28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[Briare]

Control, 2007, UK/US
Directed by Anton Corbijn, Starring Sam Riley, Samantha Morton

What killed Ian Curtis? The film's title, 'Control' gives away most that fun. Corbijn's film makes the point of connecting all the problems of Curtis' life with a lack of control. His marrying at a young age and joining Joy Division were attempts to try to control varying aspects of his life. He cannont control his lust for Anik, his mistress. He cannot control his marriage which is disintegrating because of his career and he cannot control his career as a musician because Curtis felt that it was far too much. His fits of dancing on stage were almost to shake the image of the crowd out of his vision. He wants to sing his songs and get out of there.

Perhaps the thesis of the film is too simple, but the way it unfolds is simply stunning. Shot in a way that makes the film look older- it is sparsely set, scripted and shot in such a way that it almost looks like something that should be in a museum. Every frame seems calculated to the extreme, a labor of love but somewhere the script gets lost in the shuffle of making it look and sound good. The film covers so many of Curtis' problems that by the end it feels a bit thin.

Or perhaps this was the point. Curtis killed himself without tackling too many of his own issues. The last few scenes of the film bear the scent of death. Curtis sits by himself in a pub, he drinks. It doesn't help and he sits at home and he drinks it doesn't help. Curtis never once raises his voice until his final showdown with Morton, and the very last scene is somewhat serene. Heartbreaking, but serene at the same time. You can't help but wonder if Curtis finally found his control and moved onto a better place.

Despite the weakness of the script and more due to a tour de force performance by Sam Riley, I did feel like I knew Ian Curtis by the end of the film, which is more than can be said of its lazier cousins originating in Hollywood. The film looks like it was shot on a shoestring, but this barren style fits the film like a glove. Noisy beer halls, grungy pubs and the stench of decay give the film a startling sense of place. It is quietly convincing, and one of the best of the year.

[Rowland]

Oh shit, Redacted is on HD Movies tonight!

[Raiders]

Oh shit, Redacted is on HD Movies tonight!

What is HD movies?

[Rowland]

What is HD movies?The HD Movie Channel, everyone with HD cable should have it.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Oh shit, Redacted is on HD Movies tonight!

I set it to record a few days ago.

HDMovies is a channel on cable. I have Charter, which is basically the same thing as Comcast. It's in the HD Tier. They've been doing this promotion for a while now. They show one time viewings of films that are going to theaters. I'm pretty sure all the films are by the same studio.

But yeah, Redacted is on tonight. 8:00 EST I believe.

[Cult]

Has anyone, by chance, seen either of these Bollywood movies?

Kal Ho Naa Ho
Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham

I borrowed them from a co-worker and when I finally watch them, it'll be my first actual exposure to Bollywood aside from music videos. I'm kind of scared.

[Sven]

I borrowed them from a co-worker and when I finally watch them, it'll be my first actual exposure to Bollywood aside from music videos. I'm kind of scared.

Don't be. They are bliss. I haven't seen either of those films, but I've seen my share and loved nearly all of them. Though I don't particularly like the one's that aim for dark drama and tension, though I did find Satya superb.

As per reviews and factual errors, it's funny that was brought up, because currently I'm reading Beat Takeshi v. Takeshi Kitano, by Casio Abe, who makes it clear that he's probably gonna flub details, because he sees movies as a constant stream of images and will not pause or take notes. I think it's a neat idea.

[MadMan]

When it comes to writting reviews it depends on whether or not the film made a great impression upon me, good or bad. If it was forgettable I usually don't even bother doing a write up (you haven't seen a review, mini or lengthy on Shrek the Third from me this year heh). However I often have to go to IMDB.com if I mention characters and who plays them. But many times I can remember those too off the top of my head. Just recently I wrote a decently long review of In the Mood For Love, and the last time I had seen that film was months ago. Still I like second viewings not only to refresh my memory but to see if my previous rating holds up or not.

[Raiders]

The HD Movie Channel, everyone with HD cable should have it.

HDNet, correct? I have Comcast and I do not have this. It says on HDNet's website I needed to request this from them directly.

I hate those bastards.

My dad has Time Warner, so I'll see if he can record it for me and ship me a copy.

EDIT: Or I may just wait a week and make the 45 minute journey to where it is playing theatrically in DC.

[Derek]

Before you dare to watch Redacted, you may want to consider Bill O'Reilly's point (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0a2GT_JIes) that he would never watch a film where US troops rape and murder a 14-year old girl...nor report it either. His "review" starts about 2:30 in.

[Russ]

Wats, you'll be happy to know that I finally saw Ratatouille, and you're right, it's fantastic. It just makes it ridiculous to try to rank Pixar's efforts since they're all so uniformly excellent* and light years ahead of their competition.

*although, I still haven't seen Cars, not much desire too based on what I've read and the clips I've seen.

I own all the Pixar DVDs except for Cars, and Finding Nemo is still my least favorite, tho it's still miles ahead of Fox Studio's animation.

[Watashi]

Wats, you'll be happy to know that I finally saw Ratatouille, and you're right, it's fantastic. It just makes it ridiculous to try to rank Pixar's efforts since they're all so uniformly excellent* and light years ahead of their competition.

Awesome!

Now all we need is TBickle/Derek to join us. :twisted:

[Raiders]

He wrote a column as well:

http://www.billoreilly.com/column?pid=21915


My question is, why make a film like this? Most people will avoid it; who wants to see that kind of stuff? It definitely smears the military, and may even put our forces in physical danger. Why do this?

In the summer of 1942, the Office of War Information, set up by President Franklin Roosevelt, censored American films which depicted scenes that might be used as "enemy propaganda." Few in Hollywood objected to the so-called "Production Code."

The OWI even sent a manual to the movie studios suggesting they answer seven questions before any film was put into production. The first question was, "Will this picture help win the war?"

The liberal icon, FDR, understood that war is so gruesome and chaotic that no civilian population could absorb it visually and still remain upbeat and committed to victory. Imagine seeing live shots of the D-Day invasion or the horror of Iwo Jima.

If war is so ugly and monstrous as to say it shouldn't be witnessed by anyone, shouldn't we make every attempt to avoid this conflict instead of treating it like an ugly necessity to be swept under the rug? He seems afraid that if people see what war actually is, and the moral lows that can happen in times of war, they'll want the war to end. Um, yes? So, maybe the war should end if it is something so awful. Or maybe we should look into other means before deploying troops?

So, by extension, O'Reilly very much wants wars to continue to happen and for us to hoop and holler for us to kill every enemy alive. But, we shouldn't actually have to see it.

[Qrazy]

Why does that man exist.

[Russ]

Dunno if this has ever been posted, but it's an entertaining read:

The Top Ten Sci-Fi Films That Never Existed (http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/film/scifi.html)

[MadMan]

Raiders post is only one of the many reasons why I stopped watching that man's show years ago. He's really no better than the average idiotic cable news network blowhard. They just don't exist on FOX News sadly.

[Duncan]

Dunno if this has ever been posted, but it's an entertaining read:

The Top Ten Sci-Fi Films That Never Existed (http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/film/scifi.html)

I always thought a Starcraft film could be pretty neat.

[Derek]

Awesome!

Now all we need is TBickle/Derek to join us. :twisted:

It's #2 on my Netflix queue, so hopefully it'll get off "Very Long Wait" soon. It's the first Pixar film I've been really excited about since Monster's Inc., which remains my favorite since the Toy Story films.

[MadMan]

Dunno if this has ever been posted, but it's an entertaining read:

The Top Ten Sci-Fi Films That Never Existed (http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/film/scifi.html)Good stuff. But I liked the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy film and I love the book its based on and the sequel as well. I'm just one of a kind I suppose :P

That said I highly approve of most of the article. In fact I think that article pointed out a reason (I think anyways) why sci-fi has gone down hill over the last decade: a lack of vision and the willingness to put out quality, awesome films. Really besides Jurassic Park, the first Matrix and the decent sequels along with Revenge of the Sith there hasn't been a major Hollywood sci-fi flick I've wanted to see that's been made in the past 15 years. That's a damn shame. Although Southland Tales seems to have a good deal of sci-fi involved and looks really crazy/awesome or at least an interesting failure.

[Sycophant]

I always thought a Starcraft film could be pretty neat.
One day, it'll be made and it won't be.

But it could be.

[Qrazy]

The Doppelganger soundtrack sounds like a slight variation on Elfman's Spiderman soundtrack.

[Rowland]

It's #2 on my Netflix queue, so hopefully it'll get off "Very Long Wait" soon. It's the first Pixar film I've been really excited about since Monster's Inc., which remains my favorite since the Toy Story films.I'm in the same situation. I hope it lives up to the hype.

[ledfloyd]

Down by Law has the softest, most laconic middle I've ever seen. Still, it is beautifully shot throughout and its first act is a knockout.

Btw, you still have my three favorite Jarmuschs ahead of you.
Nice. It's interesting. There's alot to like about the second act of Down By Law. The DJ thing is fun, the window, 'I screama, you screama, we all screama for ice creama', 'i ham a good egg', 'on the ground, one stroke.' But for some reason this section just drags. The first and third acts are very strong, but I can't help feeling the film is about 15 minutes too long. It's a shame, it's the first Jarmusch film I haven't been blown away by.


Thoughts on Broken Flowers?
Easily my favorite of his films. My favorite film of 2005.

[koji]

Why does that man exist.So that the Colbert Report could exist.:)

[D_Davis]

Good stuff. But I liked the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy film and I love the book its based on and the sequel as well. I'm just one of a kind I suppose :P


It's a great film, and I grew up reading and loving the books, the radio drama, the BBC series, and the text adventure game. I will never, ever, in a billion years, understand the hate the film gets. It is a great adaptation because they turned the source material into a film that takes advantage of the medium in the same way that they adapted everything else from the radio drama. Had the film done better, and had we seen the sequels, I think we would have an awesome film series, it's a shame that so many people wrote this film off. One of my biggest disappointments about film fans in general is the lack of love for this movie.

[Qrazy]

It's a great film, and I grew up reading and loving the books, the radio drama, the BBC series, and the text adventure game. I will never, ever, in a billion years, understand the hate the film gets. It is a great adaptation because they turned the source material into a film that takes advantage of the medium in the same way that they adapted everything else from the radio drama. Had the film done better, and had we seen the sequels, I think we would have an awesome film series, it's a shame that so many people wrote this film off. One of my biggest disappointments about film fans in general is the lack of love for this movie.

I don't understand the hate either. I thought it was a passable film, and a slightly above average sci-fi.

[MadMan]

It's a great film, and I grew up reading and loving the books, the radio drama, the BBC series, and the text adventure game. I will never, ever, in a billion years, understand the hate the film gets. It is a great adaptation because they turned the source material into a film that takes advantage of the medium in the same way that they adapted everything else from the radio drama. Had the film done better, and had we seen the sequels, I think we would have an awesome film series, it's a shame that so many people wrote this film off. One of my biggest disappointments about film fans in general is the lack of love for this movie.I'll be waiting forever for a sequel :sad: I agree 100% that the movie captured the book almost perfectly. I also think the film goes in a slightly different direction in some ways, which isn't neccessarily a bad thing-no its actually a good thing. I acknowledge that is not possible to feature everything that was in the book in the movie adaption. Not even LOTR's or the Harry Potter films have been able to accomplish that, and I wouldn't want them too. Books and films are two different mediums.

[megladon8]

I thought the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galazy film was great.

The planet factory scene was awe-inspiring.

[Philosophe_rouge]

I liked the film too, I didn't think it was perfect but it was damn entertaining and I thought it was brilliantly casted. It also turned me onto the books, which I am very thankful for!

[MadMan]

I still need to finish the series. I read book two a long time ago.

