28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[Ezee E]

Stay is quite the movie that gets away with its labyrinthian plot all because of its final scene.

Forster shows off some technique that I didn't think he was capable of doing.

Surprisingly great stuff, even if I don't know everything that went on. I was hooked from the beginning.

[Raiders]

Yuck. I hated Stay. The ending only sealed the deal.

I remember someone, Ebert I think, mentioning the way the film gives visual clues into how Gosling is perceiving all these other characters. It's a Where's Waldo puzzle for adults. Devoid of meaning or pathos.

[Sven]

Yuck. I hated Stay. The ending only sealed the deal.

I remember someone, Ebert I think, mentioning the way the film gives visual clues into how Gosling is perceiving all these other characters. It's a Where's Waldo puzzle for adults. Devoid of meaning or pathos.

For someone as interested in Haynes's semiotic film language as you, I'm surprised that you would call this picture meaningless. That it is devoid of pathos is a fair assessment, but I don't think, as I would imagine you'd agree, that pathos is required of every picture.

I think filmdom has room for a Where's Waldo puzzle.

[Raiders]

For someone as interested in Haynes's semiotic film language as you, I'm surprised that you would call this picture meaningless. That it is devoid of pathos is a fair assessment, but I don't think, as I would imagine you'd agree, that pathos is required of every picture.

I don't really see the connection here. There's a difference between a mind-fuck and semiotics.

Yes, it's a film and story gleaned by a character from what he sees and hears around him in his dying moments, but then again so is The Usual Suspects (except for the dying part). The film's ultimate reveal more or less makes everything before it a game of cinematic trickery--a spot-the-telling-signs game where the drama means almost nothing.

I'm surprised I even need to defend this. Your post strikes me as bizarre since Haynes' symbolic analysis of societal conditions and celebrity isn't in the same ballpark as what we have here.

[Sven]

I'm surprised I even need to defend this. Your post strikes me as bizarre since Haynes' symbolic analysis of societal conditions and celebrity isn't in the same ballpark as what we have here.

That's not what I'm talking about when I say "semiotics." I'm talking about semiotics. About image signs and meanings. It's entirely aesthetic (forget about politics or character), and I think the film (as well as The Usual Suspects, despite my dislike of that film) presents a legitimate model in which definition and meaning of image are consistently desolidified. I'm also reminded of the opening of De Palma's Snake Eyes, in which we are shown a tapestry and witness the artist's constant redefinition of that tapestry.

[Raiders]

That's not what I'm talking about when I say "semiotics." I'm talking about semiotics. About image signs and meanings. It's entirely aesthetic (forget about politics or character), and I think the film (as well as The Usual Suspects, despite my dislike of that film) presents a legitimate model in which definition and meaning of image are consistently desolidified. I'm also reminded of the opening of De Palma's Snake Eyes, in which we are shown a tapestry and witness the artist's constant redefinition of that tapestry.

By your definition, all twist endings are a discourse in semiotics because they alter our perspective and the meaning of the images we have seen before. That's a bit of a cheap definition, though it could be argued. The point is, I'm not terribly interested in semiotics but in a filmmakers' presentation of their ideas.

Stay isn't presented as a study in a dying mind's perception of the images and sounds around him. It's presented as a thriller and mystery where it is more concerned keeping the audience in the dark than working in any sensical way. A dying mind wouldn't have to keep it a secret from itself. As such, there is no emotion on screen for me. It's pure form and it says nothing. Perhaps you would say the same for Haynes, but I wouldn't.

[Sven]

It's pure form and it says nothing. Perhaps you would say the same for Haynes, but I wouldn't.

1) I would say that Stay is much more interested than something like The Sixth Sense, as I would argue (though I'd need to see the film again) that it shows a concern of image redefinition throughout.

2) Its generic trappings do not preclude theoretical application as you are trying to emphasize they are.

3) I conceded already that it is pure form (an aesthetic picture, as opposed to a political or narrative one), and I think that is enough of something to say. Most films can't even manage that much.

[Winston*]

Stay is so annoying. It's like a movie of a cliche of someone talking about the dream they had the other night; "And you were there, but you weren't you, you were, like....me?". And it looks like an Evanescence video.

[MadMan]

So I should see Stay? Gotcha :P

Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang has a hilarious first half and a really entertaining but crazy second half. I think I might have found a new favorite.

[Amnesiac]

http://daily.greencine.com/archives/millennium-mambo.jpg

I watched Millennium Mambo tonight. My second Hsiao-Hsien Hou film (I've also seen The Puppetmaster).

What stands out? Well, the narration repeats itself. It tells us things, but never really for the sake of convenience. This is not narration along the lines of Vicky Cristina Barcelona, ostensibly getting expositional details out of the way and/or providing a sarcastic bite to the events unfolding on the screen. Rather, the primary function of the narration seems to be related to this fore-grounding of the repetitious and the cyclical. In fact, we end up seeing many of the things that the narrator went out of her way to inform us of, thereby contributing to the film's repetitious cycle. For instance, a weary and tortured futility is imbued into the events of the film thanks to the narrator's repeated account of how Vicky tried to leave Hao-Hao but he always found her... thus, the vicious cycle of their relationship is especially emphasized.

In another scene, we learn about how Hao-Hao stole his father's rolex and how he eventually got caught. Since the narration informs us of this event ahead of time, when we finally see the action unfold before our eyes, it is partially banal and defused. Perhaps this is precisely Hou's intention - rather than infuse the scene when the detectives arrive with some sort of dramatic excitement, he is insistent on emphasizing how mundane this event is. Perhaps similar events have occurred before, perhaps this is but one in a series of cyclical incidents that have incessantly circled around Vicky and Hao-Hao's miserable existence. Hao-Hao's languid behaviour as the police search his room seem to indicate just this. Thus, perhaps Vicky's embarrassment is not an anomaly that should be utilized for drama and excitement but rather made rightfully banal.... one more wretched incident in a series of many.

And the repetition continues. Similar tensions arise repeatedly. Frivolous fights in seedy nightclubs are recurrent. Bullying disputes arising from paranoid insecurities come about, time and time again. Intimacy is repeatedly emphasized as being vacant, shoved aside for Hoa-Hao's abusive substitute. Vicky leaves one perpetually noisy apartment for another.

Lots of shallow depth here. As a result, the characters seem constantly absorbed into their own tight, enclosed existences. Often times, a character will engulf the lens... forcing the spectator to view portions of the people Hou is following. We get a steady shot of a back, a torso scuttling across the screen. Hou does not pull back to reveal some grander, more capacious environment that these characters have become lost in. Instead, he emphasizes the tight prisons that they have found themselves trapped within. These gaudy, tacky, loud, and ever so ostentatious prisons have sapped them of their energy — condemning some characters to perpetual repose, and others to bubbling anxiety. They are undoubtedly, and perhaps indelibly, entrapped within these prisons — condemned there, by misfortune, by their own actions and by Hou's assured camera work. And thereby, the rest of the world begins to seem largely irrelevant. Or non-existent.

There are also times when this film seems to be oddly delirious. Consider the thumping beat in the background, the listless and inebriate expressions of Shu Qi, and Hou's relentlessly tight framing. Hou's aesthetic often seems just as intoxicated and claustrophobic as the characters he is probing. The subjectivity of these wearisome characters coalescing with the form of the film.

These characters seem content to smother themselves in ostentation and gaudiness. Loud noise and inebriation. Perhaps this accounts for the abundant shallow-depth... rather than look beyond those out-of-focus backgrounds and find something, these characters would rather further dull themselves from any hope of liberation. Drugs, drinking, music, crowded domestic spaces and nightclubs - naive and self-destructive attempts at clawing against the repetitious and dismal futility of their dead-end lives. Self-induced misery at work.

Just my first-impressions.

[Qrazy]

I didn't get the lactose interolernace reference.

Kroger Brand are dairy free.

[megladon8]

In this interview with MTV (http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2008/12/04/mickey-rourke-and-darren-aronofsky-party-people-by-kurt-loder/), Darren Aronofsky says he's planning a "reimagining" of sorts with The Fountain.

[Ezee E]

In this interview with MTV (http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2008/12/04/mickey-rourke-and-darren-aronofsky-party-people-by-kurt-loder/), Darren Aronofsky says he's planning a "reimagining" of sorts with The Fountain.
He had one already, when he had the bigger budget.

Hopefully he just goes on to other projects. The Fighter sounds good to me.

[Raiders]

1) I would say that Stay is much more interested than something like The Sixth Sense, as I would argue (though I'd need to see the film again) that it shows a concern of image redefinition throughout.

I believe, if I remember correctly, that Shyamalan himself said he gave signifiers of the twist throughout, but you would only recognize them upon a second viewing. That's just not something I find rewarding or interesting, and it may be technically defined as semiotics, but it is so of the most superficial sort.


2) Its generic trappings do not preclude theoretical application as you are trying to emphasize they are.

No, but they do preclude me from taking the stance seriously since they are at best a stretch for a film that is, quite obviously to me, almost solely concerned with the "ah ha!" ending. I could easily see someone endlessly going over every scene in the film and trying to find a connection between what we know at the end and how it informs characters, images and character choices. But, like I said before, that all strikes me as an elaborate game of 'Where's Waldo?' and there may be room for it in cinema (heck, there's room for everything) but it doesn't mean it is the least bit appealing to me.


3) I conceded already that it is pure form (an aesthetic picture, as opposed to a political or narrative one), and I think that is enough of something to say. Most films can't even manage that much.

Maybe I'm just not the right audience, then.

[Yxklyx]

The Marc Forster one.

So no one else here's seen Bob Goldthwait's Stay (better known as Sleeping Dogs Lie). I loved that one.

[Ezee E]

I believe, if I remember correctly, that Shyamalan himself said he gave signifiers of the twist throughout, but you would only recognize them upon a second viewing. That's just not something I find rewarding or interesting, and it may be technically defined as semiotics, but it is so of the most superficial sort.



No, but they do preclude me from taking the stance seriously since they are at best a stretch for a film that is, quite obviously to me, almost solely concerned with the "ah ha!" ending. I could easily see someone endlessly going over every scene in the film and trying to find a connection between what we know at the end and how it informs characters, images and character choices. But, like I said before, that all strikes me as an elaborate game of 'Where's Waldo?' and there may be room for it in cinema (heck, there's room for everything) but it doesn't mean it is the least bit appealing to me.



Maybe I'm just not the right audience, then.
Some of the images don't need to be rewatched again. Within twenty minutes you know something strange is going on, and the images in Stay held with me at least, to where they started coming together at the end. It's not particularly resonating, but it was enjoyable for myself at least.

Much better then the "they were the same person" twist that I thought was coming. Or "Ewan's dead"

[Raiders]

Some of the images don't need to be rewatched again. Within twenty minutes you know something strange is going on...

Well, yeah. I agree and never said otherwise. But you don't know what is going on, and thus it is structured as a mystery, which is fine, but made it seem rather incomparable to the films Sven was associating with me and questioning my dislike. It's a film where really almost anything, any character and any narrative and so forth, could have been created and it would have worked the same. All that really defines the actions is the final twist. You then go back and try and spot the impetus and the rationale. I just am not engaged by something like that.

