28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[baby doll]

Hey, can anyone who's seen Alonso's Liverpool tell me - how much dialogue is there in the film? And how essential are English subtitles for the experience? I ask because I ordered a French boxset of his 4 features and Liverpool is the only one without English subs.

It's been two years, but I mostly remember there being a lot of scenes of the guy getting drunk and passing out, so you could probably watch it without subtitles and still get the gist of it. How's your Spanish?

[baby doll]

As for Altman...

1. McCabe & Mrs. Miller (1971)
2. Gosford Park (2001)
3. The Long Goodbye (1973)
4. California Split (1974)
5. 3 Women (1977)
6. Popeye (1980)
7. A Prairie Home Companion (2006)

I need to take another look at Brewster McCloud and Nashville, and I've never seen Images.

[MadMan]

Altman:

1. Nashville-100
2. The Long Goodbye-95

That's it. He's one of those directors who I'm sure is great, but I just haven't gotten around to for some reason.

[dreamdead]

Well, thanks to a graduate class I'm taking, I can finally say that I've seen a film worse than Leap Year or The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. I'm No Angel, starring Mae West, now takes center stage as the worst film that I've sat through. Her entire persona is artificial, the script is beyond godawful, and the filmic dynamics foster nothing interesting. Just a horrible waste.

[balmakboor]

Well, thanks to a graduate class I'm taking, I can finally say that I've seen a film worse than Leap Year or The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. I'm No Angel, starring Mae West, now takes center stage as the worst film that I've sat through. Her entire persona is artificial, the script is beyond godawful, and the filmic dynamics foster nothing interesting. Just a horrible waste.

The worst film you've ever sat through gets a 2. Are you still holding out for the worstest film you've ever sat through to appear some day?

[soitgoes...]

Well, thanks to a graduate class I'm taking, I can finally say that I've seen a film worse than Leap Year or The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. I'm No Angel, starring Mae West, now takes center stage as the worst film that I've sat through. Her entire persona is artificial, the script is beyond godawful, and the filmic dynamics foster nothing interesting. Just a horrible waste.

She Done Him Wrong is the only Mae West film I've seen, and it's awful as well.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Evidently I stand alone in my Altman indifference. Too glib and condescending to his characters. I prefer my movies madly serious and wrapped up in their characters to the point of incoherence.

I can sort of get on board with this. I'm not a huge fan either, but Secret Honour really does sound pretty amazing and I started thinking that I should get around to giving him a closer look one of these days anyways. As for his glibness and condescension, don't you like the Coen Brothers? Glibness doesn't really bother me, but what prevents Altman's elevation to the realm of greatness (for me, at least) is his adherence to realism and 'slice-of-life' narratives which isn't the most interesting of aesthetics to me. I prefer Cassavetes (to name one example) who has a similar style but often relies on histrionics and pulpiness and dudes like Peter Falk and the Gazzara. Altman is still pretty formally impressive though.

I recommend you check out California Split, though. It has a lot of Elliot Gould doing his Gould-en shtick and George Segal is one of those guys who is always pretty great in everything, I think. Just a really touching and funny movie about very good friends who happen to be total losers.

[transmogrifier]

Altman:

1. Nashville-100
2. The Long Goodbye-95

That's it. He's one of those directors who I'm sure is great, but I just haven't gotten around to for some reason.

So lucky - you get to watch all his films for the first time.

[transmogrifier]

Any time someone bad mouths Altman, a future Denis Dugan is born.

[megladon8]

Altman is a filmmaker who has grown in esteem with me over time.

When I first started posting at RT, I watched a few of his films and just didn't "get it". I was 14, had yet to even really attempt watching many foreign films, and was still very immature in all ways.

Now I have utmost respect for him, and I really want to see more of his work as I've only seen three or four of his films.

I find The Long Goodbye fascinating, and I quite like Gosford Park as well, turning the Agatha Christie murder mystery diagram on its head.

[StanleyK]

Au Hasard Balthazar was so much better than all the previous Bressons, it's not even funny.

[Mysterious Dude]

So lucky - you get to watch all his films for the first time.

Can someone explain to me why people say this? I mean, didn't you get to watch all his films for the first time? What makes him more lucky than you are?

[Boner M]

I prefer Cassavetes (to name one example) who has a similar style but often relies on histrionics and pulpiness and dudes like Peter Falk and the Gazzara.