[Rowland]

A lot of fans for Hitchhiker's Guide here it seems, so I'll just voice the opposing side that the movie simply didn't work. Maybe for fans of the book, it was fun to see their favorite concepts visualized or whatever, but on its own terms, the movie was a failure. It was sloppy, disjointed, nonsensical, entirely devoid of narrative momentum and ultimately just not very funny.

[koji]

I also saw read the Hitchhicker books and saw the BBC version, a number of times via VHS copy of the TV. The movie was not as good as the lengthy version, but it seemed well done for a condensed version.

[D_Davis]

I also think the film goes in a slightly different direction in some ways, which isn't neccessarily a bad thing-no its actually a good thing. I acknowledge that is not possible to feature everything that was in the book in the movie adaption.

This was always Adams' intention. The story was originally conceived of as a radio drama, and it is quite different from the next iteration, the books, which, in turn, are different from the BBC series, the game, and, finally, the film. He wanted each iteration to take advantage of the medium being used to tell the story, and with the film, I think they did a marvelous job. It also looks better than most movies with five times the budget do.

Like Meg said, the planet factory set piece is extraordinary, and it truly is awe inspiring. One of my favorite special effects shots of all time.

The cast is great, they kept in a lot of the humor in the guide excerpts, the y added visual humor, slap stick, and just made a film that is a joy to watch.

[Briare]

I think faulting a movie called The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy for being 'nonsensical' is a little much.

[D_Davis]

I think faulting a movie called The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy for being 'nonsensical' is a little much.

True that. The narrative has always been nonsensical, and this is one of its stronger points. Mice ruling the world, talking dolphins, a planet-making factory, 42, a depressed android, a whale that appears out of nowhere, yeah, it's all a bit mad and zany, and this is exactly why I like the story in all of its iterations so much.

[Rowland]

I think faulting a movie called The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy for being 'nonsensical' is a little much.Nonsensical in that it jumps about in a manner that drops narrative strands as quickly as it introduces them and ultimately hinges on exceedingly lazy deus ex machinas to resolve itself. To me, this is a frustrating nonsensicality, and as such a flaw. That it's supposed to be "mad and zany" doesn't cut it.

[Rowland]

The performances were annoying too. Lots of smug and overly affected mugging does not make for effective comedy or empathetic performances. I wanted to punch the characters in the face.

[Sycophant]

I can't get too specific as it's been too long since the movie came out for me to get into a thorough analysis, but as a devoted fan of the books (and a lover of the BBC series as well), I was disappointed in the film. For those things Rowland mentions. Its structure is all wonky. Its previous iterations were at least partly modified to take advantage of the media they were then working in, while I'm not sure the film was optimized for film.

"So Long and Thanks for All the Fish" was a fabulous number, though.

[D_Davis]

Its previous iterations were at least partly modified to take advantage of the media they were then working in, while I'm not sure the film was optimized for film.


It was totally optimized to take advantage of its medium. Even on a base level, such as visually, it totally works as a film. Adams and the filmmakers chose the right parts of the book to film, left out the right parts, and added stuff to make a more enjoyable cinematic experience.

[Ezee E]

Well, that took me by surprise. I really liked the straightforward acting, but pure Wes Anderson-ness of the short Hotel Chevelier. Things were unclear in plot, but were understood by the actions. How one would dump Natalie Portman, even her character here, is crazy beyond words, but that's something else entirely.

Then comes The Darjeeling Limited, which looks to be a movie that I think is ridiculously stupid. I'm the only one who thinks this, but I can't see it any other way. The entire movie took the straightforward acting and Wes Anderson-ness attitude of Hotel Chevelier but it just felt like Wes Anderson was going through the motions. The writing was absolutely horrible here, everyone concerned only about themselves. Why would they even get together with that type of attitude? The only thing I liked about it was clearing up a few things in Hotel Chevelier.

Blast me if you will. I couldn't wait for this one to end.

[Rowland]

The writing was absolutely horrible here, everyone concerned only about themselves.

My strongest misgiving with the movie was its sheer solipsism, which I can just imagine argued as being the point, but that still doesn't mean I have to like it.

[balmakboor]

The only time I watch Fox News is while I'm sitting in the waiting room having my oil changed and only then if they've hidden the remote control. (I think Fox pays Jiffy Lube to tune all their TVs to the channel.) Isn't it crazy how that worthless "news" channel always seems to be playing in every public place you go? My wife says it's because the graphics are so pretty.

So, yes, I couldn't care less what O'Reilly has to say about Redacted. I care a lot what I'll have to say about it once I get a chance to see it.

[ledfloyd]

I watched Blues in the Night on TCM tonight. I really dug it, and am upset it's not on DVD! Matt Groenig introduced it and described it as 'delirious.' I can't think of a word that describes it better. It's fast paced and goofy, bouncing from noir to musical to noir to musical. With ridiculously awesome montages cut by Don Siegel. The dream sequence montages are fantastic. It's not for everyone as it can get a bit campy from time to time. But I loved the music and was grinning ear to ear the entire time.

I also saw my first Laurel & Hardy movie and am inspired to dig a bit deeper.

[Derek]

The only time I watch Fox News is while I'm sitting in the waiting room having my oil changed and only then if they've hidden the remote control. (I think Fox pays Jiffy Lube to tune all their TVs to the channel.) Isn't it crazy how that worthless "news" channel always seems to be playing in every public place you go? My wife says it's because the graphics are so pretty.

So, yes, I couldn't care less what O'Reilly has to say about Redacted. I care a lot what I'll have to say about it once I get a chance to see it.

No need to get all worked up. I saw the clip on "Countdown" and found it amusing in its absurdity, that's all. I guess I do care what's going on at Fox News since they wield a lot of power and are watched by a decent chunk of the country...as nice as it would be if they'd just go away.

[number8]

You're right... Fox News is playing in every public place I go to. Why is that?

[MadMan]

FOX News reminds me of that channel in 1984 that broadcasts news about the war and tells the people that Big Brother loves them. What's sad is that the world George Orwell warned us about does exist in Mynimar/Burma today.

[Eleven]

Holy crap, I expected as much, but Bigger than Life was pure, emotional, exquisitely-crafted CinemaScope grandeur. The ending to save society by blaming the overuse of cortisone was predictably abrupt and stilted, but some of the compositions and camera moves were breathtaking, not to mention Mason's calibrated descent into educationally regimented madness.

'56 could be one of the best movies years for a simple handful: Life, A Man Escaped, The Searchers, The Wrong Man, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Written on the Wind. And Street of Shame, The Killing, The Court Jester, and Forbidden Planet are nothing to sneeze at, either.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Holy crap, I expected as much, but Bigger than Life was pure, emotional, exquisitely-crafted CinemaScope grandeur. The ending to save society by blaming the overuse of cortisone was predictably abrupt and stilted, but some of the compositions and camera moves were breathtaking, not to mention Mason's calibrated descent into educationally regimented madness.

'56 could be one of the best movies years for a simple handful: Life, A Man Escaped, The Searchers, The Wrong Man, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Written on the Wind. And Street of Shame, The Killing, The Court Jester, and Forbidden Planet are nothing to sneeze at, either.
The weirdest thing, I had just started to watch Bigger than Life earlier this week before being interrupted. I'll finish it soon, but I never expected anyone to post about it. I'm happy to hear your enthousiastic response though, makes me want to get back to it sooner. I still prefer 57', but I haven't seen a few of the ones you've mentioned (wrong man, cour jester, street of shame, life, man escaped... well I haven't seen most of them :P)

[MadMan]

Holy crap, I expected as much, but Bigger than Life was pure, emotional, exquisitely-crafted CinemaScope grandeur. The ending to save society by blaming the overuse of cortisone was predictably abrupt and stilted, but some of the compositions and camera moves were breathtaking, not to mention Mason's calibrated descent into educationally regimented madness.

'56 could be one of the best movies years for a simple handful: Life, A Man Escaped, The Searchers, The Wrong Man, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Written on the Wind. And Street of Shame, The Killing, The Court Jester, and Forbidden Planet are nothing to sneeze at, either.Don't forget The Ten Commandments. From what I've seen 1956 is a grand year indeed.

[Eleven]

The weirdest thing, I had just started to watch Bigger than Life earlier this week before being interrupted. I'll finish it soon, but I never expected anyone to post about it. I'm happy to hear your enthousiastic response though, makes me want to get back to it sooner. I still prefer 57', but I haven't seen a few of the ones you've mentioned (wrong man, cour jester, street of shame, life, man escaped... well I haven't seen most of them :P)

Oh, '57's awesome, too. Every year's got its good stuff. Maybe BtL's warm glow is clouding my judgment, to mix metaphors.

Favorite year ever? Toss-up between '67, '74, and '56/'57, incidentally.

[Bosco B Thug]

Well, that took me by surprise. I really liked the straightforward acting, but pure Wes Anderson-ness of the short Hotel Chevelier. Things were unclear in plot, but were understood by the actions. How one would dump Natalie Portman, even her character here, is crazy beyond words, but that's something else entirely.

Then comes The Darjeeling Limited, which looks to be a movie that I think is ridiculously stupid. I'm the only one who thinks this, but I can't see it any other way. The entire movie took the straightforward acting and Wes Anderson-ness attitude of Hotel Chevelier but it just felt like Wes Anderson was going through the motions. The writing was absolutely horrible here, everyone concerned only about themselves. Why would they even get together with that type of attitude? The only thing I liked about it was clearing up a few things in Hotel Chevelier.

Blast me if you will. I couldn't wait for this one to end. WHOA! Why'd you feel the need to praise the been-there-done-that nothingness of Hotel Chavalier THEN go on to one-star 'Darjeeling'? :P

I think I agree that a big problem with the movie is that it feels like a trudge without much structure, with the big "catharsis" scenes being largely obvious or wash-outs (the final feather ritual in mind), but I think the more subtle, nuanced catharsis of the flashback sequence and the scenes with the mother save the film.


My strongest misgiving with the movie was its sheer solipsism, which I can just imagine argued as being the point, but that still doesn't mean I have to like it. It can't be moreso than his other films. I mean, a large part of the film's resonance is the brothers' problems being set against a backdrop of a world not really interested in them. The Indian woman's just sick of making a repressive living, it wasn't the first time those boys had to cross that river, newly Christian people are still getting preyed upon by lions, and the mother is finding preoccupation in that.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Oh, '57's awesome, too. Every year's got its good stuff. Maybe BtL's warm glow is clouding my judgment, to mix metaphors.

Favorite year ever? Toss-up between '67, '74, and '56/'57, incidentally.
Mine's probably 57', 46', 48' or 64'. Depending on my mood.

[Eleven]

Mine's probably 57', 46', 48' or 64'. Depending on my mood.

I still have some biggies from '48 to see, but that's shaping up as an inspiring year on many fronts, from the neo-realist trifecta (Germany Year Zero, Bicycle Thief, and La terra trema) to some of the best that Hollywood has ever had to offer (Letter from an Unknown Woman, Unfaithfully Yours, Portrait of Jennie, Sierra Madre, Rope, Red River, and so far my personal favorite, Force of Evil). And it goes without saying that The Red Shoes must be considered.

[Qrazy]

Holy crap, I expected as much, but Bigger than Life was pure, emotional, exquisitely-crafted CinemaScope grandeur. The ending to save society by blaming the overuse of cortisone was predictably abrupt and stilted, but some of the compositions and camera moves were breathtaking, not to mention Mason's calibrated descent into educationally regimented madness.

'56 could be one of the best movies years for a simple handful: Life, A Man Escaped, The Searchers, The Wrong Man, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Written on the Wind. And Street of Shame, The Killing, The Court Jester, and Forbidden Planet are nothing to sneeze at, either.

Just to throw 'em in there... a couple o' other great '56ers.

Aparajito
Baby Doll
Le Ballon Rouge
Burmese Harp
Bob le Flambeur
And God Created Woman
Man of Iron
Giant
The Man Who Knew to Much
Duel on Ganryu Island
Moby Dick
Early Spring

[Boner M]

Weekend viewings:

Numero Deux (Godard)
An Old Mistress (Brelliat)

...and some unwatched DVD collection neglecterinos.

