28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[Rowland]

I'm actually really excited for The Strangers. I know number8 hated it because it lacked social commentary or something, but I just really enjoy stripped down horror movies that effectively apply the tools of the genre. The reviews so far are encouraging in this respect.

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.I really need to see this. Did you download it?

[Sycophant]

I watched My Night at Maud's last night. I think this Rohmer guy and I are going to get along.

[Qrazy]

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 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?

Peripheral, I know a few people who do/did that on RT.

[Qrazy]

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.

You're being harsher on it than I would be, there's tons of good stuff in there but I agree with you that it feels somewhat disjointed (not just episodic ala Dolce Vita/La Strada) and truncated... could have used a few more connect the dots scenes... I'm all for eliminating the non-essential but I feel it went too far in that direction in terms of flow... and some of the scenes that stayed in lack their own 'essentialness'.

[number8]

I know number8 hated it because it lacked social commentary or something

Buh? I hated it because the story was stupid.

[Rowland]

Buh? I hated it because the story was stupid.Weren't you just saying recently that story is growing to be the least important part of a movie for you? ;) :P

[Raiders]

Buh? I hated it because the story was stupid.

Weren't you the one who was going to write a piece advocating story as a secondary aspect to a film?

EDIT: Ha. Eerie.

[Derek]

I really need to see this. Did you download it?

Yeah, it's on Karagarga. If you're looking for "stripped down horror movies that effectively apply the tools of the genre", look no farther. This is really a no-nonsense film that almost immediately throws into the confined space which the filmmakers use quite impressively. I'd recommend going into it knowing as little as possible.

[Winston*]

The Man From Laramie is teh roxxorzz.

[Derek]

The Man From Laramie is teh roxxorzz.

Hell yeah it is. My favorite of the Mann/Stewart collaborations.

[Winston*]

Hell yeah it is. My favorite of the Mann/Stewart collaborations.

It's the only one I've seen.

[Derek]

It's the only one I've seen.

The Naked Spur and Winchester '73 are nearly as good, so check those out next.

[MacGuffin]

Sidney Pollock has died. I haven't seen anything he's directed, but he's iconic and I've seen him act in Eyes Wide Shut.

[DSNT]

Wow. He seemed so young.

He had his moments, but I never thought much of him as a director. He was a better producer and a good character actor.

[Raiders]

Wow. That's sad.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Lawrence of Arabia was good. Very good. It's really beautiful more than anything. Even O'Toole's amazing characterization is dwarfed by the scope of the shots. Inspiring stuff.

It's my first Lean.

[Qrazy]

Lawrence of Arabia was good. Very good. It's really beautiful more than anything. Even O'Toole's amazing characterization is dwarfed by the scope of the shots. Inspiring stuff.

It's my first Lean.

Check out Bridge on the River Kwai for more of the same goodness.

[Grouchy]

Yeah, Pollack I always thought was a much better actor than director. Too bad he died.

I want to see both [rec] and The Strangers badly. I really liked the Strangers trailer.

Amarcord is a masterpiece. Obviously, if you don't like "disjointed" movies, you're not gonna like it. It's as disjointed as disjointed gets.

[Yxklyx]

Sidney Pollock has died. I haven't seen anything he's directed, but he's iconic and I've seen him act in Eyes Wide Shut.

Everyone should see They Shoot Horses, Don't They?

[Grouchy]

Disjointed.

[DSNT]

Check out Bridge on the River Kwai for more of the same goodness.
Or Brief Encounter for ... betterness. *shrug*

[Qrazy]

Or Brief Encounter for ... betterness. *shrug*

Ehh, it's good but I wouldn't put it on the level as the other two. Plus Bridge is just more similar in it's epicness... Noel Coward can wait... he's a patient fellow.

[MadMan]

The Man From Laramie is teh roxxorzz.Damn straight it is.

In terms of the whole "film buff" debate that I'm extremely late for, I've seen 2,200 some films. However on Criticker I've only noted seeing 1,001 films, becasue those are the 1,001 films I've seen that I can actually remember enough of to properly give ratings to. When I look at it I note that I've seen not only way too many terrible films, but I also love too many films as well. What the hell I'm doing here I really don't know. Maybe its because of the people. Yeah, you folks rock and stuff I suppose :P Or I'm really freakin' bored....


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.I personally think its better than the second Bourne film, and maybe even better than the first Bourne film. I still haven't seen the third Bourne film so I can't really comment on that.

Bummer about Pollack, as I too thought he was younger and now a days 73 isn't really that old (although it is old). I was already planning to see more of his films but now I guess I have an additional reason to I suppose.

[Raiders]

Check out Bridge on the River Kwai for more of the same goodness.

I don't know. I find Kwai pretty mediocre in the face of Lawrence. Holden's storyline is oh-so-useless.

[Qrazy]

I don't know. I find Kwai pretty mediocre in the face of Lawrence. Holden's storyline is oh-so-useless.

I don't see it as useless.

Without his presence the bridge wouldn't have been destroyed... plus while Nicholson represents the psychological toll of war, Holden represents a different element of the tragic irony of war, our behavioural lack of freedom within the system... so you were able to escape eh? Well that makes you the prime candidate to go right back in and deal with the situation.

[Raiders]

I don't see it as useless.

Without his presence the bridge wouldn't have been destroyed... plus while Nicholson represents the psychological toll of war, Holden represents a different element of the tragic irony of war, our behavioural lack of freedom within the system... so you were able to escape eh? Well that makes you the prime candidate to go right back in and deal with the situation.

I don't understand the second part, and the first part is true, but was the majority of his story really necessary? I don't find any part of his character or plot very dramatic or affecting. The parts that I love about the film come solely in relation to Guinness.

[soitgoes...]

The only Lean film I feel can hold a candle to Lawrence of Arabia is Great Expectations, though the candle is still pretty far away. If you're looking for sweeping epic Lean films then Doctor Zhivago and A Passage to India are much closer in this regard than Bridge.

[soitgoes...]

I don't find any part of his character or plot very dramatic or affecting. The parts that I love about the film come solely in relation to Guinness.
This is true.

[Kurosawa Fan]

The Bridge on the River Kwai >>>>>>>>> Doctor Zhivago

And no mention of Brief Encounter? It's my favorite Lean.

[soitgoes...]

The Bridge on the River Kwai >>>>>>>>> Doctor ZhivagoThis is true too, well perhaps with fewer greater than symbols, but as far as sweeping epics go, Bridge I don't think falls into the category.

[soitgoes...]

Or Brief Encounter for ... betterness. *shrug*



And no mention of Brief Encounter? It's my favorite Lean.
.

[Qrazy]

I don't understand the second part, and the first part is true, but was the majority of his story really necessary? I don't find any part of his character or plot very dramatic or affecting. The parts that I love about the film come solely in relation to Guinness.

I like both his escape and return the only thing that drags a bit is at the beach but I think it's a necessary calm before the storm. The second part I just mean that even if one does retain their psychological goal (side they're fighting for/try to escape) they're still doomed in war since you can't escape the orders that will send you to your death (except by going AWOL but then you're doomed as well).

[Raiders]

The Bridge on the River Kwai >>>>>>>>> Doctor Zhivago

And no mention of Brief Encounter? It's my favorite Lean.

I agree with the first sentence, and DSNT already covered Brief Encounter. It's my second-favorite Lean.

[Qrazy]

Anyone seen Coward's In Which We Serve? Been meaning to get to that for a while now.

[Raiders]

Anyone seen Coward's In Which We Serve? Been meaning to get to that for a while now.

Years ago (freshman year film class). It was good in a typically Coward/Lean way.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Whoops. Sorry dissent. Missed that post. Well... in that case... I agree with dissent.

[dreamdead]

I watched My Night at Maud's last night. I think this Rohmer guy and I are going to get along.

Wonderful news to learn of another fan of Rohmer's patient, emotional and philosophical works. This is the film that made me fall in love with his style, and all of the Moral Tales after that film are nearly as rewarding, especially Love in the Afternoon. You remind me that I need to view A Tale of Winter since I have access to a vhs player now that I'm back in Ohio...

[Winston*]

Die Hard 4 was soooo silly...I kinda enjoyed it.

Would've been about 1000 times better though, if John Hodgman played Justin Long's role. Also, 10,000 times better if John Hodgman played Timothy Olyphant's role.

[Winston*]

"They've redirected the gaslines"

"Which ones?"

"All of them"

KABOOOM!!!

[origami_mustache]

I really disliked Brief Encounter and wasn't a big fan of Dr. Zhivago either.. :shrug:

[Rowland]

Die Hard 4 was soooo silly...I kinda enjoyed it.

Would've been about 1000 times better though, if John Hodgman played Justin Long's role. Also, 10,000 times better if John Hodgman played Timothy Olyphant's role.Yeah, I dug it for the most part as well. I still need to check out the unrated cut on DVD with all of the reinstated violence.

[origami_mustache]

Amarcord is a masterpiece. Obviously, if you don't like "disjointed" movies, you're not gonna like it. It's as disjointed as disjointed gets.

Indeed...I'm such a sucker for fragmented nostalgia pieces.

[transmogrifier]

Die Hard 4 is the belated sequel done right. Well, done fun, anyway.

[Watashi]

I don't understand how someone can complain about Indy's invulnerablity in Crystal Skull and not say the same about McClaine in Live Free or Die Hard. At least Indy winks at its audience to acknowledge the goofiness.

[Qrazy]

I don't understand how someone can complain about Indy's invulnerablity in Crystal Skull and not say the same about McClaine in Live Free or Die Hard. At least Indy winks at its audience to acknowledge the goofiness.

Double standards are fun?

[Rowland]

At least Indy winks at its audience to acknowledge the goofiness.Why does it need to wink? Besides, I think it's a pretty clear subtext in Die Hard 4 that McClane is in over his head in our modern action environment.

[Winston*]

The straight faced preposterousness of Die Hard 4 was what I enjoyed about it.

[Spinal]

Can we at least agree that both of them are 'too old for this shit'?

[Rowland]

Hey, Phenomena and Tenebre are being released again in a box set after being out of print for a few years. They are being packaged with Trauma (which I already own), The Card Player, and Do You Know Hitchcock?, none of which rank near being essential Argento, but the set is only $30 at DeepDiscount.com, so it will be mine. Excellent.

