28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[Kurosawa Fan]

But then where's the assurance they will go back to Earth? I don't know. I think there's something very cathartic about seeing humans on soil again.

Also, if we insist on thinking about this with strict logic, they have the advantage over their ancestors that the Earth's atmosphere seems to be able to sustain life again. Plus, they may not have the knowledge, but remember there is an entire computer system on board the ship that contains a lot of the information about the human race and Earth.

I don't need to see them on Earth again. Merely rising from those chairs and setting a course for home would have been enough. But stepping on to soil would have been better had they not made these people so contained and helpless to begin with.

As for their ancestors, if the attitudes of humans had changed so much that they stopped caring about the atmosphere before it got out of hand, why wouldn't this be passed through the generations? Why wouldn't it be inherited? In the shape those people are in, when they realize how hard they have to work to get things going in the right direction, and that their efforts likely won't help them much, but instead help their children or their grandchildren, how many do you think would opt to get back in the ship and live their easy-going, stress-free existence? Like I said, the story has flaws, and this is a BIG one. Those people were too far gone for me to believe that they could land in that heap called Earth and clean it up enough to survive, or would even want to when faced with all that work.

[Raiders]

As for their ancestors, if the attitudes of humans had changed so much that they stopped caring about the atmosphere before it got out of hand, why wouldn't this be passed through the generations?

I don't think their ancestors meant for the Earth to get into such bad shape. These people have the gift of hindsight.

As for the rest of what you say, you may or may not be right. It doesn't really matter and I guess my optimistic side just doesn't see this the same way as you. Regardless, it has no bearing on the film in my opinion and I wouldn't even call it a flaw.

[Watashi]

Are we all forgetting the end credits which is probably the most integral part of the film showing an optimistic conclusion. With the vast technology of every robot, they can rebuild and repopulate the earth one day at a time (the span of of the end credits is over a thousand years due to the growth of the tree in the boot). It's not going to happen over night, but with the motivation of starting a new beginning, I see no problem with the ending.

[Winston*]

Morris's idea of a milestone for Pixar seems to be them leaving all the poor children that were so excited to see the cute robot movie in a state of emotional distress.

[Ezee E]

I wish we took Cars as logically real as Wall-E

[Winston*]

I wish we took Cars as logically real as Wall-E

Hey I did (http://www.match-cut.org/showthread.php?p=966&highlight=cars#post966)

[Ezee E]

Hey I did (http://www.match-cut.org/showthread.php?p=966&highlight=cars#post966)
awesome.

[dreamdead]

I was roaming IMDb for other under-1,000 films and just discovered that Tran Anh Hung will be helming an adaptation of Murakami's Norwegian Wood after the '09 I Come with the Rain. Color me intrigued.

[Stay Puft]

My only concern is waiting another nine years. Work faster, dude.

[Qrazy]

Those people? Who didn't know what anything was? Only one guy is even halfway clued in to how things used to be. Hell, they can barely walk.

I don't think it's a pointless argument. I think the story is flawed. They made Earth too far gone and the human race too ignorant to just set them back down in that mess and have them sort everything out.

Again, I'll reiterate that I think the rest of the film overcomes these flaws, but they are flaws, there are leaps in logic, and it taints what could have been an incredible film. As is, it's a very good film, a solid entry for Pixar, but not their best work.

Why are we applying this level of real world logic to this film? Talking fish, toys, monsters, bugs and cars people. Remember there's a big difference between logical holes in the narrative of a story and seeming holes based on our own imposed logic.

[Qrazy]

I don't need to see them on Earth again. Merely rising from those chairs and setting a course for home would have been enough. But stepping on to soil would have been better had they not made these people so contained and helpless to begin with.

As for their ancestors, if the attitudes of humans had changed so much that they stopped caring about the atmosphere before it got out of hand, why wouldn't this be passed through the generations? Why wouldn't it be inherited? In the shape those people are in, when they realize how hard they have to work to get things going in the right direction, and that their efforts likely won't help them much, but instead help their children or their grandchildren, how many do you think would opt to get back in the ship and live their easy-going, stress-free existence? Like I said, the story has flaws, and this is a BIG one. Those people were too far gone for me to believe that they could land in that heap called Earth and clean it up enough to survive, or would even want to when faced with all that work.

If there's collective laziness, there can be collective motivation... and having your robot friends and masters nearly destroy you or at least rest control of your species from you can be a fairly motivating factor for change.

[transmogrifier]

The whole thing is about WALL-E's revitalization of the human spirit through his own form of mimicked humanity. .

No. It skirts around that, but it doesn't stick because in the end, he only really affects one person (the captain), and even then, he gets most of his info Leeloo style from the computer. The other two humans, the guy who gets knocked out of his chair is right back on it later on in the movie (I can't remember how the woman gets "awoken")

Suddenly the film turns to have ALL the humans fall lockstep into the "Let's go back to Earth" scenario without even a moments dissent. They never stop being automatons.

Wall-E has his greatest effect on other robots.

[Boner M]

Through the Olive Trees - About 20 points added to my rating for the final shot. Tran-fucking-scendant. Now I gotta get my hands on the first two in the loose trilogy. Eclipse set, plz.

[Ezee E]

Browsing movie thoughts:

Enchanted - hmm... Amy Adams is pretty delightful in this, and she makes it work. When she's not on screen, it's pretty awful, but I may actually check this out from beginning to end. I have a feeling it'll surprise me.

Into the Wild - second time watching it. Although it may side with Christopher too much, makes the parents look much dumber then I'm sure they are, it is better the second time around. I'm feeling attached to it personally right now too.

[Watashi]

Casino is easily the worst Scorsese film I've seen so far. Lazy, lazy filmmaking. It felt like a parody of the great director. Bloated, pointless, with musical cues and excessive narration that drown any sort of plot out of focus. Shame on you, Marty.

[Morris Schæffer]

This is the problem that the first half of the movie created. But again, I don't think it's as damaging as Morris did, as the story transcended the flaws.

Hey, still **½ from me, but I don't love it.


Those people? Who didn't know what anything was? Only one guy is even halfway clued in to how things used to be. Hell, they can barely walk.


And that's another thing. We are shown glimpses of an actual person - Fred Willard I believe - and next we're supposed to believe that mankind has regressed from real humans into cuddly little lardasses? Because of lack of movement? Or because this is an animated feature movie and everything needs to be adorable? Sigh, I'm probably just a cynic (I love The Rookie though), but photorealistic humans in a Pixar movie might, for a change, have been something of an interesting departure.

But again good points earlier on you and Xylyx. Mankind back on earth is something I could have aligned with, but it just feels too quick, too steeped in positivism here.

[Yum-Yum]

Tran-fucking-scendant.

Your wacky word alteration reminds me of this transvestite loving pal of mine who used to work at a factory that made Febreze.

Oh, and every time I see your avatar, my desire to see Samurai Cop increases substantially.

[Yxklyx]

Through the Olive Trees...Tran-fucking...

I will skip this one thank you.

I see why some people are objecting to the hurried somewhat out of place ending of Wall-E but it didn't bother me too much - maybe because it wasn't Apocalypse Now?

[Boner M]

Oh Yxklyx, you're terrible!

[Qrazy]

Hey, still **½ from me, but I don't love it.



And that's another thing. We are shown glimpses of an actual person - Fred Willard I believe - and next we're supposed to believe that mankind has regressed from real humans into cuddly little lardasses? Because of lack of movement? Or because this is an animated feature movie and everything needs to be adorable? Sigh, I'm probably just a cynic (I love The Rookie though), but photorealistic humans in a Pixar movie might, for a change, have been something of an interesting departure.

But again good points earlier on you and Xylyx. Mankind back on earth is something I could have aligned with, but it just feels too quick, too steeped in positivism here.

Now you're not even applying your real world logic uniformly. We would become fat if we were endlessly eating and our muscles would atrophy if we did not exercise in space.

[Sven]

Casino is easily the worst Scorsese film I've seen so far. Lazy, lazy filmmaking. It felt like a parody of the great director. Bloated, pointless, with musical cues and excessive narration that drown any sort of plot out of focus. Shame on you, Marty.

I wish I could say something that would make you feel bad about this, but a few things are stopping me: 1) my misguided sense of decency, 2) my weak wit, and 3) a self-awareness of my own reputation as a belligerent iconoclast.

Instead, I will just applaud you for your wrong opinion. Bravo!

[Kurosawa Fan]

I don't think their ancestors meant for the Earth to get into such bad shape. These people have the gift of hindsight.


In our world, which Wall-E made a point of connecting with by way of Fred Willard, when Al Gore presented some statistics saying that we were damaging the Earth with excess carbon emissions and that it could have catastrophic results, we've made an effort to "go green" and save our planet. I can't imagine a scenario in which Earth ends up looking the way it did in Wall-E aside from absolute ambivalence and a deep-seeded apathy for the planet. I can only suppose that we as a people understood that if the planet became uninhabitable, we could just board this floating country and leave it behind for the robots to clean up. Thus we stopped caring about our waste, thinking there was little in the way of consequences since our mess could be cleaned up by others as we took a nice vacation through space.


And I'd argue this same thing to you Qrazy, over your scolding of me applying real world logic. Pixar made a point of connecting this story to me by inserting a real actor. The only reason for that move was so that the audience would connect the damages being done to Earth today in the real world (hence real world logic), and the hypothetical results of our carelessness in the imagined world of Wall-E.

[Raiders]

I don't see how connecting the film to the real world and transcending the wholly animated world requires the film to thus follow a purely logical path, not to mention that you showed little faith in humanity earlier as presented in the film but now you stress that you don't believe the humans would have been so careless as to let the Earth become completely uninhabitable.

Plus, I would argue that those attempting to "go green" are the vast minority and the film never says that every single person rendered the world uninhabitable. It seems likely that a majority of the people would have been careless, lazy and wasteful and the minority could do nothing against the overwhelming complacency that rendered the world near-death.

All these are hypotheses of course and for me, the important things to the film is that the world did become that way and humanity has turned into technological, impersonal slaves. The film goes from there and I am willing to accept the scenario.

[Bosco B Thug]

The Last Winter -Too explicit as a commentary/admonishment on Global Warming and the conflict between the right and left pertaining to it, Fessenden is still admirably gracious in writing all of his characters as people rather than mere spouters of talking points, including the character emblematic of the right played by Ron Perlman, who gives a phenomenal performance. The piece is very well measured until the introduction of an outside element that jump-starts the third act, bringing with it a series of awkward missteps that cumulate to an embarrassing epiloque. For sure. Are you referring to

the plane crash and the ensuing chaos and madness?

The movie just goes off with itself at that point, too convinced of its cosmic terror story while the characters and drama reveal themselves to still be underdeveloped.


Two 80s zombie flicks, cult favorites, one not as good as I remembered it, the other definitely as good (perhaps better) than its reputation. Night of the Creeps has its moments, but otherwise it's stilted and awkward-footed. The Return of the Living Dead is rockin through and through, though.

David Lean's Blithe Spirit is very funny, sharp-tongued (turns out this is the only Noel Coward scripted film I've seen... recs?), and of course inventively directed by Lean. Didn't amount to anything really profound or overwhelmingly endearing for me, though. The green make-up used for the ghosts bugged the hell out of me, too.

[Izzy Black]

In our world, which Wall-E made a point of connecting with by way of Fred Willard, when Al Gore presented some statistics saying that we were damaging the Earth with excess carbon emissions and that it could have catastrophic results, we've made an effort to "go green" and save our planet. I can't imagine a scenario in which Earth ends up looking the way it did in Wall-E aside from absolute ambivalence and a deep-seeded apathy for the planet. I can only suppose that we as a people understood that if the planet became uninhabitable, we could just board this floating country and leave it behind for the robots to clean up. Thus we stopped caring about our waste, thinking there was little in the way of consequences since our mess could be cleaned up by others as we took a nice vacation through space.


And I'd argue this same thing to you Qrazy, over your scolding of me applying real world logic. Pixar made a point of connecting this story to me by inserting a real actor. The only reason for that move was so that the audience would connect the damages being done to Earth today in the real world (hence real world logic), and the hypothetical results of our carelessness in the imagined world of Wall-E.
I am not a huge fan of Wall-E, but this does not occur to me as a particularly strong criticism (and I recall Domino making a similar tenuous argument against Children of Men). The film is a science fiction film. I have been through this "realism" in science fiction discussion many times before, and people do not quite seem to get it. The film functions as an allegory. Indeed - it applies real world cautionary logic, but it employs hyperbole, exaggeration, and point-of-view on contemporary state of affairs at the same time. The aim here, no doubt, is to capture a theoretical world of human abuse. We have little evidence, for example, that aliens such as those we find in War of the Worlds should ever invade the planet, but the realism logic is nonetheless attempted. The film's practical allegory is, then, in no way diminished. We can apply the same rule to Blade Runner (expecting dystopian anomie, technological corporatism, and enslaved androids any time soon?), 2001: A Space Odyssey, Children of Men, A Scanner Darkly, and the works. Likelihood of these hyperbolic scenarios are slim. Science and history are not necessarily pointing in these directions. Yet, they bear enough family resemblance and internal logic within our real world framework that we can reliably grant the possibility. Is it probable to say in strict deductive reasoning that the world will end up like it is in Wall-E? Not quite. We also have to remember it is, at least in part, a children tale. Is it impossible, however, to imagine such a defaced post-industrial milieu? We can see how extreme apathy, as you note, could lead to this, and we have visually seen similar types of landscapes, though in marginal numbers, in areas of our world. We have also seen cities, dilapidated towns and villages, and even countries go into complete industrial and economic ruin and collapse. The internal logic is there. The argument is, sure, that extreme apathy could result in such. Is that to say we are living in a state of extreme apathy? No - it is a cautionary tale that says, extreme apathy could do this, and more than that, it serves as a canvas to explore the importance of such things as meaningful connections with others, collective awareness, and self-worth. Yes, indeed, sometimes it takes an extreme scenario to illustrate the worth of these themes when our present scenario does not quite do the job. We nonetheless root it just enough in realism to remind us that there is something to be said about these things in our practical lives. The projectionist cause/effect science fiction films do not make for inherently interesting stories. If you want projective realism, tune into a doomsday documentary on the BBC or Discovery Channel - and the fictional artists will continue to do what they do best: Truth in fiction.

