28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[Ezee E]

Weekend:
Iron Man
The Big Red One
The Bird People of China

[Ezee E]

You are out of your mind.
Sounds about right actually.

[Spinal]

Sounds about right actually.

Well, I already know about your insanity.

[Boner M]

You are out of your mind.
I didn't comment on it initially simply because I'm so nonplussed by the film's reputation that I don't think anything'll sway me. I'm not familiar with the specifics of the Czech political situation at the time, but representing its leadership as a bunch of bug-eyed, lying, scheming curmudgeons doesn't strike me as particularly brilliant... which wouldn't be a problem if the film was visually appealing, well characterised, or actually funny. OK, a few scenes made me smile and the final shot was quite effective, but I think the extremely brief running time is the only thing keeping my opinion back from 'hate'.

[Spinal]

I didn't comment on it initially simply because I'm so nonplussed by the film's reputation that I don't think anything'll sway me. I'm not familiar with the specifics of the Czech political situation at the time, but representing its leadership as a bunch of bug-eyed, lying, scheming curmudgeons doesn't strike me as particularly brilliant... which wouldn't be a problem if the film was visually appealing, well characterised, or actually funny. OK, a few scenes made me smile and the final shot was quite effective, but I think the extremely brief running time is the only thing keeping my opinion back from 'hate'.

Broad characterizations are a common element of farce.

[Boner M]

Broad characterizations are a common element of farce.
I guess it's that I don't find the film very effective as a farce. The audition for the 'beauty queens' scene could have been funny had it lasted a couple of minutes... instead it drags on forever to the point that I nearly wanted to fast-forward it. I went back to read your review at the old site where you said it's about "the way in which authority can value pageantry over people", and that never crossed my mind while watching it because to me Forman doesn't care about anyone onscreen except as amusingly ugly puppets for the delivery of a social message. Not my cup of tea.

PS: don't let my rating turn you off the films in my sig with high ratings... I immediately thought of you while watching Forbidden Lies and highly recommend it. :)

[Melville]

I disagree. It actually makes perfect sense. I imagine all so-called miracles have just such an explanation.
I think the film criticizes that mode of thinking in the character of the priest. The ending refutes the priest's claim that God would not contradict the usual workings of nature. It certainly doesn't come out and say that God exists and works miracles, but its power stems from it presenting an event with no ready explanation, an event that contradicts our understanding of the world, an event that we can only accept if we are "capable of being in uncertainties, Mysteries, doubts without any irritable reaching after fact & reason" (Keat's original definition of Negative Capability, according to Wikipedia).

[Spinal]

I guess it's that I don't find the film very effective as a farce. The audition for the 'beauty queens' scene could have been funny had it lasted a couple of minutes... instead it drags on forever to the point that I nearly wanted to fast-forward it. I went back to read your review at the old site where you said it's about "the way in which authority can value pageantry over people", and that never crossed my mind while watching it because to me Forman doesn't care about anyone onscreen except as amusingly ugly puppets for the delivery of a social message. Not my cup of tea.


I don't recognize the film you're describing and can only assume that you watched some shady Australian bootleg.

[Boner M]

I don't recognize the film you're describing and can only assume that you watched some shady Australian bootleg.

I'm so nonplussed by the film's reputation that I don't think anything'll sway me.
Well... consider myself pwned. :frustrated:

[Sven]

Today at lunch, it was me, three other students, a few faculty members, Paul Mazursky, and Jeff Garlin. It was pretty fun!

[Grouchy]

Well, the reviews sure are good. Too bad I've never even heard of Iron Man -- the character that is. Is it some new Marvel character? Or some old as the hills Marvel character? Is it even a Marvel character? (If you haven't figured it out yet, I'm not much of a superhero/comicbook fan.)
Old as the hills (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_man).

[Milky Joe]

The Savages... I liked it. Seems like most around here hated it.

::shrug::

It was my #1 of last year! Totally took me by surprise. I can't fathom hating it, so, glad you liked it.

[Grouchy]

What do stars do? ... Shine!

Fuck you Neil Gaiman, stop writing.
I should negative rape you for this. MirrorMask is a masterpiece. Go buy Sandman and get some culture going.

My advice to all of the board is: never watch Container. Only at gunpoint, and even then try to duke it out. It's all I've seen from Modysson.

[Rowland]

It was my #1 of last year! Wow. Now THAT I can't fathom... I really can't. But I suppose it's an unorthodox pick in a year where TWBB and NCFOM dominated top tens, so kudos for that.

[Qrazy]

I think Ordet leaves the door wide open for that very reading. Dreyer was struggling with his faith -- or so I've read anyway -- and crafted an ending that both believers and non-believers could appreciate.

Keep in mind that medical science in those times even led to people being accidently buried alive.

What a few hundred years ago people didn't realize breathing = life?

I dunno I wish the scales had been tilted more in favor of the coma possibility... it seems like she's 'dead' for quite a while.

[Qrazy]

Speaking as a non-believer, I couldn't appreciate Ordet's ending at all. I would have almost liked the movie without it.

That's what I mean, if they had made it obviously a coma I think it would have been much more potent in both regards... faith or lack of faith... the way it is it just strikes me as somewhat overwrought.

[Melville]

the way it is it just strikes me as somewhat overwrought.
Obviously you'll never hack it as a knight of faith.

[Qrazy]

I've heard some bad ideas in my time, but that's the baddest idea that ever badded. The ending is already an exemplar of negative capability. Keats would have loved it, I'm sure.



How is making it more amiguous a bad idea... it's barely amiguous, everyone there is like... omfg a miracle I believe! Fuck that.

[Qrazy]

Obviously you'll never hack it as a knight of faith.

Thank god for that.

[Dead & Messed Up]

So, Southland Tales was definitely a film of some type.

My expressions while watching it:

:P

:)

:|

:confused:

:eek:

:crazy:

[Qrazy]

The only incarnation of Batman that I truly enjoyed was the old TV series. I imagine this admission has truly painted me as a summer movie lost cause. I know I found what Nolan did to the character dreadfully boring. Maybe his next one will work for me.

If your issues were tonal I doubt the second film will correct that... I think it'll be more of the same (which I loved).

[Qrazy]

I didn't comment on it initially simply because I'm so nonplussed by the film's reputation that I don't think anything'll sway me. I'm not familiar with the specifics of the Czech political situation at the time, but representing its leadership as a bunch of bug-eyed, lying, scheming curmudgeons doesn't strike me as particularly brilliant... which wouldn't be a problem if the film was visually appealing, well characterised, or actually funny. OK, a few scenes made me smile and the final shot was quite effective, but I think the extremely brief running time is the only thing keeping my opinion back from 'hate'.

Damn, I didn't find it really all that funny as some seem time but it strikes me as a solid up and coming director early type film... like some of Polanski's early works.

[Qrazy]

I think the film criticizes that mode of thinking in the character of the priest. The ending refutes the priest's claim that God would not contradict the usual workings of nature. It certainly doesn't come out and say that God exists and works miracles, but its power stems from it presenting an event with no ready explanation, an event that contradicts our understanding of the world, an event that we can only accept if we are "capable of being in uncertainties, Mysteries, doubts without any irritable reaching after fact & reason" (Keat's original definition of Negative Capability, according to Wikipedia).

You're really misinterpreting negative capability as I have been taught it... negative capability is leaving questions open... freedom vs. determinism, dream vs. reality, faith vs. doubt, etc.

Ordet concludes the question fairly pro-faith, pro-God.

[Qrazy]

I should negative rape you for this. MirrorMask is a masterpiece. Go buy Sandman and get some culture going.

My advice to all of the board is: never watch Container. Only at gunpoint, and even then try to duke it out. It's all I've seen from Modysson.

I've heard good things about Sandman and will get to it at some point... but Mirrormask is not a masterpiece (and Stardust is simply awful)... it's a unique, middling fantasy... relatively nice imagery, some inventiveness but with a middling script and very poor drama. I'd rather rewatch Rou's The Kingdom of False Mirrors than Mirrormask again and both have their fair share of flaws.

[Melville]

How is making it more amiguous a bad idea
I just don't care for the kind of ambiguity that you want. If the character was in a coma, no questions would even be raised. The ending would just be an everyday event. Sure, someone who has faith that God's hand is in every event would say that God caused this particular event, but such an explanation would add nothing—if everything works according to our everyday notions, then saying God is responsible is superfluous. There's no tension in the ambiguity, since each each explanation works just fine on its own, and the nonbelievers have no new reason to believe.


You're really misinterpreting negative capability as I have been taught it... negative capability is leaving questions open... freedom vs. determinism, dream vs. reality, faith vs. doubt, etc.

Ordet concludes the question fairly pro-faith, pro-God.
My knowledge of negative capability is limited to quotations from Keats, so you're probably right that I'm misinterpreting it. But the ambiguities and contradictions that Ordet points to strike me as much more profound than simply saying "maybe it was God or maybe it wasn't". Have you read Fear and Trembling?

[monolith94]

Watching Irma La Douce was… weird. Not one of Wilder's best, for sure. I think part of it was that Wilder had set up Maclaine as such a paragon of poignancy in The Apartment and her turn as a prostitute (with a heart of gold, natch) just doesn't jive on a primal level.

[DavidSeven]

Keaton's Batman > all.

Agreed. This scene (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSh8e1yfxOc) alone is the reason why. Greatest. Bruce Wayne. Moment. Ever.

[Sven]

Agreed. This scene (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSh8e1yfxOc) alone is the reason why. Greatest. Bruce Wayne. Moment. Ever.

Ha! Yes. Totally.

[MadMan]

Agreed. This scene (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSh8e1yfxOc) alone is the reason why. Greatest. Bruce Wayne. Moment. Ever.That entire scene between him and the Joker is awesome. "Did you ever dance with the devil in the pale moonlight?" I hope that Dark Knight features something that great, which I'm sure it will.

[Ezee E]

I love that moment too. Even as a kid I remember acting it out.

Rewatched Diving Bell & The Butterfly. Great stuff.

[Mysterious Dude]

I think MirrorMask has many strengths, but Neil Gaiman's screenplay is not one of them.

[Qrazy]

My knowledge of negative capability is limited to quotations from Keats, so you're probably right that I'm misinterpreting it. But the ambiguities and contradictions that Ordet points to strike me as much more profound than simply saying "maybe it was God or maybe it wasn't". Have you read Fear and Trembling?

No but I'm familiar with the text. The question would be that her coma might never get better or she may pass on but it was 'God' or the 'Jesus' character who predicted all the events and was able to make her come out of her coma... or at leats it would seem that way. So there's a naturalistic explanation, the doubter can still doubt but the faith and the saving of faith is in the prediction and causation of the 'resurrection' (in my revised version). A straight up miracle in the face of natural fact rather than accordance with natural fact is too blatant for me to take seriously (although Dreyer is an excellent filmmaker so the reuniting is still very compelling)... the confluence of events within the scope of natural 'laws' and the prediction of those events is what has the capacity to inspire awe and faith in my mind... like the spring in The Virgin Spring.

[Spinal]

I don't think Gaiman's best work has been adapted for film yet. I'm a huge fan of both The Sandman and American Gods. Stardust has its problems, but I don't think the story is one of them. I liked it a lot. A Short Film About John Bolton is a lot of fun and I thought his adaptation of Beowulf was excellent in the way it examined heroism without imposing too much post-modernism. I was not a big fan of Mirrormask. Looking forward to Coraline as I thought the book was great. I think Selick is a sub-par director though. Never really like his stuff.

[SirNewt]

Crisis of faith. That's one crisis I'll never have to face. I would think though that, if anything, Bergman's work would grow more potent later in life.

When you are raised with something it tends to become a part of you.

Why is there such a disdain for faith here?

