28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[dreamdead]

Without reopening the old can o' worms, I too side with trans and Yxklyx. Most of the films released today (through Hollywood at least) are mediocre to much worse than that. That's not to say that there's not some diamonds in there. But the quantity is not parallel to the quality, and no one should blind themselves to thinking otherwise. Sure, we'll get stuck in a numbers game of 10-25% of films not being complete shite, but consider how many films from each decade you truly treasure. It's not like you'll think fondly on hundreds upon hundreds of films. There'll be 20-30 films that you'll treasure; the rest will likely fade unless a film's memory is stoked for whatever reason (discussion, rewatch, etc.). That 10-25% I really love are what keep me invested in the medium.

[Duncan]

I also think that the vast majority of films are pretty terrible. Or at least boring, not insightful, unoriginal, etc. But there is no other art form that speaks to me as intuitively as film does. Not music, novels, painting, sculpture, poetry, not anything. Whatever way my head is set up, film interacts best with it.

[Ivan Drago]

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

Superbad has became a personal favorite of mine, and the more I think of it, the more I love it. My thoughts are in the Superbad thread, but I can repost them here if you want.

And for some reason I got severe eye strain while watching 2001 a night or so ago. Maybe it's because I watched the overture, intermission, and the credits, in a dark room. That's not why I only gave it a 9.5, though.


There'll be 20-30 films that you'll treasure;

Each decade? Or all-time?


But the quantity is not parallel to the quality, and no one should blind themselves to thinking otherwise

I'm not thinking this way, even though my signature looks like I am. I'm just seeing what I want to see and avoid the crap.

[balmakboor]

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

Odd. That's one of those films that I constantly find myself returning to. I'm forever amazed by how film is such a strong example of "each to his own."

[monolith94]

I watched Blade Runner tonight. In a theater. It was a restored 35 mm print. :D

[Sycophant]

I like it. :|
Huh. Turns out I don't.

[Yxklyx]

Watched two films. Millenium Actress was very very good but it seemed to cater to a younger crowd what with the last line spelling everything out like that - whereas Ghost World treated things more subtly.

Weekend:

La Haine
Things I Never Told You

Is Four Rooms worth checking out?

[Rowland]

I don't believe 90% of movies are shit, or at least in regards to the sort of movies we'd actually watch. If I believed that, I wouldn't be watching as many as I do. In fact, I'll take that a step further and argue that Hollywood isn't much worse today than it's ever been. So long as you are remotely selective about what you watch, there are plenty of worthwhile movies released every year. Hell, a few decades from now, cineastes will look at all of the interesting movies released in the '00s and wonder what the hell everyone was whining about. As usual, most of the chaff will be forgotten.

[Rowland]

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.
Of course. I don't think anybody was arguing that. But you should still give a movie the chance to communicate to you on its own terms before you decide what you want it to be. It just sounded to me like Ivan was trying too hard to deduce a formula for how he should approach the subtext in movies, when what he really needs to do is shape this moral/philosophical subjectivity of his, which is the learning part I was talking about.

[Derek]

The thing is meg, these people who hate everything don't exist. As much shit as Nick gets, there's plenty of films he likes and when he writes, it's pretty clear he gets something from films he's not too hot on either. Show me someone who likes 90% of the films they see and I'll show you someone who's not picky and not thinking terribly hard about what they're watching. There's nothing inherently wrong about it - I think most of our family members and many friends are this way. But if I'm looking for someone's opinion and thoughts about films, personally I'm going to turn to someone with a more discerning eye and naturally, this is someone who is more aware of film's flaws as well as their strengths. I think you're forgetting about all the direct-to-DVD and unreleased indie garbage in your calculations. Seriously, go through a list of ALL the films released in a given year and easily 90% of them are likely crap. Fortunately, this is why we have film festivals, critics, etc. to thin out those 2,000+ releases to a more manageable intake and out of those hundred or so most of see, we're getting closer to the cream-of-the-crop. Now, if someone legitimately hates 90% of those, then I might agree they're being a little harsh. Anyway, this isn't really at you meg, just the tiresome straw man argument of the critics-that-hate-everything archetype that rarely exists.

In other news, There Will Be Blood confirms for me that Paul Thomas Anderson is the best working American director, bar none. The film and Day-Lewis's performance are head and shoulders above anything else released this year.

[Spinal]

Is Four Rooms worth checking out?

If you're trapped in an empty room with nothing but a DVD player and a copy of Four Rooms.

Otherwise ... probably not.

[soitgoes...]

I don't believe 90% of movies are shit, or at least in regards to the sort of movies we'd actually watch. If I believed that, I wouldn't be watching as many as I do. In fact, I'll take that a step further and argue that Hollywood isn't much worse today than it's ever been. So long as you are remotely selective about what you watch, there are plenty of worthwhile movies released every year. Hell, a few decades from now, cineastes will look at all of the interesting movies released in the '00s and wonder what the hell everyone was whining about. As usual, most of the chaff will be forgotten.
Exactly. Every year since the beginning of cinema, there has been more than enough crap. I'm pretty certain more films were released by year during the Golden Age of Hollywood than are now, but only a small percent are remembered. Why? Because for the most part the rest is crap.

[Boner M]

In other news, There Will Be Blood confirms for me that Paul Thomas Anderson is the best working American director, bar none. The film and Day-Lewis's performance are head and shoulders above anything else released this year.

There Will Be Blood (Anderson, 2007) 10.0
Holy crud! I've never seen a perfect 10 from you. I might as well reserve the #1 spot on my 2007 list for it. Just can't see myself having any other kind of reaction.

[MacGuffin]

I have the urge to revisit Finding Forrester, so I may watch that today. However, I did rent Charade, Elle est des nôtres, and Snake Eyes (the last of those is due for a necessary rewatch) from my local library, so we'll see what I feel like watching later on.

[Boner M]

On another note, I think the cheapjack beachside video store I work at has desensensitised me to quality cinema. I've actually seen I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry and Epic Movie against my own will (the former twice... in one day), and almost learned to not take offense to both of them, and I even described Deja Vu as "mindblowing" to a customer tonight. *showers with shame*

May pop in Regular Lovers or The River tonight and get my mojo working again.

[Boner M]

I have the urge to revisit Finding Forrester. So I may watch that tomorrow. However, I did rent Charade, Elle est des nôtres, and Snake Eyes (the last of those is due for a necessary rewatch) from my local library, so we'll see what I feel like watching later on.
Might wanna start a new thread for this.

[MacGuffin]

Might wanna start a new thread for this.

Why?

[Boner M]

Why?
SARRRRRRRRRRCASM!!!

[MacGuffin]

SARRRRRRRRRRCASM!!!

I don't get it.

[Boner M]

I don't get it.
What kind of captain are you?

[MacGuffin]

What kind of captain are you?

It's from Rushmore.

[soitgoes...]

Yikes.

[transmogrifier]

The thing is meg, these people who hate everything don't exist. As much shit as Nick gets, there's plenty of films he likes and when he writes, it's pretty clear he gets something from films he's not too hot on either. Show me someone who likes 90% of the films they see and I'll show you someone who's not picky and not thinking terribly hard about what they're watching. There's nothing inherently wrong about it - I think most of our family members and many friends are this way. But if I'm looking for someone's opinion and thoughts about films, personally I'm going to turn to someone with a more discerning eye and naturally, this is someone who is more aware of film's flaws as well as their strengths. I think you're forgetting about all the direct-to-DVD and unreleased indie garbage in your calculations. Seriously, go through a list of ALL the films released in a given year and easily 90% of them are likely crap. Fortunately, this is why we have film festivals, critics, etc. to thin out those 2,000+ releases to a more manageable intake and out of those hundred or so most of see, we're getting closer to the cream-of-the-crop. Now, if someone legitimately hates 90% of those, then I might agree they're being a little harsh. Anyway, this isn't really at you meg, just the tiresome straw man argument of the critics-that-hate-everything archetype that rarely exists.

In other news, There Will Be Blood confirms for me that Paul Thomas Anderson is the best working American director, bar none. The film and Day-Lewis's performance are head and shoulders above anything else released this year.


Everything in this post brings a little more clarity to our messed up corner of the universe.

[Li Lili]

I share similar sentiments about Aleksei German.
Ok.
Perhaps we can make a special thread in order to discover lesser known (or unknown) directors ?
I'm up for it.

[Qrazy]

Ok.
Perhaps we can make a special thread in order to discover lesser known (or unknown) directors ?
I'm up for it.

Do it up. It's surprising with the amount of films we all see that such directors exist, but poor or no distribution for so many foreign films makes it understandable.

I will echo that Four Rooms isn't really worth watching. One of the segments is terrible, the other three are semi-passable.

In terms of Late Spring, I really couldn't stand Noriko. I don't know if it was the actress or the character but her smile seemed so false to me... for a while I gave the film the benefit of the doubt and assumed that the character was meant to seem a bit haughty, condescending, etc... but even when the script called for her to be genuinely happy, I still found that her happiness did not seem genuine... and not on a level that revealed something about the character. The film kind of fell apart for me when I couldn't stand spending any time with the lead... and the falseness I felt in her did not play well off the whimsical tone of the rest of the film. The biking scene was also awful.

[Li Lili]

Do it up. It's surprising with the amount of films we all see that such directors exist, but poor or no distribution for so many foreign films makes it understandable.
ok I did (http://www.match-cut.org/showthread.php?t=342) it.
but I'm in a hurry, will come back to it when I have more time.

[Boner M]

Design For Living was delightful as expected, though I watched it through very tired eyes and kept feeling that there was some complexity to it that I was overlooking in favor of the ample surface delights it has to offer. First film where I've actually enjoyed Gary Cooper.

[monolith94]

Show me someone who likes 90% of the films they see and I'll show you someone who's not picky and not thinking terribly hard about what they're watching.


Have you seen my signature lately?

One of my chief goals as a human being is to studiously avoid crap. Why did you go see Dreamgirls? Why would you court danger like that?

[Boner M]

Have you seen my signature lately?

One of my chief goals as a human being is to studiously avoid crap. Why did you go see Dreamgirls? Why would you court danger like that?
But you often dislike/criticise films... it's just that their grade remains in the high zone regardless. ;)

[Ezee E]

But you often dislike/criticise films... it's just that their grade remains in the high zone regardless. ;)
Yeah. I'm starting to avoid certain movies on DVD at this point that I'm fairly sure I won't like. Back in the day, I'd rent almost anything out of curiosity if I missed it in the theater. Now, if I can't even watch the preview, I pretty much avoid it.

But I'm being hypocritical here, because I'm thinking of checking out The Kite Runner later today just because...

[Derek]

Have you seen my signature lately?

One of my chief goals as a human being is to studiously avoid crap. Why did you go see Dreamgirls? Why would you court danger like that?

There's nothing wrong with your signature. I think we all go through stretches of seeing a lot of great films. Now, if you give nothing less than a B+ to any film all year long, then maybe you'd need to rethink your rating scale. ;)

I saw Dreamgirls because my parents rented it. But what is the danger of watching bad films anyway? Why be a film buff if you're only going to limit your breadth of knowledge to legitimate classics and critically acclaimed films, while remaining completely ignorant of what the majority of the public is experiencing? To me, that's more elitist than being willing to sit through through and dislike many of them while also giving reasons to back up your opinions. Those are the kind of critics that make me feel like they have something at stake regarding cinema, that they understand it's power and potential and are thus left more disappointed when it's not properly utilized. Film, again for me, is more than simply about having a good time or being entertained and even with the worst atrocities, I usually end up learning something, good or bad, about the artform or my own approach to it. I don't see why anyone who appreciates films deserves to be told they should find a new hobby just because they don't like a majority of films they see. Then again, these are usually the same people that feel its much more than just a hobby in the first place.

[Yxklyx]

In terms of Late Spring, I really couldn't stand Noriko. I don't know if it was the actress or the character but her smile seemed so false to me... for a while I gave the film the benefit of the doubt and assumed that the character was meant to seem a bit haughty, condescending, etc... but even when the script called for her to be genuinely happy, I still found that her happiness did not seem genuine... and not on a level that revealed something about the character. The film kind of fell apart for me when I couldn't stand spending any time with the lead... and the falseness I felt in her did not play well off the whimsical tone of the rest of the film. The biking scene was also awful.

Yes, the smile IS fake and that is precisely why the movie works for me.

[Qrazy]

I don't see why anyone who appreciates films deserves to be told they should find a new hobby just because they don't like a majority of films they see. Then again, these are usually the same people that feel its much more than just a hobby in the first place.