[Rowland]

For sure. Are you referring to

the plane crash and the ensuing chaos and madness?Yep. The sequence itself is awkward enough thanks to poor CGI and staging, and from there the movie begins to derail, though there are still plenty of elements that work. And it really is a shame about the terrible CGI during the climax, severely blunting whatever emotional catharsis it was going for.

[Amnesiac]

No - it is a cautionary tale that says, extreme apathy could do this, and more than that, it serves as a canvas to explore the importance of such things as meaningful connections with others, collective awareness, and self-worth.

Well said. With a defense like that, I wonder what you didn't like about Wall-E.

Anyways, that all sounds vaguely similar to what I was attempting to say about Burn After Reading in some other thread (despite my comment about the film being a mirror, which in hindsight, may not be entirely accurate in an absolute sense). Certain films serve to indicate our propensity for self-degradation, the loss of proper sensibilities and other murky flaws. It's a potential being examined (in the case of Burn, that potential is at least partially realized in our contemporary situation ... at least with some people), and warned against, rather than an epistemological account of where we actually are now and where we are likely headed.

[Izzy Black]

Well said. With a defense like that, I wonder what you didn't like about Wall-E.


First half was great. Brief thoughts here (http://www.match-cut.org/showpost.php?p=83928&postcount=76).

[Rowland]

First half was great. Brief thoughts here (http://www.match-cut.org/showpost.php?p=83928&postcount=76).Almost exactly my thoughts, very nice. I liked the film quite a bit despite my shared reservations, and this year has been weak enough so that it still remains at the number one spot on my top ten list.

[Morris Schæffer]

Now you're not even applying your real world logic uniformly. We would become fat if we were endlessly eating and our muscles would atrophy if we did not exercise in space.

Do me a favor and read my post again carefully dude. I'm wondering how this movie can go from realistic humans (Well, Fred Willard at least) to cuddly Michelin men that do not in the slightest resemble any human being I've ever seen. Of course obesity would ensue when exercise is lacking!

[MadMan]

Casino is easily the worst Scorsese film I've seen so far. Lazy, lazy filmmaking. It felt like a parody of the great director. Bloated, pointless, with musical cues and excessive narration that drown any sort of plot out of focus. Shame on you, Marty.What? I didn't see any of this when I watched the film. Instead, I viewed an engaging, engrossing and well made picture that featured good acting from all involved, even Stone. You and I apparently watched two different movies. Its a great film. How was the film pointless? Its about the death of the American dream, wrapped around Vegas, killing the myths about the city being this great place when in fact for years it was full of assholes and skumbags. My friend told me that the reason many don't like this film is because it disproves and ruins the image people have of Vegas, and I think he may have a point. But that's not why you didn't like it, although that reason would have made more sense.

[Izzy Black]

Almost exactly my thoughts, very nice. I liked the film quite a bit despite my shared reservations, and this year has been weak enough so that it still remains at the number one spot on my top ten list.

Yes - I liked it overall. 2008 has been indeed, weak. Very weak. I am not sure I could even muster a top 10 let alone a top 5. I would place Mamet's Redbelt and Coixet's Elegy above Wall-E, however. I also liked Transsiberian - disappointing Russian stereotypes notwithstanding.

[Izzy Black]

Do me a favor and read my post again carefully dude. I'm wondering how this movie can go from realistic humans (Well, Fred Willard at least) to cuddly Michelin men that do not in the slightest resemble any human being I've ever seen. Of course obesity would ensue when exercise is lacking!

A moment of postmodern intertextuality perhaps? Photography in contrast to stylized animation?

[Rowland]

Do me a favor and read my post again carefully dude. I'm wondering how this movie can go from realistic humans (Well, Fred Willard at least) to cuddly Michelin men that do not in the slightest resemble any human being I've ever seen. Of course obesity would ensue when exercise is lacking!I saw this as a means of further highlighting our direct complicity as well as contrasting the before/after effect, to an almost Brechtian degree.

[Rowland]

I don't dislike Casino as much as Watashi, but I'm on his general wavelength. Half of the movie is De Niro and Stone incessantly barking at each other over their marital problems, and the rest is warmed-over Scorsese-lite with the sporadic inspired moment of invention and black humor to keep it at best moderately engaging. Still, it all comes across as airless and dead-eyed, a vacuum of soulless technical proficiency masking a parade of creative missteps.

[Morris Schæffer]

Israfel and Rowland, that's too deep for me. You win!:)

Really sees it as a lame attempt from Pixar to cover all their bases by balancing the somewhat unorthodox (because nearly silent) first half with a more kid-friendly, busier second half.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Israfel, I don't disagree with anything in your post. If you read my previous posts on the last page, you'll see I also quite enjoyed the film. My only point is that those exaggerations in the film were too extreme for me. The world was too destroyed and the people on the ship too helpless for me to go with it completely.

And yes Raiders, I had little faith that the people on the ship would be in a state to recreate our world (both a mental and physical state), but that doesn't mean that I lack faith in humanity. I was simply stating that I can't see our world becoming a wasteland like that on accident. Your post, which I quoted, said that the human race "didn't mean for the earth to get into such bad shape". My argument was that there had to be some serious apathy, and a sense for how bad things were getting yet doing nothing to change, for it to end up like that. At some point they had to see the consequences of their actions and just not care to change the way they were living. It was that attitude that I was arguing would have been inherited by their family line that exists on the ship in Wall-E's present time.

[Raiders]

My argument was that there had to be some serious apathy, and a sense for how bad things were getting yet doing nothing to change, for it to end up like that. At some point they had to see the consequences of their actions and just not care to change the way they were living.

Well, sure. But then I could use this argument for most post-apocalyptic films where one would assume that human logic would take over that if current actions are to continue the world could become uninhabitable. But, such is the genre. It usually is just a given that in these scenarios the world didn't make the changes in time to stop the effects they have put into motion.

[baby doll]

Through the Olive Trees - About 20 points added to my rating for the final shot. Tran-fucking-scendant. Now I gotta get my hands on the first two in the loose trilogy. Eclipse set, plz.I've seen Where Is the Friend's House and Life, and Nothing More... but never got around to Through the Olive Trees. Maybe I'm missing some of the nuances of the dialogue in the former, but the first film seemed to consist mainly of the kid asking a question, getting a "no" from an adult, and then asking the same question and getting the same response ten more times per scene. Life, and Nothing More... is probably my favorite Kiarostami (dude knows how to work a landscape) although The Wind Will Carry Us isn't far behind. I'd like to see some of his recent, reportedly more avant-garde work but I wouldn't know where to look.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Well, sure. But then I could use this argument for most post-apocalyptic films where one would assume that human logic would take over that if current actions are to continue the world could become uninhabitable. But, such is the genre. It usually is just a given that in these scenarios the world didn't make the changes in time to stop the effects they have put into motion.

Again, I understand this, I'm only questioning it as it relates to the spirit and ideals of the humans on board the ship. Their "awakening" feels a bit phony considering how fast it comes and how neglectful the human race had obviously become in order to leave the world in that shape and reduce themselves to floating blobs content to do nothing but stare at computer screens, eat, and sleep.

[Raiders]

Again, I understand this, I'm only questioning it as it relates to the spirit and ideals of the humans on board the ship. Their "awakening" feels a bit phony considering how fast it comes and how neglectful the human race had obviously become in order to leave the world in that shape and reduce themselves to floating blobs content to do nothing but stare at computer screens, eat, and sleep.

Right, but...

...

Blueberry Muffin Frosted Mini Wheats are awesome.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Right, but...

...

Blueberry Muffin Frosted Mini Wheats are awesome.

*content sigh*

We'll always have this on our side.

[Qrazy]

In our world, which Wall-E made a point of connecting with by way of Fred Willard, when Al Gore presented some statistics saying that we were damaging the Earth with excess carbon emissions and that it could have catastrophic results, we've made an effort to "go green" and save our planet. I can't imagine a scenario in which Earth ends up looking the way it did in Wall-E aside from absolute ambivalence and a deep-seeded apathy for the planet. I can only suppose that we as a people understood that if the planet became uninhabitable, we could just board this floating country and leave it behind for the robots to clean up. Thus we stopped caring about our waste, thinking there was little in the way of consequences since our mess could be cleaned up by others as we took a nice vacation through space.


And I'd argue this same thing to you Qrazy, over your scolding of me applying real world logic. Pixar made a point of connecting this story to me by inserting a real actor. The only reason for that move was so that the audience would connect the damages being done to Earth today in the real world (hence real world logic), and the hypothetical results of our carelessness in the imagined world of Wall-E.

Connecting something to the real world does not then necessitate the connection of complete real world logic. Do you question the logical reality of preceding scenes in The Fall because of it's ending or Dogville because of it's ending or Taste of Cherry because of it's ending? Yes these endings make you question what came before but it doesn't necessitate a re-evaluation of the logical reality these films establish in their preceding moments.

Also if you think our nation has 'gone green' you've been watching too much Fox news. At this stage we're still on a path towards disaster... hence a film like Wall-E being made... saying wake the fuck up people to the American populace.

[Qrazy]

Do me a favor and read my post again carefully dude. I'm wondering how this movie can go from realistic humans (Well, Fred Willard at least) to cuddly Michelin men that do not in the slightest resemble any human being I've ever seen. Of course obesity would ensue when exercise is lacking!

It seemed to me and fairly so I think that you were raising two points, I addressed one of them. As far as the second I think the contrast is fairly obvious... they used real humans and animated humans in order to thoroughly contrast the difference between the two as well as to present an interesting take on found footage. The musical footage Wall-E finds would be much less compelling imo if it were an animated recreation of the same scene... it would lack the pop cultural historical relevance.

[balmakboor]

...you've been watching too much Fox news...

Every place I go that has a television playing to keep its customers occupied while they wait forever for service always has the set tuned to Fox News. It drives me crazy. I look around at all of the other people and they're staring at it like zombies. Then I look for the remote, but it's nowhere to be found. Then I think about asking the people working there if Fox News pays them to tune the TV to them.

I catch my wife watching Fox News and ask her why. She always says, "Because it's so pretty."

[Qrazy]

I don't dislike Casino as much as Watashi, but I'm on his general wavelength. Half of the movie is De Niro and Stone incessantly barking at each other over their marital problems, and the rest is warmed-over Scorsese-lite with the sporadic inspired moment of invention and black humor to keep it at best moderately engaging. Still, it all comes across as airless and dead-eyed, a vacuum of soulless technical proficiency masking a parade of creative missteps.

I agree as well.

[Qrazy]

Israfel, I don't disagree with anything in your post. If you read my previous posts on the last page, you'll see I also quite enjoyed the film. My only point is that those exaggerations in the film were too extreme for me. The world was too destroyed and the people on the ship too helpless for me to go with it completely.

And yes Raiders, I had little faith that the people on the ship would be in a state to recreate our world (both a mental and physical state), but that doesn't mean that I lack faith in humanity. I was simply stating that I can't see our world becoming a wasteland like that on accident. Your post, which I quoted, said that the human race "didn't mean for the earth to get into such bad shape". My argument was that there had to be some serious apathy, and a sense for how bad things were getting yet doing nothing to change, for it to end up like that. At some point they had to see the consequences of their actions and just not care to change the way they were living. It was that attitude that I was arguing would have been inherited by their family line that exists on the ship in Wall-E's present time.

Look at pollution levels and climate change, we are engaged (not all of us) in that apathy right. now.

I know people who still just throw their garbage on the side of the road.

[Qrazy]

Again, I understand this, I'm only questioning it as it relates to the spirit and ideals of the humans on board the ship. Their "awakening" feels a bit phony considering how fast it comes and how neglectful the human race had obviously become in order to leave the world in that shape and reduce themselves to floating blobs content to do nothing but stare at computer screens, eat, and sleep.

As I said the catalyst of your robot companions trying to take over is a highly motivating decision making device. They don't all say yeah plants! Earth! At first... they are nearly crushed together on one side of the ship before deciding together to go back... also witnessing Wall-E's tenacity... that was the clincher.

