28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[MadMan]

I gave up on Blow-Up 35 minutes in. I love Blow-Out, though, and I agree with Derek that The Conversation is better than it, although both films are rather excellent.

[Sven]

All three are excellent.

[dreamdead]

Claude Lelouch's A Man and a Woman has a languid pacing that allows nuances of fresh character to penetrate its banal leads, but this could have been a brisk 85-minute film. Instead, it belabors its characters in ways that occasionally reach new heights but more often test my patience. I quite liked Anouk Aimée, who I thought found depth in a fairly thankless turn of interests in the finale, seemingly choosing her dead husband over new romance, but this is too paltry of a script to generate much interest.

[Mysterious Dude]

Blow Out is so dumb. "What's a good way to not draw attention to the murder I'm about to commit? I know! I'll become a serial killer! Serial killers never draw attention, do they? Especially if I leave a signature on every corpse and leave the bodies lying out in the open!"

[Qrazy]

Blow Out is so dumb. "What's a good way to not draw attention to the murder I'm about to commit? I know! I'll become a serial killer! Serial killers never draw attention, do they? Especially if I leave a signature on every corpse and leave the bodies lying out in the open!"

All De Palma films are dumb in this way.

[Pop Trash]

What was the film with a character who was a photographer and only took pictures of dog shit.

This:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090882/

They used to show it on HBO all of the time in the late 80s/early 90s. I quite liked it when I was 10.

[Grouchy]

Blow Up - Incredible, shitty bore. My soul rejects Antonioni, always has. The short story is based on is good.
The Conversation - Fucking masterpiece.
Blow Out - Another brilliant pastiche from De Palma, always entertaining.

[Qrazy]

Blow Up - Incredible, shitty bore. My soul rejects Antonioni, always has. The short story is based on is good.


What have you seen?

[Grouchy]

What have you seen?
Full disclosure - not all that much. We analyzed Blow Up exhaustively for film class, so I went from being indifferent towards it to outright hating it. Then I watched L'Avventura and Zabriskie Point and I hated them.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not blind, I appreciate the craft on display. I'm just not interested in his themes and I find no anchor point in his films. I'm also under the impression that he made movies strictly for the critics and the arthouse crowd. Someone with no exceptional interest in cinema can be touched by a Bergman or a Kurosawa film because their themes are universal. With Antonioni, I always get an awkward feeling of snobbery and being in the "in" club.

If I want a feeling of Euro-cool I'd rather watch a Roger Vadim flick. Much more honest.

[Ivan Drago]

Bob Hoskins has been diagnosed with Parkinson's disease and will retire from acting. (http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/gossip/la-et-mg-bob-hoskins-parkinsons-retires-acting,0,86488.story)

:sad:

Another one of my favorite actors.

[Qrazy]

Full disclosure - not all that much. We analyzed Blow Up exhaustively for film class, so I went from being indifferent towards it to outright hating it. Then I watched L'Avventura and Zabriskie Point and I hated them.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not blind, I appreciate the craft on display. I'm just not interested in his themes and I find no anchor point in his films. I'm also under the impression that he made movies strictly for the critics and the arthouse crowd. Someone with no exceptional interest in cinema can be touched by a Bergman or a Kurosawa film because their themes are universal. With Antonioni, I always get an awkward feeling of snobbery and being in the "in" club.

If I want a feeling of Euro-cool I'd rather watch a Roger Vadim flick. Much more honest.

I don't think Vadim is more honest at all. Antonioni is extremely emotionally honest just a bit harder to break into.

Zabriskie Point is an utter piece of shit and Blow-up I'm not too keen on in relation to Antonioni's filmography. L'avventura is fantastic but I love it much more now than the first time I saw it.

I think you will have much better luck with The Passenger, La Notte and L'eclisse. Give them a shot.

---

La Notte is the one I really fell in love with though after seeing L'avventura, The Passenger and Blow-up. It's the one that opened up his work to me.

[Pop Trash]

Bob Hoskins has been diagnosed with Parkinson's disease and will retire from acting. (http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/gossip/la-et-mg-bob-hoskins-parkinsons-retires-acting,0,86488.story)

:sad:

Another one of my favorite actors.

Ouch. Sad day for Sven especially.

[Pop Trash]

I'm one of those weirdos that likes Zabriskie Point more than L'Avventura. Or at least I find it more entertaining. The music helps, as does the fact that I've actually been to ZP before. Plus, one of the best endings ever. C'mon.

[Qrazy]

I'm one of those weirdos that likes Zabriskie Point more than L'Avventura. Or at least I find it more entertaining. The music helps, as does the fact that I've actually been to ZP before. Plus, one of the best endings ever. C'mon.

The ending is the only good thing about the film but yes it is good.

[EyesWideOpen]

I rewatched A.I. recently for like the fifth time. It's one of my favorite movies but I can see why some people have issues with it. The biggest complaint I hear (besides the ending which is great and anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong) is about the flesh fair and I think the flesh fair scene is fine although I think they could have done something a little more inventive with it. My dislikes are a little more specific. I hate the Chris Rock part and I'm a big fan of Chris Rock. It doesn't fit in with the movie. I also don't like the motorcycle robot wranglers. I mean they have this cool visual with this moon-balloon contraption and then they bring out these cheesy light up motorcycles like something out of a bad 80's movie. I also don't see how it is in any way effective to chase down robots on a motorcycle through forests.

[Pop Trash]

I rewatched A.I. recently for like the fifth time. It's one of my favorite movies but I can see why some people have issues with it. The biggest complaint I hear (besides the ending which is great and anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong) is about the flesh fair and I think the flesh fair scene is fine although I think they could have done something a little more inventive with it. My dislikes are a little more specific. I hate the Chris Rock part and I'm a big fan of Chris Rock. It doesn't fit in with the movie. I also don't like the motorcycle robot wranglers. I mean they have this cool visual with this moon-balloon contraption and then they bring out these cheesy light up motorcycles like something out of a bad 80's movie. I also don't see how it is in any way effective to chase down robots on a motorcycle through forests.

I love it and I've seen it four times (I think?). My chief complaint with the last viewing is that Williams' score is so good and modernist and un-Williams like then in the last act he goes all gooey on us. I think this is the main reason why people find this scene "cheesy." It's not that the scene is any more cheesy than the rest of the film, it's that Williams score does a complete 180.

[baby doll]

I'm also under the impression that he made movies strictly for the critics and the arthouse crowd. Someone with no exceptional interest in cinema can be touched by a Bergman or a Kurosawa film because their themes are universal. With Antonioni, I always get an awkward feeling of snobbery and being in the "in" club.I don't think this is necessarily true with Antonioni, but either way, I don't really give a shit if non-cinephiles aren't touched by his movies. Fuck those people. What matters to me is that I like them.

[MadMan]

Bob Hoskins has been diagnosed with Parkinson's disease and will retire from acting. (http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/gossip/la-et-mg-bob-hoskins-parkinsons-retires-acting,0,86488.story)

:sad:

Another one of my favorite actors.Yeah its truly a damn shame. He was amazing in The Long Good Friday, Mona Lisa, and Who Framed Roger Rabbit? I also like him a lot in Hook, even though I'm not a big fan of that flick. Too bad his last movie was that crappy looking Snow White film.

[Dukefrukem]

The ending to AI is terrible. Just like the rest of the movie.

[baby doll]

Bob Hoskins has been diagnosed with Parkinson's disease and will retire from acting. (http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/gossip/la-et-mg-bob-hoskins-parkinsons-retires-acting,0,86488.story)

:sad:

Another one of my favorite actors.You just know Michael J. Fox is somewhere thinking, "What a pussy."

[Skitch]

The ending to AI is terrible. Just like the rest of the movie.

This, except the exeact opposite. ;)

[Raiders]

Blow Out is so dumb. "What's a good way to not draw attention to the murder I'm about to commit? I know! I'll become a serial killer! Serial killers never draw attention, do they? Especially if I leave a signature on every corpse and leave the bodies lying out in the open!"

Isn't the point of his plan to draw attention to the murders but make it so the cops most obviously chalk it up to a serial killing and don't probe into Allen's ties to the governer? I mean, he is rushing to improvise after she became a loose end when she didn't die in the car.

[Qrazy]

Isn't the point of his plan to draw attention to the murders but make it so the cops most obviously chalk it up to a serial killing and don't probe into Allen's ties to the governer? I mean, he is rushing to improvise after she became a loose end when she didn't die in the car.

Yes that is his plan and he's saying it's a bad plan because it is. It's still the same guy committing the murders, he's just committing more murders and would have more heat on him.

[Raiders]

Yes that is his plan and he's saying it's a bad plan because it is. It's still the same guy committing the murders, he's just committing more murders and would have more heat on him.

Well, Lithgow is going a bit rogue if I remember correctly (essentially "taking care of it" with his own plan) and I don't know how dumb it is for the film that his plan is poorly conceived. I'm not sure it is that bad given that his being caught as a serial killer is not the same as being caught for his initial murder (which if he had gone straight for Allen would have been more likely) and that's the ultimate goal.

[Irish]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not blind, I appreciate the craft on display. I'm just not interested in his themes and I find no anchor point in his films. I'm also under the impression that he made movies strictly for the critics and the arthouse crowd. Someone with no exceptional interest in cinema can be touched by a Bergman or a Kurosawa film because their themes are universal. With Antonioni, I always get an awkward feeling of snobbery and being in the "in" club.

Try Il Grido.

I can't stand him either, but that movie is amazing.

[Irish]

I wish more Westerns had German people in them. There actually were a ton of Germans and other immigrants living in the West in the nineteenth century, but you wouldn't know it by our movies.

Closest I've seen is Scandanavia.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0052287

One main street showdown involves a guy wielding a harpoon.

[Ivan Drago]

Even though it's one of my favorite movies, I turn into a sobbing little baby when I watch A.I. So much that I can't watch it that often. It gets to me on a personal level.

[Scar]

Big fan of AI.

[Yxklyx]

Try Il Grido.

I can't stand him either, but that movie is amazing.

Il Grido is awesome and one of his earliest - before his movies became Antonionized and even more awesome. It's in a more conventional neo-realist style.

[Izzy Black]

Full disclosure - not all that much. We analyzed Blow Up exhaustively for film class, so I went from being indifferent towards it to outright hating it. Then I watched L'Avventura and Zabriskie Point and I hated them.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not blind, I appreciate the craft on display. I'm just not interested in his themes and I find no anchor point in his films. I'm also under the impression that he made movies strictly for the critics and the arthouse crowd. Someone with no exceptional interest in cinema can be touched by a Bergman or a Kurosawa film because their themes are universal. With Antonioni, I always get an awkward feeling of snobbery and being in the "in" club.

If I want a feeling of Euro-cool I'd rather watch a Roger Vadim flick. Much more honest.

I can say that Blow Up is one of my least favorites by Antonioni, but I certainly don't hate it or think it's a bad movie.

I would recommend La Notte and some of his earlier films like Il Grido, Le Amiche, and The Story of a Love Affair. These play more like classic dramas, as Antonioni began his career by primarily working in the genres of neorealism and Italian melodrama.

Naturally, I tend to find his more traditional dramatic material to be less interesting and less compelling. There are exchanges in La Notte that feel right at home in a Bergman film and I imagine that's why it was so well-received by critics, but I think it's obviousness and familiarity only weaken the film. What you call tapping into "universal" themes, I call taping into what's conventional and accessible, and Antonioni, at his best, is anything but conventional and nothing if not challenging.

It's true Antonioni's films are often very elliptical and trying, but he's a modernist, so experimentation and abstraction are his calling cards. I think Qrazy is right that emotion in his film is not diminished for this fact (see Il Deserto rosso, that film nearly breaks at the seams with sentiment and feeling). Antonoini just makes you work for it, and not for pretentious reasons, I don't think, but because he genuinely thinks that meaningful expressions of affection often come with great difficulty. It's the very problem that confronts his characters. Perhaps you find this theme uninteresting, and though I certainly can't relate, I can at least accept that, but it's very hard to see how his interests should arouse hatred or the level of aversion you've described.

