28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[megladon8]

I don't think I have ever read one person say "Man, Salo was awesome!!"

Why does it keep getting these prestigious releases?

[origami_mustache]

Heart of the World should be on youtube, it's only 5 minutes long.

Brand Upon the Brain! is pretty good, dunno why it's being Criterion'd above some of his others tho.

I actually think it is his best film and his work was long overdue for a Criterion release.

[Winston*]

Is Salo still banned in Oz, Boner?

[Boner M]

Is Salo still banned in Oz, Boner?
I thought it was, though Shock are apparently releasing it soon.

[origami_mustache]

Was The Puffy Chair mumblecore?

The Puffy Chair was utter shit....and yes.

[Derek]

I don't think I have ever read one person say "Man, Salo was awesome!!"

Why does it keep getting these prestigious releases?

Salo is awesome, seriously. It is equally despised and lauded, though it may seem like more people hate it because some will talk negatively about it without ever watching it. I won't say it's an easy film to sit through and obviously it's not "fun", but it's certainly not as gross as it's reputation would have you believe, especially when compared to some of the more gory, torture-oriented horror films out there today. Pasolini keeps a lot of the more disturbing sequences in medium to long shots and the film's shock value is due more to the moral depravity than anything exploitative. I think it's one the greatest truly anti-fascist films because it carefully and calculatedly deconstructs its agenda and leaves us to witness the ugliness at its core.

[Derek]

I've also heard great things about this so damn... Criterion's on the ball these days.

Yeah, I've heard great things about this and Kinoshita in general, so this will hopefully give me a reason to check out more of his work.

[Boner M]

I dunno, the whole going around killing tons of animals thing was a big turn off for me. I don't mind animal deaths in films when I feel they're used efficiently and with great purpose but here it just felt to me like a concise way for the filmmakers to go about communicating the post-apocalyptic setting... and the beastly-ness of the next generation.
I'm also wary of the 'when in doubt, slaughter an animal' school of filmmaking (that was Klaus Kinski's way of characterizing Herzog at one stage in his career), but I found it was thematically apt here, for the reasons you mentioned, although more to emphasise the younger generation's willingness to destroy before understanding, rather than their beastliness. I guess I'm just a sucker for these post-apocalyptic scenarios... this one comes as close to capturing the atmosphere of McCarthy's The Road as any film I've seen; in fact, No Country For Old Men would've been a perfect alternate title.

[balmakboor]

I don't think I have ever read one person say "Man, Salo was awesome!!"

Why does it keep getting these prestigious releases?

I've been wanting to see it for years. And it does have one particularly huge fan (or did have):

http://jclarkmedia.com/fassbinder/index.html#top10

[Ivan Drago]

I'm sorry, but I refuse to see Salo. From what I've read about it, it's a disgusting movie.

[origami_mustache]

There is an original Criterion release of Salo for sale at Amoeba for $500.

[balmakboor]

I'm sorry, but I refuse to see Salo. From what I've read about it, it's a disgusting movie.

That's what I used to think about Sweet Movie. Then I watched it and discovered it is pretty damn great. I'll give Salo a shot -- in Fassbinder's honor if nothing else -- and then decide for myself. I don't see myself making a blind buy out of it though.

[balmakboor]

There is an original Criterion release of Salo for sale at Amoeba for $500.

I predict that that price will be more like $50 by next week.

[Boner M]

La Femme Infidele was excellent. Thick with tension and superb visual storytelling, including some outstanding use of long takes (the party scene near the beginning, esp). Haunting ending too, much like Le Boucher. Can't wait to dig through the rest of my Chabrol collection.

[Qrazy]

I don't think I have ever read one person say "Man, Salo was awesome!!"

Why does it keep getting these prestigious releases?

I've heard it's supporters say it's a very important, formally superb film... and it's Pasolini so I'm not that surprised.

[Qrazy]

I'm also wary of the 'when in doubt, slaughter an animal' school of filmmaking (that was Klaus Kinski's way of characterizing Herzog at one stage in his career), but I found it was thematically apt here, for the reasons you mentioned, although more to emphasise the younger generation's willingness to destroy before understanding, rather than their beastliness. I guess I'm just a sucker for these post-apocalyptic scenarios... this one comes as close to capturing the atmosphere of McCarthy's The Road as any film I've seen; in fact, No Country For Old Men would've been a perfect alternate title.

I had high expectations going in... mostly because of it's awesome title so that may have had an impact on my meh response as well.

[Qrazy]

I'm sorry, but I refuse to see Salo. From what I've read about it, it's a disgusting movie.

I'd probably agree if the film was August Underground Mordum but this is Pasolini.

[Derek]

I can't think of the last time I've experienced two films consecutively of such disparate quality from the same director as Suicide Club and Noriko's Dinner Table. The latter is absolutely wonderful - a strange, thoughtful and ambitious look at psychological disconnection in the modern family. An overdone topic no doubt, but Sono's navigates this territory in such unique fascinating ways, crafting a narrative that blends the literal and metaphorical to carefully examine the guilt, pain and rage of its lost teens (exit iosos) and their father. It's not nearly as typical as I'm making it sound as it really takes on issues like the fractured identities of youth in the internet age in ways I've never seen before. I'll have a review done by the end of the weekend, but the DVD comes out soon so suffice it to say I highly recommend it.

[Derek]

I'd probably agree if the film was August Underground Mordum but this is Pasolini.

But there's poop in it!

[DrewG]

I hate to say it but I found Ils to be somewhat disappointing, though I will admit that the film does a fairly excellent job of sustaining suspense for about 70 minutes straight which is quite a job, though its true quality is taken away by a distracting score and our (maybe just my) desire to end with a bang. Maybe it's because I just watched and loved [Rec] that I'm feeling weird about it, but I wanted to have a little more tension and games within the house...maybe I'm just finding another way to say that the pacing might have been too helter skelter. I'm not sure really, but the film at its worst (and I do think it's a good movie, just not great) is an excellent example of using sound and space to terrify.

----------

On Suicide Club, I thought the movie was pretty cool until that really off the wall 3rd act that just completely threw me off the thing in the midst of adding to its unique social commentary. However, I have heard that Norkio's Dinner Table is just mind blowing...I should really get around to seeing it.

[Bosco B Thug]

Salo sounds pretty rough, I wouldn't know if I could handle it. And I also should start into some Maddin.

I remember when the new Criterion design came out, I absolutely hated it. Now, it's absolute class and I think back on the old design with new generation distaste. Kinda troubling the transience of my opinion and the extremity of the change... guess I can't go into marketing.


I can't think of the last time I've experienced two films consecutively of such disparate quality from the same director as Suicide Club and Noriko's Dinner Table. The latter is absolutely wonderful - a strange, thoughtful and ambitious look at psychological disconnection in the modern family. An overdone topic no doubt, but Sono's navigates this territory in such unique fascinating ways, crafting a narrative that blends the literal and metaphorical to carefully examine the guilt, pain and rage of its lost teens (exit iosos) and their father. It's not nearly as typical as I'm making it sound as it really takes on issues like the fractured identities of youth in the internet age in ways I've never seen before. I'll have a review done by the end of the weekend, but the DVD comes out soon so suffice it to say I highly recommend it. Sweet, glad it's better than Suicide Club.

[origami_mustache]

I can't think of the last time I've experienced two films consecutively of such disparate quality from the same director as Suicide Club and Noriko's Dinner Table. The latter is absolutely wonderful - a strange, thoughtful and ambitious look at psychological disconnection in the modern family. An overdone topic no doubt, but Sono's navigates this territory in such unique fascinating ways, crafting a narrative that blends the literal and metaphorical to carefully examine the guilt, pain and rage of its lost teens (exit iosos) and their father. It's not nearly as typical as I'm making it sound as it really takes on issues like the fractured identities of youth in the internet age in ways I've never seen before. I'll have a review done by the end of the weekend, but the DVD comes out soon so suffice it to say I highly recommend it.

I've seen Suicide Club and Strange Circus and although I didn't like them much, it is apparent he is a director with potential as I find his films to be very interesting, at least visually. I've seen his latest film, Exte: Hair Extensions, on several Japanese top ten lists for 07 on Midnight Eye, so I'll probably check that one out before I get to Noriko's Dinner Table.

[baby doll]

I'm sorry, but I refuse to see Salo. From what I've read about it, it's a disgusting movie.Don't believe everything you read. It's more boring than disgusting.

[origami_mustache]

Umberto D. was a very touching and surprisingly well shot film. I now want a dog and have a crush on her:

http://bp1.blogger.com/_uhibHJyfDKk/SC0qXXpVYUI/AAAAAAAABiA/ciAwcJeSeFg/s200/umbertod.jpg

[ledfloyd]

I've also heard great things about this so damn... Criterion's on the ball these days.
have they ever not been?

[Qrazy]

have they ever not been?

It's all relative but yes I've been anticipating all of the films they're releasing this month for a good while now (those I haven't seen that this, and those I have I've loved)... while I could use fewer recent(ish) outings such as Monsters and Madmen, Indiscretion of an American Wife, Les Enfants Terribles, Mala Noche, and a handful of others. Obviously they're gangbusters but I'm anticipating this month more than others.

[monolith94]

I'm looking forward to Criterion's release of The Thief of Bagdad later this month.
have you seen the original "Thief of Bagdad"?

[Philosophe_rouge]

I was entirely surprised and enchanted by Cukor's Little Women (1933). I'm not a huge fan of his work, although I cannot deny his ability to pull from actresses brilliant and layered performances. This film especially stands as a shameless celebration of women and their relationships. It's told episodically, and is strewn together by a sort of anecdotal quality that I can't remember seeing in a Hollywood film before. The scenes are short, and often skip huge amounts of time, but nearly every scene begins with a brief recall of previous events, leaving the "payoffs" offscreen entirely. It's been a while since a film has had such a strong emotional pull on me, and while I'm not made of stone (the opposite), I wasn't reacting so much to the drama, but rather to it's sincerity. Might be my favourite of 1933, although it has some stiff competition I ought to revisit.

[Grouchy]

I've seen Suicide Club and Strange Circus. Was baffled by the first one and didn't like it, but I thought Circus was the most effective Jap Horror since Ringu, and very intelligent too.

[Rowland]

Strange Circus is amazing. Even if one is turned off by the subject matter, it's a formal masterpiece.

[DrewG]

What in the hell? Why is my version of Body Double full screen? "Modified to fit your screen"...no, no...anything but those dreaded words. Now I don't even want to watch it.

[balmakboor]

What in the hell? Why is my version of Body Double full screen? "Modified to fit your screen"...no, no...anything but those dreaded words. Now I don't even want to watch it.

A lot of De Palma stuff is 2 sided with WS on one side and FS on the other. No idea if that applies to Body Double though.

