28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[MadMan]

Watched an oldie for the first time in a while.

Gene Hackman in The Hunting Party. Some bloody, mean Western movie that could only have gotten made in the 70s. It's horrible, but the sweet thing about the movie is that the main weapon is a long range rifle. The final scene is just two guys taking each other out with them to an overly bloody degree. Everyone dies.

Oh, and Candice Bergman is in it.

I want to see that now.

[Irish]

Gina Prince-Bythewood's Beyond the Lights is the kind of midlevel romance that would have been swallowed up by audiences two decades ago, but it seems like this film is more celebrated by critics only. And that's unfortunate. Gugu Mbatha-Raw and Nate Parker are both attractive and compelling leads; at times the script goes beat-by-beat through overt themes, but the quality of the leads overwhelms any of the predictability. It's more than competent as it's able to articulate a level of character intelligence that these films often neglect.

Surprisingly good, and the kind of film that will make visit Love and Basketball after ignoring it for so many years.

I feel like I got suckered on this one. Seemed like every critic on twitter talked it up to high heaven and when I saw it, it was just standard melodrama. Well formed melodrama with charismatic leads, but still.

It made me think the pro and semi pro critics out there have particularly weird and insular habits. Like they've spent their lives seeing nothing and reading nothing. Like the fucking Lego movie is experimental cinema for them, so Beyond the Lights seems fresh and exotic.

[Pop Trash]

Duke: what's with the dates on those Poltergeist movies in your sig? Am I missing something?

[Dukefrukem]

Duke: what's with the dates on those Poltergeist movies in your sig? Am I missing something?

What ever do you mean? :)

[Pop Trash]

What ever do you mean? :)

haha that was severely tripping me out

[Watashi]

Can someone who's erudite in studio politics explain the purpose behind embargoes? I don't understand why studios screen movies weeks (sometimes months) in advance so critics can sit on their words until a certain date. Is it solely to keep spoilers underwraps? Are they afraid of bad buzz? Then why not screen the movie the week of or before the release. Embargoes get broken all the time. Studio usually don't bat an eye considering most time an embargo is broken, it's because of a positive review.

When I screened films at Comic Con, I never had to sign a contract or anything and I was allowed to tweet or tell my friends about it. I don't get it.

[Irish]

I am not an expert, but this is what I've gleaned over the years:

The current system is a holdover from a time when:

- Movies did not always have simultaneous release dates. Most movies were released in major markets first and then secondary markets were added a week at a time afterwards.

- The only people writing reviews were local newspapers, national magazines, and local TV.

Also:

- The studios run their own PR in LA and outsource it everywhere else. How different news outlets get treated and what the rules are depend a great deal on the local PR agency. Chicago operates differently than San Francisco.

- Many agencies still look down on online only outlets. HitFix, for instance, will be forced to operate under different rules than Time magazine, The New York Times, or your local paper.

- The trades (Variety & the Hollywood Reporter) can do whatever they want (and always have, even back when everything was newsprint) because they are the trades. Variety used to break embargoes every week and print their reviews for upcoming movies in their Monday issue. Everyone else (even Ebert) would wait until the Thursday before release.

- Big movies are only screened months in advance for big outlets. These screenings usually happen during the day, ahead of press junket interviews. The director and actors are in town, touring and promoting. That tour last months and the schedule has to be coordinated across the country. Much of this schedule depends on the celebrities involved doing live events, like radio and TV, in major markets the week of release.

- Press screenings run right up until the Wednesday or Thursday before a movie's release date. This is when smaller outlets see them. There are usually 3-4 screenings for each movie. Your invite depends on where you land in the pecking order, and there's a great deal of cache around this. The farther out you're allowed to see a movie, the more chances you have to see it, the more important you are.

- Unless they have special permission or serious pull, any outlet that breaks embargoes will get phone calls, emails, and threats from their local PR agency. Even in benign cases, a facebook mention during an embargo, will generate angry emails.

Press screenings aren't about politics as much as coordinating the marketing message. If you consider reviews a form of advertisement (and they are), then you want everyone talking about your movie at the same time, during the same week right before release, to maximize exposure for your product.

If everyone posted reviews whenever, this effect would be diluted to a degree the entire enterprise becomes meaningless. You can see the effect of this, to a degree, with small movies that premiere during local film festivals. They get a lot of uncoordinated buzz around the festival, a maybe a few reviews, but when they finally get picked up and released six months later, nobody talks about them.

This system makes less sense (at least from a fan point of view) when you consider big movies have automatic worldwide distribution. Age of Ultron comes out a week ahead in the UK but US critics are still embargoed from talking about it. The same thing regularly happens in reverse. This is because while distribution may be international,
PR is still local. So you end up with fans who can go online and read foreign press as easily as they can read their local paper, way before the movie comes out in their town.

The PR people didn't care what you say at Comic Con because you went to a promotional event. They only care that you talk about it, preferably on social media. Most people don't have large followings, so whatever you say doesn't carry much weight. But they can pull your tweets and facebook posts, throw them into a database and get a consensus on "word of mouth," good or bad, that they can report back to the studio. This is why they still have local radio stations doing giveaways to free screenings in the week before release. It's the same thing. They want buzz, and they want to quantify that buzz.

[Peng]

This talk reminds me of Calum Marsh, who is now barred from all press screenings held by eOne in Canada, because he broke embargo by a pun tweeting: "More like Age of Bad-aline." His full review for the newspaper was also pulled by eOne's request.

[Winston*]

This talk reminds me of Calum Marsh, who is now barred from all press screenings held by eOne in Canada, because he broke embargo by a pun tweeting: "More like Age of Bad-aline." His full review for the newspaper was also pulled by eOne's request.

Worth it.

[Gittes]

I've been thinking about revisiting Contact, which I haven't seen since the first time it appeared on video store shelves way back when. I feel like I would be way more receptive to it now. I actually have very little sense of its general reception and only the haziest of memories, but what I do recall seems kind of fascinating.

[Dukefrukem]

I've been thinking about revisiting Contact, which I haven't seen since the first time it appeared on video store shelves way back when. I feel like I would be way more receptive to it now. I actually have very little sense of its general reception and only the haziest of memories, but what I do recall seems kind of fascinating.

I watched it late last year. It's awesome.

[dreamdead]

I feel like I got suckered on this one. Seemed like every critic on twitter talked it up to high heaven and when I saw it, it was just standard melodrama. Well formed melodrama with charismatic leads, but still.

It made me think the pro and semi pro critics out there have particularly weird and insular habits. Like they've spent their lives seeing nothing and reading nothing. Like the fucking Lego movie is experimental cinema for them, so Beyond the Lights seems fresh and exotic.

I think the bolded part here is pretty much the key. Beyond the Lights is the sort of midlevel genre film that doesn't get made much anymore, and hasn't been made for roughly 15 years except on a micro-indie budget; between the actual commitment to treating the various family dynamics seriously, a female director and writer, and the dynamics of having an African American film that isn't of a typical Tyler Perry quality, it all coalesces into an over-praising of the kind of film that basically exists to be a three star film, where it's well-made and committed, but not pushing the narrative beyond the expected beats in any spot.

I do think it's got the chance to build to a Pitch Perfect-like cult status, but it'll be one entertained by general audiences. I can't see rewatching something so familiar, but I am intrigued by the filmmaker's potential if her scripts push for something just a little more original.

[Gittes]

The AV Club posted their list of the 100 best films of the decade (http://www.avclub.com/article/100-best-films-decade-so-far-1-20-217530) thus far. I was very pleased that their number one choice is The Master, as it's definitely my favourite of the decade (here's a random thought about that film that has returned to me for whatever reason in the past few days: the guttural, violent way that PSH/Lancaster Dodd reacts after downing a glass of Freddie's booze is amazing).

I was a bit surprised to see Frances Ha so high, but that was a pretty lovely film. Greenberg is better, though, and that one only shows up as the 69th choice! Other good choices in the top 20: Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, Inside Llewyn Davis, Before Midnight, The Grand Budapest Hotel, The Social Network, Boyhood, The Tree of Life, Under The Skin, etc. There are several others that are likely wise selections, but I have yet to see those (I really need to watch A Separation).

A little further down, I see that they put Ghost Protocol above films like Edge of Tomorrow, The Immigrant, Looper, and Lincoln. That's a curious decision. I really liked Ghost Protocol but all those other films seem like more notable achievements.

[Pop Trash]

They may have just done a poll for that AV Club list, so you get lots of random surprises. 2-3 people have Frances Ha and only one has Greenberg and suddenly Frances Ha is in the top ten.

[dreamdead]

Impressed with the magnitude of Assayas's Carlos miniseries. That second episode, with the hostage takeover of the building is tense even if you know Carlos's general chronology. Although almost all of the characters besides Carlos are sketched more so than realized, the series is never less than compelling, and Assayas's typically multinational approach to narrative is particularly well suited here.

I'm missed Something in the Air and still a little wary of Cloud of Sil Maria being a return to form, but this made me optimistic.

[Idioteque Stalker]

That list reminded me that Computer Chess was really well-liked here, but seems to have been forgotten in our own best of the decade lists.

[Gittes]

The Ghost Writer also deserves to be somewhere on that list!

[Dead & Messed Up]

In some ways less a paen to their own vanity than a hopeful prayer for success, the Olsen Twins' When in Rome uses the backdrop of the eponymous city to color around the edges of the then-young actresses' ambition to be clothing designers (a desire matched by their avataric characters). By using pregnant pauses and unexpected "amateur" editing, director Steve Purcell purposefully eschews the brainless form of traditional Hollywood cinema in favor of qualities reminiscent of the heroes' on-screen sketchbook. No accident that this is one of the Olsens' final films before establishing their own fashion bona fides globally. Lesser critics might dismiss the film as wish-fulfillment, but in an age of cynical child entertainments like the low-achieving The Boxtrolls and the everyone-in-their-place Randianisms of Ratatouille, When in Rome courageously suggests that wishes can be fulfilled.

[MadMan]

I'm 45 minutes into Holy Motors. What the fuck am I watching?

[Spinal]

Been making my way through the Fast & Furious films with my son. The first two were tolerable, but Tokyo Drift just about killed me with its stupidity. It's amazing that one of the most commercially successful franchises of all time spawned from this wreckage.

[Spinal]

I'm 45 minutes into Holy Motors. What the fuck am I watching?

The next 45 minutes are not going to answer that, alas.

[Russ]

I'm 45 minutes into Holy Motors. What the fuck am I watching?


The next 45 minutes are not going to answer that, alas.
Heh.

[Winston*]

The last 5 minutes really tie up all the loose ends.

[Spun Lepton]

I'm 45 minutes into Holy Motors. What the fuck am I watching?

That's about 35 minutes more than I made it. Not bashing the film, mind you. I quickly knew it was something I would not enjoy.

[Dukefrukem]

Been making my way through the Fast & Furious films with my son. The first two were tolerable, but Tokyo Drift just about killed me with its stupidity. It's amazing that one of the most commercially successful franchises of all time spawned from this wreckage.

Tokyo Drift is the best one.

[Yxklyx]

I'd put Last Night (1998) over Stories We Tell on that Canadian list...

[MadMan]

I still haven't finished Holy Motors. I did however watch and enjoy the cult film The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across The Eighth Dimension. Now I know another film that inspired Wes Anderson.

