28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[Qrazy]

Yeah, I see what you're saying. But I ultimately can't appreciate ACO's excessive violence nor its message. I think Tokyo Drift is one of those movies that is bad on the surface, but has some technical merit. You guys would be outraged if I posted all of my ratings.

Why be outraged when it's easier to just ignore?

[Spinal]

Weird Al's parody (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FT060JGp9sQ) of R. Kelly is funnier and more concise.

[MacGuffin]

Why be outraged when it's easier to just ignore?

Huh?

EDIT: Oh, I got it. I didn't post those ratings for people to talk about in the first place. I posted them so you could get an idea of what I meant in the previous post. But whatever.

[Spinal]

I pretty much gotta side with Pauline Kael on this.

Did she also say it has nothing to say? Or did she just not like it?

[D_Davis]

You guys would be outraged if I posted all of my ratings.

Well, I included Armageddon in my top 100, and there wasn't too much outrage. Of course people new not to expect a typical list.

:)

[D_Davis]

Weird Al's parody (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FT060JGp9sQ) of R. Kelly is funnier and more concise.

Yes - and it is intentionally funny, and performed better as well.

[Duncan]

I will not bite. However, I am tempted to take on Trapped in the Closet in essay format, if only so I can try and explain how it is that I appreciate it. I nearly agree that the dramatic set-ups are repetitive and predictable, but I think that's part of the joke, which I think is genuinely funny. I disagree about the music--I quite like it because I think Kelly is a very gifted storyteller. I love the way the words aren't lyrical--it's a fairly banal recount of a convoluted narrative, but boy, he sells it. His delivery is natural, he's never putting on airs. I like the mix of melody and mundaneness he achieves, but mostly I like his investment in the tale's telling.

This doesn't mean that I don't think that it cannot or should not be appreciated ironically, for we cannot predict the amount of hokiness with which Kelly wished to inject the piece.

But I'm not biting! :)

My appreciation of Trapped in the Closet is entirely ironic. I think it might be brilliant because he's always putting on airs, not never. He's playing directly to me sense of irony.

Then again, no, I am not familiar with any of his other work. Outside of knowing he has been accussed of peeing on a 15 year old, I know nothing about the guy.

[MacGuffin]

Did she also say it has nothing to say? Or did she just not like it?

Excerpt from her capsule:


It's certainly exciting, but that excitement isn't necessarily a pleasure. The ominous music keeps tightening the screws and heating things up; the movie is like an aggravated case of New York. It proceeds through chases, pistol-whippings, slashings, murders, snipings, and more chases for close to two hours. This is what's meant to give you a charge. There are no good guys. Gene Hackman plays the lowlife police detective who cracks the case; porkpie-hatted and lewd and boorish, he's also a sadist.

[D_Davis]

Today is crazy day here...

Tokyo Drift better than A Clockwork Orange and The French Connection...comparisons between Trapped in the Closet and Punishment Park...

Am I on candid camera?

[MacGuffin]

Well, I included Armageddon in my top 100, and there wasn't too much outrage. Of course people new not to expect a typical list.

:)

Yeah, I liked your list. Speaking of that actually, I gotta find that score for The Place Promised In Our Early Days. My favorite part of that movie is the establishing shots. There is a particularly beautiful sequence when they show the building (city hall?) with the signs that say something like: "This city is a quiet town" and then they cut to the people ice skating. Good movie. I wish it didn't go all sci-fi in the second half. 5 Centimeters Per Second was pretty disappointing, too.

[Spinal]

Excerpt from her capsule:

Well, first of all, I don't see anything there about the film not having anything to say, which was my point of contention. Second of all, even if she had said it, she would still be wrong. She often was.

[Sven]

Good movie. I wish it didn't go all sci-fi in the second half. 5 Centimeters Per Second was pretty disappointing, too.

This one is one that, given time to digest, I would actually consider a great movie, mostly BECAUSE of the way it processes human development through its abstracted science fiction. Mostly it's that I like to see new, unique, and fantastical ways of signaling teenage development, because it's all too frequently mishandled or cliched.

Thanks to D and Sycophant for getting me to watch that one!

[MacGuffin]

Well, first of all, I don't see anything there about the film not having anything to say, which was my point of contention. Second of all, even if she had said it, she would still be wrong. She often was.

I'm curious as to why you think it is about winning and competitiveness. I'm not trying to put you on the spot, I just what to know what it has to say about those so I can stay enlightened!

[Duncan]

Second of all, even if she had said it, she would still be wrong. She often was.
Totally.

[Sven]

I think it might be brilliant because he's always putting on airs, not never.

That amounts to almost a negligible difference to me.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Excerpt from her capsule:

That didn't seem negative at all.

[MacGuffin]

This one is one that, given time to digest, I would actually consider a great movie, mostly BECAUSE of the way it processes human development through its abstracted science fiction. Mostly it's that I like to see new, unique, and fantastical ways of signaling teenage development, because it's all too frequently mishandled or cliched.

Thanks to D and Sycophant for getting me to watch that one!

Makes sense, if you're talking about Place Promised. Good movie, indeed actually. I think most people should see it even if they don't like anime. It made me want to see more for sure.

[MacGuffin]

That didn't seem negative at all.

I'm not sure how you could take that as positive, but I don't really want to talk about the movie anymore unless Spinal has something to add.

[DavidSeven]

Weird Al's parody (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FT060JGp9sQ) of R. Kelly is funnier and more concise.

Indeed.

[Watashi]

I'm sad that boner completely ignored my Hal Hartley pimpage.

[MacGuffin]

Oh, and I just watched Metropolis for the first time last night. I'm wondering why can't all movies be so perfect (and it would be beyond that when the missing footage is put back into it, nearly 25% at that from what I've read), as it's at least fifty years ahead of its time.

[Duncan]

That amounts to almost a negligible difference to me.

Really? It seems, like, pretty huge to me. As in, if he wasn't putting on airs it would definitely be the stupidest thing ever. The thing is that it's so stupid I find it hard to believe it's in earnest.

[Sven]

Really? It seems, like, pretty huge to me. As in, if he wasn't putting on airs it would definitely be the stupidest thing ever. The thing is that it's so stupid I find it hard to believe it's in earnest.

Well, I guess I see at as consistency of vision: always/never. To me whether his sincerity is fake or real, at least it's never punctured.

[Duncan]

What does schaedenfreude mean?

[Sven]

What does schaedenfreude mean?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9B-ZoS0wvU

[Duncan]

Well, I guess I see at as consistency of vision: always/never. To me whether his sincerity is fake or real, at least it's never punctured.

A constant vision of awfulness is still a vision of awfulness.

[Duncan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9B-ZoS0wvU

Can't watch it at work.

[Sven]

A constant vision of awfulness is still a vision of awfulness.

Not if you're able to appreciate it ironically.

[Sven]

Can't watch it at work.

Ah. It's taking pleasure in the failure or pain of others.

[Spinal]

I'm curious as to why you think it is about winning and competitiveness. I'm not trying to put you on the spot, I just what to know what it has to say about those so I can stay enlightened!

Did you see the ending?

[Sven]

How is that new job going anyhow?

[Duncan]

Ah. It's taking pleasure in the failure or pain of others.

Cool, thanks. Let it be known that schaedenfreude is one of the first things Google has ever failed to teach me. I'm sincerely disappointed.

[Sven]

Cool, thanks. Let it be known that schaedenfreude is one of the first things Google has ever failed to teach me. I'm sincerely disappointed.

It's 'cause that's not the way you spell it. I searched and the Wikipedia page for it was the first thing that came up.

[MacGuffin]

Did you see the ending?

It's been a long time since I've seen it (2 years or more I imagine), so you can't be so vague.

[Duncan]

How is that new job going anyhow?

Alright. The first week was absurdly boring. They didn't really trust me to do anything right so I ended up reading a bunch of technical manuals. Now I'm working on the expansion of a nickel mine down in Colombia. I size motors required to do this or that, draw up schematics of ore diverters, do a lot of cost and weight estimates of various pieces of machinery. That sort of thing. It's ok. I can surf the internet when it suits me. People are nice.

[Spinal]

It's been a long time since I've seen it (2 year or more I imagine), so you can't be so vague.

Re: French Connection

Doyle kills the wrong man because he is consumed by the thrill of the chase. It's a pretty amazing and shocking ending actually.

[Duncan]

It's 'cause that's not the way you spell it. I searched and the Wikipedia page for it was the first thing that came up.

And here I was thinking Google was only human afterall. Turns out Davis is the human.

[MacGuffin]

Re: French Connection

Doyle kills the wrong man because he is consumed by the thrill of the chase. It's a pretty amazing and shocking ending actually.

I'll probably give it another chance when I see The Exorcist in its entirety (I don't think I've seen anything by this director other than FC). I should probably apologize, because in most situations when I don't really remember a movie, I tend to blame it on the fact that it didn't have anything to say, when I guess it's probably more appropriate to just say it's been two years since I've seen it. Obviously you've proven me wrong, and if I do see the movie again perhaps I will be able to back up my argument better. For now, I guess it's better to say I remember hating it (and I think my rating for this movie in particular was brought up on the old website). Apologizes, sir.

[Sven]

Now I'm working on the expansion of a nickel mine down in Colombia. I size motors required to do this or that, draw up schematics of ore diverters, do a lot of cost and weight estimates of various pieces of machinery. That sort of thing. It's ok.

Whoa. Sounds... umm, like something I could in no way manage. I'll probably end up stuck in some God-forsaken metropolis managing some kind of unimportant collection of documents for a living. My whole life has been leading up to something like that.

[Spinal]

I'll probably give it another chance when I see The Exorcist in its entirety (I don't think I've seen anything by this director other than FC). I should probably apologize, because in most situations when I don't really remember a movie, I tend to blame it on the fact that it didn't have anything to say, when I guess it's probably more appropriate to just say it's been two years since I've seen it. Obviously you've proven me wrong, and if I do see the movie again perhaps I will be able to back up my argument better. For now, I guess it's better to say I remember hating it (and I think my rating for this movie in particular was brought up on the old website). Apologizes, sir.

