Your Top 10 of 2013 [Archive]

baby doll

06-20-2013, 02:59 PM

Masterpieces
Before Midnight (Richard Linklater) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/10/09/time-and-space-before-midnight-gravity/)
Hors Satan (Bruno Dumont) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2012/10/27/girl-youll-be-a-woman-soon-corpo-celeste-hors-satan/)
Post Tenebras Lux (Carlos Reygadas) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/09/27/missing-links-post-tenebras-lux-neighboring-sounds/)

Must Sees
American Hustle (David O. Russell)
The Angels' Share (Ken Loach) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2012/12/15/local-heroes-the-angels-share-two-years-at-sea/)
Behind the Candelabra (Steven Soderbergh) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/12/09/the-best-of-both-worlds-mud-behind-the-candelabra/)
Beyond the Hills (Cristian Mungiu) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/07/31/reality-and-realism-beyond-the-hills-betrayal/)
The Grandmaster (Wong Kar-wai) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/07/21/lost-in-china-the-grandmaster-drug-war/)
Gravity (Alfonso CuarÃ³n) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/10/09/time-and-space-before-midnight-gravity/)
Inside Llewyn Davis (Ethan and Joel Coen)
J'ai tuÃ© ma mÃ¨re (Xavier Dolan)
Mud (Jeff Nichols) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/12/09/the-best-of-both-worlds-mud-behind-the-candelabra/)
Nebraska (Alexander Payne)
No (Pablo LarraÃ*n)
Paradise: Love (Ulrich Seidl) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/09/11/it-aint-easy-being-white-it-aint-easy-being-brown-paradise-love-la-folie-almayer/)
The Place Beyond the Pines (Derek Cianfrance) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/08/12/the-young-ones-the-place-beyond-the-pines-what-maisie-knew/)
Spring Breakers (Harmony Korine) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2014/02/26/the-end-of-st-petersburg-florida-harmony-korines-spring-breakers/)
Stories We Tell (Sarah Polley)
To the Wonder (Terrence Malick) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/07/09/stand-by-your-man-keep-the-lights-on-to-the-wonder/)

Worth Seeing
The Act of Killing (Joshua Oppenheimer)
Blue Jasmine (Woody Allen)
The Canyons (Paul Schrader)
The Counselor (Ridley Scott)
The Croods (Kirk Di Micco / Chris Sanders)
Drug War (Johnnie To) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/07/21/lost-in-china-the-grandmaster-drug-war/)
Frances Ha (Noah Baumbach)
From Up on Poppy Hill (Goro Miyazaki)
Fruitvale Station (Ryan Coogler)
Ginger and Rosa (Sally Potter) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/04/16/pale-fire-ginger-and-rosa-blancanieves/)
Her (Spike Jonze)
The Hunt (Thomas Vinterberg) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/05/29/bad-girls-the-hunt-lapollonide-souvenirs-de-la-maison-close/)
Inch'Allah (AnaÃ¯s Barbeau-Lavalette)
Passion (Brian De Palma)
Reality (Matteo Garrone)
Rebelle (Kim Nguyen) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/02/18/about-a-girl-rebelle-silver-linings-playbook/)
Les Salauds (Claire Denis)
Short Term 12 (Destin Cretton)
Side Effects (Steven Soderbergh)
Star Trek Into Darkness (J.J. Abrams)
A Touch of Sin (Jia Zhang-ke)
What Maisie Knew (Scott McGehee / David Siegel) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/08/12/the-young-ones-the-place-beyond-the-pines-what-maisie-knew/)
The World's End (Edgar Wright)

Has Redeeming Facet
Blancanieves (Pablo Berger) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/04/16/pale-fire-ginger-and-rosa-blancanieves/)
The Bling Ring (Sofia Coppola)
La grande bellezza (Paolo Sorrentino) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/11/18/the-fat-and-the-lean-la-grande-bellezza-la-cinquieme-saison/)
The Great Gatsby (Baz Luhrmann)
Iron Man 3 (Shane Black)
Laurence Anyways (Xavier Dolan) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2012/12/26/short-cuts-laurence-anyways-xxy/)
Pacific Rim (Guillermo Del Toro)
The Selfish Giant (Clio Bernard)
Trance (Danny Boyle)

Worthless
Le Capital (Costa-Gavras)
Finding Mr. Right (Xue Xiaolu)

TGM

06-20-2013, 03:01 PM

1. Iron Man 3
2. Frozen
3. Prisoners
4. The Counselor
5. Pain & Gain
6. The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
7. The Frozen Ground
8. The Wolf of Wall Street
9. Stoker
10. Gravity

11. White House Down
12. American Hustle
13. Mud
14. The World's End
15. Captain Phillips
16. Blue is the Warmest Color
17. Thor: The Dark World
18. Carrie
19. Warm Bodies
20. Saving Mr. Banks

21. Dallas Buyers Club
22. 12 Years A Slave
23. Out of the Furnace
24. All is Lost
25. This is the End
26. The Place Beyond the Pines
27. Jackass Presents: Bad Grandpa
28. The Internship
29. Pacific Rim
30. Riddick

31. Side Effects
32. Jack the Giant Slayer
33. Hours
34. The Croods
35. Oldboy
36. Escape Plan
37. Homefront
38. 2 Guns
39. In A World...
40. The Bling Ring

41. Don Jon
42. Delivery Man
43. Ender's Game
44. Rush
45. The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones
46. Kick-Ass 2
47. Man of Steel
48. Oblivion
49. After Earth
50. Fruitvale Station

51. Sharknado
52. The Way, Way Back
53. The Wolverine
54. Red 2
55. World War Z
56. The Great Gatsby
57. Star Trek Into Darkness
58. Dead Man Down
59. The Conjuring
60. Lee Daniels' The Butler

61. Jobs
62. Elysium
63. Only God Forgives
64. Much Ado About Nothing
65. Runner Runner
66. Olympus Has Fallen
67. Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters
68. Fast & Furious 6
69. Kill Your Darlings
70. Now You See Me

71. Trance
72. The Secret Life of Walter Mitty
73. Broken City
74. Gangster Squad
75. Spring Breakers
76. Upstream Color
77. Movie 43
78. A Good Day to Die Hard
79. Oz the Great and Powerful
80. The Hangover: Part III

81. G.I. Joe: Retaliation
82. Escape From Tomorrow
83. The Purge
84. To the Wonder
85. The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

Boner M

06-20-2013, 10:09 PM

1. Leviathan
2. Like Someone in Love
3. Before Midnight
4. Spring Breakers
5. Room 237
6. Something in the Air
7. Berberian Sound Studio
8. Mud
9. No
10. Upstream Color

Only 3 of these were seen this year, though.

Spinal

06-20-2013, 11:51 PM

Pretty sparse so far:

Great
Spring Breakers

OK
Oz, the Great and Powerful

Not Good
From Up on Poppy Hill
Jack the Giant Slayer

Pop Trash

06-21-2013, 02:28 AM

Very Good:
Stories We Tell
Before Midnight
Spring Breakers

Good:
Computer Chess
Room 237
Frances Ha
This Is the End

OK:
Side Effects

Frustratingly Uninspired:
Star Trek Into Darkness

Intermittenly Entertaining Poop:
The Last Stand

???:
Upstream Color

Ivan Drago

06-21-2013, 03:52 AM

1. Upstream Color 9.5
2. Stoker 9
3. Spring Breakers 8.5
4. Frances Ha 8
5. Star Trek Into Darkness 8
6. Iron Man 3 8
7. The Great Gatsby 7.5
8. To The Wonder 7.5
9. Oblivion 6
10. Man of Steel 5

eternity

06-21-2013, 07:57 AM

Full list: http://letterboxd.com/zachheltzel/list/every-2013-film-ive-seen-ranked

EyesWideOpen

06-21-2013, 11:17 AM

1. Stoker
2. Upstream Color
3. Side Effects
4. The Place Beyond the Pines
5. Spring Breakers
6. To the Wonder
7. Fast & Furious 6
8. Iron Man 3
9. Evil Dead
10. Oblivion

Stay Puft

06-21-2013, 12:40 PM

1. Upstream Color
2. To the Wonder
3. No
4. Leviathan

That's all I've seen so far that I feel strongly about. Haven't watch much so far this year, though.

ContinentalOp

06-21-2013, 10:10 PM

1. The Dark Knight Returns, Part 2
2. Behind the Candelabra
3. The Place Beyond the Pines
4. Iron Man 3
5. John Dies at the End
6. Phil Spector
7. The Last Stand

Need to see more. Only the first two or three will make my end of the year, me thinks.

Bosco B Thug

06-21-2013, 10:42 PM

1. The Strange Little Cat
2. Like Someone In Love
3. Frances Ha
4. Spring Breakers
5. The Lords of Salem
6. Warm Bodies
7. Man of Steel
8. Evil Dead
9. After Earth
10. Texas Chainsaw 3D

A neat 10. And you know, I didn't hate any of these. I thought Texas Chainsaw was likeable. 2013 needs to step it up though.

ThePlashyBubbler

06-21-2013, 10:48 PM

1. Upstream Color
2. Only the Young
3. Before Midnight
4. The Place Beyond the Pines
5. No
6. Stoker
7. Star Trek Into Darkness
8. To The Wonder
9. Like Someone In Love
10. Reality

Those are the only ten I've seen, but already a decent top ten!

MadMan

06-25-2013, 05:59 AM

1. Upstream Color
2. Iron Man 3
3. The Last Stand

Dukefrukem

06-25-2013, 01:11 PM

My top 10 sucks.

1 Iron Man 3
2 John Dies at the End
3 Jack Reacher
4 Dark Skies
5 World War Z
6 The Last Stand
7 Pain & Gain
8 A Good Day to Die Hard
9 Parker
10 Evil Dead

B-side

06-26-2013, 05:19 AM

Ivan Drago

06-28-2013, 03:44 AM

1. Upstream Color 9.5
2. Stoker 9
3. Spring Breakers 8.5
4. Frances Ha 8
5. Star Trek Into Darkness 8
6. Iron Man 3 8
7. The Great Gatsby 7.5
8. To The Wonder 7.5
9. Oblivion 6
10. Man of Steel 5

Updated. I'm loving this year so far!

1. The Kings of Summer 9
2. Much Ado About Nothing 9
3. Upstream Color 9
4. Stoker 9
5. Spring Breakers 8.5
6. Frances Ha 8
7. Star Trek Into Darkness 8
8. Iron Man 3 8
9. The Great Gatsby 7.5
10. To The Wonder 7.5

11. Oblivion 6
12. Man of Steel 5

Thirdmango

07-08-2013, 03:26 AM

1. Star Trek Into Darkness
2. I Give It a Year
3. The Brass Teapot
4. Fast and the Furious 6
5. Monsters University
6. Upstream Color
7. Sound City
8. Erased
9. A Good Day To Die Hard
10. Warm Bodies

Izzy Black

07-08-2013, 10:33 PM

1. Spring Breakers (Harmony Korine)
2. To the Wonder (Terrence Malick)
3. Upstream Color (Shane Carruth)
4. The Grandmaster (Wong Kar-Wai)
5. Computer Chess (Andrew Bujalski)
6. Sun Don't Shine (Amy Seimetz)
7. Ain't Them Body Saints (David Lowry)
8. Nobody's Daughter Haewon (Hong Sang-soo)
9. Before Midnight (Richard Linklater)
10. Sparrows Dance (Noah Buschel)

Bandy Greensacks

07-09-2013, 02:17 AM

1. A Field in England
2. Spring Breakers
3. Drug War (2012)
4. Behind the Candelabra
5. Leviathan (2012)
6. V/H/S/2
7. The Place Beyond the Pines
8. Side Effects
9. To the Wonder
10. Upstream Color

Everything else I've seen has been mediocre at best

Sxottlan

07-09-2013, 09:01 AM

At the half way point:

1. Iron Man 3: ***1/2
2. Before Midnight: ***1/2
3. Spring Breakers: ***1/2
4. Much Ado About Nothing: ***
5. Pain & Gain: ***
6. Side Effects: ***
7. This is the End: ***
8. The Bling Ring: ***
9. Star Trek into Darkness: ***
10. The Great Gatsby: ***

Not a particularly great year so far. The summer season has been a bit of a disappointment. However, I have enjoyed most everything that has come out the last few months. I just don't see many of those films being particularly memorable down the road.

baby doll

07-09-2013, 03:44 PM

Not a particularly great year so far. The summer season has been a bit of a disappointment.One of my pet peeves is people generalizing about whether it's a good year or a bad year for movies as if that were something that could be known. Hundreds of movies come out every year and even the most indefatigable moviegoer will only see a few dozen of them at the most.

Sxottlan

07-10-2013, 08:52 AM

One of my pet peeves is people generalizing about whether it's a good year or a bad year for movies as if that were something that could be known.

You'll be okay.

Maybe this year will get better.

MadMan

07-13-2013, 07:53 AM

One of my pet peeves is people generalizing about whether it's a good year or a bad year for movies as if that were something that could be known. Hundreds of movies come out every year and even the most indefatigable moviegoer will only see a few dozen of them at the most.What if you have viewed 43 movies from one year? 50 even? What about 65? 73.5? If I see every movie from 1962 can I finally judge that year properly? Where is the line drawn, sir?

baby doll

07-13-2013, 03:34 PM

What if you have viewed 43 movies from one year? 50 even? What about 65? 73.5? If I see every movie from 1962 can I finally judge that year properly? Where is the line drawn, sir?I don't think there's any such thing as a good or bad year for cinema because there are so many films being made globally that inevitably there are going to be stand-outs in every year. Obviously you could argue generally that American cinema after 1960, and Japanese cinema after 1970 have less to offer than their respective "golden ages," as the film industries in both countries underwent massive structural changes that led to fewer movies being made and a greater reliance on big event pictures, but both countries still have large industries that produce lots of interesting films.

Bandy Greensacks

07-13-2013, 05:50 PM

It's like saying "this was a bad year for sports" because your hometown teams didn't win a championship

Lucky

07-13-2013, 08:39 PM

1. Before Midnight
2. Spring Breakers
3. Stoker
4. Much Ado About Nothing
5. Side Effects

MadMan

07-14-2013, 08:13 AM

Izzy Black

07-14-2013, 02:16 PM

I don't think there's any such thing as a good or bad year for cinema because there are so many films being made globally that inevitably there are going to be stand-outs in every year. Obviously you could argue generally that American cinema after 1960, and Japanese cinema after 1970 have less to offer than their respective "golden ages," as the film industries in both countries underwent massive structural changes that led to fewer movies being made and a greater reliance on big event pictures, but both countries still have large industries that produce lots of interesting films.

But some years have notably more standout films than others. I think Qrazy convinced me a while back that it's quite possible and not too unrealistic to see a majority, if not nearly all, the great films that might come out in a given year. By that measure, I already think 2013 is a good year compared to the past couple.

On the other hand, I am somewhat sympathetic to what MadMen is saying in that I don't lament Sontag's infamous words of "the death of cinema" or even claims about "the decline of cinema" as if cinema has fallen off so dramatically as compared to some of its more famous and glamorous decades. We all have to admit the 60s was a special time in cinema, and it's not just because the films were great, but because of the cultural milieu at the time and what kind of new cinema was even possible then. It's not merely a golden age because there were so many great movies, but it's more about what this period meant for cinema and the possibilities for cinema at large.

Mysterious Dude

07-14-2013, 03:19 PM

baby doll

07-14-2013, 03:59 PM

I don't know about Japan, but American cinema's so called "Golden Age" would have ended after the 1970s. Anyways I'm sick and tired of hearing about supposed golden ages, as if cinema, music, and even books started sucking after a certain decade or started to decline. That's just silly to me.There are reasons why there aren't many great African movies. Because of lack of infrastructure and political instability, very few films are made on the continent at all outside of Egypt and Nigeria, which have large Bollywood-style industries. Furthermore, because of colonialism, it wasn't until the 1960s when Ousmane SembÃ¨ne made La Noire de... that it was even possible for a black African to direct a film.

Conversely, the French New Wave--which is obviously the golden age of French cinema--was possible in part because of AndrÃ© Bazin and Henri Langlois and others who helped to foster a particular kind of cultural climate, but also the advent of lightweight 16mm cameras and faster film stocks, and the situation in the French film industry at that time, where there was this brief window during which there were slightly fewer road blocks for young filmmakers trying to enter the industry. (When AgnÃ¨s Varda made her first film in the mid-50s, she couldn't get it released because she was blocked by the mainstream industry; it was only in the '60s that she could have a career.) There are still great films being made in France, but the objective conditions on the ground are less favorable than they were in the late '50s and early '60s.

baby doll

07-14-2013, 04:06 PM

I have found that movies coming out of a "golden age" are not really any better than movies from other time periodsBut there are more of them. And in the specific case of American cinema, the end of the assembly line and the rise of one-off package deals has created a situation where artistically ambitious directors are forced to assert themselves as capital A artists. (Compare Hawks' Scarface with White Elephant gangster epics like The Godfather, Once Upon a Time in America, Goodfellas, and the '83 Scarface which pound the viewer into submission with their significance, extensive running times, and lavish production values.)

baby doll

07-14-2013, 04:40 PM

But some years have notably more standout films than others. I think Qrazy convinced me a while back that it's quite possible and not too unrealistic to see a majority, if not nearly all, the great films that might come out in a given year. By that measure, I already think 2013 is a good year compared to the past couple.To give a concrete example, one of the best movies I've seen all year is a Turkish film called Beyond the Hill, yet it's received almost no attention whatsoever in the English press because it premiered at Berlin rather than Cannes and it was made by a first time filmmaker without an existing media profile. On the other hand, I haven't seen Only God Forgives, but every reviewer seems to agree that it's a giant turd; however, it's going to get far more attention than Beyond the Hill because it premiered at Cannes and was made by an established director. Certain years seem better than others because the apparatus that exists to promote films has arbitrarily elevated some pretty good ones while in other years it obscures some of the best.

On the other hand, I am somewhat sympathetic to what MadMen is saying in that I don't lament Sontag's infamous words of "the death of cinema" or even claims about "the decline of cinema" as if cinema has fallen off so dramatically as compared to some of its more famous and glamorous decades. We all have to admit the 60s was a special time in cinema, and it's not just because the films were great, but because of the cultural milieu at the time and what kind of new cinema was even possible then. It's not merely a golden age because there were so many great movies, but it's more about what this period meant for cinema and the possibilities for cinema at large.The way I see it, the decline in American cinema after the '50s coincided with an uptick in the number and quality of films being made in other places.

Izzy Black

07-14-2013, 05:16 PM

To give a concrete example, one of the best movies I've seen all year is a Turkish film called Beyond the Hill, yet it's received almost no attention whatsoever in the English press because it premiered at Berlin rather than Cannes and it was made by a first time filmmaker without an existing media profile. On the other hand, I haven't seen Only God Forgives, but every reviewer seems to agree that it's a giant turd; however, it's going to get far more attention than Beyond the Hill because it premiered at Cannes and was made by an established director. Certain years seem better than others because the apparatus that exists to promote films has arbitrarily elevated some pretty good ones while in other years it obscures some of the best.

The reason Only God Forgives has had so much press goes beyond Cannes. For one, it's a Ryan Gosling vehicle with a director that's fresh off a huge international hit in another Ryan Gosling feature. And yet, Beyond the Hill still won the Caligari prize at Berlin and has several other film festival nominations. I've seen it on a few early year-end lists and mentioned in some other English-language publications. (I haven't seen the film yet, but I want to.)

I agree to an extent about the media apparatus influence, but I'm not talking about my perception of cinema based on media attention. I'm talking about it based on the films I've seen and will see. I think it's very possible to cut through the media noise and find out about nearly every important film that's come out in a given year and go see them. And to the extent that I'm at least moderately familiar with the cinema of the past decade, I'd say this year is holding up well.

The way I see it, the decline in American cinema after the '50s coincided with an uptick in the number and quality of films being made in other places.

I don't think American cinema started to decline after the '50s. It's best director, Stanley Kubrick, didn't even hit his stride until the 60s. And my other favorite American, Terrence Malick, was also American New Wave. I like old Hollywood, but I prefer the auteurist cinema of the 60s and 70s that swept the globe to any other decade in film.

Izzy Black

07-14-2013, 05:17 PM

I have found that movies coming out of a "golden age" are not really any better than movies from other time periods, though they may be more expensive and lavish. I prefer "new waves" to "golden ages."

I guess I consider the mid-century "new waves" as the "golden ages." I suppose old Hollywood is considered more of the golden age of American cinema. If that's true, then I agree with you.

Bandy Greensacks

07-14-2013, 07:09 PM

Izzy Black

07-15-2013, 12:28 AM

I've personally found the '80s to be just as impressive, if not more impressive, than the '60s. Even mainstream American cinema during that time period was tonally distinctive and reintegrated the highly saturated, candy-coated color palettes of '50s directors like Sirk and Minnelli.

Carpenter, De Palma, Scorsese, Mann, Scott (both), Leigh, Woody, Greenaway, Verhoeven, Russell, Wenders, Cronenberg, Lynch, Friedkin, Miyazaki, Brooks, Zemeckis, Spielberg, Terayama, Ruiz, Szulkin and others did much of their best work that decade.

I agree. I don't single the 60s out for just its great films. There are plenty of other decades that stack up well against the 60s (the 30s, 80s, even the 90s, in fact the latter might be favorite decade if we're just talking pound-for-pound film quality.) The 60s is great because of what it did for cinema. It represented a shift in the kind of possibilities available to cinema and marked a fairly global political reaction to the stranglehold on artistry (for example, BuÃ±uel could come out of his Mexican exile and make European films the way he wanted.)

Izzy Black

07-15-2013, 01:08 AM

Continuing that line, the 90s saw the peak of most of my favorite directors: Claire Denis, Hou Hsiao-Hsien, Raoul Ruiz, Leos Carax, BÃ©la Tarr, Quentin Tarantino, Wong Kar-Wai, Michael Mann, Spike Lee, Jane Campion, Peter Greenaway, Sofia Coppola, Stanley Kwan, Gillian Armstrong, Bill Viola, Harmony Korine, Sharunas Bartas, Steven Soderbergh, Olivier Assayas and late career masterpieces from my other favorites Godard, Malick, Varda, Kubrick, Antonioni, Rivette, Resnais, Akerman, Chabrol, and Altman. That's just to name a few.

