28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[Ezee E]

I'd rather call The Wild Bunch as part of the evolution of the Western, which interestingly matches the evolution of film, with the Production Code, technology, and so on.

Deadwood could be the next step

[Philosophe_rouge]

i plan to watch pat garret and billy the kid this weekend. can't wait. i'm on a dylan kick recently.
I really like this film, on a rewatch it may become my favourite Peckinpah. Very beautiful, and Qrazy is right... that one particular scene is WOW.

[Sycophant]

So I just saw a TV spot for Horton Hears a Who that advertised "featuring the voice cast of Steve Carrell, Jonah Hill, and Seth Rogen!". Of course who cares if they omit Jim Carrey because he is only voicing the main character of the movie!And despite how much I like those other three, I find Carrey a bigger talent overall and would imagine a bigger box office draw. Or is there a backlash in effect?

[Rowland]

And despite how much I like those other three, I find Carrey a bigger talent overall and would imagine a bigger box office draw. Or is there a backlash in effect?Hasn't Carrey been widely acknowledged as being in something of a downward spiral career-wise for a few years now?

[MacGuffin]

Hasn't Carrey been widely acknowledged as being in something of a downward spiral career-wise for a few years now?

He probably took a piss in the recording room or something; don't mind him.

[Spinal]

The new Horton Hears a Who looks offensively bad.

[Spinal]

Neither does your opinion on the movie, so let's call it even and listen to PJ.

Have you seen her DVD, Please Leave Quietly? I'm watching it soon.

[Watashi]

How is it offensive?

[Melville]

I more or less agree. My favorite part of the movie is when one of them wakes up on that tower. I think it's Casey. The dialogue is priceless
Yeah, that scene was great. I'll agree with Qrazy that the movie fails as a metaphor for life, but it's both entrancing and funny in its absurdity. My favorite bit of dialogue:

Gerry: I thought maybe you'd succumbed.
Gerry: I almost did succumb, but then I turbaned up, and I feel a lot better.

[Spinal]

How is it offensive?

In the way that it trades on the Seuss name while clearly missing the mark on the Seuss spirit.

[Watashi]

In the way that it trades on the Seuss name while clearly missing the mark on the Seuss spirit.
Okay... but how is that offensive to a moviegoer? I'm not related to Dr. Seuss.

[Spinal]

Okay... but how is that offensive to a moviegoer? I'm not related to Dr. Seuss.

I am confused as to what is unclear.

[Rowland]

Who says Gerry is supposed to be "a metaphor for life", which is pretty vague and meaningless. It may fail at embodying this, whatever such a metaphor would entail, but I never saw it as trying to be that.

[Rowland]

Okay... but how is that offensive to a moviegoer? I'm not related to Dr. Seuss.If the people who make the movie think we're tasteless idiots who don't care if a movie based on a Dr. Seuss book is remotely in touch with the source material's spirit, why shouldn't we be offended? Of course, almost everything in our society is designed to treat us like idiots, so I'm growing tired of being offended.

[Sycophant]

I agree with Spinal re: Horton. My only problem is that I've kind of fallen in love with the stylized animation, so will probably see the movie just to see more of it.

[MacGuffin]

I agree with Spinal re: Horton. My only problem is that I've kind of fallen in love with the stylized animation, so will probably see the movie just to see more of it.

I think we are ahead of ourselves in talking about the movie. Who are we to consider if it's necessary when we don't know whether the movie will say something the original source didn't? After all, the purpose of adaptations and remakes are usually a recreation of the original vision in the first place.

[Melville]

Who says Gerry is supposed to be "a metaphor for life", which is pretty vague and meaningless. It may fail at embodying this, whatever such a metaphor would entail, but I never saw it as trying to be that.
I think, as Qrazy mentioned, it's fairly easy to read the film as a representation of life as a meaningless, absurd struggle. I'm not sure if that's what Van Sant intended, but it's such a dominant literary forebearer that it's hard to ignore.

[trotchky]

Audition was a lot denser than I expected it to be, and also a lot less graphic. I'm probably going to have to revisit it.

[transmogrifier]

Have you seen her DVD, Please Leave Quietly? I'm watching it soon.

No, Korea's a bit of a dead zone for decent music DVDs.

[Rowland]

I think, as Qrazy mentioned, it's fairly easy to read the film as a representation of life as a meaningless, absurd struggle. I'm not sure if that's what Van Sant intended, but it's such a dominant literary forebearer that it's hard to ignore.Well, I don't know what to say about this dominant literary forebearer. Are you suggesting that literature of this minimalist, existential nature is primarily about life as a meaningless, absurd struggle, hence why such an interpretative prism isn't such a leap for Gerry?

Anyway, I have my ideas about what it means, but I suspect that Pauline Kael's dismissal of Days of Heaven as a Christmas tree upon which any metaphor can be hung is applicable here, only the movie is so seductive in its uncompromisingly austere immediacy, and bracing in its haunting humanity, that I don't particularly mind.

[Spinal]

Well, I don't know what to say about this dominant literary forebearer. Are you suggesting that literature of this minimalist, existential nature is primarily about life as a meaningless, absurd struggle, hence why such an interpretative prism isn't such a leap for Gerry?



Haven't seen Gerry, but what you're talking about sounds a lot like it could owe something to the Theatre of the Absurd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theatre_of_the_absurd). Particularly Beckett.

[Boner M]

Speaking of Van Sant, Paranoid Park was a disappointment for someone who loved his previous three films. I just couldn't get on his wavelength this time; the attempts at poetry just felt either lazily arbitrary or just simply transparent, as if his motto making it was 'if in doubt, add Nino Rota or Elliott Smith and play it in slo-mo'. The only time the film really clicked for me was the aftermath of the security guard's death, when the abstractions of sound and image really cohere and absolutely nail that overwhelming sense of being burdened with guilt and alienation. Apart from that it just feels too self-conscious an attempt for Van Sant to make something entirely his own, and never comes alive as result.

[MacGuffin]

Speaking of Van Sant, Paranoid Park was a disappointment for someone who loved his previous three films. I just couldn't get on his wavelength this time; the attempts at poetry just felt either lazily arbitrary or just simply transparent, as if his motto making it was 'if in doubt, add Nino Rota or Elliott Smith and play it in slo-mo'. The only time the film really clicked for me was the aftermath of the security guard's death, when the abstractions of sound and image really cohere and absolutely nail that overwhelming sense of being burdened with guilt and alienation. Apart from that it just feels too self-conscious an attempt for Van Sant to make something entirely his own, and never comes alive as result.

Nino Rota and Elliot Smith in slo-mo or the visuals?

[Boner M]

Nino Rota and Elliot Smith in slo-mo or the visuals?
Visuals, of course. The music usually accompanies the slo-mo scenes.

[Spinal]

I read that the opening shot of Paranoid Park is of the St. John's bridge which is about five blocks away from my house. I want to see it mostly for the Portland setting.

[Rowland]

Haven't seen Gerry, but what you're talking about sounds a lot like it could owe something to the Theatre of the Absurd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theatre_of_the_absurd). Particularly Beckett.Yeah, I'm passingly familiar with Passing for Godot, which I understand is commonly considered an antecedent for Gerry. Beyond that however, I'm honestly in no position to discuss the ties between the movie and this literary movement.

[MacGuffin]

Visuals, of course. The music usually accompanies the slo-mo scenes.

It would be pretty cool if he made the songs in slo-mo.

[Boner M]

I read that the opening shot of Paranoid Park is of the St. John's bridge which is about five blocks away from my house. I want to see it mostly for the Portland setting.
I think the film's greatest asset is it's sense of place. Maybe it'll work better for someone familiar with that milieu.

[Winston*]

Still think Paranoid Park is one of the most vapid films I've seen recently.

[ledfloyd]

I found that fairly stupid. If you're going to opt for more realistic dialogue as opposed to more thematically relevant and intellectually engaging dialogue at least make it realistic. Have they spent lots of time getting rock-marooned, and making dirt mattresses with shirt baskets before? It's just absurd, and not in a Camus/Beckett oh that's really funny yet poignant absurdity... more like a that's really stupid and irritating absurdity.

He's stuck and can't get down... unless he jumps after a prolonged period of time and then doesn't even injure himself to propel some dramatic conflict... what a brilliant metaphor for human existence! *Slaps Van Sant*
I think the dialogue is fairly realistic. It's slightly heightened. But me and my friends come up with stupid terms like that on the fly all the time. Shirt basket sounds like it might have been a running joke between them. The other two I think just naturally arise out of the situation.

I don't see that particular scene as a metaphor for life. However, the film as a whole, it's rather difficult not to see it as a sort of Myth of Sisyhpus type-deal. I think it works. It's not extremely poignant, but as Melville said, it's funny and entrancing.

As far as Van Sant in general, I loved Gerry and Elephant, didn't care much at all for Last Days, still looking forward to Paranoid Park.

[Spinal]

I think the film's greatest asset is it's sense of place. Maybe it'll work better for someone familiar with that milieu.

We'll see. Didn't work for me with My Own Private Idaho. I also don't know if I'm necessarily familiar with the same Portland that Gus is. I don't tend to hang around the skate parks.

[Boner M]

Still think Paranoid Park is one of the most vapid films I've seen recently.
I wouldn't call it 'vapid' so much as 'vaporous'. It felt like a long streetwear advertisement.

[lovejuice]

Yeah, I'm passingly familiar with Passing for Godot, which I understand is commonly considered an antecedent for Gerry. Beyond that however, I'm honestly in no position to discuss the ties between the movie and this literary movement.

won't it be closer to truth to think of gerry as a remake of sokurov's mother and son?

[Qrazy]

I think the dialogue is fairly realistic. It's slightly heightened. But me and my friends come up with stupid terms like that on the fly all the time. Shirt basket sounds like it might have been a running joke between them. The other two I think just naturally arise out of the situation.

I don't see that particular scene as a metaphor for life. However, the film as a whole, it's rather difficult not to see it as a sort of Myth of Sisyhpus type-deal. I think it works. It's not extremely poignant, but as Melville said, it's funny and entrancing.

As far as Van Sant in general, I loved Gerry and Elephant, didn't care much at all for Last Days, still looking forward to Paranoid Park.

Well like I said, I didn't find their camaraderie all that funny, just irritating. I found the film by and large to be a missed opportunity because it has so much going for it visually and even tonally. If you're going to create a film in such a visually poetic manner, why not imbue your dialogue and storyline with some more meaningful exchanges between the characters? Even if you want to play their relationship realistically, I think if I were in such a situation, I would have more to say to my friend than commenting on dirt mattresses and the like. I give Van Sant enough credit that I believe his (heightened) realistic dialogue is a conscious choice, both here and in his last few films, but I don't agree with that choice nor do I think it's as effective as more potent dialogue in similar two to three people films, could be (Tarkovsky-Stalker, Bergman-Persona, Fellini-La Strada, Beckett, Camus, etc). I don't see his fixation and/or lack of fixation on 'natural' dialogue as particularly intrinsically valuable to his creations. I really wish he would eschew it in favor of some linguistically seeking phrases to match his visually seeking cinematography.

