28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[Winston*]

So, yeah, Uncle Boonmee is good. How good? I don't really know. I'll admit to being intermittently bored, but it evokes a very meditative calm. The first dinner scene is played so matter-of-factly it was kinda eerie.

The first dinner scene is kind of hilarious.

[Eleven]

Matt Zoller Seitz's visual essay on 2010 (http://www.thelmagazine.com/newyork/2010-scenes-from-a-year-in-film/Content?oid=1883284) kicks the ass of that "Filmography 2010" video.

[balmakboor]

Matt Zoller Seitz's visual essay on 2010 (http://www.thelmagazine.com/newyork/2010-scenes-from-a-year-in-film/Content?oid=1883284) kicks the ass of that "Filmography 2010" video.

I agree. I love how it takes a more leisurely walk through the year.

[Qrazy]

Ehh, there's much more flow to the montage of the other one imo.

[Eleven]

Ehh, there's much more flow to the montage of the other one imo.

I think the "Filmography 2010" may have better editing, due to being indiscriminate and solely interested in rhythm, but Seitz's simply showcases much better movies and I'd rather watch that.

[Qrazy]

I think the "Filmography 2010" may have better editing, due to being indiscriminate and solely interested in rhythm, but Seitz's simply showcases much better movies and I'd rather watch that.

That's fair.

[Eleven]

That's fair.

Also, "Filmography 2010" is ostensibly a big trailer for the year, with all of the strengths and weaknesses that come with that form of montage, like only including moments from trailers and cutting to songs unrelated to the films themselves. "Scenes from a Year" is from a film critic with apparent access to screeners, only uses music from the films, and need not rely on trailer-like editing for effect. They're both interesting in their own ways, basically.

[balmakboor]

I think the "Filmography 2010" may have better editing, due to being indiscriminate and solely interested in rhythm, but Seitz's simply showcases much better movies and I'd rather watch that.

Seitz's had a much higher number of films that I had no idea what they were that I now want to run out and see.

[dreamdead]

Inherent to visiting friends and family was the understanding that I'd watch some stinkers, but the stinker of The Ugly Truth was of my own volition as I'd read such disgusting things about the film on avclub that I felt it worth watching and trying to figure out why Heigl would want that kind of credit. Its sexism is so chauvinistic that it hurts, as men never have to verbalize why they love her, even though she is degraded at nearly every turn.

I Love You Man fares better in that the men actually verbalize their feelings, at the reproach of being assessed as gay and girly, but here the women get shafted, as Rudd's fiancee doesn't get much dimension, beyond being sexually willing to experiment. The way it uses conventions and tropes work well enough to elevate it above the common dreck of the genre. It could be the best of the Apatow-minded films, even if the rating is still middle-of-the-road.

Baby Mama... Man, I want Tina Fey to have a transcendent film comedy up her sleeve at some point. This one isn't it, though the chemistry between her and Kinnear is decent.

[Qrazy]

Also, "Filmography 2010" is ostensibly a big trailer for the year, with all of the strengths and weaknesses that come with that form of montage, like only including moments from trailers and cutting to songs unrelated to the films themselves. "Scenes from a Year" is from a film critic with apparent access to screeners, only uses music from the films, and need not rely on trailer-like editing for effect. They're both interesting in their own ways, basically.

Ehh there's quite a bit of trailer-like intercutting at some points I just don't think it's as fluid.

[Sven]

Matt Zoller Seitz's visual essay on 2010 (http://www.thelmagazine.com/newyork/2010-scenes-from-a-year-in-film/Content?oid=1883284) kicks the ass of that "Filmography 2010" video.

Win.

[Russ]

So, yeah, Uncle Boonmee is good. How good? I don't really know. I'll admit to being intermittently bored, but it evokes a very meditative calm. The first dinner scene is played so matter-of-factly it was kinda eerie.
I thought it was pretty great, but I can't imagine this becoming a consensus favorite here at MC. Lots of individual scenes were absolutely sublime, tho. Joe sure loves to hold a shot doesn't he?

Looking forward to another viewing.

[soitgoes...]

I thought it was pretty great, but I can't imagine this becoming a consensus favorite here at MC. Lots of individual scenes were absolutely sublime, tho. Joe sure loves to hold a shot doesn't he?

Looking forward to another viewing.I don't know about that, Weerasethekul is praised awfully hard around here. I would imagine mostly fans of his other films will be seeking this one out. Of course I could be talking out of my ass as I haven't seen the film yet, and it could be miles different from his other stuff.

[baby doll]

Weekend:

I Love You, Man (John Hamburg, 2009)
Thirst (Park Chan-wook, 2009)

[B-side]

Weekend:

I Love You, Man (John Hamburg, 2009)

Why?

Also, during my KG stalking, I noticed you happened to download a Ruiz film. You, uh, wouldn't have watched that, would you have?:D

[baby doll]

Why?Why not? I saw it on the shelf at the library, and I remembered that Armond White liked it, so I figured: what the hell?


Also, during my KG stalking, I noticed you happened to download a Ruiz film. You, uh, wouldn't have watched that, would you have?:DNot yet.

[B-side]

Why not? I saw it on the shelf at the library, and I remembered that Armond White liked it, so I figured: what the hell?

Well...


Not yet.

Odd choice for a first Ruiz, but I hope you enjoy it regardless.

[Boner M]

I Love You, Man is pretty darn funny.

Weekend:

The Expendables
Piranha 3D
October Country
The French Connection 2
Seven Brides For Seven Brothers

[Ezee E]

I've still got:

Beloved
Ghosts... of the Civil Dead
The Man Who Fell to Earth

And they'll probably hang around for at least one more week.

[B-side]

Ferrara's Mary is the reason I watch movies. Technically brilliant; Ferrara's most impressive on that front. It's a fever dream of media, modernity, battling ideologies, autobiographical demon purging, swirling architecture and moral ambiguity. And again, another brilliant coda from Ferrara. That man knows how to end a film, that's for damn sure.

I'll be posting numerous caps in the Random Screenshot Thread as I am wont to do, so check those out if you're so inclined.

[B-side]

All new 35 MM restoration of Battleship Potemkin is getting a limited theatrical release January 14th. (http://thefilmstage.com/2010/12/22/battleship-potemkin-35mm-restoration-theatrical-re-release-trailer/)

It includes missing footage and the original symphonic score. I'd love to be able to see it.

[transmogrifier]

I Love You, Man is pretty darn funny.


One of the most boring "comedies" I have seen in a long time. Right down there with Date Night. Don't think I laughed once.

If we ever have a comedy viewing night, I'M picking the movies.

[Derek]

One of the most boring "comedies" I have seen in a long time. Right down there with Date Night. Don't think I laughed once.

If we ever have a comedy viewing night, I'M picking the movies.

You have been posting nothing but incorrect statements lately.

[transmogrifier]

You have been posting nothing but incorrect statements lately.

I Love You Man is a Match Cut endorsed movie? What's happening to this place?

PS what were the other incorrect statements?

[Derek]

PS what were the other incorrect statements?

=


Shutter Island > Inception

Praise for a Kevin Smith product (though I'll cut you some slack since I haven't watched the teaser yet)

Anti-Scott Pilgrim sentiments

The New World & Raising Arizona being their respective director's worst films when in fact they are their best

Sort of meh-ing Lebowski

and a 79 for The Informant!, the best film you've seen in almost a year.

[transmogrifier]

Shutter Island is better than Inception

Praise for the construction of a teaser. Who knows what the film will be like?

Scott Pilgrim IS Wright's worst film, and easily too. I wager I'd be more in line with the consensus on that one.

Best Coen film = Miller's Crossing; best Malick film = Days of Heaven

The Informant! is the best film I've seen in a while, and usually I find Soderbergh quite boring

Man, I'm awesome, thanks for reminding me

[baby doll]

Now, I like Raising Arizona and The New World, but really, to say that they represent the best work of their respectively directors is simply nuts. In the latter case, Malick takes an overly pious attitude towards his characters, especially the little girl, as opposed to unaffected Midwestern chicks in Badlands and Days of Heaven. On the other hand, Raising Arizona does some interesting things stylistically, but aside from being freakishly mannerist, its interest is fairly limited--certainly nothing to rival the likes of Blood Simple and A Serious Man.

[transmogrifier]

Who's the crazy one now, Derek?

[Raiders]

Alright, I'mma watch Raising Arizona again soon so I can argue these silly assertions. At the very least, I can assert it is their funniest film.

[Qrazy]

I really can't get on board with this excessive affection for Blood Simple. It's a quality formative work from an interesting director(s) but it is representative of better things to come, not one of their absolute best films.

[Derek]

Who's the crazy one now, Derek?

I would be much more worried if BD agreed with me. And comparing two poor girls in the Midwest to Pocahontas seems a bit ridiculous. You might as well say The Thin Red Line takes an overly pious attitude towards war.

And at least he put Blood Simple, their second best film, over Miller's Crossing.

[baby doll]

I would be much more worried if BD agreed with me. And comparing two poor girls in the Midwest to Pocahontas seems a bit ridiculous. You might as well say The Thin Red Line takes an overly pious attitude towards war.Well, the movie pointedly never refers to her as Pocahontas, presumably because Malick wants to strip away all the associative baggage she carries and see her as if for the first time. But he still winds up Disneyfying her anyway by portraying her as this sensual earth goddess.

[Winston*]

I really can't get on board with this excessive affection for Blood Simple. It's a quality formative work from an interesting director(s) but it is representative of better things to come, not one of their absolute best films.

Agreed.

[Milky Joe]

There's not a goddamned thing wrong with I Love You Man.

[DavidSeven]

Yeah, Blood Simple shows flashes of oncoming greatness, but not on the same level of their fully formed stuff later.

Of all the Coen Brothers movies I've seen, I liked Raising Arizona the least.

There really isn't anything wrong with I Love You Man, but there's not much great about it either. Jason Segel is kind of annoying. It honestly floated out of my head immediately after I finished watching it.

[transmogrifier]

There's not a goddamned thing wrong with I Love You Man.

Except it forgot to include any "jokes" or "set pieces" or indeed, any "fun". But apart from that, I agree it is a perfect example of cinematic craft in every single way.

[transmogrifier]

BTW, Blood Simple is the Coen's second best film.

[Derek]

BTW, Blood Simple is the Coen's second best film.

The road to recovery starts here! :pritch:

But honestly, I do understand people considering Blood Simple a more formative work, but where others see "framework", I see a more stripped down, essentialist thriller. The script and structure are damn near perfect as they trimmed off all the fat, leaving, for me, the Coen's most pointed and powerful work.

[MacGuffin]

Weekend:

Detour
L'eau froide
The Ghost Writer
Nanami: the Inferno of First Love
Wild Grass

[MacGuffin]

Actually, no mail on Saturday. No Ulmer, Polanski or Resnais for me!

[Derek]

My Raising Arizona review (http://www.match-cut.org/showpost.php?p=173618&postcount=1180) for anyone interested.

[Milky Joe]

Except it forgot to include any "jokes" or "set pieces" or indeed, any "fun". But apart from that, I agree it is a perfect example of cinematic craft in every single way.

I'm not convinced you know what a "joke" is, nor again "fun." As for "set pieces," huh?