[Winston*]

Seen the following at the cinema in the last two weeks.


The Angel's Share
The Hunt
Gentlemen Prefer Blondes
Platigue Image (collection of Polish CGI animation)
Cabin in the Woods
Bernie
Beasts of the Southern Wild
Rampart
Caesar Must Die
I Wish
A Monster in Paris
On the Road
Sightseers
Amour
Lore
Grandma Lo-fi: The Basement Tapes of SigrÃ*dur NÃ*elsdóttir
V/H/S
The Shining
Holy Motors


Phew. Wouldn't have been entirely my choice of lineup but I didn't pay to see any of them so can't complain. Only one or two more to go this weekend.

[bac0n]

This, except the exeact opposite. ;)

I'm with Duke on this one. It seemed that Spielberg was so dead-set on getting me to cry at the end, that I'm surprised a hand didn't reach out of the screen and start chopping an onion under my eyeballs.

[Boner M]

Seen the following at the cinema in the last two weeks.


The Angel's Share
The Hunt
Gentlemen Prefer Blondes
Platigue Image (collection of Polish CGI animation)
Cabin in the Woods
Bernie
Beasts of the Southern Wild
Rampart
Caesar Must Die
I Wish
A Monster in Paris
On the Road
Sightseers
Amour
Lore
Grandma Lo-fi: The Basement Tapes of SigrÃ*dur NÃ*elsdóttir
V/H/S
The Shining
Holy Motors


Phew. Wouldn't have been entirely my choice of lineup but I didn't pay to see any of them so can't complain. Only one or two more to go this weekend.
Thought this was order of preference for a sec. Phew.

I've seen 25-ish in the last 7 days, opinions all on twitter (sorry, this site).

[Qrazy]

How was On the Road?

[NickGlass]

Seen the following at the cinema in the last two weeks.


The Hunt
Cabin in the Woods
Bernie
Beasts of the Southern Wild
Rampart
On the Road
Sightseers
Amour
Holy Motors


Phew. Wouldn't have been entirely my choice of lineup but I didn't pay to see any of them so can't complain. Only one or two more to go this weekend.

I demand you write succinct (and likely humorous, as I enjoy from you) one-to-two-sentence thoughts on these.

[Winston*]

The Hunt

Extremely solid drama with a very strong central performance. It's a bit silly that they make the lead character a hunter so that they can have the double meaning in the title, but I can overlook it. Return to form for Vinterberg after some truly awful experiments in English language film. Really made me realise that I never want to be falsely accussed of paedophillia.

Cabin in the Woods

Most fun I've had in the cinema in ages. Especially enjoyed the scattered laughter as people realised what was about to happen during the motorcycle jump.

Bernie

Enjoyed it, but what I would've enjoyed more would've been 90 minutes of that guy in the coffee shop talking about people in other parts of Texas.

Beasts of the Southern Wild

Sporadically engaged by it, but overall I didn't really gel with the tone of the film. It felt random to me.

Rampart

Booooooring.

On the Road

I haven't read the book yet, so I was fairly irritated that I had to see this. The film came across as a farely meandering series of vignettes, that I kept thinking must've come across better in literary form. Salles' prosaic style certainly doesn't match the energy of the novel excerpts in the voiceover (free jazz on the soundtrack is about his most adventurous touch). The fact that the film ends with the writing of the book the film is based on kind of cements this adaptation's redundancy.

Garret Hedlund's performance as Dean is probably the highlight.

Sightseers

Alice Lowe gives a Mike Leigh film worthy performance in this, which brings a neccesary humanity to a film that on the whole, like Wheatley's previous, has a pretty cynical outlook and keeps the comedy afloat. Quite a few big laughs. Very violent.

Also a plus is that the violence in the film is not commentary on violence in the media or whatever.

Amour

Almost unbearable (but in a good way). Haneke's least thesis-y work, and as such could see non Haneke fans appreciating it.

Holy Motors

Film is a pretty awesome medium.

[Winston*]

The framing device in V/H/S contains some of the worst, most obnoxious filmmaking I've seen in some time. It also makes absolutely no sense as a container for the 5 shorts.

Film's kind of worth seeing for the awesome first segment though.

[Winston*]

A Monster in Paris is an animated fim about a lonely projectionist who accidentally transforms a flea into a giant singing and dancing flea, which becomes a cabaret act during the 1910 Great Flood of Paris

[Russ]

I read somewhere that, of the recent Sight and Sound top 100 poll, exactly 0 films were from the southern hemisphere (Australia, New Zealand, Indonesia, most of South America and about a third of Africa).

So, since we all love lists, what's your top ten southern hemi's?

Mine:

1. Limite (Brazil)
2. Gallipoli (Australia)
3. Picnic at Hanging Rock (Australia)
4. City of God (Brazil)
5. Breaker Morant (Australia)
6. Central Station (Brazil)
7. The Road Warrior (Australia)
8. Lantana (Australia)
9. Goodbye Pork Pie (New Zealand)
10. The Gods Must Be Crazy (Botswana)


* I decided not to include Moulin Rouge! since it was funded mostly outside of Australia.

[Qrazy]

I really do not understand the love for Lantana. I like most of your other selections though, couple I haven't seen.

[soitgoes...]

So, since we all love lists, what's your top ten southern hemi's?

1. Black Orpheus (Brazil)
2. The Given Word (Brazil)
3. City of God (Brazil)
4. The Tracker (Australia)
5. Bus 174 (Brazil)
6. The Battle of Chile (Chile)
7. Picnic on Hanging Rock (Australia)
8. Walkabout (Australia)
9. Limite (Brazil)
10. Liverpool (Argentina)

The Battle of Chile is a stretch since it was funded by France and Cuba, though all footage was shot in Chile by a Chilean.

[Pop Trash]

Mine would be City of God, plus 9 others from Aus. and NZ, so it would be rather boring.

EDIT: Gods Must Be Crazy too.

[B-side]

So, since we all love lists, what's your top ten southern hemi's?

I'm remarkably lacking in experience in the southern hemisphere, so...

1. Chronicle of a Boy Alone (Leonardo Favio - Argentina)
2. La Cienaga (Lucrecia Martel - Argentina)
3. The Headless Woman (Lucrecia Martel - Argentina)
4. The Dependent (Leonardo Favio - Argentina)
5. The Piano (Jane Campion - Australia/New Zealand)

aaaand that'll have to suffice. I've got numerous films from the southern hemi bookmarked, but wow am I inexperienced in the region. I didn't count films made by foreigners.

[Spinal]

1. Walkabout
2. Brazil
3. Happy Feet
4. Happy Feet II
5. Encounters at the End of the World
6. Lord of the Rings
7. Evita
8. South Pacific
9. Crocodile Dundee
10. Madagascar

[Rowland]

The framing device in V/H/S contains some of the worst, most obnoxious filmmaking I've seen in some time.That material was directed by Adam Wingard. I streamed a bit of one of his previous features, A Horrible Way to Die, while falling asleep one night, and what I saw struck me as artlessly, affectedly ugly and obnoxious. It looked like the first effort of a rank amateur without a tripod who had just discovered how to adjust the focus and zoom on his camera, which he enjoys randomly waving around in CU framing.

[Irish]

+ The Dish
+ The Proposition
+ Wolf Creek

[Raiders]

1. The Tracker (Australia)
2. Bus 174 (Brazil)
3. Sweetie (Australia)
4. Picnic at Hanging Rock (Australia)
5. Heavenly Creatures (New Zealand)
6. The Road Warrior (Australia)
7. Ghosts... of the Civil Dead (Australia)
8. Pixote (Brazil)
9. District 9 (South Africa)
10. Bad Boy Bubby (Australia)

[Boner M]

Australian cinema is generally an embarrassment and makes me glad I'm Canadian-born.

[baby doll]

Australian cinema is generally an embarrassment and makes me glad I'm Canadian-born.What a dry Boner.

[Mysterious Dude]

Southern hemishphere:

1. City of God (2002)
2. Pixote (1981)
3. The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith (1978)
4. Vidas Secas (1963)
5. The Proposition (2005)
6. Kiss of the Spider Woman (1985)
7. Bus 174 (2002)
8. The Piano (1993)
9. Viva Riva! (2010)
10. Mary and Max (2009)

It seems like there were some movements in South America in the 60's and 70's akin to the French New Wave, but the films never really found an audience in the U.S. (even among critics), so hardly any are available on Netflix. I've got some work to do.

[Qrazy]

Australian cinema is generally an embarrassment and makes me glad I'm Canadian-born.

I get the feeling you're joking given that Canadian cinema is also mostly balls overall.

[Grouchy]

http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii2/mteste/30.png

Invasión
Hugo Santiago, 1969

SOME SPOILERS BELOW

Ever since I remember knowing about it, I've wanted to see this film. Co-written by the dynamic duo of Jorge Luis Borges and Adolfo Bioy Casares, it's the only one of their film scripts (they have three others) that came into production. It's a science-fiction film in style, even if it has no overt futuristic elements. In the fictional city of Aquilea (Buenos Aires), a group of characters, all friends, take part in the Resistance against an unseen force of Invaders. It's never clear if these Invaders are aliens, foreigners or simply criminals, and they're only represented by the trench-coated army pictured above. What is clear is that they will take over the city if they're not stopped, and in the last third of the film, the Resistance seems to accept that their defeat is inevitable and yet they continue fighting.

The fingerprints of Borges are all over the story. The accepted destiny, the theme of male friendship under fire and the archetype of the compadrito signal his involvement. Bioy Casares, as well, obviously created the character of the ladies man who can't resist a good-looking dame even when there's danger at bay. There is also an atmosphere reminiscent of El Eternauta, the masterpiece of Argentine comics released twelve years earlier. Like in that comic, the heroes of Invasión are common men with day jobs forced into action by the circumstances.

Unfortunately, the film is more fun to discuss and analyze than it is to watch at times. Santiago seems influenced by the French New Wave films which no doubt had arrived to Argentina with some delays, and so he cut his film with a strangeness that makes the story very confusing, particularly during the first half when we're trying to decypher exactly what are these conspirators doing. Sometimes his idyosincratic style works well, as in the deaths near the end of the film which are played for comic and poetic effect ("I was blind" are some of the most perfect last words I've seen), but sometimes it robs action scenes of their excitement as they become frankly difficult to follow. Santiago tries for many tones at once, part science-fiction epic, part action film, part surreal comedy, and only partly succeeds. It's all beautifully photographed, though, and the locations come from all over Buenos Aires and seem carefully chosen for each set piece.

Overall, Invasión is as strange a cult movie as they get. It has a milonga with lyrics composed by Jorge Luis Borges which is beautiful and appears many times throughout. It has scenes which make zero sense and which get unintentional laughs from modern audiences. It's one of the few "Borges films" which exist out there. Unusually for any audience, after the word "Fin" (The End) flashes on screen, the film continues for one more scene which implies a new generation of Resistance fighters. A TV documentary about the film was eventually made in 2008 which apparently features some fictional segments, but so far, none has attempted to pick up the story and do a straight-forward sequel.

[B-side]

What a dry Boner.

Definitely not conducive to his penetration into the mainstream.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Definitely not conducive to his penetration into the mainstream.

Yeah, I can't help thinking they'll see him coming.

[Raiders]

He's really just bitter after he auditioned for a role as a pianist in The Piano and was left hanging.

[Qrazy]

Wow, I never realized how indebted to Spike Lee David Simon is. The Wire is like an elaborated and refined version of Clockers. Hell, Wee-Bey is even in there in a bit part.

Although probably Price's novel was the larger reference point but still, lots of overlap between the film and TV show showing the ins and outs of the job.

On another note I didn't realize how often Lee used his floaty person camera technique... Clockers, Crooklyn, Inside Man, 25th Hour... probably more I'm not thinking of.

[Winston*]

Richard Price was a writer on The Wire.


On another note I didn't realize how often Lee used his floaty person camera technique... Clockers, Crooklyn, Inside Man, 25th Hour... probably more I'm not thinking of.

Malcolm X

[Izzy Black]

Best used in Malcolm X, imo.

[Qrazy]

Richard Price was a writer on The Wire.