[Melville]

I watched Orlando yesterday (or maybe the day before; I have trouble telling time these days). It did a damn fine job of using (or subverting) the conventions of period drama films to comment on that genre's (and society's) depiction of gender. The Brechtian addresses to the audience also worked wonderfully, making us ponder our normal relationship with these types of period pieces. (I especially liked the recurring shots of Swinton's big orb-like eyes staring into the camera, since they managed to fit within the context of the narrative while still serving as a Brechtian distancing device. But the more overt fourth-wall-breaking was good, too.) And the basic story, a picaresque journey through the last four centuries of England, was continually witty and engaging, with Potter making each segment an entertaining bit of period drama even while using it to form a broader comentary.

The ending is also interesting. The protagonist abandons his/her traditional role constructed by art and society, moving away from a reality defined by social and cultural ideals in favor of a more "real" reality; but this movement into "reality" is accompanied by a specifially fantastical element, rendering the movement ambiguous. I'm not sure what to make of it.

[Teecee]

I'd like to state my love for Suicide Club, Strange Circus and Exte, for the record.

EDIT: And also for the movie in Rowland's avatar (Miike's best, IMO).

[Qrazy]

EDIT: And also for the movie in Rowland's avatar (Miike's best, IMO).

It was pretty hilarious when the guy ate the mushrooms.

[Rowland]

Prince of Darkness - B-If I used letter grades, that's what I'd give this. Thoughts? I'd classify it as middle-tier Carpenter, an entertaining but fairly inconsequential riff on his usual tropes. At the very least, it has a great deal more formal integrity than his modern work.

[megladon8]

have you seen the original "Thief of Bagdad"?


Nope, haven't seen any version of it.

It just looks delicious.

[Qrazy]

If I used letter grades, that's what I'd give this. Thoughts? I'd classify it as middle-tier Carpenter, an entertaining but fairly inconsequential riff on his usual tropes. At the very least, it has a great deal more formal integrity than his modern work.

Yeah I'd pretty much agree with those comments... the problem for me is more the script and locales than the execution of the thing... his penchant for masterfully eerie and semi-ambiguous endings is one thing I love about the guy... and he has it here as well... taking the mundane (in this case a mirror) and imbuing it with terror.

But yeah as I said the locale and general narrative severely restrict the potential of the film... even with his usual great use of lighting a college campus and a random building make for visually boring settings... and college scientists for boring characters... and while individual shots are framed well enough the larger picture never coheres into anything especially aesthetically compelling... when contrasted with The Thing and Halloween.

I found it interesting how in some ways it was an inversion of Assault on Precinct 13 though... instead of barricading themselves from the inside to ward off on coming hoards, the protagonists can't escape and are forced to face the evil in their midst.

My other major problem with it is just how obnoxious I find it's central premise (I know it's pulp but still) of relegating the devil and his son to 'the space between the atoms'... trying to metaphysically justify an objective malevolence. So the purpose of these beings that have existed for millions of years is not only to kill us but to scare us mercilessly beforehand? That's their 'purpose', that's what they 'get off on'? If they wanted to go the metaphysical evil route better I think to make it an evil of apathy or survival... the creature kills because it's trying to manifest itself and wants to survive (ala The Thing) or because it views us as lower lifeforms and destroys us like we would crush an ant which was a minor annoyance to us. But the metaphysical justification of a creature who's very purpose seems just to be to scare us and kill us... nothing is said about soul harvesting or anything... just seems silly to me.

I'd group the film together with In the Mouth of Madness... they seem to share semi-similar aesthetics and the same strengths and weaknesses to me.

[Qrazy]

Are these any good?

# Village of the Damned (1995)
... aka John Carpenter's Village of the Damned (USA: complete title)
# Body Bags (1993) (TV) (segments "Gas Station, The" and "Hair")
... aka John Carpenter Presents 'Body Bags'
... aka John Carpenter Presents 'Mind Games' (USA: cable TV title)
# Memoirs of an Invisible Man (1992)
... aka Aventures d'un homme invisible, Les (France)
# Elvis (1979/I) (TV)
... aka Elvis the Movie (USA: informal title)
# Someone's Watching Me! (1978) (TV)
... aka High Rise

[dreamdead]

Billy Wilder's Ace in the Hole doesn't quite work on any superlative level, but it's solid enough. Its narrative cynicism is too level and staid, and so there's never really an oppositional force at work in the film. Lorraine, the wife of the man buried under the rocks in the mountain, is too much of a floozy to counteract Tatum's moral indifference, so she doesn't offer us any glimpse of redemption. Tatum's local boss obviously exists as this figure, but the film is too quick to skirt him into the corner of the narrative, so while the film is remarkably prescient in its attack of morally vacant journalism, there is never really any dialectic at work in the film. Instead, it comes off as just a bit too much of a diatribe against the systematization of journalism and its propensity to falsify narrative. It becomes slightly more interesting if we read it as a metacritique of the Hollywood machine, but the metaphor doesn't quite work and that lens ultimately reveals itself to be grafting a (shaky) methodology onto a film that doesn't quite permit it.

As such, the film's fatalism, while allowing it greater emotional resonance to contemporary audiences, feels unearned, with Wilder's cynicism lacking even a hint of the humaneness that can be found in his strongest work.

[Rowland]

Someone's Watching Me is worth checking out I think.

[Sven]

Are these any good?

# Village of the Damned (1995)
... aka John Carpenter's Village of the Damned (USA: complete title)
# Body Bags (1993) (TV) (segments "Gas Station, The" and "Hair")
... aka John Carpenter Presents 'Body Bags'
... aka John Carpenter Presents 'Mind Games' (USA: cable TV title)
# Memoirs of an Invisible Man (1992)
... aka Aventures d'un homme invisible, Les (France)
# Elvis (1979/I) (TV)
... aka Elvis the Movie (USA: informal title)
# Someone's Watching Me! (1978) (TV)
... aka High Rise

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Big fan, obv, and your Prince of Darkness rating is about four grades too low.

[Winston*]

Did you see Carpenter's Cigarette Burns? That was pretty neat.

[Sven]

Did you see Carpenter's Cigarette Burns? That was pretty neat.

It was.

[Sven]

By the way, didn't mean to make it sound like I'd seen all five of those movies. I have yet to see his Elvis or Body Bags. I just assume they're worth watching.

[BirdsAteMyFace]

Oh my.

[Boner M]

Did anyone here see Forty Shades of Blue? It's easy to see why it went by completely unnoticed despite rave reviews and a Sundance award, it's kinda like a classic Hollywood women's picture directed by Robert Altman; a naturalistic melodrama that constantly keeps the viewer at arms length from the melodramatics, watching the precedings from a distance behind the blur of passers-by, door frames, obscured objects, etc. It's almost relentlessly dour, but eventually the muted approach works in the film's favor and by the last 20 minutes it becomes quite emotionally harrowing in it's own low-key way. Palpable feel for the Memphis locations, outstanding performances from Rip Torn and Dina Korzun (really wanna see Last Resort now, esp. after Raiders' praise) and overall the kind of eloquent American indie film that should be made more often.

[origami_mustache]

Death Laid An Egg (Giulio Questi, 1968)

http://www.silentmovietheatre.com/images/mayjun08/death_laid_an_egg.jpg


A one of a kind love triangle murder mystery revolving around a farm for mutant chickens. EurotrashCinema.com named it their favorite film of all time, if anyone is into that sort of thing.

[Boner M]

Man, it boggles the mind that Chabrol made Que la bête meure, Le Boucher and La Femme Infidele within the span of 2 years. I constantly hear about his quality control deficiency later in his career, but if the rest of the films from his 68-74 golden age maintains the standard of the ones I've seen so far, than he's certain to become one of my all-time favorites.

[Thirdmango]

Saw Prince Caspian and 21 yesterday, both were exactly as i expected them to be. Just sorta there. Funny thing is I felt like watching those kind of movies yesterday so it worked out.

[Ezee E]

Youth Without Youth may be a bit too convoluted, but its risks are certainly worth seeing. Beautiful to watch, and when delving into the linguistics aspect of the film, it starts to become pretty great actually.

I imagine this movie improving over the years over a few rewatches.

[balmakboor]

Youth Without Youth may be a bit too convoluted, but its risks are certainly worth seeing. Beautiful to watch, and when delving into the linguistics aspect of the film, it starts to become pretty great actually.

I imagine this movie improving over the years over a few rewatches.

I agree. Coppola tried to squeeze a little too much psychology, philosophy, history, and linguistic ideas (all of which I found very interesting) into too small a space. Still, it's a gorgeous and fascinating movie with a number of sequences that took my breath away. What it slightly failed to be for me was engaging and captivating. It would've benefited from a less cluttered and more straightforward narrative. Or maybe another way to put it is it should have told a more direct narrative and woven its ideas into that fabric the way Vertigo did (a movie Youth Without Youth resembles) instead of bringing those ideas so insistently to the surface.

I will say that, in spite of what must sound like a mixed reaction in the prior paragraph, I found Youth Without Youth to be Coppola's best film since Apocalypse Now -- and I love almost all of them.

[Grouchy]

Are these any good?

# Village of the Damned (1995)
... aka John Carpenter's Village of the Damned (USA: complete title)
# Body Bags (1993) (TV) (segments "Gas Station, The" and "Hair")
... aka John Carpenter Presents 'Body Bags'
... aka John Carpenter Presents 'Mind Games' (USA: cable TV title)
# Memoirs of an Invisible Man (1992)
... aka Aventures d'un homme invisible, Les (France)
# Elvis (1979/I) (TV)
... aka Elvis the Movie (USA: informal title)
# Someone's Watching Me! (1978) (TV)
... aka High Rise
Village of the Damned is very bad, just a mistake on Carpenter's part. Memoirs of an Invisible Man is a Hollywood entry that's very entertaining, partly because of Chevy Chase's manic performance, and consistent with the original Wells novel despite the update.

If you haven't seen them, Starman, They Live and Big Trouble in Little China are all excellent movies.

[Melville]

Hey, Spinal, do you have any thoughts on this?


The ending is also interesting. The protagonist abandons his/her traditional role constructed by art and society, moving away from a reality defined by social and cultural ideals in favor of a more "real" reality; but this movement into "reality" is accompanied by a specifially fantastical element, rendering the movement ambiguous. I'm not sure what to make of it.

[Melville]

I agree. Coppola tried to squeeze a little too much psychology, philosophy, history, and linguistic ideas (all of which I found very interesting) into too small a space. Still, it's a gorgeous and fascinating movie with a number of sequences that took my breath away.
I've definitely got to rent this. All the flaws people point out actually make it sound more interesting.

[Philosophe_rouge]

I kinda loved Some Came Running, the slow transformation of Sinatra's character was lovely, as was the direction. The score is incredible, and you can feel how the editing is shaped around the music. The two lasts scenes in particular are so incredible, and more is said with a cut or framing than any words ever could.

[balmakboor]

I've definitely got to rent this. All the flaws people point out actually make it sound more interesting.

Definitely.

At the bottom, it seems to me a quite passionate film about a failed romantic opportunity. There is a moment -- beautifully captured in flashback -- where the hero could've taken the heroine in his arms and found happiness. Instead, he holds back leading to much sadness and loneliness.