I'll be posting more extensively tomorrow after I hand in my papers, and will def. have a top 50 entry up over the weekend. Just so you know.

[Qrazy]

Weekend:

Judgment at Nuremberg
Smiles of a Summer Night
Rocco and His Brothers
A Time to Live and a Time to Die
The Second Circle
The Steel Helmet
Veronika Voss

[Watashi]

I'll be in Minnesota for the weekend, but I'll still try and watch:

Beowulf
Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium
No Country for Old Men
Southland Tales

[soitgoes...]

Robert Montgomery directed a Philip Marlowe film-noir by the name of Lady in the Lake. This movie, released in January 1947, featured you as Philip Marlowe, with the accompanying Robert Montgomery voice. It was shot from a first person vantage point. Eight months later Delmer Daves' own film-noir, Dark Passage, was released featuring the same gimmick. This time you're wife-killer on the lam, voiced by screen legend Humphrey Bogart.

I stumbled onto this on accident. At the library the other day, I had picked up Lady in the Lake. The title was one I'd heard before, so I pretty much gave it quick once over and borrowed it. I watched it tonight, and ugh! Not again. This has gotta be one of the most annoying gimmicks in film. Montgomery and Bogart's voices seem so out of place, so wooden. If anyone knows of anymore films like this, please warn me about them now.

[soitgoes...]

Weekend:
The Fanny Trilogy
Equinox Flower
Flowing
Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter?

[Qrazy]

Robert Montgomery directed a Philip Marlowe film-noir by the name of Lady in the Lake. This movie, released in January 1947, featured you as Philip Marlowe, with the accompanying Robert Montgomery voice. It was shot from a first person vantage point. Eight months later Delmer Daves' own film-noir, Dark Passage, was released featuring the same gimmick. This time you're wife-killer on the lam, voiced by screen legend Humphrey Bogart.

I stumbled onto this on accident. At the library the other day, I had picked up Lady in the Lake. The title was one I'd heard before, so I pretty much gave it quick once over and borrowed it. I watched it tonight, and ugh! Not again. This has gotta be one of the most annoying gimmicks in film. Montgomery and Bogart's voices seem so out of place, so wooden. If anyone knows of anymore films like this, please warn me about them now.

I'm curious what style of editing them imposed on this. Were there many long takes? Were fades to black only when sleeping or unconscious? Rapid turns of the head, jump cuts?

[soitgoes...]

I'm curious what style of editing them imposed on this. Were there many long takes? Were fades to black only when sleeping or unconscious? Rapid turns of the head, jump cuts?
Long takes were common. At least in Lady in the Lake. Fades to black happened whenever. When punched the camera mimics the movements and blacking out of Marlowe. Elsewhere, there are random fades to black. Its not exclusive to the first person viewer. Rapid turns of the head were only as rapid as the time it took to swivel the camera and focus on the new object. Anytime you see "your" arms, its awkward. They're not coming into view at the correct angles. The worst part is that the main characters' voices don't jive with the rhythm of the scene. They sound as if Montgomery and Bogart are reading their lines instead of acting.

[Raiders]

Weekend:

No Country for Old Men
Redacted
The Price of Sugar
I Don't Want to Sleep Alone

[balmakboor]

Robert Montgomery directed a Philip Marlowe film-noir by the name of Lady in the Lake. This movie, released in January 1947, featured you as Philip Marlowe, with the accompanying Robert Montgomery voice. It was shot from a first person vantage point. Eight months later Delmer Daves' own film-noir, Dark Passage, was released featuring the same gimmick. This time you're wife-killer on the lam, voiced by screen legend Humphrey Bogart.

I stumbled onto this on accident. At the library the other day, I had picked up Lady in the Lake. The title was one I'd heard before, so I pretty much gave it quick once over and borrowed it. I watched it tonight, and ugh! Not again. This has gotta be one of the most annoying gimmicks in film. Montgomery and Bogart's voices seem so out of place, so wooden. If anyone knows of anymore films like this, please warn me about them now.

I've only seen bits and pieces of this, but those bits and pieces proved to me that a first person pov camera is best used sparingly.

[Raiders]

I'm willing to concede that a second viewing of The Man From London might undoubtedly hold more power and intrigue, but the first viewing was something of a disappointment. Tarr seems to be using his immaculate visual design to offer a breakdown of the form of cinema, that is we go from an opening shot as fluid as can be to a second tracking shot broken down into individual "frames" via a series of windows. The story is obvious and nothing and I have no clue why Tilda Swinton is even in the film. For a filmmaker who has left me so much to consider after his first three films, the worst criticism I can give this film is I don't really care to think much more about it.

[balmakboor]

I Don't Want to Sleep Alone

I'll be curious to read your thoughts. I watched it last night and was ready to pronounce it my favorite Tsai Ming-liang for a while and then his langorous style started to wear me out -- or maybe I was just getting tired. I did think the ending was a bit disappointing in that "suddenly I felt like I was watching a different movie" sort of way. Much of it does play almost like a comedy with characters carrying soiled mattresses all over town. B+

[balmakboor]

On another note, I got my copy of Berlin Alexanderplatz yesterday and watched episode one. I can already tell this is going to be a mind-rearranging viewing experience. The set is also quite gorgeous.

[Rowland]

It can't be moreso than his other films. I mean, a large part of the film's resonance is the brothers' problems being set against a backdrop of a world not really interested in them. The Indian woman's just sick of making a repressive living, it wasn't the first time those boys had to cross that river, newly Christian people are still getting preyed upon by lions, and the mother is finding preoccupation in that.This would work if I got the impression that Anderson actually gave a shit about the Indian culture/characters. He never incorporates that world in any meaningful, interesting, or even terribly convincing way. He may feign doing so from time to time, but only the rich, spoiled, solipsistic brothers register, and intentionally so I imagine.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Robert Montgomery directed a Philip Marlowe film-noir by the name of Lady in the Lake. This movie, released in January 1947, featured you as Philip Marlowe, with the accompanying Robert Montgomery voice. It was shot from a first person vantage point. Eight months later Delmer Daves' own film-noir, Dark Passage, was released featuring the same gimmick. This time you're wife-killer on the lam, voiced by screen legend Humphrey Bogart.

I stumbled onto this on accident. At the library the other day, I had picked up Lady in the Lake. The title was one I'd heard before, so I pretty much gave it quick once over and borrowed it. I watched it tonight, and ugh! Not again. This has gotta be one of the most annoying gimmicks in film. Montgomery and Bogart's voices seem so out of place, so wooden. If anyone knows of anymore films like this, please warn me about them now.
While I though there were "moments" that this technique worked in the film, overall it was something of a mess. I agree with you on the voice-over, and it was generally badly executed. I didn't like it in Dark Passage either, but I don't like any of that film. I know you asked for films that have it so you can avoid it, but the only time I've seen it do it right is in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931). It's only one sequence at the beginning and it's done with a lot of flair, dolly shots, and a quick mirror. It's only about 3-5 minutes, but it's stunning work.

[Raiders]

Yeah, I haven't seen Montgomery's Lady in the Lake, but Dark Passage is one annoying film. Montgomery's Ride the Pink Horse however does not have this gimmick and is one of my favorite noirs.

[Rowland]

Here is the most pinpoint breakdown I've found on what doesn't work for me in Darjeeling, only articulated better than I ever could, courtesy of critic Nick Davis:

"The real shame here is that The Darjeeling Limited could have suited and also challenged Anderson's formal and affective idioms so much better, and indeed shows the potential of doing so through the first 20 or 30 minutes. As always, the fine-tuned and filigreed sets and the textured, rectilinear, fluorescent production design are ocular pleasures, but the natty uniforms and delicious wallpapers aboard the Darjeeling Limited train—self-conscious as they already are—also implicitly connote the fetishistic cocoon of comfort and pleasure in which the Whitman boys encase themselves while they only pretend to intersect with a far-removed and, as we know, a greatly suffering culture. Imagine, then, what might have happened, visually and cinematographically, when the Whitmans jettisoned this dollhouse perimeter of Colorforms fantasy and Louis Vuitton comfort and tried to maintain this lacquered, perpendicular worldview among the chaos, the multiplicities, the energies, the shortages and surfeits of India. Anderson had a double-barreled metaphor here in his holster (and designed to a tee by Mark Friedberg) but he never realizes or utilizes it: the film is so lost in its own inflexible style that the Indians' emotions and domestic lives remain totally elided, even when the brothers accept an invitation to a local funeral. Indeed, the film seizes the moment to flashback to the day of their own father's death, rather than let India, any India, even this Playmobile India, actually weave its way into their minds or hearts. Neither the feel nor the look of the film evolve in any impressive way after the three man-children debark their train, and their own peccadilloes and reciprocal resentments stay pretty steady until the hour arrives for their pat quasi-resolutions."

Anderson sets up a fantastic opening act, only to develop and resolve it in some of the least interesting ways imaginable. What's particularly frustrating about this is that I sensed a certain implicit criticism in Anderson's portrayal of the characters, but he never goes anywhere with it.

[Grouchy]

I agree that the P.O.V. shot in Dark Passage is definitively an offspring of its time, but once Bogart actually appears on screen, the movie becomes very entertaining. It's definitively a "B" noir, but a very fast-paced one, filled with lusty sexual tension moments. I haven't seen Lady in the Lake, but a whole Raymond Chandler novel filmed like that sounds like overkill.

I've seen Halloween II and I think I'll probably watch the whole saga now. This feels a lot more like a typical slasher film, with the nudity and the too-awesome-for-mainstream-1981 gore which borders on sadistic, and it's obvious that Halloween imitators had already upped the stakes on these matters - although the net says that it was Carpenter who demanded more blood after seeing the original Rosenthal cut. I like the concept behind the sequel, the hospital setting, the fact that it takes place one minute after the ending and all that, but I don't like some of the ridiculous scenes with Donald Pleasance, like where a key plot point is revealed through talking heads in a car. It's also pretty funny that they did a great finale for Mike Myers on this one and then went on to do six more movies.

[Rowland]

I've seen Halloween II and I think I'll probably watch the whole saga now. This feels a lot more like a typical slasher film, with the nudity and the too-awesome-for-mainstream-1981 gore which borders on sadistic, and it's obvious that Halloween imitators had already upped the stakes on these matters - although the net says that it was Carpenter who demanded more blood after seeing the original Rosenthal cut. I like the concept behind the sequel, the hospital setting, the fact that it takes place one minute after the ending and all that, but I don't like some of the ridiculous scenes with Donald Pleasance, like where a key plot point is revealed through talking heads in a car. It's also pretty funny that they did a great finale for Mike Myers on this one and then went on to do six more movies.More gore was added because they wanted to compete with the other slashers out there. It's still ridiculous to imagine Michael causing all of this bloody carnage on the same night as the original Halloween, and it cheapens the original movie for it. Plus, you know, all that stuff about Samhain, the druids, and Laurie being his sister... :frustrated:

Halloween III, the movie everyone just takes for granted as sucking because Michael isn't in it, is actually the best sequel.

[EvilShoe]

Halloween III, the movie everyone just takes for granted as sucking because Michael isn't in it, is actually the best sequel.
That's true, and yet it's still a completely horrible film.
Good premise, lousy execution.
Not even Teh Atkins could save it.

[Grouchy]

More gore was added because they wanted to compete with the other slashers out there. It's still ridiculous to imagine Michael causing all of this bloody carnage on the same night as the original Halloween, and it cheapens the original movie for it. Plus, you know, all that stuff about Samhain, the druids, and Laurie being his sister... :frustrated:

Halloween III, the movie everyone just takes for granted as sucking because Michael isn't in it, is actually the best sequel.
Yeah, that's coming next, well, duh.