So put me firmly in the camp that film hasn't declined one bit since the 60s.

baby doll

07-15-2013, 06:22 AM

I agree to an extent about the media apparatus influence, but I'm not talking about my perception of cinema based on media attention. I'm talking about it based on the films I've seen and will see. I think it's very possible to cut through the media noise and find out about nearly every important film that's come out in a given year and go see them. And to the extent that I'm at least moderately familiar with the cinema of the past decade, I'd say this year is holding up well.Even assuming that you can find out about all the good movies (I try to stay on top of these things, but I'm sure there are lots of interesting films that slip under my radar--there are just too many movies), the other problem is availability, especially with older films. I've been dying to see Leo McCarey's Love Affair for ages, but I haven't been able to find a decent quality torrent. Plus, who has any idea what's going on in the avant-garde?

I don't think American cinema started to decline after the '50s. It's best director, Stanley Kubrick, didn't even hit his stride until the 60s. And my other favorite American, Terrence Malick, was also American New Wave. I like old Hollywood, but I prefer the auteurist cinema of the 60s and 70s that swept the globe to any other decade in film.I tend to agree with Robin Wood that one of the weaknesses of auteurist Hollywood cinema after the '50s (Altman, Scorsese, Tarantino et al) is their self-consciousness about being auteurs; they have to put their personal stamp on every project instead of simply making films. Douglas Sirk, who came out of the German theatre doubtlessly saw himself as an artist, but he didn't only make "Douglas Sirk Movies" (or what we now think of as "Douglas Sirk Movies"); he was able to work on a variety of projects. Working with the same cast and technicians, he could make films as different as Written on the Wind and The Tarnished Angels, whereas if David Fincher ever made a musical-comedy, he would still shoot it in the same style as Se7en.

Irish

07-15-2013, 07:38 AM

I tend to agree with Robin Wood that one of the weaknesses of auteurist Hollywood cinema after the '50s (Altman, Scorsese, Tarantino et al) is their self-consciousness about being auteurs; they have to put their personal stamp on every project instead of simply making films. Douglas Sirk, who came out of the German theatre doubtlessly saw himself as an artist, but he didn't only make "Douglas Sirk Movies" (or what we now think of as "Douglas Sirk Movies"); he was able to work on a variety of projects. Working with the same cast and technicians, he could make films as different as Written on the Wind and The Tarnished Angels, whereas if David Fincher ever made a musical-comedy, he would still shoot it in the same style as Se7en.

I agree with the theory, but can't help but quibble over your choice of names. Guys like Tarantino, Fincher, Coppola the Younger, and all three Anderson's: Yes. They are very much self-conscious auteurs.

But Altman and Scorsese? Altman went from "MASH" to "The Player" to "Gosford Park" over the course of his career. Scorsese shot "New York, New York", "Raging Bull" and "King of Comedy" within 5 years or so. Each of that has a markedly different tone and is shot in different style.

Further, these guys jump around in subject matter where the younger generation doesn't at all. Could you imagine Paul Thomas Anderson attempting "MASH" or Tarantino even approaching "The Age of Innocence"?

baby doll

07-15-2013, 08:50 AM

I agree with the theory, but can't help but quibble over your choice of names. Guys like Tarantino, Fincher, Coppola the Younger, and all three Anderson's: Yes. They are very much self-conscious auteurs.

But Altman and Scorsese? Altman went from "MASH" to "The Player" to "Gosford Park" over the course of his career. Scorsese shot "New York, New York", "Raging Bull" and "King of Comedy" within 5 years or so. Each of that has a markedly different tone and is shot in different style.

Further, these guys jump around in subject matter where the younger generation doesn't at all. Could you imagine Paul Thomas Anderson attempting "MASH" or Tarantino even approaching "The Age of Innocence"?I chose Altman precisely because he tackled a wide range of subjects and genres without greatly varying his approach. In particular, although I think Popeye is an interesting film, it seems to me that Altman's style--the overlapping dialogue and constantly tracking camera--is arbitrarily imposed on the story just so we know who's sitting in the director's chair.

With Scorsese, I was thinking more of some of the film's he's made lately, particularly if you compare The Departed with Infernal Affairs: In Scorsese's hands, what was a tight, modest genre film becomes a bloated, self-consciously operatic three hour epic.

Bandy Greensacks

07-15-2013, 06:39 PM

When I think of modern, self-conscious auteurism, I think of directors like Haneke, Weerasethakul, Tsai, Wes Anderson, Ceylan and Tarr. I enjoy (often love) what they do, but can you imagine any of them significantly altering their style or creating a pure genre film? It's pretty clear that they're thinking about how their overall body of work will be perceived.

As far as Scorsese is concerned, even his recent material suggests he doesn't fit the mold: Hugo, Shutter Island and The Departed are all pretty different, aren't they? And The Wolf of Wall Street looks like yet another departure from his comfort zone.

Tarantino and Fincher are decent examples. I don't think you can bring Paul W.S. Anderson into the equation, though, especially since he was responsible for Punch-Drunk Love and doesn't necessarily have a trademark style.

But then, really... is self-conscious auteurism a new thing? Did directors like Bergman and Antonioni ever take tonal risks?

Bandy Greensacks

07-15-2013, 06:43 PM

1. A Field in England
2. Before Midnight
3. Spring Breakers
4. Drug War (2012)
5. Behind the Candelabra
7. Leviathan (2012)
8. V/H/S/2
9. The Place Beyond the Pines
10. Side Effects

Stay Puft

07-15-2013, 07:49 PM

1. Upstream Color
2. To the Wonder
3. No
4. Leviathan
5. Drug War

Russ

07-15-2013, 10:53 PM

I don't think you can bring Paul W.S. Anderson into the equation, though, especially since he was responsible for Punch-Drunk Love and doesn't necessarily have a trademark style.
I guess this makes me the cinematic equivalent of the grammar nazi?

Bandy Greensacks

07-16-2013, 01:02 AM

Haha, I didn't catch that because I've talked more about W.S. recently than Paul Thomas

Irish

07-16-2013, 05:26 AM

I chose Altman precisely because he tackled a wide range of subjects and genres without greatly varying his approach. In particular, although I think Popeye is an interesting film, it seems to me that Altman's style--the overlapping dialogue and constantly tracking camera--is arbitrarily imposed on the story just so we know who's sitting in the director's chair.

Well, that's a good point. But where do you draw the distinction between being a self-conscious auteur then and the natural outcome of style?

I came across an interview with Woody Allen last week, and the interviewer asked him about his preference for master shots and long takes. His answer was that he doesn't have the patience for over-over-two style cross cutting, and he'd rather get in there and get the scene and be done with it.

So I thought that was interesting, because what people were taking as some kind of conscious artistic choice really came down to efficiency (or laziness, depending on how you look at it).

But in your view, does Allen's choice there make him self-conscious? Whatever his motivations, his use of master shots and the particular style he's developed is an expression of who he is as a director.

With Scorsese, I was thinking more of some of the film's he's made lately, particularly if you compare The Departed with Infernal Affairs: In Scorsese's hands, what was a tight, modest genre film becomes a bloated, self-consciously operatic three hour epic.

Fair point. I can't really fault Scorsese for that. It seems after a certain point, somewhere in the mid-90s, both he and the industry opted to go for bigger money.

I agree with you about both "Infernal Affairs" and "The Departed," but I think the fact that the latter is bloated has less to do with artistry and more to do with the demands of the American industry. Nolan did the same thing with "Insomnia." The original European version is wonderfully terse, but the American film adds a half hour of runtime to no good purpose.

baby doll

07-16-2013, 05:52 AM

Well, that's a good point. But where do you draw the distinction between being a self-conscious auteur then and the natural outcome of style?

I came across an interview with Woody Allen last week, and the interviewer asked him about his preference for master shots and long takes. His answer was that he doesn't have the patience for over-over-two style cross cutting, and he'd rather get in there and get the scene and be done with it.

So I thought that was interesting, because what people were taking as some kind of conscious artistic choice really came down to efficiency (or laziness, depending on how you look at it).

But in your view, does Allen's choice there make him self-conscious? Whatever his motivations, his use of master shots and the particular style he's developed is an expression of who he is as a director.

Fair point. I can't really fault Scorsese for that. It seems after a certain point, somewhere in the mid-90s, both he and the industry opted to go for bigger money.

I agree with you about both "Infernal Affairs" and "The Departed," but I think the fact that the latter is bloated has less to do with artistry and more to do with the demands of the American industry. Nolan did the same thing with "Insomnia." The original European version is wonderfully terse, but the American film adds a half hour of runtime to no good purpose.The level of craftsmanship in Allen's recent films tends to vary wildly, but that aside, he's in kind of a unique position among brand auteurs (at least in America) in that he has the freedom to work in a minor mode, whereas Scorsese is doomed to making huge event movies. If Allen wants to do a light comedy like The Curse of the Jade Scorpion, he can do that; I'm not sure if Scorsese could at this point. Accordingly, a movie like Shutter Island--which in the '40s would've been a tight mid-range picture (not a B film but not an epic either)--is this two and a half hour blockbuster. I like some of Allen's pictures more than others, and the ones I like are not always the most popular (I prefer Whatever Works to Vicky Christina Barcelona and You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger to Midnight in Paris), but in the last ten years, he's made a number of interesting films (I think Match Point is one of his best) as well as some abysmal flops (Melinda and Melinda), while Scorsese during the same period has been consistently mediocre.

Rowland

07-16-2013, 03:03 PM

1. Like Someone in Love
2. Room 237
3. From Up on Poppy Hill
4. Evil Dead
5. To the Wonder
6. Stoker
7. Pain & Gain
8. The Lords of Salem
9. V/H/S/2
10. Fast and Furious 6

Izzy Black

07-16-2013, 03:59 PM

Even assuming that you can find out about all the good movies (I try to stay on top of these things, but I'm sure there are lots of interesting films that slip under my radar--there are just too many movies), the other problem is availability, especially with older films. I've been dying to see Leo McCarey's Love Affair for ages, but I haven't been able to find a decent quality torrent. Plus, who has any idea what's going on in the avant-garde?

I try to follow the avant-garde. Most films I can find through various means of steaming services and Internet resources. Again, some films slip through the cracks, but if you're diligent, I think you can see most of what's out there.

I tend to agree with Robin Wood that one of the weaknesses of auteurist Hollywood cinema after the '50s (Altman, Scorsese, Tarantino et al) is their self-consciousness about being auteurs; they have to put their personal stamp on every project instead of simply making films. Douglas Sirk, who came out of the German theatre doubtlessly saw himself as an artist, but he didn't only make "Douglas Sirk Movies" (or what we now think of as "Douglas Sirk Movies"); he was able to work on a variety of projects. Working with the same cast and technicians, he could make films as different as Written on the Wind and The Tarnished Angels, whereas if David Fincher ever made a musical-comedy, he would still shoot it in the same style as Se7en.

I tend to agree with FranÃ§ois Truffaut that the great pre-60s Hollywood directors were auteurs or had auteuristic tendencies. We can see this in John Huston, Orson Welles, John Ford, Charlie Chaplin, Howard Hawks, D.W. Griffith, and Alfred Hitchcock. These directors found themselves working in the same kinds of genres and with the same kinds of styles and themes. You didn't really see Hitchcock branching out of his psychological thriller/suspense mode to direct musical comedies once he hit his stride in the 40s. He became a household name, and like any good famous auteur, gave the people what they came to expect from him.

In the case of Sirk, it's important to remember that renewed interest in his work really began with consideration of his auteurism. Sirk wasn't critically favored in his time, but after critics found a way to detect auteuristic trends and developments in his films (via glowing endorsements from New Wave critics like Godard), his work saw a critical resurgence.

As for the rise of American auteurism, the situation is complex. Steven Spielberg is an American auteur and arguably the most famous director since Hitchcock, but he's directed every kind of movie under the sun. Likewise, Steven Soderbergh, Gus Van Sant, Brain De Palma, and Spike Lee are critically lauded auteurs that have been able to jump from genre-to-genre, experimenting with the very nature and form of genre. In fact, very interestingly, it's the rise of auteurism that has made it possible for directors to experiment with different genres and projects in ways old Hollywood directors never could (they weren't allowed to break too far from the traditional model). This is because some critics tend to be receptive to the idea of an artist challenging conventions and exploring diverse artistic possibilities. I'd wager that the work of Soderbergh is far more eclectic than Sirk, who found himself mostly relegated to the melodrama or romantic comedy genre. Soderbergh (and even Spielberg for that mater) has barely stayed within a single genre for more than one film, whereas Sirk had long stretches of turning out practically the same movie.

Now, that's not to say that some auteurs haven't been trapped in an artistic/stylistic box of their own making. David Fincher, PTA, and Quentin Tarantino are examples of those that have done this, but again, the demand that they stay in this mold isn't really inconsistent with the expectations audiences eventually had for Hitchcock, Ford, or Welles.

And in any case, as far as any this goes, I tend to prefer films by say, Kubrick and Malick, to those of Sirk.

Fezzik

07-16-2013, 04:21 PM

I am really behind on film watching this year. Hopefully now that my life has calmed down a bit, I will be able to watch a few more (many good ones coming to streaming in the next couple of weeks).

Much Ado About Nothing
Iron Man 3
Despicable Me 2
This is the End
Pacific Rim
Star Trek into Darkness
Monsters University
The Croods
Man of Steel
G.I. Joe: Retaliation

11. The Great Gatsby
12. Now You See Me

Irish

07-16-2013, 04:36 PM

baby doll

07-16-2013, 04:41 PM

I tend to agree with FranÃ§ois Truffaut that the great pre-60s Hollywood directors were auteurs or had auteuristic tendencies. We can see this in John Huston, Orson Welles, John Ford, Charlie Chaplin, Howard Hawks, D.W. Griffith, and Alfred Hitchcock. These directors found themselves working in the same kinds of genres and with the same kinds of styles and themes. You didn't really see Hitchcock branching out of his psychological thriller/suspense mode to direct musical comedies once he hit his stride in the 40s. He became a household name, and like any good famous auteur, gave the people what they came to expect from him.

In the case of Sirk, it's important to remember that renewed interest in his work really began with consideration of his auteurism. Sirk wasn't critically favored in his time, but after critics found a way to detect auteuristic trends and developments in his films (via glowing endorsements from New Wave critics like Godard), his work saw a critical resurgence.

As for the rise of American auteurism, the situation is complex. Steven Spielberg is an American auteur and arguably the most famous director since Hitchcock, but he's directed every kind of movie under the sun. Likewise, Steven Soderbergh, Gus Van Sant, Brain De Palma, and Spike Lee are critically lauded auteurs that have been able to jump from genre-to-genre, experimenting with the very nature and form of genre. In fact, very interestingly, it's the rise of auteurism that has made it possible for directors to experiment with different genres and projects in ways old Hollywood directors never could (they weren't allowed to break too far from the traditional model). This is because some critics tend to be receptive to the idea of an artist challenging conventions and exploring diverse artistic possibilities. I'd wager that the work of Soderbergh is far more eclectic than Sirk, who found himself mostly relegated to the melodrama or romantic comedy genre. Soderbergh (and even Spielberg for that mater) has barely stayed within a single genre for more than one film, whereas Sirk had long stretches of turning out practically the same movie.

Now, that's not to say that some auteurs haven't been trapped in an artistic/stylistic box of their own making. David Fincher, PTA, and Quentin Tarantino are examples of those that have done this, but again, the demand that they stay in this mold isn't really inconsistent with the expectations audiences eventually had for Hitchcock, Ford, or Welles.

And in any case, as far as any this goes, I tend to prefer films by say, Kubrick and Malick, to those of Sirk.To me, Spielberg is an especially apt case. Like Hitchcock, he alternates between popular entertainments with no overt aspirations to being Art and more ambitious films, but there's a world of difference between Hitchcock's relaxed artistry and Spielberg's overbearing seriousness some of his Oscar pictures (Munich is downright embarrassing). Even in E.T., there's all this Jesus-y symbolism to let us know that it's "more" than just a cute kid's movie, whereas Hitchcock rarely made such a big fuss about being an artist, which is why he could be a household name in the '40s and not be taken seriously as a filmmaker (as Spielberg wasn't until he started making Oscar movies in the '80s).

Izzy Black

07-16-2013, 07:09 PM

Iz, you must have a wildly broad definition of "genre."

Out of ~35 major theatrical releases, Spielberg has made ten science fiction movies (or movies with heavy sci-fi elements, like "Crystal Skull"). Another 10 have been historical fiction, ie period pieces. He's, very arguably, made 1.5 horror films (let's give him half credit for "Poltergeist"). Where's Spielberg's teen comedy? Or musical? Or western? How about something small scale, like a straight contemporary drama? Or a documentary? He's never gone near any of that stuff.

Spielberg is the biggest commercial, mainstream director on the planet. He would have fit in nicely under the studio system. I dunno if I'd call him an auteur. If he is, then everybody is. Calling Spielberg an auteur is like calling a Big Mac "cuisine." It's only accurate if you stretch the usage of the word.

When I said Spielberg rarely sticks to one genre, I meant from one film to the next, whereas Sirk spent much of his career making one type of film. He certainly has a fondness for science fiction, but my point was that Spielberg has made many types of movies. He hasn't made musical or western, but he's made a Holocaust film, war film, docudramas, science fiction, action films, horror films, period pieces, melodramas, fantasy adventure movies, coming of age stories, and comedies. His work expands material as far ranging as racism in the deep south with The Color Purple to a comedic drama about an immigrant stuck at a terminal with The Terminal to straightforward traditional Sci-Fi with Minority Report. I'm not saying Spielberg is a chameleon and doesn't have his preferred genres, but I don't think it's controversial to say that he's explored a fairly diverse range of topics and genres.

Izzy Black

07-16-2013, 07:38 PM

To me, Spielberg is an especially apt case. Like Hitchcock, he alternates between popular entertainments with no overt aspirations to being Art and more ambitious films, but there's a world of difference between Hitchcock's relaxed artistry and Spielberg's overbearing seriousness some of his Oscar pictures (Munich is downright embarrassing). Even in E.T., there's all this Jesus-y symbolism to let us know that it's "more" than just a cute kid's movie, whereas Hitchcock rarely made such a big fuss about being an artist, which is why he could be a household name in the '40s and not be taken seriously as a filmmaker (as Spielberg wasn't until he started making Oscar movies in the '80s).

Spielberg's Jewish and I don't see any Christian symbolism in E.T. It was somewhat marketed that way by the studio to tap into the massive conservative Christian demographic in the U.S., but that hardly says anything about an appeal to High-Art / Oscar bait. That's just smart business and how to fill the sits. Spielberg himself disavows the interpretation, which makes sense, since his films have more of a Jewish arc if they have any at all.

And I'm not sure I know what you mean about Hitchcock not making a fuss about being an artist (this is the same man that supposedly referred to his actors as 'cattle'). One thing is for sure, the critics loved him then and they still do. He's taken much more seriously as an artist than Spielberg is. Irish's comments can attest to the skeptical view of Spielberg as some first-rate auteur. And how does Vertigo not have all the self-reflexive baggage of an artist forcing his overbearing imprint on the film? Hitchcock doesn't strike me as anything less than overt and in your face as an artist. Just think of some of his most famous techniques and devices such as the actors talking directly into the camera, the extreme close ups, whole movies seemingly shot in one-take, the disorienting reverse zoom shots, or the killing off of main characters half way through a movie. These are the things that made him famous and they were widely covered in the press and deep in the audiences' minds as they watched his films. Hitch may be a lot of things, but a subtle or "relaxed" artist certainly isn't one of them.

Izzy Black

07-16-2013, 07:56 PM

which is why he could be a household name in the '40s and not be taken seriously as a filmmaker (as Spielberg wasn't until he started making Oscar movies in the '80s).

Eh, Rebecca won best picture in 1940, Spellbound was nominated for it in 1945, and Notorious was the official selection at Cannes in 1946. His other films in this period were also critically lauded and won awards. And Rope was pure arthouse experimentation. I'd say he was taken very seriously in the 40s, especially moreso than Spielberg was even prior to the 90s (until he won for Schindler's).

baby doll

07-17-2013, 04:07 PM

Spielberg's Jewish and I don't see any Christian symbolism in E.T. It was somewhat marketed that way by the studio to tap into the massive conservative Christian demographic in the U.S., but that hardly says anything about an appeal to High-Art / Oscar bait. That's just smart business and how to fill the sits. Spielberg himself disavows the interpretation, which makes sense, since his films have more of a Jewish arc if they have any at all.Death and resurrection. Glowing heart. Then he gets into a space ship and flies off to outer space. It seems like a slam dunk to me. In any case, I think of way worse examples from Spielberg's career. (The sex scene at the end of Munich with Eric Bana reliving the terrorist attack while boning his wife has to be the most ridiculous thing ever filmed by a human being. I don't think I'll ever forget that close-up of Bana arching his back in agony/orgasm while beads of sweat arch gracefully towards the camera in slow motion.)

And I'm not sure I know what you mean about Hitchcock not making a fuss about being an artist (this is the same man that supposedly referred to his actors as 'cattle'). One thing is for sure, the critics loved him then and they still do. He's taken much more seriously as an artist than Spielberg is. Irish's comments can attest to the skeptical view of Spielberg as some first-rate auteur. And how does Vertigo not have all the self-reflexive baggage of an artist forcing his overbearing imprint on the film? Hitchcock doesn't strike me as anything less than overt and in your face as an artist. Just think of some of his most famous techniques and devices such as the actors talking directly into the camera, the extreme close ups, whole movies seemingly shot in one-take, the disorienting reverse zoom shots, or the killing off of main characters half way through a movie. These are the things that made him famous and they were widely covered in the press and deep in the audiences' minds as they watched his films. Hitch may be a lot of things, but a subtle or "relaxed" artist certainly isn't one of them.

Eh, Rebecca won best picture in 1940, Spellbound was nominated for it in 1945, and Notorious was the official selection at Cannes in 1946. His other films in this period were also critically lauded and won awards. And Rope was pure arthouse experimentation. I'd say he was taken very seriously in the 40s, especially moreso than Spielberg was even prior to the 90s (until he won for Schindler's).To be sure, Hitchcock did make a number of prestige pictures while he was working for David O. Selznick in the '40s (particularly Spellbound, which is not one of his better films), but I think there's a significant difference between hiring Salvador Dali to design some dream sequences (even if they mostly wound up on the cutting room floor) and the murder half-way through Psycho; in the former case, a famous artist is trucked in to lend respectability to a dopey thriller, while the latter is certainly unusual but isn't the kind of thing that typically gets Oscar nominations.

