28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[Qrazy]

The Duellists is better than Blade Runner IMO.

Agreed.

edit: Actually I reserve judgment until I see Blade Runner Final Cut. I see the potential for a great movie there I've just never really felt like it's measured up to it's status.

[megladon8]

Yeah, Ridley Scott has developed quite the mediocre career off of just a few greats.

But count me in the "Gladiator is actually pretty good" group. By no means a masterpiece, but for an action movie that's nearly operatic in its overwrought melodrama and monologuing, it's good stuff.

[Qrazy]

http://www.richlovatt.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Jar-Jar-Binks-Poster-Card-C10227315.jpeg

Yousa all forget about mesa!??

[Henry Gale]

I actually have seen A Good Year.

One of the best examples of a trailer that leaves you nothing to your imagination as to what happens in it. So in viewing the actual film I felt almost like it was just a trailer (or a long commercial) remade into what I was watching. It's padded with long, gorgeous shots of gorgeous locations, has a few subplots with side characters in there to kill time, but its purpose seems to be to simply hits 10 or so dramatic beats in the moments the trailer already showed, and with about the same impact.

It's also fairly charming and obviously competently-made. It just shouldn't be a film directed by Ridley Scott. Still, I liked it a lot more than some of his stuff from the last 10 years I've actually bothered with. Looking at you, Gladiator (even if I was about 12 when I last saw it).

[MadMan]

:pritch:



Other than for Scott completism, there's no reason to put yourself through this.As one of the resident Ridley Scott fanboys on the site, I have seen it and yes it is painfully mediocre. The first movie I've seen of his that I did not care for.


Eyes Without a Face (Franju, 1959) - decent
Videodrome (Cronenberg, 1983) - awfulWTF? Both movies should be filled under "Awesome."


Why would anyone want to be a Scott completist?

Has anyone even seen A Good Year, White Squall, 1492: Conquest of Paradise, or Someone to Watch Over Me?I liked 1492. I have not seen the other ones, but I almost feel compelled to do so anyways. Just to prove you wrong about someone not wanting to finish his filmography. I also have The Dualists to view, too.

[Bosco B Thug]

High Society - God I hate these people. I caught a scene or two of this on TV once, which sucks for the movie, because now I don't think I'll ever watch the whole thing. The songs sounded totally mediocre and nothing seemed anywhere near being the level of The Philadelphia Story.

Speaking of mind-numbing musicals, I just subjected myself to Oklahoma (not a full-attention watch, or I wouldn't have been able to sit through it). Everyone's pretty much got the right idea about it.

It gets points, though, as painful and ultimately empty as it was. For one, it's a classic Hollywood musical, so its got style, spectacle, and invention, in spurts. For two, it's popular entertainment for a reason - horribly bottom-scraping crudity and tickling depictions of humans and human tendencies at their most banal - and that means it's probably more inspired, perceptive, and terribly clever about those things than you want to give it credit for, and all the while you're tapping your toe/shaking your booty/appreciating the music. Listening to the lyrics to any popular pop/hip-hop song and it's the same sort of appeal as this thing's partially-stupefying book/libretto.

[Grouchy]

Other than Alien and Blade Runner, has he made any good movies?
http://thisdistractedglobe.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/Legend%20poster%201.jpg

[Grouchy]

Watched a pretty bad bunch of movies recently:

Gamer
Neveldine & Taylor, 2009

You know, I hope one day these guys will make a memorable, great film... but this is not it. It has a promising premise, one that takes the common elements of dystopian sci-fi like Running Man or Death Race 2000 and combines it with state-of-the-art videogaming. But, boy, I won't say the script sucks because there isn't one in the first place. The dialogue is full of clichés, most scenes don't advance the storyline coherently in any way and there is never any sense of the hero having to overcome anything - shit just happens and keeps happening. The only worthwhile moment might be the very ending, with the Cole Porter puppet-dancing. Those of you who even need to be warned, stay away. Watch Crank again, at least that one was harmless.

Funny Girl
William Wyler, 1968

Why I even sat through the entire running time of this is still a mystery. I'm not an enemy of musicals, the opposite actually, but this was the most infurating one I've ever seen outside of Sound of Music. Sharif and Streissand have zero chemistry together and the shit just lasts too goddamn long without ever having an interesting plot development. It might be the worst biopic I've ever seen. How this piece of crap launched Barbra's career is beyond me.

Push
Paul McGuigan, 2009

Now this is one I wish I'd liked more. The on location shooting in China is awesome, and the storyline is a creative way of making an original superhero film. But the characters are barely sketched and there are way too many of them to keep an interest. Dakota Fanning also needs to stop. She's a royal pain in the ass.

[Winston*]

http://thisdistractedglobe.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/Legend%20poster%201.jpg
Have you seen this since you were a kid? I saw it for the first time as an adult. It is really bad.

[Grouchy]

Have you seen this since you were a kid? I saw it for the first time as an adult. It is really bad.
Yes, I saw it a couple of years ago and still enjoyed it a lot.

[Winston*]

Yes, I saw it a couple of years ago and still enjoyed it a lot.

For corny 1985 fantasy films Ladyhawke is so much better.

[Grouchy]

For corny 1985 fantasy films Ladyhawke is so much better.
That looks fun. I'd see it.

But does it have something as awesome as The Darkness? No, probably not.

http://www.zap2it.com/media/photo/2009-02/45295873.jpg

[Rowland]

Has anyone even seen A Good Year, White Squall, 1492: Conquest of Paradise, or Someone to Watch Over Me?I've heard solid things about the last one.

I hate to be so conventional, but his first three (The Duellists, Alien, Blade Runner) are indeed his best. Legend is gorgeous though, Thelma and Louise is very respectable for what it is, Black Hawk Down is among the most kinetic action movies ever made, Hannibal is all kinds of awful but quite amusing as such, and both Matchstick Men and American Gangster are solid.

[Grouchy]

Oh, I like Hannibal a lot. I think I'm alone there.

Frankly, I've never seen a bad movie by Scott. I've seen forgettable ones, like Kingdom of Heaven, American Gangster and Body of Lies.

[soitgoes...]

Why would anyone want to be a Scott completist?

Has anyone even seen A Good Year, White Squall, 1492: Conquest of Paradise, or Someone to Watch Over Me?I've seen 2 of those. They weren't good.

[soitgoes...]

High Society - God I hate these people.
Good to see you're back watching some of these crap/mediocre movies with me.

[Sven]

Oh, I like Hannibal a lot. I think I'm alone there.

No, no. Both Daniel Davis and myself regard it very highly.


Frankly, I've never seen a bad movie by Scott.

Okay, now you're on your own.

White Squall is one of the worst films I have seen.

[Irish]

Frankly, I've never seen a bad movie by Scott.
Defend GI Jane in 300 words or less.

[endingcredits]

WTF? Both movies should be filled under "Awesome."


Videodrome is ridiculously bad to the point of being insulting. The other one was shoddy in that it failed to affect; it was blandness served at a distance for me.

[B-side]

Silent Light is captivating. The way Reygadas stages and films the mundane is kind of exceptional. It did wear a bit thin here and there, but never to the point of alienating me. There's an excellent, Bressonian emphasis on sound that really gives texture to the atmosphere and ensures you're living in the moment the film is portraying. There's a sublimity in those instances between sentences, and those moments when the sorrow of the film's characters is bubbling to the surface in spite of their self-imposed reticent temperament. So much of the dialogue feels struggled with, as if they can barely conjure the strength to speak. As it is so often compared to, I'd say it's on par with Ordet.

That ending was even more revelatory a second time around.

[dmk]

Oh, I like Hannibal a lot. I think I'm alone there.
Oh me too. I love how ridiculous it is.


Pavencello (Zulawski, 1967) - bad
fuck off.

[endingcredits]

fuck off.

http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz192/endingcredits1/50332_146875075348567_5268_n.j pg?t=1289049689

[Spinal]

Videodrome is ridiculously bad to the point of being insulting.

:pritch:

[Raiders]

The other one was shoddy in that it failed to affect; it was blandness served at a distance for me.

"Bland" is among the last words I could conceive of using for Eyes Without a Face.

[Grouchy]

Defend GI Jane in 300 words or less.
Hahahah I can't. Never seen it.

Just to lay off the heat here's the ranked Ridley Scott.

Alien - 10
Blade Runner - 10
Legend - 8
Gladiator - 6
Hannibal - 9
Kingdom of Heaven - 5
American Gangster - 7
Body of Lies - 6

And Videodrome is brilliant filmmaking. One of the best of the '80s.

[Irish]

Hahahah I can't. Never seen it.

