28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[Derek]

Whatever high end gloss we want to paint it with, this is, and was positioned as, a war movie. A genre film. You walk into it with certain expectations, as Morris said, "I want see soldiers kicking ass." Because it was based on a memoir, it can't deliver what it needs to deliver.

Oh dear god, a film that doesn't meet expectations that it's audience has based on trailers? Not staying within the strict confines a clearly defined genre? I fear the possibilities!


There's a gun on the mantel from the start, and not only is it never fired, it's never even picked up.

And congratulations on stating the point of the film while at the very same time denying it has a point.

[TripZone]

Whatever high end gloss we want to paint it with, this is, and was positioned as, a war movie. A genre film. You walk into it with certain expectations, as Morris said, "I want see soldiers kicking ass." Because it was based on a memoir, it can't deliver what it needs to deliver.

As a movie, this comes off as more a collection of uneven anecdotes, not a narrative film. Most of the people who have seen it walk away with some kind of vague dissatisfaction, and I think that's where it comes from: There's a gun on the mantel from the start, and not only is it never fired, it's never even picked up.

Oh man.

[DavidSeven]

Irish's emotional reaction to Jarhead is right though. Why should he even care about the "point" of Jarhead when it's as slight and as unconvincing as it is here. Sorry, Mendes didn't earn his non-catharsis. The reality of war is mundane as compared to artistic/imagined fetishism of it. Great; point was proven in like three minutes. Why did I have to sit through 120 more? Narratively, the film is crap. Substantively, it's thin. You can cite either as the film's failing.

[Derek]

Irish's emotional reaction to Jarhead is right though. Why should he even care about the "point" of Jarhead when it's as slight and as unconvincing as it is here.

He shouldn't. That's entirely different than saying the film doesn't have a point because there's no clear ending and it doesn't conform to genre and audience expectations.


Sorry, Mendes didn't earn his non-catharsis. The reality of war is mundane as compared to artistic/imagined fetishism of it. Great; point was proven in like three minutes. Why did I have to sit through 120 more? Narratively, the film is crap. Substantively, it's thin. You can cite either as the film's failing.

You can and I'd agree with you. And I would've agreed if that's what Irish had said, but it wasn't.

[DavidSeven]

Fair enough. I just think his reaction to the film is right at a core level, even if he didn't convincingly or correctly verbalize why he felt that way.

[Irish]

You do not seem to appreciate mold-breaking much.
I do, but only when it is both well done and has a point. "Mold breaking" for the sake of it doesn't impress.


Oh dear god, a film that doesn't meet expectations that it's audience has based on trailers? Not staying within the strict confines a clearly defined genre? I fear the possibilities!

And congratulations on stating the point of the film while at the very same time denying it has a point.
You're missing my point. Swofford (the real guy, the author) called his book "Jarhead" and chose certain anecdotes for a reason. If you read the book, it's not one with an enormous amount of self reflection or subtext. FFS, it's called Jarhead.

Mendes may have taken that source and tried to do something with it, but my position is he failed. The point you're making, the subtext you think is in the film just isn't there. As DavidSeven says, Mendes failed to "make his case."

You can't have a genre film, a war movie, shot, edited and structured like this -- not to mention advertised the way is was -- and expect it to be successful.

I think Morris' reaction to it is right on the money.

[Irish]

You can and I'd agree with you. And I would've agreed if that's what Irish had said, but it wasn't.
/facepalm

[DavidSeven]

I think I just wanted to seize the opportunity to take pot shots at Mendes, who I am increasingly starting to consider a really shallow filmmaker. This wouldn't really bother me if the guy didn't seem so intent on making films about THE ISSUES. His world view seems so narrow and the issues he explores so ultimately insignificant; it's like they originate somewhere between an ivory tower and a gated community. American Beauty is decent when aiming for comedy, horrendous when filming plastic bags. I love Road to Perdition, but I wonder if Conrad Hall and a good script/graphic novel are doing all the work there. Jarhead and Revolutionary Road are poo (the latter in spite of three pretty incredible performances).

[Watashi]

I'm afriad to rewatch American Beauty. I haven't seen it since high school.

Road to Perdition is awesome thanks Hall and the two Newmans (Paul and Thomas).

Jarhead and Revolutionary Road were not good.

The trailer to Away We Go made me never want to see it.

[DavidSeven]

The trailer to Away We Go made me never want to see it.

Yeah, I wouldn't even want to sit through the trailer again. Yeesh.

[Spinal]

Pretty much the only redeeming thing about American Beauty is that it looks pretty. I blame the writer, not the director.

[Irish]

American Beauty is decent when aiming for comedy, horrendous when filming plastic bags.

/.../

I love Road to Perdition, but I wonder if Conrad Hall and a good script/graphic novel are doing all the work there.

Heh.. here's where you and I diverge. People shit all over American Beauty and .. I dunno. A movie like that, kind of on point but emotionally raw is a little too much for audiences in the Age of Irony. There's been a lot of fun made of that plastic bag, but if I were to guess, I'd guess that there isn't a single person in the audience that hasn't, at some point, been struck dumb by the simple, mundane beauty of everyday life.

I agree that Mendes tends to wear his themes on his sleeve, but hell, it more or less works in American Beauty.

The script for Road to Perdition is crap. The movie has no second act. And I guffawed over how Mendes and Hanks bent over backwards to shoot the protagonist -- a mob assasssin, iirc -- in the most positive light possible. It seems a particularly sackless kind of move, and totally false.

[Ezee E]

Yeah, Alan Ball is definitely a TV-only person. I still like American Beauty a lot though, even with the neighbors involved.

I swear, everything that can be bad about the movie can be attributed to the neighbors, especially Chris Cooper.

[endingcredits]

Contempt (Godard) was beautiful but flawed. Although visually outstanding and downright beautiful at times, I found it sullied by scholarly referential indulgence in the pursuit of a vague idea of modernism having an accordance with classical notions of harmony with nature. I was very fond of Brigitte Bardot, however, especially when her clothing was off.

[Spinal]

I've noticed this trend in Match Cut posts recently:

Hey, I really liked [awesome film], except for [the thing that makes the film so awesome].

[endingcredits]

Well, since Contempt wasn't awesome despite its being eye-candy, and I neither really liked it, nor did I say that Bardot's behind was its main flaw, I think I'm safe.

[Ezee E]

I've noticed this trend in Match Cut posts recently:

Hey, I really liked [awesome film], expect for [the thing that makes the film so awesome].
Can't be me. I haven't really seen anything that's remotely awesome as of late.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I've noticed this trend in Match Cut posts recently:

Hey, I really liked [awesome film], expect for [the thing that makes the film so awesome].

I liked Blow Out, except for all the scenes of Travolta piecing the footage together. They were static and boring.

[Spinal]

I, of course, meant 'except', not 'expect'. Damned stealth dyslexia.

[endingcredits]

I've noticed this trend in Match Cut posts recently:

Hey, I really liked [awesome film], expect for [the thing that makes the film so awesome].

Don't forget the whole "Wow, [potentially awesome but most likely not awesome] film was awesome for [wrong reason]" routine. That also seems to come up quite a bit.

[Sven]

, but if I were to guess, I'd guess that there isn't a single person in the audience that hasn't, at some point, been struck dumb by the simple, mundane beauty of everyday life.

There are many films and many filmmakers that capture this mundane ecstasy with greater grace and wit than the stupid bag and tinkling piano.

[Irish]

There are many films and many filmmakers that capture this mundane ecstasy with greater grace and wit than the stupid bag and tinkling piano.

In a mainstream American film? Name them.

[Sven]

In a mainstream American film? Name them.

I don't know why they need to be mainstream American films, but off the cuff, Robert Altman's The Company. Punch Drunk Love. Wes Anderson movies. The Straight Story came out the same year as American Beauty and is about a trillion times more satisfying in its aesthetic alchemy of the mundane.

Your concerns are perpetually in orbit around industry and marketing and defining success through genre constriction, which is exactly what I don't care about when talking about movies.

[Sven]

Didn't mean to sound apathetic. Of course I care about an industry that produces product I love. But it is becoming more apparent that it will be hard for us to negotiate a same page.

[Irish]

I don't know why they need to be mainstream American films, but off the cuff, Robert Altman's The Company. Punch Drunk Love. Wes Anderson movies. The Straight Story came out the same year as American Beauty and is about a trillion times more satisfying in its aesthetic alchemy of the mundane.
I specified mainstream American because that's what AB is, and I was trying to head off the possibility that you'd name drop some obscure European or Asian film that, really, just didn't play in the US at the level AB did.

I haven't seen the Altman movie, but for Punch drunk: No. As for Anderson: Fuck no. Really? Anderson?


Your concerns are perpetually in orbit around industry and marketing and defining success through genre constriction, which is exactly what I don't care about when talking about movies.
You've said this before, which makes it all more the curious as to why you keep responding to my posts. :lol:

I care about the business because I have a background in sales and marketing and I find that aspect of it interesting in its own right. (Like, for example, how blind and stupid it is to call your movie "I {heart} Huckabees" and advertise it with the word "existential". Every time I think about that it makes me chuckle).

I care about genre because that's mostly what's being offered at the theaters these days. It could be claimed that everything is genre, really, but I don't think that works. There's too many obvious outliers that doesn't fit comfortably in certain definitions, in literature stuff like The Great Gatsby and Catcher in the Rye come to mind. In film, maybe stuff like La Dolce Vita or from this year, Greenberg.

But mostly, I care about what films say, or try to say, and how successful they are at it.

[Irish]

Didn't mean to sound apathetic. Of course I care about an industry that produces product I love. But it is becoming more apparent that it will be hard for us to negotiate a same page.

I don't you think you sound apathetic at all -- quite the opposite -- but it is difficult to get a read on how you're viewing this stuff and what's important to you.

[Melville]

I specified mainstream American because that's what AB is, and I was trying to head off the possibility that you'd name drop some obscure European or Asian film that, really, just didn't play in the US at the level AB did.
I am utterly baffled by the notion that this is relevant. Anyway, my vote goes to Double Life of Veronique for the best evocation of ecstatic experience of the mundane (sure, the story is somewhat fantastical, but that's not where the ecstatic moments lie).

