the LAST FILM YOU'VE SEEN thread [Archive] - Page 2 - FilmLeaf

Chris Knipp

06-09-2005, 05:42 PM

How happy would I be with either,
Were 'tother, dear charmer, away.

Kind hearts are more than coronets,
And simple faith than Norman blood. You're crazy, man, but you're young, and you may not be tuned in to late Forties, early Fifties English humor. The script of this movie is so witty.... It never gets old. I would like to write something to explain to you why it's so good. But not here or now. I think it's way better than Lavender Hill Mob and The Ladykillers.

The one I'd pair with it as an Ealing masterpiece is not them but The Man in the White Suit. That isn't as witty as Kind Hearts and Coronets, but it's a classic statement about individual creativity vs. corporate business, and another, simpler great role for Guinness, and it has the delicious Joan Greenwood, who's in both movies. With her long neck and teasing, cooing voice she had the most amazing mixture of haughty charm, sex appeal, and irony. She was perfect for these roles and added a lot to the movies which were made by the Ealing team and crowned by Guinness's talent. But I only want to champion these two -- not the other Guinness ones, which are not as great, and I would agree with you in finding pretty ho-hum today, though still nicely crafted, hence the stupidity of the Coen brothers in trying to ring some hip nasty new changes on The Ladykillers. Their effort is a turkey.

Let's pay attention to the BFI when they pick the ten best English films. What were the other ones?

wpqx

06-09-2005, 06:16 PM

I agree somewhat about the Ladykillers remake, to me it had more in common with Woody Allen's Small Time Crooks, at least early on. I think it's probably the weakest Coen Brothers film, which is unfortunate, because there are very few filmmakers I look forward to more.

As for the BFI Top 10

10. Trainspotting
9. The Red Shoes
8. Don't Look Now
7. Kes
6. Kind Hearts and Coronets
5. Great Expectations
4. The 39 Steps
3. Lawrence of Arabia
2. Brief Encounter
1. The Third Man

Obviously they appreciate David Lean over there, and rightfully so.

wpqx

06-09-2005, 11:15 PM

F For Fake (1972-1975) - Orson Welles

The films of Orson Welles are always a treasure. There are few of them, and therefore each one becomes remarkable. Welles spent the majority of his life running out of patience. He seemed to have the attention span of a perpetually 8 year old boy. Welles at the source was also seldom if ever original. Come to think of it, I don't think there is an Orson Welles film not based on the work of someone else, closest being Citizen Kane, which in turn was more the brainchild of Mankiewicz, at least the sotry of it.

F For Fake may be his most unique film, but like the 10 features preceeding it, this is also taken from other material. Assembled from another directors unfinished film, and thrown together some loose ideas the film is difficult by Welles standards. I believe it can be rewarding, but too unique to make the right first impression. I do think the film is uneven and a bit sloppy, and I for one didn't have my interest sustained throughout it, but again I may need a closer look.

I will always feel a slight melancholy watching the work of Welles, because it is so damn tragic, and Welles wasn't the victim. He welcomed his own destruction, and had the ambition to make the greatest films of all time, but lacked the determination to finish anything.

F for Fake seems finished only by a lack of ambition. Welles shot enough for a film, and this picture did no business whatsoever, and never even had an official US opening. Seen today some of it is dated, like the Hughes biographer and the forged painting, which served as the genesis of the picture. In other words I can't say I love the film, but I don't want to crucify it, because it isn't a film that has a reference point. I can't rate this film based on other work, and it certainly stands alone in the Welles catalogue.

Chris Knipp

06-10-2005, 01:16 AM

Thanks for the BFI Best English list. I like a lot of those. These are classics with a couple of nods to the present time. The Third Man and King Hearts and Coronets are favorites of mine. I don't see anything wrong with the other choices, and the main thing is they're what the English like. What is Kes?

I think a lot of the Coen brothers movies have been disappointing lately. They're started to just crank 'em out. They're a slick team and the rhythm or the conviction or something has faded. Maybe my favorite was Blood Simple. It was all fresh and new then. Like Jarmusch's first big one, Stranger then Paradise. Not that in Jarmusch's case I see a falling off, I do like almost everything he does. But it was all fresh and new at first. He kept his rhythm for quite a while and when he shifted it was somthing interesting too.

Oh Brother! Where Art Thou? seemed too cruel to me, condescending, but it was also fun. That was the beginning of a shift. The Man Who Wasn't There had no emotion, Intolerable Cruelty was slick and crass, and The Ladykillers just sucked from first to last and it too was condescending. I reviewed it. (http://www.cinescene.com/reviews/ladykillers.htm)

I quoted some of your comments on Welles over on Oscar's journal thread, where we've been tossing back and forth comments on Welles. I used you to back up my less than totally worshipful description of the man, though I do think he was a genius, not just in his own mind, but in a lot of his work, despite the self-sabotage you point to. Oscar might claim that's just bad press. I don't know. i just know a number of his productions turned disastrous and it wasn't entirely everybody else's fault.

wpqx

06-10-2005, 01:36 AM

Kes was directed by Ken Loach, and as far as I know it is OOP. I for one loved O Brother, and the all time favorite is Raising Arizona. As for Jarmusch I'd give my vote to Dead Man.

oscar jubis

06-10-2005, 01:44 AM

Originally posted by wpqx
Welles at the source was also seldom if ever original. Come to think of it, I don't think there is an Orson Welles film not based on the work of someone else

Indeed, most of the scripts of his films are adaptations. He was able to stamp his own personal vision on them at different stages of the process of turning an existing text into cinema. Only the short The Hearts of Age, Mr. Arkadin, and The Other Side of the Wind (being finished and readied for release by Peter Bogdanovich et. al) are based on original screenplays by Welles.

Citizen Kane, which in turn was more the brainchild of Mankiewicz, at least the sotry of it.

The most thorough research on the authorship of Citizen Kane is the essay "The Scripts of Citizen Kane" by Robert Carringer which you can find in the book "Perspectives on Citizen Kane", edited by Ronald Gottesman and published in 1996.

Evidence indicates that both credited writers, Mankiewicz and Welles, are equally deserving of recognition for that excellent script, and that Joseph Cotten and John Houseman also contributed to it.

"In Andre Bazin's archives I have found the issue of L'Ecran Francaise containing the first interview with Welles by Bazin himself. Welles declared to Bazin: "Four of us wrote the Kane script. Only Mankiewicz and I were credited, but it should be said that Joseph Cotten and John Houseman are also authors of Citizen Kane"
(Francois Truffaut, 1972)

I will always feel a slight melancholy watching the work of Welles, because it is so damn tragic, and Welles wasn't the victim. He welcomed his own destruction, and had the ambition to make the greatest films of all time, but lacked the determination to finish anything.

Exactly what the Hollywood moguls hoped to achieve throughout Welles life via the spinning and propagation of false rumors and lies that the mainstream press was oh-so-willing to take as fact. What is really sad is that even during the 1990s, there were writers of dubious repute, who never had access to the subject, who never bother to examine the available research that contradicts the view of Welles that you obviously bought into. Which one did you read, the character assasination known as "Rosebud: The Story of Orson Welles" by David Thomson", or Simon Callow's "Orson Welles: The Road to Xanadu"? Maybe both. These are two of the worst, particularly Thomson's trashy tome.
It would be edifying to read books by those who had access to Welles and/or come to their subject without agendas and/or take the time to avail themselves of the copious research already in existence. I recommend: Andre Bazin's "Orson Welles: A Critical Study", Orson Welles and Peter Bogdanovich's "This Is Orson Welles", Joseph McBride's "Orson Welles, and Peter Cowie's "The Cinema of Orson Welles".

Chris Knipp

06-10-2005, 01:44 AM

Again I agree with you more than you might realize. Dead Man is by far the best. It's his masterpiece. I love that movie and I can remember first seeing it in a theater as a special time. I don't know what I was thinking; I was talking about his first films and how they kept their rhythm. I admit I don't like Raising Arizona as much as Blood Simple but I believe a lot of smart people do. I thought Kes was Ken Loach, but I"m afraid I missed it.

Chris Knipp

06-10-2005, 01:48 AM

Iwould like to read Bogdonovich. I respect him.

oscar jubis

06-10-2005, 01:53 AM

Damn! My post got buried at the bottom of the previous page. The more I watch the Coens' films the less I like them but I still do like most of them (not the last three), Fargo and Lebowski more than others. Dead Man is a personal favorite. I imported Kes on dvd from the UK because I like it a lot. I plan to watch it again this year and post some comments.

wpqx

06-10-2005, 02:28 AM

Funny you should mention Thompson, because I did read that book. I still believe Welles was self destructive. Granted I certainly had my arguments with Thompson, I do think he did a fair job on Welles. The validity of Thompson's biography is it's own source for debate however. My primary source for Welles though is his own movies. I'll admit I haven't seen Macbeth, but of the other 10 acknowledged directorial efforts, I got them covered.

Always feared Bogdanovich's Welles book would be too shamelessly ass kissing. I've read some of his reviews of Welles films, and well he's a little enthusiastic about his work to say the least. Peter Cowie's book will probably be the next source, but I'm most likely not going to look into Welles work much in the near future. Other directors to tackle. Generally speaking though I don't care much about director's biographies, I'm much more interested in their work. Welles life story, so full of contradictions and multiple opinions, made it interesting to me.

stevetseitz

06-10-2005, 04:17 AM

Orson Welles was like a kid in a candy shop. He was just starting to explore one area when something else popped up and entranced him. Still, I love watching his stuff. "Touch of Evil", "Mr. Arkadin", "The Lady from Shanghai", "The Magnificent Ambersons" , and "Citizen Kane" all have something to offer.

Welles had an eye for talent and that might explain his penchant for adaptation. If something beautiful or stirring exists in one art form, why not adapt it to another?

The Coen brothers films have been weak as of late. I would rank their films as follows:

1. "Miller's Crossing"
2. "Blood Simple"
3. "Barton Fink"
4. "Raising Arizona"
5. "The Big Lebowski"
6. " Oh, Brother Where Art Thou?"
7. "Fargo"
8. "The Hudsucker Proxy"

Chris Knipp

06-10-2005, 02:46 PM

RE Thompson vs. Bogdonovich: "Ass kissing" -- writing that comes out of a positve, admiring attitude toward the subject is of more value than writing that comes out of a pervasive negativity, and Bogdonovich knows a lot about movies. Thompson does too; however from what I've seen, his remarks are pungent, but suspect, on many topics.

Oscar: I scanned your longer reply on Welles comments. I have taken note of the fact that industry hacks falsely attacked Welles, but I still agree with wpqx in thinking the man had self destructive tendences and a degree of unreliablity that got in the way of funding for his work. His personal lifestyle is some indication: his overconsumption of lobsters, champagne, his enormous girth are warning signs. He had a prodigious, multi-faceted talent. That in itself can be hard to handle for its possessor, and can burn itself out early. I myself have known someone of exceptional intelligence as well as exceptional moral fervor. He has had a hard time fitting in anywhere -- genius isn't something people know how to deal with -- or getting anything substantial accomplished in his later years, but he has remarkable early accomplishments to his credit and stil time spent talking with him on any topic, including film, is pure gold.

[Steve Seitz:] If something beautiful or stirring exists in one art form, why not adapt it to another?That's what I was saying to Oscar in defense of Ali.

As for the Coen brothers, we seem to be agreeing that their more recent movies show a falling off.

oscar jubis

06-10-2005, 03:34 PM

I think his so called self-destructive tendencies (which we all have to some degree) have been vastly exaggerated as causal factors in several projects of his being unfinished or incomplete. I also think that too much mainstream writing on him neglects the accomplished fiction works made-for-TV (The Immortal Story ('68) for instance) and brilliant essay films (F for Fake ('74), Filming "Othello" ('78)).
Regrettably, the bad guys won. The Welles image the contemptuous moguls and trashy gossip writers wanted the general public to have of him has prevailed. At its most benign, and I certainly don't fault Steve or Chris for it, he is characterized as a self-indulgent "kid in a candy shop". Yes, he was fat and loved his lobster and champagne and there are a zillion things to say and think about him that are more important than those, no matter how true. If we examine his gargantuan genius and skill in several artistic disciplines, we'd never have time to discuss banalities.

Chris Knipp

06-10-2005, 04:16 PM

Given Welles's obviously extreme detractors and supporters, it may be hard to get a clear picture. By the way, Oscar (or anybody), have you read Pauline Kael's writing about him and Citizen Kane? If so what do you think of that?

I did not use the phrase "kid in a china shop" or subscribe to it, nor have I read or been influenced by David Thompson's writings on Welles in any context. I just don't admire his achievements quite as much as you do and I have some of wpqx's suspicions or assumptions about his having some responsiblity for his failures and their not being totally the fault of others, which is usually true of everybody anyway. I saw F is for Fake and was not as deeply impressed as you were, at all. Again, as with "Midas touch," your choice of words with "gargantuan" is a bit misjudged since it naturally gives rise to thoughts of gargantual appetites and gargantuan girth -- precisely the sort of associations you want to declare irrelevant (there's that word again, but in a more honorable context). Ditto your use of "bad guys," which suggests stereotyping and polarizing issues that may be less black and white.

wpqx

06-10-2005, 05:55 PM

Epidemic (1987) - Lars Von Trier

Speaking of black and white, I'm gonna attempt to get back to basics. I got a chance to watch this earlier Von Trier film, and I was enamored with it. Many people may not appreciate his style, but I always admire originality, even if misguided. Epidemic avoids some of the melodramatic touches of his more recent work, but it makes up for it in structure. He's able to go from a screenplay, to a film, to life immitating art, and somehow the irrelevant winds up important. Many scenes seem like they have no bearing on the film, but somehow everything finds it's place here. Auteur or egoist, whichever you deem appropriate, Von Trier wrote, directed, acted, and edited this film, and probably did a little more as well. Make no mistakes about it, this is HIS film.

Chris Knipp

06-10-2005, 07:04 PM

Have not seen this, but just wanted to say I would tend to agree with you; he's the kind of director you have to be aware of even if he annoys you. He wants to annoy you. My negative reaction to von Trier was considerably softened when I saw The Five Obstructions, which is a cooly conceptual film that unguardedly reveals a lot about his personality. It made him more human for me. In a way he became the object of his own devious practical jokes, his challenges to his old friend and idol backfired, and he showed more who he is. His willingness to show his own abject failures was appealing. I reviewed it favorably, overall. (http://www.cinescene.com/reviews/rulesofthegame.htm) It was the first time I didn't walk out of a von Trier movie alienated and angry.

wpqx

06-11-2005, 05:23 PM

Just watched Bamboozled (2000)

my review is in the Favorite Films section.

wpqx

06-12-2005, 12:33 AM

Ace in the Hole/The Big Carnival (1951) - Billy Wilder

Rarely does a film I look forward to seeing for so long actually deliver. This was far better than I could have hoped for, and it boggles my mind why this has been so long out of print. For the record I got to see it at a bank of all places. This place in the city shows a movie every Saturday Night, the place was packed for this one, and as one might expect mostly senior citizens. I'll try and elaborate on the film in a separate thread.

arsaib4

06-12-2005, 01:22 AM

Yeah, I agree that Ace in the Hole was one of Wilder's best. A bit surprised that you hadn't seen it till now, considering that it was nominated for an Oscar et al. I loved Kirk Douglas in it, one of his best performances I think. Paramount changed the name of the film to make some $$$... I guess things have remained the same. Anyway, I saw it when it was re-released theatrically a couple of years ago, but certainly it deserves more.

wpqx

06-12-2005, 01:58 AM

Well I have been persistent on it, couldn't find it on VHS, of course no DVD for it, TCM never played the movie, so that left few options. Luckily for some strange reason this specialty theater had a print and decided to show it tonight only. Well worth the $5.

Chris Knipp

06-12-2005, 01:40 PM

Does the fact that it's listed on Amazon "not yet released" mean release is actually contemplated, or is this just a commercial terntacle extended to catch us, come what may?

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00005JL0L/102-7429028-0851358?v=glance

wpqx

06-12-2005, 06:45 PM

I think that just means it doesn't exist yet. I can now be patient however since I have gotten to see the film, similar to Balthazar, which is just now getting released.

As for the topic on hand I just watched Big Deal on Madonna Street (1959), which was directed by Mario Monicelli. The film may have parallels to numerous films, but somehow I liked this a little more. I've seen too many films about crime and hiests, and even the few parodies of these films fell short with me, both Ladykillers and Small Time Crooks to name the more recent examples I've seen. Somehow where those films fall short, this succeeds. Perhaps because I didn't know it was a comedy at first. As it progressed though I found myself laughing more and more, and caring about the characters. There is a lot of charisma and star power in this film, and it works. Each member of the gang has an identity and we root for all of them. Plus Claudia Cardinale is always worth watching, and she may very well could have been the world's most beautiful woman when she made this film.

Chris Knipp

06-13-2005, 01:30 AM

Big Deal on Madonna Street (I soliti ignoti) is a big Italian classic. At the NICE Italian film festival in San Francisco last November a new movie by Marco Ponti, A/R Andata e ritorno (Round Trip) paid homage to it and used the main character's name, Dante Cruciani, for its main character. I mention this because I loved this new movie and hope people get a chance to see it, though how they will I don't know. It's fun and high energy with a romanntic side, I wonder if wpqx would like it. Anyway I hope Liberro di Rienzo the star (who some might know from Catherine Breillat's A ma soeur) and Marco Ponti the director go on to greater recognition over here.

I just saw Ridley Scott's Kingdom of Heaven yesterday and liked it a lot, finding the long shots of battles and Jerusalem particularly beautiful to look at and the actors all good, Bloom quite strong despite the claims he isn't powerful enough to carry an epic. Well, he did.

Today saw the Danish film Susanne Bier's Brothers (Brodre) which is a pretty rough ride, tough to watch and increasingly so when the damaged soldier, husband, and brother comes home and gets violent. I don't know if I'll be able to review both of these at length, especially since I'm expecting to see Kontroll tomorrow, but I'd like to.

arsaib4

06-13-2005, 08:52 PM

Sahara could easily be described as a poor man’s Indiana Jones. That’s a compliment because much money has been spent over the last few years to conjure up the magic of those Spielberg films but the results have often been unsatisfactory to say the least. Adapted from one of Clive Cussler’s series of action/adventure novels, Sahara recounts the exploits of Dirk Pitt (Matthew McConaughey), a treasure hunter obsessed with a Civil War—era Confederate ironclad which may have ended up in Africa! Anyway, it’s not about realism and logic and the film doesn’t pretend that it is (unlike, say, Kingdom of Heaven). After discovering that he may find something in the war-torn Mali, Pitt sets off from Lagos, Nigeria, with his sidekick (Steve Zahn) in a ship borrowed from his agency boss (William H. Macy). At the same time, a W.H.O. doctor (Penélope Cruz) also tries to reach Mali after learning about a peculiar plague that may be spreading. In their way, however, are the Malian dictator and his French Industrialist friend who may be the cause of the problems. Directed by Breck Eisner (son of Disney CEO Michael), Sahara hums along quite adequately as action set-pieces are mostly done away with (there’s a clever one early on though), and the film seems satisfied with illustrating the beauty of Africa. But once the truths are exposed, all hell breaks loose and stays loose for quite a while till the end. Sahara’s 130-minute running time could easily be trimmed by at least a quarter of an hour, but the film – to my surprise – was able to sustain some interest throughout. An “oiled-up” McConaughey looked more like a gay porn-star than an adventurer (at least that’s what a friend quipped – certainly the name “Dirk Pitt” doesn’t help), but he seemed to be enjoying himself; ditto for Miss Cruz, although, for long stretches, she dressed like she’s in Siberia, not Africa. (At least the adventure yarns from the late 80’s/early-90’s used to feature some sided nudity). Some environmental concerns come into play late, but, needless to say, the day is saved through a jaw-dropingly banal sequence. Brownie points for using African countries that actually exist, and a George W. joke.