Makes sense. Looks like he did most of his writing for seasons 3 and 4. My two favorite seasons, good stuff.

[Qrazy]

Best used in Malcolm X, imo.

The upside down glue sniffer use in Crooklyn was a nice riff on it. :)

[Winston*]

Makes sense. Looks like he did most of his writing for seasons 3 and 4. My two favorite seasons, good stuff.

Had read the novel Clockers before The Wire and noticed several cross over moments. Herc asking a kid where to get sideways hats, and Herc, Carver and their dates meeting a group of the dealers they're monitoring in a movie theatre lobby are directly from the book.

[Grouchy]

Speaking of Spike, how's Mo' Better Blues?

I'm planning to do a month of jazz movies for Ramona Reyes and that's a candidate.

[Izzy Black]

I'm a big fan of Mo' Better Blues. It's one of my favorites from Lee. It helps to like that genre/era of music.

[baby doll]

Speaking of Spike, how's Mo' Better Blues?

I'm planning to do a month of jazz movies for Ramona Reyes and that's a candidate.I don't think it's one of his best movies (I get the feeling that Lee wanted to make a film that wouldn't arouse any controversy after Do the Right Thing), but it has its moments.

[MadMan]

I forgot to mention I saw Manhattan recently. I'm trying to decide if it or Annie Hall is Woody Allen's best film (out of the ones I've viewed, mind you) but I think I'll just stick with Crimes and Misdemeanors as my answer for now. Review forth coming, whenever I get around to it (only reviewing horror movies really at this point).

[Winston*]

Searching for Sugar Man is an excellent documentary fyi. Would recommend not seeing the trailer before seeing the movie.

[Adam]

Cu9-UymSApM

[Bosco B Thug]

The Ruling Class (Medak, 1972) *½ Yes it's mostly irritating, but still, sad. :sad:

[Qrazy]

Yeah I remember some people on Match-cut talking up The Ruling Class back in the day, very disappointing. The Changeling is still awesome though and A Day in the Death of Joe Egg is alright.

[Bosco B Thug]

Yeah I remember some people on Match-cut talking up The Ruling Class back in the day, very disappointing. The Changeling is still awesome though and A Day in the Death of Joe Egg is alright.
Hmm, I'll take The Ruling Class and its wild ambition over The Changeling, which doesn't strike me as much more than solid. I've seen his early feature Negatives, which is solid artsiness, probably of similar offerings as 'Joe Egg' which I haven't seen.

I feel like he became a fairly polished (and still idiosyncratic) filmmaker in the 90s, even though I've only started Romeo is Bleeding.

[Watashi]

Just saw a double feature of Star Trek II and The Thing on the big screen in glorious 35mm.

It was an awesome night.

[Dukefrukem]

Can we have the "favorite movie" versus "rated movie" discussion again? I know there are some people here who feel they are one and the same. I've always placed movies into two different categories. Movies that I could consider a guilty pleasure, but would not necessarily rate them high, and movies that I consider tremendous accomplishments. This is reflected in my grade.

Citizens Kane vs Army of Darkness is an exaggerated example. I could watch Army of Darkness any day of the week. It's just a movie I find tremendously entertaining , quote worthy and I feel more comfortable watching it over CK. But I would never rate it higher than CK. Can someone here argue that I should?

[Irish]

I don't feel it's zero sum. Kane's excellence doesn't detract from Army's merits.

[baby doll]

Can we have the "favorite movie" versus "rated movie" discussion again? I know there are some people here who feel they are one and the same. I've always placed movies into two different categories. Movies that I could consider a guilty pleasure, but would not necessarily rate them high, and movies that I consider tremendous accomplishments. This is reflected in my grade.

Citizens Kane vs Army of Darkness is an exaggerated example. I could watch Army of Darkness any day of the week. It's just a movie I find tremendously entertaining , quote worthy and I feel more comfortable watching it over CK. But I would never rate it higher than CK. Can someone here argue that I should?First of all, the favorite/best distinction always struck me as being a pussy move, like you don't have the balls to own your opinions when they run counter to the consensus.

Second, evaluation is subjective. Therefore, I don't give a shit about anybody's evaluations but mine. I think Citizen Kane is a fun movie; I've seen it innumerable times, and I can't wait to see it again. But that's my opinion and opinions are boring. I'm more interested in analysis.

Third, one reason I was glad when Citizen Kane fell to second place in the Sight & Sound poll is that I thought I wouldn't have to hear motherfuckers indirectly talking shit about it any more ("I know it's a great accomplishment, but I happen to like [movie X] better"). I guess I was wrong.

Fourth, approaching film history as a series of firsts (the first close-up, the first example of parallel action, etc.) or greatest accomplishments (best deep focus) is a bullshit approach.

[baby doll]

I don't feel it's zero sum. Kane's excellence doesn't detract from Army's merits.Word.

[Dukefrukem]

It was just an example. I don't even have Citizens Kane in my top 100. But I admire your passion.

[Irish]

It was just an example. I don't even have Citizens Kane in my top 100.

It's a good example, though.

To piggyback on babydoll's post --- I think the urge to make this kind of distinction rises out of the fear of being viewed as unsophisticated, uneducated, or ignorant. That you have to genuflect at the Altar of Sin-e-mah in order to be taken seriously.

This is why I enjoy Pauline Kael and Roger Ebert. I don't read them for their opinions on any specific movie or to fact check my opinion against their top ten lists. I read them because their love of movies shows with every word they write. They never forget the personal experience of going to the movies. (Well, that the quality of their prose; they're good at articulating their own thoughts).

[Dukefrukem]

Well, that the quality of their prose; they're good at articulating their own thoughts.

And that's a problem for those of us who do not do a good job getting thoughts down on paper well enough to express these opinions. If I were able to do this, then Chronicles of Riddick would be in my top 10.

[baby doll]

And that's a problem for those of us who do not do a good job getting thoughts down on paper well enough to express these opinions. If I were able to do this, then Chronicles of Riddick would be in my top 10.If you feel it you feel it; what does getting your thoughts down on paper have to do with anything? You don't have to justify your tastes to other people. I don't feel the need to explain why I like Citizen Kane because it's already been said by other people. After all, there are only so many reasons to like a movie.

[Dukefrukem]

If you feel it you feel it; what does getting your thoughts down on paper have to do with anything? You don't have to justify your tastes to other people.

I do here on MC. :lol:

[baby doll]

I do here on MC. :lol:But does anybody really know why they like or dislike a particular movie? They just respond to it on a gut level and then try to account for their reaction later on.

[Raiders]

But does anybody really know why they like or dislike a particular movie? They just respond to it on a gut level and then try to account for their reaction later on.

I agree with the idea that a large portion of people's reactions to film can stem from intangibles that happen on a gut level, but it is ridiculous to state that every review is nothing more than after-the-fact rationalization of a feeling toward a film. That doesn't account at all for active interaction during the film.

[Irish]

And that's a problem for those of us who do not do a good job getting thoughts down on paper well enough to express these opinions. If I were able to do this, then Chronicles of Riddick would be in my top 10.

Well that's why Ebert is Ebert and had his own television show and you're Dukefrukem, posting on the Internet. :P

I think you can make a case for Riddick. I have to say it won me on pure, silly entertainment value. I swear to god, I saw that in the theater and giggled my way through it. My friends thought I'd gone nuts, but it was one of the most memorable times I've had at the theater.

I know people who had a similar reaction to Gamer and Crank, Tokyo Drift and a half dozen Hong Kong action movies.

[Irish]

But does anybody really know why they like or dislike a particular movie? They just respond to it on a gut level and then try to account for their reaction later on.

I do, at least when I hate something.

The difficulty lies in keeping yourself honest, and separating out specific criteria from something that's based on personal taste.

I loved Clueless because I'm an absolute sucker for the story at the core of Jane Austen's Emma. I could probably write paragraphs praising its story structure and its comedy.

But I couldn't fault anyone for finding that story ridiculous or contrived, and on a personal level, I can't explain why it resonates so closely with me.

[Stay Puft]

Not confirmed by Paramount yet (officially, you know) but it looks like Raiders of the Lost Ark is returning to theatres next month, exclusively in IMAX, to help promote the upcoming Blu releases. I'll take any chance I can get to see this in theatres. Seeing the digital restoration of Jaws just last month on the big screen was a revelation. Praise be to the movie gods.

[transmogrifier]

The favourite vs best distinction is only interesting in that it provides an insight into the person making the distinction. It's basically "A list of movies I like" vs "A list of movies that others think I should like".

It displays a stunning level of insecurity, I reckon.

[B-side]

Eh, I don't wanna group the favorites vs best distinguishers together under the label of "pussy" or "insecure" necessarily because I do, on a certain level, get what they're going for. I think using this framework as an approach to art is counter-intuitive, though.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I get it. "Favorites" are movies that someone might apologize for or explain through personal importance. "Best" are movies that someone might feel are defensible on their own terms, without such appeals.

I just find that the two are often so bound together as to not be worth separating.

[Mr. McGibblets]

I don't see any way to make a "Best" list without basically giving more credence to the opinions of others than to your own.

[Qrazy]

The favourite vs best distinction is only interesting in that it provides an insight into the person making the distinction. It's basically "A list of movies I like" vs "A list of movies that others think I should like".

It displays a stunning level of insecurity, I reckon.

Alternatively it's... "A list of movies I like" vs "A list of movies I respect".

[Qrazy]

After a long hiatus from watching movies I just binged on a bunch of Spike Lee films. They were mostly extremely mediocre with some better than others. All were very digestible though.

It served it's purpose though and now I am back into watching films again.

Here's my line up this week and a bit.

Yellowbeard (already started it, shaping up to be unfunny and bad)
Oasis
Oslo 31, August
Hell in the Pacific
The Americanization of Emily
Insomnia (original)
House of Cards (mini-series)
The Shooting
Silence and Cry
A Time for Drunken Horses

[MadMan]

The favourite vs best distinction is only interesting in that it provides an insight into the person making the distinction. It's basically "A list of movies I like" vs "A list of movies that others think I should like".

It displays a stunning level of insecurity, I reckon.


First of all, the favorite/best distinction always struck me as being a pussy move, like you don't have the balls to own your opinions when they run counter to the consensus.

Comments like these deserve a pretty strong :rolleyes: followed by me just shaking my head. I long ago though stopped giving a shit about what people think about my own lists, and I do believe there is a difference between favorite and best. But hey this entire discussion is a dead horse that keeps getting beaten again and again, just like the silly ratings debate.


Not confirmed by Paramount yet (officially, you know) but it looks like Raiders of the Lost Ark is returning to theatres next month, exclusively in IMAX, to help promote the upcoming Blu releases. I'll take any chance I can get to see this in theatres. Seeing the digital restoration of Jaws just last month on the big screen was a revelation. Praise be to the movie gods.I've only seen it on the big screen in its original form. The idea of it being shown in a digitally restored format on IMAX is just....amazing.....wow. Too bad my town doesn't have an IMAX anymore :sad:


Cu9-UymSApMFantastic montage. One that makes me want to see even more of Spike Lee's work. I've sadly only seen Do The Right Thing, Malcolm X, He Got Game, and Inside Man. I'd like to continue exploring his earlier work first.

[transmogrifier]

Roll those eyes as much as you want. It doesn't win you the argument.

[Derek]

Roll those eyes as much as you want. It doesn't win you the argument.

This is my favorite post on this page, though obviously not the best.

[B-side]

This is my favorite post on this page, though obviously not the best.

It's my least favorite, but obviously the best.

[MadMan]

Roll those eyes as much as you want. It doesn't win you the argument.Except you haven't convinced me with your argument, either. Mine though featured a smilie, so it clearly was better constructed, although I obviously lost points for not being a snarky douchebag. That's apparently the correct way to "Win" here these days.

[Winston*]

Enjoyed the latest episode of Children's Hospital more than I enjoyed Shoah. The latest episode of Children's Hospital is better than Shoah.

[Qrazy]

Yellowbeard - Holy shit this is the worst thing I've ever seen.

[Irish]

Q, expecting at least 250 words on House of Cards, if you please.