[B-side]

Come on, the head smack is genius!

Oh yeah, Byrne was great to watch. I just didn't care for it musically.

[Irish]

I am utterly baffled by the notion that this is relevant. Anyway, my vote goes to Double Life of Veronique for the best evocation of ecstatic experience of the mundane (sure, the story is somewhat fantastical, but that's not where the ecstatic moments lie).

To try, as much as possible, to compare apples to apples. (See also, conversation where babydoll & I tried to talk about The Conversation vs The Godfather. You can do it, but it's limiting for obvious reasons).

I haven't seen Double Life, but I respect your opinion so I will track down a copy and watch it asap.

[Sven]

I haven't seen the Altman movie, but for Punch drunk: No. As for Anderson: Fuck no. Really? Anderson?

Wes Anderson is all about finding emotional grace notes buried within the muck of all that modern ornamentation. As for Punch Drunk: Yes. I was never as elated when watching the bag as I was when Barry discovers the pudding loophole in the grocery store. Or during the startling and awkward session with the phone sex operator (the emphasis the camera places on the cordless quality of the phone, the lampshades, the curtains, the magnets on his fridge).



You've said this before, which makes it all more the curious as to why you keep responding to my posts. :lol:

Yeah, my bad. I don't mean to belabor the point.


...

But mostly, I care about what films say, or try to say, and how successful they are at it.

It reads like you care about what the film's trailers and press material are saying and how well the actual product fits into those restraints. I can see excellent reasons for considering the variables that you do, but with Jarhead, you are not taking it on its own terms. Your criticism is not self-evident because you haven't established how Jarhead must conform to genre limitations in order to be considered successful (unless you're talking about marketing and box office, in which case you could go on and on 'til you're blue in the face). Also, I'm surprised that you don't see how the title "Jarhead" is inherently reflexive and how Mendes applies that reflexivity to buck conventions.

[Sven]

but it is difficult to get a read on how you're viewing this stuff and what's important to you.

It doesn't help that I'm defending a movie I don't even really like. :lol:

[megladon8]

I think that in this day and age, specifying "mainstream American film" is pretty much a moot point.

Because of the internet and mass media, we're at a point where, if a movie is good, it's going to be heard about and seen by many more people than ever possible before.

I just don't think that distinction really needs to be made anymore.

"It's good...for an American Hollywood movie" or disqualifying foreign/indie flicks for comparison is kind of like admitting that the movie isn't very good.

[endingcredits]

I just don't think that distinction really needs to be made anymore.


The distinction is valid when considering the disparity in budget and revenue generation between the two classes.

[megladon8]

The distinction is valid when considering the disparity in budget and revenue generation between the two classes.


I don't understand what you mean here. Are you saying that a more expensive film should have higher standards attributed to it?

[Irish]

Wes Anderson is all about finding emotional grace notes buried within the muck of all that modern ornamentation. As for Punch Drunk: Yes. I was never as elated when watching the bag as I was when Barry discovers the pudding loophole in the grocery store. Or during the startling and awkward session with the phone sex operator (the emphasis the camera places on the cordless quality of the phone, the lampshades, the curtains, the magnets on his fridge).

Valid points. I like that take on Punch Drunk. Part of me worries that it's a too personal interpretation, though, ie whether that's really in the film or not, really part of PTA's intent. (I was put off by the pudding cup thing because I knew, watching it, that it was taken directly from real life news articles, so it seemed artificial to me).

That's a roundabout way of saying: I'm not sure the pudding cup sequence matches up to the AB plastic bag, because I'm not sure the pudding cup thing really says "Yes this is it, this is why it's important to be alive and in the moment."

On Wes .. ick. I keep getting caught up in his manufactured quirkiness, his obsession at aping JD Salinger and John Updike, to see any subtlety in his work.

My own example would be someone like Sophia Coppola, especially Lost in Translation and maybe Marie Antoinette. Maybe.


Yeah, my bad. I don't mean to belabor the point.
No worries at all.


It reads like you care about what the film's trailers and press material are saying and how well the actual product fits into those restraints.

I can see excellent reasons for considering the variables that you do, but with Jarhead, you are not taking it on its own terms. Your criticism is not self-evident because you haven't established how Jarhead must conform to genre limitations in order to be considered successful.

Hard genre films -- war, horror, westerns -- are tricky. You don't have a lot of leeway to inject subtext and meaning before you start wandering away from the genre completely (Battlestar Galactica, Deadwood, Jarhead). Once you do that, what's the point of employing that genre at all?

It's like making a porn film with tons of dialogue and no money shot. You can do that, but to do it is to completely misread your audience and the reason why they're coming to see your movie in the first place.


Also, I'm surprised that you don't see how the title "Jarhead" is inherently reflexive and how Mendes applies that reflexivity to buck conventions.

I'm not sure how you mean "reflexive." Jarhead is one of those terms that's insulting and derisive when used by outsiders but has a different meaning when used within the Corps (as far as I understand it, anyway).

Swofford is a grunt, a jarhead, and these aren't guys that sit around thinking deeply about what they're doing (because that's a luxury they can't afford, in order to be at all effective).

The movie is structured in such a way that it sets up a whole lot of expectations in the audience and then doesn't deliver on them. It can't, because it's hobbled by its source as a memoir. The advertising comes into play because the movie wasn't positioned as a "true life" story or something that was based on real events. It was positioned -- and plays as -- fiction, a straight narrative film.

You can't do that and come off successfully either in a commercial sense or an artistic one.

[Irish]

Holy shit that's a long post. How boring.

[endingcredits]

I don't understand what you mean here. Are you saying that a more expensive film should have higher standards attributed to it?

No. I am saying the need for a distinction exists between manufacturer regardless of product quality. The example I used was resources.

[Irish]

"It's good...for an American Hollywood movie" or disqualifying foreign/indie flicks for comparison is kind of like admitting that the movie isn't very good.

I agree to a point -- what I was really trying to do was avoid a situation where we're comparing Steven Spielberg and Jean Luc Godard. Ie, different movies have different audiences and different goals and intentions.

There's little point in comparing, say, 2001 and Star Wars on the basis that they are both "science fiction" films. (That may be a bad example, because Star Wars barely qualifies).

[Morris Schæffer]

Whatever high end gloss we want to paint it with, this is, and was positioned as, a war movie. A genre film. You walk into it with certain expectations, as Morris said, "I want see soldiers kicking ass." Because it was based on a memoir, it can't deliver what it needs to deliver.


Well, I knew exactly the kind of movie I was getting, so I can't say I was devastated that there weren't more explosions and such. :D

But seriously, close to three stars for me which ain't exactly shabby.

[Qrazy]

All of this verbiage aside, it is fundamentally wrong to say that in order to be successful a war movie HAS to deliver ass kicking, killing and death. That is absurd.

[MadMan]

All of this verbiage aside, it is fundamentally wrong to say that in order to be successful a war movie HAS to deliver ass kicking, killing and death. That is absurd.Bullshit

:P

[Irish]

All of this verbiage aside, it is fundamentally wrong to say that in order to be successful a war movie HAS to deliver ass kicking, killing and death. That is absurd.

Name one that doesn't.

[Sven]

Valid points. I like that take on Punch Drunk. Part of me worries that it's a too personal interpretation, though, ie whether that's really in the film or not, really part of PTA's intent.

I could've chose better scenes. Like after they're kicked out of the restaurant and the diesel follows them around the bend and its hydraulics echo the percussion of the music. Or the bit where the light turns on in the phone booth when she answers the phone. Magic in the ordinary.


That's a roundabout way of saying: I'm not sure the pudding cup sequence matches up to the AB plastic bag, because I'm not sure the pudding cup thing really says "Yes this is it, this is why it's important to be alive and in the moment."

My problem with the bag is that the quotes around it are too gigantic. Everything around it is screaming: LOOK AT THIS THIS IS BEAUTIFUL. I much prefer when a film simply allows a moment to be beautiful. A bit of self reference is fine and expected in this day and age, but I hate being told what to love.


It's like making a porn film with tons of dialogue and no money shot. You can do that, but to do it is to completely misread your audience and the reason why they're coming to see your movie in the first place.

The only reason they'd think it was a porn film is because of marketing. In that case, we're not talking about the movie anymore.


I'm not sure how you mean "reflexive." Jarhead is one of those terms that's insulting and derisive when used by outsiders but has a different meaning when used within the Corps (as far as I understand it, anyway).

Swofford uses the term assuming that the majority of the readers are going to be outsiders and will therefore register the title ironically. Like the book "Nigger." There is going to be some essential detachment.


You can't do that and come off successfully either in a commercial sense or an artistic one.

Here you are using the film's advertising to gauge the film's artistic worth, which is most of what has been rubbing us all the wrong way about your argument.

[megladon8]

Name one that doesn't.


I just...ergh...you're joking, right?

[Sven]

Name one that doesn't.

Classic retort: Night and Fog.

[MadMan]

Paths of Glory would be another.

PS: Yes it has death, but it really isn't shown too much onscreen in terms of battle sequences, and there is no ass kicking. The majority of the movie is focused on the trial.

[Winston*]

Wonder in the mundane:

x7hGx9okkE4

[Irish]

Classic retort: Night and Fog.
At the risk of splitting hairs, that's the kind of example I was trying to avoid in our other conversation about American Beauty, eg Spielberg vs Godard, apples verus oranges.

You can find a lot of examples -- Stalag 17, Breaker Morant, Gardens of Stone, The Deer Hunter, The Messenger -- that are technically "war films," ie they are set in or take place during or just after a war -- but aren't really comparable to the the adventure gore porn Jarhead itself cites or mimics in its structure.

[MadMan]

Also, Breaker Morant (1979), which is a fantastic film centering on the ethics of combat. But wait! It has killing too! Nevermind its not what the movie focuses on, and there's also largely court room sequences, but this must mean that I'm wrong!

