28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[Raiders]

Keaton's best short is The Playhouse. I don't know if that really has much story or plot either, nor can I say it has any resonance outside the brilliance of its stunts and visual gags, but it is ridiculously clever and hilarious, precisely what it wanted to be and what it should be. Plus, I think there are some good undercurrents regarding the roles within the production that allow for more than mere watching.

[Grouchy]

I re-watched Ettore Scola's The Dance, which is kind of a silent movie (albeit filled with music) that tells the story of a dancing club as the decades go by. It's a very simple movie and there's not much to say other than that it's extremely well done and I love watching it again from time to time.

I also watched You Only Live Twice, part of my project to catch up on every Bond film I haven't seen yet. This is, chronologically, the first time the producers decided to piss on the original novel and re-write a completely different storyline for the movie adaptation. It didn't work badly this time around, since the novel, aside from being a sequel to another novel not yet adapted, is kind of passive until the last three or four chapters, with the story advancing slowly and without any opportunity for an action scenario. What they did was basically Thunderball in Japan, with enough characters, girls, set-ups and double agents for a lifetime of shock and adventure. This also marks the beginning of the escalating goofiness in Bond movies, although the silliest part (Bond disguises himself as a Japanese fisherman) comes straight from the book.

All in all, the most disappointing of the Connery movies (I haven't seen Diamonds are Forever yet) but still good entertainment. Curiously, the director (Lewis Gilbert) and the writer (no less than Roald Dahl) are more famous than Bond filmmakers usually are, but they made a lesser movie than the no-names behind classics like From Russia with Love and Goldfinger.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Seems The Darjeeling Limited will last an entire week in my town. That's to be expected. I mean, where would we be without P2 and three prints of Fred Claus?

Anyway, I'm going to try to see it by Thursday, but it's not looking good.

[balmakboor]

These latest Stanley Kubrick releases bother me a bit. Well, only his last three films actually. There has been so much whining about the prior DVD releases being full screen (despite that being what Kubrick desired according to Leon Vitali in this interview http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/kubrick/vitaliinterview.html) and yet the real whining should be about the new releases which claim to be as seen in the theater.

Kubrick composed his three final films with three audiences in mind: England at 1.66:1, America at 1.85:1, and DVD at about 1.33:1. The aspect ratio on the new DVDs is 1.78:1 which, if you are keeping track, is none of the above. They are fobbing off an aspect ratio that Kubrick never composed while ignoring two theatrical ones that he did.

Are they planning a fourth boxset down the road with the really true American aspect ratios and a fifth with the really true British ratios?

[Ivan Drago]

Raiders, check your PMs, if you haven't already.

[Grouchy]

Kubrick composed his three final films with three audiences in mind: England at 1.66:1, America at 1.85:1, and DVD at about 1.33:1. The aspect ratio on the new DVDs is 1.78:1 which, if you are keeping track, is none of the above. They are fobbing off an aspect ratio that Kubrick never composed while ignoring two theatrical ones that he did.

Are they planning a fourth boxset down the road with the really true American aspect ratios and a fifth with the really true British ratios?
I think they're trying to reach a consensus between both ratios. Which, I agree, is pretty silly. I'd pick one of the theatrical options.

But, keep in mind, Kubrick couldn't have planned an aspect ratio for DVD for The Shining or Full Metal Jacket. The reason he wanted 1.33:1 for home video was that the other option in VHS was pan and scan. He wanted to have control over how everyone would look at their films. Now that home audiences are used to other ratios in TV thanks to DVD, it seems unnecessary to keep releasing those movies on 1.33:1. I'm not sure about what he intended for the release of Eyes Wide Shut.

EDIT: Read the Vitalli interview now. Now I understand your confusion.

[Sycophant]

I think far more films are getting cropped from 1.85 to 1.77 or 1.78 than we realize. However, that's not something I'm willing to go to the frontlines for, because that probably puts us at about the same place we would on a widescreen television with overscan, or in a theater with a standardly bad projectionist.

[balmakboor]

I think they're trying to reach a consensus between both ratios. Which, I agree, is pretty silly. I'd pick one of the theatrical options.

But, keep in mind, Kubrick couldn't have planned an aspect ratio for DVD for The Shining or Full Metal Jacket. The reason he wanted 1.33:1 for home video was that the other option in VHS was pan and scan. He wanted to have control over how everyone would look at their films. Now that home audiences are used to other ratios in TV thanks to DVD, it seems unnecessary to keep releasing those movies on 1.33:1. I'm not sure about what he intended for the release of Eyes Wide Shut.

Actually, I was reading a bit more and it seems that The Shining is in its American theatrical ratio of 1.78:1 (really?) and Full Metal Jacket is as well at 1.85:1. So maybe I'm mostly full of it. Eyes Wide Shut is 1.78:1 though instead of 1.85:1.

Wouldn't you know that the only one I cared about -- because of the absense of the digital additions to the orgy -- is the only one not in its true theatrical aspect ratio?

[balmakboor]

I think far more films are getting cropped from 1.85 to 1.77 or 1.78 than we realize.

Actually, isn't it more like un-cropped?

I know what you mean though about the state of projectionists.

[Boner M]

Derek, thoughts on Control plz.

So glad about the mediocre response it's getting here.

[Watashi]

Derek, thoughts on Control plz.

So glad about the mediocre response it's getting here.

A 5 is like an 8 in TBicklenese

[Sycophant]

Actually, isn't it more like un-cropped?
Most likely, you're right. They're not very prone, I'm sure, to crop that miniscule amount off the sides.

Still, I worry about the future as 16:9 televisions become more popular. We've seen Kung Fu (the series) cropped from 1.33 to 1.77, while Gilliam's Tideland was released 1.77 instead of 2.35. I hope the industry won't go down that path.

I know what you mean though about the state of projectionists.
I've watched an inordinate number of films on curtains lately.

[Boner M]

TBicklenese
:|

Anywaaaaay... that's an awesome av you got at the moment.

[Derek]

Derek, thoughts on Control plz.

So glad about the mediocre response it's getting here.

I've gotta head out for the afternoon/night, but I'll get some thoughts up tomorrow. The short of it - it's basically an "artisier", b&w version of Walk the Line with better music...no offense meant to Johnny Cash. I s'pose most Joy Division fans will find it satisfying for hitting all the right biopic notes, but it's surprisingly vanilla.


A 5 is like an 8 in TBicklenese

I didn't realize I had my own language! I guess it comes from the absurdity of, you know, giving bad films low scores and mediocre films medium scores...a novel idea!

I have had a rough stretch of moderately bad/mediocre films, which will fortunately come to end with a rewatch of Darjeeling Limited later tonight. And I should be getting to Killer of Sheep soon too, which I've been dying to see for some time.

[MadMan]

A 5 is like an 8 in TBickleneseThat's one of the many MatchCut languages I don't speak. I feel like I need a translator when I post here.

I just finished watching El Mariachi. While it does have some of the markings and trappings that accompany most first time films, it also manages to be raw and entertaining. The action scenes have a sort of low budget, frantic energy to them that would only be dressed up later on in Robert Rodriguez's bigger budget, longer films set on a more larger scale. I actually like that the film is low key and is rather trimed down to a brisk 81 minutes due to financial restraints. Overall its pretty satisfying, although I felt that the relationship between the Mariachi and Domino was pretty underdeveloped. If anything else this movie can be compared to the Alien and The Evil Dead films in that it shows how extrodinary circumistances end up changing a person into a big time badass, going from being helpless to badass status. A fantasy that I'm sure has emerged many times in cinema.

Oh and I think its better than the other two films, if only because Desperado lacked a satsifying ending and Once Upon a Time in Mexico was too bloated in some aspects. I do like the trilogy a good deal though, and I own #2 and #3 in the series.

[Doclop]

I saw Juno last week and actually thought it was pretty decent. I remember someone here hating it. True?

At first, I really didn't like it and could not get past the annoying that is Ellen Page, but it actually won me over and earned its sweetness. It completely indulges in that sense of humor, but I found it a little more nuanced and clever than a film like, say, Napoleon Dynamite. It's certainly a crowd-pleaser and has potential for a Dynamite, Little Miss Sunshine-type break-out, but ignoring the surrounding hype, I thought it was a breezy, likable, rapid-fire comedy that hit more than it missed.

Oh, and I hated Thank You For Smoking.

[Sycophant]

Oh, and I hated Thank You For Smoking.
This line sold me on seeing this film. Thanks.

[baby doll]

I saw Juno last week and actually thought it was pretty decent. I remember someone here hating it. True?

At first, I really didn't like it and could not get past the annoying that is Ellen Page, but it actually won me over and earned its sweetness. It's completely indulges in that sense of humor, but I found it a little more nuanced and clever than a film like, say, Napoleon Dynamite. It's certainly a crowd-pleaser and has potential for a Dynamite, Little Miss Sunshine-type break-out, but ignoring the surrounding hype, I thought it was a breezy, likable, rapid-fire comedy that hit more than it missed.

Oh, and I hated Thank You For Smoking.Yeah, two Arrested Development cast members and I still can't muster any enthusiasm for the flick.

[Ezee E]

I saw Juno last week and actually thought it was pretty decent. I remember someone here hating it. True?


That was NickGlass. Nothing new there.

[Ezee E]

So, at the fire station, I was watching Night at the Museum for a while. We got a call in the middle, and when I came back, it seemed like a completely different type of movie. It started off as a good fun kids movie. Then it just got... strange. Not sure what happened in the middle.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Doing a presentation on Ida Lupino tomorow for a class, so I thought it might be a good idea to at least see one of her films (I'm going to see if I can fit in another tonight). I watched Outrage (1950), which is no better or worse than I expected. It is somewhat dated and stagey, but I admire what Lupino was trying to accomplish, and it is refresing to see an alterior viewpoint in noir. It's somewhatIt's an anti-thesis on many of noir's themes/stereotypes while exemplifying just as many. The first half hour is the best as tension is established, and the film is at it's most visually interesting. It loses steam afterward but is still an engaging film, although I imagine unless you're a noir completist it won't hold too much interest. The best scene is early on in the film before the "attack" (the word rape is never mentioned in the film because of the production code), as a mundane/unimportant conversation goes on but in the foreground we have the hands of the rapist as he washes a dish. It's off putting, and effectively works to create the sense of tension of what lies ahead.


http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s173/Justine_Smitha/123-5.jpg

[origami_mustache]

Does anyone else feel it unnecessary to see the remake of Funny Games? From what I gather it's basically shot for shot with the original aside from a few minute changes. It's an interesting exercise and bold statement from Haneke, but I can't muster any enthusiasm to see it, even though I love Haneke's films.

[MadMan]

So, at the fire station, I was watching Night at the Museum for a while. We got a call in the middle, and when I came back, it seemed like a completely different type of movie. It started off as a good fun kids movie. Then it just got... strange. Not sure what happened in the middle.The movie started out pretty good, and then got extremely lame, cloy and annoying. Which is a damn shame because the premise is pretty cool if you think about it.

I loved Thank You For Smoking. One of my favorite films from 2006.

