28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[balmakboor]

Why does Bull Durham have a reputation as one of the best sports movies ever? It might be one of the worst I've seen.

It was written by a baseball insider who probably got a lot of details right. (I wouldn't know. I'm not a baseball insider.)

I don't think it's so much a sports movie as it is a character study comedy with baseball as a backdrop.

I love the movie btw.

[Watashi]

Bull Durham rules.

300... not so much.

[Stay Puft]

Weekend:

L'Age d'or
Gran Casino
Harold & Kumar

[Derek]

I understand that you won't want to back and forth on this, and I probably don't really want to either, but the reason the movie comes off as racist isn't that the Persians are the villains, but the way they're depicted as a people, particularly in contrast to the portrayal of the "perfection-obsessed semi-Nazis" that are the Spartans, with which the film wants the audience's sympathies to rest with unquestioningly.

There are choices made in the depiction and translation of certain historical or textual accuracies when adapted to film. There's also the choice in telling a story as a film altogether. And the end result of these decisions was something I found deplorable on a number of levels.

*shrugs*

Are you suggesting that the cut directly from Leonidas's shiny, naked backside glistening wondrously in the warm sunlight to a close-up of a black man glaring insanely towards the camera could be construed as racist? That sir is reading far too much into the film and I won't stand for it. Plus, it's historically accurate and clearly documented in Spartan folklore that whenever a brown-skinned man sneered, Leonidas countered it by reflecting light off his glorious Spartan ass to blind them.

[Sycophant]

Weekend:
I Want Someone to Eat Cheese With
Harold & Kumar 2

Mebbe somethin' else. But probably not.

[balmakboor]

Weekend:

Passing Fancy (1st time)
Zodiac (1st time believe it or not)
I Was Born But... (3rd time)

[DrewG]

Weekend:

Passing Fancy (1st time)
Zodiac (1st time believe it or not)
I Was Born But... (3rd time)

:) Nice re-watch! You gonna do it without the score this time? Or had you always been doing it that way..

[Derek]

Bah. BAH, I say.
[/SIZE]

It's good, but I'm a little disappointed given your and the Christley's love for it. It's efficient and I like how Boetticher developed a certain moral complexity to each of the men (the woman, however, really did seem tacked on), which made for a good deal of tension throughout the film. Some great individual images as well, but overall, I actually prefer Seven Men From Now.

[dreamdead]

Weekend:

Stalker
Bloody Sunday

[DrewG]

Weekend:

Harold and Kumar: Escape from Guantanamo Bay

That's it. And I couldn't be happier.

[MadMan]

My original post was just pointing out that 300 isn't even worthy of discussion. Why the hell are we talking about it when there are far more deserving films that actually contribute something to cinema besides entertainment? That was my point. At least I think it was. I tend to wander in my thought process.

PS: I should probably go see Harold and Kumar 2, but I'm waiting until after finals (in May). I figure it will still be in theaters by then.

[DrewG]

Spinal I demand an explanation of your Eyes Without a Face review either in here or in my thread. If not it is you who will be booted in the chest, hurling you backwards into a really deep pit that can't be good whenever you eventually land.

[Sycophant]

My original post was just pointing out that 300 isn't even worthy of discussion. Why the hell are we talking about it when there are far more deserving films that actually contribute something to cinema besides entertainment? That was my point. At least I think it was. I tend to wander in my thought process. I know what your point is. Your point is also wrong. Everything is worthy of discussion. And so-called entertainment is certainly worthy of scrutiny.

[Rowland]

Our entertainment says a lot about us, and as such deserves scrutiny.

[MadMan]

I know what your point is. Your point is also wrong. Everything is worthy of discussion. And so-called entertainment is certainly worthy of scrutiny.Heh. Someone forgot about "opinion" first off. Second, yes everything can be discussed. Doesn't mean everything should be. I'm sure we can have a great, in depth talk about shoe laces. Does that mean we should? I don't think your taking that into account. Or the fact that your being silly and a bit too serious about all this :P

[Sycophant]

Heh. Someone forgot about "opinion" first off. Second, yes everything can be discussed. Doesn't mean everything should be. I'm sure we can have a great, in depth talk about shoe laces. Does that mean we should? I don't think your taking that into account. Or the fact that your being silly and a bit too serious about all this :PIf you have an interesting conversational point about shoelaces, I'd love to hear it.

Why does 300 entertain you? That's not just a viable question; it's a vital question.

[MadMan]

If you have an interesting conversational point about shoelaces, I'd love to hear it.Hah. I'm sure one could be achieved. But I don't really care about shoelaces. They just aren't very interesting.


Why does 300 entertain you? That's not just a viable question; it's a vital question.Because I like action movies. I'm more into macho type cinema due to being a 22 year old male, one who grew up watching John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, James Bond and Arnuld action flicks as well as other films more suitable for children and The Wizard of Oz. But I don't think its a vital question. A question yes, but vital? Why vital? And honestly I'm not so sure that what entertains us does in fact say a lot about us. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. But I feel like that's another debate for another time.

[Derek]

Does anyone have that animated .gif of the stick figure typing faster and faster before smashing his hands and head on the keyboard?

[D_Davis]

Our entertainment says a lot about us, and as such deserves scrutiny.

You can say that again. I constantly battle with the movies that entertain me. So much so, that I am now finding it harder and harder to "enjoy" realistic, brutal violence in cinema.

I am not a violent or angry person. I've never been in a fight before, and I rarely, if ever, really get angry. I also hate guns, hate war, and hate weapons of any kind.

So why do I enjoy violent, action-packed cinema?

I like martial arts films because of the physical performances, and for the spectacle of it all. Luckily, there are quite a few MA films in which people don't die, nor are they all ultra-violent.

But man, I actually felt sick and had to turn away at some stuff while watching Doomsday. The violence in that made me feel sick - and I think this is a good thing.

I really shouldn't like violence, and I am actually glad that my tastes towards cinematic violence seem to be changing.

[Spinal]

Spinal I demand an explanation of your Eyes Without a Face review either in here or in my thread. If not it is you who will be booted in the chest, hurling you backwards into a really deep pit that can't be good whenever you eventually land.

I'm not dumb enough to stand next to really deep pits.

If you do a search within this thread, I wrote something about it a while back.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Why does Bull Durham have a reputation as one of the best sports movies ever? It might be one of the worst I've seen.

This is ludicrous! Bull Durham is one of the best sports movies because it's about much more than just sports. It has pre-Waterworld Costner, Tim Robbins, pre-activism Sarandon; what's not to like?

[ledfloyd]

It was written by a baseball insider who probably got a lot of details right. (I wouldn't know. I'm not a baseball insider.)

I don't think it's so much a sports movie as it is a character study comedy with baseball as a backdrop.

I love the movie btw.
I'd consider myself a baseball insider. I think it was alright.

I just didn't think it was that funny. And alot of it annoyed me. Especially Robbins talking to himself on the mound, and to a lesser extent Costner talking to himself at the plate. Alot of times I felt like they were flaunting baseball knowledge/lingo in the same way Juno flaunted indie hipster stuff. Costner, Robbins and Sarandon all seem bent on putting their worst performances out there. Which makes me think it's bad writing/directing. Not to mention Sarandon is ugly, and she has boobs way lower than where normal boobs should be. And it's not at all believable that two dudes would fight over her IMO. As far as other unbelievable stuff, there's no way Sarandon would make contact in the batting cages with that swing, and there's no way Robbins would be anywhere near 90 with that delivery. But that's beside the point. The writing/directing is where it fails.

[Eleven]

Hitchcock and Shakespeare just entertained people. I'm glad no one thought either of those populists were worthy of discussing.

[Ezee E]

Sarandon looked good in Bull Durham. It's a fine movie, but it's not even Costner's best baseball movie. Much less best sports movie ever.

WEEKEND:
Backdraft
Werckmeister Harmonies
The Savages

My Blueberry Nights
Harold and Kumar 2
Deception

[Ezee E]

Match Cut has had page-long discussions about a dot of blood on the screen, a simple Simpsons quote, and rating systems.

If a 300 discussion isn't worthy. It's because it's too obvious of a discussion.

[Spinal]

Match Cut has had page-long discussions about a dot of blood on the screen

I stand by my position on that issue.

[lovejuice]

Match Cut has had page-long discussions about a dot of blood on the screen...
remind me of that?

[D_Davis]

remind me of that?

Children of Men?

Page-long discussions on trivial subjects, that's where I'm a viking!

[Winston*]

And Dominic West acting very, very badly. That hurt.

David Wenham was even worse.

[Eleven]

Who gave the worst performance in 300: now that's a debate not worth having.

EDIT: I know I'm not, Winston. OR I know you are but what am I?

[DavidSeven]

The blood splatter debate was one of our best. Heaven forbid we actually talk about cinematic technique here.

[megladon8]

What exactly was the point being argued with the Children of Men blood spatter discussion?

[Spinal]

What exactly was the point being argued with the Children of Men blood spatter discussion?

I maintain that when you allow blood spatter to hit the camera lens, you suggest to the audience that there is literally a camera present. For example, in this case, it made it seem like Clive Owen was being followed by a camera crew. I don't think it ruins the scene, but it is distracting in an unwelcome way.

*senses the discussion about to have a revival*

[megladon8]

I maintain that when you allow blood spatter to hit the camera lens, you suggest to the audience that there is literally a camera present. For example, in this case, it made it seem like Clive Owen was being followed by a camera crew. I don't think it ruins the scene, but it is distracting in an unwelcome way.


Ah OK.

Do you feel the same way about something like lens flare?

[soitgoes...]

What exactly was the point being argued with the Children of Men blood spatter discussion?
Edit.

[soitgoes...]

Bad news moviegoers. (http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/24/snipes.sentencing/index.html)
A great actor will not be active for awhile. :cry::cry::cry:

[Qrazy]

Love Me Tonight was deliciously zany for something out of 1932. Funny stuff.

[Spinal]

Ah OK.

Do you feel the same way about something like lens flare?

I guess it would depend on the scene. Do you have one in mind?

[Qrazy]

I maintain that when you allow blood spatter to hit the camera lens, you suggest to the audience that there is literally a camera present. For example, in this case, it made it seem like Clive Owen was being followed by a camera crew. I don't think it ruins the scene, but it is distracting in an unwelcome way.

*senses the discussion about to have a revival*

It breaks the fourth wall in a unique way, but no I don't think it makes it seem like he's being followed by a camera crew after that... Just as when an actor breaks the fourth wall in a film you don't proceed for the rest of the film without once more being able to reclaim the illusion.

[Spinal]

I'm not interested in having the discussion again. I was just explaining what E was referring to.

[Qrazy]

I'm not interested in having the discussion again. I was just explaining what E was referring to.

Then don't discuss, I"m monologuing.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Love Me Tonight was deliciously zany for something out of 1932. Funny stuff.
Fo sho, I love this movie. I still tend to think some of the Lubitsch musicals of the time outclass it but it's easily one of the best of it's kind. I really like Mamoulian's free for all style. He tries everything, and even if some of it doesn't work (the overuse of extreme close-ups in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde was a bit much... if not entirely uninteresting), he has enough of an eye (or ear) that it's always a joy to watch him. I especially love Myrna Loy in this one.

[Winston*]

I don't like the movie Bend it Like Beckham but there have been people I've come in contact with that have told me that they do like the movie Bend it Like Beckham. What are the Match Cut populace's views on this matter?

[Qrazy]

I don't like the movie Bend it Like Beckham but there have been people I've come in contact with that have told me that they do like the movie Bend it Like Beckham. What are the Match Cut populace's views on this matter?

