the LAST FILM YOU'VE SEEN thread

[arsaib4]

I'm stealing this idea from our contributor, wpqx, who has successfully engineered threads like this on other sites. (I'm sure he wouldn't mind since he probably stole it from someone else.) Anyway, the idea is pretty simple, please write a few words about the last film you've seen. The only rule that I can think of right now is if another thread already exists on a specific film then please add your thoughts there (you can also add them here if you like/start a new thread later on if there is none), and, of course, any specific info provided - whether it's the name of the director or the year etc. will be appreciated by the readers. Feel free to post whenever you like and unless you want to, it's not required that you write about every single film you see (I certainly won't be doing that because I simply see too many). This is a great site and I believe there are reasons why it's not being utilized the way it should be, so, I hope this thread gives you the opportunity to contribute on a regular basis.

[Fan of Kubrick]

I'll start us off with

Kansas City
This is a Robert Altman film released back in 1996. I originally rented it for the soundtrack, which is one of the best I have ever heard. The film is about a woman who kidnaps a woman named Mrs. Stelton to use for leverage to get her husband back from some black gangsters. The gangster runs the Hey Hey Club, which is a jazz club, and supplies the entire movie's soundtrack.

I found the acting weak, but Altman's directing is very well done. In this he effectively used mirrors to show things that you otherwise wouldn't see. Other than that though, there wasn't much there. There were a few metaphores for playing off the top of your hat, which is what jazz is, but other than that, it was hollow. My suggestion, get the soundtrack if you like jazz, but otherwise there isn't anything very good about this movie other than a scene or too in the club...

Bad on the spot review...

[arsaib4]

Thanks for sharing you thoughts, Fan of Kubrick. Sometimes, on the spot reviews are the best. I hope you contribute regularly.

[HorseradishTree]

The Village. A great idea with crappy writing and atrocious execution. Shame on Shyamalan.

[arsaib4]

Thanks for contributing, Horseradish Tree. As for the film itself, I looked at as more of an allegory of the principles this nation was found on so I ended up appreciating it a lot more. I also thought that Bryce Dallas Howard was brilliant.

[arsaib4]

Triple Agent (2004) R2 DVD

A second viewing of this latest film from Eric Rohmer convinced me of its numerous pleasures. Rohmer is a "triple agent" himself and he fooled me initially while I tried to follow every single narrative strand not realizing that the important things sometimes don't get said. Sergo Renko plays a White Russian living in France before WWII but we slowly find out that he could be a Red Russian, a French leftist, a Nazi, or a Franco loyalist. Perhaps all of them at once or none at all. His beautiful wife, played by Katerina Didaskalu, is a naiveté but at the same time she stays step-by-step with him. As always with Rohmer, art & literature are well on display, and the word-play is phenomenal. Will add more here (http://www.filmwurld.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1035).

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by Fan of Kubrick
Kansas City
My suggestion, get the soundtrack if you like jazz

There is a companion piece to Altman's homage to his birthplace and its place in jazz history: Jazz '34: Remembrances of Kansas City Swing. It's all jazz except for very brief, informative narration between musical numbers. It's 72 minutes long. It played mostly at Film Festivals in the mid-90s. This one's only available on vhs. I like Kansas City more than most viewers because Jennifer Jason Leigh is my favorite actress.

[wpqx]

Yeah I was actually tempted to start this thread here myself, but I've already got at least two of these running, so I was leery on making a third, especially when it's the same basic film. Nevertheless I'll still contribute since I found this is the best way to actually keep track of what the hell I've watched.

I just watched A Winter's Tale (1994), which makes me have something in common arsaib, in the fact that our last films were both from Rohmer. I'm no expert on his work, but I admired this film. I'm interested to see the other films in this series to see how they all connect if at all, or if not then just to compare them based on quality.

I have recently found a new haven for oddball films ironically titled odd obession. This place is a godsend for people like me, and I'm getting some great filsm from there, most notably Four Nights of a Dreamer from Bresson.

[arsaib4]

Originally posted by wpqx
I'm interested to see the other films in this series to see how they all connect if at all, or if not then just to compare them based on quality.


It's funny that now when I think of the quadrilogy, they all somehow blend in with each other; the characters, the situations etc. It certainly been a couple of years at least but as I've said elsewhere, may be that was what Rohmer intended. The series certainly ranks among his best work. Share your thoughts as you move along.

[Johann]

Hellraiser


The Cotton's are moving into a new house.

The house becomes a temple/gateway to evil when Larry's brother Frank seduces his wife Julia and has her become a serial killer in order to become "whole again".

You see, Frank bought a mysterious box that "opens doors", and it summoned the Cenobites, a tribe of creatures who dole out equal amounts pleasure and pain to it's summoners.

Clive Barker's first feature film (1987) is a masterpiece of neo-horror. It was very different and had an impact on pop culture (Pinhead is just as famous as Jason or Freddy) and the horror film genre.

Fuckin' great movie



Nightbreed

Nightbreed is the film adaptation of Cabal, a Barker novel.
The Nightbreed are monsters who live in Midian, Alberta Canada, at a huge gothic cemetary. Aaron Boone is inadvertantly enveloped in their world when he cannot remember murders he committed.

David Cronenberg plays Dr. Decker- Boone's psychiatrist. Cronenberg is not exactly a guy who lights up the screen with his thespian skills but he's actually not bad. He's what you'd think Cronenberg would act like.

This film was a box-office flop, and Barker was dissappointed with it's reception. I love it as well- consider it a guilty pleasure film.




Lord of Illusions

Scott Bakula, Famke Jannsen, swords, fire, illusions, strange strange visions: echoes of Cocteau, Blake, etc.
Lovely, low-key Los Angeles art film.

Song "Magic Moments" is used effectively;
"You are on the threshold of a miracle".
I like it a lot- a perfect "midnight movie:.

[arsaib4]

Originally posted by Johann
Hellraiser
Fuckin' great movie

You're right. Hellraiser typified the Horror films from the 80's...atleast the kind I've seen...and you could always count on at least one gratuitous sex scene. Too bad this series went to shit!

[Fan of Kubrick]

Constantine
Well. What should I say about this? Luckily, I didn't have to pay for it. I have to comment on several things about it. Firstly, it was a lot like The Matrix in the outline. Both Neo and Constantine are disturbed people who where dark clothing and fight otherworldy beings while traveling through different worlds.

Fortunately or unfortunately, The Matrix was much better. The writing in Constantine was sorely lacking. The worst writing was the scene in the hospial, in which Constantine yells at Angela to tell him what Isabel left behind. The pace of the entire movie is switched up, Angela forgets that she is helping Constantine and in the end, she helps him anyway.

I think that Keanu Reeves, has the capability to be a good actor, but his style doesn't allow him to do that. Rachel Weisz is shaky anyway, but Max Baker and Shia LeBouf were pretty good. I thought that casting Tilda Swinton as Gabriel was a very bold statement on the bible. Francis Lawrence tried to make it hard to tell if Gabriel was a man or a woman. But it was rather obvious. I think that Lawrence was commenting on womens' roles in the bible and different gospels.

Just a few thoughts and another on the spot review. Hopefully I'll watch a good movie in the next couple of days.

[JustaFied]

Speaking of Altman, I recently re-watched "Nashville", his masterpiece from 1975. I don't have the film knowledge or background that the rest of you guys do, but this is at the top of my list for brilliant filmmaking. Altman's a genius, not just in crafting a pretty looking picture, but in peeling back the layers of our complex selves and society. I don't know of a more intelligent and discerning voice in the world of film.

Also, I just bought the new Criterion release of "Short Cuts", which is up there with "Nashville" and "McCabe & Mrs. Miller" on my Altman shrine.

[arsaib4]

Originally posted by JustaFied
Speaking of Altman, I recently re-watched "Nashville", his masterpiece from 1975.

Well, I probably don't know as much about Altman as you do, but there's no other way to describe Nashville; it's one of the most poetic American films ever made. The Player certainly has to be ranked if not for anything else then just for the fact that it's been one of the most influential films in recent years. I haven't seen the likes of The Gingerbread Man, Dr. T, and The Company, but something tells me that they aren't the kind of films this man should be making.

It was good to hear from you and hopefully you'll continue to add when possible.

[pmw]

Nice thread! Just saw Rivette's "Pond du Nord" at the Walter Reade. I think I need to understand the political context a bit better... A very interesting film to say the least. Bulle Ogier stars opposite her daughter as a revolutionary just released from prison trying to figure out her philosophical place in a politicized, impersonal world.

Bulle Ogier introduced the film along with Film Comment's Gavin Smith. In a funny moment, the translator mistranslated "un peut preverse" as "a bit of pervert" with regards to Rivette....oh well. Anyone seen this one?
P

From the film description:
"The cinema consists first of all of capturing something that happens at a certain time and place," Jacques Rivette once said, "and that will never happen again." Said impulse lies at the heart of this seldom seen, utterly hypnotic film (shot by William Lubtchansky). Marie (Bulle Ogier) has been released from prison. Baptiste (Bulle's late daughter, the ethereally beautiful Pascale Ogier) has just arrived in Paris. Fate brings them together, and for four days this oddly touching duo out of Lewis Carroll lives out a kind of board game, as if "Chutes and Ladders" had mysteriously merged with real life. A strangely unsettling film, and, thanks to the luminosity of mother and daughter, an oddly touching if not enchanted one. With Pierre Clémenti and Jean-François Stévenin. Music by Astor Piazzola."

[arsaib4]

Originally posted by pmw
Nice thread! Just saw Rivette's "Pond du Nord" at the Walter Reade. P

Thanks...I believe this one played as part of the Film Comment select, didn't it? I wish I was there. Did you catch anything else?

[pmw]

I saw Clean! Im a huge Assayas fan and this one did not disappoint. Im sure it will be written off by audiences, because Assayas teeters on the edge of hipster-dom, but I think its a very smart line to take, and Nolte is really great. His performance alone is worth the ticket. An honest and very touching story of a mother getting on with her life (chung). How about you? See anything at Selects?
P

[arsaib4]

Originally posted by pmw
I saw Clean! Im a huge Assayas fan and this one did not disappoint. Im sure it will be written off by audiences, because Assayas teeters on the edge of hipster-dom, but I think its a very smart line to take, and Nolte is really great. His performance alone is worth the ticket. An honest and very touching story of a mother getting on with her life (chung). How about you? See anything at Selects?
P

Great...now I really can't wait (the French DVD comes out April 21st). Did see the Oscar nominated German film about Hitler called Downfall (DER UNTERGANG); it's big and bold but doesn't offer much in terms of analysis, unless one doesn't know anything. Bruno Ganz is there doing his best Depardieu and the carnage scenes rival those of Schindler's List. It should do well theatrically (it is now officially out also).

[wpqx]

Just finished Bad Timing (A Sensual Obsession). Long unavailable here, I found a copy of a DVD from who knows where. Damn good print, and a very interesting film. If you are a fan of Nicholas Roeg, then you will love this film, if not, then beware.

[wpqx]

Just watched Two or Three Things I Know About Her (1966). Godard at the peak of his creative power, somehow this film just didn't blow me away quite like some of his others, but still well worth your time.

[arsaib4]

Originally posted by wpqx
Just watched Two or Three Things I Know About Her (1966). Godard at the peak of his creative power, somehow this film just didn't blow me away quite like some of his others, but still well worth your time.

Where did you see it? on vhs?

I'm thinking about checking out Masculine Feminine which is playing at Film Forum until Feb 24th. New 35mm print/subs!

[wpqx]

I watched a VHS of it. It's not the New Yorker release, but one released in Europe. I got it letterboxed so good to go. I would recommend Maculin/Feminin although I'm assuming you've already seen it before, I personally like it more than Two or Three Things. I also got a copy of La Chinoise, which I'll probably get to later today. Right now I'm watching Titicut Follies, so I'll let you all know how that turns out.

[wpqx]

Watched Titicut Follies (1967), my first Wiseman film, and I believe I'll need to see much more of his work, to get a firm grasp on it. But it was certainly enough to encourage me to pursue the rest of his catalogue.

[wpqx]

This is the third time I've mentioned it but I just watched La Chinoise (1967). Again from some undisclosed source I got a copy, and I must say this film was absolutely brilliant, one of his best, and it's been awhile since a Godard film really moved me.

[Johann]

I also recommend these films produced by Clive Barker (it's been a gothic few months at my place):

Gods and Monsters

A shining moment for Sir Ian McKellen.
It's like watching a magician slowly reveal his secrets.
It's about the later-years life of James Whale, the director of Frankenstein and The Bride of Frankenstein.
Whale was a homosexual artist who was basically shunned by Hollywood after his horror film sucess.
Brilliant movie. Very compelling.

Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh

Bill Condon also directed this Clive Barker story (another expansion of the short story "The Forbidden"), about the Candyman, a guignol that appears when you say his name 5 times...
"Sweets for the sweet..."


and Barker's latest feature film project has been postponed- the studio backed out because "We're already making a picture with demons". He should get another studio soon, because TORTURED SOULS could be his piece de resistance

[arsaib4]

Originally posted by wpqx
I watched a VHS of it. It's not the New Yorker release, but one released in Europe. I got it letterboxed so good to go. I would recommend Maculin/Feminin although I'm assuming you've already seen it before, I personally like it more than Two or Three Things. I also got a copy of La Chinoise, which I'll probably get to later today. Right now I'm watching Titicut Follies, so I'll let you all know how that turns out.

I've seen Masculin but only on video so I'm looking forward to it (I'm going there tomorrow). Rialto has heavily promoted their new 35mm print so I wanna see what they got.

What issues does the Wiseman film deals with?

[JustaFied]

Originally posted by arsaib4


Well, I probably don't know as much about Altman as you do, but there's no other way to describe Nashville; it's one of the most poetic American films ever made.

If there's some equivalent in film to The Great American Novel, I'd consider it to be Nashville. Possibly outdated, yes, after 30 years, but still mostly relevant to our time. I pick up on something new every time I watch it.

Altman's put out a lot of mediocre films, admittedly. I just ordered California Split off of Netflix; it was recently released on DVD after being out of print for years. My expectations are not as high for this film, but I"m still looking forward to seeing it. As I said before, Nashville, McCabe & Mrs. Miller, and Short Cuts are his three films that just blew me away when I first saw them; no better way to describe them. Guess I'm fascinated by the sociological and psychological perspectives that Altman provides.

[wpqx]

Well the Wiseman film deals with the treatment of the mentallly ill. A bit jarring film, that was only permitted to be released after 25 years provided they put a disclaimer saying that changes and improvements have been made in the institution. But if you like hearing psychotic people try and rationalize everything, and make the claim to be normal, this film might be of interest. I'll watch any film regardless of what it's about, so I don't even need a good subject.

As for Altman, I need to watch McCabe again, I really think I missed something there. From the same era I would recommend The Long Goodbye, which is my second favorite film from him. I'm no expert, but I have seen 16 of his films, so a little more knowledgable than the average filmgoer. 17 if you count Popeye, which I haven't seen since I was a kid, and I can't remember anything about it.

[wpqx]

Well it took a couple of days, but I finished watching Hitler, a Film From Germany last night. Arguably one of the strangest films I have seen, it is half documentary, half fiction, and completely avant-garde. There are two major flags however: 1. It is nearly impossible to find and 2. It is 7 hours long.

Now most people frequenting this site would have no problem sitting through a 7 hour film, or even one twice as long, but it's hard to recommend a film to someone of the general public by adding that disclaimer. I still know people who refuse to watch Andrei Rublev because it's four hours long.

As for the film itself, I can't say I was blown away. Was it worth watching, certainly it was. Would I watch it again, probably not. My subtitles were horrible, and half of them were cut off. Granted the dialogue consisted of extremely long sequences of people reading about Hitler, or excerpts from Hitler's speeches. Granted some of this dialogue would have been quite useful, but 7 hours about Hitler, you can pretty much assume what is being discussed.

Had this film been shrunken down to about half the length, it might be quite a bit stronger, but the full film, just seems to be a little redundant.

[wpqx]

The Chronicle of a Love (1950), Antonioni's first film, worth watching, but his style as an auteur was still in the early stages of development.

[wpqx]

High School (1968), my second Wiseman film, this one I liked a little more, and am certainly going to get some more, probably tomorrow.

[arsaib4]

I used to think that I watch too many films but you (wpqx) not only watch more but you find the time to mention all of them (or most of them) on various sites. Good for you!

Also, if you wanna watch a "fun" film about Hitler, check out the recently released (and Oscar nominated) Downfall from Germany.

[wpqx]

I'll check that out.

I watched Thieves Highway (1949), earlier, I thought I mentioned it here, but I guess not. Not exactly one of Dassin's best, but a good transfer.

[wpqx]

The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976), pardon me, but I don't feel like divulging details.

[Fan of Kubrick]

Les Choristes
I was blown away by the beauty of the music, and the simple but effective shots that Christophe Barratier used... Not much else to say.

American Beauty
After putting it off for so long I finally watched it. It was funny but it wasn't a masterpiece... I did like Kevin Spacey's performance though...

[arsaib4]

Masculine Feminine (1966) Theatrical Screening

Finally got a chance to see this on the big screen and what a treat it was. The new print is immaculate. In this film about "the children of Marx and Coca-Cola" (godard), a young army veteran (Jean-Pierre Léaud) begins a love-affair with a singer (Chantal Goya). Léaud remains as ambivalant about politics as Goya about their curiosity. Godard incorporates many experimental forms in his narrative and his directorial style to depict the confusion, the excitement associated with the era. J. Hoberman said it best, "Directed by anyone else, Masculine Feminine—one of three movies that Godard made in his peak year, 1966—would be a masterpiece. For the young JLG it's business as usual."

[wpqx]

Watched Padre Padrone (1977), which I believe is the first Taviani brothers film, correct me if I'm wrong. Nothing too extraordinary here, but I tend to get bored extremely quickly with neorealism, espcially when it's post neorealism.

[arsaib4]

Originally posted by wpqx
Watched Padre Padrone (1977), which I believe is the first Taviani brothers film, correct me if I'm wrong.

Padre Padrone wasn't their first film but it was the first which truly brought them some attention. Films including A Man for Burning, Under the Sign of Scorpio and St. Michael Had a Rooster were made before. Besides that it's "neo-neorealism" what else you didn't like about it?

[wpqx]

As far as Padre Padrone, it just bored me. I don't like to think that I need action, but this movie just did nothing for me. I felt nothing for the characters, or the way it was filmed.

An even worse film that I just watched was Spooky Bunch. Just stay away from this please, do a search on http://www.allmovie.com their rating was pretty accurate.

[wpqx]

Hypothesis of a Stolen Painting (1978), damn good, and strange work from Raoul Ruiz. Be patient with it though.