[origami_mustache]

Just watched The Seventh Seal for the second time, and loved it as much as I did the first time. The film works so well even with the obvious metaphors and archetypes. The only thing that really bothered me is that fact that Joseph never juggles properly. I mean c'mon...anyone can toss two balls in the air and claim to be an expert juggler.

[megladon8]

Keaton's Batman > all. Never saw Clooney's.


No.



Agreed. This scene alone is the reason why. Greatest. Bruce Wayne. Moment. Ever.

Ugh.

It was a good act in Beetlejuice.

[MadMan]

When you are raised with something it tends to become a part of you.

Why is there such a disdain for faith here?I'm a Christian but not a really hardcore practicing one. Besides I'm used to seeing religion in general get bashed, especially online. I just shrug and move on.

Considering I don't feel I understood everything going on in The Seventh Seal I feel I should revisit the film. But not now as I'm trying to view other films. That final shot is utter brilliance, and naturally the chess scenes between Von Sydow and Death live up to expectations.

[Bosco B Thug]

I got to see Errol Morris' new documentary Standard Operation Procedure at the SF International Film Festival with Morris in attendance and with Q&A. Morris' pedagogic approach is always a bit too lofty and post-modern chic, and this is no exception. Whether allegorizing his grand commentaries in character personalities, leaving his more barbed criticisms in the realm of semiotics (the film, when on the topic of his arrest, uses the act of slo-mo eggs getting fried to evoke the figure of Saddam Hussein), or restricting his film to the incessant blather of one particular perspective (here, those of the "bad apples" of Abu Ghraib, portrayed as clueless young'ins), Morris made his point about the irresponsibilities of war-time systems much better in the Q&A than in the film itself. The film itself is rather droning and long-winded, spending too much time detailing in over-produced reenactments the crimes committed in the prison while his greater themes remain obfuscated by his love of creating irony through accessibility, but to the point of excess.

I also saw The Ninth Configuration (rep, D_Davis!). Liked it a lot. I thought Stacy Keach was freaking fantastic in the film. His performance and Blatty's direction perfectly balance the occasionally overdone sophist whimsy and philosophic pedantry with some A-class creepiness and menace, not to mention some deeply evocative existential renderings (Keach, Murderer-angel, cradling his latest work in Vietnam, the crossroad where philosophy broke into war; that awesome split-second shock cut with the astronaut...

"There's nothing up there! Nothing! Nothing!" Awesome.)

[Qrazy]

I got to see Errol Morris' new documentary Standard Operation Procedure at the SF International Film Festival with Morris in attendance and with Q&A. Morris' pedagogic approach is always a bit too lofty and post-modern chic, and this is no exception. Whether allegorizing his grand commentaries in character personalities, leaving his more barbed criticisms in the realm of semiotics (the film, when on the topic of his arrest, uses the act of slo-mo eggs getting fried to evoke the figure of Saddam Hussein), or restricting his film to the incessant blather of one particular perspective (here, those of the "bad apples" of Abu Ghraib, portrayed as clueless young'ins), Morris made his point about the irresponsibilities of war-time systems much better in the Q&A than in the film itself. The film itself is rather droning and long-winded, spending too much time detailing in over-produced reenactments the crimes committed in the prison while his greater themes remain obfuscated by his love of creating irony through accessibility, but to the point of excess.


Ehh... just please don't tell me you prefer Michael Moore to Morris.

[Bosco B Thug]

Whoa there! :) I like Morris' films. This one's just gets a bit too tiresome, while not doing as much as it can do with the subject matter.

But, giving him some credit, Moore, on the other hand, does do everything he can do with a subject, short of "Well, you know..."

[origami_mustache]

I used to really be into documentaries, but now I can hardly watch anything other than cinema verite or documentaries that are are purely objective or informative.

[Qrazy]

I used to really be into documentaries, but now I can hardly watch anything other than cinema verite or documentaries that are are purely objective or informative.

Hmmm seems a bit narrow, no? Someone should probably make a documentary MC consensus thread at some point.

[origami_mustache]

Hmmm seems a bit narrow, no? Someone should probably make a documentary MC consensus thread at some point.

Eh, I've watched plenty of documentaries...I took an entire class dedicated to the genre. I really just can't tolerate the narrators telling me what to think and feel so in such an overt way; For instance I recently watched Anger's Don't Smoke That Cigarette which was a collage of commercials and stock footage or anti smoking campaigns and found it enjoyable. I also liked Jesus Camp, although it was clearly showing the Evangelists in a negative light, it remained fairly objective aside from the radio show host segments. Plus, I have to narrow my tastes to some extent to make viewing habits more manageable. As for now at least, I don't watch much animation, anime, or documentary.

[Spinal]

I used to really be into documentaries, but now I can hardly watch anything other than cinema verite or documentaries that are are purely objective or informative.

This is one of my pet peeves. This notion that documentaries are supposed to be purely objective. It's silliness.

[origami_mustache]

This is one of my pet peeves. This notion that documentaries are supposed to be purely objective. It's silliness.

I didn't say that...documentaries by definition are propaganda. I just prefer non-fiction or fiction as opposed to such.

[Spinal]

... now I can hardly watch anything other than cinema verite or documentaries that are are purely objective or informative.



I didn't say that...documentaries by definition are propaganda.

You're confusing me.

[origami_mustache]

You're confusing me.

The guy that coined the term specifically meant it to be used for films he considered propaganda, while reserving other terms for non-fiction films such as actualities, or research footage.

I never claimed that they should be objective...I even gave examples of documentaries I enjoy that aren't. I just don't like the overt tactics that toy with and feed on ethos, pathos, and logos. If an argument is going to be made, then the other side should be presented in a fair light rather than attacked, and I just don't see that happen enough in contemporary documentaries. If a subject interested me, I'd much rather read up on it than have to sit through a bunch of half truths and exaggerations. It's just not for me.

[transmogrifier]

I hardly ever watch documentaries - I prefer to get non-fiction from the written word. No real reason why, though I guess I can point to an unfounded belief that books are more exhaustive and objective than film in dealing with real life. Movies are usually designed to have a shape that allows for a single comfortable 100 minutish sit, and there is obvious pressure on the filmmaker to slant everything so it becomes engaging on an emotional level, when the true worth may be on an intellectual one.

Just one of the reasons I thought King of Kong was so meh - it was a glorified fiction film that happened to use real characters cut together in a way to tittilate.

[baby doll]

Michael Moore's films are very informational. In Fahrenheit 9/11, he does nothing but present information.

And, like most makers of agit-prop, Moore doesn't seem to give a hoot about sounds and images.

If you wanted the opposite of a Michael Moore film, you'd have to go to Chris Marker's very subjective Sans soleil.

[DSNT]

I don't mind a little bit of bias in documentaries, and sometimes it can make the documentary better (a la Michael Moore and Jesus Camp as mentioned above) but sometimes it can hurt their credibility and water down the message. For instance, I would be far more inclined to trust an objective political documentary with less bias, like No End In Sight. On the other hand, I would never take anything Moore says as fact because he has such a history of deceptive editing and misrepresentation, but he is usually more entertaining.

[Velocipedist]

I'd say that non-fiction cinema can be divided in two:

1. the documentary (objective)
2. the film essay (subjective)

Here's what wikipedia has to say on the cinematic essay:

Film essays are cinematic forms of the essay, with the film consisting of the evolution of a theme or an idea rather than a plot per se; or the film literally being a cinematic accompaniment to a narrator reading an essay. From another perspective, an essay film could be defined as a documentary film visual basis combined with a form of commentary that contains elements of self-portrait (rather than autobiography), where the signature (rather than the life-story) of the filmmaker is apparent. The genre is not well-defined but might include works of early Soviet documentarians like Dziga Vertov, or present-day filmmakers like Michael Moore or Errol Morris. The undisputed master of the essay film is French documentarian Chris Marker. Perhaps the most illuminating film theorist who has treated the essay form in film and video is Raymond Bellour.

Thus, with Morris, you've got film essays. Yes, technically they're still documentaries, but here's for the labeling geeks in us.

~

Sorry for jumping in like that after an extended period of absence. I still haven't got the time to make an official comeback but, hopefully, it'll happen in the summer.

[SirNewt]

I'm a Christian but not a really hardcore practicing one. Besides I'm used to seeing religion in general get bashed, especially online. I just shrug and move on.


Well, I wasn't feeling personally offended. I have no one religion. Disdain for it however, seems unnecessary. Oft between are the faithless literary characters that have met a pitiable end.

[Boner M]

The acting in Charles Burnett's My Brother's Wedding is probably worse than Killer of Sheep's (except for a few supporting actors), and it's nowhere near as poetic, but I found it altogether more affecting in it's own shambolic & funny-sad kinda way, with perhaps an equally acute feel for life's rhythms. A film of exquisite moments, including one of the greatest freeze-frame endings ever.

btw, can anyone tell me if the 118-minute rough cut is worth watching?

[Sven]

I just watched a 6 minute long trailer for Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, the Ben Stein documentary about intelligent design. Rubbish.

[Spinal]

Well, I wasn't feeling personally offended. I have no one religion. Disdain for it however, seems unnecessary.

This is not a discussion for this thread. If you want to understand why people may have disdain for faith and not see it as a human trait that deserves adulation, you can read some Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris. Or you can start a new thread in the Off-Topic section and I'm sure you will get plenty of responses along with a hearty defense of the faith position from D_Davis and Barty.

[balmakboor]

Well, I wasn't feeling personally offended. I have no one religion. Disdain for it however, seems unnecessary. Oft between are the faithless literary characters that have met a pitiable end.

Why do you immediately jump to disdain? I merely stated I have no faith without any judgment other that a bit of happiness that out of all the potential crises in life I have one less to worry about.

In any case, I thought the more interesting part of my post dealt with Bergman becoming more potent with age.

[monolith94]

This is not a discussion for this thread. If you want to understand why people may have disdain for faith and not see it as a human trait that deserves adulation, you can read some Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris. Or you can start a new thread in the Off-Topic section and I'm sure you will get plenty of responses along with a hearty defense of the faith position from D_Davis and Barty.
Or a nuanced (rather than hearty) defense from myself.


I just watched a 6 minute long trailer for Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, the Ben Stein documentary about intelligent design. Rubbish.


Yeah, from everything I know about "Expelled", it strikes me as the epitome of inconsequential.

[Qrazy]

I hardly ever watch documentaries - I prefer to get non-fiction from the written word. No real reason why, though I guess I can point to an unfounded belief that books are more exhaustive and objective than film in dealing with real life. Movies are usually designed to have a shape that allows for a single comfortable 100 minutish sit, and there is obvious pressure on the filmmaker to slant everything so it becomes engaging on an emotional level, when the true worth may be on an intellectual one.

Just one of the reasons I thought King of Kong was so meh - it was a glorified fiction film that happened to use real characters cut together in a way to tittilate.

I think images and music too tend to have a greater capacity to yield an immediate emotional response than the written word... plus when reading it's easier to recognize authorial slant (I find) given that the words must be filtered through the authors consciousness... but it's easier to overlook (for the general audience) filmmaker tactics employed in editing and fall back on the notion that 'what I'm seeing is filmed reality' and therefore truth.

[Qrazy]

Well, I wasn't feeling personally offended. I have no one religion. Disdain for it however, seems unnecessary. Oft between are the faithless literary characters that have met a pitiable end.

Or on the opposing side, the faithful literary character that believes they're going to a transcendent end and serves up their entire life or means for specious future existence.

As an aside... I've always found it interesting how many works of art, especially film, end up falling on the pro-supernatural side of things... art itself is often equated with spirituality and the film's skeptic is outright disproven by film's end.

