferrell's movies.

[Bosco B Thug]

I have to ask - does anyone know if Naomi Watts' character was supposed to be seen as incredibly stupid, or did she just come across that way due to poor writing? Because man-oh-man...I wanted to smack some sense into her many times. Hmmm... I'd say it's certainly implicit in the movie's tone. I remember lots of goofy close-up shots of Anna's cute "Gee thanks!" or "Good day, I said, good day to you, sir!" face. Cronenberg totally wanted to have her riding on her looks a li'l, the film being all about a "man's world."

Watched John Carney's Once. Pleasant, engaging music, characters downtrodden in a subdued but still affecting way, and there's a refreshing maturity in how they weigh their options and convictions, but otherwise... meh? Not sure I find much to take away from this one. And have I mentioned I hate musical montage?

[Ezee E]

Watched John Carney's Once. Pleasant, engaging music, characters downtrodden in a subdued but still affecting way, and there's a refreshing maturity in how they weigh their options and convictions, but otherwise... meh? Not sure I find much to take away from this one. And have I mentioned I hate musical montage?

YES! Someone agrees.

[DSNT]

YES! Someone agrees.
And someone else agrees! I thought I was the lone dissenter.

[Benny Profane]

And someone else agrees! I thought I was the lone dissenter.

I really thought I was the only one. I saw it on sneak preview, hated it, thought everyone else would too, and was shocked at the overwhelmingly positive response.

[Spinal]

Break it up in here.

[Raiders]

You all have no soul.

[Rowland]

I wasn't expecting much from Hot Rod, but was pleasantly surprised by it. The main character is a bit of an idiot, but all the characters are portrayed warmly and the humor was wonderfully absurd and at times surreal ("Cool beans!"). What snippets I've seen of Adam Sandberg's stuff on SNL and online hinted at the possibility that I'd like his sense of humor and it did not disappoint.

I could see it having a long life on DVD and television ala Adam Sandler's earlier, and funnier, films or Ferrell's movies.This didn't really do anything for me. It's the same formula that all SNLers follow when they go into movies. Billy Madison-redux, basically. All of the '80s stuff was dated too, though the music and the stereotypical crazy Asian guy made me laugh.

[monolith94]

That was my third favourite :P. It was deliciously fun, and yet strangely frightening. The warlord had an incredible face, and I love how their meeting in the tent is completely wordless... works in context of what St. Francis told him, but also makes for a great comedy routine.
I think it's my favorite, because to me it feels a little bit like Andrei Rublev in that it really takes you back to that time and place. The brutality, the dirtiness, the inelegance. You can forget totally that they're just artists making a film. It's a visceral sequence to me.

[Sycophant]

The limp musical numbers in You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown (not to include the title song, mind you) really drag the picture down (as well as some strangely over-emotional voice acting), but otherwise, there are some positively sublime moments. Despite my love of Schulz's writing, most of the great moments in the movie are wordless.

I'm on a major Schulz kick at the moment.

[number8]

The spirit of music is evidently not in Match Cut.

[Ivan Drago]

Forgive me if this is a stupid question, but I'm going into film criticism, and so this has came to mind.

I have learned what to look for when analyzing a movie critically, and one of these things I have to do is analyze the subtext. But my question is, what makes the subtext in a movie good or bad? Is it personal preference or something else entirely?

[jesse]

w/e:

The Darjeeling Limited
Regular Lovers
Spirit of the Beehive Damn, you're in for quite a weekend.

And I find myself liking I'm Not There less and less every day, but I'll be interested to see your take on it.

[baby doll]

Hey soori, too bad you're not in NYC because Film Forum is about to run a 23 film retrospective of Preminger. Too bad I think he's overrated or I'd be excited! :P

I might try to catch a few.I've been dying to see some of his late period films (1965-on), since they're supposed to be batshit crazy.

[Ezee E]

Forgive me if this is a stupid question, but I'm going into film criticism, and so this has came to mind.