[Boner M]

Ooh boy, an in-depth Stay discussion. This is what I've been waiting my entire match-cut life for.

NOT!

[Ezee E]

Ooh boy, an in-depth Stay discussion. This is what I've been waiting my entire match-cut life for.

NOT!
We've had worse... Believe me.

[balmakboor]

I didn't like Veronika Voss much at all. Fox and his Friends, Ali, and in a In a Year with 13 Moons are my favorites. I've also seen Satan's Brew, Beware of a Holy Whore, and The Merchant of Four Seasons which all had there fair share of flaws and redeeming facets.

Veronika Voss has the distinction of being one of the two Fassbinders I saw upon initial American release in the 80s -- the other was Berlin Alexanderplatz -- and I've always had special feeling for it, probably because of that. I definitely agree that your three favorites all sit near the top of his canon. I'd throw in a few others like Martha and the underappreciated Whity. BA is definitely his greatest work in my mind though.

Traffic (rewatch) - C+

Is this the Soderbergh or Tati film? Just wondering if a highly agree or highly disagree with you.

[Kurious Jorge v3.1]

Traffic (rewatch) - C+

Is this the Soderbergh or Tati film? Just wondering if a highly agree or highly disagree with you.

I'm guessing Soderbergh since the Tati film only has one "f" in the title.

[balmakboor]

I'm guessing Soderbergh since the Tati film only has one "f" in the title.

That'd be my hope.

[balmakboor]

http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/12/eye-spy-filmmak.html

All I can say is, "Is the world ready for guys like Davids Lynch and Cronenberg to lose an eye? What would it be like to truly see the world as they do?"

[Kurious Jorge v3.1]

I watched P&P's "Gone to Earth" last night. Kind of silly and drab, not the best Powell film (I'd rank it near the bottom with "Tales of Hoffman").

By the end of the film my friend and I were cupping our hands around our mouths and shouting "Gone to Earth!!!!" or "Gone to Colin Firth!!!" about every 5 minutes.

Why? Who knows.

Also watched Koji Wakamatsu's "Ecstacy of the Angels", literally a piece of turd on film. Zero stars.

Bad night for movie watching.

[Qrazy]

Veronika Voss has the distinction of being one of the two Fassbinders I saw upon initial American release in the 80s -- the other was Berlin Alexanderplatz -- and I've always had special feeling for it, probably because of that. I definitely agree that your three favorites all sit near the top of his canon. I'd throw in a few others like Martha and the underappreciated Whity. BA is definitely his greatest work in my mind though.

Traffic (rewatch) - C+

Is this the Soderbergh or Tati film? Just wondering if a highly agree or highly disagree with you.

Soderbergh's... Tati's film is probably my third favorite of his and would get an A-.

[Mara]

literally a piece of turd on film

Literally?

[Winston*]

Literally?

Why do people do that? It doesn't make sense to me.

[Pop Trash]

Weekend (hopefully):
Synecdoche, New York
Milk
Oh and maybe just for some pop trash goodness:
Punisher: War Zone

[Pop Trash]

Literally?
This makes me think of the David Cross bit:
Dude: "That touchdown was so awesome, I literally shit my pants!"
Cross: "Wow, that sucks so what did you do?"
Dude: "What do mean? Nothing man, it was awesome."
Cross: "No I mean with your shitty pants?"

[Pop Trash]

Viridiana continues to prove that Bunuel was one of the most consistantly good filmmakers going during the 20th century. Even if I do think he perhaps was a little too obsessed with religion. Viridiana herself is a great character and the film brought to mine similar characters that wrestle with faith in the films of Bergman and Von Trier. The ending is particularly interesting. After the group of riff-raff trashes Viridiana's house, she seems to casually accept breaking her celebacy (possibly) and even engaging in a threeway relationship (again possibly) But all this is still left ambiguous with vague innuendo and Viridiana remains an enigma.

[Qrazy]

Viridiana continues to prove that Bunuel was one of the most consistantly good filmmakers going during the 20th century. Even if I do think he perhaps was a little too obsessed with religion. Viridiana herself is a great character and the film brought to mine similar characters that wrestle with faith in the films of Bergman and Von Trier. The ending is particularly interesting. After the group of riff-raff trashes Viridiana's house, she seems to casually accept breaking her celebacy (possibly) and even engaging in a threeway relationship (again possibly) But all this is still left ambiguous with vague innuendo and Viridiana remains an enigma.

Um what? No, it's called rape.

[Kurious Jorge v3.1]

Yes, literal rape.

The kind of rape you can't take back.

[Mara]

Yes, literal rape.


I believe you this time.

[Grouchy]

Yes, literal rape.

The kind of rape you can't take back.
"Girl, sorry about that. Didn't mean to rape you that bad".

[Pop Trash]

Um what? No, it's called rape.
No not that part. I mean the card game at the very end. And I know I'm not the only one that picked up on that since the Bunuel expert on the Criterion disc mentioned it as well.

[Qrazy]

No not that part. I mean the card game at the very end. And I know I'm not the only one that picked up on that since the Bunuel expert on the Criterion disc mentioned it as well.

Ah right right sorry forgot that part. Although I wouldn't say she particularly wants the threeway (although I guess you didn't say that either) but she's just willing to accept whatever the guy wants at that point because her idealized concept of humanity has been shattered.

[Pop Trash]

Ah right right sorry forgot that part. Although I wouldn't say she particularly wants the threeway (although I guess you didn't say that either) but she's just willing to accept whatever the guy wants at that point because her idealized concept of humanity has been shattered.
Yeah I agree...she seems to slide into a more "dutiful girlfriend" role by that point after becoming disillusioned with piety.

[balmakboor]

I'd rank it near the bottom with "Tales of Hoffman".

If I believed in such practices, that statement would be neg-rep worthy.

[soitgoes...]

Mastroianni in Divorce, Italian Style equals hilarity.

[Qrazy]

Mastroianni in Divorce, Italian Style equals hilarity.

His facial tics are priceless. He's hilarious in Big Deal on Madonna Street also.

[soitgoes...]

His facial tics are priceless. He's hilarious in Big Deal on Madonna Street also.
Yes to both the above. I also love the look on his face as he's trying to "fight" his way through all the condolences to get to Angela at the funeral procession.

Have you seen any other Germi films? I'm thinking the obvious Seduced and Abandoned should be next in terms of viewing.

[Qrazy]

Yes to both the above. I also love the look on his face as he's trying to "fight" his way through all the condolences to get to Angela at the funeral procession.

Have you seen any other Germi films? I'm thinking the obvious Seduced and Abandoned should be next in terms of viewing.

I've only seen the first 10 minutes of Seduced and Abandoned and then had to go do something else but I'd like to revisit it at some point. What I saw of it seemed OK, but not inspired. I also hear Signore e Signori is a good one... it won the grand prize at Cannes.

Although I really liked Divorce Italian Style I liked Big Deal on Madonna Street even more. I need to explore more Monicelli... maybe The Great War next.

[chrisnu]

Ooh boy, an in-depth Stay discussion. This is what I've been waiting my entire match-cut life for.

NOT!
I liked it. That's my contribution.

I thought that Gosling gave a good performance, eliciting more pathos than he's being credited, and it is visually interesting. It also puts Massive Attack to good use.

Then again, it's almost Lynch-lite, which is like tailor-made for me.

[Qrazy]

Has anybody watched any golden age serials? Which of these are worth watching?

1. Canadian Mounties vs. Atomic Invaders (1953) Franklin Adreon

2. Captain Video, Master of the Stratosphere (1951) Spencer Gordon Bennet

3. Federal Agents vs. Underworld, Inc. (1949) Fred C. Brannon

4. Batman and Robin (1949) Spencer Gordon Bennet

5. King of the Rocket Men (1949) Fred C. Brannon

6. The Crimson Ghost (1946) Fred C. Brannon

7. Manhunt of Mystery Island (1945) Spencer Gordon Bennet

8. Zorro's Black Whip (1944) Spencer Gordon Bennet

9. The Batman (1943) Lambert Hillyer

10. The Masked Marvel (1943) Spencer Gordon Bennet

11. The Phantom (1943) B. Reeves Eason

12. Captain Midnight (1942) James W. Horne

13. Spy Smasher (1942) William Witney

14. Adventures of Captain Marvel (1941) John English

15. Holt of the Secret Service (1941) James W. Horne

16. Flash Gordon Conquers the Universe (1940) Ford Beebe

17. Mysterious Doctor Satan (1940) John English

18. The Shadow (1940) James W. Horne

19. Drums of Fu Manchu (1940) John English & William Witney

20. Zorro's Fighting Legion (1939) John English

21. The Secret of Treasure Island (1938) Elmer Clifton

22. Dick Tracy (1937) Alan James & Tay Taylor

23. Zorro Rides Again (1937) John English

24. Flash Gordon (1936) Frederick Stephani

25. The Three Musketeers (1933) Colbert Clark

[soitgoes...]

I'm gonna give The Shadow a go, because I've heard of the director and the serial is rated higher than most on IMDb. Other than that December's MoM is fairly underwhelming.

[Qrazy]

I'm gonna give The Shadow a go, because I've heard of the director and the serial is rated higher than most on IMDb. Other than that December's MoM is fairly underwhelming.

Yeah not a fan of this MoM although Zorro Rides Again and Flash Gordon are probably worth seeing as cultural touchstones.

----

On an unrelated note I think I may have found the ultimate best film list of all time. I say this not especially because of ordering but simply because of breadth and inclusiveness.

http://www.films101.com/filmsr.htm

[Stay Puft]

I've seen the Adventures of Captain Marvel, which has its moments. There's a fight scene about half way through the series that is about the most amazing thing I've ever seen. Has some good special effects for its time. Otherwise it's a standard mystery narrative with annoying cliffhangers and predictable plot twists.

I saw maybe two episodes of The Batman before giving up on that one. Wasn't even good for any laughs, although the terrible video quality didn't help.

[eternity]

http://img79.imageshack.us/img79/7808/pandygt9.jpg

[Derek]

I am not sure how to react to that, eternity. Is it supposed to funny? If so, why?

[The Mike]

I am not sure how to react to that, eternity. Is it supposed to funny? If so, why?

If I recall correctly, it was the one of the only moderately funny parts of the unfunny In the Land of Women, and it became less funny as the film continued to be almost entirely unfunny afterward.

[Ezee E]

I am not sure how to react to that, eternity. Is it supposed to funny? If so, why?
He got cocky after that impressive banner he made, and just started posting shit. I don't understand it.

[Derek]

If I recall correctly, it was the one of the only moderately funny parts of the unfunny In the Land of Women, and it became less funny as the film continued to be almost entirely unfunny afterward.

Thanks, that solves half the mystery. Why anyone would find that funny without any context would be the other half.

[Boner M]

Faust - So blatantly a showcase for Svankmajer's arts & crafts imagination that I wondered why he even bothered to include his usual live action backdrop, especially when it's as lifeless as it is here. Many striking sequences as expected, but overall tiresome and repetitive.