[Spinal]

Mark me down as one who feels like A Serbian Film is a legitimate artistic endeavor with purpose and vision. I think if we give Romero's Dawn of the Dead credit for having anti-consumer society subtext, then we have to acknowledge this film's desperate, bleak vision of governmental intrusion, manipulation and cruelty. While the film may not reach the artistic heights and political clarity of Pasolini's Salo, it does deserve to be a part of the same conversation. I had worried that the film would be simply a nihilistic catalog of grotesqueries. However, what drives the film is a protagonist engaged in a fight for respectability and the preservation of his family. Milos is forced to commit despicable acts; however, he clearly has a moral center. Sure, his business is sexuality. But, the videos we see of his past films are relatively innocent and playful, no darker than anything that might be found on the Playboy channel. It is the villainous director who sees an opportunity to exploit his gifts with his sickeningly corrupt and depraved vision. The film's horrific final scenes are effective because it is always clear what Milos has been fighting for. The pure, dumb bliss of copulation is twisted into something violent, devastating and ultimately unbearable. Although A Serbian Film effectively maintains a haunting, unsettling atmosphere, it is not a film about mystery and suspense, so much as a nightmarish reveal that we may be powerless to stop some of our worst fears from coming true -- that our finances, our family, our security, even our sexuality are in the hands of powerful people more evil than we can imagine.

[Russ]

Wow, Spinal. Color me surprised. I mean, I'm there with you, I just didn't anticipate any other "favorable" response coming out of this forum.

[Idioteque Stalker]

Heh. Human Centipede III has a 1 on metacritic right now. Never seen that.

[D_Davis]

Mark me down as one who feels like A Serbian Film is a legitimate artistic endeavor with purpose and vision. I think if we give Romero's Dawn of the Dead credit for having anti-consumer society subtext, then we have to acknowledge this film's desperate, bleak vision of governmental intrusion, manipulation and cruelty. While the film may not reach the artistic heights and political clarity of Pasolini's Salo, it does deserve to be a part of the same conversation. I had worried that the film would be simply a nihilistic catalog of grotesqueries. However, what drives the film is a protagonist engaged in a fight for respectability and the preservation of his family. Milos is forced to commit despicable acts; however, he clearly has a moral center. Sure, his business is sexuality. But, the videos we see of his past films are relatively innocent and playful, no darker than anything that might be found on the Playboy channel. It is the villainous director who sees an opportunity to exploit his gifts with his sickeningly corrupt and depraved vision. The film's horrific final scenes are effective because it is always clear what Milos has been fighting for. The pure, dumb bliss of copulation is twisted into something violent, devastating and ultimately unbearable. Although A Serbian Film effectively maintains a haunting, unsettling atmosphere, it is not a film about mystery and suspense, so much as a nightmarish reveal that we may be powerless to stop some of our worst fears from coming true -- that our finances, our family, our security, even our sexuality are in the hands of powerful people more evil than we can imagine.

I agree.

I've seen and forgotten a lot of movies in my life.

Even movies I like I've forgotten.

I will probably never forget A Serbian Film. I've seen it one time, and I find myself thinking about it often. It is a tremendously powerful film full of haunting imagery.

[dreamdead]

So there are two different versions of The Final Cut: Ladies and Gentlemen, one with a montage of sex scenes expurgated and one with quite handsomely explicit penetration included. Somehow I unknowingly chose the version without the sex scenes when I first watched it back in April. This go-around with Sarah I chose the longer cut on youtube, and hey. That's unexpected. The film itself remains a marvel, testifying to the general uniformity of narrative film (and suggesting an awkward number of films view the "unpossessable" woman as a courtesan) and situating clever inversions of classic imagery (Oldboy's fall, 2001's starchild, among many). Just a delight.

[Skitch]

In case anyone was wondering, Neil Marshall's Doomsday is one hell of a rotten piece of shit.

[Dukefrukem]

In case anyone was wondering, Neil Marshall's Doomsday is one hell of a rotten piece of shit.

Welcome to the Axis/annex circa 2009.

[Irish]

Has Marshall ever made anything that was as fun as Dog Soldiers or as freaky as The Descent?

[Dukefrukem]

That one episode of Game of Thrones that one time.

[Sven]

Also, in case anyone was wondering, Ishtar is NOT one hell of a rotten piece of shit, but rather a brilliant and not at all unfunny movie.

[Skitch]

Welcome to the Axis/annex circa 2009.

Hadnt seen it since the theater so thought I'd give it a 2nd chance. Ouch.

[Ezee E]

Centurion is even worse.

[Winston*]

Kind of enjoyed Doomsday even if it's just a Frankenstein pastiche of half a dozen much better genre movies. Centurion was just boring.

[Dukefrukem]

Centurion is even worse.

I dont remember it being that bad. In fact, I remember it being kinda good.

[D_Davis]

In case anyone was wondering, Neil Marshall's Doomsday is one hell of a rotten piece of shit.

It's terrible.

[D_Davis]

Has Marshall ever made anything that was as fun as Dog Soldiers or as freaky as The Descent?

Nope. I'm beginning to think he just got lucky, twice.

[Ezee E]

Nope. I'm beginning to think he just got lucky, twice.

Well, the talent is there, but he gets carried away with certain parts of his script that lead to exaggerated violence and character emotions. Doomsday is especially guilty of this.

The Descent is so good because it's pretty minimal.

[Morris Schæffer]

Mark me down as one who feels like A Serbian Film is a legitimate artistic endeavor with purpose and vision. I think if we give Romero's Dawn of the Dead credit for having anti-consumer society subtext, then we have to acknowledge this film's desperate, bleak vision of governmental intrusion, manipulation and cruelty. While the film may not reach the artistic heights and political clarity of Pasolini's Salo, it does deserve to be a part of the same conversation. I had worried that the film would be simply a nihilistic catalog of grotesqueries. However, what drives the film is a protagonist engaged in a fight for respectability and the preservation of his family. Milos is forced to commit despicable acts; however, he clearly has a moral center. Sure, his business is sexuality. But, the videos we see of his past films are relatively innocent and playful, no darker than anything that might be found on the Playboy channel. It is the villainous director who sees an opportunity to exploit his gifts with his sickeningly corrupt and depraved vision. The film's horrific final scenes are effective because it is always clear what Milos has been fighting for. The pure, dumb bliss of copulation is twisted into something violent, devastating and ultimately unbearable. Although A Serbian Film effectively maintains a haunting, unsettling atmosphere, it is not a film about mystery and suspense, so much as a nightmarish reveal that we may be powerless to stop some of our worst fears from coming true -- that our finances, our family, our security, even our sexuality are in the hands of powerful people more evil than we can imagine.

Gotcha. :)

[Irish]

From here (http://blogs.indiewire.com/criticwire/criticwire-survey-after-the-thrill-is-gone-20150601):

Has a director ever gotten so bad you start to wonder whether you were wrong to love their earlier movies?

[baby doll]

From here (http://blogs.indiewire.com/criticwire/criticwire-survey-after-the-thrill-is-gone-20150601):

Has a director ever gotten so bad you start to wonder whether you were wrong to love their earlier movies?I haven't really liked any of Almodóvar's films since Talk to Her, and having revisited all of his movies since All About My Mother in the past eighteen months or so, I've found that I still don't. I still find Talk to Her impressive, but everything since then (with the exception of I'm So Excited, as I haven't seen it) strikes me as mechanical and lifeless.

I also need to take another look at Amores perros to see if it doesn't suck, because 21 Grams sure did. Oh, and his 9/11 short--almost forgot that one. And while I didn't hate Babel or Biutiful, and Birdman has some real virtues, I suspect I'd rate his debut less highly than I did in the early 2000s.

I was a big fan of Oliver Stone as a teenager, but seeing Natural Born Killers again this year was pretty disillusioning. It's like, "Hey, this shot-reverse shot is getting kinda boring, so why don't we arbitrarily cut away to an extreme close-up of somebody's tit just to keep the audience interested?"

I'm also less enamoured with Todd Solondz these days compared to when I was a teenager (though Dark Horse is quite good), and want to take another look at Welcome to the Dollhouse to see how it holds up. (I remember the part where the sister gets kidnapped seeming incredibly dopey even at the time.)

[Sven]

Has a director ever gotten so bad you start to wonder whether you were wrong to love their earlier movies?

Dario Argento (early stuff still good). Kenneth Branagh (early stuff not good). Sam Raimi (50/50).

[transmogrifier]

Almodovar still has it; Bad Education and The Skin I Live In are great. That reminds me, I need to see Volver.

[baby doll]

Almodovar still has it; Bad Education and The Skin I Live In are great. That reminds me, I need to see Volver.He's still got the technique, but even Volver, which has more substantial characters than either Bad Education or The Skin I Live In (perhaps his two iciest films), eventually devolves into a series of dramatic revelations that feel obligatory rather than spontaneous.

[Grouchy]

Nah, Almodóvar continues making great films. His style has matured but he has not gotten worse in any way.

I think the right answers to this questions are Lars Von Trier and (as mentioned in some other thread) Neil Marshall, who was never a genius but started his career as strong as it gets.

[D_Davis]

Dario Argento (early stuff still good). Kenneth Branagh (early stuff not good). Sam Raimi (50/50).

Robert Rodriguez

[Dead & Messed Up]

I mean, Shyamalan, if we all continue to not watch his first movies Praying With Anger and Wide Awake, which the world has pretty much collectively agreed to.

[Spun Lepton]

Did this exchange actually happen? (I don't have cable, and the Daily Show's online feed crashes my laptop.) If so, it explains SO MUCH.

http://i.imgur.com/IzR95Du.png

[Irish]

I'd be surprised if he actually said that... But if he said it, it reminds me of the time that Tim Burton said he didn't read comics, after directing two Batman movies.

Curiously JJ's pseudo-Trek were the biggest successes that franchise has ever had. So he succeeded at least in bringing something to a larger audience.

[Spun Lepton]

So he succeeded at least in bringing something to a larger audience.

Yep.

Generic Action Science Fiction Movie #1

Generic Action Science Fiction Movie #2

[Spun Lepton]

Also, I'm not worried about his handling of Star Wars, because those are already pretty generic.

*runs*
*sees mob of star wars fans chasing*
*runs faster*
*sees mob slowing down*
*hears mob wheezing*
*slows down*
*hears mob complaining about leaving their basements*
*stops*
*waits for mob to catch up*
*runs again*
*sees mob give up and go home*
"Ah, well."

[Mysterious Dude]

I remember that interview, and I remember remembering that Jon Stewart is not a Star Trek fan (http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/46pzmx/jeri-ryan). Pretender!

[Dukefrukem]

He did say it.

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/d6lpc8/j-j--abrams

[Dukefrukem]

Hahahaha


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VT1J65KHX8E

[Yxklyx]

Thought a second viewing of Zulawski's Possession would illuminate some things. Nah.

[D_Davis]

So...they made an Entourage movie.(?)

[transmogrifier]

A week and a half left in the semester, and then I'm gonna watch so many movies, my eyes will fall out. Can't wait.

[Dead & Messed Up]

So...they made an Entourage movie.(?)

And you wouldn't believe how things turn out for Vinny and the boys.

Just fine.

The answer is just fine.

[Spinal]

I wish Uwe didn't turn off the camera after mentioning the Avengers. He was on the verge of having a point.

[D_Davis]

Uwe Boll movies > all Marvel U movies

[Spun Lepton]

Uwe Boll movies > all Marvel U movies

Ow my eyes rolled out of my head!

[Irish]

Uwe Boll movies > all Marvel U movies

Let's not ... let's not get crazy here.

[D_Davis]

At least some Uwe Boll movies take some chances with things.

There is nothing worse than the mediocrity of the Marvel U movies.

Although if we include Ang Lee's Hulk (do we?) then I'll have to concede that it is better than anything Boll has made.

[Irish]

At least some Uwe Boll movies take some chances with things.

How so?

[D_Davis]

Some of them are subversive and irreverent, others are celebrations of bad taste and nastiness, and some like Rampage and Tunnel Rats actually at least try to tackle some social issues and loftier themes.

I'm actually a pretty big fan of Boll - he's an anachronistic director, straight from the glory days of the straight to VHS movement. I have no problem including some of his films with others like Combat Shock, Street Trash, and some of the better, more subversive Troma films.

