28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[Qrazy]

It's more technically proficient, I'll give it that.

I wouldn't give it that.

[origami_mustache]

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.

The music, colors, and strange actions of the characters all sort of led me to believe most of the film is a schizophrenic delusion, but I think the film lends itself to multiple readings.

[Grouchy]

I think Goodfellas and Casino are two films connected temathically, but with different ambitions. None of them are "boring" to me. To sleepy-eyed people, maybe.

Goodfellas is clearly a masterpiece and the movie that gave birth to '90s American cinema. Casino is a movie that came back to that mob portrait but decided to be more of a choral, operatic drama of excess instead of a chlaustro first-person coming of age drama.

[balmakboor]

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.

We've had exactly opposite experiences. This is how I would've described Casino almost exactly after seeing it in the theater, but seeing it on DVD a few years later turned it completely around for me.

[Boner M]

Completely agree with Rowland, I rewatched Casino a few years ago and can't believe I usually to love it. Usually I'd applaud such blatantly go-for-broke filmmaking, but here it's just so... inert.

[transmogrifier]

Casino - good
Goodfellas - good
New York New York - good

All this arguing about nothing.

[megladon8]

That's the thing - I LOVED the Prestige. Second only to the Fountain for its year.



I love The Prestige as well.

The score by David Julyan is subtle and unsettling, similar to his work on Memento.

And Wally Pfister rocks. He's been with Nolan since Memento, and all of these films have been shot beautifully. That's one of the things I'm most looking forward to in The Dark Knight (aside from Batman, that is :P).

[Qrazy]

Casino - OK
Goodfellas - good
New York New York - bad


Fixled.

[Qrazy]

I love The Prestige as well.

The score by David Julyan is subtle and unsettling, similar to his work on Memento.

And Wally Pfister rocks. He's been with Nolan since Memento, and all of these films have been shot beautifully. That's one of the things I'm most looking forward to in The Dark Knight (aside from Batman, that is :P).

Agreed on all counts.

[Qrazy]

So.... why do we have a speed racer banner?

[Sven]

So.... why do we have a speed racer banner?

Why not?

Maybe to lighten up the place.

[MacGuffin]

So.... why do we have a speed racer banner?

Even though the movie looks like shit to me, I think the banner looks cool.

[origami_mustache]

banner +1

[Qrazy]

Why not?

Maybe to lighten up the place.

There is something about total CGI that is decidedly light.

[origami_mustache]

There is something about total CGI that is decidedly light.

c'mon just look at that font...it's adorable

this movie looks like a real "wild ride"

[monolith94]

I love The Prestige as well.

The score by David Julyan is subtle and unsettling, similar to his work on Memento.

And Wally Pfister rocks. He's been with Nolan since Memento, and all of these films have been shot beautifully. That's one of the things I'm most looking forward to in The Dark Knight (aside from Batman, that is :P).
I'm sure I would've liked the shots in Batman Begins, had I only been given more than a split second with which to view those shots... :D

But yeah, I've been a big Nolan fan ever since I saw Memento (in Finland!) – thought Insomnia was great too. I didn't like Batman Begins, but I'm willing to give the Dark Knight a shot. I'm hoping that, like Tim Burton, Nolan will have a better grip on the Batman mythos in his second outing.

[Qrazy]

I'm sure I would've liked the shots in Batman Begins, had I only been given more than a split second with which to view those shots... :D

But yeah, I've been a big Nolan fan ever since I saw Memento (in Finland!) – thought Insomnia was great too. I didn't like Batman Begins, but I'm willing to give the Dark Knight a shot. I'm hoping that, like Tim Burton, Nolan will have a better grip on the Batman mythos in his second outing.

Yeah the editing was a bit too tight in Begins and hopefully Nolan changes his fight shooting style from the new Hollywood lazy cam... get some real choreography in there... still minor qualms imo.

[Qrazy]

c'mon just look at that font...it's adorable

this movie looks like a real "wild ride"

I'll give the font it's dues.

[megladon8]

Yeah the editing was a bit too tight in Begins and hopefully Nolan changes his fight shooting style from the new Hollywood lazy cam... get some real choreography in there... still minor qualms imo.


Nolan said after Batman Begins that the main reason why they didn't show all the choreography was the neck of the Batsuit. Because the BB design has the "panther-like" neck, it doesn't articulate, and even Nolan said it looked a little silly.

The new suit has a fully articulated neck, so perhaps we'll see more of the fights this time?

[Qrazy]

Nolan said after Batman Begins that the main reason why they didn't show all the choreography was the neck of the Batsuit. Because the BB design has the "panther-like" neck, it doesn't articulate, and even Nolan said it looked a little silly.

The new suit has a fully articulated neck, so perhaps we'll see more of the fights this time?

I hope so, I thought that was one of the weakest elements of the first film. I don't mind a little shaky cam here or there to add some spice, but the way Greengrass and others have been using it as a catch all formal expression of dynamism... bleh.

[Boner M]

Weekend:

Mother and Son
I Know Who Killed Me
Juste Avant La Nuit
Coffy
Enchanted
Indy

[megladon8]

I hope so, I thought that was one of the weakest elements of the first film. I don't mind a little shaky cam here or there to add some spice, but the way Greengrass and others have been using it as a catch all formal expression of dynamism... bleh.


I agree completely.

I do love the Bourne films, but I found the shaky cam in Supremacy was just too much. The magazine fight was indecipherable.

It was neat in a couple of places to add a sense of disorientation to the whole thing - like in a real fight - but it's been used way too much.


Another element of Batman Begins that I really loved was the way that Batman's "attacks" were filmed.

Christopher Nolan seemed to be reading from the slasher-handbook during these scenes, as they are filmed as if Batman was Freddy or Jason slaying helpless teenagers. The attack in the warehouse on Falcone's men was believable as very frightening and disorienting for the baddies.

[soitgoes...]

Weekend:
Leibelei
Undying Pearl
Mr. Thank You or 3 other Shimizu films I have
Through a Glass Darkly

More than likely I'll neglect all these and watch a handful of other random movies that I have at my disposal.

[berlin wallflower]

I'm not sure where to post these thoughts, but I figured this was as good a place as any (if you have a different location to recommend, then tell me) because I would like some advice.

I want to be a filmmaker (that is my dream in life), but I have had no luck so far in taking my ideas from the abstract phase to reality. Often I can get really inspired by some idea, but then I don't know how to put in specifics. I have a problem writing a screenplay, making all the details. I can come up with a plot outline (the major plot points that I want to develope), but I can't figure out how to write every detail. Part of me wants to take inspiration from Godard and others who did not always write detailed scripts, but I want my film to be life-like. Actually, it is incredibly hard for me to be clear on what I mean.

I can give a good example if you will bear with me. I've been thinking about an idea I have for a film set in a small, Midwestern town (like the one I live in) about these three young peoples' lives. A man and woman are preparing for their wedding; one day he is driving with his friend, and they have a car accident; the man is killed, but the friend survives, though injured badly; the rest of the film focuses on how the friend and the man's girlfriend deal with his death, as well as their relationships with other people in the town, such as their friends and parents, acquaintances, co-workers, etc. I want to make a film that is meditative. I already have a few scenes in my head, such as a scene of the friend riding a bicycle down a country road sometime after his recovery.

Mostly my problems are about how to get from situation A to situation B and remain reasonable. There is an underlying reason behind actions, so if I want a character to do something, to keep credibility with the audience, I need to know the reason. Primarily there is a scene that I want to do near the end of the film where the friend and the dead man's girlfriend become drawn to each other in an empty house, and they try to have sex but the friend is impotent. I guess it is important to me for psychological reasons (I always seem to fall in love with a girl who's already taken/it is fascinating to consider that despite death or absence of another person in the other person's life, they still may not want to be with you; often I become depressed and feel impotent as a person - sexual impotence is a stand-in, or maybe it is real, hard to say exactly). These things haunt me; that's why I want to make films; for these reasons.

I don't want to copy anybody, but I would say that my inspirations are Bergman, Bresson, Haneke, Malick and Tarkovsky, as well as some of Godard's more meditative stuff like For Ever Mozart and In Praise of Love. I guess I am worried that I won't be able to create something as beautiful as what I am striving for, but beyond this, I think that I need someone to help me bring all of the ideas together, into a reasonable script that is coherent and well written. I don't want to make a film that relies solely on plot points, but I don't want to have a lot of plot holes in my film either.

I want to create something similar to a dream state, but also a portrait of these peoples' lives as they would live them, like you would see if you lived part of your life with them (if you see the film, you will be living part of your life with them).

What I want to examine is what it is like to be a human being. The emotions, the problems, all the experiences that go into being a person, being locked into an existence. I want to deal with human relationships, and the emotions conveyed by Eliot in these lines from The Cocktail Party:

"What is hell? Hell is oneself.
Hell is alone, the other figures in it
Merely projections. There is nothing to escape from
And nothing to escape to. One is always alone."

I want to convey the experience of being alive, being a person, within one's own head. This is extremely difficult, yet cinema seems to have the most potential for conveying personal experiences out of every artistic medium. Bressonian close ups are similar to my concept. I want to use some first-person point of view shots, but also wide shots covering those sort of "out-of-body experiences" that I tend to have when I'm dreaming. What the film needs to succeed at is capturing the spark of the moment of reality, the presence of breathing, the actuality of movement, the shock of the image.

We want to see the point where people stop doing and start quietly thinking about their own life, a moment of contemplation... ex. a church service (that doesn't have to provide a plot point) ... In all this we would just be showing what happened, not giving abstract plot information as most films are designed to do. The narrative would be in-the-showing, in the action itself and the ambience of the experience; not in a plotline where each scene is designed to make a particular point leading up to a somewhat literary conclusion. Cinema is more than narrative. I acknowledge that narrative is a major part of film-art, but cinema must not be rooted in abstract storytelling. A sense of place, of experience, is what is necessary, what makes a good film in my eyes. Terrence Malick is a good example of this maxim, but then Jean-Luc Godard is also (and all of my other favorite filmmakers).

I remember that my friends didn't like Days of Heaven because the story was not very satisfying (not a lot of plot details or dialogue/it had a sad ending), and they just were not interested in seeing what Malick tried to show them, what he wanted them to see.

I'm not sure how you can help me, but I guess my question is "How do I find someone to collaborate with on a project like this?" I want someone who is intelligent, a good writer, and who is interested in the same goals. Or if you have any other advice at all, I'll be glad to hear it.

I'm just a college student with hopes of becoming a filmmaker. I suck at writing, so I'm sorry if you couldn't understand my meaning. If there's anything you want me to clarify, I'd be glad to. It's just nice for me to explain this situation to someone, and I think that Match Cut is a good place for this type of discussion.

[soitgoes...]

I'm not sure where to post these thoughts, but I figured this was as good a place as any (if you have a different location to recommend, then tell me) because I would like some advice.

I want to be a filmmaker (that is my dream in life), but I have had no luck so far in taking my ideas from the abstract phase to reality. Often I can get really inspired by some idea, but then I don't know how to put in specifics. I have a problem writing a screenplay, making all the details. I can come up with a plot outline (the major plot points that I want to develope), but I can't figure out how to write every detail. Part of me wants to take inspiration from Godard and others who did not always write detailed scripts, but I want my film to be life-like. Actually, it is incredibly hard for me to be clear on what I mean.

I can give a good example if you will bear with me. I've been thinking about an idea I have for a film set in a small, Midwestern town (like the one I live in) about these three young peoples' lives. A man and woman are preparing for their wedding; one day he is driving with his friend, and they have a car accident; the man is killed, but the friend survives, though injured badly; the rest of the film focuses on how the friend and the man's girlfriend deal with his death, as well as their relationships with other people in the town, such as their friends and parents, acquaintances, co-workers, etc. I want to make a film that is meditative. I already have a few scenes in my head, such as a scene of the friend riding a bicycle down a country road sometime after his recovery.

Mostly my problems are about how to get from situation A to situation B and remain reasonable. There is an underlying reason behind actions, so if I want a character to do something, to keep credibility with the audience, I need to know the reason. Primarily there is a season that I want to do near the end of the film where the friend and the dead man's girlfriend become drawn to each other in an empty house, and they try to have sex but the friend is impotent. I guess it is important to me for psychological reasons (I always seem to fall in love with a girl who's already taken/it is fascinating to consider that despite death or absence of another person in the other person's life, they still may not want to be with you; often I become depressed and feel impotent as a person - sexual impotence is a stand-in, or maybe it is real, hard to say exactly). These things haunt me; that's why I want to make films; for these reasons.