[arsaib4]

Originally posted by wpqx
An even worse film that I just watched was Spooky Bunch.

That's why I don't just watch anything. There are too many other films out there that deserve our attention in a short amount of time we do have.

No other filmmaker in Europe has made more features in the last quarter of a century than Ruiz. He isn't always comprehensible but he's never stopped being innovative. Hypothesis is certainly one of his better films. I'd also recommend Genealogies of a Crime, Three Lives and Only One Death, and That Day from the one's I've seen.

[wpqx]

A few of those Ruiz films are on my to watch list. Well I just watched Ghost (1990), and I absolutely loved it. I always liked the film as a kid, but somehow watching the film years later, I was amazed at how great I thought it was. I mean I was truly blown away.

[arsaib4]

Asfalto (2000) DVD

It is the fourth film directed by Spanish filmmaker Daniel Calparsoro and if the promise shown earlier in his career has led to this then here's yet another example of why Spanish cinema - from Spain that is - continues to struggle. Chino and Charly (Gustavo Salmerón & Juan Diego Botto) are small time hoods in Madrid who want to move to Amsterdam after one final drug deal. Chino's girlfriend Lucía (Najwa Nimri) gets involved not only with the deal but also with Charly. Also present are Lucía's mother and Chino's brother who happens to be a cop. The drug deal doesn't go through as expected and it's all onward but downward from there.

It's been a while since I've seen such inept filmmaking. Mr. Calparsoro has no interest at all in dialogue or character development. Any narrative strands are ignored for gratuituous sex-scenes which would've been fine if he didn't exhaust all possibilities early on including a ménage à trois. As for its "crime-thriller" aspect, I've seen that handled better in student films. Asfalto is a disaster and its cast, especially Nimri and Botto, deserve better.

[wpqx]

Youth of the Beast (1963), innovative Suzuki. His films are a definite example of style over substance, and this is no different. By the end of the film you could care less who did what, but it's always fun watching it unfold.

[arsaib4]

Originally posted by wpqx
Youth of the Beast (1963), innovative Suzuki. His films are a definite example of style over substance, and this is no different. By the end of the film you could care less who did what, but it's always fun watching it unfold.

Have you tried the likes of Pistol Opera, Brandid to Kill, and Tokyo Drifter? Suzuki's films are at once both maddening and gratifying.

[oscar jubis]

There are only a handful of Latin American directors that come close to the level of career achievement exhibited by Arturo Ripstein. He has made close to 30 features, and about 15 shorts, most of them documentaries (including one on Bunuel). I've managed to watch 11 of his features. My favorites are El Imperio de la Fortuna (Empire of Fortune), El Castillo de la Pureza (Castle of Purity), La Mujer del Puerto (Woman of the Port) and Profundo Carmesi (Deep Crimson). One cannot discuss his career without mentioning Paz Alicia Garciadiego, who has written every script and has been an active influence on the set of every film Ripstein has directed in the past two decades. Thay are married. Ripstein's films are primarily made for consumption in Spain and France. A Mexican friend told me they are barely distributed in his native Mexico because historically they have never made money there. It has to do with the long takes he favors, the depressing outlook, the anti-religious stance of many of his films, etc. I think he's brilliant, although several of his films (Principio y Fin comes to mind) would benefit from some trimming. The only Latino directors that come close are Argentinians Adolfo Aristarain and Fernando Solanas, Peruvian Francisco Lombardi, and perhaps Chileans Raul Ruiz and documentarian Patricio Guzman.

[JustaFied]

California Split (1974), another solid, overlooked Altman film from the '70's (ala Thieves Like Us, Three Women, and The Long Goodbye).

Elliot Gould and George Segal play a couple of gambling junkies who meet up after being thrown in together in a poker fight. Segal at least holds down a day job to support his gambling habit, while Gould just drifts along, placing bets on anything and everything, apparently living rent-free with a couple of call girls. He seems to be oblivious to those things that concern most people in their day-to-day lives. But it's a good life - gamble all night, come home, drink a beer, and hit the sack.

They end up going to Reno to get in on a high-stakes poker tournament, and the adrenaline rush of the events is something the two men react differently to. The ending of the film isn't predictable, and it isn't didactic, so I found that refreshing in this film (and once again, an example of the differences between mainstream films of today versus the '70's). Gould is hilarious in his role in this film, and his performance alone is worth checking it out.

[oscar jubis]

I'm always happy when Lope-Nilsson gets mentioned. I didn't because I was only considering active directors. Latin American cinema was ignored by the rest of the world until fairly recently. Spanish Cinema from the Franco era suffered the same fate. Three major figures of Mexican cinema, for instance, are practically unknown to today's cinephiles: directors Emilio Fernandez and Fernando de Fuentes, and cinematographer Gabriel Figueroa (Los Olvidados, The Exterminating Angel, John Huston's Night of the Iguana). I hope to find some of their key works on video someday. I watched a few of Torre-Nilsson's during a visit to Buenos Aires, and the prints were terrible. It's sad. I just read an article about the state of Argentinian cinema that claimed there are more film students than people who want to watch Argentinian films. As you know from previous exchanges, I'm not as enthusiastic about these young directors as you are, but their films are at least worth watching, and a few are worth celebrating (La Cienaga, Lisandro Alonso's Los Muertos and a few others).

[tabuno]

Just finished the DVD and it was superior to Hypercube, the sequel to The Cube. This is a "Brazil"-like treat with the horror of the original but with a much more compelling eerie sense of doom and craziness. This more of an independent feature film (DVD) is creative in its dark, odd, forbidden way...with hope and dispair. The element of out of control, unknown permeates this version of the Cube franchise. Like the harsher, graphic version of the television version of The Prisoner, this prequel is surprisingly good.

[Fan of Kubrick]

Les Quatre Cents Coups
Finally saw this...

The Broadway Melody
of 1929 to be exact... This was interesting, but not that great. Although I did like a few of the musical numbers.

[Johann]

And what did you think of Les Quatre-Cents Coups, Kubrick fan?

[wpqx]

Nobody Knows (2004), I think there is a thread here, so I'll post any comments there.

[Fan of Kubrick]

I thought that Les Quatre Cents Coups was a very well made film. Truffaut directing was great. I thought the acting was pretty good too. Now that I think about it, it was a great film... I'm not gonna say any more though...

Finding Neverland
I decided to see this so I could say that I had seen all of the Best Picture nominations... I don't know... it was decent...

[wpqx]

Agree with you on Finding Neverland. Not a bad film, but there were many many better films that could have taken that nomination. Every year the best picture nominees are filled with two or three (sometimes all five) films that aren't worth the nod. Finding Neverland was not worth this nomination. If it was gonna get anything, perhaps a costume nomination, but none of the acting was spectacular, and the film itself was just decent. Of the films that weren't nominated I think Eternal Sunshine was the best candidate to take it's place, which I believe has now become my official favorite film of 2004.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by arsaib4
Baara (1978)
Mr. Souleymane Cissé from Mali has only made a handful of features yet he's still considered one of the very best Africa has ever produced. His 1987 film Yeelen is certainly his most polished and acclaimed work (partly because it is available)

Yeelen is a masterpiece I've seen several times. Where was Baara screened? home video?

[wpqx]

1. The Animal Kingdom (1932) - if you've never heard of it, don't worry you didn't miss much.

2. Irma La Duce (1963) - Billy Wilder in his seriously out of touch period.

3. Separate Tables (1958) - melodramtic mush that brought David Niven an Oscar.

[wpqx]

1. My Favorite Year (1982) - decent, but nothing worth recommending, aside from a Peter O'Toole fan.

2. Bus Stop (1956) - decent work from Monroe, but in general a rather insignificant movie.

[wpqx]

Just finished Pioneers in Ingolstadt (1970) - one of Fassbinder's earlier films. Interesting as usual, with some great camerawork. Focussing primarily on casual sex, and what I believe is the impossibility of it (at least for some people). Worth a look if you like the director, although not a great place to start.

[JustaFied]

Buffalo Soldiers (2003) - Anti military film falls far short of its predescessors "Catch 22", "Mash", and "Three Kings". Joaquin Phoenix does fine in the lead role as an amoral soldier running a black market operation while stationed in Germany, but overall the film is flat and unconvincing in its viewpoints.

[arsaib4]

Buffalo Soldiers is not in the same class as those you mentioned, but I don't think its ambition was to be more than a lightweight satire which ended up under a lot of scrutiny due to the times and under the type of atmosphere we're living in (and it certainly seemed more poignant). I think just the fact that it was made and released (no matter how unsoundly) is a cause for celebration itself.

[oscar jubis]

An impressionable, young oscar overrated both M.A.S.H. and Catch 22 back in the day. Still worth-watching though. Buffalo Soldiers is indeed "cause for celebration" but obviously no masterpiece either. Some of the acclaimed films of the early to mid 70s have withstood the passage of time. Check out Nashville, Five Easy Pieces, McCabe and Mrs. Miller, Badlands, The Conversation...

[arsaib4]

Breathless (1960) Theatrical Screening

Based on a story by his associate François Truffaut, this first feature from JLG is a love story about a crook (Jean-Paul Belmondo) and an American woman(Jean Seberg). Even though Chabrol's Le Beau Serge was made before it, this gets the credit for "starting it all," New Wave that is, but more importantly few films have had as much an influence on cinema today than Breathless. The detached behavioral patterns displayed by his protagonists have also revolutionized the way characters are written. In the film Godard unleashes his directorial style with numerous jump-cuts, tracking shots, fragmented sound-design etc., and along the way he recognizes the authorities before him with various cinematic references. Few films seem as fresh and daringly compelling as this one.

[wpqx]

Did you catch Breathless in the theater?

I found that the restored print of Masculin/Feminin is going to make it's way out here next month, not sure if I'll catch it, but I certainly hope it brings about a US dvd release.

I watched 28 Up tonight. It's the fourth film in Michael Apted's Up series, and so far the best. Amazing to see how everyone turned up, and I'll hopefully finish the series up before too long.

Also watched Anne of the Thousand Days. One of several films that brought Richard Burton an Oscar nomination, this one is nothing to get excited about. Burton had done better, particularly in the similarly nominated and Hal Wallis produced Becket (1964). This is the mindless crap that Hollywood systematically churns out every year to win Oscars. A film reeking of prestige and class, and I do mean reeking. No vitality, no life, just playing it safe "mature" period crap.

Honestly the film wasn't that bad, but I'm getting sick of this garbage. This film does absolutely nothing to contribute to the art of cinema. It is worthless in the development of the medium. And any number of much better films should have received the same Oscar consideration in 1969. I mean, how in the year of The Wild Bunch and Once Upon a Time in the West did Butch Cassidey and the Sundance Kid get nominated for best picture? Let's not forget John Wayne winning best actor for True Grit, arguably the worst performance to win an acting Oscar (and I've seen Broderick Crawford in All the King's Men).

Sorry I'm getting into a rant, but I'm just a little pissed at the Academy. I've expanded my usual Alternate Oscars to include alternate best actor, actress, and director awards. I'll post my regular lists soon, and when I get to editing, I'll start some year by year commentary. I have lots of time now, so it'll get done. My commentary is at least in the rough stage up to 2000, so only five more years and I'm all set. It'll wind up a super duper massive thread, that hopefully someone other than me will contribute to.

[arsaib4]

Yeah, Breathless had a special screening here and it was good to see it again after a while.

Masculine Feminine will play at the Music Box between Apr 15 - 21 so make plans, you won't be disappointed with the new print. Obviously the British have already used it to made their disc, so it's ready if Criterion or whoever wants to release it here.

I recall that you made an oath to watch every Oscar nominated film (and I remember saying that you'll be watching a lot of bad films) so I'm gonna take your word on the films and performances and if they deserved it or not, for now. I'll certainly try to add to it with my take for deserving winners from the last few years. I don't wanna make judgments w/out seeing all the nominees.

[JustaFied]

Originally posted by arsaib4
I think just the fact that it was made and released (no matter how unsoundly) is a cause for celebration itself.

I agree, I'm glad "Buffalo Soldiers" was at least made and released, and true its intent was probably as a lightweight satire. But, when you take on an institution like the U.S. Military, you better be ready to defend yourself with guns a' blazin'. It had the unfortunate timing of being scheduled for release right after the events of 9/11, which meant it was doomed from the start. Maybe it would have enjoyed more success if released 5-10 years ago.

Another interesting view of the U.S. Military as seen through the eyes of the outside world is in the documentary "Control Room", which came out last year. And they can't accuse that of being fiction...

[wpqx]

Yeah I saw the adds for it at the Music Box when I went to see Nobody Knows. I just watched Lola (1961). I think I'm getting to that stage where I'm watching so many movies that none of them are effectively sinking in, or maybe I'm just watching a bunch of mediocre movies. I think I might need to take a break and watch something I KNOW is great, just to see if I'm numb to great cinema.

[arsaib4]

Originally posted by wpqx
I think I'm getting to that stage where I'm watching so many movies that none of them are effectively sinking in, or maybe I'm just watching a bunch of mediocre movies. I think I might need to take a break and watch something I KNOW is great, just to see if I'm numb to great cinema.

I don't think the two points you made are mutually exclusive. At the rate you watch these films is simply astounding and that might be causing you to see them all as mediocre as most of the films we see out there are just that. Simply put: the good and the great ones are being buried under the rubble.

[arsaib4]

Originally posted by JustaFied
Another interesting view of the U.S. Military as seen through the eyes of the outside world is in the documentary "Control Room", which came out last year. And they can't accuse that of being fiction...

Thanks for mentioning it, I think it's out on video now so I'll check it out.

[hengcs]

(1) The most upsetting scene from CONTROL ROOM is near the end ...
-- the reporter at the rooftop scene ...

(2) Another VERY realistic/pragmatic line was delivered from the interviewee who informed frankly that he would leave for FOX if they employ him or a better place in US ...

In sum, can watch, but it is NOT considered the best documentary of 2004, at least NOT the top 5.

It is just a very down to earth documentary that provides a DIFFERENT reporting perspective.
;)

[Fan of Kubrick]

The Life of Emile Zola
This won Best Picture in 1938 I believe... I thought it was a very well made picture. It is very relevant today, at least if you live in America. It is a bit slow at some times, but other than that it was very well done, at least in my opinion...

[wpqx]

Well to answer Fan Of Kubrick, Life of Emile Zola won best picture for 1937. Granted the awards ceremony was in 1938, but well you get the point. Honestly I thought the film was rubbish, and none too relevant.

Well I got a double feature of rather short films this evening. The first was John Huston's Red Badge of Courage (1951). Now this film was butchered quite extensively, but I'm not sure if the added footage would help. The film is consice, fast paced, and still compelling. Most remarkable in the film is the photography, which employs many deep space compositions. Huston had been working in deep focus since his first feature, made ten years earlier, and by now seemed to intuitively know how to use it.

Next up was a remarkably different film in almost every aspect, except for the length. I watched Robert Bresson's Trial of Joan of Arc. Seeing how I'll soon be getting another 4 Bresson films, I wanted to get this one out of the way beforehand. The film, although cited as an homage to Dreyer's Passion of Joan of Arc is completely different from that film. Bresson's underdramatic impulses work wonders here. His Joan is not the tortured soul of Falconetti, but a young woman who although defeated, maintains her faith. Bresson's editing rhythm is much slower than Dreyer's, but his takes aren't exactly long. Bresson was a master editor, and this film is well arranged. Rarely have I seen so many eyeline matches in the course of an hour. Seeing how this film was never released in the US, I'd like to recomend it, but I honestly think everyone on earth should watch every single Bresson film. I still have a few to go, but good or bad, they are vital pieces of cinema history. Like Tarkovsky and Kubrick, there aren't too many films to get either, so by all means get what you can. The more Bresson you see, the better he becomes, so if you aren't impressed with your first viewing (which I wasn't), then please don't give up on him. When you understand the man and his style, you will appreciate his work and recognize him as one of cinema's true auteurs. I believe everyone is entitled to one trancendental Bressonian experience. Mine came with Au Hasard Balthazar, a film I saw during it's restoration a year ago. I wasn't overly impressed with that film as I was watching it, but as soon as it ended I found my self speechless and profoundly effected like few films had ever done to me. I left the theater and made the long drive home in a daze unable to even think logically about the film. It is an experience that I think every cinema fan hopes for while watching a film, and hopefully if you venture into the world of Bresson you will have that experience, although it may or may not be with Balthazar, or Joan of Arc.

So to recap, watch this movie if you can.

[arsaib4]

Originally posted by wpqx
Bresson was a master editor, and this film is well arranged. Rarely have I seen so many eyeline matches in the course of an hour. Seeing how this film was never released in the US, I'd like to recomend it, but I honestly think everyone on earth should watch every single Bresson film......

Well said. Frankly, it shouldn't need to said at this point but one never knows even on this site!

Mouchette was my "transcendental" or metaphysical experience and it has remained that way ever since. Compared to it, everything else almost seems meaningless. Anyway, are you planning to go for the boxset or have you found another way?

[wpqx]

Well I found an offbeat (and probably illegal) source. Now I'm all about gettting his films when they become officially available, but Four Nights of a Dreamer has never been released here, and I've been plenty patient. Anyways I should bet back to watching Bambi (which I just bought today).

[wpqx]

Well I finished Bambi (1942). Honestly I don't remember ever seeing this film as a child. Personally I don't find it that amazing. Dumbo is still my favorite of the early Disney films (as well as Fantasia, which is a whole different kind of picture). Bambi is just alright, and call it my cold cold hear, but I didn't really feel anything when Bambi's mother got shot. Which is probably more due to the fact that I knew she died. I personally found the imprisoning of Dumbo's mother Jumbo way more heartbreaking.

[wpqx]

Tokyo Story (1953)

This my second viewing on the film, and I tried to pay attention to a few things. For one I keep reading through David Bordwell that Ozu doesn't adhere to the 180 rule of shot/reverse shot editing. I tried to follow every single cut in this film and I couldn't spot it. If he does violate continuity editing, he is the most seemless at it.

The film itself is unfortunately one of those movies that is too critically praised to ever be appreciated correctly. I didn't think it was Ozu's best the first time, and I still don't. It did improve slightly, but perhaps I was expecting a much more dramatic second viewing (sort of like my re-watching of Sunrise a few weeks ago).

I honestly feel the film is too long. Granted I don't mind Ozu lingering. Many shots are held for a few extra seconds, and he likes to transition scenes with non-narrative shots of buildings or streets, or empty rooms. What I mean is the story was too long. The ending seemed to be prolonged at the end. This 136 minute film could have been a much more solid 120 minutes without losing any of its emotional power. So I must say this is not a flawless masterpiece. Is it still a great film, of course, and certainly a landmark in Japanese cinema, but in the grand scheme of things I think this film is slightly overrated.

