MatchCut...I challenge YOU!

[megladon8]

Obviously we're all here because we like writing and talking about film. For all of us it's a passion in life - a medium we feel connected to, and the stories that are told on the big silver screens are somehow more resonant than others.

Since we're such a diverse group - we have posters from all over the USA and Canada, Europe and Asia - we all have different outlooks on stories, acting and filming techniques.

This thread is, at its core, a way for us to get really "deep" with our own personal tastes, and for us to learn from each other.

This thread is based on the fact that we all have different opinions and things that we see as strengths and weaknesses.

So, this is a place where each poster gets the chance to ask (or CHALLENGE) a poster to more deeply explain the reasons they have for loving a certain film that we, ourselves, may not particularly enjoy.

In the interest of order, we'll do it the same way as the "Top 5" thread and many others - the person who answers gets to ask the next question, so on and so forth.

I'm hoping this will turn into some fun discussion.

So I'll begin with my challenge...


Raiders - I challenge you to explain why you believe George A. Romero's Martin to be the best vampire-related film out there.

[Raiders]

Hm, alright.

When I think of Romero's film, I don't see a vampire film. I see a mythology being tested. I think of the almost romantic, parallel black-and-white "flashback" scenes where Martin reflects on the inherent idealism of the vampire mythos. It is ambiguous whether this is actual history or simply a fairytale, but in either case it reflects Romero's longing to force us to look at the vampire, that is a blood-sucking killer, in a light other than what we have seen before. We have the romantic visions of Dracula as well as the diseased visions of Morrissey and Ferrara. But, Romero plays it in a dilapidated city, the social obliviousness mirrored in Martin's own failure to see the dichotomy in himself. There is a scene with Martin carefully plotting and killing a woman aboard a train, and then meekly and unromantically splitting her vein open with a knife and cowering as he sadly, pathetically sucks on her arm. But, with the black-and-white scenes that connect to the present show Martin illusioned into the belief he is a classical vampire of lore.

Through all this though, the film's real villain is likely his elder cousin who villifies Martin and feeds into the illusionment. Through Cuda, this cousin, Romero links the town's simple-minded, religious dogmatism to Martin's inevitable fate and may indeed even be going further into the idea of religion and the illusioned mind. There is also the somewhat amusing though ultimately sad scenes of Martin being a late-night celebrity over the airwaves of the town's local radio station. He quizzically answers vampire questions, but Romero implies that he is just further feeding the needs to the town's lonely, lost souls.

I guess in the end, it leaves the greatest impression upon me. For all its craft, I get nothing particularly new out of Murnau's Nosferatu (not a criticism) and as expressive as Bigelow's Near Dark is, Romero's film is the one I always come back to. It operates outside and inside the conventions of the genre, using them to spawn a story that implicates those held beliefs and conventions guilty for Martin's own evil. And it also calls into question the idea of Van Helsing as the hero of the classic story, here turning Cuda into the source of Martin's illusionment as well as his antagonist.

Though films like Blood for Dracula and Herzog's Nosferatu display a vampire (Dracula) in a manner of sick, sad and depressed, the films themselves don't really feel mournful. Romero's does, and it is a very powerful film.


For me:

I challenge Spinal to tell me why he strongly disliked Bartel's Eating Raoul... at least to the best of his recollection.

[megladon8]

Wow, that's was a wonderful post, Raiders, really.

Having only seen the film once, I admit that much of what you have written wasn't apparent to me when I saw it, particularly the bigger picture of the town, which you speak of in relation to the radio interviews with Martin.

I definitely saw the play on the romantic archetype of the vampire, as well as a whole new take on what is so tragic and mournful with this particular monster, but I found this was communicated best (to my memory, at least) in Herzog's Nosferatu. It didn't have anything new to offer, as you mentioned, but I thought it perfected that almost melodramatic sense of longing that is even more inherent to the Dracula story than any "horror" elements.

You've made me want to rewatch Martin, and I think I will do that tonight.

[Spinal]

For me:

I challenge Spinal to tell me why he strongly disliked Bartel's Eating Raoul... at least to the best of his recollection.

It was a supposed comedy that was not funny. I can't remember a single redeeming quality about that film.

[Spinal]

So, this is a place where each poster gets the chance to ask (or CHALLENGE) a poster to more deeply explain the reasons they have for loving a certain film that we, ourselves, may not particularly enjoy.

You might get better results if you ask me about something I really like. :)

[Raiders]

Damn, sorry.

How 'bout Satyricon? I CHALLENGE you to tell me... or graciously request... to know how it can receive four stars.

[Spinal]

How 'bout Satyricon? I CHALLENGE you to tell me... or graciously request... to know how it can receive four stars.

Ah, much easier. Satyricon is a film that I not only enjoy but that is also a touchstone for defining what it is I like about art and how I think my taste differs somewhat from the norm. First of all, it is a great example of themes taking precedence over narrative. Because of the minimal plotting, the film feels like it can go anywhere it wants to, bounding around this bizarre world, peeking around corners and opening new doors. The film is held together by the basic idea that we are going to explore the decadence of Ancient Rome and beyond that the story is not terribly important.

Few films I've seen are so successful at immersing the viewer in a world that is detailed and specific, yet unlike anything we might see in reality. Fellini's ideas don't come through in words as much as they do in vivid images. I like films to explore extreme subject matter and do so with bold, aggressive design choices. Satyricon makes wonderful use of Technicolor with all those saturated greens and oranges, etc., not only in the costumes, but in the lighting. I hate it when films feel like they have to explain away something surreal as being merely a dream or a fantasy. Fellini brings his outlandish artistic vision to life with as much detail as James Cameron historically trying to recreate the Titanic. His artistic commentary and his visual expression are united.

I think of it as being in the same family as Un Chien Andalou, Eraserhead and Prospero's Books -- uncompromising distortions of reality communicated to the viewer through a visual assault on the senses.