That must've been a helluva long night. In fact, somewhere in this second movie, Dr. Loomis says it wasn't even midnight yet when he shot Myers for the first time. I don't think the sequel is bad. I think it's less classy, probably less rewatchable and relies much more on the jump-scare factor and loud noises. You couldn't have made a movie as effective and tense as the first one by using practically the same plot and devices. I think it's a good thing that they didn't even try. The Samhain stuff was pretty strange and out of context. Do they ever reference it again on other sequels?

[Rowland]

That's true, and yet it's still a completely horrible film.
Good premise, lousy execution.
Not even Teh Atkins could save it.You're right, it's not a very good movie, but it has a certain ramshackle B-movie charm to it, in addition to its sheer nastiness.

[Rowland]

You couldn't have made a movie as effective and tense as the first one by using practically the same plot and devices. I think it's a good thing that they didn't even tried.Well, as far as I'm concerned, the sequel(s) shouldn't even exist. All they could do was cheapen the original, and Carpenter knew this, which is why he didn't want to make a sequel continuing the story but was pressured into doing so. Lore has it that Carpenter wrote the treatment for Halloween II in a single drunken sitting. That's the only excuse he has anyway for seemingly attempting to sabotage what worked in the original.

Do they ever reference it again on other sequels?The later sequels use it as a fucking launching pad.

[EvilShoe]

You're right, it's not a very good movie, but it has a certain ramshackle B-movie charm to it, in addition to its sheer nastiness.
It's a shame it's this bad, because I really would've preferred it had the franchise continued with different stories each Halloween.

[EvilShoe]

I must admit I haven't seen Halloween 4 and 6 though.
Isn't 4 supposed to be somewhat good?

[Rowland]

I must admit I haven't seen Halloween 4 and 6 though.
Isn't 4 supposed to be somewhat good?By the standards of Halloween sequels, it's pretty decent, and arguably the best of the lot, which still isn't really saying much. 5 and 6 are simply dreadful, but not as offensive to me as II, despite being worse movies, because they're easier to accept as existing in some sort of alternate universe.

[Grouchy]

It's a shame it's this bad, because I really would've preferred it had the franchise continued with different stories each Halloween.
They could've made Sam Loomis and October 31st the link between all movies.

Still, Halloween's ending is too open - they would've had to return to Mike Myers eventually.

[Rowland]

Still, Halloween's ending is too open - they would've had to return to Mike Myers eventually.Bah. That's exactly why it works! It's not a serial cliffhanger.

[Grouchy]

Bah. That's exactly why it works! It's not a serial cliffhanger.
I know and I agree. In an ideal world, Halloween remains untouched and everyone moves on to other movies. But since they already made a saga out of it, we're just theorizing on how it could've been better.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I was under the impression that Carpenter didn't want Myers dead body to have vanished in the end. He was supposed to be lying there dead. The studio made him change the ending so they could make sequels if they so desired.

[Rowland]

I was under the impression that Carpenter didn't want Myers dead body to have vanished in the end. He was supposed to be lying there dead. The studio made him change the ending so they could make sequels if they so desired.I've never heard that. He didn't even make the movie under the influence of a studio, and the notion of endless sequels hadn't really caught on at the time, which is why it took so long for Halloween II to be made, and even then, Carpenter only caved in on the condition that the Michael storyline would be ended.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I've never heard that. He didn't even make the movie under the influence of a studio, and the notion of endless sequels hadn't really caught on at the time, which is why it took so long for Halloween II to be made, and even then, Carpenter only caved in on the condition that the Michael storyline would be ended.

It was after it was purchased by a studio. They recut the end so that the body wasn't lying down there. If you think back on it, even if the body had still been there, the end dialogue and reactions are appropriate. They're interchangeable. Could be total crap, but I know I've heard that before.

[Rowland]

It was after it was purchased by a studio. They recut the end so that the body wasn't lying down there. If you think back on it, even if the body had still been there, the end dialogue and reactions are appropriate. They're interchangeable. Could be total crap, but I know I've heard that before.Maybe you're right. In any case, assuming you're right, the studio was right in this instance, albeit for entirely the wrong reason.

[Rowland]

From IMDB:

SPOILER: Originally the script had Dr. Loomis having a surprised reaction to the disappearance of Michael Myers's body from the lawn at the end of the film. Donald Pleasence suggested his character's reaction should instead be an "I knew this would happen" look on his face. They shot it both ways and ended up using Pleasance's idea.

[Kurosawa Fan]

From IMDB:

SPOILER: Originally the script had Dr. Loomis having a surprised reaction to the disappearance of Michael Myers's body from the lawn at the end of the film. Donald Pleasence suggested his character's reaction should instead be an "I knew this would happen" look on his face. They shot it both ways and ended up using Pleasance's idea.

Ah. Well, it's better this way, because I agree with you that Myers having vanished is the better ending, sequel or no sequel.

[MadMan]

For the record I liked Halloween II a good deal. I do plan on checking the sequels eventually although I think I'll stay away from the latest one with Busta Rhymes. Yikes. What interests me about Halloween is the third flick doesn't even fit in with the rest of the series, H20 and Resurrection only corresponds with the first and second films, while 4, 5, 6 and fit in more so with the second flick. Its quite messy unlike the Freddy and Jason series which are very linear in terms of each sequel fits with the previous installment right up to the original.

And I agree that having Myers body vanish at the end of the first flick makes for a creepy, awesome and chilling ending. It reminds me of the original Blob where a "The End" is presented with a question mark. Makes yah wonder if the whole thing is really over, which I like.

[Derek]

Weekend viewings:

Numero Deux (Godard)

This is such a cool film with one of the greatest split-screens ever juxtaposing a woman's ass with Henry Kissinger's face. :)

[soitgoes...]

Marion Cotillard is fabulous as Edith Piaf in La Vie en rose. Seriously, if she wasn't French she'd be a shoe-in for an Oscar nom. She still might get one. I didn't have a problem with a non-linear telling of Piaf's life, as some have. I had somewhat of a problem of skimming over ceertain aspects of her life, though. Granted I knew very little of Piaf, besides her unmistakable voice which is gloriously ever-present in this film, and that she's lived a tragic life. Still this was one of the best biopics I've seen.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Weekend:
No Way Out
Les Demoiselles de Rochefort
Magnificent Obsession
Bigger than Life

I doubt I'll fit them all in, but I can try!

[soitgoes...]

I know you asked for films that have it so you can avoid it, but the only time I've seen it do it right is in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931). It's only one sequence at the beginning and it's done with a lot of flair, dolly shots, and a quick mirror. It's only about 3-5 minutes, but it's stunning work.
I've seen this, and I do remember the scene not bothering me. The movie as a whole didn't do much for me though, but March's transformation into Mr. Hyde was pretty great.

[Philosophe_rouge]

I've seen this, and I do remember the scene not bothering me. The movie as a whole didn't do much for me though, but March's transformation into Mr. Hyde was pretty great.
Yea, it's amazing how they did it. I don't think I would have thought of using colour filters in a million years. I'm quite a fan of the film, mostly for it's baroque visual style though, and I love Fredric March beyond what is "normal".

[Rowland]

An incredibly insightful and comprehensive essay on The Assassination of Jesse James over at notcoming.com (http://www.notcoming.com/reviews/jessejames-robertford/).

[soitgoes...]

Yeah, I haven't seen Montgomery's Lady in the Lake, but Dark Passage is one annoying film. Montgomery's Ride the Pink Horse however does not have this gimmick and is one of my favorite noirs.
Yeah I think we've had this discussion before. Ride the Pink Horse is a movie I've heard great things about, but have been unable to track down a way to watch it.

[soitgoes...]

Yea, it's amazing how they did it. I don't think I would have thought of using colour filters in a million years. I'm quite a fan of the film, mostly for it's baroque visual style though, and I love Fredric March beyond what is "normal".
Visual effects pre-CGI are always facinating to me. Whether they come off as cheesy or not, its neat to try and figure out how they pulled something off.

[Ezee E]

Weekend Viewings:
The Ballad of Esequiel Hernandez
End of the Line
Beowulf in 3D
Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
Lynch
A Walk Into The Sea

DVD:
La Vie En Rose
Away From Her

So yeah, my movie count of 2007 skyrockets this weekend.

[Qrazy]

While I though there were "moments" that this technique worked in the film, overall it was something of a mess. I agree with you on the voice-over, and it was generally badly executed. I didn't like it in Dark Passage either, but I don't like any of that film. I know you asked for films that have it so you can avoid it, but the only time I've seen it do it right is in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931). It's only one sequence at the beginning and it's done with a lot of flair, dolly shots, and a quick mirror. It's only about 3-5 minutes, but it's stunning work.

Strange Days uses the technique decently.

[Sycophant]

I'm trying to figure out if I'm going to bother catching Finishing the Game before it leaves the theaters tonight or to just go home and watch Defending Your Life. Did anyone here see Lin's film?

[Ivan Drago]

Weekend:

Beowulf (in digital 3D)
American Gangster
Football

[Sycophant]

Weekend:

Kanotku Banzai! (oh plzplzplz deliver my package tomorrow, USPS!)
The World Sinks Except Japan
Defending Your Life
Love Affair
Penny Serendate
People's Hero
Desperado
September
Beowulf

[EvilShoe]

Weekend:

Yi Yi

+ (If I have time):

Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2nd)
Dawn of The Dead

[chrisnu]

No Country for Old Men this weekend. I may make Gone Baby Gone the tail-end of a double-header.

[chrisnu]

Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium
:eek:

I'll be interested in your thoughts on this one.

[number8]

This week, I had to miss out on screenings of Atonement and Mr. Magorium because of class.

*is sad*

[soitgoes...]

I don't think I've seen these posted yet.
February 08 Criterions
http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee171/soitgoes22/423_box_348x490.jpg
http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee171/soitgoes22/422_box_348x490.jpg
http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee171/soitgoes22/421_box_348x490.jpg
And new Eclipse Box
http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee171/soitgoes22/2000800_box_348x490.jpg

I don't think the world will ever be ready for a 4 disc The Last Emperor set.

[Sycophant]

Um.... Yes.

[Qrazy]

The Last Emperor doesn't do much for me personally.

[Sven]

The Last Emperor doesn't do much for me personally.

Ask not what the Emperor can do for you personally, but what you can personally do for the Emperor.

I am excited for all listed.

[Qrazy]

Ask not what the Emperor can do for you personally, but what you can personally do for the Emperor.

I am excited for all listed.

Seize his power and export him?

[soitgoes...]

The Last Emperor doesn't do much for me personally.
I saw The Last Emperor twice, once in theaters and once on DVD many years later. While good, I have no desire to see it a third time, and I definitely don't have a desire to watch 3 discs worth of featurettes and such.

[Sven]

Seize his power and export him?

Seriously, though, it's one of my very favorite films (I already have a double disc British copy). Where's your beef?

[Qrazy]

Seriously, though, it's one of my very favorite films (I already have a double disc British copy). Where's your beef?

Nothing specific I just don't find anything about it particularly compelling. I think overall my problem with Bertolucci is that he's a weak dramatist. The Sheltering Sky was ugh, and The Conformist is amazing for everything except the character/narrative angle. He's very talented visually but sometimes it's just not enough. And I'm not saying that all films or whatever have to focus on character, narrative and drama but just that with those two films (Sheltering Sky and The Last Emperor) I find it to be detrimental to the overall experience.

[Ivan Drago]

Hmm...recently Breathless came to Criterion and now it's Pierrot Le Fou. Could Weekend be next?

[balmakboor]

No need to get all worked up. I saw the clip on "Countdown" and found it amusing in its absurdity, that's all. I guess I do care what's going on at Fox News since they wield a lot of power and are watched by a decent chunk of the country...as nice as it would be if they'd just go away.

Due to its pervasiveness and disturbing nature, it is essential that we do get worked up about Fox News. As someone said, it is a key cog in making 1984 finally come completely true.

