28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[baby doll]

I think it's his best."His," referring to Park Chan-wook. I mean, I liked Old Boy, but let's not go nuts--it's not exactly Alain Resnais we're talking about.

[Spinal]

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

Yeah, there are some ill-advised pop culture gags, but are there really that many? If so I didn't notice. For the most part, I think the film stays on task.

[Grouchy]

"His," referring to Park Chan-wook. I mean, I liked Old Boy, but let's not go nuts--it's not exactly Alain Resnais we're talking about.
I think we should forbid the sentence "let's not go nuts" and synonims on these forums. It's always a warning sign for elephant shit.

[Qrazy]

I think we should forbid the sentence "let's not go nuts" and synonims on these forums. It's always a warning sign for elephant shit.

I dunno, I quite liked my semi-synonymous 'Mr. Vengeance isn't nearly formally adept enough to inspire a cascading love explosion'.

[DavidSeven]

I still say Lady Vengeance is the absolute best of the trilogy. It just clicks for me on all levels. It will be seen as the peak of Park's aesthetic craft, and what he accomplishes on that level is nothing short of remarkable. The film is the funniest, most dramatic, and most emotional of the series. The morality presented in the film is also the least cut and dry of the three, which makes it the most stimulating but also accounts for a lot of the negative reactions its received. Masterful film.

[number8]

I still say Lady Vengeance is the absolute best of the trilogy.

I have a feeling I agree, and if I remember correctly after I saw it for the first time I pretty much declared that it was. But I'll have to see the three films back to back some day. Right now, I still contend that I like all three films about on the same level.

[Grouchy]

I dunno, I quite liked my semi-synonymous 'Mr. Vengeance isn't nearly formally adept enough to inspire a cascading love explosion'.
I thought about that for some time. A lot of images of cascades, love and explosions came up. I'm currently on a porn search.

[transmogrifier]

I have a feeling I agree, and if I remember correctly after I saw it for the first time I pretty much declared that it was. But I'll have to see the three films back to back some day. Right now, I still contend that I like all three films about on the same level.


My next scheduled back-to-backers:

King Kong (1933), King Kong (1976), King Kong (2005)
The Vengeance Trilogy

As soon as I find the time, that is.

[Rowland]

I still say Lady Vengeance is the absolute best of the trilogy. It just clicks for me on all levels. It will be seen as the peak of Park's aesthetic craft, and what he accomplishes on that level is nothing short of remarkable. The film is the funniest, most dramatic, and most emotional of the series. The morality presented in the film is also the least cut and dry of the three, which makes it the most stimulating but also accounts for a lot of the negative reactions its received. Masterful film.It left me cold, but there are elements about it that I admire. Morality-wise, it may be the most cut and dry of the three, so I definitely disagree there, and I find its aesthetic too polished and synthetic for my taste. Mr. Vengeance is still the most appealing of all his movies for me on that level.

[baby doll]

I think we should forbid the sentence "let's not go nuts" and synonims on these forums. It's always a warning sign for elephant shit.I think we should make it our slogan, and insist on keeping things in perspective.

[DavidSeven]

Morality-wise, it may be the most cut and dry of the three, so I definitely disagree there

Yeah, we're in complete disagreement here. The protagonists in the first two films suffer consequences, written into the narrative, as a result of their quest for vengeance. The protagonist of Lady Vengeance... is physically unscathed by the end of the film and so are all the families who take part in the act of revenge. I think there's definitely more gray area there.

[Boner M]

Wanda is very, very good. Interesting to see an American art film from the 70's that doesn't feel slavishly indebted to its European counterparts (Antonioni, Bresson, et al). It's rare that 'dreary' and 'poorly made' are virtues in a film, but Loden manages to pull it off. Wish I didn't watch it with an annoying film class audience, though.

[Rowland]

The protagonist of Lady Vengeance... is physically unscathed by the end of the film and so are all the families who take part in the act of revenge. I think there's definitely more gray area there.By giving them an uber-evil straw man to enact their revenge upon. The movie is more interested in its labyrinth narrative and stylistic tics than it is exploring morality. It all comes across as a lark to me, and the emotional conflicts feel phony, so any attempted pathos is dull at best.

[DavidSeven]

By giving them an uber-evil straw man to enact their revenge upon. The movie is more interested in its labyrinth narrative and stylistic tics than it is exploring morality. It all comes across as a lark to me, and the emotional conflicts feel phony, so any attempted pathos is dull at best.

Agree to disagree, I suppose. In regards to the aesthetic, I can dig a polished and synthetic look if it looks like this, and it adds to the dry and offbeat vibe of the whole film. It might strip it of some "soul," but I'd liken it to how Kubrick's excessively polished visuals add to the cerebral vibe of his films.

[number8]

By giving them an uber-evil straw man to enact their revenge upon.

But... that's the point. It's about the morality of the act of revenge itself, not the characters involved. That's why the villain is an uber-evil rapist/child murderer, and the hero is an angelic, kind-hearted pretty lady. It wouldn't have been the same case any other way.

Mr. Vengeance was about the tragedy of revenge, showing how it begets more revenge and more violence. Oldboy was about the ridiculousness of revenge, showing how it can start with the most trivial of acts. Lady Vengeance was about the corrupting nature of revenge. It basically asks if and how the act is ever justified.

[megladon8]

I was really confused by Lady Vengeance.

It was not at all what I expected - and not just because of the ads, which made it look like an action movie.

[Qrazy]

I still say Lady Vengeance is the absolute best of the trilogy. It just clicks for me on all levels. It will be seen as the peak of Park's aesthetic craft, and what he accomplishes on that level is nothing short of remarkable. The film is the funniest, most dramatic, and most emotional of the series. The morality presented in the film is also the least cut and dry of the three, which makes it the most stimulating but also accounts for a lot of the negative reactions its received. Masterful film.

I'd have to agree with others that his artistic sensibilities and experimentation tend to overwhelm the narrative and even the tonal thread of the film. That's why I'd rank it second after Oldboy because I think he strikes the best balance between all constituent elements there... but even then I don't think that film is a masterpiece.

[Qrazy]

Yeah, we're in complete disagreement here. The protagonists in the first two films suffer consequences, written into the narrative, as a result of their quest for vengeance. The protagonist of Lady Vengeance... is physically unscathed by the end of the film and so are all the families who take part in the act of revenge. I think there's definitely more gray area there.

Let them eat caaaaaaaaaake.

[number8]

Adding to my previous post: I believe it's also why Park Chan-wook wrote Lady Vengeance's starting premise to be a combination of the previous two films (child murder + 15 years imprisonment). It's an all-encompassing comment on revenge as a whole--the next step in asking its questionable ethics.

[Qrazy]

Adding to my previous post: I believe it's also why Park Chan-wook wrote Lady Vengeance's starting premise to be a combination of the previous two films (child murder + 15 years imprisonment). It's an all-encompassing comment on revenge as a whole--the next step in asking its questionable ethics.

So, thoughts on Lady Vengeance herself?

I'd hit it.

[Rowland]

It might strip it of some "soul," but I'd liken it to how Kubrick's excessively polished visuals add to the cerebral vibe of his films.Well, that strikes me as something of an erroneous correlation, because if anything, Mr. Vengeance is probably the closest Park has come to making anything that could be considered comparable to the aesthetic traits attributed to Kubrick. Lady Vengeance is an altogether different approach to excessively polished visuals. But I understand what you're getting at otherwise.

[Rowland]

It basically asks if and how the act is ever justified.And it sure seems to be, at least until Lady Vengeance is haunted in the bathroom and buries her face in a tofu cake. I understood the theme, I just thought it was explored in a facile manner.

[number8]

So, thoughts on Lady Vengeance herself?

I'd hit it.

I'd probably go down on Choi Min Sik first, but sure.

[D_Davis]

I thought Lady Vengeance really solidified the fact that the films are as much about family bonds as they are revenge.

[dreamdead]

The Whole Wide World is a small little narrative tracing the life of Conan author Robert Howard (Vincent D'Onofrio) and a sometimes friendship, sometimes star-crossed love with a schoolteacher (Renee Zellweger). It's not the most original story in the world in that it largely chronicles the neuroses that prevented Howard from ever securing a romance, even if those same pathologies found refuge in his stories, yet the performances are wonderful. D'Onofrio is typically excellent, and less-than-usual-squinting Zellweger and an admittedly intrusive score nonetheless complement the bravura of D'Onofrio's work. Certainly not great filmmaking, but there's often a great shot or sequence that keeps things from being too middling.

[D_Davis]

The Whole Wide World is a small little narrative tracing the life of Conan author Robert Howard (Vincent D'Onofrio) and a sometimes friendship, sometimes star-crossed love with a schoolteacher (Renee Zellweger). It's not the most original story in the world in that it largely chronicles the neuroses that prevented Howard from ever securing a romance, even if those same pathologies found refuge in his stories, yet the performances are wonderful. D'Onofrio is typically excellent, and less-than-usual-squinting Zellweger and an admittedly intrusive score nonetheless complement the bravura of D'Onofrio's work. Certainly not great filmmaking, but there's often a great shot or sequence that keeps things from being too middling.

I want to see this.

It would be fascinating to make a movie about the early days of the Weird Tales mag, and all of the amazing literary talent discovered within its pages. Authors like Bradbury, Clark Ashton Smith, Lovecraft, and Howard all got their start here. It could make for a really neat film.

[megladon8]

I'm still not sure how Park feels about revenge.

Is he for or against it?

Did he see Oh Daesu as deserving revenge? Or was he saying that Woo-jin Lee deserved revenge against Oh Daesu?

Or is he taking the "two wrongs don't make a right" stance?



I still say Lady Vengeance is the absolute best of the trilogy. It just clicks for me on all levels. It will be seen as the peak of Park's aesthetic craft, and what he accomplishes on that level is nothing short of remarkable. The film is the funniest, most dramatic, and most emotional of the series. The morality presented in the film is also the least cut and dry of the three, which makes it the most stimulating but also accounts for a lot of the negative reactions its received. Masterful film.

While I don't agree - Oldboy is not only my favorite of the trilogy, but exists somewhere in my top 10 of all time - it still makes me happy to see someone make such a connection with Park's work.

I remember back on RT when I had first seen Oldboy, people saying it was melodramatic and unaffecting - I still find it devastating and beautiful.

And I agree that Park's style is at its best in Lady Vengeance. I just happen to like Oldboy more - Min-sik Choi's performance blew my freaking socks off.

[megladon8]

The Letter was really good - mainly due to Bette Davis' great performance.

This is actually the first film I've seen her in.

Hoping to watch Mildred Pierce tonight, which will also be the first Joan Crawford movie I've seen.

[Philosophe_rouge]

The Letter was really good - mainly due to Bette Davis' great performance.

This is actually the first film I've seen her in.

Hoping to watch Mildred Pierce tonight, which will also be the first Joan Crawford movie I've seen.
I'm not a huge fan of The Letter, and as far as I'm concerned you can only do better in terms of Davis and Wyler. Still entertaining enough.

Mildred Pierce is a lot better, I love those mother-centric-noirs. Probably my favourite Crawford, although I haven't seen that much.

[megladon8]

I'm not a huge fan of The Letter, and as far as I'm concerned you can only do better in terms of Davis and Wyler. Still entertaining enough.

Mildred Pierce is a lot better, I love those mother-centric-noirs. Probably my favourite Crawford, although I haven't seen that much.


Well, I got that "Bette Davis Collection", and we just happened to choose The Letter to watch first.

It also includes:

Dark Victory
Mr. Skeffington
Now, Voyager
The Star

And as for William Wyler, I saw Detective Story a few days ago and loved it.

And I have The Heiress waiting.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Well, I got that "Bette Davis Collection", and we just happened to choose The Letter to watch first.

It also includes:

Dark Victory
Mr. Skeffington
Now, Voyager
The Star

And as for William Wyler, I saw Detective Story a few days ago and loved it.

And I have The Heiress waiting.
Dark Victory is my favourite of the bunch, Skeffington has it's moments and Now, Voyager is very romantic. All About Eve is a must-see. I still haven't seen The STar :(

Haven't seen Detective Story either, The Heiress is great

[megladon8]

Dark Victory is my favourite of the bunch, Skeffington has it's moments and Now, Voyager is very romantic. All About Eve is a must-see. I still haven't seen The STar :(

Haven't seen Detective Story either, The Heiress is great


OoOoOo...I give Detective Story two thumbs up! Definitely see it if you get the chance.