OK, so I challenge Antoine to explain how an intelligent fellow like himself can love Braveheart.

[Mysterious Dude]

OK, so I challenge Antoine to explain how an intelligent fellow like himself can love Braveheart.
Wow! A challenge on the first page. I must be more popular than I thought!

I first saw the movie when I was probably twelve or thirteen years old. I had visited Scotland not too much earlier and I'm one-eighth Scottish myself, so I felt some kind of nationalistic devotion to the events of the film, or something. And it had pretty pictures and exciting battles. And my dad loved it.

The real problem here, I suspect, is that I haven't changed my Netflix rating since the last time I viewed the film. I have come to realize that the film is not really all that great, but I still like it a little bit.

My big issue with the film now is how cliched it is. The film relies on legends rather than history. I'm not a stickler for historical accuracy, but cliches are not a good reason to ignore history. Cliches aren't a terrible thing, but they certainly put the film at least a step down from greatness.

You yourself, Spinal, once pointed out that Mel Gibson has made homophobic comments in the past, and that is hard to ignore when you come to a scene where a homosexual character is killed. It puts the scene into a context that I hadn't thought about when I first viewed the film, and I can't defend it.

Part of what I still like about the film is the medieval setting. So much history seems to have been utterly forgotten by cinema, which tends to focus on just a few major events (such as World War II). I like to see films that authentically recreate an interesting setting. Incidentally, this affection extends to films such as Tristan + Isolde and King Arthur, so take that for what it is. Maybe they aren't that good, but I kind of like them anyway. Actually, that's kind of the same reason I like Apocalypto.

Braveheart's early focus on the life of commoners is something I particularly like. Any literature written before the 19th century was about aristocrats and kings, so commoners have been forgotten by history. Ultimately, the commoner of Braveheart achieves greatness through war, not an uncommon element of fiction, but a cliche which puts the film in the same camp as Tristan + Isolde. You'll be delighted to know that I think Culloden is way better, but I don't think historical commoners have really had their due in cinema yet.

I would now say that I like Braveheart about as much as I like Apocalypto. They're both very silly movies with elements worthy of contempt, but I still enjoyed them and feel affection for them overall. I don't think I can defend the film, or my Netflix rating of it, beyond that. It has been a while since the last time I viewed, and if I viewed it again, I might have a totally different view of it, since I have had a lot of time to think about war.

On a related note, I'm currently writing a screenplay set in medieval times which I have already described to people as the anti-Braveheart. Bad things happen, and no one gets revenge.

Now I have to think of a challenge. I'm not sure there's anything I care about. Maybe I should challenge all of you to watch The Ballad of Narayama. Someone think of a challenge for me.

[Russ]

For me:

I challenge Spinal to tell me why he strongly disliked Bartel's Eating Raoul... at least to the best of his recollection.
It was a supposed comedy that was not funny.
:sad:

I love that movie. Easily in my top ten comedies.


I can't remember a single redeeming quality about that film.

1. Hilarious, quotable dialogue.
2. Mary Woronov.
3. Doris the Dominatrix.
4. Spanish-language version of "Devil With a Blue Dress On" by Los Lobos
5. Scene-stealing turns by ex-Groundlings John Paragon, as the sex shop owner with attitude, and Edie McClurg as a swinger ("We're into B&D but not S&M. We met at the A&P.").
6. Ultra-low budget utilized brilliantly by Corman-protegé Bartel.
7. The natural chemistry between Bartel and Woronov - perhaps the film's greatest strength.
8. Pitch-black comedic elements juxtaposed perfectly against the sweetness and naivete of Paul and Mary.
9. Robert Beltran as smooth-talkin' Raoul.
10. Mary Woronov. In a cartoon mouse outfit.


http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/5296/resizedworonovmousess6.jpg


Spinal = :crazy:

[Spinal]

Spinal = :crazy:

You're the one who likes Beyond Therapy, right?

[Russ]

You're the one who likes Beyond Therapy, right?
Me AND Sven. I also like Raimi's Crimewave. What's your point? :)

[Dukefrukem]

So far, very entertaining reads. GOod work.

[Spinal]

Me AND Sven.

Sven is gone. You're on your own now.

I'll issue another challenge to keep this thread going. Eternity, please explain why Hamlet 2 is one of the year's five best films.

[Skitch]

This is a great idea.

[B-side]

Love this idea. Let's keep it going.

[Ivan Drago]

It'll take an eternity to get this going again.

[[ETM]]

Eternity, please explain why Hamlet 2 is one of the year's five best films.

That'll take an essay. Or a sentence.

[Mysterious Dude]

Okay, I challenge Ezee E to explain his love for Natural Born Killers.

[Ezee E]

Okay, I challenge Ezee E to explain his love for Natural Born Killers.
I'd say it's been four years since I've seen the movie, but I'll try and get it in a paragraph.

I love that Oliver Stone took a satirical approach with this instead of Quentin's intended, serious approach. The in-your-face and wild editing simply goes with the movie. That it's done so well certainly makes it fascinating to watch on an aesthetic level. It may have even more in common with today's obsession with celebrities than when it initially came out. For those that only hate it, I wonder if they've seen it twice, because it is pretty bizarre to see the first time. I may not have liked it the first time I saw it either, but I don't remember.

I should watch this again.

Hmm... Qrazy, why do you think Andrei Rublev is the best movie ever made, and what can you tell a person who simply found it a bore, how to look at it a second time?

[MadMan]

Good stuff so far.

[Philosophe_rouge]

This has been a fun read, good idea

[megladon8]

Natural Born Killers is one I saw once and hated.

So maybe I should give it another shot.

[Skitch]

Natural Born Killers is one I saw once and hated.

So maybe I should give it another shot.

I was the same...so I gave it a second shot, and I have to say man...I hated it even more the second time.