Vicky Cristina Barcelona - I'm gonna have to side with the pragmatic Vicky on this one, because even when this film feels like it's insightful and wise, it's hard to shake off the sense of deja vu, both as far as Allen's previous work and his influences are concerned. Of course, that feeling is rote by now, and fortunately this is looser and thus more enjoyable than anything he's made in a while, with a jazzy quality to the disparate personae of the emsemble that keeps things percolating nicely (and ecstatically when Bardem and Cruz are onscreen) throughout. I still have to wonder why Allen would have us spend so much time with the titular characters when the Spaniards are clearly the film's lifeblood, apart from to show up the Americans for being the pretentious killjoys they are. Altogether though, an efficient apology for Cassandra's Dream.

[Sven]

Many striking sequences as expected, but overall tiresome and repetitive.

This is generally my response to any Svankmajer longer than ten minutes.

[Boner M]

This is generally my response to any Svankmajer longer than ten minutes.
I liked Alice and Little Otik a lot, except for the length of each, esp. the latter. Which of his long ones have you seen?

[Sven]

I liked Alice and Little Otik a lot, except for the length of each, esp. the latter. Which of his long ones have you seen?

Admittedly, I chose the "ten minutes" length kind of randomly. I've only seen Alice of his full-length things (I found it a chore, in all honesty, does that make me a philistine?), but I've certainly felt a bunch of his shorts outstaying their welcome.

Still, Little Otik sounds pretty incredible. Been wanting to see that.

[Boner M]

(I found it a chore, in all honesty, does that make me a philistine?)
Nah, I don't take his films too seriously; like Jodorowsky, I've grown to find that brand of symbolism-heavy surrealism kinda kitschy, but I enjoy it as pure spectacle. I mean, watching a rat make a campfire atop a young girl's head is the kind of sight I'd dig even if I was a philistine.

[Sven]

Nah, I don't take his films too seriously; like Jodorowsky, I've grown to find that brand of symbolism-heavy surrealism kinda kitschy, but I enjoy it as pure spectacle. I mean, watching a rat make a campfire atop a young girl's head is the kind of sight I'd dig even if I was a philistine.

I guess it's just like, as you say, somehow, it felt way too lifeless to be of interest to me. I love the craft, and I'm always fascinated by the animation of inanimate objects. But he strips the zeal and wonder away. And I don't think he's very good with live-action. At all. Perhaps Little Otik will show me otherwise...

[Dead & Messed Up]

This is generally my response to any Svankmajer longer than ten minutes.

You just described his version of Faust. I found it artful and unendurable in about equal measure.

[Ezee E]

Little Otik, despite having some eyepopping moments, also feels like a chore at the end.

I'd still recommend it because of those moments, but still, be wary.

I want to see Alice.

[Qrazy]

Alice is the best of the three I would say. I suppose it's about time I checked out Lunacy and Conspirators of Pleasure. I'd also like to see the Quay Brothers Institute Benjamenta. Although I find similar to Svankmajer their shorts are stronger than their features, if one views the features as a series of short episodes than they become much more enjoyable. The Piano Tuner of Earthquakes was a real mess, but it was a beautiful mess.

[Rowland]

I generally find Svankmajer much more tolerable than the Quay Brothers. I'll take Alice over anything I've seen by the latter.

[Russ]

I generally find Svankmajer much more tolerable than the Quay Brothers.Yep.

[Raiders]

I absolutely love the Quay Brothers. Haven't seen much from Svankmajer.

[Yxklyx]

http://www.celtoslavica.de/chiaroscuro/films/picnic/picnic4.jpg

I watched Picnic at Hanging Rock for the first time tonight.

.... What did that rapid montage of the portraits hanging on the principal's wall imply? ....

The portraits (including one of Queen Victoria) as well as Mrs Appleyard herself represent the old world. Of relevance also is that the events take place in the year 1900 - a year of psychological change. There's a scene where she keeps on saying how she liked Bournemouth because it never changed. I think a key theme is that of change and that change would be of moving from a restrained & repressed world to a natural & sexual one. The girls disappear because they succumb to nature - the boys can find the girl because they have lusted after her.

[Amnesiac]

The portraits (including one of Queen Victoria) as well as Mrs Appleyard herself represent the old world. Of relevance also is that the events take place in the year 1900 - a year of psychological change. There's a scene where she keeps on saying how she liked Bournemouth because it never changed. I think a key theme is that of change and that change would be of moving from a restrained/repressed world to a natural/sexual one. The girls disappear because they succumb to nature - the boys can find the girl because they have lusted after her.

Yeah, that's interesting. I definitely didn't thoroughly tap into that whole facet of sexual repression and liberation in my write-up (although I did make some mention of it regarding Mrs. Appleyard's motivation for her cruel treatment of Sarah).

I've also noticed that interpretation elsewhere as I've done a little more reading on the film since expressing my first-impressions a few days ago. I did, however, immediately notice that vagina-shaped crevice on Hanging Rock that one of the boys has such trouble climbing towards. As I've seen mentioned elsewhere, it is interesting that the girls have no trouble advancing towards this same crevice. That must have been deliberate.

It is definitely an interesting interpretation of the film. That is, viewing their ascent towards the top of Hanging Rock as this metaphor for sexual exploration and its subsequent liberation. As I've read elsewhere, it may also account for the way the one returning girl is dressed: a vivid, ostentatious red dress. Her burgeoning sexuality, as well as her alienation from the others, is undeniably evident. She's emblematic of the sexual agency that these other girls are deprived of, that latent and troublesome lust that plagues them. And perhaps this also accounts for the way the other girls berate and assault her; their vicious curiosity might also be understood as inchoate jealousy.

Ebert offers another interesting interpretation of the film, noting the dangerous tension between two antithetical worlds:


"The suggestion in both "Walkabout'' and "Picnic'' is that aboriginal life cannot be sustained in cities, nor European-based life in nature, and it is intriguing that girls on the brink of maturity are the focal point in both films.

[...]

Somewhere at the very bottom of his imagination must lurk the conviction that you'll be all right if you stay at home, but if you wander into other lands you may find that you have disappeared."

But his interpretation is not at odds with this other notion of repressed sexuality. After all, these two worlds — one of nature and possibility; the other of strict formality and chastity — are antithetical because of the sexuality present within the latter. It is only appropriate that these girls, galvanized with the courage to seek something else, could not return. At least not all of them. Following their ambiguous introspective comments and their ascent into a more sexually honest world, they cannot possibly return to the shackles of their former milieu.

[eternity]

He got cocky after that impressive banner he made, and just started posting shit. I don't understand it....what?

[Winston*]

Hey, Match-Cut, does blu-ray make much of a difference over DVD with traditionally animated movies? My brain is saying no, but perhaps my brain is wrong.

[Winston*]

Lilo and Stich is fantastic.

[Watashi]

Your brain is wrong. It makes a huge difference. The Sleeping Beauty Blu-Ray is fantastic.

[Winston*]

It just seemed to me that since animation uses a lot of large blocks of colour, there wouldn't be as much difference with the jump in definiton compared to a live action movie.

[Boner M]

Watched about 40 minutes of Oshima's Violence of Noon on a tape with illegible white-on-white subs and muddy picture, before having to switch it off. Very frustrating, as the film is obviously quite formally impeccable, but the problems with the format were only exacerbated by the film's challengingly erratic non-linear narrative.

I guess that's what you get for hanging on to VHS like I do.

[Sven]

Lilo and Stich is fantastic.

Forgetting about the crappy "Ohana means family" sanctimony, it's in my top five Disneys.

[Qrazy]

So did Marcel Camus do anything other than Black Orpheus that's worth watching?

[Spinal]

Hey E, make a post about The Virgin Spring so that I can rep you for that rating.

[Winston*]

Hey E, make a post about The Virgin Spring so that I can rep you for that rating.

He wrote a review in his film swapping thread.

[Spinal]

He wrote a review in his film swapping thread.

Thanks.

[Mal]

Frozen River...

anyone? ... anyone?

[Hugh_Grant]

Frozen River...

anyone? ... anyone?

I wish. I didn't get a chance to see it during its brief run here.

[Ezee E]

Thanks.
do you have a review anywhere

[Spinal]

do you have a review anywhere

I had a top 100 entry, but that might be dead now. :sad:

[Qrazy]

How do people on MC feel about Julian Schnabel? Inspired auteur? Egocentric surface skimmer? Somewhere in the middle? I enjoyed The Diving Bell and the Butterfly but the lead character and as a result the experience in general had a certain self-centered almost shallow quality about it that I couldn't quite shake. Basquiat I saw years ago when I was just getting into film so I can't say much but even way back then I remember finding the filmmaking sort of amateurish. Still it probably merits a rewatch. And yet Before Night Falls still seems quite intriguing to me. I"ll probably check it out sooner rather than later.

[Philosophe_rouge]

I like Schnabel's visual style, and he does have a strange understanding of the passion of the artist. Does he sometimes skirt around difficult subjects, or skim the surface? Yes, but I don't think it's because he wants to be safe, but it's not relevant entirely relevant to his interests or artistic desires. He's more interested in the artistic process and how it drives the artist above all else. I think he's getting more and more confidant as he goes along, and I'm interested in what he has to offer next. I've seen The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, Before Night Falls and Lou Reed's Berlin and I think they're all good to great films.

[MadMan]

So I just finished Stranger Than Fiction, and I liked it a great deal. However, I'm not sure how I really feel about the last act. In not killing off Harold, does the movie, just like the planned book, ruin its ending by sparing him? Would killing off Harold have made the book and the movie truly great? And why do we place so much importance on endings when the rest of the movie should count just as much, if not more? I feel that not only do I have to watch this again (I blind bought it months ago when Best Buy had it on sale) and contemplate all this further. I also have to say that at this point I'm a fan of Will Ferrell's work. I would like him to do more movies in this vein, and I think he should take a break from comedy for a while.

[Qrazy]

Also rewatched Wall-E... ehhh... once the spectacle wears off your left with Wall-e's slapstick, a plethora of 2001 references, and robot courtship... and quite frankly robot courtship gets old really fast the second go around. Pixar are much better storytellers than the other CGI powerhouses out there but their work is still thoroughly emotionally manipulative (fuck you person who says is this necessarily a bad thing) and frankly too slick and cute for it's own good. Anyway, still visually very impressive but I guess I've come to agree with more of the detractors regarding the story itself. I don't think I"ll be re-revisiting it anytime soon.

[Raiders]

I've watched it three times. I love it more than ever.

[The Mike]

So I just finished Stranger Than Fiction, and I liked it a great deal. However, I'm not sure how I really feel about the last act. In not killing off Harold, does the movie, just like the planned book, ruin its ending by sparing him? Would killing off Harold have made the book and the movie truly great? And why do we place so much importance on endings when the rest of the movie should count just as much, if not more? I feel that not only do I have to watch this again (I blind bought it months ago when Best Buy had it on sale) and contemplate all this further. I also have to say that at this point I'm a fan of Will Ferrell's work. I would like him to do more movies in this vein, and I think he should take a break from comedy for a while.
It may be my sappy side speaking, but I'm OK with the final act.
In my eyes, the decision to keep Harold alive was justified. The movie sets it up as him being killed as the only answer, but the finale is less about her saving his life as it is about him saving her life. Because of Harold Crick, who she thought was an insignificant pawn, she now sees the value in common life. I took it as a lead to the author overcoming her problems as much as it was a lead to Harold living his life.