Just to lay off the heat here's the ranked Ridley Scott.

Alien - 10
Blade Runner - 10
Legend - 8
Gladiator - 6
Hannibal - 9
Kingdom of Heaven - 5
American Gangster - 7
Body of Lies - 6

Weaaaaaaaaaaak! :lol:

You need to see more of his stuff before you form any kind of opinion. (Blade Runner and Alien skews "never seen a bad film of his" too much).

[eternity]

:pritch:
:frustrated:

[Beau]

Body of Lies was pretty bad for me. Same with American Gangster. When you have a director who, in Blade Runner, paid obsessive attention into how each and every single shot was going to affect its neighboring shots and the overall mood and thematic body of the film, it's sort of depressing to watch him now film shoddy, forgettable image, after shoddy, forgettable image. Whatever happened to the great image maker? Kingdom of Heaven at least had a bit of what made Blade Runner and Alien so memorable, that sense that each shot means something and builds into a whole. I still want to watch that presumably better Director's Cut of Kingdom. But the rest of what Ridley has done, even when I like it, I mean really like it, like Matchstick Men, it still feels like Ridley taking a day off -- or, in his case, several decades off. I actually thought A Good Year was charming, but the same thing as above applies: why is the guy who labored over every detail of two of the best science-fiction films ever made slumming it around with a disposable and breezy romantic comedy? At least make love to Marion Cotillard with your camera, like Billy Wilder made love to Hepburn in Sabrina and Monroe in Some Like it Hot. Or how you yourself did with Young in Blade Runner. But no, not even that. Fine, Ridley. Whatever.

[Qrazy]

Good to see you're back watching some of these crap/mediocre movies with me.

Haha yeah, I thing I liked this one...

The Man with the Shaven Head (Delvaux 65)

... a little more than you though. It sort of goes a bit crazy by the end but I found the general approach the film took very interesting.

[MacGuffin]

Celine and Julie Go Boating (Rivette 74) ***

You forgot a star.

[Dukefrukem]

Just watched True Grit to prepare for the remake... its damn good.

[Dukefrukem]

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/9387/moviemapp.png

[Ezee E]

A shame that North Dakota gets the shaft.

[Ivan Drago]

A shame that North Dakota gets the shaft.

Yeah, you would think Fargo would be up there.

[Irish]

Fun list at first glance, but it becomes more facile upon inspection -- there's only a handful of stuff that was made before 1980, and what's there are the most obvious choices (Wizard of Oz for Kansas? Really?).

Plus, I'm annoyed that with all the great films set in California and around Baltimore, the best they could up with is Fast Times and Pink Flamingos.

[B-side]

Videodrome is awesome.

soitgoes rated Celine and Julie appropriately. Rivette's done better, namely Nor'west.

[MadMan]

Videodrome is ridiculously bad to the point of being insulting. The other one was shoddy in that it failed to affect; it was blandness served at a distance for me.Neither of these comments make any sense to me, but hey its your opinion and stuff.

[soitgoes...]

soitgoes rated Celine and Julie appropriately. Rivette's done better, namely Nor'west.Thank you, but La Belle noiseuse is the correct response. Béart for the win!

[B-side]

Thank you, but La Belle noiseuse is the correct response. Béart for the win!

Yeah, I need to see that one. You'd probably enjoy Nor'west. Duelle is good, too. Need to rewatch it when I'm in a better mood. Wasn't all that big on Paris Belongs to Us. No trace of the usual Rivette visual flair.

[Qrazy]

Yeah, I need to see that one. You'd probably enjoy Nor'west. Duelle is good, too. Need to rewatch it when I'm in a better mood. Wasn't all that big on Paris Belongs to Us. No trace of the usual Rivette visual flair.

Oxymoron?

[B-side]

Oxymoron?

I see what you did there.

[soitgoes...]

B]Rivette visual flair[/B].


Oxymoron?Again Béart.

[B-side]

The American is pretty bad. For every good decision, there's at least 2 bad ones. Corbijn's direction is solid; good, even. It's Joffe's script that sucks. Riddled with one predictable scenario right after another, and cliche after cliche. He's an assassin who befriends a priest! He's also a softie for the prostitute. And he likes nature! See, it's clever because you wouldn't think an assassin would have those relationships and those interests. Stupid.

[balmakboor]

A shame that North Dakota gets the shaft.

We're used to it.

True story: Becky Fischer only agreed to participate if the producers agreed to not show Jesus Camp in North Dakota. She was afraid that it would make it difficult for her to remain in the state. It has. It still hasn't shown theatrically, but, of course, everyone with any interest at all has seen it on DVD. I saw one of hundreds of bootleg copies that were circulating around the state long before it was officially released.

[Boner M]

The American is pretty bad. For every good decision, there's at least 2 bad ones. Corbijn's direction is solid; good, even. It's Joffe's script that sucks. Riddled with one predictable scenario right after another, and cliche after cliche. He's an assassin who befriends a priest! He's also a softie for the prostitute. And he likes nature! See, it's clever because you wouldn't think an assassin would have those relationships and those interests. Stupid.
I didn't hate it a much as you - I think Clooney's non-performance is genuinely effective - but I generally agree. The fact that it has pretensions toward 'minimalism' only render the cliches even more glaring. Michael Sicinski's description made me laugh: "... plays like some Hollywood executive's negative projection of an art film: "What do those movies look like that I never go see, don't like to make, and never bring in any money?""

[baby doll]

I didn't hate it a much as you - I think Clooney's non-performance is genuinely effective - but I generally agree. The fact that it has pretensions toward 'minimalism' only render the cliches even more glaring. Michael Sicinski's description made me laugh: "... plays like some Hollywood executive's negative projection of an art film: "What do those movies look like that I never go see, don't like to make, and never bring in any money?""Hey remind me, how did you like Hong's Ha Ha Ha (which is now on KG)?

[Boner M]

Hey remind me, how did you like Hong's Ha Ha Ha (which is now on KG)?
Quite a bit, mostly cos it made me laugh, which is what I tend to value most about Hong at his best (not a huge fan, though I've yet to see a roughly half of his work). It also has a fairly ingenious structure that adds a great deal to Hong's usual commentary on male delusion. I know you didn't like Night & Day for the formal indifference, but I think this one has more of a chance at winning you over (I'm a skeptic, esp. since I found his latest Oki's Movie a wet fart).

[baby doll]

Quite a bit, mostly cos it made me laugh, which is what I tend to value most about Hong at his best (not a huge fan, though I've yet to see a roughly half of his work). It also has a fairly ingenious structure that adds a great deal to Hong's usual commentary on male delusion. I know you didn't like Night & Day for the formal indifference, but I think this one has more of a chance at winning you over (I'm a skeptic, esp. since I found his latest Oki's Movie a wet fart).Cool, I'll let you know how it goes. I already have Like You Know it All, so I might watch that one first.

[B-side]

I didn't hate it a much as you - I think Clooney's non-performance is genuinely effective - but I generally agree. The fact that it has pretensions toward 'minimalism' only render the cliches even more glaring. Michael Sicinski's description made me laugh: "... plays like some Hollywood executive's negative projection of an art film: "What do those movies look like that I never go see, don't like to make, and never bring in any money?""

Exactly. I think it wants to be The Conformist or something of that ilk, but it just isn't. I liked the emphasis on tone and build-up, but those rote scenes of pseudo-profundity just irked me.

[baby doll]

Exactly. I think it wants to be The Conformist or something of that ilk, but it just isn't. I liked the emphasis on tone and build-up, but those rote scenes of pseudo-profundity just irked me.Except with no connection to real world politics whatsofuckingever.

[B-side]

Except with no connection to real world politics whatsofuckingever.

I meant more in terms of style.

[dmk]

Cutter's Way (Ivan Passer, 1981) / ***1/2
I watched this last night, after I was reminded of the film by someone (here probably) and that I actually own the damn thing. So good. My favourite bit was that scene where Jeff Bridges and Lisa Eichhorn are having sex and she starts crying, but he carries on anyway. The atmosphere of the whole thing is just so tragic and beautiful, and that score- was that a theremin sound I heard intermittently accompanying it? Or a singing crystal glass? It was like a weeping whistle.

[Chac Mool]

Oh, I like Hannibal a lot. I think I'm alone there.

Frankly, I've never seen a bad movie by Scott. I've seen forgettable ones, like Kingdom of Heaven, American Gangster and Body of Lies.

Not alone. I like "Hannibal" a lot too.

And I would agree. Scott's films seem to vary between terrific and forgettable, but he's too much of a pro to make a bad one.