Grade: C+

*SAHARA will be released on DVD on August 30th.

Chris Knipp

06-19-2005, 01:20 AM

I'm a big fan of Igby Goes Down, that's one we agree on, and I wanted to see this one, but have not.

tabuno

06-19-2005, 03:15 AM

I enjoyed reading arsaib4's movie review of Sahara and agree with most of it but I'm surprised by the C+ grade he gave it based on his own movie review. It read more like a B. I really enjoyed the refreshing, more matter of fact, less supernatural flair of this movie than Indiana Jones, The Mummy style flourishes. This movie stood out as a more natural style that I could appreciate. I easily gave this movie a B if not better grade as well as agreeing with arsaib4's review.

arsaib4

06-19-2005, 04:05 AM

Thanks, tabuno. Yeah, you're right, it was refreshing to see a "more matter of fact, less supernatural flair" to a film. I just wish it was edited a little better, and I'm usually not the kind who complains about a film's length. Also, just a bit too much silliness near the end. Mr. Eisner is certainly no match for Mr. Spielberg when it comes to action set-pieces; no matter how many times one has seen Raiders of the Lost Ark or The Last Crusade, they contain sequences that remain fresh, displaying his incredible flair for imagination. Sahara is a credible effort though which will hopefully find more viewers on home video.

trevor826

06-19-2005, 04:21 AM

Wow! this is great, I absolutely hated Sahara, I thought everything about the movie, the acting, the whole storyline, editing, in fact everything stank like a dead fish. You know, I'd rather eat my faeces than watch this or National Treasure again.

Cheers Trev.

arsaib4

06-19-2005, 12:03 PM

"I'd rather eat my faeces than watch this or National Treasure again."

C'mon now...be honest. :)

wpqx

06-19-2005, 08:31 PM

Well busy day today, or at least busier than the last week.

First up this morning was Night of the Living Dead (1968) - George A. Romero. Been several years since I've seen this, and seeing how Land of the Dead is coming out next Friday, I thought this would get me adequately psyched for it. Well watching it now that I've become a movie snob I was able to be much more critical of it. As social commentary I find it riviting. I particularly like the nihlistic ending. The acting in general was lousy, but well low budget horror doesn't exactly scream for Academy Awards. The music was creepy, memorable, but way over the top. Still prefer the sequel Dawn of the Dead, but the original has it's place forever secured as the most important independent horror film ever made.

Next up was Mandabi (1968) - Ousmane Sembene. This is now the third of his films I've seen, and ironically in decending order. I enjoyed this film, and it takes on a wonderfully ironic comic tone, that from the few films I've seen, appears to be his style. Also highly critical of bureacracy, another standard Sembene mark. Overall the film was highly enjoyable, and the only problem is now I have to patiently wait for someone, anyone to release more of his films.

Last was Tarnation (2003) - Jonathan Caouette. This was probably the best film of the day. I've never really seen a picture like this, and at first I even wondered if it was a documentary. The way it is told though is a fresh and lively approach to non-fiction filmmaking, and it is a shame that the film got such little attention. I know many critics raved about it, but hell I never saw it play anywhere, and didn't even hear about it during it's initial release. Truly a remarkable film, and one guaranteed to leave an impression. Funny though watching an early home movie of Jonathan, and saying damn that hair makes him look gay. Only to find that yes indeed the filmmaker, and "star" is in fact a homosexual, see sometimes stereotypes prove true. I hope he continues to make movies though, for I really enjoyed this one. But then again mental illness and tons of family drama can make interesting subjects for cinema.

I'm interested in everyone else's take on this movie.

Chris Knipp

06-19-2005, 09:24 PM

I disliked Tarnation, which I found a thoroughly unpleasent experience to watch in a theater, but I immediately recognized that it was going to be an influence. I think you're going to find that though a lot of people didn't see it, the people who need to see it and be influenced by it did or will see it, definitely. I posted a review of it and started a thread here, now in the archive.

http://www.filmwurld.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=1076

I'm kinda surprised you were surprised at any point to learn that Caouette was gay, he made that pretty much clear from frame one, at least I thought so. But maybe it takes one to know one.

tabuno

06-19-2005, 11:56 PM

trevor826: Wow! this is great, I absolutely hated Sahara, I thought everything about the movie, the acting, the whole storyline, editing, in fact everything stank like a dead fish. You know, I'd rather eat my faeces than watch this or National Treasure again."

tabuno: It's interesting that trevor826 includes both Sahara and National Treasure together. He doesn't offer much in the way of film criticism, just one of those typical general paint brush strokes that really doesn't had add much to discussion. I sometimes wonder why some people bother. Anymore, National Treasure was a cut above most adventure action films because of its unusual use of intelligence and actual treasure hunting attributes unlike almost any other film, even Indiana Jones that dabbles in some historical research, but it's mostly for show. I can only assume that trevor826 must be more into the traditional action adventure films that use plenty of special effects, violence perhaps, all those features that the Hollywood Industry churns out. It's too bad he can't appreciate the qualitative experience of other action adventure films that try to be different and offer something more refreshing that than the run of the mill stuff. Or am I missing something here, there's not a lot he's offered here to discuss.

trevor826

06-20-2005, 05:29 AM

"He doesn't offer much in the way of film criticism, just one of those typical general paint brush strokes that really doesn't had add much to discussion" I'm sure I've heard all this before.

"I can only assume that trevor826 must be more into the traditional action adventure films that use plenty of special effects, violence perhaps, all those features that the Hollywood Industry churns out." You assume far too much, both films mentioned had far too much in the way of gimmiky effects, just for the sake of it, they added nothing to the already weak storylines.

"It's too bad he can't appreciate the qualitative experience of other action adventure films that try to be different and offer something more refreshing that than the run of the mill stuff." You do realise what films we're discussing do you? Not in either was there anything I would describe as different or refreshing.

I like to keep it simple, National Treasure, I found it boring, nothing to do with violence etc and as for the CGI, there was far too much use of it . I don't know if I was American maybe (a very slight maybe) I would have appreciated the intricasies of the oh so clever plotline a little more.

As for Sahara, quite simply it was the worst film I've seen for a long long time but at least it will stay in my memory a lot longer than National Treasure simply because it was so bad. Now if you want me to go into full deconstruction mode, just let me know but for a start, the acting was abysmal, poor old Penelope Cruz, I'm glad I knew she could act beforehand, the whole storyline, c'mon now even Clive Cuzzler was more than a bit fed up with what they did with his book, editing, arsaib4 said "it could easily be trimmed by at least a quarter of an hour" I was thinking more like an hour.

I saw Sahara on it's opening day, the screen was packed but never have I seen a screen empty so quickly and silently when the credits started rolling, that's apart from the people who walked out during the film.

Just one thing though, why Tabuno do you find it hard to accept anyone elses opinion if it differs with yours and whatever happened to your sense of humour and how's Ron doing?

Cheers Trev

arsaib4

06-20-2005, 10:54 PM

Trevor: Obviously you didn't like Sahara which is fine, but I don't think you need to say, "I saw Sahara on it's opening day, the screen was packed but never have I seen a screen empty so quickly and silently when the credits started rolling, that's apart from the people who walked out during the film." This doesn't prove anything, right?

tabuno

06-21-2005, 01:22 AM

Now we have something to much on.

Tab Uno: "He doesn't offer much in the way of film criticism, just one of those typical general paint brush strokes that really doesn't had add much to discussion"

Trevor826: "I'm sure I've heard all this before."

Tab Uno: "Your response would suggest that this isn't the first time you have made such general comments before and made other people have to respond in the same manner. It would seem that there must be something to my original comment then to which you haven't or won't directly address. Either (1) you just want to make a point that avoids the work of having to explain your point thus making everybody else have to work harder, (2) you really think your point is so obvious and likely acceptable that nobody need apply, (3) you love the attention and being different, or (4) you like hearing stuff in stereo (coming at you multiple times through each year and like having these type of conversations."

Tab Uno: "I can only assume that trevor826 must be more into the traditional action adventure films that use plenty of special effects, violence perhaps, all those features that the Hollywood Industry churns out."

Trevor826: "You assume far too much, both films mentioned had far too much in the way of gimmiky effects, just for the sake of it, they added nothing to the already weak storylines."

Tab Uno: "It's not what is presented, but how it's presented. It's been said that everything that's ever been made in the mass media can be summed up in "The Illiad and the Odyssey" and "The Bible" and all storylines are derived therefrom. In thinking back on movies such as Lost in Translation, even Charlie (with Oscar winning Cliff Robertson, originally based on a short story), and Dogville - storylines can be simple (not nessarily weak) and be a fabulous movie. Even "Touching the Void" was simple but great. What was great about Sahara was the lack of gimmiky of effects? What effects are you talking about. What was refreshing about Sahara was that it was more real than most action-adventure films we've seen...Indiana Jones and the Mummy are gimmicky. Let me see you make your case about gimmicks regarding those two franchises and come back to Sahara then.

Tab Uno: "It's too bad he can't appreciate the qualitative experience of other action adventure films that try to be different and offer something more refreshing that than the run of the mill stuff."

Trevor826: "You do realise what films we're discussing do you? Not in either was there anything I would describe as different or refreshing."

Tab Uno: "What was different was that there wasn't any effort to add gimmicks or special, special effects just for the effects. Don't you find that refreshing? Finally a movie that doesn't depend on Jewel of the Nile with a jet fighter plane that crashes through a marketplace, loses its wings and blows up a wall...now how about that for gimmicky. You make an argument from a negative, complaining about what's not in the movie. What's refreshing is that Sahara devotes its energies on the acting, the behavior, and actual race, not some strange supernatural monster...perhaps its you that's caught up in the fancy world of exciting, impossibilities and you can't admit it?"

Trevor826: "I like to keep it simple, National Treasure, I found it boring, nothing to do with violence etc and as for the CGI, there was far too much use of it . I don't know if I was American maybe (a very slight maybe) I would have appreciated the intricasies of the oh so clever plotline a little more."

Tab Uno: "May you saw a different National Treasure than I did. But this movie involved more mental clues than almost any more action adventure movie. Nicholas Cage uses their minds more than their guns in this movie. Are you more into action. I followed with great interest the clues and how they led from one to another, a fascinating puzzle...I didn't find the mental puzzle at all boring but intriquing, it was just like one of those intelligence tests, searching for clues. My wife even loved this movie more than I did."

Trevor826: "As for Sahara, quite simply it was the worst film I've seen for a long long time but at least it will stay in my memory a lot longer than National Treasure simply because it was so bad. Now if you want me to go into full deconstruction mode, just let me know but for a start, the acting was abysmal, poor old Penelope Cruz, I'm glad I knew she could act beforehand, the whole storyline, c'mon now even Clive Cuzzler was more than a bit fed up with what they did with his book, editing, arsaib4 said "it could easily be trimmed by at least a quarter of an hour" I was thinking more like an hour."

Tab Uno: "Thanks for your extended comment here on Sahara. I enjoyed the richness of this movie, the experience...I wasn't interested in the convoluted complexities of strange going ones. The movie going audiences have become hypnotized by such large scale productions that offer up some much thrills that we've become zoned out automatons waiting for our next fix. Like Lost in Translation, the movies strength and beauty lie not so much in the bombs and explosions but in the effort, the singular human struggle against real odds. It's the focus on the long human pain and turmoil in the movie, of course its long, but this movie is a test of endurance and I was transported into that experience, not having to be distracted by gimmicks. The wind storm unlike The Mummy was a real natural phenomenon. I enjoyed the movie for its true joy of the adventure not action."

Trevor826: "Just one thing though, why Tabuno do you find it hard to accept anyone elses opinion if it differs with yours and whatever happened to your sense of humour and how's Ron doing?"

Tab Uno: "Because we are so...so...so...so...far apart on this movie it's so...so...so...hard to believe without further explanation how someone could find this movie so bad when I found this movie to be so good. My logical/emotional mind just can't conceive of what kind of person such opposite pole could be like and what would constitute a good movie...it's like I'm talking to a Martian. You're not by any chance a Martian are you? I haven't tapped into some strange Twilight Zone Episode and receiving previews of "War of the Worlds" messages am I? Just what would you consider a great action-adventure film? I'm am lost in your discussion without a map. Who's Ron?

arsaib4

06-21-2005, 02:03 AM

So, we are having a discussion about Sahara. NICE! I'm glad I reviewed it. ;)

Yeah, who's Ron?

trevor826

06-21-2005, 01:36 PM

“Now we have something to much on.”

Pardon, I don’t understand the expression.

“Tab Uno: "Your response would suggest that this isn't the first time you have made such general comments before and made other people have to respond in the same manner. It would seem that there must be something to my original comment then to which you haven't or won't directly address. Either (1) you just want to make a point that avoids the work of having to explain your point thus making everybody else have to work harder, (2) you really think your point is so obvious and likely acceptable that nobody need apply, (3) you love the attention and being different, or (4) you like hearing stuff in stereo (coming at you multiple times through each year and like having these type of conversations."

1. I was making a quick chirpy comment in reply to arsaib4 not you by the way.

2. Obvious yes, acceptable, does it really matter.

3. I don’t give a flying f*** for attention, and you are extremely arrogant to make such a presumptious remark. This petty stupid comment really annoyed me.

4. The only person I’ve heard this from before was you!”

Tab Uno: "It's not what is presented, but how it's presented. It's been said that everything that's ever been made in the mass media can be summed up in "The Illiad and the Odyssey" and "The Bible" and all storylines are derived therefrom. In thinking back on movies such as Lost in Translation, even Charlie (with Oscar winning Cliff Robertson, originally based on a short story), and Dogville - storylines can be simple (not nessarily weak) and be a fabulous movie. Even "Touching the Void" was simple but great. What was great about Sahara was the lack of gimmiky of effects? What effects are you talking about. What was refreshing about Sahara was that it was more real than most action-adventure films we've seen...Indiana Jones and the Mummy are gimmicky. Let me see you make your case about gimmicks regarding those two franchises and come back to Sahara then.

Tabuno you’ve lost me there! What the hell are you talking about, your tripping over your own comments, what on earth does gimmiky of effects mean?

Tab Uno: "What was different was that there wasn't any effort to add gimmicks or special, special effects just for the effects. Don't you find that refreshing? Finally a movie that doesn't depend on Jewel of the Nile with a jet fighter plane that crashes through a marketplace, loses its wings and blows up a wall...now how about that for gimmicky. You make an argument from a negative, complaining about what's not in the movie. What's refreshing is that Sahara devotes its energies on the acting, the behavior, and actual race, not some strange supernatural monster...perhaps its you that's caught up in the fancy world of exciting, impossibilities and you can't admit it?"

I give up, your statements and arguments just don’t make any sense. Did you see either of these films, both were laden with CGI and special effects and yes a lot of them were gimmicky, the horrendous sail board thing built out of a crashed plane for example.

Also, please stop making stupi presumptuous remarks of a personal nature, it doesn't help your case does it!

Tab Uno: "Thanks for your extended comment here on Sahara. I enjoyed the richness of this movie, the experience...I wasn't interested in the convoluted complexities of strange going ones. The movie going audiences have become hypnotized by such large scale productions that offer up some much thrills that we've become zoned out automatons waiting for our next fix. Like Lost in Translation, the movies strength and beauty lie not so much in the bombs and explosions but in the effort, the singular human struggle against real odds. It's the focus on the long human pain and turmoil in the movie, of course its long, but this movie is a test of endurance and I was transported into that experience, not having to be distracted by gimmicks. The wind storm unlike The Mummy was a real natural phenomenon. I enjoyed the movie for its true joy of the adventure not action."

Strange isn’t it, it doesn’t bother me that you liked the films! But I don’t believe that everyone should have the same opinion as me and I can tolerate and understand the thoughts, ideals and opinions of others.

If you noticed the first phrase of my original comment was Wow! I was delighted to find that someone had a very different view to me.

Trevor826: "Just one thing though, why Tabuno do you find it hard to accept anyone elses opinion if it differs with yours and whatever happened to your sense of humour and how's Ron doing?"

Tab Uno: "Because we are so...so...so...so...far apart on this movie it's so...so...so...hard to believe without further explanation how someone could find this movie so bad when I found this movie to be so good. My logical/emotional mind just can't conceive of what kind of person such opposite pole could be like and what would constitute a good movie...it's like I'm talking to a Martian. You're not by any chance a Martian are you? I haven't tapped into some strange Twilight Zone Episode and receiving previews of "War of the Worlds" messages am I? Just what would you consider a great action-adventure film? I'm am lost in your discussion without a map. Who's Ron?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...it's like I'm talking to a Martian. You're not by any chance a Martian are you? I haven't tapped into some strange Twilight Zone Episode and receiving previews of "War of the Worlds" messages am I?

Who's Ron?

Tabuno and arsaib4, does that answer your question?

HorseradishTree

06-21-2005, 02:23 PM

I think Sahara's an easier film to argue for as a bad movie than Napolean Dynamite, which I just viewed. I found it made me uncomfortable and depressed. To me, it was very poorly made. Me against the world on this one, methinks.

trevor826

06-21-2005, 03:54 PM

Have to agree with you HorseradishTree, Napolean Dynamite did OK in the cinemas in the UK but did incredibly well on DVD rental, there must be something I missed because I had it listed as top of the worst films of last year.

Cheers Trev.

arsaib4

06-21-2005, 06:44 PM

I think there were much better candidates for the worst film of 2004 than Napolean Dynamite, but, overall, I didn't like it either. It felt incoherent and exploitative. It seems like American indies have lately been focused on these types of characters and their inferiority complexes.

trevor826

06-21-2005, 06:57 PM

I've little doubt there were worse films, luckily I avoided them plus of course it was only my own opinion, I know many think it was a great film.

Cheers Trev.