[transmogrifier]

I'm not convinced you know what a "joke" is, nor again "fun." As for "set pieces," huh?

Most comedies have stand-out "scenes" that have a number of related "jokes", sometimes of the "physical" comedy variety, but not necessarily, that often build upon each "other" to create a memorable "set-piece"

And as someone who appears to like unfunny dreck like I Love You Man, I suggest you are not the one to question other people's senses of humor.

Edit: Please note that up to now I did nothing but criticize the film in question (and joke with Boner about it). But as is per usual with you, you decided to get into the criticism of the person, and cause the discussion to devolve into needless mudslinging. I admit, I could have just ignored it, but you are kind of a jerk who has trouble processing opposing viewpoints without making it personal, and I like pointing it out when you give me the opportunity.

[Milky Joe]

Most comedies have stand-out "scenes" that have a number of related "jokes", sometimes of the "physical" comedy variety, but not necessarily, that often build upon each "other" to create a memorable "set-piece"

And as someone who appears to like unfunny dreck like I Love You Man, I suggest you are not the one to question other people's senses of humor.

It's okay. Everything's going to be okay. I love you, man.

[soitgoes...]

Weekend (the slide away from the French and into the arms of the Italians):

L'eclisse
What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?
Red Desert
Before the Revolution


And probably one of True Grit and Black Swan.

[Qrazy]

Weekend (the slide away from the French and into the arms of the Italians):

L'eclisse
What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?
Red Desert
Before the Revolution


And probably one of True Grit and Black Swan.

Your Shoot the Piano Player rating is not cool.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Your Shoot the Piano Player rating is not cool.

Nor his Stalker profile pic, amirite?

[Qrazy]

Nor his Stalker profile pic, amirite?

fukurself.

jk

lolz

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/lolz20catti4.jpg

[soitgoes...]

Your Shoot the Piano Player rating is not cool.So I've heard. You and Derek can finally embrace.

[Qrazy]

So I've heard. You and Derek can finally embrace.

CHANGE YOUR RATING :KLWJ:#J:R *@#(JAA

[soitgoes...]

Fine.

[megladon8]

I flat-out dislike Blood Simple.

It's at the very bottom of the Coen brothers' filmography for me. It is one of the films that had me a Coen brothers skeptic for several years.

[Russ]

I flat-out dislike Blood Simple.

It's at the very bottom of the Coen brothers' filmography for me. It is one of the films that had me a Coen brothers skeptic for several years.
It's a very good film, and a great debut film. What exactly did you dislike about it, Meg?

[soitgoes...]

I rewatched Starman last night. That film is great and dare I say an underappreciated Carpenter film. It seems to get lost behind Halloween and The Thing. Jeff Bridges does such an amazing job in the film.

[Derek]

I flat-out dislike Blood Simple.

It's at the very bottom of the Coen brothers' filmography for me. It is one of the films that had me a Coen brothers skeptic for several years.

It's a more perfect film than The Shining. In fact, if I were going to have a love affair with a film, Blood Simple would be pretty high on the list. ;)

[megladon8]

It's a very good film, and a great debut film. What exactly did you dislike about it, Meg?


I haven't seen it recently enough to provide you with concrete examples. I just remember finding it quite boring, dumb and unimpressive in just about every way.

I didn't think the writing was up to the Coens' usual brilliance, the acting was similarly unimpressive (particularly the leading man who was a big nothing) and, again, I just found the movie kind of dumb.


I'm sorry I can't provide you with a better response. Like I said, it's been a very long time since the last (second) time I saw it.

[Russ]

I rewatched Starman last night. That film is great and dare I say an underappreciated Carpenter film. It seems to get lost behind Halloween and The Thing. Jeff Bridges does such an amazing job in the film.
Corny, but: that scene with the deer always chokes me up.

[megladon8]

It's a more perfect film than The Shining. In fact, if I were going to have a love affair with a film, Blood Simple would be pretty high on the list. ;)


No way. The Shining is so perfectly shot and edited it's almost inhuman.

[Russ]

I haven't seen it recently enough to provide you with concrete examples. I just remember finding it quite boring, dumb and unimpressive in just about every way.

I didn't think the writing was up to the Coens' usual brilliance, the acting was similarly unimpressive (particularly the leading man who was a big nothing) and, again, I just found the movie kind of dumb.


I'm sorry I can't provide you with a better response. Like I said, it's been a very long time since the last (second) time I saw it.
Perhaps all that's required (given your subsequent appreciation of their films) is a rewatch?

[Spun Lepton]

I flat-out dislike Blood Simple.

It's at the very bottom of the Coen brothers' filmography for me. It is one of the films that had me a Coen brothers skeptic for several years.

Good gravy, man. You owe it a revisit.

[Qrazy]

Fine.

Better.

[soitgoes...]

Corny, but: that scene with the deer always chokes me up.
Carpenter does his best at channeling his inner Spielberg in this one. It works for me, but I can definitely see if someone were to gripe that it hits on being overly sentimental at times.

[soitgoes...]

Better.My shift-8 key still works if you need more stars for happiness.

[Spun Lepton]

I rewatched Starman last night. That film is great and dare I say an underappreciated Carpenter film. It seems to get lost behind Halloween and The Thing. Jeff Bridges does such an amazing job in the film.

Saw it in the theater twice. Carpenter's best non-horror flick in my opinion.

[megladon8]

Perhaps all that's required (given your subsequent appreciation of their films) is a rewatch?


Well, the second viewing I spoke of was about a year and a half ago, and I still thought it was awful.

I don't know what could have changed in that time that would drastically change my opinion.

It's just not a movie I enjoy nor think very highly of.

[StanleyK]

I didn't think the writing was up to the Coens' usual brilliance,

The screenplay of Blood Simple is sheer brilliance. With virtually not a single line of exposition (leading to some pretty amazing wordless sequences in which their visual flair shines), they manage to craft tension solely by the strength of their character writing. I also think the movie makes some strong points on people's over-reliance on their own intuition and their tendency to jump to conclusions, highlighting the importance of actual knowledge; I don't see any way in which this movie is 'dumb'.

[megladon8]

...and I don't really see any point in my continuing to argue this.

Like I said twice now, it's been a long time since I saw it. And that being my second viewing and proving that I still didn't like it at all, I don't have any real drive to watch it again.

[Derek]

...and I don't really see any point in my continuing to argue this.

Like I said twice now, it's been a long time since I saw it. And that being my second viewing and proving that I still didn't like it at all, I don't have any real drive to watch it again.

I suppose we're looking for more than "it's dumb", but yes, if you have nothing more to add than that, we won't get much of a dialogue going.

[Winston*]

Watched The Cove. Didn't like it very much. Too propaganda-y.

[baby doll]

I Love You, Man wasn't a painful experience--just a really, really bland and innocuous one. The Paul Rudd character wants to get married basically because that's what grownups are supposed to do, lest they wind up alone like Jason Segal (whose other male friends are all "moving on with their lives"). I never understood why he wanted to marry Raschida Jones, as opposed to anybody else. For that matter, why does she want to marry him? Why does anybody want anything to do with anyone? I realize there are people in real life who are this boringly conformist, who have dull real estate jobs and play golf and get married because that's the done thing, and I'm sure this movie would be right up their alley. But why did the three leads all have to be such nice people? Patrice Leconte's Mon meillieur ami isn't a great movie by any stretch of the imagination, but in that film, the reason the Daniel Auteuil character doesn't have any male friends is that he's an ass-hole. Here, the Rudd character is basically a nice guy who we're told put all his effort into his relationships with women at the expense of having any male friends. Yawn.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I watched Christmas in July last night. To be honest, this is the second Sturges in a row that left me fairly ambivalent. It has some charm, sure, but it's fairly disposable and easily forgotten. Don't get me wrong, I liked it, it just hasn't left any kind of lasting impression. I did really like Dick Powell and Ellen Drew, someone I hadn't seen before.

This brings me to a larger issue though. I've always considered myself to be Sturges fan, but outside of The Lady Eve (which I love and just watched for probably the tenth time last month), I've found his films to be much like this last one: good, but nothing spectacular. I've seen five now (Miracle at Morgan's Creek, Palm Beach Story, Sullivan's Travels, and the two previously mentioned), so I think at this point it's fair to judge. I feel like Sturges has an undeserved reputation as one of the elite craftsmen of classic romantic cinema. For me, the "Sturges Touch" has come to mean merely adequate filmmaking. Bummer.

[baby doll]

I watched Christmas in July last night. To be honest, this is the second Sturges in a row that left me fairly ambivalent. It has some charm, sure, but it's fairly disposable and easily forgotten. Don't get me wrong, I liked it, it just hasn't left any kind of lasting impression. I did really like Dick Powell and Ellen Drew, someone I hadn't seen before.

This brings me to a larger issue though. I've always considered myself to be Sturges fan, but outside of The Lady Eve (which I love and just watched for probably the tenth time last month), I've found his films to be much like this last one: good, but nothing spectacular. I've seen five now (Miracle at Morgan's Creek, Palm Beach Story, Sullivan's Travels, and the two previously mentioned), so I think at this point it's fair to judge. I feel like Sturges has an undeserved reputation as one of the elite craftsmen of classic romantic cinema. For me, the "Sturges Touch" has come to mean merely adequate filmmaking. Bummer.Yeah, I'm a big fan of The Lady Eve (largely I think because of the pairing of Stanwyck and Fonda), but the other Sturges films I've seen--The Great McGinty, Sullivan's Travels, Unfaithfully Yours--left me cold.

[Sven]

Interesting to see the low opinions of Blood Simple coming out of the woodwork. Frankly baffling.

[Raiders]

For me, the "Sturges Touch" has come to mean merely adequate filmmaking. Bummer.

Don't think anyone ever coined this phrase, but I would agree I haven't ever found his films as funny as I felt I should, with the exception of Miracle at Morgan's Creek. Still, his screwball comedies are vastly more amusing and re-watchable to me than most of what passes as comedy today.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Don't think anyone ever coined this phrase, but I would agree I haven't ever found his films as funny as I felt I should, with the exception of Miracle at Morgan's Creek. Still, his screwball comedies are vastly more amusing and re-watchable to me than most of what passes as comedy today.

I beg to differ, good sir. Robert Osbourne told me before one of his films that this was a common phrase when he was making films. And Robert Osbourne never lies.

[number8]

God, I love Johnnie To.

[DavidSeven]

The Girlfriend Experience:

Half baked, as expected, but still compulsively watchable. Thought centering the dialogue around the recession was sort of a brilliant touch. I wish Soderbergh hadn't bungled the ending so bad, but there's enough here to consider it worthwhile.

[megladon8]

Sasha Grey is so fucking hot.

[DavidSeven]

She's charismatic and sort of fascinating to watch, but not much of a lead actress. She comes across very naturally, but her limitations showed. She was just barely able to sustain this thing for 75 minutes.

[Ezee E]

Even though I don't like the book, I thought she'd have been a perfect Lisbeth in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.

[megladon8]

She's great in porn.

[TripZone]

The Great McGinty put me off Sturges. Baad movie. This was after I'd seen most of his others, all of which I enjoyed. So their quality is up in the air.

And did you mean the Lubitsch touch?