No need to apologize. Sometimes with certain films, one just needs a key in. Happens to me all the time.

[MacGuffin]

SirNewt: You probably won't see this, but I too thought The Most Dangerous Game was a piece of crap. Saw for the 1930s you could say, if a bit better made.

[Qrazy]

Well, first of all, I don't see anything there about the film not having anything to say, which was my point of contention. Second of all, even if she had said it, she would still be wrong. She often was.

Was she ever right? I've never read a single quotation from her that I agree with.

[Qrazy]

Saw for the 1930s you could say, if a bit better made.

Aside from some basic premise similarities I don't think you could really say that at all but yeah I agree that the film was lacking.

[Duncan]

On my more hyperbolic (is that the adjective? Or does that just refer to cosh, sinh, etc?) days I say Pauline Kael is more responsible than anyone else for the slow death of print film criticism we are currently witnessing.

[MacGuffin]

Aside from some basic premise similarities I don't think you could really say that at all but yeah I agree that the film was lacking.

It seems like a vehicle to show violence in order to thrill audiences. So yeah, I think you probably could say that.

[D_Davis]

I wish it didn't go all sci-fi in the second half.

But it's a SF film.

:)

Glad you liked the list.

[Boner M]

I'm sad that boner completely ignored my Hal Hartley pimpage.
I repped you as soon as I saw the post, dude.

[MacGuffin]

But it's a SF film.

:)

Glad you liked the list.

Yeah, I'm thinking about getting into some kung-fu movies, or at least some Asian action movies (haven't like Johnny To so far, but hey). So the list is good for recs.

[Watashi]

I repped you as soon as I saw the post, dude.

No you didn't. :sad:

I never received it.

[D_Davis]

Cool, thanks. Let it be known that schaedenfreude is one of the first things Google has ever failed to teach me. I'm sincerely disappointed.


It's 'cause that's not the way you spell it. I searched and the Wikipedia page for it was the first thing that came up.

There seems to be numerous ways to spell it, and I am never sure which one is official.

I've seen it spelled all kinds of ways...

Sorry!

[D_Davis]

Yeah, I'm thinking about getting into some kung-fu movies, or at least some Asian action movies (haven't like Johnny To so far, but hey). So the list is good for recs.

You can always hit me up for some recs. Happy to oblige.

[Boner M]

No you didn't. :sad:

I never received it.
Huh, I'm pretty sure I did. Well, I'll give you some now, even though I'm 90% sure that I'm falling prey to your cunning rep-whore swindler ways.

[Qrazy]

It seems like a vehicle to show violence in order to thrill audiences. So yeah, I think you probably could say that.

The violence is fairly muted.

[MacGuffin]

The violence is fairly muted.

Not for its time.

[Qrazy]

Not for its time.

Even for it's time, see more pre-code films... Scarface for one.

[MacGuffin]

Even for it's time, see more pre-code films... Scarface for one.

The violence is there. Whether it is implied or otherwise. It serves no purpose. It is merely exploited to thrill the audience. I own that Scarface as it came in the De Palma Scarface Box. So yeah, I will get around to watching it at some point or another.

[Qrazy]

The violence is there. Whether it is implied or otherwise. It serves no purpose.

Not really, it like any other film with minor violence in it uses that violence to attempt to generate tension. The film fails for other reasons, not because it exploits it's violence.

[MacGuffin]

Not really, it like any other film with minor violence in it uses that violence to attempt to generate tension. The film fails for other reasons, not because it exploits it's violence.

So now we're supposed to excuse pointless violence in movies, no matter how minor just because it's used to generate tension? I don't know if I buy it. Mostly because the violence in The Most Dangerous Game or Saw is indeed pointless, but also is just about as intense as eating chocolate pudding when compared to the violence in Suspiria or High Tension.

[MadMan]

Awesome review of Last Winter Meg. If I ever get a chance to see that film, I will.

As for weekend viewings, I find that I often watch movies when I don't post that I am going to watch them.

[Sven]

but also is just about as intense as eating chocolate pudding when compared to the violence in Suspiria or High Tension.

Both films where the violence is just so meaningful. :)

[Melville]

Weekend:

Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors
Chloe in the Afternoon
Taste of Cherry
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days

[MacGuffin]

Both films where the violence is just so meaningful. :)

At least they have an excuse to show violence.

[Sven]

At least they have an excuse to show violence.

What, their scenario? How is the scenario of Most Dangerous Game not an excuse to show violence? It's a violent scenario!

[Sven]

Taste of Cherry

I'm very curious about your response to this. It's one of my favorites.

[MacGuffin]

What, their scenario? How is the scenario of Most Dangerous Game not an excuse to show violence? It's a violent scenario!

Let me reword that. The violence in High Tension and Suspiria is more valuable and worthwhile than the violence in The Most Dangerous Game and Saw because it creates stronger tension that corresponds effectively with the story, whereas the violence in the latter two movies simply exists to thrill. The violence is singular and does not correspond with anything else in the movie like themes, story, tone, structure, progression. I hope that makes more sense.

[Sven]

Let me reword that. The violence in High Tension and Suspiria is more valuable and worthwhile than the violence in The Most Dangerous Game and Saw because it creates stronger tension that corresponds effectively with the story, whereas the violence in the latter two movies simply exists to thrill. The violence is singular and does not correspond with anything else in the movie like themes, story, tone, structure, progression. I hope that makes more sense.

Hmmm... no. No it does not. I do not see how you can divorce the violence of The Most Dangerous Game (have not seen Saw) with its story (which is about violence) or theme (which is about the evolution of violence) or structure (which surrounds a violent scenario) or progression (a violent story normally builds to a violent climax).

[MacGuffin]

Hmmm... no. No is does not. I do not see how you can divorce the violence of The Most Dangerous Game (have not seen Saw) with its story (which is about violence)

If the movie's true focus was one the story, then I think it would have been better to explore violence then just show it for the second half. If you want to explore violence, explore it. Don't just show it to get gasps out of your audience. To me, it seemed that was the movie's raison d'être if you will.


or theme (which is about the evolution of violence)

Are you referring to the fact that the Count mentioned he began hunting animals at first, then he started hunting people with bows? If so, this is far too subtle and only mentioned maybe once in the movie.


or structure (which surrounds a violent scenario)

By structure, I'm talking about editing. The fact that the movie is only a little over an hour hints that it's a one trick pony. The problem with this is that the structure is so boring:

Thirty minutes introducing characters and thirty minutes killing them.


or progression (a violent story normally builds to a violent climax).

True, but as I noted with regards to the structure, the climax lasts a long, pointless thirty minutes.

[Qrazy]

So now we're supposed to excuse pointless violence in movies, no matter how minor just because it's used to generate tension? I don't know if I buy it. Mostly because the violence in The Most Dangerous Game or Saw is indeed pointless, but also is just about as intense as eating chocolate pudding when compared to the violence in Suspiria or High Tension.

It's no more or less pointless than the violence in Miami Vice and certainly less graphic.

[Sven]

The depth of my confusion about your approach to thematic relevance is paralleled only by what I perceive to be a massive contradiction in terms of your ability to quantify that film's violence as exploitative in conjunction with your praise of High Tension. Aja's film pretends to have lofty ambitions (that when you actually start to think about are totally absurd) as an excuse to graphically depict dismemberments and gore. The Most Dangerous Game does not make explicit its artistic intentions (which it may not have in copious amounts), but contents itself to remain relevant on a narrative level. It's not about what the Count SAYS, it's what he DOES. And he hunts people. Why? Bam! There's your theme.

[Qrazy]

Let me reword that. The violence in High Tension and Suspiria is more valuable and worthwhile than the violence in The Most Dangerous Game and Saw because it creates stronger tension that corresponds effectively with the story, whereas the violence in the latter two movies simply exists to thrill. The violence is singular and does not correspond with anything else in the movie like themes, story, tone, structure, progression. I hope that makes more sense.

No, it doesn't. It just means you like those films more.

[soitgoes...]

Weekend:
Frankenstein Conquers the World
Five Deadly Venoms
Yellow Earth
The Blade
Some Keaton shorts

[MacGuffin]

It's no more or less pointless than the violence in Miami Vice and certainly less graphic.

The violence of Miami Vice is definitely relevant as it is used to further set the tone and emphasize what the characters have to go through.

[Qrazy]

I'm very curious about your response to this. It's one of my favorites.

Yeah it's good stuff and my favorite Kiarostami (sp?) but despite the fact that I can see why he ended it the way he did, it felt unnecessary and superfluous to me... same thing with The Quince Tree Sol...

It's just not necessary to go explicitly meta, the meta-ness is already implicit in both cases in my eyes. I like that the season changes but I felt the season could/should've changed without cutting to the filmmakers.

[Sven]

Plus, 'violence' as a general phenomenon is not something that needs to be avoided. Why can't we use it for thrills? It's essentially the core of drama, suspense, and frequently comedy. It's a life truth, just like vomit, and if we can exploit the latter for laughs, why can't we exploit the former for thrills? How do you explain your love of De Palma, whose films often exploit violence for thrills?

[Sven]

The violence of Miami Vice is definitely relevant as it is used to further set the tone and emphasize what the characters have to go through.

HOW IS THIS NOT THE CASE WITH THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME?

[Sven]

Yeah it's good stuff and my favorite Kiarostami (sp?) but despite the fact that I can see why he ended it the way he did, it felt unnecessary and superfluous to me... same thing with The Quince Tree Sol...

It's just not necessary to go explicitly meta, the meta-ness is already implicit in both cases in my eyes. I like that the season changes but I felt the season could/should've changed without cutting to the filmmakers.