[Melville]

Well, I don't know what to say about this dominant literary forebearer. Are you suggesting that literature of this minimalist, existential nature is primarily about life as a meaningless, absurd struggle, hence why such an interpretative prism isn't such a leap for Gerry?
Yes. Waiting for Godot and the Myth of Sysiphus seem like obvious influences on the film, so it's tempting to think of the film in their terms.

[Qrazy]

I wouldn't call it 'vapid' so much as 'vaporous'. It felt like a long streetwear advertisement.

I haven't seen the film but yeah with his films I often feel like Van Sant has been brain washed by the Warhol school of artistry... surface, surface, everything is image!

[Qrazy]

won't it be closer to truth to think of gerry as a remake of sokurov's mother and son?

Ehh... not really feeling that connection... because both couples wander around for a while? Care to extrapolate?

[lovejuice]

Ehh... not really feeling that connection... because both couples wander around for a while? Care to extrapolate?

i can't since i haven't watched gerry, but a friend of mine who watched both swear it's a remake. didn't van sant, at one point, admit of sokurov's influence?

[Qrazy]

i can't since i haven't watched gerry, but a friend of mine who watched both swear it's a remake. didn't van sant, at one point, admit of sokurov's influence?

I've heard him reference Tarr, Tarkovsky, Jansco and Sokurov as influences on his work but personally I see Tarr's influence most in Jerry. One shot is straight out of Werckmeister.

[Melville]

Well like I said, I didn't find their camaraderie all that funny, just irritating. I found the film by and large to be a missed opportunity because it has so much going for it visually and even tonally. If you're going to create a film in such a visually poetic manner, why not imbue your dialogue and storyline with some more meaningful exchanges between the characters? Even if you want to play their relationship realistically, I think if I were in such a situation, I would have more to say to my friend than commenting on dirt mattresses and the like. I give Van Sant enough credit that I believe his (heightened) realistic dialogue is a conscious choice, both here and in his last few films, but I don't agree with that choice nor do I think it's as effective as more potent dialogue in similar two to three people films, could be (Tarkovsky-Stalker, Bergman-Persona, Fellini-La Strada, Beckett, Camus, etc). I don't see his fixation and/or lack of fixation on 'natural' dialogue as particularly intrinsically valuable to his creations. I really wish he would eschew it in favor of some linguistically seeking phrases to match his visually seeking cinematography.
I think what made the movie work so well was precisely the contrast between their mundane dialogue and comfortable camaraderie and the poetic landscapes and cinematography. It wasn't going for a serious existential examination of the absurd; it was a playful, humorous take on the theme. Also, while the cinematography emphasized the existential weight of their situation, the characters' behavior, which essentially dismisses that weight in favor of simply carrying on, is in itself a meaningful existential stance.

[Qrazy]

I think what made the movie work so well was precisely the contrast between their mundane dialogue and comfortable camaraderie and the poetic landscapes and cinematography. It wasn't going for a serious existential examination of the absurd; it was a playful, humorous take on the theme. Also, while the cinematography emphasized the existential weight of their situation, the characters' behavior, which essentially dismisses that weight in favor of simply carrying on, is in itself a meaningful existential stance.

It doesn't have to be serious and existential ala Bergman. It could just as easily be playful, meaningful and funny ala neorealist Fellini. It can strike any tone it wants, but it still has to be about something. The mundane dialogue here isn't just mundane, it's bland. The characters don't dismiss the gravity of their situation, they barely acknowledge or reflect on it. This is all well and good for an Antonioni character, because Antonioni can counteract his characters lack of introspection by using the frame, objects in the frame and the situation, to communicate the character's inner state and frame of mind... Or at least he could in his earlier work, not so much in Zabriskie Point... perhaps deserts are simply poor communicators. This lack of communication (via clarification from the verbal) from the filmmakers is all well and good for a few minutes, but as time wears on, unless contrasted with a disparate, contextually relevant element, purposelessness reduces to meaninglessness. This is probably why I loathe Warhol's cinema... Ok after a few minutes I get it... and now? And now nothing.

Bresson once wrote that the function of dialogue in cinema, or at least in his cinema, was to illuminate what the visual could not. Van Sant opts instead to further obscure, or rather to eschew a connexion between the two and simply riff on the mundane.

I am not against pop art's fixation on the banal per se. I am irritated when the art employs the banal (or mundane) and it remains banal rather than catapulting it into the realm of transcendence, grace or ecstatic beauty... Because the mundane exist in this realm and can and should be brought into it via artistry, but often the pop artist fails or does not even try and then the banal item remains banal.

[Melville]

It doesn't have to be serious and existential ala Bergman. It could just as easily be playful, meaningful and funny ala neorealist Fellini. It can strike any tone it wants, but it still has to be about something. The mundane dialogue here isn't just mundane, it's bland. The characters don't dismiss the gravity of their situation, they barely acknowledge or reflect on it. This is all well and good for an Antonioni character, because Antonioni can counteract his characters lack of introspection by using the frame, objects in the frame and the situation, to communicate the characters inner state and frame of mind. Or at least he could in his earlier work, although not in Zabriskie Point, perhaps deserts are simply poor communicators. This lack of communication from the filmmakers is all well and good for a few minutes, but as time wears on, unless contrasted with a disparate element, purposelessness reduces to meaninglessness.

Bresson once wrote that the function of dialogue in cinema, or at least in his cinema, was to illuminate what the visual could not. Van Sant opts instead to further obscure, or rather to eschew a connexion between the two and simply riff on the mundane.
Yeah, that's what I meant to say; they never acknowledge their plight. That's what the story is about: two characters embedded in an absurd story who carry on (for the most part) in their usual fashion. There's no need for the camera to convey the characters' state of mind, since that would lessen the pointed contrast between their interactions and their environment.

I think one's sense of humor is probably the important factor here. To me, the specific word choices and the rhythm of the dialogue were hilarious. A character saying that he 'almost succumbed' is inherently funny to me.

[Duncan]

Stop bashing Warhol.

[Qrazy]

Stop bashing Warhol.

Can't, he's a terrible filmmaker.

[Duncan]

This is probably why I loathe Warhol's cinema... Ok after a few minutes I get it... and now? And now nothing. You're watching them wrong. They're meant to be projected onto a wall like paintings. Who in their right might would watch Empire straight through? Films like Blow Job and his screen test series are fascinating portraits, and that's how they're meant to be viewed - as portraits.

I might kick one of my top 100 films off the list and write a longer entry on one of his films.

[Qrazy]

You're watching them wrong. They're meant to be projected onto a wall like paintings. Who in their right might would watch Empire straight through? Films like Blow Job and his screen test series are fascinating portraits, and that's how they're meant to be viewed - as portraits.

I might kick one of my top 100 films off the list and write a longer entry on one of his films.

I wouldn't want paintings in my house that I can't study intensively.

And I don't agree that Vinyl is supposed to be viewed that way either. And I can't think of a single way to view it where it wouldn't come out crappy.

[Melville]

Hey Qrazy, have you read Mrs. Dalloway? I think the characters' absurdly mundane response to the absurd in Gerry could be viewed in a similar light as Dalloway's: their lack of acknowledgement or realization of their plight, and their commitment to the mundane and the conventional, can be viewed as an admirable stance. Their plight is only made existential by acknowledging it as such; by living it as a given, never contrasting it with the ideal or the non-absurd, they annul its existential weight. While the camera insists on that weight, the characters are free of it. (Obviously the ending complicates that a bit.)

[Qrazy]

Hey Qrazy, have you read Mrs. Dalloway? I think the characters' absurdly mundane response to the absurd in Gerry could be viewed in a similar light as Dalloway's: their lack of acknowledgement or realization of their plight, and their commitment to the mundane and the conventional, can be viewed as an admirable stance. Their plight is only made existential by acknowledging it as such; by living it as a given, never contrasting it with the ideal or the non-absurd, they annul its existential weight. While the camera insists on that weight, the characters are free of it. (Obviously the ending complicates that a bit.)

I don't really know if I agree that they're emotionally free or for that matter even intellectually free of it. They're just verbally free of it or that is to say that the film doesn't allow them time to voice their frustrations. But no, I actually just bought it so I'll probably read it within the next few months.

[megladon8]

The Mosquito Coast was an interesting mixed bag.

River Phoenix's narration was totally unnecessary, and I actually felt it detracted from many of the scenes in which it was featured.

Ford's performance is great, and I struggle to call it a "descent into madness" - the madness was there, but it was nurtured and then completely took him over.

Also, having him die of a gunshot to the shoulder was a pretty weak way to end it.

I can't give it higher than a 6.5 because it is deeply flawed...but there was something really great there.

[Rowland]

I thought the dialog in Gerry registered convincingly as standard early-20s slacker talk between (taken literally) two close buddies. There is definitely an arc to their behavior. They aren't talking about shirt baskets or RTS games in the second half.

[Melville]

They aren't talking about shirt baskets or RTS games in the second half.
I'll admit that my last post was probably a completely baseless extrapolation from my dim memory of the film, which I haven't seen it since it came out. But my interpretation seems like it would make for a pretty good movie.

[balmakboor]

All the Van Sant talk has reminded me that Milk is probably my most anticipated film for 2008.

[Qrazy]

I thought the dialog in Gerry registered convincingly as standard early-20s slacker talk between (taken literally) two close buddies. There is definitely an arc to their behavior. They aren't talking about shirt baskets or RTS games in the second half.

No, but they aren't talking about very much either.

[Rowland]

No, but they aren't talking about very much either.You are right, they aren't.

[Qrazy]

Just wanted to remind everyone here that My Friend Ivan Lapshin (German) and Brighton Rock (Boulting) are both excellent and criminally underseen.

[Melville]

Did Robert Aldrich make anything else as good as Kiss Me Deadly? The more I think about it, the more I like it. With frames torn up by clotheslines, running legs, and backwards-running credits, a social structure debased by misogyny, sleaze, and Cold War paranoia, and a sound design notable for its sexualized panting, it's the epitome of grim noir that Sin City wished it could be.

Also, Animal Crackers was anarchic comedy gold. I complained about A Night at the Opera's lack of free-wheeling energy a while ago; Animal Crackers was free-wheeling all over.

[Russ]

Did Robert Aldrich make anything else as good as Kiss Me Deadly?
What Ever Happened to Baby Jane and The Flight of the Phoenix are essential.

[Raiders]

Did Robert Aldrich make anything else as good as Kiss Me Deadly?

I'm not sure he ever made anything quite as formally superior, but my personal favorite is Attack!, and The Big Knife and Autumn Leaves are pretty outstanding as well. Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? seems divisive, but I'm in the pro camp.

[Melville]

I'm not sure he ever made anything quite as formally superior, but my personal favorite is Attack!, and The Big Knife and Autumn Leaves are pretty outstanding as well. Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? seems divisive, but I'm in the pro camp.
Oh, yeah. Now I remember that Attack! was on your top 100. I'll try to find that one.