[wpqx]

Dogville

http://www.filmwurld.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=9309#post9309

[arsaib4]

In Good Company (2004) Theatrical Screening

Dennis Quaid is Dan, a 51-year old head of sales at a sports magazine. He learns that he's about to have another child while his older daughter (Scarlett Johansson) is planning to go to NYU. Topher Grace is Carter, a 26-year old hotshot who's wife might be leaving him but he's about to replace Dan because the conglomerate he works for has bought out the sports magazine. Interesting premise, as both are introduced and instead of firing Dan, Carter decides to keep him on in a supporting role since he doesn’t have much experience in that particular field.

Directed by Paul Weitz (About a Boy), the film starts out well and makes some poignant remarks about the prevalent dog eat dog corporate climate. But, eventually as domestic issues and romantic escapades raise their ugly heads it gets sidetracked and then we go through every clichéd situation imaginable; as expected, the veteran ends up having a few tricks up his sleeve and everything slowly but surely fits into what turns out to be a typical middle-brow affair. Dennis Quaid gives a workmanlike performance and it is good to see scarlett Johansson underplaying her role (and her persona), although, the high point in her career might've already come. While watching In Good Company, I kept thinking what Laurent Cantet (Human Resources/Time-Out) would've done using this initial premise with non-actors and quarter-of-a-budget!

[Chris Knipp]

I liked this one more than you did, it was just fun to watch and, previously unfamiliar with Topher Grace, I found he had an excellent light touch that carried the movie and gave it lightness and panache. He's excellent as a winner who knows he's a loser and lets us in on it. I didn't find this formulaic despite the conventional blocking out of the corporate conflicts and thought a lot went well in the making of In Good Company, a surprise to me. But I never got around to writing a review of it. I hope you're wrong and Scarlett Johanssen's career hasn't already peaked and am at least glad you think she was underplaying and not just "wasted" in this. Some people like Dennis Quaid in this more than I do; I'd agree he's workmanlike. There are a couple of subtle, sexy moments between Grace and Johannsen some people don't seem to perceive. I disliked Malcolm Macdowell, in one of his worst powerful monster schtick roles, luckily a cameo. True, Laurent Cantet would have taken this in a whole different, interesting direction, but I don't blame it for not being a French movie.

[Fan of Kubrick]

Persona
I'll just say it was brilliant.

Rio Bravo
It was okay... Hawks' directing bothered me a lot though.

[wpqx]

I don't know about you, but I loved Rio Bravo, and the more I think about it the better it gets. Maybe I just see its influence more and more. Plus reading into the High Noon comparisons it gets more interesting.

As for me

The Seven Year Itch (1955) - well this is the third time or so I've seen it, and I still say its second rate Billy Wilder.

Be Cool (2005) - I'm ashamed to have spent money on such Hollywood nonsense trash. Please avoid this, it is just as stupid, shallow, and empty as you might imagine.

[arsaib4]

Be Cool (2005) - I'm ashamed to have spent money on such Hollywood nonsense trash. Please avoid this, it is just as stupid, shallow, and empty as you might imagine. [/B]

I've no reason not to believe you. Although, I just went over to imdb to read the cast and it is incredible that Uma Thurman continues to appear in these kind of films. I thought she'd be above this kind of material by now but it's also sad that one of our most beautiful and talented actresses doesn't have too many options available (other than to wait for Tarantino).

[Chris Knipp]

(Originally posted by wpqx)
Be Cool (2005) - I'm ashamed to have spent money on such Hollywood nonsense trash. Please avoid this, it is just as stupid, shallow, and empty as you might imagine.

Unfortunately I'm not surprised -- it looks like a remake -- but as a fan of Pulp Fiction I sometimes feel the necessity of knowing what it has spawned. Maybe not this one, though. I could just skim through the dvd version when it appears. As the saying goes, "It is not necessary to eat all of an egg to know that it is bad."

[wpqx]

As I said before, it was either Be Cool or the Wedding Date, so I think I made the right choice.

I just watched Limelight (1952), Chaplin's third sound feature, and the last film he made in the US. To me it seems to continue his downward slope, seeing how it was inferior to Monsieur Verdoux, which was inferior to The Great Dictator. He was a little out of touch, and I think too many people heap unecessary and undeserving praise upon it, because Chaplin was persecuted for being a communist during its initial release.

[wpqx]

The Piano Teacher (2001)

No sir, I didn't like it. What started as a somewhat boring tale about a strict piano teacher and a piece of "high" art about classical music degenerated into a slopsticle course of trash.

[wpqx]

The Tarnished Angels (1957)

Yet another collaboration between Douglas Sirk and star Rock Hudson. This ons is a weaker effort from the pair in my opinion. Perhaps they needed color to truly work, or perhaps the film just wasn't interesting. Either way I was kind of bored with it, and got exceptionally tired towards the end.

[oscar jubis]

I've been waiting decades to watch it in a theatre, resisting the temptation to rent the vhs copy at the video store. Dave Kehr wrote"It should be seen in a theatre or not at all". To make matters worse the film is in CinemaScope and the video is pan-and-scan. It's unfair to Sirk to form an opinion based on a home viewing of the available vhs. If you watched it in a theatre, tell me about the print's condition because it's probably the one coming here in 2 weeks.

[wpqx]

Saw it on TCM, so the aspect ratio was correct. As for the quality of the film, pretty damn good, I wonder if it's the subject of a recent restoration. Can't say I was too wild about the film, but if it's Sirk it's at least worth a look.

[arsaib4]

I agree with you on The Tarnished Angels (certainly not Sirk's best) but strongly disagree on The Piano Teacher. No, it's not for casual viewing but few films dig deeper into human emotion and our sado-masochistic tendencies than this one. Huppert's performance is one of the best I've ever seen.

The Motorcycle Diaries (2004) DVD

Not sure why, but I gave it another shot just to make certain before I make my "Best of 2004" list (coming soon to a thread near you) and its inadequacies were still apparent. Every time the film gets somewhere near an emotionally truthful moment, Salles follows it up by one for the audience and then continues to pile 'em on. Kent Jones called it "My Most Memorable Spring Break" and "Tom and Huck go to a Leper Colony," and I can see where he's coming from. If Chris Doyle reigns in the East then its Eric Gautier in the West and his work here is simply amazing. Can't wait to see what he does with Assayas in Clean.

[Chris Knipp]

Another vote for The Piano Teacher or La Pianiste (Haneke). It's tough stuff, but fine.

I could not bring myself to review The Motorcycle Diaries because I didn't want to say anything bad about it, it's good natured and must have been a great experience for everyone concerned, but writing about it would require recognition of its limitations.

[JustaFied]

The Player (1992) - I've been on an Altman bender lately. This film, about the Hollywood world of movers and shakers, contains more inside jokes and star cameos than one can possibly pick up on in a single viewing. Tim Robbins plays a paranoid producer who's convinced that he's about to get canned and that a jilted screenwriter is planning to kill him. His only option is to keep everything under his control...if only he can figure out who the bad guys are. Hilariously typical Hollywood ending for the film within the film, Bruce Willis comes in to save the day, literally. Happy endings go over so much better at test screenings in Glendale, remember. Robbins comes out smelling like a rose.

[wpqx]

I stand by my remarks on the Piano Teacher, haven't seen Motorcycle Diaries, but will soon enough.

I watched Safe (1995), which may or may not be Todd Haynes first feature film. Either way, Julianne Moore was in it, and she may have given the best performance of her career (lead performance anyway). The film itself was decent, nothing great, but worth it for any Moore fan.

[Chris Knipp]

No reason why you shouldn't stand by your remarks on La Pianiste; that's your honest reaction. I think there was some discussion of it earlier here. and Howard and I debated the merits of Safe earlier here. He dislikes the film, I think it Haynes's best. It seems odd you find the 'best perfornmance' of a highly regarded actress in an only 'decent' movie. How does that work?

[Chris Knipp]

I went to see Eytan Fox's Walk on Water at the Landmark Shattuck Cinemas. I was touched by his sweet little movie about gays in the Israeli army, Yossi and Jagger. This one, about the gay grandson of a Nazi war criminal who tries to lure his sister back from a Kubbutz for their industrialist father's birthday party and who becomes involved with a borderline-homophobic Mossad hit man along the way, tries to do too much and to resolve everything too easily, but it deserves credit for at least attempting to bring together disparate but related topics. Not recommended unless you have a special interest in gay and/or Israeli and/or Holocaust themes.

Sundays in the Sun (Los Lunes al Sol) and Japón were both recommended by regulars on FilmWurld, I think Oscar primarily, and I got them indirectly through Netflix and watched them at home, with mixed results.

Fernando León de Aranoa's 2002 Sundays in the Sun, which deals with the issue of unemployment in the shipping industry in Spain, is a well acted, if fairly conventional movie, with Javier Bardem strong as the lead in an ensemble production focusing on a group of friends who gather at a pub started by one of their number with his severence pay. The movie is of conisiderable social and political significance and hence is well coverred on the World Socialist Web Site and was the Spanish candidate for the Best Picture Oscar a couple years ago. Don't look for much action; don't look for good outcomes; don't look for feel-good elements. This is a rather depressing piece and was something of a chore to watch at home with the fast-forward and eject buttons near at hand. I didn't use them though, and I acknowledge that Sundays in the Sun is a powerful evocation of how it feels to be pretty hopelessly out of work in a western European country.

Japón by first-time Mexican director Carlos Reygados and starring two non-actors is quite another story. It may not have been much seen in the US but RottenTomatoes indicates a hugely positive critical reaction for obvious reasons. In a glowing review in April 2003 Manohla Dargis (then still writing for the LA TImes) described Japón's subject matter as "love, death, sex, faith, redemption and mankind's domination over nature..." Shot in 16 mm. CinemaScope, it loses in a small viewing format but still soars and amazes with its originality and poetic vision from the first few frames. Like Kiarostami's A Taste of Cherry, Japón focuses on a man going off to commit suicide, only this one goes to a remote part of the province of Hidalgo in Mexico among country people. The protagonist, a lean, Christ-like, craggy-faced middle-aged man with a limp, gets permission from a stone-faced old lady called Ascen to stay in her barn far above the town. He goes on long walks (tireless, with a cane), stands in the hot sun, sips tea, listens to Bach cantatas on a portable CD player, masturbates, gets badly drunk in the town bar on mescal, privately contemplates shooting himself in the chest with an old pistol he has brought. The old lady serves him refreshments, does hand laundry, and plays the role of polite and modest hostess. These old fashioned courtesies bring the man closer to her and to life. All around are sounds of animals and other creatures, some of which we see or hear brutally dispatched; we also see a group of laughing little boys watch two horses copulate. It rains. The skies are filled with beautiful light. The man forgets his plan for self-slaughter and becomes concerned for the old lady and her barn, which a mean nephew comes to destroy for the stones. The last half hour is surprising and apocalyptic.

Even on DVD Japón leaves a strong impression. Reygadas shows great pure cinematic talent here. With limited means he has produced something strong and beautiful and fresh. I'm obliged to my FilmWurld friends for leading me to this memorable cinematic experience.

[wpqx]

Well some mediocre films merit extraordinary performances. I always loved Moore, but although plot and story wise I wasn't too thrilled with Safe, I did think that her work was top notch.

Speaking of mediocre films with great acting, I watched Dominick and Eugene, based solely on positive reviews of Thomas Hulce's performance. He did a damn good job, but I'm always a little judgemental when people play mentally retarded characters (because I am one, lol). I just think that its a crutch for many actors and it's almost too easy to get a good performance. Still, the boy was good, as was Liotta who played the rather intelligent brother.

[Chris Knipp]

(Originally posted by wpqx)
Well some mediocre films merit extraordinary performances.With respect, I think what you mean is that mediocre films sometimes contain performances they don't merit.

I'm not sure where you get the idea Dominick and Eugene's positive reviews (100 on the rottentomatoes scale) were based solely on Hulce's performance. Such a high critical evaluation would be unlikely if the critics had really serious reservations about the film. LIkewise going by both my own and others' reactions to Safe, and to Haynes' other films, they're not the kind of stuff you have a ho-hum reaction to, so it's hard to see how they can be considered "mediocre" either. Most people either love them (as I do Safe) or hate them (as I do Far from Heaven, which however got a 90 on rottentomatoes and had stronger boxoffice appeal than Safe). This said, I'll readily grant you that actors can turn in good work on a poor film. That's certainly more likely than the reverse.

[wpqx]

Well I only heard of Dominick and Eugene through an alternate Oscar book that listed Hulce's performance as the best of the year.

As for Haynes, I thought Safe was tree hugging hippie crap. I did enjoy Far From Heaven quite a bit, although not necessarily a masterpiece. As for the rest of his work, I'm ignorant.


Anyways today I watched two Carl Theodor Dreyer films made 30 years apart. The first was his second of two comedies Master of the House (1925). Uncharacteristic of Dreyer, but not necessarily a bad film, although not exactly a hilarious picture either.

The second was Ordet (1955), which may be the best of his sound films. Perhaps I'm now accostomed to his "signature" style at this point, or maybe it really was the most moving and powerful of his sound features. I would sincerely recommend this film for those questioning what good Dreyer films there are.

[Chris Knipp]

Originally posted by wpqx
As for Haynes, I thought Safe was tree hugging hippie crap. I did enjoy Far From Heaven quite a bit, although not necessarily a masterpiece. As for the rest of his work, I'm ignorant.


On this basis I think I'll drop the topic.

[wpqx]

Agreed

The Lost Honor of Katharina Blum (1975)

One of the first "hits" of the New German Cinema, this one got some added attention recently as reduction of civil liberties to combat terrorism became a contemporary issue. Aside from its current relevance, I didn't find it too engaging. Perhaps I'm still a little numb to films in general, or perhaps the film isn't too great. Certainly worth a look, especially as a key film from the movement, but again not the best film of the bunch. I am however looking to see more filsms from Von Trotta (and female directors in general), so perhaps with a better understanding of her work, this film will gain in stature.

[Chris Knipp]

Perhaps I'm still a little numb to films in general...

Why so? Since I'm following this thread closely, I'd like to know your mental state.

[arsaib4]

Ashes and Diamonds (1958) Theatrical Screening

Ashes was the last film in Wajda's trilogy at the starts of his career. The others include A Generation (1954) and Kanal (1956). Much like those films the strong anti-war sentiment continues as we find Maciek (Zbigniew Cybulski - Wajda's frequent collaborator) given the orders to kill a communist party official on the last day of WWII. As he's about to perform his duties the man gets distracted by a beautiful barmaid and then starts to question his mission. This emotionally powerful film is strikingly shot and it remains one of the best films to have come out of Eastern Europe.

[wpqx]

Well Chris, I watch perhaps too many movies. When I get in these fanatical states, I sometimes don't get a proper reaction. I don't allow a film to really sink in, I just go on to the next. Personally I didn't feel much towards Katharina Blum, I mean not really great, but not bad. Perhaps I'm expecting a reaction out of every film, but some films really aren't memorable. I'm sorry I upset you so much about my Todd Haynes comments, but Safe really didn't do much for me. Perhaps I'm an anti-environmentalist, and I viewed the film as pro-environment. As for my mental state, well let's just say pretty indifferent to everything, and numb to the world (which doesn't mean I'm heavily sedated).

Now, Arsaib, just watched a movie that actually did move me. Wajda's WWII trilogy is one of the greatest achievements in all of film history, perhaps the second best trilogy of all time (behind only the original Star Wars ). Although Ashes and Diamonds gets the most praise, I honestly felt Kanal was the best of the series. I found it the most powerful of the films, and one of those truly great, remarkable cinematic experiences.

[arsaib4]

I'm pretty sure that I would've shared your sentiments if I had also seen the other two on the big screen. Facets DVD, or any other DVD for that matter, doesn't do enough justice to Wajda's visuals. Ashes of Diamonds simply astonished me this time around. Criterion's box-set is coming up (as you know) but I hope to see the other two on the big screen.

[wpqx]

Damn thought I responded here. Watched Fighting Elegy (1966), my fourth Suzuki film. Pretty good, but I'm yet to really be amazed by him. Perhaps I'll get a better reaction if I ever have the chance to watch one a second time.

[wpqx]

42 Up

The last (for now) film in the Up series. Hard to say which of the lot is best, but I really did enjoy this particular episode. Brings you up to date with these people, and it shows that quite frequently people eventually do find their nitch. Even with 35 Up there were still aimless wanderers. So perhaps I shouldn't be too surprised if I'm in my mid-thirties wandering without a purpose in life.

[wpqx]

Watch on the Rhine (1943) - another in a string of films I'm watching for Oscar reasons. This one brought Paul Lukas a best actor Oscar, and the film itself was also nominated for best picture (in the last year where 10 separate films were nominated).

My diagnosis is garbage. This film was lousy in nearly every aspect. Bad acting from everyone (including the "who the hell is Paul Lukas" lead). The worst of the acting came from the three children who all seemed to be worse than the other. I blame the director, who was massively insignificant to the point that I don't even remember who did direct the film. Certainly not one of the "pros" of Warner Bros. in the 40's.

The story itself was still flag waving propoganda designed to make the nazis and any sympathizers evil. Understandable because well the nazis were a bit on the evil side, and it was made in the thick of WWII, but this shameless flag waving propoganda gets old even when taken in context. It is also a film that doesn't seem to have any historical context. I mean the nazis are evil seems based more on general perception than any historical facts.

Novelist Dashiell Hammett wrote the screenplay (best known for writing the book of Maltese Falcon) allong with Lillian Hellmann, who wrote the play on which the film was based. Perhaps with some skillfull direction, ala Michael Curtiz this might have been an engaging film. But it was pointless, derivative, and shamless. I can't figure out why of all people Lukas won an Oscar for this considering Humphrey Bogart was also nominated for Casablanca (which may also be shameless propoganda, but certainly of a more entertaining type).

[Chris Knipp]

My diagnosis is garbage.

Sounds terminal. Have not seen this movie and cannot comment.The Hellman play seems to have continued life. The director, Herman Shumlin -- not exactly a household word, is he? -- is credited with dicrecting only one other movie, The Confidential Agent, co-authored by Graham Greene, 1945. He was principally a stage director thereafter, I find, and won Tonys into the Sixties.

[wpqx]

Watched Touchez Pas Au Grisbi (1954) - which despite having one of the best prints of any restored film I've ever seen, the actual film did nothing for me. Rather standard genre fair, and far too similar to Riffifi and Bob Le Flambeur, although this did predate the both of them.