Chris Knipp

06-21-2005, 07:12 PM

Count me in. I love Napolean Dynamite. It's very droll, and it invents a whole little world. Mostly, it's a young people's movie, and a teenager I know was surprised I listed in in my ten best US. But older friends didn't get it.

tabuno

06-22-2005, 04:15 AM

Napolean Dynamite was shot just north of where I live and in fact I've passed by the drive-in several times during the past year that's used in the movie. This movie really has been a quiet hit around my community and even have had some of the actors come out to various events in the State (I happened not to have gone to any of them).

At least I'm consistent in my taste for movies! Sahara, Napolean Dynamite.

Getting back to Sahara. I really feel a little worried about those people who didn't like Sahara and beginning to wonder what kind of action adventure movie they do like. I haven't come across any mention of any, so I'm beginning to think there's something off about the whole action-adventure genre and not this particular movie that people are complaining about since I've been researching regarding the progressively improving mass, popular movie phenomenon.

As for tevor826, his responses about something being so obvious so why even post it really is justified in that if something is so obvious than it's a waste to post it because it doesn't add anything to the discussion of film. As for becoming offended by my remarks, particularly the one about attention, you've missed by inclusive logical modifers in my either, or statement I made. Because you are so brief in your statements, you leave much up to interpretation and leave yourself open for criticism and open to many assumptions such as the four possibilities I listed, none of which I knew for sure if what you meant. Thus, apparently you have a way of generalizing statements into global ones thus finding condemnatory comments where there were none intended.

Trevor826 you are the one who brought up the term gimmicks in the first place, I assume you know what you mean since you used those word. Again it would be helpful if you would expand on your meaning of words so that I don't fall in a trap attempting to assume what you mean. I'm afraid if you can't understand the difference between the word "what" and "how" something is presented, I can't very much help you. I could say something more, but I better not.

"The horrendous sail board thing built out of a crashed plane for example." A nice example trevor826. I have to say I was torn in two directions on this one. I can understand and feel something of what you mean regarding this obvious contraption, yet on the otherhand, I have to say that there is something much more basic and simple in what the final contraption became...sometimes the ingenuity and simplicity of something is quite delightful to me - to use wind power. When I think of all the other action adventure movies, this contraption seems to pale in comparison to gimmicky and horrendous - it almost seems feasible, not impossible and that's what action adventure movies are all about.

The problem I have with somebody with a polar opposite opinion than mine is that somebody just say so without anything more. I can't believe that film is so subjective that there are not some asethetic prinicples around which one can talk. For all I know, films could be discussed as if they were colors or flavors and we could say I enjoy red and you like black, or I like strawberry and you like pineapple. Brevity is sometimes interesting but for something like film criticism, it's too easy to get away with just stating a position and from my perspective be lazy about it and offer nothing to the discussion except one's feelings about a movie without expanding knowledge or wisdom and for me that's a waste of everybody's time and that's what makes me mad, not that somebody has a different opinion. It's someone with an opinion that appears to have no foundation or support.

I hope we're not talking about Ron Hubbard and scientology and Tom Cruise and The War of the Worlds.

Chris Knipp

06-22-2005, 12:56 PM

I don't want to link Napoleon Dynamite with Sahara, about which the buzz is bad, and which I haven't seen. Let me quote a couple of reviews. The hard-to-please Michael Atkinson of the Voice on Napoleon Dynamite:
Hess has the low-budget-comedy wastrel deadpan—the one Jarmusch stole from Warhol, and Wes Anderson has made semi-mainstream—down to a science, and his dry pause-and-cut idiosyncrasies are Swiss-timed. But more than anything, the film is an epic, magisterially observed pastiche on all-American geekhood, flooring the competition with a petulant shove. The easy-to-please Roger Ebert on Sahara:
It's like a fire sale at the action movie discount outlet.
Apart from the apparent contrast in quality,why should these two movies be linked? What could they possibly have in common? What is "consistent" about liking both of them? What good can it do either one to link them -- a high school geek comedy pastiche and a grab-bag action adventure sequence with "an amused, cocky smirk" (Stephen Holden in the NYTimes)? As far as I can see, liking Sahara as well does nothing to recommend Napoleon Dynamite and doesn't show consistent taste.

Chris Knipp

06-22-2005, 03:57 PM

Maybe it should be obvious, but I do want to make clear that I agree with tabuno on one thing, though, and that's the general point that these forums shouldn't just be a place to emote about our personal likes and dislikes but for discussion and argument and sometimes even hopefully mutual agreement, after a discussion, despite disagreement to start out with, about the merits of films on aesthetic and various other grounds. I want to go into any film with an open mind and I want to see its merits and at the same time cooly assess its faults. So if you, tabuno, like Sahara and Napoleon Dynamite and that doesn't make any particular sense to me, that's fine and may argue for an openness of mind on your part. But there still isn't any logic behind linking those two here, that I can see.

trevor826

06-22-2005, 04:29 PM

Chris, one of my problems with Sahara, at least expanding on my dislike of it is very simple; I saw it quite a while ago, on the opening day in fact (mainly because I wanted to catch 2 Penelope Cruz films that weekend) and I will not suffer watching it again just to remind myself why I thought it was so bad in the first place.

Trev.

Chris Knipp

06-22-2005, 06:36 PM

trevor, I wasn't saying that you have to convince me of anything, since I haven't even seen it but I suspect I would be more with you than tabuno on its merits or the lack of them, but if you want to defend your position on a film, you need to remember it somehow or other beyond the first week of seeing it. Train your eyes and brain man, take notes, whatever. "It's no good but I don't remember why" doesn't hold up in a discussion.

trevor826

06-22-2005, 08:32 PM

Guess I'd better stick to films I actually enjoy then, it's always easier to argue the plus points and I'm always more than happy to view them again to justify a point of discussion.

Cheers Trev.

Chris Knipp

06-22-2005, 09:32 PM

If you don't want to dwell on a film you don't like, that's the best policy, you can stick to defending your faves.

tabuno

06-23-2005, 12:38 AM

The link between between Sahara and Napoleon Dynamite is that I enjoyed both movies. The reason that I like both these movies is different for each of them since they are different genres and there is really not linking them other than the ability for someone to be able to see both movies and rate them favorably. I think it was trevor826 who disliked both movies thus I would believe that it would be possible to like both movies also.

Sahara I liked as I mentioned because of its simplicity and it's more straight forward storytelling without trying to be fancy and complicated.

Napoleon I liked because it was focused less on the popular people than on those individuals usually left out of crowd and ignored. I was able to see a rare glimpse of the side of life that rarely gets much attention.

Chris Knipp

06-23-2005, 01:25 AM

Thank you. I think we can conclude this topic now.

wpqx

06-24-2005, 09:12 PM

Sorry I missed out on your big Napoleon Dynamite and Sahara debate, never saw either film, and don't really care. I didn't like the original Sahara, so the remake seemed even less appealing, and as for Napoleon, well someone was gonna force me to watch it, but well that hasn't happened yet.

I just watched L'Argent (1983). New Yorker has done well lately, and glad to finally have this film available, and with more features than the previously available Man Escaped and Lancelot of the Lake. Can't say this film is a Bresson masterpiece, honestly I didn't really feel much for it. I'm not sure why lately every Bresson film I watch I absolutely adore, but for some reason this fell flat. Perhaps the crime story seemed wasteful, perhaps it wasn't compelling enough, I'm not sure. Best bet is that I just didn't pay close enough attention and have to watch it again, but it may be a long time before I'm able to do that.

arsaib4

06-24-2005, 11:37 PM

Sahara (2005) turned out to be better than what I expected, but it's not something you'd miss.

Did you get a chance to listen to Kent Jones's commentary on L'Argent? I think that might help you. He's also written a book as I mentioned earlier.

Chris Knipp

06-25-2005, 12:37 AM

You know, I almost wish I'd seen Sahara, but I'm not going to go back and find it now. Mr. and Mrs. Smith was enough in that pop vein. I have had an eye problem off and on for two months, so have only briefly been able to see movies in theaters. I didn't see the new Star Wars. But when I look in the Films section of
TimeOut New York, I know that if I were there I would be busy. I'm sure that it's worth seeing every Robert Bresson film, but not every one has to be considered a masterpiece. The circumstances under which you see one of them has a big effect. For me Diary of a Country Priest made a big and lasting impression, because it was the first one I saw in a theater and I had no idea what to expect.

I hope to have my movie reviews on my website back up next week, but it may be a while before all the current ones are restored completely.

arsaib4

06-25-2005, 07:27 PM

It seems obvious from your comments that you didn't think very highly of Mr. & Mrs. Smith. I think tabuno liked it a lot. I'll probably end up watching it in a few weeks. I was kind of looking forward to Bewitched, starring one of favorites, Nicole Kidman, but it's getting mauled by critics so I'm not so sure anymore. I think the best film playing right now across the country is Miyazaki's Howl's Moving Castle (http://www.filmwurld.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1401).

Chris Knipp

06-25-2005, 07:56 PM

I enjoyed Mr. and Mrs. Smith much of the way through, but eventually the overproduced battles began to cloy. I agree much more with the TimeOut New York evaluation -- a "guilty pleasure" that "dishes out" "fine-tuned escapism" "in abundance" and that for a while may make you think you've "stumbled in on the first successful screwball-espionage film" -- than I do with Rosenbaum's categorization of it as "worthless." Of course he means for him. For me, it provided mindless entertainment when I was going to head to the hospital the next morning and needed distraction, not profundity. The two leads do look pretty splendid and work well together. I couldn't go for Bewitched because I don't like that kind of thing even if the critics didn't maul it, though it's always tempting to watch anything with Nicole in it. You seem to be right about the critical consensus on Howl's Moving Castle.

Other new arrivals in the US: Ozon's 5x2, which doesn't seem to be doing too well with critics. I didn't like it, but I think you do. Cafe Lumière due for a brief showing in NYC. I'm eager to see Cronenberg's new one due to your promotion, but that seems to be held for the fall? Or (My Treasure) (NYC).

arsaib4

06-25-2005, 08:07 PM

Oh, there's no lack of good independent/foreign films if you are in the right areas. Miranda July's Me and you and Everyone We Know just opened (I haven't seen it yet). But I didn't catch a British film called My Summer of Love, it's quite good. I plan to watch Mysterious Skin and The World next week. I think Tropical Malady also comes out this week.

Cafe Lumière wasn't officially distributed but it had a few screeenings thanks to "Best of Village Voice" series at Brooklyn's Academy of Music. I have the DVD but haven't watched it yet. Cronenberg's film is scheduled for September 30th I think. Jarmusch latest, Broken Flowers, comes out August 5th. I forgot about Van Sant's film which is coming out in July. So there's a lot going on. Haven't seen Or (My Treasure) yet; it won the Camera D'or last year for whatever it's worth.

Chris Knipp

06-25-2005, 08:24 PM

Yes, Tropical Malady is coming soon to a Berkeley theater too.` As I said earlier I'd like to be in NYC now because there is no shortage of the small releases you're referring to. Cannes has really heralded some films I eagerly await now, as you mention, the Jarmusch, the Van Sant, the Cronenberg. I've read about Me and You and Everyone We Know; Mysterious Skin has been here and passed on. In retrospect it was much different from what I had imagined, more jolting and shocking, ultimately not really as good.

If I was going to go to a good blockbuster, I should have chosen Batman Begins rather than Mr. and Mrs. Smith.

wpqx

06-25-2005, 11:34 PM

Watched Land of the Dead tonight, and I'll try and get a thread going on it.

arsaib4

06-26-2005, 02:24 AM

wpqx: Did you see Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later? How does Land of the Dead compare to that and some of the other recent zombie films?

Chris: I'm not quite sure what you mean by "Mysterious Skin has been here and passed on." I thought it just came out recently and was received very well.

Chris Knipp

06-26-2005, 06:06 AM

I didn't mean to mislead you. Of course Mysterious Skin has been well received; it's just no longer showing in the East Bay. It opened in early May and ran for about a month. It is still showing in San Francisco.

wpqx

06-26-2005, 10:30 AM

Actually I didn't see 28 Days Later, or Shaun of the Dead, or the Dawn of the Dead remake, so modern zombie films aren't my area of expertise.

My gf did say that this movie reminded her of 28 Days, so by her amateur opinion they seem to be similar. I don't think the film quite measures up to the first two Living Dead movies, but Day of the Dead wasn't hard to beat.

wpqx

06-26-2005, 04:42 PM

In a Year of 13 Moons (1978) - Rainer Werner Fassbinder

I'm not sure what number this is for Fassbinder, I'm past the point of counting. Like all his films its offbeat, but makes sense in his world. The film is a wonderful companion piece to his earlier Fox and His Friends, and both films represent his most personal features. Perhaps Fox seems more personal because of the fact that Fassbinder plays the lead, but hearing a little about 13 Moons, this film is straight from the heart.

Like the previous film this deals with homosexuality and one particular emotionally unbalanced man/woman named Elvira. He has tried convincing himself and others that he is a woman, and it's hard to see his motivation for it. I'm not quite sure whether the reason of him having the sex change is to seek the approval of a man who tells him "Too bad you're not a woman", or if it is a self hating tactic. The belief that if you love a man you're not gay if you're a woman, so perhaps Elvira is in contempt of his homosexuality.

All of this is psychological mumbo-jumbo and I reckon both answers are true. the transvestite element makes this film anticipate almost the entire career of Pedro Almodovar, and the melodrama certainly helps. While watching it I couldn't tell how much I was getting involved. I felt a detachment from the characters in many ways for their behavior. Since the film has ended though it's starting to stick with me. I feel the pity and sympathy necessary of Elvira and I'm starting to see why Fassbinder made this film. It was made for his lover who committed suicide the same year the picture was made. That gives the film a painful resonance and a bit of cinematic truth.

I believe that no amount of recommendations can ever suffice for Fassbinder. All of his films need to be seen, and I just wish more companies went to the trouble that Fantoma did for this release, as well as the Criterion releases. Fassbinder has many great films, and all too many of his dvd's seem like they were just directly transfered onto disc from the already available video. I'm still ignorant of most of his work, so certainly plan on seeing more, alhtough this is the last of his films in my to watch pile for now.

wpqx

06-26-2005, 10:09 PM

The Five Obstructions (2003)

Von Trier is always interesting, and this film certainly has the mark of a Dogme film. Experimental in nature, but not quite as compelling as it could have been. The animated obstruction was the most interesting of the film. Overall though I can't say I really enjoyed it.

wpqx

06-26-2005, 10:53 PM

Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone (2001) - Chris Columbus

Well finally saw a film from this series, and pretty damn entertaining. I'll eventually check out the other two, and maybe even see the fourth in the theater. Oh and I haven't read any of the books, so I'm just that damn ignorant.

arsaib4

06-26-2005, 11:39 PM

I was quite fascinated by The Five Obstructions. One gradually discovers that the film is not just about Jørgen Leth and whether he succeeds or not (since a film was made it's easy to assume that he does), but it's also about Mr. Von Trier and what goes on in the "beautiful" mind of his.

Chris Knipp

06-26-2005, 11:42 PM

Agreed--I was going to say the same thing, arsaib, but you got in ahead of me. For wpqx I wanted to reference my review of The Five Obstructions. I think actually the film's very interesting indeed, but you get out of it what you put into it, it's not for casual viewing.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0354575/usercomments

My website movie reviews will be back next week, hopefully; meanwhile here's my IMDb version.

arsaib4

06-28-2005, 02:57 AM

Unlike The Pianist, where Adrian Brody embodied a man who gradually deteriorated but fought to keep himself alive, The Jacket features the star in a role in which he supposedly dies more than once. Brody plays Jack Starks, a Gulf War vet who got shot in the head during a routine procedural in 1991 (his first encounter with death). After returning home with a severe case of amnesia, things don’t go much better for him; he’s accused of a murder after he hitched a ride with a stranger and was found passed out with a gun in his hand. Circumstantial evidence leads against him, but due to his mental health, he’s found not guilty by reason of insanity and gets institutionalized in one of those One Flew Over the Cookoo’s Nest-type of environments. The institution is more or less controlled by a sadistic doctor (Kris Kristofferson) who employs his own ways to treat patients, and that includes injecting them with mind-altering drugs and locking them in a morgue drawer (the "jacket" of the title) for hours at a time. While in there, Jack isn’t properly able to recall the past, but he does end up time-traveling to the year 2007 (about 15 years ahead). There he meets a downtrodden waitress (Keira Knightley), someone he might have encountered in his past, and she informs him that he died in 1993. Now it’s up to jack to find out what exactly happened as time is running out for him.

An interesting premise whose certain facets have been explored in much depth in films like Jacob’s Ladder and 12 Monkeys. The Jacket wants you to believe that it is cerebral and ingenious but the more you examine it, the less profound it becomes. The project has certainly attracted some big names. It is produced by Section Eight, the independent brand of Steven Soderbergh and George Clooney. They chose director John Maybury, a Brit who was an understudy of the brilliant Derek Jarman at one point, and directed the formidable Francis Bacon biopic titled Love Is the Devil in 1998. Maybury’s background as a visual artist has been put to good use, especially during the hallucination sequences, and he’s well aided by DP Peter Deming (Lost Highway/Mulholland Drive), but some of the compositions are criminally overdone to the point that they start resembling the processes of an MTV-hack. Even with all the time-shifting, the screenplay keeps its head until the final act where any semblance of clarity is sacrificed for melodrama. After the formal rigorosity of The Pianist, this was probably a walk in the park for Mr. Brody, but even in various dissolutory stages he is as brazenly alive here as he’s ever been. He’s the main reason why The Jacket seems agreeable even when it's disintegrating in front of our very eyes.

Grade: C+

*THE JACKET is now available on DVD.

Chris Knipp

06-28-2005, 10:59 AM

Another promising English director fallen victim to the temptations of Hollywood money? Really excellent review, arsaib, with complete coverage of all varieties of talent brought together to be wasted here. I'm afraid this is what I mostly find when I go to Blockbuster or its like: stuff I knew why I didn't see when it was in theaters a while back. But I was tempted then, and I can see how you could be tempted if you saw it on a video shop shelf.

stevetseitz

06-28-2005, 06:17 PM

>>compositions are criminally overdone to the point that they start resembling the processes of an MTV-hack.<<

Brilliant phrase!

I remember seeing "Midnight Cowboy" for the first time in the theater and thinking, "Hmmmm, so this is where MTV got it from..."

O.K. on to my recent film:

Anyone see the cool "fear" scenes in "Batman Begins" yet? I thought they worked very well. The whole movie was well done with a dark, very "Batman" tone. Few super-hero movie cliches and a good cast along with break-neck pacing kept me into this movie. It's the best "Batman" movie since Tim Burton's "Batman" with Keaton and Nicholson.

Making "Scarecrow" a formidable enemy is quite an accomplishment.

arsaib4

06-28-2005, 08:47 PM

Thanks for the comments guys.

The Jacket is apparently the only film work Maybury has done since '98, so I'm not sure how to define his thought process. I wouldn't call this film a waste. It could be a worthy rental; but don't expect a lot.