[Qrazy]

This is not a discussion for this thread. If you want to understand why people may have disdain for faith and not see it as a human trait that deserves adulation, you can read some Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris. Or you can start a new thread in the Off-Topic section and I'm sure you will get plenty of responses along with a hearty defense of the faith position from D_Davis and Barty.

Screw Dawkins and Harris up the arse... Nietzsche, Sartre, Blackburn, Engels, Mackie, Marx, Moore, Russell... those are the go to philosophical atheists.

[origami_mustache]

Of course there are still plenty of fantastic nonobjective documentaries. Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will and Olympiad , as well as Pare Lorentz Depression propaganda films The Plow That Broke the Plain and The River which get their messages across mostly through imagery. I suppose it's mostly the talking heads and narration that I can't stand.

[Qrazy]

So which Chris Marker's has everyone here seen?

I really like La Jetee and love Sans Soleil. Sunday in Peking was OK, fairly forgettable and The Train Rolls On had fascinating, exciting (for any film fan) subject matter, but the film was ultimately just average. What are his other top tier films?

[Philosophe_rouge]

Chris Marker-wise, I saw La Jetee and Sans Soleil in school a few years ago. I liked them both, although I don't really count having seen Soleil because I fell asleep during it. I've also seen Les Statues Meurent aussi, which is co-directed with Alain Resnais. Discounting Soleil which I need to rewatch, it's my favourite. I love the progression of ideas, and imagery. Mmmhmm

[Derek]

So which Chris Marker's has everyone here seen?

I really like La Jetee and love Sans Soleil. Sunday in Peking was OK, fairly forgettable and The Train Rolls On had fascinating, exciting (for any film fan) subject matter, but the film was ultimately just average. What are his other top tier films?

You've gotta see A Grin Without a Cat.

[Duncan]

I can't believe people here are actually calling films "objective documentaries." That's crazy talk.

[origami_mustache]

I can't believe people here are actually calling films "objective documentaries." That's crazy talk.

Have you not seen Primary?

[Sven]

By the by, Derek... Perfect World... what went wrong?

[Duncan]

Have you not seen Primary?
I have not, but even in its choice of subject matter it is being subjective.

[origami_mustache]

I have not, but even in its choice of subject matter it is being subjective.

yeah, yeah, objectivitity doesn't exist etc. etc.

[lovejuice]

i luv the flight of the red balloon, and this review (http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1584805/20080404/story.jhtml) is obviously written by a douche or someone who tries too hard to dump himself down to fit it with his readers -- the guy writes for MTV.

[Sven]

i luv the flight of the red balloon, and this review (http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1584805/20080404/story.jhtml) is obviously written by a douche or someone who tries too hard to dump himself down to fit it with his readers -- the guy writes for MTV.

I saw that dude in Manhattan the other day.

[origami_mustache]

i luv the flight of the red balloon, and this review (http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1584805/20080404/story.jhtml) is obviously written by a douche or someone who tries too hard to dump himself down to fit it with his readers -- the guy writes for MTV.

haha this is so ridiculous...what is Kurt Loder doing reviewing films now?

"I myself have savored none of the man's 18 other movies; maybe they are exquisite."

GTFO Loder :lol:

[Derek]

By the by, Derek... Perfect World... what went wrong?

Keeping in mind that ** is still a very mild recommendation, I'd say my two biggest complaints were the Eastwood/Dern subplot and the occasionally hamfisted attempts at conveying Costner's own abuse at the hands of his father. The latter is more than outweighed by the pure awesomeness of this scene (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJBJpV-5AOw) and the 5 minutes preceding it, but the first really didn't add much to the film until the final sequence and really broke up the flow of the Butch/Phillip storyline. It's a strange little film though, so it's very possible I could be more on it's wavelength if I rewatch it in the future

[Boner M]

i luv the flight of the red balloon, and this review (http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1584805/20080404/story.jhtml) is obviously written by a douche or someone who tries too hard to dump himself down to fit it with his readers -- the guy writes for MTV.
Ugh, that kind of review depresses me deeply.

[number8]

haha this is so ridiculous...what is Kurt Loder doing reviewing films now?

He's been doing it for a good while. (http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/loder/) I've read some just for fun. He always tries to sound hip and with it, and sometimes (like in this one) tries to pretend that he's not a film critic, but just one of the bros. It's hilarious. The guy's old enough to have listened to the first key ever uttered by a clarinet.

[number8]

Currently about an hour into Before the Devil Knows You're Dead. It is seriously boring me.

[Kurious Jorge v3.1]

Watched Leave Her To Heaven and god was it campy! I love when the husband calls the wife an idiot over a cheerful breakfast and also later on in the film when she opens her mouth to shout and a foghorn sounds (a la Sunrise).

I highly recommend the film for good fun, and fuck is Gene Tierny hot!

Edit: Or this exchange between Gene Tierny's character Ellen and her cousin Ruth on the topic of Tierney's husband.

Ruth: Sometimes he calls me "the gal with the hoe" to kid me about my gardening.

Ellen (laments): He used to call me Patchouli.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Yea, Leave her to Heaven is a good fun. Tierney is unbelievably beautiful, and just as evil.

[Sven]

Currently about an hour into Before the Devil Knows You're Dead. It is seriously boring me.

Yeah. It's pretty run-of-the-mill, albeit I did admire some of Lumet's set-ups. Still... yeah. The last half hour is the worst part.

[number8]

Yeah. It's pretty run-of-the-mill, albeit I did admire some of Lumet's set-ups. Still... yeah. The last half hour is the worst part.

Good to hear, because I turned it off after Hoffman's breakdown in the car. That's about all I can take.

[DrewG]

Standard Operating Procedure was one of my most unsettling film experiences in a VERY long time. Bra-fucking-vo Mr. Morris.

[origami_mustache]

He's been doing it for a good while. (http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/loder/) I've read some just for fun. He always tries to sound hip and with it, and sometimes (like in this one) tries to pretend that he's not a film critic, but just one of the bros. It's hilarious. The guy's old enough to have listened to the first key ever uttered by a clarinet.

I remember reading his review for I'm Not There and just thought it was a one time thing since it was a music based film. Too bad it wasn't.

[DSNT]

Currently about an hour into Before the Devil Knows You're Dead. It is seriously boring me.

I'm with you and iosis. It is very humdrum and underwhelming, plus a lot of the plot devices are a stretch from reality. The only things it has going for it are the performances, especially Marisa Tomei (and not just her teets).

[Boner M]

Leave Her to Heaven is one of my favorite films. I watched it a second time a few months ago and realised how elliptical the storytelling is, as well as just how weird the mood of the whole thing is (the ash scattering scene!).

I was also underwhelmed by BTDKYD, and it gets worse every time I think about it. That said, I thought Ethan Hawke was amazing and gave one of the most underrated performances of last year.

[DSNT]

Hawke was good. I was a little disappointed with PSH, who is usually pretty consistent -- although he more than makes up for it in The Savages.

I didn't like the movie much, but Gordon Pinsent would be my most underrated performance of the year.

[Qrazy]

someone who tries too hard to dumb himself down to fit it with his readers -- the guy writes for MTV.

How can you tell he's not just an idiot?

[Spinal]

Screw Dawkins and Harris up the arse...

Whatever, dude. They're excellent writers.

[Qrazy]

Whatever, dude. They're excellent writers.

Less excellent thinkers. Look they're intelligent, I'm not saying they aren't I'm just tired of seeing them trotted out as the gold standard for atheism when there's so many more competent philosophers out there... it devalues the movement I find to put them at the top tier.

[Bosco B Thug]

Standard Operating Procedure was one of my most unsettling film experiences in a VERY long time. Bra-fucking-vo Mr. Morris. It's pretty relentless, huh? Staring into the aggravated and obstinate face of Lynndie England, beginning to see these people as "victims of circumstance"... the eye-brow shaving! Ugh.

[number8]

The only things it has going for it are the performances, especially Marisa Tomei (and not just her teets).


I was also underwhelmed by BTDKYD, and it gets worse every time I think about it. That said, I thought Ethan Hawke was amazing and gave one of the most underrated performances of last year.

See, I can't even agree with this. I thought the acting was awful. Nobody had any connection with anyone, everyone's just boisterously chewing scenery on their own. It felt like an acting competition than an ensemble, which I always hate. Hoffman and Hawke both overacted so much it's ridiculous. And that surprised me, since it's Syney fuckin' Lumet. If anyone knows how to control overacting, it's him. Here it just doesn't work out at all. In fact, it's really annoying.

It's the kind of drama that I despise, the one with long stretches of dull, humorless, meandering with despicable characters, followed by moments where every character gets to taste hysteria in a big crying fit. It's like fucking Crash all over again.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Watched Cries and Whispers last night, the best way to describe it is that essentially it felt like punch to the baby maker. The way I understand and experience, the film is about fractured souls. The three sisters especially have drifted so far from living, and loving that they cannot stand touch or affection. Agnes, who is dying of cancer, is trying to reach out in the last days of her life but without avail. It's only Anna, the servant and caretaker who can reach out and comfort Agnes. I feel as if I need to rewatch this film a few times before I can really understand the relationships, and certain sequences, but I'm not sure I can handle it anytime soon. I think it goes without saying, but one of the best looking colour films I've ever seen.

[Qrazy]

Followed by moments where every character gets to taste hysteria in a big crying fit.

Yes, I can't stand this unless it's really earned (haven't seen the new Lumet though)... but it usually feels so trite and cheap... understated frustration and sadness is the way to go, with perhaps a small explosion of energy (i.e. Michael and Kay talking about the unborn baby in GFII).

[Sven]

understated frustration and sadness is the way to go, with perhaps a small explosion of energy.

Seems like you are trying to demand uniformity of expression. Histrionics are a fine way of expression, so long as the voice, perspective, and style of the picture are suiting.

[Rowland]

One of my favorite scenes in Before the Devil was when PSH implodes in his apartment and strips it down in such a deflating manner that it's actually rather poignant. I still remember the shot of him half-heartedly emptying the marbles onto the table. And I loved the score.

[MadMan]

Blacula(1972): A great mix of camp and scares, this film manages to be both entertaining and rather creepy at times. While the low budget and the lack of true skill somewhat hurts the picture, the film still works pretty well. Mostly as a subversion of the vampire genre, and also a blending of blackexplotation and the Hammer horror films of the 50s, 60s and 70s. Worth a viewing for fans of cult films, and those looking for a decent way to kill a couple hours. Oh and this film also teaches us the following:

*Dracula was a racist bastard who supported the slave trade
*Vampires have a blue facial tint (we later saw blue faced zombies in '78 Dawn of the Dead)
*Always lock the door after you take a dead vampire woman out of deep freeze. Unless you want to be neck fodder.
*Blacula is a lover, and a fighter.
*Cops think that "Black people all look alike." Yes I'm quoting a line from the film :|

A 78 is about right for this flick. I didn't bother to watch the sequel that was shown afterwards, simply because I like sleep and sequels to these kind of films usually stink.

[Bosco B Thug]

Lifeforce. Oh my God. I fucking love it.

[Bosco B Thug]

Blacula(1972): A great mix of camp and scares, this film manages to be both entertaining and rather creepy at times.

*Dracula was a racist bastard who supported the slave trade
*Blacula is a lover, and a fighter.

I didn't bother to watch the sequel that was shown afterwards, simply because I like sleep and sequels to these kind of films usually stink. Haha, cool. I thoroughly enjoyed Blacula if I recall correctly. It definitely worked as a horror film. Word on the street the sequel isn't as solid, but I'll see it eventually. Pam Grier's in it.

