28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[Qrazy]

Rescue Dawn is everything I expected from the Herzog/Bale team-up and a bit more. It made me want to watch the previous documentary Little Dieter Needs to Fly. Basically a story that praises human endurance and determination in the face of adversity, it features the traditional Herzog music to great effect. Bale is awesome in the role, and so is Steve Zahn going progressively insane from suffering. It can be called Herzog's first Hollywood movie, I guess - there's an instance of a CGI effect during the plane crash that I would've never expected on one of his films, what with the voodoo of location and all that.

I felt it was an above average film but was a little disappointing overall coming from Herzog. I too now want to see the original doc though.

[Sycophant]

If you want a stiff, feature-length, forced version of Curb Your Enthusiasm without the zaniness or, y'know, the funny--but with a extra doses of self-loathing and self-pity--then has I Want Someone to Eat Cheese With ever got something to offer you!

[Sven]

If you want a stiff, feature-length, forced version of Curb Your Enthusiasm without the zaniness or, y'know, the funny--but with a extra doses of self-loathing and self-pity--then has I Want Someone to Eat Cheese With ever got something to offer you!

Sounds like the most obnoxious movie of all time.

[Sycophant]

Sounds like the most obnoxious movie of all time.

I would go out of my way to keep you from watching it, my friend.

[Duncan]

Went to a screening of The Death of Mr. Lazarescu tonight. I dunno. It's very long. It's point was made very early on. The titular moment isn't very effective. The verité style isn't as nuanced as The Killing of a Chinese Bookie (apparently Puiu is compared to Cassavetes) or as compositionally interesting as its compatriot film 4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days. It is written well, though sometimes the doctors are outright caricatures. Apparently the writer was responsible for the dinner table scene in 4M, 3W, 2D which I thought was the weakest part of that film. I have no complaints about the acting though. Solid all around. So, yeah, fairly disappointing.

[Grouchy]

I felt it was an above average film but was a little disappointing overall coming from Herzog. I too now want to see the original doc though.

There is a lot of Herzogness on display, though, what with the laughing midget and the investigation of nature's horrors.

The Devil-Doll is one of the weirdest camp classics anyone's ever likely to find. Directed by Tod Browning with a cross-dressing central performance by Lionel Barrymore, it's about a prison fugitive on a revenge quest against fellow businessmen who framed him and ruined his family. On the trip he runs across a dying mad scientist aided by a scary woman named Malita, who has managed to reduce people to 1/6 their original size, so that overpopulation will never cause hunger. Of course, he steals the invention for his own purposes, and then dresses up as a granny just for the kicks. While the premise and most of the dialogue are completely ridiculous, the film is made in earnest, and features excellent special effects and very solid performances. What's more, Barrymore's plight is very dramatic and most of the screentime is spent in developing the character and his family. Worth a look.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay was uninspired mostly, save the character of Rob Corddry, whose obliviousness and ignorance produce most of the relatively scant laugh-out-loud moments in the picture.

[Ezee E]

Weekend movie thoughts:

Backdraft - The epitomy of style over substance. While the scenes with fire were pretty great, even by today's standards, the movie has one of the worst stories I've seen. Practically following the Syd Field standard (I don't think his books existed just yet), you can figure out what will happen within the first thirty minutes of the movie. It tops off with a Rocky-esque montage that is quite hilarious.

Werckmeister Harmonies - Also style over substance in my mind, but in the fashion of Alain Resnais. I couldn't help but think of Last Year At Marienbad (a movie I hate) while watching this. Captivating, but without care, and a little too into its own substance as Antoine's criticism of the shots being too long is absolutely correct.

[Boner M]

The social commentary in The Phenix City Story might be as blunt as it gets, but the film's still dynamite as a pulpy indictment of corruption and vigilanteism. I'd seen the infamous child murder scene previously on Martin Scorsese's Personal Journey Through the Movies, but it's even more hard-hitting in the film's context. Great stuff; should really get to Karlson's Kansas City Confidential sometime.

[balmakboor]

Weekend movie thoughts:

Backdraft - Practically following the Syd Field standard (I don't think his books existed just yet), you can figure out what will happen within the first thirty minutes of the movie.

Oh brother. It has become so fashionable to knock Syd Field lately. Yes, his books existed. Backdraft is from 1991. His book Screenplay came out in 1979. There is nothing wrong with what he says in his books. Nothing that inherently leads to weak or predictable stories. The same with Christopher Vogler. It is all in the application. If one follows the advice in their books slavishly and lazily like a template, then yes the script would be weak and obvious. Backdraft is a great example of this. Terrible terrible movie.