I found it to be fine for what it is... perhaps the only Rhys Meyers performance I've seen where I didn't want to slit his throat.

[Winston*]

Follow up question: If you could go on a date with one of the characters in Bend it Like Beckham, who would it be and why?

[transmogrifier]

I maintain that when you allow blood spatter to hit the camera lens, you suggest to the audience that there is literally a camera present. For example, in this case, it made it seem like Clive Owen was being followed by a camera crew. I don't think it ruins the scene, but it is distracting in an unwelcome way.

*senses the discussion about to have a revival*


Agree totally. Anything hitting the lens in a non-documentary film is completely self-defeating in terms of maintaining the atmosphere. I HATE that technique. It happens in There Will Be Blood too, if I remember correctly.

[Qrazy]

Fo sho, I love this movie. I still tend to think some of the Lubitsch musicals of the time outclass it but it's easily one of the best of it's kind. I really like Mamoulian's free for all style. He tries everything, and even if some of it doesn't work (the overuse of extreme close-ups in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde was a bit much... if not entirely uninteresting), he has enough of an eye (or ear) that it's always a joy to watch him. I especially love Myrna Loy in this one.

The son of a gun is nothing but a tailor!

[lovejuice]

I don't like the movie Bend it Like Beckham but there have been people I've come in contact with that have told me that they do like the movie Bend it Like Beckham. What are the Match Cut populace's views on this matter?

i heartily dislike it. i find many teenage rom com that are more funny and thought provoking than BiLB. it also marks the beginning of my love/hate relationship with knightly.

[Qrazy]

Follow up question: If you could go on a date with one of the characters in Bend it Like Beckham, who would it be and why?

Jules cause I know by the end of the night I'd end up in some kind of lesbianic threesome.

[Qrazy]

i find many teenage rom com that are more funny and thought provoking than BiLB.

I agree but like what?

[transmogrifier]

I don't like the movie Bend it Like Beckham but there have been people I've come in contact with that have told me that they do like the movie Bend it Like Beckham. What are the Match Cut populace's views on this matter?

The basic structure of Bend it Like Beckham:

Protagonist does something ---> someone gets upset ---> they make up ---> montage --->Protagonist does something ---> someone gets upset ---> they make up ---> montage---> Protagonist does something ---> someone gets upset ---> they make up ---> montage ---> Protagonist does something ---> someone gets upset ---> they make up ---> montage

To mix it up, sometimes they add an extra montage. Usually of some of the absolute worst sports footage in the history of sports. And footage.

[megladon8]

I guess it would depend on the scene. Do you have one in mind?


No, no.

It's just an effect which I have occasionally found distracting - though I can't think of a specific example right now.

Like what you were saying about Children of Men, I find it shouts "this is just a movie!", which is fine in some instances, but in others where I have become completely immersed in the story, it can be a downer to have that deep connection taken away from you.

[Qrazy]

Brecht is rolling in his grave.

[Spinal]

Brecht is rolling in his grave.

I'm a huge fan of Brecht. Lens flares and blood splatters really have nothing to do with Brecht.

[Qrazy]

I'm a huge fan of Brecht. Lens flares and blood splatters really have nothing to do with Brecht.

Yes, actually they do. They are a visual manifestation of his concerns.

As an aside, Werckmeister Harmonies and Punch Drunk Love both use flares to brilliant effect.

[Qrazy]

I'm a huge fan of Brecht. Lens flares and blood splatters really have nothing to do with Brecht.

"But in others where I have become completely immersed in the story, it can be a downer to have that deep connection taken away from you."

Brecht.

[Qrazy]

I could make a great case for Cuaron wanting to keep the blood splatter in for the sake of inciting audience reflection in relation to that pivotal thematic moment in the film and how the ideas expressed in that approaching moment reflect on themselves and their own lives.

[transmogrifier]

I could make a great case for Cuaron wanting to keep the blood splatter in for the sake of inciting audience reflection in relation to that pivotal thematic moment in the film and how the ideas expressed in that approaching moment reflect on themselves and their own lives.

And I could make a case for a truly accomplished film being able to do all of this without simply flinging shit at the camera and breaking the "reality" of the film.

[Qrazy]

And I could make a case for a truly accomplished film being able to do all of this without simply flinging shit at the camera and breaking the "reality" of the film.

Seems like a fairly simple and effective method to break the fourth wall to me as it certainly seems to have done just that for all of you.

Obviously he didn't want the 'reality' of that moment to be the 'reality' that you wanted it to be. Lord knows they had enough of a budget to airbrush out bloodsplatter if they wanted to... in fact the way the scene plays out there's some evidence that the bloodsplatter may actually have been added digitally in the first place.

You're upset because Cuaron robbed you of your emotional catharsis, it is a very intentional move.

[transmogrifier]

Seems like a fairly simple and effective method to break the fourth wall to me as it certainly seems to have done just that for all of you.

Obviously he didn't want the 'reality' of that moment to be the 'reality' that you wanted it to be. Lord knows they had enough of a budget to airbrush out bloodsplatter if they wanted to.

Yeah, but as we all know, the intentions of the filmmaker are irrelevant when we approach a film as an audience. A film has to stand-alone, and messing with the camera lens in a way that draws attention to it in a fictional film, no matter what the ultimate intention, is ultimately too distracting to an audience for any benefit that it really has, IMO.

Added to this, it seems like such a cliche, to denote proximity with the camera being physically part of the environment, that it comes across as lazy filmmaking as well.

[Qrazy]

Yeah, but as we all know, the intentions of the filmmaker are irrelevant when we approach a film as an audience. A film has to stand-alone, and messing with the camera lens in a way that draws attention to it in a fictional film, no matter what the ultimate intention, is ultimately too distracting to an audience for any benefit that it really has, IMO.

Well first off, filmmaker's intentions are not irrelevant they simply aren't the final say. Second your opinion that fictional films shouldn't ever draw attention to their artifice is precisely what Brecht, Godard and apparently Cuaron rail against.


Added to this, it seems like such a cliche, to denote proximity with the camera being physically part of the environment, that it comes across as lazy filmmaking as well.

I don't find this argument remotely compelling.

[Qrazy]

Has anyone seen Curtiz The Breaking Point? I've heard from some that it's his masterpiece.

[DavidSeven]

You can't compare a lens flare to the blood splatter. Lens flares have become a staple in both still photography and film. It's so common that graphic designers artificially add it to images now for an added sense of "realism." The audience will automatically accept a lens flare as a natural part of the image even if they don't see them in real life. It doesn't draw attention to the camera in the same way that Cuaron's technique does.

Anyway, if Cuaron, like any good filmmaker, established from the beginning that something like that could take place within this film world he created then it wouldn't be an issue. The technique wasn't true to the kind of film he had presented us up to that point.

[Qrazy]

You can't compare a lens flare to the blood splatter. Lens flares have become a staple in both still photography and film. It's so common that graphic designers artificially add it to images now for an added sense of "realism." The audience will automatically accept a lens flare as a natural part of the image even if they don't see them in real life. It doesn't draw attention to the camera in the same way that Cuaron's technique does.

They're not the same thing but you certainly can compare them as they're both often used for the same effect. Furthermore 50 years ago everyone was shitting bricks over the lens flare taking them out of the picture, now it's the splatter. Personally I've seen both lens flares with my own eyes... whatever that means... and had splatter in my eyes before as well... either way though both are often put in a picture in order to take you out of the picture.

Plus I call shenanigans on your comment that they're added to images for 'realism', I don't think there's any reason to believe that. They've certainly become more acceptable and are added but I think they're added for their aesthetic much more than for any element of realism they might add. Unless you mean realism in a cinema verite kind of way which is a realism predicated on drawing attention to the camera in a 'documenting' type of way.


The technique wasn't true to the kind of film he had presented us up to that point.

Don't agree, this isn't Ken Loach here. There's plenty of artifice spread throughout the picture.

[Qrazy]

Watching Only Angels Have Wings - lol @ Joe, stupid bastard.

[DavidSeven]

Plus I call shenanigans on your comment that they're added to images for 'realism', I don't think there's any reason to believe that.

Wikipedia (Topic - Lens flare):


Deliberate use

A lens flare is often deliberately used to invoke a sense of drama. A lens flare is also useful when added to an artificial or modified image composition because it adds a sense of realism, implying that the image is an un-edited original photograph of a "real life" scene.

For both of these reasons (implying realism and/or drama) artificial lens flare is a common effect in various graphics editing programs,

[Qrazy]

Wikipedia (Topic - Lens flare):

Right, cinema/photo verite, which splatter on the lens fits just as well into in terms of that definition of 'realism'... 'implying that the image is an un-edited original photograph of a "real life" scene.'

Anyway, whether or not Cuaron was striving for faux-docu imagery to approach cinema verite realism, or recognized that the effect would distance the viewer from the narrative/emotional fulfillment (I find the latter much more likely) it's kind of a win-win scenario I find... the viewer (depending on their reaction to the technique and exposure to documentary footage in the past) is pushed either to the side of extreme emotional involvement (feeling they're there) or distanced and therefore have greater capacity for reflection on the subject matter.

[Winston*]

I'm in the process of learning to give up free will in preparation for certain future happenings, so for this weekend I'll watch whichever film the first person here tells me to watch.

Out of these:
Stray Dog
Hell House
Suspiria
California Split
The Holy Mountain
Fantastic Planet

[MacGuffin]

I'm in the process of learning to give up free will in preparation for certain future happenings, so for this weekend I'll watch whichever film the first person here tells me to watch.

Out of these:
Stray Dog
Hell House
Suspiria
California Split
The Holy Mountain
Fantastic Planet

Suspiria.

[Qrazy]

I'm in the process of learning to give up free will in preparation for certain future happenings, so for this weekend I'll watch whichever film the first person here tells me to watch.

Out of these:
Stray Dog
Hell House
Suspiria
California Split
The Holy Mountain
Fantastic Planet

The Holy Mountain

Rats.

[transmogrifier]

Well first off, filmmaker's intentions are not irrelevant they simply aren't the final say. Second your opinion that fictional films shouldn't ever draw attention to their artifice is precisely what Brecht, Godard and apparently Cuaron rail against.


So, they rail against it. And? Seems to me you are demurring to the opinion of three directors out of a selection of hundreds of thousands. No indication that you have any idea why, though.



I don't find this argument remotely compelling.

That's swell. But unless you hint at why, I'm left with no other option but to shrug my shoulders and go read The Onion.

[Qrazy]

So, they rail against it. And? Seems to me you are demurring to the opinion of three directors out of a selection of hundreds of thousands. No indication that you have any idea why, though.

Brecht isn't a director, I just assumed everyone here was familiar with his theories and didn't feel I had to delve into them (I honestly don't mean that to sound condescending... but it probably does... because I suck).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertolt_Brecht

This is an approach to storytelling in general not just filmmaking.

In short Brecht felt that drama can have a social/political effect but not if the audience is lulled into complacency and given their emotional catharsis... they need to be driven to see the artifice of the construction in order to reflect effectively upon the ideas intrinsic to the work.


That's swell. But unless you hint at why, I'm left with no other option but to shrug my shoulders and go read The Onion.

Because your calling it lazy filmmaking doesn't make it lazy filmmaking, you didn't really even offer an argument... you just seem to be saying blood splatter is cliched and therefore lazy... how does that make any sense even if it is cliched which I don't see how it is.

[Eleven]

I found a great use for interlibrary loans: the docs of Frederick Wiseman. I just put in Welfare (1975), and I'm already fascinated and depressed.