[B-side]

Random list of the day

Top 10 Jewish filmmakers:

1. Maya Deren
2. Stanley Kubrick
3. Woody Allen
4. Nina Menkes
5. David Cronenberg
6. Max Ophüls
7. Michael Mann
8. Mervyn LeRoy
9. Steven Spielberg
10. Edgar G. Ulmer

[transmogrifier]

Enjoyed the latest episode of Children's Hospital more than I enjoyed Shoah. The latest episode of Children's Hospital is better than Shoah.

So favorite = frivolous fun and best = intellectual vegetables?

The distinction is getting worse and worse.

My issue is that you judge your favorite films on whatever criteria you think is important, and then when it comes to making a best of list, you have to put aside your own criteria for some objective measure of worth. So all lists will therefore reset back to this preconceived "democratic" notion of a good film, and so the narrow definition of what a critically acceptable film must do is perpetuated.

I mean, I look at my Top 50 list or whatever, and they are all of my favorite films. So can someone explain to me what measures I should use to chuck out the unacceptable films on that list so I can transform it into a "Best" list?

[Winston*]

So favorite = frivolous fun and best = intellectual vegetables?

The distinction is getting worse and worse.

My issue is that you judge your favorite films on whatever criteria you think is important, and then when it comes to making a best of list, you have to put aside your own criteria for some objective measure of worth. So all lists will therefore reset back to this preconceived "democratic" notion of a good film, and so the narrow definition of what a critically acceptable film must do is perpetuated.

I mean, I look at my Top 50 list or whatever, and they are all of my favorite films. So can someone explain to me what measures I should use to chuck out the unacceptable films on that list so I can transform it into a "Best" list?

Was just pointing out that oftentimes its a bit silly to do qualititative comparisons between two films whether you use 'favourite' or 'best'.

[Qrazy]

Q, expecting at least 250 words on House of Cards, if you please.

I will leave some comments once I watch it for sure.

[Spinal]

Yellowbeard - Holy shit this is the worst thing I've ever seen.

Yeah, I didn't even like that movie when I was 12. Best forgotten entirely.

[Skitch]

I really distinguish between favorite and best. I don't understand how that is a pussy move. Akira is possibly my favorite movie ever (depending on which day you catch me on), but I don't give it a full 10/10 because its not without flaw. But I don't always have three hours or the emotional availability to watch Seven Samurai (10/10) on a frequent basis.

[Dukefrukem]

Comments like these deserve a pretty strong :rolleyes: followed by me just shaking my head. I long ago though stopped giving a shit about what people think about my own lists, and I do believe there is a difference between favorite and best. But hey this entire discussion is a dead horse that keeps getting beaten again and again, just like the silly ratings debate.

It's not a dead horse, because I was actually interested in revisiting it and getting a sense of who stands where. I'm actually torn on the subject. I like Qrazy's "A list of movies I like" vs "A list of movies I respect". argument, but BabyDoll's blunt approach to it feels more natural.

People who do go with Qrazy's approach, do you keep two lists?

[baby doll]

I get it. "Favorites" are movies that someone might apologize for or explain through personal importance. "Best" are movies that someone might feel are defensible on their own terms, without such appeals.

I just find that the two are often so bound together as to not be worth separating.I really don't know what you're talking about here. If you can't defend the movie on it's own terms then you're not defending the movie; you're defending the experience around it. The obvious example here is Rocky Horror Picture Show, which as a movie I think has a certain charm and a couple good songs; however, what people like most about it isn't the film per se but that it provides an occasion where it's socially acceptable for straight men to wear high heels and fishnet stockings in public. Or maybe you're referring to those people who like (500) Days of Summer because it totally reminds them of this girl who broke their heart--in which case they're praising the movie for what it's about as opposed to how it's about it, which is simply bad criticism.

[baby doll]

I really distinguish between favorite and best. I don't understand how that is a pussy move. Akira is possibly my favorite movie ever (depending on which day you catch me on), but I don't give it a full 10/10 because its not without flaw. But I don't always have three hours or the emotional availability to watch Seven Samurai (10/10) on a frequent basis.I've only seen Shoah once, and that was almost ten years ago, but that's because it's nine and a half hours long and I've got shit to do; not because I like it less than, say, Raising Arizona (an enjoyably silly movie with an unearned happy ending among other flaws), which I just saw again for the fourth or fifth time (over a period of twenty years).

[Mr. McGibblets]

I get it. "Favorites" are movies that someone might apologize for or explain through personal importance. "Best" are movies that someone might feel are defensible on their own terms, without such appeals.

This sounds like you are making "favorites" totally separate from "bests", but if you love a movie that is also defensible on its own terms then I don't see why it wouldn't be on a "favorites" list.

[Sven]

Raising Arizona (an enjoyably silly movie with an unearned happy ending among other flaws)

Expound.

[baby doll]

Expound.Even in the hyperbolic cartoon universe where the story takes place, I simply can't buy that Nathan Arizona wouldn't call the cops on the people who kidnapped his baby; it's too much of a 180 from his behavior up to this point, which has been consistently obnoxious. Incidentally, I'm reminded of Billy Wilder's observation that scenes where a character suddenly realizes something are always dreadful, and Arizona realizing that Hi and Ed are the kidnappers (which is underlined by a slow dolly in) provides a succinct illustration of Wilder's remark.

[Skitch]

I've only seen Shoah once, and that was almost ten years ago, but that's because it's nine and a half hours long and I've got shit to do; not because I like it less than, say, Raising Arizona (an enjoyably silly movie with an unearned happy ending among other flaws), which I just saw again for the fourth or fifth time (over a period of twenty years).

I'm not sure if your agreeing with me or not.

[baby doll]

I'm not sure if your agreeing with me or not.Disagreeing. I don't think watching a normal length film more frequently necessarily means you like it more than a longer one that you don't watch as often.

[Skitch]

Disagreeing. I don't think watching a normal length film more frequently necessarily means you like it more than a longer one that you don't watch as often.

I didn't mean to really imply that, but I see why my post looks that way. There aren't any films you enjoy more than other films you would rate higher? I guess I differenciate between enjoyment and technical merit.

[baby doll]

I didn't mean to really imply that, but I see why my post looks that way. There aren't any films you enjoy more than other films you would rate higher? I guess I differenciate between enjoyment and technical merit.No, I never consider technical merit. I don't even know what it is.

[Skitch]

No, I never consider technical merit. I don't even know what it is.

Well alrighty then. :)

[Dukefrukem]

No, I never consider technical merit. I don't even know what it is.

Like:


BNTJnHGnVeg

ggFKLxAQBbc

mI3s5fA7Zhk

tuYG93vu-Zk

OW6Rdiqlg2E

n6Zyw-Ji5Z4

[elixir]

I'd be pretty surprised if bd wasn't joking, and posting all those videos is, like, not very necessary. Anyway, this whole debate hurts my brain. I can't even get into it.

Okay, films. Yesterday.

First, I watched Hartley's Kimono, my last of that shorts collection. His shorts are pretty much uniformly awful (though the ones packaged with Surviving Desire are worth watching), which is pretty disappointing since I'm a fan. Of his features. Then Dog Star Man, which was a very anticipated viewing, and definitely wowzers. Still mulling. Insightful. Le Pont des Arts is another wonderful effort from Eugene Green, who I adore after only three features. Even if it's the least of his, it still features his intense focus on language--used for purposes both humorous and philosophical, and often both at once!--and desire to explore the coexistence of opposing forces within the same scenario/object, often exposed through the vantage point of various characters. This is maybe his most overly elegiac film, yet it still contains plenty of funny moments, provided you can get on his wavelength. He's a weird guy. Very precise framing, as usual. Funny Ha Ha was alright. I liked the lead girl, which helped, but the visuals are really functional at best and I don't think the writing or observational qualities are all that great to fully compensate, but it's an enjoyable enough little film. Hmm, yeah.

[StanleyK]

I didn't mean to really imply that, but I see why my post looks that way. There aren't any films you enjoy more than other films you would rate higher? I guess I differenciate between enjoyment and technical merit.

That's one thing I don't get. Technical merit is enjoyable.

[Dukefrukem]

http://i.qkme.me/6k5q.jpg

[baby doll]

In case of the Welles' and Kubrick's films, I do enjoy their flamboyant style, but I never think about how difficult it must have been to pull off the deep focus shots in Citizen Kane.

I guess you could make the same case for the bullet time shot in The Matrix. In general, I'm not interested in special effects per se, which I view merely a means to creating eye-catching compositions (like all the special effects shots in Citizen Kane).

The noirish mise en scène in The Big Combo clip you linked strikes me fairly generic. Similarly, while I'm a big fan of the style of early cinema, The Runaway Horse, though charming, isn't as distinguished as The Thieving Hand or A Corner in Wheat (to cite two of my favorites, which have much more interesting stories), or for that matter, Le Voyage dans la lune (which is much more elaborate in its mise en scène).

And I don't find Hitchcock's cameo appearances the slightest bit interesting.

[Skitch]

That's one thing I don't get. Technical merit is enjoyable.

This is true, but (for me) its not the total score of a film. I'll try another example: I love Office Space, but I wouldn't give it near a ten, I don't think there's anything remarkable in the way its shot, edited...etc. I have a lot of respect for Citizen Kane, for many many reasons we should all be aware of, but I have very little desire to rewatch it more than once a decade.

I know that still sounds like I base a score on how much I rewatch a movie, but I would rewatch OS a dozen times yet rate it lower than CK. So technical merit is not (for me) totality of enjoyment.

[elixir]

And yet totality of enjoyment is not the criteria you use to rate films. Weird.

[Qrazy]

Or maybe you're referring to those people who like (500) Days of Summer because it totally reminds them of this girl who broke their heart--in which case they're praising the movie for what it's about as opposed to how it's about it, which is simply bad criticism.

No, that's art. That's what art is all about. It's about something really hitting home and speaking to you on a level which connects with your reality. I haven't seen that film by the way.

[baby doll]

This is true, but (for me) its not the total score of a film. I'll try another example: I love Office Space, but I wouldn't give it near a ten, I don't think there's anything remarkable in the way its shot, edited...etc. I have a lot of respect for Citizen Kane, for many many reasons we should all be aware of, but I have very little desire to rewatch it more than once a decade.

I know that still sounds like I base a score on how much I rewatch a movie, but I would rewatch OS a dozen times yet rate it lower than CK. So technical merit is not (for me) totality of enjoyment.It seems to me that the issue isn't best versus favorite, but a different set of values. With people who like Citizen Kane, I find they like it for how it tells its story, while people who like Office Space tend to quote funny lines and talk about how much it reminds them of their own lives.

[elixir]

The funny lines and ability to nail a certain lifestyle is worthy of merit as well, yo.

[baby doll]

No, that's art. That's what art is all about. It's about something really hitting home and speaking to you on a level which connects with your reality. I haven't seen that film by the way.Personally, I still love Moolaadé (and Antichrist) despite the fact that no one's cut off my clitoris. As I said earlier, it's not what a film is about that matters but how it's about it. "It's so much like my life" shouldn't be a positive or negative statement.

[Skitch]

And yet totality of enjoyment is not the criteria you use to rate films. Weird.

Is that weird? I feel like I can detatch myself from it enough to grade the many different aspects of the artform, instead of just a gut feeling thumbs up or down. Granted, sometimes it takes a couple viewings of some films to settle my feelings.

It works for con as well, sometimes there are movies I absolutely loathe that I must give a passing score to because it was a competently constructed film, even if I hated the story and everyone in it.

[Qrazy]

It's not a dead horse, because I was actually interested in revisiting it and getting a sense of who stands where. I'm actually torn on the subject. I like Qrazy's "A list of movies I like" vs "A list of movies I respect". argument, but BabyDoll's blunt approach to it feels more natural.

People who do go with Qrazy's approach, do you keep two lists?

No, I only keep one list of favorites and I also don't pretend to have any understanding of the 'objective' best films because I don't think there is such a thing. I think you could make a list of the most semiotically tight films or the most formally accomplished films but even that would raise some disagreement as to the ordering and inclusion of certain works.

