In this thread, I will watch at least one movie every day.

[StanleyK]

Maybe no one else will read this thread, but I'll still go through with it. It's nice to keep a log, and maybe actually writing a short paragraph about every movie I see will help me improve as a writer, or at least understand why I feel about some films the way I do.

Catching up with yesterday:

01/01/2010 - Fracture (Gregory Hoblit, 2007)

http://www.wildaboutmovies.com/images_3/FractureMoviePoster325.jpg

A decent thriller about a dude who kills his wife and then goes on to beat the legal system just until the end. Gosling is awful, but Hopkins is great so they even each other out. It's not particularly well-made or substantial (it's just fine in both areas), but it's entertaining enough. The ultimate message is that no matter how elaborate your scheme is, there's always a chance you'll slip up and get caught- not a very rich one, but you can do worse than 'crime doesn't pay'.

**½ or 5.5

[StanleyK]

02/01/2010 - Star Trek: Generations (David Carson, 1994)

http://olivier.quenechdu.free.fr/spip/IMG/jpg/Star_Trek_Generations.jpg

About on par with the rest of the series; good production values, mediocre acting, lame humor, standard sci-fi pseudo-philosophical musings. This time it's about how mortality is a-ok because it makes the good moments in our lives unique and impossible to repeat; time is not an enemy, but rather an alley. Pretty neat stuff, too bad the movie itself sucks; the characters aren't particularly likeable, the pacing is pretty boring, and the action is generic.

** or 4.5

[StanleyK]

Apart from the new film of the day (pretty much the only routine I dutifully respect), I can have as many short films and rewatches as I want. There were none yesterday, but today there were 2.

On the side:

Boogie Nights (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2007)

One of my favorite movies. This deserves an analysis, which I will get to when I make a top 100 (never).

**** or 10

Venus (Roger Michell, 2006)

A creepy old man falls for a bitchy teenager, and hijinks ensue! This is pretty awful stuff; it comes off as really creepy where it tries to be endearing, I hated all the characters, and it's really dull to boot. Props for Peter O'Toole, Jodie Whittaker, and the cinematography; everything else is terrible.

*½ or 3.0

[Mysterious Dude]

Do try to get outside a little, as well.

[StanleyK]

Do try to get outside a little, as well.

I've heard of this 'outside' place, but it's too bright and scary for me to venture to.

Besides, come february a new semester starts, so I'm trying to get as many films as I can on the side until then.

[Qrazy]

I'd say you'd have better luck watching 365 movies this year rather than one movie a day. It's easier to do 2 or 3 some days and none other days. Life intrudes.

[Derek]

How do you watch movies inside a forum thread? Is there some sort of technological advancement I'm missing out on?

[Raiders]

How do you watch movies inside a forum thread? Is there some sort of technological advancement I'm missing out on?

Yes. Sorry. I was hoping you wouldn't find out.

[soitgoes...]

How do you watch movies inside a forum thread? Is there some sort of technological advancement I'm missing out on?

If you scroll down real fast like, all the avatars form a sort of experimental short film.

[soitgoes...]

I'd say you'd have better luck watching 365 movies this year rather than one movie a day. It's easier to do 2 or 3 some days and none other days. Life intrudes.
Ditto to this. Watching 365 films a year isn't too big of a deal for me at least. Making sure I watch something every day is something I can never do.

Still, best of luck StanleyK! And Qrazy, start posting some films in the race thread.

[StanleyK]

Still, best of luck StanleyK!

Thanks; and yeah, I know I can't keep doing this forever, but it's not a new year's resolution thing, I just want to know how long I can keep it up. I've started 08/03/2008 and still haven't had interruptions.

[StanleyK]

03/01/2010 - We Own the Night (James Gray, 2007)

http://www.moviepulp.be/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/we-own-the-night-cover.jpg

I was initially put off by the generic cop movie poster, but after watching Gray's masterpiece Two Lovers I decided to give it a shot, and I'm glad I did. We Own the Night is not a generic cop movie, but rather an exploration of familiar ties and the lengths to which one would go to protect his loved ones. The cast is fantastic, but Phoenix in particular shines. Gray's subtle and understated style (but not the kind that looks like any director could've done it) suits the story, and although it gets a bit melodramatic and dull at times, it's a gripping thriller with believable characters, whose relationships provide a strong backbone for its theme of family.

***½ or 8.0

On the side:

The Silence (Ingmar Bergman, 1963)

A very apt name for this film, in which the characters, stranded in a foreign country, spend most of their times silent. A film about inadequacy, when viewed in the context of its trilogy The Silence acquires a different connotation: God was challenged in Through a Glass Darkly, then he was cast out in Winter Light, and this last installment is about the people trying to cope with an uncaring, perhaps nonexistant deity. A departure in style for Bergman, this film is largely absent of his usual long monologues; instead, its narrative is carried out by its visuals. Although it drags in quite a few places, The Silence remains a striking film, and a nice appetizer for the masterful insanity of Persona.

***½ or 8.5

Un Chien Andalou (Luis Buñuel, 1929)

I used to not 'get' Un Chien Andalou, but now I think I understand both its popularity and my lukewarm response towards it. People like this film's rich symbolism, with lots of imagery relating to christianity, sexuality and what have you. I recognize that; however, divorced from any sort of narrative sense, I just don't find it rewarding or stimulating to analyze it. At least this time I appreciated its efforts, and was actually entertained.

*** or 7.0

[StanleyK]

04/01/2010 - Bad Boys II (Michael Bay, 2003)

http://popcritics.com/movies/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/bad-boys-2.gif

There's a moment in Bad Boys II in which a police officer chews out the boys by saying they know nothing about finesse or subtlety, deriding their work ethic as just run-and-shoot, and at that moment I thought "wow, it's like he's talking about this movie!" Unfortunately Michael Bay doesn't have the self-awereness to make this a satire of action movies; the rampant mysogyny, homophobia and jingoism are very much intended. At least the action scenes are actually good (the best I've seen from Bay, for what it's worth), and the interactions between Lawrence and Smith are hilarious. I was actually enjoying it up to the final 15 minutes or so, when Bay decides that it's perfectly acceptable to stroll into an underdeveloped country and wreck their shit up.

*½ or 3.0

[Grouchy]

People like this film's rich symbolism, with lots of imagery relating to christianity, sexuality and what have you.
Actually, that's the complete opposite of what Buñuel and DalÃ* were striving for. During their legendary brainstorming sessions, if any of their ideas could be viewed as symbolic or meaningful, they eliminated it.

[Adam]

Boogie Nights (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2007)

One of my favorite movies. This deserves an analysis, which I will get to when I make a top 100 (never).

**** or 10

Oh, come on, write this ruckus up asap so I can tell you why Boogie Nights actually sucks eggs

[Grouchy]

Oh, come on, write this ruckus up asap so I can tell you why Boogie Nights actually sucks eggs
Ubelievable. You'd have to back that up mightily to make it anywhere near rational, valid opinion.

[Skitch]

I've never liked Boogie Nights.

[B-side]

Oh, come on, write this ruckus up asap so I can tell you why Boogie Nights actually sucks eggs

*imaginary neg-rape*

[StanleyK]

Allergy to fun is the only reason I can think of for someone disliking Boogie Nights. Still, here's a lame paragraph I wrote about it.

The opening of Boogie Nights neatly encapsulates the movie, and I'm not even talking about the impressive steadycam shot; I mean the minute of black screen that precedes it, accompanied by circus music played like a funeral dirge- much like the characters, it perseveres in the face of adversity, finding what little joy it can from the sadness surrounding it. Then the movie opens proper, like a jolt of electricity (it never fails to send shivers down my spine), and remains electric through its entire running time. This is easily the most entertaining movie I've seen, and every scene is immensely enjoyable- but through its final half, things take a dark turn, culminating in the long close-up of Dirk's face at Rahad's house, his little grin subtly fading into a blank expression. PT Anderson populates this film with some colorful characters, and it's to his credit that even though all these people are immensely fucked up, I feel for them, I laugh with them, I cheer and I care for them; I love them, through the good and the bad times, like a family- that's the essence of Boogie Nights.


Actually, that's the complete opposite of what Buñuel and DalÃ* were striving for. During their legendary brainstorming sessions, if any of their ideas could be viewed as symbolic or meaningful, they eliminated it.

Yeah, I heard they even put stuff from their dreams in it; but whether intentional or not, the symbolism is there. And if it's not it, what is it that attracts people to it then?

[Dukefrukem]

03/01/2010 - We Own the Night (James Gray, 2007)

http://www.moviepulp.be/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/we-own-the-night-cover.jpg

I was initially put off by the generic cop movie poster, but after watching Gray's masterpiece Two Lovers I decided to give it a shot, and I'm glad I did. We Own the Night is not a generic cop movie, but rather an exploration of familiar ties and the lengths to which one would go to protect his loved ones. The cast is fantastic, but Phoenix in particular shines. Gray's subtle and understated style (but not the kind that looks like any director could've done it) suits the story, and although it gets a bit melodramatic and dull at times, it's a gripping thriller with believable characters, whose relationships provide a strong backbone for its theme of family.

***½ or 8.0

[b

I want to see this for Mark Wahlberg.

[Grouchy]

Yeah, I heard they even put stuff from their dreams in it; but whether intentional or not, the symbolism is there. And if it's not it, what is it that attracts people to it then?
I don't think it's so much that "the symbolism is there" but that the brain tends to associate stuff and find meaning where there really isn't any. What is it that attracts people to Un chien andalou? Well, I guess that it's crazy, funny, absurd, repulsive and shocking at the same time.

If you want to find out more about Surrealism, besides the obvious Manifesto and all that, I really recommend reading Buñuel's autobiography. It's one of the most entertaining books I know of and it has many interesting data about the creation of this and its follow-up The Golden Age.

[StanleyK]

I want to see this for Mark Wahlberg.

He's pretty good, but his role is kind of small. The standout of the piece is Joaquin Phoenix.


I don't think it's so much that "the symbolism is there" but that the brain tends to associate stuff and find meaning where there really isn't any. What is it that attracts people to Un chien andalou? Well, I guess that it's crazy, funny, absurd, repulsive and shocking at the same time.

I guess I just don't understand loving a movie so much if it's devoid of substance. If it was enjoyed on the level of a guilty pleasure, maybe, but it's considered a timeless classic.

I agree with the 'shocking' part, though; that eyeball slicing gets me every time.

[StanleyK]

05/01/2010 - Guess Who's Coming to Dinner (Stanley Kramer, 1967)

http://lelapin.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/dvd-guess-whos-coming-to-dinner.jpg

This movie has some of the most awkward dialogue I've heard. It's well-intentioned, but Guess Who's Coming to Dinner is ultimately too self-congratulatory. During the final speech, which is basically a summary of the plot, if you turn the volume way up, you can hear the movie patting itself in the back for being so progressive. Still, the acting is really good (except Katharine Houghton), the direction is good, even if at times if feels stagey, and there are moments that actually work. One thing, though: why doesn't the couple kiss on-screen even once?

**½ or 5.5

On the side:

The Black Imp (Georges Méliès, 1905)

This short plays off the subconscious fear that there might be an unknown or unseen entity causing us mischief, in this case personified by an imp jumping around a hotel room (if there were sound, I imagine he would sound just like Daffy Duck bouncing around), played by Méliès himself. His hijinks are surprisingly pretty funny, and the effects are actually believable- although they are obviously jump-cuts, they are integrated so seamlessly that it actually seems like the film is done entirely in one take.

***½ or 8.0

The Golem (Carl Boese & Paul Wegener, 1920)

A proto-Frankenstein of sorts, the Golem is a clay monster brought to life to protect a jewish community; as you can imagine, it rebels against its masters and starts indescriminately wreaking havoc. Since it's ultimately brought down by a child, and the rampage began over a girl, the idea is that the beautiful and seemingly harmless can exert great power over brute force, King Kong-like, but the jewish and supernatural angles give the film a much richer subtext. The creature, played by Wegener himself, looks and acts pretty scary, and the expressionist sets give the film a creepy film- unfortunately, the sheer inappropriateness of the music dampens the effects in many occasions.

***½ or 8.0

[Melville]

I guess I just don't understand loving a movie so much if it's devoid of substance. If it was enjoyed on the level of a guilty pleasure, maybe, but it's considered a timeless classic.
The Surrealists sought to capture and evoke the spontaneous movements of the mind, unfettered by traditional symbolic associations and narrative structures. That, along with the pure formal excellence of the film, strikes me as very substantial.

[Derek]

The Surrealists sought to capture and evoke the spontaneous movements of the mind, unfettered by traditional symbolic associations and narrative structures. How is that insubstantial?

Because it lacks plot and characters I can care about.

[baby doll]

Because it lacks plot and characters I can care about.In that case, you'll want to stay far, far away from the "insubstantial" films of Hollis Frampton, Miklós Jancsó, and Jacques Tati. But seriously, why is "substance" automatically equated with traditional, three-act scriptwriting and an emphasis on acting over sounds and images (the actual substance films are made of)?

[Derek]

In that case, you'll want to stay far, far away from the "insubstantial" films of Hollis Frampton, Miklós Jancsó, and Jacques Tati. But seriously, why is "substance" automatically equated with traditional, three-act scriptwriting and an emphasis on acting over sounds and images (the actual substance films are made of)?

Precisely the point I was making with my sarcastic comment. I'm completely on board with you here.

[baby doll]

Precisely the point I was making with my sarcastic comment. I'm completely on board with you here.Sorry, it's hard to gauge sarcasm on an message board.

[StanleyK]

I never said Un Chien Andalou is unsubstantial; what I said is that I just don't like it enough to analyze the movie. If I can't make a connection with the text, I find it unrewarding to get to the subtext.

[Derek]

Sorry, it's hard to gauge sarcasm on an message board.

I assumed my general taste in film made it obvious, but hey, there are a lot people and signatures for everyone to keep track of. Anyway, I love the two Jansco's I've seen and Playtime is just about my favorite film ever.

[baby doll]

I never said Un Chien Andalou is unsubstantial; what I said is that I just don't like it enough to analyze the movie. If I can't make a connection with the text, I find it unrewarding to get to the subtext.I'm all for rigorous analysis, but that comes later--after you've seen the film several times, and have a good grasp of its macro-structural elements. But movies are first and foremost about the experience of watching them.

[Melville]

I never said Un Chien Andalou is unsubstantial; what I said is that I just don't like it enough to analyze the movie. If I can't make a connection with the text, I find it unrewarding to get to the subtext.
In your responses to Grouchy, it seemed like you were suggesting that if the film lacks symbolism, then it's insubstantial. I was just saying that the lack of symbolism is part of its substance.

[StanleyK]

I'm all for rigorous analysis, but that comes later--after you've seen the film several times, and have a good grasp of its macro-structural elements. But movies are first and foremost about the experience of watching them.

I agree, although I like it when I can detect some subtext on a first viewing.


In your responses to Grouchy, it seemed like you were suggesting that if the film lacks symbolism, then it's insubstantial. I was just saying that the lack of symbolism is part of its substance.

I was, but I don't think the film lacks symbolism. Your intrepretation is a valid and interesting one, though.

[StanleyK]

06/01/2010 - Paranormal Activity (Oren Peli, 2007)

http://blog.seattlepi.com/movielady/library/paranormal-activity-movie-poster1.jpg

My first theatrical experience of the year. I walked in like 2 minutes late, so if I missed something important, please forgive me.

This is a psychological horror film, that is, one that plays off a fear or phobia. In the case of Paranormal Activity, it seems to be the unease at moving together with someone, not a very mature one. This immaturity is reflected on the film, which uses some really cheap scare devices; a creaking door, a TV turning on by itself, lights flickering- ooh, spooky! The ending of the film is downright cringe-worthy. The film isn't boring or badly made, but it isn't an engaging or competent one either.

** or 4.5

[Melville]

I was, but I don't think the film lacks symbolism. Your intrepretation is a valid and interesting one, though.
Well, it wasn't an interpretation so much as a statement of the goal of the Surrealist movement. I actually haven't seen Un Chien Andalou in years, so I'd have to view it again to see if Bunuel and Dali accomplished that goal in that film. But if it does lean more toward symbolism instead, then I will like it a lot less: I really appreciate what the Surrealists were originally aiming for, while I generally find the more purely symbolic type of surrealism, with its juxtapositions and distortions of stock symbols, to be somewhat facile. In other words, Breton > late-period Dali.

[Qrazy]

I think you guys may be talking across purposes? Stanley I believe what they're saying is that Bunuel was attempting to use subconscious metaphor to express meaning rather than direct symbolic connotations (i.e. image of a cross = Jesus). So there is still meaning to be found in the film it's just not explicit. It's open to wider interpretation.

[Melville]

I think you guys may be talking across purposes? Stanley I believe what they're saying is that Bunuel was attempting to use subconscious metaphor to express meaning rather than direct symbolic connotations (i.e. image of a cross = Jesus). So there is still meaning to be found in the film it's just not explicit. It's open to wider interpretation.
That's true too. But I think that a representation or evocation of the spontaneous movements of thought is, in itself, substantial, regardless of whether it expresses anything.

[Qrazy]

That's true too. But I think that a representation or evocation of the spontaneous movements of thought is, in itself, substantial, regardless of whether it expresses anything.

The representations of the spontaneous movements of thought are by their very nature expressive. :P

[Melville]

The representations of the spontaneous movements of thought are by their very nature expressive. :P
Quiet, you. My point is that that's not what makes the representation substantial.

[Qrazy]

Quiet, you. My point is that that's not what makes the representation substantial.

Fair enough. I would agree given that the aesthetic and atmospheric qualities of a film are what primarily interest me in the medium anyway.

[StanleyK]

I will keep all of this in mind for The Golden Age, which I'll probably watch today or tomorrow.

[StanleyK]

07/01/2010 - [REC] (Jaume Balagueró & Paco Plaza, 2007)

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/rec-poster.gif

A decent zombie horror movie, but it seems kind of unsubstantial. The ending gives it some thematic weight, what with all the crosses and stuff; so the message is that... religion will turn you into an inhuman monster? Whatever. I'm starting to think I don't like this first-person camera gimmick; it's too limiting, and way too many times I'm thinking 'why is the camera on?' and I'll be distracted from the movie. So far I haven't been impressed by anything with this style (although I owe The Blair Witch Project a rewatch), so a merely entertaining piece of light fluff like this movie looks better in comparison.

PS: What's with the ending song? Totally inappropriate.

**½ or 6.0

[Grouchy]

PS: What's with the ending song? Totally inappropriate.
Hah, I like it. It's good to understand the lyrics, though.

[StanleyK]

Hah, I like it. It's good to understand the lyrics, though.

Maybe it would have been better to have a few moments of silence before blaring the song directly, like in Cloverfield; as it is, it's very jarring.

[StanleyK]

08/01/2010 - The Pink Panther (Blake Edwards, 1963)

http://explosive.today.com/files/2009/02/395px-pink_panther63.jpg

The Pink Panther is technically very impressive: the acting is wonderful, and most of the action is surveyed in masterful long takes. It's a shame, then, that this level of skill is wasted on a terribly dull and unfunny film. Most of the comedy derives from Sellers bumping into things or his wife hiding her lovers from him, none of which is funny. Worse, its message is that it's awesome to be a criminal because the police is incompetent and sexually frustrated, and everyone worships you as a hero.

