28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[Ivan Drago]

Miller's The Spirit is like watching a Korean film on acid, where tonal shifts just break up all momentum rather than energizing the content and structural flow. Badly written, badly cast (Mendes being especially awful), and misogynistic throughout (seriously, get some and stop lusting after anything in a skirt, man). Beyond mediocre--this is now the worst film I've viewed this year.

"It's just so damn...odd."

[Watashi]

Network (Lumet). Meh. Didn't do it for me, though I can see why people might like it. The contract negotiation among the terrorist group was the best moment for me. Howard Beale's collective rants might be the worst.

You are a horrible human being.

And Zombieland is shit.

[B-side]

The notion of Zombieland being superior to Network is simply astounding.

[Qrazy]

Yeah DavidSeven shame on you. SHAME.

[B-side]

Yeah DavidSeven shame on you. SHAME.

People have been drawn and quartered for lesser crimes.

[Stay Puft]

Dreamscape is a remarkably silly, silly film and very 80s in its look and execution. This is both a fault and a compliment as much of it is never less than moderately entertaining.

I just watched this the other week myself, and agree. It's fun, and an amusing relic of the 80's (more of a compliment than a fault for me, personally, as I sort of love when stuff is dated like this). Though as you say, lacking in any real sense of human drama.



and rather uncomfortably in one sequence seems to equate what amounts to molestation to romance.

And, yes, WTF at that sequence. My jaw was on the floor. I lost it when she woke up out of the dream and just sort of admitted that, yes, she really wanted that to happen.

Like, uh, the guy just walked into your dream and had his way with you. You had no idea what was happening. You were basically dream-raped.

[Henry Gale]

Yeah, I'm not sure what's brought on this sudden surge of Dreamscape viewings (considering how I've seen it pop up in a few signatures), but I also watched it about a month ago and wasn't very impressed, despite slight glimmers of interesting ideas that are kind of jumbled over top of each other that never allow them to really pay off. A lot happens in its runtime, and a lot of it's rushed in a way that makes little of it very exciting.

Not much to really add to what Raiders said though, it has some really distinct and cool images, but without much emotional context to them, and in every other way it feels like it should be a better movie than it is. I do think it's a premise and property that could actually benefit from a remake/ modern re-working as either a movie or a good TV show. (I would actually expect it to happen post-Inception.)

From my dad quickly mentioning what the movie was to me as a kid, I think I understood the basic idea of the movie was simply a group of people that began to see that people around them were dying in real life as a result of dying in their dreams, and subsequently battling the forces that may have been causing it. Not in a Nightmare on Elm Street way (since I hadn't seen that when I was that young), but in a sci-fi Indiana Jones / Goonies / (any great 80s adventure movie) way. Much of that may have come as a result of imagining it through the Drew Struzan cover art, but I still think I like the tone and barebones approach of the version I had in my head a bit better.

[DavidSeven]

Eh, I didn't think Zombieland was great nor did I think Network was awful. They both probably hover around the tried and true "B-" area. A quick search suggests that Raiders and Boner don't like the latter either, so uh, spread some of the hate around. Plus, Raiders seems to like Zombieland a lot more than I do.

Yes, I will always take the opportunity to bring down others with me.

[Adam]

I'm not a Network fan and I'd probably rather watch Zombieland again over it. And the scene David7 singled out especially doesn't do it for me. That whole subplot with the Patty Hearst parody and the terrorists and whatnot felt like outtakes from a bad Zucker brothers movie

I've been trying to decide if should watch The Hospital - Don't like Chayefsky, but I most definitely do like George C. Scott

[DavidSeven]

I wonder what makes Network a great film? If you find Chayefsky's viewpoints interesting, then fair enough, but these never-ending monologues strike me as something that would be more palatable while read in an essay and not seen in a film. What does the film have beyond that? It's not dramatically effective. It's tonally inconsistent. Lumet's ultra-formal direction doesn't seem like a great match for the absurdist and self-conscious elements of the screenplay. And since servicing screenplays is all Lumet ever does, I didn't find much to appreciate about the direction independent of what Chayefsky wrote. Like I said, I understand people liking the film, but my feeling is that it's mostly because Chayefsky's diatribes strike a chord with some. To me, it's not nearly as effective as something like Dr. Strangelove, which has filmmaking elements outside of its politicizing that are worth admiring and is a heck of a lot funnier.

[Adam]

You're right. It is interesting and prescient in its skewering of media entities controlled by corporations, but the screenplay itself is terrible. Doesn't work at all in the context of a film. And the actual human drama in the movie is so barf-worthy. Worst scene is William Holden's speech to Faye Dunaway in her apartment using the extended metaphor of how she sees relationships through the filter of her job

I'll disagree slightly on Lumet's direction, though. The Ned Beatty sequence is done pretty majestically

[Qrazy]

I wonder what makes Network a great film? If you find Chayefsky's viewpoints interesting, then fair enough, but these never-ending monologues strike me as something that would be more palatable while read in an essay and not seen in a film. What does the film have beyond that? It's not dramatically effective. It's tonally inconsistent. Lumet's ultra-formal direction doesn't seem like a great match for the absurdist and self-conscious elements of the screenplay. And since servicing screenplays is all Lumet ever does, I didn't find much to appreciate about the direction independent of what Chayefsky wrote. Like I said, I understand people liking the film, but my feeling is that it's mostly because Chayefsky's diatribes strike a chord with some. To me, it's not nearly as effective as something like Dr. Strangelove, which has filmmaking elements outside of its politicizing that are worth admiring and is a heck of a lot funnier.

When you say Chayefsky's diatribes you are referring to what? Beale's diatribes? Because the film does not embrace Beale's perspective. The film is extremely dramatically successful and narratively brilliant. It demonstrates that no matter what your message or perspective is the powers that be will find some way to co-opt that message even as it rails against them!

[Kurosawa Fan]

Considering my quarantine status, I watched a couple movies today. First was Point Blank, which I really dug. Very cool film. Particularly impressed with the surreal, almost dreamlike atmosphere. Plus, Angie Dickinson is incredibly sexy. Second was Sansho the Bailiff. Wasn't as impressed with this as I wanted to be. For whatever reason, I couldn't get as emotionally involved in the drama as I felt I was supposed to. A few moments of over-the-top melodrama didn't help, but it also could have been my mood. A solid film, but I don't think it's one that will stick with me.

[Raiders]

Eh, I didn't think Zombieland was great nor did I think Network was awful. They both probably hover around the tried and true "B-" area. A quick search suggests that Raiders and Boner don't like the latter either, so uh, spread some of the hate around. Plus, Raiders seems to like Zombieland a lot more than I do.

Yes, I will always take the opportunity to bring down others with me.

Wow.

You know what we do with snitches on the streets of Baltimore?

[Watashi]

Network is one giant meta-soap opera. It's not suppose to work as a traditional film. I love every fucking scene in the movie. Qrazy is right. The film does not "stand" by any message that Howard is spouting.

[Adam]

So then I have to ask: What's the point of making it a "giant meta-soap opera"? To make it feel more tv-like?

[Derek]

Can we all please stop ganging up on D7 for a moment and focus our attention on KF's virtual meh-ing of Sansho the motherfuckin' Bailiff please? Kthxbye.

And Raiders, you're a mod. Can't you override D7's user title and make it say "Snitch Bitch"? :)

[Kurosawa Fan]

Can we all please stop ganging up on D7 for a moment and focus our attention on KF's virtual meh-ing of Sansho the motherfuckin' Bailiff please? Kthxbye.


I thought that was going to slip by unnoticed. It had to be you, Derek.

Though, there isn't much to say when I already admitted that it could have been my mood and my debilitating illness that kept me from appreciating it as much as I wanted. It's just so fucking BLEAK, and like I said, at times I thought it went a tad too far with the melodrama. Still, I gave it three stars. It's not like I didn't appreciate it, it just wasn't as jaw-droppingly good as I was hoping it would be. I wasn't as affected as I was by Ugetsu.

[balmakboor]

I'll just pretend I didn't stop in here and read people bashing Network. Yeah, it simply didn't happen.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Network bashing is the most incomprehensible thing to me. I love everything about that movie. The diatribes are full of interesting and impressive vitriol. The dialogue is dynamite, and the acting is even better. William Holden just completely owns the movie so hard, Dunaway is at her evil bitch-y best and Duvall brings some very much appreciated Duvall ham. The encroachment of Television on personal freedoms is an even more relevant and interesting topic today. The direction is not flashy, yet properly spot on. The narration is great in its drolliness.

Yet half of Match Cut 'mehs' it.

[Boner M]

I got into a pretty epic verbal fight with a friend for meh'ing Network a few days ago. Its fans are pretty touchy, I've realised.

[Irish]

Network's problem now is that it's horribly dated, a vicitim of its own prescience, Ted Turner, 24 hour news cycles, and a culture that actually produces something called "infotainment."

It's a good movie and a good drama, fine acting all around, but it's not terribly necessary in a world where the Daily Show is on five times a week. Hell, it feels almost naive, a product of a bygone era. Sort of like Gentleman's Agreement and Guess Who's Coming to Dinner.

Zombieland is disposable. Good fun until the last act or so, when you know who shows up and the uncharacteristicly sucks all the energy out of the movie.

[B-side]

This is really just my post to get people to check out my write-up on The Blackout.

But to make it a bit less attention-whorish, I'll simply say that I really like William Holden in Network.

[Sycophant]

Kurosawa's 1947 film One Wonderful Sunday possesses so many wonderful scenes (particularly the one where the young couple visits the model home to an absolutely perfectly placed rendition of "My Blue Heaven"). It's a beautiful portrait of occupation-era hardship.

The Peter Pan-style audience involvement at the end is a curious one, but I have some fondness for this sort of experiment. Though I understand it wasn't very successful when screened in theatrical release, I imagined it working, and the scene worked for me.

[EyesWideOpen]

Birdemic was terrible and not in a good way. I'm glad I didn't end up going to one of the screenings. For a "so bad it's good" movie to work it can't be boring.

[Boner M]

So, Clotilde Hesme was a fun interview, and relatively un-awkward for my first face-to-face one, esp. with someone whose English isn't pitch-perfect.

Two great anecdotes:

-She's boycotting working with James Gray because he's planning to remake the recent French film "Rivers", even though she loves We Own the Night.
-She went to see some of Philippe Garrel's old films at the Cinematheque after he cast her in Regular Lovers, then reported back to him about which ones she'd seen, and he said she saw the 'bad ones', giving her a revised list of the ones she should've seen.

[baby doll]

She's boycotting working with James Gray because he's planning to remake the recent French film "Rivers", even though she loves We Own the Night.You should've asked her if she's also boycotting Jacques Audiard since he remade Fingers.

[MadMan]

Network is a masterwork of satire and actually is still very relevant considering it accurately predicted the onslaught of entertainment as news that is what cable news is today, Zombieland is a blast and is quite funny in addition to being a good zombie movie, and Dreamscape is cool despite the questionable sex dream, which I'll admit could have been covered more in the movie but hey look there's a Snakeman! I'm done for today now.

[B-side]

Network is a masterwork of satire and actually is still very relevant considering it accurately predicted the onslaught of entertainment as news that is what cable news is today

I think the detractors are all sort of asking the same question: Is it subtitle enough?

[MadMan]

Not all satire is, or has to be, subtitle. So that's a really silly question.

Unless you're joking about the numerous times I've misspelled the word (and I probably have just done so anyways), in which case, touche :lol:

[Boner M]

Unless you're joking about the numerous times I've misspelled the word (and I probably have just done so anyways)
Vintage Madman.

[MadMan]

Vintage Madman.Unlike fine wine, I doubt I'll age particularly well.