[Qrazy]

Every place I go that has a television playing to keep its customers occupied while they wait forever for service always has the set tuned to Fox News. It drives me crazy. I look around at all of the other people and they're staring at it like zombies. Then I look for the remote, but it's nowhere to be found. Then I think about asking the people working there if Fox News pays them to tune the TV to them.

I catch my wife watching Fox News and ask her why. She always says, "Because it's so pretty."

I like to think it's a train wreck phenomenon and people simply can't look away... if they're watching because they genuinely agree with that stuff then there is no hope for humanity.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Connecting something to the real world does not then necessitate the connection of complete real world logic. Do you question the logical reality of preceding scenes in The Fall because of it's ending or Dogville because of it's ending or Taste of Cherry because of it's ending? Yes these endings make you question what came before but it doesn't necessitate a re-evaluation of the logical reality these films establish in their preceding moments.

Also if you think our nation has 'gone green' you've been watching too much Fox news. At this stage we're still on a path towards disaster... hence a film like Wall-E being made... saying wake the fuck up people to the American populace.

First of all, don't twist my words around to take a jab at me. Nothing pisses me off more. You want to have a conversation about a movie, fine. If your sole purpose is to rile people up and be a dick, then don't fucking bother. I said that people were "making an effort to go green", I did not say we've "gone green" nor that we have averted disaster. It may be a minority, as you say (though I don't think it's much of a minority), but it's undeniable that we're at least heading in a more positive direction. Much needs to be done, but at least it's a public concern and it's not being totally ignored (as the trash must have been in Wall-E).

Secondly, and this will be my last post on the matter as I've stated my opinions enough already and would only be reiterating what I've already said, the example of Wall-E is totally different. This is an animated film. It's not a film with real actors like the rest of your examples. They used a very noticeable actor to portray our president, an actor known for playing an imbecile, much like our current president. This isn't a subtle nod, that to me is a direct reference to our current leader and to our current environmental concerns. By making that leap, by for the first time in a Pixar movie, establishing a real actor in the midst of nothing but animated figures, it's too bold a connection to ignore. The musical playing further establishes that it's pointing to our time as a deciding factor in whether our world will continue to exist or whether we'll ignore the warning signs. I understand that the film doesn't need to follow real logic from that point on, but if we are to believe that the past is real (hence the real actor), then we must believe that the filmmakers are saying that this is a real possibility. If the garbage was just symbolic of other environmental concerns, that's acceptable. We are indeed in the face of a potential crisis and not enough is being done. However, my original complaint still holds true that their world was too far gone for those people to create a stable environment upon landing their ship.

And your argument that the robots taking over was a good catalyst doesn't hold much water either, as the only reason they wanted to take over was because they were returning to earth. Upon leaving the planet, I feel it's safe to assume that things would return to normal aboard the ship.

[Qrazy]

First of all, don't twist my words around to take a jab at me. Nothing pisses me off more. You want to have a conversation about a movie, fine. If your sole purpose is to rile people up and be a dick, then don't fucking bother. I said that people were "making an effort to go green", I did not say we've "gone green" nor that we have averted disaster. It may be a minority, as you say (though I don't think it's much of a minority), but it's undeniable that we're at least heading in a more positive direction. Much needs to be done, but at least it's a public concern and it's not being totally ignored (as the trash must have been in Wall-E).


When Al Gore presented some statistics saying that we were damaging the Earth with excess carbon emissions and that it could have catastrophic results, we've made an effort to "go green" and save our planet. I can't imagine a scenario in which Earth ends up looking the way it did in Wall-E aside from absolute ambivalence and a deep-seeded apathy for the planet.

I'm responding precisely to what you stated, nothing else. The above sentences to me suggested you believe the nation has made a concerted effort to change and that a large number of people are doing this. If this is not what you were suggesting than I'm glad. But if you were than I am telling you that in terms of government policy and law (the guiding force for change in a nation), we have not. The Bush Administration has made hand waving gestures towards reform in the not too distant future. There has been very little actual reform. Now presumably both current presidential candidates do care deeply about these issues and say they will effect some change. We shall see. I sure hope they do.


Secondly, and this will be my last post on the matter as I've stated my opinions enough already and would only be reiterating what I've already said, the example of Wall-E is totally different. This is an animated film. It's not a film with real actors like the rest of your examples.

I don't see that it's such an earth shattering difference. The point of the examples being the juxtaposition of 'the real world' with the artificial world we've seen previously, and it's the same thing here. I've seen quite a few animated films that use real world footage and I hold none of them to a real world logical standard. Often they're using the real to draw comparisons with the artificial.


They used a very noticeable actor to portray our president, an actor known for playing an imbecile, much like our current president. This isn't a subtle nod, that to me is a direct reference to our current leader and to our current environmental concerns. By making that leap, by for the first time in a Pixar movie, establishing a real actor in the midst of nothing but animated figures, it's too bold a connection to ignore. The musical playing further establishes that it's pointing to our time as a deciding factor in whether our world will continue to exist or whether we'll ignore the warning signs. I understand that the film doesn't need to follow real logic from that point on, but if we are to believe that the past is real (hence the real actor), then we must believe that the filmmakers are saying that this is a real possibility. If the garbage was just symbolic of other environmental concerns, that's acceptable. We are indeed in the face of a potential crisis and not enough is being done. However, my original complaint still holds true that their world was too far gone for those people to create a stable environment upon landing their ship.

No one has said it's subtle or should be ignored. I bolded where I feel you're making an unjustified leap. The creators feel it's a real possibility (that we lay the earth to waste via apathy) but that does not mean that (as Israfel has pointed out) the story and means of expression of that story need to exist within the explicit confines of our reality. Using real world footage does not immediately dictate that.


And your argument that the robots taking over was a good catalyst doesn't hold much water either, as the only reason they wanted to take over was because they were returning to earth. Upon leaving the planet, I feel it's safe to assume that things would return to normal aboard the ship.

The only reason they wanted to take over was because the captain wanted to return to earth (after reading about it -- again not an immediate desire to return), not because the general populace wanted to. It wasn't the immediate shift out of apathy that you suggest. The general populace had their desire fueled once they were a) shaken out of their reverie and b) held prisoner by their 'benefactors'.

[Morris Schæffer]

Hey there you go. Interesting debate. Not pointless Raiders.;)

The Blu-Ray transfer of No Country for Old Men was stunning. The movie remains pretty awesome, but still not sure about that ending...either. :lol:

[Kurosawa Fan]

Jesus fucking Christ! You aren't even reading my posts, are you? You keep coming back to the fact that it doesn't have to adhere to our logic when I've stated multiple times that I agree. I've already admitted that they don't need to be confined to our reality. It's right there in the beginning of what you bolded! I'm simply, for the last fucking time, stating that the trashed version of earth and the gelatinous blobs that are humans are too big an exaggeration for me to get on board with the fact that they would be capable of making the world habitable again. I'm not saying that it has to follow our logic. I was only pointing out the connection to our world to say that I don't think we're apathetic enough as a people to neglect our planet the way that the humans have in Wall-E. That was the only reason I brought up the real actor or anything else. It's subjective. There isn't a right? In fact, why the fuck am I even arguing with you?

Fuck it, I give up.

[Raiders]

Fuck it, I give up.

:|

I'm gonna sue your ass.

[Kurosawa Fan]

:|

I'm gonna sue your ass.

I'll just use the QT defense and say it was an homage.

[Watashi]

I ate a bowl of Frosted Mini Wheats Blueberry Muffins this morning.

It was good. I think I prefer the cinnamon streusel.

[Wryan]

I catch my wife watching Fox News and ask her why.

I laughed at this, imagining fas pouncing on his wife (wrong visual, folks) like a spear-toting (wrong visual, folks) bushman (don't even).

[Qrazy]

Jesus fucking Christ! You aren't even reading my posts, are you? You keep coming back to the fact that it doesn't have to adhere to our logic when I've stated multiple times that I agree. I've already admitted that they don't need to be confined to our reality. It's right there in the beginning of what you bolded! I'm simply, for the last fucking time, stating that the trashed version of earth and the gelatinous blobs that are humans are too big an exaggeration for me to get on board with the fact that they would be capable of making the world habitable again. I'm not saying that it has to follow our logic. I was only pointing out the connection to our world to say that I don't think we're apathetic enough as a people to neglect our planet the way that the humans have in Wall-E. That was the only reason I brought up the real actor or anything else. It's subjective. There isn't a right? In fact, why the fuck am I even arguing with you?

Fuck it, I give up.

Well for someone who seems fairly optimistic about real world environmental change it's strange to me that you're so pessimistic in relation to these animated representatives of humanity and their capacity for change.

The 'awakening' as I've said doesn't really come immediately. It is a gradual process which occurs over the entire second half of the film. If Wall-E had not saved the plant multiple times, it would not have happened.

[soitgoes...]

David Lean's Blithe Spirit is very funny, sharp-tongued (turns out this is the only Noel Coward scripted film I've seen... recs?), and of course inventively directed by Lean. Didn't amount to anything really profound or overwhelmingly endearing for me, though. The green make-up used for the ghosts bugged the hell out of me, too.Yeah I only thought it was okay. Nothing great. Check out the immensely better In Which We Serve for better Coward/Lean double teaming action. Now with More Overt Propaganda!!!

[soitgoes...]

I've seen Where Is the Friend's House and Life, and Nothing More... but never got around to Through the Olive Trees. Maybe I'm missing some of the nuances of the dialogue in the former, but the first film seemed to consist mainly of the kid asking a question, getting a "no" from an adult, and then asking the same question and getting the same response ten more times per scene. Life, and Nothing More... is probably my favorite Kiarostami (dude knows how to work a landscape) although The Wind Will Carry Us isn't far behind. I'd like to see some of his recent, reportedly more avant-garde work but I wouldn't know where to look.The first film seems to be more of a succession to the quasi-documentary work he did for the Institute for Intellectual Development of Children and Young Adults in Tehran. It very much has the same feel as those films. We as adults, I believe, are meant to see the film through the eyes of the kid. A child who is frustrated by knowing what is right, but unable to accomplish what is right. It's a morality problem. What should the child do? To the adults, the problem is really a non-problem, but to the child it is everything. He's at fault. He understands the consequences.

The kid has no power to right the situation, because he's at the mercy of his immediate adult world. He asks, and explains the situation, but it falls on deaf ears. What are his options? He can hope to break the will of the adults (mom) with repeated asking (which many if not all children use,) and run the risk of just a scolding; or he can sneak off and try to rectify the problem himself at the risk of a far worse punishment. Outside of his world, how many people would stop and really pay to mind the questions of a 8 year old boy?

I found the film to be very poignant and on equal footing with Life, and Nothing More.... And still I have no idea why I keep putting off seeing Through the Olive Trees.

[Amnesiac]

The first film seems to be more of a succession to the quasi-documentary work he did for the Institute for Intellectual Development of Children and Young Adults in Tehran. It very much has the same feel as those films. We as adults, I believe, are meant to see the film through the eyes of the kid. A child who is frustrated by knowing what is right, but unable to accomplish what is right. It's a morality problem. What should the child do? To the adults, the problem is really a non-problem, but to the child it is everything. He's at fault. He understands the consequences.

The kid has no power to right the situation, because he's at the mercy of his immediate adult world. He asks, and explains the situation, but it falls on deaf ears. What are his options? He can hope to break the will of the adults (mom) with repeated asking (which many if not all children use,) and run the risk of just a scolding; or he can sneak off and try to rectify the problem himself at the risk of a far worse punishment. Outside of his world, how many people would stop and really pay to mind the questions of a 8 year old boy?

Good thoughts.

I also noticed that the film also has some minor similarities to The 400 Blows, both in it's portrayal of youth and their difficulties with authority figures and the use of the class-room as an opening scene. However, there are far less digressions in Where Is The Friend's House? ... it's not necessarily a major comparison. Not from what I remember, anyway.

There's also another element to the film that involves the loss of traditional values. Consider the sequence involving the old man who continually talks about how he made those doors. Kiarostami seems to dwell on the notion of these doors, and their craftsmanship, and the light coming out of them in all kinds of different shapes. True to the film's insistence on repetition, we pass by these doors again and again ... and when the old man goes home, the camera doesn't follow the boy home but decides to linger on the old man who goes upstairs and closes his window. This may be a nod towards a sense of craftsmanship being lost in Iranian society.

This loss of this traditional craftsmanship can be evidenced in another scene. Although I don't remember it too well. It has to do with the apathetic business man who takes the kid's notebook and rips pages out of it ... it seems he represents the new advent of craftsmanship that is marginalizing the efforts and legacy of that old man.

This reminds me that I have had The Tase of Cherry sitting on my shelf for a long while. I should get to watching it.

[Ivan Drago]

A WALL-E argument NOT involving Wats?

Did I miss something here?

[Qrazy]

So how was the remake of All the King's Men? Or the original for that matter.

[Amnesiac]

I watched my second Tsai feature. Goodbye, Dragon Inn.

http://ic2.blogs.sapo.pt/arquivo/GoodbyeDragonInn1.JPG

So, yeah. There was actual camera movement in this one. But only one, brief instance of it.