But I could go on and on listing movies that match their descriptions exactly that would paint an entirely different impression. Chinatown, Network, 12 Angry Men, Ordinary People, Raging Bull, Au revoir les enfants, 4M3W2D, The Lord of the Rings, 8 1/2, Ikiru, Forbidden Games, Dawn of the Dead, Casablanca, Citizen Kane, ... All of those as well as 1000s of other very good films can effortlessly be mapped to the Field and Vogler/Campbell paradigms. Hell, even Pulp Fiction does so. Vogler devoted a whole chapter to demonstrating this.

The difference between the great Field/Vogler-like films and the crappy ones isn't Field/Vogler. It's a crappy screenwriter. (And Ron Howard has managed to saddle himself with some of the crappiest.)

[D_Davis]

Oh brother. It has become so fashionable to knock Syd Field lately. Yes, his books existed. Backdraft is from 1991. His book Screenplay came out in 1979. There is nothing wrong with what he says in his books. Nothing that inherently leads to weak or predictable stories. The same with Christopher Vogler. It is all in the application. If one follows the advice in their books slavishly and lazily like a template, then yes the script would be weak and obvious. Backdraft is a great example of this. Terrible terrible movie.

But I could go on and on listing movies that match their descriptions exactly that would paint an entirely different impression. Chinatown, Network, 12 Angry Men, Ordinary People, Raging Bull, Au revoir les enfants, 4M3W2D, The Lord of the Rings, 8 1/2, Ikiru, Forbidden Games, Dawn of the Dead, Casablanca, Citizen Kane, ... All of those as well as 1000s of other very good films can effortlessly be mapped to the Field and Vogler/Campbell paradigms. Hell, even Pulp Fiction does so. Vogler devoted a whole chapter to demonstrating this.

The difference between the great Field/Vogler-like films and the crappy ones isn't Field/Vogler. It's a crappy screenwriter. (And Ron Howard has managed to saddle himself with some of the crappiest.)

Excellent! Well said.

As a huge admirer of both Field and Vogler, I totally agree.

[Winston*]

I'm becoming pretty sure the only reason I visit Slant with the regularity I do is that it has a nicer website design than the other film criticism sites.

[MacGuffin]

Werckmeister Harmonies - Also style over substance in my mind, but in the fashion of Alain Resnais. I couldn't help but think of Last Year At Marienbad (a movie I hate) while watching this. Captivating, but without care, and a little too into its own substance as Antoine's criticism of the shots being too long is absolutely correct.

This post makes no sense.

[Qrazy]

Werckmeister Harmonies - Also style over substance in my mind, but in the fashion of Alain Resnais. I couldn't help but think of Last Year At Marienbad (a movie I hate) while watching this. Captivating, but without care, and a little too into its own substance as Antoine's criticism of the shots being too long is absolutely correct.

There's a distinct difference between style over substance and style as substance. Now the style may irritate you (in both Resnais' and Tarr's cases) but that doesn't mean it's not substantitive.

Although the depth and clarity of substance are certainly up for debate in all cases you'll have to make more direct criticism of the substance in order to get any reasoned feedback.

[balmakboor]

I've never seen Last Year At Marienbad. I really should get on it. I've always been interested ever since reading about it in Bordwell's "Film Art" textbook.

[Qrazy]

I've never seen Last Year At Marienbad. I really should get on it. I've always been interested ever since reading about it in Bordwell's "Film Art" textbook.

It's pretty unique and brilliant... the only thing I couldn't stand was the score, it really grates on the nerves.

[balmakboor]

It's pretty unique and brilliant... the only thing I couldn't stand was the score, it really grates on the nerves.

Eh, I made it through Mick Jagger's score for Invocation of My Demon Brother. I can make it through anything.

[Doclop]

It's a brilliant way of showing the character's grasp on reality slipping. I do fully believe that he committed all the murders, but I think the details got muddled in his head as he lost more and more of his sanity.

I think my read on the psychological and social implications are similar to yours, however, I always think the never-ending discussion of what happened vs. what is imagined is fairly moot. There is no answer to that because that's not what's being addressed in the film. The escalating richness of fantasy is purely a storytelling device meant to strengthen the theme, not complicate the plot. It is what it is. Dream or reality is seemingly besides the point in my estimation.

[Doclop]

Man, I love having Starz On Demand.

They have The Proposition and the 3 hour Grindhouse cut on HD!