[baby doll]

I'll have to see it again, but the one time I saw Network, it struck me as a shrill, xenophobic, sexist cry of entitled white male anxiety about career women, Arabs, the radical left, and young people in general (unfeeling "TV babies"). Basically it's the equivalent of an old guy yelling at the neighbors' kids to get off his damn lawn for two hours. I prefer Lumet's Dog Day Afternoon, Find Me Guilty, and Before the Devil Knows You're Dead.

[kuehnepips]

... Basically it's the equivalent of an old guy yelling at the neighbors' kids to get off his damn lawn ...

Nonsense. Yes, you have to see it again.

[Dukefrukem]

This weekend I'm going to watch:

Rubber 2011 (AOD)
Monsters 2010 (AOD)


Saw both movies I wanted to over the weekend!

Both I liked.

[NickGlass]

I'll have to see it again, but the one time I saw Network, it struck me as a shrill, xenophobic, sexist cry of entitled white male anxiety about career women, Arabs, the radical left, and young people in general (unfeeling "TV babies"). Basically it's the equivalent of an old guy yelling at the neighbors' kids to get off his damn lawn for two hours. I prefer Lumet's Dog Day Afternoon, Find Me Guilty, and Before the Devil Knows You're Dead.

I think your take is interesting, if a bit extreme. I've always found Network to be one of those well-regarded films that's clearly realized and totally obvious, but fine entertainment in its neatness, ability to simplify and convey contemporary ideas, and efficiency. I agree, however, that Dog Day Afternoon's sprawling narrative is far more compelling and emotional. And...wait a second, there are people who actually like Before the Devil Knows You're Dead? Ugh, that misunderstood moralizing and overbearing melodrama is dreadful. What's worse is it even feels like an old man's miscalculated take on modern society.

[MadMan]

I liked Before the Devil Knows Your Dead, but it doesn't come even close to being better than Network.

I haven't seen Dog Day Afternoon, yet. But I have viewed 12 Angry Men, and I actually think its slightly better than Network. Its commentary is more focused and the suspenseful and tightly wound setting results in a masterful movie with very few flaws. Network is great, sure, but it has its share of weaker moments-I'd have to revisit the film to jog my memory about which ones-but they don't overall detract from the movie being one of the best I've ever seen.

[DavidSeven]

Moon. Great film. Not sure what to make of Duncan Jones as a director. It's hard to tell how much he benefited from some finely tuned big ideas, a killer score from Mansell, and Rockwell giving the performance of his life. At the very least, he was aware enough to pull all of those strong elements together and not get in the way. The film works extremely well as mystery and emotional drama while also being a great piece to digest and reflect on. Very solid.

[Qrazy]

Moon. Great film. Not sure what to make of Duncan Jones as a director. It's hard to tell how much he benefited from some finely tuned big ideas, a killer score from Mansell, and Rockwell giving the performance of his life. At the very least, he was aware enough to pull all of those strong elements together and not get in the way. The film works extremely well as mystery and emotional drama while also being a great piece to digest and reflect on. Very solid.

IMO a director frequently deserves almost as much credit for an actor's great performance as the actor does.

[Sven]

IMO a director frequently deserves almost as much credit for an actor's great performance as the actor does.

I would also give credit to the editor and cinematographer.

But really, eff that. Too many qualifiers.

[Watashi]

I would also give credit to the editor and cinematographer.

But really, eff that. Too many qualifiers.
Yeah, fuck the auteur theory.

[DavidSeven]

IMO a director frequently deserves almost as much credit for an actor's great performance as the actor does.

Fair enough. I just wonder how whatever Jones did in Moon will translate to future projects. This really felt like an actors'/writers' movie, but at the same time, I don't want to diminish the hand Jones had in shaping Rockwell's performance and crystallizing the story concepts.

[Idioteque Stalker]

Speaking of Sam Rockwell, what do people think of In the Soup? He's only in it for a few minutes, but wiki says he's been in all of director Alexandre Rockwell's films (no relation, apparently). I really enjoyed it, although the narrative drags at points and the style fails to update old New Wave cliches. It's amusing, however, to see Steve Buscemi framed in unfocused and/or over-/under-exposed b&w images in a fish-out-of-water type of way (mirroring his place in the narrative). Several parts had me and my mother laughing out loud, and I really liked Stanley Tucci's bit. Oh, and of course loved to see Jim Jarmusch on screen, which is the main reason I watched it to begin with.

8 1/2 as a buddy film?

[Spun Lepton]

Yeah, fuck the auteur theory.

Agreed.

[MadMan]

Moon. Great film. Not sure what to make of Duncan Jones as a director. It's hard to tell how much he benefited from some finely tuned big ideas, a killer score from Mansell, and Rockwell giving the performance of his life. At the very least, he was aware enough to pull all of those strong elements together and not get in the way. The film works extremely well as mystery and emotional drama while also being a great piece to digest and reflect on. Very solid.I give credit to Jones. The film showed his abilities as a director. Anyways, Rockwell got unfairly hosed out of a nomination last year (obviously most of the voters didn't see a movie that many of us online posters actually did), and the film is in my Top 10 for 2009. I also really liked Spacey's performance, which added more to the proceedings. That said, I'm not sure I completely understand the ending....

I'll third or forth "Fuck the auteur theory."

[Raiders]

Agreed.

C'mon man. You know that the bestest of the auteurs make the most bomb-diggity artsy fartsy films around.

[elixir]

The auteur theory isn't without merit/support, but yeah, film is certainly a collaborative effort, if that's what you guys are going for.

[elixir]

C'mon man. You know that the bestest of the auteurs make the most bomb-diggity artsy fartsy films around.

I like all the films I watch to be like that.

[Spinal]

I imagine that some films are more collaborative than others.

[elixir]

I'll have to see it again, but the one time I saw Network, it struck me as a shrill, xenophobic, sexist cry of entitled white male anxiety about career women, Arabs, the radical left, and young people in general (unfeeling "TV babies"). Basically it's the equivalent of an old guy yelling at the neighbors' kids to get off his damn lawn for two hours. I prefer Lumet's Dog Day Afternoon, Find Me Guilty, and Before the Devil Knows You're Dead.

Haven't seen Network in a bit, but let me try to defend it against your extreme claims.

Shrill? Not sure I can effectively argue against that, but the monologues are a stylistic choice that I think works and adds to the message (in a meta way perhaps?). I don't really find it shrill at all.

Xenophobic? The whole Patty Hearst subplot thing was satire, you know? Not really meant to be taken literally. Although I actually think that it is the weakest part of the whole movie.

Sexist? Hm...Dunaway's character is a total bitch, but I don't see sexism here really. Can you expand upon that perhaps?

Entitled white men versus career women? I'm not sure where you get entitled from, but yeah, I think Holden's character is not so much frustrated with Dunaway being a "career women" but with being "unfeeling." I think this is perhaps your strongest point, because you can read that this objects to females rising in the workplace and causes males to feel threatened when females aren't "feeling" enough, but I would say that in the context of the movie, I think this human drama works more effectively because Holden's character is so emotionally shattered himself.

The old guy screaming for kids to get off his lawn (nice Gran Torino reference, btw), can certainly be construed from the film, but I would say that is more the belief of characters than the movie itself. As a young one myself, I never felt I was being yelled at (in that manner, at least).

I might prefer Dog Day Afternoon to this, I'm not sure.

I think Network deserves to be called "prescient," obvious or not.

[Eleven]

Oy. Auteurism's surely been stretched out of proportion when every movie has an "A Film By" credit, but it's also frequently the most interesting way of looking at film as art. Of course the director doesn't literally do everything on set, but to envision a personality behind the choices made is extremely useful and thought-provoking, even when not necessarily matching up to collaborative reality.

Plus, of course, being labeled an auteur isn't necessarily a critical judgment; Michael Bay has an undeniable style across projects, and it sucks big time.

P.S. Auteurism was from the start a critical look at careers, so someone with one feature film under his belt could hardly be called one.

[elixir]

Yeah, for sure, I do think saying "fuck auteurism" loses a valuable way to look at and analyze films.

[Raiders]

Oy. Auteurism's surely been stretched out of proportion when every movie has an "A Film By" credit, but it's also frequently the most interesting way of looking at film as art. Of course the director doesn't literally do everything on set, but to envision a personality behind the choices made is extremely useful and thought-provoking, even when not necessarily matching up to collaborative reality.

Plus, of course, being labeled an auteur isn't necessarily a critical judgment; Michael Bay has an undeniable style across projects, and it sucks big time.

P.S. Auteurism was from the start a critical look at careers, so someone with one feature film under his belt could hardly be called one.

Yeah, I sense that the backlash against the term stems from people believing it is intended to be a qualitative summation, or even further to be used to defend specific films by certain directors. I was joking in my last post, but I do often think that some people hear it and immediately cringe as though we are entering some discussion of "artsy" films or a discussion (and let's be honest, we have this discussion every few months) wherein we stretch marginal films beyond reason or somesuch.

Rather though, it is simply a tool for thought and criticism and by no means necessarily a sign of quality. We could certainly apply the thought to the films of Michael Bay and it would work, but that doesn't mean we automatically praise the results. It's a process of analysis more than anything. And to be certain, for many directors it is not really applicable, or perhaps that is better said that it is not fruitful in the results. I am certain Michael Curtiz was a very good director and that I'm sure there are some aspects of most of his films that are similar, but surely it would not be beneficial to any serious discussion of his work to try and apply the auteur theory. However, if we discuss Bresson or Tati or Ozu or Wong Kar Wai, it is almost impossible to have any really meaningful discussion that doesn't at least touch on the fact that they are very strong "auteurs" to their films; that is, the chief and highest artistic voice driving the films.

[Qrazy]

I would also give credit to the editor and cinematographer.

But really, eff that. Too many qualifiers.

The editor plays an important role for sure, the cinematographer plays some role but much less of one I'd argue. I'm sure we've all watched plenty of making of's and hearing about techniques directors use to pull a performance out of their actors really demonstrates the degree to which many directors mold the performances in their films.

[Qrazy]

Fuck auteur theory.

“A film director is one of the last dictatorial posts left in a world getting more and more democratic.” - Coppola

I also just spoke to someone who worked on Winter's Bone and he said that the director had tight control over the project and guided the DP in the design and feel of the film.

Furthermore my cousin just made an indie feature and had complete control over any significant decision (he also wrote it).

Maybe if we're talking about the Hollywood shit playing at the local Cineplex like Cats and Dogs 2 or what have you then sure. But Jones co-wrote this script and primarily independently financed the production.

"There are a lot of people who make a lot of films who get financing on a regular basis and not so many of those who haven�t made films are able to break into that circle. It was difficult and we found that we had to go independently and do something called an EIS, which is a method of funding films in the U.K. where you get private investors, and that got us most of the way there. I had a lot of people who wanted to invest in the film because of my commercials background and that was also a good starting point."

So no not fuck auteur theory, not fuck auteur theory at all.

[Eleven]

Strictly speaking, we probably shouldn't even talk about actors' performances (at least not in the same way that we talk about theater actors' performances), since most likely various continuous shots were not done in sequence or in the same take. The editor and director probably have the most power to mold our sense of an actor's presence in this respect. Doesn't stop us from imposing a continual personality on a performer all throughout a film and calling it a single "performance."

[Qrazy]

Strictly speaking, we probably shouldn't even talk about actors' performances (at least not in the same way that we talk about theater actors' performances), since most likely various continuous shots were not done in sequence or in the same take. The editor and director probably have the most power to mold our sense of an actor's presence in this respect. Doesn't stop us from imposing a continual personality on a performer all throughout a film and calling it a single "performance."

Except for that dude in Russian Ark. He's a terrific walker!

[Eleven]

Except for that dude in Russian Ark. He's a terrific walker!

I was gonna do a P.S. about Russian Ark. Foiled by Qrazy's fleet fingers!

[megladon8]

I don't understand why we can't accept both...

