28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[balmakboor]

I've been dying to check it out, but I haven't had time.

Another thing I hadn't appreciated back in the early 80s when I first saw it was just how funny it is. Funny in a way that is playfully cruel.

[Raiders]

Funny in a way that is playfully cruel.

From my experience with Fassbinder, this is almost always the case.

[dreamdead]

Rewatched Spike Lee's Do the Right Thing for the film class I'm taking, and it was just as powerful as before. Because of the skillful way in which Lee has music woven throughout this piece, it's extremely operatic nature became more prevalent this time through, and the Mooky/Nina relationship had far more heart to it, as there's love there but also recognition, from both parties, that Mooky's shirking his responsibility. What makes this film ultimately work, I think, is the way in which culpability is placed discursively in all the principal characters, rather than having one individuality be at fault in any moralistic sense. This lack of essentialism allows the film to have levels of ambiguity that remain implicit and open to interpretation (such as Sal's relationship with Mooky's sister).

I really wish I had seen this film when it first came out, as the issues dealt with in it would have possessed a greater resonance back in '89 (though I'm not claiming it's really lost any)...

[balmakboor]

From my experience with Fassbinder, this is almost always the case.

Same here. It has been very valuable seeing BA with about 25 Fassbinders under my belt. When I saw it in 1982 or so, I'd only seen Veronika Voss and had no idea who Fassbinder was. I had virtually no director awareness at all except for Lucas and Spielberg.

You can also see how so many of his films were examinations of little portions of BA. He always compared his work to a house with each being a different room. BA plays like the whole house and each prior film was merely the decorating of the various rooms.

[Yxklyx]

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

Not yet. I just called the local video store and they carry it - getting it through Netflix would have been too much of a hassle. Plan to watch it later this week or weekend.

[balmakboor]

Not yet. I just called the local video store and they carry it - getting it through Netflix would have been too much of a hassle. Plan to watch it later this week or weekend.

Wow! I'm lucky if my local store carries Disturbia.

(That's an exaggeration of course -- but only a small one. Btw, I saw Disturbia last night because it is my teenage daughter's favorite recent movie. I found it almost insufferable. She asked me what I thought and I just mumbled something about finding David Morse a memorable bad guy, not wanting to hurt her feelings. I think she saw right through it though.)

[Rowland]

(That's an exaggeration of course -- but only a small one. Btw, I saw Disturbia last night because it is my teenage daughter's favorite recent movie. I found it almost insufferable. She asked me what I thought and I just mumbled something about finding David Morse a memorable bad guy, not wanting to hurt her feelings. I think she saw right through it though.)It is expertly geared towards the teenage mindset, though more so for males than females. On those grounds, it's efficient and effective.

[balmakboor]

It is expertly geared towards the teenage mindset, though more so for males than females. On those grounds, it's efficient and effective.

That explains why she and her friends -- especially boy friends -- think so highly of it.

[number8]

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

I think I feel the same way. I won't say that I'm a fan of Clark, but his films are always easily enjoyable (you know what I mean), much easier than Harmony Korine's own work -- and Ken Park is probably his most polished and fascinating work. However, whereas with Bully, Kids, and uh, Teenage Caveman you get immediately what the message is, Ken Park left me pondering about it for a while.

[Rowland]

I would need to see Ken Park again to voice an opinion. I downloaded and watched it back during the initial controversy, when I was more susceptible to peer pressure and prudish in my sensibilities.

[Ezee E]

Stephen Graham is greatness in This Is England.

Unlike American History X, it's much more convincing of how the young kid became a skinhead, and how the skinheads fall into a certain situation. I even like American History X, but mostly for Ed Norton and Furlong's performances. This Is England is right there, but feels real.

[Boner M]

I am a fan of most of Clark's work and although I liked Ken Park, it left me wondering what the purpose was more than any of his other films.
I think this is one of the film's strengths. Bully and Kids are clearly cautionary films and both left me in no doubt about that, but in this one the problems of the kids and adults are so messed-up and alien from the typical youth concerns explored in Clark's previous films, that it feels almost like a parable for the need for love as an escape from the pain of everyday life; it's more universal and less moralistic in that way too. I suppose such a realistic setting is a strange place for a parable, but then, I don't know if Clark is familiar with any other milieu...

[Boner M]

I love that movie. Few movies so perfectly capture the feeling of numbing hopelessness. The ending, with the protagonist looking completely desperate even as he's offered another chance, was perfect. Now that's despair!
The ending is excellent. I love long shots where you watch the character's face make a long, slow journey into complete, hopeless emptiness or despair. I wonder if Michael Clayton's final shot was inspired by this one.

[Qrazy]

Fifteen and a half hours. Woof.

[Philosophe_rouge]

I watched The Celluloid Closet and Color me Lavender in the past two days, both similarly adressing the portrayal (or lack thereof) of homosexuality in mainstream Hollywood film. The first is much more of an overview, covering nearly all eras since Edison's work. It offers many different perspectives, and opinions, and overall is a much richer and compelling documentary. I think it would have benefitted with more focus, however, and perhaps works better in book format, or would have been better as a mini-series. Not enough time is focused on anything in particular, and the nature of it's brevity means it doesn't offer as much new information as I would have liked. Color me Lavender, in contrast though is much less accomplished. It's badly made, there is little insight and a lot of speculation. Even when picking straws the film doesn't even feign confidance, and questions their own suggestions. Also, for a film so poorly presented, it comes across as smug and condescending. It's a shame though, because in it's more precise focus, it does offer more new information than the previous... but as I mentioned, I'm not sure if I'd be willing to take it entirely at face value as it's uneven. I probably wouldn't use this film as sound research for any essay.

[megladon8]

I have a friend giving a presentation on Psycho tomorrow, and they asked me about the "central theme" of the movie.

To be honest, this question has me stumped.

Anyone got any suggestions?

[Russ]

I have a friend giving a presentation on Psycho tomorrow, and they asked me about the "central theme" of the movie.

To be honest, this question has me stumped.

Anyone got any suggestions?
Guilt? Obsession? Perennial Hitchcock themes.

[Grouchy]

I have a friend giving a presentation on Psycho tomorrow, and they asked me about the "central theme" of the movie.

To be honest, this question has me stumped.

Anyone got any suggestions?
I think guilt. Janet Leigh is guilty of stealing money from her boss, and although she gets murdered by chance, in a way it's like divine (and excessive) punishment for her felony. Whereas Norman Bates is a schizophrenic who must've been destroyed by his dominant mother while she was alive, and now turns his sexual urges into violence.

[megladon8]

Cool, thanks very much :)

[Ezee E]

Raiders... Diving Bell thoughts please.

[MadMan]

I saw 3:10 To Yuma(2007) tonight and it was awesome. I had some problems with the third act but I don't think it canceled out the excellent performances from Russell Crowe and Christian Bale, or Ben Foster's great third man acting either. The action sequences were extremely well done, and I liked some of the dialogue as well. To me this was more of a character driven piece as the landscape which is usually featured front and center in westerns really wasn't noted at all. To me in a way the final haunting, awesome shot signified that Dan Evans was in a way killed by the railroad. Also that since it was the train that was taking Ben Wade away to his fate that also the train had killed the way of the outlaw and the west itself. Kind of like how in Once Upon a Time in the West, where the railroad affected the destiny and fates of the main characters as well.

[Ezee E]

3:10 To Yuma would be one of the year's best if it weren't for some lazy scriptwriting in that last shootout.

But what a shootout it was.

[Rowland]

3:10 To Yuma would be one of the year's best if it weren't for some lazy scriptwriting in that last shootout.

But what a shootout it was.And it's still a damn fine mainstream entertainment, one of the year's finest in that category.

[megladon8]

I also really liked Open Range.

I'd probably say it's superior to 3:10 to Yuma, though I have to see both again before making that statement rock solid.

Also, Open Range's final gun battle is not just great, it's one of the greatest gun battles ever filmed.

[MadMan]

3:10 To Yuma would be one of the year's best if it weren't for some lazy scriptwriting in that last shootout.

But what a shootout it was.Can you elaborate on that futher E? I think I know what your talking about but I'm not sure. And man were the shootouts brutal too. I was surprised to see Luke Wilson and Peter Fonda in the movie, and Alan Tudyk from Serenity as well.

[Ezee E]

I just don't believe that a ruthless man like Russell Crowe, who was looking to escape the entire time, would suddenly decide to go to jail because a cripple wants to look good in front of his kids. Much less with fifty people shooting at them both. It's just lazy

Open Range is fantastic though.

[MadMan]

I just don't believe that a ruthless man like Russell Crowe, who was looking to escape the entire time, would suddenly decide to go to jail because a cripple wants to look good in front of his kids. Much less with fifty people shooting at them both. It's just lazy

Open Range is fantastic though.Ah. Yeah that was pretty far fetched, and I rolled my eyes at that. In a way it did remind me of how in Assult on Precinct 13(1976) the prisoner of Wilson who was being sent to death row helps protect the people in the police station. But then in that film he was protecting himself as well and unlike Wade he wasn't a murderous bastard. Just a guy who was good at killing. He wasn't evil like Wade was. So yes I agree with you 100% about that part of the third act of the film. And I really need to see Open Range. I must remedy that soon.

[Philosophe_rouge]

First viewing of High Fidelity (2000), as someone in a bad mood it served it's purpose in cheering me up, so it gets major points for that. It's quite a bit better than I had expected, but still falters dissapointingly in terms of energy. It's enough to make me want to get the book though, which I hear is quite a bit better. I forgot how awesome Cusack can be... I need to get a marathon going on that, with chocolate.

[Qrazy]

I have a friend giving a presentation on Psycho tomorrow, and they asked me about the "central theme" of the movie.

To be honest, this question has me stumped.

Anyone got any suggestions?

Guilt is probably the central theme... the influence and pervasiveness of voyeurism is an interesting one as well though.

[Raiders]

I have a friend giving a presentation on Psycho tomorrow, and they asked me about the "central theme" of the movie.

To be honest, this question has me stumped.

Anyone got any suggestions?

Don't steal.

[Rowland]

I forgot how awesome Cusack can be...Emphasis on the "can be..." Cusack seems to have sold out as of late.

[Rowland]

Chaw's take on Yuma's third-act shootout development is a very clever one:

http://filmfreakcentral.net/screenreviews/310toyuma2007.htm

[MadMan]

To me Psycho can be best read the birth of the slasher film. Adultry and stealing is met with death, the central character has serious mommy issues (something that would later pop up in Friday the 13th) and once again a female character defeats the vilian. Only here she's actually smart enough to discover what is really going on. I know there are other themes certainly present but that's mostly what I got out of the film. Amazing score and camera work as well, and the opening credits are pretty cool. Even on a third viewing the part where Marion's sister turns the mom around and we see a skeleton face, followed by Norman dressed up like a woman coming down to attack her I get chills. Oh and when "Mother" busts out and stabs the detective I actually jumped the first time I viewed the flick. Good stuff.

[Spinal]

Don't steal.

Also, mothers are evil.

[Rowland]

You could go crazy in-depth analyzing the movie from a Freudian perspective, which has obviously been done to death.

[MadMan]

Chaw's take on Yuma's third-act shootout development is a very clever one:

http://filmfreakcentral.net/screenreviews/310toyuma2007.htmHe uses language in a prettier fashion than a 20 dollar whore. But seriously his review is pretty fascinating, and I think I may have to read it more than once.

PS: The guy sure as hell can write, and his opinion on the film is incredibly interesting as well. I think I should start reading more of his reviews.

[Winston*]

He uses language in a prettier fashion than a 20 dollar whore.
I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. Are 20 dollar prostitutes especially eloquent?

[Ezee E]

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. Are 20 dollar prostitutes especially eloquent?
MadMan forgets about inflation. Where he's from, a $20 hooker is also the town's doctor, and the town's bicycle.

[MadMan]

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. Are 20 dollar prostitutes especially eloquent?It was a reference to the funny line from Blazing Saddles. Don't tell me you haven't seen one of the most politically incorrect and funniest comedies of all time Winston.

[Winston*]

It was a reference to the funny line from Blazing Saddles. Don't tell me you haven't seen one of the most politically incorrect and funniest comedies of all time Winston.

I've seen it.

*googles*

The Blazing Saddles line made more sense.

[MadMan]

I've seen it.

*googles*

The Blazing Saddles line made more sense.Good. And I guess my joking homage to the original line wasn't that funny to begin with.


MadMan forgets about inflation. Where he's from, a $20 hooker is also the town's doctor, and the town's bicycle.See now this is funny :lol:

[Bosco B Thug]

I have a friend giving a presentation on Psycho tomorrow, and they asked me about the "central theme" of the movie.

To be honest, this question has me stumped.

Anyone got any suggestions? Ooh, ooh! From all the scholarly Hitchcock essays I've been reading lately, I like the idea that the film is Hitchcock's first tonal jab at an expression of modernity, in this case mocking brutality and disregard for schematized moral expectations; that it's a mock-up of marginalized American sordidness, directing a sharp eye at modern normative American desires and the salaciousness at odds with it.


