the LAST FILM YOU'VE SEEN thread

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

Just watched Bamboozled (2000)

my review is in the Favorite Films section.

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...51358?v=glance

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grade: C+

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers Trev.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers Trev

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

Now we have something to much on.

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

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

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


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

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

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



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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, who's Ron?

“Now we have something to much on.”

Pardon, I don’t understand the expression.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who's Ron?

Tabuno and arsaib4, does that answer your question?

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

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

Cheers Trev.

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

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

Cheers Trev.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't want to link Napoleon Dynamite with Sahara, about which the buzz is bad, and which I haven't seen. Let me quote a couple of reviews. The hard-to-please Michael Atkinson of the Voice on Napoleon Dynamite:

Quote:

---

Hess has the low-budget-comedy wastrel deadpan—the one Jarmusch stole from Warhol, and Wes Anderson has made semi-mainstream—down to a science, and his dry pause-and-cut idiosyncrasies are Swiss-timed. But more than anything, the film is an epic, magisterially observed pastiche on all-American geekhood, flooring the competition with a petulant shove.

---

The easy-to-please Roger Ebert on Sahara:

Quote:

---

It's like a fire sale at the action movie discount outlet.

---

Apart from the apparent contrast in quality,why should these two movies be linked? What could they possibly have in common? What is "consistent" about liking both of them? What good can it do either one to link them -- a high school geek comedy pastiche and a grab-bag action adventure sequence with "an amused, cocky smirk" (Stephen Holden in the NYTimes)? As far as I can see, liking Sahara as well does nothing to recommend Napoleon Dynamite and doesn't show consistent taste.

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

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

Trev.

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

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

Cheers Trev.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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