What is the last movie you saw? and rate it.

[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.

[Mathor]

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, 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.

@ likable *****.

I could knit-pick some more. 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.

How can you not like Spielberg? Munich was a great film, as were a huge bulk of his films.

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).

[NikolaiI]

The Great Waltz, I give it a 10...

[DanielBenoit]

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

[NickAdams]

How can you not like Spielberg? Munich was a great film, as were a huge bulk of his films.

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).

No, no, I think Munich is a great film and one of his best. I was surprised, because it was such a departure.

The Playboy didn't enforce anything, but some enjoyment.

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) 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.

The Passion of Joan of Arc ...
Ivan the Terrible, Part I

More films I have to watch!

[DanielBenoit]

More films I have to watch!

Well, you're probably better off watching Battleship Potemkin or October than Ivan the Terrible.

[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) 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.

[Madhuri]

Avatar - 5/10

I found it quite boring and I slept in the later part of the movie 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.

[NikolaiI]

Star Trek - 10/10

It was really, amazingly good. The best movie I've seen in a very long time if not ever.

and another movie I saw was Moon, I also give it a 10/10... it was also really amazing, though not so good as Star Trek... definitely not. But it was really a great Sci-Fi.

[DanielBenoit]

Avatar - 5/10

I found it quite boring and I slept in the later part of the movie 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.

Another sleeper I thought the friend I went with was the only one in the country who fell asleep during that film. Agree with you 100%. I am still trying to comprehend why it is so popular.

[DanielBenoit]

Synecdoche, New York - In some sense this film was not ready enough to be exposed to mainstream audiences and critics. Too many were expecting a narrative, or at least a hint that the films surrealities could be explained through dream-logic. Many found it impenatrable and tedoius. Those who said that I'm sure didn't see it a second time or a third. Yes, Synecdoche, New York is a film that does demand something from the audience, such as patience and something of an appretiation enough of it to watch it again to penetrate its mysteries.

This film does admittingly borrow a lot from experimental and absurdist theatre. Those who are familiar with it know what I'm talking about, those who aren't can't expect me to explain it very well. Objects and things are presented in abstract ways in order to present an idea, and absurd actions by characters are meant to represent sometimes a meta-cinematic idea.

This film is so full, that it is too full, and director-screenwriter Charlie Kauffman is aware of that and builds his film in all self-consciousness. He may just be the greatest cinematic writer of the human condition since Ingmar Bergman, even though both go about their ideas quite differently. Kauffman is a pure postmodern writer with a wide knowledge of postmodern theatrical and literary techniques.

Oh why am I going on in and on in lifeless theory? If you want to know how Kauffman goes about making this movie, watch it for yourself. But this film is no exercise in style, nor is it any sort of empty (but clever) examination of the endless reiterations of context. It is a film about life and its confusions, sufferings, loves and absurdities. What a sad sad film this is.

Years seem to pass by without us or the main character realizing it. He is a neurotic playright, Caden Cotard, played movingly by Phillip Seymour Hoffman in THE performance of his career, suffering from a mid-life crisis and trying to find some way in which he can develop some meaning and satisfaction into his life.

He decides to develop a massive theater-piece emcompassing the whole of every persons life, every detail, every meta-detail, every thought, every inch of the human condition. Caden searches for his lifes meta-narrative only to find deeper and deeper confusion, and in the end, discovering the meaningless meaning of his meaninglessness.

Women come in and out of his life, people disappear and fade away. Like a dream time is distorted and when his first wife says that she's going on a trip to Berlin with their daughter without him, and as he waits for a week, he soon realizes that it's been a year.

There is a deep deep tragedy of Caden's life, which is simply the tragedy of the human condition. There are so many stunning scenes in this film of raw emotion and despair, that to penetrate beneath the surface requires multiple viewings.

I have seen this film twice, and I still don't find it adequete enough to review it. Like all great films it cannot be described. It follows no formula (though as I said, it is greatly influenced by absurdist theatre) and no narrative. When you see it, think of this film as a poem of our entire lives. And how bland would a poem be if it was just words? 10/10

[Shalot]

The Lovely Bones

I got Movie gift cards for Christmas and today my husband and I used them to go see this movie. I read the book several years ago and I remember being kind of disappointed in the book. Maybe it just has something to do with who I was as a person at that time, but for some reason this story just wasn't reaching me. Perhaps I'll have to go back and re-read the book after having seen the movie.

When you die, what happens? What is the afterlife like? These questions have been on my mind during the past year and I've read different books about death this year and I saw some of what I've been reading about portrayed in this film.

Do the dead speak to us? Do they speak to us through images or sounds? Sometimes we just "know" things but where does that information come to us from? This movie touched on these themes.

Saoirse Ronan gave a nice performance. Now when I go back to re-read the book, I will probably have an image of her in my mind. I don't think I ever put a face on the character when I read the book the first time.

[Shalot]

Star Trek - 10/10

It was really, amazingly good. The best movie I've seen in a very long time if not ever.

and another movie I saw was Moon, I also give it a 10/10... it was also really amazing, though not so good as Star Trek... definitely not. But it was really a great Sci-Fi.

I agree about Star Trek...I never was a big Trekkie at all either but this was just an amazing film.

[DanielBenoit]

I didn't know where else to post this so:

Avatar wins at the Golden Globes

James Cameron wins best director over Katherine Bigalow?

Sandra Bullock wins for a pretty good performance in an otherwise terrible movie, while Carey Mulligan from An Education and Gabourey Sidibe from Precious get nothing?

Also, how the hell is it that Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs gets nominated, but not Ponyo? Beats me.

Golden Globes has proven once again that they are a joke.

[Mathor]

I didn't know where else to post this so:

Avatar wins at the Golden Globes

James Cameron wins best director over Katherine Bigalow?

Sandra Bullock wins for a pretty good performance in an otherwise terrible movie, while Carey Mulligan from An Education and Gabourey Sidibe from Precious get nothing?

Also, how the hell is it that Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs gets nominated, but not Ponyo? Beats me.

Golden Globes has proven once again that they are a joke.

yeah it's pretty much all crap.

but i saw Crazy Heart last night for the first time. And I'm so happy for Jeff Bridges and that the song "The Weary Kind" from that movie won best original song. Crazy Heart contained some really moving acting performances.

I think Oscars will do it better.

I don't want to jinx it, but I just have a hunch that this year the first ever best director award for a female will be given out at the oscars

Again, I already told you I liked Avatar, but it's NOT worthy of best picture or best director by far. Inglourious Basterds or Up In The Air or The Hurt Locker are so much more qualified for both of those positions.