28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[Llopin]

Not including those directors or films mentioned:

Ballad of Narayama (Kinoshita or Imamura)
The Naked Island (Shindô)
Seisaku's Wife (Masumura)
Shonen (Oshima)
Muddy River (Oguri)
Makioka Sisters (Ichikawa)
Tree Without Leaves (Shindô)
Noriko's Dinner Table (Sono)
Be Sure to Share (Sono)

Thanks! I hadn't thought of Oshima's, Shindô's or Ichikawa's.

The Sonos I haven't seen. I'll seek them out.

[Boner M]

Oh no, I'm looking forward to this movie.

You'll probably like it if you're a Chris Morris fan. I enjoyed it more than my rating suggests, since it's basically pretty funny throughout, but satirically one-note, narratively shapeless and visually crap (In the Loop shares the same deficiencies but is about a billion times funnier so it easily makes up for it). Doesn't have much business being a movie; in fact, an ongoing series about a group of suicide bombers would probably be more absurd and funnier.

[dreamdead]

It pains me to admit that The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen does indeed suck. Beyond weak effects and mediocre characterization, it stumbles in its attempt to shoehorn in an American to a fundamentally British universe (largely to appeal to American consumers who would certainly feel alienated if they don't see their literary tradition highlighted); and worse, in the disjointed passing off of historical legacy from England to America in the finale (where we learn that the 20th century is America's, not England). Ick. Though I am not fickle about narrative fidelity, this kind of translation is disheartening, neglecting Moore and O'Neill's gender revisionist politics (so that Mina becomes the group leader) and transgressing against the whole point of the generational politics...

[Raiders]

Not sure I came away from In the Loop with any real overriding ideas or opinions regarding politics or warmongering, but I think that may be mostly the idea. None of the characters are particularly well-sketched and I think the film would benefit slightly from a more human center (the central aides on both sides seem to try and fill those shoes but fail to really grab our attention), not to mention it is no more visually interesting than an Apatow production, but it scores where it counts: the laughs. I think the sudden cut to the poor English suburbanite standing next to a large wall crushing his mother's house is among the funniest moments in recent years. I didn't take quite as much as many to Peter Capaldi's potty-mouthed spin-doctor, but his belligerent conviction is certainly a frightening sight to behold.

[number8]

It pains me to admit that The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen does indeed suck. Beyond weak effects and mediocre characterization, it stumbles in its attempt to shoehorn in an American to a fundamentally British universe (largely to appeal to American consumers who would certainly feel alienated if they don't see their literary tradition highlighted); and worse, in the disjointed passing off of historical legacy from England to America in the finale (where we learn that the 20th century is America's, not England). Ick. Though I am not fickle about narrative fidelity, this kind of translation is disheartening, neglecting Moore and O'Neill's gender revisionist politics (so that Mina becomes the group leader) and transgressing against the whole point of the generational politics...

That's the part that's most insulting to me, reducing Mina from a strong leader (which was one of the comic's biggest point, the fact that she's a traumatized woman hunkering against turn-of-the-century British patriarch) to a sexpot vampire. What asshole came up with that change, and does he still have a penis that I can staple?

[Boner M]

Eden Lake.... [

Show Spoiler

WORST. LOOK-INTO-THE-CAMERA FINAL SHOT. EVER. x100000000000

]

Otherwise it's a very tense little flick, but the self-importance just kills the 'sploitation kicks.

[B-side]

I dug Eden Lake. Good indictment of the "eye for an eye" mentality.

[Winston*]

I didn't have a problem with the lack of visual panache in In The Loop. Serves the film tonally and thematically, what more do you want?

[Grouchy]

I didn't have a problem with the lack of visual panache in In The Loop. Serves the film tonally and thematically, what more do you want?

Agreed. It's not a movie about visuals.

Also agree with the praise for Jeffrey / Sandy scenes in Blue Velvet.

[Raiders]

I didn't have a problem with the lack of visual panache in In The Loop. Serves the film tonally and thematically, what more do you want?

I didn't have a problem so much as there was nothing to add any different layer to the film. It all rests on the screenplay and actors, which is fine as they are mostly top-notch.

[Rowland]

My Eden Lake thoughts from a year ago:

As these things go, it's well made, with deliberate camerawork, moody scoring by the ever-dependable David Julyan, harrowing performances, and a willingness to upend expectations by venturing into more brutal territories than you anticipate. This is all soured however by some really ugly politics, exploitating contemporary fears of the hoodlum culture gripping the UK in a manner that feigns sociological insight into the cyclical nature of ignorance, poverty, peer pressure, and violence as they pertain to the issue at hand, when it's really only playing this all for a blatantly patronizing "man that's fucked up" response, with more than a hint of reactionary class baiting. This may not have seemed as much the case if any of the characters' actions were faintly plausible, but instead every contrivance in the narrative is increasingly ludicrous in its convenience to writer/director Watkins' transparent shock tactics. By the final twist ending, I was on the one hand moderately impressed with the sheer hopelessness with which he infuses the final minutes, but what he appeared to be suggesting by it all coupled with the sheer ridiculousness of its coincidental logic was too much for me to take seriously, rendering the visceral impact severely muted. Watkins clearly evidences talent here, he just needs someone else to refine his material, and develop a more coherent sense of human empathy.

