Printable View
Gilliatt, thanks for that writeup - it's really witty and fun. I think I saw this film once, too...total camp...it's funny as heck. I love your rating system. I have actually never seen "Night of the Living Dead"...wonder if Youtube has it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilliatt Gurgle
Corpse Bride by Tim Burton- 9 stars.
XOXO
I've been watching plays on DVD this week, since I bought a boxes set of Chekhov by the BBC....well worth the money and contains a lot of plays and some radio plays and narrated short stories, as well. I was lucky to spot it onsale on Amazon.
So far I have watched two productions of "The Cherry Orchard" - both with Judi Dench...early one is b/w TV production and Judi (much younger) plays the daughter; second side is the older production, where she plays the mother. Both were very good; but I particularly liked the second. I might add, the first one, the mother is played by Peggy Ashcroft, a fine actress. Many noted stars appear in this production such as John Gielgud, Ian Holm (very young), Anton Lesser, Timothy Spall (also young), etc.
Two night ago I watched "The Seagull" and found that to be very good and quite complex; the characters are quirpy and interesting; story relies more on character development and relationships than on any set plot. It starred Anthony Gates, Michael Gambon, Stephen Rea, to name a few.
The flip side of the DVD was the production of "An Artist's Story" taken and adapted by Chekhov from one of his short stories. I find now I have the desire to read that story. It starred a much younger Patrick Stewart as the brooding artist.
Way too shallow. It assumes that all filmmakers approach a project the same, but the fact is that the film is the thing and production information is outside of it. People may look at the chair wrestler and the racist teens and think that this is what Korine thinks of the Midwest, but that was real. It's in the film, because it exist and not because Korine wrote it. I love this film.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielBenoit
Saw the newest Harry Potter -- pretty dumb and hard to follow, like most movies. 4/10
500 Days of Summer
This movie is hard to rate, because I liked and disliked things that ran throughout it.
I enjoyed it overall. There is a mixture of honest moments and characters and movieness and genre stock. I liked the soundtrack, but was unenthusiastic about the score. The narrative and it's mosaic style is refreshing for a Hollywood picture (it's nothing new if you a familiar with French cinema), but the glossiness of the picture always distracted me; one could argue that it reflects Tom's job, but ... eh. lol
Avatar.
The visuals were pretty nice. Too bad you can't say the same for the plot.
4/10
All of those movies are pretty fantastic. And Up In The Air was my number 1 favorite movie of 2009.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynne50
I had been meaning to order and Gandhi for nearly a year previously to last week. I must say that I was pretty much impressed throughout the entire film, what a marvellous epic work! The DVD had lots of interesting extras on too (5 hours) which is always a bonus. I'd certainly recommend the film to anyone like me who hadn't seen this film before.
I think I am going to watch Kundun tonight, which is a story of the Dalai Lama's life by Martin Scorsese, it looks like it might be OK.
Neely, I loved that movie when it was first released. I actually believe I saw that one in the theater. It was wonderful. The acting superb. Do you recall who directed it? I can't myself...failing old age memory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neely
I like Martin Scorsese. I was just going to list two films I saw recently; he commentated on the DVD for both of them. He's a big fan of The Archers.
Here's what I watched, these two Michael Powell movies:
A Matter of Life and Death (Stairway to Heaven; US original release)
I can't say enough for this wonderful old film. It's quite different than anything I have seen before; very clever cutting and innovative technigues for the time. I saw some clips on Youtube and it made me want to see the film in it's entirity. It has this surreal scene of a stairway (escalator) leading slowly up to heaven. The DVD was marvelous, in that it was fully retored and the print vibrant and beautiful. The reality scenes are shot in vivid technicolor and the ocean scenes are stunning. The dream sequence or heaven sequence is shot in lighter tons of gray, b/w, which creates a luminous quality. One other cool scene stands out to me, of a ceiling of circles, which from the angle shot, looks like ovals and are very surrealistic. These parts reminded me of the Dali sequence in "Spellbound'...some parts actually remind me of "The Wizzard of Oz". The acting is a little melodramatic at times; but within standards of the day. I liked all the acting and thought the casting excellent and the actors top-notch. It stars David Niven, Kim Hunter. The script is witty and more meaningful than one first perceives. There is more here than meets the eye on first viewing. The more I thought about the film and the concept, the more possibilities I came up with. The film is actually based on a true story, in which an airman abandons his burning plane with no parachute, falls into the sea; and survives the fall; which is truly amazing. I won't give away anymore. That part is the beginning and there a lot more to come. I would rate this film highly and applaud the film-makers for coming up, at the time, with something entirely original; or so I believe it to be.