Certain aspects of the film became a bit clearer after I read up on the fact that some of the spectator characters were actors who were in Dragon Inn. It adds a great meaning to the sense of elation found in the man who sheds tears at the end of the screening. At first I thought it was just an example of the elation many of us might experience at having viewed an exceptional film. And a comment on the moving quality of film and its capacity to captivate and engage all of us. But that biographical detail adds a whole different layer to it. And it also cements the 'swan song' aspect of the film which the title, and various scenes, evoke (i.e., the lingering shot on the post-screening desolate movie theatre).

I also kept thinking about this idea of communal sites designated for individual purposes and that whole dialectic. This would be in regards to the urinals and the theater specifically. There was this continual repetition of people who found themselves uncomfortably close to each other, where you could really sense their desire to communicate and connect (even those beyond the homosexual hustler). But instead, they chose to remain silent and in keeping with the rules of these 'communal sites'. Is this more musing on the transient and ephemeral 'connections' we are bound to make (and not make) in life? This brings to mind the subway scene from What Time Is It There? It was interesting how Tsai kept the camera fixated on the audience and those instances where their close proximity to each other, as well as their timid-yet-anxious behavior, seemed to suggest a desire to connect. A desire so great it often took them away from the force of what was on the screen. However, the main impediment to this desire for connection was the social convention which implies that you don't talk to strangers when you're at the urinal or at the movie theater (usually).

I saw this as an observation of the instances when we might find ourselves closest to people and yet also so far away, and the desire to bridge that alienating hurdle of social convention that keeps us timid and unable to forge these desirable connections.

And then there's the tiresome efforts of the girl who maintains the theater. There's an elegiac quality to the whole film and yet her monotonous up-keep of this establishment, right down to the urinal and bathroom stalls, ends up warranting a certain amount of respect and dignity. A person who takes the most meager of occupations and upholds it with the most minute precision and care ... there's a respect and honour in that, as well a sort of pitiable quality.

Very interesting.

I guess I'll check out Vive L'Amour next.

[D_Davis]

Just finished Beyond Thunderdome, it's been ages since I've seen it. Good film, and a great trilogy. A very strong trilogy actually. Each film is awesome in its own right. I like how the mythology of Max evolves. The first film is grounded more in reality, and in revenge, in the Road Warrior things are a tad more removed, and it is here that Max really begins his heroic journey, and in the third film we are dealing with a character that has become a legend. Very cool.

[Derek]

Holy shit! 171 minute cut of The New World on DVD in three weeks! (http://www.amazon.com/New-World-Extended-Cut/dp/B001BNFRB2/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1222227742&sr=8-2)

[soitgoes...]

I watched my second Tsai feature. Goodbye, Dragon Inn.

http://ic2.blogs.sapo.pt/arquivo/GoodbyeDragonInn1.JPG

So, yeah. There was actual camera movement in this one. But only one, brief instance of it.

Certain aspects of the film became a bit clearer after I read up on the fact that some of the spectator characters were actors who were in Dragon Inn. It adds a great meaning to the sense of elation found in the man who sheds tears at the end of the screening. At first I thought it was just an example of the elation many of us might experience at having viewed an exceptional film. And a comment on the moving quality of film and its capacity to captivate and engage all of us. But that biographical detail adds a whole different layer to it. And it also cements the 'swan song' aspect of the film which the title, and various scenes, evoke (i.e., the lingering shot on the post-screening desolate movie theatre).

I also kept thinking about this idea of communal sites designated for individual purposes and that whole dialectic. This would be in regards to the urinals and the theater specifically. There was this continual repetition of people who found themselves uncomfortably close to each other, where you could really sense their desire to communicate and connect (even those beyond the homosexual hustler). But instead, they chose to remain silent and in keeping with the rules of these 'communal sites'. Is this more musing on the transient and ephemeral 'connections' we are bound to make (and not make) in life? This brings to mind the subway scene from What Time Is It There? It was interesting how Tsai kept the camera fixated on the audience and those instances where their close proximity to each other, as well as their timid-yet-anxious behavior, seemed to suggest a desire to connect. A desire so great it often took them away from the force of what was on the screen. However, the main impediment to this desire for connection was the social convention which implies that you don't talk to strangers when you're at the urinal or at the movie theater (usually).

I saw this as an observation of the instances when we might find ourselves closest to people and yet also so far away, and the desire to bridge that alienating hurdle of social convention that keeps us timid and unable to forge these desirable connections.

And then there's the tiresome efforts of the girl who maintains the theater. There's an elegiac quality to the whole film and yet her monotonous up-keep of this establishment, right down to the urinal and bathroom stalls, ends up warranting a certain amount of respect and dignity. A person who takes the most meager of occupations and upholds it with the most minute precision and care ... there's a respect and honour in that, as well a sort of pitiable quality.

Very interesting.

I guess I'll check out Vive L'Amour next.You should check out Dragon Inn as well. It's a great example of wuxia. Not sure if that's your cup of tea, but it's one of he best.

[Raiders]

As much as I love the film, I'm not sure it needed another 35 minutes. But, I'll give Malick the benefit of the doubt (though does anyone know if this is the cut he wanted to show, or was he in favor of the shorter cut?).

[Malickfan]

As much as I love the film, I'm not sure it needed another 35 minutes. But, I'll give Malick the benefit of the doubt (though does anyone know if this is the cut he wanted to show, or was he in favor of the shorter cut?).

It's hard to say. He had the longer cut premiere in New York or LA and within 24-48 hours pulled it himself. So maybe he agreed to cut it after hearing some opinions on it?

Just this week, his new one Tree of Life got a distributer so we should look forward to that this winter.

[Derek]

As much as I love the film, I'm not sure it needed another 35 minutes. But, I'll give Malick the benefit of the doubt (though does anyone know if this is the cut he wanted to show, or was he in favor of the shorter cut?).

Malick approved of all three versions - this one, the 150-minute one that originally hit theaters and the 135-minute version that he cut to after requested. I prefer the 150 to the 135 since the voice overs were more effectively used, so I'm all for an even longer cut.

[Winston*]

I wonder if in the longer New World, Noah Taylor will have lines.

[Malickfan]

I keep hearing of a 4-5 hour long The Thin Red Line. Not sure if it's a myth.

[Winston*]

I'm just looking forward to the 8 hour 3-D version of Days of Heaven. I hear watching it almost makes you feel like you yourself are standing about in long grass.

[soitgoes...]

I'm just looking forward to the 8 hour 3-D version of Days of Heaven. I hear watching it almost makes you feel like you yourself are standing about in long grass.I hear it comes with Richard Gere, who does personal voice-overs. He hasn't anything better to do.

[MacGuffin]

Danger: Diabolik (Bava 68) - 8.5

I should really check it. I have The Whip and the Body coming up next. I've liked everything I've seen from Bava so far.

[soitgoes...]

I should really check it. I have The Whip and the Body coming up next. I've liked everything I've seen from Bava so far.It's so much fun. I always imagined Bava linked completely with horror/giallo. This was unlike anything I could have expected.

I just finished Bay of Blood, and it is spot on to how I viewed his work. A great slasher film. Obviously a precursor to the rise in American slasher films of the late 70's/early 80's. Only Halloween tops it. Up next for me will Erik the Conqueror, another departure from his horror roots.

[MacGuffin]

It's so much fun. I always imagined Bava linked completely with horror/giallo. This was unlike anything I could have expected.

I just finished Bay of Blood, and it is spot on to how I viewed his work. A great slasher film. Obviously a precursor to the rise in American slasher films of the late 70's/early 80's. Only Halloween tops it. Up next for me will Erik the Conqueror, another departure from his horror roots.

Yeah, there has been that trepidation however for me: wondering whether he will direct well outside of his signature genre. Of course, if he did, that would only make him a better director, so I should definitely take that step soon.

I've been avoiding Bay of Blood since it is the cut version of The Twitch of the Nerve Death, which I want to see and may buy used or something eventually or maybe Blue Underground will put it out or something. Anyways, I want to try and see The Whip and the Body and Lisa and the Devil to round out what I have seen of his major works and then catch Hatchet for a Honeymoon and Diabolik; the latter of which, of course, is considered by some to be a major work, I just want to approach it with caution.

Oh, and some needs to serious fix that fucking Blood and Black Lace transfer that is out now.

[chrisnu]

Holy shit! 171 minute cut of The New World on DVD in three weeks! (http://www.amazon.com/New-World-Extended-Cut/dp/B001BNFRB2/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1222227742&sr=8-2)
I have the 135-minute cut on DVD, so I'll be sure to check this out. This also reminds me that I blind bought The Thin Red Line, and haven't watched it yet. *is embarrassed*

[Dead & Messed Up]

Nice to see the Bava love. I watched Kill Baby Kill for the first time recently, and that was great fun. Out of his works, I've seen

Black Sunday
Kill Baby Kill
Black Sabbath
Planet of the Vampires

And I like them in that order. Planet of the Vampires was kinda weak.

[soitgoes...]

Yeah, there has been that trepidation however for me: wondering whether he will direct well outside of his signature genre. Of course, if he did, that would only make him a better director, so I should definitely take that step soon.

I've been avoiding Bay of Blood since it is the cut version of The Twitch of the Nerve Death, which I want to see and may buy used or something eventually or maybe Blue Underground will put it out or something. Anyways, I want to try and see The Whip and the Body and Lisa and the Devil to round out what I have seen of his major works and then catch Hatchet for a Honeymoon and Diabolik; the latter of which, of course, is considered by some to be a major work, I just want to approach it with caution.

Oh, and some needs to serious fix that fucking Blood and Black Lace transfer that is out now.
I saw the uncut version of Bay of Blood.

[transmogrifier]

The 'awakening' as I've said doesn't really come immediately. It is a gradual process which occurs over the entire second half of the film. If Wall-E had not saved the plant multiple times, it would not have happened.

No way. The awakening is semi-gradual for the captain, and totally non-existent for the rest of the humans. They don't change at all.

[transmogrifier]

A WALL-E argument NOT involving Wats?

Did I miss something here?

He's ripped his internet connection out of the wall and sworn cyber-celibacy in response to the fact that some people thought that something Pixar did wasn't God-like in its perfection.

[Watashi]

He's ripped his internet connection out of the wall and sworn cyber-celibacy in response to the fact that some people thought that something Pixar did wasn't God-like in its perfection.
It's the highest rated film in your signature.

I'm pretty happy that you liked it.

[transmogrifier]

It's the highest rated film in your signature.

I'm pretty happy that you liked it.

I'm happy that I liked it too. Contrary to popular opinion, I prefer to like movies than not wherever possible. :)

There were some flaws in the general plot (as have been covered over the past few pages) but Eve and Wall-E are a great screen couple, and they carry it through with style.

[Qrazy]

It's hard to say. He had the longer cut premiere in New York or LA and within 24-48 hours pulled it himself. So maybe he agreed to cut it after hearing some opinions on it?

Just this week, his new one Tree of Life got a distributer so we should look forward to that this winter.

Hah, in your fucking dreams.

[Qrazy]

No way. The awakening is semi-gradual for the captain, and totally non-existent for the rest of the humans. They don't change at all.

They don't change their sheep-like ways (they're still following the captain's orders) but they do change their modus operandi... except for the two that get shaken out of their reverie, they have a bit of gradual change and help change those around them.

[Grouchy]

Spent the week-end on Miami for job reasons, so all I watched was two in-flight movies. But nice selection! I liked them both very much, and LAN Airlines has a menu of around 30-40 to choose from, including stuff like Unforgiven, Singin' in the Rain, Matrix, Ocean's Eleven (Soderbergh) and a lot of etceteras. I saw:

In Bruges. Fantastic, if not original, stuff. The amount of bad blood and dark humor invested in this script is truly unbelievable, and the movie has a heart to boot. Sure, it's nothing new or groundbreaking, just your typical Brit gangsters and midget stuff. But Farrell and Glesson play each other wonderfully, and an over the top performance by Ralph Fiennes really ensures that the thing is watchable. I laughed out loud plenty, and I liked that, in the middle of all the violence and cynicism, there was time for proper character development and moral dilemmas. Definitively a treat of a movie, like a gentler Guy Ritchie.

The Philadelphia Story. Classic screwball done right. You can tell everyone involved had a world of fun making it, and I'd never imagined that goody-shoes Stewart could blend so well with snappy, dialogue-based romantic comedy. The script has plenty of maturity, and I liked that it didn't shy away from the shadiest side of the characters. It's a 1940 movie that touches on alcoholism, pre-marital sex, social classes, prejudices - in a light manner, of course, but the material is there. Katharine Hepburn is a goddess. This is my first Cukor as well.

[Derek]

It's hard to say. He had the longer cut premiere in New York or LA and within 24-48 hours pulled it himself. So maybe he agreed to cut it after hearing some opinions on it?

It wasn't that fast. I got to see it since I happened to be in NYC when it opened and I know it played at least one, if not two weeks, there. Also, I had a friend at New Line at the time who told me Malick was requested to cut the 150-minute version. He agreed, made some changes and still approved the shorter cut, but there's no doubt he preferred the longer one. Still haven't heard anything specific about why it was cut from 172 to 150 minutes, but the 172 was a "complete" cut that at least he was happy with.