The original comment referred to was made by Clipper Ship on the original site, who was making a list of his top 50 films or some such number, claiming that he thought about a top 100 but that he hadn't seen 100 films worth his time, etc. There's a big difference between being critical of art and arrogant dismissal of the majority of art and thought that's come before you.

[Qrazy]

Yes, the smile IS fake and that is precisely why the movie works for me.

More power to you, it didn't fully for me.

[Grouchy]

I saw a modern classic I should've seen lightyears ago. I dunno why I never sat down to watch it, other than that I'd seen some sequences on TV already, I knew about the twist ending, and I always found some other movie to watch. Ladies and what passes for gentlemen, I've finally seen Fight Club! Wonderful movie, Fincher's finest from the ones I've seen, closely followed by Zodiac and then Se7en. The amount of footage shot for this must be huge - sped up, montages, photomontages done by computers, all contribute to the technical marvel in display. The story is dark and ominous, but I was pleasantly surprised to find that most of it is blatantly played for laughs and satire. The first-person perspective that drives the narrative is also very well carried, and even while I knew what was coming in the end, I still found the development witty. It's an over-the-top movie with smarts and a twisted sense of irony that I'll sure be returning to. The penis spliced in at the end got a huge laugh out of me.

Now I need to see Requiem for a Dream to be a complete man, I guess.

[Derek]

The original comment referred to was made by Clipper Ship on the original site, who was making a list of his top 50 films or some such number, claiming that he thought about a top 100 but that he hadn't seen 100 films worth his time, etc. There's a big difference between being critical of art and arrogant dismissal of the majority of art and thought that's come before you.

I didn't realize that, but in that case I agree. I still stand by the fact that there are no professional critics who take that position and other than Clipper, I can't think of anyone on this site who does either, yet it's a "problem" that several posters bring up on a somewhat regular basis.

[Morris Schæffer]

Why did you go see Dreamgirls? Why would you court danger like that?

* Because he'd like to form his own opinion?
* Because he's already at the theater and there's nothing else of interest?
* Because he's with a chick who digs musicals?
* Because he was told Chuck Norris had a cameo in it?

[Raiders]

In other news, There Will Be Blood confirms for me that Paul Thomas Anderson is the best working American director, bar none. The film and Day-Lewis's performance are head and shoulders above anything else released this year.

I think I have finally gotten over my PTA ambivalence to the point where I am very excited to see this next weekend.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Design For Living was delightful as expected, though I watched it through very tired eyes and kept feeling that there was some complexity to it that I was overlooking in favor of the ample surface delights it has to offer. First film where I've actually enjoyed Gary Cooper.
Whenever I'm looking for something entertaining I usually pop this in. The character dynamics are wonderful, and it's such a terrible shame Miriam Hopkins is barely remembered these days because she was so deliciously intelligent and sexy. Cooper is good here, but still pales in the shadow of March. Having seen the film many times, it does have a slight problem with pacing, and there is a section between the middle and end that it loses some power.

[origami_mustache]

Yes, the smile IS fake and that is precisely why the movie works for me.

Yeah, I personally love Setsuko Hara's acting as did most of Japan for several decades.

[Derek]

I think I have finally gotten over my PTA ambivalence to the point where I am very excited to see this next weekend.

Despite your previous feelings towards PTA's films, I really think you'll enjoy this one. It's completely different from anything he's done before and while the Kubrick comparisons are very apt, it's very much it's own beast.

[DSNT]

So we tried to go see I'm Not There and it simply didn't work out. It was a 11:00am show at a large multiplex, which seemed to be the best time to catch the movie. Most other shows didn't start until after 12, so the place was practically empty. I Am Legend started at 11:10am and was in the next-door theater. The movie started fine, but we started hearing sound overflow in just before Richie Havens' song. It wasn't overpowering, but this is a relatively quiet movie and it became difficult to hear the dialog. Once the song began, it sounded like it was amid a thunderstorm because of the sound from the theater next door (must have been a big scene).

It completely took me out of the movie, and there was no way I was going to enjoy it for 2.5 hours. So we left and got our money back. My wife was a little surprised and disappointed, and kinda thought I was being too much of a film snob. Do you agree?

[Sven]

Do you agree?

No.

[chrisnu]

I don't agree, either. I don't think that sound bleeding in from another theater should have to be tolerated.

[Sycophant]

That's positively ridiculous that the acoustics are bad enough in that multiplex that there should be sound bleeding like that. It's inexcusable.

(Also, I think asking a forum populated by a bunch of fellow film snobs is a great idea)

[Kurosawa Fan]

We get that at times at our theater as well. You can hear the bass from the theater next to you if it's a huge action film. It's not a huge problem, but occasionally it can be distracting.

[Spinal]

I think I have finally gotten over my PTA ambivalence to the point where I am very excited to see this next weekend.

Even if you have PTA ambivalence, there's no reason to have Daniel Day Lewis ambivalence.

[Derek]

Even if you have PTA ambivalence, there's no reason to have Daniel Day Lewis ambivalence.

Indeed. Day-Lewis makes Bardem look like a Girl Scout.

[Silencio]

Monsoon Wedding was all kinds of awful. The characters are just caricatures and their situations all cliched. There's no weight to anything; these people have relationships out-of-the-blue and it's meant to be all moving and engaging, but it's really just a shallow, dance-happy soap opera with some nice visuals. Disappointing after Nair's enjoyable The Namesake.

[Ivan Drago]

I saw Dreamgirls because my parents rented it. But what is the danger of watching bad films anyway? Why be a film buff if you're only going to limit your breadth of knowledge to legitimate classics and critically acclaimed films, while remaining completely ignorant of what the majority of the public is experiencing? To me, that's more elitist than being willing to sit through through and dislike many of them while also giving reasons to back up your opinions. Those are the kind of critics that make me feel like they have something at stake regarding cinema, that they understand it's power and potential and are thus left more disappointed when it's not properly utilized. Film, again for me, is more than simply about having a good time or being entertained and even with the worst atrocities, I usually end up learning something, good or bad, about the artform or my own approach to it. I don't see why anyone who appreciates films deserves to be told they should find a new hobby just because they don't like a majority of films they see. Then again, these are usually the same people that feel its much more than just a hobby in the first place.

Wow. I never would've thought that way.

[Sven]

Personally, I don't care when there's sound bleed too much. This happened a number of times at a theater I used to go to with Sycophant in SLC. Mostly I can tune it out. Still, if you're distracted, don't subject yourself to 2.5 hours of irritation.

What annoys me is when the theater sidelights reflect on the canvas of the screen. That always bugs me, because you're always noticing this irregular triangular illumination on one side of the screen, especially in dark scenes.

[Watashi]

This happened a number of times at a theater I used to go to with Sycophant in SLC.

Wait, what?

[Grouchy]

So this Belgian mockumentary, Man Bites Dog, was spot-on funny. I thought it was overlong, but it might've been because I had to interrupt it about a half hour in and by the time I sat down to watch it again I put it on from the beginning. Other than that, it's good stuff - an elaborate joke about a documentary crew following a charismatic mass murderer that the filmmakers take as far as it will possibly go. However, I don't think the movie is saying much about the media or the cinema-verité other than the most obvious layers of irony, like the fact that the filmmakers are so willing to colaborate on the murders and raping or that the authorities don't decide to convict them as well. The actor playing Ben is a big part of the movie's strenght.

Oh, and I friggin' love that toddler-killing DVD cover:

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00006FMCS.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

[Sven]

Man Bites Dog is one-note and unpleasant. And it's a sham. Pretty much worthless. And that cover is terrible.

[Sven]

Wait, what?

Me and the Syco is budz, bo-yyyyy!

[Grouchy]

Man Bites Dog is one-note and unpleasant. And it's a sham. Pretty much worthless. And that cover is terrible.
I agree only with one-note, but I don't think that'd be such a problem if the movie was less than feature length, because it works in an escalating way, like a Monty Python skit. Most of the humor comes from how far will these guys go and how much they'll involve themselves with their subject.

What's terrible about that cover? I'd hang it in my room.

[Sycophant]

Me and the Syco is budz, bo-yyyyy!
You know it!

*incredibly awkward, embarrassing handshake*

[Sven]

In no world that I'd want to be a part of could I applaud a dvd cover that shows a badass-looking guy murdering an infant and call it "cool".

Perhaps if you buy into the film's "distancing" effect and see it as a commentary on exploitation cinema and the genre's non-sacrosanct handling of human life or something, but 1) I didn't buy into the film's attempts at doing that, regarding the film as only another poor example of the genre its supposedly criticizing and 2) the cover in itself is awful and contains no comment. It's brutal and disgusting and more deplorable because of its obvious glorification of the murderer. Juvenile.

[Grouchy]

In no world that I'd want to be a part of could I applaud a dvd cover that shows a badass-looking guy murdering an infant and call it "cool".

Perhaps if you buy into the film's "distancing" effect and see it as a commentary on exploitation cinema and the genre's non-sacrosanct handling of human life or something, but 1) I didn't buy into the film's attempts at doing that, regarding the film as only another poor example of the genre its supposedly criticizing and 2) the cover in itself is awful and contains no comment. It's brutal and disgusting and more deplorable because of its obvious glorification of the murderer. Juvenile.
Oh, then you're just offended.

I didn't even think anything about exploitation cinema or human life while watching it, that's why I said that it's not a particularly deep movie. To me it's just a black comedy about a quirky murderer and a parody of fly-in-the-wall documentaries and student filmmaking. Like when they shoot the boom guy and the director has to pick up the microphone and keep running. That's not commenting anything on anything, that's comedy.

[Spinal]

Indeed. Day-Lewis makes Bardem look like a Girl Scout.

I would not buy Thin Mints from Bardem. I would not even buy Samoas.

[Spinal]

I totally agree that Man Bites Dog is juvenile and shallow. Tiresome cynicism without anything substantial to offer.

[Raiders]

Yay for disapproval of Man Bites Dog.

[megladon8]

I loved Man Bites Dog :(

[Boner M]

Hooray for the Man Bites Dog hatefest; one of my least favorite movies. The words one-note, shallow, unpleasant, sham, tiresome and shallow pretty much cover the spectrum of what it has to offer.

[Qrazy]

Monsoon Wedding was all kinds of awful. The characters are just caricatures and their situations all cliched. There's no weight to anything; these people have relationships out-of-the-blue and it's meant to be all moving and engaging, but it's really just a shallow, dance-happy soap opera with some nice visuals. Disappointing after Nair's enjoyable The Namesake.

I didn't hate it as much as you seem to have, but overall I agree with you.

[Qrazy]

I actually agree with both of you. I found it both funny, one-note and shallow. Love that scene where he first wants the film crew to come have a drink with him. I find it interesting that I get annoyed by a lot of Haneke's audience indicting but here it didn't bother me as much. It must be the comic element.

[Rowland]

A lot doesn't work in Enchanted, so thank the movie gods that Amy Adams and James Marsden were cast, who give the movie enough color to coalesce into an overly satisfying trifle. The too few musical numbers are cute as well, if entirely devoid of internal logic (but it works as metaphor, I suppose). It's just a shame that the climax sorta fizzles. What exactly did that chipmunk do at the end to make the queen fall?

[Rowland]

I've never heard of this Man Bites Dog, but it sounds a lot like this year's Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon. Did anybody see that? It wasn't very good.

[Ezee E]

I think I only watched 30 minutes of Man Bites Dog and shut it off.

[Sycophant]

What exactly did that chipmunk do at the end to make the queen fall?If I remember correctly (and I remember this movie disturbingly well) was an irritating callback to something in the animated opening where his additional weight was enough to, like, cartoonishly break the branch Giselle was clinging to or something.

[transmogrifier]

I haven't seen Man Bites Dog for a long, long time, so I can't defend it, but I do remember liking it.

[Spinal]

I think that people who enjoy cinematic violence in and of itself and do not require that the violence have purpose or moral weight are more likely to enjoy Man Bites Dog.

[megladon8]

I've never heard of this Man Bites Dog, but it sounds a lot like this year's Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon. Did anybody see that? It wasn't very good.


Bah! Behind the Mask was a great movie.

I admit that Angela Goethals was very annoying, but Nathan Baesel absolutely stole the show. He had so much charisma and charm, and made a lot of improvised lines which ended up being shining moments.

I love when he's talking about his pet turtles, then just randomly says "Yeh...I only keep pets that I can eat".

:)

It's probably in my top 10 of the year.

[Rowland]

If I remember correctly (and I remember this movie disturbingly well) was an irritating callback to something in the animated opening where his additional weight was enough to, like, cartoonishly break the branch Giselle was clinging to or something.Wow, nice. Your observational aptitude doesn't even falter during movies you hate, I see. :)

[Rowland]

Bah! Behind the Mask was a great movie.