More generally, I think Hitchcock's richest period was in the mid-to-late '50s and early '60s (that is, after he got away from Selznick) when it was possible to make a film like Rear Window that's pretty experimental in the way that it uses the different subplots going on in the courtyard as a counterpoint to/running commentary on the relationship between Jimmy Stewart and Grace Kelly, yet it is still done with a fairly light touch--especially if one compares it with contemporary thrillers by Fincher and Nolan which seem to equate dark cinematography with artistic seriousness. Obviously Rear Window was very well received by reviewers and in the end it did get a bunch of Oscar nominations, but generally Hitchcock's style is too purposeful to resort to any sort of special pleading.

Dukefrukem

07-17-2013, 04:14 PM

One of my pet peeves is people generalizing about whether it's a good year or a bad year for movies as if that were something that could be known. Hundreds of movies come out every year and even the most indefatigable moviegoer will only see a few dozen of them at the most.

In 2012, the average grade I gave for all movies released in that year, was a full point greater than any other year in the 21st century. I would conclude that 2012 was a great year for cinema.

baby doll

07-17-2013, 04:40 PM

In 2012, the average grade I gave for all movies released in that year, was a full point greater than any other year in the 21st century. I would conclude that 2012 was a great year for cinema.Personally, I'm still waiting for a 2012 release to really bowl me over. I've seen some terrific movies--Beyond the Hill, Keep the Lights On, Tabu (although I didn't see any of those until 2013)--but nothing that's impressed me as much as Le Gamin au vÃ©lo (2011, though I didn't see it until 2012), Post Mortem (2010), or Vincere (2009). But this is all purely subjective. If you had a good year at the movies, who am I to tell you that you didn't? And if I didn't it's only because I didn't see the right movies (yet).

Dukefrukem

07-17-2013, 04:46 PM

baby doll

07-17-2013, 05:33 PM

Well of course everything is subjective. But even if we were to go by the MC consensus, I'd say that majority of us were pretty disappointed with some of this year's MAJOR Hollywood titles. This includes, Pacific Rim, Man of Steel, Star Trek, Die Hard 5... IN 2012, there were a lot, and I mean, a lot of 50:4 majority voting for movies. The RAID, Cabin in the Woods, the Grey and the Avengers come to mind. I don't think we'll see anything like that this year, Iron Man 3 being the closest example. It's hard to please the consensus of MC.I can't comment on the overall quality of Hollywood tent-poles, since apart from Iron Man 3 and Star Trek 2, I haven't seen any of the films that you mention. I did sort of like the latter and the former wasn't unbearable (although I was a bit mystified by all the stuff in Chinese), but I wouldn't describe either of them as major works, much less "MAJOR," except in the sense of being expensive and well promoted.

In any case, do you think there were any movies released in 2012 that will hold up fifty years from now as major works in the sense that An Autumn Afternoon, L'eclisse, and Vivre sa vie are major works? I mean, if we're going to say that X was a great year for movies, I think we should take a longer view than what gets the highest ratio of yay votes in a Match-Cut consensus (as if that meant anything). Obviously you can't predict what will be in vogue fifty years from now because fashion is always shifting, but if you think it's such a great year, there must be a few movies that you think really stand out.

Dukefrukem

07-17-2013, 05:38 PM

From 2012; I think Argo will stand out 50 years from now. I think The Deep Blue Sea will as well. Cabin in the Woods. Life of Pi, Moonrise Kingdom, definitely Django Unchained and The Artist.

Lazlo

07-17-2013, 05:46 PM

1. Mud
2. Star Trek Into Darkness
3. The Place Beyond the Pines
4. Man of Steel
5. Spring Breakers
6. Oblivion
7. Behind the Candelabra
8. World War Z
9. The Heat
10. White House Down

baby doll

07-17-2013, 06:08 PM

From 2012; I think Argo will stand out 50 years from now. I think The Deep Blue Sea will as well. Cabin in the Woods. Life of Pi, Moonrise Kingdom, definitely Django Unchained and The Artist.I'm a bit surprised you mention The Artist because I had the same problem with that film that I had with Blancanieves: Both films go to great lengths to duplicate the look of late silent cinema, and in my opinion are only half-successful, but that wouldn't matter if either film had a story worth giving a damn about. If you take away all the allusions to other movies and just look at what's going on in the plot, it doesn't add up to a hill of beans. (For this sort of thing, I much prefer Holy Motors and Tabu.)

Other than that, I also liked The Deep Blue Sea and Moonrise Kingdom quite a bit (even if there are other films by the same directors that I like even more--particularly Distant Voices, Still Lives and Rushmore), and I enjoyed Django Unchained though I'm not so keen on it as the films by Davies and Anderson (for me, Beyond the Hill was a much more intriguing neo-Western). And I haven't seen Argo, Cabin in the Woods, or The Life of Pi, so I can't comment on those.

Maybe it's just too early for me to judge because the kind of cinema that I enjoy takes a bit longer to make the rounds. (After all, there are still new films by Olivier Assayas, Noah Baumbach, Abbas Kiarostami, Alain Resnais, and Carlos Reygadas that I haven't seen yet.) And like I said, there are lots of terrific movies that I have seen already (did I mention Beyond the Hill and Tabu?), but so far it doesn't strike me as being a particularly remarkable year for cinema compared with other years.

Izzy Black

07-17-2013, 08:32 PM

Death and resurrection. Glowing heart. Then he gets into a space ship and flies off to outer space. It seems like a slam dunk to me. In any case, I think of way worse examples from Spielberg's career. (The sex scene at the end of Munich with Eric Bana reliving the terrorist attack while boning his wife has to be the most ridiculous thing ever filmed by a human being. I don't think I'll ever forget that close-up of Bana arching his back in agony/orgasm while beads of sweat arch gracefully towards the camera in slow motion.)

E.T. is a very autobiographical film. It reflects Spielberg's experiences growing up in a divorced parent household. It's about the alienation of youth, when you feel disconnected from others because of certain features of who you are and feel displaced because you're from a broken home (or in E.T.'s case - you're literally away from home). This alienation and the persecution due to one's Otherness translates better as an interpretation of what it's like to be Jewish (Spielberg has attested to this kind of bullying in his young life before) than it is the persecution of Christ and his followers. As for Munich, I won't defend the film, but it hardly seems to be that lone case of a director trapped in an artistic box when it's sandwiched between a Sci-Fi flick and action adventure movie.

To be sure, Hitchcock did make a number of prestige pictures while he was working for David O. Selznick in the '40s (particularly Spellbound, which is not one of his better films), but I think there's a significant difference between hiring Salvador Dali to design some dream sequences (even if they mostly wound up on the cutting room floor) and the murder half-way through Psycho; in the former case, a famous artist is trucked in to lend respectability to a dopey thriller, while the latter is certainly unusual but isn't the kind of thing that typically gets Oscar nominations.

Hitchcock got the Oscar nom for best director along with noms for art direction and cinematography. It's the most famous sequence of his entire career. Critics even talked about the film's lack of subtlety. It's aggressively stylistic. It used like 70 different camera angles and wide 50 mm lenses. It was the talk of the town for years. If you compare that to the tame dream sequence in Spellbound, Psycho draws far more attention to itself. And I wasn't under the impression they brought in Dali to "lend respectability" to a thriller (especially since it was cut), but because Selznick had a big hangup about psychoanalysis and wanted his imprint on the film. Hitchcock had nothing to do with that.

Izzy Black

07-17-2013, 08:37 PM

More generally, I think Hitchcock's richest period was in the mid-to-late '50s and early '60s (that is, after he got away from Selznick) when it was possible to make a film like Rear Window that's pretty experimental in the way that it uses the different subplots going on in the courtyard as a counterpoint to/running commentary on the relationship between Jimmy Stewart and Grace Kelly, yet it is still done with a fairly light touch--especially if one compares it with contemporary thrillers by Fincher and Nolan which seem to equate dark cinematography with artistic seriousness. Obviously Rear Window was very well received by reviewers and in the end it did get a bunch of Oscar nominations, but generally Hitchcock's style is too purposeful to resort to any sort of special pleading.

Hitchcock's late period is more aggressively stylistic and auteuristic than his early period, and it's clearly his most influential. Rebecca, meanwhile, is a pretty traditional style thriller melodrama, but I love the film and I think his work with Ingrid Bergman in the 40s stands up just as well to his work in the 50s and 60s. Actually, his work with Bergman is probably my favorite. I suppose I am a little put off by some of Hitchcock's late work for the very reason you claim to be his earlier stuff - it's all too self-consciously Hitchcockian, almost verging on gimmicky and self-parody. The psychologising starts to feel way more personal/autobiographical (Vertigo), the aesthetic too self-referential and knowing (Psycho, Rear Window), and so on. I like him in more stripped down, subtle strokes, even if he's never subtle compared to others.

Anyways, my only point here is that Hitchcock was a well-regarded auteur for most of his career. As Truffaut thought, Hollywood's best directors were all auteurs. He's right in the same class as Griffith, Ford, and Chaplin.

Izzy Black

07-17-2013, 08:43 PM

Also, we should be quick to distinguish good auteurs from bad auteurs. You keep bringing up people like Nolan and Fincher, but forget that they aren't necessarily first-rate auteurs. Nolan to me is barely an average filmmaker. Like George Lucas and his prequels, he may be a self-styled auteur with respect to the amount of influence he has on his own films, but that doesn't mean he's a terribly interesting auteur or director. It's better to bring up a more respectable working auteur like David Lynch or Terrence Malick. They make much better movies and it's not clear they are great in spite of their auteurism, but rather because of it. In other words, your problem doesn't seem to be auteurism so much as bad movie makers (Nolan substituting "dark" cinematography for substance is because he doesn't have a lot of substance to otherwise offer).

Irish

07-17-2013, 08:45 PM

When I said Spielberg rarely sticks to one genre, I meant from one film to the next, whereas Sirk spent much of his career making one type of film. He certainly has a fondness for science fiction, but my point was that Spielberg has made many types of movies. He hasn't made musical or western, but he's made a Holocaust film, war film, docudramas, science fiction, action films, horror films, period pieces, melodramas, fantasy adventure movies, coming of age stories, and comedies. His work expands material as far ranging as racism in the deep south with The Color Purple to a comedic drama about an immigrant stuck at a terminal with The Terminal to straightforward traditional Sci-Fi with Minority Report. I'm not saying Spielberg is a chameleon and doesn't have his preferred genres, but I don't think it's controversial to say that he's explored a fairly diverse range of topics and genres.

You did, but I was also referring to your statement that Spielberg has made "all kind of films." He really hasn't. His output can be roughly divided into adventure-fantasy, historical drama, and science fiction. There's a noticeable ebb and flow to the kind of movies he makes. Anytime he hits a box office snare, he immediately returns with a popcorn crowd pleaser.

I also don't think we can read too much into the order in which these things were produced. Several times, Spielberg's choice of project wasn't an artistic decision but a commericial one. To get the money for "Schindler's List," for example, he agreed to do "Jurassic Park" first.

Izzy Black

07-17-2013, 08:48 PM

Maybe it's just too early for me to judge because the kind of cinema that I enjoy takes a bit longer to make the rounds. (After all, there are still new films by Olivier Assayas, Noah Baumbach, Abbas Kiarostami, Alain Resnais, and Carlos Reygadas that I haven't seen yet.) And like I said, there are lots of terrific movies that I have seen already (did I mention Beyond the Hill and Tabu?), but so far it doesn't strike me as being a particularly remarkable year for cinema compared with other years.

I can get behind this, but I think Before Midnight, Holy Motors, and Spring Breakers will age well. That's just me, though. None of us can tell this close to a film's release.

Izzy Black

07-17-2013, 08:52 PM

You did, but I was also referring to your statement that Spielberg has made "all kind of films." He really hasn't. His output can be roughly divided into adventure-fantasy, historical drama, and science fiction. There's a noticeable ebb and flow to the kind of movies he makes. Anytime he hits a box office snare, he immediately returns with a popcorn crowd pleaser.

There's a lot of overlap of genres, but again, if you take it on a film-by-film basis, he has in fact made all different kinds of films and covered as many different topics. He hasn't made a western or a musical that I can think of, I agree, but he's covered all the genres I mentioned in my last post. In any case, my point was one of contrast. I think he's stepped outside of his genre as much as or more than Sirk, and I think probably at least as much as any other major director out there. Is that really such an outlandish statement to make?

I also don't think we can read too much into the order in which these things were produced. Several times, Spielberg's choice of project wasn't an artistic decision but a commericial one. To get the money for "Schindler's List," for example, he agreed to do "Jurassic Park" first.

OK, sure, but I don't think it's radical to claim that Spielberg is interested in different topics and genres. I'm not really saying anything that hasn't been said many times before.

Irish

07-17-2013, 09:01 PM

I think he's stepped outside of his genre as much as or more than Sirk, and I think probably at least as much as any other major director out there. Is that really such an outlandish statement to make?

In reference to Sirk? No, it's not outlandish. In reference to others, especially his contemporaries? Maybe a little.

Scorsese and Coppola exhibited much more variation over the course of their careers, and if you go back further and look at guys like Michael Curtiz and William Wyler, Spielberg looks more and more one-note.

My favorite example, though, is Alan Parker. He's not any kind of auteur, I guess, but man oh man he really jumped from genre to genre with every film he made.

OK, sure, but I don't think it's radical to claim that Spielberg is interested in different topics and genres. I'm not really saying anything that hasn't been said many times before.

I'm not quite getting what you mean when you say "different topics" (I already don't believe he's that varied when it comes to genre).

Most of his films have plots that play on the surface level and make obvious and gross lurches toward rank sentimentality. Many of them repeat his favorite "little boy lost" and "Peter Pan" themes.

Izzy Black

07-17-2013, 09:13 PM

In reference to Sirk? No, it's not outlandish. In reference to others, especially his contemporaries? Maybe a little.

Scorsese and Coppola exhibited much more variation over the course of their careers, and if you go back further and look at guys like Michael Curtiz and William Wyler, Spielberg looks more and more one-note.

But my original point was inclusive. I wasn't saying Spielberg and only Spielberg is a diverse filmmaker. I simply singled him out as an example of many (I included Soderbergh, Sant, and De Palma). In fact, my whole point was that modern auteurs are more flexible than the old Hollywood directors (like Sirk), directly contesting the initial claim to the contrary. So, I don't really see a disagreement here. I wasn't trying to say Spielberg was this eclectic cinematic God.

My favorite example, though, is Alan Parker. He's not any kind of auteur, I guess, but man oh man he really jumped from genre to genre with every film he made.

Can't say I'm a fan.

I'm not quite getting what you mean when you say "different topics" (I already don't believe he's that varied when it comes to genre).

Most of his films have plots that play on the surface level and make obvious and gross lurches toward rank sentimentality. Many of them repeat his favorite "little boy lost" and "Peter Pan" themes.

Yeah, I think his films have thematic unity. That's part of what I think makes him an auteur (setting quality considerations aside for now). But by topics I just mean plots and subject-matter. Whether its an amusement park with dinosaurs, the Holocaust, an immigrant stuck in terminal, or a comedy about a con man going from city to city, he's covered quite a bit of material. But again, I don't really think he's more diverse than, say, Scorsese, or his contemporaries. That was never my point. In fact, my original example was Soderbergh. I included Spielberg parenthetically.

Dukefrukem

07-17-2013, 11:28 PM

I'm a bit surprised you mention The Artist because I had the same problem with that film that I had with Blancanieves: Both films go to great lengths to duplicate the look of late silent cinema, and in my opinion are only half-successful, but that wouldn't matter if either film had a story worth giving a damn about. If you take away all the allusions to other movies and just look at what's going on in the plot, it doesn't add up to a hill of beans. (For this sort of thing, I much prefer Holy Motors and Tabu.)

Other than that, I also liked The Deep Blue Sea and Moonrise Kingdom quite a bit (even if there are other films by the same directors that I like even more--particularly Distant Voices, Still Lives and Rushmore), and I enjoyed Django Unchained though I'm not so keen on it as the films by Davies and Anderson (for me, Beyond the Hill was a much more intriguing neo-Western). And I haven't seen Argo, Cabin in the Woods, or The Life of Pi, so I can't comment on those.

Maybe it's just too early for me to judge because the kind of cinema that I enjoy takes a bit longer to make the rounds. (After all, there are still new films by Olivier Assayas, Noah Baumbach, Abbas Kiarostami, Alain Resnais, and Carlos Reygadas that I haven't seen yet.) And like I said, there are lots of terrific movies that I have seen already (did I mention Beyond the Hill and Tabu?), but so far it doesn't strike me as being a particularly remarkable year for cinema compared with other years.

Well I didn't say that I loved these movies. You asked me what I thought would stand out 50 years from now. And I listed a few that I believe will. So far this year, I haven't seen any movies that come close to the kind of attention grabbing originality from 2012. But then again, I've only seen 68 movies this year... about 100 less than this point last year. I blame Fringe, Arrested Development, 24 and video games for that. Holy Motors is on my to-watch list.

Dukefrukem

07-17-2013, 11:30 PM

baby doll

07-18-2013, 05:56 AM

E.T. is a very autobiographical film. It reflects Spielberg's experiences growing up in a divorced parent household. It's about the alienation of youth, when you feel disconnected from others because of certain features of who you are and feel displaced because you're from a broken home (or in E.T.'s case - you're literally away from home). This alienation and the persecution due to one's Otherness translates better as an interpretation of what it's like to be Jewish (Spielberg has attested to this kind of bullying in his young life before) than it is the persecution of Christ and his followers. As for Munich, I won't defend the film, but it hardly seems to be that lone case of a director trapped in an artistic box when it's sandwiched between a Sci-Fi flick and action adventure movie.

Hitchcock got the Oscar nom for best director along with noms for art direction and cinematography. It's the most famous sequence of his entire career. Critics even talked about the film's lack of subtlety. It's aggressively stylistic. It used like 70 different camera angles and wide 50 mm lenses. It was the talk of the town for years. If you compare that to the tame dream sequence in Spellbound, Psycho draws far more attention to itself. And I wasn't under the impression they brought in Dali to "lend respectability" to a thriller (especially since it was cut), but because Selznick had a big hangup about psychoanalysis and wanted his imprint on the film. Hitchcock had nothing to do with that.

Hitchcock's late period is more aggressively stylistic and auteuristic than his early period, and it's clearly his most influential. Rebecca, meanwhile, is a pretty traditional style thriller melodrama, but I love the film and I think his work with Ingrid Bergman in the 40s stands up just as well to his work in the 50s and 60s. Actually, his work with Bergman is probably my favorite. I suppose I am a little put off by some of Hitchcock's late work for the very reason you claim to be his earlier stuff - it's all too self-consciously Hitchcockian, almost verging on gimmicky and self-parody. The psychologising starts to feel way more personal/autobiographical (Vertigo), the aesthetic too self-referential and knowing (Psycho, Rear Window), and so on. I like him in more stripped down, subtle strokes, even if he's never subtle compared to others.

Anyways, my only point here is that Hitchcock was a well-regarded auteur for most of his career. As Truffaut thought, Hollywood's best directors were all auteurs. He's right in the same class as Griffith, Ford, and Chaplin.

Also, we should be quick to distinguish good auteurs from bad auteurs. You keep bringing up people like Nolan and Fincher, but forget that they aren't necessarily first-rate auteurs. Nolan to me is barely an average filmmaker. Like George Lucas and his prequels, he may be a self-styled auteur with respect to the amount of influence he has on his own films, but that doesn't mean he's a terribly interesting auteur or director. It's better to bring up a more respectable working auteur like David Lynch or Terrence Malick. They make much better movies and it's not clear they are great in spite of their auteurism, but rather because of it. In other words, your problem doesn't seem to be auteurism so much as bad movie makers (Nolan substituting "dark" cinematography for substance is because he doesn't have a lot of substance to otherwise offer).I wouldn't say that Spielberg is trapped in an artistic box so much as trapped in the box of being an Artist (that is, when he's not making blatantly commercial blockbusters).

In interviews, Hitchcock often talked about his conception of "pure cinema," wherein how the story is told matters more than subject matter, whereas Spielberg's reputation as an Artst depends on his taking on big themese like slavery and the Holocaust. Even in War of the Worlds, he Arts up an SF action movie by alluding to 9/11.

I think Fincher actually has some chops, even if his films are a bit uneven in terms of quality (Se7en and The Social Network strike me as his most successful films overall; The Game, Fight Club, Zodiac, and even The Curious Case of Benjamin Button all have their moments, and aside from the last of these, they're rarely boring).

In the old days, it was possible to be an artist in hiding (as Sirk was) and for a minor director to make a major film (as Michael Curtiz did with Mildred Pierce). Today, filmmakers get stuck in the trap of doing "one for me, one for you," which results in directors like Fincher and Spielberg ping-ponging between blatantly commercial projects and ostentatiously significant ones in the mode of a Stanley Kramer prestige piece.

Qrazy

07-18-2013, 06:25 AM

Bandy Greensacks

07-18-2013, 09:51 AM

From 2012; I think Argo will stand out 50 years from now.

Why? It's probably the least interesting Oscar winner since Crash, though I guess most of them are pretty mediocre

Dukefrukem

07-18-2013, 12:21 PM

Why? It's probably the least interesting Oscar winner since Crash, though I guess most of them are pretty mediocre

Less interesting than ... The King's Speech? The Hurt Locker? Slumdog Millionaire?

No way.

baby doll

07-18-2013, 02:40 PM

So much wrong here it's hard to know where to begin.

1. There's plenty of formal artistry in Spielberg's films. He uses the visual medium to express his ideas just as much as Hitchcock ever did.

2. The Social Network is crapola, probably his second worst film after Panic Room.

3. Curtiz is in no way shape or form a minor director.I think it's wonderful that you're so confident in your opinions that you don't feel the need to back them up. The Social Network is crap. Curtiz is a major filmmaker (not merely a competent craftsman who happened to direct a couple major films). Clearly you'd have to be an idiot to think otherwise.

I never said Spielberg wasn't a talented filmmaker or that he hasn't made some terrific movies; my point has more to do with how he self-consciously positions himself as a capital-A Artist to the point that some of his films seem to be embalmed in their own sense of virtue (Saving Private Ryan is particularly insufferable).