[Malickfan]

Ah, the way some journalists talked, they made it seem like it was within 48 hours.

I'll be getting this. October's gonna be a good month for dvd's.

[balmakboor]

Actually, this thead contains two exciting new pieces of info for me. I wasn't aware that a longer cut of New World was coming soon and I'd never heard of The Tree of Life. After an initial period of mixed feeling about Malick, I've recently become a huge fan. It all started with The New World which knocked my socks off. That led to revisiting The Thin Red Line which I now consider my favorite war film. Then I picked up Days of Heaven recently and watched it for the first time. It's pretty close to my favorite film now. I still need to work on back to Badlands.

I've also become greatly interested in the mythology surrounding the Tree of Life since two of my favorite recent films relate to it -- Artifical Intelligence AI (not obviously) and The Fountain (very obviously).

[Grouchy]

I feel like going to the movies, but the only new releases that even remotely interest me are Taken and Eagle Eye. I'm pretty sure none of them deserve my money.

Two more weeks until Appaloosa and Hellboy II.

[B-side]

I have Teorema and Brand Upon The Brain! to watch. Brand Upon The Brain! is my first feature length Maddin. Thoughts?

[Amnesiac]

Actually, this thead contains two exciting new pieces of info for me. I wasn't aware that a longer cut of New World was coming soon and I'd never heard of The Tree of Life. After an initial period of mixed feeling about Malick, I've recently become a huge fan. It all started with The New World which knocked my socks off. That led to revisiting The Thin Red Line which I now consider my favorite war film. Then I picked up Days of Heaven recently and watched it for the first time. It's pretty close to my favorite film now. I still need to work on back to Badlands.

Yeah, Days of Heaven absolutely blew me away.

Unfortunately, it's only the Malick film I've seen. Which is ridiculous, and something I seriously need to rectify. I spied The Thin Red Line for an absurdly cheap price ($5.00) a couple weeks ago but when I went back two days later, I couldn't find it. And with the new cut of The New World coming out, I have that question of 'which version to watch?' looming over me.

I'll likely tear into his entire filmography before Tree of Life hits theaters.

[Raiders]

I'll likely tear into his entire filmography before Tree of Life hits theaters.

Better get started now. There's a lot to go through.

[B-side]

Better get started now. There's a lot to go through.

I see what you did there.

[Amnesiac]

Better get started now. There's a lot to go through.

Yeah, I know it isn't the most expansive oeuvre out there but it's more of a question of availability and price for me. For example, now that I saw The Thin Red Line at that price, I won't want to pick it up for any other price... but I will get it. As for a title like Badlands, well, I've never seen it in stores so I guess I gotta' go the online route.

[balmakboor]

Yeah, I know it isn't the most expansive oeuvre out there but it's more of a question of availability and price for me. For example, now that I saw The Thin Red Line at that price, I won't want to pick it up for any other price... but I will get it. As for a title like Badlands, well, I've never seen it in stores so I guess I gotta' go the online route.

I got my Thin Red Line at Walmart for $5.00.

[Malickfan]

Yeah, I know it isn't the most expansive oeuvre out there but it's more of a question of availability and price for me. For example, now that I saw The Thin Red Line at that price, I won't want to pick it up for any other price... but I will get it. As for a title like Badlands, well, I've never seen it in stores so I guess I gotta' go the online route.

I haven't seen Badlands in a store in over two years. I don't know if it's discontinued. That's one that Warner Bros. could go over and they probably will eventually. As far as I know, it still has the original Warner Bros. dvd case where it has that pop-in-place cover.

And Malick did the right thing by staying away from Hollywood for 20 years.

[Amnesiac]

As far as I know, it still has the original Warner Bros. dvd case where it has that pop-in-place cover.

I hate those cases. But it's not enough to deter me from buying the movie.



I got my Thin Red Line at Walmart for $5.00

Yeah, I mentioned seeing it for this price but I didn't pick it up in time. So now I refuse to pay anything more than that ... well, for now anyway.

[balmakboor]

I hate those cases. But it's not enough to deter me from buying the movie.



Yeah, I mentioned seeing it for this price but I didn't pick it up in time. So now I refuse to pay anything more than that ... well, for now anyway.

Don't most rental stores have The Thin Red Line?

[ledfloyd]

Leatherheads was a pleasant surprise. I thought it was kind of universally hated but I thought it was a blast.

[The Mike]

Leatherheads was a pleasant surprise. I thought it was kind of universally hated but I thought it was a blast.

I didn't get the hate on this either. It's not great, by any means, and it's a cinematic stepback from Clooney's first two films in a big way, but it was fun.

Helps that I'm a huge football fan and had heard the stories about Clooney's character being inspired by a Packer. :pritch:

[Amnesiac]

Don't most rental stores have The Thin Red Line?

Yeah. I don't think they'd have Badlands (well, Blockbuster wouldn't... but other places might) but The Thin Red Line is probably a given.

But, since I got the feeling that I'd like to own the film ... and the fact that it is out there for $5.00 (thereby potentially costing less than a Blockbuster rental fee), I think I'll continue to play the frugal and hold out until I can purchase it. :)

[SirNewt]

I really enjoyed Ed Wood. Is it just me or was the films message of persistence and optimism just a shell for films actual core, the far more interesting relationship of Ed Wood and Bela Lugosi?

[Philosophe_rouge]

Rewatched The Maltese Falcon (1941) for the first time in many years, it was one of the first films I saw when I really started to have an invested interest in cinema. I remember being very underwhelmed, and this time around, the film holds a lot more value and interest. It's still far from my favourite Huston, and even barely cracks my top 5 of the year, but it's certainly a much better film than I gave it credit for. The cast especially is tremendous, Bogart, Astor and Lorre being the (obvious) standouts. I also really appreciate it as a precursor to noir, especially in it's handling of the individual within society, and his powerlessness. I should revisit a few other films from this era that I didn't particularly enjoy the first time around, like Network and Double Indemnity.

[soitgoes...]

Bava's Erik the Conqueror is his first film I've seen that I didn't enjoy. It was merely meh. A film feeding off of the success of Fleischer's 1958 film The Vikings, Bava incorporates many of the same elements, as well as sharing a major plot line with Fleischer's film. Viking brothers, separated at birth, are pitted against each other. His camerawork is, as usual, the star, but the rest of the film feels second-rate to the original.

His Black Sunday, on the other hand, has Bava back in his element. This was his first real effort. He had a few trial runs filling in for other directors, as well as a few short films under his belt. Great cinematography, visuals, and atmosphere mask a somewhat run-of-the-mill horror story. Plus it has the "Queen of Horror" Barbara Steele in a dual role, as the evil witch and the lovely protagonist.

Next up is The Whip and the Body and then I'm going to give non-horror Bava another go with Hercules in the Haunted World. Maybe that one is horror? I'm not sure, but it has Christopher Lee in it, so that has to be worth something. I'm rambling...

[dreamdead]

Carl Reiner's Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid was entertaining enough to justify the rental, though I'm seldom fond of the trend to integrate classic cinema into contemporary cinema in this mash-up formula. Even if it's poking fun at the genre, it often aims to lend self-import to a film that wouldn't much matter without that intertextuality. Far better than the MacMurray, Lake, Bogart, Bergman, et al, cameos are the plays with noir genre stereotypes and modernize them in a playful way, such as the "You know how to blow..." to "You know how to call..." That was deliciously ribald, but most of the film is too tempered and lacks the madcap energy necessary to make the project work.

[Sycophant]

Actually, this thead contains two exciting new pieces of info for me. Nearly 20,000 posts, and you finally found two? :sad:

[thefourthwall]

Recently saw Night of the Living Dead for the first time. I was rather impressed, especially when I thought about how terrifying and outrageous it must have been for audiences in 1968 without a tradition of zombie films (I think) to draw upon. And even with my a priori knowledge of the genre, I was still able to be somewhat surprised by the ending. Throughout the film, the group I viewed it with had some disagreement over the gender roles portrayed in the film, which seemed to suggest a fair amount of incapability and fault for the females, while interestingly empowering the black hero of the piece. Although at times this power manifests in some uncomfortable ways...

...Ben's "slap" to a hysterical Barbara is not an open hand...

I'm looking forward to this weekend's Dawn of the Dead follow-up.

[dreamdead]

Yeah, the ...Dead series wasn't at its strongest in terms of gender politics in the first film. While Romero thankfully imbued Ben with qualities that were transgressive for the time, the women in Night... are far more regressive and stereotypically drawn. Barbra especially seemed reduced to a child, which feels like a bit much. Thankfully, though, the following films in the series remedy this issue, with Dawn... and especially Day offering fuller portraits of experience and capability in the face of this terror. That's why I'm still aghast that Romero went the cheaper route with Asia in Land (i.e., her attire and basic characterization) and reduced her psychology even as the woman became more stereotypically badass. Still haven't seen Diary... but I'm hoping for an improvement towards a more progressive vein.

[balmakboor]

Nearly 20,000 posts, and you finally found two? :sad:

Err, I guess I forgot which thread I was in for a moment there.

[MadMan]

Yeah, the ...Dead series wasn't at its strongest in terms of gender politics in the first film. While Romero thankfully imbued Ben with qualities that were transgressive for the time, the women in Night... are far more regressive and stereotypically drawn. Barbra especially seemed reduced to a child, which feels like a bit much. Thankfully, though, the following films in the series remedy this issue, with Dawn... and especially Day offering fuller portraits of experience and capability in the face of this terror. That's why I'm still aghast that Romero went the cheaper route with Asia in Land (i.e., her attire and basic characterization) and reduced her psychology even as the woman became more stereotypically badass. Still haven't seen Diary... but I'm hoping for an improvement towards a more progressive vein.In Diary one woman is the narrator of the film, and is a strong central character who challenges the film's main character, who is male. There's also another female who is quite feisty, but I'm not sure if that's just feeding into another stereotype or not.

[The Mike]

In Diary one woman is the narrator of the film, and is a strong central character who challenges the film's main character, who is male. There's also another female who is quite feisty, but I'm not sure if that's just feeding into another stereotype or not.

You forgot the most realistic one, who never leaves the kitchen. :twisted:

[transmogrifier]

Crimewave - Fuck you, Sam Raimi.

[chrisnu]

Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid
Cleaning woman. Cleaning woman! CLEANING WOMAN!?!?!

That's actually the only detail I remember. :) I remember it being fun, but slight.

[Qrazy]

Crimewave - Fuck you, Sam Raimi.

Shit, I downloaded this and will probably watch it eventually.

[transmogrifier]

Shit, I downloaded this and will probably watch it eventually.

It literally gave me a headache.

[Bosco B Thug]

I really enjoyed Ed Wood. Is it just me or was the films message of persistence and optimism just a shell for films actual core, the far more interesting relationship of Ed Wood and Bela Lugosi? Yeah, I agree. There are probably lots of things about the story that are more interesting than its cheery portrayal of Wood's career... I really like the film and I think its smart and subversive enough, but I didn't love it for some reason when I saw it last. That's probably the reason.

I got the opportunity to see a screening of Tinto Brass' very rare 1970 avant garde film The Howl! It's a surreal picture about a young runaway bride (played by the very hot Tina Aumont) who fulfills her wildest revolutionary dreams (and of course a few sexual dreams, being a Brass movie) when she runs off with the clownish Coso (Gigi Proietti, who is very cool in this picture and apparently is one of the Italian guys in Altman's A Wedding!).

It's a pretty cool picture, don't let my 5.5~6 rating throw you off too much. It's very boisterous and lively, Brass has a very unique and worthwhile directorial style, and it's filled with creativity and ideas... it's just the film, in its delirious craft, occasionally flirts with being objectively "badly crafted" (in a Larry Cohen sorta way - it's apparently a zero-budget film) and is often times kind of incomprehensible. It almost crosses the line to "frenetic-in-a-bad-way," like Michael Bay if he could do elliptic juxtaposition and avant garde stylings. Which makes it acceptable. Also, the political philosophizing the film indulges a lot in is often obvious and overcooked. It also has long sequences that drag, sequences where the directing forgets to be as interesting as it often could be. And while the film pre-dates Brass' all-out softcore period, there is definitely snippets of graphic nudity and most surely some full frontal. Too little actually with Aumont, though! Hmph.

[Boner M]

Crimewave = hilarious.

[transmogrifier]

Crimewave = hilarious.

Oh, hell no.

It is one of the least funny "comedies" I've ever had the mispleasure to have shrieked at me. It's no surprise Armond White likes it, because he has the single worst sense of humor of any human who has ever lived.

[Boner M]

Oh, hell no.

It is one of the least funny "comedies" I've ever had the mispleasure to have shrieked at me. It's no surprise Armond White likes it, because he has the single worst sense of humor of any human who has ever lived.
But... but... it's so zanily alive!

[origami_mustache]

I watched Speed Racer again tonight...thinking I'd probably enjoy it a little less outside of the theater, but I actually liked it even more...one of the most unique films I've seen. It stimulates me in ways I didn't know were possible. I imagine it's a similar feeling to what it would be like if God kissed me on the lips while riding a unicorn and then proceeded to vomit a rainbow in my eye sockets. I'm moving it back to #1 for 2008.