Anyways, watch the damn movie if you haven't seen it.

PS: Damn, beaten to the punch.

[Sven]

Ah yes. Mainstream American mundane beauty making: Herzog's American films. All of them have so many great, elevated moments.

Quaker Oats canister > grocery bag

[Sven]

cites or mimics

You have used distancing terms, which should waive his necessity to fall within genre guidelines.

[Melville]

At the risk of splitting hairs, that's the kind of example I was trying to avoid in our other conversation about American Beauty, eg Spielberg vs Godard, apples verus oranges.

You can find a lot of examples -- Stalag 17, Breaker Morant, Gardens of Stone, The Deer Hunter, The Messenger -- that are technically "war films," ie they are set in or take place during or just after a war -- but aren't really comparable to the the adventure gore porn Jarhead itself cites or mimics in its structure.
If it doesn't do what you think that kind of film must do, and in fact it explicitly cites that kind of film and then purposefully does just the opposite, why do you think it's that kind of film?

[Irish]

Also, Breaker Morant (1979), which is a fantastic film centering on the ethics of combat. But wait! It has killing too! Nevermind its not what the movie focuses on, and there's also largely court room sequences, but this must mean that I'm wrong!

Those are great examples. My counter is that, even though they're set during wartime, they are not "war movies." They're primarily courtroom dramas (and in the case of Paths, comedy and satire).


PS: Damn, beaten to the punch.
You weren't. I edited my post after reading yours about Paths of Glory. :D

[Irish]

If it doesn't do what you think that kind of film must do, and in fact it explicitly cites that kind of film and then purposefully does just the opposite, why do you think it's that kind of film?

Because if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's a duck.

Jarhead is structured like a traditional narrative. Most of its elements play like any other war film.

[Winston*]

if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's a duck.

Ducks don't talk.

[Spinal]

Well, drat, I liked Vincere, but not as much as I had hoped. Early on, it seems destined for greatness. It's got energy and flamboyance and visual flair aplenty. But once the basic situation has been laid out, with Mussolini's mistress disowned as the dictator rises to power, the film mostly runs out of steam as there is, it seems, little left to tell. When it's good, it's very, very good. But despite a superb lead performance from Giovanna Mezzogiorno, the director fails to answer the basic question of 'So what?' Hence, the film concerns a mildly interesting historical footnote, but does not provide any compelling revelations about Mussolini, Fascist Italy, the human spirit or whatever.

[Melville]

Because if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's a duck.

Jarhead is structured like a traditional narrative. Most of its elements play like any other war film.
It's structured like a traditional narrative, but its narrative is about inactivity and distance in a scenario where the characters expect action and immediacy. Why does the fact that most of its elements play like any other war film necessitate the entire film being just like 'any other war film'? It seems like you put absurd restrictions on what films should do.

[Irish]

My problem with the bag is that the quotes around it are too gigantic. Everything around it is screaming: LOOK AT THIS THIS IS BEAUTIFUL. I much prefer when a film simply allows a moment to be beautiful. A bit of self reference is fine and expected in this day and age, but I hate being told what to love.

I can see that. To me, it wasn't about the plastic bag itself as a literal object that mattered. It was what the kid was saying about it, and how he felt about it, and how he was desperate for something that was real and connected. You're right that the moment is very much in the foreground, and maybe that's a little too on the nose, but then I think it has to be.

Mendes has to shove the bag in your face, because it plays into everything else in the movie which isn't specifically stated: that AB is about the authentic versus the fake.


Here you are using the film's advertising to gauge the film's artistic worth, which is most of what has been rubbing us all the wrong way about your argument.
Throw out the marketing then. You go into Jarhead blind, you still have the same issue, because of what the movie says in the first 30 minutes.

[Irish]

You have used distancing terms, which should waive his necessity to fall within genre guidelines.

I'm unclear what you mean here. Care to elucidate?

[Irish]

Why does the fact that most of its elements play like any other war film necessitate the entire film being just like 'any other war film'?

Uh, see my point about the duck? I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Most of the elements play like a war film, it's a war film. There isn't enough substantive material -- outside the current m-c interpretation -- that magically makes it something else.

[Sven]

I'm unclear what you mean here. Care to elucidate?

I've been saying: by quoting genre films, it announces itself as a work removed from the source. It is a modern work, designed to circumvent genre pitfalls and fidelity to design. By mimicking, it is announcing that it is not.

[Melville]

Throw out the marketing then. You go into Jarhead blind, you still have the same issue, because of what the movie says in the first 30 minutes.
I did go into Jarhead blind, and I didn't have that issue. The scene with the soldiers watching Apocalypse Now made pretty clear that the movie was going to examine how the soldiers' expectations of war related to its reality. And as the movie progressed, it naturally related that to the distance and inactivity of the Gulf war, and how violently different that was from the previous wars and from what the soldiers were expecting and trained for.

[Sven]

I'm not saying it's not a war film, by the way. It clearly is. What I do not recognize is how being such means it has to comment on war in exactly the same way that every other war film has commented on war.

[Melville]

Uh, see my point about the duck? I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Most of the elements play like a war film, it's a war film. There isn't enough substantive material -- outside the current m-c interpretation -- that magically makes it something else.
Your point about the duck makes no sense. You're saying that if something is largely duck-like, it's a duck. If it's only largely duck-like, then it isn't a duck. If it explicitly points to a duck, says this is what a duck does, then does the opposite, it's certainly not a duck.

[Spinal]

It's a Trojan duck.

[Irish]

I've been saying: by quoting genre films, it announces itself as a work removed from the source. It is a modern work, designed to circumvent genre pitfalls and fidelity to design. By mimicking, it is announcing that it is not.

Your point about the duck makes no sense. You're saying that if something is largely duck-like, it's a duck. If it's only largely duck-like, then it isn't a duck. If it explicitly points to a duck, says this is what a duck does, then does the opposite, it's certainly not a duck.
Great stuff to read. Thanks for these posts.

I think you're both giving the movie waaay too much credit. This is a picture built around a workaday grunt, told in the first person, that's extremely reminiscent of stuff like Platoon. It contains the same kind of morbid material found in other war pictures, flirting with if not outright titillating the viewer's need for bloodlust and carnage. It's got a constant build up and promises of action, but can't deliver on them.

The fact that Swofford can't pull the trigger at the end weakens the story significantly. Even if you were just listening to this guy tell tales in a bar, the ending of that story would be a letdown.

If he had pulled the trigger, all my objections would go away, because in my view, if the story is weak at such a crucial point, the entire movie it weak.

This isn't some kind of deep, po-mo masterpiece we're talking about. It's not a perfect rendition of genre conventions so that it can then comment on those conventions (seriously, do you think Mendes is that creative or clever?).

This is a bunch of anecdotes from one guy's life that Hollywood tried to shove into a structure that didn't suit the material at all.

And it plays like a typical war movie with no payoff, because at the end of the day, that's what it is.

[Rowland]

Yes, Raising Cain is awesome.

[B-side]

I guess I'm downloading Raising Cain.

[Rowland]

For what it's worth though, I don't see non-De Palma-philes getting much out of it.

[B-side]

For what it's worth though, I don't see non-De Palma-philes getting much out of it.

What if I'm a De Palma-is-pretty-good-from-what-I've-seen, but-I've-not-seen much-phile?

[Rowland]

What if I'm a De Palma-is-pretty-good-from-what-I've-seen, but-I've-not-seen much-phile?I'd save Raising Cain for after you're more familiar with his work. But what do I know. *shrug*

[B-side]

I'd save Raising Cain for after you're more familiar with his work. But what do I know. *shrug*

It's too late, Rowland. You already said it was awesome, so I started downloading it. You can't take it back, the damage has been done.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I don't know how one can call the climax of Jarhead a let-down. It makes clear the entire point of the movie: that the Army trains and browbeats these men to prepare them for a job that's no longer necessary. They're self-defeating. Offering any sort of traditional action release would undermine the entire point of the story. I'm having difficulty understanding what would be gained by including such action.

Oh, and I just watched Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, and what the FUCK, man. God.

[number8]

Don't forget the whole "Wow, [potentially awesome but most likely not awesome] film was awesome for [wrong reason]" routine. That also seems to come up quite a bit.

I find it more often that it's "[Haf-baked film] is not very good because [weird reasoning that makes me want to defend it even though I'm not a fan at all]."

[Mara]

Oh, and I just watched Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, and what the FUCK, man. God.

I recall liking the film. I certainly liked the play.

Elizabeth Taylor only acts when she's not being pretty. When she's pretty, it appears to be too much effort.

[Qrazy]

Great stuff to read. Thanks for these posts.

I think you're both giving the movie waaay too much credit. This is a picture built around a workaday grunt, told in the first person, that's extremely reminiscent of stuff like Platoon. It contains the same kind of morbid material found in other war pictures, flirting with if not outright titillating the viewer's need for bloodlust and carnage. It's got a constant build up and promises of action, but can't deliver on them.

The fact that Swofford can't pull the trigger at the end weakens the story significantly. Even if you were just listening to this guy tell tales in a bar, the ending of that story would be a letdown.

If he had pulled the trigger, all my objections would go away, because in my view, if the story is weak at such a crucial point, the entire movie it weak.

This isn't some kind of deep, po-mo masterpiece we're talking about. It's not a perfect rendition of genre conventions so that it can then comment on those conventions (seriously, do you think Mendes is that creative or clever?).


Yes, it's pretty damn obvious from everything we've discussed and from what is shown in the film itself that he is that clever (in relation to your point above) and/or that the lack of climax is the entire point of the film. Now the film has other problems to be sure, but that's neither here nor there.

[Qrazy]

Name one that doesn't.

Well I hope you're taking my terms together and not in isolation because of course every war film is interested in death, but most good war movies are not interested in showing soldiers being bad ass killers.

Come and See
Kanal
The Red and the White
The Thin Red Line
Catch 22
Fires on the Plain
Paths of Glory
The War Game
Grand Illusion

You're speaking about combat films, not war films. You want Jarhead to be a combat film and it isn't.

