Printable View
I saw No Country for Old Men...I really did like that one. I will have to check out the other more serious or thriller type films. Didn't you see my post above yours? I guess my view of their work is divided; some I liked and some I didn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielBenoit
Ooops, I misread :redface:
Oh that's ok, Daniel, ....:lol: maybe you need reading glasses. So are the other ones you mentioned more on the serious side with some quirpiness? If so I would probably like them.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielBenoit
Oh yes, all of them are great. Omg, I forgot: Barton Fink! Big thumbs up to that one.
I'll chime in:
Raising Arizona--I saw it in the theater and loved it. This was a pretty new kind of film, at least to me way back then. Comedy about love for a stolen baby, with lots of bumbling shenanigans. And pretty arty editing, etc.
Ladykillers--I had read a lukewarm review or two, but tried it out because I love the Coen Bros., and had an absolutely fantastic time watching it. It is hard to judge Tom Hanks fairly after all of his accomplishments, and his mainstreamness seemed to make me less interested in his performance, but I never found reason to criticize the performance (I was maybe almost disappointed about that--that's just how I am when it comes to putting big-budget guys in a Coen Bros. film), and there was a lot of other great stuff going on, I thought.
Miller's Crossing--A gangster film without too much Coen-quirkiness. It had (for me) all the weighty family issues coated with cold-bloodedness that Scorsese films have made me expect from Mafia films, but did not resemble a Scorsese film in any way, not in performance, casting, set design, or any film technique my untrained eye could notice. I thought it worked well, but I can't say I remember it so well. I'd like to see it again.
The Man Who Wasn't There--I didn't get into this one. It was dark, and moody, and grim. I had little reason to smile, and some of it moved kind of slow, I thought. I wouldn't mind seeing it again, and I strongly suspect that a fan of this one could open my eyes to stuff I missed, and maybe change my opinion. Still, there was little joy or wackiness in this one, and plenty of discomfort, imho.
O Brother--I thought this was a great film! All I can say is that there were some unusual characters, but it never seemed like they were pointlessly unusual. The story went through some odd changes, but it never seemed pointlessly unusual. And the whole thing was offbeat, sometimes absurd, other times ridiculous in its old-time innocence and conservatism. But I was able to watch it without all the extremes and odd juxtapositions throwing me out of a pretty warm and lightly-wacky adventure story, subtly underlined by the quiet, soulful reverberations of eternal truths, kind enough to keep their distance.
The Big Lebowski--I won't say much about this one, just be ready for wackiness, EXTREME quotability, and a rather surprisingly explorable allegory for post-Vietnam U.S. But just forget I said that, it isn't important, really.
Speaking of Raising Arizona. . . .
Raising Arizona seems as if a camera was given to a twelve year old Orson Welles and was told to go crazy. This is an unbelievably skillful and well photographed film with endless eye-candy and camera moves that seem like circus tricks. This film is just exploding with Wellesian innovation and charm.
That is, with the camera at least.
Raising Arizona is probably the prime example of a director choosing stlye ocer substance. This is a suprisingly premature film from the Coen brothers, who made Blood Simple only two years ago, and Fargo ten years later, both of them masterpieces. This one, is an extemely well made dud. Nothing works in here except the camera. Everything is overdone to nauseating extremes, including the comedy. The screenplay is very messy, which can be quite poetic, but at the wrong times. Really, this film is like a seesaw: It has either moments of pure genius or flat-out embarresingly helpless ones.
It's a good thing that the Coens realized that they could both express their genius and be funny at the same time with Fargo, which is so beautifully subtle and smart. But hey, Raising Arizona was just a mistake. The Coens made Blood Simple before and Fargo after, along with many other greats to add to their collection. Every dog has it's day, and every dog has it's dud.
5/10
Just to clarify my comments about Raising Arizona--I had fallen asleep during Blood Simple while watching the newly-released VHS at a friend's house, but only because I was extremely tired. After that, my friends' love for the film made it impossible for me to watch it again from a fresh perspective.