It may have been unnecessary, but I found it quite elating. I love the warbly trumpet music.

[Qrazy]

The violence of Miami Vice is definitely relevant as it is used to further set the tone and emphasize what the characters have to go through.

As it is in The Most Dangerous Game where characters are being hunted by other human beings... it's necessary to have violence if you're focus is on humans hunting humans and the thematic implications of that (which the script does address both via dialogue and story structure).

[MacGuffin]

The depth of my confusion about your approach to thematic relevance is paralleled only by what I perceive to be a massive contradiction in terms of your ability to quantify that film's violence as exploitative in conjunction with your praise of High Tension. Aja's film pretends to have lofty ambitions (that when you actually start to think about are totally absurd) as an excuse to graphically depict dismemberments and gore. The Most Dangerous Game does not make explicit its artistic intentions (which it may not have in copious amounts), but contents itself to remain relevant on a narrative level. It's not about what the Count SAYS, it's what he DOES. And he hunts people. Why? Bam! There's your theme.

High Tension is a horror movie that uses violence as a way to convey the theme that there is usually more than meets the eye in horror movies. Particularly in a movie like Suspiria where the violence is used to evoke tension while building up to the climax, but unlike The Most Dangerous Game or Saw is never out of place. Personally, even though I haven't read it, I don't think "The Most Dangerous Game" should have been made into a movie at all, because it's extremely short. I don't think I can possibly justify wasting an hour of my time on a movie about a guy who hunts people. But that's just me. :)

[Boner M]

I think we should invent an icon that displays our cute little yellow friend massaging his(/her?) eyeballs with thumb and forefinger. If only for now.

[MacGuffin]

No, it doesn't. It just means you like those films more.

Okay, crazy.

[MacGuffin]

often exploit violence for thrills?

Name one.

[Sven]

You're not even saying anything. I don't get this.

[Qrazy]

By structure, I'm talking about editing. The fact that the movie is only a little over an hour hints that it's a one trick pony. The problem with this is that the structure is so boring:

Thirty minutes introducing characters and thirty minutes killing them.

True, but as I noted with regards to the structure, the climax lasts a long, pointless thirty minutes.

Yes it's not a very interesting formal exercise, I'll agree with you there, but that does not mean the violence is unnecessary or even very graphic.

[Qrazy]

It may have been unnecessary, but I found it quite elating. I love the warbly trumpet music.

Yeah the music was good stuff.

[MacGuffin]

HOW IS THIS NOT THE CASE WITH THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME?

Miami Vice doesn't do it just for thrills. If anything, the opposite.

[Sven]

Name one.

I can name many, but I'll go with one you admitted to owning earlier. Scarface. Chainsaw sequence.

[MacGuffin]

As it is in The Most Dangerous Game where characters are being hunted by other human beings... it's necessary to have violence if you're focus is on humans hunting humans and the thematic implications of that (which the script does address both via dialogue and story structure).

But the violence in The Most Dangerous Game is basically the only thing it brings to the table, whereas Miami Vice has so many layers.

[Sven]

Miami Vice doesn't do it just for thrills. If anything, the opposite.

I have shown how the violence in the movie is directly connected to its theme, story, structure, and progression. The violence is integral to the film's nature as a story, as well as an entertainment.

[MacGuffin]

I can name many, but I'll go with one you admitted to owning earlier. Scarface. Chainsaw sequence.

As much as I don't want to do this, I am going to have to play the Been Too Long Since I Last Saw It card. However, I do think it may be somewhat similar to Miami Vice where it is merely another day in the life of a main character. I don't know if De Palma was necessarily trying to thrill with this scene (shock, maybe), but rather highlight the struggles he has to go to and the shit he has to see 2 b a gangsta. But I have to see it again just to be sure. Do you like that flick? Any others?

[MacGuffin]

I have shown how the violence in the movie is directly connected to its theme, story, structure, and progression. The violence is integral to the film's nature as a story, as well as an entertainment.

Okay, but it's the fact that the movie exists. It's the fact that a movie like Saw exists. It may have a story, it may have any of those things. But there is no reason for it to exist. It is here to display violence. The story, the characterizations: it's all to show violence. I really don't see any technical merit here.

[Qrazy]

But the violence in The Most Dangerous Game is basically the only thing it brings to the table, whereas Miami Vice has so many layers.

I don't particularly like either film so I won't spend my time defending them. I just don't see that your criticism has any basis here because a) The film is not that explicitly violent and/or gory b) Your criticism of violence in this film when extrapolated to other (horror) films which you seem to enjoy, is entirely contradictory.

[Qrazy]

As much as I don't want to do this, I am going to have to play the Been Too Long Since I Last Saw It card. However, I do think it may be somewhat similar to Miami Vice where it is merely another day in the life of a main character. I don't know if De Palma was necessarily trying to thrill with this scene (shock, maybe), but rather highlight the struggles he has to go to and the shit he has to see 2 b a gangsta. But I have to see it again just to be sure. Do you like that flick? Any others?

The majority of De Palma's cinema is designed precisely to thrill.

[Qrazy]

Okay, but it's the fact that the movie exists. It's the fact that a movie like Saw exists. It may have a story, it may have any of those things. But there is no reason for it to exist. It is here to display violence. The story, the characterizations: it's all to show violence. I really don't see any technical merit here.

No one is arguing with you about Saw which I haven't seen but I'm guessing you're right.

[MacGuffin]

I don't particularly like either film so I won't spend my time defending them. I just don't see that your criticism has any basis here because a) The film is not that explicitly violent and/or gory

But the violence exists. No matter how explicit.


b) Your criticism of violence in this film when extrapolated to other (horror) films which you seem to enjoy, is entirely contradictory.

I have no problem when a horror movie uses violence to scare, I find it kind of sadistic though when one uses violence to thrill. I think this is the difference between a horror movie and a thriller.

[MacGuffin]

The majority of De Palma's cinema is designed precisely to thrill.

Okay, but that's not the only reason most of his movies exist.

[Sven]

Your problem, CSC, is that you did not like The Most Dangerous Game. I've connected the relevance of the violence to the picture quite explicitly, and you retort with the exact same debunked complaint.

You cannot divide thrill and shock, especially in terms of popular entertainment. Sure the surprise shot in The Departed is shocking, but it is quickens the heart rate and gives us a thrilling sensation of unpredictability. And of course De Palma wanted to thrill with the chainsaw sequence. Right now you are in denial.


Do you like that flick?

I like the latter half where the nastiness is put into a more productive perspective.


Any others?

Many: the driller in Body Double, the elevator slashing in Dressed to Kill, the pool sequence in Carlito's Way, the climax of Carrie, the split screen stabbing in Sisters, the graphic rape/execution in Casualties of War, the list goes on...

[Qrazy]

I have no problem when a horror movie uses violence to scare, I find it kind of sadistic though when one uses violence to thrill. I think this is the difference between a horror movie and a thriller.

This is utterly absurd to me.

[Qrazy]

Okay, but that's not the only reason most of his movies exist.

No, not the only reason (like Hitchcock there is subtext), but it is the primary reason.

[MacGuffin]

Your problem, CSC, is that you did not like The Most Dangerous Game.

Indeed. I'm not sure there is much else to say without having the entire forum against me. I simply feel that the movie was a waste of time technically and otherwise. I feel like it exists as a vehicle for violence, and yet you keep pointing to the fact that a story exists which is only there to set up the violence.


Many: the driller in Body Double,

I saw the only existed 35mm print of this on the big screen a while back and it was awesome. I liked it even more that second time around. Anyways, I don't think the scene is only here to thrill. I think it asks the audience to question what they are watching. It's all very voyeuristic and is a criticism about what we watch. Slant even said that it was a response to the critic's regarding Dressed to Kill.


the elevator slashing in Dressed to Kill,

I didn't particularly care for this movie. It's very average in my opinion. Still, too long since I last saw it. So I can't say for sure.


the pool sequence in Carlito's Way,

I've seen everything but the ending, and I don't remember this scene in particular. My DVD skipped out.


the climax of Carrie,

I haven't seen it.


the split screen stabbing in Sisters,

I'm seeing it soon. I hope this isn't a spoiler! :)


the graphic rape/execution in Casualties of War,

I hope you really don't think this is played out for thrills. It basically sets up the entire movie.

[MacGuffin]

This is utterly absurd to me.

I can't really help you there until you tell me why.

[Sven]

Okay, but it's the fact that the movie exists. It's the fact that a movie like Saw exists. It may have a story, it may have any of those things. But there is no reason for it to exist. It is here to display violence. The story, the characterizations: it's all to show violence. I really don't see any technical merit here.

The real issue here is that you cannot see the story's meaning. The scenario is loaded with ideas, think politically, think evolutionary. It has meaning, you just weren't privy to it.

[MacGuffin]

No, not the only reason (like Hitchcock there is subtext), but it is the primary reason.

Aren't all movies supposed to thrill (if by thrill we mean entertain)?

[MacGuffin]

The real issue here is that you cannot see the story's meaning. The scenario is loaded with ideas, think politically, think evolutionary. It has meaning, you just weren't privy to it.

Even if that was true (and I'm not convinced. Examples?), the movie still falls short of any technical achievements.

[Qrazy]

Aren't all movies supposed to thrill (if by thrill we mean entertain)?

I'll kill you.

[Sven]

Indeed. I'm not sure there is much else to say without having the entire forum against me. I simply feel that the movie was a waste of time technically and otherwise. I feel like it exists as a vehicle for violence, and yet you keep pointing to the fact that a story exists which is only there to set up the violence.

It's about the MEANING of the violence, which is given to it by the story.


I saw the only existed 35mm print of this on the big screen a while back and it was awesome. I liked it even more that second time around. Anyways, I don't think the scene is only here to thrill. I think it asks the audience to question what they are watching. It's all very voyeuristic and is a criticism about what we watch. Slant even said that it was a response to the critic's regarding Dressed to Kill.

