28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[Sven]

The film, completed and edited, does exist. Lewis screened it a few times back in the 70s I think, but since has kept the only known copy locked away. No other negatives are known to exist.

Do you have any links to this? Everything I've read, which includes two Jerry Lewis biographies, suggests that there is no complete version.

[Raiders]

Do you have any links to this? Everything I've read, which includes two Jerry Lewis biographies, suggests that there is no complete version.

Complete version, no. But the film was shot and a rough cut of it existed that Lewis did screen back in the early 70s. Don't think anyone knows if any negatives still exist, and I know I've read that Lewis has a videocassette locked up somewhere.

[balmakboor]

This is all pretty much what I'd heard about Clown Cried, that some rough version existed and was screened, and then it was tucked away by Lewis possibly out of embarrassment. Naturally legends have arisen that it is some sort of ahead of its time, misunderstood masterpiece. More likely it's something best kept locked away, of course.

[Irish]

Has anyone here signed up for Hulu Plus?

They're offering the entire Criterion Collection, it seems. I'm wondering if it's worth the $8 a month and whether the movies come with commercials too.

[Kurosawa Fan]

It wasn't for me, but I was using with my Roku. I cancelled mine. Way too many of their quality shows are "web only," completely defeating the purpose of subscribing through the Roku. Plus, commercial interruptions are lame. I'll stick with Netflix.

[D_Davis]

Hulu Plus has "web only" shows? That's super lame.

[Scar]

Cut the cable, used Hulu Plus, grew tired of commercials and occasional stutters, so I discontinued it.

[EyesWideOpen]

Hulu Plus has "web only" shows? That's super lame.

It's something like 80% of their shows are web only. Does anyone have confirmation if their movies are commercial interrupted also?

[balmakboor]

It's something like 80% of their shows are web only. Does anyone have confirmation if their movies are commercial interrupted also?

There was tons of talk about this on the Criterion Facebook wall a while back and it seems that Criterion movies only have a brief commercial before the film starts.

The common complaint about Hulu Plus is that you are still stuck watching most everything on your computer.

[ledfloyd]

i just tried watching mean streets for the first time in 5 years, it was kind of lousy.

[megladon8]

Conan the Barbarian suffers from some undeniable hoakiness, some as a result of poor aging and some as a result of, well, being cheesy as hell.

It actually has some interesting themes regarding revenge towards the very end of the movie, and the movie would have been better if it had explored these a little more, rather than just casually mentioning them in the final quarter.

I loved the effects of the demons trying to pull Conan away during the healing scene, after his crucifixion. Holds up quite well, actually.

[D_Davis]

Going to check out Cave of Forgotten Dreams today.

My first newfangled 3D movie.

[transmogrifier]

i just tried watching mean streets for the first time in 5 years, it was kind of lousy.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lasmpzzeeO1qe0eclo1_r1_ 500.gif

[D_Davis]

Cave of Forgotten Dreams was rather...uh...I don't know. It wasn't very interesting, nor was there a lot to marvel at. My friend and I both dozed off for about five minutes. Some neat stuff, but it didn't hold my interest at all. Didn't really care for the 3D either. Definitely not a fan of that technology, and I doubt I'll ever seek out another 3D movie again. It didn't add anything, and conversely it distracted me as my eyes had trouble adjusting to it.

And $12.50 for a matinee? Forget that business.

[Ezee E]

$12.50 for a matinee? Yikes.

[balmakboor]

Cave of Forgotten Dreams was rather...uh...I don't know. It wasn't very interesting, nor was there a lot to marvel at. My friend and I both dozed off for about five minutes. Some neat stuff, but it didn't hold my interest at all. Didn't really care for the 3D either. Definitely not a fan of that technology, and I doubt I'll ever seek out another 3D movie again. It didn't add anything, and conversely it distracted me as my eyes had trouble adjusting to it.

And $12.50 for a matinee? Forget that business.

I'm interested in seeing the upcoming Takeshi Miike 3D movie.

http://moviebuzzers.com/2011/04/15/image-takeshi-miikes-harakiri-remake/

[balmakboor]

My weekend:

Midnight Cowboy - Enjoyed it more than ever before.
Cape Fear (Scorsese) - Loved every beautifully crafted second.
Andrei Rublev - Long. Great. I especially love the bell sequence and the ending. Too bad the Criterion disc isn't enhanced for widescreen tvs.
Zabriskie Point - Up next.

My thoughts so far.

[B-side]

The Aviator is one of Scorsese's best. It's easily one of the best cinematic depictions of mental illness I've ever seen. The cinematography is exquisite. The camera's obsessive attention to certain details perfectly mirroring Hughes' OCD to nearly excruciating extent. Fitting of the period, the colors are bold and technicolor-esque. When Hughes and Hepburn approach her estate, it looks like it's coated in the ironic candy-coated shell that technicolor did so well.

[soitgoes...]

The Aviator is one of Scorsese's best. It's easily one of the best cinematic depictions of mental illness I've ever seen. The cinematography is exquisite. The camera's obsessive attention to certain details perfectly mirroring Hughes' OCD to nearly excruciating extent. Fitting of the period, the colors are bold and technicolor-esque. When Hughes and Hepburn approach her estate, it looks like it's coated in the ironic candy-coated shell that technicolor did so well.Yeah, the look of the film is the most memorable aspect. I think I love the Multicolor scenes in the beginning more. The red/blue hues give things a neat look, especially during the golf scene where the grass is practically blue because of the absence of the third color. I wouldn't go so far as to say it's among Scorsese's best though.

[B-side]

Yeah, the look of the film is the most memorable aspect. I think I love the Multicolor scenes in the beginning more. The red/blue hues give things a neat look, especially during the golf scene where the grass is practically blue because of the absence of the third color. I wouldn't go so far as to say it's among Scorsese's best though.

Agreed with all but the last bit.:P

Scorsese's best on a technical front.

[soitgoes...]

Agreed with all but the last bit.:P

Scorsese's best on a technical front.
I don't know if I could say such and such Scorsese film is technically the best. There's a solid half dozen that could vie for that title.

[baby doll]

The Aviator is Scorsese's least embarrassing film with DiCapprio.Fixed. I mean, it's a fairly enjoyable--if limited--piece of Hollywood mythmaking (Howard Hughes as a charismatic pretty boy who bangs movie stars and flies big planes), which is the most that anyone can realistically expect from a director in Scorsese's position, but as the year's go by, I find Scorsese's insistence on every sequence having "energy" increasingly labored, almost to the point of desperation. (Here, facing the paparazzi at a movie premiere is even more of a masochistic ordeal than Jake LaMotta's boxing matches.)

[B-side]

I don't know if I could say such and such Scorsese film is technically the best. There's a solid half dozen that could vie for that title.

I live for expressionistic frames and bold colors, my friend.

[B-side]

(Here, facing the paparazzi at a movie premiere is even more of a masochistic ordeal than Jake LaMotta's boxing matches.)

:|

Hughes was incredibly ill. The overwhelming and suffocating nature of those scenes was absolutely essential to properly conveying his illness. I know what social anxiety feels like, and Scorsese did a great job in capturing that sort of manic paranoia that can be associated with it.

[baby doll]

:|

Hughes was incredibly ill. The overwhelming and suffocating nature of those scenes was absolutely essential to properly conveying his illness. I know what social anxiety feels like, and Scorsese did a great job in capturing that sort of manic paranoia that can be associated with it.I haven't seen the movie recently, but wasn't that sequence towards the beginning of the picture when his illness was at a relative low point? I mean, I understand what Scorsese was going for (Hughes really, really didn't like being photographed, begging the question: Why attend a Hollywood premiere with a blonde starlet on your arm, except to be seen?), but it still seems like stylistic overkill to make such an obvious point.

[Morris Schæffer]

Yesterday I ordered

http://images.esellerpro.com/2256/I/207/077/optbd1895.jpg

Anyone seen it?

[B-side]

I haven't seen the movie recently, but wasn't that sequence towards the beginning of the picture when his illness was at a relative low point? I mean, I understand what Scorsese was going for (Hughes really, really didn't like being photographed, begging the question: Why attend a Hollywood premiere with a blonde starlet on your arm, except to be seen?), but it still seems like stylistic overkill to make such an obvious point.

Similar scenes are scattered throughout, showing that his illness was there throughout his adulthood. I believe Hughes addressed that very question in the film. Seemed to me he thought women enjoyed film premieres and all manner of glitz and glamor, and he was always pursuing one, so it makes sense that he'd have one on his arm when attending one. Plus, publicity is good when you want money, which he was also constantly pursuing. I don't see how it's stylistic overkill. It's very tactile, very appropriately breathlessly overwhelming. The crunch of the shattered light bulbs, the never-ending flashes and illuminating lights that appear in nearly every scene in some fashion, the obsessive attention to certain details (e.g. the coat being thrown on the floor as the camera swoops back into the hallway in Hughes' house while he and Hepburn are together for the first time, the sheen of the plane, the distance between the towels and the man on the crutches) -- it's all so... well, tangibly discomforting.

[B-side]

BTW, I'm sure Melville could defend this movie much better than I am right now.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I was hoping The Invention of Lying would be an underrated film, much like Ghost Town. Not so much. It starts off very strong, but after the major turn in the plot, the wheels fall off. Fast. It devolves into a treacly mess, and kind of throws out a mixed message with the conclusion. Not very good.

[balmakboor]

Yesterday I ordered

http://images.esellerpro.com/2256/I/207/077/optbd1895.jpg

Anyone seen it?

Yes. It is or at least was on Netflix Instant Watch. I enjoyed every minute even though I didn't feel I knew the guy any better after spending five hours with him than I did going in, which wasn't very well.

[balmakboor]

The Aviator is one of Scorsese's best. It's easily one of the best cinematic depictions of mental illness I've ever seen. The cinematography is exquisite. The camera's obsessive attention to certain details perfectly mirroring Hughes' OCD to nearly excruciating extent. Fitting of the period, the colors are bold and technicolor-esque. When Hughes and Hepburn approach her estate, it looks like it's coated in the ironic candy-coated shell that technicolor did so well.

