28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[Qrazy]

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.

He's funnier but I still consider Chaplin to be the better filmmaker.

[Spinal]

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.

I had this argument with Morris regarding the respective staircase scenes in Battleship Potemkin and The Untouchables. Nearly drove me to insanity.

[Spinal]

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?

I think I wrote a sentence. The gist was it's very good. Suspenseful.

[MacGuffin]

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.

Yeah, I see what you're saying. I think I put the number in there for fact's sake, but it is really irrelevant.

[Watashi]

Is the sequel to The Last Picture Show worth checking out?

I'm assuming no because I didn't know there was a sequel until today.

[Qrazy]

I had this argument with Morris regarding the respective staircase scenes in Battleship Potemkin and The Untouchables. Nearly drove me to insanity.

I hope you were on my side? :)

Also I think it's fairly obvious that both of those films pale in comparison to the masterful stairway scene from that classic, that benchmark in cinematic history, Naked Gun 33 1/3.

[Izzy Black]

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.

I cannot really disagree with much of your criticisms here, but I should point out that, at least for me, what makes Modern Times such an important film has little to do with what it has to tell me. I do not necessarily look to cinema for philosophies and messages, although this can be good too. Some would argue L'Avventura does not really have much to say about modernity either - of course, its elusiveness and ambiguity lends itself to many interpretations - but at its core, the film is basically telling us modernity is alienating, mechanical, and monolithic. We get variations on this same theme throughout all of modernist texts. Sometimes we have interesting points-of-views on modernity, new ideas about it, and different approaches to coping with it, but in most cases, it is merely the expression of the angst through the formal medium that translates the film's significance. Modern Times, similarly, shows the audacity of a filmmaker to keep these themes, or rather, reintroduce these themes to the cinema. It is not a revolutionary film, but bringing strongly leftist assumptions about the world to a general mainstream American consciousness, and within a system that is largely responsible for propagating the norms of modernity, showcases the vigor and expression of a passionate artist. I think Modern Times, while not terribly original, is a honest modernist work as any.

[Izzy Black]

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.

Margot at the Wedding is grating, overwrought, and annoying to watch. The Savages is not a particularly good film, but neither is Margot at the Wedding. They both are pretty bad, but there are somethings in The Savages I can actually believe matters.

[Qrazy]

Is the sequel to The Last Picture Show worth checking out?

I'm assuming no because I didn't know there was a sequel until today.

On a vaguely and I mean vaguely related note is Two Jakes (Nicholson's own sequel to Chinatown) worth checking out?

[Raiders]

He's funnier but I still consider Chaplin to be the better filmmaker.

How so? I find Keaton better in practically every way.

[Qrazy]

How so? I find Keaton better in practically every way.

I find Keaton funnier and he does more impressive stunts but I find Chaplin more emotionally and narratively affecting as well as more formally cohesive. That is to say that I tend to find his stunts and set pieces are more thoroughly integrated into the story/theme he's expressing while Keaton's more often seem somewhat extraneous. I view the best from both to be roughly comparable in quality but the emotional robustness of Chaplin's works pushes them over the top... and tis emotion usually feels genuine to me. I fondly remember the budding relationship between the flower girl and the tramp in City Lights, while I can't particularly remember any of Keaton's characters romances.

[Raiders]

I find Keaton funnier and he does more impressive stunts but I find Chaplin more emotionally and narratively affecting as well as more formally cohesive. That is to say that I tend to find his stunts and set pieces are more thoroughly integrated into the story/theme he's expressing while Keaton's more often seem somewhat extraneous to me. I view the best from both to be roughly comparable in quality but the emotional robustness of Chaplin's work pushes it over the top... and the emotion tends to feel genuine and rarely cloying to me.

I don't know, I have always found Keaton's straight-faced gestures more emotional than Chaplin's over earnestness. I also find many of his films, from The Play House to Sherlock, Jr. more formally involving and creative than anything Chaplin attempted.

[MadMan]

So far I've only seen one Keaton film, while I've seen three Chaplin films. So I'll have to view more to determine which one I think is the best. I liked all of those films however, with my favorite being The Gold Rush.

[Qrazy]

I don't know, I have always found Keaton's straight-faced gestures more emotional than Chaplin's over earnestness. I also find many of his films, from The Play House to Sherlock, Jr. more formally involving and creative than anything Chaplin attempted.

I would slightly alter that to say more formally inventive (I don't agree that it's more involving and creative is too ambiguous for me), with that amendment then I would agree, but formal invention in and of itself only goes so far with me... which is not very far.

I also just find Chaplin has a more consistently strong filmography.

[Mysterious Dude]

I've found Keaton's films pretty repetitive. It seems like he's always doing something crazy to impress some shallow twit.

[Derek]

I also like Ellen Page - the latter seems to have developed a cult of haters since the release of Juno, though.

Actually, there are at least a few of us who hated Ellen Page since Hard Candy, though I'm sure there's a cult of haters unable to think for themselves that have come on board since Juno. Unlike the enlightened Page supporters able to form their own opinions and come to their own conclusions of course. Oh, to be an individual, but alas, the call of the cult is too strong.

[MadMan]

I have no opinion on Ellen Page one way or another, but then I have yet to see any of her films.

[Melville]

I think Modern Times works because of how it uses the Tramp as an icon. He's a force of anarchic rebellion against modern industrial society, and the film's visuals maximize on that iconic potential.

Also, Chaplin's films are consistently funnier, more varied, more emotionally meaningful, and far more cohesive than Keaton's. The stories and characters in Keaton's films just seem like excuses for stunts and gags.

[MacGuffin]

I cannot really disagree with much of your criticisms here, but I should point out that, at least for me, what makes Modern Times such an important film has little to do with what it has to tell me. I do not necessarily look to cinema for philosophies and messages, although this can be good too. Some would argue L'Avventura does not really have much to say about modernity either - of course, its elusiveness and ambiguity lends itself to many interpretations - but at its core, the film is basically telling us modernity is alienating, mechanical, and monolithic. We get variations on this same theme throughout all of modernist texts. Sometimes we have interesting points-of-views on modernity, new ideas about it, and different approaches to coping with it, but in most cases, it is merely the expression of the angst through the formal medium that translates the film's significance. Modern Times, similarly, shows the audacity of a filmmaker to keep these themes, or rather, reintroduce these themes to the cinema. It is not a revolutionary film, but bringing strongly leftist assumptions about the world to a general mainstream American consciousness, and within a system that is largely responsible for propagating the norms of modernity, showcases the vigor and expression of a passionate artist. I think Modern Times, while not terribly original, is a honest modernist work as any.

I see where you're coming from, and it makes sense how one would feel this way towards it. I'm not denying its "importance", I just feel why watch Modern Times when you could learn so much more about society from a movie with these similar themes like Play Time?

[Qrazy]

The stories and characters in Keaton's films just seem like excuses for stunts and gags.

This.

Yeah I'm not really sure who I find funnier, it just depends on the film for me.

[Qrazy]

I see where you're coming from, and it makes sense how one would feel this way towards it. I'm not denying its "importance", I just feel why watch Modern Times when you could learn so much more about society from a movie with these similar themes like Play Time?

Why watch either when you could read a book or dance the polka?

[MacGuffin]

I think Modern Times works because of how it uses the Tramp as an icon. He's a force of anarchic rebellion against modern industrial society, and the film's visuals maximize on that iconic potential.

I don't think I saw him as rebellious so much as I saw him to be idiotic and clueless. Some of his decisions were simply inane, and to see him fail at the steel mill twice, at the restaurant, at the department store, and then finally as a singer (well, sorta) just kind of got on my nerves with it's excessiveness. It felt like a series of vignettes all serving as multiple variations on a worn out idea.

[Melville]

I don't think I saw him as rebellious so much as I saw him to be idiotic and clueless. Some of his decisions were simply inane, and to see him fail at the steel mill twice, at the restaurant, at the department store, and then finally as a singer (well, sorta) just kind of got on my nerves with it's excessiveness. It felt like a series of vignettes all serving as multiple variations on a worn out idea.
He's not rebellious; he's a force of rebellion. His very existence is an affront to modern industrial society, and he runs roughshod through that society without even trying to.

[MacGuffin]

Why watch either when you could read a book or dance the polka?

I'd rather watch movies than do both of those, and I don't know how to dance the polka anyways.

[Qrazy]

I'd rather watch movies than do both of those, and I don't know how to dance the polka anyways.

Pity, you would have made an excellent polka dancer.

[MacGuffin]

He's not rebellious; he's a force of rebellion. His very existence is an affront to modern industrial society, and he runs roughshod through that society without even trying to.

I see. The latter argument still stands for me.

[Melville]

I'd rather watch movies than do both of those, and I don't know how to dance the polka anyways.
Well, you certainly could learn a lot more about society by reading a book than by watching Playtime. I really like both Playtime and Modern Times, but neither of them are particularly profound. They just express their ideas in very clever ways.

[Raiders]

:: shrug ::

I have never been particularly swayed by any peripheral characters in a Chaplin film nor have I found them on the whole much more emotionally resonant (for all of City Light's grace, I find as much emotion in the juxtapositions of Keaton's sadly blank stare with bitter disappointment throughout his films). And I don't really care about how varied their careers are.

For me, Keaton utilized the medium to a much greater extent and I find more to enjoy in his formal inventiveness. And I find him funnier.

[MacGuffin]

Well, you certainly could learn a lot more about society by reading a book than by watching Playtime.

That's probably very true, but I always pick movies over books.


I really like both Playtime and Modern Times, but neither of them are particularly profound. They just express their ideas in very clever ways.

I think Play Time has a more varied approach to visual gags then Modern Times, which basically expects us to laugh at it because of the stupid shit that The Tramp does.

[Melville]

I see. The latter argument still stands for me.
That's reasonable. If you don't find each of the vignettes amusing, then the whole movie will probably seem overly repetitive.

[Melville]

I think Play Time has a more varied approach to visual gags then Modern Times, which basically expects us to laugh at it because of the stupid shit that The Tramp does.
Works for me. I can't get enough of that wonderful Tramp.

