28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[Morris Schæffer]

I am grateful for how Pierce Brosnan, when referencing a failed experiment, declares, "He was the best chimp I ever had."

That's up there with "That's the bravest thing I've ever seen a vegetable do."

[Thirdmango]

Issac was right on the first one. Anyone know the second?

[B-side]

"Comedy drama" is more accurate. I was just typing quickly. It's got a lot of humor (the lively dialogue being La Cava's staple) but also a lovely sincerity and pre-code frankness.

Definitely not a farce though.

Ah, OK. I bookmarked it on KG. Haven't seen any La Cava.

[MadMan]

Christopher Nolan is coming to Criterion! Behold:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/criterion-production/release_images/4009/638_box_348x490.jpg?1347904128

It's about time.

It's also about time I see this film.

Nolan is supervising the transfer and doing a new commentary.I own a crappy DVD copy of the movie that I bought from a local Mr. Movies store as it was going out of business. Maybe I should just wait and purchase the Criterion copy instead, as I imagine it will be shinier and have fancy bonus features and such.

[Sven]

Apparently last night there was a livestreaming Killers concert directed by Werner Herzog. Huh.

[Watashi]

The director of The Brave Little Toaster is doing an AMA on Reddit. (http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/104bza/im_jerry_rees_director_of_the_ brave_little/)

I thought Spinal would like this. Apparently the director (Jerry Rees), was planning to do a live-action/CGI sequel to the original film, but failed to get creative control of the property. Now Disney is going ahead with the project without him. Ugh.

[Watashi]

Dude, this AMA is awesome.


We screened Toaster at the Sundance Film Festival. Several judges told me that behind closed doors it had been considered the best film that year. But they were afraid that no one would take the festival seriously if they awarded top prize to a "cartoon". But they wanted me to know how much it was secretly admired. I said "Thanks. I guess..."

[Ezee E]

The director of The Brave Little Toaster is doing an AMA on Reddit. (http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/104bza/im_jerry_rees_director_of_the_ brave_little/)

I thought Spinal would like this. Apparently the director (Jerry Rees), was planning to do a live-action/CGI sequel to the original film, but failed to get creative control of the property.
Heard about that. I thought it was happening. D'oh.

[Watashi]

Heard about that. I thought it was happening. D'oh.
It is still happening. Just without the original director. The way Disney wants to do it sounds terrible by replacing the old dated appliances with new modern ones (like the iphone).

http://www.avclub.com/articles/the-brave-little-toaster-to-get-cgi-remake-with-ta,84923/

[Pop Trash]

This is interesting. Half of the '94 NYFF line-up would make my top ten of said year:

http://www.filmcomment.com/article/festivals-new-york-1994

[Ezee E]

Anyone remember that website that allowed you to enter in a top ten list and it gave you neat pictures and whatnot?

[transmogrifier]

Mubi, maybe?

[MadMan]

This is interesting. Half of the '94 NYFF line-up would make my top ten of said year:

http://www.filmcomment.com/article/festivals-new-york-1994I've seen five of those films, which surprised me a bit. 1994 was truly an amazing year for film, and I believe many of the five I have seen from that list are in my Top 10 for the year. Actually, all of them are...

Mubi only showcases one picture for your entire top ten, although its format makes creating such lists really easy.

[Dukefrukem]

Anyone remember that website that allowed you to enter in a top ten list and it gave you neat pictures and whatnot?

I'm intrigued by this. Let me know when you find it...

[ThePlashyBubbler]

Anyone remember that website that allowed you to enter in a top ten list and it gave you neat pictures and whatnot?

Letterboxd (http://letterboxd.com/)? I just got one of these the other day.

[Dukefrukem]

Oh man.. there's way too many movie sites I'm involved in...

Do you have a beta code for that site?

[ThePlashyBubbler]

Oh man.. there's way too many movie sites I'm involved in...

Do you have a beta code for that site?

Can't figure out how to send an invite (maybe need to be a member longer to get that privilege?) I'll shoot it your way, though, if it becomes an option. I had just entered my e-mail on the site, and they e-mailed me a week or so later with a code.

[angrycinephile]

I have two Letterboxd invites if anyone's interested.

It's a pretty awesome site.

[Ezee E]

TOP TEN FOREIGN FILMS - as of 2012

http://s3.amazonaws.com/auteurs_production/images/film/the-virgin-spring/w448/the-virgin-spring.jpg?1308588829
http://s3.amazonaws.com/auteurs_production/images/film/amelie/w448/amelie.jpg?1324113861
http://s3.amazonaws.com/auteurs_production/images/film/playtime/w448/playtime.jpg?1334607801
http://s3.amazonaws.com/auteurs_production/images/film/high-and-low/w448/high-and-low.jpg?1289427363
http://s3.amazonaws.com/auteurs_production/images/film/el-topo/w448/el-topo.jpg?1331445234
http://s3.amazonaws.com/auteurs_production/images/film/bus-174/w448/bus-174.jpg?1289441782
http://s3.amazonaws.com/auteurs_production/images/film/oldboy/w448/oldboy.jpg?1297684579
http://s3.amazonaws.com/auteurs_production/images/film/umberto-d/w448/umberto-d.jpg?1311187527
http://s3.amazonaws.com/auteurs_production/images/film/the-passion-of-joan-of-arc/w448/the-passion-of-joan-of-arc.jpg?1310745763
http://s3.amazonaws.com/auteurs_production/images/film/fitzcarraldo/w448/fitzcarraldo.jpg?1305928752

[Ezee E]

TOP TEN OVERALL - as of 2012

http://s3.amazonaws.com/auteurs_production/images/film/goodfellas/w448/goodfellas.jpg?1295637135
http://s3.amazonaws.com/auteurs_production/images/film/the-shining/w448/the-shining.jpg?1322906944
http://s3.amazonaws.com/auteurs_production/images/film/boogie-nights/w448/boogie-nights.jpg?1289428132
http://s3.amazonaws.com/auteurs_production/images/film/once-upon-a-time-in-america/w448/once-upon-a-time-in-america.jpg?1289430012
http://s3.amazonaws.com/auteurs_production/images/film/requiem-for-a-dream/w448/requiem-for-a-dream.jpg?1340924509
http://s3.amazonaws.com/auteurs_production/images/film/children-of-men/w448/children-of-men.jpg?1299202441
http://s3.amazonaws.com/auteurs_production/images/film/the-exorcist/w448/the-exorcist.png?1323459410
http://s3.amazonaws.com/auteurs_production/images/film/taxi-driver/w448/taxi-driver.jpg?1323650186
http://s3.amazonaws.com/auteurs_production/images/film/all-that-jazz/w448/all-that-jazz.png?1289431485
http://s3.amazonaws.com/auteurs_production/images/film/the-brave-little-toaster/w448/the-brave-little-toaster.jpg?1289461632

[transmogrifier]

I have two Letterboxd invites if anyone's interested.

It's a pretty awesome site.

Just found you. I'm over there as transmogrifier.

[Rowland]

I'll accept an invite if you still have them. :)

[Ezee E]

I'll take an invite as well!

[MadMan]

Ezee you reminded me that I recently revamped my Top 10, although I decided this time around to just base on what the best film I've seen from each decade and just order them around. I did it for a thread on RT, the first one I've made there in a couple of months (mostly just to celebrate hitting 20k there-and if this site continues to survive a couple more years, I'll probably reach 20k here, heh).

[transmogrifier]

I have three invitations. Anyone who wants one, PM me your email address. First in, first served.

For those of you not sure what it is, it's kind of like a cataloging site, where you can review and rate the films you see, record the date you saw it, and make custom lists.

You can follow others, so that anything they post will come up on your activity page. Some relatively well-known online reviewers are on their (for example, I'm following Mike D'Angelo), so it is a good way to view their new reviews/ratings in one place.

It's still relatively new, but if it snowballs, it could be quite a valuable resource.

[ThePlashyBubbler]

Also figured out how to invite, so duke/two others if you wanna PM me your email address, I got ya covered.

username over there is: plashy

[Watashi]

Did you throw that last one in just for me, E?

[Ezee E]

Did you throw that last one in just for me, E?
Nope. Always have been a huge fan of it, but seemed to always forget it around list time. Between your post, a recent rewatch, and a dinner table discussion of it the other night with some people, I realized it's definitely one of my faves.

[Ezee E]

With that:

Top Ten Animated Movies - As of 2012

http://s3.amazonaws.com/auteurs_production/images/film/the-brave-little-toaster/w448/the-brave-little-toaster.jpg?1289461632
http://s3.amazonaws.com/auteurs_production/images/film/pinocchio/w448/pinocchio.jpg?1334607093
http://s3.amazonaws.com/auteurs_production/images/film/akira/w448/akira.jpg?1289434676
http://s3.amazonaws.com/auteurs_production/images/film/spirited-away/w448/spirited-away.jpg?1338308655
http://s3.amazonaws.com/auteurs_production/images/film/the-iron-giant/w448/the-iron-giant.jpg?1289444188
http://s3.amazonaws.com/auteurs_production/images/film/the-secret-of-nimh/w448/the-secret-of-nimh.jpg?1289442070
http://s3.amazonaws.com/auteurs_production/images/film/dumbo/w448/dumbo.jpg?1289434215
http://s3.amazonaws.com/auteurs_production/images/film/toy-story/w448/toy-story.jpg?1289433834
http://s3.amazonaws.com/auteurs_production/images/film/watership-down/w448/watership-down.jpg?1289439300
http://s3.amazonaws.com/auteurs_production/images/film/batman-mask-of-the-phantasm/w448/batman-mask-of-the-phantasm.jpg?1289443982

[Watashi]

Can I have an invite too?

[Derek]

Can I have an invite too?

Ditto.

[Ivan Drago]

Can I have an invite too?

Me too, please?

[angrycinephile]

Just PM me your e-mail address and I'll send you an invitation.

Only have two though.


Some relatively well-known online reviewers are on their (for example, I'm following Mike D'Angelo)

D'Angelo is in the process of adding his entire movie watching log (which he's had seen 1992) to the Diary section - which is just deranged. It'll be interesting to see if he makes it though.

[transmogrifier]

D'Angelo is in the process of adding his entire movie watching log (which he's had seen 1992) to the Diary section - which is just deranged. It'll be interesting to see if he makes it though.