Plus, I just think the entirely light-hearted movie works better as an affirmation of life than it would have as a "sacrifice for the sake of art" piece.

Either way, I love everything Ferrell puts his mitts on. I admit it.

[balmakboor]

Watched Speed Racer on Blu-ray and enjoyed it quite a bit. It was all so colorful and pretty and it has Christina Ricci.

I watched Happy-Go-Lucky and loved it to death. It's probably my favorite Leigh along with Naked.

[Watashi]

Stranger than Fiction. WALL-E. Speed Racer.

All amazing movies.

[Amnesiac]

I watched Happy-Go-Lucky and loved it to death.

I liked it a lot, too.

Here's a question, out of curiosity. Did you consider Poppy to be a static and selfish character, as others have expressed, and still like the film? Or do you, like me, think that Poppy's character did learn and grow and that's part of what makes the film interesting?

[MadMan]

It may be my sappy side speaking, but I'm OK with the final act.
In my eyes, the decision to keep Harold alive was justified. The movie sets it up as him being killed as the only answer, but the finale is less about her saving his life as it is about him saving her life. Because of Harold Crick, who she thought was an insignificant pawn, she now sees the value in common life. I took it as a lead to the author overcoming her problems as much as it was a lead to Harold living his life.

Plus, I just think the entirely light-hearted movie works better as an affirmation of life than it would have as a "sacrifice for the sake of art" piece.

Either way, I love everything Ferrell puts his mitts on. I admit it.Your points are well taken. But I'm still skeptical. My cynical side is now debating my sentimental side over the whole thing. Which is why another viewing is required. Sometime in the near future. Not now though as I have another movies to see.

[Qrazy]

How might Schnabel be classified as shallow, specifically? And in what ways does he tend to 'skim the surface', specifically?

In the sense of not delving as deeply into his themes and his characters as it's possible to go. Anyway I wasn't saying that he was shallow per se, that's just a criticism that's been leveled against him by some. In my initial question I wanted to represent both the supporters and the detractors. At this point I personally fall more in the middle of the spectrum. I see things to be admired in his work but I'm not entirely won over. Art critic Hughes said about his artwork (not really film relevant), "He is to painting what Stallone is to acting".

He's also apparently a very egocentric individual in person and while I'm not particularly bothered by that or would judge his work in relation to his personal life, I can't say I'm at all surprised to discover it either. I experienced a very pronounced vibe of self-importance from Diving Bell and it struck me as a very off putting element in a film which otherwise had high quality acting and a potential visual style. Although I suppose I'll have to read the book and see Before Night Falls to know how much of this vibe came from Schnabel and how much from Bauby's novel itself.

[Qrazy]

Your points are well taken. But I'm still skeptical. My cynical side is now debating my sentimental side over the whole thing. Which is why another viewing is required. Sometime in the near future. Not now though as I have another movies to see.

Another interesting film with the same premise could have been made with a dark ending but the way Stranger was set up from the very beginning it never would have worked. If they had gone with an unhappy ending it wouldn't have meshed well with the tone of what had come before. Also I find the message that art ought to come second to life (and moral concerns) to be a valuable one.

[The Mike]

Another interesting film with the same premise could have been made with a dark ending but the way Stranger was set up from the very beginning it never would have worked. If they had gone with an unhappy ending it wouldn't have meshed well with the tone of what had come before. Also I find the message that art ought to come second to life (and moral concerns) to be a valuable one.

That's kinda what I wanted to say, with less circumlocution. :)

[Qrazy]

That's kinda what I wanted to say, with less circumlocution. :)

You said it well enough, I was just pretty much agreeing with you.

[Yxklyx]

How many of you would pay $126 dollars for this?

...

Neh.

[Ezee E]

I don't see the movie Diving Bell and the Butterfly as being self-important. The character, Bauby, however, is. And that's completely different. The film works for that reason as we see a self-loathing, egocentric person appreciate life as a whole as he puts his book together. I think too much of the film gets commended for its aesthetic.

[Ezee E]

Neh.
Wait until it becomes $44 like the Kubrick one. And I'd go for it.

Speaking of which, I should get that Kubrick one.

[D_Davis]

Taschen puts out an amazing product. Ordering and receiving a new batch of Taschen books was always a highlight of my book store managing days.

[Russ]

Champagne for Caesar (Richard Whorf, 1950)

Riotous screwball comedy whose main asset is its inspired casting choices. It's a satire on the popularity of quiz shows in the late 40's and Ronald Colman shines as the refined brainiac with a grudge; however, make no mistake: the main reason to track this film down is for (warning: massive hyperbole ahead) one of the most brilliant comedic performances ever committed to celluloid: Vincent Price. That's right, ole Vince apparently missed his calling, because as much as he defined the iconic horror roles with which he's usually associated, Price is nothing short of astonishing in this film -- not just laugh-out-loud funny we're talking about here -- gasping for-breath hilarious is probably more apropos. It's painfully obvious he was having the time of his life making this film and his enthusiasm spread to the rest of the cast. There are really great contributions all around, but because Price's presence is so incredibly commanding whenever he's on-screen, there are a few moments that can't help but feel a little sluggish. There are some great set-pieces too, especially at Price's soap factory and corporate office. This, my friends, is the epitome of an "underseen gem." And, it's also got Mel Blanc as the voice of the titular parrot with a fondness for alcohol. Don't miss it.

[chrisnu]

Taschen puts out an amazing product. Ordering and receiving a new batch of Taschen books was always a highlight of my book store managing days.
Cool fact about Taschen: he lives in the Chemosphere (http://www.latimes.com/features/home/la-hm-taschen7apr07,0,7259678.story? coll=la-home-home).

[Ivan Drago]

My Film Analysis final exam is tomorrow...and instead of studying for that I'm rating each movie I saw in the class.

Memento 9.5
Do The Right Thing 9.5
The Hudsucker Proxy 9
The Matrix 8
Timecode 8
Amores Perros 8
The Hole 7.5
Rear Window 7.5
The Conversation 7
Taxi Driver 7
The Thin Blue Line 6.5
Bandit Queen 6
Pather Panchali 6
Man With a Movie Camera 5.5
Chinatown 5...yup

I might right something up for each.

[MadMan]

My Film Analysis final exam is tomorrow...and instead of studying for that I'm rating each movie I saw in the class.

Rear Window 7.5
The Conversation 7
Taxi Driver 7
Chinatown 5...yup

I might right something up for each.:|

Your ratings for Memento, Do The Right Thing and The Matrix are pretty spot on (although Memento and Do The Right Thing get 10s from me). I haven't seen the rest on your list.

[Raiders]

The Matrix 8
...
The Conversation 7

:: eye twitch ::

[Winston*]

Grindhouse > All of these movies

Hmm.

[Derek]

Pather Panchali 6
Man With a Movie Camera 5.5
Chinatown 5...yup

I might right something up for each.

I would suggest righting these three scores before writing anything about them.

[Ivan Drago]

:|

The Conversation - The beginning was a little slow but I got more into the film as it progressed. I do want to rewatch this again.

Taxi Driver - This was a repeat viewing...the first two times I saw it I didn't care for it because the first 90 minutes were boring as hell - not so much the third time...but even so I still couldn't appreciate it fully.

Chinatown - Sorry guys but I thought that despite the acting and cinematography, the slow pace of the film's story was boring as hell.

Rear Window - Like Chinatown, the slow pace of the story was boring but the story was more interesting...to me anyway.

But the audience factor bugged me for Rear Window and Chinatown - part of it was that they were the first movies we watched in class and to the audience there were unintentionally hilarious moments...apparently. :rolleyes:

[Ivan Drago]

I would suggest righting these three scores before writing anything about them.

Tough. :P

Pather Panchali - I'm sorry but I just can't get into Indian cinema. I just don't care about the culture. The cinematography was impressive though.

Man With A Movie Camera - I can't get into experimental cinema unless it has a plot (Persona)...otherwise it's just a collection of awesome but random and pointless images. The score by the Alloy Orchestra was a plus as well.

[Derek]

I'd also like to second (or third) the opinion that your user title could use some context, like maybe the context of tv show script, to make any sense. But if you were aiming for a response of eye-rolling and further lessening any desire I had to watch Entourage, you've succeeded.

[Boner M]

The Conversation... The beginning was a little slow...

Taxi Driver... boring as hell...

Chinatown... the slow pace of the film's story was boring as hell...

Rear Window... the slow pace of the story was boring...
Le sigh. Esp. for Rear Window.

Although you did like the Tsai, so good for you on that, I guess.

[Derek]

Tough. :P

Pather Panchali - I'm sorry but I just can't get into Indian cinema. I just don't care about the culture. The cinematography was impressive though.

Man With A Movie Camera - I can't get into experimental cinema unless it has a plot (Persona)...otherwise it's just a collection of awesome but random and pointless images. The score by the Alloy Orchestra was a plus as well.

So plot = point? Story is the only thing that can save a film from being a random collection of images?

*sigh*

[Winston*]

Wasn't the point of The Man With A Movie Camera: "Hey dudes, check out this awesome thing called cinema! Look at all the awesome things it can do! Did you see that awesome thing? Wasn't it awesome? Only in Soviet Russia could such awesomeness be produced."?

[Ivan Drago]

Wasn't the point of The Man With A Movie Camera: "Hey dudes, check out this awesome thing called cinema! Look at all the awesome things it can do! Did you see that awesome thing? Wasn't it awesome? Only in Soviet Russia could such awesomeness be produced."?

I got that after the first 15 minutes.

And as far as the plot = point goes, what brought that on was the class period after Man With A Movie Camera where we watched 3 short films - two were from Maya Deren - those didn't bother me too much. but what did was a short movie where there was nothing but spirals and shapes flashing on the screen...I can't remember what it was called but it was made in the silent era by a German filmmaker and it's on a DVD collection of short avant-garde films made in the 20s and 30s...does anyone know what I'm talking about?

[MadMan]

The Conversation - The beginning was a little slow but I got more into the film as it progressed. I do want to rewatch this again.

Taxi Driver - This was a repeat viewing...the first two times I saw it I didn't care for it because the first 90 minutes were boring as hell - not so much the third time...but even so I still couldn't appreciate it fully.

Chinatown - Sorry guys but I thought that despite the acting and cinematography, the slow pace of the film's story was boring as hell.

Rear Window - Like Chinatown, the slow pace of the story was boring but the story was more interesting...to me anyway.

But the audience factor bugged me for Rear Window and Chinatown - part of it was that they were the first movies we watched in class and to the audience there were unintentionally hilarious moments...apparently. :rolleyes:I can't agree with anything in this post. At all. Nor can I really comprehend any of it, either. Especially Rear Window or Chinatown. Also poor audience is why I often watch films at home.

[The Mike]

But the audience factor bugged me for Rear Window and Chinatown - part of it was that they were the first movies we watched in class and to the audience there were unintentionally hilarious moments...apparently. :rolleyes:This is when I repeat after Dane Cook.....

I'll fucking kill you!

(Not you, them. Just so we're clear.)

[Ezee E]

Disappointing Ivan. Usually those classes make you appreciate the rare films moreso.

[Milky Joe]

The Conversation is a fucking 10. No ifs ands or buts. I thought everyone was clear on this.