My distinction really only effects ordering on my list. I might place a more thematically and formally accomplished film below a film I enjoy more. Or I might leave a formally accomplished film off the list entirely if I have major problems with it's tone or with it's thematic content (Godard, Haneke, Von Trier).

Appreciating film will always be a personal experience.

[Qrazy]

Personally, I still love Moolaadé (and Antichrist) despite the fact that no one's cut off my clitoris. As I said earlier, it's not what a film is about that matters but how it's about it. "It's so much like my life" shouldn't be a positive or negative statement.

Yes I know this is your position, I don't agree with it. For example, you are a gay man and see Happy Together and not only do you find it to be a great film but it really speaks to your experience. Or you are a black man and you see Do the Right Thing and that speaks to your experience. Both of these are perfectly valid reasons to list these films as your favorite films of all time.

In relation to your Antichrist example, I am not making the argument that a film HAS TO speak to your experience in order for it to be quality cinema in one's eyes. What I am saying is that if a work of art connects with you for whatever reason, it could be because of how you grew up or it could be because it captures the way you think, that is a valid reason to appreciate and enjoy it more.

[elixir]

Is that weird? I feel like I can detatch myself from it enough to grade the many different aspects of the artform, instead of just a gut feeling thumbs up or down. Granted, sometimes it takes a couple viewings of some films to settle my feelings.

It works for con as well, sometimes there are movies I absolutely loathe that I must give a passing score to because it was a competently constructed film, even if I hated the story and everyone in it.
Well, I was going to answer but Qrazy's post above should do well enough.

But I don't see the point anyhow. I'd much rather see what a person truly enjoys and considers their favorite then some semi-arbitrary standard of one they deem "best." The two are often aligned anyhow.

And I don't get your con. Yeah, Elephant or Antichrist isn't incompetent technically speaking, but I still think both suck. If you think the story is bad for some reason, I think that can speak to poor construction perhaps. Unless it's a very personal reason or something. Characters, eh.

[Skitch]

It seems to me that the issue isn't best versus favorite, but a different set of values. With people who like Citizen Kane, I find they like it for how it tells its story, while people who like Office Space tend to quote funny lines and talk about how much it reminds them of their own lives.

...Which would be enjoying a film more than its value as art. Favorite and best, seperate.

Look, I'm not saying everyone has to adopt this concept as fact at all, merely trying to explain how I view and rate film. To each his own. :)

[elixir]

I guess I just find it less interesting. I'd want to see scores and opinions that truly reflect your experiences.

[baby doll]

The funny lines and ability to nail a certain lifestyle is worthy of merit as well, yo.Mike Judge can definitely write funny lines and he does a pretty good job of capturing the drudgery of office work, but I don't think he's much of a storyteller or a stylist. He's basically a more sophisticated, neoconservative Seth MacFarlaine (or if you prefer, a very poor man's Whit Stillman).

[Skitch]

Appreciating film will always be a personal experience.

In my humble opinion, this statement should end this conversation for both sides of the argument.

[elixir]

Mike Judge can definitely write funny lines and he does a pretty good job of capturing the drudgery of office work, but I don't think he's much of a storyteller or a stylist. He's basically a more sophisticated, neoconservative Seth MacFarlaine (or if you prefer, a very poor man's Whit Stillman).
I don't even care for Office Space. That specific example is beside the point, really.

[Qrazy]

That's one thing I don't get. Technical merit is enjoyable.

Usually, but sometimes it's in the service of something utterly tedious and uninteresting. A great dolly shot is only as great as the content it's capturing.

[Dukefrukem]

The Big Combo clip with the dark silhouettes in front of a brighter background are supposed to simulate light/dark contrast, like most noiri films. (i forget the term) I remember this example being used in a film course I took as an elective in college.

The Runaway Horse was just one of the first examples of real time cross-cutting.

[Skitch]

I don't even care for Office Space. That specific example is beside the point, really.

Yeah I just picked something rather random that I feel most would agree is enjoyable but hardly a perfect film.

[baby doll]

Usually, but sometimes it's in the service of something utterly tedious and uninteresting. A great dolly shot is only as great as the content it's capturing.Obviously in most narrative films style is subordinated to form, but a shot is never exhausted by its narrative function.

[Dukefrukem]

Is that weird? I feel like I can detatch myself from it enough to grade the many different aspects of the artform, instead of just a gut feeling thumbs up or down. Granted, sometimes it takes a couple viewings of some films to settle my feelings.

It works for con as well, sometimes there are movies I absolutely loathe that I must give a passing score to because it was a competently constructed film, even if I hated the story and everyone in it.

So this.

[baby doll]

The Big Combo clip with the dark silhouettes in front of a brighter background are supposed to simulate light/dark contrast, like most noiri films. (i forget the term) I remember this example being used in a film course I took as an elective in college.

The Runaway Horse was just one of the first examples of real time cross-cutting.Like I said earlier, film history as a series of firsts is a bullshit approach.

[Qrazy]

Obviously in most narrative films style is subordinated to form, but a shot is never exhausted by its narrative function.

Whether it's capturing something tedious has nothing to do with narrative function. When I say tedious I am not speaking of say a Bela Tarr dolly which I find absolutely riveting. I am speaking of say a dolly in De Palma's Obsession or maybe the slow zoom at the beach in Visconti's Death in Venice.

[Dukefrukem]

Usually, but sometimes it's in the service of something utterly tedious and uninteresting. A great dolly shot is only as great as the content it's capturing.

How about a great continuous shot?


IM2atZfn87M


I suppose I put a lot of merit into complicated and visionary efforts. My question is, should I stop doing this? Or maybe I need to stop thinking about how they achieved the shots, and become seduced more by what is on screen.



Like I said earlier, film history as a series of firsts is a bullshit approach.

Ok then. That answers that.

[baby doll]

...Which would be enjoying a film more than its value as art. Favorite and best, seperate.I wouldn't say subject matter is irrelevant, but even the most fascinating subject can make a boring movie. I thought it was impossible to make a boring movie about fascism, but then I saw Triumph of the Will.

[Qrazy]

Like I said earlier, film history as a series of firsts is a bullshit approach.

Film history as a series of firsts is not a bullshit approach... film appreciation as a series of firsts is a bullshit approach.

[Mr. McGibblets]

It works for con as well, sometimes there are movies I absolutely loathe that I must give a passing score to because it was a competently constructed film, even if I hated the story and everyone in it.

I don't get this at all. Competent construction is not in-and-of-itself something worth seeing.

[baby doll]

Whether it's capturing something tedious has nothing to do with narrative function. When I say tedious I am not speaking of say a Bela Tarr dolly which I find absolutely riveting. I am speaking of say a dolly in De Palma's Obsession or maybe the slow zoom at the beach in Visconti's Death in Venice.Maybe it's because I haven't seen Death in Venice, but I don't know what you're talking about. Do you find these movies tedious on the level of narrative (and therefore don't care about the style supporting it) or do you find the shots themselves tedious?

[Qrazy]

How about a great continuous shot?


IM2atZfn87M


I suppose I put a lot of merit into complicated and visionary efforts. My question is, should I stop doing this? Or maybe I need to stop thinking about how they achieved the shots, and become seduced more by what is on screen.


Place more or less value on whatever you wish to. If great dialogue is the most important to you that will be reflected in your list of favorites, or if great acting is or if great visuals or great set design or a combination of all technical merits or etc. Don't worry about whether how you're evaluating a film is right or wrong (a stage most of us hit as budding film buffs) just keep watching movies and at a certain point you will know your preferences.

[baby doll]

Film history as a series of firsts is not a bullshit approach... film appreciation as a series of firsts is a bullshit approach.As David Bordwell put it in a recent blog entry:


One way to write the history of film as an art is to chart firsts. When was the first close-up, the first moving camera, the first use of cutting? Asking such questions was a common strategy of the earliest film historians, and it has persisted to this day in pop histories. Civilian readers can be excused for thinking that Griffith invented the close-up and Welles originated ceilings on sets. These myths have been recycled for decades.

The “revisionist� historians of the 1970s, mostly academics who aimed to do primary research, pointed out that talking about first times is risky. Too often the official account is wrong, and earlier instances can be found. In most cases, we can’t really know about first times. Too many films have vanished, and nobody can see everything that has survived. Innovation is always worth studying, but, the revisionists argued, it’s best understood within a context.

So they set themselves to figuring out not when certain cinematic techniques began but when they became common practice–when most filmmakers in a given time or place adopted them. That way we can discover innovations more reliably; they’ll stand out against the background of more orthodox choices.

[Qrazy]

Maybe it's because I haven't seen Death in Venice, but I don't know what you're talking about. Do you find these movies tedious on the level of narrative (and therefore don't care about the style supporting it) or do you find the shots themselves tedious?

In the case of Death in Venice I find the acting, the thematic content (at least in the adaptation) and the narrative all uninteresting and/or tedious. I actually don't like slow zooms at all either so that doesn't help. But for someone who does like slow zooms the shot is competently executed but it's overlong and cloying and the music swells over it and just fuck that movie.

[Qrazy]

As David Bordwell put it in a recent blog entry:

Okay, but that is still a focus on firsts it's just elucidating the problem with locating specific firsts.

[Skitch]

I don't get this at all. Competent construction is not in-and-of-itself something worth seeing.

I agree completely, but just because I film doesn't speak to me doesn't mean it speaks to no one, hence the possibility of a passing grade (albeit low) of competent construction. To this point I was trying to say that I don't unfairly overhate, I.e., while I loathe I Heart Huckabees, saying its the worst film ever made is unfair.

[baby doll]

I agree completely, but just because I film doesn't speak to me doesn't mean it speaks to no one, hence the possibility of a passing grade (albeit low) of competent construction. To this point I was trying to say that I don't unfairly overhate, I.e., while I loathe I Heart Huckabees, saying its the worst film ever made is unfair.Objectively, there is no such thing as a good or bad movie (much less the best or worst ever made); only good and bad experiences of watching movies. I had a great experience watching I ♥ Huckabees (in part because of what I brought to the film as opposed to what's visibly onscreen, although I could make the case that it's a well crafted comedy by appealing to some objective criteria if I really wanted to); therefore, I think it's a good film.

[Skitch]

Objectively, there is no such thing as a good or bad movie (much less the best or worst ever made); only good and bad experiences of watching movies. I had a great experience watching I ♥ Huckabees (in part because of what I brought to the film as opposed to what's visibly onscreen, although I could make the case that it's a well crafted comedy by appealing to some objective criteria if I really wanted to); therefore, I think it's a good film.

Thanks for validating my post.

[Pop Trash]

Subjectivity and self-identification are always a big thing in the creative arts people like. Maybe the biggest thing. Most people irl don't even think objectively about these things unless they are a) an art critic (in the broad sense of that term inc. films, music) or b) an unemployed art critic like the posters on match-cut.

[Dukefrukem]

I'm glad you guys enjoyed the topic for today.

[Skitch]

:lol:

Thaaaaaaaaanks Duuuuuuuuuuuke!

[B-side]

I don't get this at all. Competent construction is not in-and-of-itself something worth seeing.

Maybe not "competent", but anything above that is well worth experiencing since it's fairly rare.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I really don't know what you're talking about here. If you can't defend the movie on it's own terms then you're not defending the movie; you're defending the experience around it. The obvious example here is Rocky Horror Picture Show, which as a movie I think has a certain charm and a couple good songs; however, what people like most about it isn't the film per se but that it provides an occasion where it's socially acceptable for straight men to wear high heels and fishnet stockings in public. Or maybe you're referring to those people who like (500) Days of Summer because it totally reminds them of this girl who broke their heart--in which case they're praising the movie for what it's about as opposed to how it's about it, which is simply bad criticism.

I'm not defending it. That's simply my understanding of why some people separate the two. Also, a lot of the people I talk about movies with online, they aren't presuming to be good critics.

I don't think we're disagreeing here.


This sounds like you are making "favorites" totally separate from "bests", but if you love a movie that is also defensible on its own terms then I don't see why it wouldn't be on a "favorites" list.

Did you read my full post?


I get it. "Favorites" are movies that someone might apologize for or explain through personal importance. "Best" are movies that someone might feel are defensible on their own terms, without such appeals.