[DSNT]

I am excited for all listed.
Me too, especially The Last Emperor.

[Mysterious Dude]

Never heard of Walker. Sounds interesting, but it has a terrible IMDB rating.

[balmakboor]

Out of the new Criterions, I'm most interested in Walker. I was at SIFF to experience the downfall of Alex Cox in the form of Straight to Hell's poor reception. Because of that, Walker, which sounded much more interesting, got buried. In other words, I've been wanting to see it for 20 years.

[balmakboor]

Never heard of Walker. Sounds interesting, but it has a terrible IMDB rating.

I've read that Cox went for an anachronistic history meets Mad Magazine vibe. There were some very favorable reviews back in 1987. It's one of those films that has actually been seen by very few and those who have seen almost certainly saw it on pan/scan VHS.

[ledfloyd]

Hmm...recently Breathless came to Criterion and now it's Pierrot Le Fou. Could Weekend be next?
let's hope. the more Godard the better the world is to inhabit.

[Spinal]

The Last Emperor was a snoozefest.

The puzzle in the latest Criterion mailing is a genie lamp and the message "Do you have sandals in size 86?"

So ... at long last a decent DVD release of Kazaam!

:pritch:

[Eleven]

Yeah, since I feel that Criterion should really be focusing on releasing stuff otherwise unavailable in R1 (which they do, mostly), I'm most excited fro Walker. I'm a big fan of Straight to Hell and Cox in general, so I've read, um, interesting stuff about this movie.

Having just seen Pierrot on DVD recently, and despite knowing that it was going to get released by Crit soon, I'm still hoping for more obscure Godards to make their way here.

[ledfloyd]

oh. anyone got anything on this months criterion clue?

http://www.criterion.com/newsletters/nov07/images/wackygenie2.jpg

[Eleven]

So ... at long last a decent DVD release of Kazaam!

*fires up Photoshop*

[balmakboor]

oh. anyone got anything on this months criterion clue?

http://www.criterion.com/newsletters/nov07/images/wackygenie2.jpg

Thief of Bagdad.

[Ezee E]

:eek:

I'll be interested in your thoughts on this one.
I bet he'll love it.

No idea for myself though.

[MadMan]

Honestly I don't think I'll get to any movies this weekend.

[Rowland]

Weekend:

Redacted
Time
Black Book
Wrong Turn
...*shrug*

[Raiders]

Yeah, since I feel that Criterion should really be focusing on releasing stuff otherwise unavailable in R1 (which they do, mostly), I'm most excited fro Walker. I'm a big fan of Straight to Hell and Cox in general, so I've read, um, interesting stuff about this movie.

Having just seen Pierrot on DVD recently, and despite knowing that it was going to get released by Crit soon, I'm still hoping for more obscure Godards to make their way here.

Well, it is worth noting that there was not a R1 DVD for Pierrot currently in production.

[monolith94]

Thief of Bagdad.
I'm guessing it's the 1940 version of the thief of bagdad though. The 1924 one was already done by Kino.

[Eleven]

Well, it is worth noting that there was not a R1 DVD for Pierrot currently in production.

I must have seen the all-region one, then. Eh, whatever gets the movies out there. It's a neat little film, rough around the edges but quite beautiful, visually and Karina-ly. Belmondo's painted face is an image I'll not likely forget anytime soon.

[Raiders]

I must have seen the all-region one, then. Eh, whatever gets the movies out there. It's a neat little film, rough around the edges but quite beautiful, visually and Karina-ly. Belmondo's painted face is an image I'll not likely forget anytime soon.

There was a R1 DVD, it was just out of print. I myself welcome the new DVD as a chance to revisit this film. I was unimpressed the first go round, but that was four years and many Godard films (and many films in general) ago.

[dreamdead]

Well, Derek Jarman's Edward II was a fantastic surprise. As an update of Christopher Marlowe's classic play about gay love that struggles to survive amidst oppression and worrying about contaminating the crown's fidelity, it's a film that is awash in resplendent imagery. Moreover, Jarman makes an intriguing choice to villainize Isabella (Tilda Swinton) here, as Marlowe left her a tragic suffering figure in his play; here, she colludes to bring her husband down so that she might know of a purer (re: heterosexual) love, and it works within Jarman's constructed film, though it also simplifies some of the gender politics. That said, it is always engaging and never less than enthralling, so I'm pleased to finally get around to Jarman's work.

Where do I go from here? Spinal? Others?

[Spinal]

Well, Derek Jarman's Edward II was a fantastic surprise.

Not if you listen to me. :)

Where next? I haven't been nearly as excited by his other stuff, but I really want to see Caravaggio. Raiders says Blue is great.

[number8]

The Lookout is fantastic.

[Rowland]

The Lookout is fantastic.Ahh yes, one of the many movies that I need to catch up with in the next two months. All that slacking I did in the first half of the year has come back to bite me in the ass.

[soitgoes...]

The Lookout is fantastic.
The Lookout had some big problems, especially towards the end. Good performances couldn't save this one.

[origami_mustache]

I'm guessing it's the 1940 version of the thief of bagdad though. The 1924 one was already done by Kino.

yeah definitely the Michael Powell version.

[Spinal]

Re: Paris, je t'aime

Mr. Cuarón --

You cast Ludivine Sagnier in your short film and then proceed to shoot her entirely in a long shot on a dimly lit street? What the hell is wrong with you, man?

[Ezee E]

The Lookout had some big problems, especially towards the end. Good performances couldn't save this one.
pretty much.

[Ezee E]

Re: Paris, je t'aime

Mr. Cuarón --

You cast Ludivine Sagnier in your short film and then proceed to shoot her entirely in a long shot on a dimly lit street? What the hell is wrong with you, man?
Indeed. It was a good collection of movies, probably the second best "collection" film I've seen. But still, movies could either be much longer, or rely on cheap tricks at the very end. I hate short films.

[Boner M]

Wrong Turn
Are you watchin' this cos of Nick Pinkerton's appraisal in Reverse Shot? I liked it a lot. Wholly efficient and with a refreshingly un-self-conscious 70's vibe. Not great by any means, but one of the better recent films of its ilk.

[Boner M]

My weekend schedule has changed:

BIGGER THAN LIFE!!! (released on R4 today!)
Calendar (Egoyan)
An Old Mistress (Brelliat)
Numero Deux (Godard)

And I purchased the Kenneth Anger Collection Vol 2; will def. watch Scorpio Rising since it's the only one I haven't seen yet.

[DSNT]

Re: Paris, je t'aime

Mr. Cuarón --

You cast Ludivine Sagnier in your short film and then proceed to shoot her entirely in a long shot on a dimly lit street? What the hell is wrong with you, man?
That and Chris Doyle's were the worst of the shorts, IMO.

My weekend:
The rest of Redacted, maybe.
La Vie en Rose
The Umbrellas of Cherbourg

[ledfloyd]

i should probably take a break this weekend, cause I've watched 6 films in the last 36 hours.

but i'll be watching:
Time (Ki-Duk Kim)
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978)
Hiroshima Mon Amour

[balmakboor]

I'll probably catch episodes 3 through 5 or 6 of BA if I get the chance. I absolutely loved 1 & 2 and even had a dream of Franz Biberkopf last night.

[balmakboor]

My re-viewing of BA has also reminded me of why I've considered Günter Lamprecht's performance to be the greatest ever by an actor.

According to Netflix, it looks like I'll also be seeing Malle's God's Country soon. It will be my first foray into his documentaries.

[dreamdead]

The only certain film thing this weekend is gonna be Miike's Dead or Alive . Maybe Children of Paradise if writing projects allow the time...

[baby doll]

Weekend:

Angel Face (Preminger)
The General Line (Eisenstein)
Kagemusha (Kurosawa)

Currently reading: "Eisenstein's Ivan the Terrible: A Neo-Formalist Analysis" by Kirstin Thompson.

[baby doll]

My weekend schedule has changed:

BIGGER THAN LIFE!!! (released on R4 today!)
Calendar (Egoyan)
An Old Mistress (Brelliat)
Numero Deux (Godard)
Bastard. Anyway, I don't consider Calendar one of Egoyan's great films, although it is surprisingly funny and light on its feet. Still, I find it just a little too neat; Egoyan is too obviously meant to represent an assimilationist and Khanjian is obviously meant to represent a diasporan and the driver a nationalist (it goes without saying that Egoyan's character is an ass-hole to boot).

How I'd rank 'em...

1. Exotica (1994)
2. Speaking Parts (1989)
3. Next of Kin (1984)
4. Ararat (2002)
5. The Sweet Hereafter (1997)
6. Calendar (1993)
7. Family Viewing (1987)
8. Where the Truth Lies (2005)
9. The Adjuster (1991)

(It's been too long since I've seen Felicia's Journey, although I dug it at the time.)

[Ezee E]

That and Chris Doyle's were the worst of the shorts, IMO.

My weekend:
The rest of Redacted, maybe.
La Vie en Rose
The Umbrellas of Cherbourg
Oi. Chris Doyle's was horrible. Not even shot well.

End of the Line is a ridiculous horror movie shot for pennies. Welldone, but with obvious spotty acting, it manages to work because it's aware of itself, and uses it to its advantage. Starting off as a ghost story, then turning into a religious zealot (practically zombies) on a rampage, it becomes a very enjoyable movie, if not, a bit too ridiculous at one point. Who knows if this will ever be released to you all.

[balmakboor]

I actually just came across a rare RT thread that captured my imagination. Thought I'd share it over here:

"I read somewhere that Martin Scorsese says that 'Cinema is a matter of what's in the frame and what's out.' I'm not sure if I completely agree with this. But it sounds too deceptively simple to completely write off. What say you?"

I think it can be either taken figuratively to include sound or can be slightly modified as follows to accomplish the same:

Cinema is a matter of what's put in and what's left out.

[Sycophant]

Cinema is a matter of what's put in and what's left out.

This sounds right to me, though I'd say it could probably be applied to all artistic media (specifically storytelling media).

[Sycophant]

Watched two films last night.

I wonder why I don't hear more people (more meaning beyond the one friend I have who loves him) talk about Albert Brooks. His Looking for Comedy in the Muslim World was smart, amusing, though ultimately a bit frail. However, both Lost in America and Defending Your Life (the latter is what I saw last night) have really impressed me. Brooks's hand is very warm and human, even when depicting that oft-reviled late-eighties/early-nineties greed and solipsism. He functions in such a framework and comments on it without being a spiteful, hateful man.

Joe Wright's Pride and Prejudice sure is purty. Also, a surprising human work. I'm unfamiliar with the original Austen text, but I wonder if it even managed as sympathetic a portrait of Mr. Collins as this film did, something I was very apprehensive about initially.

[balmakboor]

This sounds right to me, though I'd say it could probably be applied to all artistic media (specifically storytelling media).

Something like "communication is a matter of what's put in and what's left out" for instance?

[balmakboor]

I wonder why I don't hear more people (more meaning beyond the one friend I have who loves him) talk about Albert Brooks.

baby doll does quite often. (Note: I'm assuming baby doll and soori are the same.)

I haven't seen much Brooks, but I love Lost in America. He's also great in Taxi Driver.

[Sycophant]

Something like "communication is a matter of what's put in and what's left out" for instance?Yes. Something very much like that.

[Rowland]

Are you watchin' this cos of Nick Pinkerton's appraisal in Reverse Shot? I liked it a lot. Wholly efficient and with a refreshingly un-self-conscious 70's vibe. Not great by any means, but one of the better recent films of its ilk.I've seen it before, just felt like revisiting it before watching Wrong Turn 2. Yeah, I liked it too.

[Raiders]

I saw about twenty minutes of Primeval last night and couldn't watch anymore.

Where the hell is Greg Mclean's Rogue???