[transmogrifier]

Brecht isn't a director, I just assumed everyone here was familiar with his theories and didn't feel I had to delve into them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertolt_Brecht

This is an approach to storytelling in general not just filmmaking.



Because your calling it lazy filmmaking doesn't make it lazy filmmaking, you didn't really even offer an argument... you just seem to be saying blood splatter is cliched and therefore lazy... how does that make any sense even if it is cliched which I don't see how it is.

You seem to be implying that Cuaron is making some comment on the artificiality of cinema because he puts blood on the lens, and yet, there is nothing at all in the rest of the film that supports this theory. It seems like rationalization for a single dodgy decision in a film you happen to like.

And I wasn't talking about blood splatter in particular, but any situation where the filmnaker makes it obvious that there is a "wall" between the viewers and the audience (the most obvious being when something hits or sticks to the lens) while trying to do something as simple as suggesting "realism" or putting the audience into the action in a film that doesn't otherwise make any comment on the relationship between the act and content of cinema. In that situation, it's lazy shorthand for "real".

So there.

[Qrazy]

You seem to be implying that Cuaron is making some comment on the artificiality of cinema because he puts blood on the lens, and yet, there is nothing at all in the rest of the film that supports this theory. It seems like rationalization for a single dodgy decision in a film you happen to like.

No, he's drawing attention to the artificiality for the sake of his social/political thesis (the sanctity of human life) not for making some grand statement about artificiality itself. You can view it as rationalization but I don't even like the film that much I just think it's quite good not amazing or anything. I just have no issues with the technique he's using because I think it's a simple and effective way of partial fourth wall breaking... Von Trier has also used the technique in Dancer in the Dark and Bergman, Tarkovsky and Kieslowski have all used a different technique of having the actor face directly into the camera but speak to themselves so that they're not quite fourth wall breaking but effectively doing just that... it's to draw the audience's attention to the artificiality for a minute in order to reflect on the theme of the moment.


And I wasn't talking about blood splatter in particular, but any situation where the filmnaker makes it obvious that there is a "wall" between the viewers and the audience (the most obvious being when something hits or sticks to the lens) while trying to do something as simple as suggesting "realism" or putting the audience into the action in a film that doesn't otherwise make any comment on the relationship between the act and content of cinema. In that situation, it's lazy shorthand for "real".

So there.

Well I feel it's just the opposite. I find fourth wall breaking is predominantly employed for the purpose of drawing attention to artifice for thematic/intellectual purposes, not for establishing realism... and I feel it's the same case here.

[balmakboor]

:) Nice re-watch! You gonna do it without the score this time? Or had you always been doing it that way..

I've done it once with and once without the score. Haven't decided about my next and last time before sending it back to Netflix.

[balmakboor]

I'd consider myself a baseball insider. I think it was alright.

I just didn't think it was that funny. And alot of it annoyed me. Especially Robbins talking to himself on the mound, and to a lesser extent Costner talking to himself at the plate. Alot of times I felt like they were flaunting baseball knowledge/lingo in the same way Juno flaunted indie hipster stuff. Costner, Robbins and Sarandon all seem bent on putting their worst performances out there. Which makes me think it's bad writing/directing. Not to mention Sarandon is ugly, and she has boobs way lower than where normal boobs should be. And it's not at all believable that two dudes would fight over her IMO. As far as other unbelievable stuff, there's no way Sarandon would make contact in the batting cages with that swing, and there's no way Robbins would be anywhere near 90 with that delivery. But that's beside the point. The writing/directing is where it fails.

I thought Sarandon was HOT! But then I'm a 46 year old guy so cut me a little slack on this. ;)

[balmakboor]

I saw 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days in a theater tonight and what an amazing movie it is. It transcended all of my expectations. Can't wait to see it again on DVD. That long take at the birthday party is an extraordinary use of real time to make the audience as desperate to return to the action as the protagonist.

[Ezee E]

I saw 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days in a theater tonight and what an amazing movie it is. It transcended all of my expectations. Can't wait to see it again on DVD. That long take at the birthday party is an extraordinary use of real time to make the audience as desperate to return to the action as the protagonist.
Yeah. I'm surprised this didn't get seen too much here. I figured it'd be a hit. One of my faves from last year.

[Beau]

I loved 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days.

[Derek]

Watching Only Angels Have Wings - lol @ Joe, stupid bastard.

Who's Joe?

[balmakboor]

I loved 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days.

Yes, it's one of those films where I knew I was in for something great from the opening shot and it held me transfixed all the way until Otilia looks toward us and cut to black.

[balmakboor]

Yeah. I'm surprised this didn't get seen too much here. I figured it'd be a hit. One of my faves from last year.

It's movies like this that always keep me from making year end top 10 lists. Living in North Dakota, I never get a chance to see many great movies until way too late.

[Qrazy]

Movies that Need Better Endings: Whether it's 5 minutes or 15 minutes what are those films where you love almost all of it but the ending significantly dampens your approval? For me:

Wages of Fear
Red River
War of the Worlds

[Melville]

Movies that Need Better Endings: Whether it's 5 minutes or 15 minutes what are those films where you love almost all of it but the ending significantly dampens your approval?
Spider-Man 3 (from the moment Peter gets rid of the symbiote)
Minority Report

[ledfloyd]

The Life of David Gale has the worst ending ever. I dunno if a good ending would've saved it though.

[Qrazy]

Spider-Man 3 (from the moment Peter gets rid of the symbiote)
Minority Report

Where'd you find Mermaid? I want to see it.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Movies that Need Better Endings: Whether it's 5 minutes or 15 minutes what are those films where you love almost all of it but the ending significantly dampens your approval? For me:

Wages of Fear
Red River
War of the Worlds

The second two I agree with, but that first one is a terrible choice. That ending is perfect.

[Melville]

Where'd you find Mermaid? I want to see it.
http://www.veoh.com/videos/v928909nQ6Fyscy

It's also on YouTube. I actually found the narrative somewhat confusing.

[Qrazy]

The second two I agree with, but that first one is a terrible choice. That ending is perfect.

Bah such a drastic and silly shift in tone, ending at the oil fields would have been perfect. We don't need total dramatic irony here... he obviously already lost everything worthwhile and the trip hadn't been worth it, he didn't need to lose his life as well, it just weakens the picture.

[Spinal]

Psycho is the film that leaps to mind.

[Qrazy]

Psycho is the film that leaps to mind.

In a similar vein... although I didn't love the film preceding exactly... Vanilla Sky.

[Bosco B Thug]

Movies that Need Better Endings: Whether it's 5 minutes or 15 minutes what are those films where you love almost all of it but the ending significantly dampens your approval? For me:

Wages of Fear
Red River
War of the Worlds Black Book is a particularly agonizing example for me. One twist too many.

Weekend: Texas Chain Saw Massacre rewatch, The Ninth Configuration, The Killing of a Chinese Bookie

[Philosophe_rouge]

Movies that Need Better Endings: Whether it's 5 minutes or 15 minutes what are those films where you love almost all of it but the ending significantly dampens your approval? For me:

Wages of Fear
Red River
War of the Worlds
Nothing else springs to mind immediately, but yes about Red River. So aggravating because the rest of the film is so damn good. A better ending I think would have cemented the film as one of the all time greats. BAH I SAY. I don't even remember the ending of Wages of Fear. I wasn't a huge fan of the film.

[Spinal]

In a similar vein... although I didn't love the film preceding exactly... Vanilla Sky.

When I think of that film, the first thing that comes to mind is Cameron Diaz insisted that swallowing means something. I doubt this is what the filmmakers intended to be the lasting impression.

[megladon8]

When I think of that film, the first thing that comes to mind is Cameron Diaz insisted that swallowing means something. I doubt this is what the filmmakers intended to be the lasting impression.


Swallowing what, Spinal?

Swalling what?

[Spinal]

Swallowing what, Spinal?

Swalling what?

I'm sure it was something important, whatever it was.

[megladon8]

I'm sure it was something important, whatever it was.


Pride.

[lovejuice]

When I think of that film, the first thing that comes to mind is Cameron Diaz insisted that swallowing means something. I doubt this is what the filmmakers intended to be the lasting impression.

i love that line though.

[Qrazy]

When I think of that film, the first thing that comes to mind is Cameron Diaz insisted that swallowing means something. I doubt this is what the filmmakers intended to be the lasting impression.

Yeah... Cameron Crowe has a bit of a hack streak running through him.

[Qrazy]

Ang Lee's The Wedding Banquet didn't really work. The drama just wasn't up to snuff, he doesn't sell a number of crucial scenes. As such what could have been a powerful story in some respects becomes lost amidst it's own weak links... I also have no idea why the film ended with a random security guard metal detecting the father... that was weird.

[Ezee E]

I forgot all about that Vanilla Sky scene.

[transmogrifier]

(a) No, he's drawing attention to the artificiality for the sake of his social/political thesis (the sanctity of human life) not for making some grand statement about artificiality itself. You can view it as rationalization but I don't even like the film that much I just think it's quite good not amazing or anything. I just have no issues with the technique he's using because I think it's a simple and effective way of partial fourth wall breaking... Von Trier has also used the technique in Dancer in the Dark and Bergman, Tarkovsky and Kieslowski have all used a different technique of having the actor face directly into the camera but speak to themselves so that they're not quite fourth wall breaking but effectively doing just that... it's to draw the audience's attention to the artificiality for a minute in order to reflect on the theme of the moment.



(b) Well I feel it's just the opposite. I find fourth wall breaking is predominantly employed for the purpose of drawing attention to artifice for thematic/intellectual purposes, not for establishing realism... and I feel it's the same case here.


(a) How does making us (the audience) aware of the camera emphasize the sanctity of human life?

(b) I agree that "fourth wall breaking is predominantly employed for the purpose of drawing attention to artifice for thematic/intellectual purposes", which means that blood splatter on the lens doesn't ever, ever apply.

[transmogrifier]

When I think of that film, the first thing that comes to mind is Cameron Diaz insisted that swallowing means something. I doubt this is what the filmmakers intended to be the lasting impression.


Eh, it's a reflection on the character, rather than some auteur world view.

[Spinal]

Eh, it's a reflection on the character, rather than some auteur world view.

Really? Crowe isn't saying that spooge is the vital life force which bonds us together as humans turning casual sex partners into lifelong partners in a cosmic union too grand for them to understand? I guess I totally misread the film.

[transmogrifier]

Really? Crowe isn't saying that spooge is the vital life force which bonds us together as humans turning casual sex partners into lifelong partners in a cosmic union too grand for them to understand? I guess I totally misread the film.

I guess so. Assuming spooge = splooge.

And "misread" = got totally naked during

[MadMan]

Psycho is the film that leaps to mind.Good one, although the last shot is so extremely creepy it almost made me forget about the annoying psychobabble explanation that was thrown in simply because the studio feared that some idiots wouldn't get what had just happened in the entire movie.


The Life of David Gale has the worst ending ever. I dunno if a good ending would've saved it though.One of the worst endings ever? Yeah I agree. I don't think a good ending would have saved the film either. Too bad because I thought Spacey gave a fairly solid performance in it.

For a while I had problems with the ending to The Searchers. But after three viewings I realize that it somehow works. The ending to Signs isn't as bad as people say it is (there is some good stuff to be found) but overall I wish M. Night had come up with something far better.


I maintain that when you allow blood spatter to hit the camera lens, you suggest to the audience that there is literally a camera present. For example, in this case, it made it seem like Clive Owen was being followed by a camera crew. I don't think it ruins the scene, but it is distracting in an unwelcome way.