Doesn't mean it's not thrilling. Just like when we see the heads mounted on the Counts wall in Dangerous Game, which is an image of the taxidermied proletariat, stuffed as a trophy on the ruling class's wall.


I hope you really don't think this is played out for thrills. It basically sets up the entire movie.

It was still shot with gorgeous cinematography and in slow motion. Thrilling cinematic devices. It is thrilling.

[MacGuffin]

It's about the MEANING of the violence, which is given to it by the story.

I don't need a movie to tell me what violence is.


Doesn't mean it's not thrilling. Just like when we see the heads mounted on the Counts wall in Dangerous Game, which is an image of the taxidermied proletariat, stuffed as a trophy on the ruling class's wall.

Okay, but there's more to it than just thrills.


It was still shot with gorgeous cinematography and in slow motion. Thrilling cinematic devices. It is thrilling.

I don't find rape thrilling.

Also, Qrazy: I'd watch who you say those sorts of things too. I don't know if it's another one of your Dave Chappelle references or whatever. But if I'm not mistaken, you were the one who wanted to participate in the conversation. You liked the movie.

[Winston*]

I think we should invent an icon that displays our cute little yellow friend massaging his(/her?) eyeballs with thumb and forefinger. If only for now.

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m252/RiverIsMyGoddess/icons/smiley_rubeyes.gif

[Winston*]

I don't find rape thrilling.
You're obviously doing it wrong.

[MacGuffin]

You're obviously doing it wrong.

Not funny, not something to joke about asshole.

[Spinal]

Weekend ... one or more of these ...

Dragonslayer
Baby Doll
Diabolique
And Give My Love to the Swallows

[D_Davis]

This thread has turned sour.

It makes my soul cry.

[Winston*]

Gonna go see the new Herzog at the cinema tomorrow hopefully.

[MacGuffin]

This thread has turned sour.

It makes my soul cry.

Yeah, seems like whenever I post. I guess I'll just leave.

[soitgoes...]

Weekend ... one or more of these ...


And Give My Love to the SwallowsI prefer And Give My Love a Swallow.

[Spinal]

I prefer And Give My Love a Swallow.

Yeah, I don't think Netflix carries those kind of films.

[soitgoes...]

Yeah, seems like whenever I post. I guess I'll just leave.
I find your posts entertaining, if not maddening at times. You're not afraid to speak your mind. Don't let anyone tell you different. Also don't play the martyr with your, "I guess I'll just leave." That's more annoying than anything else you can possibly post.

[Sven]

I don't need a movie to tell me what violence is.

Not the meaning of violence in general, silly, the meaning of THAT violence. Violence, like anything else, is a tool of storytelling, often used to express something or represent something. The violence in Most Dangerous Game is hardly violence for violence's sake because it means something.


Okay, but there's more to it than just thrills.

The ultimate point is to show that De Palma uses violence to thrill. Where do we draw the line and say that he "uses" violence to thrill instead of "exploits" violence for thrills? I think the answer is in whether the application has anything to say about the tool, ie, De Palma climaxes Carrie with a bloodbath because he's expressing the extremes of adolescent hormonal flux. What do the graphic chainsaw mutilations express other than the thrill or horror of violence itself? It's a purely exploitative moment, designed to put the audience in Tony's shoes. A "rollercoaster".


I don't find rape thrilling.

How about axe and chainsaw murders?

[soitgoes...]

Yeah, I don't think Netflix carries those kind of films.Even the great Netflix has it's drawbacks.

[MacGuffin]

Not the meaning of violence in general, silly, the meaning of THAT violence. Violence, like anything else, is a tool of storytelling, often used to express something or represent something. The violence in Most Dangerous Game is hardly violence for violence's sake because it means something.

If by means something in that it fits in with the story, I agree. But I didn't see any symbolism, if that's what you mean.


The ultimate point is to show that De Palma uses violence to thrill. Where do we draw the line and say that he "uses" violence to thrill instead of "exploits" violence for thrills? I think the answer is in whether the application has anything to say about the tool, ie, De Palma climaxes Carrie with a bloodbath because he's expressing the extremes of adolescent hormonal flux. What do the graphic chainsaw mutilations express other than the thrill or horror of violence itself? It's a purely exploitative moment, designed to put the audience in Tony's shoes. A "rollercoaster".

I agree with all this.


How about axe and chainsaw murders?

Not by themselves. I don't want to know anybody who does. But when you give the axe and chainsaw murders a reason to exist, you get a horrifying, psychological movie like The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. Anyways, I appreciate the discussion, and I learned some things about De Palma, but I'm off to the library now, so later.

[Winston*]

I'm going to take that asshole comment on the chin btw, Cipper Ship, because to be fair, I am kind of an asshole. No hard feelings.:)

[Sven]

It comes down to you not being open to the idea that the film's scenario means anything beyond itself, which is a pretty narrow view. The text is required reading in many schools, and I think the film version preserves its primary concerns. It is not explicit with its subtext, but one can easily extrapolate purpose beyond showing a few deaths with lines like this:
He talks of wine and women as a prelude to the hunt. We barbarians know that it is after the chase, and then only, that man reveals. You know the saying of the Ogandi chieftains: "Hunt first the enemy, then the woman." It is the natural instinct. The blood is quickened by the kill. One passion builds upon another. Kill, then love! When you have known that, you have known ecstasy.

[Sven]

If by means something in that it fits in with the story, I agree. But I didn't see any symbolism, if that's what you mean.

See my above post in response to this.

[Qrazy]

I don't find rape thrilling.

Also, Qrazy: I'd watch who you say those sorts of things too. I don't know if it's another one of your Dave Chappelle references or whatever. But if I'm not mistaken, you were the one who wanted to participate in the conversation. You liked the movie.

No I didn't, Jesus Christ I explicitly told you at least twice that I did not. I said I'll kill you tongue in cheek because you're being unbelievably dense... you go from violence shouldn't be used to thrill to every movie aims to be thrilling. Which leads me to believe you're either trying to get my goat (hence my joking desire to kill you) or you have a brain tumor.

[MacGuffin]

I'm going to take that asshole comment on the chin btw, Cipper Ship, because to be fair, I am kind of an asshole. No hard feelings.:)

I know you are, that's why I said it.

[D_Davis]

Weekend:

The Mummy 3

[Qrazy]

And don't leave, no one is bothered by your presence just start making more sense so I don't have to tear all my hair out and jump off a building.

[Spinal]

I changed my mind. Bring back the penis pictures. Maybe they weren't so bad after all. Oy. :|

[Qrazy]

I changed my mind. Bring back the penis pictures. Maybe they weren't so bad after all. Oy. :|

Your wish is my command.

http://www.jackandhisbeanstalk.com/penis-cross-section.bmp

[Sven]

I would prefer it if nobody ever reminded me of my whereabouts between 5:00 and 6:45 pm, EST, on Friday, August 1st, 2008.

I am sick and bored. That is my excuse.

[Scar]

I'm going to take that asshole comment on the chin btw, Cipper Ship, because to be fair, I am kind of an asshole. No hard feelings.:)

Shit, I laughed.

[megladon8]

Weekend:
Frankenstein Conquers the World


You MUST let me know how this one is :)

[Sven]

I've thought about it long and hard and have come to the conclusion that populism is not a philosophy, practice, or discourse that precludes the intellect.

[dreamdead]

Weekend:
finishing up Oasis
Muriel
Intolerance

[Qrazy]

Running out of Time was OK if not very inspired. Running out of Time 2 was astoundingly worthless in nearly every regard.

[Yxklyx]

Vernon, Florida is one of the best documentaries I've seen - mostly because there is not one line of narration. The subjects just speak for themselves! We need more like this.

[Spinal]

Sadly, Dragonslayer did not live up to my wide-eyed childhood memories. Peter MacNicol's lead character is utterly devoid of personality and the writing is unfortunately far too generic and humorless. Perhaps Monty Python has spoiled earnest medieval pieces for me, but for a film with magic and fire-breathing dragons, it was kind of a chore to sit through.

[Gerbier]

I'm not a great writer or film analyzer (like Israfel...), but this is a write up I did for Andrei Rublev on RT.


http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdcompare/rublev/1.00.16-rus.jpg
Andrei Rublev marked the full emergence of Tarkovsky's style, only briefly visible in his previous film Ivan's Childhood. Throughout his career, Tarkovsky concerned himself with man's quest for spiritual growth. Andrei Rublev chronicles the life of the titular iconographer as he wanders across the desolate landscape of medievil Russia. To call the film a biopic would not do it justice however--it isn't a biopic at all. In fact Rublev serves as a periphery and even absent character throughout much of the film. Although we bear witness to the ups-and-downs of Rublev's life, we never connect or identify with him. The film's focus lies more in identifying the viewer with Rublev's struggle to find inspiration amidst the turmoil of medievil Russia.

Andrei Rublev opens with an thematically related prologue, though unrelated plotwise to the remainder of the film. Yefim, a peasant searching for a means to physically release himself from the confines of the barren Russian landscape, takes flight in a patchy air balloon. His bliss at being airborne is quickly transformed into panic however, as his vehicle hurls towards the ground. Yefim and his aspirations are crushed by the austere terrain. This breif segment introduces a central theme; the artist's struggle again those forces, both natural and human, that seek to inhibit artistic freedom. As the following vignettes introduce us to Andrei Rublev and the major events shaping his life, this theme becomes more defined. As an artist, Rublev must draw inspiration from the most feral circumstances.