Obviously film is a collaborative effort. Quite often directors carry certain crew members and actors from film to film because they develop a great working relationship, understanding each other's visions with clarity and precision.

And quite often the director is the first person to say "I didn't do this alone, I have an incredible team here of which I am just a part."


But at the same time, the director is pretty much "the boss" on the project (aside from maybe the producers in certain cases, particularly huge-budget films). They are charged with bringing the elements together and committing their vision to film.


It's the same as the way we praise certain architects for their incredible work and designs. When we praise David Childs for his work on the Time Warner Center in NYC, it pretty much goes without saying that he didn't place every brick, forge every metal beam, and insert every pane of glass.

It's all a collaborative effort, and as I said, any film director with even an ounce of humility is not going to try to pass themselves off as the only person who worked on the film.

But they are using the team to create what is largely their vision.


So I can see both sides of the argument.

[Derek]

So no not fuck auteur theory, not fuck auteur theory at all.

How about fuck the fuckers saying "fuck the auteur theory"?

[megladon8]

How about fuck the fuckers saying "fuck the auteur theory"?


Fuck that.

[Spinal]

It's better than 'otter theory', which holds that every film reflects the personal creative vision of an adorable, playful otter.

[megladon8]

It's better than 'otter theory', which holds that every film reflects the personal creative vision of an adorable, playful otter.


http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/7875/otter.jpg


"I use my tummy as my dinner table."

[Sven]

The editor plays an important role for sure, the cinematographer plays some role but much less of one I'd argue. I'm sure we've all watched plenty of making of's and hearing about techniques directors use to pull a performance out of their actors really demonstrates the degree to which many directors mold the performances in their films.

Co-stars then, too, should get credit for an actor's good performance. Also, the screenwriter, for originating the stuff that the actor gets to do.

Facetiousness aside, I don't know why we can't just praise Rockwell for doing his job exceptionally, which is to take instruction and perform.

[MadMan]

http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/7875/otter.jpg


"I use my tummy as my dinner table."I for one am a proponent of the otter theory. I mean come on, look at how adorable and cute they are.....:P

[megladon8]

I would totally have a pet otter.

He'd watch The Simpsons and drink beer with me.

[Winston*]

It's better than 'otter theory', which holds that every film reflects the personal creative vision of an adorable, playful otter.

Explain how.

[Qrazy]

Co-stars then, too, should get credit for an actor's good performance. Also, the screenwriter, for originating the stuff that the actor gets to do.

Facetiousness aside, I don't know why we can't just praise Rockwell for doing his job exceptionally, which is to take instruction and perform.

Here's the conversation I was having.

DavidSeven said that "At the very least, he was aware enough to pull all of those strong elements together and not get in the way." To which I responded with my thoughts on the matter which were that I believe Jones probably had more of a hand in getting Rockwell to provide such a performance (given the fact that he co-wrote the script as a vehicle for Rockwell) rather than that he was just getting out of the way. Context is fun! Also there are very few co-stars to speak of in regards to this film.

[Boner M]

This discussion reminds me of this great post by Dan Sallitt: Auteurism is a taste, not a theory (http://sallitt.blogspot.com/2009/04/trying-to-make-act-of-directing.html)

[Dead & Messed Up]

Explain how.

If you need an explanation, you don't understand it.

[Sven]

Here's the conversation I was having.

DavidSeven said that "At the very least, he was aware enough to pull all of those strong elements together and not get in the way." To which I responded with my thoughts on the matter which were that I believe Jones probably had more of a hand in getting Rockwell to provide such a performance (given the fact that he co-wrote the script as a vehicle for Rockwell) rather than that he was just getting out of the way. Context is fun! Also there are very few co-stars to speak of in regards to this film.

You made a sweeping statement about actors and directors in general. I responded to that.

[Spun Lepton]

Yeah, I sense that the backlash against the term stems from people believing it is intended to be a qualitative summation, or even further to be used to defend specific films by certain directors. I was joking in my last post, but I do often think that some people hear it and immediately cringe as though we are entering some discussion of "artsy" films or a discussion (and let's be honest, we have this discussion every few months) wherein we stretch marginal films beyond reason or somesuch.

This is directed at me? I simply dislike the entire concept of "auteur." Film and theater (or ... THEATRE) are collaborative efforts.

[Qrazy]

You made a sweeping statement about actors and directors in general. I responded to that.

Yeah and I said frequently, and I stand by that. When I did theater I gave full respect to my director for the ways in which they shaped my performance.

[Raiders]

This is directed at me? I simply dislike the entire concept of "auteur." Film and theater (or ... THEATRE) are collaborative efforts.

So Robert Bresson, Jacques Tati, Alfred Hitchcock... are not the distinctive controlling artistic visions of their films? The "auteur theory" does not just give credit to one person, rather it is the critical analysis of a film or many films by looking at one person (98% of the time the director) and finding the motifs, themes and formal constructs that underlay their film perspective.

Surely you don't think that there are no directors or even producers in film history who do not have the overriding vision that creates the end product. Whether or not you want to ever analyze a film that way isn't the point; the point is that it is a valid and often enlightening critical perspective.

[Grouchy]

The only movie I've seen recently is The King's Speech. Enjoyable experience, I guess, but it's so slight and unremarkable that it had to win Best Picture. I mean, it's a nice movie and all, and it's neat that people overcome their speech impediments, but the story allowed a chance to show something deep about the hipocrisy of royalty or at least to provide observations about the social customs of people as rarified and isolated from real life as Dukes and Princes. Instead, it tried (and failed) to make them look as human and relatable as possible. That didn't sit well with me at all.

I mean, I don't wanna pull a baby doll and throw random criticisms about why a movie is not exactly what I want it to be, but there's no denying this is a shallow film and its fame is pretty undeserved, excellent filmmaking aside.

[B-side]

I don't understand this visceral dismissal people have of auteur theory as if it somehow means only one person gets credit. Well, this has already been explained more eloquently, so I'll stop here. I just wanted to lay my cards on the proverbial table.

[Sven]

Yeah and I said frequently, and I stand by that. When I did theater I gave full respect to my director for the ways in which they shaped my performance.

Directors can shape performances. That's obvious. I'm saying that we can appreciate Rockwell's acting without having to factor the director into it.

[Eleven]

This is directed at me? I simply dislike the entire concept of "auteur." Film and theater (or ... THEATRE) are collaborative efforts.

Yeah, but how they're collaborative (live versus recorded, in time and space versus just in time, no definitive performance versus a single recording [Director's Cut notwithstanding], playing to an audience versus playing to the camera) are exceedingly different.

[Spun Lepton]

So Robert Bresson, Jacques Tati, Alfred Hitchcock... are not the distinctive controlling artistic visions of their films? The "auteur theory" does not just give credit to one person, rather it is the critical analysis of a film or many films by looking at one person (98% of the time the director) and finding the motifs, themes and formal constructs that underlay their film perspective.

Surely you don't think that there are no directors or even producers in film history who do not have the overriding vision that creates the end product. Whether or not you want to ever analyze a film that way isn't the point; the point is that it is a valid and often enlightening critical perspective.

...


Shut up.


That's my argument.

:lol:

Real answer: I'll need to do more research on the theory.

[Grouchy]

I don't understand this visceral dismissal people have of auteur theory as if it somehow means only one person gets credit. Well, this has already been explained more eloquently, so I'll stop here. I just wanted to lay my cards on the proverbial table.
Well, let me put a practical example of how auteur theory is pretty much the wrong way to approach filmmaking in most cases.

In my film school which I dropped out of a couple of years ago (FUC), the entire year was partly devoted to a contest to get the short films of students made in 16mm. One out of seven students got his short film elected and had to direct it himself. The only students who participated in this contest were the ones who studied the Directing career. The ones who studied Writing, Cinematography, Sound or Editing could not participate although they obviously were supposed to work in the elected projects.

The short films they chose (and still do) were the wrong ones for many reason. As proof of that, they were almost never finished. It occurs to me one of the key mistakes is that the classes trained people to admire film directors who were very clearly auteurs and to try and imitate them. And then they chose the projects based on that criteria. The more intimate and personal a story was, the more it related to the possible real life of a film student with enough money to pay for film school (which is often not very interesting), the more it was liable to get chosen.

It turns out, not surprisingly, that most people who love to write about themselves in a literal fashion are not good writers. But aside from that, the ones who were good writers were often not capable of getting their short film made. I've worked in no less than three short films in which it was clear that the directors had many shortcomings as directors, and that while their inentions might have been good, they had no idea how to lead a crew, organize a schedule or tell a story in images.

I think FUC had many, many problems and is likely one of the most overrated and pretentious institutions I've ever been involved with. I think their program for short films would have been inmensely more succesful if they had made a contest between the students who were studying to be Writers, and then a contest to determine who should direct the winning scripts amongst those who studied Directing. But because most of the ruling board and professors were extremely pretentious people who made very bad films, they considered it more worthy to reward auterism than talent.

[Qrazy]

Directors can shape performances. That's obvious. I'm saying that we can appreciate Rockwell's acting without having to factor the director into it.

That's nice. My comments were in response to DavidSeven's post about the film Moon, as I made clear by quoting him. A generalization about performances in regards to something specific, which was his remark that the director got out of the way of the performance.

[Qrazy]

Well, let me put a practical example of how auteur theory is pretty much the wrong way to approach filmmaking in most cases.

In my film school which I dropped out of a couple of years ago (FUC), the entire year was partly devoted to a contest to get the short films of students made in 16mm. One out of seven students got his short film elected and had to direct it himself. The only students who participated in this contest were the ones who studied the Directing career. The ones who studied Writing, Cinematography, Sound or Editing could not participate although they obviously were supposed to work in the elected projects.

The short films they chose (and still do) were the wrong ones for many reason. As proof of that, they were almost never finished. It occurs to me one of the key mistakes is that the classes trained people to admire film directors who were very clearly auteurs and to try and imitate them. And then they chose the projects based on that criteria. The more intimate and personal a story was, the more it related to the possible real life of a film student with enough money to pay for film school (which is often not very interesting), the more it was liable to get chosen.

It turns out, not surprisingly, that most people who love to write about themselves in a literal fashion are not good writers. But aside from that, the ones who were good writers were often not capable of getting their short film made. I've worked in no less than three short films in which it was clear that the directors had many shortcomings as directors, and that while their inentions might have been good, they had no idea how to lead a crew, organize a schedule or tell a story in images.

I think FUC had many, many problems and is likely one of the most overrated and pretentious institutions I've ever been involved with. I think their program for short films would have been inmensely more succesful if they had made a contest between the students who were studying to be Writers, and then a contest to determine who should direct the winning scripts amongst those who studied Directing. But because most of the ruling board and professors were extremely pretentious people who made very bad films, they considered it more worthy to reward auterism than talent.

To me this reads more like shitty filmmakers make shitty films. I don't see how this reflects on the degree of input a director has on a quality film.

[Eleven]

Well, let me put a practical example of how auteur theory is pretty much the wrong way to approach filmmaking in most cases.

Yeah, this sucks, and it's indicative of what auteurism hath wrought when it's taken beyond its function as a critical theory and mistakenly into the realm of practice as simply "directors do everything" or "everything comes from a director." I mean, the French formulation is a polemical attack against "well-made" films and towards a more personal cinema, true, but it's far more descriptive than prescriptive. It just happened that its initial proponent, Truffaut, ended up practicing what he preached, but he had the talent to back it up, unlike most kids who've simply seen too many movies and think they can be the next Tarantinos.

[B-side]

To me this reads more like shitty filmmakers make shitty films. I don't see how this reflects on the degree of input a director has on a quality film.

Yeah, I don't see how that makes an auteuristic approach to cinema a bad thing.