I admit that Angela Goethals was very annoying, but Nathan Baesel absolutely stole the show. He had so much charisma and charm, and made a lot of improvised lines which ended up being shining moments.

I love when he's talking about his pet turtles, then just randomly says "Yeh...I only keep pets that I can eat".

:)

It's probably in my top 10 of the year.It was watchable enough... I just didn't feel it was very clever, funny, or scary. The lead actor was charismatic, but not enough so to carry the movie.

[Bosco B Thug]

In other news, There Will Be Blood confirms for me that Paul Thomas Anderson is the best working American director, bar none. The film and Day-Lewis's performance are head and shoulders above anything else released this year. You didn't find it a tad... narratively anemic? Overall a bit dry and conservative? "Vacuum-packed" by PTA's formalist approach? A compelling character study, but a script too broad-stroked and parabolic to embrace much real world complexities and flavor?

Agree with you on Day-Lewis, though! Head and shoulders! :)

And noooo, I'm not leading the backlash train! The film was captivating and striking. I'm glad everyone's enjoying. I want everyone to enjoy it. *sees all the 100s on metacritic* Hrmmm... :frustrated:

[megladon8]

It was watchable enough... I just didn't feel it was very clever, funny, or scary. The lead actor was charismatic, but not enough so to carry the movie.


Fair enough. I do admit it's very flawed, but I found a great deal in it which I really enjoyed.

[Bosco B Thug]

Fair enough. I do admit it's very flawed, but I found a great deal in it which I really enjoyed. It's definitely a lot of fun. Some good laughs (like when they walk in on the survivor girl in the bedroom, doing non-survivor-girly things). Surprisingly light on gore, though. :) A solid 6/10!

Any horror fan should check out Who Can Kill a Child?, a beautifully filmed, sometimes silly-sometimes brilliant low-budget Euro horror. Killer of Sheep was entrancing.

[Qrazy]

I think that people who enjoy cinematic violence in and of itself and do not require that the violence have purpose or moral weight are more likely to enjoy Man Bites Dog.

I think, that you're wrong.

[Spinal]

I think, that you're wrong.

Opinions rule!

[Li Lili]

I think that people who enjoy cinematic violence in and of itself and do not require that the violence have purpose or moral weight are more likely to enjoy Man Bites Dog.
I liked the film.

[Sycophant]

Opinions rule!I think, that you're wrong.

[Yxklyx]

I liked it, but I've seen over a thousand films since then.

[Spinal]

I think, that you're wrong.

You guys can disagree with me all you want, but these unnecessary commas are going to have to stop.

[Sycophant]

You guys can disagree with me all you want, but these unnecessary commas are going to have to stop.Heh. Sorry. I thought it'd be best if I copied and pasted directly. :P

[Ezee E]

Interview... instantly forgettable, and a waste of dialog on the always wonderful Steve Buscemi, and Sienna Miller, who is becoming someone that I think will be great in the next few years.

Buscemi can direct, but can't really write.

[Raiders]

Buscemi can direct, but can't really write.

Unnecessary generalization. Trees Lounge is great.

[Ezee E]

Unnecessary generalization. Trees Lounge is great.
Hmph, I didn't think he wrote that. Well, one for two I guess. The dialog that is given in this movie is blegh.

[megladon8]

Any horror fan should check out Who Can Kill a Child?, a beautifully filmed, sometimes silly-sometimes brilliant low-budget Euro horror. Killer of Sheep was entrancing.


Hmm...hadn't heard of either of these before.

*going to IMDb*

[Ivan Drago]

Hey trans, check out the signature - I finally saw a film I didn't like! ;)

OMFG AVP-R was teh greatest film of all time LOLOLOLOLOLOL Teh Brothers Strause are awesome!!!!!1111!!!!! $600-650 million at the B.O.....COUNT ON IT!!!!

Seriously though, it takes too long to get into the story, and the first half hardly has any awesome action. That is, the action sequences in the first half had bad lighting and cuts every milli-second, and it's really annoying. Plus the film is unintentionally hilarious at times ("The colonel's lying!" "That's crazy! The government never lies to us!"), and the acting is horrible. But the second half is full of balls to the wall action, but it's not enough to make it a guilty pleasure.

[megladon8]

Seriously though, it takes too long to get into the story, and the first half hardly has any action.

I don't mean to sound like I am attacking you or anything, but this is just flat-out wrong.

The entire first 5 minutes is a montage of action, then there's a short break for some characters, then more action, another short break, etc. The longest stretch in the entire movie without action is like 15 minutes at most.


Plus the film is unintentionally hilarious at times ("The colonel's lying!" "That's crazy! The government never lies to us!")

Seems that line was kind of lost on you...that was obviously a joke.

I'm not denying your claim that the movie is at times unintentionally funny, but come on, that line is obviously a joke.


...and the acting is horrible. But the second half is full of balls to the wall action, but it's not enough to make it a guilty pleasure.

Yes, the acting is horrendous. But I was expecting as much.

It's wall-to-wall alien and predator action, which - afer the first movie which is all-out boring - is kinda nice. It's like Shoot 'Em Up, but with aliens and predators, and not as well made.

I definitely thought it was a fun, guilty pleasure.

Plus it was nice that the audience I saw it with was obviously "in the know" and picked up on a lot of the in-jokes and series references.

[Ivan Drago]

I don't mean to sound like I am attacking you or anything, but this is just flat-out wrong.

The entire first 5 minutes is a montage of action, then there's a short break for some characters, then more action, another short break, etc. The longest stretch in the entire movie without action is like 15 minutes at most.

Well...I'll be honest, I came in expecting balls to the wall action throughout the entire movie. The first half was underwhelming.

And I do recall the first 5 minutes, but a problem with that sequence (and a few others) was that it was hard to follow, what with the cuts every milli-second and poor lighting.

Hell, maybe I should see it again. Not in theaters, though.

Oh, another thing: The scene with the chestburster coming out of the pregnant lady made me cringe. It was so disgusting to watch.

[Winston*]

OMFG AVP-R was teh greatest film of all time LOLOLOLOLOLOL Teh Brothers Strause are awesome!!!!!1111!!!!! $600-650 million at the B.O.....COUNT ON IT!!!!


Are you being ironic here?

[Philosophe_rouge]

Lessons on Darkness was great, I love me some Herzog. The images were strong, powerful, awe-inducing, while also making me ill... they're just so frightening and disgusting as well. Words and interviews are limited, but used to great effect.

[Ivan Drago]

Are you being ironic here?

Don't you remember bkb111?

[Winston*]

Don't you remember bkb111?

I don't know what that is.

[Sven]

Lessons on Darkness was great, I love me some Herzog. The images were strong, powerful, awe-inducing, while also making me ill... they're just so frightening and disgusting as well. Words and interviews are limited, but used to great effect.

You've gotta check out The Wild Blue Yonder. It's so incredible. Lessons of Darkness is one of my favorites.

[Ivan Drago]

I don't know what that is.

Really? Well, around 2004 a sad little troll with the screen name bkb111 came to RT and wouldn't stop talking in bold, italicized text about how great a movie Alien vs. Predator would be, and that it would make $600-$650 million dollars at the box office. He also said that when it did, he would become a moderator of RT. Of course, the box office numbers for the first AvP weren't even close to his prediction. He got an IP ban a couple months after its release after persistent trolling.

[Philosophe_rouge]

You've gotta check out The Wild Blue Yonder. It's so incredible. Lessons of Darkness is one of my favorites.
I think my video store has it, the disc with lessons also has Fata Morgana which will be my next Herzog. I'll see what I can do about Yonder though. I love Herzog more than words can express.

[Sven]

I think my video store has it, the disc with lessons also has Fata Morgana which will be my next Herzog. I'll see what I can do about Yonder though. I love Herzog more than words can express.

Fata Morgana is a bit slower and longer, but I think ultimately better. More alien. It, Lessons of Darkness, and Wild Blue Yonder comprise a loose trilogy, of sorts, where Herzog transforms nature documentary into science-fiction. They are also his three best works. Probably. Tough to say about a guy who has so many great works to his name.

[Spinal]

Watched Kill Bill V. 1 tonight. It works a lot better on the big screen. More bloat than I remember. As a non-martial arts fan, the Sonny Chiba section feels sooooo long. Gogo battle is still the high point for me. Music selections are excellent. Almost obnoxiously so. OK, Quentin, yes, that's another awesome track ironically juxtaposed with your on-screen visuals. I don't think I'll change my grade (***1/2), but a second viewing didn't really do it any favors.

[Rowland]

OK, Quentin, yes, that's another awesome track ironically juxtaposed with your on-screen visuals..I don't remember any ironic music juxtaposition. That's one of the elements that I admire most about Quentin, and that I believe is most misconstrued about his work, which is that he indulges in very little irony. When the movie opens with Bang Bang (My Baby Shot Me Down), he means it.

Otherwise, I actually like Kill Bill more with every viewing, in the sense that I further admire the pure craft of his filmmaking and the complementary qualities of wit and compassion that it comprises.

[Qrazy]

Otherwise, I actually like Kill Bill more with every viewing, in the sense that I further admire the pure craft of his filmmaking and the complementary qualities of wit and compassion that it comprises.

Yeah, he's a regular Satyajit Ray.

[Rowland]

Yeah, he's a regular Satyajit Ray.Simultaneously unwarranted and vapid condescension. Touché, sir. :P

[Qrazy]

Simultaneously unwarranted and vapid condescension. Touché, sir. :P

Like a filmmaker for their strengths. Compassion is hardly Quentin's.

[Spinal]

That's one of the elements that I admire most about Quentin, and that I believe is most misconstrued about his work, which is that he indulges in very little irony.

He's put Uma Thurman in a martial arts film. That alone makes the film inherently ironic.

[Rowland]

Like a filmmaker for their strengths. Compassion is hardly Quentin's.And I obviously disagree. Thanks though.

[Rowland]

He's put Uma Thurman in a martial arts film. That alone makes the film inherently ironic.I don't think so. I sense no smirk while watching Kill Bill.

[Spinal]

I don't think so. I sense no smirk while watching Kill Bill.

Not even when Uma tells a four-year-old to come seek her revenge when she's ready and then exits the room with Froot Loops crunching under her feet?

[Sven]

I sense no smirk while watching Kill Bill.

Really? That's weird.

[Rowland]

Really? That's weird.There is plenty of humor, but I'd argue that it's mostly free of the sort of smirking "quotation mark" irony that many peg it for.

I'm not looking to get into a Kill Bill discussion. That is so three years ago. :)

[Qrazy]

And I obviously disagree. Thanks though.

Compassion is not some mutable concept which you can bend to your will.

[Rowland]

Compassion is not some mutable concept which you can bend to your will.I see compassion, you don't. What's not to get? Now you're just talking down to me with meaningless pseudo-maxims. You could plug anything into compassion's spot to refute someone. For instance: You don't like Amy Ryan in Gone Baby Gone? Sorry, but good acting is not some mutable concept which you can bend to your will. I win!

[Qrazy]

I see compassion, you don't. What's not to get? Now you're just talking down to me.

You can interpret it as condescension or talking down to you if you want to be defensive, but I don't think I am. I'm not insulting you or even Tarantino for that matter. Passion and compassion aren't the same thing, and for all it's slick stylishness and humor, I just don't see how Tarantino's work demonstrates much of the latter.

I assume you mean the genuine emotions B shows for her daughter, but she murders more than half the cast of the film to get to her. I'm not feeling this Tarantino humanistic vibe.

[Rowland]

You can interpret it as condescension or talking down to you if you want to be defensive, but I don't think I am. I'm not insulting you or even Tarantino for that matter. Passion and compassion aren't the same thing, and for all it's slick stylishness and humor, I just don't see how Tarantino's work demonstrates much of the latter.

I assume you mean the genuine emotions B shows for her daughter, but she murders more than half the cast of the film to get to her. I'm not feeling this Tarantino humanistic vibe.I think he consistently demonstrates compassion for his characters. He isn't like Rodriguez, whose characters rarely register as more than weightless archetypes. It's there in how he writes and directs them. For all of his appropriation of the past, he cares about his characters.

Sorry if I'm being unjustifiably irritable. I sensed a dismissive tone in your replies that ticked me off. Maybe it's just from being hungover. :)

[Sven]

There is plenty of humor, but I'd argue that it's mostly free of the sort of smirking "quotation mark" irony that many peg it for.

For the record, I think there's plenty of sincerity in Kill Bill. Tarantino is nothing if not sincere. But I don't get how you could miss the slew upon slew of quotation marks.

[Spinal]

I think he consistently demonstrates compassion for his characters. He isn't like Rodriguez, whose characters rarely register as more than weightless archetypes. It's there in how he writes and directs them. For all of his appropriation of the past, he cares about his characters.