[Winston*]

Can we at least agree that both of them are 'too old for this shit'?
The movie clearly sets it up so Justin Long can take the reigns in the next Die Hard.

[Grouchy]

Huh, I don't have enough fingers to count the ways in which the new Die Hard was better than the new Indy.

[Qrazy]

I didn't find Die Hard 4 that straight faced. I thought it also acknowledged it's own over the top-ness and McClane made 'winking' comments to the audience (haven't seen new Indy).

[Watashi]

Kikujiro was awesome. Hisaishi is pretty much a god and his 'Summer' track is like sex spread on a triscuit. Love the two biker dudes who did anything Kitano said. A good combo of drama and hilarious slapstick.

[Watashi]

I hated the new Die Hard because Olyphant's villain was completely laughable. Now that film did not feel like a Die Hard movie at all.

[Winston*]

I don't think I can work up the effort to defend my mild enjoyment of a movie that stupid which features Kevin Smith in a speaking role.

[Sycophant]

Wonderful news to learn of another fan of Rohmer's patient, emotional and philosophical works. This is the film that made me fall in love with his style, and all of the Moral Tales after that film are nearly as rewarding, especially Love in the Afternoon. You remind me that I need to view A Tale of Winter since I have access to a vhs player now that I'm back in Ohio...I'm looking forward to watching some more. I think I'll just start with the first moral tale and finish those up before trying any of his other work. If this is at all typical of his work, I'm very much looking forward to trying out some more. My summer might become the summer of Rohmer and Bergman.

[Sycophant]

Kikujiro was awesome. Hisaishi is pretty much a god and his 'Summer' track is like sex spread on a triscuit. Love the two biker dudes who did anything Kitano said. A good combo of drama and hilarious slapstick.
A winner is you! I've always favored Hisaishi's scores with Kitano, and to my ears, Kikujiro is his finest accomplishment. These friends of mine used it at their wedding reception where I ate cheese on a Triscuit, and it was lovely.

[Sycophant]

By the way, bummer about Sydney Pollack dying. Didn't know he was ill.

[ledfloyd]

You're being harsher on it than I would be, there's tons of good stuff in there but I agree with you that it feels somewhat disjointed (not just episodic ala Dolce Vita/La Strada) and truncated... could have used a few more connect the dots scenes... I'm all for eliminating the non-essential but I feel it went too far in that direction in terms of flow... and some of the scenes that stayed in lack their own 'essentialness'.
well, we can at least degree it doesn't deserve it's masterpiece status.


Amarcord is a masterpiece. Obviously, if you don't like "disjointed" movies, you're not gonna like it. It's as disjointed as disjointed gets.
"disjointed" doesn't bother me. if it works. here it doesn't work. not entirely. however. disjointedness wasn't my main problem. my problem was. nothing was given time to develop. a setpiece was built up. and as soon as it reached it's peak. it was cut off. i'm thinking of the peacock. and also the ship. but there were more. it was like premature ejaculation. i think. the film would've been better served. had he got rid of some of the filler. and gave the good scenes. more room to breathe. more time to develop. instead of truncating everything. and stuffing it to the gills. it's almost like. he threw everything at the wall. used what stuck. picked up what didn't stick. and used that too.

[origami_mustache]

well, we can at least degree it doesn't deserve it's masterpiece status.


"disjointed" doesn't bother me. if it works. here it doesn't work. not entirely. however. disjointedness wasn't my main problem. my problem was. nothing was given time to develop. a setpiece was built up. and as soon as it reached it's peak. it was cut off. i'm thinking of the peacock. and also the ship. but there were more. it was like premature ejaculation. i think. the film would've been better served. had he got rid of some of the filler. and gave the good scenes. more room to breathe. more time to develop. instead of truncating everything. and stuffing it to the gills. it's almost like. he threw everything at the wall. used what stuck. picked up what didn't stick. and used that too.

cant' agree...giving the scenes more of a development defeats the purpose in my eyes, as it's meant to be based around memories. The build up and aftermath are usually insignificant in retrospect, whereas the climactic moments leave lasting impressions and are the immediate images that come to mind when recalling memories. Personally I loved the way the ship and peacock scenes played out, and felt any more time devoted to them would have been gratuitous and inconsistent with the overall structure of the film.

[Qrazy]

well, we can at least degree it doesn't deserve it's masterpiece status.


"disjointed" doesn't bother me. if it works. here it doesn't work. not entirely. however. disjointedness wasn't my main problem. my problem was. nothing was given time to develop. a setpiece was built up. and as soon as it reached it's peak. it was cut off. i'm thinking of the peacock. and also the ship. but there were more. it was like premature ejaculation. i think. the film would've been better served. had he got rid of some of the filler. and gave the good scenes. more room to breathe. more time to develop. instead of truncating everything. and stuffing it to the gills. it's almost like. he threw everything at the wall. used what stuck. picked up what didn't stick. and used that too.

Yes I agree with you on both the peacock and the ship... particularly the ship which had the potential to be such an amazing moment and then just ends abruptly.

[Qrazy]

cant' agree...giving the scenes more of a development defeats the purpose in my eyes, as it's meant to be based around memories. The build up and aftermath are usually insignificant in retrospect, whereas the climactic moments leave lasting impressions and are the immediate images that come to mind when recalling memories. Personally I loved the way the ship and peacock scenes played out, and felt any more time devoted to them would have been gratuitous and inconsistent with the overall structure of the film.

I don't follow, if the climactic moments are what leave the lasting impressions than shouldn't they have more time devoted to them (i.e. the actual arrival and passage of the ship after waiting for it)?

[Watashi]

I just watched The Pixar Story.

Everyone who works there are not meant to be among us mortal men.

[soitgoes...]

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.
I just got done watching this one as well, and I'd probably rate it the same as you. The ending was some of the scariest stuff I've seen since The Descent. My biggest problem with the movie was that parts of it seemed forced. Such as finding out about the sick dog and then the girl changes immediately. Or as soon as Cesar tells Angela, Manu and the cameraman details on how to escape he gets jumped. That being said, my girlfriend was scared shitless, and I felt pretty damned tense after it ended too. Good movie. Definitely recommendable.

[transmogrifier]

I hated the new Die Hard because Olyphant's villain was completely laughable. Now that film did not feel like a Die Hard movie at all.

And yet his villain is 100 times more effective than Indy's latest.

There's no denying DH4 had it's preposterous moments (mainly the jet fighter thing), but the simple fact is that a film can get away with these moments if (a) the rest of the film has engaged the audience in other ways (characters, tone, entertainment etc) and (b) it seems like an organic escalation from what has come before. In IJ4, neither of these things apply - especially the monkeys and the car driving off the cliff into the tree are completely random goofball idiocies that have no real relation to the rest of that action sequence.

I'm also highly suspect of people claiming that a filmmaker is purposefully being substandard as some sort of homage to less-than-stellar filmmaking of earlier eras. Firstly, making something badly is the easiest thing in the world, and thus is not something to be celebrating as an acheivement in itself. It only works as an in-joke (and even here, I suspect a lot of the audience members willing to ascribe mediocre material to purposeful in-joke are simply exhibiting a bit of self-important snobbishness, as though the crap aspects of movies they like are some sort of secret decoder ring between the director and the audience, a message that you are both actually too cool for this) if the material is actually ENTERTAINING IN AND OF ITSELF in some other way. But in IJ4, this is most certainly not the case. And I think it's a bit to early to be making a homage to National Treasure anyway.

[Benny Profane]

Speaking of unnecessary sequels, Rocky Balboa was even dumber than I anticipated.

[Sven]

Yeah, trans is kinda right on this one. (Plus, DH4 was surprisingly more inventive with the camera than IJ4... at least, more varied and entertaining with it.) And were people complaining about Indiana Jones vulnerability?

I actually quite liked Olyphant in Die Hard because his menace is entirely artificial. I thought they were very successful in developing the character of a marginalized computer geek who'd had enough of the tedium and disrespect of his co-workers. He was like a guy trying to act evil based on what he'd seen in the movies, which is more or less how I'd imagine a real villain would have to act. Art imitating life imitating art.

[Sycophant]

I just watched The Pixar Story.

Everyone who works there are not meant to be among us mortal men.Admittedly I haven't seen The Pixar Story, but with their press materials, I've always been impressed with their down-to-earthness and obvious human qualities.

[Scar]

I watched Best in Show last night, and was thoroughly entertained. Any recommendations along those lines?

And in regard to DieHard 4, the only part that bugged me was the 'sniping' part in the beginning. I rather enjoyed the movie as a whole, and had a blast with the Joint Strike Fighter part. The semi surviving for a bit was much more believable then the Cadillac CTS being driveable, and nobody getting shot in the Matrix Reloaded highway sequence. Of course, thats not saying much!

[Sven]

I watched Best in Show last night, and was thoroughly entertained. Any recommendations along those lines?

Waiting for Guffman and A Mighty Wind. Now.

[Scar]

Waiting for Guffman and A Mighty Wind. Now.

They in the queue already! However, Rambo is #1 on the priorities right now.

*ducks*

[Scar]

Oh, and Man Bites Dog is sitting at home, too.

[Sven]

Oh, and Man Bites Dog is sitting at home, too.

I loathe it, but you might like it, because you're kind of twisted.

[Scar]

I loathe it, but you might like it, because you're kind of twisted.

Just a touch.

[Mysterious Dude]

I loathe it, but you might like it, because you're kind of twisted.
I don't know. Doesn't it have violence against women? I can't remember.

[Sven]

I don't know. Doesn't it have violence against women? I can't remember.

There is a part where he scares that old woman to death. But that's the only instance I can recall of such a thing.

[Morris Schæffer]

I hated the new Die Hard because Olyphant's villain was completely laughable. Now that film did not feel like a Die Hard movie at all.

As opposed to With a Vengeance which did? Don't get me wrong. I too felt something was different, but I can't for the life of me figure out what. Can you? One theory that I have is that composer Michael Kamen wasn't around anymore to compose the score. Beltrami did all right, but Kamen's score is Die Hard. Besides that, what is there? The absence of swearing? Blood? I thought it was a blast showing that asswipe Statham that there's only one bald action hero in town although Statham is all right when he's not transporting and cranking. I'd like to see The Bank Job.