I have learned what to look for when analyzing a movie critically, and one of these things I have to do is analyze the subtext. But my question is, what makes the subtext in a movie good or bad? Is it personal preference or something else entirely?
Personal preference. The better you state your opinion, the less anyone can argue against you pretty much.

[origami_mustache]

I saw Walk Hard for some God forsaken reason...it is quite possibly the worst thing I've ever seen. If Anchorman is a feature length SNL skit, then Walk Hard is a feature length Mad TV skit.

[Ivan Drago]

Personal preference. The better you state your opinion, the less anyone can argue against you pretty much.

Cool. But now the problem is, I don't know what my personal preference is. What's your preference on subtext, just so I can get an idea of what elements there are to look for in subtext?

[Ezee E]

Cool. But now the problem is, I don't know what my personal preference is. What's your preference on subtext, just so I can get an idea of what elements there are to look for in subtext?
? Different for every movie really. Subtext isn't the biggest thing that I'm looking for.

[Sycophant]

I saw Walk Hard for some God forsaken reason...it is quite possibly the worst thing I've ever seen. If Anchorman is a feature length SNL skit, then Walk Hard is a feature length Mad TV skit.Really? Was there nothing here that struck you as funny? The film is deeply flawed, sure, but I think some of its jokes worked great, and I ultimately liked it, despite some frustration. Modern parody films rarely engage in stylistic emulation so successfully.

[Ivan Drago]

? Different for every movie really. Subtext isn't the biggest thing that I'm looking for.

Oh, okay. Thanks for the help man.

Now I ponder what my personal preference of subtext is...

[origami_mustache]

Really? Was there nothing here that struck you as funny? The film is deeply flawed, sure, but I think some of its jokes worked great, and I ultimately liked it, despite some frustration. Modern parody films rarely engage in stylistic emulation so successfully.

Nothing really made me laugh. I just wanted it to end. The Bob Dylan and Brian Wilson parody scenes were mildly amusing. The premise was decent in my opinion with a lot of potential for good parody, but I felt the direction of the humor was more broad and slapstick than clever.

[Bosco B Thug]

YES! Someone agrees.
And someone else agrees! I thought I was the lone dissenter.
I really thought I was the only one. I saw it on sneak preview, hated it, thought everyone else would too, and was shocked at the overwhelmingly positive response. :pritch:


Break it up in here.


You all have no soul.


The spirit of music is evidently not in Match Cut. Hey, I liked it, I gave it .5 more than Zombie's Halloween remake, and remember how stirring that film's use of "Love Hurts" was?

[Rowland]

Now I ponder what my personal preference of subtext is...If you intend to take criticism seriously, you shouldn't judge movies on some personal preference for what the subtext should be that you've already decided upon before seeing the movie. That's absurd.

First things first, it sounds like you have some learning to do.

[jesse]

That was my third favourite :P. It was deliciously fun, and yet strangely frightening. The warlord had an incredible face, and I love how their meeting in the tent is completely wordless... works in context of what St. Francis told him, but also makes for a great comedy routine. Did you watch the interview with Isabella Rossellini on the Criterion disc? She seems to be a wonderfully perceptive critic of her father's work, and I thought she was right on the money when she said that sequence was the most blatant intersection between her father and screenwriter Federico Fellini's signature styles, a mix of Rossellini's realism and Fellini's flamboyance.

I liked the film, but I really don't remember much about it anymore. And it wasn't that long ago that I watched it...

[Qrazy]

Forgive me if this is a stupid question, but I'm going into film criticism, and so this has came to mind.

I have learned what to look for when analyzing a movie critically, and one of these things I have to do is analyze the subtext. But my question is, what makes the subtext in a movie good or bad? Is it personal preference or something else entirely?