Anyhow, I don't know when DanielBenoit saw Raising Arizona, but I thought Nick Cage was a pretty new and interesting face at the time. I can understand the see-saw type perspective, but I'll give the film an 8.
But Wild At Heart gets a 9, from me.
Yeah, I certainly wans't around at the time it was released, so I wouldn't understand the context in which it was released.Quote:
Originally Posted by billl
By the way, I hope I didn't offend anybody with my bad review of Raising Arizona :redface: :lol:
Well, I panicked about not having mentioned Blood Simple in my list of reviews. Maybe I'd have felt the same as you about Raising Arizona if I had gotten a good viewing of Blood Simple first.
I still haven't seen No Country, can't wait for the right time to check that one out...
The best of the Coen Brothers films is easily Fargo, though the only terrible movie they made I can think of is Intolerable Cruelty (Court-Room Romance? wtf?) or Burn After Reading.
500 Days of Summer - 7/10 - I wanted this to be a lot better. Some really good acting (on the part of Zooey Deschanel and her co-compadre) mixed with some very mediocre directing.
You didn't offend me, Daniel, but I liked the movie at the time I saw it - way back in the day, year it was released. I may hate it now; haven't seen it in ages, so I can't currently judge.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielBenoit
The Hurt Locker (2009) - 10/10 - It's easy to see why this is the best reviewed movie of the year, because it's simply the best movie of the year. This movie realizes the realities of war, without putting some sort of political or situational brush on any of the issues. The things that happen simply happen, and they have nothing to do with whether or not the soldiers want to be in war or not. War presents an escape. As is quoted in the opening lines of the movie "War is a drug." Brilliant in every possible way. Look for this in the Best Picture category of the Oscars in a couple months.
THe Kingdom of Heaven ( director's cut)
It was a good ( really good actually - if a little long especiall concidering adverts :sick:) film but the true story didn't need messing with and it would have been soooooo much better if they didnt add the needeless mush between Balian and Sibylla esp concidering in reality he was marrie...d to her sister. *grumble* *grumble* but all things concidered I think I have a new film for the favourites list. 9.5/10 :D
Australia. Hmm. I'd give the first hour 0/10 and then the rest probably a 7/10. Nicole Kidman earns a 1/10 for some terrible overacting, and on the whole it was much too long. I'm not sure what they were trying to achieve with this movie and I'm not sure they were either, and as a consequence it is very hit and miss. No Moulin Rouge.
Overall, I'd give it a 4/10.
8 1/2
Well, this being one of my three favorite films of all time, whenever it's on, I never hesitate for a revisit.
First of all, this is the greatest dedication to film ever made; it is a complete homage to art and life, and how art can save life. The subtitle of this film was The Beautiful Confusion and that is exactly what it is. Throughout the film we feel as if the camera and actors are participating in some sort of surrealistic ballet. This film was so many layers of depth, everything gravitating around it's centeral character, who is without a doubt the Hamlet of cinema, Marcello Materorini in the performance of his career, a director who suffers from writers block and muses upon nostaligic memories of his childhood as the whole world around him waits at his feet for his next film.
At one level, this is a meta-fictional film, with even a self-referencial title to tell so (Fellini had directed seven features and three shorts before this). It is obvious that the director, Guido is Fellini, and that Fellini; after making La Dolce Vita was suffering from writers block, having no idea where to go next, so he decided to make a film about his very own confusion, and crafted it into a beautiful character study of a man who shares every part of us.
It's not just that Guido is searching for inspiration, but he is searching for meaning, for purpose, to his seemingly artifical, confusing and yet orderly life. Nobody understands him obviously; the producer is constantly bugigng him, his intellectual co-writer is always taking philosophical jabs at him, he even sees a priest, who has nothing of use to say but that he can never find salvation outside of the Church. His wife loves him, but is fed up with his confusion and ambivilence as well. He tries to drift off into peaceful moments in which he can muse upon the ideal beauty, his nostaligic past or sexually charged dreams of the subconscious.