Olyphant wasn't the most persuasive villain, but for all intents and purposes, he is a computer dude and I like how the character was written. Not ferocious, not badass or ruthless, but sort of insecure, clearly oozing bottled up frustration when challenged verbally by McClane. Not quite capable of taking a life, but I guess that's why he surrounded himself with the best mercs in the business. I think the role as it was played out made sense to me, but that doesn't mean I'd call him great.

[Watashi]

People who say Die Hard 4 is better than Indy IV are just.... just... no. NO!

FUCKING NO!

I mean... in one hand, you have Len Wiseman... and then in the other, you probably have the best director in Steven Spielberg...

No... just... no. NO!

There are some moments while posting here and I wish could just reach out strangle all of you.

I need to take a break because just thinking about it is making me angry.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Die Hard 4 > Indy 4

Sorry Wats. Neither is very good, but DH4 was... much less of a disappointment.

*shrug*

[Rowland]

Hmm. I think I'm going to get really drunk tonight and watch Lamberto Bava's Demons. I kinda have a hankering to go rent Die Hard 4 now too. There are some really superbly crafted action sequences in that movie.

[Ezee E]

Hmm... I'd say Die Hard 4 = Indy 4

Both took a different direction from what made the originals good, but still are fun to watch.

[Grouchy]

cant' agree...giving the scenes more of a development defeats the purpose in my eyes, as it's meant to be based around memories. The build up and aftermath are usually insignificant in retrospect, whereas the climactic moments leave lasting impressions and are the immediate images that come to mind when recalling memories. Personally I loved the way the ship and peacock scenes played out, and felt any more time devoted to them would have been gratuitous and inconsistent with the overall structure of the film.
Exactly. The movie is a compilation of memories and tall tales. It's like hanging out with an old man reminiscing and telling a few stories. That's the kind of erratic feeling Fellini wanted to produce. To expand and develop any of the segments would be to defeat their own purpose.

[transmogrifier]

Die Hard 4 > Indy 4

Sorry Wats. Neither is very good, but DH4 was... much less of a disappointment.

*shrug*

I would go as far to say

DH4 >>> IJ4

[Watashi]

I would go as far to say

DH4 >>> IJ4

Are you done?

[transmogrifier]

Are you done?

DH > RotLA > DH4 > DH2 = IJLC > DH3 = IJToD > IJKotCS

[Winston*]

Vera Drake > Die Hard 4 > Indy 4 > River Queen

[number8]

Man Bites Dog is hilarious. Does that mean I'm twisted?

[Watashi]

Wait... people think Die Hard 2 is better than Die Hard 3?

[transmogrifier]

Vera Drake > Die Hard 4 > Indy 4 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> River Queen

Fixed.

[Grouchy]

Wait... people think Die Hard 2 is better than Die Hard 3?
Die Hard > Die Hard With a Vengeance > Live Free or Die Hard > Die Hard 2

Temple of Doom > Raiders of the Lost Ark > Last Crusade, and that's it, they never made another movie.

Man Bites Dog >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> life

[Winston*]

Fixed.

The movie that managed to make even Samantha Morton suck.

[Watashi]

Uh, oh.

Did I just resurrect the ">" phenom?

[megladon8]

Die Hard - 10
Die Hard 2 - 5.5
Die Hard With a Vengeance - 9
Live Free or Die Hard - 5


Discussion closed.

[Qrazy]

There is a part where he scares that old woman to death. But that's the only instance I can recall of such a thing.

They also rape a dead woman's intestines... erm... spoiler alert!

[Qrazy]

DH > RotLA > DH4 > DH2 = IJLC > DH3 = IJToD > IJKotCS

False.

[Sycophant]

They also rape a dead woman's intestines... erm... spoiler alert!
Huh. I don't think I'm going to watch this movie, after all.

[Qrazy]

Hrm I never realized Vengeance was liked more than the second. Guess I should finally get around to it.

[Qrazy]

Huh. I don't think I'm going to watch this movie, after all.

Well... it's well lit raping.

[Rowland]

The first two thirds of Vengeance are much better than DH2, but the last act is a disappointment.

[monolith94]

Oh, and Man Bites Dog is sitting at home, too.
If you see this, let us know what you think! Now I'm really curious to know what your reaction is; it's a very divisive film.

[number8]

They also rape a dead woman's intestines... erm... spoiler alert!

I don't think that's right. I remember the raping of a disemboweled woman, but I dont recall any intestine penetration.

[Qrazy]

I don't think that's right. I remember the raping of a disemboweled woman, but I dont recall any intestine penetration.

Ah my bad I thought they were penetrating the disemboweled section as well... I guess I'd just wished that had happened.

[Watashi]

Can we please change the subject.

[lwilson85]

Carlos Reygadas' Silent Light, is a miracle. From its first shot to its last. I felt a spiritual awakening and a sense of awe just to have the privilege to look at it. As for [rec], I was extremely disappointed. It felt like nothing more than Blair Witch (I understand the use of the camera to convey the atmosphere, but that's just bad camera work; and not in a satirical way), and 28 Days, I was laughing far more than I was shaking. This is what makes Kurosawa's films (Kiyoshi) work so well. They are distinct horror films that are generally far more scary philosophically in their ideas than actual on the screen fright. Something, I think far better captures "horror".

[Spinal]

Carlos Reygadas' Silent Light, is a miracle. From its first shot to its last. I felt a spiritual awakening and a sense of awe just to have the privilege to look at it.

Oh brother.

[Derek]

Oh brother.

Did you not feel something of a spiritual awakening during any of the sex scenes in Battle in Heaven? :twisted:

All jokes aside, despite hating Battle, I can't wait to see Silent Light. From everything I've read plus the comparisons to Dreyer and Malick, it has to be much, much better. It has to be.

[Derek]

As for [rec], I was extremely disappointed. It felt like nothing more than Blair Witch (I understand the use of the camera to convey the atmosphere, but that's just bad camera work; and not in a satirical way), and 28 Days, I was laughing far more than I was shaking. This is what makes Kurosawa's films (Kiyoshi) work so well. They are distinct horror films that are generally far more scary philosophically in their ideas than actual on the screen fright. Something, I think far better captures "horror".

Which is why you really can't compare the film to KK as their approaches are so different. I thought the camerawork was quite good and although there was unavoidably a bit too much of the shakicam, it showed a strong understanding of framing and off-screen space and was executed in a way that maximized the terror of the situation. It seems silly to hold the fact that it wasn't interested in philosophical ideas against it. As an exercise in the horror genre, it was efficient and terrifying, something which few too films are able to accomplish these days.

[Qrazy]

Speaking of non-psychological horror films, I just watched and hated the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

*turns on Osaka Elegy to cleanse*

[Qrazy]

It seems silly to hold the fact that it wasn't interested in philosophical ideas against it. As an exercise in the horror genre, it was efficient and terrifying, something which few too films are able to accomplish these days.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to despise things for what they're trying to be, and not only whether or not they're successful at what they're trying to be (haven't seen the film but in general and horror in particular). It's perhaps not efficient criticism (I"m somewhat undecided but tend to agree with you) but it's entirely reasonable as grounds for dislike. I'm sure The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is effective as a low budget slasher with bad acting and a fixation on the disgusting but I still detested the experience.

[soitgoes...]

They are distinct horror films that are generally far more scary philosophically in their ideas than actual on the screen fright. Something, I think far better captures "horror".
Personally I feel horror films should primarily illicit fear and/or tension in their viewers. If they fail at that they fail at being a horror film. [Rec] accomplished what few horror films of late are able to accomplish, that is creating a good deal of tension, and at least a couple moments of genuine WTF scares. That makes it a good horror film in my eyes. If the forced script was fixed it could've been a great film.

[Qrazy]

You know I really don't find Katherine Hepburn attactive even when she was young... her obnoxious busy body personality stifles any purely physical youthful beauty.

[soitgoes...]

You know I really don't find Katherine Hepburn attactive even when she was young... her obnoxious busy body personality stifles any purely physical youthful beauty.
I don't remember her being in Osaka Elegy.

[Qrazy]

I don't remember her being in Osaka Elegy.

Decided to watch Lion in Winter instead.

[Sven]

Decided to watch Lion in Winter instead.

O'Toole is awesome in this.[/redundant]

[soitgoes...]

Decided to watch Lion in Winter instead.
Ah, I see. That makes more sense.

[MadMan]

Speaking of unnecessary sequels, Rocky Balboa was even dumber than I anticipated.Second best film in the series. I can't say I agree with your statement here. In fact it was one of the best examples of how to send off an iconic screen character.


I don't understand how someone can complain about Indy's invulnerablity in Crystal Skull and not say the same about McClaine in Live Free or Die Hard. At least Indy winks at its audience to acknowledge the goofiness.I love both films equally, but I think Die Hard 4 is slightly better (by only about 3 points). Both remain among some of my favorite theater experiences.


Speaking of non-psychological horror films, I just watched and hated the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

*turns on Osaka Elegy to cleanse*Why? And I feel there is a good deal of psychological elements in the original TCM. My quickie write up on the film is somewhere in one of my school notebooks, and therefore among my "Review Backlog" that I haven't posted. That backlog dates back to my senior year of high school. Oy.

[Qrazy]

Why?

Because I can't think of a single thing I enjoyed about it (except for the use of sound/visuals in the intro perhaps).

Things I disliked:

The acting
The compositions
The carnival of grotesqueries
The dialogue
Not being scared by it but only made nauseous

[megladon8]

Winchester '73 is the first film I've seen by director Anthony Mann, and boy oh boy have I been missing out.

A wonderful film, with direction that I can only describe as immaculate.

The shoot out on the rocks at the end was brilliant.

[MacGuffin]

Things I disliked:

The acting
The compositions
The carnival of grotesqueries
The dialogue
Not being scared by it but only made nauseous

Funny, those are basically the things I like about it.

[lwilson85]

Personally I feel horror films should primarily illicit fear and/or tension in their viewers.