** or 4.0

On the side:

The Golden Age (Luis Buñuel, 1930)

Same deal as Un Chien Andalou, only it's way longer and thus less entertaining. While I like the idea of its lack of symbolism being symbolic in itself, it just doesn't hold for me: the symbolism is plentiful, but far too disconnected and random for me to want to make sense of. The Golden Age seems a tad more focused, especially in its middle section, with a satire of the bourgeoisie, but this is something which will be better handled in Buñuel's later work.

*** or 6.5

A Trip to the Moon (Georges Méliès, 1902)

One of the very first sci-fi films, in which a venture to the unknown and mysterious stands in for the discovery and advances of film. A group of scientists find a way to go to the moon, and Méliès finds a way to illustrate this with groundbreaking special effects; the people in this film are very excited and awed with what they discover, and this represents what people at the time must have felt when they were watching the newest art form. A Trip to the Moon is a milestone for cinema, and one of my favorites.

**** or 10

Snatch. (Guy Ritchie, 2000)

Extremely entertaining, but I'm kind of rubbed off by the film's editing, which was somehow more tolerable in Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels; here, it sometimes looks like someone just discovered Windows Movie Maker and is trying it out. There are more laid back scenes which retain some punch, and the soundtrack is impressive, but Snatch just doesn't have enough substance to back up its general theme of coincidence. Nevertheless, it's a very funny movie, and it has a certain charm to it.

**½ or 6.0

[Grouchy]

The Pink Panther is technically very impressive: the acting is wonderful, and most of the action is surveyed in masterful long takes. It's a shame, then, that this level of skill is wasted on a terribly dull and unfunny film. Most of the comedy derives from Sellers bumping into things or his wife hiding her lovers from him, none of which is funny.
As much as I'd like to disagree with you, the truth is that the original film is not all that good. It has a charming sountrack, but its problem is that Clouseau is not the main protagonist. Once the producers discovered he was the one that brought all the laughs, they made the awesome A Shot in the Dark.


Worse, its message is that it's awesome to be a criminal because the police is incompetent and sexually frustrated, and everyone worships you as a hero.
Dude, it was made in the 1960s.

Your lack of erections about surrealism is problematic.

[StanleyK]

As much as I'd like to disagree with you, the truth is that the original film is not all that good. It has a charming sountrack, but its problem is that Clouseau is not the main protagonist. Once the producers discovered he was the one that brought all the laughs, they made the awesome A Shot in the Dark.

Two hours of just his antics sounds like torture to me.

[StanleyK]

09/01/2010 - Road Trip (Todd Phillips, 2000)

http://www.ugo.com/movies/salute-to-losing-virginity/images/entries/road-trip.jpg

Needless to point out this film's lame fratboy humor, or its dull and unimaginative style. Instead, I note how Road Trip is filled to the brim with contempt, a seething hatred for every single person. At some point, a female character wonders aloud if there's any normal man in this world, and the film answers with a cut to Tom Green, a gleeful shine on his eyes as he tries to get a snake to eat a rat for his own sick amusement. In another scene, a father worries about his missing son, and we're invited to laugh as a bystander suggests he's been raped and murdered. I could go on and on with examples of hateful behavior; according to Road Trip, good people just don't exist, so we might as well follow suit and act like assholes to everyone.

* or 1.5

On the side:

Gertie the Dinosaur (Winsor McCay, 1914)

More interesting as a cultural artifact than as a film. There's little to talk about, since this short is really just an excuse to show off the animation. The animation is nice and groundbreaking I guess, but the bookends about McCay's bet are unnecessary; it would've been better if it concentrated solely on Gertie.

**½ or 6.0

Little Nemo (Winsor McCay, 1911)

This one is more concentrated on the actual creative process, from drawing through storyboarding, which increases the appreciation for McCay's work. It's still basically just an excuse for the animation, but it's really good animation; it's actually better than Gertie's, which almost renders the latter redundant.

*** or 7.5

[Grouchy]

Two hours of just his antics sounds like torture to me.
Huh... What?

[StanleyK]

Huh... What?

He was the least funny thing in an already unfunny movie. He just bumps into lots of things. That's not comedy.

[Grouchy]

Bah. Silly rubbish.

[Qrazy]

Two hours of just his antics sounds like torture to me.

The second, third and maybe even fourth Pink Panther films are so awesome. But yes he does continue to bump into things. It's called slapstick. Chaplin, Keaton, Lloyd, Tati, Chow and others also do this.

[StanleyK]

Yeah, Tati does that in Mr. Hulot's Holiday, which is lame. Mon Oncle, however, is about the futility of some ridiculous household appliances, so his bumping into things carries the subtext of his inadequacy to this environment; that's why Mr. Hulot's Holiday sucks and Mon Oncle is genius.

[Raiders]

Yeah, Tati does that in Mr. Hulot's Holiday, which is lame. Mon Oncle, however, is about the futility of some ridiculous household appliances, so his bumping into things carries the subtext of his inadequacy to this environment; that's why Mr. Hulot's Holiday sucks and Mon Oncle is genius.

Oof.

[monolith94]

Finally, someone else who agrees with me on Mr. Hulot's Holiday. What a waste of time that was.

[StanleyK]

This discussion reminded me that I hadn't seen Play Time yet, so I went out and rented it.

10/01/2010 - Play Time (Jacques Tati, 1967)

http://www.tft.ucla.edu/img/school/calendar/play-time_1.jpg

Hulot barely appears in this, and the film suffers greatly as a result; most of the time he's not on-screen is really dull and plodding. For example, what was the idea behind the restaurant scene? Nothing funny happens in it; nothing supposed to be funny happens in it; there's no social commentary, unless maybe the american guy who bribes the waiter; and it goes on for way too long. Honestly, I couldn't wait for this movie to end. I think I didn't 'get' Play Time; nevertheless, it's an impeccably crafted movie, with awesome long takes and superb choreography, and the occasional snippet of poignancy (such as the Eiffel tower reflected on a glass door). While this is overall a good movie, I'm starting to think that the brilliance of Mon Oncle was a fluke.

*** or 6.5

On the side:

Nosferatu (Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau, 1922)

This is what vampires should be: foul, hideous creatures that represent disease. Linked directly with rats and the plague, Nosferatu is destroyed by a kind-hearted girl and the sunlight: the light of God, of good, shining down and casting out evil. Rich in subtext, Nosferatu still works at a primal level; Murnau creates a very creepy atmosphere, and the phantom played by Schreck is a truly repugnant creation. It's not a perfect movie- a scene equating the vampire to a carnivore plant feels really out of place, and Hutter's dashing escape is unnecessary (he could've just as easily walked out)- but this film still holds up as a masterpiece of horror.

**** or 9.0

[Derek]

10/01/2010 - Play Time (Jacques Tati, 1967)

Hulot barely appears in this, and the film suffers greatly as a result; most of the time he's not on-screen is really dull and plodding. For example, what was the idea behind the restaurant scene? Nothing funny happens in it; nothing supposed to be funny happens in it; there's no social commentary, unless maybe the american guy who bribes the waiter; and it goes on for way too long. Honestly, I couldn't wait for this movie to end. I think I didn't 'get' Play Time; nevertheless, it's an impeccably crafted movie, with awesome long takes and superb choreography, and the occasional snippet of poignancy (such as the Eiffel tower reflected on a glass door). While this is overall a good movie, I'm starting to think that the brilliance of Mon Oncle was a fluke.

*** or 6.5

Wow, this post is big ole boiling pot full of fail.

[soitgoes...]

For example, what was the idea behind the restaurant scene? Nothing funny happens in it; nothing supposed to be funny happens in it; there's no social commentary, unless maybe the american guy who bribes the waiter; and it goes on for way too long.

This was the funniest scene in the movie, and probably the funniest scene of all Tati films I've seen. The entire sequence with the fish, from the back of the house to its "delivery" to the old couple had me laughing.

[Melville]

While I like the idea of its lack of symbolism being symbolic ...

there's no social commentary...

This is what vampires should be: foul, hideous creatures that represent disease.
What's up with your fixation on explicit meanings? The restaurant scene in Play Time is the best part of an already awesome movie. It's the astounding and hilarious pinnacle of the film's visual wit, as the rigid environmental and behavioral patterns of the rest of the film slowly disintegrate into pure, chaotic life.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Wow, this post is big ole boiling pot full of fail.

I would have said a 'steaming shelf full of fail', but pretty much.

[StanleyK]

What's up with your fixation on explicit meanings?

I guess I like to know that I'm watching something meaningful; otherwise I feel like I'm wasting my time.


The restaurant scene in Play Time is the best part of an already awesome movie. It's the astounding and hilarious pinnacle of the film's visual wit, as the rigid environmental and behavioral patterns of the rest of the film slowly disintegrate into pure, chaotic life.


This was the funniest scene in the movie, and probably the funniest scene of all Tati films I've seen. The entire sequence with the fish, from the back of the house to its "delivery" to the old couple had me laughing.

I was bored stiff. Maybe slapstick just isn't my thing.

[lovejuice]

10/01/2010 - Play Time (Jacques Tati, 1967)
*** or 6.5

now i saw everything.

[Derek]

now i saw everything.

Wait, you love Playtime??

[Melville]

I guess I like to know that I'm watching something meaningful; otherwise I feel like I'm wasting my time.
But it seems like you're skipping over a lot of the meaningfulness by looking for direct symbolism and commentary. The lack of such symbolism in a Surrealist work of art doesn't symbolize anything: it's just a requisite part of the Surrealists' goal of capturing spontaneous human thought. (As a side note, I do agree that L'âge d'or is a bore.) The restaurant scene in Play Time isn't meaningful because it comments on social particularities: it's meaningful because it evokes life, uncontrollable and boisterous, arising out of the breakdown of the cold, rigid structures that the film had previously presented as overwhelming humanity. In both cases, the meaningfulness lies not in one-to-one correspondences between images and concepts, but in the way the films use their form to capture something fundamental about humanity: the density and texture of a lived moment or of a stream of thoughts; the interplay between the social being and its environment.

[StanleyK]

But it seems like you're skipping over a lot of the meaningfulness by looking for direct symbolism and commentary. The lack of such symbolism in a Surrealist work of art doesn't symbolize anything: it's just a requisite part of the Surrealists' goal of capturing spontaneous human thought. (As a side note, I do agree that L'âge d'or is a bore.) The restaurant scene in Play Time isn't meaningful because it comments on social particularities: it's meaningful because it evokes life, uncontrollable and boisterous, arising out of the breakdown of the cold, rigid structures that the film had previously presented as overwhelming humanity. In both cases, the meaningfulness lies not in one-to-one correspondences between images and concepts, but in the way the films use their form to capture something fundamental about humanity: the density and texture of a lived moment or of a stream of thoughts; the interplay between the social being and its environment.

That level of meaning I might pick up on repeated rewatches; on a first viewing, I can only 'get' the more obvious stuff, so I concentrate on symbolism and metaphors.

[Qrazy]

That level of meaning I might pick up on repeated rewatches; on a first viewing, I can only 'get' the more obvious stuff, so I concentrate on symbolism and metaphors.

Ehh I think you can get the point of the restaurant scene on a first viewing. The general concept is pretty simple although it's certainly rendered with formal complexity. Essentially all of the new modern bullshit (architecture but also hollow social conventions) gets in the way of genuine human connection and joy. Hulot's character acts as the catalyst for the breakdown of a) social boundaries b) the unfinished restaurant itself. Perhaps modernity can be physically, intellectually and emotionally deconstructed to make room for true connection... or perhaps true joy and connection is so vibrant and human beings so full of life that we can split the modern world apart at it's seams. Now this is perhaps only one of many meanings expressed in the scene and film, but I think it's one of the most important (that is, the deconstruction of an alienating world).

[Melville]

That level of meaning I might pick up on repeated rewatches; on a first viewing, I can only 'get' the more obvious stuff, so I concentrate on symbolism and metaphors.
Ah, okay, sorry, I thought maybe you were just looking for the "more obvious" stuff because you were placing more value on it. A lot of my enjoyment of the restaurant scene came from seeing what it was doing (and how well it was doing it) in terms of the film's overall themes and structure, so it's understandable that you didn't like it, especially if you don't like its variety of physical/visual comedy to begin with.

[StanleyK]

Ehh I think you can get the point of the restaurant scene on a first viewing. The general concept is pretty simple although it's certainly rendered with formal complexity. Essentially all of the new modern bullshit (architecture but also hollow social conventions) gets in the way of genuine human connection and joy. Hulot's character acts as the catalyst for the breakdown of a) social boundaries b) the unfinished restaurant itself. Perhaps modernity can be physically, intellectually and emotionally deconstructed to make room for true connection... or perhaps true joy and connection is so vibrant and human beings so full of life that we can split the modern world apart at it's seams. Now this is perhaps only one of many meanings expressed in the scene and film, but I think it's one of the most important (that is, the deconstruction of an alienating world).

If you can get all that from just one viewing, I truly envy you.


Ah, okay, sorry, I thought maybe you were just looking for the "more obvious" stuff because you were placing more value on it. A lot of my enjoyment of the restaurant scene came from seeing what it was doing (and how well it was doing it) in terms of the film's overall themes and structure, so it's understandable that you didn't like it, especially if you don't like its variety of physical/visual comedy to begin with.

Yeah, my biggest problem with the movie is just that I didn't find it very funny.

I also appreciate your constructive criticism; from now on I'll try to chill with all the 'represents' and 'symbolizes' and whatnot.

[Melville]

If you can get all that from just one viewing, I truly envy you.
I think it's partly just a matter of mindset, or what you're paying attention to. For example, I pick up on overarching structural/thematic stuff very easily, because that's what I'm most interested in, but I'd never in a million years notice any of the continuity errors that other people spot.

[StanleyK]

I think it's partly just a matter of mindset, or what you're paying attention to. For example, I pick up on overarching structural/thematic stuff very easily, because that's what I'm most interested in, but I'd never in a million years notice any of the continuity errors that other people spot.

I would like to focus on overarching structural/thematic stuff, but it's hard enough as it is for me on repeated viewings; maybe I need to concentrated harder?

[StanleyK]

11/01/2010 - Swept Away (Guy Ritchie, 2002)

http://www.traileraddict.com/content/screen-gems/swept_away.jpg

I find it disturbing that the most tasteful shots I've seen from Ritchie are in service of such an unhealthy romance. This couple does nothing but abuse each other, verbally and physically, until they suddenly decide they're in love; this is Twilight levels of creepiness. Acting under a thin veneer of anti-capitalism and pro-nature, Swept Away appears to be nothing but an excuse for Ritchie to lavish complimentary shots of his wife, but the fact that for half of his film she's a shrill bitch makes it seem more like he was slyly suggesting a divorce. Of course, she does a complete 180 into a perfect angel in the second half, leaving no room for sublety or nuance on her character. The italian dude doesn't fare any better, and this time Ritchie's editing really got on my nerves; a miserable experience, the only positive I can think of is that it's only 90 minutes long.

* or 1.0

On the side:

Terminator 2: Judgment Day (James Cameron, 1991)

There was a time when James Cameron was not only a superb action director, but also an excellent screenwriter. The Terminator was a great action movie about the unstoppable nature of violence, and the sequel expands on it by presenting also human goodness, from the least likely source; as a result, it's a much more hopeful movie, and far more complex. What helps T2 rise above most action movies is that it actually considers the impact of taking a life, and it doesn't fetishize gunplay: bullets are useless against terminators. Save from Furlong's performance and a few cheesy moments, T2 is practically flawless.

**** or 9.0

Smiles of a Summer Night (Ingmar Bergman, 1955)

While Bergman is really good at making people express their pain, his hand at comedic writing leaves a bit to be desired. There are some very funny passages, but there are dialogue exchanges which feel a bit awkward, and the goofy music (as if to make sure we know this is a comedy) is overused. Smiles of a Summer Night exists in a soap-opera-ish environment where everybody has to be somebody's lover, which I feel is diminutive towards relationships; it's far more successful when musing about the gap between the younger and older generation. This is a good movie, but of all the Bergman I've seen, it's the weakest; that, of course, speaks volumes about Bergman's greatness.

*** or 7.0

[StanleyK]

12/01/2010 - Batman: Mask of the Phantasm (Eric Radomski & Bruce W. Timm, 1993)

http://www.horreur.net/img/Batman_mask_of_the_phantasm.jp g

Pretty good. While the animation is a bit crude, the story makes up for it, with a gripping central dilemma which actually made me feel for Bruce Wayne. The voice acting is solid; the central message is blunt (forgivable, since this is a children's movie), but still a good one. I'm running out of adjectives for 'good'. Or anything else to say. I just didn't pick up any thematic stuff to talk about. Shame.

*** or 6.5

Well, with this I've seen all the Batman movies, excluding the direct-to-video animated ones:

Batman: The Movie (1966) - **½ (5.0)
Batman (1989) - **½ (5.5)
Batman Returns (1992) - **** (9.0)
Batman Forever (1995) - *½ (3.0)
Batman: Mask of the Phantasm (1993) - *** (6.5)
Batman & Robin (1997) - * (1.5)
Batman Begins (2005) - ***½ (8.0)
The Dark Knight (2008) - ***½ (8.5)

On the side:

Transformers (Michael Bay, 2007)

Wow, the special effects are really good. They're even better than I remembered; the sound effects are good too, and the action isn't terribly over-edited, at least until the ending. Those are the only good things about Transformers; the plot is the millionth incarnation of 'average nerd goes on fantastic adventure, saves the world and gets the girl', and the way it's executed is pure technology porn, with a military fetish and contempt for authority (A police vehicle Decepticon? Really subtle)- basically, a little boy's fantasy, complete with his toys beating the shit out of each other. The final battle is headache-inducing; the comic relief is atrocious; the acting is terrible; I'm sure I could go on. Halfway through some kid claims the happenings of this movie are 'easily a thousand times cooler than Armageddon'. Well, I agree: a thousand times zero is still zero.

* or 2.0

The Impossible Voyage (Georges Méliès, 1904)

Essentially a remake of A Trip to the Moon, only this time in color. Since this short spends half of its running time devoted to the crew's failed attempts, The Impossible Voyage is more about the difficulty of the filmmaking process- hence its name, I imagine. Still, it feels kind of superfluous after A Trip to the Moon, which this isn't as exciting as, and the fact that the visual effects aren't as good kind of undermines the point.

*** or 6.5

[StanleyK]

13/01/2010 - The Birth of a Nation (D.W. Griffith, 1915)

http://www.affichescinema.com/insc_b/birth_nation.jpg

For 90 minutes of this movie, I was wondering what all the fuss and controversy was about. There were a few racial caricatures, but mostly it was just an entertaining anti-war movie, if a bit blunt. Yeah, the first part was good; too bad it has a second part, which is one of the most vile and disgusting pieces of shit I've ever had the misfortune to watch. 'Reconstruction' spends all its running time portraying black people as violent buffoons, and the KKK as the only next logical step of self-defense from the poor, victimized white people. I must admit that I missed all the revolutionary techniques: they've been so ingrained in my idea of narrative that I couldn't tell what was innovative; nevertheless, no amount of technical prowess can help something so morally bankrupt. The final charge of the KKK, supposed to be a rousing moment, is instead stomach-churningly revolting. I can only hope that Griffith's Intolerance, purpoted to have all the great filmmaking but none of the appalling racism, is better.