[transmogrifier]

But... but... it's so zanily alive!

So is Rush Limbaugh - doesn't mean I'd want him screaming inanities in my ear for 88 minutes.

I rarely give a film less than 20 - films lower than that are ticking boxes in the four main categories of crap:

- technically inept (acting, editing, camerawork etc)
- unentertaining (story, plot, humor etc)
- no atmosphere or worthwhile themes
- repugnant worldview

Crimewave ticks the first three categories, but I did appreciate the shot of the kid being thrown out of an elevator. Hence, 19/100

[Boner M]

So is Rush Limbaugh - doesn't mean I'd want him screaming inanities in my ear for 88 minutes.

I rarely give a film less than 20 - films lower than that are ticking boxes in the four main categories of crap:

- technically inept (acting, editing, camerawork etc)
- unentertaining (story, plot, humor etc)
- no atmosphere or worthwhile themes
- repugnant worldview

Crimewave ticks the first three categories, but I did appreciate the shot of the kid being thrown out of an elevator. Hence, 19/100
I saw it two years ago, so my memory isn't that great, but I remember the film being quite technically proficient. Oh well.

The only films I've given less than 20 this year are Southland Tales, Eagle vs. Shark and The Happening. All are reasonably inept, but it's the irritating sensibilities behind each that really sink them, and what distinguishes them from merely inept films. The first is the kind of zeitgeist-humping calculated-cult-hit that makes me wanna firebomb film schools; the second is a charmlessly twee Sundance lab abortion that apes every tic of Napoleon Dynamite and Wes Anderson's filmography to vomitously cloying effect; the third manages to miss the absurdly low goals it sets for itself, displaying an offensive lack of ambition, imagination or fun.

[D_Davis]

Crimewave is one of the only movies I've ever seen that I'd give a big fat ZERO to. It is absolutely wretched.

[Sven]

I love Crimewave.

[Boner M]

The Indian Runner - Piercingly human moments and heartrending performances, lost in a sea of overplayed wounded machismo and 70's-cinema affectation (enough with the slo-mo classic-rock-scored construction site sequences already!), along with a climax that features some of the worst use of cross-cutting I've ever seen. Has enough good stuff to warrant a reasonably high score, but I still felt like having a Jane Campion marathon afterwards just to wash the testosterone out of my brain. Penn really needs a character like Christopher McCandless to justify his erratic directorial choices; this could've been truly exceptional with a more low-key style.

[Malickfan]

Not sure if it belongs in this thread but here's an interesting article about Criterion.

http://gizmodo.com/5052324/how-criterion-hones-its-restoration-magic-for-hd

[Ivan Drago]

Hah, in your fucking dreams.

It IS in post-production, you know.

[Qrazy]

It IS in post-production, you know.

Are we taking bets on this? Cause I don't see it happening.

[Raiders]

Yeah, no way Malick's film comes out before, at the earliest, Cannes next year. A fall/winter 2009 release still seems more likely.

If it was coming out in the next few months, we would likely know it by now.

[Ivan Drago]

The Doors was a pretty good movie. Very well directed and acted, Kilmer was AWESOME. Only real problem with it was that it got repetitive after a while - every concert scene was the exact same thing - a drunk/high/insane Jim Morrison making an idiot out of himself.

[balmakboor]

Not sure if it belongs in this thread but here's an interesting article about Criterion.

http://gizmodo.com/5052324/how-criterion-hones-its-restoration-magic-for-hd

Naw, fascinating, conversation worthy articles about cinema have no place in this thread.

[Amnesiac]

Once they have their master back at their offices, it goes through what they call the restoration workflow, which involves painstakingly restoring both the audio and video frame by frame. For video, this involves using a system called MTI Film, which allows a technician to go through the film and not only remove dirt and edit marks, but also fix warped frames and things of that nature. This isn't some automated procedure, either. It involves a technician sitting at an edit station with a stylus going frame by frame, ensuring that each one looks as good as possible. With two shifts a day working on a film, it still takes weeks to get through this part of the process.

Wow.


I got a chance to sit in on a quality-control screening of their restoration of Wong Kar-Wai's Chungking Express. A scene in a crowded marketplace seemed to jump off the screen, and the surround sound perfectly placed the bustling sounds of the market behind me while keeping the dialogue front-and-center. I felt like I was in a theater in Hong Kong, watching the first, perfect print of the movie when it was first released. It was breathtaking.

Wow again. I'm definitely picking up Chungking Express. It will be my first Wong Kar-Wai film and my first look at a Criterion Blu-ray.

[transmogrifier]

I love Crimewave.

You wouldn't be iosos if you didn't.

But you are completely off the charts wrong on this one. It's not even so-bad-it's-good.

[Sven]

The Indian Runner - Piercingly human moments and heartrending performances, lost in a sea of overplayed wounded machismo and 70's-cinema affectation (enough with the slo-mo classic-rock-scored construction site sequences already!), along with a climax that features some of the worst use of cross-cutting I've ever seen. Has enough good stuff to warrant a reasonably high score, but I still felt like having a Jane Campion marathon afterwards just to wash the testosterone out of my brain. Penn really needs a character like Christopher McCandless to justify his erratic directorial choices; this could've been truly exceptional with a more low-key style.

Have you seen The Pledge?

Watch for it (in, like, a year) in my top 100.

[transmogrifier]

Have you seen The Pledge?

Watch for it (in, like, a year) in my top 100.

So it's like, it's somewhere in the 60-69 range then?

[Sven]

So it's like, it's somewhere in the 60-69 range then?

It is number 75. You are more optimistic than I am.

[transmogrifier]

It is number 75. You are more optimistic than I am.

I was trying to be nice.

[Sven]

I was trying to be nice.

:)

[transmogrifier]

Besides, anyone who claims to love Crimewave needs all the care and sympathy I can provide.

[Sven]

Besides, anyone who claims to love Crimewave needs all the care and sympathy I can provide.

Oooooh, burn!

[Russ]

Hi, my name is Russ and I love Crimewave (except for that twerp Reed Birney, yuck).

Louise Lasser and Edward Pressman = my bliss.

[transmogrifier]

Louise Lasser and Edward Pressman = my bliss.

Just imagine if they were actually in a movie that didn't make you want to claw your own eyes out and shove them into you ear canals to drown out the noise........

[soitgoes...]

Weekend options:

More Bava (I Vampiri, The Girl Who Knew Too Much, Blood and Black Lace, Planet of Vampires, Rabid Dogs, Shock, among others)
The Tracker
Redbelt
The World

[MacGuffin]

The Whip and the Body (Bava 63) - 7.0

So ya liked it?

[The Mike]

John Boorman's Hell in the Pacific has maddened me. It was wonderful...and then the ending happened. Now, I'm not even sure what I just saw. :frustrated:

Worth it regardless, thanks to Marvin and Mifune owning faces off. I just want a mulligan on the ending.

[Yxklyx]

John Boorman's Hell in the Pacific has maddened me. It was wonderful...and then the ending happened. Now, I'm not even sure what I just saw. :frustrated:

Worth it regardless, thanks to Marvin and Mifune owning faces off. I just want a mulligan on the ending.

Wow! Lee Marvin and Toshirô Mifune in the same film! Testosterone overload!

[Yxklyx]

Weekend:

The Ghoul
Vampyr

[The Mike]

Wow! Lee Marvin and Toshirô Mifune in the same film! Testosterone overload!

Yeah. In fact, there's so much that they're the only two actors in the film.

[Ezee E]

No netflix so:

Miracle at St. Anna
Choke

[Sven]

Yeah. In fact, there's so much that they're the only two actors in the film.

Did you see the original ending on the DVD? Personally, I didn't mind it. Not Boorman's strongest film (somewhere between *** and ***1/2), but it's beautifully shot.

[The Mike]

Did you see the original ending on the DVD? Personally, I didn't mind it. Not Boorman's strongest film (somewhere between *** and ***1/2), but it's beautifully shot.

I watched both endings...is the one on the film the original?

With them staring each other down and then being blown up?

The more I think about it, the less I'm upset by it, but it was just so abrupt that it took me out of the movie.

And yeah, it's wonderful looking.

[soitgoes...]

So ya liked it?I liked it, but not as much as some of the other horror of his I've seen recently. Great atmosphere, and Lee totally owned his scenes. Bava has a way of lighting that I've never seen before. Totally in a good way. The way he throws oranges, purples, teals on faces or as background certainly makes for beautiful, if yet unusual shots. His Hercules film, while definitely a Bava film, was pretty much campy cheese. I'll probably see I Vampiri next. Though I'm not expecting too much out of it.

[MacGuffin]

I liked it, but not as much as some of the other horror of his I've seen recently. Great atmosphere, and Lee totally owned his scenes. Bava has a way of lighting that I've never seen before. Totally in a good way. The way he throws oranges, purples, teals on faces or as background certainly makes for beautiful, if yet unusual shots. His Hercules film, while definitely a Bava film, was pretty much campy cheese. I'll probably see I Vampiri next. Though I'm not expecting too much out of it.

Nice, I think I'll watch it now. I want to see I Vampiri also. Keeping in mind that Bava only started directing it halfway through production.

[Yxklyx]

I couldn't stand The Whip and the Body - just awful I thought, but I Vampiri was pretty good.

[Rowland]

The Whip and the Body is, at best, a middle tier Bava effort as far as I'm concerned, I never really understood the effusive praise for it. Of course that's coming from someone who doesn't consider Black Sunday one of his best works either.

[MacGuffin]

The Whip and the Body is, at best, a middle tier Bava effort as far as I'm concerned, I never really understood the effusive praise for it. Of course that's coming from someone who doesn't consider Black Sunday one of his best works either.

So what do you suppose is his best work?

[Rowland]

So what do you suppose is his best work?I've only seen about a third or so of his body of work, so I'm really not in much of a position to judge, but I prefer Kill Baby Kill, Danger Diabolik, Blood and Black Lace, Bay of Blood, and Hatchet for the Honeymoon.

[MacGuffin]

I've only seen about a third or so of his body of work, so I'm really not in much of a position to judge, but I prefer Kill Baby Kill, Danger Diabolik, Blood and Black Lace, Bay of Blood, and Hatchet for the Honeymoon.

I really liked the movie Kill Baby, Kill mostly because the fogginess of the sets and the hyperbolic colors make for an unforgettable atmosphere, however forgettable the actual material might be. I'm still waiting for a print with a transfer of Blood and Black Lace to come out that doesn't suck complete ass like the current one does with the faded colors and grainy quality.

I'm becoming confused regarding Bay of Blood. I was under the impression that the DVD that features that title is, in fact, the cut version of the original movie, The Twitch of the Nerve Death.

[The Mike]

I prefer Kill Baby Kill, Danger Diabolik, Blood and Black Lace, I also would put these ahead of Black Sunday, which I've never really gotten all the love for, outside of some gorgeous camerawork.

And someone mentioned they're going to see Shock, and I'm sorry for them.

I need to see more Bava too.

[Rowland]

I'm becoming confused regarding Bay of Blood. I was under the impression that the DVD that features that title is, in fact, the cut version of the original movie, The Twitch of the Nerve Death.I'm not sure about past releases, but the most recent DVD release included in the Anchor Bay Bava Collection is the complete movie. The only difference is that the dialogue is dumbed down a bit in the translation from Italian to English.

[MacGuffin]

I'm not sure about past releases, but the most recent DVD release included in the Anchor Bay Bava Collection is the complete movie. The only difference is that the dialogue is dumbed down a bit in the translation from Italian to English.

That is expected. I'm just wondering about Netflix because it has the Anchor Bay disc on save and the older Bay of Blood disc ready to be added, so I guess I'll just save that one as one of my later Bava explorations.

[Sven]

I watched both endings...is the one on the film the original?

With them staring each other down and then being blown up?

I'm not sure which the director would choose as the more preferable version. But I do know that the extra on the DVD was the original ending.

[soitgoes...]

I'm becoming confused regarding Bay of Blood. I was under the impression that the DVD that features that title is, in fact, the cut version of the original movie, The Twitch of the Nerve Death.The one I watched was downloaded and was uncut. I'm not sure what the source of the film was.

[Winston*]

Huh. I liked the movie Juno and thought Ellen Page gave a good performance in said movie.

[The Mike]

Huh. I liked the movie Juno and thought Ellen Page gave a good performance in said movie.
Ditto. I never knew that was a bad thing until I returned to the internet.

[soitgoes...]

Huh. I liked the movie Juno and thought Ellen Page gave a good performance in said movie.


Ditto. I never knew that was a bad thing until I returned to the internet.
Break it up guys. Move along.

[Winston*]

Ditto. I never knew that was a bad thing until I returned to the internet.
There's definitely some annoying stuff in there, but I think seeing all offending lines quoted a dozen times around the internet probably prepared me to overlook them. I dunno, I was skeptical at first but I guess I found the movie a little bit moving.

[Winston*]

Break it up guys. Move along.
Also, did you hear this film was written by a former stripper?!?!