Subtext is what the movie is really about... under the veneer of narrative, dialogue, etc. You should be asking yourself not what makes the subtext good or bad but whether or not it is functional. How well do elements of the subtext mesh with the overall tone of the film and how well do elements of subtext mesh with other elements of subtext. Some films completely contradict themselves either tonally or thematically, and at times this is both intentional and a major component of the work.

Now, there are different ways of coming to understand subtext. And often interpretation transmutes the 'latent subtext' (I describe it this way because subtext in art is often metaphorical and can be interpreted in many different ways) into an 'interpreted subtext'. So, if you review the film from a political slant, or a psychological slant or a formalist/structuralist slant... you will take the film's latent subtext and turn it into a variety of different interpretations of it's subtext. This is not to say that the subtext is endlessly malleable. The subtext can be conceived of in many different ways, but not an infinite number of ways, or the interpretation loses all meaning.

Once you have your 'interpreted subtext' and have checked to see if the film's themes are coherent and to some degree congruent... you can then pass judgment on the subtext if you wish to, based on personal political bias or aesthetic bias. If you think for instance, a film's brown and yellow palette, although perhaps thematically/subtextually effective, makes the film resemble the nether realm of a cow's arse... which makes it unwatchable and therefore subtextually irrelevant... you may certainly say so. Or if the film espouses anarchist, communist, (insert other political ideology here), beliefs which you find reprehensible, you may certainly say this as well. However, when making these kind of value judgments, it's crucial to ask yourself how important the element of subtext you dislike is to the entire film and whether or not you're letting your personal biases get in the way of an otherwise fulfilling cinematic/artistic experience.

[jesse]

If you intend to take criticism seriously, you shouldn't judge movies on some personal preference for what the subtext should be that you've already decided upon before seeing the movie. That's absurd.

First things first, it sounds like you have some learning to do. Yeah, I was going to say the same thing. I don't think it's nearly much about what the subtext is, but how it is dealt with in the film. And I don't know a way learning that... watching lots of movies, reading lots of good film criticism and film theory, practicing one's own writing? Because in criticism--as in all writing and analysis--there's not a "right" or a "wrong" answer and interpretation, it's how good the the explanation is.

[Rowland]

Speaking of subtext, I just saw The Savages, which was alright, but severely undermined by how blatantly self-conscious and patronizingly pretentious its subtext was. Yeesh.

[origami_mustache]

Speaking of subtext, I just saw The Savages, which was alright, but severely undermined by how blatantly self-conscious and patronizingly pretentious its subtext was. Yeesh.

Yeah, that was my biggest problem with the film. On top of that, the characters go as far as to point out symbolism themselves at times.

[Melville]

And I find myself liking I'm Not There less and less every day, but I'll be interested to see your take on it.
I'm glad I'm not the only one. Did you read my thoughts in the I'm Not There thread?

[Rowland]

Yeah, that was my biggest problem with the film. On top of that, the characters go as far as to point out symbolism themselves at times.Yep, that was the self-conscious part I was referencing. It's a good thing Linney and Hoffman were there to pick up the slack.

[Sven]

I think one can morally or ethically oppose what the subtext is communicating and thereby call it "bad" or "wrong". To strip subjective moral response to film and gauge it simply on its own hermetic reality (film as moral vacuum), if such a thing exists (which it doesn't), is probably immature and counterproductive to communication at large.

In other words, I can hate The Matrix because I think its subtext of alienated humans rebelling against an oppressive force, rationalizing the destruction of innocent lives for an imperceivable greater good, is stupid. And wrong (morally).

[Duncan]

I agree with iosos. I generally make a point of judging things morally before I judge them aesthetically. I don't see anything wrong with having subtextual preferences. Some ideas simply interest me more than others. Some ideas I find ethically reprehensible, and I see nothing wrong with criticizing a film for propagating those ideas.