He cares about his characters insomuch as they resemble him, his point of view or his favorite characters from other people's films. I don't think there's really an effort to try to understand and empathize with other people's experience.

[Spinal]

For the record, I think there's plenty of sincerity in Kill Bill. Tarantino is nothing if not sincere. But I don't get how you could miss the slew upon slew of quotation marks.

"Silly rabbit ..."
"Trix are for ..."
"... kids."

[Rowland]

For the record, I think there's plenty of sincerity in Kill Bill. Tarantino is nothing if not sincere. But I don't get how you could miss the slew upon slew of quotation marks.I think there's a difference between appropriation/eluding to, and ironic quotations marks. The line is thin, certainly.

[Rowland]

He cares about his characters insomuch as they resemble him, his point of view or his favorite characters from other people's films. I don't think there's really an effort to try to understand and empathize with other people's experience.His movies are about cinema, no doubt. I just don't see any reason why that has to preclude compassion.

[Spinal]

His movies are about cinema, no doubt. I just don't see any reason why that has to preclude compassion.

Having compassion for other people's fiction is a lot different than having compassion for actual humans. :)

[Rowland]

Having compassion for other people's fiction is a lot different than having compassion for actual humans. :)I don't see it. Tarantino's universe is too distinctively his own to register as little more than shout-outs to other movies. Besides, they aren't actual humans, are they? He never pretends otherwise.

[Qrazy]

I think he consistently demonstrates compassion for his characters. He isn't like Rodriguez, whose characters rarely register as more than weightless archetypes. It's there in how he writes and directs them. For all of his appropriation of the past, he cares about his characters.

Sorry if I'm being unjustifiably irritable. I sensed a dismissive tone in your replies that ticked me off. Maybe it's just from being hungover. :)

People seem to often find my comments dismissive when I don't mean them to be... probably because I'm often very curt.

[Mysterious Dude]

I don't think Tarantino's universe is distinctively his own at all. Kill Bill itself has several different worlds distinct from each other. The world of Vol. 2 is very different from the world of Vol. 1.

[Bosco B Thug]

I'm with Rowland. I don't see why necessarily his characters, even though they inhabit highly fictionalized, "referential" worlds and perform highly parabolic things like go on mass revenge sprees, cannot be portrayed in a grounded way that connotes effectively a reality and compassion. Tarantino exhibits this touch in all his films, even if Kill Bill is him at his most indulgently thoughtless.

I wasn't planning on mentioning it, but this dicussion must be a sign. :P Death Proof = Tarantino's best, though I reserve the right to retract that statement whenever I watch Jackie Brown again.

[Spinal]

Besides, they aren't actual humans, are they? He never pretends otherwise.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. In order to demonstrate compassion, you first have to demonstrate that you have an interest in understanding and empathizing with actual humans. Tarantino's characters are mostly either aggressively artificial or transparent echoes of other people's fiction.

[Spinal]

I'm with Rowland. I don't see why necessarily his characters, even though they inhabit highly fictionalized, "referential" worlds and perform highly parabolic things like go on mass revenge sprees, cannot be portrayed in a grounded way that connotes effectively a reality and compassion.


But that 'reality' has little to do with our reality. That 'compassion' therefore has no impact on anyone who is alive and breathing and able to benefit from it.

I like Tarantino. But I can't believe this is even debatable.

[Grouchy]

I think I see where both sides are coming from in this argument, but I agree with Rowland more. There's irony in display in Kill Bill, but it has more to do with pop references and the odd placement of certain things (like the Fruit Loops) than with mocking the characters. QT takes his characters and their emotional struggles seriously, and goes even farther with that in Kill Bill than in previous movies. I think Reservoir Dogs is the only one of his that I'd call cold and ironic. It's also arguably his best, so go figure.

Speaking of ironic movies, I saw a very quirky and intriguing one today, Edmond. It's Mamet's adaptation of his own play, directed by Re-Animator Stuart Gordon. I was shocked at how the movie jumped to things with little to no build-up, and also at how the big-name actors (Joe Mantegna, Denise Richards, Mena Suvari) are in the movie for one single scene. This is William H. Macy's show, though, as he portrays the descent into madness of an angry high-class white collar worker, and his journey through NY's crazy nights. He speaks all the time and almost always fills the frame, so it's a miracle he shows so many different sides of his character. I don't know what to make of this. It's funny, but not hilarious, and it's too ridiculous to be totally affecting. In a way, despite its dramatic cruelty and treatment of racial and sexual problems, it's a story with a fable-like quality and needs to be understood that way. I wasn't to in love with it, to tell the truth.

[Grouchy]

In order to demonstrate compassion, you first have to demonstrate that you have an interest in understanding and empathizing with actual humans.
Nah. Why?

In the context of cinema, I mean. So movies with antropomorphic animals and a fantasy world can't show compassion and understanding?

[Rowland]

But that 'reality' has little to do with our reality. That 'compassion' therefore has no impact on anyone who is alive and breathing and able to benefit from it.

I like Tarantino. But I can't believe this is even debatable.His movies thrive on degrees of morality. His characters operate within those parameters. There is lots to relate to in his work. I can't believe this is even debatable either. This rift, I suspect, is to some extent the product of the influence movies like Once and the Dardenne brothers' output (which I like, mind you) have had on film culture, where some moviegoers have grown to believe that cinema can't be "real" unless it tries its damnedest to feign reality.

[Bosco B Thug]

But that 'reality' has little to do with our reality. That 'compassion' therefore has no impact on anyone who is alive and breathing and able to benefit from it. I sort of see what you mean, but otherwise this strikes me as a "So what?" kind of point.

I'm not sure if you're just referring to just Kill Bill now, but true, perhaps his films are a bit too reverential, not truly branching out to portray "realities" of human frailty, weakness, and cruelty because he's too in love with his characters. It's certainly true of 'Kill Bill,' in which we've got one-note villains he even tries to martyrize. But in Jackie Brown and especially Death Proof, he takes on a complexity that altogether throws out efforts at novelty, even "emotional novelty."

[Rowland]

So Bosco, have you seen the Grindhouse cut of Death Proof? I've noticed that many people seem to prefer the shorter cut, but I feel the movie works more effectively in the Cannes cut.

[Spinal]

His movies thrive on degrees of morality. His characters operate within those parameters. There is lots to relate to in his work. I can't believe this is even debatable either. This rift, I suspect, is to some extent the product of the influence movies like Once and the Dardenne brothers' output (which I like, mind you) have had on film culture, where some moviegoers have grown to believe that cinema can't be "real" unless it tries its damnedest to feign reality.

No, I refuse to be painted as one who demands realism. It simply could not be farther from the truth.

[Qrazy]

The man gets perverse glee out of putting his characters in demeaning and painful situations. Again, there's a huge difference between compassion and hero worshiping your characters.

[Qrazy]

No, I refuse to be painted as one who demands realism. It simply could not be farther from the truth.

Seriously. Herzog is compassionate. Fellini is compassionate. Tati is compassionate.

[Bosco B Thug]

So Bosco, have you seen the Grindhouse cut of Death Proof? I've noticed that many people seem to prefer the shorter cut, but I feel the movie works more effectively in the Cannes cut. Yeah, I've seen both. The film definitely works better in its complete cut, if only because the lapdance scene is back in (a great scene in more ways than one). Otherwise, there's not too much a difference, I'd think... although that "gas station" scene with the second group of girls does go a long way in "filling out" the film, establishing these group of girls and making this film seem more like its own film.


The man gets perverse glee at putting his characters in demeaning and painful situations. Disagree. But we've had this conversation before. Like, exactly this conversation. :lol:

[Raiders]

His movies thrive on degrees of morality. His characters operate within those parameters. There is lots to relate to in his work. I can't believe this is even debatable either. This rift, I suspect, is to some extent the product of the influence movies like Once and the Dardenne brothers' output (which I like, mind you) have had on film culture, where some moviegoers have grown to believe that cinema can't be "real" unless it tries its damnedest to feign reality.

What a bizarre thing to say. There is a difference between a film relating itself to the real world and a film relating itself only to film culture. I think for all his cleverness and his morality plays, Tarantino's characters never leave his own film-inspired milieu to really grasp onto anything that exists firmly outside of the film screen. He has almost no relation to anything outside the film. His films are almost strictly detained solely to the history of cinema itself. His idea of feminism is to throwback to the era of grindhouse films, not to attempt to mirror or reflect anything any real person can relate. His characters walk in modern day but feel ripped straight from his own geek imagination and thus become as jaded and all-knowing as the characters from a film like Juno. Tarantino doesn't play with morality because nothing ever feels at stake except one character's standing within this film world. His films never leave the proscenium to use a theatre word, they never jump off the screen or mature past the limitations of the genre types that inspire them.

I like Tarantino and don't believe he needs to mature to be an entertaining, clever and even great filmmaker. I love his brand of artifice. But, his films never stick with me in any way but the geeky kind because his characters only exist for that moment on screen. Once the film is over, their world is gone from my mind.

[Rowland]

What a bizarre thing to say. There is a difference between a film relating itself to the real world and a film relating itself only to film culture. I think for all his cleverness and his morality plays, Tarantino's characters never leave his own film-inspired milieu to really grasp onto anything that exists firmly outside of the film screen. He has almost no relation to anything outside the film. His films are almost strictly detained solely to the history of cinema itself. His idea of feminism is to throwback to the era of grindhouse films, not to attempt to mirror or reflect anything any real person can relate. His characters walk in modern day but feel ripped straight from his own geek imagination and thus become as jaded and all-knowing as the characters from a film like Juno. Tarantino doesn't play with morality because nothing ever feels at stake except one character's standing within this film world. His films never leave the proscenium to use a theatre word, they never jump off the screen or mature past the limitations of the genre types that inspire them.

I like Tarantino and don't believe he needs to mature to be an entertaining, clever and even great filmmaker. I love his brand of artifice. But, his films never stick with me in any way but the geeky kind because his characters only exist for that moment on screen. Once the film is over, their world is gone from my mind.I take issue with several of your assertions here, both on the surface and fundamental. I'll try to coherently respond when/if I feel up to it. This is a difficult topic to parse and express. :frustrated: :)

[megladon8]

Eastern Promises

a review by Braden Adam


With A History of Violence in 2005, fans and critics began to wonder if David Cronenberg had begun a transition to more mainstream cinema. His signature weirdness and overtly sexual imagery seemed to be gone, and instead of his typical blend of science fiction and horror we were given a fairly straightforward story about a small town family man who may or may not be an ex-mob hitman. It was still a fantastic film and one of the best of it’s year, but it just didn’t have much of a “Cronenberg feel” to it, aside from a few brutally violent scenes - though what R-rated crime thriller doesn’t have those these days?

Now in 2007 we have Eastern Promises, Cronenberg’s latest film which also happens to be a fairly basic crime thriller, and also stars Viggo Mortensen. Set in London, England, it tells the story of a young midwife named Anna (Naomi Watts) who crosses paths with the Russian mafia when she tries to have the diary of a young dead Russian girl translated. It’s a simple setup for a simple story, but unfortunately it is dragged down significantly by characters (mostly Anna) making incredibly stupid choices - choices which would even leave a child sitting there scratching their head.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v496/megladon8/ep3.jpg

It is established early on in the film that Anna is a naive young woman. Her initial action of taking the diary from the body of the dead young girl is shown with a certain amount of innocence - she did not take the diary thinking she was grave robbing (as her uncle accuses her of), but rather out of pure curiosity. However, throughout the course of the film her naivety turns to stupidity as signs are continually thrown at her that she is dealing with very dangerous people, and she continues to pursue her crusade of justice against the men who wronged this girl whom she never met. There’s a scene later in the film where Anna shows up at the doorstep of the mafia household and starts yelling and cursing and throwing accusations at them. This scene occurs long after it has been made perfectly clear to her that these are dangerous criminals, so why does she still continue to try to stir up trouble? Bravery? No, she is not brave, she is just stupid to continue her hopeless mission.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v496/megladon8/ep1.jpg

Unfortunately, Anna is not the only annoying character in the film. One of the film’s main antagonists - and the guy that you are really, really supposed to hate - is Kirill, the son of the mob boss. Played by French character actor Vincent Cassell (husband of bombshell Monica Bellucci), Kirill is like the polar opposite of our hero, Nikolai (Viggo Mortensen). He is a sadistic, psychotic, incredibly diseased individual with a venomous relationship with his father. Unfortunately, much of the menace of his character is lost due to some horrible dialogue which seems better suited for a Steven Seagal film. At one point Nikolai and Kirill are arguing about Kirill’s disrespectful nature. Nikolai says something to the effect of, “Kirill, show some respect”, to which Kirill replies by pulling a wad of cash out of his jacket and saying, “respect? This is respect.” There are other lines in the film similar to this that make it seem like the writer was watching too many big-muscled action movies before hunkering down to write this serious drama.