There are so many flawlessly directed scenes in this film, all of them handled with such imagination and surrealism, that one is reminded why Fellini is Fellini. Nobody can express the confusion and surreality of both waking and sleeping life than Fellini, not Lynch, not anybody. Fellini handle Guido with sentimentality, but transends any kind of sympathetic/unsympathetic standards, by self-consciously answering any critics and believing enough in himself that Guido represents everyone of us.
(might be some spoilers)
Never has more personal a film been made than 8 1/2, nor has a more joyful, confusing and surreal film ever been made. By the end, Fellini dives into the chaos that is life and gives Guido the most beautiful Hamletian epiphany, and the film ends with a baroque band of circus performers playing the flute, tuba and horn, to the dancing of everyone whom Guido has ever known in the chaos of his life.
10/10
JCVD -- or, Jean-Claude Van Damme -- very interesting film and VD does some quality acting. A slick and subtle villain who you wouldn't want to meet in a dark alley at night. A bit of Inside Man, F/X, and a film about film and filming. Worth seeing.
I have seen a lot of films lately but have not found the time to write them up in here. I hope to get to that eventually. But for now, here is one film I watched last night.
King of Hearts ~ Alan Bates ~ directed by Phillipe de Broca
I saw this great film years ago and when I discovered my library just purchased it, I checked it out for the weekend, thrilled that they had such good taste in films. I watched it two nights in a row. I love this film! It's both amusing and has a sweet poignancy to it; and a lot of social commentary on war - the futility of war and life in general. The closing line sums it all up...I won't give that one away - wonderful!
Basically, it's about a bumbling Scottish Private Plumpick, who is recruited (the General claims he's to be volunteered) to go into this quaint walled French village to disarm booms, rigged to the clock tower..a suicide mission for certain. He's a bird specialist, and tries to make the General realise this fact; that he knows nothing about ballistics...hahaha....thus the story begins. By the time he gets to the town, the town is evacuated; but the Germans have infiltrated; then they catch a glimpse of him walking through the streets in his kilt, with his birdcage in hand. A chase follows and he stashes the birds in some empty window well and takes off...he makes it to the gates of a lunatic asylum, into the building and finally all the way into a ward of very playful, eccentric mental patients. The men are playing cards and calling themselves by card related names; he quickly slips into a white coat, pretending to be one of them. When he announces to the German's that his name is the "King of Hearts" they leave (in fact, they run out in a flurry!), but the patients all exclaim with joy - "the King has finally arrived!" It's hilarious! He takes off again to retrieve his carrier pigeons, only to encounter the opposition, who knock him out accidentally; leaving him for dead. When he awakes he discovers the empty town has been taken over by the patients, these lovable eccentrics. They all dress in appropriate (or in some cases, 'inappropriate' costumes), which they find in the town..living out their individual fantasies. Now the real fun begins. No matter what he does, he cannot get through to the new town inhabitants, that he must disarm the weapons or they will all die. He can't find the weapons for one thing; the reason is made clear later on in the film. He's very frustrated, but he's becomes more and more involved and transformed by this happy carefree band of escapes.
The social commentary here is terrific. I won't tell anymore of the story, but I highly recommend it. Much of the film is in French, or German (with subtitles)...but there is some English, as well. I always find I am slow reading subtiles, so I watched the movie twice, as to absorb all the deeper meanings in the lines - great, clever script. I would say this is a true classic and deserves a 10/10.
On the back of the DVD it reads:
One of the most popular films of all times, plaiying continuously in some theatres for over five years, King of Hearts is a bright, lilting, whimsical, lyrical (Cue) comedy that cleverly satirizes the absurdity of war with a "message [that is] meaningful and entertaining" (Boxoffice).
Wow Janine you are very detailed! :D
The last movie I saw was last night with a friend of mine...All About Steve. It was a bit corny and sad but I really enjoyed it and the ending was good. 8/10
Hi grace, good to see you on Litnet again...been awhile...haha..well the movie I saw impressed me AND you know me - long-winded! I never learned to abreviate. I write just like I talk!Quote:
Originally Posted by grace86
All About Steve, hummm...I am not familar with that one. Who was in it? Is that title a play on words with the old film All About Eve? I just saw and reviewed that one recently on here. It starred an aging Betty Davis and was terrific.