I just find that the two are often so bound together as to not be worth separating.

I have no interest whatsoever in separating the two. I was just explaining my perception of why people might do so.

[Mysterious Dude]

I don't feel that it is my job to decide what the "best" movies are. I don't like L'avventura very much, but history has decided that it is one of the best movies ever. Who am I to say otherwise? So my top 100 is a list of movies I love.

[Qrazy]

Do people here consider David O Russell on the same tier as PT Anderson, Wes Anderson, Nolan, Aronofsky, Fincher, etc?

And can I not get responses like... Nolan isn't on that tier, you predictable fucks. Substitute whatever names you want for that generation of English language directors. Just curious how good people think Russell is.

[Derek]

Do people here consider David O Russell on the same tier as PT Anderson, Wes Anderson, Nolan, Aronofsky, Fincher, etc?

I'd put him below the Anderson boys, on par with, maybe a tad below, Fincher and above Nolan and Aronofsky. He's definitely among the elite American comedy directors out there, not that there's much competition. If he continues down the path of The Fighter, I'll be disappointed even though that film was decent.

[Sven]

And can I not get responses like... Nolan isn't on that tier, you predictable fucks.

:lol: :lol:

[EyesWideOpen]

Do people here consider David O Russell on the same tier as PT Anderson, Wes Anderson, Nolan, Aronofsky, Fincher, etc?

And can I not get responses like... Nolan isn't on that tier, you predictable fucks. Substitute whatever names you want for that generation of English language directors. Just curious how good people think Russell is.

I don't. I loved I Heart Huckabees when it came out but I haven't seen it since. I really like Three Kings and I thought Spanking the Monkey was ok but for me he doesn't (at least yet) have the consistency or the interesting catalog that those others have.

[Irish]

Do people here consider David O Russell on the same tier as PT Anderson, Wes Anderson, Nolan, Aronofsky, Fincher, etc?

O'Russell's sensibilities seem to be all over the place. Following up the promise of Spanking the Monkey with an unremarkable Flirting with Disaster, for instance, or making Huckabees at all, or delivering the generic heartwarmer The Fighter (but somehow getting credit for the remarkable performances).

I can't get a good read on him. I don't like a lot of his contemporaries, either, but at least PTA and Wes are consistently interesting in the kind of projects they take on.

O'Russell seems like he's one step away from doing work for hire stuff.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Of Russell's films, I've seen Three Kings, I Heart Huckabees, and The Fighter. I wouldn't put any of them at the level of the Coens, Anderson, Fincher, or Aronofsky. Not that they're bad. I remember really digging Three Kings, how it was shot and colored and how it managed to stay almost effervescent in the face of its more topical considerations. I Heart Huckabees felt like a misguided but good-hearted comedy, too slow to ever take off but too idiosyncratic to dismiss outright. The Fighter lives and dies by Bale's performance, and he gives a good performance, but I didn't like how Wahlberg felt like a passenger in his own story.

I agree with Irish that his sensibilities seem difficult to pin down. I don't know if that's a bad thing, but hey. We all love our auteurs.

(Cue auteur discussion in 3...2...)

[Grouchy]

I think Three Kings is a great, great, great film. I can't emphazise how great I think it is.

Other than that I've seen I Heart Huckabees and The Fighter. Both good, but neither was as memorable, at least not for me.

[transmogrifier]

Roughly, based on how much I like their films, rather than the distinctiveness of their auteurist voices:

PT Anderson
Fincher

W Anderson



Russell/Nolan



Aronofsky

[Pop Trash]

I'd put him below the Anderson boys, on par with, maybe a tad below, Fincher and above Nolan and Aronofsky. He's definitely among the elite American comedy directors out there, not that there's much competition. If he continues down the path of The Fighter, I'll be disappointed even though that film was decent.

Yeah, The Fighter felt like a hired gun movie, even if there was quite a bit of trademark dark humor there (Bale's crackhead character often being played for laughs).

I enjoyed the mix of humor and angry, left leaning politics that Huckabees and Three Kings displayed more.

[Spinal]

Do people here consider David O Russell on the same tier as PT Anderson, Wes Anderson, Nolan, Aronofsky, Fincher, etc?


Yes, I would. I'd put him kind of in the middle of that pack with Nolan and Wes. PTA is a cut above, I think. Fincher and Aronofsky are notable, but less reliable.

[Spinal]

And can I not get responses like... Nolan isn't on that tier, you predictable fucks.

This is what happens at Match Cut. You start arguing with the voices in your head.

[B-side]

Do people here consider David O Russell on the same tier as PT Anderson, Wes Anderson, Nolan, Aronofsky, Fincher, etc?

HAHA NOLAN ISN'T ON THAT TI--


And can I not get responses like... Nolan isn't on that tier, you predictable fucks. Substitute whatever names you want for that generation of English language directors. Just curious how good people think Russell is.

Oh.

[Milky Joe]

Do people here consider David O Russell on the same tier as PT Anderson, Wes Anderson, Nolan, Aronofsky, Fincher, etc?

P.T.A. > Wes Anderson > Russell > Aronofsky > Fincher > Nolan

:)

All the best,
Milky Joe

[Pop Trash]

I STILL WUV U DA MOST DARREN!

[Melville]

P.T.A. > Wes Anderson > Aronofsky > Fincher = Nolan > Russell

P.T.A is a step above all the others for me. Wes Anderson and Aronofsky are both interesting (more Wes than Aronofsky) and have made movies I love (a lot more Wes than Aronofsky). I'm basically indifferent to the others, though Fincher and Nolan have made some movies I like. As for Russell, I thought Three Kings was all right, but I hate I Heart Huckabees. Except for Wahlberg, who was gold.

[Qrazy]

I'm glad we can all agree that PT Anderson is awesome.

[Qrazy]

New question then... aside from PT Anderson who is the most noteworthy American Director currently working? Only one I can think of that gives him a run for his money is Malick.

[Winston*]

How are you counting it? Guys like Scorsese, Coppolla, Spielberg and Allen are more noteworthy than PTA and they're still working. The Coens would be the obvious choice for more noteworthy in terms of 21st century output (I'm sure you'll disagree),

[Qrazy]

How are you counting it? Guys like Scorsese, Coppolla, Spielberg and Allen are more noteworthy than PTA and they're still working. The Coens would be the obvious choice for more noteworthy in terms of 21st century output (I'm sure you'll disagree),

Recent output (last 10 years). Bugger the Coens.

[Winston*]

I'd argue but it's been too long since I've seen Punch Drunk Love and There Will Be Blood to really trust my unenthusiastic opinions of them (The Coens are clearly better though).

[Skitch]

I loved Three Kings, loathed I Heart Huckabees, and The Fighter is in my queue. I would say the jury is out on David O. I will say that his shenanigans on set have me leaning toward disliking him as a person though.

[Irish]

How are you counting it? Guys like Scorsese, Coppolla, Spielberg and Allen are more noteworthy than PTA and they're still working. The Coens would be the obvious choice for more noteworthy in terms of 21st century output (I'm sure you'll disagree),

Great question. My impulse is to say Scorcese. I don't think anybody can top Marty for his output during the 1980s, although all these guys had brilliant ten year runs (and then became progressively less interesting).

The Coens are a good pick. I don't know how they survive in today's climate. Part of their appeal is genre, which the other guys can't do, or don't do as well.

The market today is so narrow. I wonder what the last ten years would look like if there was more support for the Oliver Stones or the Spike Lees of the world.

To me, it's not so much about the quality of any one movie but about having a point of view -- Tyler Durden seems to have been choked to death by a Mark Zuckerberg doppelgänger and Truman Capote one upped by a pretty boy Billy Beane.

[transmogrifier]

Bigger than Life - 76

To me, the success of the whole film lies on the scene at the top of the stairs after the bridge party, when Mason tells Rush that he thinks they (and their friends) are dull. He does it gently, without any apparent malice, but it sets the film on edge - and ensures that it doesn't become just another drug panic morality tale. Instead, everything that follows comes across as not merely drug-induced psychosis, but a little bit of wish-fulfillment. This is especially important when analyzing the reaction of Rush to her husband's sudden change in persona and increasing erratic behavior - that uncomfortable middle ground between knowing your loved one needs help and realizing that maybe you are part of the problem.

Great use of colour, of course; go google a random review to learn more about that, and a gorgeous assault of low angle shots. Not a huge fan of the ending, specifically the last 15 seconds or so.

Safe House (2012) - 60

A Tony Scott clone, but a little more reigned in, and with a little more real-world brutality. Effortlessly engaging on a scene by scene basis (Denzel is Denzel, of course, but Reynolds is good at this sort of stuff) but eventually devolves into another tired case of whack-a-mole. Literally.

Winchester '73 (1950) - 74

The close ups at the start and the end could be read as either mythologizing one of the key weapons in the battle of the west, or positioning it as an object of pure malevolence - the fact that everyone who gets possession of the gun, except the nominal hero, die is definitely cause for the latter reading.

One of the few westerns I have seen that expressly concerns the circle of violence that eddies around the lawless back country of the old West, with most westerns of the time happy to play the old revenge and honor card as the primary motivation for violence and gun play. But here, all we see is greed and superficial grand-standing, the desire to have the biggest, ahem, gun in the room.

The best stretches are the greyest, morality-wise; the cowardice of a fiance, the death of an Indian dealer (at the hands of a white actor dressed up as an Indian! A neat little unintended metatextual detail that ties nicely with the idea of selling repeaters to the Indians to be used against you at a later date).

The final shootout is the most disappointing, seeing as two apparently crack shots suddenly start missing when presented with an open shot, just to extend the tension, but all in all, another gem from Mann/Stewart.

They Live By Night (1949) - 64

Starts off full of energy and depicts a genuinely affecting truncated courtship, but my tolerance for romantic melodrama is not high, and it started to lose me for long stretches of lovey-dovey make-believe love-talk. I prefer my doomed romances to have more interaction with the outside world; the more insular it becomes, the less dramatically interesting it is, for me at least. I don't deny that a passionate love is very much a shared headspace, but just as I wouldn't sit and watch a canoodling couple at the park, or inflict my wife and I's nonsense repartee with each other on others, the same goes here.

Still, the two young leads have chemistry, and the scenes with the accomplices create sparks that help the film on an even keel.

[transmogrifier]

I'd argue but it's been too long since I've seen Punch Drunk Love and There Will Be Blood to really trust my unenthusiastic opinions of them (The Coens are clearly better though).

I much prefer Anderson to the Coens.

[Dukefrukem]

I loved Three Kings, loathed I Heart Huckabees, and The Fighter is in my queue. I would say the jury is out on David O. I will say that his shenanigans on set have me leaning toward disliking him as a person though.

I liked them all.

[Raiders]

New question then... aside from PT Anderson who is the most noteworthy American Director currently working? Only one I can think of that gives him a run for his money is Malick.

James Gray for me.

[baby doll]

I don't feel that it is my job to decide what the "best" movies are. I don't like L'avventura very much, but history has decided that it is one of the best movies ever. Who am I to say otherwise? So my top 100 is a list of movies I love.You talk as if there was somebody whose job it was to decide these matters. In the history of taste, L'avventura is obviously a significant film in that it was Antonioni's international breakthrough, but that doesn't necessarily make it one of the best films ever made (although personally I happen to like it a lot).

[Watashi]

You can look at every film that was listed by critics in the Sight and Sound poll here (and who voted for them). (http://explore.bfi.org.uk/sightandsoundpolls/2012/film)

Apparently there are "critics" out there that don't think this poll seriously and listed Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, Hitman, and A Serbian Film are among the 10 greatest films of all time.

[Qrazy]

You can look at every film that was listed by critics in the Sight and Sound poll here (and who voted for them). (http://explore.bfi.org.uk/sightandsoundpolls/2012/film)

Apparently there are "critics" out there that don't think this poll seriously and listed Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, Hitman, and A Serbian Film are among the 10 greatest films of all time.

Or they do take it seriously and just have atrocious taste.