[Watashi]

James Franco and Anne Hathaway are hosting the Oscars next year.

That's one motherfuckin sexy Oscar host.

[Mara]

James Franco and Anne Hathaway are hosting the Oscars next year.

That's one motherfuckin sexy Oscar host.

I think Franco is a pretty talented actor, but I don't really think he's attractive.

Hathaway, though, is gorgeous. On another forum we polled the girls which celebrity they would most want to look like and she was an overwhelming favorite.

[baby doll]

James Franco and Anne Hathaway are hosting the Oscars next year.

That's one motherfuckin sexy Oscar host.I don't usually watch the Oscars, but I think this year, I'll watch five minutes, leave the room to get a tissue, come back and then turn on something else.

[number8]

I don't usually watch the Oscars, but I think this year, I'll watch five minutes, leave the room to get a tissue, come back and then turn on something else.

What the hell?! Come on!

Why wouldn't you have the tissue with you already when you tune in?

[Sven]

For what it's worth though, I don't see non-De Palma-philes getting much out of it.

I disagree. For the DePalmaphile like you or I, there is a wealth of treasure and pleasure. For the non-, I think it still remains a great, zonked out, vivid, tense thriller in its own right. One must prepare for Lithgow cranked up to 11 (which I understand is hard for some poor souls), but once girded, one need not be too much of a fanboy to have a delirious time. I would think, of course. Being both a De Palma fan and a Lithgow fan, I can only speculate.

[baby doll]

What the hell?! Come on!

Why wouldn't you have the tissue with you already when you tune in?Good point, especially since I'm planning this months in advance.

[Mara]

Yes, Raising Cain is awesome.

Wow. Really? I haven't seen it in about fifteen years but I remember it being one of the worst films I've ever sat through. Patently ridiculous.

[number8]

So I got this solicit email from a production company about their latest film, and it's hilarious. I'm not going to post the synopsis, but here is the first line of the email:


Very much in the vein of "Juno" comes an action/thriller brought to you by underground Domme "Scarlett Devine".

:lol:

[Irish]

Well I hope you're taking my terms together and not in isolation because of course every war film is interested in death, but most good war movies are not interested in showing soldiers being bad ass killers.

We're talking around the same thing, really. We can come to terms an classify the compelling element to be a kind of "morbid interest," or we can split hairs.

If you're interested in the splitting hairs, I'll point out that by your logic, Casablanca and Woody Allen's Radio Days are both "war movies."


Yes, it's pretty damn obvious from everything we've discussed and from what is shown in the film itself that he is that clever (in relation to your point above) and/or that the lack of climax is the entire point of the film. Now the film has other problems to be sure, but that's neither here nor there.

You don't sound like you're interested in ducks. Perfectly fine. Can I offer you an Occam's Razor instead?

Because I find it laughable to believe that Mendes, of all people, managed to sneak some startling po-mo vision past the studios, the critics, and into theaters for you to enjoy.

The simplest explanation to a non-ending is just that; it's a letdown, it's bad, it's a narrative failure.

The biggest claim you can make is that they had no choice, they were locked into a bad ending because the source is a memoir.

[DavidSeven]

Oh, and I just watched Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, and what the FUCK, man. God.

Yeah, pretty brutal experience. Great, great film. Nichols' was doing some ferocious stuff in his day -- Virginia Woolf, The Graduate, Carnal Knowledge.

[soitgoes...]

Restrepo is good, but not as solid as some of the other documentaries I've seen so far this year. It most amazing feature is that the filmmakers lived through the hell the soldiers were experiencing, and that they put themselves very much in harm's way. I'm not sure that the actual subject matter brought anything new to light for me. War is hell. Soldiers, while a completely different and baffling breed, are human just like me. The film did hit on some touching moments, showing how individual soldiers dealt with and were continuing to deal with the death of a friend. I guess it's nice to watch a war documentary based in Afghanistan as opposed to Iraq. Iraq is crazy shit happens in a desert, and it is hell. Afghanistan is crazy shit happens in the mountains, and it is hell.

[Melville]

Because I find it laughable to believe that Mendes, of all people, managed to sneak some startling po-mo vision past the studios, the critics, and into theaters for you to enjoy.

The simplest explanation to a non-ending is just that; it's a letdown, it's bad, it's a narrative failure.
I don't think the movie is startling or postmodern (nor do I think it's very good). The scene with the soldiers watching Apocalypse Now (and wildly misunderstanding it) tells us about them while also creating ironic distance that alerts the viewer to the nature of the movie. There's nothing startlingly clever about it.

I don't see how the narrative built to the ending you want. The movie's about the distance and aimless feeling of the soldiers, people that begin with a misguided view of war and have a mindset and rigorous training that is painfully at odds with the war they find themselves in. If the movie had ended the way you want it to, then it would have betrayed that basic story.

[MadMan]

James Franco and Anne Hathaway are hosting the Oscars next year.

That's one motherfuckin sexy Oscar host.Sounds awesome to me, especially seeing as both are good actors and quite likable.

[Winston*]

I don't really understand why you would get people who aren't comedians to host the Oscars.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I don't really understand why you would get people who aren't comedians to host the Oscars.

Oscars' bread and butter is glamour. Hathaway and Franco have glamour.

[Ezee E]

Both have done comedy, and do it well, so I don't see a problem with it.

[DavidSeven]

Hathaway was pretty grating in that Oscar roundtable she did with Pitt and Downey, Jr. a couple years ago, but she'll be scripted this time, so whatever. I just want to see an end to the circle-jerk presentation of the acting categories. Embarrassing to watch every time. Do they really lack that much self-awareness at the Academy?

[Adam]

Yeah, seriously, when did the Oscars become so self-congratulatory?

[Spinal]

I have only one request. Show clips from the nominated acting performances. It bewilders me when they do not do this.

[Spinal]

Yeah, seriously, when did the Oscars become so self-congratulatory?

1929

[MacGuffin]

Yeah, seriously, when did the Oscars become so self-congratulatory?

Goddamn dude, seriously? Watch the Oscars a little closer next year.

[Derek]

I have only one request. Show clips from the nominated acting performances. It bewilders me when they do not do this.

Rather than have an actor, who worked with them on a previous film for which the actor wasn't nominated, not verbally felate them? Madness.

[Spinal]

Rather than have an actor, who worked with them on a previous film for which the actor wasn't nominated, not verbally felate them? Madness.

I'm convinced that was all about getting an Oprah moment.

[Adam]

Rather than have an actor, who worked with them on a previous film for which the actor wasn't nominated, not verbally felate them? Madness.

Goddamn dude, seriously? I'd rather watch a clip from the actual performance than see someone who wasn't even involved with he film in the first place talk about it for ten minutes. Are you sure you watched the ceremony closely last year? It was brutal!!

[Derek]

I'm convinced that was all about getting an Oprah moment.

Never thought of that, but that wouldn't surprise me at all.


Goddamn dude, seriously? I'd rather watch a clip from the actual performance than see someone who wasn't even involved with he film in the first place talk about it for ten minutes. Are you sure you watched the ceremony closely last year? It was brutal!!

Your sarcasm detector has failed you.

[Adam]

I was actually using you to teach MacGuffin a lesson about sarcasm

[Qrazy]

We're talking around the same thing, really. We can come to terms an classify the compelling element to be a kind of "morbid interest," or we can split hairs.

If you're interested in the splitting hairs, I'll point out that by your logic, Casablanca and Woody Allen's Radio Days are both "war movies."

No we're not really talking around, about or anywhere near the same thing actually. Most of the films I listed (in the list you asked for and then ignored) have combat scenes in them, but they are still not about soldiers being badasses. So you can set that straw man of yours on fire.


Because I find it laughable to believe that Mendes, of all people, managed to sneak some startling po-mo vision past the studios, the critics, and into theaters for you to enjoy.

The simplest explanation to a non-ending is just that; it's a letdown, it's bad, it's a narrative failure.

The biggest claim you can make is that they had no choice, they were locked into a bad ending because the source is a memoir.

It's right there in the film. It's incredibly obvious that Mendes is purposefully withholding that release for the audience just as it's withheld from the marines. It's what the entire film is about. That doesn't make it a post-mod masterpiece, but it's clearly what the film is focused upon. To acknowledge that and then deny your acknowledgement is simply baffling.

[Qrazy]

I was actually using you to teach MacGuffin a lesson about sarcasm

Brilliantly played sir, I witnessed the entire affair. It shall henceforth be known as The Adam Affair.

[Irish]

No we're not really talking around, about or anywhere near the same thing actually. Most of the films I listed (in the list you asked for and then ignored) have combat scenes in them, but they are still not about soldiers being badasses. So you can set that straw man of yours on fire.
Did you actually read any of the posts around this conversation from last night? I did address lists similar to yours in other posts.




It's incredibly obvious that Mendes is purposefully withholding that release for the audience just as it's withheld from the marines. It's what the entire film is about.

M-E-M-O-I-R, you obstinate jackass.

[soitgoes...]

M-E-M-O-I-R, you obstinate jackass.You're turning into my favorite.

[Raiders]

:pritch:

[Spun Lepton]

1929

:lol: Came here to say this.

[Ezee E]

Yeah, I'd rather see clips too. Although at least put together a respectable montage for when they show the bits for east Best Pic nom. Those are even worse.

[number8]

I'd like them to work for it. Have the nominee stand up and do a brief key scene from the movie.

[Raiders]

I think it should be a contest. No winner should be voted on, only the nominees. Then, each nominee should compete in like a spelling bee or one of those Minute-to-Win-It games. Reality TV is all the rage, so let's use it!

[balmakboor]

I'd like them to work for it. Have the nominee stand up and do a brief key scene from the movie.

Every couple of years I toss something like the following out there (kinda related to your post):

I think the Oscar for film editing is bogus. It usually goes to either the film with the most film editing (you know, lots and lots of cuts and shit) or the film that wins BP. I don't think there is any way to know how impressive of a job the film editor did without seeing what he had to work with, the dailies, the mound of raw footage. The final product could mean anything. The director could've been a "John Ford" and edited in camera. He could've been a "Hitchcock" and storyboarded everthing really well. I'm not saying their editors didn't have room for some creativity and some mistakes in coverage to fix. I'm saying that editors who make a silk purse out of a sow's ear had a much greater challenge and did a more impressive job.