Also watched Body Heat (1981), not exactly a masterpiece as some might claim, but a damn good film, even if it is prone to some genre conventions. For what it's worth the better of the two films I just watched.

[Chris Knipp]

I would agree with you that Touchez pas au Grisbi is rather uninteresting. Jacques Becker. One might mention that it is an opportunity to see Jean Gabin in good form, and an early appearance of Jeanne Moreau. It also has some of the kinds of scenes that the better Fifties French noirs use, cars, domestic interiors, and of course the ubiquitous nightclubs. And as an IMDb commenter says, it's interesting as a "time capsule" of Fifties Paris and Fifties French gangster-filmmaking.

I would appreciate it if you mentioned the director when listing the films you have watched.

Apropos of your remark I would like myself to have a dvd with a good print of Rififi.

No doubt Lawrence Kasdan's Body Heat as you say is the better of the two, but is it much spoken of as a "masterpiece"? Don't think so. More what you call it -- a "damn good film." "Overwrought, rubbishy, unrealistic, but compelling" seems a more typical review quote than "masterpiece" -- but of course "masterpiece" gets used every other week by "some" film reviewers. Body Heat is an efffective movie with some punch in it, and an influential one that made a splash and used the young Kathleen Turner effectively as a man-killing lady, a persona later exploited amusingly by John Waters in Serial Mom. . .and a notable early appearance of William Hurt.

[wpqx]

Don't forget Body Heat had notable early appearances from Ted Danson and Mickey Rourke.

As for my last film I watched the Parson's Widow (1920), which if you must know was directed by Carl Theodor Dreyer. This was the first of his two comedies, and in my opinion the better. Master of the House was simply decent, and I'm not saying this film is a true comedic gem, but it was better. Although Dreyer's silent films may seem more versatile, I don't think that he had any distinct voice until he made Vampyr (1931). In the sound era (even though Vampyr is very much a silent film) Dreyer developed a signature. Watching his silent films he seems to wander between Griffith immitation (Leaves from Satan's Book), to farcical comedy (Parson's Widow and Master of the House), right up to montage inspired historical drama (Passion of Joan of Arc). There is no real unifying thread in his early work. Still worth checking out though, but for Dreyer at his best, stick to the sound era.

[oscar jubis]

I love Dreyer, silents as much as "sounds", and I thank you for not calling any of them "garbage".

[Chris Knipp]

Let us drop "trash" and "garbage" from our vocabularies and adopt instead "unsatisfying."

Arsène Lupin--was a favorite series in Egypt, many books translated into Arabic. I assume there been French TV series of him like the various English detective series on Masterpiece Theater? I hope this new adaptation isn't as bad as the Catherine Deneuve-Josée Dayan Liaisons Dangereuses.

As for my last film I watched the Parson's Widow (1920), which if you must know was directed by Carl Theodor Dreyer.

Yes, I must know! Thank you for remembering.

It seems to me Dreyer's "sound" films are also often "silent."

[wpqx]

True, but I just think they are more unified as a body of work. Hard to make the case of Dreyer being an auteur based on his silent work, at least in my opinion.

I just watched Casque D'Or (1952) which was my third feature from Jacques Becker. Like Touchez, this had a great print quality, but unlike Touchez, this film seemed to rise above some of the genre conventions. I was more interested in how Becker used light, and the cinematography in the picture than the actual story, which seemed to be headed for conventional territory early on. Great closeups and wonderful use of space.

[arsaib4]

I agree with your remark about Dreyer, in relation to Vampyr. Haven't seen The Parson's Widow yet but will make time.

Donkey Skin (1970)

A young princess (Catherine Deneuve) in a land far far away becomes the target of her own father (Jean Marais) when her mother (Catherine Deneuve) passes away with a wish that her husband only marries someone who is more beautiful than her. Disney-esque isn't it? The shocked young princess is helped by her fairy godmother (Delphine Seyrig) as the marriage gets delayed and eventually the princess is charted out under the disguise of a "Donkey Skin" to a neighboring village where a Cinderella-like story unfolds.

An homage to Cocteau, Jacques Demy has based this film on a fairytale by Charles Perrault (who wrote it in the 17th century). Creating surreal and magical worlds were a speciality of Demy and traces of that be found in his earlier musicals, The Umbrellas of Cherbourg and The Young Girls of Rochefort. Both Denevue and Michel Legrand (the star and composer of Cherbourg) are back for this one. The extravagent color-schemes and costume designs only add to the hyperrealitic nature of the film but the story isn't as engaging as his earlier efforts. Agnès Varda, Demy's widow, must be mentioned as she has done a credible job overseeing the restoration process of the new print for the film as it looks great.

*Koch Lorber will release the film on DVD on May 10th.

[Chris Knipp]

How were you able to watch it? Non-US DVD, I assume?

[wpqx]

1. 13 Rue Madeline (1947) - Henry Hathaway

2. The American Soldier (1970) - Rainer Werner Fassbinder

3. Indiscretion of an American Wife (1953) - Vittorio de Seca

Well none of these films were really worth getting excited about. I would like to offer more constructive criticism, but for now just a listing.

[Chris Knipp]

Indescretion of an American Wife (1953)

I wonder if this is the Criterion DVD with both the original De Sica version of Stazione Termini and the inferior American reedited and retitled version
http://filmcritic.com/misc/emporium.nsf/VideoHome/7276E7167B01353388256D8A0073FF73/?OpenDocument


(From FilmCritic.com)
It's not hard to see why David O. Selznick thought the movie needed work for its U.S. release. Selznick's crew hacked out about 20 minutes from the 90 minute film, stuck an 8-minute prologue of Patti Page (apparently meant to be the Jennifer Jones character sometime in the future) singing about the events of the film in New York. The resulting movie, renamed Indiscretion of an American Wife, is even worse -- much worse, really -- than De Sica's cut....

...Now cleaned up on a Criterion DVD release, the disc features both cuts of the film and a film scholar commentary on Selznick's version (which isn't terribly complimentary). It's an interesting study in film politics, if not so much in film history.

[Chris Knipp]

Gianni Amelio: The Way They Laughed (Così ridevano, 1998) watched on Italian DVD for the first time March 2005. Winner of the top prize "Leone d'Oro" at Venice.

The title, referring to an old joke column, is ironic. The film's review of Italian post-war economic miracle years is deeply tinged with sadness and a sense of the price paid in innocence lost to gain security and status. The whole focus is on the love between two Sicilian brothers, Giovanni and Pietro. The angel-faced Pietro (Francesco Giuffrida) from the first appears devious. When his brother arrives at the station, he slinks off and hides from him. He's lazy, a dandy, a liar, a faker, a bad seed. Yet he's worshiped by the innocent, muscular, illiterate Giovanni (Enrico Lo Verso), who has turned up with other southern immigrants at the Turin railway station intending just to visit his baby brother as the film opens and then stays on in the North to support him. The mise-en-scène is visually beautiful but conventionalizes the period into a kind of grimy poetry more worthy of twenty or thirty years earlier, no doubt consciously echoing Italian neorealist films (Amelio has been called the new De Sica) or becoming a glossier color version of Visconti's mournful epic tragedy of southern Italians in Milan, Rocco and His Brothers (1960). My DVD's Italian jacket copy translates a paragraph from Stephen Holden's 2001 NYTimes review expanding one of its key ideas: "Così rideveno has the power to keep its own secrets," this Italian version reads. "Without ever being moralistic, by the end it becomes the metaphor for a whole society that makes a kind of tacit pact with itself never to look too deeply into the hidden effects social processes have on individuals and their destinies." The interest -- and yet the frustration -- of the film is that its sequences each appear revelatory, but shed little light on the intervening periods of time. It is organized in a "rather elegant" manner (Rosenbaum) into a structure of microscopic views of single days out of each year from 1959 through 1964, each day designated by a key word: "arrivals," "deceptions," "money", "letters, "blood," and "families." This neat structure masks a surrounding mystery in the relationship between the two brothers, and we deduce for ourselves from the way they seek out and avoid each other how alike and interdependent they are. Each cherishes illusions about the other; one is proud, the other ashamed. Vivid and touching as the film is, it's also highly artificial, notably in how little of the two characters' lives is made clear, how little the world outside their relationship is explored. Metaphorical indeed, Così ridevano explores an inseparable (and ultimately false) dichotomy between innocence and experience, naiveté and sophistication that may go to the heart not only of North-South relations but of the Italian soul. Both actors, Amelio regular Lo Verso and newcomer Giuffreda, are remarkable, and the scenes between them are heartbreaking.

A near-masterpiece, highly recommended. Actually available on a US code DVD.

So far the only other Amelio film I've seen is The Housekeys (Le chiavi di casa, 2004), which being a documentary-like chronicle of a short stretch of contemporary time, seems so different, and yet on reflection is so similar in feeling. Obviously Amelio is an extraordinary director and I must see Lamarica and Stolen Children (Il ladro di bambini), both also starring the intense, soulful Lo Verso, which have received higher praise on this site and elsewhere.

[wpqx]

All I've seen from his is L'America which didn't impress me too much, but my taste in film can be somewhat odd. Oh and yes I did watch the Criterion dvd.

As for my recent viewings.

1. Anchors Aweigh (1945) - George Sydney

Here's a movie that might have worked with some scissors. I loved the film in its story, and many of its songs were great, but it did start to drag towards the end. I'm a firm believer that musicals shouldn't cross the two hour mark. The film is best remembered for the animated Gene Kelly/Jerry dance sequence, which is still a marvel in choreography.

2. Michael (1924) - Carl Theodor Dryer

The last of the Dreyer films I have, but I'm still missing 4 or 5 I believe. This one was a step up from the comedies of his I had recently watched. The film is most noted for its gay subtext, which I'd like to look at a little further. Good stuff though, and worth hunting out.

[wpqx]

Love Story (1970) - Arthur Hiller

Yes that's right I am gay. I mean I know Ghost was a close call, but this puts me over the edge. I mean I didn't cry because I have no tear ducts and I knew the ending, but damn what a sweet movie. Anyways this gets me taken care of for all the best picture nominees from 1970. Can't say this deserved a nomination, but I still enjoyed it.

[arsaib4]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
How were you able to watch it? Non-US DVD, I assume?

Actually, the restored print of Donkey Skin is touring the country right now so I was lucky enough to catch it in a theater here. It was issued by Koch Lorber late last year (Dec 24th to be exact). Not sure if it has made it to CA yet.

[arsaib4]

Intimate Strangers (2004)

Intimate Strangers is yet another middle-of-the-road psychological drama from Patrice Leconte. This time an enigmatic young woman (Sandrine Bonnaire), searching for a psychiatrist, mistakenly walks into the office of a tax-lawyer (Fabrice Luchini). After listening to her concerns, the companionless middle-age lawyer ends up agreeing to see to her again. Thankfully, the tawdry suspense of the initial set-up is released early on but what follows is perhaps even less intriguing. Leconte’s images are always handsome and they want you to look beneath the surface but the narrative isn’t very supportive here. Leconte has been making these half-baked films for quite a while now and its time to move on, but on the other hand, these miramaxical efforts are what selling nowadays in foreign lands. Bonnaire’s facial features have aged rapidly and she hasn’t appeared in a great film in recent years but all that is negated upon a look at her earlier work and she still has a long way to go (she’s only 37!).

[wpqx]

Tout Va Bien (1972) - Jean Luc Godard and Jean Pierre Gorin

Enjoyable as it might be, I felt that Godard was starting to repeat himself with this one. The same old direct narratives, long takes, and standard political subtext. Still worth a look, particularly for the supermarket sequence, and set design of the factory, but overall not among Godard's best, imo.

[arsaib4]

Babes In Arms (1939)

In this one, Judy Garland and Mickey Rooney happen to be the children of penniless parents and they need to put on a variety show in order to raise money to save them from being sent back to the farm. Their obstacles include a Hurricane and Margaret Hamilton (yes, from Wizard of Oz). This musical has none of the grandeur Busby Berkeley was famous for and save for "Good Morning," most of the other songs are only passable. Mickey Rooney does a few impersonations which earned him an Oscar nominations which only proves that our Academy was just as clueless back then. The theater I went to admitted anyone over 60 for free - too bad I didn’t qualify.

[wpqx]

I'm amazed you sat through Babes in Arms, didn't really sound like a film of note for you, perhaps my ridiculous Oscar research is getting contageous?

I just watched The Incredibles (2004) directed by Brad Bird. Shame I missed it in the theaters, but it was worth the wait. The film was fantastic, as I was hoping it would be. I can't say I jump for joy at every computer animated film, but this one looked good, and it was. One of those rare animated films that gets its assed kiss deservingly so.

[arsaib4]

As you know, I've been sarcastically critical of your Oscar research but after you're "done," just imagine the knowledge you'll have of classic American cinema. That's where I want to expand since I feel confident with what I know about Foreign, new and old. Films like Babes in Arms can certainly be avoided but I want to see the "classics" in theaters; unfortunately films like these are the kind that are usually playing.

[arsaib4]

Originally posted by wpqx
I just watched The Incredibles (2004) directed by Brad Bird. Shame I missed it in the theaters, but it was worth the wait. The film was fantastic, as I was hoping it would be. I can't say I jump for joy at every computer animated film, but this one looked good, and it was. One of those rare animated films that gets its assed kiss deservingly so.

The Incredibles proved, once again, that it's the idea and the effort that counts ahead of the people who are giving voice to the characters. Having said that, I thought Holly Hunter did a fantastic job as "Elastigirl." I guess you just saw another Oscar winner!

[arsaib4]

Bride and Prejudice is yet another adaptation from the novel by Jane Austin (poor woman), but this one is set to the rhythms of what you may call a Bollywood musical (many of the films I've seen this week have somehow turned out to be musicals). A rich young man (Martin Henderson) meets a beautiful woman (Aishwarya Rai) while visiting India and they instantly fall for each other (did I mention that we're in Bollywood territory?). Anyway, cultural differences raise their ugly heads, mostly in a cute way, and another man comes into the picture for our Bride to be, but needless to say it all ends well. Chadha is obviously trying to reap the rewards of what she cultivated with her last picture, Bend It Like Beckham, as this one also follows a similar vein. Aishwarya Rai is considered by many to be the most beautiful woman on Earth (I haven't seen all of them so I'm not positive but from I've seen she certainly ranks up there); the fact that there are about a Billion Indians in the World certainly helps her cause. Performance wise I saw better from her in a couple of art films recently (Chokher Bali: A Passion Play and Raincoat) as here she seems to be trying to act for the "western" audiences and it's not very subtle. Also surprising for this big production are its shoddy production values which at times resemble a 70's potboiler starring the Big B. Still, all in all, if you enjoyed Beckham then the Bride probably has enough to please you.

Bride and Prejudice - Grade: C+

*2005 U.S. releases are being graded.

[Chris Knipp]

The Incredibles really is excellent and I don't like most animations either; I saw it in a big auditorium of the Regal Union Square in NYC with a very appreciative audience. Their favorite character was the bossy fashion designer but really there are a lot of good ideas and characters in the movie.

There's some value in seeing all of anything, including Oscar-winning Best Pictures. Then you become an authority, of sorts anyway, and you have a wide frame of reference which at the same time has depth.

I don't get the " Yes that's right I am gay" about Hiller's Love Story unless you just thought Ryan O'Neal was cute. Yes that's right I am gay but does that mean I'd want to see this corny movie and that I would cry at it? I can definitely see the value of a good cry though, and sometimes it's easier to cry in a movie than about the real sadness in one's own life.

I think Godard was repeating himself almost from the start. But Wong Kar Wai repeats himself even more closely; that doesn't make him bad but simply a distinctive stylist. I can't remember Tout va Bien though. I stopped seeing all of Godard's films after Sympathy for the Devil and I guess I missed Tout Va Bien. A new Criterion DVD issue, right? MIchael Atkinson of the Voice has some good things to say about it http://www.villagevoice.com/film/0508,dvd5,61365,20.html.

As I've said Amelio deeply impresses me from what I've seen, which is The Housekeys and The Way We Laughed, but while others including Oscar have said Lamerica (which I haven't seen yet) is the great one my Italian teacher said she differed from the majority and was unimpressed by it; The Way We Laughed impressed her much more and we had a long discussion of it.

A friend I go to movies with who is pretty uncritical and open to anything and has Indian friends said Bride and Prejudice is really bad. It sounds more like a C- to me, but I haven't seen it and I admit Bend It Like Beckham left me cold. Bride and Prejudice seems an odd choice to go and see but there isn't a lot out there. I hope you have seen Nobody Knows and Downfall though.

[Chris Knipp]

I have bought a DVD of Wong's 2046 (boxed 2-disc Special Edition, Mei Ah Entertainment) and am watching it at home, but I am not in a hurry to finish it or to comment on it. That's one of the virtues of home viewing, isn't it? that you can linger over a viewing. The annoyance of DVD's is you have to go through the warnings and menu (on my machine anyway, not on the pc program) all over again every time you want to go back and pick up where you left off, compared to a videotape that you can just turn on again.

Ravishing images and color. I've just gotten the BFI (British Film Institute) World Directors series Wong Kar-Wai by Stephen Teo (London, 2005), 191 pages (in a nifty DVD-sized format). It seems like the first intelligent and intelligible study of Wong and its penultimate chapter is a discussion of 2046.

[Chris Knipp]

arsaib4---

What about Téchiné's latest, have you seen that on TV5, or is it too soon?

I just watched a trailer of it and I like the setting, Tangiers. a largely Arab cast other than Depardieu and Deneuve.

[arsaib4]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chris Knipp
I think [b]Godard was repeating himself almost from the start. But Wong Kar Wai repeats himself even more closely; that doesn't make him bad but simply a distinctive stylist. I can't remember Tout va Bien though. I stopped seeing all of Godard's films after Sympathy for the Devil and I guess I missed Tout Va Bien.

This is a a bit odd I must say. Even the non-fans see all of his films they can.

A friend I go to movies with who is pretty uncritical and open to anything and has Indian friends said Bride and Prejudice is really bad. It sounds more like a C- to me, but I haven't seen it and I admit Bend It Like Beckham left me cold. Bride and Prejudice seems an odd choice to go and see but there isn't a lot out there. I hope you have seen Nobody Knowsthough.

I'm certainly not open to "anything" but once in a while you have to give in when your partner demands to see a certain film. I still haven't seen Nobody Knows but hopefully will soon. Techine's film opened in France in December so it's still a little early. Loin, I think will play soon on TV5 but I've seen it. The cast is mostly Arab in this one also, I think you'll like it.

[arsaib4]

Has Wong Kar-wai finished it? On many occasions I've read that the tinkering he has done so far with the film will continue and much like Hero we'll see additional scenes in the future. (Some nude scenes have been cut so far from what I've heard.) Believe it or not, I'm planning to wait until it gets distributed here; I'd like to see it on the big screen first, even though the DVD's are practically available for free now.