[Qrazy]

I really liked Man's Favorite Sport. The setting and the way scenes played out felt very unique to me in relation to most screwball comedies... which sometimes seem like they're all cut from the same cloth. I could have done without the bear on the motorcycle and a few other choice moments but ultimately yeah, good stuff from the Hawksmeister.

[Qrazy]

Works for me. I can't get enough of that wonderful Tramp.

Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors (Parajanov) - 9

Glad to see this... love that scene in the rain/sunlight.

[Ezee E]

Ask anyone that happens to know both Buster and Charlie, and they'll more likely prefer Buster.

However, the average person does not even know who Buster Keaton is, but does know Charlie Chaplin.

I don't quite understand this.

[Watashi]

Weren't Keaton and Chaplin best friends in real life?

Who cares who is better. They're both great, but I prefer Keaton's stunts but Chaplin's comedy.

[Qrazy]

Ask anyone that happens to know both Buster and Charlie, and they'll more likely prefer Buster.


Two of us just disagreed rather heartily with this conclusion.

[megladon8]

This NSFW Gary Busey moment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F73_nmanbVM) brought to you by A Crack in the Floor.

[Spinal]

I re-watched the filmed stage version of Into the Woods tonight and I can't believe I was ever in doubt as to what my favorite Sondheim work is. Sheer brilliance. Sweeney Todd is great and all, but it doesn't hold a candle to this. Someday, someone will do a film version and ruin it. :lol:

But I seriously think it's destined to be performed for not just decades, but for hundreds of years into the future.

[Winston*]

Ask anyone that happens to know both Buster and Charlie, and they'll more likely prefer Buster.

However, the average person does not even know who Buster Keaton is, but does know Charlie Chaplin.

I don't quite understand this.
Moustache.

[Bosco B Thug]

I re-watched the filmed stage version of Into the Woods tonight and I can't believe I was ever in doubt as to what my favorite Sondheim work is. Sheer brilliance. Sweeney Todd is great and all, but it doesn't hold a candle to this. Someday, someone will do a film version and ruin it. :lol: Totally. Into the Woods is definitely the sharpest and smartest. Alarmingly rich and textured and timely, with alarmingly worldly and not-frivolous issues on its plate. Thus yeah, makes it his best, probably.

I'd take a handful of Sondheim's other musical scores over this one's, though, just considering the music.

Desperation the TV movie was wet sweaty puke, though. Bad. Expected as much, though.

[soitgoes...]

I think at different points over the course of the past year, I've said that I enjoyed Lloyd or Keaton or Chaplin over the others. They all brought something truly exceptional to the world of comedy, as well as cinema itself. Chaplin is more recognizable today more likely because his career lasted well into the sound era, unlike the other two, whose film careers pretty much fizzled out in the 30's. Or it's the moustache.

[Benny Profane]

Watched Three Kings last night. I remember the trailers were billing this as some kind of war comedy. Since I don't find any of the leads funny, I put it off. This was totally mis-marketed in my opinion. It was a fairly pat war movie, but I really liked it.

[Duncan]

Watched The Doors and Cleo from 5 to 7.

The Doors was pretty good for the first hour or so, but it gets so monotonous later on. Concert after concert with Morrison acting weirder and weirder, the music seemingly getting louder all the time. It's just grating. Even though Morrison does some awful things, I still didn't get much of an asshole vibe from Kilmer. The guy was a dick, but I never felt that way about him. Also, the Aboriginals dancing...come on.

Cleo from 5 to 7, on the other hand, was excellent. I loved that shot when she starts singing in long shot, but the camera moves past the piano and isolates her in close up against a totally black background. It's a real nifty shift from well established tableau of physical reality to mental image. I like that one shot can contain both so seemlessly. Lots of stuff like that in the film, often expressed through montage though. Maybe that's why this particular shot stood out to me.

[Duncan]

Watched Three Kings last night. I remember the trailers were billing this as some kind of war comedy. Since I don't find any of the leads funny, I put it off. This was totally mis-marketed in my opinion. It was a fairly pat war movie, but I really liked it. Yeah, I dig Three Kings. The only thing about it that really annoys me is that it includes a warning at the beginning that the colours have been altered to increase emotional impact or something like that. What a strange and superfluous thing to include.

[Benny Profane]

Yeah, I dig Three Kings. The only thing about it that really annoys me is that it includes a warning at the beginning that the colours have been altered to increase emotional impact or something like that. What a strange and superfluous thing to include.

Yeah that was odd to say the least. Was that tidbit shown in theaters too, or just the DVD?

[Izzy Black]

Cleo from 5 to 7, on the other hand, was excellent. I loved that shot when she starts singing in long shot, but the camera moves past the piano and isolates her in close up against a totally black background. It's a real nifty shift from well established tableau of physical reality to mental image. I like that one shot can contain both so seemlessly. Lots of stuff like that in the film, often expressed through montage though. Maybe that's why this particular shot stood out to me.

Thoughts beyond the cinematographic merits?

[D_Davis]

Three Kings is really awesome.

I need to watch this again, soon.

[Duncan]

Thoughts beyond the cinematographic merits?


I liked the central character and how she was portrayed. It was sort of an odd double bill with The Doors because there are some similarities between protagonists that I didn't expect. Cleo is spoiled and we feel that she is spoiled without being smacked upside the head with rock star histrionics. Like, when Morrison throws a TV there's the obvious primadonna quality to the act, but there's also a nobility to it because it's so not about the money, man. Cleo from 5 to 7 feels a lot more honest.

Then, when she leaves her little white sanctuary, her solitude is genuine and probably retroactive as she reconsiders the treatment of her assistant, lover, and friends. The film doesn't exaggerate Cleo's intelligence. She's a somewhat shallow girl that, despite seemingly being a hypocondriac, has never seriously considered mortality. During the sequence when every stranger steals a glance at her she no longer feels that if people continue to look at her for her beauty she will feel alive. Rather, it becomes an issue of possession. It reminded me a lot of Ibsen's A Doll House. Same sort of themes, even if she is not in a confining marriage. More like an overall culture of confinement. Better to confront death for real than live there.

[Qrazy]

Watched The Doors and Cleo from 5 to 7.

The Doors was pretty good for the first hour or so, but it gets so monotonous later on. Concert after concert with Morrison acting weirder and weirder, the music seemingly getting louder all the time. It's just grating. Even though Morrison does some awful things, I still didn't get much of an asshole vibe from Kilmer. The guy was a dick, but I never felt that way about him. Also, the Aboriginals dancing...come on.


I think that's the vibe you should be getting... yeah he's an asshole but I don't mind him because he's charismatic?

Glad to hear you liked Cleo from 5 to 7.

[Duncan]

I think that's the vibe you should be getting... yeah he's an asshole but I don't mind him because he's charismatic?

Glad to hear you liked Cleo from 5 to 7.

But most of the stuff I've read about him suggests that people did mind him. I didn't get the idea from this movie that a lot of people (aside from cops and squares) sincerely disliked this guy. So it's more of an idolization than a complete picture of Morrison. I don't think a biopic has to factual, but I think it should be, um, truthful.

[Qrazy]

But most of the stuff I've read about him suggests that people did mind him. I didn't get the idea from this movie that a lot of people (aside from cops and squares) sincerely disliked this guy. So it's more of an idolization than a complete picture of Morrison. I don't think a biopic has to factual, but I think it should be, um, truthful.

Ah I haven't read much about him I just assumed based on his music that he was in the charismatic asshole category.

[Rowland]

Encounters at the End of the World at the theater tonight. My cock is hard.

[Qrazy]

Encounters at the End of the World at the theater tonight. My cock is hard.

Dip it in ice water.

[Rowland]

The 40-Year-Old Virgin is still dead weight as cinema, but the humor, performances, and overall vibe are so amiable and endearing that I don't much care, even as it grows exhausting during the homestretch. Knocked Up received better reviews and more hype, but to my eyes this is clearly the more successful picture.

[Rowland]

I've had a busy summer, but I feel it is time to return to at least some semblance of my old viewing habits, especially as more 2008 releases are being released on video. I'm finally going to watch Southland Tales, which has been sitting on my desk for months, and I have Syndromes and a Century and The Last Winter on the way from Netflix.

[Qrazy]

Damn it! It happened to me again. I rented the Spring in a Small Town remake by accident instead of the original. This has also happened to me with The Magnificent Ambersons and Jigoku.

[Stay Puft]

Encounters at the End of the World at the theater tonight. My cock is hard.

Ah, excellent. Herzog takes his inspiration from the underwater footage he used in Wild Blue Yonder, so you'll get plenty more of that, and seeing it on the big screen is wonderful. A great experience.

Seeing it in theatres was also the first time I ever saw a movie via digital projection, but that's just useless, personal trivia.

[Raiders]

Damn it! It happened to me again. I rented the Spring in a Small Town remake by accident instead of the original. This has also happened to me with The Magnificent Ambersons and Jigoku.

Tian Zhuangzhaung's update? You should still watch it. Supposed to be pretty great in its own right.

[Qrazy]

Tian Zhuangzhaung's update? You should still watch it. Supposed to be pretty great in its own right.

Yeah I'll watch it but it still annoys me when this happens... need to pay more attention to release date both before and at the rental place. Both Jigoku and The Magnificent Ambersons remake (Jigoku might just have the same title actually) were awful... that remake was where my hatred for Jonathan Rhys Meyers began.

[BirdsAteMyFace]

Damn it! It happened to me again. I rented the Spring in a Small Town remake by accident instead of the original.Huh, weird coincidence. I just made the same mistake.

[Rowland]

Just a heads-up, DSNT neglected to include Greg McLean's follow-up to Wolf Creek, the killer crocodile flick Rogue, in his DVD Releases for 8/05 thread. I just bumped it up my queue.

[MadMan]

Watched Three Kings last night. I remember the trailers were billing this as some kind of war comedy. Since I don't find any of the leads funny, I put it off. This was totally mis-marketed in my opinion. It was a fairly pat war movie, but I really liked it.That film is one of my favorites. Your rating is pretty spot on. Its been a while since I last saw it, and I'm thinking about revisiting it since I have the film on DVD.