Thanks for the viewing advice! :)

[Wryan]

Check out Nicholas Ray's Johnny Guitar for a wild Crawford film. I like Mildred Pierce a bit too.

[megladon8]

Check out Nicholas Ray's Johnny Guitar for a wild Crawford film. I like Mildred Pierce a bit too.


:|

For some reason, when I read the title Johnny Guitar, my mind thought of this...

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/6305297223.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg


...I was going to say "wow...Crawford was in that???"

[EyesWideOpen]

"His," referring to Park Chan-wook. I mean, I liked Old Boy, but let's not go nuts--it's not exactly Alain Resnais we're talking about.

I've seen everyone of his films so far and really liked all of them. I consider him to be one of the best new directors of the last ten years.

[megladon8]

I've seen everyone of his films so far and really liked all of them. I consider him to be one of the best new directors of the last ten years.


Hey-O!

I agree!

Korea has had some brilliant filmmaking over the last decade - I'm sure they had it before then, too, but it's just over this period of time that I've really experienced it.

Chan-wook Park and Joon-ho Bong are two of the best out there.

[EyesWideOpen]

JSA - 8
Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance - 10
Oldboy - 10
Sympathy for Lady Vengeance - 9
Cut - 8
I'm a Cyborg, But That's OK - 8

[transmogrifier]

Oldboy 92
Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance 71
Sympathy for Lady Vengeance 69
JSA 57
I'm a Cyborg, but That's OK 34

[megladon8]

Oldboy - 10
Lady Vengeance - 7.5 - 9 (need to see it again)
Cut - 8

[Rowland]

Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance ***½, 72
Oldboy ***½, 70
JSA ***, 64
Lady Vengeance **, 46
Cut **, 41

[Grouchy]

JSA - 9
Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance - 10
Oldboy - 10
Sympathy for Lady Vengeance - 8
Cut - 7
I'm a Cyborg, but it's OK - 10

He's a master storyteller and a visual poet, a man with constantly evolving themes who makes wildly different movies about them. I can't even bring myself to imagine why anyone who likes cinema wouldn't "go nuts" over his work.

Just finished Theater of Blood, a camp Vincent Price revenge flick. Tremendously witty stuff, with Price as a Shakespearan actor executing his vengeance on the critics who panned him. The funny thing is that Price's own acting style is as arguably as good/overdone as the one his character has. But after watching him do a bunch of Shakespeare scenes in this one, you can't deny his talent - he's a great Shylock, at the very least. The script goes for a Batman TV (Adam West, I mean) vibe with every character being on the joke, and it works, obviously with many added levels of gore - the kills are hilarious. Diana Rigg is also in this, and she's one of the most beautiful women ever captured on film. While I'd still recommend Dr. Phibes and even Madhouse over this one, it's a huge gold mine to Price fans for all the reasons just mentioned.

[ledfloyd]

Oldboy - ***1/2
Mr. Vengeance - ***1/2
Lady Vengenace - ****

really need to see JSA and Cyborg.

[Bosco B Thug]

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

Watched Shadows, first Casavettes. I dig it. His style and low-budget aesthetic could be a bit numbing and overbearing (Boner made a comment over on another thread about his attempt at "naturalism" turning people off) but there's control there, and the bare essentialism of his characters and the offbeat friction in their interactions is always enigmatic.

I didn't like Cut, but I think I liked Oldboy. Neither inspired me enough to check out his other films.

[origami_mustache]

I'm with Rowland and Grouchy...I liked ...Mr. Vengeance the best and Lady Vengeance the least of the trilogy...although I'd need to watch all three again to verify this.

[trotchky]

I've never seen a Park Chan-wook film that didn't suck. Someone described him as the Korean David Fincher, which I think is apt.

[megladon8]

I've never seen a Park Chan-wook film that didn't suck. Someone described him as the Korean David Fincher, which I think is apt.


Wait...did you make a typo here, or are you saying all of his films suck?

Other than that, I think the "Korean David Fincher" thing was a pretty cool comparison...unless you're saying David Fincher sucks, too.

In which case I can only say...

:|

[Duncan]

I just do not understand the love for Park Chan-Wook. Nothing about his cinema appeals to me. You're all a bunch of hipster nihilists for liking him.

[Watashi]

I just do not understand the love for Park Chan-Wook. Nothing about his cinema appeals to me. You're all a bunch of hipster nihilists for liking him.
I can't tell if this is sarcasm, but I agree with it 100%.

[Duncan]

I can't tell if this is sarcasm, but I agree with it 100%.

The sentiment is genuine. The "hipster nihilists" bit was just a joke.

[Watashi]

The sentiment is genuine. The "hipster nihilists" bit was just a joke.
Hmmm... it wasn't on my end. :|

[number8]

A nihilist cannot make a film as sweet and cute as I'm a Cyborg.

[monolith94]

The Whole Wide World is a small little narrative tracing the life of Conan author Robert Howard (Vincent D'Onofrio) and a sometimes friendship, sometimes star-crossed love with a schoolteacher (Renee Zellweger). It's not the most original story in the world in that it largely chronicles the neuroses that prevented Howard from ever securing a romance, even if those same pathologies found refuge in his stories, yet the performances are wonderful. D'Onofrio is typically excellent, and less-than-usual-squinting Zellweger and an admittedly intrusive score nonetheless complement the bravura of D'Onofrio's work. Certainly not great filmmaking, but there's often a great shot or sequence that keeps things from being too middling.

huh. my review:

In one scene of this film, Novalyne explains to Bob her story, a melodramatic affair at which he laughs. Her voice is the voice behind the narration of this story, and although in the film we get the sense that mr. Howard has some affect on her writing, the actual execution and structure of the film states that she as an artist was never able to transcend the absolute pettiest and shallow of melodramas. If Robert E. Howard were alive to watch this film, he'd laugh at it, and he'd laugh at it hard.

The script, based upon a book by Novalyne Price, is absolutely awful in its pace and dramatic tension. Almost all is stereotyped, all character development drastically overplayed, any events totally robbed of subtlety. There's no spirit of adventure, or even any imagination. In short, this is not a film to satisfy lovers of high-action, but rather appeals to the drama crowd. Now this in and of itself is not a bad thing, but if you are going to create a drama about an adventure novelists life, you MUST explore his creative instinct in a little bit more depth than simply adding funky sword-clashing sounds when he's deep in thought pondering his latest storyline. Use a little visual creativity, for god's sake.

Adding on to these scenes is the fact that the actual execution of all this commonplace melodrama has all the aesthetic puissance of a Hallmark card. The cinematography is so incredibly conventional and occasionally amateurish that one grows weary. For example, there's one long shot where the camera pans - normally this would be all well and good, but the cinematographer decided to use a very wide-angle lens while doing so. This means that as the image pans, the visual distortion becomes immediately noticeable: the illusion of reality (and thus cinematic fantasy) is shattered. The score is so incredibly sappy, overcooked and generally mishandled that it serves not as a support to the emotions of the characters on screen, but rather a prompt to roll one's eyes.

All of the romance is akward, all of the character development rough and unsteady, and every aspect of this film can be seen as a prime example of Classical Hollywood timidity. Poor Vincent D'onofrio, great as he is, does the best that he can while constantly having his efforts sabotaged by director, cinematographer, screenwriter and composer. Renee Zellweger does her typical spunky Texas thang, really neither very good nor bad.

You read a good story and it inspires your imagination - mythic figures raise themselves in your minds-eye and you become one with the characters, their obstacles are your obstacles, and their world becomes your world. That's why pulp novels are so popular among the disenfranchased, obviously - it offers, when done well, a taste of some superior world. Not here. Just marionettes playing to a thin tinpenny whistle. I wasn't asking this film to be a good action/adventure film, of course, but I do require of my movies about artists to at least be interested in making good art itself. Sure, there's a few nicely framed and well-colored shots, but on the whole this material is just as sexless, thrilless and lifeless as possible. Even the editing is poor.

[ledfloyd]

I just watched Resnais' Private Fears in Public Places. It's formally top notch but undeniably light. I enjoyed it while I was watching it, but can't imagine much of it leaving a mark on me. Still, very impressive for an 84 year old.

[Boner M]

Dear festival curators, producers, and whoever is responsible for anthology films.

It is now crystal clear to me that these omnibuses will never add up to anything more than vaporous piffles, regardless of the talent involved, in which only the 'funny ones' manage to hit their target. Nonetheless, I will probably see every one as long as I live, under the condition that the names appeal to me. To make these experiences less dreary, I propose a few guidelines under which the films are to be compiled, with examples from the recent To Each His Own Cinema:

-Specify the theme for the participants. This way, I won't have to sit through dozens of Vivre sa Vie homages in a row, to the point that I'm too numbed to care when a particularly good variation arrives (Egoyan).

-Please eliminate embarrassingly self-parodic shorts from filmmakers I usually admire (Wong, Lynch and Van Sant).

-give Tsai, Hou et al longer than a couple of minutes to work their magic.

-Put the Coens on later in case I turn up late.

sincerely, Boner

[dreamdead]

huh. my review:

In one scene of this film, Novalyne explains to Bob her story, a melodramatic affair at which he laughs. Her voice is the voice behind the narration of this story, and although in the film we get the sense that mr. Howard has some affect on her writing, the actual execution and structure of the film states that she as an artist was never able to transcend the absolute pettiest and shallow of melodramas. If Robert E. Howard were alive to watch this film, he'd laugh at it, and he'd laugh at it hard.


Unfortunately, I cannot really discredit any of your observations. I was aware of the technical and cinematic lapses while viewing, especially some of the more odd pans and pull-outs that I've seen, wherein camera movements are just shaky enough to draw attention to itself. However, there's also a slight charm in the way that the film refuses to grant any interior imagination of the scenarios that Robert E. Howard writes. I was deathly afraid that we'd end up getting some instance of personification, with D'Onofrio in loincloth and wielding a sword. Instead, there's a D'Onofrio and a sword, but their effect together mutes any romanticism as it becomes a play on Howard's neuroses.

So yes, there's certainly a sense of inert cinematics here, but I found that that somehow enabled the film to circumnavigate certain bio-pic cliches, even if it enabled others. Yes, the characters are pretty much one note, but my lack of familiarity with Howard's life enabled me to be surprised by the film's outcomes. Perhaps if I had been more aware of the trajectory of his life, I would have seen and considered more of the facile moments that you mention. As it stands, it's neglegibly a positive review, though I'll knock the score down more.

[Hugh_Grant]

Anthony Minghella has died.

Link here. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080318/ap_en_mo/obit_minghella;_ylt=Au4tYcW1Gp CIX5qWs1x6W8NxFb8C)

[D_Davis]

A nihilist cannot make a film as sweet and cute as I'm a Cyborg.

True.

There's nothing nihilistic about any of Park's films.

JSA - 7
Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance - 8
Oldboy - 10
Sympathy for Lady Vengeance - 7
Cut - 7
I'm a Cyborg, but it's OK - 6

[monolith94]

Unfortunately, I cannot really discredit any of your observations. I was aware of the technical and cinematic lapses while viewing, especially some of the more odd pans and pull-outs that I've seen, wherein camera movements are just shaky enough to draw attention to itself. However, there's also a slight charm in the way that the film refuses to grant any interior imagination of the scenarios that Robert E. Howard writes. I was deathly afraid that we'd end up getting some instance of personification, with D'Onofrio in loincloth and wielding a sword. Instead, there's a D'Onofrio and a sword, but their effect together mutes any romanticism as it becomes a play on Howard's neuroses.

So yes, there's certainly a sense of inert cinematics here, but I found that that somehow enabled the film to circumnavigate certain bio-pic cliches, even if it enabled others. Yes, the characters are pretty much one note, but my lack of familiarity with Howard's life enabled me to be surprised by the film's outcomes. Perhaps if I had been more aware of the trajectory of his life, I would have seen and considered more of the facile moments that you mention. As it stands, it's neglegibly a positive review, though I'll knock the score down more.
I didn't mean to use my review to bludgeon your opinion of the film into one more close to my own, but rather just to provide a different perspective on the film. I think that the execution alone was not the only problem of the film: the core of the story just felt all so cheap to me. What made Robert E. Howard unique was never, in my opinion, truly adressed: he could have been any eccentric writer. I guess I never imagined that they would present D'Onofrio in a loincloth: a more unappealing prospect I can hardly imagine.

[Ezee E]

True.