[Spaceman Spiff]

She's great in porn.

That's enough of that, meg.

[Milky Joe]

The Girlfriend Experience:

Half baked, as expected, but still compulsively watchable. Thought centering the dialogue around the recession was sort of a brilliant touch. I wish Soderbergh hadn't bungled the ending so bad, but there's enough here to consider it worthwhile.

The ending? Oh, you mean the best part of the whole film? Yeah, it was great. Creepy and ominous as hell.

[DavidSeven]

The ending? Oh, you mean the best part of the whole film? Yeah, it was great. Creepy and ominous as hell.

Creepy? Hm. That's not the vibe I got. I mean, it was a perverse situation for sure, but it didn't seem like Soderbergh was trying to play it that way. I could be wrong. Anyway, I didn't have a problem with that scene. I did, however, think he cut things too short. The ambiguity didn't add much to me. Would have preferred five more minutes for another scene with the boyfriend or something.

[soitgoes...]

The Great McGinty is the last of the major Sturges films I have left to watch, and for the most part I'd say that he's one of the better directors of the 40's.

[soitgoes...]

Really Andy Warhol? Really? I have no idea what I just subjected myself to, well besides an hour of sheer boredom.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Most of Warhol's film is "anti-art", and is trying to subvert traditional experimental film which is extremely personal, as well as trying to distance the viewer completely from being lost in art. It's supposed to be boring. Not that it means it's good or anything, but his films tend to live up to what he was trying to do.

[Qrazy]

If I could go back in time I would punch Andy Warhol in the testicles.

[Eleven]

If I could go back in time I would punch Andy Warhol in the testicles.

For fifteen minutes?

[balmakboor]

I love Flesh and Trash (though not really Warhol films). The only Warhol film I've seen was one of his screen tests. Can't quite remember who it was. It was interesting.

[Qrazy]

For fifteen minutes?

For 485 minutes.

[Eleven]

For 485 minutes.

I'll film it and call it Testicle Punch. Or Screen Testicle? I haven't decided yet.

[soitgoes...]

Most of Warhol's film is "anti-art", and is trying to subvert traditional experimental film which is extremely personal, as well as trying to distance the viewer completely from being lost in art. It's supposed to be boring. Not that it means it's good or anything, but his films tend to live up to what he was trying to do.
Good to know. I'll try and keep my distance from his films.

[dmk]

Vinyl made my Top 10 of 1965.

So soitgoes is obviously wrong. and sucks.

edit- but i don't remember a thing about it. except edie being real cool and the soundtrack blazing out some great music.

[soitgoes...]

Vinyl made my Top 10 of 1965.

So soitgoes is obviously wrong. and sucks.

edit- but i don't remember a thing about it. except edie being real cool and the soundtrack blazing out some great music.This has been brought to my attention many times throughout my life.

[eternity]

This has been brought to my attention many times throughout my life.
So it goes...

[megladon8]

That was fucking terrible.

Shame on you. And on Christmas Eve.

[dmk]

That was fucking terrible.

Shame on you. And on Christmas Eve.
what should i do to repent?

i didn't mean it.

[Kurosawa Fan]

The Great McGinty put me off Sturges. Baad movie. This was after I'd seen most of his others, all of which I enjoyed. So their quality is up in the air.

And did you mean the Lubitsch touch?

Yeah, I thought I posted this before I left for the day, but I must not have hit submit. I got them mixed up. Osbourne talked about the "Sturges Style," not touch. That's reserved for Lubitsch. Either way, my point remains.

[soitgoes...]

what should i do to repent?

i didn't mean it.Didn't you dmk? Didn't you!? I doubt that's even your real name.

[Yxklyx]

Recently watched newly restored Warhol films: Face and The Velvet Underground in Boston. Both were interesting and Face actually was very good until the poorly recorded dialogue kicked in. I don't know about calling these "anti-art" though.

[B-side]

I've cooked up a quick list of the 2010 releases I wanna see before having any sort of final list. The bold are the ones I either have or are immediately available:

Blue Valentine (Cianfrance)
Poetry (Lee)
I Saw the Devil (Kim)
Hahaha (Hong)
Aurora (Puiu)
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Pt. I (Yates)
Incendies (Villeneuve)
Curling (Côté)
Meek's Cutoff (Reichardt)
True Grit (Coen)
The Ghost Writer (Polanski)
Winter's Bone (Granik)
The Strange Case of Angelica (Oliveira)
Boxing Gym (Wiseman)
Animal Kingdom (Michôd)
Please Give (Holofcener)
Mysteries of Lisbon (Ruiz)
Of Gods and Men (Beauvois)
Tabloid (Morris)
Outrage (Kitano)
Film Socialism (Godard)
Finisterrae (Caballero)
Room in Rome (Medem)
The Housemaid (Im)
Under the Hawthorn Tree (Yimou)
The Illusionist (Chomet)
Detective Dee and the Mystery of the Phantom Flame (Hark)
Kosmos (Erdem)
Road to Nowhere (Hellman)
Norwegian Wood (Tran)
L'estate breve (Ruiz)
Naturally, I won't get to half or more of these before the MC consensus, but it was kinda fun to make the list anyway.

[dmk]

The Hellman snub disappoints, 'side.

[B-side]

The Hellman snub disappoints, 'side.

I can't believe I forgot that. It's not as if I'll be seeing it anytime soon, but still.

[B-side]

I forgot Norwegian Wood, too.

[dmk]

I can't believe I forgot that. It's not as if I'll be seeing it anytime soon, but still.
March theatrical release, apparently.

Unless you don't actually go to a screening. :rolleyes:


I forgot Norwegian Wood, too. My whole list, basically.

[B-side]

March theatrical release, apparently.

Unless you don't actually go to a screening. :rolleyes:

If it gets a theatrical release here, it certainly won't come anywhere near me. I'll probably just end up anxiously awaiting the release of a foreign DVD, with a rip to follow.

[StanleyK]

Multiple viewings of Barry Lyndon have had the opposite effect of multiple viewings of A Clockwork Orange. The first time I watched the latter, I unconditionally loathed Alex DeLarge, and only later on did I appreciate his boyish charm, integral to understanding the work. The first time I watched Barry Lyndon, I had some sympathy for the title character, at least for the first half; only now do I see just what a petty vindictive asshole he is from the start, dealing with his envy of the upper class with punk defiance at first, and brown-nosing sycophantry later on. The tragedy of the film is that of a man so concerned with upwards mobility that he won't (can't?) stop and smell the roses, so to speak; his every minor victory must be swiftly followed by another step towards becoming a Lord. In a sense, he's like Dave Bowman evolving into a Starchild, the difference being that he knows exactly what the end-goal is and pursues it to his own detriment.


The two most noteworthy things from a 4th viewing:

-Is anyone else deeply bothered by the voice-over in this film? I've read that it's supposed to be sarcastic or sardonic or something, but I don't know. It just seemed to recap what was happening visually and felt unnecessary most of the time. I'd like to read a defense of it, because it really detracted a lot from my experience.

-The music in Barry Lyndon is really, really bad-ass. Seriously. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NPd-q342KE)

[megladon8]

I still need to see Barry Lyndon.

[Boner M]

It's been too long since I've seen the first French Connection, but I'm pretty sure I prefer Frankenheimer's sequel to it. One thing's for sure; only in the 70's could a cash-grab sequel segue into an uncomfortably drawn-out piece about the realities of smack addiction. Hackman is as good as ever.

[Pop Trash]

It's been too long since I've seen the first French Connection, but I'm pretty sure I prefer Frankenheimer's sequel to it. One thing's for sure; only in the 70's could a cash-grab sequel seque into an uncomfortably drawn-out piece about the realities of smack addiction. Hackman is as good as ever.

I watched the first one again for the first time in about ten years and it still holds up. It has such a great lived in, docudrama quality. Plus the editing is just mindblowing. I love the abrupt ending too; Zodiac seems influenced by it.

[Boner M]

I watched the first one again for the first time in about ten years and it still holds up. It has such a great lived in, docudrama quality. Plus the editing is just mindblowing. I love the abrupt ending too; Zodiac seems influenced by it.
I can't remember the ending to the first one, but FCII has probably the most abrupt ending in the history of ever.

[balmakboor]

The two most noteworthy things from a 4th viewing:

-Is anyone else deeply bothered by the voice-over in this film? I've read that it's supposed to be sarcastic or sardonic or something, but I don't know. It just seemed to recap what was happening visually and felt unnecessary most of the time. I'd like to read a defense of it, because it really detracted a lot from my experience.

-The music in Barry Lyndon is really, really bad-ass. Seriously. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NPd-q342KE)

I don't know about mounting a defense of it, but I've always loved the voiceover in Barry Lyndon. And I think the music in the movie is astonishingly effective.

[Grouchy]

The use of the voice-over in Barry Lyndon is masterful. If it's any help, it's all about an ironic narration of the so-called "accomplishments" of the main character.

[B-side]

Ulmer's Bluebeard is highly underrated stuff. A film in desperate need of a restoration if ever there was one. Moody lighting galore.

[balmakboor]

I love this piece (http://www.salon.com/entertainment/movies/film_salon/2010/12/24/its_wonderful_life_terrifying_ movie_ever) on It's a Wonderful Life.

[megladon8]

The animated Wonder Woman movie rocked the hiz-house.

I seriously doubt a live action movie could ever beat (or even match) that.

[Sven]

The use of the voice-over in Barry Lyndon is masterful.

This. It nails the themes of the film without suffering them to become a laborious textual concern. Perfectly infused, and droll.

Best theater experience of my life. A revelation.

[Yxklyx]

Thanks to whoever recommended the Dielmanesque Dillinger is Dead!

[MacGuffin]

Thanks to whoever recommended the Dielmanesque Dillinger is Dead!

Wasn't me I don't think, but definitely one of my faves. Next seek out La Grande bouffe if you're looking for more sustained and slow-paced wackiness.

[Spaceman Spiff]

I just finished demonlover, and it didn't make any goddamn sense, but it failed to do so in an outrageously awesome way. What a visceral and exciting experience! I love the way this movie is cut and the continuous faint droning is just stellar sound design.

[baby doll]

Speaking of random fucking shit, former New York City mayor Ed Koch has his own movie review site (http://www.mayorkoch.com/). It's kind of like listening to an old man on the bus talk about what he thought of some film he saw recently, but preceded by thirty seconds of advertising.

[Dead & Messed Up]

So I've watched two angel-apocalypse horror-thrillers set in the deserts of the Southwest in the past week, and The Prophecy bests Legion in every conceivable way without even being that good a movie. Sadly, neither has any interest whatsoever in the actual implications of angel-apocalypse. The former plays it off as an opportunity for rote suspense mechanics (bolstered by reasonable style and a cast it doesn't deserve), while the latter simply repeats Rio-Bravo horror archetypes. Sad, how it yearns for the breezy pulp fusion of religion and horror achieved by Dickerson's Demon Knight.

[RoadtoPerdition]

In the Mouth of Madness(Carpenter, 1995) [88]

Nice. I often feel like the only one who thinks this is a really good movie.