I've only added films that I had written something about on here. I'll probably go through and add other films about which I have something to say. I like it as a repository for mini reviews.

[Dukefrukem]

Arghh too many movie sites;

iCheckmovies.com
Letterboxed.com
mubi.com
Criticker.com
bloodydisgusting.com
blu-ray.com
imdb.com
RT
MC

[Dukefrukem]

Weekend:

Cabin in the Woods (blu-ray)
The Testament of Dr. Mabuse
Transsiberian

[right_for_the_moment]

I have 2 Letterboxd invites as well, if anyone is still in need

[ThePlashyBubbler]

I've got one left, as well. Just shoot me a PM.

[transmogrifier]

My three have gone.

[Grouchy]

Huh... How do you generate the list with the screenshots? They just show up as posters for me.

[Ezee E]

Huh... How do you generate the list with the screenshots? They just show up as posters for me.
IThe screenshots are from mubi.com

[MadMan]

Weekend:

Cabin in the Woods (blu-ray)
The Testament of Dr. Mabuse
TranssiberianI remember when we made such posts. I stopped doing it because I never got to any of my planned viewings, heh.

[Grouchy]

IThe screenshots are from mubi.com
Fooled again!

Ok, I'm on Mubi now, but I still can't produce the list with screenshots. My apologies for being an idiot.

[Sven]

I have rented the first four Resident Evil movies.

[Russ]

I have rented the first four Resident Evil movies.
They're the internet-age, digital counterparts to the old 50's cold war monster flicks. They're endearingly goofy and thrilling, and they give good replay. What more can ya ask?

[Rowland]

RE > RE2 > RE3 > RE4

I hope this trend doesn't continue with the latest.

And speaking of Resident Evil, watching this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPUPaxgIo98) makes me like Red Letter Media a lot less.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Why? Because they're shrill...or...why?

I mean, they're four movies into the marathon, they've drank a lot, and that scene is a ridiculous scene.

I'm also not sure if its bizarre shot-by-shot fidelity to an entirely unrelated scene from Resident Evil 5 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1y4A3bq_5Q) is honorable or lazy.

[Rowland]

Why? Because they're shrill...or...why?

I mean, they're four movies into the marathon, they've drank a lot, and that scene is a ridiculous scene.I didn't know about the marathon context, I just found them really annoying.

I'm also not sure if its bizarre shot-by-shot fidelity to an entirely unrelated scene from Resident Evil 5 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1y4A3bq_5Q) is honorable or lazy.I knew about that already, and yeah, it's ridiculous. One of my first comments after watching the film was that it felt like a feature-length cutscene, so learning this validated my impression.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I didn't know about the marathon context, I just found them really annoying.

Oh yeah. Their buddy Rich Evans has a laugh that would upset banshees.

[Sven]

Oof. Well. That was not very interesting. Afterlife comes out the winner on this one, Anderson most likely having realized by now that spectacle, not atmosphere, is his stronger suit. Also, hoards of zombies just shuffling and grabbing are so boring (and make up way too much of this series). Therefore humongous axe guy was a welcome respite. I was ready to give it major points for what I thought was creative decontextualizing, but it turns out I just accidentally watched it third instead of fourth.

Scenes of people walking around inspecting chambers and hallways generally make me want to kill myself. These movies are about 40% that. Extinction is the relief on that front, thankfully broadening the scope to daylight and open spaces. Also Mulcahy's confident balance of oppressiveness and whim makes it a bit more watchable than the others, I & II drowning in the former, IV wallowing a bit much in the latter.

The second film is very embarrassing in all aspects. Everything is limp.

RE - *
RE2 - 1/2*
RE3 - **
RE4 - **
Wish they were better.

[Rowland]

Wish they were better.You watched them all in one night? :lol:

[Derek]

Which was the one with the Milla clones? That one was horrible, though I actually thought the first one was decent.

[Rowland]

Which was the one with the Milla clones? That one was horrible, though I actually thought the first one was decent.The one with Milla discovering all the Milla clones at the end, or the one that opens with all the Milla clones being killed off in the first ten minutes?

[Dukefrukem]

Oof. Well. That was not very interesting. Afterlife comes out the winner on this one, Anderson most likely having realized by now that spectacle, not atmosphere, is his stronger suit. Also, hoards of zombies just shuffling and grabbing are so boring (and make up way too much of this series). Therefore humongous axe guy was a welcome respite. I was ready to give it major points for what I thought was creative decontextualizing, but it turns out I just accidentally watched it third instead of fourth.

Scenes of people walking around inspecting chambers and hallways generally make me want to kill myself. These movies are about 40% that. Extinction is the relief on that front, thankfully broadening the scope to daylight and open spaces. Also Mulcahy's confident balance of oppressiveness and whim makes it a bit more watchable than the others, I & II drowning in the former, IV wallowing a bit much in the latter.

The second film is very embarrassing in all aspects. Everything is limp.

RE - *
RE2 - 1/2*
RE3 - **
RE4 - **
Wish they were better.

Afterlife the winner?? Dunno about that. 2 is bad, but the first half is at least entertaining when they string along that comic relief guy. The rest of the movies don't have any of that which is what they all needed.

Rowland rated them accurately.

[Dukefrukem]

And speaking of Resident Evil, watching this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPUPaxgIo98) makes me like Red Letter Media a lot less.

Wow that was annoying. I get the initial reaction but it just feels played out after the 30 second mark.

[Raiders]

Afterlife the winner?? Dunno about that.

Yes. It's not even close really, though I think the first one is a modest pleasure. The second film is so awful. I've actually only ever seen a TV broadcast of the third film.

[Mysterious Dude]

RFZrzg62Zj0

[Rowland]

The second is great camp, like a high budget Cannon production. It's a lousy film by most standards, but also rich with feverishly outrageous moments like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUtllemXdEc&feature=relmfu#t=6m34s).

[Sven]

The second is great camp, like a high budget Cannon production. It's a lousy film by most standards, but also rich with feverishly outrageous moments like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUtllemXdEc&feature=relmfu#t=6m34s).

It's not really rich with moments like that. There are maybe two or three moments like that. Context is what makes or breaks attempts at camp, and it takes some fine, fine juggling to be able to qualify moments like that as "feverishly outrageous" and not just "stupid". Unfortunately, the film is so plodding that it is nearly impossible to be amused by anything in it.

[Dukefrukem]

I need a rewatch of the first I guess. I's been a long time and I can see the slow pacing being much different than the rest of the films.


The second is great camp, like a high budget Cannon production. It's a lousy film by most standards, but also rich with feverishly outrageous moments like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUtllemXdEc&feature=relmfu#t=6m34s).

I don't see that as camp. I put it definitely in the cheese catagory. And that scene isn't as bad at this;

IdbJk30Z1ac

[Rowland]

It's not really rich with moments like that. There are maybe two or three moments like that. Context is what makes or breaks attempts at camp, and it takes some fine, fine juggling to be able to qualify moments like that as "feverishly outrageous" and not just "stupid". Unfortunately, the film is so plodding that it is nearly impossible to be amused by anything in it.It's not an attempt at camp though, which is precisely why it works. You're right, I'm not arguing that it's not stupid.

[Dukefrukem]

It's not an attempt at camp though, which is precisely why it works. You're right, I'm not arguing that it's not stupid.

Well doesn't that automatically make it cheese then? Example; In Return of the Living Dead, the writers made the zombies dress up as paramedics to lure out the humans (and even have them talk on the radio) THAT is a direct attempt to make that scene goofy, therefor campy. That scene with the motorcycle is very serious and an attempt at a well placed action scene.

[Sven]

It's not an attempt at camp though, which is precisely why it works. You're right, I'm not arguing that it's not stupid.

"attempt at camp" was bad wording on my part. But it's clear that the filmmakers are aiming for ludicrous. But mining joy from intentional idiocy takes a talented touch, and requires a suitable framework by which the looney moments achieve heightened definition. If you mix a spoonful of sugar into a vat of cough syrup, you're not going to taste the sugar. As it is, that motorcycle scene just feels desperate.

The crow attack, on the other hand, is one of the better setpieces in the franchise. Not that it's amazing shakes, but in a series filled with not-particularly-notable action sequences, that one stands out.

[Dukefrukem]

A actually meant to link to the scene where zombies come pouring out of storage containers.

[Rowland]

"attempt at camp" was bad wording on my part. But it's clear that the filmmakers are aiming for ludicrous. But mining joy from intentional idiocy takes a talented touch, and requires a suitable framework by which the looney moments achieve heightened definition. If you mix a spoonful of sugar into a vat of cough syrup, you're not going to taste the sugar. As it is, that motorcycle scene just feels desperate.*shrug* I'm not equipped to defend the film in any specific detail, given that I last watched it before the theatrical release of the third a half decade or so ago, nor was I even enthused enough at the time to go out on a limb for it now. I'm just struck by its general reputation as being the weakest in the franchise, when I recall being so tickled by it. Your criticism that the film was plodding, I'd more likely direct towards Afterlife.

The crow attack, on the other hand, is one of the better setpieces in the franchise. Not that it's amazing shakes, but in a series filled with not-particularly-notable action sequences, that one stands out.I remember thinking that the action direction was a bit weak in the third film, but I could be mistaken.

[Sven]

I'm just struck by its general reputation as being the weakest in the franchise, when I recall being so tickled by it. Your criticism that the film was plodding, I'd more likely direct towards Afterlife.

The second one attempted to retain the horror atmosphere of the first film, with CG-enhanced staccato punctuations of action. So it's essentially a bunch of people moving very slowly through big rooms, disrupted here and there with desperate gasps of fumbled weirdness. Unfortunately, the director is evidently not capable of crafting ominous atmosphere, as every filmmaking decision is perfunctory and predictable. Sub-Troma stuff, and at least those movies have the decency to dare.

Also, Mike Epps being cited as the the redeeming factor of a movie is the funniest thing I've read all day.


I remember thinking that the action direction was a bit weak in the third film, but I could be mistaken.

For action direction, it goes 4 3 1 2.

Now the question is: do I go see the fifth one today...?

[Dukefrukem]

Also, Mike Epps being cited as the the redeeming factor of a movie is the funniest thing I've read all day.


Sad but true...