[Spinal]

Does anyone else feel it unnecessary to see the remake of Funny Games? From what I gather it's basically shot for shot with the original aside from a few minute changes. It's an interesting exercise and bold statement from Haneke, but I can't muster any enthusiasm to see it, even though I love Haneke's films.


I think feeling that way is OK. The film is probably mostly for people who would not watch the German version.

[Philosophe_rouge]

I rewathed the Awful Truth :pritch: Nothing legal should make me feel this good :pritch:

[Grouchy]

Does anyone else feel it unnecessary to see the remake of Funny Games? From what I gather it's basically shot for shot with the original aside from a few minute changes. It's an interesting exercise and bold statement from Haneke, but I can't muster any enthusiasm to see it, even though I love Haneke's films.
Yeah, I was wondering what was up with that too. I will hold on an opinion 'till I see it, but I think Haneke might be making it to show his film to an audience that might not watch it in German. If it's like that, I'm against it.

I've seen only one Ida Lupino film, The Hitch-hiker. I was left with the impression that she was an interesting filmmaker, although the movie itself overstayed its welcome. One thing that I liked about it is that it never felt like a movie made by a woman.

[jesse]

Doing a presentation on Ida Lupino tomorow for a class, so I thought it might be a good idea to at least see one of her films (I'm going to see if I can fit in another tonight). I watched Outrage (1950), which is no better or worse than I expected. It is somewhat dated and stagey, but I admire what Lupino was trying to accomplish, and it is refresing to see an alterior viewpoint in noir. It's somewhatIt's an anti-thesis on many of noir's themes/stereotypes while exemplifying just as many. The first half hour is the best as tension is established, and the film is at it's most visually interesting. It loses steam afterward but is still an engaging film, although I imagine unless you're a noir completist it won't hold too much interest. The best scene is early on in the film before the "attack" (the word rape is never mentioned in the film because of the production code), as a mundane/unimportant conversation goes on but in the foreground we have the hands of the rapist as he washes a dish. It's off putting, and effectively works to create the sense of tension of what lies ahead.


http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s173/Justine_Smitha/123-5.jpg How were you able to see it? I caught it on TCM years ago and was quite impresssed with it in most of the same ways you were, but I was under the impression it's completely unavailable on a home viewing format. Or has that changed?

But yeah, the second half definitely dragged, which is a shame, since there's so much good stuff in the first.

[jesse]

Caught Wordplay the other day. Interesting stuff, some fun moments, though not much to distinguish it from the average run-of-the-mill afternoon television doc. No surprise that I caught it on PBS.

[Rowland]

I went into Lust, Caution almost prepared to dislike it, I'm sorry to admit. Thankfully, it exceeded my expectations. Pretty solid stuff, and an improvement over Brokeback.

[Philosophe_rouge]

How were you able to see it? I caught it on TCM years ago and was quite impresssed with it in most of the same ways you were, but I was under the impression it's completely unavailable on a home viewing format. Or has that changed?

But yeah, the second half definitely dragged, which is a shame, since there's so much good stuff in the first.
Yea, no I had to look at torrents to get a hold of it. Ida Lupino's work is near impossible to find in any format, it really saddens me how much classic Hollywood is still unavailable to the general public and for someone like me who doesn't have TCM it's even worse.

Have you seen any of her other films? I'm planning on trying to see The Hitch-Hiker, The Trouble with Angels and Hard, Fast and Beautiful, at least eventually. The Bigamist doesn't look all that bad either (and I just covered her complete filmography :P)

[Rowland]

The Hitch-Hiker is an excellent genre picture, I highly recommend seeking it out.

[Sycophant]

I rewathed the Awful Truth :pritch: Nothing legal should make me feel this good :pritch::D

I watched this about a month ago. I gave it ***½, which is just stupid now that I think about it. Considering how much fun I had with it and how much I've thought about it since (all positive), it is easily, hands-down a **** film.

[/acting like my ratings matter]

[dreamdead]

:D

I watched this about a month ago. I gave it ***½, which is just stupid now that I think about it. Considering how much fun I had with it and how much I've thought about it since (all positive), it is easily, hands-down a **** film.

[/acting like my ratings matter]

Silly Sycophant, all ratings that lavish praise on The Awful Truth matter. Though it lacks the Stanwyck factor (which makes every film better) it's otherwise immaculate as entertainment and a solid reminder of how female actors could have just as devious a role in a comedy as the male, which is something that's faded from contemporary cinema.

[Philosophe_rouge]

The Hitch-Hiker is an excellent genre picture, I highly recommend seeking it out.
I often here it's her best, and the clips I've seen from it are very eerie. I'll see what I can do.


:D

I watched this about a month ago. I gave it ***½, which is just stupid now that I think about it. Considering how much fun I had with it and how much I've thought about it since (all positive), it is easily, hands-down a **** film.

[/acting like my ratings matter]
Last time I watched the Awful Truth was years ago, and it still stood in my mind. Having rewatched it, I had forgotten a lot but it was just as good (even better really) than I had imagined. It's possibly the best screwball I've seen and top 5 comedies easily from the 30s/40s.


Silly Sycophant, all ratings that lavish praise on The Awful Truth matter. Though it lacks the Stanwyck factor (which makes every film better) it's otherwise immaculate as entertainment and a solid reminder of how female actors could have just as devious a role in a comedy as the male, which is something that's faded from contemporary cinema.
Stanwyck is divine, but so is Dunne who is wholly underappreciated as actor/comedienne. I don't think anyone (not even Stanwyck) could have done it better. I agree with you on the women in comedy front and have been saying this for a long time. There was a brief time when women were comedy euqlas as men, but the time seems to have long passed. Looking at the best laugh-out-loud films of the 30s/40s, most of them were very gender balanced.

[Watashi]

Marry me Rouge.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Marry me Rouge.
Having your love child is not enough? So demanding.

[Boner M]

Rouge, have you read any of Dan Callahan's writing? He does great analyses of classic Hollywood miscellenia (particularly actresses), you'd probably find them interesting.

Here's a list of his Bright Lights articles; the first being an appraisal of Dunne.

http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/callahan.htm

Oh, and The Awful Truth kicks some serious ass, indeed. That final scene is just *melts*. One of my favorite first viewings of this year so far.

[Sycophant]

I keep thinking about how incredibly funny and sexy Irene Dunne was in The Awful Truth. Every bit as great as Grant in terms of acting and comedy, and achieving a kind of sexiness I've only very rarely seen captured on film.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Rouge, have you read any of Dan Callahan's writing? He does great analyses of classic Hollywood miscellenia (particularly actresses), you'd probably find them interesting.

Here's a list of his Bright Lights articles; the first being an appraisal of Dunne.

http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/callahan.htm
I'm familiar with Bright Lights, but I don't think I've ever read any of his stuff. I think I'm salivating. Thank you for that :pritch:

[Philosophe_rouge]

I keep thinking about how incredibly funny and sexy Irene Dunne was in The Awful Truth. Every bit as great as Grant in terms of acting and comedy, and achieving a kind of sexiness I've only very rarely seen captured on film.
I know, she's amazing. I even remember reading somewhere that she never thought much of her comedy roles, and really wanted to be remembered for her dramatic/singing work. Grant also often tried to completely bail on projects, including this one which he thought was going to be a disaster. I'm happy they both were wrong.

[Derek]

That was NickGlass. Nothing new there.

That would be me as well. I know someone else here hated it other than me and Nick (maybe dreamdead?). I'll go a step further and say that Ellen Page is nothing short of a terrible actress, though she's a tad better than her ridiculous performance in Hard Candy.

[Rowland]

The trailer for Juno is pretty annoying. It looks like just the sort of opportunistic indie quirk the man behind Thank You For Smoking's politics would make.

That said, I'm still hoping for the best.

[Ezee E]

The trailer for Juno is pretty annoying. It looks like just the sort of opportunistic indie quirk the man behind Thank You For Smoking's politics would make.

That said, I'm still hoping for the best.
hardy har har?

[Dillard]

Amy Taubin at Film Comment (http://www.filmlinc.com/fcm/nd07/mumblecore.htm) bids adieu to the mumblecore movement.

[Rowland]

hardy har har?What?

[Eleven]

Amy Taubin at Film Comment (http://www.filmlinc.com/fcm/nd07/mumblecore.htm) bids adieu to the mumblecore movement.

Matt Seitz has a quick, brief rejoinder (http://mattzollerseitz.blogspot.com/2007/11/links-for-day-november-7th-2007.html) at The House Next Door. I'll admit I have yet to see a full-length example of mumcore, so I don't lean one way or the other, I just thought I'd throw it out there.

[Dillard]

Matt Seitz has a quick, brief rejoinder (http://mattzollerseitz.blogspot.com/2007/11/links-for-day-november-7th-2007.html) at The House Next Door. I'll admit I have yet to see a full-length example of mumcore, so I don't lean one way or the other, I just thought I'd throw it out there.Yeah, I started watching Mutual Appreciation last year, but turned it off. I'd like to see Katz's Quiet City.

[Rowland]

Matt Seitz has a quick, brief rejoinder (http://mattzollerseitz.blogspot.com/2007/11/links-for-day-november-7th-2007.html) at The House Next Door. I'll admit I have yet to see a full-length example of mumcore, so I don't lean one way or the other, I just thought I'd throw it out there.I haven't seen any of these movies, but Matt's defense is pretty convincing.

[Rowland]

Frankenheimer's Ronin is pretty awesome. It's nice to see an action movie aimed squarely at adults that doesn't feel it needs to do the rapid-cutting pseudo-"documentary" filmmaking approach to justify itself, while still kicking lots of ass and respecting the audience's intelligence.

[Sven]

Frankenheimer's Ronin is pretty awesome. It's nice to see an action movie aimed squarely at adults that doesn't feel it needs to do the rapid-cutting pseudo-"documentary" filmmaking approach to justify itself, while still kicking lots of ass and respecting the audience's intelligence.

It's good. I like Frankenheimer's ability to choreograph action. He doesn't create the kinetics with the camera--he creates them with on screen physicality. That seems to be a rare thing these days.

[Rowland]

Hah, I just did a bit of digging and discovered that David Mamet wrote the screenplay under a pseudonym because he had to share credit with the person who originated the story. That explains a lot....

[baby doll]

Amy Taubin at Film Comment (http://www.filmlinc.com/fcm/nd07/mumblecore.htm) bids adieu to the mumblecore movement.Weird, seeing as she's Bujalski's most vocal champions. Of course, she barely mentions him here, presumably as he's the only one in the group with any talent. Then again, it's not like he's any more interested in politics than the guy exploring the intricacies of clippers vs. razers.

[Rowland]

Sicinski reviews Gone Baby Gone (http://academichack.net/reviewsNovember2007.htm), considers it one of the year's best. I especially like how he appreciates Affleck's tangible portrayal of his working-class milieu and the power behind the final shot, which is probably my favorite closing moment of any movie this year. That'll do, Michael. That'll do.

[Dillard]

Weird, seeing as she's Bujalski's most vocal champions. Of course, she barely mentions him here, presumably as he's the only one in the group with any talent. Then again, it's not like he's any more interested in politics than the guy exploring the intricacies of clippers vs. razers. She mentions in the article that she also likes Aaron Katz's work, as well a latecomer Ronald Bronstein. She just clearly doesn't like Joe Swanberg's work.