[Duncan]

I hate it when films feel like they have to explain away something surreal as being merely a dream or a fantasy. Fellini brings his outlandish artistic vision to life with as much detail as James Cameron historically trying to recreate the Titanic. His artistic commentary and his visual expression are united. I like this point. Love Satyricon. I guess I understand why people dislike it, but there are plenty of other similar films (like the ones you mentioned) that people seem to champion. I'm not really sure why people diverge there.

[megladon8]

Is Qrazy missing?


Well, I re-watched Martin but unfortunately didn't get any more out of it than I did the first time - that is to say, I noticed a few more things that kind of flew over my head the first time, but I didn't really enjoy it any more.

Romero's incredible love for John Amplas' performance is a little baffling, because I found his acting pretty terrible. I thought being "awkward" was a good idea for his character, but Amplas' awkwardness felt more like a lack of acting ability than an intentional character trait, so some scenes (such as his running away from Mrs. Santini after fixing her door - was almost laughable.

I do commend the film for having a wonderful tone throughout, though. Right from the beginning it's as if the film itself feels lonely and sad. It's very rare that films are able to take on this feeling of life, so that's certainly an achievement.

Also I think it's Romero's best screenplay by far. While I consider several of his films to be better "wholes", this particular part of the film was his strongest effort in that field. Mind you, I haven't seen Knightriders...but something tells me the script of that film is not its greatest strength.

So, on the whole, Martin is an interesting film that's brought down by various small problems that add up to large weaknesses.

[megladon8]

Qrazy seems to be gone, so we can come back to him.

Anyone else want to step up to the plate?

[Ezee E]

If Melville is around, I'd like to hear why he thinks The Godfather: Part I is merely okay.

[Melville]

If Melville is around, I'd like to hear why he thinks The Godfather: Part I is merely okay.
Are you thinking of somebody else (Boner recently gave it a good-but-not-great rating, I think)? It's one of my favorite movies. Michael Corleone's character arc is one of the greatest tragic downfalls in any story, and Pacino's performance is one of the greatest performances ever. The style of the visuals and music is also pure class.

[Boner M]

Are you thinking of somebody else (Boner recently gave it a good-but-not-great rating, I think)? It's one of my favorite movies. Michael Corleone's character arc is one of the greatest tragic downfalls in any story, and Pacino's performance is one of the greatest performances ever. The style of the visuals and music is also pure class.
If it was me, I should assure Russ that 79 is a pretty great rating, which means I agree with all the praise, while at the same finding that the lugubriousness of the whole affair leaves me slightly yearning for the hyperactivity of Goodfellas. Apologies to Russ since that is all I've got for now on this matter. Challenges, GTFO.

[Ezee E]

Are you thinking of somebody else (Boner recently gave it a good-but-not-great rating, I think)? It's one of my favorite movies. Michael Corleone's character arc is one of the greatest tragic downfalls in any story, and Pacino's performance is one of the greatest performances ever. The style of the visuals and music is also pure class.
I fail. I'm thinking of someone else. On the old site, this person gave it a 6 on Coppola's consensus. The only one to give it below a 8 I believe. I thought he started with a M.

[Boner M]

And I somehow confused E with Russ. Bizarro.

[Ezee E]

Well, I'll try and get things started again.

Wats, why the one star rating for Grave of the Fireflies? I know you've talked about it before, but please, once more.

[Qrazy]

If someone wants to field my challenge go for it. I'm pretty busy in RL these days so I only come on here 5-10 minutes at a time to get a quick fix. If I were to write out a justification for Rublev it would take me a much more significant length of time. If no one does I'll get to it eventually i.e. spring break or somesuch.

[B-side]

I'd also like to know why Wats gave Casino 1 star.

[megladon8]

Let's get this thread moving again.

[megladon8]

OK I'm giving up on Wats and moving on.


Raiders - I challenge you to explain your hate for The Matador, which I thought was one of the best comedies of the decade.

[megladon8]

Well, anyone else have any challenges?

I'd love to receive one :)

[Watashi]

Well, I'll try and get things started again.

Wats, why the one star rating for Grave of the Fireflies? I know you've talked about it before, but please, once more.

It's been years, but I remember it being complete manipulative trash. I don't know the specifics, but Takahata over-dramatized the events cheaply to gain sympathy for Seita. Every adult is caricatured as a self-centered monster, especially the aunt. I can't believe the aunt would simply toss out her nephew in those circumstances over his "behavior" with the rice. It was absolutely ridiculous.


I'd also like to know why Wats gave Casino 1 star.

It's Scorsese on auto-pilot, and even then, it feels like someone parodying him than the actual man himself. Every drowned out musical cue that was stuffed in was nauseating. The film offered nothing into Scorsese's repertoire that he had already stated in his previous crime/greed films. Pesci, an already one-note actor, is completely flat. Everything about it reeks of collage filmmaking. There is no flow or classic sense of rhythm.

[Rowland]

Casino has a few standout moments, but I agree that it simply doesn't work most of the time. De Niro and Stone endlessly bellowing at each other grows old quick as well.

[MadMan]

Well, anyone else have any challenges?

I'd love to receive one :)Same here. However, that may also be a result of me not posting enough reviews. Or thoughts.

[BuffaloWilder]

I challenge - neigh, I DEMAND - you all to list your favorite directors, and your favorite film from their oeuvre. Mine after the jump.


So say we all?

[transmogrifier]

Robert Altman - Short Cuts

[Dead & Messed Up]

George Romero's Dawn of the Dead, Martin Scorsese's Goodfellas, and Michael Curtiz's Casablanca.

[Dukefrukem]

George Romero's Dawn of the Dead, Martin Scorsese's Goodfellas, and Michael Curtiz's Casablanca.

You're insane, the cellar is the safest place!