[Chac Mool]

Body of Lies was pretty bad for me. Same with American Gangster. When you have a director who, in Blade Runner, paid obsessive attention into how each and every single shot was going to affect its neighboring shots and the overall mood and thematic body of the film, it's sort of depressing to watch him now film shoddy, forgettable image, after shoddy, forgettable image. Whatever happened to the great image maker? Kingdom of Heaven at least had a bit of what made Blade Runner and Alien so memorable, that sense that each shot means something and builds into a whole. I still want to watch that presumably better Director's Cut of Kingdom. But the rest of what Ridley has done, even when I like it, I mean really like it, like Matchstick Men, it still feels like Ridley taking a day off -- or, in his case, several decades off. I actually thought A Good Year was charming, but the same thing as above applies: why is the guy who labored over every detail of two of the best science-fiction films ever made slumming it around with a disposable and breezy romantic comedy? At least make love to Marion Cotillard with your camera, like Billy Wilder made love to Hepburn in Sabrina and Monroe in Some Like it Hot. Or how you yourself did with Young in Blade Runner. But no, not even that. Fine, Ridley. Whatever.

You can't shoot all movies the same way. "Blade Runner" and "Alien" benefited from ornate, extremely elaborate compositions and extreme lighting, respectively. The visual panache made sense from a thematic (science-fiction) and tone/pacing (slow, tense) standpoint.

You can't shoot movies like "Body of Lies" or "American Gangster" the same way. The former tries for a pseudo-realistic tone, and so needs pseudo-realistic visuals -- shaky cam, dusty image, overexposure, blur, natural tones, all without attracting attention to the filmmaking. Given these requirements, Scott and his DP did a great job. "American Gangster" strove for a '70s look, a little more monochrome, and again, job well done.

Note: I'm not trying to compare Scott's later movies with his earlier ones. I do consider "Blade Runner" and "Alien" to be among his very best. I just take issue with comparing a specific aspect across movies that are so different.

[Skitch]

I'm with Grouchy on Scott.

Putting Gummo in Ohio instead of American Splender...somebody needs backhanded.

[Irish]

And I would agree. Scott's films seem to vary between terrific and forgettable, but he's too much of a pro to make a bad one.
*cough*GI Jane*cough*

[Qrazy]

Well it depends how we're defining bad I think. Bad in relation to an incompetent piece of craftsmanship or bad in terms of a thematically unsuccessful, cliche, tedious, and ultimately incompetent film. He may not have made one of the former but he's certainly made quite a few of the latter.

[Beau]

Yeah, I need to see that one. You'd probably enjoy Nor'west. Duelle is good, too. Need to rewatch it when I'm in a better mood. Wasn't all that big on Paris Belongs to Us. No trace of the usual Rivette visual flair.

It has plenty of it. It's also a bit rough because, you know, it's kind of an early film for Rivette. Like, his first one. But the usual hallmarks are already there.

Celine and Julie was not rated accordingly, by the by.

[Beau]

You can't shoot movies like "Body of Lies" or "American Gangster" the same way. The former tries for a pseudo-realistic tone, and so needs pseudo-realistic visuals -- shaky cam, dusty image, overexposure, blur, natural tones, all without attracting attention to the filmmaking. Given these requirements, Scott and his DP did a great job. "American Gangster" strove for a '70s look, a little more monochrome, and again, job well done.

Note: I'm not trying to compare Scott's later movies with his earlier ones. I do consider "Blade Runner" and "Alien" to be among his very best. I just take issue with comparing a specific aspect across movies that are so different.

Nowhere in my post do I ask for the same style. Only for the same amount of meaningfulness, the same sense that each shot matters. I didn't find these qualities in either of those films. I'm sure there's detail. Say, period detail, character detail. I'm sure a lot of work was put into both those films. But what they did wasn't interesting to me. You can do pseudo-realistic, or a seventies aesthetic, but you can do it with more punch. I think that, say, The French Connection has more memorable imagery, working in similar terrain. It finds more interesting characters, city-scapes, compositions, etc. Its sequel isn't as good, but it has some powerful, borderline nightmarish stuff in there, although it greatly benefits from a strong Hackman performance. You don't need to make a futuristic neo-noir for each shot to carry some weight. It's not like my favorite director, Renoir, indulges in ornate lighting and compositions. He just films things being alive on-screen, detail in foreground and background. It's a relaxed camera that doesn't call attention to itself, but you can see there's detail, care, thought put into each image. Just to pose another example. And I have to say that, even accepting what American Gangster was going for, I don't think it's interesting -- gritty seventies pseudo-realism can be more lyrical, aesthetically evocative, Mean Streets, Killer of Sheep, et al. Gangster just looked like a flashier episode of Hill Street Blues to me. Except it knew it looked as it looked. Walking the walk of seventies pseudo-realism. So it doesn't have that oddly comfy, natural in-the-moment feel you got from Hill Street Blues. Because it felt forced. Body of Lies seemed like something the other Scott brother would have done better.

[balmakboor]

Red Desert is a pretty amazing movie.

[megladon8]

I'm a day late to the discussion, but Videodrome is better than most movies.

If you think differently, you probably lure children to your secret gingerbread house in the woods.

[number8]

I. Fucking. Love. Baz. Luhrmann.

[StanleyK]

I think I figured out where the humanism in 2001: A Space Odyssey comes from, hidden as it is beneath the stone-faced performances and banal conversations: food. It's upgrading from grass to tapir meat that makes the apes smarter. Recall the zero-gravity toilet and the many scenes of people eating processed junk- the need for food is ubiquitous, and what makes us, in fact, alive. HAL 9000 doesn't eat, and neither do the aliens, and when Dave Bowman travels millions of lightyears, he trades in all the knowledge in the universe for his ability to eat; that's why he's given a last meal. Now I know why the ending has always struck me as bittersweet. Is omniscience really worth being a giant space baby that can't appreciate good food, simpler pleasures?

[Qrazy]

I think I figured out where the humanism in 2001: A Space Odyssey comes from, hidden as it is beneath the stone-faced performances and banal conversations: food. It's upgrading from grass to tapir meat that makes the apes smarter. Recall the zero-gravity toilet and the many scenes of people eating processed junk- the need for food is ubiquitous, and what makes us, in fact, alive. HAL 9000 doesn't eat, and neither do the aliens, and when Dave Bowman travels millions of lightyears, he trades in all the knowledge in the universe for his ability to eat; that's why he's given a last meal. Now I know why the ending has always struck me as bittersweet. Is omniscience really worth being a giant space baby that can't appreciate good food, simpler pleasures?

Ahhh k, cause I was wondering. It must be all the iron.

[endingcredits]

Ahhh k, cause I was wondering. It must be all the iron.

Don't forget the protein.

[number8]

I. Fucking. Love. Baz. Luhrmann.

This, by the way, was prompted by a viewing of the gorgeous Blu-ray version of Romeo + Juliet. Man, this movie is great.

[Kurosawa Fan]

This, by the way, was prompted by a viewing of the gorgeous Blu-ray version of Romeo + Juliet. Man, this movie is great.

Ew.

[D_Davis]

I agree that Hannibal is awesome. Love that movie. I like it a lot better than Silence.

I disagree that Romeo + Juliet is good. I'd probably rank it among my least favorite films. Utterly annoying and noisy.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I disagree that Romeo + Juliet is good. I'd probably rank it among my least favorite films. Utterly annoying and noisy.

Yep. What he said.

[number8]

I like it slightly more than Moulin Rouge, which is also a masterpiece.

[D_Davis]

I like it slightly more than Moulin Rouge, which is also a masterpiece.

So do I.

[megladon8]

Moulin Rouge! is, indeed, a masterpiece. But I am in the "Romeo + Juliet is annoying" camp.

I also hate that terrible cover of "When Doves Cry".

[Dukefrukem]

I haven't seen Romeo + Juliet since it was in theaters. It deserves another viewing.

[soitgoes...]

I've never been able to get past 30 minutes of Romeo + Juliet before I get annoyed and turn it off.

[number8]

But the first 15 minutes is pure cinema.

[baby doll]

I don't care what anyone says, my favorite Baz Luhrmann is still Australia.

[soitgoes...]

But the first 15 minutes is pure cinema.
I like my cinema to be tainted.

[soitgoes...]

I don't care what anyone says, my favorite Baz Luhrmann is still Australia.
I made it through this one, and though you don't care, you are wrong.

Moulin Rouge! is his best, as well as his most interesting work to date. It isn't great, but it is an enjoyable romp.