I know Boner M. praised this movie a few pages back, but I watched The Man With the Movie Camera. It's certainly innovative and striking, sporting 80-minutes of virtuoso montage and well thought-out subtext and self-reflexivity, but... um, thanks movie, but no thanks. :|

[Rowland]

but... um, thanks movie, but no thanks. :|What does this mean?

[Bosco B Thug]

What does this mean? Riiiggghht, I forgot to actually review the movie. I figured I'd get some retaliatory responses, I guess.

But also, its experimental, hard-to-explain-sort-of nature, and the fact that I didn't care enough for film, made me hope it would suggest enough to anyone who has seen the film. So basically, I dunno if you've seen it, but it's an experimental silent film, sort of a documentary, sort of just an avant-garde visual tour-de-force, loaded with subtext about Soviet society and industry and movie-making. It's 80-minutes long. I found it disappointingly uninspiring and it tried my patience.

[Derek]

Man With a Movie Camera...uninspired!? :crazy:

[Qrazy]

Ooh, ooh! From all the scholarly Hitchcock essays I've been reading lately, I like the idea that the film is Hitchcock's first tonal jab at an expression of modernity, in this case mocking brutality and disregard for schematized moral expectations; that it's a mock-up of marginalized American sordidness, directing a sharp eye at modern normative American desires and the salaciousness at odds with it.



Don't you think that's a rather unnecessarily convoluted way of essentially saying... Hitchcock examined the moral implications of guilt and desire in relation to modern alienation?

[Qrazy]

What does this mean?

He's saying he was bored.

[Rowland]

Riiiggghht, I forgot to actually review the movie. I figured I'd get some retaliatory responses, I guess.

But also, its experimental, hard-to-explain-sort-of nature, and the fact that I didn't care enough for film, made me hope it would suggest enough to anyone who has seen the film. So basically, I dunno if you've seen it, but it's an experimental silent film, sort of a documentary, sort of just an avant-garde visual tour-de-force, loaded with subtext about Soviet society and industry and movie-making. It's 80-minutes long. I found it disappointingly uninspiring and it tried my patience.I've seen it. You just didn't make your position clear, is all. This is better.

[MadMan]

Oh I forgot to mention that the other day I bought the following:

A Scanner Darkly(2006)-I think this will end up being a favorite of mine. An excellent addition to paranoid cinema.
Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang(2005)-I heard great things about this flick and thus I have some sizable expectations for it.
True Romance(1993)-The two disc SE. I like QT's work and have enjoyed the few films I've seen from Tony Scott. Also it and all the other ones I bought were only $4.99 at Best Buy. I couldn't resist. Also the film has a kickass cast.

[Bosco B Thug]

Man With a Movie Camera...uninspired!? :crazy: Ah! I didn't say that! It left me feeling uninspired by it.


Don't you think that's a rather unnecessarily convoluted way of essentially saying... Hitchcock examined the moral implications of guilt and desire in relation to modern alienation? Umm... no, I'd say. The resonance in Psycho for me lies in its particular American-ness. The books I read pointed out the perceived scandalousness of hotel love affairs, Marion's desire for wholesomeness, the leering cowboy boss, the role of pretty little secretaries, Norman's inadequacy in light of all that and the US highway that has secluded him, etc. Also, the tonal goodness of a movie isn't explained in mere description of the emotional/thematic landscape it creates.

[Derek]

Ah! I didn't say that! It left me feeling uninspired by it.

Ah ok, but what exactly are you looking for an avant-garde "symphony of a city" to inspire you to do?

[megladon8]

I'm watching War of the Worlds again right now, and I think it has an almost equal amount of good and bad elements.

It's a great way to show an alien invasion and how it would affect "normal" people - the mayhem it creates in the streets, the way each family is just looking out for their own and don't want to hurt others but will if need be.

At the same time, there are just way too many coincidences and instances of generally sloppy writing to be able to forgive. Most of them have been argued to death on boards and in reviews, so I won't go in-depth, but a brief overview of things that bother me: the plane crash leaving their van absolutely spotless in the middle of a giant wreck, driving down a highway with a perfectly set out path, Cruise running through crowds of people where literally everyone gets obliterated except him. Things like this just stick out like a sore thumb to me.

And, even though this has also been beaten to death, Dakota Fanning is terrible. And I'm not even sure much of it is her fault - the writing for her character is horribly out of place. I realize that they're trying to give the idea that she is more grown up than her father in many ways, and that she is "old for her age", but reading the script on paper, her character voice is almost exactly the same as the other, grown-up characters. Throw in a couple of little girl screams and "this is my safe place" stuff, and suddenly she's supposed to be a child.

Oh and I'd also like to point out how surprised I was at how poorly the effects have aged in just two years. The tripods look fantastic still, but the scenes that were obviously done with actors in front of green screens look pretty unconvincing. When the tripod first emerges from the street near the beginning of the film and Cruise is running and ducking behind cars and whatnot, and things are blowing up and being thrown around behind him, he always looks totally removed from the scene and even though I know it's supposed to be a frightening scene, it never feels like he's really in danger just because he's so removed from the action.

My post is pretty much just focusing on negatives...I actually didn't mean for it to be that way when I sat down to write it.

Anyways, yeh, those are some thoughts as of 1 hour (exactly) into the film.

[Qrazy]

Ah! I didn't say that! It left me feeling uninspired by it.

Umm... no, I'd say. The resonance in Psycho for me lies in its particular American-ness. The books I read pointed out the perceived scandalousness of hotel love affairs, Marion's desire for wholesomeness, the leering cowboy boss, the role of pretty little secretaries, Norman's inadequacy in light of all that and the US highway that has secluded him, etc.

Ok, so then say Modern American alienation and a dissatisfaction with artificially imposed gender roles. I just feel like the way you phrased your description was unnecessarily complicated and vague... making it more difficult to actually have a discussion about these issues. No offense intended.


Also, the tonal goodness of a movie isn't explained in mere description of the emotional/thematic landscape it creates.

Ah. ? ... !.

[Qrazy]

Ah ok, but what exactly are you looking for an avant-garde "symphony of a city" to inspire you to do?

Take up the cello.

[Qrazy]

I'm watching War of the Worlds again right now, and I think it has an almost equal amount of good and bad elements.


I agree, and I also agree that the script has quite a few problems... but one thing I don't really understand is why people expect the film to justify or explain 'coincidences' involving Cruise et al.'s survival in the face of near death situations... when this is pretty much par for the course in any other sci-fi film, disaster flick, adventure film, etc. Is this expected because of the semi-realistic tone of the movie? I just feel that in this sense the film is constantly held to a ridiculous double standard.

I also don't really agree that the effects have aged all that much.

[number8]

About 3:10 to Yuma's lazy scriptwriting:

The biggest plothole in that sequence for me was how Ben Foster was yelling outside the hotel offering money, and no one bothered to shoot him while he's turning around facing the crowd.

[Mal]

I plan on renting Pathfinder tomorrow. Yes, it looks terrible- but I am somehow interested in 10ft tall viking thingymajiggies.

[Rowland]

I find the detailing of plotholes to be one of the most deadening approaches to criticism. It's valid, I suppose, but not terribly interesting.

[Mal]

First viewing of High Fidelity (2000), as someone in a bad mood it served it's purpose in cheering me up, so it gets major points for that. It's quite a bit better than I had expected, but still falters dissapointingly in terms of energy. It's enough to make me want to get the book though, which I hear is quite a bit better. I forgot how awesome Cusack can be... I need to get a marathon going on that, with chocolate.

As much as I love Cusack, I dislike this movie a lot. It takes Hornby's material and doesn't lend itself to it. Ay, this is an unpopular opinion, I know- but the movie just does nothing for me. at all.

[Rowland]

Augmenting the discussion of violence and tragedy as depicted in WotW vs. other monster/disaster movies in general, a passage from Jeremiah Kipp's review:

"For years, I've been disgusted with the way disaster movies depict the annihilation of cities and, more importantly, human beings in the name of entertainment. Independence Day, Deep Impact, and Godzilla were all spectacle pictures, inviting awe at the sight of mass destruction. The problem lies is their refusal to acknowledge tragedy, and when they do it's the death of a specific character we've grown to "like." The rest of the victims remain faceless, so we don’t get upset when a tidal wave wipes out New York City in Deep Impact and thousands of innocents are consumed by alien flames in Independence Day. (Was there any sight in that film more revolting than the golden retriever courageously dodging the fireball while the unlucky masses perish in the background?) Spectators are expected to enjoy the visceral experience, eat popcorn like good automatons, and walk out of the theater feeling amazed at the state-of-the-art special effects. The level of desensitization these movies offered was so great that when faced with a terrorist attack, real-life traumatized interview subjects on the evening news could only say, "It was just like a movie!"

Disaster movies are often a deadening experience. They ask you to shut down your conscience for two hours. The great accomplishment of Steven Spielberg with his adaptation of the H.G. Wells classic War of the Worlds is that this filmmaker, above all else, is devoted to upholding the values of family, children, regular everyday people, and Yankee can-do spirit. At worst, he fails to acknowledge the blistering legacy of capitalism and the stifling conformity of the status quo, but at his best he acknowledges the best and noblest traditions in American culture. He's frequently done that through the use of fantasy, most powerfully through his friendly alien E.T. His use of supernatural creatures helps the viewer understand the importance of metaphors in our lives, so in effect it's not just a movie. The young protagonist of E.T. tells his disbelieving friend, "This is reality, Greg!" The movies, no matter how fanciful or otherworldly, should connect to humanity, not disavow it by saying life is cheap. Disaster movies corroded our sensitivities, and in the wake of 9/11 it should be evident to even the most narrow minded spectator that they are heartless exercises in devastation—the cinematic equivalent rubbernecking. War of the Worlds is a disaster movie that loves the human race, and keeps its point of view squarely amidst a family of survivors trying to escape as the invaders blow apart the world around them."

[Boner M]

So Breillat's latest foray into period costume drama is riveting stuff for the first hour or so, and by the time the film arrives at the powerfully strange Algerian segment, I thought I was watching a near-masterpiece. After that, it kinda gets a bit... static, and my interest waned considerably. Argento - who gave my favorite performance in Marie-Antoinette - is the film's lifeforce and it's worth watching if only for her. It was weird that Breillat lingers over her obviously fake boobs, and even the tattoo above her ass during her nude scenes, which was distracting until I considered that maybe it was a directorial choice to comply with her anachronistic character. Which would've benefited Coppola's film more than this one.

[Qrazy]

Which do you guys think is a better list... 1,001 films to see before you die or New York Times 1000 greatest films.

1,001: http://www.listology.com/content_show.cfm/content_id.14267/Movies

NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/ref/movies/1000best.html

[Boner M]

I find the detailing of plotholes to be one of the most deadening approaches to criticism. It's valid, I suppose, but not terribly interesting.
Agreed, although I'm admittedly much less wary of implausibility than most viewers, even as I try to correct this.

[Bosco B Thug]

Ok, so then say Modern American alienation and a dissatisfaction with artificially imposed gender roles. I just feel like the way you phrased your description was unnecessarily complicated and vague... making it more difficult to actually have a discussion about these issues. No offense intended. None taken. I'd be first to admit (I'd like to believe, anyway) that my propensity for aggrandized associative description just makes things more vague. I just had to get the phrase "marginalized sordidness" in there, though, goshdangit! :P


Ah. ? ... !. Yeah, badly phrased. I'm saying we can say the film thematically presents modern alienation and indifference, but I wanted to get out there the film's theatrical, way-gonzo-under-scrutiny nature. Maybe "textural goodness" instead of "tonal" would've worked.


Ah ok, but what exactly are you looking for an avant-garde "symphony of a city" to inspire you to do? Not get bored. Or seek out a muscley female pole-vaulter with the most disarming mid-air smile you'll ever see. The film had its charms.


Which do you guys think is a better list... 1,001 films to see before you die or New York Times 1000 greatest films. I don't have time to look through them now, but 1,001 Films. It had Candyman, The Haunting, and Val Lewton flicks. New York Times = lose.

[Boner M]

I don't know why this didn't happen sooner than now, but I think I've given up on D'Angelo as a critic. His sentence review of Cassavetes' deliberately cosmic Love Streams says "Anyone know what planet this is set on? I must have zoned out during that caption. Is it in our galaxy?", as if he thinks he's clever by calling out Cassavetes' aspiration toward realism (which is non-existent). And I noticed that he bumped his Ratatouille score up by 10 points - not because he uncovered some new depth, but because the second viewing allowed him to "ignore the trite story and bland characters and marvel at the animation".

It's actually starting to make me uncomfortable that he's one of the most popular web-based critics.

[Qrazy]

I don't know why this didn't happen sooner than now, but I think I've given up on D'Angelo as a critic. His sentence review of Cassavetes' deliberately cosmic Love Streams says "Anyone know what planet this is set on? I must have zoned out during that caption. Is it in our galaxy?", as if he thinks he's clever by calling out Cassavetes' aspiration toward realism (which is non-existent). And I noticed that he bumped his Ratatouille score up by 10 points - not because he uncovered some new depth, but because the second viewing allowed him to "ignore the trite story and bland characters and marvel at the animation".