Yes, this I don't have a problem with. That's what horror films should do. However, I felt [rec] didn't do that for me. I mostly just chuckled. Yes, if I had been there and it had happened to me, I'd be scared shitless, but the difference between this kind of scare and Kurosawa's Kairo for instance, is that Kairo scares you with the real world. Where you think this could happen and how awful that would be. However, in something like [rec] we know zombies don't exist. Yes, it most certainly could be horrifying, but the real world personally illicits more fear in me.

[Qrazy]

Funny, those are basically the things I like about it.

OK.

[Winston*]

I'm pretty sure internet ghosts don't exist in the real world.

[monolith94]

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre has to be one of my most memorable film experiences, one of the most unsettling. The tone of the film itself is… evil.

[Scar]

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre has to be one of my most memorable film experiences, one of the most unsettling. The tone of the film itself is… evil.

It definately was one of the most memorable experiences I had. Its hard to watch it with some of these 'younger jaded folk'. The dinner sequence is still unsettling to me.

Which reminds me, I watched The Exorcist with a chick back in college, and she laughed at most of it. I kicked her out.

[Qrazy]

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre has to be one of my most memorable film experiences, one of the most unsettling. The tone of the film itself is… evil.

I guess I somewhat agree, but I'd replace evil with nauseating which is something I don't enjoy... perhaps the only emotion I don't enjoy feeling when viewing art, and I don't see it's purpose for it's own sake. Thrilling fear or despair I can get on board with to varying degrees... I'm also a big fan of awe... but nausea I just don't see what's to be gained... because it's not fear or terror I experienced, because I didn't care about any of the character's nor their plight, nor was I unnerved... more just disgusted.

[monolith94]

It definately was one of the most memorable experiences I had. Its hard to watch it with some of these 'younger jaded folk'. The dinner sequence is still unsettling to me.

Which reminds me, I watched The Exorcist with a chick back in college, and she laughed at most of it. I kicked her out.
pm me her number?



;)

[monolith94]

I guess I somewhat agree, but I'd replace evil with nauseating which is something I don't enjoy... perhaps the only emotion I don't enjoy feeling when viewing art, and I don't see it's purpose for it's own sake. Thrilling fear or despair I can get on board with to varying degrees... I'm also a big fan of awe... but nausea I just don't see what's to be gained... because it's not fear or terror I experienced, because I didn't care about any of the character's nor their plight, nor was I unnerved... more just disgusted.
Well, I was disgusted and nauseated to a degree as well, but with those other emotions (horror, unnerved, etc.) thrown in as well.

[number8]

Talk about nausea, the Sex and the City movie is a whopping 145 minutes long.

I mean, come on. I'm kind of glad they didn't allow me to bring my wife to the screening. Gave me an excuse to say "Fuck it then, this one I'm not reviewing."

[MacGuffin]

I'm pretty sure internet ghosts don't exist in the real world.

BOO!

[Watashi]

I've been struggling on how to properly critique documentaries. It seems that documentaries are always the highest rated films of the year because it seems that most critics go by the usual "important subject matter = great movie". Obviously, you can't critique a documentary like a film because it's a whole different level of acting, aesthetics, and direction and it's hard to judge what it is scripted and what isn't.

Like The Pixar Story. It's a fun, informational movie about the history of computer animation, but I don't think I can critique properly or even give it a rating. It seems that the ratio of bad documentaries to good ones is very low.

Can someone help me out on this?

[Grouchy]

Huh. I don't think I'm going to watch this movie, after all.
Trust me, it's hilarious. You should give it a try.

I find plenty of sociological elements and real-life paralells in both Texas Chainsaw Massacre and its first sequel. They're some of the wittiest Horror films ever made.

As for Silent Light, I got a review (http://www.match-cut.org/showpost.php?p=56787&postcount=62) here. Mostly a boring movie, but I acknowledge the craft of the opening and closing shots... which Reygadas didn't feel like explaining to me - the craft, not the shots, I mean.

[monolith94]

To me, whether a documentary is good or bad is all about whether the film taps into the "essence" of its subject (I decide what that essence may be), and whether the film's style reflects in an interesting way its content matter.

[Qrazy]

Talk about nausea, the Sex and the City movie is a whopping 145 minutes long.

Jesus wept.

[Qrazy]

They're some of the wittiest Horror films ever made.


Evidence?

[Grouchy]

Evidence?
You just saw all the evidence. You're a very poor detective, my friend.

[Qrazy]

You just saw all the evidence. You're a very poor detective, my friend.

You're a very poor defender of a film you supposedly care for.

It doesn't take much to type something along the lines of... the film's brilliant extrapolation of sociological and anthropological theory via extended metaphors blah dee blah blah blah... although I've certainly seen people doing that a lot around her lately and getting commended for it so I guess I can't blame you. Just give me a few examples to back your claim, that's not too much to ask.

[lwilson85]

I'm pretty sure internet ghosts don't exist in the real world.

Well maybe not. But I'm talking about the theme of the film... that death is far more lonely than living

[MacGuffin]

That's debatable. But I'm talking about the theme of the film... that death is far more lonely than livingShit, why haven't I watched all of this? I'm gonna rent it.

[Qrazy]

Well maybe not. But I'm talking about the theme of the film... that death is far more lonely than living

I don't really see that as the central theme of the film... the creatures in Pulse are also the un-dead... no more room in hell and what not.

[Grouchy]

You're a very poor defender of a film you supposedly care for.
You asked me for evidence, not for explanations. The evidence is the film.

But OK, I got it. It's basically a cynical movie about the US, subverting the traditional family unit which is the basis of American life, and setting it in Texas no less, the soil of American history. The cannibal family kills young hippies who smoke pot and do not respect their history and traditions, but the teens are presented as annoying personalities - they're tasteless, crude amongst themselves and, except maybe for the heroine, you wouldn't wanna hang out with any of them. On the other hand, the family is sympathetic because it actually defends worthy values and respects the elders, aside from being funny as hell characters.

On a filmmaking level, the documentary feel and poor lighting makes everything feel like a first-person account without resorting to modern gimmicks like the mockumentary Horrors we've been having lately. It makes us feel the inmediacy of the situation and it's a very conscious choice on Hooper's part. Besides, you said you were nausated. By what? There is absolutely no blood in display, except maybe when they pin the girl's finger for Grandpa to suck on. Everything else is only suggested. You were in fact nausated by the atmosphere Hooper was able to create.

[Mysterious Dude]

It seems that documentaries are always the highest rated films of the year because it seems that most critics go by the usual "important subject matter = great movie".
I don't know if that's why, but I also find that critics tend to rate documentaries highly. Right now, in fact, the top two highest rated movies of 2008 on Rotten Tomatoes are documentaries (link (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/top/bestofrt_year.php?year=2008)), but I bet they don't end up on many top ten lists at the end of the year.

In fairness, though, they're not necessarily rated higher. They just get more uniformly "good" ratings, which results in a higher tomato rating.

I don't generally see documentaries unless the subject matter is particularly interesting to me. Maybe Planet B-Boy is very informative, but I'm probably not gonna see it.

[origami_mustache]

I don't follow, if the climactic moments are what leave the lasting impressions than shouldn't they have more time devoted to them (i.e. the actual arrival and passage of the ship after waiting for it)?

I meant the climactic moments within each memory. Looking at the ship scene as a single setup, the ending of that sequence would be the most memorable climactic aspect. At least that's how my memory generally functions, once I recollect the climax of a memory, the rest of it becomes insignificant and I will move on to another. I just don't see what more could be accomplished by letting those scenes play out a little more...Fellini's intent isn't to let us savor the moments, and let things linger too much; it seems he is more concerned with a montage of random nostalgia.


Exactly. The movie is a compilation of memories and tall tales. It's like hanging out with an old man reminiscing and telling a few stories. That's the kind of erratic feeling Fellini wanted to produce. To expand and develop any of the segments would be to defeat their own purpose.

yep...well said

[lwilson85]

I don't really see that as the central theme of the film... the creatures in Pulse are also the un-dead... no more room in hell and what not.

Well, given that the film was inspired by the rising suicide rates in Japan, and that that tributing factor according to Kurosawa was alienation and loneliness, I don't see how it isn't. The ghosts/un-dead were merely a ruse for this metaphor and the ghosts played out this theme later

[Qrazy]

You asked me for evidence, not for explanations. The evidence is the film.

But OK, I got it. It's basically a cynical movie about the US, subverting the traditional family unit which is the basis of American life, and setting it in Texas no less, the soil of American history. The cannibal family kills young hippies who smoke pot and do not respect their history and traditions, but the teens are presented as annoying personalities - they're tasteless, crude amongst themselves and, except maybe for the heroine, you wouldn't wanna hang out with any of them. On the other hand, the family is sympathetic because it actually defends worthy values and respects the elders, aside from being funny as hell characters.

It has family as a central theme, but I fail to see how that makes it witty. Also, I completely disagree with your analysis of both 'families'. First of all because the 'hippies' (do they even smoke pot? and if they do how is this equatable with not respecting traditions?). Furthermore, they aren't being disrespectful, they're visiting their grandfathers old land... which is still their land. I don't see how they are presented as all that crude or tasteless... particularly versus the killer family who smack each other around and curse each other out. The teen characterizations may be bland as a banana, but they're just kids who are traveling to their old pappy's place. Also they take a look to see if he was dug up... they 'care' just as much about their 'history' as the psychotics. They tease each other to be sure, Jerry vis. Franklin, but are still relatively personable (go looking for each other, care about one another to a degree). I wouldn't want to hang out with any of them because Hooper gives us stereotypes of people, not actual people/characters to invest interest in... and the killers are equally stereotypes of deranged lunatics... laughing in glee at the harm they're causing. I don't see how the family is sympathetic in any way shape or form, they're idiots with blood-lust... I assume the worthy values you mention is the respecting their elders because that's about all they have going for them (and they don't really because they treat each other terribly), but as we've already seen, the kids (looking at the cemetery for grandpa) 'respect' their elders just as much as the murderers.


On a filmmaking level, the documentary feel and poor lighting makes everything feel like a first-person account without resorting to modern gimmicks like the mockumentary Horrors we've been having lately. It makes us feel the inmediacy of the situation and it's a very conscious choice on Hooper's part. Besides, you said you were nausated. By what? There is absolutely no blood in display, except maybe when they pin the girl's finger for Grandpa to suck on. Everything else is only suggested. You were in fact nausated by the atmosphere Hooper was able to create.