[Stay Puft]

Tian Zhuangzhaung's update? You should still watch it. Supposed to be pretty great in its own right.

It is. Wonderful movie, and some of Mark Lee's best work this side of a Hou Hsiao-hsien movie.

[Raiders]

Just a heads-up, DSNT neglected to include Greg McLean's follow-up to Wolf Creek, the killer crocodile flick Rogue, in his DVD Releases for 8/05 thread. I just bumped it up my queue.

Finally.

[Qrazy]

Downloaded Auto Focus, might get to that later this week.

[Boner M]

Just a heads-up, DSNT neglected to include Greg McLean's follow-up to Wolf Creek, the killer crocodile flick Rogue, in his DVD Releases for 8/05 thread. I just bumped it up my queue.
Set your expectations low; I didn't even finish it. Sooo bland.

[MacGuffin]

Set your expectations low; I didn't even finish it. Sooo bland.

Not surprising since Wolf Creek is an abysmal excuse for a horror movie.

[Raiders]

Not surprising since Wolf Creek is an abysmal excuse for a horror movie.

Heh. No.

[MacGuffin]

Heh. No.

I can't be bothered by something so unoriginal that uses nihilism as purely a means to shock.

[megladon8]

I can't be bothered by something so "bland" as Boner would say, and something that uses nihilism as purely a means to shock. Luckily, this isn't the case with Wolf Creek. The only similarity between this and Friday the 13th is that it involves people getting off'd.


I completely agree.

[MacGuffin]

I completely agree.

I changed my quote. :)

EDIT: I never said most of that.

[Raiders]

I can't be bothered by something so unoriginal that uses nihilism as purely a means to shock.

I don't think that is the case at all.

[MacGuffin]

Uh, I get it. No, Wolf Creek is just a indistinguishable, systematic slasher flick that doesn't really have anything aside from its superficial surface going on, and even that can't set it apart from your average slasher flick. Aside from the not scary and senseless violence, there's no atmosphere here. The director thinks a few skyline shots in the first half instantly set a tone, but they simply don't.

[Raiders]

Uh, I get it. No, Wolf Creek is just a indistinguishable, systematic slasher flick that doesn't really have anything aside from its superficial surface going on, and even that can't set it apart from your average slasher flick. Aside from the not scary and senseless violence, there's simply not atmosphere. The director thinks a few skyline shots in the first half instantly set a tone, but they simply don't.

Uh, glad you "got it."

I really wish the thread from the old site was still around. I had a lot of stuff in there. Now, I don't really feel much like discussing it.

Safe to say I think McLean does a fabulous job creating as much terror and evil from the surroundings as he does from the human force. It seems of little coincidence the horror starts at the site of a supposed alien crash and the film equates the Outback as a very alien terrain, endless in its agony and untamed acreage (it is also telling that the final shot features Mick dissolving into the landscape). Those who attempt to escape via civilization (read: car) are doomed, but he who fights against the wilderness survives.

[MacGuffin]

Uh, glad you "got it."

Wasn't talking to you. Quit being so condescending.


Safe to say I think McLean does a fabulous job creating as much terror and evil from the surroundings as he does from the human force. It seems of little coincidence the horror starts at the site of a supposed alien crash and the film equates the Outback as a very alien terrain, endless in its agony and untamed acreage (it is also telling that the final shot features Mick dissolving into the landscape). Those who attempt to escape via civilization (read: car) are doomed, but he who fights against the wilderness survives.

I don't think it's very difficult to create evil in a movie; one onscreen death is instantly an "evil" by itself. I see this as neither a plus nor a minus for Wolf Creek, but it certainly is excessive in its violence for having so little else. As for the setting, I don't really see what you're getting at. Are saying the Outback is a horrible place? Are you saying that is what the movie is saying? I think many other movies have used their settings as symbols of emotional expressions like the forests in the end of Calvaire equating a sense of sadness or High Tension's forest symbolizing fear. I don't think any of the emotion comes from the fact that the movie is set in Australia, since the director makes it clear we're supposed to be afraid of the psychotic freak.

[Raiders]

I don't think it's very difficult to create evil in a movie; one onscreen death is instantly an "evil" by itself. I see this as neither a plus nor a minus for Wolf Creek, but it certainly is excessive in its violence for having so little else. As for the setting, I don't really see what you're getting at. Are saying the Outback is a horrible place? Are you saying that is what the movie is saying? I think many other movies have used their settings as symbols of emotional expressions like the forests in the end of Calvaire equating a sense of sadness or High Tension's forest symbolizing fear. I don't think any of the emotion comes from the fact that the movie is set in Australia, since the director makes it clear we're supposed to be afraid of the psychotic freak.

Well, as for the setting, the film is playing off the idea that many Australians have called for the civilization and "clean up" of the Outback. I have a couple friends from Australia, and they said their grandfathers would always tell them stories of people who ventured into the Outback and never returned. Hokum maybe, but it is a cultural fear the film is tapping in to.

[MacGuffin]

Well, as for the setting, the film is playing off the idea that many Australians have called for the civilization and "clean up" of the Outback. I have a couple friends from Australia, and they said their grandfathers would always tell them stories of people who ventured into the Outback and never returned. Hokum maybe, but it is a cultural fear the film is tapping in to.

Yeah, it's an interesting idea to play off of for a horror movie, that one, but I think it could've been done in a far more creepy, subtle way.

[megladon8]

Wasn't talking to you. Quit being so condescending.


You're probably the last person on the board who should be making accusations of people being condescending.

[Qrazy]

I don't think that is the case at all.

It's also a terrible sentence.

---

Le Trou was very good. At first I liked it but wasn't completely sold but by the end of the film, I was sold.

[Ezee E]

Strange, I don't remember that warning at the beginning of Three Kings and I've seen it many a times. Love it.

Teeth. Bleh.

I've started getting in the habit of rewatching movies from Netflix instead of seeing new movie after new movie. The Conversation and Bamboozled are calling my name for some reason.

[Idioteque Stalker]

Count me in as another that has been completely won over by Edward Yang and his movie Yi Yi. The direction is so sensitive, the acting so sincere, the symbolism so fresh, that even at a three-hour running time I was disappointed when it was over. I especially loved how the themes were so personal and universal yet it still maintained an affecting atmosphere by somehow steering clear of cliche and melodrama. Possibly a new favorite.

[DavidSeven]

Wolf Creek gets a little routine at the very end, but still a very unnerving experience on the whole. Good flick.

Le Trou is unbelievable. I believe I saw it for an FDT Film Swap™ (KF being the recommender, I think). Great rec.

[soitgoes...]

I watched a couple early Keaton shorts. Actually they're Arbuckle shorts featuring a new-to-film Buster Keaton. The Butcher Boy had some fine moments, mostly of Fatty doing some fancy stuff with a knife while doing some butchering. This film, which is Keaton's first, has him as a third fiddle. At one point he actually goes against what he'll be known for later, and laugh!

The second film, The Rough House, has Fatty sharing director's duties with Keaton, which is pretty amazing since this is Buster's second film. The film is unremarkable with the exception of Fatty trying to extinguish a fire with a teacup of water, and also doing the "roll dance" of which Charles Chaplin would make famous in the Gold Rush. Otherwise just a bunch of slipping, falling and throwing objects in each other's faces for twenty minutes. I look forward to seeing more of these Arbuckle/Keaton shorts to see when and if Keaton moves to the forefront of Fatty's films, as well as seeing Keaton's development.

[megladon8]

Strange, I don't remember that warning at the beginning of Three Kings and I've seen it many a times. Love it.

Teeth. Bleh.

I've started getting in the habit of rewatching movies from Netflix instead of seeing new movie after new movie. The Conversation and Bamboozled are calling my name for some reason.


Yeah, I thought Teeth was quite the disappointment.

Jess Weixler's performance was about all it had to offer.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Le Trou is unbelievable. I believe I saw it for an FDT Film Swap™ (KF being the recommender, I think). Great rec.

Yep, it was me. I'll never understand why it isn't recognized more often as a "classic" film. I happened upon it purely by chance. It doesn't get nearly the respect it deserves.

[MacGuffin]

They just can't remake Suspiria. They can't! I don't think Dario Argento would let them, anyways. With Natalie fucking Portman no less. Ugh. American movies make me sick these days.

[Scar]

They just can't remake Suspiria. They can't! I don't think Dario Argento would let them, anyways. With Natalie fucking Portman no less. Ugh. American movies make me sick these days.

Lord knows I'm not much of a Suspiria fan, but thats just not right.

[megladon8]

They just can't remake Suspiria. They can't! I don't think Dario Argento would let them, anyways. With Natalie fucking Portman no less. Ugh. American movies make me sick these days.


I especially will miss the Goblin soundtrack.

[MacGuffin]

I've never seen anything by David Gordon Green (and won't if he makes this), but he even claims that it doesn't make sense why he wants to remake this.

http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2008/03/05/david-gordon-green-confirms-suspiria-remake/

[Kurosawa Fan]

I'm also not a fan of Suspiria. But I say bring on the remake. It can certainly be improved on. I have no faith that it will be improved on, but it's still a possibility.

[MacGuffin]

I'm also not a fan of Suspiria. But I say bring on the remake. It can certainly be improved on. I have no faith that it will be improved on, but it's still a possibility.

Ugh, let's just go remake everything then with hopes it will all be improved upon. It's a fucking horrible idea, especially with Natalie Portman.

[Qrazy]

I've never seen anything by David Gordon Green (and won't if he makes this).

Way to stick it to the man.

[MacGuffin]

Way to stick it to the man.

I'm not "sticking it" to anyone, if he makes this he's a hack and I don't need to waste my time with any of his movies.

[Raiders]

I've never seen anything by David Gordon Green (and won't if he makes this)

You're so ridiculous.

[Scar]

Speaking of remakes, I rather enjoy the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake, and have a feeling I shall enjoy the Friday the 13th remake.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Ugh, let's just go remake everything then with hopes it will all be improved upon. It's a fucking horrible idea, especially with Natalie Portman.

:rolleyes:

You know what'll stop Hollywood from remaking movies? Whining on internet message boards. So keep at it.

