28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[Stay Puft]

*pours a forty for Padre*

He will remain forever wrong about Amadeus.

[Spinal]

Just caught five minutes of Burton's Willy Wonka on TV. Now that I've kicked a chair and screamed a few times I'm feeling better.

:rolleyes:

[Spinal]

Well, I've put in my time, slogging through five hours of Columbus mediocrity. I'm hoping the Cuaron film is as much of an improvement as people say.

[Rowland]

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (Columbus, 2002) **
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (Columbus, 2001) **These get better once Columbus leaves the director's chair, I promise.

[MadMan]

Well, I've put in my time, slogging through five hours of Columbus mediocrity. I'm hoping the Cuaron film is as much of an improvement as people say.As Rowland noted, it is. Very much so. So far I think its the best film in the series, although I haven't viewed the latest Harry Potter flick yet. I tried to watch the second film once but the damn elf creature thing (Dobby I think its called) annoyed the hell out of me so I quit 20 minutes in.


*pours a forty for Padre*

He will remain forever wrong about Amadeus.Hah. He was wrong about a good many films (Apocalypse Now, The Big Lebowski among others). But he was still an awesome poster despite that.

PS: 200th post in this thread. Cool. I don't know or remember if I was as involved in the past FDT's as I have been in this one.

[Spinal]

The elf creature was annoying, particularly his habit of pounding his head into things. But Branagh's comedic supporting role made the film tolerable for me.

[Spinal]

These get better once Columbus leaves the director's chair, I promise.

He was the reason I avoided these for so long.

[Melville]

The elf creature was annoying, particularly his habit of pounding his head into things. But Branagh's comedic supporting role made the film tolerable for me.
That elf creature and his self-castigation were the only things I liked about those god-awfully bland movies. But I gave up after the first two.

[Spinal]

That elf creature and his self-castigation were the only things I liked about those god-awfully bland movies.

Well, that's slightly odd.

[Melville]

Well, that's slightly odd.
Who doesn't like self-castigation? For my money, you can never have too much of that in a movie—especially when it's inserted seemingly at random into an otherwise completely innocuous kid's movie.

[Spinal]

Evil Dead 2 (Raimi) - 4.5

Never mind that. This is odder.

[Melville]

Never mind that. This is odder.
Really? Given its gonzo style, I thought it would be a fairly divisive movie. I posted very brief thoughts on it somewhere on the previous page of this thread.

[megladon8]

I love the Harry Potter movies.

I've seen them many more times than I've seen the Lord of the Rings films, actually. Not that they're "better", but they're definitely more "enjoyable"/rewatchable, if you catch my drift.

But I agree the Colombus ones were weaker than the latter entries in the series.

I actually did ratings of them not too long ago in another thread, so I apologize if these are inconsistent, but this is a ballpark figure of how I would rate them...

Philosopher's Stone - 6.5
Chamber of Secrets - 7
Prisoner of Azkaban - 9
Goblet of Fire - 5.5
Order of the Phoenix - 8.5

[Grouchy]

You want to see a Burt Lancaster western that's overlooked as hell? Look no further than Robert Aldrich's Ulzana's Raid. The title sort of sucks, but the movie kicks many different kinds of ass. It's about a hunting party going after some Apaches that have escaped a reservation and done some mayhem. It defines "gritty realism", being an uncompromising view at both Indian and white men, without any kind of moral judgement, maniqueist attitude or anything - it's just 105 minutes of taut chess playing between the Lancaster party and Ulzana's Indian Braves. Lancaster is a very gifted actor, and his portrayal of a world-weary scout is very inspired here. Hugely recommended.

That news about The Fly being turned into an opera is rocket-sky-gonzo. Can't be too bad, though, if Cronenberg is behind it.

[Melville]

I'm not really a fan of either series.

Philosopher's Stone - 4
Chamber of Secrets - 3.5

The Fellowship of the Rings - 7
The Two Towers - 6.5
The Return of the King - 6

[Sven]

I have faith in Spinal's ability to discern the fraudulent from the genuine. Cuaron's Potter film is just as bad as the other two, even if its visuals are more careful. The fourth is the worst.

[MacGuffin]

I'm thinking of using the site Twitter (a blog which limits posts to 120 or so characters) in an effort to comment more on the movies I see.

[Rowland]

I have faith in Spinal's ability to discern the fraudulent from the genuine. Possibly, but he doesn't stand a chance of equaling you on this front. I have faith that everyone would agree.

[Sven]

Possibly, but he doesn't stance a chance of equaling you on this front. I have faith that everyone would agree.

I should hope so!

In all seriousness, though, snarky comments about the expression of opinion aside, the third Potter film succumbs to just as many lame narrative loops, flat expression, corny and unclear plot developments, and cliched fantasy filmmaking for me to qualify it as better than the other two. Sure, Cuaron puts a LITTLE more of the subtext up front and his visuals are sometimes a LITTLE more colorful, but I contend that it's much ado about nothing. And on that note, just thought I'd echo Spinal's sentiments of Branagh's Lockhart, who is totally great.

[Spinal]

Yeah, directing aside, I'm having trouble getting into the universe at all. The characters and the plot developments are just not terribly interesting in my opinion. Not getting it.

And two films in, I still don't know a damn thing about Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff. What a tedious time those students must have.

[Sven]

Yeah, directing aside, I'm having trouble getting into the universe at all. The characters and the plot developments are just not terribly interesting in my opinion. Not getting it.

Yeah, I think the fault here has probably much more to do with the source material than with the production of the films. The Potter universe is just retarded.

[Spinal]

I just want to eat Cotten right up!

Hey-o!

[MadMan]

The elf creature was annoying, particularly his habit of pounding his head into things. But Branagh's comedic supporting role made the film tolerable for me.I may give the film a second chance, and simply mute the elf when he's onscreen. But I seriously wanted to shotgun the elf creature to death when I first saw him.

I really like the third film in the series, and I even highly enjoyed the forth film as well. However I think Spinal sort of hit the nail on the head as to why I don't love the Harry Potter series. I don't really give a damn about the characters, and I never bothered to read any of the books except for the first one. To me they're almost like the Narnia universe. Give me Tolken's books and the LOTRs films any day of the week.

[Melville]

I may give the film a second chance, and simply mute the elf when he's onscreen. But I seriously wanted to shotgun the elf creature to death when I first saw him.
Jeez, what's with all this hatred for that elf creature? At least he was better than the insipid direction, scattershot plotting, and hammy acting that makes up the rest of that movie.

[MadMan]

Jeez, what's with all this hatred for that elf creature? At least he was better than the insipid direction, scattershot plotting, and hammy acting that makes up the rest of that movie.I don't know about the movie. But yes that elf deserves to die, and I would hope he would burn in hell! :P

[Winston*]

I wonder if all Slythern students are evil prior towards being inducted into the house or if it's the negative social stigma of being in Slytherin that drives them towards being evil. Because 25% evil seems like a pretty high evil percentage for any school.

On the other hand, Hufflepuff's 25% stupid seems about par.

[Melville]

I don't know about the movie. But yes that elf deserves to die, and I would hope he would burn in hell! :P
I thought that damn wiener kid with the red hair was far more irritating. He was the only thing I liked about the first movie, but damn was he needlessly shrill and hammily frantic in the second one.

[Spinal]

I wonder if all Slythern students are evil prior towards being inducted into the house or if it's the negative social stigma of being in Slytherin that drives them towards being evil. Because 25% evil seems like a pretty high evil percentage for any school.


I'm fairly confused as to why we are educating known baddies to begin with. Maybe I'm not paying close enough attention.

[lovejuice]

I love the Harry Potter movies.


i agree with this statement for a very wrong reason. my love for the potter films comes from my disliking the novels in general -- to be fair, certain books are from readable to good, but when it's bad, it's intolerable.

[Sven]

I wonder if all Slythern students are evil prior towards being inducted into the house or if it's the negative social stigma of being in Slytherin that drives them towards being evil. Because 25% evil seems like a pretty high evil percentage for any school.

A good example one of the bajillion things about Potter that I just do not understand.

[MadMan]

I'm fairly confused as to why we are educating known baddies to begin with. Maybe I'm not paying close enough attention.Because its a liberal hippie school. Duh :P


I thought that damn wiener kid with the red hair was far more irritating. He was the only thing I liked about the first movie, but damn was he needlessly shrill and hammily frantic in the second one.Do you mean Ron? I think he's one of the few characters I like out of the whole bunch. Oh and Alan Rickman's professor rocks but then Alan Rickman rocks period.

[Sven]

My wife: I think JK Rowling should be required to give a small portion of her fortune to everyone who sees through her crap.

Me: That would be awesome.

My wife: Because I want some money.

[Watashi]

Your wife rules.

[Rowland]

I'm fairly confused as to why we are educating known baddies to begin with. Maybe I'm not paying close enough attention.They are just a bunch of kids who share a similar attitude, or ideological bent. They aren't "known baddies."

[Rowland]

I thought that damn wiener kid with the red hair was far more irritating. He was the only thing I liked about the first movie, but damn was he needlessly shrill and hammily frantic in the second one.Yes, he's dreadful in the second movie. Columbus directed him as I imagine he directed Culkin on the Home Alone sets. Thankfully, the kids perform better with stronger directors. Their performances in the last movie were their most confident and natural yet.

[Melville]

Do you mean Ron?
Yeah, that guy. I was really tired of this expression by the film's end:

http://i.imdb.com/Photos/Ss/0295297/HP2-FILM-56.jpg

[MadMan]

Yeah, that guy. I was really tired of this expression by the film's end:

http://i.imdb.com/Photos/Ss/0295297/HP2-FILM-56.jpgThat picture isn't loading for some reason.


My wife: I think JK Rowling should be required to give a small portion of her fortune to everyone who sees through her crap.

Me: That would be awesome.

My wife: Because I want some money.I approve of this. Heartily.

[Melville]

That picture isn't loading for some reason.
Hm... it shows up fine for me. Here's a link:
http://i.imdb.com/Photos/Ss/0295297/HP2-FILM-56.jpg

[lovejuice]

They are just a bunch of kids who share a similar attitude, or ideological bent. They aren't "known baddies."

actually they are. when i read book two, i sort of expect eventually those slyterin will have a chance to prove themselves, and that an appearance of a snobish, cowardice, caricaturic baddies do not necessarily mean you are one.

i am wrong. except for snape, there's no such thing as a good slyterin.