I don't want to copy anybody, but I would say that my inspirations are Bergman, Bresson, Haneke, Malick and Tarkovsky, as well as some of Godard's more meditative stuff like For Ever Mozart and In Praise of Love. I guess I am worried that I won't be able to create something as beautiful as what I am striving for, but beyond this, I think that I need someone to help me bring all of the ideas together, into a reasonable script that is coherent and well written. I don't want to make a film that relies solely on plot points, but I don't want to have a lot of plot holes in my film either.

I want to create something similar to a dream state, but also a portrait of these peoples' lives as they would live them, like you would see if you lived part of your life with them (if you see the film, you will be living part of your life with them).

What I want to examine is what it is like to be a human being. The emotions, the problems, all the experiences that go into being a person, being locked into an existence. I want to deal with human relationships, and the emotions conveyed by Eliot in these lines from The Cocktail Party:

"What is hell? Hell is oneself.
Hell is alone, the other figures in it
Merely projections. There is nothing to escape from
And nothing to escape to. One is always alone."

I want to convey the experience of being alive, being a person, within one's own head. This is extremely difficult, yet cinema seems to have the most potential for conveying personal experiences out of every artistic medium. Bressonian close ups are similar to my concept. I want to use some first-person point of view shots, but also wide shots covering those sort of "out-of-body experiences" that I tend to have when I'm dreaming. What the film needs to succeed at is capturing the spark of the moment of reality, the presence of breathing, the actuality of movement, the shock of the image.

We want to see the point where people stop doing and quietly thinking about their own life, a moment of contemplation, a church service (that doesn't have to provide a plot point) ... In all this we would just be showing what happened, not giving abstract plot information as most films are designed to do. The narrative would be in-the-showing, in the action itself and the ambience of the experience; not in a plotline where each scene is designed to make a particular point leading up to a somewhat literary conclusion. Cinema is more than narrative. I acknowledge that narrative is a major part of film-art, but cinema must not be rooted in abstract storytelling. A sense of place, of experience, is what is necessary, what makes a good film in my eyes. Terrence Malick is a good example of this maxim, but then Jean-Luc Godard is also (and all of my other favorite filmmakers).

I remember that my friends didn't like Days of Heaven because the story was not very satisfying (not a lot of plot details or dialogue/sad ending), and they were not interested in seeing what Malick tried to show them, what he wanted them to see.

I'm not sure how you can help me, but I guess my question is "How do I find someone to collaborate with on a project like this?" I want someone who is intelligent, a good writer, and who is interested in the same goals. Or if you have any other advice at all, I'll be glad to hear it.

I'm just a college student with hopes of becoming a filmmaker. I suck at writing, so I'm sorry if you couldn't understand my meaning. If there's anything you want me to clarify, I'd be glad to. It's just nice for me to explain this situation to someone, and I think that Match Cut is a good place for this type of discussion.
Hmm. I would think a new thread would be your best bet, especially since you spent so much time putting together this post. It'd be a shame if it got lost in the daily FDT banter.

[origami_mustache]

I'm not sure how you can help me, but I guess my question is "How do I find someone to collaborate with on a project like this?" I want someone who is intelligent, a good writer, and who is interested in the same goals. Or if you have any other advice at all, I'll be glad to hear it.



If you want to be a filmmaker in general, and especially if you have want to be a director, I recommend reading a lot of scripts for starters. Maybe even find a good screen writing book or take a class to gain a basic understanding of the process and exercise the analytical skills required to translate a script into a film. This won't necessarily make you a better writer, but it will be very helpful when collaborating with not only the writer, but also with all the other aspects. As far as finding someone you trust to do justice to your ideas, that is a bit more tricky. I have the same sort of writing problems as you, and think more in terms of fragmented imagery and atmosphere, but probably wouldn't even trust the screen writing majors at my school to write something for me. I suppose you should try to contact film schools, or screen writing networking websites to pitch your ideas, and see what kind of responses you get.

[Stay Puft]

The Leopard (Luchino Visconti, 1963) - 8

Yes!

I was quite taken by this movie. I find I don't recall much of the plot anymore, but many moments and images continue to resonate. Claudia Cardinale and Alain Delon flirting. Burt Lancaster drifting into darkness. That ball sequence at the end! Those last forty minutes are what really stand out. Great stuff. I suppose I should watch it again some time (been a few years now).

[origami_mustache]

Yes!

I was quite taken by this movie. I find I don't recall much of the plot anymore, but many moments and images continue to resonate. Claudia Cardinale and Alain Delon flirting. Burt Lancaster drifting into darkness. That ball sequence at the end! Those last forty minutes are what really stand out. Great stuff. I suppose I should watch it again some time (been a few years now).

Yeah, the opulent art design is truly amazing and Claudia Cardinale is beautiful. For a 3 hour film, the plot really isn't very complex at all. It's mostly about the atmosphere and the prince adapting to the changing politics.

I watched Amarcord tonight and cannot believe I put this off for so long. Such a beautiful bittersweet nostalgic film that really evokes a love for life, especially after watching so many depressing films lately. I almost want to say this is my favorite thing I've seen from Fellini. Nights of Cabiria, 8 1/2, and La dolce vita are all extraordinary films, while La Strada and Satyricon are great, but I think this one resonates with me more personally than any other.

[Winston*]

Saw The Apartment tonight. Loved it. Not sure why I never saw it before.

This one scene was pretty weird though:

"Oh, I know everything about you"

"What? How?"

"I looked up your records and memorised every detail"

"Oh, okay. Makes sense. That seems perfectly reasonable of you"

[Qrazy]

I guess I am worried that I won't be able to create something as beautiful as what I am striving for.


This is my central problem as well. I feel I understand composition, mise-en-scene, and staging fairly intuitively at this point and I'm not worried about effectively employing any of these (although of course it's a difficult process and requires a great deal of thought). But proper lighting and in camera effects however give me major worries because I have only a very basic idea of how to light scenes to achieve the desired effect (especially outdoor scenes... I'm baffled how these are lit properly)... I mean I know and have lit basic scenes... making the image at least functionally lit is very easy... but the lighting effects achieved by Tarkovsky, Tarr, Powell/Pressburger, Bergman... or their DPs, etc are still very much a mystery to me. I've read quite a few books on cinematography but I feel as if the intricacies of lighting as well as in camera and film stock stuff (graininess, 'proper' exposure, etc) are rarely sufficiently addressed. Perhaps I need to study photography for a while and then use that information for cinematography.

[Qrazy]

Saw The Apartment tonight. Loved it. Not sure why I never saw it before.

This one scene was pretty weird though:

"Oh, I know everything about you"

"What? How?"

"I looked up your records and memorised every detail"

"Oh, okay. Makes sense. That seems perfectly reasonable of you"

At least he's not taking 'mystery' pictures of her yet.

[Boner M]

Watched half of I Know Who Killed Me at work tonite, on a scratched preview disc that eventually crapped out. So far it's completely inept, but not much fun. I guess I'd hyped it up too much to myself as some sort of accidental film maudit. Meh, probably won't watch the rest.

[origami_mustache]

I've read quite a few books on cinematography but I feel as if the intricacies of lighting as well as in camera and film stock stuff (graininess, 'proper' exposure, etc) are rarely sufficiently addressed. Perhaps I need to study photography for a while and then use that information for cinematography.

Cinematography is incredibly complex with practically infinite possibilities. It's one of those ever evolving things that always presents new challenges. You can only truly learn by doing it, and even after decades of experience there is always more to learn.

[Raiders]

Desplechin's Esther Kahn was a mind-blowing experience. It's such a masterfully constructed film, but almost in ways that I am having difficulty expressing. There's an almost intangible brilliance here that perhaps comes from the casting of Summer Phoenix. No great thespian, but like Esther, she seems transformed by Descplechin's camera like Esther to the stage. I really want to say more, and I'll try, but right now my mind is still too blown to be eloquent.

[Qrazy]

Cinematography is incredibly complex with practically infinite possibilities. It's one of those ever evolving things that always presents new challenges. You can only truly learn by doing it, and even after decades of experience there is always more to learn.

To a certain extent, but unfortunately you can only learn so much by doing it (unless you're working with someone who has done it for decades)... but if you're just doing student films then how to get the hue and shadows just the way you have them in your mind's eye doesn't just only come from practice. There are certain ways of using lights to achieve a certain effect that should be standard but I'll be damned if I've stumbled across a book yet describing lighting technique in a real deep way... the closest I've come are filmmakers notes and individual cinematographer comments on the supplementals of a few dvds, where they put notes in the margins about the type of lights used as well as placement (Cassavetes boxset for one).

[Sven]

Berlin, I found your lengthy post to be quite wondrously written, actually. Your sentences were constructed and placed together such that your flow of meaning was entirely natural.

If you ever succeed in getting this picture made, it sounds like it could be really great. One of the most important criteria for a film, to me, and art in general, is that it's gotta remind me of what it's like to be alive. There's a multitude of ways in which films accomplish that, but important are time and space, as well as, as you say: "capturing the spark of the moment of reality, the presence of breathing, the actuality of movement, the shock of the image."

I wish you the best of luck. I'm not striving to be a filmmaker myself--I do not consider myself an artist, nor do I really wish to be. So my only suggestion is to practice and practice and practice. Don't abandon for lack of resources.

[origami_mustache]

To a certain extent, but unfortunately you can only learn so much by doing it (unless you're working with someone who has done it for decades)... but if you're just doing student films then how to get the hue and shadows just the way you have them in your mind's eye doesn't just only come from practice. There are certain ways of using lights to achieve a certain effect that should be standard but I'll be damned if I've stumbled across a book yet describing lighting technique in a real deep way... the closest I've come are filmmakers notes and individual cinematographer comments on the supplementals of a few dvds, where they put notes in the margins about the type of lights used as well as placement (Cassavetes boxset for one).

Yeah, obviously a pretty good understanding of the art is necessary to get started. I wouldn't accomplish a damn thing if I went out and started fiddling with a lightning kit, but anyone planning on doing this as a career will most likely work their way up in the industry, starting as an apprentice or grip. There are so many tools (gels, flags, silks, cookies, filters, film stock, etc.) and techniques to utilize, not to mention post production color correction and D.I. processing can drastically change the look of films. Basic cine books usually don't cover everything you need to know, but only a general introduction. I'm not exactly sure which books are the best, but anyone serious about getting into it should probably find specific books dedicated to a certain aspect. I hear Painting With Light is one of the best books for lighting, and I know there are other books dedicated entirely to color, equipment, composition, etc.

[balmakboor]

I'm just a college student with hopes of becoming a filmmaker. I suck at writing, so I'm sorry if you couldn't understand my meaning. If there's anything you want me to clarify, I'd be glad to. It's just nice for me to explain this situation to someone, and I think that Match Cut is a good place for this type of discussion.

My first comment is that you are very wrong. You definitely don't suck at writing. I'll spend some more time reading this over (I'm at work right now) and probably PM you later with some thoughts.

[Sycophant]

Weekend:

Weekend:

The Passion of Joan of Arc
My Night at Maud's

Maybe...
Redbelt
Then She Found Me
My Blueberry Nights
Uh, this again. But for reals this time.

[origami_mustache]

Weekend:

family coming to visit so probably not much, but plan on seeing Speed Racer with my sister at least.

[Raiders]

Weekend:

Beau travail (Got to Desplechin, time for Denis)
Kings and Queens (Gotta keep the Desplechin train goin')
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Jellyfish

[balmakboor]

Weekend:

Moving into new house I closed on yesterday. Hoping the pending offer on my prior house stays alive this time.

Yes, I own two houses at the moment, something I don't generally recommend. It takes quite a bite out of the budget for entertainment.

[MacGuffin]

What do you make of Argento's use of color or lighting in Suspiria in terms of how over the top it is?

[Ezee E]

Weekend:
Redbelt is out of theaters... because of...

Indiana Jones IV
Lust, Caution
Holy Smoke
Larry Sanders Show

[lovejuice]

What do you make of Argento's use of color or lighting in Suspiria in terms of how over the top it is?

you ask anyone specifically? do you mean "over the top" in derogatory sense? because i love it. if not anything else, it's pretty to look at. *look at the banner* yeah, just like speed racer.

[MacGuffin]

you ask anyone specifically? do you mean "over the top" in derogatory sense? because i love it. if not anything else, it's pretty to look at. *look at the banner* yeah, just like speed racer.

It's one of my favorite movies, I was just curious as to other people's interpretations of it.

[Qrazy]

What do you make of Argento's use of color or lighting in Suspiria in terms of how over the top it is?

Probably the element it most has going for it aside from pacing... if it wasn't for the use of color I'd probably have found it fairly disposable.