[Ezee E]

What?
I'm not sure if you're aware, but the man behind Thank You For Smoking is behind Juno.

[Ezee E]

The Shining is coming to me in Blu-Ray tomorrow. That will be grandiose.

I'm actually more excited to see Eyes Wide Shut. I think the cinematography in that is one of the best I've seen period. I should get that sometime next week.

[Rowland]

I'm not sure if you're aware, but the man behind Thank You For Smoking is behind Juno.Yes, I know. That is why I said Juno looks like just the sort of movie I'd expect from the man behind TYFS. ???

[Mysterious Dude]

I highly recommend Louis Malle's The Fire Within. Very dark and personal. Maybe the guy's best film (though I don't think he has the most impressive filmography).

[Raiders]

I still need to watch Malle's film. I have it recorded.

[Dillard]

I highly recommend Louis Malle's The Fire Within. Very dark and personal. Maybe the guy's best film (though I don't think he has the most impressive filmography).It's my favorite of his that I've seen so far (four in all). The photography is stunning.

[Mysterious Dude]

It's my favorite of his that I've seen so far (four in all). The photography is stunning.
I think New Wave cinematography might be my favorite kind of cinematography. I love the street photography, and New Wave films seem to have a lot of that.

[Dillard]

I think New Wave cinematography might be my favorite kind of cinematography. I love the street photography, and New Wave films seem to have a lot of that.Sure, but don't forget the camera-work that goes into the sequences that take place completely inside Alain's room. In particular, I'm thinking of the shots of Alain crossing back and forth in front of the mirror, contemplating his next move. If I remember correctly, the focus of these shots is not on Alain, but on the shelf below the mirror, the newspaper clippings, the writing on the mirror (etc.). We catch only glimpses of Alain as he paces. Anyway, I found these shots to be among the most beautiful of the film.

[Watashi]

Sicinski reviews Gone Baby Gone (http://academichack.net/reviewsNovember2007.htm), considers it one of the year's best. I especially like how he appreciates Affleck's tangible portrayal of his working-class milieu and the power behind the final shot, which is probably my favorite closing moment of any movie this year. That'll do, Michael. That'll do.

What's so great about the final shot (besides the final line)?

[Kurosawa Fan]

Sweet. Looks like I'll be seeing The Darjeeling Limited tonight. My wife is taking my son to see Bee Movie. I had to make an executive decision. Sorry Jerry. It had to be done.

[Spinal]

Sweet. Looks like I'll be seeing The Darjeeling Limited tonight. My wife is taking my son to see Bee Movie. I had to make an executive decision. Sorry Jerry. It had to be done.

We're probably going to all go see Bee Movie on Friday. Hmmmm.

[Kurosawa Fan]

We're probably going to all go see Bee Movie on Friday. Hmmmm.

You're saying I'm a bad father, aren't you?

[Spinal]

You're saying I'm a bad father, aren't you?

No, I'm saying that I am envious of your arrangement. :|

[Raiders]

You're saying I'm a bad father, aren't you?

Nah, you're smart.

Make sure Kitchen Sink gets his own bag of popcorn.

[Kurosawa Fan]

No, I'm saying that I am envious of your arrangement. :|

Well, my wife just called, and it seems I might be going to both of them now, which doesn't excite me. She's tired and wants to stay at home with Zach, so I may be going to a 6:30 showing of Bee Movie, dropping Dylan off and then going back for a 9:30 showing of Darjeeling.


Make sure Kitchen Sink gets his own bag of popcorn.

I'm not taking a one-day-old love child to a theater.

[number8]

Frankenheimer's Ronin is pretty awesome. It's nice to see an action movie aimed squarely at adults that doesn't feel it needs to do the rapid-cutting pseudo-"documentary" filmmaking approach to justify itself, while still kicking lots of ass and respecting the audience's intelligence.

It's pretty much one of my favorite action films of all time. Seriously.

[Ezee E]

Well, my wife just called, and it seems I might be going to both of them now, which doesn't excite me. She's tired and wants to stay at home with Zach, so I may be going to a 6:30 showing of Bee Movie, dropping Dylan off and then going back for a 9:30 showing of Darjeeling.



I'm not taking a one-day-old love child to a theater.
Think of it like a film festival. That always makes crap movies slightly better.

[Boner M]

Heck, even Armond loves (http://nypress.com/20/45/film/ArmondWhite2.cfm) No Country For Old Men.

[Sven]

Heck, even Armond loves (http://nypress.com/20/45/film/ArmondWhite2.cfm) No Country For Old Men.

AND he loved Lions for Lambs, which took me by complete surprise. I'll have to put that one back on the radar.

I notice your Decalogue ratings. Have you seen them before? My favorite is the last one.

[Boner M]

I notice your Decalogue ratings. Have you seen them before? My favorite is the last one.
I'd seen parts 1-5 in 2002, and rewatched/watched the two in my sig for class. Will get round to the last four soon.

[Rowland]

What's so great about the final shot (besides the final line)?I don't remember the final line, but the image just says so much, with such tragic elegance. What was the line?

[Rowland]

AND he loved Lions for Lambs, which took me by complete surprise. I'll have to put that one back on the radar.And people say he is easy to pigeonhole. Well, he is most of the time, but still... I thought Lions for Lambs was just another patronizing liberal screed?

[MadMan]

Frankenheimer's Ronin is pretty awesome. It's nice to see an action movie aimed squarely at adults that doesn't feel it needs to do the rapid-cutting pseudo-"documentary" filmmaking approach to justify itself, while still kicking lots of ass and respecting the audience's intelligence.Pretty much. The car chase rocks too, and the cast is pretty stellar as well. It once again showed just how much of a grasp he had on the supense genre, although I hear that Reindeer Games is pretty terrible. I really want to see Seconds and The Train though, as I'm a huge fan of the original Manchurian Candidate.

[Raiders]

And people say he is easy to pigeonhole. Well, he is most of the time, but still... I thought Lions for Lambs was just another patronizing liberal screed?

Yeah, but the hipsters weren't even digging this one, so he was sort of cornered.

[Watashi]

I'm looking forward to Lions for Lambs a lot. Hopefully, it's more like Quiz Show and less like Bagger Vance.

[Qrazy]

Pretty much. The car chase rocks too, and the cast is pretty stellar as well. It once again showed just how much of a grasp he had on the supense genre, although I hear that Reindeer Games is pretty terrible. I really want to see Seconds and The Train though, as I'm a huge fan of the original Manchurian Candidate.

Seconds and The Train are both quite good.

[number8]

I'm looking forward to Lions for Lambs a lot. Hopefully, it's more like Quiz Show and less like Bagger Vance.

It's like neither.

[Ezee E]

It's like neither.
That bad? Or That good?

[Watashi]

It's like neither.

Update your signature, fascist.

[Rowland]

American Gangster went down smoothly, but it didn't leave much of an impression. Still, it's nice to see Scott direct a movie that doesn't look like a commercial.

[Rowland]

Heck, even Armond loves (http://nypress.com/20/45/film/ArmondWhite2.cfm) No Country For Old Men.Hmm, I just read this, and it appears that Armond liked The Brave One a lot too. Makes sense... the hipsters hated that one. :)

[number8]

I'm expecting everyone here to love No Country for Old Men.

Andrew Sarris didn't like it, but acknowledges that it's a well made movie that's just too nihilistic and upsetting for him. Which, I dunno, is kind of the whole thesis of the film.

[Melville]

I definitely agree with whoever said that The Descent would have been much better if the monsters had never showed up. All those fast-motion fights just seemed silly to me.

[Rowland]

I'm expecting everyone here to love No Country for Old Men.

Andrew Sarris didn't like it, but acknowledges that it's a well made movie that's just too nihilistic and upsetting for him. Which, I dunno, is kind of the whole thesis of the film.Andrew Tracy at Reverse Shot wrote a condescending negative review.

[Qrazy]

I definitely agree with whoever said that The Descent would have been much better if the monsters had never showed up. All those fast-motion fights just seemed silly to me.

I don't think the monsters were bad in and of themselves but the camera usage and choreography definitely jumped the cave shark at that point.

[baby doll]

I'm expecting everyone here to love No Country for Old Men.

Andrew Sarris didn't like it, but acknowledges that it's a well made movie that's just too nihilistic and upsetting for him. Which, I dunno, is kind of the whole thesis of the film.But the question is: Is it a thesis worth two hours of anyone's time? I still plan to check it out, but I'm not expecting something as good as Blood Simple (still my favorite movie of theirs).

[Lucky]

Metropolitan is a perfect example of a film that thrives on its effortless creation of a specific time and place. The audience follows a curious outsider as he is invited into a brand new area of society, and we watch as he quickly becomes enveloped in this dreamworld in which he does not want to wake up. Throughout the film I was constantly reminded of The Dreamers, and although that movie is set in Paris, this milieu of upscale debutantes is equally as foreign to me. Both films are romantic pieces of an escapist fantasy world, but our characters realize that all dreams must come to an end. Filled with a colorful group of characters and witty dialogue that could have flowed from Allen's pen, I welcome the addition of Metropolitan to my list of favorites.

[Philosophe_rouge]

My film club opted for Brothers (2004) tonight against my own requests... but unfortunately it isn't a democracy, and I'm not the supreme dictator so I have little say. This is my second Bier feature, and I didn't think it was possible but I was even more uninterested and bored by this than I was by After the Wedding (2006) (which at least had an interesting lead performance by Mads Mikkelsen). I like melodrama more than most, but her films never engage me even on the most superficial level. I see what's coming a mile off and am not even rewarded by the satisfaction that I am "smart enough" to figure out the outcome. It offers very little insight into heavy situations like war, family and relationships, suffering greatly from showing and stating too much, when it could have been done with so little. I don't like her use of close-ups, a problem that really dragged down Weddding for me. They only heighten the staged and insincere performances. I don't plan on seeing any of her other films, because really they fail to engage me on any level.

[Qrazy]

Just watched Teorema (Pasolini) - Tedious and trite.

[Mysterious Dude]

Talk To Me was a slight disappointment, but still a solid biopic.

[Spinal]

Just watched Teorema (Pasolini) - Tedious and trite.

Disagree.
(http://filmepidemic.blogspot.com/search?q=teorema)

[Qrazy]

Disagree.
(http://filmepidemic.blogspot.com/search?q=teorema)

Nice review, but I'm not swayed. Personally I didn't find his visual compositions or camera-work remotely interesting. The whole experience felt like an inverted version of Beckett's Godot to me. Alright cast, so Godot has arrived and now he departs. How would you like to react? Please check one of the following boxes.

1) Catatonic
2) Saint
3) La Maman et La Putain
4) Postmodern Artiste
5) Fear and Trembling

Just to clarify I'm not against the idea behind the film. I just found the execution to be devastatingly underwhelming.

[Kurosawa Fan]

The Darjeeling Limited was fantastic. Funny, tragic, etc., etc. Brody made the film. He was wonderful, and just what the film needed. It even made me appreciate Hotel Chevalier.