[BuffaloWilder]

Hey, you know who has really shitty taste in movies?

Tom Scharpling. And, I like WFMU, but damn dude.

[Boner M]

This is all soured however by some really ugly politics, exploitating contemporary fears of the hoodlum culture gripping the UK in a manner that feigns sociological insight into the cyclical nature of ignorance, poverty, peer pressure, and violence as they pertain to the issue at hand, when it's really only playing this all for a blatantly patronizing "man that's fucked up" response, with more than a hint of reactionary class baiting. This may not have seemed as much the case if any of the characters' actions were faintly plausible, but instead every contrivance in the narrative is increasingly ludicrous in its convenience to writer/director Watkins' transparent shock tactics.

Spot-on comments, especially this part. I 'spose shifting the blame to the deadbeat parents in the the final scenes does temper the anti-youth reactionary tone of the precedings, but it only emphasises the classism.

[BuffaloWilder]

You know what's been bugging me? The filmmakers of these two latter Bond films talking about how placing the characters in this new, contemporary society of unease ads a new dimension of moral ambiguity to the character and his world -

- I mean, what? That sense of moral ambiguity's always been at the heart of the Bond character, right beside the whole fantasy-aspect. Especially in Fleming's novels, but even in Sean Connery's films it's present implicitly. I like both of the newer movies, but c'mon guys.

[BuffaloWilder]

It pains me to admit that The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen does indeed suck. Beyond weak effects and mediocre characterization, it stumbles in its attempt to shoehorn in an American to a fundamentally British universe (largely to appeal to American consumers who would certainly feel alienated if they don't see their literary tradition highlighted); and worse, in the disjointed passing off of historical legacy from England to America in the finale (where we learn that the 20th century is America's, not England). Ick. Though I am not fickle about narrative fidelity, this kind of translation is disheartening, neglecting Moore and O'Neill's gender revisionist politics (so that Mina becomes the group leader) and transgressing against the whole point of the generational politics...

There was so much steampunky, pulpy, two-fisted goodness in the comic series - it's practically tailor-made for an imaginative filmmaker, and unlike most of Moore's works, it lends itself pretty well to cinematic translation.

If the director isn't Stephen Norrington. Then you get old, sweaty Sean Connery and that's just unpleasant to watch for everyone.

[Grouchy]

I saw South of the Border, Stone's documentary on Chávez and new left wing governments in South America. In strictly cinematical terms, I was a bit jarred by the camerawork - it felt needlessly weird and rambling for what's essentially a series of interviews. But in terms of content, the doc is priceless. I loved how it opened by showing us a string of US news reports filled with bigotry, chauvinism and outright lies regarding, mainly, Venezuela and Bolivia, culminating with the bunch of idiots who don't know the difference between coke and coca leaves. Infuriating stuff. The interviews are very short and to the point, but there are a couple of pearls here and there. I specially liked the interview with Lula because he said something truly challenging - three things he expected from Obama:

1. Stop the Cuban embargo.
2. Stop occupation of Middle East and pull troops away.
3. Invite Chávez to the United States.

[Grouchy]

I also rewatched Rope. Good movie, a little stiff. I didn't remember the homosexual subtext being so overt. You could even argue that Rupert (the teacher character) is also implied as gay, but if Hitch had really wanted to get that through, he should've picked some other actor instead of James Stewart.

[dreamdead]

I also rewatched Rope. Good movie, a little stiff. I didn't remember the homosexual subtext being so overt. You could even argue that Rupert (the teacher character) is also implied as gay, but if Hitch had really wanted to get that through, he should've picked some other actor instead of James Stewart.

He apparently wanted Cary Grant, who some NY critic recently suggested was gay, to play Rupert to make the whole thing even more overt. I didn't know that Grant was gay, though, so that was surprising to me... that, and Stewart is a better actor than Grant, even if neither could nor wanted to highlight that subtext.

[Skitch]

Cronenberg's eXistenZ...still awesome.

[Derek]

Cary Grant, who some NY critic recently suggested was gay

Are you joking or did you not know that he lived with Randolph Scott? Not exactly a recent discovery.

Cronenberg's eXistenZ...still awesome.

Yup, sure is.

[B-side]

Count me among those that did not know Grant was gay.

[Raiders]

Grant was technically bisexual, though some would say such a thing doesn't exist...

[Derek]

Hmm, I thought the Grant/Scott relationship was pretty well-known by know given all the pics out there:

[

Show Spoiler

]

[Spinal]

Count me among those who didn't know Jimmy Stewart was a better actor than Cary Grant.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Jimmy Stewart may be my favorite actor ever, although he didn't have the same charisma that Grant had.