[megladon8]

Suspiria is brilliant.

[Scar]

Weekend:

Fishing
Beer

[Watashi]

Weekend:

The Fall

[NickGlass]

Desplechin's Esther Kahn was a mind-blowing experience. It's such a masterfully constructed film, but almost in ways that I am having difficulty expressing. There's an almost intangible brilliance here that perhaps comes from the casting of Summer Phoenix. No great thespian, but like Esther, she seems transformed by Descplechin's camera like Esther to the stage. I really want to say more, and I'll try, but right now my mind is still too blown to be eloquent.

Was this your first Desplechin? I've only seen Kings and Queen (I missed two chances to see Esther Kahn on the big screen--once in Paris and once in Boston--and I'm still disappointed in myself), but I had a completely similar reaction. On the surface, everything seemed convoluted, melodramatic and thematically erratic--but everything kept falling together until I was overwhelmed by the fantastically emotional and intellectual experience.

According to the Village Voice, his Cannes 2008 feature, A Christmas Tale, is no different.

[Grouchy]

Huh, berlin, I recommend this webpage:

http://www.script-o-rama.com/

Just pick out of all those scripts the one for a movie you really admire and know by heart, and read it intensively and think about it. What makes it work? How does it go from plot to point? How are characters introduced?

The style of writing a script might be very different even respecting the standard format, but you'll learn what makes a script good.

[Grouchy]

As for cinematography, it's true - 10% studying, 90% doing. At least that's what every DP I ever worked with told me. It's a fascinating job. If I wasn't in for directing, I'd be in for cinematography.

[BirdsAteMyFace]

Weekend:
The Taste of Tea
Boarding Gate
Garden of the Finzi-ContinisThese, still.

Also:
Young@Heart

[number8]

Defense attorney Sam Adam Jr. did manage to get Jamison to agree that there was nothing wrong in Kelly giving the alleged victim cash on a series of occasions. Jamison herself said Kelly had given her $100 cash for her birthday.

But in a series of lighter moments, Jamison's answers provoked laughter from just about everyone in the courtroom.

Adam, in an attempt to suggest that Kelly's head could have been superimposed onto somebody else's body in the sex tape, asked Jamison whether she had seen the Wayans brothers' movie "Little Man."

He said, "They put the head of Marlon Wayans on a midget and it looked real, didn't it?"

But, to widespead laughter, Jamison replied, "Not really!"


Best trial ever?

[Bosco B Thug]

Wow. Totally sweet banner!

Robert Altman's Images. So Altman did take a stab at a horror movie! Man. I'm still quite thrilled just by that fact alone. In all honesty, though, it's a bit uneven and not quite up there with top-tier Altman. It's a bit too murky and there are too many "strange visions" that happen that just function purely as atmospheric visual mindbending, but, although brilliantly built up, they teeter into repetitiveness and don't reveal more about the main character. The "ghost" character is integrated awkwardly. Altman is quite creative here, but his floaty, soft-focus camera is too suited for this kind of surreal internal world the film depicts. Thus his directing is much more effective when juxtaposed with looks at superficial externality.

Not consistent enough are the moments where the film really starts getting somewhere concerning Susannah York's psychology and what her mental state really implies about adult relationships, carnal desires, and the human self/soul. Don't Look Now, which is tonally quite similar to this, explores similar themes in a much fuller way. The ending also did not work for me.

Partly because the husband character was kind of a wash-out. He's not developed all too well, we don't really know anything about him. And it is such an obvious twist, and as presented here, it does not really delineate any further her feelings toward her husband and her relationship with her husband. There should have been some context with that.

Of course, there's lots that is brilliant about the film that I won't try getting into it now. I look forward to watching it again.

[koji]

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

I agree completely. Loved all the shots moving up the floors of the building, while Lil Powers (Stanwyck), motivated by Nietzsche, "works" her way to top. Great film, from that brief golden age, between the use of sound and the Hays Code was enforced. This will be first on my 1933 consensus.

[Philosophe_rouge]

I agree completely. Loved all the shots moving up the floors of the building, while Lil Powers (Stanwyck), motivated by Nietzsche, "works" her way to top. Great film, from that brief golden age, between the use of sound and the Hays Code was enforced. This will be first on my 1933 consensus.
Agree completely, an extremely vivacious and interseting film. Stanwyck pwns. It's battling for #1 of 33' for me though, with Duck Soup and Little Women. Honestly, it was a rather brilliant year.

[MadMan]

The Speed Racer banner rocks. I really want to see that film.

Hmm, I don't have anything lined up for the weekend. I did see Indy 4 last night at the midnight showing, and I dashed out some thoughts on it last night at around 4 am:

Man was it awesome! I'm still collecting my thoughts, but right now I feel that the film is between Temple of Doom and The Last Crusade in terms of Indy quality. I loved most of the film, although the last half was full of way too much weirdness, even for an Indy flick. I guarantee that Barty will think this film is the greatness thing since sliced bread. Heh. That said, I know if they do a fifth film it will suck. The fifth film in any series usually is bad (see Rocky V for a good example of a terrible fifth film). Oh and Shi whats his name actually is pretty decent in the flick, although he's no Short Round. The crowd was great, and the place was packed full of people who loved the series. My rating for Indy 4 stands at a strong 85, and I can't wait to see it again.

Oh and with the exception of that idiot looking film with the kung fu panda (I forgot the title shortly after seeing the preview for it) the previews before the movie were awesome. Get Smart looks hilarious, and Wall-E looks like one of the best films of the year. I'm uber psyched for both, and the audience reacted positively to both, although they also laughed at the preview for the stupid panda movie. But man, Wall-E! So adorable. So funny. So awesome looking. I can't wait. And I love the old Get Smart TV show, so I'll be seeing the movie regardless. Oh and the trailer for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button was shown before the other three, and while it looked good the trailer really didn't reveal much. That's probably a good thing.

[Ezee E]

I completely forgot that I watched Untraceable at the firehouse the other day. How by the books can a movie get?

[Boner M]

Bad day at the movies. At least Forgetting Sarah Marshall was free.

[Watashi]

Bad day at the movies. At least Forgetting Sarah Marshall was free.

Uh, no.

Forgetting Sarah Marshall is great and gets funnier the more I see it.

[Boner M]

Uh, no.

Forgetting Sarah Marshall is great and gets funnier the more I see it.
I felt like such an old person while watching it. Is male frontal nudity and a barrage of crass sexual dialogue really that inherently funny? Have Hollywood romcoms become so institutionalised that a film as charmless yet seemingly handcrafted as this is a breath of fresh air? It's a lazy, dopey effort that barely coasts by on the charms of its cast (esp. Paul Rudd). I've nearly pretty much had it with Apatow; I'll see The Pineapple Express but if it sucks I'm off him for good.

[Qrazy]

I felt like such an old person while watching it. Is male frontal nudity and a barrage of crass sexual dialogue really that inherently funny? Have Hollywood romcoms become so institutionalised that a film as charmless yet seemingly handcrafted as this is a breath of fresh air? It's a lazy, dopey effort that barely coasts by on the charms of its cast (esp. Paul Rudd). I've nearly pretty much had it with Apatow; I'll see The Pineapple Express but if it sucks I'm off him for good.

Yeah I'm getting sick of the Apatow craze too... especially after the first 15 minutes of Walk Hard.

[origami_mustache]

Yeah I'm getting sick of the Apatow craze too... especially after the first 15 minutes of Walk Hard.

he also co-wrote Don't Mess With the Zohan which looks as awful as the title choice suggests.

[Raiders]

What Time Is It There? (2001) *

:|

[berlin wallflower]

Thanks guys for your advice. I'll check those websites out. I really appreciate the support.

[Derek]

After being slightly disappointed by Xiao Wu, Jia once again reminded me why he's considered one of the preeminent directors working today. Platform is a gorgeous, patient and funny film about coming to terms with social and political change. Focusing on a group of performance artists as they adapt to China's shift towards capitalism throughout the 1980s, Jia captures its slow-churning effects on society as whole in terms of pop culture and the clash between the older generations traditional Maoist perspective and youth's desire to embrace global culture. He grounds the film in the relationships of five of the group members but like Altman, he varies between the large scale and the personal, never skimping on character development, but seeing it as integrally linked to the social environment of the time.

Jia's form is perfectly congruent with the film's content, starting off with stagnant long shots edited together in sharp 90-degree angles, reflecting the characters initial confinement due to the strict social restrictions. They are dwarfed by their environment, particularly the large castle-like wall whose arches often threaten to swallow them whole, and limited to performing only propagandist numbers. As the outside world begins to creep into the small town, subtly conveyed initially by background details like a boy shooting hoops or a pop song playing beneath the characters discussion, Jia's camera begins to roam more freely as if replicating the now freed consciousness of his country. In trying to deal with difficulties of adapting to their newfound freedoms, the characters struggle to confront the challenges of a suddenly much larger world. As the group travels to other cities, the frame opens up, allowing a once suppressed natural environment to play a large part, while personal interactions are now filmed in close-to-medium shots, reflecting their personal and social relationships blooming in the hope of this new progress. But Jia doesn't allow his nostalgic attachment to the times of his youth to cloud his vision and while the new freedoms his characters have initially lead to personal growth, the oppression of time and uncomfortable mix of the still widespread effects of the old regime and the unestablished new regime lead as much to confusion and suffering as anything else. Where Platform succeeds most admirably is in its ability to capture the feeling of time passing and carrying people along with it whether they like it or not. He injects just the right amount of humor, giving a film that requires a good deal of patience, the necessary levity and human touch it needs to work. Hou Hsiao-hsien is most often lauded for his ability to seamlessly blend the personal and the political, but Jia's respect for the importance of popular culture along with the political environment make Platform a more well-rounded, if not better, result than many of Hou's films.

[dreamdead]

Good to hear about Platform, Derek. I've got that one coming to me next week, and I'm anxious to discover more about Jia's work, especially if The World isn't his best since I rather enjoyed that one.

[balmakboor]

Has anyone here seen any of Rick Schmidt's films?

http://lightvideo.com/films.aspx

I've seen A Man, A Woman, and A Killer (which was Wayne Wang's first movie, co-directed and edited by Schmidt) and Morgan's Cake (which is pretty darn charming).

I just find his self-made approach refreshing, all grown out of his delightful little book Feature Filmmaking as Used Car prices. (I wonder if any ever hires him as a consultant? His rates seem a bit steep for his target market of first time no-budget directors.)

I've been meaning to pick up his revised edition of the book which focuses on DV. I wonder if it has changed in approach away from the get it in one take, use as little film stock as possible while shooting, and creatively use every frame shot as possible in the editing toward something suited toward the less expensive DV medium.

[Derek]

Good to hear about Platform, Derek. I've got that one coming to me next week, and I'm anxious to discover more about Jia's work, especially if The World isn't his best since I rather enjoyed that one.

I like The World a bit better, but mostly because I found its use of a microcosmic setting absolutely fascinating. Platform isn't quite as involving a film, though certainly no less formally accomplished. I should be watching Still Life very soon.

[Sven]

I should be watching Still Life very soon.

Saw that with Duncan. It's good.

[Derek]

Saw that with Duncan. It's good.

:sad:

I wanna watch it with you and Duncan. Or at least Duncan's stoic, badass dog.

[Raiders]

So, after viewing Errol Morris' new film, the only thing I can come away saying definitely is that images can lie and that our government is the real evil of this war, not the soldiers. Oh, and superfluous slo-mo is very grating.

Alrighty then.

In better news, I rewatched the Coens' O Brother, Where Art Thou? and found it a much more pleasurable experience. I particularly liked Holly Hunter's peripheral turn as Ulysses' wife. Very unassuming, but she created a compelling character who always seems unsure of herself but in fact juggles her life quite well. The cinematography is stunning (as usual for a Coen + Deakins film).

[Sven]

So, after viewing Errol Morris' new film, the only thing I can come away saying definitely is that images can lie and that our government is the real evil of this war, not the soldiers. Oh, and superfluous slo-mo is very grating.

What do you make of the reenactments?

I thought the film was just awful. No redeeming value, whatsoever. The sensationalism was despicable and finger-pointing boring. My thoughts are around, a few pages back, if you care.

[chrisnu]

This weekend, I'm taking Mom to see 2001: A Space Odyssey on the big screen, and I may rewatch Southern Comfort or go see Son of Rambow.

[Raiders]

What do you make of the reenactments?