I saw Batman Begins earlier today. I'm not very impressed. My feelings about the film are similar to what wpqx and tabuno have said in its thread. I'll add a few comments later.

Chris Knipp

06-29-2005, 12:47 AM

As for Batman Begins, I would think it all has a lot to do with whether one really likes comic book hero movies, or not. Since they're big news, anybody who follows the movies feels obliged to see them, but they leave many of us unmovied. I haven't seen it yet though. But people keep saying that the story is interesting.

bix171

06-29-2005, 03:43 PM

The first half is very good. Very scary. Very despairing. Kind of a mix between "Close Encounters Of The Third Kind" and "Schindler's List".

The second half is not as good, but still worth watching. Basically a series of cliffhangers in which uber-TomCruise rescues his daughter in a series of increasingly resourceful ways. Some of these set pieces seem to have been copied from "Jurassic Park" (though there are images from just about every Spielberg film; the fillm's like an hommage he's paying to himself).

Cruise's and co-star Dakota Fanning's acting skills are slightly above competent. Stronger leads would've helped.

Excellent special effects. The most chilling: a runaway passenger train with flames shooting through each window.

arsaib4

06-30-2005, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
My website movie reviews will be back next week, hopefully;

It looks like your site is functioning okay. Some of the reviews seem to be in a different order but that's no big deal. I also noticed that you have added a rating at the end of your comments; you were doing fine w/out it but if it works for you then great.

Chris Knipp

06-30-2005, 04:23 PM

(Originally posted by arsaib4)
I also noticed that you have added a rating at the end of your comments; you were doing fine w/out it but if it works for you then great. I don't personally feel a need for the ratings; they're experimental, tried in response to the criticism that what I thought of a film wasn't always clear. I could just try to make it clear from my text and drop the ratings.

I'm also looking at the possibility of making my reviews indexed and searchable and perhaps also putting them up in a different software and format. There is no particular logic to using forum software; it was just software that made posting reviews easy for me. But changing to different software and reinstalling all my reviews in it would be laborious; whereas making the existing software indexed and searchable would be costly. It's a tradeoff.

wpqx

07-01-2005, 09:43 PM

The Bourne Supremacy (2004) - Paul Greengrass

Honestly I'm a little disappointed. The film was decent at parts, but Greengrass made a mess of it. He did such a fantastic job with Bloody Sunday, I was hoping he could bring some of the emotional resonance to this series, and instead it was rapid, blurry, editing, and a lot of stanrd action sequences. Wait to see how it all plays out with the third installment, which will obviously be made, because there were three books.

arsaib4

07-01-2005, 11:35 PM

It doesn't bode well for The Bourne Supremacy in my mind since I don't remember much about it. "Emotional resonance" is usually the key but unfortunately there isn't much here. I also agree with you on Bloody Sunday.

wpqx

07-02-2005, 01:27 PM

Les Vampires (1915) - Louis Feuillade

I'll take this time to mention that I got tickets to the White Sox vs. the Red Sox, and then in August the White Sox vs. the Yankees. That's the highlight of my day right now.

As for the film took me two installments, it's a little lengthy for one sit through. Interesting, but perhaps too may identity problems. Leaders and characters kept changing, and disappearing, and dying, and I had a hard time following it all. Now that I've finally seen it though I can start reading about it, and hopefully some light will be let in.

Chris Knipp

07-02-2005, 02:38 PM

wpqx-- bravo.

arsaib4--another good review. You make it sound worth watching, for the first time.

arsaib4

07-02-2005, 06:25 PM

wpqx: Don't be shy about passing on some of that light. I forgot to add that you may also enjoy Olivier Assayas' Irma Vep (1996).

Chris: I hope that I'm not being too harsh on some of these films, but I think it's better to be somewhat discerning than to just keep waving the white flag.

Chris Knipp

07-02-2005, 07:02 PM

arsaib: Harsh? No, I like your approach on these ones.

By the way, what do you think about my numerical rating attempts--would it be better for me to go back to purely verbal indications of my opinion and skip the numbers, in your opinion?

arsaib4

07-02-2005, 07:55 PM

Your reviews, at least the ones that I've had a chance to read, are of pretty good length so it hasn't been difficult for me to decipher your points or opinions. But I think you've mentioned in the past that some of your website readers wanted you to add a rating of some sort. If that's the case then it's a good idea.

Chris Knipp

07-03-2005, 01:02 AM

Okay. Thanks. I'll continue to ponder the issue.

arsaib4

07-04-2005, 12:57 AM

My "Best of 2005" so far among official theatrical releases from Jan - Jun.

1. The Holy Girl (La Niña Santa) - Lucrecia Martel / Argentina

2. Crash - Paul Haggis / U.S.

My Mother's Smile
(L'Ora di Religione: Il Sorriso di mia Madre)
- Marco Bellocchio / Italy

3-Iron (Bin-Jip) - Kim Ki-duk / S. Korea

3. À Tout de Suite - Benoît Jacquot / France

Caterina in the Big City (Caterina va in Città) - Paolo Virzì / Italy

Don't Move (Non Ti Muovere) - Sergio Castellitto / Italy

Head-On (Gegen die Wand) - Fatih Akin / Germany-Turkey

Howl's Moving Castle (Hauru no ugoku shiro) - Hayao Miyazaki / Japan

Machuca - Andrés Wood / Chile

My Summer of Love - Paul Pavlikovsky / U.K.

Schizo (Shiza) - Guka Omarova / Kazakhstan

Tropical Malady (Sud Pralad) - Apichatpong Weerasethakul / Thailand

Chris Knipp

07-04-2005, 12:39 PM

Nice list. Some of these I haven't been able to see, but my only reservation of ones I have seen is probably Don't Move, which I thought was glossy but superficial, despite the wonderful opportunity for Castellito and Cruz to show off their acting chops. As I've said, I'm looking forward very much to seeing À tout de suite this week, and I look forward to seeing The Holy Girl, Sud Pralad, and 3-Iron. Loved Schizo. I saw L'ora di religione three years ago in Siena. Not as taken with it as you were, but I can see its interest. Another example of the accomplished Castellitto's acting abilities. Probably should see it again. If it comes here I will.

arsaib4

07-04-2005, 02:11 PM

Castellitto is also great in Caterina in the Big City. It's a coming-of-age story mixed with a sharp satire on current Italian politics. Hopefully you'll get a chance to see it.

Manohla Dargis spoke enthusiastically about Audiard's The Beat That My Heart Skipped, the Fingers remake starring Romain Duris. I'm not sure if I'll be able to see it anytime soon but want to.

Chris Knipp

07-04-2005, 02:46 PM

Dargis's is not the only positive review of the new Audiard film this week and I'd be very eager to see it and to rent a copy of Tobak's "notorious" Fingers (as Denby calls it) to prepare. Denby's tight-lipped in his praise ("tense, vivid, alert") -- you'd be hard-pressed to find a good phrase for an ad; but his detailed description is obviously very admiring.

Caterina in the City has been rather 'damned with faint praise' locally, but I'll keep in mind your corrective. Castellitto rarely disappoints. He's no Brando or Belmondo, but he's a consummate craftsman. The new Mastroianni for a new age?

arsaib4

07-04-2005, 11:09 PM

I think Fingers deserves to be seen in any case. It's a great character study with Harvey Keitel in top form. I believe it was the first film Toback directed (and many say the best). You probably already know this but he's spoken much more highly of in Europe, especially in France -- still I was a little surprised after learning that Toback is actively promoting the remake.

I was going to write a little on Caterina but decided not to since most won't get a chance to see it in theaters. I'll wait for its DVD release.

Chris Knipp

07-04-2005, 11:44 PM

I hope I can find Fingers.

In fact Caterina is still showing both in Berkeley and San Francisco.

Chris Knipp

07-06-2005, 01:05 AM

I'm sure I'd be interested. If the comparison with Eric Rohmer (repeated constantly in reviews and festival notices, I see) is something of a distraction, Bonnell himself invited it.. I found a very nice little review (http://officecom.qc.ca/Media-film/Fiche/chignondolga,le.html) by a certain André Lavoie on the French site mediafilm, which I didn't know about before but will be checking out from time to time I think.

I gather you yourself bought the UK DVD?

arsaib4

07-06-2005, 01:20 AM

True, Bonnell has invited the comparison (he's quite honest in his interviews/press releases etc.) but it wasn't a distraction. It's possible that he created a distraction for himself by introducing Chaplin in, who he also pays homage to in a couple of sequences (much less successfully). I think you'll like it. The French site seems quite nice.

I haven't bought the DVD, at least not yet. I re-signed up with Nicheflix (http://www.nicheflix.com/movie_details.aspx?movieID=5775), just for a month though.

Chris Knipp

07-06-2005, 01:26 AM

Trouble with that site is it's Canadian, and they seem to be flooded with crap films in their theaters.... but then maybe so is France, this time of year being bad all over?

arsaib4

07-06-2005, 01:57 AM

Most Hollywood films come out the same day in N. America (if not the World) so the options are pretty much the same, even in "French Canada." However, in Quebec, distributors do put out a lot of French films on DVD, unsubtitled, of course.

I was quite sad going over some of the releases in France right now. Things aren't much better there. It's mostly re-releases or American genre films. I couldn't find a worthy French film till the end of September when Patrice Chéreau's Gabrielle is scheduled, starring Isabelle Huppert and Pascal Gregory.

stevetseitz

07-06-2005, 05:48 AM

Oh, man. How cool to see it in all it's widescreen DVD glory after having to settle for the hard to find, rare (and out-of print) VHS version!

Lee Marvin, Gene Hackman. Gangsters in the heartland. I love this movie. Highly underrated.

Chris Knipp

07-06-2005, 01:52 PM

Steve Seitz--??

arsaib4--Yes, I see that Médiafilm (http://officecom.qc.ca/Media-film/Mediafilm-accueil.html) lists many French DVD's coming out in Canada, and maybe more French films in theatrical distribution too, no? About the openings in France itself that news isn't good; last year at least I found interesting offerings in Paris in early September. Could there be more openings in Sept. not yet announced? I didn't know France was ever going to knuckle under to the American cultural behemoth the way Italy has done, but maybe it is going to happen. Bad news.

stevetseitz

07-06-2005, 03:27 PM

Arsaib: I liked "The Five Obstructions". I liked the concept but it seemed that Von Triers was cheated every time and his obstructions weren't all that creative.

It does prove that limitations often spawn MORE creativity rather than less. This is something directors in Hollywood (and George Lucas) should take note of.

arsaib4

07-06-2005, 06:11 PM

I agree that the obstructions themselves could've been more creative from the very start, but I think, like you said yourself, some of them evolved into concepts that ended up being much more interesting. So, there was a little give and take between the two. We should also take in consideration the budgetary concerns which might've had some impact (they still spent a lot form the look of it).

Good point about our filmmakers.

Chris Knipp

07-06-2005, 07:28 PM

I was quite satisfied with the obstructions in The Five Obstructions as conceived by von Trier. I wouldn't venture to judge the creativity level of the obstructions. They seemed obstructive enough to make the way Jørgen Leth overcame them seem both inventive and elegant. Any thinking in this area impresses me, because my mind works the opposite way, toward finding ways to make things easier.

Indeed a good point about our filmmakers, but one surely wasted on most Hollywood people, who succeed chiefly by -- or in spite of -- excess.

arsaib4

07-08-2005, 03:12 AM

The title of the film, Angel on the Right (Fararishtay kifti rost), is derived from an Islamic law which states that every human being has two angels, one of each shoulder, who document the good and the bad deeds to be interpreted on judgment day. So, with that in mind, it becomes obvious early on that one of the angels on our protagonist, Hamro (played with a brooding intensity by Maruf Pulodzoda who looks like an extra from a Guy Ritchie flick), hasn’t been doing much work lately as we learn that this ex-con has just spent 10 years in a Moscow prison for murder, and has also been involved with drugs in the past. But, as he makes his way back towards the remote, poverty-stricken village in Tajikistan, he doesn’t realize that he’s being duped by his mother (Uktamoi Miyasarova) and the local villagers (including a tyrant of a mayor) into coming back so he can pay off his numerous debts. Directed by Jamshed Usmonov, a Tajik who is most famous for a playing the lead in Darezhan Omirbayev's The Road (Yol, 2001), Angel on the Right is a relatively minor parable in every sense, although, it’s not without its pleasures. Along with examining a couple of interesting relationships, Usmonov often livens up his bleak milieu with dry humor and by introducing some wicked local customs -- one involves a barbaric hand-shake (Tourist Warning: Don’t try to bargain!). Eventually, Hamro comes across his son (Kova Tilavpur), possibly a product of his past relationship with a local whore, and develops sexual feelings for a beautiful young nurse (Malohat Maqsumova), but Usmonov wisely refuses to redeem this selfish and materialistic man for the most part. A political reading of the film might render it even more important, because as the director said, "[Angel on the Right]reflects the problems of present-day Tajik society, which is facing profound social and political upheavals and a seven-year civil war. The main character Hamro is the product of these events." If I were to decipher my opinion using the film’s titular logic, then I’d say that there's definitely more good here than bad.

Grade: B

*ANGEL ON THE RIGHT was released directly on DVD (http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0008FXT6O.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg) on the 21st of June.

*The film premiered in 2002 at the Cannes Film Festival (Un Certain Regard)

*It was part of the Global Film Initiative series which tours many universities and other theatrical sites in order to promote World Cinema originating from remote locations. They recently formed a partnership with First Run Features so the films will eventually become available on DVD. Some of their other features include Whisky (Uruguay), Fuse (Bosnia Herzegovina), Shadow Kill (India), Today and Tomorrow (Argentina) etc.

Chris Knipp

07-08-2005, 01:37 PM

In these days of religious and cultural confusion it may be best to point out that the two angels aren't a "law" of Islam but simply a part of the Moslem vision of final judgment referred to in the Koran and much elaborated in traditionThey're in Sura 82 of the Koran (Surat al-Infitar), The "shattering," describing Judgment Day in prophetic rhymed prose and famously referring to the two angels by the phrase, "Kiraaman kaatibayna," "two generous writers," and in another Sura it says they stand on the right and the left. So they're in the book, as the saying goes, but not exactly a law.

arsaib4

07-08-2005, 07:57 PM

In these days of religious and cultural confusion it's better not to interpret the law w/out much knowledge of the subject at hand. Many friends and their family members do consider the book a "law," so it's not exactly "how the saying goes."

Chris Knipp

07-08-2005, 09:01 PM

I have studied the Koran in Arabic, but I'm not a Moslem so if your contacts say the two angels are a law, so be it.

wpqx

07-10-2005, 01:37 AM

Just watched Sling Blade (1996) - Billy Bob Thornton

Got to give Thornton some respect for this one. His performance might not have been to spectacular, but that's jut because I believe that the mentally challenged are the easiest acting job a person can get, but I do admire the fact that he didn't exactly play this the conventional way. No tantrums or fits here, but more importantly I admired his directing style. Lots of long shots, and nothing in the film was really overwhelming, he could be a major American filmmaker, but instead he'd rather do a remake of Bad News Bears, but that's another story. He seems to have fallen victim to the win an Oscar, then make nothing but shitty movies curse that goes around. Hell look at the great acting roles Gwenyth Paltrow has had since Shakespeare in Love. Maybe I shouldn't pass judgement because Catwoman wasn't bad was it? Maybe Halle Berry needed to stretch with that one.

Anyways if I want to be generic, I'll say thumbs up on Sling Blade, kinda makes me want to kill rednecks though.

trevor826

07-10-2005, 12:03 PM

The Descent directed by Neil Marshall 2005.

Can't say too much because it'll probably take a good couple of months before it's released in the US but the basic premise is a group of 6 women set off to explore some deep caves and things go horribly wrong.

The good thing is, it's a film that has several layers and therefore several interpretations, you can take it at it's most basic, a fairly decent horror flick or you can delve deeper which means re-interpreting some of the early scenes, enough said for now.

Cheers Trev.

Chris Knipp

07-10-2005, 03:08 PM

I think you're right there's no US release date announced yet, though I have seen a preview here. NOt to be confused with Descent with Rosaria Dawson, scheduled for 2006 and directed by a woman.

arsaib4

07-11-2005, 01:05 AM

I read that The Descent is quite violent and gory. I've had my fill this year with High Tension so I'm probably gonna stay away. It seems like these kind of films are coming back so to speak (a Rob Zombie film is also on the way) after we had years of cheesy "teenage" horror flicks. I'm not affected by watching such mayhem (or maybe I am), but in any case, I'd rather stick to Argento or Bava even with their shoddy production values, idiotic premises etc. because they never take themselves too seriously.

trevor826

07-11-2005, 06:32 AM

I read that The Descent is quite violent and gory.

Yes that is true, it'll definitely please the gore-hounds in fact at points it reminded me of some of the films from the 70's and 80's, things like Texas Chainsaw Massacre or The Hills Have Eyes.

I also had flashes of Alien and Ripley also Predator and as for poor old Gollum, he will never seem quite the same again.

It is a shame in a way because the best moments in the film and the ones that crank up a real sense of danger are the ones involving the sheer claustrophobic feel of the caves. At least it didn't fall into the usual "all female" cliches, nothing remotely sexual and not just lambs to the slaughter. Another thing it reminded me of though was Star Trek, it was easy to work out who would be first to get it.

As I said initially this is a film of more than interpretation and I prefer the deeper meaning but judging by the reviews I've seen, that side of it has been totally missed.

I did see a trailer for the new Rob Zombie film, it looked about as appealing as having your teeth extracted with a pair of rusty pliers.

Cheers Trev.

arsaib4

07-12-2005, 02:28 AM

it looked about as appealing as having your teeth extracted with a pair of rusty pliers.

C'mon, don't remind me of Oldboy again. ;)

One British horror film I didn't mind was The Bunker. It was also quite claustrophobic. The film was about a group of German soldiers (speaking in perfect English accents!) who end up in a bunker with secret tunnels et al. They end up retreating toward those tunnels where their haunted past catches up with them. It was more psychological than anything else. Low budget, but it was worth the time.

wpqx

07-12-2005, 05:10 PM

Finished Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia (1974), from Sam Peckinpah.