I think it's one of Scorsese's most intricately crafted films and it's one of him most entertaining. I still think it would've been better material for Spielberg though. It's like pure puer mythology.

[balmakboor]

But I have to say it again. Wow. I'm so glad Spielberg handed Cape Fear over to Scorsese (in the trade for Schindler's List). I can't imagine the movie being anywhere near as good in Spielberg's hands.

[Boner M]

Can't stop thinking about Assayas' Cold Water. My new favorite of his.

[StanleyK]

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is a near-perfect portrayal of how painful, essentially nonsensical, and yet worthwhile relationships are. The fragmented structure actually complements the narrative beautifully. The ending, while bleak in suggesting that Joel and Clem are doomed to repeat this cycle forever, never to learn from their mistakes, is also hopeful in showing the courage and trust needed to just take the plunge into being with someone. Maybe not the most illuminating film on the nature of memories and love, but such a lovingly crafted and enjoyable one. Time has improved it; I was more moved by it now than I was before.

[Raiders]

Can't stop thinking about Assayas' Cold Water. My new favorite of his.

Indeed. Great, great film. I really need to catch up with his post-Demonlover work, especially Carlos which I have been saying I will watch forever.

[balmakboor]

Is there a statute of limitations on spoiler-ability? A recent post contains what I consider to be a spoiler, but the film is just barely old enough that I guess it's okay. I mean I'm sure I can get away with saying Dorothy kills the wicked witch by liquidating her -- or can I? -- but where does one draw the line?

[ledfloyd]

Can't stop thinking about Assayas' Cold Water. My new favorite of his.
i couldn't possibly pick a favorite assayas but the party scene in cold water is fantastic.

[MadMan]

Is there a statute of limitations on spoiler-ability? A recent post contains what I consider to be a spoiler, but the film is just barely old enough that I guess it's okay. I mean I'm sure I can get away with saying Dorothy kills the wicked witch by liquidating her -- or can I? -- but where does one draw the line?I think there is. I haven't seen all of Seven, but considering that it came out in 1995 and its 2011, I've had the ending spoilered for me. And that was a more modern movie. There is a point where certain movies that are at least 20+ years old have been seen by most people (even people who have never seen The Empire Strikes Back know that Darth Vader is Luke's father, for example). Now a movie released in 2000 or sooner, yeah spoiler tags should really apply. However, there are certain things however you shouldn't spoil, such as the ending to The Sixth Sense, for example.

[StanleyK]

(even people who have never seen The Empire Strikes Back know that Darth Vader is Luke's father, for example)

Not necessarily. When I first watched TESB a few years ago, I didn't know this and was actually surprised it. I also know at least four separate people who, as of 2011, have never seen Star Wars and have no idea what the plot consists of.

[MadMan]

Not necessarily. When I first watched TESB a few years ago, I didn't know this and was actually surprised it. I also know at least four separate people who, as of 2011, have never seen Star Wars and have no idea what the plot consists of.Okay, I stand corrected....

[Boner M]

i couldn't possibly pick a favorite assayas but the party scene in cold water is fantastic.
I love Assayas' style, but I think Cold Water and to a lesser extent, Carlos are the only of his films I love without reservation.

And yeah, the party scene in Cold Water is goddamn fantastic. I'd actually watched it on youtube out of context a few times before but it works so much better as the film's big centrepiece. That stray shot of the kid running with a chair to throw on the bonfire, before falling over and just laughing maniacally on the ground is such a great, iconic image of youthful abandon. And the final shot, *chills*.

[Russ]

My Dog Tulip (Paul Fierlinger, Sandra Fierlinger, 2009) ***½ /****

This film is a small miracle. Dry, witty, loving and sentimental without ever being cloying, and completely and utterly enchanting. Even non dog lovers would be hard-pressed to not succumb to its bittersweet charms. Based on the famous book by J.R. Ackerley, the film chronicles the 15 year love story between a crusty, lonely cynic and the spirited female Alsatian that he adopts and develops a relationship that he calls "the happiest years of my life." Along the way, Ackerley and Tulip share more than a few growing pains. This the first feature that was entirely hand-drawn digitally, with over 50,000 drawings by award winner Paul Fierlinger, and all beatifully colored by his wife Sandra. The vocal casting was impeccable, led by Christopher Plummer with able support from Isabella Rossellini and, in her final role, Lynn Redgrave A true rarity in this day and age: an animated film made with an adult sensibility for adults. As an observation of the true nature of canines, the film does not shy away from typical dog behavior, including answering nature's call, and Ackerley's many attempts to find a romantic partner for his disinterested compaion.

Highly recommended.

http://www.filmforum.org/films/tulip/3_Ackerley_Tulipmed.jpg

[Sven]

I say no limits on spoilers. But then, I care about spoilers roughly 1% of the time. I can see why others dislike them. But I don't care when I stumble on them.

[baby doll]

I also know at least four separate people who, as of 2011, have never seen Star Wars and have no idea what the plot consists of.They're not missing much.

[Qrazy]

So many of the films we watch have not been seen by a large number of people, so I suggest spoilers all the time. It's really not hard to add spoiler text.

[ledfloyd]

I love Assayas' style, but I think Cold Water and to a lesser extent, Carlos are the only of his films I love without reservation.
it's odd, but carlos is the one film of his that didn't really work for me. i prefer summer hours, late august early september, and (i know i'm alone on this one) boarding gate to cold water. but i'm really splitting hairs, all four films are wonderful.

[baby doll]

it's odd, but carlos is the one film of his that didn't really work for me. i prefer summer hours, late august early september, and (i know i'm alone on this one) boarding gate to cold water. but i'm really splitting hairs, all four films are wonderful.I've never understood the love for L'Heure d'été. I mean, why not just watch an actual Téchiné film? I prefer Assayas' more free-wheeling efforts, like Irma Vep, demonlover, Boarding Gate, and Carlos (though I've only seen the shorter version).

[Boner M]

Oh what the hell.

Cold Water - 9
Irma Vep - 7 (needs rewatch)
Late August, Early September - 7 (ditto)
Clean - 7
demonlover - 7.5
Boarding Gate - 6.5
Summer Hours - 7.5
Carlos - 8.5

Recently re-read the mid-90's Kent Jones piece on Assayas from the former's 'Physical Evidence' collection; makes me wanna see his pre-Cold Water stuff even more.

[D_Davis]

I say no limits on spoilers. But then, I care about spoilers roughly 1% of the time. I can see why others dislike them. But I don't care when I stumble on them.

Same here.

[D_Davis]

http://www.filmforum.org/films/tulip/3_Ackerley_Tulipmed.jpg

Love that drawing. Will definitely check this out.

[NickGlass]

Oh what the hell.

Good old times, eh?

Irma Vep: 7.0
Late August, Early September: 8.0
Clean: 5.5
demonlover: 8.0
Summer Hours: 9.0
Carlos: 7.5

Cold Water played at an Assayas retrospective at BAM, but I only caugth demonlover. I'm very disappointed in myself. Also, I feel like I love him more than my ratings would have you believe.

[Morris Schæffer]

Yes. It is or at least was on Netflix Instant Watch. I enjoyed every minute even though I didn't feel I knew the guy any better after spending five hours with him than I did going in, which wasn't very well.

Appropriate perhaps for a man who has eluded his pursuers for so very long.;)

[MadMan]

They're not missing much.The OT is pretty great all around, and I think highly of ROTS, unlike many people. But yes they are better off not having watched the merely decent at best Phantom Menance, and the awful AOTC.

[dreamdead]

For as breathtaking of the cinema style of Noe's Enter the Void, it sure would be nice if the narrative was equally as interesting.

Loach's Kes, on the other hand, is quietly wonderful. Not quite as revelatory as I'd perhaps hoped, but the music and study of British lower class culture work. I think I see some of where Ramsay's Ratcatcher came from...

[Spaceman Spiff]

Please rank movies about assassins, matchcut. I want to see as many as I can over this next month or so.

[megladon8]

Please rank movies about assassins, matchcut. I want to see as many as I can over this next month or so.


Le Samourai - 10


Done.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Le Samourai - 10


Done.

Seen it, it is indeed pretty great (prefer Army of Shadows though). I should specify that I'm more interested in fatalistic portrayals of the profession (although I'm semi-struggling to come up with film portrayals that aren't in some way).

[megladon8]

Seen it, it is indeed pretty great (prefer Army of Shadows though). I should specify that I'm more interested in fatalistic portrayals of the profession (although I'm semi-struggling to come up with film portrayals that aren't in some way).


Collateral?

[Raiders]

I assume "hired hitmen" is what we're after here:

(in rough order)

Le Samourai
Grosse Pointe Blank
Collateral
Ghost Dog: Way of the Samurai
The Bourne Supremacy
Crank
The Killer
The American
Léon

[megladon8]

I would say Le Samourai is quite fatalistic.

[Yxklyx]

The Day of the Jackal is worth a watch.

Blast of Silence is a must watch.

There's also This Gun for Hire and Murder by Contract

[Spaceman Spiff]

The Day of the Jackal is worth a watch.

Blast of Silence is a must watch.

There's also This Gun for Hire

This post is what I'm talking about. 3 movies - all of which sound awesome, none of which I've seen.

[Yxklyx]

This post is what I'm talking about. 3 movies - all of which sound awesome, neither of which I've seen.

Edited my post and added Murder by Contract which I liked a lot.

[megladon8]

I, too, loved Blast of Silence, but I can also completely understand peoples' dislike of its narration.

[DavidSeven]

Besson's Nikita is a pretty cool flick. Don't sleep on that one.

[Raiders]

This post is what I'm talking about. 3 movies - all of which sound awesome, none of which I've seen.

You've seen all the movies I listed? OK, how about Pistol Opera?