[Grouchy]

Yeah, this sucks, and it's indicative of what auteurism hath wrought when it's taken beyond its function as a critical theory and mistakenly into the realm of practice as simply "directors do everything" or "everything comes from a director." I mean, the French formulation is a polemical attack against "well-made" films and towards a more personal cinema, true, but it's far more descriptive than prescriptive. It just happened that its initial proponent, Truffaut, ended up practicing what he preached, but he had the talent to back it up, unlike most kids who've simply seen too many movies and think they can be the next Tarantinos.
Exactly. Besides, auterism made sense in the '60s as a reaction to Hollywood and the establishment. In today's context, where almost everyone can direct with very little money, I think there are more worthy things to teach to film students.

Qrazy, Brightside, what I was trying to show with my personal experience is how obsolete auterism is in today's world of film. Basically anyone can be a shitty auteur with the technological resources we have nowadays. Maybe it doesn't exactly relate to what you guys were discussing about actors but I had this conversation recently and it's just a thought that came to mind.

[elixir]

Grouchy, I don't want to discount your experience, but I don't think it proves the value of looking at films through the lens of the auteur theory wrong.

Certainly if filmmakers take a literal approach to it--incorporating their personal experiences and so on--it can be a disaster, but I still don't think that means that auteurism isn't an extremely useful way to analyze films.

[DavidSeven]

The auteur theory is just a tool for assessing a body of work of a filmmaker and comparing his own films against each other. It is not a tool for assessing a film relative to a film of another director (unless we're talking about different perspectives on similar topics).

When I'm looking at individual films, I'm interested in directors that are capable of doing more than assembling a bunch of coverage shots with standard lighting and camera set-ups. Usually, this comes across very clearly when you watch the film, even if the approach differs from film to film. I'm not really interested in whether a director imprinted "his" stamp as much as I am interested in seeing whether the director imprinted any artistic stamp at all. In the case of Moon, which I thought was great, it wasn't really clear to me that Jones left an artistic imprint on the film because his "mise-en-scene" wasn't terribly inspired. Maybe that was a choice. I don't know -- the uncertainty was the only thing I was trying to bring up because the film still succeeds on the strength of its story, score and performances, which I'm sure Jones played a large role in shaping.

[Spinal]

Explain how.

Example:

Auteur Theory - Moulin Rouge! reveals many of the obsessions that have driven Baz Luhrmann throughout his career: unbridled passion, splashy visuals and post-modern playfulness.

Otter Theory - Moulin Rouge! reminds me of the time I went to the zoo and saw an otter fellating himself.

[DavidSeven]

I'm not sure the latter isn't a more useful means of analysis in the instant case.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I watched The General yesterday for the first time. Not sure why it took me this long, especially considering the high regard I have for Keaton. It was great, as was expected, though I'm at a loss as to why Orson Welles called it the greatest comedy ever. There wasn't much particularly funny about it, though it was entertaining as hell and crafted perfectly.

I must admit though, I struggle with rooting for a protagonist who was fighting for the side that advocated slavery. Anyone else feel this way, or am I being too sensitive?

[Spinal]

I must admit though, I struggle with rooting for a protagonist who was fighting for the side that advocated slavery. Anyone else feel this way, or am I being too sensitive?

http://www.match-cut.org/showpost.php?p=273021&postcount=386

[B-side]

You're both being too sensitive. John Ford loves the South and has infinite reservoirs of sympathy for them in the Civil War era.

[Eleven]

I must admit though, I struggle with rooting for a protagonist who was fighting for the side that advocated slavery. Anyone else feel this way, or am I being too sensitive?

After giving Dogtooth four stars? Yeah, too sensitive.

[Spinal]

The motivations of the protagonist in The General are so completely divorced from politics that it never occurred to me to be troubled by them. He's trying to impress a girl.

[Qrazy]

Exactly. Besides, auterism made sense in the '60s as a reaction to Hollywood and the establishment. In today's context, where almost everyone can direct with very little money, I think there are more worthy things to teach to film students.

Qrazy, Brightside, what I was trying to show with my personal experience is how obsolete auterism is in today's world of film. Basically anyone can be a shitty auteur with the technological resources we have nowadays. Maybe it doesn't exactly relate to what you guys were discussing about actors but I had this conversation recently and it's just a thought that came to mind.

Fair enough. Over the course of the general discussion I got sucked into a defense of auteurism anyway which has more far reaching connotations than I was really interested in in the context of the initial conversation. My only point is that with a lot of great films directors exert supreme control in the making of their films. Auteurism is also about individual aesthetic and what have you which is a separate issue. Thanks for posting that article Boner by the way and for sharing your experiences in school Grouchy. Also D7 I didn't mean to have to keep referring to your comment earlier since we reached an agreement, just felt like I had to keep clarifying my point.

[Kurosawa Fan]

The motivations of the protagonist in The General are so completely divorced from politics that it never occurred to me to be troubled by them. He's trying to impress a girl.

I agree, but why be on the side of the South? In 1926? Seems an odd choice.

[baby doll]

I agree, but why be on the side of the South? In 1926? Seems an odd choice.There are people in the States today who want to celebrate the confederacy and not talk about slavery.

[Qrazy]

There are people in the States today who want to celebrate the confederacy and not talk about slavery.

Thoughts on Exodus? I've been binging on Paul Newman films lately and that one is up next.

[Raiders]

I agree, but why be on the side of the South? In 1926? Seems an odd choice.

The film is based on this. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Locomotive_Chase)

[Spinal]

I agree, but why be on the side of the South? In 1926? Seems an odd choice.

To me, it makes it kinda funnier. That he goes through all he goes through without even questioning the overall moral implications of his actions. He's just determined to prove himself a man and win the girl.

[Skitch]

After playing catch up on the last few pages...I see Network is mediocre, complete dismissal of a theory, and a lot of F bombs.

You people are weird.

:pritch:

[Mysterious Dude]

I agree, but why be on the side of the South? In 1926? Seems an odd choice.
I think the southern market was more sensitive about the subject than the northern/other market was in 1926. It was a good market to not alienate. It seems like most Civil War movies from the silent era are from the southern perspective.

[Rowland]

I've read that Keaton felt it necessary to fully imbue his character with the underdog status, which included making him a Confederate.

[Rowland]

Also, I'm going to be viewing a number of films from 1981 over the next two weeks or so, inspired on a whim by our recent ranking of the year's films and knowing in advance that it's a year disdained by many cineastes. I've assembled quite the eclectic queue, and will be posting my thoughts here.

[Spinal]

Also, I'm going to be viewing a number of films from 1981 over the next two weeks or so, inspired on a whim by our recent ranking of the year's films and knowing in advance that it's a year disdained by many cineastes. I've assembled quite the eclectic queue, and will be posting my thoughts here.

Can't remember what was mentioned, but make sure to check out The French Lieutenant's Woman. One of my favorites that doesn't get discussed much.

[Qrazy]

Can't remember what was mentioned, but make sure to check out The French Lieutenant's Woman. One of my favorites that doesn't get discussed much.

I didn't realize Reisz also directed Saturday Night and Sunday Morning. I'll look out for TFLW.

[Sven]

That's nice. My comments were in response to DavidSeven's post about the film Moon, as I made clear by quoting him. A generalization about performances in regards to something specific, which was his remark that the director got out of the way of the performance.

Right, and I took your general statement and went with it. Message boards are places where you do that. Can we please stop walking on eggshells here?

[Sven]

Didn't like The Bank Job. Kind of surprised at its positive rep, but only when I forget that consensus generally approves of routine. "By the numbers" is the name of the game, down to the telegraphing music cues, cathartic violence, expendable characters, and chop-chop editing, completely destroying the period feel with an aggressively modern commercial approach. There are so many better movies of this kind.

[MadMan]

The Prowler (Zito, 1981) **½I started viewing this on Instant Viewing last Halloween, got bored after 10-15 minutes, and quit. Maybe I'll give it another shot considering that I like the slasher genre, for the most part.

The Professional (1994) had well shot, extremely crafted and brilliant action scenes, which didn't surprise me too much. What got me though was how emotionally charged the rest of the film is. Matilda and Leon's relationship is handled expertly, being rather delicate but never cloy or annoying. Gary Oldman's psychotic, murderous DEA agent was over the top, but I never felt that he was completely outlandish, which would have hurt the movie. Looking at my current list of 1994 viewings, I'm reminded once more how amazing that year for film really was.

[Boner M]

Reisz did Who'll Stop the Rain as well, a pretty cool crime flick with Nick Nolte, Tuesday Weld and Michael Moriarty. Worth a look; in the same vein as Cutter's Way.

[elixir]

Holy shit, Beau Travail just kicked my ass in the best way possible. Hopefully I can come up with more thoughts later.

What a fucking crazy and perfect final scene. I love how jarringly abrupt it is. It's strangely mesmerizing.

[Qrazy]

Right, and I took your general statement and went with it. Message boards are places where you do that. Can we please stop walking on eggshells here?

Your contention was why can we not just attribute Rockwell's performance to Rockwell. The reason being that the initial statement said the director got out of the way to allow the performance, thus minimizing the role of the director, a director who co-wrote a script for this actor and presumably helped bring out this excellent performance. This is the answer to your question as to why I do not believe that Rockwell's performance should be solely attributed to Rockwell's and that the director had no hand in it. Your hand wavery concerning the role of other actors and the DP in shaping Rockwell's performance does not really hold water with me. Editing is of course key to the performance but from what I've read Jones had a major hand in that as well.

[Sven]

Your contention was why can we not just attribute Rockwell's performance to Rockwell. The reason being that the initial statement said the director got out of the way to allow the performance, thus minimizing the role of the director, a director who co-wrote a script for this actor and presumably helped bring out this excellent performance. This is the answer to your question as to why I do not believe that Rockwell's performance should be solely attributed to Rockwell's and that the director had no hand in it.

Yeah, but if he wrote it FOR Rockwell, don't you think he had in mind Rockwell's capabilities and talents? Jones directed the performance ("directed by"), but it is Rockwell's performance.


Your hand wavery concerning the role of other actors and the DP in shaping Rockwell's performance does not really hold water with me.

It was a general lampooning of the idea of crediting everyone but the actor, as opposed to referring to Moon specifically (riffing as I was on your broad comment). Though DPs and costars can be and frequently are integral to performance enhancement and character development, to be sure.

[Qrazy]

Yeah, but if he wrote it FOR Rockwell, don't you think he had in mind Rockwell's capabilities and talents? Jones directed the performance ("directed by"), but it is Rockwell's performance.

It was a general lampooning of the idea of crediting everyone but the actor, as opposed to referring to Moon specifically (riffing as I was on your broad comment). Though DPs and costars can be and frequently are integral to performance enhancement and character development, to be sure.

Well essentially as I think I have made abundantly clear about five times now I don't think that Jones stepped aside and just let the film succeed around him, particularly in regards to Rockwell's performance. But you already know my position. Acknowledging it simply does not meet your argumentative needs.

"IMO a director frequently deserves almost as much credit for an actor's great performance as the actor does."

This is what I said. I don't see how I'm discrediting the actor there. I'm just saying that the director deserves and rarely gets equal appreciation for the caliber of performance on display. If you don't feel they deserve that then fine, but I think you're undervaluing the role of a good director in that case.

"Directors can shape performances. That's obvious."

If it's obvious why are we having this conversation? Because the fact that Jones shaped Rockwell's performance was all I was saying.

And that's the last I will say on the matter. I guess you can have the last word.

[Dukefrukem]

Martin Scorsese gets $2.85M tax bill from the IRS (http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/entertainment/030811-martin-scorsese-gets-tax-bill-from-the-irs)

[Raiders]

Didn't like The Bank Job. Kind of surprised at its positive rep, but only when I forget that consensus generally approves of routine. "By the numbers" is the name of the game, down to the telegraphing music cues, cathartic violence, expendable characters, and chop-chop editing, completely destroying the period feel with an aggressively modern commercial approach. There are so many better movies of this kind.