This is number 5 from Peckinpah for me and violent as ever. The film is dirty and in many ways nihlistic. Peckinpah seems to be a fan of everybody loses stories, and this is certainly an example. But with any Peckinpah film it's not who dies, but how they die, and the carnage is well calculated here.

arsaib4

07-12-2005, 08:56 PM

In Crónicas ("Chronicles"), the focus is on media's coverage of events that are capable of being exploited, along with its victims, for personal benefits. Directed by Ecuadorian filmmaker Sebastián Cordero (Ratas, Ratones, Rateros), the film features A Miami TV crew -- including its flashy reporter, Manolo (John leguizamo), producer (Leonor Watling), and a cameraman -- which is dispatched to a poor Ecuadorian village in order to cover the story of a serial killer (nicknamed: "Monster of Babahoyo") on the loose, accused of sexually assaulting and then murdering his young victims. It doesn’t take long for Leguizamo to get involved after he ends up saving the life of a traveling Bible salesman (Damián Alcázar), who accidentally kills a young boy but has to bear the wrath of an already angry mob of villagers. Once in jail, the salesman cuts a deal with Manolo so he'll be shown favorably in his report in return for the clues of the real killer he met on the road (he even informs him about the burial site of a young girl). Manolo goes along with it while still believing that the salesman is the real criminal. Produced by the likes of Alfonso Cuarón and Guillermo del Toro, Crónicas’s conventional narrative structure is enhanced by the realistic, atmospheric settings. The film boasts strong performances from the entire cast (but especially from Alcázar and a focused Leguizamo), while commenting on the voyeuristic and self-interest tendencies in reporters that damage the credibility of news reports. However, Crónicas loses some of its edge in the third act, venturing toward the more run-of-the-mill elements one often finds in Latin American films.

Grade: B

*CRONICAS (http://www.cronicasthemovie.net) is now in limited release from Palm Pictures.

*The film premiered at the 2004 Cannes Film Festival (Un Certain Regard).

Chris Knipp

07-12-2005, 09:23 PM

I agree substantially with your estimate, which you would see if you checked out my more detailed review of Crónicas done at the time of the San Francisco International Film Festival. I have seen the preview being used here: it makes it look very impressive, more that it is. Good packaging.

http://www.filmwurld.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1321&perpage=15&highlight=SFIFF&pagenumber=4

arsaib4

07-13-2005, 04:37 AM

Ha,...thanks! It was a spur-of-the-moment kind of thing. I was trying to come up with something intelligent for about 3 other films at the same time (bad idea, I must say). Then I realized that this thing is out so I decided to clean up the shit from last year's Toronto thread. Thanks for the link to your fine review; I had forgetten about the fact that you saw the film. We certainly agree here. I think the film will do well, especially with the Latino community.

Chris Knipp

07-13-2005, 11:38 AM

I hope it does well. So far, I don't know.

Remember The Crime of Padre Amaro? Huge in Mexico, but apparently no success here. Very entertaining, and with Garcia Bernal as a sexy priest. How could you lose?

We'll see.

MetaCritic rates both these in the low, very low, sixties, Crónicas slightly higher.

oscar jubis

07-13-2005, 02:30 PM

I was surprised by your comment that Amaro was "apparently no success here". Here meaning the USA, I presume. Surprised because while Mexican films don't do as well in Miami as Spanish films, Amaro had a long run here. So I went to IMdb and learned US domestic gross got close to $6 million. I am under the impression that's higher than the average gross for a foreign language film. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm also not sure Garcia Bernal was as famous when Amaro came out as he is currently.

arsaib4

07-13-2005, 10:18 PM

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
Very entertaining, and with Garcia Bernal as a sexy priest. How could you lose?

I didn't find Padre Amaro entertaining. I believe it was overly melodramatic, and its heavy-handedness was ultimately draining. Unfortunately, the sexy priest couldn't save the film.

Chris Knipp

07-14-2005, 01:11 AM

You're absolutely right. He can't save it. It isn't a good movie. IT was quite a sensation in Mexico because it contains shocking information about priestly corruption, but otherwise it was more on the level of a good telenovela than a good 'film.' Perhaps I appreciated Garcia Bernal more than you did. He's awfully good looking and it was a good juicy role for him. A better role than movie. I just thought more people would come out to see it than did, here. Crónicas is somewhat telenovela-esque too.

arsaib4

07-14-2005, 01:26 AM

García Bernal is an extremely good-looking man. I have no problems saying that. But, there are a lot of equally attractive actors who aren't nearly as good as he is. And, even more importantly, he has a good head on his shoulders which is already proven by his choices. After the likes of Y tu mamá también and The Motorcycle Diaries he could've easily sold out but he has chosen to appear in indies like The King (James Marsh), The Science of Sleep (Michel Gondry), and Babel (Alejandro González Iñárritu).

wpqx

07-14-2005, 01:45 AM

While you two keep discussing Mexican actors you'd like to sleep with, I'll get back to Werner Herzog. Just watched Little Dieter Needs to Fly and it is not only the first documentary from Herzog I've seen, but the first of his films made in the nineties that I've managed to catch. I know my knowledge of foreign film rarely extends past the last twenty years, but I do make an effort, lord knows I can't keep up with new releases.

As for the film it was simple, moving, and confrontational. Herzog never once questions the war, but rather choses to look at the impacts of a POW in Vietnam. He could have very easily preached but he didn't. Even the moments of destruction and chaos were undercut merely as representations of fact. Herzog didn't seem to be out for sympathy, he respects his audiences intelligence too much. ALso have to commend him for returning to the scene with Dieter to show where he was taken.

arsaib4

07-14-2005, 01:58 AM

Hey! Just because a man happens to find another attractive, that doesn't make him gay -- not that there's anything wrong with that. I'll be glad to pass the opportunity to Chris and I'm sure he wouldn't mind.

Film Comment did a nice roundup on Herzog's docs in their recent issue. Too bad it isn't available online.

Chris Knipp

07-14-2005, 02:13 AM

Steve Martin introduced Garcia Bernal at the Oscars this way: "I'd do anything to look the way he does... except of course exercise or eat right." One thing is clear: I don't want to sleep with Werner Herzog. But he's made some great movies. Garcia Bernal has made some interesting choices. Padre Amaro was closer to his telenovela youth. I personally found dot the i useless, but it was a try. We'll see how these other new indies turn out.

wpqx

07-14-2005, 07:49 PM

In Old Arizona (1929) - Raoul Walsh and Irving Cummings

This is the film that cost Walsh his eye, and his acting career. Would the film have been better had Walsh kept the lead? I don't know, early sound films almost always suffer from horrible acting, one of the few exceptions being Bessie Love in The Broadway Melody. Warner Baxter actually won an Oscar for his laughably bad performance as the Cisco Kid. Watching the film from Pre-Code Hollywood it isn't as readily predictable. I can't tell if they're playing against type by having the flirtatious female be the villian or if it's just mysoginist filmmaking. Either way I liked that touch. Direction was rather boring, which may have been Cummings since Walsh actually didn't direct most of the film. The acting was near attrocious, but the film does have it's moments. Over all I'd say only watch this if you're an obsessive Oscar dork who needs to see everything nominated for an Academy Award, otherwise please ignore, certainly not a high point in the career of Walsh.

arsaib4

07-15-2005, 12:42 AM

Originally posted by wpqx
Over all I'd say only watch this if you're an obsessive Oscar dork who needs to see everything nominated for an Academy Award...

:)

arsaib4

07-15-2005, 12:57 AM

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
I personally found dot the i useless

I can't believe that I actually saw Dot the I; it's certainly useless. I think Bernal did this before some of his other recent work, but it just wasn't released till he became famous.

wpqx

07-15-2005, 02:11 AM

Unfaithfully Yours (1948) - Preston Sturges

Absolutely amazing. Quite a pleasant surprise on all counts, complex, funny, and virtually unacknowledged. Don't know why this film isn't as readily associated with Sturges other major classics. There is also a little controversy over whether this is the complete film, as it was edited by Zanuck, but the film itself seems decades ahead of it's time. I'd recommend this film highly to anyone.

Chris Knipp

07-15-2005, 02:37 AM

I think Bernal did this [dot the i] before some of his other recent workThat could be true. I saw it in NYC in April. Maybe released in the UK earlier? It didn't do well.

Is Unfaithfully Yours readily available?

I saw The Beat That My Heart Skipped today (Audiard). I think it's still playing in France, which is unusual for it to be here and there at the same time. It's very well done, keeps your interest from first to last and Romain Duris is surprisingly good--I can't believe he was so bland in L'Auberge Espagnole a couple of years ago (but he's been in a ton of films I haven't seen). His sister is a pianist who coached him and did some of the playing in the film. I will write a review.

wpqx

07-15-2005, 01:47 PM

Criterion released Unfaithfully Yours this week, so it is out, same release date as La Notti Bianche.

Chris Knipp

07-15-2005, 02:58 PM

thanks

arsaib4

07-16-2005, 05:18 AM

I can't believe he was so bland in L'Auberge Espagnole a couple of years ago (but he's been in a ton of films I haven't seen).

I saw him as Arsène Lupin earlier but he didn't quite fit the role. However, I just watched Tony Gatlif's Exils which started today in Toronto. He is excellent along with Lubna Azabal. The film is ravishing to look at and the sufi music makes you wanna get up and dance. Gatlif has made many "gypsy" films before (one with Duris called Gadjo Dilo); this one has him as a French Algerian going back to find his roots. I hope it comes to the U.S.

arsaib4

07-16-2005, 05:37 AM

Fans of Zhang Yimou's Hero might not have been happy about the way it was handled by Miramax, but they would sympathize with the supporters of The Warrior (and there are certainly a few) because their film has been treated even more harshly by the same company. Miramax bought the film back in 2001 when it premiered on the world stage to much acclaim and sat on it for the next 4 years. But that wasn’t the only injustice The Warrior had to suffer through: in 2002, it became the British nominee for the foreign language Oscars but our academy disqualified it claiming that the film needed to be, well, in English! Some might say that’s the rule but the film the academy did accept from Britain (Eldra) was in Welsh. (This mess prompted a rule change but vagaries still exist.) Okay, enough with the backstory. The warrior is named Lafcadia (Irfan Khan), who's a servant of a tyrannical landlord in feudal India and goes about his job of raiding local villages, along with many other goons, without any remorse. However, one day, as Lafcadia is about to decapitate a young girl, he encounters an almost mystic vision of inner peace and decides to change his ways for good. Others don’t share his view, though -- the landlord sends in Lafcadia’s right-hand-man and good friend to seek revenge for disloyalty. Directed by Asif Kapadia, a Brit who came into the limelight with his student short The Sheep Thief which won an award at Cannes in 1998, The Warrior starts off with strong echoes of various Samurai films of the 50’s and 60’s, but the journey of Kapadia’s warrior (even after his only son is killed) doesn’t involve revenge. This simple and timeless story which is told rather matter-of-factly, yet with a Zen-like spirituality, eventually takes shape as the warrior makes his way from the harsh landscape of Rajasthan to western Himalayas. While Kapadia consistently keeps any violence offscreen, he fails to develop a strong enough motive for Lafcadia’s sudden change. Irfan Khan’s expressive eyes convey the anguish and the locales are expertly shot but more support was required from the narrative itself. So, it turns out that The Warrior has a little more in common with Hero.

Grade: B-

*The film was released by Miramax on July 15th in NY and LA.

trevor826

07-16-2005, 09:50 AM

So you've only just got The Warrior on release in the US, thats an unbelievable time lag, the one thing I treasure about the film is that once the change of heart has occured there is no turning back. You mentioned the brutal killing of his son and while I was watching the film for the first time I was wondering if it would turn into a typical "step to far" revenge drama but no, he has made his vow and he sticks with it, in a way this makes the death of his son even more powerful.

I'll have to watch it again to see whether I agree with your overall accessment, it's been a while.

Cheers Trev.

arsaib4

07-16-2005, 01:19 PM

I agree. It was refreshing to see a man, a Samurai, not being influenced by surrounding events; almost a little like Twilight Samurai, even though he eventually had to go.

I'd love to hear your thoughts if you get a chance to see it again. Perhaps I judged it too harshly. I felt like I wanted to know a little more about this man who could change directions so suddenly. I still consider The Warrior an above average film which I hope people will get a chance to see, if not in theaters then certainly on DVD.

Chris Knipp

07-16-2005, 01:22 PM

Gatlif has made many "gypsy" films before (one with Duris called Gadjo Dilo); this one has him as a French Algerian going back to find his roots. I hope it comes to the U.S. Duris has done a lot more than we've seen, I've now learned. I've seen the Gatlif films including Latjo Dilo. I didn't recognize it was the same guy in L'Auberge espagnole. He has a gypsy look in the eyes--in Auberge he comes accross as a conventional Frenchman. I don't know what his ethnic background is. I see now that he's worked a lot with both Gatlif and Klapsch who did Auberge. I've seen only those two, plus this one by Audiard. The French critics say this is Duris's best acting so far. Gadjo Dilo was shown here some years ago. His Latcho Drom was quite a hit in the Bay Area earlier. The Berkeley audience was adoring when I saw it. Gadjo Dilo didn't do quite as well. Mondo was also shown here in Landmark theaters. But Latcho Drom was by far the most successful. People bought the sound track. The cultural and musical trajectory it traces from India to Spain is fascinating.

arsaib4

07-16-2005, 01:39 PM

I read that the sequel to L'Auberge espagnole called Les Poupées russes ("The Russian Dolls") is breaking B.O. records in France. Obviously, as usual, that doesn't exactly mean quality and I'm sure Audrey Tautou has a lot to do with its success. No doubt that it'll eventually show up here; I hope the same happens with Exils.

Chris Knipp

07-16-2005, 01:48 PM

I didn't realize Poupés russes was a sequel; I saw on his website that it's his new one. He must be popular, Duris. I didn't realize that till now. I have no use for Tatou. She's the kiss of death. However Auberge espagnole, though a bit of fluff, I found forgiveable, entertaining; and since it's an ensemble piece she didn't wreck it. I didn't know they liked her over there too. Her sugary sweetness nauseates me. She's been in a lot of crap, French crap, which they do indeed have. What's Exils?

Chris Knipp

07-16-2005, 03:47 PM

HOT WEATHER ESCAPES: TALES OF THE SNOW.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093668/

Just re-watched from my tape library the Norwegian-made Pathfinder which recreates with brilliant economy an ancient Laplander myth set around the year 1000 about how evil attackers of a far-north settlement were fought off by a boy. The young central characer Eigen is played by Mikkel Gaup, who I'm going to guess is the director's son, a smart choice comparable to John Boorman's inspired use of his son Charley for the contral role in The Emerald Forest. This is a special experience, though some might want to relate it to the 2001 Inuit film Atanarjuat: The Fast Runner, also recounting the ancient legend of a snowbound people and also marked by special and unique location shooting, costumes, and evocation of a culture.

In this chilly vein I might recommend Philip Kaufman's 1974 The White Dawn, about whalers stranded among the Inuit in 1896, who have to learn (reluctantly) their customs language. Louis Gossett (excellent), Timothy Bottoms, the late, great Warren Oates, and a lot of Inuit actors. Fine cinematography by Michael Chapman. Worth tracking down. I think I found it through Michael Sragow's 1990 Produced and Abaondoned: The Best Films You've Never Seen. The recommendations are bolstered by an anthology of reviews.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0916515842/102-7977496-0966529?v=glance.

wpqx

07-16-2005, 04:31 PM

Mr. Death (1999) - Errol Morris

Fantastic film from Morris. Any fan of his work, particularly of The Fog of War owes it to themselves to see this one. This tells the story of Fred Leuchter who came to notoriety for his advancements in capital punishment, then got involved in a rather large scandal involving the holocaust. Like Morris' other films this is shot in a interesting way, and like his previous films this was also ignored by the Academy, who up until very recently loved horrendously boring documentaries.

arsaib4

07-16-2005, 10:18 PM

What's Exils?

That's the film I mentioned in my post earlier because I just saw it in Toronto. It stars Romain Duris as a French Algerian taking a journey back to his homeland; perhaps I confused you by bringing up Gadjo Dilo.

Niels Gaup: Pathfinder (Ofelas, 1987, 87 minutes)

Sounds intriguing. Although, it doesn't look like it's available on DVD.

tabuno

07-17-2005, 01:17 AM

Ok why is it that all you film buffs have been leaving out in the cold about comedy-drama. I accidentally tuned into "The Fortune Cookie" twenty minutes into its broadcast over the local PBS station here and discovered comedy-drama made almost forty years ago. Anybody else have other suggestions for comedy-drama movies that I may have missed so I don't continue to get so excited about current comedy-drama movies (though I still believe they are making a pretty good comeback)?

Chris Knipp

07-17-2005, 01:23 AM

Pathfinder (Ofelas): ". . .it doesn't look like it's available on DVD." I dare say a lot of good things aren't. You could buy a copy for ten or fifteen dollars. Worth it. Or maybe find it at a good video rental store.

I want to see Exils, though Gatlif isn't a great storyteller. But it isn't available on any non-film format.

arsaib4

07-17-2005, 01:45 AM

Found it! German DVD (http://www.jpc.de/jpcng/movie/detail/-/lang/en/currency/USD/rsk/hitlist/rk/home/hnum/5616958) with English subs. It looks like an action film.

Chris Knipp

07-17-2005, 01:52 AM

It is an action adventure tale. I said that earlier but in cutting down my description for simplicity, took that out.. It is absolutely action adventure, one of the most economical and effective ones I know,with unique atmosphere.

Amazon doesn't list there being a German DVD; how'd you find it--where? Does it have English subtitles, though? Give me the link--I might like to get a copy of it on DVD myself.

The spoken language in the film, by the way, a recreation of an ancient tongue, is beautiful to listen to.

arsaib4

07-17-2005, 02:00 AM

I included the link in my previous post. Find it. ;)

Chris Knipp

07-17-2005, 02:15 AM

Yes, I see, thanks. I'm still curious how you found that site. Most of the listings I found are only in German and I can't read them.

I ordered it. Shipping costs more than the DVD. Oh, well. Worth it. This is a really neat and little known film.

arsaib4

07-17-2005, 02:24 AM

You're welcome. I've bought from this site before and since I found out that a German DVD exists, I decided to check it. I usually get an order together because the shipping rate is flat. That's a good price for the DVD, though.

trevor826

07-17-2005, 04:19 AM

It's a long time since I've seen Ofelas - Pathfinder, but from what I can remember, because it is based on an old legend it pretty much follows the pattern of most "hero tales" as applicable to Luke Skywalker in Star Wars A New Hope but in a far more down to earth manner.

I remember there was a scene where because of the pathfinders skills, he manages to make the invaders take a treachorous route that pretty much decimates their forces. I also remember the amazing scenery, definitely one of the stand out points of the film.

It was one that I thought would be a good introductory film for youngsters to the world of foreign films.

I feel as if I've undersold Ofelas, it is worth seeing not just for the story but also for the difficult way of life of the Saami people.

Cheers Trev.

Chris Knipp

07-17-2005, 01:03 PM

I agree with you on all of that: The Pathfinder (Ofelas) is a great film for young people, but also for any age, and it's a portrait of an ancient people full of flavor (again, the language is a special and wonderful recreation and melodious to listen to). Why'd you have to give away the plot though?

I want to go back and repeat my related recommendation of Philip Kaufman's 1974 The White Dawn, about the stranded American whalers in the nineteenth century adopted by Inuit people; and also the book I learned about it from, Michael Sragow's Produced and Abandoned: The Best Films You've Never Seen, which focuses on forgotten but good movies of the Seventies and Eighties. . Some of them you already know, but some don't come up on lists and are worth seeking out. Ideal for the film nut who''s seen everything.

trevor826

07-17-2005, 03:13 PM

Re: Pathfinder.