* or 2.0

On the side:

Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau, 1927)

Is it just me, or was Murnau kind of like the Spielberg of the 20's? Both take seemingly simple stories and craft amazing visuals imbued with subtext that elevate them to masterpieces. Such is the case with Sunrise, in which a parable of a man atoning for trying to kill his wife takes on a much broader meaning when put in the backdrop of a city. As peasants, they're at odds with the environment, but instead of making a fish-out-of-water comedy that would condescend to simple folk (which I'm afraid is sort of the case in the peasant dance scene, the only weak one in the film), Murnau sticks to their reconciliation, which makes for an emotionally resonant story, as well as a visually amazing and meaningful one.

**** or 9.5

[Winston*]

I give you until mid March on this project until you're completely sick of movies.

[soitgoes...]

13/01/2010 - The Birth of a Nation (D.W. Griffith, 1915)

http://www.affichescinema.com/insc_b/birth_nation.jpg

For 90 minutes of this movie, I was wondering what all the fuss and controversy was about. There were a few racial caricatures, but mostly it was just an entertaining anti-war movie, if a bit blunt. Yeah, the first part was good; too bad it has a second part, which is one of the most vile and disgusting pieces of shit I've ever had the misfortune to watch. 'Reconstruction' spends all its running time portraying black people as violent buffoons, and the KKK as the only next logical step of self-defense from the poor, victimized white people. I must admit that I missed all the revolutionary techniques: they've been so ingrained in my idea of narrative that I couldn't tell what was innovative; nevertheless, no amount of technical prowess can help something so morally bankrupt. The final charge of the KKK, supposed to be a rousing moment, is instead stomach-churningly revolting. I can only hope that Griffith's Intolerance, purpoted to have all the great filmmaking but none of the appalling racism, is better.

* or 2.0
I can turn a blind eye to the racism, well, sorta. There's some ugly racism throughout early film. Let's just say I can chalk it up to the times. The scene with the black congressmen is pretty shocking though. The biggest problem with the film is that it began to bore me.

I wish I could say you'll like Intolerance, but our tastes are somewhat different. At least I'm sure you'll like it more than The Birth of a Nation.

[StanleyK]

I give you until mid March on this project until you're completely sick of movies.

In March I will complete two years of this project. I'm not sick yet.


I wish I could say you'll like Intolerance, but our tastes are somewhat different. At least I'm sure you'll like it more than The Birth of a Nation.

I quite like your taste, in fact I frequently check your signature. The overlap is larger on recent years, granted, and I haven't seen as many foreign or old movies as you.

[Winston*]

In March I will complete two years of this project. I'm not sick yet.

You've watched at least one movie every day for two years? You're insane.

[Melville]

In March I will complete two years of this project. I'm not sick yet.
Inconceivable. How old are you, and how many movies have you seen?

[Adam]

And for someone who's watched at least a movie a day for two years straight, shouldn't you be at the point where you can't even be bothered with obvious lame ducks like Road Trip and whatnot?

[soitgoes...]

And for someone who's watched at least a movie a day for two years straight, shouldn't you be at the point where you can't even be bothered with obvious lame ducks like Road Trip and whatnot?
Sometimes mindless entertainment doesn't bother me. Sometimes I'd rather have something on where my mind doesn't have to do much work. Sure it might be crap, but whatever. I'm not advocating a crappy movie every night, but one every now and again is no big thing.

[StanleyK]

Inconceivable. How old are you, and how many movies have you seen?

About a thousand, but since I've only started caring about stuff like subtext recently, I eliminated a lot of movies, so right now, my list is at 458.


And for someone who's watched at least a movie a day for two years straight, shouldn't you be at the point where you can't even be bothered with obvious lame ducks like Road Trip and whatnot?


Sometimes mindless entertainment doesn't bother me. Sometimes I'd rather have something on where my mind doesn't have to do much work. Sure it might be crap, but whatever. I'm not advocating a crappy movie every night, but one every now and again is no big thing.

Watching bad movies works just as well as watching good movies for broadening my cultural horizon.

Also, I have this thing where I want to watch every movie from a certain director, even if I don't like him; in this case, Todd Phillips.

[B-side]

I like you, Stanley. You're relatable, you're level-headed and you seem really open-minded about film.

[StanleyK]

I like you, Stanley. You're relatable, you're level-headed and you seem really open-minded about film.

Thank you! MC has really been a great influence in the way I see films.

[StanleyK]

14/01/2010 - Poltergeist (Tobe Hooper, 1982)

http://www.iconsoffright.com/images/poltergeist.jpg

It looks like Paranormal Activity was inspired by this film, they're both involved with Spielberg after all. Poltergeist is better made and subtextually richer than PA, but unfortunately it's not much more entertaining or scary. The concept of parents rescuing their children from apparently demonic forces is a great one, but the characters are weak and unconvincing, probably due to the poor acting, and coupled with the overabundance of scare moments, it doesn't produce a good athmosphere (outside of a couple of highlight moments, such as the dude scratching his face off). Also there were several scenes where the flickering light really hurt my eyes; fuck that. This is overall a good movie though, visually strong and thematically powerful.

*** or 7.0

On the side:

Pandora's Box (Georg Wilhelm Pabst, 1929)

Would this film be nearly as good if it didn't have Louise Brooks? I don't think so; this is one of the greatest female performances of all time, she simply exudes sexuality, which makes her perfect for this role, and Pandora's Box the perfect film for her. A study of how sex influences human behavior, maybe the fact that most of it is implied heightens its effect, especially on its sexually frustrated characters. Pabst fills this with loaded imagery, but my favorite shot is the simplest: Brooks' eyes glistening, with the simple pleasure of being alive and feeling love.

**** or 9.5

The Insects' Christmas (Wladyslaw Starewicz, 1913)

A charming short, if its point is to not neglect the usually forgotten, it succeeds wonderfully: it's not often that I sympathyze with bugs, and yet here they're adorable, despite not being 'cutified' or anthropomorphized in any way. There's a frog too, which is kind of weird, but his initial moment with Santa Claus makes for the most touching moment in the film.

***½ or 8.5

[Grouchy]

The "KKK to the rescue" scene in Birth of a Nation is fucking hilarious stuff. From our modern perspective, that is.

[StanleyK]

The "KKK to the rescue" scene in Birth of a Nation is fucking hilarious stuff. From our modern perspective, that is.

You must have a dark sense of humor; regardless, clearly neither disgust nor laughter were intended reactions, so I feel the film is a failure on that regard.

[StanleyK]

15/01/2010 - Revolver (Guy Ritchie, 2005)

http://www.wildaboutmovies.com/images_5/RevolverPoster.jpg

This is the sort of movie Lynch detractors accuse him of doing: an empty exercise of weird style over substance. Revolver, however, fails to create the mood appropriate for 'weird' movies, so instead of being intriguing, the film is ridiculous. Ritchie's hyper-editing reaches new spazzed-out heights, the nadir being a scene partially told in anime; he probably watched Kill Bill while high and missed the point of that sequence entirely. If this movie has a point (and I believe every movie does), it probably has to do with the megalomaniacal nature of our ego, what with the several interviews with psychologists at the end beating on this point with a sledgehammer. But I don't think I buy it, it's far too obvious. Ritchie probably put them there as misdirection, and the point is something else entirely; that trickster! Ultimately, Revolver is like Southland Tales: a tremendously inapt film that fails at being deep, but so hilariously bad that it saves itself from being completely unwatchable.

** or 3.5

[StanleyK]

16/01/2010 - Old School (Todd Phillips, 2003)

http://images.killermovies.com/o/oldschool/gallery/Posters/old_school_poster.jpg

Todd Phillips' movies make me glad that I don't live in a Todd Phillips movie, the sort of universe where the men are misogynistic pigs, and the women are either sluts or wholesome maternal figures. As usual, we have a mild-mannered guy who is pushed around and belittled for being mild-mannered until he stops being a 'faggot' (which in a Todd Phillips movie is the worst thing a man can be) and gets with the wholesome girl. Superior to Road Trip for at least being mildly funny in some parts, Old School is still dull, abrasive and hateful.

*½ or 2.5

On the side:

The Cameraman's Revenge (Wladyslaw Starewicz, 1912)

This time using insects to relay a human parable, Starewicz tackles the topic of spousal infidelity here. The Cameraman's Revenge is not heartwarming, rather it's funny watching these bugs flaling their limbs around in the manner of arms to ride bikes, make out, or beat each other up; in a way, it's kind of surreal (I just love this caption: 'But Mr. Beetle should have guessed the violent grasshopper is actually a cameraman', as if it's the most normal thing in the world), but its flawless stop-motion animation keeps it believable and funny.

***½ or 8.5

[StanleyK]

17/01/2010 - True Crime (Clint Eastwood, 1999)

http://www.chrisvscinema.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/True_crime.jpg

Clint may be a badass, but at 69 years old he really shouldn't be macking on young girls; it makes for a quite revolting sight. This is the sour note on which True Crime opens, with a 23-year-old woman turning down Clint's advances and immediately after dying in a car crash. Spite? Fortunately, no. Afterwards the movie becomes a really strong crime thriller about the penal system, that also touches on fatherhood and racism without being preachy or contrived. In fact, there were a few emotionally involving moments, especially the scene with the grandmother. Unfortunately, it ends on another sour note, with a silly race against time and a cheesy epilogue. But despite a weak start and a weak finish, True Crime is worth it for the middle.

*** or 7.0

On the side:

The Son (Jean-Pierre Dardenne & Luc Dardenne, 2002)

My first DVD purchase of the year, and I'm glad I was able to find it. A third viewing proved as fascinating as the previous ones; the Dardennes refuse to spoon-feed the audience, providing the only bit of exposition a half-hour in, allowing all the emotions and meaning to be conveyed through subtle physical reactions. Gourmet's performance is perfect for this: no big emotional outburst, just quiet sadness, all the way through the climax. Deceptively simple, The Son is a powerful film about forgiveness, with a unique style and real emotional pull; one of the best films of this decade.

**** or 10

[StanleyK]

18/01/2010 - Tea with Mussolini (Franco Zeffirelli, 1999)

http://www.stjohnscollege.edu/events/AN/tealogo.jpg

Worth watching if only for the beautiful blue hues of the night scenes, Tea with Mussolini is a pretty bland WW2 drama. It's supposed to be a praise to art, but there's little art in it and it's mostly glossed over, leaving a pretty dull 'english are stubborn and proud, hate americans but eventually learn to tolerate them' plot in the foreground. It's competently made and well acted (sounds like I'm describing Oscar bait, but I doubt this film was made with awards in mind), but not very interesting.

**½ or 5.5

[StanleyK]

19/01/2010 - Quarantine (John Erick Dowdle, 2008)

http://www.wildaboutmovies.com/images_6/QuarantinePoster_000.jpg

Virtually identical to [REC], Quarantine has its same strengths and weaknesses; well, there's one more weakness: as a consequence of being 'Hollywoodized', we have some pretty annoying banter in the opening and a handful of fake scares. It mostly goes away as the film moves along, though. In a vain effort to be fresh, there are more tenants and animals, ergo more zombie kills, but there's no substantial stuff added; I appreciate, however, how the ending moved away from explicitly religious territory. Ultimately, a very similar experience, as satisfying and unsatisfying as the original, just with lamer dialogue.

**½ or 5.5

On the side:

The Butcher Boy (Roscoe Arbuckle, 1917)

I'd never seen Buster Keaton in anything before this; yes, I'm very ashamed of it. I figured I'd go through his movies in chronological order, so I watched his very first film role. Keaton, while nothing extraordinary, is pretty good in his brief part, and I imagine he will get better in further roles. The short itself is funny, not too overly reliant on slapstick, deriving most of the comedy from its characters (the woman running the boarding house in particular provided the biggest laughs); it gets bogged down in the middle with a flour fight, but otherwise it remains very enjoyable.

***½ or 8.0

[StanleyK]

20/01/2010 - Dr. Mabuse: The Gambler (Fritz Lang, 1922)

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_zAoyoHwC5IQ/SwcIuyISJrI/AAAAAAAAGx8/bQsScbyrM5k/s1600/Dr.+Mabuse,+der+Spieler+%28192 2%29+poster+1.jpg

I was expecting this movie to be good, but I wasn't expecting it to be so fun. Almost 4 hours long, Dr. Mabuse is as long as it needs to be and the time flies by. Lang's direction keeps the suspense thrilling and Klein-Rogge, as the titular Dr. Mabuse, is very menacing; he's therefore convincing as the sociopathic, mind-controlling villain. The titular gambling is less about cards and more about life, as Mabuse admits the thing he enjoys most is messing with people's minds. A pretty impressive psychological crime thriller, despite a handful of weak scenes (but not boring scenes), Dr. Mabuse is a masterpiece.

**** or 9.0

On the side:

Autumn Sonata (Ingmar Bergman, 1978)

Bergman in his element, this movie consists basically only of pained monologues, delivered by Ingrid Bergman and Liv Ullmann as a mother and daughter discussing their failed relationship. Between their performances and Bergman's writing, Autumn Sonata is a gut-wrenching experience.

**** or 9.5

La Jetée (Chris Marker, 1962)

While this is an interesting film, the use of stills rubbed me off the wrong way. It seemed so uncinematic to me- so dead. The best sequence is the one with the sleeping girl, because it gives the illusion of motion, hence it's the one that looked more like a film than a slideshow.

**½ or 6.0

[Qrazy]

Autumn Sonata is a gut-wrenching experience.



My guts were certainly wrenched.

Nice to see you liked Dr. Mabuse so much though. I'll be getting to that one shortly.

[Raiders]

La Jetée (Chris Marker, 1962)

While this is an interesting film, the use of stills rubbed me off the wrong way. It seemed so uncinematic to me- so dead. The best sequence is the one with the sleeping girl, because it gives the illusion of motion, hence it's the one that looked more like a film than a slideshow.

**½ or 6.0

Not to seem condescending, but did you give any thought to why Marker chose to use stills? I mean, he could have easily filmed the scenes.

[StanleyK]

My guts were certainly wrenched.

Is 'gut-wrenching' a negative adjective? I didn't know.


Not to seem condescending, but did you give any thought to why Marker chose to use stills? I mean, he could have easily filmed the scenes.

I imagine there's a very good reason, probably related to the nature of memory, but the way the aesthetic is applied just didn't appeal to me; there's a decent chance, though, that I'll revisit it sometime in the future with a more analytical mindset.

[StanleyK]

21/01/2010 - The Orphanage (Juan Antonio Bayona, 2007)

http://readwritenow.files.wordpress.c om/2008/07/orphanageposter.jpg

Another horror film with shades of Poltergeist, The Orphanage is actually the superior ghosts-kidnap-child story, with a more compelling protagonist and a stronger atmosphere. Were it not for a few obvious jump scares and a terrible, over-the-top score, which frequently detracts from the atmosphere, I think this film would be a masterpiece.

***½ or 8.5

On the side:

Viridiana (Luis Buñuel, 1961)

Now this is a satire of the bourgeoisie with actual resonance; I can't think of a more damning statement than having the noveau-riche guy 'save' a dog that he thinks is being abused and think he's hot shit, only for another dog in the same situation to pass behind his back. The poor and homeless here aren't fetishized as helpless saints who just need a kind-hearted rich person to save them, they're actual people, with flaws and personalities, and the well-meaning but naive Viridiana eventually has her faith broken and faces her reality.

**** or 10

[Beau]

I liked La Jetee. The stills don't move, but the transitions between stills have varying rhythms, so I didn't feel it was uncinematic. It's not a style I find inexhaustible, but it can have its applications. Ruiz used stills too in Colloque de chiens, and it's a very good film. Different purpose, though. Marker wants to fragment time and pinpoint the fractured remnants produced after any journey into the past, allowing animation only to the most emotionally resonant image or series of images, a series of moments so beautiful that they can't be separated. Ruiz pokes fun at melodramatic conventions, zapping them of all life and animation, leaving us with the overwrought mannerism in mid-air. He discovers something in doing so, which is familiar to anyone who's seen enough soap operas (raises hand): lots of needlessly complicated plotting in search of a look, an expression, a hand placement, a stare, a moment, etc. This might be confusing if you've never sat down to actually watch a soap opera, especially of the sort they make in Argentina, where soap operas have to end within a year, so you know the plot's conclusion is nigh. You end up sitting there, watching the writers extend the story with random tangents and ridiculous twists, because you want to see the look on such-and-such's face when he finds out this-and-that. It's a masochistic endeavor that any self-respecting Argentine must go through at one point or another, preferably several times across several years.

[StanleyK]

Marker wants to fragment time and pinpoint the fractured remnants produced after any journey into the past, allowing animation only to the most emotionally resonant image or series of images, a series of moments so beautiful that they can't be separated.

This is pretty much what I figured; still, I think that a better effect could be achieved through slow-motion or out-of-focus footage. I mean, maybe I'm broken, but my past memories aren't fragmented, they're hazy and blurred.

[Qrazy]

This is pretty much what I figured; still, I think that a better effect could be achieved through slow-motion or out-of-focus footage. I mean, maybe I'm broken, but my past memories aren't fragmented, they're hazy and blurred.

I think La Jetee is a film about history (pieces of time) as much as it's about memory. So while I agree with your comments about memory I think the fragmentation works in the context of historicity. Still I personally don't fully love La Jetee either. And your issues with memory fragmentation are perhaps why I don't think I'll ever fully embrace Guy Maddin. I like his work but his theories on memory as applied to his editing don't really mesh with my conceptualization of memory.

[soitgoes...]

And your issues with memory fragmentation are perhaps why I don't think I'll ever fully embrace Guy Maddin. I like his work but his theories on memory as applied to his editing don't really mesh with my conceptualization of memory.
I'm curious which of his films you are referring to when you're talking about Maddin and memory fragmentation? He uses amnesia in his films, but I always assumed that was more to signify repression (most times sexual) than having anything to do with memory. I guess My Winnipeg is about memory, but its conceptualization of memory is nowhere near similar to La Jetée. As a matter of fact, I would say it is very different. I know you didn't compare La Jetée directly to Maddin, but I'm trying to understand the similarities that led you to mentioning him.

[Raiders]

This is pretty much what I figured; still, I think that a better effect could be achieved through slow-motion or out-of-focus footage. I mean, maybe I'm broken, but my past memories aren't fragmented, they're hazy and blurred.

Right, but certain moments are more vivid than others, right? I mean, you don't remember the exact details between the moments, but you remember the moments. It's the same principle.

Also, the film is explicitly about temporal dislocation (i.e., time travel) and the still photographs almost remove the images from a natural dramatic flow. They remove the impetus for themselves, so to speak, capturing only brief instances of the story (just as the main character can only grasp brief and fleeting moments of existence in multiple timeframes) while still completing the narrative. As Marker himself commented in an interview, the film almost wrote itself, it was in the editing that the actual craft was used.