We first meet him as an old man who realizes that he is going to die alone and without completing his "life's work." With the help of a few bolts of lightning, he finds himself growing younger and becoming something of a new species -- with the Uberman more than merely alluded to -- and she begins aging and recessing step by step toward the most primitive state of man. It's like a symbolic fugue about two lovers growing apart until their only hope for survival is separation. The irony, I guess, is that the farther she recesses away from him the more she helps him fulfill his life's work of writing a book about the origins of language.

Or something like that. It really isn't a film that tells a story so much as one that explores some ideas in a cinematic way. The one part that either didn't work for me or went over my head (which is essentially the same thing) is Coppola's use of doubles with Tim Roth often playing two characters at once during a scene. I have to say though the climax/conclusion to this storyline of doubles is worthy of Orson Welles -- not to mention a striking sequence that owes a lot to The Third Man and is fully deserving of the comparison.

[transmogrifier]

Catch-22

Some stunning individual shots and scenes struggling to cohere into anything meaningful. One of the leading examples of pointless non-chronological storytelling (Before the Devil Knows You're Dead being a recent example), the film is a frenzy of random bits of satirical bile that could have, with a more reasoned approach to the story, actually snowballed into something genuinely cutting and emotionally affecting. Instead, it's a beautifully jagged, irritating, funny mess.

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

Been a while since I saw this, and cynicism is starting to sneak past nostalgia as the dominant viewing prism. The prologue, rather than being a playful laying bare of the IJ mythos comes across now more as lazy pandering to fans, and the whole second half of the film is nothing but a series of increasingly contrived set-pieces. However, the chemistry between Ford and Connery is engaging, and it is certainly easily more entertaining than any of the more recent "updates" like The Mummy and National Treasure, or indeed any of the summer movies of the past couple of years.

The Fanastic Four

Nothing much to say about this, except I liked it more than the Spider-man films because it doesn't grind to a halt at length for mind-numbing platitudes about responsibility and power, but instead gets Alba down to bra and panties and has the guy from the Shield play the guy from the Shield, except more orange.

[Qrazy]

Village of the Damned is very bad, just a mistake on Carpenter's part. Memoirs of an Invisible Man is a Hollywood entry that's very entertaining, partly because of Chevy Chase's manic performance, and consistent with the original Wells novel despite the update.

If you haven't seen them, Starman, They Live and Big Trouble in Little China are all excellent movies.

I have... I quite like a few segments in They Live... didn't really care about the other two much although I'm glad I watched them.

[Qrazy]

Catch-22

Some stunning individual shots and scenes struggling to cohere into anything meaningful. One of the leading examples of pointless non-chronological storytelling (Before the Devil Knows You're Dead being a recent example), the film is a frenzy of random bits of satirical bile that could have, with a more reasoned approach to the story, actually snowballed into something genuinely cutting and emotionally affecting. Instead, it's a beautifully jagged, irritating, funny mess.


With another film I'd probably agree with this complaint but in this case I felt the fragmentation both purposefully and effectively conveys the mentality of the films characters and of war and madness in general. The non-chronological approach also struck me as very pointed in this case.

[Boner M]

Sooo... has Qrazy finally dethroned me as the dude who manages to find time for film-watching even in his sleep?

[transmogrifier]

With another film I'd probably agree with this complaint but in this case I felt the fragmentation both purposefully and effectively conveys the mentality of the films characters and of war and madness in general. The non-chronological approach also struck me as very pointed in this case.

Sure, the non-chronological structure is a useful approximation of fragmentation caused by madness, but I don't think it is used very well at all in this case, hence its ultimate pointlessness. I don't think we needed to see the knifing twice, for example, nor did the Snowden scenes do anything except drag out a "gotcha" moment that would have been better there right up front coloring the rest of the film as it lead up to a surreal climax, like the "attack" on the base.

[Boner M]

"Messed-up chronology = madness/messiness of life" is one of my least favorite narrative strategies. cf: La Vie En Rose.

[Sven]

Hey, Spinal, do you have any thoughts on this?

I am not Spinal, but since I've devoted several days of my life recently to this film, i think I may have a bit to say about it:

I'm not sure how you are inferring Orlando abandons her "role". In the end, she's still very much at the service of the patriarchal notion of womanhood. I do not think that anything in the ending indicates a "realer" reality than all the pageantry in the first half. Perhaps if you could clarify how you came to these impressions, I could be more specific.

This film is very blatantly (through its hyper-non-realism) a feminist tract, and its fantastic elements cannot be made much sense of if read simply narratively. As such, there is a definite contention between the status quo of patriarchal representation and feminist restructuring. In my view, Orlando acts as a link, like the character of Freder in Lang's Metropolis, who joins the upper and lower classes. Notice how Orlando the authoress is still (just like Potter) subjected to voice-squelching publishing ultimatums ("Increase the love interest, give it a happy ending" and all Orlando can do is look at the camera with a "See, this is what I'm saying" look... notice how the film ends happily and sense how the sequence with Billy Zane, in all its Romantic glory, is totally over the top, almost sarcastic in a way). Orlando is not quite, to Potter, identified as a truly feminist voice, for she is still submissive to the dominant ideology. However, the product of her womanhood, her daughter, never a boy, is Potter's motion towards a new voice, artily signified by the POV shots of the daughter's hand-held video (these shots also serve to break the mold of symmetrical visual structure used by the film as a way of conveying the rigidity of the patriarchal conventions of period narratives).

So, in essence, there's the male dominant ideology, which moves through Orlando as a man and transforms with his transformation into something potentially woman, which then gives way, through Orlando's daughter, into a revolutionary new visual language (the hand held video is probably a nod to the marginalization of women's art, relegated to a cheaper, freer medium). The castrato angel at the end, utterly fantastic, defies this revolution. The words of its song, speaking of "all as one with a human face" speaks of the genderless Orlando. In the end, Potter is not so much concerned with radicalizing feminist cinema as she is with a fair reconstruction of visual language.

Sorry about the breadth of my (possibly incoherent, due to how quickly I wrote it) response. I just wrote a reportedly excellent paper on just this thing, though, so I thought I'd make use of what I got.

[transmogrifier]

"Messed-up chronology = madness/messiness of life" is one of my least favorite narrative strategies. cf: La Vie En Rose.


Yeah, I tend to think it is the lazy choice, because it allows the film-maker to get out of shaping a movie and building momentum - to me, one of the most difficult parts of film, and thus where a lot of its genius lies, is in having some sort of cumulative power emerging from the sequencing of your shots, scenes and sequences. With something like Catch-22, there is none of this, because it stakes out its message immediately (war = madness = confusion = fragmentation) and then spends the rest of the time spinning those wheels, with no real evolution at all.

[Boner M]

Yeah, I tend to think it is the lazy choice, because it allows the film-maker to get out of shaping a movie and building momentum - to me, one of the most difficult parts of film, and thus where a lot of its genius lies, is in having some sort of cumulative power emerging from the sequencing of your shots, scenes and sequences. With something like Catch-22, there is none of this, because it stakes out its message immediately (war = madness = confusion = fragmentation) and then spends the rest of the time spinning those wheels, with no real evolution at all.
I immediately realised that Mulholland Drive also sorta fits into that category, though I think the 'linear/shambles' dichotomy it creates is ultimately more bracing and meaningful than the narrative shuffling in La Vie En Rose, 21 Grams, Before the Devil etc... (h/s Catch 22). With those films it just feels lazy and contrived.

[Qrazy]

Sure, the non-chronological structure is a useful approximation of fragmentation caused by madness, but I don't think it is used very well at all in this case, hence its ultimate pointlessness. I don't think we needed to see the knifing twice, for example, nor did the Snowden scenes do anything except drag out a "gotcha" moment that would have been better there right up front coloring the rest of the film as it lead up to a surreal climax, like the "attack" on the base.

I see the purpose of the Snowden scene both here and in the book as the central defining feature of the character's current (post Snowden) psychology... so it exists not so much as a gotcha moment but as a slow reveal of Yossarian's inner workings and why he's acting the way he is... it's repetition further serves to solidify the moment as 'that haunting memory', the recurring nightmare that he can't shake... and finally it's repetition draws attention to the fact that all these men have similar haunting memories such as Snowden. They all have witnessed horror and become madmen.

[Qrazy]

"Messed-up chronology = madness/messiness of life" is one of my least favorite narrative strategies. cf: La Vie En Rose.

Fair but I still think that's an oversimplification in the case of this film. First off because it's one of the earlier films to employ it, secondly because it doesn't do so off-handedly, the method of fragmentation is thoroughly ingrained in the film's construction, thirdly because war is in my mind one of the most thematically meritorious topics for this formal tactic and finally because it's the execution of narrative devices and formal tropes (more so than the device itself) which determines if the technique succeeds or fails and in this case the execution is superb (although I know the films detractors disagree with this last point).

[transmogrifier]

I immediately realised that Mulholland Drive also sorta fits into that category, though I think the 'linear/shambles' dichotomy it creates is ultimately more bracing and meaningful than the narrative shuffling in La Vie En Rose, 21 Grams, Before the Devil etc... (h/s Catch 22). With those films it just feels lazy and contrived.

Yeah, as you point out, MD specifically provides a contrast between the linear and non-chronological aspects, though the last third is not so much non-chronological as an elaborate flashback (only the scene on the set in the car with Camilla and Adam doesn't quite fit). Plus, and this is the important thing, MD most definitely works up a healthy cumulative power by the end.

[Qrazy]

Yeah, I tend to think it is the lazy choice, because it allows the film-maker to get out of shaping a movie and building momentum - to me, one of the most difficult parts of film, and thus where a lot of its genius lies, is in having some sort of cumulative power emerging from the sequencing of your shots, scenes and sequences. With something like Catch-22, there is none of this, because it stakes out its message immediately (war = madness = confusion = fragmentation) and then spends the rest of the time spinning those wheels, with no real evolution at all.

Except there's a key difference between narrative and tonal momentum and you don't need a linear narrative to build the latter. Also I simply disagree with you about Catch22's tonal momentum... I was thoroughly affected by Milo's rise to power, as well as the slow shift from playful madness to terrifying insanity (prostitute/window)... as well as the the end of the film and Yossarian's final escape attempt. One can have fragmentation and maintain cumulative tonal and aesthetic power. It's also actually aesthetically and thematically very freeing since the filmmaker is no longer bound to our ant's eye-view of temporality... the filmmaker can juxtapose earlier character choices with later, make dynamic cuts interpolating narratively disparate but thematically similar imagery as well as create new and insightful abstractions based on these interpolations.

[transmogrifier]

I see the purpose of the Snowden scene both here and in the book as the central defining feature of the character's current (post Snowden) psychology... so it exists not so much as a gotcha moment but as a slow reveal of Yossarian's inner workings and why he's acting the way he is... it's repetition further serves to solidify the moment as 'that haunting memory', the recurring nightmare that he can't shake... and finally it's repetition draws attention to the fact that all these men have similar haunting memories such as Snowden. They all have witnessed horror and become madmen.