[Thirdmango]

I have a request. I watched Rocky 3 today which was incredibly homo-erotic. But there was an announcer in the movie that had the coolest mustache ever, it went all the way to his ears. I can't find a picture of that anywhere on the internet. If anyone owns that movie could they get me a screenshot of that?

[soitgoes...]

I have a request. I watched Rocky 3 today which was incredibly homo-erotic. But there was an announcer in the movie that had the coolest mustache ever, it went all the way to his ears. I can't find a picture of that anywhere on the internet. If anyone owns that movie could they get me a screenshot of that?
No, but in searching for it I came across this piece of awesomeness. I got sidetracked, but I'm sure you will understand. I mean, look at it. Awesome.

http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee171/soitgoes22/moustache5ih1.jpg

[RoadtoPerdition]

I can't tell if his sideburns are growing a mustache or if his mustache is growing sideburns. :eek:

[dmk]

Ulmer's Bluebeard is highly underrated stuff. A film in desperate need of a restoration if ever there was one. Moody lighting galore.
Oooh, getting.

[B-side]

Oooh, getting.

Do it. I've got 2 more of his downloaded. He's 3 for 3 so far.

[Chac Mool]

You are obviously smart enough to not be brainwashed into accepting all Arizonans as yokels, so why act so offended?

I am very happy to live in a world where it's okay to laugh at Speedy Gonzalez cartoons.

I'm not really offended: note that I called the portrayals "questionable", and not anything worse.

It's just that I'm a huge fan of the Coens, and this is the one negative aspect that seems to come back repeatedly -- this stereotyping/mocking of regional cultures (see Raising Arizona, O Brother, Fargo...).

In any case, Raising Arizona was enjoyable.

Now, for today's question: is "North by Northwest" considered better than "Rear Window" or "Vertigo"?

If so, why?

The latter two are my favorite Hitchcocks, and two of my favorite American movies of their time. "Northwest" is terrific too, but while I can't put my finger on it, it doesn't have that elusive je-ne-sais-quoi the other two have.

[Dukefrukem]

"awww hell no"

Vs1_OyRwwpQ

[Kurosawa Fan]

I watched Remember the Night last night, with Barbara Stanwyck and Fred MacMurray. It was the perfect example of one performance carrying a perfect adequate movie to a higher level. Stanwyck is brilliant. Her face is so expressive, she's able to bring an incredible amount of depth to a script that probably didn't deserve it. She was such a remarkable actress, probably my favorite from that era, if not my favorite all time. Great ending to the film as well. Thought for sure they'd go for cleaner denouement, but it opted for a touch of realism instead. Nice surprise.

[baby doll]

Now, for today's question: is "North by Northwest" considered better than "Rear Window" or "Vertigo"?Dear God, no! It's a passable light entertainment, but it pales alongside Rear Window (then, what doesn't?), which is at once Hitchcock's most formally innovative and, for me, the most pleasurable and inexhaustible of all his films.

[MacGuffin]

Dear God, no! It's a passable light entertainment, but it pales alongside Rear Window (then, what doesn't?), which is at once Hitchcock's most formally innovative and, for me, the most pleasurable and inexhaustible of all his films.

Agreed.

[Pop Trash]

Now, for today's question: is "North by Northwest" considered better than "Rear Window" or "Vertigo"?

If so, why?

The latter two are my favorite Hitchcocks, and two of my favorite American movies of their time. "Northwest" is terrific too, but while I can't put my finger on it, it doesn't have that elusive je-ne-sais-quoi the other two have.

Vertigo and Rear Window are probably better films in the sense that they have more to chew on, but Northwest is redonkulously entertaining. That shit never gets old.

[balmakboor]

Vertigo and Rear Window are probably better films in the sense that they have more to chew on, but Northwest is redonkulously entertaining. That shit never gets old.

This.

Btw, I know it's a weird hang-up, but I can never think about North by Northwest without seeing a kid with his fingers in his ears.

http://faculty.cua.edu/johnsong/hitchcock/images/stills/NxNW/nnw21-ears-circled.jpg

[Bosco B Thug]

Now, for today's question: is "North by Northwest" considered better than "Rear Window" or "Vertigo"?

If so, why?

The latter two are my favorite Hitchcocks, and two of my favorite American movies of their time. "Northwest" is terrific too, but while I can't put my finger on it, it doesn't have that elusive je-ne-sais-quoi the other two have. I won't begrudge baby doll for calling North By Northwest "light entertainment" (notice I didn't include "passable"... grrr... ;) ), because it is, and not the profound dramas Rear Window and Vertigo are, which is probably why they're superior, but North By Northwest packs a lot of dense meaning into the action-comedy. If anything, IMO, it's just a notch below the others.

[RoadtoPerdition]

Now, for today's question: is "North by Northwest" considered better than "Rear Window" or "Vertigo"?

If so, why?

I don't know if it's just my own perception, but I've always felt like Rear Window and Vertigo are the more renowned Hitchcock films. Those two along with Psycho always seem to be the ones that are mentioned when I see anything Hitchcock-related. While all three are great, it's hard for me to distinguish which would be considered "better" than the other, but I prefer North by Northwest. It's more entertaining and has a better rewatchability factory.

[Rowland]

Rear Window and Vertigo may be more profound/dense/whatever, but I'd argue they are more entertaining as well. I haven't seen it in years, but North by Northwest never did much for me.

[Spinal]

That Uwe Boll Darfur movie is on Instant Watch. Has anyone seen it?

[Rowland]

That Uwe Boll Darfur movie is on Instant Watch. Has anyone seen it?An ostensibly serious drama about the genocide in Darfur starring Billy Zane, Edward Furlong, Kristanna Loken, and Matt Frewer (Russ Sr. from Honey I Shrunk the Kids!), I have to admit my camp-o-meter is piqued. Boll is just the cherry on top.

Or who knows, maybe it's good, or something.

[Sven]

I love that reviews for Another Year basically describe every Leigh film.

[Sycophant]

I've seen it I think 3 times now and I still don't really care for North by Northwest at all. Probably my least favorite Hitchcock, and I've seen close to half his work.

[Henry Gale]

I liked Uncle Boonmee, but I think that's as far as I can go with my feelings about it. It's obviously very ambitious and gorgeously shot, but it almost seems like it realizes that about itself from the get-go and as a result has trouble finding any real rhythm or cohesion to all the big ideas and visual textures it has in mind. It's the little emotional scenes along the way that help to make it an effective viewing experience of a world with a very lived-in feel. Whether those emotions being illustrated and then felt by myself in those scenes are slanted more towards sadness, absurdity, humour, and possibly all together in one sequence, it's that sort of stuff that I wish the film left less detached from the grasp of its more mythological and existential layers, as it's the stuff that I most connected with in the end.

It was also a bit tiring after just having watched Somewhere for me to immediately see another film that wasn't against leaving shots containing very little to linger for a very long time to try and make the points it wanted to, even sometimes for full minutes on end. It's not something I'm against, but it just feels that it's often used to merely stand out as a technique instead of used to service the images and overall stories being told.

Still, if you're looking at everything in a film to justify its existence as a result of how original it is, then on that scale it definitely soars over most things that were made last year. I just find myself wishing that it was delivered with more focus, or at least with a presentation I could feel slightly more interested and moved by.

[MadMan]

That Uwe Boll Darfur movie is on Instant Watch. Has anyone seen it?No, but I noticed that they had it. For my first Boll film I shall finally watch House of the Dead. While drinking, of course, because that's how it should be viewed.


Nice. I often feel like the only one who thinks this is a really good movie.I think its one of his best movies.

North by Northwest is great, and one of the few excellent examples of a truly well executed popcorn film that doesn't feel dumb or overlong. But yeah its not better than Vertigo or Rear Window.

[megladon8]

North by Northwest was wonderful. It was inarguable proof that Grant and Hitchcock could have made the ultimate Bond film together.

My opinions on Hitchcock don't really mesh with the MC consensus, though, so take my opinions with a grain of salt.

[Raiders]

North by Northwest was wonderful. It was inarguable proof that Grant and Hitchcock could have made the ultimate Bond film together.

I would say it is definitive proof why they never did. They could make an action/espionage film far more entertaining than any of the Bond films, not to mention without the baggage of chauvinistic, childish silliness.

I realize you love the best of the Bonds, so to be less insulting, I would say the film also displays that Hitchcock worked with less masculine heroism; the reluctant "hero" thrust in unwittingly with a web of intrigue and suspense around him. The world of the Bond films revolved around Bond; in Hitchcock's world, the individual persona never dominates the screen but rather the suspense itself, the set-up and execution, the mise en scene to be specific; never the hero and the punchline.

[megladon8]

I don't see why they couldn't have turned the Bond formula on its head, though.

I think they could have changed the series for the better. Perhaps even avoided the 20 year slump it ended up in, by doing just that - changing the whole formula of the series.

[Raiders]

I don't see why they couldn't have turned the Bond formula on its head, though.

I think they could have changed the series for the better. Perhaps even avoided the 20 year slump it ended up in, by doing just that - changing the whole formula of the series.

I guess, but I don't think either Hitchcock or the Bond producers would have been fond of the idea or willing.

In reality as well, Grant was too old by the time the Connery Bonds had run their course and retired from acting. Though I understand we are playing pipe-dream here.

[baby doll]

A James Bond from Bristol? Ridiculous!

[megladon8]

I still think From Russia With Love is one of the best films of the '60s...


*stomps away, pouting*

[MadMan]

I still think From Russia With Love is one of the best films of the '60s...


*stomps away, pouting*Well yeah, but North By Northwest is better than it :P

[Spinal]

For my first Boll film I shall finally watch House of the Dead. While drinking, of course, because that's how it should be viewed.

My wife, who likes every schlocky horror movie in existence, thought it was horrible. It must be beyond awful.

[Winston*]

My wife, who likes every schlocky horror movie in existence, thought it was horrible. It must be beyond awful.

It's hilarious.

[Ivan Drago]

My wife, who likes every schlocky horror movie in existence, thought it was horrible. It must be beyond awful.

At one point in the director's commentary, Uwe Boll says during one of his scenes: "This is great. It's like Gone With The Wind."

[Dead & Messed Up]

I posted thoughts about The Prophecy on my blog (http://horrorfilms101.blogspot.com).

Also, House of the Dead struck me as an enjoyably awful movie, what with the intermittent clips from the game and the fast pace and the Clint Howard and all.

Also, I'm really excited, because I have Haxan: Witchcraft Throughout the Ages from Netflix. I've been looking forward to scoping it out since Rowland reviewed it for his October horror thread.

Also, so this isn't entirely a horror post, I also have Get Shorty on loan from a friend, and I'm eager to watch that one as well.

So yeah.

Movies.

[soitgoes...]

Oshima's "documentary" on the history of Japanese cinema makes me want to never watch another of his films again. At 50 minutes long, he spends a good portion reflecting on his own films and their importance to the history of film in Japan. Ozu, Mizoguchi, Kurosawa get one mention each, other major directors never existed. He discusses at length no less than 6 of his own films. He claims the death of the Japanese studio system in the late 60's as the beginning of the "Third Golden Age of Japanese Film," completely looking past how from about 1970 to 1985 Japanese film was broken national cinema that produced only a handful of memorable films, but hey, the directors were free to make what they wanted! If he named the film How I, Nagisa Oshima, Shaped the History of Japanese Cinema, then I might have jumped on board (probably not), but to stroke yourself in a documentary just comes off as way too self-congratulatory.