George Romero's Night of the Living Dead
Martin Scorsese's the Departed
Alfred Hitchcock Rear Window

[Sycophant]

I challenge - neigh, I DEMAND - you all to list your favorite directors, and your favorite film from their oeuvre. Mine after the jump.

After the jump? What the hell are you on about?

Anyway, I probaby listed too many, but these are all favorite directors:

Takeshi Kitano: Fireworks
Charles Chaplin: The Great Dictator
Wes Anderson: The Royal Tenenbaums
Woody Allen: The Purple Rose of Cairo
Satoshi Kon: Millennium Actress
Joel & Ethan Coen: No Country for Old Men
Isao Takahata: Grave of the Fireflies
Shunji Iwai: Love Letter
Stephen Chow: God of Cookery
Preston Sturges: Sullivan's Travels
Kiyoshi Kurosawa: Doppelganger

[BuffaloWilder]

After the jump? What the hell are you on about?

After a few people have listed theirs, you see.

[ledfloyd]

Woody Allen: The Purple Rose of Cairo
Billy Wilder: The Apartment
Coen Brothers: The Big Lebowski

[Sven]

The Wild Blue Yonder - Werner Herzog
Nashville - Robert Altman
Mon Oncle - Jacques Tati (Playtime" is "better" not my "favorite" blah blah blah)
Takeshis - Takeshi Kitano
Sanjuro or Dreams - Akira Kurosawa
The Big Heat - Fritz Lang
Jamaica Inn or the original Man Who Knew Too Much - Alfred Hitchcock

[Sven]

Robocop - Paul Verhoeven

*blows own hand off for forgetting*

[baby doll]

I challenge - neigh, I DEMAND - you all to list your favorite directors, and your favorite film from their oeuvre. Mine after the jump.


So say we all?Robert Bresson: Au hasard Balthazar
Luis Buñuel: Cet obscur objet du désir
Rainer Werner Fassbinder: The Marriage of Maria Braun
Federico Fellini: 8 1/2
Jean-Luc Godard: Le Mépris
Peter Greenaway: A Zed and Two Noughts
Alfred Hitchcock: Rear Window
Fritz Lang: Metropolis
Kenji Mizoguchi: Life of Oharu
Nicholas Ray: Johnny Guitar

[Melville]

Tarkovsky - Andrei Rublev
Bergman - Persona

[Eleven]

Altman - McCabe & Mrs. Miller
Bunuel - Viridiana
Cronenberg - The Fly
Hawks - Scarface
Herzog - Stroszek
Hitchcock - Vertigo or The Wrong Man
Lang - Scarlet Street
Renoir - French Cancan

[StanleyK]

Paul Thomas Anderson - Magnolia
Ingmar Bergman - Persona
Coen brothers - No Country for Old Men
Stanley Kubrick - 2001: A Space Odyssey (probably my favorite)
Sergio Leone - Once Upon a Time in America
Terrence Malick - The New World
Steven Spielberg - Schindler's List

[megladon8]

Ingmar Bergman - Fanny & Alexander
Michael Mann - Heat
George Cukor - Holiday
Werner Herzog - Nosferatu: Phantom der Nacht
Sergio Leone - For a Few Dollars More
Hayao Miyazaki - Princess Mononoke
Terry Gilliam - Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
Akira Kurosawa - Ran
David Cronenberg - Dead Ringers
Christopher Nolan - The Prestige

[BuffaloWilder]

Sergio Leone - The Good, the Bad, and The Ugly
George Miller - Happy Feet
Alfonso Cauron - Children of Men
Joel + Ethan Coen - The Big Lebowski
Alejandro Jodorowsky - El Topo
Stanley Kubrick - The Shining
Terry Gilliam - Fear and Loathing In Las Vegas
P.T. Anderson - There Will Be Blood
Tarsem - The Fall
Peter Weir - Fearless
Christopher Nolan - The Dark Knight
Martin Rosen - The Plague Dogs
Michael Mann - Heat or Manhunter

[Dead & Messed Up]

George Romero's Dawn of the Dead, Martin Scorsese's Goodfellas, and Michael Curtiz's Casablanca.

Also, Lumet's Twelve Angry Men, Fincher's Seven, and Capra's Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

[D_Davis]

Tsui Hark - The Blade
Sergio Leone - Once Upon a Time in the West
Chang Cheh - The Boxer From Shantung
Lau Kar Leung - The 36th Chamber of Shaolin
Tarantino - Pulp Fiction
David Lynch - Mulholland Dr.

[Eleven]

Wouldn't listing your least favorite film from your favorite directors and why be more interesting?

[Skitch]

Fincher - Seven
Rodriguez - From Dusk Till Dawn
Kurasawa - Seven Samurai
Otomo - Akira
Scott - Bladerunner
Cameron - Aliens, The Abyss

[soitgoes...]

Ingmar Bergman - Winter Light
Yasujiro Ozu - Tokyo Story
Akira Kurosawa - Ikiru
Alfred Hitchcock- Notorious
Woody Allen - Annie Hall

[Sycophant]

Wouldn't listing your least favorite film from your favorite directors and why be more interesting?

Is this something you want us to do or is it just idle pondering? Because I ain't doing it unless I am challenged or defied or something.

[BuffaloWilder]

Wouldn't listing your least favorite film from your favorite directors and why be more interesting?

I agree.

George Miller - Probably The Witches of Eastwick.

[Eleven]

Is this something you want us to do or is it just idle pondering? Because I ain't doing it unless I am challenged or defied or something.

INSIST!

That goes for all of you.

[Fezzik]

Alfred Hitchcock - Rear Window
Steven Spielberg - Schindler's List
Joel/Ethan Coen - No Country for Old Men
Brad Bird - The Iron Giant
Alfonso Cuaron - A Little Princess
Peter Weir - The Truman Show
Frank Capra - It's a Wonderful Life
Ed Zwick - Glory
Clint Eastwood - A Perfect World

[Fezzik]

Is this something you want us to do or is it just idle pondering? Because I ain't doing it unless I am challenged or defied or something.