*senses the discussion about to have a revival*Honestly I didn't mind that bit. In fact I thought about it for a second and then went back to focusing on Owen and the predicament he was in. I actually wish I had seen the film when the discussion was going on so I could have thrown in my 33 cents though.

One of these days I'll bother to watch more of Crowe's work. Although I did really like Jerry Maguire and I do want to see Almost Famous. That's about it I suppose.

[megladon8]

Yeah... Cameron Crowe has a bit of a hack streak running through him.


Not that I disagree with you, but I don't understand your reasoning.

How does that line make Cameron Crowe a hack?

[Qrazy]

(a) How does making us (the audience) aware of the camera emphasize the sanctity of human life?

(b) I agree that "fourth wall breaking is predominantly employed for the purpose of drawing attention to artifice for thematic/intellectual purposes", which means that blood splatter on the lens doesn't ever, ever apply.

a) He's making you aware in order to rob you of your emotional catharsis and reflect upon the moment intellectually rather than emotionally. Making you aware is just a tool to break away from your emotions in order to reflect upon what a film's political statement means for your life and on a sociopolitical level rather than sweeping you up in storytelling where the camera never intrudes ala John Ford.

b) Yes it does, it's just a tool to draw attention to the lens. I'm not on board with your idea that there is something inherently stupid about it. I can't stand poor dissolves or wipes though so I can appreciate not finding something aesthetically appealing.

[Qrazy]

Good one, although the last shot is so extremely creepy it almost made me forget about the annoying psychobabble explanation that was thrown in simply because the studio feared that some idiots wouldn't get what had just happened in the entire movie.


Agreed.

[Qrazy]

Not that I disagree with you, but I don't understand your reasoning.

How does that line make Cameron Crowe a hack?

It doesn't in and of itself it just further demonstrates his general propensity for hackneyed filmmaking.

[Rowland]

The blood splatter didn't rob me of my emotional catharsis at the end of Children of Men. My emotional catharsis was the result of the surface narrative's poignancy, the filmmaking, and the statement being made. I didn't need blood on the lens to think while watching it, but I wasn't bothered by the splatter either, certainly not enough so to engage in a long debate over it.

[Sven]

Time to whip out the ol' Psycho defense:

I liked the psychiatrist spiel. It makes the movie work somehow. Without it, it's a little too ambiguous to be entirely satisfying as a depiction of psychotic behavior. We all know weird stuff happens and that people can be pretty damn freaky. But what truly horrifies is not the inexplicable, but rather the banality of rationale. After everything the psychiatrist says, we still witness the extent of Bates's madness and it's that much more horrifying knowing that we SHOULD be able to accept his psychosis, but are incapable.

[Sven]

Also, Derek, The Mist, thoughts, now.

[Beau]

Yes, it's one of those films where I knew I was in for something great from the opening shot and it held me transfixed all the way until Otilia looks toward us and cut to black.

It's an excellent ending. The film establishes a very consistent, very immersive, rhythm. Long takes, naturalistic acting, a curious camera, a focus on expressions and body language, a constant awareness of the surroundings - it's all pretty fascinating. It feels like a voyage.

[Beau]

Oh, and, Invasion of the Body Snatchers (original) could use a better ending. In fact, it has a wonderful ending. But the movie continues for two or three minutes after it.

[Bosco B Thug]

Time to whip out the ol' Psycho defense:

I liked the psychiatrist spiel. It makes the movie work somehow. Without it, it's a little too ambiguous to be entirely satisfying as a depiction of psychotic behavior. We all know weird stuff happens and that people can be pretty damn freaky. But what truly horrifies is not the inexplicable, but rather the banality of rationale. After everything the psychiatrist says, we still witness the extent of Bates's madness and it's that much more horrifying knowing that we SHOULD be able to accept his psychosis, but are incapable. I had no particular feelings about the scene but I generally sided with the opposers of it, but now I'm thinking I agree with you about it. I'm imagining the final bit of the film without it (it would just go straight to Bates in the cell, maybe show a little bit of Miles crying and walking out...) and I don't like it. And there's some cruel affect when we hear Marion being posthumously spoken of in such a way.

Also, Derek, The Mist, thoughts, now. noooooooo oh well. :P

[Spinal]

Hard Candy is the worst film I have seen in quite some time. What a shameful, wrong-headed abuse of the medium. The combination of cruelty and righteousness was sickening. Was it supposed to make me more sympathetic towards child predators? Am I really supposed to take any satisfaction in what occurs? If this had been written by a 15-year old girl as a therapeutic exercise, it might be forgivable. That it has been produced and marketed as entertainment/provocative cinema is utterly disheartening.

[Doclop]

Hard Candy is the worst film I have seen in quite some time. What a shameful, wrong-headed abuse of the medium. The combination of cruelty and righteousness was sickening. Was it supposed to make me more sympathetic towards child predators? Am I really supposed to take any satisfaction in what occurs? If this had been written by a 15-year old girl as a therapeutic exercise, it might be forgivable. That it has been produced and marketed as entertainment/provocative cinema is utterly disheartening.
I agree. This movie is so frustratingly obnoxious and wrong-headed, it's implications are quite baffling and make me curious to hear a filmmaker statement.

[DrewG]

Speaking of movies where I really liked them until the end I guess I could say The Big Heat which I watched for the first time last night. The ending wasn't terrible per-se, I guess I just always want my noirs to have that realy snappy twist at the end that turns the movie on its head. As much as it was a noir movie it really departed from a lot of the characteristics. I liked a lot of little things...one example being that when characters provide backstory it doesn't do that all too typical zoom in, then fade to the flashback, as the character who was just speaking now becomes a voiceover.

Will expand further later.

[Qrazy]

I didn't need blood on the lens to think while watching it.

I would appreciate it if people would stop reducing my explanation to this because it's a gross misinterpretation of what I'm talking about.

[Derek]

Also, Derek, The Mist, thoughts, now.

Two things the film taught me: 1) Hawks and Carpenter are even more masterful at exploring group dynamics and creating a true sense of tension in confined spaces than I previously thought. Not that I didn't love them before, but seeing a bad film like this only serves to reinforce it. 2) Jesus Christ, when Marcia Gay Harden is bad, she's really really bad.

I'm willing to cut the film some slack for its Sci-Fi Channel special effects, but not it's half-baked attempts at exploring the issue of faith vs. reason via contrived, symbolic groups whose ideas are explored only along the surface as characters literally spout silly platitudes like (paraphrasing), "I can't accept that. Man is inherently good"! Again, even this could be overlooked had the relationships that developed had any depth or been remotely interesting and not, say A) two bickering neighbors B) teens who could've hooked up in high school but only now, in, you know, the pressure of the situation share that first kiss which has no emotional resonance whatsoever considering we know nothing about either of them before or after the moment C) a cliched Old Testament babbling religious nutjob used to show how reasonable and smart the small group who doesn't fall for her shtick are, etc. etc.

[Qrazy]

After everything the psychiatrist says, we still witness the extent of Bates's madness and it's that much more horrifying knowing that we SHOULD be able to accept his psychosis, but are incapable.

I don't really agree with this either that we should accept his actions or that we're incapable but yeah the ending doesn't bother me and the fly scene re-cements it's excellence anyhow.

[Derek]

Hard Candy is the worst film I have seen in quite some time. What a shameful, wrong-headed abuse of the medium. The combination of cruelty and righteousness was sickening. Was it supposed to make me more sympathetic towards child predators? Am I really supposed to take any satisfaction in what occurs? If this had been written by a 15-year old girl as a therapeutic exercise, it might be forgivable. That it has been produced and marketed as entertainment/provocative cinema is utterly disheartening.

I'm guessing you saw this due to the "I've heard so many awful things about it that I have to see it myself" reasoning? But yes, it's absolutely dreadful and I'm glad I know that * is your lowest rating, b/c otherwise I'd say you're giving it too much credit. :)

[Winston*]

I thought The Mist was okay, until the ending then I was like "Frank Darabont, you're a cunt, fuck you and your movie".

[Qrazy]

I'm guessing you saw this due to the "I've heard so many awful things about it that I have to see it myself" reasoning? But yes, it's absolutely dreadful and I'm glad I know that * is your lowest rating, b/c otherwise I'd say you're giving it too much credit. :)

Some people had it in their top tens... which reminds me that I need to stop listening to those people.

[Qrazy]

I've been watching a lot of old Kieslowski short docus both streaming and downloads and the guy is just consistently fantastic.

[Spinal]

I'm guessing you saw this due to the "I've heard so many awful things about it that I have to see it myself" reasoning? But yes, it's absolutely dreadful and I'm glad I know that * is your lowest rating, b/c otherwise I'd say you're giving it too much credit. :)

I wanted to see Ellen Page in a film where I didn't hate her character quite as much as Juno. :| Yeah, that didn't so much work out.

And yes, one star is my lowest rating. I have a hard enough time distinguishing between * and *1/2. I wouldn't know how to use 1/2* and no stars.

[Derek]

I thought The Mist was okay, until the ending then I was like "Frank Darabont, you're a cunt, fuck you and your movie".

:lol:

And that avatar is the perfect summation of the exact opposite of your online persona. Never change it.


Some people had it in their top tens... which reminds me that I need to stop listening to those people.

Good point. I'm not sure I could trust anyone who considered that one of the best films of the year.

[Spinal]

Good point. I'm not sure I could trust anyone who considered that one of the best films of the year.

Netflix tells me that Hard Candy is enjoyed by members who enjoyed High Tension. That sounds about right.

[Qrazy]

Netflix tells me that Hard Candy is enjoyed by members who enjoyed High Tension. That sounds about right.

I heard that was another one of those good until the ending films... no? Just generally awful?

[Spinal]

I heard that was another one of those good until the ending films... no? Just generally awful?

No, it goes from dreadful to worse. But yes, the ending is utterly idiotic.

[Derek]

I wanted to see Ellen Page in a film where I didn't hate her character quite as much as Juno. :| Yeah, that didn't so much work out.

Heh, that was the first thing I saw her in and I'm sure had at least a small effect on my extreme dislike of Juno


And yes, one star is my lowest rating. I have a hard enough time distinguishing between * and *1/2. I wouldn't know how to use 1/2* and no stars.

Count up from 0 instead of down from 4. ;)

[Derek]

Netflix tells me that Hard Candy is enjoyed by members who enjoyed High Tension. That sounds about right.

I haven't seen High Tension and now I'll make sure I never do.

[Winston*]

:lol:

And that avatar is the perfect summation of the exact opposite of your online persona. Never change it.


Rainbow Brite is the animated representation of all that's good and true in the world, is my online persona really that much of an arsehole?

[Spinal]

Heh, that was the first thing I saw her in and I'm sure had at least a small effect on my extreme dislike of Juno

Despite those two films, I'm still convinced that I will like her plenty once she gets in the right role. Oddly enough, I also thought Patrick Wilson was very good, but the humanity they gave the characters only served to emphasize how shallow and cynical the writing was.



Count up from 0 instead of down from 4. ;)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v696/joel_harmon/more/deer.jpg

[Winston*]

I'll direct you to my review (http://matchcut.org/viewtopic.php?t=10674&highlight=hard+candy)of Hard Candy, Spinal. I think it's one of my best.

[Qrazy]

Ellen Page = Trailer Park Boys

[Derek]

is my online persona really that much of an arsehole?

Of course not, but there's not really a trace of acerbic wit running through Rainbow Brite, at least according to my own foggy memories.

[Spinal]

I'll direct you to my review (http://matchcut.org/viewtopic.php?t=10674&highlight=hard+candy)of Hard Candy, Spinal. I think it's one of my best.