[Mr. McGibblets]

The Hitman guy certainly does not seem serious:


This time, I opted for pure madness: the list contains only ‘guilty pleasures’,

[Qrazy]

But are they the best guilty pleasures or his favorite guilty pleasures?

[Qrazy]

James Gray for me.

What about Demme also?

[Irish]

He also voted for Dune and The Sound of Music.

That takes some stones.

[Dukefrukem]

The Hitman guy certainly does not seem serious:

Where did you read that from? I can't find it.

Edit: found it

[Mr. McGibblets]

Where did you read that from? I can't find it.

Slavoj Zizek (http://explore.bfi.org.uk/sightandsoundpolls/2012/voter/94)

[Boner M]

That's Zizek alright.

[Sycophant]

You can look at every film that was listed by critics in the Sight and Sound poll here (and who voted for them). (http://explore.bfi.org.uk/sightandsoundpolls/2012/film)

Apparently there are "critics" out there that don't think this poll seriously and listed Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, Hitman, and A Serbian Film are among the 10 greatest films of all time.

No Stephen Chow, Lee Lik-Chi, or Jeff Lau films. Whole enterprise revealed as a farce.

[DavidSeven]

Do people here consider David O Russell on the same tier as PT Anderson, Wes Anderson, Nolan, Aronofsky, Fincher, etc?

And can I not get responses like... Nolan isn't on that tier, you predictable fucks. Substitute whatever names you want for that generation of English language directors. Just curious how good people think Russell is.

I don't think Russell belongs in that tier. He's right below those guys, and I'm really trying to be objective about this. I think he needs at least one more film that endures within the ongoing collective conversation of American cinema. Three Kings is there. I don't think anything else is. I've seen Flirting with Disaster, Huckabees, and The Fighter and liked each to varying degrees, but I don't think any of these have or will leave a lasting impact on the conversation of recent great films.

[Qrazy]

I don't think Russell belongs in that tier. He's right below those guys, and I'm really trying to be objective about this. I think he needs at least one more film that endures within the ongoing collective conversation of American cinema. Three Kings is there. I don't think anything else is. I've seen Flirting with Disaster, Huckabees, and The Fighter and liked each to varying degrees, but I don't think any of these have or will leave a lasting impact on the conversation of recent great films.

I agree with you, but I haven't seen The Fighter so that's one of the reasons I was asking.

[Mr. McGibblets]

I think Soderbergh deserves mention. Maybe not for the last ten years, but that timeframe isn't kind to most of these guys.

[Bosco B Thug]

New question then... aside from PT Anderson who is the most noteworthy American Director currently working? Only one I can think of that gives him a run for his money is Malick. I'll second James Gray.

Also, to add to the new gen American filmmakers discussion, Lucky McKee, unless we were just talking studio guys.

[Spinal]

New question then... aside from PT Anderson who is the most noteworthy American Director currently working? Only one I can think of that gives him a run for his money is Malick.

Malick, Coens, Tarantino would be the contenders, in my opinion.

[baby doll]

You can look at every film that was listed by critics in the Sight and Sound poll here (and who voted for them). (http://explore.bfi.org.uk/sightandsoundpolls/2012/film)Movies I haven't seen from the Top 250:

Napoleon (Abel Gance, 1927)

Earth (Aleksandr Dovzhenko, 1930)
King Kong (Merian C. Cooper / Ernest B. Schoedsack, 1933)
Partie de campagne (Jean Renoir, 1936)
The Story of the Late Chrysanthemums (Kenji Mizoguchi, 1939)

Listen to Britain (Humphrey Jennings / Stewart McAllister, 1942)
A Canterbury Tale (Michael Powell / Emeric Pressburger, 1944)
A Matter of Life and Death (Michael Powell / Emeric Pressburger, 1946)

The River (Jean Renoir, 1951)
Voyage in Italy (Roberto Rossellini, 1953)
Floating Clouds (Mikio Naruse, 1955)
The Music Room (Satyajit Ray, 1958)

Chelsea Girls (Andy Warhol, 1966)
Chimes at Midnight (Orson Welles, 1966)
Marketa Lazarová (Frantisek Vlácil, 1967)
The Colour of Pomegranates (Sergei Parajanov, 1968)
Kes (Ken Loach, 1969)
A Touch of Zen (King Hu, 1969)

Wanda (Barbara Loden, 1970)
Out 1, noli me tangere (Jacques Rivette, 1971)
Touki Bouki (Djibril Diop Mambéty, 1973)
Out 1: Spectre (Jacques Rivette, 1974)
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (Tobe Hooper, 1974)
Tale of Tales (Yuri Norstein, 1979)

Berlin Alexanderplatz (Rainer Werner Fassbinder, 1980)
Love Streams (John Cassavetes, 1984)
Come and See (Elem Klimov, 1985)

A Brighter Summer Day (Edward Yang, 1991)

West of the Tracks (Wang Bing, 2000)

[Ezee E]

No questions asked, I will see any movie by Scorsese, Tarantino, PTA, Coen Brothers, Malick, and Fincher.

And right now, I'll see anything Vince Gilligan brings up too...

[Ezee E]

Armond White's:


Avventura, L' 1960 Michelangelo Antonioni
Intolerance 1916 D.W. Griffith
Jules et Jim 1962 François Truffaut
Lawrence of Arabia 1962 David Lean
Lola 1961 Jacques Demy
Magnificent Ambersons, The 1942 Orson Welles
Nashville 1975 Robert Altman
Nouvelle Vague 1990 Jean-Luc Godard
Passion of Joan of Arc 1927 Carl Theodor Dreyer
Sansho Dayu 1954 Mizoguchi Kenji


Movies don’t change but we do. I did not see Sansho the Bailiff until recently and it had the same powerful effect on me as A.I. did ten years ago, so off with Spielberg to give Mizoguchi’s masterwork its props. Godard’s rarely screened Nouvelle Vague looms in my memory as his grandest work – grander and more important still due to cinephilia’s recent decline.

[baby doll]

I think Nouvelle vague is a great movie, but I have no idea why White chose it to make a point about cinephilia's supposed decline. Then again, I have no idea why White says ninety percent of the things he says. Of course, anybody who loves Lola can't be all bad.

[baby doll]

Everybody knows that the most exciting American filmmaker of the last fifteen years is Lucrecia Martel.

[Grouchy]

Everybody knows that the most exciting American filmmaker of the last fifteen years is Lucrecia Martel.
Good one. Although I can't say I enjoyed anything in The Headless Woman, her films are groundbreaking in the way they investigate micro-societies and attitudes. The Holy Girl is a favorite.

[Melville]

Movies I haven't seen from the Top 250:
There are a lot I haven't seen:
Late Spring (1949)
Shoah (1985)
Sátántangó (1994)
Journey to Italy (1954)
Histoire(s) du cinéma
Maman et la putain, La (1973)
Colour of Pomegranates, The (1968)
Brighter Summer Day, A (1991)
Partie de campagne (1936)
Life and Death of Colonel Blimp, The (1943)
Touki Bouki (1973)
Travelling Players, The (1975)
Performance (1970)
Viridiana (1961)
Canterbury Tale, A (1944)
City of Sadness, A (1989)
Amarcord (1972)
Out 1 (1990)
River, The (1951)
Meet Me In St. Louis (1944)
argent, L' (1983)
Celine and Julie Go Boating (1974)
Last Laugh, The (1924)
Memories of Underdevelopment (1968)
Marketa Lazarová (1967)
Letter From an Unknown Woman (1948)
Distant Voices, Still Lives (1988)
Kind Hearts and Coronets (1949)
Tabu (1931)
Rome Open City (1945)
Music Room, The (1958)
Story of the Late Chrysanthemums, The (1939)
Touch of Zen, A (1969)
Listen to Britain (1942)
I Was Born, But… (1932)
Red Desert (1964)
Chelsea Girls (1966)
Kings of the Road (1976)
Berlin Alexanderplatz ()
Daisies (1966)
Cleo from 5 to 7 (1962)
West of the Tracks (2002)
Tale of Tales, A (1979)
PaisÃ* (1946)
Wanda (1970)
Germany Year Zero (1948)
Life of Oharu, The (1952)
Devil Probably, The (1977)
Turin Horse, The
Exterminating Angel, The (1962)
Floating Clouds (1955)
Autumn Afternoon, An (1962)
World of Apu, The (1958)
Testament of Dr Mabuse, The (1933)
Kes (1969)
Bolded are the ones I'm interested in. Italicized are the ones I've never heard of.

[Milky Joe]

New question then... aside from PT Anderson who is the most noteworthy American Director currently working? Only one I can think of that gives him a run for his money is Malick.

Korine, Tarantino, and Charlie Kaufman are all that come to mind. David Lynch resting on his laurels is better than most of the prolific directors out there.

The lesson here is that American cinema is on the decline.

[Pop Trash]

New question then... aside from PT Anderson who is the most noteworthy American Director currently working? Only one I can think of that gives him a run for his money is Malick.

I think a good way of asking this is if you were not able to know absolutely anything about the film (subject matter, cast, etc.) except who directed it, whose next film would you be most interested in seeing?

For me that would be PT Anderson, even if I have some problems with some of his previous films. I think Aronofsky is more consistent, but PTA has the potential there to really knock me for a loop.

[Qrazy]

Tale of Tales, A (1979)


This is the masterwork of Russian animator Yuri Norstein. Very good stuff.

Viridiana (1961)
Amarcord (1972)
Marketa Lazarová (1967)
Cleo from 5 to 7 (1962)
Exterminating Angel, The (1962)

These should also be bolded.

[Spinal]

Kaufman as a director? Hmmm.

[Melville]

This is the masterwork of Russian animator Yuri Norstein. Very good stuff.
Masterwork? Russian?! I'm all over that.

[Qrazy]

Masterwork? Russian?! I'm all over that.

It's a little disjointed and impenetable at times but the animation quality still outclasses most others. I slightly prefer his short Hedgehog in the Mist.

He has been working on an adaptation of Gogol's The Overcoat for quite a long time which if he ever finishes should be fantastic.

[Melville]

It's a little disjointed and impenetable at times but the animation quality still outclasses most others. I slightly prefer his short Hedgehog in the Mist.
Hedgehog in the Fog is sublime.

[Qrazy]

Hedgehog in the Fog is sublime.

Also even if you're not a fan of Bunuel, Viridiana and The Exterminating Angel are his two best and great films imo.

[Melville]

Also even if you're not a fan of Bunuel, Viridiana and The Exterminating Angel are his two best and great films imo.
Un Chien Andalou is great, but I'm indifferent to everything else I've seen of his (The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie, Belle de Jour, Los olvidados, L'Age d'Or). His sensibility doesn't really jive with mine. I'd like to see The Exterminating Angel, at least, though. And I just discovered that he did an adaptation of Wuthering Heights. Anybody seen that?

[Russ]

Un Chien Andalou is great, but I'm indifferent to everything else I've seen of his (The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie, Belle de Jour, Los olvidados, L'Age d'Or). His sensibility doesn't really jive with mine. I'd like to see The Exterminating Angel, at least, though. And I just discovered that he did an adaptation of Wuthering Heights. Anybody seen that?
I have not, though I really love many of his films.

Melville, if you haven't read it, you should give Bunuel's autobiography, My Last Sigh a try. It's as entertaining as it is informative, mainly because of his storytelling skills. He was a gifted writer and your sensibilities may connect more to his written word than his cinema (if you're interested in that possibility).

[soitgoes...]

Un Chien Andalou is great, but I'm indifferent to everything else I've seen of his (The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie, Belle de Jour, Los olvidados, L'Age d'Or). His sensibility doesn't really jive with mine. I'd like to see The Exterminating Angel, at least, though. And I just discovered that he did an adaptation of Wuthering Heights. Anybody seen that?
I had this (http://match-cut.org/showthread.php?p=77095&highlight=wuthering#post77095) to say about it.

[Grouchy]

Melville, if you haven't read it, you should give Bunuel's autobiography, My Last Sigh a try. It's as entertaining as it is informative, mainly because of his storytelling skills. He was a gifted writer and your sensibilities may connect more to his written word than his cinema (if you're interested in that possibility).
This is one of the best books I've ever read. Funny, moving, insightful. The portrait of a singular man's experience with the XXth century.