Definitely agree. I had to remind myself that I had even seen this.

[Raiders]

I've read that Keaton felt it necessary to fully imbue his character with the underdog status, which included making him a Confederate.

This makes sense as it really is based on the memoir The Great Locomotive Chase and in that story, the only underdog or fitting character for Keaton is one of the Confederate soldiers. I would imagine being part of the Union army plot and scheming would have gone against Keaton's sensibility.

[Sven]

Well essentially as I think I have made abundantly clear about five times now I don't think that Jones stepped aside and just let the film succeed around him, particularly in regards to Rockwell's performance. But you already know my position. Acknowledging it simply does not meet your argumentative needs.

Directors usually don't just step aside and let movies happen. That's such a clear fact that I didn't feel the need to address it. I was more interested in your general comment.


"IMO a director frequently deserves almost as much credit for an actor's great performance as the actor does."

This is what I said. I don't see how I'm discrediting the actor there. I'm just saying that the director deserves and rarely gets equal appreciation for the caliber of performance on display. If you don't feel they deserve that then fine, but I think you're undervaluing the role of a good director in that case.

I disagree that a director should get equal appreciation for a good performance. If that's the case, a director should get as much credit as anyone else for doing their job on a movie. Which is far too dictatorial a perspective. If we're pulling out personal experience, I, too, have had a lot of theater experience and understand the value of a good director. But a director should get credit for directing a performance, not the performance itself. Just like an actor doesn't need credit for a film's dialogue, even though they're the one delivering it.


"Directors can shape performances. That's obvious."

If it's obvious why are we having this conversation? Because the fact that Jones shaped Rockwell's performance was all I was saying.

We're conversing because we're not on the same page. You're talking about something that, to me, is clear: Jones the director had a significant hand in shaping Rockwell the actor's performance. I agree because that's a factual statement because that's what directors do. Then you made a general statement about the relationship between directors and actors, I riffed on that rather than addressing the specific example. The attempt was to deflate the position that a director should get EQUAL credit for someone's performance because there are so many things surrounding an actor that influence its shape, including the way he's written, cobbled together, photographed, and interacted with by other cast members/film characters. All under the management of the director, sure, but I'm not going to thank the kitchen manager for a delicious meal: I'm going to thank the cook.

Anyway, let's do move on.

[Derek]

We're conversing because we're not on the same page.

I want to host a Crossfire-like podcast with you and Qrazy. I think it'd be phenomenal.

[D_Davis]

Watched Monsters this past weekend. Liked it quite a bit. I loved how mysterious they kept everything. Very little exposition = epic win.

Also watched my new DVD of Rolling Thunder. The picture quality is great, but the sound is a little messed up. It's very loud, with lots of his in parts. However, it is totally watchable. I'd give the bootleg a 7/10 ranking. Totally worth the $10.

[number8]

You know, back in San Francisco, I'd always mingle with other critics at screenings, and some of them pretty known and are prominent on Rotten Tomatoes. I got used to that.

But ever since I moved to New York, I still haven't adjusted to the fact that I often sit a few seats away from people like Anthony Lane and A.O. Scott, like today, and we're there to do the same job. Makes me feel small.

[Qrazy]

You know, back in San Francisco, I'd always mingle with other critics at screenings, and some of them pretty known and are prominent on Rotten Tomatoes. I got used to that.

But ever since I moved to New York, I still haven't adjusted to the fact that I often sit a few seats away from people like Anthony Lane and A.O. Scott, like today, and we're there to do the same job. Makes me feel small.

So you decided to post this as a means of compensating with a few name drops in order to make yourself feel big? ;)

[Adam]

You know, back in San Francisco, I'd always mingle with other critics at screenings, and some of them pretty known and are prominent on Rotten Tomatoes. I got used to that.

But ever since I moved to New York, I still haven't adjusted to the fact that I often sit a few seats away from people like Anthony Lane and A.O. Scott, like today, and we're there to do the same job. Makes me feel small.

#humblebrag (http://twitter.com/Humblebrag)

[number8]

So you decided to post this as a means of compensating with a few name drops in order to make yourself feel big? ;)

Why else would I do it, peasant?

[baby doll]

Thoughts on Exodus? I've been binging on Paul Newman films lately and that one is up next.It's not a total waste of time (no Preminger film is, if only for his mise en scène and a couple memorable sequences), but it basically treats the events leading up to the 1948 war as an opportunity for familial melodrama: Paul Newman thinks that the best way to convince the UN of the need for a Jewish state is to boost the population by smuggling in European refugees, while his black sheep uncle is part of a terrorist group targeting British forces in the region, but when the latter is arrested and sentenced to death, Newman orchestrates a grand scale prison escape to get him out. And there's an utterly banal romantic subplot with Eve Marie Saint as this WASP American widow, as well as an entire subplot involving an orphaned Jewish girl who can either go back to America with Saint or live on a kibbutz in Israel. And there's a climax in which they learn that the kibbutz is going to be attacked by the Arabs, so Newman has to lead all the kids out into the desert like Moses, and there's another subplot involving a his childhood friend who's Arab, and how they find themselves on opposite sides of the war. (The only really interesting character is Sal Mineo.) It just goes on and on and on, and in it's own way, it's almost as dull as Gone With the Wind.

[Watashi]

So you finally a see a Paul Newman film, baby doll.

[dreamdead]

In Ali: Fear Eats the Soul, does Emmi's refusal to cook couscous really seem out of character? I've read reviews that feel that way, but there does feel to me a sense of her exploitation and treatment of Ali as an exotic, especially when her co-workers are present. And, since this film is meant as an ode to '50s melodrama, can't this moment be read simply as the kind of plot mechanism necessary to create the next drama. Solid film, either way. Definitely makes me move The Bitter Tears of Petra von Kant to the top of the queue...

[B-side]

New Criterion teaser:

http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/200774_10150442570445565_24856 820564_18039649_1492587_n.jpg

No idea what to make of it.

[B-side]

In Ali: Fear Eats the Soul, does Emmi's refusal to cook couscous really seem out of character? I've read reviews that feel that way, but there does feel to me a sense of her exploitation and treatment of Ali as an exotic, especially when her co-workers are present. And, since this film is meant as an ode to '50s melodrama, can't this moment be read simply as the kind of plot mechanism necessary to create the next drama. Solid film, either way. Definitely makes me move The Bitter Tears of Petra von Kant to the top of the queue...

You're in for a treat. That one's even better.

[Raiders]

New Criterion teaser:

http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/200774_10150442570445565_24856 820564_18039649_1492587_n.jpg

No idea what to make of it.

Louis Malle's Black Moon.

[B-side]

Louis Malle's Black Moon.

That one looks pretty bizarre. Criterion does love Malle, though.

[Sven]

Why else would I do it, peasant?

Your new name: NickGlass8

[Raiders]

Whoa, I had no idea Criterion was releasing this in blu-ray:

http://criterion-production.s3.amazonaws.com/release_images/3229/563_BD_box_348x490.jpg

[baby doll]

So you finally a see a Paul Newman film, baby doll.I saw an Otto Preminger film with Paul Newman in it, giving an incredibly bland performance (though it's not really his fault).

[MadMan]

New Criterion teaser:

http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/200774_10150442570445565_24856 820564_18039649_1492587_n.jpg

No idea what to make of it.Whoa. I wouldn't want to stare at that for an hour. Cool, though.

And the Criterion cover for Something Wild makes me want to buy the film, even though its merely really good and not great. Still young hungry Ray Liotta, the always awesome Jeff Daniels, Melanie Griffith when she was a babe.....tempting.

[MadMan]

I saw an Otto Preminger film with Paul Newman in it, giving an incredibly bland performance (though it's not really his fault).Watch Cool Hand Luke. Especially since it also has George Kennedy.

[Raiders]

And the Criterion cover for Something Wild makes me want to buy the film, even though its merely really good and not great.

It isn't great. It's masterful. RECOGNIZE.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Whoa. They Live By Night was phenomenal. Cathy O'Donnell was a revelation. Pity her career was railroaded by such pettiness. She had a very comfortable, natural style that wasn't very common back then. Far less polished and mannered than most.

[MadMan]

It isn't great. It's masterful. RECOGNIZE.Hey now, I'm slowly joining in on the Demme love. Although I've only viewed The Manchurian Candidate remake, Silence of the Lambs, and Something Wild. All awesome movies, although I'd say Silence is the best of the bunch. So what should I see from the man next, oh Demme fanboy? :P

[B-side]

Somewhat unexpectedly, Wagon Master has what is likely the most brilliantly staged and edited shootout I've seen in a Ford film.

[Qrazy]

I rewatched Full Metal Jacket the other day. The first time around it wasn't a favorite and I had my criticisms but I admired it. Now I'm not even sure if I think it's a particularly good film at all really.

[Sven]

I rewatched Full Metal Jacket the other day. The first time around it wasn't a favorite and I had my criticisms but I admired it. Now I'm not even sure if I think it's a particularly good film at all really.

Interesting. Tell me more.

[MadMan]

I wonder if I'm one of the few who thinks that the events that happen after all of the boot camp moments are just as great, and that really the film is masterful and even keeled. Probably not. I'd say that its ending is one of the more powerful finales Kubrick ever did, too.

[Sven]

I'm sure I've said this in the past, but I always have to remind myself that three of Kubrick's films (which is a large percentage of his output) are in my top ten films of all time (2001, Strangelove, B. Lyndon). And the rest are markedly worthwhile. It's so easy for me to forget how good he is.

[MadMan]

Barry Lyndon is still the one remaining really major 70s Kubrick I have left to see. After that, its just Killers Kiss and Eyes Wide Shut remaining. And I guess if one counts its as having been half his project, A.I., too.

[Derek]

Barry Lyndon is still the one remaining really major 70s Kubrick I have left to see.

So you've already seen all his other one film he made in the 70s?

My ranking of Kubricks 70s films:

Really Major

A Clockwork Orange
Barry Lyndon

Major

N/A

Minor

N/A

EDIT: Also, Eyes Wide Shut is arguably his best 90s film, so check that one out soon.

[EyesWideOpen]

I'm sure I've said this in the past, but I always have to remind myself that three of Kubrick's films (which is a large percentage of his output) are in my top ten films of all time (2001, Strangelove, B. Lyndon). And the rest are markedly worthwhile. It's so easy for me to forget how good he is.

It's a testament to his greatness that I also have 3 of his films in my top ten and none of them are the one's you listed.

[Qrazy]

Interesting. Tell me more.

Not much to say really. I am a huge fan of his as well so I was surprised how lukewarm I was on this on a rewatch. In general I think he's an incredible formalist but I really didn't care for his filmmaking here. Moments such as the slo-mo groaning gunshot wounds from the sniper to the excessive use of squib explosions on buildings or even his use of composition in the barracks segments. None of it really did anything for me. I found the entire experience accosting, unpleasant and ham-fisted. It certainly has it's place in film and war film history but standing on it's own, meh.

Perhaps it didn't help that I was watching the film with a bunch of guys who were reveling in the 'bad assery' of the experience. But I can't say I blame them really for approaching it in that manner. It's one of those films that tries to walk the line between being critical of and embracing that perspective and in many ways it fails. Also jeezum cro Kubrick loves that eyes slightly rolled back in the head look to get across craziness/mind blowedness... it's in The Shining, Full Metal, 2001, A Clockwork Orange and I believe Strangelove as well.

[MadMan]

So you've already seen all his other one film he made in the 70s?

My ranking of Kubricks 70s films:

Really Major

A Clockwork Orange
Barry Lyndon

Major

N/A

Minor

N/A

EDIT: Also, Eyes Wide Shut is arguably his best 90s film, so check that one out soon.For some reason, I thought that he had made more than two films in the 70s. Weird considering that was a decade tailored just for a film maker like him.

Eyes Wild Shut is one of those movies I'll have to make time for.