[Melville]

In other words, I can hate The Matrix because I think its subtext of alienated humans rebelling against an oppressive force, rationalizing the destruction of innocent lives for an imperceivable greater good, is stupid. And wrong (morally).
Oh, let me on board for that. Especially since there is no difference between the Matrix and the "real" world. (Although the third film kind of admits to that in the end. Still, those movies both suck and blow.)

[jesse]

I think one can morally or ethically oppose what the subtext is communicating and thereby call it "bad" or "wrong". To strip subjective moral response to film and gauge it simply on its own hermetic reality (film as moral vacuum), if such a thing exists (which it doesn't), is probably immature and counterproductive to communication at large.

In other words, I can hate The Matrix because I think its subtext of alienated humans rebelling against an oppressive force, rationalizing the destruction of innocent lives for an imperceivable greater good, is stupid. And wrong (morally). Is this a response to my comment? Because I don't think I said anything that disagrees with this. I don't care what stance you take, just make sure that you explain it to me and I can see where you're coming from.

[jesse]

I'm glad I'm not the only one. Did you read my thoughts in the I'm Not There thread? I think I might have, but I'll take a look again to make sure.

[Qrazy]

I think the Matrix example is actually an excellent example to talk about in relation to subtext... I'd like to draw the distinction that I don't think that it is either inherently wrong of the film's characters to sacrifice innocents for the 'greater good' or even 'morally' wrong for the script to have them do so. However, I do agree that it is a failing of the script (in so far as it purports to be anything more than pulp) not to have spent more time addressing the moral issues and consequences at play here. The script did to a certain degree... Cypher citing Morpheus' condescension, etc... but really the problem here I think is a genre problem. It would have been much more interesting if Cypher and the agents weren't portrayed stylistically as the villians vs. the heroes, but as just people... and machines...

Or perhaps there could have been an AWAM (anti-war against machines) group somewhere in Zion... picketing the council chambers with pleas for peace. Stop the madness! No more innocent deaths!

[Ivan Drago]

Subtext is what the movie is really about... under the veneer of narrative, dialogue, etc. You should be asking yourself not what makes the subtext good or bad but whether or not it is functional. How well do elements of the subtext mesh with the overall tone of the film and how well do elements of subtext mesh with other elements of subtext. Some films completely contradict themselves either tonally or thematically, and at times this is both intentional and a major component of the work.

Now, there are different ways of coming to understand subtext. And often interpretation transmutes the 'latent subtext' (I describe it this way because subtext in art is often metaphorical and can be interpreted in many different ways) into an 'interpreted subtext'. So, if you review the film from a political slant, or a psychological slant or a formalist/structuralist slant... you will take the film's latent subtext and turn it into a variety of different interpretations of it's subtext. This is not to say that the subtext is endlessly malleable. The subtext can be conceived of in many different ways, but not an infinite number of ways, or the interpretation loses all meaning.

Once you have your 'interpreted subtext' and have checked to see if the film's themes are coherent and to some degree congruent... you can then pass judgment on the subtext if you wish to, based on personal political bias or aesthetic bias. If you think for instance, a film's brown and yellow palette, although perhaps thematically/subtextually effective, makes the film resemble the nether realm of a cow's arse... which makes it unwatchable and therefore subtextually irrelevant... you may certainly say so. Or if the film espouses anarchist, communist, (insert other political ideology here), beliefs which you find reprehensible, you may certainly say this as well. However, when making these kind of value judgments, it's crucial to ask yourself how important the element of subtext you dislike is to the entire film and whether or not you're letting your personal biases get in the way of an otherwise fulfilling cinematic/artistic experience.

Thanks a bunch, man! This helped a lot. :)

[Qrazy]

Thanks a bunch, man! This helped a lot. :)

My pleasure.