[Melville]

Yes, he's dreadful in the second movie. Columbus directed him as I imagine he directed Culkin on the Home Alone sets.
Yeah, I can totally see Ron smacking his cheeks and saying he made his family disappear. The fault obviously lies with the director, since the actor was good enough in the first movie. Maybe I'll check out Cuaron's film someday, despite iosos' warning.

[megladon8]

i agree with this statement for a very wrong reason. my love for the potter films comes from my disliking the novels in general -- to be fair, certain books are from readable to good, but when it's bad, it's intolerable.


I actually ahven't read any of the books, and even though I've enjoyed the movies, I still have no interest in reading them.

Oh and I typo'd one of my ratings - Goblet of Fire was supposed to be 5.5, not 6.5

[Rowland]

actually they are. when i read book two, i sort of expect eventually those slyterin will have a chance to prove themselves, and that an appearance of a snobish, cowardice, caricaturic baddies do not necessarily mean you are one.

i am wrong. except for snape, there's no such thing as a good slyterin.I just meant that they aren't "known baddies", as in they aren't like some sort of villains who shouldn't be educated. The truth is that they share a Machiavellian mindset that the establishment values, run as it is with so much pure blood influence.

[Rowland]

Walter Chaw loved the second movie, and wrote a review (http://filmfreakcentral.net/screenreviews/harrypotterandthechamberofsecr ets.htm) for it that convinced me to give it another shot. I still wasn't impressed, but his take on it is a thoughtful one. I wish I saw the movie he does.

[MadMan]

Hm... it shows up fine for me. Here's a link:
http://i.imdb.com/Photos/Ss/0295297/HP2-FILM-56.jpgThat link doesn't work either. What the French toast? :P

[Dead & Messed Up]

Funny to see all the opinions on Harry Potter. I enjoyed all of them, even the maligned first two. I agree that they have their problems, but I think the kids do a capable job, and the plots are fun in a gee-shucks kid's adventure sort of way. My only real problem with them is at the end of the first one, when Dumbledore gives a dramatic pause and says, "We're not done handing out points yet!"

Given how serious things get by the fifth film, this part of the story seems like a non-event.

I'm eagerly anticipating the final chapters.

Oh, and I haven't read a single Potter book.

[transmogrifier]

I've said it before, but the main problem with the Potter films are that they are repetitive (each movie features a hunt for some random MacGuffin that doesn't really have a hell of a lot to do with much else in general, the characters are introduced in the same way), dramatically slack (so, so many deus ex machina! and pointless squabbling over the aforementioned MacGuffs, and with far too many character "reversals" - he's a bad guy, no he's secretly a good guy, he's a good guy, no, he's secretly a bad guy) and exist in a universe where there's too much magic - it's hard to care about any predicament when some random person is just going to cast a spell and cure everything.

I've never read the books, and I never will, based on these flaws that obviously come from the source material.

[MacGuffin]

Shoot 'Em Up is just stupid. You can't tell me anybody here fell for this crap. Monica Bellucci and a few well choreographed sequences were the saving grace. Really, all the good scenes had Bellucci. She's a great actress overall.

[MadMan]

Shoot 'Em Up is just stupid. You can't tell me anybody here fell for this crap. Monica Bellucci and a few well choreographed sequences were the saving grace. Really, all the good scenes had Bellucci. She's a great actress overall.That film is gloriously entertaining and over the top in a way that only 80s action films could even equal or best. I love the hell out of it, and I think I might be one of the few here who does. Does the film's plot even make sense and is it even realistic? Well for the first half it does, but then that completely flies out the window too. I just sat back and enjoyed the ride.

[MacGuffin]

That film is gloriously entertaining and over the top in a way that only 80s action films could even equal or best. I love the hell out of it, and I think I might be one of the few here who does. Does the film's plot even make sense and is it even realistic? Well for the first half it does, but then that completely flies out the window too. I just sat back and enjoyed the ride.

You know, I think I could've found it more entertaining if it took the Woo route and just focused on choreography (I was entertained by District B13 even), but no, it chose to not only be stupid, it chose to be political. The scene where Clive Owen's character is anatomizing the gun to the baby made me almost want to vomit.

[Qrazy]

I'm very willing to check out Finding Neverland .

Don't bother. It's fluff.

[MacGuffin]

Don't bother. It's fluff.

Putting it kindly.

[Grouchy]

I actually love the Potter series of books, and I think Rowling is a very competent writer. I agree a couple of twists and plot developments are overcooked, and that only too often the bad guys turns out to be good and viceversa, but it's smarter than most children literature out there, and the style is wholly addictive.

Now, the movies... ugh. The only more-or-less good one is the third one. That's as kind as I'll be with them. Their problems don't come from the books, they come from trying to cram too much material in a nonsensical script that doesn't bear any relation with the movie's actual lenght. Events just happen and happen and happen, and there's no time for a breather or a coherent understanding of stuff. Cuarón did the best movie because he abridged it the most.

[origami_mustache]

Don't bother. It's fluff.

seconded

[Melville]

That link doesn't work either. What the French toast? :P
Curses! I'll spoiler this attempt, since I don't want to fill the page with that damn kid.

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff317/FaulknerFan/HP2-FILM-56.jpg

[Melville]

Don't bother. It's fluff.
Bosco seems to defend fluff at great length, so I don't think he should avoid Finding Neverland solely due to its fluffiness. But it's definitely pretty fluffy.

[Rowland]

One of the writers at Reverse Shot dubbed Shoot Em Up the best Verhoeven movie last year that he didn't direct. He contends that the movie is interrogating with the fascism and hateful cruelty of modern action spectacle, which, if true, it seems most of its fans, such as MadMan, didn't catch. Scroll down a bit here (http://www.reverseshot.com/article/reverse_shots_two_cents_2007). I haven't seen it yet, but it's on my queue.

[Philosophe_rouge]

I like the Harry Potter books, but I can't say I like the films. The first two are fun, mostly because my sisters and I watch it as sort of a camp odditie, pausing it at strange times or making really bad jokes at the expense of the characters, situations and direction. Otherwise the only fil I find bearable was Goblet of Fire, sure Azkaban looks better than the rest... it's still hollow and rather narratively incompetent. The worst for me though was the most recent.

[Spinal]

I just meant that they aren't "known baddies", as in they aren't like some sort of villains who shouldn't be educated. The truth is that they share a Machiavellian mindset that the establishment values, run as it is with so much pure blood influence.

It sure seems to me like the Slyterin's are set up as villains that we are supposed to root against. It would make more sense to me if Hogwart's denied them entry and they were being educated by a rival school.

[Rowland]

It sure seems to me like the Slyterin's are set up as villains that we are supposed to root against. It would make more sense to me if Hogwart's denied them entry and they were being educated by a rival school.Oh, they are definitely set up as villains, but you discover as the series progresses that they aren't beyond redemption. You also discover that there are other witching schools in the fourth book/movie, one of which is dedicated almost solely to Slytherin-types. Hogwarts is the most progressive school for being founded by four remarkably different wizards hoping to engender harmony amidst all wizards, including "mud-bloods" like Hermione. You'll discover as the series progresses that the Wizarding world is more complicated than these first two entries would suggest, though the second one begins to show glimmers of this.

[Sycophant]

One of the writers at Reverse Shot dubbed Shoot Em Up the best Verhoeven movie last year that he didn't direct. He contends that the movie is interrogating with the fascism and hateful cruelty of modern action spectacle, which, if true, it seems most of its fans, such as MadMan, didn't catch. Scroll down a bit here (http://www.reverseshot.com/article/reverse_shots_two_cents_2007). I haven't seen it yet, but it's on my queue.I'm interested in your thoughts when you get around to seeing this one, Rowland. Actually, I don't see this interrogation as anything but an afterthought in what the movie was really setting out to do. And sadly, I think a lot of its action was inexpert.

[Ivan Drago]

Sorcorer's Stone 8
Chamber of Secrets 7.5
Prisoner of Azkaban 7
Goblet of Fire 2
Order of the Phoenix 8

[Sycophant]

Woody Allen's Alice was surprisingly positive. Allen's work with Mia Farrow really is some of my favorite and I adore his flirtations with magical realism.

[Sycophant]

One of my favorite theaters in town, just three blocks from my apartment and somewhere between mainstream and independent, closed without a word. That sucks.

[krazed]

Goblet of Fire 2

:crazy:

[Qrazy]

I'm interested in your thoughts when you get around to seeing this one, Rowland. Actually, I don't see this interrogation as anything but an afterthought in what the movie was really setting out to do. And sadly, I think a lot of its action was inexpert.

Yeah, personally I didnt think the film was cinematically interesting enough to engender much discussion concerning its subtextual significance.

[Qrazy]

Sorcorer's Stone 8
Chamber of Secrets 7.5
Prisoner of Azkaban 7
Goblet of Fire 2
Order of the Phoenix 8

Is Rambo really that good?

[Sven]

One of my favorite theaters in town, just three blocks from my apartment and somewhere between mainstream and independent, closed without a word. That sucks.

Which one?

[Sycophant]

Which one?The Regency/Trolley Squares Cinema. It will be missed.

[Bosco B Thug]

Bosco seems to defend fluff at great length, so I don't think he should avoid Finding Neverland solely due to its fluffiness. But it's definitely pretty fluffy. w.t.h., Melville. w.t.h. :cry: I wouldn't give Juno any higher than a 7 for the record! :)

The main reason I actually want to see the rest of his work might be similar to my Jeunet-binge before seeing Alien 4. Of course with Forster and his franchise move in, it probably won't be as interesting, I know...

[lovejuice]

Oh, they are definitely set up as villains, but you discover as the series progresses that they aren't beyond redemption.

i have read all seven books, and i find this statement very hard to agree.

even in as late in the series as book seven, those kids haven't done anything much in term of redemption. Malfoy who supposedly has more character -- along with his parents -- is manifested as a coward, a sentimental one indeed, but still a coward.

there is one interesting passage in book seven about how the good guys could use those kids as hostages against their death eater parents, but they don't do it because they are good guys. the situations however presents itself as a chance for those kids to redeem themselves by outrightly "do something," says convincing their parents. rowling shied away from that idea. in fact from what i remember none of the "significant" slyterins joins in the final battle.

i actually don't hold it against her though. it is quite boring that in every children books all dark grey characters eventually join the good side. it's still very strange/interesting in a way that rowling really paints her world as absolute black and white.