[Spinal]

*vomits*

[D_Davis]

Often times when I think of a director who makes the kinds of movies I tend to loath, Baz Luhrmann's name springs to mind second, right after Sofia Coppola.

And in other news, I need to watch like 5 hours of The Office or Parks and Recreation to clear my mind of A Serbian Film. That movie is a real downer.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Shaolin Soccer radiates joy. I adored it. It shares Kung Fu Hustle's energy and pace and cartoon weirdness.

I now love Stephen Chow.

[Sven]

I now love Stephen Chow.

One word: imports.

Most of his best stuff is not available R1. I've seen around fifteen or so and all but maybe a couple are varying degrees of great.

[B-side]

The Mirror (Tarkovsky 75) ***½

You're a half-star short of the proper rating, but I take what I can get with you.:P

Glad you enjoyed it.:D

[Dead & Messed Up]

One word: imports.

Most of his best stuff is not available R1. I've seen around fifteen or so and all but maybe a couple are varying degrees of great.

Thanks for the heads-up. Luckily, Netflix should be able to slake my thirst for a while - they have CJ7 and Forbidden City Cop.

[soitgoes...]

You're a half-star short of the proper rating, but I take what I can get with you.:P

Glad you enjoyed it.:DWith Tarkovsky, this is a pretty solid rating from me, I'm actually surprised I liked it as much as I did. I'm actually eager to see Stalker now. I can't say I've ever been eager to watch a Tarkovsky film before.

[B-side]

With Tarkovsky, this is a pretty solid rating from me, I'm actually surprised I liked it as much as I did. I'm actually eager to see Stalker now. I can't say I've ever been eager to watch a Tarkovsky film before.

Absolute madness. The man was a master. Stalker isn't as good as The Mirror, but I'm in a rather small minority with that opinion.

[Chac Mool]

Nowhere in my post do I ask for the same style. Only for the same amount of meaningfulness, the same sense that each shot matters. I didn't find these qualities in either of those films. I'm sure there's detail. Say, period detail, character detail. I'm sure a lot of work was put into both those films. But what they did wasn't interesting to me. You can do pseudo-realistic, or a seventies aesthetic, but you can do it with more punch. I think that, say, The French Connection has more memorable imagery, working in similar terrain. It finds more interesting characters, city-scapes, compositions, etc. Its sequel isn't as good, but it has some powerful, borderline nightmarish stuff in there, although it greatly benefits from a strong Hackman performance. You don't need to make a futuristic neo-noir for each shot to carry some weight. It's not like my favorite director, Renoir, indulges in ornate lighting and compositions. He just films things being alive on-screen, detail in foreground and background. It's a relaxed camera that doesn't call attention to itself, but you can see there's detail, care, thought put into each image. Just to pose another example. And I have to say that, even accepting what American Gangster was going for, I don't think it's interesting -- gritty seventies pseudo-realism can be more lyrical, aesthetically evocative, Mean Streets, Killer of Sheep, et al. Gangster just looked like a flashier episode of Hill Street Blues to me. Except it knew it looked as it looked. Walking the walk of seventies pseudo-realism. So it doesn't have that oddly comfy, natural in-the-moment feel you got from Hill Street Blues. Because it felt forced. Body of Lies seemed like something the other Scott brother would have done better.

Fair enough. I took your initial comment to mean that you wanted Scott to make a more emphatically, overtly visual film -- i.e. a film that's carried by its visuals (like "Blade Runner" and "Alien") -- rather than what you're saying above.

Regarding "Body of Lies", I do think it has more going for it than a run-of-the-mill Tony Scott (though I do like many of his movie too). It may not be the great statement on post-9/11 American war-on-terror interventionism, but it's smart, tight, and well-acted.


I like it slightly more than Moulin Rouge, which is also a masterpiece.

I'm not the biggest fan of "Romeo + Juliet", but "Moulin Rouge" is pretty f'n great.

[Henry Gale]

The new Moulin Rouge Blu-ray is also fantastic. Seeing things like the earliest rehearsals between McGregor, Kidman, Broadbent and the rest of the cast, in some cases even years before filming, has some magical stuff in it.

Plus, the movie and its new transfer make it all as gorgeous and beautiful as ever.

[endingcredits]

Absolute madness. The man was a master. Stalker isn't as good as The Mirror, but I'm in a rather small minority with that opinion.

The Mirror is the best film of all time.

[number8]

District 9 is a terrible movie.

[megladon8]

District 9 is a terrible movie.


No, it's pretty great.

[B-side]

The Mirror is the best film of all time.

I knew I liked you for a reason.

[Dead & Messed Up]

District 9 is a terrible movie.

Nah, it's just disappointing.

[Watashi]

Baz Luhrmann should have directed District 9.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Baz Luhrmann should have directed District 9.

Pure cinema.

[DavidSeven]

The first 15, 20, 30 (?) minutes of District 9 are awful. The rest is pretty alright.

[MadMan]

District 9 is a terrible movie.Swing and a miss!


Nah, it's just disappointing.You must have had unreasonable expectations. If anything, I went in not knowing what to expect, so therefore my experience wasn't tainted by any biases. This doesn't happen too often with a movie, though....most films I go in either thinking "Damn this is going to awesome," or "This will most likely suck." Extremes are more fun.


This, by the way, was prompted by a viewing of the gorgeous Blu-ray version of Romeo + Juliet. Man, this movie is great.I like it, but I can't call it a great movie, no.

[Bosco B Thug]

District 9 is a terrible movie. It and Moulin Rouge are what I call "headache films."

Me, friend or foe? :)

[Rowland]

Shaolin Soccer radiates joy. I adored it. It shares Kung Fu Hustle's energy and pace and cartoon weirdness.

I now love Stephen Chow.Have you seen his underrated CJ7?

EDIT: Never mind, I answered my question quick by reading further down the page. Still, be sure to check it out.

[B-side]

I like CJ7.

[baby doll]

District 9 was pretty bad. I guess if you like watching shit blow up, it had plenty of that. Personally, I find more is less with this sort of thing.

[Dukefrukem]

District 9 was pretty bad. I guess if you like watching shit blow up, it had plenty of that. Personally, I find more is less with this sort of thing.

:|

[Ezee E]

I remember when everyone liked District 9 except for the last 20-30 minutes...

[Rowland]

I still like it, including the last act. *shrug*

[number8]

The first 15, 20, 30 (?) minutes of District 9 are awful. The rest is pretty alright.

The middle part is the only remotely watchable bits. Everything until Wikus' transformation is mind-numbingly stupid, and I pretty much tuned out during the non-stop running and shooting of the last 30 minutes. The scenes of Wikus as a test subject and then being homeless at least have some drama to it.

Neil Blomkamp can't shoot an action scene worth dick. I actually found myself getting kind of angry while watching it. You got this charismatic lead, great setting, cool designs, pretty decent CG team, and you shoot it like a soccer dad learning to use a camcorder for the first time during his son's most important soccer game? Fuck you.

[Dukefrukem]

From what I remember, very little "blows up". It's not until 3/4 into the movie where things speed up get a little bit crazier.


The escape from the building and the ship crashing are the two things I remember "exploding"...

[baby doll]

From what I remember, very little "blows up". It's not until 3/4 into the movie where things speed up get a little bit crazier.


The escape from the building and the ship crashing are the two things I remember "exploding"...
I can't remember the movie that well, based on a single viewing a year ago, but I do recall lots of video game-style violence. Whether "shit blowing up" is an entirely precise way of describing it, I think it captures the general tenor of the film, in which an unfunny South African version of The Office gives way to monotonous action scenes.

[Raiders]

I still like it, including the last act. *shrug*

Pretty much.

[Winston*]

Was really into Fish Tank until a spider ran over my hand about ten minutes before the end and completely took me out of the movie. Andrea Arnold's previous film Red Road had no such spider experience.

[Pop Trash]

I attempted to watch Naked last night and got about an hour into it before I shut it off. Anyone care to explain the appeal of this to me? The Johnny character just reminds me of one of those "9/11 Truth" guys that want to chew your ear off at the laundromat about whatever crackpot conspiracy or 2012 crapola they believe in.

[number8]

Was really into Fish Tank until a spider ran over my hand about ten minutes before the end and completely took me out of the movie. Andrea Arnold's previous film Red Road had no such spider experience.

I wish a spider had bit me during Fish Tank. That would have given me an excuse to walk out.

[balmakboor]

I attempted to watch Naked last night and got about an hour into it before I shut it off. Anyone care to explain the appeal of this to me? The Johnny character just reminds me of one of those "9/11 Truth" guys that want to chew your ear off at the laundromat about whatever crackpot conspiracy or 2012 crapola they believe in.