[Li Lili]

I'm very surprised that here no one has ever seen a film by Tony Gatlif, or even heard about him!
Anyway, I'll watch Exiles surely this week-end. I think it should be better than Transylvania, even if I like certain aspects of the film (not the music funnily enough but the landscape, this road-movie mood, and some of the characters, especially the leading actor).
I've just watched Alexandra by Aleksandr Sokurov and, I'm rather mixed about it, I think it's mainly because the old lady carries too much symbols : symbol of all mothers, of Russia, she almost could even symbolize in a religious aspect, Virgin Mary. But also I'm not too sure if it seems very appropriate with the context of Chechnya...

[Sycophant]

My weekend?

Love Actually
Tokyo Story
Starship Troopers
Unfaithfully Yours

But those are just guesses.

[DSNT]

My weekend:

I'm Not There
Eastern Promises
This Is England

And maybe one of the oldies from the DVR queue.

[Philosophe_rouge]

My weekend?

Love Actually
Tokyo Story
Starship Troopers
Unfaithfully Yours

But those are just guesses.
I hope you enjoy Unfaithfully Yours whenever you get around to seeing it, my second favourite Sturges film:)

[Sycophant]

I hope you enjoy Unfaithfully Yours whenever you get around to seeing it, my second favourite Sturges film:)Awesome! I'm really eager to see this one.

What's your favorite favorite Sturges, then?

[transmogrifier]

My weekend?

Love Actually


Why? For the love of God, why??!!??

[Sycophant]

Why? For the love of God, why??!!??It ended up in my Netflix queue and is sitting on my desk at home. Beyond that, I don't really know.

(Though someone over at the House Next Door recently posted a lengthy love letter to it... I didn't read it in anticipation of watching it.)

[Ivan Drago]

Why? For the love of God, why??!!??

I like it. :|

[transmogrifier]

I like it. :|

Looking at your signature, it appears you like everything though.

;)

[Duncan]

Ozu's Tokyo Twilight was incredible. I love that his restrained technique also restrains the audience. I think this is a case where distance actually amplifies emotion. By stunting the effects of our empathy, Ozu makes us realize how tragic its absence is. There is perhaps one line that breaks this spell, and even Setsuko Hara can't salvage it, but I can forgive this misstep.

It's also filmed unlike any Ozu film that I've seen. It's set in the dead of winter, and the black and white photography has this silvery effect that makes the cold palpable. Especially in one scene where the younger daughter is confronted by a cop. He's sinister, and alien. It's as though she's in deep space. The bar is even called L'Etoile.

Definitely recommended, even to people who aren't fans of Ozu.

[Duncan]

It ended up in my Netflix queue and is sitting on my desk at home. Beyond that, I don't really know.

(Though someone over at the House Next Door recently posted a lengthy love letter to it... I didn't read it in anticipation of watching it.)

Maybe it's just that I'm on an Ozu kick, but if it comes down to choosing between that and Tokyo Story I really hope you make the right decision. Hint: Watch Tokyo Story.

[Sycophant]

Maybe it's just that I'm on an Ozu kick, but if it comes down to choosing between that and Tokyo Story I really hope you make the right decision. Hint: Watch Tokyo Story.They're both sitting at home and I'll watch both some time in the next week. :P Believe me, if I find out that I have 24 hours to live and one of those movies to watch, Tokyo Story wins.

I'm a little scared to approach Ozu. I've never seen any before, which at this point is ridiculous, and I'm excited and nervous, like on a first blind date with someone who's been talked up excessively by friends.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Awesome! I'm really eager to see this one.

What's your favorite favorite Sturges, then?

Sullivan's Travels still takes the cake for me, I think it's Veronica Lake...mmm..

[Sycophant]

Sullivan's Travels still takes the cake for me, I think it's Veronica Lake...mmm..:pritch:
At this point, I believe I agree.

[Mr. Valentine]

I like it. :|

i don't just like it, i love it. i've seen it three or 4 times and my wife hates the movie.

[transmogrifier]

i don't just like it, i love it. i've seen it three or 4 times and my wife hates the movie.

Props to your wife. My fiance is trying to get me to go to National Treasure 2.

:cry:

[Ivan Drago]

Looking at your signature, it appears you like everything though.