I've seen Whatever Happened to Baby Jane. While watching it, I oscillated back and forth between really liking its muck-raking lunacy and finding it a bit tedious. I can't remember which camp I fell in by the end.

[Melville]

What Ever Happened to Baby Jane and The Flight of the Phoenix are essential.
I can't get enough James Stewart, so I'll keep The Flight of the Phoenix in mind as well.

[Qrazy]

Did Robert Aldrich make anything else as good as Kiss Me Deadly? The more I think about it, the more I like it. With frames torn up by clotheslines, running legs, and backwards-running credits, a social structure debased by misogyny, sleaze, and Cold War paranoia, and a sound design notable for its sexualized panting, it's the epitome of grim noir that Sin City wished it could be.

Also, Animal Crackers was anarchic comedy gold. I complained about A Night at the Opera's lack of free-wheeling energy a while ago; Animal Crackers was free-wheeling all over.

Ehh, I didn't really like it that much, got too silly too quickly.

Animal Crackers is great though.

[MadMan]

The new Horton Hears a Who looks offensively bad.It does look beyond horrible. I'm not offended though. I'm just jaded.

[ledfloyd]

No, but they aren't talking about very much either.
Should they talk about 'something' to make the movie more exciting? or should their conversations more closely represent real life? I think Van Sant went with the latter. If he made them have conversations a la Persona it wouldn't have been the same film.


I wouldn't want paintings in my house that I can't study intensively.

And I don't agree that Vinyl is supposed to be viewed that way either. And I can't think of a single way to view it where it wouldn't come out crappy.
Warhol has directed well over 100 films. Vinyl might suck, but it's unfair to judge his entire ouevre based on that one experience. Different films of his had different purposes. I think judging his work as a whole, Duncan is right. Stuff like Sleep and Empire are supposed to be viewed as portraits. I live near the Andy Warhol Museum and they have his entire library of films. They do screen a few a day in a screening room, sometimes screen tests, or his attempts at narrative filmmaking. However, alot of his films are just projected in galleries, in rooms without chairs, you walk in, look at them for awhile, and walk out. It's antithetical to the way we generally think about film, I think that's why they're so often dismissed. You have to kind of bend your mind to understand Warhol's intentions.

Maybe we could use a thread on this? I'm a huge fan of Warhol in general. I've seen a fair amount of his films.

Edited to add: his more narrative films are obviously not meant to be viewed this way. However his experimental films, I think, are. Typically the ones that can be described in one sentence as a concept.

[Qrazy]

Should they talk about 'something' to make the movie more exciting? or should their conversations more closely represent real life? I think Van Sant went with the latter. If he made them have conversations a la Persona it wouldn't have been the same film.

I'm not saying they should talk a la Persona. That was an example. And I'm also not saying the dialogue has to be exciting. The issue I'm raising is the use of dialogue in terms of meaning and relevance. Of course it wouldn't be the same film if it were different, that goes without saying, but I've been arguing that his insistence on mundane dialogue detracts from his films for me. And I think they would be more powerful artistic experiences if he changed this stance of his.


Warhol has directed well over 100 films. Vinyl might suck, but it's unfair to judge his entire ouevre based on that one experience. Different films of his had different purposes. I think judging his work as a whole, Duncan is right. Stuff like Sleep and Empire are supposed to be viewed as portraits. I live near the Andy Warhol Museum and they have his entire library of films. They do screen a few a day in a screening room, sometimes screen tests, or his attempts at narrative filmmaking. However, alot of his films are just projected in galleries, in rooms without chairs, you walk in, look at them for awhile, and walk out. It's antithetical to the way we generally think about film, I think that's why they're so often dismissed. You have to kind of bend your mind to understand Warhol's intentions.

Maybe we could use a thread on this? I'm a huge fan of Warhol in general. I've seen a fair amount of his films.

Edited to add: his more narrative films are obviously not meant to be viewed this way. However his experimental films, I think, are. Typically the ones that can be described in one sentence as a concept.

I've seen quite a few films of his and I've disliked them all. I'm afraid I was unable to reference all one hundred in my post. I've never argued that Empire, Chelsea Girls, what have you, shouldn't be viewed as portraits. I simply feel that even as portraits they suck. Both of you seem to be arguing that they are somehow beyond the pale when it comes to critique or dislike because of the manner of viewing. I'm not the kind of person to shout to the rooftops 'This isn't cinema! This is an outrage!'. Instead I'd simply want to spend my time with a more compelling portrait... like a Tarr or Tarkovsky tracking shot stretched out ad infinitum... a Chantal Akerman new york subway ride or waves lapping tranquilly against a shoreline.

[trotchky]

Audition was a lot denser than I expected it to be, and also a lot less graphic. I'm probably going to have to revisit it.

I haven't watched it again yet but I'm pretty sure it's largely about the Japanese sexual psyche, with all its fetishes and quirks, and how it informs male-female interactions.

[origami_mustache]

Audition was a lot denser than I expected it to be, and also a lot less graphic. I'm probably going to have to revisit it.

Eh, it's not one of my favorite Miike films honestly, although a lot of people feel otherwise. I think it's alright, but nothing special.

[Rowland]

I haven't watched it again yet but I'm pretty sure it's largely about the Japanese sexual psyche, with all its fetishes and quirks, and how it informs male-female interactions.I haven't seen Audition in a few years, but I recall reaching the same conclusion about the movie being a commentary on male chauvinism informing gender/sexual politics.

[Qrazy]

Eh, it's not one of my favorite Miike films honestly, although a lot of people feel otherwise. I think it's alright, but nothing special.

I'd say it's his best and most mature work of the four I've seen.

[origami_mustache]

I'd say it's his best and most mature work of the four I've seen.

More mature...perhaps, but I still find Visitor Q and Gozu to be much more fascinating. Actually his best work just might be the "Box" segment of Three...Extremes.

[Qrazy]

More mature...perhaps, but I still find Visitor Q and Gozu to be much more fascinating. Actually his best work just might be the "Box" segment of Three...Extremes.

Ah, well I haven't seen any of those three so that might be the problem.

[origami_mustache]

Found this spoof on There Will Be Blood. I didn't find it especially funny, but the shot for shot recreation of the trailer is actually pretty impressive.

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/c6a5728047

[Spinal]

Found this spoof on There Will Be Blood. I didn't find it especially funny, but the shot for shot recreation of the trailer is actually pretty impressive.

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/c6a5728047

I laughed at one part:

Sometimes I look at hippies and see nothing worth liking.

And the kid in this trailer is a better actor than Paul Dano.

[Bosco B Thug]

Audition was a lot denser than I expected it to be, and also a lot less graphic. I'm probably going to have to revisit it. Cool, I had a similar reaction upon first viewing (it being denser than expected, anyway... I think I found it graphic enough :) )! Don't have much thoughts about the social commentary of the film... but wasn't the big "dream sequence" part (ascertaining all its topics of past trauma, social repression, and sexual disgrace) freaking awesome? It totally makes the film.

[ledfloyd]

I've seen quite a few films of his and I've disliked them all. I'm afraid I was unable to reference all one hundred in my post. I've never argued that Empire, Chelsea Girls, what have you, shouldn't be viewed as portraits. I simply feel that even as portraits they suck. Both of you seem to be arguing that they are somehow beyond the pale when it comes to critique or dislike because of the manner of viewing. I'm not the kind of person to shout to the rooftops 'This isn't cinema! This is an outrage!'. Instead I'd simply want to spend my time with a more compelling portrait... like a Tarr or Tarkovsky tracking shot stretched out ad infinitum... a Chantal Akerman new york subway ride or waves lapping tranquilly against a shoreline.
I gotcha. I wasn't suggesting that it's beyond critique, I was suggesting perhaps you're judging them by the wrong criteria. Which, it seems, you're not. The attraction I have to Warhol's films is how he challenges our preconceptions of the artform.

At least we can agree on Tarr and Akerman, and I need to get around to Tarkovsky sooner than later.

[Qrazy]

The attraction I have to Warhol's films is how he challenges our preconceptions of the artform.

Reasonable, and yeah Tarkovsky. Watch. Now.

[number8]

Am I late for the Paranoid Park hate?

[origami_mustache]

Christmas in July (Preston Sturges, 1940)

http://www.filmsondisc.com/images/christmasinjuly.jpg

Sturge's concise comedy about a man who is duped into believing that he has struck it rich in a coffee slogan contest is just as entertaining as it is intelligent. It captures the essence of the American Dream and man's struggle to confirm their own self worth. Christmas in July bears a striking resemblance to some of Capra's optimistic films as Sturges shows the fickle nature of big business and their inability to think for themselves which ties in the the motif of common beliefs and stereotypes (degrading portrayals of African Americans aside) not holding true such as black cats being unlucky and coffee keeping people awake. Some of the shot selections in this film are among some of the more sophisticated I've seen from Sturges (specifically when the camera climbs several stories, and the shot of the couple entering the car as their gifts are piled in after them). I especially enjoyed the montage of eager radio listeners from all races, genders, and classes awaiting announcement of the contest winner as well as the montage later in the film of the children playing with their newly acquire toys in the streets. I also laud Sturges for the smooth usage of Hitler and Mussolini as comedic insults. My only major complaint is the frequently poor editing continuity.


The Signal - 8.5

Interesting...any thoughts on this?

I'm considering seeing it simply because my Pro Tools instructor did the final sound mix for this.

[Qrazy]

Why must the US suck so much ass at cutting trailers?

Watch the UK trailer for Exiled then the US one. Pitiful.

UK: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzANUHNXZM0&feature=related

US: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Al1Pevvr9ZQ&feature=related

[Boner M]

Weekend:

Accatone
Woman in the Dunes (blind-bought the Teshigahara box)
The Best of Youth

[transmogrifier]

Into the Wild

An insanely awesome match of character and technique; you could imagine if Chris had been a director, this is almost exactly the type of movie he would have made, a mixture of genuine transcendence and wide-eyed amateurishness. I think ultimately it was the right choice to depict life around the bus and the life leading up to that side by side, though I think Penn chickens out a little by leaving the unpleasantness until very, very late in the film - I think it would have been stronger to at least have had Chris's encountering serious problems by at least the halfway mark, and thus making the eventual acceptance of the importance of human contact all the more affecting (though it definitely is that already). Can hardly believe the film is two and a half hours long, as it glides by at a fair clip.

[Velocipedist]

Can anyone recommend movies as folky as the original The Wicker Man?

No Valerie and Her Week of Wonders please, I've seen that already.

[D_Davis]

So there were a few people who said they were going to watch Mind Game last weekend.

I never heard anything....what did you all think?

[Morris Schæffer]

Weekend:

The Best of Youth

Oh yeah! Will you be seeing it in one large chunk?

[Spinal]

Can anyone recommend movies as folky as the original The Wicker Man?

The Crucible?
The Advocate?
Witches' Hammer?

Not exactly sure what the definition of folky is.