I don't know that I was able to fully digest it all, but you've given me a lot to think about.

[number8]

I've never seen High Tension, but I've heard the twist and I thought it didn't sound half bad as a concept. What I've seen of the movie does nothing to convince me that I'd like it, though.

Aja's kind of meh.

[Rowland]

Netflix tells me that Hard Candy is enjoyed by members who enjoyed High Tension. That sounds about right.That's an unfair, vaguely insulting correlation.

[Spinal]

That's an unfair, vaguely insulting correlation.

Direct your indignation towards Netflix. The bastards.

[Spinal]

High Tension (Alexandre Aja, 2003) ***

:lol:

[Rowland]

Direct your indignation towards Netflix. The bastards.No indignation, only slight annoyance over your condescending insinuation that anyone who likes High Tension is by nature the same sort of person to enjoy Hard Candy.

[DrewG]

While on splatter horror, anyone else here seen Inside? Oh man...

[Rowland]

While on splatter horror, anyone else here seen Inside? Oh man...I can't wait.

[Derek]

No indignation, only slight annoyance over your condescending insinuation that anyone who likes High Tension is by nature the same sort of person to enjoy Hard Candy.

Yay, the old Rowland's back! :pritch:

[DrewG]

I can't wait.

It's really...really...really bloody. Honestly I wish one or two scenes were removed because if they were it would honestly be a much better film. As it stands it's a very tense, bloody horror film that works all in the confines of a house (love one setting flicks) but as an all around movie some silly scenes goof it up.

It's on Karagarga.

[Rowland]

So anyway, to counter Spinal's remarks regarding High Tension, I think it's worth seeing for everyone interested in horror movies. It's a masterful piece from a formal perspective, with some setpieces bordering on hypnotic, so it should be of interest for fans of the form alone. It doesn't front with its luridness, and it has enough intelligence to keep its scenario simple while still being dense with symbolism that thematically coheres, even if the worth of said thematic material is... well, debatable.

[Spinal]

It is a film for fans of sadistic violence. That is all. Take it as an insult if you must. The same goes for Hard Candy.

[Rowland]

It is a film for fans of sadistic violence. That is all.If you say so, monsieur. If you say so.

[Sven]

Speaking of movies where I really liked them until the end I guess I could say The Big Heat which I watched for the first time last night. The ending wasn't terrible per-se, I guess I just always want my noirs to have that realy snappy twist at the end that turns the movie on its head. As much as it was a noir movie it really departed from a lot of the characteristics. I liked a lot of little things...one example being that when characters provide backstory it doesn't do that all too typical zoom in, then fade to the flashback, as the character who was just speaking now becomes a voiceover.

Will expand further later.

Hot damn, you are so wrong. The ending of The Big Heat is, like, the greatest thing ever. The way Glenn Ford beamingly says "Keep the coffee warm!"... brilliant. One of my very favorites. I look forward to your expansion.

[MacGuffin]

So anyway, to counter Spinal's remarks regarding High Tension, I think it's worth seeing for everyone interested in horror movies. It's a masterful piece from a formal perspective, with some setpieces bordering on hypnotic, so it should be of interest for fans of the form alone. It doesn't front with its luridness, and it has enough intelligence to keep its scenario simple while still being dense with symbolism that thematically coheres, even if the worth of said thematic material is... well, debatable.

I agree 100%.

[D_Davis]

I hate High Tension.

Stylistically, it looks great. There are some nice shots and camera work.

But man, it was so mean spirited, and the final twist completely broke the film for me. I went back and rewatched it and it just doesn't make any sense once the twist comes.

[DavidSeven]

No indignation, only slight annoyance over your condescending insinuation that anyone who likes High Tension is by nature the same sort of person to enjoy Hard Candy.

Isn't this comment just as condescending toward someone who enjoyed Hard Candy?

[Spinal]

If you say so, monsieur. If you say so.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v696/joel_harmon/more/Michael20Haneke.jpg

Gimme a hug. Let the sunshine in.

[Spinal]

Isn't this comment just as condescending toward someone who enjoyed Hard Candy?

I don't see how the comment was condescending at all. Rowland is just hyper-sensitive about his splatter films for some weird reason that I cannot comprehend.

[DavidSeven]

I don't see how the comment was condescending at all. Rowland is just hyper-sensitive about his splatter films for some weird reason that I cannot comprehend.

I was actually referring to Rowland's response.

[MacGuffin]

it was so mean spirited,

Well, we certainly don't watch horror movies to hear Phil Collins sing "In the Air Tonight".

[Rowland]

Isn't this comment just as condescending toward someone who enjoyed Hard Candy?...the same sort of person who likes Hard Candy being, in his estimation, an appreciator of artless sadism for the sheer sake of sadism.

[Rowland]

But man, it was so mean spirited, and the final twist completely broke the film for me. I went back and rewatched it and it just doesn't make any sense once the twist comes.Rigorous narrative logic is one of the last elements I care about when enjoying and evaluating horror movies. Just look at my rating for The Fog. You're right though, the movie is misanthropic and ludicrous.

[MacGuffin]

You're right though, the movie is misanthropic and ludicrous.

Again (and I'll probably be ignored a second time), is this really a fair criticism for a horror movie?

[Rowland]

Again (and I'll probably be ignored a second time), is this really a fair criticism for a horror movie?Depends on the movie, of course. In High Tension, I believe these elements work to its advantage.

[D_Davis]

The lack of logic in a film's narrative doesn't bug me either - look at my love for Tsui Hark and other new school HK films. They kick logic to the curb.

HT wasn't lacking logic - its twist rendered the narrative completely broken. It's like reading a first person narrative with no supernatural tendencies in which the narrator dies at the end...okay...who is telling the story? His ghost? It's one of those first year creative writing student mistakes.

And what's worse is that the film could have totally worked without the twist. It really didn't need it. It didn't add anything to the character or the plot, but, instead, it actually took stuff away.

[Spinal]

...the same sort of person who likes Hard Candy being, in his estimation, an appreciator of artless sadism for the sheer sake of sadism.

What is your deal? I was commenting on the similarity of the films despite the fact that one claims to be a provocative issue drama and one a gory horror film. They both rely on violence to provoke the viewer and are in my opinion empty on substance. How does this become a value judgment on you? I am so tired of having this same conversation and being accused of some sort of elitism. My wife loves violent horror films. I watch Tinto Brass movies. I'm not writing for the friggin' New Yorker. I'm just saying that Hard Candy sucked, all right?

[Rowland]

The lack of logic in a film's narrative doesn't bug me either - look at my love for Tsui Hark and other new school HK films. They kick logic to the curb.

HT wasn't lacking logic - its twist rendered the narrative completely broken. It's like reading a first person narrative with no supernatural tendencies in which the narrator dies at the end...okay...who is telling the story? His ghost? It's one of those first year creative writing student mistakes.

And what's worse is that the film could have totally worked without the twist. It really didn't need it. It didn't add anything to the character or the plot, but, instead, it actually took stuff away.The twist serves primarily to literalize what was already an implicit subtext, so it didn't bother me too much. And I like that last sequence after the reveal enough so that the twist doesn't leave too strong of a lingering aftereffect for me. It's ridiculous and nonsensical, but also almost poignant in its delirium.

[Qrazy]

Again (and I'll probably be ignored a second time), is this really a fair criticism for a horror movie?

Yes.

[D_Davis]

Well, we certainly don't watch horror movies to hear Phil Collins sing "In the Air Tonight".

There is a fine line between something being dark and scary, and flat out misanthropic. I don't like misanthropy.

Who is this "we" you're talking about? You and Rowland, or horror aficionados in general? Because I am definitely a horror aficionado.

I guess we all draw our own lines, and my own line has been moving closer to the "I enjoy horror that is not overly mean spirited" side for quite some time.

[MacGuffin]

There is a fine line between something being dark and scary, and flat out misanthropic. I don't like misanthropy.

Who is this "we" you're talking about? You and Rowland, or horror aficionados in general? Because I am definitely a horror aficionado.

I guess we all draw our own lines, and my own line has been moving closer to the "I enjoy horror that is not overly mean spirited" side for quite some time.

I didn't mean it as an insult, I just thought horror movies were supposed to make us feel uncomfortable.

[Qrazy]

The lack of logic in a film's narrative doesn't bug me either - look at my love for Tsui Hark and other new school HK films. They kick logic to the curb.

HT wasn't lacking logic - its twist rendered the narrative completely broken. It's like reading a first person narrative with no supernatural tendencies in which the narrator dies at the end...okay...who is telling the story? His ghost? It's one of those first year creative writing student mistakes.


This film aside which I haven't seen, I cite you Sunset Boulevard.

I have a personal issue with that because I wrote a story in grade school where the lead/narrator died or actually didn't die but seemed to die at the end which my teacher shot down for 'logical consistency' reasons... if I had been older I would have responded yeah I'm aware it's inconsistent I chose to do it for tonal reasons so fuck your mother you son of a whore.

[Qrazy]

How does this become a value judgment on you?

I think this is a problem that we all run into again and again when discussing film or just art where people who love a film treat it like it's their baby or a part of them and so any direct negative comments about the film are treated as an attack or interpreted as such.

[D_Davis]

I didn't mean it as an insult, I just thought horror movies were supposed to make us feel uncomfortable.

Oh no, I wasn't insulted.

Sorry if I implied that.

I was just wondering if you and Rowland were BFF or something.

:)

Horror films can make us feel uncomfortable, and scare us, and gross us out, without making us despise humanity.

Two films that come to mind are The Haunting and Jacob's Ladder. Both of these films scare the heck out of me, but I don't find either of them to be mean spirited. Jacob's Ladder does deal with some dark and twisted themes, but it is not misanthropic. This is the kind of "serious" (as opposed to when I want some z-grade trash) horror I gravitate towards more.

[Qrazy]

I didn't mean it as an insult, I just thought horror movies were supposed to make us feel uncomfortable.

Yeah but there's discomfort and then there's just ugliness.

[D_Davis]

I have a personal issue with that because I wrote a story in grade school where the lead/narrator died or actually didn't die but seemed to die at the end which my teacher shot down for 'logical consistency' reasons... if I had been older I would have responded yeah I'm aware it's inconsistent I chose to do it for tonal reasons so fuck your mother you son of a whore.

:lol:

I think everyone who has written a story before has done this, and probably thought, "WOW! What a cool twist, it'll be so shocking!"

:)

[Philosophe_rouge]

Hot damn, you are so wrong. The ending of The Big Heat is, like, the greatest thing ever. The way Glenn Ford beamingly says "Keep the coffee warm!"... brilliant. One of my very favorites. I look forward to your expansion.
I completely agree, it's brilliant. Glenn Ford is quite possibly the most monstrous character Lang has ever put to screen... still my favourite of his.

[MacGuffin]

Oh no, I wasn't insulted.

Sorry if I implied that.

I was just wondering if you and Rowland were BFF or something.

:)

Horror films can make us feel uncomfortable, and scare us, and gross us out, without making us despise humanity.

Two films that come to mind are The Haunting and Jacob's Ladder. Both of these films scare the heck out of me, but I don't find either of them to be mean spirited. Jacob's Ladder does deal with some dark and twisted themes, but it is not misanthropic. This is the kind of "serious" (as opposed to when I want some z-grade trash) horror I gravitate towards more.

Okay, cool, and no Rowland is out to get me. But fair enough. I guess that's the difference between people who like August Underground (a film I was recently investigating, but choose to never see, possibly for this very reason), and the people who hate it.

