Movie Tab II

Just looked at my "reviews" and realized I forgot to mention one of the things I liked best about Three Colors: Red : the animal actors. The bit when the young judge throws himself down on his bed in despair and his dog immediately jumps into it. Might have been the most "natural" moment in the whole movie. Come to think about it there was some pretty interesting use of animals in Blue as well. Still need to see White.

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969):
Headhunters (2012):
Clerks II (2006):
Wreck-It Ralph (2012):
Ichi the Killer (2001):
The Turin Horse (2012): Couldn't finish it, so I won't give it a rating. I don't think there was a plot.

The Turin Horse is a Nietzschan nihilism in a nutshell.

Skyfall - This was fantastic. Daniel Craig has really grown on me as James Bond, and this is his best one. Smartly written, character driven while not skimping on the action. Javier Bardiem is a really unsettling bad guy here, and kudos to him for being able to play such a horrible person with such...oomph. Plus I love that Bond is revealed to be a Scot. My people own him now. haha.

__________________
"You, me, everyone...we are all made of star stuff." - Neil Degrasse Tyson

https://shawnsmovienight.blogspot.com/

Well this is almost six years old now, but I'm pretty sure they keep rehashing it up every year or so. Feels very much like Hollywood's late answer to the Blair Witch. There are some actual effects and stuff going on, in contrast to Blair Witch's extreme minimalism. But the scares are very telegraphed and it's got the conventional jackass with a horror movie deathwish playing the lead.

I was genuinely gripped in a few of the extended sequences, but towards the end it abandons the creepy surreal atmosphere of a good horror flick and dives right into the completely absurd stupidity of the bad ones.

Probably the best bit is the unintentionally hilarious scene where the Ghost Professor refuses to come in their house and just completely abandons them.

__________________

The Killers (1946) by Robert Siodmak


Manhunter (1986) by Michael Mann


Fargo (1996) by Joel Coen

Seven Brides For Seven Brothers (Stanley Donen, 1954)
The Last Samurai (Edward Zwick, 2003)
*Ben-Hur (William Wyler, 1959)
North By Northwest (Alfred Hitchcock, 1959)
*Quo Vadis (Mervyn LeRoy, 1951)
The Bad and the Beautiful (Vincente Minnelli, 1952) +
*Father of the Bride (Vincente Minnelli, 1950) +
Brother John (James Goldstone, 1971) +
*Doctor Zhivago (David Lean, 1965)
Blowup (Michelangelo Antonioni, 1966)
Sabrina (Sydney Pollack, 1995)
Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter? (Frank Tashlin, 1957)
From Russia With Love (Terence Young, 1963) -
Goldfinger (Guy Hamilton, 1964) -
Year of the Dog (Mike White, 2007)
Poltergeist (Tobe Hooper, 1982) +
Victor/Victoria (Blake Edwards, 1982) +
The Wind and the Lion (John Milius, 1975)
The Champ (Franco Zeffirelli, 1979)
Looking For Eric (Ken Loach, 2009)
The Piano Teacher (Michael Haneke, 2001)

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

+rep for North by Northwest and Poltergiest.

I didn't like Sabrina or The Piano Teacher

__________________

Other than the few Dreyer films I've watched (which ill update on during the weekend) here's what I've been watching.

Safety Not Guarunteed, 2012

A fun and genuine rom com, not really a sci-fi at all. Delightful characters and always felt sweet. Also big for that babe Aubrey Plaza

Komeda, Komeda (2012)

While the documentary about the composer who worked with Roman Polanski has a neat style, over all it's sloppy and not always neccesary. -

The Stunt Man, 1980

I feel like my rating doesn't fully justify the film, this was a rather boring movie. Not much on entertainment, it has good dialogue and a Wondeful ending though.

Stardust Memories, 1980

The worse Woody Allen film I've ever seen. Awful romance in the story, and just a few chuckles. Also I think Manhattan was sufficient for the B&W. -

The Element of Crime, 1987

Another film that's my least favorite of the directors, this time Lars Von Trier. Despite having a cool layout and an intriguing story this film is 0 on substance.
-

I love The Stunt Man, and Woody Allen has directed six B&W films.

I can only recall three of the top of my head and that's Zelig, Manhattan, and Stardust memories. I couldn't find the others off a google search, but I do like the first two I listed.

I can see why people like The Stuntman, but it wasn't my style.

The Innocents

"But above anything else, I love the children."

Deborah Kerr stars in this adaptation of Henry James' most famous work, the novella The Turn of The Screw. It's frequently been cited as being a classic ghost story, which it is, but it's really a tale of Freudian sexual repression.

Kerr is a governess who's charged with two angelic children, Flora (Pamela Franklin) and Miles (Martin Stephens). But there's something odd about them- could they be possessed by the old governess and her lover?

The brilliant cinematography means that it holds up much better than you'd expect. The actors are all top-notch. Deborah Kerr does prim and sexually repressed like no other actress. Acting honours however go to Martin Stephens, who gives such a sinisterly adult portrayal of Miles that it's like watching a little man. He also does very well in a shocking scene that would have troubled the censors today, let alone back then.

The film starts off very creepily, with the singing of children- a song that will become significant later in the film- and ends very creepily. The film is much more than a ghost story, which is what makes it retain its power over 50 years later. Highly recommended to fans of the Bronte sisters as well, or anyone studying Victorian literature.