Seriously though, I don't mind if a film is remade if I found the original to be sub-par in the first place. Especially if it's being remade by an interesting director.

[Derek]

Genre films being remade? The state of American cinema has reached a new low.

[Derek]

You know what'll stop Hollywood from remaking movies? Whining on internet message boards. So keep at it.

Damn, I thought it was not watching George Washington. :(

[MacGuffin]

First it's The Birds, now this.

[Raiders]

First it's The Birds, now this.

Unfortunately, they were remaking horror films before this. Cronenberg even did it in 1986 and Carpenter in 1982. Freakin' hacks.

[Qrazy]

You know what could use a remake? Johnny Mnemonic. I felt like there was a decent story in there waiting to get out.

[MacGuffin]

Unfortunately, they were remaking horror films before this. Cronenberg even did it in 1986 and Carpenter in 1982. Freakin' hacks.

I haven't seen The Fly, but I don't care for The Thing. I don't really care for either director either.

[Raiders]

I haven't seen The Fly, but I don't care for The Thing. I don't really care for either director either.

Well, there's no accounting for taste.

[Scar]

Oh yeah, and I really enjoy Zombie's Halloween.

I never thought I'd say that.

[Scar]

You know what could use a remake? Johnny Mnemonic. I felt like there was a decent story in there waiting to get out.

Only if they bring back Dolph and Takeshi.

[Sycophant]

Haven't gotten around to Suspira yet, but my knowledge of Dario Argento and David Gordon Green both lead me to believe that the project should at least be interesting.

[megladon8]

I haven't seen The Fly, but I don't care for The Thing. I don't really care for either director either.


You're the first person I've ever encountered who doesn't like The Thing.

I hope you're the last, too.

[Scar]

You're the first person I've ever encountered who doesn't like The Thing.

I hope you're the last, too.

I'm sure I could think of a few people who don't like The Thing. But they all don't care for horror flicks.

[D_Davis]

I'm also not a fan of Suspiria. But I say bring on the remake. It can certainly be improved on. I have no faith that it will be improved on, but it's still a possibility.

There are many, many ways in which Suspiria can be improved upon.

I, too, say bring it on.

[D_Davis]

I'd love to hear a band like Farflung do the soundtrack for a new Suspiria flick. Now that would be awesome. Or maybe Phantomas, or Ghost, or Boris.

[Sycophant]

I'd love to hear a band like Farflung do the soundtrack for a new Suspiria flick. Now that would be awesome. Or maybe Phantomas, or Ghost, or Boris.
What about James Newton Howard or Danny Elfman?

[D_Davis]

What about James Newton Howard or Danny Elfman?

Totally. Or Howard Shore and John Williams!

:shock:


What about King Crimson? Holy crap, now that would be amazing.

Or even Tomandandy - these dudes totally rule at atmospheric scores. Mean Creek, The Mothman Prophecies, and The Hills Have Eyes all have superior scores.

[Ezee E]

There's a few movies that should never be remade.

Suspiria isn't on that list.

[megladon8]

Clint Mansell owns musical scores.

[D_Davis]

Clint Mansell owns musical scores.


Good call.

He's good, but I think it would be more interesting to have a band dynamic.

Although that won't happen.

I would put money down that it is either Mansell, as you said, or Tomandandy. Tomandandy seem to be the go-to guys for hip horror scores.

[megladon8]

Good call.

He's good, but I think it would be more interesting to have a band dynamic.

Although that won't happen.

I would put money down that it is either Mansell, as you said, or Tomandandy. Tomandandy seem to be the go-to guys for hip horror scores.


I wasn't really suggesting Mansell for Suspiria, just stating a fact :)

But yes, I totally agree on Tomandandy - in fact, I find their music works better in films than on its own.

In terms of band music appearing in horror films, the most memorable instance of late was Dead Can Dance in The Mist.

Added a whole other level of "haunting" to that scene.

[Ezee E]

I wish Thomas Banghalter did more scores.

[Raiders]

Howard Shore is awesome. I would dig a Suspiria score by him. He has made some great ones for Cronenberg.

[D_Davis]

Oh shit, I totally blanked on M83!

M83 would be prefect. Before The Dawn... is the best soundtrack-to-a-horror-movie-that-never-was I've heard.

I would love to rescore the original Suspiria with M83's music.

[Spinal]

Ain't nothin' wrong with Natalie Portman's acting skillz. She's consistently good.

[Duncan]

I think the score to L'Intrus is the only one that has stuck with me from films I've watched relatively recently. They can be very important, but generally I don't even notice them. If I do notice them it's usually because they're being obnoxiously overused.

[D_Davis]

Ain't nothin' wrong with Natalie Portman's acting skillz. She's consistently good.

Yep. She's as good as the director/movie dictates. I don't think she is one of those actors who can rise above a bad film or script, but when she is involved in a good film she is also quite good.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Ain't nothin' wrong with Natalie Portman's acting skillz. She's consistently good.

Especially not when they're emphasized with a "z" at the end.

[Spinal]

Especially not when they're emphasized with a "z" at the end.

Don't be a playa hater.

[D_Davis]

Don't be a playa hater.

Do her skillz pay the billz? Foshizzle my nizzle!

[Spinal]

Do her skillz pay the billz? Foshizzle my nizzle!

No diggity. No doubt.

[D_Davis]

No diggity. No doubt.

Snickity snacka', crackalacka'.

Bet you guys didn't know that Spinal and I were so down with urban culture.

[D_Davis]

Don't be a playa hater.

K-fan's drinkin' haterade.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I can't keep up wit dis. I'm outta my game, yo.

[D_Davis]

Word on the street in P-tizzle (that's Portland, Oregon for you wannabes), is that Spinal's the number one OG.

I was there last weekend and this dude at the Pottery Barn told me nobody messes with Spinal - unless they wanna get shanked.

[Qrazy]

Please stop.

[Scar]

Please stop.

You're being far too polite.

[D_Davis]

Don't front.

[Raiders]

You's dudes need t'stop rappin' so's honkyfoolish. Lop some boogie.

[Sven]

Curious minds need to know: why hate remakes? History has demonstrated that there is simply no good reason to lay down a blanket condemnation of the concept of remakes. I can see one being wary when familiar with the remaker's past (ie, Renny Harlin remaking Metropolis), but to ignore the potential of a good story told from a different perspective is, *drum roll*, intellectually prohibitive! Seriously, how great is Bob le Flambeur? How great is The Good Thief? How great is The Thing from Another World? How great is The Thing? How great is Charade? How great is The Truth About Charlie? How great is Yojimbo? How great is A Fistful of Dollars? And how similar are any of those films with their inspirations?

Chill out, is what I say.

By the way, this also goes for those that think that remakes are only excusable if the original can "be approved upon". Laaaame.

[D_Davis]

Seriously guys, that's enough.


What is the scariest horror film, or moment in a horror film, that takes place in broad daylight?

[Sven]

What is the scariest horror film, or moment in a horror film, that takes place in broad daylight?

The weird television footage of the devil standing in the doorway in Carpenter's Prince of Darkness. Still spooks me out when I think of it.

[D_Davis]

The weird television footage of the devil standing in the doorway in Carpenter's Prince of Darkness. Still spooks me out when I think of it.

That is a good one.

I found the picnic stabbing scene in Zodiac to be terrifying, and that it takes place in broad daylight totally accentuates the non-sensational way that Fincher stages it.

[Spinal]

Yeah, my opinion of remakes depends on the creative forces involved. It's usually fairly easy to tell if the new work will offer a fresh perspective or simply be an attempt to cash in on name recognition.

[D_Davis]

While I agree with iosos in principle, feelings of cynicism towards remakes are understandable.

[Sycophant]

Curious minds need to know: why hate remakes? History has demonstrated that there is simply no good reason to lay down a blanket condemnation of the concept of remakes. I can see one being wary when familiar with the remaker's past (ie, Renny Harlin remaking Metropolis), but to ignore the potential of a good story told from a different perspective is, *drum roll*, intellectually prohibitive! Seriously, how great is Bob le Flambeur? How great is The Good Thief? How great is The Thing from Another World? How great is The Thing? How great is Charade? How great is The Truth About Charlie? How great is Yojimbo? How great is A Fistful of Dollars? And how similar are any of those films with their inspirations?

Chill out, is what I say.

By the way, this also goes for those that think that remakes are only excusably if the original can "be approved upon". Laaaame.You know it, dawg.

Though there's a part of me that probably would be uncomfortable with the idea of anybody anywhere remaking Citizen Kane. But it's the only example I can really think of. Even then, I could still be open to it.

Remakers don't necessarily need to bring something better, so long as they bring something new.

[Sven]

While I agree with iosos in principle, feelings of cynicism towards remakes are understandable.

They are understandable, but I think that has more to do with knee-jerks than actual consideration. I guess it's the idea that the creativity in those cases is EXPLICITLY derivative as opposed to being cleverly disguised derivation, which is what most things are. I like what Spinal said about name-checking and trying to figure out if it's a simple cash-in. With Suspiria, I can't imagine that as many people (read: movie-going Americans) are aware enough of that film to consider it a simple cash-in. Plus, DGD, despite my growing ambivalence, is not a total hackmeister.

[Spinal]

Seriously guys, that's enough.


What is the scariest horror film, or moment in a horror film, that takes place in broad daylight?

Doesn't most of The Texas Chain Saw Massacre take place during the day?

[Sven]

Though there's a part of me that probably would be uncomfortable with the idea of anybody anywhere remaking Citizen Kane. But it's the only example I can really think of. Even then, I could still be open to it..

Starring 50 Cent!

[MacGuffin]

Well, David Gordon Green comes out and admits he has no idea why he is interested in doing this, so there is that.

[Spinal]

People should be as wary of sequels as they are of remakes.

[Scar]

They are understandable, but I think that has more to do with knee-jerks than actual consideration. I guess it's the idea that the creativity in those cases is EXPLICITLY derivative as opposed to being cleverly disguised derivation, which is what most things are. I like what Spinal said about name-checking and trying to figure out if it's a simple cash-in. With Suspiria, I can't imagine that as many people (read: movie-going Americans) are aware enough of that film to consider it a simple cash-in. Plus, DGD, despite my growing ambivalence, is not a total hackmeister.