[Grouchy]

See, I can't even agree with this. I thought the acting was awful. Nobody had any connection with anyone, everyone's just boisterously chewing scenery on their own. It felt like an acting competition than an ensemble, which I always hate. Hoffman and Hawke both overacted so much it's ridiculous. And that surprised me, since it's Syney fuckin' Lumet. If anyone knows how to control overacting, it's him. Here it just doesn't work out at all. In fact, it's really annoying.

It's the kind of drama that I despise, the one with long stretches of dull, humorless, meandering with despicable characters, followed by moments where every character gets to taste hysteria in a big crying fit. It's like fucking Crash all over again.
I didn't hate it that much, but I didn't like it either. It's even worse when I remember it, that has to be said.

[Boner M]

I thought the acting was awful. Nobody had any connection with anyone, everyone's just boisterously chewing scenery on their own. It felt like an acting competition than an ensemble, which I always hate. Hoffman and Hawke both overacted so much it's ridiculous. And that surprised me, since it's Syney fuckin' Lumet. If anyone knows how to control overacting, it's him. Here it just doesn't work out at all. In fact, it's really annoying.
Hmm, I was actually impressed by how everyone played off each other even while taking things up a notch. I'm thinking of the scene when Hoffman tells Hawke about the heist plan for the first time, or Hoffman's breakdown with Tomei in the car... none of it felt 'real' per se, but it all felt right in accordance with the tone of the film. I'd say it's a lousy script partially redeemed by stellar ensemble work (and direction, sans that stupid Easy Rider-esque psychedelic editing).

[MadMan]

Haha, cool. I thoroughly enjoyed Blacula if I recall correctly. It definitely worked as a horror film. Word on the street the sequel isn't as solid, but I'll see it eventually. Pam Grier's in it.Hah, "word on the street." Yeah I checked the cast for both films and I did notice that Pam Grier was in the sequel. That almost made me want to see it. I dug that Doc Thomas was pretty much the African American version of Van Helsing.

[Grouchy]

Hmm, I was actually impressed by how everyone played off each other even while taking things up a notch. I'm thinking of the scene when Hoffman tells Hawke about the heist plan for the first time, or Hoffman's breakdown with Tomei in the car... none of it felt 'real' per se, but it all felt right in accordance with the tone of the film. I'd say it's a lousy script partially redeemed by stellar ensemble work (and direction, sans that stupid Easy Rider-esque psychedelic editing).
Yes. This I agree with. The script was the real downfall of the movie.

[Qrazy]

Seems like you are trying to demand uniformity of expression. Histrionics are a fine way of expression, so long as the voice, perspective, and style of the picture are suiting.

Thanks for sharing.


Yes, I can't stand this unless it's really earned (haven't seen the new Lumet though)... but it usually feels so trite and cheap... understated frustration and sadness is the way to go, with perhaps a small explosion of energy (i.e. Michael and Kay talking about the unborn baby in GFII).

[Sven]

Thanks for sharing.

You have problems.

You edited the quote in, but you still make it sound as though you're not interested in a style or form which conventionally utilizes explosive displays of emotion. "Earning it" implies a loyalty to formulaic structures that can only be transcended if the drama is intense or involving enough.

[Qrazy]

You have problems.

You edited the quote in, but you still make it sound as though you're not interested in a style or form which conventionally utilizes explosive displays of emotion. "Earning it" implies a loyalty to formulaic structures that can only be transcended if the drama is intense or involving enough.

Yes I edited in what I already wrote to make abundantly clear what should have already been clear to you. You essentially wrote... yes but, it's earned in films where it's earned... wonderful hence... thanks for sharing.

Earning it is not writing in hysterical outbursts as a cheap way of gaining audience attention. I don't know if they did that or not in the film under discussion, I was just saying I agree with number8's complaint in general. I've seen many films that overuse these outbursts as a device to motivate interest... as a visual parallel... in Jancso's Red Psalm you have horses running around in the foreground and background constantly... not for any thematic purpose particularly, but just to keep the image more dynamic. When you start to actually question the technique it seems a bit superfluous.

[Qrazy]

"Earning it" implies a loyalty to formulaic structures that can only be transcended if the drama is intense or involving enough.

And no it doesn't, I barely understand what it is you're trying to pidgeon-hole me into here.

If you like lots of hysteria in your films more power to you. I don't.

[Sven]

The only thing I'm saying about you is that it appears that you cannot accept heightened (or, if you prefer "hysteric") drama in and of itself. It seems like you're saying that it must be built up to. Within the narrative model, hysterics are unacceptable accept when dramatically satisfying. This is what you mean, no?

In that case, I'm saying such a stance negates the form of expression through exaggeration. This is almost a semantics issue, with "earning" something meaning different things to the both of us, apparently, but if my above theory about your position is true, the question becomes a debate of aesthetics, in which case I think you're position on film drama is too uniform.

[origami_mustache]

I agree with Qrazy's sentiments. Lars and the Real Girl had a good example of this when Emily Mortimer's character had a radical emotional breakdown over something seemingly trivial. It was as if the filmmakers had decided, well we need some sort of inciting incident here; cue the hysterics. (yawn)

[Qrazy]

The only thing I'm saying about you is that it appears that you cannot accept heightened (or, if you prefer "hysteric") drama in and of itself. It seems like you're saying that it must be built up to. Within the narrative model, hysterics are unacceptable accept when dramatically satisfying. This is what you mean, no?

No I'm not saying it has to be built up to, open your film on it for all I care, the GF Part II example was just an example... I'm saying I don't like it when the filmmaker repeatedly relies on it throughout the film... as 8 said... 'with each character getting their own moment of hysteria'. I'll give you an example... sometimes when Ullmann gets hysterical multiple times in a Bergman film I just find it obnoxious, not powerful (Autumn Sonata as one example - I know many disagree but meh)... other times it works great and usually the entire film isn't damaged but still it annoys me.

[origami_mustache]

I'm really liking this Theodoros Angelopoulos fella.

The Beekeeper and The Weeping Meadow are next on the agenda.

[Qrazy]

I'm really liking this Theodoros Angelopoulos fella.

The Beekeeper and The Weeping Meadow are next on the agenda.

Really need to get on that... saw about half of Ulysses Gaze and had to return it... fairly sure I'll love him.

[Qrazy]

Well after four films I'm still just not sold on the brilliance of Nicholas Ray. They Live by Night was competent but struck me as ultimately fairly bland and forgettable (but still not bad for a debut). Johnny Guitar and In a Lonely Place were both significantly better and I really warmed up to In a Lonely Place by the end (extremely potent ending) but just generally as a director I don't find him to be visually inventive enough for my tastes. He uses narrative and characters very well and avoids genre cliches but his imagery rarely resonates with me... certainly an above average/excellent director but not in my mind the leviathan Godard and others make him out to be. Oh, Rebel Without a Cause had a lot going for it... Dean's performance, drag racing, etc... but I didn't love it.

I'm still going to continue watching and enjoying the rest of his work however... Bigger than Life up next.

[Qrazy]

The Beekeeper

I've heard some say this is his oft-neglected masterpiece. Keep me posted.

[MacGuffin]

I just watched Before the Devil Knows You're Dead and found the editing to be obnoxious (too much exposition when it's about what happens after the incident) and the film to be lacking in anything to say. At least, anything profound that could justify spending almost two hours of my time. It's a movie about greed and forgiveness! :rolleyes:

[DrewG]

Pulling an all nighter for this Nosferatu and The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari paper. End me.

[Derek]

It's a movie about greed and forgiveness! :rolleyes:

You're looking for this thread (http://www.match-cut.org/showthread.php?t=845).

[Qrazy]

Fat City (Huston) was really terrific... another one of those gritty, grainy, slice of americana 70's films like Midnight Cowboy, Dog Day Afternoon, Cool Hand Luke, etc... excellent work by DP Conrad Hall as per usual... and I have to say after seeing this and The Ninth Configuration, I've developed a profound respect for Stacy Keach... someone who wasn't even on my radar before seeing these films. If he'd had a more selective career he could have been up there with Nicholson, Newman, Pacino and the rest of 'em. I don't really remember his role in Brewster McCloud, might have to rewatch the film with him in mind now... gonna check out The Heart is a Lonely Hunter soon as well. Screw Prizzi's Honor and The Man Who Would be King. Fat City is where it's at... also gonna check out The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean prob. tomorrow or the next day.

[Boner M]

Fat City is great indeed, and my favorite Huston by a considerable amount. The final shot just aches with humanity.

[Sven]

I don't really remember his role in Brewster McCloud, might have to rewatch the film with him in mind now...

He was the wheelchair-bound old man that Brewster drove for. It's a weird role.


Screw Prizzi's Honor and The Man Who Would be King. Fat City is where it's at...

I can see the benefits in offering comparisons and contrasts and alternatives in other films when speaking or writing about them, and try to do it myself, but you frequently do it with such hostility. I realize you're probably joking in your flippancy, but it's such a trend with you that I'm curious. Do you think Prizzi's Honor and TMWWBK are good films?

At any rate, I'm glad you liked Fat City.

[balmakboor]

... you frequently do it with such hostility. I realize you're probably joking in your flippancy ...

Some people's online personas really leave me wondering if they are putting on an act (a bit of posturing for no reason that I can discern) or if they really are unpleasant people. I usually just assume the best and ignore them if it starts to rub me too far the wrong way. I know I'm still upset about one particularly insensitive remark about Stan Brakhage.

[number8]

Some people's online personas really leave me wondering if they are putting on an act (a bit of posturing for no reason that I can discern) or if they really are unpleasant people. I usually just assume the best and ignore them if it starts to rub me too far the wrong way. I know I'm still upset about one particularly insensitive remark about Stan Brakhage.

Keyboard courage. It's neither intentional nor posturing. It's just the removal of a societal filter.

[Raiders]

Some people's online personas really leave me wondering if they are putting on an act (a bit of posturing for no reason that I can discern) or if they really are unpleasant people. I usually just assume the best and ignore them if it starts to rub me too far the wrong way. I know I'm still upset about one particularly insensitive remark about Stan Brakhage.

No, I really am an asshole.

[balmakboor]

No, I really am an asshole.

Playful self-deprecation. Now that's something I have no problem with. ;)

[MacGuffin]

Some people's online personas really leave me wondering if they are putting on an act (a bit of posturing for no reason that I can discern) or if they really are unpleasant people. I usually just assume the best and ignore them if it starts to rub me too far the wrong way. I know I'm still upset about one particularly insensitive remark about Stan Brakhage.

I think many people here are unpleasant in real life.

[origami_mustache]

I know I'm still upset about one particularly insensitive remark about Stan Brakhage.

haha yeah I still can't discern whether that was a joke or not.

[number8]

I like to think that I'm civil in conversations, but given the chance I'd bed your wife/girlfriend/mother/sister.

[megladon8]

I'm a nice person in real life, and I think I communicate that well on here.

I don't feel the need to posture.

[Grouchy]

Keyboard courage. It's neither intentional nor posturing. It's just the removal of a societal filter.
Yeah, exactly. None's gonna punch you in the face for something you say about Brakhage or whatever on a fucking message board.

'R Xmas is a very bland movie from Ferrara. It's about a Dominican NY couple with a young daughter who live a family life at day and sell drugs at night, until Ice-T kidnaps the father and asks for an enormous ransom. The way the kidnapping plot is executed is clever, showing everything from the wife's point of view first and then showing everything that happened to the husband through flashbacks. But the movie just didn't seem ballsy enough and, despite the good acting, some character subplots like the wife and kidnapper somehow relating to each other were dropped half-way. The lead actor is the guy who played grown-up De Niro's son in Bronx Tale, and he's still playing De Niro! It's amazing, at times he looks like a carbon copy of Bobby. Drea De Matteo is very hot. Overall, I think I'd give this movie only an extremely mild recommendation, since it's not actually bad.