[wpqx]

Well a pair of silent films for me.

1. The Student Prince in Old Hiedelberg (1926) - Ernst Lubitsch
I was surprised to find out how high a rating this film got on AMG. This was second rate Lubitsch in my opinion. It was neither charming, humorous, or risque. Perhaps it is because I'm not a huge Ramon Navarro fan (at least the Navarro of this film). Hard to see an action star reduced to a little kid in a film like this as well as Across to Singapore. As I've said elsewhere though, my taste in Lubitsch films are slightly off from at least mainstream critics. Good news is that Design for Living (my favorite film of his) is going to be released on DVD in May as part of a Gary Cooper set, so perhaps a few people may jump on the film like me.

2. The Last Command (1928) - Josef Von Sternberg
Won of the last great silent films from the year that Peter Bogdanovich called the greatest year in film history. This was one of the few honored films at the first Academy ceremony that has held up. Jennings might have won the first best actor Oscar for this, but the real star of the film is Sternberg, who makes this film the most visual of all his pictures I've seen. Quite remarkably visually.

[arsaib4]

Suspicion (1941)

Suspicion is certainly not known as one of Hitchcock’s best but that should be because he simply made better films as Suspicion is not a bad effort by any means. However, it is still ignored by many (partly because of its infamous studio-tampered ending). A rich playboy (Cary Grant) marries a soon-to-be heiress (Joan Fontaine) but as Grant's background (and financial position) is slowly revealed and with his increasingly deceptive behavior it leads Fontaine to believe that her own life could be in danger. This was the first collaboration between Grant and Hitchcock and the master has certainly done some justice to his leading man by presenting him in the proper light and angles that only add to his mysteriousness. Fontaine won both an Oscar and the NYFCC award for her performance.

[wpqx]

I agree that Suspicion is second rate Hitchcock. I'm an enormous Joan Fontaine fan, but this film pails in comparisson to Rebecca (which should have brought Fontaine the Oscar).

1. Of Human Bondage (1934) - John Cromwell

I watched this based on exceptionally positive reviews of Bette Davis. I found that Davis' role was supporting, and not very good. Her accent is faulty, and although she has a few shining moments, particularly near the end of the film, overall her performance seems uneven. The film itself is a little uneven in general, and Leslie Howard is just too pathetic for words. Still it has its moments, so can't say it was a waste. Plus it was nominated for best picture, so that gets me one more closer to seeing all the nominees from 1934.

2. House of Games (1987) - David Mamet

Another film watched for a performance, this time for Joe Mantegna. I did think he did a great job, although not Oscar material as Danny Peary would suggest. The film itself was entertaining at parts, but I think I'm a little put off by films about con men. A few subjects just don't seem interesting regardless of the film. I have a similar distaste for pirate movies.

[wpqx]

Since You Went Away (1944) - John Cromwell

Wow two Cromwell films in two days, although this is much more the work of Producer/Writer David O'Selznick, in his never ending quest to top Gone with the Wind. A good film, perhaps too ambitious (at least in its run time), but certainly had it's moments. I loved the romance between Robert Walker and Jennifer Jones, and thought that over all the acting was pretty damn good. At times it seemed a little negative, but I suppose that goes with the territory.

[Chris Knipp]

I strongly agree with the idea of watching it on a big screen. However I am a fan of Wong and decided to buy DVD's of all his films, so I got this. I will watch it in a theater when it comes. I saw As Tears Go By, Ashes of Time, and Days of Being Wild in a theater in the early Nineties but have gone back to see Days of Being Wild in the new print as I've mentioned, and have videos of the others which I rewatch, and would gladly rewatch Ashes of Time on a big screen. For me as I've said elsewhere Wong is an artist whose work has such rich style one can enjoy watching it any number of times. I am sorry if the collaboraton with Christopher Doyle is over, even if the replacements are good, because Doyle was responsible for so much that was adventurous and free.

As for whether 2046 will be further altered, that is possible, but perhaps unlikely at this point. Who knows? I have read the chapter on it in the new book and clearly Wong worked on it a long time. Wong himself may feel that that chapter of his creative life comprising the Sixties love trilogy is over, as he has more or less said.

As for Godard, well I'm glad his non-fans see all his films, but he has made quite a lot, and I got bored with them, because they stopped making sense to me. Chacun à son goût.... I have seen Notre Musique. I was not as impressed as many seem to be, but it made sense, at least. The Hebrew-Arabic discussion was particularly interesting. It all seemed so much fresher in the Sixties....

I hope the new Téchiné will be better than Loin.

[arsaib4]

Well, you've must've finished 2046 by now; any thoughts?

From our recent conversations I was under the impression that you hadn't seen Loin, I thought I brought it up in the Strayed thread. Anyway, what didn't you like about it?

[Chris Knipp]

Fear X

I liked your coverage of this film, which seems a very fair assessment, without having seen it.

I haven't seen Loin, but I'm going by reports that it's not among Téchiné's best works; the Indie Wire description seemed convincing: http://www.indiewire.com/movies/rev_01Venice_010906_Loin.html

2046

It is ravishing and complex, and certainly a must-see. Beyond that, I prefer to reserve comment for a complete review. I don't want to challenge or influence anybody before they've even seen it.

[arsaib4]

It's funny that you don't want to influence anyone on 2046 but that indiewire article has certainly influenced you about Loin and it even prompted you to say earlier that "I hope Techine's latest is better than Loin." A bit unfair don't you think since you haven't seen it yourself? (Actually the Indiewire review is not all that negative.) Anyway, I taped the film last night and saw it again so I'll try to "influence" you soon. I'm also looking forward to your 2046 review.

[Chris Knipp]

I was just giving a polite excuse. I prefer to write a complete review, and I prefer to review films when or just after they have US theatrical showings. Do you know when that will be happening for 2046?
I'll read whatever you write, of course.

[wpqx]

I hope 2046 is happening soon, and they're not saving it for the actual year, lol. I think I might give up soon and just pick it up on DVD. As for my last film I watched Five Fingers (1952), directed by Joseph Mankiewicz. The film is pretty good with a strong performance from James Mason. Came out in a rather weak year though. 1952 brought Singin' in the Rain and to a lesser extent High Noon, I'm not really fond of any other film from that year, and I've seen a bunch. This film is probably more noted for it's screenwriter Michael Wilson than for any other factor. The script is tight, but Wilson did better work, particularly with Bridge on the River Kwai and Planet of the Apes (where he didn't have to take an alias).

[Chris Knipp]

I watched Five Fingers (1952), directed by Joseph Mankiewicz. The film is pretty good with a strong performance from James Mason. Came out in a rather weak year though. 1952 brought Singin' in the Rain and to a lesser extent High Noon, I'm not really fond of any other film from that year, and I've seen a bunch.

Others from 1952 besides High Noon and Singin' in the Rain:

The Big Sky (Howard Hawks)
My Son John (Leo McCarey)
Park Row (Sam Fuller)
Umberto D (Vittorio De Sica)
Moulin Rouge (John Huston)
Othello (Orson Welles)
Robinson Crusoe (Luis Bunuel)
Ikiru (Akira Kurosawa)
Carrie (William Wyler)
Fanfin la Tulipe (Christian-Jaque)
The Quiet Man (John Ford)
The Life of Oharu (Kenji Mizoguchi)

I would hardly call the year of Ikiru a "weak" one. I would say it was one of the great years.

[wpqx]

Well, perhaps I should have rephrased and said weak for Hollywood films, or weak in terms of my Alternate Oscar research. Sure Ikiru is a great film, but it wasn't released in the US until 1960. As for the rest of the films you've listed, well I stand by my previous remark. Sure Othello is great, in my opinion better than High Noon, but that film was buried for nearly four decades. Now we can get in an arguement about the rest, but hey some years don't do much, they might have lots of noteworthy films, but very few really amazing ones. I also realize that this may turn into a massive debate between us, so I'll try and stop now, and get back to the lecture at hand.

Satan's Brew (1976) - Rainer Werner Fassbinder

All I'll say is if anyone can think of a stranger Fassbinder film, by all mean's let me know. This film is an interesting one, everyone is high and everything that should be abnormal is normal and vice versa. Fassbinder effectively created a unique and at times ridiculous world. The film isn't really surreal in terms of impossible things happening (for the most part), but surreal in the ridiculous seeming plausible. Well worth watching, and the best of the five most recent Fassbinder films I've seen. As to what those films are, Whity, The American Soldier, Pioneers in Ingolstadt, and Effie Briest. Soon enough I'll get a few more of his films, so I'll soon be an expert, or at least an authority.

BTW I have similar complaints about film from 1934 and 1944 and come to think of it 1937.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by wpqx
I also realize that this may turn into a massive debate between us, so I'll try and stop now, and get back to the lecture at hand.

I know the remark is specifically addressed to Chris, but allow me the opportunity to say that the main, perhaps the only, reason why I post at filmwurld is the possibility of debate. I've found that it's most likely to happen here than anywhere else. Debate is the type of exchange most likely to result in some type of a learning experience, an enlargement of one's narrow, subjective perspective. I would definitely be disappointed if no one challenges my opinions. Otherwise it becomes a banal, self-congratulatory enterprise.

[wpqx]

I see, but I didn't think our discussion on Todd Haynes went off very well, so I was being cautious. If you must though . . .

Films of 1952

The Quiet Man - decent at best
Park Row - weak Fuller effort
The Big Sky - again mediocre at best
My Son John - propoganda
Moulin Rouge - weak
Robinson Crusoe - never saw it
Carrie - ignorance again (but on my list)
Fanfin la Tulipe - never heard of
The Life of Oharu - overly pessemistic
Umberto D - again more depressing than necessary, although a damn good film, but again this wasn't released in the US until 1956, so I don't usually count it.

as for one's not mentioned
The Greatest Show on Earth - entertaining as it may be, it is considered by many to be one of the worst best picture winners
Ivanhoe - how this got a best picture nod is beyond me
The Bad and the Beautiful - a damn good picture, but again not really worth awards
Casque D'or - likeable, but again not stellar
Limelight - second rate Chaplin

Now I will hold off judgement regarding Elia Kazan's Viva Zapata, a film that I have not yet seen, which could restore some of my faith, but until then . . .

[wpqx]

Bay of Blood (1971) - Mario Bava

Influential early slasher film this one is style over substance. I can't even tell you what it's about, but it had something to do with some lakefront property. All I know is lots of people die very gory deaths, and that is the center of the film. Bava gets creative with how his victims are dispatched, and although the camera work seems amateurish it does work for this film. I was however impressed with the editing, and in general the dubbing wasn't too bad, but perhaps I'm building a tolerance.

[Chris Knipp]

wpqx

I understand your reluctance to enter into a debate, depite Oscar's point that what we need is discussion, dialogue, exhange, not just listing the notches we've put on our hobby charts. Debate means being challenged, having one's facts and ones arguments held up to public scrutiny. And sometimes they don't survive the test. That has happened to me plenty of times, and it can happen to others.

I don't want to get into an argument with you particularly about 1952. This is not a huge issue with me. But if you toss off each title of the ones I listed with a quick phrase, we can't necessarily get anywhere; you haven't necessarily proven anything. The three-word response can work fine if purely informational, for instance "Fanfin la Tulipe -- never heard of." Fair enough. Others you give, however, that presumably are meant to give a critical evaluation, such as

The Life of Oharu - overly pessemistic
Umberto D - again more depressing than necessary, although a damn good film, but again this wasn't released in the US until 1956, so I don't usually count it.

--just don't cut it. Whether or not the film was released in the US, you can't say 1952 was a bad year, and "pessimistic" is hardly a valid criticism of any film as you admit in admitting Umberto D is "a damn good film."

But the whole issue of whether good films were being made in 1952 is one you dodge, with good reason, because it isn't a claim that will stand up.

Personally, for me Ikiru is the film I chose long ago as the greatest film experience of my life, and hence for me personally the greatest film. I don't make great film lists, but it is at the top of any I'd make. Apart from that personal 'prejudice,' which I think is a justified one, Ikiru is one of Kurosawa's acknowledged masterpieces and I'm not alone in placing it highest of all.

As for the others, I merely wanted to point out that your remark that 1952 was a lackluster movie year was a bit facile, to say the least.

Perhaps you need not know about Fanfin la Tulipe but Gérard Philipe is good to know about as a French cultural icon, romantic idol, and star. I notice that Phillipe won the best actor award at Cannes in 1954; this was the time when he was in his heyday. http://theoscarsite.com/chronicle/1954c.htm. He was a remarkable actor and starred in three dozen films though he lived only to be 37.

I don't see the point of your listing inferior, even award-winning, 1952 pictures (I would not argue taste was at an all-time high in that year) as proving anything. Your point to prove is that 1952 was a weak year, not that it produced some bad pictures.

Since I am old enough to have been growing up in the Fifties, the movies of that time have the quality of legend or icon. Most of Hollywood's pop flicks of the time repelled me, as many of today's products. But for me, the Fifties was a wonderful time for film and I don't think I would be the film fan I am today if the movies of the Forties and Fifties hadn't been great. And Hollywood wasn't without masterpieces or wonderful actors. To say that one year is weak or another strong seems a bit pointless. Better to comment only on general periods and specific films. That's what I think, anyway.

[oscar jubis]

I like the following comment from wpqx: "I'm not really fond of any other film from that year" because it implies and takes into account the subjectivity of one's personal taste. Granted, such a statement also implies that the person making it has managed to view under desirable circumstances a great percentage of the films released that year. It's obvious to me that wpqx has watched a ton of movies despite his youth. Personally, I would be reluctant to call any year "a weak year" without doing a great deal of research and some serious viewing and re-viewing. I do make lists by year so here I submit my 1952 lists (why not?) by year of world premiere.

English Language

1. Othello (Welles)
2. On Dangerous Ground (Ray)
---The Big Sky (Hawks)
-- Clash By Night (Lang)
5. Rancho Notorious (Lang)
-- Limelight (Chaplin)
-- Singin' in the Rain (Donen)
8. The Bad and the Beautiful (Minelli)
-- Bend of the River (Mann)
-- Park Row (Fuller)
11.Angel Face (Preminger)
-- The Lusty Men (Ray)
-- Monkey Business (Hawks)

Honorable Mention:The Adventures of Robinson Crusoe, The Quiet Man, The Narrow Margin, Rabbit Seasoning, High Noon, Moulin Rouge.

Not Seen: My Son John (McCarey), Son of Paleface (Tashlin), Macao (von Sternberg)


Foreign Language

1. Ikiru (Kurosawa)
-- Life of Oharu (Mizoguchi)
3. Umberto D. (De Sica)
4. Casque d'or (Becker)
-- Europa '51 (Rossellini)
-- Flavor of Green Tea Over Rice (Ozu)
-- Forbidden Games (Clement)
-- Le Plaisir (Ophuls)
-- Mexican Bus Ride (Bunuel)
-- The White Sheik (Fellini)

Honorable Mention: A Woman Without Love (Bunuel)

Not Seen: Beauties of the Night (Clair), Fanfin la Tulipe (Jaque), The Citizen (Ghatak)

[Chris Knipp]

I can't believe I forgot to note Forbidden Games. That is another one that I saw at the time and that made a huge impression, one of the biggest impressions of any film I saw in my youth. I didn't see The White Sheik till quite a bit later, though. I don't know if I saw Fanfin la Tulipe at the time, but I think I did. It was kind of mainstream. Really this to me was a very fertile period, especially for foreign films. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a good English film in there somewhere, though the greatest Ealing comedies seem to have skipped that year, since 1949 brought King Hearts and Coronets (one of my all-time favorites--and it probably was released in the US in 1950), Passport to Pimlico and Whiskey Galore (all of which I saw at the time), 1951 brought The Man in the White Suit (another of the great ones) and the Lavendar Hlll Mob, the Ladykillers came in 1955. There was Gift Horse in 1952 with Trevor Howard and Richard Attenborough, a war movie, but I didn't see it. I wonder what the Ealing studios were doing in 1952. I didn't see Rancho Notorious till much later but it is very interesting with a remarkable cast and of course La Dietrich.
I did not see The Bad and the Beautiful because I did not like that kind of movie. Did not see Limelight; I didn't like Chaplin. By then he was passé. But, yeah, the year grows back to life. I can never say whether a year is good or bad even today. The more movies I see, the more I think it was a good year. I am not jaded. I think there's a lot of good stuff out there, but I don't feel I ever see too much. The critics who comment on the quality of work emerging in general and lament the decline are usually full of crap. Rosenbaum has pointed to the fact that Denby has done that, without really seeing the vast spectrum of new films from Iran, Asia, Africa, etc. But I don't even think we see a really complete picture of what comes out of Italy or France each year. To generalize about a year you have to be somebody who sees three new films a day, and you have to have an axe to grind. I am frankly uneasy about broad generalizations.

Actually it appears The Man in the White Suit opened in the US in 1952, and while I can't have it both ways, that is another indication of the fact that there was some marvelous cinematic fare available even on our rustic shores in 1952. The Man in the White Suit is not only a supreme Alec Guinness vehicle; a great Ealing comedy; but also a comic indictment of capitalism's monopolistic lust for control, against the interests of practicality --but then it also makes fun of the clever inventor who thinks his new technology will solve all life's problems for us.

[wpqx]

Well now that you mention it, well I wasn't too wild about the Man in the White Suit, or The Lavender Hill Mob for that matter. I feel like an ignoramous because I haven't seen Kind Hearts and Coronets, so I'll refrain from making some presumptious statement about Ealing studios.

Forbidden Games was a film that I didn't particularly like. Perhaps it was for the same reason that many of the Cahiers critics dismissed it.

Now perhaps I should have been more specific with my comment. 1952 was a weak year for films in Oscar consideration, or rather Hollywood films. I'm checking my commentary for the year, and I've noticed at least one other film no one has commented on yet, and that is George Cukor's Pat and Mike. Enjoyable as it may be, as nearly all Tracy and Hepburn movies are, this isn't the pair at their best. I have seen On Dangerous Ground, another film not mentioned earlier and I don't care for it. Nicholas Ray is one of my all time favorite Hollywood directors, but this isn't one of his best. In general I thought the film was weak, and the acting was unimpressive, particularly Ida Lupino.

Rancho Notorious was another film I thought was beneath the mark of Fritz Lang. I'm not gonna make too many comments about that film, because I get it confused with Robert Wise's Tribute To a Bad Man, don't ask me why I do. Robert Ryan seemed busy that year, because I did see Clash by Night, which again didn't do much for me. Perhaps I'm looking for truly extraordinary films of the year.