The Age of Constent
This is a later Powell film and I thought I might not like it as much but I was pleasantly surprised. I loved it! It stars Helen Mirren in her very first film role...she was wonderful. It also stars James Mason, who I have always thought a very fine actor. I don't have time to write fully write up the storyline; but it's shot in Queensland, Australia and it's stunningly beautiful. I think part is shot on an island of the coastline...very secluded and natural. Cora (Mirren) is a young girl who lives with an achohlic and abusive grandmother; James Mason comes there to the area thinking it's totally unihabited; he's an artist and looking to renew his inspiration in painting. Cora is saving as much money as she can to get away from the island and Mason (Brad) is happy finally to find a deserted place away from civilization and the critical art community. Of course, quicky he discovers to his grief that he is far from alone in this remote area of the world. Of course you can guess the read; their paths keep crossing and Cora eventually models for him; he is very kind and sweet and truly wants to pay her and help her to he goal. Of course, Cora is quite beautiful in a natural way. She is not the picture-perfect beauty one sees in magazines of today. She's actually a little overweight in the hip, bottom, upper leg area of her body.
There is a lot of comedy in this film, which I didn't expect. Brad's little dog is adorable and so funny; one scene has him slipping back into his collar when Brad returns to his ramshackle shack on the beach...that dog deserved an Academy Award! Another scene that really cracked me up was when they arrived on the island in a small outboard motor boat and the dog looked completely thrilled on the journey; but once there, when the transporter pulls away from the dock, he is whimmering on the edge, like he's begging the guy not to leave him in this God-forsaken wilderness.
I would definitely see this film many times over. It was a lot of fun and very touching as well. Being an artist myself, I think I very much appreciated how Brad felt. I would say it's a rare old gem and worth watching many times over. The supporting cast are really zany and funny. Seems this remote location has a few too many residents for Brad's comfort zone.
I got this entire set on Amazon for a very reasonable price. It was released and offered recently; I treated myself to some movie sets for Christmas.
I love the films of Powell and Pressburger! "The Red Shoes" is one of my alltime favorite films. A side note: Scorcess has a collection of memorabilia from the production. I saw it on my DVD features and it is very impressive; he adores the film! Hey, he has good taste in films!
Yes Richard Attenborough. It was his obsession taking him 20 odd years to make. It almost took him to breaking point and bankruptcy, and although he won eight Oscars for it and gained worldwide recognition, he never made a penny out of the film himself.Quote:
Neely, I loved that movie when it was first released. I actually believe I saw that one in the theater. It was wonderful. The acting superb. Do you recall who directed it? I can't myself...failing old age memory.
I like Martin Scorsese. I was just going to list two films I saw recently; he commentated on the DVD for both of them. He's a big fan of The Archers.
Kundun was poor.
[QUOTE]Quote:
Originally Posted by Neely
That's interesting. I like background stories - 20 odd years is a long time to remain dedicated to one project - he had to be obsessed!
Quote:
Kundun
Was just reading about this film on Wikipedia. You might like to check out what they said. Oddly enough, it was nominated for four Academy Awards: for Art Direction (Dante Ferretti, art direction and Francesca Lo Schiavo, set decoration), Cinematography (Roger Deakins), Costume Design, and Original Score (Philip Glass). I think I would still be interested to see it considering that..they said the cinematography was beautiful and the score great. I don't know if it won any. The plot sounds a bit familiar but I might be thinking of another film similar to this one.Quote:
was poor.
Moving right along....
Tonight I watched:
Bringing Up Baby ~ Katherine Hepburn and Cary Grant
It's a screwball comedy, a little slapstick at times; but very witty and funny, too. The script and key lines were great. I laughed out loud quite a bit. I really, really enjoyed this old film. I can't get over that I have never seen this one before. Grant and Hepburn had perfect chemistry. I was surprised how well Cary Grant pulled off the comedy; but then again, he really just played his role 'straight' and it was wonderful. I found him very attractive in this film. He played a absent-minded professor and his geeky glasses almost made him seem more appealing. I don't know how he prevented himself from not cracking up, in many of the scenes; he really make one laugh and never he cracked a smile. Katherine Hepburn was adorable in this film; with much more girlish charm in her zany character of the scatter-brained Susan, than she usually exhibits. The dog and the leopard were really entertaining, too, as were the crazy cast of character actors. If you haven't seen this film, it's a 'must-see'. It's a good time and I am sure I will watch it many times over and still enjoy it emensely. The new release of the DVD was beautifully restored - now I know why they called it the silver screen. You can't beat the luminisence of the b/w film during this period. Definitely a 10/10 in the comedy genre. Loved it!!!
Avatar - We walked out of the theater. Me, Emily and Zach. Ten degrees below zero. We got into the car. Five minutes later Zach and I discovered that we really had to pee, really bad. I had drank two large sodas in the theater, and so did Zach. Soon enough we were bouncing up and down like little kids. Zachs house was only a couple of minutes away, but it seemed like forever. We even considered pulling over and peeing on the side of the road. Yes, we had to go that bad. But then a car drove past and we got back in, afraid of a police car driving by.
