28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[Qrazy]

there's a Lorax special!? where have i been? why didn't i know about this. the lorax is my favorite seuss book. dammit, it's not available on netflix. i bet the once-ler has something to do with this.

I just linked it above you skimmer skim skimster.

[Rowland]

Weekend:

Lake of Fire
Margot at the Wedding
The Lives of Others

[ledfloyd]

I just linked it above you skimmer skim skimster.
sorry i read the first post referring to it and had to post immediately. you will be repped for your link.

:pritch:

[Yxklyx]

Weekend:

Newsfront
Mystic Pizza
Velvet Goldmine

[transmogrifier]

John Huston retrospective at my local art cinema. Can't go to them all - damn working for a living! - so which ones should I prioritise?

The Maltese Falcon
The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
Key Largo
The Asphalt Jungle
The African Queen
Moulin Rouge
Beat the Devil
Moby Dick
Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison
The Unforgiven
The Misfits
The Night of the Iguana
Casino Royale
Fat City
The Dead

[Boner M]

Fat City is my fave.

[megladon8]

Detective Story was pretty wonderful - especially for Kirk Douglas' knock-out performance.

My only big qualm with it is the ending - not so much what happens, as how quickly it happens.

Douglas' turn-around after being shot seemed a little too quick.

But other than that, a great, great movie. Surprisingly mature content, as well, considering the time.

[Sven]

The Asphalt Jungle
Beat the Devil
Moby Dick
Fat City
The Dead

Go to these.

[Qrazy]

These:

The Maltese Falcon
The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
Fat City
The Asphalt Jungle

If you have time:

Beat the Devil
Key Largo
Moby Dick (Actually I will second Iosis recommendation to try and get this viewing in. This is actually a very enjoyable film that I rarely heard talked about.)

It would be interesting to analyze Huston in relation to Spielberg. Both the ending of African Queen and the harpooning bits in Moby Dick clearly influenced El Beardo in Jaws.


Worth watching at some point but not in the theater:

The Dead
African Queen

Haven't seen:

Moulin Rouge
Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison
The Unforgiven
The Misfits
The Night of the Iguana
Casino Royale

[Yxklyx]

The best thing about Barbarella was that Joan Greenwood (she of the lovely husky sexy voice) did the voice dubbing for the Black Queen. Joan Greenwood films you should see:

Kind Hearts and Coronets
The Man in the White Suit
The Importance of Being Earnest ('52)
Tom Jones

[Eleven]

I'm really groovin' on Stephen Chow, having seen his last five directorial features before CJ7. He's just willing to throw everything at the audience in order to get a laugh, while stalwartly fulfilling his chosen genre requirements. I also like the earnest, optimistic persona that operates in his films, sometimes tempered by a jealous streak that gets upbraided by film's end.

[Sycophant]

In other news.... awesome (http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/film_review.asp?ID=3518).
Even fucking Chaw (http://filmfreakcentral.net/screenreviews/horton.htm).

I think I'm going to see that movie this weekend.

[Sycophant]

I'm really groovin' on Stephen Chow, having seen his last five directorial features before CJ7. He's just willing to throw everything at the audience in order to get a laugh, while stalwartly fulfilling his chosen genre requirements. I also like the earnest, optimistic persona that operates in his films, sometimes tempered by a jealous streak that gets upbraided by film's end.
:pritch:

I take it this means you've seen King of Comedy. That's a weird one but I think it just might be one of his best.

[Eleven]

:pritch:

I take it this means you've seen King of Comedy. That's a weird one but I think it just might be one of his best.

More so than in any his films I've seen, that one delightedly goes places I never expected and pulls me along for the ride. I actually wrote the beginnings of a short screenplay a year or so ago about a young guy wanting to teach acting despite having little to no pro experience, but I should have known Chow would make that basic concept more delirious and rambunctious than I ever could. Much, much funnier, too. And nifty Jackie Chan cameo to boot.

[ledfloyd]

I just rewatched No Country. I dunno how this film didn't get sound editing or design or editing oscars. The editing is perfect and the sound is great. I love the Coen brothers.

[Spinal]

The family has requested Horton, so it looks like I may be seeing it as soon as tomorrow. I hope my initial impressions were wrong. I have been surprised before. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0366548/)

[Raiders]

Wind Chill was a superb little horror film. The second half, which I have read many disparaging comments about, was full of surprises and ultimately was very affecting. The themes of the film, involving the eternal and cyclical ramifications of our actions, are surprisingly potent.

[Rowland]

Wind Chill was a superb little horror film. The second half, which I have read many disparaging comments about, was full of surprises and ultimately was very affecting. The themes of the film, involving the eternal and cyclical ramifications of our actions, are surprisingly potent.Well huh. I'm one of those people who thought it grew progressively pointless, unconvincing, and scare-free after the first half hour, but it's cool that you saw otherwise. The best part was Clint Mansell's soundtrack.

For those of you who don't plan on seeing Wind Chill, here are clips from his score: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLCotivk0CI

[Raiders]

Well huh. I'm one of those people who thought it grew progressively pointless after the first half hour, but it's cool that you saw it otherwise.

Late in the film, the boy's ghost repeats his line about them sharing a nice little story and we read it as sad as opposed to creepy. It relates to his notion that the ghosts in the area repeat the same 24 hours over and over again. We ultimately realize that because his last action in life is a kiss, he will forever live his "nice little story." The film's purgatory is almost like an unfortunate trap. People get stranded because the evil of the sheriff is forced to continually inflict itself. I thought there was something genuinely unique and interesting about the idea of the characters not being targeted victims but rather simply being in the wrong place. The film seems to be depicting not attacks on these characters, but a place of spiritual desolation manifesting bodily harm (think about how when the girl is apparently being attacked, she is merely in the back seat convulsing--or when the boy hits the sheriff with the shovel only to wake up in the front seat).

It isn't always successful, but the unsettling and awkward first half coupled with the supernatural and unsettling second half, as well as the film's ruminations on cyclical evil, made a pretty terrific viewing.

[Rowland]

Late in the film, the boy's ghost repeats his line about them sharing a nice little story and we read it as sad as opposed to creepy. It relates to his notion that the ghosts in the area repeat the same 24 hours over and over again. We ultimately realize that because his last action in life is a kiss, he will forever live his "nice little story." The film's purgatory is almost like an unfortunate trap. People get stranded because the evil of the sheriff is forced to continually inflict itself. I thought there was something genuinely unique and interesting about the idea of the characters not being targeted victims but rather simply being in the wrong place. The film seems to be depicting not attacks on these characters, but a place of spiritual desolation manifesting bodily harm (think about how when the girl is apparently being attacked, she is merely in the back seat convulsing--or when the boy hits the sheriff with the shovel only to wake up in the front seat).Oh, I understood it. The movie is basically a riff on Nietzsche's Eternal Recurrence (which I think may actually be name-dropped). I meant pointless as in the tension between the characters grew less interesting, and once I understood what the movie was doing, the nature of the hauntings and the endless succession of GOTCHA! dream sequences drained the scenario and imagery of its horror value. For all of its supposed cleverness, it was all pretty obvious, and thus increasingly tedious. Plus, I didn't buy the emotional tragedy at the end, though Mansell almost convinced me otherwise.

[MadMan]

Okay, so Blowup(1966) is now on TCM. I have given it my full attention for about an hour now. Not a damn thing of interest to me has happened. I'm bored out of my mind. Honestly I tried to like it, to get into the film's 60s vibe, and I'm already seeing some sort of budding thoughts on voyerism. This movie just isn't clicking for me at all. Which is a damn shame because I had sizable hopes for this one. Oh and I have to say that what I also go out of this failed attempt at a full viewing was that the main character is a total bloody wanker, and a tad on the creepy side.

[number8]

I have expanded (http://www.justpressplay.net/viewarticle/sfiaaff-08-review-blood-brothers/) on why Blood Brothers is sucko.

[origami_mustache]

I've been rethinking about 3-Iron a lot today and especially regarding the final quote:

"It's hard to tell that the world that we live in is either a reality or a dream."

I realize that the interpretation is most likely meant to be open ended, but I think I was initially taking the film too literally. I think the film works better for me if I think of the young man as an entirely fabricated entity that the woman created as a coping mechanism for her abusive marriage or perhaps a ghost, but with this in mind, the story should have began the focus with her, rather than providing exposition from his perspective. I suppose the other interpretation would be that he was killed in prison by the guard and became a spirit living in the woman's home.

I know a lot of people here have seen this, and this has probably been discussed before...so thoughts anyone?

[monolith94]

In my opinion, 3-iron isn't intended to be a depiction of "reality" - it's a poetic piece of magical realism.

[Qrazy]

I've been rethinking about 3-Iron a lot today and especially regarding the final quote:

"It's hard to tell that the world that we live in is either a reality or a dream."

I realize that the interpretation is most likely meant to be open ended, but I think I was initially taking the film too literally. I think the film works better for me if I think of the young man as an entirely fabricated entity that the woman created as a coping mechanism for her abusive marriage or perhaps a ghost, but with this in mind, the story should have began the focus with her, rather than providing exposition from his perspective. I suppose the other interpretation would be that he was killed in prison by the guard and became a spirit living in the woman's home.

I know a lot of people here have seen this, and this has probably been discussed before...so thoughts anyone?

Yeah, even your spoiler is still taking the film too literally. None of his films can or ought to be deciphered on a purely realistic level. The narrative is irrelevant except in so far as it resonates thematically with the visual storytelling. Characters aren't characters drawn from reality, they're embodiments of basic emotions and ideas.

[origami_mustache]

In my opinion, 3-iron isn't intended to be a depiction of "reality" - it's a poetic piece of magical realism.

I don't know if "magic realism" is the correct term, as everything to my recollection was plausible in the realms of reality although highly unlikely. I would have been a little more satisfied had it explored more overt fantasy elements though.


Yeah, even your spoiler is still taking the film too literally. None of his films can or ought to be deciphered on a purely realistic level. The narrative is irrelevant except in so far as it resonates thematically with the visual storytelling. Characters aren't characters drawn from reality, they're embodiments of basic emotions and ideas.

I like the premise a lot and even the idea of the characters as thematic embodiments, but I still think Kim is hit and miss with this. The film is "poetic" at times but often gets sidetracked, resorting to facile moments such as the repetition of scenes where character's are pelted with golf balls. Perhaps it's just a tonal issue for me, I really don't know. I think I'm mostly disappointed because I thought the film had so much more potential.

[Winston*]

Saw Superbad. Not really the masterpiece Ivan Drago had me expect. The annoying to funny ratio here is all out of wack.

[Winston*]

Planet Terror was more effective at bringing the lulz.

[Boner M]

Wow, Delirious really sucks. Overly precious quirkfests might be a severely annoying trend in American indie cinema, but watching this made me realise that so-called critiques of the superficial world of celebrity from too-cool-for-school 'auteurs' (who obviously know nothing about that milieu) are much worse. Ridiculously uninspired stuff, though Buscemi and Gershon are a lot of fun.

[Duncan]

How awesome is the trailer (http://www.filmforum.org/films/contempttrailer.html#) for Contempt?

[origami_mustache]

How awesome is the trailer (http://www.filmforum.org/films/contempttrailer.html#) for Contempt?

I love that song so much, and I remember watching this trailer when I rented the film a few years ago haha.

[Wryan]

John Huston retrospective at my local art cinema. Can't go to them all - damn working for a living! - so which ones should I prioritise?

The Maltese Falcon
Key Largo
The Asphalt Jungle
Moby Dick


Pretty much these. Can't go wrong.

[Ezee E]

I was hoping for awesomely bad, Resident Evil-esque stuff in Hitman, but it's actually one of the most boring video game movies I've seen. Although watching that after No Country is just strange.