I defy you! :p Do eet!

My list:

Alfred Hitchcock - The Birds
Steven Spielberg - Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Joel/Ethan Coen - The Ladykillers
Brad Bird - The Incredibles (Damn, that was hard)
Alfonso Cuaron - Great Expectations
Peter Weir - Mosquito Coast
Frank Capra - Riding High
Ed Zwick - The Siege
Clint Eastwood - The Rookie

[Eleven]

Peter Weir - Mosquito Coast


:cry: Green Card? Dead Poets? But yeah, he's pretty consistently good.

[Raiders]

Sam Fuller - Shock Corridor

[soitgoes...]

Ingmar Bergman - High Tension
Yasujiro Ozu - A Story of Floating Weeds
Akira Kurosawa - Sanshiro Sugata II
Alfred Hitchcock - Murder!
Woody Allen - Bananas

[megladon8]

Wouldn't listing your least favorite film from your favorite directors and why be more interesting?


Ingmar Bergman - Smiles of a Summer Night
Michael Mann - Thief
George Cukor - My Fair Lady
Werner Herzog - Rescue Dawn
Sergio Leone - A Fistful of Dollars
Hayao Miyazaki - Howl's Moving Castle
Terry Gilliam - The Brothers Grimm
Akira Kurosawa - Yojimbo
David Cronenberg - The Brood
Christopher Nolan - Insomnia

[EyesWideOpen]

Stanley Kubrick - Barry Lyndon
Takashi Miike - Andromedia
Satoshi Kon - Paprika
Hayao Miyazaki - The Castle of Cagliostro

[Grouchy]

Favorite / Least favorite

Hitchcock - Vertigo / Torn Curtain
Leone - Once Upon a Time in the West / A Fistful of Dollars (hard)
Kubrick - Eyes Wide Shut / Spartacus (easy)
Polanski - Chinatown / Oliver Twist
Scorsese - Raging Bull / The Departed
Fellini - 8 1/2 / I Vitelloni
Kurosawa - Ran / Rhapsody in August
Coen Brothers - The Big Lebowski / The Ladykillers
Lynch - Mulholland Dr. / The Amputee
Peckinpah - The Ballad of Cable Hogue / The Killer Elite
Miike - Ichi the Killer / Agitator

[Ezee E]

Everyone knows mine.

How about we change it up again.

What would your dream project be? This can be directed by anyone and star anyone, etc.

You could also make up your dream project that's realistic if so desired.

[Qrazy]

Woody Allen - Bananas

Unacceptable.

[soitgoes...]

Unacceptable.I figured this would rub someone the wrong way. It would either be Bananas or What's Up, Tiger Lily?, and I thought I'd give it to Bananas, since he didn't really direct anything in the latter. I just don't find early Allen to be all that funny.

[Qrazy]

I figured this would rub someone the wrong way. It would either be Bananas or What's Up, Tiger Lily?, and I thought I'd give it to Bananas, since he didn't really direct anything in the latter. I just don't find early Allen to be all that funny.

Bah. Physical comedy FTW.

[BuffaloWilder]

Everyone knows mine.

How about we change it up again.

What would your dream project be? This can be directed by anyone and star anyone, etc.

Alfonso Cauron directs "V For Vendetta," with a script penned by (out of nowhere!) Alan Moore. Hugo Weaving returns as V.


You could also make up your dream project that's realistic if so desired.

If ever fate were to realign in my favor - it's an idea that I've been trying to put down into a finished screenplay for almost two years now, but I can never seem to get it into a form I'm content with. It's a little hard to describe, as a story - and, there's a lot of inspiration taken from Alan Moore's V.

[Sven]

I think my dream project is, now, a buddy comedy about two lingerie salesmen played by Jason Statham and Michael Cera.

[Pop Trash]

Favorite / Least favorite

Hitchcock: Psycho/The Wrong Man
Kubrick: 2001/Lolita
Tarantino: Pulp Fiction/Death Proof*
Scorsese: Taxi Driver/Gangs of NY*
Spielberg: Schindler's List/Hook

*but I still like Death Proof and Gangs of NY. Scorsese's would actually be Shine a Light but thought it would be cheating to put a concert doc there.

[Sycophant]

I think my dream project is, now, a buddy comedy about two lingerie salesmen played by Jason Statham and Michael Cera.

Word the fuck up.

[baby doll]

Lang - Scarlet StreetOkay, you're going to have to explain this.

[Sycophant]

Least faves from my faves.

Takeshi Kitano: Brother
Charles Chaplin: A Woman of Paris
Wes Anderson: The Life Aquatic (but I still love it)
Woody Allen: Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Sex...
Satoshi Kon: Perfect Blue
Joel & Ethan Coen: Raising Arizona
Isao Takahata: Pom Poko
Shunji Iwai: Hana & Alice
Stephen Chow: From Beijing with Love
Preston Sturges: The Great Moment
Kiyoshi Kurosawa: Retribution

Most of those are at least alright films.

[baby doll]

Robert Bresson: Au hasard Balthazar
Luis Buñuel: Cet obscur objet du désir
Rainer Werner Fassbinder: The Marriage of Maria Braun
Federico Fellini: 8 1/2
Jean-Luc Godard: Le Mépris
Peter Greenaway: A Zed and Two Noughts
Alfred Hitchcock: Rear Window
Fritz Lang: Metropolis
Kenji Mizoguchi: Life of Oharu
Nicholas Ray: Johnny GuitarLeast favorites...