[Dukefrukem]

House of the Dead enjoyable?

[Kurosawa Fan]

Oh, man. Five Easy Pieces kind of kicked my ass. What a bleak, unnerving examination of the unfulfilling nature of life. Rafelson not only criticizes those who chase happiness and run from obstacles, instead challenging the notion that complete fulfillment is attainable at any point in life. Nicholson's Robert is one of countless who push through the film's world, trying like hell to find an existence that doesn't remind them of all that they're missing, as well as the end in which they have to look forward. Whether it's through setting or relationships, there is an understated feeling of mortality present from start to finish, culminating in Robert twice confronting his reflection in the gas station mirror before choosing a direction for his life. Nicholson is superb as per usual back then, especially in the final moment he shares with his father. A few minor missteps along the way don't detract from a pretty harrowing experience. I can imagine my appreciation for this will only increase as I think back on it.

[Milky Joe]

Was The Ghost Writer edited to get a PG-13 rating? All kinds of lines that seem like they should contain F-bombs instead have things like 'bloody' and 'bugger'. Kind of distracting.

[Qrazy]

Was The Ghost Writer edited to get a PG-13 rating? All kinds of lines that seem like they should contain F-bombs instead have things like 'bloody' and 'bugger'. Kind of distracting.

English characters are self-editing.

[Eleven]

Oshima's "documentary" on the history of Japanese cinema makes me want to never watch another of his films again. At 50 minutes long, he spends a good portion reflecting on his own films and their importance to the history of film in Japan. Ozu, Mizoguchi, Kurosawa get one mention each, other major directors never existed. He discusses at length no less than 6 of his own films. He claims the death of the Japanese studio system in the late 60's as the beginning of the "Third Golden Age of Japanese Film," completely looking past how from about 1970 to 1985 Japanese film was broken national cinema that produced only a handful of memorable films, but hey, the directors were free to make what they wanted! If he named the film How I, Nagisa Oshima, Shaped the History of Japanese Cinema, then I might have jumped on board (probably not), but to stroke yourself in a documentary just comes off as way too self-congratulatory.

JRo has an article called "International Harvest" (http://www.jonathanrosenbaum.com/?p=6697) about these various "history of cinema" docs commissioned by the BFI in 1996, including Oshima's.

In a nutshell: "Apart from Akira Kurosawa, Nagisa Oshima is plainly the greatest living Japanese filmmaker, but given that he despises the work of virtually all other Japanese directors, he seems quite unsuited to recount the history of his country’s cinema."

[TripZone]

English characters are self-editing.

Hah.

[soitgoes...]

JRo has an article called "International Harvest" (http://www.jonathanrosenbaum.com/?p=6697) about these various "history of cinema" docs commissioned by the BFI in 1996, including Oshima's.

In a nutshell: "Apart from Akira Kurosawa, Nagisa Oshima is plainly the greatest living Japanese filmmaker, but given that he despises the work of virtually all other Japanese directors, he seems quite unsuited to recount the history of his country’s cinema."
Yeah, even 18 hours later, it still manages to irritate me. It only manages to keep one star because of the brief section before his pompous narrative switch. A 50 minute overview of a national cinema as rich as that of Japan was never going to be amazing. Sure the runtime is limiting for something of this nature, but at the same time that makes it even that much more appalling that he focused so long on himself.

[Eleven]

Yeah, even 18 hours later, it still manages to irritate me. It only manages to keep one star because of the brief section before his pompous narrative switch. A 50 minute overview of a national cinema as rich as that of Japan was never going to be amazing. Sure the runtime is limiting for something of this nature, but at the same time that makes it even that much more appalling that he focused so long on himself.

I'm guessing Oshima got the gig because he's simply a bigger media celebrity than any other contemporary Japanese filmmaker, save perhaps 'Beat' Takeshi, and I can't imagine the BFI didn't realize what they were getting into.

I don't know of any other good visual overviews of Japanese cinema, but my go-to guide is Donald Richie's A Hundred Years of Japanese Film.

[soitgoes...]

I'm guessing Oshima got the gig because he's simply a bigger media celebrity than any other contemporary Japanese filmmaker, save perhaps 'Beat' Takeshi, and I can't imagine the BFI didn't realize what they were getting into.

I don't know of any other good visual overviews of Japanese cinema, but my go-to guide is Donald Richie's A Hundred Years of Japanese Film.Imamura maybe. He was at least more relevant in 1995 since he had a couple critical hits in the time since Oshima's last one, and it can be argued that he had as much to do with the change of Japanese cinema in the 60's as Oshima. Not sure if he would have been a better choice though. The smart thing would have chosen someone not directly in film.

I have Richie's book. It's the best overview I've come across thus far.

[Mysterious Dude]

Was The Ghost Writer edited to get a PG-13 rating? All kinds of lines that seem like they should contain F-bombs instead have things like 'bloody' and 'bugger'. Kind of distracting.
According to IMDB goofs:


Audio/visual unsynchronized: Several curse words are dubbed over with British words, though the actors are clearly saying something else (notably Lang saying "sod" dubbed in place of the "f-word"). (This only occurs in the U.S. PG-13 version of the film. Versions in Canada and the UK have no overdubbing and so the said dialog matches the mouth movements.)

This is the kind of thing I expect from a basic cable edit, not the friggin' theatrically released movie.

[Milky Joe]

Seriously. Ah well, its only in the beginning and sort of makes the one allowed use of the f-word a little more resonant. Really great, taut thriller all-in-all. Best Brosnan performance in a while.

[Qrazy]

That explains why I didn't notice anything given that I saw the film in Canada.

[B-side]

Did we scare Irish away?

[Grouchy]

Yeah, the cut I saw in Argentina had Brosnan cursing a lot.

[MacGuffin]

I turned off Wild Grass before it got to the false ending. Its quirkiness was grating on me and I didn't really feel arsed to stick around just to give it a bad rating. I agree with the detractors: far too cutesy and really, surprisingly trite.

[Thirdmango]

Did we scare Irish away?

I doubt it, he's just gone for Christmas.

[baby doll]

I turned off Wild Grass before it got to the false ending. Its quirkiness was grating on me and I didn't really feel arsed to stick around just to give it a bad rating. I agree with the detractors: far too cutesy and really, surprisingly trite.I fail to see what's cute about a stalker.

[Qrazy]

I fail to see what's cute about a stalker.

http://blog.wipetheworldsass.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Stalker_poster.jpg

Who's a wil cute wil stalker a woojie woojie woo.

[Mara]

For all you hermits who don't venture out of FDT, Spinal gave Tangled four stars.

That film is the biggest surprise of the year. Hands down.

[Dukefrukem]

This is amusing. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1342604/Film-critic-exposes-Angelina-Jolie-Keira-Knightley-Hollywood-stars.html)

[Derek]

Oh, man. Five Easy Pieces kind of kicked my ass. What a bleak, unnerving examination of the unfulfilling nature of life. Rafelson not only criticizes those who chase happiness and run from obstacles, instead challenging the notion that complete fulfillment is attainable at any point in life. Nicholson's Robert is one of countless who push through the film's world, trying like hell to find an existence that doesn't remind them of all that they're missing, as well as the end in which they have to look forward. Whether it's through setting or relationships, there is an understated feeling of mortality present from start to finish, culminating in Robert twice confronting his reflection in the gas station mirror before choosing a direction for his life. Nicholson is superb as per usual back then, especially in the final moment he shares with his father. A few minor missteps along the way don't detract from a pretty harrowing experience. I can imagine my appreciation for this will only increase as I think back on it.

Yes, yes, yes. Love that film.


Yeah, even 18 hours later, it still manages to irritate me. It only manages to keep one star because of the brief section before his pompous narrative switch. A 50 minute overview of a national cinema as rich as that of Japan was never going to be amazing. Sure the runtime is limiting for something of this nature, but at the same time that makes it even that much more appalling that he focused so long on himself.

You should just suck it up and watch some of his 60s films. Then you can return to The Ceremony and see about that missing star.


Make Way for Tomorrow (1937) ****

Suprised you haven´t seen this before, not surprised you loved it.


I turned off Wild Grass before it got to the false ending. Its quirkiness was grating on me and I didn't really feel arsed to stick around just to give it a bad rating. I agree with the detractors: far too cutesy and really, surprisingly trite.

Oy. And that´d be detractor in the singular, at least as far as anyone who has so far been silly enough to call it cutesy and trite.

Also, I think there was somewhere that Wats said there´s nothing wrong with a critic putting nothing but American films on his-her top 10 and that no one would think anything of a Japanese critic putting all Japanese films on his-her top 10. I just wanted to make sure the absurdity of that was pointed out.

[Raiders]

Brooklyn's Finest - This is well-trodded territory and not a single aspect or scene in this film much surprised me. There is a desperation to try and fill in the shoes of The Wire, but all this film's flailings come up well short. The three storylines are intentionally not connected to one another but exist to provide a broader view, but even by the end of the film's bloated running time, I can't say for sure what any of it all meant or that the film ever properly tackled a single issue it raised. The most egregious failing is in Hawke's character. There's a lot of material there; the limitations of an honest cop's salary, his friendship with an actual honest cop, his overring Catholic guilt... all of which are given some lip service and nothing more. Cheadle's character is a bit of an interesting twist given that he actually wants-- nay begs for-- a desk job, but within his own storyline he is upstaged by Wesley Snipes nicer-than-your-average-thug local druglord, a far more intriguing character given all of about six minutes screen time. Richard Gere's aging, boozy cop is a walking cliche so much so that he never made any impression whatsoever (despite the actor's admittedly valiant attempts to give him a level of contradiction and depth worth studying). The ending only further proves that the filmmakers didn't know where to take their stories and just decide to send a few bullets flying and all-too-neatly wrap it up.

I suppose Fuqua knows how to stage a scene, and I have to admit I was impressed with the body count in this one, but this is one disappointing film. It is a lot like my mom's chili which I never did care for; a lot of good individual ingredients but with insufficient amounts and when thrown together not particularly satisfying or appetizing.

[MacGuffin]

Oy. And that´d be detractor in the singular, at least as far as anyone who has so far been silly enough to call it cutesy and trite.