Conversation from a couple years back:

"Dude, you gotta see The Omen!"

Me: "What, the remake?"

"Huh?"

[Sven]

Well, David Gordon Green comes out and admits he has no idea why he is interested in doing this, so there is that.

How often can you account for your interests?

-"Why did you climb that?"
-"Because it was there."

[Spinal]

Well, David Gordon Green comes out and admits he has no idea why he is interested in doing this, so there is that.

Perhaps he is uncomfortable with saying he's in it for the money.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Well, David Gordon Green comes out and admits he has no idea why he is interested in doing this, so there is that.

No he didn't. He said he doesn't understand why they're letting him do the remake considering his prior films. He made it very clear why he wanted to do this.

[Spinal]

*waits for someone to get called an asshole*

[Kurosawa Fan]

*waits for someone to get called an asshole*

*crosses fingers*

[D_Davis]

Doesn't most of The Texas Chain Saw Massacre take place during the day?

Yes - this is one of the movies I had in mind.

[MacGuffin]

Whatever, I just see no real need for this when you can just come up with a brand new horror movie.

[Spinal]

I'm from a theatre background where great plays get re-staged all over the country every year. The emphasis is always on 'what perspective are you bringing to the table?' rather than 'why aren't you creating a new story?' So, to me, it's not objectionable as long as it's not lazy commercialism.

[D_Davis]

Personally, I would almost always want an original film, or at least one based on a book that hasn't been filmed before.

However, some of my favorite films are remakes, and there are quite a few films that I would like to see remakes of.

It is better to just accept the fact that remakes happen, and realize that many of them are good, some better than the originals, and judge the others on a film by film basis.

[D_Davis]

I'm from a theatre background where great plays get re-staged all over the country every year. The emphasis is always on 'what perspective are you bringing to the table?' rather than 'why aren't you creating a new story?' So, to me, it's not objectionable as long as it's not lazy commercialism.

Right - the same goes for classical music. Every night, around the globe, philharmonics perform songs that are hundreds of years old, songs that have been performed thousands of times.

[Watashi]

The birthday scene in Signs is one of my favorite shocks in broad daylight.

[D_Davis]

The birthday scene in Signs is one of my favorite shocks in broad daylight.

Oh yeah, totally. That part is awesome. I love how "authentic" it looks.

[Teh Sausage]

I used to be intensely anti-remake, but the concept doesn't bother me as much anymore. I think remakes can be very good, but what really bothers me is audience's perception of them. They often never know they're watching a remake. There's something rather saddening about that, and that was the main reason why I used to rant about remakes so much in the past. They can feel like a form of history revisionism, or something.

[Qrazy]

You know it, dawg.

Though there's a part of me that probably would be uncomfortable with the idea of anybody anywhere remaking Citizen Kane. But it's the only example I can really think of. Even then, I could still be open to it.

Remakers don't necessarily need to bring something better, so long as they bring something new.

I don't think people should spend their time remaking something with an authorial stamp... that is to say something that was written explicitly for the cinema (by the filmmaker)... i.e. most of Tarkovsky's works, Bunuel, Fellini, Tarr etc. These scripts were written specifically for the films they became. Even then you could conceivably take a basic narrative from one of these films that you liked, rework and remake it but usually the narrative is the least important element of an auteur's work so... what's the point. Literary adaptations are a bit different, given that just because your first doesn't mean you have squatters rights... make a billion Dickens, Shakespeare, Chaucer works for all I care. Scripts that a director didn't write are also more fair game, but unless you have a writer/director's blessing you shouldn't really be messing with their work unless it's a very loose adaptation... like an inspired by.

[Qrazy]

They are understandable, but I think that has more to do with knee-jerks than actual consideration. I guess it's the idea that the creativity in those cases is EXPLICITLY derivative as opposed to being cleverly disguised derivation, which is what most things are. I like what Spinal said about name-checking and trying to figure out if it's a simple cash-in. With Suspiria, I can't imagine that as many people (read: movie-going Americans) are aware enough of that film to consider it a simple cash-in. Plus, DGD, despite my growing ambivalence, is not a total hackmeister.

It's not that knee-jerk when the majority of remakes are designed either as cash ins or just represent a laziness and/or lack of creativity on the part of the filmmakers. There are some good remakes but they're actually pretty few and far between.

[Ezee E]

Almost the entirety of The Ruins takes place during daytime. It's not particularly scary, so it adds nothing to this discussion.

[Sven]

I don't think I like this idea that "cashing-in" is inherently negative. When so many people subscribe to the merit of the end product, why should the inspiration to make the picture strike against it? There are plenty of films that were created mostly to make money (I bet most films we see and love have financial gain as their bottom line).

Also, naturally, I disagree with nearly everything Qrazy says. Such is the way it is.

[Duncan]

I don't think people should spend their time remaking something with an authorial stamp... that is to say something that was written explicitly for the cinema (by the filmmaker)... i.e. most of Tarkovsky's works, Bunuel, Fellini, Tarr etc. These scripts were written specifically for the films they became. Even then you could conceivably take a basic narrative from one of these films that you liked, rework and remake it but usually the narrative is the least important element of an auteur's work so... what's the point. Literary adaptations are a bit different, given that just because your first doesn't mean you have squatters rights... make a billion Dickens, Shakespeare, Chaucer works for all I care. Scripts that a director didn't write are also more fair game, but unless you have a writer/director's blessing you shouldn't really be messing with their work unless it's a very loose adaptation... like an inspired by.

What about something like this? The Velazquez version is pretty damn authourial. He's even in the thing.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e5/Las_Meninas.jpg/526px-Las_Meninas.jpg
http://www.artchive.com/artchive/p/picasso/meninas.jpg

[Qrazy]

I don't think I like this idea that "cashing-in" is inherently negative.

Either you like it or you don't like it, don't make your disagreement into a belabored process. I don't like, I do like, I disagree, I agree, it's not that hard.


When so many people subscribe to the merit of the end product, why should the inspiration to make the picture strike against it? There are plenty of films that were created mostly to make money (I bet most films we see and love have financial gain as their bottom line).


Well first of all no, most of the films I see and love are not made with financial gain as their bottom line. They are made with artistic integrity as the bottom line and the creators probably hope that that integrity is enough to find an audience which will fund future efforts. They don't have personal gain as their bottom line. Michael Bay and Tarkovsky don't have the same bottom line. Don't be intentionally oblivious to how language is used. There's a fairly obvious distinction between Cashing in/Phoning it in with safe, well tested studio products and taking artistic risks (2001:A Space Odyssey for instance was a pretty big risk).

[Kurosawa Fan]

I think that "asshole" bit is due any time now.

[Sven]

Either you like it or you don't like it, don't make your disagreement into a belabored process. I don't like, I do like, I disagree, I agree, it's not that hard.

Who's belaboring? I'm questing.


Well first of all no, most of the films I see and love are not made with financial gain as their bottom line. They are made with artistic integrity as the bottom line and the creators probably hope that that integrity is enough to find an audience which will fund future efforts. They don't have personal gain as their bottom line.

This is not something that you know.


There's a fairly obvious distinction between Cashing in/Phoning it in with safe, well tested studio products and taking artistic risks.

There is middle ground.

[Qrazy]

What about something like this? The Velazquez version is pretty damn authourial. He's even in the thing.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e5/Las_Meninas.jpg/526px-Las_Meninas.jpg
http://www.artchive.com/artchive/p/picasso/meninas.jpg

I feel I specified that there's a difference between a remake and a re-envisioning. This is a case of the latter, wherein the re-envisioning serves as commentary on the original. I was also discussing film and never stated that my opinion on the matter held across mediums that bring different stylistic traits to the table. So if you want to really argue the point, please provide a cinematic example.

[Qrazy]

Who's belaboring? I'm questing.



This is not something that you know.


Actually yes it is it's fairly fucking obvious from the work itself but I also know it is the case because I've read his book, seen interviews with him, etc.

Another example, Brakhage wasn't in the game to make money. For some reason the concept of an artist who is not greedy, who sacrifices for their work is baffling to you but I assure you it's a very real phenomenon.

[Qrazy]

There is middle ground.

Yes but you're not discussing the middle ground, you're conflating the two definitions (a greedy craftsman, a selfless artist) into one and claiming that one is basically the same as the other.

[Sven]

Actually yes it is it's fairly fucking obvious from the work itself but I also know it is the case because I've read his book, seen interviews with him, etc.

When did we start getting so specific? I was saying "most".


Another example, Brakhage wasn't in the game to make money. For some reason the concept of an artist who is not greedy, who sacrifices for their work is baffling to you but I assure you it's a very real phenomenon.

There are hacks, there are artistes, and there is middle ground. I am not baffled.

Also, you cannot assume the intentions of the creator. The only thing I know is that film is an art form you cannot work with having no money.

"Plenty" and "most" do not a conflation make. Nor did I specify any extremities.

[Sven]

Sorry Raiders. Only works if you post it at night.

[Raiders]

Sorry Raiders. Only works if you post it at night.

Duly noted.

[Winston*]

You're an asshole, Kurosawa Fan.

[Winston*]

Some unkonwn force just compelled me to visit this site and post that. I was totally without free will.

[Russ]

Some unknown force just compelled me to visit this site and post that. I was totally without free will.
Were you in broad daylight when you posted it?

[Winston*]

Were you in broad daylight when you posted it?

Of course not. It's winter; the night time months.

[Kurosawa Fan]

You're an asshole, Kurosawa Fan.

Duly noted.

[Boner M]

You know who needs a filter? Guess.

[Qrazy]

When did we start getting so specific? I was saying "most".

There are hacks, there are artistes, and there is middle ground. I am not baffled.

Also, you cannot assume the intentions of the creator. The only thing I know is that film is an art form you cannot work with having no money.

"Plenty" and "most" do not a conflation make. Nor did I specify any extremities.

"I bet most films we see and love have financial gain as their bottom line"

And I'm telling you no. Maybe this is the case for the films you see and love, it is not for me.