Besides Lee's Hulk, I can't think of single interesting thing about the Marvel U movies. So sick to death of them. But that's a broken record.

[Dukefrukem]

Ow my eyes rolled out of my head!

lololol

Can someone please post what I'm thinking here.... I mean... am I being trolled???

[Spun Lepton]

At least some Uwe Boll movies take some chances with things.

Absolutely. For example, comprehensibility.

[D_Davis]

Absolutely. For example, comprehensibility.

Hehehe.

I'll take something incomprehensible over something mediocre any old day.

[D_Davis]

lololol

Can someone please post what I'm thinking here.... I mean... am I being trolled???

You're probably thinking something about hipsters and IPAs.

[Watashi]

Someone broke Davis again.

[D_Davis]

#justmatchcutthings

[Dead & Messed Up]

Hehehe.

I'll take something incomprehensible over something mediocre any old day.

I dunno. I'm no big fan of Marvel, but I enjoyed plenty about The Avengers, The Winter Soldier, and especially Guardians - probably since the latter feels more like a breezy SF pulp pulling from the old-school tradish and retains quite a bit of Gunn's personality.

[Dukefrukem]

You're probably thinking something about hipsters and IPAs.

I love IPAs but seriously, no one on the planet actually believes what you wrote (except for Boll himself). I'm convinced you're trolling me.

[D_Davis]

no one on the planet actually believes what you wrote (except for Boll himself). I'm convinced you're trolling me.

You should know me better than that by now.

[Sven]

I'll back that D up. The idea of sitting through Winter Soldier again is giving me terrors. I'd be happy to watch any crappy Boll film first.

[D_Davis]

I'll back that D up. The idea of sitting through Winter Soldier again is giving me terrors. I'd be happy to watch any crappy Boll film first.

I knew I could count on you.

[Dead & Messed Up]

This really is why I enjoy this forum.

[D_Davis]

A good example is the Resident Evil movies versus Boll's House of the Dead.

Now, none of them are great. They're all pretty bad. However, the RE movies make a lot of money and are quite popular. They're also incredibly bland, safe, and utterly boring, dull and mediocre in every single way (no wonder they make money - mediocrity sells). Worst, the series tries to pretend that it has some class, and never fully commits to the wackiness of its video game roots.

House of the Dead, on the other hand, is absolutely bonkers. It embraces its video game roots, and uses the absurdity of the games in the film. It's not afraid to just be a dumb zombie movie, and also amps up the gore and nudity - two things I look for in a solid B-movie.

So while the box office shows that the RE movies are "better," I'd rather watch House of the Dead a hundred times before seeing another RE movie once.

Rampage, on the other hand, I could probably make the argument of it being a good movie, or at least it is a movie attempting to be good. I was, surprisingly, reminded of Tsui Hark's Don't Play With Fire while watching it. It's not as artistically made as Hark's masterpiece is, but it is a film that is using the same kind of theme - modern culture's fascination with violence - as a foundation on which to build a somewhat sick and twisted genre film.

[Dukefrukem]

What a strange argument. No one, especially here on MC, ever considers box office results to the deciding factor in what makes a movie "better". Popular to the mainstream market MAYBE. It's better to just never mention it when talking about quality.

House of the Dead is based on a rails shooter. It had no story to begin with and is fucking shit video game and maybe a decent arcade game / a good time waster at the movie theater. 15 seconds of the first and last Resident Evil movies is better than any full feature of Boll's work. You just blanketly saying Resident Evil is bland, safe, and utterly boring, dull and mediocre in every single way doesn't make it true. Do you have any specific evidence or examples to backup those words??

Actually I don't want evidence of Resident Evil. Let's bring it to where the mind explosion occurred. Apply it to the Marvel movies.

[D_Davis]

You just blanketly saying Resident Evil is bland, safe, and utterly boring, dull and mediocre in every single way doesn't make it true. Do you have any specific evidence or examples to backup those words??


Yes - there are 5 movies worth of examples.

[Dukefrukem]

Yes - there are 5 movies worth of examples.

SPECIFIC examples. You probably havent even seen them all.

[Dukefrukem]

Or you probably watched them wrong.

[Spun Lepton]

Are we arguing opinions again? In my opinion, that's silly.

[Irish]

I'm not sure any of these movies are worth watching, much less arguing over. But in short:

- Boll is only for Boll. From every piece of media about and around him, I've gotten the resounding impression he only cares about Boll. He doesn't care about the licenses, the scripts, the actors, the sets, the editing. He doesn't care about the movies as an art form or a business. This is a guy who owes his entire career to a German tax law loophole and boy does it show.

- Troma and Hong Kong are bad basis for comparison. Not because of any metric of quality but because those movies functioned outside the mainstream. Troma made its bones by marrying gonzo premises to good marketing in a nascent home video market. (I mean, look at the cover for Surf Nazis Must Die. If you're a kid in the video store in 1987, you're gonna pick that box up. It doesn't matter what's inside.) Likewise Hong Kong. Those movies had a completely different aesthetic and energy level than their American counterparts. You'd see stuff in them that no American producer would ever dream of doing. Movies like Resident Evil and House of the Dead don't operate this way. They're not offering an alternative to Marvel, Warners, or anyone else. They're simply copying the mainstream and offering a similar, but cut rate, experience. To add insult to injury, they do it badly. It feels cynical as hell.

- Marvel isn't so much mediocre as completely middlebrow. That is, I think, an important distinction. I wouldn't mind what Disney does so much if they didn't eat culture and shit money, because it means everybody wants to copy their model. This is bad for fans and for the overall culture in the long term.

[D_Davis]

The Hong Kong flim industry was all about making as much money with as much disposable, cheaply-made entertainment as possible. It's my favorite film industry, and it's also probably the most-factory like of all time. The Shaw Brothers were a movie producing factory/machine, with the only determining factor being the bottom line. Same goes for Golden Harvest, Film Workshop, and many others.

I think Boll fits well within the HK film style of doing things. He doesn't give a shit about anything.

Neither did Tsui Hark. They coined the term "lip rape" for his style of editing, because he was known to completely change the story and dialog days before a film's release, and would hire random actors to come in and dub over the lines of the actors already recorded. Hark would also hire "producers" to work on films for him, and he would stop by to "direct" whenever he had a chance. This way, he could make more movies - as a matter of fact, the credit he takes on most of his films is a combination of producer-director. He saw himself as the foreman of a movie making factory.

I can see Boll doing both.

Boll doesn't have as much creative energy in his entire body that Hark has in his pinky, and in no way does Boll's best film compare to any of Hark's, but I still have no problem putting them in the same school of film making.

[Peng]

I haven't watched the Resident Evil films, but I find it funny that you choose that to represent the bland and colorless, since there is quite a hoopla around them (especially the ones by Anderson) about "vulgar auterism" and all that. I can't imagine rushing to see any of them anytime soon, but too many critics I respect write seriously about them that I won't dismiss the notion as silly outright. Espeically since that group leads me to Universal Soldier: Day of Reckoning, which is quite enjoyable and makes me have a vague grasp of what they are talking about.

[transmogrifier]

I don't think I've ever seen a Boll film.

*checks IMDB*

No, I haven't. I guess I'll have to rile Duke up with my opinion about some other series of movies. Too bad.

[Watashi]

I'd rather seek out and watch good movies rather than argue why one bad movie is better than another bad movie.

[Irish]

The Hong Kong flim industry was all about making as much money with as much disposable, cheaply-made entertainment as possible. It's my favorite film industry, and it's also probably the most-factory like of all time. The Shaw Brothers were a movie producing factory/machine, with the only determining factor being the bottom line. Same goes for Golden Harvest, Film Workshop, and many others.

True, true. When I talked about Hong Kong operating outside the mainstream, I meant the American mainstream. They absolutely milked every single hit for all it was worth within their own market. I think you're right that they had factory/machine-like perspective on the business. But that's besides the point.

The Pacific Ocean washed away a lot of bad culture. The cheapy Category III and IV films and endless sequels based on some Korean telenovela never showed up here in a significant way. Chow Yun Fat and John Woo did.

Those movies, the ones people still talk about thirty years later, are still energetic and removed from the American mainstream.


I think Boll fits well within the HK film style of doing things. He doesn't give a shit about anything.

The main difference (as you sorta note) is that Boll doesn't give a shit about quality control. In my mind, it isn't so much about whether he has that zeitgeisty balls-to-the-wall, anything-goes attitude. That doesn't matter so much when your basic technique is in the shitter.

[EyesWideOpen]

Uwe Boll movies > all Marvel U movies

Quality wise no but I have zero interest in ever watching another Marvel U movie and at least with a Boll movie it's going to be interesting no matter how terrible it is.

[D_Davis]

That's pretty much how I feel

[Dead & Messed Up]

A good example is the Resident Evil movies versus Boll's House of the Dead.

Now, none of them are great. They're all pretty bad. However, the RE movies make a lot of money and are quite popular. They're also incredibly bland, safe, and utterly boring, dull and mediocre in every single way (no wonder they make money - mediocrity sells). Worst, the series tries to pretend that it has some class, and never fully commits to the wackiness of its video game roots.

House of the Dead, on the other hand, is absolutely bonkers. It embraces its video game roots, and uses the absurdity of the games in the film. It's not afraid to just be a dumb zombie movie, and also amps up the gore and nudity - two things I look for in a solid B-movie.

So while the box office shows that the RE movies are "better," I'd rather watch House of the Dead a hundred times before seeing another RE movie once.

Rampage, on the other hand, I could probably make the argument of it being a good movie, or at least it is a movie attempting to be good. I was, surprisingly, reminded of Tsui Hark's Don't Play With Fire while watching it. It's not as artistically made as Hark's masterpiece is, but it is a film that is using the same kind of theme - modern culture's fascination with violence - as a foundation on which to build a somewhat sick and twisted genre film.

Gore and nudity?

Also, if you don't think the Resident Evil series has committed to its lunacy, I can only assume you haven't watched them. The last one I watched featured an epilogue with the entire USA overrun with zombies and mutants and bat-monster things with a bombed-out capitol building. And as for RE failing to embrace the games, they're pastiche but hardly without love for their inspiration:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uj-GyzQX_eU

[Raiders]

This whole embracing of shitty films because they are earnestly made is weird to me, but I respect it if that's what you go for. I am a noted PWSA apologist, if that's even the right word for it, but it is pretty categorically wrong to say his films are any less committed or bland than Boll's. The latter doesn't have a clue what he is even doing with a camera. I don't really see why I would support that.

The saturation of Marvel films has indeed overtaken me. I never thought I would have zero interest in a Whedon product, but I still haven't seen Ultron and that isn't probably going to change any time soon. It's just enough already. Guardians of the Galaxy is the only one that I have seen recently to not feel like just another checkbox in the grand marketing scheme building to 2018 or whenever it is that they plan to eyefuck everyone with the grand finale... before they reboot it.

[EyesWideOpen]

I'll take a bad earnestly made film over a bland cookie cutter film any day of the week.

[transmogrifier]

I'm gonna choose option (c), none of the above.

[Spinal]

People are talking about Boll and talking about Marvel and even talking about Resident Evil.

How come no one is talking about movies featuring a retarded vizard in the forest (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1674005492/the-retarded-vizard-in-the-forest)?

[MadMan]

This entire discussion resulted in me rep-ing Wats. This site I tell yah...there outta be a head shaking smiley.

[Spun Lepton]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYXnz_NSkXI

[D_Davis]

That dude rules.

[D_Davis]

I was super tired last night, and about ready to hit the sack, but I decided to watch the first few minutes of The Road Warrior just because I haven't seen it in so long.

An hour and a half later, I finally went to bed.

Goddamn that's a great movie.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Rewatched it too, recently, and yeah. Near immaculate. I forgot how intense the chases leading up to the final chase are. That one is the standout, but I was tense while he was trying to bring the rig back, and I've seen the film quite a few times.

