the LAST FILM YOU'VE SEEN thread

[Chris Knipp]

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

[wpqx]

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

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

[Chris Knipp]

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

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

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

[arsaib4]

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

Grade: C+

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

[Chris Knipp]

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

[tabuno]

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

[arsaib4]

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

[trevor826]

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

Cheers Trev.

[arsaib4]

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

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

[wpqx]

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

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

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

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

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

[Chris Knipp]

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.

[tabuno]

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

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

[trevor826]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers Trev

[arsaib4]

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

[tabuno]

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?