Throughout the film we are introduced to many characters representing the hopeful, the creative, and the visionary. Yefim's hopes are crushed by the ground, the Jester's and Marfa's by a group of brutal soldiers. Not until the final vignette do we see the triumph of the artistic spirit over the tyrannic and brutish. The Grand Prince commissions the casting of a bell, but the town's bellmaker has died. The bellmaker's son, Boriska--our final creative character, insists that his father has passed to him the secrets of bellmaking . Boriska begins the arduous task of casting the bell, relishing in his control over the workers but laboring to cast the bell correctly against the punishment of death. Rublev witnesses the event from the peripherary and from a self-imposed vow of silence. The bell rings beautifully at the inauguration ceremony and Boriska collapses to the ground in tears. As Rublev embraces him, Boriska reveals that his father did not pass down the secrets of bellmaking. Boriska's unwavering faith in his own skill was soley responsible for the bell. The beauty of this moment inspires Andrei to break his vow of silence and resume his art.

The final moments of the bell-casting sequence represent not only the triumph of Boriska over the Grand Prince but also the triumph of Rublev over all of the events and persons throughout the film that have led him to doubt himself and his abilities. His encounter with the pagans and tempation for the naked pagan woman, his slaying of a Tatar to save the life of a mute woman, and his abandonment by that woman led Andrei to give up painting. Boriska's supreme achievement restores Rublev's faith. Rublev's ability to overcome the adversity present in medievil Russia is evident by the survival of his greatest icons, which the camera glides over in the film's epilogue.

[soitgoes...]

You MUST let me know how this one is :)
Will do. But to be honest I'm not expecting much. Actually I'm hoping that it is so bad that it becomes entertaining, and not just kinda bad that it's irritating that I tried to watch it.

[Yxklyx]

Mysterious Island (Endfield 61) - 4.0

So not worth it then? I like Endfield's Zulu and this seemed like something up my alley. Have you seen 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea?

[soitgoes...]

So not worth it then? I like Endfield's Zulu and this seemed like something up my alley. Have you seen 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea?
Eh maybe. Depends on what your cup of tea is I suppose. It's nothing like the book. There's some major plot holes too. If Harryhausen's your thing I guess it could be alright, though even there I think he's done some much better stuff.

I recorded Zulu today, so we'll see about that one. It seems to be a highly regarded film. As for 20000 Leagues, I thought it to be okay. Nothing great, but definitely a step or two up from Mysterious Island. Probably because it actually had a decent cast, and I never read that book.

[D_Davis]

Running out of Time was OK if not very inspired. Running out of Time 2 was astoundingly worthless in nearly every regard.

RoT is pretty good up until the last sequence - that make up on Andy Lau almost ruins it for me.


The Mummy 3 was a lot of fun - so long as no one was talking. It's a mummy movie, that's for sure.

[Spinal]

Diabolique is one of the most tense, exciting films I have seen in quite some time.

I sort of figured out what must be going on with about 20 minutes to go in the film. It was the only thing that made sense. But it was so well executed that I really didn't care. Just goes to show it was a thriller that played fair, hiding all the clues in full view.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Awesome. It's one of my favorites. Have you seen The Wages of Fear? Different kind of film, but equally amazing.

[Ezee E]

Shine A Light - okay concert movie. Nothing that would make me go wow or anything.

The Last Winter - a unique and interesting horror movie that seems to rush its ending, not really knowing exactly where it wanted to go. Its political intentions are obvious, but not overdone. I think the movie is hurt by the lack of a budget it had.

Doomsday - second time watching it, and while it is an enjoyable action movie, it has no interesting characters. Rhona Mitra, who had the perfect opportunity for a starmaking role, is simply boring. Malcolm McDowell is equally boring. The character that plays Saul is the steal of the movie, and his scenes make the movie worth watching.

-You gotta love Match Cut for the past three pages or so. Debates on movies that probably never knew they'd get that type of attention to detail, penis censorship (I post at work, I don't think they'd buy the art argument, good call Spinal), and bizarro ratings.

Love this place.

[megladon8]

The Last Winter - a unique and interesting horror movie that seems to rush its ending, not really knowing exactly where it wanted to go. Its political intentions are obvious, but not overdone. I think the movie is hurt by the lack of a budget it had.



Really? I thought its lack of budget actually worked pretty well.

The creature effects were sufficiently spirit-like, and I thought the ending...

...where we only hear the total chaos instead of seeing it...

was pretty effective.

Glad you enjoyed it!

[Ezee E]

Really? I thought its lack of budget actually worked pretty well.

The creature effects were sufficiently spirit-like, and I thought the ending...

...where we only hear the total chaos instead of seeing it...

was pretty effective.

Glad you enjoyed it!
I really did like the look of it from the distance, and the ghost-like appearance of it was great indeed.

Although now that you mention it, the sound of chaos happening is quite similar to the video seen earlier in the movie, so it should work, I can't say I dig it still.

[Spinal]

Awesome. It's one of my favorites. Have you seen The Wages of Fear? Different kind of film, but equally amazing.

I have not. But I will at some point.

Fortunately, seeing the Diabolique remake back in the 90s didn't spoil the original for me. I don't remember it very well, but I'm fairly sure the plot unfolded completely differently.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I have not. But I will at some point.

Fortunately, seeing the Diabolique remake back in the 90s didn't spoil the original for me. I don't remember it very well, but I'm fairly sure the plot unfolded completely differently.

Le Corbeau (The Raven) isn't quite as good as Diabolique or The Wages of Fear, but it's close. Check that one out as well.

[NickGlass]

Hmm. Diabolique and Eyes Without a Face are showing as a double feature at the Film Forum near the end of the month. Perhaps I should give them a look. First, however, I should get a job.

[Melville]

So A Taste of Cherry was very good. I really liked how the dusty hillside landscape was made into a kind of spiritual battleground, sometimes purgatory and other times paradise. ("Battleground" isn't really the best word here, but I can't think of a better one.) The constant display of people working in this landscape then emphasized that life is lived in (or as) this spiritual battleground. The narrative, with its traveling protagonist and his sequence of encounters on the road, works nicely with this idea, recalling as it does epic poems like the Odyssey.

As for the ending, I think it mostly works. The switch in season on its own would be enough to remind the audience that the small beauties of life are real even if the protagonist could no longer enjoy them; but by showing the camera crew and actor, the film also made sure that we didn't just think of the story as a tragedy. Without that extra bit of meta-ness, it might be too tempting to just empathize with the protagonist and think of the ending as the ultimate tragedy (because even though in the end he looked for and saw these small beauties in life, he still couldn't bear to go on living)With the meta-ness, we are refused that simple empathy, allowing us to view the changed landscape in terms other than those of the protagonist's story.

I also thought it was good that the whole mulberry bit didn't sway the protagonist. Partly because no damn mulberry tree would pull me out of a suicidal depression, but partly because it makes clear that while the small beauties of life are real, they can't always be enjoyed, and their antithesis is equally real.

[Bosco B Thug]

The Last Winter

.... seems to rush its ending, not really knowing exactly where it wanted to go... I need to watch it again, but I think I agree here. Poetic and abstract surrealism is great, but Fessenden just plays the cards without setting it up well enough. The film wasn't sharp enough, nor the characters and their internal conflict defined well enough for me to really find the fullest of meaning in the vague mystical happenings that Fessenden relies on in the climax. I'm hopeful, though, that in my re-watch, the film will reveal itself as more dense than I caught on in my first view.


After the bafflingly steamy pile that was Crocodile, I was really worried going into Tobe Hooper's 1990 film Spontaneous Combustion, often cited as one of his worst films. If I didn't like it, it would be strike three for the Hoopster! Thankfully, it's a worthy addition to his body of work.

It sports the ambitious artistic design, sound design, emotionally forceful and inventive directing, and percolating social commentary I've come to expect from his early films. Unfortunately, it also is his least polished, least formally/tonally disciplined, flattest, goofiest, and most nonsensical film compared to those early films (yes, it's even more of nonsense than Lifeforce). Brad Douriff's performance is also really uneven. It also doesn't have the easy genre appeal of his earlier films, because it's not really scary in any way (although it has some typical Hooper grotesqueness). It's a government conspiracy flick that tries but is never as intriguing or political as it really should be (it being so schlocky).

Kiyoshi Kurosawa, though, is said to have called this film one of his personal favorites (!!!) and a major influence on him, which is awesomeness x infinity. A sharp man, that Kiyoshi! I could definitely see the sense of dread the film creates and the nightmarish nuclear age imagery having an effect on him.

[Duncan]

I watched a couple of John Cusack films today because I was in a Cusack mood. I somehow managed to miss Say Anything as a teenager, but watched it for the first time today. A lot of it is pretty standard, but I love that it didn't take the misunderstanding blown way out of proportion route that so many romcoms take. It was sweet. I liked it.

Then I rewatched High Fidelity, which I must like more than I admit because I keep coming back to it. It's become a kind of comfort movie.

Then I watched A Hard Days Night which was fun and charming. Some good music too.

So all and all a good, lighthearted movie day.

[Duncan]

I have Taste of Cherry downloaded. Sounds interesting. I liked Close-Up a lot, so we'll see how that one goes. Though the metaness did get to me a little.

[Melville]

I have Taste of Cherry downloaded. Sounds interesting. I liked Close-Up a lot, so we'll see how that one goes. Though the metaness did get to me a little.
I thought Close-Up was quite a bit better than A Taste of Cherry, and the all-out metaness of the former worked perfectly for me, while the final moments of metaness in the latter required a bit of thinking afterwards to appreciate. But I really liked both of them. I guess I'll look for Through the Olive Trees next.

[Qrazy]

I thought Close-Up was quite a bit better than A Taste of Cherry, and the all-out metaness of the former worked perfectly for me, while the final moments of metaness in the latter required a bit of thinking afterwards to appreciate. But I really liked both of them. I guess I'll look for Through the Olive Trees next.

Or The Wind Will Carry Us which I find to be a good companion piece with Taste of Cherry.

[Derek]

I guess I'll look for Through the Olive Trees next.