Soon enough after enough unbearable anticipation and suffering we got to his house and we ran out.
This pretty much parralells my experience at Avatar. All of a sudden shocking, tedious and you can't wait to get out.
Let me tell you my anticipation. This seems pretty much to be one of the best reviewed film out now. Ebert put it on his best of the year list. Many people on here loved it. People were comparing it to Star Wars and The Lord of the Rings. One detractor on this website, NickAdams, who had not seen the movie, but stated that he didn't care about the innovations in special effects, he cared more about innovations in narrative and character. I knew how he felt, being more thrilled by films like Werckmeister Harmonies than say 2012. But after all I heard, I thought of him being a bit close-minded, for if one treats Star Wars as a profound art film, then it will come out as a superficial mess with a fortune-cookie philosohy. But if you treat it for what it is, and that is a purely entertaining Saturday night-matinee, then you get one of the greatest films of all time.
Avatar is not one of them. It is no Star Wars nor is it no Lord of the Rings. People seem to have a habit of overreating to James Cameron's films, and whilst watching it I thought what a mediocre director Cameron was in comparison to Peter Jackson. Neither really make profound films nor a either anywhere close to the likes of Stanley Kubrick, but Jackson applies special effects in such a masterful way, that I was thinking about The Lord of the Rings the whole time I was watching this movie.
Take a simple example. In The Lord of the Rings Jackson uses the beating of the Ring-Wraiths wings as a hallucinatory and atmospheric dread. The theater becomes silent as the stereo blurts out the minimalistic pounding draining out eveything. When you think about it it's quite poetic. Now despite my youthful passion for the films when they first came out over seven years ago, I now consider The Lord of the Rings to be despite its landmark influence on special effects, I no longer see it as a great film. But Avatar is not even a good film and is infinitley more tedious than even a second of the nine hours of the three LOTR films.
What's even more insulting is that the special effects at times, or rather most of the time, are so obviously. .. . .special effects. CGI today is used so indulgently that it all seems all too cartoonish. LOTR, before the CGI explosion, used it to an extent in which is was supposed to convince you that it was reality. For every second I saw Gollum, I was utterly convinced that he was real and that Mordor was a real place. The texture of monsters like Shelob seemed so realistic that I was truly freaked out. Here, there are some rather beautiful images, but everything looks like a special effect and are utterly unconvincing. The whole time I was thinking "oh look how well done these special effects are" and not "wow I hope the blue aliens survive". See. I cared so little about this films world and characters that I even forgot what those creatures are called. This has got to be one of the most passive movie going experiences I have ever had. So much was happening on-screen, but I was completely shut-off, it was as if a great distance existed between me and the screen.
That said, somewhere under here lies the film so many critics were talking about. The avatar thing is fascinating and the way it is gone about is enthralling. The romance between one of the creatures and the main character is charming and rather beautiful, and Zoe Salanda's performance as the films herorine (all animated mind you) is quite convincing and rather good. But all of this, all of the wonders done with the special effects and story (despite the weak dialouge and screenplay) are put to no good use with James Cameron's arrogant, indulgent and awful direction which has no skill or respect for aesthetic effect or even special effects themselves. He just throws this well-done CGI at you and puts no life or feeling into it. There was not one second of the film in which I felt like I had entered the films world. Not one. My mind was in the theater the whole time.
Now of course James Cameron's going to get nominated for Best Director and his film may even get a Best Picture nomination, as well as nine others, just like with Titanic, because Hollywood is always immedietly impressed with a special effects film that is halfway better than something like Transformers. Sitting through Avatar is nowhere near the pain and torture of sitting through Transformers, but at least everyone else in the theater thinks so. Avatar is bound to be named by the general public as one of the greatest films of all time just as much as they did with Titanic and LOTR. Though that may be, fifty years from now, Citizen Kane will still stand tall. 4/10
I'd never heard of this film Daniel until this :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielBenoit
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ibs1akHKzU0
Harry Hill is hilarious :lol:.
Well it was an on and off project, largely dictated by funding issues. In his own words he did make a lot of "crap" in order that he could help fund his one real project - though he was certainly obsessed.Quote:
That's interesting. I like background stories - 20 odd years is a long time to remain dedicated to one project - he had to be obsessed!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathor
I am just so confused. I seriously feel like I've seen a differrent movie from everybody else. Everybody's saying how absorbed they were and how it didn't seem all that long, for me, my God was I passive throughout the whole thing, and man did it seem like five hours. Another problem was that I was almost entirely indifferent to the entire film. It was certainly a million times better than pieces of crap like Transformers, but I was just utterly indifferent the whole time.