[megladon8]

http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/9636/assassinsver1.jpg

[Qrazy]

Get some of the obvious out of the way:

Road to Perdition
Munich
Apocalypse Now
JFK
The American Friend
The Manchurian Candidate

[Winston*]

Stephen Frears' The Hit is a really good less-seen one, with Terrence Stamp, Tim Roth and John Hurt.

[Winston*]

Also Flame and Citron from recently. That movie was awesome.

[D_Davis]

Please rank movies about assassins, matchcut. I want to see as many as I can over this next month or so.

13 Assassins. There are 13 of them, and the fight over 250 dudes.

Johnny To's The Mission and Exiled are both masterpieces.

[B-side]

Tony Scott's Revenge isn't about a hitman or anything, but half or more of the film is a very fatalistic tale of revenge. No speedy cuts and trains, just a very ethereal and romantic revenge drama.

[Rowland]

Oh Em Gee, I hate Revenge. Sorry man.

[B-side]

Oh Em Gee, I hate Revenge. Sorry man.

Ha, it's cool. I've come to expect I'll often be alone on here with my Tony Scott opinions.:P

[B-side]

Speaking of being alone in my opinions, The Fan was really good. Some unbearable tension throughout. It's everything Big Fan wished it could've been. There's some goofiness that detracts from the previously nicely mounted escalation, but overall it's simply enthralling. De Niro sits on the edge of an explosion so well.

[Boner M]

How many Scotts do you have left? Just so I can know when to come back here.

[Raiders]

Speaking of being alone in my opinions, The Fan was really good. Some unbearable tension throughout. It's everything Big Fan wished it could've been. There's some goofiness that detracts from the previously nicely mounted escalation, but overall it's simply enthralling. De Niro sits on the edge of an explosion so well.

Dude.

[B-side]

How many Scotts do you have left? Just so I can know when to come back here.

A mere 6 films left, sadly.

[B-side]

Dude.

I don't really get why that opinion is so surprising. People on here like a lot of bad films that I'm not criticizing them for liking. You like The American, for instance.:D

[Raiders]

I don't really get why that opinion is so surprising. People on here like a lot of bad films that I'm not criticizing them for liking. You like The American, for instance.:D

As long as you're admitting that Scott's is a bad film, I can accept your liking it.

[B-side]

As long as you're admitting that Scott's is a bad film, I can accept your liking it.

Oh no, it's not a bad film by any means. If I like a film, it ceases to be bad. I just meant that people on here like a lot of bad movies and nobody jumps on them, but I express fondness for a good movie that happens to be by a director everyone wrote off a long time ago and I get sneered at. I could detail some thoughts on why I've been fond of the last three Scott films I've seen, but you wouldn't read them or take them seriously, so what's the point? I've come to appreciate and enjoy his work as an auteur and as a genuinely fun director. I know we've kinda been through this whole thing before, but I like to think I've expressed decent enough rationale behind my enjoyment of his work on this very site. Granted, I'm no writer, but I think I got my point across in those posts. By the way, I'm sure this post comes off as more defensive than I intended. Just something I kinda wanted to say.

[Raiders]

It's the film itself I am reacting to, not the director. You are literally the first intelligent person I have seen praise the film, let alone call it "enthralling." I have little interest in criticizing your opinion, you are entitled to it and the forum and film criticism in general should not devolve into a battleground. But, when you give this film the same rating you would give Murnau's Sunrise, I have little choice but to pause and question what it is you look for in a film because it isn't something I can at all comprehend and your post regarding Scott's film doesn't really change that.

[B-side]

It's the film itself I am reacting to, not the director. You are literally the first intelligent person I have seen praise the film, let alone call it "enthralling." I have little interest in criticizing your opinion, you are entitled to it and the forum and film criticism in general should not devolve into a battleground. But, when you give this film the same rating you would give Murnau's Sunrise, I have little choice but to pause and question what it is you look for in a film because it isn't something I can at all comprehend and your post regarding Scott's film doesn't really change that.

I haven't seen Murnau's Sunrise, but it wouldn't surprise me if I gave it the same rating considering my history with him so far. I guess I don't see this as any different than, say, you giving The American a higher or equivalent score to a film I really enjoy. I look for the same thing everyone else looks for in a film: to be engaged with the material. I can try and eke out some thoughts on this film in particular if you're really interested.

[Raiders]

I haven't seen Murnau's Sunrise, but it wouldn't surprise me if I gave it the same rating considering my history with him so far. I guess I don't see this as any different than, say, you giving The American a higher or equivalent score to a film I really enjoy. I look for the same thing everyone else looks for in a film: to be engaged with the material. I can try and eke out some thoughts on this film in particular if you're really interested.

For clarification, I was pretty mixed on The American. I did praise Corbijn's framing and visuals which gave the positive score.

Regardless, I'm not interested in harping on this any longer.

[B-side]

For clarification, I was pretty mixed on The American. I did praise Corbijn's framing and visuals which gave the positive score.

Regardless, I'm not interested in harping on this any longer.

Well, it was just a stand-in title more or less. It was the principle of the matter that I was trying to delineate. Anyway, I didn't mean for this to turn into a dispute or anything. Sorry if I came off as defensive and combative. I've just gotten those same responses several times on here to any praise for Tony Scott's work and nobody seems interested in discussing why my opinion is so ludicrous.

[Derek]

Dude.

This.

The Fan is utter shit. [/Qrazy]

[Sven]

I'm with Brightside on this one. Not about Tony Scott, who has some good films and a singular vision. But about the fact that people here, many of whom like a bad director or two, can be right bastards about unorthodox opinions.

Just remember, B.Side--everyone made fun of my favorite movie being Popeye until everybody started watching it and realizing that it's pretty great. Keep up the good fight!

[B-side]

I'm with Brightside on this one. Not about Tony Scott, who has some good films and a singular vision. But about the fact that people here, many of whom like a bad director or two, can be right bastards about unorthodox opinions.

Just remember, B.Side--everyone made fun of my favorite movie being Popeye until everybody started watching it and realizing that it's pretty great. Keep up the good fight!

I wasn't gonna go that far. It's just a tad annoying to see your opinion be brushed aside so quickly and negligently.

[Boner M]

I've just gotten those same responses several times on here to any praise for Tony Scott's work and nobody seems interested in discussing why my opinion is so ludicrous.I mean, you're a consistently good watcher and discusser, it's just that most of Scott's output is so indifferently made despite its hyperactivity. It's pretty sad to see the curious eye of yours wasted on mere product, especially when you've written off Make Way For Tomorrow or Beau Travail (for example) with a few adjectives.

[Derek]

I'm with Brightside on this one. Not about Tony Scott, who has some good films and a singular vision. But about the fact that people here, many of whom like a bad director or two, can be right bastards about unorthodox opinions.

Just remember, B.Side--everyone made fun of my favorite movie being Popeye until everybody started watching it and realizing that it's pretty great. Keep up the good fight!

Let me simplify things for you. We've seen The Fan. We think The Fan is utter shit because it is. We say so.

I take no offense to B-side's opinion, only the making of hack directors into auteurs.

[Raiders]

Ugh. Just forget it.

[B-side]

I mean, you're a consistently good watcher and discusser, it's just that most of Scott's output is so indifferently made despite its hyperactivity. It's pretty sad to see the curious eye of yours wasted on mere product, especially when you've written off Make Way For Tomorrow or Beau Travail (for example) with a few adjectives.

I don't think his work is indifferently made at all. I think if you gave him a real shot, you'd at least see that he has a pretty singular vision and many motifs and overarching themes that appear in more than one of his films. Make Way for Tomorrow is mediocre melodrama. Beau Travail simply didn't capture my attention. The latter opinion is much more malleable than the former, I'd wager. I don't write any film off. I'm always open to new ideas and interpretations of the material.

[B-side]

Let me simplify things for you. We've seen The Fan. We think The Fan is utter shit because it is. We say so.

I take no offense to B-side's opinion, only the making of hack directors into auteurs.

His auteur status doesn't make him a good director. Just that he has a vision that permeates his work.

[Sven]

I wasn't gonna go that far. It's just a tad annoying to see your opinion be brushed aside so quickly and negligently.

Believe me, I know just how you feel. Classic MC ball-busting. But it's rarely done in a spirit of true negativity. This place is a practice ground for tough love.

[Raiders]

I'm the guy who thinks Paul WS Anderson is a talented, intriguing director and auteur. Glen or Glenda is a personal favorite of mine. I'm not harrassing your opinion. I'm expressing a dubious surprise that a film I have in fact seen and found absolutely no merit to could be described by you as great and enthralling. My opinion is not in the minority; it is a rather universally reviled film. So, pardon me if I feel the onus is not on me to come to the immediate defense.

...

Grown Ups is a masterfully comedic film.

...

So when people now express shock and reservation about my opinion, even going so far as to call me crazy for it, I should immediately call you all bastards and whine about it because obviously it is not for me to defend such a claim, but for you to immediately prove me wrong.

[Sven]

I should immediately call you all bastards

... this one was me, not him. I hoped that the "right" in front of it would lend it a tone of an elbow in the ribs.

[Boner M]

Where is that guy... ah, here:

http://cdn.pwnage.ro/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/fuck-everything.jpg

[Irish]

Good lord. Stop right there.

Tony Scott isn't an auteur. The only reason you know his name -- that anybody knows his name -- is because of his brother.

He's made some entertaining movies, and some good ones, but I'd go so far to say that has little to do with his "direction."

[Derek]

It's not even 9am and I've seen The Fan called a great film and agreed with Irish. Thinking I should just call it day.

[dmk]

I don’t think it’s fair to compare Tony Scott to Ed Wood. I mean, Ed Wood made films for himself, while Tony Scott hangs around for a paycheck. But you gotta give Scott credit for having the budget to be allowed to shoot from every conceivable angle and then having the budget to hire some poor soul to assemble it together again in quick succession.

Anyway, this is certainly not worth getting riled about, especially since an assailant on this very page had the fucking balls to award Pialat’s Van Gogh, which is the best film ever made – or thereabouts -, a measly two asterisks and a fraction. It almost makes me want to watch The Fan and like it just to distance myself from him (And that’s hard, because my name is Derek too).