[Ivan Drago]

Disappointing Ivan. Usually those classes make you appreciate the rare films moreso.

I appreciate the subtext (don't know if that's the word I'm looking for) the films create. Plus the discussions were pretty fun to take part in and listen to. I apologize if I word this wrong but in the period after we watched The Conversation, there was a huge in-depth discussion about how Harry Caul is literally a child in the way he reacted to the woman's murder, and afterwards when he's seen under the covers with The Flintstones playing in the background. I did admire that.


The Conversation is a fucking 10. No ifs ands or buts. I thought everyone was clear on this.


Again: I'm going to rewatch it. Don't. Worry.

[Watashi]

If you find movies like that to be "fucking boring", you're just as bad as the classmates who unintentionally laugh.

[Ivan Drago]

Jeez, whatever happened to "different strokes for different folks"?

But anyway the more I think about my last post about the discussion on The Conversation the more I realize that I took everything just at face value. Probably not the right way to do that. But who knows.

[Sycophant]

the more I realize that I took everything just at face value. Probably not the right way to do that. But who knows.Most people round here know. It's the wrong way to do it.

[B-side]

2nd time around for Greenaway and I was the charm I didn't care for Zed & Two Noughts. It didn't gel for me. I had trouble coming up with reasons to pay attention to it. However, The Pillow Book was great. There was some occasional bits of brilliant mise-en-scene, a fascinating backstory and a hot Asian chick as the lead, what more could you want?:)

[Winston*]

a hot Asian chick as the lad

Okay, Ewan McGregor's a good looking guy for sure, so you've got that part right. But I'm pretty sure Scotland's not technically a part of Asia, and in this movie he pretty clearly demonstrates his possession of man-parts.

[B-side]

Okay, Ewan McGregor's a good looking guy for sure, so you've got that part right. But I'm pretty sure Scotland's not technically a part of Asia, and in this movie he pretty clearly demonstrates his possession of man-parts.

Curse my typos!:frustrated:

[balmakboor]

Jeez, whatever happened to "different strokes for different folks"?

You know the drill. If you put down acknowledged classics, you take some lumps.

I can't really comprehend some of your ratings or comments here either. The whole list is almost upside down actually with Do the Right Thing being the only highly rated movie worthy of the praise. The Coens have made a few movies worthy of a 9, but Hudsucker isn't one of them.

What really surprised me is your preference for Timecode over anything below it. I like the movie as an experiment. Don't get me wrong. But Rear Window stomps on it.

Taxi Driver's first 90 minutes are boring???? I don't know what to say.

I did find Chinatown dull the first time I watched it many years ago, but my second viewing fixed that in a hurry.

Is your exam an essay test? Do you have to write about these films? If you carry these evaluations into the classroom, you may be about to provide your professor with a decent amount of unintentional laughter while grading your test.

I must admit though that movie lists for film classes have gotten a lot more interesting and a lot less academic than when I was taking them back in the early 80s. My list included:

Citizen Kane
My Darling Clementine
The Searchers
Rashomon
Blow Up
Nanook of the North
The Plow That Broke the Plains
(some other similar stuff I can't quite remember)

[megladon8]

First 90 minutes of Taxi Driver are boring? So are you basically saying that you only liked the part where Travis Bickle start shooting people?

That seems kind of ADD to me. :confused:

[Boner M]

Is your exam an essay test? Do you have to write about these films? If you carry these evaluations into the classroom, you may be about to provide your professor with a decent amount of unintentional laughter while grading your test.
Harsh, dude.

[Qrazy]

I got that after the first 15 minutes.

And as far as the plot = point goes, what brought that on was the class period after Man With A Movie Camera where we watched 3 short films - two were from Maya Deren - those didn't bother me too much. but what did was a short movie where there was nothing but spirals and shapes flashing on the screen...I can't remember what it was called but it was made in the silent era by a German filmmaker and it's on a DVD collection of short avant-garde films made in the 20s and 30s...does anyone know what I'm talking about?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otPkk1sUFkI

[Qrazy]

I watched Monicelli's The Great War a day or two ago. First the bad, although it was very well made overall it seemed to lack purpose. For starters the film just kind of episodically meanders around until it finally arrives at a quintessential war is hell ending. Secondly it just wasn't as funny as Big Deal on Madonna Street. Despite these complaints I would still certainly recommend it. The cinematography is quality and while it may not be as funny as Big Deal on Madonna Street, Sordi and Gasmann play very well off one another and form a memorable odd couple. Overall it makes for a compelling often funny war film. The next Monicelli's I'll be checking out are My Friends and The Organizer.

[Yxklyx]

I watched Monicelli's The Great War a day or two ago. First the bad, although it was very well made overall it seemed to lack purpose. For starters the film just kind of episodically meanders around until it finally arrives at a quintessential war is hell ending. Secondly it just wasn't as funny as Big Deal on Madonna Street. Despite these complaints I would still certainly recommend it. The cinematography is quality and while it may not be as funny as Big Deal on Madonna Street, Sordi and Gasmann play very well off one another and form a memorable odd couple. Overall it makes for a compelling often funny war film. The next Monicelli's I'll be checking out are My Friends and The Organizer.

Episodical meandering can work. Have you seen The Red and the White?

[Qrazy]

Episodical meandering can work. Have you seen The Red and the White?

Yeah it certainly can. I've seen and really like The Red and the White (probably my favorite Jancso... then the Round-Up, Cantata and Red Psalm) and I certainly love Fellini's meandering as well. The issue is more that the episodes in The Great War aren't consistently compelling or tie together in an astoundingly thematically revealing way (a la Nights of Cabiria or The Red and the White). The episodes are compelling, usually funny and engaging in The Great War but it just didn't quite become top tier cinema for me... but it's still well worth watching.

[Qrazy]

Holy Jesus traffic is slow today.

[Yxklyx]

Holy Jesus traffic is slow today.

Installing Oracle.

[balmakboor]

Harsh, dude.

Yep. I can be nasty if the mood hits me. Fortunately, it only happens once or twice a day.

[Sven]

Do you guys think that the Stamos is capable of pulling out a rich, complex performance that will blow everyone away?

I really want to think he could do it, but I don't know if I can.

[Raiders]

Do you guys think that the Stamos is capable of pulling out a rich, complex performance that will blow everyone away?

I really want to think he could do it, but I don't know if I can.

Why do you ask?

[Sven]

Why do you ask?

Pure curiosity. I was just thinking about Stamos and wondering "... will he ever surprise me?"

[Derek]

Pure curiosity. I was just thinking about Stamos and wondering "... will he ever surprise me?"

Coulier? Yes. Stamos? Nah.

[Rowland]

CJ7 (Stephen Chow, 2008) 68

A bouyantly realized, deeply felt kid's film, infused with idiosyncratic sensibilities one wouldn't anticipate in your usual homogenized American product. As in his previous two efforts, Chow grounds the picture in explicitly populist values that prove most affecting because they are so clearly heartfelt, as well as justified in their sometimes-naive sincerity through his scathing satire of China's increasingly Westernized national character. Some of the stylized slapstick struck me as clunky, but there are many funny moments here, the highlight being a brilliant middle-act setpiece wherein we witness the same day's events twice in succession, once as a surreal dream sequence and again as reality, that is hilarious and also strikes an unexpectedly resonant chord, as it allows its child protagonist to show a dark side begot through sheer frustration and humiliation that the test screenings for a Hollywood children's film would never allow. CJ7 itself is a wonderful construct, animated with a sprightly disposition while cleverly bypassing budget-constraints through the embrace of minimalism. That said, I'm not sure if Chow's increasingly ambiguous rendering of CJ7 as an alternately literal and metaphorical construct, and how it relates to the picture's muddled thematic development in the third act, is intentional (which would denote a laudable degree of respect for his audience as thinking individuals), or merely the byproduct of careless writing. Likewise, his overtly caricatural rendering of the overweight schoolgirl struck me as vaguely insensitive, inevitable acceptance by her peers notwithstanding. Nevertheless, the film builds to a rousing conclusion with a charming epilogue that proves one of the year's most satisfying. Bonus points as well for the infectiously retro soundtrack. And am I morbid for suspecting the imagined hanging corpse as being an aftershock from a witnessed suicide of the mother by the son?

[Raiders]

Pure curiosity. I was just thinking about Stamos and wondering "... will he ever surprise me?"

Apparently he was pretty shocking in the TV-movie Captive. My wife also quite likes him in ER.

[Sven]

That said, I'm not sure if Chow's increasingly ambiguous rendering of CJ7 as an alternately literal and metaphorical construct, and how it relates to the picture's themes in the third act, is intentional (which would denote a laudable degree of respect for his audience as thinking individuals), or merely the byproduct of careless writing.

No comprende.


Likewise, his overtly caricatural rendering of the overweight schoolgirl struck me as vaguely insensitive, inevitable acceptance by her peers notwithstanding.

Chow and sensitivity are so rarely synonymous (and thank God!) that I estimate marking him down points for his hard-knock humanity exposes a sour need for political correctness. Cruelty is precisely the opposite of Chow's intentions with the girl (who, by the way, is a man and a joke, so I'm really not sure what the problem is).


Bonus points for the infectiously retro soundtrack.

Sunny! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTzDl5mlDsg)

I'm glad you liked it. Still my favorite film of the year.

[Rowland]

No comprende.Basically, did CJ7 exist or didn't it? Does it matter either way? I was sometimes puzzled by how CJ7's influence on the real world could be justified, as it seemed to rely more on the whims of the narrative than any internal cohesion. Still, it all functions reasonably well on a metaphorical level, which would denote a great deal of respect for children who may grow confused by the revelation of CJ7's literal nature in the third act. Or maybe I'm just thinking too hard.

Chow and sensitivity are so rarely synonymous (and thank God!) that I estimate marking him down points for his hard-knock humanity exposes a sour need for political correctness. Cruelty is precisely the opposite of Chow's intentions with the girl (who, by the way, is a man and a joke, so I'm really not sure what the problem is).I know it isn't intentionally cruel, but it still struck me as ever so slightly insensitive, especially in its outright defeminization of an overweight girl by blatantly casting her as a male.

[Sven]

I know it isn't intentionally cruel, but it still struck me as ever so slightly insensitive, especially in its outright defeminization of an overweight girl by blatantly casting her as a male.

You know the main little boy in the movie was played by a girl, right? As are, I believe, all of his male classmates. Lots of interesting things going on there.

[Qrazy]

Basically, did CJ7 exist or didn't it? Does it matter either way? I was sometimes puzzled by how CJ7's influence on the real world could be justified, as it seemed to rely more on the whims of the narrative than any internal cohesion. Still, it all functions reasonably well on a metaphorical level, which would denote a great deal of respect for children who may grow confused by the revelation of CJ7's literal nature in the third act. Or maybe I'm just thinking too hard.
I know it isn't intentionally cruel, but it still struck me as ever so slightly insensitive, especially in its outright defeminization of an overweight girl by blatantly casting her as a male.

Um... it definitely existed.

[Sven]

Um... it definitely existed.

And yeah... I don't recall any indicators that suggested that CJ7 was imaginary.

[Ezee E]

And yeah... I don't recall any indicators that suggested that CJ7 was imaginary.
Never even crossed my mind. I mean, everyone interacted with him when it was all over.