Sorry if I said too much, as I noted it's a good few years since seeing it and it was just a stand-out scene. Oh dear now I've gone and ruined everyones life! :(

Cheers Trev.

Chris Knipp

07-17-2005, 03:49 PM

I wouldn't go that far. We'd better pass over this quickly though. Have you heard of or seen The White Dawn? . . . . change the subject.

trevor826

07-17-2005, 05:08 PM

No sorry I haven't heard of it, it was almost certainly unreleased in the UK. Did you find it on video or DVD?

And back to Pathfinder - Ofelas, if anyone gets the chance to see it, make the effort especially if you enjoy something a little different.

End of sales pitch.

Cheers Trev.

wpqx

07-17-2005, 08:26 PM

Forty Guns (1957)-Samuel Fuller

Well this makes #10 for Samuel Fuller. The film itself is not among his best. Fuller perhaps isn't as home in the old west as he is in the underworld. There are some nice touches, particularly his use of extreme close ups and the always interesting photographic effects. So perhaps style over in this case.

Chris Knipp

07-17-2005, 09:08 PM

Philip Kaufman's 1974 The White Dawn-- as I said, I found out about it from Michael Sragow's Produced and Abandoned, which was published before there were DVD's. But it is available on both US and Canadian DVD's and tapes. Some pretty cheap. I don't recommend it carelessly. It's as unusual and interesting as Pathfinder, in a different way. It's an adventure shipwreck tale, but also a study of cross-cultural encounters handled with a subtlety one rarely sees. Worth seeking out.

arsaib4

07-19-2005, 02:08 AM

Jiang Wen's Devils on the Doorstep (http://www.filmwurld.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1412) (2002)

Béla Tarr's Family Nest (http://www.filmwurld.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=11823#post11823) (1979)

arsaib4

07-23-2005, 01:34 PM

Per Fly's The Inheritance (http://www.filmwurld.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1432) (2004)

Wang Xiaoshuai's So Close to Paradise (http://www.filmwurld.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1438) (1999)

Chris Knipp

07-23-2005, 01:57 PM

I'm re-watching on tape P.T. Anderson's Magnolia, which I admired extravagantly but haven't seen for several years. Interested in considering it in relation to Crash and Short Cuts. I don't know if it's going to impress me so powerfully this time through, but I haven't made up my mind yet. It's still clearly brilliant and inventive in its baroque way.

Chris Knipp

07-24-2005, 12:12 PM

Have seen Sylvie Testud in several things, but didn't know she was Chantal Ackerman's alter ego. She has seemed to me a powerful, intense, if limited actress, good in the nerve-wracking culture-shock drama, Stupeur et tremblements. She's briefly seen in the lousy Aime ton frère. I just looked her up on IMDb and see she's incredibly busy and has done six more films since Demain on déménage. Personally I've always found Ackerman irritating, but that's just me -- except for the lightweight A Counch in New York, which did quite well here for a little while.

arsaib4

07-24-2005, 03:06 PM

Testud has certainly been quite busy in recent years. Her breakthrough came a little late; it was in the German film Beyond Silence (1996) which was nominated for an Oscar among others. You're right about Aime ton père -- it wasn't very good (both Depardieus were there, I think). Her other popular film is Les Blessures assassines.

Chris Knipp

07-24-2005, 11:40 PM

I thought we discussed Aime ton père earlier. The interest was seeing both Depardieus and the gossip value (both director Jacob Berger and young Depardieu have famous, dominant fathers); thoroughly useless movie as a movie though. Have not seen Les blessures AKA "Murderous Maids".... I believe it was shown here in theaters but somehow I missed it. Looks like it would be up her alley. I was impressed by her relentless intensity in Stupeur et tremblements, a narrow and unpleasant but compelling and riveting film;* she seems a bit one-note, but that can work well in character roles, given the intensity. Coincidentally Stupeur...etc. was directed by Alain Corneau who also directed Depardieu père et fils in Tous les matins du monde.

*It was also remarkable that she spoke only Japanese in it. If this isn't a language she knew before and she just learned the lines phonetically, that's another sign of her awesome devotion and focus.

arsaib4

07-25-2005, 02:14 AM

I haven't seen Stupeur (I think it's releasing on DVD soon), but how could it be "a narrow and unpleasant but compelling and riveting film," all at the same time, or maybe that's one of its qualities?

____________________________

George A. Romero's Land of the Dead (http://www.filmwurld.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11947#post11947) (2005)

Chris Knipp

07-25-2005, 12:32 PM

Can Alain Corneau's Fear and Trembling (Stupeur et tremblements) be both a "narrow and unpleasant and compelling and riveting" film?

I think so. I might even argue that a number of Robert Bresson's films have both sets of qualities. That's the way they happen to work. In Bresson's case, I'd have to say many of them are also great films. I'm not trying to make that claim for Stupeur et tremblements, but without being in any sense a pleasant experience it's still worth watching, especially if cross-cultural encounters interest you. See it and decide for yourself.

Johann

07-25-2005, 01:49 PM

CONSTANTINE

I watched the DVD yesterday- Rented it with "Assault on Precinct 13"

Constantine is the film version of "Hellblazer", a very popular comic book.

It's pretty damn good- especially the camerawork and editing.
Some shots remind the viewer of Kubrick- I shit you not.
Tracking shots, crane shots, close-ups- all shots are pristine and well thought-out.

The story is about exorcisms, Satan, hell, angels (yes, with wings) and a golden gun that I wish I owned.
That's all I'll say. Clive Barker could have been the guy who wrote it.

Keanu Reeves is our Exorcist. He's looser and more moody than Neo but it's hard not to compare his acting with what he did in the Matrix movies. He's the go-to guy for dealing with Hell and it's repercussions.

*SPOILERS*

The scenes of Hell and Satan himself are what makes this film extremely entertaining. It's worth sitting through all of the fantastic completely unreal scenarios to see Peter Stormare as Lucifer. His scenes are worth seeing over and over. (Stormare is one of the best character actors in the biz- he was Jeff, the retard who loves Selma in Trier's Dancer in the Dark)
Peter chews the scenery...

That gun Keanu wields is a monster. A gold fat-barrelled cannon, it's bullets are made by a kid who drives a cab (and turns out to be a major supporting player). Think of the gatling gun Jesse Ventura used in Predator- only this one is beautiful and can be held shoulder-high.

The sfx are excellent. It's the kind of sfx that are needed for a surreal, completely outrageous story like this.

It would be easy to scoff at this movie, but I felt we got my money's worth. An above-average action film with high production values.

Chris Knipp

07-25-2005, 02:08 PM

This is one I can get at Blockbuster. Nicheflix not necessary. I hope to watch it soon.

arsaib4

07-25-2005, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by Johann
CONSTANTINE

It's pretty damn good- especially the camerawork and editing.
Some shots remind the viewer of Kubrick- I shit you not.
Tracking shots, crane shots, close-ups- all shots are pristine and well thought-out.

The sfx are excellent. It's the kind of sfx that are needed for a surreal, completely outrageous story like this.

Damn good (http://www.filmwurld.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=11530#post11530), indeed.

Johann

07-25-2005, 06:19 PM

Great review arsaib4- I missed it.

There's a lot of writing here from some members and I miss some reviews.

I'll probably buy Constantine on DVD- it's a way better time killer than most action movies.

It's the kind of film End of Days should have been.

arsaib4

07-25-2005, 06:22 PM

Thanks, dude. I hope you channel more of your energy talking about films. ;)

Johann

07-25-2005, 06:23 PM

OK, I get it- I'll try to stop with the politics.

arsaib4

07-25-2005, 06:30 PM

stevetseitz

07-27-2005, 03:53 AM

I saw "Wedding Crashers". Certainly not an "art film" by any stretch of the imagination, but very funny in parts.

Vince Vaughn is rarely used properly. I thought he was, for the most part, quite unfunny in "Dodgeball", "Old School" and "Be Cool". His friend, Jon Favreau, seems to be able to get the best out of Vaughn with very funny manic roles in "Swingers" and "Made".

The same can be said for Owen Wilson who can be very funny ("Bottle Rocket", "Meet the Parents", "Zoolander") or not so funny ("I Spy", "The Royal Tennenbaums")

"Wedding Crashers" uses the talent of both comic actors to great effect and when it focuses on comedy it can be uproarious.

Will Ferrell is at his best in a cameo role here. Ferrell is great for cameos and small roles because he is a scene stealer: "Zoolander", "Austin Powers", "Starsky & Hutch". I feel that he tends to shout all his lines and often confuses "over the top" with funny.

wpqx

07-27-2005, 04:32 AM

That may be true of Ferrill, but I was pretty damn amused by Elf.

arsaib4

07-27-2005, 05:42 PM

I must say that I'm intrigued by Wedding Crashers. It's certainly not an art film but even some of the snobby critics consider it worthwhile.

I also liked Elf quite a bit.

Chris Knipp

07-27-2005, 08:20 PM

I want to see Wedding Crashers, though I'm wishing I could avoid the last part where it goes soft and mushy. Elf was pretty good, but Ferrell isn't verybally funny the way Vaughan and Wilson are. You have to give Wilson credit for writing with Anderson. His laid back persona conceals a decent brain obviously.

arsaib4

07-27-2005, 10:54 PM

Directed by Japanese horror master Hideo Nakata, Dark Water (Honogurai mizu no soko kara – I’ve no idea why the Japanese title is so long thus supporting Bill Murray’s wonderment of the language in Lost in Translation), pretty much falls in line with Nakata’s previous films, namely Ringu (1998) and Ringu 2 (1999). (He also directed The Ring Two (2005) and wrote the English language remake of Dark Water called Dark Water but let’s not confuse matters.) Stories involving mothers and their prepubertal daughters have become a trademark of East-Asian horror, and this is no different; although, in an attempt to elevate the material, Nakata has tried to incorporate some social commentary. Yoshimi Matsubara (Kuroki Hitomi) has recently gotten a divorce from her husband (Fumiyo Kohinata) but she’s still involved in a custody battle over their 6-year-old daughter, Ikuko (Rio Kanno). Due to Ikuko’s age, Yoshimi is at an advantage despite her husband’s best efforts, but she needs to stabilize her life, and in order to do so, she’s moved into a new apartment even though it seems like a less than ideal place. Initially, things seem to be okay until Yoshimi gets dogged by hallucinations of a young girl in a yellow raincoat with her red lunch bag which may have a connection to her past. Also, the ceiling of the apartment starts to drip through the ever widening stain. For long stretches, Dark Water feels like a minimalist relationship drama so many genre fans are bound to be disappointed. It certainly doesn’t help that this film, which was released to much success in Japan 3-years-ago, has taken this long to reach our shores. The problem being that this material has mutated into so many shapes that for many it’ll be hard to tell between the original and a copy. All’s not lost though. Nakata stages a couple of remarkable sequences in the final third of the film including one in an apartment besieged by water. Production values are top notch, but the film could’ve benefited from a better leading performer. Ultimately, Nakata also falters by revealing someone who was making more of an impression otherwise.

Grade: C

Chris Knipp

07-28-2005, 12:58 AM

I understand the title "Honogurai mizu no soko kara" means "from the bottom of the gloomy waters." I'm surprised you didn't mention more speficially the recently released American-based Walter Salles "copy" starring Jennifer Connelly (is she the "better performer" you wanted with the original -- or just prettier? -- or even that?), which has not done well critically (I have not rushed out to see it)and wonder if you're going to compare it with this. Maybe it would rate a C- or a D+?

wpqx

07-28-2005, 01:49 AM

went to see Dark Water, but my movie passes were no good so alas can't comment.

I did however get to watch Ken Burns' Civil War, which took three days, so hurrah it's done. Keeps it interesting, and I have not seen his other films, so can't judge it based on those. But since I was taking a US History class, I figured his film would be more interesting than the textbook.

arsaib4

07-28-2005, 02:02 AM

wpqx: "went to see Dark Water, but my movie passes were no good...:

Perhaps that's some sort of a sign.

Chris:

Thanks for the "translation." I'm not a big Salles fan to begin with (to me he has always compromised his products in one way or the other) so I'm not sure if I wanna watch his remake of an original I didn't like. Although, I've read that there are some good supporting turns from John C. Reilly and the always watchable Tim Roth. As for the performance of Ms. Kuroki -- at times we underestimate the cultural/behavioral differences that play a part in the performance of actors (perhaps only N. American women are prone to start screaming at a drop of a hat). Having said that, I thought she was a bit underwhelming. But you'll happy to know that she's just as pretty as Mrs. Connolly.

Chris Knipp

07-28-2005, 04:33 AM

arsaib-- I'd agree Salles looks to be going downhill. But I guess you didn't even like Central Station. For me it had a kind of raw power. The Motorcycle Diaries was watchable and a great vehicle (pun unfortunate) for Garcia Bernal but pretty soft core. Now we have a horror movie remake. Some like it, but I can understand your not wanting to go; if you'd just bite the bullet and see it, you could have made your review more complete, spanning both versions. But you may not be into bullet-biting right now.

[-- -- -- cattiness warning -- -- -- ]

I developed an aversion for Ms. Connolly with Beautiful Mind, a movie I happen to detest, and I was not one of the fans of House of Sand and Fog. She's certainly gotten some good jobs -- Inventing the Abbotts, Dark City, Waking the Dead, Requiem for a Dream, Pollack, Ron Howard's grade A tripe, Hulk, she's positively B-grade A-List. I think I can't stand her. (I was not one of the big fans of Requiem for a Dream either, though of course since Jared Leto is so pretty, they had to have somebody really pretty like Jennifer to go with him.)

stevetseitz

07-28-2005, 03:08 PM

O.K. no taking shots at Jennifer Connolly. Gorgeous creature that she is...:)

arsaib4

07-28-2005, 05:39 PM

Thanks for the "cattiness warning" otherwise that would've been a bit much to take. You seem to be putting the blame on her shoulders for A Beautiful Mind which is unwarranted. Just looking at the names above, I can't think of too many other American actresses who've accomplished as much in the recent past, especially considering, as Steve said, "Gorgeous creature that she is" which could often work against you in the business.

trevor826

07-28-2005, 06:55 PM

Going back to arsaib4's review of the original, for once I actually went to see a remake in the cinema and it makes the original (which when I saw it the first time left me more than a little underwelmed) look like a classic modern Japanese ghost story (rather than horror film), I've just watched it again on DVD and can't believe how inferior the remake is, the audience is spoonfed and things which had great meaning in the original are left with little or no meaning, the red bag for one example!

I have written comments for the remake but unfortunately cannot post them yet due to serious PC problems but as soon as I can, I will.

Cheers Trev.

arsaib4

07-28-2005, 09:44 PM

If the remake makes the original look like "a classic modern Japanese ghost story," then perhaps it's a good idea to avoid it. Looking forward to your take on both versions.

Johann

07-28-2005, 09:50 PM

Re: Jennifer Connolly.

I agree with Chris completely on this one. I've seen Hulk (I posted a DVD review today) over 20 times now, and she is the worst thing about the movie.

She is "gorgeous", she can act, she's got a damn good resume, but there is something about her that makes me hate her. And it began after seeing Hulk several times. She seems like a robotic actress, one who emotes on command (and that is precisely what makes her a great actress), but her "aura" or "persona" or "vibe" or whatever it is just says "so what". There is no passion in her eyes. There is no "fire" burning behind those peepers.
It's just "a job". But she does that "job' very wel...

stevetseitz

07-29-2005, 03:37 PM

"Closer" (2004)

I finally got around to watching this. I've had the disc for ages but never watched the movie. I thought it was a nice change for a relationship movie to be so blunt and straightforward. It dissects the effect of people who cheat in a relationship and the "domino effect" throughout the rest of the small world they inhabit.

Julia Roberts was surprisingly good, Clive Owen was better in this film than I have seen him elsewhere . I felt Jude Law was subdued and underplayed his role.

Natalie Portman had some amazing scenes but I'm not sure this was the best casting decision. She almost seems to innocent and pure to play a stripper/waif who could do what she did here. It was like she was willing herself to be "sleazy" but not really revelling.

I liked the abundant use of British terms and slang.

Chris Knipp

07-29-2005, 08:08 PM

Wedding Crashers Contrary to reports this stays funny all the way through. Vince Vaughan is always worth watching and to say he and Owen Wilson work well together is an understatement.

Hustle and Flow A touching, heartfelt piece with some corniness but also great acting by everybody, especiallyTerence Howard, and good Memphis summer atmosphere.

Last Days Van Sant's minimalist style won't be to everybody's taste, but this showcases a career-making performance for Michael Pitt and has a haunting, dreamlike mood.

Reviews coming of the above, at least the last two.

On DVD, inspired by arasaib's review: Constantine. Something about the Devil and chain smoking, with Keanu Reeves looking very lean and sensitive and lots of nifty special effects. That's all I can say since for the fun of it and for the practice I watched it with the French sound track (dubbed in Quebec) so I may have missed some details.

I did not like Closer at all, but I agree with steveseitz on the relative merits of the actors.

wpqx

07-29-2005, 09:38 PM

I enjoyed Closer quite a bit, and I generally like Jennifer Connelly. My question to Johann is why have you seen Hulk 20 times.

Anyways my last film was Gate of Flesh (1964) - Seijun Suzuki

This might be my favorite Suzuki film, with Tokyo Drifter coming close. It is exploitative, and was made as a soft core porn movie basically, so sprurpising to see so much nudity in a Japanese film from 1964, when America was still trying to let one breast in The Pawnbroker. There is also plenty of violence, and Suzuki's use of color is astonishing. He's in many ways a Japanse Samuel Fuller, and for that I love him. I was a little disappointed when I first heard this film was coming out, believing that Criterion didn't need 6 Suzuki films, but this has rekindled my admiration of his work, and I now anxiously look forward to watching Story of a Prostitute.

arsaib4

07-29-2005, 11:42 PM

There are a few films from 2004 that I'm not ready to write-off just yet; Closer along with, say, The Life Aquatic, would be a couple of examples. I agree with Steve regarding its slightly different approach to relationship drama. Ultimately, though, the characters seemed trapped within its overall structure, not being able to grow in any way.

I know why Johann has seen Hulk 20 times: Jennifer Connolly.