And it's not just Spielberg; this is all modern Hollywood because the studios are making fewer films and they want to make big event movies that will get people out of their houses. A very typical example is Otto Preminger, who went from making melodramas, musicals and westerns at Fox and RKO (Laura, Daisy Kenyon, River of No Return) to making blockbusters as an independent producer (Carmen Jones, Exodus, Advise and Consent).

When people say the best work today is being done on television, there's a certain truth to that because the middle has dropped out completely, so that today Hollywood only seems to produce either programmers of very low ambition (basically movies for teenagers that help the theatres keep their doors open) and huge blockbusters, including holiday season Oscar hopefuls. Whether Curtiz is a major figure or not, it's certainly telling that when Todd Haynes remade Mildred Pierce two years ago, he did it as a TV miniseries.

Izzy Black

07-18-2013, 04:42 PM

I wouldn't say that Spielberg is trapped in an artistic box so much as trapped in the box of being an Artist (that is, when he's not making blatantly commercial blockbusters).

In interviews, Hitchcock often talked about his conception of "pure cinema," wherein how the story is told matters more than subject matter, whereas Spielberg's reputation as an Artst depends on his taking on big themese like slavery and the Holocaust. Even in War of the Worlds, he Arts up an SF action movie by alluding to 9/11.

I don't really distinguish Spielberg's films between those that attempt to be High Art and those that are blatant blockbusters. I think you're getting caught up on differences of genre rather than actual approach. All of his films are very commercial and appeal to the widest possible demographic for the target audience. His dramas tend to take on very heavy subject matter, but that's because it resonates with people and he's a popular artist interested in universal themes/subjects. His action/adventure stuff, meanwhile, is special effects heavy but also still pretty big on melodrama because that's what resonates with a large number of people. I just don't really detect any inconsistencies in what Spielberg does as a filmmaker. His motto seems to be, "Go big or go home." He sticks to that pretty consistently. And if anything, Hitchcock's remarks about "pure cinema" tells of someone that's very much in the 'Artist' mode in the tradition of all that academic film theory about "pure film art," non-narrative avant-garde cinema, and the school of thought of the European auteurs like Godard, Antonioni, Bresson, and Resnais. I think if anything you've shown that Spielberg is the more obvious populist.

I think Fincher actually has some chops, even if his films are a bit uneven in terms of quality (Se7en and The Social Network strike me as his most successful films overall; The Game, Fight Club, Zodiac, and even The Curious Case of Benjamin Button all have their moments, and aside from the last of these, they're rarely boring).

I think Fincher has some chops too, that's why my post was more heavily focused on Nolan. But while I think Fincher is talented, I don't think he's the kind of first-rate modern auteur that's most appropriately compared to someone like Douglas Sirk. If we're going to be talking about Sirk and Hitchcock, two of the best U.S./Hollywood directors of their time, then we should do the same for modern directors. Fincher and Nolan strike me as easy targets, strawmen even. Directors like Terrence Malick and David Lynch, however, hold for much better comparisons. Undeniable auteurs that, in my mind, are great for their auteurism and not in spite of it.

In the old days, it was possible to be an artist in hiding (as Sirk was) and for a minor director to make a major film (as Michael Curtiz did with Mildred Pierce). Today, filmmakers get stuck in the trap of doing "one for me, one for you," which results in directors like Fincher and Spielberg ping-ponging between blatantly commercial projects and ostentatiously significant ones in the mode of a Stanley Kramer prestige piece.

But I think it's that Sirk was misunderstood more than he was an artist in hiding. Once people decided he was an auteur, his films started to receive far more critical attention. I think James Gray is somewhat of an artist in hiding. He's a very unassuming filmmaker and from a distance, he might not seem like anything more than a straightforward dramatist. And like Sirk once was, I think he's misunderstood. For instance, the tomatometer for We Own the Night sits at 55%. This is partially because critics approach the film as a straightforward narrative, and I think, as a consequence, missing Gray's visceral artistry. But I think he has deeply powerful and subtle artistry. And I don't see that Fincher and Spielberg ping-pong that way at all. Fincher has been cultivating a particular aesthetic over the past two decades, becoming more and more refined as a filmmaker (which isn't to say each film is as good as or better than the previous one.) I've addressed Spielberg on this point already.

Izzy Black

07-18-2013, 04:45 PM

I never said Spielberg wasn't a talented filmmaker or that he hasn't made some terrific movies; my point has more to do with how he self-consciously positions himself as a capital-A Artist to the point that some of his films seem to be embalmed in their own sense of virtue (Saving Private Ryan is particularly insufferable).

Yeah but think about this: Could Spielberg have made that film any other way? It's not just some corny Oscar bait. It's about genre. That's just Spielberg's take on a WWII epic. I don't see him making that film any other way. It's an obvious Spielberg movie. If it doesn't work, it just shows Spielberg shouldn't do WWII epics.

Izzy Black

07-18-2013, 04:51 PM

And it's not just Spielberg; this is all modern Hollywood because the studios are making fewer films and they want to make big event movies that will get people out of their houses. A very typical example is Otto Preminger, who went from making melodramas, musicals and westerns at Fox and RKO (Laura, Daisy Kenyon, River of No Return) to making blockbusters as an independent producer (Carmen Jones, Exodus, Advise and Consent).

When people say the best work today is being done on television, there's a certain truth to that because the middle has dropped out completely, so that today Hollywood only seems to produce either programmers of very low ambition (basically movies for teenagers that help the theatres keep their doors open) and huge blockbusters, including holiday season Oscar hopefuls. Whether Curtiz is a major figure or not, it's certainly telling that when Todd Haynes remade Mildred Pierce two years ago, he did it as a TV miniseries.

I just find it surprising that you think old Hollywood allowed directors more flexibility and resulted in more diverse films. This goes against a very well-established narrative to the contrary. I don't think Hollywood is particularly great today, but I'm not really convinced its best filmmakers are significantly more limited than those that were slaves to the Studios pre-60s. The melodramas, musicals, and westerns you're talking about were standard fare then. They didn't reflect the eclecticism of artists wanting to make whatever they wanted. Today, melodramas, musicals, and westerns have been traded for horror, action/suspense/super hero movies, and digital animation. It's not like if a director makes each one of these they're somehow as diverse as a Sirk who made a musical and western. The fact is that almost all of his melodramas followed a formula. So did his westerns and musicals. And pretty much so did every other director during that time. On the other hand, Paul Thomas Anderson actually has the ability to expand his artistic and stylistic vision with each film, becoming increasingly more abstract and experimental, and still keep a job in Hollywood.

Qrazy

07-18-2013, 05:07 PM

Yeah but think about this: Could Spielberg have made that film any other way? It's not just some corny Oscar bait. It's about genre. That's just Spielberg's take on a WWII epic. I don't see him making that film any other way. It's an obvious Spielberg movie. If it doesn't work, it just shows Spielberg shouldn't do WWII epics.

IMO cut the book ends off of the film and it's an infinitely better and top tier war film.

Qrazy

07-18-2013, 05:12 PM

I think it's wonderful that you're so confident in your opinions that you don't feel the need to back them up. The Social Network is crap. Curtiz is a major filmmaker (not merely a competent craftsman who happened to direct a couple major films). Clearly you'd have to be an idiot to think otherwise.

The Social Network has a terrible script which is slickly executed by Fincher. The writing is about as glib as it comes. Curtiz body of work stands up with the best of them. Casablanca, Adventures of Robin Hood, Mildred Pierce, The Breaking Point, Angels with Dirty Faces, Captain Blood, etc. Personally I'd take Curtiz over Hawks or Ray any day of the week.

Izzy Black

07-18-2013, 05:16 PM

IMO cut the book ends off of the film and it's an infinitely better and top tier war film.

Perhaps... I've tended to avoid discussing the merits of his films in this discussion, not the least of which because I haven't fully made up my mind about him. I think he's made some very good films, though, and I do think he is an artist/auteur with something interesting to say. My initial impression of SPR is closer to baby doll's, but I haven't seen it in years, and I've come around on him a lot, so it might be worth a revisit.

Izzy Black

07-18-2013, 05:19 PM

The Social Network has a terrible script which is slickly executed by Fincher. The writing is about as glib as it comes. Curtiz body of work stands up with the best of them. Casablanca, Adventures of Robin Hood, Mildred Pierce, The Breaking Point, Angels with Dirty Faces, Captain Blood, etc. Personally I'd take Curtiz over Hawks or Ray any day of the week.

Yeah I think Curtiz is pretty great myself. Wouldn't call him minor. I thoroughly hated Social Network. I'm less inclined to blame Fincher, though. I've liked the films he's made around that one.

baby doll

07-19-2013, 02:29 PM

I don't really distinguish Spielberg's films between those that attempt to be High Art and those that are blatant blockbusters. I think you're getting caught up on differences of genre rather than actual approach. All of his films are very commercial and appeal to the widest possible demographic for the target audience. His dramas tend to take on very heavy subject matter, but that's because it resonates with people and he's a popular artist interested in universal themes/subjects. His action/adventure stuff, meanwhile, is special effects heavy but also still pretty big on melodrama because that's what resonates with a large number of people. I just don't really detect any inconsistencies in what Spielberg does as a filmmaker. His motto seems to be, "Go big or go home." He sticks to that pretty consistently. And if anything, Hitchcock's remarks about "pure cinema" tells of someone that's very much in the 'Artist' mode in the tradition of all that academic film theory about "pure film art," non-narrative avant-garde cinema, and the school of thought of the European auteurs like Godard, Antonioni, Bresson, and Resnais. I think if anything you've shown that Spielberg is the more obvious populist.

I think Fincher has some chops too, that's why my post was more heavily focused on Nolan. But while I think Fincher is talented, I don't think he's the kind of first-rate modern auteur that's most appropriately compared to someone like Douglas Sirk. If we're going to be talking about Sirk and Hitchcock, two of the best U.S./Hollywood directors of their time, then we should do the same for modern directors. Fincher and Nolan strike me as easy targets, strawmen even. Directors like Terrence Malick and David Lynch, however, hold for much better comparisons. Undeniable auteurs that, in my mind, are great for their auteurism and not in spite of it.

But I think it's that Sirk was misunderstood more than he was an artist in hiding. Once people decided he was an auteur, his films started to receive far more critical attention. I think James Gray is somewhat of an artist in hiding. He's a very unassuming filmmaker and from a distance, he might not seem like anything more than a straightforward dramatist. And like Sirk once was, I think he's misunderstood. For instance, the tomatometer for We Own the Night sits at 55%. This is partially because critics approach the film as a straightforward narrative, and I think, as a consequence, missing Gray's visceral artistry. But I think he has deeply powerful and subtle artistry. And I don't see that Fincher and Spielberg ping-pong that way at all. Fincher has been cultivating a particular aesthetic over the past two decades, becoming more and more refined as a filmmaker (which isn't to say each film is as good as or better than the previous one.) I've addressed Spielberg on this point already.

Yeah but think about this: Could Spielberg have made that film any other way? It's not just some corny Oscar bait. It's about genre. That's just Spielberg's take on a WWII epic. I don't see him making that film any other way. It's an obvious Spielberg movie. If it doesn't work, it just shows Spielberg shouldn't do WWII epics.

I just find it surprising that you think old Hollywood allowed directors more flexibility and resulted in more diverse films. This goes against a very well-established narrative to the contrary. I don't think Hollywood is particularly great today, but I'm not really convinced its best filmmakers are significantly more limited than those that were slaves to the Studios pre-60s. The melodramas, musicals, and westerns you're talking about were standard fare then. They didn't reflect the eclecticism of artists wanting to make whatever they wanted. Today, melodramas, musicals, and westerns have been traded for horror, action/suspense/super hero movies, and digital animation. It's not like if a director makes each one of these they're somehow as diverse as a Sirk who made a musical and western. The fact is that almost all of his melodramas followed a formula. So did his westerns and musicals. And pretty much so did every other director during that time. On the other hand, Paul Thomas Anderson actually has the ability to expand his artistic and stylistic vision with each film, becoming increasingly more abstract and experimental, and still keep a job in Hollywood.I don't think you can say that today's horror movies are equivalent with old school westerns and musicals. With westerns in particular, there was a whole spectrum running from low-budget schlock to expensive prestige pictures, though the most enduring tend to fall somewhere in between. (Johnny Guitar, for instance, was made for a minor studio but it still had some real stars in it.) On the other hand, today's horror film strike me as basically a continuation of Roger Corman's low-budget B-pictures, whereas the super-hero movies and animated films are invariably pitched as major event films, even when they lack the high art pretensions of Nolan's Batman films. Furthermore, as David Bordwell often points out, the audience for movies during this time was primarily educated, middle-class women, not the teenage boys flocking to see horror flicks and super-hero movies.

The other thing to note here is that no director completely reinvents the wheel. Malick, Lynch, and Paul Thomas Anderson all draw upon the conventions of postwar European art cinema (while still keeping a foothold in the classical Hollywood cinema) in the same way that Hitchcock, OphÃ¼ls, and Sirk drew upon the conventions and genres of Hollywood. Sirk isn't necessarily following a formula when he makes a melodrama (or Hawks when he makes a western or Hitchcock when he makes a thriller) any more than Malick is ripping off Godard when he employs jump cuts and ruminative voice-overs in the context of an episodic and elliptical narrative. In any tradition, there are major and lesser talents.

Irish

07-19-2013, 03:40 PM

On the other hand, Paul Thomas Anderson actually has the ability to expand his artistic and stylistic vision with each film, becoming increasingly more abstract and experimental, and still keep a job in Hollywood.

I was with you right up until the end, until this part. It's a small quibble, but just the same: Anderson hasn't really "kept a job" within the system because "The Master's" entire budget came outside it, and from a single source. He enjoyed freedom on that film because a wealthy Silicon Valley scion handed it to him.

Everybody else has to bend a knee to the commercial market in order to make anything (Oliver Stone, "Money Never Sleeps"; Ridley Scott, "Prometheus"), work for hire (Spike Lee, "Inside Man"), play with European money (Woody Allen, everything in the last ~10 years), work with micro budgets (Kathryn Bigelow, "The Hurt Locker"; Mel Gibson, "Get the Gringo"), or go home.

The only guy I see as immune to all this nonsense is Quentin Tarantino, but then if Harvey Weinstein ever dies Tarantino might be in serious trouble. Tarantino makes money on mid-range budgets, but I don't think anyone else would "get" him the way Harvey does. I can't see Disney or Warner ever green lighting something like "Django Unchained."

Irish

07-19-2013, 03:48 PM

Also, thank god you changed your name to "Izzy." I could never remember how to spell the original and constantly fought the urge to call you "Ishmael."

:D

ThePlashyBubbler

07-19-2013, 03:49 PM

Call him Ishmael.

I'll get my coat.

Mysterious Dude

07-19-2013, 10:14 PM

Irish

07-19-2013, 10:51 PM

Curtiz was a good director, but I wonder, was he an auteur? I've seen his movies, but I don't sense a particularly consistent "voice" in them. I feel similarly about Ang Lee. I can't quite figure him out.

Watch them multiple times and back-to-back. You'll begin to see personal touches and preferences in the way he stages actors and shoots scenes.

One small example: Curtiz loved to use shadows & silhouettes to suggest mood and emotion. There's really obvious examples in "Casablanca", "Captain Blood," and "Robin Hood."

Qrazy

07-20-2013, 08:15 AM

To me auteur theory is less important than if they made good films or not.

Izzy Black

07-21-2013, 01:50 AM

I don't think you can say that today's horror movies are equivalent with old school westerns and musicals. With westerns in particular, there was a whole spectrum running from low-budget schlock to expensive prestige pictures, though the most enduring tend to fall somewhere in between. (Johnny Guitar, for instance, was made for a minor studio but it still had some real stars in it.) On the other hand, today's horror film strike me as basically a continuation of Roger Corman's low-budget B-pictures, whereas the super-hero movies and animated films are invariably pitched as major event films, even when they lack the high art pretensions of Nolan's Batman films. Furthermore, as David Bordwell often points out, the audience for movies during this time was primarily educated, middle-class women, not the teenage boys flocking to see horror flicks and super-hero movies.

I wouldn't say the horror movies are equivalent with old school westerns or musicals, and you're certainly right the target demographics aren't identical. My only point was that those genres were the money-makers or preferred standards of the day. The money-makers in Hollywood are now different genres with different demographics. The animated boom capitalizes on ticket sales for children and their parents, the extra $$ for 3d glasses, and the cheap means of digital animation (compare Despicable Me 2's $76 million budget on a $525 million gross to Man of Steel's $225 million budget on a $621 gross, it's far more economical). I won't speculate too much about the causes behind the shift in contemporary tastes in genre and the larger scale historical economic factors. I just wanted to say that old formulas have been traded for some new formulas and that the Hollywood agenda is still pretty much the same.

The other thing to note here is that no director completely reinvents the wheel. Malick, Lynch, and Paul Thomas Anderson all draw upon the conventions of postwar European art cinema (while still keeping a foothold in the classical Hollywood cinema) in the same way that Hitchcock, OphÃ¼ls, and Sirk drew upon the conventions and genres of Hollywood. Sirk isn't necessarily following a formula when he makes a melodrama (or Hawks when he makes a western or Hitchcock when he makes a thriller) any more than Malick is ripping off Godard when he employs jump cuts and ruminative voice-overs in the context of an episodic and elliptical narrative. In any tradition, there are major and lesser talents.

My point wasn't to denigrate the originality/artistry of Hitchcock, Sirk, and co., but to say that I'm not convinced that they had more artistic freedom than the auteurs of the day. I've argued, rather to the contrary, that Malick, Kubrick, Lynch, and PTA enjoy more (or at least as much) artistic liberty as those filmmakers, and that, as a more general point, contemporary Americans haven't somehow suffered artistically for their tendency toward auteurism (contrary to the claim that things have been on decline since the '50's). And for what it's worth, I think Malick and Kubrick are more original (and more interesting) than Sirk, but for that matter, I also think they're better directors than Sirk (who I like and think is first-rate).

Izzy Black

07-21-2013, 02:10 AM

I was with you right up until the end, until this part. It's a small quibble, but just the same: Anderson hasn't really "kept a job" within the system because "The Master's" entire budget came outside it, and from a single source. He enjoyed freedom on that film because a wealthy Silicon Valley scion handed it to him.

The story is a little more complicated than that. While it's true Hollywood investors might not have wanted to gamble on such an experimental arthouse project, let's not act like it existed entirely outside of the Hollywood culture. Universal supposedly backed out because the budget was too high for such clearly non-commercial ambitions. After it was picked up for outside financing, The Weinstein Company acquired rights to the film and agreed to distribute it.

It ultimately wasn't a commercial success, which isn't a surprise, but I'm pretty sure Anderson still has a job in Hollywood and can still consistently line up A-list Hollywood actors and talent. There have been much worse bigger-budget, high profile flops in Hollywood than Anderson's self-financed picture. And in any case, my point wasn't that Hollywood has completely subsidized the man's ambitions. My point was just that he still works in Hollywood and can still make, and does make, Hollywood movies.

Everybody else has to bend a knee to the commercial market in order to make anything (Oliver Stone, "Money Never Sleeps"; Ridley Scott, "Prometheus"), work for hire (Spike Lee, "Inside Man"), play with European money (Woody Allen, everything in the last ~10 years), work with micro budgets (Kathryn Bigelow, "The Hurt Locker"; Mel Gibson, "Get the Gringo"), or go home.

The only guy I see as immune to all this nonsense is Quentin Tarantino, but then if Harvey Weinstein ever dies Tarantino might be in serious trouble. Tarantino makes money on mid-range budgets, but I don't think anyone else would "get" him the way Harvey does. I can't see Disney or Warner ever green lighting something like "Django Unchained."

And yet all of these directors' best movies (give or take) were produced in Hollywood and were massive commercial successes. I'm not saying there's perfect harmony in Hollywood with the studios and auteurs (when has there ever been a perfect marriage between art and commerce?) Certainly there must be a way to strike a balance between artistry and commercial appeal, but I do think that Hollywood has exploited the 'modern auteur' as market in and of itself in the way baby doll and I have discussed (it's not just a super hero film, but it's Christopher Nolan/Zack Snyder/Bryan Singer film, etc). My only claim has been that I don't think these directors have somehow become worse artists because of it (or at least, not any moreso than Hitchcock and Sirk who both had complicated relationships with the studios).

Izzy Black

07-21-2013, 02:16 AM

To me auteur theory is less important than if they made good films or not.

I agree, but at the same time, I am an auteurist (also formalist) and find that auteurism is a good thing for cinema (or in any case I tend to find myself preferring films by those directors).

Irish

07-21-2013, 04:34 AM

The story is a little more complicated than that. While it's true Hollywood investors might not have wanted to gamble on such an experimental arthouse project, let's not act like it existed entirely outside of the Hollywood culture. Universal supposedly backed out because the budget was too high for such clearly non-commercial ambitions. After it was picked up for outside financing, The Weinstein Company acquired rights to the film and agreed to distribute it.

It ultimately wasn't a commercial success, which isn't a surprise, but I'm pretty sure Anderson still has a job in Hollywood and can still consistently line up A-list Hollywood actors and talent. There have been much worse bigger-budget, high profile flops in Hollywood than Anderson's self-financed picture. And in any case, my point wasn't that Hollywood has completely subsidized the man's ambitions. My point was just that he still works in Hollywood and can still make, and does make, Hollywood movies.

I think there's a distinction to be made between outside "Hollywood" and outside "Hollywood culture" (whatever the hell that is). Woody Allen, for example, has always worked away from the major studios, within small budgets. He hires actors at scale. I wouldn't call anything he's done in his career a product of "Hollywood," save only that he's an American, a member of the unions, and observes union rules.

PT Anderson has never been a moneymaker. He attracts talent the same way Woody Allen does, with actors want to work in prestige pictures. All of his stuff is small budget. Over the course of five films, he's barely broken $100MM in domestic box office overall. In that sense, he doesn't make "Hollywood" product either and never has.

And yet all of these directors' best movies (give or take) were produced in Hollywood and were massive commercial successes.

Huh? Other than the few times they may have received Oscar attention, these guys rarely had "huge commercial successes." Their heyday existed under a different business, one where independent film was actually a viable market. (Granted, someone like Oliver Stone has always been more commercial and mainstream than someone like Martin Scorsese).