You should try to see Where is My Friend's Home and And Life Goes On... before that since those are the first two films in the trilogy that ends with Olive Trees. The latter wouldn't be as effective had you not seen the other films since it refers directly back to them. All three are great though, particularly Where..., which is right up there with Close-Up as my favorite Kiarostami.

And speaking of Iranian films, the new Samira Makhmalbaf film (which I technically shouldn't be talking about but it's great, so consider this a heads up), Two-Legged Horse is a wonderfully bizarre little tale. It's set-up is downright absurd (rich boy with no legs hires mentally challenged boy to be his horse) but plays out absolutely straight-faced, keeping the sacred and the profane, the tragic and the comic, the absurd and the mundane completely inseparable. Makhmalbaf tries to one-up Bresson by first animalizing the young boy, quite literally, before humanizing him. Strange, haunting and sad yet surprisingly funny film.

[Melville]

You should try to see Where is My Friend's Home and And Life Goes On... before that since those are the first two films in the trilogy that ends with Olive Trees. The latter wouldn't be as effective had you not seen the other films since it refers directly back to them.
Thanks for the heads up.

[dreamdead]

I find myself warming to Hitchcock's I Confess more and more as I let it roll around in my mind. While the narrative elements of the story feel rather pedestrian (murderer reveals his sin to a priest inside a confessional, thus barring the priest from making public the knowledge), here Hitchcock's formal strategies feel fluid and lived-in, such as the slight odes to both films noir and neorealist. It's an odd clash on first thought, yet Hitchcock wields his vision so that it all feels, somehow, natural. The initial flaw to the film (why's there so much damn back-story) fades away once I accept that structure and instead investigate the cinematic markers that Hitch uses; namely, the cinematic wipes that reveal the constancy of memory for Baxter's Ruth and the ease in which we're taken through the courtroom sequences into a verdict that's somehow startling and non-cathartic. The true flaw of the film, then, comes in the inability to secure Michael Logan's death in the final frames, as the film instead reneges on the logical conclusion for something that's more pat and simultaneously less challenging. Despite that, though, enjoyable stuff, even if it initially feels like lesser Hitchcock (and I see now why Slant loves it so...)

[Melville]

I'm sure this topic has been discussed before, but I'm wondering how many films people have seen in their lifetime. According to my ratings on IMDB, I've seen roughly 2000, which seems like a lot, but all these yearly consensus threads suggest that most of the posters on here have seen a lot more movies than I have. (Although I also have a tendency to feel unenthusiastic about a lot of the well-loved films from each year.)

So, how many movies have you people seen?

[Qrazy]

I find myself warming to Hitchcock's I Confess more and more as I let it roll around in my mind.

I find the inverse happening to me after just finishing Topaz.

[Derek]

I find the inverse happening to me after just finishing Topaz.

I found it too dull and ordinary to even allow it to roll around my mind. Easily the worst film I've seen from Hitchcock.

[Sven]

I'm sure this topic has been discussed before, but I'm wondering how many films people have seen in their lifetime. According to my ratings on IMDB, I've seen roughly 2000, which seems like a lot, but all these yearly consensus threads suggest that most of the posters on here have seen a lot more movies than I have. (Although I also have a tendency to feel unenthusiastic about a lot of the well-loved films from each year.)

So, how many movies have you people seen?

I tried counting once, but it was too lofty a cause. By the time I'd reached 1980 (going back from 2005, I believe), I'd seen somewhere between 3500 and 4000, I recall. I can't remember exactly, because my mind is a little fried when I try to recollect that episode of my life. Maybe it was between 3000 and 3500. I just gave up after that. I figured if I knew the actual number, I'd get too depressed.

[Sven]

I liked Topaz quite a bit. Some days it's among my five favorite Hitchcocks. I know, I'm crazy, shuddup.

[Qrazy]

I liked Topaz quite a bit. Some days it's among my five favorite Hitchcocks. I know, I'm crazy, shuddup.

Yeah I think I saw it on your recommendation. *slap*

[Qrazy]

I found it too dull and ordinary to even allow it to roll around my mind. Easily the worst film I've seen from Hitchcock.

It made Family Plot look good! Similar to Johnnie To I found a filmography torrent on mininova so I was able to procure... The Lodger, Blackmail, Murder!, Jamaica Inn, Foreign Correspondent, Saboteur, Strage Fright, Dial M for Murder and Torn Curtain. I'm going to watch Torn Curtain tonight.

I think The Wrong Man is my only major blindspot left for his well touted films... and eventually I'll get to Mr and Mrs. Smith, I Confess and Under Capricorn... then when I get desperate I'll seek out his TV episodes.

[Spinal]

I'm sure this topic has been discussed before, but I'm wondering how many films people have seen in their lifetime. According to my ratings on IMDB, I've seen roughly 2000, which seems like a lot, but all these yearly consensus threads suggest that most of the posters on here have seen a lot more movies than I have. (Although I also have a tendency to feel unenthusiastic about a lot of the well-loved films from each year.)

So, how many movies have you people seen?

After doing some quick math on my master list, I come up with a number around 2300.

[Boner M]

A Perfect World was very good. Great, even. I'll have to sit on it a bit longer. Love how Clint stretches scenes to their breaking point of sorts (esp. the confrontation w/ the black family near the end), I think that's what makes him more than just a classicist; Kent Jones once compared him to Maurice Pialat and it's this film that finally made me get that comparison. Jones' chapter on the film in Physical Evidence (originally a Film Comment review) is awesome btw - a must-read for fans of the film, and a must-read collection in general.

[Sven]

The Lodger - ****
Blackmail - ****
Murder! - ****
Jamaica Inn - ****
Foreign Correspondent - ***
Saboteur - ****
Strage Fright - ****
Dial M for Murder - ****
Mr and Mrs. Smith - *1/2
Under Capricorn - ****

Some great ones there.

Under Capricorn gets bad rep, but in my opinion, it's one of his most impressively shot and strangest. Not bad at all.

[Russ]

So, how many movies have you people seen?
Probably between 3000-3500.

[Winston*]

I've seen 85 films so far in the seven months past in this year, so if I extrapolate that using logical mathematical processes I can therefore infer that I have seen 3205.71 films in my lifetime if I round to two decimal places.

[soitgoes...]

I'm sure this topic has been discussed before, but I'm wondering how many films people have seen in their lifetime. According to my ratings on IMDB, I've seen roughly 2000, which seems like a lot, but all these yearly consensus threads suggest that most of the posters on here have seen a lot more movies than I have. (Although I also have a tendency to feel unenthusiastic about a lot of the well-loved films from each year.)

So, how many movies have you people seen?I've tracked seeing just over 3000 feature length films. Plus a few hundred shorts. That includes a whole lotta crap in the 90's when my tastes weren't nearly as refined, and I got to see movies for free.

[Watashi]

Using criticker, about 1300 films.

I've probably seen way more if I counted all the films I saw in my childhood that I can't rate properly like The Garbage Pail Kids Movie.

[MadMan]

Officially, Criticker wise its 1,032 films. But lifetime over all I've probably seen more than 3,000. Maybe even 4,000. I'm not sure, as I don't remember half of the movies I've seen in my life. Especially the ones I watched when I was a kid.

[Spinal]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v696/joel_harmon/Kristen-Wiig-as-Penelope--SNL-krist.jpg

I've seen a billion films soooo ... I've seen films made by creatures from other galaxies soooo ... I was abducted and the alien race made me their sex slave/film critic soooo .... I was like a combination of Roger Ebert and Barbarella ... sooo I've seen more films than you.

[Watashi]

Dear Spinal,

Please use obscure references I get.

Thank You,
Watashi

[MadMan]

Using an SNL joke from the current cast era=lame :P

[Qrazy]

Torn Curtain - Ten minute long scene with woman who wants to go to the USA... what the fuck was that all about... what a waste of space. Other than that yeah pretty bland and by the books, nothing stood out.

[Mysterious Dude]

On my personal log, I've rated 2,976 movies. However, that includes some short films which I found to be particularly spectacular, but not every short film I've seen.

[monolith94]

I'd guesstimate somewhere between 1,000 and 1,500 films. I know I have at least a thousand, as I reached that milestone on my everyone's a critic account.

I feel like I'm in no great rush to boost that number.

[Gerbier]

I just watched Malle's Murmur of the Heart and I can't recall feeling more uncomfortable, more often than during this film.

[eternity]

Have any of you seen Daniel Waters' Sex and Death 101? It's a beautifully surreal trip of a movie, I was really surprised.

[Ezee E]

I liked The Ruins the second time around more for some reason.

[soitgoes...]

It's 1945. The war is coming to an end in Nazi Germany. Some soldiers break into a scientist's lab and take away a trunk. A dull beating can be heard. We cut to a submarine racing across the Indian Ocean. It transports it's cargo, the trunk, to a Japanese warship. The trunk is delivered to a research lab in Hiroshima, where legendary actor Takashi Shimura shows us what's in the trunk. It's none other than Frankenstein's heart. Well I guess it's Frankenstein's monster's heart, but that doesn't seem to be too relevant. The heart is still beating. It can never die. It's purpose now is to be studied so it might one day create a super army that will lead the Axis powers to victory. There's one problem. It's August 6, 1945, and it is Hiroshima. Enter the A-bomb and cut away to 15 years in the present...

There you have the first 5 minutes of Frankenstein Conquers the World. One of the many alternate titles are a ton more accurate, but this title adds another certain level of campiness to a film that has nothing going for it but camp. I can't say it's a good film, because it most definitely not, but it does incite some unintentional laughter. And that intro!!!

I'd give it a 4. One point for just being my base score, one point for camp, one point for the set-up, and one point for having Takashi Shimura. Did I mention this had Baragon the giant devil fish subterranean lizard monster with a glow stick for a nose?!?! And a giant octopus too!!

[Sven]

soitgoes, thoughts on Herakles? I like it quite a bit.