Chris Knipp

07-30-2005, 12:40 AM

I do agree Jennifer Connolly is radiantly beautiful, by the way. She's just as pretty as Jared Leto or even more so. That doesn't make them good actors and could be a liability for both. I just don't like her, I don't like the choices she's made of roles, and I'm glad at least one person sees that there's something wrong with her performances, something that is off. I guess you're joking about Johann, since he says he hates Jennifer, or was that ironic on his part? As for Closer, I think it masquerades as hip but is really an out-of-date theatrical piece, but the A-list cast pumped new life into it as a movie that it didn't deserve. Julia and Clive do good work but that's only half the principals and the screenplay is brittle and snide. I'm glad anybody is wiling to give The Life Aquatic another chance. I think it's been seriously underrated and I can't understand why that should be so when The Royal Tennenbaums which to me is not better was praised to the skies. But that's the way reputations go. People shoot their wad on one work, and when another good one comes along they say it's not up to the last one that they liked, when it's merely different.

wpqx

07-30-2005, 01:26 AM

Funny you should mention the Life Aquatic, because that was the last film I watched. I enjoyed it, but sorry to say didn't find it up to Anderson's previous efforts. It did have it's moments, but I didn't see much different in the Bill Murray here of the one in Tenenbaums or Rushmore, basically playing the same role. Figured it'd have good music, and classic Bowie in Portugeuse worked for me. Still good, but well his last two films were amazing.

Chris Knipp

07-30-2005, 01:37 AM

Funny you should say all that, but that's the opinion trend on this site and in the world at large, according to our online criticism summaries, RT 50%, MC 62%. I don't happen to agree. I think it's timing, the public reaction arc determined by what's been praised before. If you're right and Murray is just reprising the same role all the time, I wonder why Jarmusch chose him for his latest release and what hoops people are going to go through on that one.

arsaib4

07-30-2005, 02:04 AM

Okay. I think it's time to move on from Jennifer Connoly.

Also, I think the two Anderson films are more than just Bill Murray. So, perhaps some of their other aspects also need to analyzed.

wpqx

07-30-2005, 11:01 AM

MC?

anyways, what I mean is the Murray of Rushmore, RT, and the Life Aquatic is the same Murray. I love the man, but I see no difference in what he did for those three films. As far as he and Jarmusch go, his sequence in Coffee and Cigarettes was the highlight of that film, but I'm also a Wu Tang fan.

stevetseitz

07-30-2005, 03:47 PM

I still think "Bottle Rocket" is my favorite Wes Anderson film. I felt he was trying a little too hard to be clever in some of his later efforts. Owen Wilson's debut in "Bottle Rocket" was the best debut for a comedy actor/writer since Woody Allen in "What's New, Pussycat?"

Bill Murray is great in Anderson's movies because he clearly "gets it". But Murray is also good in other types of films.

wpqx

07-31-2005, 05:49 AM

Story of a Prostitute (1965) - Seijun Suzuki

Interesting, but not quite as up to Gate of Flesh. Suzuki was great with color, so for that lone his films in black and white seem to suffer a little bit. Still an interesting film, and had many similarities to Mizoguchi at least in terms of it's melodramatic plot, but shot with a hell of a lot more flash than Mizoguchi ever showed.

wpqx

07-31-2005, 09:22 AM

The Accidental Tourist (1988) - Lawrence Kasdan

Well seven years after Body Heat William Hurt and Kathleen Turner are reunited by director Lawrence Kasdan. The result is a film nothing like Body Heat, and not as good either. Sure marital problems are at the heart of this film, as they were to some degree in that earlier picture, but whereas that was modern noir, this is more interpersonal drama. It continued Hurt's impressive streak of Oscar nominated performances in Oscar nominated films, and would be the last of his golden 80's films.

So if you're asking why I watched it, you guessed it, it was nominated for a best picture Oscar in 1988. This film gets me to cross off that year on my list, because I've now seen all the nominees. Sadly enough Rain Man is by far the best of the nominated films from that year. By no means the best film of the year, but compared to this, Dangerous Liaisons, Mississippi Burning, and Working Girl, well it's the best. In a perfect world Last Temptation of Christ and Who Framed Roger Rabit would have been nominated, but we're talking about the Academy here.

Geena Davis won a best supporting actress Oscar for her somewhat annoying role here. Now I've never been a fan of her's so I cna't tell if I'm just prejudiced to her performance, but well it's not that good. A film to see only to cross it off your list.

trevor826

07-31-2005, 11:06 AM

Re: Suzuki's Gates of Flesh.

Definitely amongst his best work, some great subtext too concerning the US occupation of Japan after WWII. Unfortunately my review was lost with a lot of foreignfilm.com's data after the recent attack on ezboard.

Cheers Trev.

wpqx

07-31-2005, 11:15 AM

I know what you mean, both about the subtext and the lost data. I can one up you by having lost all my reviews on my computer, including my 8 page analysis of Vertigo, damn that one makes me cry.

Gates of Heaven (1978) - Errol Morris

Today is dedicated to Errol Morris, because I have four DVD's to watch, and they're all from him. Decided to start with his first film, and I'm not quite sure what the attraction is to it. Roger Ebert has some strange favorites, and I'm yet to read his review of the film, which he voted one of his all time top ten favorites. Morris' ability lies in his subject choices, and maybe I thought that the process of pet burial wasn't quite as interesting as Fred Leuchter. I'll keep you posted as to the rest of his films that I watch today.

wpqx

07-31-2005, 02:08 PM

Vernon, Florida (1982) - Errol Morris

Still working on First Person, but in between episodes I'm watching his films.

This was his follow up I believe to Gates of Heaven, and it is very similar in style to it. The film is comprised of all interviews, and much of it doesn't seem to have too much purpose. This approach was later simplified to focus on just one key speaker, as he did in Mr. Death and Fog of War. Perhaps I like that later style more, but I didn't get too much out of this film. Basically just a bunch of old rednecks talking about life. It doesn't help that I hate rednecks, so who knows. I still have The Thin Blue Line to watch, but I'm a little apprehensive, because my expecations for that film are enormously high.

Johann

08-01-2005, 11:02 AM

Thanks for the info on Steamboy arsaib.

The DVD is out here on tues. and I plan on buying it sight unseen. Akira is arguably the greatest animated film ever and my expectations are very high.

Will post about it when I've got the DVD in my hot little mitts.

stevetseitz

08-01-2005, 04:16 PM

I just purchased "Open Range" on DVD. I enjoyed this western in the theater and feel that Costner and Duvall make a good team. Watching it again, I feel the story is a bit cliched but acting and production values are top notch

I have an affinity for Costner westerns.

1994's "Wyatt Earp" (especially the extended director's cut) was a minor masterpiece and in my opinion, far better than "Tombstone" (1993).

arsaib4

08-01-2005, 06:04 PM

No problem, J. I think you're gonna like it for many reasons. Akira is certainly one of the best; it brought respect to Japanimation.

Open Range is as good as westerns get nowadays. I agree with you regarding Costner and Duvall.

Chris Knipp

08-01-2005, 07:08 PM

Akira seems like the high point of anime. Open Range was worth taking seriously despite cliched elements.

My last films have been Hustle and Flow (http://www.filmwurld.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=12031#post12031) (good), Last Days (http://www.filmwurld.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1444) (excellent),
Wedding Crashers (http://www.filmwurld.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=12065#post12065) (very funny), and Ma Mère (http://www.chrisknipp.com/writing/viewtopic.php?t=441) (bad).

wpqx

08-01-2005, 11:18 PM

The Thin Blue Line (1988) - Errol Morris

Well I actually finished this last night, but for various reasons couldn't give it a write up. I now feel I have a pretty fair understanding of Morris' work. I do wish that at least one of the six DVD's I have of his contained some audio commentary, but the films themselves are enough for now. Lord knows I've waited for years for this particular film to come out. To me Thin Blue Line is a dramatic turning point in Morris' work, where he began to shift from observational quirky people (as in Gates of Heaven and Vernon, Florida) to more serious social critique, including his first use of re-enactments and image enhancing visuals (like Fog of War and Mr. Death). I enjoy the later Morris more, and this film is the hybrid between the two phases, most likely why it is considered such a masterpiece from him. It is also a landmark film in the changing face of documentaries, so no surprise why the Academy ignored it, like they did all Morris films prior to The Fog of War. I was a little bored to read "From Oscar Winning Director Errol Morris" on every single DVD cover, I mean big whoop. I plan on giving a more thorough write up of Morris as a retrospective, but there are still one or two films of his I haven't seen.

Despite the complete absence of special features on his DVD's, this one is still worth watching, and I'd recommend picking up the Morris collection from MGM.

wpqx

08-03-2005, 09:02 PM

Damn haven't updated this in a while.

1. Ulysses Gaze (1995) - Theo Angelopoulus

A masterpiece as I've come to expect from this director. One of his more complex films, simply because it changes times all the time and of course Mr. Kietel doesn't change ages. Shots are great, and very similar in many respects to his previous Travelling Players.

2. The Pillow Book (1996) - Peter Greenaway

Well only my third film from this highly structured filmmaker. This one was as exciting and inventive as I would have expected, and a film that will probably only fully make sense if I watch it 15 more times.

3. Do You Remember Dolly Bell? (1981) - Emir Kusturica

The weakest of the three, I saw this well for the same reason most people did, because Kusturica directed it. More of that coming of age nonsense, which as I'm sure I've already explained, I can't stand. Done slightly differently of course, but well modified garbage is still essentially garbage. Don't mean to bash the film, but I'm bashing the subject matter.

wpqx

08-04-2005, 03:23 AM

Man of the West (1958) - Anthony Mann

Interesting flick, about all I can say, got more to read about it, before I start making any interpretations.

A Thousand Clowns (1965) - Fred Coe

Enjoyable film nominated for a best picture Oscar (hence the reason I watched it). Lots of fast talking and confusion, very obviously made for the stage. The directing however does have a Richard Lester feel towards it, perhaps showing an early influence.

Chris Knipp

08-04-2005, 03:47 AM

A Thousand Clowns -- I saw the original production with Sandy Dennis and Jason Robards at the Eugene O'Neill Theater on Broadway in 1962. It was very effective but rather sentimental. Mind you it was great stuff and both author Herb Gardner and Robards where in their early primes. Gardner was then famous for his comic strip The Nebbishes.

pmw

08-04-2005, 12:20 PM

Just saw Kiyoshi Kurosawa's Pulse at the Japan Society last night. Kurosawa was on hand for a Q&A. The film was introduced by Jim O'Rourke. Pulse affected me deeply. Kurosawa grapples with questions of our mortality and a human impulse to understand our lives relative to certain demise. We're all dead in the end...chillingly beautiful. I would describe this as a cinematic environment rather than simply a film. The particular environment lingers long after the film is over...

Suicide and Japan are interesting topics. I wonder what it is culturally that compels people to take their own lives. Somehow, Americans (Western cultures?) find enough reasons to keep on living...Japanese youth seem to find enough reasons to cease living. I don't think its simply a question of a defeated culture either...

trevor826

08-04-2005, 01:03 PM

pmw I'm extremly jealous, I saw "Pulse" aka "Kairo" quite recently, unfortunately only on a pretty low quality VCD. I would love to have been able to talk to the director about the film which unfortunately is always pushed purely as a horror, personally I took it as a statement of the loneliness, the lack of human communication and unhappiness of urban life which affects a lot of the world but South East Asia and youth in particular. It is a very sad film which uses some conventions generic to horror films to give the story momentum.

I'll have to try and write a full review although I'd rather see it again either like you on the big screen or at least on DVD.

Cheers Trev.

arsaib4

08-04-2005, 07:41 PM

Thanks for the word on Pulse, P and Trev; will have to check it out. I wasn't used to be a K. Kurosawa fan but he's matured in the last couple of years, certainly more than his fellow cult filmmaker, Takashi Miike. I liked Doppelgänger and last year's Bright Future, which also dealt with some pertinent topics.

Kore-eda's Distance is still the best Japanese film I've seen on the issues you brought up, P, including group suicide. Iwai's All About Lily Chou-Chou is also a worthy effort.

trevor826

08-04-2005, 07:49 PM

I still see Miike as a jobbing director, he hasn't done anything that is truly his own, Kitano's "Kids Return" also shows another side of youth in Japan.

Cheers Trev.

pmw

08-04-2005, 07:54 PM

Well Trev, it looks like Magnolia Pictures will do a theatrical release of the Japanese version of Pulse sometime in the near future. They bought the rights from Miramax who will do a re-make of Kurosawa's film (not too excited about that).

Pulse must be seen on the big screen - the textures, the sound, the scale are all so important...Agreed, there is not much "Horror" to this film. Kurosawa himself said that he was surprised that the genre would accomodate a film as strangely undefineable as Pulse. In other words, thank god there is some marketable angle to what would otherwise have to be pushed as a very sad film about death and loneliness...

A statement of lonliness- no doubt...its soul-wrenchingly honest. He pulls no punches...
P

arsaib4

08-04-2005, 08:07 PM

Couple of links indicate that Pulse was to be released in August but it was recently pushed back to November. Here's the American site (http://www.pulsefilm.net).

Johann

08-07-2005, 04:44 AM

Ice Cube was in the house tonight.

He's the new triple X, and he's got more one-liners than Clint Eastwood.

Fine, fine action flick.

I hesitated to see it but it's XXX without Vin Diesel, an actor who annoys me.

Samuel L. Jackson is Gibbons, Ice cube is Darius. They need to work together to thwart some terrible bad guys in the Nation's Capital, and they just happen to have toys that would put Bond to shame.

The President is willing to "turn enemies into allies", and Willem Dafoe wants to assassinate him.

This film is pure testosterone, all-black, all-street, all PIMP MY RIDE. Xzibit is in it, and he hotwires a tank.
(You heard right- LOAD. FIRE.)

Cube busts out of prison like fuckin' Steve McQueen on Methodone. He leaps from the roof onto a stolen helicopter.
The stunts and action sequences are very over-the-top yet oddly eye-grabbing. I didn't look away from the screen much. You got lots o' booty, a bass-thumping soundtrack (I love the track "I only play games that I never lose at" and the updated Fight the Power. They even managed to squeeze in a mug shot of Easy-E.

Great action movie.
Forget Vin Diesel.
He Dead, boy.

Chris Knipp

08-07-2005, 05:58 AM

I will forget Vin Diesel. I've been wanting to. It won't be hard.

Cube busts out of prison like fuckin' Steve McQueen on Methodone. This made me laugh but then I thought maybe you really meant on crystal meth. Wouldn't that be better?

I've had a soft spot for Ice Cube ever since David O. Russell's Three Kings, one of the best movies about the Gulf War. Are there any others? Samuel L. Jackson and Willem Dafoe make a good group.

This film is pure testosterone, all-black, all-street, all PIMP MY RIDE. Xzibit is in it, and he hotwires a tank.Johann, you haven't lost your touch.

Johann

08-07-2005, 06:40 AM

Methodone, Crystal Meth- doesn't matter homie.

This film is outrageous. It was a good time-killer.
Great supporting cast, with Dafoe stealing the show.
The ending is excellent.

You could do much worse for action movies. Ice Cube is great, considering how he's not really an A-list star. He does his job well, a la Three Kings, but I like xXx way better.

wpqx

08-07-2005, 12:58 PM

He seemed a little fat to pull off a special agent role, say what you will about Vin Diesel, but he actually looks like he could kick some ass.

Before passing judgement on Vin Diesel I would recommend seeing Multifacial. It was a short film that he starred in and *gasp* wrote and directed as well. Didn't think he had it in him, but damn good work from the man, and it let me know that he actually is capable of some acting, granted perhaps he's the only person who can write a good role for himself.

The last film I had seen was The World (2004).

A damn good movie, and one that I was afraid I was gonna miss. Recommended for all, but who knows to what capacity it is playing. Led me to check out more films from it's director, and I'm always interested in discovering new talent. Jia Zhang-Ke is only 35 so there should be a hell of a lot more from him in the future.

arsaib4

08-07-2005, 01:24 PM

Fellini...XXX...it's all good baby!

The World should not be missed. Glad you saw it on the big screen. Li Yuk Wai's camera-work is phenomenal. My review (http://www.filmwurld.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11681#post11681), the thread was just archived.

As you already know, Platform (http://www.filmwurld.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=1396) is releasing soon on DVD from New Yorker. I see that you've already bought Unknown Pleasures. The only other feature he's made is Xiao Wu (1997), his debut film which is only available with subs in the U.K. as part of a 2 DVD-set (http://www.bensonsworld.co.uk/v2/dvd-8/7000000084392.asp) with Unknown Pleasures (Artificial-Eye).

wpqx

08-07-2005, 03:09 PM

Luna (1979) - Bernardo Bertolucci

Another muddled mess. Sometimes films from key directors go unreleased in this country, and when you finally get to see them, you no longer wonder why. This film is Bertolucci after the chaotic 1900. Although this film in no way attempts to reach the grand scope of 1900, it does however serve to continue Bertolucci's exploration of rather silly subject matter.

There is an underlying pretext of incest throughout the film, and as it progresses, well it is no longer pretext. The acting isn't exactly stellar, although Jill Clayburgh does well enough under the circumstances. The film has an irritating male lead, in the child actor Mathew Barry, and his whole role seems misguided. Bertolucci clearly needed to be roped in, and by this point who knew if he ever would be again. The Dreamers returned to similar themes of incest and inappropriate subject matter, but at least did it with better acting, and a slightly more enjoyable cast. Bash that film as much as you want, but I'd take it over Luna any day.

I might just watch the Conformist again today to be reminded of what a good Bertolucci film is like.

Chris Knipp

08-07-2005, 04:40 PM

I don't know if The World will show here. If it's no longer showing in NYC, I may have missed my opportunity to see it in a theater.

How can I really hate VinDiesel when a guy named Chris Knipp used to have a naively ardent website about him?

What about Last Tango in Paris? What about The Sheltering Sky? I liked that. I have a lot of time for The Dreamers myself. What about The Spider's Stratagem?

I was thinking of Vaghe stelle dell'orsa, that's a "muddled mess" about incest too, but I was confused -- that's by Visconti.

Last film I have seen: Jean-Pierre Melville, Un flic. I think I like it better than the new expanded version of Le Cercle rouge of two years before, but color is a letdown after black and white; it's just not really as "noir."

Here are some things I jotted about Un flic:

Jean-Pierre Melville: Un flic (1972)

A last gasp in character

In Melville's last film, Alain Delon is a cop who pursues a small group of fortyish men who first rob a bank and then later intercept a large supply of drugs en-route to somewhere via a bag man on a train. Nobody is morally pure in this story, or wholly evil. One of the robbers is a bank executive who's out of work and hides his wrongdoing from his worried wife. The cop, Edouard Coleman, whose ride is American, as is the robbers', is involved with crooked nightclub owner Simon's accomplice girlfriend, Cathy (Catherine Deneuve), who helps Simon clean up the mess when the robbery goes wrong. Edouard has to look the other way about her involvement. Her first appearance is ravishing: she slides sideways out of a doorway and pauses, framed there, looking perfectly beautiful and slowly smiling as Coleman picks out a jazz ballad on the nightclub piano.

The bank is beside a ruthless sea and the memorably bleached-out and forbidding opening scene is full of mist, rain, and wind that turn everything a sickly pastel. One of the robbers is wounded and they drive away with him, a sequence that may have influenced Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs. But these men are as laconic as Quentin's are garrulous.