[Spun Lepton]

If I'm being honest, I didn't have much interest in the Mad Max movies when they were being released. I did see Thunderdome in the theater and enjoyed it, but I never considered myself a fan. Time to review.

[Dead & Messed Up]

While Free Willy swindles a populace all too eager for back-patting environmental treacle, Flipper swims its way toward sophisticated satire. It offers the same strain of eco-terror, but this time with a single-faced villain in veteran Jonathan Banks, years before his tedious video game antiheroism in the nihilistic Breaking Bad. It offers a sly consistent product placement, from Hogan's Porter cooking Spaghettios with a butane torch (commerce cooked with the facsimile of whimsy) to Flipper himself juggling a Pepsi can, making clear the film's interest in Greenpeace theatrics as just another commodity in a saturated marketplace. By efficiently cutting out character arcs, director Rupert Wainwright reveals Snyder's Save-the-Catisms as pop nonsense, always at risk of becoming little more than the dead fish slopped over the side of the boat to Flipper, who eats as unblinkingly as the audience. Consider Flipper a savvy inverse to the sturdy sincerity of Spielberg's ET and Robbins' Blank Check.

[megladon8]

Anyone seen Slow West?

[Morris Schæffer]

The action thriller Brake with Stephen Dorff is a one-location movie, namely the trunk of car. A prerequisite of a one location movie is that the lead actor brings his A game and Dorff really does as a secret service agent under extreme duress. What is really cool is that we get all the clichés of the action genre, except we can't see them, only hear them which makes everything even more tense. So we get shootouts, chases and crashes and it's all pretty engaging.

And then we get two twist endings which, ah, well, which make me wonder for the overall sanity of Hollywood folks. Stunningly incompetent, monumentally dumb, horribly unnecessary.

[Morris Schæffer]

Spielberg's Duel never ceases to amaze me. The framing is incredible, every single shot of the truck is used to amplify its monstrous, massive nature. If one were to say Duel is his best movie, I couldn't argue with it. And the Blu-Ray presents Duel like I've never seen it before.

[transmogrifier]

No one would say that though because Jaws is a thing that exists. :)

[Morris Schæffer]

No one would say that though because Jaws is a thing that exists. :)

And I can't argue with that either. :)

[baby doll]

Everybody knows that Duel is superior to Jaws. For one thing, the pacing is better; it's wonderful how the screenwriter, Richard Matheson (a much better writer than Peter Benchley), escalates the conflict from not letting him pass to actually trying to run him down in the phone booth to an out-and-out duel in the final sequence. On the other hand, in Jaws, after the shark eats the girl in the opening sequence, there's really nowhere to go from there; it just keeps eating people. Also, Duel is the more economical film: here, it only takes the movie one phone call home to establish that the hero is a wimp, after which we never hear of his wife again, and since it's only one guy in the car, we don't have to sit through any boring male bonding crap.

[transmogrifier]

Seeing as I agree with 0% of that analysis, I think I'll just doff my hat and say "Good day."

[Dukefrukem]

I love both. But yeh, Jaws is way better.

If I agree with trans on one more thing the universe will collapse on itself. That's like 4 times in the past month.

[Winston*]

Seeing as I agree with 0% of that analysis, I think I'll just doff my hat and say "Good day."

I agree that Matheson is a better writer than Benchley, but that doesn't really mean anything for Jaws the movie.

[transmogrifier]

I agree that Matheson is a better writer than Benchley, but that doesn't really mean anything for Jaws the movie.

Eh, he parenthesized it, so I stand by my original hyperbole. 0%!

[baby doll]

As long as we all agree that Richard Matheson rules, I'm happy.

[transmogrifier]

I love both. But yeh, Jaws is way better.

If I agree with trans on one more thing the universe will collapse on itself. That's like 4 times in the past month.

Don't worry, we still have Age of Ultron and pretty much all Christopher Nolan movies to ward off disaster.

[Morris Schæffer]

Also, Duel is the more economical film: here, it only takes the movie one phone call home to establish that the hero is a wimp, after which we never hear of his wife again, and since it's only one guy in the car, we don't have to sit through any boring male bonding crap.

I love David's reaction when he overtakes the truck the second time by blasting into a piece of side road. His violent outburst of laughter indicates a man who's becoming alive again, who is rediscovering himself.

[Dukefrukem]

Don't worry, we still have Age of Ultron and pretty much all Christopher Nolan movies to ward off disaster.

Speaking of which, Nolan hasn't announced his next movie has he?

[baby doll]

I love David's reaction when he overtakes the truck the second time by blasting into a piece of side road. His violent outburst of laughter indicates a man who's becoming alive again, who is rediscovering himself.Denis Weaver's the man.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Everybody knows that Duel is superior to Jaws.

You're adorable.

But you're right that Duel and Matheson are awesome, so let's call this a push.

[Spun Lepton]

Matheson was one of the greatest genre writers of the 20th century. There is no arguing this.

[Yxklyx]

The Incredible Shrinking Man by Matheson - one of my favorite films.

The Christopher Lee banner should have been kept up longer! I'm still down about his demise. What's the new one from?

[Spun Lepton]

The Incredible Shrinking Man by Matheson - one of my favorite films.

The Christopher Lee banner should have been kept up longer! I'm still down about his demise. What's the new one from?

Mad Max: Fury Road

[Dead & Messed Up]

The Incredible Shrinking Man by Matheson - one of my favorite films.

Same here. The book is pretty fantastic too.

[D_Davis]

Kingdoms of Dreams and Madness was surprisingly sad and melancholy. To think that Miyazaki worked 6 days a week, 10 hours a day for pretty much his entire life, and then to hear him ask what the hell was the point of making movies, really makes me sad. There were multiple times that I thought it looked as though he regretted everything he did in his life. Even though he was living a creative dream, he was still working in a living nightmare of strict schedules and relentless tasks. Multiple times he asked himself why he was still drawing.

I wish the film were animated. That would have been an ultimate kind of irony.

[D_Davis]

The first half of Jaws is great - masterful. Once they get on the boat and start chasing the shark though, man, does it ever drag. And that stupid soundtrack during much of the second half...woof.

I don't think Duel ever reaches the greatness of the first half of Jaws, but it is a more consistent movie.

[Grouchy]

The first half of Jaws is great - masterful. Once they get on the boat and start chasing the shark though, man, does it ever drag. And that stupid soundtrack during much of the second half...woof.
Is this your actual opinion or are you trolling us at the moment?

[Watashi]

I think Davis was just giving his best Irish impression.

[Dukefrukem]

The boat is my favorite parts of the movie... I mean, the comparing scars scene is perfect. And then of course there's the best improvised line in the history of cinema.

You can tell when DD is trolling because his reasoning is always so vague and exaggerated. Then you ask him specifics on why he feels that way (specific scenes) and he never responds.

[D_Davis]

Is this your actual opinion or are you trolling us at the moment?

Serious.

[Dukefrukem]

Then what scene drags for you when they're on the boat?

[D_Davis]

Once they start chasing the shark. I also really, really hate the score to that sequence.

I prefer the slow tension of the first half.

This track:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kis-GPqpqtM

My god, it completely kills the tension and mood, especially starting at 54 seconds onward. Just a terrible, out of place, overwrought piece of film music.

[Dukefrukem]

Okay preference is one thing but that's dragging for you? Upbeat music and a chase sequence?

[Grouchy]

It's an old fashioned score even for the film's release date but that doesn't make it bad.

[D_Davis]

I don't like it. /shrug

[baby doll]

Incidentally, one other thing that I especially like about Duel is the music, which is like the missing link between Psycho and The Shining.

[Russ]

Trudno byt bogom / Hard to Be a God (Aleksey German, 2013)

I have long heard others sing German's praises. And I'll add my voice (film deserves a well-earned PRO). I admire the audacity of his vision, and the tenacity of his commitment.

If there was a small corner of cinema dedicated to the subject of "difficult films", Hard to Be a God would be that genre's poster child. I think it's been mentioned elsewhere that it's certainly not a film for everyone. I love the fact that German took a famous novel and, with the exception of a few lines of expository narration at the beginning, basically jettisoned the plot, instead delivering 177 minutes of astounding mise-en-scène. It's not an empty exercise in style, either. Enough plot was given to beg questions like: Did all of the scientists/observers adhere to their planet's laissez faire edict? What, if any, were the reasons for the transgressive devolution of Arkanar's population? Did an observer break their code to influence the struggle between the "Greys" and the "Blacks"? Was Don Rumata always insane, or was there a discernible tipping point for his descent into madness? For me, this movie was endlessly fascinating. The camerawork was nothing short of phenomenal. And I kinda dislike the two films that it most reminded me of: Terry Gilliam's Jabberwocky (for the immersion into squalor) and Werner Herzog's Even Dwarfs Started Small (for the anarchy and chaos).

A divisive film? Absolutely. A select few cinephiles will view German's career-defining work as manna from heaven. Vile, putrid, filthy manna, to be sure. But manna all the same.

A masterpiece or endurance test? It's on Netflix Instant. Don't miss it.

[Stay Puft]

Hard to be a God is on Netflix? Holy shit I didn't even notice. That's my evening sorted.

[Qrazy]

I'm a huge German fan but wasn't that sold on that one. Yes it looks great and there's a lot of interesting moments but overall I think it gets lost inside itself and becomes too repetitious. Khrustalyov, My Car! works better for me in that same vein. I felt like he nailed absurdism there whereas this one is basically the whole people throwing shit around thing from Holy Grail but without the humor.

[D_Davis]

Watched Aronofsky's Noah the other week. What a tone-deaf POS that was. What the hell were they thinking with that? Absolutely dreadful.

[Dead & Messed Up]

That sucks. I found it a lot of fun, interesting riff on both canon and apocryphal scripture, especially its creation of fresh, ambiguous images like the snakeskin and the pulsing tree fruit. Ooh, and that one scene where they're listening to the dying people on the craggy peaks (an image that looks like it was pulled straight out of Dore) that leads into the recounting of the creation. Oh baby. Crowe was a pretty non-charismatic Noah, I'll give you that, but I kinda liked when he got all Jack Torrance on everybody. Mostly because it puts the whole idea of the Flood in stark relief - it's almost as though this madman's decided mankind should be wiped out! :)

[D_Davis]

I was hoping I'd really like it, because I like different takes on mythology, and am totally open to expanding the ideas of religious stories and doctrine. So while the film attempted to do this, it just missed the mark in its execution on every single shot it took.

[D_Davis]

http://cms.mentalfloss.com/sites/default/files/styles/insert_main_wide_image/public/film%20noir%20final%20for%20ha nnah_0.jpg

http://cms.mentalfloss.com/sites/default/files/styles/insert_main_wide_image/public/film%20noir%20final%20for%20ha nnah_0.jpg

[Spun Lepton]

Cool, thanks D. I may have to watch some classic noirs now. I'm woefully inexperienced with the genre.

[Spinal]

That was a fun read! I like that every single movie has heavy drinking or smoking.

[D_Davis]

Yeah, it's cool little infographic.

I think it'd also be fun to examine the criteria in films labeled as modern or neo-noir like The Big Lebowski, or The Man Who Wasn't There.

[Spun Lepton]

Would The Big Lebowski be more "heavily influenced by," rather than legitimate noir? I haven't seen The Man Who Wasn't There recently enough to comment on that one.

[MadMan]

I've seen a lot of the ones they listed and I'm still woefully behind when it comes to film noir. It's one of my favorite genres.

[D_Davis]

Would The Big Lebowski be more "heavily influenced by," rather than legitimate noir?

I'd say it's legitimately a neo-noir, or at least I could entertain a good argument that it is.