On a final note,

[Yxklyx]

Gun Crazy (Lewis) - 5.5,

:frustrated:

[Qrazy]

Well, it was just a stand-in title more or less. It was the principle of the matter that I was trying to delineate. Anyway, I didn't mean for this to turn into a dispute or anything. Sorry if I came off as defensive and combative. I've just gotten those same responses several times on here to any praise for Tony Scott's work and nobody seems interested in discussing why my opinion is so ludicrous.

I assure you that your opinion is ludicrous on much, much more than merely Tony Scott.


;)

[Qrazy]

:frustrated:

His Gun Crazy rating is correct.

[Sven]

I don't get how Tony isn't an auteur. What are our restrictions for auteurism? By practically every rubric (except "maker of only good movies"), Tony qualifies. Can't say whether or not his signature approach is infused with entertainment value, but his films are unmistakably the result of his direction. And even if he got his directing job because of his brother, it's regressive to suggest that he hasn't forged his own creative identity (one very different from what passes for a Ridley Scott joint these days).

Irish, you're being reactionary again. Derek, stop agreeing with knee-jerk posts. Emoticon smileys all around. Remember when we used to talk about Brian De Palma and Paul Verhoeven all the time? Those were the days.

[Irish]

I don't get how Tony isn't an auteur. What are our restrictions for auteurism? By practically every rubric (except "maker of only good movies"), Tony qualifies. Can't say whether or not his signature approach is infused with entertainment value, but his films are unmistakably the result of his direction. And even if he got his directing job because of his brother, it's regressive to suggest that he hasn't forged his own creative identity (one very different from what passes for a Ridley Scott joint these days).

Are we even having this conversation? Seriously?

It takes more than putting "A film by ..." at the top of the credits to make an auteur.

You show somebody 10 minutes of Hitchcock or Scorcese or Godard, they'd probably be able to guess who the director is. Same with guys like Raoul Walsh or Michael Curtiz. Same goes for (god, I'll regret saying this later) Spielberg.

But go ahead and show somebody 10 minutes of Domino and then 10 minutes of The Hunger. No way would they guess that's the same guy, and no way to those films express any kind of coherent, singular creative vision.

He's not an auteur. He's a workaday director bordering on hack who's got more skilled sibling, and that's about it.

PS: You'll never convince me that True Romance is good for any other reason than the strength of Tarantino & Avary's script. A monkey could have directed that and turned out a good movie. Unfortunately, a monkey wasn't available and they had to hire Scott. Still turned out a good movie, because yes, the script was that strong.

[Russ]

His Gun Crazy rating is correct.
Still living up to your username, I see.

Gun Crazy is tense, atmospheric, and with a lot to say about sexual politics for a film made in 1950.

[Spinal]

I do not have a strong opinion in regards to Tony Scott.

[Russ]

Same goes for (god, I'll regret saying this later) Spielberg.
Hahaha.

I don't need to elaborate, do I?

Can we agree that there are good auteurs, bad auteurs, and predictable auteurs? Guess which group Spielberg falls into..

[Spinal]

You show somebody 10 minutes of Hitchcock or Scorcese or Godard, they'd probably be able to guess who the director is. Same with guys like Raoul Walsh or Michael Curtiz. Same goes for (god, I'll regret saying this later) Spielberg.


I've only seen three Curtiz films, but they were so wildly different from each other. I've always thought of him as an example of an excellent non-auteur director. But maybe I need to see more.

[Spinal]

Hahaha.

I don't need to elaborate, do I?

Can we agree that there are good auteurs, bad auteurs, and predictable auteurs? Guess which group Spielberg falls into..

Trick question. He belongs in all three.

[Sven]

You show somebody 10 minutes of Hitchcock or Scorcese or Godard, they'd probably be able to guess who the director is. Same with guys like Raoul Walsh or Michael Curtiz. Same goes for (god, I'll regret saying this later) Spielberg.

So... you're one criterion is that you can pinpoint the signature. And since you specify that you only need to see a 10 minute chunk, it is clearly a visual/rhythmic concern for you, not a thematic one. Okay. Well. Can you explain the difference in the visual signatures, including editing, of Walsh and Curtiz?


But go ahead and show somebody 10 minutes of Domino and then 10 minutes of The Hunger. No way would they guess that's the same guy, and no way to those films express any kind of coherent, singular creative vision.

A little unfair, since you chose the earliest film and one that was made after 20 years of market and style evolution. But okay, show them The Hunger and then Top Gun and I bet they could guess it's the same guy. Show them Domino and Pelham 123 and I bet they could guess. Show them True Romance and Enemy of the State... same guy. Then show them Man on Fire or The Last Boy Scout and I bet they could see all of those same elements stirring in the same admittedly mediocre pot.

In other words, I can very easily spot Tony Scott's style, so your argument is treading water.


PS: You'll never convince me that True Romance is good for any other reason than the strength of Tarantino & Avary's script.

Good thing I'm not trying to. Also, here you are implying that we've been associating "auteur" with "good," which I can't stress enough is not the case.

[Irish]

I've only seen three Curtiz films, but they were so wildly different from each other. I've always thought of him as an example of an excellent non-auteur director. But maybe I need to see more.

I never would have thought so either, but then I watched a bunch of his movies back to back. Stylistically, he does the same sort of things (protip: Watch for giant, near-expressionistic shadows on the wall behind the characters, either in mid shot or long shot).

Curtiz was working in the studio system, so I don't know how often he got to choose his own projects.

Given that, I wouldn't expect his movies to have similar themes, at least not in the way you can see the lines linking up Hitchcock (psychological trauma, suspense, icy blondes) or the progression in Scorcese (Who's That Knocking at My Door, Mean Streets, Goodfellas).

But style? Yeah, you can definitely see Curtiz's fingerprints all over his movies.

[Russ]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I always thought that classical auteurist theory was tied much more closely to thematic similarity than stylistic (or at least a mixture of both).

I'm an ignoramus when it comes to this film stuff..

[Raiders]

http://www.mccoveychronicles.com/images/admin/BeatDeadHorse.gif

[Sven]

It's so true. I don't even know why I picked up this torch. Coffee was taking too long to brew and I needed something stimulating maybe.

Anyway, I see that Irish is going to respond and I will let him have the last say, lest I elicit another gif.

[Irish]

But okay, show them The Hunger and then Top Gun and I bet they could guess it's the same guy. Show them Domino and Pelham 123 and I bet they could guess. Show them True Romance and Enemy of the State... same guy. Then show them Man on Fire or The Last Boy Scout and I bet they could see all of those same elements stirring in the same admittedly mediocre pot.

No, honestly, these are terrible examples because Scott is all over the map creatively. He has been all of his career, and that's part of his problem (the other part seems to be a painful lack of talent).

Man on Fire is dramatically different than Last Boy Scout. The former is shot with the same assinine approach he took with Domino while the latter is a shot like any standard actioner, nearly a TV movie in its convention.


Good thing I'm not trying to. Also, here you are implying that we've been associating "auteur" with "good," which I can't stress enough is not the case.

You are when you say things like "his films are unmistakably the result of his direction."

Anyway, your definition of "auteur" seems so broad as to be meaningless -- or at least on the level that you'd accept anyone as such as long as they got a specialty credit that said "A film by ... " at the start of a movie.

[Irish]

Sheesh, really? Bit early for the dead horse gif, don't you think?

I thought this was a film discussion forum. Or should we just say fuck it and talk about pizza again?

[Raiders]

This conversation reminds me how much of a loser I am for failing to finish another director project. Goddam you 1941 and your daunting epic awfulness and/or unregarded brilliance!

[Russ]

Sheesh, really? Bit early for the dead horse gif, don't you think?
I thought so too. Seems like we were just getting started.

:lol:

[Sven]

Anyway, your definition of "auteur" seems so broad as to be meaningless -- or at least on the level that you'd accept anyone as such as long as they got a specialty credit that said "A film by ... " at the start of a movie.

Dude, I haven't even given any definition. Why you gotta be concluding prematurely?

[Raiders]

Sheesh, really? Bit early for the dead horse gif, don't you think?

I thought this was a film discussion forum. Or should we just say fuck it and talk about pizza again?

If it was just this or a few other times, you're right. But this discussion crops up practically weekly, perhaps monthly, with the same results. Director-specific is fine, but continually defining auteurism has become obnoxious.

[Russ]

This conversation reminds me how much of a loser I am for failing to finish another director project. Goddam you 1941 and your daunting epic awfulness and/or unregarded brilliance!
I am still looking forward to that analysis.

[Dukefrukem]

I rather enjoyed the last two pages of dialog. The Fan is one of the few Scotts movies I haven't seen yet. And I will indeed watch it just to complete the filmography of the worst director in Hollywood right now.

Next to Synder. :p

[Irish]

If it was just this or a few other times, you're right. But this discussion crops up practically weekly, perhaps monthly, with the same results. Director-specific is fine, but continually defining auteurism has become obnoxious.

Fair enough.

For what it's worth, thanks for the posts too, Sven.

[Russ]

I felt like this lemon still had a bit of squeeze left.

[Irish]

This conversation reminds me how much of a loser I am for failing to finish another director project. Goddam you 1941 and your daunting epic awfulness and/or unregarded brilliance!

Would have been safer, frankly, to finish that up while I was not around. :D

[MadMan]

This conversation reminds me how much of a loser I am for failing to finish another director project. Goddam you 1941 and your daunting epic awfulness and/or unregarded brilliance!Just cut it loose, man. I gave up after 20 minutes.

Also the auteur theory can go fuck itself. I don't care if a director is an auteur or not, so long as he/she/it makes good movies. The end.

Oh and I always seem to miss out on these long, pages filled angry arguments that tend to happen on this site. Boo.

[Dukefrukem]

Just cut it loose, man. I gave up after 20 minutes.

Also the auteur theory can go fuck itself. I don't care if a director is an auteur or not, so long as he/she/it makes good movies. The end.