I hate to quote Time Magazine, but I remember a review saying something along the lines of Full Metal Jacket being about a bunch of men who end up first fearing war, and then straight up marrying the bitch and embracing it. I'd say that it accurately describes the movie: that by the film's final, haunting shot, with Paint It Black suddenly echoing during the end credits after wards, that the men in the film that survive do indeed accept that they are soldiers, and that killing is now second nature to them.

[Qrazy]

For some reason, I thought that he had made more than two films in the 70s. Weird considering that was a decade tailored just for a film maker like him.

Eyes Wild Shut is one of those movies I'll have to make time for.

I hate to quote Time Magazine, but I remember a review saying something along the lines of Full Metal Jacket being about a bunch of men who end up first fearing war, and then straight up marrying the bitch and embracing it. I'd say that it accurately describes the movie: that by the film's final, haunting shot, with Paint It Black suddenly echoing during the end credits after wards, that the men in the film that survive do indeed accept that they are soldiers, and that killing is now second nature to them.

Hrm I viewed the ending as quite the opposite. They finally had to confront and come face to face with the humanity of their enemy (no more shooting from the air or from a distance) and only through a huge act of will power was he able to force himself to take that final shot. The end was them having to really confront and recognize the true horror of the war. It's not so much that killing had become second nature as that point they were passed the point of no return. There was no other option. I didn't really see much in the film that suggested they were all that afraid of war initially either. I think they were quite hungry for combat actually. It's only when they're actually in the field that they realize hey... this isn't what I signed on for.

[Sven]

Also jeezum cro Kubrick loves that eyes slightly rolled back in the head look to get across craziness/mind blowedness... it's in The Shining, Full Metal, 2001, A Clockwork Orange and I believe Strangelove as well.

The looking over the scowling brow thing... a serious irritation for sure. D'onofrio's crazy bit doesn't sit well with me either.

[megladon8]

I still haven't seen Barry Lyndon and a couple of other Kubrick films.

But yeah he was pretty great.

The Shining, 2001 and Eyes Wide Shut are all incredible pieces of work.

[Bosco B Thug]

Whoa. They Live By Night was phenomenal. Cathy O'Donnell was a revelation. Pity her career was railroaded by such pettiness. She had a very comfortable, natural style that wasn't very common back then. Far less polished and mannered than most.
Awesome. I too remember thinking it was phenomenal.


Perhaps it didn't help that I was watching the film with a bunch of guys who were reveling in the 'bad assery' of the experience. Gross.

[MadMan]

Hrm I viewed the ending as quite the opposite. They finally had to confront and come face to face with the humanity of their enemy (no more shooting from the air or from a distance) and only through a huge act of will power was he able to force himself to take that final shot. The end was them having to really confront and recognize the true horror of the war. It's not so much that killing had become second nature as that point they were passed the point of no return. There was no other option. I didn't really see much in the film that suggested they were all that afraid of war initially either. I think they were quite hungry for combat actually. It's only when they're actually in the field that they realize hey... this isn't what I signed on for.Well maybe that's more so the correct response, and I'm remembering wrong. It has been some time since I last saw it, so perhaps a rewatch is in order to determine whether or not I truly agree with my previous assessment or not. Regardless, anyone who watches Full Metal Jacket and becomes more gung ho as a result got the wrong impression, as its films like that one that make me want to avoid combat as much as possible. Joining the army is one of the last things I'd ever do.

[elixir]

Bigger Than Life, man...that was something else. Quite the biting attack on the 50s nuclear family, with facades torn down and phoniness revealed all around. Mason's performance is nothing short of electrifying, and his downward spiral into psychosis is disturbing but always engaging. The framing of the the three main characters is especially notable, I found, specifically thinking of the sequence (the Criterion cover) where Ed Avery's shadow looms large as the camera looks up at him (and the wife's shadow is barely there and she looks quite submissive). The film's premise is indeed quite simple, but the details brought out of seemingly normal situations (a dinner, a catch) make it work splendidly. The melodrama in the story only adds to its potency, and my only complaint may be with the ending, but still, it was one hell of a movie. I'm on a good roll lately.

[Qrazy]

Well maybe that's more so the correct response, and I'm remembering wrong. It has been some time since I last saw it, so perhaps a rewatch is in order to determine whether or not I truly agree with my previous assessment or not. Regardless, anyone who watches Full Metal Jacket and becomes more gung ho as a result got the wrong impression, as its films like that one that make me want to avoid combat as much as possible. Joining the army is one of the last things I'd ever do.

Yeah for sure but to be clear the people I was watching it with were not gung ho about the violence and death or about joining the army. They were gung ho about the 'bad assery' of the film, that is to say the extended verbal abuse monologues and the non-bloody violence of shit blowing up, etc.

[Watashi]

I watched The Deer Hunter in my film studies class today. It's the second time I've seen it.

I still think the wedding scene is too damn long. Masterful second half though.

[MadMan]

Yeah for sure but to be clear the people I was watching it with were not gung ho about the violence and death or about joining the army. They were gung ho about the 'bad assery' of the film, that is to say the extended verbal abuse monologues and the non-bloody violence of shit blowing up, etc.Okay, that's actually worse. Anyone who thinks that Full Metal Jacket is "Badass" needs help. They completely missed the point of the movie. But I figured you already knew that.

[Qrazy]

Okay, that's actually worse. Anyone who thinks that Full Metal Jacket is "Badass" needs help. They completely missed the point of the movie. But I figured you already knew that.

I don't know. I think the film is designed that way to some degree. A lot of those swear filled monologues are designed to be comic and macho and I'm sure some part of most of us wanted Pyle to shoot Hartman.

So I agree with you in a sense but I think there is something in the making of the film that draws in that crowd.

[Rowland]

Vernon, Florida - While amused, I didn't know what to make of this for at least its first half, until I began to pick up on the existential currents lurking just beneath the surface which are finally foregrounded in the last few minutes, retroactively clarifying the piece and rendering it unexpectedly affecting. The pace does begin to flag around the halfway point though, and I do wish Morris had included more footage like the ethereal opening to further articulate the tone, but I can see this playing better with a repeat viewing, knowing how to contextualize what seemed random the first time around.

The Prowler - A ludicrously predictable and borderline incoherent slasher that makes up for these faults with genuine craftsmanship, offbeat details, and some seriously brutal murders that effectively lift the veil of ironic spectatorship that these films too often inspire. Unlike the very similar My Bloody Valentine, this one actually generates some tension in spite of its formula, which it seems barely concerned with anyway as it half-asses some red herrings while the killer's identity is immediately, blatantly obvious, leaving more space to admire the work of director Zito and gore effects maestro Savini. Also, perhaps the only slasher to ever open with archival '40s newsreel footage? I thought I turned on the wrong film for the first minute or so.

And Stripes sucked. A few solid laughs in the first half, but mostly cynical, obvious, inert, and tone-deaf, not to mention weirdly conservative in a not-so-clever manner. How Reitman, Ramis, and Murray went from this crap to the still-fucking-awesome Ghostbusters in the span of just three years is beyond me.

[Raiders]

I have never seen all of Stripes but I must say I found it pretty funny. Mainly stuff in the first half. The second half with the tricked-out RV gets really silly and dumb.

[Eleven]

R. Lee Ermey's admittedly pretty funny in FMJ (almost typed FML there). Not in anything since, mind you...

[Mara]

I don't get why Stripes or Caddyshack are funny. I am assured that they are, but I didn't crack a smile once during either.

[Eleven]

Apropos to some of the auteurist discussion earlier, Andrew Sarris on film criticism books for FiveBooks (http://thebrowser.com/interviews/andrew-sarris-on-film-criticism). From the horse's mouth, as it were:


Auterism acknowledged that the director was the dominant personality in films and that films reflected a director’s vision. That was how it changed the trajectory of criticism. It was accused of ignoring every other contributor and technician involved in film – unfairly so.

Auteurism helped us understand that a director’s work should be judged on its artistry rather than its subject matter. Before I became familiar with the work of Bazin, I felt that film had to be ambitious and socially conscious to be valuable. Bazin and Cahiers helped me realise that cinema was sui generis, that film didn’t have to prove its social relevance, and that film should be judged on its own terms.

[Adam]

Bigger Than Life, man...that was something else...

Casting James Mason as an ex-high school football star in that movie was a stroke of genius. I also like how Walter Matthau's gym teacher is constantly referred to as being tremendously fit and whatnot and meanwhile he's as schlubby as ever


I have never seen all of Stripes but I must say I found it pretty funny. Mainly stuff in the first half. The second half with the tricked-out RV gets really silly and dumb.

Yeah, the first hour or so is cotton candy for Bill Murray fans, but it really has no where to go after they graduate from boot camp. Also could've used more Warren Oates

[D_Davis]

I still think the wedding scene is too damn long. Masterful second half though.

Completely agree.

[Spinal]

I dunno, the Russian roulette scenes in The Deer Hunter are pretty ridiculous.

[B-side]

Also could've used more Warren Oates

Couldn't the same be said of any movie, ever?

[Ezee E]

I dunno, the Russian roulette scenes in The Deer Hunter are pretty ridiculous.
Ridiculous how?

[Spinal]

Ridiculous how?

Played so far over the top that they register as absurd.

[MadMan]

I don't know. I think the film is designed that way to some degree. A lot of those swear filled monologues are designed to be comic and macho and I'm sure some part of most of us wanted Pyle to shoot Hartman.The scene with Pyle and Hartman was really disturbing. I spent it thinking "This is fucked up."


So I agree with you in a sense but I think there is something in the making of the film that draws in that crowd.Well one can argue that most war films are anti-war, which I suppose is a tad ironic.


And Stripes sucked. A few solid laughs in the first half, but mostly cynical, obvious, inert, and tone-deaf, not to mention weirdly conservative in a not-so-clever manner. How Reitman, Ramis, and Murray went from this crap to the still-fucking-awesome Ghostbusters in the span of just three years is beyond me.I think that Stripes is funnier and slightly better than Ghostbusters. Yes, you heard me. But then as much as I love Ghostbusters and Stripes, I don't find either one to be great. Really good, sure, but that's about it.

[Spun Lepton]

Played so far over the top that they register as absurd.

Spinal's Russian Roulette parties tend to be a lot more low-key.

:)

[Spun Lepton]

I think that Stripes is funnier and slightly better than Ghostbusters.

You're dead to me.

[Qrazy]

The scene with Pyle and Hartman was really disturbing. I spent it thinking "This is fucked up."


Yeah the scene itself is disturbing but the experiences leading up to it generate a predisposition to want Hartman to 'get what's coming to him'. Another criticism I have of Full Metal is that for a film that purports to be about the duality of man I found the character building probably the most blunt and two-dimensional of any of Kubrick's films. Humbert Humbert is a nuanced and well realized character as is Alex DeLarge and Col. Dax. But who is Pvt. Joker or Pvt. Cowboy and why should I care they're being dehumanized if it was barely established they were human to begin with?

[number8]

Spinal's Russian Roulette parties tend to be a lot more low-key.

:)

The loser golf claps so silently for the winner that you can't even hear or see him do it.

[Eleven]

The scene with Pyle and Hartman was really disturbing. I spent it thinking "This is fucked up."

Well one can argue that most war films are anti-war, which I suppose is a tad ironic.

One could also argue the opposite, that movies that shows warfare in any remotely exciting or gloried or beautiful light (including the positive portrayal of one side for inflicting harm on the other), no matter what the ostensible "message" of the movie, isn't being particularly "anti-war." Anti-a-particular-war, perhaps, but not anti-war in general. Then again, it's hard to predict how an audience member will absorb a movie despite its intentions.


I think that Stripes is funnier and slightly better than Ghostbusters. Yes, you heard me. But then as much as I love Ghostbusters and Stripes, I don't find either one to be great. Really good, sure, but that's about it.