I think it's more or less a matter of taste - I find I am very impatient with films that like to withhold the "haunting memory" with half-explained flashbacks - it's always seemed like a cheap ploy to me to generate a faux-mystery. I much prefer the film to cut to the chase, show us what happened, and then let the rest of the movie unfold without treating us like we can't link what happened at the start of the film with what is happening right now.

In the case of Catch-22, I also think it works against the whole idea of the story (which I assume is to depict the general insanity of orgainzied warfare) to reduce the psychology of the main character to witnessing a single, isolated event.

[transmogrifier]

Except there's a key difference between narrative and tonal momentum and you don't need a linear narrative to build the latter. Also I simply disagree with you about Catch22's tonal momentum... I was thoroughly affected by Milo's rise to power, as well as the slow shift from playful madness to terrifying insanity (prostitute/window)... as well as the the end of the film and Yossarian's final escape attempt. One can have fragmentation and maintain cumulative tonal and aesthetic power. It's also actually aesthetically and thematically very freeing since the filmmaker is no longer bound to our ant's eye-view of temporality... the filmmaker can juxtapose earlier character choices with later, make dynamic cuts interpolating narratively disparate but thematically similar imagery as well as create new and insightful abstractions based on these interpolations.

I agree with everything non-Catch-22 related you say here (bolded). Pity, to my mind, Catch-22 doesn't do any of it.

[Qrazy]

I immediately realised that Mulholland Drive also sorta fits into that category, though I think the 'linear/shambles' dichotomy it creates is ultimately more bracing and meaningful than the narrative shuffling in La Vie En Rose, 21 Grams, Before the Devil etc... (h/s Catch 22). With those films it just feels lazy and contrived.

I've seen the technique lazily applied before but I don't feel it's inherently lazy or even lazy in 21 Grams, Amores Perros, or Babel. In fact it's much more difficult to piece together a film out of chronology than it is to just adopt the obvious linear approach... you have to bear in mind narrative consistency and complications that are much more obvious if you're telling the story in a linear fashion.

Innaritu's mis-steps are not his manipulation of chronology but rather his penchant for narrative contrivance and attempting to force plotting and tragedy... his films would be even less successful if they were linear constructions.

The moments in his films which I enjoy most wouldn't be possible without his non-chronological approach... kids leaning into the wind (babel), light snow fall on a swimming pool (21 Grams), etc.

[Qrazy]

I think it's more or less a matter of taste - I find I am very impatient with films that like to withhold the "haunting memory" with half-explained flashbacks - it's always seemed like a cheap ploy to me to generate a faux-mystery. I much prefer the film to cut to the chase, show us what happened, and then let the rest of the movie unfold without treating us like we can't link what happened at the start of the film with what is happening right now.

In the case of Catch-22, I also think it works against the whole idea of the story (which I assume is to depict the general insanity of orgainzied warfare) to reduce the psychology of the main character to witnessing a single, isolated event.

It's a traumatic event for the main character though... it's 'hidden-ness' is not because the film wishes to talk down to us but because the moment is hidden from the main character himself... he's trying to block it out of his mind. I'm the opposite of you I guess because I prefer character's subjectivity/psychology to bleed into the film itself rather than for the film to take an 'objective' approach to the unfolding of it's events.

Scarring moments are those that tend to stay with us (and are often repressed)... I have my own criticisms against psychoanalysis but frequently emotional trauma can be traced to an isolated event. In this case the isolated event (a companion dying) is also incredibly generalizable which is why I disagree with your criticism that it's psychologically reductive.

[Qrazy]

I agree with everything non-Catch-22 related you say here (bolded). Pity, to my mind, Catch-22 doesn't do any of it.

That's reasonable.

[Qrazy]

Sooo... has Qrazy finally dethroned me as the dude who manages to find time for film-watching even in his sleep?

Nothing quite like a hangover to encourage one to watch films all day.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Just finished The Thin Man. I wish the entire film were as fantastic as William Powell's performance. It's a solid film, but a bit messy and too quick to find a conclusion.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Just finished The Thin Man. I wish the entire film were as fantastic as William Powell's performance. It's a solid film, but a bit messy and too quick to find a conclusion.
Agreed, After the Thin Man is the best of the series if you haven't seen it already. Fixes the problems of the first, and has more Loy/Powell

[Kurosawa Fan]

Agreed, After the Thin Man is the best of the series if you haven't seen it already. Fixes the problems of the first, and has more Loy/Powell

This was my first Thin Man film. I've heard that After is the best before. I'll move it up my queue.

[megladon8]

Agreed, After the Thin Man is the best of the series if you haven't seen it already. Fixes the problems of the first, and has more Loy/Powell


Seconded.

[MacGuffin]

A warning to those who are looking to rent Ils from Netflix: DON'T read their synopsis, as it nearly spoils the movie.

[origami_mustache]

Catch-22 is one of those films that I could see being very good as a stand alone piece, but seeing as how I have read the book, and love it so much, it just seems to be missing a lot of pertinent information to be a total success for me personally.

[Winston*]

Wind Chill - Probably becomes a bit more HORROR FILM than it needs to be in the second half, but on the whole I found it pretty affecting, a good part of that's probably due to the two performances, 'specially Blunt.

[balmakboor]

Sooo... has Qrazy finally dethroned me as the dude who manages to find time for film-watching even in his sleep?

Naw, he's just a guy who watching only the first 20 minutes of a terrific little family film (though formulaic), bashes it with a D+, and then moves on.

[Rowland]

Wind Chill - Probably becomes a bit more HORROR FILM than it needs to be in the second half, but on the whole I found it pretty affecting, a good part of that's probably due to the two performances, 'specially Blunt.I'd say the filmmakers' imaginations run dry by about the halfway mark, after which it grows increasingly tedious and silly. The police officer as an antagonist struck me as wholly unnecessary, cheapening the material with his mere presence.

I loved the Clint Mansell soundtrack (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLCotivk0CI) though, that was probably the most affecting aspect of the film for me. He wrings pathos out of the material that I'm not so sure would work otherwise.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Footlight PArade was standard Berkeley fare, although perhaps somewhat more dissapointing considering the presence of Cagney. His energy, enthousiasm and madness cannot keep the story interesting, although once the musical numbers come into the picture it's easy to forget all the slodge that preceeds it. So far, only Gold Diggers of 1933 strikes me as a film that balances story and dance. Still enjoyable.

[Rowland]

I hate revisiting movies I once loved and realizing they aren't as good as I thought they were the first time around.

[megladon8]

I hate revisiting movies I once loved and realizing they aren't as good as I thought they were the first time around.


This has been happening a lot recently, and it really gets me down.

[megladon8]

Quite a while ago I was very insistent that it doesn't matter if one sees a movie on the big screen. That is to say, you're not "losing" anything by seeing something for the first time on a large TV, rather than in a theatre.

I must respectfully bow my head in shame, and retract this statement.

Cloverfield was still awesome seeing it at home, but I have to say that it just wouldn't be the same experience if one were to see it for the first time on a home TV set, rather than in a theatre.

It loses quite a bit of its punch at home.

[Sven]

I hate revisiting movies I once loved and realizing they aren't as good as I thought they were the first time around.

Secretary?

It was totally yawnsville the first time around.

[Rowland]

Secretary?

It was totally yawnsville the first time around.Yeah. There are still elements that I admire a great deal, and it proves to charm in its way, but it's also poorly paced, laced with unnecessary voice-over, overly mechanical in its structure, and frequently glib in an off-putting manner. Badalamenti's score is dreadful too.

At least Kaufman's Invasion of the Body Snatchers remake holds up like gangbusters.

[Sven]

At least Kaufman's Invasion of the Body Snatchers remake holds up like gangbusters.

Yeah, when you said what you said, I looked at your ratings and saw that one first and was like "no way!" Love that film.

[Qrazy]

Naw, he's just a guy who watching only the first 20 minutes of a terrific little family film (though formulaic), bashes it with a D+, and then moves on.

If they wanted to keep me watching they should have made the first 20 minutes less generic. I was just bored but my friend who was high out of his mind almost had a seizure he was having such a bad trip from the film. I saved his life by shutting it off.

Let it also be known that I was only rating the first 20 minutes which is why I made that clear.

[Winston*]

What are you doing watching The Water Horse, Qrazy, if you're not a child or a parent watching it with your child?

[Qrazy]

What are you doing watching The Water Horse, Qrazy, if you're not a child or a parent watching it with your child?

My friend works at a movie store but unfortunately has terrible taste in film. He brought over Death at a Funeral, The Waterhorse and Strange Wilderness. My preferences for the night... Legend of 1900, Senso and Brand upon the Brain! were outvoted... I've said it once and I'll say it again... democracy just doesn't work.

----

I wanted to love The Stunt Man but just ended up liking it... mostly because Steve Railsback sucked.

[Yxklyx]

Agreed, After the Thin Man is the best of the series if you haven't seen it already. Fixes the problems of the first, and has more Loy/Powell

One of the best films from the 30s.

[Melville]

I'm not sure how you are inferring Orlando abandons her "role". In the end, she's still very much at the service of the patriarchal notion of womanhood. I do not think that anything in the ending indicates a "realer" reality than all the pageantry in the first half. Perhaps if you could clarify how you came to these impressions, I could be more specific.
When Orlando is male, she lives according to the traditional male narrative, archetypes, and Ideals, which are refined and exaggerated by the story and by Potter's play with the typical style of period drama films. But Orlando finds that life never quite lives up to the narrative's ideals—her love affair is a disappointment, her attempt at memorializing it in poetry an even bigger one—and she doesn't want to live up to its ideal of manhood, anyway (evidenced by her rejection of the traditional stoic male role in war). Once she has changed into a woman, she finds that the male narrative she once lived according to relies on subjugating woman. When she flees that subjugation, she arrives in an exaggerated world of Gothic Romance. This segment is depicted with the same ironic tone of the preceding segments, obviously questioning this female fantasy of loving a dark, powerful figure as a mode of freeing oneself from the constraining internalization of the everyday. Finally, in the end, the film shifts to the present day, in which Orlando no longer lives in a traditional male or female narrative. Instead, she specifically comments on the modern narrative; she is now the author. While the publisher of her book still tries to assert control over her narrative, the point is that she is now aware of gender conventions as a narrative; she acknowledges that she needn't identify her own life with that narrative, even if she can never be completely independent of it. This self-awareness mirrors the shift in visual style, from the pageantry of the earlier sections to the more direct, visceral imagery of the hand-held camera; this shift in style is what I took to be a shift into directly-lived reality, as opposed to life lived via a traditional narrative.


The castrato angel at the end, utterly fantastic, defies this revolution.
I'll have to consider your reading of this moment.