[Sven]

The Regency/Trolley Squares Cinema. It will be missed.

That was a good theater. RIP.

[Bosco B Thug]

even in as late in the series as book seven, those kids haven't done anything much in term of redemption. Malfoy who supposedly has more character -- along with his parents -- is manifested as a coward, a sentimental one indeed, but still a coward.

i actually don't hold it against her though. it is quite boring that in every children books all dark grey characters eventually join the good side. it's still very strange/interesting in a way that rowling really paints her world as absolute black and white.
I've always hated this mythos of the fantasy. Some of those Slytherin kids have to have an awareness of the fact that a all-knowing magical hat pretty much grouped you with the megalomaniacs, racists, sociopathically loser-ish, aggresively inadequate, or plain nasty, and feel self-realizations come on. Otherwise, Slytherin is the house of vacuous evilness, 'cause I'm sure there's evil people in Hufflepuff (evil and good-natured...?) and Ravenclaw (evil and really really smart...)... and they all have to feel inadequacy problems toward Gryffindors.

So silly. But I enjoyed the books anyhow, can't expect existentialism everywhere.

[Sycophant]

On the other hand, Hufflepuff's 25% stupid seems about par.


Otherwise, Slytherin is the house of vacuous evilness, 'cause I'm sure there's evil people in Hufflepuff (evil and good-natured...?) and Ravenclaw (evil and really really smart...)... and they all have to feel inadequacy problems toward Gryffindors.
"Good-natured" is the best euphemism for "stupid" I've encountered.

[Melville]

w.t.h., Melville. w.t.h. :cry: I wouldn't give Juno any higher than a 7 for the record! :)
My comment wasn't intended as a slight. You just seem to extract a lot of subtextual meaning (usually of a postmodern bent) from films that seem overtly fluffy, which makes me think you might get more out of Finding Neverland than Qrazy, CSC, or I did.

[Dead & Messed Up]

The original Tales from the Crypt is pretty fun stuff, despite a very weird blue-screen shot at the end.

Horror anthologies ranked:

Dead of Night
Three Extremes
Kwaidan
Tales from the Crypt
Creepshow
Cat's Eye
Tales from the Darkside

[Qrazy]

Anyone seen any of City of Men? Meirelles produced and directed some of it. It's already on it's fourth/fifth season. Seems worth checking out.

[MadMan]

You know, I think I could've found it more entertaining if it took the Woo route and just focused on choreography (I was entertained by District B13 even), but no, it chose to not only be stupid, it chose to be political. The scene where Clive Owen's character is anatomizing the gun to the baby made me almost want to vomit.The political elements don't work at all, and actually muddle the film, making it even more goofy than it already was. I have a feeling that I will love most of John Woo's work-I've only seeen MI:II from him and I even liked that one despite knowing that its not really a good film.


One of the writers at Reverse Shot dubbed Shoot Em Up the best Verhoeven movie last year that he didn't direct. He contends that the movie is interrogating with the fascism and hateful cruelty of modern action spectacle, which, if true, it seems most of its fans, such as MadMan, didn't catch. Scroll down a bit here (http://www.reverseshot.com/article/reverse_shots_two_cents_2007). I haven't seen it yet, but it's on my queue.Facist? What the hell? I'll have to read the aritcle when I have time but I really didn't see any facism in the film. If anything I thought it was at times arguing for some sort of gun control, especially considering that the man character played by Owen really didn't like guns. Mainly because of what happened to him and all among other things. And that he used guns to right wrongs and things of that nature. I do think that in some ways it was a subversion of modern action films and I got the parody angle and such, but I'm wondering if once again someone is reading too much into what is a fun abeit silly action piece. I hope I'm wrong though.


Curses! I'll spoiler this attempt, since I don't want to fill the page with that damn kid.

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff317/FaulknerFan/HP2-FILM-56.jpgHah, I see your point.

[Bosco B Thug]

"Good-natured" is the best euphemism for "stupid" I've encountered. The Sorting Hat's poem for Hufflepuff is hilariously back-handed. Oh well, if I ever want to have some fun, or get some action, or find a friend I can really talk to or cry to, or find minimum wage employees for my well-established megacompany, I'll definitely first go to Hufflepuff!


My comment wasn't intended as a slight. You just seem to extract a lot of subtextual meaning (usually of a postmodern bent) from films that seem overtly fluffy, which makes me think you might get more out of Finding Neverland than Qrazy, CSC, or I did. My Juno comment still stands! :P


The original Tales from the Crypt is pretty fun stuff, despite a very weird blue-screen shot at the end.

Horror anthologies ranked:

Dead of Night
Three Extremes
Kwaidan
Tales from the Crypt
Creepshow
Cat's Eye
Tales from the Darkside Tales from the Crypt is great. And All Through the House, the 'Monkey's Paw' one, and the one with the kind old man are awesomely gruesome (and supposedly the recent DVD release is an edited version, which sucks). I didn't care for the other 2 (the blind man one was a bad one to end with, I thought), but 3/5 is a better ratio than usual.

[Spinal]

Anyone seen any of City of Men? Meirelles produced and directed some of it. It's already on it's fourth/fifth season. Seems worth checking out.

I saw the first episode and enjoyed it a lot.

[MacGuffin]

Like, Quiet City was, you know, totally, like, abysmal and stuff, like, you know?

[Qrazy]

I saw the first episode and enjoyed it a lot.

Nice, wonder how I can get a hold of it.

[Sycophant]

Nice, wonder how I can get a hold of it.A three-disc set has been released in America. The Wikipedia article leads me to believe it's the whole series.

[dreamdead]

Like, Quiet City was, you know, totally, like, abysmal and stuff, like, you know?

Howzabout some thoughts that actually engage your response to the film instead of snide snarkiness?

[MacGuffin]

Howzabout some thoughts that actually engage your response to the film instead of snide snarkiness?

Sorry, I didn't mean to be rude. Those basically are my thoughts. Technically, the movie was fine I guess; it was well shot. Still, these are people exactly like the ones in Mutual Appreciation: they try so hard to be lowbrow it just becomes annoying listening to them bitch for 70 minutes (the length being the reason I won't give it single digit marks, as poorly edited as the movie was, at least it wasn't overly long). Maybe "mumblecore" isn't for me, because I don't see the point in a "you know" or a "like" every other word. These people aren't smart or interesting. They're just annoying. If this is the point of "mumblecore", if this is what "mumblecore" is, then count me the fuck out.

[lovejuice]

just catch the la donna e mobile scene from the punisher. this and castle's fight against el mariachi character are terrific! almost like a tragedy that anything else in that film doesn't hold up to these two.

[Lasse]

Watched The Kite Runner and I really liked it. There seemed to be something off, or rather, something missing, from it. I haven't read the book, but the film just seemed a bit light at times.

Still, a solid 8/10

[Qrazy]

But the film just seemed a bit light at times.


Sounds like what I've seen from Forster so far. I kind of want to see Stay though since it was so polarizing.

[Spinal]

Nice, wonder how I can get a hold of it.

I got it from the library on DVD, but I didn't have time to finish it.

[origami_mustache]

Sorry, I didn't mean to be rude. Those basically are my thoughts. Technically, the movie was fine I guess; it was well shot. Still, these are people exactly like the ones in Mutual Appreciation: they try so hard to be lowbrow it just becomes annoying listening to them bitch for 70 minutes (the length being the reason I won't give it single digit marks, as poorly edited as the movie was, at least it wasn't overly long). Maybe "mumblecore" isn't for me, because I don't see the point in a "you know" or a "like" every other word. These people aren't smart or interesting. They're just annoying. If this is the point of "mumblecore", if this is what "mumblecore" is, then count me the fuck out.

I read the article in Film Comment on mumblecore and have been relatively interested in checking out a few films, yet at the same time highly skeptical. The only thing I can think of that I've seen that seems like it might fit into the genre would be The Puffy Chair. I'm not sure if this film is considered to be part of the genre or not, but I found it to be absolutely horrendous.

[MacGuffin]

I read the article in Film Comment on mumblecore and have been relatively interested in checking out a few films, yet at the same time highly skeptical. The only thing I can think of that I've seen that seems like it might fit into the genre would be The Puffy Chair. I'm not sure if this film is considered to be part of the genre or not, but I found it to be absolutely horrendous.

Mumblecore =

1. digital
2. middle aged characters
3. New York setting
4. talking about life
5. mostly dialogue

So... The only think I can say I liked about this one was the camera work.

[origami_mustache]

Mumblecore =

1. digital
2. middle aged characters
3. New York setting
4. talking about life
5. mostly dialogue

So... The only think I can say I liked about this one was the camera work.


Aside from the NY setting, these all describe The Puffy Chair pretty well and I also found "mumblecore" as a keyword on IMDB for the film.

[MacGuffin]

Aside from the NY setting, these all describe The Puffy Chair pretty well and I also found "mumblecore" as a keyword on IMDB for the film.

Maybe change New York setting to urban downtown setting.

[dreamdead]

Mumblecore =
[...]
4. talking about life
5. mostly dialogue


If I may press just a bit more, what is different about this and something like Syndromes and a Century, which you prize so heavily? I understand that there's more of a mythology and philosophical base to the latter work, and you'll probably contend that it's edited better, but both films, at their core, are structured around these two aspects. A "naturalistic" dialogue can't be that debilitating to you, can it?

If this story was bifurcated, would you respond differently to it, or is it merely the focus on twentysomethings who don't know how to "express themselves" that annoys you?

[Rowland]

After watching Katz's movies, I did some research on this so-called "mumblecore" movement. The general consensus is that, while the filmmakers associated with it share some common traits, they are highly individual in their direction/writing/et al., so lumping them all together probably isn't fair. The mumblecore tag was actually started by a festival director looking to hype up these no-name independent features, and it apparently stuck.

In any case, I'll probably see Hannah Takes the Stairs and Mutual Appreciation next.

[Llopin]

A Summer's Tale -- 88

Any thoughtz on thiz?

I also watched Quiet City today. It was nice. More later.