I just saw Ice Age 3, and even though it's not as good as I hoped it would be, I had some laughs :) and one of my favorites was:
eddie: what's that sound?
buck: it's the wind, it's talking to us.
eddie: what does it say?
buck: I don't know. I don't speak Wind.
Der Tunnel (The Tunnel) or some such German title. Well-done serious film, about West vs. East Berlin, with touches of wit as well as sadness. 2 hrs. 40 minutes, so have time on your hands. Not a happy-go-lucky film. Serious history. The bad East German inspector is effective and subtle.
Blue Velvet - It's amazing how David Lynch can take something which seems to have been done a number of times, and craft it into something so entirely his own, that the influences almost seem to disappear. He creates simulacrum
Blue Velvet remains today Lynch's most powerful film (next to Mulholland Drive and his short film Grandmother) and certainly his most nostalgic; and though it may not be him at the height of his independent powers (much of this film is influenced by Hitchcock, with an almost blatantly Hitchockian climax), it is still in a very messy way, a masterpiece. It opens with a shot of roses, blowing in the spring wind, a surreal slow-motion shot of a friendly fireman waving at the camera, schoolchildren crossing the street. Lynch's pseudo-setting of Lumberton seems to exist in such a timeless and warm place, that we can only assume that all time and culture stopped in the 50's, hell, it's even filmed with the campy humour of a 50's flick.
Blue Velvet completely reflects Lynch's love of movies, especially Hitchcock and his weird juxtapositions, as well as his nostalgia for innocence. It can be seen in almost all of his films; Wild at Heart dances between the lines of a violent manhunt, an erotic Elvis-like love story, and an obvious homage to The Wizard of Oz all at once. Muholland Drive graciously floated between a parody on Hollywood and Nancy Drew, and a truly nightmarish dream and lesbian love story.
Compared with all of Lynch's other works, before and after Blue Velvet, it is moderately tame in its weirdness, but no less shocking. It is a story of maturity, as its main character Jeffery, who is such a good college-boy with not a dirty thought in his mind, who comes up with the idea of playing Mr. Detective and breaking into the apartment of a women who might be involved in the mystery of a severed ear that he found in the forest, without giving any second thoughts to other implications of his idea.
It's amazing how Lynch fiddles with the subconscious, of both the audience and his characters (learning from only the best; Hitchcock). It's quite interesting how Jeffery's attitude towards his plan is before he sneaks in, and after. Before, he takes it as if he is self-consciously in some detective film and Sandy (a highschool blonde who has all of the attributes of any 1950's movie cliches) being his accomplice. But once he arrives at Dorothy's empty apartment, and a series of circumstances leads to Jeffery hiding in a closet, he unwittingly watches her get undressed and then raped. Watch his eyes throughout the scene, they almost seem like a replication of the shot of Norman Bates, vouyeristically peering though a hole in the wall to watch one of his unsuspecting vacator’s get undressed.
It's about time that I get to the other world which inhabits Blue Velvet; a world completely pitted against the campy world of Lumbertown. The world of Dorothy's apartment, (all of these scenes, which interestingly take place at night) is one of victimization, sadomaschism and sexual violence. The two performances which are embraced in this world are Isabella Rossilini as Dorothy (in what is probably her most powerful performance) and her victimizer and rapist, Dennis Hopper as Frank Booth, who is undoubtedly one of the most sadistic and intense villians in the history of cinema. His terrifyingly intense yelling of the word "****" in every sentnece is greatly contrasted with Sandy's dreams of love, birds and angels.
Not enough can be said of Rossinlini's performance, which is so painful and powerful that we feel for her even before we even know who she is. What has happened, is that her husbund and son have been kidnapped by Frank Booth, and the only way she can get them back, is if she becomes his slave. It's so painful and strange to see how masochistic she is in a scene in which she is having violence inflicted upon her; it is one of the most shocking psychological devices in cinema representing the loss of innocence.