Well, for starters I love hearing people spout off about crackpot conspiracy theories and 2012 crapola. Other than that and the general dark atmosphere and the solid performances, I can't really remember why I liked it so much. I've only seen it once about 17 years ago.

[Spinal]

My main problem with District 9 remains the stylistc inconsistency.

[number8]

My main problem with District 9 remains the stylistc inconsistency.

This. The random cuts to CCTV during action scenes are incredibly annoying, and the mockumentary parts feel less like a stylistic choice and more like laziness in exposition.

[D_Davis]

To me, District 9 felt like a movie made by a director who was afraid that he'd never be able to make another movie and so he crammed in everything he'd always wanted to do. See Brotherhood of the Wolf as another example of this kind of film.

Also, D9 was too "loud." I felt exhausted after watching it.

[Irish]

See Brotherhood of the Wolf as another example of this kind of film.
Brotherhood is a mess, but it's a glorious mess. :P

District 9 is .. I dunno. Another run-and-gun sci fi with social pretensions.

[balmakboor]

I found D9 to be an admirable failure. It has plenty of inspired bits and I liked the general idea behind it, but the overall effect was tedium. Still, if someone asked me if he should see it, I'd say yes without hesitation.

[Dukefrukem]

I don't remember this much hate on D9 when it first came out. In fact, quite the opposite (and the reason why I went and saw it). Have all these opinions been gathered after multiple viewings?

[D_Davis]

I don't remember this much hate on D9 when it first came out. In fact, quite the opposite (and the reason why I went and saw it). Have all these opinions been gathered after multiple viewings?

I just saw it for the first time a few months ago.

[Boner M]

I actually liked the mockumentary/opening part of D9, then loved the middle part, then, like 8, tuned out during the rest. I have no desire to watch it again.

[Boner M]

I don't remember this much hate on D9 when it first came out. In fact, quite the opposite (and the reason why I went and saw it). Have all these opinions been gathered after multiple viewings?
http://www.bandddesigns.com/energy/arch/Hype%20MFP%20Energy%20Drink%20 II.jpg

[Rowland]

A repeat viewing of the film confirmed that it is quite problematic, usually when it feels like it's pandering the most to fanboy audiences, but as far as topical sci-fi/body horror/media satire/action fusions in which the protagonist learns empathy by literally becoming the "other" are concerned, it's a great deal more sophisticated than the similar Avatar. Starship Troopers is better still of course.

[Boner M]

Boy (Waititi, 2010) ½
Ouch. Just be grateful you haven't seen Eagle vs Shark.

[Winston*]

Boy is pretty great IMO.

[soitgoes...]

Boy is pretty great IMO.
I think it falls somewhere between yours and Derek's ratings. I liked the fantasy bits.

[soitgoes...]

The Housemaid (Im, 2010) **½
The Housemaid (Kim, 1960) ***½

Cool. What are your feelings on how the new version compares to the original. I haven't seen Im's yet, but I rate Kim's the same. The coda cost the film a higher rating from me.

[Dukefrukem]

hype]

Well aren't you clever...

[Spinal]

I don't remember this much hate on D9 when it first came out. In fact, quite the opposite (and the reason why I went and saw it). Have all these opinions been gathered after multiple viewings?

My opinion is posted in the District 9 thread. It's the same one I have now.

[soitgoes...]

Duras' India Song. Where's that emoticon who sticks a gun in his mouth and blows his brains out? Well imagine that's in this post.

[[ETM]]

Duras' India Song. Where's that emoticon who sticks a gun in his mouth and blows his brains out? Well imagine that's in this post.

Is that a bad thing? It could also mean "I've seen everything and I can die in peace now".

[soitgoes...]

;298888']Is that a bad thing? It could also mean "I've seen everything and I can die in peace now".Most definitely bad.

[Melville]

I attempted to watch Naked last night and got about an hour into it before I shut it off. Anyone care to explain the appeal of this to me?
It's a palpably grim inversion of The Odyssey that uses its mythic structure to explore modern alienation, misanthropy, and nihilism, along with one of film's most memorable character portraits. And its style, particularly in its dialogue and performances, is a mesmerizing mix of blistering force and naturalism. What's not to like?

[Derek]

Ouch. Just be grateful you haven't seen Eagle vs Shark.

Yeah, I went in knowing nothing about this other than it was a Kiwi film. I couldn't see Blue Valentine and be sure to get to Boonmee on time, so I figured I'd kill 90 minutes with this. Perhaps I'm being a bit harsh, but I was tired of the overly cutesy, retro-set quirk-on-steroids films back when Napoleon Dynamite came out, so this film was kinda tailor-made for me to hate it.


Cool. What are your feelings on how the new version compares to the original. I haven't seen Im's yet, but I rate Kim's the same. The coda cost the film a higher rating from me.

The new film makes a number of interesting changes (adds a mother-in-law character, makes the family rich thus shifting the commentary from familial to class), but loses much of the original's moral ambiguity by presenting the housemaid as the victim of a cruel, manipulative rich family. Im tried to temper this by making the daughter (there was no son and here she was an adorable little doll rather than a cripple) sympathetic towards the housemaid, but the deck is clearly stacked here. It's beautifully shot, but not as strangely unsettling as the original which some how makes every character an undeserving victim whose outrage is understandable and a conniving bastard.

[B-side]

It's a palpably grim inversion of The Odyssey that uses its mythic structure to explore modern alienation, misanthropy, and nihilism, along with one of film's most memorable character portraits. And its style, particularly in its dialogue and performances, is a mesmerizing mix of blistering force and naturalism. What's not to like?

Plus, it's really funny.

[Melville]

Plus, it's really funny.
Very true.

[Derek]

Yeah, Naked's one that just gets better and better.

[DavidSeven]

I attempted to watch Naked last night and got about an hour into it before I shut it off. Anyone care to explain the appeal of this to me? The Johnny character just reminds me of one of those "9/11 Truth" guys that want to chew your ear off at the laundromat about whatever crackpot conspiracy or 2012 crapola they believe in.

I like you.

[Derek]

I like you.

I was about to say something bad until I saw your sig. You've earned a reprieve. :)

[B-side]

Very true.

Infinitely quotable:

Louise: Sometimes I wish I was back in Manchester.
Sophie: What for?
Louise: People talk to you.
Sophie: I talk to you.
Louise: Yeah, but you talk a pile of shit.

[Winston*]

Yeah, I went in knowing nothing about this other than it was a Kiwi film. I couldn't see Blue Valentine and be sure to get to Boonmee on time, so I figured I'd kill 90 minutes with this. Perhaps I'm being a bit harsh, but I was tired of the overly cutesy, retro-set quirk-on-steroids films back when Napoleon Dynamite came out, so this film was kinda tailor-made for me to hate it.


Think you're letting kneejerk hate for indie aesthetics blind you to the film's admirable qualities.

[Raiders]

I attempted to watch Naked last night and got about an hour into it before I shut it off. Anyone care to explain the appeal of this to me? The Johnny character just reminds me of one of those "9/11 Truth" guys that want to chew your ear off at the laundromat about whatever crackpot conspiracy or 2012 crapola they believe in.

I'm not following what that has to do with disliking the film, though.

[Boner M]

Johnny: And what is it what goes on in this postmodern gas chamber?
Brian: Nothing. It's empty.
Johnny: So what is it you guard, then?
Brian: Space.
Johnny: You're guarding space? That's stupid, isn't it? Because someone could break in there and steal all the fuckin' space and you wouldn't know it's gone, would you?
Brian: Good point.

[Derek]

Think you're letting kneejerk hate for indie aesthetics blind you to the film's admirable qualities.

Could be, but it's clearly meant to be funny and endearing and I found it neither of those. I was also put off by how it glamorized poverty by never even acknowledging the reality those kids were living in. It was just kinda fun to be poor because there were a bunch of cute kids who all helped each other out and a crazy, delusional dad whose neglect and betrayal is only really dealt with in brief passing before all things are forgiven with a over-credits, full-cast dance-off. Sorry, this just hit a lot checkmarks of "things of which I cannot abide" (Spinalâ„¢).


I'm not following what that has to do with disliking the film, though.

Johnny is an unlikeable character etc. etc.

[Derek]

Johnny: And what is it what goes on in this postmodern gas chamber?
Brian: Nothing. It's empty.
Johnny: So what is it you guard, then?
Brian: Space.
Johnny: You're guarding space? That's stupid, isn't it? Because someone could break in there and steal all the fuckin' space and you wouldn't know it's gone, would you?
Brian: Good point.