Other stuff I watched this weekend:

No Country For Old Men - blah bleh great buh blih violent whoa bleh bluh Bardem haircut wololo bleh bloh dogkill! bluh bleh coward bluh murderer bleh blih beautiful view bleh blah blah groovy weapon bleh blah blah blood! blood! blah bleh blah blah yeeesh it's a good movie hell yea.

Cassavetes' Husbands is probably his most honest effort - a pure definition of jazzistic filmmaking with a trio of killer performances. As usual, he achieves this bizarre, truly emotional yet unstable atmosphere, mainly due to his characters' behaviors and the intense feeling brutally caught by close cinematography and dinamic editing. Prior to seeing this I had heard mixed views on it, some implying it was a film too rough and unpolished, but I sure as hell enjoyed it as arid as it was. It has its moments, and some scenes do drag on (such as the casino), but the overall cathartic shock is immense, and those are three men that, while extreme in their moods, stick inside your brain and renounce to leave, their story being a poignant and study on marriage, death and one's way of life, filled with precious moments (such as the vomiting in the bar restroom). The pace is a bit uneven, but the trademark Cass "insanity" (so excellent in Faces) is all over the place, and I love it. It may be argued that the characters don't come off as well constructed due to lack of developement and overdose of over-the-topness, but it's clear that the script (plus improvisations) is more concerned in capturing these men's present, their kind of confused minds, rather than building up any kind of story, hence the spontaneous and apparently anarchic (yet I'm sure very controlled) nature of the flick.
I caught on Youtube a four-part interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2X3KiCi6Zb8) of Gazzara, Falk and Cass on the Cavett show which is just pure gold... three guys fooling around, which makes me wonder how insane the men really are (specially Cass, who seems to be on crack) ... probably one of the most crazy film interviews I've ever seen.

Zurlini's Il Deserto dei Tartari is one I had been expecting to see for quite a while, being a huge fan of Buzatti's excellent novel, and I wasn't let down. Of course it doesn't achieve the harrowing feeling the book does (since it's more "cinematical", obviously) and it omits certain parts which I find crucial for the ending coda, but it's one hell of a movie. Just for starters, its cast consists of one brilliant all-male international selection (Jaques Perrin, Vittorio Gassman, Paco Rabal, Fernando Rey, Jean-Louis Trintignant, Philippe Noiret, Helmut Griem, Max Von Sydow) which isn't at all wasted. Being a "war" movie with no "war" whatsoever, it manages to be interesting during its two hour and a half running time. This not a film about despair or isolation, at least not exclusively, but more like an analysis of boredom and futility in one's fate. The tragic aspect of our protagonist Drogo's experience is the realization of having wasted his life to an empty desert, to some kind of patriotic honor which gave him absolutely nothing at all, just emptiness. It's a film about waiting for nothing, about the absurdity of military glory and the moral destruction that comes within. The movie takes its time to go on, quietly advancing and putting the viewer right in the middle of that duned nightmare, that arid, deserted scenario. Well done.

[MacGuffin]

If I may press just a bit more, what is different about this and something like Syndromes and a Century, which you prize so heavily? I understand that there's more of a mythology and philosophical base to the latter work, and you'll probably contend that it's edited better, but both films, at their core, are structured around these two aspects. A "naturalistic" dialogue can't be that debilitating to you, can it?

I think comparing the two movies is like comparing apples and oranges because really, don't all movies try to evoke what the main character is going through? Open City is a meditation on the now -- slackers who go to parties, probably have no jobs, sleep all day, and play with their Casios. It's not so much that I'm dismissing all of this as a whole, it's just, I basically saw the exact same thing in the still obnoxious Mutual Appreciation (I saw it twice just to be sure).

Now, I'm not up on my mythology, but the mysterious philosophy of Syndromes and a Century I thought was just masterful. Joe distances himself from the camera in order to reflect on the past. The movie elicits profound meditation, so it's no wonder some of the supporting characters are monks. Personally, I didn't see what I was supposed to get out of Quiet City, where with Syndromes and a Century (again, a far different movie, and please admit this) a director happened to explore that sense of nostalgia and the nature of memories that I have literally been reminiscing about for years.

So, maybe, structurally, there was bias from the start, but that still doesn't mean Quiet City is any better than it would be if I hated Syndromes and a Century.


If this story was bifurcated, would you respond differently to it, or is it merely the focus on twentysomethings who don't know how to "express themselves" that annoys you?

There isn't much of a story here in the first place, which is no problem at all really. It's just that there isn't much here in general. We get two characters and for the whole movie's duration, the director plays with their emotional connection, but never does anything with it. By the end, they haven't changed. They're still friendly. They're still funny. They're still obviously grammatically incorrect (read: poorly written). They are the same two people who met at the subway station in the beginning of the movie.

[MacGuffin]

After watching Katz's movies, I did some research on this so-called "mumblecore" movement. The general consensus is that, while the filmmakers associated with it share some common traits, they are highly individual in their direction/writing/et al., so lumping them all together probably isn't fair. The mumblecore tag was actually started by a festival director looking to hype up these no-name independent features, and it apparently stuck.

In any case, I'll probably see Hannah Takes the Stairs and Mutual Appreciation next.

Aside from color schemes, I didn't see many directoral differences between Aaron Katz and Andrew Bujalski, at least from the single movie I saw from each of them (Funny Ha Ha is in color, so perhaps there is even more of a similarity than I have experienced, and probably won't).

[origami_mustache]

After watching Katz's movies, I did some research on this so-called "mumblecore" movement. The general consensus is that, while the filmmakers associated with it share some common traits, they are highly individual in their direction/writing/et al., so lumping them all together probably isn't fair. The mumblecore tag was actually started by a festival director looking to hype up these no-name independent features, and it apparently stuck.

In any case, I'll probably see Hannah Takes the Stairs and Mutual Appreciation next.

Yes, I was under the impression that it's more of a fabricated genre, similar to emo, and other such fads, rather than a calculated one with set limitations and standards. From what I read, Bujalski's (Mutual Appreciation, Hannah Takes the Stairs) sound mixer coined the term at sxsw in 2005.

[dreamdead]

Any thoughtz on thiz?


Largely positive, obviously. It seems that in A Summer's Tale there's a bit more authorial distance between Rohmer and his protagonist, Gaspard, equaling out to more criticism that's directed at him (which, fascinatingly, doesn't seem to be there in the female fronted films he made around the same time period). The ending in particular makes me believe that Rohmer holds a bit more contempt at Gaspard for the blatant amorality that governs his life, since he is denied any of the three suitors. Of course, Gaspard also rights off that denial in a positive light, which removes some of the authorial criticism that I read into it, though that could also merely mean that Gaspard is completely ignorant to what he is abandoning.

What is not typical is the realization that both he and Margot are educated people, they are both philosophers of life, and so even though the conversations are not as blatantly academic as in The Green Ray (Summer), My Night at Maud's, or even Pauline at the Beach, this one feels like Rohmer has integrated the philosophy, that he's made it more naturalistic to the characters and their situations. And the angles of repressed (and muted) desire for Margot are endlessly fascinating to me. She felt like one of Rohmer's richest creations.

Since Rohmer's A Winter's Tale is unavailable on dvd here (I might scrounge for a vhs copy though), I'm thinking about queueing up Perceval next.

[Boner M]

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly was emotionally engaging throughout, but I found it had less resonance afterwards that I'd hoped, and the final shots of icebergs un-collapsing in reverse was really really dumb.

[origami_mustache]

I don't mean to make fun of films that are being labeled as "mumblecore." I'm sure that like anything else, there are good and bad examples, but there is certainly a danger to the canonizing of these labels as evidenced here:

http://gawker.com/news/living-in-oblivion/mumblecore-menace-infects-our-nations-vulnerable-film-students-333641.php

"so when this film's done, which restaurant are you going to work at?"
"where are the lenses to your glasses?"

hahaha

[Sycophant]

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly was emotionally engaging throughout, but I found it had less resonance afterwards that I'd hoped, and the final shots of icebergs un-collapsing in reverse was really really dumb.Agreed. I actually felt that the entire ending (the very last bit and the text epilogue with the icebergs) actually was so severely underwhelming that it diminished the whole experience.

[Sycophant]

2. middle aged characters
I've still only seen one film from the movement, though I'm anticipating finding things to like and dislike as I get into it more, but isn't one of the key elements that they tend to be twenty-somethings? [/nitpicky]

[Boner M]

I've still only seen one film from the movement, though I'm anticipating finding things to like and dislike as I get into it more, but isn't one of the key elements that they tend to be twenty-somethings? [/nitpicky]
Yes, but the 6th trait of m-core is that everyone dies at 40.

[Watashi]

I'm sure I would hate anything mumblecore related.

[Winston*]

Mumblecore is a fun word to say. Mumblecore. Mumblecore. Mumblecore. Mumblecore. Mumblecore.

[MacGuffin]

I've still only seen one film from the movement, though I'm anticipating finding things to like and dislike as I get into it more, but isn't one of the key elements that they tend to be twenty-somethings? [/nitpicky]

Sorry, you're right.

[Rowland]

Mumblecore is a fun word to say. Mumblecore. Mumblecore. Mumblecore. Mumblecore. Mumblecore.I just recited "mumblecore" a dozen times straight. Thanks a lot, OOK.

[Winston*]

I just recited "mumblecore" a dozen times straight. Thanks a lot, OOK.

Flamboyantly: Mumblecore!
Somberly: Mumblecore.
With a heart full of vengeance: Mumblecore.
Everyone together now: Mumblecore! Mumblecore! Mumblecore!

[Boner M]

MUMBLECOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORE!

[megladon8]

Flamboyantly: Mumblecore!
Somberly: Mumblecore.
With a heart full of vengeance: Mumblecore.
Everyone together now: Mumblecore! Mumblecore! Mumblecore!


For some reason this brought images from The Yellow Submarine (which I haven't seen since childhood, mind you) flooding into my mind.

[trotchky]

I wish we could've kept the dumbass -core suffixes to just one medium.

[Boner M]

We should 'core' up some new genres for the specialities of certain directors.

Innaritu - griefcore
Von Trier - martyrcore
Denis, Assayas, Pialat, et al - ellipsescore

And so forth.

[Derek]

Everyone together now: Mumblecore! Mumblecore! Mumblecore!

AHHHH!

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j94/DSmith724/beetlejuice.jpg

[Horbgorbler]

The first person to write a song rhyming "mumblecore" and "Dumbledore" will likely be exalted as an internet folk hero.