[baby doll]

I wonder why I don't hear more people (more meaning beyond the one friend I have who loves him) talk about Albert Brooks.Ahem. (http://chuck-a-luck.blogspot.com/2007/07/modern-romance.html)

[monolith94]

Well, Derek Jarman's Edward II was a fantastic surprise. As an update of Christopher Marlowe's classic play about gay love that struggles to survive amidst oppression and worrying about contaminating the crown's fidelity, it's a film that is awash in resplendent imagery. Moreover, Jarman makes an intriguing choice to villainize Isabella (Tilda Swinton) here, as Marlowe left her a tragic suffering figure in his play; here, she colludes to bring her husband down so that she might know of a purer (re: heterosexual) love, and it works within Jarman's constructed film, though it also simplifies some of the gender politics. That said, it is always engaging and never less than enthralling, so I'm pleased to finally get around to Jarman's work.

Where do I go from here? Spinal? Others?
I'd go with his really, really cool adaptation of The Tempest.

[balmakboor]

I'd go with his really, really cool adaptation of The Tempest.

I loved and hated Jubilee in equal measures. That's about all I have other than I disliked his contribution to Aria. (It was much better than Altman's though.)

[Raiders]

Caravaggio was meh, while Blue was awesome. That's all I have seen from Jarman.

[Rowland]

Fracture is added to my weekend viewings. Has anyone seen it?


I saw about twenty minutes of Primeval last night and couldn't watch anymore.That bad, eh? A few critics who I like responded to this fairly positively, so I'll probably give it a spin.

[balmakboor]

Blue was awesome.

Serious? I haven't watched it but I've always wondered how such a thing could work.

[number8]

pretty much.

Meh.

[Rowland]

Frank Darabant has confirmed that he still wants to adapt The Long Walk. I hope he tackles that project next.

[Briare]

Fracture is added to my weekend viewings. Has anyone seen it?

You'll forget you saw this by the time you log onto the internet.

[Boner M]

I saw about twenty minutes of Primeval last night and couldn't watch anymore.

Where the hell is Greg Mclean's Rogue???
It's out here at the moment, but there's too much stuff I'm prioritizing. The clips and trailers I've seen from it make it look crappy, and the reviews have been mostly bad (although I take local critics with a grain of salt; Bobby was raved by all the major publications here, while I haven't read a kind word on Inland Empire yet).

[MadMan]

Frank Darabant has confirmed that he still wants to adapt The Long Walk. I hope he tackles that project next.Considering his track record with Stephen King adaptions I trust him with this. I really need to read more King, but I really have yet to get into horror fiction. I've spent too much time lost in the world of sci-fi and fantasy novels instead.

[Raiders]

It's out here at the moment, but there's too much stuff I'm prioritizing. The clips and trailers I've seen from it make it look crappy, and the reviews have been mostly bad (although I take local critics with a grain of salt; Bobby was raved by all the major publications here, while I haven't read a kind word on Inland Empire yet).

I have read that it was written prior to Wolf Creek and that it is a pretty standard genre film. But, I trust Mclean's visual eye (after all of one film) to make it more interesting than most other filmmakers might.

[balmakboor]

In the spirit of sharing quotes, I came across this one today that I quite like:

"Cinema is there to show us what we would not see without cinema. To expand the word and the image. To make visible what is normally invisible."

--Jean-Claude Carriere, in The Secret Language of Film

[Sycophant]

Ahem. (http://chuck-a-luck.blogspot.com/2007/07/modern-romance.html)I like what you have to say here a lot. Methinks I'll be checking into the rest of his work soon. Which of the seven have you not seen?

[lovejuice]

branagh's as you like it is meh. speaking as someone who's never been a big fan of the play, he probably does his best with the material. the japanese setting is a curiosity. on one hand, is it that necessary since most of the play exists outside the civilization? then again, it really adds a sense of exotic beauty. the production is stunning to look at. both in the palace and the forest. the first fifteen minutes is my favorite -- how many time do we see a ninja attack on screen --but that's quite far from the essence of the play.

[jesse]

Revisited Hitchcock's I Confess this last week, and even if it doesn't quite live up to the greatness of the premise, it's still a really great piece of work. The noirish cinematography is some of his best, and Anne Baxter didn't annoy me nearly as much as she did the first time around (and I'm really intrigued by Truffaut's assertion that creamy flashback is probably unreliable). And even if he's a bit stiff at first, nobody does that repressed paranoia than Monty Clift did.

[jesse]

branagh's as you like it is meh. speaking as someone who's never been a big fan of the play, he probably does his best with the material. the japanese setting is a curiosity. on one hand, is it that necessary since most of the play exists outside the civilization? then again, it really adds a sense of exotic beauty. the production is stunning to look at. both in the palace and the forest. the first fifteen minutes is my favorite -- how many time do we see a ninja attack on screen --but that's quite far from the essence of the play. I keep hearing this, and it's so depressing--I like the play, the cast and was intrigued by the premise...

[baby doll]

I like what you have to say here a lot. Methinks I'll be checking into the rest of his work soon. Which of the seven have you not seen?The Muse.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Revisited Hitchcock's I Confess this last week, and even if it doesn't quite live up to the greatness of the premise, it's still a really great piece of work. The noirish cinematography is some of his best, and Anne Baxter didn't annoy me nearly as much as she did the first time around (and I'm really intrigued by Truffaut's assertion that creamy flashback is probably unreliable). And even if he's a bit stiff at first, nobody does that repressed paranoia than Monty Clift did.
I quite like this film, especially for the visuals and setting. It's a shame more films weren't/aren't made in Quebec City because it's a wonderful clash between the old/new world. The heavy amount of religious iconography is well taken advantage of... falls a little flat overall, but it's thrilling enough to keep me entertained.

[Rowland]

branagh's as you like it is meh. speaking as someone who's never been a big fan of the play, he probably does his best with the material. the japanese setting is a curiosity. on one hand, is it that necessary since most of the play exists outside the civilization? then again, it really adds a sense of exotic beauty. the production is stunning to look at. both in the palace and the forest. the first fifteen minutes is my favorite -- how many time do we see a ninja attack on screen --but that's quite far from the essence of the play.Yeah, I really thought this was just poor. The Japanese milieu is seemingly only used for the sake of shallow exoticism, and the production never gels into anything affecting or even terribly engaging, despite the game efforts by the cast. They spent the last ten minutes dancing and celebrating while I stared at the clock. It all ultimately came across as downright dopey.

[Boner M]

Bastard. Anyway, I don't consider Calendar one of Egoyan's great films, although it is surprisingly funny and light on its feet. Still, I find it just a little too neat; Egoyan is too obviously meant to represent an assimilationist and Khanjian is obviously meant to represent a diasporan and the driver a nationalist (it goes without saying that Egoyan's character is an ass-hole to boot).
Just watched the film, dug it, and I think you're somewhat right regarding the obvious symbolism of each character, but I always felt like I was watching real people instead of 'flesh puppets', which in the naturalistic context of the film is a crucial strength. It kinda a felt a little student film/thesis-ish in some respects, but it succeeds in its own terms & it's very well structured & edited. I particularly liked the repetitions w/ slight changes in perspective & routine during his meetings with his female acquaintances; I love the moment when he shakes out the last few drops of the wine bottle when one of the women asks if he plans to have children.

Minor Egoyan overall, but I think it'll grow upon reflection.

[Yxklyx]

Eh, Calendar is major Egoyan in my book - he's best when he''s bare bones.

1. The Sweet Hereafter
2. Speaking Parts
3. Calendar
4. Exotica

[Mal]

The Lookout is fantastic.

meh.

[Watashi]

Zach Helm is 2 for 2.

Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium is freakin' fantastic.

[ledfloyd]

man. Time by kim ki-duk is quite a film. i'm a pretty big fan of his so i went in with high expectations. i can't really say i was let down. the film is indicative of his directorial talents. but it's so damn disturbing it's hard to really love. i shied away from giving it a four star rating cause there were a couple things that seemed out of place to me. the plastic surgery footage at the beginning is unnecessary i think it was better used when it was later on placed within the context of the film. and there's a big plot twist about 2/3 of the way in that didn't seem in character. but it did pay itself off with the brilliant third act.

but at the end of the day. kim has done what he does best. he's left us with a film that doesn't leave us. one that keeps you thinking for hours, and most likely days if not months or years after you've seen it. i can't imagine ever forgetting that mask image. whether that's a good thing or a bad thing i'm not sure. one of the three or four top notch films i've seen this year. (off hand i'm thinking ratatouille and zodiac, and i'm sure i forgot one more)

in summation: a poignant look at identity and a brilliant study of a fucked up relationship.

anyone else seen this? have any thoughts?

[Qrazy]

I loved and hated Jubilee in equal measures. That's about all I have other than I disliked his contribution to Aria. (It was much better than Altman's though.)

As in love to hate it? It's absolute shit on every possible level.

[soitgoes...]

So I just watched Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter?, and I have to say that its the best comedy of the fifties that I've seen. Not only is it laugh out loud funny, but I had a smile on my face throughout. Brilliant.

[Philosophe_rouge]

So I just watched Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter?, and I have to say that its the best comedy of the fifties that I've seen. Not only is it laugh out loud funny, but I had a smile on my face throughout. Brilliant.
While not my absolutely favourite of the 1950s comedy-wise (Some Like it Hot I prefer), it's up there and a wicked entertaining film. I never expected it to be as good as it was, breaking the third wall, the strange visual interludes, and the final cameo! It's pure greatness.

[Ezee E]

La Vie En Rose is just like all the other biopics we've seen in the last few years. It remains dark the entire way, while focusing mostly on the addictions of Edith Piaf instead of her good contributions. Granted, there is plenty of singing, but there's much more of her drinking and yelling.

Marion Cotillard, who has been raved about for her performance, deserves it. Daniel Day-Lewis said that she's too good for a movie like this, and he's right. She almost makes a bad movie into a good one on her own. It's rare that foreign performances get nominated for Oscars, and this might be one of those.

[Ivan Drago]

meh.

I second that. Despite the great performances, I thought that The Lookout was pretty much a straightforward heist film and nothing more.

[DSNT]

La Vie En Rose is just like all the other biopics we've seen in the last few years. It remains dark the entire way, while focusing mostly on the addictions of Edith Piaf instead of her good contributions. Granted, there is plenty of singing, but there's much more of her drinking and yelling.

Marion Cotillard, who has been raved about for her performance, deserves it. Daniel Day-Lewis said that she's too good for a movie like this, and he's right. She almost makes a bad movie into a good one on her own. It's rare that foreign performances get nominated for Oscars, and this might be one of those.
I just finished this up and pretty much agree on all accounts. Cotillard was great, but was let down by a humdrum script and the borrowed-from-Hollywood biopic formula.

[Ivan Drago]

Above The Law (Steven Seagal's film debut) is unbelievably bad. I'm still stupefied about how Seagal can snap a guy's forearm in two.

[balmakboor]

As in love to hate it? It's absolute shit on every possible level.

I wouldn't say that. I had a smile on my face about half the time and a need to puke during the other half. Then again, Jarman isn't a director I feel like going to the ends of the Earth to defend so I'll just leave it at that.

One of my Internet friends is a big Jarman fan though. Here is his page on Jubilee:

http://jclarkmedia.com/jarman/jarman02jubilee.html

[dreamdead]

Miike's Dead or Alive is a film that works best when it's unconcerned with narrative or logic. By that, I mean to suggest that the visual lyricism and editing in the opening eight minutes are wonderful executed. Once the film remembers it has to tell a narrative, the film loses some of its initial luster, as the characters are more or less traditional archetypes and thus not as engaging as they were in the opening when they're blank slates. That said, the film's finale is still bloody brilliant.

Probably will give Birds a whirl in the next month.