One is not assuming the intentions of the creator, one is analyzing their behaviour and drawing conclusions from it. Look at Michael Bay, look at his products, then look at Brakhage and look at his products, furthermore take into account their attitudes (interviews, commentaries) and the working conditions of both and you can arrive at a pretty reasonable understanding of which of them is in it for the money.

We've had this absurd conversation before and you're still 100-300 years in the past... amongst many things you ignore the advances of behaviouralism and cognitivism. And it is highly unlikely that even the most stalwart analytic non-cognitivists and relativists would agree with you.

[Qrazy]

You know who needs a filter? Guess.

Jacques Cousteau?

[Sven]

We've had this absurd conversation before and you're still 100-300 years in the past... amongst many things you ignore the advances of behaviouralism and cognitivism. And it is highly unlikely that even the most stalwart analytic non-cognitivists and relativists would agree with you.

Duly noted.

[Spinal]

Please stop.

.

[Winston*]

Is Cujo mostly in the daytime? I can't remember?

[Qrazy]

.

We did?

[D_Davis]

If a movie plays in a theater that charges money to watch it, is on commercial television, or is on a DVD (or VHS, or a paid dl, etc.) that cost money, then at some point during the creative process someone made the decision to make some money.

It doesn't mean anything.

It costs money to make, show, and look at art.

[Qrazy]

If a movie plays in a theater that charges money to watch it, is on commercial television, or is on a DVD (or VHS, or a paid dl, etc.) that cost money, then at some point during the creative process someone made the decision to make some money.

It doesn't mean anything.

It costs money to make, show, and look at art.

Astute observation!

[D_Davis]

Astute observation!

Stuff costs money.

More financial advice coming soon.

[Qrazy]

Stuff costs money.

More financial advice coming soon.

It's people like that Mother Teresa that really drive me up the wall with all her hoarding of church stipends. A real missionary eats dirt, drinks their own piss and likes it.

[Qrazy]

Alright that's the last time I use the term conflate, and I'm chucking reductive too. They're starting to annoy me, more so when I in turn employ them.

[trotchky]

I rewatched A Clockwork Orange last night for the first time in many years, and while I was a little skeptical about how well it would hold up, I was soon proven to be a fucking idiot for doubting Kubrick as the film confirmed what I already knew: still a masterpiece, still one of my favorite movies ever.

I'm not really sure where to start talking about a movie this layered and nuanced, but here goes: the film is something of a warped picaresque tale, and Alex something of an incidental (and inverted) Barry Lyndon. The iconic opening shot immediately establishes Alex as the (psychological or otherwise) center of the film's universe, and when the camera pulls back and keeps pulling back to show us the entirety of the Korovy Milk Bar our (the viewers') movement happens in relation to Alex yet at the same time is completely disconnected from him; external forces are pulling the (our) frame (of reference) way back and out, the same forces that drag Alex down to society's nadir before jettisoning him up to its apex.

The movie is about systems of power--which is to say, systems of oppression--and the point isn't that the government is "just as bad" as Alex, it's that Alex is a miniature version of the government. "Violence begets violence" is an omnipresent truism here (Mr. Alexander of "Home" being the most obvious example), and the institutionalized, fascistic bullying existing at every level of the state/penal system's bureaucracy (Alex's interrogation sees some guy sneering about how "pretty" he is before his crotch-grabbing social worker spits on his face--speaking of which, anytime Alex is seen at the whims of those who have power over him (representatives of the state) Kubrick blatantly eroticizes him (standing in his prominently-bulging underwear during a visit with his social worker, being made to strip naked before his incarceration), turning the downward-looking male-gazer (or, uh, rapist) into the gazed-upon victim) is not just mirrored in Alex's own bullying of his underlings but, we can pretty safely extrapolate, a more "advanced," legitimized version of that bullying.

In a society whose very existence is dependent on these corrupt systems operating efficiently, are the less powerful (and, importantly, lower class) inclined to imitate them in their own micro-cosmic beurocracies (gangs like Alex's, for example) or does this sort of behavior just inherently appeal to a fucked-up impulse in these sorts of people (bullies, essentially)?

Probably a bit of both, would be my guess; but let's not get ahead of ourselves here; lest we think the film's view of humanity is all too bleak, Kubrick offers Alex the possibility of genuine change and self-motivated redemption: when "Ludwig Van" comes on the soundtrack during one of Alex's early torture sessions, he seems to truly realize the horrors of his actions--of forcing pain upon other human beings--because, you see, the dude really, really likes Mozart; Alex's propinquity towards classical music has been criticized as an arbitrary and meaningless attempt at humanizing him, but we see from orgasm-one that he associates the ethereal Godliness of Mozart's tunes with abject destruction and horror; when those associations become unbearably painful the heights of ecstasy become the lows of un-livable suffering; the "message" gets through to Alex in a base, visceral way, but all the scientists care about is completing the procedure (out of prison in 30 days or your money back!) so they can fill out their paper work, get recognition for their "accomplishment," and make sure the gears keep churning. Meanwhile blood bubbles up through the cracks in the gears, but nobody seems to notice.

So Alex's chance at genuine change is crushed within the machinery of the system, but once he's taken in by Very Powerful socialites that same machinery (illustrated in another frankly Godly pull-back shot of a raving mad Mr. Alexander front-and-center and his powerful friends posed around him, in the basement, tacitly observing the machinery at work (check out the fucking gigantic, spinning-gears-like sound system that blasts 'the Ninth' into the attic) as It All Goes According To Plan) un-crushes his clockworked mind and promises now to cater to his every impulse (shades of American Psycho--in which an elite society complicity turns the other way and, when necessary, sweeps all evidence under the rug, when one of their own goes haywire--are faintly visible).

This isn't even touching the big, fat issue of Media, its role with regards to the populace and with regards to the state. But hey, I don't really feel like talking about it! Though if anyone wants to continue this discussion I'd be happy to. One last thing: Kubrick's use of geometry and space to evoke mood is breathtaking, and nothing less than the work of a master. His is truly one of the Great Directors.

[Sven]

Alright that's the last time I use the term conflate, and I'm chucking reductive too. They're starting to annoy me, more so when I in turn employ them.

What words are you going to use in their stead?

[Qrazy]

What words are you going to use in their stead?

Monkey trouble and exorbitant misappropriation.

[Mysterious Dude]

I used to be intensely anti-remake, but the concept doesn't bother me as much anymore. I think remakes can be very good, but what really bothers me is audience's perception of them. They often never know they're watching a remake. There's something rather saddening about that, and that was the main reason why I used to rant about remakes so much in the past. They can feel like a form of history revisionism, or something.
Here's something I came to terms with recently: most people do not like old things as much as they like new things. Liking old things is, in fact, a very bourgeois custom.

[Bosco B Thug]

No he didn't. He said he doesn't understand why they're letting him do the remake considering his prior films. He made it very clear why he wanted to do this. Yeah, he seems very excited and invested in the project, his motives are awesome, and he's capable of forming his own artistic vision without ripping off Argento's.

Shit this seriously cannot come soon enough!


I rewatched A Clockwork Orange last night for the first time in many years, and while I was a little skeptical about how well it would hold up, I was soon proven to be a fucking idiot for doubting Kubrick as the film confirmed what I already knew: still a masterpiece, still one of my favorite movies ever.

I'm not really sure where to start talking about a movie this layered and nuanced, but here goes: the film is something of a warped picaresque tale, and Alex something of an incidental (and inverted) Barry Lyndon. The iconic opening shot immediately establishes Alex as the (psychological or otherwise) center of the film's universe, and when the camera pulls back and keeps pulling back to show us the entirety of the Korovy Milk Bar our (the viewers') movement happens in relation to Alex yet at the same time is completely disconnected from him; external forces are pulling the (our) frame (of reference) way back and out, the same forces that drag Alex down to society's nadir before jettisoning him up to its apex.

The movie is about systems of power--which is to say, systems of oppression--and the point isn't that the government is "just as bad" as Alex, it's that Alex is a miniature version of the government. "Violence begets violence" is an omnipresent truism here (Mr. Alexander of "Home" being the most obvious example), and the institutionalized, fascistic bullying existing at every level of the state/penal system's bureaucracy (Alex's interrogation sees some guy sneering about how "pretty" he is before his crotch-grabbing social worker spits on his face--speaking of which, anytime Alex is seen at the whims of those who have power over him (representatives of the state) Kubrick blatantly eroticizes him (standing in his prominently-bulging underwear during a visit with his social worker, being made to strip naked before his incarceration), turning the downward-looking male-gazer (or, uh, rapist) into the gazed-upon victim) is not just mirrored in Alex's own bullying of his underlings but, we can pretty safely extrapolate, a more "advanced," legitimized version of that bullying.

In a society whose very existence is dependent on these corrupt systems operating efficiently, are the less powerful (and, importantly, lower class) inclined to imitate them in their own micro-cosmic beurocracies (gangs like Alex's, for example) or does this sort of behavior just inherently appeal to a fucked-up impulse in these sorts of people (bullies, essentially)?

Probably a bit of both, would be my guess; but let's not get ahead of ourselves here; lest we think the film's view of humanity is all too bleak, Kubrick offers Alex the possibility of genuine change and self-motivated redemption: when "Ludwig Van" comes on the soundtrack during one of Alex's early torture sessions, he seems to truly realize the horrors of his actions--of forcing pain upon other human beings--because, you see, the dude really, really likes Mozart; Alex's propinquity towards classical music has been criticized as an arbitrary and meaningless attempt at humanizing him, but we see from orgasm-one that he associates the ethereal Godliness of Mozart's tunes with abject destruction and horror; when those associations become unbearably painful the heights of ecstasy become the lows of un-livable suffering; the "message" gets through to Alex in a base, visceral way, but all the scientists care about is completing the procedure (out of prison in 30 days or your money back!) so they can fill out their paper work, get recognition for their "accomplishment," and make sure the gears keep churning. Meanwhile blood bubbles up through the cracks in the gears, but nobody seems to notice.