Here's my simple assessment. When I look at a film as being great I think of the year it was made, and ask if that film was worthy of getting say a best picture Oscar. Some films might be entertaining, innovative, interesting, moving, but films that just don't deserve that high praise (although the Academy is certainly ready, willing, and able to reward garbage). I think that Singin' in the Rain and High Noon are the only two films released theatrically in the US in 1952 worthy of that honor.

[wpqx]

Ong-Bak (2003) - Prachya Pinkaew

Although this film is still in US theaters, I was able to find an import DVD of it. The film is formulaic as one might expect. Simple story of a stolen statue head and the great lengths one man goes to get it back. Regardless of what the plot synopsis might say the film is a showcase for Muay Thai martial arts. Each scene is basically set up as an excuse for elaborate choreographed fight scenes. In that respect the film is damn entertaining. I can watch martial arts all day every day, it's great fun, and that's what this film is. There is no great moral, and I can't even say that the story held up in even the slightest, but when it came to fight scenes, this was loaded. If you can't admire fighting for fighting's sake, then don't bother ever watching this film. If pictures like Once Upon a Time in China are among your favorites, then this is right up your alley.

[Chris Knipp]

It's a bit late for you to qualify your vast generalization. And after qualifying it, you go on to make more vast generalizations.

We will not have an argument. You say a movie isn't worthy of its director, and then you admit that you confuse it with somebody else's movie, and admit you don't even know why you do so. Such intellectual sloppiness makes discussion impossible. Your evaluations are drowning in a little puddle of contradictions. Your ratings may satisfy you, but they can't satisfy anybody else.

Why consider whether movies are worthy of an Oscar, when the Oscars have so often been awarded to inferior films?

Isn't it more logical to consider the Oscar lists like the bestseller lists, something of socioilogical interest, something that gives a reading of the popular tastes of the period, rather than any indication of true merit?

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
I wouldn't be surprised if there was a good English film in there somewhere, though the greatest Ealing comedies seem to have skipped that year, since 1949 brought King Hearts and Coronets (one of my all-time favorites--and it probably was released in the US in 1950), Passport to Pimlico and Whiskey Galore (all of which I saw at the time), 1951 brought The Man in the White Suit (another of the great ones) and the Lavendar Hlll Mob, the Ladykillers came in 1955.

Since I go by year of world premiere, I list The Man in the White Suit (directed by Alex Mackendrick, an American) under 1951. I agree with your comments about it at the conclusion of your post. Kind Hearts and Coronets is also special. My favorite Brit films of the 50s are by Powell and Pressburger, who didn't release a film in '52. Not a fan of Lavender Hill Mob and The Ladykillers but well worth seeing.

I can never say whether a year is good or bad even today. I am not jaded. I think there's a lot of good stuff out there, but I don't feel I ever see too much.

Yes, there's a lot of good stuff every year. In an attempt to relate to wpqx, I pulled out my canon, my list not of "great movies" but "great movies I love", the 220 or so films that make my toes tingle. I don't have a single movie from 1986. Another year that was challenging for me (as far as falling in love with a film) was 1984 until my third viewing of Sergio Leone's Once Upon a Time in America, his last, and best in my opinion. But I don't translate that into thinking those were "weak years" by any stretch. There were excellent films released in 1986 (and every year), and there are some promising ones I have not seen, particularly Melo from my beloved Alain Resnais.

The critics who comment on the quality of work emerging in general and lament the decline are usually full of crap. Rosenbaum has pointed to the fact that Denby has done that, without really seeing the vast spectrum of new films from Iran, Asia, Africa, etc.

Oh, yes, the "death of cinema and/or cinephilia" crap from Denby, Thomson, Sontag and even apparently J.L. Godard. I'm currently reading a book edited by Rosenbaum and Adrian Martin which is basically a retort to that ("Movie Mutations: The Changing Face of World Cinephilia"). Somewhere in the site there's an article by Dargis that addresses some of the issues also. I will find it and post there after I finish the book.

[wpqx]

Alright then, I'm starting to refine what I say which I suppose is a good thing.

It's hard to say what I thought about a film that I haven't seen in a couple of years. The details of Rancho Notorious are very vague to me. I watched Tribute to a Bad Man about a weak after that, so seeing how they were both weak Westerns with a similar look, I couldn't really remember what the story of one film was vs. the other.

Some films all I can remember of them is whether or not I liked them. So generalizations are all I can readily offer, without watching a film again.

As for my Oscar comment, consider it Alternate Oscars, something that I've been working on for a couple years. I look at it as a fictional best film list. Rather than look at the Oscars for what they are (popular culture passed off as an assessment of art), I look at is what it should be. In my opinion I use my Alternate Oscars as a fantasy world where all the right films and performances get rewarded and mediocre and overrated films don't even get nominated. Granted this is purely my subjective opinion, which obviously doesn't match well with yours, nor should it. I didn't like Moulin Rouge, wouldn't consider it worthy of MY Oscar, but you are free to love it all you want.

I must admit though, I'm starting to like this, a fire (however small) has been lit in our asses. All over a comment that could have easily been ignored.

Ironically, as I'm checking my Alternate Oscar page, I'm realizing that 1953 might even be weaker, here we go again . . .

[Chris Knipp]

I agree, Oscar, about The Lavender Hill Mob and The Ladykillers. And perhaps Powell and Pressberger are more 'international,' less 'Brit,' hence more appealing to you, I don't know; but the Ealing comedies appeal to me precisely because they're so very English.

(wpxq writes:)

Alright then, I'm starting to refine what I say which I suppose is a good thing.

EVen if this acknowledgement is slightly grudging, it's most encouraging and openminded of you. You're saying we might be onto something here.

(wpqx also writes:)

It's hard to say what I thought about a film that I haven't seen in a couple of years. The details of Rancho Notorious are very vague to me. I watched Tribute to a Bad Man about a weak after that, so seeing how they were both weak Westerns with a similar look, I couldn't really remember what the story of one film was vs. the other.

Then the obvious choice is to say nothing, avoiding such terms as "weak westerns," at least till you've re-researched it.

I take your "Alternate Oscar" point, but hope you'll keep it clear it's your own personal Alternate Oscars you're talking about.


I must admit though, I'm starting to like this, a fire (however small) has been lit in our asses. All over a comment that could have easily been ignored.

Even more encouraging.

[wpqx]

Mouchette (1967) - Robert Bresson

One of Bresson's best, and a perfect companion piece for Au Hasard Balthazar. Both films were made close to each other, and focus on rural life, as well as abused main characters. Granted one the main character is a donkey, but the female lead in Balthazar is also victimized, as is the title character in Mouchette. Both films are transendental (hope I spelled that right), and well recommended for any cinephile.

[arsaib4]

No, you didn't spell that right but don't worry, I understand what you meant. It is that and much more. Quite possibly my greatest viewing experience.

[hengcs]

Originally posted by Fan of Kubrick
Les Choristes
I was blown away by the beauty of the music, and the simple but effective shots that Christophe Barratier used... Not much else to say....

me too
;)

[hengcs]

Originally posted by arsaib4


The Incredibles proved, once again, that it's the idea and the effort that counts ahead of the people who are giving voice to the characters. Having said that, I thought Holly Hunter did a fantastic job as "Elastigirl." I guess you just saw another Oscar winner!


The script was very well written.
For the kids, it is fun entertainment.
For the adults, there are a lot of thought provoking issues/lines.

[hengcs]

Originally posted by arsaib4
Well, you've must've finished 2046 by now; any thoughts? ...


Hmmm ... I am surprised 2046 has not received a thread yet.
Maybe I will start it ... hee hee
;PPP

[hengcs]

Originally posted by wpqx
Ong-Bak (2003) - Prachya Pinkaew ...


one of the main draw about this martial arts film is:
-- there is NO "wire", everything is "real" kung fu ...

[wpqx]

Well I keep this business for now.

An Unmarried Woman (1978) - Paul Mazursky

Always interesting to see a "woman's" picture directed and written by a man. This film gets lots of favorable press for being one of the few films made for women during that heyday of great Hollywood cinema (the other most obvious film being Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore). Like Scorsese's film, this one features an extremely strong performance from it's female lead, played here by Jill Clayburgh. Her husband is played by Michael Murphy who just seems to be playing his usual Michael Murphy role (which seems to predominantly be an insensitive asshole). The film itself was pretty good, if we're comparing the two, Scorsese's film was better, although this seemed a little more identifiable (which coming from a male viewer, I can't say if anyone should agree with me).

The Magnificent Ambersons (1942) - Orson Welles

Third viewing for this, see classic film.

[wpqx]

The Ministry of Fear (1944) - Fritz Lang

Espionage thriller that seems right out of an Alfred Hitchcock film. Milland plays a recently released mental patient who accidentally gets a cake with secret Nazi film baked into it. Well much drama and intrigue follows and several people die, and well corruption is exposed and friends become enemies and the whole world is turned upside down. The film is uneven, and honestly a little disinteresting (not necessarily boring, but I just don't care about Nazi spies). Lang's direction keeps the film interesting though, and this is clearly one his noir films, particularly in one death sequence which I won't describe now.

[wpqx]

Charade (1963) - Stanley Donen

A charming comedy/suspense film from Stanley Donen. This one was quite successful, as one might expect from a cast that includes Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn (both Donen veterans). The picture is entertaining, although perhaps not great art. Hard not to get a sense of enjoyment out of the picture though.

[arsaib4]

Originally posted by wpqx
I hope 2046 is happening soon, and they're not saving it for the actual year, lol. I think I might give up soon and just pick it up on DVD.

Hold on for just a little longer as SPC (Sony Pictures Classics) now officially have the rights for the film although no release date is set yet.

[wpqx]

Picnic (1955) - Joshua Logan

I watched this simply because it was nominated for a best picture Oscar. Part of my seemingly neverending mission. The film itself was not that great, certainly not woth the Oscar nod. The casting was off, and Holden was a little old for this. I also was a little disturbed that the "smart" sister was so overlooked when she looked cuter than Kim Novak to me, but maybe intelligence is attractive to me, unlike most people, or at least the characters in the film.

[wpqx]

The Strawberry Blonde (1941) - Raoul Walsh

Damn entertaining filmmaker from one of the all time greats. Walsh's film effortlessly bounces between comedy drama and romance, with the occasional rough house action thrown in the mix. It brilliantly shows the versatility of Walsh, and if the film is somewhat flawed in it's plot, it makes up for it in star presence particularly from Cagney. The two ladies in his life, played by Olivia de Havilland and Rita Hayworth also make a strong impressions in the film. Studio filmmaking at it's definitive.

[wpqx]

Report on the Party and the Guests (1967) - Jan Nemec

Still waiting for a true masterpiece from the Czech New Wave, this film didn't really deliver. Perhaps it was because of the poor picture quality and hard to read subtitles, or perhaps the film is overrated, or perhaps I have some subliminal dislike towards all Czech films. Perhaps expectations run high when watching a film that was banned at one time. I know I must be missing something, as I completely missed the point of The Fireman's Ball. Still before I pass judgement on the whole movement I'm yet to see Diamonds in the Night. Honestly though I can't see what was so special about this film, it started off with a little promise, but the second half was just pointless, imo.

[Chris Knipp]

In NYC. If already seen some films. The best one was Schizo (Shiza), from Kazakhistan. I loved it and will write about it later. About a boy who has adventures, and comes out okay. It's a sort of picaresque taleIt's really well done. I also liked Gunner Palace, but not the material. The young American soldiers just seem like dupes to me. But this is a good alternative to what you get usually about Iraq and Americans there.

[arsaib4]

Yep, I liked Schizo quite a bit also; I wrote about it recently, hopefully you read it. As always, some great series are going on at Walter Reade right now including ND/NF, Swedish and African retros are coming soon along with one on legendary Indian actor Amitabh Bachchan.

[arsaib4]

Originally posted by wpqx
Report on the Party and the Guests (1967) - Jan Nemec

Still waiting for a true masterpiece from the Czech New Wave, this film didn't really deliver... Still before I pass judgement on the whole movement I'm yet to see Diamonds in the Night.

I do hope that you watch a few more films (I'm not sure what you've seen exactly) before you pass judgement on the whole "wave." Jirí Menzel's Closely Watched Trains, Vera Chytilová Daisies, Milos Forman's Loves of a Blonde, Ján Kádar's Adrift + his other efforts with Elmar Klos and many others deserve to be seen. It's truly amazing for a country this size (even though it was Czechoslovakia back then) to have produced so many talented filmmakers during the same time. Perhaps there aren't any common themes/ideas running through their efforts and thus it's hard to define them and their era but to me that only makes them more interesting to discover.

[arsaib4]

What Price Hollywood? (1932)

An interesting early satire on Hollywood and its "residents," George Cukor’s What Price Hollywood? stars Lowell Sherman as an alcoholic director who ends up making a waitress (Constance Bennett) a star while his life spirals downward due to excess. The film received an Oscar nomination for "original" screenplay (here you go wpqx) and I must say deservingly so as this look behind the glamour seemed original and the darkly comic tone of its portrayals felt fresh. Producer David O. Selznick went on to make a lesser A Star is Born from the same material.

[Chris Knipp]

I didn't know you had written about Schizo. Now I see that you did. YOu get around. I hope it comes out to California. It's great. Very well done. The best rough crime adventure narrative I've seen since Blind Shaft and Mustapha is an appealing picaresque hero, junior grade.

I don't know if I can make it to any of the series you mention, but I'd like to see Darwin's Nightmare and L'Esquive. I hope Darwin's Nightmare will come to California too, but I will try to get a ticket to L'Esquive here if I can find one and it fits into my schedule of activities.

[wpqx]

Saw What Price Hollywood, and I thought it was extremely weak. I preferred both the Selznick (William Wellman directred) and the Cukor version, a thousand times over. Ironically though this version was produced by Selznick and directed by Cukor, so go figure. I did enjoy Constance Bennett's performance, but found the rest weak. Early sound films typically suffered from a bunch of stage and silent actors unsure of how to act with dialogue. It plagues numerous films of the era, and I believe this is one of them.

I watched almost all of The Little Foxes (1941) yesterday. I was dismayed to discover that the last few minutes (not sure how many few minutes) were not on my tape. Furious anger insued and I'll have to wait for the film to be replayed on TCM in order to catch the exciting conclusion where I already know what happens. So far though the film is best for it's cinematography by Greg Toland who was fresh from his work on Citizen Kane. Oh and for you auteur proponents, William Wyler was the director.

[wpqx]

1. Life With Father (1947) - Michael Curtiz

An absolutely fantastic film. Every so often I find a film that proves that I haven't seen everything good that Hollywood has to offer. This film may not be great art, but it is great entertainment, with a very remarkable cast. William Powell is the father in the story, and from the stories, there was clearly no other actor in the world even considered for the part. Irene Dunne lends her remarkable talents as the mother of the household, and she does an outstanding job. With the exception of the youngest child (who's unnecessarily irritating) the rest of the cast delivers first rate work. Accomodations to the extremely prolific Curtiz who handles this film just as easy as any other genre picture, and has his characteristic fast pace. One of the few films in recent memory that ended with me wanting more, actually craving a sequel. Goes to show there are a few lost gems out there.

2. The Knack and How to Get it (1965) - Richard Lester

American filmmaker Richard Lester made a name for himself in the 60's with a string of irreverant and artsy British films. Lester had the rare gift to make extravagent directorial moves and still have his pictures be popular. Fresh off of A Hard Day's Night and Help!, Lester made this picture. It is a characteristic of the New British Cinema (it's own miniature New Wave led by John Schlessinger's Billy Liar). The film mixes fantasy and reality, lots of quick cuts and always interesting uses of sound. Things don't make sense in this film, but unlike a strange parallel world were it seems right in the context of the picture, it just seems wierd here. I'm not gonna say the picture was fantastic, but it most certainly was interesting. I'm still looking forward to seeing How I Won the War (which I had, but found my tape only contained the first 30 minutes of it).

[arsaib4]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
I didn't know you had written about Schizo. Now I see that you did. YOu get around. I hope it comes out to California. It's great. Very well done. The best rough crime adventure narrative I've seen since Blind Shaft and Mustapha is an appealing picaresque hero, junior grade.

I don't know if I can make it to any of the series you mention, but I'd like to see Darwin's Nightmare and L'Esquive. I hope Darwin's Nightmare will come to California too, but I will try to get a ticket to L'Esquive here if I can find one and it fits into my schedule of activities.

Schizo is scheduled to play in L.A. on April 1st and then it'll be at S.F. and Berkeley on April 22nd so that's certainly good news; hopefully it catches on.

Darwin's Nightmare certainly seems interesting (the "un-natural" Tanzanian disaster). There was a decent write-up on it in the Times recently. It plays today and tomorrow I think. Good news on L'esquive is that New Yorker film will release it in July (at least that's how it looks right now) so people who aren't able to get in at ND/NF will get a chance to see it later. Private, a film about Jewish soldiers invading a Palestinian home, is a film I want to see later this week; it's directed by an Italian. I'll try to make it there since we're on Spring Break right now. Another Italian film Certi Bambini was a critical favorite last year but it only plays this weekend.

[arsaib4]

Originally posted by wpqx
Saw What Price Hollywood, and I thought it was extremely weak. I preferred both the Selznick (William Wellman directred) and the Cukor version, a thousand times over. Ironically though this version was produced by Selznick and directed by Cukor, so go figure. I did enjoy Constance Bennett's performance, but found the rest weak. Early sound films typically suffered from a bunch of stage and silent actors unsure of how to act with dialogue. It plagues numerous films of the era, and I believe this is one of them.

I'd love to see the Wellman version for a better comparison. Selznick certainly exploited this idea as much as he could. I'll be watching With Nothing Sacred next week which I'm told has become somewhat of a classic even though it was considered a disaster when it was released, but then Selznick certainly made a few bucks with Gone With the Wind and Rebecca.

[Johann]

Paths of Glory was shown on a local TV station under the heading "Saturday Night at the Movies".

They pick two films and then show interviews with cast members.
Paths of Glory was shown with Edmund Goulding's The Dawn Patrol- a great double feature.

They had interviews with Kirk Douglas, Richard Anderson and a film historian I'd never heard of (they noted that he is since deceased). Kirk of course complains about Kubrick NOT being a writer yet praises him as a great director "every film he directed was excellent" and the half-hour analysis of the film was good: "Kubrick's Glory". Why it's not included on the DVD is a mystery.

They show how Kubrick decided to shoot the trial scene with the camera behind the "authorities" to show prosecution and the camera behind the men on trial to show defence.

Those French Cowards!!
If they won't face German bullets then they'll face French ones!!!