[Rowland]

Sub-Troma stuff, and at least those movies have the decency to dare.Yikes, that's harsh. I'll probably be revisiting it soon, we'll see if it still holds up for me.

[MadMan]

Rep for Isaac. Also I salute you guys for putting more thought into discussing these movies than the filmmakers actually did when making them. I have no idea why anyone cares about the RE films when there are much better action movies out there. Haywire and Hanna both come to mind.

[Rowland]

I have no idea why anyone cares about the RE films when there are much better action movies out there. Haywire and Hanna both come to mind.Perfectly debatable.

[Scar]

Just watched Warrior (2011).

Should've watched this awhile ago.

[MadMan]

While looking through TCM's November schedule, I discovered that they are playing both Riki-Oh: The Story of Ricky and Sword of Doom on Friday November 2nd. I've already seen Sword of Doom and I know that Riki-Oh is on Netflix, but that's still pretty cool.

[Rowland]

I was wrong about RE2. Its first half hour in particular is deadly dull, and though the film picks up once Milla is introduced in high style with the scene I posted two days back, that sadly remains one of only a handful of kinda-cool moments that keep this watchable. It's staggering to imagine how the estimated $45M budget could have resulted in a production that looks and feels so much cheaper than the more modestly budgeted original. I thought shooting in Toronto was a bargain, especially so I'd imagine when the entire production is shot at night on blocked streets and in empty buildings that require little in the way of production design. Pretty much everything about this film is hacky, from the clumsiest direction in the series courtesy veteran cinematographer and only-time director Alexander Witt to Anderson's attempt at directly coalescing the original material of his first film with the mythology of the games, succeeding largely at making this look even less inspired by comparison. There are however some cheap thrills and schlocky pleasures to be derived from the square-offs between Milla and the lumbering Nemesis, thankfully actualized here through practical effects with honest-to-goodness latex, leather, and bazookas. He'd fit snugly within a gonzo Troma production. So I take back my earlier ranking of the series, this is easily its weakest entry.

[Sven]

Glad you came around.

[Raiders]

Was Van Gogh a bad place to start with Pialat? I haven't been that enraptured-yet-uninvested in forever. Gorgeously observant but its view of the man and, more importantly, his relationships is very limited and frankly uninteresting. Maybe I was expecting something... different. Not sure.

[Ezee E]

Anyone see Powell's A Matter of Life and Death? Love the logline.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Anyone see Powell's A Matter of Life and Death? Love the logline.

I love it. Imaginative and freeing and so passionate. The opening is one of the best, most purely emotional scenes I've ever watched.

"I love you June! You're life and I'm leaving you!"

[elixir]

Was Van Gogh a bad place to start with Pialat? I haven't been that enraptured-yet-uninvested in forever. Gorgeously observant but its view of the man and, more importantly, his relationships is very limited and frankly uninteresting. Maybe I was expecting something... different. Not sure.
Well, I adore it and disagree with your assessment, but yeah, I probably would not have started there. It's not like totally divergent from any of his, though it is his penultimate film, and maybe a bit different in that it has more obviously "pretty" photography. Anyway, I think a good starting point would be L'enfance nue or A nos amours, which are my two favorite of his. The latter is probably his most famous. He's not really into psychologizing...uh...his appeal is hard to explain.

[Qrazy]

Recent Viewings:

Rewatched Chinatown, Eternal Sunshine and Close Encounters. All still very good.

Thumbsucker - Thought it wasn't too bad at first and then it got progressively worse. It's a very shallow appraisal of teen angst, ADHD, dysfunction, etc. The father character is absolutely terribly conceived and acted. I did not believe for a second that anyone in this family was actually a member of the family.

Monsters - Fairly bad, lots of dialogue added in post that doesn't really fit the scene. The dialogue in general is piss poor. The two leads are non-entities with zero personality and the majority of the film is spent with them and not witnessing much in the way of monsters. The visual storytelling does not build scenes either, it just follows it's characters around wherever they may be, showcasing some middling special effects. I had no problem with the film being shot on digital over film though, that aspect looked/seemed fine. Minor points for the film's general concept but that's about it.

Moonrise Kingdom - Better than Anderson has been in a while, probably because his technique is particularly suited for a coming of age childhood fantasy. I enjoyed this one a fair amount.

The Fighter - Solid and that's about it. Everything in it feels like it's been done before but it's directed with a def touch and quality acting that keeps the cliches from seeming as cliche as they really are.

[Boner M]

Well, I adore it and disagree with your assessment, but yeah, I probably would not have started there. It's not like totally divergent from any of his, though it is his penultimate film, and maybe a bit different in that it has more obviously "pretty" photography. Anyway, I think a good starting point would be L'enfance nue or A nos amours, which are my two favorite of his. The latter is probably his most famous. He's not really into psychologizing...uh...his appeal is hard to explain.
Agreed w/ all of this.

I wrote a review of Van Gogh (http://match-cut.org/showthread.php?t=1320&highlight=gogh) a few years back... even though it mostly just establishes that Pialat's appeal is indeed hard to articulate.

[Pop Trash]

Was Van Gogh a bad place to start with Pialat? I haven't been that enraptured-yet-uninvested in forever. Gorgeously observant but its view of the man and, more importantly, his relationships is very limited and frankly uninteresting. Maybe I was expecting something... different. Not sure.

I know Boner and others disagree, but I wasn't crazy about A Nos Amours. It's fine, but seemed a bit typical of a certain type of French film (Betty Blue, etc.)

[Boner M]

but seemed a bit typical of a certain type of French film (Betty Blue, etc.)
On a very superficial level, sure.

[Boner M]

I mean, jesus, it couldn't be further from Betty Blue in tone and style and milieu and everything else aside from Gallic nymphs and the 80's.

[MadMan]

Well I completely disagree with everything that Qrazy said in his post about Monsters, as evidenced by my review....but hey, at least he liked Moonrise Kingdom and The Fighter. I think my rating for The Fighter on second thought was too high, but I still think it was one of the better films from 2010, which might speak to that year being a bit uneven.

[Pop Trash]

I mean, jesus, it couldn't be further from Betty Blue in tone and style and milieu and everything else aside from Gallic nymphs and the 80's.

I dunno...I found its tenor, domain, and appel emouvant to be similar in a poubelle visage.

[Bosco B Thug]

I'm aware of the fair share of indifference to it (I was even surprised by an IRL friend suddenly dissing it), but I really love Minnelli's Van Gogh pic. Altman's Vincent and Theo (which I had seen first, years and years ago) I thought I liked well enough, but an attempt to re-watch it recently left me very cold.

I watched perhaps 5 minutes of Pialat's and wasn't feeling it... but of course that means nothing and I will get to it for real eventually. I'm interested in looking at these Van Gogh pics back to back, though I liked Lust for Life enough that I'm pretty convinced it will be my favorite.

A nos amours is amazing, though. I tried Van Gogh not too long after seeing A nos amours, perhaps my brain was resisting the lack of dissolute young French girls.

[DavidSeven]

Moonrise Kingdom - Better than Anderson has been in a while, probably because his technique is particularly suited for a coming of age childhood fantasy. I enjoyed this one a fair amount.

The Fighter - Solid and that's about it. Everything in it feels like it's been done before but it's directed with a def touch and quality acting that keeps the cliches from seeming as cliche as they really are.

Agreed.

[Raiders]

I'm aware of the fair share of indifference to it (I was even surprised by an IRL friend suddenly dissing it), but I really love Minnelli's Van Gogh pic.

I didn't know there was much indifference. I'm a big fan of it myself.


A nos amours is amazing, though.

Yeah, that's where I'm going next with Pialat.

[Bosco B Thug]

I didn't know there was much indifference. I'm a big fan of it myself. There's a fair share of love for it, too, of course. But it's not widely seen and the few reviews it has always carry reservations. It's easier to highlight the split in opinion with it being of the thorny "biopic" genre, especially with two "grittier," more realistic Van Gogh films from two other master filmmakers.

[elixir]

I've seen typically French bandied about to such different films now, I don't even know what it means anymore...casual sex?

[Sven]

Just noticed that Criterion is doing Heaven's Gate. Cool.

[MadMan]

Just noticed that Criterion is doing Heaven's Gate. Cool.That's one western I haven't seen, mostly due to it being inaccessible. I've wanted to see it ever since Ebert bashed it in his I Hated, I Hated, I Hated This Movie book, plus due to the fact that it bankrupted a major studio.

[EyesWideOpen]

That's one western I haven't seen, mostly due to it being inaccessible. I've wanted to see it ever since Ebert bashed it in his I Hated, I Hated, I Hated This Movie book, plus due to the fact that it bankrupted a major studio.

Not really sure what you mean by it being inaccessible. It's on netflix instant watch, dvd, and on amazon instant video.

[Qrazy]

Not really sure what you mean by it being inaccessible. It's on netflix instant watch, dvd, and on amazon instant video.

Madman will get to it when Madman will get to it.

[MadMan]

Not really sure what you mean by it being inaccessible. It's on netflix instant watch, dvd, and on amazon instant video.Aside from Netflix Instant Viewing (I didn't even know it was on there, btw) and the fact that I don't have Amazon Instant Video, its not available on DVD in my area for rental or buying. And I wouldn't blind buy it, anyways, even though its now on Criterion.


Madman will get to it when Madman will get to it.I rate this post a C-.

[EyesWideOpen]

Aside from Netflix Instant Viewing (I didn't even know it was on there, btw) and the fact that I don't have Amazon Instant Video, its not available on DVD in my area for rental or buying. And I wouldn't blind buy it, anyways, even though its now on Criterion.



Um ok. It's just usually when someone says they can't get something it means they looked for it. Which obviously you didn't since it's available everywhere.

[Qrazy]

I rate this post a C-.

I rate this post rating my post an F.

[B-side]

I rate Qrazy in general a sturdy B-.

[Derek]

Um ok. It's just usually when someone says they can't get something it means they looked for it. Which obviously you didn't since it's available everywhere.

I think it's been proven that the Venn Diagram of Things Someone Says and Things Madman Says do not always overlap.


I rate Qrazy in general a sturdy B-.