It's actually starting to make me uncomfortable that he's one of the most popular web-based critics.

Well, judging by those quotes he seems like a self-satisfied dick. I could care less for critics by and large, there's a handful that are worth keeping around, although I have no idea who they are.

[Boner M]

Well, judging by those quotes he seems like a self-satisfied dick. I could care less for critics by and large, there's a handful that are worth keeping around, although I have no idea who they are.
I think I'm probably the biggest film-criticism junkie around here (except for maybe Rowland), so I'm kinda embarrassed that I've been following this guy for so long. Oh well.

[Watashi]

Ken Park (Clark, 2003) - 7

:crazy:

One of the very few films that has received the zero star treatment from me.

Don't turn into one of those people, boner.

[baby doll]

I don't know why this didn't happen sooner than now, but I think I've given up on D'Angelo as a critic. His sentence review of Cassavetes' deliberately cosmic Love Streams says "Anyone know what planet this is set on? I must have zoned out during that caption. Is it in our galaxy?", as if he thinks he's clever by calling out Cassavetes' aspiration toward realism (which is non-existent). And I noticed that he bumped his Ratatouille score up by 10 points - not because he uncovered some new depth, but because the second viewing allowed him to "ignore the trite story and bland characters and marvel at the animation".

It's actually starting to make me uncomfortable that he's one of the most popular web-based critics.Yeah, at first I really liked his short, punchy, no non-sense style, but the more I read, the more he reminds me of Pauline Kael--except, to his credit, he's at least open minded enough to give a film a second look (Ratatouille, for instance). Glib dismissals asside, has he ever had anything really insightful to say about the films he does like? Then again, the thing that initially caught my eye about his writing (the short, punchy no non-sense stuff) doesn't exactly lend itself to Bordwellesque formal analysis.

[Rowland]

I could care less for critics by and large, there's a handful that are worth keeping around, although I have no idea who they are.For me, reading the reviews and thoughts of critics and bloggers whose opinions I value is no different than reading what you all have to say, if not better because I tend to find more insight there than here, which isn't a slight against you guys or anything. I just like reading different takes on movies and challenging my perception, which is a lot more interesting than enshrining my views in a bubble.

[Qrazy]

For me, reading the reviews and thoughts of critics and bloggers whose opinions I value is no different than reading what you all have to say, if not better because I tend to find more insight there than here, which isn't a slight against you guys or anything. I just like reading different takes on movies and challenging my perception, which is a lot more interesting than enshrining my views in a bubble.

True enough, I'm all about challenging taste and perception but I find that lends itself better to a conversational, give and take format. That's why I prefer this method to critics... plus I just find printed film reviews are by and large too short to get into the more nitty gritty elements of a film which make it interesting. As I said, I by no means dismiss criticism completely. I just by and large have little patience for it.

[Rowland]

Final Destination 4 is in the pipeline. Davis R. Ellis and one of the FD2 writers are back, and this installment will be filmed with that new-fangled 3D technology. FD2 had the best death sequences in the series, so sign me up.

[Ezee E]

For me, reading the reviews and thoughts of critics and bloggers whose opinions I value is no different than reading what you all have to say, if not better because I tend to find more insight there than here, which isn't a slight against you guys or anything. I just like reading different takes on movies and challenging my perception, which is a lot more interesting than enshrining my views in a bubble.
I generally get bored with what most critics have to say, as they either: A) Talk about the movie too much and spoil it. or B)Go on other tangents about the movie that don't even affect what the movie is. Negative reviews of what are actually good movies tend to do this too much. As if they're searching for something bad. The negative review of No Country For Old Men come across that way to me.

I actually get more out of what you all think then the critics. Weird.

[Rowland]

Talk about the movie too much and spoil it.Well, I read reviews after seeing the movies, so this doesn't bother me. If anything, I'd rather they not dance around what they have to say. I'm looking for insight, not a convincing argument for me to see a movie, which is an overly facile approach.

[jesse]

So Breillat's latest foray into period costume drama is riveting stuff for the first hour or so, and by the time the film arrives at the powerfully strange Algerian segment, I thought I was watching a near-masterpiece. After that, it kinda gets a bit... static, and my interest waned considerably. Ah, that's too bad. I agree that it wanes in the second act--perhaps it's faithful to the source material but I'm sure Breillat could have come up with something a tad more interesting--but I still consider it one of the best films I saw in Toronto (and by extension, one of my favorites of the year so far).

Have you seen any of her other films? I'm not sure where to head to next.

[Duncan]

I generally get bored with what most critics have to say, as they either: A) Talk about the movie too much and spoil it. or B)Go on other tangents about the movie that don't even affect what the movie is. Negative reviews of what are actually good movies tend to do this too much. As if they're searching for something bad. The negative review of No Country For Old Men come across that way to me. Singular. Even if you didn't find whatever review you read convincing, it's probably important that there is at least some disagreement.

[Ezee E]

Well, I read reviews after seeing the movies, so this doesn't bother me. If anything, I'd rather they not dance around what they have to say. I'm looking for insight, not a convincing argument for me to see a movie, which is an overly facile approach.
I guess it's just the different approach we take to critics. I'd rather hear a blurb of what someone has to say before I decide to actually see a movie in the theater. You wait until after you saw it.

On DVD, it doesn't really matter. I practically watch anything.

[Ezee E]

Singular. Even if you didn't find whatever review you read convincing, it's probably important that there is at least some disagreement.
True. But if it's something totally nonsensical, it just baffles my mind that the dude is getting paid to write that.

[Grouchy]

Augmenting the discussion of violence and tragedy as depicted in WotW vs. other monster/disaster movies in general, a passage from Jeremiah Kipp's review:

"For years, I've been disgusted with the way disaster movies depict the annihilation of cities and, more importantly, human beings in the name of entertainment. Independence Day, Deep Impact, and Godzilla were all spectacle pictures, inviting awe at the sight of mass destruction. The problem lies is their refusal to acknowledge tragedy, and when they do it's the death of a specific character we've grown to "like." The rest of the victims remain faceless, so we don’t get upset when a tidal wave wipes out New York City in Deep Impact and thousands of innocents are consumed by alien flames in Independence Day. (Was there any sight in that film more revolting than the golden retriever courageously dodging the fireball while the unlucky masses perish in the background?) Spectators are expected to enjoy the visceral experience, eat popcorn like good automatons, and walk out of the theater feeling amazed at the state-of-the-art special effects. The level of desensitization these movies offered was so great that when faced with a terrorist attack, real-life traumatized interview subjects on the evening news could only say, "It was just like a movie!"

Disaster movies are often a deadening experience. They ask you to shut down your conscience for two hours. The great accomplishment of Steven Spielberg with his adaptation of the H.G. Wells classic War of the Worlds is that this filmmaker, above all else, is devoted to upholding the values of family, children, regular everyday people, and Yankee can-do spirit. At worst, he fails to acknowledge the blistering legacy of capitalism and the stifling conformity of the status quo, but at his best he acknowledges the best and noblest traditions in American culture. He's frequently done that through the use of fantasy, most powerfully through his friendly alien E.T. His use of supernatural creatures helps the viewer understand the importance of metaphors in our lives, so in effect it's not just a movie. The young protagonist of E.T. tells his disbelieving friend, "This is reality, Greg!" The movies, no matter how fanciful or otherworldly, should connect to humanity, not disavow it by saying life is cheap. Disaster movies corroded our sensitivities, and in the wake of 9/11 it should be evident to even the most narrow minded spectator that they are heartless exercises in devastation—the cinematic equivalent rubbernecking. War of the Worlds is a disaster movie that loves the human race, and keeps its point of view squarely amidst a family of survivors trying to escape as the invaders blow apart the world around them."
What this punk-ass moron doesn't seem to realize is that there's absolutely no difference between War of the Worlds and the other movies he's bashing, as far as "desensitization" is concerned. Aside from Cruise and his family, a lot of people die on screen for no other purpose than showing how powerful the alien invasion is, and for the most part we're not supposed to weep about every single one of them - we're supposed to look at the catastrophe as a whole. Deep Impact also had a group of protagonists whom the audience was supposed to empathize with more than with the other casualties.

Let's forget his pathetic babbling about Americana. I think I could make a case that War of the Worlds is a lot less sensitive than Deep Impact. In the latter, people die for real, while in the Spielberg movie main characters suffer comic-book deaths and resurrect with no plausible explanation at all. I find that a lot more nihilistic, shallow and desensitizing.

[baby doll]

I generally get bored with what most critics have to say, as they either: A) Talk about the movie too much and spoil it. or B)Go on other tangents about the movie that don't even affect what the movie is. Negative reviews of what are actually good movies tend to do this too much. As if they're searching for something bad. The negative review of No Country For Old Men come across that way to me.In regards to your first objection, we should make a clear distinction between reviewers (Ebert et al) and critics like Bordwell and Robin Wood. The former are basically journalists who report on new movies; whether or not they like a movie is a small part of an individual review, since the overall aim is to describe the film so, should you go to see it, you'll have some idea of what to expect. A lot of the time, I'll read a negative review and think: "Hey, that sounds like something I'd like to see."

As an example of criticism, right now I'm reading Kristin Thompson's 300-page analysis of Eisenstein's Ivan the Terrible. She isn't going to spoil the film by talking too much about it (that is, giving away too much of the plot) since it's assumed anyone reading the book has already seen it and knows it well. Presumably the purpose of criticism is to enhance our experience of a particular film by pointing out aspects one might miss on first viewing (for instance, she devotes an entire chapter to how Eisenstein constructs spatial relations through matching eye lines).

[megladon8]

I agree, and I also agree that the script has quite a few problems... but one thing I don't really understand is why people expect the film to justify or explain 'coincidences' involving Cruise et al.'s survival in the face of near death situations... when this is pretty much par for the course in any other sci-fi film, disaster flick, adventure film, etc. Is this expected because of the semi-realistic tone of the movie? I just feel that in this sense the film is constantly held to a ridiculous double standard.

These are much more obvious coincidences than anything I've seen in recent memory.

Having an enormous plane crash on top of a house, destroying absolutely EVERYTHING, yet forming an almost perfect circle around the family van was just very bad writing.

[jesse]

Hey, I didn't know you were Judge Ataide (didn't know your last name). I read that site a lot, and actually just skimmed your review for Philippe Garrel's Regular Lovers the other day. Yeah, that's me--now finding myself in the position as one of the most senior and at the same time one of the least prolific of the judges (I put too much thought into my reviews, I'm afraid).

[Watashi]

Hey Rowland, besides the House, what other critical blogs do you visit? I'm been trying to find some good ones.

[Rowland]

What this punk-ass moron doesn't seem to realize is that there's absolutely no difference between War of the Worlds and the other movies he's bashing, as far as "desensitization" is concerned. Aside from Cruise and his family, a lot of people die on screen for no other purpose than showing how powerful the alien invasion is, and for the most part we're not supposed to weep about every single one of them - we're supposed to look at the catastrophe as a whole. Deep Impact also had a group of protagonists whom the audience was supposed to empathize with more than with the other casualties.I disagree. The differences in how I responded to Independence Day and War of the Worlds are startling and telling. WotW is perceived through a single perspective (an individual family unit), which lends an immediacy and personal vulnerability to the proceedings that an approach featuring omnipotent God's-eye-views of mass destruction and a cross-section of perspectives from a large ensemble cannot. It lends a surreal quality to the attack by grounding it in a single perceptual reality while disturbingly contextualizing the horrors through visions that explicitly evoke contemporary traumas and tragedies inflicting the world.


Let's forget his pathetic babbling about Americana. I think I could make a case that War of the Worlds is a lot less sensitive than Deep Impact. In the latter, people die for real, while in the Spielberg movie main characters suffer comic-book deaths and resurrect with no plausible explanation at all. I find that a lot more nihilistic, shallow and desensitizing.This is the most unmistakable misstep -- even the critic who I quoted cites it as a middlebrow cop-out that almost fatally damages the movie. Still, that's just the last five minutes, and I've read some fairly reasonable defenses for it, even if I don't agree with them.

[Sycophant]

This is the most unmistakable misstep -- even the critic who I quoted cites it as a middlebrow cop-out that almost fatally damages the movie. Still, that's just the last five minutes, and I've even read some fairly convincing defenses for it, even if I don't agree with them.Anything/anyone of note on that last bit?

[Rowland]

Anything/anyone of note on that last bit?Not really. Clearly I wasn't convinced enough to remember them specifically so much as a vague impression that I did read them somewhere. :)

[Watashi]

I think I might have just stumbled upon the worst tomatometer blurb of all time:

"May be the best film I have seen in 2007. August will have you Rushing to theatres to witness his musical masterpiece."

And the scary thing is... it's not from Peter Travers.

[Rowland]

I think I might have just stumbled upon the worst tomatometer blurb of all time:

"May be the best film I have seen in 2007. August will have you Rushing to theatres to witness his musical masterpiece."