So Alex's chance at genuine change is crushed within the machinery of the system, but once he's taken in by Very Powerful socialites that same machinery (illustrated in another frankly Godly pull-back shot of a raving mad Mr. Alexander front-and-center and his powerful friends posed around him, in the basement, tacitly observing the machinery at work (check out the fucking gigantic, spinning-gears-like sound system that blasts 'the Ninth' into the attic) as It All Goes According To Plan) un-crushes his clockworked mind and promises now to cater to his every impulse (shades of American Psycho--in which an elite society complicity turns the other way and, when necessary, sweeps all evidence under the rug, when one of their own goes haywire--are faintly visible).

This isn't even touching the big, fat issue of Media, its role with regards to the populace and with regards to the state. But hey, I don't really feel like talking about it! Though if anyone wants to continue this discussion I'd be happy to. One last thing: Kubrick's use of geometry and space to evoke mood is breathtaking, and nothing less than the work of a master. His is truly one of the Great Directors. Great comments! I didn't completely embrace A Clockwork Orange's in-your-face nastiness, but I can't argue against its being brilliant, the ideas behind it being brilliantly constructed and formed into the film (like how, re-stating what you covered already, every motif of the film, from the classical music to the implicit sexual raunchiness, working so integrally with its expose of the base human impulse towards grandiose power and elite advantage). Yeah, can't argue Kubrick does strike me as the intellectual master in film directing.

[dreamdead]

Watched my first Anthony Mann... The Naked Spur. Given its generally obvious narrative patterns with regard to the (rogue) good guys and charming viper of a villain, as well as bombastic score, it's interesting more so for its cinematic techniques, specifically its willingness to set up events via wideshot. Leigh is occasionally out of her element here, but the rest of the cast is game, and the ending, despite being a bit brief and too much of a deux ex machina, largely works in its turn toward heroism and away from any touch of the rogue. Not really perfect at any point, but interesting enough...

Think I'm gonna check out The Furies next...

[Grouchy]

About remakes, for me it's like Qrazy said. It doesn't make sense to remake the work of an auteur like Argento because it's not centered around the plot, which is the one thing that's useful for a remake. Argento wrote Suspiria knowing he was going to direct it in such a way. The movie is the masterpiece it is because of his directing, not because of its formulaic and largely nonsensical story of a ballet student in a mystery school.

And yes, of course there have been good remakes in the past. But the ones iosos mentioned as examples (Bob Le Flambeur/The Good Thief, Yojimbo/Fistful of Dollars) don't even have the titles in common and are in fact reimaginings of basic story elements. It's something different when modern producers use the success and the famous names of classics to make their buck with "modern updates". Specially since the movies in question haven't aged nearly enough to warrant those updates. This has become a dangerous trend with Horror.

[Grouchy]

Watched Leonardo Favio's Juan Moreira, based on the theater play based on the real-life gaucho. I recognized a lot of stylistic devices from this year's Aniceto, such as the slow back-tracking shots and the quick montages of violence. Something about the way the murder scenes are edited makes me wonder if Favio had seen The Wild Bunch when he made this in 1973. Rodolfo Bebán gives a very emotional performance as Moreira, and his expressive eyes are inmensely watchable. There's a sequence where Moreira struggles with a gunshot wound and plays cards with Death on a dream which is the highlight of the film. Although the image inmediately recalls Bergman, this scene comes from the Romantic literary sources of the film.

Of course, as with most pre-00's Argentinian cinema, the sound mixing is fucking terrible and the special effects (mostly flesh wounds and gunshots) have aged badly. Other than that, the film is fantastic.

[Qrazy]

Watched Leonardo Favio's Juan Moreira, based on the theater play based on the real-life gaucho. I recognized a lot of stylistic devices from this year's Aniceto, such as the slow back-tracking shots and the quick montages of violence. Something about the way the murder scenes are edited makes me wonder if Favio had seen The Wild Bunch when he made this in 1973. Rodolfo Bebán gives a very emotional performance as Moreira, and his expressive eyes are inmensely watchable. There's a sequence where Moreira struggles with a gunshot wound and plays cards with Death on a dream which is the highlight of the film. Although the image inmediately recalls Bergman, this scene comes from the Romantic literary sources of the film.

Of course, as with most pre-00's Argentinian cinema, the sound mixing is fucking terrible and the special effects (mostly flesh wounds and gunshots) have aged badly. Other than that, the film is fantastic.

You should make a top 50 or top 100 Argentinian cinema thread, since I'm guessing you're the resident expert. I know I've barely scratched the surface there.

[Grouchy]

You should make a top 50 or top 100 Argentinian cinema thread, since I'm guessing you're the resident expert. I know I've barely scratched the surface there.
Huh, I doubt I could, actually. I don't think I've really seen 50 great Argentinian films. I could probably write about historically important films, because I studied them in class, but even the ones I've seen aren't that good.

I can safely recommend anything by Leonardo Favio, the man is really a stylish storyteller. And Pino Solanas is also a pretty interesting director. Most of their great output is from the '70s and '80s. As for current filmmakers, I really like Lucrecia Martel, who did The Holy Girl which some of you probably heard about since it made a pretty big festival circuit.

[Beau]

Watched Leonardo Favio's Juan Moreira, based on the theater play based on the real-life gaucho. I recognized a lot of stylistic devices from this year's Aniceto, such as the slow back-tracking shots and the quick montages of violence. Something about the way the murder scenes are edited makes me wonder if Favio had seen The Wild Bunch when he made this in 1973. Rodolfo Bebán gives a very emotional performance as Moreira, and his expressive eyes are inmensely watchable. There's a sequence where Moreira struggles with a gunshot wound and plays cards with Death on a dream which is the highlight of the film. Although the image inmediately recalls Bergman, this scene comes from the Romantic literary sources of the film.

Of course, as with most pre-00's Argentinian cinema, the sound mixing is fucking terrible and the special effects (mostly flesh wounds and gunshots) have aged badly. Other than that, the film is fantastic.

I have actually owned this film on DVD for months and months, and for whatever reason, I never get around to actually seeing the thing. Maybe soon, I will rectify my mistake.

[Beau]

I can safely recommend anything by Leonardo Favio, the man is really a stylish storyteller. And Pino Solanas is also a pretty interesting director. Most of their great output is from the '70s and '80s. As for current filmmakers, I really like Lucrecia Martel, who did The Holy Girl which some of you probably heard about since it made a pretty big festival circuit.

I agree with this. Solanas is a very interesting director. El Exilio de Gardel and Sur are fantastic movies, and Clouds, though a lesser work, is still worthwhile. He usually dabbles in meta-narrative conceits, plays-within-films, performance-within-performance, art and history, culture and art, etc. These things usually interest me. I also love Lucrecia Martel. La Cienaga and The Holy Girl are some of my favorite films of the decade. She "talks" with the camera.

[Grouchy]

I agree with this. Solanas is a very interesting director. El Exilio de Gardel and Sur are fantastic movies, and Clouds, though a lesser work, is still worthwhile. He usually dabbles in meta-narrative conceits, plays-within-films, performance-within-performance, art and history, culture and art, etc. These things usually interest me. I also love Lucrecia Martel. La Cienaga and The Holy Girl are some of my favorite films of the decade. She "talks" with the camera.
Yeah. I've only seen Sur and La Hora de los Hornos from Solanas, but they're both very impressive. I also voted for him last elections, too. Heh. It's the ones like Rejtman and Caetano from current cinema that don't interest me as much, although Caetano is a fairly solid director.

Please watch Juan Moreira and tell me what you think.

I was on DVDBeaver just now, reading the new reviews, when I started watching the screenshots for some movie - http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews40/the_search_for_john_gissing.ht m

When it came to the fourth screenshot, I almost die of a heart attack. Tell me if that's disturbing you guys as well or I'm just going crazy.

[Watashi]

I tried watching Come and See but I had to shut it off 10 minutes into it. The KINO DVD was just horrendous and it felt like I was watching a 50 year old home movie. Why wasn't there a Criterion release for this?

This is the second time this year I've had to stop a move because of bad DVD transfers (To's The Mission being the first).

[Spinal]

A couple interesting quotes from Slant Magazine's interview (http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/features/catherinebreillat.asp) with Catherine Breillat:


Slant: Tell me about working with Asia Argento.

CB: I'll give you a comparison. Imagine you're a potter, but instead of working with clay, you're molding lava.


Slant: ... I saw a special "merci" to Claire Denis at the end of the credits.

CB: After I had my stroke, the film company insurers asked me to name another director that would take over the production if I had physical problems and couldn't complete the project. The only person I could ever consider for that was Claire Denis. I knew that if she shot the film, I could use her images after I had recovered. Her way of working is also very physical, even if her work is rawer, while mine tends to be about enchantment. Both of us are after human truths and mysteries.

[transmogrifier]

Fast Food Nation - funny and engaging, but it ditches the business and marketing angle far too quickly, and instead goes for the easier story.
Enduring Love - poorly structured, muddled and ultimately silly.
Undertow - potentially formulaic story elevated by a unique fractured visual poetry

[Watashi]

Fast Food Nation - funny and engaging, but it ditches the business and marketing angle far too quickly, and instead goes for the easier story.
Enduring Love - poorly structured, muddled and ultimately silly.
Undertow - potentially formulaic story elevated by a unique fractured visual poetry
You just gave Smokin Aces (possibly the worst movie of the decade) a higher rating than The Incredibles.

Your film license has officially been revoked.

[Spinal]

Oh, and The House is Black = :eek:

Not only because the images of leprosy are startling, but because it's such a remarkbly well-crafted piece of poetry. I was very impressed by how non-exploitative it was. It is filled with compassion and yet it never really seems like it is pulling at our heartstrings. Must see stuff.

[Winston*]

Enduring Love - poorly structured, muddled and ultimately silly.

From what I've gathered about this film, it seems they took the novel and then decided to jettison the interesting things about the novel.

[Spinal]

You just gave Smokin Aces (possibly the worst movie of the decade) a higher rating than The Incredibles.

Your film license has officially been revoked.

Forget The Incredibles. It's also higher than Hour of the Wolf.

[soitgoes...]

Oh, and The House is Black = :eek:

Not only because the images of leprosy are startling, but because it's such a remarkbly well-crafted piece of poetry. I was very impressed by how non-exploitative it was. It is filled with compassion and yet it never really seems like it is pulling at our heartstrings. Must see stuff.
I might watch this later tonight.