I highly recommend this post not for it's content, but for its aesthetically pleasing font and the purposeful rhyme scheme within the 2-3-3-3-2 syllable structure ("I rate"/"Qra-zy in"/"gen-er-al"/"a stur-dy"/"B mi-nus") that lends the sentence a certain Keatsian romanticism that is lacking in most posts of genre-centric posters here at MatchCut.

[B-side]

I highly recommend this post not for it's content, but for its aesthetically pleasing font and the purposeful rhyme scheme within the 2-3-3-3-2 syllable structure ("I rate"/"Qra-zy in"/"gen-er-al"/"a stur-dy"/"B mi-nus") that lends the sentence a certain Keatsian romanticism that is lacking in most posts of genre-centric posters here at MatchCut.

Yeah.

[Dukefrukem]

Anyway, watched Ti West's Trigger Man last night. He's becoming one of my favorite directors.

[MadMan]

I rate Qrazy in general a sturdy B-.He used to be an A-, but now he's slide down to a C+, mostly due to this pointless arguments with Irish and the fact that he's now an unlovable grumpy old man :P


Um ok. It's just usually when someone says they can't get something it means they looked for it. Which obviously you didn't since it's available everywhere.When it comes to Instant Viewing, they add/take off so many different films and TV shows that I don't bother to wade through and find out if they have what I'm looking for unless I'm really in the mood to watch something.


I rate this post rating my post an F.Coming from someone who hates many a good movie, I'll take that as a compliment.

[Qrazy]

He used to be an A-, but now he's slide down to a C+, mostly due to this pointless arguments with Irish and the fact that he's now an unlovable grumpy old man :P

When it comes to Instant Viewing, they add/take off so many different films and TV shows that I don't bother to wade through and find out if they have what I'm looking for unless I'm really in the mood to watch something.

Coming from someone who hates many a good movie, I'll take that as a compliment.

I'm not old.

[MadMan]

I'm not old.Well duh, but this means you ruined the joke....

[Spinal]

Well duh, but this means you ruined the joke....

Pssst ... the joke is that Qrazy didn't object to being called 'unlovable' and 'grumpy'.

[MadMan]

Pssst ... the joke is that Qrazy didn't object to being called 'unlovable' and 'grumpy'.http://static2.fjcdn.com/thumbnails/comments/Yep.+gif+sorta+related+_6ef58e e7e614d3d4ed6f785060068718.gif

[Qrazy]

Pssst ... the joke is that Qrazy didn't object to being called 'unlovable' and 'grumpy'.

I'm very fond of The Red Balloon. Check out White Mane also if you haven't already.

[Russ]

I Am Suzanne! (Rowland V. Lee, 1933) PRO

One wonders exactly for whom this imaginitive and offbeat film was made. Ostensibly a romantic musical/fantasy hybrid, Suzanne is less remembered for the appealing yet unremarkable leads (Lilian Harvey and Gene Raymond as Suzanne and Tony), who play competing Parisian theater artists (he a struggling puppeteer and she a top-billed dancer), and more for the master lesson in the on-screen and behind-the-scenes artistry of puppetry. Famed performing troupe, The Yale Puppeteers, truly are the real stars behind this forgotten gem, and the opportunity to see them performing their craft, as they nimbly move about on catwalks above the stage, is truly a sight to behold.

Our two lovelorn performers meet up and fall in love, much to the chagrin of her controlling manager (Leslie Banks in a scene-stealing role, as "The Baron"). When Suzanne has a tragic fall on-stage that threatens her dancing career, she is abandoned by the Baron and nursed back to health by Tony. The interesting parallel is that both the Baron and Tony treat her like a puppet (with Tony even showing more interest in the wooden objects) and even when the petite Ms. Harvey does her dance routines, she is thrown about the stage like a real rag doll. She has one show-stopping dance number, The Snowman, that later, after her accident, is performed with an all-puppet cast starring a version of Suzanne created by Tony. Eventually Suzanne and Tony share a kiss, but Suzanne can't control her jealousy (!) of her counterpart and shoots it (!!) through the heart. A climactic bout of guilt, before the big on-stage finale, has Suzanne experiencing a nightmarish dream sequence where she is put on trial by an all puppet jury of her "peers".

Check out this YouTube clip of that dream sequence (complete with of-its-time period racial overtones) and prepare to be amazed.


S09jJM29BJc

[Ezee E]

Where were you at Match Cut?

Lawrence of Arabia had a worldwide screening today for its 60th anniversary. I just found about it today... Damnit, would've gone.

[MadMan]

Where were you at Match Cut?

Lawrence of Arabia had a worldwide screening today for its 60th anniversary. I just found about it today... Damnit, would've gone.I never had a chance to go. Time to move out of the sticks...

[Thirdmango]

due to letterboxd, the yearly threads and my own doing a lot of tedious work I have now found that I have watched somewhere between 963-972 individual movies in my lifetime.

[Dukefrukem]

Weekend: Taken 2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Pop Trash]

Where were you at Match Cut?

Lawrence of Arabia had a worldwide screening today for its 60th anniversary. I just found about it today... Damnit, would've gone.

I went.

I've never seen it before and tried to stay for the whole thing, but worked that day and the day after and seriously felt like I was going to pass out if I stayed after the intermission, so only watched "part one."

I liked what I saw and they played an interesting interview with Scorsese before the feature with him comparing it to really disparate (Detour? really?) and often obscure films (but this is why we love Marty right?)

It's a terrific mix of eye melting gorgeous cinematography (best use of horizon lines evar) plus Peter O'Toole doing really great work as the enigmatic Lawrence. For a film that could easily slide into Cleopatra level bloat + spectacle, there's a refreshing artistry here that creates an immersive experience with sound and image that isn't too far off from Antonioni in the 60s and 70s. The Lawrence character himself is analogous to the protagonists of Blow Up, The Passenger, and L'Avventura: the educated modernists looking for more meaning and purpose in their lives. Love that reverse shot of O'Toole looking deer-in-the-headlights as a fellow English soldier yells from the distance "Who are you?" Who are you indeed.

To those that have seen the second half: feel free to spoil it for me (I'll get around to it someday). I'm assuming it's mostly the battle of Damascus, but is it better/worse than the first half?

[Grouchy]

due to letterboxd, the yearly threads and my own doing a lot of tedious work I have now found that I have watched somewhere between 963-972 individual movies in my lifetime.
Criticker tells me I've seen 2238.

[MadMan]

Criticker has me at 1713 movies, but I'm pretty sure I've viewed at least 3,000 something lifetime. Maybe slightly more. The problem with rating movies on that site is that I have to wade through so many films. Facebook had a really easy film rating site for a while, but that site got bought up by something else and it erased my ratings.

[Qrazy]

icheckmovies has me at about 2,600 but I'm thinking I'm more between 3,000-3,500. Since most of those checks are for movies on best of lists and I've seen a hell of a lot of other shite.

[Sven]

So the quick edit sequence. What to make of it. just put Quantum of Solace on pause after the first scene (so the wife could talk to her parents). Not sure if I liked it or not. I was able to follow the flow of action, but am unsure why it necessitated so many shots.

Does it really make it that much more exciting to include so many different images? When is it more appropriate or impressive to show the action uninterrupted?

As a fan of action films, this is a foremost concern for me, and something I think about often.

[Sven]

For the record: Quantum of Solace was almost hysterically frantic. Cannot say I understood much of it. Not very good.

Legends of the Guardian: Owls of Gahoole, on the other hand, was quite fantastic, though includes the most jarring training montage in film history.

[Watashi]

Legends of the Guardian: Owls of Gahoole, on the other hand, was quite fantastic, though includes the most jarring training montage in film history.

And it's scored to Owl City. What a hoot!

[Thirdmango]

alrighty, I've now finished my letterboxd backtracking and have logged in 969 individual films I have watched. This number does not include those 5 or so Indian movies I saw like 10 years ago that I don't remember the names of. It also doesn't include any movies before 1940 except Nosferatu (22) and Street Angel (37) because I haven't gone back through lists before 1940 to see if there's anything I'm missing. I've also rated all of the films on that site as well so once I hit about 1000 movies I think I'll work on doing my first top 100.

[Dead & Messed Up]

So the quick edit sequence. What to make of it. just put Quantum of Solace on pause after the first scene (so the wife could talk to her parents). Not sure if I liked it or not. I was able to follow the flow of action, but am unsure why it necessitated so many shots.

Does it really make it that much more exciting to include so many different images? When is it more appropriate or impressive to show the action uninterrupted?

As a fan of action films, this is a foremost concern for me, and something I think about often.

Wow. There's a big question.

Although I think this just opens up more questions, I think the more the film guns for traditional narrative and "plausible" action (in that it presumes an "objective" view of the action over a "subjective" view (even though we all know every film is a subjective perspective)), the less valuable an "impressionistic" intensified continuity is. This can change depending on circumstances, obviously. Saving Private Ryan presumes a level of reality, but its opening has a very impressionistic editing style - purposeful discord. This is also the case with something like the stripclub shootout in Crank 2, which is simultaneously visceral and physical...but also very heightened in its presentation.

Anyway, I agree with you about Quantum, because I don't see much value in overdoing the number of shots if clear continuity is what you're after. In something like The Road Warrior, there are so many players on the field that the fast editing is necessary to keep the viewer aware of all the intersecting lines of action. Quantum, unless I'm remembering wrong, is one car chasing another car.

[Ezee E]

George Romero is the guest director at the Denver Film Festival next month. Neat.

[Qrazy]

Check out my new website! I put it all together myself (with a little help from wordpress). :)

www.aprioriproductions.org


(last repost on the matter)

[Melville]

Check out my new website! I put it all together myself (with a little help from wordpress). :)

www.aprioriproductions.org


(last repost on the matter)
Classy site. And the long awaited list of favorites. Nice. Though you've got Man of the West on there at least twice.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Oh wow, you actually have a production company? Can I work for you? Seriously?

[Qrazy]

Oh wow, you actually have a production company? Can I work for you? Seriously?

It's just beginning and I'm back in Montreal these days, but if I grow to the point where I need or have some work in Toronto I'll keep you in mind. Shoot me an e-mail at prioriproduction@gmail.com!

[Qrazy]

Classy site. And the long awaited list of favorites. Nice. Though you've got Man of the West on there at least twice.

Yeah that favorite list is a few years old, time for an update.