Silly.

[Winston*]

If CJ7 didn't exist, it would have to be some kind of mass hallucination because the bullies all saw him too, no? Others as well maybe.

[Rowland]

Then why did CJ7 turn into a shabby toy at the end? I thought CJ7 was supposed to be a metaphor for the child's grasp at acceptance through imagining the toy as something else, which only heightened his alienation from the father, resulting in the father's demise. Only by giving up this shame over his roots, and with it CJ7, and learning to be accepted on his own terms by his peers, was his father resurrected.

You know the main little boy in the movie was played by a girl, right?
Yep. Doesn't change the fact.

[Winston*]

Then why did CJ7 turn into a shabby toy at the end?

Because he used up all his energy bringing the dad back from the dead.
Think literally, dude.

[Sven]

Then why did CJ7 turn into a shabby toy at the end? I thought CJ7 was supposed to be a metaphor for the child's grasp at acceptance through imagining the toy as something else, which only heightened his alienation from the father, resulting in the father's demise. Only by giving up this shame over his roots, and with it CJ7, and learning to be accepted on his own terms by his peers, was his father resurrected.

Magic.


Yep. Doesn't change the fact.

One of Chow's trademarks is his casting of a very man-looking man as a woman. I think in the context of the film, he did it in the most entertaining way he could. Would you rather he actually cast a fat un-pretty girl? It's important to the film that the kids treat this character cruelly. Chow's actually doing the audience a favor by not bullying a girl who might actually be indicative of those "negative" qualities.

[Rowland]

Because he used up all his energy bringing the dad back from the dead.
Think literally, dude.I am thinking literally, as in CJ7 turned into a literal toy at the end, and precisely the sort that his father would have picked from the dump at that. The movie struck me as an allegory about childhood fantasy. Did I just read it entirely wrong? What is it about then?

[Qrazy]

Only by giving up this shame over his roots, and with it CJ7, and learning to be accepted on his own terms by his peers, was his father resurrected.


That's nonsensical and all the more so given the fact that the dad was resurrected before CJ7 turned into a doll. Also he wasn't really accepted on his own terms by his peers. He was accepted because he had a super cool CJ7... who both the dad and the bullies all saw. That reading makes even less sense given the ending of the film and the 'return to fantasy' when you suggest that the 'rejection of fantasy' was why the father was resurrected.

[Qrazy]

Just another reminder to those who haven't yet checked out Kin Dza Dza (some of you), My Friend Ivan Lapshin (most of you) and Brighton Rock (all of you).

[MadMan]

Just another reminder to those who haven't yet to check out Kin Dza Dza (some of you), My Friend Ivan Lapshin (most of you) and Brighton Rock (all of you).I've never heard of any of those movies. In fact, I'm pretty sure outside of the internet I don't know anyone who has heard of those movies. I'm not sure that qualifies them as "obscure" cinema, however. Oh and duly noted about the reminder.

[Melville]

Just another reminder to those who haven't yet to check out Kin Dza Dza (some of you), My Friend Ivan Lapshin (most of you) and Brighton Rock (all of you).
Let's say I can't be bothered to upgrade my internet connection and start downloading movies. How would I go about obtaining your friend Ivan Lapshin?

[Derek]

Just another reminder to those who haven't yet to check out Kin Dza Dza (some of you), My Friend Ivan Lapshin (most of you) and Brighton Rock (all of you).

Already have the second, started dl'ing the first, need a seeder *cough* to get the third. All of these look fantastic, especially Lapshin from the screen shots and what I've read.

[Ivan Drago]

Taxi Driver's first 90 minutes are boring???? I don't know what to say.

The 2nd time I watched it, yes. But not at all during the 3rd viewing, when I saw it in class.


I must admit though that movie lists for film classes have gotten a lot more interesting and a lot less academic than when I was taking them back in the early 80s. My list included:

Citizen Kane
My Darling Clementine
The Searchers
Rashomon
Blow Up
Nanook of the North
The Plow That Broke the Plains
(some other similar stuff I can't quite remember)

Yeah mine was less academic than my CP 101 class, where we watched Mangal Pandey, Weekend, Bicycle Thieves, AND A Man Escaped.

And the more I think about all this, the more I realize about another problem: putting the face value thoughts and the subtext analysis together.

Going back to my example with The Conversation - I loved how Harry Caul was made to be a child and how that was conveyed. The problem with that is I don't know how to apply something like that to a positive or negative review - how does subtext make a movie good or bad?

[Melville]

Going back to my example with The Conversation - I loved how Harry Caul was made to be a child and how that was conveyed. The problem with that is I don't know how to apply something like that to a positive or negative review - how does subtext make a movie good or bad?
You just said you loved it. Isn't that good enough?

[Qrazy]

Already have the second, started dl'ing the first, need a seeder *cough* to get the third. All of these look fantastic, especially Lapshin from the screen shots and what I've read.

Shit I don't know if I have it anymore. I'll have to check my external harddrive when I get back home (in 2 weeks or so). Actually nevermind...

http://www.mininova.org/tor/920525

[Qrazy]

Let's say I can't be bothered to upgrade my internet connection and start downloading movies. How would I go about obtaining your friend Ivan Lapshin?

Hmmm I really don't know because that's how I saw it. If you have a bad connection the easiest way is to use someone's computer who has a decent connection and put it on a USB key... although you'd still need a karagarga invite but someone could probably hook you up. Is it not on netflix? Alternatively you could scour your obscurest local DVD stores. The director is Aleksei German.

[Melville]

Is it not on netflix? Alternatively you could scour your obscurest local DVD stores. The director is Aleksei German.
I'm Canadian. And is Ivan Lapshin even on DVD?

[Qrazy]

I'm Canadian. And is Ivan Lapshin even on DVD?

I'm not sure. Where in Canada are you?

[Melville]

I'm not sure. Where in Canada are you?
Guelph. About 45 minutes west of Toronto.

[Ivan Drago]

You just said you loved it. Isn't that good enough?

I guess but as a kid going into film criticism I feel like I'd have to explain why I loved the subtext - like I'd ask myself - what does the subtext do to be a positive quality about the movie?

[Qrazy]

Guelph. About 45 minutes west of Toronto.

Let me know if you ever come to Montreal. We can play canasta.

[Boner M]

I guess but as a kid going into film criticism I feel like I'd have to explain why I loved the subtext - like I'd ask myself - what does the subtext do to be a positive quality about the movie?
Just be specific; ie, rate the subtext on the /100 scale.

[Melville]

I guess but as a kid going into film criticism I feel like I'd have to explain why I loved the subtext - like I'd ask myself - what does the subtext do to be a positive quality about the movie?
Well, why did you love it?


Let me know if you ever come to Montreal. We can play canasta.
How about backgammon? We can discuss Wittgenstein at the same time.


Just be specific; ie, rate the subtext on the /100 scale.
:lol:

[Amnesiac]

I guess but as a kid going into film criticism I feel like I'd have to explain why I loved the subtext - like I'd ask myself - what does the subtext do to be a positive quality about the movie?

Well, how does the subtext affect your understanding of Harry Caul and the film as a whole? Doesn't the subtext make for a more nuanced and interesting film that therefore has layers worth exploring? Does it help you account for Harry as a character, or some of his actions? Locate your discovery within the film, work out how it fits in relation to the rest of the film. Or, you could just recognize your discovery as compelling evidence that Caul is an effectively intriguing (and a tad enigmatic) character.

And most of all, read up on The Conversation and look into the merits of the film. Its use of sound. Its elliptic and ambiguous narrative (the apparent flash-forward contained within the dream sequence, for instance). Also, the intriguing and ambiguous digressions (again, Harry's dream sequence, which might account for how you viewed Harry as a child). Or how The Conversation represents Coppola's leaning towards films more informed by European art-cinema (this can be compared with the more commercial The Godfather).

[Milky Joe]

And don't forget that score. I knew I was viewing greatness the moment I heard that piano line.

[Winston*]

I am thinking literally, as in CJ7 turned into a literal toy at the end, and precisely the sort that his father would have picked from the dump at that. The movie struck me as an allegory about childhood fantasy. Did I just read it entirely wrong? What is it about then?

I think it's pretty much about what it's literally about; family and all that, the same stuff as Lilo and Stitch. I don't think it adds anything interesting to the movie to read it as about childhood fantasy.

[Amnesiac]

And don't forget that score. I knew I was viewing greatness the moment I heard that piano line.

One of my all-time favorite scores, without a doubt.

[Yxklyx]

Guelph...Gehzunteit!

[Rowland]

That's nonsensical and all the more so given the fact that the dad was resurrected before CJ7 turned into a doll. Also he wasn't really accepted on his own terms by his peers. He was accepted because he had a super cool CJ7... who both the dad and the bullies all saw. That reading makes even less sense given the ending of the film and the 'return to fantasy' when you suggest that the 'rejection of fantasy' was why the father was resurrected.No, I think you're pretty much dead-on. The last few seconds tripped me up for the very reason you state here. I think what may have led me down that interpretive angle was a line from the father, something along the lines of how he'll die if Dicky doesn't change his ways, so that coupled with CJ7's transformation into a cheap toy... I dunno. :frustrated:

[Ivan Drago]

What really surprised me is your preference for Timecode over anything below it. I like the movie as an experiment. Don't get me wrong. But Rear Window stomps on it.

Well as far as Timecode goes, for starters, I love movies that follow multiple characters over a span of time, like Magnolia and Do The Right Thing, and so the gimmick of four cameras each following a different character was a great way to tell each character's story.

There were also a lot of images that said that there's more to film than what's on the screen - the most prominent example I can think of is when Salma Hayek's character met and made out with Stellan Skarsgard's character behind the movie screen in the screening room.

One more thing I found cool but eerie at the same time about it was that the ending foreshadowed Mike Figgis's career - at the end when Skarsgard's character says "We film your crap, you film ours." The studios released Figgis's Leaving Las Vegas and Timecode, and after that, he goes and makes Cold Creek Manor and hasn't been seen since.

And there was also the use of Mahler's Adagietto from his Symphony No. 5. I love that piece.

[Watashi]

Does anyone remember an Asian film that came out (or has yet to come out) about a deaf-mute mentally-challenged girl learning deadly karate and kicking the crap out of everybody? I know number8 posted the trailer but I forgot the name.

[soitgoes...]

Does anyone remember an Asian film that came out (or has yet to come out) about a deaf-mute mentally-challenged girl learning deadly karate and kicking the crap out of everybody? I know number8 posted the trailer but I forgot the name.
Chocolate. Thai film by Prachya Pinkeaw.

[MadMan]

Commando(1985) rules so hard, I'm not even sure how to rate it. Or if I really want to. I may just throw up a positive number and call it good. What I witnessed was beyond awesome.

[Watashi]

Chocolate. Thai film by Prachya Pinkeaw.
Sweet. Thanks. Seen it?

[soitgoes...]

Sweet. Thanks. Seen it?
My pleasure, sir.

Yes. Great action, especially the final fight scene, but the film felt like a video game. Autistic girl gets revenge for wronged mom by forcing bad guy to give up the money he owes mom. Change location, add new props with which to fight, add more bad guys. Repeat until final showdown.