[Sven]

Excellent reading, Melville! I must say, that is a pretty interesting angle, and quite separate, despite a few shared instances, from my reading. I will contemplate it. Sorry, no battle this time. :)

[Sven]

An excursion to see The Fall tonite was diverted due to the wife's persistent cough. Sad. On the other hand, there's a very real possibility that I will see Speed Racer tomorrow. We'll see what happens.

[Winston*]

Not that I'm Not There finally comes out in cinemas, I no longer care about it. Oh well, probably catch it on DVD some day,

[Qrazy]

Not that I'm Not There finally comes out in cinemas, I no longer care about it. Oh well, probably catch it on DVD some day,

Why? It's very good. Go check it out.

[Sven]

Not that I'm Not There finally comes out in cinemas, I no longer care about it. Oh well, probably catch it on DVD some day,


Why? It's very good. Go check it out.

It's okay. DVD it.

[Derek]

It's great. Buy the movie poster.

[Sycophant]

It's a film. You'll probably always have the opportunity to watch it from here on out. Your call.

[Winston*]

Derek, why did you choose such obnoxious colours to paint the few positive rating stars that grace your recent viewings list? It's like giving positive ratings makes you so uncomfortable that you have to knock the odd film that slips through the cracks down a peg by smashing it over the head with some giant brush of garishness.

[Sycophant]

Hey, I think I made those stars. For iosos's old site.

[Winston*]

Hey, I think I made those stars. For iosos's old site.
You made the asterix? #FF00FF? #00FF00?

[Sycophant]

You made the asterix? #FF00FF? #00FF00?Oh, those. I thought you meant on the screening log on his website. Nevermind.

[Derek]

Derek, why did you choose such obnoxious colours to paint the few positive rating stars that grace your recent viewings list? It's like giving positive ratings makes you so uncomfortable that you have to knock the odd film that slips through the cracks down a peg by smashing it over the head with some giant brush of garishness.

It's the full-proof internet list color scheme. Blame Dan Sallitt (http://www.panix.com/%7Esallitt/bestfilm.html) for starting it and these (http://jaimefavorites.blogspot.com) guys (http://cansesclasseled.com/wordpress/favorite-films-by-year) for keeping it going. It somehow makes such perfect, logical sense that it never even needs to be explained or quantified, which makes Raiders (http://www.voyeuristicmalady.blogspot .com/) slight bastardization so perplexing. Think of it as a somewhat exclusive, ever-evolving personal canon and no, I don't dislike every film that doesn't get the garish stamp of approval. ** is borderline/mixed and **1/2 means I liked it quite a bit.


Hey, I think I made those stars. For iosos's old site.

Yup, I stole those from his old site. I didn't realize you made those...I can add a credit on the site if you'd like. :)

[Winston*]

and no, I don't dislike every film that doesn't get the garish stamp of approval. ** is borderline/mixed and **1/2 means I liked it quite a bit.

I am aware of your Slant-esque rating system.

[Derek]

I am aware of your Slant-esque rating system.

Then you'd realize that I like some of those other films too. I'll be more than happy to stop it with the colors if it means we can stop talking about rating scales.

EDIT: Preemptive strike.

[Qrazy]

It's the full-proof internet list color scheme. Blame Dan Sallitt (http://www.panix.com/%7Esallitt/bestfilm.html) for starting it and these (http://jaimefavorites.blogspot.com) guys (http://cansesclasseled.com/wordpress/favorite-films-by-year) for keeping it going. It somehow makes such perfect, logical sense that it never even needs to be explained or quantified

How so?

[Winston*]

Then you'd realize that I like some of those other films too. I'll be more than happy to stop it with the colors if it means we can stop talking about rating scales.

EDIT: Preemptive strike.
Hey man, I'm not telling you to change your colours. That would be overstepping my bounds. Your colours are your business and no one can take that away from you. Go forth and rate, in as many and whichever colours you please.

[Derek]

How so?

I can't explain it, it just made sense instinctively when I originally put the list together.


Hey man, I'm not telling you to change your colours. That would be overstepping my bounds. Your colours are your business and no one can take that away from you. Go forth and rate, in as many and whichever colours you please.

Nah, if it helps avoid confusion and future scale-related discussion, I'll do my part.

[Sycophant]

Yup, I stole those from his old site. I didn't realize you made those...I can add a credit on the site if you'd like. :)Nah, credit's not necessary. But now you know. And knowing is half the battle.

[Derek]

Nah, credit's not necessary. But now you know. And knowing is half the battle.

Thanks Sycho!!

http://rickbeckman.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/gijoe.jpg

[Ezee E]

More afterthoughts on Youth Without Youth, all of which contain spoilers.



The scene in which Roth uses telekinesis when held at gunpoint is right up there with any other great scene that Coppola has done.

[Qrazy]

Rank/rate Tony Scott's filmography.

[Sven]

Rank/rate Tony Scott's filmography.

1 Beat the Devil - his masterpiece - ****
2 True Romance - fun stuff - ***1/2
3 Enemy of the State - also fun - ***
4 Man on Fire - there's something inexplicably fascinating about it - ***
5 Top Gun - ridiculous, but apt - **1/2
6 The Hunger - Disappointing, but watchable - **1/2
7 The Last Boy Scout - meh - **
8 Days of Thunder - sorta boring - **
9 Domino - too much and yet, not enough - **
10 Crimson Tide - nothing interesting happens - **
11 The Fan - sloppy and awful - *1/2
12 Revenge - see above - *1/2

A few of these (mostly numbers 10-12) I should probably give another shot, as I don't remember them too well, and tastes change and all that. Should probably see Beverly Hills Cop II at some point. I have Spy Game in my possession, but cannot bring myself to watch it, because it looks like the most boring movie ever.

[Qrazy]

1 Beat the Devil - his masterpiece - ****
2 True Romance - fun stuff - ***1/2
3 Enemy of the State - also fun - ***
4 Man on Fire - there's something inexplicably fascinating about it - ***
5 Top Gun - ridiculous, but apt - **1/2
6 The Hunger - Disappointing, but watchable - **1/2
7 The Last Boy Scout - meh - **
8 Days of Thunder - sorta boring - **
9 Domino - too much and yet, not enough - **
10 Crimson Tide - nothing interesting happens - **
11 The Fan - sloppy and awful - *1/2
12 Revenge - see above - *1/2

A few of these (mostly numbers 10-12) I should probably give another shot, as I don't remember them too well, and tastes change and all that. Should probably see Beverly Hills Cop II at some point. I have Spy Game in my possession, but cannot bring myself to watch it, because it looks like the most boring movie ever.

Is Beat the Devil a remake of Huston's? Something tells me no but I've gotta ask. I know Clipper Ship is a huge Beverly Hills Cop II fan... it was in his top 10 at some point.

[Sven]

Is Beat the Devil a remake of Huston's? Something tells me no but I've gotta ask. I know Clipper Ship is a huge Beverly Hills Cop II fan... it was in his top 10 at some point.

No, it's his BMW short film with James Brown, Clive Owen, Gary Oldman, Marilyn Manson, and Danny Trejo. It's incredible.

Love Huston's film, though. Might go see it at a Jennifer Jones retrospective in Manhattan in the next few weeks.

[Qrazy]

No, it's his BMW short film with James Brown, Clive Owen, Gary Oldman, Marilyn Manson, and Danny Trejo. It's incredible.

Love Huston's film, though. Might go see it at a Jennifer Jones retrospective in Manhattan in the next few weeks.

Ahhh I have seen his Beat the Devil then and I think I may actually agree with you that it's his best (only also seen Enemy of the State, True Romance and snippets of Top Gun).

[Sven]

By the way, Q, your Fata Morgana rating is so, so, so, so very wrong.

[baby doll]

Rank/rate Tony Scott's filmography.

Deja Vu (2006) / ***1/2
Domino (2005) / ****
Man on Fire (2004) / **
Enemy of the State (1998) / **
True Romance (1993) / ***
Top Gun (1986) / **
The Hunger (1983) / **

[Winston*]

Fata Morgana > Tony Scott movies

[Qrazy]

By the way, Q, your Fata Morgana rating is so, so, so, so very wrong.

Ehh it never really congealed for me nor did The Wild Blue Yonder... I like the idea behind both films more than the end result (although Fata Morgana has some quality imagery sprinkled throughout). Out of the three docs of his I've seen, The Ecstasy of Woodcarver Steiner has been my favorite.

I could conceivably bump it to a B but I find the minus conveys my initial disappointment more effectively.

[Qrazy]

Fata Morgana > Tony Scott movies

True.

[Raiders]

Rank/rate Tony Scott's filmography.

Deja Vu [67]
True Romance [64]
Enemy of the State [53]
Crimson Tide [48]
The Hunger [41]
Top Gun [38]
Days of Thunder [35]
Man on Fire [26]

[Raiders]

It somehow makes such perfect, logical sense that it never even needs to be explained or quantified, which makes Raiders (http://www.voyeuristicmalady.blogspot .com/) slight bastardization so perplexing.

Eh, except my lists show every film from that year (as opposed to yours and Jaime's which show only those you liked) and I didn't really feel like getting into typing stars after every freakin' movie. I wasn't really using that exact system, just kind of doing something that made sense to me. I think the poster-formally-known-as-Laszlo Kovacs uses my method, only breaking it down in more colors (I essentially used purple for all films I flat-out disliked where he uses about three colors for that purpose).

[Scar]

I enjoy Spy Game quite a bit, and, iosos, you should give Crimson Tide another shot.

[Melville]

I wish the entire film were as fantastic as William Powell's performance.
That was my response to all of his films that I've seen. He's pretty awesome.


Excellent reading, Melville! I must say, that is a pretty interesting angle, and quite separate, despite a few shared instances, from my reading. I will contemplate it. Sorry, no battle this time. :)
Yeah, definitely no need for a battle. I think your reading is perfectly valid, even if equating the hand-held cinematography with a revolutionary feminist cinema seems like a bit of a stretch. Thanks for the detailed response.

[Raiders]

Wind Chill - Probably becomes a bit more HORROR FILM than it needs to be in the second half, but on the whole I found it pretty affecting, a good part of that's probably due to the two performances, 'specially Blunt.

Indeed.

[balmakboor]

More afterthoughts on Youth Without Youth, all of which contain spoilers.



The scene in which Roth uses telekinesis when held at gunpoint is right up there with any other great scene that Coppola has done.


Yep. And I'd add the scenes with Roth having sex with the Nazi chick to that list as well.

[Melville]

Tony Scott:

Top Gun - 3.5
Days of Thunder - 3.5
The Last Boy Scout - 4
Crimson Tide - 4
Enemy of the State - 5.5
Beat the Devil - 5.5

[Grouchy]

True Romance and The Hunger are very good, and Beat the Devil and Domino are entertaining messes. The James Brown factor elevates Beat the Devil to awesomeness, though.

Huston's Beat the Devil is one of the most overlooked genre satires ever.