There's nothing nihilistic about any of Park's films.

JSA - 7
Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance - 8
Oldboy - 10
Sympathy for Lady Vengeance - 7
Cut - 7
I'm a Cyborg, but it's OK - 6
Are we thinking of the same director?

Anyways, he's pretty good, and a director I'm keeping my eye on, even if I didn't care for Mr. + Mrs. Vengeance's Sympathies.

[D_Davis]

Are we thinking of the same director?


What do you mean?

[Ezee E]

What do you mean?
As Park being a nihilist thinker for his movies. They have little to no respect for people. The cyborg movie may be different, but it's tough to argue otherwise, especially when it comes to his short film, Cut, in which an extra is so jealous, he starts killing those associated with the director that never noticed him.

[D_Davis]

As Park being a nihilist thinker for his movies. They have little to no respect for people. The cyborg movie may be different, but it's tough to argue otherwise, especially when it comes to his short film, Cut, in which an extra is so jealous, he starts killing those associated with the director that never noticed him.

Don't you think this is more misanthropic than nihilistic?

[DavidSeven]

Park is the opposite of nihilism. His films have a ton of humanity especially Mr. Vengeance and Lady Vengeance. A protagonist doing dark things doesn't automatically make it a nihilistic vision. His films blatantly question, ridicule and warn against the actions of his characters while also getting the audience to feel compassion for them. I'm not a fan of nihilism. I don't like Peckinpah and hated Naked. Park's films don't fit that mold.

[Raiders]

I'm not a fan of nihilism. I don't like Peckinpah and hated Naked. Park's films don't fit that mold.

I'll accept Leigh's film, but Peckinpah? What? Do we all need a refresher on just what nihilism means?

[Rowland]

Shut your mouth bitch, Pokemon changed the world!
- RowlandHmm... I'm preeeetty sure this wasn't me.

[D_Davis]

Park is the opposite of nihilism. His films have a ton of humanity especially Mr. Vengeance and Lady Vengeance.

This is what I think as well.


From wiki:

Nihilism (from the Latin nihil, nothing) is a philosophical position which argues that the world, especially past and current human existence, is without objective meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value.

I don't think the act of revenge is one of nihilism. Taking revenge suggests that there is something worth revenging, something with value worth fighting for.

Park's films show the value in human life and how far some people will go to secure and uphold this value - often times crossing moral and ethical lines to do so.

[megladon8]

I'll accept Leigh's film, but Peckinpah? What? Do we all need a refresher on just what nihilism means?


I could use one, to be honest.

I think my definition of the word comes from The Big Lebowski.

GERMAN: We're nihilists! We believe in nothing!

[DavidSeven]

I'll accept Leigh's film, but Peckinpah? What? Do we all need a refresher on just what nihilism means?

Basing this on Straw Dogs and Alfredo Garcia. For me, there wasn't a sense of morality, higher being, value of life, or whatever in those two films. I'm guessing something like The Wild Bunch might be different since it's widely popular, but I'm just going on a small sample.

[Raiders]

Basing this on Straw Dogs and Alfredo Garcia. For me, there wasn't a sense of morality, higher being, value of life, or whatever in those two films. I'm guessing something like The Wild Bunch might be different since it's widely popular, but I'm just going on a small sample.

There's no moral consequence in Alfredo Garcia? Really? Isn't that kind of the point of the entire film? In the end, to not be somebody's lackey and to take responsibility for your own actions and life?

[DavidSeven]

There's no moral consequence in Alfredo Garcia? Really? Isn't that kind of the point of the entire film? In the end, to not be somebody's lackey and to take responsibility for your own actions and life?

But what happens to him in the end for taking on that responsibility? I mean, what was Peckinpah saying with that ending? Honestly, I don't remember the film well enough to carry on a debate about it, but I do remember an excessively dark movie with an incredibly bleak ending, which seemed to point to an overall message of hopelessness.

As a side note, it was probably incorrect for me to say that I am not a fan of nihilism. I like stuff from Neil Labute and Mike Nichols' darker relationship stuff. Those probably walk the line. I guess it depends on the scope.

[Watashi]

Hmm... I'm preeeetty sure this wasn't me.
It was. Rowland Circa 2006. I had to dig deep into the RT archives to find it.

[Spinal]

Neil Labute isn't a nihilist either. He's a moralist.

[DavidSeven]

Neil Labute isn't a nihilist either. He's a moralist.

Well, I guess that's why I like him.

[Watashi]

I don't think there are any directors that are pure nihilistic.

[Spinal]

I don't think there are any directors that are pure nihilistic.

Korine?

[Watashi]

Korine?
Is that the girl who is always pairs up with Larry Clark? I haven't seen anything from her.

[DavidSeven]

Is that the girl who is always pairs up with Larry Clark? I haven't seen anything from her.

:lol:

...especially if you've ever seen him do an interview.

[Duncan]

We had this exact same debate so many times at Match Cut's previous incarnation that I decided to write this (http://matchcut.org/viewtopic.php?t=9346)sorta lengthy interpretation of Park's first two vengeance films. I'd change a few things now, but I still agree with what I've written there.

[KK2.0]

Yeah, there are some ill-advised pop culture gags, but are there really that many? If so I didn't notice. For the most part, I think the film stays on task.

No, there aren't too many, but some people are sensitive to this stuff. :P

critics consensus have been pretty strong, i thought they wouldn't care for it much but i was wrong.

[Duncan]

I think Naked is more anarchic than nihilistic.

[MadMan]

Anthony Minghella has died.

Link here. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080318/ap_en_mo/obit_minghella;_ylt=Au4tYcW1Gp CIX5qWs1x6W8NxFb8C)That's a damn shame, as 54 is way too young. I suppose I'll eventually see some of his films, although Cold Mountain struck me as Oscar bait.

[MacGuffin]

I certainly haven't seen anything that would lead me to believe Bruno Dumont isn't a nihilist. Then again, I don't think I've seen enough to fully believe he is.

[Derek]

I certainly haven't seen anything that would lead me to believe Bruno Dumont isn't a nihilist. Then again, I don't think I've seen enough to fully believe he is.

I s'pose a case could be made for Twentynine Palms, but L'Humanite and Flanders are very much humanist films, very much in tune with their characters emotional states. I'm not really a fan, though his latest has stuck with me, but tagging him as a nihilist doesn't make much sense.

[Spinal]

I still think Harmony Korine is your answer. His films don't strive for a moral or edification. They don't seem to have faith in humanity or even in the creation of meaning. They mostly just seem to be content with documenting freaky shit that goes on.

Sample dialogue:


A few years ago, a tornado hit this place. It killed the people, left and right. Dogs died. Cats died. Houses were split open, and you could see necklaces hanging from branches of trees. People's legs and neck bones were sticking out. Oliver found a leg on his roof. A lot of people's fathers died, and were killed by the great tornado. I saw a girl fly through the sky, and I looked up her skirt. Her skull was smashed. And some kids died. My neighbor was killed in that house. He used to ride bikes and three-wheelers. They never found his head. I always thought that was funny.

[Grouchy]

I could use one, to be honest.

I think my definition of the word comes from The Big Lebowski.

GERMAN: We're nihilists! We believe in nothing!
Ironically, some of the Coen movies are very nihilistic. Specially No Country.

[MacGuffin]

I s'pose a case could be made for Twentynine Palms, but L'Humanite and Flanders are very much humanist films, very much in tune with their characters emotional states. I'm not really a fan, though his latest has stuck with me, but tagging him as a nihilist doesn't make much sense.

Yeah, I suppose you are right. Twentynine Palms on some days is just my favorite movie, so maybe I draw too much from that. I like all his movies except Flanders.

[MacGuffin]

I still think Harmony Korine is your answer. His films don't strive for a moral or edification. They don't seem to have faith in humanity or even in the creation of meaning. They mostly just seem to be content with documenting freaky shit that goes on.

Sample dialogue:

I think there's plenty of humanity in Gummo. They didn't use the song "Like a Prayer" for nothing you know. :)

[number8]

God, I hate Harmony Korine.

[trotchky]

What's wrong with nihilism?

[Sycophant]

What's wrong with nihilism?There are two different ways to pronounce it and each camp secretly thinks the other is stupid.

[Qrazy]

What's wrong with nihilism?

It's a philosophy which tends to embrace hatred and despair. It doesn't just acknowledge the possibility of amorality, it often seeks to promote it.

[trotchky]

It's a philosophy which tends to embrace hatred and despair. It doesn't just acknowledge the possibility of amorality, it often seeks to promote it.

Someone I used to be love with once called me a nihilist; I don't think she meant it in a negative way, but who knows; it was a pretty weird situation. Anyway, I see it as having more anarchistic connotations - maybe rejecting all existing "systems" in the hope of something better.

[Rowland]

It was. Rowland Circa 2006. I had to dig deep into the RT archives to find it.Ahh, well I was clearly being sarcastic..... :P

Imagine me circa 2002. :eek:

[Qrazy]

Someone I used to be love with once called me a nihilist; I don't think she meant it in a negative way, but who knows; it was a pretty weird situation. Anyway, I see it as having more anarchistic connotations - maybe rejecting all existing "systems" in the hope of something better.

It's just a way of looking at the world so it doesn't have inherently negative connotations, but I would label it as a flawed and/or hopeless world-view since it's basically the notion that 'nothing matters'. A nihilist could reject all existing systems in the hope of something better, but only if they had no actual 'better' in mind. As soon as you define your better you're believing in something. The nihilist either seeks to destroy or remain apathetic towards a concrete 'better' for the future, or even the idea that there is any 'better' to be had in the first place.

[Rowland]

I certainly haven't seen anything that would lead me to believe Bruno Dumont isn't a nihilist. Then again, I don't think I've seen enough to fully believe he is.I've only seen Flanders, and on the basis of that, I wouldn't call him a nihilist exactly, but I don't jibe with his view of humanity at all. It's just an ugly, regressive movie.

[Qrazy]

It's important to bear in mind that like any broadly defined ideology, nihilism has a variety of different definitions.

[MacGuffin]

I've only seen Flanders, and on the basis of that, I wouldn't call him a nihilist exactly, but I don't jibe with his view of humanity at all. It's just an ugly, regressive movie.

That it is.

[Rowland]

http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/9282/l1073500017136945500d5fl7.jpg

http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/4532/l17136477de108sa4.jpg

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/7263/l2335600171365dae578eyn3.jpg

more (http://www.movieposterdb.com/movie/17136)

[Spinal]

Erotic. Sure.

Exotic. Ok.

Erratic? :confused:

[Wryan]

That's an amazing site for posters, although I'm not gonna buy "credits" just to download the posters in a small file.

[Wryan]

Makes for awesome avatars though!

http://aycu40.webshots.com/image/48599/2003191337771808407_rs.jpg

http://aycu19.webshots.com/image/48138/2003126389421048894_rs.jpg

http://aycu22.webshots.com/image/47581/2003110055919643165_rs.jpg

[Philosophe_rouge]

I was rewatching Laura last night because I couldn't sleep, I love this movie too much. I love when you revisit a favourite film and you remember those little things that are so easily forgotten, like Dana Andrews and his little pocket game. Such a wonderful touch. The score! I forgot how brilliant it was, and Tierney is too gorgeous.

[Melville]

We had this exact same debate so many times at Match Cut's previous incarnation that I decided to write this (http://matchcut.org/viewtopic.php?t=9346)sorta lengthy interpretation of Park's first two vengeance films. I'd change a few things now, but I still agree with what I've written there.
I haven't seen Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance, but I think you're over-simplifying Oldboy. Woo-Jin is not devoid of humanity. The flashback makes clear that, behind his revenge-seeking automations, he is haunted by a single tragic moment from which he can never escape (even physically, as suggested by his eternal youth). He bases his whole identity around the transference of that moment onto the man whom he blames for it. The act of seeking revenge served to perpetually keep that moment at a distance from him, but the completion of the revenge dissolves that distance. Once he has completed his revenge, he is left only with that moment, the weight of which he cannot stand, and outside of which he has nothing. He doesn't end his own life because he is a non-entity; he ends it because his obsession with that one tragic event has left him with nothing to live for. I actually found his demise somewhat affecting.