[D_Davis]

The Crucible?
The Advocate?
Witches' Hammer?

Not exactly sure what the definition of folky is.

I would check out A Plague of Zombies, and old Hammer film. It's wonderful, full of atmosphere, great cinematography, and "folky," if I understand what you are looking for.

[Spinal]

Deliverance is pretty folky. :eek:

[Morris Schæffer]

Little Miss Sunshine has a Folkswagen.

Oh dear...

[ledfloyd]

folky? (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0422944/)

[lovejuice]

Found this spoof on There Will Be Blood. I didn't find it especially funny, but the shot for shot recreation of the trailer is actually pretty impressive.

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/c6a5728047

word, on both accounts. there is this one spoof about facebook and internet that i find more amusing.

god, i love this movie.

[Rowland]

Into the Wild

An insanely awesome match of character and technique; you could imagine if Chris had been a director, this is almost exactly the type of movie he would have made, a mixture of genuine transcendence and wide-eyed amateurishness. I think ultimately it was the right choice to depict life around the bus and the life leading up to that side by side, though I think Penn chickens out a little by leaving the unpleasantness until very, very late in the film - I think it would have been stronger to at least have had Chris's encountering serious problems by at least the halfway mark, and thus making the eventual acceptance of the importance of human contact all the more affecting (though it definitely is that already). Can hardly believe the film is two and a half hours long, as it glides by at a fair clip.My initial thoughts:

"Hmm, I just returned home from Into the Wild a few hours ago, and I seem to be in the minority, because I kinda loved it. It's messy, shambling, heartfelt, and constantly at odds with itself in fascinating, revealing ways that cumulate to a devastatingly powerful finale. The consensus around here seems to be that the movie isn't critical enough of its lead, which I think is grossly oversimplifying. Penn celebrates the kid's spirit while constantly exposing him for his idealized naivety and outright narcissism, the latter an undercurrent that builds in its intensity as the movie progresses, until the end, which is as much a condemnation as it is a tragedy. These conflicting dual perspectives give the movie an inscrutably slippery edge that pays off in dividends in the closing reels. Kudos also to Penn's directorial approach to the material, which is simply ferocious and constantly engaging, as well as to the delightful ensemble."

I defended Penn's direction just as you do here in Buff's incomplete 2007 Review thread here (http://www.match-cut.org/showthread.php?t=363&highlight=buff&page=4).

[Rowland]

A pact between IFC and Blockbuster (http://www.thereeler.com/the_blog/ifc_blockbuster_pact_great_for .php) allows the latter a 60-day exclusivity window for rentals of releases by the former before the titles are available anywhere else.

Fuck that!

[Kurosawa Fan]

A pact between IFC and Blockbuster (http://www.thereeler.com/the_blog/ifc_blockbuster_pact_great_for .php) allows the latter a 60-day exclusivity window for rentals of releases by the former before the titles are available anywhere else.

Fuck that!

A pairing like that is just disturbing.

[Rowland]

A pairing like that is just disturbing.Damn, it's worse than I realized. After the 60-day window, the movies will be available for purchase, but they will remain exclusive to Blockbuster rental-wise for three years!

[Spinal]

Fuck that!

Indeed! In the butt even!

From the article posted in the comments section:


Content may play a role in both the breadth of distribution and the versions of titles Blockbuster will rent. The chain does not rent NC-17 titles, and Schwartz says IFC would consider editing even unrated films for the chain, adding that "Blockbuster will decide which version they would like to distribute."

[D_Davis]

Why in the hell would IFC do this? It makes ZERO sense? Netflix seems like it fits with IFC's audience much better than BB does.

This is straight up retarded.

[Rowland]

Why in the hell would IFC do this? It makes ZERO sense? Netflix seems like it fits with IFC's audience much better than BB does.

This is straight up retarded.Dude, Independent movies can make money. Remember Fox Searchlight's Juno?

[Sycophant]

Dude, Independent movies can make money. Remember Fox Searchlight's Juno?
:grimace:

This is lame. And ass. This is lame-ass.

[Stay Puft]

What about digital distribution? Blockbuster has that locked up for three years, too? Will they only distribute edited versions of unrated or NC17 movies?

[Ezee E]

The Corner is a 6-hour miniseries that captures the consequences and horror of addiction better than anything I've ever seen. It is also one of the most affecting pieces of film/television that I have ever seen.

http://www.bowdoin.edu/bowdoinmagazine/archives/images/nelsonalexcorner.jpg

For those who know nothing about the miniseries, it is written and produced by the duo that are behind The Wire, based on the book written by them. The miniseries takes place in the early 90's, and focuses on a family that's already knee-deep in addiction. We get glimpses of how they got there, but only through quick thoughts of our cast remembering how things were. They were bright and much more colorful. On the Corner, color is stripped away, along with hope. For every time the idea of rehab or detox, there's the addiction that drags them back down.

Each character gets an episode that focuses on their progression to either rehab or their descent. Other characters have large subplots as well, and are just as powerful as the main characters. Some of the highlights include our main character contemplating using his mother's money for dope instead of buying her groceries to make dinner. Use all the money? Maybe just get her one box of hamburger helper instead of the two she requested? Heck, every scene we see T.K. Carter, we wonder if this will be the scene that he finally decides to go into rehab. He's smart, and once had a life. He acknowledges that it has all crumbled away, but, he can't seem to crawl out of it.

The miniseries gets darker and darker, even as some of the characters improve themselves. By the end, there is a scene so disturbing and scary, it will create more nightmares than many horror films aspire to. Of course, I'm talking about the scene where "Blue" returns to his friends and tries to bring them along his path. They are practically zombies in the dark at this point. Horrifying to look at, and nearly decomposing. Earlier, a cop snaps a picture of a man's veins because of how messed up they are.

Charles Dutton directs this with emotion. It's theme is obvious, but it doesn't forcefeed us like the excellent Requiem for a Dream. It works more like an Ingmar Bergman movie, focusing on the acting, the emotions from their faces tell us more than anything. All we can do is hope.

[D_Davis]

Dude, Independent movies can make money. Remember Fox Searchlight's Juno?

Never heard of it.

[D_Davis]

The Corner is a 6-hour miniseries that captures the consequences and horror of addiction better than anything I've ever seen. It is also one of the most affecting pieces of film/television that I have ever seen.


Hey man, this sounds good.

Never heard of it, thanks for the write up.

[Wryan]

Love The Wicker Man and Into the Wild. So much.

[Duncan]

I saw the last half hour of the Nic Cage Wicker Man a little while ago. It was awesome. I started watching from the time he stole that woman's bicycle by threatening to shoot her.

[Winston*]

So there were a few people who said they were going to watch Mind Game last weekend.

I never heard anything....what did you all think?

I didn't get round to it. Had to priorities the other films 'cos they were due back to the video store. I'll try and watch it over the next couple of days.

[Sven]

The missus and I may go see the new Chow tomorrow. I have seriously no idea what to expect.

Also, Violent Saturday at the Film Forum. Wahoo!

[Spinal]

Weekend possibilities:

Goya's Ghosts
Black Snake Moan

[dreamdead]

In addition to those already listed a few pages back, I'll also be hitting Atonement and TWBB by tomorrow night. I love spring break. So very much.

[transmogrifier]

My initial thoughts:

"Hmm, I just returned home from Into the Wild a few hours ago, and I seem to be in the minority, because I kinda loved it. It's messy, shambling, heartfelt, and constantly at odds with itself in fascinating, revealing ways that cumulate to a devastatingly powerful finale. The consensus around here seems to be that the movie isn't critical enough of its lead, which I think is grossly oversimplifying. Penn celebrates the kid's spirit while constantly exposing him for his idealized naivety and outright narcissism, the latter an undercurrent that builds in its intensity as the movie progresses, until the end, which is as much a condemnation as it is a tragedy. These conflicting dual perspectives give the movie an inscrutably slippery edge that pays off in dividends in the closing reels. Kudos also to Penn's directorial approach to the material, which is simply ferocious and constantly engaging, as well as to the delightful ensemble."

I defended Penn's direction just as you do here in Buff's incomplete 2007 Review thread here (http://www.match-cut.org/showthread.php?t=363&highlight=buff&page=4).

Yeah, it is totally disingenuous for anyone to try and claim that Penn deifies McCandless (as Shager at Slant did), because Penn makes it quite clear throughout the pain he is causing at home, and Keener's character affords another opportunity to question what Chris is doing.

You're right about the ensemble - Vince Vaughn for the first time seemed to be something different from just another variation of his Swingers persona, and was all the better for it.

[Sycophant]

The missus and I may go see the new Chow tomorrow. I have seriously no idea what to expect.

Also, Violent Saturday at the Film Forum. Wahoo!
En. Vy.

Armond White loved it (http://www.nypress.com/21/10/film/ArmondWhite2.cfm)--and apparently Chow--so much, that I'm almost willing to forgive him his imbecilic Paprika review from last year.

Some choice quotes:

"In a healthy film culture, critics would celebrate Stephen Chow the way they do P.T. Anderson, Todd Haynes or Sofia Coppola. I take that back, Chow doesn’t require you to lower your intelligence; he raises it."

"Chow’s thesis is more profound than There Will Be Blood's, and it’s expressed through a more sophisticated narrative."

I'm aching to see this movie.

[Yxklyx]

Weekend:

Damnation
Lovers of the Arctic Circle

[Stay Puft]

En. Vy.

In. Deed.


Funny Games (1997) 67

I thought you were going to watch the remake first? I would have been curious to have your perspective on that.

I'm still not sure what to think about this movie, but I'd probably rate it similarly.

[Yxklyx]

Can anyone recommend movies as folky as the original The Wicker Man?

No Valerie and Her Week of Wonders please, I've seen that already.

Hmm,

The Secret of Roan Inish
Man of Aran
The Edge of the World
I Know Where I'm Going!
A Canterbury Tale

[MacGuffin]

So there were a few people who said they were going to watch Mind Game last weekend.

I never heard anything....what did you all think?

I'll try to get to it this weekend. Sorry.

[Spinal]

Some choice quotes:

"In a healthy film culture, critics would celebrate Stephen Chow the way they do P.T. Anderson, Todd Haynes or Sofia Coppola. I take that back, Chow doesn’t require you to lower your intelligence; he raises it."

"Chow’s thesis is more profound than There Will Be Blood's, and it’s expressed through a more sophisticated narrative."


Sideswipes at Sofia Coppola are so timely. :rolleyes:

Can't possibly praise a film without flinging shit at something else.

[transmogrifier]

In. Deed.



I thought you were going to watch the remake first? I would have been curious to have your perspective on that.

I'm still not sure what to think about this movie, but I'd probably rate it similarly.


I was going to, but I read that the original IS more or less exactly the same in every way, so I figured it wouldn't make much difference. Also, I just really felt like watching it for some reason.

Not nearly as violent as I had expected.

[D_Davis]

I'll try to get to it this weekend. Sorry.

No worries - just making sure I didn't miss the discussion.

[transmogrifier]

Sideswipes at Sofia Coppola are so timely. :rolleyes:

Can't possibly praise a film without flinging shit at something else.

Yep, those quotes sun up what is so useless about White - he chooses a film he sees as branded by unearned hipster love (There Will Be Blood, in this instance) and then proceeds to slam it in as many other reviews as possible even if the reviewed movies have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IN COMMON with the film he has earmarked for destruction.

He is simply terrible. A waste of time and space.

[Winston*]

Armond White feeds on your negativity towards hilm. You're only making him stronger.

[Derek]

Armond White feeds on your negativity towards hilm. You're only making him stronger.

My biggest problem with Armond is that he has seemingly no sense of humor.

An odd, somewhat humorous personal anecdote about Armond - he randomly bought something from me off half.com a few years ago (unless there's another Armond White living in NYC who bought Who's That Knocking On My Door) and I sent him a copy of his legendary "if you don't love Mission to Mars, you don't love cinema" review for an autograph. I told him it was for Eric Henderson, who wrote Slant's positive review and who I knew in passing at another board (and who also, probably rightly, suggested I send anthrax as well :)). I sent him a stamped, self-addressed envelope, wrote him a nice complementary letter (obviously I lied) and sent it with the DVD. Never got anything back from him. Jerk.

[Melville]

I've never understood why people talk about Armond White at all.

[Russ]

Re: folky - possibly Romero's Knightriders.

[MacGuffin]

My biggest problem with Armond is that he has seemingly no sense of humor.

An odd, somewhat humorous personal anecdote about Armond - he randomly bought something from me off half.com a few years ago (unless there's another Armond White living in NYC who bought Who's That Knocking On My Door) and I sent him a copy of his legendary "if you don't love Mission to Mars, you don't love cinema" review for an autograph. I told him it was for Eric Henderson, who wrote Slant's positive review and who I knew in passing at another board (and who also, probably rightly, suggested I send anthrax as well :)). I sent him a stamped, self-addressed envelope, wrote him a nice complementary letter (obviously I lied) and sent it with the DVD. Never got anything back from him. Jerk.

You mean... the one with this on it? :)

[Qrazy]

I've never understood why people talk about Armond White at all.

Same reason people talk about Paris Hilton.

[MacGuffin]

Same reason people talk about Paris Hilton.

Bad comparison. Armond White has talent and Paris Hilton doesn't.

[Melville]

Same reason people talk about Paris Hilton.
But nobody cares about Paris Hilton's opinions. They just make fun of her. People seem to actually take some interest in what Armond White has to say, even if their interest is limited to frustration. There are plenty of people with nonsensical opinions—why do we keep returning to one particular source of such opinions?

[Qrazy]

Bad comparison. Armond White has talent and Paris Hilton doesn't.

Not really.

[Qrazy]

But nobody cares about Paris Hilton's opinions. They just make fun of her. People seem to actually take some interest in what Armond White has to say, even if their interest is limited to frustration. There are plenty of people with nonsensical opinions—why do people keep returning to one particular source of such opinions?

Because he's an asshole. And I guess it's just easier to pretend you know something about film criticism than to pretend you have any acting talent.

[Melville]

Because he's an asshole.
Well, there are even more of those than there are sources of nonsensical opinions.

[Derek]

Because he's an asshole.

There are several fans of Armond here, so it's usually not the haters that bring him up in the first place.

[MacGuffin]

Not really.

I think he's a bold and talented writer if you get rid of the biases and the innuendoes. He shows a unique sense of craft and structure in his writing.

[Spinal]

I would rather listen to a Paris Hilton song than read an Armond White review.

[MacGuffin]

I would rather listen to a Paris Hilton song than read an Armond White review.

That's ridiculous, and you know it.

[Spinal]

That's ridiculous, and you know it.

It is truthful.

[D_Davis]

Same reason people talk about Paris Hilton.

White made a night-vision sex tape?

HAWT!

[MacGuffin]

It is truthful.

..Yet ridiculous. :twisted:

[Melville]

I would rather listen to a Paris Hilton song than read an Armond White review.
If life has given me anything to be grateful for, it's the fact that I can easily avoid both.

[Spinal]

..Yet ridiculous. :twisted:

Why is that ridiculous? Why would any reasonable person want to submit themselves to drivel such as appears in your signature? It seems that we are confusing antagonistic with provocative.

[Qrazy]

Well, there are even more of those than there are sources of nonsensical opinions.

People like the name Armond.

[Melville]

People like the name Armond.
Now it's all coming together.

[D_Davis]

Sig this:

"Any critic who likes different movies than I is an insufferable douchebag who deserves to die."

--Daniel Davis

[Qrazy]

If life has given me anything to be grateful for, it's the fact that I can easily avoid both.

Be grateful while it lasts, by 2012 they'll be beaming this shit directly into our temporal lobes.

[MacGuffin]

Sig this:

"Any critic who likes different movies than I is an insufferable douchebag who deserves to die."

--Daniel Davis

Rep?

[Melville]

Sig this:

"Any critic who likes different movies than I is an insufferable douchebag who deserves to die."

--Daniel Davis
That sounds more like something Armond White would say (after replacing 'douchebag' with 'elitist') than something Daniel Davis would say.

[origami_mustache]

Why is that ridiculous? Why would any reasonable person want to submit themselves to drivel such as appears in your signature? It seems that we are confusing antagonistic with provocative.

Outrageous opinions and incorrect statements are a lot more entertaining than anything Paris Hilton has had a hand in...especially when the people making the statements are oblivious to their ridiculousness.

[transmogrifier]

I think he's a bold and talented writer if you get rid of the biases and the innuendoes. He shows a unique sense of craft and structure in his writing.

Typical structure of a positive Armond White review:

Section 1: Slam a currently well-received movie, or better, three of them, or better yet, slam the entire filmographies of three completely different directors at the same time. Briefly mention the name of the film you are actually reviewing somewhere.

Section 2: String a series of non-sequitir observations together, each one praising something completely ephemeral and difficult to envisage for the reader - bonus points if it is a quality that could be argued for any film ever made, such is its total disconnect with the actual filmmaking process. End each sentence with a slam of a random film or director that other people like (Peter Jackson a must if the film has CGI anywhere to be found!)

Section 3: Mention Spielberg in some fawning way.

Section 4: Insult all of your fellow reviewers by making some sweeping, ridiculously contrived statement based around the films people like or dislike. If it contradicts anything you have written before - in other reviews, or even THIS review - more the better, as it will protect your "unique voice"

[Spinal]

Outrageous opinions and incorrect statements are a lot more entertaining than anything Paris Hilton has had a hand in....

Outrageous! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfJxCYTKOi8)

[Sycophant]

Outrageous! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfJxCYTKOi8)
You know, I've watched this trailer several times now and this time... I actually really want to see it.

[Qrazy]

Outrageous! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfJxCYTKOi8)

Jesus wept!

[origami_mustache]

Outrageous! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfJxCYTKOi8)

HAHAHA ok that is pretty outrageous, but an Armond White review of this film would be even more entertaining.

[Winston*]

Armond White feeds on your negativity towards hilm. You're only making him stronger.
He's gained over a thousand EXP in the last page alone. Soon he'll be on his ultimate limit break and then God save us all.

[Sven]

I like Armond. I recommend the haters (who hate for pretty understandable reasons) check out his book, The Resistance.

I, as one who will admit that Armond is often too Armondy, can testify to its noticeable lack of outrage and noticeable increase of intelligent discourse. It's easy to see how he became so reputed; if nowadays Armond were like the 80s and early 90s Armond, he'd be heralded. It's kind of like Sarris, in a way: really groundbreaking in their prime, then they became cranky generalizers with much less to contribute.

[Qrazy]

He's gained over a thousand EXP in the last page alone. Soon he'll be on his ultimate limit break and then God save us all.

Tetsuoooooooooooooo!!!!!!!

[D_Davis]

That sounds more like something Armond White would say (after replacing 'douchebag' with 'elitist') than something Daniel Davis would say.


I was channeling my inner White.


Thanks though, I'm glad that this sounds like nothing I would ever say!
:lol:

[D_Davis]

Tetsuoooooooooooooo!!!!!!!

Kanedaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!

[D_Davis]

Typical structure of a positive Armond White review:

Section 1: Slam a currently well-received movie, or better, three of them, or better yet, slam the entire filmographies of three completely different directors at the same time. Briefly mention the name of the film you are actually reviewing somewhere.

Section 2: String a series of non-sequitir observations together, each one praising something completely ephemeral and difficult to envisage for the reader - bonus points if it is a quality that could be argued for any film ever made, such is its total disconnect with the actual filmmaking process. End each sentence with a slam of a random film or director that other people like (Peter Jackson a must if the film has CGI anywhere to be found!)

Section 3: Mention Spielberg in some fawning way.

Section 4: Insult all of your fellow reviewers by making some sweeping, ridiculously contrived statement based around the films people like or dislike. If it contradicts anything you have written before - in other reviews, or even THIS review - more the better, as it will protect your "unique voice"

You forgot Section 5: Profit!!!

[megladon8]

Funny Games is a film I struggle to understand.

I came to many of my own conclusions/understandings after having watched it, and I already planned to not share them on here because I figured I was completely wrong and my thoughts would get torn apart.

Watching the 18-minute Michael Haneke interview on the disc confirmed my suspicions.

The interviewer frequently makes references to Hitchcock, which was great because I noticed similarities between this film and many Hitchcock works while watching - both aesthetically and thematically.

It's wonderfully shot, and the violence actually didn't disturb me at all - it was when we came to the end, where Paul (or was it Peter?...I never did get their names straight) rewound the scene to avoid the death of the other young man This demonstration of the family's fate being completely inescapable was what bothered me, not so much the scenes of torture.

However, that's not to say I enjoyed the torture scenes - they were brutal and disturbing in content, but I didn't find myself personally bothered by them, probably because I've seen much worse. And that, I guess, is the point.

Anyways, Haneke seemed like a pretty neat guy in the interview, and it'd be great to take some screenwriting classes with him sometime - since he mentions more than once talking to "his students".

[MacGuffin]

Funny Games is a film I struggle to understand.

I think it is equally one of his better, and one of his worst movies. And that statement is just as illogical as the movie itself. So you're not alone in not understanding it.

[megladon8]

I think it is equally one of his better, and one of his worst movies. And that statement is just as illogical as the movie itself. So you're not alone in not understanding it.


Would I be alone in saying that the "message" (as he describes it in the interview) is damn condescending?

[MacGuffin]

Would I be alone in saying that the "message" (as he describes it in the interview) is damn condescending?

Oh, no way. You're completely correct. It's essentially an anti-violence movie that uses violence to preach against violence.

[megladon8]

Oh, for sure. And I think that's just where the problem lies. It's essentially an anti-violence movie that uses violence to preach against violence.


He even says in the interview that anyone who watches the movie through to the end obviously enjoys watching torture. But also that "regular" people don't enjoy torture.