I'm not saying there's perfect harmony in Hollywood with the studios and auteurs (when has there ever been a perfect marriage between art and commerce?) Certainly there must be a way to strike a balance between artistry and commercial appeal, but I do think that Hollywood has exploited the 'modern auteur' as market in and of itself in the way baby doll and I have discussed (it's not just a super hero film, but it's Christopher Nolan/Zack Snyder/Bryan Singer film, etc). My only claim has been that I don't think these directors have somehow become worse artists because of it (or at least, not any moreso than Hitchcock and Sirk who both had complicated relationships with the studios).

You're seeing the intersection of corporate branding and nerd enthusiasm and calling it auteurism. (There really isn't a compelling artistic reason for anybody to know Bryan Singer's name.) I mean, is Joss Whedon an auteur too, then?

Anyway, I think they've become worse artists out of necessity. There's no other way for them to survive in an industry that has become so insanely narrow. You can make "The Insider" or a sequel to a film from twenty years ago. Or you can make nothing. What would you choose?

baby doll

07-21-2013, 03:39 PM

I wouldn't say the horror movies are equivalent with old school westerns or musicals, and you're certainly right the target demographics aren't identical. My only point was that those genres were the money-makers or preferred standards of the day. The money-makers in Hollywood are now different genres with different demographics. The animated boom capitalizes on ticket sales for children and their parents, the extra $$ for 3d glasses, and the cheap means of digital animation (compare Despicable Me 2's $76 million budget on a $525 million gross to Man of Steel's $225 million budget on a $621 gross, it's far more economical). I won't speculate too much about the causes behind the shift in contemporary tastes in genre and the larger scale historical economic factors. I just wanted to say that old formulas have been traded for some new formulas and that the Hollywood agenda is still pretty much the same.

My point wasn't to denigrate the originality/artistry of Hitchcock, Sirk, and co., but to say that I'm not convinced that they had more artistic freedom than the auteurs of the day. I've argued, rather to the contrary, that Malick, Kubrick, Lynch, and PTA enjoy more (or at least as much) artistic liberty as those filmmakers, and that, as a more general point, contemporary Americans haven't somehow suffered artistically for their tendency toward auteurism (contrary to the claim that things have been on decline since the '50's). And for what it's worth, I think Malick and Kubrick are more original (and more interesting) than Sirk, but for that matter, I also think they're better directors than Sirk (who I like and think is first-rate).I guess I'm thinking more of people like Fincher, Spielberg, Tarantino, and Michael Mann, whose films owe a less obvious debt to European art cinema than Kubrick, Malick, Lynch and Paul Thomas Anderson's. (Incidentally, I remember hearing that Mann once wanted to do an American remake of Berlin Alexanderplatz.) In particular, looking at a film like Heat, it appears that Hollywood studios aren't interested in making old school crime pictures (like Kubrick's The Killing), so the only way Mann could raise the money was to do it as a three hour blockbuster. Furthermore, I think it's obvious that Kubrick and Malick both paid a hefty price for their independence: the latter couldn't get a picture made for two decades, while twelve years passed between Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut.

Izzy Black

07-21-2013, 05:52 PM

I guess I'm thinking more of people like Fincher, Spielberg, Tarantino, and Michael Mann, whose films owe a less obvious debt to European art cinema than Kubrick, Malick, Lynch and Paul Thomas Anderson's. (Incidentally, I remember hearing that Mann once wanted to do an American remake of Berlin Alexanderplatz.) In particular, looking at a film like Heat, it appears that Hollywood studios aren't interested in making old school crime pictures (like Kubrick's The Killing), so the only way Mann could raise the money was to do it as a three hour blockbuster. Furthermore, I think it's obvious that Kubrick and Malick both paid a hefty price for their independence: the latter couldn't get a picture made for two decades, while twelve years passed between Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut.

Heat is one of Mann's passion projects. He wrote the 180 page screenplay in the 1980s. The old screenplay rule is that one page approximates one minute, and Heat's 170 minute run-time pretty much approximates the length of the original screenplay. He cut it down to 110 pages to make LA Takedown for TV (around 90 minutes), which was a total flop. He wanted to do the story justice with a bigger budget and more resources. The film itself is deeply inspired by the postmodern art of Eric Fischl and Robert Longo, and you can see this in the visual aesthetic and with a lot of the iconic shots from the film. It's languid pace feels like the kind of stasis and pensive, contemplative feel you get from Fischl's art. It's to this day his best film. By the way, his top ten films include films by Eistenstein (Battleship Potemkin), Ford (My Darling Clementine, which is by far his best), Peckinpah (The Wild Bunch), and Dreyer (La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc). I should also point out he's one of my favorite contemporary filmmakers.

As for Kubrick and Malick, I'm not sure the delay between films had much to do with the studios or their "paying a price." They were both very meticulous filmmakers and infamously reclusive. Kubrick was never a blockbuster filmmaker, but most of his films turned a profit on modest budgets. I don't think he was being punished for anything in the 90s. He had several projects lined up and was going to direct A.I., a Napolean film, and a Holocaust film. He ultimately went a more personal route by making a movie about marriage. He actually considered Eyes Wide Shut his best film (he was wrong, of course, but it's very good). I don't think Malick's recent productivity has anything to do with some new opportunities made possible by Hollywood either. I think it has more to do with an aging auteur seeing the end of his career nearing.

In any case, what pressure they have been experiencing from studios, Hitchcock encountered the same problems. Hitchcock finally earned enough credibility and acclaim in the 40s to start up his own production company called Transatlantic Pictures. This allowed him to make the experimental films Rope and Under Capricorn on his own without the involvement of Selznick. Under Capricorn, like his other films with Bergman in the 40s, contains some of his most inspired cinematography, themes, and artistry (its ASL was a whopping 44 seconds, one of the longest ever), but it's still underappreciated by critics to this day (I think it's one of his best films). Both films were commercial and critical flops and his production company went under as a result. He was forced to make Dial M For Murder, a by-the-numbers prestige flick of "filmed theater" for the studios in order to get some freedom back in the industry (by comparison, it had an ASL of about 9.1 seconds). The situation for artistic liberty, then, hardly fared much better back then.

Ezee E

07-21-2013, 06:37 PM

I wonder what Kubrick would've been like in a social media era.

And I wonder what it was like for fans in the early 90's. Schindler's List beat Kubrick to the punch, so he skipped his holocaust movie. He didn't like special effects enough to start on A.I. until he hired Chris Cunningham to do some tests slightly before Eyes Wide Shut happened.

His Napoleon movie kept getting teased on and on, but after Barry Lyndon, I think he just didn't want to take it on, despite it probably being his biggest passion.

Izzy Black

07-21-2013, 06:47 PM

I think there's a distinction to be made between outside "Hollywood" and outside "Hollywood culture" (whatever the hell that is). Woody Allen, for example, has always worked away from the major studios, within small budgets. He hires actors at scale. I wouldn't call anything he's done in his career a product of "Hollywood," save only that he's an American, a member of the unions, and observes union rules.

Maybe, but I wouldn't really argue that Woody Allen is a Hollywood director. But what exactly are you calling major studios? His work in the 70s and 80s was with UA (now under MGM) and Orion. He's become far more independent and autonomous in recent years, but still relies on Hollywood/LA studio distribution with Sony Pictures Classics, The Weinstein Company, DreamWorks, and MGM.

I admire Allen for how much he's been able to stay largely outside of the system and still turn respectable profits on such small budgets, but the success of his films unfortunately still relies on Hollywood in important ways. In any case, that's neither here nor there. I don't have anything at stake here to argue that Allen is Hollywood. That he's a successful auteur is enough to say that American cinema hasn't been suffering a downward spiral since the 50s.

PT Anderson has never been a moneymaker. He attracts talent the same way Woody Allen does, with actors want to work in prestige pictures. All of his stuff is small budget. Over the course of five films, he's barely broken $100MM in domestic box office overall. In that sense, he doesn't make "Hollywood" product either and never has.

Eh, Boogie Nights and There Will Be Blood were pretty lucrative films given their budgets (and the latter was an Oscar hit), especially enough so to consistently earn him interest from studios. His success also depends heavily on Hollywood distribution (New Line, Miramax, Paramount, Columbia, etc). But they have a monopoly on the market. I don't blame him for this.

Huh? Other than the few times they may have received Oscar attention, these guys rarely had "huge commercial successes." Their heyday existed under a different business, one where independent film was actually a viable market. (Granted, someone like Oliver Stone has always been more commercial and mainstream than someone like Martin Scorsese).

You're seeing the intersection of corporate branding and nerd enthusiasm and calling it auteurism. (There really isn't a compelling artistic reason for anybody to know Bryan Singer's name.) I mean, is Joss Whedon an auteur too, then?

Anyway, I think they've become worse artists out of necessity. There's no other way for them to survive in an industry that has become so insanely narrow. You can make "The Insider" or a sequel to a film from twenty years ago. Or you can make nothing. What would you choose?

I'd say Oliver Stone, Ridley Scott, and Mel Gibson are pretty successful Hollywood directors. Mel Gibson's passion project The Passion of the Christ made a whopping $600 million and those films called Braveheart and Apocalypto didn't do so shabby either. Ridley Scott's best film was Blade Runner and didn't do very well on its release, but on the whole, his interests are pretty commercially viable (Alien, Gladiator, Black Hawk Down, American Gangster, Prometheus). He's one of Hollywood's greatest success stories.

Anyways, I'm not defending Hollywood. My opinion of Hollywood is very low and has always been very low. I'm just not really convinced Hollywood has ever been that varied and friendly to artists. It's always been narrow. It's just narrow in different ways now. My only point is that I don't think the great modern American auteurs (Spike Lee, Woody Allen, Terrence Malick, David Lynch, Paul Thomas Anderson, etc) are suffering artistically more than old Hollywood did and I think they are just as great as any of those American directors of the so-called "Golden Age" (and in fact, I prefer the likes of Kubrick and Malick to the old Hollywood greats.)

Izzy Black

07-21-2013, 06:50 PM

baby doll

07-22-2013, 04:23 AM

Heat is one of Mann's passion projects. He wrote the 180 page screenplay in the 1980s. The old screenplay rule is that one page approximates one minute, and Heat's 170 minute run-time pretty much approximates the length of the original screenplay. He cut it down to 110 pages to make LA Takedown for TV (around 90 minutes), which was a total flop. He wanted to do the story justice with a bigger budget and more resources. The film itself is deeply inspired by the postmodern art of Eric Fischl and Robert Longo, and you can see this in the visual aesthetic and with a lot of the iconic shots from the film. It's languid pace feels like the kind of stasis and pensive, contemplative feel you get from Fischl's art. It's to this day his best film. By the way, his top ten films include films by Eistenstein (Battleship Potemkin), Ford (My Darling Clementine, which is by far his best), Peckinpah (The Wild Bunch), and Dreyer (La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc). I should also point out he's one of my favorite contemporary filmmakers.

As for Kubrick and Malick, I'm not sure the delay between films had much to do with the studios or their "paying a price." They were both very meticulous filmmakers and infamously reclusive. Kubrick was never a blockbuster filmmaker, but most of his films turned a profit on modest budgets. I don't think he was being punished for anything in the 90s. He had several projects lined up and was going to direct A.I., a Napolean film, and a Holocaust film. He ultimately went a more personal route by making a movie about marriage. He actually considered Eyes Wide Shut his best film (he was wrong, of course, but it's very good). I don't think Malick's recent productivity has anything to do with some new opportunities made possible by Hollywood either. I think it has more to do with an aging auteur seeing the end of his career nearing.

In any case, what pressure they have been experiencing from studios, Hitchcock encountered the same problems. Hitchcock finally earned enough credibility and acclaim in the 40s to start up his own production company called Transatlantic Pictures. This allowed him to make the experimental films Rope and Under Capricorn on his own without the involvement of Selznick. Under Capricorn, like his other films with Bergman in the 40s, contains some of his most inspired cinematography, themes, and artistry (its ASL was a whopping 44 seconds, one of the longest ever), but it's still underappreciated by critics to this day (I think it's one of his best films). Both films were commercial and critical flops and his production company went under as a result. He was forced to make Dial M For Murder, a by-the-numbers prestige flick of "filmed theater" for the studios in order to get some freedom back in the industry (by comparison, it had an ASL of about 9.1 seconds). The situation for artistic liberty, then, hardly fared much better back then.I haven't seen LA Takedown, though if it's as awful as you say it is, the fact that it was made for television would seem to confirm my point that contemporary US filmmakers have to choose between making expensive event movies and toiling away in programmer hell. (What makes the whole "vulgar auteurism" fad so unbelievably sad is these guys are digging through direct-to-video sequels and video game movies looking for the next Sam Fuller.) I can't comment too much on Mann's art world influences as I'm not familiar with them, but as storytelling, Heat struck me as rather bloated.

As to your second point, Hitchcock and Ozu were also meticulous filmmakers who managed to be fairly prolific, and Kubrick's own meticulousness was already apparent in The Killing and Paths of Glory, which came out only a year apart. However, if you're trying to make a film on the level of Barry Lyndon or The Thin Red Line (huge budgets, lengthy shooting schedules, big casts), it takes a lot longer to put everything together and get the financing in place, so I wasn't surprised to learn from a recent article in the Los Angeles Review of Books that, during his twenty year hiatus, Malick was constantly working on projects that never came to anything.

And while I don't think it's one of the great Hitchcock films, I rather like Dial M for Murder.

Izzy Black

07-22-2013, 06:18 AM

I haven't seen LA Takedown, though if it's as awful as you say it is, the fact that it was made for television would seem to confirm my point that contemporary US filmmakers have to choose between making expensive event movies and toiling away in programmer hell. (What makes the whole "vulgar auteurism" fad so unbelievably sad is these guys are digging through direct-to-video sequels and video game movies looking for the next Sam Fuller.) I can't comment too much on Mann's art world influences as I'm not familiar with them, but as storytelling, Heat struck me as rather bloated.

Mann began his career in television. LA Takedown was produced while he was still working on Miami Vice in the 80s. It ended up being a trial run for Heat and his later career in film.

As to your second point, Hitchcock and Ozu were also meticulous filmmakers who managed to be fairly prolific, and Kubrick's own meticulousness was already apparent in The Killing and Paths of Glory, which came out only a year apart. However, if you're trying to make a film on the level of Barry Lyndon or The Thin Red Line (huge budgets, lengthy shooting schedules, big casts), it takes a lot longer to put everything together and get the financing in place, so I wasn't surprised to learn from a recent article in the Los Angeles Review of Books that, during his twenty year hiatus, Malick was constantly working on projects that never came to anything.

And while I don't think it's one of the great Hitchcock films, I rather like Dial M for Murder.

Sure, but I'd say the economical output in Kubrick and Malick's case is a combination of both business and creative factors. For instance, MGM pulled the plug on his Napoleon film, but Kubrick wasted the better part of a decade planning two projects he basically handed to Spielberg. Kubrick was a perfectionist though, a lot like Beethoven, who wrote only 9 symphonies to Mozart's whopping 41. Likewise for Malick. Paramount loved Days of Heaven and offered him a production deal, but he spent two years in post-production editing the film and was still dissatisfied with it. He fled to Paris with his girlfriend and then tried for years to make Tree of Life, but gave up on the project after feeling burnt out. He spent the next 20 years doing pay-for-hire writing and thinking about projects that never came to fruition. It was ultimately producers that were obsessive fans of Malick that persuaded him to come out of retirement (see the '99 Vanity Fair piece "The Runaway Genius"). So, just like Hitchcock, Kubrick and Malick had a complex relationship with their producers, but it's just not clear to me they suffered artistically from it more so than Hitchcock.

Irish

07-22-2013, 07:25 AM

My only point is that I don't think the great modern American auteurs (Spike Lee, Woody Allen, Terrence Malick, David Lynch, Paul Thomas Anderson, etc) are suffering artistically more than old Hollywood did

Okay, let's jump straight to this then --

I think they suffer more now because the guys fifty or sixty years ago were working for studios, not multinational corporations that require quarterly earnings. Those guy had, surprisingly, more chance to develop their own projects within the studio system than directors do today.

Sure there's always been the "one for you, one for me" trade off between art and commerce, but now? When guys with decades long careers struggle to find financing for years over years, sometihg is wrong.

That's the biggest different between then & now.

B-side

07-22-2013, 07:37 AM

The film itself is deeply inspired by the postmodern art of Eric Fischl and Robert Longo, and you can see this in the visual aesthetic and with a lot of the iconic shots from the film. It's languid pace feels like the kind of stasis and pensive, contemplative feel you get from Fischl's art. It's to this day his best film.

I don't know who those guys are, but I think you're forgetting one of Mann's key imagistic influences. One that you actually pointed out some time ago:

http://i.imgur.com/XFjeTgL.png

Who, unfortunately, just passed away the other day. One of the greatest painters to have ever lived, in my estimation. I might be inclined to agree that Heat is his best, but then again, Miami Vice and The Insider are tough competition.

Ford (My Darling Clementine, which is by far his best)

You know I have an alarm in my brain that goes off whenever Ford is mentioned, especially in regard to his quality or that of his films. While I agree that My Darling Clementine is top-tier Ford, to say it's "by far his best" would seem to imply the rest of his filmography isn't nearly as worthwhile. I don't think it's his best. I think Fort Apache is his best. I also find How Green Was My Valley, The Sun Shines Bright and The Searchers to be superior. Clementine would round out the top 5, if I were forced to order them.

Also, to speak on Hollywood, a producer has recently come out with a book detailing why Hollywood has essentially turned into a sequel machine. She says it's more or less down to China. The international box office is becoming more and more important. More and more, the majority of profits for a film are coming from overseas, and China is the biggest consumer. Massive, emerging economies are dictating our domestic cinema. The reason is because it's much harder to promote a brand new IP, or one with no major actors, to an international audience pre-release. All the money for promotion essentially stays here and in western Europe. If you continue along an established path with an internationally recognized character or IP, you've basically had all the promotion in these other markets taken care of for you. Domestically, despite the absurd amount of sequels, and the often negative response to them, people here still see them, even if not as enthusiastically or in quite as many numbers as before, but internationally, they do better with each successive iteration; enough to more than compensate for any domestic loss of revenue.

Izzy Black

07-22-2013, 07:47 AM

I don't know who those guys are, but I think you're forgetting one of Mann's key imagistic influences. One that you actually pointed out some time ago:

Yep. That was an oversight, I guess. Mann had a lot of artistic influences on that film and on his others. It's true Colville might be the most important, though.

You know I have an alarm in my brain that goes off whenever Ford is mentioned, especially in regard to his quality or that of his films. While I agree that My Darling Clementine is top-tier Ford, to say it's "by far his best" would seem to imply the rest of his filmography isn't nearly as worthwhile. I don't think it's his best. I think Fort Apache is his best. I also find How Green Was My Valley, The Sun Shines Bright and The Searchers to be superior. Clementine would round out the top 5, if I were forced to order them.

I think his other films are worthwhile, but I don't hold Ford in quite as high of esteem as some. I prefer My Darling Clementine to his others. I felt he had a greater command of mood and visual space with this film.

B-side

07-22-2013, 08:17 AM

Yep. That was an oversight, I guess. Mann had a lot of artistic influences on that film and on his others. It's true Colville might be the most important, though.

Also, I wanted an excuse to re-post that beautiful painting.

I think his other films are worthwhile, but I don't hold Ford in quite as high of esteem as some. I prefer My Darling Clementine to his others. I felt he had a greater command of mood and visual space with this film.

Damn it, you're wrong not to. The finale of Clementine is about as good as it gets when it comes to staging a climactic action sequence. In terms of commanding visual space, I'd probably say Stagecoach excels at this as well. His most impressive film, overall, from a strictly visual standpoint would have to be She Wore a Yellow Ribbon. And this relates to his command of visual space; mostly when filming in Monument Valley.

Qrazy

07-22-2013, 08:53 PM

Irish

07-22-2013, 09:02 PM

Spike Lee has made one good film, two or three pretty good ones and a whole bunch of crap.

Could I take a glance at the titles on that list? In order, if you please.

Qrazy

07-22-2013, 09:45 PM

Could I take a glance at the titles on that list? In order, if you please.

Good:

Do the Right Thing

Pretty Good:

Malcolm X
25th Hour
Mo' Better Blues (maybe)

Okay to Meh:

She's Gotta Have It
Summer of Sam
Crooklyn
Inside Man
Clockers

Bad:

He Got Game
Get on the Bus
Jungle Fever
School Daze

Ezee E

07-22-2013, 11:04 PM

Love 25th Hour, Do The Right Thing, Inside Man, and He Got Game. Bamboozled is pretty great to me too.

Qrazy

07-22-2013, 11:06 PM

Love 25th Hour, Do The Right Thing, Inside Man, and He Got Game. Bamboozled is pretty great to me too.

Haven't seen Bamboozled, maybe some day. He Got Game is such a ridiculous film. That basketball bounce at the end? Gah.

baby doll

07-23-2013, 05:44 AM

Mann began his career in television. LA Takedown was produced while he was still working on Miami Vice in the 80s. It ended up being a trial run for Heat and his later career in film.

Sure, but I'd say the economical output in Kubrick and Malick's case is a combination of both business and creative factors. For instance, MGM pulled the plug on his Napoleon film, but Kubrick wasted the better part of a decade planning two projects he basically handed to Spielberg. Kubrick was a perfectionist though, a lot like Beethoven, who wrote only 9 symphonies to Mozart's whopping 41. Likewise for Malick. Paramount loved Days of Heaven and offered him a production deal, but he spent two years in post-production editing the film and was still dissatisfied with it. He fled to Paris with his girlfriend and then tried for years to make Tree of Life, but gave up on the project after feeling burnt out. He spent the next 20 years doing pay-for-hire writing and thinking about projects that never came to fruition. It was ultimately producers that were obsessive fans of Malick that persuaded him to come out of retirement (see the '99 Vanity Fair piece "The Runaway Genius"). So, just like Hitchcock, Kubrick and Malick had a complex relationship with their producers, but it's just not clear to me they suffered artistically from it more so than Hitchcock.Well, there's shooting and there's pre-production. Obviously Kubrick and Malick liked/like to shoot a lot of footage, which means longer shooting schedules (I think Eyes Wide Shut took something like eighteen months to shoot), but I suspect that the main reason that they took/take so long with pre-production is because, since the collapse of the old studio system, every time a filmmaker makes a movie, they have to start from scratch, whereas in the old days there was already an existing infrastructure in place. Pre-production isn't just sitting in a room and typing the perfect screenplay; even before the script is finished, locations need to be scouted, actors have to be cast, a shooting schedule has to be made, and so on. It has little if anything to do with perfectionism, but rather simply getting all the pieces together.