And the scary thing is... it's not from Peter Travers."Rush to the theaters like you would an ice cream truck in the heat of August!"

[Watashi]

"Rush to the theaters like you would an ice cream truck in the heat of August!"

Any answer for my question above?

[Rowland]

Any answer for my question above?I'm going through my Bookmarks right now, which are dense as hell. Not everyone who I read is a professional critic, and most of them are just a single person rather than the House format. I'll post a list soon of some that I read.

[Raiders]

What this punk-ass moron doesn't seem to realize is that there's absolutely no difference between War of the Worlds and the other movies he's bashing, as far as "desensitization" is concerned. Aside from Cruise and his family, a lot of people die on screen for no other purpose than showing how powerful the alien invasion is, and for the most part we're not supposed to weep about every single one of them - we're supposed to look at the catastrophe as a whole. Deep Impact also had a group of protagonists whom the audience was supposed to empathize with more than with the other casualties.

Let's forget his pathetic babbling about Americana. I think I could make a case that War of the Worlds is a lot less sensitive than Deep Impact. In the latter, people die for real, while in the Spielberg movie main characters suffer comic-book deaths and resurrect with no plausible explanation at all. I find that a lot more nihilistic, shallow and desensitizing.

If you can't see how death is treated differently in War of the Worlds, and if you actually think because one character experiences a resurrection as a sweet hereafter for the father figure that nobody stays dead in the entire film, then I feel confident no amount of discussion will make any difference whatsoever.

[Rowland]

None of these are really like The House Next Door, with varying themes, styles, and perspectives. Some are more valuable than others, but I like to be all-inclusive.

http://sunsetgun.typepad.com/sunsetgun/
http://moviesfilter.spaces.live.com/
http://sergioleoneifr.blogspot.com/
http://badfortheglass.blogspot.com/
http://www.nicksflickpicks.com/blog.html
http://nymag.com/daily/movies/
http://elusivelucidity.blogspot.com/
http://www.culturesnob.com/
http://aslittleaspossible.blogspot.co m/
http://projectionbooth.blogspot.com/
http://esotika.blogspot.com/
http://finalgirl.blogspot.com/
http://shoottheprojectionist.blogspot .com/
http://theeveningclass.blogspot.com/
http://maguiresmovies.blogspot.com/
http://filmexperience.blogspot.com/
http://antagonie.blogspot.com/
http://robscheer.blogspot.com/
http://horror-movie-a-day.blogspot.com/
http://cinepinion.blogspot.com/
http://www.coffeecoffeeandmorecoffee. com/archives/2007/09/
http://criticafterdark.blogspot.com/
http://screenville.blogspot.com/
http://and-now-the-screaming-starts.blogspot.com/
http://www.videowatchdog.blogspot.com/
http://www.deep-focus.com/dfweblog/
http://mooninthegutter.blogspot.com/
http://www.d-kaz.com/blog/
http://dailyfilmdose.blogspot.com/
http://explodingkinetoscope.blogspot. com/
http://jurgenfauth.com/
http://anyeventuality.wordpress.com/
http://lazyeyetheatre.blogspot.com/index.html
http://moviesteve.blogspot.com/
http://filmbrain.typepad.com/
http://cinebeats.blogsome.com/

[balmakboor]

Damn. All those blogs and mine is nowhere to be seen. I'll have to try harder.

Seriously though. Thanks for the links. I'm new to blogging and will use these as a source of ideas. I know already that I need to add some pictures.

http://cinema100film.blogspot.com/

[balmakboor]

I'm curious. How many people here are members of the Online Film Critics Society? Members of the Rotten Tomato Meter?

[Rowland]

Damn. All those blogs and mine is nowhere to be seen. I'll have to try harder.

Seriously though. Thanks for the links. I'm new to blogging and will use these as a source of ideas. I know already that I need to add some pictures.

http://cinema100film.blogspot.com/And that was just a random sampling. You can branch out into infinity by following links from those blogs.

Nice start on your blog btw, those are some very considered write-ups. I've actually made one that I just haven't posted in yet.

[Boner M]

Have you seen any of her other films? I'm not sure where to head to next.
I've seen Brief Crossing and Fat Girl, which are both terrific. I think you would especially like the former, since it's heavily reminiscent of Linklater's Before films.

[Grouchy]

I disagree. The differences in how I responded to Independence Day and War of the Worlds are startling and telling. WotW is perceived through a single perspective (an individual family unit), which lends an immediacy and personal vulnerability to the proceedings that an approach featuring omnipotent God's-eye-views of mass destruction and a cross-section of perspectives from a large ensemble cannot. It lends a surreal quality to the attack by grounding it in a single perceptual reality while disturbingly contextualizing the horrors through visions that explicitly evoke contemporary traumas and tragedies inflicting the world.
I agree that's Spielberg's intention, and that's definitively the feeling you get while reading the Wells book, but it's not what I got from the film. I think by relying too much in edge-of-the-seat moments and in cardboard figures voicing the filmmaker's own opinions too loud (like the Tim Robbins character), he managed to kill any feeling of inmediacy and veracity the invasion could've had. Sure, the family angle is there, but the father becomes too much of an unbeatable running man thingy and the kids traumas are too simple and underwritten - I didn't buy Dakota's asthma or whatever the hell she had for one single second.

You know what's a movie that manages that single person perspective of a larger calamity a lot better? Children of Men. I swear, if War of the Worlds had been directed with the same care for detail and intelligence, it would be not only the best film adaptation of the novel (which I guess it still is, at least compared with the '50s one), but one of the best science-fiction films ever.

I just saw Halloween III: Season of the Witch, which is a very fun B-movie that doesn't make a whole lotta sense. As you guys probably know, this entry in the series has nothing to do with Mike Myers. Instead, Carpenter regular Tom Atkins plays a sympathetic doctor who discovers a large corporate scheme involving Halloween masks and killer androids. It doesn't even feel like a Horror movie, despite some gruesome-bizarre special effects (awesome work, by the way), but more like a Twilight Zone episode expanded into a feature film. Good for kicks, laughs and shits, but the script doesn't stand ANY kind of analysis, it's so full of plotholes. It also goes on for way too long, specially before getting to the meat of the business.


Why the hell did Cochran want to ruin Halloween for everybody? Sure, he's a Samhain fan, but it feels like a little too much. Also, doesn't anybody notice a large rock missing from Stonehenge? And the most obvious one, wouldn't time zones mess with his evil plans?

[megladon8]

I officially fucking LOATHE Ottawa.

We're getting The Mist late, No Country For Old Men is only playing in one theatre, and it's a little piece of shit over and hour away.

BUT...

We're getting Hitman on EIGHT screens at the AMC!!

Jesus fucking christ on a mother fucking bicycle.

[Rowland]

You know what's a movie that manages that single person perspective of a larger calamity a lot better? Children of Men. I swear, if War of the Worlds had been directed with the same care for detail and intelligence, it would be not only the best film adaptation of the novel (which I guess it still is, at least compared with the '50s one), but one of the best science-fiction films ever.CoM is a better movie than WotW, I'll agree with that.


I just saw Halloween III: Season of the Witch, which is a very fun B-movie that doesn't make a whole lotta sense. As you guys probably know, this entry in the series has nothing to do with Mike Myers. Instead, Carpenter regular Tom Atkins plays a sympathetic doctor who discovers a large corporate scheme involving Halloween masks and killer androids. It doesn't even feel like a Horror movie, despite some gruesome-bizarre special effects (awesome work, by the way), but more like a Twilight Zone episode expanded into a feature film. Good for kicks, laughs and shits, but the script doesn't stand ANY kind of analysis, it's so full of plotholes. It also goes on for way too long, specially before getting to the meat of the business.


Why the hell did Cochran want to ruin Halloween for everybody? Sure, he's a Samhain fan, but it feels like a little too much. Also, doesn't anybody notice a large rock missing from Stonehenge? And the most obvious one, wouldn't time zones mess with his evil plans?
Heh... you're only skimming the tip of the iceberg in your spoiler questions. The movie doesn't make a lick of sense, but I agree that it's an entertaining lo-fi B-movie. I wish the Halloween series had continued in this vein.

[Boner M]

August Rush looks so earnestly manipulative that it might be kinda genius.

Robin Williams: 'Music is in your DNA, kid! Don't let anyone tell you otherwise!'
[cut to shot of fresh-faced youngan smiling happily while holding a guitar out of frame, closeup to wrinkled, aged hands actually playing said guitar]

[Qrazy]

In regards to your first objection, we should make a clear distinction between reviewers (Ebert et al) and critics like Bordwell and Robin Wood. The former are basically journalists who report on new movies; whether or not they like a movie is a small part of an individual review, since the overall aim is to describe the film so, should you go to see it, you'll have some idea of what to expect. A lot of the time, I'll read a negative review and think: "Hey, that sounds like something I'd like to see."

As an example of criticism, right now I'm reading Kristin Thompson's 300-page analysis of Eisenstein's Ivan the Terrible. She isn't going to spoil the film by talking too much about it (that is, giving away too much of the plot) since it's assumed anyone reading the book has already seen it and knows it well. Presumably the purpose of criticism is to enhance our experience of a particular film by pointing out aspects one might miss on first viewing (for instance, she devotes an entire chapter to how Eisenstein constructs spatial relations through matching eye lines).

I tend to think of the latter as film analysis rather than criticism and I'm all for that.

[Qrazy]

I agree that's Spielberg's intention, and that's definitively the feeling you get while reading the Wells book, but it's not what I got from the film. I think by relying too much in edge-of-the-seat moments and in cardboard figures voicing the filmmaker's own opinions too loud (like the Tim Robbins character), he managed to kill any feeling of inmediacy and veracity the invasion could've had. Sure, the family angle is there, but the father becomes too much of an unbeatable running man thingy and the kids traumas are too simple and underwritten - I didn't buy Dakota's asthma or whatever the hell she had for one single second.


Huh? The Tim Robbins character was batshit crazy.

[baby doll]

Damn. All those blogs and mine is nowhere to be seen. I'll have to try harder.

Seriously though. Thanks for the links. I'm new to blogging and will use these as a source of ideas. I know already that I need to add some pictures.

http://cinema100film.blogspot.com/I'm just going to assume that since I put a link to my blog in my signature, he felt it redundant to mention mine.

[EvilShoe]

I officially fucking LOATHE Ottawa.

We're getting The Mist late, No Country For Old Men is only playing in one theatre, and it's a little piece of shit over and hour away.

BUT...

We're getting Hitman on EIGHT screens at the AMC!!

Jesus fucking christ on a mother fucking bicycle.
Don't be a crybaby, I'm getting The Mist in march.

[number8]

I officially fucking LOATHE Ottawa.

We're getting The Mist late, No Country For Old Men is only playing in one theatre, and it's a little piece of shit over and hour away.

BUT...

We're getting Hitman on EIGHT screens at the AMC!!

Jesus fucking christ on a mother fucking bicycle.


Don't worry, I hate Ottawa too.

[Winston*]

Don't be a crybaby, I'm getting The Mist in march.

I'm getting that and No Country for Old Men in [date to be determined].

[balmakboor]

I'm just going to assume that since I put a link to my blog in my signature, he felt it redundant to mention mine.

Yes, mine is kinda hidden. You have to click on my username to get to my "my homepage" link unlike the old Match Cut.

[balmakboor]

Nice start on your blog btw, those are some very considered write-ups. I've actually made one that I just haven't posted in yet.

Thanks.

[Rowland]

I just watched bits and pieces of Slums of Beverly Hills, and man... Natasha Lyonne and Marisa Tomei are both smokin'. Seemed like a cute movie too.

[Ezee E]

In regards to your first objection, we should make a clear distinction between reviewers (Ebert et al) and critics like Bordwell and Robin Wood. The former are basically journalists who report on new movies; whether or not they like a movie is a small part of an individual review, since the overall aim is to describe the film so, should you go to see it, you'll have some idea of what to expect. A lot of the time, I'll read a negative review and think: "Hey, that sounds like something I'd like to see."

As an example of criticism, right now I'm reading Kristin Thompson's 300-page analysis of Eisenstein's Ivan the Terrible. She isn't going to spoil the film by talking too much about it (that is, giving away too much of the plot) since it's assumed anyone reading the book has already seen it and knows it well. Presumably the purpose of criticism is to enhance our experience of a particular film by pointing out aspects one might miss on first viewing (for instance, she devotes an entire chapter to how Eisenstein constructs spatial relations through matching eye lines).
Books are very much different. 300-pages on one movie, that doesn't come from you, might be a bit much to handle, but they tend to be very informative. I prefer ones that cover directors' reels rather then one specific movie, because you end up believing it or calling it a crock. Whereas ones that cover a directors' work seems to offer more then one idea. Weird, I know, but that's what I've come across.

[Ezee E]

I officially fucking LOATHE Ottawa.

We're getting The Mist late, No Country For Old Men is only playing in one theatre, and it's a little piece of shit over and hour away.

BUT...

We're getting Hitman on EIGHT screens at the AMC!!