Believe me, I wasn't expecting an art film. I came into the theater in the Saturday night-matinee mindset. I was ready for some kick-*** action and special effects, and was ready to forgive all of the expect cliches one is bound to find in a action movie. But James Cameron to me just used all of his effects to no good use by just putting them up there on screen. As I've mentioned before in my review, maybe it's best to parallell the scenes with the flying Ring-Wraiths or when those big elephants come in LOTR with any of the battle seqeunces and you'll see that Peter Jackson is the superior director. Also, take another example from Star Wars; there was an utter excitment in hearing and seeing those lightsabers come out before a dual. It was perfect and enthralling. Avatar had no effects that enthralled me in any way as those other two films.
Sorry if I keep on writing about Avatar, but I am very troubled by this film.
Well, I have been asking Netflix to take me back, and this morning I watched Midnight Cowboy straight through for the first time, and then went and bought the novel so that I could contemplate the bleakness of the human condition even more. Three stars. I'd rate it higher but thought the flashbacks were not fully integrated into what motivated Joe Buck into his flights of doomed aspiration.
Even for its release date, however, I don't see why it was rated X even 40 years ago. The hard core sexual activity is heavily suggested, but never shown.
The story hit me hard though, and I have been awhile trying to talk myself out of feeling that most of us wind up like Ratso and Buck, or I might, at any rate.
I've seen it before but The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou was on Comedy Central last night and since I greatly enjoyed the first viewing, I thought I would take in a second. I do love Wes Anderson's odd sense of humour. This isn't his best outing but I really did find it charming and the music...the acoustic David Bowie songs sung in Portuguese...was the icing on the cake.
I think The Life Aquatic had some of the most outlandish scenes in Wes Anderson's movies. For example, the unforgettable pirate scenes (when Zissou gets them off his ship and when they go rescue Hennessey and the bond stooge from the pirates) were crazy, hilarious, clever, and thrilling. I think it's the only Wes Anderson movie where a major character dies. Life Aquatic and Royal Tenenbaums were my two favorite Wes Anderson movies, but I really like them all. Have you seen Fantastic Mr.Fox? I loved it, and I think that's saying a lot because my expectations were pretty high.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idril
Gates of Heaven - What a sad, poetic and strangely off-beat and funny movie. A documentary about more than just pet cemetaries, it's going to take more than one viewing for me to dig this one up. Cinema at its finest. 10/10
Hmm, while I mildly appretiated the humour, I didn't care for his treatment of the films content. He treats the film as if it's some kind of snuff film made by a lunatic or as if it's just some meaningless MadTV sketch. While the chair wrestling scene as well as some others are supposed to be funny in an absurd way, there are many scenes of great insight that this comedian seems to treat as jokes. Yes it's a weird and disturbing film, and yes everything he mentioned about the film is in it, but he treats it like something it's not. Besides, nobody in that audience were going to see it anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by wessexgirl
I haven't seen it yet but I think it's the only Wes Anderson movie I haven't seen. I've read some glowing reviews of the movie so I should get over the whole animated movie thing and just watch it. The pirate scenes were something else. I loved that Hennessey was shot in the chest at close range but yet within minutes is running around simply holding his bloody chest like it was nothing but a flesh wound. :lol: I love Willem Dafoe in that movie, such a different role for him.Quote:
Originally Posted by bluevictim
It's official, The Fantastic Mr Fox is my favorite Wes Anderson film. After many watches, this is the most wonderous of his films (all of which are pretty equally wonderous). This movie rewards repeated viewings to fully comprehend, kind of like all Wes Anderson films. The funny thing is the plot is almost nonsensical, but it doesn't really matter. Every bit of humor in this movie is far more intelligent than I knew humor could be. This movie is better than Up in my opinion (though arguable Up is just as good in other ways). When I saw Up I knew I had seen a good movie, though ignored some of the moreso cliche childish things, knowing I had just seen an animated movie directed towards a younger audience. The Fantastic Mr Fox, however, feels right at home.
Hmmm, I have a special trust for films that get better on repeated viewings, and while I very much liked Fantastic Mr. Fox, I didn't find it to be one of the best of the year. Now thinking about it, I find those long shots and complex sets, as well as the wonderfully crude animation to be truly amazing and bravely unique. Maybe I should go back to see it. I need some revitalizing energy after the tedium of Avatar (I know I need to stop with the rotten apples).Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathor
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielBenoit
yeah I remember talking about this movie with you about 3 or 4 months ago when i first saw it, and thinking it was alright (one of the better animated films, but not one of the best). After a couple more viewings I kind of feel silly for not enjoying it as much as I do now originally. Wes Anderson films are sort of like that, though. They give back what the viewer puts in. I can't think of any of his films that I didn't have completely lukewarm feelings for and then slowly warm up to realize the underlying brilliance.