Oh and I always seem to miss out on these long, pages filled angry arguments that tend to happen on this site. Boo.

....reaches... for..... MadMan..... Lost... Gif..... :)

[Watashi]

I'm finally seeing Another Year tonight.

You know, Mike Leigh.

Now there's a filmmaker that's worth discussing two pages over.

[Russ]

Mike Leigh.

Now there's a filmmaker that's worth discussing two pages over.
It's not the filmmaker per se that engenders two pages of discussion.

It's what is said about him.

And what do you have to say about Mike Leigh?

[Watashi]

It's not the filmmaker per se that engenders two pages of discussion.

It's what is said about him.

And what do you have to say about Mike Leigh?
He's goddamn amazing.

[Mara]

I watched The Servant completely blind-- Netflix recommended it, and I love Harold Pinter-- and I have to say that I'm gobsmacked. What a gorgeous, surreal, unexpected pleasure.

[Spinal]

Strangely, I think Mike Leigh is a pretty great director and I like his work a lot, yet I don't look forward to watching his films. There's something about the emotional journey and the spareness of his kitchen-sink approach that makes me feel like I'm in for some work.

I understand that this is some sort of failure on my part, but I just thought I'd share.

[Sven]

Strangely, I think Mike Leigh is a pretty great director and I like his work a lot, yet I don't look forward to watching his films. There's something about the emotional journey and the spareness of his kitchen-sink approach that makes me feel like I'm in for some work.

I understand that this is some sort of failure on my part, but I just thought I'd share.

Every other director that is LIKE Leigh, I feel this. But somehow, I'm always raring to get into his domestic creations. What about Topsy Turvy? Do you/did you feel the same reservation for that one?

[Watashi]

My God Spinal... why are you such a failure... at EVERYTHING!

[Spinal]

Every other director that is LIKE Leigh, I feel this. But somehow, I'm always raring to get into his domestic creations. What about Topsy Turvy? Do you/did you feel the same reservation for that one?

I don't remember exactly how I felt before that one, but I think this all stems from my first Leigh experience (Naked) not being a great one. Everything I've seen since then, I've greatly enjoyed. And I probably should get back to Naked at some point, since I saw it about 15 years ago. I simply find that I need a stronger nudge with him for some reason. Once I'm there, I'm fine. But I can't tell you how many times I've passed over Vera Drake at the library even though I'm pretty sure I would greatly admire it.

It's totally irrational, I know.

[Raiders]

I think if every Leigh film was like Bleak Moments, I wouldn't have been able to ever anticipate another one even if I did admire it. But, later Leigh films have so much warmth in-between the drama and emotional starkness that I wind up being pretty enraptured by them.

[Irish]

I understand that this is some sort of failure on my part, but I just thought I'd share.

No, it's not.


And I probably should get back to Naked at some point, since I saw it about 15 years ago.

No, you shouldn't. You reaaaaaaaaally shouldn't.

[Spinal]

I think if every Leigh film was like Bleak Moments, I wouldn't have been able to ever anticipate another one even if I did admire it. But, later Leigh films have so much warmth in-between the drama and emotional starkness that I wind up being pretty enraptured by them.

Yeah, Happy-Go-Lucky was pretty awesome in that way. Still one of my favorites of the past decade.

[Winston*]

Every Mike Leigh film is better than every Tony Scott film.

[Irish]

Every Mike Leigh film is better than every Tony Scott film.

:lol: I love you so much.

[Russ]

I suppose this should go in that "Top Ten films that I really need to see" thread, but irregardless, I haven't seen a single Mike Leigh film, nor have I even come close to such an encounter.

Seeing as how he is so highly regarded here and there, how about a virgin recommendation?

[origami_mustache]

Vera Drake was fine for what it was I was not a fan of Meantime at all and Happy-Go-Lucky was annoying as hell. I don't look forward to Mike Leigh's films.

[Sven]

Seeing as how he is so highly regarded here and there, how about a virgin recommendation?

My favorites are Topsy Turvy (though it is somewhat irregular by Leigh standards, in its period and scope) and Life is Sweet, followed very shortly by everything else he's made.

[Winston*]

Start with Career Girls Russ, just for the hell of it.

[Spinal]

I suppose this should go in that "Top Ten films that I really need to see" thread, but irregardless, I haven't seen a single Mike Leigh film, nor have I even come close to such an encounter.

Seeing as how he is so highly regarded here and there, how about a virgin recommendation?

Secrets and Lies seems pretty typically Leigh.

[Russ]

I don't see a consensus here, GODDAMMIT!!

What is it with this Leigh person, anyway?

[Russ]

Alright, Career Girls it is. Why?

Because I havent heard of it before. And because of Winston's {whom I trust) recommendation.

It may take me awhile to view this film. But it's the MIKE LEIGH FILM THAT I MUST SEE.

Hopefully it won't take six months.

[Watashi]

See, Russ. Isn't this better than Tony Scott discussion.

Leigh films I've seen:

1. Happy-Go-Lucky
2. Secret and Lies
3. Naked
4. Vera Drake*

*need to see again

I really want to see the rest of his filmography.

[Russ]

Have you seen Career Girls?

No?

What the hell is wrong with you?

[Watashi]

Have you seen Career Girls?

No?

What the hell is wrong with you?
You trust Winston, but not me?

For shame.

[Russ]

You trust Winston, but not me?

For shame.
Alright, show of hands here.

Winston vs. Watsashi.

Trust is the deciding factor.

(dunno what I'm doing here, but I like the "mano a mano" factor that Wats has laid out for me)

[Watashi]

Can't even spell my name right.

This popularity contest is rigged!

[MadMan]

....reaches... for..... MadMan..... Lost... Gif..... :):| Wouldn't make any sense to use it in that case, anyways....

And I trust Winston, of course. Always, and forever.

[soitgoes...]

I like to think that I'm the only person who's allowed to deride Brightside's film taste.

In other news, I rewatched Late Spring last night, and Ozu is an auteur by any definition. We should, as a collective, talk more about his work than the work of Scott or Leigh or really just about anyone, because Ozu is the tops.

It's only my second viewing of it, and I love it even more than before. Look out for extended thoughts coming your way Summer 2011!!!

[DavidSeven]

I actually expected more flippancy for Brightside's positive review of The Fan. More flippancy, damn it!

:)

[Dukefrukem]

:| Wouldn't make any sense to use it in that case, anyways....

And I trust Winston, of course. Always, and forever.

<3

[Spun Lepton]

Can't even spell my name right.

This popularity contest is rigged!

C'mon, Russ, don't mess with Watasushi's name.

[Derek]

No, you shouldn't. You reaaaaaaaaally shouldn't.

So uh, Spinal, you were looking for that extra incentive to rewatch this......

:twisted:

[Ezee E]

So is Winston, Tony Scott and Watashi is Mike Leigh?

[Qrazy]

I like to think that I'm the only person who's allowed to deride Brightside's film taste.


No, get in line.

[StanleyK]

Eccentricities of a Blonde-Haired Girl is reasonably well-shot and directed and everything, but all the folks call it 'fun' and 'whimsical' and I just don't see that. It's stiff and dull, more preoccupied with reproducing the original story beat by beat than doing anything interesting with it cinematically. There were some pretty good moments (the kiss that cuts to their feet, the random guy looking for his hat, the penultimate shot) that didn't feel shackled to its literary origins and they were a breath of fresh air; if there were more of those (and less masturbatory indulgences to the original author and shit the director likes; well, okay, it was only two scenes, but it bugged the hell out of me) it might be a more memorable experience. As it is, I don't think I got much of anything from it that I didn't get from the short story.

[Winston*]

Watashi is a feminine personal pronoun in Japanese conversation.

[soitgoes...]

Watashi is a feminine personal pronoun in Japanese conversation.
This is not entirely true.

[Spinal]

Career Girls is pretty good. Katrin Cartlidge, man.

[Derek]

Career Girls is pretty good.

Not really. Probably my least favorite Leigh film.


Katrin Cartlidge, man.

But she does make it worth watching.

[MadMan]

<3

:pritch:

[Derek]

So is Winston, Tony Scott...?

Why, does Brightside follow him around and tell him everything he says is brilliant? ;)

[MadMan]

I have no desire to see The Fan. However, Brightside smartly recognizes that The Last Boy Scout is an awesome action movie, and that is something I can agree with.

[B-side]

I don't really understand how I've been deemed a whiner for what I said, but whatever. I was more than willing to defend my position, but nobody was interested in any actual discussion.

[Winston*]

This is not entirely true.

Eh. In informal conversation then.

[StanleyK]

Pulp Fiction is as entertaining as ever but I have to say Tarantino's dialogue is beginning to grate on me something fierce. The pop culture references are so abundant that they start to lose meaning and every character has the same voice (the author's). His direction is also pretty stale and largely simply functional; he knows how to compose a great shot and edit a sequence in a way that suits the emotions he's trying to evoke, which makes it even more disheartening that most of the film plays out in vanilla shot/reverse-shot conversations. All that said, the film is a very intelligent deconstruction (somebody please teach me a synonym, I feel stupid saying this word over and over) of crime and machismo in fiction, which earns Tarantino the right to be at least a little self-indulgent, and when he's on, he can write some amazingly fun situations.

[StanleyK]

The Pleasure Garden (Hitchcock 25) *½

Before this slips outta your signature, I want to ask what you thought its problems were; I saw this a while ago and rated it about the same, but I don't remember a single thing about it.

[soitgoes...]

Before this slips outta your signature, I want to ask what you thought its problems were; I saw this a while ago and rated it about the same, but I don't remember a single thing about it.There's nothing to it. If it wasn't directed by Hitchcock, we would never have heard of it. With later Hitchcock films he gives us moments and scenes to hold onto. This is a straightforward film with nothing Hitchcockian about it outside of a couple POV shots.

[Sven]

I don't really understand how I've been deemed a whiner for what I said, but whatever. I was more than willing to defend my position, but nobody was interested in any actual discussion.