"The 87-year-old filmmaker's latest is an insufferable exercise in cutie-pie modernism, painfully unfunny and precious to a fault." - J. Hoberman

"Wild Grass is cute stuff—maybe too cute. It's as if, well past 80, and belatedly responding to a now-established younger generation of oh-so-clever, cinema-mad filmmakers like Arnaud Desplechin, Alain Resnais has set out to make a film exclusively built around the idea of movie-love, comprised primarily of witty little moments of cine-invention." - Slant Magazine

These critics don't use "cute", but describe the negative side-effects of having overly schmaltzy characters:

"There’s some bizarre vigor to a stunningly out-of-left-field coda in which a heretofore-unseen girl tells her mom “When I am a cat, will I be able to eat cat munchies?,” but otherwise, Resnais’ playfully surreal stunts – carried out by repellent cartoon characters in a faux-kaleidoscopic reality – never congeal into an emotionally coherent or compelling whole." - Nick Schager

"Too oblique" - A.O. Scott

[baby doll]

"The 87-year-old filmmaker's latest is an insufferable exercise in cutie-pie modernism, painfully unfunny and precious to a fault." - J. Hoberman

"Wild Grass is cute stuff—maybe too cute. It's as if, well past 80, and belatedly responding to a now-established younger generation of oh-so-clever, cinema-mad filmmakers like Arnaud Desplechin, Alain Resnais has set out to make a film exclusively built around the idea of movie-love, comprised primarily of witty little moments of cine-invention." - Slant Magazine

These critics don't use "cute", but describe the negative side-effects of having overly schmaltzy characters:

"There’s some bizarre vigor to a stunningly out-of-left-field coda in which a heretofore-unseen girl tells her mom “When I am a cat, will I be able to eat cat munchies?,” but otherwise, Resnais’ playfully surreal stunts – carried out by repellent cartoon characters in a faux-kaleidoscopic reality – never congeal into an emotionally coherent or compelling whole." - Nick Schager

"Too oblique" - A.O. ScottHaving to review five or six commercial films every week would take its toll on anyone--in this case, not having the mental wherewithal to see what's right in front of them.

[MacGuffin]

Having to review five or six commercial films every week would take its toll on anyone--in this case, not having the mental wherewithal to see what's right in front of them.

Two of those critics probably don't have to, and two are smart enough to know better (as such, I trust that the things they've written are their actual feelings). If not, you could say the same thing about every movie they see and then what's the point of reading film criticism?

[baby doll]

Two of those critics probably don't have to, and two are smart enough to know better (as such, I trust that the things they've written are their actual feelings). If not, you could say the same thing about every movie they see and then what's the point of reading film criticism?For the last few years, I've been doing something along those lines--avoiding trailers as much as possible, and only reading reviews after I see the film.

[Watashi]

Also, I think there was somewhere that Wats said there´s nothing wrong with a critic putting nothing but American films on his-her top 10 and that no one would think anything of a Japanese critic putting all Japanese films on his-her top 10. I just wanted to make sure the absurdity of that was pointed out.

I don't see what's so absurd about it.

If a critic sees 250+ films a year and happens to enjoy 10 American films the most, who are we to judge on what he can and cannot enjoy? Sure, it may be a boring list, but most Top 10 lists are boring because most of them are just general consensuses. I'd be more wary of a critic only diversifying their lists with foreign-festival releases as a snarky protest towards the quality of American filmmaking. Every country makes their share of bad movies. I'm not a professional critic, but if I was, I wouldn't really care what other critics are listing. It's one thing to just list films that only appeal to the Academy and pump up your ego with Hollywood, while there are other lists that speak personally to each critic. Someone can have a Top 10 list of American films and leave off big films like Social Network, Inception, Winter's Bone, etc.

[Qrazy]

Well I'd say it's absurd for a genuine film buff but not absurd for a casual film fan.

[Watashi]

Well I'd say it's absurd for a genuine film buff but not absurd for a casual film fan.

So? I consider myself a "genuine film buff" (whatever the hell that means) and I seek out a wide range of foreign releases, but the majority of the films I can resonate to are mostly American-produced films due to the culture and its availability I'm surrounded by. As long as critics/cinephiles/film buffs are watching a steady amount of film from all areas, who cares what 10 films they happen to enjoy. A Top 10 list should be entirely personal and shouldn't conform to what their audience expects out of them. This is why I find stuff like RS's lists so darn predictable.

[Qrazy]

So? I consider myself a "genuine film buff" (whatever the hell that means) and I seek out a wide range of foreign releases, but the majority of the films I can resonate to are mostly American-produced films due to the culture and its availability I'm surrounded by. As long as critics/cinephiles/film buffs are watching a steady amount of film from all areas, who cares what 10 films they happen to enjoy. A Top 10 list should be entirely personal and shouldn't conform to what their audience expects out of them. This is why I find stuff like RS's lists so darn predictable.

Well I was only speaking in terms of the statement itself about top ten lists, not about you really. I would consider it an issue of exposure. I don't think there's anything wrong with a top ten from someone who mostly watches Japanese films being mostly Japanese or a top ten from someone who mostly watches American films being mostly American. But anyone who watches a significant number of films from everywhere in the world each year should probably have a fair number of foreign films on their list (on average). It's not a numbers game, there shouldn't be a quota of foreign language films or anything, it just makes sense that not all the best films each year would be made in a single country. The same goes for any art form.

[Raiders]

I think Derek was speaking more about the absurdity of the claim that someone wouldn't question a Japanese critic putting only Japanese films in their top ten list.

[Sven]

Well I'd say it's absurd for a genuine film buff but not absurd for a casual film fan.

Isn't setting strict parameters against the very idea of buffery? It's absurd to put all buffs in the same ruleboat.

[baby doll]

Even if I were to grant that the United States has one of the richest national cinemas in the world (second only to France), I'd still have a hard time coming up with ten all American films from the past year that I consider list worthy:

Greenberg, naturally; Hereafter, even though it was written by a British guy and has subtitled French dialogue; I Love You Phillip Morris was made in 2009 but not released commercially until 2010; Exit Through the Gift Shop and You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger are British-American co-productions; The Ghost Writer is based on a British novel and takes place largely in the US, but was shot in Germany by a French-Polish director who can't travel to the US or England; The Social Network, I guess, even though I'm just not as thrilled by it as some other folks are; if we're counting British movies, then much of Another Year is masterful; and maybe Inside Job and Scott Pilgrim vs. The World in a pinch (even though the latter was directed by a Brit and shot in Toronto).

Shit, that was hard.

[Qrazy]

Isn't setting strict parameters against the very idea of buffery? It's absurd to put all buffs in the same ruleboat.

Saying it's absurd isn't a strict parameter. Someone who watches mostly films from their nationality will obviously have a list primarily limited to that nationality and I think that's fine. Someone who watches more films from around the world is much more likely to have a list which includes films from around the world. I would have to argue that such a person is a bigger film buff than the other person in that they watch films from everywhere. They aren't a 'better' film buff and they don't necessary have 'better' taste, but they do interact with more of the medium's content. And again this is the same for any artform. Someone who only read American literature could go further with their buffery.

[Derek]

I think Derek was speaking more about the absurdity of the claim that someone wouldn't question a Japanese critic putting only Japanese films in their top ten list.

Precisely.

I would question any critic who believed the 10 best films of any given year came from ONE country. If you honestly believe in this day and age that availability and exposure is a legitimate excuse, then you´re simply covering for lousy, boring critics. I mean, if you have have Netflix and the internet, how can you possibily use the excuse of "I´m American. All I cansee is American films because that´s all they play in theater." Although, I suppose you´re talking more about film reviewers than critics, ie, the Ben Lyons of the world who expose themselves to a few multiplex features every week and maybe the occasional foreign film after enough worthwhile critics praise it enough so that they can´t legitimately ignore it. Certainly there will be plenty of critics who connect with their own national cinema, but I just can´t imagine anyone who sees 250+ films in a year would have their entire top 10 from one country. If they did, they either watched a large majority of films from their own country or their list shows their own limitations and unwillingness to engage with films outside of their own safety zone.


They aren't a 'better' film buff and they don't necessary have 'better' taste, but they do interact with more of the medium's content.

Yeah, it´s not so much about one being better than the other, but if you are a professional film critic and you are so strongly connected to your own national cinema that you can´t really engage with other films, you are at best a limited critic. It clearly shows a certain closed-mindedness. There is certainly the polar opposite in the poseur-as-cinephile who can come across as dishonest and-or pompous, though this doesn´t seem nearly as common in the grand scheme of film criticism (ie, not just online critics).

[Watashi]

Not everyone torrents, Derek. I hate watching movies on my laptop and I'd prefer to wait until it hits DVD or Netflix stream. If you aren't a critic who lives in Toronto, LA, NY, or Chicago, you are kinda screwed. It's not your duty as a film critic to see every single film produced for a 2010 list. Everyone is obviously going to have some blindspots.

[baby doll]

If you aren't a critic who lives in Toronto, LA, NY, or Chicago, you are kinda screwed.Don't reviewers get screeners sent to them?

[Watashi]

Precisely.

I would question any critic who believed the 10 best films of any given year came from ONE country.

I think it boils down to: who cares?

If someone made a bottom 10 list of films from one country, would you still question them? If their 11-20 best of list were all from different countries, would it make up for their top 10?

[baby doll]

I think it boils down to: who cares?

If someone made a bottom 10 list of films from one country, would you still question them? If their 11-20 best of list were all from different countries, would it make up for their top 10?Tops and bottoms aren't equivalent, since most truly dreadful foreign movies never get a US release in the first place (although there are exceptions).

[baby doll]

On further reflection, I feel like we're having the wrong argument. In another year, one in which Hollywood really brings it's A-game (1958, for instance), it's perfectly respectable to have a list dominated by American movies (that year alone we got Party Girl, Some Came Running, The Tarnished Angels, A Time to Love and a Time to Die, Touch of Evil, and Vertigo, to say nothing of those I've missed).

The problem is when reviewers, out of intellectual laziness, act as if Oscar-eligible commercial features are the only films that exist (much less matter). One obvious example is Roger Ebert, because even when he goes to film festivals like Cannes or Toronto, he tends only to report on films that will almost certainly be getting a US release (Another Year, Slumdog Millionaire, Juno), as if he's afraid to recommend something that won't be turning up at the local multiplex in a few months. And when he does encounter something relatively uncommercial, like an Angelopoulos or a Godard or a Kiarostami, his reaction is predictably dismissive: The emperor has no clothes, no "regular" moviegoer will be able to understand it, it's a film for festivals and specialists, etc. It's like a form of self-censorship.

[Ezee E]

On further reflection, I feel like we're having the wrong argument. In another year, one in which Hollywood really brings it's A-game (1958, for instance), it's perfectly respectable to have a list dominated by American movies (that year alone we got Party Girl, Some Came Running, The Tarnished Angels, A Time to Love and a Time to Die, Touch of Evil, and Vertigo, to say nothing of those I've missed).

The problem is when reviewers, out of intellectual laziness, act as if Oscar-eligible commercial features are the only films that exist (much less matter). One obvious example is Roger Ebert, because even when he goes to film festivals like Cannes or Toronto, he tends only to report on films that will almost certainly be getting a US release (Another Year, Slumdog Millionaire, Juno), as if he's afraid to recommend something that won't be turning up at the local multiplex in a few months. And when he does encounter something relatively uncommercial, like an Angelopoulos or a Godard or a Kiarostami, his reaction is predictably dismissive: The emperor has no clothes, no "regular" moviegoer will be able to understand it, it's a film for festivals and specialists, etc. It's like a form of self-censorship.
Well, Ebert is also working for a business that needs to get its website visited or sell issues of its newspaper. He's getting paid to go to certain functions, it may not even be his choice.

[baby doll]

Well, Ebert is also working for a business that needs to get its website visited or sell issues of its newspaper. He's getting paid to go to certain functions, it may not even be his choice.My impression is that he mainly goes to the press screenings, which in the case of Cannes are the official selections, and at TIFF the big-money Oscar hopefuls.