:lol:

I can't imagine anyone finding that entire sequence less than enthralling. Absolutely brilliant.

[Winston*]

Could be, but it's clearly meant to be funny and endearing and I found it neither of those. I was also put off by how it glamorized poverty by never even acknowledging the reality those kids were living in. It was just kinda fun to be poor because there were a bunch of cute kids who all helped each other out and a crazy, delusional dad whose neglect and betrayal is only really dealt with in brief passing before all things are forgiven with a over-credits, full-cast dance-off. Sorry, this just hit a lot checkmarks of "things of which I cannot abide" (Spinalâ„¢).


Man, we saw this film completely differently.

[Derek]

Man, we saw this film completely differently.

What'd you love about it?

[Boner M]

Man, we saw this film completely differently.
Yeah, I just viewed it as a just a warm and funny child's eye reminiscence with the occasional dark cloud on the horizon... I can understand objecting to its tone/aesthetic, but it's hardly aiming to be Nobody Knows.

[Winston*]

What'd you love about it?

Didn't love it actually but found it a pretty funny, believable, fairly emotionally resonant representation of a segment of the NZ population that hasn't really been represented on film to this point. Don't see how it lets the dad off the hook, the boy's increasingly disilusionment with his father is the focus of the second half of the film, or how it glamourises poverty. Thought the cutesy aesthetics worked fine considering its from a childs POV.

[Derek]

Yeah, I just viewed it as a just a warm and funny child's eye reminiscence with the occasional dark cloud on the horizon... I can understand objecting to its tone/aesthetic, but it's hardly aiming to be Nobody Knows.

Well, I'm hardly asking it to be, but how can you convey any sense of true emotion between a son and his father if even the worst things he does are kind of brushed aside and his negative qualities merely played for goofy laughs. Romanticizing the time and setting on top of that, making it into some sort of junkyard Neverland, simply renders all of the dark undertones null and void as even the 4-year old kids are seemingly self-sufficient. The one moment that worked for me, as it actually tried to strike a chord of emotional truth, was when the dad ripped the jacket off of Boy after returning home. Other than that, there wasn't much that didn't come off as exceedingly phony or forced. Objecting to the tone and aesthetic is almost the same as objecting to the film. They're basically one and the same, since the film makes little attempt to provide any real content.

[Derek]

Didn't love it actually but found it a pretty funny, believable, fairly emotionally resonant representation of a segment of the NZ population that hasn't really been represented on film to this point. Don't see how it lets the dad off the hook, the boy's increasingly disilusionment with his father is the focus of the second half of the film, or how it glamourises poverty. Thought the cutesy aesthetics worked fine considering its from a childs POV.

His disillusionment never really happened until the dad left and I will say, the best part of the film was after he came back and Boy starts to see him for what he is. But that was hardly half the film and by the end, I never got the feeling that Boy was approaching his continued relationship with his father with much, if any, trepidation. I guess you can always justify cutesy aesthetics if it's starring a child, but indie quirk always sets itself up for this defense. I love it, for the most part, with Wes Anderson, and I've enjoyed it with other films as well. I suppose it comes down to whether or not the film strikes an emotional chord with me and this one just felt too disingenuous. As for glamorizing poverty, it can again fall back on the child's POV argument, that Boy knows no other life and thus can accept his surroundings, but the way the film presents them makes it look fun. It's poverty-as-fantasy just like Slumdog Millionaire, though this film is at least a bit of a step up from that.

EDIT: But really, it's a harmless enough film, so I won't thrash it anymore. I still like Kiwis.

[balmakboor]

I hadn't seen it for a long while, but I rewatched Ross McElwee's Time Indefinite this evening. If I started doing my own version of Great Films, I'd certainly include this. Such a profound and moving meditation on birth and death and that thing that comes in between called life.

I also watched the Warhol production Flesh and found it an unexpectedly warm and likeable portrait of a male hustler. It seemed the best Gus Van Sant film Van Sant never made in a way and I'm sure it influenced him deeply.

Great evening of instant watching.

[Qrazy]

I hadn't seen it for a long while, but I rewatched Ross McElwee's Time Indefinite this evening. If I started doing my own version of Great Films, I'd certainly include this. Such a profound and moving meditation on birth and death and that thing that comes in between called life.

I also watched the Warhol production Flesh and found it an unexpectedly warm and likeable portrait of a male hustler. It seemed the best Gus Van Sant film Van Sant never made in a way and I'm sure it influenced him deeply.

Great evening of instant watching.

Funnily enough I just watched Sherman's March today. McElwee's definitely great at making life compulsively watchable.

[MadMan]

I guess I'm adding Naked to my Netflix queue....


I remember when everyone liked District 9 except for the last 20-30 minutes...The last 20-30 minutes are among the most tense, action packed and entertaining parts of the entire movie. I actually regret not seeing District 9 in the theaters.

[B-side]

I think I have a new favorite Bresson.

[soitgoes...]

I think I have a new favorite Bresson. A 7.5?

[B-side]

A 7.5?

I'm thinking it's probably an 8, but I've never been overly fond of him. I like him, I just don't love him.

[soitgoes...]

I'm thinking it's probably an 8, but I've never been overly fond of him. I like him, I just don't love him.And you gave me shit for a three and a half star Tarkovsky? For shame Brightside! ;)

I have not seen Mouchette.

[B-side]

And you gave me shit for a three and a half star Tarkovsky? For shame Brightside! ;)

I have not seen Mouchette.

Tarkovsky's awesome, though.:P

[Philosophe_rouge]

Bresson > Tarkovsky

[Raiders]

Bresson > Tarkovsky

Indeed.

[Pop Trash]

It's a palpably grim inversion of The Odyssey that uses its mythic structure to explore modern alienation, misanthropy, and nihilism, along with one of film's most memorable character portraits. And its style, particularly in its dialogue and performances, is a mesmerizing mix of blistering force and naturalism. What's not to like?

Yeah I guess. But seriously, top ten of the 90s? I mean it's not like other misanthropic 90s indie films (which honestly became a huge cliche) made it in there. I don't see Welcome to the Dollhouse, Hurlyburly, Kids, In the Company of Men, Your Friends and Neighbors, etc. etc. Is it just cuz it's British? Are we all Anglophiles on Match-Cut?

Plus quotable? I don't see Kicking and Screaming on there. Clerks? Trainspotting? Plenty of others...

[Raiders]

Is it just cuz it's British? Are we all Anglophiles on Match-Cut?

Damn, you guessed it. If it had been Australian though, #1 for sure.


Plus quotable? I don't see Kicking and Screaming on there. Clerks? Plenty of others...

I have never had the desire to quote Clerks.

[Pop Trash]

I have never had the desire to quote Clerks.

But I doubt you go around quoting Naked to your co-workers either.

[Raiders]

But I doubt you go around quoting Naked to your co-workers either.

Is that the barometer we're using?

[Pop Trash]

Is that the barometer we're using?

Apparently.

[Raiders]

Apparently.

Then National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation is my favorite film of all-time.

[Pop Trash]

Then National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation is my favorite film of all-time.

I think mine would be Total Recall as of late.

[number8]

Blue Velvet would be mine, and that's from one line alone.

[Pop Trash]

Blue Velvet would be mine, and that's from one line alone.

It might not be good for your career to keep yelling "MOMEEEE BABY WANTS TO FUCK!" at work.

[number8]

http://i.imgur.com/OsRY1.jpg

[Watashi]

Is Cillian Murphy suppose to be an Oompa Loompa?

[Spinal]

It might not be good for your career to keep yelling "MOMEEEE BABY WANTS TO FUCK!" at work.

Depends on your career path.

[Melville]

Yeah I guess. But seriously, top ten of the 90s? I mean it's not like other misanthropic 90s indie films (which honestly became a huge cliche) made it in there.
You picked one word out of my description...And there's a difference between being misanthropic and exploring misanthropy.


Plus quotable? I don't see Kicking and Screaming on there. Clerks? Trainspotting? Plenty of others...
Anything by Kevin Smith is anti-quotable.

EDIT: but, seriously, why does nobody ever seem to mention Naked's use of The Oddysey's story? It's a more pointed use than Ulysses and O Brother Where Art Thou.

[D_Davis]

Then National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation is my favorite film of all-time.

You serious, Clark?

[Raiders]

You serious, Clark?

It's shoddy as hell, I don't deny that, but it is also by far the funniest thing John Hughes wrote.

[Dukefrukem]

"We needed a coffin- a tree"

[D_Davis]

It's shoddy as hell, I don't deny that, but it is also by far the funniest thing John Hughes wrote.

Oh I love it. One of the funniest films of all time - no doubt.