[Melville]

I tried counting once, but it was too lofty a cause. By the time I'd reached 1980 (going back from 2005, I believe), I'd seen somewhere between 3500 and 4000, I recall. I can't remember exactly, because my mind is a little fried when I try to recollect that episode of my life. Maybe it was between 3000 and 3500. I just gave up after that. I figured if I knew the actual number, I'd get too depressed.
That's a lotta movies.


After doing some quick math on my master list, I come up with a number around 2300.
That's pretty close to my number, so I guess my problem is that half the movies I've seen are sheer garbage from the last two decades.


I've seen 85 films so far in the seven months past in this year, so if I extrapolate that using logical mathematical processes I can therefore infer that I have seen 3205.71 films in my lifetime if I round to two decimal places.
Hm...given the uncertainties involved in your calculation, I don't think all those digits are significant.

[Ezee E]

I've seen a lot of movies. Somewhere between 500 and 2000 would be a nice guess.

[Sven]

That's a lotta movies.

I've slown down considerably in the last year, but there were two years before that where my girlfriend, now wife, was completing grad school in New York while I was in Utah with little to do but hang out and watch movies, and before that I was just a movie geek with no excuse. Still am, but now I have more to juggle.

[Benny Profane]

4,000 is one film per day over an 11 year period. How old are you iosos?

[Ezee E]

4,000 is one film per day over an 11 year period. How old are you iosos?
Perhaps he banged out two films a day for a year... Twice.

[Qrazy]

How comprehensive is Criticker? I'd like to remake my list.

[Sven]

For the record, I counted animated television shorts, ie, having seen every episode of Animaniacs, etc. I figure if Looney Tunes count...

..plus, the number was probably closer to 3k. I've been thinking about it and remember estimating something like if I HAD kept tallying, it would be closer to 4k, but I gave up around 3k.

Oh, and I'm 25 in two weeks.

[Sven]

I also counted television serials, ie, all 93 episodes of Tales from the Crypt, many of which I see as worthy "films" in their own right. However, I didn't count things like Cheers episodes or music videos (although if I counted shorts, which I did, I don't see why I shouldn't've... hmmm...).

[Kurosawa Fan]

My dick is 12 inches long. Soft.

[Spinal]

Well, at least we didn't get a picture this time.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Well, at least we didn't get a picture this time.

Hey, I abide by forum rules. Just not anatomical rules.

[Winston*]

Hm...given the uncertainties involved in your calculation, I don't think all those digits are significant.You think wrong, physics boy.

[soitgoes...]

soitgoes, thoughts on Herakles? I like it quite a bit.I thought it was well put together. A mix of German man-boobs and stock footage. I'm not sure I got the gist of what it was all about. A modern day retelling, or attack, of what we perceive "our Hercules" to be? More likely a questioning of what we consider masculine? I guess it's as good as any director's first foray into film can be expected to be. I'd like to see some more of his early work.

[megladon8]

I've seen a few thousand movies, at least.

I mean, my DVD collection is approaching 3000, and I've seen many, many more movies than I own.

[Ezee E]

I must see pictures of this impressive DVD Collection and how you store it.

I'm between 200-300 and have a tough time with it.

[Boner M]

Last three Keira Knightley related IMDb new headlines:

Knightley Got Drunk For My Fair Lady Audition
Knightley Keen To Show She's Brainy
Knightley Stands Firm In Breasts Row

[megladon8]

I must see pictures of this impressive DVD Collection and how you store it.

I'm between 200-300 and have a tough time with it.


It's an entire wall of my basement.

It's gonna be hell when I move.

[Ezee E]

It's an entire wall of my basement.

It's gonna be hell when I move.
Sell half of those, or at least a few you aren't even aware that you own, and you may have a few month's rent!

[soitgoes...]

soitgoes, thoughts on Herakles? I like it quite a bit.


I thought it was well put together. A mix of German man-boobs and stock footage. I'm not sure I got the gist of what it was all about. A modern day retelling, or attack, of what we perceive "our Hercules" to be? More likely a questioning of what we consider masculine? I guess it's as good as any director's first foray into film can be expected to be. I'd like to see some more of his early work.
I just read your take on it over at the old site. Interesting viewpoints. Looking back on it, I completely agree with what you said. I sorta surrounded the film's ideas, but failed to fully grasp onto what Herzog was trying to get across. Good review.

Since I'm sorta on topic, have you or anyone seen any early Kiarostami shorts? I've seen a handful, and some are on par or greater than any of his feature length stuff he's done more recently. He had a certain touch, a lightness that has kinda faded over his career. Not in a bad way necessarily. But he's definitely become more serious.

[Boner M]

Some quick shots on films I've watched recently.

Married Life - Such dull, obvious filmmaking that only barely kept me involved by trying to parse out some sort of subversive sensibility hidden underneath the stultifying homage-for-dummies facade (a scrutiny I only afforded the film due to it being directed by Ira Sachs, who made the sublimely subtle Forty Shades of Blue). Chris Cooper is awesome though, and the ending is satisfying in a convenient kinda way.

The Savages - Exasperating schlubfest that signals it's lack of imagination in the opening minutes (nursing homes aren't as picture perfect as the look on the outside, don'tcha know) and doesn't stop from there. Manages to feel both culled from personal experience and utterly contrived at once.

I, Pierre Rivière... - Absolutely fascinating Bresson-ian dissection of a matricide, culled from research by Michel Foucault, that stands as the most rigorous fictional depiction of a real-life murder case that I've seen on film. The use of the actual location of the crime as well as peasant non-actors brings it into the realm of ethnography, and altogether adds up to a work of enthralling psychological insight.

Chumlum - Hypnotic superimposition-based landmark from the early NYC avant-garde. Decadent and melancholic at once.

The Exiles - Like Killer of Sheep, another long-lost UCLA student film focusing on the life from the margins of LA (in this case, native Americans). Not quite as artful as Burnett's film, but still has a sense of poetic realism that few films from the early 60's could lay claim to. Clearly inspired by Cassavetes' Shadows, but in my eyes, better.

The Human Condition 1 - Kinda bummed that I missed the next two parts; this is powerful stuff. Although the ending feels more appropriately ambiguous without having seen what comes next. I guess.

Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired - Fascinating when it sticks to the case (which I didn't have a great deal of knowledge about beforehand), though it's hard to escape the feeling that Zenovich is avoiding the complexities of the human details in favor of an indictment of the US justice system. Always nice to see a formally exciting doco tho.

The Gravy Train - Unbelievably kickass 70's buddy action/comedy. A treasure trove of memorable dialogue just waiting to be discovered. Who knew Malick could write like that? Saw it at a David Gordon Green curated mini-fest/retrospective; apparently it was one of the influences for Pineapple Express. My expectations are now through the roof.

Tango & Cash - Screened directly after the above. I think I grew a new pair of testicles afterwards.

Blue - Conceptually stimulating and always challenging, with only some very era-specific goth/industrial music distracting from the remarkably sustained state of reverie. Conversation between me and some guy who walked in 1/2 hour into the film: "Has the screen been blue this whole time" *I nod* "Ehhh" *guy walks out*.

[Raiders]

Married Life - Such dull, obvious filmmaking that only barely kept me involved by trying to parse out some sort of subversive sensibility hidden underneath the stultifying homage-for-dummies facade (a scrutiny I only afforded the film due to it being directed by Ira Sachs, who made the sublimely subtle Forty Shades of Blue). Chris Cooper is awesome though, and the ending is satisfying in a convenient kinda way.

I was very interested in this for the McAdams factor, but I have read many poor reviews. Shame.

[Ezee E]

I was very interested in this for the McAdams factor, but I have read many poor reviews. Shame.
Same here. I've been waiting for her to do some more work, but she's either choosy, or just been doing smaller projects.

I'll still check it out.

[Boner M]

I was very interested in this for the McAdams factor, but I have read many poor reviews. Shame.
She's fine in it (and looks great), though her role is woefully underwritten. Do check out Sachs' previous film; I think you'd really like it.

[Melville]

You think wrong, physics boy.
People used to call me Mr. Fizziks. Now I've been demoted to physics boy. I don't get no respect.



I, Pierre Rivière... - Absolutely fascinating Bresson-ian dissection of a matricide, culled from research by Michel Foucault, that stands as the most rigorous fictional depiction of a real-life murder case that I've seen on film. The use of the actual location of the crime as well as peasant non-actors brings it into the realm of ethnography, and altogether adds up to a work of enthralling psychological insight.

That sounds almost as awesome as its title.

[Izzy Black]

The Savages - Exasperating schlubfest that signals it's lack of imagination in the opening minutes (nursing homes aren't as picture perfect as the look on the outside, don'tcha know) and doesn't stop from there. Manages to feel both culled from personal experience and utterly contrived at once.


I did not find it so bad. It was culled from personal experiences, but I found the film a hella lot better than a film like Margot At the Wedding. I also don't think the earlier half of the film was much about nursing homes sucking. It wasn't a shocking realization for either character.

[Yxklyx]

Among many of the questions to ponder in the universe is... why is Vertigo not available in anamorphic widescreen?

Edit: Oh wait - due out in October this year - finally!

[Bosco B Thug]

The Gravy Train - Unbelievably kickass 70's buddy action/comedy. A treasure trove of memorable dialogue just waiting to be discovered. Who knew Malick could write like that? Saw it at a David Gordon Green curated mini-fest/retrospective; apparently it was one of the influences for Pineapple Express. My expectations are now through the roof. Good stuff! And I want to see this - Stacey Keach, and by the director of the pretty-fun Race With the Devil! But it's not on DVD!


Tango & Cash - Screened directly after the above. I think I grew a new pair of testicles afterwards. So is this generally considered a "totally worth watching" 80s (90s?) action flick? On the "To See" list now, in any case.