[MadMan]

Check out my new website! I put it all together myself (with a little help from wordpress). :)

www.aprioriproductions.org


(last repost on the matter)Bookmarked, good sir.

[Qrazy]

Bookmarked, good sir.

I shall try to upgrade with new content frequently! I actually just made a screensaver that I'll be putting up shortly... not that anyone uses screensavers any more haha.

[Stay Puft]

So I attended a screening of the 3D digital restoration of Dial M for Murder over the weekend. I tend to be pretty mixed with Hitchcock but I enjoyed this one quite a bit.

I find it amusing that the studio forced 3D on the project, and Hitchcock himself hated it, and yet it turns out to be one of the best 3D films I've seen. Hitchcock is playful with his framing, often shooting low and around different objects in the room, so that there is constantly something occupying different planes of the frame; this has two interesting effects: i) by constantly calling attention to the foreground, middleground and background in every shot, a movie set entirely in one single room ends up being more dynamic, and more convincing, a 3D film than anything I've seen from the modern resurgance of this supposed fad, and ii) by constantly calling attention to the minutia of the set design, Hitchcock visually reinforces how the murder scheme, and its potential success or failure, hinges on these very objects and their relationship to the room (the location of the telephone and its importance in the plan, the stockings, the key under the rug, the serendipitous spot on the table where the scissors are left, etc.).

Hitchcock never makes anything pop out of the screen, either, with two specific exceptions, both of which highlight two of the most important narrative developments in the film, to the effect that I couldn't even see the argument for their use as gimmicks. I mean, okay, yes, 3D itself is a gimmick and I'm not usually fond of it, but this is actually a pretty clever and entertaining use of the format.

[MadMan]

I shall try to upgrade with new content frequently! I actually just made a screensaver that I'll be putting up shortly... not that anyone uses screensavers any more haha.Oh wow, that's a flashback from the past. Screensavers are still on computers, but I remember when they were all the rage in the 90s and early 2000s. I even used MS paint to make crappy ones, heh.

[EyesWideOpen]

I keep getting this ad on a bunch of sites that says "Real Heroes Don't Need Capes". And then it says "Atlas Shrugged II". It's pretty hilarious.

[MadMan]

I keep getting this ad on a bunch of sites that says "Real Heroes Don't Need Capes". And then it says "Atlas Shrugged II". It's pretty hilarious.Didn't the first flick bomb, hard, and get awful reviews? When I finally saw the trailer for Atlas II I realized right away that it was this heavy handed, over dramatic neo-con right wing fantasy world where the government is evil and ruining people's lives. At least I was able to make it through that trailer-the trailer for the movie about the Alaskan town fighting for religious freedom against Fred "The Hammer" Williamson was so awful, I couldn't finish it. Somewhere there is a critic getting incredibly drunk and watching these movies so that he can tell people not to watch them. I salute that person, and pity them, too.

[transmogrifier]

Made it about 50 minutes into Airport. Got to the part where Jacqueline Bisset admits her preganancy with the tasteful tinkling of the soundtrack in the background, realised that there was still about 80 minutes left, and had to bail, for my own sanity.

I wonder if the makers of this were pissed that Airplane! pretty much destroys any ability to take it seriously.

[Qrazy]

Neil Burger's The Illusionist was truly terrible.

[Stay Puft]

Neil Burger's The Illusionist was truly terrible.

Haha, yeah. This was the first movie I watched on Blu-ray as my parents had a copy sitting on the coffee table when I visited them. What a slog. What a terrible ending.

[Sycophant]

Sitting in a theater in Shinjuku waiting for Sono Shion to appear and introduce the screenings of Love Exposure and Himizu that will be going till 6:30am. I am excited.

[Dukefrukem]

Neil Burger's The Illusionist was truly terrible.

That's been on my watchlist forever. I think i'll bump it down a few more notches now.

[Dukefrukem]

llyq-zyE-wU

[Thirdmango]

Last night I went through by director and found a couple of films I had forgotten to add on my seen list. So then when I got home last night I found myself at 998 movies. So I watched The Last Crusade for the first time and then my 1000th movie was Satoshi Kon's Millennium Actress. Millennium Actress is a fantastic film, the kind that will likely get even better with multiple viewings, however the odd thing is I didn't tear up once and I'm a veritable leaky faucet. A friend of mine who isn't a leaky faucet told me a long while ago it's one of the most tear inducing movies for him so I just figured I would be tearing up the whole time. Like I said it is a fantastic film, and I loved it but still a bit surprised by my own reaction.

As for the Indiana Jones movies, I saw all three in the past month or so for the first time and the one I liked the most was Last Crusade followed by Temple of Doom and then Raiders. I know I'm basically wrong (by all accounts) with my ordering and maybe I wasn't in the right mood for Raiders. As I was watching it I kept thinking, wow, I would have loved this film at 5 years old. But Last Crusade I thoroughly enjoyed.

[Sven]

I know I'm basically wrong (by all accounts)

Not by my account, homeboy.

[Izzy Black]

Really enjoyed The Illusionist, I greatly preferred it to The Pristige.

[Qrazy]

Haha, yeah. This was the first movie I watched on Blu-ray as my parents had a copy sitting on the coffee table when I visited them. What a slog. What a terrible ending.

That realization moment for Giamatti is so bad. Oh, Ed Norton convinced a guy who wasn't actually a murderer to kill himself but it's all good cause that guy was a dick.

Plus the notion that Giamatti's character would necessarily be able to find the locket or that jewel in a bunch of hay? First of all that's like a needle in a haystack, secondly that stall must be cleaned out all the time.

[Qrazy]

Really enjoyed The Illusionist, I greatly preferred it to The Pristige.

All the magic in The Illusionist is predicated on CGI bullshit and not real tricks. Combine that with a flaccid love story, a weak Giamatti performance a lazily executed narrative full of hokey flashbacks, over filtered cinematography and one of the worst Usual Suspects inspired endings of all time and you have one terrible movie.

It's been a while since I've seen it but I'm fairly sure that all the tricks in The Prestige are legit magic tricks aside from the twist aspect at the end. Plus the rivalry in The Prestige is much more interesting than this one and that film actually has something to say about what it means to be a magician. Here magic is a means to an end only, the end being the fulfilment of the love story.

[Izzy Black]

I don't think The Pristige's ostensibly 'realist' interpretation of the magician makes it any better, and what's more, the film completely undermines itself by the ridiculous twist at the end, coping out with an absurdity rather than finding a realistic way to impress us by playing it straight.

That said, didn't care for the magician rivalry stuff.

In my view both films are both style over substance, so it's going to come down to which film had the better feel. You've seen my polemics on Nolan plenty now, so no need to rehash them here. Needless to say, I prefer The Illusionist's lush sepia-tone aesthetic and Philip Glass' gorgeous score to Nolan's and Wally Pfister's jarring spazfest.

And I didn't mind the love story. I enjoyed the overall drama.

[Izzy Black]

Although I will say that Norton has one of the worst English accents I've ever heard. That was almost a deal-breaker for me. I thought Biel did surprisingly well, however.

[Qrazy]

I don't think The Pristige's ostensibly 'realist' interpretation of the magician makes it any better, and what's more, the film completely undermines itself by the ridiculous twist at the end, coping out with an absurdity rather than finding a realistic way to impress us by playing it straight.

That said, didn't care for the magician rivalry stuff.

In my view both films are both style over substance, so it's going to come down to which film had the better feel. You've seen my polemics on Nolan plenty now, so no need to rehash them here. Needless to say, I prefer The Illusionist's lush sepia-tone aesthetic and Philip Glass' gorgeous score to Nolan's and Wally Pfister's jarring spazfest.

And I didn't mind the love story. I enjoyed the overall drama.

The ending of The Prestige was built up over the course of the film and provides a satisfying thematic pay off from what came before. It is only absurd in the sense that it is a genre shift in the final act which is somewhat jarring but makes sense in relation to the structure of a magic trick, which the film defines.

I agree with you that The Illusionist has no substance, I don't agree that The Prestige does not. And I also prefer the style of the latter by a long shot. Nolan's shots have purpose whereas Berger's do not.

I like Philip Glass in general but I did not really think about this score much and didn't realize it was him. Hrm.

[Izzy Black]

The ending of The Prestige was built up over the course of the film and provides a satisfying thematic pay off from what came before. It is only absurd in the sense that it is a genre shift in the final act which is somewhat jarring but makes sense in relation to the structure of a magic trick, which the film defines.

I agree with you that The Illusionist has no substance, I don't agree that The Prestige does not. And I also prefer the style of the latter by a long shot. Nolan's shots have purpose whereas Berger's do not.
I quite obviously disagree that the ending provides a satisfying thematic pay off. I also don't think it "makes sense" insofar as it suggests a realistic Newtonian world all the up until the ending. It could've achieved greater heights by explaining the trick in a realistic kind of way the audience wouldn't have expected. It took the easy and dull way out.

Nolan's images are utterly impoverished. The Illusionist has at least as much substance as The Prestige, but neither are exactly food for thought. I don't think the Illusionist's images are purposeless. They effectively evoke the nostalgia and feel of a fin de siècle Vienna and give the film a sense of mood and otherworldlyness that complements the film's supernatural themes.

As for Glass, I actually think it's one of his best film pieces and one of his most melodic scores, particularly the intro.

[Mr. McGibblets]

Illusionist:


Oh, Ed Norton convinced a guy who wasn't actually a murderer to kill himself but it's all good cause that guy was a dick.

I didn't read it that way. I thought it was a reversal and we were supposed to realize we'd been rooting for the bad guy the whole time.

[Ivan Drago]

Bah, I love The Illusionist, especially for its visual style and score. Although I prefer The Prestige, it still holds up for me to this day.

[Stay Puft]

All the magic in The Illusionist is predicated on CGI bullshit and not real tricks.

That was the dealbreaker for me. Like, Giamatti wants to know how Norton does that tree trick, but there's no trick there, just a bad computer effect. Rendered the whole premise hollow.

I did like the Philip Glass score, though, it was good.

[Sycophant]

Love Exposure: Still amazing, especially in its first two or three hours.