[Sycophant]

I don't get what the big deal is with Blade Runner, other than that it was pretty.

[Qrazy]

I don't get what the big deal is with Blade Runner, other than that it was pretty.

Well I'd give it a bit more props than that but I agree that it's insanely over-hyped.

[Qrazy]

Just watched Woyzeck. It was quality. I think it's Herzog's funniest film... for the first 40 minutes or so.

"Look at this man. For a quarter of a year he ate nothing but peas!"

[number8]

But the question is: Is it a thesis worth two hours of anyone's time?

Well, when it's not nail-bitingly suspenseful it's friggin hilarious, so why not.

[soitgoes...]

So Netflix sent me two copies of Faust, and as far as I can tell there is no record of them sending me both. I'm thinking I just scored a DVD. Or perhaps I should do the correct thing... :rolleyes:

[Qrazy]

Just watched The Ascent. Anatoli Solonitsyn needs more respect and praise on a general basis.

[ledfloyd]

I just watched Secrets & Lies after being blown away by Naked. This one took slightly longer to grow on me but by the end I was completely sold. The only Tim Spall performances I'd seen before this were Vanilla Sky and the Potter films. This is why he's considered a great. Unbelievable. That last sequence with the bar-b-q is fantastic. Also extremely impressive and the point at which I was won over was the diner scene with the 8 minute take. If you've seen the movie, you know the one. Unflinching, and fantastic. This Mike Leigh guy really has something. I don't know why I took so long getting into his films. I guess british melodrama never seemed my thing. Boy, is it ever. I think I'll check out All or Nothing next.

[Kurosawa Fan]

So Netflix sent me two copies of Faust, and as far as I can tell there is no record of them sending me both. I'm thinking I just scored a DVD. Or perhaps I should do the correct thing... :rolleyes:

They did this with me once, only they sent me the film Limbo even though it wasn't on my queue at the time. I watched it, loved it, and subsequently sent it back. My conscience was having a field day. I had no choice.

[Raiders]

Just watched The Ascent. Anatoli Solonitsyn needs more respect and praise on a general basis.

I'm glad somebody has watched the link I posted.

[Sven]

I don't get what the big deal is with Blade Runner, other than that it was pretty.

Did you see it in the theater?

[Sycophant]

Did you see it in the theater?Indeed I did.

[Yxklyx]

Ivan's Childhood was very good but there seemed to be too many underdeveloped stories - the cinematography was awe-inspiring.

Little Big Man was awful in all ways imaginable.

[Grouchy]

I don't get what the big deal is with Blade Runner, other than that it was pretty.
Well, apart from being insanely good, at the very least it deserves a place in film history for inventing cyberpunk.

[Rowland]

Appreciation (http://blogs.indiewire.com/reverseshot/archives/015023.html) for Kaufman's brilliant Body Snatchers remake over at Reverse Shot.

[Sycophant]

Well, apart from being insanely good, at the very least it deserves a place in film history for inventing cyberpunk.

Fair enough. I'll grant the latter (though I do suspect one could argue for cyberpunk being an evolved genre that existed in literature before it did in film and was hinted at long before it solidified into any sort of subgenre or movement). Regardless, I was consistently appreciative of the production design.

[Briare]

Year of the Dog was almost unpleasent to watch, though seeing Peter Sarsgaard crying in those short shorts did make me laugh. Molly Shannon makes an idiot out of herself, the character stops being anything but insane after the first twenty minutes. The talent on a film of this quality is baffling.

[Grouchy]

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y121/HawleyGriffin/sunshine3.jpg?t=1194540344

Sunshine
Danny Boyle, 2007

Like Fargo, which is a noir film that trades the dark shadows for the ominous white of the snow, Sunshine is a Horror/Sci-Fi in the "eighth passenger", Alien sub-genre where the overkill of the spaceship approaching the sun taints everything with a golden light instead of using the darkness and solitude of space. Boyle teamed up with his 28 Days Later writer for this original movie which, if it's not perfect, at least it's different than what we're used to seeing.

50 years into the future, the sun is in danger of dying. A spaceship, not too optimistically called the Icarus, is sent to re-ignite it but Earth loses communication with it. The movie opens with the crew of the Icarus II, which is sent in the same mission and, as you can imagine, will find out what happened to the previous astronauts. Many plot threads cross and criss-cross the movie. It seems that every two seconds, there's a new plot point which leaves the crew a little more messed up.

The international ensemble of characters and their relationships are the strong point of the film, and writer Garland worked hard to make them more than just cannon fodder. Cillian Murphy's character in particular is an interesting anti-hero, a physicist whose physical weakness is gonna be used in the movie's climax. However, as good as these characters are, their actions and reactions are not always believable. I have the feeling that Sunshine's script was re-written one too many times (an issue I had with 28 Days Later too) and sometimes forces its characters on impossible directions for the sake of drama. This is alright in theory, although sometimes it's too evident. The captain of the ship sacrifices himself kinda pointlessly, and while in some scenes the crew is completely communicated and have radios everywhere, in others where that's not convenient they're suddenly isolated. Why would Capa, after learning there's an intruder in the ship, not call his friends and go investigate on his own? He's not the hero type, and the movie leaves that pretty clear. All right, enough nitpicking.

Another thing that bothered me was Boyle's extreme visual style, which by the end makes the action impossible to follow. I liked the flashy, semi-subliminal photographs at a crucial point in the movie where they're extremely effective and unsettling, but later on, when the menace is revealed and it's time for the slasher-type run for your ass moment, the style works against the movie and caused me, at least, to lose interest. This is a common trend of all thrillers today, but it was specially notable in this one 'cause the rest of the movie is not like that - it became a problem only in the third act.

However, this is not a negative review. Sunshine interested me and surprised me. It's a movie with a real story to tell, creative and unique, with a Christian theme and feel to it. I recommend it.

[D_Davis]

Well, apart from being insanely good, at the very least it deserves a place in film history for inventing cyberpunk.

It didn't quite invent cyberpunk. PKD's novel didn't even invent cyberpunk. The novel and the visuals in the film did help to influence William Gibson, Neal Stephenson and the cyberpunk movement of the early 80s, but the sub-genre had already been established. The term was originally coined by Bruce Bethke in 1983, but its roots trace back to the early 1950's with Alfred Bester's The Demolished Man and The Stars My Destination and even some earlier stuff by authors I've never read.

Blade Runner is definitely a landmark in the sub-genre though, and it did greatly influence subsequent writers in the field.

[Grouchy]

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y121/HawleyGriffin/4025_article.jpg?t=1194542302

Left for Dead
Albert Pyun, 2007

There's a bizarro and fantastic cinema festival in Buenos Aires called Rojo Sangre, and I couldn't find the time to go all week, so since it was ending yesterday, I decided to make a run for it and watch a Miyazaki movie, Nausicaa. Arriving at the counter, gasping for breath, I found out that there was no Miyazaki print so they were showing another movie which had already started. I was forced to find something else to watch, and I found the ads for this, a Horror-Western from the director of Mean Guns. So, what the fuck. The girl in the poster is kinda famous in Argentinian TV (well, to tell the truth, I just found out who she is on the net) and the movie was shot here, so I decided to see it.

It was a riot. Hilarious. I went alone and I made a lot of unexpected friends in the theater since we were all laughing at this and making jokes aloud. It was impossible to take the movie seriously. It's about this typical Western town, Amnesty, where the whores have taken control ever since a preacher left one of them pregnant and they impaled him and killed everyone else in town. So, a town ruled by angry, dominant prostitutes. Cool. But to complicate things further, the preacher has returned as a ghost gunman hunting the town who, in true Saint of Killers fashion, is bullet-impervious and never misses. The movie opens with the Girl with No Name entering the town, looking for a man who abandoned her to shoot him in the balls. Throughout the movie she will threaten at least twenty men with castration by gun wound, but she never actually does it, it's just a running gag or something.

Now, I'm aware that this sounds pretty fun, actually, and not necessarily bad. But, believe me, it's terrible. For some reason the director decided that pausing the movie constantly would give it the added edge every feminist supernatural spaguetti Western is screaming for. So, with scary regularity, the movie will pause with a "THUD" sound, sometimes with a character in the middle of saying a line. It's like the DVD was skipping a few frames, only not. It was artistic. Also, since the movie it's set in Mexico, like all Mexicans, the characters speak in English all the time, and every seventh sentence they say in Spanish. Whenever this happens, a subtitle with an ugly font would show up in a random spot of the screen. Sometimes when the shitty sound mix didn't let you hear a line, they'd use subtitles too. Sometimes they used them for no reason at all. Sometimes not. And then "THUD", the movie paused. This is the ultimate "take a shot of tequila" movie.

Besides, for a movie about a town of mean whores and a girl scout cowboy with castration fantasies, they could've at least showed a tit. Or two. With subtitles.

[Grouchy]

It didn't quite invent cyberpunk. PKD's novel didn't even invent cyberpunk. The novel and the visuals in the film did help to influence William Gibson, Neal Stephenson and the cyberpunk movement of the early 80s, but the sub-genre had already been established. The term was originally coined by Bruce Bethke in 1983, but its roots trace back to the early 1950's with Alfred Bester's The Demolished Man and The Stars My Destination and even some earlier stuff by authors I've never read.

Blade Runner is definitely a landmark in the sub-genre though, and it did greatly influence subsequent writers in the field.
You're right. But it is the first cyberpunk movie, right?

[D_Davis]

You're right. But it is the first cyberpunk movie, right?

Probably - it is, at very least, the most visually influential film to the cyberpunk movement. I am not sure if Gibson had already written Neuromancer at this time or not, but it sure does share many of the same qualities as Scott's film. Interestingly enough, while reading the PKD book, I never got the same sense of setting, I always imagined the world of the book to be more "normal."


By the way, I like your last 2 reviews - good stuff man.

[lovejuice]

Year of the Dog was almost unpleasent to watch, though seeing Peter Sarsgaard crying in those short shorts did make me laugh. Molly Shannon makes an idiot out of herself, the character stops being anything but insane after the first twenty minutes. The talent on a film of this quality is baffling.

hmmm...it's been quite a while but i remember liking it. you are right though about shannon's character, and in fact i consider year of the dog a study in insanity. a lot remind me of more famous virginia woolf's quoations, something about insanity is mis-proportionalizing objects in life.

[Watashi]

I would give my left leg to see Blade Runner on the big screen.

[Sycophant]

I would give my left leg to see Blade Runner on the big screen.That's crazy. I mean, surely it played/is playing somewhere within a couple hundred miles of you. I saw it at the giant digital multiplex in downtown Salt Lake.

If it matters so much.

[Yxklyx]

That's crazy. I mean, surely it played/is playing somewhere within a couple hundred miles of you. I saw it at the giant digital multiplex in downtown Salt Lake.

If it matters so much.

Maybe he's got a hundred left legs.

[Watashi]

That's crazy. I mean, surely it played/is playing somewhere within a couple hundred miles of you. I saw it at the giant digital multiplex in downtown Salt Lake.

If it matters so much.

Oh, it is. I just don't have the time or energy.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around how someone can give Dead or Alive a higher rating than Scott's film.