[KK2.0]

Is there a dedicated discussion thread for Aleksei German's Hard To Be A God (2013)? My searches only pointed me to an old thread (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?2183-History-of-the-Arkanar-Massacre-(Aleksei-German)) that ended right before the movie was released and no one had actually watched it up to that point.

[Stay Puft]

Is there a dedicated discussion thread for Aleksei German's Hard To Be A God (2013)? My searches only pointed me to an old thread (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?2183-History-of-the-Arkanar-Massacre-(Aleksei-German)) that ended right before the movie was released and no one had actually watched it up to that point.

There was a brief discussion of it here a few posts ago, but no. I got one started here: http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?5991-Hard-to-Be-a-God-(Aleksei-German)

(Haven't watched it yet myself, but I'm hoping to make time this weekend.)

[KK2.0]

Oh thanks, weird that it didn't receive more attention around here, perhaps the distribution was too limited? I guess it received an english blu-ray release just now.

[Grouchy]

Yeah, the best (and nerdiest) part is the infographic. Love that.

Everything related that came out after Touch of Evil is neo-noir. I've always lived by that canon.

[dreamdead]

After the Bigamist, I've now seen a second of Ida Lupino's directorial work, Outrage. This one has a strong rhythm, enhanced by some good impressionistic details and uses of sound and silence. It's a story of rape that never is allowed to say the word on-screen, but it details the aftereffects and trauma quite intelligently, though some of the victim's triggers seem unrelated until the final ten minutes, when the originary trauma finally resurfaces. Yet the film, minus some god-awful trips and faints in an attempt to escape the rapist early in the film (which I'm politely choosing to view as period excess melodrama), has an interesting discussion about what services are best suited to enabling a victim's recovery.

It posits religion and counseling, not family or friends, and in that I find the Lupino's film rather interesting. It's the sort of work that makes me want to seek out her The Hitch-hiker at some point.

[Grouchy]

I've seen The Hitch-hiker and I have fond recollections of it. I'd like to see Lupino's other films at some point. She was cool.

[D_Davis]

I re-watched Big Trouble in Little China last weekend. Still great; it's pacing and momentum are unbeatable. Paralleled by a few, but unbeaten. It's face paced and relentlessly plotted, but it never feels rushed or like things are missing.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Wrote some stuff about The Fly on my blog:


The Fly opens with a close-up of Seth Brundle (Jeff Goldblum), who boasts of an invention that's going to change "human life as we know it." The Fly closes with a wide shot of his invention broken, his apartment smoldering, his life in ruin. The film takes place almost entirely in that apartment: a water-stained loft stuffed with wires and tubes and one of those endearing, enormous '80s computers designed to say the few things the film requires it to say, like "Fusion Complete." The film's story deals almost exclusively with the three people glimpsed in that final wide shot. And in that image, The Fly, maybe the best horror film of the '80s, shows the end-result of its sole conceit: that its hero, Seth Brundle, discovers a way to teleport matter by ripping it apart - molecule by molecule - and rebuilding it elsewhere.

The twist of the film, of course, is that a fly zips into Goldblum's "telepod" during an ill-considered experiment on himself, and his computer merges man and fly at the genetic level. This twist offers a darker take on the original 1950s potboiler, a hokey but endearing film in which the hero merely swapped his head and arm with a fly.

In the 1986 version, the transformation is quieter, a feature-length escalation instead of a single event. His decay comes off like some kind of disease. But which one?

In a way, Brundle's "disease" is every disease. His skin sweats. Rashes form. Strange growths poke from his back. He loses his teeth and fingernails. People eager to dub the '80s the AIDS decade could call Brundle's skin lesions a nod to the then-new virus, but his symptoms indicate everything from everyday eczema to the after-effects of chemotherapy. It can't be a coincidence that writer/director David Cronenberg's father battled cancer during filming, but the depiction of Brundle's deterioration goes beyond even that broadest of sicknesses. His affliction becomes all afflictions. Brundle is on the way out.

The film's gruesome study of Brundle's biology won makeup supervisor Chris Walas an Oscar (his name is the first one you see when the end-credits roll). As Brundle evolves into Brundlefly, makeup and prosthetics transform Jeff Golblum without a single seam. So long as Brundle can talk in the film, Jeff Goldblum plays him, covered in layers of latex applied over countless hours. The illusion always convinces. Even during the climax, when the "Brundlefly" sloughs off its human chrysalis and emerges as a spindly Bosch-ian impossibility (an animatronic puppet effect). There's a tactility to the creation that would be lost with modern-day computer graphics. It doesn't look "real," but the monster clearly exists in the same space as the heroes.

One of the many sharp details given during his deterioration is how Brundle adapts by adopting gallows humor. After he explains that his computer essentially "mated" him with the fly via gene-splicing, he adds, "We hadn't even been properly introduced." Saving body parts like teeth and ears in a medicine cabinet for God knows what reason (nostalgia?), Brundle dubs the cabinet "the Brundle Museum of Natural History." He mumbles about "insect politics" and displays his new way of eating food with genuine enthusiasm. He names himself "Brundlefly" and grins.

Despite retaining his intellect and good-humor, the fly's brain grows in power. His already-jittery demeanor grows agitated. His sex drive increases, leading to a fling with a trashy barfly. Late in the film, it's hard to tell if him vomiting green glop onto an antagonist is an act of human aggression or animal instinct (and maybe a little hunger). Worst of all, his desire to live outstrips his compassion for Ronnie. He decides that, if he merges with her through the teleportation process, he can be more human.

Or maybe he can be with her forever that way. He chuckles and suggests they could become "the ultimate family," and, stepping back, you realize what spurred him to test the telepods wasn't a classic mad scientist moment of hubris. "Fools, I'll show them all!" Instead, he misreads Ronnie's meeting with an old flame. Spurred by sexual jealousy, he walks in one telepod and out the other. The drama of the film emerges from a single moment of conflicted love. And even as Brundle regresses, he retains enough of that love to ward her away at a crucial moment, offering the heartbreaking line, "I'm saying... I'm afraid I'll hurt you if you stay."

It's through this relationship that the film, whether intended or not, might operate on another basic level, depicting how men (and nerds in particular) seek the purity of women as a means of diminishing their own imperfections. By seeking validation and self-respect through the women they love, men vaunt women, unfairly, to the status of goddess. Brundle may love Ronnie, but he finally sees her as a creature of organic perfection first and foremost. He wants them to be together forever... but for his own benefit. Her autonomy becomes secondary. Which is the great problem of venerating the opposite sex. Put someone on a pedestal, and they become a statue, an object. Not an equal.

Think of how Brundle's "rescue" of Ronnie from a hospital late in the film leads to a shot that seems pulled from the Universal classic Creature From the Black Lagoon. The monster holding his bride.

Stuart Gordon once commented that his infamous cunnilingus scene in Re-Animator was a simple extrapolation of that classic horror image of the monster carrying a woman away to his (always his) lair. Gordon claimed he simply went the next step and showed what the monster wanted, which Gordon decided was sex. That's certainly what his lustful professor in Re-Animator wanted, but I suspect the classic Universal monsters (and many after them) wanted something simpler and more emotional than sex. If a man can find someone to love him, then he is not as monstrous as he might fear.

Goldblum and Davis, who dated at the time of production, bring conviction to this dynamic. Like Christopher Walken in Cronenberg's The Dead Zone, Goldblum here creates a full-blooded tragic hero, one augmented by a veteran actor's eccentricities instead of overwhelmed by them. Goldblum's familiar style of talking - fidgety, abrupt, interrupted with the "ums" and "ahhs" of a mouth struggling to keep up with a buzzing mind - fits perfectly to his role of overager scientist. Geena Davis's Ronnie risks being a foil, especially in the back half of the film, as she can only observe Brundle's slow transformation, but she regains agency after learning she's pregnant with Brundle's baby. In the closing moments, she makes the biggest, most difficult choice of all.

The only other character is the skeevy Stathis Borans (John Getz), whose presence as both Geena Davis's boss and her former lover evokes that elegant Pixar guideline to combine characters whenever possible. Although his role could be split in two, the fusion allows for both personal and professional jealousy to intermingle, and the story gives him the courtesy of meaningful development. For most of the film, Getz is among the great self-absorbed pricks of the 1980s, cousin to William Atherton and Paul Gleason. But he breaks down when he confronts Davis in a clothing store, rebuilds his ego, and he manages a fumbling redemption in his effort to kill the Brundlefly in the finale.

Huge symphony strings and brass ebb and flow through the film under the stewardship of Cronenberg's regular composer, Howard Shore. Since The Fly, Shore contributed music to equally disturbing films like The Silence of the Lambs and Seven. In those subsequent films, you hear the same interest in lush, full orchestra to set the tone, opposite to contemporary percussion-heavy intensity-rampers like Hans Zimmer and Tom Holkenborg. With this kind of operatic score, there's a chance the film could overplay its emotions and fall into camp, but no, somehow the music elevates The Fly, especially during the heart-crushing final ten minutes, a climax so reliant on faces and action it could play as silent film.

The Fly stands tall as the peak of a string of excellent '80s horror remakes. John Carpenter's The Thing, Chuck Russell's The Blob, and Paul Schrader's Cat People honor their inspirations (Goldblum also played a supporting role in the effective 1978 remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers). Products of a new Hollywood style, these films push more naturalistic acting and dialogue, more explicit gore and makeup effects. More importantly, they all escape their origins by retaining one core idea and rebuilding the narrative into something fresh. New characters, new contexts, new versions of the monsters based on contemporary anxieties.

Where The Fly succeeds over its brethren is in its creation of a laser-focused, character-centric story, where a plausible, enviable romance leads to rash decisions and impossible choices. Thanks to its storytelling economy, The Fly leaves room to build its emotions to dizzying heights. This allows the story to be the best possible version of itself, simultaneously the zenith and the most fundamental Platonic idea of what a monster movie is. Within that simplicity, The Fly contains multitudes.

[Spun Lepton]

Good stuff. Also like your recurring images articles, BTW.

[MadMan]

Excellent review sir.

Also I watched and really liked Ride The Pink Horse. "Too many angles."

[Irish]

BBC's 100 greatest American films

http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20150720-the-100-greatest-american-films