Jesus fucking christ on a mother fucking bicycle.
You got the Senators at least. Right?

I may see Hitman heh.

[megladon8]

You got the Senators at least. Right?

I may see Hitman heh.


Well, unfortunately I couldn't care less about hockey - or any sports, for that matter.

Seriously, why is The Mist not opening here? It's not like it's a small movie.

[jesse]

I'm curious. How many people here are members of the Online Film Critics Society? Members of the Rotten Tomato Meter? I know Derek is a member of the OFCS. My reviews can be found on RT though last I looked into it they don't count toward the scores.

[jesse]

http://elusivelucidity.blogspot.com/ To emphasize your point, I read a number of blogs but this is the only one off that list (besides for House) that I frequent. Elusive Lucidity is great, though Zach often makes me jealous because we're the same age and he's working on a whole other, higher plane of analysis than I am. *sigh*

[DSNT]

I know Derek is a member of the OFCS. My reviews can be found on RT though last I looked into it they don't count toward the scores.
Mine are on RT too, although I haven't written any in over a year. They don't apply to the scores unless you are OFCS or a sanctioned critic.

I applied to OFCS a couple years ago and was told I was very close. From what I understand it is very tough to get in. I think they only allow a couple new members a year.

[megladon8]

I made a REALLY great contact today.

A man named Keith Davidson came to our class, who is a pretty big name in the local film scene. He also sold a script to Universal Studios 3 years ago, which has been "dug up" in the last few months and could quite possibly go into production. It's a really interesting sounding story, too.

Anyways, by a stroke of luck, he was late getting to our class today so our prof. sent us all out on break. I ended up seeing him roaming the hallways looking lost, so I went and introduced myself and led him to the classroom. Always nice to be the first person in their memory.

So he ended up giving me his e-mail and said he'd keep me in mind if he was working on a project in Ottawa and needed some extra help. I know people get offers like that all the time, but still, it makes you feel good :)

[Rowland]

My reviews can be found on RT though last I looked into it they don't count toward the scores.The reviews on your blog?
Mine are on RT tooWhere are your reviews found?

[DSNT]

The reviews on your blog?Where are your reviews found?
Mine were on a couple websites that fed to RT.

Can't believe RT attributed my Pulse review to that crap remake. How embarrassing.

[balmakboor]

Mine are on RT too, although I haven't written any in over a year. They don't apply to the scores unless you are OFCS or a sanctioned critic.

I applied to OFCS a couple years ago and was told I was very close. From what I understand it is very tough to get in. I think they only allow a couple new members a year.

Thanks. Getting in is a personal goal and I plan to keep averaging a review a week until I get there. The question I have for whoever could answer it is: What qualifies as a professional quality website? I've surfed through many reviews by OFCS members and the websites holding them range from very nice to pretty pathetic with many leaning toward the latter. I'm confused. The rules make things sound very strict. The reality makes things seem very loose.

[DSNT]

Thanks. Getting in is a personal goal and I plan to keep averaging a review a week until I get there. The question I have for whoever could answer it is: What qualifies as a professional quality website? I've surfed through many reviews by OFCS members and the websites holding them range from very nice to pretty pathetic with many leaning toward the latter. I'm confused. The rules make things sound very strict. The reality makes things seem very loose.
I think a lot of the pathetic sites that you refer to are from old-school members and standards have since changed. At least that's what I was told when I applied, so I tried to make my site look good. I also published my reviews on some other, larger sites, to get some exposure.

Derek's site is nice if you're looking for a guideline.

I probably should have waited until I had about 100+ reviews published before applying. I'd wait until you have a large body of work.

[balmakboor]

I think a lot of the pathetic sites that you refer to are from old-school members and standards have since changed. At least that's what I was told when I applied, so I tried to make my site look good. I also published my reviews on some other, larger sites, to get some exposure.

Derek's site is nice if you're looking for a guideline.

I probably should have waited until I had about 100+ reviews published before applying. I'd wait until you have a large body of work.

That sounds about right concerning the "pathetic" sites. They're most likely all fairly old. And take with a grain of salt my opinions about web design. I'm a web programmer and work with web design types daily.

I probably should have phrased my question more tactfully as: Does a blog/personal site count or must the reviews appear on something more substantial like DVDTalk, etc.?

I plan to have over 100 reviews before applying.

[Rowland]

What do you get for being accepted?

[balmakboor]

What do you get for being accepted?

Probably not fame and fortune.

[DSNT]

There's no clear answer as to how to publish, but I would suggest a blog/personal site along with publishing them somewhere more substantial. I think they are more concerned with the quality of the reviews than the location.

You get listed on the tomatometer and I believe you get some perks like movie admissions. Plus you get to vote on their awards. Just based on my experience writing for a website, I would imagine you probably get a lot of screeners. I wasn't in OFCS and I still get a crapload of screeners sent to me that I'll never have time to watch.

[balmakboor]

There's no clear answer as to how to publish, but I would suggest a blog/personal site along with publishing them somewhere more substantial. I think they are more concerned with the quality of the reviews than the location.

You get listed on the tomatometer and I believe you get some perks like movie admissions. Plus you get to vote on their awards. Just based on my experience writing for a website, I would imagine you probably get a lot of screeners. I wasn't in OFCS and I still get a crapload of screeners sent to me that I'll never have time to watch.

Your mention of screeners brings up a related question: I'm centimeters away from getting the movie reviewer post for the Bismarck Tribune. This being a rather small, middle American community means press screenings don't happen. How does one go about getting press screeners? The paper currently runs locally written reviews for movies that are a week old.

[Qrazy]

How is Melville's Les Enfants Terribles?

[DSNT]

Your mention of screeners brings up a related question: I'm centimeters away from getting the movie reviewer post for the Bismarck Tribune. This being a rather small, middle American community means press screenings don't happen. How does one go about getting press screeners? The paper currently runs locally written reviews for movies that are a week old.
Talk to the local theaters and ask about advance screenings. I'm sure they happen. Contact the distributors for smaller releases and get screeners mailed to you. Piracy is probably more of a concern now, but you can still probably get some.

[Grouchy]

Huh? The Tim Robbins character was batshit crazy.
Well, the Spielberg opinion is exactly the polarizing opposite.


Heh... you're only skimming the tip of the iceberg in your spoiler questions. The movie doesn't make a lick of sense, but I agree that it's an entertaining lo-fi B-movie. I wish the Halloween series had continued in this vein.
You know what would've made it really special and more in tone with the series? If they would've substituted the doctor for Sam Loomis. After all, they ended up ressurecting him in the fourth movie, right? Which I have in my bag, ready to be watched.

[Rowland]

After all, they ended up ressurecting him in the fourth movie, right? Which I have in my bag, ready to be watched.Wait until you see the scars he has from surviving the inferno that closed the second movie. :lol:

[Mysterious Dude]

How is Melville's Les Enfants Terribles?
All I remember about this movie is that it has a snowball fight that is almost exactly the same as the snowball fight in The Blood of a Poet. It makes me think Jean Cocteau must have been injured in a snowball fight when he was a kid, or something.

[Ezee E]

I know most of the stories that took place on Apocalypse Now from all the reading I've done about it, but seeing the documentary is just as satisfying. Its at its best when not focusing on the madness going on, but the culture influence, such as when the sacrifices are going on.

I've been wanting to see the movie for about five years now, as its one of the few that wasn't available in any kind of format. It didn't blow my mind, but it was definitely worth seeing.

[Mal]

The Last King of Scotland

Hmm. Despite the acting being very convincing and ... well, good... the rest of the movie never caught up to that level. Strangely enough, my favorite character was Gillian Anderson's Sarah, who disappeared too quickly.

So-so I guess.

[Yxklyx]

Oh my, so Marcellus was played by Jack Lemmon - I thought he looked familiar!

[Ezee E]

Heh. Ebert compares Hitman to Le Samourai, but with the required video game enhancements added to it.

[MadMan]

Yes! The utterly amazing banner is up now. Awesome :lol: :cool:

[Boner M]

Anyone seen Drama/Mex? I liked it quite a bit for the most part; it's a bit like an Innaritu film but with more tenous connections between the intersecting stories. I kinda like that approach a bit more, since the film becomes less self-important and more immediate, allowing the audience to simply immerse themselves in the action and pick out thematic/visual rhymes and repetitions in the stories and details across the separate narrative threads, rather than waiting for the big revelations to occur. At the same time, it feels a bit underdeveloped because there isn't much depth to the characters, or at least their depths are too deliberately elusive, and the deliberate anticlimax feels lazy rather than uncompromising. Still, there's real energy and life in every frame, and even if the verite/handheld style feels a little cliché in modern cinema by this point, Naranjo works well within that form. A good debut, might grow on me with time.

[Winston*]

I think I'll credit my positive reaction to Rob Roy to messrs Cox, Hurt and Roth. Most of the rest of the film is fine but unspectacular ( a phrase which could be fairly applied to not only Liam Neeson's work in this, but also Neeson's work in pretty much any film Neeson is in), but those three bring it up a notch, esp. Roth.

[ledfloyd]

Yes! The utterly amazing banner is up now. Awesome :lol: :cool:
ugh, that banner is despicable.

[Boner M]

ugh, that banner is despicable.
Fall in a hole.

[Qrazy]

Well, I keep a list of movies I've heard good things about but still have yet to see and just re-edited it to see how I'm doing. I thought I was making some headway, but I still have about 700 more films to go... I've combined NYT's 1000 best films, 1001 films to see, Criterion and a couple other lists. God damn it. I mean yes I know, I know it's the journey not the destination etc, etc but fuckkk.

[ledfloyd]

Fall in a hole.
now what.

[Kurosawa Fan]

now what.

Throw your computer out of the hole.

[lovejuice]

The Last King of Scotland

Hmm. Despite the acting being very convincing and ... well, good... the rest of the movie never caught up to that level. Strangely enough, my favorite character was Gillian Anderson's Sarah, who disappeared too quickly.

So-so I guess.

i agree. the directing and the acting are superb, but gash! what's an annoying little story that is. among mayhem, genocide, and river of blood, only solid conflict between the leads is

McAvoy boning one of Whitaker's chick.

[Sycophant]

Okay. American Thanksgiving is this weekend. I'm spending it alone, so I'm going to be reading and watching as much as possible. Media will be my gluttony. Because it starts tomorrow, here's what I'm aiming to get to this weekend:

Duck Soup
Horsefeathers
Funky Forest: The First Contact
Gone Baby Gone
My Kid Could Paint That
Before the Devil Knows You're Dead
Enchanted
License to Live
Eyes of the Spider
Serpent's Path
Down With Love
Meet the Ronbinsons
The World Sinks Except Japan
The Bad Sleep Well
Angels with Dirty Faces
Victory Through Airpower
Little Shop of Horrors (film swap)

[Spinal]

Little Shop of Horrors (film swap)

Cool. I rewatched this yesterday to ensure that I would not be relying on fuzzy memories from my youth. :)

[Sycophant]

My introduction to Bollywood cinema last night, Sholay, was wild, fun, and ass-soreningly long. I need to see more of this stuff.

[Yxklyx]

Robin Williams nearly ruined Branagh's Hamlet for me. The film devolves into sillyness towards the end but there's a lot of good stuff throughout here and there.

Weekend starts early:

Berlin Alexanderplatz
All or Nothing
Your Friends & Neighbors
Punch-Drunk Love

[Sven]

Robin Williams nearly ruined Branagh's Hamlet for me. The film devolves into sillyness towards the end but there's a lot of good stuff throughout here and there.

I loved his take on Osric! It's so bizarre... a weird combination of bashfulness and ass-kissery. Maybe you mean Jack Lemmon.

And yeah. Like Spinal said, the throwing of the sword (and I would say subsequent Tarzaning to the throne) are all sort of eye-roll-worthy, but it is high melodrama... I don't think the silliness ruined anything for me. Just inspired some thrilled and embarrassed chuckles.

[Duncan]

I saw a double feature of Albert Lamorisse's White Mane and The Red Balloon last night. They really made my evening.

White Mane is about this boy and a wild horse who become friends. It's somewhat of a documentary, as a lot of it is simply filmed horse behavior. There's one frightening scene in which two horses fight. I winced a few times during that. The film really uses its setting to its advantage. It takes place near a flood plain and a marsh. There are some stunning shots of horses running with their reflections in the water. The sound design is comically fake, but it adds to the film's dreaminess. I think only the very last line of voiceover breaks the film's spell of nostalgia, which is unfortunate.

The Red Balloon has regained some prominence since the release of Hou's new film. This one is way better. It reminded me a lot of Tati in the way it derives gags from its mise-en-scene. I only got about an hour of sleep on Monday, so by the time I watched this I was fighting to stay awake. I think this may have actually been the best way to watch it. I was content to just enjoy my mild delirium and laugh along with the film. The penultimate scene is surprisingly sad, and the final scene is transcendent. The last shot is saying something very similar to White Mane's last shot, but without the heavy handedness.

I also loved that there were kids in the audience. I went in expecting it to be a purely art house crowd. It's nice that these films are still reaching their intended audience, even if only about 10 children were at the theater.