[transmogrifier]

Tony Scott > Ridley Scott

[Qrazy]

Tony Scott > Ridley Scott

Alien, Blade Runner and The Duellists > All of Tony Scott's films (that I've seen... assuming I've seen three of his best efforts)

And I'm not even particularly in love with those three Ridley films.

[Qrazy]

The Addiction has a great central premise but I found the execution wanting... for starters the script (both settings and dialogue) is painfully sophomoric... secondly the entire affair would have benefited from a less pretentious lead character... finally the direction (both visual and otherwise) is serviceable but not particularly compelling in any respect... there are few lasting images, memorable scenarios, or moments of pathos.

[transmogrifier]

Alien, Blade Runner and The Duellists > All of Tony Scott's films

I'll give you Alien, but I'd have to take Spy Game, Crimson Tide, Enemy of the State and The Last Boy Scout over any other Ridley film (that I've seen - haven't seen The Duellists). Ridley is a complete hack. Tony is a hack that makes more entertaining movies.

[origami_mustache]

1 Beat the Devil - his masterpiece - ****


If a shitty BMW short is his directorial masterpiece...that doesn't say much for his career.

p.s. I really hated this

[Sycophant]

I could've sworn I'd seen more.

True Romance 82
Beat the Devil 80
Man on Fire 36

[Qrazy]

Huh I never realized the two of them were brothers.

[Qrazy]

I'll give you Alien, but I'd have to take Spy Game, Crimson Tide, Enemy of the State and The Last Boy Scout over any other Ridley film (that I've seen - haven't seen The Duellists). Ridley is a complete hack. Tony is a hack that makes more entertaining movies.

Personally I feel that if I'm going to watch Hollywood schlock it should at least be pleasant to look at schlock.

[Qrazy]

What are the best (most consistent) film production/release companies in your opinion? I know I'm always very happy to see a Focus Features logo at the beginning of a film... and Pixar obviously.

[Raiders]

What are the best (most consistent) film production/release companies in your opinion? I know I'm always very happy to see a Focus Features logo at the beginning of a film... and Pixar obviously.

Janus Films.

[Grouchy]

Huh I never realized the two of them were brothers.
Heh.

The Addiction is my favorite Ferrara film along with King of New York and Bad Lieutenant. I thought it was a really original and thought-provoking take on vampirism.

And no, not even joking is Tony a better director than Ridley. Tony has a lot of very cool actor friends, I'll give him that.

[Sycophant]

Tony has a lot of very cool actor friends, I'll give him that.Yeah, even though Brett Ratner keeps all of today's hottest male acting and singing talent in his basement, that doesn't make him a great director either.

[Qrazy]

Heh.

The Addiction is my favorite Ferrara film along with King of New York and Bad Lieutenant. I thought it was a really original and thought-provoking take on vampirism.


Original yes... thought provoking ehhh... if it had buried it's ideas in it's world it could have been, but as it is now half the dialogue consists of crib notes from the texts of dead philosophers and the other half consists of over-simplified condensations of those texts coupled with absurd sophomoric ramblings... 'medicine is just an extended metaphor for omnipotence'? Yikes. This character is supposed to be finishing her doctoral thesis not taking her first philosophy exam.

[Rowland]

True Romance - ***
Beat the Devil - ***
Domino - **½
Man on Fire - **½
The Last Boy Scout - **½
Deja Vu - **
Days of Thunder - **
The Hunger - **
Spy Game - *½
Top Gun - *½
Revenge - *
Beverly Hills Cop II - *

[Morris Schæffer]

True Romance - ***
Enemy of the State - **½
Man on Fire - **½
Top Gun - **
The Last Boy Scout - ***
Days of Thunder - *
Crimson Tide - ***
The Fan - ½
Deja Vu - *

The Last Boy Scout is hilarious. I think Shane Black scripted that one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvIVe28-T_0

[lovejuice]

The Last Boy Scout is hilarious. I think Shane Black scripted that one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvIVe28-T_0

i luv the last boy scout! thank 4 reminding me this.

[Watashi]

Why have so many of you seen almost all of Tony Scott's films?

I've only seen two (Enemy of the State and Spy Game) and they were both the mehhest of mehs.

[soitgoes...]

True Romance (1993) - 7
Crimson Tide (1995) - 6.5
Top Gun (1986) - 5.5
Spy Game (2001) - 5
Enemy of the State (1998) - 4.5
Man on Fire (2004) - 3.5
Beverly Hills Cop II (1987) - 3
The Last Boy Scout (1991) - 1.5
The Fan (1996) - 1.5

[number8]

The scene in which Roth uses telekinesis when held at gunpoint is right up there with any other great scene that Coppola has done.

Love that scene.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I was fairly disappointed by The Naked Spur. Stewart was great (though I don't think it's his best performance) but the story felt flat all the way through. It has a great finale, and a brilliant piece of dialogue during its conclusion, but overall it's only a moderate recommendation.

[Rowland]

I was fairly disappointed by The Naked Spur. Stewart was great (though I don't think it's his best performance) but the story felt flat all the way through. It has a great finale, and a brilliant piece of dialogue during its conclusion, but overall it's only a moderate recommendation.Yeah, I liked this just fine at the time, but it didn't leave much of an impression, because I can hardly remember anything about it. Winchester '73 was much better.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Yeah, I liked this just fine at the time, but it didn't leave much of an impression, because I can hardly remember anything about it. Winchester '73 was much better.

That's coming up on my queue fairly soon. I'm still looking forward to it.

As for the piece of dialogue at the end of Spur,

I loved when Stewart whipped around after throwing Ben over the back of his horse and says to Janet Leigh, "I'm going to trade his dead body for money!". Pretty intense, and Stewart delivered it perfectly.

[Raiders]

I was fairly disappointed by The Naked Spur. Stewart was great (though I don't think it's his best performance) but the story felt flat all the way through. It has a great finale, and a brilliant piece of dialogue during its conclusion, but overall it's only a moderate recommendation.

I find most of my favorite westerns (Mann and Boetticher) don't have much in the way of story. Simply mood and a great sense of determinism.

[MadMan]

Speaking of Ridley Scott, I saw Alien over the weekend and realized that aside from some notable flaws it is a truly great film, and one of the best of the horror/sci-fi hybrids that were really prominent in the 1950s. When I woke up I actually thought out a decent review of the film, but I lost it after breakfest. I hate it when that happens....and you only have to look at the Rideley Scott consensus to see that I'm a fairly big fan of his work.

As for Tony Scott, I've liked most of the films I've seen from him as well. Granted I've only viewed The Last Boy Scout (highly underrated), Man On Fire (which I actually still like despite its ethics), the entertaining piece of 80s cheese Top Gun, True Romance which is really good (but was really QT's movie anyways), and the best film I've seen out of the ones I've viewed from him, Enemy of the State, which I think is a good companion piece to The Conversation. He's decent best, but I actually want to see more of his films, especially The Hunger. As for Ridley I eventually want to view The Dualists.

[number8]

I just watched the worst movie of the year today.

The Strangers left me seriously pissed off. Not "Man, I can't believe I wasted 90 minutes watching a shitty movie" pissed off, but "I'm going to find whoever made this nihilistic piece of shit and subject him to the same torture he depicted in his movie" pissed off.

[MacGuffin]

I just watched the worst movie of the year today.

The Strangers left me seriously pissed off. Not "Man, I can't believe I wasted 90 minutes watching a shitty movie" pissed off, but "I'm going to find whoever made this nihilistic piece of shit and subject him to the same torture he depicted in his movie" pissed off.

Good. America could use a nihilistic non pussy horror movie. I'm looking forward to it.

[Bosco B Thug]

Good. America could use a nihilistic non pussy horror movie. I'm looking forward to it. No man, I'm pretty sure he means that the movie's just a cheap, lazy, useless waste of film.

[MacGuffin]

No man, I'm pretty sure he means that the movie's just a cheap, lazy, useless waste of film.

:eek: Easy tiger.

[origami_mustache]

I'm getting really sick of the word "nihilistic."

[balmakboor]

Why have so many of you seen almost all of Tony Scott's films?

I've only seen two (Enemy of the State and Spy Game) and they were both the mehhest of mehs.

I know. When someone's ratings average 2 stars out of four (or five; I can't really tell because the top rating is ***), why persist by seeing 12 of them?

I've seen Top Gun (D-), True Romance (B), and Crimson Tide (B-). I'm only interested in still seeing Domino, and only because someone here thinks its lightning in a bottle.

[megladon8]

I'm getting really sick of the word "nihilistic."


Yes, it's pretentious. :P

[balmakboor]

I'm getting really sick of the word "nihilistic."

I'm sick of pretty much all "-istics" and the "-isms" they spring from. They try too hard to pidgeonhole things.

[Sven]

I'm getting really sick of the word "nihilistic."

How so?

[balmakboor]

Yes, it's pretentious. :P

:)

[Rowland]

I know. When someone's ratings average 2 stars out of four (or five; I can't really tell because the top rating is ***), why persist by seeing 12 of them?I take it I'm being singled out then. I've seen them over the years, it's not as though I sat through his entire filmography in a week.

[balmakboor]

I take it I'm being singled out then. I've seen them over the years, it's not as though I sat through his entire filmography in a week.

Not singled out. Just a handy example when a handy example was needed to be handy.

[Qrazy]

I take it I'm being singled out then. I've seen them over the years, it's not as though I sat through his entire filmography in a week.

Yeah I'd say he's a relatively popular (more or less) mainstream director. His films are for sure floating around dorm rooms, home theaters and the like.

[Rowland]

Not singled out. Just a handy example when a handy example was needed to be handy.Uh huh.

[origami_mustache]

How so?


I'm sick of pretty much all "-istics" and the "-isms" they spring from. They try too hard to pidgeonhole things.

Yes...it's just a ridiculously overgeneralized term that denotes a black and white distinction.

[balmakboor]

His films are for sure floating around dorm rooms...

Now that is something I wouldn't know. When I was dealing with dorm rooms, the fight was over whether the geeks like me could tune into Cosmos on Sunday night on the community television set. I was a junior in college when I brought this strange machine home that played beta videotapes. My roommate just stared at it and thought I was off my rocker. Then I got him hooked on De Palma movies and he saw the light.

[Sven]

Yes...it's just a ridiculously overgeneralized term that denotes a black and white distinction.

I can see it being used aptly. I think it probably has become a sort of "buzzword" that people throw around willy-nilly, but it has its merit. I'd say the majority of horror films, intrinsically, are nihilistic in the end. The value of human life is cheapened for the service of entertainment, and the like.

[origami_mustache]

I can see it being used aptly. I think it probably has become a sort of "buzzword" that people throw around willy-nilly, but it has its merit. I'd say the majority of horror films, intrinsically, are nihilistic in the end. The value of human life is cheapened for the service of entertainment, and the like.

I can agree with that, but the word is losing it's merit when it becomes used so often...by next year it will be a genre.

[Sven]

by next year it will be a genre.

...and I'll probably argue in circles about it with Qrazy, I know the drill.