[Melville]

Also, the film is explicitly about temporal dislocation (i.e., time travel) and the still photographs almost remove the images from a natural dramatic flow. They remove the impetus for themselves, so to speak, capturing only brief instances of the story (just as the main character can only grasp brief and fleeting moments of existence in multiple timeframes) while still completing the narrative. As Marker himself commented in an interview, the film almost wrote itself, it was in the editing that the actual craft was used.
Yeah, I thought the still images were less about memory and more about conveying the time traveler's dislocated experience of time (though that could be said of memory-traveling too). It's a much more effective device than simply using choppy editing or soft focus or something, since it more immediately and powerfully disrupts the viewer's sense of time's natural passage. Only in the one moving scene does time briefly flow. (Maybe there are more scenes with motion, but I only remember the one with the girl looking up.) That scene is so damn beautiful because it captures a moment with such power for the narrator that it breaks through his dislocated sense of time: it's a lived moment. And it's a moment of connection. The still photographs always keep the time traveler's experience of his romance at a distance, both from himself and from the viewer. And then that one moment dissolves the stasis, bringing us the full, lived experience of the time traveler gazing upon his loved one, and feeling his gaze returned.

[StanleyK]

I didn't even realize there was time travel; maybe I need to revisit it.

[StanleyK]

22/01/2010 - Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (Jonathan Mostow, 2003)

http://i.clevver.com/fullphoto/5037/500/950/terminator-3-rise-of-the-machines-movie-poster-1.jpg

As this movie began, I thought it was really promising: a girl terminator! What a fascinating gender analysis this could've been; instead, her femininity is entirely irrelevant to her character, who might as well have been a male robot. She and Schwarzenegger are even given some hints of human behavior, which doesn't make sense, either plot-wise or subtextually. Instead of building on themes from the previous films, T3 briefly acknowledges them and puts them aside in favor of the action sequences- which, granted, are really good: the editing is expertly paced and the stakes rise in perfect succession. I also want to note that the comic relief, which is usually cringe-worthy in Hollywood blockbusters, here is actually funny and injects the intended levity. T3 is a collection of skillfully made and entertaining action scenes, which are unfortunately held together by a thin, empty story.

**½ or 5.0

On the side:

The Rough House (Roscoe Arbuckle & Buster Keaton, 1917)

Keaton's directorial debut, and not a very good one. The comedy here is unfocused, loosely going from joke to joke (some of them funny, some of them not) with no clear reason or purpose. Keaton (who I didn't even recognize) does an okay job again, but the film is pretty weak.

**½ or 5.0

[Grouchy]

"In this thread, I will watch at least one movie every day and I will not understand it".

[B-side]

"In this thread, I will watch at least one movie every day and I will not understand it".

You have quite the record of dick responses, don't you?

[Boner M]

You have quite the record of dick responses, don't you?
Despite the snark, Grouchy's sorta right. I wouldn't discourage StanleyK from watching shitloads of films if it's what he enjoys, but this kind of cramming can only lead to snap judgements rather than considered reflection. I know from experience.

[B-side]

Despite the snark, Grouchy's sorta right. I wouldn't discourage StanleyK from watching shitloads of films if it's what he enjoys, but this kind of cramming can only lead to snap judgements rather than considered reflection. I know from experience.

Oh, I agree. I'd never advocate this kind of cramming, but who am I to say he couldn't digest them? I've just seen Grouchy make these kinds of remarks several times now.

[soitgoes...]

Despite the snark, Grouchy's sorta right. I wouldn't discourage StanleyK from watching shitloads of films if it's what he enjoys, but this kind of cramming can only lead to snap judgements rather than considered reflection. I know from experience.
Outside of Play Time and La jetée has he really said something out and out "wrong" about what he's seen? Maybe someone can find fault with his Buñuel comments. La jetée wasn't even one of his films every day. I think Grouchy's comment is unwarranted.

[Qrazy]

I'm curious which of his films you are referring to when you're talking about Maddin and memory fragmentation? He uses amnesia in his films, but I always assumed that was more to signify repression (most times sexual) than having anything to do with memory. I guess My Winnipeg is about memory, but its conceptualization of memory is nowhere near similar to La Jetée. As a matter of fact, I would say it is very different. I know you didn't compare La Jetée directly to Maddin, but I'm trying to understand the similarities that led you to mentioning him.

I saw an interview with him where he discussed his editing technique as a way of representing memories. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDGkeoUqFOA)

[soitgoes...]

I saw an interview with him where he discussed his editing technique as a way of representing memories. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDGkeoUqFOA)Cool, thanks! I'll watch this in a bit. :)

[Qrazy]

Oh, I agree. I'd never advocate this kind of cramming, but who am I to say he couldn't digest them? I've just seen Grouchy make these kinds of remarks several times now.

Do you not usually watch at least one film a day? As someone who also usually does this I see no problem with it or 'cramming' in that sense.

[B-side]

Do you not usually watch at least one film a day? As someone who also usually does this I see no problem with it or 'cramming' in that sense.

Stan seems to be watching a few films a day. I try to watch 1 film a day, but it doesn't always pan out. I haven't watched anything the past few days.

[Boner M]

Outside of Play Time and La jetée has he really said something out and out "wrong" about what he's seen?Did I suggest he had? There's nothing "wrong" with his or anyone's opinions, and his brief appreciation of We Own the Night has singlehandedly ensured that I'll be revisiting this thread in future. I just think there's a certain tendency among a lot of film buffs (here and beyond) to value watching films in a film-vacuum, and/or as part of a strict routine, rather than living a little... if I didn't have a life to measure my experiences of film (or any art) up against, I wouldn't be typing this now.

Anyway, I don't want to get too dogmatic... I just thought I'd throw that out there while Stanley's project is in its infancy* as some food for thought.

*EDIT:


In March I will complete two years of this project. I'm not sick yet.

I take everything back. Get outdoors, dude. You'll be less wrong if you do.

[soitgoes...]

"In this thread, I will watch at least one movie every day and I will not understand it".


Despite the snark, Grouchy's sorta right.


Did I suggest he had?
I thought so.


There's nothing "wrong" with his or anyone's opinions, and his brief appreciation of We Own the Night has singlehandedly ensured that I'll be revisiting this thread in future. I just think there's a certain tendency among a lot of film buffs (here and beyond) to value watching films in a film-vacuum, and/or as part of a strict routine, rather than living a little... if I didn't have a life to measure my experiences of film (or any art) up against, I wouldn't be typing this now.

Anyway, I don't want to get too dogmatic... I just thought I'd throw that out there while Stanley's project is in its infancy* as some food for thought.

*EDIT:

I take everything back. Get outdoors, dude. You'll be less wrong if you do.I guess I just find the whole of the last few posts weird. This is a film forum. StanleyK is his own person. I think it's strange for members of this forum to tell someone they really don't even know to watch less films and experience life. Making the assumption that StanleyK does nothing besides watch movies just seems wrong.

The initial Grouchy comment is off-base. Stanley's opinions don't seem off for the most part, and his willingness to express his opinions shouldn't be chastised by others. At least not yet. ;)

[Grouchy]

Ok, Stanley, sorry if that was a bit crude.

I was mainly talking about surrealism, Peter Sellers is not funny and La Jetee is not about time travel.

[StanleyK]

I have a life, yes, and my friends are all just as baffled when I tell them I watch movies every day. Hey, I like it, and I have the free time.


Despite the snark, Grouchy's sorta right. I wouldn't discourage StanleyK from watching shitloads of films if it's what he enjoys, but this kind of cramming can only lead to snap judgements rather than considered reflection. I know from experience.

Considered reflection comes with time; whether I watch more movies in the interim doesn't matter, because the best ones tend to stick to my mind after my initial snap judgment.


Ok, Stanley, sorry if that was a bit crude.

No problem; sometimes being told you're wrong is useful in helping shape the way you see things, like Melville made me notice my fixation on explicit symbolism.

BTW, I loved Peter Sellers in Dr. Strangelove- the problem wasn't him, it was The Pink Panther.

[StanleyK]

23/01/2010 - Dog Soldiers (Neil Marshall, 2002)

http://1416andcounting.files.wordpres s.com/2008/11/dog_soldiers_04.jpg

This is a smart movie with lots of good ideas; I love how Marshall takes a story about a group of manly soldiers (the main character a misogynist) fighting werewolves, and manages to turn it into a critique of the usual testosterone-fest it would have become in other hands: the soldiers are emasculated, starting with fake guns (they 'shoot blanks', you see), and when they get real guns, they're short on ammunition or malfunctioning. The werewolves, I imagine, are representations of their wilder, more animalistic side, but women can be werewolves too- girls aren't by default weaker, fierceness and strength aren't just for boys. Sadly, the execution of Dog Soldiers leaves to be desired: the editing is far too frenzied and spastic, making the action confusing; the music is way over the top, and overall it's just not very scary. With a more appealing style, this film could've been great, but as it is, it's pretty good.

*** or 7.5

On the side:

Yojimbo (Akira Kurosawa, 1961)

Aside from issues of exposition (a shitload of it in the first 15 minutes, and yet a key character just shows up in the middle of the movie with nothing leading up to it), Yojimbo is an excellent story, and Kurosawa and Mifune are at the top of their game.

**** or 9.0

[Russ]

I like you, Stanley. You're relatable, you're level-headed and you seem really open-minded about film.
Yeah, I'd tend to agree with this.

[StanleyK]

Sans Soleil (Chris Marker, 1983)

http://www.thecinematheque.com/poster_sanssoliel1.jpg

I didn't understand this movie, either (it's smarter than me, which is a good thing), but I found it much more compelling and more inviting to future insights. The narration is better, and the few instances of stills, placed in the larger context of this film, are more powerful than the entirety of La Jetée.

***½ or 8.5

[Melville]

I seem to be the only person who prefers La Jetee. Here's (http://melvillian.wordpress.com/2010/01/07/sans-soleil-marker-1983/) my review of Sans Soleil, for comparison.

[Raiders]

I seem to be the only person who prefers La Jetee.

I doubt this, but it's okay, incorrect opinions make this forum go.

[Melville]

I doubt this, but it's okay, incorrect opinions make this forum go.
Bah. You can have your talk of cats and owls. I'll stick with that one sublime moment of movement.

[soitgoes...]

Bah. You can have your talk of cats and owls. I'll stick with that one sublime moment of movement.Melville, I'll agree with you.

[Melville]

Melville, I'll agree with you.
Excellent. Now that I think of it, I remember that Duncan also prefers La Jetee.

[Raiders]

I love both. Why must I choose?

In actuality, I have seen four Marker films, and three of them are simply masterful (and would stand a great chance to make my top 100) and the fourth isn't far from it.

[Melville]

I love both. Why must I choose?

In actuality, I have seen four Marker films, and three of them are simply masterful (and would stand a great chance to make my top 100) and the fourth isn't far from it.
There's no need to choose. I just happen to greatly prefer La Jetee. Any suggestions for the next Marker film I should check out?

[Raiders]

There's no need to choose. I just happen to greatly prefer La Jetee. Any suggestions for the next Marker film I should check out?

A Grin Without a Cat which I just saw a week ago (and really need to write something about). Not sure what you'll think necessarily, given your only moderate response to Sans soleil, but I can't not recommend it. The other one I have seen is The Koumiko Mystery which is also great, though a little more slight, but it isn't very available.

[Melville]

A Grin Without a Cat which I just saw a week ago (and really need to write something about). Not sure what you'll think necessarily, given your only moderate response to Sans soleil, but I can't not recommend it.
Oh, yeah, now I remember Derek praising that one as well. I'll check it out.

[Derek]

Oh, yeah, now I remember Derek praising that one as well. I'll check it out.

Yeah, love it. I also prefer La Jetee to Sans Soleil though the latter is still great.

[StanleyK]

I seem to be the only person who prefers La Jetee. Here's (http://melvillian.wordpress.com/2010/01/07/sans-soleil-marker-1983/) my review of Sans Soleil, for comparison.

I don't think the poeticisms are meant to be taken at face value; they're just food for thought for reflection.

[StanleyK]

25/01/2010 - The Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans (Werner Herzog, 2009)

http://www.wildaboutmovies.com/images_7/bad_lieutenant_port_of_call_ne w_orleans.jpg

Though never addressed directly (save for the opening scene), the hurricane Katrina looms over New Orleans in this film, a pretty grim suject for a comedy- and that's what The Bad Lieutenant is, a particularly hilarious comedy, with an appropriately insane performance from Cage, and a very slick style by Herzog. It's not so bad it's good, it's just plain great.

***½ or 8.5

On the side:

MASH (Robert Altman, 1970)

It's not that I demand likable characters in fiction, really. Some excellent films have been made about very flawed people (The Rules of the Game, Altman's own Nashville and Gosford Park), but when the movie wants you to laugh with the characters' antics, not at them, you get something like Animal House, endorsing misogynistic, homophobic and misanthropic behavior. At least MASH is much better made, and funnier; still, when O'Houlihan has a nervous breakdown and denounced the entire camp, the viewer is meant to side with the boys and laugh at her, but I find it hard not to sympathyze with her.

**½ or 5.5

Coney Island (Roscoe Arbuckle, 1917)

Fatty and Buster are here idiotic manchildren, even moreso than the other films; as much as their antics are fun (and fun they are, probably the most entertaining I've seen so far), the contempt for authority, propensity to violence, and the 'can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em' attitude towards women are uncomfortable.

*** or 6.5

[Kurosawa Fan]

That MASH rating and review is like a different language to me. I can't decipher it.

[StanleyK]

That MASH rating and review is like a different language to me. I can't decipher it.

Okay, why is that?

[Spaceman Spiff]

I also prefer La Jetee, but Sans Soleil is no slouch.

[Grouchy]

That MASH rating and review is like a different language to me. I can't decipher it.
Me neither. I find it very hard to picture how anyone can identify with O'Halloran or whatever was the woman called over Gould and Sutherland.

Stanley, I apologize again for being harsh with you before. As a way of explanation, we're on a completely different page on everything.

[Adam]

I was also mysteriously unenthused by MASH when I saw it a couple of years ago, and I'm a major Altman fanboy

[StanleyK]

Me neither. I find it very hard to picture how anyone can identify with O'Halloran or whatever was the woman called over Gould and Sutherland.

For starters, her breakdown occurs right after they expose her nudity to the whole camp; that's pretty fucked up. Then, when she calls their antics 'drunken hooliganism', well, she's right. They're shown to be drinking all the time, and their actions are basically bullying O'Houlihan and Burns (listening on them having sex, broadcasting it to the camp, insulting her during the football match). I think the most telling moment is when one of the doctors says something like 'If he saw who the clowns operating on him are, he'd faint'. They know how awful they are, they just don't care.

Arguably, their behavior is just a defensive shield against the war surrounding them. It might work better if the war was actually shown or talked about, but maybe this is like The Bad Lieutenant, where it's just mentioned at the start and then implied to be shadowing everything else. But The Bad Lieutenant is a character study, not condoning or condemning McDonagh's actions. MASH sides with these guys all the way, most disturbingly during the segment of the dentist, which declares homosexuality to be a disease which can be cured, and if it isn't, it warrants suicide.


Stanley, I apologize again for being harsh with you before. As a way of explanation, we're on a completely different page on everything.

We both liked Boogie Nights!


I was also mysteriously unenthused by MASH when I saw it a couple of years ago, and I'm a major Altman fanboy

From the little I've seen of Altman, I really like him too. His direction is really the best thing about MASH.

[Dukefrukem]

8.5 for Cage in BL? Can this be accurate?

[Ezee E]

8.5 for Cage in BL? Can this be accurate?
It's one of my favorites of 2009.

[Mara]

For starters, her breakdown occurs right after they expose her nudity to the whole camp; that's pretty fucked up.

Agreed. They are bastards.

That said, I liked the film. The football scene was particularly funny.

[Dukefrukem]

It's one of my favorites of 2009.

*added to my queue*

[StanleyK]

Cage is fantastic in The Bad Lieutenant.


That said, I liked the film. The football scene was particularly funny.

I found the film very funny, too; just also very objectionable.

[StanleyK]

26/01/2010 - School for Scoundrels (Todd Phillips, 2006)

http://z.about.com/d/movies/1/0/9/L/N/schoolforscoundrelsposter.jpg

Basically a low-rent version of Fight Club, with less satire and more lame gags. The Tyler Durden of this piece is eventually beaten with the same sociopathy he spouts, which undermines the point and just says 'hey, it's cool to stalk a guy if the girl you want likes him better'. The girl, of course, doesn't really do anything; first the good guy pines for her, then the bad guy steals her from him, and she just ping-pongs between them, determined by who's supposed to be winning at that point of the narrative.

* or 2.0

Well, now that I've followed my obsession to its bitter end, at least I'm through with this hack.

Road Trip (2000) - * (1.0)
Old School (2003) - *½ (2.5)
Starsky & Hutch (2004) - **½ (5.5)
School for Scoundrels (2006) - * (2.0)
The Hangover (2009) - **½ (5.0)

On the side:

The Adventures of Dollie (D.W. Griffith, 1908)

No racism to be seen here (maybe the kidnappers are meant to be gypsies, but they're not played as appalling caricatures), just a decent, if fairly dull short; it's interesting to see what constituted an action film back then.

**½ or 6.0

[Grouchy]

It's really been too long since I saw MASH to defend it with examples, but I think the general idea is that it's a farcical comedy about wartime which basically shows people who are supposed to be deadly serious (medical units) as drunken pranksters who only live to make fun of authority.

[Rowland]

Road Trip (2000) - * (1.0)
Old School (2003) - *½ (2.5)
Starsky & Hutch (2004) - **½ (5.5)
School for Scoundrels (2006) - * (2.0)
The Hangover (2009) - **½ (5.0)Funny, Road Trip is the only film of his I like. It's no classic mind you, but certainly less vile in my estimation than most work in the genre.


No racism to be seen here I've watched several shorts by Griffith now and haven't noticed any. In fact, The Red Man's View struck me as fairly progressive for its time. The best I've seen so far are Musketeers of Pig Alley and A Corner in Wheat, check those out.

[soitgoes...]

I've watched several shorts by Griffith now and haven't noticed any.
There's a few that use blackface, but none of them are near as offensive as what he gave us in Birth of a Nation.

[StanleyK]

It's really been too long since I saw MASH to defend it with examples, but I think the general idea is that it's a farcical comedy about wartime which basically shows people who are supposed to be deadly serious (medical units) as drunken pranksters who only live to make fun of authority.

The film's fault is in siding with the drunken pranksters.


Funny, Road Trip is the only film of his I like. It's no classic mind you, but certainly less vile in my estimation than most work in the genre.

I thought that S&H and The Hangover were his less misanthropic, thus more tolerable films. The other three follow a similar formula and fail.


I've watched several shorts by Griffith now and haven't noticed any. In fact, The Red Man's View struck me as fairly progressive for its time. The best I've seen so far are Musketeers of Pig Alley and A Corner in Wheat, check those out.

Will do; I'll be checking out some Griffith shorts along with Keaton ones.

[StanleyK]

27/01/2010 - Where the Wild Things Are (Spike Jonze, 2009)

http://www.empireonline.com/images/news/temp/first-where-the-wild-things-are-poster.jpg

The Wizard of Oz for the decade, with the bonus of a more satisfying ending. It's refreshing to see a movie about a child that actually acts like a child, and thinks childish fantasies. Where the Wild Things Are isn't engrossing all the way through, but when it is, it's downright magical.