D. Davis liked it quite a bit though. So see it for the fight scenes, and maybe you'll enjoy it on more than one level?

[Watashi]

My pleasure, sir.

Yes. Great action, especially the final fight scene, but the film felt like a video game. Autistic girl gets revenge for wronged mom by forcing bad guy to give up the money he owes mom. Change location, add new props with which to fight, add more bad guys. Repeat until final showdown.

D. Davis liked it quite a bit though. So see it for the fight scenes, and maybe you'll enjoy it on more than one level?
Downloading it from KG as I type.

my ratio is so fucking pathetic

[soitgoes...]

Downloading it from KG as I type.

my ratio is so fucking pathetic
Well, you're not seeding anything. It's pretty hard to improve your ratio that way. A Naruse film just popped up on the tracker. Jump on it, and seed non-stop for a couple days. I guarantee that film alone will improve your ratio. Plus it is Naruse.

It will be downloaded by at least 40 people. If you jump on it first, like now, you should be golden.

[Watashi]

Well, you're not seeding anything. It's pretty hard to improve your ratio that way. A Naruse film just popped up on the tracker. Jump on it, and seed non-stop for a couple days. I guarantee that film alone will improve your ratio. Plus it is Naruse.

It will be downloaded by at least 40 people. If you jump on it first, like now, you should be golden.
Will do.

Plus I found Chocolate on another torrent site, so I'll just get it from there and save my ratio.

[Ezee E]

The studios released Figgis's Leaving Las Vegas and Timecode, and after that, he goes and makes Cold Creek Manor and hasn't been seen since.


Figgis has done some TV episodes, The Sopranos in particular, since then. I'm sure he's probably done commercials as well, but I can't confirm that.

[D_Davis]

I liked Chocolate a lot. Easily my favorite film from this crew. While it is cheesy as hell, it actually has some drama and emotion in the narrative, and the fight sequences are stunning.

I wasn't expecting much, and I was pleasantly surprised.

And it totally feels like a video game. Especially the final sequence, which is pretty much Donkey Kong meets Rolling Thunder and Elevator Action with martial arts.

[The Mike]

Commando(1985) rules so hard, I'm not even sure how to rate it. Or if I really want to. I may just throw up a positive number and call it good. What I witnessed was beyond awesome.

I'd go with a rating of 2376. Simple.

[megladon8]

Hoping to get over to the IFC theatre to see Cries and Whispers this weekend.

Looking forward to it!

Though jeez, I've missed some great midnight movies over the last month or so. Herzog's Nosferatu, Videodrome...:cry:

[Qrazy]

Have you seen Cries and Whispers? I dunno personally it's not something I'd particularly want to watch in a theater.

[megladon8]

Have you seen Cries and Whispers? I dunno personally it's not something I'd particularly want to watch in a theater.


I don't think I've seen it, no. For some reason I'm mixing up a couple of Bergman films in my head.

Ottawa never gets Bergman films (or anything like that - old, foreign stuff), so I'd like to take advantage of the opportunity.

Last week they were playing Fanny & Alexander, which is easily in my top 20 of all time...but neither Jen or I felt like sitting that long in a theatre the day I arrived.

[Amnesiac]

Last week they were playing Fanny & Alexander, which is easily in my top 20 of all time...but neither Jen or I felt like sitting that long in a theatre the day I arrived.

What version were they screening?

[Qrazy]

I don't think I've seen it, no. For some reason I'm mixing up a couple of Bergman films in my head.

Ottawa never gets Bergman films (or anything like that - old, foreign stuff), so I'd like to take advantage of the opportunity.

Last week they were playing Fanny & Alexander, which is easily in my top 20 of all time...but neither Jen or I felt like sitting that long in a theatre the day I arrived.

Well give it a shot, there are certainly a few beautiful shots in the film but I just have no interest in seeing a woman sticking glass shards up her vagina on that large a screen, thematic/emotional pertinence be damned. I also wouldn't really recommend it as a date film even if your girlfriend is open to arthouse cinema. It is the anti-getting laid movie.

[Ezee E]

Cries & Whispers is one of the most emotional, depressing movies ever.

That said, it's still amazing, and the opportunity to see it for the first time on the big screen would be worthwhile.

[Sycophant]

Wow. Synechdoche, New York is already down to one late-night showing a day and on its last week here. That's really quite surprising. Guess I'll have to make time after work one of these nights.

[Stay Puft]

I liked Chocolate a lot. Easily my favorite film from this crew. While it is cheesy as hell, it actually has some drama and emotion in the narrative, and the fight sequences are stunning.

I wasn't expecting much, and I was pleasantly surprised.


Ditto. This was a nice surprise. The action scenes are incredibly well constructed, too, in terms of narrative. I saw the film with Prachya Pinkeaw in attendance, and he told us he took a lot of inspiration from Jackie Chan's films for Chocolate. It really shows, particularly in scenes like the butcher shop fight scene.

I can't wait to get a DVD copy of this and show it to friends.

[Sven]

Well give it a shot, there are certainly a few beautiful shots in the film but I just have no interest in seeing a woman sticking glass shards up her vagina on that large a screen, thematic/emotional pertinence be damned.

Ever the reductionist. Didn't you say you watch film holistically?

On second thought, don't answer.

[megladon8]

What version were they screening?


It said "The Director's Cut", so I imagine the full TV version.

[megladon8]

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/3188/warbirdsr1artworkpic1kc2.jpg


FUCKING AWESOME

[Sven]

FUCKING AWESOME

I bet the dinosaurs on the cover look better than any special effect in the movie.

[Sycophant]

My god. When did all my conversational instincts get set to "killjoy"?

[NickGlass]

It said "The Director's Cut", so I imagine the full TV version.

Yeah, it's the original uncut version; it's being shown in two parts (with separate admission--those thieving bastards at the IFC Center). Aren't they showing Fanny and Alexander until December 16th, though? The IFC Center has such a hard-on for Bergman that it makes Film Forum's unwavering affinity for Godard look like a minor crush.

While in NYC, you need to see Let the Right One In. It's playing at the Angelika Film Center on Houston St.

[Sven]

My god. When did all my conversational instincts get set to "killjoy"?

I just want to figure out from where all this killjoyness is coming. I would think a man as interested in cartoons, anime, Asian extremeness, non-sequitur, and absurdist humor such as yourself would delight in such zaniness.

[Sycophant]

I just want to figure out from where all this killjoyness is coming. I would think a man as interested in cartoons, anime, Asian extremeness, non-sequitur, and absurdist humor such as yourself would delight in such zaniness.
That's a damned good quesiton.

I don't care as much for "cheese" as I do for "zaniness?"

Yeah, I find that unsatisfactory, too.

[Sven]

I don't care as much for "cheese" as I do for "zaniness?"

Yeah, I find that unsatisfactory, too.

Do you not think flying T-rexes eating WWI fighter planes is zany enough?

[Sycophant]

Do you not think flying T-rexes eating WWI fighter planes is zany enough?
My assumption is that it's a cynical cash-in on the "OMFG that's awesome!" factor that is unlikely to have artistic merit.

But I know nothing about it. I could be wrong. Maybe I'm the cynical one.

[Winston*]

My assumption is that it's a cynical cash-in on the "OMFG that's awesome!" factor that is unlikely to have artistic merit.


It's obviously that. That doesn't preclude that DVD cover from being awesome.

[Sven]

My assumption is that it's a cynical cash-in on the "OMFG that's awesome!" factor that is unlikely to have artistic merit.

I think perhaps we've hit on it. You = "awesome = artistic." No?

We're getting to the bottom of this, dammit!

[Sycophant]

I think perhaps we've hit on it. You = "awesome = artistic." No?

We're getting to the bottom of this, dammit!

Hmmm... perhaps, though that makes me sound irredeemibly stodgy. But I suppose when dealing with film, I do demand at least some artistic merit (or some kind of merit) beyond pure concept. While the fundamental idea of Airborne T-Rex vs. WWI Flying Ace is awesome, that cover looks joyless and I can't possibly hope to get excited about it.

[Watashi]

Hmmm... perhaps, though that makes me sound irredeemibly stodgy. But I suppose when dealing with film, I do demand at least some artistic merit (or some kind of merit) beyond pure concept. While the fundamental idea of Airborne T-Rex vs. WWI Flying Ace is awesome, that cover looks joyless and I can't possibly hope to get excited about it.

http://aycu29.webshots.com/image/47388/2003359404296060162_rs.jpg

[Ezee E]

While in NYC, you need to see Let the Right One In. It's playing at the Angelika Film Center on Houston St.

Oh yeah, there's your NYC movie meg. It's a definite meg movie, that you can see with your girlfriend and not necessarily want to slit your wrists to or have the quiet ride home afterward.

[Sven]

Hmmm... perhaps, though that makes me sound irredeemibly stodgy. But I suppose when dealing with film, I do demand at least some artistic merit (or some kind of merit) beyond pure concept. While the fundamental idea of Airborne T-Rex vs. WWI Flying Ace is awesome, that cover looks joyless and I can't possibly hope to get excited about it.

No doubt, I agree that the film is more than likely going to be balls. I don't know if you've made this connection or not, but I think that the awesomeness expressed by both meg and myself is limited ENTIRELY to the cover. The "awesomeness" does not extend to the product itself. Rather, it is divorced entirely from its subject and to be seen solely as what it is itself, which happens to be flying dinosaurs eating WWI planes. So as you can see, we're not actually "dealing with film" here. We're dealing with an image and, thus, a concept. Assuming that your requirement of merit beyond concept is relegated to film, I will remain confused if you remain insistent on the joylessness of the image.

But then you say that the cover LOOKS joyless, which means you have a problem with the aesthetics capturing the idea. No? Is it just the idea that it's advertising a probably lousy product that corrupts the cover's look?

[Sven]

That Mega Snake cover is terrible, though. Too transparently cheap.

[Watashi]

That Mega Snake cover is terrible, though. Too transparently cheap.
It's more about the title than the actual cover. Just keep repeating it to yourself and you'll find out why it's so awesome.

[Sven]

It's more about the title than the actual cover. Just keep repeating it to yourself and you'll find out why it's so awesome.

Okay, you win. I lolled.

[megladon8]

Yeah, it's the original uncut version; it's being shown in two parts (with separate admission--those thieving bastards at the IFC Center). Aren't they showing Fanny and Alexander until December 16th, though? The IFC Center has such a hard-on for Bergman that it makes Film Forum's unwavering affinity for Godard look like a minor crush.

Oh it's on 'til the 16th?

Well, I'll see. I might like to see Cries & Whispers instead, since it'd be a first viewing.

And isn't it, like, "Bergman Month" at the IFC Center right now? Is it that they have a hard-on for him, or do they alternate filmmaker spotlights frequently?



While in NYC, you need to see Let the Right One In. It's playing at the Angelika Film Center on Houston St.

Way ahead of you :) We're planning to go see it tomorrow.