B-side

07-23-2013, 07:40 AM

Haven't seen Bamboozled, maybe some day.

I wouldn't bother placing any special priority on it. It's got some things going for it, but it's not very good overall.

Irish

07-23-2013, 08:27 AM

Good:

Do the Right Thing

Pretty Good:

Malcolm X
25th Hour
Mo' Better Blues (maybe)

Okay to Meh:

She's Gotta Have It
Summer of Sam
Crooklyn
Inside Man
Clockers

Bad:

He Got Game
Get on the Bus
Jungle Fever
School Daze

Yeah. Sigh. This is, I have to admit, pretty close to my own thoughts (although I'd probably shove "25th Hour" down to the "Okay" portion, and I liked "Inside Man" in a pass-the-time, brainless, popcorn-y way).

I'd never call him overrated, although he is almost always a disappointment. That stems from Do the Right Thing, which was so focused and brilliant that everything else pales in comparison, not just Lee's own follow ups.

I need to check out "When the Levees Broke" and "Bad 25." His docus seem to have a better rep these days than his straight narrative films.

Irish

07-23-2013, 10:40 AM

Slightly off-topic, but I'm considering donating to Lee's Kickstarter campaign. Haven't done it because he's jumping on the bandwagon of an ugly trend. On the other hand, it's Spike Lee.

Dukefrukem

07-23-2013, 12:43 PM

25th Hour was terrible. So boring.

ThePlashyBubbler

07-23-2013, 05:58 PM

Well, Steven Soderbergh just donated $10,000. (http://www.nextmovie.com/blog/steven-soderbergh-pledged-10k-to-spike-lees-kickstarter/)

Bandy Greensacks

07-23-2013, 06:09 PM

Slightly off-topic, but I'm considering donating to Lee's Kickstarter campaign. Haven't done it because he's jumping on the bandwagon of an ugly trend. On the other hand, it's Spike Lee.
Even more of a reason not to donate. Did you read some of what he wrote? The guy is an egomaniac.

"Do you wish to see Human Beings dealing with each other on a Human Level? How many more explosions with Ear splitting Sound Effects can you take? C'mon People, please get behind this Joint."

"Then You Will Have The Honor and Privilege To Sit Next To Me (IN MY WIFE TONYA'S SEAT) COURTSIDE"

Ugh

Raiders

07-23-2013, 06:45 PM

25th Hour was terrible. So boring.

Love this film. Right there with DTRT and his Katrina doc as my fave from him. If he promises to make another of those, I'll donate. If it is another Miracle at St. Anna, he can move on.

Pop Trash

07-24-2013, 03:04 PM

Spike Lee's twitter is up there with M. Night Shyamalan's twitter as being one of the most mind numbing things you can read.

EDIT: Shyamalan's isn't as bad as I remember. He at least gives a shoutout to Amour's formalism and names Caravaggio as an influence.

D_Davis

07-24-2013, 08:59 PM

Crooklyn is a masterpiece.

Boner M

07-24-2013, 09:26 PM

Summer of Sam is a near-masterpiece (or rather, an excitingly messy film that is preferable to many 'masterpieces')

Pop Trash

07-24-2013, 09:35 PM

Summer of Sam is a near-masterpiece (or rather, an excitingly messy film that is preferable to many 'masterpieces')

Ew.

Izzy Black

07-24-2013, 11:15 PM

Okay, let's jump straight to this then --

I think they suffer more now because the guys fifty or sixty years ago were working for studios, not multinational corporations that require quarterly earnings. Those guy had, surprisingly, more chance to develop their own projects within the studio system than directors do today.

Sure there's always been the "one for you, one for me" trade off between art and commerce, but now? When guys with decades long careers struggle to find financing for years over years, sometihg is wrong.

That's the biggest different between then & now.

How often was Hitchcock able to really venture out of his own genre-box? Not much. When he tried to make a non-thriller with his own production company with Under Capricorn and experiment on form with Rope, his company went under and he was forced to go back to making straightforward thrillers. Even then, Hitchcock was actually a rare exception of someone who was able to show some artistic control over his career, mostly because he was a larger than life household name and a celebrity in his own right, but even that wasn't enough to secure real autonomy. The Old Hollywood system operated under the star system controlled by a hand full of studios where directors and actors weren't thought of as artists, but as mere employees and cogs in the machine. Most films followed the same styles and formulas. Old Hollywood isn't exactly famous for artistic flexibility. It wasn't until the lawsuits and rallying of artists in the 40s against the monopolies of the big studios that it broke down and the experimental artistry of the American New Wave and the rise of auteurism in the late 60s and early 70s became possible.

I'd argue Hollywood was probably most artistically flexible between the years 1965 - 1985 (or New Hollywood, postclassical cinema until the influence of Jaws in '75 was fully felt and finally ushered in high-concept blockbuster cinema that dominated the trends and financing for decades to come). This was when directors like Francis Ford Coppola, Stanley Kubrick, Robert Altman, Woody Allen, Sidney Lumet, Sam Peckinpah, Martin Scorsese, Milos Forman, Philip Kaufman, Mike Nichols, and John Cassavetes were able to flourish and make interesting, challenging films within (and outside) the Hollywood studio system. But once the high-concept cinema of Steven Spielberg, Ridley Scott, Tony Scott, and James Cameron ended that era, things changed considerably and the trends began to become narrower, and now, eventually biased toward sequels, franchises, super hero movies, and cheap, highly profitable digitally animated films. This was not a place where the auteurs of the 70s could really survive, and so now you see them flooding independent markets and looking for alternative financing (Spike Lee's kickstarter campaign a case in point.) But keep in mind, these auteurs wouldn't have flourished in the Old Hollywood system either. They truly are a lost generation.

This brings me to my next point. There exists a legitimate independent market today that most filmmakers in the 30s-50s simply couldn't explore. The Big Studio stranglehold of Old Hollywood made it very difficult for anything from the outside to see any kind of success, but with the advent of cheap cameras, cheaper production techniques, and the end of the Old Hollywood era, the low-budget, DIY independent cinema of Andy Warhol and Stan Brakhage types made it possible to make films uninhibited by the codes, conventions, and standards of the studios. Films as passionate, abstract, and personal as Tree of Life, Upstream Color, and Before Midnight simply could not have been made by the studios back then, or even independently financed and then distributed by a studio the way they can be now. Old Hollywood films couldn't even show graphic sex, gory violence, and nudity, but independent cinema made it possible for filmmakers to express themselves freely. It's partially competition from independent cinema that made the studios loosen control over directors in the 70s and we began seeing more experimental stuff. You can actually have a successful career as an independent filmmaker after the 50s, as you pointed to Woody Allen as a prime example (where many of his most lucrative films have even been in the past decade). Although American independent cinema perhaps isn't as strong as it was then or even as the 90s indie revolution of Tarantino, Lee, Smith, Soderbergh, the Coens, Stillman, Sant, Hartley, Korine, Haynes, Jarmusch, Ferrara, and Linklater, it's still solid with Malick, S. Coppola, Swanberg, Allen, Lynch, Carruth, Bigelow, Cronenberg, Bujalski, Anderson, Solondz, Baumbach, Lynch, Duplass, Linklater, and so on (although the mumblecore stuff tends to be pretty hit-or-miss).

So if the question is whether modern auteurs are suffering in the current Hollywood climate the answer is unquestionably, but I think artists have always been suffering in Hollywood and my point was in regard to the actual quality of cinema of modern auteurism (including independent markets) compared to that of Old Hollywood.* The question is whether modern auteurism itself - the films of Malick, Altman, Kubrick, Scorsese, Mann, Allen, Anderson, Soderbergh, Linklater, Lee, Lynch, Altman, etc - reflects a weaker brand of cinema than that of Sirk, Curtiz, Cukor, Wilder, or the more industrial, less-directer driven films of classical cinema. I don't think it does. Even if it's true American cinema has weakened in the past decade, I still think American cinema (including independent markets) today is still good and that modern American cinema as a whole (1960 - present) is at least as good as the cinema of the American "Golden Age" (1930 - 1960).

* I should clarify something, since I think there's been some confusion on this point. I'm not comparing 'New Hollywood' with 'Old Hollywood.' I'm comparing modern American cinema (or modern auteurism) with classical American cinema (which was, in effect, the cinema of Old Hollywood). In addition, I'm assessing their relationship primarily in terms of quality. This was the original point of contention.

Izzy Black

07-24-2013, 11:22 PM

A couple of comments.

1. Spike Lee has made one good film, two or three pretty good ones and a whole bunch of crap. I find him intensely overrated.
2. I think Under Capricorn is one of Hitchcock's worst looking films and a major misstep. Rope is great though.
3. LA Takedown is indeed terrible.

I disagree with you about Spike Lee. He's one of my favorite filmmakers. My favorites from him are Do the Right Thing and the films from his rich period or what I consider his prime from 1986-1994, one of the best stretches of any director I know. For his late work, I really like 25th Hour, Bamboozled, When the Levees Broke, and She Hate Me. I'll be donating to his new film.

I think Under Capricorn is gorgeous and one of Hitchcock's most fascinating, complex films.

LA Takedown sux.

Ezee E

07-24-2013, 11:46 PM

25th Hour was terrible. So boring.

WHAT?! It's probably in my top five of the 2000's

Izzy Black

07-24-2013, 11:56 PM

Well, there's shooting and there's pre-production. Obviously Kubrick and Malick liked/like to shoot a lot of footage, which means longer shooting schedules (I think Eyes Wide Shut took something like eighteen months to shoot), but I suspect that the main reason that they took/take so long with pre-production is because, since the collapse of the old studio system, every time a filmmaker makes a movie, they have to start from scratch, whereas in the old days there was already an existing infrastructure in place. Pre-production isn't just sitting in a room and typing the perfect screenplay; even before the script is finished, locations need to be scouted, actors have to be cast, a shooting schedule has to be made, and so on. It has little if anything to do with perfectionism, but rather simply getting all the pieces together.

What you're forgetting is that it wasn't a bad thing that Kubrick and Malick had the ability to spend that much time in pre-production, which goes to my point about the benefits of auteurism. It has to do with perfectionism because they were working within a system where this kind of stubbornness was possible and where if they were in the old studio system, they probably never would've made a film at all, or if they did, they would've been pay-for-hire, by-the-numbers genre filmmakers ceaselessly striving for brief moments of artistic freedom like Hitchcock and Hawks had to do. The extensive planning, pre-production, and research is what makes 2001: A Space Odyssey - the quintessential auteur's self-indulgent passion project - such an ambitious, beautiful masterpiece. The story behind 2001 contains one of the most elaborate, sophisticated, and extensive production backgrounds of any film to ever come out of Hollywood. It's what allowed Kubrick to make the film seem so authentically scientific such that it holds up to this day (the film features the first iPad almost 50 years ago). The film was produced by Kubrick and a dwindling MGM, a remnant of the old studio past taking a chance on high art before going under completely.

Qrazy

07-25-2013, 01:43 AM

I disagree with you about Spike Lee. He's one of my favorite filmmakers. My favorites from him are Do the Right Thing and the films from his rich period or what I consider his prime from 1986-1994, one of the best stretches of any director I know. For his late work, I really like 25th Hour, Bamboozled, When the Levees Broke, and She Hate Me. I'll be donating to his new film.

I think Under Capricorn is gorgeous and one of Hitchcock's most fascinating, complex films.

LA Takedown sux.

You really like Jungle Fever and School Daze? They're such ridiculous films to me.

Pop Trash

07-25-2013, 02:39 AM

WHAT?! It's probably in my top five of the 2000's

I really like it too. It manages to be about 9/11 without ever being too preachy or didactic about it literally being about 9/11. Come to think of it, it would make a good DF w/ Margaret. I can definitely see why it made a lot of decade end top ten lists.

Ezee E

07-25-2013, 03:10 AM

Pop Trash

07-25-2013, 03:21 AM

Not about 9/11, but about the world AFTER 9/11 is more apt.

Not that far after. Ground Zero was still smoldering.

Izzy Black

07-25-2013, 03:26 AM

You really like Jungle Fever and School Daze? They're such ridiculous films to me.

School Daze is probably the weakest of that period, but I do like Jungle Fever. How do you mean ridiculous?

Izzy Black

07-25-2013, 03:29 AM

I really like it too. It manages to be about 9/11 without ever being too preachy or didactic about it literally being about 9/11. Come to think of it, it would make a good DF w/ Margaret. I can definitely see why it made a lot of decade end top ten lists.

Indeed. It's one of the few films that actually earn the title "Post-9/11 film" as others are either completely irrelevant or completely obvious on the issue, where both do nothing at filling in the context of a believable, constitutive reality of life in New York after September 11th. It's only appropriate that it come from one of New York's most passionate filmmakers.

Qrazy

07-25-2013, 04:00 AM

School Daze is probably the weakest of that period, but I do like Jungle Fever. How do you mean ridiculous?

All of Spike Lee's character antics in School Daze as well as the absurd ending. In terms of Jungle Fever it's just so god damn over the top in every dimension and also quite boringly shot. I watched that one and Get on the Bus back to back and just thought good lord, subtlety is lost on this man.

Izzy Black

07-25-2013, 04:02 AM

Not about 9/11, but about the world AFTER 9/11 is more apt.

Yes, but I love how it does it by focusing on a local scale. It ends up saying so much more than if it tried to go "big picture" (i.e. The Dark Knight). Instead, it takes a handful of characters bound by their relationships with each other and locates them in a larger context only through suggestion. It's able to speak to this context by painting an atmosphere, emphasizing the moods and feelings of passive aggressive exchanges, pervasive disappointment, cynical attitudes, and an overall melancholy spirit. Even the ending with its counter-factual vision of a hopeful future is interrupted and silenced by harsh truth. This is not a world where the dreamers prevail. The entire film is about facing up to hard reality, of wanting to hang on to an innocence, a lost history, and the legacy of a false dream. It's also a mourning. It reminds me of Interpol's "NYC."

Izzy Black

07-25-2013, 04:12 AM

All of Spike Lee's character antics in School Daze as well as the absurd ending. In terms of Jungle Fever it's just so god damn over the top in every dimension and also quite boringly shot. I watched that one and Get on the Bus back to back and just thought good lord, subtlety is lost on this man.

School Daze isn't his finest hour, but I think part of the reason Jungle Fever is that way is because Lee's really trying to bring out this culture of gossip and judgment. The characters almost verge on comical caricatures (I think it's a kind of dark comedy/satire), in part to bring out the loud, outsized nature of cultural shaming and its taboo-busting targets. But no, it's not exactly subtle (although I think there are some layers). In any case, I can understand your reaction.

Pop Trash

07-25-2013, 04:30 AM

I appreciated the left field crackhead Samuel L. Jackson subplot in what is ostensibly an interracial romantic comedy. Come for charming architect Wesley Snipes. Stay for pre-fame Jackson and Halle Berry cracked out of their minds.

Izzy Black

07-25-2013, 04:31 AM

Yeah - JF is an odd flick.

Raiders

07-25-2013, 02:08 PM

Yeah, not a big JF fan myself... it is definitely all over the map. Get on the Bus on the other hand is definitely very direct, but shit, it's Spike Lee. It is really well acted and hits quite a few good notes, though I wouldn't call it top-tier Lee.

Izzy Black

07-25-2013, 04:20 PM

I don't recommend that Qrazy see Bamboozled. He will hate it

Robby P

07-25-2013, 04:33 PM

Yes, but I love how it does it by focusing on a local scale. It ends up saying so much more than if it tried to go "big picture" (i.e. The Dark Knight). Instead, it takes a handful of characters bound by their relationships with each other and locates them in a larger context only through suggestion. It's able to speak to this context by painting an atmosphere, emphasizing the moods and feelings of passive aggressive exchanges, pervasive disappointment, cynical attitudes, and an overall melancholy spirit. Even the ending with its counter-factual vision of a hopeful future is interrupted and silenced by harsh truth. This is not a world where the dreamers prevail. The entire film is about facing up to hard reality, of wanting to hang on to an innocence, a lost history, and the legacy of a false dream. It's also a mourning. It reminds me of Interpol's "NYC."

Best description of 25th Hour I've read so far. Love that movie for reasons I can't articulate nearly as well.

Izzy Black

07-25-2013, 09:32 PM

Thanks! :) I'm very fond of the movie.

Fezzik

07-26-2013, 04:10 PM

Sorry to 'rerail' the thread :D

Much Ado About Nothing
Iron Man 3
Despicable Me 2
This is the End
Upstream Color
Pacific Rim
Star Trek into Darkness
Snitch
Monsters University
The Heat

11. The Croods
12. Man of Steel
13. G.I. Joe: Retaliation
14. The Great Gatsby
15. Now You See Me
16. Identity Thief

B-side

07-27-2013, 08:57 AM

I don't recommend that Qrazy see Bamboozled. He will hate it

Indeed. I think it has some things going for it, but it's not particularly well made, and its goofiness seems destined to put Qrazy off.

B-side

07-27-2013, 09:02 AM

Going by US dates:

1. Passion (Brian De Palma)
2. Paradise: Love (Ulrich Seidl)
3. Outside Satan (Bruno Dumont)
4. Spring Breakers (Harmony Korine)
5. You Ain't Seen Nothin' Yet (Alain Resnais)
6. Student (Darezhan Omirbayev)

7. Behind the Candelabra (Steven Soderbergh)
8. Side Effects (Steven Soderbergh)
9. Man of Steel (Zack Snyder)
10. Star Trek Into Darkness (J.J. Abrams)

Fuck it. I'm using IMDb dates because that's how I approach film.

1. Only God Forgives (Nicolas Winding Refn)
2. The Conjuring (James Wan)
3. Behind the Candelabra (Steven Soderbergh)
4. Europa Report (SebastiÃ¡n Cordero)
5. Side Effects (Steven Sopderbergh)
6. Man of Steel (Zack Snyder)
7. Star Trek Into Darkness (J.J Abrams)
8. TPB AFK: The Pirate Bay Away from Keyboard (Simon Klose)

Izzy Black

07-27-2013, 12:50 PM

Ugh, it just doesn't seem right treating Spring Breakers like a 2012 film, especially when it's American made.

B-side

07-27-2013, 01:36 PM

Ugh, it just doesn't seem right treating Spring Breakers like a 2012 film, especially when it's American made.

It's out of our hands. Learn to let go that which you cannot control. It's time for an IMDb-fueled spiritual cleansing.

Izzy Black

07-27-2013, 01:44 PM

can't, never. IMDB dates are arbitrary. I have to take it on a case-by-case basis. I don't care if it's not standardized. (Although I tend toward U.S. dates)

Bandy Greensacks

07-28-2013, 09:29 PM

IMDb dates only:

1. A Field in England
2. Before Midnight
3. Spring Breakers
4. Europa Report
5. Drinking Buddies
6. The Conjuring
7. Behind the Candelabra
8. V/H/S/2
9. The Place Beyond the Pines
10. Side Effects

Fezzik

07-28-2013, 10:42 PM

Weekend Update:

Much Ado About Nothing
The Way, Way Back
Iron Man 3
Despicable Me 2
This is the End
Upstream Color
Pacific Rim
Star Trek into Darkness
Snitch
Monsters University

11. The Heat
12. The Wolverine
13. The Croods
14. Man of Steel
15. G.I. Joe: Retaliation
16. The Great Gatsby
17. Now You See Me
18. Identity Thief

TGM

07-28-2013, 11:15 PM

1. Iron Man 3
2. White House Down
3. Stoker
4. Mud
5. Warm Bodies
6. The Place Beyond the Pines
7. This is the End
8. Man of Steel
9. The Internship
10. Side Effects

11. Pacific Rim
12. Oblivion
13. After Earth
14. The Bling Ring
15. Jack the Giant Slayer
16. Sharknado
17. The Wolverine
18. Red 2
19. World War Z
20. The Great Gatsby

21. Star Trek Into Darkness
22. Dead Man Down
23. The Conjuring
24. Only God Forgives
25. Much Ado About Nothing
26. Olympus Has Fallen
27. Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters
28. Fast & Furious 6
29. Now You See Me
30. Trance

31. Broken City
32. Gangster Squad
33. Spring Breakers
34. Movie 43
35. A Good Day to Die Hard
36. Oz the Great and Powerful
37. The Hangover: Part III
38. G.I. Joe: Retaliation
39. To the Wonder

baby doll

07-29-2013, 02:55 AM

Masterpieces
Hors Satan (Bruno Dumont) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2012/10/27/girl-youll-be-a-woman-soon-corpo-celeste-hors-satan/)

Must Sees
Before Midnight (Richard Linklater) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/10/09/time-and-space-before-midnight-gravity/)
Beyond the Hills (Cristian Mungiu) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/07/31/reality-and-realism-beyond-the-hills-betrayal/)
The Grandmaster (Wong Kar-wai) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/07/21/lost-in-china-the-grandmaster-drug-war/)
Gravity (Alfonso CuarÃ³n) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/10/09/time-and-space-before-midnight-gravity/)
J'ai tuÃ© ma mÃ¨re (Xavier Dolan)
No (Pablo LarraÃ*n)
Paradise: Love (Ulrich Seidl) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/09/11/it-aint-easy-being-white-it-aint-easy-being-brown-paradise-love-la-folie-almayer/)
The Place Beyond the Pines (Derek Cianfrance) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/08/12/the-young-ones-the-place-beyond-the-pines-what-maisie-knew/)
Post Tenebras Lux (Carlos Reygadas) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/09/27/missing-links-post-tenebras-lux-neighboring-sounds/)
To the Wonder (Terrence Malick) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/07/09/stand-by-your-man-keep-the-lights-on-to-the-wonder/)
What Maisie Knew (Scott McGehee / David Siegel) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/08/12/the-young-ones-the-place-beyond-the-pines-what-maisie-knew/)

Worth Seeing
The Angels' Share (Ken Loach) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2012/12/15/local-heroes-the-angels-share-two-years-at-sea/)
The Canyons (Paul Schrader)
The Croods (Kirk Di Micco / Chris Sanders)
Drug War (Johnnie To) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/07/21/lost-in-china-the-grandmaster-drug-war/)
From Up on Poppy Hill (Goro Miyazaki)
Ginger and Rosa (Sally Potter) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/04/16/pale-fire-ginger-and-rosa-blancanieves/)
The Hunt (Thomas Vinterberg) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/05/29/bad-girls-the-hunt-lapollonide-souvenirs-de-la-maison-close/)
Inch'Allah (AnaÃ¯s Barbeau-Lavalette)
Passion (Brian De Palma)
Rebelle (Kim Nguyen) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/02/18/about-a-girl-rebelle-silver-linings-playbook/)
Side Effects (Steven Soderbergh)
Star Trek Into Darkness (J.J. Abrams)

Has Redeeming Facet
Blancanieves (Pablo Berger) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/04/16/pale-fire-ginger-and-rosa-blancanieves/)
The Great Gatsby (Baz Luhrmann)
Iron Man 3 (Shane Black)
Laurence Anyways (Xavier Dolan) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2012/12/26/short-cuts-laurence-anyways-xxy/)
Trance (Danny Boyle)Updated for the end of July.