Well, knowing Morris, I kind of expected them. But, I really don't see the point. They struck me as being similar to something I might catch on America's Most Wanted. I think we can filter the majority of this film as a kind of protest from Morris on the fact that these images are one snapshot of the whole story and that much of we find depraved and debase is more or less the "norm" for the conditions the real evil, our government, has placed on these poor soldiers. But, it seems to me Morris could have juxtaposed the famous photos against stories from Iraq, a visual punch to devalue the photos and place them as the scapegoats they are. Instead, his often unheard questions appear to place the soldiers on the defensive, and his re-enactments become monotonously useless.

[Qrazy]

Does anyone have any theories on why Asian filmmakers seem to be (on average) more prolific than their American counterparts? Is it just the way the studio system is set up over there?

[Rowland]

Does anyone have any theories on why Asian filmmakers seem to be (on average) more prolific than their American counterparts? Is it just the way the studio system is set up over there?In Japan, this is the case. Directors aren't compensated as well over there as they are here, so directors need to work constantly to survive.

[Qrazy]

Well, knowing Morris, I kind of expected them. But, I really don't see the point. They struck me as being similar to something I might catch on America's Most Wanted. I think we can filter the majority of this film as a kind of protest from Morris on the fact that these images are one snapshot of the whole story and that much of we find depraved and debase is more or less the "norm" for the conditions the real evil, our government, has placed on these poor soldiers. But, it seems to me Morris could have juxtaposed the famous photos against stories from Iraq, a visual punch to devalue the photos and place them as the scapegoats they are. Instead, his often unheard questions appear to place the soldiers on the defensive, and his re-enactments become monotonously useless.

Just to clarify, my below comments are not to argue with anything you or anyone else has said here, just some thoughts...

Haven't seen the film but as to the overall issue... I feel like it's also easy to swing too far in the other direction and place all of the blame on the institutions rather than holding individual soldiers accountable for their actions... prison stuff aside there's youtube videos of soldiers taunting children with water, killing animals, etc... Ectothermal Puppy and others I know were marines in the gulf war and I don't think he or even the majority of marines engage in such heinous activities. Yes of course war is hell and people are more likely to crack etc, but I feel that going too far towards determinism and ignoring individual integrity (or lack thereof) under extreme circumstances is equally wrong-headed. If we don't hold individuals accountable how can we hold a system made up of individuals accountable?

[Qrazy]

In Japan, this is the case. Directors aren't compensated as well over there as they are here, so directors need to work constantly to survive.

Still you'd think that top-tier international directors would be making enough to cool their jets if they wanted to... maybe it also has to do with the national mentality concerning work ethic?

[megladon8]

John Huston's The Asphalt Jungle is pretty much a masterpiece.

I found it hard to believe it was made in 1950. It felt very modern.

Sterling Hayden was a bit wooden, but other than that, it's like cinematic perfection.

[Qrazy]

John Huston's The Asphalt Jungle is pretty much a masterpiece.

I found it hard to believe it was made in 1950. It felt very modern.

Sterling Hayden was a bit wooden, but other than that, it's like cinematic perfection.

I'm a big fan too. I don't understand the lukewarm reaction it gets around here.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Weekend
Boogie Nights
The Third Man (rewatch)
Claire's Knee
A Star is Born (1954)

[Qrazy]

Name a few 60's/70's filmmakers that you like who have a couple films which get respect but whose names don't get tossed around all that frequently.

A couple for me:

Richard Brooks
Stuart Rosenberg
Robert Rossen
Franklin Schaffner
Alan Pakula

[dreamdead]

Bertolucci's La Commare Secca is spellbinding in its simplicity. Its aura of impressionism is quietly modulated with the music and imagery, and its Rashomonish take on a woman's death allows for a multiplicity of voices that are interrogated by the offscreen authority of police (and in a likely intentional meta-level, could also be understood as the director), all of which are rounded out in quick, deft strokes. Given my proximity to Bertolucci's work with color, seeing him work in a black and white medium gives me newfound appreciation for the ease with which he orchestrates his shots and design. While the film does suggest a certain level of beginning imitation in its nods to Kurosawa's classic, it is nonetheless fully functional and solid in its own right.

Thanks for the rec, 'sos!

[monolith94]

John Huston's The Asphalt Jungle is pretty much a masterpiece.

I found it hard to believe it was made in 1950. It felt very modern.

Sterling Hayden was a bit wooden, but other than that, it's like cinematic perfection.
For me, Asphalt Jungle's ending is what seals the deal.

[balmakboor]

Hmm, I just re-watched Rumblefish for the first time in about 15 years and while it has some good qualities I can't for the life of me figure out why I used to like it so much. Its efforts to be artsy are so strained they become quite laughable.

As for 60s/70s directors I like who don't get much lip service these days, I'd mention Hal Ashby and Michael Ritchie.

[Qrazy]

Hmm, I just re-watched Rumblefish for the first time in about 15 years and while it has some good qualities I can't for the life of me figure out why I used to like it so much. Its efforts to be artsy are so strained they become quite laughable.

As for 60s/70s directors I like who don't get much lip service these days, I'd mention Hal Ashby and Michael Ritchie.

Good choice, I feel like Ashby gets a decent amount of lipservice but probably not as much as he deserves. Never heard of Ritchie though, so very good call. What would you recommend? (Bad News Bears aside - heard of, but haven't seen)

[Ezee E]

Hal Ashby is ALWAYS mentioned when 70's films are discussed. Strangely though, he's never discussed as one of the best filmmakers, and I rarely hear his movies delved into.

[number8]

Man, Newsies is fantastic.

[Watashi]

Man, Newsies is fantastic.
No, no it's not.

Quite the opposite.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Forgot how much fun Holes is. Despite the occasional irritant that is slow motion, the film packs a lot of story, character, imagination and quirk into two hours. Whatever happened to the kid who played Zero? He's great!

[Winston*]

Thought Three Days of the Condor was okay. Never really felt all that engaged by it. Didn't buy Faye Dunaway's character, dig the ending and the Sydow. It's like a Bourne movie with less shaky cam and kicking people in the face. Could've used more of the latter.

[Qrazy]

Thought Three Days of the Condor was okay. Never really felt all that engaged by it. Didn't buy Faye Dunaway's character, dig the ending and the Sydow. It's like a Bourne movie with less shaky cam and kicking people in the face. Could've used more of the latter.

If the photography had been a bit better and the drama somewhat tighter (particularly the terribly developed love angle) it could have been quite good, alas.

[Qrazy]

So what are Cecil B Demille's best films? Ten Commandments and The Greatest Show on Earth obviously get some talk, what else? For a filmmaker who has so much name recognition I rarely hear that much about his individual films.

[balmakboor]

Hal Ashby is ALWAYS mentioned when 70's films are discussed. Strangely though, he's never discussed as one of the best filmmakers, and I rarely hear his movies delved into.

I wouldn't quite say always. His name frequently pops up in 70s film discussions, but it usually goes something like:

Coppola
Scorsese
Altman
Spielberg/Lucas

Ummm,

Cassavetes

Ummmmm,

Uhhh,

Oh yeh,

Guys like Ashby and Ritchie.

I think film for film Ashby had a better 70s than any of those guys.

Harold and Maude
The Last Detail
Shampoo
Bound for Glory
Coming Home
Being There

We was very much a director only of the 70s though. His quality fell off sharply in the 80s and then he died.

[balmakboor]

Good choice, I feel like Ashby gets a decent amount of lipservice but probably not as much as he deserves. Never heard of Ritchie though, so very good call. What would you recommend? (Bad News Bears aside - heard of, but haven't seen)

The essentials are:

Semi-Tough (1977)
The Bad News Bears (1976)
Smile (1975)
The Candidate (1972)
Prime Cut (1972)
Downhill Racer (1969)

Plus I'd throw in Fletch. But yeh, he's one of my favorites based on The Bad News Bears alone. A terrific film that has connected with me in a big way at every stage of my life from a 14-year-old when it came out to now as a parent of child athletes. It's a very smart and very funny movie that still lives on despite Linklater's efforts to destroy its reputation.

[transmogrifier]

I think Altman's 70s period stands just as tall:

A Perfect Couple (1979)
A Wedding (1978)
Quintet (1977)
3 Women (1977)
Buffalo Bill and the Indians, or Sitting Bull's History Lesson (1976)
Nashville (1975)
California Split (1974)
Thieves Like Us (1974)
The Long Goodbye (1973)
Images (1972)
McCabe & Mrs. Miller (1971)
Brewster McCloud (1970)
MASH (1970)

Even allowing for some failures, that is a phenomenal decade's work.

[balmakboor]

I think Altman's 70s period stands just as tall:

A Perfect Couple (1979)
A Wedding (1978)
Quintet (1977)
3 Women (1977)
Buffalo Bill and the Indians, or Sitting Bull's History Lesson (1976)
Nashville (1975)
California Split (1974)
Thieves Like Us (1974)
The Long Goodbye (1973)
Images (1972)
McCabe & Mrs. Miller (1971)
Brewster McCloud (1970)
MASH (1970)

Even allowing for some failures, that is a phenomenal decade's work.

As impressive as some of those are in parts, I consider those films highly uneven. McCabe and Long Goodbye remain for me two of the greatest films of all time. MASH remains impressive and ballsy but I grow more annoyed by its smart-ass nature every time I see it. I've never been a fan of Brewster, Images, or any of those after Nashville. Nashville has great stuff like Lilly Tomlin, Ronee Blakley, Keith Carradine, and all those songs that stick in your head and never leave the way only bad songs can. It has bad stuff like Geraldine Chaplin (Altman's surrogate walking around in a daze; How can a director make a pointed statement about the state of things when he admits that he is clueless about what's going on?), all of those smart-ass and cutesy-pie star cameos like Karen Black and Elliot Gould, and that ending that seems quite impressive until you think about it. The world is going to shit and all Altman could come up with is a communal sticking of one's head in the sand singing "It don't worry me."

I do love Come Back to the Five and Dime, Tanner 88, The Player, and most of Short Cuts (although it has some of the same problems as Nashville). I think Come Back is his third finest film actually and can't wait for it to finally reach DVD.

[monolith94]

So what are Cecil B Demille's best films? Ten Commandments and The Greatest Show on Earth obviously get some talk, what else? For a filmmaker who has so much name recognition I rarely hear that much about his individual films.
The Sign of the Cross is good fun.

[balmakboor]

Oh, and I didn't mention Thieves and California because it's been too long. I remember liking both though. I haven't seen Buffalo Bill.

[transmogrifier]

That's okay, I disagree with all the negative points you made anyway :)

[Mysterious Dude]

Man, Newsies is fantastic.
What?

[Winston*]

This is England - Best film of 2006
Bug - Best film featuring Ashley Judd in a starring role.

Note: My opinions should probably not be taken as gospel as I have not seen every film released in 2006 nor every film featuring Ashley Judd in a starring role.

[balmakboor]

Note: My opinions should probably not be taken as gospel...

Don't worry. They aren't. ;)

[Mysterious Dude]

I watched Mizoguchi's The Story of the Last Chrysanthemums on an absolutely wretched VHS transfer -- possibly the worst video transfer I've ever seen for any film. The actor's faces were a complete blur. But I could still see that there was great fluidity to the camera work. It's a film that deserves a good DVD.

I was slightly disappointed by the film itself, though.

The wife's illness seemed like a weak plot device. Oh, she's got a slight cough? She's a fucking gonner!

[Winston*]

Don't worry. They aren't. ;)

You don't speak for everyone.

[Yxklyx]

So what are Cecil B Demille's best films? Ten Commandments and The Greatest Show on Earth obviously get some talk, what else? For a filmmaker who has so much name recognition I rarely hear that much about his individual films.

Manslaughter and The Cheat.

[Ezee E]

You don't speak for everyone.
He nails the consensus though.

[Sven]

He nails the consensus though.

There are, however, splinter factions everywhere.

[Winston*]

I've had enough of your shit, Bialas. Lets go.

[Ezee E]

I've had enough of your shit, Bialas. Lets go.
That dragon you slayed is a piece of cake compared to me.

[Sven]

Oh, it's ON! IT'S ON!!

[Winston*]

Bialas just sent me an incredibly vile PM. The contents of which I daren't print here. The utter repulsiveness of said email has schocked me so that it's made me realise that I can no longer post on a message board that such a poisonous human being frequents. I'm afraid I'm going to have to say goodbye to Match Cut. You win Bialas, but as a resident of the world, you lose.

[Ezee E]

Bialas just sent me an incredibly vile PM. The contents of which I daren't print here. The utter repulsiveness of said email has schocked me so that it's made me realise that I can no longer post on a message board that such a poisonous human being frequents. I'm afraid I'm going to have to say goodbye to Match Cut. You win Bialas, but as a resident of the world, you lose.
That was
http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/tom-keating/images/easy-button.jpg

[monolith94]

Manslaughter and The Cheat.
Man, I completely forgot that Demille directed The Cheat! I didn't like that at all: racist, stupid, and cliché. Maybe if I had seen it w/ a better transfer? Nah.