But don’t take all this negativity as a way of saying it’s a bad film - it’s very far from it. It’s simply disappointing to see from such a skilled director as Cronenberg, whose distinct style and strange, outside-the-box approach to cinema could have produced something much more cutting than what we have here. There is no doubt that Viggo Mortensen’s performance is great, and perhaps one of the best performances of the year. With a flawless accent and a conflicted attitude towards the events surrounding him, he’s convincing as a cold-hearted mob man with some moral dilemmas about his work and the people he works with. Though his job description is as a “driver”, many scenes show that he’s like the mob’s “garbage boy”, doing the jobs no one else wants to do. In one of the more Cronenberg-like scenes, Nikolai is given the task of cutting off the fingertips of a dead man so as to make it harder to identify his body. Of course Nikolai has to act cold and heartless around his friends and allies, but in quieter scenes - such as those where Nikolai is simply driving someone home - Mortensen shows a strong ability to convey emotion through subtle facial expressions, and this is much of what makes Eastern Promises succeed in the end.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v496/megladon8/ep2.jpg

So, while slightly disappointing to a Cronenberg enthusiast, his latest effort is still an interesting look at the Russian mafia - an organized crime sect which seems oddly absent from mainstream cinema, which usually focuses on the more stereotypical Italian mafia. Despite some moments that could be described best as “D’uh! moments” with Anna, and some annoying dialogue, Eastern Promises is worth seeing, even if just for Viggo Mortensen’s great portrayal of Nikolai.

[Raiders]

I take issue with several of your assertions here, both on the surface and fundamental. I'll try to coherently respond when/if I feel up to it. This is a difficult topic to parse and express. :frustrated: :)

Indeed it is. I doubt I even did a very good job of trying to say what I meant. I don't argue that Tarantino often dips into moral or even philosophical discussions and that his characters often exist to challenge and explore various levels or morality and moral acceptance. Clearly he is always painting characters that are the "lesser of two evils." But I also think he is determined to present these characters in ways that distance the viewer completely from the morality he is presenting. Almost to a one they never feel like anything tangible but rather icons of cinema. He gives us strong characters, he gives us situations in which he asks us to sympathize with horrible people, but he doesn't extend them and their milieu beyond the film frame. I don't ask that his films mirror the real world, but I can certainly understand those who remain distanced and unmoved by his films.

[Raiders]

I don't understand the accusation that Eastern Promises doesn't feel like a Cronenberg film. It is remarkably obsessed with the body and the human image. Mortensen's character's body is on full display, and the main action set piece has him naked inside a bathhouse, a shockingly suggestive scene that ends with penetration and the flow of blood. Then there is the scene where the elder mob members study his past through the tattoos, his body revealing his story (not to mention the instance with Stahl's mob father quipping that he has likely contracted disease from an unsterilized needle - evil begets evil). It is filmed as a fairytale, with Mortensen's character in the middle of the two extremes, naivety and evil, and his nakedness a sign of his vulnerability.

As with his previous film, the story seems almost abruptly cut short, ending with a notion of purity and change; here we have the baby, borne of an act of evil and placed into a home of purity, and the evil at the top of the mob has been replaced with a more merciful figure.

[megladon8]

I don't understand the accusation that Eastern Promises doesn't feel like a Cronenberg film. It is remarkably obsessed with the body and the human image. Mortensen's character's body is on full display, and the main action set piece has him naked inside a bathhouse, a shockingly suggestive scene that ends with penetration and the flow of blood. Then there is the scene where the elder mob members study his past through the tattoos, his body revealing his story (not to mention the instance with Stahl's mob father quipping that he has likely contracted disease from an unsterilized needle - evil begets evil). It is filmed as a fairytale, with Mortensen's character in the middle of the two extremes, naivety and evil, and his nakedness a sign of his vulnerability.


These all seem like more thematic similarities, though.

Look at a film like Videodrome or Naked Lunch or Dead Ringers. They're all incredibly sexual in nature, featuring grotesque images and very strong sci-fi/horror elements.

I see this as being more "Cronenberg in style" than anything in Eastern Promises.

Sure the bathhouse scene features a nude Mortensen and some strong brutality, but I at no point during this scene (or anywhere in the movie), would I have thought "this is a lot like a Cronenberg film" if I had not known it was his.

Perhaps he's working on refining his style and being less in-your-face, but to me that takes a lot away from what made him so great years ago. He took big risks and did things which could even be called completely absurd. His last two films really don't have any of this, and I felt both of them were weaker for it.

All that being said, I can't wait to watch Eastern Promises again, now that I know what it is and what to expect.

[Spinal]

Had to leave mid-conversation, so I'm glad to see Raiders' excellent post. That's pretty much how I feel too.

[Spinal]

Nah. Why?

In the context of cinema, I mean. So movies with antropomorphic animals and a fantasy world can't show compassion and understanding?

Of course you can use anthropomorphic animals to show compassion. Happy Feet is an excellent example. Of course you can use a fantasy world to demonstrate compassion. I think The Neverending Story does that very well.

Quentin Tarantino, the human, may very well be capable of compassion towards other human beings, but I don't get that out of his films. Any investment he has in his characters ultimately feels narcissistic to me. He has love for them because of the way they make him feel. Or because they are a part of his experience. But I do not get the sense that he has a curiosity about how other people suffer, think and experience the world. You connect with him on his geeky terms or you can basically fuck off.

Again, I like Tarantino.

[Rowland]

I suppose we can only attempt to discern why one person would percieve Tarantino's movies as hermetically sealed where another would see them as being rapturously alive. One person's this is another person's that, or something? I'm too lazy to invest much more thought into it than that right now. http://www.match-cut.org/images/smilies/lol.gif

[origami_mustache]

You guys can disagree with me all you want, but these unnecessary commas are going to have to stop.

I LOLed at this...and I really want to see Man Bites Dog now. I'll have to bump it on my queue.

[Qrazy]

I LOLed at this...and I really want to see Man Bites Dog now. I'll have to bump it on my queue.

Watch My Friend Ivan Lapshin arse face.

[number8]

I LOLed at this...and I really want to see Man Bites Dog now. I'll have to bump it on my queue.

Please.

[number8]

Oh, and to toss out a coin on a discussion a dozen pages back:

I like Hollywood. A lot.

[origami_mustache]

Watch My Friend Ivan Lapshin arse face.
haha I know...I have about 20 films waiting to be watched on my computer, on top of my Netflix rentals and theater viewings. :frustrated:

[Rowland]

Quentin Tarantino, the human, may very well be capable of compassion towards other human beings, but I don't get that out of his films. Any investment he has in his characters ultimately feels narcissistic to me. He has love for them because of the way they make him feel. Or because they are a part of his experience. But I do not get the sense that he has a curiosity about how other people suffer, think and experience the world. You connect with him on his geeky terms or you can basically fuck off.
Maybe this is all simply a matter of perception regarding Tarantino the filmmaker. Where you see narcissism and self-indulgence, which inevitably colors how you read his films, I see someone who is both genuine in his love of cinema and generous in his desire to inspire us through cinema as an artform worth experimenting with, and a vast culture worth exploring, treasuring, and sharing. He makes Tarantino movies, that is all he seems to know how to make... I suppose that for me, this is reward enough. Compassion on his own terms is still compassion, and his movies are provocative and considerate enough to make me feel and think as I'm being entertained. Is cinema not, in its way, a way of life? Besides, his work is a great deal thornier than I feel it is typically given credit for. His public persona makes it easy to underestimate him.

[Bosco B Thug]

I think for all his cleverness and his morality plays, Tarantino's characters never leave his own film-inspired milieu to really grasp onto anything that exists firmly outside of the film screen. He has almost no relation to anything outside the film. His films are almost strictly detained solely to the history of cinema itself. His idea of feminism is to throwback to the era of grindhouse films, not to attempt to mirror or reflect anything any real person can relate. His characters walk in modern day but feel ripped straight from his own geek imagination and thus become as jaded and all-knowing as the characters from a film like Juno. Tarantino doesn't play with morality because nothing ever feels at stake except one character's standing within this film world. His films never leave the proscenium to use a theatre word, they never jump off the screen or mature past the limitations of the genre types that inspire them. I would hardly describe Tarantino's films as "morality plays." They are always fuller than that. I admire Tarantino's old school dependence on dialogue and emotional detailing to create his emotional milieu, when nowadays it's easier to use austerity and grand "sweeping tracking shots" (:P) to create malaise (<-- subconscious potshot at There Will Be Blood).

A retro world does not mean a character cannot breathe and exhude gravitas and the human condition. Mums on 'Pulp Fiction' or 'Reservoir Dogs,' but look at the unexaggerated but "compassionate" treatment given his less-than-superhero characters: Robert DeNiro in Jackie Brown, the first batch of girls in Death Proof (imo! imo?). "Detained to the history of cinema itself"? Tarantino doesn't limit himself to the trappings of any genre he may be basing a film on, and the viewer shouldn't either.

Death Proof isn't quasi-feminist geekery. The 70s "badass babes" flicks he loves are the quasi-feminist exploitation, and what he does with Death Proof is create emotional detail in the interplay of values of empowerment, vulnerability, victimization, and proving oneself - which, yes, are intertwined with feminist sentiments and metatextual genre commentary, but not primary above its very genuine characters. Even Zoe Bell. Her zest is her character, its never betrayed, but there is irony in their desire to victimize a bleeding old man.

Just because they reference Vanishing Point doesn't mean it's the reason the dialogue exchange exists. "Zatoichi" isn't the punchline. (You may be just referring to Kill Bill... and I haven't seen Juno, but I imagine its "reference as punchline" thing). Tarantino's characters are in no way "jaded" and "all-knowing," I don't know how anyone can get that.

[megladon8]

Oh, and to toss out a coin on a discussion a dozen pages back:

I like Hollywood. A lot.


So do I.

When they do a good job...they do a really good job.

A lot of my favorites are Hollywood movies.

[Spinal]

Maybe this is all simply a matter of perception regarding Tarantino the filmmaker. Where you see narcissism and self-indulgence, which inevitably colors how you read his films, I see someone who is both genuine in his love of cinema and generous in his desire to inspire us through cinema as an artform worth experimenting with, and a vast culture worth exploring, treasuring, and sharing.

I agree that his love of cinema is genuine. I will even agree that he is generous in his desire to inspire us. But he really only wants to inspire us to consume more cinema. Pushing people towards a diversity in their film exploration is worthwhile, I'll agree. I don't really see it as any sort of noble humanistic gesture.



He makes Tarantino movies, that is all he seems to know how to make... I suppose that for me, this is reward enough.

We agree on this point. I'm not making an argument against him. Just clarifying what I perceive to be his limits.



Compassion on his own terms is still compassion...

I'm having trouble with this statement. It does not compute. We must be using different definitions of the word 'compassion'. I'm thinking of it as a selfless interest in/empathy for other human beings and a hope for their goodwill. Perhaps I should clarify what you mean by compassion.

[Raiders]

I would hardly describe Tarantino's films as "morality plays." They are always fuller than that. I admire Tarantino's old school dependence on dialogue and emotional detailing to create his emotional milieu, when nowadays it's easier to use austerity and grand "sweeping tracking shots" (:P) to create malaise (<-- subconscious potshot at There Will Be Blood).

I don't think there is anything old school about depending on dialogue to move your film forward. It is more a limitation as a filmmaker. I also don't see this "emotional detailing" you describe. I rarely feel anything except exuberance when watching his films. They are always surface deep to me.


A retro world does not mean a character cannot breathe and exhude gravitas and the human condition. Mums on 'Pulp Fiction' or 'Reservoir Dogs,' but look at the unexaggerated but "compassionate" treatment given his less-than-superhero characters: Robert DeNiro in Jackie Brown, the first batch of girls in Death Proof (imo! imo?). "Detained to the history of cinema itself"? Tarantino doesn't limit himself to the trappings of any genre he may be basing a film on, and the viewer shouldn't either.What is so compassionate about any of those? I also never said Tarantino limited himself to the genre trappings, but that he limits himself to viewing all of his characters and their worlds through the lens of cinema. He never uses the real world to influence his characters, and vice-versa. I cannot find any center to relate Tarantino's vision to except the world of film. The ideas are only as deep as the celluloid they are printed on.