Editors who routinely turn a pile of who knows what into something great and compelling are documentary editors. Why aren't they ever nominated?

Maybe the Oscars should have a website where people, especially voters, can go and see examples of raw footage vs. finished scenes.

[number8]

I think it should be a contest. No winner should be voted on, only the nominees. Then, each nominee should compete in like a spelling bee or one of those Minute-to-Win-It games. Reality TV is all the rage, so let's use it!

http://www.gifbin.com/bin/227839420.gif

[Qrazy]

Every couple of years I toss something like the following out there (kinda related to your post):

I think the Oscar for film editing is bogus. It usually goes to either the film with the most film editing (you know, lots and lots of cuts and shit) or the film that wins BP. I don't think there is any way to know how impressive of a job the film editor did without seeing what he had to work with, the dailies, the mound of raw footage. The final product could mean anything. The director could've been a "John Ford" and edited in camera. He could've been a "Hitchcock" and storyboarded everthing really well. I'm not saying their editors didn't have room for some creativity and some mistakes in coverage to fix. I'm saying that editors who make a silk purse out of a sow's ear had a much greater challenge and did a more impressive job.

Editors who routinely turn a pile of who knows what into something great and compelling are documentary editors. Why aren't they ever nominated?

Maybe the Oscars should have a website where people, especially voters, can go and see examples of raw footage vs. finished scenes.

Ehh but this is true of anything no? I mean same thing goes for the performer who took a flat character and turned them into something memorable... or the director who took a bunch of crappy actors and a middling script and made the film stylistically brilliant... or the cinematographer who had a shoe string budget and could only afford one light but still managed to do something amazing.

That aside I do agree with you though that the Academy frequently rewards montage editing.

[number8]

Maybe the Oscars should have a website where people, especially voters, can go and see examples of raw footage vs. finished scenes.

I think the reason they don't is that they assume since it's all editors who vote, then they should already know what they're voting for.

[number8]

http://www.gifbin.com/bin/227839420.gif

I just realized after posting this that I am actually eating a pie right now, at my desk.

Woah.

[balmakboor]

Ehh but this is true of anything no? I mean same thing goes for the performer who took a flat character and turned them into something memorable... or the director who took a bunch of crappy actors and a middling script and made the film stylistically brilliant... or the cinematographer who had a shoe string budget and could only afford one light but still managed to do something amazing.

That aside I do agree with you though that the Academy frequently rewards montage editing.

Yes, I agree with you. I'd like to see what the person created compared to what s/he had to work with in all categories.

Btw, I also think that costume and art direction are bogus. Why do the darn things always go to period films? Because they contain the most and prettiest costumes and sets. Who cares if all of the prettiness expresses nothing.

[balmakboor]

I think the reason they don't is that they assume since it's all editors who vote, then they should already know what they're voting for.

Editors, of all people, should know what I'm talking about. I think they all just huddle up and decide which friend they'll honor each year.

[balmakboor]

I think the reason they don't is that they assume since it's all editors who vote, then they should already know what they're voting for.

To be fair though, I'm sure a seasoned editor can watch a movie and read between the cuts. Can actually imagine with fair accuracy what decisions were made and what challenges were faced.

[number8]

Btw, I also think that costume and art direction are bogus. Why do the darn things always go to period films? Because they contain the most and prettiest costumes and sets. Who cares if all of the prettiness expresses nothing.

And Best Screenplay often go to the one with the snappiest dialogue, rather than the most intricate story as a whole. We can go on.

[balmakboor]

And Best Screenplay often go to the one with the snappiest dialogue, rather than the most intricate story as a whole. We can go on.

Yep. I guess it all just means that the Oscars are bogus.

[Spinal]

I believe that the editors select the nominees, but then the whole Academy votes on the winner. Isn't this how it works?

[number8]

Yep. I guess it all just means that the Oscars are bogus.

"The Oscars is one fucking beauty contest after another." - Paul Dano

[DavidSeven]

I believe that the editors select the nominees, but then the whole Academy votes on the winner. Isn't this how it works?

Odd. I was always under the impression that the specific branches voted on the winners too, but it looks like you are right. Seems quite dumb. Reassuring to know that sound mixers are helping the The Academy determine Best Make-Up of the year.

[Idioteque Stalker]

Hello movie people,

Withnail and I was like Oscar Wilde circa 1980s nihilism and decadence. Pretty much loved it. Richard E. Grant (Withnail) gave one of the most dynamic performances I've ever seen. My buddy and I were cracking up at everything with the drug dealer despite only understanding a third of what he was saying.

Any recommendations for other good films with Grant? I've seen Spice World, which really isn't that bad, but the film that interests me the most, How to Get Ahead In Advertising, isn't available on netflix.

[Bosco B Thug]

Haha a chain reaction of malfunctioning sarcasm detectors in the last page. At least we know now everyone on these boards is smart enough to realize the Academy Awards are the worst (that is, one of the suckiest things in suckdom, that is, one of the most ill-substantive things when it comes to movies and cinephilia). Not that paying attention to them isn't fun, of course.

[Winston*]

Hello movie people,

Withnail and I was like Oscar Wilde circa 1980s nihilism and decadence. Pretty much loved it. Richard E. Grant (Withnail) gave one of the most dynamic performances I've ever seen. My buddy and I were cracking up at everything with the drug dealer despite only understanding a third of what he was saying.

Any recommendations for other good films with Grant? I've seen Spice World, which really isn't that bad, but the film that interests me the most, How to Get Ahead In Advertising, isn't available on netflix.
Franz Kafka's It's a Wonderful Life is pretty awesome. Only 23 minutes.

pTMHUIN6ciM

[Eleven]

Franz Kafka's It's a Wonderful Life is pretty awesome. Only 23 minutes.

pTMHUIN6ciM

Also written and directed by Peter Capaldi, aka foul-mouthed Malcolm Tucker from The Thick of It and In the Loop.

[Winston*]

Also written and directed by Peter Capaldi, aka foul-mouthed Malcolm Tucker from The Thick of It and In the Loop.Yup. Found out about it through his wikipedia page.

[Spinal]

Accepting the superficiality of the Oscars and having fun with it > Getting worked up over supposed Oscar injustices.

[Ezee E]

Accepting the superficiality of the Oscars and having fun with it > Getting worked up over supposed Oscar injustices.
Indeed.

And despite all things, an Oscar nomination or win will still do wonders for a person's career (not just actors) and/or film. For that alone, I'll always support it.

[Qrazy]

Hello movie people,

Withnail and I was like Oscar Wilde circa 1980s nihilism and decadence. Pretty much loved it. Richard E. Grant (Withnail) gave one of the most dynamic performances I've ever seen. My buddy and I were cracking up at everything with the drug dealer despite only understanding a third of what he was saying.

Any recommendations for other good films with Grant? I've seen Spice World, which really isn't that bad, but the film that interests me the most, How to Get Ahead In Advertising, isn't available on netflix.

I prefer Hot to Get Ahead to Withnail and Grant is hilarious in it... for what that's worth.

[DavidSeven]

Oscars definitely do wonders for people's career. I mean, where would we all be without In the Valley of Elah or The Next Three Days? Or Halle Berry's post-Oscar career? Or Charlize Theron's??? Where would we be!

[Ezee E]

Oscars definitely do wonders for people's career. I mean, where would we all be without In the Valley of Elah or The Next Three Days? Or Halle Berry's post-Oscar career? Or Charlize Theron's??? Where would we be!
Win some, lose some.

[Watashi]

Has Forest Whitaker done anything since his win?

[DavidSeven]

Win some, lose some.

I laughed. Well played.

[number8]

Has Forest Whitaker done anything since his win?

He's, uh, the main guy in a Criminal Minds spin-off.

[Qrazy]

Has Forest Whitaker done anything since his win?

He took a long nap. Oh wait, did you mean career-wise?

[Boner M]

A Real Young Girl - A purging of sexual disgust. Grotesque, repellent, embarrassing, with the cinematographic qualities of a cheap 70's porn missive. This is how adolescent female sexual awakenings should be portrayed.

[soitgoes...]

After seeing Afterschool pop up here now and again with loads of praise, I finally decided to check it out. Awesome. Love the long lingering shots. Campos nailed the neglect of youth; troubled kids who try to reach out who are continually pushed aside. Add in a fantastic last shot. Sure he is indebted to Haneke, but really who better to use as an influence?

[Raiders]

After seeing Afterschool pop up here now and again with loads of praise, I finally decided to check it out. Awesome. Love the long lingering shots. Campos nailed the neglect of youth; troubled kids who try to reach out who are continually pushed aside. Add in a fantastic last shot.

Yeah, I've really wanted to check this out...


Sure he is indebted to Haneke, but really who better to use as an influence?

Hrm...

[soitgoes...]

Yeah, I've really wanted to check this out...



Hrm...
Sorry. I should have said, "Sure he is indebted to the film Elephant, but really what better film about high school alienation to use as an influence?"

That should ease your fears.

[Spinal]

A Real Young Girl - A purging of sexual disgust. Grotesque, repellent, embarrassing, with the cinematographic qualities of a cheap 70's porn missive. This is how adolescent female sexual awakenings should be portrayed.

Wow. Color me surprised. Glad you liked it.

[Raiders]

I'm leery of Breillat, but I have always wanted to see that one. For me, Campion's A Girl's Own Story is the best portrayal of adolescent sexual awakening.

[Boner M]

Wow. Color me surprised. Glad you liked it.
I've actually liked all the Breillat's I've seen, sans Romance which I'm merely mixed on. This one stands heads and shoulders above the others, though.

[Boner M]

I'm leery of Breillat
She's leery of you, too.