[Boner M]

Yeah I guess. But seriously, top ten of the 90s? I mean it's not like other misanthropic 90s indie films (which honestly became a huge cliche) made it in there. I don't see Welcome to the Dollhouse, Hurlyburly, Kids, In the Company of Men, Your Friends and Neighbors, etc. etc. Is it just cuz it's British? Are we all Anglophiles on Match-Cut?
You don't see Your Friends & Neighbours there because it's a terrible piece of shit, and it doesn't take a great effort to see a difference between Leigh's lamentation and Labute's celebration of his own cynicism. And seriously, you got halfway into Naked and thought "Sorry, but Kids and Welcome to the Dollhouse did this way better"?

[Sven]

You don't see Your Friends & Neighbours there because it's a terrible piece of shit, and it doesn't take a great effort to see a difference between Leigh's lamentation and Labute's celebration of his own cynicism. And seriously, you got halfway into Naked and thought "Sorry, but Kids and Welcome to the Dollhouse did this way better"?

Rep-worthiest of all Boner-posts.

[D_Davis]

I never want to see anything that Kids is better than.

[Spinal]

Welcome to the Dollhouse is exceptional, but I would never think to compare it to Naked.

[Stay Puft]

Outrage (Kitano, 2010) ***


Say words.

[Pop Trash]

You don't see Your Friends & Neighbours there because it's a terrible piece of shit, and it doesn't take a great effort to see a difference between Leigh's lamentation and Labute's celebration of his own cynicism. And seriously, you got halfway into Naked and thought "Sorry, but Kids and Welcome to the Dollhouse did this way better"?

I got halfway through, and honestly, unless there is some kind of mind-blowing denouncement at the end, I found it a rather obnoxious bore. It also interrupted an awesome marathon session of "Mad Men" featuring the far more interesting, mysterious, and subtle Don Draper character who would probably throw Johnny from Naked out of his office window. So thanks for wasting my time Match-Cut.

[Derek]

Say words.

Funny. Brutal. Absurd. Explosive. Awkward. Sad. And though it's a yakuza film, a black man has a fairly prominent role, so even baby doll would approve of its canonization.

[Mr. Pink]

I got halfway through, and honestly, unless there is some kind of mind-blowing denouncement at the end, I found it a rather obnoxious bore. It also interrupted an awesome marathon session of "Mad Men" featuring the far more interesting, mysterious, and subtle Don Draper character who would probably throw Johnny from Naked out of his office window. So thanks for wasting my time Match-Cut.

For what it's worth, my favorite parts come during the second half, once he leaves the apartment. It gets so much better, but I also thought it was pretty damned good before that.

Still, I would say you missed the best parts.

[soitgoes...]

The Killing of a Chinese Bookie is so good. I watched the original version. I've read that the re-cut version is quite different and also Cassavetes' preferred version, what's everyone's opinion of this?

[Derek]

The Killing of a Chinese Bookie is so good. I watched the original version. I've read that the re-cut version is quite different and also Cassavetes' preferred version, what's everyone's opinion of this?

I have only seen the longer version and loved it as well. I can't imagine cutting ~30 minutes would make it any better, but I'd still like to see it for comparison's sake.

[soitgoes...]

I have only seen the longer version and loved it as well. I can't imagine cutting ~30 minutes would make it any better, but I'd still like to see it for comparison's sake.
It doesn't feel like it needs to be trimmed down at all, so it makes me wonder why Cassavetes felt the need to do that. Apparently he reordered a number of scenes too.

[soitgoes...]

And on a completely tacky note, Cassavetes had a "talent" for casting girls with amazing breasts.

[Derek]

It doesn't feel like it needs to be trimmed down at all, so it makes me wonder why Cassavetes felt the need to do that. Apparently he reordered a number of scenes too.

From Wikipedia: "The bulk of the cutting in the 1978 version removed many of the nightclub routines that were in the 1976 version." Also doesn't sound like a good thing.

[Boner M]

The shorter cut (DC) was the first version I saw and I liked it about the same as the longer one, though I've only seen the former cut once and the latter one much later. The original one, despite being inferior according to him, feels more like what he would've intended, since it noticeably extends the film's most Cassavetean element - the club's performances. I wouldn't take his word for it, since he was a notorious self-promoter and his press statements are full of contradictions (esp. at that stage of his career, when he'd fallen well out of favor with critics and audiences).

[soitgoes...]

From Wikipedia: "The bulk of the cutting in the 1978 version removed many of the nightclub routines that were in the 1976 version." Also doesn't sound like a good thing.Ack! That completely runs against what I was saying in my post directly above yours. Forget that. Gena Rowlands probably was nagging him or something.

[soitgoes...]

David Holzman's Diary (McBride, 1967) **Oh man, I did not care for this one at all.

[soitgoes...]

Oh man, I did not care for this one at all.
My thoughts. (http://www.match-cut.org/showthread.php?p=232428)

[Boner M]

Oh man, I did not care for this one at all.
Yeah, I thought the street scenes were fairly engaging and sometimes inspired, but it's nothing Jonas Mekas wasn't doing better at the time, and the confessional parts merely function as a stark prophecy of the downside of the democratisation of media via youtube. I think a condensed 10 minute version would've made roughly the same point, and would've likely been way funnier (ending at the part where an acquaintance tells him the project is bunk).

[Boner M]

And yeah, dude was a douche.

[soitgoes...]

Yeah, I thought the street scenes were fairly engaging and sometimes inspired, but it's nothing Jonas Mekas wasn't doing better at the time, and the confessional parts merely function as a stark prophecy of the downside of the democratisation of media via youtube. I think a condensed 10 minute version would've made roughly the same point, and would've likely been way funnier (ending at the part where an acquaintance tells him the project is bunk).
It amazes me that a film that is only 70 minutes long can feel way too long. You know you fucked up bad when that happens.

[Raiders]

I've been meaning to watch that film forever. Let's see if this reminds me to finally do it. I can say I hated McBride's Breathless which I believe Boner quite liked.

[soitgoes...]

Qrazy's seen it too, but I'm not sure what he thought of it. It doesn't seem like a film he'd really dig. He'd probably give it a B-.

[Boner M]

I can say I hated McBride's Breathless which I believe Boner quite liked.
Yeah, I only remembered that McBride did that remake when Holzman opens the film discussing JLG's "truth at 24fps" maxim. Maybe we'll have inverse opinions on McBride once you get around to DHD; it's at least interesting to contemplate w/r/t its place in film history.

[Pop Trash]

I can say I hated McBride's Breathless which I believe Boner quite liked.

I liked it. I was honestly surprised. I thought it was a good "L.A. as a character" movie similar to what we were talking about re: Lebowski and Pulp Fiction. Reminded me a bit of Repo Man in that sense too.

[B-side]

Bresson > Tarkovsky


Indeed.

It must suck being so wrong.

[MadMan]

I remember when folks used to make fun of NickGlass for his ratings. Now its Qrazy. Things sure change...

[soitgoes...]

It must suck being so wrong.
I'm sure one of these days you'll tell us all about it.

[B-side]

I'm sure one of these days you'll tell us all about it.

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/49/crybaby_.gif

[baby doll]

Bresson and/or Tarkovsky > Most other filmmakers

Au hasard Balthazar and/or The Mirror > Most other movies

B-Man:
Les Dames du Bois de Boulogne (1945) / **1/2
Journal d'un curé de compagne (1950) / ***
Un condamné Ã* mort s'est échappé ou Le Vent souffle où il veut (1956) / ****
Pickpocket (1959) / ****
Procès de Jeanne d'Arc (1962) / ***
Au hasard Balthazar (1966) / ****
Mouchette (1967) / ****
Une femme douce (1969) / ***1/2
Lancelot du lac (1974) / ****
Le Diable probablement (1977) / ****
L'Argent (1983) / ****

Mr. Natural:
Ivan's Childhood (1962) / **
Andrei Rublev (1966) / ****
Solaris (1972) / ****
The Mirror (1975) / ****
Stalker (1979) / ****
Nostalghia (1983) / ***1/2
The Sacrifice (1986) / ****

[baby doll]

On a completely unrelated note, I totally underrated The Chronicle of Anna Magdalena Bach.

[Qrazy]

Brightside is correct, Tarkovsky > Bresson. But I wouldn't fault anyone for preferring Bresson either because Bresson is very... Just kidding, Bresson is nothing compared to Tarkovsky.

[B-side]

Brightside is correct, Tarkovsky > Bresson. But I wouldn't fault anyone for preferring Bresson either because Bresson is very... Just kidding, Bresson is nothing compared to Tarkovsky.