[megladon8]

I was hoping for awesomely bad, Resident Evil-esque stuff in Hitman, but it's actually one of the most boring video game movies I've seen. Although watching that after No Country is just strange.


I agree.

It bored me silly.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - Hitman is one of the worst movies I have ever seen.

It's to me what Silent Hill was to D_Davis.

[NickGlass]

Wow, Delirious really sucks. Overly precious quirkfests might be a severely annoying trend in American indie cinema, but watching this made me realise that so-called critiques of the superficial world of celebrity from too-cool-for-school 'auteurs' (who obviously know nothing about that milieu) are much worse. Ridiculously uninspired stuff, though Buscemi and Gershon are a lot of fun.

Too true. There were complications with Blame it on Fidel, so my friend and I were forced to see this.

I still think the whole movie precariously teeters upon whether you buy Pitt's split-second acceptance into the uber-exclusive celebrity world or not. I swore they embraced him just because he looks like he'd always brink the coke to parties.

And that Elvis Costello cameo? Oy.

[ledfloyd]

Okay, so Blowup(1966) is now on TCM. I have given it my full attention for about an hour now. Not a damn thing of interest to me has happened. I'm bored out of my mind. Honestly I tried to like it, to get into the film's 60s vibe, and I'm already seeing some sort of budding thoughts on voyerism. This movie just isn't clicking for me at all. Which is a damn shame because I had sizable hopes for this one. Oh and I have to say that what I also go out of this failed attempt at a full viewing was that the main character is a total bloody wanker, and a tad on the creepy side.
as much as I LOVE L'avventura. Blowup just leaves me cold. I've tried watching it several times and nothing.

[Qrazy]

I like the premise a lot and even the idea of the characters as thematic embodiments, but I still think Kim is hit and miss with this. The film is "poetic" at times but often gets sidetracked, resorting to facile moments such as the repetition of scenes where character's are pelted with golf balls. Perhaps it's just a tonal issue for me, I really don't know. I think I'm mostly disappointed because I thought the film had so much more potential.

I actually think you're hitting the nail on the head and I tend to agree with you about the violent element in all his films. The violence isn't the problem per se, that is to say it has real thematic and tonal purpose as well as resonance (car accident scene or Spring Summer, hurting animals)... but something like the golf ball revenge just seems like a return to simplistic moral archetypes... the bad guy getting his comeuppance. While I feel I can sort of see why he's done it (especially because even for the 'bad guy' he keeps the violence brutal and real) it still feels like more of a shock moment and/or a 'naivety' than as an effective thematic/narrative growth. I can forgive those few semi-functional scenes in this film though where everything else functions superbly well.

Still as I said I don't think one should try to read the film as the guy dying in prison and becoming a spirit, or as his existence being entirely fictional... not because I think the interpretation is outlandish or logically invalid, but because I don't think the film needs to work or even tries to work on that level. That is not to say that the narrative isn't important, it is. Just that the narrative doesn't try to recreate the logic of reality.

But yeah he constantly returns to extreme acts of violence in nearly all of his films and I too usually find they're only partially effective. However, I think his desire to unsettle with these moments in order to make other elements of the film resonate more strongly, is very much a conscious artistic choice. In two of his films (this and Spring Summer) I feel it works fairly well and that the seeming moral naivety is thematically functional, while in two of his other works (The Isle and Bad Guy) I think he falls on the wrong side of the razor's edge. The Isle however is for me at least a fascinating failure, while Bad Guy is such a conceptually obtuse extrapolation of Stockholm syndrome that I was left practically speechless at what an absurdly stupid venture the film turned out to be.

[Qrazy]

as much as I LOVE L'avventura. Blowup just leaves me cold. I've tried watching it several times and nothing.

It hasn't aged especially well, but it's still a very important time capsule film... in the same way that Easy Rider or Breathless is (I'm sure I'll get some grumbles from the lovers of all three for relegating them thus, but still). They're all still historically essential and even formally pertinent, but they lack (at least for me) that emotional pre-resquisite which makes a film temporally transcendent (Bicycle Thief, Passion of Joan of Arc, Rublev).

Form aside, Blow-up also finally brought certain necessary and fundamental epistemological questions concerning the nature of time, reality and the image, to cinema and integrated these basic philosophical questions into a film in a purely cinematic way.

[Bosco B Thug]

Yeah, disappointing. I rented it mostly for Roxanne Mesquida. She was good, but her character really didn't make much sense. I'd like to see her in more stuff. The biblical allusions were silly. The plot twists were silly. Vincent Cassell was very silly, although kind of entertaining. I thought there were some nice moments of tension between the city kids and the country kids, but they were fleeting. Watchable, but very little of lasting value. The movie was so random. I can hardly get my head around how determinedly the story doesn't go anywhere or doesn't try to make any sense.
Witchfinder General - 6 Pretty meh, huh? I expected a lot from this, and while the film has its moments, it's pretty shoddy overall. Price didn't even do much for me, he's a better evil character in The Masque of the Red Death.
Wind Chill was a superb little horror film. The second half, which I have read many disparaging comments about, was full of surprises and ultimately was very affecting. The themes of the film, involving the eternal and cyclical ramifications of our actions, are surprisingly potent. Oh wonderful, looks like I get to give this straight-to-video horror a try too in the eventual future.

[Spinal]

The movie was so random. I can hardly get my head around how determinedly the story doesn't go anywhere or doesn't try to make any sense.

Particularly when ...

Vincent Cassell gets plowed into by a speeding car and then returns later without explanation or any indication that he has been wounded. Unless that was a part of the back-and-forth dream sequence. Ah, who cares. I could probably figure it out, but why.

[ledfloyd]

It hasn't aged especially well, but it's still a very important time capsule film... in the same way that Easy Rider or Breathless is (I'm sure I'll get some grumbles from the lovers of all three for relegating them thus, but still). They're all still historically essential and even formally pertinent, but they lack (at least for me) that emotional pre-resquisite which makes a film temporally transcendent (Bicycle Thief, Passion of Joan of Arc, Rublev).

Form aside, Blow-up also finally brought certain necessary and fundamental epistemological questions concerning the nature of time, reality and the image, to cinema and integrated these basic philosophical questions into a film in a purely cinematic way.
i agree with you on easy rider and breathless as well. the latter i expected to love and by the time i got around to it it didn't do a whole lot for me.


I just watched The Incredibles for the first time since I saw it in theaters and it's definitely Bird's best film. Ratatouille doesn't hold a candle to it.

[Bosco B Thug]

Particularly when ...

Vincent Cassell gets plowed into by a speeding car and then returns later without explanation or any indication that he has been wounded. Unless that was a part of the back-and-forth dream sequence. Ah, who cares. I could probably figure it out, but why. Buh... *spaces out just thinking about this movie* Yes. Mesquida's character did make little sense. But we did get to see her drink milk squirted straight from a cow's teet just for the hell of it.


I just watched The Incredibles for the first time since I saw it in theaters and it's definitely Bird's best film. Ratatouille doesn't hold a candle to it. You know, Bird is a lot like Haneke if you think about it. They run with their sociological treatise but get tangled in the self-confident fervor of their attitudes, as different as they are. :twisted:

Yes, The Incredibles is great. :)

[Sycophant]

Hey, guys! Horton Hears a Who was actually pretty good, even if a little clumsy in parts. Probably the best Seuss adaptation in decades, not that that's terribly tough competition. The visuals are spectacular. Despite some jokes that either seem outdated or are seem to be there only to date the film in years to come (and a slightly overcooked Jim Carrey), it remains likable throughout, and is never abrasive, something I'm constantly grateful for in family films.

[Qrazy]

Hey, guys! Horton Hears a Who was actually pretty good, even if a little clumsy in parts. Probably the best Seuss adaptation in decades, not that that's terribly tough competition. The visuals are spectacular. Despite some jokes that either seem outdated or are seem to be there only to date the film in years to come (and a slightly overcooked Jim Carrey), it remains likable throughout, and is never abrasive, something I'm constantly grateful for in family films.

Sweet dealio I'm psyched for this one.

[Qrazy]

I've discovered that watching The Lorax and then The Man who Planted Trees back to back is an incredibly uplifting experience but watching them in the inverse is one of the most depressing things possible.

[dreamdead]

Borrowed Julie Taymor's Across the Universe from a friend. Taymor is still audacious as a director, yet the material here feels too clinical and circumscribed to mapping out one-to-one parallels to the Beatles songs. Her visual artistry still feels most tied to character in Titus (though I'm now a little afraid to revisit that one), as her format here leads to very one dimensional archetypes. It's not that this film cannot have depth; it's that Taymor rushes each scene to get to the next musical number and therefore prevents any real scene from breathing, from feeling organic. It's not supposed to be a "realistic" film, and that's fine. But it's in too much of a rush narratively to work as a fantasy, either. And that's the crucial misstep here. Had Taymor restricted her vision to a more limited environment, this project likely could have worked.

[Spinal]

I will second Sycophant's recommendation of Horton. There are some regrettable moments, such as an ill-advised singalong at the film's end, but the most important thing is that the film retains the book's emotional core and generates genuine tension as the people of Whoville face great danger. Plenty of Seussian visuals and there are even moments of hilarity to be found in the times that the narrative strays. Thumbs up.

[Rowland]

I will second Sycophant's recommendation of Horton. There are some regrettable moments, such as an ill-advised singalong at the film's end, but the most important thing is that the film retains the book's emotional core and generates genuine tension as the people of Whoville face great danger. Plenty of Seussian visuals and there are even moments of hilarity to be found in the times that the narrative strays. Thumbs up.How'd the offspring like it? I know it can be hard to tell.

[Spinal]

How'd the offspring like it? I know it can be hard to tell.

Very attentive. Lots of smiles. He seems to have enjoyed it a lot. It's a film that I wouldn't feel uncomfortable letting him watch multiple times.

[Sycophant]

All this talk of Seuss and seventies animation in general urged me to revisit The Lorax tonight (awesome), to check out some of Bruno Bozzetto's short films that I had on my Allegro non troppo disc (again, awesome), and reminded me that I desperately need to see Raggedy Ann and Andy: A Musical Adventure and wish it was available on DVD.

[Spinal]

What distinguishes Horton Hears a Who! from the other recent Dr. Seuss film adaptations — How the Grinch Stole Christmas and The Cat in the Hat, in case you need reminding — is that it is not one of the worst movies ever made.

:lol:

[Grouchy]

Obra Maestra (Masterpiece) is another very amusing dark comedy featuring the acting talent of Santiago Segura, though this time it is directed by David Trueba of El Bola fame. The movie is about two deranged losers making a movie in an 8mm camera who kidnap and actress when she mocks their efforts to get her to read the hand-written script. The drama is carried ahead by the wonderful acting of the three of them, and the movie is not shy about nasty, vicious comedy. Not as good as a De la Iglesia film, but still featuring some biting satire mixed with good characters and emotional moments.

I also saw this curious Horror classic from Brazil a friend bought for me, At Midnight I'll Take Your Soul. After Wikipeding it (hah!), I found out about this character, Zé do Caixao, mistranslated in English simply as Coffin Joe. Apparently this guy, José Mojica Marins, found himself without his lead actor on this (his first) movie and proceeded to grab a coat, a top hat and fake long fingernails, and created a character that's a pop culture icon in Brazil. Zé do Caixao is an undertaker who hates religious feeling and happiness. Everything he wants is a son that will perpetuate his blood, and it figures that his wife is sterile. So he ties her up and throws venomous spiders at her, covers the murder and sets about finding the perfect woman to carry his child. Many more maiden killings ensue. The movie is surprisingly not all that campy or bad - plenty of shots feature splendid photography, and Marins acting is exaggerated but effective. It does suffer from excessive self-promotion, featuring no less than three "scary" intros telling the audience to leave the theater if they value their sanity before the movie starts, which was pretty hilarious. But, like, Paul Naschy is a lot more famous internationally than this guy, and he chould take filmmaking lessons from Marins. I've already rented the next Zé do Caixao movie, This Night I Will Possess Your Corpse.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I will second Sycophant's recommendation of Horton. There are some regrettable moments, such as an ill-advised singalong at the film's end, but the most important thing is that the film retains the book's emotional core and generates genuine tension as the people of Whoville face great danger. Plenty of Seussian visuals and there are even moments of hilarity to be found in the times that the narrative strays. Thumbs up.

Awesome. I'll try to take my son to this sometime this week.

[Qrazy]

Man, how does everyone in here have children all of a sudden. Weird.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Man, how does everyone in here have children all of a sudden. Weird.

Mine are less "all of a sudden" and more "for the past 6 years". I won't go into the specifics, but that's generally how having kids works.

[soitgoes...]

Man, how does everyone in here have children all of a sudden. Weird.
I'm pretty sure sex is the main culprit.

[Qrazy]

Mine are less "all of a sudden" and more "for the past 6 years". I won't go into the specifics, but that's generally how having kids works.

Nah, pretty sure you popped them out of your ass yesterday.

[Wryan]

Nah, pretty sure you popped them out of your ass yesterday.

Just to fool you!

[Qrazy]

Just to fool you!

He's a tricky fellow.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Nah, pretty sure you popped them out of your ass yesterday.

Coming soon to YouTube!

[Sycophant]

Oh, man. Almost everything I want to watch right now is nearly two and a half hours long, which kinda makes me not want to watch them.

[Rowland]

Oh, man. Almost everything I want to watch right now is nearly two and a half hours long, which kinda makes me not want to watch them.What are they?

[Sycophant]

What are they?
Vengeance Is Mine
Mulholland Drive
The Last Temptation of Christ
Princess Mononoke, mostly.

[Sven]

Mulholland Drive

Watch this one late at night by yourself.

[Rowland]

Vengeance Is Mine
Mulholland Drive
The Passion of the Christ
Princess Mononoke, mostly.The Passion of the Christ is two and a half hours long?

Out of those, I suggest just taking the plunge and going for Mulholland Drive. It may be long, but it sure doesn't feel it... unlike, say, Inland Empire. :twisted:

[Watashi]

I saw Mulholland Dr. by myself at 2am. I saw it right after I saw Memento for the first time.

It was quite the double-header experience.

[Rowland]

I saw Mulholland Dr. by myself at 2am. I saw it right after I saw Memento for the first time.

It was quite the double-header experience.Sounds like too much to take in for one night, to be honest.

[Sycophant]

The Passion of the Christ is two and a half hours long?Whoops. That was a typo. I very briefly confused Gibson's film with Scorsese's.

I'm thinking, yeah, I'll probably go Mulholland Drive many hours from now.

[soitgoes...]

Vengeance Is Mine
Mulholland Drive
The Last Temptation of Christ
Princess Mononoke, mostly.
You really can't go wrong with any of those. They're all great.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Mulholland Dr. was a film I put in and didn't freakin move for the duration. It didn't feel like 2+ hours.

[soitgoes...]

Whoops. That was a typo. I very briefly confused Gibson's film with Scorsese's.

:lol: They're pretty much the same interpretation of Jesus' death.

[Qrazy]

You really can't go wrong with any of those. They're all great.

Nah, Last Temptation is fairly god awful. The others are great.

[Qrazy]

Oh, man. Almost everything I want to watch right now is nearly two and a half hours long, which kinda makes me not want to watch them.

That's why this is better than all of them. It's short, artistic and to the point.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=PvbL_5rH1QQ&feature=user

[Sycophant]

That's why this is better than all of them. It's short, artistic and to the point.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=PvbL_5rH1QQ&feature=userI'm actually watching one of these right now. Specifically, "Let's Paint, Sew, Exercise, and Burlesque Dance."

[Qrazy]

I'm actually watching one of these right now. Specifically, "Let's Paint, Sew, Exercise, and Burlesque Dance."

I like Let's Paint, Exercise and Perform Open Heart Surgery.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Bored, so I started a new blog. It's a film noir/They shoot Dark Pictures Don't They? Project. I've already written a ton of stuff, so for at least two weeks I should be updating fairly frequently.

http://tsdpdt.wordpress.com/

[Ezee E]

Wow, it's hard to believe that Mulholland is over two hours. It'll fly by.

[number8]

Currently sitting in a festival screening of Harold & Kumar 2 with John Cho present. Its alcohol friendly and I hits a beer in my hand. It is good.

[Sycophant]

Currently sitting in a festival screening of Harold & Kumar 2 with John Cho present. Its alcohol friendly and I hits a beer in my hand. It is good.I is jealous.

[Qrazy]

Currently sitting in a festival screening of Harold & Kumar 2 with John Cho present. Its alcohol friendly and I hits a beer in my hand. It is good.

Let us know how it is. I found the first surprisingly funny.

[origami_mustache]

That's why this is better than all of them. It's short, artistic and to the point.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=PvbL_5rH1QQ&feature=user

HAHAHA this is my new favorite show. Gotta love that green screen.

I recommend Let's Paint,Exercise,and Cook-Rumble n' the Jungle

[ledfloyd]

Bored, so I started a new blog. It's a film noir/They shoot Dark Pictures Don't They? Project. I've already written a ton of stuff, so for at least two weeks I should be updating fairly frequently.

http://tsdpdt.wordpress.com/
sweet. i'll be bookmarking that.

[Qrazy]

HAHAHA this is my new favorite show. Gotta love that green screen.

I recommend Let's Paint,Exercise,and Cook-Rumble n' the Jungle

I e-mailed him.

[Sycophant]

This show just gets increasingly surreal. I'm going to have to come up with some kind words to send to this guy. He's amazing. Inga the faux Swedish cook is pretty great, too.

[DavidSeven]

Vengeance Is Mine
Mulholland Drive
The Last Temptation of Christ
Princess Mononoke, mostly.

You're not going to make me feel sorry for you for having to choose between these films. If anything, I like Lynch's the least of this bunch. Good films though, all of them.

[DavidSeven]

Nah, Last Temptation is fairly god awful.

Uh, no. It'd be hard to be more wrong than you are right now.

[Qrazy]

Uh, no. It'd be hard to be more wrong than you are right now.

What was your favorite part, the Brooklyn accent, the god awful pacing, the muddy/hazy cinematography, the artificiality of the locales and crowds or the meta-pseudo-transcendent unspooling of the film reel at the end?

[DavidSeven]

What was your favorite part, the Brooklyn accent, the god awful pacing, the muddy/hazy cinematography, the artificiality of the locales and crowds or the meta-pseudo-transcendent unspooling of the film reel at the end?

Realism isn't an aspiration of the film. It's stated at the beginning that it's a complete work of fiction. So, then, why should I care about the authenticity of the accents or the locales? That'd be like complaining about the realism of something like 300. I don't recall muddy cinematography. It was lensed by Ballhaus, who does great work with Scorsese, and I recall the film being filled with striking images.

Oh, and I liked the unspooling of the film. ::shrug::

[number8]

I am buzzed and well laughed.

[ledfloyd]

Last Temptation is the only Scorsese film I haven't been able to finish.

[Kurosawa Fan]

The Last Temptation of Christ is the best film Scorsese has made.

[Sven]

What was your favorite part, the Brooklyn accent, the god awful pacing, the muddy/hazy cinematography, the artificiality of the locales and crowds or the meta-pseudo-transcendent unspooling of the film reel at the end?

Your comment about the ending seems a bit unfairly reductive. Clearly, by that point, you were not on the film's wavelength. I see no inherent problem with the technique, as it communicates its intentions perfectly. Looking at it for "transcendent" qualities may be setting yourself up for irritation. If you find it transcendent, wonderful (one probably shouldn't call any other person's experience "pseudo"), but it does hold meta-significance that is unique and daring, if a tad pretentious.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Last Temptation was awesome. That is all.

[EyesWideOpen]

The Last Temptation of Christ is the best film Scorsese has made.

agreed. It would easily make it in to my top 50 favorite films.

[Wryan]

Oliver! is a blast. Moody and Reed are sensational, particularly the former. Loved the dark bite too, as when Sikes is swinging from the gibbet-beam in the blue dark as the torch-carrying mob mills below.

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? is thoroughly impressive. Uniformly. I wasn't ready to accept Dennis at first, but she won me over. A double billing of this and Long Day's Journey Into Night would make for a brutal marathon.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Oliver! is a blast. Moody and Reed are sensational, particularly the former. Loved the dark bite too, as when Sikes is swinging from the gibbet-beam in the blue dark as the torch-carrying mob mills below.

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? is thoroughly impressive. Uniformly. I wasn't ready to accept Dennis at first, but she won me over. A double billing of this and Long Day's Journey Into Night would make for a brutal marathon.
Both are great, I especially like Reed though... maybe because I don't think I've ever seen anyone else even approach her performance as Sikes. I've seen quite a few good Fagins on the other hand. Still, both greatness.

And yes, love that one too. Burton and Taylor deserved more great films together like this.

[Wryan]

I don't think I've ever seen anyone else even approach her performance as Sikes.

http://www.oliver1968.co.uk/reed02C.jpg

What did you call me!?

[Philosophe_rouge]

http://www.oliver1968.co.uk/reed02C.jpg

What did you call me!?
I blame celebrating St. Patrick's Day prematurely. *Hopes doesn't get head beaten to a pulp with cane*

[Qrazy]

Your comment about the ending seems a bit unfairly reductive. Clearly, by that point, you were not on the film's wavelength. I see no inherent problem with the technique, as it communicates its intentions perfectly. Looking at it for "transcendent" qualities may be setting yourself up for irritation. If you find it transcendent, wonderful (one probably shouldn't call any other person's experience "pseudo"), but it does hold meta-significance that is unique and daring, if a tad pretentious.

I'm obviously not calling another's experience anything. I'm referring to my experience in reference to what I viewed in the film. Ironically (in relation to the critical majority) the only thing I really enjoyed about the film was the ending (prior to the meta absurdity). I thought it was fairly powerful in relation to the tediousness that had preceded it. The problem for me is that the entire film felt completely inauthentic, at no point did I feel I was in Jesus time frame, nor did I feel this inauthenticity lent anything thematically compelling to the experience of the film.

Edit: Furthermore in reference to my use of transcendent, I was referring to the film's attempt to mirror Jesus death/transcendence into heaven by breaking the fourth wall/the medium itself via unspooling. An attempt I found hilariously insipid, but again, I wasn't referring to anyone's experience.

[Boner M]

Flight of the Red Balloon is just lovely; probably the first Hou that's completely clicked with me. Admittedly, I'm a little surprised that I found it worked so well, since there's a lot of elements that are clunkily and didactically handled; almost stereotypical of foreigners making films on new turf and dumbing down their own language as result. The blatant stabs at reflexivity is the main hurdle; having a Taiwanese film student as a passively observer in the narrative, who's making a homage to The Red Balloon is 'duh' itself, but having Binoche's character laud one of said student's films for it's childlike, abstract quality is plain self-aggrandizement, especially puzzling for a filmmaker who never gives away his intentions so crassly. Similarly, Hou over-emphasises the dichotomy between the guilelessness of childhood and the hassles of adulthood through rather blunt contrasts between Simon's (and by extension, the balloon's) flights of fancy and Binoche's endless stress episodes. Fortunately, those quibbles seem diminutive in the film's own childlike perspective, and Hou's trademark floaty long-takes - calling attention to the passage of time, natch - take on greater poignancy with the film's central theme, no matter how over-elaborated it is. Beautiful stuff.

As for Before the Devil Knows You're Dead, I don't have much to add that most have in the film's thread. I dug it on a pulpy, feel-better-about-your-own-life-by-watching-others-fuck-up-theirs level, and I greatly enjoyed the teeth-gnashing hysterics of the cast, though even Hoffman can't overcome his characters' psychology - when he has his emotional breakdown in his car, I was more concentrated on the bulging vein in his forehead than Andy's emotional state. I also agree about the complaints regarding Hawke's character and the lack of resolution on his part, especially since the ending is going for some sort of grand catharsis. Entertaining, but hardly profound. Although to be honest, I'm somewhat grateful that I shared my audience's relieved laughter during the credits, rather than wanted to slit my wrists in depression afterwards. I guess nihilism that's merely glib has its advantages.

[Sven]

I'm obviously not calling another's experience anything. I'm referring to my experience in reference to what I viewed in the film.

But if I found it transcendent (hypothetically), your comment about "pseudo-transcendence" would be false, because my transcendence was real. Transcendence is too much a human experience, not an artistic attribute. Had you said "pseudo-profundity", that would've been much more fitting. Profundity is something you can describe and reconcile, whereas you cannot claim objective transcendence.


Ironically (in relation to the critical majority) the only thing I really enjoyed about the film was the ending (prior to the meta absurdity).

Here I would like you to explain why you call the unspooling "absurd". I'm just realizing now that my posts may sound aggressive or antagonistic, but I assure you that I'm asking with the sincerest of innocent curiosities.

[Qrazy]

But if I found it transcendent (hypothetically), your comment about "pseudo-transcendence" would be false, because my transcendence was real. Transcendence is too much a human experience, not an artistic attribute. Had you said "pseudo-profundity", that would've been much more fitting. Profundity is something you can describe and reconcile, whereas you cannot claim objective transcendence.



Here I would like you to explain why you call the unspooling "absurd". I'm just realizing now that my posts may sound aggressive or antagonistic, but I assure you that I'm asking with the sincerest of innocent curiosities.

I edited the original post to clear up why I used transcendent. I found it absurd/silly because it just struck me as hilarious that Jesus transcending would unspool the film... I guess most of that was because I didn't buy at all the universe Scorsese had tried to establish throughout the film, but also because as a filmic event/recording it's not as if any transcending of the medium or anything, is really occuring, so the fact that the moment can be rewound and played ad nauseum, makes it reek of falsity and pseudo-profundity for me. Furthermore, concept aside, the execution of the moment just with the Gabriel music, the colors and Defoe as Jesus all struck me as ridiculous.

[Sven]

I edited the original post to clear up why I used transcendent. I found it absurd/silly because it just struck me as hilarious that Jesus transcending would unspool the film... I guess most of that was because I didn't buy at all the universe Scorsese had tried to establish throughout the film, but also because as a filmic event/recording it's not as if any transcending of the medium or anything, is really occuring, so the fact that the moment can be rewound and played ad nauseum, makes it reek of falsity and pseudo-profundity for me. Furthermore, concept aside, the execution of the moment just with the Gabriel music, the colors and Defoe as Jesus all struck me as ridiculous.

I am beginning to see what you mean. In truth, I do find the unspooling kind of specious, although I do appreciate its audacity and vague poetics (film as a tactile manifestation of life). However, I disagree with your ridicule of the execution. But that's not here or there. Still, hurray for another shaking up of the status quo!

[monolith94]

So, Ghosts of Mars was on last night, on the sci-fi channel. Like a dull, unfunny Total Recall, in my opinion. Bad dialogue, bad acting, bad music, bad special effects. The evil mars-men were like something out of an H. Rider Haggard novel, only without the gravitas. Didn't even have much cinematographic integrity. Compare this to Can't Buy Me Love, which was on A&E just now, which similarly had cheesy acting, cheesy music, cheesy dialogue (and thus bad) - but at least had some cinematographic integrity. The closing shot of that film alone is simply pleasing on a primal level.

I kind of liked the actual story of both films, but all else - the actual execution, natch, was just so flawed.

[Sven]

cinematographic integrity

What is this?

[monolith94]

Not selling out your camera to the generic paradigm. Going beyond the absolute minimum necessary to tell your story. Trying.

[Sven]

Not selling out your camera to the generic paradigm. Going beyond the absolute minimum necessary to tell your story. Trying.

Well, as I am a pretty gigantic fan of Ghosts of Mars, it will be hard to reconcile our respective terms here. I am inclined to attempt it, but in the interest of time and patience, I think I will just lower my head and sulk down the lonely path once again.

[monolith94]

I had heard that you were a fun of Ghosts of Mars. What's to like about it? The cheesy special effects? Or is it the way in which the narrative unfolds, like a sci-fi Rashomon, with shades of the Star Trek episode where that guy tells the tribunal what happened? I actually think that the story itself had some good, clever ideas, but the dialogue itself was just SO bad, and the bad guys were just SO cheesy.

[Sven]

I had heard that you were a fun of Ghosts of Mars. What's to like about it? The cheesy special effects? Or is it the way in which the narrative unfolds, like a sci-fi Rashomon, with shades of the Star Trek episode where that guy tells the tribunal what happened? I actually think that the story itself had some good, clever ideas, but the dialogue itself was just SO bad, and the bad guys were just SO cheesy.

I can't honestly say that I even noticed the dialogue in this film. I found it serviceable, which is not to say "bad", but rather, it never called attention to itself for any reason other than to forward the plot. I do cherish the occasional Ice Cube zinger, though. ("That's what you get, dumbass.")

It always strikes me as fussy when people complain about dialogue in films like this. It's a cliche to note that space zombies shouldn't be treated as Shakespeare, but I keep finding myself going back to that argument again and again. Yes, there are films like this that have upped the ante on "good" or "believable" or "realistic" dialogue, but isn't there something to be said about hokey throwback to an unrefined polish? Same logic for the baddies. I don't get a sense from the direction that the film is going for an oppressive horror atmosphere, but rather a sci-fi adventure (a "romp", maybe?). Any more malice or horror would've felt taxing.

I think the story is excellent, the performers make for fun zombie fodder, the artificiality of the sets give them a tangible element, and as always, I love Carpenter's score and framing. Played for camp or sincere sci-fi "romp", I think it works on both levels, although I fall into the latter camp. I dunno. I've never understood the hate. It's not Shakespeare, people! :P

[Rowland]

Yes, Ghosts of Mars is dreadful, a mish-mash of several previous Carpenter movies with all the art and grace sapped out. It's not even satisfying on the level of pure pulp.

[Benny Profane]

The ending of Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia reminded me a lot of Scarface. I like the latter's ending more. Garcia was kind of a bore once it got to the bang-bang shoot-em-up denouement.

[Ezee E]

Notes on a Scandal was on TV and I decided to check it out for no reason except that it was on. Anyways, I don't think I've seen Cate Blanchett look any better in a role, but what a waste of great talent. I would throw in a meh somewhere, but there really isn't a spot to put it in.

[Qrazy]

The ending of Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia reminded me a lot of Scarface. I like the latter's ending more. Garcia was kind of a bore once it got to the bang-bang shoot-em-up denouement.

Yeah, pacing/tone/location-wise it almost felt like it was out of an entirely different film altogether.

[Wryan]

The duplicate and triplicate concentric layers and Groundhog Day-esque repetition in Perfect Blue are masterfully executed and I found myself hypnotized by the editing and sound design and color schemes. However, I can't say I was too moved by one of the essential foundations of the concept: the many scenes of "OMG! Am I a pop idol or an actress!?" effected a blase kind of shrug from me and a "Uh...who cares?" response. However, I concede that this is likely a cultural thing in part, something that might strike home in Japan perhaps more directly. Still, the ramifications and results of that core idea work and work brilliantly.

EDIT: Oh and the bad guy is as cringe-worthy as your average retarded albino hillbilly in some shlocky horror movie. He looked like a mutated fish.

Saw Blood: The Last Vampire before PB. The occasional inspired bit of animation or imagery can't save the 37 shades of bad dialogue or English-language acting. Eye-candy only, really, and not enough of that.

[Wryan]

Also saw Once Upon a Time in China last night. I don't really understand the Master Yim character. He's not initially built up as an unreasonable man, but I don't see his latter motivations, which seem stringent and desperate, like they were put in place to give Jet Li a worthy opponent to fight for trivial reasons (but a "poignant" demise!). Also, Foon and Buck Teeth So are annoying. Goes without saying the action is staggering.

[Qrazy]

The duplicate and triplicate concentric layers and Groundhog Day-esque repetition in Perfect Blue are masterfully executed and I found myself hypnotized by the editing and sound design and color schemes. However, I can't say I was too moved by one of the essential foundations of the concept: the many scenes of "OMG! Am I a pop idol or an actress!?" effected a blase kind of shrug from me and a "Uh...who cares?" response. However, I concede that this is likely a cultural thing in part, something that might strike home in Japan perhaps more directly. Still, the ramifications and results of that core idea work and work brilliantly.

EDIT: Oh and the bad guy is as cringe-worthy as your average retarded albino hillbilly in some shlocky horror movie. He looked like a mutated fish.

Saw Blood: The Last Vampire before PB. The occasional inspired bit of animation or imagery can't save the 37 shades of bad dialogue or English-language acting. Eye-candy only, really, and not enough of that.

I didn't even think Blood had much eye candy at all, as you mention. I thought it was mediocre on a visual level and absolutely terrible on every other level. I absolutely can't stand the tone of Perfect Blue and agree with you about not caring at all about the confusion of the protagonist. It's the only Kon film I really couldn't stand.

[Wryan]

I didn't even think Blood had much eye candy at all, as you mention. I thought it was mediocre on a visual level and absolutely terrible on every other level. I absolutely can't stand the tone of Perfect Blue and agree with you about not caring at all about the confusion of the protagonist. It's the only Kon film I really couldn't stand.

There was a lot in Blood that I found visually appealing. Different strokes I guess. :)

As for PB, although you didn't like the tone, what about the execution of the layering and fantasy/reality bits? Sure, it's been done and it's a common concept, but I thought Kon achieved something here.

[number8]

I thought the animation in Blood was very impressive and groundbreaking.

[Wryan]

I completely admit to not being the biggest anime afficionado, in any way. My viewings are limited for that genre. So I don't know anything about how groundbreaking it is, although I heard it was the first of some kind of hybrid or something like that. Again, no idea really.

[number8]

It was one of, if not the first movie to seamlessly blend 2D and 3D animation. The technology used was groundbreaking at the time. About half of the backgrounds in Blood were CG, made to look like 2D animation.

Today it's kind of become a standard. But it was all thanks to Blood.

[Watashi]

Wow. I didn't like Horton at all. I would probably go lower if the animation wasn't spectacular. The Seussian moments were grand, but they come so few sprinkled amongst a cringe-worthy popfest of tiresome Carrey impressions (really, Henry Kissinger?). The voice cast was unimpressive. I don't understand why guys like Rogen, Hill, and Poehler get these jobs. They should stick to their usual schticks. I think Chaw is really reaching in his review comparing it today's acts of terrorism (these guys are the same people who did College Road Trip. They're not that witty). The overall message left a sour taste in my mouth, and I was wondering how parents are going to explain it to their kids. "So is Horton God?" one of the kids asked as I exited the theater. The parents chuckled nervously. I haven't read the Seuss novel years, but I don't remember it being this didactic.

[MacGuffin]

Wow. I didn't like Horton at all.

Your ** rating begs to differ.

[D_Davis]

I didn't even think Blood had much eye candy at all, as you mention. I thought it was mediocre on a visual level and absolutely terrible on every other level.

I also think that Blood is terrible. Technically speaking it may have been groundbreaking, but the artistry and everything else about it is mediocre at best.

[Watashi]

Your ** rating begs to differ.
Please post something noteworthy next time. A two star rating in anyone's rating criteria is regarded as negative.

[Spinal]

The overall message left a sour taste in my mouth, and I was wondering how parents are going to explain it to their kids. "So is Horton God?" one of the kids asked as I exited the theater. The parents chuckled nervously. I haven't read the Seuss novel years, but I don't remember it being this didactic.

No. He is not. He's bullied around by an angry kangaroo. He is not a creator. He is merely a caretaker. He is not omniscient. He is not omnipotent. He's large and he's kind and he has a good memory. He is not God. And this film, much like Seuss' book, is not didactic.

[Watashi]

No. He is not. He's bullied around by an angry kangaroo. He is not a creator. He is merely a caretaker. He is not omniscient. He is not omnipotent. He's large and he's kind and he has a good memory. He is not God. And this film, much like Seuss' book, is not didactic.
I know he isn't God. But that's what kids are getting out of it. If anything, the film is anti-organized religion.

[MacGuffin]

Please post something noteworthy next time. A two star rating in anyone's rating criteria is regarded as negative.

I was just saying how it doesn't make sense that'd you say you didn't like the movie at all, yet you'd give it lukewarm marks. Not liking something at all would mean a zero star rating, or maybe a half rating. Either way, relax. It's just an observation I made.

[Qrazy]

There was a lot in Blood that I found visually appealing. Different strokes I guess. :)

As for PB, although you didn't like the tone, what about the execution of the layering and fantasy/reality bits? Sure, it's been done and it's a common concept, but I thought Kon achieved something here.

Yeah, it was formally skilled but this film for me was a perfect example of how and why formal talent alone can't carry the overall film (at least on an individual case-by-case response/emotional level).

[Spinal]

I know he isn't God. But that's what kids are getting out of it. If anything, the film is anti-organized religion.

It's anti-grumpy kangaroos. That's for damn sure.

[Qrazy]

I was just saying how it doesn't make sense that'd you say you didn't like the movie at all, yet you'd give it lukewarm marks. Not liking something at all would mean a zero star rating, or maybe a half rating. Either way, relax. It's just an observation I made.

Different people rate differently though. I used to give semi high marks to even films I despised, if I found it to be thoroughly formally impressive. I now tend to rate on a much more subjective scale because I've realized that formal competence and even brilliance just isn't enough.

[Watashi]

Hey Spinal, read this review (http://www.flickfilosopher.com/blog/2008/03/dr_seuss_horton_hears_a_who_re .html) and tell me what you think.

I don't agree with her word by word, but I understand the point that Seuss's novel never had a narrow-headed allegory as the film did.

[Sycophant]

Hey Spinal, read this review (http://www.flickfilosopher.com/blog/2008/03/dr_seuss_horton_hears_a_who_re .html) and tell me what you think.

I don't agree with her word by word, but I understand the point that Seuss's novel never had a narrow-headed allegory as the film did.That's an interesting take on the picture, and the dunderheaded comments section makes me ill. Most are arguments against the very notion of attempting to interpret a picture beyond mere entertainment value. Wonder where they all got linked from. Oy.

Perhaps skimming Chaw's review predisposed me to seeing parallels more in line with the way he saw them (and as one who would happily shell out and write an empty-headed comedy, I don't think I'd use writers' past efforts to discredit any subtext in their later work), and I would certainly find the Kangaroo's stance much more flat-earth over anti-atheistic.

I don't think people are really off when they make the observation that the film draws certain parallels between Horton and God, as there are a couple instances where that's almost explicit (Up in the sky, but he's invisible!), but considering the fact that he's also something of a bungler, that's either a deliciously aberrant view of a monotheistic god, or a clumsy joke that adds unintended subtext, as otherwise it doesn't really seem to fit as a whole.

[megladon8]

Wow, Strangers on a Train was delightful.

Really, it's one of the best Hitchcock films I've seen. One of the best films I've seen this year.

It's tense, frightening - and I was surprised by how morbidly hilarious it is.

[Wryan]

Wow, Strangers on a Train was delightful.

Really, it's one of the best Hitchcock films I've seen. One of the best films I've seen this year.

It's tense, frightening - and I was surprised by how morbidly hilarious it is.

It's all kinds of awesome. Double bill this with Notorious for a two-punch to the gut. Strangers is one of my favorite Hitchcocks. Easy.

[megladon8]

It's all kinds of awesome. Double bill this with Notorious for a two-punch to the gut. Strangers is one of my favorite Hitchcocks. Easy.


Robert Walker's performance was just awesome.

I read up on him after watching this, and found that he died that year (1951), due to adverse reactions to prescription medication.

What a horrible event. At least he got to leave behind a performance like that - one of the creepiest screen-psychos I've ever seen.

And the finale at the carnival was really exciting.

My thoughts are very scattered, I know, but man it was a great movie. Superb entertainment.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Wow, Strangers on a Train was delightful.

Really, it's one of the best Hitchcock films I've seen. One of the best films I've seen this year.

It's tense, frightening - and I was surprised by how morbidly hilarious it is.
IT's been a while since I've seen it, but it does indeed rock! Robert Walker is especially good, I love the scenes between him and his mother

[megladon8]

IT's been a while since I've seen it, but it does indeed rock! Robert Walker is especially good, I love the scenes between him and his mother


YES! :)

I loved how the mother was unknowingly egging on his morbid fantasies.

Their first conversation where she asked him if he was still working on his plans to blow up the White House got me laughing.

[Grouchy]

Follow-up to At Midnight I Take Your Soul is logically called Tonight I Take Over Your Corpse, and it follows Zé do Caixao a.k.a. Coffin Joe in further adventures finding a worthy woman to breed his superior offspring. I seriously believe this guy Marins is an insane genius of cinema, completely imaginative and auteristic. I don't remember that many black and white movies where the character takes a down trip to hell after the hour mark has clicked on, and it suddenly switches to color! If the story was a little more polished, and I want to stress that this director/actor/writer already penned solid and inspired scripts, he might have been rescued earlier by film criticism. But he's too cool for the fucking school. Coffin Joe is worthy of consideration amongst the nastiest, most vile and impressive villains in movies. Fuck Vader and Hannibal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ze_do_Caixao
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7WATYKWgUc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WS_f9gUa8wA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYlOvCJqIuo

[Spinal]

Hey Spinal, read this review (http://www.flickfilosopher.com/blog/2008/03/dr_seuss_horton_hears_a_who_re .html) and tell me what you think.

I don't agree with her word by word, but I understand the point that Seuss's novel never had a narrow-headed allegory as the film did.

Silliness. I don't see how the kangaroo can be associated with an atheistic point of view. An atheist demands evidence in the face of extraordinary claims. The kangaroo makes up her mind without collecting any evidence at all and leads a crusade to stomp out the ideas. Horton is the one who is the investigator. He is the one collecting evidence and making a conclusion. He could just as easily be compared to a scientist with a far-out theory (global warming for example) and the kangaroo to one who denies it simply because they cannot see it, feel it, touch it.

The film and book both provoke the imagination, but there is no clear-cut allegory here. It is merely an evocative story in which the moral is that creatures of all sizes matter. I can hang any sort of politics on that.

Can I see, hear, feel kids in Iraq from here in America? No, I can't. But they should matter.

Can I see, hear, feel a fertilized embryo? No, I can't. But they should matter.

Can I see, hear, feel little microbes that crawl around on the ground? No, I can't. But I'm a Jain monk and I think they should matter.

I think the reviewer is being too sensitive.

[Spinal]

I don't think people are really off when they make the observation that the film draws certain parallels between Horton and God, as there are a couple instances where that's almost explicit (Up in the sky, but he's invisible!), but considering the fact that he's also something of a bungler, that's either a deliciously aberrant view of a monotheistic god, or a clumsy joke that adds unintended subtext, as otherwise it doesn't really seem to fit as a whole.

Yeah, it's really hard to get too far with this comparison without getting into silly territory. Seuss has pitched it perfectly, so that it is resonant, but difficult to pin down.

[Spinal]

Thinking more about Horton, the whole part about the Whos raising their voices doesn't make much sense in any sort of religious allegory. Christians far outnumber everyone else in the US and their numbers are large worldwide. What use would a Horton god have for having them raise their voices and being heard? Only to then be approved by creatures who apparently have more power than the Horton god. It makes less sense the more I think about it.

[Derek]

Thanks Spinal. My sig quote was becoming outdated.

[Spinal]

Thanks Spinal. My sig quote was becoming outdated.

:frustrated:




:lol:

[D_Davis]

That lady's paragraphs are way too long.

[dreamdead]

Altman's The Company is endearingly beautiful to watch throughout every frame. This one seems to possess just a little less than Altman's usual subtext, as it's so centered on the creative process that other avenues into the film aren't striking me but the Franco and Campbell relationship is nicely realized in an adult and honest way. Loved the headstrong idiocy of the Malcom McDowell character, and the cinematography is, again, just dazzling throughout. Not sure if it'll leave a lasting impression, but even if not it's great ephemera.

I remember Bosco leaving thoughts here on this one. I'll have to see what he thought in terms of the subtext...

[Ivan Drago]

Religious allegory...in Horton Hears A Who!???

You people are falling into my level of insanity.

[Spinal]

Religious allegory...in Horton Hears A Who!???

You people are falling into my level of insanity.

Children's stories actually lend themselves very well to allegory because of their simplicity. They are often used to indirectly warn children about dangers in the world that they aren't mature enough to process yet. I mean, there isn't a real big difference between Little Red Riding Hood and The Virgin Spring.

[Sycophant]

Did you see the film, Ivan?

I think a religious allegory isn't the best way to interpret the picture (and if there's a really good religious allegory to be found there, I haven't read it yet). However, there's a great deal of political meaning to be extracted from the picture. At its core, I believe it's quite humanistic, both in the Jungle of Nool and in Whoville.

[Watashi]

Yeah, Horton is more political than it is religious, but it can be interpreted as both (especially at the quote describing Horton that syco posted above). It's more of an act against mob oppression and raising your own voice in a threat or crisis.

[Sycophant]

On a second viewing, I must agree with my initial impression that Hot Fuzz is a marvel of craft. And it's funny as hell. A lot of great attention to detail.

[Spinal]

Did you see the film, Ivan?

I think a religious allegory isn't the best way to interpret the picture (and if there's a really good religious allegory to be found there, I haven't read it yet). However, there's a great deal of political meaning to be extracted from the picture. At its core, I believe it's quite humanistic, both in the Jungle of Nool and in Whoville.

I think the book is closest to being a parable for democracy with the voice of little Jojo finally making a huge difference. The film muddies this up a bit by having Jojo be the son of the Mayor and fleshing out an unnecessary father-son relationship, but that's still what resonates for me. Speak up for what you know is right.

On an unrelated note, I was really disappointed that Jojo in the film did not have a yo-yo. Taking liberties, Hollywood!

[Spinal]

It's more of an act against mob oppression and raising your own voice in a threat or crisis.

Bingo.

[dreamdead]

On a second viewing, I must agree with my initial impression that Hot Fuzz is a marvel of craft. And it's funny as hell. A lot of great attention to detail.

Yeah, that was one of the best theatre experiences of last year. The descent from relative normalcy into complete absurdity was great fun. The only gag I don't think works is the Blanchett bit; otherwise, solid stuff. The whole karate kicking of the grandma will surely be time capsule stuff someday.

[Watashi]

I think the book is closest to being a parable for democracy with the voice of little Jojo finally making a huge difference. The film muddies this up a bit by having Jojo be the son of the Mayor and fleshing out an unnecessary father-son relationship, but that's still what resonates for me. Speak up for what you know is right.

On an unrelated note, I was really disappointed that Jojo in the film did not have a yo-yo. Taking liberties, Hollywood!
Was JoJo also emo in the book?

[Spinal]

Was JoJo also emo in the book?

Negatory. Have you really not read it?

[Watashi]

Negatory. Have you really not read it?
Back when I was a kid.

I've read nearly all the Seuss books.

[Spinal]

Back when I was a kid.

I've read nearly all the Seuss books.

Ah yes. I guess they're fresher in my mind than they are in most people's here.

[Sycophant]

I wish there were a really nice compendium of Seuss books available. It's been far too long since I've read them, but have a hard time trying to pick just a couple.

[Bosco B Thug]

Altman's The Company is endearingly beautiful to watch throughout every frame. This one seems to possess just a little less than Altman's usual subtext, as it's so centered on the creative process that other avenues into the film aren't striking me but the Franco and Campbell relationship is nicely realized in an adult and honest way. Loved the headstrong idiocy of the Malcom McDowell character, and the cinematography is, again, just dazzling throughout. Not sure if it'll leave a lasting impression, but even if not it's great ephemera.

I remember Bosco leaving thoughts here on this one. I'll have to see what he thought in terms of the subtext... I'm afraid the film got the better of me. It left me downright corn-holed, cornfuzzled, and with an irrational corn-phobia of James Franco. The unremitting empricism of Campbell's relationship with Franco (and with everyone in her life, I realize) I found downright intimidating/terrifying.

Loved the film though!

[transmogrifier]

My Blueberry Nights

Wafer-thin slice of nothingness, with an overload of that absolutely terrible jerky, hand-held camera effect (I fucking HATE that effect - Peter Jackson uses it as well -, and this film is about 60% of that). Natalie Portman is a great surprise however, cast against type and doing an excellent job. Creates a mood, I guess, seeing as I walked out pretty meh on it yet here I am remembering nothing but the negative things. Which include two of the blandest romantic leads ever to exist outside a daytime soap.

3:10 to Yuma

Surely the dullest way possible to tell the story, with the film having to resort to a series of random obstacles in the journey towards Yuma in order to prop up a flabby midsection, which is unfortunately following on from a dull, tone-deaf opening section. Fiulm picks up once Yuma is reached, and it would have been quite something if they had been in that hotel room by the end of the first act, and decided to play up the psychological war a bit more, and the effects of the gang on the rest of the town.

[Mysterious Dude]

I haven't seen it, but I bet the new Horton isn't as good as Chuck Jones' film (http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.indi vidual&videoID=1752202836).

Does the new film make any effort to maintain the poetry of the book? The poetry, to me, is the real genius of Dr. Seuss, which has been tragically ignored in the other recent adaptations of his books.

[Watashi]

I haven't seen it, but I bet the new Horton isn't as good as Chuck Jones' film (http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.indi vidual&videoID=1752202836).

Does the new film make any effort to maintain the poetry of the book? The poetry, to me, is the real genius of Dr. Seuss, which has been tragically ignored in the other recent adaptations of his books.
A bit, if poetry consists of a scene where Horton imagines himself as a seizure-inducing Pokemon episode.

[Spinal]

Does the new film make any effort to maintain the poetry of the book?

More than you might think.

[Spinal]

A bit, if poetry consists of a scene where Horton imagines himself as a seizure-inducing Pokemon episode.

That was ... odd.

[Sycophant]

That was ... odd.Yeah. Sometimes when I see something weird like that in a film, I say to myself "Someone really, really wanted to do that, and the right person didn't stop them."

[MacGuffin]

Re: The Place Promised in Our Early Days. Satisfying, if overly melodramatic sometimes. Still, there are those hints of beauty throughout that I just love. The scene where the movie's unofficial theme song is played a second time was one of them, and then there's the animation in general. The first fifteen minutes are basically perfect, and that composition where the banners read "Here lies a peaceful town" was utterly heartwarming. I think I wanted to like it more than I did, because while the music was good when it was involved in the story, it was overused as a score, and I think the movie tried to evoke too many emotions out of its audience, and probably should have just stuck with nostalgia. Otherwise, yeah, it's pretty great, I suppose. It's no Syndromes and a Century, though.

[Barty]

Anyone seen Marjoe?

[Mysterious Dude]

Anyone seen Marjoe?
I have. Thought it was fascinating.

[Barty]

I have. Thought it was fascinating.

I thought so to. Just watched it recently, and it's one of the best documentaries I've seen. I'm even tempted to write a review.

[Wryan]

I think I'm supposed to hate Last Action Hero, but I just can't do it.

[Sven]

I think I'm supposed to hate Last Action Hero, but I just can't do it.

This is my position exactly.

[Sycophant]

I haven't seen it, but I bet the new Horton isn't as good as Chuck Jones' film (http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.indi vidual&videoID=1752202836).

Does the new film make any effort to maintain the poetry of the book? The poetry, to me, is the real genius of Dr. Seuss, which has been tragically ignored in the other recent adaptations of his books.As much as it pains me to say it, the Chuck Jones-directed, Hans Conried-voiced, Seuss-penned 1970 adaptation is pretty lackluster in my estimation. There are some great things about it (some of which the new film takes some cues from), but it's not exactly my favorite of the half-hour Seuss specials. Yeah... I think I found the new film better. Could have used some Conried though.

[Derek]

From what little I've heard, I expected El Sur to be nearly as good as Spirit of the Beehive. What I did not expect was that it would be even better. What an absolutely brilliant and beautiful film! It's too late to say more, but I'll try to get some extended thoughts soon.

[megladon8]

Hulk is now in my list of top 5 comic book (not just superhero) movies of all time.

I was worired that seeing it after such a long time would have shown its flaws - as that's been happening a lot lately - but no.

It's a very powerful film.

I honestly think it would have worked as a film without the Marvel license attached at all...but the presence of the monster (and that's what he is, really) adds a great finality to it all.

I love this movie. The performances are wonderful, the quirky style is exciting and unusual, and it just all plays out the way Ang Lee seems to have been trying to make it - a superhero movie that proves these stories aren't just for kids.

[DavidSeven]

Did they really include a lengthy, largely useless and pace-killing subplot in Rendition just for a little narrative showboating at the end? I guess it would be more annoying if the rest of the film wasn't mostly mediocre.

[D_Davis]

I must be getting soft in my old age, but realistic, nasty violence in movies is really starting to turn me off. Some of the stuff in Doomsday actually made me feel ill, and I really began to question my past enjoyment of such things. I was especially taken aback when people started cheering for the nasty violence.

It's strange.

I've been feeling this changing attitude towards this kind of violence (the likes of Hostel, Saw, and so on) for some time now, and it has played a big role in my movie watching as of late. That is, its kept me away from many films that, historically, I probably would have enjoyed.

I still like action, and the visceral thrill of a well choreographed fight, but my tolerance for blood and ultra-violence isn't very high anymore.

I bet reading a lot of this non-violent, thought provoking science fiction had also helped temper my tastes, and change what it is I look for in my genre entertainment.

[Grouchy]

3:10 to Yuma

Surely the dullest way possible to tell the story, with the film having to resort to a series of random obstacles in the journey towards Yuma in order to prop up a flabby midsection, which is unfortunately following on from a dull, tone-deaf opening section. Fiulm picks up once Yuma is reached, and it would have been quite something if they had been in that hotel room by the end of the first act, and decided to play up the psychological war a bit more, and the effects of the gang on the rest of the town.
I've seen the fiulm, and the reason I didn't comment on it was that I was saving myself for a full-lenght review on my thread, but I never found the time for it, I guess, and there are other new movies I'm about to catch up on theaters.

Gotta say I have no fucking clue where you're coming from. The "random obstacles" didn't bother me (I found it cool that they included every western archetype - Indians, railroad-building Chinamen, Pinkerton agents, outlaws, sheriffs), and they helped to evolve the relationship between Wade and Dan. I guess I might start writing that review, or maybe I'll wait until I see the Glenn Ford original.

The best western of the year, though, was the Jesse James one.

[Duncan]

From what little I've heard, I expected El Sur to be nearly as good as Spirit of the Beehive. What I did not expect was that it would be even better. What an absolutely brilliant and beautiful film! It's too late to say more, but I'll try to get some extended thoughts soon.

I still like The Spirit of the Beehive more, but they're both masterpieces. I have The Quince Tree Light on my computer ready to watch. What a terrible shame it is that Victor Erice's career spans only three films. One of the true masters of the medium.

[transmogrifier]

I've seen the fiulm, and the reason I didn't comment on it was that I was saving myself for a full-lenght review on my thread, but I never found the time for it, I guess, and there are other new movies I'm about to catch up on theaters.

Gotta say I have no fucking clue where you're coming from. The "random obstacles" didn't bother me (I found it cool that they included every western archetype - Indians, railroad-building Chinamen, Pinkerton agents, outlaws, sheriffs), and they helped to evolve the relationship between Wade and Dan. I guess I might start writing that review, or maybe I'll wait until I see the Glenn Ford original.

The best western of the year, though, was the Jesse James one.

I'm in love with this post. I'm especially impressed by:

(a) the pointing out of a typing error
(b) the use of a derivative of the word "fuck"
(c) the ability to make me totally and utterly disinterested in debating any single thing about the movie with you.

[Grouchy]

I'm in love with this post. I'm especially impressed by:

(a) the pointing out of a typing error
(b) the use of a derivative of the word "fuck"
(c) the ability to make me totally and utterly disinterested in debating any single thing about the movie with you.
And I'm in love with you, sweet honey pie.

For what it's worth, the "fiulm" thing was just for a laugh. I like how it sounds. Not that I wanted to single you out as a smelly troglodyte or anything crazy like that for not liking 3:10 to Yuma.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I must be getting soft in my old age, but realistic, nasty violence in movies is really starting to turn me off. Some of the stuff in Doomsday actually made me feel ill, and I really began to question my past enjoyment of such things. I was especially taken aback when people started cheering for the nasty violence.

It's strange.

I've been feeling this changing attitude towards this kind of violence (the likes of Hostel, Saw, and so on) for some time now, and it has played a big role in my movie watching as of late. That is, its kept me away from many films that, historically, I probably would have enjoyed.

I still like action, and the visceral thrill of a well choreographed fight, but my tolerance for blood and ultra-violence isn't very high anymore.

I bet reading a lot of this non-violent, thought provoking science fiction had also helped temper my tastes, and change what it is I look for in my genre entertainment.

What's different, though, is that the gore of previous decades, when overused, had a certain artifice and (dare I say) charm to it, and it was frequently an indication that you were dealing with an ambitious director going for broke. It's how Sam Raimi, Peter Jackson, and recently James Gunn got their names out there.

Nowadays, a lot of genre filmmakers are too caught up in making such brutality as ugly and relentless as possible, and it becomes wearying instead of surreal/comedic.

And what's surprising about Hostel is that it's used as an indication of gore these days, but it's really not that gory. There are three moments of extreme gore (the eye, the ankle, the chainsaw), but there's a lot of quiet in the first half, and much of the tension in the second half comes from the anticipation of violence, not the execution of it.

[Spinal]

And what's surprising about Hostel is that it's used as an indication of gore these days, but it's really not that gory. There are three moments of extreme gore (the eye, the ankle, the chainsaw), but there's a lot of quiet in the first half, and much of the tension in the second half comes from the anticipation of violence, not the execution of it.

I was surprised at how much I enjoyed the first part of Hostel. Once the more gruesome stuff started, I lost interest, but I was with it a lot longer than I thought I might be.

[D_Davis]

What's different, though, is that the gore of previous decades, when overused, had a certain artifice and (dare I say) charm to it, and it was frequently an indication that you were dealing with an ambitious director going for broke. It's how Sam Raimi, Peter Jackson, and recently James Gunn got their names out there.


Yeah, I agree.

It's not the gore that bothers me - I still like cool gore.

It's the mean spirited, nasty, misanthropic violence and attitude that turns me off; films that seem to exist only to show how nasty humanity can act towards each other.

These films also seem to lack a heroic quest worth anything, and even the so called "heroes" are often just as violent and despicable as the baddies they're dispatching.

I haven't watched Oldboy since my attitude towards violence has started to change, and I wonder how I would respond to a viewing now?

[Rowland]

Speaking of heroic quests...

The Case AGAINST Character Arcs (http://mysterymanonfilm.blogspot.com/2008/03/case-against-character-arcs.html)

[DavidSeven]

Speaking of heroic quests...

The Case AGAINST Character Arcs (http://mysterymanonfilm.blogspot.com/2008/03/case-against-character-arcs.html)

Only browsed the article, but it seems like the author takes a very superficial view of a lot of the characters in his examples. He claims there's no character arc in No Country for Old Men, but what about Tommy Lee Jones, who is certainly the moral center of the film? And is he kidding with his Silence of the Lambs example? Clarice Sterling is almost a classic example of a heroic character arc.

[Spinal]

I think even Chigurh has changed by the end of the film. Sure, he's still probably going to be an awful guy. But I think a couple really significant things happen to him to shake up his world view a bit.

That said, I think he is right in suggesting that there are other ways to get from A to B. Depends on the film.

[Ivan Drago]

Did you see the film, Ivan?

I want to. But I'm not taking it that seriously.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Dance, Girl, Dance was pleasent enough. A nice little b-movie with some intersting bits. Lucille Ball really gives her all in this, she almost tries too hard... but is at the very least always entertaining. There is a self aware speech in the final act that's especially interesting.

Cleo 5 a 7 is brilliance, especially the final half hour which works from the self centered and closed world view of the first two acts to create something truly meaningful. The look is incredibly polished and calculated, one of the best looking films I've ever seen. The short film featuring Karina and Godard was wonderful. Might be among my favourites.

[D_Davis]

It's the villagers who grow and change in Seven Samurai.

[Grouchy]

Only browsed the article, but it seems like the author takes a very superficial view of a lot of the characters in his examples. He claims there's no character arc in No Country for Old Men, but what about Tommy Lee Jones, who is certainly the moral center of the film? And is he kidding with his Silence of the Lambs example? Clarice Sterling is almost a classic example of a heroic character arc.
That's true. I totally agree with his point, but he fucked up many of the examples. He's totally right with as many of them, though, like Raiders, The Maltese Falcon and even a big drama like Gone with the wind.

[number8]

My Blueberry Nights

Wafer-thin slice of nothingness, with an overload of that absolutely terrible jerky, hand-held camera effect (I fucking HATE that effect - Peter Jackson uses it as well -, and this film is about 60% of that).

If I'm identifying what you're talking about correctly, WKW kinda owns that effect. It's been a signature style of his since forever.


3:10 to Yuma

Fiulm picks up once Yuma is reached, and it would have been quite something if they had been in that hotel room by the end of the first act, and decided to play up the psychological war a bit more, and the effects of the gang on the rest of the town.

You mean Contention. They were never at Yuma.

Have you seen the original? There's no journey there. They cut right after the switcheroo at Dan's ranch to Contention immediately, and spends more time there. It's a much better movie.

[Sycophant]

I want to. But I'm not taking it that seriously.Meh.

[Wryan]

I liked the 310TY remake just fine.

[Raiders]

I still find the final moments of both versions of 3:10 to Yuma very unconvincing. I do have to say I find Glenn Ford more believable in the role only because Ford's recognized movie demeanor made him seem forced as the villain to begin with.

[Duncan]

Coincidentally, I argued in the Michael Clayton thread that the titular character's lack of an arc works to the film's advantage. But regardless of whether or not the guy screws up his examples, I think he's arguing something most people would agree with anyway. Only McKee and his most ardent followers would say a film needs a character arc if it is to be considered superbly written.

[Stay Puft]

I like the part when Peter Fonda blows a guy to bits with dynamite.

Didn't know the original cut straight to Contention. I'd kind of like to see it now. Like trans, I didn't care as much for the middle, or "journey," stretch. The Contention segments are the interesting parts.

[number8]

I haven't watched Oldboy since my attitude towards violence has started to change, and I wonder how I would respond to a viewing now?

On what you're talking about, I find Oldboy to be the easiest to swallow out of Park Chan-wook's trilogy. Mr. Vengeance is just cynical, while Lady Vengeance is purposely unsettling with a character who has a specific and unwavering goal. Oldboy, at least, has a clueless protagonist who heroically protects someone as he's seeking vengeance, and it's treated with tons of black humor.

But speaking of Park, I saw I'm a Cyborg yesterday. What a refreshing change of pace for him, and it's a remarkably sweet film.

[Derek]

I liked the 310TY remake just fine.

Yes, just fine, as in short of being good. Or as some might say 3:10 to Yumeh.

:twisted:

[Wryan]

Yes, just fine, as in short of being good. Or as some might say 3:10 to Yumeh.

:twisted:

Another addition for the assembly line!

[Rowland]

Mr. Vengeance is just cynical... Oldboy, at least, has a clueless protagonist who heroically protects someone as he's seeking vengeance, and it's treated with tons of black humor.I'd say Mr. Vengeance has lots of black humor, and its dual protagonists are both emotionally nuanced characters whose ritualistic vengeance is wrought with tangible tragedy. It's hardly cynical for the sake of cynicism. In fact, I'd argue that its realization of existential crisis on a societal scale is, in a sense, the least cynical of the trilogy.

[Rowland]

I liked 3:10 to Yuma quite a bit. Moment to moment, it was one of the more purely entertaining mainstream entertainments I saw last year.

[Qrazy]

In fact, I'd argue that its realization of existential crisis on a societal scale is, in a sense, the least cynical of the trilogy.

Wouldn't that be more cynical given that the desperation is generalized to many people rather than to an isolated case?

[Rowland]

Wouldn't that be more cynical given that the desperation is generalized to many people rather than to an isolated case?No.

[Qrazy]

No.

Explain.

[Rowland]

Explain.Sorry, thought I'd just try pulling a you.

It's the most attuned to and sympathetic of the social realities and innate human condition from which the bumbling, absurd farce of vengeance stems.

[Sven]

Sorry, thought I'd just try pulling a you.

It's the most attuned to and sympathetic of the social realities and innate human condition that the bumbling, absurd farce of vengeance stems from.

You edited this post and still managed to end your sentence with a preposition. For shame, for shame, for shame.

[Sycophant]

You edited this post and still managed to end your sentence with a preposition. For shame, for shame, for shame.You did not!

[Rowland]

You edited this post and still managed to end your sentence with a preposition. For shame, for shame, for shame.Yeah... I'm not an English major, so cut me some slack. Me use good words, is that enough?!!1

[Sven]

It's alright, guys. It happens to the best of us.

[Qrazy]

Sorry, thought I'd just try pulling a you.

It's the most attuned to and sympathetic of the social realities and innate human condition that the bumbling, absurd farce of vengeance stems from.

My brevity is contained to value judgments alone though, not statements of analysis.

I suppose we're just differing in terms of what we're applying the term cynical too. I don't see it as empty cynicism, but I do see in a film predicated on social hardship, a cynicism in relation to the generalized potential for human happiness vis. modernity and contemporary economics. It's not overly cynical in relation to the characters themselves, they all have their reasons, but it is cynical on a more general level.

The other two films certainly have cynical outcomes, where revenge seems to be the only possible outcome, and the 'villians' base their single-minded ugliness on a tormented internal psychology, but as I said, the benefit of these cases is that they are relatively isolated (one would hope and presume), such that while these characters suffer terribly, they are not representative of a larger social malaise.

[Qrazy]

It's alright, guys. It happens to the best of us.

'That is the sort of thing up with which I will not put!'

[Rowland]

My brevity is contained to value judgments alone though, not statements of analysis.

I suppose we're just differing in terms of what we're applying the term cynical too. I don't see it as empty cynicism, but I do see in a film predicated on social hardship, a cynicism in relation to the generalized potential for human happiness vis. modernity and contemporary economics. It's not overly cynical in relation to the characters themselves, they all have their reasons, but it is cynical on a more general level.

The other two films certainly have cynical outcomes, where revenge seems to be the only possible outcome, and the 'villians' base their single-minded ugliness on a tormented internal psychology, but as I said, the benefit of these cases is that they are relatively isolated (one would hope and presume), such that while these characters suffer terribly, they are not representative of a larger social malaise.The brevity of my reply was applied likewise, as a judgment relating to the value of your question. :P

Sure, I understand what you're saying. Note how I qualified my assertion that Mr. Vengeance is the least cynical with "in a sense", because I recognize why it is generally interpreted otherwise. I suppose then that my implementation of cynical is predicated on a clarity of vision in the sociological sense, as well as how the film "treats" its characters, as I find Mr. Vengeance to be a sort of tough love session for its characters, whereas the following two entries in the trilogy come across as comparatively aloof, with their operatic gestures and amped up aesthetic strategies.

[Qrazy]

The brevity of my reply was applied likewise, as a judgment relating to the value of your question. :P


Hardy har har.

[Rowland]

Hardy har har.http://smilies.vidahost.com/contrib/tweetz/hug.gif

[Sycophant]

http://smilies.vidahost.com/contrib/tweetz/hug.gifI had to look at the file name to figure out what was going on. Until then, I was a little uncomfortable.

[Rowland]

I had to look at the file name to figure out what was going on. Until then, I was a little uncomfortable.*rubs hands together with glee*

[transmogrifier]

If I'm identifying what you're talking about correctly, WKW kinda owns that effect. It's been a signature style of his since forever.



You mean Contention. They were never at Yuma.

Have you seen the original? There's no journey there. They cut right after the switcheroo at Dan's ranch to Contention immediately, and spends more time there. It's a much better movie.

Yeah, it's his signature style, and I've liked him despite of it like forever. However, he's finally made a movie without enough saving graces for me to not want to rip my eyeballs out every time he switches to that awful "effect". It's like a parody at times.

Yep, Contention. Shows how much I paid attention. I think I have seen the original, but perhaps I'm confusing it with Bad Day at Black Rock, which I have seen and was great.

[Stay Puft]

The thing about Mr. Vengeance is that it's an extremely conservative example of classic Jacobean revenge tragedies. It poses the question of whether or not personal vengeance is ever justified, and then gives the simple answer, No. Both characters had the chance to do the right thing and didn't, so they die. See also: Every revenge tragedy ever written.

EDIT: The conclusion of Oldboy is pretty much the same.

[Rowland]

The thing about Mr. Vengeance is that it's an extremely conservative example of classic Jacobean revenge tragedies. It poses the question of whether or not personal vengeance is ever justified, and then gives the simple answer, No. Both characters had the chance to do the right thing and didn't, so they die.I disagree. The movie is all about how everyone has their reasons, trading in shades of gray. A lot of this has to do with how Park implements his formal chops, but that'd be a tricky discussion to really delve into (because I'm lazy), so you know... I think it's plenty sophisticated.

[Watashi]

I think I might have found my new worst film of 07. Ghost Rider you have been dethroned by a new form of vileness: Nicole Kidman.

[Rowland]

I think I might have found my new worst film of 07. Ghost Rider you have been dethroned by a new form of vileness: Nicole Kidman.Hey, I just watched this last night. I haven't decided on a rating yet, but I rather liked it.

[Watashi]

Hey, I just watched this last night. I haven't decided on a rating yet, but I rather liked it.
I can't see how anyone could, unless you like listening to people complain while playing an unappealing game of Gossip Girl.

[Rowland]

unless you like listening to people complain while playing an unappealing game of Gossip Girl.That's exactly it.

[Stay Puft]

I disagree. The movie is all about how everyone has their reasons, trading in shades of gray. A lot of this has to do with how Park implements his formal chops, but that'd be a tricky discussion to really delve into (because I'm lazy), so you know... I think it's plenty sophisticated.

And I don't disagree with that. It's plenty sophisticated. There are many ways you can look at the narrative, philosophical questions of determinacy and free will, control versus chaos, universal issues or specific cultural issues (obviously I'm not well equipped to speak on that front) and social issues such as class, politics, gender (notice females are victims or spur male "heroes" - and classic revenge tragedies are often considered a feminist genre, but I'll stop short on that point because I admit I didn't think about it at the time I was watching this particular film).

My point is, when it comes to the basic revenge tragedy, the conclusion is the same. Maybe it's because of the way I'm looking at this with my own particular background, but it doesn't matter if everyone had their reasons. Both characters are dead in the end, and it's cause and effect. They took vengeance into their own hands, particularly explicit in the case of Kang-ho Song's character, who could have left matters to the proper authorities, but decided to seek justice on his own terms, and wound up digging his own grave. It's plenty more sophisticated than that, yes, because there's a lot more going on in the movie, but the revenge element doesn't strike me as anything other than a conservative adherence to classic properties of an established genre, which has always been very conservative in my eyes. There's nothing cynical about the movie in this regard, because it takes pains to show how things could (and should) have gone differently.

[Sycophant]

I can't see how anyone could, unless you like listening to people complain while playing an unappealing game of Gossip Girl.Yep. As time goes on, I'm pretty confident this is actually one of my favorites of 2007.

[Watashi]

Yep. As time goes on, I'm pretty confident this is actually one of my favorites of 2007.
You're pretty fucking crazy then.

[Spinal]

Someone is lying!

[Rowland]

Yep. As time goes on, I'm pretty confident this is actually one of my favorites of 2007.It's definitely one of the funnier movies I've seen from last year.

[MacGuffin]

It's definitely one of the funnier movies I've seen from last year.

Yeah, I don't think I laughed once. And I really liked The Squid and the Whale.

[Rowland]

And I don't disagree with that. It's plenty sophisticated. There are many ways you can look at the narrative, philosophical questions of determinacy and free will, control versus chaos, universal issues or specific cultural issues (obviously I'm not well equipped to speak on that front) and social issues such as class, politics, gender (notice females are victims or spur male "heroes" - and classic revenge tragedies are often considered a feminist genre, but I'll stop short on that point because I admit I didn't think about it at the time I was watching this particular film).

My point is, when it comes to the basic revenge tragedy, the conclusion is the same. Maybe it's because of the way I'm looking at this with my own particular background, but it doesn't matter if everyone had their reasons. Both characters are dead in the end, and it's cause and effect. They took vengeance into their own hands, particularly explicit in the case of Kang-ho Song's character, who could have left matters to the proper authorities, but decided to seek justice on his own terms, and wound up digging his own grave. It's plenty more sophisticated than that, yes, because there's a lot more going on in the movie, but the revenge element doesn't strike me as anything other than a conservative adherence to classic properties of an established genre, which has always been very conservative in my eyes. There's nothing cynical about the movie in this regard, because it takes pains to show how things could (and should) have gone differently.I think a large part of what makes Mr. Vengeance so compelling in spite of its arguably less inspired core genre qualities is how Park melds the form and content. It's one of the more mournful revenge movies I've seen, almost profoundly so, in the shift between identifying protagonists that bifurcates the narrative, how scenes don't so much build into a narrative tapestry as they do exist as individual slices of suspended time that cohere abstractly, and what have you.

[Duncan]

Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance - terrible movie? or terriblest movie?

[/obligatory dissent]

[Rowland]

Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance - terrible movie? or terriblest movie?

[/obligatory dissent]I believe the movie holds the common reputation as the weakest effort of the trilogy, and maybe even Park's entire career, so you're probably the voice of reason. ;)

[Rowland]

At least I've got Matt Zoller Seitz on my side. His review for Mr. Vengeance (http://www.nypress.com/18/33/film/seitz.cfm).

[transmogrifier]

I believe the movie holds the common reputation as the weakest effort of the trilogy, and maybe even Park's entire career, so you're probably the voice of reason. ;)

I'm a Cyborg, but That's Okay begs to differ.

Mr. Vengeance is his second-best film.

[KK2.0]

I've watched Horton Hears a Who, worth a ticket? You should ask yourself if you can stand the barrage of hyperactive talking animals, pop culture gags and cuteness, if the answer is 'yes', there's some truly funny and imaginative sequences, gorgeous animation and it surpassed my low expectations. While Blue Sky still has a long way to reach the perfection of Pixar, at least it's a large step up from Robots and brings a bit more substance to the script than their Ice Age series, thanks to Seuss' source material.

[Qrazy]

I think a large part of what makes Mr. Vengeance so compelling in spite of its arguably less inspired core genre qualities is how Park melds the form and content. It's one of the more mournful revenge movies I've seen, almost profoundly so, in the shift between identifying protagonists that bifurcates the narrative, how scenes don't so much build into a narrative tapestry as they do exist as individual slices of suspended time that cohere abstractly, and what have you.

Let's not go crazy. The formal talent on display in M. V. isn't nearly high enough to inspire a cascading love explosion, even for those who prefer their retributory voyeurism in episodic installments.

[Qrazy]

I'm a Cyborg, but That's Okay begs to differ.

Mr. Vengeance is his second-best film.

Is JSA good?

[transmogrifier]

Is JSA good?


Kind of dull. Nothing special. Creates somewhat of an elegaic mood by the end, but it's more or less The General's Daughter, except with North Koreans rather than, well, a general's daughter. And not as dizzyingly stupid.

[number8]

I'd say Mr. Vengeance has lots of black humor, and its dual protagonists are both emotionally nuanced characters whose ritualistic vengeance is wrought with tangible tragedy. It's hardly cynical for the sake of cynicism. In fact, I'd argue that its realization of existential crisis on a societal scale is, in a sense, the least cynical of the trilogy.

I agree, but I didn't elaborate enough. No, it's not cynical for cynicism's sake, and I didn't mean that as a weak point anyway, but the heaviness of having two incredibly tragic protagonists weight the film--whereas in Oldboy, despite the same anchor, has an adventurous tone to the journey. It's the only one in the revenge trilogy with a pulp touch, where the hero is on active search against a Bond-like villain.

I like all three films about the same.

[Rowland]

Is JSA good?I liked JSA. There are elements about it that don't work (most related to an investigation sub-plot), but it's effective as a whole. The last shot is a corker.

The worst thing I've seen by Park is his short for Three Extremes. I think it was called Cut.

[Rowland]

I agree, but I didn't elaborate enough. No, it's not cynical for cynicism's sake, and I didn't mean that as a weak point anyway, but the heaviness of having two incredibly tragic protagonists weight the film--whereas in Oldboy, despite the same anchor, has an adventurous tone to the journey. It's the only one in the revenge trilogy with a pulp touch, where the hero is on active search against a Bond-like villain.

I like all three films about the same.Alright cool, thanks for the elaboration. I probably just misread the tone of your post.

[Qrazy]

Have more people seen CJ7 than number8 and Iosis? I appreciate their input of course but I'd like to get a more well rounded review of the consensus before I dish or don't dish out, for a viewing experience.

[number8]

I think I might have found my new worst film of 07. Ghost Rider you have been dethroned by a new form of vileness: Nicole Kidman.

Noah Baumbach on the film's awful cinematography:

"I wanted the movie to feel like my eyes sees things, and when you're indoors in the day and you don't turn on lights, everyone falls into shadow, and when you get up in the middle of the night and you don't turn on a light, it's dark. I wanted to keep that feeling in a kind of natural way. I also think the movie speaks to the neighbors, too. I think the movie is about peeking and looking into things and the things in the movie with the people looking through the fence and listening outside doors, it allows the audience to participate in that, because also in watching a movie, you have to look into it. It's not lit there for you it's something and in some ways it requires you to participate."

One of the most ridiculous things I've heard to explain shitty lighting. "No, you have to squint and feel like you're color blind because then you're looking deeper into my screenplay!" Kiss my ass.

[Qrazy]

"It's not lit there for you it's something and in some ways it requires you to participate."


By going back in time and turning a light on in the mother fucking studio?

[MadMan]

I saw over the weekend the 1962 film 300 Spartans and No Country For Old Men. I have short thoughts on the former, the latter I found to be great but not a masterpiece.

Anyways, 300 was a sword and sandals flick with good production values, the usual crappy and cheesy acting, great cinemtography and musical score, cool battles and the like. However it also had too many dull moments, and lacked the high entertainment value of 300(2007) which can be considered a loose remake at best. For what it was I considered the film to be somewhat solid, but I sort of expected a bit more considering I actually enjoy old school epics. 61

[Qrazy]

So when someone says something like ... Yeah Election was a pretty good Triad flick... what are they thinking of as the gold standard triad flicks?

[Stay Puft]

At least I've got Matt Zoller Seitz on my side. His review for Mr. Vengeance (http://www.nypress.com/18/33/film/seitz.cfm).

That's a good review, but why is the entire body of text a hyperlink to easytobook.com New York hotels?

Anyways, my only qualm with MZS is the way he tries to categorize violence. Obviously he defers to the Bard (so does everybody else!) but he misses that the Bard, like any Jacobean writer, is trying to entertain as much as anything. Revenge tragedies attempt to walk a fine line between thrilling the audience with violence and imparting a moral lesson. The element of intrigue and entertainment is very often achieved by revelling in the supposed lack of sophistication and morals in "Other" places (Italy being a popular one, Denmark in Hamlet, etc.). Obviously that dislocation of space doesn't occur in Mr. Vengeance (its dislocation is rather in economic and class spaces, an unapologetically interior film), but like those classic revenge tragedies, I think the revenge on the organ harvesters is not a miscalculation but rather, again, the movie walking that fine line of revenge tragedies between thrills and morals (having cake and eating it too, I guess).

[Mysterious Dude]

Last night, TCM showed Nazi Germany's version of Titanic. It seemed more like it was made by communists than by fascists, as focused on criticizing capitalism and the bourgeoisie as it was. There was much focus on J. Bruce Ismay, and his greed and cowardice, as well as the foolish amount of power he was given in controlling the Titanic's fate. I know much of it was pretty inaccurate, particularly in the details of the ship's sinking. Still, a fascinating picture.

[Grouchy]

I believe the movie holds the common reputation as the weakest effort of the trilogy, and maybe even Park's entire career, so you're probably the voice of reason. ;)
Not even close in my book. I agree with you and number8 - it's a brilliant exploration of shared guilt and a masterful example of true drama, in that you can share everyone's side and experience the feelings of antagonistic characters. It's a great movie, only barely surpassed by Oldboy. JSA is also one of the best military thrillers I've seen. And Cyborg, personally, made me cry like an emo baby.

The only times I've been disappointed by Park films have been in Lady Vengeance and Cut. The first one I liked, but I thought the style took the reins a little bit too much, and the short movie I found kinda reiterative of his usual themes and just a commonplace story.

[EyesWideOpen]

Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance - terrible movie? or terriblest movie?

[/obligatory dissent]

I think it's his best.