[Spinal]

Everyone Else was a delight. I'm surprised to learn that the director is so young because it's such a knowing portrait of a strained relationship. The gestures are mostly small, but this one held me all the way through. Minichmayr especially is very charismatic and Eidinger makes a perfect schlub. Great chemistry between the two. I thought they were utterly authentic.

[MacGuffin]

I thought The Forest for the Trees was rather cold and distant.

[soitgoes...]

Everyone Else was a delight...
Nice.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Nicely put, Spinal. I liked it quite a bit as well.

[B-side]

A Real Young Girl - A purging of sexual disgust. Grotesque, repellent, embarrassing, with the cinematographic qualities of a cheap 70's porn missive. This is how adolescent female sexual awakenings should be portrayed.

:)

[Boner M]

Everyone Else was a delight. I'm surprised to learn that the director is so young because it's such a knowing portrait of a strained relationship. The gestures are mostly small, but this one held me all the way through. Minichmayr especially is very charismatic and Eidinger makes a perfect schlub. Great chemistry between the two. I thought they were utterly authentic.
Yes to all of this. Surprised and pleased you liked it.

[Spinal]

... Aaaand a few hours later, I finally connected the opening scene of Everyone Else to the last scene. Man, I'm slow sometimes.

[B-side]

The Ruiz consensus was scheduled for 17 days from now, but considering how far behind we are on it, you guys will have more time to please me.

[Kurosawa Fan]

... Aaaand a few hours later, I finally connected the opening scene of Everyone Else to the last scene. Man, I'm slow sometimes.

I saw the connection they were trying to make, but one of the faults of the film is that I don't think they pulled it off very well.

[Raiders]

* <---

Hey soitgoes, I found this little guy wandering the streets all cold and lonely. He tells me he got lost from a recent signature rating of yours. I'll send him over.

[endingcredits]

The Ruiz consensus was scheduled for 17 days from now, but considering how far behind we are on it, you guys will have more time to please me.

I still need to check him out. What do you suggest as a start?

[NickGlass]

Whenever I go to the movie theater, I can only hope to have the exciting, mesmerizing experience I had when I saw Everyone Else.

[B-side]

I still need to check him out. What do you suggest as a start?

Well, it depends on how daring you feel, I suppose. You seem to enjoy surrealism and the more baroque, so something like City of Pirates, The Hypothesis of the Stolen Painting or Time Regained would be good for that. Time Regained being my personal favorite. For something a bit more approachable and easily digested, I'd suggest something from his later years, the best of which being Genealogies of a Crime, The Lost Domain and Klimt. Some of these, of course, are only available via places like KG.

[MadMan]

Accepting the superficiality of the Oscars and having fun with it > Getting worked up over supposed Oscar injustices.Plus Oscar pools, even if picking the winners is getting rather easier these days, are fun.

I recently viewed Last Year at Marienbad, and wrote a crappy review about that yesterday. Before that I watched The Expandables, which was decent and gave me this strange feeling that Sly was just using it as a launching pad for an entire series of movies that would end up starring even more action legends, until he finally creates his action masterpiece epic that truly blows us all away. Or something.

Oh and a rewatch of The Royal Tenenbaums reminds me why I really love that movie. Even though its not Anderson's best. Up next is Paris, Texas from Wenders, which I keep hearing endless amazing things about.

[endingcredits]

Well, it depends on how daring you feel, I suppose. You seem to enjoy surrealism and the more baroque, so something like City of Pirates, The Hypothesis of the Stolen Painting or Time Regained would be good for that. Time Regained being my personal favorite. For something a bit more approachable and easily digested, I'd suggest something from his later years, the best of which being Genealogies of a Crime, The Lost Domain and Klimt. Some of these, of course, are only available via places like KG.

I am not very daring: overwhelming trepidation eats my mind when leaving the house and a general fear of everything ensues. Anyways, I've decided to track down The Hypothesis of the Stolen Painting because the title is glorious. Then I'll look into Time Regained. My KG ratio can handle the hit.

[Ezee E]

Valhalla Rising has some great pieces, but as a whole there isn't much to discuss except for the bits of violence and how well it's shot. The heavy metal guitar and weak excuse of a story make this a big disappointment for me.

Refn's got the talent. But maybe he shouldn't be a writer.

[MacGuffin]

Valhalla Rising has some great pieces, but as a whole there isn't much to discuss except for the bits of violence and how well it's shot. The heavy metal guitar and weak excuse of a story make this a big disappointment for me.

Refn's got the talent. But maybe he shouldn't be a writer.

I at least hope it's better than Bronson. It looks quite promising, I'll be happy even if it's not excellent.

[Sven]

* <---

Hey soitgoes, I found this little guy wandering the streets all cold and lonely. He tells me he got lost from a recent signature rating of yours. I'll send him over.

I hope that's to add to his poor Dance Girl Dance rating.

[Raiders]

I hope that's to add to his poor Dance Girl Dance rating.

You know what it's for. Let's not be coy.

[Derek]

You know what it's for. Let's not be coy.

You should see The Ceremony before saying that, but I appreciate your trust in my judgement.

[soitgoes...]

* <---

Hey soitgoes, I found this little guy wandering the streets all cold and lonely. He tells me he got lost from a recent signature rating of yours. I'll send him over.
Well Demme's film is great, but do you really think it deserves 5 stars out of 4? A little excessive, even if Byrne is awesome. ;)

I enjoyed Something Wild, but there's no way in my mind I'd consider it a four star film. First off, John Waters is in it, and he made Pink Flamingos which is so bad as to taint everything else Waters comes in contact with.

[Yxklyx]

... Aaaand a few hours later, I finally connected the opening scene of Everyone Else to the last scene. Man, I'm slow sometimes.

Damn, I'm slower - what's the deal? I liked this one a lot as well but I prefer the ultra-cringe inducing The Forest for the Trees.

[Yxklyx]

Never mind - had to remember the last scene. Hmm, I like it even more now.

[B-side]

I am not very daring: overwhelming trepidation eats my mind when leaving the house and a general fear of everything ensues. Anyways, I've decided to track down The Hypothesis of the Stolen Painting because the title is glorious. Then I'll look into Time Regained. My KG ratio can handle the hit.

Excellent. I look forward to your thoughts.

[Boner M]

weekend:

R'Xmas
The Devil's Playground
The Headless Woman
The French Connection 2
Seven Brides For Seven Brothers

[B-side]

weekend:

R'Xmas

I'll be interested in how you respond to this. I wanna see it myself.

[Rowland]

The weekend will continue my year-end catch-up scramble:

October Country
Exit Through the Gift Shop
Dogtooth

[soitgoes...]

Weekend:

Last 3 parts of Histoire(s) du cinéma (Godard) <---- Turning out to be awesome
Three Brothers (Rosi)
Day for Night (Truffaut)
Housekeeping (Forsyth)
The Dead (Huston) <--- I predict a negative score

[Eleven]

A new (to me, at least) awesome tumblr - http://iwdrm.tumblr.com/ Apologies if it's old news to anyone. The Twitter account was set up in late October, so it's probably pretty recently-devised.

[B-side]

A new (to me, at least) awesome tumblr - http://iwdrm.tumblr.com/ Apologies if it's old news to anyone. The Twitter account was set up in late October, so it's probably pretty recently-devised.

Nice find.

[Raiders]

I'll be interested in how you respond to this. I wanna see it myself.

I'm a bit of a Ferrara fanboy, but I loved it. At the very least, Ice-T has never been better.


Housekeeping (Forsyth)

Ah, good. A chance to redeem yourself.

[B-side]

I'm a bit of a Ferrara fanboy, but I loved it. At the very least, Ice-T has never been better.

Well, being a big Ferrara fan myself, I can't fault you for it.

[TripZone]

Weekend:

Last 3 parts of Histoire(s) du cinéma (Godard) <---- Turning out to be awesome
Three Brothers (Rosi)
Day for Night (Truffaut)
Housekeeping (Forsyth)
The Dead (Huston) <--- I predict a negative score

You're not stupid enough to dislike The Dead.

[MadMan]

Weekend:

*Dr. Who Season 5
*Repulsion (1965)
*Paris, Texas (1984)

[Ezee E]

Weekend:
The Wrong Man
Disappearance of Alice Creed
Beloved

[megladon8]

Before the Fall was hugely disappointing.

The entire subplot of the world coming to an end was unnecessary and had absolutely no bearing on the way the events of the film played out. All it did was set up the circumstances for the villain's prison escape, then that entire "72 hours left to live" thing is eliminated from the story until the final 30 seconds when the filmmaker just kind of remembers "oh ya, I forgot, the world has to blow up."

Overall I found the film quite boring. Utterly idiotic choices made by the protagonists make it hard to identify with them, or even to sympathize with their plight.

I was not impressed.

[Sven]

Boner, did you explain your Raising Cain rating? Your mid-watch rave had me hoping...

[Dead & Messed Up]

So I finished watching Crank: High Voltage night before last, and I'm still not entirely sure what I think about the thing. It's messy as fuck, and it's misogynistic and bigoted (even if it's trying to mock such things), and its body-horror elements are off-putting...but it's also dazzling, fast-paced, hilarious, and daring. There's so much that's happening, and so much that's inventive and preposterous - the whole thing feels like an action movie as dreamt by a horny 13-year-old who's played too much Mortal Kombat. To call the movie a disgusting, assaultive experience is to commend Neveldine/Taylor for a job well done.

[Ivan Drago]

So I finished watching Crank: High Voltage night before last, and I'm still not entirely sure what I think about the thing.

You think it wuz AWSUM!!!!1

[Boner M]

Boner, did you explain your Raising Cain rating? Your mid-watch rave had me hoping...
It started to feel less like an ostensibly serious psychodrama teetering on the edge of camp, and more of a straightforward farcical genre parody, and hence it became less exhilarating/unique. Still incredibly enjoyable, the climax is hilarious ("watch it with that sundial!"), and Lithgow is perfect actor for this kinda thing, but it all felt a bit slight in the end.