***½ or 8.0

On the side:

Days of Heaven (Terrence Malick, 1978)

Not the best-looking movie ever only because Malick made more, God manifests himself in every passage of this film through the overwhelming presence of nature; its relationship with man makes Days of Heaven one of my favorite religious films.

**** or 10

Those Awful Hats (D.W. Griffith, 1909)

Uh, enjoyable. Nothing to really talk about since it's basically a public announcement short.

*** or 6.5

[soitgoes...]

Those Awful Hats (D.W. Griffith, 1909)

Uh, enjoyable. Nothing to really talk about since it's basically a public announcement short.

*** or 6.5I found it amusing that this was made only a few years after going to a theater to see a movie became the norm. A hundred years later, instead of hats, the problem is cell phones. It's still relevant in a way.

[Grouchy]

The film's fault is in siding with the drunken pranksters.
That's the part where, as far as I'm concerned, you're speaking in cantonese. What the fuck, dude? Did you expect Altman to side with the generals and authority figures? What kind of satire would that be?

I remember that Griffith short about the hats. Fun stuff.

[StanleyK]

I found it amusing that this was made only a few years after going to a theater to see a movie became the norm. A hundred years later, instead of hats, the problem is cell phones. It's still relevant in a way.

Hah, it's true. The sad thing is that the 'turn off your cellphone' ads are actually more annoying nowadays.


That's the part where, as far as I'm concerned, you're speaking in cantonese. What the fuck, dude? Did you expect Altman to side with the generals and authority figures? What kind of satire would that be?

Maybe their pranks could be less drunken or something; or, like I mentioned before, it could have been a character study, which examines the reason for their behavior instead of condoning it. That's what Nashville does, and Nashville is a masterpiece.

[StanleyK]

28/01/2010 - Intolerance: Love's Struggle Throughout the Ages (D.W. Griffith, 1916)

http://img.movieberry.com/static/photos/38012/poster.jpg

Much more accomplished and narratively ambitious than The Birth of a Nation, and instead of a hateful message, the subject here is a celebration of the power of love and the struggle against hatred through time; a bit cheesy and heavy-handed at times, and the stories in Israel and France and underdeveloped, it's nevertheless a great movie.

***½ or 8.5

[StanleyK]

29/01/2010 - RocknRolla (Guy Ritchie, 2008)

http://www.wildaboutmovies.com/images_6/rocknrolla_ver2.jpg

Closer to Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Snatches than his other films; that is, all style and no substance, but goddamn the style is fun. Still too flashy and over-edited, but I suppose I've grown used to that by now and it doesn't bother me too much. Ritchie doesn't really have anything to say about crime or violence here, so I'm hoping that with Sherlock Holmes, he can finally add some meat to his narrative bones.

**½ or 5.5

On the side:

The Seventh Seal (Ingmar Bergman, 1957)

One thing I really like about this movie is that Death is basically just an average dude doing his job; his introduction is low-key, and he doesn't know any of the secrets of the universe- neither good nor evil, he's merely an agent of nature. Whether God exists or not isn't answered in The Seventh Seal, but the question makes for some great Bergman monologues.

**** or 9.0

The Sealed Room (D.W. Griffith, 1909)

If The Adventures of Dollie is how action films were in the original 00's, this is how horror was; The Sealed Room is however much more accomplished, with a really scary concept and an entertaining execution; the ending is quite eerie.

***½ or 8.0

[StanleyK]

30/01/2010 - The Descent (Neil Marshall, 2005)

http://www.horror-movies.ca/gallery/_files/photogallery/descent-aith-bigg.jpg

Any problems Dog Soldiers might have had are absent here; with a powerful soundtrack, contained editing, and claustrophobic cinematography, The Descent is flawlessly executed, in addition to being an extremely intelligent horror movie. Much like Marshall's previous effort, which managed to be feministic despite having the only one female character be a villain, the women of this piece provide a compelling gender study, full of powerful imagery; expecting to find comfort within Earth's womb, they're instead forced to do battle with their repressed demons. Profoundly unsettling, even with some obvious jump scares (apparently an unavoidable problem in modern horror) The Descent is an example of just how horror films should be made.

**** or 9.5

On the side:

Good Night, Nurse! (Roscoe Arbuckle, 1918)

I'll take soitgoes' stance here and ignore the guy in blackface; his presence is minor and ultimately amounts to nothing. Otherwise, the short is very entertaining until its lame payoff. It's fun seeing Fatty get his ass kicked for once.

*** or 7.0

[StanleyK]

31/01/2010 - Scenes from a Marriage (Ingmar Bergman, 1973)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/dc/Scenes_from_a_Marriage_DVD_cov er.jpg

Whether or not Marianne and Johan are good for each other is a moot point; they live in an Ingmar Bergman movie, where it is literally impossible to be happy. His films may be depressing, but they're not nihilistic. In pontificating about the reasons for their unhappiness, their monologuing characters provide a myriad of reasons to appreciate your own life more, sort of a 'what not to do' guide in being a content person. After succesfully repelling religion with his Silence trilogy, Bergman moved on to personal relationships, and here he mercilessly tears a marriage apart bit by bit; the couple deconstructs their reasons to be married, and slowly piece them back together. If maybe just a bit too long for my threshold of patience, Scenes from a Marriage is definitely an insightful and challenging look at relationships.

**** or 9.0

On the side:

The Unchanging Sea (D.W. Griffith, 1910)

If the subplot about the guy losing his memory was dropped, this would be a poignant cycle-of-life film, with the waves of its titular unchancing sea perenially and melancolically breaking into the shore; it would have distracted from the dated sexism, at least.

*** or 7.5

[StanleyK]

End of month balance:

Feature-Length: 31
Short Films: 14
Rewatches (FL): 18
Rewatches (SF): 4

Total Films: 67

Best Film: The Descent
Worst Film: Road Trip
Most Disappointing: Terminator 3
Best Rewatch: Viridiana
Best Performances: Nicolas Cage (The Bad Lieutenant), Joaquin Phoenix (We Own the Night), Liv Ullmann (Scenes from a Marriage)

[Rowland]

If the subplot about the guy losing his memory was dropped, this would be a poignant cycle-of-life film, with the waves of its titular unchancing sea perenially and melancolically breaking into the shore; it would have distracted from the dated sexism, at least.Agreed, though I also found it static to a fault; there may have been less than ten camera set-ups, which on the one hand can be argued for on thematic grounds but I also found visually tedious.

[StanleyK]

Agreed, though I also found it static to a fault; there may have been less than ten camera set-ups, which on the one hand can be argued for on thematic grounds but I also found visually tedious.

I liked the staticity, in fact, I would have prefered it if the whole thing was set in the beach; the sea is the only thing necessary in it.

[StanleyK]

01/02/2010 - The Abyss (James Cameron, 1989)

http://lancastria.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/the_abyss_lancastria.jpg

So it seems that Cameron could already be a lousy screenwriter long ago; the difference in the quality of the writing between either Terminator film, and Avatar or this is palpable. Clichéd, unbearably cheesy and full of exposition, The Abyss nevertheless remains engaging due to Cameron's prowess as a director; the action sequences are engaging and brilliantly crafted.

**½ or 5.5

On the side:

Tartuffe (Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau, 1925)

A broad morality play, with unnaturally (for Murnau) dull cinematography and compositions; it feels like he didn't much care for this movie. It's still pretty good, but it would have probably worked better as a short, ditching the framing device and concentrating on Emil Jannings, great as usual.

*** or 6.5

[StanleyK]

02/02/2010 - Frailty (Bill Paxton, 2001)

http://vnsecurity.com/uploads/mimg/anhphim/ym/1805535154p.jpg

An interesting and well-made thriller, depicting religious fanaticism gone horribly overboard. The twist ending is the good kind of twist: instead of being forced and irritating, it places the whole story in a different context, inviting rewatches and further readings. It's weird, I can't think of any complaints, yet I can't say I loved this movie; but it's definitely solid and worth watching.

*** or 7.5

[StanleyK]

03/02/2010 - Hancock (Peter Berg, 2008)

http://film.ceysu.net/wp-content/uploads/Hancock.jpg

It started out way better than I expected, and for an hour it remains a hilarious take on the superhero origin story, punctuated with some pretty good action sequences; but the final hour is too heavy on the unconvincing drama and with significantly weaker action. As an examination of how people view symbols (usual theme in superhero films) or race relations, it does a good job, even if it doesn't have anything insightful to say; the best thing about it is its life-affirming coda, showing how futile immortality would be when the very thing that makes life special is that you only get to live it once. And preferably to grow old beside someone you love, and loves you.

**½ or 6.0

On the side:

Alien (Ridley Scott, 1979)

Littered by phallic objects, Alien is probably one of the most accurate depictions of how the media is dominated by a male-centered view, and it's up to everywoman Ripley to escape this world (run, strangely, by the female-voiced AI Mother). Maybe a little too close to misandry for perfection, Alien is nevertheless deservedly a classic, very aptly paced and extremely tense.

***½ or 8.5

Avatar (James Cameron, 2009)

Still a terribly written, vaguely racist mess of a screenplay, but for some reason I appreciated the spectacle more. Not so much for the visual effects, which are really good but will probably be obsolete soon enough, but for how well Cameron handles the action and the scenes of discovery; despite the trite music, it's extremely entertaining and appropriately awe-inspiring.

**½ or 6.0

[StanleyK]

04/02/2010 - Rebel without a Cause (Nicholas Ray, 1955)

http://artfiles.art.com/images/-/Rebel-Without-a-Cause-Poster-C10298111.jpeg

Jim: Why do we do this?
Buzz: You gotta do something, don't you?

This exchange perfectly encapsulates teenage ennui and boredom, and (most of) the rest of the film is just as rich a study of that.

***½ or 8.5

05/02/2010 - Still Life (Jia Zhangke, 2006)

http://www.sudplanete.net/_uploads/images/films/ZHANG-KE_Jia_2007_Still-life_poster.jpg

In attempting to create still life paintings with film, Zhangke provides a wonderful illustration of how painting, photography and film and each serve a different purpose in depicting life through art.

***½ or 8.5

On the side:

Aliens (James Cameron, 1986)

Like Cameron's other great sequel, this movie builds on Alien's theme of a male-dominated world by relentlessly attacking Ripley's femininity: her motherhood is taken away, she's threatened with rape (a figurative one by facehugger), but in the end, she overcomes all odds again, and gains a surrogate daughter in the process. She's a much richer character here, and the film is more rewarding than the first; while it suffers from an overbearing James Horner score and from Newt being so fucking annoying, it is an improvement, however slight, over its original.

**** or 9.0

[StanleyK]

06/02/2010 - A Bridge Too Far (Richard Attenborough, 1977)

http://www.freemoviestheatre.com/media/images/ABridgeTooFar%281977%29.jpg

As an anti-war movie, it doesn't work very well; the carnage is boring and impactless, making its only stance 'war kills people, and that sucks', which is pretty obvious and not insightul at all. What we're left with, then, is a cast full of big-name actors doing fine jobs, and a visually accomplished and entertaining, if slight, war movie.

**½ or 5.0

On the side:

Gran Torino (Clint Eastwood, 2008)

Strangely enough, better a second time around; initial complaints (such as bad acting from the kids, or dull camerawork) now don't bother me as much, and its powerful anti-violence stance came through much stronger, now that I can relate it to Clint's post-Unforgiven career. While there are still some cheesy, overly melodramatic moments that bother me, I now see Gran Torino as one of Eastwood's stronger films.

***½ or 8.0

[StanleyK]

07/02/2010 - Mo' Better Blues (Spike Lee, 1990)

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_R-wex9j3--g/SZrAvcBno_I/AAAAAAAAB0s/Raya_YoHoao/s400/Mo%27+Better+Blues.jpg

Despite the usual annoying Spike Lee-isms (rooms spinning, people floating), this movie remains great for most of its running time, with amazing performances and a strong examination of blues and its ties with the black community. However, after a certain while it just fizzles out and keeps getting weaker until its clichéd, sexist finale.

*** or 7.5

On the side:

Back Stage (Roscoe Arbuckle, 1919)

The best Fatty short I've seen so far; he isn't just randomly belligerent for laughs here, the slapstick violence is actually justified and makes him a more solid character with a more compelling arc.

***½ or 8.5

A Corner in Wheat (D.W. Griffith, 1909)

A pretty depressing short that quite succintly and effectively brings up the problem of monopolization in capitalism; the bittersweet ending shot may be one of the best ever.

**** or 9.0

[StanleyK]

08/02/2010 - Final Destination (James Wong, 2000)

http://www.impawards.com/2000/posters/final_destination_ver1.jpg

What a stupid movie; uninterested in raising any sort of argument about death, instead it just presents it as a spectacle (which for a horror-comedy, is neither funny nor scary), with increasingly ludicrous kills, purely style over substance. Why doesn't Death just give them heart attacks? Oh, it's supposed to be 'toying' with them, right. Stupid.

*½ or 2.5

On the side:

L'Avventura (Michelangelo Antonioni, 1960)

I thought my appreciation for this film would grow over time, but instead it has decreased. Antonioni undeniably creates some fantastic imagery in this film, but his dislike for humanity is so intense (he gets that point across well, I guess) that he doesn't even bother writing proper characters; they're more like props to deliver some badly-written lines about how miserable they are (for good movies where people talk about how miserable they are, see Ingmar Bergman). The best moments in the film are silent ones, where the people just look miserable and let the excellent cinematography and production design speak for them. Ultimately, La Dolce Vita handled similar topics in the same year much more subtly and successfully.

*** or 7.0

[Derek]

On the side:

L'Avventura (Michelangelo Antonioni, 1960)

I thought my appreciation for this film would grow over time, but instead it has decreased. Antonioni undeniably creates some fantastic imagery in this film, but his dislike for humanity is so intense (he gets that point across well, I guess) that he doesn't even bother writing proper characters; they're more like props to deliver some badly-written lines about how miserable they are (for good movies where people talk about how miserable they are, see Ingmar Bergman). The best moments in the film are silent ones, where the people just look miserable and let the excellent cinematography and production design speak for them. Ultimately, La Dolce Vita handled similar topics in the same year much more subtly and successfully.

*** or 7.0

I don't think Antonioni dislikes humanity at all. In fact, I would say only someone who cares deeply about humanity could make films that effectively explore suffering and the human condition.

[Qrazy]

Yeah... you kind of missed the boat on what L'avventurra is about. I would also say it's a more subtle film than La Dolce Vita. That being said I too prefer La Dolce Vita to L'avventurra and Fellini to Antonioni, although I do love Antonioni. And that being said I prefer both to Bergman.

On a side note Tonino Guerra writes brilliant screenplays.

[StanleyK]

I don't think Antonioni dislikes humanity at all. In fact, I would say only someone who cares deeply about humanity could make films that effectively explore suffering and the human condition.

The problem, I think, is that Antonioni just takes the characters' misery for granted. With Ingmar Bergman, his characters have specific reasons for their dread, and his movies are about them confronting these reasons; if they aren't happy by the end, they at least know why they're unhappy. Antonioni doesn't give his characters any motives, the misery is just a given, which means that they can't know where it comes from and there's no point in ever confronting it. Strikes me as very nihilistic.


Yeah... you kind of missed the boat on what L'avventurra is about. I would also say it's a more subtle film than La Dolce Vita. That being said I too prefer La Dolce Vita to L'avventurra and Fellini to Antonioni, although I do love Antonioni. And that being said I prefer both to Bergman.

I think La Dolce Vita is more subtle because the characters don't even realize they're miserable, they front with lots of parties and expensive stuff; they convince themselves that they're living the titular sweet life.

[StanleyK]

09/02/2010 - The Mummy Returns (Stephen Sommers, 2001)

http://www.now-movies.com/movieimg/movie1261627989.jpg

Haha, I used to love shit like this eight years ago; having not seen it since and thus having no memory of it whatsoever, I counted it as a first-time viewing. All I can say is, I'm glad I grew up. Where the first movie was at least entertaining and reasonably well-made (there was one shot of Brendan Fraser fighting mummies that lasted some 20 seconds, pretty impressive), this one shows no effort at all; ludicrous plot, over-edited action, a bountiful of audience-insulting moments (a kid saying the darndest things, as kids in movies are wont to do, characters expositing really obvious stuff), and of course, it ultimately amounts to nothing significant.

* or 2.0

[Qrazy]

I think La Dolce Vita is more subtle because the characters don't even realize they're miserable, they front with lots of parties and expensive stuff; they convince themselves that they're living the titular sweet life.

I see what you're saying but I don't really agree with that reading. I don't think it's as cut and dried as characters being miserable or not, or realizing they're miserable or not in the case of either film. I find L'avventurra to be the more subtle work because something like a character dropping an ancient vase carries a great deal of subtext and this may be hard to spot at first. I feel La Dolce Vita is just as nuanced but it's content, while equally complex, isn't as obscured.

[StanleyK]

I see what you're saying but I don't really agree with that reading. I don't think it's as cut and dried as characters being miserable or not, or realizing they're miserable or not in the case of either film. I find L'avventurra to be the more subtle work because something like a character dropping an ancient vase carries a great deal of subtext and this may be hard to spot at first. I feel La Dolce Vita is just as nuanced but it's content, while equally complex, isn't as obscured.

Yeah, moments like these, or when Sandro knocks the ink on the painting, are indeed great and full of subtext, and they make me like the movie overall, but I feel like they're secondary to general brooding.

[StanleyK]

10/02/2010 - The Hurt Locker (Kathryn Bigelow, 2008)

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_GdXNWxBDJMs/Sz3QARpgMZI/AAAAAAAADo0/WQ_ZJcAI-Oo/hurt_locker_poster%5B5%5D.jpg

For about an hour, this is a fantastic thriller: three extremely tense set-pieces tied together by brief character moments, no time lost on exposition or cheesy one-liners. The second hour has a lot more time down time between set-pieces which unfortunately shows poor character development. The soldiers are broad and one-dimensional, and James doesn't act at all like he's addicted to war, which should be crucial to the main point of the film; as it is, it seems tacked on at the ending of a generic 'war is bad' movie. Nevertheless, it remains tense and engaging.

*** or 7.0

On the side:

Ice Age (Carlos Saldanha & Chris Wedge, 2002)

Predictable but funny, what I found interesting was all the gay subtext: the rhino couple, the tiger's comment about adopting, the plot being basically a remake of 3 Men and a Baby (which I haven't seen, so I'm just guessing). It's underdeveloped and goes nowhere, but it's nice to see a family film acknowledging that yes, gay people exist.

**½ or 5.0



11/02/2010 - The Butterfly Effect (Eric Bress & J. Mackye Gruber, 2004)

http://ishti.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/butterfly-effect.jpg

Pretty much the philosophical ramblings of a teenager put to film, nevertheless it's quite entertaining and benefits from a relatively smart and mature ending.