[Rowland]

I was very interested in this for the McAdams factor, but I have read many poor reviews. Shame.Keith Uhlich loved the hell out of it I believe, wrote an extensive review for THND. Unlike Boner, I found it very impressive from a formal perspective and involving for its morbid humor, the quality of the lead performances, and the core empathy behind the campy facade. I haven't seen much this year, but Married Life still resides comfortably in my top ten.

Oh, and Margot at the Wedding is soooo much better than The Savages.

[Qrazy]

For some reason I've been immersing myself in a lot of mediocre to crappy crap lately... aside from my sig I watched Alien 3 and Human Nature.

Persepolis was a step up but I didn't think it was great... I also have Spring in a Small Town, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly and Le Trou to rectify my terrible viewing habits of late.

[Derek]

by the director of the pretty-fun Race With the Devil!

Cover quote!

[Qrazy]

Cover quote!

Just procured Ms .45 so that might be on the agenda as well.

[Rowland]

aside from my sig I watched Alien 3Love it.

[MacGuffin]

Everybody simply must see Sátántangó.

[Derek]

Just procured Ms .45 so that might be on the agenda as well.

It's a good one. Definitely a step up from King of New York, the only other Ferrara I've seen so far.

[Watashi]

Oh, and Margot at the Wedding is soooo much better than The Savages.

Only if you live in Upside Down Land.

[Rowland]

Only if you live in Upside Down Land.So, so much.

[Benny Profane]

Anyone see Hard Candy?

I don't think I've ever been more squeamish watching a movie. I needed a shot of JD.

[Mysterious Dude]

Everybody simply must see Sátántangó.
As soon as I have eight hours to spare.

[Ezee E]

Consider me in upside-down land because I find Margot much better than the Savages.

As for Hard Candy, it isn't well liked around here for some reason, but I dug it, and had the same reaction as you Benny.

[Qrazy]

Love it.

I didn't hate it but it got progressively worse over the course of it's runtime. For a while it felt to me like Terminator 3, a step down from the first two but a functional genre film in it's own right. However I found the last half hour to be fairly terrible so that significantly hurt the film.

[Pop Trash]

It's a good one. Definitely a step up from King of New York, the only other Ferrara I've seen so far.
You haven't seen Bad Lieutenant? Get on it!

[megladon8]

Anyone see Hard Candy?

I don't think I've ever been more squeamish watching a movie. I needed a shot of JD.


I've been curious about this one. I like Patrick Wilson, and I also like Ellen Page - the latter seems to have developed a cult of haters since the release of Juno, though.

But man, this has to be one of the most polarizing movies in history. Some people seem to think it's exploitative trash, while others think it's brilliant.

[megladon8]

Has anyone else been following the recent developments in the Heath Ledger case?

Mary-Kate Olsen is being questioned about the circumstances of the death, and man, I don't think she could possible sound any more suspicious.

She says she "refuses to speak unless she gets immunity from prosecution".

And her lawyer says they "will not comment on whether or not there is a criminal investigation".

[Spinal]

Hard Candy is the worst film in Ellen Page's 'Teenage Girls You'll Want to Punch' trilogy.

[MacGuffin]

As soon as I have eight hours to spare.

Man, do those seven hours go by fast.

[Qrazy]

Has anyone else been following the recent developments in the Heath Ledger case?

Mary-Kate Olsen is being questioned about the circumstances of the death, and man, I don't think she could possible sound any more suspicious.

She says she "refuses to speak unless she gets immunity from prosecution".

And her lawyer says they "will not comment on whether or not there is a criminal investigation".

It sounds to me like she's afraid of drug charges.

[megladon8]

It sounds to me like she's afraid of drug charges.


The fact that the person who found Ledger's body called Olsen before they called the police sounds pretty fishy to me.

[Qrazy]

The fact that the person who found Ledger's body called Olsen before they called the police sounds pretty fishy to me.

It doesn't seem that fishy to me that if you found a dead person somewhere you'd call the person whose house they were found in... before or after just depends on the person who found the corpses frame of mind... if you're rattled and don't know what to do you call the owner... or perhaps some of Olsen's drugs were involved and so they were hashing out what to do. If she wants immunity I can't imagine it would be anything else, I just don't see her murdering him or anything, perhaps at the back of her mind if it were her pills she's worried about a manslaughter charge or something.

[Spinal]

It sounds to me like she's afraid of drug charges.

Yeah, it sounded to me like she might have been involved in creating false prescriptions or something.

[megladon8]

It doesn't seem that fishy to me that if you found a dead person somewhere you'd call the person whose house they were found in... before or after just depends on the person who found the corpses frame of mind... if you're rattled and don't know what to do you call the owner... or perhaps some of Olsen's drugs were involved and so they were hashing out what to do. If she wants immunity I can't imagine it would be anything else, I just don't see her murdering him or anything, perhaps at the back of her mind if it were her pills she's worried about a manslaughter charge or something.


I don't think it's murder either.

I just think she knew Ledger had drug problems, knew he had drugs in his room and/or supplied him with them, and now she doesn't want to take any responsibility for it.

[Qrazy]

I'm surprised that in all the Diving Bell and the Butterfly talk I've read I never came across a mention of Trumbo's Johnny Got His Gun. I haven't seen the latter film actually, only read the book... while in the former case I've seen the film but have not read the book. Still... the fractured narrative and broken man trying to communicate with the outside world elements although not identical (one is paralysis the other sort of the inverse... a loss of all senses except touch and a capacity for movement) seem to beg a comparison. I'm sure someone has mentioned it at some point and I just didn't stumble across it.

[Qrazy]

I don't think it's murder either.

I just think she knew Ledger had drug problems, knew he had drugs in his room and/or supplied him with them, and now she doesn't want to take any responsibility for it.

Would you want to? If I was in a similar situation I wouldn't want to go away for 5+ years for some kind of drug charge either. Although it's too bad that what happened happened and the role she likely played, her position is fairly understandable.

[megladon8]

Would you want to? If I was in a similar situation I wouldn't want to go away for 5+ years for some kind of drug charge either. Although it's too bad that what happened happened and the role she likely played, her position is fairly understandable.


Sure I can understand not wanting to go away to prison. I don't think anyone ever wants to go away.

I dunno...as I get older I realize more and more how important responsibility is in life.

She made the choice to do this, a young man was killed because of it, she should face the consequences of her actions.

[Qrazy]

Sure I can understand not wanting to go away to prison. I don't think anyone ever wants to go away.

I dunno...as I get older I realize more and more how important responsibility is in life.

She made the choice to do this, a young man was killed because of it, she should face the consequences of her actions.

If she did what we think she did then she has to live with this guilt for the rest of her life, personally I think that's responsibility enough. He was killed because he abused prescription drugs, unless she force fed them to him she is not responsible for his death. We're not talking heroin here and even if we were, the supplier is not directly responsible if someone ODs by shooting 20 pills simultaneously... they're responsible if they sell a hotshot which directly causes death. They should just give her the immunity and have done with it.

[MacGuffin]

Modern Times is okay, but uh, what's the big deal? Jacques Tati's Play Time said so much more about man's struggle to fit into a modernizing society 31 years later, and plus it's funnier and more subtle than Chaplin's movie which is basically the same scene over and over with different variations: man tries new job, fails. As of right now, I'm not giving up on Chaplin. I find Buster Keaton funnier however, even if I probably am the only one who thinks this.

[Qrazy]

Modern Times is okay, but uh, what's the big deal? Jacques Tati's Play Time said so much more about man's struggle to fit into a modernizing society 31 years later, and plus it's funnier and more subtle than Chaplin's movie which is basically the same scene over and over with different variations: man tries new job, fails. As of right now, I'm not giving up on Chaplin. I find Buster Keaton funnier however, even if I probably am the only one who thinks this.

Your comparison would be more valid if it weren't for the bolded section.

[megladon8]

Modern Times certainly isn't Chaplin's best, but it's good.

I prefer City Lights and The Great Dictator.

[MacGuffin]

Your comparison would be more valid if it weren't for the bolded section.

I still think it's a valid comparison, particularly considering both movies are surely considered "timeless" by certain people.

[MacGuffin]

Furthermore, I think it is irrelevant what time period the movie takes place in as the movies in question are more concerned with adaption rather than the modernizations themselves.

[Qrazy]

I still think it's a valid comparison, particularly considering both movies are surely considered "timeless" by certain people.

So there can only be one defining film about modern alienation and everything else ought to tossed into the refuse bin?

[MacGuffin]

So there can only be one defining film about modern alienation and everything else ought to tossed into the refuse bin?

I never said that. I just don't think Modern Times has much to say on the matter. The final shot sums it all up just fine. Have hope, poor people.

[Spinal]

I find Buster Keaton funnier however, even if I probably am the only one who thinks this.

This is actually a fairly common opinion.

[MacGuffin]

This is actually a fairly common opinion.

Interesting.

[Spinal]

Interesting.

I don't know if it's the majority on Match Cut, but I wouldn't be surprised either way.

Most importantly, it's correct.

[MacGuffin]

I don't know if it's the majority on Match Cut, but I wouldn't be surprised either way.

Most importantly, it's correct.

The scene where he his delaying his departure from the Canfield household in Our Hospitality basically sums up why I find him funnier than Chaplin.

Also, I'm probably going to watch Diabolique tonight, since I had to return The Wages of Fear unwatched to the library a while ago back. As a horror fan, I am excited and I'm curious if I missed your thoughts on it?

[Qrazy]

I never said that. I just don't think Modern Times has much to say on the matter. The final shot sums it all up just fine. Have hope, poor people.

That's reasonable although personally I think it's a fine film, but my argument was that I didn't see the point in drawing a negative comparison between one film and another similarly themed film from 30 years later... when the former likely informed the latter if anything. On the other hand, if the comparison was with a film that preceded the film in question, then I wouldn't have had any qualms with such a comparison.