Now don't you go catching a persecution complex. We've already got too much of that going around. Nobody here called you a whiner. Keep up the love and let the frustration slide. Wars of attrition FTW.

[Irish]

The pop culture references are so abundant that they start to lose meaning and every character has the same voice (the author's).

Good stuff. I think this is the last screenplay he wrote with Avary, and in my mind the last screenplay that holds together well.

I can't wait for you to get to Kill Bill.

[B-side]

Now don't you go catching a persecution complex. We've already got too much of that going around. Nobody here called you a whiner. Keep up the love and let the frustration slide. Wars of attrition FTW.

This post (http://www.match-cut.org/showpost.php?p=343824&postcount=53975) begs to differ. I had no interest in turning this into some multi-page fight where everyone declares their irritation and suddenly Tony Scott discussion if off-limits and nobody feels like they can have fun with me because I might whine about it, but it appears that's already happened. I'm not appealing to authority to vindicate my opinion, but if anyone is interested in a little reading from a critic on Scott's auteurism and formal qualities, check this (http://www.cinema-scope.com/cs29/feat_peransonandhuber_scott.ht ml) out. I'd offer more myself, but I'm not half the writer these guys are and I've already written plenty on Scott that I've posted here and have since archived on my blog.

[MadMan]

I would say the best thing about Pulp Fiction is its characters, not its dialogue. The dialogue would be third, actually, behind its wonderfully dark and twisted sense of humor. I love Pulp Fiction because of how unpredictable it is at times, that QT creates a rather frantic work of art that works because its not in the hands of a lesser director, and the film itself is 100% quintessential 90s material. If I was pressed to list a movie that helped to really shape and define the decade, QT's masterpiece would be it. Does the movie at times have messy moments that could have been better refined? Sure, but that's part of the charm to me. I defend its greatness just like I defend another flawed yet brilliant classic, Apocalypse Now, even though its not even necessary, really.

[Irish]

Brightside, both your links there go to Raider's post. I couldn't get to the analysis thing about Scott.

For what it's worth, I think the Scott discussion was just fine. The discussion got cut off a little too early for me, but what was there was good stuff.

[B-side]

Brightside, both your links there go to Raider's post. I couldn't get to the analysis thing about Scott.

For what it's worth, I think the Scott discussion was just fine. The discussion got cut off a little too early for me, but what was there was good stuff.

Whoops. Fixed it.

I'd be more than happy to try and dismantle your Tony Scott hatred, but I fear the article I linked to will do most of that for me. Yes, I suppose that makes me lazy and insecure, but... well, I am.

[Irish]

I'd be more than happy to try and dismantle your Tony Scott hatred, but I fear the article I linked to will do most of that for me. Yes, I suppose that makes me lazy and insecure, but... well, I am.

Excellent. Thanks for the link, reading up now.

[Watashi]

Man, Jim Broadbent and Lesley Manville fucking pwn in Another Year. It's like bizarro version of Happy Go-Lucky.

[Winston*]

What drives Crimson Tide (1995) if not an explicit battle for the direction of the sub (and, more roundabout, over the interpretation of reality)?

[elixir]

weighing in...

1. I feel bad for making that comment about Tony Scott in reply to a Brightside comment once. That he probably doesn't even remember. So...yeah. Though I think I just said I disliked the movie, nothing against him. And hey, my brother loves Tony Scott! You guys can be the cool kids at my house while I sit alone in the corner.

2. I've only seen three Mike Leigh films but I've loved them all, with my most recent viewing of Secrets & Lies being my new favorite.

3. Lesley Manville's performance in Another Year--which I'm sure some find annoying, grating, inauthentic, etc--is one of the best of last year.

4. Pulp Fiction's dialogue still doesn't grate me, though I see that...but I would argue that all characters do NOT have the same voice. But I probably need a re-watch to effectively argue that.

[soitgoes...]

A Brighter Summer Day (Edward Yang, 1991) 10Good job.

[elixir]

Just like when The Mirror blew me away a few weeks back, I am left unsure on how to articulate my love for a new favorite, this one being A Brighter Summer Day. So, what is it that makes me love this film so much? Hm...I love that it is a portrayal of a town through turbulent change, sprawling in its web of connections to the outside world yet intimate in its insular surroundings. I love how it takes specific stories crafted with genuine drama that touch on so many themes and sociopolitical ideas without on-the-nose dialogue (though it's not without a purposeful philosophical musing or two, which I love) or overt plot devices that spell out what the movie is going for.


This is so fucking vague. The journey of Sir's character is not merely emotionally satisfying, but ripe with thematic richness, but it's not so much that his principled nature and prideful personality reflects and represents the Taiwanese at the time so much as it reveals a porthole into looking at the changes the country is going through. Knowing a bit of history was certainly helpful in the context of the story, and it made its crafting of the narrative into history rather than simply around key events all that more impressive.

I'm not doing justice to this movie so I'm gonna stop...but yeah, for 4 hours long I was never less than enthralled and by the time it ended I was overcome with emotion, overwhelmed by the vast (yet, like I said, intimate) nature of it all...and I can't wait to see it again. But I don't think it has a fucking DVD!!! What the hell? I saw it in pretty shitty quality and would LOVE to see a good transfer of it (though the poor quality didn't take away from the greatness of the work). So, yeah...it's better than awesome.

[B-side]

weighing in...

1. I feel bad for making that comment about Tony Scott in reply to a Brightside comment once. That he probably doesn't even remember. So...yeah. Though I think I just said I disliked the movie, nothing against him. And hey, my brother loves Tony Scott! You guys can be the cool kids at my house while I sit alone in the corner.

I don't remember anything in particular from you, which further demonstrates why you shouldn't feel bad.:P

Really, I'm far more concerned about the blanket dismissal of Tony Scott than I am some gentle ribbing.

[Bosco B Thug]

Really, I'm far more concerned about the blanket dismissal of Tony Scott than I am some gentle ribbing. The correct way to feel.

So now some questions: He may have style and ideas, but are they particularly intellectually lofty? And are you saying that, as you tick off what's so great about Tony Scott, you're not also ticking off in your head what's crap about him?

I have not seen any Tony Scott films, though, but maybe at some future date when cars make hover noises and Donald Trump is president, I'll be able to reply to whatever you reply. :twisted:

[B-side]

The correct way to feel.

So now some questions: He may have style and ideas, but are they particularly intellectually lofty? And are you saying that, as you tick off what's so great about Tony Scott, you're not also ticking off in your head what's crap about him?

Intellectually lofty? Not really. He's sort of a modern day Ford in terms of embracing and simultaneously criticizing and having fun with Americana. His 2000s work has targeted modern media and surveillance and put them to use both formally and thematically in interesting ways. Most of his work has a central romantic arc that is highly romantic at a high cost. It's not always easy to embrace Scott's aesthetic and form, especially in his 2000s work, but it's nothing if not unique and wholly his own. Like many directors, Tony has had stages to his career and auteurist sensibilities. He's used similar color palettes going all the way back to Top Gun. I don't know that there's anything about Tony's work that I find especially egregious, just that his sensibilities don't always work as well with the material to coalesce and form a completely compelling whole. He can be goofy, on the nose and scatterbrained, but one gains a certain appreciation for these traits while watching more and more of his work.

[soitgoes...]

Weekend possibilities (Ozu and some Italians):

Days of Youth
Passing Fancy
Early Summer
Tokyo Story
Il Bidone
Bellissima

[Irish]

Intellectually lofty? Not really. He's sort of a modern day Ford in terms of embracing and simultaneously criticizing and having fun with Americana.

I'm hoping against hope here that you're not actually comparing John Ford to Tony Scott.

Please don't let me down, Brights.

[B-side]

I'm hoping against hope here that you're not actually comparing John Ford to Tony Scott.

Please don't let me down, Brights.

Scott's certainly not as good as Ford, no. Just comparing them in a broader thematic assessment.

[Raiders]

I don't really understand how I've been deemed a whiner for what I said, but whatever. I was more than willing to defend my position, but nobody was interested in any actual discussion.

That's a conclusion jump. I'd like to think I don't typically back down from any discussion. You immediately responded defensively to what was just a ribbing on my part over being the first person here to actually like the film and I responded in kind. You make it sound as if you had posted this excellent piece on the film and we all just said "Blah, no" and moved on.

[B-side]

That's a conclusion jump. I'd like to think I don't typically back down from any discussion. You immediately responded defensively to what was just a ribbing on my part over being the first person here to actually like the film and I responded in kind. You make it sound as if you had posted this excellent piece on the film and we all just said "Blah, no" and moved on.

Well, I tried to make it clear I wasn't trying to play the victim or anything and was just responding to a general trend in the way people have been responding to my Tony Scott posts. The ribbing doesn't bother me. It's the blanket dismissal of my thoughts on his work and his work in general that bothers me.

[dmk]

The most interesting characteristic of Tony Scott is that apparent, inherent and brash kitsch that pervades it. But I’ve yet read any piece by Brightside or tativille that addresses this recurring trait, which unfortunately forces me to assume that this widespread Tony Scott appreciation (initially a contrarian position among bloggers) isn’t exactly well thought out - regardless of the verbosity dedicated to his prized shit. I say shit, not because I dislike his films, but because kitsch really is shit. Spaniel shit to be exact – ornate with thorns bathed in Vegemite.

But then I haven't really seen that much from Scott besides his latest, some early stuff a decade ago and that BMW short (which is actually great because it doesn't pretend to be anything else besides kitschy nonsense).

[Raiders]

Well, I tried to make it clear I wasn't trying to play the victim or anything and was just responding to a general trend in the way people have been responding to my Tony Scott posts. The ribbing doesn't bother me. It's the blanket dismissal of my thoughts on his work and his work in general that bothers me.

I do not dismiss Tony Scott in general; I really enjoy Deja Vu as a matter of fact and as I think I have said before, I always have a level of anticipation for his films even if I generally wind up disappointed.