**½ or 5.5



12/02/2010 - House of 1000 Corpses (Rob Zombie, 2003)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7d/House_of_1000_Corpses_poster.J PG

The film equivalent of the Frankenstein monster, Zombie weaves together parts from much better movies into a hideous ensemble, and the seams show through the whole thing. The biggest inspiration and the one it most resembles is The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, only with none of the insight into the american way of life and with an extra-nihilistic ending that the kids are so fond of. Zombie throws in as much nasty shit as he can think of, in hopes of producing disgust, or amusement, or any sort of reaction, but all he produces is skull-numbing boredom, and a deeply stupid movie which doesn't understand the difference between 'homage' and 'rip-off'. Here's a tip: you're supposed to comment on what you're referencing, not just bring it up and expect the audience to nod in agreement.

* or 1.0

On the side:

For the Birds (Ralph Eggleston, 2000)

Prejudiced birds learn a valuable lesson in humility; a nice message delivered simply and to the point, and it's very cute and funny to boot. Pixar's best short.

**** or 9.5



13/02/2010 - May (Lucky McKee, 2002)

http://www.best-horror-movies.com/image-files/may-movie-poster.jpg

Similar to Hostel, in that the last half-hour akwardly clashes with the horror-free first hour, completely at odds with each other tonally and thematically; in both cases, I prefer the beginning. At least here, most themes here carry on almost smoothly enough, so it's mostly just a question of the build-up being better than the pay-off.

**½ or 6.0

[soitgoes...]

I'm pretty sure you will piss off the Match-Cut horror fans with that post.

[StanleyK]

I'm pretty sure you will piss off the Match-Cut horror fans with that post.

House of 1000 Corpses has fans? Shiiiiit...

I can definitely understand why people like May though, if the switch from the strong character drama to sort-of horror doesn't bother them; and the ending shot was pretty great.

[StanleyK]

14/02/2010 - El Mariachi (Robert Rodriguez, 1992)

http://www.vimooz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/el_mariachi_01.jpg

A lame modern western; Rodriguez, making no effort to comment on the moral confusion or usual imagery of the genre, simply unfolds a generic plot and over-edits the shit out of it in an attempt to make it look cool. Well, it does look cool, I'll give him that, and for being so cheap it actually looks okay and has decent acting, but overall it's a shallow exercise and certainly nothing to launch a career off of.

**½ or 5.0

On the side:

Blood Simple (Ethan Coen & Joel Coen, 1984)

Now this is a debut. Despite being the Coen brothers' least Coen-esque film (along with No Country for Old Men), it still carries lots of themes that will come up throughout their career: misinformation, greed, underestimation of others, and how any of these can lead to disastrous consequences. Visually strong, very tense and not wasting a single line of exposition, the Coens proved from the start that they're among the best directors of their generation.

**** or 9.5



15/02/2010 - Up in the Air (Jason Reitman, 2009)

http://www.wildaboutmovies.com/images_7/UpInTheAirPoster.jpg

Reitman has no particular insights into the current economic downturn, much like he didn't have anything insightful to say about teen pregnancy two years ago; Juno and this are shallow but serviceable movies, carried by excellent central performances and an overall great job by the cast. If the screenplay fails to produce any serious thought, it at least provides a handful of good lines and character development.

**½ or 5.5

On the side:

Children of Men (Alfonso Cuarón, 2006)

It's always a bit disappointing when you rewatch what used to be one of your favorites and it doesn't hold up so well; I'd never noticed just how much stilted exposition this movie has, or how sappy the music gets in some points. While it isn't one of the best movies ever in my actual opinion, it's still a masterpiece, with breathtaking visuals and expertly handled action sequences, and a wealth of subtext to draw from what's probably the best production design of the decade.

**** or 9.0

His Trust (D.W. Griffith, 1911)

The racism isn't as bad as The Birth of a Nation; it's unsettling as opposed to disgusting, which, while a mild improvement, doesn't negate the fact that it's there in the first place. Apart from that, the central message of trust works well enough, and it even has a few mildly emotional moments.

**½ or 5.5

The Garage (Roscoe Arbuckle, 1920)

Its only source of comedy the uninspired slapstick of people bumping into things and into each other in lieu of any actual gags, The Garage is lazy, boring and very unfunny. Definitely the worst of Fatty's films I've seen so far.

** or 4.5

[Grouchy]

About Children of Men - I think the exposition is actually handled masterfully. We learn everything about this world through actions instead of what is usually called "espository dialogue".

[StanleyK]

About Children of Men - I think the exposition is actually handled masterfully. We learn everything about this world through actions instead of what is usually called "espository dialogue".

For the most part, that's true, but there's still some painfully obvious moments, like when the bus of Fugees passes and Jasper comments on it; or when he talks about Theo's son with him eavesdropping; or the mural of photos at Jasper's house; in fact, most of the exposition came from his character.

[StanleyK]

16/02/2010 - True Lies (James Cameron, 1994)

http://chud.com/articles/content_images/5/truelies.jpg

So, the thematically complex Aliens, Terminator and T2 are apparently the anomalies in Cameron's career, the rest are stupid heaps of clichés; this one was so preposterous that I started wondering if it wasn't actually a parody of over-the-top action movies (if it is, Last Action Hero is far superior), but then the movie gets hijacked by the Jamie Lee Curtis cheating subplot, which is misogynistic, boring and goes on forever. The ridiculous action does resume towards the ending, but by then that becomes boring too. Salvaged from complete failure only by Cameron's skill at direction, True Lies is a very dull and almost offensively shallow film.

*½ or 3.0

On the side:

Trainspotting (Danny Boyle, 1996)

As Renton lists a number of reasons for leading a clean lifestyle, the sarcasm in his voice is depressing. Where I used to think the film laughed along with him, now I see it's laughing at him and his spoiled rich kid nihilism; Trainspotting, in a weird sort of way, is a life-affirming movie, which, after coasting you through the good and very very bad side of drug addiction, concludes that the only way to go is not to get hooked in the first place.

***½ or 8.0

The Frogs Who Wanted a King (Wladyslaw Starewicz, 1923)

Rather than an attack on change, as its unconving moral would have you believe, I see it as a commentary of how little authority figures care about the common folks; Jupiter sends the frogs completely unqualified monarchs not out of compassion for them, but only to shut them up so he can resume doing nothing. A smart political satire by way of a disarmingly adorable fantasy tale, despite the U-Turn to depressing at the ending The Frogs Who Wanted a King is funny and charming.

**** or 10

Bunny (Chris Wedge, 1998)

Not very subtle but an interesting enough view of old age and death; the bug was suitably terrifying, and the ending is fairly moving.

*** or 6.5

[StanleyK]

17/02/2010 - Crooklyn (Spike Lee, 1994)

http://oadq.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/crooklyn.jpg

In Do the Right Thing, despity the light and comedic tone, the tension in the neighborhood kept building to near-unbearable levels, making the violent and explosive finale very cathartic, for the viewer and the characters; of course, like its characters do, in reflection you start thinking if all that was necessary, and that among other things makes DTRT a complex and rewarding film. In Crooklyn, there's violence from the beginning; child abuse, animal abuse, bullying, all let loose so often that it quickly loses effect. By the time a main character dies and there's a very weepy and emotional scene, I was just apathetic. Stripped of any interest or engagement, Crooklyn shows itself an empty movie, all of the anger from DTRT but almost none of the insight; Spike Lee's cinematography and musical choices are, of course, top notch, and what kept me from complete boredom.

** or 4.0

[StanleyK]

18/02/2010 - Desperado (Robert Rodriguez, 1995)

http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/5188/desperado3wo.jpg

Unlike it lame predecessor, Desperado actually takes time to consider the iconography behind the western genre, specifically the legend of the badass gunslinger. Banderas is set up by a great prologue as a myth-like figure, and the rest of the film examines that status as it relates to the genre and the characters inhabiting it. There's also a hollow anti-violence coda, which doesn't work very well because all the shootouts are shot and edited to look as kinetic and cool as possible; for what it's worth, they do. While not a great movie, Desperado is better made and thematically stronger than El Mariachi, and a mild step up for Rodriguez.

*** or 6.5

On the side:

More (Mark Osborne, 1998)

As the nameless worker toils away at a factory, his only solace in life is a memory from his childhood; a piece of his soul, maybe? Spiritual implications or not, More is a wonderful celebration of whatever it is that makes unique.

**** or 10

Bedhead (Robert Rodriguez, 1991)

Poor child actors irritatingly strive to be cute while dealing with awesome super-powers; I imagine this is a blueprint of all the films Rodriguez would go on to make for his kids. This one is still kind of tolerable.

** or 3.5



19/02/2010 - Alien³ (David Fincher, 1992)

http://www.imfdb.org/images/thumb/d/d6/Alien3poster.jpg/300px-Alien3poster.jpg

A classic Hollywood sequel fuck-up, Alien³ either misunderstands or completely ignores what makes the first two films great and uses the concept for just a brainless action movie, complete with stupid characters decisions, an excessive musical score (granted, Aliens had that problem too) and of course motherfucking jump scares; goddamn I hate jump scares, why does every single horror movie have them?

Alien³ does have one good concept: Ripley being impregnated with the Alien Queen, which is a cool subversion of Aliens and ties in with the series' exploration of her femininity. Building on themes from the previous movies... it's like they actually could have made another great entry but chose not to, which I guess puts it in the 'completely ignores' category of fuck-up sequels. What a shame.

** or 4.5

On the side:

One Week (Edward F. Cline & Buster Keaton, 1920)

Featuring the best kind of slapstick, where the bumping into things is actually indicative of some larger subtext, One Week is a hilarious short about a married couple struggling with a poorly designed house. Keaton uses his stone-face persona for I think the first time here, and he's really, really good; now I'm even more excited to go through the rest of his filmography.

**** or 9.0

[StanleyK]

20/02/2010 - The Devil's Rejects (Rob Zombie, 2005)

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/512Hb2hZa3L.jpg

House of 1000 Corpses left me with a bad taste that lingered as I began this movie, but as The Devil's Rejects moves on, it turns out to be actually quite smart abouts its appeal. The killers can go from terrifying to sympathetic at the drop of a hat, and their antagonist, while driven by solid motivations, goes too far with revenge; it's not quite Funny Games, but it's an interesting examination of audience complicity with violence in film. The excessive filmmaking carries on from HO1KC but it's toned down enough to be entertaining and decently stylized. I'm not sure I'm ready to call The Devil's Rejects a great movie, but it's a fairly intelligent and effective one.

*** or 7.0

On the side:

The Girl and Her Trust (D.W. Griffith, 1912)

Despite some sexism and the ending hinging on a supposedly smart character making a ridiculously stupid decision, this is a pretty good short, with fluid camera work providing a very exciting action scene.

*** or 7.0

[StanleyK]

21/02/2010 - The Curse of the Jade Scorpion (Woody Allen, 2001)

http://gallery.sendbad.net/data/media/62/The%20Curse%20of%20the%20Jade% 20Scorpion.jpg

A well-written, witty and funny piece of shit perpetrating the old cliché that if a man and a woman are really hostile, they must be secretly attracted to each other; what a load of bullshit. Woody Allen still has a knack for dialogue and cinematography, but he's stuck in the past and refusing to move on. This movie feels like it was made in the 40's, which in regards to gender politics is definitely not a good thing.

** or 4.0

On the side:

Hour of the Wolf (Ingmar Bergman, 1968)

Driven basically entirely by fear of emasculation, Bergman's foray into the horror genre is very effective, building up tension for an hour until unleashing a nightmarish finale with a look into the damaged psyche of an artist; the brief epilogue is chilling.

**** or 10

Convict 13 (Edward F. Cline & Buster Keaton, 1920)

For a short meant to be lighthearted, this is actually pretty disturbing, as it tries to milk comedy out of people being hanged and shot; it's otherwise okay, and Keaton is of course great.

**½ or 5.5

[StanleyK]

I feel stupid; These last few days I just can't think of anything to write about what I see.



22/02/2010 - The White Ribbon (Michael Haneke, 2009)

http://www.filmofilia.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/the_white_ribbon_poster-424x600.jpg

Probably my favorite Haneke, at least as far as direction is concerned. The emotionally devastating moments, capturing in gorgeous black-and-white long takes, are great representations of pre-war anxiety.

***½ or 8.5



23/02/2010 - Up (Pete Docter & Bob Peterson, 2009)

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_dS9o2xQUbsU/SXgGx0ALd6I/AAAAAAAACuY/5nDA5ERZey8/s400/Up_poster_2.jpg

Pixar's most uneven film, it swings between massive flaws (too sappy or mean-spirited at times) and great strenghts (the dogs were hilarious, the action is really good); ultimately, the theme of letting go of the past is well worked and makes it an overall worthwile experience.

*** or 6.5

On the side:

Partly Cloudy (Peter Sohn, 2009)

Annoying, unfunny and downright sadistic in the treatment of the stork; the worst thing Pixar has ever done.

*½ or 3.0



24/02/2010 - The Faculty (Robert Rodriguez, 1998)

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_F94SmJYgTyo/SWrZOPo9j4I/AAAAAAAAAUU/L96HpgK79BU/s400/007_FACULTY~The-Faculty-Posters.jpg

Purpoting to be both a fun throwback to 50's sci-fi flicks and a celebration of our human qualities, it succeeds more at the former than the latter. Rodriguez curiously decides to step back and not inject the film with his style, so strong in both his other efforts I saw.

**½ or 5.5

On the side:

Memento (Christopher Nolan, 2000)

Far from being a simple gimmick, the backwards narrative serves neatly places the viewer into the main character's mind, making its examination on the capacities of our memory more rewarding.

**** or 9.0

Neighbors (Edward F. Cline & Buster Keaton, 1920)

Slight but sweet.

*** or 7.0



25/02/2010 - Sherlock Holmes (Guy Ritchie, 2009)

http://www.alumniroundup.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/SherlockHolmesTeaserPoster.jpg

Very similar to Batman Begins: both are about brilliant detectives, who fail to get the girl at the end; both set up a villain for the sequel; both deal with the power that fear holds over people; both have action sequences quite similar in style (that is, confusing and over-edited). The crucial difference is that whereas BB is about the construction of a symbol, Sherlock Holmes is never actually notorious in his film, which is more about how he himself deals with how his actions change his environment.

*** or 7.0

So, Guy Ritchie:

Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (1998) - *** (7.0)
Snatch. (2000) - **½ (6.0)
Swept Away (2002) - * (1.0)
Revolver (2005) - ** (3.5)
RocknRolla (2008) - **½ (5.5)
Sherlock Holmes (2009) - *** (7.0)

On the side:

The Scarecrow (Edward F. Cline & Buster Keaton, 1920)

Pretty good; I like how in this short, home technology isn't painted as dehumanizing, only as efficient.

*** or 7.5

[StanleyK]

26/02/2010 - Midnight Express (Alan Parker, 1978)

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/212/494215718_69cfec163f.jpg?v=0

The scene where Billy rips off a guy's tongue intrigues me; is his violent revenge meant to be seen as righteous and deserved (it is pretty cathartic), or does his complete shutdown afterwards indicate that the film laments what he's become? Despite the moral confusion and the very ugly racism, Midnight Express is a remarkably brutal depiction of prison life, and a pretty effective drama.

*** or 7.5

On the side:

The New York Hat (D.W. Griffith, 1912)

Aims for sweet but lands squarely at creepy; the relatively well-handled theme of the evils of gossip redeems it.

**½ or 6.0



27/02/2010 - The Negotiator (F. Gary Gray, 1998)

http://stallionbackups.co.uk/images/negotiator.jpg

Between The Italian Job and this, I can see that Gray is a fine action director, capable of making tightly edited and entertaining sequences; it's a shame he picks rote, clichéd screenplays, lacking in substance and imagination. The cast does a good job with the little they are given, but the tired story makes most of the non-action scenes pretty dull.

** or 3.5

On the side:

The Mermaid (Georges Méliès, 1904)

Pretty interesting; if the magician turning into a completely different guy in the middle of it is a goof, it's the most hilarious one I know.

*** or 7.5

Lick the Star (Sofia Coppola, 1998)

I like the scatter-shot nature of this short; most of the information is conveyed through quick glimpses of gossip as it travels from teenage girl to teenage girl, or brief conversations bad-mouthing someone behind their back. Probably as rich a portrayal of teenage angst as The Virgin Suicides, and already sporting a style very distinctly hers, this is a fairly impressive debut for Coppola.

***½ or 8.5

[StanleyK]

28/02/2010 - Escape from Alcatraz (Don Siegel, 1979)

http://shop.amctv.com/images/products/21/6646-70.jpg

Comparisons to The Shawshank Redemption are inevitable. In a way, this movie is more honest: the protagonist isn't an innocent man wronged by the system, and we don't get a long spiel about hope and freedom, making them innate to human beings; on the other hand, we never do find out what it is that Morris did, and we only root for him because he's being played by Clint Eastwood. What could have been an interesting commentary on the viewer's relationship to leading men, or at least a complex character study like Dirty Harry, is a simple and slight prison escape film. At least, it's executed very skillfully: the lack of plot or character development means that pretty much all of the running time is devoted to the plan and execution of the breakaway, making for a very cool and tense thriller.

*** or 6.5

On the side:

Cries and Whispers (Ingmar Bergman, 1972)

I've noticed a lot of Bergman movies have scenes with clocks ticking in the background, and I think I realize why: the clock ticks, time is passing, soon death will catch up with us all. This is the film where clocks and clock hands are the most prominent, and it's probably his film most concerned with death, mostly the suffering leading up to it but also the effects it leaves on the bereaved. I'm pretty sure it's the dead doing the titular whispering, heard as the character's faces, set against a blood-red backdrop, segue into flashbacks or dreams; when you're alive, you cry (scream in agony), and when you're dead, you whisper. Sounds pretty bleak, and yet, thanks mostly to the character of Anna, it manages to be a very humanistic movie.

**** or 10

How a Mosquito Operates (Winsor McCay, 1912)

Holy shit, this movie is creepy; the way they keep looping their actions (which was kind of cute in Gertie the Dinosaur) just makes it even more unsettling. While I have to respect the quality of the animation, this story of a dead-eyed mosquito draining a man from his blood and then promptly exploding, that's probably meant to be comical, is actually very unpleasant to watch.

*½ or 3.0

[StanleyK]

End of month balance:

Feature-Length: 28
Short Films: 16
Rewatches (FL): 13
Rewatches (SF): 3

Total Films: 60

Best Film: Still Life
Worst Film: House of 1000 Corpses
Most Disappointing: Alien³, Up
Best Rewatch: Hour of the Wolf
Best Performances: Angela Bettis (May), James Dean (Rebel without a Cause), Denzel Washington (Mo' Better Blues)

[B-side]

Lick the Star (Sofia Coppola, 1998)

I like the scatter-shot nature of this short; most of the information is conveyed through quick glimpses of gossip as it travels from teenage girl to teenage girl, or brief conversations bad-mouthing someone behind their back. Probably as rich a portrayal of teenage angst as The Virgin Suicides, and already sporting a style very distinctly hers, this is a fairly impressive debut for Coppola.

***½ or 8.5

Yeah, I rather enjoyed this one myself.

[StanleyK]

Yeah, I rather enjoyed this one myself.

I'm curious to see how it'll stand up against Coppola's feature work; are you a fan of hers, in general?