[thefourthwall]

Asylum (Robinson, 1972) is a documentary about a project drawn from R.D. Laing’s psychiatric ideas that those with mental maladies (schizophrenia in specific, I think) are the fault of society. The film, apparently a cornerstone in cinéma vértié, takes place over a few weeks in the summer in one of Laing’s housing projects where patients and psychiatrists live together with equal freedom to come, go, and act. The idea being that a healing relationship cannot develop when one has a key to leave and the other does not, as in most mental hospitals. Interestingly, there were times when I was unsure who were patients and who were therapists. (Although, this might have something to do with the fact that the accents were thick and the sound recording sketchy.) All in all, a rather interesting film, that gave me some quick info on Laing and his ideas in a non-traditional way.

Conversations with Other Women (Canosa, 2005) was an interesting experience for me. I thought the cinematics were innovative and effective. The split screen and multiple versions of lines/scenes strangely created a more realistic effect for me even though in some ways, it is more constructed than the average film. This realism though made the subject matter especially difficult to watch, as I found the extreme isolation and loneliness of the characters to be rather nihilistic. The bleak picture of any sort of romantic relationship was thoroughly depressing. Aaron Eckhart’s line “Everyone expects me to behave badly” was heartbreaking because he is completely trapped in a forced persona that he seems unlikely to transcend. The film stayed with me for some time after I saw it, which is generally a mark of a good film, yet I found it so negative that I’m unsure if its lingering affect is valuable.

[Duncan]

Hey Nick are you living in NYC now?

[Watashi]

Thoughts on The Wrestler, Nick?

Very surprised by your rating.

[transmogrifier]

Thoughts on The Wrestler, Nick?

Very surprised by your rating.

NickGlass is people too.

[Qrazy]

Ever the reductionist. Didn't you say you watch film holistically?

On second thought, don't answer.

There's nothing reductionistic about those comments you amateur. I know that's your new favorite word but buy a dictionary. And if you don't want a response to a post to post it in the first place.

[Dead & Messed Up]

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/3188/warbirdsr1artworkpic1kc2.jpg


FUCKING AWESOME

Theft, I say...

http://iconicionic.files.wordpress.co m/2008/01/tyrannosaurus_in_f-14s.jpg

[Sven]

There's nothing reductionistic about those comments you amateur. I know that's your new favorite word but buy a dictionary. And if you don't want a response to a post to post it in the first place.

Paring an entire film down to one very brief scene as a justification = textbook reductionism

[Winston*]

Paring an entire film down to one very brief scene as a justification = textbook reductionism

He's right about it being a horrible date movie though.

[Qrazy]

Paring an entire film down to one very brief scene as a justification = textbook reductionism

:rolleyes:

Yeah your analysis of my post is certainly reductionistic. This conversation isn't even worth having, you're insufferable.

[Sven]

:rolleyes:

Yeah your analysis of my post is certainly reductionistic. This conversation isn't even worth having, you're insufferable.

What did I do wrong? You're the one who responded when I suggested you don't.

[Russ]

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/3188/warbirdsr1artworkpic1kc2.jpg


FUCKING AWESOME

My goodness, that's almost as awesomely bad as this:

http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd114/besh1/sharksinvenicer1artpic.jpg

[Qrazy]

What did I do wrong? You're the one who responded when I suggested you don't.

Alright I'll use that as a tactic from now on. Not that you deserve an explanation but what the hell. That scene was an example of a scene that I would prefer to see in a non-public arena (and without a girl) because of it's uncomfortable and emotionally draining nature. I said emotional pertinence be damned because it is a pertinent scene and my comments weren't meant as a comment on the movie itself. I just wouldn't want to witness the film (particularly for the first time) in that setting (that was the thrust of my post). You are entitled to disagree and feel that any film worth seeing is worth seeing in a theater but that doesn't make my comments reductionistic. I wouldn't particularly want to see Salo or Sweet Movie in a theater either.

[Sven]

Alright I'll use that as a tactic from now on. Not that you deserve an explanation but what the hell. That scene was an example of a scene that I would prefer to see in a non-public arena (and without a girl) because of it's uncomfortable and emotionally draining nature. I said emotional pertinence be damned because it is a pertinent scene and my comments weren't meant as a comment on the movie itself. I just wouldn't want to witness the film (particularly for the first time) in that setting (that was the thrust of my post). You are entitled to disagree and feel that any film worth seeing is worth seeing in a theater but that doesn't make my comments reductionistic. I wouldn't particularly want to see Salo or Sweet Movie in a theater either.

A beautiful post. Now I understand you. Though in the original post, you didn't mention the public setting as the consideration, you mentioned the size of the screen, which led me to believe that it was the image itself that made you uncomfortable. Fair. It's an uncomfortable image. I don't care about one's opinion one way or the other re: seeing it in a theater. But you were boiling your reasoning (hence my use of the word "justification") down to one image (your use of the phrase "that large a screen"). That, to me, is unavoidably reductionist. Your suggestion that he may want to give it a try anyway complicates that, but still.

I admit I was being a bit unfairly rude in my antagonistic terseness. My apologies.

[Qrazy]

A beautiful post. Now I understand you. Though in the original post, you didn't mention the public setting as the consideration, you mentioned the size of the screen, which led me to believe that it was the image itself that made you uncomfortable. Fair. It's an uncomfortable image. I don't care about one's opinion one way or the other re: seeing it in a theater. But you were boiling your reasoning (hence my use of the word "justification") down to one image (your use of the phrase "that large a screen"). That, to me, is unavoidably reductionist. Your suggestion that he may want to give it a try anyway complicates that, but still.

I admit I was being a bit unfairly rude in my antagonistic terseness. My apologies.

Fair, of course my penchant for brevity causes problems too... I suppose emotional import be damned and the not a date movie issues weren't encompassing enough to convey the public viewing concern I had on my mind. On the other hand although it's also uncomfortable I would like to see The Virgin Spring in the theater.

[Sycophant]

I actually lawled at the Sharks in Venice cover because of the gondolier guy.

[Sven]

I actually lawled at the Sharks in Venice cover because of the gondolier guy.

He's the best part.

[Qrazy]

I'm also quite fond of the shark teeth reflection on the water... a lot of thought clearly went into the construction of the poster.

[Rowland]

I hate that old technique used by cinematographers to mask daytime as night by applying a dark filter to the lens. It's so distracting, I'm almost always pulled out of a movie when it crops up. [/just watched Deliverance]

[Amnesiac]

I hate that old technique used by cinematographers to mask daytime as night by applying a dark filter to the lens. It's so distracting, I'm almost always pulled out of a movie when it crops up. [/just watched Deliverance]

Hm, interesting. I wouldn't mind looking at a screen-cap that illustrates this as I don't think I've ever noticed it before. And I don't own Deliverance.

[megladon8]

I'm also quite fond of the shark teeth reflection on the water... a lot of thought clearly went into the construction of the poster.


Yeah I wasn't being sarcastic when I posted it weeks ago...it's an awesome poster.

I have no doubt in my mind the movie is typically terrible STV crap, but that's a gorgeous DVD.

[D_Davis]

I prefer Ed Wood's day-for-night shooting technique. He would just shoot during the day and have the actors constantly remark about how dark it was.

[Sven]

I hate that old technique used by cinematographers to mask daytime as night by applying a dark filter to the lens. It's so distracting, I'm almost always pulled out of a movie when it crops up. [/just watched Deliverance]

I actually, no joking, kind of like that technique. You can see it in some of Hitchcock's color stuff (I'm thinking specifically of To Catch a Thief), as well as Bridge on the River Kwai. There's something dreamlike about it. Like it doesn't exist in day, or night, but on an indescribable edge.

[Russ]

I actually, no joking, kind of like that technique. You can see it in some of Hitchcock's color stuff (I'm thinking specifically of To Catch a Thief), as well as Bridge on the River Kwai. There's something dreamlike about it. Like it doesn't exist in day, or night, but on an indescribable edge.

That dreamlike quality is, not surprisingly, picked up on here:

Dan: I had a dream about this place.
Herb: Oh, boy.
Dan: See what I mean?
Herb: Okay, so you had a dream about this place. Tell me.
Dan: Well, it's the second one I've had, but they're both the same. They start out that I'm in here, but it's not day or night. It's kind of half-night, you know? But it looks just like this, except for the light. And
[shaking his head]
Dan: I'm scared like I can't tell you. Of all people, you're standing right over there, by that counter. You're in both dreams and you're scared. I get even more frightened when I see how afraid you are and then I realize what it is. There's a man... in back of this place. He's the one who's doing it. I can see him through the wall. I can see his face. I hope that I never see that face, ever, outside of a dream.

[MadMan]

I'd go with a rating of 2376. Simple.2375 sounds just about right.

Watching The Naked City(1948) right now. I've heard of it as being a documentary style film noir, which sounds cool to me.

[Bosco B Thug]

Hm, interesting. I wouldn't mind looking at a screen-cap that illustrates this as I don't think I've ever noticed it before. And I don't own Deliverance. Yeah I've never really been brought attention to it as well. The first time I found out they could even do such a thing was about two years ago watching the Making Of documentary of Hooper's Mortuary. I was like, "Whoa sweet!" then "That's kinda cheating." I don't like the idea of it, that's for sure. It fools me, though, apparently.

[MadMan]

The Naked City(1948) is really super cool, and a well made "realistic" type film noir/drama. There's tons of melodrama involved, but its really well made and crafted melodrama. I can see why Frank Miller choose this as part of his picks for Guest Programmer month.

[The Mike]

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/3188/warbirdsr1artworkpic1kc2.jpg


FUCKING AWESOME

That's the closest an image that didn't include a naked woman or the Green Bay Packers has ever come to giving me an actual boner. :eek:

YES! It is from Sci Fi Channel! And it stars Brian Krause, who played the cryptozoologist in Loch Ness Terror!

This is the best early Christmas present EVER!!!!!!!!!!

[B-side]

Watched The Searchers for the first time. Here's my review off RT (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showpost.php?p=14647091&postcount=386).

[Boner M]

w/e

The Young Girls of Rochefort
Platform
Gimme Shelter
Mary (Ferrara)
Slumdog Millionaire

And I might rewatch The Godfather; it's been a while.

[Watashi]

Weekend:

Milk
Frost/Nixon
Men with Guns
Deadwood Season 1 (which is fucking brilliant so far)

[Philosophe_rouge]

Weekend
Love in the Afternoon
La Collectionneuse
The Double Life of Veronique
Tobacco Road

[Winston*]

Weekend

The Wire Season 3

Movies are boring.

[Boner M]

Weekend

The Wire Season 3

Movies are boring.
I've just started Homicide myself; S1 was released on R4 last week (I noticed you were wondering about it in the Wire thread a while back).

[Yum-Yum]

Weekend:

Zero Annual Melissa Sagemiller Film Festival

Love Object (2003, USA)
Sorority Boys (2002, USA/Azerbaijan)
Soul Survivors (2001, USA)
Get Over It (2001, USA) - Q&A with Taylor Negron

[Grouchy]

I prefer Ed Wood's day-for-night shooting technique. He would just shoot during the day and have the actors constantly remark about how dark it was.
The same technique is used by Paul Naschy in the opening scene of Walpurgis Night. Me and the gang really need to get together and watch that one again until we burst our lungs laughing.

[Yxklyx]

Weekend:

Taxi Driver
Dangerous Liaisons
Seven Chances (maybe)

[Ezee E]

Weekend:
Havoc
Lost: Season 4
Shotgun Stories

Synecdoche, NY
Milk