And I think the incest-advocacy-ending is more than just about abandoning morality. Dae-Su's decision reflects a tacit apology to Woo-Jin on a grand scale: his particular amoral choice admits that Dae-Su's incestuous relationship with his sister was not wrong, that it was driven by true, human love. It also reflects the fact that Dae-Su and Woo-Jin are essentially the same, essentially driven by the same human needs that are sometimes incompatible with conventional morality. Put another way, Dae-Su's hero's journey (which I figure must be in there somewhere for Davis to like the movie) into a world beyond conventional morality has revealed to him the much larger world of universal human desires. Not that that really excuses his final choice, but I think the film points to the humanity underlying that choice.

Also, your comparison to The Iliad seems a bit out of whack. I'd never think of Achilles as humane; and why repeatedly mention his death when it's not even in the poem?

[Qrazy]

Like Dana Andrews and his little pocket game. Such a wonderful touch.

The one where he plays with his testicles?

[Philosophe_rouge]

The one where he plays with his testicles?
Maybe, I wasn't paying that close attention. I meant the little baseball thing and I do know you're joking I'm just bad at banter http://www.thelifecinematic.com/board/images/smiles/icon_neutral.gif

[Sven]

Dear festival curators, producers, and whoever is responsible for anthology films.

It is now crystal clear to me that these omnibuses will never add up to anything more than vaporous piffles, regardless of the talent involved, in which only the 'funny ones' manage to hit their target. Nonetheless, I will probably see every one as long as I live, under the condition that the names appeal to me. To make these experiences less dreary, I propose a few guidelines under which the films are to be compiled, with examples from the recent To Each His Own Cinema:

-Specify the theme for the participants. This way, I won't have to sit through dozens of Vivre sa Vie homages in a row, to the point that I'm too numbed to care when a particularly good variation arrives (Egoyan).

-Please eliminate embarrassingly self-parodic shorts from filmmakers I usually admire (Wong, Lynch and Van Sant).

-give Tsai, Hou et al longer than a couple of minutes to work their magic.

-Put the Coens on later in case I turn up late.

sincerely, Boner

What'd you think of Kitano's segment? It's the only one I've seen and I found it quite delightful.

Hey Sycophant, did you see that the New York omnibus being shot right now has an installation from Shunji Iwai? I saw that today and thought you may like to know, if you didn't know already.

[Raiders]

Color me surprised to see that Popeye operates very much as a re-imagining of McCabe & Mrs. Miller in that a stranger comes into town and attempts to incite change. The overlapping dialogue is as good as ever and though the pacing can be way too sluggish for a film that should probably have more energy, Altman's work here contains some of his best. In particular is the way that Altman films the town as a dilapidated village fallen from grace through their own ignorance. The economic turmoil can best be summed up by Wimpy's "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today." I love the scene in the bar where the men pick on Popeye's speech and mannerisms, Altman striking Popeye's efforts to be polite against the town's blind-eye to its own troubles (let ye who has not sinned...).

I don't know. It is a pretty interesting film. I can see the negatives, but I think for fans of the director, it is a fairly interesting piece of work. There very much is a portrait of a town as opposed to a character-centric farce. From the lack of authority (the police constantly jumping through windows) to the run down buildings to the completed isolated commerce, the film shapes around Popeye a typically Altman-esque barrage of location and character.

Oh, and Duvall's singing of "he's large," looking at once content and sad, had me giggling forever.

[Sven]

Color me surprised to see that Popeye operates very much as a re-imagining of McCabe & Mrs. Miller in that a stranger comes into town and attempts to incite change. The overlapping dialogue is as good as ever and though the pacing can be way too sluggish for a film that should probably have more energy, Altman's work here contains some of his best. In particular is the way that Altman films the town as a dilapidated village fallen from grace through their own ignorance. The economic turmoil can best be summed up by Wimpy's "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today." I love the scene in the bar where the men pick on Popeye's speech and mannerisms, Altman striking Popeye's efforts to be polite against the town's blind-eye to its own troubles (let ye who has not sinned...).

I don't know. It is a pretty interesting film. I can see the negatives, but I think for fans of the director, it is a fairly interesting piece of work. There very much is a portrait of a town as opposed to a character-centric farce. From the lack of authority (the police constantly jumping through windows) to the run down buildings to the completed isolated commerce, the film shapes around Popeye a typically Altman-esque barrage of location and character.

Oh, and Duvall's singing of "he's large," looking at once content and sad, had me giggling forever.

Bully, good boy. Bully!

Re: McCabe comparisons, I kind of lump this one, that one, and The Long Goodbye into an unofficial trilogy of sorts for many of the reasons you cite. I think the church in Sweethaven is modeled on the church in McCabe, even. At least, Altman's appropriation of the visual is. I don't know if I'd say Popeye is attempting to incite anything in Sweethaven, but through his "moraliky" and good spirits, manages to leave an impression.

Not that I can't "see the negatives" myself, but I'm curious what you would construe as negative.

[Sycophant]

Hey Sycophant, did you see that the New York omnibus being shot right now has an installation from Shunji Iwai? I saw that today and thought you may like to know, if you didn't know already.Oh, thanks for the tip! Somehow I'd missed that. It's been too long since the man directed a fiction film (and Lord knows his Imamura doc will probably never come with English subtitles). I'm greatly pleased.

[Boner M]

What'd you think of Kitano's segment? It's the only one I've seen and I found it quite delightful.
I missed that one, the Coens' and Angelopolous' on account of turning up late to the screening. Don't think it'd change my opinion much, though I'm disappointed about it.

[number8]

Saw Michael Clayton tonight.

I think I'll watch this movie two more times before I return it.

[Spinal]

As much fun as it was to see Hedwig songs performed by Sleater-Kinney, The Breeders and Frank Black, Follow My Voice is somewhat disappointing as a documentary. A Portland-area producer assembles a variety of alt-rock acts to record Hedwig songs for an album to benefit the Harvey Milk school in New York where gay and lesbian teens can go to school in a safe environment. The film focuses on four kids from the school who are living through an extraordinarily awkward and stressful time of their lives. To the film's credit though, it makes an effort to show their successes and moments of joy as well as relaying tales of discrimination and parental misunderstanding. The main problem is that while the two parts of the film are intended to complement each other by showing examples of the kind of pain and frustration which fuel the music, more often than not the two halves fumble over one another. Too often, we bounce back and forth between a revealing interview and a raw recording session without the film allowing us to feel the maximum impact of either. Often I found myself wanting to simply hear uncut versions of the songs. And the kids occasionally have harrowing tales to tell, but they do not seem to have much interest in John Cameron Mitchell's musical. Should that matter? Perhaps not. But it does give the film a weird schizophrenic feeling.

Anyway, probably for Hedwig diehards only.

[origami_mustache]

I still think Harmony Korine is your answer. His films don't strive for a moral or edification. They don't seem to have faith in humanity or even in the creation of meaning. They mostly just seem to be content with documenting freaky shit that goes on.



I don't agree with this. As for his writing credits, Kids and Ken Park both explore teenage alienation, ennui, and how the characters respond to and attempt to escape from their chaotic environments. The bonds the characters form with one another are enough to give their lives meaning, no matter how ugly things appear on the surface. It's been too long for me to defend Gummo properly, but Julien-Donkey Boy is full of humanism, showing how such messes of human beings cope with their situations; relying on ambition, faith, or just a simple optimistic outlook in some cases. Documenting realistic situations that we perceive as grotesque or "freaky shit" doesn't necessarily imply a lack of morality or nihilism, it's just a way of allowing the audience to experience unexplored characters and their plights in a different way, rather than resorting to sentimental melodrama. The phone conversation Julien's sister has with the schizophrenic boy, as she comforts him by pretending to be his deceased mother was an incredibly touching moment. It is these moments/fragments/memories that Korine builds his films around and what he seems to believe make the human experience worth while and whether or not the images are disturbing or not is beside the point.

[Grouchy]

Makes for awesome avatars though!

http://aycu40.webshots.com/image/48599/2003191337771808407_rs.jpg
Can I keep this one?

Saw Gunfight at the OK Corral. It's a Hollywood-ized version of the story for sure, with Lancaster's Earp a straight-shooting hero and Douglas giving us a badass Doc Holliday on somewhat of a redemption path. John "Great Escape" Sturges is THE director for this type of action film, and his use of the screen and the elements of the frame is amazing. Gunmen reflected in mirrors, long lenses in dramatic moments, subtle travellings... he's a hell of a director. However, there's no complexity or moral greyness on this movie, while there was plenty of that in Ford's My Darling Clementine. That put me a little off, and the fact that it was kind of predictable all the way to the end. Still, plenty of likeable manly banter between Burt and Kirk and another of those young Dennis Hopper performances that seem to be everywhere in '50s westerns.

[megladon8]

Wow.

It's quite a blessing to see two masterpieces in one week. I almost feel guilty giving two 10-ratings so close to each other, but I can't help it.

Mildred Pierce was wonderful. All of the performances are wonderful, and the writing is powerful and natural.

Quite the story. And despite the fact that I called the ending about 30 minutes before, it was still fantastic.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Wow.

It's quite a blessing to see two masterpieces in one week. I almost feel guilty giving two 10-ratings so close to each other, but I can't help it.

Mildred Pierce was wonderful. All of the performances are wonderful, and the writing is powerful and natural.

Quite the story. And despite the fact that I called the ending about 30 minutes before, it was still fantastic.
Awesome! Even though you liked it quite a bit more than I did, I can appreciate the enthousiasm :D I recommend The Reckless Moment, although quite different, it's also about a mother in face of coming to terms with her identity wrapped up in a noir. I prefer it, but both are great :pritch:

[megladon8]

Awesome! Even though you liked it quite a bit more than I did, I can appreciate the enthousiasm :D I recommend The Reckless Moment, although quite different, it's also about a mother in face of coming to terms with her identity wrapped up in a noir. I prefer it, but both are great :pritch:


Awesome, I'll keep that one in mind.

I was really taken aback by Mildred Pierce, though. Vera has to be one of the most loathesome characters I've seen in a film in a long, long time. The last one I can think of who comes close was Richard Widmark's character in Kiss of Death.

And I realized I was actually wrong in saying I had never seen a Joan Crawford film before - I have seen The Unknown, and had totally forgotten she was in it. Probably because she looked nothing like herself!

[Wryan]

Can I keep this one?

Shonuff.

[Grouchy]

Shonuff.
Excelsior.

[Duncan]

Hey Canadians, Maddin's Brand Upon the Brain! is on Bravo tonight at 9:00.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Hey Canadians, Maddin's Brand Upon the Brain! is on Bravo tonight at 9:00.
Damn, I'm out. Maybe I'll tape it

[Duncan]

I haven't seen Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance, but I think you're over-simplifying Oldboy. Woo-Jin is not devoid of humanity. The flashback makes clear that, behind his revenge-seeking automations, he is haunted by a single tragic moment from which he can never escape (even physically, as suggested by his eternal youth). He bases his whole identity around the transference of that moment onto the man whom he blames for it. The act of seeking revenge served to perpetually keep that moment at a distance from him, but the completion of the revenge dissolves that distance. Once he has completed his revenge, he is left only with that moment, the weight of which he cannot stand, and outside of which he has nothing. He doesn't end his own life because he is a non-entity; he ends it because his obsession with that one tragic event has left him with nothing to live for. I actually found his demise somewhat affecting.

To be honest, my problems with Oldboy are not nearly as large as my problems with its predecessor. I think watching Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance second coloured my recollections of Oldboy. Also note that I was overwhelmed by favorable opinions of the film at the time, and so may have written more of a diatribe than was intended.

Anyway, I think this goes back to what I said about Park's characters being dead early on. They've got this one driving reason to live (a malevolent one) that they enjoy the completion of. Then they have to die. I see no complexity to their psychologies. They see some terrible injustice -> they dedicate themselves entirely to avenging it. Maybe they were more human before that injustice, as evidenced by the flashback, but in the static psychological poses that dominate the majority of the picture I see little resemblance to humanity.

"[H]e ends it because his obsession with that one tragic event has left him with nothing to live for." So this could be taken as the basic outline of classical tragedy. The tragic figure has one (and generally it's only one) fatal flaw that leads to his death. However, what makes tragedy work is that the flaw is integrated into a character of complex psychology. What other aspects are there to Woo-Jin's psyche? He used to be kid who had an incestual relationship with his sister. And? I see a binary portrayal of humanity, which isn't nearly enough for me.

Also, nothing will convince me that this isn't the stupidest revenge plot I've ever seen, read or heard.