[StanleyK]

01/03/2010 - The Rock (Michael Bay, 1996)

http://thisdistractedglobe.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/The%20Rock%20poster%201.jpg

Ok, so this is the best Michael Bay movie; doesn't actually mean anything considering the man's output, it's just as loud and stupid as the others. The Rock has the benefit of being at least entertaining, and less offensive than Bay's average movie (although Cage's girlfriend's subplot reeks of sexism). Its biggest assets are Sean Connery and Ed Harris, who are great; not so much with Cage, in his 'don't-care-just-gimme-a-paycheck mode.

** or 4.0

[BuffaloWilder]

16/02/2010 - True Lies (James Cameron, 1994)

http://chud.com/articles/content_images/5/truelies.jpg

So, the thematically complex Aliens, Terminator and T2 are apparently the anomalies in Cameron's career, the rest are stupid heaps of clichés; this one was so preposterous that I started wondering if it wasn't actually a parody of over-the-top action movies (if it is, Last Action Hero is far superior), but then the movie gets hijacked by the Jamie Lee Curtis cheating subplot, which is misogynistic, boring and goes on forever. The ridiculous action does resume towards the ending, but by then that becomes boring too. Salvaged from complete failure only by Cameron's skill at direction, True Lies is a very dull and almost offensively shallow film.

*½ or 3.0



The Terminator films were thematically complex?

[soitgoes...]

Yeah, I love True Lies. While I'm not as high on Cameron's recent two, I still don't think he's made a bad film. I also haven't seen his Piranha film. Also to tie in with the FDT conversation on Bill Paxton. True Lies is Paxton at his best.

[StanleyK]

The Terminator films were thematically complex?

Okay, maybe the first one isn't exactly complex, but I do think T2 is pretty damn intelligent about its morality and violence, which for a Hollywood blockbuster is really amazing. In fact, the more I think about it the more it grows on me.


Yeah, I love True Lies. While I'm not as high on Cameron's recent two, I still don't think he's made a bad film. I also haven't seen his Piranha film. Also to tie in with the FDT conversation on Bill Paxton. True Lies is Paxton at his best.

I think Paxton is pretty annoying in True Lies. The whole thing is just really bad parody, and he, like the rest of the movie, is an unfunny joke.

[StanleyK]

02/03/2010 - Yellow Submarine (George Dunning, 1968)

http://artfiles.art.com/5/p/LRG/21/2185/QTRCD00Z/the-beatles-yellow-submarine.jpg

I think I've figured out why I don't like surrealism: in their movies, everything is meaningless; there is no God, life has no purpose, so we all might as well stop caring about anything. Why bother drawing some good animation when you can just squiggle some shitty lines and call it a day? Why write a story with anything resembling substance when you can just throw in some WACKY and ZANY shit and awful, awful puns? Who cares, right? Well I care, so fuck you, Yellow Submarine.

Some pretty good songs in it, though. I'll give it that.

*½ or 2.5

[Derek]

I think I've figured out why I don't like surrealism: in their movies, everything is meaningless

*sigh*

[dreamdead]

Similar to Derek's sigh, though responding perhaps far too late to generate discussion, I always thought it was quite obvious that True Lies is playing the action genre for satire, as every element feels far too calibrated and constructed for a wink to the audience at the absurdity of it. And while the humiliation of Curtis does go on too long, I do think the payoff of a woman in her early 40s still being sexualized is important.

[Qrazy]

Count me as one who thinks True Lies is an entertaining waste of time and that The Yellow Submarine is awesome. Life is meaningless? The film ends with Love Love LOVE. WTF dude.

[StanleyK]

*sigh*

I dunno, the animation being so shitty or the dialogue so horrid didn't exactly say 'meaningful' to me; it sure did scream 'lazy', though.


Similar to Derek's sigh, though responding perhaps far too late to generate discussion, I always thought it was quite obvious that True Lies is playing the action genre for satire, as every element feels far too calibrated and constructed for a wink to the audience at the absurdity of it. And while the humiliation of Curtis does go on too long, I do think the payoff of a woman in her early 40s still being sexualized is important.

Just because it's satire doesn't mean it gets away with being really boring; I do like your point about Jamie Lee Curtis, it's something that I hadn't considered.


Count me as one who thinks True Lies is an entertaining waste of time and that The Yellow Submarine is awesome. Life is meaningless? The film ends with Love Love LOVE. WTF dude.

The ending feels dishonest to me. If all the other musical numbers were random and unrelated to the images, why would this one be any different?

[StanleyK]

03/03/2010 - Piranha (Joe Dante, 1978)

http://ebooktest.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/piranha-poster.jpg

It's... actually not bad. Dante is very aware that he's got nothing more than a blatant Jaws rip-off, but he doesn't just give up and make a stupid movie. Piranha is actually funny; the ludicrous set-ups and fake-aways and especially that droning piranha noise are hilarious. It's also not an incompetent or sloppy film- I liked in particular the editing, which during the attacks really makes it seem like there's dozens of fish gnawing at the victims. Overall a fun, decent film, way better than I expected.

**½ or 5.5

On the side:

Ice Age: The Meltdown (Carlos Saldanha, 2006)

Like the first one, this one brings up some topics that might be interesting to talk about in a family film (Noah's Ark, global warming) and then just drops them. The jokes are even lamer, and I notice how they always go the extra mile to repeat the punchline in case we didn't get them.

*½ or 3.0

[Derek]

I dunno, the animation being so shitty or the dialogue so horrid didn't exactly say 'meaningful' to me; it sure did scream 'lazy', though.

You said you don't like surrealism, period, because everything in their films is meaningless. This is not true.

[Qrazy]

The ending feels dishonest to me. If all the other musical numbers were random and unrelated to the images, why would this one be any different?

They weren't random. There's a clear and apparent plot progression. Furthermore how are the musical numbers unrelated to the images when the entire purpose of the film is to be a visual showcase for the songs? The images are tailor made for the music. You've been smoking crack... when you should have been smoking weed.

[StanleyK]

You said you don't like surrealism, period, because everything in their films is meaningless. This is not true.

Okay, I was using hyperbole, I'm sorry about that. I should've said just Yellow Submarine, but that movie really irritated me and I'm already not a fan of surrealism so it lead to a rushed statement.


They weren't random. There's a clear and apparent plot progression. Furthermore how are the musical numbers unrelated to the images when the entire purpose of the film is to be a visual showcase for the songs? The images are tailor made for the music. You've been smoking crack... when you should have been smoking weed.

Tailor made? Can you provide some examples, because I honestly saw little to no connection.

[Qrazy]

Okay, I was using hyperbole, I'm sorry about that. I should've said just Yellow Submarine, but that movie really irritated me and I'm already not a fan of surrealism so it lead to a rushed statement.



Tailor made? Can you provide some examples, because I honestly saw little to no connection.

When I'm 64. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJ8kMbMpQbo&feature=PlayList&p=B6732288EA9F9892&index=1)

"When I get older"

Beards grow.

"You'll be older too."

Clocks. Hourglasses.

"Will you still need me when I'm 64"

Numbers on the screen counting up to 64.

-----

All You Need is Love. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QfEiDO9opg&feature=related)

Lennon sings about love and the power of his words alone manages to fight off the Authoritarian Glove.

[StanleyK]

When I'm 64. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJ8kMbMpQbo&feature=PlayList&p=B6732288EA9F9892&index=1)

"When I get older"

Beards grow.

"You'll be older too."

Clocks. Hourglasses.

"Will you still need me when I'm 64"

Numbers on the screen counting up to 64.

-----

All You Need is Love. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QfEiDO9opg&feature=related)

Lennon sings about love and the power of his words alone manages to fight off the Authoritarian Glove.

So I guess it was nonsensical because I couldn't make heads or tails of the lyrics either (not these two, stuff like Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds or Eleanor Rigby); you win this time, Qrazy. But I still find the animation godawful and an indication of a general lack of care.

[Qrazy]

So I guess it was nonsensical because I couldn't make heads or tails of the lyrics either (not these two, stuff like Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds or Eleanor Rigby); you win this time, Qrazy. But I still find the animation godawful and an indication of a general lack of care.

Fair enough on that front. It was definitely reflective of a different era of animation. When I saw the film as a child it worked for me. Watching these clips now after having seen some amazing contemporary animation leaves the quality of the animation a bit wanting. I do still think a lot of it is very inventive and engaging though. I doubt it was a lack of care so much as a middling budget (250,000 pounds).

[Raiders]

Are the lyrics for "Eleanor Rigby" different in the film? It's a very straightforward song.

[StanleyK]

Fair enough on that front. It was definitely reflective of a different era of animation. When I saw the film as a child it worked for me. Watching these clips now after having seen some amazing contemporary animation leaves the quality of the animation a bit wanting. I do still think a lot of it is very inventive and engaging though. I doubt it was a lack of care so much as a middling budget (250,000 pounds).

http://chud.com/articles/content_images/5/Yellow-Submarine.jpg

Low budget or not, I find this crap simply unacceptable.


Are the lyrics for "Eleanor Rigby" different in the film? It's a very straightforward song.

Reading the lyrics now, yeah, they make sense. Maybe a better example would've been All Together Now, just as confusing in the film, and still weird outside of it.

[StanleyK]

04/03/2010 - From Dusk Till Dawn (Robert Rodriguez, 1996)

http://imagesource.allposters.com/images/pic/MMPO/503593~From-Dusk-Till-Dawn-Posters.jpg

Rodriguez's smartest film yet, I reckon being written by Tarantino probably has something to do with it. A clash between a crime film and a vampire horror film, the equalization of the urge to rape with the urge to suck blood provides the split and from that point on it's all about the monstrous side of humans. The Tarantino speeches here are strangely mostly unamusing, and Clooney gives a quite poor performance (I'll say in fact that Tarantino was better than him, which is pretty sad), making this a good, but not great film; if Tarantino had directed it, it would probably be his weakest, but for Rodriguez it's his strongest.

*** or 7.5



05/03/2010 - Doomsday (Neil Marshall, 2008)

http://www.themovieblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/doomsday-poster.jpg

After writing a movie full of solid female characters, Marshall falters with a generic action girl protagonist; nevertheless, Doomsday is very entertaining, and it looks great- the cinematography, production and costume design are all excellent. The action scenes are unfortunately a regression to Dog Soldiers' spastic editing, but the final car chase was cut just fine and was actually pretty inventive.

**½ or 6.0

On the side:

Jurassic Park (Steven Spielberg, 1993)

The ultimate argument that fun action movies are capable of being just as intelligent, and just as worthy of analysis and discussion as 'serious' movies. The spectacle of Jurassic Park reflects the spectacle of cinema, with its characters being a stand-in for the audience, and John Hammond (who wants nothing more than to bring entertainment and joy to people, entertainment that's real as he puts it) a stand-in for Spielberg; when they first catch sight of a dinosaur, their amazement is our amazement; when they don't see a Dilophosaurus, they're disappointed, we're disappointed; when we're shown all the toys and t-shirts and merchandise for the park, the movie is selling itself. Pretty heady stuff, and it helps that Spielberg is at the top of his game here- it's one of the most entertaining movies ever, and apart from some issues of exposition and acting, the filmmaking is impressive.

**** or 9.5

[Raiders]

Jurassic Park (Steven Spielberg, 1993)

The ultimate argument that fun action movies are capable of being just as intelligent, and just as worthy of analysis and discussion as 'serious' movies. The spectacle of Jurassic Park reflects the spectacle of cinema, with its characters being a stand-in for the audience, and John Hammond (who wants nothing more than to bring entertainment and joy to people, entertainment that's real as he puts it) a stand-in for Spielberg; when they first catch sight of a dinosaur, their amazement is our amazement; when they don't see a Dilophosaurus, they're disappointed, we're disappointed; when we're shown all the toys and t-shirts and merchandise for the park, the movie is selling itself. Pretty heady stuff, and it helps that Spielberg is at the top of his game here- it's one of the most entertaining movies ever, and apart from some issues of exposition and acting, the filmmaking is impressive.

**** or 9.5

I think I could have accepted this sort of meta-reading better if Spielberg had not bum-rushed the reveal of the dinosaurs. He's every bit as guilty as Hammond and I don't think he's onto it.

Plus, the film is more about man's attempt to be God, which is certainly something that can be tied into cinema but I think if anything, the film confirms the safeties of the screen that separates us from the drama as opposed to having to actually live it.

[Melville]

Low budget or not, I find this crap simply unacceptable.
http://planetsmilies.net/confused-smiley-17420.gif

I haven't seen the film, but that picture is a pretty great bit of minimalist cartooning pop-art: deliberate flattening, solid blocks of color and deft, buoyant, even-weight lines combined to create an iconic, expressive pop image.

[B-side]

I'm curious to see how it'll stand up against Coppola's feature work; are you a fan of hers, in general?

Absolutely. I've enjoyed all of her features.

[B-side]

Gotta give Stanley credit, at least he's got something unique to say.

Naturally, I wholeheartedly disagree that surrealism is meaningless.

[StanleyK]

I think I could have accepted this sort of meta-reading better if Spielberg had not bum-rushed the reveal of the dinosaurs. He's every bit as guilty as Hammond and I don't think he's onto it.

Plus, the film is more about man's attempt to be God, which is certainly something that can be tied into cinema but I think if anything, the film confirms the safeties of the screen that separates us from the drama as opposed to having to actually live it.

The dinosaurs are shown early on to pique our interest and make it doubly disappointing when they don't show up for another 40 minutes (there's only a sick Triceratops in the meantime); when finally a T-Rex shows up we're conflicted because he's totally awesome, but we don't want the characters to get eaten. Spielberg is challenging the idea that just because something looks good, it is good (a mistake which many big visual effects-driven movies make).

It's not new for Spielberg to make a film about audience engagement. The Sugarland Express was also about a large spectacle; Close Encounters climaxes with a big crowd gathered around a major happening, just watching; the opening scene of Raiders of the Lost Ark is all about Alfred Molina watching Indy do his work; the protagonist of Always is dead, so of course he can do little but watch, his point-of-view is ours. Jurassic Park is simply Spielberg's richest film in that regard; Jurassic Park the ride is a close metaphor for Jurassic Park the movie.


http://planetsmilies.net/confused-smiley-17420.gif

I haven't seen the film, but that picture is a pretty great bit of minimalist cartooning pop-art: deliberate flattening, solid blocks of color and deft, buoyant, even-weight lines combined to create an iconic, expressive pop image.

I'll be honest, I don't know what you just said means. As a person completely ignorant in animation, it just looks damn ugly to me, and in the film they're meant to be the real deal, so it's not like being ugly is a point.


Absolutely. I've enjoyed all of her features.

Awesome, so have I, and I have a feeling they'll stand up to rewatches.


Gotta give Stanley credit, at least he's got something unique to say.

Naturally, I wholeheartedly disagree that surrealism is meaningless.

I don't mean meaningless as devoid of subtext or substance, but that their mindset strikes me as nihilistic; anyway, this probably only really applies to Yellow Submarine.

[StanleyK]

Since I'm modifying my ratings system, I'll refrain from numbers and stars for a few days.

06/03/2010 - She's Gotta Have It (Spike Lee, 1986)

http://sisterhoodtheblog.files.wordpr ess.com/2009/09/shegottahaveit.jpg

Interesting, but it's riddled with first-time-film problems (characters talk to the camera when they really shouldn't, the acting is subpar, there's some ridiculously boring sex scenes). It's entertaining enough and the cinematography is certainly noteworthy; Spike Lee showed his strongest asset- inventive, fluid camerawork- early on.

On the side:

La Notte (Michelangelo Antonioni, 1961)

A similar unfocused misanthropy to the one found in L'Avventura; at least here, it's kind of believable that Lidia would be so sad about her friend dying (in L'Avventura it was obvious no one ever gave a shit about Anna). On the other hand, the dialogue is frequently downright laughable here, and at times it's even kind of dull, something L'Avventura never was.

[B-side]

I don't mean meaningless as devoid of subtext or substance, but that their mindset strikes me as nihilistic; anyway, this probably only really applies to Yellow Submarine.

Hm. Nihilism seems to carry a pretty negative connotation here, whereas I wouldn't necessarily say it's a particularly negative viewpoint. Are we talking philosophical nihilism, or anarchic nihilism? The philosophical form of nihilism seems more apt when discussing surreal works of art. I suppose I can see your point of view here in the sense that surrealism seems to be intrinsically tied to relativism, which can be construed as a form of nihilism, but I don't know if you're speaking morally and ethically here or something else.

[B-side]

(in L'Avventura it was obvious no one ever gave a shit about Anna)

Wasn't that kind of the point? That they're so wrapped up in their love affairs and selfish concerns that she more or less faded from memory?

[StanleyK]

Hm. Nihilism seems to carry a pretty negative connotation here, whereas I wouldn't necessarily say it's a particularly negative viewpoint. Are we talking philosophical nihilism, or anarchic nihilism? The philosophical form of nihilism seems more apt when discussing surreal works of art. I suppose I can see your point of view here in the sense that surrealism seems to be intrinsically tied to relativism, which can be construed as a form of nihilism, but I don't know if you're speaking morally and ethically here or something else.

If anarchic nihilism is the belief that nothing means anything and the world has gone to shit, so there's no point in caring about life, then that's the one I meant, and what I infer from Yellow Submarine.


Wasn't that kind of the point? That they're so wrapped up in their love affairs and selfish concerns that she more or less faded from memory?

Since Antonioni never gives any insight or reason into these characters' selfishness and shallowness, to me it gives the impression that such traits (along with crippling existential angst, of course) are just an innate part of the human condition.

[StanleyK]

Introducing my improved rating system (it now goes down to zero stars!):

07/03/2010 - Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs (Carlos Saldanha & Mike Thurmeier, 2009)

http://z.about.com/d/movies/1/0/t/L/T/iceage3poster.jpg

This third installment abandons any brushes with substance, instead just lazily rehashing the same 'strength through numbers' message the first two films did, with diminishing returns. For every successful joke, there's five stupid bodily harm/function gags, and the drama and action scenes in particular just feel like dead weight to add running time.

½* or 2.0



08/03/2010 - Final Destination 2 (David R. Ellis, 2003)



Barely more entertaining than the first one, probably because the heroes actually have a tangible, clearly defined goal this time. I also greatly enjoyed the first premonition scene; it's slow-paced, very deliberate and suspenseful, and the payoff is climactic. The rest is sadly just boring over-the-top gore and the bleak thought that our lives are controlled by a malicious omnipotent entity, making this supposedly fun series depressing.

* or 2.5

I should probably stop watching sequels to movies I didn't like.