Death Proof isn't quasi-feminist geekery. The 70s "badass babes" flicks he loves are the quasi-feminist exploitation, and what he does with Death Proof is create emotional detail in the interplay of values of empowerment, vulnerability, victimization, and proving oneself - which, yes, are intertwined with feminist sentiments and metatextual genre commentary, but not primary above its very genuine characters. Even Zoe Bell. Her zest is her character, its never betrayed, but there is irony in their desire to victimize a bleeding old man.Well, I know more about grindhouse films via text and influence than I do actually viewing them, but it seems to me that those films are praised or idolized for the time period. It would be difficult to pull off a successful blaxpoitation film today, as John Singleton can attest, precisely because the social climate doesn't give it the credence or impact it would otherwise have. Similarly, grindhouse cinema no longer is socially relevant, and Tarantino's regressive ideas of femininity are outdated, precisely because he views women through cinema, not through the real world. Thus, his characters are icons of a genre, and thus they feel like inflated pieces of cinema rather than authentic characters, and as I have said before, I think Tarantino's film-centered milieu distances me from any potential emotional involvement.


Just because they reference Vanishing Point doesn't mean it's the reason the dialogue exchange exists. "Zatoichi" isn't the punchline. (You may be just referring to Kill Bill... and I haven't seen Juno, but I imagine its "reference as punchline" thing). Tarantino's characters are in no way "jaded" and "all-knowing," I don't know how anyone can get that.What I mean is they are influenced heavily by Tarantino's endless film knowledge rather than any knowledge of the human condition, so instead of interacting in ways that feel organic, they feel like a hodgepodge of ideas and cinema thrown into the blender. It is both fascinating and entertaining, but hardly meaningful in any unique or powerful way. Once the film is over, I have forgotten most of the film outside some of its more entertaining film school geekery.

[Rowland]

I'm having trouble with this statement. It does not compute. We must be using different definitions of the word 'compassion'. I'm thinking of it as a selfless interest in/empathy for other human beings and a hope for their goodwill. Perhaps I should clarify what you mean by compassion.Hmm. I see it as sympathizing with his characters and hoping for their best interests to prevail... which is basically what you said. Now mind you, he mines plenty of humor out of the situations he cooks up for some of them, but he allows so many grace notes for even his peripheral characters (including some of the bad ones), I can't begin to imagine considering him as only a glib or sardonic genre formalist. No mere movie geek riffing on the lore he loves would think to include such lovely details as Bud's secretly stored Hanzo sword in Kill Bill, or the near-subliminal shot of Ferlito's eyes closing before her last "kiss" in Death Proof. His work is bursting with such minutia that to me evinces a certain elegance and humanism.

[Li Lili]

grmpf. I don't see that much interest in Tarantino's films, they are maybe fun to watch for a while but I don't think they need to be "intellectualized". (can't find more appropriate word).

[Philosophe_rouge]

Love Letters (1945) was lovely. Employing a very similar style as he did in his later work, Portrait of Jennie, Dieterle creates a fantastic romance that is effective and romantic. In a genre that's so stilted, he manages to bring something new to the table and through his expressionistic direction capture the romance of his story all the better. It still pales in comparison to Jennie, but most films do :p Worth seeking out though if you're a fan. I found out the cinematographer has also done a few Von Sternberg films, Hawks, GWTW and some Wyler. An exceptional talent.

[baby doll]

grmpf. I don't see that much interest in Tarantino's films, they are maybe fun to watch for a while but I don't think they need to be "intellectualized". (can't find more appropriate word).Yeah, I haven't seen any of them in ages (not since Kill Bill: Vol. 2 was in theaters), but my impression is that he's only interested in surface effects; the fight in the trailer between Uma Thurman and Daryl Hannah was an awesome set piece, but it wasn't anything more than that.

[Rowland]

Yeah, I haven't seen any of them in ages (not since Kill Bill: Vol. 2 was in theaters), but my impression is that he's only interested in surface effects; the fight in the trailer between Uma Thurman and Daryl Hannah was an awesome set piece, but it wasn't anything more than that.The fight in the trailer is an explicit contrast with the elegant sword-fighting of the first half (or, Volume 1). What the implications of this are is open to debate, but it's rich with thematic possibilities, as is the entirety of Kill Bill. It's interesting to note that, in a sense, Kill Bill is a precursor to Death Proof in its bifurcated structure, and how the two halves serve to comment upon and complement the other.

[baby doll]

The fight in the trailer is an explicit contrast with the elegant sword-fighting of the first half (or, Volume 1). What the implications of this are is open to debate, but it's rich with thematic possibilities, as is the entirety of Kill Bill. It's interesting to note that, in a sense, Kill Bill is a precursor to Death Proof in its bifurcated structure, and how the two halves serve to comment upon and complement the other.I won't argue that there isn't a distinct shift in style and tempo from Vol. 1 to Vol. 2--from a movie where the Bride/Thurman kills seemingly everyone but Bill to a film where she kills no one except Bill (in as anti-climatic fashion as humanly possible)--but I think the reason I felt unsatisfied after both installments is that there wasn't more to either than a collection of cool effects. Even within the first part, Tarantino switches from live action to anime and from color to black and white just because it's a cool thing to do (or maybe because he couldn't legally have a child actor do those things and the MPAA wouldn't let him show all that blood in color).

[Rowland]

but I think the reason I felt unsatisfied after both installments is that there wasn't more to either than a collection of cool effects. I wouldn't deny its highly stimulating surface pleasures, but I believe they have more to offer than merely being cool. To a certain extent, his style in Kill Bill IS the substance, not unlike Domino. That said, enough raw emotions throb beneath the surface to keep his movie from feeling less than warm-blooded, and he wrestles with enough themes (and the very genres he appropriates themselves) to give the open-minded viewer plenty to chew on.

[baby doll]

I wouldn't deny its highly stimulating surface pleasures, but I believe they have more to offer than merely being cool. To a certain extent, his style in Kill Bill IS the substance, not unlike Domino. That said, enough raw emotions throb beneath the surface to keep his movie from feeling less than warm-blooded, and he wrestles with enough themes (and the very genres he appropriates themselves) to give the open-minded viewer plenty to chew on.Well, if you're talking about self-reflexivity, I don't think it has the same ironic tone as, say, Brian De Palma's Femme Fatale, where the whole last act is completely and utterly implausible. (Domino is rather different in that the style of the film mirrors and even exaggerates the garishness of the culture that's being satirized.) I think the difference is that, De Palma's film, with its play of visual and aural motifs (snakes and water being the most obvious), has a unity and coherence lacking in Tarantino's film, which is just one damn set piece after another with a minimum of continuity to carry us from one to the next. It even lacks the personal investment Russ Meyer brought to his films, instead suggesting a compulsive cinephile riffing on a few of his favorite films (still, one has to credit Tarantino for being a better filmmaker than the people who seem to inspire him--that is, he has a great deal more craft, money and natural talent at his disposal than a hack like Takashi Miike, who simply grinds out seven or eight commercial assignments a year).

As far as emotion or theme, they must have alluded me. In terms of the former, all I saw was the Bride's bloodlust, tinged (in the second half) with some affection, and Bill's possessiveness which is what motivates the wedding massacre in the first place. But even that seems more assumed that lived in, inherited from earlier revenge movies rather than thought through. (Fritz Lang it ain't.) As for the latter, it's hard for me to believe that a film which appropriates everything from martial arts movies to Italian horror films to spaghetti westerns could have some underlying unity or purpose when most of those appropriations take the form of undigested set pieces.

[MacGuffin]

Would someone care to explain to me just how Femme Fatale is ironic in tone? I'm not exactly sure I understand that observation.

[Bosco B Thug]

or the near-subliminal shot of Ferlito's eyes closing before her last "kiss" in Death Proof. His work is bursting with such minutia that to me evinces a certain elegance and humanism. Hellz yeah, that moment is startlingly beautiful.


I don't think there is anything old school about depending on dialogue to move your film forward. It is more a limitation as a filmmaker. I also don't see this "emotional detailing" you describe. I rarely feel anything except exuberance when watching his films. They are always surface deep to me. Not dialogue to move the film forward but to sharply define nuance in the characters and themes - I don't think anyone would say Death Proof's dialogue moves the plot forward. :P His knack for character dialogue (better, "character interaction") doesn't limit his filmmaking at all. Tarantino's deft and fluid and active camera wonderfully accentuates the pathos present in that character interaction. It's there, especially in the Ferlito and Rosario Dawson characters, both whom, by the way, really carry their respective "halves" with the gravitas they display.

Also, I have to say, accusations of Death Proof's dialogue being indulgent, meaningless padding have no legs to stand on - the conversations and dialogue serve to enrich and shed light on the emotional themes the film is exploring. It's like just because it's a genre film full of outspoken characters, people assume the characters automatically cannot embody real-to-life feelings and internal conflict and dismiss the dialogue as opportunistic catty drivel. And he doesn't make everyone speak that way. Ferlito, in fact, is noticeably smaller-spoken throughout.


I also never said Tarantino limited himself to the genre trappings, but that he limits himself to viewing all of his characters and their worlds through the lens of cinema. He never uses the real world to influence his characters, and vice-versa. I cannot find any center to relate Tarantino's vision to except the world of film. The ideas are only as deep as the celluloid they are printed on. I still don't see how this is much of a problem when he gladly tackles challenging emotional realities. Jackie Brown nicely attempts the use of a class-social backdrop, even if its not entirely fleshed out. It lingers ultimately, though, which was enough for me. Sure, Death Proof is a fantasy film, but his characters are organic and dimensional. He still explores and challenges gender fatalism and normative standards of empowerment.

He serves the story and/or thematic framework first and foremost, even with his aesthetic influences. It's not much unlike Haynes' Far From Heaven and I'm Not There, right? (don't remember much of anything about 'Heaven' now, fyi). The Dylan flick is a worse offender of much of what you mark against this film.

At least Tati's safe because his aesthetic is clearly singular and his own.

Hmm. Shit. Okay, in typing this, I'm starting to see where you're coming from, by mulling over how Tarantino compares to the soft-spoken critical voice of Tati and loud-spoken critical voice of Haynes. Tarantino's much too loving and empathetic about his characters and their idiosyncracies to take in much of a critical voice. He's never quite tackled the "evils of the world." His antagonists are never institutions or society, they are people he also seems to sympathize with who are suffering similarly from emotional problems. He doesn't take a side between the police and Samuel L. Jackson character in Jackie Brown, and he should've, if he wanted to create social friction and subtext. Yet he gives each their own "likable quirks." So yeah, that's a shortcoming in his artifice... but is it really a problem?

Well, Tarantino's always been an emotion guy, not an intellect guy. He hasn't explicitly tackled political or social pandemic, but really, does he have to in order to be taken seriously? Anyway, I say he gets closer than ever with Death Proof, what with its backbending "genre culture" metatext and indictment. In any case, his sensitivity as a director is virtue enough for now, but it seems not many see that in Death Proof.

Finally... seriously, what in the heck is so "throwbacky" and "hodgepodge" about Death Proof??? Kill Bill, yeah, but other than Tarantino's occasional 70s-ish stylistic floruishes, Death Proof is never not contemporary. I actually could say the same about many of his other films other than 'Bill.'


It would be difficult to pull off a successful blaxpoitation film today, as John Singleton can attest, precisely because the social climate doesn't give it the credence or impact it would otherwise have. Similarly, grindhouse cinema no longer is socially relevant, and Tarantino's regressive ideas of femininity are outdated, precisely because he views women through cinema, not through the real world. Thus, his characters are icons of a genre, and thus they feel like inflated pieces of cinema rather than authentic characters, and as I have said before, I think Tarantino's film-centered milieu distances me from any potential emotional involvement. Death Proof's not about making any characters icons of a genre. Again, the characters struck me as real people who then intrinsically, tellingly, fall into genre roles or "regressive ideas of femininity."


What I mean is they are influenced heavily by Tarantino's endless film knowledge rather than any knowledge of the human condition, so instead of interacting in ways that feel organic, they feel like a hodgepodge of ideas and cinema thrown into the blender. It is both fascinating and entertaining, but hardly meaningful in any unique or powerful way. Once the film is over, I have forgotten most of the film outside some of its more entertaining film school geekery. I feel his Death Proof characters are very organic, but yeah, that's been established. *throws hands up in air* :pritch:

[Qrazy]

No mere movie geek riffing on the lore he loves would think to include such lovely details as Bud's secretly stored Hanzo sword in Kill Bill, or the near-subliminal shot of Ferlito's eyes closing before her last "kiss" in Death Proof. His work is bursting with such minutia that to me evinces a certain elegance and humanism.

Attention to detail has no implicit connection with compassion or humanism. No one is denying that he cares about his characters, but caring about your characters doesn't mean you care about the human condition, however you may define that.