[BIOspasm]

Hey everyone I'm new here.

[transmogrifier]

From what I've gathered about this film, it seems they took the novel and then decided to jettison the interesting things about the novel.

I didn't like the novel much either. I was hoping the movie would find something poetic.

I was wrong.

[MadMan]

The birthday scene in Signs is one of my favorite shocks in broad daylight.Ooooh, great one. That scene was the only scary/frightening moment in the entire film. It still creeps me out.


Doesn't most of The Texas Chain Saw Massacre take place during the day?Yes, but the part of the film that scared me the most happened at night. Dawn of the Dead(1978) featured many scenes during the day, although only parts were really scary. I'm actually hard pressed to think of a horror film that featured really scary parts during the day time. Even though its far scarier to witness something horrifying happening in daylight, as that's supposed to be the "safe time" and its often out of the blue.


Oh yeah, and I really enjoy Zombie's Halloween.

I never thought I'd say that.Awesome. About time you joined the club.


You know what could use a remake? Johnny Mnemonic. I felt like there was a decent story in there waiting to get out.I still want to see that film. I bet its terrible but the premise sounds cool, and I'm slowly becoming a proponent of Keanu Reaves. He's not that bad of an actor, giving the right material and all.


Speaking of remakes, I rather enjoy the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake, and have a feeling I shall enjoy the Friday the 13th remake.I actually want to see the TCM remake. And considering that original was solid/good at best, a Friday the 13th remake could greatly improve upon the original.


They just can't remake Suspiria. They can't! I don't think Dario Argento would let them, anyways. With Natalie fucking Portman no less. Ugh. American movies make me sick these days.They'll ruin the awesome weirdness factor by featuring a scene explaining everything. So yeah the movie will suck. I actually fail to see how the remake could add anything to an already near great film. While I did say the same thing about the Halloween remake (and I was wrong), I highly doubt anyone with any talent will directing the Suspiria remake. Plus no Goblin soundtrack=blah. And bah.

PS: Made before I saw this:


I've never seen anything by David Gordon Green (and won't if he makes this), but he even claims that it doesn't make sense why he wants to remake this.

http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2008/03/05/david-gordon-green-confirms-suspiria-remake/Um, I'm still against it. Simply because the original also benefits highly from its 70s gothic horror trappings. To me gothic horror is pretty much dead these days, and I blame the stupid "torture porn" horror flicks.

Note I'm not against remakes in general. I just feel that remakes that bring something new to the table and take the original concept in a new direction or actually improve upon something original that was terrible are the only ones worthy of actually watching. And yes those do exist.

Oh and who knows about The Birds remake? Although last I heard Michael Bay was attached to it, and that's not a good thing.

Sadly there are people who fail to see the greatness that is John Carpenter's The Thing. Some of them were the critics who at the time bashed the film. Some of them have turned about face years later. At least they admitted they were wrong.

Oh and welcome to the site BIO. Are you from RT? Your username looks familiar.

What I also love is that trans still left that quote from me in his sig, even though he had to cram it in along with a bunch of movie ratings. That's great.

[transmogrifier]

Forget The Incredibles. It's also higher than Hour of the Wolf.

And The Dark Knight. Don't forget that. And The Shining. In fact, at 59, it would rank in the top 25% of the Kubrick filmography for me. Woo-hoo.

[soitgoes...]

Oh, and The House is Black = :eek:

Not only because the images of leprosy are startling, but because it's such a remarkbly well-crafted piece of poetry. I was very impressed by how non-exploitative it was. It is filled with compassion and yet it never really seems like it is pulling at our heartstrings. Must see stuff.Great use of juxtaposition. The religious narration with shots of decay intercut with shots of nature was brilliant. The beginning was a little difficult to watch, but thankfully the camera never lingers.

[BIOspasm]

Oh and welcome to the site BIO. Are you from RT? Your username looks familiar.


Yep. Sure am.

[Raiders]

Yep. Sure am.

As for your earlier av request, go here (http://www.match-cut.org/showthread.php?t=25) and post that picture. It is a thread set up in the Kitchen Sink forum where one of our resident Photoshoppers will make the image into an av for you.

[BIOspasm]

As for your earlier av request, go here (http://www.match-cut.org/showthread.php?t=25) and post that picture. It is a thread set up in the Kitchen Sink forum where one of our resident Photoshoppers will make the image into an av for you.

Ah, I see. Thanks.

So what is this thread, like the equivalent of IYPC or something?

[Raiders]

Ah, I see. Thanks.

So what is this thread, like the equivalent of IYPC or something?

About four years ago at RT (god, I'm old), we created a thread for a small group of ourselves to discuss film how we wanted. It was called, simply, The Film Discussion Thread. When RT went under new ownership and with the amount of trolls and generally unintelligent posts, we migrated and have, over the course of almost three years or so, developed this community here. We have always retained this thread in every forum simply as a means of general film discussion that is too varied for any one thread.

[Scar]

Ah, I see. Thanks.

So what is this thread, like the equivalent of IYPC or something?

'Cept we actually talk movies....

[D_Davis]

'Cept we actually talk movies....

Except for when we talk about other stuffs.

[Scar]

Except for when we talk about other stuffs.

I've popped into the massive chat threads at RT, and half the time its:

'Hi!'

'Hi!'

'How are you?'

'Ok.'

'Bummed, I have to go to work.'

'Oh, ok. :sad:'

[D_Davis]

I've popped into the massive chat threads at RT, and half the time its:

'Hi!'

'Hi!'

'How are you?'

'Ok.'

'Bummed, I have to go to work.'

'Oh, ok. :sad:'

:lol:

[Scar]

:lol:

Holy inflated post counts!

[BIOspasm]

I've popped into the massive chat threads at RT, and half the time its:

'Hi!'

'Hi!'

'How are you?'

'Ok.'

'Bummed, I have to go to work.'

'Oh, ok. :sad:'

Hi! :)

[BIOspasm]

'Cept we actually talk movies....

Haha this is good. RT needs a little more of this.

[Duncan]

If you write something of relative length on a film, though, it's probably best to just make a new thread for it. Like that Clockwork Orange review, for example. It had to have taken a non-negligible amount of time and would probably get more responses in its own thread.

[Duncan]

Anyone know much about Cinema Novo? Recs?

[Derek]

You just gave Smokin Aces (possibly the worst movie of the decade) a higher rating than The Incredibles.

Your film license has officially been revoked.

People who turn off Come and See after 10 minutes have no right to revoke film licenses.

[BIOspasm]

Anyone seen La Jetee? I'm going to watch it later today. I wasn't a fan of 12 Monkeys though.

[Duncan]

Anyone seen La Jetee? I'm going to watch it later today. I wasn't a fan of 12 Monkeys though.

It's one of my very favourites. Other than the broadest plot elements and a Hitchcock homage it and 12 Monkeys are entirely dissimilar.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Anyone seen La Jetee? I'm going to watch it later today. I wasn't a fan of 12 Monkeys though.

It's good. A little slow, but the overall effect is somewhere between fascinating and hypnotic.

Netflix "sent" me The Last Winter this Monday, but I never got it, and today they "got it back." Weak. I've been waiting months and months to see this.

[Grouchy]

"Unknown Ozu" film cycle at the local arthouse.

The following films are going to be shown from today onwards -
Flavor of Green Tea Over Rice
Early Spring
Twilight in Tokyo
The End of Summer

Assuming I'm only going to watch one of these, which one should it be?

[BIOspasm]

"Unknown Ozu" film cycle at the local arthouse.

The following films are going to be shown from today onwards -
Flavor of Green Tea Over Rice
Early Spring
Twilight in Tokyo
The End of Summer

Assuming I'm only going to watch one of these, which one should it be?

I haven't seen any Ozu so I cant say. I really wish I had a local arthouse. :sad:

[Raiders]

I haven't seen any Ozu so I cant say. I really wish I had a local arthouse. :sad:

Make sure to see Late Spring. The rest you can get to when you feel like it. No rush.

[BIOspasm]

It's one of my very favourites. Other than the broadest plot elements and a Hitchcock homage it and 12 Monkeys are entirely dissimilar.

Sounds cool. Have you seen Marker's Sans soleil?

[BIOspasm]

Make sure to see Late Spring. The rest you can get to when you feel like it. No rush.

Oh, Im going to see all of his stuff sooner or later.

[BIOspasm]

It's good. A little slow, but the overall effect is somewhere between fascinating and hypnotic.

Netflix "sent" me The Last Winter this Monday, but I never got it, and today they "got it back." Weak. I've been waiting months and months to see this.

Oh I have been meaning to see that ever since I heard a critic refer to it as an "arctic Apocalypse Now"

[Qrazy]

Make sure to see Tokyo Story and Floating Weeds. The rest you can get to when you feel like it. No rush.

Fixed.

[Watashi]

People who turn off Come and See after 10 minutes have no right to revoke film licenses.

Dude, the quality was shit. If I'm going to see a 2 1/2 hour brutal war movie, I want to see at least get a decent transfer. I'll wait for a better DVD.

[BIOspasm]

Fixed.

Haha yeah, I think Tokyo Story is probably where I'll start. Simply because I have heard the most praise for it.

[Raiders]

Fixed.

I Googled and confirmed I spelled Late Spring correctly. Thanks for the effort, though.

[Spinal]

I don't remember there being any issue with the Come and See DVD. I guess I have lower standards.

[Qrazy]

I Googled and I confirmed I spelled Late Spring correctly. Thanks for the effort, though.

You're welcome.

[BIOspasm]

You're welcome.

Whats your av from?

[Qrazy]

Whats your av from?

Stalker.

[Duncan]

Twilight in Tokyo
Early Spring
The End of Summer

I'd rank what I've seen like that. Tokyo Twilight (aka Twlight in Tokyo) is more melodramatic than most of his stuff, but it works really well.

[Duncan]

Sounds cool. Have you seen Marker's Sans soleil?

Yeah. Also excellent. Maybe a little tougher just because it's longer and has no plot to speak of.