In any event, at the top of his ten-best list for the year, he goes along with the general consensus that it wasn't a great year for the movies, as if the movies that get released commercially in the US were the first and last word on the matter, rather than just the tip of the iceberg.

[baby doll]

Incidentally, I can think of a couple years where my top ten is dominated (fifty percent or more) by American movies. And I mean all American movies--not British or Canadian or Kiwi.

1955
1. Ordet
2. The Night of the Hunter
3. Nuit et brouillard
4. All That Heaven Allows
5. Moonfleet
6. Guys and Dolls
7. A Generation
8. Rebel Without a Cause
9. Artists and Models
10. The Trouble With Harry

1977
1. Eraserhead
2. Cet obscur objet du désir
3. Providence
4. Stroszek
5. The American Friend
6. Killer of Sheep
7. Opening Night
8. 3 Women
9. Saturday Night Fever
10. Le Diable probablement

1991
1. Les Amants du Pont Neuf
2. La Belle noiseuse
3. Life, and Nothing More...
4. The Passing
5. La Double vie de Véronique
6. Defending Your Life
7. Jungle Fever
8. Naked Lunch
9. My Own Private Idaho
10. Slacker

[soitgoes...]

http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee171/soitgoes22/symbol21.jpg
Matsumoto's Symbol is a film not like any other film I've ever seen before. Sadly, because of this, most people outside of Japan will never get a chance to experience it. Two parallel stories (one follows a wrestler named Escargot Man in Mexico, the other a nameless Japanese man trapped in a solid white room with angel genitalia buttons) unfold without any perceived connection. About an hour in the two come crashing together with hilarity. I'm not entirely sure what to make of the whole thing, but suffice it to say that it's one of the most original films I've seen.

[Chac Mool]

Interesting discussion on reviewers, top tens, and countries of origin.

My two (maybe three) cents:

If it just so happens that the ten best movies in a given year come from a given country (USA, Japan, Turkmenistan or otherwise), I see absolutely no problem with them dominating a Top Ten list. The argument that the ten best movies in a given year cannot possibly come from one country is rather silly because (a) this is subjective evaluation, after all and (b) saying it's impossible is putting up arbitrary restrictions (not unlike saying, for example, that no more than two of the top ten movies can possibly be set in the same city).

The issue does become relevant when one talks of commercial/well-known/respected critics. Their responsibility is to sample a wide and varied cross-section of cinema, but crucially, one that strikes a balance between catering to the taste of their audience/readership and informing the latter about lesser-known films that may interest them. A mainstream critic (Ebert, Travers, Turan) will always populate his/her end-year list with American films because that's what the majority of their readership focuses on; they will also include a sampling of the best foreign films. A more specialized critic with a more knowledgeable readership (Rosenbaum, Ed Gonzales) will care less about country of origin.

Overall, I think it's important to remember that critics' reviews and end-year selections are, like ours, shaped by who they are and who they're writing for. There's no right or wrong -- just shades.

[Yxklyx]

Thierry Guetta is Real (http://sparrowsongs.wordpress.com/2010/04/22/thierry-guetta-is-real/)

Doesn't prove that much. I think Thierry Guetta/Mr. Brainwash may be real at this point in time but it's quite possible that he didn't exist until very very recently - about the time that Exit Through The Gift Shop came out.

[baby doll]

The issue does become relevant when one talks of commercial/well-known/respected critics. Their responsibility is to sample a wide and varied cross-section of cinema, but crucially, one that strikes a balance between catering to the taste of their audience/readership and informing the latter about lesser-known films that may interest them. A mainstream critic (Ebert, Travers, Turan) will always populate his/her end-year list with American films because that's what the majority of their readership focuses on; they will also include a sampling of the best foreign films. A more specialized critic with a more knowledgeable readership (Rosenbaum, Ed Gonzales) will care less about country of origin.I wonder what would happen if Ebert came to the end of the year and found that his ten favorite movies were all (or even mostly) foreign language films--not very experimental, of course (Ebert's tastes tend towards the middlebrow; hence his love for The Secret in Their Eyes), but subtitled movies all the same.

Of course, so far that hasn't happened. In fact, since 1967, it's only happened six times that his favorite film of the year was a subtitled movie: The Battle of Algiers in 1968, Z in 1969, Cries and Whispers in 1973 and Scenes From a Marriage in 1974, L'Argent de poche in 1976, and then no more until Pan's Labyrinth in 2006. How is that even possible?

[Ezee E]

I wonder what would happen if Ebert came to the end of the year and found that his ten favorite movies were all (or even mostly) foreign language films--not very experimental, of course (Ebert's tastes tend towards the middlebrow; hence his love for The Secret in Their Eyes), but subtitled movies all the same.

Of course, so far that hasn't happened. In fact, since 1967, it's only happened six times that his favorite film of the year was a subtitled movie: The Battle of Algiers in 1968, Z in 1969, Cries and Whispers in 1973 and Scenes From a Marriage in 1974, L'Argent de poche in 1976, and then no more until Pan's Labyrinth in 2006. How is that even possible?
Fairly sure City of God was one of his favorites for the year. Guess I was wrong.

[baby doll]

Fairly sure City of God was one of his favorites for the year. Guess I was wrong.It was number two; I'm talking just about his number ones.

[MacGuffin]

Blood was the perfect New Years' Eve morning flick.

[balmakboor]

I picked up the 2001: ASO Blu-ray for $9 the other day and watched it this morning. Still about the best damn thing ever made.

I also got the Dazed and Confused Criterion for Christmas and it has one of the best bonus discs ever created. I swear. I've been watching it for an hour and a half and haven't even watched the making of doc yet.

[Stay Puft]

Matsumoto's Symbol is a film not like any other film I've ever seen before. Sadly, because of this, most people outside of Japan will never get a chance to experience it. Two parallel stories (one follows a wrestler named Escargot Man in Mexico, the other a nameless Japanese man trapped in a solid white room with angel genitalia buttons) unfold without any perceived connection. About an hour in the two come crashing together with hilarity. I'm not entirely sure what to make of the whole thing, but suffice it to say that it's one of the most original films I've seen.

Yay! :pritch:

So that makes four of us now, I think. Brightside, you watch it yet? (I'll finally watch a Ruiz film when you do!)

I'm trying to convert my friends into Matsumoto fans. I've had pretty good success so far with Big Man Japan, though of course it's availability here helps. I've been pimping Symbol but none of them have seen it yet (one of my friends bailed on me at the Toronto screening last year, the bastard).

[Spinal]

I wonder what would happen if Ebert came to the end of the year and found that his ten favorite movies were all (or even mostly) foreign language films--not very experimental, of course (Ebert's tastes tend towards the middlebrow; hence his love for The Secret in Their Eyes), but subtitled movies all the same.

Of course, so far that hasn't happened. In fact, since 1967, it's only happened six times that his favorite film of the year was a subtitled movie: The Battle of Algiers in 1968, Z in 1969, Cries and Whispers in 1973 and Scenes From a Marriage in 1974, L'Argent de poche in 1976, and then no more until Pan's Labyrinth in 2006. How is that even possible?

I looked to see how long it would take me to get up to six subtitled #1's.

Starting at 1967, it took me until 1974.

[megladon8]

English language =/= inferior.

[soitgoes...]

Yay! :pritch:

So that makes four of us now, I think. Brightside, you watch it yet? (I'll finally watch a Ruiz film when you do!)

I'm trying to convert my friends into Matsumoto fans. I've had pretty good success so far with Big Man Japan, though of course it's availability here helps. I've been pimping Symbol but none of them have seen it yet (one of my friends bailed on me at the Toronto screening last year, the bastard).Big Man Japan is next up. I hope he doesn't let me down.

[soitgoes...]

Holy fuck, the end of Big Man Japan is sooooo hilarious. I mean, straight up genius. The film as a whole isn't as good as Symbol, but that ending trumps everything in Matsumoto's second film.

[baby doll]

I looked to see how long it would take me to get up to six subtitled #1's.

Starting at 1967, it took me until 1974.What's really odd, I think, is the total drop-off between 1977 and 2005. Did foreign-language movies (or at least those that opened in Chicago) just get a lot suckier in those years, or did Ebert feel less comfortable praising them enthusiastically, either due to external considerations (pressure from his editors and the studios themselves), or because, in the current US climate, talking about foreign movies is violating a cultural taboo.

[megladon8]

...or maybe his favorite movies of these years were English-language movies?

[Spinal]

I don't think it has anything to do with a 'cultural taboo', but I think it's fair to wonder whether there was pressure on Ebert as his visibility increased to select films that were not too far off the beaten path. He's repeatedly said he doesn't like making lists and giving star ratings. It's quite possible that there is some sort of concession to reader's comfort being made there, consciously or not. Not to say that he doesn't actually like those films ... I'm sure he does. But with a process like this that he doesn't enjoy anyway, he might just be making things a little easier on himself.

Let's remember that for the Sight and Sound poll, his list looked like this ...

1.Aguirre, Wrath of God (Herzog)
2.Apocalypse Now (Coppola)
3.Citizen Kane (Welles)
4.Dekalog (Kieslowski)
5.La dolce vita (Fellini)
6.The General (Keaton)
7.Raging Bull (Scorsese)
8.2001: A Space Odyssey (Kubrick)
9.Tokyo Story (Ozu)
10.Vertigo (Hitchcock)

[balmakboor]

I think of all people Roger Ebert had the clout to be totally honest with his choices during that period. He was also aware that whatever he chose as his favorites would be given something of a boost. So I agree with meg that he probably simply had an English language film as a favorite in those years.

[Derek]

Not everyone torrents, Derek. I hate watching movies on my laptop and I'd prefer to wait until it hits DVD or Netflix stream. If you aren't a critic who lives in Toronto, LA, NY, or Chicago, you are kinda screwed. It's not your duty as a film critic to see every single film produced for a 2010 list. Everyone is obviously going to have some blindspots.

But everyone has access to an $8 chord that goes from your computer to your tv, so you don´t have to watch on your laptop. The only time I ever watch a movie on my laptop is when I´m travelling. It´s called technology, Wats. Catch the fever!


Don't reviewers get screeners sent to them?

Yes, and most critics (or their editors) will get 100s if not 1000s of requests for reviews every year from obscure indie-foreign films to the mainstream. It doesn´t matter where a film screens, the studios will almost always send DVD screeners, usuallya few weeks in advance of the release. unless it´s one they want to keep under wraps for some reason. Availability or location is not a legitimate excuse for a critics these days. Ask number8 if his e-mail inbox is ever short of any screeners available for non-wide releases.


The problem is when reviewers, out of intellectual laziness, act as if Oscar-eligible commercial features are the only films that exist (much less matter). One obvious example is Roger Ebert, because even when he goes to film festivals like Cannes or Toronto, he tends only to report on films that will almost certainly be getting a US release (Another Year, Slumdog Millionaire, Juno), as if he's afraid to recommend something that won't be turning up at the local multiplex in a few months. And when he does encounter something relatively uncommercial, like an Angelopoulos or a Godard or a Kiarostami, his reaction is predictably dismissive: The emperor has no clothes, no "regular" moviegoer will be able to understand it, it's a film for festivals and specialists, etc. It's like a form of self-censorship.