And I think the incest-advocacy-ending is more than just about abandoning morality. Dae-Su's decision reflects a tacit apology to Woo-Jin on a grand scale: his particular amoral choice admits that Dae-Su's incestuous relationship with his sister was not wrong, that it was driven by true, human love. It also reflects the fact that Dae-Su and Woo-Jin are essentially the same, essentially driven by the same human needs that are sometimes incompatible with conventional morality. Put another way, Dae-Su's hero's journey (which I figure must be in there somewhere for Davis to like the movie) into a world beyond conventional morality has revealed to him the much larger world of universal human desires. Not that that really excuses his final choice, but I think the film points to the humanity underlying that choice.

I can't remember specifically how it was handled, but I got none of this tacit apology stuff. How does this choice at all redeem Woo-Jin's relationship if Dae-Su considers a similar relationship so awful he has to have his memory erased so that he may live in ignorance? What humanity is there in the "larger world of universal human desires" is there if he willfully forgets?


Also, your comparison to The Iliad seems a bit out of whack. I'd never think of Achilles as humane; and why repeatedly mention his death when it's not even in the poem? I think I brought up The Iliad because I had recently read it, and because I think the second to last death in Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance is a direct reference to Achilles' death. In The Iliad's early books Achilles is almost a whiny character, the only evidence we have of his greatness are the accounts of others. Then we have his battle scenes and the killing of Hektor, etc. He is an unforgiving warrior. Then, when Priam supplicates himself, Achilles feels sympathy for the older, fatherly figure. He grants the return of Hektor's body and The Iliad ends with a celebration of life. That The Iliad does not include Achilles's death is precisely the point. It's not about that. It is about what makes people great in life, despite their flaws (though "great" would probably be defined differently by today's standards). This is what makes the deaths of so many of its characters tragic, at least in a sentimental sense if not in a literary one. Oldboy has none of this. That Woo-Jin was once capable of love does not change the fact that after an event very early in his life he became an, I will reuse the word, automaton. I see this as not even rising to the level of the tired five steps of grief.

[Qrazy]

That Woo-Jin was once capable of love does not change the fact that after an event very early in his life he became an, I will reuse the word, automaton. I see this as not even rising to the level of the tired five steps of grief.

On a side note, I think much of the appeal of revenge tragedies and one of the saving graces for revenge driven characters (in the eyes of the audience) is their utter single minded drive. Unfortunately, this drive is predicated on a malevolent end and as nearly every revenge tragedy reveals, the revenge almost certainly wasn't worth it. That perhaps is the primary tragedy, that these characters devote themselves so fully to this hollow act, which in the end is almost certainly not worth the effort... However, they feel bound to this action (either as a result of a childhood psychological impetus or because they feel beholden to those they are avenging) so that even if they can recognize the ultimate hollowness of revenge, they feel they must complete it.

[Derek]

Talk of the Town starts out very promising with its dark and foreboding, yet quiet opening with Cary Grant doing his best impersonation of Paul Muni from I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang. Then it goes all slapstick in the first act once the law professor shows up at the same house Grant's hiding out in and the film slowly unravels from there. Jean Arthur does a fine job balancing her anxiety with her desire to please the professor and the two get a few laughs from the initial awkwardness of the situation. Once Grant comes out of hiding, posing as the gardener, it devolves in a preachy, black-and-white examination of the legal system, which never rises above its oversimplified dichotomy until the end when we're reminded that it's all of our duties as Americans to ensure the law is protected. I mean, this wouldn't necessarily be a deal-breaker if the film weren't so belabored about setting up the everyman Grant vs. the bookworm professor and failing to do anything interesting. Oh, the professor has a beard so he's shut off from the world (WTF?) and needs to go to a ballgame to really understand how the legal system should work (again, WTF?). And lo the subtlety of their chess match and the multiple times Grant points out "it's me vs. you, professor". But really, it's not as bad as all that and Grant and Arthur assure that it remains mostly watchable despite the consistent cringing I did throughout the final hour.

[Yxklyx]

Hey Canadians, Maddin's Brand Upon the Brain! is on Bravo tonight at 9:00.

Interesting. Hope there's a DVD out soon!

TV Question: how do TV stations broadcast a movie that's on film? Do they play the film and have a TV camera pointed a it and record that on tape? Or are tapes made from film specifically for distribution to TV? With DVDs now, do TV stations just play the DVD?

[Philosophe_rouge]

Talk of the Town starts out very promising with its dark and foreboding, yet quiet opening with Cary Grant doing his best impersonation of Paul Muni from I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang. Then it goes all slapstick in the first act once the law professor shows up at the same house Grant's hiding out in and the film slowly unravels from there. Jean Arthur does a fine job balancing her anxiety with her desire to please the professor and the two get a few laughs from the initial awkwardness of the situation. Once Grant comes out of hiding, posing as the gardener, it devolves in a preachy, black-and-white examination of the legal system, which never rises above its oversimplified dichotomy until the end when we're reminded that it's all of our duties as Americans to ensure the law is protected. I mean, this wouldn't necessarily be a deal-breaker if the film weren't so belabored about setting up the everyman Grant vs. the bookworm professor and failing to do anything interesting. Oh, the professor has a beard so he's shut off from the world (WTF?) and needs to go to a ballgame to really understand how the legal system should work (again, WTF?). And lo the subtlety of their chess match and the multiple times Grant points out "it's me vs. you, professor". But really, it's not as bad as all that and Grant and Arthur assure that it remains mostly watchable despite the consistent cringing I did throughout the final hour.
I didn't really like this either for many of the reasons mentioned. I also felt it was tonally uneven, didn't make the transitions very well. Arthur and Grant are enough to mildly recommend it, but really mildly.

[Melville]

I see no complexity to their psychologies. They see some terrible injustice -> they dedicate themselves entirely to avenging it. Maybe they were more human before that injustice, as evidenced by the flashback, but in the static psychological poses that dominate the majority of the picture I see little resemblance to humanity.
I agree that the psychology isn't very complex or well developed, but I think that being driven by the obsessive recollection of a single event is something extremely human. (Maybe your disagreement with this "static psychological pose" also explains your lukewarm reaction to The Sound and the Fury?)


"[H]e ends it because his obsession with that one tragic event has left him with nothing to live for." So this could be taken as the basic outline of classical tragedy. The tragic figure has one (and generally it's only one) fatal flaw that leads to his death. However, what makes tragedy work is that the flaw is integrated into a character of complex psychology. What other aspects are there to Woo-Jin's psyche? He used to be kid who had an incestual relationship with his sister. And? I see a binary portrayal of humanity, which isn't nearly enough for me.
I think many characters in Greek tragedy are no more complex than the characters in Oldboy. In fact, they are quite frequently defined by their static psychologies. They serve as emblems of a certain psychological makeup or existential stance; give too much ambiguity or nuance to that emblem and it's no longer an emblem. (Although my favorite Greek tragedian is Euripides, so I admit that such ambiguation can work wonders.)


I can't remember specifically how it was handled, but I got none of this tacit apology stuff. How does this choice at all redeem Woo-Jin's relationship if Dae-Su considers a similar relationship so awful he has to have his memory erased so that he may live in ignorance? What humanity is there in the "larger world of universal human desires" is there if he willfully forgets?
There is obviously a lot of ambiguity in the choice, and the director presents it in an ambiguous way, not wanting us to view it as purely positive or negative. But, ambiguity aside, the contrast is clear: Dae-Su offhandedly condemned Woo-Jin's relationship with his sister, but now, when put in the same position, he realizes that he is just like Woo-Jin, in that his love is more important to him than any other constraints. He willfully forgets those constraints, but he remembers his love. It's not an admirable choice, since he is refusing to live with the knowledge of his own choice, but it is inspired by a desire for love that is human.

I also I think that Dae-Su's need to forget the truth in order to continue his relationship actually refutes the charge of nihilism. If the character were amoral, he would not need to forget anything; and if the film were truly nihilistic, his forgetting would be presented unambiguously as a positive circumvention of irrelevant, societally-imposed morality.


That The Iliad does not include Achilles's death is precisely the point. It's not about that.
Yeah, I know what you were saying, and it makes sense, but it just seemed odd that early in your post you referred to Achilles' death as if it were a part of Homer's story that could be contrasted with the death in Mr. Vengeance; almost like you simultaneously wanted to give Homer's poem credit for having a more meaningful presentation of the final act of revenge and for ending its narrative before that act.


It is about what makes people great in life, despite their flaws (though "great" would probably be defined differently by today's standards). This is what makes the deaths of so many of its characters tragic, at least in a sentimental sense if not in a literary one. Oldboy has none of this. That Woo-Jin was once capable of love does not change the fact that after an event very early in his life he became an, I will reuse the word, automaton. I see this as not even rising to the level of the tired five steps of grief.
Well, as I said before, I think that Woo-Jin's obsession is entirely human and entirely tragic (at least as much as anything in The Iliad). His actions are those of an automaton, but they are continually driven by his obsession with that one moment in his past. Of course his character is exaggerated and simplified, but that's the nature of the film, and I don't see that it makes the character inhuman. Defining oneself in terms of some past moment is a very human stance, even if the film exaggerates it.

And Achilles was a damn jerk no matter how I figure it.

[Duncan]

Melville, I think our positions are fairly well staked out so I hope you'll forgive me if I don't respond further. I get where you're coming from.


Brand Upon the Brain! was great. Maddin is starting to rise pretty high in my ranking of directors. Did many people here see this in its very limited theatrical run? What'd you guys think?

The Saddest Music in the World is on tomorrow night for those who are interested. On Bravo! at 9.

[MacGuffin]

Punishment Park evoked the same emotions from me that Night and Fog did, but I'd say it's about five times as frightening. Still, I got the point just about as fast as the movie began, so I can't say it's as successful as the latter film, but I'd recommend it to someone who wants a tense viewing with some of the most noteworthy cinematography from the 70s by Joan Churchill.

[Qrazy]

There is obviously a lot of ambiguity in the choice, and the director presents it in an ambiguous way, not wanting us to view it as purely positive or negative. But, ambiguity aside, the contrast is clear: Dae-Su offhandedly condemned Woo-Jin's relationship with his sister, but now, when put in the same position, he realizes that he is just like Woo-Jin, in that his love is more important to him than any other constraints. He willfully forgets those constraints, but he remembers his love. It's not an admirable choice, since he is refusing to live with the knowledge of his own choice, but it is inspired by a desire for love that is human.

Well, I'm not sure. I don't disagree but... For one, Woo-Jin knew the social constraints and ignored them, while Dae-su fell in love (which was also heavily influenced by hypnosis) and then learned it was his daughter only later. I don't think it's all that un-admirable to refuse to live with the knowledge of a choice which was barely a choice to begin with. Also, I think a brother/sister relationship and a father/daughter relationship aren't completely interchangeable. Furthermore, you wouldn't expect someone to know or even be capable of knowing everything about their significant other's past and at this point all the choice that he has left is either romantic love or no love with his daughter. If he doesn't opt for romantic love, he can't take back his daughter with fatherly love (the issue with disgust in relation to his own unknowing actions aside), unless she were to opt for hypnosis as well. Finally, it's not really Dae-su's condemnation of incest which landed him in so much trouble, but his propensity for gossip. Whether he condemned it was certainly important to Woo-jin, but he could have been super pro-incest (he wasn't apparently) and still had his life destroyed, as long as he had told someone about the incestuous event. I mean really the lesson I took away from all of this was that if you're going to have sex with your sister, don't do it on school property.

[origami_mustache]

Brand Upon the Brain! was great. Maddin is starting to rise pretty high in my ranking of directors. Did many people here see this in its very limited theatrical run? What'd you guys think?


I really loved it...in fact it's probably my favorite from Maddin...wish I could have seen it with the live foley artists, orchestra, and narrators.

[Melville]

Melville, I think our positions are fairly well staked out so I hope you'll forgive me if I don't respond further. I get where you're coming from.
No worries.


Brand Upon the Brain! was great. Maddin is starting to rise pretty high in my ranking of directors. Did many people here see this in its very limited theatrical run? What'd you guys think?
I saw it with live orchestra and narration, which was pretty cool. Like all of Maddin's films, it eventually became slightly bogged down by its stylization. I think he's a great director, but he needs to match his style to stronger stories. I'd really like to see My Winnipeg.