[balmakboor]

I saw a double feature of Albert Lamorisse's White Mane and The Red Balloon last night. They really made my evening.

White Mane is about this boy and a wild horse who become friends. It's somewhat of a documentary, as a lot of it is simply filmed horse behavior. There's one frightening scene in which two horses fight. I winced a few times during that. The film really uses its setting to its advantage. It takes place near a flood plain and a marsh. There are some stunning shots of horses running with their reflections in the water. The sound design is comically fake, but it adds to the film's dreaminess. I think only the very last line of voiceover breaks the film's spell of nostalgia, which is unfortunate.

The Red Balloon has regained some prominence since the release of Hou's new film. This one is way better. It reminded me a lot of Tati in the way it derives gags from its mise-en-scene. I only got about an hour of sleep on Monday, so by the time I watched this I was fighting to stay awake. I think this may have actually been the best way to watch it. I was content to just enjoy my mild delirium and laugh along with the film. The penultimate scene is surprisingly sad, and the final scene is transcendent. The last shot is saying something very similar to White Mane's last shot, but without the heavy handedness.

I also loved that there were kids in the audience. I went in expecting it to be a purely art house crowd. It's nice that these films are still reaching their intended audience, even if only about 10 children were at the theater.

This is very good to hear. C100 met two days ago and one of the things we wanted to accomplish was having a kid friendly evening in the series. I suggested this and everyone liked the idea. So, I have my fingers crossed that it works out.

[Duncan]

This is very good to hear. C100 met two days ago and one of the things we wanted to accomplish was having a kid friendly evening in the series. I suggested this and everyone liked the idea. So, I have my fingers crossed that it works out.

That'd be great. It sounded like the kids liked what they saw.

[Watashi]

Weekend:

Enchanted
The Mist
Southland Tales

[Ezee E]

It's not even Thursday yet. Sure, there's Thanksgiving. But there are principles. Anton Chigurh has principles.

[Winston*]

ugh, that banner is despicable.

:confused:

[Mal]

Straight Talk
Yes, this is Dolly Parton in a comedy film from the 90s.
Light, fun stuff... and in the end, they take a risk by giving you the opposite outcome instead of the expected cliche that's expected- and well, it works.

[lovejuice]

:confused:

i like it quite a lot. (regarding banner.)

[megladon8]

Wow, apparently Hitman blows.

Who knew?

[origami_mustache]

The World Sinks Except Japan



I've actually seen this film, but I've never heard anyone mention it before. Just curious, where did you hear about/find this?

[Mal]

ugh, that banner is despicable.

Excuse me? It's only just short of pure greatness, due to its lacking of Sir Danny Huston.

[megladon8]

Excuse me? It's only just short of pure greatness, due to its lacking of Sir Danny Huston.


I'm pretty sure he's the one standing against the wall on the right side...

[Derek]

Wow, apparently Hitman blows.

Who knew?

http://media.collegepublisher.com/media/paper1022/stills/irm140f5.jpg

[megladon8]

http://media.collegepublisher.com/media/paper1022/stills/irm140f5.jpg


:pritch:

[Sycophant]

I've actually seen this film, but I've never heard anyone mention it before. Just curious, where did you hear about/find this?I loved, loved, loved Minoru Kawasaki's Calamari Wrestler and everything I've read about his other movies. However, the only other one available anywhere with an English-friendly release is this one. I bought the Hong Kong disc from YesAsia a while back. Most say it's one of Kawasaki's weakest efforts, but any film that features a Gaijin Attack Team sounds like something worth seeing.

[Boner M]

Mid-week weekend viewings? Alright, then.

Theatre:

Into the Wild
Halloween

Home:

Quiz Show
Numero Deux
Design For Living
Peter Ibbetson
Bigger Than Life
Kings of the Road
...and the gazillions of other DVDs I purchased recently but haven't watched.

[MadMan]

Today I went to see The Final Season(2007).

On one hand it was full of the many of the usual sports cliches, and since I know a bit about local history I already knew the end result. However in many respects the film managed to be entertaining and engaging, and there was a good deal of respect for the small town spirit that is part and parcel of the state I call home. Powers Boothe rocked in his somewhat limited role (he's one of those actors with a rich, distinctive voice that I never tire of), Sean Astin was servicable and Larry Miller was funny and breathed life into a rather one note character. I left the theater satisifed but noting that the film, like most sports films, pays homage to the tradition that accompanies the game and its general impact upon people's lives.

[Mal]

I'm pretty sure he's the one standing against the wall on the right side...
Guess you're right...


on that note, teh Huston deserves a better quality image. I obviously could not recognize him otherwise.

[Raiders]

Weekend:

A double bill of No Country for Old Men and I'm Not There

Should be glorious.

[Ivan Drago]

Weekend:

Hitman (yeah)
Repeat viewings of movies I own on DVD
Packers vs. Lions
USC vs. Arizona State
More football on Sunday

[Mal]

Weekend
Enchanted
Panic in Needle Park
Lust, Caution

[Ezee E]

Weekend:

A double bill of No Country for Old Men and I'm Not There

Should be glorious.
no thoughts for Diving Bell? a 68 is right in between liking and not liking for you I think.

[Winston*]

I'm thinking maybe going to Eastern Promises or Black Book this weekend.

[Derek]

Weekend:

A double bill of No Country for Old Men and I'm Not There

Should be glorious.

My two favorites of the year, right there. It better be glorious! :)

[MadMan]

Weekend:

*True Romance(1993)
*Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang(2005)
*Packers vs. Lions
*Lots of football

[Ezee E]

I'm thinking maybe going to Eastern Promises or Black Book this weekend.
See 'em both.

[Ezee E]

I'm thinking maybe going to Eastern Promises or Black Book this weekend.
Weekend:
-Away From Her
-Kubrick movies on Blu-Ray (Eyes Wide Shut and Full Metal Jacket)
-Beowulf
-Hitman (maybe)
-Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium

[Lucky]

I need to find friends who want to see something other than Hitman and Beowulf. I'll probably go with for Beowulf this weekend, though.

[Raiders]

no thoughts for Diving Bell? a 68 is right in between liking and not liking for you I think.

I liked it well enough. I didn't find too much to really take away from the film and the ridiculously literal, ham-fisted interludes were very aggravating to me, but I like Schnabel's decision to encase the audience in Bauby's "locked in" mind. Underuse of the Von Sydow though, and I really hope if I ever become paralyzed I have the same angelic presences Bauby received here.

[origami_mustache]

I loved, loved, loved Minoru Kawasaki's Calamari Wrestler and everything I've read about his other movies. However, the only other one available anywhere with an English-friendly release is this one. I bought the Hong Kong disc from YesAsia a while back. Most say it's one of Kawasaki's weakest efforts, but any film that features a Gaijin Attack Team sounds like something worth seeing.

Oh, I didn't realize he's the same guy that did The Calamari Wrestler....I'd still like to see that. Visually the film comes across as a B-comedy, but it offers some pretty socially relevant satire, especially when you consider how homogenous Japan is and also take into account how the film plays off of the book/film Japan Sinks. I personally think it works better when you are more familar with Japanese culture, but there is also a lot of commentary on the U.S. as well as other nations.

[jesse]

The reviews on your blog?Where are your reviews found? No, my reviews on RT (and IMDb and some other places) are the ones I write for DVD Verdict, though getting a mention on Greencine Daily for something from my blog is what gives me a great deal more personal satisfaction (and has opened up with communication with more valuable individuals).

[Philosophe_rouge]

Watched The Haunting (1963) for the first time this evening, really an all around good film, although somewhat dissapointing compared to The Innocents, which I feel was a little more consistent and far more chilling. The performances are excellent, and I especially like Harris and Bell's relationship. The "hauntings" are genuinly frightening, and I'm happy we are given only a little taste of what is wrong with the house, and most of it is not reliant on sight, or cheap scares, but sounds or second-hand descriptions of temperature or scents. Wise's style is wonderful, his use of fish-eyed lenses (I think...), and extreme close-ups matched with deep focus is really fascinating.

[trotchky]

Margot at the Wedding was my most Freudian movie experience of the year, with Margot's resemblance to my mother matched only by how much I wanted to sleep with her. I think I enjoyed the film more than I "should" have because of this weird underlying fetish and when I look back on it it feels uncomfortably personal. I was also the only person in the theater, which kind of added to that feeling. Baumbach is closer than ever to Wes Anderson here (maybe because it's his most cruel and condescending) but it's pretty clear at this point that Baumbach is the better director; his characters are broad-stroked but they are genuine; a scene where Claude tells his mom "I like hanging out with you" feels more sincere than anything in The Darjeeling Limited. My number one or two of the year, maybe IRRATIONALLY so, but I can't get over how perversely close it feels to my life.

[Briare]

Weekend:

Home Viewing:
-The Doors
-Wings of Desire
-Last Emperor

Theatre:
-Lust, Caution
-Lars and the Real Girl
-The Mist
-Margot at the Wedding

[Rowland]

Assuming that tomorrow counts as the weekend:

Bridge to Terabithia
Black Book
Angel-A
Redacted

[MadMan]

Watching Hotel Rwanda on TV right now I am reminded why its in my Top 10 for 2004. Don Cheadle really should have won Best Actor instead of Jamie Foxx for that year. Although the movie was great the book We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will be Killed With Our Families: Stories from Rwanda by Philip Gourevitch which is a book that is even more heart breaking, anger inducing and depressing.

[megladon8]

Hitman is one of the worst movies I have seen in recent (the last 5-6 years) memory.

[Raiders]

I've never bothered with Hotel Rwanda. It just seemed like something I wouldn't like.

[MadMan]

Hitman is one of the worst movies I have seen in recent (the last 5-6 years) memory.I have a feeling I would enjoy it in a Torque/2 Fast 2 Furious sort of way, which pretty much equals a rental.

[Derek]

I've never bothered with Hotel Rwanda. It just seemed like something I wouldn't like.

Ditto, and after watching Terry George's godawful Reservation Road, I'm in no hurry.

[Briare]

Hotel Rwanda relies too heavily on the genocide itself and doesn't bother to build any dramatic tension of its own. That said, Cheadle is excellent and raises the entire thing to a satisfactory level. Its rather good despite its shortcomings.

[Qrazy]

Dead or Alive was pretty god awful, but in a hilarious way, so it gets some marks for that.

[Mysterious Dude]

Hotel Rwanda is so near perfect that it hurts, but its flaws are glaring. For one thing, it should have been more violent. PG-13 movies about genocides just don't cut it. I hate the music, and there is too much of it. And I thought the final search for the nephews, characters that I never saw until the end, was rather stupid.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Damn you Vincente Minnelli! I wept like a baby throughout 90% of the running time of Meet Me in St. Louis... I think I'm dehydrated and I'm not sure why. Lovely film though, very simple (in a good way), beautiful music, and delicious colours. Everything about it just clicks for me....

[D_Davis]

Hitman is one of the worst movies I have seen in recent (the last 5-6 years) memory.

And the cost of your ticket will help fund even more lame movies based on video games, while at the same time buying it sent a "Vote yes for more movies based on video games!" message to the studios.

Way to go.

:up:



;)

[Grouchy]

The logic behind Halloween 4: Return of Michael Myers seems to be that, if they tried to break the formula once and it didn't work, now they must adhere to every single rule of it to the point of caricature. Against all reasonable expectations, the saga continues starring the dead character (Loomis) instead of the one who remained alive after the last chapter (Laurie Strode), and yeah, Rowland, the man sure was scarred for life after that traumatic explosion. Heh. Eh, what can I say about this one. It's similar to every single mass-produced slasher I've ever seen, except it's very classy (the gore is specially well balanced, never going too over the top so that when it appears, it's still somewhat effective) and tries to be more in tune with the original Halloween, what with the music and some paralell scenes. I think the strongest argument for seeing it is the awesome twist at the very end. I loved that, and Donald Pleasance's screaming in that scene.

I can't figure out why it took me such a long time to rent Big Trouble in Little China. It's as fun as movies get. I thought it was an American kung-fu movie like Enter the Dragon directed by John Carpenter, but I wasn't prepared for the high satire, the incredible production values (this HAS to be Carpenter's most expensive movie), the pervasive humor, the chinese sorcery, or Lo Pan, who has to be one of the best villains ever created. The ghostly special effect that surrounds him for much of the movie is incredibly well done. As far as pulp adventure goes, this action/comedy is only second to any Indiana Jones, and only because it takes itself much less seriously and in doing so firmly enters spoof territory. Man, this movie kicks ass, chews bubblegum and kung-fu kicks your brain into the gutter. And now Escape from L.A. is the only Carpenter/Russell I still need to see.

By the way, what new banner are you guys yappering about? I keep seeing the Gene Hackman Conversation still.

[Watashi]

I think I'm finally going to start a film blog and actually use it. I rarely have the time or energy to write reviews, but maybe I'll do other smaller things like trailer reactions, film news, and/or Oscar predictions.