How can anyone not like Buñuel?

[Spinal]

I have also seen it and liked it a little more that soitgoes, I think. Solid adaption, not a whole lot of eccentricity to it that I can remember.

[Qrazy]

Un Chien Andalou is great, but I'm indifferent to everything else I've seen of his (The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie, Belle de Jour, Los olvidados, L'Age d'Or). His sensibility doesn't really jive with mine. I'd like to see The Exterminating Angel, at least, though. And I just discovered that he did an adaptation of Wuthering Heights. Anybody seen that?

Discreet Charm, Milky Way, The Phantom of Liberty and Obscure Object are all of a piece. I don't love any individually but I'm quite fond of them all taken as a whole.

That said Viridiana and Exterminating Angel are both quite different from those and well worth a look. Viridiana especially jives with your pet themes I should think.

I'm personally not that fond of Chien Andalou but it is what it is, certainly a trail blazer.

[Winston*]

No questions asked, I will see any movie by Scorsese, Tarantino, PTA, Coen Brothers, Malick, and Fincher.

And right now, I'll see anything Vince Gilligan brings up too...

Agree with all these dudes except for Fincher. Obviously a talented directed but still can't bring me to have any interest in seeing Girl with a Dragon Tattoo.

[Pop Trash]

Un Chien Andalou is great, but I'm indifferent to everything else I've seen of his (The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie, Belle de Jour, Los olvidados, L'Age d'Or). His sensibility doesn't really jive with mine. I'd like to see The Exterminating Angel, at least, though. And I just discovered that he did an adaptation of Wuthering Heights. Anybody seen that?

That surprises me for some reason. Aren't you a big fan of Lynch and other more psycho/surreal filmmakers? Obviously you like Possession a lot.

[Milky Joe]

Kaufman as a director? Hmmm.

Synecdoche, New York is enough to cement him, IMO.

[B-side]

I think Soderbergh deserves mention. Maybe not for the last ten years

The Girlfriend Experience, Haywire and Magic Mike all make Soderbergh better than 99% of his American contemporaries.

[Qrazy]

New dance mix finished. This one clocks in at 2.5 hours. Classic rock, Indie rock, Hip hop and Electronic abound.

http://www.mixcloud.com/DJQrazy/goodbye-kitty-kat-dance-mix/

[Scar]

Off Topic-

Qrazy, I wrote one helluva PM in regards to your research question, but this piece of shit hotel computer would just send a blank PM to you.

I will try again from my home computer this afternoon/tonight after I fly home.

[Izzy Black]

There are as many good American directors as there are in any country. Especially when American new wave directors are still alive (Scorsese, Allen, Coppola etc)

[baby doll]

There are as many good American directors as there are in any country. Especially when American new wave directors are still alive (Scorsese, Allen, Coppola etc)Proportionally speaking, I would say there are more good US filmmakers than there are in most countries in large part because it's a prosperous nation with a huge film industry and long filmmaking tradition.

[Dukefrukem]

This is awesome.

wPcapo5ZB_o

[Melville]

Melville, if you haven't read it, you should give Bunuel's autobiography, My Last Sigh a try. It's as entertaining as it is informative, mainly because of his storytelling skills. He was a gifted writer and your sensibilities may connect more to his written word than his cinema (if you're interested in that possibility).
I liked Cocteau's writing a lot more than his movies, so thanks for putting that on my radar.


I had this (http://match-cut.org/showthread.php?p=77095&highlight=wuthering#post77095) to say about it.
What is the altered ending?


Viridiana especially jives with your pet themes I should think.
Interesting. I didn't know what it was about, but now that I've read the plot summary, it does sound up my alley.


That surprises me for some reason. Aren't you a big fan of Lynch and other more psycho/surreal filmmakers? Obviously you like Possession a lot.
I love Lynch, and Possession is in my top 10. But I don't see a lot of similarity between them and Bunuel. Lynch and Zulawski are extremely emotional, full of catastrope and transcendence. I'd say Zulawski's style, at least, is more expressionist than surrealist. And Lynch is downright sentimental. Bunuel feels far more distant than either of them, and he deals with themes of less interest to me.

[Qrazy]

Off Topic-

Qrazy, I wrote one helluva PM in regards to your research question, but this piece of shit hotel computer would just send a blank PM to you.

I will try again from my home computer this afternoon/tonight after I fly home.

Thanks!

[Boner M]

Everything I saw at MIFF w/ my unlimited passport in the last few weeks, rated:


The Legend of Kaspar Hausar (Manuli, 2012) **½
V/H/S (various, 2012) **
Girl Model (Redmon/Sabin, 2011) **½
In Another Country (Hong, 2012) ***
We Can't Go Home Again (Ray, 1973) **½
Like Someone in Love (Kiarostami, 2012) ***½
Take the Money and Run (Allen, 1969) ***
That Summer (Garrel, 2011) **
Sister (Meier, 2012) ***
The Sound of My Voice (Batmanglij, 2011) **
Where's Poppa? (Franklin, 1970) ***
Crazy Horse (Wiseman, 2011) **
Moonrise Kingdom (Anderson, 2012) ***
The House I Live In (Jarecki, 2012) **½
Easy Money (Espinoza, 2011) **
Bad Brains: A Band in DC (Logan & Stein) **½
Killer Joe (Friedkin, 2011) ***
Only the Young (Mims & Tippet, 2012) ***½
Almayer's Folly (Akerman, 2011) ***½
Shadow Dancer (Marsh, 2012) **
Dark Horse (Solondz, 2011) **
Patience (After Sebald) (Gee, 2011) **½
Normal School (Murga, 2012) ***
(s) Moving Stories (Provost, 2011) **
(s) Heavy Eyes (Fruhauf, 2011) ***
(s) Shooting Arrows (Winkler, 2012) **
(s) The Green Wave (Jacobs, 2011) ***
(s) The Achromatic Island (Thorsen, 2010) **
(s) Seoul Electric (Tuohy, 2012) **
(s) 99 Clerkenwell Road (Michael, 2010) ***
(s) T.S.T.L. (Al-amine, 2011) *½
(s) Rauch und Spiegel (Moore, 2012) ***
Something From Nothing: The Art of Rap (Ice-T, 2012) **½
Paradise: Love (Seidl, 2012) ***
Ruby Sparks (Dayton & Faris, 2012) **½
The Imposter (Layton, 2012) ***
Method to the Madness of Jerry Lewis (Barson, 2011) W/O
Beyond the Hills (Mungiu, 2012) **
Beijing Besieged by Waste (Wang, 2012) **½
Keep the Lights On (Sachs, 2012) ***
A Woman's Face (Molander, 1938) **½
Berberian Sound Studio (Strickland, 2012) ***½
Lovers on the Bridge (Carax, 1991) ***½
Pure (Jonuzi, 2009) *½
Modern Romance (Brooks, 1981) ****
Liberal Arts (Radnor, 2012) **½
Low Life (Klotz & Perceval, 2011) ***
Student (Omirbaev, 2012) ***
Bestiaire (Cote, 2012) ***½
In the Fog (Loznitsa, 2012) **
Sightseers (Wheatley, 2012) ***

[Stay Puft]

Beyond the Hills (Mungiu, 2012) **
In the Fog (Loznitsa, 2012) **

And I had such hopes for these. Thoughts?

[soitgoes...]

Riddance (Márta Mészáros | 1973 | Hungary)Go on...

[B-side]

Go on...

Really liked it. Was a bit awkward starting off -- prone to announcing itself as a feminist manifesto of sorts -- but it began to settle into a nice dramatic flow. Plus, Mészáros' camera work is terrific. She scans environments and hones in on warm bodies like nobody's bid-ness.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer was fantastic. A heart-breaking grimy study of lower-class dimwits who find murder as good a solution as any to the problems they face. Rooker and Towles are brave as hell with their work. Rooker has to offer the glimmers of a man trapped in compulsion, while Towles spirals down the drain by association. Just as equal is Tracy Arnold, who plays the north star of sanity in this sea of cruelty. It's her performance that gives the film its sadness and allows the story to feel full instead of thin, to play as tragedy instead of exploitation.

[Boner M]

And I had such hopes for these. Thoughts?
brief Beyond the Hills review here (http://themusic.com.au/reviews/film/2012/08/13/beyond-the-hills-ian-barr/). I didn't like 4 Months... that much, and this one takes the choir-preaching of that film to a new bludgeoning level.

The Loznitsa was the only film I really felt too fatigued to really engage with, but it struck me as incredibly torpid, and its formal rigor didn't do much to elaborate on what's a pretty straightforward antiwar narrative. Didn't see My Joy, less inclined to now.

[Winston*]

Sightseers (Wheatley, 2012) ***

Alice Lowe for Matchies 2013?

[Melville]

brief Beyond the Hills review here (http://themusic.com.au/reviews/film/2012/08/13/beyond-the-hills-ian-barr/). I didn't like 4 Months... that much, and this one takes the choir-preaching of that film to a new bludgeoning level.
4 Months... didn't seem preachy to me. Did you think it was preaching to the pro-choice choir? Or do you mean a more general all-things-are-ambiguous-and-awful,-especially-in-Romania choir? I guess that is actually a pretty big choir among fans of European art house cinema.

[Morris Schæffer]

Lol

http://oyster.ignimgs.com/wordpress/stg.ign.com/2012/08/JAWS-THE-BEGINNING.jpg

[B-side]

Women of the Night feels a bit different from typical Mizoguchi, if only because I never thought I'd see one of Mizo's prototypical prostitutes staring out into the abyss hanging above the city from a cement balcony. I may be misremembering, but I don't recall cement buildings and busy, modern, big city streets in any of the other Mizo's I've seen. There are scenes in town, but not like this. Anywho, a cornucopia of beautiful crane shots really support this one. The narrative is pretty intense, and even a bit Western in its depiction of violent female gangs. All in all, it's pretty terrific. It also contains one of the best compositions (http://i814.photobucket.com/albums/zz70/SalvadorDali_2010/Movie%20Caps%20Pt%202/vlcsnap-2012-08-19-04h01m00s202_400x300.jpg) I've seen from Mizoguchi.

[B-side]

Anyone else here use Criticker? It's pretty cool. You can use it to rate/rank films, but it also gives you access to a lot of cool information based on your ratings, and it can give you a list of your closest matches based on taste. You can sort through all of the directors you've rated films for and see who has the highest average rating, and you can even set the standard of your ratings. For instance, the site has an automatic sliding scale that it uses to assess the quality of the films you've rated based on how many films you've rated and what you've rated them, so a MadMan 90/100 would probably be considered "Bad", whereas a transmogrifier 90 would be considered a "Masterpiece" or whatever they use for the highest ratings. I've edited mine to better suit my attitude. You can even edit the term it uses to describe films that fall under each rating grouping. Pretty neat.

[Mysterious Dude]

A long time ago, some of us joined Criticker all at the same time. Then we promptly forgot all about it.

http://www.criticker.com/profile/Raiders
http://www.criticker.com/profile/Spinal
http://www.criticker.com/profile/iosos (Sven)
http://www.criticker.com/profile/Watashi
http://www.criticker.com/profile/madman
http://www.criticker.com/profile/bialas (Ezee E)
http://www.criticker.com/profile/soitgoes
http://www.criticker.com/profile/grouchy
http://www.criticker.com/profile/barty
http://www.criticker.com/profile/megladon8
http://www.criticker.com/profile/monolith94
http://www.criticker.com/profile/Antoine (Isaac)

[EvilShoe]

I checked out my Criticker profile the other day. The ratings on there are way too high... I should probably redo them one day.

[Boner M]

4 Months... didn't seem preachy to me. Did you think it was preaching to the pro-choice choir?
Only vaguely at the time (ie, in overriding design, if not in the particulars), and not to get too auteurist, but it's a feeling that was compounded in retrospect by the one-sided-ness of Mungiu's follow-up.

[transmogrifier]

I'm in the process of transferring anything semi-substantial I wrote here over to Letterboxd, which is a good place to keep on-line reviews and viewing diaries.