Madness.

[Raiders]

I think that Stripes is funnier and slightly better than Ghostbusters. Yes, you heard me. But then as much as I love Ghostbusters and Stripes, I don't find either one to be great. Really good, sure, but that's about it.

So what, you'd rate Stripes a 97 and Ghostbusters a 95?

[B-side]

I really need to watch Ordet again. (http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/video/video.php?v=10100190543042118)

[MadMan]

Yeah the scene itself is disturbing but the experiences leading up to it generate a predisposition to want Hartman to 'get what's coming to him'. Another criticism I have of Full Metal is that for a film that purports to be about the duality of man I found the character building probably the most blunt and two-dimensional of any of Kubrick's films. Humbert Humbert is a nuanced and well realized character as is Alex DeLarge and Col. Dax. But who is Pvt. Joker or Pvt. Cowboy and why should I care they're being dehumanized if it was barely established they were human to begin with?I actually related more to Pvt. Joker, partly because that would be me in combat (cheeky bastard and all, having to make light of a terrible situation). I thought that Cowboy was the more interesting character of the two. In the end, most war movies don't have well rounded, well dimensional characters, which is why I find Apocalypse Now to be the best one I've ever seen: the main character's motivations are clear, and while sure the grunts on the boat aren't too fleshed out, you can still understand what they are feeling and thinking. So yeah perhaps that is a valid criticism of FMJ.


You're dead to me.I've gotten that before, I think :P


So what, you'd rate Stripes a 97 and Ghostbusters a 95?No, they'd both get around a 90. 93 and above=great for me.


One could also argue the opposite, that movies that shows warfare in any remotely exciting or gloried or beautiful light (including the positive portrayal of one side for inflicting harm on the other), no matter what the ostensible "message" of the movie, isn't being particularly "anti-war." Anti-a-particular-war, perhaps, but not anti-war in general. Then again, it's hard to predict how an audience member will absorb a movie despite its intentions.I've seen some war movies that glorify war too much (people aim this criticism at Saving Private Ryan, but I think they are wrong). I'm not sure that makes them bad movies, but they are questionable because I highly doubt anyone who's been to war thinks its great.


Madness.I'm starting to think that Ghostbusters is overrated. Its not the best comedy I've ever seen, not even close. Not even Top 20 comedies worthy.

[Qrazy]

Can you guys think of any great scripts that were turned into mediocre or even bad films?

[Spinal]

Can you guys think of any great scripts that were turned into mediocre or even bad films?

First thing to come to mind is Beyond Therapy.

[Stay Puft]

from the top 10 thread


wut?

Yeah, I think I've missed the boat on this one.

I loved parts of it. Kassagi was a great presence and I enjoyed the scenes with him demonstrating the art of his craft, and the sequences where they go to work. I also liked the ending, how the final shot abruptly cuts to black and then simply lingers on while the music plays.

There's enough going on here stylistically that I enjoyed that I'm not deterred from watching more of Bresson's films. But the film as a whole left me with little to nothing, and there are some stylistic and narrative elements that also simply annnoyed or frustrated (the prison confession framing device, for example). I anticipate well reasoned responses that illustrate the ultimate wrongness of my opinion, but the narrative experience for me was too often hurried, rushed and frankly slight. I also did not care for the film's depiction of the female characters, and could not get invested or find anything of interest in the protagonist's relationships with them or anyone else in the film.

[elixir]

No, I totally agree with you on Pickpocket.

Watch Au Hasard Balthazar--it's fantastic. Haven't seen any other Bressons though.

[DavidSeven]

How to Train Your Dragon. Dreamworks Animation hasn't just closed the gap between it and Pixar, it obliterated it and set a new benchmark. How could anyone in their right mind consider Toy Story 3 a better film than this for any reason beyond pure nostalgia? I haven't seen this much attention paid to the purely cinematic aspects of an animated film since the first half of Wall-E. Also love the fact that there's some careful subtext work here that's actually seems penetrable for children. Really impressed with this all around.

[MadMan]

Too bad Dreamworks is off to create and release tons and tons of sequels. Thus squandering any new potential they had with "Dragon" for the purpose of more money. Never mind HTTTYD was a box office hit, and probably one of their best movies (I've skipped most of their catalog, and haven't seen Kung Fu Panda yet).

[Sycophant]

Pixar's next three films are Cars 2, a new thing called Brave, and Monsters, Inc. 2. They just released Toy Story 3. I see a greater new-project-to-sequel ratio on DreamWorks Animation's list of upcoming films.

[MadMan]

Pixar's next three films are Cars 2, a new thing called Brave, and Monsters, Inc. 2. They just released Toy Story 3. I see a greater new-project-to-sequel ratio on DreamWorks Animation's list of upcoming films.Yeah I'm trying to forget that Cars 2 is happening, as it looks awful. Not sure why there even needs to be a Monsters, Inc. 2, either, although I'm sure I'll go see it anyways. I'm not against sequels, but I don't like it when a previously "original" studio decides to ship them out to theaters in bulk.

[soitgoes...]

Pixar's next three films are Cars 2, a new thing called Brave, and Monsters, Inc. 2. They just released Toy Story 3. I see a greater new-project-to-sequel ratio on DreamWorks Animation's list of upcoming films.I'm not sure how you can say that when Dreamworks' next three films are sequels/spinoffs. Yes they have a ton of films labelled as "Upcoming," but how many of those will actually see the light of day? Pixar only has the three films announced so it's hard to compare.

[Morris Schæffer]

Too bad Dreamworks is off to create and release tons and tons of sequels. Thus squandering any new potential they had with "Dragon" for the purpose of more money. Never mind HTTTYD was a box office hit, and probably one of their best movies (I've skipped most of their catalog, and haven't seen Kung Fu Panda yet).

Well, there are several Dragon novels to be fair so, unless I'm mistaken, DW isn't creating these from scratch.

The eventual HTTYD (you've got one "T" too many :D) sequel is high on my most anticipated list.

[MadMan]

Well, there are several Dragon novels to be fair so, unless I'm mistaken, DW isn't creating these from scratch.

The eventual HTTYD (you've got one "T" too many :D) sequel is high on my most anticipated list.Damn, I always overdo it, heh.

And um, yeah I'll gladly see a "Dragon" sequel. But then again, that's one movie that could have a viable sequel. There's no need to make a sequel to Cars, except to make more money. I still have little interest in viewing the first one.

[Watashi]

How to Train Your Dragon. Dreamworks Animation hasn't just closed the gap between it and Pixar, it obliterated it and set a new benchmark. How could anyone in their right mind consider Toy Story 3 a better film than this for any reason beyond pure nostalgia? I haven't seen this much attention paid to the purely cinematic aspects of an animated film since the first half of Wall-E. Also love the fact that there's some careful subtext work here that's actually seems penetrable for children. Really impressed with this all around.
I can easily call Toy Story 3 better.

How To Train Your Dragon is not funny. At all. The side characters are horribly written (the Jack Black-looking dude voiced by Jonah Hill being the worst offender). The love story is bland in the traditonal "we need to have a love interest" formulaic plot device. Ugh.

Also, Jay Baruchel is horrible. He has no range in his vocal acting. His moods from sad, excited, angry, etc are all the damn same.

This would have worked much much better as a short film. There is too much filler. The quiet parts with Toothless work so well because it does so much with so little. Even the story is rote and cops out with the whole "is he dead?! No. He's alive".

The flight sequences and the score are breathtaking, but everything is else just bland. There isn't an ounce of creative flow behind the story. Toy Story 3 has better acting, more emotion connection, and just a stronger balance between fun and dramatic.

[Qrazy]

Damn, I always overdo it, heh.

And um, yeah I'll gladly see a "Dragon" sequel. But then again, that's one movie that could have a viable sequel. There's no need to make a sequel to Cars, except to make more money. I still have little interest in viewing the first one.

Aaand punchline.

[Watashi]

Tangled
The Illusionist
Toy Story 3
Legend of the Guardians

All these 2010 movies are better than HTTYD.

DreamWorks still hasn't topped Kung Fu Panda in my eyes (only counting their CG efforts).

Not looking forward to their future projects at all. Though I'd rather see Puss in Boots than Cars 2 right now if I had the choice. I can't believe I just typed that.

[Winston*]

Weekend
How to Train Your Dragon

[Rowland]

The subtext in HTTYD is tricky, because on the one hand, the film's repudiation of mindless jingoism is obviously a good thing, but on the other hand, it ends with yet another big, bad villain that must be defeated and the dragons being essentially domesticated as pets to follow the will of their new masters.

[DavidSeven]

How To Train Your Dragon is not funny. At all.

Disagree, but I liked the fact that the whole thing wasn't built around gags. This felt more grown up in its form while being more appropriate and meaningful for kids in substance than other recent animated films. Thought they found a really incredible balance.

I'm looking forward to Tangled, though.

[DavidSeven]

The subtext in HTTYD is tricky, because on the one hand, the film's repudiation of mindless jingoism is obviously a good thing, but on the other hand, it ends with yet another big, bad villain that must be defeated and the dragons being essentially domesticated as pets to follow the will of their new masters.

I had this thought, too. I give them mostly a pass because it's handled so well for the vast majority of the film and a final confrontation like that seemed sort of dramatically inevitable. A more nuanced ending might have been more satisfying intellectually, but I like what's just below the surface and likely to be conveyed to general audiences.

[Watashi]

The subtext in HTTYD is tricky, because on the one hand, the film's repudiation of mindless jingoism is obviously a good thing, but on the other hand, it ends with yet another big, bad villain that must be defeated and the dragons being essentially domesticated as pets to follow the will of their new masters.
Couldn't this also explain Avatar and countless other movies as well?

[kuehnepips]

Weekend
How to Train Your Dragon

Ditto.

[Scar]

I get a kick out of HTTYD, especially since Toothless seems like a combination of our cats.

Both Toy Story 3 and HTTYD need a rewatch from me to determine which is 'better'.

[Fezzik]

How to Train Your Dragon. Dreamworks Animation hasn't just closed the gap between it and Pixar, it obliterated it and set a new benchmark. How could anyone in their right mind consider Toy Story 3 a better film than this for any reason beyond pure nostalgia? I haven't seen this much attention paid to the purely cinematic aspects of an animated film since the first half of Wall-E. Also love the fact that there's some careful subtext work here that's actually seems penetrable for children. Really impressed with this all around.

I'm a total Pixar shill, and even I agree with this assessment. It helps that Toothless is so well realized a character. The DuBlois/Sanders touch that also created Stitch is apparent.

The most amazing thing about HTTYD (aside from the score and the flying scenes) is the detail in the character's facial expressions. So many nuances of movements in the eyes and lips that really added to it.

And that last set piece was astounding. I don't care that they went to the "he's dead / no he's alive" trope. By that point, imo, the movie had earned it.

And I loved that at the end, Hiccup was 'flawed' physically like Toothless. Made their pairing even better.

[Rowland]

Strange Behavior - Otherworldy in its atmosphere, thanks to director Michael Laughlin's vivid direction, full of pregnant lulls, precise framing, sinuous camera movements, and suggestive use of negative/off-screen space (why didn't this guy have a career?), as well as Bill (Gods and Monsters/Kinsey/Dreamgirls) Condon's deeply eccentric debut screenplay, fusing slasher and '50s sci-fi/mad scientist tropes with an off-kilter sensibility that manages to have some fun with its outlandish material without going straight-up tongue-in-cheek, all topped off with a moody Tangerine Dream score for that added ethereal kick. So why only three stars? The screenplay is haphazardly imagined and structured, with many ideas only halfway fleshed out and characters briefly introduced only to reappear with great significance 45+ minutes later (I had to rewind at least twice to recapture my bearings) or be simply forgotten, as well as a slack emotional impetus that fizzles as the last act descends into only intermittently convincing melodrama and a puzzling epilogue that suggests the film should have either been five minutes shorter or longer. That said, these elements do succeed to some extent in amplifying the film's subtly nightmarish tone, so perhaps these pecularities were at least partly intentional? In any case, an intriguing oddity that deserves wider recognition.