100. Ace in the Hole (Billy Wilder, 1951)
99. 12 Years a Slave (Steve McQueen, 2013)
98. Heaven’s Gate (Michael Cimino, 1980)
97. Gone With the Wind (Victor Fleming, 1939)
96. The Dark Knight (Christopher Nolan, 2008)
95. Duck Soup (Leo McCarey, 1933)
94. 25th Hour (Spike Lee, 2002)
93. Mean Streets (Martin Scorsese, 1973)
92. The Night of the Hunter (Charles Laughton, 1955)
91. ET: The Extra-Terrestrial (Steven Spielberg, 1982)
90. Apocalypse Now (Francis Ford Coppola, 1979)
89. In a Lonely Place (Nicholas Ray, 1950)
88. West Side Story (Robert Wise and Jerome Robbins, 1961)
87. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (Michel Gondry, 2004)
86. The Lion King (Roger Allers and Rob Minkoff, 1994)
85. Night of the Living Dead (George A Romero, 1968)
84. Deliverance (John Boorman, 1972)
83. Bringing Up Baby (Howard Hawks, 1938)
82. Raiders of the Lost Ark (Steven Spielberg, 1981)
81. Thelma & Louise (Ridley Scott, 1991)
80. Meet Me in St Louis (Vincente Minnelli, 1944)
79. The Tree of Life (Terrence Malick, 2011)
78. Schindler’s List (Steven Spielberg, 1993)
77. Stagecoach (John Ford, 1939)
76. The Empire Strikes Back (Irvin Kershner, 1980)
75. Close Encounters of the Third Kind (Steven Spielberg, 1977)
74. Forrest Gump (Robert Zemeckis, 1994)
73. Network (Sidney Lumet, 1976)
72. The Shanghai Gesture (Josef von Sternberg, 1941)
71. Groundhog Day (Harold Ramis, 1993)
70. The Band Wagon (Vincente Minnelli, 1953)
69. Koyaanisqatsi (Godfrey Reggio, 1982)
68. Notorious (Alfred Hitchcock, 1946)
67. Modern Times (Charlie Chaplin, 1936)
66. Red River (Howard Hawks, 1948)
65. The Right Stuff (Philip Kaufman, 1983)
64. Johnny Guitar (Nicholas Ray, 1954)
63. Love Streams (John Cassavetes, 1984)
62. The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980)
61. Eyes Wide Shut (Stanley Kubrick, 1999)
60. Blue Velvet (David Lynch, 1986)
59. One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (Miloš Forman, 1975)
58. The Shop Around the Corner (Ernst Lubitsch, 1940)
57. Crimes and Misdemeanors (Woody Allen, 1989)
56. Back to the Future (Robert Zemeckis, 1985)
55. The Graduate (Mike Nichols, 1967)
54. Sunset Boulevard (Billy Wilder, 1950)
53. Grey Gardens (Albert and David Maysles, Ellen Hovde and Muffie Meyer, 1975)
52. The Wild Bunch (Sam Peckinpah, 1969)
51. Touch of Evil (Orson Welles, 1958)
50. His Girl Friday (Howard Hawks, 1940)
49. Days of Heaven (Terrence Malick, 1978)
48. A Place in the Sun (George Stevens, 1951)
47. Marnie (Alfred Hitchcock, 1964)
46. It’s a Wonderful Life (Frank Capra, 1946)
45. The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (John Ford, 1962)
44. Sherlock Jr (Buster Keaton, 1924)
43. Letter from an Unknown Woman (Max Ophüls, 1948)
42. Dr Strangelove (Stanley Kubrick, 1964)
41. Rio Bravo (Howard Hawks, 1959)
40. Meshes of the Afternoon (Maya Deren and Alexander Hammid, 1943)
39. The Birth of a Nation (DW Griffith, 1915)
38. Jaws (Steven Spielberg, 1975)
37. Imitation of Life (Douglas Sirk, 1959)
36. Star Wars (George Lucas, 1977)
35. Double Indemnity (Billy Wilder, 1944)
34. The Wizard of Oz (Victor Fleming, 1939)
33. The Conversation (Francis Ford Coppola, 1974)
32. The Lady Eve (Preston Sturges, 1941)
31. A Woman Under the Influence (John Cassavetes, 1974)
30. Some Like It Hot (Billy Wilder, 1959)
29. Raging Bull (Martin Scorsese, 1980)
28. Pulp Fiction (Quentin Tarantino, 1994)
27. Barry Lyndon (Stanley Kubrick, 1975)
26. Killer of Sheep (Charles Burnett, 1978)
25. Do the Right Thing (Spike Lee, 1989)
24. The Apartment (Billy Wilder, 1960)
23. Annie Hall (Woody Allen, 1977)
22. Greed (Erich von Stroheim, 1924)
21. Mulholland Drive (David Lynch, 2001)
20. Goodfellas (Martin Scorsese, 1990)
19. Taxi Driver (Martin Scorsese, 1976)
18. City Lights (Charlie Chaplin, 1931)
17. The Gold Rush (Charlie Chaplin, 1925)
16. McCabe & Mrs Miller (Robert Altman, 1971)
15. The Best Years of Our Lives (William Wyler, 1946)
14. Nashville (Robert Altman, 1975)
13. North by Northwest (Alfred Hitchcock, 1959)
12. Chinatown (Roman Polanski, 1974)
11. The Magnificent Ambersons (Orson Welles, 1942)
10. The Godfather Part II (Francis Ford Coppola, 1974)
9. Casablanca (Michael Curtiz, 1942)
8. Psycho (Alfred Hitchcock, 1960)
7. Singin’ in the Rain (Stanley Donen and Gene Kelly, 1952)
6. Sunrise (FW Murnau, 1927)
5. The Searchers (John Ford, 1956)
4. 2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, 1968)
3. Vertigo (Alfred Hitchcock, 1958)
2. The Godfather (Francis Ford Coppola, 1972)
1. Citizen Kane (Orson Welles, 1941)

[Irish]

In case you missed it: Yes, critics around the world placed Forrest Gump ahead of Tree of Life.

[transmogrifier]

I like Forrest Gump much better than The Tree of Life.

[Dukefrukem]

I like Forrest Gump much better than The Tree of Life.

http://eknol.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/nuclear-bomb-explosion.jpg

[Sven]

I'd like to know what the AFI thinks the hundred greatest British films are.

[Dead & Messed Up]

If there isn't some sort of AFI / BFI turf war, there should be.

http://www.lens-views.com/Index/West_Side_Story_files/010_west_side_story_blu-ray.jpg

[Grouchy]

In case you missed it: Yes, critics around the world placed Forrest Gump ahead of Tree of Life.
As would I, by the widest margin.

[Irish]

And now back to your regularly scheduled pendantry:

BBC =/= BFI

Closest American analogue to the BBC would be PBS.

(But it's still a great joke, though)

[baby doll]

It's definitely a weird list, split between auteurist favorites (Ford, Hawks, Hitchcock) and forgettable Oscar winners. Also, no Sam Fuller: what the fuck?

Movies I think shouldn't be on the list: The Birth of a Nation only comes alive in the hysterically racist second half; during the first part, I can't always keep track of which genteel white family is which. Duck Soup and Some Like it Hot just don't make me laugh. Gone With the Wind is boring. It's a Wonderful Life is alright, but Capra was a vastly more interesting director in the early '30s before he won an Oscar (see American Madness and The Bitter Tea of General Yen). The Band Wagon is far from my favourite Astaire musical, though I should probably give it another look. The Apartment is second-tier Wilder (I prefer One, Two, Three! and Avanti!). West Side Story is pretty forgettable.

The Graduate is interesting stylistically and has a few good laughs, but there isn't much of a story; I prefer Carnal Knowledge. The Night of the Living Dead is easily the best zombie movie I've seen (unless one counts the misleadingly titled I Walked With a Zombie) but that's not saying a whole lot. In terms of storytelling, Mean Streets and Raging Bull both strike me as pretty choppy, though not so much as The Tree of Life. Grey Gardens seemed to me unpleasantly voyeuristic and mean-spirited the one time I saw it a decade ago (and I have similar reservations about Sunset Blvd., though it's a much better movie). One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is a straight-up bummer and misogynist to boot; I prefer Loves of a Blonde, Taking Off, and Amadeus. I just read in Sidney Lumet's book Making Movies that Paddy Chayefsky didn't want Vanessa Redgrave for Network because she was a PLO supporter, which definitely explains some things about the movie. I loved Star Wars when I was eleven, but seeing it again, I found it just mildly diverting, and I have no desire to revisit The Empire Strikes Back. (I suspect I'd feel the same way about Indiana Jones if I were to see it again today--my last viewing was in 2004--but then, Spielberg is a much better filmmaker than Lucas, so who knows? It's also been a while since I've seen E.T.) Apocalypse Now is a series of set pieces in search of a structure, and the last half hour is pretty incoherent; I prefer Bram Stoker's Dracula. Heaven's Gate is wonderful to look at, but it's so stately and portentous than I can't really get involved in the story; I prefer The Deer Hunter.

Koyaanisqatsi is entertaining but I wouldn't call it a masterpiece. I saw The Right Stuff once a decade ago and can barely remember it. Crimes and Misdemeanors is obvious and clumsy; I prefer Match Point. Seriously, The Lion King? Schindler's List is one of Spielberg's most moving films, but fundamentally, the two movie's two agendas--to educate people about the Holocaust and to entertain--are somewhat at odds with one another. The Dark Knight is stupid. And 12 Years a Slave is less nuanced and compelling than Charles Burnett's Nightjohn.

Also, one can only watch Casablanca, Veritgo, Psycho, and Annie Hall so many times before they start to get a bit stale.

Movies I haven't seen: The Shanghai Gesture, A Place in the Sun, Deliverance, Back to the Future, Thelma and Louise, and Forrest Gump.

[Irish]

I disagree with a lot of what you said (frankly, I believe that anyone who expresses a preference for Bram Stoker's Dracula must be a little touched in the head)--- BUT that was a terrific post.

The thing I don't grok is that the front 50 isn't all that surprising (everyone can quibble about a particular order by the content seems typical for this sort of thing). While the back 50 is all over the place. There's movies on there with serious artistic intent and real style next to crowd pleasers and pop corn munchers. It's all mixed together and a lot of it feels very flavor of the month to me (Back to the Future, Ace in the Hole especially).

[Peng]

Ace in the Hole feels "flavor of the month"? Or am I misunderstanding and you are juxtaposing it and Back to the Future together for how "serious artistic intent and real style [is] next to crowd pleasers"?

[Spinal]

No P.T. Anderson.
No Wes Anderson.
No Coen Brothers.

Yeah, that's not a Match Cut list.

[Irish]

Ace in the Hole feels "flavor of the month"? Or am I misunderstanding and you are juxtaposing it and Back to the Future together for how "serious artistic intent and real style [is] next to crowd pleasers"?

You didn't misunderstand. I called them flavor of the month because they're popular now in a way they weren't originally. Both of them got extra heapings of critical attention this year, and I suspect that attention lent more to their rankings than their actual quality as movies.

[Peng]

Really? Back to the Future has always been massively popular since its release, and the extra heaping this year might have come from the rather silly "oh it's 2015 now, just like in the film!" more than any renewed love or critical reappraisal. Also, the reason I feel like I misunderstood the first time is because the two films' receptions aren't remotely similar. Whereas Back to the Future has always been beloved, Ace in the Hole's relentlessly cynical depiction of the press and the mob make it a critical and commercial failure. It was so ahead of its time that it didn't sit well with both the audience and the critics then. The praises have caught up with the film long before now, specifically because its self-evident quality is now not obscured by some misplaced disdain. I am not aware that it has become any more popular in the past year than it was when the press and media are no longer viewed with dewy-eyed perspective.

[Irish]

Back to the Future strikes me as a generational thing. It idealizes boomer culture and it was made for gen-xers, but I've never heard anyone talk about in the slavishly devoted way that Millennials do. And not just the first film, but the whole series. (Also, this year marks the first film's 30th anniversary)

Ace in the Hole is a weird one. While I obviously haven't seen and read everything, I never came across a single critic or cinephile praising this movie until Criterion released it on DVD this year. This probably says much more about my own blind spots but I was struck over how many people felt the urge to write about it once Criterion gave it the nod. It's a solid movie & strong Wilder, but best American ever? That seems like a huge reach when other directors, genres, and films seem sorely underrepresented

[baby doll]

Back to the Future strikes me as a generational thing. It idealizes boomer culture and it was made for gen-xers, but I've never heard anyone talk about in the slavishly devoted way that Millennials do. And not just the first film, but the whole series. (Also, this year marks the first film's 30th anniversary)Kristen Thompson praises it pretty highly in Storytelling in the New Hollywood, so I don't think it's entirely a generational thing. Plus, it's on TV like every weekend.

[Ezee E]

What's not to like about Back to the Future?

[Dukefrukem]

What's not to like about Back to the Future?

Nothing. It's a perfect movie. Masterpiece I say.

[Dukefrukem]

Movies I would remove from that list:
Taxi Driver
Deliverance (really?? Top 100?)
Tree of Life

Movies I would lower
Vertigo (Hitchock's best? No way)
Goodfellas

Movies I would raise
Lion King
West Side Story

Movies I would add
Rear Window
Shawshank
Life Aquatic (but really any Wes Anderson movie)

[D_Davis]

Hell yes on Deliverance.

It works as an outstanding American film in a number of ways.