[Sxottlan]

The cover of Ebert's latest book:

http://ebimg.sv.publicus.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=EB&Date=20080926&Category=PEOPLE&ArtNo=809269993&Ref=AR&Maxw=438

"He's got a gun!"

[baby doll]

So, Flandres was disapointing.

[soitgoes...]

So, Flandres was disapointing.I need/want to watch a Dumont film. I have L'Humanité and The Life of Jesus. I'm hoping The Life of Jesus is about a migrant worker named Jesús, and his troubles overcoming life as a farmer in the San Joaquin Valley, in a society that doesn't want his kind taking away their low wage jobs from them. I'm afraid though that it might be about something else. Either way I really do want to check this Dumont guy out.

[soitgoes...]

I feel so alone when I see that my name is the only one listed on the bottom of the main screen. Then I see that 2 members are logged on, and I know that a hidden Winston* might be about. It consoles me.

Edit: The hidden member (*snicker*) has left me. I am sad.

[Watashi]

Searching for Bobby Fischer is a great film. It's one of those films that grows on me with each and every viewing.

[baby doll]

I need/want to watch a Dumont film. I have L'Humanité and The Life of Jesus. I'm hoping The Life of Jesus is about a migrant worker named Jesús, and his troubles overcoming life as a farmer in the San Joaquin Valley, in a society that doesn't want his kind taking away their low wage jobs from them. I'm afraid though that it might be about something else. Either way I really do want to check this Dumont guy out.Well, it's not about Jesus Christ at least.

[B-side]

Casino (1995) *

Neg-repped.

[Rowland]

So, Flandres was disapointing.More than disappointing, I thought it was kinda crap, albeit formally evocative crap. Dumont's social perspective of the world strikes me as too regressively cynical, without enough insight to go along with it for my taste.

[Amnesiac]

I watched Confessions of a Dangerous Mind for the first time last night. I think this was a really good directorial debut from Clooney. The direction of the film had a very kinetic, energetic and lively feel to it. I guess 'surreal' would be a good word for it.

I got a sense of Rockwell's talent in The Assassination of Jesse James but this one really drove the point home. I'm now substantially more interested in checking out Choke than I was before.

And, yeah ... Julia Roberts was okay. She was an alright femme fatale. Something about her is a little underwhelming, though.

The Pitt and Damon cameos were pretty amusing.

[Pop Trash]

I'm now substantially more interested in checking out Choke than I was before.


Speaking of this...Choke was decent. The direction is pretty flat and very point-and-shoot. The constant flashbacks were distracting. I got the feeling the book is a lot better and goes more in depth. It did have that "adaptation of a book but never really turns into the cinematic" feeling. Oddly I kept thinking I was watching an R-rated version of My Name is Earl since Rockwell reminded me of Jason Lee at times and his good friend reminded me of the chubby dude from Earl. It also reminded me of Water's underrated A Dirty Shame. Rockwell was good. I'm pretty much in love with Kelly McDonald, but her acting here was merely pretty good.

That said, it does have some memorable moments. There is a hilarious "rape fantasy" scene that had me rolling.

Overall: 6/10

[Sven]

It also reminded me of Water's underrated A Dirty Shame.

There is but one decent thing about that film: starts with Chris, ends with Isaak. Terrible, terrible movie and I LOVE Waters.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Watched Browning's Dracula (1931) last night, overall very dissapointing and mostly uninteresting. It has it's strengths, especially during the Transylvania sequence and of course Lugosi himself, but the writing is terribly weak and pulls down the rest of the film. I really don't understand some of the changes they made to it, and am kinda annoyed how they minimized Mina's character, though I do have slight reservations with the original course of her character as well. Even within this version, her character is so weak that the very important sexual tension between her and Dracula is all but diminished.

[Ivan Drago]

I hated Weekend as well. Read on that Criterion messageboard that was linked yesterday, that they did Armageddon and some other films to help build up their cashflow in the 90's.

Wow, that explains a lot.

But all this Weekend hate makes me want to pull out that essay I wrote about it a year or so ago. I'll see if I can find it.

[Ezee E]

Ricky Gervais to be Oscar host? What do you guys think?

Do people outside of the internet even know who he is? Besides "The guy that originally made the Office" and always wins awards?

[Sven]

Watched Browning's Dracula (1931) last night, overall very dissapointing and mostly uninteresting. It has it's strengths, especially during the Transylvania sequence and of course Lugosi himself, but the writing is terribly weak and pulls down the rest of the film. I really don't understand some of the changes they made to it, and am kinda annoyed how they minimized Mina's character, though I do have slight reservations with the original course of her character as well. Even within this version, her character is so weak that the very important sexual tension between her and Dracula is all but diminished.

Yeah. It seems to be the case the Frankenstein, a weak book, makes for interesting cinematic adaptations, whereas Dracula, a good book, makes for weak movies. Curious.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Ricky Gervais to be Oscar host? What do you guys think?

Do people outside of the internet even know who he is? Besides "The guy that originally made the Office" and always wins awards?

It's an interesting choice, but I'd be happier if they offered Stewart a semi-permanent gig. He's that good.

[Winston*]

Don't know about Gervais as Oscar host. I dig his television shows and when I used to listen to his podcast, but his stand-up is pretty unremarkable.

[Lucky]

My little problem with Gervais that I've noticed throughout The Office is that he doesn't know when to stop a joke. Even lately, his Emmy presentation started out good, but by the time he got to Carrell it just needed to end. I would rather see Stewart do it.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Yeah. It seems to be the case the Frankenstein, a weak book, makes for interesting cinematic adaptations, whereas Dracula, a good book, makes for weak movies. Curious.
I've read most of Dracula and about half of Frankenstein (I'm a serial reader, but I never finish anything), so I can't really judge. I love parts of Dracula, but a lot of it also struck me as tedious and uninteresting. I think I really ought to re-read it (maybe finish it) though. I will definetely agree that Frankenstein is a much better film though, it's incredible they were made the same year because they are leagues apart in terms of quality. I think in general though, there are some good Dracula adaptations, the two Nosferatus for example.

[Sven]

I think in general though, there are some good Dracula adaptations, the two Nosferatus for example.

And I suppose I'm in the minority when I say that those films represent the weakest of Murnau and the nearly-weakest of Herzog. My favorite Dracula adaptation is the original Hammer version, with Cushing as Van Helsing.

[soitgoes...]

Herzog>Murnau>Fisher>Browning>Coppola

But hey, that's me.

[Philosophe_rouge]

And I suppose I'm in the minority when I say that those films represent the weakest of Murnau and the nearly-weakest of Herzog. My favorite Dracula adaptation is the original Hammer version, with Cushing as Van Helsing.
Unfortunately, I haven't seen too much of Murnau or Herzog... so I can't really make a great argument. Of the two Murnau's I've seen, it's the weakest, but of the 3 Herzog, I think it would be my favourite. I've actually yet to see the Hammer version, I was planning on doing it soon though.

[Raiders]

Herzog>Murnau>Fisher>Browning>Coppola

But hey, that's me.

Murnau > Morrissey > Fisher > Coppola > Herzog > Badham > Browning > Melford

Don't ask me why I have seen them all.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Ooo, I also really want to see Morrissey's Dracula.

[Raiders]

Ooo, I also really want to see Morrissey's Dracula.

I think I'm just about alone in really liking it. I have seen part of Flesh for Frankenstein, often said to be superior, and I agree from what I have seen. I don't know why I have never bothered to watch the whole thing.

[soitgoes...]

Murnau > Morrissey > Fisher > Coppola > Herzog > Badham > Browning > Melford

Don't ask me why I have seen them all.Mel Brooks not good enough for you? :lol:

[Raiders]

Mel Brooks not good enough for you? :lol:

Damn, I forgot! I have seen it.

It goes without saying...

All of the above >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Brooks

[Sven]

Damn, I forgot! I have seen it.

It goes without saying...

All of the above >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Brooks

If you're going to count Morrissey's, which isn't really an adaptation, you've opened up the door to far too many. Wes Craven's Vampire in Brooklyn? Blackula?

[Philosophe_rouge]

I think I'm just about alone in really liking it. I have seen part of Flesh for Frankenstein, often said to be superior, and I agree from what I have seen. I don't know why I have never bothered to watch the whole thing.
You're not alone, I know someone on another site who has it on his top 100.

[Raiders]

If you're going to count Morrissey's, which isn't really an adaptation, you've opened up the door to far too many. Wes Craven's Vampire in Brooklyn? Blackula?

Well, I haven't seen those, but those characters are not actually Dracula, right? Morrissey's is Dracula, just a sickly, depressed Udo Kier Dracula.

[The Mike]

I really like Badham's version. Not as much as Murnau's, Fisher's, or Browning's; but faaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrr more than Coppola's.

[Russ]

Damn, I forgot! I have seen it.

It goes without saying...

All of the above >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Brooks
And where does Maddin fit in this equation?

[Raiders]

And where does Maddin fit in this equation?

Goddammit. Either in front or just behind Murnau.

[Winston*]

And where does Maddin fit in this equation?
Also, Count Duckula.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f5/CountDuckula.jpg/200px-CountDuckula.jpg

[The Mike]

Oh, I'd put Count Chocula at the top of my list.

Also, Bunnicula.

http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/6d/73/afcb6230a8a0177ca2500110._AA28 0_.L.jpg

[Sven]

Well, I haven't seen those, but those characters are not actually Dracula, right? Morrissey's is Dracula, just a sickly, depressed Udo Kier Dracula.

Okay, then, what about Billy the Kid versus Dracula? Or Dracula Has Risen from the Grave? Or House of Dracula?

As an adaptation of Broker's text, Morrissey's should not count. Also, see Flesh for Frankenstein already! Jeez!

[Winston*]

Producer–director Jan De Bont's Blue Tulip Productions and Atchity Entertainment are in pre-production on The Un-Dead, a direct sequel to Bram Stoker's novel Dracula. The script by Ian Holt is the first sequel to Dracula officially approved by the Stoker estate. It is to be directed by Ernest Dickerson, and will star Javier Bardem as Dracula, John Hurt as Abraham Van Helsing, and Monica Bellucci as Lucy Westenra. The film's plot picks up 25 years after the events of Stoker’s novel and incorporates all the characters who lived through those events, along with Inspector Cotford, whom the author excised from his original manuscript.

wtf?

[soitgoes...]

Either in front or just behind Murnau.
Murnau wouldn't have had it any other way!

[MacGuffin]

The Whip and the Body was extremely dissapointing and one of my favorite parts was how it ended five minutes quicker than I had thought it would: it certainly felt neverending considering the short running time. Anyways, it just didn't feel like Bava knew exactly what he wanted with this one. With most of his movies, there is a hyperbolic atmosphere that makes the movie so simple to get into, yet so challenging and complex otherwise -- I'm not so sure his themes are challenging and complex, but rather how he presents them within the worlds he creates. But with this, Bava seemed to exchange an atmosphere for deeper attempts at sexual psychology. There are pretty colors and a neat castle to be sure, but that doesn't always equal a brilliant atmosphere as evident with say, Jean Rollin's Night of the Hunted as oppose to his Requiem for a Vampire. I'm not going to say that this is impossible to get into however, but I will say that anybody who claims they feel that they got the most out of this movie or rather, what Bava put into it, is only kidding themselves, because I think that is nearly impossible to do: it just lacks the coherence that really allows that sort of understanding.

[soitgoes...]

I'm not going to say that this is impossible to get into however, but I will say that anybody who claims they feel that they got the most out of this movie or rather, what Bava put into it, is only kidding themselves, because I think that is nearly impossible to do: it just lacks the coherence that really allows that sort of understanding.*sigh* Why, just because you dislike it so much, must you attack those who do like it? Leave it at it just being your opinion that the movie isn't good. Don't try and turn your opinion into fact.

[MacGuffin]

*sigh* Why, just because you dislike it so much, must you attack those who do like it? Leave it at it just being your opinion that the movie isn't good. Don't try and turn your opinion into fact.

Oh, I'm not trying to attack anybody, I'm more or less only saying that I get the feeling from some reviewers that this is essential Bava, when in fact, I don't think one could get much more out of it aside from basic S&M references and symbolism, especially compared to some of his other works. I'm not saying that it is interesting material for Bava to explore, I just don't think he opened enough doors with the content.

Looking back, the only kidding themselves part is perhaps a bit much, but really what more could anybody get out of this, or even like?

I just want to be enlightened.

[soitgoes...]

Oh, I'm not trying to attack anybody, I'm more or less only saying that I get the feeling from some reviewers that this is essential Bava, when in fact, I don't think one could get much more out of it aside from basic S&M references and symbolism, especially compared to some of his other works. I'm not saying that it is interesting material for Bava to explore, I just don't think he opened enough doors with the content.

Looking back, the only kidding themselves part is perhaps a bit much, but really what more could anybody get out of this, or even like?

I just want to be enlightened.Like I said before, aside from Lee, I enjoyed this more from a technical standpoint than anything else. The story didn't do much for me either, but here's a link (http://classic-horror.com/reviews/whip_and_the_body_1963) to a in-depth review from someone who seems to love all aspects of it. Perhaps he can enlighten you?