Ms. 45. - Generally I find it the most difficult to write about films that impress me the most, probably due to some sort of writerly confidence shortage. So for now I'll just say Wow.

[B-side]

Ms. 45. - Generally I find it the most difficult to write about films that impress me the most, probably due to some sort of writerly confidence shortage. So for now I'll just say Wow.

:pritch:

Definitely seek out The Driller Killer and Mary as I find them as good or better than Ms. 45.

[MadMan]

Aaand punchline.What? Cars and Cars 2 are movies I have no interest in seeing. But hey man, whatever.

Weekend:

*Whatever the hell I feel like watching

[Raiders]

Nothing has topped Ms. 45 for me, but I haven't actually seen a Ferrara film I have disliked.

[NickGlass]

Has anyone seen Ferrara's Mary?

[Raiders]

Has anyone (**besides Brightside who said he had seen it not three posts ago**) seen Ferrara's Mary?

Nope, want to though.

[StanleyK]

The Rules of the Game: not really ha-ha funny, but one of my favorite comedies. The complex interactions between the characters (and the way the movie juggles all their motivations to satisfying pay-offs is masterful. "The awful thing about life is this; everybody has their reasons.) provides the humor, mostly dark, at times even cynical, but never pessimistic, and it never condescends to them. And of course, Renoir's direction is phenomenal; between the cinematography, composition and editing (shot/reverse shot conversations done well!), I was seldom thinking about anything but just how freakin' good it looks.

[baby doll]

Mary is interesting but uneven and all over the place. I'm partial to Bad Lieutenant ("Where the fuck were you?!"), The Funeral, and New Rose Hotel.

[Qrazy]

What? Cars and Cars 2 are movies I have no interest in seeing. But hey man, whatever.

Weekend:

*Whatever the hell I feel like watching

Well you were just talking about how worthless a Cars sequel would be for a few posts and then at the end of the last post you said you hadn't seen Cars yet. So while I definitely agree that Cars doesn't need a sequel it was just still funny to me the way you expressed it.

[soitgoes...]

Weekend:

Boat People (Hui)
Another Year (Leigh)
Essential Killing (Skolimowski)
My Only Sunshine (Erdem)
Egg (Kaplanoglu)

[baby doll]

Weekend:

Tonight I'm planning to see Four Lions. Then tomorrow, I'm going to take a train from Ottawa to Toronto, and I'm thinking of heading up to the TIFF Lightbox (assuming I can find it) to check out And Everything Is Going Fine and Des Hommes et de dieux. And then on Saturday, I'm flying to Shanghai, but I don't know what movies are playing there. (Since it's an Air Canada flight, I'll probably watch Curling on the way up.)

[soitgoes...]

Weekend:

Tonight I'm planning to see Four Lions. Then tomorrow, I'm going to take a train from Ottawa to Toronto, and I'm thinking of heading up to the TIFF Lightbox (assuming I can find it) to check out And Everything Is Going Fine and Des Hommes et de dieux. And then on Saturday, I'm flying to Shanghai, but I don't know what movies are playing there. (Since it's an Air Canada flight, I'll probably watch Curling on the way up.)
With any luck Yogi Bear will be playing on the flight over. ;)

Have fun.

[baby doll]

With any luck Yogi Bear will be playing on the flight over. ;)

Have fun.Thanks.

[Winston*]

Has anyone seen Ferrara's Mary?

I saw it in theatres. Weird movie.

[Eleven]

Weekend:

Tonight I'm planning to see Four Lions. Then tomorrow, I'm going to take a train from Ottawa to Toronto, and I'm thinking of heading up to the TIFF Lightbox (assuming I can find it) to check out And Everything Is Going Fine and Des Hommes et de dieux. And then on Saturday, I'm flying to Shanghai, but I don't know what movies are playing there. (Since it's an Air Canada flight, I'll probably watch Curling on the way up.)

Fuck you, and your sweet, sweet itinerary.

Four Lions is hilarious. Of Gods and Men isn't quite so.

[DavidSeven]

What's the MC consensus on Ferrara's The Funeral? Been meaning to watch it on Instant Watch. I prefer Bad Lieutenant to Ms. 45, but both left a solid impression.

[Watashi]

I couldn't even finish Four Lions. Turned it off half way through. I didn't find anything funny.

[Winston*]

Four Lions might be my favourite movie of 2010.

[B-side]

Nothing has topped Ms. 45 for me, but I haven't actually seen a Ferrara film I have disliked.

You say this, and you praise two Bruce Conner films. You're after my heart, Raiders, and I'm about to let you have it.

[Boner M]

Ferrara ratings:

Ms. 45: ****
Bad Lieutenant: ***1/2
The Addiction: ***
Dangerous Game: ***
King of New York: *** (need to revisit)
Driller Killer: ***
Body Snatchers: ***
Mary: ***
The Funeral: **1/2 (n/t/r)
R'Xmas: **1/2

I find that Ferrara's films replay in the mind better that nearly any filmmaker, maybe aside from Nicholas Ray. All of the above are fascinating, at the very least.

[B-side]

Rough Ferrara ratings cuz it's what the cool kids are doing:

Mary - 8.5
The Driller Killer - 8.5
Ms. 45 - 8 (needs rewatch)
The Addiction - 8
Body Snatchers - 7.5
Dangerous Game - 7.5
New Rose Hotel - 7.5 (needs rewatch)
The Blackout - 6.5
The Funeral - 6
Bad Lieutenant - 6 (needs rewatch)

I have Go Go Tales, Chelsea on the Rocks and Napoli, Napoli, Napoli all at the ready.

[B-side]

I don't like my ratings. I don't think they really accurately relay my love for Ferrara. When he works, he works spectacularly.

[Raiders]

Ms. 45 - 9.5
The Addiction - 9.0
Bad Lieutenant - 8.5
Dangerous Game - 8.5
'R Xmas - 8.0
King of New York - 7.0
Body Snatchers - 7.0
The Driller Killer - 6.0 (sorry B-side, I'll re-watch it after I see a few more of his)

[B-side]

'R Xmas - 8.0

I may give this a go next.

[Stay Puft]

I'm thinking of heading up to the TIFF Lightbox (assuming I can find it)

In the heart of the entertainment district and occupies an entire city block (it was built in Reitman square), so you won't miss it. Nice theatre, good seats (at least in the three main theatres, they cheaped out a bit on screens four and five).

I'm going to be in Toronto myself at the end of the month, but I haven't checked the Lightbox schedule. Hope there's something good playing.

[megladon8]

So I think I mentioned this way back when, but I was just reminded of it when I overheard the Braveheart track again.


Fast forward to 1:00 in this track from the mid-90s PC game "Deadly Tide"...

D5EOn8dNIVk


That is a little melody that repeats a few times throughout the soundtrack.


Is it just me, or is it nearly identical to a melody used in the Braveheart theme?

9AN04imFDK8



EDIT: And I feel no shame in stating that "Deadly Tide" has one of the best orchestral scores of all time. Games and movies included.

[Boner M]

WEEKEND

Lola (Demy)
Basket Case
Down Terrace
Restrepo
Cinema: Unknown or Rango or Of Gods and Men or Certified Copy again

[Rowland]

Basket CaseThis movie rocks.


RestrepoThis is okay, but overrated as far as 2010 documentaries are concerned.

[Boner M]

This is okay, but overrated as far as 2010 documentaries are concerned.
Yeah, the response has been lukewarm from my sources (you included, sweetkins) but I have to review it for my mag so I'm hoping for the best.

[Barty]

So I think I mentioned this way back when, but I was just reminded of it when I overheard the Braveheart track again.


Fast forward to 1:00 in this track from the mid-90s PC game "Deadly Tide"...

D5EOn8dNIVk


That is a little melody that repeats a few times throughout the soundtrack.


Is it just me, or is it nearly identical to a melody used in the Braveheart theme?

9AN04imFDK8



EDIT: And I feel no shame in stating that "Deadly Tide" has one of the best orchestral scores of all time. Games and movies included.

Yep, it's nearly identical.

[Rowland]

Yeah, the response has been lukewarm from my sources (you included, sweetkins) but I have to review it for my mag so I'm hoping for the best.I hope you like it, don't want you to feel like you wasted your time. I know some critics I follow who really liked it, so you never know.

[MadMan]

Well you were just talking about how worthless a Cars sequel would be for a few posts and then at the end of the last post you said you hadn't seen Cars yet. So while I definitely agree that Cars doesn't need a sequel it was just still funny to me the way you expressed it.I feel that a movie I have little desire to see probably shouldn't get a sequel to it. This is based on the movie's apparent lack of quality, not whether nor its my kind of film.

[balmakboor]

W/E

Masculin Feminin
Nashville
The Taste of Tea

All re-watches.

[Sven]

A couple (two) solid laughs, but mostly Cedar Rapids is annoying, misdirected, and pandering. Message: if you are a dorky loser, Anne Heche will sleep with you.

[Raiders]

Message: if you are a dorky loser, Anne Heche will sleep with you.

Sounds like a four-star film to me.

[Sven]

Sounds like a four-star film to me.

I gotta admit, she was pretty smokin' in the movie.

[Raiders]

I gotta admit, she was pretty smokin' in the movie.

The "fine wine" line might be cliche, but it is seriously true for her. She was always attractive but in the last five or six years her hotness has skyrocketed.

[Qrazy]

I feel that a movie I have little desire to see probably shouldn't get a sequel to it. This is based on the movie's apparent lack of quality, not whether nor its my kind of film.

You can't really determine it's quality if you haven't seen it. Personally I enjoyed Cars although it has a weak premise and is probably Pixar's weakest film.

[Sven]

Also, it is nice to be reminded that Stephen Root is a pretty good actor, not just that guy with that schtick.

[dreamdead]

Watched Inside Job; not as formally challenging a documentary as Exit... , but certainly provocative and frustrating to view nonetheless. It was good, and makes one want the European Union's treatment on how to prevent these issues from ever occurring again.

[Spun Lepton]

Looks like I'm seeing Battle: Los Angeles this weekend, though I can't say I'm particularly enthused. :)

[Philosophe_rouge]

A couple (two) solid laughs, but mostly Cedar Rapids is annoying, misdirected, and pandering. Message: if you are a dorky loser, Anne Heche will sleep with you.
Yea, this film was somewhat unnerving. There was something about it that just hit the mark so completely, and was almost upsetting, but mostly annoying and puzzling.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Weekend
Where the Buffalo's Roam
Rango
A Brand New Life
Barking Dogs Never Bite

[megladon8]

Weekend
Where the Buffalo's Roam
Rango
A Brand New Life
Barking Dogs Never Bite


...and Battle:LA, right?

[Raiders]

Weekend:

Rango
Breakaway (Conner)
1941 (yes, the Spielberg project is back underway -- had a hiatus while I concerned myself almost solely with 2010 films)

[megladon8]

Weekend:

Rango
Breakaway (Conner)
1941 (yes, the Spielberg project is back underway -- had a hiatus while I concerned myself almost solely with 2010 films)


...and Battle: LA?

Or are you more of a Red Riding Hood kinda guy?

[Raiders]

...and Battle: LA?

Or are you more of a Red Riding Hood kinda guy?

Beastly, actually. But I'm having trouble convincing my wife I don't want to go just to stare at Alex Pettyfer.

[megladon8]

Beastly, actually. But I'm having trouble convincing my wife I don't want to go just to stare at Alex Pettyfer.


Why would you need to convince her?

He is just, dreamy.

[transmogrifier]

Weekend:
1941

Good luck - you're gonna need it for that one!