So...did he want to make a movie for sickos?

Or maybe he wanted to make a movie that no one in their right mind would watch through to the end?

I don't know. His goals with this film seem pretentious, and I'd rather ignore that interview all together and just focus on the actual film, which I thought was quite great.

[MacGuffin]

He even says in the interview that anyone who watches the movie through to the end obviously enjoys watching torture.

I haven't heard him say that, but it's probably the most stupidest thing I've ever heard of a filmmaker saying. Which is strange, coming from the seemingly smart Haneke. I mean, Jesus.

[megladon8]

I haven't heard him say that, but it's probably the most stupidest thing I've ever heard of a filmmaker saying. Which is strange, coming from the seemingly smart Haneke. I mean, Jesus.


"People who watch the film to the end, are the ones who need the film most."

[MacGuffin]

"People who watch the film to the end, are the ones who need the film most."

Yeah, that's ridiculous.:frustrated:

If he shows such a negative opinion towards someone or something, then why waste the money and the time on it? It's sort of like how I stupidly posted in The Dark Knight thread.

[MacGuffin]

Yeah, that's ridiculous.:frustrated:

If he shows such a negative opinion towards someone or something, then why waste the money and the time on it? It's sort of like how I stupidly posted in The Dark Knight thread.

Better yet, does he expect people to avoid the damn movie!? Why shouldn't one finish the movie? How would they understand that was the point? Why make a movie if you don't want people to watch it in its entirety? These are questions that amaze me.

[megladon8]

Better yet, does he expect people to avoid the damn movie!? Why shouldn't one finish the movie? How would they understand that was the point? Why make a movie if you don't want people to watch it in its entirety? These are questions that amaze me.


Yes, like I said, did he make a movie that he only wanted people to watch part of?

Then, I bet if people only watched part of the movie then turned it off/walked out, he'd say they were poor cinema-goers because they didn't watch the whole movie.

But if they watch the whole movie, they're morally repugnant.

It all seems like some sort of vanity scheme on his part to feel like he's morally superior to all of us.

Or maybe he just did this all so he could sit back and laugh at film enthusiasts like you and I who overanalyze the message of the film :)

[MacGuffin]

Yes, like I said, did he make a movie that he only wanted people to watch part of?

Then, I bet if people only watched part of the movie then turned it off/walked out, he'd say they were poor cinema-goers because they didn't watch the whole movie.

But if they watch the whole movie, they're morally repugnant.

It all seems like some sort of vanity scheme on his part to feel like he's morally superior to all of us.

Or maybe he just did this all so he could sit back and laugh at film enthusiasts like you and I who overanalyze the message of the film :)

Yeah, I mean, if he truly wanted people to NOT watch the whole thing, he'd put a disclaimer at the beginning, but I saw nothing of the sort. Haneke belongs on a shortbus somewhere in Argentina. Why Argentina? I don't know. It's illogical. It suits him! :crazy::)

[Spinal]

Or maybe it's just an off-the-cuff thing he said in an interview that you guys are taking far too literally.

[MacGuffin]

Or maybe it's just an off-the-cuff thing he said in an interview that you guys are taking far too literally.

Or maybe not.

[megladon8]

Or maybe it's just an off-the-cuff thing he said in an interview that you guys are taking far too literally.


I really doubt that.

He seemed pretty genuine in his convictions about the film's message.

[monolith94]

Oh, no way. You're completely correct. It's essentially an anti-violence movie that uses violence to preach against violence.
How are you going to make a film about violence if you don't show violence itself?

[MacGuffin]

How are you going to make a film about violence if you don't show violence itself?

This is essentially why Truffaut was against war movies. Why bother? Violence is always going to be, so why make an anti-violence movie? What will this prove and how will it be any more profound than the anti-racism Crash by Paul Haggis? I'm the complete opposite of a violence advocate, but I'm not about to go make a movie on the topic.

Bottom line: If Funny Games had something reasonable to say, it'd be near perfect, because it is undeniably well-crafted, I think.

[monolith94]

Well, I always thought that Truffaut's response was a cop-out. I think that there is nothing inherently impossible about making an anti-war war film. Catch 22 comes to mind. Paths of Glory. There are elements of Bondarchuk's War & Peace that may qualify, if not the whole.

[Melville]

Monsieur Verdoux was terrific. I loved how it glided between jauntiness and wearied, almost cynical despair. And the comedy, while infrequent, was integrated beautifully into the story as well as being hilarious. Great stuff.

[Sycophant]

Monsieur Verdoux was terrific. I loved how it glided between jauntiness and wearied, almost cynical despair. And the comedy, while infrequent, was integrated beautifully into the story as well as being hilarious. Great stuff.:pritch:

Meanwhile, I liked Superman Returns. More later. Maybe.

[MacGuffin]

Well, I always thought that Truffaut's response was a cop-out. I think that there is nothing inherently impossible about making an anti-war war film. Catch 22 comes to mind. Paths of Glory. There are elements of Bondarchuk's War & Peace that may qualify, if not the whole.

I'm going to go ahead and label nearly all war movies violent in some regard. That said, the only two movies that are come close to maybe, maybe being anti-war by a way of deglamourizing it are Apocalypse Now, Casualties of War, and Small Soldiers. But then again, I'm no expert on the genre, but in all fairness, we're talking about generally violent movies. Not just war movies by themselves.

[transmogrifier]

How are you going to make a film about violence if you don't show violence itself?


Indeed. By clipper's rationale, you can't make a movie criticizing anything because to do so you'd have to depict that subject in the movie and this (and here is the leap of logic I can't quite understand) instantly glorifies it, negating your entire point.

:confused:

[transmogrifier]

Violence is always going to be, so why make an anti-violence movie? .

I'm glad you don't make movies.

[Mysterious Dude]

Maybe Truffaut should have made a movie about how war movies have no point. I'm already impressed by how deep that could be.

[MacGuffin]

Indeed. By clipper's rationale, you can't make a movie criticizing anything because to do so you'd have to depict that subject in the movie and this (and here is the leap of logic I can't quite understand) instantly glorifies it, negating your entire point.

:confused:

I never said it instantly glorifies it. In fact, I listed three movies above, which you may have missed, that I thought didn't glorify warfare or violence at all. For me, the epitome of glamorization is the opening fifteen minutes of Saving Private Ryan. The antithesis of this is the obviously artificial, but nonetheless convincing sets of Casualties of War.

[MacGuffin]

I'm glad you don't make movies.

Seriously, can one get any less creative?

[transmogrifier]

I never said it instantly glorifies it. In fact, I listed three movies above, which you may have missed, that I thought didn't glorify warfare or violence at all. For me, the epitome of glamorization is the opening fifteen minutes of Saving Private Ryan. The antithesis of this is the obviously artificial, but nonetheless convincing sets of Casualties of War.

Hey, I was just guessing, because I can't think of any other way you would be against the use of violence to preach against violence. Care to explain, or are you content to just hold an opinion that makes no sense?

[MacGuffin]

Hey, I was just guessing, because I can't think of any other way you would be against the use of violence to preach against violence. Care to explain, or are you content to just hold an opinion that makes no sense?

As soon as you're willing to drop the snide attitude, I'd be happy to.

[transmogrifier]

Seriously, can one get any less creative?

I sense this question is rhetorical, which I'm glad about, because I have no idea what it is referring to.

[transmogrifier]

As soon as you're willing to drop the snide attitude, I'd be happy to.


Hey, I know me, and this ain't snide, not by a long shot. I assume it's easier to use diversionary tactics than to explain yourself.

[MacGuffin]

Hey, I know me, and this ain't snide, not by a long shot. I assume it's easier to use diversionary tactics than to explain yourself.

I honestly don't see the use.

[transmogrifier]

I honestly don't see the use.

Hence you never bothered with thinking up any of those pesky reasons in the first place? Or are you still wrapped in the warm embrace of blaming me for your opinion's shortcomings?

[MacGuffin]

Hence you never bothered with thinking up any of those pesky reasons in the first place? Or are you still wrapped in the warm embrace of blaming me for your opinion's shortcomings?

I don't see the point in using violence against violence. It's just hypocritical.

[origami_mustache]

Monsieur Verdoux was terrific. I loved how it glided between jauntiness and wearied, almost cynical despair. And the comedy, while infrequent, was integrated beautifully into the story as well as being hilarious. Great stuff.

Love this film...actually it might be my favorite Chaplin.

[Mysterious Dude]

I don't see the point in using violence against violence. It's just hypocritical.
Funny Games doesn't use violence. It merely depicts violence. Yours seems like an argument against fiction itself.

[MacGuffin]

Funny Games doesn't use violence. It merely depicts violence. Yours seems like an argument against fiction itself.

I never even criticized Funny Games because of the violence in the first place. For God's sake, I don't even know how I got sucked into this as all I did was basically agree with megladon.

[baby doll]

Looks like I'm moving to Korea in a few weeks, so I may have just posted my last blog entry for a while. Savour the indulgence while you can.

[D_Davis]

Looks like I'm moving to Korea in a few weeks, so I may have just posted my last blog entry for a while. Savour the indulgence while you can.


I don't think Korea's big enough for you and Trans.

:)

What are you going to do there?

[transmogrifier]

I don't think Korea's big enough for you and Trans.

:)

What are you going to do there?

Hey, I'll show him around the art theatres around here. Such that they are.

[transmogrifier]

I don't see the point in using violence against violence. It's just hypocritical.

Ever heard of using a weapon against itself? I just think you have a ridiculously narrow view of what "using violence" constitutes.

[Sven]

I think Truffaut called Night and Fog "the greatest movie ever made". That's totally a war movie.

At any rate, Clipper, you're being fundamentally nonsensical. How about this: Haneke wants to make a movie about the THRILL of violence. How can one make a film without depicting its thesis?

[Melville]

I'll reiterate what everybody else said: arguing against violence by depicting it in a non-glorifying way is both possible and not at all hypocritical. Also, I think Funny Games did a pretty good job of deconstructing the psychological thriller genre and probing our desire to watch said genre.

[Melville]

Love this film...actually it might be my favorite Chaplin.
I'd put it just behind City Lights and The Circus.

[monolith94]

Hey, I just thought of two more anti-war films that don't glorify violence: Ivan's Childhood and The Cranes are Flying.

[Sven]

I don't understand the suggestion that Apocalypse Now doesn't glorify violence, in the conventional sense of the word "glorify". That's the movie that depicts a bombing raid on a Vietnamese village (replete with women and children) to the strains of Wagner's Flight of the Valkyries. Doesn't get much more exciting than that. And Small Soldiers? Please. I adore the film, but suggesting that it's not played for kicks is the pinnacle of silliness.

[MacGuffin]

I think Truffaut called Night and Fog "the greatest movie ever made". That's totally a war movie.

At any rate, Clipper, you're being fundamentally nonsensical. How about this: Haneke wants to make a movie about the THRILL of violence. How can one make a film without depicting its thesis?