Fezzik

08-14-2013, 04:56 PM

Yay updates!

Weekend Update:

Mud
Much Ado About Nothing
The Way, Way Back
Iron Man 3
Despicable Me 2
This is the End
Upstream Color
2 Guns
Pacific Rim
Star Trek into Darkness

11. Snitch
12. Monsters University
13. The Heat
14. The Wolverine
15. The Croods
16. Man of Steel
17. G.I. Joe: Retaliation
18. The Great Gatsby
19. Now You See Me
20. We're the Millers
21. Identity Thief

ContinentalOp

08-14-2013, 05:37 PM

1. The Dark Knight Returns, Part 2
2. Mud
3. Before Midnight
4. Justice League: The Flashpoint Paradox
5. Behind the Candelabra
6. The Place Beyond the Pines
7. Pacific Rim
8. Iron Man 3
9. John Dies at the End
10. Warm Bodies

MarcusBrody

08-14-2013, 07:55 PM

I'll do a top 5 right now, as I haven't seen more 2013 releases than that which deserve to be on a favorites list.

Tier 1. Loved.
1. Before Midnight
2. Spring Breakers

Tier 2. Liked a lot, but not as memorable
3. Mud

Tier 3. Enjoyed well enough.
4. This is the End
5. The Way Way Back

Fezzik

08-21-2013, 08:54 PM

Nothing new in the Top 10, but still some updates to be had...

Mud
Much Ado About Nothing
The Way, Way Back
Iron Man 3
Despicable Me 2
This is the End
Upstream Color
2 Guns
Pacific Rim
Star Trek into Darkness

11. Snitch
12. Monsters University
13. The Heat
14. Elysium
15. The Wolverine
16. The Croods
17. Man of Steel
18. Admission
19. G.I. Joe: Retaliation
20. The Great Gatsby
21. Lee Daniels' The Butler
22. Now You See Me
23. We're the Millers
24. Identity Thief

Rock

08-21-2013, 10:55 PM

I'll play.

1. Drug War
2. The Act of Killing
3. No
4. Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, Part 2
5. Only God Forgives
6. Pain & Gain
7. The Place Beyond the Pines
8. Man of Steel
9. Oblivion
10. Go Goa Gone

That's all I've seen from this year. I liked all except the last two.

Izzy Black

08-25-2013, 01:07 AM

Raiders

08-25-2013, 03:34 PM

Oooh, you saw Seimetz's film? Glad you apparently liked it. I am very anxious to see it.

Izzy Black

08-25-2013, 03:51 PM

Yeah, I really liked it. Needless to say, Seimetz is dominating this year between an excellent debut film and her breakout performance in Upstream Color. Anyways, the film has some really impressive images. I was really surprised at how adept she was in her directorial decisions. The film's aesthetic actually has similarities to Upstream Color in terms of the editing and sound mixing. She commands a wonderfully visceral aesthetic.

You can rent it for $4 on Amazon watch instant.

Dukefrukem

08-28-2013, 01:56 PM

I need to get out more. 2013 has not been good to me. Everything under Oblivion is mediocre or worse.

1 Iron Man 3
2 John Dies at the End
3 Jack Reacher
4 Oblivion
--------------------------
5 Dark Skies
6 Pacific Rim
7 Elysium
8 World War Z
9 Oz: The Great and Powerful
10 The Last Stand

11 Warm Bodies
12 Pain & Gain
13 Bullet to the Head
14 Olympus has Fallen
15 A Good Day to Die Hard
16 Evil Dead
17 White House Down
18 G. I. Joe: Retaliation
19 Spring Breakers
20 Parker
21 Broken City
22 Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters
23 The Canyons
24 First Comes Love

TGM

08-28-2013, 02:18 PM

1 Iron Man 3
2 John Dies at the End
3 Jack Reacher
4 Oblivion
--------------------------

Jack Reacher's 2012. ;)

Dukefrukem

08-28-2013, 02:25 PM

Ouch. Now it's an even worse year.

Fezzik

08-28-2013, 03:03 PM

Mud
The World's End
Much Ado About Nothing
The Way, Way Back
Iron Man 3
Despicable Me 2
This is the End
Upstream Color
2 Guns
Pacific Rim

11. Star Trek Into Darkness
12. Snitch
13. Monsters University
14. The Heat
15. Elysium
16. The Wolverine
17. The Croods
18. Man of Steel
19. Admission
20. G.I. Joe: Retaliation
21. The Great Gatsby
22. Lee Daniels' The Butler
23. Now You See Me
24. We're the Millers
25. Identity Thief

Philosophe_rouge

08-29-2013, 04:55 AM

1. Camille Claudel 1915
2. The Conjuring
3. The Attack
4. The Broken Circle Breakdown
5. Spring Breakers
6. Pacific Rim
7. Star Trek: Into Darkness
8. This is the End
9. Bling Ring
10. To the Wonder

plain

08-29-2013, 01:50 PM

Upstream Color
Drug War
Closed Curtain
Before Midnight
Side Effects
The Conjuring
Bullet to the Head
This is the End
Iron Man 3
Behind the Candelabra

dreamdead

08-31-2013, 12:38 PM

Updated:

1. Upstream Color - 8.5
2. Before Midnight - 8.5
3. Sun Don't Shine - 8
4. Computer Chess - 8
5. The Wolf of Wall Street - 7.5
6. To the Wonder - 7.5
7. Stories We Tell - 7.5
8. Frances Ha - 7.5
9. Enough Said - 7.5
10. The Grandmasters - 7.5

Gravity - 7
Blackfish - 7
Blue Jasmine - 7
Drug War - 6
Much Ado About Nothing (Whedon) - 6
Spring Breakers - 6
Stoker - 6
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire - 5.5
The World's End - 5.5
Only God Forgives - 5.5
The Great Gatsby - 5.5
Passion - 5.5
The Counselor - 5
Pacific Rim - 5
Iron Man 3 - 5
Man of Steel - 4.5
Admission - 4

Dukefrukem

09-09-2013, 01:58 PM

Updated

1 Iron Man 3 - 96
2 John Dies at the End - 91
3 Wrong - 90
4 Oblivion - 81
5 Dark Skies - 79
6 Riddick - 76
7 Pacific Rim - 75
8 Elysium - 74
9 World War Z - 70
10 Oz: The Great and Powerful - 68

11 Now You See Me
12 The Last Stand
13 The Lords of Salem
14 Warm Bodies
15 Pain & Gain
16 Bullet to the Head
17 Olympus has Fallen
18 Star Trek: Into Darkness
19 Evil Dead
20 A Good Day to Die Hard
21 White House Down
22 G. I. Joe: Retaliation
23 Spring Breakers
24 Parker
25 Broken City
26 Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters
27 The Canyons
28 First Comes Love

Bandy Greensacks

09-10-2013, 07:55 PM

IMDb dates only:

1. A Field in England
2. Before Midnight
3. Spring Breakers
4. Magic Magic
5. Europa Report
6. Drinking Buddies
7. Drug War
8. Man of Tai Chi
9. The Conjuring
10. Behind the Candelabra

Li Lili

09-11-2013, 01:00 PM

So far, and only from films released this year here and seen at the cinema (but there are a few coming out quite soon I'm looking forward to) :

1. The Great Beauty (Paolo Sorrentino)
2. Camille Claudel 1915 (Bruno Dumont)
3. Ilo Ilo (Antony Chen)
4. Wadjda (Haifaa Al-Mansour)
5. Foxfire : confessions of a girl gang (Laurent Cantet)
6. Just the Wind (Bence Fliegauf)
7. Les Apaches (Thierry de Peretti)
8. Yema (Djamila Sahraoui)
9. No (Pablo Larrain)
10. The Student (Santiago Mitre)

TGM

09-13-2013, 08:37 PM

1. Iron Man 3
2. White House Down
3. Stoker
4. Mud
5. The World's End
6. Warm Bodies
7. The Place Beyond the Pines
8. Pain & Gain
9. This is the End
10. The Internship

11. Pacific Rim
12. Riddick
13. Side Effects
14. Jack the Giant Slayer
15. 2 Guns
16. The Bling Ring
17. The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones
18. Kick-Ass 2
19. Man of Steel
20. Oblivion

21. After Earth
22. Fruitvale Station
23. Sharknado
24. The Way, Way Back
25. The Wolverine
26. Red 2
27. World War Z
28. The Great Gatsby
29. Star Trek Into Darkness
30. Dead Man Down

31. The Conjuring
32. Lee Daniels' The Butler
33. Jobs
34. Elysium
35. Only God Forgives
36. Much Ado About Nothing
37. Olympus Has Fallen
38. Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters
39. Fast & Furious 6
40. Now You See Me

41. Trance
42. Broken City
43. Gangster Squad
44. Spring Breakers
45. Upstream Color
46. Movie 43
47. A Good Day to Die Hard
48. Oz the Great and Powerful
49. The Hangover: Part III
50. G.I. Joe: Retaliation

51. The Purge
52. To the Wonder

ContinentalOp

09-14-2013, 01:44 AM

1. The Grandmaster
2. The Dark Knight Returns, Part 2
3. Mud
4. The World's End
5. Before Midnight
6. Justice League: The Flashpoint Paradox
7. Behind the Candelabra
8. The Place Beyond the Pines
9. Pacific Rim
10. Iron Man 3

elixir

09-19-2013, 03:19 AM

1. Stray Dogs (Tsai Ming-Liang)
2. Norte, The End of History (Lav Diaz)
3. Stranger by the Lake (Alain Guiraudie)
4. Spring (Nathaniel Dorsky)
5. Manakamana (Stephanie Spray and Pacho Velez)
6. Computer Chess (Andrew Bujalski)
7. A Spell to Ward Off the Darkness (Ben Russell and Ben Rivers)
8. At Berkeley (Frederick Wiseman)
9. Before Midnight (Richard Linklater)
10. Ellie Lumme (Ignatiy Vishnevetsky)

Rock

09-19-2013, 03:44 AM

Revised:

1. Drug War
2. The Act of Killing
3. No
4. Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, Part 2
5. Only God Forgives
6. Pain & Gain
7. The Place Beyond the Pines
8. Man of Steel
9. The World's End
10. iNumber Number

11. The Strange Colour of Your Body's Tears
12. Oblivion
13. Star Trek Into Darkness
14. Go Goa Gone

I liked all of them in the top 10, and none below.

Izzy Black

09-30-2013, 01:35 PM

1. Bastards (Claire Denis)
2. Gravity (CuarÃ³n)
3. Spring Breakers (Harmony Korine)
4. To the Wonder (Terrence Malick)
5. Upstream Color (Shane Carruth)
6. The Grandmaster (Wong Kar-wai)
7. Computer Chess (Andrew Bujalski)
8. Sun Don't Shine (Amy Seimetz)
9. Sparrows Dance (Noah Buschel)
10. Nobody's Daughter Haewon (Hong Sang-soo)

Boner M

10-01-2013, 08:52 PM

Agree w/ Izzy, American cinema's been very strong lately.

By US dates:

1. Leviathan
2. Like Someone in Love
3. Before Midnight
4. Computer Chess
5. Spring Breakers
6. Room 237
7. Blue Jasmine
8. Something in the Air
9. The Bling Ring
10. This is Martin Bonner

2013 premiere:

1. STRAY DOGS Tsai Ming-liang
2. UNDER THE SKIN Jonathan Glazer
3. THE STRANGE LITTLE CAT Ramon ZÃ¼rcher
4. 2012 Takashi Makino
5. BEFORE MIDNIGHT Richard Linklater
6. MANAKAMANA Stephanie Spray
7. NORTH, THE END OF HISTORY Lav Diaz
8. COMPUTER CHESS Andrew Bujalski
9. A SPELL TO WARD OFF THE DARKNESS Ben Russell
10. AT BERKELEY Frederick Wiseman

TGM

10-01-2013, 10:54 PM

1. Iron Man 3
2. White House Down
3. The Frozen Ground
4. Prisoners
5. Stoker
6. Mud
7. The World's End
8. Warm Bodies
9. The Place Beyond the Pines
10. Pain & Gain

11. This is the End
12. The Internship
13. Pacific Rim
14. Riddick
15. Side Effects
16. Jack the Giant Slayer
17. 2 Guns
18. In A World...
19. The Bling Ring
20. Rush

21. The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones
22. Kick-Ass 2
23. Man of Steel
24. Oblivion
25. After Earth
26. Fruitvale Station
27. Sharknado
28. The Way, Way Back
29. The Wolverine
30. Red 2

31. World War Z
32. The Great Gatsby
33. Star Trek Into Darkness
34. Dead Man Down
35. The Conjuring
36. Lee Daniels' The Butler
37. Jobs
38. Elysium
39. Only God Forgives
40. Much Ado About Nothing

41. Olympus Has Fallen
42. Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters
43. Fast & Furious 6
44. Now You See Me
45. Trance
46. Broken City
47. Gangster Squad
48. Spring Breakers
49. Upstream Color
50. Movie 43

51. A Good Day to Die Hard
52. Oz the Great and Powerful
53. The Hangover: Part III
54. G.I. Joe: Retaliation
55. The Purge
56. To the Wonder

Izzy Black

11-01-2013, 02:34 AM

1. Bastards (Claire Denis)*
2. Gravity (Alfonso CuarÃ³n)*
3. Spring Breakers (Harmony Korine)
4. To the Wonder (Terrence Malick)
5. Upstream Color (Shane Carruth)
6. The Grandmaster (Wong Kar-wai)
7. Computer Chess (Andrew Bujalski)
8. Sun Don't Shine (Amy Seimetz)
9. Sparrows Dance (Noah Buschel)
10. Nobody's Daughter Haewon (Hong Sang-soo)

October update

TGM

11-01-2013, 03:18 AM

1. Iron Man 3
2. Prisoners
3. Gravity
4. The Counselor
5. The Frozen Ground
6. White House Down
7. Stoker
8. Mud
9. The World's End
10. Captain Phillips

11. Carrie
12. Warm Bodies
13. The Place Beyond the Pines
14. Pain & Gain
15. This is the End
16. Jackass Presents: Bad Grandpa
17. The Internship
18. Pacific Rim
19. Riddick
20. Side Effects

21. Jack the Giant Slayer
22. Escape Plan
23. 2 Guns
24. In A World...
25. Don Jon
26. The Bling Ring
27. Rush
28. The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones
29. Kick-Ass 2
30. Man of Steel

31. Oblivion
32. After Earth
33. Fruitvale Station
34. Sharknado
35. The Way, Way Back
36. The Wolverine
37. Red 2
38. World War Z
39. The Great Gatsby
40. Star Trek Into Darkness

41. Dead Man Down
42. The Conjuring
43. Lee Daniels' The Butler
44. Jobs
45. Elysium
46. Only God Forgives
47. Much Ado About Nothing
48. Runner Runner
49. Olympus Has Fallen
50. Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters

51. Fast & Furious 6
52. Now You See Me
53. Trance
54. Broken City
55. Gangster Squad
56. Spring Breakers
57. Upstream Color
58. Movie 43
59. A Good Day to Die Hard
60. Oz the Great and Powerful

61. The Hangover: Part III
62. G.I. Joe: Retaliation
63. The Purge
64. To the Wonder

Sxottlan

11-05-2013, 09:25 AM

Forgot to update my list at the three-quarters mark:

1. Gravity: ****
2. Iron Man 3: ***1/2
3. The Act of Killing: ***1/2
4. Before Midnight: ***1/2
5. Spring Breakers: ***1/2
6. Pacific Rim: ***1/2
7. Escape from Tomorrow: ***1/2
8. Much Ado About Nothing: ***
9. Pain & Gain: ***
10. Upstream Color: ***

Rowland

11-05-2013, 09:56 AM

1. Computer Chess
2. Blue Jasmine
3. Like Someone in Love
4. Stories We Tell
5. Drug War
6. The World's End
7. Room 237
8. Byzantium
9. Stoker
10. The Bling Ring

Stay Puft

11-05-2013, 12:32 PM

1. Upstream Color
2. To the Wonder
3. No
4. Bastards
5. The World's End
6. Drug War
7. Leviathan
8. A Touch of Sin

Pop Trash

11-05-2013, 04:09 PM

1. Stories We Tell
2. Before Midnight
3. The Hunt
4. Spring Breakers
5. Computer Chess
6. Room 237
7. 12 Years a Slave
8. Gravity
9. The Spectacular Now
10. Mud

baby doll

11-06-2013, 03:30 AM

Masterpieces
Before Midnight (Richard Linklater) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/10/09/time-and-space-before-midnight-gravity/)
Hors Satan (Bruno Dumont) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2012/10/27/girl-youll-be-a-woman-soon-corpo-celeste-hors-satan/)
Post Tenebras Lux (Carlos Reygadas) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/09/27/missing-links-post-tenebras-lux-neighboring-sounds/)

Must Sees
The Angels' Share (Ken Loach) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2012/12/15/local-heroes-the-angels-share-two-years-at-sea/)
Behind the Candelabra (Steven Soderbergh) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/12/09/the-best-of-both-worlds-mud-behind-the-candelabra/)
Beyond the Hills (Cristian Mungiu) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/07/31/reality-and-realism-beyond-the-hills-betrayal/)
The Grandmaster (Wong Kar-wai) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/07/21/lost-in-china-the-grandmaster-drug-war/)
Gravity (Alfonso CuarÃ³n) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/10/09/time-and-space-before-midnight-gravity/)
J'ai tuÃ© ma mÃ¨re (Xavier Dolan)
Mud (Jeff Nichols) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/12/09/the-best-of-both-worlds-mud-behind-the-candelabra/)
No (Pablo LarraÃ*n)
Paradise: Love (Ulrich Seidl) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/09/11/it-aint-easy-being-white-it-aint-easy-being-brown-paradise-love-la-folie-almayer/)
The Place Beyond the Pines (Derek Cianfrance) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/08/12/the-young-ones-the-place-beyond-the-pines-what-maisie-knew/)
To the Wonder (Terrence Malick) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/07/09/stand-by-your-man-keep-the-lights-on-to-the-wonder/)
What Maisie Knew (Scott McGehee / David Siegel) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/08/12/the-young-ones-the-place-beyond-the-pines-what-maisie-knew/)

Worth Seeing
The Canyons (Paul Schrader)
The Croods (Kirk Di Micco / Chris Sanders)
Drug War (Johnnie To) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/07/21/lost-in-china-the-grandmaster-drug-war/)
From Up on Poppy Hill (Goro Miyazaki)
Ginger and Rosa (Sally Potter) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/04/16/pale-fire-ginger-and-rosa-blancanieves/)
The Hunt (Thomas Vinterberg) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/05/29/bad-girls-the-hunt-lapollonide-souvenirs-de-la-maison-close/)
Inch'Allah (AnaÃ¯s Barbeau-Lavalette)
Passion (Brian De Palma)
Reality (Matteo Garrone)
Rebelle (Kim Nguyen) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/02/18/about-a-girl-rebelle-silver-linings-playbook/)
Side Effects (Steven Soderbergh)
Star Trek Into Darkness (J.J. Abrams)

Has Redeeming Facet
Blancanieves (Pablo Berger) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/04/16/pale-fire-ginger-and-rosa-blancanieves/)
The Bling Ring (Sofia Coppola)
La grande bellezza (Paolo Sorrentino) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/11/18/the-fat-and-the-lean-la-grande-bellezza-la-cinquieme-saison/)
The Great Gatsby (Baz Luhrmann)
Iron Man 3 (Shane Black)
Laurence Anyways (Xavier Dolan) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2012/12/26/short-cuts-laurence-anyways-xxy/)
Trance (Danny Boyle)

Worthless
Finding Mr. Right (Xue Xiaolu)Updated for the beginning of November.

Irish

11-06-2013, 04:03 AM

bd, did you talk anywhere about Place Beyond the Pines? Interested in your thoughts on that one.

baby doll

11-06-2013, 04:29 AM

bd, did you talk anywhere about Place Beyond the Pines? Interested in your thoughts on that one.I wrote a blog entry (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/08/12/the-young-ones-the-place-beyond-the-pines-what-maisie-knew/) on it a few months back.

Irish

11-06-2013, 09:57 AM

I wrote a blog entry (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/08/12/the-young-ones-the-place-beyond-the-pines-what-maisie-knew/) on it a few months back.

"If the film’s bid for epic grandeur strikes me as a little strained, that’s because the banality of the characters is so much at odds with Cianfrance’s efforts to turn their lives into a kind of contemporary Greek tragedy."

Ahhhhhhhh, perfect.

Thanks for the link.

Ezee E

11-10-2013, 08:07 AM

I'm really digging my top ten this year, and there's still a solid 10-15 movies that I'm looking forward to.

Bandy Greensacks

11-16-2013, 05:09 AM

IMDb dates only:

1. A Field in England
2. Before Midnight

3. Bastards
4. Spring Breakers
5. Magic Magic

6. Drinking Buddies
7. Drug War
8. Frances Ha
9. Europa Report
10. Petal Dance

baby doll

11-16-2013, 12:50 PM

IMDb dates only:

7. Drug War
8. Frances HaYou might want to check those dates a little more carefully.

Izzy Black

11-16-2013, 01:28 PM

Spring Breakers is also 2012 by IMDB.

Bandy Greensacks

11-16-2013, 07:59 PM

FINE. I'll fix it, you jerks. I was going by what Criticker said, and that usually draws from IMDb dates.

I forgot Gravity, anyway.

1. A Field in England
2. Before Midnight

3. Gravity
4. Bastards
5. Magic Magic

6. Drinking Buddies
7. Europa Report
8. Petal Dance
9. Man of Tai Chi
10. The Conjuring

Boner M

12-07-2013, 04:02 AM

Great year, and with so many I need to see (or rewatch).

