Watching Movies Alone with crumbsroom

So this is worth seeing, after all, hmmmm

Oh, absolutely. With this and Her Name Was Lisa, there's definitely some hitting the genre marks, but both carry a lot of the same feel bad vibes as Last House, even if their genre keeps it from feeling quite as forceful.

Is it full-on hardcore fare? Or are its sex scenes like something Jess Franco would do (or less)? Not that the former would keep me from watching it, just want to know what I'm getting into if I track it down.

Yeah, it's hardcore (don't believe a softcore version available), although maybe a bit less close-up happy than some others I've seen.



In any case, the most disturbing boners a movie will ever give you.

You make it all so tempting. And I suppose it being 'less close up happy' is something to celebrate.


Is the Vinegar Syndrome both a bluray and dvd. Amazon only lists the blu, even though I"m pretty sure a simple dvd is also available.

The release includes both. I think most of their releases are like that, although they do have a bunch of DVD-only releases as well. If you check their site it should specify. (I may have ordered a bunch over the weekend. )

Movies seen fairly recently with no comment:


The Ear
Prime of Miss Jean Brodie
Double Suicide: Japanese Summer
The Last Round
Up (Russ Meyer)
Hardcore
Submarino
Passion Fish
The Sun
The Lure
Betty Blue
Dreams
The Vikings
Chronicles of a Summer


I'd like to talk about all of these, but I have no way to begin the discussion for any of them. If any one has any random comment or criticism about any of the above, throw them out here. The more things I can argue about simultaneously, the better.

You may have to be more specific here. I prefer Kurosawa's to Bergman's.


Hardcore is certainly a Paul Schrader film.

Kurosawa is the one.


Also, Schrader's Hardore


Quick, say something I can yell at before I grind my teeth into dust.

I think the conventional wisdom on Hardcore (and what I felt after my first viewing) is that the ending is a letdown, but upon further reflection I've grown to like how sleazy and degraded it feels. I've been watching some vintage hardcore recently (doing a little viewing project for my blog, might post some reviews on here eventually) so I'm curious how it plays on a rewatch.



I remember enjoying Up somewhat but don't ask me for specifics. Think there was a chainsaw at one point? Maybe Hitler too. Who knows. Not my favourite Meyer.

random comment: I wanted to like this more than I did.

__________________
Captain's Log
My Collection

I'm not sure I remember the end of Hardcore, even though I just saw it. But if it ends with George C Scott grumbling about kids these days, then disappearing into a back room to watch Nazi Fart Sex-Party, I'm sure I could contribute something to this discussion. I don't think that's what happens though.



I watched Up last night and, yes, it has both chainsaws and Hitler in it. But sometimes it turns out that's not enough, so it also has a bunch of giant prosthetic cocks and a horny lumberjack. And it turns out that's exactly enough.


Both are probably 6/10

I liked the first twenty minutes alot. The rest of the movie was a slow realization the rest of it wasn't for me. I can appreciate it for being really different, and it's possible I'll like it more on rewatch, but I didn't really know how to process it on first go.

The Lure plays out like a synth pop musical adaptation of Little Mermaid by way of Let the Right One In. I love it and bought the soundtrack.

Your description of Hardcore's ending is close enough. If I recall correctly, Scott beats somebody with a chain as well. Can't believe you're only rating it a 6/10.


You didn't even like the audition scene? Unbelievable.

Also, I know Ebert made a reference to Russ Meyer telling him that he once did a gruesome chainsaw kill with a watermelon in a cowboy shirt. Wonder if that's from Up?

These are movies I enjoyed.

Sold.

I could definitely talk about this one. I think it's one of his many masterpieces. I also have a theory on its structure which makes perfect sense to me but doesn't appear to be supported by any official explanation, which is that each dream represents a decade of his life.


Childhood represented by the curiosity and taboo of the foxes.


Teen years represented by the disillusionment for his elders.


20s represented by blind, slow struggle in unknown terrain.


30s represented by mortal regret and survivor's guilt.


40s represented by artistic compulsion ("The sun compels me to paint!") with a growing sense of mortality.


50s represented by apocalyptic fear of the future.


60s represented by resigning to that future.


70s represented by the joy of perseverance.

I haven't read any reviews of it, but this was my basic take as well, the life stages of an artist moving into the modern world. I didn't necessarily divide it up by decades, but it seems to me pretty clear this is at least vaguely the structure he was going for.

I was totally on board the film (first viewing) but fell asleep before the last three chapters. It seems this broke the spell, as I was left pretty cold by the last half hour or so. It's one of those movies I think one would be wise to watch all the way through in one take. It works better as a whole, rather than just looking at any one particular 'dream'.