[Spinal]

Critics were encouraged to submit lists of the 10 films they feel, on an emotional level, are the greatest in American cinema – not necessarily the most important, just the best.

And yet, Birth of a Nation still made it on there.

[Mysterious Dude]

I was surprised to see The Birth of a Nation. It was on AFI's list in '98, but it didn't make it in '07, and I've long assumed its status had fallen a bit in the interim. Intolerance is less controversial. I was surprised to see Greed, too. I don't hear it talked about much. It's never been released on DVD.

Some other strange choices: Thelma & Louise instead of Blade Runner; Heaven's Gate instead of The Deer Hunter.

Other notable omissions: The General, The Maltese Falcon, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, All About Eve, High Noon, On the Waterfront, Rear Window, Bonnie and Clyde, The Silence of the Lambs, Fargo

[Sven]

And yet, Birth of a Nation still made it on there.

Well, it's the politics that complicate that film. Its power to stir has never really been disputed.

[MadMan]

No P.T. Anderson.
No Wes Anderson.
No Coen Brothers.

Yeah, that's not a Match Cut list.

That's why we rock and they don't.

[MadMan]

I like Forrest Gump much better than The Tree of Life.

So do I.

[Peng]

I have been watching all Wong Kar-Wai films for the first time (except for The Grandmaster, which I saw when it was released) over the first half of this year. Enjoyed the journey a lot, and here's how I would rank them:

1. In the Mood for Love (2000) - 10/10
2. Chungking Express (1994) - 9/10
3. Happy Together (1997) - 8.5/10
4. Days of Being Wild (1990) - 8/10
5. The Grandmaster (2013) - 8/10
6. 2046 (2004) - 6.5/10
7. As Tears Go By (1988) - 6.5/10
8. My Blueberry Nights (2007) - 6.5/10
9. Fallen Angels (1995) - 6/10
10. Ashes of Time Redux (2009) - 5.5/10

[dreamdead]

I rewatched Happy Together over the weekend, and my viewing would probably lead to me dropping the grade down a bit. It's still marvelously cinematic and uses its jumps in time effectively, so that we're never positive how the issues that Leung and Cheung endure impress themselves on the characters. That creates a sense of wonder, and it's one of Wong's best qualities. At the same time, Cheung's character is so critical and melancholy that there's a sense of inevitability, rather than possibility, as to the failure of their relationship. And that element is one that I question as its intentionality.

Better is the Chang Chen and Leung friendship. That forms the core of the second half of HT, and helps the euphoric sense that the film closes on. Cheung is doomed; they're the lifeblood of a better connection, one that looks after one another. Lovely cinematography by Doyle throughout--beautifully bleached and focused in reds and oranges.

It's been a few years since I've seen Fallen Angels, but I'd count that as among Wong's best works (for me, that includes FA, DoBW, ItMfL, and 2046).

[megladon8]

Jen and I watched the first Taken tonight. I'd only seen it once before, when it first came out.

There's a scene/shot that I distinctly remember from the first time I watched it, and it never happened in this viewing.

Neeson nonchalantly walks up behind someone standing in a doorway, and shoots them in the head.

Am I getting this mixed up with another movie? Anyone recall the scene I'm talking about?

[Winston*]

Well, it's the politics that complicate that film. Its power to stir has never really been disputed.

Would probably argue that it's technical impressiveness makes it more detestable.

[Dukefrukem]

Jen and I watched the first Taken tonight. I'd only seen it once before, when it first came out.

There's a scene/shot that I distinctly remember from the first time I watched it, and it never happened in this viewing.

Neeson nonchalantly walks up behind someone standing in a doorway, and shoots them in the head.

Am I getting this mixed up with another movie? Anyone recall the scene I'm talking about?

I don't recall Neeson assassinating anyone like that in the movie. I've seen Taken quite a few times. Do you recall what part of the film you remember it taking place in?

The most likely scenes would be; 1) the underground sex slave area 2) the sand pits / construction area 3) the black-market auction 4) the yacht

[Peng]

Maybe it was the US version? The one that had a few scenes cut in order for it to get PG-13 back when it was released?

[megladon8]

I could have sworn it took place in the part where he goes to the "house with the red door" and pretends to be a cop, then kills them all.

I remember it being a guy standing in a doorway facing out into a hallway, Neeson walking up behind him and shooting him in the back of the head.

Peng - I've seen the movie twice and both times were the Unrated version (the same DVD I own).

[dreamdead]

Mike Leigh's Mr. Turner might be the first of his where I felt myself straining to get more out of the film. It's utterly rapturous on a visual level, with evocative cinematography in nature sequence after sequence, but while Timothy Spall's character feels typically lived-in, there's little that's conveyed about why Leigh was drawn to the project or what we're meant to feel it's all about. That, for Leigh, is seldom an issue. Strange, this one.

[DavidSeven]

Running Scared (2006): In a sense, I respect its go-for-broke approach because it's really the only way to make a bare narrative like this feel alive at all. On the other hand, the technique often felt so conscious and put-on that it all became a little cheesy after a while. Walker and Farmiga are really good in this. Earnest feels like the right performance pitch to give contrast to the technique. Everyone else in the A Story plays it at cartoon level, and I'm not sure they all belong in the same movie. Also: the bizarrely random sequence of Farmiga taking on perverted married couple (also playing it earnest) -- totally unnecessary or best thing in the movie? I don't think either answer is wrong.

[Ezee E]

I haven't watched Schindler's List since high school, and recently rewetted a scene on Youtube, leading me to watching the full thing, and it worked far better now than it ever did in high school. Maybe it's the inner dilemma of each of the characters that I can understand more at this age.

I do like that there's really never a "breakthrough" moment. It's all very gradual. Spielberg's never hit notes like this since. It's just the tossup of his adventure movies that can be replayed an unlimited amount of times, or something like this that you may only want to watch once a decade, if that.

[Mara]

Someone (a "friend") convinced me I was really missing out by not having seen Starship Troopers and mannnnnnn that film is some bullshit. Sappy story, wooden performances, boring visuals, terrible dialogue, completely missed emotional beats and fascist as hell. What a steaming pile.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Someone (a "friend") convinced me I was really missing out by not having seen Starship Troopers and mannnnnnn that film is some bullshit. Sappy story, wooden performances, boring visuals, terrible dialogue, completely missed emotional beats and fascist as hell. What a steaming pile.

...satire?

[Mara]

...satire?

I was so annoyed by this movie that I ended up spending a couple of hours last night reading a bunch of defensive articles about how it is secretly subversively genius. And it just pissed me off more. Because as a satire, it's even more of a failure.

Because if "satire" is what they were going for, it's just one more thing the movie sucked at. I will admit that the film is self-aware (Ha, ha! They literally raped the brain of a terrified creature! Hilarious!) but in order to be an actual satire, it would have some glimmer of intelligent thought. It's a failure on every single level but it's okay because it's ironic! The pacing is atrocious (endless, arduous exposition and relationship drama for the first two-thirds of the film, endless, pointless, uninteresting gore for the last third) but that's brilliant because it's not a movie that does that, it's a film that makes fun of that! Ditto hiring fucking horrible, blank-eyed, wooden actors in their mid-thirties to play teenagers! Ha ha, get it? There's no need to write dialogue that's engaging, witty, or resembles human speech in any way if you're just making fun of the military!

It's a movie that wants to make millions by exploding alien bugs but wants to be a movie that is better than that movie because it knows how bad it is.

I mean... could it get any further up its own ass?

It's almost four a.m. and I'm still frustrated that this film is getting some kind of pass.

[TGM]

http://www.renegadecut.com/post/108631653452/renegade-cut-starship-troopers-an-analysis-of

[Watashi]

Starship Troopers is a masterpiece, satire or not. It's an exceptionally well-made film.

[Mara]

http://www.renegadecut.com/post/108631653452/renegade-cut-starship-troopers-an-analysis-of

I watched this, and it made some interesting points. However, 95% of this analysis was about world-building, and I will readily admit that the world-building in the film is intriguing. The propaganda shorts were well-made, and particularly in the one with the denialist in a bow-tie I felt like they were maybe going somewhere.

But once a writer/director/creator has set up an interesting world, it's still necessary to pull a good story out of it, and I can't help but feel that Starship Troopers really didn't do that. Things like the characterizations, plot, pacing, acting, narrative choices, still matter even if it is a satire. And the film is a narrative mess.

Take Neil Patrick Harris, for example, who actually can be a talented actor if you give him something to do. He starts off as a pervy, ingratiating, sidekick character who at one point has to stare intently at a ferret to manipulate is psychically, then he disappears for an hour and comes back as Josef Mengele. We have zero indication of his character arc. He is flirty and charismatic with a character, returns an hour later at her funeral and never mentions her. He has no consistency, drive, or clear characterization. If you asked me to describe who he plays, I'd be stumped, because he is completely different in each scene.

Actually, that's not true. I would describe him as "narratively convenient." He is whoever the film needs him to be in that exact moment.

And he's the talented actor. I got so frustrated with the wooden, cardboard performances in this film that I started tagging each line of dialogue with "S/he said, blankly." And don't even get me started on an entire cast of lily-white actors playing Hispanic characters.

[Mara]

Starship Troopers is a masterpiece, satire or not. It's an exceptionally well-made film.

I would love to hear you expound on that, because I just can't see it.

[baby doll]

Satire is the last refuge of a scoundrel (i.e., people who like Battle Royale)--as if agreeing with a movie's message made it more interesting to watch B-list actors blow up giant bugs for the better part of two hours. I prefer Basic Instinct, Black Book, Total Recall, Showgirls, and even RoboCop, all of which have vastly more compelling plots and are better acted to boot. Furthermore, Showgirls is much more pointed and corrosive as satire, yet it has virtually no following among fanboys that I'm aware of.

[Watashi]

I would love to hear you expound on that, because I just can't see it.

Shrug. The action scenes still hold up, especially that initial bug attack. I don't think there's any significant characterization because Verhoeven shoots his leads as pieces of meat rather than actors. The music is amazing. I love for a war movie, it's very bright and colorful.

[Watashi]

Satire is the last refuge of a scoundrel (i.e., people who like Battle Royale)--as if agreeing with a movie's message made it more interesting to watch B-list actors blow up giant bugs for the better part of two hours. I prefer Basic Instinct, Black Book, Total Recall, Showgirls, and even RoboCop, all of which have vastly more compelling plots and are better acted to boot. Furthermore, Showgirls is much more pointed and corrosive as satire, yet it has virtually no following among fanboys that I'm aware of.

Showgirls has a huge cult following. More than Starship Troopers that's for sure.

[Peng]

Yeah, I haven't watched either of them, but Showgirls is definitely more talked about fondly among Film Twitter and general film boards that I have been (although RoboCop tops either of them).

[Dead & Messed Up]

I really like how the commentary is kinda holistic, demonstrated through costume and set design and implications left unspoken. The way the meteor attack doesn't quite line up with the party line. How Rico "develops" by parroting lines his superiors fed to him. But I also agree that the film spends too much time with its lame two mains - their chiseled empty perfection works as a joke every now and then, but not consistently, and there is some weird sort of hypocrisy, because Dina Meyer's character is not presented in the same Barbie doll way as the other mains. She's sympathetic and thoughtful and invests her interest in Rico to genuine effect. That challenges the idea that all the characters are purposefully taken to be placeholders or mockable archetypes.

I also agree with Mara that more NPH would be a good thing.

[Neclord]

The NPH role is a young likable guy who is thoroughly indoctrinated by the fascist government to the point of having his humanity all but vanished always seemed effectively chilling to me.

[Ezee E]

I'm on Mara's side. It's pretty awful.