[number8]

I can agree with that, but the word is losing it's merit when it becomes used so often...by next year it will be a genre.

It already is. The Strangers is just the end point of this progression. I can't really discuss it much without spoiling the ending, but...

The movie is just 90 near-real time minutes of three faceless intruders attacking a couple, for no absolute motive whatsoever other than they're "home", and then killing them. The couple never got a leg up, the strangers never got hurt. They just toy with them for 90 minutes and then they stab them to death. That is it. Its primary message is that "fucked up things happen, you can't do anything about it, and there's no reason for them happening... they just do." It's a pointless movie, both in merit and intention.

It drives me up the walls.

[Qrazy]

Now that is something I wouldn't know. When I was dealing with dorm rooms, the fight was over whether the geeks like me could tune into Cosmos on Sunday night on the community television set. I was a junior in college when I brought this strange machine home that played beta videotapes. My roommate just stared at it and thought I was off my rocker. Then I got him hooked on De Palma movies and he saw the light.

That's awesome... except for the De Palma bit... ;)

[Qrazy]

I can see it being used aptly. I think it probably has become a sort of "buzzword" that people throw around willy-nilly, but it has its merit. I'd say the majority of horror films, intrinsically, are nihilistic in the end. The value of human life is cheapened for the service of entertainment, and the like.

Yeah it's frustrating when terms like Nihilistic and pretentious are devalued by being bandied about willy-nilly on internet forums because there are most certainly situations where the label applies and where there's no other term that fits the bill as well.

[megladon8]

It kind of sounds like a less well-made Funny Games.

[transmogrifier]

It kind of sounds like a less well-made Funny Games.


I'm thinking Funny Games had a point, whether you agreed with it or not.

[Watashi]

Rewatched Raiders of the Lost Ark today. Still holds up beautifully, but my God, the editing during that truck sequence is just jaw-dropping.

[Bosco B Thug]

:eek: Easy tiger. Sorry. I suppose three adjectives was a bit much for a film I haven't seen yet. I stuck in "lazy" there last minute because I thought it was important.

Watched Ingmar Bergman's Smiles of a Summer Night. Liked it a lot. I wish I can be more critically exacting on the film... enjoyed it... Bergman's heavy directing style has a nice juxtaposition with this lighter material. I watched it to compare it to the Sondheim musical adaption A Little Night Music. Pretty much identical plot-wise, but of course there are tonal changes as it was adapted into a musical comedy. The movie has an overt political undercurrent and more complex characterizations, but the musical adaption wisely omits the "boisterous and lively farmhand" character (Frid), whom I could have done without in the film.

[megladon8]

Rewatched Raiders of the Lost Ark today. Still holds up beautifully, but my God, the editing during that truck sequence is just jaw-dropping.


I still have a hard time discerning what "great editing" is.

I don't really know what I'm looking for.

[Watashi]

X2 (Singer, 2003) ***

Nice.

[Watashi]

I just watched the worst movie of the year today.

The Strangers left me seriously pissed off. Not "Man, I can't believe I wasted 90 minutes watching a shitty movie" pissed off, but "I'm going to find whoever made this nihilistic piece of shit and subject him to the same torture he depicted in his movie" pissed off.

Apparently Slant disagrees with you. (http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/film_review.asp?ID=3672)

[Derek]

Nice.

I have no idea why I waited so long to see this since I liked the first one almost as much. Singer really knows how to direct a comic book film. I'm really not looking forward to seeing a Brian Cox-less, Ratner-directed follow-up though (duh), but I'll probably watch it out of morbid curiosity.

[Boner M]

Is 'nihilism' really the word we're after... or is it existentialism? :eek:

[MadMan]

Is 'nihilism' really the word we're after... or is it existentialism? :eek:Maybe we're looking for "mind blowing amazingnessalism. Which isn't even a word. But maybe it should be. Maybe.


Rewatched Raiders of the Lost Ark today. Still holds up beautifully, but my God, the editing during that truck sequence is just jaw-dropping.The truck chase sequence is indeed still amazing. What I loved was how on the recent DVD release of the film they showed how the melting face was done. Cool stuff.


It kind of sounds like a less well-made Funny Games.Yeah I think that applies. Which reminds me, I still need to see that film so I can join in the fun never ending discussion over its overall value. Heh.


It already is. The Strangers is just the end point of this progression. I can't really discuss it much without spoiling the ending, but...

The movie is just 90 near-real time minutes of three faceless intruders attacking a couple, for no absolute motive whatsoever other than they're "home", and then killing them. The couple never got a leg up, the strangers never got hurt. They just toy with them for 90 minutes and then they stab them to death. That is it. Its primary message is that "fucked up things happen, you can't do anything about it, and there's no reason for them happening... they just do." It's a pointless movie, both in merit and intention.

It drives me up the walls.Your spoilered comments remind me of Ebert's thoughts on a film called Chaos. Having read the spoiler, I actually think that my previous thoughts on the film based on the trailer (aka that it looked like cheap, pointless suburb paranoia meets torture porn) may haven't been as pre-judgemental as I thought. Still I may seek out the film if I so feel like it. I'm too busy catching up old school flicks, although I did take time to see the latest Romero film. My knee jerk early thoughts:

Oh and I just got home from a friend's house, where we watched Diary of the Dead, Romero's new film. I'll admit that I was scared out of my mind by many parts of the film, and that while the film isn't great or anything special it is still a well made, thoughtful film with some decent social and political commentary. Especially on the media and how easily controlled it is, and the fact that when the commercialized mass media fails, perhaps its up to the common folk (especially those online) to bring us the actual truth and tell what is really going on. I give the film a strong 83, and I look forward to seeing the other film that used POV camera from 2007, Cloverfield.

[Boner M]

Been watching lots of Kaurismaki recently for film class, he's an addictive dude. None of his films really stand out, but they're all delightful and seem to fit whatever mood I'm in. A consistent filmmaker if there ever was one, though I wonder if/when he'll become 'boringly consistent'. For now, he hits the spot.

[Raiders]

Is 'nihilism' really the word we're after... or is it existentialism? :eek:

Since reading this post, I can't get out of my head this James Lipton commercial here for car insurance where he is "speaking for" this guy who is telling a story about his great car insurance. At one point, Lipton narrates "you had questions... how existential."

[Rowland]

Apparently Slant disagrees with you. (http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/film_review.asp?ID=3672)Intere sting.

Hey, how did you find the review before it was linked on the site?

[Qrazy]

How's Body Snatchers (Ferrara)?

[Rowland]

How's Body Snatchers (Ferrara)?Passable... *shrug*

[Kurosawa Fan]

Another fairly disappointing film with The Miracle of Morgan's Creek. The material was certainly risque for 1944, and it's commendable that Sturges didn't cave to pressure and made his film, but it hasn't aged well. Eddie Bracken's constant stammering was more irritating than humorous, and many of the physical comedy bits weren't staged particularly well. I liked Betty Hutton, and her sister was great, and there were moments that made me laugh, but coming from Sturges this just wasn't as good as I was hoping it would be.

[Raiders]

How's Body Snatchers (Ferrara)?

Pretty fun, I thought. I think the film's commentary (albeit rather juvenile) on the military's dehumanization is a pretty nifty idea for the alien invasion.

[Raiders]

Another fairly disappointing film with The Miracle of Morgan's Creek. The material was certainly risque for 1944, and it's commendable that Sturges didn't cave to pressure and made his film, but it hasn't aged well. Eddie Bracken's constant stammering was more irritating than humorous, and many of the physical comedy bits weren't staged particularly well. I liked Betty Hutton, and her sister was great, and there were moments that made me laugh, but coming from Sturges this just wasn't as good as I was hoping it would be.

Psh. It's his best film. I think your love of Speed Racer has thrown a rift in the space-time continuum and altered your perception of quality film.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Psh. It's his best film. I think your love of Speed Racer has thrown a rift in the space-time continuum and altered your perception of quality film.

:lol:

I figured you'd have something to say about that. This film isn't in the same league as The Lady Eve. Not even close.

[Raiders]

This film isn't in the same league as The Lady Eve.

You're right. It's one higher.

[Kurosawa Fan]

You're right. It's one higher.

You're loony. About this and Speed Racer.

[Sven]

Criterion's newsletter droppin' some hints that it's going to be releasing a bunch of Ophuls in the fall. AWESOME!!

[balmakboor]

Criterion's newsletter droppin' some hints that it's going to be releasing a bunch of Ophuls in the fall. AWESOME!!

Yes, I smell a Cassavetes size boxset.

[Watashi]

Even though I'm late to the Fuller consensus, I was blown away by The Big Red One. So much that I want to check out all of Fuller's work right now. I moved everything from him to the top of my queue.

[Raiders]

Even though I'm late to the Fuller consensus, I was blown away by The Big Red One. So much that I want to check out all of Fuller's work right now. I moved everything from him to the top of my queue.

OK... I'll give you rep for this. I don't imagine you'll be as blown away by the majority of his stuff, but I'm always glad when people seek out his films.

[Watashi]

OK... I'll give you rep for this. I don't imagine you'll be as blown away by the majority of his stuff, but I'm always glad when people seek out his films.
Hmmm.... White Dog doesn't appear to be on Netflix. Though I did find some information that's it's planning to go Criterion soon.

[Raiders]

Hmmm.... White Dog doesn't appear to be on Netflix. Though I did find some information that's it's planning to go Criterion soon.

Who knows at this point. It needs a proper DVD release, 'cuz my bootleg DVD copy is pretty much destroyed (quality was terrible to begin with, I think it was a VHS rip) and it has been too long since I have been able to watch this film.

[Derek]

Psh. It's his best film. I think your love of Speed Racer has thrown a rift in the space-time continuum and altered your perception of quality film.

Indeed. Although I'm particularly excited to see Baby Mama now that I know it's better than Miracle... and Naked Spur!

[Spinal]

So, apparently Watashi is immune to the Speed Racer mind-warp effect.

[Raiders]

So, apparently Watashi is immune to the Speed Racer mind-warp effect.

No, it just effected him opposite. Bad taste is now good taste.

[monolith94]

So… accattone, the scrounger (pasolini's first film) was… ok. Good, in that it was sophisticated and used real locations admirably. All in all, it felt very true to impoverished, lazy, southern italian life. But not so good in that the plot was ultimately a bit predictable, and the pacing could be lethargic without purpose.

Kind of like the main character. Also, the dvd is really bad. Bad transfer, and hard to read subtitles.

[Ezee E]

Even though I'm late to the Fuller consensus, I was blown away by The Big Red One. So much that I want to check out all of Fuller's work right now. I moved everything from him to the top of my queue.
See Pickup on South Street immediately.

Damnit, I need to finish that movie (Big Red One)

[number8]

Todd Haynes looks like Mark Hamill.

[Qrazy]

Todd Haynes looks like Mark Hamill.

Todd Haynes is Mark Hamill.

[number8]

Todd Haynes is Mark Hamill.

I'm scared.