I don't know. Maybe my argument was a bit nonsensical. It was pretty late for me last night, and I was very tired. Whatever, though.

[dreamdead]

Baz Luhrmann's early 90s ballroom dance film Strictly Ballroom is more fairy tale than reality, so any concepts of conditional truth die away, leaving only the frenetic spell cast by solid editing, strong archetypcal characters, and a minimalist script. Yet the film is pleasantly recursive in its narrative and disrupts some notions of gender (in that the female lead never becomes breathtakingly beautiful, but instead grows in our esteem simply because of her dedication to her art). Nothing all that substantial, but endearing and sweet all the same.

[lovejuice]

Baz Luhrmann's early 90s ballroom dance film Strictly Ballroom is more fairy tale than reality, so any concepts of conditional truth die away, leaving only the frenetic spell cast by solid editing, strong archetypcal characters, and a minimalist script. Yet the film is pleasantly recursive in its narrative and disrupts some notions of gender (in that the female lead never becomes breathtakingly beautiful, but instead grows in our esteem simply because of her dedication to her art). Nothing all that substantial, but endearing and sweet all the same.

it's my least favorite of his "red curtain" trilogy -- i believe, that's what it's called, right? still this movie alone gives a strong argument why luhrmann must stop terrence-malicking this very minute!

[Spinal]

Is there trick photography involved in the sequence of The Circus where Chaplin is locked in the lion's cage? Or is it as dangerous as it looks? I suppose the lion could have been sedated for the part where it is sleeping, but later, that does not seem to be the case. Very good film. The part where he is playing an animatronic might be the funniest thing I've seen him do.

[Sven]

Is there trick photography involved in the sequence of The Circus where Chaplin is locked in the lion's cage? Or is it as dangerous as it looks? I suppose the lion could have been sedated for the part where it is sleeping, but later, that does not seem to be the case. Very good film. The part where he is playing an animatronic might be the funniest thing I've seen him do.

No trick photography. He was in the cage.

Also, yes, his evil laughter and the thug's gradual unconsciousness is classic.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Here I figured the high wire act would be the highlight for you.

[Spinal]

No trick photography. He was in the cage.



Those silent era comedians, man. Those guys were nuts.

[Rowland]

Aww, I missed another Funny Games discussion.

Anyway, it's not funny. Therefore, it sucks. ;)

[Spinal]

Aww, I missed another Funny Games discussion.


Oh, there will be plenty in another month or so after the remake is released.

[dreamdead]

My Man Godfrey (La Cava) - 6.5


Yeah, that rating looks right. I had high hopes for this one, but the whole affair feels too slight and somehow condescending, so that the whole interrlationship between the poor and wealthy exists as a vehicle for farce alone, rather than that farce being the first step toward a solid engagement between the classes. Never uproarious, never truly emotional, it's just kinda there.

[Sycophant]

Aww, I missed another Funny Games discussion.

Anyway, it's not funny. Therefore, it sucks. ;)

There were games. It was at least half successful.

[Melville]

Yeah, that rating looks right. I had high hopes for this one, but the whole affair feels too slight and somehow condescending, so that the whole interrlationship between the poor and wealthy exists as a vehicle for farce alone, rather than that farce being the first step toward a solid engagement between the classes. Never uproarious, never truly emotional, it's just kinda there.
Yeah, by portraying homeless people as nothing but good honest folk who are down on their luck (when it portrays them at all, which is essentially never), and rich people as nothing but shrill, frivolous women and buffoons, it nullifies any potential social commentary. And even the screwball romantic comedy aspect doesn't work particularly well, since the female love interest is so devoid of character or wit. But it was still pretty slick, and William Powell is damnably charismatic.

[Stay Puft]

J-To 2-fer:

Election was a gripping film, much more dense and fast paced than I'm used to with the samping of To I've seen so far. At first I was kind of hoping it would slow down a bit (although it does have some quiet moments, like the tea scene), but eventually I came to appreciate just how well suited To's no-nonsense style was to this kind of material. The way the action continually ramps, and the plot becomes loaded with miscommunication, all without stopping for the sake of explanation, conveys psychological conflict and anxiety. Nick Cheung in a machete standoff exclaiming "I work for the Society!" while Louis Kou pummels a guy into a trash bin is the emotional climax of this unbelievable clusterfuck. To is great with deciding when and how to deal out information, always keeping you on the edge of your seat.

Election 2 (or Triad Election according to the DVD) is equally gripping and engaging, and a great sequel. I can't imagine viewing these two movies seperately, and I'm glad I didn't. They play off each other incredibly well, both in terms of character and thematics. Where the first film is internal, the sequel is external, repeating the baton's journey to/from China and re-contextualizing the political landscape it moves through. The ending is fantastic, leaving each character on the perfect note. The way the scramble for power is completely undone is well handled, practically an implosion rather than an explosion. Also, good use of music, something I've otherwise found lacking in other To films I've sampled. Also also, I almost puked during the dog food scene. You'll know what I'm talking about if you've seen it.

[Grouchy]

Also also, I almost puked during the dog food scene. You'll know what I'm talking about if you've seen it.
Hell yeah, that scene, while not being particularly graphic from what I remember, is VERY disgusting.

[Sycophant]

Amen, Stay Puft. Individually, they're great films. Together, they're my favorite gangster picture.

And the dog food scene is excruciating. It's amazingly well told.

[Sycophant]

Oh, and per your signature observation on Big Tony, isn't he wonderful in that movie? Playing it huge, but rightly so. His scenes near the end with Simon Yam are so great.

[D_Davis]

Oh, and per your signature observation on Big Tony, isn't he wonderful in that movie? Playing it huge, but rightly so. His scenes near the end with Simon Yam are so great.

Big Tony and Simon Yam are incredible in Election.

[Stay Puft]

Hell yeah, that scene, while not being particularly graphic from what I remember, is VERY disgusting.

Yeah, it's not really graphic. Most of the action is obscured, and you only see them grinding meat for maybe three seconds, but that was enough to make me dry heave. What a crazy sequence.


Oh, and per your signature observation on Big Tony, isn't he wonderful in that movie? Playing it huge, but rightly so. His scenes near the end with Simon Yam are so great.

Yeah, I loved the scene with him smashing bottles over the guy's head, pretty much insult to injury at that point. His character arc is great, indicative of the advice Jimmy receives at the end (get all the power, or get out now). And this is another way the two films play off each other so well, as it establishes the thrust of the plot in the second film, which completely unravels the advice Jimmy receives in unforseen ways. Watching both films together, you get a sense of just how entangled these characers are, where every two possible choices will somehow overlap in the conclusion, digging a deeper hole (literally in the first ending, metaphorically in the second).

[Philosophe_rouge]

Baz Luhrmann's early 90s ballroom dance film Strictly Ballroom is more fairy tale than reality, so any concepts of conditional truth die away, leaving only the frenetic spell cast by solid editing, strong archetypcal characters, and a minimalist script. Yet the film is pleasantly recursive in its narrative and disrupts some notions of gender (in that the female lead never becomes breathtakingly beautiful, but instead grows in our esteem simply because of her dedication to her art). Nothing all that substantial, but endearing and sweet all the same.
I like this film quite a bit, rate it about the same as you do. It's very enjoyable and while it embraces a fantasy world, it still veers close to our own. The use of music and humour is particularly effective.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Yeah, by portraying homeless people as nothing but good honest folk who are down on their luck (when it portrays them at all, which is essentially never), and rich people as nothing but shrill, frivolous women and buffoons, it nullifies any potential social commentary. And even the screwball romantic comedy aspect doesn't work particularly well, since the female love interest is so devoid of character or wit. But it was still pretty slick, and William Powell is damnably charismatic.
While I do think the film generalizes, considering the context of the great depression it holds far more true than it does now. I always so the film as being essentially a parody on the American comedies of the era which features all these rich characters completely detached from a crumbling economy. They're exagerrating already exagerrated characters, which is not necessarily a good thing but I remember laughing quite a bit. It's been a few years since I've seen it, so I can't really vouch for it's general effectiveness, but I do remember liking it a great deal.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Nausicaa and the Valley of the Wind may be my new official favourite Miyazaki, it takes all the themes and ideas from all his films and condenses them into something truly remarkable. I also think the animation is probably his most accomplished, although frankly it's so difficult to judge. The dream/flashback sequences were especially lovely, and the use of music incredible. So much greatnes.

[D_Davis]

Nausicaa and the Valley of the Wind may be my new official favourite Miyazaki, it takes all the themes and ideas from all his films and condenses them into something truly remarkable. I also think the animation is probably his most accomplished, although frankly it's so difficult to judge. The dream/flashback sequences were especially lovely, and the use of music incredible. So much greatnes.

Yes, yes, yes!

[D_Davis]

Mindhunters is on Spike right now.

Holy crap, this is one of the worst films I've ever seen. I am having a hard time believing that someone actually thought it was a good idea to make it. It's stupendously bad.

[Rowland]

Mindhunters is on Spike right now.

Holy crap, this is one of the worst films I've ever seen. I am having a hard time believing that someone actually thought it was a good idea to make it. It's stupendously bad.Oh come now, Mindhunters isn't that bad. It may essentially boil down to a mentally challenged version of And Then There Were None, but it's fast, fun, great-looking junk.

[EvilShoe]

Mindhunters is on Spike right now.

Holy crap, this is one of the worst films I've ever seen. I am having a hard time believing that someone actually thought it was a good idea to make it. It's stupendously bad.
Val Kilmer-puppet disagrees.

[Watashi]

Man, I'm trying to watch To's The Mission, but the DVD transfer is unbearably bad. The translations are way off and they are on the screen for a split second. Not to mention the image looks like shit. Oh well.

[D_Davis]

Man, I'm trying to watch To's The Mission, but the DVD transfer is unbearably bad. The translations are way off and they are on the screen for a split second. Not to mention the image looks like shit. Oh well.

Yeah - it's bad. It's a transfer from a bad VHS tape.

It's a shame too. This is often sited as one of the most important films in the genre, and yet it has never been remastered.

Totally sucks.

[D_Davis]

Oh come now, Mindhunters isn't that bad. It may essentially boil down to a mentally challenged version of And Then There Were None, but it's fast, fun, great-looking junk.


Val Kilmer-puppet disagrees.

It's kind of like Troll 2. I just keep telling myself, "somebody actually made this." Although those somebodies include a respected director and actual actors, working with an actual budget, and it got released in the theatre.

It's incredible.

It's definitely a so-bad-it's-good flick, and it would make a great double-feature with House of the Dead.