[Idioteque Stalker]

Although I liked Good Will Hunting, it was the weakest Gus Vant Sant movie I've seen. Low points were the script's glorification of the main character and Robin Williams in general, but the acting was otherwise quite good. Damon used to look very Van Sant-y. Loved the scenes with Casey and Ben Affleck. Hated the extremely histrionic monologues (Damon at the Harvard bar/telling the NSA why he shouldn't work there, Williams by the pond).

Van Sant's more formalist stuff really appeals to me. I understand his aesthetic changed after Bagger Vance (which I haven't seen), but I need suggestions of where to go pre-GWH.

[Qrazy]

Although I liked Good Will Hunting, it was the weakest Gus Vant Sant movie I've seen. Low points were the script's glorification of the main character and Robin Williams in general, but the acting was otherwise quite good. Damon used to look very Van Sant-y. Loved the scenes with Casey and Ben Affleck. Hated the extremely histrionic monologues (Damon at the Harvard bar/telling the NSA why he shouldn't work there, Williams by the pond).

Van Sant's more formalist stuff really appeals to me. I understand his aesthetic changed after Bagger Vance (which I haven't seen), but I need suggestions of where to go pre-GWH.

Drugstore Cowboy.

[soitgoes...]

Drugstore Cowboy.
Or To Die For.

[soitgoes...]

Van Sant's more formalist stuff really appeals to me. I understand his aesthetic changed after Bagger Vance (which I haven't seen), but I need suggestions of where to go pre-GWH.Not a Van Sant film, but yeah he took on a different approach after 2000.

[Qrazy]

Or To Die For.

I wasn't that keen on My Own Private Idaho. What did you think?

[Idioteque Stalker]

Not a Van Sant film

Oops, mixed it up with Finding Forrester which also looks uninteresting.

I'll check out both of those.

[soitgoes...]

I wasn't that keen on My Own Private Idaho. What did you think?
It was pretty. Good performances by Phoenix (not surprising) and Reeves (surprising), but ultimately I didn't care one bit about the characters or their stories. Give me Dillon and his drug-addled existence over a necrophiliac hustler.

[soitgoes...]

Oops, mixed it up with Finding Forrester which also looks uninteresting.

I'll check out both of those.Finding Forrester is quite a bit better than Redford's film. Still Van Sant was stronger with the two Qrazy and I mentioned, but honestly he started to become more interesting with Gerry.

[Idioteque Stalker]

Finding Forrester is quite a bit better than Redford's film. Still Van Sant was stronger with the two Qrazy and I mentioned, but honestly he started to become more interesting with Gerry.

Saw Gerry and Last Days recently as well. The former was mesmerizing but didn't earn its bleak ending, while the latter totally clicked with me. Loved the style of course, but that was pretty much a given. What took me by surprise was Michael Pitt. Dude has a good art-house agent (Dreamers, Hedwig and Last Days are all four star films) and I always enjoy him, but this was the first time I've been so impressed. At times it seemed to glorify his character, but I felt it was tempered enough by the curiousness of his behavior and Van Sant's naturalistic visual style to not be much of an issue. Creeping up on Paranoid Park as my favorite of his.

[Boner M]

btw, how unspeakably godawful does the new Van Sant look?!

NOT SAFE FOR LIFE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgq6SQTDYi8)

[Derek]

btw, how unspeakably godawful does the new Van Sant look?!

NOT SAFE FOR LIFE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgq6SQTDYi8)

Wow. That's unfortunate.

[Spinal]

btw, how unspeakably godawful does the new Van Sant look?!

NOT SAFE FOR LIFE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgq6SQTDYi8)

"Make this film better."

"I don't think you understand."

"MAKE THIS FILM BETTER!!!"

[Eleven]

btw, how unspeakably godawful does the new Van Sant look?!

NOT SAFE FOR LIFE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgq6SQTDYi8)

Harold and Maude and Ghost and God Make It Stop.

[balmakboor]

btw, how unspeakably godawful does the new Van Sant look?!

NOT SAFE FOR LIFE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgq6SQTDYi8)

Hard to tell if the film is any good, but the trailer is working overtime to convince people that it's Ghost rewritten by Nicholas Sparks.

I have faith that it'll be much better than the film the marketing department wants me to think it is.

By the way, I still think Drugstore Cowboy is his best. Unless The Discipline of DE counts.

[soitgoes...]

Ah, good. A chance to redeem yourself.Better?

[Qrazy]

By the way, I still think Drugstore Cowboy is his best.

I agree. It's his most well rounded film imo.

[MacGuffin]

Weekend:

Essential Killing
Liverpool
Nashville
Frozen
And maybe some of the 2010 movies streamable on Netfilx.

[B-side]

Weekend:

Essential Killing

<--- is jelly

[DavidSeven]

btw, how unspeakably godawful does the new Van Sant look?!

NOT SAFE FOR LIFE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgq6SQTDYi8)

Most. Confounding. Director. Ever.

[Irish]

It was pretty. Good performances by Phoenix (not surprising) and Reeves (surprising), but ultimately I didn't care one bit about the characters or their stories. Give me Dillon and his drug-addled existence over a necrophiliac hustler.

Phoenix's character was a narcoleptic. He suffered from a sleep disorder.

He didn't have sex with dead people. :P

[soitgoes...]

Phoenix's character was a narcoleptic. He suffered from a sleep disorder.

He didn't have sex with dead people. :P
That's why it wasn't interesting. Thanks for correcting me. ;)

[B-side]

Raising Cain seems to more or less fall right in line with my attitude toward most of De Palma's work: it has nice camera work and can be genuinely thrilling at times, but I just can't jive much with De Palma's campy pastiche. When De Palma cranks it up in the latter half of Raising Cain, I start getting engaged, but before that it's pure camp set-up, and I'm no fan of camp. And when I say it has nice camera work, I mean the camera floats in a nice and fluid fashion and occasionally moves in a neat and unique trajectory, but there's nothing special going on in terms of lighting or mise-en-scene to compliment it during it, or any other time. I think Blow Out is my favorite of his right now, and I still don't love it.

[dmk]

My man ‘side, next time you need to swipe some of your mom’s best pharmaceuticals before you can try levelling with DePalma’s gigantic phallus-whirling cinematic perfection.

Raising Cain is one of my favourites from his filmography. I don’t believe DePalma makes camp, and especially pure camp. Camp stems from sincerity and earnestness, and DePalma is nothing if not thoroughly self-referential and aware, in my opinion. I do like me some genuine camp though.

[B-side]

I knew I could count on you, dmk. :D

[Sven]

...and I'm no fan of camp.

This seems very strange to me.


but there's nothing special going on in terms of lighting or mise-en-scene to compliment it during it, or any other time.

D'oh!

[B-side]

This seems very strange to me.

I'm just not, I guess. It grates me. It's the same reason I don't flock to watch the "so bad they're good" films. Sure, I can get a laugh or two when they're so over the top as to be funny, but I can't get much when it's just campy and not bad enough to laugh at, though I did chuckle at some of the more "intense" moments in Raising Cain.


D'oh!

I suppose that means you disagree, but I don't recall much in the way of memorable imagery, provocative staging, blocking, lighting -- any of that.

[megladon8]

Phoenix's character was a narcoleptic. He suffered from a sleep disorder.

He didn't have sex with dead people. :P


You mean I've been telling women I have a sleep disorder this whole time?

Damn! I always thought I was getting more interest than I probably should be.

[Sven]

I'm just not, I guess. It grates me. It's the same reason I don't flock to watch the "so bad they're good" films. Sure, I can get a laugh or two when they're so over the top as to be funny, but I can't get much when it's just campy and not bad enough to laugh at, though I did chuckle at some of the more "intense" moments in Raising Cain.

It seems a man of your more avant-garde interests (and admissions to certain sexual atypicalities) would jump at camp.

It is obvious, though, that we are defining "camp" differently. My definition is informed by my education in film theory, so it is loaded with terms like "queer theory" and "performative irony". I don't know if I'd classify Raising Cain as camp in that sense, but it is gloriously self-aware and over-the-top (and a VERY far cry from "so bad it's good") and loaded with post-modern deconstructive goodness.


I suppose that means you disagree, but I don't recall much in the way of memorable imagery, provocative staging, blocking, lighting -- any of that.

Memorable imagery: car sinking into lake (it is my opinion that De Palma, in this particular scene, outdoes Hitchcock's version from Psycho), wonky POV shots of the father, dreamy park clearing swirling makeout sessions
Provocative staging: the massive single shot in the forensics building, the climax with the sundial
Blocking: Any film where an actor is forced to interact with his/herself that comes off as seamlessly as this one cannot be said to be poorly blocked. The last shot alone is masterful cinematic blocking.
Lighting: Well, I mean... what? I guess if you didn't like the photography, or didn't find any of the images memorable (though really, you ought to give yourself more time between your viewing and application of that word to be entirely sure), you wouldn't be inspired to note the lighting.