[origami_mustache]

The only proper way to say mumblecore is to mumble it obv.

[megladon8]

Would James Cameron be technocore?

[Boner M]

Ozu - doorwaycore

[origami_mustache]

Twister and The Day After Tomorrow are soooo diastercore.

[origami_mustache]

Ozu - doorwaycore

hmm Lubitsch falls into that category as well.

[megladon8]

Twister and The Day After Tomorrow are soooo diastercore.


:P

So would Independence Day be disastercore or aliencore?

[origami_mustache]

:P

So would Independence Day be disastercore or aliencore?

willsmithcore?

[Sycophant]

willsmithcore?Awhellnocore?

[Boner M]

Se7en = downpourcore

[megladon8]

Se7en = downpourcore


:pritch:

Perfect, and it rhymes to boot!

[origami_mustache]

Se7en = downpourcore

throw Kurosawa in that genre too...

Clockwork Orange = ludwigvancore

[megladon8]

Clockwork Orange = ludwigvancore


I would've gone with viddiecore myself.

Could Paris Hilton have her own genre, whorecore?

[origami_mustache]

I would've gone with viddiecore myself.



or yarblescore?

[megladon8]

or yarblescore?


Milkcore?

Giantceramicpeniscore?

[Derek]

Could Paris Hilton have her own genre, whorecore?

I'd prefer ignorethewhorecore.

[Watashi]

Brad Bird: betterthanyoucore

[Rowland]

Argento - giallocore
Shimizu - juoncore
Leone - spaghetticore

[origami_mustache]

hahaha thisisgettingoutofcontrolcore

[chrisnu]

David Cronenberg - splattercore

[Winston*]

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/b/b9/180px-Graham_Chapman_Colonel.jpg

[MadMan]

I highly enjoy the strange and delightful turn this thread has taken :lol:


I Walked with a Zombie (1943) **½Does this translate to a 70 or a 7.0? If that's the case then yes I agree with that rating. I thought it was a rather strange, if creepy and somewhat entertaining, film.

[Spinal]

Very nearly complete with the ballot. Just have to add up the acting categories. Any last minute edits via PM need to happen within the next hour or so.

[Stay Puft]

Anthony Wong is awesome. I watched Armageddon tonight (the 1997 Gordan Chan movie, not the 1998 Michael Bay movie), and for most of the movie he drifts through each scene casually, running his mouth and playing kind of a silly, bumbling, but earnest character. But then at the end he apparently dies, and this religious prophet with supernatural powers takes on Anthony Wong's form to try and convince Andy Lau to believe in God so that the world will end, or something (don't ask, it's a terrible movie). The prophet is played by this white guy who can't act (what else is new), and when Andy Lau finally catches on that it's not really Anthony Wong trying to convine him to end the world, Anthony Wong suddenly breaks character and calls forth the power of God in what I can only describe as the most brilliant, deadpan impersonation of a white guy who can't act.

So awesome. But the movie sucks, and it needed more Michelle Reis.

[Sycophant]

That... is damn near irresistible, Stay Puft.

[MadMan]

God I love 31 Days of Oscar. TCM>every other movie channel in existance.

[Mysterious Dude]

Frankly, I hate it when they go a whole month without Silent Sundays.

[Raiders]

Martin Scorsese:

fuhgeddabouditcore

[Sycophant]

I'm not ready to slap a quantifiication of my enjoyment on it, but The Death of Mr. Lazarescu was a pretty great experience.

[Rowland]

I'm not ready to slap a quantifiication of my enjoyment on it, but The Death of Mr. Lazarescu was a pretty great experience.My #1 for '06. An amazing movie.

[MacGuffin]

Gone Baby Gone or The Wind That Shakes the Barley?

[Kurosawa Fan]

Gone Baby Gone or The Wind That Shakes the Barley?

I haven't seen the former, but I've seen the latter. Go with the former.

[Sycophant]

I haven't seen the former, but I've seen the latter. Go with the former.My set up is inverted, but my conclusion is identical.

[Duncan]

The Wind that Shakes the Barley is great. Haven't seen Gone Baby Gone.

[Wryan]

God I love 31 Days of Oscar. TCM>every other movie channel in existance.

The Red Shoes is on tomorrow night.


Frankly, I hate it when they go a whole month without Silent Sundays.

Oh psh. At least they have days from the 1920s/1930s mixed in throughout the month.

[MadMan]

Unfortunately due to going to out eat I missed the first 30 minutes of It Happened One Night. Which means I won't be watching the entire film. Bah. Hopefully they show it again either in the coming months or next year.
I may check out The Red Shoes tomorrow night though. If I stay in town this weekend I'll be watching all of the 70s offerings that will be shown on Friday.

[Philosophe_rouge]

I am very angry I have no TCM, but everyone who hasn't should see The Red Shoes.

[megladon8]

I think TCM has different programming in Canada than in the USA.

I usd to subscribe to their monthly newsletter with film schedules and news and whatnot, but found that nothing ever matched up with what I was seeing on the television. And it wasn't just a case of differing timezones - the schedules were completely different.

But I agree it's a fantastic station. Its no-commercial broadcasting has made me a lifetime fan :)

[Yxklyx]

Heads up! Hartley's Trust was recently made available with Netflix' Watch It Now feature.

[Qrazy]

I haven't seen the former, but I've seen the latter. Go with the former.

Haha same here and I concur.

[MadMan]

I am very angry I have no TCM, but everyone who hasn't should see The Red Shoes.Knowing you and your viewing tastes by law you should have that channel :lol:

[monolith94]

Gone Baby Gone or The Wind That Shakes the Barley?
They're both at least quite good, Gone Baby Gone being very good. They're both definitely worth it.

[MacGuffin]

Hi everyone. I just finished an essay for my new blog. I really hope someone reads it because I put a lot of effort into it. I'm really tired. :(

[Rowland]

Hi everyone. I just finished an essay for my new blog. I really hope someone reads it because I put a lot of effort into it. I'm really tired. :(I will after I see the movie, my good man.

[MacGuffin]

I will after I see the movie, my good man.

Thanks, Row. I thought of you as I wrote the entry, since you're a fan of these sort of critical analyses. I hope you like the movie, and enjoy my blog, as I will be posting more of these.

[lovejuice]

The Wind that Shakes the Barley is great. Haven't seen Gone Baby Gone.

you're probably the only person on this board that shares my liking to WIND.

[MadMan]

Hi everyone. I just finished an essay for my new blog. I really hope someone reads it because I put a lot of effort into it. I'm really tired. :(I'll read it. I seem to be mostly reading reviews/essays on movies from Match-Cut folks these days anyways.

[MacGuffin]

I'll read it. I seem to be mostly reading reviews/essays on movies from Match-Cut folks these days anyways.

Thanks, there aren't any "real" spoilers.

[Duncan]

you're probably the only person on this board that shares my liking to WIND.

It's a little bit weird, right? Movie won the Palme D'Or for chrissakes, and nobody here likes it.

[megladon8]

I think Charle...er...domino...er...ba by doll loved The Wind That Shakes the Barley.

[lovejuice]

It's a little bit weird, right? Movie won the Palme D'Or for chrissakes, and nobody here likes it.

many people are put off by the talk-talk-talk where characters discuss the nature of the revolution. it's actually my favorite, and i believe it's historically accurate as well. revolution is a dialectical process that involves both the shoot 'em up aspect and such theorizing.

[Stay Puft]

I just finished watching The Wind That Shakes the Barley. I completely forgot this was the Cannes winner a couple years back (I did a double take at Duncan's post). I didn't mind it. Seems to work as a personal drama, not so sure about the broader context. Some good scenes, some not so good. Major *shrug*, I guess is what I'm saying. Surprised this was the Cannes winner. What did it have for competition?

[Rowland]

Coppola's rendition of Bram Stoker's Dracula doesn't work as drama, horror, or romance, but it's such a frothy stew of formal flamboyance, arch decadence, campy performances, and deliberate artifice as a throwback to cinema past, that I simply can't bring myself to linger on its myriad flaws. It's not a good movie, but it's a great movie movie.

[origami_mustache]

The Wind that Shakes the Barley is great. Haven't seen Gone Baby Gone.

ditto...why so many complaints about it?

[Bosco B Thug]

So yeah, is Ben Affleck some subversive genius enfant terrible or is Gone Baby Gone a case of happenstance dumb luck?

Would it make sense if I said that in the film's baby-stepped earnestness, matter-of-fact (occasionally terrifyingly intimidating) urban grotesquery, and most importantly, Affleck's jarringly simplistic, sporadically half-expressionistic/half-overwrought directing and dodgy-amateurish montages [of his poor American wasteland and its tawdry material minutiae] that he totally drowns the film in until its soaking with it... he has achieved that rhyme and reflection between theme/subtext and cinematic texture/construction/composition and made something almost brilliant?

So many things that could be a novice director settling into a groove of intuitive directorial conventions (lots of cutting and montage; habitual need to cut constantly between characters whenever each one starts talking; constant establishing "atmosphere" shots before the scene-scene begins; almost flat stylistics you'd expect from a TV documentary about East L.A. or funeral video by some amateur videomaking company, etc.) that instead of seeming amateurish, seem tied to its milieau of harsh banalities that seem to engulf its characters into its "home movie" aesthetic.

Weirdly involving movie. You can't help but become invested in Affleck-Monagham's dynamic duo. You can't help but understand Affleck's loyalty to the adjunct, dysfunctional community he grew up with. Very offbeat. I wonder what Ben Affleck'll be up to next.


Hi everyone. I just finished an essay for my new blog. I really hope someone reads it because I put a lot of effort into it. I'm really tired. :( I've had no luck finding Syndromes and a Century at local video stores, sadly, but I glossed over your entry and it seems very apt (and invested). :) I didn't really get Tropical Malady (not that I didn't like it... I just didn't like like it...), but your entry certainly made me go a number of times, "Yup, that's Tropical Malady alright! I did like how it did that (i.e. use of Thai pop, ambience of "non-dreamlike" dreaminess, "juxtaposition" of "relaxing past," memories and desires, etc.), so maybe I should give it another try..."

I'm hoping I like 'Syndromes,' and then I'll go back and re-evaluate 'Tropical.'