[Sycophant]

Not to interrupt the flow of the Tarantino discussion I'm not going to get into, but Starship Troopers was awesome.

[Philosophe_rouge]

That Obscure Object of Desire has furrowed my brow in the most delightful way. Generally a compelling, (fun?) film that captivated and entertained me throughout. I love Bunuel's sense of humour, and his plays on sexuality. The sense of duality, and the misplaced control were really fascinating, and made every scene a sort of adventure as things were never what they seemed. I feel as thouh I really need to think this one over some more, I'm quite sure I understood everything but I don't mind because trying to figure them out is part of the fun. Even if the pig doesn't mean anything, I love it... I'm not sure where this fits in terms of the two other Bunuel's I've seen, at the moment I'm inclined to say last behind Belle de Jour and Diary of a Chambermaid but I rate them all very highly.

[Spinal]

Surely, I can't be the first person to have noticed this, but Quidditch is a really poorly constructed game. The whole find-the-tiny-golden-ball part makes the whole rugby-on-brooms part largely irrelevant.

[Sven]

The whole find-the-tiny-golden-ball part makes the whole rugby-on-brooms part largely irrelevant.

Try "entirely". Works better. Quidditch is the dumbest sport ever invented.

[Sven]

Not to interrupt the flow of the Tarantino discussion I'm not going to get into, but Starship Troopers was awesome.

Rep +2

[Rowland]

Attention to detail has no implicit connection with compassion or humanism. No one is denying that he cares about his characters, but caring about your characters doesn't mean you care about the human condition, however you may define that.All I meant is that his movies aren't cold exercises in chic geekery. I never meant to imply that they are grand statements on the human condition or whatever. I think it's about time to end this discussion.

[Spinal]

Try "entirely". Works better. Quidditch is the dumbest sport ever invented.

I suppose it's possible to score enough points to make yourself safe from the other team getting the golden ball and ending the game, but it doesn't seem very likely. Rowling doesn't seem to have a good grasp of sports.

And, no big surprise, but Chris Columbus is so freaking bad.

[Rowland]

Kiyoshi Kurosawa fans should dig Barren Illusion. It's a virtually plotless narrative that explores some of his pet themes almost exclusively through (as usual) alternately daft and deft visual metaphors, recurring motifs, metaphysical symbolism, and what passes for a love story in the KK universe. The production feels a bit amateurish, understandably so given that he improvised it with a small crew of students from the Film School of Tokyo where he lectures, but it coalsces into a surprisingly engaging and (very) dryly humorous piece, when it really shouldn't work. I was frequently reminded of Ming-Liang while watching it, which I wasn't anticipating.

[Mysterious Dude]

I kind of resent that I have to sit through a whole Quidditch game at least once every movie.

[Rowland]

I kind of resent that I have to sit through a whole Quidditch game at least once every movie.Isn't that only in the first two movies? The other directors were smart enough to mostly leave it out.

[Mysterious Dude]

Isn't that only in the first two movies? The other directors were smart enough to mostly leave it out.
You're probably right. I haven't seen the most recent movie, and I do recall that Prisoner of Azkaban's Quidditch scene was mercifully short (and something important actually happened during it).

[origami_mustache]

Not to interrupt the flow of the Tarantino discussion I'm not going to get into, but Starship Troopers was awesome.

I enjoy how the brain bug looks like a giant vagina, especially when considering the portrayal of gender roles.

http://www.stampede-entertainment.com/monstermakers/a-bug-6-l.jpg

[number8]

You're probably right. I haven't seen the most recent movie, and I do recall that Prisoner of Azkaban's Quidditch scene was mercifully short (and something important actually happened during it).

The other two had none.

I've always thought Quidditch's rules were highly flawed the first time I saw Sorcerer's Stone. I suppose it's not that noticeable when you're reading it as chunks of text, but when you watch it in action (or worse, play the Quidditch World Cup game) you realize what a retarded concept it is.

[Bosco B Thug]

I enjoy how the brain bug looks like a giant vagina, especially when considering the portrayal of gender roles. What's that? Genre film? Gender role commentary? This film is calling my name! :P

About time I revisit this anyway. Saw it in theaters, no lasting impressions except it was gross.

Larry Cohen's God Told Me To was gleefully outlandish, but it's uneven and vague. The internal conflict of the main character is hard to grasp. The conclusion fails to thematically unify the picture. The use of a beatdown at the end, though, is wonderfully called for.

[transmogrifier]

Try "entirely". Works better. Quidditch is the dumbest sport ever invented.


What do you expect, it was invented by a girl.

*ducks*

[transmogrifier]

I enjoy how the brain bug looks like a giant vagina, especially when considering the portrayal of gender roles.

http://www.stampede-entertainment.com/monstermakers/a-bug-6-l.jpg

What sort of scary-arse vaginas you been hanging out with?

[Sycophant]

I've decided that you all need to know that "Mine was Lithuanian," as quoted textually and visually in the box containing my screen name, is probably my favorite line, cut, and delivery in any movie ever.

On a related note, Unfaithfully Yours was jaw-droppingly good. Easily one of Sturges's best.

[Yxklyx]

Surely, I can't be the first person to have noticed this, but Quidditch is a really poorly constructed game. The whole find-the-tiny-golden-ball part makes the whole rugby-on-brooms part largely irrelevant.

Yeah, it isn't very logical but I think that was done intentionally to distinguish Wizard "logic" from Muggle logic.

[Qrazy]

Yeah, it isn't very logical but I think that was done intentionally to distinguish Wizard "logic" from Muggle logic.

Yeah...

[origami_mustache]

What sort of scary-arse vaginas you been hanging out with?

haha...intergalactic ones?

[Raiders]

Much to my surprise, Richard Shepard's The Matador was pretty dreadful. It is a film without an identity. The material and the screenplay attempt to make this some sort of quick paced, morally ambiguous buddy comedy, but for some reason it keeps slowing itself down to try and force half-baked ideas of spiritual anguish and the grieving of a lost child. Neither element has any levity or gravitas because it feels so shoved in between Brosnan's overly zealous performance and Kinnear's cloying straight man. I almost have to admire a film that can make a hero out of a corporate hitman without even batting an eyelash, but it seems as if the film is trying to absolve itself by giving him a neuroses that prevents him from being a complete scum. Yet the film can't even manage one tenth the neurotic heart of a film's hitman center like Grosse Pointe Blank, and in the end the film has no point, no heart and no brain. I expected something a little more stylishly delivered as well, but the film is pretty much a wash except for Shepard's supossedly subtle color palette for Brosnan's character, mirroring that of a matador. Nice.

[EvilShoe]

I couldn't agree more with you, Raiders.
The praise this movie (and Brosnan's weak performance) got was baffling.

[Sven]

Raiders, have you seen Tailor of Panama? Brosnan gives a most excellent performance, that from what I understand is much in the same spirit as his Matador performance. Maybe that one'll work better for you.

[Raiders]

Raiders, have you seen Tailor of Panama? Brosnan gives a most excellent performance, that from what I understand is much in the same spirit as his Matador performance. Maybe that one'll work better for you.

I have, and it is indeed much better, though I remember Rush's performance most fondly from that one.

[monolith94]

In quidditch, the scoring of goals matters not so much in determining who wins, but rather who goes to the playoffs. So it DOES matter.

Quidditch sucks, sure, but it doesn't make so very little sense as y'all are claiming.

[Sycophant]

Looking back over the reactions at the time it came out, it really surprises me the way most people interpreted Starship Troopers. Perhaps I was unfairly advantaged in knowing Verhoeven's intent and its reputation among some of my friends, but nonetheless, I found its satirical tone pretty bald-faced.

[Sven]

I have, and it is indeed much better, though I remember Rush's performance most fondly from that one.

Yeah. I'm not a huge Rush fan, but that's, no doubt, one of his best performances.

[Spinal]

In quidditch, the scoring of goals matters not so much in determining who wins, but rather who goes to the playoffs. So it DOES matter.

Quidditch sucks, sure, but it doesn't make so very little sense as y'all are claiming.

Playoffs? It's a four-team league. Why on earth do they need playoffs? And then once you get to these playoffs, what justification can there be for the scoring system? It's like having to amass a 15-goal lead in soccer to make sure you don't lose when your representative fails to win the Easter Egg hunt.

I never thought I'd see a league with worse rules than the NBA. :lol:

[number8]

I think they go against other schools, or something.

I suppose it makes more sense if you see the golden ball shit as a timer, and that the "wins" are arbitrary. Which makes it even dumber, I guess.

[megladon8]

I thought The Matador was one of the funniest movies in years, and Brosnan's performance was one of the best of '05.

Oh well, different strokes.

[Philosophe_rouge]

I've decided that you all need to know that "Mine was Lithuanian," as quoted textually and visually in the box containing my screen name, is probably my favorite line, cut, and delivery in any movie ever.

On a related note, Unfaithfully Yours was jaw-droppingly good. Easily one of Sturges's best.

I'm happy you end up liking it! :pritch:

[Derek]

I've decided that you all need to know that "Mine was Lithuanian," as quoted textually and visually in the box containing my screen name, is probably my favorite line, cut, and delivery in any movie ever.

On a related note, Unfaithfully Yours was jaw-droppingly good. Easily one of Sturges's best.

This is great to hear. I've had it from Netflix for a couple weeks and should be getting to it soon.

[Duncan]

I watched the film this thread's title is a reference to. Gives the place a bit of a different vibe...

The film itself was good though.

[Sven]

Remember when Tom Waits showed up in Domino? That was awesome.

[Rowland]

Remember when Tom Waits showed up in Domino? That was awesome.Yep. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rgHYp99hYs)

[Philosophe_rouge]

Rewatched the Wizard of Oz for the billionth time, it still gets me. It's really very silly, and I shudder to think how terrible it could have been but somehow it all fits together. For me it's really the music and the performances that really make it work. The original score plus the short excerpt of Night on Bald Mountain (which I had never really noticed before) allow for the characters to express themselves beyond what I think an ordinary script could offer. So much of the understanding of Dorothy, or any of the other characters is in their vocal and dancing performance. Then of course there is Margaret Hamilton who is simply incomparable... I don't think anyone could ever play the Wicked Witch as well as she does, the way she subtly is always moving her fingers, even as she dies they're flexing like a spider.

[Sven]

Rewatched the Wizard of Oz for the billionth time, it still gets me. It's really very silly, and I shudder to think how terrible it could have been but somehow it all fits together. For me it's really the music and the performances that really make it work.

For me, it's the colors and the design, all the way. It's simply gorgeous to look at. Helps that it's a real fun entertainment, too.

[megladon8]

Yeh, the transition from black and white to colour is still magical after all these years.

It's still one of the most aesthetically pleasing films ever made.

On a similar note, Jen and I watched Forbidden Planet last night. It was her first viewing, and my third - though it felt like my first, because it's the first time I've watched it without being stoned.

It's a great, great movie. The hoaky dialogue and effects add to its charm, and somehow enhance its philosophical observations at the end. Thought despite the fact that a lot of the effects are hoaky, there are also many that are very impressive. I really like the way they revealed the monster, and I also thought the architecture of the machines underground was done well - they looked convincingly massive.

[Philosophe_rouge]

For me, it's the colors and the design, all the way. It's simply gorgeous to look at. Helps that it's a real fun entertainment, too.
It really is, I especially love the sequence with the poppies and being in the twister as far as visuals go.

[Rowland]

Yeh, the transition from black and white to colour is still magical after all these years.Sepia to color, technically...

...happy new years! :pritch:

[megladon8]

...happy new years! :pritch:


Right back at you! :)

And to everyone else, while I'm here!

[Spinal]

I'm still in 2007. :sad:

So how is the future?

[Philosophe_rouge]

I'm still in 2007. :sad:

So how is the future?

Darker

[Spinal]

Darker

*gets chills*

[Rowland]

DarkerShut it, Tommy Lee. :twisted:

[Boner M]

Shut it, Tommy Lee. :twisted:
For a second, I thought you were talking about...

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/TRND/FP9065~Tommy-Lee-Posters.jpg

Although I suppose that works too.

[Rowland]

Yeah, I have No Country on my mind... I should see it again.

[Dillard]

I just saw Roy Andersson's Songs From the Second Floor and loved it. Has anyone else around here seen the film?

[chrisnu]

I just saw Roy Andersson's Songs From the Second Floor and loved it. Has anyone else around here seen the film?
Yes, and I enjoyed it as well. I'd like more social commentary to be handled with that kind of grace. It's a very angry film, but I like that it requires some intuition to understand. It's not a simple soapbox.