Himizu: Not without value, but something like a Kim Ki-Duk film (like an Address Unknown or Coast Guard) filtered through Sono's visual sensibilities and a triple dose of Sono's tendency toward domestic hysterics and violence, which is perhaps a bit too much. It's a little heavy-handed, and feels a bit imbalanced, but is fascinating for shooting on location so soon after the earthquake/tsunami/nuclear disaster and incorporating those elements into the story. If you like Sono a lot, you should probably watch it.

His upcoming "Land of Hope", shot in a similarly nature-ravaged sort of landscape, looks more promising. It comes out in Japan in 2 weeks.

Sono is not as grave-faced as every picture I've ever seen of him makes him out to me. In person, he's a pretty loose and fun guy.

[Sven]

Wish I could love Matrix: Reloaded as much as I want to. It does a lot of things right, but it's ultimately oh so boring. The fight 'ography is either sluggish or so fast that it turns into a distractingly computerized video game cut scene. I actually kinda dig the whole philosophical quandary/Architect stuff, and am of course moved by the power of love throughline. But there's a ton of padding and nothing feels tactile.

Sad because I rented the third one too and now I don't want to watch it.

[transmogrifier]

Sad because I rented the third one too and now I don't want to watch it.

My advice: don't.

It has all of the flaws of the second one, and then some.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on Revolutions. In some ways, I think it improves on the second, but in other ways, it's even more entrenched in empty "video game" kinetics. The Neo stuff fascinates me. Swarms of robots attacking, not so much.

[Sven]

I saw them both in the theater when they both came out and I remember liking the third one best because it abandons much of the philosophy and opts for robots blowing shit up. Now, I'm less sure I will be quite so enamored of that aspect.

[Qrazy]

Illusionist:



I didn't read it that way. I thought it was a reversal and we were supposed to realize we'd been rooting for the bad guy the whole time.


I don't think that's what Giamatti's expression conveyed though. He didn't seem troubled by the chain of events, he seemed awed and impressed by them.

[Qrazy]

I quite obviously disagree that the ending provides a satisfying thematic pay off. I also don't think it "makes sense" insofar as it suggests a realistic Newtonian world all the up until the ending. It could've achieved greater heights by explaining the trick in a realistic kind of way the audience wouldn't have expected. It took the easy and dull way out.

Nolan's images are utterly impoverished. The Illusionist has at least as much substance as The Prestige, but neither are exactly food for thought. I don't think the Illusionist's images are purposeless. They effectively evoke the nostalgia and feel of a fin de siècle Vienna and give the film a sense of mood and otherworldlyness that complements the film's supernatural themes.

As for Glass, I actually think it's one of his best film pieces and one of his most melodic scores, particularly the intro.

Nope.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_RhoiX9HEM_o/TLTimecaNTI/AAAAAAAAB8g/3bCQVlQEZlY/s1600/the_prestige-11537.jpg

http://i.neoseeker.com/screenshots/TW92aWVzL0FjdGlvbg==/the_prestige_image7.jpg

http://filmgrab.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/22-light-field1.png?w=1400&h=

http://filmgrab.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/15-breaking-the-case1.png?w=1400&h=

http://filmgrab.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/16-funeral1.png?w=1400&h=

[Ezee E]

May be Nolan's second best-looking movie.

[Qrazy]

May be Nolan's second best-looking movie.

Which would you put first, Inception or Dark Knight?

[Ezee E]

Which would you put first, Inception or Dark Knight?
Definitely Inception. It seems like Nolan has a knack for shooting in outdoor areas far better then indoor.

[Dukefrukem]

Best comic-con costumer ever?

http://blastr.com/uploads/NYCC2012-1-2.jpg

[Qrazy]

Definitely Inception. It seems like Nolan has a knack for shooting in outdoor areas far better then indoor.

Agreed.

[MadMan]

Eagle Eye works best as a paranoid actor thriller, even though it could have gone further in exploring its basic theme of technology gone amok and how easy it is for the government to spy on us. Better movies have tackled that issue (Sneakers, The Conversation, and Enemy of the State come to mind) yet I still enjoyed it regardless. Also Shia LaBeouf receives way too much hate. Is he a pretty boy? Sure, but he showcases an everyman likability, and at least he has that going for him no matter how many times we remember him swinging with monkeys or talking to a walking car.

[amberlita]

It's been a long time since I've seen The Dirty Dozen. The last 30 minutes is really just non-stop machine gun fire.

I'm sure I'm not the only one with a list of scenes in films that, should I come across the movie playing on TV, I cannot change the channel till that particular scene plays. This is one of them. Forever a favorite. Reminds me of my Dad. He loved this scene.

bJJHSsLhE24

[Qrazy]

That was the dealbreaker for me. Like, Giamatti wants to know how Norton does that tree trick, but there's no trick there, just a bad computer effect. Rendered the whole premise hollow.

I did like the Philip Glass score, though, it was good.

The tree wasn't even that bad compared to the butterflies holding the handkerchief, good lord.

[Derek]

Grosse Point Blank - C-

But you at least like Miami Blues, right?

[Qrazy]

But you at least like Miami Blues, right?

Haven't seen it.

[Winston*]

But you at least like Miami Blues, right?

The Big Bounce!

Is truly awful.

[Derek]

The Big Bounce!

Is truly awful.

Yeah, I never even bothered with that one.

[dreamdead]

Malgoska Szumowska's Elles feels like it should be more substantial than it ends up being. I find the triangulation of female identity (both bourgeois and worker), but the film goes for several insipid moments of obvious characterization--specifically Anne's elder son and some of the husband's actions. That said, the sequence where the various Johns all sing and conspire at Anne's dinner table is marvelous--I wish the film had explored more of those moments of reverie and blurred reality.

[Qrazy]

Medium Cool was interesting but not fully successful or satisfying as a film in and of itself. The ending is quite blunt.

Cutter's Way was a steaming pile.

[Raiders]

Cutter's Way was a steaming pile.

Please elaborate my contrarian friend.

[Qrazy]

Please elaborate my contrarian friend.

It just felt completely inept to me in the treatment of it's character arcs. The antagonist is a non-entity but not in an ominous way. The murder mystery is not an engrossing tale with facts gradually falling into place. Instead most of the mystery aspect is resolved with a series of deus ex moments.

The dead girl's sister just seems to fade out of the picture with no real resolution to her story. And when Moe dies the proper weight is not given to her death and the film continues to lack any sense of urgency has it has for the course of it's runtime. Bridges character is probably the worst I've seen him play, an indecisive fellow who's only goal seems to be to fuck around. And Alex horse leaping through the window at the end is one of the silliest, cheesiest scenes I've seen in ages. Even the scene of him galloping undercuts itself vacillating ineptly between the sweeping film score and a live mariachi band.

Heard's character makes a few scenes watchable (the car accident, the bar scene) but they are so far removed from the narrative of the film that their fleeting pleasures are incidental at best.

[Boner M]

I really like Cutter's Way but the ending is where the film crosses over from subtly and intriguingly discordant to flat-out WTF territory. Would like to see it again, though.

[Rowland]

Watched two movies yesterday featuring dystopian futures in which the disenfranchised kill each other for primetime ratings. Neither was particularly good, but I'd give the edge to Death Race 2, which wasn't too bad for a DTV prequel, amplifying the satire and fleshing out the backstory established by the PWSA-directed first film in some amusing ways, including the staging of hand-to-hand gladiatorial events that effectively deliver some action variety. An early chase sequence outside the prison (following a staggeringly moronic bank heist) is the highlight, whereas later death racing scenes are more ineptly handled, due to an excess of shaky cam and choppy cutting that appears intended to both mimic the same style that marred the first film, as well as to obscure obvious budgetary constraints. Luke Goss is fine in the lead role, if hardly a Statham-level presence, and he's ably supported by a trifecta of veteran DTV stars, including Ving Rhames, Danny Trejo, and Sean Bean, all of whom appear to be giving at least half a shit. Oh yeah, and the film is offensively, hilariously misogynistic, which is either an advantage or a knock depending on your sensibilities.

As for The Hunger Games, the hunger games kinda sucked.

[MadMan]

/Bambi/ (Hand, 1942) CI find this rating more depressing than Qrazy not liking Grosse Point Blank.

[Rowland]

I find this rating more depressing than Qrazy not liking Grosse Point Blank.It's very beautiful, I'll give it that. If I'd watched it with the sound turned off, my grade may have been higher.

[MadMan]

It's very beautiful, I'll give it that. If I'd watched it with the sound turned off, my grade may have been higher.I rewatched it when I was older and graded it via that way instead of continuing to rely on childhood nostalgia. I've tried to do that for all of the Disney movies. Its why I realized Aladdin was merely decent at best.

[Qrazy]

I find this rating more depressing than Qrazy not liking Grosse Point Blank.

I didn't dislike it really I just think it's extremely mediocre. Has some funny moments though.

[Boner M]

I find your relatively high rating for Bronson disturbing.

[Qrazy]

I find your relatively high rating for Bronson disturbing.

I enjoyed it despite myself but I can see how many others wouldn't. I'm not going to say it's particularly great or anything. What are your criticisms?

[Boner M]

I enjoyed it despite myself but I can see how many others wouldn't. I'm not going to say it's particularly great or anything. What are your criticisms?
It's just a glossy, empty exercise in Kubrick mannerism of the worst kind; no ideas (outside of the very broad one of 'performance' which is doesn't explore), nowhere narrative, no nothing. Tom Hardy's the only redeeming facet.

[Qrazy]

It's just a glossy, empty exercise in Kubrick mannerism of the worst kind; no ideas (outside of the very broad one of 'performance' which is doesn't explore), nowhere narrative, no nothing. Tom Hardy's the only redeeming facet.

It struck me more as the ugly step-brother of Amelie/Jeunet rather than Kubrick. I'd agree it's shallow but there are a couple of simple minded ideas rattling around as well as images worth recall (the funny farm, painter's studio). It is the quintessential tale told by an idiot about an idiot, full of sound and fury, etc but even an idiot deserves to have his story told once in a while I suppose.

LWKXPG3qevQ

[Derek]

Good man. Did you watch the Criterion, w/ the KTL score? Amaze.

Oh yes. The score is incredible - probably the best modern score to a silent this side of Voices of Light. But what a complex, layered and disturbing mood piece this is. I have a hard time believing it was made in 1921 since this level of interwoven narrative with crisp editing and perfect pacing didn't really appear in features until at least a few years later. Best film I've seen all year.