[origami_mustache]

Stalag 17 (Billy Wilder, 1953)

http://www.filmreference.com/images/sjff_03_img1136.jpg

Billy Wilder's film is an interesting mash up of drama, tension, and comedy. A German prison camp during WWII was a bold location for a film with so much humor, especially in 1953, less than ten years after the war, and it almost feels like two separate films at times because of the dynamic range of tone shifts from scene to scene. Animal and Harry make up a double act comedy duo frequently used for broad humor that I could have done without, however there are a few pretty good gags that don't include them such as the German's giving each barrack a copy of Mein Kampf and a mini evergreen as a Christmas gift. There is also an amusing letter from a mother who is convinced that her son is fairing well in the prison camp which she hears has a tennis court which is frozen over in the winter and used as an ice skating rink.

The German character's in the film are portrayed as simple minded caricatures speaking in broken English who are easily duped, while the real villain is the backstabbing American(s) ratting out their fellow comrades. Like most Wilder films, Stalag 17 has a pretty direct message. This time around he seems to be disturbed by the rampant McCarthyism that ran wild during the late 40s through the late 50s. In 1947 Hollywood began blacklisting employees and people were anonymously being accused and interrogated based purely on hearsay in many cases. The film parallels these activities as the main character, Sgt. Sefton, the cynical swindler, played by William Holden who won an Academy Award for this role, is accused of being the rat without solid evidence to prove such. With a running time of just about 2 hours, I felt that the film was a little too long and became redundant towards the end, but is still solid.

[Sven]

I think Charle...er...domino...er...ba by doll loved The Wind That Shakes the Barley.

Domino/babydoll is not the same as Charlemagne. Just so you know.

[Qrazy]

many people are put off by the talk-talk-talk where characters discuss the nature of the revolution. it's actually my favorite, and i believe it's historically accurate as well. revolution is a dialectical process that involves both the shoot 'em up aspect and such theorizing.

Or we're put off by the fact we think it's not very good?

[Raiders]

Or we're put off by the fact we think it's not very good?

Oh really?

I believe lovejuice was trying to say why he thought people didn't think it was very good. I know it is a revolutionary concept on a message board.

[Qrazy]

Oh really?

I believe lovejuice was trying to say why he thought people didn't think it was very good. I know it is a revolutionary concept on a message board.

For reasons beyond our lack of attention span for the talk-talk-talk.

Such as a middling aesthetic, middling drama and only partially fleshed out character arcs.

[Raiders]

For reasons beyond our lack of attention span for the talk-talk-talk.

I think he meant more the uncinematic and didactic nature of the film (unseen by me) as opposed to your short attention span.

[Qrazy]

I think he meant more the uncinematic and didactic nature of the film (unseen by me) as opposed to your short attention span.

Well as you haven't seen the film, wouldn't it be beneficial to all concerned if you stopped speaking as if you had? Just because a film is talky doesn't mean it's more or less didactic or uncinematic. Speaking as someone who has seen the film, I didn't mind the town meetings and general political conversations. That was often where the film was at it's finest, because by establishing such heated antagonistic perspectives, it incensed what had the potential to be great drama. If that is, the drama had been shot in a more nuanced and/or compelling fashion.

But you're correct in so far as Lovejuice was positing a speculative reason and not the reason why many didn't think it was a great film, so perhaps my seemingly reactionary comment could be interpreted as 'over the top'.

[Raiders]

Well as you haven't seen the film, wouldn't it be beneficial to all concerned if you stopped speaking as if you had?

I never did. I merely responded to your snotty reply to his post. I never once gave any opinion on the film.

[Qrazy]

I never did. I merely responded to your snotty reply to his post. I never once gave any opinion on the film.

With snotty and assumptive replies of your own. I commend you.

It would help to have seen the film when interpreting a statement about it as in reference to any uncinematic or didactic elements.

[Raiders]

With snotty and assumptive replies of your own. I commend you.

It's a gift.

[Raiders]

It would help to have seen the film when interpreting a statement about it as in reference to any uncinematic or didactic elements.

I am aware of the criticisms against the film and I have the hubris to say that knowing this, I am fairly sure that lovejuice wasn't going out of his way to criticize your ability to pay attention, rather comment on the fact that characters continuously talk-talk-talk about the revolution, thus making it uncinematic and didactic.

I apologize for any jumping to conclusions, however having seen the film isn't really necessary to infer from lovejuice's statement what I thought he was trying to say.

[Qrazy]

It's a gift.

One that we share. *blows nose*

[Qrazy]

I am fairly sure that lovejuice wasn't going out of his way to criticize your ability to pay attention.

Probably true, I in turn apologize for my penchant for heart on sleeve-ness and preemptive contrarianism.

On a vaguely related note, I'm beginning to feel like the only conversations I have these days are conversations about conversations concerning the original conversations. I'm tempted to self-lobotomize so that I might return to the meat and potatoes of communication.

[ledfloyd]

It took me two viewings to sort out Werckmeister Harmonies, but it is undoubtedly one of the best films of the decade.

[Velocipedist]

It took me two viewings to sort out Werckmeister Harmonies, but it is undoubtedly one of the best films of the decade.

Quoted for truth.

And it starts out so disparagingly...

[ledfloyd]

Quoted for truth.

And it starts out so disparagingly...
Even the first time I saw it I absolutely loved that first shot. One of the greatest ever as far as I'm concerned.

[Raiders]

And it starts out so disparagingly...

Huh?

[Velocipedist]

Even the first time I saw it I absolutely loved that first shot. One of the greatest ever as far as I'm concerned.

It's not about the first shot. The mood seems to bounce around from frailty to clumsiness in the first 10-15 minutes.

[Dillard]

Wait, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the first shot last at least 10 minutes?

I disagree that the mood bounces around. The scene is organic and poetic as Janos sets in motion the solar system using human parts. The tinny piano that comes in reinforces the mood.

[lovejuice]

I am fairly sure that lovejuice wasn't going out of his way to criticize your ability to pay attention, rather comment on the fact that characters continuously talk-talk-talk about the revolution, thus making it uncinematic and didactic.

indeed no. there is actually a scene that quite stands out in which characters -- whom, i believe, audiences have never known before -- gather around and theorize about the revolution for almost 15 minutes. from what i remember, many people are actually put off by this scene. (granted they might not find the whole production that worthy either, but it's this scene that snaps the cord.)

i like this scene a lot. in a movie about revolution, what's always lack is to show the fact that revolution is a nihilistic/existentialistic activity in nature, and such theorizing about which way to go after the god is dethroned is necessary, and, i presume, historically correct.

[Raiders]

It's not about the first shot. The mood seems to bounce around from frailty to clumsiness in the first 10-15 minutes.

I don't even know what this means. Can you clarify?

[Philosophe_rouge]

Knowing you and your viewing tastes by law you should have that channel :lol:
I know :frustrated: GRR.

[Qrazy]

indeed no. there is actually a scene that quite stands out in which characters -- whom, i believe, audiences have never known before -- gather around and theorize about the revolution for almost 15 minutes.

We knew most of them from before.

[Sycophant]

The promotional materials I saw for Jumper in the lobby of the local megaplex pretty much inspired an immediate uninformed dislike. Then I saw Doug Liman directed it and immediately decided I was going to watch it this month.

Speaking of upcoming movies, I had this horrible dream where I really enjoyed Charlie Bartlett.

[lovejuice]

If Syndromes and a Century makes any sort of political statement, it's that we may only be erasing our pasts. We try to expand and make life easier for ourselves by introducing new technology, but really we are forgetting what is important in life, and that is making these memories that Joe speaks of. Memories evolve from meditation and reminiscence of past events. In order to preserve these memories for future generations, we need to allow them to grow up in an environment that can enable this.

i have a hard time endorse this interpretation. i know, it's the most obvious and the one that people tend to shoot up. in S&C thread, there's a discussion about how actually it's the second half that is more intimate than the first. if anything, it's definitely more sensual. i think of the second half more like joe's growing up, moving to bangkok, and learning adult stuffs like sex and business. the first half is idyllic in a way that memory is supposed to be. but it's too dreamlike. it's more in the second half that real love and attraction resides.

anyway, it's a nicely written review. i believe joe's parent is an architect though. (perhaps his mom is a nurse, while his dad is an architect. i can check that out for you easily.)

[baby doll]

After "Persepolis" and "Embroideries," I'm pretty much pre-sold as far as Marjane Satrapi is concerned, but still, the movie Persepolis is pretty much the best thing ever. The only thing that sucked was that I was sitting a few seats down from Ellen Page, which reminded me of everything I disliked about Juno, but then I couldn't say anything.

[megladon8]

I love Creature From the Black Lagoon. Watched it for the second time last night and it holds up really well.

Despite some wooden acting and some hammy dialogue in places, it's just done so damn well.

The creature's costume is still awesome today. When it comes out of the water and is gasping, trying to breathe, and when they capture it and it sits in the tank just staring forward - great moments that were done very effectively.

And the movie has some scares in it that are still effective. Moments when the creature suddenly pops out of the reeds under water are really creepy.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Speaking of upcoming movies, I had this horrible dream where I really enjoyed Charlie Bartlett.

It's a good flick, dude. Don't fight it.

[MadMan]

I love Creature From the Black Lagoon. Watched it for the second time last night and it holds up really well.

Despite some wooden acting and some hammy dialogue in places, it's just done so damn well.

The creature's costume is still awesome today. When it comes out of the water and is gasping, trying to breathe, and when they capture it and it sits in the tank just staring forward - great moments that were done very effectively.

And the movie has some scares in it that are still effective. Moments when the creature suddenly pops out of the reeds under water are really creepy.Until I see The Wolfman and Frankenstein I think that The Mummy is the best of the Universal creature features. But Creature From the Black Lagoon is really cool as well. The Creature itself really rocks in terms of old school special effects.


The promotional materials I saw for Jumper in the lobby of the local megaplex pretty much inspired an immediate uninformed dislike. Then I saw Doug Liman directed it and immediately decided I was going to watch it this month.

Speaking of upcoming movies, I had this horrible dream where I really enjoyed Charlie Bartlett.Despite liking The Bourne Identity and Mr. And Mrs. Smith a lot I think Jumper looks really weak. Although Samuel L. Jackson as a bad guy sounds like a really cool idea even though he's sporting some weirdo hairdo that makes him look older than he actually is. As for Charlie Bartlett, it looks like a really weak version of Rushmore combined with some other teen dramadies. Meh.