Robert Bresson: Les Dames du Bois de Boulonge ("Hold on to life!" Actually, this is a two-for-one, since Cocteau wrote it).
Luis Buñuel: Haven't yet seen one I didn't like, but I would say that L'Age d'or, The Criminal Life of Archibaldo de la Cruz, The Milky Way, and Tristana are relatively minor works.
Federico Fellini: Either I, vitelloni or Ginger and Fred.
Jean-Luc Godard: Une femme est une femme.
Peter Greenaway: Nightwatching (I'm almost tempted to watch it again, because it can't possibly be as bad as I thought it was).
Alfred Hitchcock: Saboteur, followed by The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956). The people saying The Wrong Man are nuts and need to explain themselves.
Fritz Lang: Since I haven't watched A Woman on the Moon all the way through, I'd have to say either Scarlet Street or Human Desire.
Kenji Mizoguchi: A Geisha struck me as being a relatively minor work, but I'll have to give it a second look.
Nicholas Ray: They Live By Night.

[megladon8]

I think my dream project is, now, a buddy comedy about two lingerie salesmen played by Jason Statham and Michael Cera.


Well, they are making Avon Man, about Hugh Jackman and a couple of buddies selling make-up.

[Sycophant]

Well, they are making Avon Man, about Hugh Jackman and a couple of buddies selling make-up.

Just not the same thing.

[megladon8]

Everyone knows mine.

How about we change it up again.

What would your dream project be? This can be directed by anyone and star anyone, etc.

You could also make up your dream project that's realistic if so desired.



I always wanted to see a Bond movie directed by Alfred Hitchcock, with Cary Grant as Bond.

[Sycophant]

Just not the same thing.

(Details (http://match-cut.org/showthread.php?p=184430#post18 4430))

[baby doll]

I always wanted to see a Bond movie directed by Alfred Hitchcock, with Cary Grant as Bond.Yeah, I don't think it matters who directs the James Bond films. When I heard Alfonso Cuarón was making a Harry Potter film, I thought he might bring a fresh perspective to the series, but nope--it's just like all the others.

[megladon8]

Yeah, I don't think it matters who directs the James Bond films. When I heard Alfonso Cuarón was making a Harry Potter film, I thought he might bring a fresh perspective to the series, but nope--it's just like all the others.


bs

[Ezee E]

Now, who would direct Statham and Cera?

John Waters?
Todd Phillips?
Antoine Fuqua?

[Sycophant]

Now, who would direct Statham and Cera?

John Waters?
Todd Phillips?
Antoine Fuqua?

I wouldn't mind seeing David Gordon Green go at it, if he's got another mainstream comedy in him.

[Winston*]

Now, who would direct Statham and Cera?

John Waters?
Todd Phillips?
Antoine Fuqua?

Herzog

[Sycophant]

Maybe Edgar Wright.

[Sycophant]

Dream project?

A Woody Allen film with Larry David playing the lead/Woody-ish character.

Nevermind.

[Qrazy]

Yeah, I don't think it matters who directs the James Bond films. When I heard Alfonso Cuarón was making a Harry Potter film, I thought he might bring a fresh perspective to the series, but nope--it's just like all the others.

Do any of the others have an awful 400 Blows/Fat City/70s film-esque freeze frame at the end??? I didn't think so.

(I like the film)

[Eleven]

Okay, you're going to have to explain this.

There are a half dozen other of his hovering around #1 (Die Nibelungen, M, Metropolis, Testament of Dr. Mabuse, The Big Heat, You Only Live Once), but I suppose I did pick the most controversial of those. I'm generally a fan of noirs in general for their stylistic and thematic power, and those never meshed more perfectly than for Lang. Scarlet Street is, moreso than his others, a compellingly ugly story of ugly people, especially the devilish Dan Duryea. The full misanthropy of the plot, only hinted at in the original Renoir film, comes to blossom in the concluding scene, where guilt perverts the imagination. The most acidic elements of the Langian worldview, of people caught in traps of their own design, are unleavened by the pat endings of some of his other thrillers. I like my Lang straight-up dark. The obvious flip side of Woman in the Window, here Robinson can never wake up from his nightmare. Some of this is what I similarly appreciate in Hitchcock's The Wrong Man.

[baby doll]

bsHow so? With these big franchise films, there's not a lot of room for artistic experimentation. They get a formula and they run it into the ground. And then after thirty-odd James Bond movies, they decided to "reboot" the franchise with Casino Royale. And what did they change? Not a hell of a lot. What could a director like Hitchcock do with the series? Maybe he'd bring a little more style to it than the sort of journeyman directors that normally direct these films, but so what?

[Qrazy]

How so? With these big franchise films, there's not a lot of room for artistic experimentation. They get a formula and they run it into the ground. And then after thirty-odd James Bond movies, they decided to "reboot" the franchise with Casino Royale. And what did they change? Not a hell of a lot. What could a director like Hitchcock do with the series? Maybe he'd bring a little more style to it than the sort of journeyman directors that normally direct these films, but so what?

Don't ever watch Tora-san or Zatoichi FYI.

[Sycophant]

I would disagree emphatically that Cuaron didn't make a difference to HP3. His film felt far more alive than Columbus's two lead boxes. Admittedly, it didn't break out of the "formula," but it was the little touches and small moments that made the film, well, bearable.

[megladon8]

I'm not going to deny that a good chunk of the Bond films are cookie-cutter blandness, but to disregard the entire series (including the 3-5 films that are truly exemplary) seems a little ignorant to me.

These 3-5 films have not only represented the pinnacle of western action filmmaking at their respective times, but they (and in fact most of the series) are apt cultural reflections - everything from clothing styles to the predominant decor of the period, the technology, and even the ideas that were considered taboo or ground-breaking at the time.

[lovejuice]

How so? With these big franchise films, there's not a lot of room for artistic experimentation. They get a formula and they run it into the ground. And then after thirty-odd James Bond movies, they decided to "reboot" the franchise with Casino Royale. And what did they change? Not a hell of a lot. What could a director like Hitchcock do with the series? Maybe he'd bring a little more style to it than the sort of journeyman directors that normally direct these films, but so what?