[Rowland]

man. Time by kim ki-duk is quite a film. i'm a pretty big fan of his so i went in with high expectations. i can't really say i was let down. the film is indicative of his directorial talents. but it's so damn disturbing it's hard to really love. i shied away from giving it a four star rating cause there were a couple things that seemed out of place to me. the plastic surgery footage at the beginning is unnecessary i think it was better used when it was later on placed within the context of the film. and there's a big plot twist about 2/3 of the way in that didn't seem in character. but it did pay itself off with the brilliant third act.

but at the end of the day. kim has done what he does best. he's left us with a film that doesn't leave us. one that keeps you thinking for hours, and most likely days if not months or years after you've seen it. i can't imagine ever forgetting that mask image. whether that's a good thing or a bad thing i'm not sure. one of the three or four top notch films i've seen this year. (off hand i'm thinking ratatouille and zodiac, and i'm sure i forgot one more)

in summation: a poignant look at identity and a brilliant study of a fucked up relationship.

anyone else seen this? have any thoughts?I just watched this last night and thought it was pretty "meh." Thoughts to come.

[Rowland]

I'm still stupefied about how Seagal can snap a guy's forearm in two.That's like his signature move. Don't be hatin'.

[Ezee E]

That's like his signature move. Don't be hatin'.
Next thing you know, Ivan will be wondering how Chuck Norris' tears cure cancer.

[Mr. Valentine]

Zach Helm is 2 for 2.

Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium is freakin' fantastic.

i couldn't believe that Entertainment Weekly gave it an F. they never give anything an F, the reviewer must have really hated it.

[megladon8]

Pierrot le Fou is playing in a theatre in town.

Is that one I should check out if I get a chance?

[Watashi]

i couldn't believe that Entertainment Weekly gave it an F. they never give anything an F, the reviewer must have really hated it.
The critics hating the film makes the film even more enjoyable. The tomatometer is delicious irony considering the main theme of the film.

[Winston*]

The tomatometer is delicious irony considering the main theme of the film.
Explain, please.

[Rowland]

Explain, please.Probably something about becoming cynical and hardened to the appreciation of garish CGI-animated magic.

[Rowland]

I've seen it before, just felt like revisiting it before watching Wrong Turn 2. Yeah, I liked it too.I take that back. Wrong Turn is pretty useless; Sicinski nails it (http://academichack.net/reviewsJune2003.htm#Wrong_Turn ). At least it's very nearly cut to the bone, clocking in pre-credits at <80 minutes.

[Derek]

Pierrot le Fou is playing in a theatre in town.

Is that one I should check out if I get a chance?

Have you seen anything else from Godard? Unless you're already a fan of his, this is likely not the film that'll win you over. It doesn't seem like a film you'd like, but of course I can't be sure.

[Ezee E]

i couldn't believe that Entertainment Weekly gave it an F. they never give anything an F, the reviewer must have really hated it.
A lot of the movies that they give Fs to, turn out to be really good.

[Ezee E]

A lot of the movies that they give Fs to, turn out to be really good.
Wow. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly is a great great movie. What a great look at the appreciation of life, and what a great approach to the movie. A few pages back we talked about how movies can't use the first-person angle to their advantage.

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly does it for a good amount of the movie, and succeeds.

Spielberg fans, did you know Janusz Kaminski is the DP for this? He hasn't left Spielberg to DP a movie since... Little Giants.

[Derek]

Wow. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly is a great great movie. What a great look at the appreciation of life, and what a great approach to the movie. A few pages back we talked about how movies can't use the first-person angle to their advantage.

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly does it for a good amount of the movie, and succeeds.

Indeed. It's rare that the first-person camera is used effectively and this film uses it brilliantly for far longer than any film I can think of. Glad you loved it - one of my favorites of the year. Hopefully this will get Mathieu Almaric more great roles.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Wow. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly is a great great movie. What a great look at the appreciation of life, and what a great approach to the movie. A few pages back we talked about how movies can't use the first-person angle to their advantage.

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly does it for a good amount of the movie, and succeeds.

Spielberg fans, did you know Janusz Kaminski is the DP for this? He hasn't left Spielberg to DP a movie since... Little Giants.
I'm still :frustrated: because I missed this when it played here for like two days. I only found out when it was too late :cry:

[Boner M]

Hmm. Am I the only person in the world - aside from anti-censorship fanatics - that liked Ken Park? I won't deny that Korine and Clark's pursuit of realism via pushing perversity and depravity to it's limits is eye-rollingly juvenile in theory, but their purity of vision results in some strikingly poetic and poignant moments, and the film is beautifully photographed to boot. After liking this and Bully I think I can call myself an apologist for Clark; it's been too long since I saw Kids but I might rewatch that sometime.

[Ezee E]

I'm pretty sure that the director "blackANDwhite" is David Lynch. In which case he directed a movie about himself directing another movie. I mean, several conversations are with Lynch on the phone in which he could simply be facing the camera. The rest is a behind-the-scenes of "Inland Empire" whose title is never mentioned as far as I'm aware of.

What a surprise though. Lynch is a strange, crazy, but mostly nice man. Despite all his craziness, which we do see, we also see how he's able to get his vision on screen when speaking with his actors and crew. He's very direct, articulate, and confident of his decisions. Everyone trusts him and rolls with it. It's pretty neat to see that aspect of him rather then the one of him talking about meditation and whatnot.

Probably worth watching if you're a Lynch fan, otherwise, I'm not so sure.

[Ivan Drago]

Next thing you know, Ivan will be wondering how Chuck Norris' tears cure cancer.

No, I know that already. After all, the US wanted to use Chuck Norris against the Japs during WWII, but they thought it was too powerful. So they dropped the bomb instead.

[Mysterious Dude]

I'm going to see The Earrings of Madame de on the big screen today. I'm excited.

[jesse]

I'd go with his really, really cool adaptation of The Tempest. Indeed. One of my favorites--I think you'd really dig it, dreamdead.

Edward, on the other hand, jumps up near the top of the queue (it's been hovering there for a while now).

[MacGuffin]

Two quick thoughts:

1. If 2008 turns out to be a horrible year, at least we'll have the Zodiac Director's Cut, which we can always put on the top of our year's end lists.

2. Ratatouille is the best film I've seen so far this year. It's even better than Wes Anderson's movies. It simply gets it all right. The French atmosphere is a perfect environmental backdrop for the story, the characters are all built in a way so that their personalities are flawless, and the voice work is impeccable. Anton Ego is simply one of the best, most funniest characters in recent memory. His review at the end is one of the best scenes in any animated movie I can remember. Overall, this is the best animated movie I've seen since Toy Story.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I watched Ratatouille last night, and while I enjoyed it, I didn't think it was anything to get excited about. The animation was superb, some of the best I've seen, but I wasn't terribly impressed by the voice work, and the story itself was nice, but nothing impressive. It was a good film, nothing more.

[ledfloyd]

I watched Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978) last night. The goofy jellyfish martians during the opening credits had me thinking it was going to be terrible but it was actually quite good. The paranoic side of the story suits the conspiracy picture of the 70s quite well. Those were my favorite parts. Donald Sutherland and Jeff Goldblum were both great too. The special effects on the other hand are extremely dated. Laughably so. The "birth" sequence looked ridiculous. The movie it self is quite taut though if you can get past that. 1978 was a banner year for horror. With this, Halloween, and Dawn of the Dead.

[Rowland]

The special effects on the other hand are extremely dated. Laughably so. The "birth" sequence looked ridiculous. Seriously? I think they look great.

[soitgoes...]

I'm going to see The Earrings of Madame de on the big screen today. I'm excited.
You're a lucky man. Enjoy a great movie!

[Eleven]

The special effects on the other hand are extremely dated. Laughably so.

Robert Duvall on a swing and

http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/8006/dog2mo7.jpg

disagree.

[ledfloyd]

Robert Duvall on a swing and

http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/8006/dog2mo7.jpg

disagree.

robert duvall on a swing was awesome. i had to rewind real quick to see if it was for realz.

[Rowland]

Robert Duvall on a swing and

http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/8006/dog2mo7.jpg

disagree.I think the pod effects have aged really well too.

[Mysterious Dude]

I thought the effects were fine, but I don't think that's really important.

That movie really altered my perception of remakes. It really is just about as good as the Don Siegel film, but in completely different ways. In some ways, it is an improvement on the original (the acting is better, it is quite a bit more clear how the pods replace the original bodies, etc.), but those flaws did not really bother me in the original, either.

It's a weird situation that I still can't comprehend.

[Rowland]

It's a weird situation that I still can't comprehend.A story told twice doesn't have to be markedly worse (or even worse at all) the second time. *shrug*

[Raiders]

Jeepers Creepers II (Victor Salva, 2003) ***

:eek:

Yuck.

[MadMan]

Robert Duvall on a swing and

http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/8006/dog2mo7.jpg

disagree.WTF is the thing in the spoiler? Is that really in the film?

I plan on seeing The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford and 3:10 To Yuma since they are at my local cheap theater in my home town and I'm home for the week. I will hopefully get to at least one of those. I love westerns.

[Rowland]

:eek:

Yuck.I'm probably overrating it by half a star, but that's admittedly in some part a response to how unfairly trashed it was. Salva has a keen eye, an accomplished sense of pacing, and a sly mentality that make for some fine B-grade genre cinema. Analyzing the movie with an autuerist approach is fascinating as well, if not more than a little creepy in the tensions between Salva rocking out with his cock out (figuratively and literally) and his raw self-flagellation, establishing a thorny layer just below the skillfully crafted surface pleasures that compliments the whole. All in all though, it's just an entertaining ride. He's writing and directing a third one now, I'm happy to hear.

[Eleven]

WTF is the thing in the spoiler? Is that really in the film?

Yep, only one of man unforgettably bizarre images in the flick.

[Mr. Valentine]

:eek:

Yuck.

yeah, what an awful movie. i watched it a second time knowing the charges against the director and it's even more disgusting.

[Melville]

I watched Into the Wild last night. Here are my thoughts:


When I was younger, I was keenly interested in the idea of “pure” freedom: being completely independent of all social bounds, creating oneself howsoever one wishes. This idea has a central part in (at least one permutation of) the American dream, in the archetype of the lone frontiersman striking off into the great unknown and claiming absolute independence for himself. It has been a recurring theme in modern art and philosophy: perhaps most prominently, it was fetishized in the novels of Jack London and glamorized in a more moderate form in Thoreau’s Walden (which, embarrassingly, I’ve never read). In Death of a Salesman and Douglas Sirk’s All that Heaven Allows, it was presented as an ideal alternative to the endless, destructive strictures of society (although somewhat humorously in Sirk’s film).

Now that I’m a bit older, I’ve come to realize the absurdity of this dream (at least when it is taken to extremes): our very existence is inherently an existence-with-others, and the dream of absolute freedom is an impossible one. Many of my favorite works of art (for example, Melville’s novels, Heidegger’s Being and Nothingness, and Capra’s It’s a Wonderful Life) revolve around the phenomenological and metaphysical foundations of this impossibility.

Anyway, the point is that the hero of Into the Wild, Chris McCandless (aka Alexander Supertramp), unabashedly embraces the notion of ultimate freedom, preaches about it to any old man, naïve young girl, or burned out hippie that will listen, and ends up dying in the Alaskan wilderness because of it. McCandless is aware of the literary tradition that I’ve mentioned, and he approaches his quest for freedom specifically in terms of this tradition. Because of this, the film has a unique opportunity to address the tradition, to critique and comment on it; alternatively, it has the opportunity to uncritically idolize its hero and all his literary predecessors. I think that some of the posters on here have criticized Penn’s film for doing the latter, but I think it actually attempts to do the former.