I know :frustrated: GRR.Do you have a friend who has it perhaps? I only have it because I'm living up at college and have good cable for once.


Thanks, there aren't any "real" spoilers.That's never stopped me before heh.

Anyways as I'm a man of my word I made it through the entire thing. I like how you combined the film's concept of looking back at the past with thoughts of what it would feel to look back at something old from your own life. I must confess I'm in awe of most Match-Cutter's writing skills, if only because I often put very little effort into my write ups and I rarely if ever write very much. Cool. And I love the blog set up-I wish the one I had on Icine looked that neat. I might check out the film you reviewed if I ever get the chance.

[Qrazy]

The Creature itself really rocks in terms of old school special effects.


Umm... not feeling it. Nosferatu'd whip his gilly ass.

[megladon8]

Umm... not feeling it. Nosferatu'd whip his gilly ass.


No way.

Don't get me wrong, Nosferatu rocks - but he's a bald guy with long nails and two pointy teeth.

The detail work in the creature's costume is incredible.

From a pure technical standpoint, creature > Nosferatu.

[MadMan]

Umm... not feeling it. Nosferatu'd whip his gilly ass.But that's not what I was measuring. Both look really cool, but honestly I have no clue which one would win a fight :lol: In terms of movie quality both versions of Nosferatu>The Creature From the Black Lagoon of course.

[megladon8]

But that's not what I was measuring. Both look really cool, but honestly I have no clue which one would win a fight :lol: In terms of movie quality both versions of Nosferatu>The Creature From the Black Lagoon of course.


Eh, I'd actually rank it...

1.) Nosferatu ('79)
2.) Creature From the Black Lagoon
3.) Nosferatu ('22)

That's not to say the '22 film is bad...I still give it a 9.

[D_Davis]

The creature's costume is still awesome today.

Not as good as in The Creature Walks Among Us.

I prefer the more casual look...the cotton button-up shirt is a nice touch, and offsets his rugged, monstrous look.

http://www.genrebusters.com/images/creature2.jpg

[megladon8]

Not as good as in The Creature Walks Among Us.

I prefer the more casual look...the cotton button-up shirt is a nice touch, and offsets his rugged, monstrous look.

http://www.genrebusters.com/images/creature2.jpg


He is pretty damn handsome there.

I hope when the remake comes out, it involves a breakdancing scene at a club.

[Qrazy]

Not as good as in The Creature Walks Among Us.

I prefer the more casual look...the cotton button-up shirt is a nice touch, and offsets his rugged, monstrous look.

http://www.genrebusters.com/images/creature2.jpg

lmao

[Velocipedist]

Random thought: am I the only one who thinks Joan Allen resembles Marlene Dietrich?

[trotchky]

Gone Baby Gone continues the 2007 trend of Hollywood movies actively critiquing themselves, this time from a celebrity's perspective. It's no surprise that Ben Affleck, a dude who's apparently been kicked around in the public eye one-too-many-times, directed this film, being a meditation on the sometimes vicious, often self-defeating relationship between the celebrity and the public. When the film first introduced Morgan Freeman, I laughed, as I reckon I was supposed to; that the big-name actors look so out of place next to their average joe counterparts is thematically resonant in this meta-as-fuck who-shot-modern-society fable. The big-namers represent themselves and the rest of the players in the film's central mystery are stand-ins for a public that's all too willing to use, abuse, then spit out the big-titted, cleft-chined marvels that Hollywood rams down their throats, leaving them to die by the side of the road as they move on to the next big trainwreck. In the last shot, with the camera hovering above an enormous television set, Affleck confronts himself, ego-to-ego, celebrity-to-celebrity, and learns...what? I guess that's up for us to determine, as the moral quandary the film presents can easily be extended to our own choice between doing nothing and allowing Hollywood to continue its treacherous game (we both appear happy with this set-up, on the surface), or stepping up and disrupting the machine before it's too late for us all. Overall one of the better meta-films of last year.

[ledfloyd]

Man, I couldn't have been more excited for Gone Baby Gone. I've always been a fan of Ben and a huge fan of Casey. The Kenzie/Gennaro novels by Dennis Lehane are among my favorite series of detective novels. It had two Wire vets who I love in Amy Ryan and Michael K. Williams. Names like Ed Harris and Morgan Freeman never hurt either. I considered blind buying it. I'm glad I didn't. What a big bowl of disappointment.

I think perhaps I'm too close to the source material, as every change that was made I thought was for the worse. I never experienced the suspense or urgency I did reading the novel, even for the second and third times. But setting all that aside, I hated that as the film built to it's climax, we were shown tons of flashbacks in quick succession tying all the plot threads together for us. I hate when movies insult the audiences intelligence like that and I think that alone made me give the movie a negative rating rather than a neutral one.

Affleck's directing doesn't appear to be noticably good or bad. Which I guess for a first time director is a good thing. There were some flourishes that I enjoyed and I look forward to his next film. One thing I didn't think he was good at was directing actors. Amy Ryan's performance I didn't enjoy. I thought it was overwrought. Michelle Monghan and Morgan Freeman were just there. All of the bit roles except Michael K Williams I thought were pretty poorly acted. Ed Harris and Casey Affleck were both pretty good though. They didn't, however, live up to their recent performances in A History of Violence or The Ass. of Jesse James.

I wanted to like this sooo much.

[megladon8]

I'm really sorry you were so disappointed by Gone Baby Gone, ledfloyd.

I thought it was one of the best films of the year.

I'm especially surprised that you hated Amy Ryan - I thought her performance was incredible, and she was totally unrecognizable in the role (both physically and dialogue/character-wise).

I've said it before - I appreciated the film's use of "normal looking people". I know Hollywood films sell a lot of tickets with gorgeous studs and babes, but all of the supporting roles were people who were average looking or downright ugly, and I thought both Casey Affleck and Michelle Monaghan had their looks dulled down for their roles. It added to the sense of realism which I thought was so prevalent through the film.

This and Sunshine were the two films from last year whose issues and ideologies I continued to ponder for days - even weeks - after seeing them.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Do you have a friend who has it perhaps? I only have it because I'm living up at college and have good cable for once.

I don't know anybody who has it, I don't know if it's available in Quebec... I hear Rogers supplies it in Ontario, not sure about here.

[MadMan]

I don't know anybody who has it, I don't know if it's available in Quebec... I hear Rogers supplies it in Ontario, not sure about here.Oh. That sucks. I knew there was a downside to Canada ;)

[Dead & Messed Up]

Until I see The Wolfman and Frankenstein I think that The Mummy is the best of the Universal creature features. But Creature From the Black Lagoon is really cool as well. The Creature itself really rocks in terms of old school special effects.

Well, once you see those two, The Mummy will drop quickly. But, yeah, the Creature is pretty awesome.


Despite liking The Bourne Identity and Mr. And Mrs. Smith a lot I think Jumper looks really weak. Although Samuel L. Jackson as a bad guy sounds like a really cool idea even though he's sporting some weirdo hairdo that makes him look older than he actually is. As for Charlie Bartlett, it looks like a really weak version of Rushmore combined with some other teen dramadies. Meh.

Samuel L. Jackson is almost sixty, dude. And Charlie Bartlett was damn good. A mostly accurate look at teenage life and the problems facing kids.

[Sycophant]

A mostly accurate look at teenage life and the problems facing kids.
Really? Really? I don't see that in the trailer.

If you have a corroborating voice, I'll have no choice but to watch it.

[megladon8]

I don't think the problem with Sam Jackson's hairdo is that it makes him look older, but it's just a stupid, bad hairdo.

It looks like an awful movie - and the zero-charisma, cardboard-cutout-called-an-actor Hayden Christensen doesn't help.

[MadMan]

Well, once you see those two, The Mummy will drop quickly. But, yeah, the Creature is pretty awesome.I figure that as much. I can't wait to view the other films.


Samuel L. Jackson is almost sixty, dude. And Charlie Bartlett was damn good. A mostly accurate look at teenage life and the problems facing kids.Yeah I know, but he often doesn't look it. I'll take your recommendation for "Charlie" but for now its a rental at best.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Really? Really? I don't see that in the trailer.

If you have a corroborating voice, I'll have no choice but to watch it.

Going off the cut I saw, which was six months ago, the story mostly centers on Charlie's personal difficulties and how his mother constantly sends him to a psychiatrist. Thanks to the psyche, he's able to provide prescription drugs to people with all sorts of problems, and he eventually starts acting as a shrink to the kids.

I'm not sure how the ad campaign is playing it, but I'd imagine they're playing up the humor and downplaying some quieter and darker elements to the film. Namely, Charlie's issues with his father, a kid with problems drugs can't aid, and Robert Downey Jr.'s character, who seems like an older, broken version of Charlie.

Regardless, I did thoroughly enjoy it, but that's one man's opinion.

[megladon8]

From what I understand - and this is based largely on my own presumptions from the trailer and the interview I am going to refer to later - Robert Downey, Jr.'s character has his own substance abuse problems in Charlie Bartlett. I think it's alcoholism.

I watched an interview recently with him and Anton Yelchin, and the interviewer at one point asked Downey, Jr. about Iron Man. He said it was interesting doing these two films so close together, because they're very similar characters with similar "demons" in their lives - only Tony Stark is much lighter due to the source material and younger target audience...and the fact that it's an action/super-hero movie.

[Sxottlan]

I admit I'm always behind the uber-quick internet fads, so I don't know if anyone has seen the latest nuttiness from David Lynch, but here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKiIroiCvZ0) you go. Hysterical.

[MadMan]

I just realized today after looking through one of my folders on my laptop that I have a bunch of reviews that I scribbled down in a notebook and have yet to transfer to the computer. I think I wrote at least 10 reviews last year, all over the span of August to November. Many were actually for horror films. I should really get on the ball, but I find that when I get some of them on the computer I'm not satisfied with their current state and have to make some changes. And a few I penned down I'm not sure are really worthy of even posting, but to re-create the would require me to track down a certain film, and some of them were viewed off of TCM.