*begging meg pardon in advance.*

i did read thunderball, and yeah, have to agree with baby doll. the only way to really improve the franchise is to not make it into a bond film. i think, a touch of jack ryan or jason bourne might be interesting.

[Eleven]

Sort of like those 60s portmanteau films of European directors doing Poe stories or the seven deadly sins, I'd enlist major directors to do installments of a big-budget franchise. Boorman and Tony Scott and Johnnie To would have directed Bond flicks by now.

[Skitch]

Favorite directors, least favorite movie.

NOTE: Does not mean I hate the movie.

Fincher - Zodiac
Rodriguez - Spy Kids 3-D NOTE: Have not seen Sharkboy & Lavagirl
Kurasawa - *sorry, nothing*
Scott - Black Hawk Down?
Cameron - Titanic?

[baby doll]

There are a half dozen other of his hovering around #1 (Die Nibelungen, M, Metropolis, Testament of Dr. Mabuse, The Big Heat, You Only Live Once), but I suppose I did pick the most controversial of those. I'm generally a fan of noirs in general for their stylistic and thematic power, and those never meshed more perfectly than for Lang. Scarlet Street is, moreso than his others, a compellingly ugly story of ugly people, especially the devilish Dan Duryea. The full misanthropy of the plot, only hinted at in the original Renoir film, comes to blossom in the concluding scene, where guilt perverts the imagination. The most acidic elements of the Langian worldview, of people caught in traps of their own design, are unleavened by the pat endings of some of his other thrillers. I like my Lang straight-up dark. The obvious flip side of Woman in the Window, here Robinson can never wake up from his nightmare. Some of this is what I similarly appreciate in Hitchcock's The Wrong Man.Well, first of all, I think the Edward G. Robinson character is pretty sympathetic up until he murders the chick. And even after that, he's torn up with guilt, so I don't know how misanthropic it is.

But with regards to this being Lang's best work, I prefer the epics he made with Thea von Harbou in Germany (Die Nibelungen, Metropolis, Spies, M, and The Tiger of Eschnapur and The Indian Tomb) to his less ambitious American features. I'm kind of amazed that you put You Only Live Once along side Die Nibelungen, Metropolis, and M, because it's such a silly film. Metropolis is silly too, but there's a difference between grand kitsch and a hokey lovers-on-the-run yarn with dialogue like, "They've made a priest killer out of me!" You and Me, the film he made right after, is similar in a lot of ways, but it's a lot weirder and features a more interesting performance by Sylvia Sidney. My favorite of Lang's American films are Hangmen Also Die!, Rancho Notorious (another mannerist oddity), The Big Heat, and Moonfleet (his only film in 'Scope, and the closest he came to making a von Harbou film without von Harbou), but like Dr. Mabuse, the Gambler and The Testament of Dr. Mabuse, these are all second-tier efforts. You and Me is third-tier, which makes You Only Live Once fourth tier, and Scarlet Street fifth-tier.

[baby doll]

I would disagree emphatically that Cuaron didn't make a difference to HP3. His film felt far more alive than Columbus's two lead boxes. Admittedly, it didn't break out of the "formula," but it was the little touches and small moments that made the film, well, bearable.That sounds a lot like doodling in the margins ("the little touches and small moments").

[MacGuffin]

baby doll, you sound so sure of yourself in that second to last post. Just sayin'.

[Sycophant]

That sounds a lot like doodling in the margins ("the little touches and small moments").

Well, it isn't, regardless of what it sounds like to you.

In truth, I didn't even like the film all that much. But it was an improvement over its predecessors, largely because of a touch I'm assuming is evidence of Cuaron's contribution to the picture.

[baby doll]

I'm not going to deny that a good chunk of the Bond films are cookie-cutter blandness, but to disregard the entire series (including the 3-5 films that are truly exemplary) seems a little ignorant to me.

These 3-5 films have not only represented the pinnacle of western action filmmaking at their respective times, but they (and in fact most of the series) are apt cultural reflections - everything from clothing styles to the predominant decor of the period, the technology, and even the ideas that were considered taboo or ground-breaking at the time.Even without knowing which three to five films you're talking about, I highly doubt they could be said to represent the pinnacle of western action filmmaking. None of the films I've seen have exactly been on par with Rio Bravo, or even El Dorado. By the way, that's a hell of a qualifier: western action, as opposed to plain ol' world cinema.

Also, a lot of movies are apt cultural reflections. That doesn't make them good. Top Gun might be the ultimate Regan-era movie, but it's still a bad movie.

[trotchky]

Favorite directors, least favorite movie.

Stanley Kubrick - Lolita
Paul Thomas Anderson - Hard Eight
Wes Anderson - The Darjeeling Limited
Michael Haneke - 71 Fragments of a Chronology of Chance
Gregg Araki - Nowhere
Woody Allen - Hollywood Ending
Todd Haynes - Far From Heaven
Wong Kar Wai - My Blueberry Nights
Gus Van Sant - Goodwill Hunting
David Fincher - The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
David Lynch - Wild at Heart
Pedro Almodovar - Volver
Richard Linklater - Fast Food Nation
Robert Altman - A Prairie Home Companion

[Qrazy]

Even without knowing which three to five films you're talking about, I highly doubt they could be said to represent the pinnacle of western action filmmaking. None of the films I've seen have exactly been on par with Rio Bravo, or even El Dorado. By the way, that's a hell of a qualifier: western action, as opposed to plain ol' world cinema.

Also, a lot of movies are apt cultural reflections. That doesn't make them good. Top Gun might be the ultimate Regan-era movie, but it's still a bad movie.

Those are two of my least favorite Hawks films right there.

[Sycophant]

That sounds a lot like doodling in the margins ("the little touches and small moments").

Actually, as I think about it, this is kind of ridiculous. It's not like doodling in the margins. It's more like picking the right adjectives and verbs to express nuance.