What Blue Velvet really seems to be about is how the mystery of a severed ear leads the eyes of the audience; Jeffery, to the haunting underworld of his very own hometown. But it's so much more than that: It's a story of the underlying evil lurking underneath everything beautiful and innocent in the world, and despite the fact that this evil may be defeated, innocence cannot be regained.
Blue Velvet is an extremely well-made movie with some moments of true genius (the Candy-Colored Clown scene for example), but then these great scenes are juxtaposed with some slightly mediocre scenes, which are quite difficult to accept on first viewing (such as Sandy’s melodramatic recollection of her dream of heaven), but then become appropriate after becoming familiar with Lynch’s other work. The reason why his juxtapositions are so extreme; why he combines blatantly campy satirical daytime scenes with scenes of the nocturnal horrors of the night; a time in which the id goes wild, is because it necessitates Lynch’s philosophy. In all of his films he seems to see a duality in the world; the beautiful, angelic, child-like and innocent and the violent, grotesque and strange. Much of this certainly seems to be rooted in his experience of Philadelphia as a young man and how he discovered the dark, absurd side of human nature. Many of his films are concerned with this discovery one way or another; Blue Velvet is about this discovery, oh and how beautifully nightmarish it is.
9/10
Through a Glass Darky - This film is one of the greatest religious films ever made, and the reason why this is so is not because it is filled with angels and demons, but because it deals with real humans on a human level, existing within the absurdity of the human condition. This absurdity and despair is something Bergman admits in all of his films, but in the tradition of Kierkegaard, he still finds a place for God.
The title is a quote from Corinthians (Swedish translation) which said that our understanding of God will only be as clear as "through a glass darkly" and will only be clear once we die. What Bergman is so fascinated by, is how we as humans are able to survive without this kind of knowledge.
The story is quite simple really; it makes place entirely on an island, with only four characters (what would be known as a chamber film), and basically concerns the return of a schizephrenic young women to her family, after being released from an asylum, and the interactions between the four; the father (guilty because he rarely spends time with his son and daughter), the schizephrenic women's husband and the father's son.
This is such a quiet and beautiful movie, with very little action taking place and mostly consisting of long dialouges and silent human moments. Take for example around the begining, when the son has just put on a play for his father; the father recognizing the undertones concerning the son's fustration with his negligence and choosing of work over family, silently gets up and goes back into the house in which he mournfully stands at the window and silently weeps. Bergman doesn't try to pump up this moment with melodramatic music or cutting, but instead just leaves the camera where it is and lets it speak for itself. The father then comes back out and acts like nothing ever happened.
Eventually the daughter's schizephrenia begins to come back and tragedy occurs. Not tragedy in any sort of traditional or conventional way, nobody dies, nothing physically tragic occurs; it's just the tragedy of human experience, as if watching some mentally-ill person throw a fit on the floor (which is what happens).
This film has so many good speeches, and not speeches on any sort of epic philosophical idea, but just personal soliloqueys concerning each person's life, which then in part, silently consitute a bigger whole. Take for example the daughter's soliloquey at the climax of the film concerning God and a spider. It is so powerfully and yet subtly done, with such poetry, that it has to be one of the greatest speeches in all of cinema, and really hits home what Bergman's metaphor is saying.
I must say, that of all the great directors of the human experience, Bergman is the best; yes Fellini is great at capturing the induvidual and the confusion of society, but Bergman is the only one who can make statements about the human condition in such a silent and subtle way, like the waves which softly curl up upon the shores at the begining and end of the film.
10/10
Section 9. Moments before going to see this I called my plumber friend about another matter and he told me not to go see this movie- he'd seen it the night before and did not like it. But hey, I had time to myself (without any feminine influence), and desperately needed the scifi cortex of my brain to receive some serious stimulation.
What I got was gritty, dirty ugliness that allowed surprising glimmers of insight into how we behave toward the Other. This is one of science fiction's greatest advantages: to be able to create a landscape at the edge of possibility and people it with characters, then turn a mirror on us and ask what would we do, and how would we feel about it?