Aside from using Ebert as a scapegoat, when the guy has at least done more than anyone to help Herzog´s career, over the many bottomfeeders that your first sentence describes, I´m in agreement. I´d say more, but i´d rather not turn this into an Ebert-debate when the guys a saint compared to a lot of other critics, sad as that may be to admit.


Blood was the perfect New Years' Eve morning flick.

Teh Costa? Best film I saw in 2010.


English language =/= inferior.

No one is saying they are. I´m not even sure how that is relevant to the discussion. What we are saying, or at least I´m saying, is that English language =/= superior and I´m making a fairly obvious assertion that many paid, professional critics disagree with that equation through very obvious and highly biased perspectives. Is it their right? Yes, of course. Just as it´s my right to say that critics who have such blatant biases are less useful than those who are more open to all of world cinema. To me, it´s a bias that is as equally frustrating as Armond´s anti-hipster, etc. agenda, though it´s hardly mocked at all compared to A-dub´s antics.

[Derek]

Dogtooth (Lanthimos, 2010) ***½

Niiice.

[megladon8]

No one is saying they are. I´m not even sure how that is relevant to the discussion. What we are saying, or at least I´m saying, is that English language =/= superior and I´m making a fairly obvious assertion that many paid, professional critics disagree with that equation through very obvious and highly biased perspectives. Is it their right? Yes, of course. Just as it´s my right to say that critics who have such blatant biases are less useful than those who are more open to all of world cinema. To me, it´s a bias that is as equally frustrating as Armond´s anti-hipster, etc. agenda, though it´s hardly mocked at all compared to A-dub´s antics.


But what Spinal and baby doll seem to be hinting at is that there's no way that Ebert could have just, you know, had an American (or at least English-language) film as his number 1 in all these years.

Why does it have to be some borderline conspiracy theory, where it's "taboo" to have anything other than an American film as his number 1 of the year? That he was/is pressured to put the spotlight on more films from America?

That's ridiculous to me.

Again, why can't it just be that he happened/s to love American film?

It's the culture he grew up in, still lives in, and is surrounded by. It doesn't seem like a far stretch to me that the filmed artistic expressions of other Americans are what he most closely identifies with, the same way that a French journalist would probably have lists saturated with French films.

[MacGuffin]

Teh Costa? Best film I saw in 2010.

Yes, and I just finished In Vanda's Room and it was even better.

[StanleyK]

Okay, I'm sold. O Sangue will be the first movie I see in 2011.

[baby doll]

But what Spinal and baby doll seem to be hinting at is that there's no way that Ebert could have just, you know, had an American (or at least English-language) film as his number 1 in all these years.

Why does it have to be some borderline conspiracy theory, where it's "taboo" to have anything other than an American film as his number 1 of the year? That he was/is pressured to put the spotlight on more films from America?

That's ridiculous to me.

It's the culture he grew up in, still lives in, and is surrounded by. It doesn't seem like a far stretch to me that the filmed artistic expressions of other Americans are what he most closely identifies with, the same way that a French journalist would probably have lists saturated with French films.Speaking of the French, here's Cahiers du cinéma's top ten for 2010:

1. Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives
2. The Bad Lieutenant—Port of Call: New Orleans
3. Film socialisme
4. Toy Story 3
5. Fantastic Mr. Fox
6. A Serious Man
7. To Die Like a Man
8. The Social Network
9. Chouga (Ainour)
10. Mother

Half are American, and the other five are Thai, Swiss, Portuguese, Kazakh, and South Korean respectively. No French movies at all, although French is the primary language spoken in Godard's film (along with bits of English, German, and Russian).

Personally, I don't really buy this argument that because Ebert is American that it's natural for him to have some special affinity for US cinema. I suspect that the dominance of US filmmaking in the Cahiers poll has as much to do with the dominance of American cinema globally (they show Hollywood movies everywhere in the world, except in places like North Korea) as it does with the quality of the respective films. But even granting that Ebert mainly sees films from the United States, it seems strange that there hasn't been one year since 1967 in which, according to Ebert, the rest of the world collectively was at parity with US cinema in terms of strength--that is, where half or more of the films on his list weren't English-language movies. It's not like foreign films are fundamentally different from American ones in terms of narrative structure and style.


Again, why can't it just be that he happened/s to love American film?Privilege-denying dude says what?

[megladon8]

"Privilege-denying dude"? What?

[baby doll]

Know your meme. (http://jezebel.com/5691457/privilege+denying-dude-knows-that-deep-down-youre-bisexual)

[megladon8]

I have no clue what that had to do with anything I said.

[baby doll]

I have no clue what that had to do with anything I said.It's a bit of a reach, I'll admit, but to say that Ebert just likes American movies better than foreign films, as if it were a level-playing field, seems... I dunno, privilege-denying.

[megladon8]

It's a bit of a reach, I'll admit, but to say that Ebert just likes American movies better than foreign films, as if it were a level-playing field, seems... I dunno, privilege-denying.


I don't see where I stated that it was a "level playing field".

I just don't see what's so scandalous about him having a lot of American films as year-end number 1's.

I mean, even I would say that if there's one country whose films most dominate my "favorites", it would be America. And it would probably be a ratio of about 7-to-3 (foreign to American, respectively). But that 70% foreign encompasses all countries and cultures, whereas the 30% American is just that - American.

That's a pretty large chunk.

But yeah, getting a little off track here. I still think that "privilege-denying" comment was a little out of left field and inappropriate for the situation, but whatevah.

[baby doll]

I don't see where I stated that it was a "level playing field".

I just don't see what's so scandalous about him having a lot of American films as year-end number 1's.

I mean, even I would say that if there's one country whose films most dominate my "favorites", it would be America. And it would probably be a ratio of about 7-to-3 (foreign to American, respectively). But that 70% foreign encompasses all countries and cultures, whereas the 30% American is just that - American.

That's a pretty large chunk.

But yeah, getting a little off track here. I still think that "privilege-denying" comment was a little out of left field and inappropriate for the situation, but whatevah.I knew I shouldn't have gone there, but I really love that meme.

[megladon8]

I knew I shouldn't have gone there, but I really love that meme.


Yes, some of them were quite funny.

[Spinal]

My logic went something like this.

1. I know Ebert likes foreign films.
2. Ebert sees a lot more foreign films than I do.
3. I have more foreign "top" films in the years mentioned than Ebert.
4. Hmmm, maybe Baby Doll is onto something.

I thought it was a reasonable theory to suggest pressure from editors or whatever and I just tried to expand on it. Obviously, I don't think subtitles = quality.

[Spinal]

But criticizing the world's most popular movie critic for being a populist is kind of silly, don't you think? If it wasn't him, it would be someone else. Mass acceptance typically requires some concessions. That's just life.

[Qrazy]

My logic went something like this.

1. I know Ebert likes foreign films.
2. Ebert sees a lot more foreign films than I do.
3. I have more foreign "top" films in the years mentioned than Ebert.
4. Hmmm, maybe Baby Doll is onto something.

I thought it was a reasonable theory to suggest pressure from editors or whatever and I just tried to expand on it. Obviously, I don't think subtitles = quality.

I think Ebert just has somewhat bland taste in general. Yeah he has a solid top 10 of all time list but he also gives out very high star ratings for really weak films and his top 10 lists each year. Meh. I mean he's entitled to like what he likes it's just not what I like. I don't think he's conceding though, I think he genuinely likes and/or dislikes what he says he does.

[KK2.0]

just rewatched Raiders of the Lost Ark after god knows how many years since my last time. The film is a parade of memorable scenes, still so vivid in my head that it didn't felt so old, i've found it considerably more innocent and campy though, and maybe for the first time the ending left me slightly annoyed, I mean, from the moment Indy jumps on the nazi submarine the film rushes to the conclusion, perhaps it's just me wishing for more Indy, but despite the sloppy final act at least the film closes with that beautifully eerie shot of the ark of covenant disappearing inside that huge warehouse.

[Dead & Messed Up]

The big critic arguments here always revolve around Ebert and White.

Manohla Dargis feels left out.

[MadMan]

The big critic arguments here always revolve around Ebert and White.

Manohla Dargis feels left out.As much as I like Ebert, and as much as I almost feel like defending White simply because I either find him amusing or interesting, I think both are merely very good critics/reviewers, not great ones. Since I find the posters here on this site to be far more interesting in what they write (and more entertaining), with far varied opinions, I'd rather hear what they have to say about certain movies than anyone else in a newspaper, magazine, or elsewhere online. I'm sure that speaks to the ever growing and increasing power of message boards and their negative or positive (I'd say mostly positive) effects on movie criticism.

[Rowland]

Niiice.Very much so. Funnier than I expected too.

[Derek]

Very much so. Funnier than I expected too.

Definitely. The final shot is the best punchline of the year IMO.

[balmakboor]

The big critic arguments here always revolve around Ebert and White.

Manohla Dargis feels left out.

Not to mention Robin Wood.

I rewatched Raging Bull yesterday and then reread Wood's analysis. Brilliant. Both film and analysis.

[balmakboor]

just rewatched Raiders of the Lost Ark after god knows how many years since my last time. The film is a parade of memorable scenes, still so vivid in my head that it didn't felt so old, i've found it considerably more innocent and campy though, and maybe for the first time the ending left me slightly annoyed, I mean, from the moment Indy jumps on the nazi submarine the film rushes to the conclusion, perhaps it's just me wishing for more Indy, but despite the sloppy final act at least the film closes with that beautifully eerie shot of the ark of covenant disappearing inside that huge warehouse.

To me, Raiders is efficient, entertaining, impersonal, and reactionary. A perfect film to kick off the Reagan years.

[baby doll]

Not to mention Robin Wood.

I rewatched Raging Bull yesterday and then reread Wood's analysis. Brilliant. Both film and analysis.Yeah, Robin Wood was the shit.

[Qrazy]

To me, Raiders is efficient, entertaining, impersonal, and reactionary. A perfect film to kick off the Reagan years.

Reactionary in terms of how it treats natives or?

[elixir]

Hi, I'm new here.

I saw Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work and Restrepo yesterday, and while the former was fun enough, the latter impressed me a good deal. I have only scratched the surface for documentaries the past year, but so far three documentaries are now some of my favorites movies from 2010.

[transmogrifier]

Hi, I'm new here.

I saw Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work and Restrepo yesterday, and while the former was fun enough, the latter impressed me a good deal. I have only scratched the surface for documentaries the past year, but so far three documentaries are now some of my favorites movies from 2010.

Greetings. You can stay as long as you answer the following question correctly:

Point Break is better than The Hurt Locker. True or False?

[elixir]

Greetings. You can stay as long as you answer the following question correctly:

Point Break is better than The Hurt Locker. True or False?

I haven't seen Point Break. Next question?

[transmogrifier]

I haven't seen Point Break. Next question?

You survive on a technicality :) Congrats.

I'd tell you which posters to look out for, but we are all pretty deviant in our own special ways.

[megladon8]

Look out for transmogrifier.

[transmogrifier]

Look out for transmogrifier.

Well, if he (she)'s going to choose one role model.....

[elixir]

I am a he.

Hm...what am I supposed to take away from this rep power thing? The people with the most are the coolest? The veterans?