[Qrazy]

He was the wheelchair-bound old man that Brewster drove for. It's a weird role.



I can see the benefits in offering comparisons and contrasts and alternatives in other films when speaking or writing about them, and try to do it myself, but you frequently do it with such hostility. I realize you're probably joking in your flippancy, but it's such a trend with you that I'm curious. Do you think Prizzi's Honor and TMWWBK are good films?

No I don't think they're good films, not spectacularly awful but not good. However, the main reason for the comparison was I feel they get much more talk than Fat City (on average on many forums - RT, Icine) and I think that should be rectified.

---

The Brakhage remark was a reference to Dave Chapelle. I like Brakhage a great deal. The degree of literality which some of you bring to conversation (online or elsewhere) is what baffles me. Number one you are not the movies others are critiquing and or slamming, it is not a reflection on you. Number two, lighten up, many of my and other peoples 'hostile' jokes may not always be funny but they're never meant seriously. People don't wish Brakhage to actually burn in hell or that all people who like White Chicks or whatever should be shot.

Brakhage has worn his way into your soul? Come on that deserves some Chappelle-esque ribbing.

---

As for if I'm an asshole in real life you'll have to ask Rouge. Personally it strikes me as somewhat asshole-ish to make a self-character analysis. I'll let others who've met me do that for me.

Although making something personal which was originally about other directors and movies does strike me as asshole-ish.

[Qrazy]

Yeah, exactly. None's gonna punch you in the face for something you say about Brakhage or whatever on a fucking message board.

No one's going to do that in real life either... and if they did they most likely deserve the label psychopath.

[Qrazy]

I think many people here are unpleasant in real life.

If the shoe fits...

Give it to someone else because there's probably sand in it.

[origami_mustache]

I thought it was a reference to Chappelle, but the quote was a bit off if I remember correctly, so it left a margin for head scratching.

[Grouchy]

No one's going to do that in real life either... and if they did they most likely deserve the label psychopath.
Nah, if I knew you in the flesh you wouldn't have one tooth remaining in the entire mouth.

[Qrazy]

Nah, if I knew you in the flesh you wouldn't have one tooth remaining in the entire mouth.

Is this the posturing of which you spoke?

Because in 'real life' when you assault someone for something that petty, you go to jail.

[Qrazy]

I thought it was a reference to Chappelle, but the quote was a bit off if I remember correctly, so it left a margin for head scratching.

Oh, well chalk that up to faulty memory on my part.

[Grouchy]

Is this the posturing of which you spoke?

Because in 'real life' when you assault someone for something that petty, you go to jail.
How would you explain it to the police? You'd just mumble like a fool and a lot of blood would come out of your lips.

[Sven]

Please do note, Qrazy, that I have not taken offense to your dislike of movies that I like. I've just never encountered any entity with such a hearty willingness to come off as combative.

[Qrazy]

Anyway when people insult Tarkovsky, etc I don't get offended. Obviously I feel they're wrong and I'll probably dismiss their insult out of hand but I won't be hurt by their dislike.

The fact that I'm continually having to defend myself for comments about movies is what strikes me as absurd.

[Qrazy]

How would you explain it to the police? You'd just mumble like a fool and a lot of blood would come out of your lips.

Luckily I've read Titus Andronicus. I know the drill.

[Qrazy]

Please do note, Qrazy, that I have not taken offense to your dislike of movies that I like. I've just never encountered any entity with such a hearty willingness to come off as combative.

Eh argument (can) fuel(s) discussion... I have no interest in all my conversations boiling down to a heartfelt session of koombaya. I like to argue, that doesn't mean it has to get personal.

Steering this back to the actual movies...

I remember a The Man Who Would be King here conversation a while back and I thought the consensus was that it was ultimately pretty mediocre (with a few ardent supporters). I haven't seen a Prizzi's Honor discussion but I thought that was even less interesting than TMWWBK... Nicholson's knife toss, a crucial narrative/emotional moment was absolutely silly.

[Sven]

Eh argument (can) fuel(s) discussion... I have no interest in all my conversations boiling down to a heartfelt session of koombaya. I like to argue, that doesn't mean it has to get personal.

There's a difference between belligerence and argument, just as there's a difference between "koombaya" and reasoned discourse.

You are equating "argument" with "Screw Prizzi's Honor", which is not argument, but merely hostility. I don't take it personally either. But you express confusion about having to defend yourself, which I think is justified, considering the amount of dedication it seems that you apply to coming off as a flippant naysayer.

Semantics OMG! I still love you. [/"koombaya"]

[Qrazy]

There's a difference between belligerence and argument, just as there's a difference between "koombaya" and reasoned discourse.

I've had plenty of 'reasoned discourse' this is just a straw man that any amount of forum digging will burst into flames.


You are equating "argument" with "Screw Prizzi's Honor", which is not argument, but merely hostility. I don't take it personally either. But you express confusion about having to defend yourself, which I think is justified, considering the amount of dedication it seems that you apply to coming off as a flippant naysayer.

Semantics OMG! I still love you. [/"koombaya"]

Yeah it's not an argument because I wasn't involved in an argument at that point. It's a statement of attitude towards a given film. I was concisely communicating my lukewarm feelings towards those films in relation to Fat City.

Flippancy? Probably.
Naysayer? Not really.

The forum archives can vindicate me. I'm through vindicating myself.

You frequently come off as a chronic contrarian (personally I think the naysaying boot fits you more than me) but I don't call you out as such because there's no reason to make things personal and I don't have the right to generalize your taste/attitude.

[Qrazy]

And you clearly do take it personally or we wouldn't be having this lengthy fucking assinine discussion.

Or no maybe you're right... saying screw a film or whatever other flippant remarks I've made in the past about a film justify a few pages of attacks/defense/rebuttal/defense when we could just be discussing film.

[balmakboor]

Sheesh, I take a break to watch Smiley Face (which I adored btw, it really deepened my appreciation for Araki) and I return to find one of my comments has created a hubbub. I will apologize for taking offense for the Brakhage remark. My reasoning: I don't even know who Dave Chapelle is.

P.S. - For nearly 30 years, Brakhage has definitely seeped into my soul. It's nothing I'm ashamed of saying.

[Sven]

And you clearly do take it personally or we wouldn't be having this lengthy fucking assinine discussion.

I assure you that I do not. I question your tact and tactics and that is all. My personal investment extends to my own curiosity. You're right--my "argument = Screw PH" model was irrelevant because it wasn't an argument at that point. I just find that you, of all the posters I've encountered, are the quickest to vocalize disdain or rejection. And I was inquiring into a fuller picture of your critical attitudes. Nothing personal, I apologize if you are irritated.

As per my "contrarian" tendencies, you have every right to generalize about my tastes. It's only natural. Ask me about them. There isn't an opinion I've ever voiced on this board that has been dishonest.

[Qrazy]

Sheesh, I take a break to watch Smiley Face (which I adored btw, it really deepened my appreciation for Araki) and I return to find one of my comments has created a hubbub. I will apologize for taking offense for the Brakhage remark. My reasoning: I don't even know who Dave Chapelle is.

Ah well yeah I just figured it's the kind of phrase that has been floating around the interwebs for a while now so I didn't think it would offend... plus I somehow misinterpreted your response post in that thread as getting the joke so yeah I doubly didn't know you had taken me seriously or I would have made it clear it was from Chapelle.


P.S. - For nearly 30 years, Brakhage has definitely seeped into my soul. It's nothing I'm ashamed of saying.

That's fair and I'm happy for you... and yet I still feel soul seepage to be ribbing material.

[Sven]

Or no maybe you're right... saying screw a film or whatever other flippant remarks I've made in the past about a film justify a few pages of attacks/defense/rebuttal/defense when we could just be discussing film.

Discussion of critical attitudes/tendencies are just as, sometimes more, interesting as discussing film.

[Qrazy]

I assure you that I do not. I question your tact and tactics and that is all. My personal investment extends to my own curiosity. You're right--my "argument = Screw PH" model was irrelevant because it wasn't an argument at that point. I just find that you, of all the posters I've encountered, are the quickest to vocalize disdain or rejection. And I was inquiring into a fuller picture of your critical attitudes. Nothing personal, I apologize if you are irritated.

I'm just frustrated because I feel I keep having to defend myself and I see plenty of other posters making flippant remarks and not being called out on their flippancy, although may be I do it most and that's why, I don't know. I've tried to do it less but I guess I've failed.


As per my "contrarian" tendencies, you have every right to generalize about my tastes. It's only natural. Ask me about them. There isn't an opinion I've ever voiced on this board that has been dishonest.

Oh I don't think they're dishonest, the contrarianism is as systemic as my flippancy. :) Anyway I do ask you about your tastes etc on a case by case, I don't think a generalization would be a good thing... it would be me saying oh Iosis is just being contrary and discounting your opinions flat out on that basis, but I don't, I usually converse/argue about them with you. I had no problem with you asking why I said screw Prizzi or whatever and I'll explain that but to be so up in arms about the screw for it to create the whole attacks/defense/rebuttal/defense.

Anyway I'll let you have the last word on all of this so we can get back to discussing Huston or whoever... things are getting too removed for me.

[Sven]

Anyway I'll let you have the last word on all of this so we can get back to discussing Huston or whoever... things are getting too removed for me.

Word. Though this tet-a-tet has bumped me up to FIVE rep points, and you will be the first receiver!

[MadMan]

My posting reflects my real personality. I usually act this crazy/strange, but I often try to make people life, get a rise out of them, or get at least some sort of reaction. Sometimes its for kicks, sometimes its because I'm bored. I do like to put a smile on most people's faces, or at least make them acknowledge my existence.

That said, I think its hilarious that people get so upset at people they've never met in real life. I've been guilty of doing the same thing, most recently on RT with a few folks who have treated me like shit, so I've responded in kind.

[Sycophant]

I am a miserable hateful fuck on both the Internet and in real life! :pritch:

[Ezee E]

I am a miserable hateful fuck on both the Internet and in real life! :pritch:
You too?

[Qrazy]

Discussion of critical attitudes/tendencies are just as, sometimes more, interesting as discussing film.

I don't agree. I find discussion of critics and their baseline attitudes fairly irrelevant (Armond White talk, Rosenbaum, etc) since I put little stock in what critics have to say in the first place.

And there's a big difference between discussing outsider/famous critics and discussing the opinions/attitudes/criticism of posters within the group... and there's also a big difference between focusing on the negative elements of a critic/posters style/attitude and looking at the positive elements as well or at least a more balanced view of their criticism.

The word screw was a very small part of that overall post.

Ok now I'll let you have the last word because I wrote this before I knew you were putting your last word in.

[Qrazy]

Word. Though this tet-a-tet has bumped me up to FIVE rep points, and you will be the first receiver!

:pritch:

[Philosophe_rouge]

I think I'm generally similar to my online persona, I don't know how I would describe it though.

I've met Qrazy, and he's not an asshole in the least. Very nice guy, very approacheable, and all around likeable. Saying it to at the very least to refute Clipper's statement. I like to assume most people I enjoy talking with online are nice people, and in my experience they nearly always are. I probably wouldn't bother otherwise.

[Ezee E]

I disagree with Raiders and Spinal at least once a week, but it's never gotten out of line or personal.

It's the angry sex that helps.

[Melville]

That was a pretty weird discussion. Qrazy never struck me as particularly combative or mean-spirited. His dismissals of movies, while occasionally frustrating, never stoop to (serious) personal attacks, and he's pretty obviously joking whenever he says something seemingly mean-spirited. And I'd say iosos is at least as combative as he is.

More generally, people are just as sarcastic, dismissive, or mean-spirited in everyday conversation as anybody on this site is (which, in my opinion, isn't very).

[Bosco B Thug]

Has no one seen Lifeforce?!?!?!?