The offbeat premise in Section 9 is that when we finally confront another technological life form, they are not more advanced in an individual sense (like the Vulcans or the Newcomers from Alien Nation) but more like us, their insectoid appearance notwithstanding. They know familial love, and honor, and grief. They are beggars on our planet, put in concentration camps and clandestinely used in government medical experiments. The film location of Soweto, near Johannesberg, South Africa is perfectly suited for this story, and a powerful part of the mirror that it holds up.
I must respectfully disagree with my plumber, because I liked this movie quite a lot. My scifi cortex was duly stimulated, and I walked out into the humid afternoon with even more fodder for the dreams I need to make sense of this world. 7/10
Rachel Getting Married
I didn't really enjoy this. I do enjoy 'arty' films, but this seemed to try too hard... The hand held cameras presumably used to create a different atmosphere just made me feel a little nauseous, and reminded me of a dodgy home video.
The acting was reasonable, Anne Hathaway played a very different character to usual - though I prefer her in other films. Several scenes stretched on way too long, including the wedding speeches and taking turns packing the dishwasher - which were equally boring.
Overall probably only 5/10 - I won't watch this again :p
Lost Highway - Okay, one thing is for sure about David Lynch's Lost Highway, you probably will never see another film like it. It is, in my opinion, Lynch's darkest, certainly his coldest leaving the audience with little empathy for any of the characters, except maybe young Jimmy.
Okay, this is one of the most underrated films of the 90's, but it does possess something that the critics in 1997 were right about, it is an excersise in style, though that doesn't mean that it's an empty film.
It has a masterful begining, with extremely shadowy neo-noir lighting (hell, I whole film has some of the best cinematography of any Lynch film), it also has the most effective moments: Those involving encounters with the incredibly creepy Mystery Man. Basically what Lost Highway is about, it identity, with a Lynchian twist with the metaphyiscs of Twin Peaks.
It begins with the couple Fred (who is a saxaphonist) and Renee (who plays two parts in this film), their marriage is cold and empty. One day a video-tape is left on their doorstep. They watch it to discover that it is a videotape of themselves alseep in bed! They call the police "somebody filmed us, while we slept" and before you know it, Fred is acussed of murdering his wife in a very effective sequence.
The fragmentary nature of this film is wonderful, and it possess, like most of Lynch's films, moments of true greatness, as well as ones of medicrity. The very best scene in the film occurs at a party in which Fred has a surreal encounter with the Mystery Man who gives him some information that is utterly mind-bogglingly surreal and creepy, and would probably have impressed Hitchcock. As for the medicore scenes; they are rather the techniques used, for example; one in which there is a POV shot, then with editting effects Lynch pauses the motion for a second and creates a jumbling shaky effect, as if the perciever is losing touch with reality. I have encountered this technique in two of his films; in this one, and in Muholland Drive. In the latter it, it comes at a point of sexual fustration and jealousy for one of the characters, and is infitiley effective, and just perfectly illustrates the character's POV, as a matter of fact, it may be one of the best shots in the entire film. But here in Lost Highway, it is used with haste and feels empty and meaningless.
Well, in the end, if you are looking for an expereince, you will find it here. It is as dream-like and surreal as Eraserhead, Muholland Drive and Inland Empire, and it will certainly cause confusion and terror, and yet, despite it's flawless cinematography and talented (though at times hasty) directing, it leaves the viewer with little impact except the question "what was that I just saw?" Now of course the reason we watch Lynch is to get that effect, but at least we can say it in the case of his other films to some purpose.
7/10
I completely disagree. I found this movie to be pretty amazing, honestly. The dishwasher scene provided a bit of dry humor. I suggest you watch it from another perspective.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jazz_
That being said:
Dial M For Murder - 10/10 - I cannot find the words to describe how perfect this movie is. Certainly my favorite of Grace Kelly's films (who is present in my avatar from another Hitchcock film, To Catch A Thief). This is Hitchcock genius, second only to Ingrid Bergman and Cary Grant in Hitchcock's "Notorious". This movie contains a lot of uncomfortable things, as an ex tennis pro designs the "perfect murder" to kill his wife. This one leaves you thinking until the very end.