Well, I'm not sure. I don't disagree but... For one, Woo-Jin knew the social constraints and ignored them, while Dae-su fell in love (which was also heavily influenced by hypnosis) and then learned it was his daughter only later. (1) I don't think it's all that un-admirable to refuse to live with the knowledge of a choice which was barely a choice to begin with. (2) Also, I think a brother/sister relationship and a father/daughter relationship aren't completely interchangeable. Furthermore, you wouldn't expect someone to know or even be capable of knowing everything about their significant other's past and at this point all the choice that he has left is either romantic love or no love with his daughter. If he doesn't opt for romantic love, he can't take back his daughter with fatherly love (the issue with disgust in relation to his own unknowing actions aside), unless she were to opt for hypnosis as well. (3) Finally, it's not really Dae-su's condemnation of incest which landed him in so much trouble, but his propensity for gossip. Whether he condemned it was certainly important to Woo-jin, but he could have been super pro-incest (he wasn't apparently) and still had his life destroyed, as long as he had told someone about the incestuous event. (4) I mean really the lesson I took away from all of this was that if you're going to have sex with your sister, don't do it on school property.
(1) How is his choice to erase his memory "barely a choice" (putting aside the question of whether or not a choice ever exists)? I don't necessarily think that his choice is bad or even unethical, but it's definitely a choice.

(2) But they're close enough for the thematic resonance between the protagonist and antagonist's positions. The movie is dealing in pretty broad strokes, after all.

(3) Sure, but I'm not talking about what ruined Dae-Su's life; I'm talking about what ruined Woo-Jin's life. My point was that Dae-Su ends up in Woo-Jin's position in the end—a position that he dismissed the import of, even if he didn't outright condemn it.

(4) Yeah, I don't know how anybody can call the movie nihilistic when it's got a clear moral message like that.

[Raiders]

I've seen two films recently starring Jason Statham, and I think they can be used almost perfectly to show my disconnect from what is popular and what is not with most mainstream critics. The Bank Job is a routine affair, never more or less than mediocre. It has been less than a week and I'll be damned if anything has really stuck with me. It has a high body count for a caper film, though that doesn't really come with any more resonance or gravity and the film's retro setting never bleeds into its dull style. On the other hand, Guy Ritchie's Revolver is full of utter nonsense but so brazenly ridiculous, confident and downright spiritual that it is likely to stay in my mind for weeks. Shockingly for a Ritchie film it is one that deserves discussion and thought. I'm already developing my review in my head, and it is as out there and scattershot as the film itself.

[Sycophant]

Zoolander had some good moments. But it seemed simultaneously too restrained and too unhinged. There were some elements (performances, in particular) that would have felt a lot better, in my estimation, had they been played straighter. It was a good reminder that while Will Ferrell is a very gifted comedian, the shoes he's wearing don't always fit.

[Qrazy]

No worries.


I saw it with live orchestra and narration, which was pretty cool. Like all of Maddin's films, it eventually became slightly bogged down by its stylization. I think he's a great director, but he needs to match his style to stronger stories. I'd really like to see My Winnipeg.


(1) How is his choice to erase his memory "barely a choice" (putting aside the question of whether or not a choice ever exists)? I don't necessarily think that his choice is bad or even unethical, but it's definitely a choice.

(2) But they're close enough for the thematic resonance between the protagonist and antagonist's positions. The movie is dealing in pretty broad strokes, after all.

(3) Sure, but I'm not talking about what ruined Dae-Su's life; I'm talking about what ruined Woo-Jin's life. My point was that Dae-Su ends up in Woo-Jin's position in the end—a position that he dismissed the import of, even if he didn't outright condemn it.

(4) Yeah, I don't know how anybody can call the movie nihilistic when it's got a clear moral message like that.

1. I didn't specify clearly enough. I meant his choice to fall in love.
4. Yeah, it's def. not nihilistic. I think a lot of people meant fatalistic when they said that but I (and I think you too) would argue it's not that either.

[Qrazy]

It was a good reminder that while Will Ferrell is a very gifted comedian, the shoes he's wearing don't always fit.

I agree, but his Zoolander shoes were the perfect fit right? I thought that was perhaps his funniest comic role.

[Sycophant]

I agree, but his Zoolander shoes were the perfect fit right? I thought that was perhaps his funniest comic role.Maybe it was the damn wig, or myself trying to force my opinion on how the role should have been played, but good Lord, I don't know if I've ever been more blah towards one of his performances.

[Boner M]

Weekend viewings:

The White Balloon
Daughters of Darkness
The Fire Within (Malle)
Strange Cargo (Borzage)

And repeats of Two-Lane Blacktop and Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia for an assignment.

[Spinal]

Still Wednesday night here, but sure, why not ...

Weekend:

The Guernica Tree
Elizabeth II

[MacGuffin]

Daughters of Darkness


Oh! Let us know what you think of this one, as I've been meaning to (but have yet to been compelled to) watch this.

[Raiders]

Weekend:

Paranoid Park
Snow Angels
Peking Opera Blues

[Qrazy]

Weekend viewings:

The White Balloon
The Fire Within (Malle)[b]

Both of these are very quality. I haven't seen the other two.

[Boner M]

Oh! Let us know what you think of this one, as I've been meaning to (but have yet to been compelled to) watch this.
Will do. I've heard it was everything Vampyros Lesbos was supposed to be, which is encouraging for someone who doesn't care for that film at all.

[lovejuice]

I saw it with live orchestra and narration, which was pretty cool. Like all of Maddin's films, it eventually became slightly bogged down by its stylization. I think he's a great director, but he needs to match his style to stronger stories. I'd really like to see My Winnipeg.


i consider myself his fan, but sadly, for me, ButB can only be enjoyed in that format.

[Grouchy]

Will do. I've heard it was everything Vampyros Lesbos was supposed to be, which is encouraging for someone who doesn't care for that film at all.
Hard to really "care" about Lesbos, 'tis one of the worst things I've ever seen. It's excellent stuff for laughing your way into drunken oblivion, though.

Saw Besson's Angel-A, a fantasy reinterpretation of It's a Wonderful Life with a tall, blonde sex bomb. Very lightweight stuff with a definitive French New Wave air to it - lots of camera tricks, unconventional editing, and we always have the feeling that the characters exist within the world of film. Think Truffaut from Shoot the Piano Player meets Frank Capra. I enjoyed it a lot. It has two excellent performances from both the leads (Rasmussen kicks ass), and since I was so busy smiling at the cuteness, the emotional parts really took me by surprise. The cinematography is excellent and the special effects are state of the art. I don't like French people, but I like Luc Besson and company.

[Grouchy]

Interesting. Hope there's a DVD out soon!

TV Question: how do TV stations broadcast a movie that's on film? Do they play the film and have a TV camera pointed a it and record that on tape? Or are tapes made from film specifically for distribution to TV? With DVDs now, do TV stations just play the DVD?
They're tapes made from film, I think. Betamax or DV tapes, although maybe they're using a new format now. I dunno. If I'm wrong, someone correct me.

[Watashi]

Weekend:

Paranoid Park
Green Snake
Lust, Caution
Speaking Parts

[soitgoes...]

Weekend:
La Caza
Peking Opera Blues
Days of '36
Come Drink with Me

[origami_mustache]

Weekend:
March Madness
Exiled
Triad Election

[Qrazy]

Wow, V for Vendetta was absolutely awful. Although I did get a bit of amusement out of the notion that V sits around in his dungeon and compiles massive domino replications of his insignia. Carry on the good fight ole chap.

[D_Davis]

Wow, V for Vendetta was absolutely awful. Although I did get a bit of amusement out of the notion that V sits around in his dungeon and compiles massive domino replications of his insignia. Carry on the good fight ole chap.

This.

[lovejuice]

Wow, V for Vendetta was absolutely awful. Although I did get a bit of amusement out of the notion that V sits around in his dungeon and compiles massive domino replications of his insignia. Carry on the good fight ole chap.

guess i'm the only who like V. or if anything, i mildly enjoy it.

[MacGuffin]

Wow, V for Vendetta was absolutely awful. Although I did get a bit of amusement out of the notion that V sits around in his dungeon and compiles massive domino replications of his insignia. Carry on the good fight ole chap.

Yep. It's amazingly bad. The dialogue is utterly horrible, and the movie takes no risks whatsoever.

[Spinal]

guess i'm the only who like V. or if anything, i mildly enjoy it.

Nope. Loved it.

[Kurosawa Fan]

As did I. I've seen it twice and it didn't diminish one bit the second time around.

[dreamdead]

Yep. It's amazingly bad. The dialogue is utterly horrible, and the movie takes no risks whatsoever.

Simply because I'm interested in your answer, can you identify which action films, to you, "take risks"? And can you elaborate on what this term denotes?

[Sycophant]

I was very meh on V for Vendetta, though my recollection is hazy and couldn't offer anything really intelligent about it now. He's apparently in Delaware of all places at the moment, but I know iosos was a big fan.

[Ezee E]

Wow, V for Vendetta was absolutely awful. Although I did get a bit of amusement out of the notion that V sits around in his dungeon and compiles massive domino replications of his insignia. Carry on the good fight ole chap.
I liked the movie and didn't mind this sequence in the context of the movie, but it's hilarious.

WEEKEND:
The Day the Earth Stood Still
The House on Telegraph Hill
The Beach

[Spinal]

Simply because I'm interested in your answer, can you identify which action films, to you, "take risks"? And can you elaborate on what this term denotes?

Heh. I looked back at my review (http://filmepidemic.blogspot.com/2006/03/v-for-vendetta-mcteigue-2005.html) for V for Vendetta and in the first sentence, I praise it for taking risks.

[ledfloyd]

I might've liked V for Vendetta if I hadn't read the book. I think the invention of the Michael Rookwood character is really sloppy storytelling.

[Morris Schæffer]

I'm not a great fan of V for Vendetta, but I thought the film had an unmistakable rebellious spirit coursing through its veins that I appreciated.

[D_Davis]

I remember sitting in the theatre during V, looking at my wife, and asking "when in the hell is this going to be over?"

If I wasn't responsible for taking some friends home afterwards, I would have left.

This is why I always try to go to movies by myself.

[balmakboor]

Interesting. Hope there's a DVD out soon!


Criterion just dropped a clue that something by Guy Maddin is on the way.

[balmakboor]

Yeah, V did nothing for me. But I guess I chalked it up to not being into graphic novels.

[Sycophant]

Yeah, V did nothing for me. But I guess I chalked it up to not being into graphic novels.Curious response. Did Road to Perdition, Sin City, Oldboy, and Ichi the Killer evoke similar responses? I rather like graphic novels and found V quite dull.

[balmakboor]

A while back I was asking people about Sweet Movie and if I should give it a shot. The answer was yes since I really like WR.

Well, I'm really glad I finally watched it last night. Sure, there are a few moments of unpleasantry, but they are so few and so artfully presented that I can't imagine why so many things I've read chose to dwell on them. I found the movie mesmerizing and fun and very funny. I'm sure I don't understand it all fully -- same as with WR -- but that didn't make the experience any less enjoyable or interesting.

This Makavejev guy has really caught my attention.

[balmakboor]

Curious response. Did Road to Perdition, Sin City, Oldboy, and Ichi the Killer evoke similar responses? I rather like graphic novels and found V quite dull.

I guess I wasn't even aware that any of those other than Sin City were based on graphic novels.

I've never seen Road to Perdition. Never got around to it since I really didn't like American Beauty.

I enjoyed Sin City but mostly for its technical craftsmanship.

I liked Oldboy, but definitely not as much as many around here.

I've been wanting to see Ichi again. I liked it visually but found it muddled beyond belief as storytelling.

[Watashi]

V is very good, mainly for Weaving's performance.

[Stay Puft]

Weekend:

Secret Defense
Shanghai Blues
Green Snake

And I'm thinking about renting Double Team and Knock Off, but I might do that next week. Been itching to see Knock Off again, so I might as well use the consensus as justification.

[D_Davis]

Shanghai Blues


Where did you find this at?

[Sycophant]

Weekend viewings for the weekend!
Dance Party, USA
Late Spring
A Geisha

And either Southland Tales or Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter?, whichever Netflix sends me.

[Watashi]

Man, people really enjoy torture on this site.

[Spinal]

A while back I was asking people about Sweet Movie and if I should give it a shot. The answer was yes since I really like WR.

Well, I'm really glad I finally watched it last night. Sure, there are a few moments of unpleasantry, but they are so few and so artfully presented that I can't imagine why so many things I've read chose to dwell on them.