On Avatar: Haha, I mean, I'm sure there's people out there who didn't like The Dark Knight either. It doesn't make much sense in my mind, but oh well. Don't worry, the only Oscars he will win for this film are technical awards that otherwise would've been won by Transformers 2. Avatar exists as a trump card to the mediocre special effects awards they would've had to give Transformers. Anything keeping the worst film of all time from winning awards is nothing short of a savior, no matter how you look at it. :lol:
On Peter Jackson: His newest film The Lovely Bones is one of my least favorite movies of the year
Er yes, that's the point......he is a comedian :lol:.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielBenoit
Of course no-one in the audience was going to see it....the whole joke was in reference to the film being unknown, and having its music chosen on the X Factor. Harry's whole programme is about sending up what's on tv, and is extremely popular over here, winning all sorts of awards. I don't see how anyone can get upset about him. He does a lot worse to the soaps.....:nod:
Avatar, Avatar, Avatar:
This is the kind of movie that makes me question what is cinema. For a long time I held the belief that cinema was a purely visual medium and that non-narrative (pure cinema) was the id and the borrowed elements were merely ego and super ego. I could never criticize the id accurately, because it would always come back to: "that's it's nature"; however, each borrowed element, mixed poorly, raises the question of its inclusion.
The motion capture is amazing and during the moments that it's not, overall, the authenticity of the Na'vi's teeth keeps the illusion. A nice bit of detail was Jake's legs.:thumbs_up The 3D, for the first thirty minutes or so, is extremely impressive; at it's best the depth created has an otherworldly dimension, at it's worst it looks like a shadow box (or one of those group magazine covers where everybody couldn't make it to the photo shoot at one time so they took pictures separately and photoshoped them together). There are some visual sequences that capture the energy and wonder naturally even though Cameron felt that he still needed a protagonist that has never been there before so we can be amazed through him. All of this would have been great, but the borrowed elements aren't mixed well and no matter how great a golden goblet looks, it can't make sewage taste any better.
So, what's borrowed? Everything that the passive moviegoer believes is essential to a good "flick". What's incorporated well? None of it. The characters are from the stock variety of Cameron's generation (more on that later), the story is of the going-native-noble-savage-great-White-hope variety (no offense intended), and the plot is of the there's-mulitple-chracters-so-if-nothing-is-"happening"-dramatically-to-one-we-can-focus-on-another-event-adventure variety.
Man did I enjoy this movie before the characters started to speak ... ok, there's a voice over narration from the opening shot ... so, I enjoyed this movie before Parker (Giovanni Ribisi) appeared on screen. That's not a criticism on his performance, but to the script. The exposition was ridiculous (Parker and Grace have been working together for how long? And he still has to explain the plot, I mean point, of the mission to the audience, I mean to her) and that "action" que was ... Parker-has-been-here-all-morning-so-lets-have-him-hitting-a-golf-ball-into-a-mug-to-say-something-about-his-chracter-but-we-won't-have-him-do-it-again-through-out-the-movie-but-right-before-Grace-walks-in-let's-have-him-speaking-on-my-mark-and-he-should-say-something-that-could-have-been-said-when-he-started-but-he's-only-saying-now-because-this-is-how-we-are-going-to-introduce-him. <-- that was the last one of those.:lol:
I can really go on forever, so one question of plot logic and then I'll close out.
If the military couldn't use computer imaging devices in the vortex, but as we saw in the final battle, audio transmissions were not effected ... WHY DIDN'T THEY DEVELOP SONAR FOR THEIR WORK ON THE PLANET?!
Avatar has been compared to many films, but let me tell you what it's not. It's not 2001. It's not Star Wars. "I di' naht hit her. I di' NAHT! Oh, hi Mark"
I'll tell you what it is ... can you guess ... nope, not that ... no, nothing to do with native ... give up?
It's Jurassic Park.:lol:
This is the "more on that later" section. Cameron, Spielberg, Lucas and others of the generation (don't even suggest Coppola) have this Joseph Campbell archetype addiction and have to litter their films with with stale figures that only Jeff Goldblum can overcome (others can overcome it, but are you doubting "The Gold"?!). I call these directors "The Awe Inspiring Generation" (Protagonist goes somewhere, or sees something new and they go slack jaw as big music play). At least Spielberg can go beyond the machine (you know what films I'm talking about).
Oh, and the score was uninspired.
If this was a segment of Fantasia, I would be giving it 10/10 ... but, it's "NAHT!":lol:
On a positive note: I found the networking concept very interesting and with the links between the creatures on the planet, it would be interesting to know how it evolved. I might have enjoyed it a lot more if Cameron would have explored Pandora like his past 3D documentaries.