He's certainly not a boring filmmaker in general, but I do recall being very bored by The Fan. De Niro is just silly, exuding little pathos and nowhere near the scary intensity of his similarly deranged Max Cady. The supposedly sympathetic Wesley Snipes is a completely washed over character and should have been the central point for the pull between personal life and a superstar dealing with fans, but his grapples are at best glossed over (he gets what, two minutes of guilt at being the reason his fellow ballplayer--who of course is a slimeball--is murdered). The film never creates any sympathy for De Niro's character whatsoever, he is immediately cast as a villain, which is fine but when you have such a rote villain and such a useless good guy, there is little to really get invested in. The film has the dramatic pull of a soap opera and you claim there is unbearable tension, but it all was completely devoid of such tension for me, between De Niro's lack of any chilling charisma, the poorly edited baseball scenes, the lack of a strong narrative momentum or any real conviction in its paralleling of the two main characters (it never establishes any reason for De Niro's fixation on Rayburn in particular but rather simply creates him as a monster from thin air--it isn't a chilling randomness but an unfounded obsession). The film's occasional glimpes of a consumerist America gone overboard into bottom-line frenzy are completely washed away and forgotten and the film's finale at the ballpark is so overdone and silly that it completely kills even the positives that came before.

(I've done all this from memory, so forgive me if I can't say much more)

[B-side]

I do not dismiss Tony Scott in general; I really enjoy Deja Vu as a matter of fact and as I think I have said before, I always have a level of anticipation for his films even if I generally wind up disappointed.

I'm glad you're a fan of that one. It's probably my best bet for getting people to enjoy something of his on a more serious level. I didn't mean to single you out with my criticism. You're certainly not alone in being surprised at any and all Tony Scott praise.


He's certainly not a boring filmmaker in general, but I do recall being very bored by The Fan. De Niro is just silly, exuding little pathos and nowhere near the scary intensity of his similarly deranged Max Cady. The supposedly sympathetic Wesley Snipes is a completely washed over character and should have been the central point for the pull between personal life and a superstar dealing with fans, but his grapples are at best glossed over (he gets what, two minutes of guilt at being the reason his fellow ballplayer--who of course is a slimeball--is murdered). The film never creates any sympathy for De Niro's character whatsoever, he is immediately cast as a villain, which is fine but when you have such a rote villain and such a useless good guy, there is little to really get invested in. The film has the dramatic pull of a soap opera and you claim there is unbearable tension, but it all was completely devoid of such tension for me, between De Niro's lack of any chilling charisma, the poorly edited baseball scenes, the lack of a strong narrative momentum or any real conviction in its paralleling of the two main characters (it never establishes any reason for De Niro's fixation on Rayburn in particular but rather simply creates him as a monster from thin air--it isn't a chilling randomness but an unfounded obsession). The film's occasional glimpes of a consumerist America gone overboard into bottom-line frenzy are completely washed away and forgotten and the film's finale at the ballpark is so overdone and silly that it completely kills even the positives that came before.

(I've done all this from memory, so forgive me if I can't say much more)

It's hinted at several times during the film and especially at the very end that he may be attempting to fulfill some sort of failed baseball fantasy by living vicariously through Rayburn. Scott does well not to make that connection explicit so as to strangle its focus. I found his escalating madness to be very well handled and completely menacing. For example, when we first see him go to his wife's home, he looks in disgust at her new husband and calls him by the wrong name right before leaving even after he'd been corrected, then the entirety of the scene at the stadium when he takes his kid is highly uncomfortable and tense; his growing madness becoming even more evident as he begins rather blatantly placing his adoration of Rayburn and baseball in general ahead of any real connection with his child. His kid obviously enjoys the game, but lacks the intense personal connection to any of the players that Gil feels he has with Rayburn. The whole "dad wants me to be something I don't wanna be" angle is a tired one, certainly, but it's somehow not exhausting here, maybe because it's not the entire focus of the film. It's more about Gil's disconnect and ideals. That disconnect between the fans and the players is a key element of the film. Rayburn puts on a fake smile to see a child he didn't even know was dying until he saw him. Nearly all of the fans save for Gil turn on Rayburn when he stops hitting so well demonstrating a distinct lack of any real personal connection between them, which is what makes Gil's obnoxiously loud continued support of Rayburn in spite of this such a stark contrast and further isolates him among the fans.

Another major point comes when the announcers at the ball game comment on Rayburn approaching the mound to yell at the pitcher to try and get him to throw a pitch he can hit so Gil will be satisfied and they insist it's probably due to Rayburn being hit with a ball from him a while back. The tragic personal nature of the circumstances create real sympathy with the player where there would typically be none. More scenes employing the unbearable tension I spoke of are the scene at the little league tryouts when Gil charges the field to chide the coach for throwing to his kid too hard, and the extended sequence at Rayburn's home when Gil shows up out of nowhere to save his kid from drowning; particularly the scene where Gil pitches to Rayburn and they discuss how Rayburn started hitting so well and why.

[Mara]

I watched The Servant completely blind-- Netflix recommended it, and I love Harold Pinter-- and I have to say that I'm gobsmacked. What a gorgeous, surreal, unexpected pleasure.

Nobody wants to talk about this film? Because I'm still thinking about it.

[Yxklyx]

Nobody wants to talk about this film? Because I'm still thinking about it.

Well, I loved it too. Excellent vision of the corruption of societal norms by man's baser self.

On another note:

The Illusionist -> Two Legged Dog -> Ha Ha Ha

[Raiders]

Nobody wants to talk about this film? Because I'm still thinking about it.

I love it very, very much as well. Pinter/Losey was a powerful combination. Make sure to check out Accident as well (also with Bogarde). The Go-Between is worthwhile, but not as great as the other two.

[Yxklyx]

Should have a poll - in which scene during watching The Illusionist did you start laughing?

[Qrazy]

Nobody wants to talk about this film? Because I'm still thinking about it.

Search back, Melville and I have spoken about it some in the past. I think... or maybe he spoke about it and I just said yeah it's very good or something.

But yes I like it a lot. Accident isn't nearly as good imo.

[Derek]

It's the blanket dismissal of my thoughts on his work and his work in general that bothers me.

But personally, I'm dismissing Tony Scott only after seeing and disliking most of his movies. As for your thoughts, I'm not so much dismissing them out of hand as much as I'm just continuously shocked at how serious you take him considering that, like Boner said, you so often write intelligently about far worthier directors. It's the disparity of the quality of Scott's films, which I usually find a notch above typical Hollywood hacksmanship, and the quality of most of the other films you watch and comment on that is cause for my bafflement.

[StanleyK]

There's nothing to it. If it wasn't directed by Hitchcock, we would never have heard of it. With later Hitchcock films he gives us moments and scenes to hold onto. This is a straightforward film with nothing Hitchcockian about it outside of a couple POV shots.

Looks like I was right in forgetting it existed until I saw it in your sig.


Pulp Fiction's dialogue still doesn't grate me, though I see that...but I would argue that all characters do NOT have the same voice. But I probably need a re-watch to effectively argue that.

All the characters are written like macho badasses with snappy tongues, just like the Reservoir Dogs for that matter. Maybe keeping them one-dimensional is necessary to thematically link the film with its pulp roots, but the fact that they don't have personalities or nuttin' does make them essentially indistinguishable to me. The references and turns of phrase, then, feel like they could come from any characters without a discernible reason. Like, why are ruthless gangsters mentioning Happy Days during a tense Mexican stand-off? Because Tarantino thought it would be cute, that's why.

On another note:


Full Metal Jacket (Stanley Kubrick, 1987) 5

What gives, man?

[Mara]

I love it very, very much as well. Pinter/Losey was a powerful combination. Make sure to check out Accident as well (also with Bogarde). The Go-Between is worthwhile, but not as great as the other two.

I'll check those out. I was really struck by the visuals and the script. The performances of the two leads were great, too, but I thought the women weren't quite as good-- especially Vera, who was either badly dubbed or moved her mouth inexplicably while talking.

Two scenes were so gorgeous my jaw dropped. This one:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v254/maragirl/servant30.jpg

...and another on the staircase, where they're playing with a ball.

[D_Davis]

Like, why are ruthless gangsters mentioning Happy Days during a tense Mexican stand-off? Because Tarantino thought it would be cute, that's why.


It has nothing to do with being cute. Tarantino is, in many ways, a Transrealist, and thus he injects his characters and stories with things/pop-culture/references that were/are important to him. He's not depicting real gangsters, he's creating modern day fantasies with a mythology derived from the things he grew up with.

If you don't dig, you don't dig, but defining it as simply being "cute" is being overly reductive and dismissive.

[Mara]

The blog entry that I snatched that picture from is excellent. Very much worth a read.

http://1morefilmblog.com/wordpress/the-servant-losey-1963/

[megladon8]

Tarantino writes wonderful dialogue, until he lets himself get carried away with pop culture stuff.

I still find his grade 9 psych. reading of Superman at the end of Kill Bill Vol. 2 quite grating.

[D_Davis]

The Superman bit is my favorite part of Kill Bill. That's exactly the way I've always viewed Superman, and I think it is the way that makes the character the most interesting.

Guess I have the intellect of a 9th grader! Awesome. Two grades higher than I thought.

[megladon8]

It's not that it isn't true. It is.

It was just a redundant piece of dialogue, completely unnecessary for the final point he was making about Beatrix Kiddo.

I feel similarly about the round-table car chase movie discussion in Death Proof.


I'm actually warming up to Tarantino quite a bit. I re-watched Reservoir Dogs the other night and liked it significantly more than I ever had before, except the "Like a Virgin" discussion at the beginning which, again was redundant, unnecessary, and dumb. The discussion about tipping waitresses revealed character with a few of the men around the table, particularly Pink and White. The "Like a Virgin" speech by Mr. Brown felt like nothing more than Tarantino flexing his pop-culture muscles, which I still find annoying.

[Ezee E]

I like some of the pop culture talk because it's a change of pace, and something a little different then always being on the nose of what's going on. But it seems like we've had this talk already.