I just started it. I'm still clueless on how I should construct the first post.

http://thegoowithin.blogspot.com/

[Boner M]

Whoa, Bigger Than Life managed to not only live up to my high expectations but also subvert and exceed them at once. It's amazing how much of the film rings true despite the expressionism of the form and the melodrama of the plot; it could've easily been an indictment of modern medicine, but Ray depicts Mason with more complexity, inviting an equal amount of nervous reverence at his rejection of suburban banality, as well disgust at his inhumanity. Even the ending, which I initially found off-puttingly pat and simplistic, resonates with a deep sense of unease when you consider that the cortosone brought out what was simmering beneath Mason's facade rather than changing him into a different person entirely; his final words to his family - "closer, closer..." - might as well be addressed to the audience, demanding a deeper consideration of the implications of the concluding moments, beyond the momentary uplift. One of the best first viewings of the year for me, and probably my favorite Ray film.

[baby doll]

So last night I watched Terrence Davies' The House of Mirth after reading the novel, which isn't something I usually do, but when I tried to watch the film a couple months ago, I found it hard to get into. I guess now I know why--not to play the "the book was better" card, but it was. We get most of the events from the book, but little or any sense of their causes and effects; for instance, when the blackmailer turns up at Lily Bart's home, we aren't given any indication of her motivation or told how she came into possession of the letters in the first place--and that's just one example of a minor character who, vividly drawn in the novel, in the film merely serves as a cog in the machinery of the plot.

Similarly, Gerty Farish (a major character in the novel) gets collapsed into Grace Stepney (a relatively minor one), which makes no sense at all: given the actress' plain jane appearance, I instantly assumed she was Gerty Farish, so it came as a surprise about thirty seconds later when I heard Lily refer to her as Grace, which is why it's so odd that she be the one to inform Lily's Aunt of her gambling since Gerty moved in such completely different circles--that was the whole point, that she wasn't a part of Lily's world.

Another problem is the art direction, which is beautiful to a fault. Selden's bachelor apartment is so lush and huge as to make any distinction between his place and the Trenors' meaningless. (Something similar happens when Lily falls into the orbit of the Gormers, who in the book are loud and exhuberant; but the one time we see her set in the film, they're so docile they make Percy Gryce look like Mick Jagger.) And Gus Trenor's city flat, which in the novel was dark, cold and menacing, in the film is brightly lit and colorful, and their whole exchange lasts all but three minutes. (Jonathan Rosenbaum called this Dan Ackroyd's best performance, but considering what he's done in the past, is that such a high compliment?)

[balmakboor]

I think I'm finally going to start a film blog and actually use it. I rarely have the time or energy to write reviews, but maybe I'll do other smaller things like trailer reactions, film news, and/or Oscar predictions.

I just started it. I'm still clueless on how I should construct the first post.

http://thegoowithin.blogspot.com/

Write about why you chose what you did for your banner?

[Rowland]

Man, this movie kicks ass, chews bubblegum and kung-fu kicks your brain into the gutter. http://lopanindeed.ytmnd.com/

Yep, Carpenter is the man (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZQWUY33sA0).

[baby doll]

Write about why you chose what you did for your banner?Not addressed to me, but I'll take it up anyway: I picked the name "Rancho Notorious" without really thinking about it; it only occured to me later that the name carried a certain ammount of baggage: it refers to a film by a certified auteur (Fritz Lang, who I've yet to discuss at all), made in Hollywood in the 1950s (what an academic would call Hollywood's late classical period, which refers to an assembly line approach to filmmaking with a clear division of labour). The implication is a focus on older films with a more critical approach than weekly reviews (more or less accurate with the exception of my entries on Guy Maddin, Quebecois cinema and my festival diary), looking specifically at the dominant cinema, mainstream Hollywood product, with an auteurist bent (the only essay that comes close to fitting this second part is my entry on Frank Tashlin's Artists and Models, where I ultimately come to the conclusion that the film's special qualities emerge from a clashing of several different sensibilities, only one of them belonging to the director). Incidentally, in my last four entries, I've focussed on avant-garde work (assuming we can stretch the term to include narrative filmmakers like Maddin and Peter Greenaway as well as video artists like Bill Viola), so maybe it wasn't such a hot choice for a name.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Weekend:
Gone Baby Gone (or something else hopefully... I'm indecisive)
Ride the Pink Horse
Force of Evil
Cobra Verde

[monolith94]

Not addressed to me, but I'll take it up anyway: I picked the name "Rancho Notorious" without really thinking about it; it only occured to me later that the name carried a certain ammount of baggage: it refers to a film by a certified auteur (Fritz Lang, who I've yet to discuss at all), made in Hollywood in the 1950s (what an academic would call Hollywood's late classical period, which refers to an assembly line approach to filmmaking with a clear division of labour). The implication is a focus on older films with a more critical approach than weekly reviews (more or less accurate with the exception of my entries on Guy Maddin, Quebecois cinema and my festival diary), looking specifically at the dominant cinema, mainstream Hollywood product, with an auteurist bent (the only essay that comes close to fitting this second part is my entry on Frank Tashlin's Artists and Models, where I ultimately come to the conclusion that the film's special qualities emerge from a clashing of several different sensibilities, only one of them belonging to the director). Incidentally, in my last four entries, I've focussed on avant-garde work (assuming we can stretch the term to include narrative filmmakers like Maddin and Peter Greenaway as well as video artists like Bill Viola), so maybe it wasn't such a hot choice for a name.
I don't think that calling narrative filmmakers like Maddin and Greenaway is stretching the term at all. I think that it is silly to make a distinction of non-narrative automatically equalling avant-garde and anything narrative being swallowed up into the classification of avant-garde. What is an avant-grade in anycase, except the most experimental breed of artist? And indeed, using that sense of exploration and artistic vision and applying it to narrative films can often prove to be even more subversive, rather than less.

[megladon8]

Seriously, Hitman crosses the boundaries of "so bad it's funny", and becomes "so bad, it's fucking terrible".

The dialogue is atrocious, the acting is even worse - I don't think I've heard so many lame Russian accents in my life.

The skinny hot chick is obviously only in the movie because she agreed to show her tits in every scene she's in - whether it be a nude scene, or just wearing a perfectly see-through top.

The action scenes are nothing to write home about and use way too much slow motion.

The music is horribly overdone and intrusive.

The editing had me cringing several times - peoples' voices will totally change up to 2 or 3 times throughout one line as the camera switches back and forth between characters, and there are countless shots where the words people are saying don't match up with their mouths at all.

It's a sloppy, stupid, poorly made, terrible film. The few instances of "hey, that's a pretty shot" do nothing to compensate for how bad that movie is.

Never, ever see it. Anyone.

[Ezee E]

But I like Olyphant.

[Ivan Drago]

Seriously, Hitman crosses the boundaries of "so bad it's funny", and becomes "so bad, it's fucking terrible".

The dialogue is atrocious, the acting is even worse - I don't think I've heard so many lame Russian accents in my life.

The skinny hot chick is obviously only in the movie because she agreed to show her tits in every scene she's in - whether it be a nude scene, or just wearing a perfectly see-through top.

The action scenes are nothing to write home about and use way too much slow motion.

The music is horribly overdone and intrusive.

The editing had me cringing several times - peoples' voices will totally change up to 2 or 3 times throughout one line as the camera switches back and forth between characters, and there are countless shots where the words people are saying don't match up with their mouths at all.

It's a sloppy, stupid, poorly made, terrible film. The few instances of "hey, that's a pretty shot" do nothing to compensate for how bad that movie is.

Never, ever see it. Anyone.

Is it as violent as the video games?

[Philosophe_rouge]

One of the theatres here is getting Blade Runner: Final Cut next week. I'm officially psyched.

[Sycophant]

Funky Forest: The First Contact is pretty much the best thing ever.

[megladon8]

Is it as violent as the video games?


I've never played any of the games.

There are like 3 main set pieces. A lot of people getting shot with big blood splatters. One guy gets shot in the head and it basically explodes.

I wouldn't say it's any more violent than a lot of other movies out there, though.

[Qrazy]

I wasn't that enamored with Funky Forest personally. It was as if Ishii took his acting troupe and decided to do a high budget improv session. About half the scenes work and are funny, and the other half are dull and listless. The Cronenberg-esque scenes were a bit of inspired oddness, particularly the bloodsucker tennis match, but there's a ton of tedious filler, especially in the first 45 minutes of the film.

[Watashi]

Amazon.com is having a pretty huge Black Friday sale. Lots of new releases for 4.99 and TV shows like The Office and House for 12.99.

Clicky clicky (http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html?ie=UTF8&plgroup=6&docId=1000161601)

[Sycophant]

I wasn't that enamored with Funky Forest personally. It was as if Ishii took his acting troupe and decided to do a high budget improv session. About half the scenes work and are funny, and the other half are dull and listless. The Cronenberg-esque scenes were a bit of inspired oddness, particularly the bloodsucker tennis match, but there's a ton of tedious filler, especially in the first 45 minutes of the film.Huh. Nearly every scene connected with me. It wholly captivated me, breathless. I'd start naming particular things that work for me, but then I might end up babbling about the entire film. However, I did find that I went back after it was all over and immediately rewatched "Takefumi's Dream."

Meanwhile, Gone Baby Gone is superb.

[Sycophant]

Oh, I didn't realize he's the same guy that did The Calamari Wrestler....I'd still like to see that. Visually the film comes across as a B-comedy, but it offers some pretty socially relevant satire, especially when you consider how homogenous Japan is and also take into account how the film plays off of the book/film Japan Sinks. I personally think it works better when you are more familar with Japanese culture, but there is also a lot of commentary on the U.S. as well as other nations.Well, I was certainly less taken with The World Sinks Except Japan than I'd hoped to be. There were some very laudable elements in the satire, but the film suffers from Kawasaki's inexpert direction and weak performances by many (and not just the English-speakers). In more capable hands, I think even the same script might have been a better film. The weight of the material is heavier than I think Kawasaki (who actually did co-write the script) can handle just yet. He's best sticking to being sillier.

I was pleasantly surprised to see that the book was based on a novel by Yasutaka Tsutsui, who wrote the novels two other 2006 films were based on, Paprika and The Girl Who Leapt Through Time, which were both pretty damned great, and whose English-translated collection of short stories I'm currently reading. I'd like to check out the source material on this, though that seems unlikely.

[Mysterious Dude]

I can't believe everyone likes Gone Baby Gone. I thought it was terribly average.

[megladon8]

I can't believe everyone likes Gone Baby Gone. I thought it was terribly average.


I think your opinion is the general consensus here...

If I remember correctly, number8, Rowland and I are really the only three people who loved it.

[Mysterious Dude]

If I remember correctly, number8, Rowland and I are really the only three people who loved it.And Sycophant and Monolith.

[Russ]

Weekend:

Ride the Pink Horse
Great film. I would love to see it again.

[Derek]

I wouldn't say I loved Gone Baby Gone, but I did really like it.

[Rowland]

I still think Gone Baby Gone is the best movie I've seen this year. I'll write about it for my '07 top ten list, hopefully after watching it again.

[megladon8]

I still think Gone Baby Gone is the best movie I've seen this year. I'll write about it for my '07 top ten list, hopefully after watching it again.


I feel pretty much the same.

I really didn't have any issues with it at all. Casey Affleck was really surprising - I hadn't really seen him in any lead roles before.

I would love to see the Affleck brothers team up again in a similar fashion - Ben behind the camera and Casey in front.

[Ezee E]

Gone Baby Gone isn't really anything special. Its last scene is pretty effective, and I dug the Boston Underground. However, the twists in the end, blegh.

[megladon8]

I think Enchanted looks like it could be a lot of fun.

[Watashi]

So Enchanted was a slight disappointment from my huge expectations. It's basically a Disney-fied take on The Purple Rose of Cairo. The script is cute and Adams is a lock for an Oscar nomination (yeah, she's that good), but it really doesn't satirize the genre as much as it should. It kinda just takes an animated film and makes it live-action. Shrek is better.

Though there is one reason why I really liked it....
















































http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/6417/photo03hiresoi0.jpg

Uh, INDEED.

[Grouchy]

Anyone here read anything on who actually directed Hammett? It's a Wim Wenders movie funded by Zoetrope Studios, but Wikipedia says Coppola reshot most of it on his own, while IMDb mentions lenghty re-shoots on the Trivia section, but makes it appear like Wenders was still around for them. It doesn't mention Coppola as an uncredited director, either. I'm curious because I think the movie is a fucking amazing noir pastiche, and I'd like to know who's responsible for it. It's a fictionalization of Dashiell Hammett's life, which uses his past as a Pinkerton agent as the starting point for a complicated noir plot featuring every cliché the genre ever had - femme fatales, stag films, Chinatown, blackmail and tons and tons of cigarettes and borboun shots. I thought it was a beautiful idea for a movie and Frederic Forrest is so perfectly cast it's like a photograph of Hammett came to life. The cinematography is lush, the music is soft and alluring and there are lots of priceless intimate moments, like when Hammett, after verbally destroying a room full of San Fran's richest, laughs at the sight of his own hand shaking. It manages to both respect the genre and make fun of it in the subtlest way. Also worth mentioning is the great Elisha Cook Jr., the most underrated character actor who ever lived.