[D_Davis]

I would give my left leg to see Blade Runner on the big screen.

It's playing in most major cities right now, with more screens being added each week.

[Sycophant]

Oh, it is. I just don't have the time or energy.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around how someone can give Dead or Alive a higher rating than Scott's film.
I like that DOA has been brought up as a barometer for my taste twice now. :P

Primarily, Scott's film felt lifeless and sterile. The pacing was languorous, the romance unconvincing and perfunctory. I loved the noirish affectations, but ultimately I didn't feel it added up to much.

[Rowland]

I like that DOA has been brought up as a barometer for my taste twice now. :PThat's what you get for having bad taste in movies.

[D_Davis]

I like that DOA has been brought up as a barometer for my taste twice now. :P


Now you know how I feel with Armageddon.

:P

[Sven]

I've read many many intensely intelligent and in-depth and enlightening and theoretic defenses of Blade Runner (it was one of the films studied in my film theory class a year or so ago). As a piece of intellect, the film is arty and smarty and quite possibly neat. But I can't get past how clunky and airy it is. It's got wonderful shots in it (hooray for practical effects!), but it doesn't feel like they amount to that much.

[Sycophant]

If there's a single problem with Blade Runner, I might actually point to how calculated it all feels. :confused:

Anyway, I did love the practical effects. Question, though: were there so many lens flares in earlier cuts? They stood out in the overhead sequences and really grated on me.

[Raiders]

I have always had major quibbles with Blade Runner because the central dichotomy between replicators and humans isn't developed and frankly, isn't even there. The human characters are nothing, and Deckard is the ultimate "is he?" because ultimately he could be either and his character wouldn't be viewed any differently for me. There is no human interest imbedded into the film, nothing that makes the replicators' "humanity" anything special because the film doesn't define any form of human emotion. A friend of mine once commented that Scott's film was reminiscent of 2001 in that the robots were more human than the humans, but I diagreed on one major point: Kubrick's film doesn't try to blur the line but rather to show how our dependence upon robotics has caused the machines to become more human, and humans more robotic. In Scott's film, perception and memory are key, and thus the ability to be able to differentiate real and fiction becomes tantamount. But Scott's film is all illusion, never daring to really ask the question and certainly never answering it. If everyone appears to be the same and the film can't establish the unique human traits that make us so, what is at stake and why should I care?

[number8]

My interview (http://www.justpressplay.net/viewarticle/robert-redfords-america---an-interview-with-the-lions-for-lambs-director.html) with Robert Redford.

[Rowland]

My interview (http://www.justpressplay.net/viewarticle/robert-redfords-america---an-interview-with-the-lions-for-lambs-director.html) with Robert Redford.number8 interviewing Robert Redford. What a world.

:P

[D_Davis]

I have always had major quibbles with Blade Runner because the central dichotomy between replicators and humans isn't developed and frankly, isn't even there. The human characters are nothing, and Deckard is the ultimate "is he?" because ultimately he could be either and his character wouldn't be viewed any differently for me. There is no human interest imbedded into the film, nothing that makes the replicators' "humanity" anything special because the film doesn't define any form of human emotion. A friend of mine once commented that Scott's film was reminiscent of 2001 in that the robots were more human than the humans, but I diagreed on one major point: Kubrick's film doesn't try to blur the line but rather to show how our dependence upon robotics has caused the machines to become more human, and humans more robotic. In Scott's film, perception and memory are key, and thus the ability to be able to differentiate real and fiction becomes tantamount. But Scott's film is all illusion, never daring to really ask the question and certainly never answering it. If everyone appears to be the same and the film can't establish the unique human traits that make us so, what is at stake and why should I care?

Right. The film does a terrible job of examining the same questions PKD so eloquently asks in his book. However, it's still a pretty cool flick.

[balmakboor]

I don't know if I'm too anxious to see Southland Tales but this is interesting:

Wired: What major changes have you made to the film since the screening at Cannes?

Kelly: I cut about 20 minutes off of its 163-minute running time. And we added about 100 visual effects shots and an animated opener that ties things together. I also had Justin rerecord his narration to be more like Martin Sheen's in Apocalypse Now. I had him do it really deadpan.

[Sven]

Appreciation (http://blogs.indiewire.com/reverseshot/archives/015023.html) for Kaufman's brilliant Body Snatchers remake over at Reverse Shot.

Most excellent. I think what I love most about that film is its all-out cinematic imagination. He does some awesome things with editing, movement, and sound that caught me completely by surprise. Plus, Robert Duvall on a swingset!

[soitgoes...]

They did this with me once, only they sent me the film Limbo even though it wasn't on my queue at the time. I watched it, loved it, and subsequently sent it back. My conscience was having a field day. I had no choice.
Yes, my conscience will probably dictate me sending it back too.

[soitgoes...]

I'm glad somebody has watched the link I posted.
I plan on watching it eventually.

[MadMan]

I don't know if I'm too anxious to see Southland Tales but this is interesting:

Wired: What major changes have you made to the film since the screening at Cannes?

Kelly: I cut about 20 minutes off of its 163-minute running time. And we added about 100 visual effects shots and an animated opener that ties things together. I also had Justin rerecord his narration to be more like Martin Sheen's in Apocalypse Now. I had him do it really deadpan.Despite the film's still lengthy running time I still have some desire to see it. An animated opener and Justin's narration being more like Sheen's in Apocalypse Now also sound kind cool.

[Sycophant]

Despite the film's still lengthy running time I still have some desire to see it. An animated opener and Justin's narration being more like Sheen's in Apocalypse Now also sound kind cool.I think I'll have to catch Southland Tales in its theatrical run. It's somehow much easier for me to convince myself to plop down $8 to sit in an uncomfortable movie seat for three hours than it is to commit to the same amount of time as a rental in my apartment.

[Rowland]

Day Night Day Night was a disappointment. I'm not sure what I expected, but this just felt gimmicky, almost entirely absent of perspective. I can imagine all sorts of depth being read into its emptiness, but as compelling and provocative as it sometimes is, it strikes me as a theoretical exercise first and foremost, one that is in its own way just as ideologically reductive as any Hollywood blockbuster. The filmmakers and lead actress acquit themselves well, but sorry, no dice.

[Ezee E]

Day Night Day Night was a disappointment. I'm not sure what I expected, but this just felt gimmicky, almost entirely absent of perspective. I can imagine all sorts of depth being read into its emptiness, but as compelling and provocative as it sometimes is, it strikes me as a theoretical exercise first and foremost, one that is in its own way just as ideologically reductive as any Hollywood blockbuster. The filmmakers and lead actress acquit themselves well, but sorry, no dice.
Anything that was good about it was in the trailer. And then they dragged that out into 90 minutes. Ugh.

[Rowland]

Anything that was good about it was in the trailer. And then they dragged that out into 90 minutes. Ugh.I didn't see the trailer, but that repetition was the point, of course.

[Ezee E]

I didn't see the trailer, but that repetition was the point, of course.
Silly point when they had plenty of other things they could have addressed instead, and actually had potential.

[megladon8]

Today I took a 3-hour class on using Final Cut Pro.

Man it really opened my eyes to exactly what editing is, and what it entails.

I can really see how it's an artform that would take years to master. So much can be added or detracted from a scene/shot by just taking a second or two of static footage out.

We worked with editing a scene of a couple walking into a restaurant and dealing with an ignorant waiter. He's playing crossword puzzles, and doesn't even acknowledge or seat them when they come in.

By adding an extra second of him sitting doing crosswords, followed by a little double-take made by the man between his girlfriend and the waiter, it added a lot more - what I guess you would call - "dramatic tension". Made the waiter seem like much more of a prick.

Anyways, yeh, editing is a powerful tool, and I finally understand it. I somehow feel like I will never watch movies the same way.

[number8]

number8 interviewing Robert Redford. What a world.

:P

Well, Kinji Fukasaku is dead, so... ;)

[Rowland]

Today I took a 3-hour class on using Final Cut Pro.

Man it really opened my eyes to exactly what editing is, and what it entails.

I can really see how it's an artform that would take years to master. So much can be added or detracted from a scene/shot by just taking a second or two of static footage out.

We worked with editing a scene of a couple walking into a restaurant and dealing with an ignorant waiter. He's playing crossword puzzles, and doesn't even acknowledge or seat them when they come in.

By adding an extra second of him sitting doing crosswords, followed by a little double-take made by the man between his girlfriend and the waiter, it added a lot more - what I guess you would call - "dramatic tension". Made the waiter seem like much more of a prick.

Anyways, yeh, editing is a powerful tool, and I finally understand it. I somehow feel like I will never watch movies the same way.The effects of editing should work naturally, so it shouldn't really change how you watch movies, although I suppose you may understand how the editing affects you more now.

[megladon8]

The effects of editing should work naturally, so it shouldn't really change how you watch movies, although I suppose you may understand how the editing affects you more now.


I'm pretty sure you know what I meant...seems like a little bit of unnecesary semantics.

However, what I mean is that I never used to know exactly what I was looking for in judging a film's editing, and whether it did or didn't work - unless it was absolutely, glaringly terrible.

Now I understand exactly what an editor's job is, and how they convert raw footage into the final film. I never knew this before, believe it or not.

[Boner M]

Jesus, no one's done a weekend viewings post yet? What's this new board done to us?! :eek:

Anyway, I only have time for Kings of the Road and Good Men, Good Women.

[Spinal]

I'm going to see Bee Movie in about an hour.

[Ezee E]

I'll be attending a conference of sorts, so nothing this weekend. Next week: The Film Festival.

[Qrazy]

Weekend

The Purple Rose of Cairo
La Joven
Funny Face
Tekkonkinkreet
American Friend
All the Real Girls
Breakfast at Tiffany's

[Raiders]

Weekend:

La Chinoise
The Golden Compass

[number8]

Weekend:

I'm Not There
Rapeman (go ahead, ask)
The Lookout

[megladon8]

Rapeman (go ahead, ask)

This? (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0287649/)

[Eleven]

Rapeman (go ahead, ask)

I will, as long as I don't have to see the costume or hear the battle cry.

[origami_mustache]

Weekend:
The Flight of the Red Balloon
The Savages
Taxidermia

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly if I can make it

[number8]

This? (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0287649/)

Yep. It's about two guys who start this small company called RAPEMAN INC. and their clients basically come to them after being wronged by a woman (like, say, a groom being left at the altar by the bride), and the two men will rape that woman for, er, justice.

Just got it on a bootleg VHS.

[megladon8]

Yep. It's about two guys who start this small company called RAPEMAN INC. and their clients basically come to them after being wronged by a woman (like, say, a groom being left at the altar by the bride), and the two men will rape that woman for, er, justice.

Just got it on a bootleg VHS.


Wow...with a premise like that, no wonder there's 3 sequels.

[Rowland]

Tekkon Kinkreet - Too... fucking... much... :frustrated:

[Briare]

Has anybody here seen von Sterberg's 1927 film Underworld? I ask because there's a screening of it somewhere in my city next week and I'm considering going.