[StanleyK]

For the past two weeks, life has been kicking my ass, and my will to write anything at all has been basically nonexistant. However, I have remained resolute in my film-viewing:



09/03/2010 - Very Bad Things (Peter Berg, 1998)
Also: The Bourne Identity (Doug Liman, 2002)
10/03/2010 - Slither (James Gunn, 2006)
Also: The Golden Beetle (Segundo de Chomón, 1907)
11/03/2010 - Spy Kids (Robert Rodriguez, 2001)
Also: Solaris (Steven Soderbergh, 2002)
12/03/2010 - Stargate (Roland Emmerich, 1994)
13/03/2010 - The Rite (Ingmar Bergman, 1969)
Also: The Bourne Supremacy (Paul Greengrass, 2004)
The Haunted House (Edward F. Cline & Buster Keaton, 1921)
14/03/2010 - A Serious Man (Ethan Coen & Joel Coen, 2009)
Also: Hard Luck (Edward F. Cline & Buster Keaton, 1921)
15/03/2010 - Shutter Island (Martin Scorsese, 2010)
16/03/2010 - The Iron Giant (Brad Bird, 1999)
17/03/2010 - Alien: Resurrection (Jean-Pierre Jeunet, 1997)
Also: The 'High Sign' (Edward F. Cline & Buster Keaton, 1921)
18/03/2010 - Shallow Grave (Danny Boyle, 1994)
Also: Miller's Crossing (Ethan Coen & Joel Coen, 1990)
The Goat (Buster Keaton & Malcolm St. Clair, 1921)
19/03/2010 - Ghosts of the Abyss (James Cameron, 2003)
20/03/2010 - The Mask of Zorro (Martin Campbell, 1998)
Also: Attack of the Clones (George Lucas, 2002)

Ratings:

Very Bad Things - ** (5.0)
The Bourne Identity - **½ (6.5)
Slither - ** (4.5)
The Golden Beetle - *** (7.0)
Spy Kids - ZERO (0.5)
Solaris - **** (10)
Stargate - *½ (3.5)
The Rite - **½ (6.0)
The Bourne Supremacy - ***½ (8.0)
The Haunted House - ***½ (8.0)
A Serious Man - **** (9.5)
Hard Luck - **½ (6.5)
Shutter Island - **½ (6.5)
The Iron Giant - ***½ (8.0)
Alien: Resurrection - ** (4.5)
The 'High Sign' - *** (7.0)
Shallow Grave - *** (7.0)
Miller's Crossing - **** (9.0)
The Goat - ***½ (8.5)
Ghosts of the Abyss - * (2.5)
The Mask of Zorro - **½ (6.0)
Attack of the Clones - * (2.5)

Hopefully from tomorrow on I'll be back on schedule with my half-assed paragraphs.

[Qrazy]

If anarchic nihilism is the belief that nothing means anything and the world has gone to shit, so there's no point in caring about life, then that's the one I meant, and what I infer from Yellow Submarine.



Since Antonioni never gives any insight or reason into these characters' selfishness and shallowness, to me it gives the impression that such traits (along with crippling existential angst, of course) are just an innate part of the human condition.

Every time you write a post like this a baby dies!

[StanleyK]

Every time you write a post like this a baby dies!

Why should I care if babies die? It's, like, nothing means anything, man.

[StanleyK]

21/03/2010 - Crisis (Ingmar Bergman, 1946)

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_pUhElEu2lTE/SNN9UTID2GI/AAAAAAAAAeA/6EEVPUJHl4M/s320/Bergman+Crisis.jpg

With his debut, Bergman showed that he could write the hell out of existential angst; his excellent monologues are let down by the lackluster performances, but his strength at staging and editing overcomes this and delivers a solid film about motherhood and betrayal (themes that would however rarely pop up as his career moved on). My favorite scene is when the young people at the party unite to play a lively song which overlaps with the old folks' classical music- the generation gap has always been expressed through the difference in their art.

*** or 7.5

On the side:

The Great Train Robbery (Edwin S. Porter, 1903)

Watching this, I realized how some modern filmmakers could learn a few things by watching the very first films of the century. Since they couldn't afford moving the camera too much, they often relied on a single setup for the entire scene, and they could still pull off very tense and entertaining action; more wide shots and less close-ups, is what I say.

**** or 9.0

The Bourne Ultimatum (Paul Greengrass, 2007)

Case in point; it's really a shame that the action is such a mess, because the thriller aspect of it is very strong, expertly shot and edited with a great soundtrack, and an intelligent screenplay that places great weight on life (note the lack of cheesy post-mortem one-liners) and humaneness.

*** or 7.0

[StanleyK]

22/03/2010 - Aliens of the Deep (James Cameron & Steven Quale, 2005)

http://videospot.co.za/scripts/upload/img/B000AJJNHW_01__SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

Cameron's two documentaries so far consist mainly of people gawking at heavy machinery (something Cameron is obviously very fond of) and unconvincingly going 'wow' and 'oh gosh'; while slightly less unbearably dull than Ghosts of the Abyss (probably due to some interesting parallels drawn between the deep sea and outer space), Aliens of the Deep is still a chore to sit through.

*½ or 3.5

[StanleyK]

23/03/2010 - The Book of Eli (Albert Hughes & Allen Hughes, 2010)

http://blog.80millionmoviesfree.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/watch-the-book-of-eli.jpg

A clichéd and blunt, but effective film on people's blind adherence to some canonized text; I also think there's some subtext underneath about racism- note how Denzel Washington is pretty much the only black person in the film, and in the first half he's frequently treated as 'the Other'. I wish it had ended a bit sooner as Eli dictates the Bible, as the rest feels superfluous. The Hughes Brothers continue to prove themselves masters at visual storytelling and provide a very entertaining and stylish film, only somewhat lacking in content.

*** or 7.0

[StanleyK]

24/03/2010 - Piranha II: The Spawning (James Cameron, 1981)

http://www.movieposter.com/posters/archive/main/15/MPW-7881

What can I say, I'm a completist. This really is as bad as you'd expect it to be; dialogue, acting, plot, effects, everything is atrocious, and of course it never aspires to anything greater than being a blatant cash-grab. Possibly worst of all, it takes itself awfully seriously, making any enjoyment derived from it (and I won't deny, some shit was hilarious) completely unearned.

½* or 1.5

On the side:

Three Kings (David O. Russell, 1999)

The comedy in the first act of this film is fantastic, and I wish it stayed a comedy because apart from Wahlberg's torture scene the drama isn't very impactful; Three Kings is slightly hypocritical in that dozens of Iraqis get gunned down without remark, but when an american gets wounded much gravity is placed on it, making its anti-war stance unconvincing. Apart from that it addresses some uncomfortable topics with skill, and it remains a very entertaining and well-acted film.

*** or 7.5

[Grouchy]

Three Kings is slightly hypocritical in that dozens of Iraqis get gunned down without remark, but when an american gets wounded much gravity is placed on it
Huh, I think that's because he's one of the protagonists.

[StanleyK]

Huh, I think that's because he's one of the protagonists.

It just kind of bugs how the burial of an american soldier is given such weight, while Iraqi corpses are just left to rot in the sun; I guess you could chalk it up to it being a POV film from the titular three kings' perspective, but since the film makes an effort to show the atrocities of war it's disappointing how they just focus on women and children, as if the men dying don't matter.

[StanleyK]

25/03/2010 - Wendigo (Larry Fessenden, 2001)

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_fLKPjSywzFo/Sja2xV9KDyI/AAAAAAAADKc/FvfTeE6fxNI/s400/wendigo_poster.jpg

This could be a case where the movie is potentially subtextually rich, but on the surface so uninteresting that it won't reward analysis. Wendigo draws a clear parallel between its titular monster and the american expansion into the West (The Shining did it better), but any additional substance is buried under a very dull and not at all frightening film, all build-up to a lame payoff.

*½ or 4.0



26/03/2010 - Take the Money and Run (Woody Allen, 1969)

http://www.filmsite.org/posters/takethemoneyandrun.jpg

Early Woody Allen is a mixed bag for me; most of the visual gags are funny, but the actual jokes range from amusing to cringe-worthy, and the substance consists of meager social critiques. This one's pretty good (the glass-stomping running gag had me in stitches), but still falls way short of late 70's/80's Woody.

**½ or 6.5

[Qrazy]

Which jokes did you find cringe worthy?

[Spun Lepton]

25/03/2010 - Wendigo (Larry Fessenden, 2001)

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_fLKPjSywzFo/Sja2xV9KDyI/AAAAAAAADKc/FvfTeE6fxNI/s400/wendigo_poster.jpg

This could be a case where the movie is potentially subtextually rich, but on the surface so uninteresting that it won't reward analysis. Wendigo draws a clear parallel between its titular monster and the american expansion into the West (The Shining did it better), but any additional substance is buried under a very dull and not at all frightening film, all build-up to a lame payoff.

*½ or 4.0


Much too kind.

[StanleyK]

Which jokes did you find cringe worthy?

"He used the opportunity to feel all the girls! ...can I say 'feel'?"
"Except for one side effect: for several hours, he is turned into a rabbi."
"Does this look like 'gub' or 'gun'?"
"I'm sorry you didn't actually guess my occupation, but here's $10 and better luck next time!"
"Wanted for arson, robbery, assault, and getting naked in front of his in-laws."


Much too kind.

Well, I did find the cinematography impressive, and as this review (http://www.filmfreakcentral.net/dvdreviews/wendigo.htm) points out, its depiction of childhood is a frank and refreshing one.

[StanleyK]

Three 4-star movies in one day is just what I need this week.

27/03/2010 - Werckmeister Harmonies (�gnes Hranitzky & Béla Tarr, 2000)

http://laternamagika.files.wordpress. com/2009/12/harmonies_werckmeister.jpg

I'm a sucker for long takes, so I was bound to at least enjoy this; that this is a beautifully written and shot film certainly helped matters, and the symbolism abound of people's longing for God's presence sealed the deal. Werckmeister Harmonies is a masterpiece, engaging even in its slowest moments of simply capturing a day in a man's life, and deeply moving in its tragic conclusion.

**** or 9.5

On the side:

The Play House (Edward F. Cline & Buster Keaton, 1921)

It's both funny and depressing that even in his dreams, Buster is completely inept at everything he tries; the first movie to recognize Keaton as a flawed protagonist, The Play House is a touching tragicomedy and my favorite of his work yet.

**** or 9.0

The Passion of Anna (Ingmar Bergman, 1969)

Happiness is a tangible concept in this film, something which was once felt and might even be attainable again; this makes The Passion of Anna possibly Bergman's most depressing film, and makes Liv Ullmann's monologue the finest moment I've seen in both hers and Bergman's careers. Shamefully, the movie is marred by the meta moments of the cast discussing the characters, an annoying and over-explainative touch which Bergman should be above from; I also kind of wish the swedish word for 'the end' wasn't 'slut', as that took away a little of the power from the ending.

**** or 9.5

[B-side]

Ahh, yes. Another big fan of The Passion of Anna.

[Qrazy]

"He used the opportunity to feel all the girls! ...can I say 'feel'?"
"Except for one side effect: for several hours, he is turned into a rabbi."
"Does this look like 'gub' or 'gun'?"
"I'm sorry you didn't actually guess my occupation, but here's $10 and better luck next time!"
"Wanted for arson, robbery, assault, and getting naked in front of his in-laws."



Yeah... I guess you're right about those haha.

[StanleyK]

Ahh, yes. Another big fan of The Passion of Anna.

I'd say it's definitely a top 10 Bergman, but his body of work is so strong that it wouldn't surprise me if I end up seeing 10 better ones.

[StanleyK]

28/03/2010 - Lilo & Stitch (Dean DeBlois & Chris Sanders, 2002)

http://pisceshanna.files.wordpress.co m/2008/07/lilo-and-stitch-poster-c12886798.jpg

The last 20 minutes of this have to be just about the oddest climax to an otherwise conventional narrative I've seen. It's like they suddenly just stopped caring about any consistency and just have characters switch from enemies to allies on a whim, development is null and Stitch just becomes a good guy in one scene. It's even stranger because up to that point and in its very ending, Lilo & Stitch is just a bland, predictable Disney movie.

*½ or 4.0

On the side:

Michael Clayton (Tony Gilroy, 2007)

Very solid but seldom actually great.

*** or 7.5

29/03/2010 - The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl 3-D (Robert Rodriguez, 2005)

http://www.moviestation.org/poster/11111/The_Adventures_of_Sharkboy_and _Lavagirl_3-D/300/poster.jpg

This is why nobody takes children's entertainment seriously; if they can be amused by bright flashy lights and fart jokes, why bother to put in any effort? That this movie is actually written by a 5-year-old shows how adults need to watch what their kids are watching more closely, lest they grow up unable to distinguish good narrative from audience-insulting crap.

ZERO or 0.0

On the side:

Jaws: The Revenge (Joseph Sargent, 1987)

Jaws sequels have the strange tendency to be less entertaining when there's a shark involved; outside of the completely ludicrous last half-hour, I don't think this really is one of the worst movies ever made. For one thing, the cinematography is pretty good. I still maintain that the series' lowest point is Jaws 3-D.

½* or 1.5

[StanleyK]

30/03/2010 - Primer (Shane Carruth, 2004)

http://thisdistractedglobe.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/primer-2004-poster.jpg

I really have no idea what the hell was going on in Primer; but far from narrative incompetence, that's a sign of Shane Carruth's intelligence in making a hard sci-fi movie without ever dumbing it down for the audience or wasting time with exposition. Considering his lack of previous experience and the middling budget, it's also remarkable how well-shot, acted and directed it is.

***½ or 8.5

[Boner M]

Michael Clayton (Tony Gilroy, 2007)

Very solid but seldom actually great.

*** or 7.5
Really? Not even the opening answering machine rant? Clooney's brief speech to his son after meeting his brother? ("You're not gonna be one of those people who goes through life wondering why shit keeps falling out of the sky around them", etc) Wilkinson's murder? The shot of Swinton collapsing out-of-focus in the background while Clooney strides ahead in the foreground? The final shot?

I mean, I have problems with the basic trajectory of the narrative, but damned if the film isn't filled to the brim with note-perfect moments. Reminds me that I should finally get 'round to Gilroy's Duplicity, despite the flak it got here.

[Rowland]

Reminds me that I should finally get 'round to Gilroy's Duplicity, despite the flak it got here.I liked Michael Clayton as well, quite a bit more so than Duplicity in fact, which was unexpected given that most people seemed to find it an improvement over his debut. *shrug*

[Derek]

I liked Michael Clayton as well, quite a bit more so than Duplicity in fact, which was unexpected given that most people seemed to find it an improvement over his debut. *shrug*

Really? RT & Metacritic show Michael Clayton as having quite a bit more support and it was nominated for like 5 or 6 Oscars as well. Not that the latter means all that much, but it certainly had a wide range of support...I do agree it's a more solid film than Duplicity.

[Rowland]

Really? RT & Metacritic show Michael Clayton as having quite a bit more support and it was nominated for like 5 or 6 Oscars as well. Huh, it appears you're right. I know D'Angelo, Theo, and Sicinski fell hard for it, but they're hardly representative of the majority.

[Sven]

Yeah, Shark Boy and Lava Girl is easily one of the worst films I've ever seen, if not the worst. And I'm all for gauging things relatively. it sucks even as stupid kids entertainment.

[StanleyK]

I mean, I have problems with the basic trajectory of the narrative, but damned if the film isn't filled to the brim with note-perfect moments.

Well, I did say 'seldom'. Those moments are indeed pretty great (except for the opening), but there's something sterile about the overall film which left me cold; I can't even really think of anything substantial to say about it.


Yeah, Shark Boy and Lava Girl is easily one of the worst films I've ever seen, if not the worst. And I'm all for gauging things relatively. it sucks even as stupid kids entertainment.

I haven't seen a lot of really awful movies, but I'm pretty sure it's at least the worst I've seen of this decade.

[StanleyK]

31/03/2010 - Welcome to the Dollhouse (Todd Solondz, 1995)

http://act1thailand.files.wordpress.c om/2009/06/welcome-to-the-dollhouse.jpg

Accomplishing the amazing feat of turning rape, pedophilia and abuse into funny comedy, Solondz debuts with an insightful look on social dynamics in youth. Are american schools really that bad? I honestly don't recall any bullying so overt or destructive from when I attended.

***½ or 8.0

On the side:

The Boat (Edward F. Cline & Buster Keaton, 1921)

A rare occasion in which Buster already has a family, The Boat is entertaining but pales in comparison to One Week, which it feels like a retread of.

*** or 7.5

[StanleyK]

End of month balance:

Feature-Length: 31
Short Films: 8
Rewatches (FL): 13
Rewatches (SF): 0

Total Films: 52

Best Film: A Serious Man/Werckmeister Harmonies
Worst Film: The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl 3-D
Most Disappointing: The Rite, Wendigo
Best Rewatch: The Passion of Anna
Best Performances: Heather Matarazzo (Welcome to the Dollhouse), Michael Stuhlbarg (A Serious Man), Denzel Washington (The Book of Eli)

[Bosco B Thug]

Huh, it appears you're right. I know D'Angelo, Theo, and Sicinski fell hard for it, but they're hardly representative of the majority. And Dan Sallitt, who I look to closely that year, as the guy who didn't like There Will Be Blood.

One Tony Gilroy film was nominated for Best Picture, one has to put up with Julia Roberts racism.

[Rowland]

And Dan Sallitt, who I look to closely that year, as the guy who didn't like There Will Be Blood.

One Tony Gilroy film was nominated for Best Picture, one has to put up with Julia Roberts racism.Those other guys I referenced, I meant that they considered Duplicity an improvement. I don't think it even made Salitt's list for the year, so I presume he preferred Michael Clayton. Then again, he also loved the hell out of The Tracey Fragments from that same year, which I kinda loathed.

[Bosco B Thug]

Those other guys I referenced, I meant that they considered Duplicity an improvement. Ahh right, those are bad boys of the Online Critic sphere.

[StanleyK]

01/04/2010 - A Single Man (Tom Ford, 2009)

http://brandonfibbs.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/a-single-man-poster1.jpg

I really hate this movie's insultingly ironic ending; after basically telling the protagonist 'So, you think you understand life and can be happy? Think again, sucka!', the film denies him even a proper on-screen kiss with his long-time lover. Not really noteworthy in any aspect except for the impeccable production and costume design, the movie is carried by Firth's excellent performance, making for some islands of gold (the flashbacks, his rant about fear, his reaction to the fatal phonecall) in a sea of mediocrity.

** or 5.5

On the side:

The '?' Motorist (Walter R. Booth, 1906)

The british answer to Méliès, it succeeds in showing the same fascination about the power of early film, in a subtle parallel with another famous techonology, here a car as it wreaks havoc on Earth and later skates on the rings of Jupiter.

***½ or 8.0

[StanleyK]

02/04/2010 - Star Trek: First Contact (Jonathan Frakes, 1996)

http://www.now-movies.com/movieimg/movie1263109322.jpg

Pretty good; in fact it's the only Star Trek movie I'd say is good outside of Wrath of Khan. Sure, it has most of the Trek problems (silly plot, lame comic relief), but the action is at the series' most solid, and the Borg are solid antagonists, narratively and as a metaphor for the dangerous personality-less, 'assimilated' culture we might run the risk of becoming.

**½ or 6.0

On the side:

The Virgin Suicides (Sofia Coppola, 1999)

An excellent film detailing the gap between teenage girls and teenage boys, both inscrutable and very mysterious to each other. Coppola flexes her stylistic muscles with her debut, Malickian both in its scattered nature and in its gorgeous cinematography, which finds beautiful glimpses of life in an average suburbian neighborhood.

**** or 9.0

The Hilarious Posters (Georges Méliés, 1906)

Méliès continues his trend of films about the power of art, in this film in which posters come to life and challenge authority.

***½ or 8.0