28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[Philosophe_rouge]

Top 3 Bava

1. Kill Baby Kill
2. Black Sunday
3. The Girl Who Knew Too Much

I've seen 7 of his films, these are the only 3 I like at all, but I think they're all great.

[dreamdead]

Ophuls's Caught has such gorgeous flowing cinematography that it's a shame the film has such a shitty last act. The randomness of Leonora returning to maniacal Smith Ohlrig was odd, as was the immediate reversal of her affection when James Mason goes all charm on her. And what does she even see in Smith in the first place? It feels like a recrursive indictment of her desire for bourgeois life, rather than her having to extricate herself from a bad deal. But cheers for the weirdness of stillborn babies being worth cheerful, bouncing music at film's end.

But man, Barbara Bel Geddes is so gorgeous in this one. I wish it were less strange.

Anyone have defenses of M.A.S.H.'s rampant chauvinism and sexual infantilization of women, which feels so uniform that it feels like Altman's judgment, too...?

[Sven]

Anyone have defenses of M.A.S.H.'s rampant chauvinism and sexual infantilization of women, which feels so uniform that it feels like Altman's judgment, too...?

What's yours?

[Pop Trash]

I'm not huge fan of Bogdanovich either. I do love Paper Moon and Mask though.

Yeah, he made a series of films after Paper Moon (Daisy Miller, At Long Last Love, and Nickelodeon) that I'm vaguely curious about, mostly because I read "Easy Riders & Raging Bulls" and were talked about a bit, but they sound sooo boring.

[dreamdead]

What's yours?

Not sure yet. A friend analyzed the book and the film, and apparently most of these episodes are also there in the novel, but it looks like some ethnic and racist issues were reduced in the film. The women's caricature, from what I remember, is still regarded as tricky by feminists trying to defend the representation.

I'll accept Hot Lips's character as a source for satire and ridicule. I think my main issue is the switch from morose to beatific when the one nurse is lifted away after pleasuring the "possibly" gay Waldowski. The simplistic take on women offering sexual fulfillment to men without any psychological ramifications strikes me as off-putting, especially when the men treat her as nothing more than a whore who they don't even bother to pay. And the film doesn't seem nearly ironic enough to lament this fact for long, when Altman chooses the musical cue as she's being helicoptered away.

I found the last forty minutes pretty much pitch-perfect, though, when it moved away from some problematic gender territory and committed to a thorough battery of military politics and masculinity (everything in Japan and after = teh sex).

[Irish]

I enjoy movies that feature the following: Martin Lawrence liberally swearing, robots fighting on top of the pyramids, souped-up dune buggies jumping Grand Canyon-sized craters on the moon, Shia LaBeouf running, Shia LaBeouf shouting the word "no" hundreds of times, nighttime assaults on well-guarded buildings for the purpose of stealing heroin or chemical weapons, rocks hitting the earth, and Nicolas Cage hitting The Rock.

So I already know why I enjoy the movies of Michael Bay. But has there ever been a filmmaker whose work is so consistently popular while the man himself seems so loathed by the thinking public? His cinematic recipe of Peckinpah, Woo, and Spielberg has intoxicated audiences for more than 15 years. But what lies beneath his sci-fi epics, bad-boy buddy-cop movies, box office smashes, and spectacular failures that make us continually return to the theater to get punched in the face with varying degrees of awesome? What are the underlying themes that make his films resonate louder than any explosion contained in the movies themselves?

In Defense of Michael Bay (Yes, seriously.)

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/...se-michael-bay

Might be a literate fanboyism, but still really enjoying the way Grantland is turning out.

[B-side]

His cinematic recipe of Peckinpah

I laughed.

[MadMan]

The problem with Michael Bay is that most of his movies lack soul. Say what you will about certain action directors such as John Woo, but when you watch their movies you can see the heart that goes in to them. Bay creates movies that are all sound, no fury. You'd think that at some point he'd realize what James Cameron did pre-Avatar: even action movies can stand to use some halfway decent characters and a solid/good story.

Bava viewed:

1. Blood and Black Lace-90
2. Black Sunday-81
3. The Girl Who Knew Too Much-77
4. Kill Baby...Kill!-75
5. Planet of the Vampires-71

I imagine some of my ratings of his movies would go up a bit on rewatches. Planet of the Vampires is one of my favorite cult films, and clearly inspired Alien.

[Rowland]

Bava...

The Best: Black Sabbath; Kill Baby Kill; Blood and Black Lace; Twitch of the Death Nerve
Delightfully goofy fun: Danger: Diabolik
Underrated and/or overlooked: Five Dolls for an August Moon; Lisa and the Devil; Hatchet for the Honeymoon; The Girl Who Knew Too Much
Overrated but solid: Black Sunday
Overrated and lousy: Baron Blood
Need to see again: The Whip and the Body
Blind-spots I need to rectify: Rabid Dogs; Hercules in the Haunted World; Planet of the Vampires

[B-side]

Platinum Blonde was really enjoyable and marks my second Capra film, and the second one I've been rather impressed by. I'm noticing a trend of concerns over honesty and the power and influence of the press in his films, and I don't say this merely because he released a film in 1928 titled, The Power of the Press, which I'm now even more interested in checking out. Capra has visual acuity, and I'm excited to see it blossom beautifully in The Bitter Tea of General Yen, if the screencaps are any indication. Robert Williams is terrific in this; the perfect sort of caustic, stubborn but sufficiently witty protagonist that is always fun to watch. It's quite funny, too.