Yay, great review Nick. The world doesn't seem so lonley now that there are two people on litnet who hate Avatar (though I can't really say I hated it).
You hit the nail in the head on every point and should really write more reviews when you get the chance. I 100% agree with you when you define the Blockbuster generation as Cameron, Lucas and Speilberg, and NOT Coppola, because I've seen Coppola listed far to many times with them when he has nothing in common with any of them. That said, Speilberg is obviously the best of the three and knows how to make a great audience-catcher/mainstream film (E.T., Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Jaws, etc.).
Also, I agree with you on the score. Most of the time I wouldn't bother with knit-picky details about the score in another type of film, but Avatar is a science-fiction action film and should have an insipered score to match the images. I'm sure I need not say any more about the score to Star Wars and LOTR and what it did for the films.
That coffee-cup-putting thing really bothered me as well. I love idiosyncratic characters, and if he had been doing that in most of the scenes he's in I would've loved it, but he does that for one scene, just to introduce his character and it's kind of insulting. Same goes for Grace's introduction. She smokes only a couple more times in the film, and unless nicotene is not addicting on Pandora, I would be suspecting her to be smoking in almost every scene she's in. Again, a minor detail, but after seeing as many movies as I have, you begin to pick up on the logic behind films and I feel a bit cheated when the only reason that character smokes is to show us at her introduction that she is a likeable *****.
Lol, thank you.
I liked it a lot more than I thought I would. I'll tell you what though: I have never been in a theater, with that many people and yet the only sound came from the screen.
I don't really like Apocalypse Now (blasphemy:lol:, but I've seen it only once and I've already put Do the Right Thing on my re-watch list).
I'm still stunned that Spielberg directed Munich.
Definitely: the scores for both Star Wars and LOTR are good enough to be on my Ipod.
:lol: @ likable *****.
I could knit-pick some more.:lol: I don't think the language worked at all, because I could tell the Ethnic background of each actor by the accent they spoke with, but maybe Cameron wanted a collective feel.
'Pride and Glory", based on the classic novel by Jane Austen … no, that's not right. Ok, I'm thinking of "Mad Dog and Glory", which makes more sense because Uma Thurman is in that one. This one was written by director Gavin O'Connor and Joe Carnahan. Yeah, I know "Narc" was good, but if you remember "Smokin' Aces" then you won't be surprised.
So, "Pride and Glory" is the story of Ray Tierney (Edward Norton) and his investigation … no, that's not right. It's about Ray's brother-in-law Jimmy Egan (Colin Farrell)… no, no, that's not right either. Then it's definitely about Ray's brother Francis Tierney Jr. (Noah Emmerich), right? Oooooooh, it uses multiple characters to explore its themes of police corruption and family. Then it's similar to "Traffic", which used multiple characters (each having a different level of involvement) to explore the drug trade. But, "Pride and Glory" has a moor intimate feel. The characters relationships are not so far removed; it's more like "Zodiac" and it's exploration of the serial killer, so instead of Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal) we have Ray who is our central character, but we still get private moments with the other characters he's connected … I'm going to stop there, because this movie isn't as good as either of the ones I mentioned.
This movie is about the mysterious circumstances surrounding the killing of four New York City Police Officers. We get a taste of the people connected, mostly working class officers and low-low-lower class Hispanic drug dealers, but there is a rule: only moments of sensationalism or sentimentality (there is an emotional breakdown scene that follows another). YOU FOLLOW IT OR YOU'RE OR BANNED.
There are quite a few officers in the Big Apple, but it doesn't matter: we need Ray Tierney to solve this case. Why? Because, we don't want to be BANNED. He has a scar and a past and this is discussed, in such an attempt to be subtle that it's not, in a bathroom.
Anything more would be a spoiler, but I'll add this: Ed Wood was more subtle in his themes. It's about family, really?
And Scorsese, there's a barroom fight that will make you blush … or just embarrassed.
Blasphemy is damn right :lol: Did you watch the Redux version? Watch the original. While the Redux version is good, the extra scenes are unnessicary and long.Quote:
Originally Posted by NickAdams
Lol, your reviews have an edge and I like em'.Quote:
Originally Posted by NickAdams
Ah, you got me. I did watch the Redux. I'll give it another go.
Thanks again; I've had an extended goofy mood which forces me to make fun of stuff, lol.
How can you not like Spielberg? Munich was a great film, as were a huge bulk of his films.Quote:
Originally Posted by NickAdams
And yeah, Redux in itself is the real blasphemy. When I first saw the redux version I wanted to blow my brains out. The Redux is a joke compared to the original. All of the extra scenes do nothing but ruin it. What does the sex with the playboy bunnies do to enforce ANYTHING?! But the original is easily in my top 5 favorite movies.