There's plenty of blood on display... hitchhiker cutting himself, then cutting Franklin, blood smeared on the van, blood from when Leatherface cuts himself with the chainsaw, blood/bruises from repeatedly jumping out windows, etc. But yeah I agree with you that it's less graphic than many more recent outings. I'm sure I'd hate those too if I saw them. I'm not denying Hooper's ability to create a nauseating atmosphere. What I dislike is the impulse to create such an atmosphere in the first place... or rather I dislike the nauseating final product... which doesn't scare me because I don't care about any of the characters but it does disgust me because there's lots of disgusting-ness (albeit not graphic) on display.

[Qrazy]

I meant the climactic moments within each memory. Looking at the ship scene as a single setup, the ending of that sequence would be the most memorable climactic aspect. At least that's how my memory generally functions, once I recollect the climax of a memory, the rest of it becomes insignificant and I will move on to another. I just don't see what more could be accomplished by letting those scenes play out a little more...Fellini's intent isn't to let us savor the moments, and let things linger too much; it seems he is more concerned with a montage of random nostalgia.


The climax being the arrival of the ship though, that would be the moment of the memory I'd hold most dear and draw out in any reflection upon it... but here we get build up, quick ship moment and then cut... a moment's more climax (more ship passing) is all I ask.

Nostalgia is all about savoring in my opinion. You savor those past moments... but there isn't enough savoring going on because the cuts come too soon.

[Qrazy]

Well, given that the film was inspired by the rising suicide rates in Japan, and that that tributing factor according to Kurosawa was alienation and loneliness, I don't see how it isn't. The ghosts/un-dead were merely a ruse for this metaphor and the ghosts played out this theme later

Yeah but there's a difference between alienation and loneliness being a/the central theme and 'death being more lonely than life' being the central theme (which I don't agree with... either as a stand alone theory or as Kurosawa's intention). But I do agree with you that that KK's subject matter and approach to the material is more scary/unnerving than pure visceral scares usually are.

[Grouchy]

It has family as a central theme, but I fail to see how that makes it witty. Also, I completely disagree with your analysis of both 'families'. First of all because the 'hippies' (do they even smoke pot? and if they do how is this equatable with not respecting traditions?). Furthermore, they aren't being disrespectful, they're visiting their grandfathers old land... which is still their land. I don't see how they are presented as all that crude or tasteless... particularly versus the killer family who smack each other around and curse each other out. The teen characterizations may be bland as a banana, but they're just kids who are traveling to their old pappy's place. Also they take a look to see if he was dug up... they 'care' just as much about their 'history' as the psychotics. They tease each other to be sure, Jerry vis. Franklin, but are still relatively personable (go looking for each other, care about one another to a degree). I wouldn't want to hang out with any of them because Hooper gives us stereotypes of people, not actual people/characters to invest interest in... and the killers are equally stereotypes of deranged lunatics... laughing in glee at the harm they're causing. I don't see how the family is sympathetic in any way shape or form, they're idiots with blood-lust... I assume the worthy values you mention is the respecting their elders because that's about all they have going for them (and they don't really because they treat each other terribly), but as we've already seen, the kids (looking at the cemetery for grandpa) 'respect' their elders just as much as the murderers.

There's plenty of blood on display... hitchhiker cutting himself, then cutting Franklin, blood smeared on the van, blood from when Leatherface cuts himself with the chainsaw, blood/bruises from repeatedly jumping out windows, etc. But yeah I agree with you that it's less graphic than many more recent outings. I'm sure I'd hate those too if I saw them. I'm not denying Hooper's ability to create a nauseating atmosphere. What I dislike is the impulse to create such an atmosphere in the first place... or rather I dislike the nauseating final product... which doesn't scare me because I don't care about any of the characters but it does disgust me because there's lots of disgusting-ness (albeit not graphic) on display.
I think it's been a long time since I got into these movies and I'm confusing some scenes from the sequel with the original, and I might even be mixing the pot element from the remake. I should rewatch this before discussing the personality of the victims, to be honest.

Regardless, I think the themes of family, tradition and the city/country dichotomy make the film witty. And even you are willing to admit that Hooper creates an impressive atmosphere with very little on-screen violence and limited resources. If you're against the whole idea of making a movie this twisted on the first place... well, then it's just not your thing. I think it also speaks volumes about the quality of the movie that, more than thirty years after its release, people are still shocked and nausated by it, even when it's not at all graphic.

If you feel like it, though, you should watch the sequel. It's as good as the first one but it plays more like a dark comedy than a survival Horror. The characters in the family are expanded and the increased budget allows Hooper to do some impressive crane shots. There's also Dennis Hopper.

The other sequels are shit, and they don't even respect their own continuity.

[soitgoes...]

Yes, this I don't have a problem with. That's what horror films should do. However, I felt [rec] didn't do that for me. I mostly just chuckled. Yes, if I had been there and it had happened to me, I'd be scared shitless, but the difference between this kind of scare and Kurosawa's Kairo for instance, is that Kairo scares you with the real world. Where you think this could happen and how awful that would be. However, in something like [rec] we know zombies don't exist. Yes, it most certainly could be horrifying, but the real world personally illicits more fear in me.
I can't argue with the first part. Horror movies fail with me more times than not. This one worked for me. You kinda lost me on the second part. I've never known of an instance in my life in which I can relate to a horror movie, so in every film I need to either suspend belief or rather try and immerse myself in the film and empathize with the characters.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Trust me, it's hilarious. You should give it a try.

I find plenty of sociological elements and real-life paralells in both Texas Chainsaw Massacre and its first sequel. They're some of the wittiest Horror films ever made.

Wow. I love the first film as a grueling, truly frightening piece of work (mostly because of Hooper's defiance of traditional setup/payoff conventions in the genre), but I don't think either is noteworthy as some sort of commentary on reality.

The second is sluggish, stupid comedy in Grand Guignol camouflage. I hated every second of that film.

[Qrazy]

Regardless, I think the themes of family, tradition and the city/country dichotomy make the film witty. And even you are willing to admit that Hooper creates an impressive atmosphere with very little on-screen violence and limited resources. If you're against the whole idea of making a movie this twisted on the first place... well, then it's just not your thing. I think it also speaks volumes about the quality of the movie that, more than thirty years after its release, people are still shocked and nausated by it, even when it's not at all graphic.

If you feel like it, though, you should watch the sequel. It's as good as the first one but it plays more like a dark comedy than a survival Horror. The characters in the family are expanded and the increased budget allows Hooper to do some impressive crane shots. There's also Dennis Hopper.

The other sequels are shit, and they don't even respect their own continuity.

Maybe, I am in the pro Man Bites Dog group so if I could find some dark humor in the proceedings I might enjoy it a bit more.

[Saya]

Does anyone know of any other documentaries focused on the filmmaking process that are worth checking out? So far I've only seen Burden of Dreams and Lost in La Mancha.

I've watched Burden of Dreams a couple days ago and I really liked it. It could've used some more in depth interviews with cast and crew members other than Herzog but it was still pretty good.

[number8]

Does anyone know of any other documentaries focused on the filmmaking process that are worth checking out? So far I've only seen Burden of Dreams and Lost in La Mancha.

I've watched Burden of Dreams a couple days ago and I really liked it. It could've used some more in depth interviews with cast and crew members other than Herzog but it was still pretty good.

American Movie. Best of its ilk.

[origami_mustache]

Does anyone know of any other documentaries focused on the filmmaking process that are worth checking out? So far I've only seen Burden of Dreams and Lost in La Mancha.

I've watched Burden of Dreams a couple days ago and I really liked it. It could've used some more in depth interviews with cast and crew members other than Herzog but it was still pretty good.

Burden of Dreams is pretty great, as it addresses many subjects other than just the process of film making. I always hear great things about Hearts of Darkness, which seems like it might be pretty similar, although I haven't seen it myself.

[Winston*]

Yeah, American Movie is a must. See Hearts of Darkness also. Don't bother with Overnight.

[Qrazy]

Visions of Light doesn't exactly fit, but it's good and worth seeing.

[origami_mustache]

Voyage In Time is another one I need to see that might be worth checking out.

[Qrazy]

Voyage In Time is another one I need to see that might be worth checking out.

Yeah it's good and worth seeing but not great.

[Qrazy]

Grandma's Boy (Lloyd): Wow, Harold Lloyd sure hates minorities... in this case the homeless aka The Tramp. Be careful or the tramp will rob you blind and murder you! Beware! I'm beginning to see why he hasn't survived as well as Chaplin/Keaton.

Granted it's not as bad in all of his films. I can bear the money grubbing Jew in Safety Last, as disgusting a caricature as it may be, for the sake of a good film but this one doesn't have enough going for it to excuse it's terribly un-nuanced perception of the world.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Boy oh boy. If [rec] is a horror film worth getting excited about, then that genre isn't just tired, it's comatose. I've seen numerous people in here talking about how scary it was. What scared you? The fact that the film was eerily similar to every "zombie" film ever made? That I can understand. Otherwise I'm stumped. Seriously, what separated this from 28 Days Later? The fact that they were trapped in an apartment? Is that all that's left to do with zombie/infection films? Change up the setting? Seems to me the whole film was an excuse to get to
the chicken lady at the end.
That was quite possibly the lamest payoff in horror film history. Every "scare" in this film was telegraphed, the results were predictable, and the atmosphere was nothing special either. This is one of the biggest Match Cut letdowns I've had in a long time.

[Sven]

I really don't care much for Harold Lloyd, in truth.

[Saya]

American Movie
Hearts of Darkness
Visions of Light
Voyage in Time

Thanks! I'll try to find these.

[Ezee E]

Scorsese also has a documentary about early American films that is certainly worth checking out.

[Qrazy]

Tekkon Kinkreet was a bit of a disappointment... visually succulent to be sure and some incredible world building at hand but it also has quite a few deeply ingrained problems as well. For one the sound design and the pacing... there was just something slightly off about both. Sound design is incredibly important for an animated film because it ties all the images together and creates a cohesive universe... perhaps I noticed the mediocrity in that element of the film all the more because the film never quite develops any inertia (pacing problems). This would be OK if it were going for more of a staccato rhythm, that's just a different kind of tonal inertia, but it lands somewhere between unity and disparate moments and never quite meshes... the storylines lack gravitas... a gangster betraying his former boss... the development of the city... these things seem to be happening but there's no real sense of temporal continuity/inertia.