As for the little melee, Fat City can go suck a donkey dick, TMWwBK and Prizzi's Honer are pimp.

Haven't seen any of them, but this was a demonstration that praising or decrying a movie by personifying it within a punchy phrase is fun and effective and economical!

[Raiders]

Has no one seen Lifeforce?!?!?!?

Me. It's both wildly inept and very interesting. I wrote some stuff about it at the old site in KF's thread.

[balmakboor]

Has no one seen Lifeforce?!?!?!?

I saw it a long time ago. All I really remember is some nude/alien/zombie woman walking around or something. I've been meaning to watch a few Hooper movies including Lifeforce some time soon since I admire TCM so much.

[Winston*]

I don't like Prizzi's Honour or The Man Who Would Be King either.

[Bosco B Thug]

So people have seen Lifeforce!

KF's play-by-play review was glorious. And yup, to Raiders, there's definitely a wealth of sexual subtext in the film, a la that other 80s sci-fi/horror film The Thing (and more so).

But I'll beg to differ on one point: this film is far from inept - it's frickin' epic.

Okay, okay, I admit as a whole, the whole affair is kinda retarded (especially while reading KF's review). The film definitely gets messier and more silly as it goes along - unfortunate make-up and aesthetics were chosen for the "London in flames!" climax.

But nevertheless, the film retains an amazingly sharp sense of irony throughout. Plus, 1) You can read into the film in so many ways, 2) it's packed with dozens of tasty undercurrents, 3) Mathilda May wowza, and 4) seriously now, Tobe Hooper is the sharpest, keenest Golden Age horror director. Romero is the artist at heart, Carpenter is the master professional, but Hooper is the slyest, has a killer sense of humor and social sense, and his directing is generally just so energetic and thrilling. More can be said about his approach to his films, but I don't know when I'll be up to do that.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Has no one seen Lifeforce?!?!?!?

Ehr, I started watching it last week, but after about fifteen minutes, I realized I had to clean my room. Yeah...that's why I stopped...just to clean.

[balmakboor]

I just watched Ron Howard's Grand Theft Auto and I must say it may be, in its Roger Corman sort of way, Howard's most successful work. I wish he'd continued making genre movies instead of becoming Mr. I'm Gonna Try My Darndest To Win An Oscar.

[Grouchy]

So, why did it take me so long to watch Velvet Goldmine? Although admittedly it's a bit too long, it's a great film about music and the kind of social and sexual wave that just crushes on shore and rolls back away. All three leads are great, specially Christian Bale and McGregor's amazing twist on Iggy Pop from the Stooges years. I liked that the film wasn't just exploiting the Bowie/Pop relationship, but using it as an excuse to reflect on the world of glam rock and what it meant to its young audience back on the day. The Oscar Wilde theme was inspired, and the fictional music and videoclips used are spot-on. Todd Haynes fucking rocks. I never knew I was gonna enjoy a fruity movie so much.

[Rowland]

Lifeforce is hilairous. I love the entire sequence with Patrick Stewart, that shit is fucking gold.

[DrewG]

Question: in Dancer in the Dark when Selma is at the movie theater, she is watching The Band Wagon isn't she?

[megladon8]

I knew that the direction would be hoaky and uninteresting going into The Edge - Lee Tamahori has yet to give me a reason to think he's anything other than a hack.

But what I didn't expect was bland, lazy writing from David Mamet.

In fact, a lot of it was actually quite bad.

It has its saving graces, and it wasn't a complete waste of time...but it's really not very good at all.

And Hopkins/Baldwin made quite possibly one of the most nonsensical bear traps I have ever seen.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Lifeforce is hilairous. I love the entire sequence with Patrick Stewart, that shit is fucking gold.

I did a running commentary for the film awhile back for the guilty pleasure film swap. That was a fun night.

EDIT: Wow. I can't believe Bosco remembers that, let alone actually read the whole thing. Awesome.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Oh, and I fucking hate all of you. I hope that comes through with every post I make.

[Winston*]

I knew that the direction would be hoaky and uninteresting going into The Edge - Lee Tamahori has yet to give me a reason to think he's anything other than a hack.

Once Were Warriors is one of the best New Zealand films evar.

[megladon8]

Once Were Warriors is one of the best New Zealand films evar.


I'm sure it is. I've never seen it, though.

However, going by...

Mulholland Falls - 5.5
The Edge - 4.5
Along Came a Spider - 5
Die Another Day - 2
xXx: State of the Union - 1
Next - 3


He's pretty damn awful.

[Winston*]

Well, yeah. His American stuff is kind of objectively hackwork. I don't know why you've seen so much of it.

[megladon8]

Well, yeah. His American stuff is kind of objectively hackwork. I don't know why you've seen so much of it.


Possibly because he's only done two films outside of America?

One of which (Thunderbox) almost no one has seen.

[Winston*]

My point was why would you bother watching a Lee Tamahori movie that wasn't Once Warriors? Good things are never going to come from that.

[Duncan]

Even Once Were Warriors is pretty bad.

[Winston*]

I bet most of you unlikeable are in real life too. With no rep system yet in place in the real, where's the insentive to be otherwise?

[Watashi]

I bet most of you unlikeable are in real life too. With no rep system yet in place in the real, where's the insentive to be otherwise?
I'm a pretty likeable guy.

Once you get past my weird animated women fetishes.

[megladon8]

Dragon Dynasty's next classic release is Heroes of the East.

Coming out on the 27th.

Definitely one I'll get.

[Rowland]

In real life, I'm a clever, playful, gracious guy about 50% of time, and the rest of the time I'm miserable, acerbic, and anti-social. I don't know how my girlfriend puts up with me, bless her.

[megladon8]

Watched half of The Piano Teacher last night. Fell asleep because it was after 4-AM.

It really wasn't doing much for me.

[ledfloyd]

I just watched The Diving Bell and the Butterfly. I loved it. I think it's my 3rd fav from last year. One of 3 or 4 four star films i've seen from last year.

[number8]

In real life, I'm a clever, playful, gracious guy about 50% of time, and the rest of the time I'm miserable, acerbic, and anti-social. I don't know how my girlfriend puts up with me, bless her.

You know, you've been mentioning your girlfriend a lot lately, seemingly without prompt. I think I'll punch you in the face.

[Rowland]

You know, you've been mentioning your girlfriend a lot lately, seemingly without prompt. I think I'll punch you in the face.I know, it's a sickness.

[Bosco B Thug]

Ehr, I started watching it last week, but after about fifteen minutes, I realized I had to clean my room. Yeah...that's why I stopped...just to clean. Fool, that room better be spotless cuz then you'll just have clean it up again right after Lifeforce proceeds to tear that shit up again for you. That's right, that made complete sense.


Lifeforce is hilairous. I love the entire sequence with Patrick Stewart, that shit is fucking gold. Patrick Stewart nailed his "Kiss me, Railsback..." gaze and gained my life-long appreciation.


I did a running commentary for the film awhile back for the guilty pleasure film swap. That was a fun night.

EDIT: Wow. I can't believe Bosco remembers that, let alone actually read the whole thing. Awesome. Of course. It deserves a short revival:

http://matchcut.org/viewtopic.php?p=522693&highlight=railsback+hole+150+m iles#522693


• Steve Railsback makes his entrance, and what an entrance it is. Popping out of a hole in the floor to deliver “What’s 150 miles long?” with that pedophile smirk that he’s mastered over the years. A truly stunning moment you've captured beautifully there.

[SirNewt]

I haven't watched a film in over a week now. I've been so busy with my uncle's house I haven't had time. It's really getting me down.

[MadMan]

Predator 2 contains pretty much half of the awesome that was featured in the first flick. And yet that half is more than enough, resulting in a film that has its really cool moments and doesn't manage to be a half bad sequel. I was pretty much entertained throughout, despite the obvious cop movie cliches, and Danny Glover playing a cop that's a mix of Murtaugh and Riggs from the Lethal Weapon movies. Still the supporting cast featuring Bill Paxton, Ruben Blades and Gary Busey is fairly solid, and I'm sure that since I watched the flick on TV a good deal of gore was edited out. The high points of the film were the subway scene that's violent and suspenseful, and the film's last half that features another brutal battle between man and predator. While the urban jungle of LA doesn't isn't half as eerie or as sufficating as the real jungle setting in the first flick, it serves its purpose well enough. Plus we also get to see every single Predator weapon in the creature's arsenal, which rocks. 80

What I also like is how this film ties into the original, and creates a sort of Predator storyline by mentioning the events of the first film. Plus the whole government thing and how Busey wanted to get his hands on the Predator technology reminded me of the ending to AVPR where that Predator weapon is shown to some shadowy weapons corporation.

PS: I supposed I failed to mention that I do have a rather violent temper, but I've sort of managed to keep it in check recently.

[Spinal]

Less excellent thinkers. Look they're intelligent, I'm not saying they aren't I'm just tired of seeing them trotted out as the gold standard for atheism when there's so many more competent philosophers out there... it devalues the movement I find to put them at the top tier.

Not a good post. Particularly because you're making huge assumptions about me and misrepresenting what I said in order to grind your axe. Stop doing this. It is tiresome.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Watched the Terminator tonight for the first time, I enjoyed it quite a bit. Although it does lag, especially in the second half. Afterwards, I checked IMDB and found this in the trivia section:

O.J. Simpson was considered for the role of the Terminator, but the producers feared he was "too nice" to be taken seriously as a cold-blooded killer.

Kinda genius.

[MadMan]

Watched the Terminator tonight for the first time, I enjoyed it quite a bit. Although it does lag, especially in the second half. Afterwards, I checked IMDB and found this in the trivia section:

O.J. Simpson was considered for the role of the Terminator, but the producers feared he was "too nice" to be taken seriously as a cold-blooded killer.

Kinda genius.The Terminator works extremely well as low budget sci-fi mixed with action and some horror movie elements. Arnuld should have played a bad guy more often, and the police station scene and the entire warehouse part of the movie are the film's highlights.

That IMDB.com trivia bit concerning OJ is pure irony.

[Philosophe_rouge]

The Terminator works extremely well as low budget sci-fi mixed with action and some horror movie elements. Arnuld should have played a bad guy more often, and the police station scene and the entire warehouse part of the movie are the film's highlights.

That IMDB.com trivia bit concerning OJ is pure irony.
I had to watch it for class, and my group-mates were spot on saying this is pretty much the ideal role for Arnold. He has to be muscly, one note and monotone. Honestly, it works wonderfully. I actually didn't enjoy the warehouse scene that much, I can't really say why, maybe it went on a little too long, and I had a feel for where it was going. My favourite scene was early in the film when Sarah Connor is waiting in the bar, absolutely chilling.

[MadMan]

I had to watch it for class, and my group-mates were spot on saying this is pretty much the ideal role for Arnold. He has to be muscly, one note and monotone. Honestly, it works wonderfully. I actually didn't enjoy the warehouse scene that much, I can't really say why, maybe it went on a little too long, and I had a feel for where it was going. My favourite scene was early in the film when Sarah Connor is waiting in the bar, absolutely chilling.Hmm, why did you have to watch it for class? And yes even though I'm a fan of Arnuld it was the perfect fit for him. Everyone knows he wasn't much of an actor :lol:

Honestly I think the warehouse scene was good the way it was. I can't believe I forgot about the club scene, which also contains a great deal of suspense and the awesome line "Come with me if you want to live."