And, Do The Right thing is also probably in my top five favorite movies as well (or at least top ten) of all time. Spike Lee is a complete genius. Do The Right Thing takes a few viewings to fully comprehend, though. There is a lot going on in that movie, and I admit, I wasn't sure how to take it the first time I saw it, Do The Right Thing and Apocalypse Now are pretty similar in that respect. I tend to like movies that are a harder watch. I can enjoy a movie and get it immediately, and often times I do. The ones that stick with me, however, are the ones that I spent so many times running through my head, like a good Fellini work or Roman Polanski or something (2001 is an appropriate example as well).
The Great Waltz, I give it a 10...
The Passion of Joan of Arc - My name is Daniel. My mother named me after Daniel in the Bible. I was raised Catholic, but I became an atheist when I was about thirteen and at fifteen became an agnostic. I don't pretend to know much, or even anything about the nature of the universe, and respond skeptically to meta-narratives.
That said, there are times of in which I reach high levels of consciousness and joy. Whether this arises out of a high level of aesthetic appretiation or something else I don't know, and kind of don't care.
The Passion of Joan of Arc gave me one of those experiences. It generated a religious experience in me. I walked out knowing that I had seen one of the greatest films of my life. Never before have I seen a finer or more moving performance on screen than Renee Jeanne Falconetti's portrayal of the French saint who dressed up as a man and led the French army into battle before being captured and put to death.
This film depicts her last hours as she is put to trial by the Church. She says that she is sent by God to save France, the priests of all people laugh and mock her.
Filmed entirely in close-ups, with not a single establishing shot, director Carl T. Dreyer creates a total atmosphere of intense faces, claustraphobically juxtaposed together. The rage and mockery of the inquisiters, the sadistic expressions of the guards, and of course the confused and frightful face of Joan.
I have never before seen a silent film in which the camera is more alive (with the exception of some of Murnau's work). But Dreyer goes not use the almost exclusive use of close-ups or medium shots, or panning shots, as exercises in style. There is not one shot in here done for pure effect. I felt the intensity and emotion of the film and was drawn in by the camera, and was never in a detached, passive state.
Oh I must come back Falcoetti's performance. That strange legend of the screen. This was her first film, and after this, she never did another. Too emotionally drained by Dreyer's direction who demanded take after take to bring forth that unncanny emotional supression in her face. Dreyer may have been cruel, but he has undoubtably placed her as one of the immortal legends of the cinema.
What a film this is! It forcibly draws you in from the very first shots, bombarding you with human faces, that you are utterly focused and drawn in. At times I could not believe that I was watching an actress play Joan of Arc, I truly believed that I was watching a film document from the Middle Ages, it was so raw and real.
Most silent films, even the greatest ones have a cause and need to have overacting. It is truly a neccissity, for how else can an actor communicate what he/she is saying except through there face? There have been only two exceptions to my mind: Buster Keaton, who with one adjustment of his facial expression could express a whole range of emotions. The other is Falcoetti, who though at times has to possess that silent age unsublty in order to express the terror within her; but at almost all times is truly able to make us weep with just a movement of her eyes. Those eyes are her. They are like a reflection of her soul. Whatever it was that got Falcoetti to act that well, she is uncanny all the same.
What makes this film the greatest religion film I have ever seen along with Bergman's Through a Glass Darkly, is that there are no preachy moments in which we learn of Christ's teachings. We know them. We know what Christianity is too. But most of us never experience the phenomenon of faith, which is at the root of almost all religions.
In a sense, what it is that Joan believes could be easily changed to any religion with just the adjustment of some title cards. The point is not that she is a good Christian. But that her faith is a demonstration of a universal human phenomenon which transcends the mockery of reason. But again, as Dreyer demonstrates in the film, Joan's faith gives her no certainty of her knowledge of God, but instead gives her certainty of her duty towards God. Whether the ontological position of her faith is correct or not is irrelevant. Not only is it a teleological suspension of the ethical, as Kierkegaard would say, but a teleological suspencsion of the ontological. Joan represents absolute human faith beyond all human desire and selfishness.
But this does not make Joan a perfect saint. She too is human, and just as much as Scorsese's great The Last Temptation of Christ demonstrated, even the most godly of humans can be subject to doubt. And that is a powerful thing. If Christ too could for that moment, doubt himself upon crying out "God, why hast thou forsaken me?" then so can Joan, amongst all of the fear of being burnt at the stake. And while this message is not as powerful as it is in Scorsese's film, for Joan is not portrayed as a messiah, the way Christ is, it is no less a stunning film and performance, and a testament to the power of the human spirit. 10/10
Ivan the Terrible, Part I - What's funny about this film is that whilst watching it I was about certain that this must be either one of the greatest films I have ever seen, or one of the worst. This film must be experienced to understand this statement, but upon finishing it, the conclusion I came to was not of the former.