Cassavetes = pulpiness? Wha?

[B-side]

Au Hasard Balthazar was so much better than all the previous Bressons, it's not even funny.

You seen L'argent yet? That one's probably my favorite of his so far.

[transmogrifier]

Can someone explain to me why people say this? I mean, didn't you get to watch all his films for the first time? What makes him more lucky than you are?

We say this as a means to sound appreciation for the filmmaker in question. It refers to the exquisite feeling of discovery and emotional satisfaction garnered from the initial viewing of a top-quality film. By implying that we wish to watch the films again for the first time, others can infer that these films indeed contain the qualities mentioned above. By stating this for a filmmaker's entire filmography, it gives the impression that he has produced several worthy films, and is can thusly be referred to as a "good" director.

Synonyms include:
Altman is a good director.
Altman makes good films.
Altman shows a fine sense of cinematic craft.
If God was a director, He would take lessons from Altman.
Altman roxx LOL IMHO!
Altman is a muthafucking master, muthafuckers!
Altman sucks my balls*



*disputed

[Spaceman Spiff]

Cassavetes = pulpiness? Wha?

I was thinking specifically about Killing of a Chinese Bookie there. Maybe scuzzyness is more a propos? I prefer the scuzzyness, and luridness, and jazzyness and pulp of that movie over Altman's less boozed-out noir (which is actually my favorite of his).

[Melville]

As for his glibness and condescension, don't you like the Coen Brothers? Glibness doesn't really bother me, but what prevents Altman's elevation to the realm of greatness (for me, at least) is his adherence to realism and 'slice-of-life' narratives which isn't the most interesting of aesthetics to me.

But their glibness is within the context of a darkly humorous exploration of absurdity, a dark humor and absurdity that's wonderfully captured in their strongly defined style of dialogue, visuals, and music. And their films have a strong appreciation for people doing their seemingly ridiculous things, especially in Fargo's picture of heroism and The Big Lebowski's ode to bowling and taking it easy for all us sinners. Altman doesn't have a style I find interesting, and his films generally feel tepid and bemused.

I prefer Cassavetes (to name one example) who has a similar style but often relies on histrionics and pulpiness and dudes like Peter Falk and the Gazzara. Altman is still pretty formally impressive though.

Cassavetes is good stuff: more immediate and raw, both emotionally and aesthetically. The Falk factor certainly helps.

I recommend you check out California Split, though.

Yeah, I've wanted to see that one since it was on Duncan's top 100.

[Boner M]

Maybe scuzzyness is more a propos? I prefer the scuzzyness, and luridness, and jazzyness and pulp of that movie over Altman's less boozed-out noir (which is actually my favorite of his).

We have a winner.

[Spaceman Spiff]

I'm just a really big fan of sleaze, is essentially what I'm getting at.

[StanleyK]

You seen L'argent yet? That one's probably my favorite of his so far.

Not yet; as I'm going through his filmography in order, it will be my last.

[Melville]

I'm just a really big fan of sleaze, is essentially what I'm getting at.

Have you seen A Serbian Film? Pretty lame, but sleazy.
EDIT: I guess it's just the content that's sleazy. The style is mundane.

[StanleyK]

On Altman:

MASH - **
Nashville - ****
Dr. T and the Women - *
Gosford Park - ****

I have also seen (and wasn't a big fan of, but I think that could change) A Wedding, The Player, The Company and A Prairie Home Companion.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Have you seen A Serbian Film? Pretty lame, but sleazy.
EDIT: I guess it's just the content that's sleazy. The style is mundane.

Well I'm not into Balkan sleaze.

[StanleyK]

Can someone explain to me why people say this? I mean, didn't you get to watch all his films for the first time? What makes him more lucky than you are?

Personally I prefer revisiting films. Great movies yield more the more you already know about them.

[Derek]

And that is that.

You miss the point. Sven loves everything Altman, so his star rating is a given. The fact that he prefers 19 Altman films to Images is not.

Hey, can anyone who's seen Alonso's Liverpool tell me - how much dialogue is there in the film? And how essential are English subtitles for the experience? I ask because I ordered a French boxset of his 4 features and Liverpool is the only one without English subs.

It would help, but you could get by without them.

Au Hasard Balthazar was so much better than all the previous Bressons, it's not even funny.

It's so much better than 99.9% of all other films.