[Qrazy]

I think film for film Ashby had a better 70s than any of those guys.

Harold and Maude
The Last Detail
Being There


Ehh I've only seen those three and I like them (quite a bit) to varying degrees (particularly Being There) but no I don't think so, the only one on that list he maybe trumps is Lucas and even that is a pretty big maybe.

[Qrazy]

I watched Mizoguchi's The Story of the Last Chrysanthemums on an absolutely wretched VHS transfer -- possibly the worst video transfer I've ever seen for any film. The actor's faces were a complete blur. But I could still see that there was great fluidity to the camera work. It's a film that deserves a good DVD.

I was slightly disappointed by the film itself, though.

The wife's illness seemed like a weak plot device. Oh, she's got a slight cough? She's a fucking gonner!

Haven't seen the film yet but personally I'm always uncomfortable critiquing works off of bad transfers. It's happened a few times where I've watched a bad transfer and didn't like the film, then revisited with a good transfer and completely turned around on the final product.

[Rowland]

Come and See (Klimov, 1985) ****Yes. One of my favorite movies... so many images are seared into my memory.

[Russ]

Shock Treatment (Sharman, 1981) **
Agree that it's not a very good film (tho it's one of my favorite guilty pleasures). What did you think of the songs? I think the music > Rocky Horror by a wide margin.

[monolith94]

Agree that it's not a very good film (tho it's one of my favorite guilty pleasures). What did you think of the songs? I think the music > Rocky Horror by a wide margin.
Gee, I thought it was pretty good.

[Spinal]

Agree that it's not a very good film (tho it's one of my favorite guilty pleasures). What did you think of the songs? I think the music > Rocky Horror by a wide margin.

Songs were definitely the best part. The film was also pretty to look at. I couldn't make any sense of the plot though and the satire of mainstream America struck me as awfully limp. There's nothing like Tim Curry's performance to serve as a backbone, although I thought the new Janet was quite good.

[Derek]

Yes. One of my favorite movies... so many images are seared into my memory.

Awesome, I only knew Raiders and Spinal were fans. It's a remarkable, terrifying film and I loved how there was very little actual combat. It was more of a metaphysical journey through the aftermath of war and the emotional and physical destruction it leaves behind. Fortunately, I hadn't read much about it so I wasn't entirely sure what to expect. I was taken about by how experimental it was, specifically the ~30 minute section with the muted/muffled sound. I was especially impressed that it never made the ugliness of the situations into something beautiful. Its poetic, formally impressive and, at times, surreal without giving you a second to forget the harsh, brutal reality. It may sound simple, but it's really something that few anti-war films succeed at.

[Thirdmango]

Should I go see "In Bruges" or "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" tonight?

[Ezee E]

Should I go see "In Bruges" or "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" tonight?
Haven't seen either.

But In Bruges.

[Qrazy]

Haven't seen either.

But In Bruges.

.

[Sven]

.

.

[Spinal]

.


.

They say that you spend enough time with someone and your periods start to sync up.

[Qrazy]

They say that you spend enough time with someone and your periods start to sync up.

Nice. Multiple entendre.

[NickGlass]

Should I go see "In Bruges" or "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" tonight?

Stay home and rent a good movie.

[Qrazy]

So roughly how many films do you think a film buff needs to have seen (if any number) before you start taking their opinion about film seriously? I assume most of us don't take the tween top tens posted on RT all that seriously anymore (you know the Reservoir Dogs, Braveheart, Gladiator, American Beauty, Shawshank top tens)... I'd estimate 500 or so is a good starting number (assuming they're not all contemporary American releases).

[Ezee E]

So roughly how many films do you think a film buff needs to have seen (if any number) before you start taking their opinion about film seriously? I assume most of us don't take the tween top tens posted on RT all that seriously anymore (you know the Reservoir Dogs, Braveheart, Gladiator, American Beauty, Shawshank top tens)... I'd estimate 500 or so is a good starting number (assuming they're not all contemporary American releases).
I could careless about how many films they've seen. Its how they write up their reviews or express their opinion where I'll let it influence whether I see a movie or not.

I still believe that most critics overwrite their reviews. Outside of Ebert, there is no famous critic that I consistently read. I like the Onion AV Club and the San Francisco Chronicle though. Other then that, I trust Match Cutters more.

[Winston*]

"Hey, Qrazy, you should check out this new movie. It's really good."

"Hmm...maybe. Wait..how many films have you seen in your life? 423? Fuck off."

[Ezee E]

"Hey, Qrazy, you should check out this new movie. It's really good."

"Hmm...maybe. Wait..how many films have you seen in your life? 423? Fuck off."
Welcome back.

That made me laugh.

You get rep.

[Boner M]

Mother and Son was beauteous. Incredibly simple in construction, almost so much that I was about to write it off as vapid landscape porn. But the pacing, sounds, and blunt but powerful metaphoric imagery (tree bark, a train moving across the frame, etc) are aligned so perfectly with the theme of primal, vital human connection that the film is nothing short of a triumphant marriage of form and content. Even the sudden close-ups of the mother's frail and weathered face are devastating. Minimalist filmmaking at its best.

[Qrazy]

I could careless about how many films they've seen. Its how they write up their reviews or express their opinion where I'll let it influence whether I see a movie or not.

I still believe that most critics overwrite their reviews. Outside of Ebert, there is no famous critic that I consistently read. I like the Onion AV Club and the San Francisco Chronicle though. Other then that, I trust Match Cutters more.

Yeah I know it's just a rough correlation but don't you think there often tends to be one between how many a person has seen and how well they're able to express their thoughts about any given film? I'm not saying it's a linear correlation, that the more you see the better you get, just that one tends to need to see quite a few before having any real foundation of criticism or value judgment comparison on which to stand upon. Same thing with books or any art. One tends to need some foundational degree of familiarity to begin talking about the art form in a real way (being able to judge cinematography, editing, etc).

I know I'll get flak for the initial post probably seeming 'elitist', but whatever, I stand by it as a general template.

[Qrazy]

"Hey, Qrazy, you should check out this new movie. It's really good."

"Hmm...maybe. Wait..how many films have you seen in your life? 423? Fuck off."

You'd be surprised how often I forget to ask that latter question and end up watching terrible drek. ;)

[number8]

Should I go see "In Bruges" or "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" tonight?

I've only seen In Bruges, so Forgetting Sarah Marshall.

[Ezee E]

Yeah I know it's just a rough correlation but don't you think there often tends to be one between how many a person has seen and how well they're able to express their thoughts about any given film? I'm not saying it's a linear correlation, that the more you see the better you get, just that one tends to need to see quite a few before having any real foundation of criticism or value judgment comparison on which to stand upon. Same thing with books or any art. One tends to need some foundational degree of familiarity to begin talking about the art form in a real way (being able to judge cinematography, editing, etc).

I know I'll get flak for the initial post probably seeming 'elitist', but whatever, I stand by it as a general template.
Not really. Even when I talk with people at work who watch movies every day are babbling idiots that know nothing about movies. There's also a few people that hardly watch any movies because they are very picky about what they see. If they like a movie, I usually am interested into why they like it, and this particular person has great observations.

So really... Here is your answer. At least 1.

[Qrazy]

Mother and Son was beauteous. Incredibly simple in construction, almost so much that I was about to write it off as vapid landscape porn. But the pacing, sounds, and blunt but powerful metaphoric imagery (tree bark, a train moving across the frame, etc) are aligned so perfectly with the theme of primal, vital human connection that the film is nothing short of a triumphant marriage of form and content. Even the sudden close-ups of the mother's frail and weathered face are devastating. Minimalist filmmaking at its best.

I like it OK, not as big on it as some. The Second Circle is still my favorite from Sokurov and then Russian Ark. I have Days of Eclipse with me, which I might watch later tonight or tomorrow. I'll get back to you on how it is.

[Qrazy]

Not really. Even when I talk with people at work who watch movies every day are babbling idiots that know nothing about movies.

Yeah but that's why I specified not only american/contemporary releases.


There's also a few people that hardly watch any movies because they are very picky about what they see. If they like a movie, I usually am interested into why they like it, and this particular person has great observations.

So really... Here is your answer. At least 1.

Ok then fair, but I still feel they expose themselves to so few that they make pretty poor resources for recommendation and when pressed (in my experience at least) they can mostly only talk about narrative, acting execution and pretty imagery but don't have much understanding of the reasoning behind formal conceits.

[number8]

Rather than a number, I'll go for frequency. I don't think you should call yourself a film buff if you watch movies once every 6 months.

[Ezee E]

Yeah but that's why I specified not only american/contemporary releases.



Ok then fair, but I still feel they expose themselves to so few that they make pretty poor resources for recommendation and when pressed (in my experience at least) they can mostly only talk about narrative, acting execution and pretty imagery but don't have much understanding of the reasoning behind formal conceits.
So that's why you have so many movies in your signature.

[Ezee E]

Rather than a number, I'll go for frequency. I don't think you should call yourself a film buff if you watch movies once every 6 months.
d_davis is no longer a film buff.

[Qrazy]

So that's why you have so many movies in your signature.

It was getting a bit out of control space-wise.

[transmogrifier]

I could careless about how many films they've seen. Its how they write up their reviews or express their opinion where I'll let it influence whether I see a movie or not.

I still believe that most critics overwrite their reviews. Outside of Ebert, there is no famous critic that I consistently read. I like the Onion AV Club and the San Francisco Chronicle though. Other then that, I trust Match Cutters more.

couldn't care less.
COULDN'T care less.
Couldn't.
Couldn't.
Couldn't.

[Qrazy]

d_davis is no longer a film buff.

He is because he's already put in the viewing work when he was younger.

Taste issues aside (and I'm inclined to agree with you that one can have good taste and still not watch a lot) no one can seriously call themselves a film buff if they've only seen 50 films in their life... it's like calling yourself a traveler and never leaving your hometown.

[Qrazy]

Rather than a number, I'll go for frequency. I don't think you should call yourself a film buff if you watch movies once every 6 months.

Reasonable.

[megladon8]

I hesitate to call someone a film "lover" if 9/10 movies they see "suck".

And I'm not being hyperbolic. I would say 9/10 of the movies I see, myself, are not fantastic, nor am I going to remember them a year from now.

It's when this percentage of movies they find loathesome. Find a new hobby.

[Sven]

I don't like this idea that somehow film "buff"ery automatically implies that people know what they're talking about, film-wise.

Personally, I find that most of my favorite writings on movies are done by those who concentrate their life's theme elsewhere. Good example: my favorite writer on this board is Duncan, and while he MAY be a "film buff" (a term that I am obviously uncomfortable with), he just got a degree in engineering and I find frequently incorporates his outsider knowledge into his reviews with great insight and panache. I hate the fact that he's younger than me.

I quite love reading about the sociological, linguistic, mechanical, anthropological, mathematical, geographical, etc. etc. etc. elements of film, and those are the kinds of things you are usually not going to get from a film "buff". At least, not in lucid detail.

Also, I tend to agree with the E, but that's mostly due to my refusal of the term "buff" as any kind of call to authority.

[Qrazy]

Poseidon Adventure (minor spoilers) - Did anyone else find it perversely hilarious when the large woman dies of stomach cramps from swimming and then Hackman bursts into tears... Not this woman! Not this woman! It might have been affecting had the cause of death been anything else.

[Ezee E]

I don't like this idea that somehow film "buff"ery automatically implies that people know what they're talking about, film-wise.

Personally, I find that most of my favorite writings on movies are done by those who concentrate their life's theme elsewhere. Good example: my favorite writer on this board is Duncan, and while he MAY be a "film buff" (a term that I am obviously uncomfortable with), he just got a degree in engineering and I find frequently incorporates his outsider knowledge into his reviews with great insight and panache. I hate the fact that he's younger than me.

I quite love reading about the sociological, linguistic, mechanical, anthropological, mathematical, geographical, etc. etc. etc. elements of film, and those are the kinds of things you are usually not going to get from a film "buff". At least, not in lucid detail.

Also, I tend to agree with the E, but that's mostly due to my refusal of the term "buff" as any kind of call to authority.
I don't usually put film buffs in the category of people who see a ridiculous amount of movies. Just ones that love to talk about movies. Anybody and everyone on this site is a film buff.