[Winston*]

Weekend
Sunrise
In a Lonely Place

[Philosophe_rouge]

Has anybody here seen von Sterberg's 1927 film Underworld? I ask because there's a screening of it somewhere in my city next week and I'm considering going.
I haven't seen it, but I would on a big screen because at the very least Sternberg could do visuals like few others.

Today I saw Michael Clayton, a decent flick that seemed to tackle a bit too much, however it was compelling and I like the way the material was handled for the most part.

Weekend:
No Way Out (1950)
Kiss of Death (1947)
L'Atalante (1934)

[Rowland]

seemed to tackle a bit too muchIt only gives that impression through all of the sub-plots and the storytelling methods employed. At the end, I was surprised by how straightforward it all was. You're right though that it's a decent flick, I liked it, even if I'm not so sure that I believed in it.

[Philosophe_rouge]

It only gives that impression through all of the sub-plots and the storytelling methods employed. At the end, I was surprised by how straightforward it all was. You're right though that it's a decent flick, I liked it, even if I'm not so sure that I believed in it.
I see what you mean, and it actually only bothered me as an after fact when I began to think it through. When you say you don't believe it, do you mean the character, how the company delt with the situation or something else?

[dreamdead]

This weekend's gonna be spent watching what I neglected last weekend, plus the original version of Apocalypse Now, which will hopefully prove better than the neverending Redux version...

[Philosophe_rouge]

This weekend's gonna be spent watching what I neglected last weekend, plus the original version of Apocalypse Now, which will hopefully prove better than the neverending Redux version...
I actually really liked Redux unlike most people, I thought the fact it was so messy and dragging was a great parallel to Nam'. I guess it didn't hurt that I was no less compelled than with the original version.

[Rowland]

I see what you mean, and it actually only bothered me as an after fact when I began to think it through. When you say you don't believe it, do you mean the character, how the company delt with the situation or something else?Its convictions and the titular character transformation came across as just a tad willfully naive.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Its convictions and the titular character transformation came across as just a tad willfully naive.
I see what you mean, although there never truly was a point for me when I truly understood the character or his convictions in any way. It was very cold/dry and I don't think the transition was TOO much of a stretch because they don't really try to establish him as one type of person to begin with. That was my impression at least. I've seen similar material handled much worse than this, and while that's not really a fair grounds for giving praise to this film I'm on the fence in terms of Clayton as a character.

[Silencio]

Silly point when they had plenty of other things they could have addressed instead, and actually had potential.What else could they have addressed without padding the film with bias and politics? It's stripping suicide bombing down to the act itself and showing how it affects the individual both mentally and physically, nothing more, nothing less. That in and of itself is quite fascinating, at least to me.

[Rowland]

I see what you mean, although there never truly was a point for me when I truly understood the character or his convictions in any way. It was very cold/dry and I don't think the transition was TOO much of a stretch because they don't really try to establish him as one type of person to begin with. That was my impression at least. I've seen similar material handled much worse than this, and while that's not really a fair grounds for giving praise to this film I'm on the fence in terms of Clayton as a character.Regarding convictions, I was referring more to the overriding political convictions of the piece. As for Clayton, the scene that jumps out in my mind is when he confronts Pollack near the end. "What if U North is bad?" Clayton posits, and Pollack responds with entirely justified incredulity. At the end, we watch Clayton as he sits in that taxi, and what are we supposed to see? I'm not so sure...

[Rowland]

What else could they have addressed without padding the film with bias and politics? It's stripping suicide bombing down to the act itself and showing how it affects the individual both mentally and physically, nothing more, nothing less. That in and of itself is quite fascinating, at least to me.All it amounts to is "suicide bombers have feelings too," and it accomplishes even that only half-convincingly.

[Silencio]

All it amounts to is "suicide bombers have feelings too," and it accomplishes even that only half-convincingly.In the end, maybe, not quite that simply. It's a topic worthy of exploration, I think, and the way the filmmakers go about it is respectful.

[Rowland]

In the end, maybe, not quite that simply. It's a topic worthy of exploration, I think, and the way the filmmakers go about it is respectful.It'd be respectful if it wasn't so toothless. It approaches suicide bombers as an abstract concept and "explores" it in a similarly abstract manner, all the while exploiting the subject matter for suspenseful audience anticipation.

[Silencio]

It'd be respectful if it wasn't so toothless. It approaches suicide bombers as an abstract concept and "explores" it in a similarly abstract manner, all the while exploiting the subject matter for suspenseful audience anticipation.How else can they approach it? Are there attempted suicide bombers coming out and telling their stories to the public? The best way to approach it is from an "unexperienced" point-of-view, trying to understand the act and shine an exposing light on it. And I wouldn't call it exploitation per say, the film is putting us in the shoes of the lead and the emotions felt parallel accordingly.

[Rowland]

How else can they approach it? Are there attempted suicide bombers coming out and telling their stories to the public? There's no other way to approach but from an "unexperienced" point-of-view, trying to understand the act and shine an exposing light on it.It doesn't try to understand or expose anything. We don't learn anything, not even the perspective of the filmmakers beyond what they imagine it to be like. There is nothing to the movie besides the context-free emptiness of what we are shown. Day turns to Night turns to Day turns to Night.
And I wouldn't call it exploitation per say, the film is putting us in the shoes of the lead and the emotions felt parallel accordingly.It is exploitation because nothing exists beyond what is directly experienced, and what's directly experienced plays directly off of the fear of terrorism on our soil as a suspense-mechanism to sustain interest beyond what is otherwise a deliberately repetitive experience. Yes, the character feels some emotions, but with zero context, she remains an abstraction and her convictions a nonentity.

[Silencio]

It doesn't try to understand or expose anything. We don't learn anything, not even the perspective of the filmmakers beyond what they imagine it to be like. There is nothing to the movie besides the context-free emptiness of what we are shown. Day turns to Night turns to Day turns to Night.

It is exploitation because nothing exists beyond what is directly experienced, and what's directly experienced plays directly off of the fear of terrorism on our soil as a suspense-mechanism to sustain interest beyond what is otherwise a deliberately repetitive experience. Yes, the character feels some emotions, but with zero context, she remains an abstraction and her convictions a nonentity.What the act feels like is what I meant by understand/expose. I agree that it's a thin concept that doesn't reach too far, but had there been a filmmakers' perspective, how relevant would it be? It'd be another person's view on this feared act that would only cause debate surrounding the filmmakers' politics and less on the actual quality of the film itself.

The exact nature of the girl's cause is made all but irrelevant so that we see the act only as it is, and then can only assume, from our own personal political backgrounds, what the motive for such an act could possibly be. All the context that we need to know is about the primary human reaction to committing such an act, mostly the physical effects on the body and psyche. That's it, the filmmakers didn't strive for more because convictions only breed detail, and then we'd get a whole life story, and the film would be something completely different.

[Rowland]

What the act feels like is what I meant by understand/expose. I agree that it's a thin concept that doesn't reach too far, but had there been a filmmakers' perspective, how relevant would it be? It'd be another person's view on this feared act that would only cause debate surrounding the filmmakers' politics and less on the actual quality of the film itself.

The exact nature of the girl's cause is made all but irrelevant so that we see the act only as it is, and then can only assume, from our own personal political backgrounds, what the motive for such an act could possibly be. All the context that we need to know is about the primary human reaction to committing such an act, mostly the physical effects on the body and psyche. That's it, the filmmakers didn't strive for more because convictions only breed detail, and then we'd get a whole life story, and the film would be something completely different.I have a feeling that we'll keep going in circles here, so I'll just link to something (http://www.reverseshot.com/article/reverse_shot_day_night_day_nig ht) that makes the essence of my argument better than I can. I understand what you are saying, but the movie is too timid to even effectively commit to the convictions you are arguing it strives toward. Less isn't always more.

[MadMan]

I actually really liked Redux unlike most people, I thought the fact it was so messy and dragging was a great parallel to Nam'. I guess it didn't hurt that I was no less compelled than with the original version.To me the Redux is only a step down from the original. I didn't find either version boring, but then I think I'm one of the biggest Apocalypse Now supporters on the boards. If I ever actually re-structure my Top 25 into something I can even find remotely satisfying you'll discover just how much of a fan I am of Coppola's 1979 masterpiece.

Weekend:

Dave Chappelle's Block Party(2006)
Cowboy Bebop: The Movie(2002)

[Sycophant]

Weekend:

Top Hat
Brother (1997)
National Treasure
Stalker
The World Sinks Except Japan
Kikujiro (repeat)

[Rowland]

Assuming Netflix gets my returns tomorrow... Weekend:

12:08 East of Bucharest
Gracie
No Country for Old Men

[Derek]

L'Atalante (1934)

One of the greatest films ever made, plus it has two of the most romantic sequences I've ever seen. I hope you love it!

[Watashi]

Weekend:

Before the Devil Knows Your Dead
Lions for Lambs
The Lady Eve

[soitgoes...]

Weekend:

On the Beach
Faust (1926)
The Emerald Forest
The Lovers on the Bridge
The Wild Blue Yonder

[Bosco B Thug]

Weekend:

Hairspray (1988)

[soitgoes...]

Has anyone heard if Deep Discount has started their November sale or possibly when it does start if it hasn't yet?

[Philosophe_rouge]

One of the greatest films ever made, plus it has two of the most romantic sequences I've ever seen. I hope you love it!
I've heard nothing but great things about it, I hope it lives up to it's reputation.


Weekend:

Before the Devil Knows Your Dead
Lions for Lambs
The Lady Eve
The Lady Eve is great, what other Sturges have you seen, or will this pop your Sturges cherry?

[Mal]

Weekend
Summer of '42
Munich
Whatever my mother drags me to tonight
(hopefully not Fred Claus)

[Watashi]

I've heard nothing but great things about it, I hope it lives up to it's reputation.


The Lady Eve is great, what other Sturges have you seen, or will this pop your Sturges cherry?

I've seen Sullivan's Travels and Unfaithfully Yours. Both were excellent (especially the latter).

[Philosophe_rouge]

I've seen Sullivan's Travels and Unfaithfully Yours. Both were excellent (especially the latter).
:pritch: I love them both too, although Sullivan's slightly more. I don't think Eve is NEARLY as good as these two, but I saw it years ago. I hope you love it.

[soitgoes...]

Apparently Deep Discount's Fall Sale has started. The promo code is DD1109 if anyone cares.

[Briare]

Gracie

This one was quite surprising, actually. Standard spots story, but has a lot of coming of age themes that ring quite true and Carly Schroeder is gold.

[number8]

Well, Rapeman was goddamn fantastic.

[Ezee E]

The Shining on Blu-Ray with the different aspect ratio is definitely something ol' Stanley would've gotten behind. It looks amazing, bringing out red better then any other movie I can think of. The scene where Shelley Duvall walks through a red hallway to the elevator stook out in particular for some reason.

Also, some cool random trivia, the door Jack chops down was a real door. They tried a fake one at first, but he was a volunteer firefighter at one point in his life, and it was too easy for him to rip to shreds, so they had to go to a real one. Sweeet.

[ledfloyd]

weekend:
Love in the Afternoon (first rohmer film)
Down by Law

and if real life doesn't interfere i might catch either or both of Battle of Algiers and Bridge on the River Kwai on TCM saturday. and sunday night give Blow-Up another shot perhaps.