[MadMan]

Psh. It's his best film. I think your love of Speed Racer has thrown a rift in the space-time continuum and altered your perception of quality film.I have a feeling I will love Speed Racer. But that's just me.


Another fairly disappointing film with The Miracle of Morgan's Creek. The material was certainly risque for 1944, and it's commendable that Sturges didn't cave to pressure and made his film, but it hasn't aged well. Eddie Bracken's constant stammering was more irritating than humorous, and many of the physical comedy bits weren't staged particularly well. I liked Betty Hutton, and her sister was great, and there were moments that made me laugh, but coming from Sturges this just wasn't as good as I was hoping it would be.Bummer man. I was hoping you would enjoy it. I saw it on TCM earlier this year and thought it was a hilarious and highly entertaining picture. Eddie Bracken was pretty funny in the entire thing, although the pistol wielding dad was the film's most humorous character.

Also why do people hate Day of the Dead? Its a near great film. More on this later when I finally see Land of the Dead, as I want to cover all of Romero's "Dead" films. Not that I really ever write anything anymore, but hey it could happen. I'm optimistic for once.

[origami_mustache]

Bummer man. I was hoping you would enjoy it. I saw it on TCM earlier this year and thought it was a hilarious and highly entertaining picture. Eddie Bracken was pretty funny in the entire thing, although the pistol wielding dad was the film's most humorous character.



Yep, the dad was my favorite character. I wasn't that fond of Betty Hutton, as the female lead, but loved the younger sister, and thought Eddie Bracken did well enough, even though I wasn't enthused about his stammering either.

[balmakboor]

Also why do people hate Day of the Dead? Its a near great film. More on this later when I finally see Land of the Dead, as I want to cover all of Romero's "Dead" films. Not that I really ever write anything anymore, but hey it could happen. I'm optimistic for once.

Day of the Dead is my favorite Romero film and one of my favorite zombie films along with Dead Alive and Return of the Living Dead.

[Grouchy]

Most people (including me) are turned off by the music in Day of the Dead. Also, except maybe for Dawn, none of the Dead movies have any great acting, but Day is simply too much. Those military dudes act like frat boys. Otherwise it's good stuff. Love the opening sequence with the hands, the climatic scene and gotta love Bub. I think Land is a lot worse, to tell you the truth.

Just seen Tom Horn. Loved it. I read on IMDb that Steve McQueen had no less four directors fired during production, so it's safe to assume that he directed the movie himself. The editing was its strongest point, having dialogue from the scene before play over the next one and cutting to black with sound from scene to scene. Very modern and stylish. Aging McQueen is as cool as ever, and he plays a more amiable guy than usual, which is ironic considering Tom Horn was one of the most prolific killers of the Old West. Some fun stuff - Tom Horn apparently survived the hanging, lived well into his 100s and became a Disney producer and theme park guy:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1334297/

If you don't get it, just check the earliest writing credit.

[transmogrifier]

It's getting the the stage these days that I'll open a thread here and be disappointed it has erupted into a torrent of naked bile.

[Boner M]

Propaganda rulz.

[megladon8]

Most people (including me) are turned off by the music in Day of the Dead. Also, except maybe for Dawn, none of the Dead movies have any great acting, but Day is simply too much. Those military dudes act like frat boys. Otherwise it's good stuff. Love the opening sequence with the hands, the climatic scene and gotta love Bub. I think Land is a lot worse, to tell you the truth.


I must disagree with your quip about the acting.

Both Barbara and Ben were played very well.

In fact, Duane Jones' turn as Ben is one of my favorite performances.

[Rowland]

Huh. So I apparently considered Casino the equal of Goodfellas once upon a time.

WTF. Talk about tedium...

[Raiders]

Huh. So I apparently considered Casino the equal of Goodfellas once upon a time.

WTF. Talk about tedium...

Amen. I think you still rated it too high.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Baby Face (1933) was SOooooo goooooodddd....

Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian (2008) was SSooooooo BAAAdddddd....

Meh.

[Rowland]

Amen. I think you still rated it too high.Possibly. I was amazed by how boring and incoherent it more than often proved to be, and a bit embarrassed that I had hyped it up so much beforehand to the sleepy-eyed, distracted people with whom I watched it.

[Melville]

Baby Face (1933) was SOooooo goooooodddd....

Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian (2008) was SSooooooo BAAAdddddd....

Meh.
Thoughts on Punch-Drunk Love?

[Melville]

Propaganda rulz.
Exactly.


Huh. So I apparently considered Casino the equal of Goodfellas once upon a time.

WTF. Talk about tedium...
I haven't seen Casino in about 8 years, but I remember thinking it was better than Goodfellas. And after rewatching Goodfellas a year or so ago, I decided it wasn't as good as I had remembered. So maybe a rewatch of Casino would result in me no longer being a fan of either one.

[Sven]

Casino is so much better than Goodfellas it hurts. It helps that, like Melville, I'm not that impressed with Goodfellas, though I like it alright. A bit long.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Thoughts on Punch-Drunk Love?
I don't really have any real thoughts, I was just let completely uninspired by any of the proceedings. I felt these strong emotions running through the characters but failed to connect, or empathise with them. It just fell entirely flat for me. I can't pin down why exactly, maybe I was in an off mood. I just found the entire film to be completely forgettable, and at times unbearably long. I read about it, and find it interesting, and certainly see a lot of what is being said in the film, but it doesn't mean anything to me.

[Winston*]

I was watching Lone Star last night and I was like "I remember considering this a really good movie when I watched it before and it seems my impressions were accurate", and then about an hour in scratches prevented the disc from going further and I was like "I don't believe that happened on my previous viewing, the poor state of this rental DVD makes me unhappy".

[soitgoes...]

I was watching Lone Star last night and I was like "I remember considering this a really good movie when I watched it before and it seems my impressions were accurate", and then about an hour in scratches prevented the disc from going further and I was like "I don't believe that happened on my previous viewing, the poor state of this rental DVD makes me unhappy".
I believe that was Sayles's original intent. You got the director's cut. :P

[Rowland]

Casino is so much better than Goodfellas it hurts. It's more technically proficient, I'll give it that. Otherwise, I can't think of a single element it executes better...

[megladon8]

Baby Face (1933) was SOooooo goooooodddd...


I'm intrigued.

[Raiders]

Casino is so much better than Goodfellas it hurts. It helps that, like Melville, I'm not that impressed with Goodfellas, though I like it alright. A bit long.

This makes sense to me. Someone capable of thinking Goodfellas is not a very good film also seems capable of considering Casino to be the better film.

[Winston*]

I believe that was Sayles's original intent. You got the director's cut. :P

Ah, so it's symbolic. Like I've had to cope with being unable to watch this DVD, much like the Mexican and black people living in Texas had to cope with racism .

[Ezee E]

It's more technically proficient, I'll give it that. Otherwise, I can't think of a single element it executes better...
I really love the way they set up how the casino business works. The craftmanship tells the story in many of these cases, and that's why those particular scenes are masterful.

I love everything about the movie, but that's the highlight.

[megladon8]

I didn't dislike Casino, but it is overlong and not as engaging as Goodfellas.

It also features weaker performances from both de Niro and Pesci.

[soitgoes...]

Ah, so it's symbolic. Like I've had to cope with being unable to watch this DVD, much like the Mexican and black people living in Texas had to cope with racism .
You nailed it. Next check out Limbo...

[balmakboor]

The only Scorsese movie -- outside of the new ones of course -- that I've seem in the past five years is Taxi Driver which grew immensely in my estimation. I remember liking GoodFellas an awful lot, but I found Casino much richer and more interesting. It's like comparing an early work by Shakespeare like, I dunno, Richard III to King Lear.

I really do need to re-watch a bunch of Scorsese pictures though.

[Winston*]

You nailed it. Next check out Limbo...

I've seen it, along with most of Sayles' films. Terrific movie.

[Rowland]

I dunno... an hour of De Niro and Stone yelling at each other struck me as boring, and Pesci's character (and performance) was a pale facsimile of his Goodfellas turn. For all of its energy, there's no spark... the movie is dead-eyed.

[soitgoes...]

I've seen it, along with most of Sayles' films. Terrific movie.
That it is. I just watched Casa de los Babys last night, and while good I think it was one his lesser works that I've seen. Which is a shame because I'd love to see more progression from his 1990's work where it seemed he peaked.

[Melville]

I don't really have any real thoughts, I was just let completely uninspired by any of the proceedings. I felt these strong emotions running through the characters but failed to connect, or empathise with them.
Yeah, I wonder how much of the film's success relies on the audience empathizing with Sandler's character (or at least pitying him). It has a lot of technical elements that I love (the lens flares, the discombobulated music, the rhythm that shifts between controlled chaos and epiphanic calm, etc.), but maybe relating to the protagonist is required to really admire what those technical elements accomplish.


This makes sense to me. Someone capable of thinking Goodfellas is not a very good film also seems capable of considering Casino to be the better film.
I don't know about iosos, but I do think Goodfellas is a very good film... just not a spectacular one. I'd probably give it a 7.5 or 8.


It's more technically proficient, I'll give it that. Otherwise, I can't think of a single element it executes better...
Ray Liotta's performance in Goodfellas has always seemed really weak to me. He might have been purposely playing the character as somebody who's putting on an act, impersonating a gangster, which would work thematically, but it didn't really work with the rest of the film. And I didn't think the voice-over was used as well as it could have been (e.g. Karen's one bit of voice-over seems to come out of nowhere and ties into nothing).

Also, I generally like my art either grandiose and messy, like Casino, or extremely tightly controlled, like, say, something by Bresson, rather than sitting in the middle.

[Rowland]

(e.g. Karen's one bit of voice-over seems to come out of nowhere and ties into nothing).That's got nothing on the single voice-over given to some random lackey in one of many pointless scenes of padding in Casino.

[Winston*]

I think I'll see Punch-Drunk Love again. When I saw it before I remember thinking what a weird thing that was for a director to do with their time, to decide to make a deconstruction of the Adam Sandler film formula and then cram it full of musics and colours.

[Sven]

This makes sense to me. Someone capable of thinking Goodfellas is not a very good film also seems capable of considering Casino to be the better film.

Like Melville, I do think it's a good film, but its esteem is larger than the product warrants, I find. Three stars. Casino, four. It's operatic and vibrant in a way that Goodfellas tries to be grimy and real. Works better given my sensibilities toward grand expression.

But then, this is a conversation I've had many times, and am not about to get into again.

[Ezee E]

Like Melville, I do think it's a good film, but its esteem is larger than the product warrants, I find. Three stars. Casino, four. It's operatic and vibrant in a way that Goodfellas tries to be grimy and real. Works better given my sensibilities toward grand expression.

But then, this is a conversation I've had many times, and am not about to get into again.
But this time you're mostly right!

[Qrazy]

Huh. So I apparently considered Casino the equal of Goodfellas once upon a time.

WTF. Talk about tedium...

Well at least it's better than New York, New York... that has to count for something.