1. Leviathan
2. Inside Llewyn Davis
3. Like Someone in Love
4. Before Midnight
5. Her
6. Frances Ha
7. Spring Breakers
8. Bastards
9. Computer Chess
10. All is Lost

HM: At Berkeley, The Unspeakable Act, Berberian Sound Studio, Blue Jasmine, The Dirties, Drug War, The Bling Ring, Room 237, The Conjuring, This is Martin Bonner

Need to see: Paradise: Faith + Hope, You Ain't Seen Nothin' Yet, The Past, Wolf of Wall Street, Viola, Lords of Salem, The Selfish Giant, Crystal Fairy, Sun Don't Shine, Camille Claudel 1915

Ezee E

12-07-2013, 04:18 AM

Is Leviathan on Instant Watch yet? Looks like something nice to see.

Boner M

12-07-2013, 04:27 AM

Is Leviathan on Instant Watch yet? Looks like something nice to see.
Not sure. It's definitely the film on my list that'd lose the most from home viewing, though.

Also: not really your kinda film, though I can't imagine anyone finding at least some of the raw footage to be innately spectacular.

Ezee E

12-07-2013, 06:05 AM

Not sure. It's definitely the film on my list that'd lose the most from home viewing, though.

Also: not really your kinda film, though I can't imagine anyone finding at least some of the raw footage to be innately spectacular.

I think I'd appreciate it along the same lines as Baraka, right? That's my expectation at least. I've found all the shots I've seen so far to be among the best of the year.

Boner M

12-07-2013, 06:09 AM

Not like Baraka at all, apart from 'image-driven'. Leviathan is claustophobic, deliberately disorienting and generally quite challenging. But definitely give it a shot if you've find what you've seen of it to be striking.

Derek

12-07-2013, 08:07 AM

Not sure. It's definitely the film on my list that'd lose the most from home viewing, though.

Yeah, this was easily the most invigorating experience at AFI Fest last year and a toss-up for my #1 on last year's list (and it'd still be top 3 or 4 this year). I'll eventually pick up the Bluray, but I'm certain it won't carry the same visceral impact at home.

Izzy Black

12-07-2013, 11:14 AM

1. Bastards (Claire Denis)
2. Gravity (Alfonso CuarÃ³n)
3. Spring Breakers (Harmony Korine)
4. To the Wonder (Terrence Malick)
5. Upstream Color (Shane Carruth)
6. The Grandmaster (Wong Kar-wai)
7. Computer Chess (Andrew Bujalski)
8. Before Midnight (Richard Linklater)
9. Sun Don't Shine (Amy Seimetz)
10. Blue is the Warmest Color (Abdellatif Kechiche) *

November update

TGM

12-07-2013, 03:31 PM

1. Iron Man 3
2. Frozen
3. Prisoners
4. Gravity
5. The Counselor
6. The Frozen Ground
7. White House Down
8. Thor: The Dark World
9. Stoker
10. Mud

11. The World's End
12. Captain Phillips
13. Pain & Gain
14. Carrie
15. Blue is the Warmest Color
16. Warm Bodies
17. Dallas Buyers Club
18. 12 Years A Slave
19. Out of the Furnace
20. All is Lost

21. This is the End
22. The Place Beyond the Pines
23. Jackass Presents: Bad Grandpa
24. The Internship
25. Pacific Rim
26. Riddick
27. Side Effects
28. Jack the Giant Slayer
29. Oldboy
30. Escape Plan

31. Homefront
32. 2 Guns
33. In A World...
34. The Bling Ring
35. Don Jon
36. Delivery Man
37. Ender's Game
38. Rush
39. The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones
40. Kick-Ass 2

41. Man of Steel
42. Oblivion
43. After Earth
44. Fruitvale Station
45. Sharknado
46. The Way, Way Back
47. The Wolverine
48. Red 2
49. World War Z
50. The Great Gatsby

51. Star Trek Into Darkness
52. Dead Man Down
53. The Conjuring
54. Lee Daniels' The Butler
55. Jobs
56. Elysium
57. Only God Forgives
58. Much Ado About Nothing
59. Runner Runner
60. Olympus Has Fallen

61. Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters
62. Fast & Furious 6
63. Now You See Me
64. Trance
65. Broken City
66. Gangster Squad
67. Spring Breakers
68. Upstream Color
69. Movie 43
70. A Good Day to Die Hard

71. Oz the Great and Powerful
72. The Hangover: Part III
73. G.I. Joe: Retaliation
74. The Purge
75. To the Wonder
76. The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

Bandy Greensacks

12-11-2013, 04:19 AM

1. A Field in England
2. Before Midnight

3. Gravity
4. Bastards
5. Magic Magic

6. Drinking Buddies
7. White Reindeer
8. Europa Report
9. Petal Dance
10. Man of Tai Chi

Dead & Messed Up

12-22-2013, 07:27 PM

Goddamnit, I want to see A Field in England.

Before Midnight (Richard Linklater, 2013)
Upstream Color (Shane Carruth, 2013)
Nebraska (Alexander Payne, 2013)
Pacific Rim (Guillermo del Toro, 2013)
Monsters University[/b] (Dan Scanlon, 2013)
12 Years a Slave (Steven McQueen, 2013)
The Conjuring (James Wan, 2013)
Gravity (Alfonso Cuaron, 2013)
V/H/S 2 (Gareth Evans et al, 2013)
Stoker (Park Chan-Wook, 2013)
Blue Jasmine (Woody Allen, 2013)
Frozen (Buck & Lee, 2013)
Europa Report (SebastiÃ¡n Cordero, 2013)
Man of Steel (Zack Snyder, 2013)
This Is the End (Rogen & Goldberg, 2013)
American Hustle (David O. Russell, 2013)
The Wolverine (James Mangold, 2013)
World War Z (Marc Forster, 2013)
Evil Dead (Fede Alvarez, 2013)
John Dies at the End (Don Coscarelli, 2013)
Insidious, Chapter Two (James Wan, 2013)
Teach (TV) (Davis Guggenheim, 2013)
Slightly Single in LA (Christie Will, 2013)
Christmas Bounty (TV) (???, 2013)
Loss of Life (Damiata & Rossi, 2013)

Rowland

12-22-2013, 07:47 PM

I still have many that I need to see, but I've been a little burnt out on movie watching this month. Nevertheless, I like all of these a lot:

1. Computer Chess
2. Frances Ha
3. Blue Jasmine
4. Passion
5. Like Someone in Love
6. Stories We Tell
7. Drug War
8. The World's End
9. Room 237
10. Byzantium

HM: Stoker, The Bling Ring, From Up on Poppy Hill, To the Wonder, Evil Dead, A Hijacking, Only God Forgives, The Lords of Salem, Pain & Gain, Lee Daniels' The Butler

Underrated/Overlooked: Europa Report, Somebody Up There Likes Me, Drinking Buddies, Curse of Chucky

Solid but Overrated: This is Martin Bonner, American Hustle, No, Spring Breakers, 12 Years a Slave

Watashi

12-24-2013, 04:22 AM

1. Before Midnight
2. Leviathan
3. 12 Years a Slave
4. Blue Jasmine
5. The World's End
6. Spring Breakers
7. Frances Ha
8. Upstream Color
9. Captain Phillips
10. This is the End

This list will look completely different by next week.

Is this the best December for movies in years?

elixir

12-27-2013, 01:15 PM

year-end post (cuz always open to change duh)

pure (2013 international premieres)
1. STRAY DOGS tsai ming-liang
2. STRANGER BY THE LAKE alain guiraudie
3. NORTE, THE END OF HISTORY lav diaz
4. SPRING nathaniel dorsky
5. COMPUTER CHESS andrew bujalski
6. MANAKAMANA stephanie spray & pancho velez
7. A SPELL TO WARD OFF THE DARKNESS ben russell & ben rivers
8. AT BERKELEY frederick wiseman
9. BASTARDS claire denis
10. BLIND DETECTIVE johnnie to

practical (recent films i didnâ€™t see until 2013)
1. TRAVELING LIGHT gina telaroli
2. VIOLA matÃ*as piÃ±eiro
3. FRANCHES HA noah baumbach
4. THE GREAT CINEMA PARTY raya martin
5. TO THE WONDER terrence malick
6. THE UNSPEAKABLE ACT dan sallitt
7. VERS MADRID - THE BURNING BRIGHT sylvain george
8. APRÃˆS MAI olivier assayas
9. LIKE SOMEONE IN LOVE abbas kiarostami
10. SEEKING THE MONKEY KING ken jacobs

Boner M

12-27-2013, 01:49 PM

we get it, you're cool, WE GET IT

ledfloyd

12-27-2013, 02:25 PM

As of today (so many potetially great releases I've yet to see):

1. To the Wonder
2. Before Midnight
3. Blue is the Warmest Color
4. Like Someone in Love
5. Frances Ha
6. The World's End
7. Something in the Air
8. Spring Breakers
9. Upstream Color
10. Leviathan

Near Misses: Computer Chess, The Act of Killing, Blue Jasmine, Drug War, NO, You Ain't Seen Nothin' Yet, Bastards, Beyond the Hills, The Lone Ranger, Gravity, The Grandmaster

elixir

12-27-2013, 02:57 PM

we get it, you're cool, WE GET IT
love u too man

Mal

12-27-2013, 08:11 PM

1. Blue Jasmine
2. 12 Years a Slave
3. Behind the Candelabra
4. The Bling Ring
5. Upstream Color
6. The Place Beyond the Pines
7. Side Effects
8. Prince Avalanche
9. Prisoners
10. Frozen

dreamdead

12-28-2013, 01:04 AM

Latest Update:

1. Upstream Color - 8.5
2. Before Midnight - 8.5
3. Sun Don't Shine - 8
4. Computer Chess - 8
5. 12 Years a Slave - 8
6. To the Wonder - 7.5
7. Stories We Tell - 7.5
8. Inside Llewyn Davis - 7.5
9. Frances Ha - 7.5
10. Museum Hours - 7.5

Enough Said - 7.5
The Grandmasters - 7.5
The Wolf of Wall Street - 7
Gravity - 7
Blackfish - 7
Blue Jasmine - 7
Byzantium - 6.5
Drug War - 6
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug - 6
Much Ado About Nothing (Whedon) - 6
Spring Breakers - 6
Stoker - 6
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire - 5.5
The World's End - 5.5
Only God Forgives - 5.5
The Great Gatsby - 5.5
Passion - 5.5
Prince Avalanche - 5.5
The Counselor - 5
Pacific Rim - 5
Iron Man 3 - 5
Man of Steel - 4.5
Admission - 4

baby doll

12-28-2013, 12:15 PM

Masterpieces
Before Midnight (Richard Linklater) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/10/09/time-and-space-before-midnight-gravity/)
Hors Satan (Bruno Dumont) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2012/10/27/girl-youll-be-a-woman-soon-corpo-celeste-hors-satan/)
Post Tenebras Lux (Carlos Reygadas) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/09/27/missing-links-post-tenebras-lux-neighboring-sounds/)

Must Sees
The Angels' Share (Ken Loach) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2012/12/15/local-heroes-the-angels-share-two-years-at-sea/)
Behind the Candelabra (Steven Soderbergh) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/12/09/the-best-of-both-worlds-mud-behind-the-candelabra/)
Beyond the Hills (Cristian Mungiu) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/07/31/reality-and-realism-beyond-the-hills-betrayal/)
The Grandmaster (Wong Kar-wai) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/07/21/lost-in-china-the-grandmaster-drug-war/)
Gravity (Alfonso CuarÃ³n) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/10/09/time-and-space-before-midnight-gravity/)
J'ai tuÃ© ma mÃ¨re (Xavier Dolan)
Mud (Jeff Nichols) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/12/09/the-best-of-both-worlds-mud-behind-the-candelabra/)
No (Pablo LarraÃ*n)
Paradise: Love (Ulrich Seidl) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/09/11/it-aint-easy-being-white-it-aint-easy-being-brown-paradise-love-la-folie-almayer/)
The Place Beyond the Pines (Derek Cianfrance) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/08/12/the-young-ones-the-place-beyond-the-pines-what-maisie-knew/)
To the Wonder (Terrence Malick) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/07/09/stand-by-your-man-keep-the-lights-on-to-the-wonder/)
What Maisie Knew (Scott McGehee / David Siegel) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/08/12/the-young-ones-the-place-beyond-the-pines-what-maisie-knew/)

Worth Seeing
The Canyons (Paul Schrader)
The Croods (Kirk Di Micco / Chris Sanders)
Drug War (Johnnie To) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/07/21/lost-in-china-the-grandmaster-drug-war/)
From Up on Poppy Hill (Goro Miyazaki)
Ginger and Rosa (Sally Potter) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/04/16/pale-fire-ginger-and-rosa-blancanieves/)
The Hunt (Thomas Vinterberg) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/05/29/bad-girls-the-hunt-lapollonide-souvenirs-de-la-maison-close/)
Inch'Allah (AnaÃ¯s Barbeau-Lavalette)
Passion (Brian De Palma)
Reality (Matteo Garrone)
Rebelle (Kim Nguyen) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/02/18/about-a-girl-rebelle-silver-linings-playbook/)
Les Salauds (Claire Denis)
Side Effects (Steven Soderbergh)
Star Trek Into Darkness (J.J. Abrams)

Has Redeeming Facet
Blancanieves (Pablo Berger) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/04/16/pale-fire-ginger-and-rosa-blancanieves/)
The Bling Ring (Sofia Coppola)
La grande bellezza (Paolo Sorrentino) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2013/11/18/the-fat-and-the-lean-la-grande-bellezza-la-cinquieme-saison/)
The Great Gatsby (Baz Luhrmann)
Iron Man 3 (Shane Black)
Laurence Anyways (Xavier Dolan) (http://lesamantsreguliers.wordpress.c om/2012/12/26/short-cuts-laurence-anyways-xxy/)
Trance (Danny Boyle)

Worthless
Finding Mr. Right (Xue Xiaolu)Here's where it stands at the end of December.

Stay Puft

12-29-2013, 02:05 AM

1. Upstream Color
2. To the Wonder
3. No
4. The Selfish Giant
5. Bastards
6. The World's End
7. Drug War
8. Leviathan
9. A Touch of Sin

I'm almost at ten.

TGM

12-29-2013, 03:05 AM

My Top 10 Movies of 2013 (http://cwiddop.blogspot.com/2013/12/my-top-10-movies-of-2013.html)

1. Iron Man 3
2. Frozen
3. Prisoners
4. The Counselor
5. Pain & Gain
6. The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
7. The Frozen Ground
8. The Wolf of Wall Street
9. Stoker
10. Gravity

11. White House Down
12. American Hustle
13. Mud
14. The World's End
15. Captain Phillips
16. Blue is the Warmest Color
17. Thor: The Dark World
18. Carrie
19. Warm Bodies
20. Saving Mr. Banks

21. Dallas Buyers Club
22. 12 Years A Slave
23. Out of the Furnace
24. All is Lost
25. This is the End
26. The Place Beyond the Pines
27. Jackass Presents: Bad Grandpa
28. The Internship
29. Pacific Rim
30. Riddick

31. Side Effects
32. Jack the Giant Slayer
33. Hours
34. The Croods
35. Oldboy
36. Escape Plan
37. Homefront
38. 2 Guns
39. In A World...
40. The Bling Ring

41. Don Jon
42. Delivery Man
43. Ender's Game
44. Rush
45. The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones
46. Kick-Ass 2
47. Man of Steel
48. Oblivion
49. After Earth
50. Fruitvale Station

51. Sharknado
52. The Way, Way Back
53. The Wolverine
54. Red 2
55. World War Z
56. The Great Gatsby
57. Star Trek Into Darkness
58. Dead Man Down
59. The Conjuring
60. Lee Daniels' The Butler

61. Jobs
62. Elysium
63. Only God Forgives
64. Much Ado About Nothing
65. Runner Runner
66. Olympus Has Fallen
67. Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters
68. Fast & Furious 6
69. Kill Your Darlings
70. Now You See Me

71. Trance
72. The Secret Life of Walter Mitty
73. Broken City
74. Gangster Squad
75. Spring Breakers
76. Upstream Color
77. Movie 43
78. A Good Day to Die Hard
79. Oz the Great and Powerful
80. The Hangover: Part III

81. G.I. Joe: Retaliation
82. Escape From Tomorrow
83. The Purge
84. To the Wonder
85. The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

Melville

12-29-2013, 10:59 AM

I still need to see most of the year's acclaimed movies. Everything I've seen so far:

1. The Act of Killing - 9
2. Blue Jasmine - 8.5
3. The Place Beyond the Pines - 8
4. Spring Breakers - 7.5
5. American Hustle - 7
6. Fast & Furious 6 - 7
7. Frances Ha - 7
8. Captain Phillips - 7
9. This is the End - 6
10. To the Wonder - 6
11. Upstream Color - 6
12. Stories We Tell - 5.5
13. Gravity - 5.5
14. Only God Forgives - 5
15. Computer Chess - 4
16. The Wolverine - 3.5
17. The World's End - 3.5
18. Side Effects - 2.5

Qrazy

12-29-2013, 11:12 PM

Izzy Black

12-30-2013, 12:43 PM

lol

Derek

12-30-2013, 02:28 PM

Kudos on the Computer Chess score.

To be fair, you'd give a 4 or lower to his entire top 10, aside from maybe Act of Killing and To the Wonder.

Qrazy

12-30-2013, 06:09 PM

To be fair, you'd give a 4 or lower to his entire top 10, aside from maybe Act of Killing and To the Wonder.

Act of Killing was definitely great, haven't seen To the Wonder. Place beyond the Pines I quite enjoyed but yeah I'd probably give it a 7 or something. This is the End was fine but yeah maybe a 5. Spring Breakers also maybe a 5. I haven't seen the rest. I can't imagine enjoying Fast and Furious 6 much. I'm hoping to like Blue Jasmine.

dreamdead

12-30-2013, 06:33 PM

Is there a current top ten from you yet, Qrazy?

Qrazy

12-30-2013, 06:39 PM

Is there a current top ten from you yet, Qrazy?

No, I don't really watch enough new movies to put one together.

Derek

12-30-2013, 08:44 PM

Act of Killing was definitely great, haven't seen To the Wonder. Place beyond the Pines I quite enjoyed but yeah I'd probably give it a 7 or something. This is the End was fine but yeah maybe a 5. Spring Breakers also maybe a 5. I haven't seen the rest. I can't imagine enjoying Fast and Furious 6 much. I'm hoping to like Blue Jasmine.

Are you much an Allen fan? It's certainly one of his best since the 90s, not that there's much competition.

Raiders

12-30-2013, 08:53 PM

This is the first year in probably four or five years where I have actually seen a good amount of the films I wanted to and where my top ten requires very few caveats. Still a few to be seen but I have pretty good plans to see them over the next month or so.

I need to nominate one of you to PM bomb me every day after February 1st that I do not post my year-in-review thread like I had planned to last year and never did. I even have write-ups planned for some of the films. I feel so accomplished.

And no, this post had no real point.

Qrazy

12-30-2013, 11:49 PM

Are you much an Allen fan? It's certainly one of his best since the 90s, not that there's much competition.

I like the majority of his early and mid period work. I dislike most of his contemporary work. I hated Match Point, thought Midnight in Paris was passable.

Izzy Black

12-31-2013, 01:27 AM

Izzy Black

12-31-2013, 01:28 AM

Qrazy is notoriously not a big fan of movies.

jk

Henry Gale

12-31-2013, 01:55 AM

Well, apparently I haven't done this all year. Still got a lot to catch up on, but right now, roughly:

Her
To The Wonder
The Wolf Of Wall Street
The World's End
Spring Breakers
Inside Llewyn Davis
Captain Phillips
Under The Skin
Upstream Color
A Band Called Death

Izzy Black

12-31-2013, 02:08 AM

<3 to the wonder love.

Qrazy

12-31-2013, 05:57 AM

Qrazy is notoriously not a big fan of movies.

jk

I do seem to have very little patience these days for much that doesn't wow me.

Derek

12-31-2013, 10:14 AM

I like the majority of his early and mid period work. I dislike most of his contemporary work. I hated Match Point, thought Midnight in Paris was passable.

I disliked Match Point too, but I liked Midnight a good deal. Blue Jasmine is as close as Woody's come to emulating Mike Leigh and he did it quite well. Your liking it will probably rest on buying Blanchett's performance.

Qrazy

12-31-2013, 08:26 PM

I disliked Match Point too, but I liked Midnight a good deal. Blue Jasmine is as close as Woody's come to emulating Mike Leigh and he did it quite well. Your liking it will probably rest on buying Blanchett's performance.

I'm usually impressed with Blanchett. If I don't like it, it will be because I find it too similar to Leigh or Streetcar. I prefer Woody's more original work (Annie Hall, Manhattan, Take the Money and Run, etc) to those where he's mimicking his influences (Interiors, Stardust Memories, etc).

wigwam

12-31-2013, 10:50 PM

2013
The Host [most important]
Nobody's Daughter Haewon [best]
Crystal Fairy [favorite]
The Bling Ring
Bastards
Computer Chess
Enough Said
Magic Magic
Dark Skies
Touchy Feely

honorable mentions:
Alan Partridge: Alpha Papa
Before Midnight
Behind the Candelabra
Blue Jasmine
Bnsf
Getaway
Gloria
Los amantes pasajeros
Morrissey 25 Live
Pain & Gain
Prince Avalanche
The Lifeguard
The Wolf of Wall Street
Yeh Jawaani Hai Deewani

2012
Frances Ha
To the Wonder
Age Is...
The Unspeakable Act
Fat Kid Rules the World
Like Someone in Love
Marriage Material
In the House
What Maisie Knew
Starlet
Not Fade Away

perf
Gaby Hoffman - Crystal Fairy
Juno Temple - Magic Magic
Tallie Medel - The Unspeakable Act
Mickey Sumner - Frances Ha
James Franco - Spring Breakers

dir Sebastian Silva
scr Greta Gerwig
cin To the Wonder, The Bling Ring, Pain & Gain
mus Chennai Express

surprises: 47 Ronin, Only the Young, Sightseers, This Is Martin Bonner, White House Down, The World's End
disappointments: American Hustle, The Canyons, Don Jon, Drinking Buddies, Hobbit 2, Inside Llewyn Davis

WORSTS
The Counselor
Gravity
Jobs
The Kings of Summer
Post Tenebras Lux
Ain't Them Bodies Saints
Fast & Furious 6
Paranoia
Oz the Great and Powerful
Only God Forgives