[soitgoes...]

Funky Forest: The First Contact was... interesting. I enjoyed it for its randomness, as well as how it kinda managed to connect together. I'm not sure I totally get it (or even if I'm supposed to get anything), but it was definitely a fun trip.

[soitgoes...]

Fifteen minutes into Ophüls' The Reckless Moment it's a pleasure to see that Balboa is the location of a lot of the exterior shots. This is an area I grew up, lived and worked near. It's neat to see it as it was almost 60 years ago.

[Saya]

http://www.zonadvd.com/modules.php?name=Sections&op=viewarticle&artid=895

Wow, Sleeping Beauty looks amazing on Blu-Ray.

[Qrazy]

Yeah. It seems to be the case the Frankenstein, a weak book, makes for interesting cinematic adaptations, whereas Dracula, a good book, makes for weak movies. Curious.

Frankenstein is a good book and there are plenty of good Dracula films.

[Sven]

Frankenstein is a good book and there are plenty of good Dracula films.

I do not think the book is worthless. It is merely weak. It is more a treatise than it is literature. It espouses philosophy and moral questions at the sake of interesting prose and involving drama. It is weak, but not bad.

There are good Dracula films, but as a whole, the Frankenstein films are much stronger. Corman, Whale, Brooks, Edison, Brannagh... I would posit that each is more cinematic than a majority of the Dracula adaptations. The drama translates better to visuals, the thematic material more readily told through narrative action.

[thefourthwall]

wtf?

From what little I know (the entirety of your post), I'm cautiously optimistic. Dracula's death at the end of the book doesn't fit the rituals described as necessary, so I'll buy it.

As far as adaptations go, I like to teach Patrick Lussier's Dracula 2000 opposite the book in my pop culture adaptations class. While it is ridiculous and terrible at points, it suggests ideas about Dracula's origin that are genius.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I do not think the book is worthless. It is merely weak. It is more a treatise than it is literature. It espouses philosophy and moral questions at the sake of interesting prose and involving drama. It is weak, but not bad.

I think Shelly has a good command of the narrative, with the parallel descents of Frankenstein and his monster. And some of the prose has a poetry to it:

"Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by such slight ligaments are we bound to prosperity or ruin. When I look back, it seems to me as if this almost miraculous change of inclination and will was the immediate suggestion of the guardian angel of my life - the last effort made by the spirit of preservation to avert the storm that was even then hanging in the stars, ready to envelope me."

In all honesty, though, I think that neither Dracula nor Frankenstein is a "great" piece of horror fiction. See Edgar Allan Poe, Daphne du Maurier, or Clive Barker for the really good stuff.


There are good Dracula films, but as a whole, the Frankenstein films are much stronger. Corman, Whale, Brooks, Edison, Brannagh... I would posit that each is more cinematic than a majority of the Dracula adaptations. The drama translates better to visuals, the thematic material more readily told through narrative action.

Agreement generally, although I find Horror of Dracula[/U] to be a superior picture to Fisher's previous [I]Curse of Frankenstein.

[Sven]

In all honesty, though, I think that neither Dracula nor Frankenstein is a "great" piece of horror fiction. See Edgar Allan Poe, Daphne du Maurier, or Clive Barker for the really good stuff.

Oh, def. I think Dracula is good, but I'm definitely a Poe/Lovecraft kind of guy.


Agreement generally, although I find Horror of Dracula to be a superior picture to Fisher's previous Curse of Frankenstein.

Yeah, I consider Horror of Dracula a delight and the best of the Dracula adaptations.

[Rowland]

Looking back, the only kidding themselves part is perhaps a bit much, but really what more could anybody get out of this, or even like?

I just want to be enlightened.Try listening to the Tim Lucas commentary. I wasn't too impressed by the movie, but he at least made me appreciate it a bit more with his insights.

[dreamdead]

As far as adaptations go, I like to teach Patrick Lussier's Dracula 2000 opposite the book in my pop culture adaptations class. While it is ridiculous and terrible at points, it suggests ideas about Dracula's origin that are genius.

Save for the central conceit of D2000 (Dracula = Judas), Lussier's film is a horridly constructed genre work. It butchers a smart idea with rote characters who continually demonstrate ill-logic for the sake of the narrative. Further, and here's where I side with baby doll's continual monologuing of the auteur, there is no verve or energy behind the film until the film's big reveal; it works best as a study of how a good, perhaps great, central idea can be surrounded with nonsensical plot and character development.

On the bright side, The Hustler is splendid entertainment. It maintains a stark mood and style of character throughout, which is its greatest strength cinematically. Directed with a largely invisible design, it is nonetheless quality filmmaking in how much it depends on the actors and cinematography rather than music or plot arcs that aren't consistent. Here, the film almost assumes an existential quality in its assessment of Eddie's psychology and human weakness. Just solid through and through.

[Grouchy]

Fisher > Murnau > Badham > Herzog > Coppola > Browning

Morrisey's film is definitively not an adaptation of the book. It's also pretty bad.

I've been watching so many films this week-end, I don't even know where to begin.

[Mysterious Dude]

I just discovered that I've seen over three thousands movies (according to my movie-viewing log).

But am I happy?

[Grouchy]

Two more by Kaurismäki, just so that I could see how diverse a director can be. Drifting Clouds automatically became one of my favorites. In stark contrast with The Bohemian Life, a tragedy told with constant jokes, this is a comedy where the couple of protagonists sink lower and lower in misery all the time, with Kaurismäki's perspective walking a fine line between mockery and understanding. The ending uses uplifting music wonderfully. Leningrad Cowboys meet Moses is much more straight-forwardly wacky, but I'm glad I watched it. Had some laughs. I'm under the impression that the first Leningrad Cowboys is probably a bit funnier, though. I'm gonna have to rely on you guys to get back to me on that one for now.

Two of the greatest actors that ever walked the land (at least in my private canon) are Jason Robards and David Warner. That a master like Peckinpah reunites them in one of the best films I've ever seen, The Ballad of Cable Hogue, feels almost like a personal gift. This is what great film tastes like! Peckinpah tells the story of Cable, an individualist's struggle to survive, using crazy, avant-garde editing techniques and the structure of a Hollywood romance. The effect is surprisingly alive and, unlike other "experimental westerns" of the era (Hopper's The Last Movie), it doesn't feel aged. I've never seen a better Robards performance and, with Warner being his usual self, the only other star left to congratulate is Stella Stevens, who takes a cardboard character - the hooker with the heart of gold - and turns it into a show stopper of charisma. I'd recommend this movie to anyone looking to discover why is Peckinpah so highly regarded. It doesn't have a fourth of the violence which is considered his landmark, but it's a heartfelt, simple story communicated with creativity and a good eye for comedy.

Martin Ritt's Hud is an intense character study with splendid deep-focus cinematography. The film verges on being uneventful or predictable, but it knows where it wants to arrive. Newman is fucking excellent, of course. He plays here one of the most despicable characters of his entire career, but he has an intensity that earns the audience's smpathy up to a point. Whether that's intentional on Newman and Ritt's agendas, I can't really tell. Classic family tragedy stuff, and highly recommended, specially for those keen on epic drama showdowns. I wish we used stuff like this in film school for our directing actors subject.

Also found the time to rewatch Sunset Blvd.

[transmogrifier]

Move over The Faculty, there's a new king in town! Planet Terror is Rodriguez's crowning achievement!

[/relative]

PS I liked Planet Terror, as it struck the right balance between ridiculousness and knowing its own ridiculousness.

[Amnesiac]

Death Proof is still better, though. :)

[transmogrifier]

Death Proof is still better, though. :)


Agreed. Biggest surprise of 2007. I assumed I would hate both films, seeing as Kill Bill was so deathly dull in its magpie-art, and the fact that Rodriguez is Rodriguez. I'd buy them on DVD.

[Derek]

I just discovered that I've seen over three thousands movies (according to my movie-viewing log).

But am I happy?

I find that the amount of movies I want to see increases exponentially in relation to the amount of movies I see. Cinephilia is a Sisyphusian endeavor for sure and the rock just keeps on getting bigger.

[transmogrifier]

I find that the amount of movies I want to see increases exponentially in relation to the amount of movies I see. Cinephilia is a Sisyphusian endeavor for sure and the rock just keeps on getting bigger.


I let MadMan be my proxy, wanting to see all these films that I don't have the time or energy to want to see for myself. Life is a little more beautiful as a result.

[transmogrifier]

Kill Bill? Deathly dull? Magpie-art?

None of that computes for me. I consider the Kill Bill volumes to be Tarantino's most interesting film.

Least interesting for me, tied with Jackie Brown.

[transmogrifier]

Ah. So, what the heck is 'magpie-art'?

Is this an example of it?

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/MCG/LF97~Magpie-Posters.jpg

If so, I don't see the resemblance... :|


Question:

What are magpies known for?

[Boner M]

Question:

What are magpies known for?
http://www.komcyclery.com.au/catalog/images/Magpie%20attack.JPG

[transmogrifier]

Being able to look at themselves in the mirror?

So, what, is that some round-about way of saying that Kill Bill is an exercise in vanity?


I think anything with functioning eyes can look into a mirror.

[Amnesiac]

I think anything with functioning eyes can look into a mirror.

:pritch:

You're belaboring this. A revision: they can recognize themselves in the mirror.

[Raiders]

I think a good lesson can be learned here. When saying something derogatory about a film or filmmaker, it is best to say what you mean and not confuse everyone with strange analogies. It is good for boosting post counts, though.

[Derek]

I don't know anything about magpies, but Boner's picture and Amnesiac's comments make them sound pretty awesome.

[Derek]

I think a good lesson can be learned here. When saying something derogatory about a film or filmmaker, it is best to say what you mean and not confuse everyone with strange analogies. It is good for boosting post counts, though.

Indeed.

Have you posted any thoughts on Paranoid Park yet? If not, any brief comments? I'm surprised at how many people have really liked this film.

[Boner M]

I don't know anything about magpies, but Boner's picture and Amnesiac's comments make them sound pretty awesome.
They attack helmet-ed cyclists. It's awesome.

http://www.dpi.wa.gov.au/cycling/images/cycling_factsheet_birds.jpg

http://www.abc.net.au/science/scribblygum/July2002/img/f_postie.jpg

http://www.randwickbotanycc.com/images/2007/Bazza's-magpie.jpg

[transmogrifier]

I think a good lesson can be learned here. When saying something derogatory about a film or filmmaker, it is best to say what you mean and not confuse everyone with strange analogies. It is good for boosting post counts, though.


What world do we live in where likening someone to a magpie is a strange analogy? I stand by my choice of words. Tarantino - such a magpie.

[Raiders]

I think trans is using it not as the bird but as its other definition which I had never heard of until Googling it as a person who collects and accumulates things left behind by others. This would make sense in regards to Tarantino.

Trans has won as he has turned the argument into his phrasing instead of his content.

[transmogrifier]

I think trans is using it not as the bird but as its other definition which I had never heard of until Googling it as a person who collects and accumulates things left behind by others. This would make sense in regards to Tarantino.

Trans has won as he has turned the argument into his phrasing instead of his content.

Actually, it all came about as a throw-away comment following on from the fact that I liked Planet Terror. As such, you all have learnt a spiffy new turn of phrase that you can try out at the next cocktail party or swingers soiree or whatever, so we all win, and it's all due to the great humanitarian Robert Rodriguez.

[transmogrifier]

Yeah, somehow I don't think 'magpie-art' is some sort of easily decipherable, house-hold critical term... by any stretch of the imagination. Could be wrong, though. I think it's more of an attempt at esoteric befuddlement. Criticism as seen through the lens of queer phrasing. In that regard, you've succeeded. :sad:

:P

No, I've heard all sexual orientations use it. Except for Mormons. I don't know what their problem is.

[Amnesiac]

No, I've heard all sexual orientations use it. Except for Mormons. I don't know what their problem is.

:|

[transmogrifier]

Okay. Well, that's interesting. And it applies to Tarantino, yeah. I can't help but wonder if there would have been an easier way of pointing towards that magpie tendency of his...

.

(a) Tarantino likes to steal aspects from a wide range of movies and genres, attracted to by their coolness, a currency moulded by rather arbitrary cultural conceits, and thus rather worthless in and of themselves without some inner animation from the soul of the filmmaker committed to weaving them together.

(b) Tarantino is a magpie.

Why say anything in 49 words when 4 will do?

[transmogrifier]

See: the last few posts in this thread.

As a teacher, I'm a huge fan of the inductive method of learning.

[transmogrifier]

See: the last few posts in this thread.

Do I have to? They are so 7 minutes ago. :cry:

[Derek]

:|

Oh, come on, Mormon's are fair game. We all had a meeting when the site started and agreed on this.

Sorry if you're Mormon. How about BYU's football team!?

[transmogrifier]

Oh, come on, Mormon's are fair game. We all had a meeting when the site started and agreed on this.

Sorry if you're Mormon. How about BYU's football team!?


If you can't make fun of Mormons, who can you make fun of? Libertarians?

[Spinal]

If you can't make fun of Mormons, who can you make fun of?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v696/joel_harmon/rip_taylor.jpg

He won't mind.