[Rowland]

and no Rowland is out to get me.What, no I'm not!

[Rowland]

:|...?

[Qrazy]

:lol:

I think everyone who has written a story before has done this, and probably thought, "WOW! What a cool twist, it'll be so shocking!"

:)

No god damn it, it was tonal!

[Qrazy]

...?

Apparently you are, get with it.

[Rowland]

So anyway, enough with me being a drama queen.

I watched Dead Alive last night, and it's still fucking amazing.

[megladon8]

Awesome, Rowland...I freaking love that movie.

Have you seen Bad Taste? If so, what did you think of it?



I watched The One-Armed Swordsman in beautiful widescreen on a high-def TV...it was sublime.

I really think that film is a masterpiece. It is visually one of the most stunning films of its era, and while the fighting is a little more sparse than other kung fu films, the plot and characters are so interested and so well written.

It's a brilliant film. I love it.

[Rowland]

Have you seen Bad Taste? If so, what did you think of it?I haven't, but I thought Meet the Feebles was dreadful. Jackson is a spotty director, but his work can be amazing when he's on his game.

[megladon8]

I haven't, but I thought Meet the Feebles was dreadful. Jackson is a spotty director, but his work can be amazing when he's on his game.


Definitely agree here.

You should see Bad Taste! It's wacky fun in the vein of Dead Alive, though not quite as gory - but still satisfies your need for gross-out gore humor.

Plus, Peter Jackson plays two roles!

[D_Davis]

"I'm a Derek, and Derek's don't run!"

[D_Davis]

The first is good, but I still prefer Return of the One-Armed Swordsman. They are both beautiful films though, and possess a certain kind of class missing from modern genre cinema.

[megladon8]

The first is good, but I still prefer Return of the One-Armed Swordsman. They are both beautiful films though, and possess a certain kind of class missing from modern genre cinema.


I was planning on watching Return of the One-Armed Swordsman in the next couple of days, so I'll get back to you :)

[number8]

Man, I love having Starz On Demand.

They have The Proposition and the 3 hour Grindhouse cut on HD!

[Raiders]

I haven't, but I thought Meet the Feebles was dreadful. Jackson is a spotty director, but his work can be amazing when he's on his game.

That's his weakest, and even it is alright. He's pretty great, overall. Thinking about it, he probably should have been on my list of top ten working directors.

[Boner M]

The cliff-fight scene in Bad Taste is one of the best cheapo action scenes ever. The rest of the film is pretty good.

[MadMan]

I'm ashamed that I haven't seen any of Peter Jackson's pre-LOTR's stuff except for The Frighteners. I think that I would love Dead Alive, but I'm looking for the version that isn't edited.

[Raiders]

This is my last post for about a week. I should return by next Saturday. I'll leave you with these closing thoughts:

I was dead wrong about Fuller's The Naked Kiss. Insane and brilliant.

McCarthy's The Visitor is overrated and naive. Jenkins is great as always, though.

[megladon8]

See you next week, Raiders!

Take care.

[Melville]

Speaking of bad endings that happen to good movies, what was the deal with that bizarre dream sequence/religious allegory and subsequent abrupt conclusion in Chaplin's The Kid?


I was dead wrong about Fuller's The Naked Kiss. Insane and brilliant.
Indeed. I always wondered why you didn't care for it.

[MadMan]

Speaking of bad endings that happen to good movies, what was the deal with that bizarre dream sequence/religious allegory and subsequent abrupt conclusion in Chaplin's The Kid?


Indeed. I always wondered why you didn't care for it.I love that dream sequence. I think its one of the best things about that movie.

Cya Raiders. I imagine when you return the site will be in flames, posters will be rioting in the streets, and Spinal will be trying to enslave us all with a gigantic monkey army.

[Bosco B Thug]

High Tension didn't strike me as anything special. If Aja more compellingly depicted the emotional drama, or spent more detailed time with it instead of wasting its time exercising slasher film suspense techniques and having cool car crashes, which too far materialize the events, then the film could have been something.

[Qrazy]

Definitely agree here.

You should see Bad Taste! It's wacky fun in the vein of Dead Alive, though not quite as gory - but still satisfies your need for gross-out gore humor.

Plus, Peter Jackson plays two roles!

Personally I see little difference between Bad Taste, Meet the Feebles and Dead Alive... I prefer the latter but they all seem relatively consistent and similar to me... they're all Ok... stupid, gory, fun.

[Qrazy]

This is my last post for about a week. I should return by next Saturday. I'll leave you with these closing thoughts:

I was dead wrong about Fuller's The Naked Kiss. Insane and brilliant.

McCarthy's The Visitor is overrated and naive. Jenkins is great as always, though.

Nah there's nothing particularly brilliant about it.

[balmakboor]

Err, I'm about to spoil High Tension. (But not really.)

Isn't it a key feature of horror films (well most stories actually) that the monster is something repressed by the hero turned ugly? (In other words, the monster is an aspect of the hero, a part of the hero, the hero and monster are one and the same.) I liked the ending of High Tension because it found a way to acknowledge this.

It is a twist ending though which can seem a copout compared to, say, how this is acknowledged in Dr Jekyle and Mr Hyde or other shapeshifter genres like werewolf, vampire, and zombie movies.

[dreamdead]

Someday, I hope to feel 100% attuned to Tarkovsky's languid pacing, but Stalkeris likely the one of the best of his that I've watched. The tension that he ratchets from mere framing alone is remarkable once his characters enter the Zone; there's a handful of sequences that startle in their narrative simplicity (the phone, the lightbulb, and the sudden crack of thunder and rain). And few images possess the wonder and awe as the Stalker's dream sequence with the dog. Just haunting stuff, even if I feel I need to do much more research to fully comprehend Tarkovsky's "message"... I understand the film's critique against skepticism, but the girl at the end seems to reside just out of meaning for me...

[Melville]

I love that dream sequence. I think its one of the best things about that movie.
It's great as a standalone sequence, but what's it doing in that movie, especially at the very end?


Nah there's nothing particularly brilliant about it.
Stop that. As I wrote a few pages ago, it's brilliant in its contrast of pulpy style with corny Americana as a means of examining the lurid undertones of American culture. And it has several scenes that are just formally brilliant: the opening scene with its ultra-pulpy assault on the viewer that sets the stage for the rest of the film; the scene with the children singing, which uses rhythmic close-ups and a somewhat treacly song to pinpoint the innocence and communion that the heroine yearns for, and which underlies the American ideal that is betrayed by the lurid events of the story and that is commented on by the film's pulpy style; and the second scene with the same music, which uses expressive shadows, a delay of information, and a recording of the children singing to deliberately contrast with the earlier scene, presenting explicitly the breakdown of its ideals, a breakdown that was immanent in its sad tone. In short, the whole thing is great.

[transmogrifier]

My suggestion: put the name of the movie you are spoiling OUTSIDE the spoiler tags so I know whether to open it or not. :)


Isn't it a key feature of horror films (well most stories actually) that the monster is something repressed by the hero turned ugly? (In other words, the monster is an aspect of the hero, a part of the hero, the hero and monster are one and the same.) I liked the ending of High Tension because it found a way to acknowledge this.

It is a twist ending though which can seem a copout compared to, say, how this is acknowledged in Dr Jekyle and Mr Hyde or other shapeshifter genres like werewolf, vampire, and zombie movies.

[Qrazy]

It's great as a standalone sequence, but what's it doing in that movie, especially at the very end?


Stop that. As I wrote a few pages ago, it's brilliant in its contrast of pulpy style with corny Americana as a means of examining the lurid undertones of American culture. And it has several scenes that are just formally brilliant: the opening scene with its ultra-pulpy assault on the viewer that sets the stage for the rest of the film; the scene with the children singing, which uses rhythmic close-ups and a somewhat treacly song to pinpoint the innocence and communion that the heroine yearns for, and which underlies the American ideal that is betrayed by the lurid events of the story and that is commented on by the film's pulpy style; and the second scene with the same music, which uses expressive shadows, a delay of information, and a recording of the children singing to deliberately contrast with the earlier scene, presenting explicitly the breakdown of its ideals, a breakdown that was immanent in its sad tone. In short, the whole thing is great.

Yeah you're right I need to stop doing that but...

Except there isn't really any examining of lurid undertones. They're there but no examination can take place because characters have the psychological nuance of cardboard cut outs. As far as an examination via tone goes there's nothing revealing about the tone (ala Lynch or Cronenberg), it's just pulp. The children singing is a terrible, terrible scene. It grates on the nerves.

[balmakboor]

My suggestion: put the name of the movie you are spoiling OUTSIDE the spoiler tags so I know whether to open it or not. :)

Yes, that'll teach me not to post things before I wake up.

[bac0n]

My wife & I watched Ikiru last night. Can't recall enjoying a Kurosawa film more than I've enjoyed this one, and my respect for Takashi Shimura has gone to a whole new level. Simply an amazing film.

[Qrazy]

My wife & I watched Ikiru last night. Can't recall enjoying a Kurosawa film more than I've enjoyed this one, and my respect for Takashi Shimura has gone to a whole new level. Simply an amazing film.

Yeah, Shimura is great, over 200 credits to his name.

[MadMan]

It's great as a standalone sequence, but what's it doing in that movie, especially at the very end?I think it fits in with the fact that the Tramp so much wanted to escape with the kid, fly away from poverty and despair and all that. I'm not really 100% sure why or how it fits in the film beyond that, but I love the scene regardless and I think it just works.

[ledfloyd]

Reading The Natural and then rewatching the movie last night. They ruined a great book and reading the great book ruined a pretty decent movie for me.

[Grouchy]

High Tension didn't strike me as anything special. If Aja more compellingly depicted the emotional drama, or spent more detailed time with it instead of wasting its time exercising slasher film suspense techniques and having cool car crashes, which too far materialize the events, then the film could have been something.
Well, speaking of movies ruined by their endings.

My girlfriend tried to prevent me from watching Abel Ferrara's Dangerous Game saying it was shit. In the end, the thought of Madonna in her undies prevailed, but I actually liked the movie a lot. It's about an obsessive film director making a difficult, demanding drama (Mother of Mirrors) and somewhat exploiting his actors emotionally, while his marriage falls apart. It combines scenes from the fictional movie inside the movie, scenes about the director and behind-the-scenes mockumentary in crap video quality. In other filmmaker's hands, it would have become intentionally confusing and misleading. But Ferrara's straight-forwardness made me enjoy it a lot. The movie shows the dark side of art and its contrast with traditional moral values - the film director is portrayed as genuinely caring for people, but valuing his art above their feelings. It's obviously very self-referential, but intelligent enough not to become an ego trip. Oh, and Harvey Keitel is very good.

[D_Davis]

Last night I watched Fido, which I thought was okay, and I watched Halloween III: Season of the Witch, which I think is fantastic.

They really should have followed Carpenter's and Hill's original idea for the Halloween franchise. They never intended the films to be about Michael Meyers. Meyers was just one of the shapes the evil took. Their goal was to release a new film each year featuring a different shape of evil, all set on or around the Halloween holiday.

HIII is just awesome though. Such a devious and nasty idea! I love all the commentary on commercialism and consumerism, and the Silver Shamrock commercials are sweet. Totally catchy and annoying, just like a real commercial should be.

It's got a really creepy atmosphere to it; it feels sinister. It's not so much scary as it is unsettling.

Sure, some of it is pretty cheesy, but it is a film I love more for the ideas and the chances it takes than its actual execution.

It also has one of Carpenters best soundtracks - that is some damn fine synth scoring there.

[Boner M]

I bought Dangerous Games on VHS for a few pennies the other day.