Sergi Eisenstein, that poet of visual cinema. Director of Battleship Potemkin and October, one of the greatest films of all time. Now, almost twenty years later in 1944, Eisenstein directs another political epic. Well, we know that Eisenstein is a master at portraying the collective political angst of a society, we also very well know that he is the master at going from one event to another, in a non-linear, and non-character based narrative. But Ivan the Terrible is more conventional in that sense, for it concerns the political life of one of Russia's greatest heros, Ivan the Terrible. I suppose not much is needed to be known except that he wanted to unite Russia into a single country in the sixteenth century.
Believe me, I really wanted to love this film. It is filled with powerful symbolism that pierces your subconscious, it is filled with many complex and haunting shots (not only that, but it is widely known as one of the most complex movies of all time, period), it possesses that kind of formalism that Eisenstein is so good at, and it also seems that the silent Russian director has transitioned very well to sound, showing his ability not only to find distinctive faces, but distinctive voices.
But, what is it that's bad about Ivan the Terrible? Well, everything listed above. I suppose the symbolic formalism of Eisenstein's silent masterpieces couldn't translate well to sound, for despite the fact that this is one of the most well-directed films I have ever seen, its unnatural formalism in the direction and acting is weird, tedious, but never uninteresting.
But that's the problem, I found the symbolism of the choreography of the characters and the use of objects to be fascinating (such as the repeated 'one eye' visual motif), but the characters to be dull and empty.
If this were one of Eisenstein's collective political epics, in which there is no main character, then it would be more forgivable, because the point would not be characterizatoin, but a collective charactarization of a society. But a great majority of this film takes place in the dreary halls of the tsar's castle. It does have a hero, who as a great historical figure, demands psychological depth.
Maybe Eisenstein's portrayal of Ivan does have great depth, but all is diminished with the akward overacting of Nikolay Cherkasov as the great tsar. My God, I have never seen a performance within the length of eighty minutes in which the character seems to melodramatically collapse, or look up to the heavens in artifical intensity, or preach about how he wants to save Russia. At first I saw his performance as an interesting, though extreme, version of formalism, but soon enough I was just tired of it all. Yes Eisenstein, I get the idea, you know how to use symbolism in a film more fluently than anyone else. But other than the camera, the film is so lifeless. I was dying to see a human being on camera.
I've heard of how Part II is superior to the first in that it explores the darker depths of Ivan besides that of his romantic sufferings for his country. But upon completing this film, I was all too tired out to face another eighty minutes of tedious formalism, even if it is done by Eisenstein. I was just yearning for some Cassavetes or Scorsese. 4/10
No, no, I think Munich is a great film and one of his best. I was surprised, because it was such a departure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathor
The Playboy didn't enforce anything, but some enjoyment.:lol:
What I didn't like about Do the Right Thing was it's similarity in style to plays like Pinero's and Tyler Perry's (I had to sit through one of those:rolleyes:) and it's not an originality thing, it's that I'm not a fan of the style. It's less Spike and more me.
More films I have to watch!:redface:Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielBenoit
Well, you're probably better off watching Battleship Potemkin or October than Ivan the Terrible.Quote:
Originally Posted by NickAdams
Flooding with Love for the Kid
That's right, the one man film/video adaptation of the novel "First Blood". Yeah, the one with Rambo.
Want to know a secret? It's good! There's genuine humor and humor at the expense of the production quality, but you should forget about that once the ball gets rolling.
I was lucky enough to attend a screening in which the director (in this case the director was also the cast and crew) gave an introduction and stuck around after the close for some Q and A. This offered two things before the screening. The first was the three rules that Zachary Oberzan followed during the production (more on that in ... like I know how long it will take you to read to that point:D) and the second was to see that he was a very competent guy (which means you can't write the film/video off because of perceived naïveté).
And now for something completely different ... ok, not completely different; here's the rules I mentioned earlier:
1. He had to be completely faithful to the novel (every scene and every word of dialogue had to be included)
2. Everything had to come from inside of his apartment.
3. He had to do it all himself.
I can feel the breathing of the Dogma 95 critics, but stay back! If you've seen only the "Italian Stallion" film and have not read the novel, then you won't understand how this works conceptually (There's more of a connection between Rambo and Sheriff Teasle whose not a villain in this. Rambo is a Vietnam Vet and Teasle is a Korean War Vet and they're connected, so it helps that it's the same actor).
There is way more going on in "Flooding with Love for the Kid" than "Rambo: First Blood".
I'm giving it a 9/10. I'm taking away a point, because Trautman is such a dull character.
I know, I know: it seems like a high rating, but the ingenuity is impressive. Yeah, that impressive.
Avatar - 5/10
I found it quite boring and I slept in the later part of the movie :p Special effects in the movie did nothing for me because the story was not good. I don't know why people are so crazy about this movie.