[EyesWideOpen]

Did people at one time find Karen Black attractive? She terrifies me. She's like the 70's version of Sarah Jessica Parker.

[Qrazy]

Did people at one time find Karen Black attractive?

Nope.

[MadMan]

Did people at one time find Karen Black attractive? She terrifies me. She's like the 70's version of Sarah Jessica Parker.Except that in the craptastic Bruce Willis movie Striking Distance, Parker was actually cute in that movie. Black has never been attractive, period. Otherwise I agree.

I finally saw Transformers 2 because some friends wanted to watch it, and I just didn't feel like arguing. I realized the movie didn't suck because of the racist unfunny robots, or the thinly developed characters, or Megan Fox. It sucked because I couldn't tell who the hell the good robots or bad robots were, and the fights bored the shit out of me. I remember when Michael Bay actually knew how to direct a halfway decent action sequence, but those days are long gone.

[radioman970]

Welcome radioman!!....Only took me 2 years to answer. lol Hey Skitch! Hope all is well. :frustrated: ...uhm, WAS well 2 years ago. And still is well NOW!

[ledfloyd]

i saw nosferatu tonight in a 2800 seat theater with a live accompanist on the organ. it was kind of awesome, it felt like i was attending a film in the 20s.

[dreamdead]

Really enjoyed how sleek Taken was... nothing exceptional in its script, but its streamlined length allows it a pacing that allows no element to be lingered over. And Liam Neeson has a true integrity in this kind of film--his blunt primalism, refusing to be stopped, works in this film's favor.

Gender-wise, it's a little old-fashioned--whorish best friend, who desires sex and isn't a virgin, of course suffers the worst fate. I'd have been more impressed if the film would have been willing to deal with the repercussions of Neeson's daughter being raped before she's rescued. That said, it's solid genre work.

[Boner M]

Audrey the Trainwreck grabbed me from the opening scene - closeup of darts being thrown into a dartboard, a reveal of a bar setting, scanning across a handful of characters and picking up fragments of conversations, before one of the darts goes off course and lands in the back of the dude who'll emerge as the film's nominal protagonist; almost as if selecting him at random. It's a pretty ingenious way of establishing the film's fascination with ordinary people and their daily grind, especially since that grind weighs down especially hard when you've got an injury to nurse. Even then, the film distances us from his dilemmas, waywardly settling on his friends and possible lovers, and from there landing on more peripheral characters... kinda like Abel Ferrara, actually, whose films are rife with instances of the latter, as if questioning his own decision to favor one person over another by making a single character study based around them. This film is kinda dizzyingly complex and mysterious... all I know if that along w/ Tiger Tail in Blue, Frank V. Ross is one of the most exciting American filmmakers of the last few years and I can't wait to delve into his 4 pre-Audrey features.

Gambling, Gods & LSD: Epic, continent-spanning, free-associative doco that picks a very broad subject - mankind's search for transcendence, or at least the possibility of carving out some kind of meaningful existence from a meaningless universe - and treats in it the slippery, digressive, rambling manner that it deserves. The first 2 and a bit hours are mesmerising, something like the middleground of Koyannisqatsi and Sans Soleil; the first interview with a reformed addict walking around the 'burbs at night under washed-out DV-lensed streetlights establishes a palpable melancholy that the proceedings coast on, and I was sure I was watching an all-timer... then it makes a final stretch in India, giving into the worst exoticising tendencies, with the filmmaking becoming accordingly noodly. Still, it's more than the sum of its parts, and Mettler picks such a perfect poetic image to close on that I practically forgot about all my beefs. This should have a way bigger following; for the most part it represents everything documentary filmmaking should be (amazing and well-used soundtrack, too: Jim O'Rourke, Fred Firth, Gorecki, Oren Ambarchi, Fennesz, Third Eye Foundation...).

[Russ]

Fred Firth
Frith?

[Boner M]

Narrated by Colin Frith.

[Winston*]

I don't buy the moral of The Muppets. Once you 'find your talent', all of a sudden you can whistle like Andrew Bird? Pretty sure you have to practice whistling to get good at it.

[MadMan]

Hey Brightside, I watched and liked The Driller Killer last week. I found a two disc SE copy of it at a local pawnshop, of all places. I'm interested in viewing the rest of Abel Ferrara's work, particularly King of New York.

[Li Lili]

I also saw Driller Killer a long time ago, I don't think I'll watch it again. King of New, The Addiction, The Blackout, Bad Lieutnant, Snake Eyes, The Funeral, Christmas (the last one I saw by him, after that, I stopped watching others by him) are the ones I saw also a long time ago, I think The Funeral was the one I liked the best at the time, but I remember King of New York was also ok.

[Dukefrukem]

Natalie Portman got implants???

http://boston.barstoolsports.com/files/2012/10/portman.gif

[Izzy Black]

More like she got pregnant.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Or Hollywood has bras for women with small boobs.

[Ezee E]

More like she got pregnant.
This.

[dreamdead]

I was pleasantly surprised by Miranda July's The Future. It walks a fine line between being ambitiously experimental and overly precious, but there are several strong scenes that speak to July's ambition. The extended time-freeze sequences have a real power, as do many of Paw-paw's musings. These aspects highlight the degree of isolation that July is capable of exploring. The juxtaposition between Sophie and the man's daughter, though clearly linked by the desire to seek out new "homes," seems less developed. And this is one film that is hurt by its closing ambiguity. Still, I come away from this desiring to see her Me and You and Everyone We Know...

[Dead & Messed Up]

)) <> ((

[Spinal]

Still, I come away from this desiring to see her Me and You and Everyone We Know...

It's a lot better.

[Thirdmango]

Just watched Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull for the first time. Now here's the thing, I had watched the other three Indiana Jones films for the first time this past month, so this movie was in no way "shitting on my childhood." What it was, was a decent action movie with some funny moments and a couple of boring parts. I actually liked aliens and I don't think it's that insane of a concept in the world already created in the first three films. The beginning was especially good. Probably my second favorite of the franchise.

[Gamblor]

On the Road has some very nice, evocative cinematography regarding the American landscapes and cities, but the film's too often lifeless despite bursts of energy that come with some of the supporting turns (e.g. Viggo Mortensen's William Burroughs). The thrill of the characters' hedonism never really comes through, nor are their journeys especially involving or affecting.

[Grouchy]

Probably my second favorite of the franchise.
Shut up, man. Stop talking loco.

[Ezee E]

On the Road has some very nice, evocative cinematography regarding the American landscapes and cities, but the film's too often lifeless despite bursts of energy that come with some of the supporting turns (e.g. Viggo Mortensen's William Burroughs). The thrill of the characters' hedonism never really comes through, nor are their journeys especially involving or affecting.
Just like the book?

[transmogrifier]

Just watched Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull for the first time. Now here's the thing, I had watched the other three Indiana Jones films for the first time this past month, so this movie was in no way "shitting on my childhood." What it was, was a decent action movie with some funny moments and a couple of boring parts. I actually liked aliens and I don't think it's that insane of a concept in the world already created in the first three films. The beginning was especially good. Probably my second favorite of the franchise.

Which begs the question: why do you hate the franchise so much?

[MadMan]

Just watched Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull for the first time. Now here's the thing, I had watched the other three Indiana Jones films for the first time this past month, so this movie was in no way "shitting on my childhood." What it was, was a decent action movie with some funny moments and a couple of boring parts. I actually liked aliens and I don't think it's that insane of a concept in the world already created in the first three films. The beginning was especially good. Probably my second favorite of the franchise.While I liked the 4th movie, my second favorite of the franchise is The Last Crusade, not Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Also keep in mind that myself, you, and maybe only two other people on this site liked it :lol:

[Mr. McGibblets]

I don't mind the plot or concept or acting or action in Crystal Skull. But it's one of the ugliest movies I've ever seen and has atrocious CGI.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I just like how useful that skull is. It's an oversized jewel! It's a magnet! It's a bludgeon! It's an ant repellent! It's a key to infinite knowledge! It scrambles eggs! It dehumidifies! Act now and we'll throw in an interdimensional gateway at no cost to you!

[Rowland]

While full of stupid bits, I really didn't mind the first act or so of Crystal Skull, thought it had a nice sense of humor about itself and was relatively well-made. It kinda goes to shit though once it leaves the US, starts to look and feel like a Lucas joint.

[Grouchy]

I'd like to add yet another reason why Crystal Skull sucks and Spielberg and Lucas raped Indiana up the ass - it's completely unreliable, fact-wise.

Used to be Young Indiana Jones (the TV series) was both an adventure show and a didactic history lesson where children were introduced to mythical characters from the early XXth Century. Instead, Crystal Skull makes gross mistakes in history and geography and presents them as fact. Indy having "learned quechua" from Pancho Villa (?), the Indian tribes, the geography and culture are not Peruvian but some half-formed, vague idea a Yankee might have about South America. I'm no expert on Noah's Ark or the Crusades but I perceive that on the production of those movies there was at least one person doing minimal research to avoid making idiotic mistakes.

[Spinal]

Hate to say it, but Indiana Jones is one of the most overrated franchises there is. Only one out of the four movies is all that good.

[Pop Trash]

I don't dislike IJ4 as much as most people, but I've long since cared about defending it.

I still think the "refrigerator that protects you from a nuclear blast" was a big joke about how well made household appliances were back in the 40s/50s compared to today. Do people really think the man who made Jaws and Schindler's List is that dumb?

[Watashi]

I don't dislike IJ4 as much as most people, but I've long since cared about defending it.

I still think the "refrigerator that protects you from a nuclear blast" was a big joke about how well made household appliances were back in the 40s/50s compared to today. Do people really think the man who made Jaws and Schindler's List is that dumb?
No, but I think the guy who made Star Wars Episode I-III is.

[Winston*]

http://cdn1.screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/CGI-Gopher-in-Indiana-Jones-and-the-Kingdom-of-the-Crystal-Skull.jpg

[Pop Trash]

No, but I think the guy who made Star Wars Episode I-III is.

Well...he is building low income housing in Marin, much to the chagrin of the NIMBY rich people types in Marin. So there's that.