[Philosophe_rouge]

Hmm, why did you have to watch it for class? And yes even though I'm a fan of Arnuld it was the perfect fit for him. Everyone knows he wasn't much of an actor :lol:

Honestly I think the warehouse scene was good the way it was. I can't believe I forgot about the club scene, which also contains a great deal of suspense and the awesome line "Come with me if you want to live."
I'm doing an english class on horror narratives, specifically in film. We're doing panel style discussions on different subjects relating to horror, and my group is doing Science. For our project we're watching The Terminator, Renaissance from The Animatrix and Frankenstein/The Bride of Frankenstein, while examining the idea/narrative, that the creation will attempt to destroy the creator. Fun stuff.

[MacGuffin]

Salo, or the 120 Days of Sodom was a piece of shit (pun not intended).

[Derek]

Salo, or the 120 Days of Sodom was a piece of shit (pun not intended).

Or is it brilliant (http://www.cinematicreflections.com/salo.html)? But hey, it's a divisive film so you really do have to pick one side of the fence or the other.

[DrewG]

Salo was a very...interesting experience when I watched it. I'm still not sure what to think really.

[Winston*]

Or is it brilliant (http://www.cinematicreflections.com/salo.html)? But hey, it's a divisive film so you really do have to pick one side of the fence or the other.
I'm right on the fence with this one, I refuse to pick a side. Mostly because I haven't seen the film and have no pressing desire to do so.

My point here is that I wanted to make a post and have nothing of interest to say.

[Mysterious Dude]

I've actually liked every Pasolini film I've seen except Salo, which I saw some time ago. I'd consider giving it a second view just for that reason, but I remember it fairly well, and I can't imagine any way I could enjoy an extended sequence involving eating shit.

[lovejuice]

Predator 2

i always regard it as a fairly weak film, but in light of the two versuses, it starts to attain a classic status in comparison. and i like this poster.

http://www.motionpictureart.com/store/files/images/Posters/German/PosterLarge/Predator2SkylineGermanPoster.j pg

it doesn't give out anything that it is a predator movie, and yet it has some eerie 80s horror-flick quality.

[Qrazy]

Not a good post. Particularly because you're making huge assumptions about me and misrepresenting what I said in order to grind your axe. Stop doing this. It is tiresome.

How does what I said say anything about you? It doesn't. It says something about Sam Harris and Dawkins and the mediocrity of their philosophical discourse. They are the assumptive ones and approach the issue as this is the case rather than how can we determine what is the case.

And they are consistently held up as the gold standards whether or not that was what you were doing, it is done frequently (here, on RT and even in RL because those authors have received some media attention) and I as an atheist have no interest in being continually associated with them... that's why I suggested other gold standards... if you weren't offering the 'gold standards' in the first place... then my question becomes why not offer the best of the best to represent a movement which you support (if I remember correctly)?

Honestly I didn't mean to seem like I was attacking you I'm just tired of seeing Dawkins and Harris names attached to everything atheist.

[balmakboor]

Screw Dawkins and Harris up the arse... Nietzsche, Sartre, Blackburn, Engels, Mackie, Marx, Moore, Russell... those are the go to philosophical atheists.

One thing about this post has been bothering me. While I'm only familiar with the work of Dawkins, Nietzsche, Sartre, Engels, Marx, and Russell; it seems unfair to compare the contemporary writers Dawkins and Harris (who seem to me essentially popular scientists with chips on their shoulders) to late, great thinkers like Nietzsche, Sartre, Engels, Marx, Moore, and Russell. It seems ridiculous to me actually to even say "screw Dawkins" and suggest one read Nietzsche instead. It's like saying "screw Sagan, go read some Einstein instead." In both cases, the writers/thinkers aren't in the same league. Hell, they aren't even playing the same sport.

I think this would've been more appropriate:

"Screw Dawkins and Harris up the arse... Blackburn and Mackie... those are the go to contemporary philosophical atheists."

But even then, Dawkins' and Harris' projects seems so entirely different from Blackburn's or Mackie's (at a glance anyway) that I'd hesitate to make even that modified statement.

That aside. This post has given me a few new books to add to my reading list.

The Miracle of Theism - Mackie
Think - Blackburn
Letter to a Christian Nation - Harris

[lovejuice]

even by chick flick standard, made of honor is pretty bad. curiously for its genre, it's also pretty mean. almost as if the film-makers try to satisfy the unfortunate male audiences by borrowing element from gross-out comedies and the like.

[Sycophant]

even by chick flick standard, made of honor is pretty bad. curiously for its genre, it's also pretty mean. almost as if the film-makers try to satisfy the unfortunate male audiences by borrowing element from gross-out comedies and the like.Word is it underwent some changes to make it PG-13.

[Qrazy]

One thing about this post has been bothering me. While I'm only familiar with the work of Dawkins, Nietzsche, Sartre, Engels, Marx, and Russell; it seems unfair to compare the contemporary writers Dawkins and Harris (who seem to me essentially popular scientists with chips on their shoulders) to late, great thinkers like Nietzsche, Sartre, Engels, Marx, Moore, and Russell. It seems ridiculous to me actually to even say "screw Dawkins" and suggest one read Nietzsche instead. It's like saying "screw Sagan, go read some Einstein instead." In both cases, the writers/thinkers aren't in the same league. Hell, they aren't even playing the same sport.

I think this would've been more appropriate:



No you're right, they're not in the same league. That's my point. But yes they are trying to play the same sport. If we were talking about reading books on evolutionary biology Dawkins would be just fine, but we're talking about a justification for a basic metaphysics of existence (God or no God) which puts the topic squarely in the realm of philosophy (at this juncture in history, maybe hundreds of years in the future it will be different and God or no God will be functionally provable or disprovable). Whether or not they're contemporary (or a few decades older) really doesn't seem to me to have much bearing on the issue... if I was citing the movers and shakers when it comes to arguments for theism I'd go to The Holy Texts, Kierkegaard, Aquinas, Descartes... not the current Pope.

And then when it comes to the nuances of their philosophical arguments I don't find Dawkins (refutation of creationism/intelligent design OK, refutation of a prime mover? Weak argumentation) and even less so Harris (superstition = belief in god) to be in the same league as the others I mentioned.

Nor am I saying screw this read that, although maybe I should, I'm saying hold up these guys as the quintessential arguments for atheism, not those guys because they have weaker arguments.

[Li Lili]

I seem to watch less movies nowadays, too busy, too tired.
When I was in China, I went to the cinema to see the new HK film with Andy Lau, Sammo Hung, Three Kingdoms: Resurrection of the Dragon... Err, between the talks in the audience, the mobile phones ringing, people eating at the same time, the film wasn't great at all, predictable of course, but it was laughable... actually people were also laughing.

Since I'm back, I watched some Korea films and last night I watched In love with Dead, the latest Pang's brothers film. Actually, it wasn't too bad, so long since I last saw a horror film, more based on the atmosphere and mystery, the setting. Perhaps it would have been better, if it had deeper suspense and surprises, or twists but in general, it worked alright.

[balmakboor]

No you're right, they're not in the same league. That's my point. But yes they are trying to play the same sport. If we were talking about reading books on evolutionary biology Dawkins would be just fine, but we're talking about a justification for a basic metaphysics of existence (God or no God) which puts the topic squarely in the realm of philosophy (at this juncture in history, maybe hundreds of years in the future it will be different and God or no God will be functionally provable or disprovable). Whether or not they're contemporary (or a few decades older) really doesn't seem to me to have much bearing on the issue... if I was citing the movers and shakers when it comes to arguments for theism I'd go to The Holy Texts, Kierkegaard, Aquinas, Descartes... not the current Pope.

And then when it comes to the nuances of their philosophical arguments I don't find Dawkins (refutation of creationism/intelligent design OK, refutation of a prime mover? Weak argumentation) and even less so Harris (superstition = belief in god) to be in the same league as the others I mentioned.

Nor am I saying screw this read that, although maybe I should, I'm saying hold up these guys as the quintessential arguments for atheism, not those guys because they have weaker arguments.

I agree with all of this. Dawkins and those old guys are playing the same sport. Maybe its more a matter of having a choice between watching my daughter's 6th grade soccer games versus attending the World Cup. If one wishes to experience high level of play, the choice is obvious. If one wishes to have a good time and see a good contest, well, a good case could be made either way.

I don't place Dawkins as the go to guy for reading about the existence or non-existence of God. He's just the most visible guy out there at the moment. I agree that the higher authorities you listed are a better place to look for, well, authority. I have more enjoyed reading Dawkins over Nietzsche though, mainly because I can understand what one is saying while the other is over my head and I don't know what the hell he's talking about half the time. I'm not sure if Nietzsche was a genius or a stark raving mad poet -- or both probably.

I envy you as a 22 year old psychology student. You'll learn all about these things properly. I'm just a 46 year old former mechanical engineering student who never took a psychology or philosophy course in his life.

[Qrazy]

I envy you as a 22 year old psychology student. You'll learn all about these things properly. I'm just a 46 year old former mechanical engineering student who never took a psychology or philosophy course in his life.

Well it's never too late in my opinion to read back on history, philosophy, psych, literature etc and develop your ideas in these fields. You're certainly intelligent and know a great deal already, just need some incentive (and if you're adding blackburn and Mackie to your reading list then you already have the incentive)... but I also suggest the Billy Madison route where if you read the book/get the question right you get to see some breasts... never fails.

Bertrand Russell is an amazing philosopher, atheist and writer... people like Hegel, Nietzsche and Kant seem to almost go out of their way to be cryptic (although it's often also translation issues)... but Russell, Descartes, Cicero, Hume, and others are very readable and fascinating. If and when I ever write my own philosophy I hope I keep it coherent.

I also envy lovejuice and melville a bit because I feel like I've shut the door on myself somewhat with math which I think is probably the hardest thing out there to learn individually. Having done engineering you probably covered more math than I have as well so I can lump you in that group whose knowledge I desire.

[DrewG]

HOLY BALLS, Iron Man had a $100 million dollar weekend? That's just epic. Might have to go see it...between that and the reviews, that is.

[Qrazy]

I wonder if John Huston's turn as Grizzly Adams in The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean inspired PTA and/or Daniel Day Lewis... something in the drawl...

'Lived in the mountains most of my days, I was a mountain man.'

'If I say I am an oil man you will agree.'

[Sven]

Day-Lewis is on record as saying Huston was an inspiration.

[Qrazy]

Day-Lewis is on record as saying Huston was an inspiration.

Nice, make sense.

[Sven]

Nice, make sense.


Daniel Day-Lewis: I didn't base it on anyone in particular. I say, rather defensively, that one or two people have pointed out that they thought I'd somehow modelled it on John Huston. I listened to quite a number of recordings. There are none existing from that period, luckily for me, so no one can say: "That's not how it was." There's a great deal of freedom there, maybe potentially too much, to experiment. But I listened to some recordings of John Huston because at a given moment the vigour and delivery of his voice suddenly came into my mind from nowhere.

My take is that Day-Lewis was very expertly replicating the kind of guy that Huston actually was. Either way, love 'em both.

[berlin wallflower]

We're talking about a justification for a basic metaphysics of existence (God or no God) which puts the topic squarely in the realm of philosophy (at this juncture in history, maybe hundreds of years in the future it will be different and God or no God will be functionally provable or disprovable).Heh. I'm just curious why you think that we might be able to prove or disprove God's existence in the future. Don't you understand the nature of God?

[Sven]

Heh. I'm just curious why you think that we might be able to prove or disprove God's existence in the future. Don't you understand the nature of God?

Start a new thread plz.

[berlin wallflower]

Start a new thread plz.I'm sorry. Qrazy, do you want to discuss this issue in a different thread? Wouldn't it be in the off-topic forum?

[berlin wallflower]

By the way, I'm new here, but I would like to contribute to discussion when I can. I like this website. I've been meaning to join for a long time, but I've been too busy with university.

[Qrazy]

I'm sorry. Qrazy, do you want to discuss this issue in a different thread? Wouldn't it be in the off-topic forum?