I also saw the 007 A View to a Kill. It's campy to the bone, but I've seen worse from the Roger Moore years, like Man with the Golden Gun. Christopher Walken as Max Zorin and his butch she-killer assistant May Day (Grace Jones) practically carry the movie on their shoulders, since they're perfect Bond villains - sick, post-nazi, in love and with a plan to destroy Sillicon Valley. After a frankly weird pre-credits sequence (where did the Beach Boys come from?, and where did they go?), the movie enters a kind of by-the-numbers procedure that has Bond undercover in the Zorin company in that uniquely unsubtle 007 way and it only really picks up after the City Hall on fire sequence, which is spectacular. After that, director John Glen just piles up one action set piece after another. I think they should've saved their money and written a script around the last third of the movie, which is where most of the really cool stuff happens, and skip all the confusing parts about horses. Max Zorin mass-murdering his own henchmen while laughing like a madman, the dramatic death of May Day and the Golden Gate Bridge finale are what makes this worth seeing, but it's still a second-rate Bond, and the plot doesn't make a lick of sense.

And Rowland, thanks for the Big Trouble links. That Carpenter videoclip is awesome.

[Henry Gale]

Meet The Robinsons has to have one of the biggest sudden turnarounds in quality any movie I can recall.

The first third, standard kids movie stuff but maybe with a bit more style and heart infused into it early on, then the middle section is a lot of lame family comedy with characters just being wacky for the sake of it with maybe a few actually being funny, but in the end it's nothing I hadn't seen before. I was already basically collecting my thoughts on it as if it were over and ready to move on to something else.

But THEN it takes such a dark and actually emotionally satisfying turn with twists that actually seems to elevate everything that came before (not something that seems happen very often anymore) and end up being quite possibly the sweetest, most charming and just overall best animated movie Disney has made since Lilo & Stitch (except not as consistently entertaining).

I was shocked.

[Rowland]

it really doesn't satirize the genre as much as it should. It kinda just takes an animated film and makes it live-action. Shrek is better.Given how tired I am of witless Hollywood satire, I imagine that less overt satire can only be a good thing. If it's less like Shrek and more like a classic animated Disney fairytale, I may actually be more interested in seeing it than I was before.

[Mal]

Though there is one reason why I really liked it....


Straight-to-hell...

[Watashi]

Given how tired I am of witless Hollywood satire, I imagine that less overt satire can only be a good thing. If it's less like Shrek and more like a classic animated Disney fairytale, I may actually be more interested in seeing it than I was before.

Yeah, except that most of the classic Disney fairy tales (Snow White, Cinderella, etc) weren't good to begin with.

[Mal]

Yeah, except that most of the classic Disney fairy tales (Snow White, Cinderella, etc) weren't good to begin with.


Straight-to-HELL!

[Spinal]

But THEN it takes such a dark and actually emotionally satisfying turn with twists that actually seems to elevate everything that came before (not something that seems happen very often anymore) and end up being quite possibly the sweetest, most charming and just overall best animated movie Disney has made since Lilo & Stitch (except not as consistently entertaining).



Yeah, Meet the Robinsons definitely just gets stronger and stronger in that last section. The overriding message is affecting because it is particular to the film and these characters.

[Sycophant]

Wats, I think that's the most encouraging thing I could've read about Enchanted. I don't want what is bandied about as "satire." I hated Shrek. This looked like a remarkably fun indulgence in its roots, and if that's what it delivers, then I'm even more up for it than I thought I was.

Speaking of impotent Hollywood satires/homages/WTFs, I can't remember what I read not too long ago that compelled me to see Down With Love, but good Lord, what an awful, misbegotten film. It's been probably a decade since I actually watched any of the classic Hudson/Day pictures, but I can't remember them being this shrill. Genre masturbation is fun and all, but this was just a woeful mess.

[Rowland]

Did you see Stardust, Sychophant?

[Sycophant]

Did you see Stardust, Sychophant?I haven't yet. Why do you bring it up?

[Rowland]

I haven't yet. Why do you bring it up?Oh, just because it was a fairy tale indulgence in the sense that it played relatively straight and seemed to be made purely for the fun of it, which obviously relates to what we're discussing here. In any case, I recommend it.

[Philosophe_rouge]

I've grown to adore Jennifer Jones, not that I didn't like her at some point... but the more I see of her, the higher she raises on my list of favourite actors. She's such a joy to watch on screen, so much energy, and she blends an interesting sensuality that's extremely vulnerable and unaware. Also, while I wouldn't call her unconventionally beautiful, she stands out from other actresses from the era. Sooo beautiful.

[Winston*]

I've grown to adore Jennifer Jones, not that I didn't like her at some point... but the more I see of her, the higher she raises on my list of favourite actors. She's such a joy to watch on screen, so much energy, and she blends an interesting sensuality that's extremely vulnerable and unaware. Also, while I wouldn't call her unconventionally beautiful, she stands out from other actresses from the era. Sooo beautiful.
She rules in Duel in the Sun.

http://www.homevideos.com/freezeframes4/DuelInTheSun15.jpg
"Trash, trash, trash, trash, trash, trash, trash, trash, trash!"

[Mal]

Zodiac on its second viewing holds up well, even though I knew every twist and turn. I feel more favorable about Gyllenhaal's performance too.

Body Double, though I missed the first 25 minutes of it, is alright. The "set" injection at the end to change how the events pan out, even though its kind of a cop-out and tacky (especially for the genre), is okay in my book too- shows how De Palma doesn't take himself too seriously when dealing with this story and these characters.
Also, the Frankie Goes to Hollywood cameo... well done, especially with the music and setting.

[Yxklyx]

I've watched the first 8 (out of 15) parts of Berlin Alexanderplatz and it's fine - not as great as I was expecting. The story rambles a lot - the style of the original story (written in 1929) was influenced by Joyce's Ulysses. There's a 1931 movie version of the story that I'll be watching after I watch this. So yeah, it really does feel a lot like Ulysses (which I never did finish) - the cinematography is excellent and all the acting is as well, especially from the actors portraying Biberkopf and Reinhold. The theme music is repeated often but in different variations - however the version that is done on harmonica (sounds a bit like something from a Leone Western) is very grating and oversentimental. There's some excellent use of overlapping soundtracks - I think similar to that found in The Third Generation (from the previous year) and some Eno like music used in one of the episodes (the best one so far - the one where the women get passed around). Like Ulysses, there is not a lot of drama and there's very little forward momentum - things just kinda happen and you have no idea where the story will go next - but the story is not that interesting. The film is exceptionally good at portraying Germany in the 20s (I wasn't there but I can imagine it like the movie shows).

[Boner M]

I went out on a limb today and bought a Fassbinder box, with 29 of his films across 4 discs, for $30 from the Chinatown bootleg store I frequent. The picture quality is predictably below-par for each film judging from brief previews, and I'll probably encounter more problems along the way, but altogether I'm pretty happy that I have such a large portion of his filmography available to me.

[Boner M]

I don't have enough energy in me to write anything meaningful on Into the Wild, but I'll just say that I agree mostly with Reverse Shot's (http://reverseshot.com/article/into_the_wild) praise but share Stephanie Zacharek's (http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/review/2007/09/21/wild/) qualms with Emile Hirsch's casting.

Neat to find out it was photographed by Olivier Assayas' collaborater Eric Gautier, as I got a strong Assayas vibe in the film's penchant for capturing striking offhand images and the tactile, reach-out-and-touch-the-flesh manner in which human faces are shot.

[baby doll]

Weekend:
Lights in the Dusk (Aki Kaurismaki)
Strike (Sergei Eisenstein)
Tucker: The Man and His Dream (Francis Ford Coppola)

Revisiting:
Barfly (Barbet Schroeder)
The Gay Divorcee (Mark Sandrich)
Life, and Nothing More... (Abbas Kiarostami)
Me and You and Everyone We Know (Miranda July)
The Neon Bible (Terrence Davies)

About to begin reading:
Berlin Alexanderplatz: The Story of Franz Biberkopf (Alfred Doblin)

[Sycophant]

If American cineplexes want to stay in business and keep people coming to the theater in this struggling environment, they need to burn all prints of Three Doors Down's "Citizen Soldier" music video/National Guard ad/abomination right now.

[Rowland]

Body Double, though I missed the first 25 minutes of it, is alright. The "set" injection at the end to change how the events pan out, even though its kind of a cop-out and tacky That would have made more sense if you had seen the first five minutes.

[Melville]

I don't have enough energy in me to write anything meaningful on Into the Wild, but I'll just say that I agree mostly with Reverse Shot's (http://reverseshot.com/article/into_the_wild) praise but share Stephanie Zacharek's (http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/review/2007/09/21/wild/) qualms with Emile Hirsch's casting.

Neat to find out it was photographed by Olivier Assayas' collaborater Eric Gautier, as I got a strong Assayas vibe in the film's penchant for capturing striking offhand images and the tactile, reach-out-and-touch-the-flesh manner in which human faces are shot.
Did you read my thoughts a few pages back?

[Sven]

So Enchanted was a slight disappointment from my huge expectations. It's basically a Disney-fied take on The Purple Rose of Cairo. The script is cute and Adams is a lock for an Oscar nomination (yeah, she's that good), but it really doesn't satirize the genre as much as it should. It kinda just takes an animated film and makes it live-action. Shrek is better.

You are right about one thing: Shrek, a movie I love as much as a broken arm, is better.

Dragged to this on Thanksgiving. What a woeful, annoying movie. Adams and Dempsey are hella irritating. It's noisy and awfully filmed. It doesn't say anything, it doesn't make any sense (its fundamental premise is flawed to begin with, then the movie confuses it even more by refusing to deal with it). There's no reason for this film to exist, other than to perpetuate the incredible comic talent of Timothy Spall, who is the one beacon of light in this otherwise dreary sludge of retarded pointlessness.

Not for me.

[Rowland]

Steven Seagal's Out for Justice kinda rocks, in a pure exploitation sorta way. I'd say it ranks with the Under Siege movies as his best work that I've seen... it's definitely the most badass by a country mile.

...so, anyway.

[Rowland]

Oh yeah, and I watched Elf last night. Favreau strikes me as an exceedingly mediocre director on the basis of this, so I hope he gets his act together for Iron Man.

And talk about wasting Zooey... and Dinklage... and Richter...

[D_Davis]

Oh yeah, and I watched Elf last night. Favreau strikes me as an exceedingly mediocre director on the basis of this, so I hope he gets his act together for Iron Man.

I watched this for the first time last night. I didn't like it at all. It has some cute moments, but that's about it.

[Rowland]

I watched this for the first time last night. I didn't like it at all. It has some cute moments, but that's about it.The entire third act made me wanna vomit. I can't handle cutesy and Christmas cheer when it is that insincere and contrived...

[baby doll]

Ebert posted his top ten for 2006 in November. (I wonder if anyone is curious to see mine this late in the game?) Anyway, here's Ebert's...

1. Pan's Labyrinth
2. Bubble
3. Children of Men
4. The Departed
5. The Lives of Others
6. United 93
7. Flags of Our Fathers / Letters From Iwo Jima
8. Perfume: The Story of a Murderer
9. Babel
10. Man Push Cart

I've seen all of them but 6, 8 and 10, and I'd say most of them are pretty lame.

Pan's Labyrinth is a kick ass fairy tale, but as a film about the Spanish civil war and Franco's dictatorship, I was hoping for something more grownup... like The Spirit of the Beehive. I liked Bubble both times I watched it, though so many months later, I can't say I remember it especially well--pretty much my reaction to most of Soderbergh's art movies (one wants to celebrate his ecclecticism, but his work is beginning to seem more and more dilletantish). Children of Men is okay but I didn't feel very challenged by it; Great Expectations may be over ambitious and flawed, but the sequence where Ethan Hawke runs into an art gallery opening and then back into the rain in a single unbroken take, which is extended by a seemless wipe to a second shot of Hawke running through the rain, is more impressive to me than the much hyped climax of Children of Men because it moved me a great deal more.

The Departed is a two and a half hour dick measuring contest; for Scorsese completists only. The Lives of Others tells a boring story, slowly, without taking a single risk: it's deeply apolitical (like any sane person's going to disagree that the secret police ruined lives) and stylistically dead--it's evident from the first five minutes alone that the director isn't going to budge an inch from the John Ford/Clint Eastwood model of filmmaking--that is, to "serve" the story by striving to create the illusion that we're not looking at a movie. Speaking of, I don't get Clint Eastwood. Period. Mystic River was solid in a very conventional way, though I pretty much forgot it the instant I left the theater, and his last three movies have gotten worse and worse. Babel wasn't as terrible as everyone said it was, but I wouldn't watch it again. It's well made but disposable.

[ledfloyd]

that's not a bad list. a little safe. i absolutely hated bubble. children of men and departed were my top two last year. man push cart and letters were good as well. babel and lives of others were pretty decent. pans, united, and flags were overrated. perfume i didn't see.