[megladon8]

Funny Games ('97)

a review by Braden Adam


Famous around the world (or perhaps infamous) for its brutality and disturbing content, Funny Games has received an American remake treatment to be released on March 14th. So it was high time to see what’s arguably director Michael Haneke’s most famous work, about an innocent Austrian family who are tortured both mentally and physically by a pair of deranged young men. It’s a difficult watch - at times even downright unpleasant - but it is all played out so well by all the actors involved (and is gorgeously shot, to boot) that it makes an interesting yet painful film experience.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v496/megladon8/funnygames3.jpg

The film begins with an aerial shot of the family’s vehicle driving through the countryside, while we listen to them playing a game of “guess that classical composer”. The music abruptly changes to some fork-in-the-ear scream metal, but it’s only us - the viewers - who experience this sudden change. The family continues to smile and laugh and hum along to the now absent classical music. Not only are we getting teased as to the film’s abrupt tonal change with the arrival of the young men, but we are also catching a glimpse of what is to come with the film’s all-but-missing fourth wall. Frequently throughout the film (and with growing intensity) one of the young men turns to the camera - looking us, the viewers, straight in the eye - and he addresses the audience directly. This all culminates in the ultimate “wink” at the audience, which both reinforces the film’s message (whatever that may be) and not just breaks the fourth wall, but completely blows it away.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v496/megladon8/funnygames1.jpg

When I say that the message of the film is unclear, this confusion stems (mainly) from the 18 minute interview with Michael Haneke which is featured on the DVD. During this interview, Haneke talks about the film’s strong commentary on violence, and the voyeuristic nature of violence in cinema and in the media. However, where things get muddled is with Haneke’s stance that people who watch the film to the end are somehow morally confused, and are exactly the types of “violence voyeurs” which the film is commenting on. So, he is somehow trying to comment on peoples’ sick tendency to “accept” violence by showing us some truly horrifying images and situations, then condemning us for having watched it. It’s a bit of cinematic entrapment, which could be seen as quite condescending on Haneke’s part...but let’s just forget that interview for now, shall we?

Funny Games presents some of the same themes found in the recent “torture porn” trend in American horror films (most specifically, Hostel). But it’s done with a much classier touch, with many of the technical aspects reminiscent of the films of Alfred Hitchcock. Haneke has a great eye for camera placement, as well as a strong sense of how to create tension. There is one scene which is particularly impressive, in which Georg (the little boy in the family) is hiding behind an armoire which is situated between two open doorways. The camera is placed in such a way as to closely capture the boy’s panicky jitters, as well as keep both of the doorways in the shot. It’s a very tense scene, and the simplicity of the shot benefits it greatly. This is something Hitchcock understood, and which many filmmakers today seem to be oblivious to - complicated, swooping camera movements do not automatically make a more interesting scene. Often it’s the simplest of shots which create striking - even iconic - images. A scene should be interesting enough as it is, and not need extensive movement on the camera’s part in order to enhance it. There are, of course, exceptions, and I admit that this is all coming from the point of view of a writer - a cinematographer would surely disagree.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v496/megladon8/funnygames4.jpg

With such strong acting in the film, it’s also apparent that Haneke didn’t want to interrupt or take away from the power of the performances with quick cuts and the like. All of the characters are played richly, particularly the father, whom Ulrich Mühe brings to startling life. The role reversal of the parents is well executed, as the father is delivered a crippling blow early on in the film, leaving the mother to take centre stage as the heroine - the character involved in most of the “action”. It’s also interesting to note that Haneke used a unique method for directing his actors - he instructed all three members of the family to act as if they were in a tragedy, while simultaneously telling their captors to play it as a comedy. In hindsight, one can see the way the young men tried to inject this comedic tone into their roles, but while watching the film, this just makes them seem all the more psychotic and frightening.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v496/megladon8/funnygames2.jpg

My initial impression of the film was not of disappointment, but of surprise. “This is the ‘deeply disturbing’ movie everyone’s been talking about?” I thought to myself. But sometime several hours later, I found myself still thinking about those two sick young men, that traumatized family, and how horrible all of those physical and mental tortures would be. It’s a powerful film, and whether it hits you as you’re watching it, or a few hours later, it’s sure to leave a lasting impression.

[Qrazy]

I'll reiterate what everybody else said: arguing against violence by depicting it in a non-glorifying way is both possible and not at all hypocritical. Also, I think Funny Games did a pretty good job of deconstructing the psychological thriller genre and probing our desire to watch said genre.

I don't. What Haneke fails to understand is that there is a large difference between the act of cruelty itself and enjoying the anticipation in relation to the act (whether the act happens or not). Someone can enjoy watching a thriller without taking pleasure in harm inflicted upon another. Haneke is an incredibly condescending director who enjoys pissing in the face of his audience. However, his films are formally well crafted (although I find Funny Games to be one of his lesser efforts). Of what I've seen I found Time of the Wolf to be the least condescending, so I quite enjoy that one.

[MacGuffin]

Good review, meg. But you never went back to talk furthermore about the 18 minute interview. :sad:

I'd like to be a little more enlightened about how my opinion a few pages back was hard to understand, as I just can't condone a movie that uses violence in order to tell us violence is wrong. Isn't that why so many people were upset about Crash and it's use of extreme racism to show racism is bad? I just think it is a lazy way of directing a movie. Any director can film violence (Eli Roth). Some directors can even film violence and leave their viewers disturbed (Bruno Dumont). But I think it takes a truly talented director (and perhaps the reason transmogrifter was upset with me was because I didn't previously say this) to use violence against violence and show it in a way that makes the viewers clearly upset, and realize what they are seeing is immoral and wrong. However, the director should do this in a non-exploitive way, or else it loses purpose (see: Cannibal Holocaust). Anyways, I don't think a director has successfully done this yet.

I appreciate iosos pointing out Night and Fog, because that's a great example of a director using violence to upset the viewer and leave them feeling uneasy, but with that, Resnais is merely depicting violence, and with that said, depicting it as a thing of the past, and for all the shit mankind has done to itself, I think there is some hope in Night and Fog, foreshadows at least, and that is why it is equally one of the most beautiful and most terrible movies I've ever seen.

[Rowland]

his films are formally well crafted (although I find Funny Games to be one of his lesser efforts).Agreed. Everything else I've seen by him has been more formally developed. I suppose the bluntness of his technique in Funny Games reflects the bluntness of the movie's patronizing elitism.

[Qrazy]

I'd like to be a little more enlightened about how my opinion a few pages back was hard to understand, as I just can't condone a movie that uses violence in order to tell us violence is wrong. Isn't that why so many people were upset about Crash and it's use of extreme racism to show racism is bad?

No, that is not why.


However, the director should do this in a non-exploitive way, or else it loses purpose (see: Cannibal Holocaust). Anyways, I don't think a director has successfully done this yet.

Come and See.

[Qrazy]

Agreed. Everything else I've seen by him has been more formally developed. I suppose the bluntness of his technique in Funny Games reflects the bluntness of the movie's patronizing elitism.

I like how he claims that the people who watch the film are fucked up, so that makes the people who make the film what exactly?

[baby doll]

I don't think Korea's big enough for you and Trans.

:)

What are you going to do there?What city is he in? I'll be in Pusan, teaching English.

[MacGuffin]

No, that is not why.

Okay? Care to enlighten me then?


Come and See.

I haven't seen it, but I'll check it out sometime.

[MacGuffin]

What city is he in? I'll be in Pusan, teaching English.

You're going here?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/62/Haeundae_2008.png

Awesome, man.

[transmogrifier]

What city is he in? I'll be in Pusan, teaching English.

I'm in Seoul. Ever come up, drop me a line.

[Rowland]

Going abroad to teach English seems like it'd be awesome. I should do that.

Isn't that one of those things White People Like?

[Sycophant]

Going abroad to teach English seems like it'd be awesome. I should do that.

Isn't that one of those things White People Like?
Yes, it is. And it's something I dream of frequently. Yes, preferably in an Asian country.

[Melville]

I don't. What Haneke fails to understand is that there is a large difference between the act of cruelty itself and enjoying the anticipation in relation to the act (whether the act happens or not). Someone can enjoy watching a thriller without taking pleasure in harm inflicted upon another.
I don't think the film fails to understand the distinction. It doesn't expect us to admire the villains or get a kick out of their sadism; it expects us to be rooting for the victims. It's not questioning our desire to be cruel; it's questioning our voyeurism, our anticipation of the act of cruelty. When the film rewinds, it knows that all along we wanted the victims to escape, but then it questions why we wanted them to be brought to the brink of death before that escape.

[MacGuffin]

What is the consensus on The Place Promised in Our Early Days?

[Stay Puft]

What is the consensus on The Place Promised in Our Early Days?

I enjoyed it. It's a gorgeously composed movie, melodramatic in the first half, increasingly steeped in interesting sci-fi ideas in the second. Haven't seen it in a couple years, though. I owe it another viewing.

[Sycophant]

What is the consensus on The Place Promised in Our Early Days?I liked it. But not much more than just "liked."

[MacGuffin]

I enjoyed it. It's a gorgeously composed movie, melodramatic in the first half, increasingly steeped in interesting sci-fi ideas in the second. Haven't seen it in a couple years, though. I owe it another viewing.

Since I have both movies, I'm just wondering whether I should prioritize this over Mind Game because I really want to see 5 Centimeters per Second eventually as well.

[Watashi]

I'm slowly realizing that Dustin Hoffman might be my favorite actor, dead or alive.

[D_Davis]

What is the consensus on The Place Promised in Our Early Days?

It rules.

It's on my top 100.

[Sycophant]

I liked 5 Centimeters Per Second a good deal more than Place. Mind Game surpasses them both.

[D_Davis]

Since I have both movies, I'm just wondering whether I should prioritize this over Mind Game because I really want to see 5 Centimeters per Second eventually as well.

I'd watch Mind Game first. But you can't loose either way.

[MacGuffin]

I liked 5 Centimeters Per Second a good deal more than Place. Mind Game surpasses them both.

I decided to pass on Voices of a Distant Star for now, simply because it doesn't look like it would appeal to me.

[Qrazy]

I don't think the film fails to understand the distinction. It doesn't expect us to admire the villains or get a kick out of their sadism; it expects us to be rooting for the victims. It's not questioning our desire to be cruel; it's questioning our voyeurism, our anticipation of the act of cruelty. When the film rewinds, it knows that all along we wanted the victims to escape, but then it questions why we wanted them to be brought to the brink of death before that escape.

Maybe, but I think it's as much if not more a film commenting on slashers and horror films than on psychological thrillers... and people who watch and enjoy the killings in such films. But in Funny Games the killings aren't funny or remotely enjoyable because we're not seeing vapid victims dying gruesomely, we're seeing a family composed of fleshed out characters who care about one another being mercilessly slaughtered.

Taken from voyeur angle which I agree is focal to the film, I would still argue the film starts and ends with faulty premises because it assumes/concludes that this voyeurism is a perverse trait rather than a natural one. Emotional strain can be enjoyable when it's controlled and I see nothing inherently perverse about that. For instance, such as when a friend frightens us but then we realize it was a friend, so we don't have to worry about being harmed and we can laugh it off or when a thriller film character is brought to the brink of death but then survives at the last second. In my opinion it is the stretching and then the release of our anxiety that we enjoy. This often occurs in the film itself when the hero gets away and even in the films where the hero doesn't get away it still occurs when the lights come on and we are made to realize that it was all just a movie.