Finally the storyline is somewhat lackluster... particularly the farther along we get... I gradually lost interest over the course of the film... the minotaur brings us to a masterfully animated section... unfortunately it's predicated on such a thin metaphor of the white/black, good/evil dichotomy... and white telepathically keeping black in check... and black seemingly saving himself (physically) but not emotionally... that the animation alone can't save it... basically the film wants to abandon it's own previously established logic for the sake of the climax and some over-simplified statement about friendship and inner demons... and it just doesn't work.

It's not a stupid film, just deeply flawed. That's why it's such a shame it isn't able to capitalize on the promise of it's visuals.

[Qrazy]

Sword of the Stranger (Ando) on the other hand was a pleasant surprise. I guess expectations are everything. While it lacks the formal verve of TekkonKinkreet, it makes up for it with simple yet concise storytelling. But it's not really the story or characterizations that are it's strong suit either. Both are fine, generic yet functional... but the samurai action sequences on the other hand are far above par and make this anime a compelling viewing... it should be an enjoyable viewing for fans of Ninja Scroll and similar films.

This seems to be the dawn of a new age for anime, many new directors getting off to strong (ish) starts.

[lwilson85]

Mind Game just might be the weirdest film I've ever see. I don't even know what or how to describe this. I can only think of Seijun Suzuki's Branded To Kill.... animated and maybe 5 times the normal dosage of lsd. This film seems to be weird set piece after weird set piece. It's definitely worth a look.

[Sycophant]

Mind Game has a fairly major following around these parts. In fact, in just the eight months or so that I've known it, it's quickly become one of my favorites. It is hyperactive like virtually no other film, both narratively and visually, but it adds up to one of the most life-affirming experiences the cinema has given me.

[Raiders]

Man, Tekkonkinkreet and Mind Game postings on the same page and Davis isn't around for this?

[Sycophant]

Man, Tekkonkinkreet and Mind Game postings on the same page and Davis isn't around for this?Seriously, I miss the guy.

But speaking of Tekkon Kinkreet, I pretty much agree with Qrazy's assessment upon continued rumination. The experience unfortunately comes up a little hollow despite its exquisite animation. The problem isn't that there's nothing there--because there's plenty there--it's that it's not there enough.

[Watashi]

Jeez, Qrazy. I wish I had the energy to watch as much films as you do.

Do you have a job?

[Derek]

American Movie
Hearts of Darkness
Visions of Light
Voyage in Time

Thanks! I'll try to find these.

Add Symbiopsychotaxiplasm: Take One to the list.

[Stay Puft]

It's not a stupid film, just deeply flawed. That's why it's such a shame it isn't able to capitalize on the promise of it's visuals.

Exactly my reaction.

There were a couple stylistic choices I didn't care for, either, but that ending sequence is certainly fantastic.

[Derek]

Boy oh boy. If [rec] is a horror film worth getting excited about, then that genre isn't just tired, it's comatose. I've seen numerous people in here talking about how scary it was. What scared you? The fact that the film was eerily similar to every "zombie" film ever made? That I can understand. Otherwise I'm stumped. Seriously, what separated this from 28 Days Later? The fact that they were trapped in an apartment? Is that all that's left to do with zombie/infection films? Change up the setting? Seems to me the whole film was an excuse to get to
the chicken lady at the end.
That was quite possibly the lamest payoff in horror film history. Every "scare" in this film was telegraphed, the results were predictable, and the atmosphere was nothing special either. This is one of the biggest Match Cut letdowns I've had in a long time.

SPOLIER WARNING:

I posted some short thoughts a few days ago, but I'll try to expand. I agree that the film is at times almost painfully linear, not only in telegraphing it's punches, but the way the situation spirals out of control. The progression itself is cliched, but the execution was solid. I loved how we were simply thrown into this situation and left with the characters, given no explanation so we're as clueless as they are. The film is incredibly tight and efficient, leaving no room for Cloverfield's bullshit relationship stuff as they're constantly relegated to an increasingly confined space. It had an effectively claustrophobic feel, aided by the handheld camerawork which, as I said before, made good use of off-screen space to ratchet up the tension. The use of lighting in the last half hour to limit our vision was also pretty impressive and combined with the use of sound created what I thought was a dense, scary atmosphere. There was one shot that I'm sure you'll agree was lame - where he put the camera up in the attic area and slowly panned around. I'll admit to jumping, but that was one moment where the telegraphing was a bit too contrived. If you can't get into it, I can see how it would come off as cliched, since the pleasure is not at all in the setup or the plot, but the execution. Fortunately you only wasted 70 minutes of your life this time. :)

[Saya]

Add Symbiopsychotaxiplasm: Take One to the list.

I will! It sounds interesting enough.

Edit: Seems to have a sweet Criterion release. :)

[Derek]

I will! It sounds interesting enough.

Dug up some thoughts I posted about it last year:

It's a pretty bold experiment, not simply because of all the meta-textual layers, but b/c Greaves uses his role as director to examine the construction of art, in turn creating a potent allegory for the failed revolution in '68. The film was made with three cameras - one filming the "scripted" movie (of which only Greaves is certain is never intended to be made) and the other two filming back stage/behind the scenes footage, things going on in the background of the frame, or the performing actors from a different angle. Grieves involvement is constant, but so vague and hands-off that the crew begins to question the purpose of making the film. Their off-set discussions do occasionally descend into psycho-babble, but watching them struggle to come to terms with their role in, what turns out to be, a deconstruction rather than creation is fascinating. All of the footage is edited together in a way that illustrates the multiple levels of reality in any given situation as well as the power that one can exert over them without even appearing to be involved. Grieves is both the ringmaster and the joker and his various manipulative techniques are a wonder to behold.

[megladon8]

I was watching Larry Fessenden's Wendigo last night.

I made the poor choice of starting the movie at 3am, so I fell asleep when there were just 25 minutes left.

But I must say, not much happens in this movie.

I often feel that saying a movie "bored" me makes me seem like I'm childish and unattentive...but boy, this movie was boring me.

I hope it picks up in the last little bit.

[Raiders]

I was watching Larry Fessenden's Wendigo last night.

I made the poor choice of starting the movie at 3am, so I fell asleep when there were just 25 minutes left.

But I must say, not much happens in this movie.

I often feel that saying a movie "bored" me makes me seem like I'm childish and unattentive...but boy, this movie was boring me.

I hope it picks up in the last little bit.

It does sort of "pick up" near the end, but I doubt you'll be satisfied with the conclusion. I love the film, but I loved the first part of it, too.

[megladon8]

It does sort of "pick up" near the end, but I doubt you'll be satisfied with the conclusion. I love the film, but I loved the first part of it, too.


It's not that I'm disliking it...I just kept expecting things to pick up, then was duped by more family squabbles and psycho hillbilly perving.

Perhaps this is to the film's credit - it has tricked me a couple of times, making me think a jump scare was coming, or that an attack was on the way, when nothing was really there.

And I've read a couple of reviews which liken it to The Shining, but I think this is a superficial comparison at best. Family goes to a remote location and the child sees creepy images - that's about it.

[Kurosawa Fan]

If you can't get into it, I can see how it would come off as cliched, since the pleasure is not at all in the setup or the plot, but the execution. Fortunately you only wasted 70 minutes of your life this time. :)

MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD FOR [REC]!!!!







I guess I have a hard time getting into the claustrophobic feel of the film when it's clear that they'll all systematically be killed off from the moment the chaos starts. It all just played out so predictably. And that attic shot wasn't the only contrived moment. The light on the camera went off twice, and both times it was turned back on there was a scare (one a screaming face, one the demented penthouse). In fact, most of the scares were very textbook. It also didn't make a lot of sense to me how the virus attacked its host. They tried to brush it off by saying it depended on your blood type, but that's nonsense. The fireman and officer spent hours injured before turning. The girl took what I can only assume was days (though that's more forgivable if her dog just licked her instead of biting her). Everyone else took minutes, especially the second fireman (guarding the door was a brilliant move on his part :rolleyes:). And how did the outbreak happen if the chicken lady was sealed in that room? Seemed to me they accidentally let her out when that door in the ceiling fell open. How did the dog come in contact with her? I had lost interest by then, so perhaps I missed some explanation. But as for the creepy moments in the film, I was honestly thinking in my head what was going to happen next (or who was going to die), and nearly every time I was spot on. I can usually appreciate atmosphere and craft, even when the story is lacking, but this was just too formulaic and unimaginative.

[Raiders]

And I've read a couple of reviews which liken it to The Shining, but I think this is a superficial comparison at best. Family goes to a remote location and the child sees creepy images - that's about it.

Yeah, I don't know about The Shining comparisons, but the ending reveals it to be more than that simple, I think. I have a review up at the old site:

http://matchcut.org/viewtopic.php?p=474790#474790

However, I would suggest not reading it until you see the rest of the film as it is very spoilerific.

[Rowland]

This is what makes Kurosawa's films (Kiyoshi) work so well. They are distinct horror films that are generally far more scary philosophically in their ideas than actual on the screen fright. Something, I think far better captures "horror".I disagree. I think Kurosawa is master at generating tension through purely cinematic means.

[Sycophant]

I disagree. I think Kurosawa is master at generating tension through purely cinematic means.The thing is I think he's kind of a genius at both.

[megladon8]

Yeah, I don't know about The Shining comparisons, but the ending reveals it to be more than that simple, I think. I have a review up at the old site:

http://matchcut.org/viewtopic.php?p=474790#474790

However, I would suggest not reading it until you see the rest of the film as it is very spoilerific.


OK, well, I will report back this evening after I watch the rest of it.

In fact, I may just start it over and watch it right to the end.


What did you think of Fessenden's Habit?

And have you seen Automatons, where he has a small role?

[Watashi]

http://matchcut.org/viewtopic.php?p=474790#474790


You should continue this thread.

[Rowland]

The thing is I think he's kind of a genius at both.Well, I was just refuting his implied assertion that Kurosawa's movies aren't that "scary" on the basis of what's on the screen.