The drug mule who's intercepted is called "Matthew the Suitcase." The operation to steal his cargo is long and complicated and is Un flic's Rififi episode; it's more absorbing than the manhunt in Le Cercle rouge, but the several plot strains are a bit disjointed.

Despite the ingenious train heist, being a cop and being a crook are in a way just a job -- a "boulot" -- in Un flic. Delon has some dash and dresses sharply, but lacks the panache of his character in Le Samouraï. The robbers are dreary, determined fellows without the charisma of Yves Montand in Le Cercle rouge. They're totally middle-aged and middle-class. This puts them on a par with most of the cops and perhaps illustrates Melville's epigraph, from pioneer French private eye (and former thief) François Eugène Vidocq, "The only emotion men awaken in a policeman are ambiguity and derision." This is on a par with the chief of police in Le Cercle rouge who repeatedly insists that everyone must be assumed to be guilty.

While that earlier chief of police worked out of a dark but cozy Victorian office, Coleman is in a bright modern building and has a phone in his car, but his well-lit office has a window on a brick wall. The dull routine of police work is signaled by the verbal rituals of the carphone calls: His assistant answers and says, "I'll pass you to him." Coleman listens, then says "Where's that?" and "We're going, I'll call you back later." The words never vary. And this flick about a "flic" never wavers from its economical unreeling that's worthy of the best Fifties noirs, despite being in faded blue-gray Technicolor. Melville got back one last time to the old brilliance. Even if the "noir" isn't quite noir, the mood is right, full of resignation and irony.

The plot doesn't quite parse, but neither did Le Doulos'. If it's true as Jack Mathews of the Daily News wrote about the reissued Le Cercle rouge that Melville's crime movies are "really about wearing raincoats and lighting up Gitanes and saying very little while being very loyal," then plot inconsistencies and even visual disparities not withstanding, it's still all good. And even if some of the freshness and flavor were gone, in his last two films Melville shows even greater skill at editing and setting up his scenes. So if not canonical, Un flic is nonetheless another valuable work by this prince of darkness, this splendidly moody minimalist and inspirer of the New Wave.

Posted on Chris Knipp website (http://www.chrisknipp.com/writing/viewtopic.php?p=453)

trevor826

08-07-2005, 04:54 PM

El Bola (2000)

Directed by Achero Mañas

Starring Juan José Ballesta, Pablo Galán

This film is reminiscent of Truffaut’s 400 Blows in that we’re seeing life from the perspective of a young boy who to put it mildly is not treated lovingly by his father.

El Bola is the nickname of 12 year old Pablo, we first see him and several mates playing chicken in front of a train, this game is repeated several times throughout the film, each time you’re sure that one of the boys will be hit.

The story proper starts with the arrival of a new pupil in school, Alfredo. Pablo (El Bola) attaches himself to him and they soon become good friends much to the irritation of Pablo’s father who is a bullying control freak who literally kicks hell out of his son for the slightest reason. Pablo (as would be natural in most cases of this type) doesn’t tell anyone about the beatings and excuses marks and bruises on him as accidents and falls.

Alfredo’s parents, who happen to be the antithesis of Pablo’s worry when Alfredo tells them about the bruising he has seen but there’s virtually nothing they can do in the matter due to the law. Things take a brutal turn leading to Pablo running away and eventually informing the social services about his father.

There is no closure to the story which is a good thing, it allows you to reach your own decisions on the fate of Pablo and his family. It’s not a film with a great deal of originality but it’s well made, effective in giving a voice to children who grow up in this sort of brutal environment and definitely worth seeing.

Cheers Trev

arsaib4

08-07-2005, 07:31 PM

Originally posted by trevor826
It’s not a film with a great deal of originality but it’s well made, effective in giving a voice to children who grow up in this sort of brutal environment and definitely worth seeing.

Cheers Trev

I agree. I'm not sure if it's worthy of the Goya for Best Picture that it won, but like you said, the film is well made and acted. It was released in the U.S. by Film Movement.

Chris Knipp

08-07-2005, 08:18 PM

And "el bola" means? Apparently "the pellet." And why does he have that nickname? Distribution in theaters in US in 2002 I gather, Metacritic gave it a good average rating of 70.

wpqx

08-07-2005, 10:15 PM

As far as other Bertolucci, I'm not sure if you are bashing The Sheltering Sky, Last Tango or the Spider's Strategem.

In all honesty I haven't seen The Sheltering Sky, it is of course on my list, but so are a lot of films.

Last Tango in Paris is one of my all time favorites (top 100 at least), and Brando's performance in it is imo the greatest of any actor ever.

Rather indifferent to Spider's Strategem, thought it was minor at best, perhaps Bertolucci was struggling in the made for TV world.

pmw

08-07-2005, 11:12 PM

Finally saw Cure (1997) today, another Kiyoshi Kurosawa great...this is a big one. Much better than Pulse I have to say, although just 4 days ago I was riveted by it. Cure is simply fascinating. In short (because I cant do justice to a plot summary) murder, the occult, explicit societal criticism, questions about the identity of man or lack thereof...heavy, awesome. I want to see it again!! Eyes of the Spider is next on my watch list...Going to it now.
Peter

HorseradishTree

08-07-2005, 11:45 PM

I just watched Batman Begins for the fourth time in theaters. It is now officially my Rocky Horror.

Chris Knipp

08-08-2005, 12:19 AM

[pmw]

Finally saw Cure (1997) today, another Kiyoshi Kurosawa great...this is a big one. Much better than Pulse I have to say, although just 4 days ago I was riveted by it. Cure is simply fascinating. In short (because I cant do justice to a plot summary) murder, the occult, explicit societal criticism, questions about the identity of man or lack thereof...heavy, awesome. I want to see it again!! Eyes of the Spider is next on my watch list...Going to it now. Cure is considered the best I think. Though I haven't seen the others I'd agree that it's great. The young actor playing the spooky guy very cool. I've seen this several times. I love the visuals, the gloomy doomed-looking industrial sets.
[wpqx]

As far as other Bertolucci, I'm not sure if you are bashing The Sheltering Sky, Last Tango or the Spider's Strategem.

In all honesty I haven't seen The Sheltering Sky, it is of course on my list, but so are a lot of films.

Last Tango in Paris is one of my all time favorites (top 100 at least), and Brando's performance in it is imo the greatest of any actor ever.

Rather indifferent to Spider's Strategem, thought it was minor at best, perhaps Bertolucci was struggling in the made for TV world. Not bashing at all. I know Last Tango is a milestone for everyone. The Spider's Stratagem is considered rather significant in Italy I think, because of its references to modern history and its sense of place. It's also visually striking. Not a crowd pleaser, but some very good things have been done for television. The Sheltering Sky may not have as high a reputation but it's more accessible to Americans and personally interesting to me because I lived in Morocco and can relate. It's also an important novel by Paul Bowles, and Debra Winger is amazing in it and John Malkovich is excellent and Campbell Scott just right. It's something I personally think excellent visually (Storaro), for the acting, for the content, and it's excellent that expatriate cult writer Bowles is seen as a voice-over narrator, presiding, late in life, over one of his own masterpieces transferred beautifully to the screen. I've seen it quite a number of times and like it very much. Winger got so into her role, it took her a long time to be "debriefed" and get on with her life afterwards.

Chris Knipp

08-08-2005, 12:30 AM

Last film I've seen: currently showing in theaters, Hans Petter Moland's The Beautiful Country, one in a long line of coming-to-America films, this about a Vietnamese man who comes to look for his American father. Poorly written and edited, draggy, incomprehensible in parts and disjointed, an ordeal to watch, but almost saved by the last quarter hour where Nick Nolte comes in as the father and the two play off each other in Texas ranch country like a couple of laconic Cormac McCarthy cowboys. Also featuring Tim Roth in as usual an interesting, but this time wasted, performance. Why this was directed by a Norwegian I can't guess. Maybe that's why everybody starts speaking English after a while. Nolte has not lost his touch.

arsaib4

08-08-2005, 01:03 AM

Your favorite site shows that it has gotten "Generally Favorable Reviews" and an overall rating of "64."

arsaib4

08-08-2005, 01:11 AM

It could be argued that the best asset of Walter Salles’ The Motorcycle Diaries was its cinematography: the slightly "touched" colors, light and mise-en-scène culminated to produce an almost hypnotic visceral appeal. While French DP Eric Gautier, who had a lot to do with those images, isn’t employed in Salles’ latest effort, Dark Water, Brazilian prodigy Affonso Beato who worked on three Almodovar films during the 90’s is, and he’s done quite well with his grungy palette of yellows and browns -- it certainly helps that Salles is as interested in topography here as he was in Diaries, even though it’s of a different kind. A remake of Japanese cult horror hit of the same name, Dark Water stars Jennifer Connelly who is battling for the custody of her daughter (Ariel Gade) with her uncaring husband (Dougray Scott). Once she moves to a dreary apartment complex in Roosevelt Island (which is shot like a new world but that is how many New Yorkers feel about it), she not only has to deal with a constant dripping in her apartment, but also with a complacent real state agent (John C. Reilly) and a sleazy janitor (Pete Postlethwaite) who seem rather unconcerned about her problem. Situation worsens once her enigmatic past starts becoming intrusive while at the same time the daughter develops a relationship with an imaginary friend, much to the chagrin of her husband, which eventually forces her to court a lawyer (Tim Roth). For long stretches, Dark Water is effortlessly watchable and, in places, it’s even compelling, but once Salles is required to wrap up his proceedings, he seems dazed and confused. If the Japanese version hurt itself by ultimately revealing too much, the American one remains doggedly ambiguous which is nothing but frustrating. Along with the aforementioned visuals, Salles has also conjured up some striking performances from his cast, something the original didn’t quite have -- but what Salles isn’t able to do, and Hideo Nakata did, is to develop an interesting relationship between the woman and her "past." Both efforts have features which could come together for a worthy film but they aren’t strong enough to stand on their own.

Grade: C+

_______________________

*DARK WATER is currently playing in theaters. It will be available on DVD in either October or November.

*Hideo Nakata's Dark Water (http://www.filmwurld.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=11984#post11984).

Chris Knipp

08-08-2005, 01:38 AM

Good review -- I wanted this, and now we have your assessment of both versions, excellent.

arsaib4

08-08-2005, 01:43 AM

Thanks. You were right, it didn't quite make sense to see the original but not the remake, even though I wasn't exactly thrilled with the Japanese version. I think the remake is just a tad bit better.

Chris Knipp

08-08-2005, 02:10 AM

[The Beautiful] Country
Your favorite site shows that it has gotten "Generally Favorable Reviews" and an overall rating of "64
I may sound harsh, but I am convinced that it has major, major flaws in the writing and editing. It's worth watching the last segment with Nolte in it, though if you can, skip the rest. If you like a lengthy saga of suffering and misery leading to a low keyed resolution, it's a good ticket to buy. It can be considered "timely" and socially significant and from that the allowances begin. It has -- or attempts -- an epic quality -- and visually it has fine moments. A.O. Scott of the NYTimes notes "overwrought and underwritten" scenes and notes that the script repeatedly poses problems with expository speeches in broken English that the action can't back up. Peter Keogh of the Boston Phoenix speaks for me when he says "Charles Dickens would be embarrassed by the shameless melodrama indulged in this tract about human trafficking..." The word "Dickensian" came to mind for me from frame one. A Vietnamese writer in the Washington Diplomat, Ky Nguyen, says the film is "well intentioned, but the acting is stilted. It’s also stalled by awkward dialogue and a frequent lack of immediacy." He finds that the scenes of the more extreme suffering of the main charcacter seem unreal, as I do. Martin Tsai in blogspot notes that, "Regrettably, Sabrina Murray's well-meaning screenplay has serious flaws, and the most discernible is its contrivance." I could go on. No matter how socially significant the subject is deemed to be and how earnest the effort and lovely the photography, this is one of the worst movies I've seen in quite a while.

trevor826

08-08-2005, 05:15 AM

Re: Dark Water (2005) and Dark Water (2002)

arsaib4 I wouldn't say our opinions differ by a huge amount on the two versions, neither are great films and certainly aren't essential but unlike you I have a preference for the original which I felt was far more ambiguous and was only let down by one scene towards the end. I know there is a huge cultural difference between the US and Japan and that definately comes across with these films, the US version is far more emotionally wrought, far more screaming, shouting and anger plus it makes far more of a subplot of the ex husband trying to drive his wife round the bend. The re-appearing bag which was an essential part of the Japanese film didn't have the same sense of menace in the remake just adding to the thoughts that someone was trying to drive the mother mad. I also felt everything was handed to you on a plate with the remake, at times they may have well as signposted everything, the camera would dwell on certain things such as the water tower at the top of the apartment block before they had even arrived there. On the plus side (if you can call it a plus) Roosevelt Island, what an ugly place, definitely added to the sense of dread. The cable car ride gave you a panoramic view of somewhere you really wouldn't want to live even if you had hit rock bottom.

It's strange overall though comparing the two versions, the remake is longer and yet seems to contain less than the original which I found strange.

Another little thing that niggled me with the remake, where were the scenes from the trailer, they certainly weren't in the cinematic release?

Cheers Trev.

Chris Knipp

08-08-2005, 01:22 PM

This adds interest I must say, but after Cure I don't want to see anything that isn't as good as that.

trevor826

08-08-2005, 02:26 PM

I haven't seen Cure so I wouldn't have a clue how that measures up.

Anyway, my latest:

Noce blanche (1989) White Wedding

Directed by Jean-Claude Brisseau

Starring Vanessa Paradis, Bruno Cremer

A middle aged philosophy teacher François Hainaut makes a connection with a 17 year old pupil Mathilde Tessier who although late for lessons when she bothers to turn up at all shows a real flair for philosophy and psychology but has a cynical attitude towards life. Mathilde is a problem case that most of the teachers want out of the school but thanks to the determination of François she is given a last chance.

François starts tutoring Mathilde at her home and the inevitable happens, he is seduced by her prodigous intelligence and then by her beauty and youth. Despite the fact that he’s married with a very attractive wife and that as her tutor he knows what they are doing is wrong she brings out the youth in him and he fails to resist.

Gradually François learns some frightening facts about Mathilde’s past and family, with this knowledge and his wife’s threats to leave him he tries to cool the affair down. Silent calls are made to his house day and night and the shop run by his wife is vandalised, Mathilde deliberately starts dating boys from her class just to make him jealous until he loses his temper, drags her into an empty classroom where he bawls her out for all the trouble she’s causing and they end up having sex.

They are caught, he is posted off to a school in Dunkirk, his wife leaves him and Mathilde rejoins her family in Paris, but a year or so later…………!

Convincing acting from the leads, you could understand him falling for this girl that he’s already put on a pedestal (plus of course it’s Vanessa Paradis). There are no sex scenes but I was surprised at the amount of nudity (not exploitative) because according to IMDB Vanessa Paradis was 17 when the film was made.

The story actually had more depth than I would have expected and thankfully didn’t turn into a bunny boiler type movie. This was Vanessa Paradis’s first leading role and luckily she was perfect for the part, she played a similar character in the film Eliza several years later but with a very different plot line and conclusion.

Recommended for the performances and interesting (although certainly not unique) story line.

Cheers Trev.

arsaib4

08-08-2005, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
I may sound harsh, but I am convinced that it has major, major flaws in the writing and editing. It's worth watching the last segment with Nolte in it, though if you can, skip the rest. If you like a lengthy saga of suffering and misery leading to a low keyed resolution, it's a good ticket to buy. It can be considered "timely" and socially significant and from that the allowances begin. It has -- or attempts -- an epic quality -- and visually it has fine moments. A.O. Scott of the NYTimes notes "overwrought and underwritten" scenes and notes that the script repeatedly poses problems with expository speeches in broken English that the action can't back up. Peter Keogh of the Boston Phoenix speaks for me when he says "Charles Dickens would be embarrassed by the shameless melodrama indulged in this tract about human trafficking..." The word "Dickensian" came to mind for me from frame one. A Vietnamese writer in the Washington Diplomat, Ky Nguyen, says the film is "well intentioned, but the acting is stilted. It’s also stalled by awkward dialogue and a frequent lack of immediacy." He finds that the scenes of the more extreme suffering of the main charcacter seem unreal, as I do. Martin Tsai in blogspot notes that, "Regrettably, Sabrina Murray's well-meaning screenplay has serious flaws, and the most discernible is its contrivance." I could go on. No matter how socially significant the subject is deemed to be and how earnest the effort and lovely the photography, this is one of the worst movies I've seen in quite a while.

But, of course, if someone were to like the film, they’ll be able to find a few quotes also (perhaps from even more formidable sources). If you really feel that strongly against it then someone as natural as you should be able to come up with something. Wouldn’t you rather have a part of your review come up in a discussion rather than having someone discern what A.O. Scott really said (he likes the film, by the way) going up against an Ebert or an Atkinson. (Obviously, I’m just using this as an example since I haven’t seen the film myself.) And do we really need to have bloggers "speak" for us now? But from what you’ve written, "'timely' and socially significant," "an epic quality" etc. and then you end with the hyperbolic "this is one of the worst movies I’ve seen in quite a while," so it seems to me that you aren’t convinced yourself so that’s perhaps you required those quotes.

arsaib4

08-08-2005, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by trevor826
Re: Dark Water (2005) and Dark Water (2002)

arsaib4 I wouldn't say our opinions differ by a huge amount on the two versions, neither are great films and certainly aren't essential but unlike you I have a preference for the original which I felt was far more ambiguous and was only let down by one scene towards the end. I know there is a huge cultural difference between the US and Japan and that definately comes across with these films, the US version is far more emotionally wrought, far more screaming, shouting and anger plus it makes far more of a subplot of the ex husband trying to drive his wife round the bend.

You're right, we've made similar points about both versions. There's certainly a huge cultural difference but I think if we were to pretend to see things from their perspective, we might be overcompensating their effort (same goes the other way around, of course). I just felt that the leading character in Nakata's film remained a little too bland considering what was happening around her. Scenes involving the ex-husband were definitely more convincing in the Japanese film.

The re-appearing bag which was an essential part of the Japanese film didn't have the same sense of menace in the remake just adding to the thoughts that someone was trying to drive the mother mad. I also felt everything was handed to you on a plate with the remake, at times they may have well as signposted everything, the camera would dwell on certain things such as the water tower at the top of the apartment block before they had even arrived there. On the plus side (if you can call it a plus) Roosevelt Island, what an ugly place, definitely added to the sense of dread. The cable car ride gave you a panoramic view of somewhere you really wouldn't want to live even if you had hit rock bottom. Another little thing that niggled me with the remake, where were the scenes from the trailer, they certainly weren't in the cinematic release?

Good point about the bag; Salles would've been better off without it. The overall milieu played a big part in why I consider his film watchable. I haven't seen the trailer so can't say if scenes were missing. What was missing was a third act!