I watched half of La Grande Bouffe last night and it marks the first time I've had to stop watching a film because I'd started to feel sick. Granted, I wasn't feeling too good last night, but there's only so much diarrhoeic farting noises and closeups of food being gorged that I can take before I call it a night.

Also, did any know that Kylie Minogue's character in Bio-Dome is called Petra Von Kant? I'm always intrigued by cinephile-friendly allusions in the most unlikely places.

[Melville]

Yeah you're right I need to stop doing that but...

Except there isn't really any examining of lurid undertones. They're there but no examination can take place because characters have the psychological nuance of cardboard cut outs. As far as an examination via tone goes there's nothing revealing about the tone (ala Lynch or Cronenberg), it's just pulp. The children singing is a terrible, terrible scene. It grates on the nerves.
Psychological nuance is overrated. It would only detract from the film's style. And I think you're just biased against pulp, because the tone is plenty revealing (as well as being enormously entertaining). The contrast between the pulpy style and the corny Americana is inherently revealing, especially within the context of the narrative, as is the way that corniness is deliberately accentuated (e.g. the way the protagonist cocks her head at the sight of the quaint little house she plans to stay in). The tone in each of the three scenes I mentioned basically constructs the protagonist's psychology, with the luridly pulpy world always lurking behind her, ever-ready to destroy the innocent world that she yearns for. And the tone constantly jostles the luridness and corniness together, presenting the luridness as something that lingers within Anytown U.S.A, where the protagonist had hoped to find peace and normalcy.

And the scene with the children singing is the best scene ever.

[Melville]

So, who else thinks that the potential of the first few scenes in A Matter of Life and Death gradually withered away over the course of the film, leaving a bunch of nonsense about brain lesions and American and British culture?

[Rowland]

I like Halloween III too Davis, though I'm usually pretty reserved about my praise to maintain my respectability, given the movie's toxic reputation. I agree about how the Halloween series should have continued with that concept too. Damn Halloween II...

[MadMan]

*Still really digs Halloween II* Although I do plan on finally seeing the rest of the Halloween series, except for the last one which I have no intention of ever seeing. I hear that I should avoid the 6th film like the plague but I figure that just like Star Trek V I should see it anyways.

[Rowland]

*Still really digs Halloween II* Although I do plan on finally seeing the rest of the Halloween series, except for the last one which I have no intention of ever seeing. I hear that I should avoid the 6th film like the plague but I figure that just like Star Trek V I should see it anyways.Don't bother, seriously.

[MadMan]

Don't bother, seriously.Not even for MSTK purposes? I suppose watching it drunk would help.

[Philosophe_rouge]

So, who else thinks that the potential of the first few scenes in A Matter of Life and Death gradually withered away over the course of the film, leaving a bunch of nonsense about brain lesions and American and British culture?
I can't say I agree at all... no. The first scene is the best though. Still, I think the entire film was fairly strong.

[Melville]

I can't say I agree at all... no. The first scene is the best though. Still, I think the entire film was fairly strong.
I think it made a huge blunder by introducing the main character's medical problems. That whole storyline just seems irrelevant, since it doesn't really explain the supernatural goings-on, and it's too banal to fit with film's style in any case. And the trial revolves around a theme that has nothing to do with the rest of the film.

[Derek]

So, who else thinks that the potential of the first few scenes in A Matter of Life and Death gradually withered away over the course of the film, leaving a bunch of nonsense about brain lesions and American and British culture?

:pritch:

Although I hate to admit I'm not all that keen on Powell & Pressburger in general aside from The Life & Death of Colonel Blimp and, especially, Black Narcissus, which is downright awesome.

[Philosophe_rouge]

I think it made a huge blunder by introducing the main character's medical problems. That whole storyline just seems irrelevant, since it doesn't really explain the supernatural goings-on, and it's too banal to fit with film's style in any case. And the trial revolves around a theme that has nothing to do with the rest of the film.
I don't know, I think the medical problems were crucial in terms of the presented plot, otherwise I think the "otherworldly" conflict would have been forced and without any real sense of meaning or danger. How else would you suggest they handle the trial in terms of bringing Niven's character up there without him being somehow incapacitated on earth, sleep maybe?

The trial itself reflects sentiments that obviously were quite prevalent and worrisome at the time, and while they don't carry the same resonance anymore (at least in terms of this international relationship), I don't think it's unprecedented. The relationship between Peter and June establishes a conflict (or perhaps a lack thereof) in face of love and friendship. Coming off a war, or any similar conflict between communities, groupings or individuals, the film is trying to establish the futility of competition and rivalry in face of possible friendship between nations. They are held as an example of international relations and friendship, and are the beautiful realisation of two cultures coming together. Again, I don't think there is necessarily much nuance to this idea, but it's simplicity reflects the fable and fanciful presentation of the plot.

[Melville]

:pritch:

Although I hate to admit I'm not all that keen on Powell & Pressburger in general aside from The Life & Death of Colonel Blimp and, especially, Black Narcissus, which is downright awesome.
I love their visual style, and their story concepts are generally great, but I haven't completely loved any of the three films that I've seen from them. (Black Narcissus and The Red Shoes were both damned good, but I didn't quite love either of them.) Each movie seems to have a specific flaw that irks me, though I can't remember what that flaw was in Black Narcissus.


I don't know, I think the medical problems were crucial in terms of the presented plot, otherwise I think the "otherworldly" conflict would have been forced and without any real sense of meaning or danger.
I thought just the opposite. By reducing the supernatural trial to a battle with a medical illness, the film makes the trial seem redundant. If the surgery can save the protagonist, why does the trial even matter? And by reducing the supernatural events to, possibly, hallucinations or dreams, the film robs the storyline of its quality as a fable.

In my opinion, The Devil and Daniel Webster made the whole supernatural trial thing work much better.


Coming off a war, or any similar conflict between communities, groupings or individuals, the film is trying to establish the futility of competition and rivalry in face of possible friendship between nations.
But that seems to have no precedent earlier in the film. It just suddenly jumps in and takes over the proceedings. Again, it seemed like Peter's illness worked against the rest of the film, in that it took time away from developing the love story and the political subtext of that love story.

[balmakboor]

The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp and A Canterbury Tale are probably my favorite P&Ps and I also really love The Tales of Hoffmann when I'm in the right mood. I like or love all of their films though. I did find A Matter of Life and Death a very unusual film. I've only seen it once though on TCM and don't feel quite able to comment on it yet. When will that damn R1 dvd come out?

I do think that the two Powell w/o Pressburger films I've seen -- The Edge of the World and Peeping Tom -- are even better.

[D_Davis]

*Still really digs Halloween II* Although I do plan on finally seeing the rest of the Halloween series, except for the last one which I have no intention of ever seeing. I hear that I should avoid the 6th film like the plague but I figure that just like Star Trek V I should see it anyways.

I-III are the best, although I hear that the producer's cut of VI is pretty awesome. It's only availably as a bootleg though.

[D_Davis]

I like Halloween III too Davis, though I'm usually pretty reserved about my praise to maintain my respectability, given the movie's toxic reputation. I agree about how the Halloween series should have continued with that concept too. Damn Halloween II...

I totally don't understand the distaste towards III. I mean, I understand it from the perspective of those who originally went to the theater and watched it expecting to see Meyers. But come on, that was a long time ago, and so that initial shock of it not featuring the masked killer should have worn off. I would think that people would be able to watch it with a new appreciation. It's quite a good little film.

[MacGuffin]

5 Centimeters Per Second was unbelievably disappointing. Almost overly melodramatic to a disgusting extent, it is yet another situation where a filmmaker with obvious talent doesn't understand that he doesn't need all this voiceover bullshit to tell a story. Half the time, I though, wow, this guy must think anybody who watches his movies is a retard. But yeah, three separate stories that lead up to nothing, and get this: the last one is mostly a rehash of the first two with quick cuts of footage from those first two and a melodramatic Japanese pop song thrown on top!

[MadMan]

I-III are the best, although I hear that the producer's cut of VI is pretty awesome. It's only availably as a bootleg though.Huh, I didn't know that there was a producer's cut of VI. Cool.

I've actually seen some of III, VI, and V. dean.killed.bill from RT actually covered the entire series in a really awesome fashion in his RT journal:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/journal_comments.php?journalid =125687&entryid=99969

[Qrazy]

Reading The Natural and then rewatching the movie last night. They ruined a great book and reading the great book ruined a pretty decent movie for me.

Glad you liked the Major and the Minor. Wilder has a very consistent filmography I find.

[megladon8]

American Psycho retains its place in my top 10 of all time.

A brilliant piece of filmmaking, with what I believe to be one of the best performances from a lead actor in, well, ever.

Stylish, hilarious, gruesome, thought-provoking, and just a great, great movie.

[Qrazy]

Psychological nuance is overrated.

Not if you're a psych. major.


And I think you're just biased against pulp, because the tone is plenty revealing (as well as being enormously entertaining).

I am to an extent, pulp certainly isn't my go to cinema or general art preference but I find I can appreciate pulp if I feel it's formally fantastic and/or tonally unique/exceptional. Melville is a fairly pulpy filmmaker but I still think he makes amazing films and I also think Fuller can be quite good as well... Pickup on South Street, The Big Red One and The Steel Helmet are all films where I find he expresses himself effectively in the pulpy world of his creation... Shock Corridor and The Naked Kiss I find much less effective.

[Qrazy]

So, who else thinks that the potential of the first few scenes in A Matter of Life and Death gradually withered away over the course of the film, leaving a bunch of nonsense about brain lesions and American and British culture?

I dunno I thought it was relatively all of a piece and generally quite an enjoyable film although certainly not one of P&P's best efforts by comparison.

[Qrazy]

:pritch:

Although I hate to admit I'm not all that keen on Powell & Pressburger in general aside from The Life & Death of Colonel Blimp and, especially, Black Narcissus, which is downright awesome.

Come on The Red Shoes has some absolutely amazing sequences... and although this is just Powell, Peeping Tom is amazing.

Their earlier films I don't find as interesting but they still have their moments and elements of formal brilliance to them... but I Know where I'm Going has a really obnoxious central premise/character... A Canterbury Tale is fairly fun though... and 49th Parallel may veer towards propaganda at times but manifests it's fair share of excellent moments.

[Qrazy]

I thought just the opposite. By reducing the supernatural trial to a battle with a medical illness, the film makes the trial seem redundant. If the surgery can save the protagonist, why does the trial even matter? And by reducing the supernatural events to, possibly, hallucinations or dreams, the film robs the storyline of its quality as a fable.


I'm with Rouge. I don't agree, keeping the question alive... is it real or a hallucination? This doesn't rob the film of anything it just gives it a little negative capability to the proceedings.

Whether the surgery will or will not work is an open question in the film... can it just be the physical/material as one side believes or will the physical solution depend on the success of the trial? I think the film would be much less than it is without this negative capability.

[MadMan]

American Psycho retains its place in my top 10 of all time.

A brilliant piece of filmmaking, with what I believe to be one of the best performances from a lead actor in, well, ever.

Stylish, hilarious, gruesome, thought-provoking, and just a great, great movie.I think its a damn good movie, and really sharp. I think the satire is for the most part really spot on, although I felt it was sort of lacking in spots and at times it needed to be really unsubtitle to get points across. However Christian Bale's performance is really great, and I have to say its one of the most original horror films of the decade. Its probably the smartest slasher film of all time, although I'd say it goes beyond that subgenre into something more deeper and satisfying. I think I actually wrote a review of it somewhere in a notebook and just never bothered to post it. I also dig the film's comedy elements, which are strangely there, with all of them strangely working quite well.