[Eleven]

With the caveat that some of these are not in their correct ratio, here's a list from Joe Dante over at Dave Kehr's blog (http://www.davekehr.com/?p=834&cpage=2#comment-54631) of movies available on Netflix Instant that are unavailable on R1 DVD:

Blithe Spirit (David Lean, 1945)
Odd Man Out (Carol Reed, 1947)
I Walk Alone (Byron Haskin, 1948)
Moonrise (Frank Borzage, 1948)
Caught (Max Ophuls, 1949)
No Man of Her Own (Mitchell Leisen, 1950)
The Big Night (Joseph Losey, 1951)
Cry Danger (Robert Parrish, 1951)
The Mating Season (Mitchell Leisen, 1951)
The Captive City (Robert Wise, 1952)
Horizons West (Budd Boetticher, 1952)
The Turning Point (William Dieterle, 1952)
Private Hell 36 (Don Siegel, 1954)
Run for Cover (Nicholas Ray, 1955)
Strategic Air Command (Anthony Mann, 1955)
China Gate (Samuel Fuller, 1957)
He Who Must Die (Jules Dassin, 1957)
Hidden Fear (Andre De Toth, 1957)
Short Cut to Hell (James Cagney, 1957)
The Savage Innocents (Nicholas Ray, 1960)
Phaedra (Jules Dassin, 1962)
A Child Is Waiting (John Cassavetes, 1963)
Redline 7000 (Howard Hawks, 1965)
Cul-de-sac (Roman Polanski, 1966)
The Group (Sidney Lumet, 1966)
The Climax (Pietro Germi, 1967)
Hurry Sundown (Otto Preminger, 1967)
Up Tight! (Jules Dassin, 1968)
The Happy Ending (Richard Brooks, 1969)
The Landlord (Hal Ashby, 1970)
Leo the Last (John Boorman, 1970)
Born to Win (Ivan Passer, 1971)
The Heartbreak Kid (Elaine May, 1972)
The Offence (Sidney Lumet, 1973)
Busting (Peter Hyams, 1974)
The Spikes Gang (Richard Fleischer, 1974)
The Context [Illustrious Corpses] (Francesco Rosi, 1976)
The Keep (Michael Mann, 1983)
Garbo Talks (Sidney Lumet, 1984)

[Russ]

Sven, you know what a devout De Palma fan I am..and I haven't seen Raising Cain in years (currently angling for a rewatch). But my faint memories pretty much echo Boner's thoughts. Starts out great and kind of...loses it a bit. I always attributed that to Lithgow's waaay over-the-top performance (ham of Vincent Price proportions) and the script I guess. Plus the fact that I guessed the twist long before I think I was supposed to. Odd, though, that I don't remember any of the typical De Palma set pieces or his wild, inventive camerwork. Lithgow's scenery-chewing kinda overshadowed everything, or so it seemed. Still, I'm really looking forward to a rewatch.

[Rowland]

How about the television screen reflection? That sequence gets me every time.

[Ezee E]

Disappearance of Alice Creed might be one of this year's biggest surprises for me. J Blakeson displays good craftsmanship and keeps you guessing despite having a few cliche moments.

Eddie Marsan just needs to be in more movies in general.

[Rowland]

Disappearance of Alice Creed might be one of this year's biggest surprises for me. J Blakeson displays good craftsmanship and keeps you guessing despite having a few cliche moments.

Eddie Marsan just needs to be in more movies in general.Marsan is indeed fantastic, imbuing what could have been a one-note role with depth and pathos. In the end however, most of the film struck me as more interested in being clever than smart or thoughtful, which is why it sorta deflates once all the cards are on the table and they leave the room. The ending encapsulates this problem, in that its reveal of the title's meaning is slick, but when you think about it afterward, so what?

[Ezee E]

Marsan is indeed fantastic, imbuing what could have been a one-note role with depth and pathos. In the end however, most of the film struck me as more interested in being clever than smart or thoughtful, which is why it sorta deflates once all the cards are on the table and they leave the room. The ending sorta encapsulates this problem, in that its reveal of the title's meaning is slick, but when you think about it afterward, so what?
May not have much to resonate on, but for 100 minutes, it kept me interested, and as you mentioned, the actors give it better depth and pathos then it had any right to.

[Rowland]

May not have much to resonate on, but for 100 minutes, it kept me interested, and as you mentioned, the actors give it better depth and pathos then it had any right to.Oh certainly, it's exceedingly watchable as a whole. On a moment to moment basis, my initial reaction was three stars, but I bumped half a star once I began to dwell on how little there was to dwell upon, the game-changing nature of the second twist in particular never being sufficiently followed through beyond introducing another layer of suspense, which especially felt like a cheat given the rawness of Marsan's performance.

[Bosco B Thug]

The Seventh Seal is really good (the climactic scene with Death being incredibly so), but it often feels deflated due to how accessible it feels, with conventional-feeling narrative beats, an unraveling journey and series of events, a big and flashy set piece involving a parade of flagellants, a motley crew of characters we're encouraged to like that don't break into performative-mode, and a casual helping of affable comedy relief. At one point towards the middle of the film, I was thinking this would be a 7 range film.

[Boner M]

Hmm. Think I'll have to watch The Headless Woman again. For better or worse, I'm left in the exact same position as its main character.

EDIT: Just realised the ending of the film is nearly identical to that of Mother.

[B-side]

Dear Woody Allen,

Please stop with the narrators kthx

Sincerely,
Brightside

[Rowland]

EDIT: Just realised the ending of the film is nearly identical to that of Mother.The important distinction is that the Headless Woman has a passive role in her fate whereas the Mother brings it upon herself.

[B-side]

The Swimmer is some sort of bizarre one night existential odyssey through backyards, upscale parties, swimming pools and an enigmatic man's past. I'd be blown away if this had any sort of major release back in its day. It's borderline experimental and downright odd at times, which of course doesn't hurt it a bit in my eyes. I think I loved it.

[Kurosawa Fan]

The short story is fantastic as well. I had no idea it had been adapted. Just thinking back on the story, I have no idea how that would work. Was it a short film?

[B-side]

The short story is fantastic as well. I had no idea it had been adapted. Just thinking back on the story, I have no idea how that would work. Was it a short film?

Nah, it's 95 minutes long. Stars Burt Lancaster.

[Mara]

Count me as another fan of the short story. In fact, I think it was influential on Mad Men in general and Don in particular. But I've never seen the film.

[MacGuffin]

Can anyone suggest movies in which the main character believes that something is wrong, when we as an audience know everything is and will be alright?

[Sven]

Can anyone suggest movies in which the main character believes that something is wrong, when we as an audience know everything is and will be alright?

Isn't this every movie? Maybe I misunderstand the question...

[MacGuffin]

For example, one character has received news that her husband has died in the war. Cut to her husband still alive in his bunk.

[number8]

What, like War of the Worlds?

[MacGuffin]

What, like War of the Worlds?

Yeah, actually. That's exactly what I was thinking, aside from being mediocre overall.

[number8]

Except the audience didn't know the little snot was all right.

I don't think you understand your own question very much.

[Sven]

For example, one character has received news that her husband has died in the war. Cut to her husband still alive in his bunk.

Are you looking for examples of this cut-type of reveal? Or just that kind of thing altogether. Because it's quite common for the audience to know more than the characters.

[balmakboor]

Dear Woody Allen,

Please stop with the narrators kthx

Sincerely,
Brightside

Voiceover is one of the techniques Allen uses that I quite enjoy. He's just a verbal artist that it seems a perfect fit.

[Watashi]

Can anyone suggest movies in which the main character believes that something is wrong, when we as an audience know everything is and will be alright?
The Wrong Man?

[balmakboor]

Saw Wendy and Lucy today and thoroughly loved it. It's like a fairy tale for these economically shaky times. It's for everyone who has ever thought he had his finances in order only to be blindsided by some expense -- often car-related in my case -- that causes him to sink even deeper into financial quicksand. I loved the detail of her having some unspecified, untreated wound on her ankle. Speaks more for our need of, you know, real healthcare reform than any ridiculous speech ever could.

[soitgoes...]

Dear Woody Allen,

Please stop with the narrators kthx

Sincerely,
BrightsideIt's not going to happen.

While it was a step back from Whatever Works and Vicky Cristina Barcelona, it stayed away from being a negative experience for me. This film was just uneven. The older characters' lives were portrayed wonderfully (the Viagra bit got me good). All three actors, Hopkins, Jones and Punch did a stellar job, but when the film focused on the Watts-Brolin storyline it fell flat. Their scenes only come to life when they included the parents.

At 75 I'm hoping for one more great film out of Allen, but we're running out of time. Next year's offering has an interesting cast. One thing about Allen is that he can always get an eclectic mix of talent to work for him.

[endingcredits]

Excellent. I look forward to your thoughts.

I watched Hypothesis of a Stolen Painting (Ruiz, 1979) this morning. It was unique but not 'novelty' unique, making for a new and interesting viewing experience for me without being irritating. It's outstanding in its ability to create momentum in imagery alone, dynamically moving through the paintings, and relating the images with killer cinematography. I found that the narration was somewhat bland, except the whole E vs. H scandal, which I loved, but the collector, and his myriad incomprehensible theories spinning a labyrinth ala Borges was right up my alley.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Even if he still cranks out a decent flick every now and then, I think the Woodster pretty much gave up the game of making truly great movies after Husbands and Wives.

[Ezee E]

Someone please write Neil Marshall a good script... Centurion and Doomsday are both entertaining enough to watch, but goddamn, they are awfully written. Centurion even moreso. But its action is far better then the summer output.

[Ezee E]

Someone please write Neil Marshall a good script... Centurion and Doomsday are both entertaining enough to watch, but goddamn, they are awfully written. Centurion even moreso. But its action is far better then the summer output.

[B-side]

Voiceover is one of the techniques Allen uses that I quite enjoy. He's just a verbal artist that it seems a perfect fit.

The voiceovers in Vicky Cristina Barcelona and Tall Dark Stranger are both bad. They're dry, needlessly expository and lacking any semblance of wit or insight.

[B-side]

I watched Hypothesis of a Stolen Painting (Ruiz, 1979) this morning. It was unique but not 'novelty' unique, making for a new and interesting viewing experience for me without being irritating. It's outstanding in its ability to create momentum in imagery alone, dynamically moving through the paintings, and relating the images with killer cinematography. I found that the narration was somewhat bland, except the whole E vs. H scandal, which I loved, but the collector, and his myriad incomprehensible theories spinning a labyrinth ala Borges was right up my alley.

I'm very pleased you liked it so much. It's a short one, too, so it wouldn't have been much of an investment had you not liked it very much. I don't think I found out Vierny shot it until after I'd saw it. Makes sense in retrospect, of course.:P

[Philosophe_rouge]

Love the narration in Vicky Christina, then again, I think it's one of his best films.

[soitgoes...]

Even if he still cranks out a decent flick every now and then, I think the Woodster pretty much gave up the game of making truly great movies after Husbands and Wives.Deconstructing Harry, but yeah the last 10+ years haven't been overly kind to him.

[Qrazy]

Deconstructing Harry, but yeah the last 10+ years haven't been overly kind to him.

Deconstructing Harry was not very good.