[baby doll]

Well, it isn't, regardless of what it sounds like to you.

In truth, I didn't even like the film all that much. But it was an improvement over its predecessors, largely because of a touch I'm assuming is evidence of Cuaron's contribution to the picture.Okay, so you didn't like it that much, but it was a marginal improvement on the first two (both instantly forgettable), so all the credit for that goes to Cuarón because he's done better work in the past (A Little Princess, Great Expectations, Y tu mamá también)? Maybe Manny Farber had a point when he said the Auteur Theory was, "A bunch of guys standing around trying to catch someone shoving art up into the crevices of dreck."

[baby doll]

Actually, as I think about it, this is kind of ridiculous. It's not like doodling in the margins. It's more like picking the right adjectives and verbs to express nuance.That's a pretty vague analogy.

[Sycophant]

Never mind. I'm reinstating my "not talking to baby doll" policy.

[megladon8]

Even without knowing which three to five films you're talking about, I highly doubt they could be said to represent the pinnacle of western action filmmaking. None of the films I've seen have exactly been on par with Rio Bravo, or even El Dorado. By the way, that's a hell of a qualifier: western action, as opposed to plain ol' world cinema.

Also, a lot of movies are apt cultural reflections. That doesn't make them good. Top Gun might be the ultimate Regan-era movie, but it's still a bad movie.


I meant "western action" as in, western part of the world, not western films. There are enough differences between eastern and western philosophy with regards to action cinema that it's worthwhile noting the difference.

[trotchky]

That's a pretty vague analogy.

No less vague than "doodling in the margins."

[baby doll]

I meant "western action" as in, western part of the world, not western films. There are enough differences between eastern and western philosophy with regards to action cinema that it's worthwhile noting the difference.That's what I meant, as well. I just happen to like Rio Bravo a lot--enough to consider it a pinnacle of western action filmmaking. Hell, I'll really throw down the gauntlet and say that it's at the pinnacle of world filmmaking for any period.

[megladon8]

That's what I meant, as well. I just happen to like Rio Bravo a lot--enough to consider it a pinnacle of western action filmmaking. Hell, I'll really throw down the gauntlet and say that it's at the pinnacle of world filmmaking for any period.


I haven't seen it in so long. I really should rewatch it.

I watched it back-to-back with The Searchers about 3 years ago. I rated them like this at the time:

The Searchers - 10
Rio Bravo - 8.5


But really, I think From Russia With Love is one of the defining films of the '60s. I have no problem ranking it among films like Le Samourai, 2001 and Black Sunday.

[baby doll]

No less vague than "doodling in the margins."It's a little vague, but come on, if ninety-percent of Cuarón's Harry Potter film is exactly like the other films in the series, except for a couple of small moments, that's doodling in the margins. However, what Syco seems to be saying now, before he went Bill O'Reilly and cut off my mic, is that Cuarón's touch can magically redeem the lousy material he's been given to work with, even though there's nothing to distinguish his camera placement, mise en scène, or direction of actors from Columbus' in the first two films.

[baby doll]

I haven't seen it in so long. I really should rewatch it.

I watched it back-to-back with The Searchers about 3 years ago. I rated them like this at the time:

The Searchers - 10
Rio Bravo - 8.5


But really, I think From Russia With Love is one of the defining films of the '60s. I have no problem ranking it among films like Le Samourai, 2001 and Black Sunday.Well, I haven't seen From Russia With Love, so I'll have to take your word for it.

[Qrazy]

It's a little vague, but come on, if ninety-percent of Cuarón's Harry Potter film is exactly like the other films in the series, except for a couple of small moments, that's doodling in the margins. However, what Syco seems to be saying now, before he went Bill O'Reilly and cut off my mic, is that Cuarón's touch can magically redeem the lousy material he's been given to work with, even though there's nothing to distinguish his camera placement, mise en scène, or direction of actors from Columbus' in the first two films.

I believe he's saying precisely that while the formula (it's based on a book) remains the same, there is something to distinguish the above. There are a number of sequences in Cuaron's film that are unlike anything in the other films (the bus for instance) and the overall style of editing varies widely as well (cuts to the tree throughout the film to simulate the changing seasons but also to foreshadow the tree's significance).

[baby doll]

I believe he's saying precisely that while the formula (it's based on a book) remains the same, there is something to distinguish the above. There are a number of sequences in Cuaron's film that are unlike anything in the other films (the bus for instance) and the overall style of editing varies widely as well (cuts to the tree throughout the film to simulate the changing seasons but also to foreshadow the tree's significance).I'm just impressed that you can remember a sequence with a bus, the tree, and its significance in the plot. I don't remember any of that.

[Qrazy]

I'm just impressed that you can remember a sequence with a bus, the tree, and its significance in the plot. I don't remember any of that.

As long as I'm not drunk when I watch a film (see: Mad Detective) I tend to have a fairly solid memory for miscellaneous details.

[BuffaloWilder]

Match-Cut, I challenge you...to write something for my site.

Oh, yes. I went there.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I'm just impressed that you can remember a sequence with a bus, the tree, and its significance in the plot. I don't remember any of that.

I would also confess admiration for Cuaron's CGI-aided camera sweeps that go through the gears of the enormous clock, literally traveling through time. It's not a hugely recurring motif, but it's a damn clever way of utilizing CGI camerawork.

[baby doll]

I would also confess admiration for Cuaron's CGI-aided camera sweeps that go through the gears of the enormous clock, literally traveling through time. It's not a hugely recurring motif, but it's a damn clever way of utilizing CGI camerawork.I don't remember that, either. Maybe I have premature Alzheimer's.

[MadMan]

I actually have noted my favorite directors and my favorite movies of theirs, but I was actually saving that for a future thread. That I'll probably never make....


....where the hell is the shifty eyed smily when I need it?