;)

I'm not gonna lie, I do that a lot. But what do you want me to do, rent Bratz and Underdog, and top the day off with a trip to see Alvin and the Chipmunks in the theater?

[Qrazy]

I'm not gonna lie, I do that a lot. But what do you want me to do, rent Bratz and Underdog, and top the day off with a trip to see Alvin and the Chipmunks in the theater?

You can start by not liking Superbad more than 2001. ;)


Speaking of Ozu, just watched Late Spring. I was underwhelmed.

[megladon8]

I'd rather like too much than dislike everything.

Some people are so critical I don't understand why they even bother watching movies.

[megladon8]

The Full Monty was alright. It honestly wasn't as funny as I expected. Some great scenes amid some fairly standard stuff.

Robert Carlyle's great, and I thought it had an inspired ending.

It was okay.

[Qrazy]

I'm very surprised that here no one has ever seen a film by Tony Gatlif, or even heard about him!

I share similar sentiments about Aleksei German.

[transmogrifier]

I'd rather like too much than dislike everything.

Some people are so critical I don't understand why they even bother watching movies.


I think someone is overreacting. I was just pointing out the random chance that the five films in his signature have high ratings. Just relax. There was no dig at you.

[megladon8]

I think someone is overreacting. I was just pointing out the random chance that the five films in his signature have high ratings. Just relax. There was no dig at you.


What? I wasn't implying there was any dig at me. My comment wasn't made sarcastically or as an attack in any way.

I was just giving my opinion. I find it easier and more appealing to talk to someone who has a broader range of "likes", than someone who likes very little.

That's all.

[transmogrifier]

What? I wasn't implying there was any dig at me. My comment wasn't made sarcastically or as an attack in any way.

I was just giving my opinion. I find it easier and more appealing to talk to someone who has a broader range of "likes", than someone who likes very little.

That's all.

But isn't it merely the flip-side of the same coin? How can you trust the opinion of someone who likes everything any more than someone you likes nothing?

I prefer reading Gonzalez from Slant than, say, Travers or Ebert, because non-stop praise tends to be repetitive, sugary and eventually desensitizing (I haven't read a full Ebert review in about two years, and I haven't read Travers in like, 3 or 4 years). A well-informed negative review has a lot more to discuss, has more room for humor, and by necessity needs to be better thought out.

[megladon8]

But isn't it merely the flip-side of the same coin? How can you trust the opinion of someone who likes everything any more than someone you likes nothing?

It's nothing about trusting opinions, it's more about the actual tone of the discussion.

People who hate everything tend to have a lot in common with the food critic Anton Ego from Ratatouille - it's almost like they dislike everything simply for the sake of disliking everything.

There was someone on the old board who once said "90% of films are crap."

Sorry if i sound naive saying this, but someone with that kind of attitude should really find a different hobby. Why would one continue to spend money and time on films when 90% of the time they are not even indifferent or disappointed, but think the films are "crap"?

I'd say someone who likes 90% of the films they see is in a much better boat.

[Sycophant]

Sorry if i sound naive saying this, but someone with that kind of attitude should really find a different hobby. Why would one continue to spend money and time on films when 90% of the time they are not even indifferent or disappointed, but think the films are "crap"?The 10% is that damned good.

[Yxklyx]

It's nothing about trusting opinions, it's more about the actual tone of the discussion.

People who hate everything tend to have a lot in common with the food critic Anton Ego from Ratatouille - it's almost like they dislike everything simply for the sake of disliking everything.

There was someone on the old board who once said "90% of films are crap."

Sorry if i sound naive saying this, but someone with that kind of attitude should really find a different hobby. Why would one continue to spend money and time on films when 90% of the time they are not even indifferent or disappointed, but think the films are "crap"?

I'd say someone who likes 90% of the films they see is in a much better boat.

I like 90% of the films I see but 90% of all films ARE crap.