[Dead & Messed Up]

http://cdn1.screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/CGI-Gopher-in-Indiana-Jones-and-the-Kingdom-of-the-Crystal-Skull.jpg

I like this bit. Transitioning from the Paramount logo to this is a fun way of saying "Don't make mountains out of molehills." In other words, don't take any of this too seriously.

[MadMan]

Battleship (Berg, 2012) B-Oh I gotta hear your thoughts on this one.

[Scar]

I'll admit it. I laughed my ass off at the groundhog reaction shot during the rocket sled sequence.

The movie was.... ok at best. Dead last behind Temple of Doom.

[transmogrifier]

Hate to say it, but Indiana Jones is one of the most overrated franchises there is. Only one out of the four movies is all that good.

Agree.

[MadMan]

The Last Crusade is great, and Raiders of the Lost Ark is a masterwork. I like Kingdom of the Crystal Skull slightly better than Temple of Doom, but both are merely good at best and are lacking in certain areas. I've seen Raiders and Kingdom in theaters, and I'll sadly admit that if they make another one I will go see it in a heartbeat.

[Spinal]

Harrison Ford is 70. 70!

[MadMan]

Harrison Ford is 70. 70!"It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage." :P

[B-side]

Have you seen the new Universal Soldier yet, Rowland? I know you were fond of the last one. This was my first Universal Soldier movie. Probably not the ideal place to start, but whatever. I enjoyed the hell out of it. Seems like something you would eat up.

[Irish]

I still think the "refrigerator that protects you from a nuclear blast" was a big joke about how well made household appliances were back in the 40s/50s compared to today. Do people really think the man who made Jaws and Schindler's List is that dumb?

This never bothered me. It seemed no less ridiculous than the plummeting life raft bit in Temple of Doom.

The first movie blended humor, history, and fantasy pretty well. Every installment after that got icrementally broader and dumber.

As for Crystal Skull, I never thought picturing Jones in the 1950s made much sense. That's pretty much the exact time period when popular culture began to leave heroes like him behind. The nature of that character is it odds with a Cold War world.

[Irish]

No, but I think the guy who made Star Wars Episode I-III is.

This is the conflict I've always had with Lucas: as a businessman, he's utterly brilliant and I'd say the smartest to come out of the business in the last 40 years.

But his sense of story got, at some point, completely wonky. For about a ten to fifteen year run, he had masterful instincts. And then it all went to shit. He kept being smart about the money, though.

I don't think Spielberg has nearly the same career or level of success without Lucas' influence.

[Sycophant]

I think most everyone at Match Cut is basically over Walter Chaw, but I still like to read him, and his recent, massive appraisal of the Indiana Jones films (http://www.filmfreakcentral.net/ffc/2012/10/indiana-jones-the-complete-adventures.html) gave me a lot to think about, and makes me want to reevaluate Temple of Doom, which I wrote off as an unforgivably ugly film in a lot of different ways when I first saw it a few years ago.

I rewatched Raiders and Last Crusade in the last year and saw Kingdom of the Crystal Skull a few months ago. Raiders is a bold, confident wonder, energetic and angry and righteous. Last Crusade is a wonky parodic side story that struggles with its tone and undermines the character and his world a little too gleefully. Crystal Skull starts out as something interesting and well-put together and devolves into a messy TV reunion movie written on fanfiction.net.

[Pop Trash]

I still like Chaw quite a bit. Especially when his right on in his reappraisal of 80s comedies (i.e. Uncle Buck > The Goonies).

Chaw has also defended Temple of Doom before, but I love that movie so I'm right there with him.

[Grouchy]

Temple of Doom is my favorite Indiana.

[baby doll]

I've just seen Raiders of the Lost Ark and fourth one, which is so forgettable that I can't even remember the title. I didn't hate it at the time, but you couldn't pay me to see it again. Come to think of it, I've only seen Raiders of the Lost Ark twice, once on TV as a kid (and only half-paying attention to it) and again at a rep theatre screening in 2004 (when I was twenty). It's enjoyable enough, but I don't have much patience with people who consider it a masterwork because they loved it when they were kids--as if kids have such discriminating taste. It has set pieces but not much of a story, and sensation but no feeling.

[Sycophant]

Didn't see it till I was 17. Didn't love it till I was 25 or 26. What up, y'all.

[Irish]

It has set pieces but not much of a story, and sensation but no feeling.

Does it need it? Contrary to modern action movies, Raiders has a remarkable economy and pacing; there doesn't seem to be a single frame in excess.

And I don't mind an unfeeling film so much if the set pieces are this fun, with so much variation.

The only thing that brings it down is placing it next to the sillier sequels.

[Grouchy]

We have to remember that Indiana is an homage to the serials of the 1930s and it has a similar story structure where the hero bounces from one set piece to another and the plot is only useful as far as it gets you to the next cliffhanger.

Obviously, Raiders is a movie and not a serial, but it's the same thing as Burton's Dark Shadows using a soap opera structure in a feature film - it's not a flaw.

[Dukefrukem]

I don't dislike IJ4 as much as most people, but I've long since cared about defending it.

I still think the "refrigerator that protects you from a nuclear blast" was a big joke about how well made household appliances were back in the 40s/50s compared to today. Do people really think the man who made Jaws and Schindler's List is that dumb?

Let's not forget this shot exists.

http://videogum.com/img/thumbnails/photos/twmoat_indiana_jones/nuke.jpg

[baby doll]

Does it need it? Contrary to modern action movies, Raiders has a remarkable economy and pacing; there doesn't seem to be a single frame in excess.

And I don't mind an unfeeling film so much if the set pieces are this fun, with so much variation.

The only thing that brings it down is placing it next to the sillier sequels.Obviously it's a skillfully executed film, and far superior to most movies of its kind, so I wouldn't say that it necessarily needs a more interesting plot or more emotion. However, as exciting as individual sequences are, as a total film it all amounts to very little, which is why I wouldn't say it's a great film. I understand what the film is trying to do, and it does it very efficiently, but I get a little weary reading people say it's the Most Awesomest Movie of All Time.

[Irish]

Obviously it's a skillfully executed film, and far superior to most movies of its kind, so I wouldn't say that it necessarily needs a more interesting plot or more emotion. However, as exciting as individual sequences are, as a total film it all amounts to very little, which is why I wouldn't say it's a great film. I understand what the film is trying to do, and it does it very efficiently, but I get a little weary reading people say it's the Most Awesomest Movie of All Time.

Gotcha. I can see that. I admire it more than you do. For my money it's probably one of the best modern action movies out there, and easily in the top five for its decade.

Dunno about "Awesomest," though, as that kind of thing strikes me as mostly empty praise.

[MadMan]

I'll admit that I love Raiders of the Lost Ark, Temple of Doom, and Last Crusade because I saw them when I was younger. Except that I revisited all three of them when I bought the more recently released DVDs a couple years back, and I found that my opinions of none of them had changed. If anything revisiting them reaffirmed what I thought of the series. Not everyone watches these types of movies when they're kids. I'm pretty sure that Ivan admitted to only finally watching the Indy movies a while back.

[Mr. McGibblets]

My opinions on Temple of Doom and Last Crusade pretty much flip-flopped when I saw them in my 20s. I used to think Temple was almost worthless and Crusade was almost as good as Raiders. Now, I think Temple might be the best in the series and that Crusade, while fun, is too derivative, too jokey and doesn't add much of anything.

[Irish]

@Grouchy, @MrMcGibblets - Could you expand a bit on what it is about Temple of Doom that appeals to you?

[DavidSeven]

Interior mural for the Tarantino XX Boxset:

http://c15065204.r4.cf2.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/tarantino-full-art.jpg

Artwork by Mondo.

[Wryan]

Funny watching Lake Placid and Rogue back to back. The former doesn't really work but it has one or two good moments. The actors don't seem to know how their characters should behave around one another. Effects are okay. The latter is languid and takes its time, but it's made with an incredibly assured hand. Some of the beats and moments are held for way too long, making it feel a little much overall, but damn if it's not effective. The solid 10-minute lair sequence at the end is fantastic and relentless in squirmy suspense and terror.

[transmogrifier]

My opinions on Temple of Doom and Last Crusade pretty much flip-flopped when I saw them in my 20s. I used to think Temple was almost worthless and Crusade was almost as good as Raiders. Now, I think Temple might be the best in the series and that Crusade, while fun, is too derivative, too jokey and doesn't add much of anything.

Pretty much exactly my experience as well. Crusade is remarkably formulaic and tired.

[baby doll]

For my money it's probably one of the best modern action movies out there, and easily in the top five for its decade.Top five generally or for '80s action movies? Either way, for me it's minor Spielberg.

[Irish]

Top five generally or for '80s action movies? Either way, for me it's minor Spielberg.

Both? It's hard to judge because the 'modern' action movie is something of a different beast, without much in the way of antecedents. I do think it's a toss up between Raiders and Diehard for number one of the decade.

I suspect your 'minor Spielbergs' might be my favorites -- this is a guy with a tendency for mawkish sentimentality and bloat, and I've always liked him more when he's constrained himself to pure action or suspense (eg Duel, Raides, Jaws, etc).

[Thirdmango]

I'm pretty sure that Ivan admitted to only finally watching the Indy movies a while back.

What got us onto the subject in the first place was that I had watched all four films for the first time within the past two months. I liked Last Crusade the most and disliked Raiders the most. As I watched Raiders I kept thinking, "wow, I would have loved this as a 5 year old."

[Rowland]

I think most everyone at Match Cut is basically over Walter Chaw, but I still like to read him, and his recent, massive appraisal of the Indiana Jones films (http://www.filmfreakcentral.net/ffc/2012/10/indiana-jones-the-complete-adventures.html) gave me a lot to think about, and makes me want to reevaluate Temple of Doom, which I wrote off as an unforgivably ugly film in a lot of different ways when I first saw it a few years ago.
His Temple of Doom reappraisal is the closest I've come to being convinced of the film's worth, for better and for worse, even if I still found it a bit of a chore to sit through the last time I watched it.

[Rowland]

Have you seen the new Universal Soldier yet, Rowland? I know you were fond of the last one. This was my first Universal Soldier movie. Probably not the ideal place to start, but whatever. I enjoyed the hell out of it. Seems like something you would eat up.Nope, but I'm looking forward to it a great deal, and just realized it's finally available. You should catch up with the last one.