[Qrazy]

Good example: my favorite writer on this board is Duncan, and while he MAY be a "film buff" (a term that I am obviously uncomfortable with), he just got a degree in engineering and I find frequently incorporates his outsider knowledge into his reviews with great insight and panache.

But if he was not a film buff as well as an engineer he wouldn't be able to link the two topics in a compelling fashion. I don't see how diversifying knowledge in other fields and then relating it back to film precludes having the knowledge about film to relate it to in the first place (I agree with you that bringing other disciplines to bear on film makes for compelling thoughts/reading... in fact I think inter-disciplinary approaches in general bring a great deal of fresh ideas to any given discipline). Film is like any discipline in my opinion (it's role as an art-form doesn't change this) and the more you study it the more you can (not all film buffs do of course) learn about it... and films themselves are the primary documents of the discipline (like a history buff reading primary documents from any given era).

[Sven]

But if he was not a film buff as well as an engineer he wouldn't be able to link the two topics in a compelling fashion.

I agree with everything else you say, but I don't think this is true. Everybody loves movies, and everyone has their own ideas about them. It is perfectly reasonable for a casual admirer of movies who is, say, a surgical technician, to come away with a reasoned and intelligent interdisciplinary reading of Chayefsky's The Hospital. Why must they be "buffs" in order to compellingly apply their own ideas about the film's subject?

[Qrazy]

I agree with everything else you say, but I don't think this is true. Everybody loves movies, and everyone has their own ideas about them. It is perfectly reasonable for a casual admirer of movies who is, say, a surgical technician, to come away with a reasoned and intelligent interdisciplinary reading of Chayefsky's The Hospital. Why must they be "buffs" in order to compellingly apply their own ideas about the film's subject?

Well not to compellingly do it about the subject but to compellingly do it about the form (and not like formal individual aesthetic merits such as this looked beautiful to me)... but to dissect why a tracking shot here, why a close-up there, why the color blue, etc... and then to link those back to the reading (engineer/mechanics based or otherwise).

[Sven]

Well not to compellingly do it about the subject but to compellingly do it about the form (and not like formal individual aesthetic merits such as this looked beautiful to me)... but to dissect why a tracking shot here, why a close-up there, why the color blue, etc... and then to link those back to the reading (engineer/mechanics based or otherwise).

Ah, yes, I see what you mean. I'm not so much of the school of thought that critiques of cinema need always incorporate the tools of cinema. Nor am I of the mind that film "buffs" need focus on it to be considered such. There are so many facets of life, art, occupation, mind, time, control, and so on that I think anyone more interested in the screenplay (or whatever else) of a film than its camera movements could rightfully call themselves a "buff" if they felt they were.

[number8]

I'm also uncomfortable with the idea that a film lover has to be somehow knowledgeable or have good taste. Listen, I don't know shit from squat on how to make a double fudge oreo cheesecake or how to compare one from another or even what the fuck goes into making one of those, but I can say with the utmost authority--and I fart onto anyone who say otherwise--that I fucking love double fudge oreo cheesecakes.

It's kind of condescending. What nerve do we have to say that someone is or isn't a film buff? I don't care if they know about film history, if they make it a regular topic of conversation, if they can distill the meanings of movies, or if the movies they see suck or don't suck. If they watch movies a lot and get excited for them, then obviously they love movies and they have the right to be recognized as such.

[Qrazy]

I'm also uncomfortable with the idea that a film lover has to be somehow knowledgeable or have good taste. Listen, I don't know shit from squat on how to make a double fudge oreo cheesecake or how to compare one from another or even what the fuck goes into making one of those, but I can say with the utmost authority--and I fart onto anyone who say otherwise--that I fucking love double fudge oreo cheesecakes.

Well my argument isn't really one of taste more so that knowledge of the medium itself comes from watching many movies... just as knowledge of double fudge oreo cheesecakes comes from eating or making them or reading about them. If I made you a cheesecake with salt instead of sugar I'm sure you'd damn well know there were better ones out there... that's your standard of comparison. The more of them you eat them the better you can compare in relation to the 'ideal fudge oreo cheesecake' you have in your mind.


It's kind of condescending. What nerve do we have to say that someone is or isn't a film buff? I don't care if they know about film history, if they make it a regular topic of conversation, if they can distill the meanings of movies, or if the movies they see suck or don't suck. If they watch movies a lot and get excited for them, then obviously they love movies and they have the right to be recognized as such.

I don't see it as condescending to delineate between a film fan and a film buff. It's only condescending if value judgments are involved and one is viewed as inherently better than the other. I'm sure there are Billiards Buffs but being a fan of the game is enough for me. People that get excited for and love films have the right to be film fans for sure but being a buff (not inherently better just a different meaning to it) requires a certain degree of knowledge about the medium/topic in my opinion... I think there's a baseline average (500 - wide standard of deviation) while you think it's a frequency issue.

----

The reason people are able to judge/gauge functional/good storytelling and functional/good acting as a baseline without having seen many or any films is because we're exposed to stories and performances/other people's reactions from birth. We're all primed to be good critics of these things. Certain elements of visual communication on the other hand are learned only from watching films... certain uses of jump cuts/chronology shifting/strange angles etc need to be eased into and learned over a period of time or the viewer will be confused. I know I've been confused by films before which were 'beyond me' when I viewed them too young... 2001:Space Odyssey springs to mind.

[Sven]

Where does this 500 standard come from?

[transmogrifier]

Ah, it's not a real weekend without a semantic argument that goes nowhere.

Next topic: how much sand should a beach really have?

[Qrazy]

Ah, it's not a real weekend without a semantic argument that goes nowhere.

Next topic: how much sand should a beach really have?

There are no beaches. Beaches are a genre convention.

[Derek]

Hey there. How many films have you seen!?

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/f/fa/300px-Great_train_robbery_still.jpg

And if you don't recognize this shot, you can go fuck yourself film fan!


I'm with trans though. It's not a Saturday night if I can't come home to a pointless semantics argument and iosos and Qrazy disagreeing. It's not perfect, but it's my home goddammit.

EDIT: Though I do tend to agree with Qrazy here, but I'm not sure where it gets us.

[Qrazy]

Where does this 500 standard come from?

Out of nowhere, I just picked a number I thought was a reasonable amount of films for someone to have seen where they started to shift the way they viewed film. I was interested in if anyone thought it was too high or too low a number... so far I've gotten too high and there are no 'acceptable' numbers (which I also put as a reasonable response in my initial post).

But I'd say I saw about 200-300 films before I saw Memento which catapulted me into a new outlook on cinema and made me want to watch a lot more, then another few hundred until Fellowship of the ring which hooked me in even tighter and then I finally got to Stalker and Rublev and I've been a goner ever since.

[Sven]

If you guys were really reading the dialogue, and I certainly forgive you if you weren't, you'd see that this wasn't a semantics argument.

:)

[transmogrifier]

There are no beaches. Beaches are a genre convention.

No, beaches are a nihilistic construct of recreational hipsters, reappropriating the spirituality of those individual grains of sand for the transient, immoral pleasures of laying down, building (politically naive) sandcastles and occasionally seeing a boobie.

[transmogrifier]

If you guys were really reading the dialogue, and I certainly forgive you if you weren't, you'd see that this wasn't a semantics argument.

:)


What are you doing if not trying to define how buff a buff really is?

[Qrazy]

No, beaches are a nihilistic construct of recreational hipsters, reappropriating the spirituality of those individual grains of sand for the transient, immoral pleasures of laying down, building (politically naive) sandcastles and occasionally seeing a boobie.

I knew the hipsters were behind it! .... And 9/11.

[Qrazy]

EDIT: Though I do tend to agree with Qrazy here, but I'm not sure where it gets us.

Married. With kids.

[Qrazy]

What are you doing if not trying to define how buff a buff really is?

How much buff could a film buff buff if a film buff could buff film?

[Sven]

The first movie I remember seeing is Moonstruck and I've been an avid movie lover ever since.

[transmogrifier]

How much buff could a film buff buff if a film buff could buff film?

What is a film, really?

[Sven]

What are you doing if not trying to define how buff a buff really is?

Trying to suck you into it. And succeeding!

[Qrazy]

What is a film, really?

Something which leaps off the frame and kicks you in the nuts and then punches you in the spleen.

[Spinal]

I'm with trans though. It's not a Saturday night if I can't come home to a pointless semantics argument and iosos and Qrazy disagreeing. It's not perfect, but it's my home goddammit.



It sounds to me like you're anti-semantics. John McCain condemns your post.

[transmogrifier]

Trying to suck you into it. And succeeding!

*hits the anti-suck lever*

Later, suckers!

[Sven]

I have a friend who is constantly making attempts at being a jack-of-all-trades: he's a singer/songwriter/musician/movie-maker/novelist/poet/puppeteer/editor/photographer

Problem is, he's got this idea that somehow he doesn't need to listen to music or watch movies or read books or study editing or photography or composition in order to do so. He is content to just DO instead or LEARN or OBSERVE. His work shows it--alas, he ends up slightly-less-than-to-mediocre in nearly everything he does.

In other words, I do agree that in order to be truly versed in something, one must take time and pains to, ummm, verse one's self. Doing is nothing if you don't know what you're doing. However, doesn't it seem a little weird to quantify experience as proof or evidence of capability? Experience means nothing... it is the active engagement of faculty that offers reward. FILM buff is such an epically broad term that one could convincingly argue that one isn't truly a film buff until one has seen a majority of the films in creation. Your experience as a buff is different to mine as such. You've only seen two Neil Jordan films, you can't be a film buff.

[Qrazy]

I have a friend who is constantly making attempts at being a jack-of-all-trades: he's a singer/songwriter/musician/movie-maker/novelist/poet/puppeteer/editor/photographer

Problem is, he's got this idea that somehow he doesn't need to listen to music or watch movies or read books or study editing or photography or composition in order to do so. He is content to just DO instead or LEARN or OBSERVE. His work shows it--alas, he ends up slightly-less-than-to-mediocre in nearly everything he does.

In other words, I do agree that in order to be truly versed in something, one must take time and pains to, ummm, verse one's self. Doing is nothing if you don't know what you're doing. However, doesn't it seem a little weird to quantify experience as proof or evidence of capability? Experience means nothing... it is the active engagement of faculty that offers reward. FILM buff is such an epically broad term that one could convincingly argue that one isn't truly a film buff until one has seen a majority of the films in creation. Your experience as a buff is different to mine as such. You've only seen two Neil Jordan films, you can't be a film buff.

Puppeteer? Random.

Well I think that's just throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I don't need to see Neil Jordan's filmography nor the majority of films in creation to be a film buff. That's why I specified 500 (give or take) films but no particular one's (there is no make or break film out there for buffhood... just as there is no litmus test film like No Country or whatever anal retentive critics are saying)... but I do think it's important to not limit to just contemporary or American works because then you're just choosing to read a fraction of the Dewey Decimal system in your self-education procedure.

[Sven]

Puppeteer? Random.

I'm a puppeteer.

[Winston*]

Welcome back.

I was thinking of leaving the site for a few months after that last post, but then I figured that was kind of a long way to go for a joke that even I don't find funny.

[Qrazy]

I'm a puppeteer.

Really?

---

What should I watch...

The Parallax View or The Year of Living Dangerously

[Sven]

Really?

Amateur, and currently dormant, but yeah.


What should I watch...

The Parallax View or The Year of Living Dangerously

TYoLD, no question. Fantastic trumps mediocre, though Beatty's performance is killer.

[Qrazy]

Amateur, and currently dormant, but yeah.

Well it's sweet I just didn't expect to see it grouped with those other things.




TYoLD, no question. Fantastic trumps mediocre, though Beatty's performance is killer.


Sounds good... I also have Fearless and then I think I'm close to done Weir's filmography.

[Sven]

Sounds good... I also have Fearless and then I think I'm close to done Weir's filmography.

You may be interested in one of my upcoming films on the top 100 thread. One of my favorite filmmakers. Have you seen The Plumber?

[Thirdmango]

Well I went with In Bruges. It was silly and had some laugh out loud moments but nothing really cool. The Blanks part was probably the best part.

[Qrazy]

You may be interested in one of my upcoming films on the top 100 thread. One of my favorite filmmakers. Have you seen The Plumber?

Nope, perhaps wrapping up his filmography was a bit of an overstatement. Aside from this and Fearless I still have these to go.

# Green Card (1990)
# The Plumber (1979) (TV)
# "Luke's Kingdom" (1976) TV mini-series
# The Cars That Ate Paris (1974)
# Three to Go (1971) (segment "Michael")
# Homesdale (1971)
# Man on a Green Bike (1969) (TV)

[Watashi]

I've seen over 1500 movies.

I'm triple the film buff in Qrazy's world.

[Winston*]

You've only seen two Neil Jordan films, you can't be a film buff.

I've seen ten, I think I qualify for the title of "dude who likes watching movies".

[Qrazy]

Yeah yeah, the original question was not about qualifying for anything, but if you all want to reduce it to that and make it seem like a cinematic dick measuring contest then so be it. Personally I don't have much patience for discussing film with those who think Donnie Darko and Boondock Saints are the pinnacle of cinema but I guess that's just me. Moving right along.

---

The Year of Living Dangerously - My God Sigourney Weaver was a knockout and Linda Hunt a revelation.

[Qrazy]

Woah, how did this slip by me?

"Spaceballs: The Animated Series" (2007) TV series (unknown episodes)

[Dead & Messed Up]

So Brazil was pretty good. As usual, Gilliam's use of the camera was excellent, and the set/prop/creature design was all fantastic (creepy doll faces). That said, I didn't much go for the instantaneous switch of dream-girl Jill from skeptical to loving, and I thought Lowry was too pathetic to really be likeable.

Great to look at, but Gilliam's best is probably the opening sequence from The Meaning of Life, where the old guys take over their office building.

[Qrazy]

So Brazil was pretty good. As usual, Gilliam's use of the camera was excellent, and the set/prop/creature design was all fantastic (creepy doll faces). That said, I didn't much go for the instantaneous switch of dream-girl Jill from skeptical to loving, and I thought Lowry was too pathetic to really be likeable.

Great to look at, but Gilliam's best is probably the opening sequence from The Meaning of Life, where the old guys take over their office building.

Brazil is my favorite from him (then 12 Monkeys and Fear and Loathing) but your right that her character transition could have used some work. Disagree about Lowry I think he's both likeable and pathetic and that that double edge makes the character work all the more.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Brazil is my favorite from him (then 12 Monkeys and Fear and Loathing) but your right that her character transition could have used some work. Disagree about Lowry I think he's both likeable and pathetic and that that double edge makes the character work all the more.

12 Monkeys is my favorite feature of his - a great blend of Gilliam's warped imagination and traditional narrative. I hated Fear and Loathing. It was endless.

Maybe I'm being too hard on Pryce. He does a good job - I just thought he was either pathetic or too agitated, with little middle ground.

[Qrazy]

I hated Fear and Loathing. It was endless.


Have you ever been into drug culture? That helps. Personally I just find it utterly hilarious.

[Sven]

Personally I don't have much patience for discussing film with those who think Donnie Darko and Boondock Saints are the pinnacle of cinema but I guess that's just me.

Sorry to keep on this, but why is it that you think that if someone has seen 500 films, they will automatically dismiss Donnie Darko or Boondock Saints? This is where the absurdity of this quantification is at its strongest. Ed Gonzalez, the Slant guy, gave Donnie Darko four stars (a rarity) and he's unquestionably a buff.

I, too, disagree with those films' reputations (although it is a bit presumptuous to demand savvy technique from cult cinema, which those films have become). It gets a bit monotonous. But don't you think it's a bit exclusive to announce these blanket denials of the relevance of people's opinions on the basis of their liking a handful of movies you don't? I understand that it's a pretty natural reaction, and I probably do it too, so I guess that my response here is a kind of therapy for me.

[monolith94]

12 Monkeys is my favorite feature of his - a great blend of Gilliam's warped imagination and traditional narrative. I hated Fear and Loathing. It was endless.

Maybe I'm being too hard on Pryce. He does a good job - I just thought he was either pathetic or too agitated, with little middle ground.
You might be. He's pathetic, to a degree, but one look at his environment shows a situation where advancement in one's career only arrives through being a cur. He's living in a horrific world where just getting by is a pretty neat accomplishment. He's one of my favorite characters ever.

[Rowland]

Fear and Loathing grows funnier for me with each viewing, and unlike what I've perceived to be the general consensus, I believe the scenes that strive for pathos are justified by the tone and execution of the material.

[Ezee E]

What do you guys make of the Netflix Roku Player coming out soon? It's pretty cheap and looks like it's compatible with any TV.

I might consider getting one.

[Sycophant]

What do you guys make of the Netflix Roku Player coming out soon? It's pretty cheap and looks like it's compatible with any TV.

I might consider getting one.Um, I hadn't heard of this before now. But I really, really want it. Will buy.

[number8]

The Year of Living Dangerously - My God Sigourney Weaver was a knockout and Linda Hunt a revelation.

This movie rules. That, Galipoli and Payback are my Mel Gibson trifecta.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Have you ever been into drug culture? That helps. Personally I just find it utterly hilarious.

See, I have little patience for drug culture, which could go a long way toward explaining why the film is so boring and endless to me. It plays like a feature-length drug trip I'm witnessing but not experiencing. So I was just bored out of my mind.


You might be. He's pathetic, to a degree, but one look at his environment shows a situation where advancement in one's career only arrives through being a cur. He's living in a horrific world where just getting by is a pretty neat accomplishment. He's one of my favorite characters ever.

Bah. He cowers in the face of Ian Holm's nervous bureaucrat and Michael Palin's warm, family-man executioner.

[chrisnu]

What do you guys make of the Netflix Roku Player coming out soon? It's pretty cheap and looks like it's compatible with any TV.

I might consider getting one.
That's pretty awesome. I think that's the direction they've wanted to go all along, they've just needed residential technology to catch up.

[Derek]

Sorry to keep on this, but why is it that you think that if someone has seen 500 films, they will automatically dismiss Donnie Darko or Boondock Saints? This is where the absurdity of this quantification is at its strongest. Ed Gonzalez, the Slant guy, gave Donnie Darko four stars (a rarity) and he's unquestionably a buff.

I, too, disagree with those films' reputations (although it is a bit presumptuous to demand savvy technique from cult cinema, which those films have become). It gets a bit monotonous. But don't you think it's a bit exclusive to announce these blanket denials of the relevance of people's opinions on the basis of their liking a handful of movies you don't? I understand that it's a pretty natural reaction, and I probably do it too, so I guess that my response here is a kind of therapy for me.

Do you not see the difference liking/loving one or both of those films and considering them the pinnacle of cinema? Accounting for that difference should help you understand what Qrazy is trying to say. There may be someone out there who's seen 1,500 films and honestly believes Donnie Darko is the best film ever made, but I feel comfortable in saying this would most likely come from someone who's seen 300-400 films, a majority which were made in the last two decades. You're simply pointing out an exception to a rule that for the most part, in my opinion, would hold true. The more films people see (and as Qrazy said, not only American films from the last 15-20 years), the less likely they are to consider a recent trendy or cult film the greatest of all time.

[monolith94]

Michael Palin's character is an interrogator, not an executioner! Death is just a nasty and occasional side-effect!

[monolith94]

Also, there is a world of difference in terms of quality between Donnie Darko and The Boondock Saints.

[Qrazy]

Sorry to keep on this, but why is it that you think that if someone has seen 500 films, they will automatically dismiss Donnie Darko or Boondock Saints? This is where the absurdity of this quantification is at its strongest. Ed Gonzalez, the Slant guy, gave Donnie Darko four stars (a rarity) and he's unquestionably a buff.

I, too, disagree with those films' reputations (although it is a bit presumptuous to demand savvy technique from cult cinema, which those films have become). It gets a bit monotonous. But don't you think it's a bit exclusive to announce these blanket denials of the relevance of people's opinions on the basis of their liking a handful of movies you don't? I understand that it's a pretty natural reaction, and I probably do it too, so I guess that my response here is a kind of therapy for me.

No I don't because that's exactly why I qualified the claim so that it's not about like/dislike. Someone can like those films, I think they're wrong (to find much value in the films), but that's not the issue. But anyone who has seen a significant number of films can at least realize that while (good to them) those films are certainly not the pinnacle of cinema. On the other hand I have had conversations with people who have only seen a handful of films and honestly think Boondock Saints is the second coming. Anyway perhaps I should have gone lower down the totem pole and used White Chicks and Kangaroo Jack as my examples.

edit: Oops Derek beat me to it.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Michael Palin's character is an interrogator, not an executioner! Death is just a nasty and occasional side-effect!

You know, information retrieval costs can really do a number on your credit.

:)

[Qrazy]

Fear and Loathing grows funnier for me with each viewing, and unlike what I've perceived to be the general consensus, I believe the scenes that strive for pathos are justified by the tone and execution of the material.

I agree... it fully encapsulates drug mythos to me, particularly because it does not preach (unlike something like Requiem for a dream which I also like)... it demonstrates the dual sided nature of drugs... the physical joy and hilarity they can bring but also the absolute terror and misery they often result in... furthermore it suggests the reason why people start drugging in the first place (chasing enlightenment and as an escape from emotional pain)... and finally tops it all off with it's 70's setting and nostalgic temperament as a yearning for a bygone age (the 60's)... and drugging as a way of trying to reclaim the past.

[Qrazy]

This movie rules. That, Galipoli and Payback are my Mel Gibson trifecta.

I like both this and Gallipoli a lot, so looks like I"ll have to check out Payback.

[Qrazy]

Bah. He cowers in the face of Ian Holm's nervous bureaucrat and Michael Palin's warm, family-man executioner.

Well for the former I don't see that at all. Holm's character is like a loud child who would fall apart without Sam to hold his hand. And he only cowers before Palin once he's put himself in a position where he should be afraid of him (his role in society).

[Qrazy]

I wish/hope Russell Boyd (DP) continues to collaborate with later period Peter Weir. I find their partnership pushes Weir to his visual/stylistic peak. These are the films they've done together... The Last Wave, Gallipoli, Year of Living Dangerously, Picnic at Hanging Rock, Master and Commander.

I find his collaborations with John Seale on the other hand much less visually engaging (this is not a condemnation of the other elements of these films)... Witness, Mosquito Coast, Dead Poets Society. Seale's strongest work in my opinion was with Minghella.

[Sven]

D, Q, I'd like to think the models you present to be reasonable, applicable, truthful methods of critical representation, but I just can't see how it's possible. Who keeps track of how many movies they've seen anyway? How can you use that as a gauge when only film buffs (those of a peculiarly intense variety) track that kind of thing? I can't say I'm even comfortable that both of you find a kind of tangibility in a film object achieving "pinnacle of cinema"-ness (otherwise why would argue against someone else's interpretation of it?).

I'll step back, before this explodes even more, but I'm still tremendously confused at the whole idea.

[Derek]

You can't use it as a gauge. Is this not all just hypothetical discussion or did you think Qrazy was planning to take it to the streets with a camera and a mike asking everyone who passed by how many films they've seen and what they think of Boondock Saints. I really don't see what's so difficult to understand. On average, people who've seen a lot of films from many different countries and time periods would be less likely claim Boondock Saints or films like that to be the second coming than someone with a more limited exposure to film. Like Qrazy said, this doesn't inherently make one better than the other, but when you're going to someone for an opinion on film, which person would you choose more often? Since I'm sure this couldn't possibly clear it up for you, let's use a simpler example. You know two people - one who eats at all sorts of restaurants and samples a variety of different foods and another who eats hamburgers and turkey sandwiches. In the long run, whose opinion are you going value, or perhaps take more seriously, when getting recommendations on where to eat?

[Derek]

I can't say I'm even comfortable that both of you find a kind of tangibility in a film object achieving "pinnacle of cinema"-ness (otherwise why would argue against someone else's interpretation of it?).

I can't say I'm even comfortable with you being comfortable with anyone considering Boondock Saints the pinnacle of cinema. ;) But honestly, if that's what they believe, that's fine, but I think the point Qrazy was making was that he (and I) would be highly suspect of other opinions held by that same person. Unless you believe that personal taste shouldn't factor into whose opinions you value more or you believe in some sort of democratized, to-each-their-own, everyone's opinion is equally valuable to me system, I can't imagine what is so difficult to grasp about this.

[Watashi]

Wait... did Derek just diss turkey sandwiches?

[Derek]

Wait... did Derek just diss turkey sandwiches?

Hell no. I love turkey sandwiches!

[soitgoes...]

Hell no. I love turkey sandwiches!
So then I should listen to the person who loves turkey sandwiches when I want an opinion on films. Why didn't you guys just state that in the beginning? It would have saved 3 pages worth of discussion.

[Qrazy]

A bit of an aside, but I don't understand the people who utterly condemn film canons and then proceed to get all their recommendations from them (Criterion, Facets, TSPDT).

[Derek]

So then I should listen to the person who loves turkey sandwiches when I want an opinion on films. Why didn't you guys just state that in the beginning? It would have saved 3 pages worth of discussion.