[MacGuffin]

I just realized today after looking through one of my folders on my laptop that I have a bunch of reviews that I scribbled down in a notebook and have yet to transfer to the computer. I think I wrote at least 10 reviews last year, all over the span of August to November. Many were actually for horror films. I should really get on the ball, but I find that when I get some of them on the computer I'm not satisfied with their current state and have to make some changes. And a few I penned down I'm not sure are really worthy of even posting, but to re-create the would require me to track down a certain film, and some of them were viewed off of TCM.

I would like to read them! Especially if they are about horror movies!

[trotchky]

Gone Baby Gone continues the 2007 trend of Hollywood movies actively critiquing themselves, this time from a celebrity's perspective. It's no surprise that Ben Affleck, a dude who's apparently been kicked around in the public eye one-too-many-times, directed this film, being a meditation on the sometimes vicious, often self-defeating relationship between the celebrity and the public. When the film first introduced Morgan Freeman, I laughed, as I reckon I was supposed to; that the big-name actors look so out of place next to their average joe counterparts is thematically resonant in this meta-as-fuck who-shot-modern-society fable. The big-namers represent themselves and the rest of the players in the film's central mystery are stand-ins for a public that's all too willing to use, abuse, then spit out the big-titted, cleft-chined marvels that Hollywood rams down their throats, leaving them to die by the side of the road as they move on to the next big trainwreck. In the last shot, with the camera hovering above an enormous television set, Affleck confronts himself, ego-to-ego, celebrity-to-celebrity, and learns...what? I guess that's up for us to determine, as the moral quandary the film presents can easily be extended to our own choice between doing nothing and allowing Hollywood to continue its treacherous game (we both appear happy with this set-up, on the surface), or stepping up and disrupting the machine before it's too late for us all. Overall one of the better meta-films of last year.

Does anyone agree with this reading of the film? I might go through it again tomorrow and pick out specific pieces of evidence (I know there are a lot, I just wasn't paying enough attention the first time).

[Duncan]

Does anyone agree with this reading of the film? I might go through it again tomorrow and pick out specific pieces of evidence (I know there are a lot, I just wasn't paying enough attention the first time).
Haven't seen it yet, but your post and a few other recent ones are rekindling my interest in it.

[MadMan]

I would like to read them! Especially if they are about horror movies!Thanks. And I'll try and get some of them up. Damn school work and stuff keeps getting in the way. Which is why I like summer: all you have to worry about is working. And you can even choose not to do that (and be broke and not be able to live anywhere but your parents house heh).

[megladon8]

For sure, MadMan.

I'm always up for reading a fellow poster's reviews. If there's lots of them, I can't promise that I'll reply to each and every one - especially if it's one I haven't seen and know nothing about. But I'll definitely read them!

[Russ]

Finally saw Valerie and Her Week of Wonders. And yeah, Spinal, that would have made my top five for 1970. I want all films from here on out to star thirteen year old Jaroslava Schallerová.

[ledfloyd]

Does anyone agree with this reading of the film? I might go through it again tomorrow and pick out specific pieces of evidence (I know there are a lot, I just wasn't paying enough attention the first time).
i forgot to tag on on the end of my post. i didn't really see it as meta at all and was wondering if you could elaborate on that. i thought it was just a mystery about child abuse and media circuses.

[Ezee E]

In The Shadow of the Moon is pretty great so far. I watched it late last night, and was really liking it, but had to go to bed. I'm going to rewatch everything I've seen thus far and the rest sometime today.

No Lance Armstrong though. I don't understand why he wouldn't participate.

[Dukefrukem]

I could have sworn we had a 30 Days of Night thread here... damn it

[Kurosawa Fan]

No Lance Armstrong though. I don't understand why he wouldn't participate.

No kidding. His moon training really came through with those 7 Tour de France victories. Maybe he's afraid people will think that kind of training is performance-enhancing?

[ledfloyd]

The Coen brothers have bought the rights to The Yiddish Policeman's Union by Michael Chabon. It's probably early to be excited for this since 2010 seems like an optimistic release date, but I'm giddy as hell anyway. My favorite director's of the last 20 years teamed up with my favorite author of the last 20 years. Reading this book I thought it was a Coen script waiting to happen, the last time I thought that was reading No Country for Old Men and we all know how well that turned out.

[Raiders]

I was thinking of starting an Oscar prediction thread where each person submits a ballot predicting who they think the Oscars will choose (not who they want to win) and we'll tally and create Match Cut's Oscar prediction ballot. Anyone think it is worth a shot?

[Yxklyx]

I admit I'm always behind the uber-quick internet fads, so I don't know if anyone has seen the latest nuttiness from David Lynch, but here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKiIroiCvZ0) you go. Hysterical.

i was surprised to find that the resolution on an iphone is only somewhat less than half that of a DVD - still it's such a small display! We may not be too far off from having blu-ray quality films delivered in a wearable vizor.

[ledfloyd]

I was thinking of starting an Oscar prediction thread where each person submits a ballot predicting who they think the Oscars will choose (not who they want to win) and we'll tally and create Match Cut's Oscar prediction ballot. Anyone think it is worth a shot?
sounds like fun.

[Sycophant]

I was thinking of starting an Oscar prediction thread where each person submits a ballot predicting who they think the Oscars will choose (not who they want to win) and we'll tally and create Match Cut's Oscar prediction ballot. Anyone think it is worth a shot?Sounds awesome!

[Philosophe_rouge]

I saw Night of the Living Dead (1968) last night and I think I'm in love. I'm checking out Romero's other films ASAP.

[ledfloyd]

I saw Night of the Living Dead (1968) last night and I think I'm in love. I'm checking out Romero's other films ASAP.
one of us! one of us!

by the way i watched red shoes last night and fell asleep an hour and a half in, but i loved what i saw, it appears i need to dive into powell and pressburgers catalog.

any recs on where to start?

[Dukefrukem]

I saw Night of the Living Dead (1968) last night and I think I'm in love. I'm checking out Romero's other films ASAP.

Bout time! ;) Glad you enjoyed it. It's my fave of the original trilogy.

[Spinal]

one of us! one of us!

by the way i watched red shoes last night and fell asleep an hour and a half in, but i loved what i saw, it appears i need to dive into powell and pressburgers catalog.

any recs on where to start?

Black Narcissus.

[Philosophe_rouge]

one of us! one of us!

by the way i watched red shoes last night and fell asleep an hour and a half in, but i loved what i saw, it appears i need to dive into powell and pressburgers catalog.

any recs on where to start?
I do think The Red Shoes is probably the best place to start, otherwise I'd start by trying to track down Black Narcissus, A Matter of Life and Death and The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp before tracking down their other films. I Know Where I'm Going! is probably my favourite of their black and white films (I actually consider Going is my 3rd favourite, but for whatever reason I like recommending their colour films before moving into the b&w ones).

[Ezee E]

No kidding. His moon training really came through with those 7 Tour de France victories. Maybe he's afraid people will think that kind of training is performance-enhancing?
:)

I was too freakin' tired when I wrote that, hence, the reason why I had to shut it off early.

[MadMan]

I saw Night of the Living Dead (1968) last night and I think I'm in love. I'm checking out Romero's other films ASAP.Hurray! :pritch: I haven't seen a whole lot from Romero but I recommend strongly:

Dawn of the Dead(1978)
Martin(1977)

The Dark Half is pretty decent as well. I still need to see Creepshow, the rest of his "Dead" series, The Crazies and Knightriders. Its kind of hard to find his films though but I'm sure Creepshow is easy to track down. I got luck and found an old VHS copy of Martin at the community college I went to for two years.


For sure, MadMan.

I'm always up for reading a fellow poster's reviews. If there's lots of them, I can't promise that I'll reply to each and every one - especially if it's one I haven't seen and know nothing about. But I'll definitely read them!Cool. And I think you've probably seen most of them though-I really went through horror "classics" during October.

[megladon8]

Wow. The first time I saw The Host - over a year ago - I left feeling it was good, not great, and I didn't see what the big deal was.

But holy crap. I watched it last night and it kicked my ass. An amazing movie.

[Stay Puft]

Wow. The first time I saw The Host - over a year ago - I left feeling it was good, not great, and I didn't see what the big deal was.

But holy crap. I watched it last night and it kicked my ass. An amazing movie.

One of us! One of us!

I'm also a member of the Romero fan club. Day of the Dead is great and perhaps underrated.

[megladon8]

One of us! One of us!

I'm also a member of the Romero fan club. Day of the Dead is great and perhaps underrated.


The tagline for The Host should have been...

"Ugh...those damn Americans"

[Rowland]

The Host is a good movie in need of another screenplay draft or two and more judicious editing. I prefer Memories of Murder, but the through-lines are weak in both, more awkwardly so in The Host.

[MadMan]

Wow. The first time I saw The Host - over a year ago - I left feeling it was good, not great, and I didn't see what the big deal was.

But holy crap. I watched it last night and it kicked my ass. An amazing movie.I saw it last month (I just never got around to reviewing it) and I had the same reaction you did after the second viewing. Only it was my first viewing. My rating for it is also the same as yours. High five! :)

[megladon8]

The Host is a good movie in need of another screenplay draft or two and more judicious editing. I prefer Memories of Murder, but the through-lines are weak in both, more awkwardly so in The Host.


Memories of Murder is a masterpiece.

The Host is really, really good.

[megladon8]

I saw it last month (I just never got around to reviewing it) and I had the same reaction you did after the second viewing. Only it was my first viewing. My rating for it is also the same as yours. High five! :)


Sweet.

I loved the monster design, and the effects were fantastic (aside from that scene at the end where the monster is on fire - that looked kinda bad).

[Philosophe_rouge]

Hurray! :pritch: I haven't seen a whole lot from Romero but I recommend strongly:

Dawn of the Dead(1978)
Martin(1977)

The Dark Half is pretty decent as well. I still need to see Creepshow, the rest of his "Dead" series, The Crazies and Knightriders. Its kind of hard to find his films though but I'm sure Creepshow is easy to track down. I got luck and found an old VHS copy of Martin at the community college I went to for two years.

Cool. And I think you've probably seen most of them though-I really went through horror "classics" during October.
Actually, my video store has Martin on DVD. I ALMOST picked it up yesterday, but I decided against it for whatever arbitrary reason. I'll be seeing one of the other Dead films this weekend (for a class actually) but I haven't decided which. I've never heard of the Dark Half actually.

[EyesWideOpen]

The tagline for The Host should have been...

"Ugh...those damn Americans"

It was interesting to read that that part of the movie was based on a real event.