[Rowland]

I thought Wendigo was kind of amazing. I've seen few horror movies with such convincingly sketched characters, there are layers of subtext to be unearthed, most of the movie oozes with menace and dread, and Fessenden is one of the few horror filmmakers genuinely willing to experiment with the form.

[Raiders]

What did you think of Fessenden's Habit?

It was good, though it has been quite some time since I have seen it. I have seen Last Winter, his most recent film and starring Ron Perlman, and it was every bit as good as Wendigo, if not a little better. I wrote something on it in this thread a good while ago, I believe.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Currently reading: "Hell" by Henri Barbusse

:eek:

Please tell me how you like this. It's been on my list of books to purchase, but B&N doesn't carry it (I'd have to order it, which I never do because I can't prepay) so I've never got around to grabbing it.

[megladon8]

It was good, though it has been quite some time since I have seen it. I have seen Last Winter, his most recent film and starring Ron Perlman, and it was every bit as good as Wendigo, if not a little better. I wrote something on it in this thread a good while ago, I believe.


Last Winter is one I am really, really looking forward to seeing. I believe it comes to DVD in a month or so.

If you're into these offbeat horror films, I strongly suggest Isolation, a little Irish horror film. Borrows liberally from Alien, but it's very original. And don't be swayed by its premise - a zombie cow - because it's actually quite creepy.

[megladon8]

:eek:

Please tell me how you like this. It's been on my list of books to purchase, but B&N doesn't carry it (I'd have to order it, which I never do because I can't prepay) so I've never got around to grabbing it.


I'm enjoying it so far. Read the first 30 pages last night.

I'll write up a review when I'm done. Shouldn't be too long - seems to be a pretty quick read, and it's only about 250 pages.

[Raiders]

If you're into these offbeat horror films, I strongly suggest Isolation, a little Irish horror film. Borrows liberally from Alien, but it's very original. And don't be swayed by its premise - a zombie cow - because it's actually quite creepy.

Yeah, I have wanted to see that for a long time. I even rented it a couple months back, but never watched it before having to return it. I'll get to it soon.

[megladon8]

I thought Wendigo was kind of amazing. I've seen few horror movies with such convincingly sketched characters, there are layers of subtext to be unearthed, most of the movie oozes with menace and dread, and Fessenden is one of the few horror filmmakers genuinely willing to experiment with the form.


The family's dialogue is actually a bit grating. There are moments when their happiness and Brady Bunch-esque playful nature is pretty annoying, and very false.

I thought the scenes at the beginning in the car, when the boy sees the men shoot the buck, and the mother is upset by this, were the best scenes so far.

[Sycophant]

Well, I was just refuting his implied assertion that Kurosawa's movies aren't that "scary" on the basis of what's on the screen.Oh, yeah. Sorry if I came off as misinterpreting.

[soitgoes...]

I watched Winterbottom's Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story. Funny, funny movie. My first exposure to Winterbottom, and boy did he put together a smart movie. So Match Cut, which of his should I check out next?

[Winston*]

I watched Winterbottom's Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story. Funny, funny movie. My first exposure to Winterbottom, and boy did he put together a smart movie. So Match Cut, which of his should I check out next?

24 Party People for definites.

[Sven]

24 Party People for definites.

This is the only film I really like of his (and I love it). Tristram Shandy I found okay, but kind of pompous, much like the rest of his stuff I've seen.

[Qrazy]

Jeez, Qrazy. I wish I had the energy to watch as much films as you do.

Do you have a job?

I dunno it gets pretty depressing in a way... more of a compulsion than anything at this point. I'm taking a summer class to get my last few prereq's out of the way but that's about it this month, have a summer job lined up but haven't started yet.

[Raiders]

I watched Winterbottom's Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story. Funny, funny movie. My first exposure to Winterbottom, and boy did he put together a smart movie. So Match Cut, which of his should I check out next?

Code 46 is likely my favorite, though I think most would probably pick something else. I have liked all four I have seen, though. The others I have seen are Welcome to Sarajevo, 24 Hour Party People and In This World. I recommend them all.

[soitgoes...]

24 Party People for definites.
The fact that IMDb's plot keywords for this film contain such terms as "female nudity" as well as "male frontal nudity" has me sold.

[soitgoes...]

Thanks for all the recommendations!

[Spinal]

I watched Winterbottom's Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story. Funny, funny movie. My first exposure to Winterbottom, and boy did he put together a smart movie. So Match Cut, which of his should I check out next?

Jude!

[soitgoes...]

Jude!
Oooo! Tough call. This one contains "female nudity" as well as "kissing cousins."

[Spinal]

The fact that IMDb's plot keywords for this film contain such terms as "female nudity" as well as "male frontal nudity" has me sold.

Jude has the term "female frontal nudity" and a young Kate Winslet. I rest my case.

[Raiders]

Jude has the term "female frontal nudity" and a young Kate Winslet. I rest my case.

So does Titanic. Case... unrested!

[megladon8]

Kate Winslet has never had a problem with takin' off her clothes.

Pick a film at random from her filmography, and chances are, she's naked in it.

[Spinal]

So does Titanic. Case... unrested!

A fair point. But, really the movie is very good.

[soitgoes...]

Jude has the term "female frontal nudity" and a young Kate Winslet. I rest my case.
I'm gonna go with 24 Hour Party People first since it seems to be a comedy and Jude seems to be all drama-like. But I'll keep your rec in mind for a follow-up viewing. Thank you.

[Spinal]

Kate Winslet has never had a problem with takin' off her clothes.

Pick a film at random from her filmography, and chances are, she's naked in it.

This is the nakedest she has ever been.

[Derek]

This is the nakedest she has ever been.

You, sir, really know how to sell a film.

[Scar]

Just finished Rambo.

This movie will be part of my collection, and will be watched many times. Especially with my best friend and several beers.

Sweet, sweet, sweet gratuitious violence.

[Spinal]

You, sir, really know how to sell a film.

It was either that or the Thomas Hardy angle, which might work on Mara, but that's about it.

[MacGuffin]

I was watching bits of Enemy of the Gates today in my Mod Civ class thinking, 'Wow, this is truly some of the worst filmmaking you could hope to see. Not only do the Russians speak English, but the kills are in slow motion!'

[Melville]

The only Lean film I feel can hold a candle to Lawrence of Arabia is Great Expectations, though the candle is still pretty far away. If you're looking for sweeping epic Lean films then Doctor Zhivago and A Passage to India are much closer in this regard than Bridge.
I agree that Lawrence is far above all of Lean's other work, but I'd go with A Passage to India as the runner up: it does a great job of working some of the same themes as Lawrence (ethics becoming undefined at the junction of two cultures), but from a different angle. Great Expectations was good, but the jarring shift from gothicism to cheeriness at the end seemed trite.


People who say Die Hard 4 is better than Indy IV are just.... just... no. NO!

I'm with you. The visuals in the opening race (sudden shifts in perspective, reflection of one car in the other's rims, etc) and the 50s iconography were way better than anything in Die Hard 4. Even the most ridiculous bit (Shia swinging in the vines) was idiosyncratically absurd, rather than just being boringly over-the-top like the the truck-versus-jet in Die Hard 4.


Speaking of non-psychological horror films, I just watched and hated the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre.
Finally somebody agrees with me. What an abysmal movie.


I'm sure The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is effective as a low budget slasher with bad acting and a fixation on the disgusting but I still detested the experience.
I don't think it even accomplished that. The final chase, with the cuts between Leatherface batting at twigs and the heroine escaping, and the petulant swinging of the chainsaw in the sunset, were awful.


But OK, I got it. It's basically a cynical movie about the US, subverting the traditional family unit which is the basis of American life, and setting it in Texas no less, the soil of American history. The cannibal family kills young hippies who smoke pot and do not respect their history and traditions, but the teens are presented as annoying personalities - they're tasteless, crude amongst themselves and, except maybe for the heroine, you wouldn't wanna hang out with any of them. On the other hand, the family is sympathetic because it actually defends worthy values and respects the elders, aside from being funny as hell characters.
For the reasons Qrazy pointed out, this analysis seems backwards. I thought the film was more of an attack on traditionalism, a la Easy Rider. The young, modern, generally well-meaning and presumably urban people are brutally murdered by a nuclear family of rural psychopaths. The subtext seems pretty clear.


This is the only film I really like of his (and I love it). Tristram Shandy I found okay, but kind of pompous, much like the rest of his stuff I've seen.
I didn't find it pompous at all—just hilarious. And its basic structure, consisting of constant diversions from its ostensible central storyline about adapting the novel, was probably the best possible way to actually adapt the novel.

[Qrazy]

In Monterey Pop is that Michael Murphy, Diane Keaton and others I spy or just randoms who look like them?

[Qrazy]

I don't think it even accomplished that. The final chase, with the cuts between Leatherface batting at twigs and the heroine escaping, and the petulant swinging of the chainsaw in the sunset, were awful.

Yeah was that final 'dance' supposed to be scary? Funny? I just felt kind of mildly embarrassed at the stupidity of the moment. Another semi should have come and run him over mid-dance.

Plus I'm all for artistic license, but I found something unsavory about the 'documentary aesthetic' approach coupled with the approach to the content, as well as the reactions to the film praising the 'realism' of the killer family performances (which I've read quite a few places)... particularly given that a) Ed Gein did not kill people with a chainsaw. b) He most likely shot both known victims in the head before disemboweling them. c) Had no crazy family entourage and developed his psychosis in relation to his mother... all of which is abandoned here. Even with somewhat reductive psychology both Psycho and Silence of the Lambs define Gein much more effectively. The 'documentary aesthetic' in this case just affirms an on going lie about the nature of this particular brand of mass murdering horror that America goes crazy for... we're basically watching a filmic tabloid account of what occurred.

[Qrazy]

Can anyone give me the scoop on Roger Corman, Richard Rush and Monte Hellman (aside from Two Lane Blacktop)? For some reason I have a strange compulsion to check out some of their work... it's pretty much the Nicholson factor... after seeing early Pacino in Scarecrow and Panic in Needle Park as well as De Niro in Mean Streets, I'm dying to see more early intense performances from these masters of drama.