This post compliments me and acknowledges Tarkovsky as a superior filmmaker, thus it is your best one ever.

[Qrazy]

Soitgoes and Boner, perhaps I'm misreading your thoughts on the film but based on the brief thoughts above, you guys do realize that Holzman's Diary is essentially a spoof of cinema verite right? That said, yeah I agree it's too long. I'd probably give it a C.

[soitgoes...]

Soitgoes and Boner, perhaps I'm misreading your thoughts on the film but based on the brief thoughts above, you guys do realize that Holzman's Diary is essentially a spoof of cinema verite right?Does that make it any less painful to watch? I don't care what McBride was trying to do. If a spoof, it was painfully unfunny and annoying. If straightforward, it was painfully annoying.

[Derek]

This post compliments me and acknowledges Tarkovsky as a superior filmmaker, thus it is your best one ever.

Baby doll is the only one whose been spot on. Dissing either one only makes you look silly, since both are so much better than a large majority of other filmmakers.

[Skitch]

I don't remember this much hate on D9 when it first came out. In fact, quite the opposite (and the reason why I went and saw it). Have all these opinions been gathered after multiple viewings?

I think there's a bit of knee jerk reactionism here. I sense a fair amount of flippity floppage from time to time. :)

[Rowland]

Hmm. Con Air makes the notion of action satire seem almost redundant.

[Boner M]

Soitgoes and Boner, perhaps I'm misreading your thoughts on the film but based on the brief thoughts above, you guys do realize that Holzman's Diary is essentially a spoof of cinema verite right? That said, yeah I agree it's too long. I'd probably give it a C.
I guessed it was at least somewhat tongue-in-cheek with the foreknowledge that it's a mockumentary of sorts... like soitgoes, I'm just judging what's actually on screen, which doesn't cut it as doco or fiction or whatever.

[number8]

GFUN_JX6qH4

[baby doll]

That movie is so gay. In the homosexual sense, that is.

[Dukefrukem]

What the hell is that from?

[number8]

What the hell is that from?

Fight Club.

[Dukefrukem]

Directors Cut or something?

[DavidSeven]

Little Children (2006) ***

Cool. I thought this was unfairly maligned when it came it out. Not that it's masterful or anything, but certainly more honest and thoughtful than it was ultimately given credit for.

[Sven]

Nice to add a couple more voices to the "Little Children is good" school.

[Raiders]

I actually found it highly entertaining and amusing, even at times I felt like I shouldn't. I'd like to say more but I'm so bad at writing anything about films anymore I won't promise anything...

[Sven]

I actually found it highly entertaining and amusing, even at times I felt like I shouldn't.

Yeah, I also thought it was very funny. I loved the narrator.

[Spinal]

Huge fan. (http://filmepidemic.blogspot.com/2007/02/little-children-field-2006.html)

[Watashi]

The only thing I can remember from Little Children is Wilson's and Winselt's sex scene in the laundromat.

[number8]

I only remember thinking, "Zack Snyder better see this movie, because these two guys should be in his Watchmen!"

[DavidSeven]

I like the narration because there's actually something being accomplished stylistically. It's like he took the exact prose from the book (which I haven't read) and really thought about how to unearth the spirit of it and make it a living part of the whole thing. It's not just the usual easy route to exposition.

[balmakboor]

Nice to add a couple more voices to the "Little Children is good" school.

I thought it was pretty near great actually. I remember watching it twice the same day.

[balmakboor]

Huge fan. (http://filmepidemic.blogspot.com/2007/02/little-children-field-2006.html)

I like how you compare it to Happiness. I Netflixed the two together for a double bill. Watched both the same day. Little Children was the one I chose to watch twice.

[Qrazy]

Baby doll is the only one whose been spot on. Dissing either one only makes you look silly, since both are so much better than a large majority of other filmmakers.

Nah.

[MadMan]

I'd like to say more but I'm so bad at writing anything about films anymore I won't promise anything...Lack of writing ability or having something interesting to say has never stopped me before. Your a good writer, sir, so that's no excuse.


That movie is so gay. In the homosexual sense, that is.Oh absolutely.


Hmm. Con Air makes the notion of action satire seem almost redundant.Con Air is funny and highly entertaining. Is it a good movie, though? Probably not. But it has a high replay value, and plays out as a Michael Bay movie that he didn't direct, coupled with the fact that its better than most of his movies

[soitgoes...]

It now makes perfect sense why I put off watching The Man Who Fell to Earth for so long.

[balmakboor]

Your a good writer, sir, so that's no excuse.

I found this to be funny.

Tip: If you can rewrite it as "you are" then you use "you're."

I don't find this nearly as bothersome as mistaking "then" for "than" or "ect." for "etc." though.

[MadMan]

I found this to be funny.

Tip: If you can rewrite it as "you are" then you use "you're."

I don't find this nearly as bothersome as mistaking "then" for "than" or "ect." for "etc." though.I've never been particularly good with grammar.

[balmakboor]

It now makes perfect sense why I put off watching The Man Who Fell to Earth for so long.

I think you missed the mark this time. Actually, I've drifted all over the map on this one for almost 30 years. It's dipped as low as boring, pretentious twaddle. Lately though, this movie, and Roeg in general, is sitting high and pretty. TMWFTE, Walkabout, and Performance are all probably in my top 50 films right now.

[Qrazy]

It now makes perfect sense why I put off watching The Man Who Fell to Earth for so long.

Welcome to the fold.

[balmakboor]

I've never been particularly good with grammar.

That's fine and please don't find me to be a grammar Nazi or anything.

I got a D in English in college.

[soitgoes...]

I think you missed the mark this time.:cry:


Welcome to the fold.
:pritch:

[Bosco B Thug]

Nah. "Nah, we should be able to diss freely and favorably for the clearly superior one over the clearly inferior other" or "Nah, those two are not better than the majority of other filmmakers"?

[Qrazy]

"Nah, we should be able to diss freely and favorably for the clearly superior one over the clearly inferior other" or "Nah, those two are not better than the majority of other filmmakers"?

Nah as in Derek's a weenis so anything he says must be wrong.

[balmakboor]

"Nah, we should be able to diss freely and favorably for the clearly superior one over the clearly inferior other" or "Nah, those two are not better than the majority of other filmmakers"?

I think the former since he's a fan of Tarkovsky (if I remember correctly).

[B-side]

I think you missed the mark this time. Actually, I've drifted all over the map on this one for almost 30 years. It's dipped as low as boring, pretentious twaddle. Lately though, this movie, and Roeg in general, is sitting high and pretty. TMWFTE, Walkabout, and Performance are all probably in my top 50 films right now.

The Man Who Fell to Earth is great. Roeg is great. Qrazy and soitgoes are not.

[Qrazy]

The Man Who Fell to Earth is great. Roeg is great. Qrazy and soitgoes are not.

Well I mean yeah it's great if you love shit that's crappy.

[MadMan]

That's fine and please don't find me to be a grammar Nazi or anything.

I got a D in English in college.Hey its all good.

[Qrazy]

Hey its all good.

it's

[balmakboor]

The Man Who Fell to Earth is great. Roeg is great. Qrazy and soitgoes are not.

I first saw TMWFTE as part of a science fiction film series while in college in 1981. I liked it and it had a profound impact on my thoughts about what a film could be. I also walked out scratching my head.

Most of the other college students walked out angry that such a "piece of junk" had been inserted into their science fiction series. (They had no idea yet what the next movie, Stalker, was going to be like. Most didn't even see that one all the way through.)

Btw, much of my moviegoing tastes and sensibilities date back to college age viewings of Blow Up, Deus Ex (Brakhage), Jeanne Dielman, The Searchers, and TMWFTE.

[MadMan]

http://all.your-base.org/Images/1kbwc/grammar%20nazi.PNG

[Qrazy]

I first saw TMWFTE as part of a science fiction film series while in college in 1981. I liked it and it had a profound impact on my thoughts about what a film could be. I also walked out scratching my head.

Most of the other college students walked out angry that such a "piece of junk" had been inserted into their science fiction series. (They had no idea yet what the next movie, Stalker, was going to be like. Most didn't even see that one all the way through.)

Btw, much of my moviegoing tastes and sensibilities date back to college age viewings of Blow Up, Deus Ex (Brakhage), Jeanne Dielman, The Searchers, and TMWFTE.

I feel like Blow Up and Zabriskie Point would both be more awesomer if Blow Up included the last 10 minutes of Zabriskie Point and if Zabriskie Point didn't exist.

[B-side]

Qrazy's on a roll tonight.:lol: