Quote:
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
Printable View
Quote:
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
Quote:
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 ...
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.
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.
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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!!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ŕ 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.
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.
Yes, it is too bad more of his films aren't available here.
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.
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.
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.
Buster Keaton "The General"
Simply fantastic.
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.
What do you mean by "the heavily edited. . ."? Was most of her part cut out?
"What do you mean by "the heavily edited. . ."? Was most of her part cut out?"
http://sify.com/movies/hollywood/ful...hp?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