[Mysterious Dude]

I don't think it even accomplished that. The final chase, with the cuts between Leatherface batting at twigs and the heroine escaping, and the petulant swinging of the chainsaw in the sunset, were awful.
I think this is an amazing scene. Where most slasher films seem to mimic the Halloween method of having the victim run away from a walking villain, the villain in Texas Chainsaw actually does have to run after his fleeing victim, and because he's also carrying a heavy chainsaw, he may look a little ridiculous, but I found it a lot easier to believe that he was actually chasing that chick, and found it a lot scarier as a result.

[Boner M]

Um, the chainsaw swinging is one of the greatest images in all of cinema.

[number8]

That chainsaw chase was amazingly shot.

[Watashi]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=VgIxrAlsRTg&feature=related

Meh, I don't really see it.

[megladon8]

Just finished Rambo.

This movie will be part of my collection, and will be watched many times. Especially with my best friend and several beers.

Sweet, sweet, sweet gratuitious violence.


I found it entertaining while I saw it in the theatre with my friends, but I have no desire to see it again.

It's pretty funny how horribly racist it is.

[megladon8]

Can anyone give me the scoop on Roger Corman, Richard Rush and Monte Hellman (aside from Two Lane Blacktop)? For some reason I have a strange compulsion to check out some of their work... it's pretty much the Nicholson factor... after seeing early Pacino in Scarecrow and Panic in Needle Park as well as De Niro in Mean Streets, I'm dying to see more early intense performances from these masters of drama.


I second this.

Roger Corman is a filmmaker I have too little experience with (ie, none).

[Ivan Drago]

Just finished Rambo.

This movie will be part of my collection, and will be watched many times. Especially with my best friend and several beers.

Sweet, sweet, sweet gratuitious violence.

It was awesome to see in theaters. Everyone around me couldn't stop going "HOLY CRAP!" or "OH MY GOD!"

[Ezee E]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=VgIxrAlsRTg&feature=related

Meh, I don't really see it.
and that's why you fail.

Although, when taken in with the context of what else had already happened, it's much much better.

[number8]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=VgIxrAlsRTg&feature=related

Meh, I don't really see it.

Oh. I was actually talking about the chase at night. That, to me, is the greatest chase in horror history.

But this one's awesome too.

[Yxklyx]

My favorite Corman is The Intruder starring none other than William Shatner.

[Stay Puft]

Haven't seen much from Corman, but The Raven is awesome just for Vincent Price and Boris Karloff fighting each other with magic.

[Grouchy]

Can anyone give me the scoop on Roger Corman, Richard Rush and Monte Hellman (aside from Two Lane Blacktop)? For some reason I have a strange compulsion to check out some of their work... it's pretty much the Nicholson factor... after seeing early Pacino in Scarecrow and Panic in Needle Park as well as De Niro in Mean Streets, I'm dying to see more early intense performances from these masters of drama.
Huh, the movie for you is definitively Little Shop of Horrors. It only has Nicholson in one scene, but it's one of the greatest scenes in all of cinema. There's another Corman with more of a starring role for Nicholson and Boris Karloff called The Terror, but it's awful. Then there's The Trip, which was written by Nicholson and directed by Corman.

I've seen a shitload of Corman movies, but at first glance, none from Rush or Hellman. I recommend all of the Poe adaptations, specially House of Usher and Masque of the Red Death. And for other early Nicholson, I guess Five Easy Pieces is a must.

Back to Texas Chainsaw Massacre, I don't think it's fair to judge the movie's documentary style, which is just an artistic choice, because the script doesn't follow the Ed Gein story faithfully. It was inspired by Ed Gein, but it obviously never claims to be the official biopic.

[Qrazy]

Huh, the movie for you is definitively Little Shop of Horrors. It only has Nicholson in one scene, but it's one of the greatest scenes in all of cinema. There's another Corman with more of a starring role for Nicholson and Boris Karloff called The Terror, but it's awful. Then there's The Trip, which was written by Nicholson and directed by Corman.

I've seen a shitload of Corman movies, but at first glance, none from Rush or Hellman. I recommend all of the Poe adaptations, specially House of Usher and Masque of the Red Death. And for other early Nicholson, I guess Five Easy Pieces is a must.

Back to Texas Chainsaw Massacre, I don't think it's fair to judge the movie's documentary style, which is just an artistic choice, because the script doesn't follow the Ed Gein story faithfully. It was inspired by Ed Gein, but it obviously never claims to be the official biopic.

Maybe, but one of the central reasons I hate Crash is that I feel it's (naturalistic) style is at odds with it's parable content... and I feel similarly here... if it has to go for a grotesque impression of human beings, I'd prefer it did so in a hyper-stylized fashion ala Argento... as it is with it's current style I feel it owes more to the real Ed Gein and his victims since it passes itself off as a 'documentary account' (in style) of his story.

Seen Five Easy Pieces, I meant really early Nicholson, before Easy Rider. Seeing him in a brief snippet of The Terror in Targets (Bogdanovich) is what inspired me. I actually have Masque of the Red Death but forgot that was Corman, so I'll give it and Little Shop a look.

[Ezee E]

For a stylistic approach, maybe you'll like the remake more...

...

[Winston*]

Does it bother anyone else when people use culinary terms to describe movies? It bothers me and I don't know why.

[Ezee E]

Does it bother anyone else when people use culinary terms to describe movies? It bothers me and I don't know why.
I just really hate the word, decadent.

[Sven]

I just really hate the word, decadent.

That's not a culinary term. I think he means things like "delicious", "half-baked", "pan roasted", "con carne", etc.

[Derek]

Does it bother anyone else when people use culinary terms to describe movies? It bothers me and I don't know why.

Peter Travers has used the word "sizzling" or "sizzle" in at least a half dozen reviews. One of many reasons to mock him.

[megladon8]

There are a couple of movies I would describe as "delicious".

[soitgoes...]

Can anyone give me the scoop on Roger Corman, Richard Rush and Monte Hellman (aside from Two Lane Blacktop)? For some reason I have a strange compulsion to check out some of their work... it's pretty much the Nicholson factor... after seeing early Pacino in Scarecrow and Panic in Needle Park as well as De Niro in Mean Streets, I'm dying to see more early intense performances from these masters of drama.A Bucket of Blood and The Intruder are both good.

[Winston*]

That's not a culinary term. I think he means things like "delicious", "half-baked", "pan roasted", "con carne", etc.
Delicious is the one that gets me the most. I cringe every time I see it used to describe anything not edible.

There are a couple of movies I would describe as "delicious".
Find a different adjective, please. For my sake

[soitgoes...]

Delicious is the one that gets me the most. I cringe every time I see it used to describe anything not edible.

Find a different adjective, please. For my sake
Scrumptious?

[number8]

The reviews for Ratatouille almost had me shooting myself.

[Qrazy]

For a stylistic approach, maybe you'll like the remake more...

...

They both suck.

[Qrazy]

Delicious is the one that gets me the most. I cringe every time I see it used to describe anything not edible.

Find a different adjective, please. For my sake

I find your bother-hood bothersome. Nothing describes the mouth watering syrupy slurpy goodness of a great cinematic experience like taste metaphors.

[Winston*]

Calling a movie delicious makes it sound like you either want to eat the movie or rape it. Neither of which makes any sense and both of which becomes increasingly unpleasant the more you think about it.

[Qrazy]

What do a ninja monkey, cannibalism, animated nipples, intestinal humor, monsters, jazz and sword play have in common? Why Maaaki Yuasa's (Mindgame) series Kemonozume of course. This 13 ep series is one hell of a trip... crazier than FLCL, as sexually charged as your entire adolescence, and yet somehow oddly affectingly sentimental to boot. Yuasa returns to the postmodern stylings of Mindgame, shifting styles sometimes from shot to shot, other times from scene to scene, but never without purpose. The primary animation style often feels rawer or perhaps cruder than Mindgame, but that doesn't necessarily hurt the series. It has it's imperfections to be sure, but like Mindgame Yuasa is able to sweep the viewer along with the sheer energy, and insanity of his creation.

It's on youtube... which is odd because there's a lot of sex but better to watch it elsewhere... download perhaps. The Youtube version has strange black out moments sprinkled throughout... encoding or copyright issues I don't know.

[Qrazy]

Calling a movie delicious makes it sound like you either want to eat the movie or rape it. Neither of which makes any sense and both of which becomes increasingly unpleasant the more you think about it.

Don't use food metaphors in relation to sex please, I find it unsavory.

[Boner M]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=VgIxrAlsRTg&feature=related

Meh, I don't really see it.
Bah, that clip cut out the very final images that I'm talking about.

Anyway, there's always been something about that final shot of Leatherface's chainsaw swinging that gets me every time; that weirdly childlike gesture of both petulance and despair, that's both unmistakably comic yet disturbing in how recognisably human it is. Maybe I'm affording it too much poetic grandeur, but the fact that Hooper cuts to black & silence on exactly that moment - rather than image with more finality, like the sunrise, for instance - is a sign that he knows exactly the strange mood he wants to create.

[Spinal]

Food metaphors > claiming that a film made you erect and/or ejaculate.

[Ezee E]

Food metaphors > claiming that a film made you erect and/or ejaculate.
you'd rather talk about a food metaphor then truth?

[Spinal]

Watched Punch-Drunk Love again tonight. I confess that I underestimated it the first time. Really cool film. Sandler/Hoffman phone conversation is the best. "What's your name?" "What's YOUR name?"

Old rating: ***
New rating: ***1/2

[berlin wallflower]

Watched Punch-Drunk Love again tonight. I confess that I underestimated it the first time. Really cool film. Sandler/Hoffman phone conversation is the best. "What's your name?" "What's YOUR name?"

Old rating: ***
New rating: ***1/2
Yes, yes. That is hilarious.

I love the way they use music in the film. It has this strange effect on what you are seeing. It almost drives the action in places.

[Boner M]

weekend musts:

The Bellboy (Lewis)
The Boston Strangler (Fleischer)
Only Angels Have Wings (Hawks)
The Saga of Anatahan (von Sternberg)

weekend maybes:

Hélas pour moi (Godard)
Made in USA (Godard)
Fists in the Pocket (Bellocchio)
Van Gogh (Pialat)

[Raiders]

Weekend:

The Fall (Tarsem will be at the screening)
Friday Night
La Chinoise