BEST MOVIES OF 2010 -- so far

[oscar jubis]

THE TWO ESCOBARS is produced by sports cable network ESPN. It is part of an excellent series of sports-related documentaries called "30 for 30". I watched it last month. Two others I liked from the series, which deal with subjects I hold dear to my heart, are Billy Corben's The U (about how the U of Miami integrated the city's culture by recruiting local, inner-city kids into the football team and built a sports dynasty during the 80s and 90s) and Run, Ricky, Run, about one of the most unique personalities in the cookie cutter world of professional football.

Do you want me to comment on BREATHLESS here or do we take the discussion to the Breathless thread in the Classic Films section?

[Chris Knipp]

Thanks for the background.

By all means put further comments on BREATHLESS on the BREATHLESS thread already established. I was only noting having seen it in connection with my "an old movie is always best" line a couple days ago on this thread, and as another note of films seen this year. I actually had not seen it in a long time, though I have a laser disk of it, and I still have a laser disk player. I notice some good films came out in 1960 and were immediately shown in US theaters, or in NYC anyway. De Sica's TWO WOMEN and Antonioni's L'AVVENTURA are two others. This would already be at your fingertips, but not mine.

The FSLC/Walter Reade series never end and today comes news of "Russellmania" with the director Ken Russell on hand in person every evening.
* The Boy Friend
* The Devils
* Lisztomania
* Mahler
* The Music Lovers
* Savage Messiah
* Tommy
* Valentino
* Women in Love

Russellmania!
July 30 to August 5
Walter Reade Theater at Lincoln Center.

[oscar jubis]

Ken Russell, uh? The "wizard of excess". I saw a lot of his movies at the time of release when they were inappropriate for someone my age. The only two I've dared to watch recently are TOMMY and WOMEN IN LOVE (Glenda Jackson was among the very best actresses of the 60s and 70s). I like these two. Not fair to Russell to comment on the others. There is a strong element of camp in his work. Many find it repellent, perhaps because he marries camp to highbrow subjects, like the lives of famous classical composers. After Lair of the White Worm (1988), he has made only straight-to-video and TV movies. Not a single movie made for theatrical release in 22 years! But he keeps making them. He is 83 now.

[Chris Knipp]

Again thanks for more background. I never liked him; I'm not into camp (one of the ways I'm not a proper gay person). Those two you mention are good though, quite good. I never walk out of a movie I've paid to see but THE DEVILS severely tried that resolve. He has made lost of movies in those 22 years. How can we be sure they aren't as good -- or as bad -- as his previous theatrical releases? I wonder if THE RAINBOW would be good since it's also D.H. Lawrence, and WOMEN IN LOVE was one of his good ones?

[oscar jubis]

THE DEVILS has its fans. I'm with you though. I understand why one would walk out of this movie. Your instincts are probably right regarding THE RAINBOW. You can buy a copy of the DVD at Amazon UK for about $10 including shipping. I probably will buy a copy because it is unlikely to be released in the US.

[Chris Knipp]

I didn't walk out, though. I just wanted to, and came closer than ever before. Of course THE DEVILS has its fans. What doesn't? But seriously, there is an auteurish intensity about Ken Russell's movies that inspires fandom. I wouldn't personally go out and buy a copy of THE RAINBOW in UK format just because it isn't available here and maybe won't ever be; but at one time I was involved enough in the novels of D.H. Lawrence, which I still admire, to do that, and I wonder why I didn't see it in 1989 if it was in theaters here, as IMDb indicates it was; it grossed $444,000. Maybe it was the fact that it didn't come out on video. Unlike now, at that time I watched far more movies on video than in theaters. THE RAINBOW does sound like a must-see if one is interested in film adaptations of famous English novelists.

[oscar jubis]

I perused box office charts at boxofficemojo and found out I've seen a mere FOUR movies in the top 25. Most of what people pay to see does not appeal to me at all. That seems to be the logical conclusion, good or bad. I am very grateful to have the opportunity to watch other movies that apparently interest few. Rosenbaum has written books about how people let the media lead (dictate) them away from certain movies and towards others. Two of the most interesting and enjoyable movies I have seen recently are AGORA and RAAVAN. Their combined box office is just over $1 million nationwide.

AGORA is the new film by Alejandro Amenabar (The Others, The Sea Inside) with Rachel Weisz as a 4th century philosopher and astronomer struggling against the righteous power of the emergent Christians. The recreation of ancient Alexandria and a well-cast Weisz are reason enough to check it out. RAAVAN is an artful, re-imagining of "The Ramayana" by director Mani Ratman (Dil Se, Guru). There are some set pieces in this film that have to be seen to be believed.