[baby doll]

Showgirls has a huge cult following. More than Starship Troopers that's for sure.Although there's obviously a huge overlap between cultists and fanboys, they aren't exactly the same thing. Notwithstanding a number of hardcore cinephiles who've expressed enthusiasm for Showgirls (notably Jim Jarmusch and Jacques Rivette), its claim to being a cult film is--as far as I'm aware--largely dependent upon its camp value. When I've seen it mentioned online, it's usually as a film that's "so bad it's good" rather than a movie about the excesses of American capitalism.

[Ivan Drago]

I remember liking Starship Troopers when I was in middle school. Not sure if I would like it now.

Total Recall, on the other hand. . .THAT is Paul Verhoeven's masterpiece. Love the concept, love the world-building, love the action. . .it's just plain AWESOME.

[transmogrifier]

Satire is the last refuge of a scoundrel (i.e., people who like Battle Royale)

Uh, what? I love Battle Royale, it is one of the best films of the 2000s - but it's no satire.

Also, Verhoeven is one of the more overrated directors, a beneficiary of the auteur movement in which all his crap movies still has a kernel of supporters eager to be the first to make a connection.

It's no coincidence that the best of his movies that I have seen is Total Recall, which is probably his most mainstream effort. I take it his early Dutch movies are quite good though?

[Grouchy]

Starship Troopers is a masterpiece, satire or not. It's an exceptionally well-made film.
Exactly. I think it's quite clearly a film with two separate readings, but even if you couldn't appreciate the parody, you'd still have a piece of fantastic science-fiction/warfare. Long live Verhoeven.

Battle Royale is not a satire of anything and Showgirls does have a huge fanboy following.

[baby doll]

It's possible that Showgirls has a huge fanboy following but I haven't seen any evidence of it. And whether or not one considers Battle Royale to be a satire, I've often seen it defended as such on online forums.

[MadMan]

I like Starship Troopers. I love Total Recall.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Reformatting Planet of the Apes '01 at work; this movie is worse than I remember. Everybody sounds like they're talking through cotton, Wahlberg doesn't care about anything, and most everything is shot in basic mediums with unflattering lighting. So far Giamatti's stereotypical huckster is the best thing about this mess.

Edit 1: The makeup is great, too. Credit there.

Edit 2: Props to Estella Warren, who found time in the ape-pocalypse to perm her hair.

Edit 3: I do not remember chimpanzee greasers rocking out. Is this whole thing a goof?

[D_Davis]

Someone (a "friend") convinced me I was really missing out by not having seen Starship Troopers and mannnnnnn that film is some bullshit. Sappy story, wooden performances, boring visuals, terrible dialogue, completely missed emotional beats and fascist as hell. What a steaming pile.

One of the best films ever.

The satire is hilarious, great set pieces, incredible special effects (still the best ship explosions of all time), and tons of great gore.

It's up there with Robocop.

[D_Davis]

Robocop is Verhoeven's best.

[D_Davis]

Satire is the last refuge of a scoundrel

Are you a time traveler?

[Dead & Messed Up]

Reformatting Planet of the Apes '01 at work; this movie is worse than I remember. Everybody sounds like they're talking through cotton, Wahlberg doesn't care about anything, and most everything is shot in basic mediums with unflattering lighting. So far Giamatti's stereotypical huckster is the best thing about this mess.

Edit 1: The makeup is great, too. Credit there.

Edit 2: Props to Estella Warren, who found time in the ape-pocalypse to perm her hair.

Edit 3: I do not remember chimpanzee greasers rocking out. Is this whole thing a goof?

"They treated me like I was a... miserable..."
"Human?"

Really makes ya think.

[MadMan]

I really dug God Told Me To. I remember Raiders praising it a lot back in the day. Too bad he doesn't post anymore. I love 70s sci-fi horror.

[Milky Joe]

I really dug God Told Me To. I remember Raiders praising it a lot back in the day. Too bad he doesn't post anymore. I love 70s sci-fi horror.

That's one of my absolute favorite films. Have you seen Q: The Winged Serpent? Also by Larry Cohen. Such a great movie.

[MadMan]

No but I also obtained that from my local public library to watch.

[baby doll]

Are you a time traveler?If you spend enough time on message boards, you get to be like Bill Murray in the second half of Groundhog Day.

[dreamdead]

After years of having students list Gina Prince-Bythewood's Love and Basketball as one of their favorite films, I finally decided to watch it. And it's--like the later Beyond the Lights--remarkably adept at finding the humane moments behind generally obvious character beats and imbuing them with just enough impact that one forgets, however briefly, how cliche that moment is. Prince-Bythewood's latest film shows a bit more abrasiveness in critiquing an entire industry that preys on women, whereas this film only cursorily critiques a system of men accepting the women that lap at their heels. That said, it's better than many of its ilk in the genre in that it captures moments that are true for these characters.

The biggest flaw is probably in Omar Epps's agreement to the final game of hoops under Sanaa Lathan's terms of agreement--that they end up together if she wins--when his fiance is sitting there, going, "what the hell'd I do wrong?" Bizarre, that beat.

[MadMan]

That's one of my absolute favorite films. Have you seen Q: The Winged Serpent? Also by Larry Cohen. Such a great movie.

I preferred God Told Me To. Still Q is good goofy monster movie fun.

And I really like Love and Basketball, although I haven't seen it in years.

[Milky Joe]

I preferred God Told Me To. Still Q is good goofy monster movie fun.

What elevates Q above simple goofy monster movie fun IMO is Michael Moriarty's performance, which is honestly one of the best I've ever seen. You'll never find a performance that good in just any monster movie. The scene when he gets back home after finding the egg and tries to tell his girlfriend about it is amazing.

[D_Davis]

Re-watched The 36th Chamber of Shaolin on Saturday.

Still a bona fide masterpiece.

Such a powerful, entertaining, and well made film. Every facet is executed with perfection.

[Dead & Messed Up]

An oral history of that greatest of all '90s video game movies, Mortal Kombat (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/mortal-kombat-movie-oral-history-815287).

Now I'm listening to that EDM soundtrack at work.

Who would've thought back then that Paul Anderson would become the steward of contemporary film criticism's "vulgar auteur" movement?

[megladon8]

Re-watched The 36th Chamber of Shaolin on Saturday.

Still a bona fide masterpiece.

Such a powerful, entertaining, and well made film. Every facet is executed with perfection.


I still consider this the golden standard by which all "training segments" shall be judged.

[Stay Puft]

Re-watched The 36th Chamber of Shaolin on Saturday.

Still a bona fide masterpiece.

Such a powerful, entertaining, and well made film. Every facet is executed with perfection.

I saw a 35mm screening of this a couple years ago. I think I posted about it at the time. One of my absolute favorites and a tremendous theatre experience. And then like two days later I woke up to news that Lau Kar Leung had passed away. Went through quite a few emotions that week.

[MadMan]

What elevates Q above simple goofy monster movie fun IMO is Michael Moriarty's performance, which is honestly one of the best I've ever seen. You'll never find a performance that good in just any monster movie. The scene when he gets back home after finding the egg and tries to tell his girlfriend about it is amazing.I liked him and David Carradine a lot. They didn't give Richard Roundtree very much to do.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Getting There: Sweet 16 continues the winning streak of the Olsen Twins and director Steve Purcell. Lacking the verite location shooting that vivified When in Rome, Steve Purcell opts instead for a Cassavetes level of narrative focus, rooting his attention to the character relationships and forgoing the facile tropes of the road picture. A key scene sees the heroes discuss a meal, before cutting immediately to them leaving a restaurant in satisfaction - a wonderful play on audience expectations that also gently suggests the best aspects of any journey lie in our interaction with each other. This all but raises a defiant middle finger to the mediocre event checklists found in adolescent John Hughes "movies" like Planes Trains and Automobiles and Ferris Bueller's Day Off, both of which sacrifice heart for spectacle, hoping a preponderance of the latter excuses the lack of the former. While they're always stuck "getting there," Getting There actually reaches a destination.

[D_Davis]

I saw a 35mm screening of this a couple years ago. I think I posted about it at the time. One of my absolute favorites and a tremendous theatre experience. And then like two days later I woke up to news that Lau Kar Leung had passed away. Went through quite a few emotions that week.

I was watching a kung fu cinema documentary this past weekend on Youtube, and it had some LKL interviews in it. I had forgotten that he died, so got sad again when I checked to see what he had been up to (I'm pretty much out of HK cinema loop these days). He had some interesting things to say in the doc, though. For one, he said he felt that Bruce Lee movies were the only movies that could truly call themselves kung fu movies - everything else is just an imitation.

Totally worth watching.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4loclXsacR0

[Lazlo]

Getting There: Sweet 16 continues the winning streak of the Olsen Twins and director Steve Purcell. Lacking the verite location shooting that vivified When in Rome, Steve Purcell opts instead for a Cassavetes level of narrative focus, rooting his attention to the character relationships and forgoing the facile tropes of the road picture. A key scene sees the heroes discuss a meal, before cutting immediately to them leaving a restaurant in satisfaction - a wonderful play on audience expectations that also gently suggests the best aspects of any journey lie in our interaction with each other. This all but raises a defiant middle finger to the mediocre event checklists found in adolescent John Hughes "movies" like Planes Trains and Automobiles and Ferris Bueller's Day Off, both of which sacrifice heart for spectacle, hoping a preponderance of the latter excuses the lack of the former. While they're always stuck "getting there," Getting There actually reaches a destination.

http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/legomessageboards/images/a/aa/LolWut!.gif/revision/latest?cb=20131104111928

[Dead & Messed Up]

If you missed my When in Rome appraisal:


In some ways less a paen to their own vanity than a hopeful prayer for success, the Olsen Twins' When in Rome uses the backdrop of the eponymous city to color around the edges of the then-young actresses' ambition to be clothing designers (a desire matched by their avataric characters). By using pregnant pauses and unexpected "amateur" editing, director Steve Purcell purposefully eschews the brainless form of traditional Hollywood cinema in favor of qualities reminiscent of the heroes' on-screen sketchbook. No accident that this is one of the Olsens' final films before establishing their own fashion bona fides globally. Lesser critics might dismiss the film as wish-fulfillment, but in an age of cynical child entertainments like the low-achieving The Boxtrolls and the everyone-in-their-place Randianisms of Ratatouille, When in Rome courageously suggests that wishes can be fulfilled.

[Stay Puft]

I'm pretty much out of HK cinema loop these days

You're not missing much.

[Lazlo]

Is there a reason we didn't do a Matchies for 2014? General disinterest? Low site participation in general? No one wanted to head it up?

We had a decent turnout for the Cutties. Seems a shame to end the great tradition of the Matchies.

If there was interest I'd be down to tabulate results. The "show" wouldn't be near as entertaining in my hands but at least we'd have the results for posterity. Lemme know what folks think!

[Dukefrukem]

Yeh makes me sad.

Even this year is on pace to be one of the lowest participation rates on MC.

2012- 303 Movies
2013- 330 Movies
2014- 220 Movies
2015- 91 Movies... Over halfway through the year and we haven't even hit 100 movies yet.

[Ezee E]

It's been a crappy year for movies. Mainstream and indie.

[MadMan]

The Driver (1978) is a Mann, Friedkin and Siegel movie all rolled into one glorious badass package. Also this film and Thief clearly were a heavy influence on Drive.

[D_Davis]

It's been a crappy year for movies. Mainstream and indie.

The best movie ever made came out this year, so by that logic it's the greatest year of all time for movies.

Boom, roasted.

[Ezee E]

The best movie ever made came out this year, so by that logic it's the greatest year of all time for movies.

Boom, roasted.

If that were true, I'd accept. I wish.

[baby doll]

The best movie ever made came out this year, so by that logic it's the greatest year of all time for movies.

Boom, roasted.I think we can all agree that Jafar Panahi's Taxi is pretty awesome but let's not get carried away.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I assumed he was talking about the DreamWorks future classic Home.

[D_Davis]

Uh...come on guys.

Joe Dirt 2