[wpqx]

Kagemusha (1980) - Akira Kurosawa

I just got this DVD yesterday, and was quite psyched to watch it. Maybe I was too tired, but I started getting a little heavy eyed as it progressed. I started to forget who's army was attacking who, and what the hell the point of the film was in the first place. Visually I will still admire the film, but before I start heaping gobs and gobs of praise on it, I might need to get a closer look at it.

[wpqx]

Wow I missed a few here, but fuck all that.

I saw Sin City, and it was brilliant. I might go to see Old Boy tomorrow, so this could turn out to be one hell of a new movie weekend. I posted some comments in the Sin City thread, but I don't want to say anything about the film except that it should be seen by all. Once you have seen it, then compare notes. I have a feeling that it is a film that is gonna stick with me for a few days, unlike the instantly forgettable trash I usually watch.

[wpqx]

Dead Ringers (1988) - David Cronenberg

Took me long enough, but finally got a copy of the Criterion Edition of this, and the movie was fantastic. Cronenberg is one of the most original (and best imo) directors around, and this film is frequently considered his best. Damn good, and although quite strange, perfectly normal in the world of Cronenberg. Jeremy Irons also delivered the performance of his career, at least far better than his Oscar winning turn in Reversal of Fortune.

[Chris Knipp]

I agree on the importance of this movie, though I'm not sure that it's Cronenberg's best, there are several others I like quite a lot. It's arguably his sickest, and Jeremy Irons is splendid, perhaps indeed better than in Reversal of Fortune, but that's good too, and a movie one can re-watch without feeling sick--despite also being rather unhealthy material.

[Johann]

Finally saw Terry Zwigoff's Crumb last night.
I woke up at 2am to take a leak and something told me to turn on the t.v.- Crumb had just begun. Weird, isn't it?
I said "hey-this must be Crumb!"

So I watched. And was very intrigued.

First off, Robert Crumb has artistic talent coming out his ass, his pores, his whole body. The guy is an astounding sketch artist.

That said, he's an offensive person. His parents were a large reason for his life course. His parents were psychos if you ask me and because of they way the Crumb children grew up they all have psychological & emotional scars that they cannot hide.

This film does not gloss over anything. It shows Crumb in all his artistic and contempuous glory. (A lot of the things he laments in the doc I also lament- everybody wears logos, corporate greed has tainted everything, people have no "soul", etc.)

It's a pretty sobering and I must say sad viewing experience, but the drawings on display make it all ok. Genius artwork.

Check it out

[Chris Knipp]

This is a great movie. It heralded great things to come from Zwigoff later on too. I saw it in theaters and loved it. Today I saw Sin City. I thought of you and your enthusiasm, which I can't really say I share. The look of it reminded me of Coppola's Rumble Fish, which I prefer, and which also has Mickey Rourke in it. Somehow I feel like comics are one thing and movies are another. I may write about this in much more detail if I can muster the energy in days to come. This is my last day of an almost two-week stay on the East Coast; I fly back from NYC to California tomorrow morning.

[Johann]

I was wondering where you were ;)

Sin City is a film that will only be appreciated as it should by a certain type of person: a person with cinema and comics history at the forefront of their medulla.

Everyone else won't like it or will say stuff like "cool visuals!",
"Huh?" "Too chock-a-block!", "Too congested!", etc..

I don't mind being elite on this one:
It's a work of cinema art and if you don't like it POUND SALT

[Chris Knipp]

Doesn't sound like you're allowing much room for discussion but we need to get other opinions on this and I hope other people see it soon. I have enjoyed other comics movies but this one--well, I should save it for a review, though I will admit I'm not an expert, not even familiar with the comic books of this guy.

I hope you see Oldboy and make comparisons. That and Kontroll were reviewed together by the nutty, but sometimes convincing, head reviewer and dismeister (or snitmeister) for the New York Press, Armond White, and he described them as signs of decline: "It's the denial of beauty in Oldboy and Kontroll that marks them as products of our time. Park and Antal appeal to the adolescent taste for outrage and ugliness that defines the peculiar abandon of contemporary movie culture.".... etc. See the whole review (White's reviews can be bracing reading): "Perp Fiction: Sound and fury and incest, signifying nothing" http://www.nypress.com/18/12/film/ArmondWhite2.cfm.

I didn't get to see Kontroll, but did see Oldboy, which I liked at first. (It's certainly original in some ways.)

Films I saw in New York this trip (I got back to California today):

16 Years of Alcohol
Intimate Stories
Schizo
Gunner Palace
Don't Move
The Ballad of Jack and Rose
Ong-Bok: Thai Warrior
Oscar Shorts
Mondovino
Dot the i
Oldboy
Sin City

I might have seen more, but the selection was not outstanding this time of year, and I also had plays to see and concerts to hear and art to look at. The highlight of the trip for me was not a movie but the Jean-Michel Basquiat retrospective at the Brooklyn Museum. And the space I most liked going back to was not the Quad Cinema or Film Forum but Carnegie Hall.

[trevor826]

An overhead view of a road traffic accident, the victim a young girl who has come off her bike is rushed to hospital and into surgery, her life obviously hangs in the balance as surgeons try to save her. This is the opening for Don't Move, directed by and starring Sergio Castellitto with Penelope Cruz as you've never seen her before.

Sergio plays Timoteo a surgeon, the girl in the accident (Angela) is his daughter and all he can do is sit and wait while she is operated on. Something jogs his memory and the majority of the rest of the film is told through flashbacks of a doomed love affair he had.

Penelope Cruz plays Italia, in flashback the other half of the doomed affair, with a mixture of make up and acting she attacks the role of one of society's casualties with aplomb, cheap tacky clothing, multi-coloured streaky hair, a bandy gawky walk and the attitude of a victim, great acting (and in Italian).

What starts off near enough as rape ends up as a passionate affair. Italia, her house and life are the polar opposites to Timoteo's, his wife is very beautiful in a traditional sense, confident, well off and well educated, his house flows with beauty and serenity while Italia's is a sloven shack due to be demolished, he has a successful career and social life, she lives amongst and indeed is one of society's misfits. Several times through-out the film this disparity is clearly illustrated, the first time being when Timoteo is sat on Italia's bed trying to ring his home, we switch from the run down shambles to the luxurious bedroom at the other end of the line, silky curtains blowing in a gentle breeze, stylish furniture and calmness, this type of switch occurs again and again, sometimes to illustrate differences, sometimes because of similarities in circumstance .

From what I can remember there was no background music as such, what appeared to be background music became part of the film whether played in a cafe, car etc this was unusual but worked well within the context of the film.

The story pretty much plays out as expected involving the usual suspects - passion, lust, pregnancy, bitterness, regret and of course death but just manages to steer the right side of mawkish melodrama. The story is fairly obvious and put to music would make a great opera, the acting especially from Ms Cruz holds you till the end.

Worth seeing even if only to see Penelope Cruz act (as opposed to the recent crap she's done) and for those who like this traditional type of dramatic romance.

Cheers Trev.

[wpqx]

Jeanne Dielman, 23 Quai du Commerce (1975) - dir Chantal Akerman

Not for anyone with little patience. This movie is as static as they come. The camera does not move once in the film, shots hang for inordinate amounts of time, and the whole film is structured around the every day, mundane tasks of the title character. Basically if you went over to your neighbors house and just watched them do whatever they do, it would be the same as this film. It is historically signficant for some reason, and I'm glad I have seen it, so now I can say I've seen at least one film from her.

[arsaib4]

Jeanne Dielman is a tough one to talk about but those static medium-master shots had quite an effect on me as they unobstrusively captured the alienated protagonist. If you can get it, try to see D'Est (From the East [1993]), similar in nature but more external. I haven't seen her latest, Demain on déménage (Tomorrow We Move [2004]), yet but it's getting some good press.

[Chris Knipp]

I have seen other things by Ackerman -- Je, tu, il, elle, Toute une nuit (which have some of the vérité qualities you describe) and the much more accessible -- briefly a 'hit' locally in a theatrical presentation -- 1996 Un divan à New York (A Couch in New York) with William Hurt and Juliette Binoche, which Janet Maslin in The NYTImes called "pleasant but unaccountable fluff." She seems capable of a variety of things.

[wpqx]

Didn't think this topic would get so far down. Well I watched Violence at Noon (1966) today. It was directed by Nagisa Oshima, and it did what I expected it to. Which is to say it made me weep and cry that more of his films weren't available. The film itself was innovative, and very evocative of New Wave, it's narrative is jumbled, and it's editing is discontinuous. It makes for an interesting, and at times confusing viewing.

[Chris Knipp]

Yes, it is too bad more of his films aren't available here.

[wpqx]

Lonesome Dove (1989) - Simon Wincer

An epic that doesn't feel overly long. Produced as a miniseries, thankfully it is available on a rather inexpensive DVD. The film is moving at parts, and often compelling, but does suffer slightly for the low budget restrictions of a made for TV production.

[wpqx]

Heartbreak Ridge (1986) - Clint Eastwood

Well the film isn't exactly great, but I loved it. Formulaic, predictable, and at times ridiculous, but it's above all entertaining. You want to see Clint whoop these men into Marines, you want to see the cliched Commanding officer get his, and you so desperately want to see Mario Van Peebles get that earring ripped out.

I probably would have enjoyed this film more a few years ago, and been more critical of it's military accuracy as well, but nevertheless I couldn't help but like it. Mindless patriotic flag waving gung-ho militaristic nonsense. It helps that I'm on a bit of a Clint kick, and this role, ableit not a very challenging one, seems tailor made for him. Eastwood's direction is somewhat standard (as it always is), but he holds the story together.

I got Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil to watch, which I might get to later tonight.

[trevor826]

Walt Disney's Bambi.

This is the first time I've seen it for years, a joyous beautiful piece of animation of an artistic quality we are never likely to see again.

A lot of the elements both storywise and artistic were recycled for the Lion King but Bambi is a class above it.

Cheers Trev.

[stevetseitz]

Buster Keaton "The General"


Simply fantastic.

[trevor826]

I'd rather just make a note that I've seen this potted pantomime history lesson. If I try to say what's wrong with it it'll take a very long time. However I will say I enjoyed the performances of Jeremy Irons, Liam Neeson and the heavily edited Eva Green.

The film isn't a total disaster but it's more King Arthur than Gladiator.

Cheers Trev.

[Chris Knipp]

What do you mean by "the heavily edited. . ."? Was most of her part cut out?

[trevor826]

"What do you mean by "the heavily edited. . ."? Was most of her part cut out?"

http://sify.com/movies/hollywood/fullstory.php?id=13736527

Should take you to the story, it seemed there were large chunks missing during quite a few stages of the film, will they make it to DVD? I hope so.

Cheers Trev

[Chris Knipp]

I see, thanks. I hope we find out more about that.

[stevetseitz]

Even Gladiator took too many liberties with history. I saw an interview with Ridley Scott and he seemed frighteningly ignorant of the history of the Crusades.

[trevor826]

I wouldn't expect either to be too historically accurate, after all they are made primarily to entertain.

Gladiator at least gives a fair dose of entertainment and Russel Crowe has enough charisma to make you accept him as someone who is capable of leading an army.

Kingdom of Heaven has Orlando Bloom, if I was a teen girl I might find Orlando charismatic, the IMDB user ratings show an average for each group of around 7 till you get to "Females under 18" where the rating is currently 9.3. I'm sorry but I wouldn't follow him to the pub never mind on a suicide ride.

The main bad (christian) guy "Guy de Lusignan" reminded me too much of "Lord Farquaad" from Shrek.

I am sure there will be a much longer cut on DVD, too much seemed to have disappeared in the current edit, some very important historical moments and of course Eva Green.

Cheers Trev.

[arsaib4]

Originally posted by trevor826
Kingdom of Heaven has Orlando Bloom, if I was a teen girl I might find Orlando charismatic, the IMDB user ratings show an average for each group of around 7 till you get to "Females under 18" where the rating is currently 9.3. I'm sorry but I wouldn't follow him to the pub never mind on a suicide ride. The main bad (christian) guy "Guy de Lusignan" reminded me too much of "Lord Farquaad" from Shrek.

LOL; I agree with you on Bloom. I think Manohla Dargis (NY Times) also mentioned that the "bad guy" sounded a little too French.

I am sure there will be a much longer cut on DVD, too much seemed to have disappeared in the current edit, some very important historical moments and of course Eva Green.

Speaking of historical moments, more Eva Green is always welcome. I was watching the great Pickpocket last night (the new Artificial-Eye DVD), and I couldn't figure who the stunning Marika Green looked like, but after a bit more research I found out that she's the aunt of Miss Green. Visual confirmation. (http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare11/pickpocket/003929.jpg)

[stevetseitz]

You are right on Bloom. He is a bit too effete to be a real action leading man. He worked for Lord of the Rings because elves were supposed to be just a little distinctive and strange to humans. In the books they are described as handsome and/or beautiful but kind of distant.

I wonder if Bloom is going to have to create a more "David Niven" style niche for himself, rather than trying to be a Russell Crowe type.

[arsaib4]

Originally posted by stevetseitz
You are right on Bloom. He is a bit too effete to be a real action leading man. He worked for Lord of the Rings because elves were supposed to be just a little distinctive and strange to humans. In the books they are described as handsome and/or beautiful but kind of distant.

I wonder if Bloom is going to have to create a more "David Niven" style niche for himself, rather than trying to be a Russell Crowe type.

True. However, one look at his filmography and besides The Lord of the Rings trilogy, he has also done Black Hawk Down, Ned Kelly, Troy, Pirates of the Caribbean (with two more to come), and, of course, Kingdom of Heaven. All action-adventure films and all pretty successful one might add. May be it's just a phase but Hollywood certainly seems keen on making him a leading man.

[stevetseitz]

Point taken. But I have yet to hear anyone say "Hey have you seen that new Orlando Bloom movie?"

Speaking of the David Niven angle, what about a Bond film for Bloom?

Ian Fleming originally wanted Niven to play Bond, who never did until the campy (but fun) unofficial Bond film "Casino Royale"

[arsaib4]

I haven't seen Kingdom of Heaven yet so I'm not sure how central his character is, but he's certainly had some good company in many of the earlier films.

I'm not upto date on the "Bond" saga, but I believe "Casino Royale" is also the title for the next one. (QT showed some interest in directing it but couldn't have it his way.) I wouldn't mind Clive Owen as the next bond, although Bloom isn't a terrible choice either.

[stevetseitz]

"Casino Royale" was Ian Fleming's first James Bond novel and was made first for T.V. in the 50's with an americanized "Jimmy Bond. The second version was 1967's "Casino Royale" which I will describe as "60's rococo".

I still enjoy this movie even though I can't consider it a great film. Some of the sequences are truly hilarious.

"Casino Royale" was the first Austin Powers film and a terrific spoof of the James Bond series.

[wpqx]

Baadassssss! (2004) - Mario Van Peebles

Great shit right here. Good subject matter, and Mario injects a surprising amount of life into his direction. Keeping things interesting, it has the feeling of a 60's or 70's American art film.

[Chris Knipp]

As you've all been pointing out, Orlando Bloom is an apparently odd case, a fey action hero. In Pirates of the Caribbean he has an Erroll Flynn dash, so I'd compare him to Erroll Flylnn and not Russell Crowe, who's a strong actor and has a macho personality (Romper Stomper) but is no great shakes in the looks dept.; Bloom was good with Keith Ledger in Ned Kelly. Tony Jaa of Ong Bak: Thai Warrior is kind of fey too. It is possible. Anyway, Bloom could always beef up. He hs the classic romantic good looks, and that's the important thing. And he's English.

Can Bloom act? Doubtful. Can he do romantic comedy up to the level of fellow Black Hawk alum Josh Hartnett? Uncertain. But Hollywood thinks he looks good in tights, so he's up there. Niven lacked the hard edge to be an non-spoof Bond, though he had the sophistication. Bloom doesn't project the sophistication or the hard edge, so I can't see him as Bond at all. Clive Owen would be a most excellent Bond. I don't think anybody wants to be a Russell Crowe type. Even Russell Crowe mightn't mind being a different type, but he's stuck with being the way he is. They'd just want to be as good an actor and as powerful a physical presence as Crowe.

I guess I'll go re-watch The Bourne Identity. Now there's an actor who looks like a Forties movie hotel busboy, yet he can act, and he's not a bad action hero. Times change.

[stevetseitz]

Bloom can act at LEAST as well as the wooden Clive Owen (the other person mentioned for Bond)

Errol Flynn was always known as a swashbuckler but never recognized for his acting abilities, at least by his peers.

He had twice the screen presence of Bloom.

[Chris Knipp]

I didn't say Flynn could act. He sure could swashbuckle though.

I didn't know Owen was wooden. I thought he was supposed to be acting in Closer. Everybody was. Supposed to be I mean. Anyway, James Bond is not a great acting challenge. Connery brought geniality to it, which maybe was what it needed.

Poor Orlando, is he lucky or unlucky? Is he just a flash in the pan?

[arsaib4]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
[Bloom] has the classic romantic good looks, and that's the important thing. And he's English.

Can Bloom act? Doubtful. Can he do romantic comedy up to the level of fellow Black Hawk alum Josh Hartnett? Uncertain. But Hollywood thinks he looks good in tights, so he's up there. Niven lacked the hard edge to be an non-spoof Bond, though he had the sophistication. Bloom doesn't project the sophistication or the hard edge, so I can't see him as Bond at all. Clive Owen would be a most excellent Bond. I don't think anybody wants to be a Russell Crowe type. Even Russell Crowe mightn't mind being a different type, but he's stuck with being the way he is. They'd just want to be as good an actor and as powerful a physical presence as Crowe.

Interesting comments, Chris. I'm certainly not gonna argue with you about how each of them look, and I think everyone will agree with you regarding Bloom.

I'm not a big fan of Josh Hartnett to tell you the truth. I don't believe he's that good of an actor nor do I think he's particularly attractive (albeit that's not my specialty). He had his time in the spotlight but didn't do much with it. I'm a fan of Owen now after watching some of his work last year. Not a bad looking guy either.

I guess I'll go re-watch The Bourne Identity. Now there's an actor who looks like a Forties movie hotel busboy, yet he can act, and he's not a bad action hero. Times change.

I'd never have thought that you would say that about Damon, but what do I know. He can certainly act.

[trevor826]

Re: Kingdom of Heaven - Slight Spoilers

Although I don't think Orlando Bloom has the presence of a leader, the main faults with his actual role within the film are down to the story line:

Bastard son of a Lord, Balian worked all his life as a blacksmith, forced to leave his home village and travel with his fathers group to the crusades. Did I mention he hasn't got a clue how to handle a sword while the rest of the party are very experienced soldiers? anyway because of the son, the group are ambushed, surrounded and pretty much slaughtered, the father only recently re-united with the son he'd never bothered to seek out before is injured and on his way out, the totally inexperienced blacksmith survives without a scratch while all around the bodies mount up.