Oh good, I'm glad it worked out for you. I think I might want to re-watch this one soon, since it has now been Criterionized. Previously, I watched it on a library VHS. Agreed on the extreme aspects of the film. Most reviews seem to be content to catalog them, but I found the film to be very provocative and resonant. Many images stick in my mind.

[Melville]

Man, people really enjoy torture on this site.
?

[Watashi]

?
It was reference to all the people who have/or will watch Southland Tales.

[trotchky]

I'm not a great fan of V for Vendetta, but I thought the film had an unmistakable rebellious spirit coursing through its veins that I appreciated.

I hated it because I thought it lacked anything resembling a rebellious spirit and instead wanted to lull audiences into complacency by being vaguely "edgy" enough to get people to feel like they're "part" of something and then have that feeling end as soon as they leave the multiplex.

[trotchky]

It was reference to all the people who have/or will watch Southland Tales.

It is a fairly painful experience, although I'm pretty sure that's intentional. Its satire is too astute for it not to be intentional. It basically defiles the remains of notions of "high" and "low" at every possible opportunity, from its casting to its musical centerpiece.

[Spinal]

I hated it because I thought it lacked anything resembling a rebellious spirit and instead wanted to lull audiences into complacency by being vaguely "edgy" enough to get people to feel like they're "part" of something and then have that feeling end as soon as they leave the multiplex.

How do you make this distinction? What would make it a truly rebellious film, in your opinion?

[Stay Puft]

Where did you find this at?

Grabbed it from KG.

[Rowland]

On the other hand, Guy Ritchie's Revolver is full of utter nonsense but so brazenly ridiculous, confident and downright spiritual that it is likely to stay in my mind for weeks. Shockingly for a Ritchie film it is one that deserves discussion and thought. I'm already developing my review in my head, and it is as out there and scattershot as the film itself.See, I told you guys! :cool:

How about the attempted assassination on Liotta? Or Statham confronting himself in the elevator?

[trotchky]

How do you make this distinction? What would make it a truly rebellious film, in your opinion?

From talking to people who have seen the film, mainly. Discourse rarely rises above the level of "is V a freedom fighter or a terrorist???" because the film doesn't demand anything more from its audience. By equating action movie thrills with the thrill of actual rebellion the film disempowers the audience, asking only that we go along for the ride. A truly rebellious film would be, I guess, one that demands something from the audience or inspires us in a way that has an actual real-world application.

[Rowland]

Zoolander had some good moments. But it seemed simultaneously too restrained and too unhinged. There were some elements (performances, in particular) that would have felt a lot better, in my estimation, had they been played straighter. It was a good reminder that while Will Ferrell is a very gifted comedian, the shoes he's wearing don't always fit.Yep. I gave this two stars, wholly mediocre tipping over into the negative end of the scale. My biggest laugh was probably Billy Zane.

[Sycophant]

Yep. I gave this two stars, wholly mediocre tipping over into the negative end of the scale. My biggest laugh was probably Billy Zane.The Zane bit was good. I started laughing a lot at the 2001 riff until the 2001 music actually kicked in.

[Rowland]

And I'm thinking about renting Double Team and Knock Off, but I might do that next week. Been itching to see Knock Off again, so I might as well use the consensus as justification.It's just too bad that Knock Off isn't available on DVD as widescreen. Double Team isn't as bad as its RT-meter suggests, granted you approach it with low expectations.

[Grouchy]

My main grudge with V for Vendetta is how much it dumbs down many details of the comic to make the story more accesible. For example, V's disciple girl being a twenty-something free-thinking journalist in the Lois Lane mold instead of a 13-year-old prostitute. Or how there's a love story between them when in the book it was a parent-daughter relationship. Or how they avoid showing us the afternath of V's killings while in the book a crucial secondary character is the widow of one of his victims. All this made me distrust the film. Plus, I can't completely like anything with Natalie blech Portman in it.

If I hadn't read the comic, though, I would've probably liked it a lot more.

[dreamdead]

A truly rebellious film would be, I guess, one that demands something from the audience or inspires us in a way that has an actual real-world application.

Beyond films like Battle of Algiers, Battleship Potempkin, Do the Right Thing, and maybe I am Cuba, however, this has rarely happened. So, is it necessary to situate such rebellion in a natural, real environment, or can a science fiction film achieve this same ability, albeit in a fictional context?

[D_Davis]

Grabbed it from KG.


Cool. This is one of Tsui's films I haven't seen yet.

I'll have to grab it.

[Rowland]

I don't think V for Vendetta was transgressive enough. Maybe if it had been released a few years earlier, but by 2006, I'd say it comfortably reflected the spirit of the time, and otherwise, the pacing was lethargic, the screenplay overwritten, the direction flat, the one action sequence near the end hilariously incongruent with the rest of the piece (and mediocre even on its own terms), the politics juvenile on the surface, and muddled if you scratch just beneath the exterior. I suppose that as big-studio agitprop, it was almost passable.

[Spinal]

From talking to people who have seen the film, mainly. Discourse rarely rises above the level of "is V a freedom fighter or a terrorist???" because the film doesn't demand anything more from its audience. By equating action movie thrills with the thrill of actual rebellion the film disempowers the audience, asking only that we go along for the ride. A truly rebellious film would be, I guess, one that demands something from the audience or inspires us in a way that has an actual real-world application.

This seems to me an unusual way to evaluate a film's merit - that the people you've talked to about it don't have a reaction that is deep enough for you. I can only speak to where the film took me. Personally, I think it is extraordinary in the way that it grapples with the question of what might be an appropriate response in the face of overwhelming oppression. It covers many of the same themes as the excellent documentary, The Weather Underground, which demonstrates how some well-intentioned people have decided that reason is not enough to counter an opponent who refuses to act reasonably. V for Vendetta allows passionate feelings to run wild and leads us towards an ending that is both beautiful and horrifying, satisfying and troubling.

It also addresses the question of the desire of the individual spirit to be set free versus the need for people to come together in a common cause in order to effectively change the course of oppressive leadership. Many seemed to think the scene where the large group shows up in V masks was contradictory to the film's overall message. But that's what makes it so provocative, in my mind. It's a meaningful contradiction, one that I think we are meant to ponder long after the film because the image is both one of both strength and conformity. For me, it was never possible to boil the film down to a question so simple as "Is V a freedom fighter or a terrorist?" For me, the film inspired a deep emotional response that I found difficult to justify intellectually and thus the film stuck with me long after the final credits. I think that sort of interplay between the emotions and the intellect is difficult to accomplish and it was certainly more than I had expected from what was ostensibly a mainstream action thriller.

[Rowland]

I'm not familiar with the writer, but Slant's review (http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/film_review.asp?ID=3550) for Boarding Gate has me really excited.

[megladon8]

The Heiress was wonderful.

Both Olivia de Havilland and Montgomery Clift were great, and the dialogue feels natural and true.

I really didn't expect that ending.

[Benny Profane]

I heard that in the comic book V for Vendetta the main character reads V. by Thomas Pynchon. I have no real interest in seeing the movie though.

[Kurosawa Fan]

The Heiress was wonderful.

Both Olivia de Havilland and Montgomery Clift were great, and the dialogue feels natural and true.

I really didn't expect that ending.

Awesome! Did Jen like it?

[Spinal]

Everything in Boarding Gate happens too fast. Flickers of light, crowds rushing by, jump cuts, discontinuities, inexplicable plot developments, Adderall-inspired camerawork, and a scene-storming Asia Argento, who looks ready to rape anything in sight ...


Sold!

[megladon8]

Awesome! Did Jen like it?


Yep!

She'd actually seen it before. But yes, we both loved it.

Thanks for the recommendation!

[Kurosawa Fan]

Yep!

She'd actually seen it before. But yes, we both loved it.

Thanks for the recommendation!

No problem. I'm glad you both liked it.

[lovejuice]

"Is V a freedom fighter or a terrorist?"

even that alone is quite enough for me to like the film. perhaps i can agree with grouchy that the film dumps down so much from the graphic novel. still what's left on screen is provocative enough. by the end we -- or at least i -- don't get that comfortable feeling we're rooting for the good/right guy. he deliberately allows a killing of innocence to perpetual his cause. how's about the abomination/torture he performs on portman?

ok, be prepare for a can of worm. but if anything, v embraces the true spirit of anti-hero more than popular choices like batman. (BB and many films in the series no contest though are much better than v.)

[Spinal]

even that alone is quite enough for me to like the film. perhaps i can agree with grouchy that the film dumps down so much from the graphic novel. still what's left on screen is provocative enough.

I have read the graphic novel. I don't think it dumbs down the book. I think it streamlines it for a different medium. Exactly what a good adaptation should do. For those who feel the book has more detail or depth, I say, of course it does! It's a book! Still, the film offers plenty of provocation, thoughtfulness and visual delights.



by the end we -- or at least i -- don't get that comfortable feeling we're rooting for the good/right guy. he deliberately allows a killing of innocence to perpetual his cause. how's about the abomination/torture he performs on portman?

Yes, I don't think the film is nearly as safe as some suggest.



ok, be prepare for a can of worm.

Awesome. :lol:

[Grouchy]

ok, be prepare for a can of worm. but if anything, v embraces the true spirit of anti-hero more than popular choices like batman. (BB and many films in the series no contest though are much better than v.)
Well, sure. I don't quite know what the definition of anti-hero is, but if it means a degree of fucked up-ness in a character who otherwise pursues a noble objective, then V reigns all over Batman, Spiderman and its obvious inspiration The Shadow.

[Grouchy]

I have read the graphic novel. I don't think it dumbs down the book. I think it streamlines it for a different medium. Exactly what a good adaptation should do. For those who feel the book has more detail or depth, I say, of course it does! It's a book! Still, the film offers plenty of provocation, thoughtfulness and visual delights.
You can't deny the film makes V a lot more sympathetic! For one thing, in the film he spares a few lives and only seems to kill when necessary, while on the book he doesn't seem to care about any human life that stands on his way. But the most difficult transformations to stomach have to do with Evey's character, what she stands for in the book, and how in the film she's an independent woman who can question and defy V, while in the book she's a lot more helpless and free to be molded one way or another.

Moore's book is much more provocative because it offers the readers a lot more reasons to despise what V stands for, and yet makes him a hero of his times. I'm not really complaining that a lot of detail or subplots were dropped, I'm saying a lot of things were changed for the mainstream.

[lovejuice]

But the most difficult transformations to stomach have to do with Evey's character, what she stands for in the book, and how in the film she's an independent woman who can question and defy V, while in the book she's a lot more helpless and free to be molded one way or another.

i haven't read the book, but would like to ask. why do you think it's more morally apprehensive to mold a prostitute than a tv reporter into a terrorist? shouldn't it be other way around?

[Grouchy]

i haven't read the book, but would like to ask. why do you think it's more morally apprehensive to mold a prostitute than a tv reporter into a terrorist? shouldn't it be other way around?
Well, because the tv reporter incarnated by Portman has more of a chance to defend herself against brainwashing. She's older, knows more about what goes on in the world and has formed an opinion, and she's this brave, independent character instead of a scared kid.

[lovejuice]

Well, because the tv reporter incarnated by Portman has more of a chance to defend herself against brainwashing. She's older, knows more about what goes on in the world and has formed an opinion, and she's this brave, independent character instead of a scared kid.

ic, and rather agree. quite a shame the movie doesn't follow the route.

[Qrazy]

Still, the film offers plenty of... visual delights.


Like what? With these types of films I kind of expect relatively blunt and poorly developed sub-text, that's usually par for the course, but what I can not forgive is such deeply entrenched formal mediocrity. The editing and cinematography were so bland, at times I felt I was watching a sci-fi tv special. The domino montage near the end, of earlier moments in the film, was painfully clunky in it's conception and execution.

Oh and the repetition of childhood Portman under a bed and adult Portman reliving that and diving under the bed once more? Good god.

[Raiders]

Yeah, I have to agree with Grouchy. The film never once made me really consider the trade off between the tyranny of the government and the anarchy of V. The book is much more ambiguous, while the film almost revels in V's violent and bloody revolution as if it is absolutely necessary and justified without really questioning its ramifications. The finale's triumphant sheen should be basked in ambiguity, but it comes across as a wholly justified and vindicated act of revolt.

[D_Davis]

My main problem with V was its execution.

It's all tell, tell, tell, and it rarely shows.

It's all exposition and infodump. A collection of talking heads.

Unfortunately, they aren't talking about anything interesting at all. Like a bunch of college freshmen talking about politics and society, everything sounds silly and trite when they mean for it to sound serious and poignant.