[Dillard]

Yes, and I enjoyed it as well. I'd like more social commentary to be handled with that kind of grace. It's a very angry film, but I like that it requires some intuition to understand. It's not a simple soapbox.Hmm, I guess I wouldn't call the film angry in tone, but there is certainly a heavy dose of cynicism at work. But yes, the material certainly IS handled with grace. I loved the music in this film, which at times reminded me of the music in Lucasarts adventure computer games about 15 years ago. Playful, even carnivalesque (at times, I say). I think the music, in addition to the long-shot, immobile camera, helps us to maintain the necessary distance to observe, rather than become invested in, these depressing characters. This is one aspect of the grace you're referring to I think.

[Qrazy]

I also saw and quite liked Songs from the Second Floor, but I don't consider it the masterpiece that some do.

[megladon8]

Considering my rabid horror fandom, I feel ashamed to say that the first Jason Voorhees movie I ever saw was Freddy vs. Jason, which is admittedly played out as more of a comedy than a horror.

Now that I've seen the original Friday the 13th - and have all of them up to Part VIII waiting on my shelf - I can finally say I'm a little bit more "in the loop".

The original is alright, though I'm sure I would feel much more strongly about it if I had seen it as a kid and had that strong nostalgia - the same way I feel about the sequels to A Nightmare on Elm Street, of which most are pretty terrible, but I still have great memories related to them.

So yeh...Friday the 13th was okay.

[Rowland]

Joe Dante's The Screwfly Solution is a great scenario in need of a better writer and more adventurous direction. There are a few sly gags, and one haunting scene that ultimately serves only to hint at the project's missed potential. I want so desperately to like it more, in large part for its trenchant attitude, but it fails to convince. Oh well.

[Raiders]

Joe Dante's The Screwfly Solution is a great scenario in need of a better writer and more adventurous direction. There are a few sly gags, and one haunting scene that ultimately serves only to hint at the project's missed potential. I want so desperately to like it more, in large part for its trenchant attitude, but it fails to convince. Oh well.

I think iosos also was very disappointed in this, but I really liked it. My second favorite of season 2 behind Brad Anderson's Sounds Like. I also liked Dante's season 1 episode Homecoming.

[Ivan Drago]

Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film For Theaters is a fucked-up acid trip of an animated film.

I really enjoyed it.

[baby doll]

Would someone care to explain to me just how Femme Fatale is ironic in tone? I'm not exactly sure I understand that observation.De Palma is a smart guy. He knows the ending makes no sense she dreams her future, and he knows we know this, so the film maintains a certain distance from the material.

[DSNT]

Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film For Theaters is a fucked-up acid trip of an animated film.

I really enjoyed it.
Loved the intro, hated the rest. Figured I was undermedicated compared to the target audience.

[Watashi]

We do have spoiler tags for a reason.

[megladon8]

Rescue Dawn is wonderful.

I love it.

Christian Bale is fantastic as always, but the real surprise is Steve Zahn in this film. And Jeremy Davies basically plays the same character he plays in every movie.

I think I enjoyed it even more on my second viewing, because I didn't have people sitting on either side of me who were groaning and constantly checking their watches.

[Bosco B Thug]

Gah. I want to see Season 2 Masters of Horror episodes, but I find it hard to waste Netflix rentals on hour-long TV episodes. I guess I should get over that if I'm ever going to see these.

Black Snake Moan was very very enjoyable, if a little disappointingly benign. I thought it'd make Jackson into a puritanical monster. I thought neurological impulse would be equated with social ills. No luck. But great performances, music, and style make this one worthwhile, and it does show some bite in some scenes, like its juxtoposition of religious and sexual healing, and the scene between Rae and her mother.

The Simpsons Movie was meh. Some strangely incisive political commentary, but its silly "movie-size" story is at the expense of getting to spend time in the Springfield we know and love. And Homer's still a latter-seasons asshole.

[Rowland]

http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u315/BrandoBardot/tenbestricci3.jpg?t=1199150505

One of the year's most indelible performances.

And yes, The Simpsons Movie is oh-so-very meh.

[megladon8]

I stupidly bought a bunch of the Masters of Horror single DVDs over the last couple of years, because I was too impatient to wait for the boxed sets.

So now I'm stuck with a bunch of episodes from both seasons 1 and 2, and if I were to buy the rest of the episodes in their single forms, I would be spending about the same amount of money as I would if I were to buy the full sets, and be stuck with a bunch of doubles.

:cry:

[Rowland]

I stupidly bought a bunch of the Masters of Horror single DVDs over the last couple of years, because I was too impatient to wait for the boxed sets.

So now I'm stuck with a bunch of episodes from both seasons 1 and 2, and if I were to buy the rest of the episodes in their single forms, I would be spending about the same amount of money as I would if I were to buy the full sets, and be stuck with a bunch of doubles.

:cry:If you really need to own every episode, just sell the singles and purchase the sets.

[megladon8]

If you really need to own every episode, just sell the singles and purchase the sets.


I know, it's a problem which can be solved easily.

I just wish I hadn't splurged on the episodes when they first came out, since it was inevitable that a box set was coming.

[Grouchy]

I wouldn't buy any Masters of Horror in the first place. Most of the episodes are craptacular. I've only seen Season 1, but the only ones I'd consider owning are "Jennifer", "Homecoming", "Cigarette Burns" and "Imprint".

[Bosco B Thug]

One of the year's most indelible performances. I'd nominate it.

Damn, with that well-placed Confederate flag on her, who wouldn't quiver at the prospect of deep-rooted political subtext?

[megladon8]

I wouldn't buy any Masters of Horror in the first place. Most of the episodes are craptacular. I've only seen Season 1, but the only ones I'd consider owning are "Jennifer", "Homecoming", "Cigarette Burns" and "Imprint".


Admittedly I've only seen like 10-12 episodes in total, but of the ones I've seen even the bad ones had something worthwhile in them - even just one scene, or a specific idea.

I think the worst one I've seen was Pro-Life.

[Bosco B Thug]

whoops

I wouldn't buy any Masters of Horror in the first place. Most of the episodes are craptacular. I've only seen Season 1, but the only ones I'd consider owning are "Jennifer", "Homecoming", "Cigarette Burns" and "Imprint". I think all the Season 1 episodes are worth owning. That's right, even the Tobe Hooper one, whoo! Haven't seen Haeckle's Tale...

[Grouchy]

Admittedly I've only seen like 10-12 episodes in total, but of the ones I've seen even the bad ones had something worthwhile in them - even just one scene, or a specific idea.

I think the worst one I've seen was Pro-Life.
I've only seen the Season 1 episodes up to "Cigarette Burns" plus "Imprint", which I thought was the best, so I haven't even seen the full season. One episode that had nothing worthwhile in it was "Chocolate", by the creator of the series Mick Garris. I don't even get why they labeled it as Horror in the first place.

Still, I totally understand you. It's an addictive concept.

[Stay Puft]

Random thought for the day:

The last shot in Curse of the Golden Flower is appallingly stupid, and encapsulates much of what I cannot stand about Zhang Yimou's films. Hate it, hate it, hate it. Thought it had to be a joke. Sat watching it in complete disbelief. Wanted to snap the DVD in half afterwards.

But on a more positive note, because I want to end on a positive note, I enjoyed Bender's Big Score. Admittedly cloying at times, but the time-travel storyline is a lot of fun. Good to have Futurama back.

[Li Lili]

Random thought for the day:

The last shot in Curse of the Golden Flower is appallingly stupid, and encapsulates much of what I cannot stand about Zhang Yimou's films. Hate it, hate it, hate it. Thought it had to be a joke. Sat watching it in complete disbelief. Wanted to snap the DVD in half afterwards.
yes, it was bad, I thought the film itself was a joke.

[Li Lili]

Today, for the first day of the year, I am so happy to have watched a great great film, it has been so long since I last felt that way for a film.
I watched Fantasma by Lisandro Alonso (more on the other thread)

[megladon8]

I've only seen the Season 1 episodes up to "Cigarette Burns" plus "Imprint", which I thought was the best, so I haven't even seen the full season. One episode that had nothing worthwhile in it was "Chocolate", by the creator of the series Mick Garris. I don't even get why they labeled it as Horror in the first place.

Still, I totally understand you. It's an addictive concept.


You didn't even like the boobies??? :P

[Sven]

Joe Dante's The Screwfly Solution is a great scenario in need of a better writer and more adventurous direction. There are a few sly gags, and one haunting scene that ultimately serves only to hint at the project's missed potential. I want so desperately to like it more, in large part for its trenchant attitude, but it fails to convince. Oh well.

Man, this one was so totally awful. I was pissed, pissed, after I saw it. Because the scenario is very great, and I was looking forward to Dante, one of my very favorite of directors, to handle it with his usual panache.

Instead I get this wretched, pandering piece of nonsense that fails to connect any narrative pieces together coherently. The overreaching connects between the characters (who consistently say and do really stupid things) and the plot are mired in "if"s and "maybe"s that we are supposed to assume are facts. It all culminates into a very confused vision totally unworthy of the likes of Dante, whose direction here is somehow terrible (seriously, handheld? :shakes head in shame: ).

What haunting scene are you referring to? The murder on the plane?

[Grouchy]

You didn't even like the boobies??? :P
Heh.

[Boner M]

I started off my new year's with The Darjeeling Ltd. A good one, though I missed the short and kept getting sidetracked by the usual Anderson audience, making sure - loudly - that they get the joke inherent in every little speck of minutia.

Also, Wes ain't good at forcing sex into his film. Listen to your own voice, not the critics', son.

[Ezee E]

Random thought for the day:

The last shot in Curse of the Golden Flower is appallingly stupid, and encapsulates much of what I cannot stand about Zhang Yimou's films. Hate it, hate it, hate it. Thought it had to be a joke. Sat watching it in complete disbelief. Wanted to snap the DVD in half afterwards.

But on a more positive note, because I want to end on a positive note, I enjoyed Bender's Big Score. Admittedly cloying at times, but the time-travel storyline is a lot of fun. Good to have Futurama back.
Most of the movie made me feel that way. Advertised in the same way as Flying Daggers and Hero, but presented in a way that almost makes fun of its own set decoration, blowing everything up to the point of hilarity.

The best is seeing the family in a line, and the boy on the end looking like Timmy from South Park. Yet it seems to be presented as drama.

[Rowland]

Also, Wes ain't good at forcing sex into his film. That probably would have worked better if you had seen the short.

[trotchky]

I like the way Emir Kusturica plays with ideas of 'high' and 'low' art in Underground but in the end the film was too jokey for me.

[megladon8]

It was great to see Videodrome again. Interesting to see something so very Cronenberg, after watching Eastern Promises recently which isn't very Cronenberg at all.

I didn't remember James Woods being so great in it. He plays a very good slimeball.

I also found it very interesting that Cronenberg makes no attempts at making Max Renn likable. Right from the get-go he's portrayed as a creepy slob - the type of guy you'd tell your little sister to stay away from. Of course this isn't (and wasn't at the time) a new idea, but it's carried out very well.

A lot of great ideas here, and it's eerie how so much of it has come true in different ways.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Despite the terrible title, Five Fingers was a more than serviceable spy thriller based on a "true story". Of course, it's Hollywood and is highly fictionalized but perhaps it makes it more exciting. Mason is brilliant, and the twists and turns the plot take are satisfying rather than serving to manipulate and throw the audience off for no other reason to keep us on our toes. The final scene is rather delicious and rather unexpected (for me at least, I'm very easily swindled by cinema). It's especially wonderful in retrospect as you have a few moments to re-evaluate the characters, and the actions become more than superficially satisfying.

[DavidSeven]

Watched and loved the heck out of Volver. Better than Talk to Her and Bad Education.

[Dillard]

D7, what's your favorite Almodovar then? That's a bold statement, putting Volver ahead of Talk to Her. I'd like to hear more about that (I loved both films).

[Grouchy]

Watched and loved the heck out of Volver. Better than Talk to Her and Bad Education.
Ugh, totally disagree. I feel Talk to Her was one of the best recent Almodóvar, but from there onwards, each one becomes worse and worse. Also, you realize what a crappy actress Penélope is when she has to carry a movie on her shoulders.

I wanted to start the new year catching up with movies long overdue, so I saw Requiem for a Dream, which was the cinematic equivalent of being bludgeoned in the head with an oversized baseball bat. Solid, lightweight movie. Good for a couple of laughs. Seriously, though, I liked Aranofsky's total rejection of subtlety - the movie is completely pandering, but he knows that and uses it to his advantage, never betraying that dogmatic tone but building the style out of it. The whole film feels very Kubrickian, and the sped-up camera from A Clockwork Orange is adapted to great effect. All in all, a worthy modern classic.