[B-side]

Robert Williams also looks remarkably similar to Jeremy Renner:

[balmakboor]

Watched Robert Mulligan's The Man in the Moon and was amazed by how the director of To Kill a Mockingbird could make something this weak and predictable. Guess it's evidence that movies do indeed live or die by great writing. I enjoyed Reese Witherspoon. Jason London not so much. I guess Dazed and Confused really was a one shot deal for him.

[Raiders]

Guess it's evidence that movies do indeed live or die by great writing.

I think it is evidence that Robert Mulligan movies do, not movies in general.

[D_Davis]

In Defense of Michael Bay (Yes, seriously.)

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/...se-michael-bay

Might be a literate fanboyism, but still really enjoying the way Grantland is turning out.

I've been defending Bay for years. But even I, someone who thinks that he makes genuinely great films, cannot get behind the Transformer movies (or Pearl Harbor, outside of the fantastic action sequnce).

I will, however, defend Armageddon, The Rock, Bad Boys 2, and The Island to the death.

[Russ]

The problem with Michael Bay is that most of his movies lack soul.

They also lack subtlety. And subtitles.

[D_Davis]

Complaining that Bay's films lack subtlety is like complaining that Tarkovsky's films lack bombast.

Neither is lacking either because neither is concerned with the other.

[Ezee E]

I can't say that I go into Michael Bay movies hoping for soul.

[balmakboor]

I think it is evidence that Robert Mulligan movies do, not movies in general.

True. Some great directors start with little or no writing at all.

[Russ]

Complaining that Bay's films lack subtlety is like complaining that Tarkovsky's films lack bombast.

But just imagine if Tarkovsky had made a film where things blow up real good.



[youtube]z-q29hbEP04[/youtube]

[D_Davis]

But just imagine if Tarkovsky had made a film where things blow up real good.

[/insert Derek's Seinfeld gif here]

Lord knows I'd appreciate that!

[StanleyK]

I rewatched Ghostbusters to see if this time I got what the big deal was. Nope. It's an amusing (if a bit too reliant on Bill Murray being an asshole), but featherweight film, which invokes potentially interesting religious and sexual imagery and then proceeds to do nothing with them. It plays out as a simple underdog story with a juvenile 'stick-it-to-the-Man' attitude and an underdeveloped love interest just so our asshole protagonist can get the girl at the end. The opening scene at the library is actually a pretty well-executed bit of suspense; the rest of the movie might have benefited from more such inspired direction and less ghost-blowjobs or silly strawmen.

[Raiders]

which invokes potentially interesting religious and sexual imagery and then proceeds to do nothing with them.

No offense, but I think you're doing it wrong.

[StanleyK]

No offense, but I think you're doing it wrong.

You mean the film has a wealth of hidden depth which escaped me?

[Raiders]

You mean the film has a wealth of hidden depth which escaped me?

Not at all; I think looking in that direction to begin with is a mistake. It's a film specifically designed to be a slapstick smorgasbord of the paranormal. Many of the film's cheekiest moments have Ackroyd or Ramis spouting some random paranormal event from history with hysterical or straight-faced (respectively) doom. It is a film that embraces any occult or myth. It's superficial by nature, but that isn't necessarily a negative. "Depth" to me is a misleading term; for instance, there are many depths to, or perhaps types of, humor displayed in the film. From Murray's sarcastic schtick to Ramis and Ackroyd's encyclopedic knowledge of terror to Moranis' possessed mayhem to the film's general irreverent sense of wonder (epitomized by the Stay Puft marshmallow man).

I think you are overselling the "assholishness" of Murray's character. He's crude and cocky, but he is hardly what I would call an asshole. I do also agree that Atherton's character and the scene in the mayor's office are fairly weak (and it is here where the film does dip a little into religion--but the Cardinal's stance is the same as the film's: no official position 'cuz we don't know what the hell is going on). But come on man, this is pretty inspired comedy here. Railing on against the "love interest" and lack of religious stance or sexualized ghosts is kind of missing the whole idea (not to mention Weaver's character is pretty good for this type considering it is a subplot of the film).

[Dead & Messed Up]

I rewatched Ghostbusters to see if this time I got what the big deal was. Nope. It's an amusing (if a bit too reliant on Bill Murray being an asshole), but featherweight film, which invokes potentially interesting religious and sexual imagery and then proceeds to do nothing with them. It plays out as a simple underdog story with a juvenile 'stick-it-to-the-Man' attitude and an underdeveloped love interest just so our asshole protagonist can get the girl at the end. The opening scene at the library is actually a pretty well-executed bit of suspense; the rest of the movie might have benefited from more such inspired direction and less ghost-blowjobs or silly strawmen.

This is why we can't have nice things.