[Stay Puft]

It's just too bad that Knock Off isn't available on DVD as widescreen.

Really? I was looking at the disc on Amazon and it said it was a widescreen/fullscreen combo disc.

I wouldn't even bother if I couldn't get it in widescreen.

[D_Davis]

Really? I was looking at the disc on Amazon and it said it was a widescreen/fullscreen combo disc.

I wouldn't even bother if I couldn't get it in widescreen.

I'm pretty sure it's only fullscreen.

Although, in widescreen it would probably be to awesome for anyone to handle.

[MacGuffin]

Simply because I'm interested in your answer, can you identify which action films, to you, "take risks"? And can you elaborate on what this term denotes?

I think Beverly Hills Cop and xXx off the top of my head, both take risks by disregarding racial or social classes. By taking risks, a movie should, as TheMostGorgeousSituation so wonderfully put it, actually do something with it's material other than just put it onscreen as some edgy set piece. V For Vendetta does politically what The Matrix did philosophically is the best way for me to put it.

[number8]

V for Very Bad Movie.

*rimshot*

[number8]

So I watched Enchanted. Hated the ending and the movie was just okay, but the "Working Song" bit had my sides splitting. I can see now why people nominated it for an Oscar after seeing the movie. The problem is the song doesn't really stand on its own. The sequence made it great.

[Yxklyx]

Melville, I think our positions are fairly well staked out so I hope you'll forgive me if I don't respond further. I get where you're coming from.


Brand Upon the Brain! was great. Maddin is starting to rise pretty high in my ranking of directors. Did many people here see this in its very limited theatrical run? What'd you guys think?

I saw it in its live run with Maddin in attendance. Very impressive. One wee thing I didn't like too much was the live narration (done by Crispin Glover when I saw it). Is the version you saw narrated? It seemed to me that the narration was not needed and kinda distracted from the the rest.

[Duncan]

I saw it in its live run with Maddin in attendance. Very impressive. One wee thing I didn't like too much was the live narration (done by Crispin Glover when I saw it). Is the version you saw narrated? It seemed to me that the narration was not needed and kinda distracted from the the rest.

It was narrated by Isabella Rossellini, who I thought did a good job. I can imagine Crispin Glover going a bit overboard with it though...dude seems a wee bit off sometimes. I really wanted to see it live, but when it was playing in Toronto I was in New York, and when it was playing in New York I was in Toronto. Oh well.

[Duncan]

Hey Qrazy, you may have mentioned this somewhere over the last bunch of pages, but have you seen Sympathy For Mr. Vengeance?

[origami_mustache]

I saw it in its live run with Maddin in attendance. Very impressive. One wee thing I didn't like too much was the live narration (done by Crispin Glover when I saw it). Is the version you saw narrated? It seemed to me that the narration was not needed and kinda distracted from the the rest.

Isabella Rosellini narrated the version I watched. I agree it wasn't needed as is most always the case, but it didn't bother me as much as usual due to the chaptered storytelling structure and the frivolous nature of it. I even kind of enjoyed the rhythmic repetition of some of the narration..."SECRETS...SECRETS....SECRETS."

[Yxklyx]

Isabella Rosellini narrated the version I watched. I agree it wasn't needed as is most always the case, but it didn't bother me as much as usual due to the chaptered storytelling structure and the frivolous nature of it. I even kind of enjoyed the rhythmic repetition of some of the narration..."SECRETS...SECRETS....SECRETS."

He has had narration in previous movies (like Careful) but he does a lot more of it here alongside the story. It seems like he's trying to make the movie more palatable for a mainstream audience, which I suppose is fine in a way. I will have to see how the Rosellini narration works whenever it's released on DVD - maybe there's less of it.

[Qrazy]

My main problem with V was its execution.

It's all tell, tell, tell, and it rarely shows.

It's all exposition and infodump. A collection of talking heads.

Unfortunately, they aren't talking about anything interesting at all. Like a bunch of college freshmen talking about politics and society, everything sounds silly and trite when they mean for it to sound serious and poignant.

I had flashbacks to the white walled architect during that V, V, V, speech near the beginning.

[MacGuffin]

What is Guy Maddin's masterpiece?

[Qrazy]

Hey Qrazy, you may have mentioned this somewhere over the last bunch of pages, but have you seen Sympathy For Mr. Vengeance?

Yeah, it didn't really bother me. I thought it was just OK, but certainly the weakest of the series.

[trotchky]

So I'm pretty sure I "hated" Mike Leigh's Naked. Frownland has a hilarious scene that parodies the kind of pseudo-intellectual horseshit the protagonist of this movie vomits all over the place. I felt like it tried to make Johnny likable by giving him all these witticisms and making him read books and stuff; it was cheap, like if Kubrick actually meant to humanize Alex by throwing Beethoven in. I don't have a problem with movies that depict characters who are borderline-unwatchable; in fact, I kind of love when they do that; but this doesn't want to commit all the way to "gritty" realism and instead tries to give the characters and their situations more depth than they actually have (which is to say, none).

[Qrazy]

What is Guy Maddin's masterpiece?

Out of the three I've seen I thought Cowards Bend the Knee was best. I think his visual style fits silent films with a little music and ambient noise... when you add dialogue there seems to be too much of a disconnect between the visual and the audio, they don't cohere into a greater experience. I find dialogue just holds him back although maybe it was just the sound design on the films I saw.

[Spinal]

What is Guy Maddin's masterpiece?

Cowards Bend the Knee

[MacGuffin]

Out of the three I've seen I thought Cowards Bend the Knee was best. I think his visual style fits silent films with a little music and ambient noise... when you add dialogue there seems to be too much of a disconnect between the visual and the audio, they don't cohere into a greater experience. I find dialogue just holds him back although maybe it was just the sound design on the films I saw.

Okay, thanks. I may go ahead and check it out. Sunset Boulevard comes first though!

Yeah, I tried to pass that off as spontaneous. As a fan of movies, I don't think I have any excuse for not having seen it (admittedly, among others) yet. Feel free to be disappointed with me. :sad:

[Duncan]

Also agree on Cowards Bend the Knee.

[Qrazy]

So I'm pretty sure I hated Mike Leigh's Naked. Frownland has a hilarious scene that parodies the kind of pseudo-intellectual horseshit the protagonist of this movie vomits all over the place. I felt like it tried to make Johnny likable by giving him all these witticisms and making him read books and stuff; it was cheap, like if Kubrick actually meant to humanize Alex by throwing Beethoven in. I don't have a problem with movies that depict characters who are borderline-unwatchable; in fact, I kind of love when they do that; but this doesn't want to commit all the way to "gritty" realism and instead tries to give the characters and their situations more depth than they actually have (which is to say, none).

Ehh, I don't really agree that the witticisms are there to make Johnny more likable nor that Beethoven is there to humanize Alex (although Kubrick did mean to and did humanize him other ways). These things are there to show that intellect and taste have little or no correlation with benevolence or decency.

I also thought that both the characters and their situations had a great deal of depth... both in their pain, frustrations and self-hatreds. I found the following quote to be ironically revealing.

"My feelings about 'Naked' are as ambivalent as my feelings about our chaotic late 20th--century world... I don't really want to pontificate about this film. I'd rather let it speak for itself." - Leigh

[Duncan]

So I'm pretty sure I "hated" Mike Leigh's Naked. Frownland has a hilarious scene that parodies the kind of pseudo-intellectual horseshit the protagonist of this movie vomits all over the place. I felt like it tried to make Johnny likable by giving him all these witticisms and making him read books and stuff; it was cheap, like if Kubrick actually meant to humanize Alex by throwing Beethoven in. I don't have a problem with movies that depict characters who are borderline-unwatchable; in fact, I kind of love when they do that; but this doesn't want to commit all the way to "gritty" realism and instead tries to give the characters and their situations more depth than they actually have (which is to say, none).

boo

[Qrazy]

Okay, thanks. I may go ahead and check it out. Sunset Boulevard comes first though!

Yeah, I tried to pass that off as spontaneous. As a fan of movies, I don't think I have any excuse for not having seen it (admittedly, among others) yet. Feel free to be disappointed with me. :sad:

Meh, there's always going to be that film one still needs to see. I still haven't seen Tub Girl!

[MacGuffin]

Meh, there's always going to be that film one still needs to see. I still haven't seen Tub Girl!

By the way, to somewhat resume our Donnie Darko discussion: how can you dislike a movie that uses the phrase "fucking fuck"? :lol:

[Rowland]

Meh, there's always going to be that film one still needs to see. I still haven't seen Tub Girl!I'm pretty sure Tub Girl is just a picture.

An evocative... provocative picture....

[Melville]

Just to mix things up a bit, I'll say that Maddin's best film is either Archangel or The Heart of the World (both conveniently available on a single DVD!). I think they put his silent-film-aping style to the best, most frenzied use. However, Cowards Bend the Knee is really good as well.

[MacGuffin]

I'm pretty sure Tub Girl is just a picture.

An evocative... provocative picture....

You thought this would be a picture of Tubgirl, didn't you. Well it's not, but this is...

...not either. You sick, sick, sick man. :evil:

[Russ]

Another vote for Cowards, but my favorite Maddin film is Careful.

[Rowland]

You thought this would be a picture of Tubgirl, didn't you. Well it's not, but this is...

...not either. You sick, sick, sick man. :evil:I would totally eat these:

http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/1121/41oct17somethingaintrigyu6.jpg

[MacGuffin]

I would totally eat these:

http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/1121/41oct17somethingaintrigyu6.jpg

:eek:

[Duncan]

Can you imagine ever thinking it worthwhile to photoshop something like that? I mean, just how much free time does one have to have to be confronted with that life decision in the first place?

[Rowland]

Can you imagine ever thinking it worthwhile to photoshop something like that? I mean, just how much free time does one have to have to be confronted with that life decision in the first place?One person's waste of time is another's artistic expression. ;)

[Spinal]

Plea from a moderator ...

Please stop. I actually have to click those spoilers dreading what I will find. :|

[Wryan]

Can you imagine ever thinking it worthwhile to photoshop something like that? I mean, just how much free time does one have to have to be confronted with that life decision in the first place?

Tub Girl tends to free up one's time just by sheer will.

[monolith94]

My favorite Maddin is actually his Dracula film, although admittedly I've only seen that, The Saddest Song, and The Heart of the World.

[Qrazy]

I'm pretty sure Tub Girl is just a picture.

An evocative... provocative picture....

Oh my bad, what's the other one that isn't Fat Girl but has Girl as the second word?

[Qrazy]

Just to mix things up a bit, I'll say that Maddin's best film is either Archangel or The Heart of the World (both conveniently available on a single DVD!). I think they put his silent-film-aping style to the best, most frenzied use. However, Cowards Bend the Knee is really good as well.

Heart of the World is damn good as well but since it's a short I didn't count it.

[Ivan Drago]

Oh my bad, what's the other one that isn't Fat Girl but has Girl as the second word?

My Girl?

[Raiders]

I'm pretty sure he's thinking of 2girls1cup.

[Ivan Drago]

By the way, to somewhat resume our Donnie Darko discussion: how can you dislike a movie that uses the phrase "fucking fuck"? :lol:

Or uses Tears For Fears music?


I'm pretty sure he's thinking of 2girls1cup.

Oh. Whoops. I thought he was asking about another movie that ended in "Girl" because he also mentioned Fat Girl.

[Raiders]

Oh, I thought he was trying to be sarcastic and name disgusting online videos. If he was being serious, then I don't know what film he is talking about.

[Raiders]

Paul Scofield has died. Cinema is having an alarming mortality rate over the past few months. I'll always remember Scofield's excellent performance in The Crucible.

[D_Davis]

I'm pretty sure he's thinking of 2girls1cup.

That's a classic.

[Wryan]

My favorite Maddin is actually his Dracula film, although admittedly I've only seen that, The Saddest Song, and The Heart of the World.

I like Pages From a Virgin's Diary myself. It's the only full Maddin film I've seen though.

[MacGuffin]

I like Pages From a Virgin's Diary myself. It's the only full Maddin film I've seen though.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that that's the Dracula movie that monolith94 is referring to.

[Spinal]

Paul Scofield has died. Cinema is having an alarming mortality rate over the past few months. I'll always remember Scofield's excellent performance in The Crucible.

Amazing actor. A Man for All Seasons and Quiz Show are my favorites.