EDIT: And Benoit, your review did not save my feelings on that movie being more than imperfect, and far from a masterpiece. You yourself said at the very end that there is very little to be found in that movie. As a musician I record lots of things that are interesting or sound cool but are far from complete, little exercises in style. That does not make those things good. This does not discount Lynch's superiority as a director, but Lost Highway is a load of crud, from my humble opinion. 6/10. Compare to any of his other films and you find you've wasted a lot less time.
Wow, Mathor, just saw it the other night. I totally agree. I have seen it many times before but finally bought the DVD for my H collection. It is so well done and I love watching the Special Features, as well; I always do. By the way, I love Notorious...I watched that a few months back - third viewing now. Both are a 10/10 undoubtably. Both actresses are A1 in my opinion!Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathor
Brief Interviews with Hideous Men: as an interpretation it has its virtues, but as an adaption it it horrid. John "Tuna" Krasinski had some interesting visuals choices and the editing was impressive, but the score was a cliche and the framing device made a lot of the interviews a contrivance. The essence of the book is lost by the visualization of the interviewee and interviewer. The cast is off, because Krasinski stayed true to the monologues but didn't take linguistics (something David Foster Wallace was very conscious of) into account and the characters that the idioms, and the like, suggest doesn't correspond with what's on screen.
I liked the beginning, but I think Lynch fully realizes the structure and idea (though a variation) in Muholland Drive.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielBenoit
I watched "Vertigo" last night (at the theater :nod:) 10/10
At the theater :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by manolia
Vertgo. . .. on the big-screen!!!
I am officially the most envious person in the world for today.
I saw X-Men 2 the other night on DVD. It was everything that movies can aspire to: light characters & a light plot, lightly tied together with an over-dependence on the audience to graciously fill in the holes in the story-line. Oh yes, and it had some kicka. . ., er, awesome action sequences.
As movies go, this film deserves 10/10 adamantite claws.
I watched The Boondock Saints again... I do love that one... I am addicted to IMDB.com so I checked it out there and saw that there is a movie number 2.... sounds intriguing...
Hehehehe :)Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielBenoit
Last year i watched rear window :D
"Zombieland", 10/10. So. Awesome.
Where on earth did you get to see these classics, ON THE BIG SCREEN! :eek2:Quote:
Originally Posted by manolia
live in NYC, Chicago, L.A, or Toronto, there are classic film festivals and classic film theaters!Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielBenoit
There are a few movie clubs here, the one i am a member of rents a theater once a week :nod: They have both old and new films (but i pick the old ones most of the time).Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielBenoit
Wow, where I live they're non-existent. You sure are lucky. It's been years since I saw a film on a big screen; mainly because I prefer older films, too. I wanted to see something last year but in no time flat it had disappeared from the theaters. That was unfortunate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathor
:wave: Hi manolia, I am like you. Mostly I take out the older films from my library. I am glad they have a lot of those available and if they don't, I can always request one and they will find it in the county collection. Might take time; but hey, it's free rental, so I don't mind waiting.
Last night I watched Shrink, a newer movie (2009) starring Kevin Spacey, who never fails as a fantastic actor, whether on screen or stage, and one of the few films of, a name I had to research, Jonas Pate; Thomas Moffett, another unfamiliar name I looked into, wrote the screenplay.
Despite Spacey seeming the only prominent name in eyesight, other than cameo appearances from Robin Williams and Gore Vidal, this film had many twists and turns, an astoundingly complex plot composed of few main characters with extraordinarily precise, careful directing of the sensitive subjects of psychotherapy/psychiatry, substance abuse, mental illness, death, and struggles with adolescence. Each character has his/her bright and shining moment, and, though the first half of the roughly 100-minute film has a few slow and vague parts, everything comes together smoothly and beautifully like a once-shattered vase, pieced back together like new, full of "ooohs" and "aaahs" in the surprise ending.
The talent, obvious hard work, and definitude placed into what seems regarded as a mostly "no-name" film really surprised me, and I intend upon watching it again before returning it to the video store to admire again its solidarity of writing/directing and remarkable acting.
Rating: 10/10