[Saya]

Well, Rapeman was goddamn fantastic.

Good to hear! I've had it here for a while, but never got around to watching it.

Weekend:

Rescue Dawn
The Simpsons Movie
Hairspray
maybe Troll 2 or The House with the Laughing Windows

[chrisnu]

No Country for Old Men! Woohoo!

I may also see Gone Baby Gone this weekend.

[Grouchy]

I disagree that Michael Clayton's transformation as a character is forced. I think Clayton always knows he's in the wrong side of the fence and, even after discovering that his colleague might've been murdered, he takes the bribe to keep silent. It's only after Tilda Swinton's character foolishly tries to kill him that he reacts and he realizes that he can become a casualty at any moment. That's what drives him to do the right thing. He says as much to Tilda - "I'm not the guy that you kill, I'm the guy that you buy".

As for the taxi credit sequence, I think we're supposed to think the story over while we're watching Michael do the same. I liked Michael Clayton, and I'm not a great fan of courtroom drama. The one thing I disliked was that it started with a scene taken from the ending. That was completely pointless, distracting and confusing, since afterwards they told the story linearly.

I saw Altered, which is a UFO movie by the Mexican half of the Blair Witch Project directors. I recommend it to everybody interested. It's about this group of friends who were once abducted by aliens and now some of them, 18 years later, have managed to capture one live specimen. The creature FX are amazing and have a home-made feel to them, the script is smart and it takes some unexpected turns, and the acting is fairly above what you'd have a right to expect from the movie, which only contributes to the suspense. It's Evil Dead for the X-Files universe, if that makes sense. My friend disliked how it jumped from thriller to stupid comedy and then to a serious, dramatic moment, but that's actually what I liked best.

[Sycophant]

National Treasure was even dumber and more inane than I'd expected it would be.

I was surprised to find out Caleb Deschanel shot it; it didn't even look that good.

[D_Davis]

I saw Altered, which is a UFO movie by the Mexican half of the Blair Witch Project directors. I recommend it to everybody interested. It's about this group of friends who were once abducted by aliens and now some of them, 18 years later, have managed to capture one live specimen. The creature FX are amazing and have a home-made feel to them, the script is smart and it takes some unexpected turns, and the acting is fairly above what you'd have a right to expect from the movie, which only contributes to the suspense. It's Evil Dead for the X-Files universe, if that makes sense. My friend disliked how it jumped from thriller to stupid comedy and then to a serious, dramatic moment, but that's actually what I liked best.

This sounds cool. I think I might check it out this weekend.

[Sven]

National Treasure was even dumber and more inane than I'd expected it would be.

I was surprised to find out Caleb Deschanel shot it; it didn't even look that good.

Why'd you watch it? Curiosity?

[Doclop]

Saw The Kite Runner last night. Took me a bit to get into, but not having read the book, I was quite taken aback at the story. Pretty miraculous and moving. The movie walks a fine line between social nuance and mainstream earnestness, but I think, for the most part, it works. The direction is very straightforward and much of the acting is very middle-of-the-road, but it's an effective film that just barely overcomes a seemingly unstoppable propensity to buckle under the weight of a story this heavy-handed. A pretty good film, but nothing to really cause any kind of stir (cinematically, at least!).

[Sycophant]

Why'd you watch it? Curiosity?After three years of ridiculing it and rolling my eyes at it, I heard the plot described in a way that I saw the opportunity for some deliciously over-the-top antics and decided to see if it went that way. It could have, but it didn't. As I've told you in the past, I've also been wanting to be less safe with my viewing choices.

[Raiders]

Thank GOD Spinal posted that thread on animated films. I completely forgot I have tickets to the showing of Persepolis tomorrow night. I would have been kicking myself for months if I had missed that. This is the problem with ordering tickets too far in advance.

[Watashi]

Blankman is on HD right now.

Yes!

[D_Davis]

Thank GOD Spinal posted that thread on animated films. I completely forgot I have tickets to the showing of Persepolis tomorrow night. I would have been kicking myself for months if I had missed that. This is the problem with ordering tickets too far in advance.

This looks fascinating.

[Winston*]

I watched Smokin' Aces last night. When should I expect my eyes to stop bleeding?

[Eleven]

I watched Smokin' Aces last night. When should I expect my eyes to stop bleeding?

I'd suggest getting acquainted with the fascinating and useful art of braille.

[D_Davis]

I watched Smokin' Aces last night. When should I expect my eyes to stop bleeding?

It took me a few months.

[Derek]

I watched Smokin' Aces last night. When should I expect my eyes to stop bleeding?

Where made you watch it?

[Winston*]

Where made you watch it?
Morbid curiosity. And Satan, I'm pretty sure Satan had a hand in it.

I mean seriously, this movie's like on a Clerks II level of bad.

[Rowland]

I've been meaning to rent Smokin' Aces since its release on DVD. I'll get to it eventually.

[MadMan]

I've been meaning to rent Smokin' Aces since its release on DVD. I'll get to it eventually.Same here. I imagine both of us will like it, or at least find something worthwhile in it. Or maybe you will and I won't, or vice versa. I donno. But I think Rowland you and I may have more similar movie tastes than I previously thought. That could be wrong too. I donno.

Cowboy Bebop: The Movie is awesome. The animation is fluid and gorgous, the soundtrack brimming and full of life. Its pretty entertaining, and the cast of regulars are their usual awesome selves (I've seen some of the show thanks to Adult Swim). There is a pretty badass chase scene that couldn't be done without animation and an kickass opener with Spike being Spike heh. However the secondary character of Electra is never really fleshed out and she seemed almost superficial and pointless; while they attempted to make the villian out into some sort of Frankentstein's monster I felt he elicted neither pitty from me, nor was he menancing. Still I'm glad I saw the movie, and I actually want to seek out more of the show as a result. So far as TV shows to movie adaptions goes its pretty damn good.

[D_Davis]

Cowboy Bebop: The Movie is awesome. The animation is fluid and gorgous, the soundtrack brimming and full of life.

It also has an incredible opening credit sequence. I love it. So inventive.

It is not as good as the two part TV episode, The Ballad of Fallen Angels. Two of the best animated episodes ever made, IMO.

[koji]

Ludivine Sagnier's breasts! This is not a false come on, like the earlier thread ;) Those mighty twins are available on Netflix Watch Now and in the first seconds of the film (http://www.netflix.com/WatchNowMovie?movieid=70011227&trkid=199332). I haven't finished watching the film yet, so I have no more comments at this time.

[Spinal]

Ludivine Sagnier's breasts! This is not a false come on, like the earlier thread ;) Those mighty twins are available on Netflix Watch Now and in the first seconds of the film (http://www.netflix.com/WatchNowMovie?movieid=70011227&trkid=199332). I haven't finished watching the film yet, so I have no more comments at this time.

Are we talking about La Petite Lili?

[Sycophant]

It also has an incredible opening credit sequence. I love it. So inventive.

It is not as good as the two part TV episode, The Ballad of Fallen Angels. Two of the best animated episodes ever made, IMO.
Can I correct you? "The Ballad of Fallen Angels" is episode 5 and only consists of one episodes. There are two two-parters, both amazing: "Jupiter Jazz" and "The Real Folk Blues." "The Real Folk Blues" closes the series and is what I'd bet you're referring to, because it's pure awesomesauce.

While the movie's pretty damned great (love, love the opening credit sequence), I'd actually rank it inferior to the better third or half of the television episodes.

[Qrazy]

Weekend:

On the Beach
Faust (1926)
The Emerald Forest
The Lovers on the Bridge
The Wild Blue Yonder

Faust is fantastic, better than Nosferatu. The Emerald Forest is meh tending toward bleh and The Wild Blue Yonder was severely lacking... moments of beauty encased in a meandering, poorly edited, patched together faux-narrative.

Interested in hearing thoughts on On the Beach since I had to read it in high school... and while it wasn't nearly as good as my teacher seemed to think it was... it was still an engaging read.

[D_Davis]

Can I correct you? "The Ballad of Fallen Angels" is episode 5 and only consists of one episodes. There are two two-parters, both amazing: "Jupiter Jazz" and "The Real Folk Blues." "The Real Folk Blues" closes the series and is what I'd bet you're referring to, because it's pure awesomesauce.

While the movie's pretty damned great (love, love the opening credit sequence), I'd actually rank it inferior to the better third or half of the television episodes.

Right. My mistake. The last two parter is awesome, but Ballad of Fallen Angels is probably my favorite 30 minutes of animation. For some reason I was thinking this was the two parter.

[Sycophant]

Right. My mistake. The last two parter is awesome, but Ballad of Fallen Angels is probably my favorite 30 minutes of animation. For some reason I was thinking this was the two parter."Ballad of Fallen Angels" is, yes, beyond awesome.

[number8]

Hooray, I'm Not There was far from sucky. It was transcendent.

[Sycophant]

Hooray, I'm Not There was far from sucky. It was transcendent.Has there been anyone here who has disliked it yet? I'm still wary (but intrigued enough to see it).

[Rowland]

sycophant, is the Ebert quote in your signature there to justify the fact that you watched National Treasure? :lol:

[koji]

Are we talking about La Petite Lili?Mais oui. Maybe it's nothing new for the fans, but it is readily available.

[Mr. Valentine]

weekend viewings:

Superman: Doomsday
and more of my Kubrick boxset.

[MadMan]

So tonight I also got Brick and Adaptation (yeah I'm finally going to watch it this time). So far I've watched the former film.

I'm saving more thoughts for a larger review. But right now my reaction to Brick is this: the critics were right. What a fantastic movie, and an excellent homage to film noir. I'd say that its falls into neo-noir, but it also pays tribute to many great film noirs. The kid actors all do a wonderful job, and I must say that I was shocked by how powerful the third act is. I'll be penning down a draft sometime this week.

[number8]

Superman: Doomsday

It was better than I thought.

[Watashi]

Hey 8, did you ever write a review for Lions for Lambs?

[Mr. Valentine]

It was better than I thought.

It's been on "Very Long Wait" at netflix since it came out a few months ago. I've wanted to watch it for awhile.

[number8]

Hey 8, did you ever write a review for Lions for Lambs?

Well, I kinda slipped my thoughts in just a little in my Robert Redford article/interview, but I decided not to do a full review because of my flat reaction to it. It was better and more balanced than I initially thought and what other critics are saying, but it's just so bland, self-righteous and pseudo-preachy that I have no intention to recommend it to anyone at all.

Yet, I appreciated what it was trying to say, and like I said in the article, I feel wrong criticizing it when its main message is that "do whatever it takes to get involved and do something instead of just whining and complaining." So I opted out. I wouldn't have anything better to add to it anyway.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Watched Kiss me Deadly (1947), as I try to run down the "major" noirs I've yet to see. It's above average as far as movies go, but doesn't stand out as something particularly special, visually, thematically or entertainment wise. I actually hate Victor Mature, but he's not too bad here. What really gets me is Widmark. This guy is the bomb, easily one of my favourite actors I like him more and more as I run through his filmography. He's positively maniacal as Tommy Udo, and while he has limited screentime his presence is felt throughout the entire film. The ending feels as if it rushes to appease to the censors, which is no surprise considering some of the scenes that were supposedly cut (apparently involved rape, although it's hard to say how directly this was dealt with).