Hmmm. That really is cool, particularly about Grindhouse, as that's not available commercially at all, let alone in HD. Too bad only 1080i...

[Qrazy]

I think my read on the psychological and social implications are similar to yours, however, I always think the never-ending discussion of what happened vs. what is imagined is fairly moot. There is no answer to that because that's not what's being addressed in the film. The escalating richness of fantasy is purely a storytelling device meant to strengthen the theme, not complicate the plot. It is what it is. Dream or reality is seemingly besides the point in my estimation.

I don't see it as beside the point. It is a device but it's also essential to the story being told and is thematic relevant to the 'psychoticness' the character has lapsed into.

But yeah it's an open question and left an open question so arguing one way or the other is what's moot.

[Doclop]

I don't see it as beside the point. It is a device but it's also essential to the story being told and is thematic relevant to the 'psychoticness' the character has lapsed into.

But yeah it's an open question and left an open question so arguing one way or the other is what's moot.

Those scenes are thematically relevant, but I'm not sure how the perception that it is either a dream or reality even enters the equation as meaningful to begin with. Just because there are so many fantastic occurrences doesn't mean we must now question whether its basis is in reality as a means to a thematic end, feels a little like external preconceived notions are conflating the issue. Feeding a cat to an ATM is obviously not a realistic situation, but isn't the point that something so absurd could go unnoticed or unquestioned, not just that it is absurd or a fantasy to begin with? You say it's an open question, but I guess I'm just missing where it was even asked in the first place.

[Qrazy]

Those scenes are thematically relevant, but I'm not sure how the perception that it is either a dream or reality even enters the equation as meaningful to begin with. Just because there are so many fantastic occurrences doesn't mean we must now question whether its basis is in reality as a means to a thematic end, feels a little like external preconceived notions are conflating the issue. Feeding a cat to an ATM is obviously not a realistic situation, but isn't the point that something so absurd could go unnoticed or unquestioned, not just that it is absurd or a fantasy to begin with? You say it's an open question, but I guess I'm just missing where it was even asked in the first place.

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

It's left ambiguous whether or not what he's experiencing is dream or reality and to what degree it is dream and to what degree reality. This question is fairly apparent throughout the film as it is in many films in fact it's an open philosophical question in general... how much of what we perceive is 'real' and how much 'illusion'.

It's particularly thematically relevant here because we are experiencing the reality of a serial killer... or is he actually killing? It makes a difference for his state of mind and culpability of he's actually killing or if he just thinks/desires to kill. If he's actually killing and no one in society cares that's one thing... if he's just imagining these killings that's another thing... since the film allows for both possibilities to exist it therefore allows itself to communicate all the more (as a storytelling device as you point out) because it can comment both on th psychology of the character losing his grip on reality and the values of the society which will look the other way when white collar criminals prey on people of little to no 'social consequence'.

You're right that coming to a conclusion about the issue... is it dream or reality is impossible because the film (as it is with many films) consciously leaves the question open... but it's still a relevant and important question.

[SirNewt]

So should I just buy 'The Yakuza Papers" or should I be patient and watch them through Netflix?

[Stay Puft]

Has anybody seen The Man from Earth? Based on a screenplay that was, apparently, the last thing Jerome Bixby finished writing before he died. I could see this working much better as a short story. There's not much that strikes one as cinematic in a story about a small group people talking for two hours in a guy's living room, and sure enough the execution is fairly inconsistent anyways. Some of it is dialogue, which can get lame, but a lot of it is a mixed bag of performances, line delivery, and directing choices (right down to a terrible song for the closing credits).

However, I found it rather compelling as a conceptual work, as a simple narrative about a guy who begins spinning a story and captures an audience in the process, on the strength of his storytelling. The basic premise is that an academic professor decides to retire after ten years, and at an impromptu going away party, reveals to his colleagues that he is fourteen thousand years old. From there he begins telling his life story, and engages his audience in a bit of intellectual exercise, as they ponder the "what if" of a Cro-Magnon man who has survived to the present day, and by extension discuss science, philosophy, religion, human nature, etc. It captures everything I love about speculative fiction, and is indeed a celebration of the genre as such. I don't know if I like the ending, though (it's entirely predictable and almost lazy). But it's certainly worth a look for fans of speculative fiction.

[Qrazy]

So should I just buy 'The Yakuza Papers" or should I be patient and watch them through Netflix?

I've only seen the first one but based on that I recommend Netflix. I still want to see the rest but I wouldn't recommend a blind buy.