Daddy dies leaving son to inherit title and carry on his good work in Jerusalem. Now the survivors from the ambush send the son on to Medina in a ship, they'll go a bit later and guess what! the ship is destroyed in a storm, all the experienced crew are missing presumed dead but who'se washed up on a beach, not a scratch on him and with the only surviving horse not 10 yards away from him?

Yes you've guessed it, it's Balian the Bastard Blacksmith, the survivors from the ambush realised it, the guy is cursed, go anywhere with him and he'll arrive without a scratch, (his hair may be a little messy) but you'll probably be dead.

Now be honest would you go anywhere near him, I'd imagine everywhere he went, people would run in panic screaming - " Run for your lives, it's Balian the Bastard Blacksmith, he's come to save us."
Who writes this stuff?

Cheers Trev

[stevetseitz]

Do I need to mention another bastard son of a blacksmith?...a little empire toppler named CONAN!?!


Thou shalt not use Arnold's name in vain!

Just kidding.


James Bond isn't an acting challenge?

I think our low standards have turned the super-spy into a predictable bore. The Connery Bond was constantly surprising and interesting. Connery had a mean streak to go along with a suave and classy image. George Lazenby was awful. Roger Moore brought some campy humor to the role but the later Moore outings were atrocious. Timothy Dalton just didn't have "it". Pierce Brosnan is pretty good, but lacks a certain physical toughness.

I think taking over a familiar role like Bond and making it your own would be quite a challenge.

[Chris Knipp]

I didn't know that was at issue but I can assure you Hartnett's looks are fine; I would never claim he's a great actor but he's shown an amiable goofiness and definite aptitude for physical comedy in Virgin Suicides, Blow Dry, 40 Days and 40 Nights, and Hollywood Homicide; I was just wondering if Orlando could do that kind of thing as well. Damon does look just like a busboy, I think. Owen wouldn't be likely to appeal to the young audience Orlando's geared to attract, but he does have the old style grown up male star quality so uncommon in Hollywood nowadays.

Casting is an issue we rarely discuss and a crucial one in filmmaking.

[Johann]

Ridley has said that the DVD will be much longer than the theatrical release.
Looks like Scott's "RAN".

I'll wait for it. No truncated versions for me thank you...

[Johann]

Steve Buscemi should play Bond. He'd be great.

He can do the whole adjust-the-cufflinks-with-wrinkled-brow thing with the best of them..

Teeth? This is hollywood- things can be done. But I'd rather have Steve play the role with his natural fangs.

Why is Buscemi not considered Bond material?

[Chris Knipp]

We'll put you in charge of the Sundance Cansting Office.

[stevetseitz]

I don't think Ridley Scott is capable of making a film that holds a candle to Kurosawa's "Ran". But, I'll admit director's cuts are usually better

[arsaib4]

The Ring Two is a sequel (obviously) to The Ring, released here 3 years ago as a remake of a Japanese film called Ringu, a film which has also mutated all over the east-Asian seaboard. The Ring Two is not a remake of Ringu 2, but it is directed by the guy who directed both Ringu and Ringu 2. Got it? No need really, and your brain can also rest in piece while you’re watching the film which is actually not quite the disaster it is made out to be. Naomi Watts and her son have now moved away from Seattle (where the killer videotape copy did quite a bit of damage) to a small town in Oregon. Apparently, one copy of the tape is still alive, and shows up near two teenagers about to fuck (how original!) in the film’s peculiar opening sequence. It does get better though as director Hideo Nakata’s unearthly camera glides up, down, and sideways; also, for the most part, the reliance on atmospheric dread is a welcome sight. The tape eventually gets burned (I could swear I heard some eerie sounds coming from the vhs industry), but this allows for the vengeful Samara (you know, the one with the hair) to take center-stage. There’s a great sequence involving angry reindeers, even though, the special-effects department should’ve done a better job here (I’m surprised that the moose lovers didn’t get pissed). Anyway, it’s onwards and downwards from there as the script by Ehren Kruger tries to channel The Exorcist and The Omen through The Shinning eventually settling on "Carrie" - Sissy Spacek that is. She is part of a late episode involving maternal impulses which could’ve been introduced earlier, but it's all a set-up for the ultimate denouement. In an obvious attempt to pump-up this bloodless PG film into a PG-13 one, we hear Watts (giving a professional performance) scream: "I’m not your fucking mommy" - I would've preferred a glimpse of her bathing and/or reading a book - as she closes an opening. Hopefully, The Ring Three will struggle to come out of it.

GRADE: C

[Chris Knipp]

Good, and amusing, analysis. Unfortunately I have only read reviews of it not seen it so can't comment further. I liked "it’s onwards and downwards from there as the script by Ehren Kruger tries to channel The Exorcist and The Omen through The Shinning eventually settling on "Carrie" - Sissy Spacek that is." But none of this, not even your saying it's "not quite the disaster it is made out to be," makes me want to see it. Did see the original Ringu, which frankly didn't thrill me so much, though the Japanese version did have a creepy quality quite beyond what American horror movies ever manage, probably due to their ghost story tradition, which we see in stuff like Kwaidan.

[arsaib4]

Thanks. A more subtle review for a film like this would be quite boring to read and write. I can't blame you if you don't want to see it; I probably would've provided a bit more info (and might have softened the grade with a "+") if it was good enough. You're right about "a certain creepy quality" that the J-horror films have. They also carry themselves with a certain integrity, refusing to compromise their objectives. Incidentally, the remake of Nakata's Dark Water is releasing soon - it's directed by Walter Salles!

[Chris Knipp]

the remake of Nakata's Dark Water is releasing soon - it's directed by Walter Salles!Is that good news, or a sign he's selling out, that's my question in cases like this. I guess the realities are complex.

[stevetseitz]

Now the last film I have seen is "The Fifth Element" in all it's superbit glory on DVD.

What a fantastic and fun movie. I love the casting and the visual texture of this movie. I love the fact that Luc Besson simply let's Chris Tucker take over a large portion of his movie. I think the total immersion into a futuristic and different world is the best way to go. George Lucas used this to great effect in the original (non-digitized!!!!) Star Wars.

Eric Serra's score was enough for me to purchase the soundtrack after the movie came out.

The wry sense of humor from Bruce Willis makes this one his better roles.

[wpqx]

Man on the Moon (1999) - Milos Forman

Well sometimes it takes me a long time to get around to certain films. This one was about as good as I could have expected. Jim Carey did a damn good job, but Kaufman's life isn't really great cinematic material. It's hard to watch someone be so damn unfunny and self destructive.

[hengcs]

Originally posted by trevor826
Re: Kingdom of Heaven - Slight Spoilers
Although I don't think Orlando Bloom has the presence of a leader, the main faults with his actual role within the film are down to the story line: ...
...
Who writes this stuff?



I totally agree that the story is not compelling.
-- It has the potential to be intense, exciting and appealing, but somehow it just fails to deliver.
-- There is a good message, but the complexity of it is not well studied nor convincingly conveyed.

[wpqx]

Monsieur Ibrahim (2003) - Francois Dupeyron

Pardon the generalizations, but I'm getting sick of "coming of age" films and "unlikely friendship" movies. The gyst of this film is both of those overwrought genres. Everything in this film is familiar, and overplayed. One question I asked myself is why does every French boy seem to lose his virginity to a prostitute? This might not be the case in France, but it sure as hell is the impression I get from French film.

For those who enjoyed the film, please feel free to offer some justification, but I found it pointless.

Also watched Dirty Pretty Things (2002) - Stephen Frears

This film was similar in the unlikely pairings, but the two main characters in this film were in common for being immigrants. The film was alright, I do think a hell of a lot more could have been done with Audrey Tautou, who seemed to be generally discarded here. Overall though, the film is forgettable.

Maria Full of Grace (2003) - Joshua Marston

Well by default this was the best film of the day (so far). Despite the Oscar nomination for Catalina Sandino Moreno, I didn't find anything special in the acting. Granted I sure as hell found her beautiful, but a talented actress, I'm not quite sure. Perhaps my expectations were high, but this film was in no way top 10 material. I did find it entertaining, and at times moving, but a lot more could have been done with the film.

[wpqx]

The Saddest Music in the World (2003) - Guy Maddin

Well this film has enough originality to make up for the last 2 dozen or so films I've seen. This one is all over the place. Whenever it may have seemed weak in plot, it more than made up for it in execution. I loved it, if for no other reason because I can't think of another film like it.

[arsaib4]

We're in agreement on almost everything here.


Originally posted by wpqx
Monsieur Ibrahim (2003) - Francois Dupeyron

Pardon the generalizations, but I'm getting sick of "coming of age" films and "unlikely friendship" movies.

It was good to see Omar Sharif not embarrasing himself, but this was average at best.

Also watched Dirty Pretty Things (2002) - Stephen Frears

Overall though, the film is forgettable.

There've been better films on the subject matter. Nigerian actor Chiwetel Ejiofor was quite good though.

Maria Full of Grace (2003) - Joshua Marston

Despite the Oscar nomination for Catalina Sandino Moreno, I didn't find anything special in the acting. Granted I sure as hell found her beautiful, but a talented actress, I'm not quite sure. [/QUOTE]

Thank you. I coudn't agree with you more.

[stevetseitz]

>>One question I asked myself is why does every French boy seem to lose his virginity to a prostitute?<<

The answer is similar to another question:

Q: Why does Paris plant trees on both sides of the street?

A : So the invading army can walk in the shade on both sides

It's pretty sad if ya gotta pay for it !

[wpqx]

12 Monkeys (1995) - Terry Gilliam

Well strange, and familiar. Familiar for two reasons, first of which was that I had seen the film before, many years ago when it was still somewhat new. The second reason is that I now understand the blatantly obvious references to La Jettee.

Bruce Willis was fantastic in the film. Brad Pitt had an easy role, because I believe nothing is easier for an actor than to play someone that's insane, but even with the easy role, he was still better than his overblown lame turn in Troy.

[stevetseitz]

I also thought Madeline Stowe was terrific in the film (in addition to being incredibly beautiful.)

[wpqx]

True, watching the film I realized, she hasn't done too much lately.

Well tonight's viewing was a double feature.

One False Move (1991) - Carl Franklin

Enjoyable, violent film. It did have the predisposition of a late night Showtime movie, but it did elevate itself above that. This came on a high recommendation from a film teacher of mine. Not necessarily a brilliant film, but few are these days. Billy Bob Thornton clearly was the most dominating character in the film, and I think his work here was great.

Talk Radio (1988) - Oliver Stone

Well when a DVD is $6, it's hard to pass up. This film came during Stone's greatest creative burst, and it shows. Perhaps not up to Platoon or Salvador, it is close. Stone had a lot to say, and was extremely confident in saying it. I'm not sure exactly what's up with him now, his scale seems to have gotten too big. Like Scorsese, Stone is best when he's not trying so damn hard to be spectacular. He is much better when he's free flowing. Talk Radio allows for more philosophical jargin than usual, but hey Stone is a man who seldom doesn't have an opinion about something. As simple as the film was though, I still found it great.

[trevor826]

Midnight screening of Revenge of the Sith, jam packed, very hot but a good atmosphere. George has referenced a lot of scenes from the original trilogy in an effort to appease the fans who weren't too happy with episodes 1 & 2. I'll probably see it again before writing any sort of review because I did feel tired especially in the heat.

Cheers Trev.

[arsaib4]

Originally posted by wpqx
One False Move (1991) - Carl Franklin

Enjoyable, violent film. It did have the predisposition of a late night Showtime movie, but it did elevate itself above that.


Yeah, it's a solid crime drama. Thornton co-wrote it. Franklin also directed Devil in a Blue Dress, which is a worthy low-key noir, starring Denzel Washington.

[stevetseitz]

I really enjoyed "One False Move" I thought Thornton's turn was amazing, but I also really enjoyed Bill Paxton who brought so much humor, genuineness, and real emotion to his role particularly the sub-plot between he and the "big city" cops.

I think I was watching "Siskel & Ebert" sometime in the early 90's when they recommended it on video as a film not to be missed.

[wpqx]

The Dreamers (2003) - dir Bernardo Bertolucci

A film like this is meant to recall some nostalgia. Bertolucci trying to make a New Wave film several decades after the fact. Rather than recalling all those great films that are referenced, I recall Bertolucci's own Before the Revolution (which I'm dying for on DVD). That was a film that was honest and real. It was Bertolucci trying to find his voice in cinema, straddling the fence between his Italian roots, and the New Wave he adored so much. Before the Revolution was a film made about the love of cinema at an important time, during that time. The Dreamers is like a mid-life crisis run amuck. Bertolucci seems to miss his youth, when he was discovering life through the cinemateque.

Nevertheless I did enjoy the film, and it seems better than most of Bertolucci's more recent work. I did find the characters to all ring false however, and couldn't identify with anyone, which isn't to say I disliked their performances. Bertolucci I think may have a hard time working in such a small time frame. This film could be much larger, and much more ambitious, but the politics of the day are never explained. It is never explained why students are in the streets, and why they need to be violent, Bertolucci is either assuming we already know what was going on, or that it isn't important. If he placed as much emphasis on the politics as he did on the strange triangular love affair, this film might have been three hours, but possibly better.

[wpqx]

Sadie Thompson (1928) - Raoul Walsh

There was a time when Walsh was quite the auteur. This film he was writer, director, and played the romantic lead. Walsh's acting career took a nose dive after In Old Arizona, when an accident cost him his eye. His scriptwriting days seemed to vanish shortly after when was absorbed into first Fox studios, and later Warner Bros. This film was the brain child of producer/star Gloria Swanson (yes the same one from Sunset Boulevard). She is the star, make no mistake about it, and she does her usual best to be larger than life. Walsh's performance holds up probably the best in the film, being firmly between silent projection, and below the melodramatic heights that Lionel Barrymore and Swanson go to. Personally I never thought Lionel was a great actor, likeable at times, but John Barrymore always seemed to act rings around him.

As for the film, well it is a product of its time. The plot may be difficult for some to understand, wondering how a missionary could have government influence, and what the hell exactly Swanson's Sadie was doing wrong in the first place, but we need to accept this. And for 96 minutes or so we need to remember the film as a picture from 1928. The ending was apparently butchered, so when that approaches all of a sudden production stills take the place of action, which ALWAYS breaks the mood. One of the reason why I wasn't particularly blown away by the restoration of Greed. I couldn't help but lose some emotion seeing live action replaced by still life. The film isn't great by any standards, but you can watch it as a high point in Swanson's career. Ironically she looks better as the "reformed" Sadie than the dolled up harlot. But fashion has changed, and the twenties look went out of style, well in the twenties. Let's you know though that before the drag queen looking Norma Desmond, she actually was quite naturally beautiful, with two big eyes made for silent cinema.

[wpqx]

Burden of Dreams (1982) - Les Blank

Well some people like the documentary more than the film, I for one can't agree. What makes Herzog interesting is his hipnotic quality, which is lacking in this documentary. This seems more like a companion piece making of. The subject of the making of Fitzcarraldo is an interesting enough story, and that's what gives the film any significance. The DVD is great, if for nothing else the inclusion of Werner Herzog Eats His Shoe, which in my opinion is a more interesting documentary.

[stevetseitz]

The documentary is quite good, but you're right "Fitzcarraldo" is better.

I also love "My Best Fiend" which I saw at film festival while living in Portland. My favorite part is when Werner Herzog speaking in a voiceover reveals that he and Klaus Kinski both simultaneously hatched plots to murder one another. The monotone, de facto way in which it is said just kills me.

"Little Dieter needs to Fly" is also quite interesting for those on a documentary binge.

[wpqx]

Marathon Man (1976) - John Schlessinger

My fourth Schlessinger film, and similar to Midnight Cowboy in it's seedy contempt for New York City. This film is a little more entertaining, but still full of difficult scenes to watch. This film is known more for its dentistry than any of its plot, and honestly I don't even remember what Roy Scheider's character actually did. From what I've heard, this is the first feature film to use a steadicam, which makes it more significant than drilling teeth.

Perhaps the plot might have been thin, but it's pacing is fantastic, and all performances are great. Granted I really don't like William Devane in anything, he has a poor man's Jack Nicholson without the talent smirk about him. Olivier and Hoffman though are enough to carry the film, and they do. All in all I enjoyed the film, more than most.

[stevetseitz]

I think Scheider was Hoffman's brother or brother-in-law or something. I remember he is more "streetwise" than Hoffman. Devane is only good as a Kennedy.

[wpqx]

Carandiru (2003) - Hector Babenco

A great "return to form" so to speak from Babenco. Another somewhat exploitative Brazllian film, but a great one nevertheless. The action moves along well, because we get a sampling of numerous characters, all of which seem to get the appropriate amount of backstory, letting us all equally identify. Certainly a great film to watch in the wake of City of God.

[wpqx]

What Time Is It There? (2000) - Tsai Ming-Liang

Well this is the first film I've seen from this director, and I'm not sure what to make of it. Very quiet film, and I'm not really sure what the hell it was about. I did like the subtlety of it, and I have Vive L'Amour to watch as well, so I'll hold off on my opinion, hoping that another film might give me a better perspective.

[arsaib4]

In order to truly appreciate a Tsai film, viewers almost has to measure and ritualize their habits, a little like what Tsai does with his narratives. I mean you can't just throw in a Tsai film after something else. All of his films deal with Alienation in one form or another. Demanding? Absolutely. But to me there's no other filmmaker in the world today who's more rewarding than Tsai. Same actors, similar set-ups, wistful melancholy and droll humor (at the start it took me a couple of viewings of his films to realize that), shot composition as gorgeous as anything Antonioni did, although, camera placement/movement is more Hou. Pacing shouldn't be a problem for you since you've seen enough films. It's not easy to pick his best, but last year's Goodbye Dragon Inn stands out for me. Hold off on it though, until you've seen a couple of others.

[trevor826]

Vive L'Amour was the first film I saw of Tsai Ming-Liang's and it's probably still my favourite, having said that though, I still haven't seen Goodbye Dragon Inn. I'm sure you'll appreciate his films wpqx.

[wpqx]

Diary of a Chambermaid (1964) - Luis Bunuel

Somewhat overlooked film from Bunuel's best era. The film fits well into Bunuel's filmography, and certainly recalls earlier films like El Bruto, and the later Discreet Charm. I do however agree that it is secondary compared to the films preceding it and following it, but still worth a watch.

[stevetseitz]

My favorite Bunuel is either "Exterminating Angel" or "Death in the Garden".