[megladon8]

I wouldn't really consider it a slasher movie at all.

I haven't read the book myself, but from what I've heard, Ellis' novel is based much more around the murders.

Of course the murders are quite important in the film, but they don't take up the majority of the screen-time.

It's based more on Bateman as a man who has absolutely no grip on social interaction, emotion or empathy of any kind.

The murders just help to further the idea that he and all these other yuppie men in the law firms were completely identical. The '80s was a very selfish time, and it's because of this that he manages to get away with all these crimes.

He's constantly confused with other people, and in the end this keeps him locked in this torturous life, when he's gotten to the point that he wants to be stopped, but can't be.

[MadMan]

Well he does run around killing people. Unless it was indeed all a dream. I'm not sure it was. But that's another debate.

I do agree that Bateman and the way he acts and interacts with others does indeed reflect the empty moral, extremely selfish vaccum of the 80s, and how the decade was completely bankrrupt not only morally but also spiritually.

What I also like is how near the ending they sort of tie Bateman to Ronald Reagan. In retrospect Reagan was the perfect president for the 80s: conservative to a fault (a product of the reactionary 70s), and as evidenced by the Iran-Contra scandal clearly not above breaking the rules to achieve something. Among other things, which made liberals shudder and conservatives cheer, although it was more like neo-cons than anything else. But hey I got a little political there (I'm rather mixed about Reagan and his track record), and perhaps I read a little bit too much into the film there.

Oh and I think a thread should be made covering Reagan 80s cinema, and its political overtones. While at times I hate to admit it and I usually don't bother with such analysis 80s action films do say a great deal about the decade and are pretty conservative in nature.

[megladon8]

Unfortunately, I don't know enough about American politics to add much to your discussion here, MadMan, but the whole film is so finely detailed and crafted, you're definitely right about there being something there with the inclusion of the Reagan clip.

And yes, he does run around killing people - but think about how much time in the movie was spent on these killings. And what was the overall tone of these scenes?

I don't think "a guy running around killing people" is what defines a slasher. I don't want to say the murders were incidental, but I don't think they were meant to be "slasher horror" material, the way that Texas Chainsaw Massacre or Halloween is a slasher.

As Bateman reveals throughout his monologues in the film, he only really feels "greed and disgust", but at the same time, he is in a lot of pain. He is so incredibly empty inside, that it has become unbearable, and his way of dealing with this terrible emptiness is to inflict this inner pain on others, through physical torture.

Plus, as the film goes along, the murders get more and more surreal and seem to take place more in his own little fantasy world. Look at the scene where he drops the chainsaw down the stairwell - it makes no sense whatsoever.

It all concludes with the shoot-out with the cops, where even Bateman, himself, is caught off guard by the sudden explosion of the cop car.

It's a brilliant way of showing the character's grasp on reality slipping. I do fully believe that he committed all the murders, but I think the details got muddled in his head as he lost more and more of his sanity.

[ledfloyd]

I just watched The Savages. The movie itself I enjoyed but felt was more or less above average. I think the movies target audience is the 40 year old NPR set. However, it might be my favorite PSH performance this side of Lester Bangs. Also, between this and Lars, I'm getting tired of faux-Jon Brion scores.

[Duncan]

Just watched The Killing of a Chinese Bookie. Kinda loved it. Not sure why it has a middle of the road rep. The only time it really lost me was during what in most other films would probably have been the climactic shoot out in the parking garage. The rest of the time I was entranced by its rambling pace and mood. It seems like an elegy in shambles. What it's eulogizing and why are unclear and in the wrong order and only spoken in the pauses. I tend to like those sorts of films.

[Derek]

I just watched The Savages. The movie itself I enjoyed but felt was more or less above average. I think the movies target audience is the 40 year old NPR set. However, it might be my favorite PSH performance this side of Lester Bangs. Also, between this and Lars, I'm getting tired of faux-Jon Brion scores.

I think I could understand finding it above average before finding it enjoyable.

http://www.kirklandlakenow.com/Performers/Jeremy_Hotz.JPG

What a miserable experience that was.

Rep to anyone who gets that random reference.


Come on The Red Shoes has some absolutely amazing sequences... and although this is just Powell, Peeping Tom is amazing.

Their earlier films I don't find as interesting but they still have their moments and elements of formal brilliance to them... but I Know where I'm Going has a really obnoxious central premise/character... A Canterbury Tale is fairly fun though... and 49th Parallel may veer towards propaganda at times but manifests it's fair share of excellent moments.

Yeah, I like The Red Shoes enough, I Know Where I'm Going is alright, but A Canterbury Tale and A Matter of Life and Death just rubbed me the wrong way. There's something about the theatricality of their style that usually leaves me admiring their films from a distance. It's not so much that I don't like them as I'm not convinced they really belong in the pantheon of great directors.

Powell by himself fares better - I like both Peeping Tom[i] and [i]The Edge of the World.

[Yxklyx]

So, who else thinks that the potential of the first few scenes in A Matter of Life and Death gradually withered away over the course of the film, leaving a bunch of nonsense about brain lesions and American and British culture?

It's hard to follow up on one of the greatest openings of any film.

[Boner M]

The Painted Veil was pretty good, if decidedly remote. Watts is magnetic as ever, Norton also quite good, and Desplat's score is one of the best I've heard in a while... but yeah, just pretty good all round. Methinks Curran works best with grungier, less inhibited scenarios; hope he makes another film like Praise someday.

[Boner M]

Despite feeling padded-out and repetitive at times, I found La Grande Bouffe to be a surprisingly effective and finally poignant vision of bourgeoisie entropy and the possibility of love and human connection amidst such chaos. The film doesn't really have much in the way of complexity going for it until the final scenes, and Ferreri's visual style feels awkwardly lodged somewhere between 'flat when it should be exuberant' and 'suitably detached', but he gives his actors ample room to enliven the precedings and the film ultimately ends up feeling more than just a glib exercise in offending middlebrow sensibilities. And few films can lay claim to offering the unforgettably grueling sight of Michel Piccoli lying dead in a puddle of his own diarrhea

[D_Davis]

Huh, I didn't know that there was a producer's cut of VI. Cool.

I've actually seen some of III, VI, and V. dean.killed.bill from RT actually covered the entire series in a really awesome fashion in his RT journal:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/journal_comments.php?journalid =125687&entryid=99969


That's cool. I'll check it out.

I just listened to a 2+ hour Hollywood Saloon podcast on the entire series - it was a lot of fun. These guys sure produce a slick sounding podcast.

The producer's cut of IV is available on ebay.

[dreamdead]

Just watched Greengrass' Bloody Sunday. As a depiction of social uprisings and the nonviolent fight for (religious) freedom, it's still comfortably behind The Battle of Algiers or I Am Cuba, but the film does have an electricity in its pulse. The pseudo-documentary feel here is an aesthetic that, like Pontecorvo before him, works to bring us deeper into the hypocrisies of the military and unify us with the dissidents. That said, the film worries me a little in its final critique of the British military, since the film indicts them for initiating a new youth culture into the IRA and I wonder if Greengrass' film might not be accused of doing the same. If he's aware of that possibility, then ok, but the film seems oblivious that this reaction might occur, especially with the closing sounds propagating Amnesty International.

[Qrazy]

Yeah, I like The Red Shoes enough, I Know Where I'm Going is alright, but A Canterbury Tale and A Matter of Life and Death just rubbed me the wrong way. There's something about the theatricality of their style that usually leaves me admiring their films from a distance. It's not so much that I don't like them as I'm not convinced they really belong in the pantheon of great directors.

Powell by himself fares better - I like both Peeping Tom[i] and [i]The Edge of the World.

I can understand that complaint... finding their theatricality a bit much... they're certainly very, very British. I wouldn't group them at the top of the pantheon but given the uniqueness and quality of their output I'd say they deserve some inclusion for sure.

[Philosophe_rouge]

I thought just the opposite. By reducing the supernatural trial to a battle with a medical illness, the film makes the trial seem redundant. If the surgery can save the protagonist, why does the trial even matter? And by reducing the supernatural events to, possibly, hallucinations or dreams, the film robs the storyline of its quality as a fable.

In my opinion, The Devil and Daniel Webster made the whole supernatural trial thing work much better.
I think they leave it open wether or not the supernatural aspect exists in his mind, or is a symptom of his illness. I don't necessarily think he can be "saved" through surgery, and rather the outcome of the trial premeditates the outcome of the procedure. I don't think it reduces it, just adds more coherency. I personally believe the trial is real within the diogesis of the film, and effects his real world experience. I think you can read it the other way as well, regardless I think it adds a necessary urgency to the plot. Without it, I don't think the film would be nearly as compelling.

I haven't seen The Devil and Daniel Webster, so I can't really compare. I'll try and see it soon though, and get back to you. It's been on my must see list for a while. Dieterle also handles fantasy and the supernatural wonderfully, especially in Portrait of Jennie.


But that seems to have no precedent earlier in the film. It just suddenly jumps in and takes over the proceedings. Again, it seemed like Peter's illness worked against the rest of the film, in that it took time away from developing the love story and the political subtext of that love story.
It's been a while since I've seen it, so I can't comment exactly on how much this aspect was premeditated. I think while the actual conflict wasn't established, they went out of their way to portray and include both Americans and Brits early in the film. Not necessarily to highlight their differences, but their similarities and the inevitability of both of their fates.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Michael Powell with or sans Pressburger is probably my favourite filmmmaker. I love the theatrical nature of their work, especially how they use atmosphere and colour to manipulate their created worlds. Their most obvertly fantastic films are shot in colour, there is something surreal about their use of Technicolor and it feels larger and greater than life. Their black and white ventures, like 49th Parallel, A Canterbury Tale, 'I Know Where I'm Going' or even The Small Back Room still have those supernatural elements but seem far closer to earth. What intrigued me about A Matter of Life and Death is that, in context of their other films the use of colour and b&w, seem to indicate that life on earth is the fantasy and the demure coldness of heaven is reality. I don't know... maybe I'm reading too much into it. Fantastic stuff though.


On a completely different note, I watched The Vanishing (1988) last night. Fairly intricate and creepy, I only wish it were slightly more engaging. I felt as if I was put too much at a distance, and I'm not sure if the interplay between Raymond's and Rex's experience was well executed. I think it was a good concept, just something in the editing left me wanting more consistency. The end is creepilicious though.

[Grouchy]

Ok, two recent films I'm simply not gonna write long reviews on:

You, the Living is my first exposure to Roy Andersson, and a wonderful absurdist comedy. The guy frames all his scenes in a single shot with deep focus and a very interesting composition. Sometimes this heightens the comedy, and it can be said that the entire movie is in reality a series of jokes that pile up on each other. Characters talk to the camera and, in one hilarious scene, a man making love with a fat lady in a steel helmet explains to the audience his banking problems. Another highlight is a series of scenes depicting a dream where a man is prosecuted for destroying a set of china dishes. The make-up is quite good, reinforcing the fact that the characters in the movie are somewhat dead emotionally by making them look like corpses.

Rescue Dawn is everything I expected from the Herzog/Bale team-up and a bit more. It made me want to watch the previous documentary Little Dieter Needs to Fly. Basically a story that praises human endurance and determination in the face of adversity, it features the traditional Herzog music to great effect. Bale is awesome in the role, and so is Steve Zahn going progressively insane from suffering. It can be called Herzog's first Hollywood movie, I guess - there's an instance of a CGI effect during the plane crash that I would've never expected on one of his films, what with the voodoo of location and all that.