What's he going to talk about in his next one?

[D_Davis]

What's he going to talk about in his next one?

Money, hoes, and clothes.

[Derek]

It was just a redundant piece of dialogue, completely unnecessary for the final point he was making about Beatrix Kiddo.

How is it unnecessary? It precisely is the final point he was making about Beatrix Kiddo. Take out that monologue and he makes no point at all about her.

[Dead & Messed Up]

How is it unnecessary? It precisely is the final point he was making about Beatrix Kiddo. Take out that monologue and he makes no point at all about her.

Probably could've made his point a little quicker, but, yeah, it's pretty essential to get his take on Bea.

[megladon8]

I think he could have said the exact same thing about Kiddo without mentioning Superman at all.

[Derek]

Probably could've made his point a little quicker, but, yeah, it's pretty essential to get his take on Bea.

It does go on for a while, but I think the fact that he takes so long to make his point while Bea has a giant needle stuck in her knee is what makes it so funny.

[D_Davis]

I think he could have said the exact same thing about Kiddo without mentioning Superman at all.

OK, but why not mention Superman?

[Derek]

I think he could have said the exact same thing about Kiddo without mentioning Superman at all.

True, he could have, but Davis has already explained why Tarantino makes these kind of references in his movies. It's pretty clear why he'd equate Bea to Superman, so having him not do that seems kinda weird.

[Qrazy]

OK, but why not mention Superman?

It's like fanservice in anime, gets a bit much at times.

[Derek]

It's like fanservice in anime, gets a bit much at times.

You really think Tarantino added that whole speech to make fans happy? I don't care at all about Superman, or comic books in general, and I still thought that was a great sequence.

[D_Davis]

It's like fanservice in anime, gets a bit much at times.

It can, yeah, but the whole bit was only about 5-7 minutes out of 4 hours of film, so it's not like it was overdone.

[megladon8]

I understand D_Davis' explanation and reasoning as to why he does it.

I just don't like it.

[Derek]

I just don't like it.

Which is quite a different thing than being redundant and completely unnecessary. :)

[Qrazy]

It can, yeah, but the whole bit was only about 5-7 minutes out of 4 hours of film, so it's not like it was overdone.

I'm speaking more generally about certain dialogue traits of Tarantino. Superman bit aside there are many more such bits sprinkled throughout Kill Bill and his other films.

[megladon8]

Which is quite a different thing than being redundant and completely unnecessary. :)


Well, I find it redundant and completely unnecessary...

[Derek]

Well, I find it redundant and completely unnecessary...

I still don't understand how it can redundant when it makes a point that isn't made anywhere else in the film...

[Qrazy]

You really think Tarantino added that whole speech to make fans happy? I don't care at all about Superman, or comic books in general, and I still thought that was a great sequence.

I think he thinks of himself as a fan and put it in to make himself happy. It's like that Inglourious Basterds outside the movie theater discussion that was in there for the cinephiles.

[D_Davis]

I'm speaking more generally about certain dialogue traits of Tarantino. Superman bit aside there are many more such bits sprinkled throughout Kill Bill and his other films.

Meh. That's his thing, his style. You can dig it, or not. It's like not liking Lovecraft for his use of purple prose. It's a totally valid reason not to like his fiction, but that's what made Lovecraft, Lovecraft. You know, if you're looking for something different, you're better off looking elsewhere.

[Derek]

I think he thinks of himself as a fan and put it in to make himself happy. It's like that Inglourious Basterds outside the movie theater discussion that was in there for the cinephiles.

Right, that was great too.

[D_Davis]

I think he thinks of himself as a fan and put it in to make himself happy. It's like that Inglourious Basterds outside the movie theater discussion that was in there for the cinephiles.

Totally. He makes things that he likes.

[Qrazy]

I still don't understand how it can redundant when it makes a point that isn't made anywhere else in the film...

I believe Meg is saying he would have preferred the same point had been made without the pop culture reference to Superman.

For instance... "You know, when I was just starting out as an assassin I had a particularly nasty assignment to complete. I had to kill a guy in front of his daughter blah blah really enjoyed it blah blah once you're a killer you're always a killer blah blah etc."

[Qrazy]

Right, that was great too.

Yeah, so you like fanservice. Fair enough.


Philistine. :P

[megladon8]

I still don't understand how it can redundant when it makes a point that isn't made anywhere else in the film...


The redundant part is that he mentions Superman, and makes quite an elementary analysis of the character (read: not wrong, just over simplified) but it seems like it's being passed off as quite an epiphany, then loops it back around to Kiddo.

It seemed to me that the point about Kiddo was just an after-thought, and the real purpose of the speech was to make a point about Superman that was, well, not all that original.

Imagine if, at the end of Batman Begins when Rachel touches Bruce's face and says "...this is your mask. Your true face is the one criminals now fear" that had actually been a 7 minute speech about duality, ending with that line.

It would have been like "wow, you took 7 minutes of dialogue to say something I could have read in a single speech bubble in about 90% of the issues of Batman I have on my bookshelf."

[Qrazy]

Meh. That's his thing, his style. You can dig it, or not. It's like not liking Lovecraft for his use of purple prose. It's a totally valid reason not to like his fiction, but that's what made Lovecraft, Lovecraft. You know, if you're looking for something different, you're better off looking elsewhere.

Well like most directors I think he has strengths and weaknesses. I think he's an expert at building the tension of a scene amongst other strengths but I'm somewhat on board with Meg's criticism of his postmodern pop culture laden approach to screenwriting.

[megladon8]

Meh. That's his thing, his style. You can dig it, or not. It's like not liking Lovecraft for his use of purple prose. It's a totally valid reason not to like his fiction, but that's what made Lovecraft, Lovecraft. You know, if you're looking for something different, you're better off looking elsewhere.


That's the thing, though, I do, overall, "dig it".

I just think he gets carried away sometimes.

I have absolutely no problem with any piece of dialogue in Pulp Fiction. That movie is brilliance incarnate, and I love it to death. And it's arguably his most pop culture-infused film to date.

Well, maybe until Inglourious Basterds.

[Derek]

The redundant part is that he mentions Superman, and makes quite an elementary analysis of the character (read: not wrong, just over simplified) but it seems like it's being passed off as quite an epiphany, then loops it back around to Kiddo.

It seemed to me that the point about Kiddo was just an after-thought, and the real purpose of the speech was to make a point about Superman that was, well, not all that original.

Imagine if, at the end of Batman Begins when Rachel touches Bruce's face and says "...this is your mask. Your true face is the one criminals now fear" that had actually been a 7 minute speech about duality, ending with that line.

It would have been like "wow, you took 7 minutes of dialogue to say something I could have read in a single speech bubble in about 90% of the issues of Batman I have on my bookshelf."

Efficiency is overrated. I like the verbosity of the speech more than the actual point he's making. Had he briefly mentioned "Ya know Bea, you're kinda like Superman and living here is you trying to be Clark Kent" and then moved on, then I would consider that a pointless and shallow reference. I also can't believe you're using a Nolan Batman film as an example of something that doesn't belabor the point. Need Boner's theme-spouting Joker pic... :)

[megladon8]

Nolan's Batman films > everything Tarantino has done

Though Pulp Fiction and Inglourious Basterds come close.

[Derek]

Nolan's Batman films > everything Tarantino has done

Though Pulp Fiction and Inglourious Basterds come close.

Superman monologue in Kill Bill > Superman (1978)

[megladon8]

Superman monologue in Kill Bill > Superman (1978)


You must really, really like that monologue then, since Superman ('78) is one of the greatest American movies of all time.

[D_Davis]

Nolan's Batman films > everything Tarantino has done


If I assume that the above is true, then I also have to assume that this is true:

Batman & Robin > everything Tarantino has done

Because Batman & Robin > Nolan's Batman films.

But since I know that Batman & Robin > everything Tarantino has done is not true, then Nolan's Batman films > everything Tarantino has done cannot be true either.

[megladon8]

I actually prefer Batman & Robin to Batman Forever.

But of the pre-Nolan Batman films, Batman Returns is clearly the best.

That's assuming we don't take the animated films into consideration, since they are better than even the Nolan films.

[D_Davis]

Batman is so strong, that even when we talk about Superman we end up talking about Batman.

ugh.

[megladon8]

Batman is so strong, that even when we talk about Superman we end up talking about Batman.

ugh.


If Batman was Asian you'd love him.

[NickGlass]

I also can't believe you're using a Nolan Batman film as an example of something that doesn't belabor the point. Need Boner's theme-spouting Joker pic... :)

Yeah, I got a good laugh from this.

[Qrazy]

If I assume that the above is true, then I also have to assume that this is true:

Batman & Robin > everything Tarantino has done

Because Batman & Robin > Nolan's Batman films.

But since I know that Batman & Robin > everything Tarantino has done is not true, then Nolan's Batman films > everything Tarantino has done cannot be true either.

When you're attempting to shoot down someone's taste do not use Batman & Robin as your gold standard.

[D_Davis]

If Batman was Asian you'd love him.

I thought he was Asian?


http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQpv_3hAGDWo UfPJhdaWmXIJkOO3rBzv0KBT0B90K3 RL6iiVH-9SQ

[megladon8]

I'd be really interested to see Tarantino do a superhero film.

Anyone else?

[D_Davis]

When you're attempting to shoot down someone's taste do not use Batman & Robin as your gold standard.

You should look at it like this: that's how little I think of the Nolan Batman films. I'm not saying that Batman & Robin is gold, I'm saying that I like it better than the Nolan films.

[D_Davis]

I'd be really interested to see Tarantino do a superhero film.

Anyone else?

I'd rather see him do Bond.

[megladon8]

You should look at it like this: that's how little I think of the Nolan Batman films. I'm not saying that Batman & Robin is gold, I'm saying that I like it better than the Nolan films.


Why did your opinion on The Dark Knight fall so sharply?

I know you always loathed Batman Begins, but I remember you really dug The Dark Knight when you first saw it.