If by that, you mean listen to me, then yes. :)


A bit of an aside, but I don't understand the people who utterly condemn film canons and then proceed to get all their recommendations from them (Criterion, Facets, TSPDT).

Or people who condemn auteurism and then choose what films to watch based on the director and talk more about them more than anyone else working on a particular film.

[Qrazy]

Or people who condemn auteurism and then choose what films to watch based on the director and talk more about them more than anyone else working on a particular film.

Yeah, pretty much.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Well for the former I don't see that at all. Holm's character is like a loud child who would fall apart without Sam to hold his hand. And he only cowers before Palin once he's put himself in a position where he should be afraid of him (his role in society).

What I meant was his character lacks the interest of Ian Holm and Michael Palin. I. e., he "cowers in the face" of them. Maybe not the best choice of words.

[Qrazy]

What I meant was his character lacks the interest of Ian Holm and Michael Palin. I. e., he "cowers in the face" of them. Maybe not the best choice of words.

Ah, still don't agree, but gotchya now.

[Qrazy]

Fearless (Weir) - Had the potential to be fairly compelling content-wise but it's a shame it's so formally uninteresting. There isn't an engaging shot in the entire film. I did like the inversion of the Jesus mythos though... (bit of a reduction but) basically turning a contemporary Jesus into an equally troubled man who needs as much help as the rest of us.

[megladon8]

Fearless (Weir) - Had the potential to be fairly compelling content-wise but it's a shame it's so formally uninteresting. There isn't an engaging shot in the entire film. I did like the inversion of the Jesus mythos though... (bit of a reduction but) basically turning a contemporary Jesus into an equally troubled man who needs as much help as the rest of us.


I thought it was an interesting film which definitely hasn't aged too well - it feels very "early '90s", which is a look I'm not too fond of.

I also wasn't sure whether the film was suggesting supernatural causes, or if Bridges had somehow managed to beat his allergy to strawberries based on willpower alone.

I think the latter is pretty silly.

[Qrazy]

I thought it was an interesting film which definitely hasn't aged too well - it feels very "early '90s", which is a look I'm not too fond of.

I also wasn't sure whether the film was suggesting supernatural causes, or if Bridges had somehow managed to beat his allergy to strawberries based on willpower alone.

I think the latter is pretty silly.

No I don't think there was any supernatural implication really, I think it was a psychological/will power issue. I don't see it as silly, since lots of allergies are primarily psychological... particularly ones with his symptoms which were basically something similar to hyperventilation/panic attack.

I can see where you're coming from though... I found Bergman's portrayal of a mentally handicapped daughter (Autumn Sonata) only just needing a little motherly affection to stop being so mentally ill... to be heinously stupid.

[megladon8]

No I don't think there was any supernatural implication really, I think it was a psychological/will power issue. I don't see it as silly, since lots of allergies are primarily psychological... particularly ones with his symptoms which were basically something similar to hyperventilation/panic attack.


It didn't really say that his allergy was psychological, though. It seemed to be saying that one can "cure" themselves of an allergy with will power, which I find pretty ridiculous.

I seriously doubt that my best friend, who has a fatal allergy to all nuts and nut products, could sit down and eat a peanut butter sandwich if he was just in the right state of mind.

[Raiders]

I think Claire Denis' Beau travail is just about the only adaptation I can think of that stresses not the plot or character of its source, but only the emotion. So many adaptations seem to become filmed books through their keeping of the source via the spoken word, but Denis embraces the fact that cinema is images, not words. Though many cite the ending as a rather awesome-but-shocking twist on the film's preceding style, it seemed to me a culmination. Throughout, we have spatially and temporally displaced scenes of Galoup in preparation. They almost seem, by the end and in retrospect, a march toward the ending. They stand apart as Galoup does from the other Legionnaires. He does alone what the others do in communion, he receives the stares from a nemesis that he desires from another who will not return his glances. In the end, it feels like a liberation once he begins dancing. He is ultimately comfortable with the only person whom he has comfort: himself. Thus, all those narcissistic moments culminate in one shock dance routine that appears incongruent but flows organically from all that has gone before.

I'm not sure if the film's elliptical stylings and the film's genuine disregard for classic narrative are quite as necessary to the extremes through which Denis places the film. But, to be sure, it is an experience difficult to shake. There is a similarity here to Desplechin's Esther Kahn in that much of the film's power seems almost intangible and hard to pinpoint. And like Desplechin's film, here we have a central performance from an actor not as strong as the material but is transformed into a remarkably attuned performer, completely in sync with the film and filmmaker.

I'm all kinds of excited for the next Denis film I tackle.

[Qrazy]

It didn't really say that his allergy was psychological, though. It seemed to be saying that one can "cure" themselves of an allergy with will power, which I find pretty ridiculous.

I seriously doubt that my best friend, who has a fatal allergy to all nuts and nut products, could sit down and eat a peanut butter sandwich if he was just in the right state of mind.

Yeah you're right but I think you're over-extrapolating it too far. It's not about all allergies it's about his allergy and some allergies are mostly psychological.

[koji]

What do you guys make of the Netflix Roku Player coming out soon? It's pretty cheap and looks like it's compatible with any TV.

I might consider getting one.I ordered one on Thursday. It's been receiving positive reviews (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8IyPbYJ3jM). I often watch Netflix IW on my 21" monitor and would like to watch on my TV. It seems like the best place to learn more is the Roku forum (http://forums.roku.com/viewforum.php?f=28&sid=29d942cdfb5fd780c5eb15c415 08cce4).

My confirmation said 7-10 days for shipping. It seems that they are backed up.

[Boner M]

I'm not sure if the film's elliptical stylings and the film's genuine disregard for classic narrative are quite as necessary to the extremes through which Denis places the film. But, to be sure, it is an experience difficult to shake. There is a similarity here to Desplechin's Esther Kahn in that much of the film's power seems almost intangible and hard to pinpoint. And like Desplechin's film, here we have a central performance from an actor not as strong as the material but is transformed into a remarkably attuned performer, completely in sync with the film and filmmaker.
I've watched the film twice since I bought it last week, and have been keeping it on in the background quite a lot too - it's like a tonic. That said, I find that the scenes involving Sentain's misguided trek near the end feel a little off... maybe it's a case of Denis being a slave to the Pialat approach (excising important expository scenes if they don't maintain the right emotional timbre throughout the film), but the break in perspective in those scenes just feels a little off-key with the elliptical storytelling elsewhere.

As for Lavant's performance, I'm not quite sure I agree there. I haven't seen Esther Khan (but wanna, especially after your recent rating/comment), but judging from what I've heard, that's a case of an inadequate actor becoming adequate by the filmmaker shaping and re-shaping their film as some sort of bizarro vehicle for that actor's non-talents - Lavant, on the other hand, is quite an adept performer; his one physical limitation (where's his eyes?) suited perfectly to Denis' creating of psychic space with her mise-en-scene.

Anyway, glad you liked it. I think you'll like Trouble Every Day most out of all her films... I know you like extreme eschewal of genre elements - this one does for vampire films what The Killing of a Chinese Bookie did for gangster/noir.

[Boner M]

Speaking of French masters, I watched Chabrol's Les Biches last night, and cannot recall the last time I was so distracted by the hotness of the lead actress(es) to the point that I can't form an objective assessment of the film. Nonetheless, it seemed quite good, if perhaps the weakest out of the 5 CC films I've seen.

[Boner M]

The Tracey Fragments (McDonald, 2008) **
So, am I correct to guess that with anyone else in the lead role (say... Danny Trejo), it would've been a ****? ;)

[dreamdead]

What with the recent discussion on the merits of Punch-Drunk Love, this is one of the best analyses I've yet to see of the film (http://lightpalimpsest.blogspot.com/2008/05/punch-drunk-love.html). Really love his take on Barry Egan as a surrogate for Popeye, which then gives the "He Needs Me" song greater resonance...

[Derek]

So, am I correct to guess that with anyone else in the lead role (say... Danny Trejo), it would've been a ****? ;)

Heh. :) Actually Page was fine in the role and for once her annoying posturing wasn't laughable (Hard Candy) or an unbearable screenwriter conceit (Juno), but a genuine reflection of a troubled teen whose life is in constant flux. There's really no way to talk about the films plot/character arc without it sounding cliched or its style as anything but pretentious, but surprisingly enough, it's neither. The fractured screen is certainly something which I think could've worked much better in a 25-30 minute short, but I can't deny it doesn't make for some shockingly poignant moments and makes effective use of its ability to layer dreams, memories and reality on-screen simultaneously. The experimental elements are effectively tied to the material and the only reason I wouldn't rate it higher is that material this pedestrian can only be risen so far. I'd definitely recommend it even if I'm less than enthusiastic about it.

[megladon8]

I've never been annoyed by Ellen Page.

That being said, I haven't seen Hard Candy or Juno.

The Tracey Fragments looks interesting enough.

[Russ]

I've never been annoyed by Ellen Page.
Hmm. There must be some reason.

That being said, I haven't seen Hard Candy or Juno.
Ah...

[number8]

I've never been annoyed by Ellen Page.

That being said, I haven't seen Hard Candy or Juno.

So... what, then? Just X-Men 3?

[megladon8]

So... what, then? Just X-Men 3?

And "Trailer Park Boys".

[Winston*]

I've never been annoyed by Carrot Top, but then again I've only seen him in nothing ever.

[Derek]

I've never been annoyed by Carrot Top, but then again I've only seen him in nothing ever.

Don't think we don't know about the VHS of Chairman of the Board hidden beneath your porn stash.

[Russ]

Don't think we don't know about the VHS of Chairman of the Board hidden beneath your porn stash.
I hear Wilford Brimley has a decent porn 'stache.

[megladon8]

Don't think we don't know about the VHS of Chairman of the Board hidden beneath your porn stash.


I actually loved that movie as a kid.

[Derek]

I hear Wilford Brimley has a decent porn 'stache.

:lol:

Mental image, go away.


I actually loved that movie as a kid.

It's okay, I had shitty taste when I was a kid too. :)

[Dead & Messed Up]

One of my faves as a kid was 3 Ninjas. I accept now that the movie sucks, but I still love the villain, mostly because of this line:

"God, I love being a bad guy!"

[Sven]

Derek, you have helped to clarify the issue a bit. Naturally, I do take the side of the cineaste prone to accept/suspect advice according to the tastes of the offerer. That is not what I feel has been at issue. Rather, I am suspicious of this idea that it is by crossing some hypothetical line one becomes trustworthy. I guess I'll drop it and chock it up to gross hypothesis.


A bit of an aside, but I don't understand the people who utterly condemn film canons and then proceed to get all their recommendations from them (Criterion, Facets, TSPDT).


Or people who condemn auteurism and then choose what films to watch based on the director and talk more about them more than anyone else working on a particular film.

I am curious: were either of these intended as implications of myself? Or were they just peripheral ideas related to the subject of the conversation and not necessarily the participants?

[Derek]

Derek, you have helped to clarify the issue a bit. Naturally, I do take the side of the cineaste prone to accept/suspect advice according to the tastes of the offerer. That is not what I feel has been at issue. Rather, I am suspicious of this idea that it is by crossing some hypothetical line one becomes trustworthy. I guess I'll drop it and chock it up to gross hypothesis.

I agree with you that there is no hypothetical line that can be crossed, ie once you see 500+ films you are automatically a trustworthy source. Where I did agree with Qrazy was in the general belief that someone who has seen a higher volume and wider variety of films would be more reliable for recommendations than someone who has more limited exposure to film.


I am curious: were either of these intended as implications of myself? Or were they just peripheral ideas related to the subject of the conversation and not necessarily the participants?

I would say neither apply to you at all. I was responding only to Qrazy's aside with an aside of my own.

[Derek]

Oh, and [rec] is one of the most genuinely terrifying films I've seen in a long time. I'm not one to get scared easily, but I nearly pissed myself a few times.

[Dead & Messed Up]

The beginning forty-five minutes of Iron Man was pretty awesome, but that climax was uninspired as hell. I wish action pictures surprised me more.*














*Unless said surprise involves Shia LaBeouf swinging with monkeys.

[Stay Puft]

And "Trailer Park Boys".

And "ReGenesis"?

Don't really have an idea what that show is about. I just caught a bit of an episode channel surfing and did a double take when I recognized her.

[ledfloyd]

I watched Amarcord last night and I feel like I have to be missing something. I think giving it two stars would be generous. I didn't really like much at all. Some of the set pieces were impressive but weren't given time to develop. And the whole thing didn't seem to add up to much. I'm disappointed because I was expecting it to be great and I've loved the Fellini I've seen so far.