Ok.

[Raiders]

By the way, I'm new here, but I would like to contribute to discussion when I can. I like this website. I've been meaning to join for a long time, but I've been too busy with university.

Welcome!

[Qrazy]

Everyone who said American Gangster sucked... was right.

[Qrazy]

Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean was OK, pretty good... visually a bit disappointing having viewed it right after Hall's impressive work on Fat City. I didn't love it though. It had the same elements that put me off Sukiyaki Western Django... a sort of aggressive stupidity towards it's characters and their situations which is played for humor... style of humor which I just don't/didn't particularly find all that funny.

[Winston*]

Did you just watch The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean in the half hour after your American Gangster post, Qrazy? 'Cos that's pretty amazing, manipulating time 'n' shit. How you can get through so many movies in a week now makes perfect sense to me.

[Melville]

I have more enjoyed reading Dawkins over Nietzsche though, mainly because I can understand what one is saying while the other is over my head and I don't know what the hell he's talking about half the time. I'm not sure if Nietzsche was a genius or a stark raving mad poet -- or both probably.
What have you read by Nietzsche? I remember when I first tried to read Thus Spake Zarathustra, it seemed to be constantly contradicting itself, and I really only got a vague idea of what Nietzsche was talking about. But after reading The Genealogy of Morals, Ecce Homo, etc., Zarathustra made perfect sense.


Bertrand Russell is an amazing philosopher, atheist and writer... people like Hegel, Nietzsche and Kant seem to almost go out of their way to be cryptic (although it's often also translation issues)... but Russell, Descartes, Cicero, Hume, and others are very readable and fascinating.
I see that our taste in philosophy differs as much as our taste in movies. I can't abide by Russell or Descartes, both of whom seem to only ever examine the surface of a problem and frequently make extremely strong assertions as if they were obvious facts. I think Hegel and Nietzsche used the prose that was necessary to consistently convey their ideas. Kant was admittedly not the clearest writer, but I wouldn't call him cryptic.

[Qrazy]

What have you read by Nietzsche? I remember when I first tried to read Thus Spake Zarathustra, it seemed to be constantly contradicting itself, and I really only got a vague idea of what Nietzsche was talking about. But after reading The Genealogy of Morals, Ecce Homo, etc., Zarathustra made perfect sense.


I see that our taste in philosophy differs as much as our taste in movies. I can't abide by Russell or Descartes, both of whom seem to only ever examine the surface of a problem and frequently make extremely strong assertions as if they were obvious facts. I think Hegel and Nietzsche used the prose that was necessary to consistently convey their ideas. Kant was admittedly not the clearest writer, but I wouldn't call him cryptic.

No that's not what I meant. I ultimately prefer H, N and K, but they're also much denser when it comes to the language they use than the other examples so they're best left until later... just as I wouldn't push Tarkovsky, Tarr, Resnais etc on a cinema neophyte... I'd first recommend Fellini and Kurosawa.

All of those three (H, N, K) just like Joyce's later work are consciously cryptic and cyclical in their writing styles and ideas. This isn't a bad thing. It's often just a result of density although sometimes it's also because they believe ambiguity to be an important element of philosophy. The point being that Russell and Descartes are both much more digestible but still essential and thus a better place to start... it's as Heidegger wrote... we must stay open on our journey into the clearing of being... it's not an I think so and so is a lesser philosopher and therefore I won't read them issue... they're all (that have been mentioned) important to read.

[Qrazy]

I can see your complaint with Descartes and I completely agree with it. I don't see that Russell does it that frequently. He strikes me as a fairly cautious philosopher... not like Heidegger, Parmenides cautious but certainly more cautious than Ayer and others.

[Qrazy]

Did you just watch The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean in the half hour after your American Gangster post, Qrazy? 'Cos that's pretty amazing, manipulating time 'n' shit. How you can get through so many movies in a week now makes perfect sense to me.

Well I can manipulate time but that's neither here nor there... you can't steal my technique so don't even think about it. I watched American Gangster last night and Roy Bean earlier today.

[Qrazy]

I see that our taste in philosophy differs as much as our taste in movies.

I'm also guessing this is less the case than you may think.

[berlin wallflower]

I enjoyed reading Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling and now I'm reading Works of Love. I really need to read Sickness unto Death... Why do you think about that work?

[Mysterious Dude]

I can't believe how many movies there are on my Netflix queue that I'm not interested in at all. It's time to clean house.

[Ezee E]

I can't believe how many movies there are on my Netflix queue that I'm not interested in at all. It's time to clean house.
The same goes for me. However, I just wait until they get to the top before I delete them

[Qrazy]

Il Posto (1961) ****

*thumbs up*

[Melville]

No that's not what I meant. I ultimately prefer H, N and K, but they're also much denser when it comes to the language they use than the other examples so they're best left until later... just as I wouldn't push Tarkovsky, Tarr, Resnais etc on a cinema neophyte... I'd first recommend Fellini and Kurosawa.
Gotcha. Although I don't think Kant was intentionally cryptic, and I think his philosophy would have been much better served by clearer prose.


I can see your complaint with Descartes and I completely agree with it. I don't see that Russell does it that frequently. He strikes me as a fairly cautious philosopher... not like Heidegger, Parmenides cautious but certainly more cautious than Ayer and others.
Yeah, I'm not really familiar with Russell. I've started reading a couple different books by him, but both times I gave up after getting frustrated by his hasty assertions.


I really need to read Sickness unto Death... Why do you think about that work?
It rocks.

[monolith94]

I can't believe how many movies there are on my Netflix queue that I'm not interested in at all. It's time to clean house.
Don't bump off the Black Pirate, though!!!

[BirdsAteMyFace]

Il Posto (1961) ****Rep! Easily one of my favorite films.

[origami_mustache]

The same goes for me. However, I just wait until they get to the top before I delete them

It's really nice that they allowed separate lists for films available for instant viewing...let me clear up some room in my queue.

[Mysterious Dude]

Rep! Easily one of my favorite films.
Yes, it took me a while to see this because I kinda disliked I Fidanzati and The Tree of Wooden Clogs. This movie I think spoke to me a little more, and anyone who's ever gotten a new job ought to be able to relate to it.

[Rowland]

I can't believe how many movies there are on my Netflix queue that I'm not interested in at all. It's time to clean house.Ditto. I made my Netflix queue two years ago, and looking at it now, I don't really give a shit if I ever watch like 80% of the movies on it. Time to clean house myself...

[Mysterious Dude]

Don't bump off the Black Pirate, though!!!
I probably won't get rid of any of the silent films; I'll always be interested in those. :cool:

But I can probably live without ever seeing Reboot: Daemon Rising. wtf?

[monolith94]

Heheh, I know. The same thing happens to me. I'll send a disc back, and then one will come in the mail that I had lost interest in.

[Qrazy]

Yeah I don't have netflix anymore but I've compiled a list of films to see based on criterion, 1001 films to see, TSPDT 1000, NYT 1000 and about 50 random top 100's and top 10's I've found different places... unfortunately I find myself adding to the list more often that subtracting from it. Sigh.

I have 900 films left from Criterion, and the three 1000 lists.

[Qrazy]

But I can probably live without ever seeing Reboot: Daemon Rising. wtf?

No, you can't.

Honestly though I haven't seen the film but I love reboot... primarily for nostalgia reasons but still... first I heard of the film... I'll actually check it out probably haha.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Yeah I don't have netflix anymore but I've compiled a list of films to see based on criterion, 1001 films to see, TSPDT 1000, NYT 1000 and about 50 random top 100's and top 10's I've found different places... unfortunately I find myself adding to the list more often that subtracting from it. Sigh.

I have 900 films left from Criterion, and the three 1000 lists.
Which 3?

[balmakboor]

What have you read by Nietzsche? I remember when I first tried to read Thus Spake Zarathustra, it seemed to be constantly contradicting itself, and I really only got a vague idea of what Nietzsche was talking about. But after reading The Genealogy of Morals, Ecce Homo, etc., Zarathustra made perfect sense.

I read everything in The Portable Nietzsche. I really should give him another go though. It was about four years ago on a long and lazy camping trip that I gave him my first go.

[balmakboor]

I can't believe how many movies there are on my Netflix queue that I'm not interested in at all. It's time to clean house.

I have close to 200 movies in mine. I think 95% of the movies from 10 to the bottom have been there for years and will still be there for years. I really just add a few new things I want to see each week and bump them to the top. There's lots of things on there that I have to click on and read the synopsis just to remember what they are.

[berlin wallflower]

There's so many films I desperately want to see, but I feel like I never have time... I hardly ever watch films anymore. I'm compiling a list of directors whose work I must study...

Who's seen the work of Sergei Paradjanov?

[origami_mustache]

There's so many films I desperately want to see, but I feel like I never have time... I hardly ever watch films anymore. I'm compiling a list of directors whose work I must study...

Who's seen the work of Sergei Paradjanov?

I've seen Shadows of Our Forgotten Ancestors and Color of Pomegranates. I really liked both, especially the former, and would like to see more from him.

[Sven]

Yeah I don't have netflix anymore but I've compiled a list of films to see based on criterion, 1001 films to see, TSPDT 1000, NYT 1000 and about 50 random top 100's and top 10's I've found different places... unfortunately I find myself adding to the list more often that subtracting from it. Sigh.

I have 900 films left from Criterion, and the three 1000 lists.

Let's discuss this:

How many of those films have you seen since you feel like you were capable of making reasoned and insightful deductions about the cinema? In other words, in order to have seen that many movies, wouldn't you have to have only a cursory recollection of a good deal of them, having seen them in haste, out of necessity, or simply a long time ago? And if that is the case, what good is this accomplishment?

I'm not trying to cheapen your drive, I think it's admirable and hold a similar ambition myself (or rather, did at one point but have now become a bit less idealistic about the whole thing). I just want to know what you think.

[monolith94]

There's so many films I desperately want to see, but I feel like I never have time... I hardly ever watch films anymore. I'm compiling a list of directors whose work I must study...

Who's seen the work of Sergei Paradjanov?
Shadows of Our Forgotten Ancestors is a must see. Color of Pomegranates is, also, but for different reasons. It is not a likable film, but I believe it is a valuable one for the nourishment it provides to a visual hunger. A ton of it is frustrating to many, many viewers (although some just love it) and it has frustrated me too, at times, but I still find it to be incredibly enriching. I really wish his earlier works were available. Also: he served time in a gulag. Cred.

[MadMan]

I'm doing an english class on horror narratives, specifically in film. We're doing panel style discussions on different subjects relating to horror, and my group is doing Science. For our project we're watching The Terminator, Renaissance from The Animatrix and Frankenstein/The Bride of Frankenstein, while examining the idea/narrative, that the creation will attempt to destroy the creator. Fun stuff.Awesome stuff indeed. That sounds like an interesting class.


By the way, I'm new here, but I would like to contribute to discussion when I can. I like this website. I've been meaning to join for a long time, but I've been too busy with university.Glad to have yah here. Beware the drunken monkey ninjas that Spinal unleashes upon the forum every night though. They're vicious.

Honestly I don't have Netflix largely because for now I have a decent and easy access to films via libraries and rental places that are fairly cheap. Until I almost exhaust those or have a desire to see films I can't get my hands on I won't even bother with Netflix.

[Winston*]

Doing some complex calculations, turns out I've seen 2 1/3 films a week this year. Seems like a good number, I think. My novel average of 7/9ths is less satisfactory.

[Qrazy]

Which 3?

New York Times, They Shoot Pictures Don't They and 1001 films to see before you die.

[Mysterious Dude]

I should probably make a list of movies to see again. Sometimes, I'll watch a movie I haven't seen since I was a teenager and come away feeling like I'd never really seen it before.