[number8]

I've been going on a noir binge again lately too since I saw Blast of Silence, and started picking random movies off the noir section. Just saw The Big Clock a few nights ago, and it's pretty damn cool. I love small crime thrillers like this.

[Philosophe_rouge]

I've been going on a noir binge again lately too since I saw Blast of Silence, and started picking random movies off the noir section. Just saw The Big Clock a few nights ago, and it's pretty damn cool. I love small crime thrillers like this.
I've never heard of Blast of Silence, but I have heard great things about The Big Clock but haven't seen it. I usually just take any noir, because it's a genre/style that I very consistently enjoy. Aside from Kiss me Deadly, I picked up No Way Out (again with Widmark, also Poitier), but have yet to see it. Noir is just :pritch:

[MadMan]

I've been trying to up my noir viewing as well in the past year. I really like the genre, especially its stylish flushes and its rather entertaining and notable cliches.

[Philosophe_rouge]

I've been trying to up my noir viewing as well in the past year. I really like the genre, especially its stylish flushes and its rather entertaining and notable cliches.
What are your favourites you've seen so far?

[ledfloyd]

I've been going on a noir binge again lately too since I saw Blast of Silence, and started picking random movies off the noir section. Just saw The Big Clock a few nights ago, and it's pretty damn cool. I love small crime thrillers like this.
how did you see blast of silence?

[Sycophant]

I'm readying a noir binge myself. I'm trying to get the highest profile ones out of the way first (only recently seen The Maltese Falcon, Double Indemnity, Out of the Past, and The Asphalt Jungle--all of which were great), but I've got D.O.A. and some others coming up in the queue. As much as I've enjoyed these, I think I need to watch a lot more of them more frequently.

[Philosophe_rouge]

I'm readying a noir binge myself. I'm trying to get the highest profile ones out of the way first (only recently seen The Maltese Falcon, Double Indemnity, Out of the Past, and The Asphalt Jungle--all of which were great), but I've got D.O.A. and some others coming up in the queue. As much as I've enjoyed these, I think I need to watch a lot more of them more frequently.
Want to hear something CRAZY. All those noirs (except DOA) I've seen, and am personally indifferent to every one of them (at best). Although, with the exception of Out of the Past, I saw all of them over three years ago.

[Boner M]

Want to hear something CRAZY. All those noirs (except DOA) I've seen, and am personally indifferent to every one of them (at best).
Considering you think noir is :pritch: , that is crazy stuff indeed.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Considering you think noir is :pritch: , that is crazy stuff indeed.
I suppose I should rewatch them eventually, although I can imagine enjoying them on second viewings... less so Asphalt Jungle. I also don't like the Killing much. I also didn't like The Third Man much first time around... but it's grown on me since. I should rewatch that too.

[MadMan]

What are your favourites you've seen so far?So far my favorites are The Third Man(1949) and The Maltese Falcon(1941) for old school film noir. For neo-noir its Blade Runner(1982) and Memento(2000).

[number8]

how did you see blast of silence?

Awesome local video store that has everything, including bootlegs and imports.

[Boner M]

I suppose I should rewatch them eventually, although I can imagine enjoying them on second viewings... less so Asphalt Jungle. I also don't like the Killing much. I also didn't like The Third Man much first time around... but it's grown on me since. I should rewatch that too.
I'm not a fan of Asphalt Jungle either; I saw it right after Rififi and it seemed anemic in comparison. Maybe it deserves a second chance... actually, it doesn't. That is all.

[Grouchy]

Watched Kiss me Deadly (1947), as I try to run down the "major" noirs I've yet to see. It's above average as far as movies go, but doesn't stand out as something particularly special, visually, thematically or entertainment wise. I actually hate Victor Mature, but he's not too bad here. What really gets me is Widmark. This guy is the bomb, easily one of my favourite actors I like him more and more as I run through his filmography. He's positively maniacal as Tommy Udo, and while he has limited screentime his presence is felt throughout the entire film. The ending feels as if it rushes to appease to the censors, which is no surprise considering some of the scenes that were supposedly cut (apparently involved rape, although it's hard to say how directly this was dealt with).
That's not Kiss me Deadly, it's Kiss of Death you're talking about. Deadly is the Mike Hammer noir which is about an uranium bomb, and it's awesome. The Mature/Widmark one is on my to-see list.

I recently completed a short pilot episode with a friend for filmaka.com which was a noir satire, and that compelled me to watch a lot of noir. The Big Clock was awesome, and it's the only screwball noir I know of. The Asphalt Jungle is inferior to RififÃ* which is pretty similar, but I wouldn't call it bad. The Big Heat became one of my favorites.

[Philosophe_rouge]

That's not Kiss me Deadly, it's Kiss of Death you're talking about. Deadly is the Mike Hammer noir which is about an uranium bomb, and it's awesome. The Mature/Widmark one is on my to-see list.

I recently completed a short pilot episode with a friend for filmaka.com which was a noir satire, and that compelled me to watch a lot of noir. The Big Clock was awesome, and it's the only screwball noir I know of. The Asphalt Jungle is inferior to RififÃ* which is pretty similar, but I wouldn't call it bad. The Big Heat became one of my favorites.
Yes, I ALWAYS make that mistake and mentally told myself not to do that... but did.

The Big Heat is excellent, probably my favourite noir.

[Grouchy]

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y121/HawleyGriffin/_11811872416789.jpg?t=11947231 15

Halloween
Rob Zombie, 2007

If someone had told me, before this movie was announced, that there was a remake of Halloween in the works, I would've renounced God and set my right foot on fire in the spur of the moment, even if you told me Martin fucking Scorsese was directing or something. But when this was announced as "Rob Zombie's Halloween", for some reason that gave me hope for the project. I liked House of 1000 Corpses for what it was and I was swept away but how vastly superior The Devil's Rejects was, one of my favorites of its year. But, besides all that, Zombie looked like the right choice because he's a fan and because I thought he wouldn't try to make a substitute for Carpenter's movie - he'd try something different.

Well, did he? Yes and no. I'll explain. The movie starts by showing us Mike Myer's childhood, which pretty much sucks. His dad died, his mom is a strip dancer famous all over town, and his stepdad is a drunken cripple who hates his guts. The sister doesn't help much, either. Now, in the original Halloween, nothing was said about Myer's home, and that led us to believe that it was a happy one, which made him all the scarier since he seemed to be a true-to-life natural born killer. Zombie, on the other hand, wanted to show us the building of a psycho. From his first dead animals to the first time he brutally attacks a human being, ending on that infamous October 31st, his first mask, and the mental institution years. We see his building relationship with Dr. Loomis (Jesus Christ, it's Alex DeLarge!), the fate of the Myers family, etc.

Now, there's a great movie in there, one that Rob Zombie could've made. Instead, we have a movie split in two halves - the first is the one that I've just described, and in the second comes the actual Halloween remake. Let's take a look back at the original, then. What was scary and unique about that movie, one that kickstarted the most prolific Horror sub-genre? The fact that we knew so little about the killer that every glimpse of him (and even the split-second where we get to see his face) was precious. That's why the enormous fan response led to no less than 6 sequels about the Myers character - and an unrelated one. The suspense Carpenter created came from the belief the characters and the audience shared that the killer is not a human being, but some sort of supernatural entity - a "shape", like it was called in the credits.

In Zombie's movie, since we've just spent an hour watching the origin story of this psycho, we know him only too well. By the time the babysitter murders kick in, the movie becomes an uber-sadistic, kinetic, Rob Zombie slasher movie... but it doesn't even come close to being scary. And Carpenter's Halloween IS scary. So what's the point in trying? Why couldn't Zombie have directed a prequel? Or a sequel that explained all the psycho stuff he was so obviously interested in? I would've loved either one of those unmade movies, but the one that we got is oddly paced and disjointed, like two episodes of a very violent mini-series on the big screen.

Of course, I still recommend it. The cast alone of regular Zombies makes it worth a casual look - Malcolm McDowell, übergoddess Sheri Moon (I'd cut my own limbs for that woman), William Forsythe, Danny Trejo (in a great role as a hospital worker that deserved a lot more screentime), Ken Foree, Udo Kier, Bill Moseley and Brad Dourif all steam up the screen with strong performances. It's a pity a little more thought put into the intentions of the script could've made it one of the worthiest entrances in the Halloween canon, instead of a failed remake attempt.

[Rowland]

I think Zombie was interested in how the family context would alter the original. After all, Laurie wasn't Michael's sister in Carpenter's movie. I don't think Zombie was even trying to be scary, but rather attempting to evoke this bestial force driving Michael in his pursuit of idealized innocence, which fundamentally alters how the material in the second half that recreates the original plays out.

[lovejuice]

yesterday i watched the weirdest adaptation of hamlet EVER. infact i dare say it's the strangest adaptation of any of the bard's.

the movie is co-funded by china and tibet, called prince of himalaya. you guess the setting. that however is the least surprising thing about it. the first half follows the original to some minutest details. horrendous editing aside, i'm contended.

now come the second half, begin with hamlet being revealed he's actually claudius and gertrude's love child. infact claudius tried to protect the prince from the wrath of the old hamlet after the king'd learned of this fact. thereby he assassinated his brother. during this second half claudius tries to protect hamlet from laertes who wants his revenge. (they keep the same relationship dynamics among hamlet, ophelia, laertes, and polonius.)

during this second half, i'm so distracted by how they're going to acrobat the story so that it has the same conclusion. claudius poisons hamlet's sword, not laertes, and after a bunch of complication that doesn't make sense, everyone fortunately is dead.

i'm really put off right after the movie. they keep lot of things including the presence of fortinbras, horatio, rosencrantz, guildenstern and some monologues. yet they change this mother plot point. the movie probably tries to give some anti-revenge pro-forgiveness messege. the old hamlet's ghost symbolizes dark god, and hamlet is under his spell. at the end when he can turn the sword to his false father, the prince's spirit is free.

perhaps they're trying to "modernize" the play to answer today political conflict. i'm not sure though that the same messege can't be received from the original. the adaptation is awkward. still a very interesting experience. sort of what the play would have been, if shakespeare're much less gifted.

[Qrazy]

I suppose I should rewatch them eventually, although I can imagine enjoying them on second viewings... less so Asphalt Jungle. I also don't like the Killing much. I also didn't like The Third Man much first time around... but it's grown on me since. I should rewatch that too.

I love all of those... just slightly less for Out of the Past and The Asphalt Jungle. The Big Heat doesn't do much for me.

[Boner M]

Just watched Dead of Night. Was damn good, even though only 2 of the 5 segments worked. But they're (Mirror/Ventriloquist) both totally awesome and take up half of the film, and the climax is nightmarish as fuck. Not a big fan of horror anthologies (or really any kind of anthology films), but this is definitely the best I've seen.

[rocus]

For neo-noir its Blade Runner(1982) and Memento(2000).
Have you seen Dark City? I really thought that one was very good.