The film alternates between scenes in the Alaskan wilderness and McCandless’ journey across America that leads there. The Alaskan scenes by themselves could be just another Jack London-esque story of Man in his solitude with Nature, but the scenes from his earlier life provide an ongoing counterpoint to this story. Throughout his journey, McCandless never finds meaning in solitude, although, perhaps, he thinks he does; instead, he continually finds meaning in the company of others—the wise old man, the earthy farm workers, the traveling hippies, the young girl with a crush on him, the naked, foreign gamblers, even the guy who drives him out to the trailhead in Alaska and gives him a pair of boots. And McCandless’ sister provides ongoing narration informing us of the narcissistic source of his discontent with society: he refuses to accept or forgive the failings of his parents.

Specific scenes augment this subversion of McCandless’ “great Alaskan adventure.” Early on, right after writing an idiotically grandiose manifesto about his ultimate freedom, McCandless is unable to shoot a deer because it is followed by its offspring. Later, he tells us in a voiceover about humanity’s need to find meaning by testing its own limits and proving its strength, referring to him conquering his fear of water by swimming with a hippie; but the cinematography makes clear that the true meaning of this hippie-swim is in the reunion of two hippie lovers. Most prominently, almost every time that McCandless leaves the people whom he has befriended, they are left in tears. The film lingers on these tears far too long for me to believe that it blindly supports McCandless’ dream.

Eventually the two narrative threads converge. In the Alaskan wilderness thread, McCandless reads a Tolstoy story which makes him realize that all he wants from life is to help people, read some books, and raise a family. Apparently struck by the profundity of this notion, he immediately heads out of the wilderness. Unfortunately, a flooded river (and his general incompetence) prevents him from getting back to the highway, so he returns to his magic bus and slowly starves to death. He writes in his diary that he is lonely and scared, and that he has realized that happiness only exists when it is shared. In the other narrative thread, about his cross-country journey, McCandless meets a kindly old man who tells him that the true beauty of existence is found in God’s love, and that the only way to get that love is to forgive people their failings. During his slow starvation, McCandless manages to connect his ideas about the good, child-raising, book-reading life, with the old man's ideas about love and forgiveness; hence, he forgives his parents and dies smiling with God’s light shining on him.

So, given this narrative structure, what is the film’s stance? It seems to me that it simultaneously acknowledges the impossibility of McCandless’ dream, while admiring his foolhardy search for it. And, like It’s a Wonderful Life, it suggests that one can only truly appreciate the value of social bonds once one has ventured outside them—once one has seen their limits and can walks the line of those limits. The shot of McCandless returning to his parents to embrace them seems to support this interpretation: the camera initially shows him smiling, but then it reveals his face become uncertain, as he wonders whether his parents could ever benefit from his forgiveness once they were rebound by social concerns; or, put another way, he wonders whether he could bring his newfound understanding with him when returning to society.

Now, all of this seems like it could form a good story and a great critique of the naive quest for ultimate freedom, but the film is, unfortunately, an overblown mess. The sister’s narration is painfully melodramatic, McCandless is one-note and irritating in his naivete and clownish bravado, the endless slow-motion is ham-fisted and tiresome, the film’s structure is pointlessly repetitive, and the old man’s moral lesson about forgiveness really should have occurred before McCandless had his Tolstoy-induced epiphany (the way it is now just muddles the point of the final half hour). Also, the portrait of the real-life McCandless at the end instantly made him seem more real than the caricature that we saw throughout the rest of the film. His face seemed so much older and livelier than Emile Hirsch’s, and it suggested to me that the film’s themes would have been far better served if the central character had a bit more depth.

Edited to amend typos.

[Melville]

I guess that post turned out to be much too long for the FDT. Mods: feel free to move it to its own thread.

[Eleven]

Ah, basking in the shadowy glow of Lang does the body good. Hangmen Also Die does a great job of turning an ostensibly straightforward propagandistic plot teem with tension, inspired compositions, and an indelible cast of characters, especially Walter Brennan as a Czech patriarch arrested by the Nazis for an assassination he didn't commit. It's right up there with Le Corbeau, released the same year, in building tension and paranoia with a haunting, fatalistic visual style and a solid cast who, in the Lang film's case, are in no way of the ethnic type they're supposed to be. And it doesn't matter a bit.

[Rowland]

So, Fracture... is there anything to say? No, not really. Most critics who liked the movie seem to praise it primarily for the performances, but since I'm not really an acting-centric viewer, and I didn't notice anything particularly noteworthy on that front besides how frequently goofy the leads were and how greatly some of the co-stars were wasted, well... *shrug* I suppose it's fine for what it is, a joyless mediocrity shot with a superficially pretty style. Mr. Brooks exists in a similar realm as this movie, only it's more unhinged and thus more fun to watch.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Meville I have similar thoughts on the film, and rate it 4 or 5. My main quibbles were the uneven tone, as well as the cinematography, editing, font use, and anything to do with the presentation. It felt like a huge and ugly montage to me, there was no beauty in the shots, and some sequences felt more like a fashion shoot than a film. When small details like the overuse of words (and using obnoxious fonts) add up, it again removes from the film for me. Striking the balance between showing the "dark side" of his actions, as well as admiring them never felt quite right for me. Too much slow motion, too many close-ups (I am a close-up fanatic, but it's more they weren't used to great effect). I'm not even a big fan of the soundtrack. Overall a big meh from me.

[Grouchy]

Haven't been watching a lot lately, but I did pack in Payback, the Mel Gibson one. It's the bluest movie I've ever seen. Besides that, it's a good noirish revenge thriller, extremely violent and with a character far too unlikeable for most mainstream films. Nice women, too. I read Brian Helgeland has just finished a Director's Cut for this, which cuts Kristofferson's character and shows the protagonist as even more of an asshole. I'd see it.

[Mysterious Dude]

Haven't been watching a lot lately, but I did pack in Payback, the Mel Gibson one. It's the bluest movie I've ever seen. Besides that, it's a good noirish revenge thriller, extremely violent and with a character far too unlikeable for most mainstream films. Nice women, too. I read Brian Helgeland has just finished a Director's Cut for this, which cuts Kristofferson's character and shows the protagonist as even more of an asshole. I'd see it.

I've heard his version is less blue.

[Duncan]

I watched Into the Wild last night. Here are my thoughts:

So, given this narrative structure, what is the film’s stance? It seems to me that it simultaneously acknowledges the impossibility of McCandless’ dream, while admiring his foolhardy search for it. And, like It’s a Wonderful Life, it suggests that one can only truly appreciate the value of social bonds once one has ventured outside them—once one has seen their limits and can walks the line of those limits. The shot of McCandless returning to his parents to embrace them seems to support this interpretation: the camera initially shows him smiling, but then it reveals his face become uncertain, as he wonders whether his parents could ever benefit from his forgiveness once they were rebound by social concerns; or, put another way, he wonders whether he could bring his newfound understanding with him when returning to society.


Interesting paragraph, especially the last bit. I feel similarly about the quality of the film, though I suppose I'd give it a higher score.

[Sycophant]

Haven't been watching a lot lately, but I did pack in Payback, the Mel Gibson one. It's the bluest movie I've ever seen. Besides that, it's a good noirish revenge thriller, extremely violent and with a character far too unlikeable for most mainstream films. Nice women, too. I read Brian Helgeland has just finished a Director's Cut for this, which cuts Kristofferson's character and shows the protagonist as even more of an asshole. I'd see it.
The director's cut is the only cut I've seen. It's decidedly less blue and--from what I've read--decidedly darker and more unlikeable. I also had something of a blast with the film.

[Cult]

Just got back from seeing No Country. I was a wee bit underwhelmed, but I'm thinking that's probably due to all the rabid praise--and thus unfair. I still really liked it...but...

Again, I just saw it, so I'll post again after the thoughts collect themselves more.

[Boner M]

Man, Time Out is excellent, but so depressing/discomforting/difficult to watch. That's probably because I lost my job recently and identified with Vincent up until a point, and considering his actions, I commend the skill of the filmmaking for inviting empathy toward such a thoroughly unlikeable and nihilistic character. Brilliantly controlled direction and acting, compelling throughout, but not something I ever plan on seeing again. Way too miserable.

[MadMan]

Haven't been watching a lot lately, but I did pack in Payback, the Mel Gibson one. It's the bluest movie I've ever seen. Besides that, it's a good noirish revenge thriller, extremely violent and with a character far too unlikeable for most mainstream films. Nice women, too. I read Brian Helgeland has just finished a Director's Cut for this, which cuts Kristofferson's character and shows the protagonist as even more of an asshole. I'd see it.I enjoy the hell out of that movie, even though the original version (Point Blank) is superior. Still its awesome to see Mel Gibson playing a bad guy, and some of the action sequences are cool.

[Yum-Yum]

Hmm. Am I the only person in the world - aside from anti-censorship fanatics - that liked Ken Park?

Nope. I saw it on the big screen at the 2003 TIFF and thought it was a delightful romp. Though, I have to say, the auto-erotic asphyxiation scene had me squirming in my seat. The act itself was fine, but the fact that the guy was watching women's tennis as he did it was kinda off-putting.

[origami_mustache]

Hmm. Am I the only person in the world - aside from anti-censorship fanatics - that liked Ken Park? I won't deny that Korine and Clark's pursuit of realism via pushing perversity and depravity to it's limits is eye-rollingly juvenile in theory, but their purity of vision results in some strikingly poetic and poignant moments, and the film is beautifully photographed to boot. After liking this and Bully I think I can call myself an apologist for Clark; it's been too long since I saw Kids but I might rewatch that sometime.

I am a fan of most of Clark's work and although I liked Ken Park, it left me wondering what the purpose was more than any of his other films.

[ledfloyd]

I just watched Hiroshima, Mon Amour. I'm kind of torn on it. The opening 15 minutes was amazing and depressing and fantastic. But once we got to know the characters I kinda checked out a little bit. I think it was mostly due to the girl reminding me too much of someone I knew that annoys me. Not the films fault. I need to watch it again and try to ignore that connection. It's my first experience with Resnais, and on the whole I'd say it's a positive one. The opening voiceover/discussion is sooo strong, and the score during it is fantastic. It doesn't seem to fit the images, but in an odd way it does.

I've been on a pretty solid streak of good movies here lately.

[balmakboor]

Just wondering if anyone else has been watching Berlin Alexanderplatz. For me, it is the most significant DVD release of all time and I've been savoring it episode by episode. (Actually, I've just been too busy to schedule a 15 1/2 hour marathon.) I've watched episodes 1 thru 5 so far and consider all except possibly episode 3 to be among Fassbinder's greatest works.

[Melville]

Man, Time Out is excellent, but so depressing/discomforting/difficult to watch. That's probably because I lost my job recently and identified with Vincent up until a point, and considering his actions, I commend the skill of the filmmaking for inviting empathy toward such a thoroughly unlikeable and nihilistic character. Brilliantly controlled direction and acting, compelling throughout, but not something I ever plan on seeing again. Way too miserable.
I love that movie. Few movies so perfectly capture the feeling of numbing hopelessness. The ending, with the protagonist looking completely desperate even as he's offered another chance, was perfect. Now that's despair!

[Sycophant]

Penny Serenade loses at least a star for its horrible ending.

[jesse]

As I know he has a certain reputation in these parts, I thought I'd mention the first of a two-part conversation with Brad Bird has gone up at the website I write for (and if you're there you might as well check out my review of Zoo which went up today too): DVD Verdict (www.dvdverdict.com).

[Raiders]

Hey, I didn't know you were Judge Ataide (didn't know your last name). I read that site a lot, and actually just skimmed your review for Philippe Garrel's Regular Lovers the other day.

[baby doll]

Just wondering if anyone else has been watching Berlin Alexanderplatz. For me, it is the most significant DVD release of all time and I've been savoring it episode by episode. (Actually, I've just been too busy to schedule a 15 1/2 hour marathon.) I've watched episodes 1 thru 5 so far and consider all except possibly episode 3 to be among Fassbinder's greatest works.I've been dying to check it out, but I haven't had time.

[Spinal]

9 to 5: The Musical (http://www.playbill.com/news/article/110626.html)