[quote=donniedarko;880173]Other than the few Dreyer films I've watched (which ill update on during the weekend) here's what I've been watching.

Safety Not Guarunteed, 2012

A fun and genuine rom com, not really a sci-fi at all. Delightful characters and always felt sweet. Also big for that babe Aubrey Plaza [\Quote]

I think I would give it that rating too, Donnie. I'm going to buy it and I don't ever buy movies unless it's something I know I will watch multiple times. Aubrey Plaza is wonderful . Too bad I don't really like Parks and Recreation, but I adore her.

The other three are Broadway Danny Rose, Shadows and Fog and Celebrity.

And anybody who's suffering constipation because it'll scare the crap out of you.

Side By Side 2012




Side By Side is a documentary that looks at the evolution of digital filmmaking and the possible death of photochemical film processing. Which directors are behind which format, why and what the future possible holds for movies.

I was immediately interested in this film when I saw the trailer awhile back and now that I finally got the chance to see it, I can safely say that this film takes an objective view from those who use the tools at the film versus digital debate. Keanue Reeves (who knew right?) asks filmmakers such as George Lucas, James Cameron, Martin Scorsese, Christopher Nolan, David Fincher and Steven Soderberg, among others, about their views on film and digital. As well as those who are responsible for the look of the film, the cinematographers.

The film seems to have the filmmakers take sides with which format they would like to use. You have obvious advocates of digital filmmaking from George Lucas, who after shooting Attack of the Clones on digital said he will never shoot film again, and James Cameron, who is always pushing the boundaries of technology. Then on the flip side you have those who love the purity of film, such as Christopher Nolan, who even goes a step beyond 35 mm film and digital and shoots parts of his films on IMAX and his trusted cinematographer Wally Pfister. Both sides put up great arguments for and against the medium, but I think the answer here isn't one or the other, its what medium best serves the story.

It's interesting hearing the process of making a movie on film versus digital and how it affects every aspect of the production line. Some people love the speedy and constant shooting of digital, Fincher does take after take after take. Shooting on digital gives him the ease of this, much to the disdain of some actors, like Robert Downey Jr who need the luxury of a rest between takes. A luxury that shooting on traditional film is able to give those actors and the crew time to readjust. Is the endless availability of footage a good thing or a bad thing? When you hear film going through that camera, you hear money ticking away, so everyone has to be on their A-game, you have to work as if every shot must count. Digital would give you a more relaxed environment, maybe too relaxed?

This film looks at those sides of the arguments, presents them to the viewer from the director from their own experience. It's interesting to see how someone has used one format, but then quickly changes and adopts the other, people like Robert Rodriguez who jumped ship after Kucas did Clones, with Once Upon A Time In Mexico. This gave him the ability to shoot Sin City, a feat that he claims would not be possible on film.

What this film did lack though, was enough in the corner of film. It felt like it was Nolan and Pfister on their own with Scorsese kind of jumping back and forth. The film needed the voice of Tarantino, Paul Thomas Anderson and Steven Spielberg to give film the "star power" that it needed, cause it seemed to get beat up by Lucas, Cameron and even David Lynch of all people.

Side By Side is a fascinating look inside the world of filmmaking, a brief history and a glimpse into the future. Is digital on par with film? People would argue yes, many would say no. Lucas is making the point that film is as good as it is ever going to be, so why not try to push digital beyond that. Peter Jackson's The Hobbit was shot at 48 frames to give it a better look and people hated it. So what's the answer here? Trust something we've used for the past hundred years? Or look and push for something new? Like I said earlier, these two format need to be available to everyone. Film cannot die, the more tools available to us, the better the film will be.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

Crash (1996)

(

as a piece of film history)



"The car crash is a fertilizing rather than a destructive event."

Crash was actually banned in parts of London. The trailer basically sold the film as "sex and car crashes"- two things audiences like in films. Except they don't like them put together. This is quite a glib statement on what is a genuine film, but the film does suffer because of this.

Based on the controversial J.G Ballard novel, James Ballard (James Spader) is a film producer whose wife (Deborah Kara Unger) has a fetish for vehicles. When he is involved in a car crash himself, at the point of collision, Holly (the woman in the passenger seat) bares one of her breasts to him. The two descend into a world of underground fetishism led by Vaughan (Elias Kotaes), who runs a sinister show where stunt drivers re-enact famous car crashes for entertainment. The style of the film is surreal and dystopian but the setting is contemporary, which really disturbed people.

What makes the film so sinisters is that those fetishists could be anyone. The fetishists are all dressed in weird outfits, distancing themselves from us, but really we are like James. There's always shows on TV about "worst ever car crashes" and car adverts are practially pornography themselves. They sell you the car as if it was a woman or a man, drooling over leather seats, mileage and nifty gadgets. People even go so far as naming their cars. So really, the premise is not simply the crazy shock the trailer tries to sell it as. It's a critique of society's obsession with machines and the loveless thrills people get from it.

The film's main problem is that its premise is so extreme that this plot suffers a little. The actors are all very good and don't shy away from the material (particularly where there's nudity involved, as there is in Unger's case. I suppose the main pull is wondering how far these characters will take their fetish but it's a tough time sitting through desparately unpleasant sex scenes done to one of the most sinister cold soundtracks you will ever hear. (though to be fair, the one between James and Vaughan is quite hot, and a later lesbian one has some sort of feeling)

To be fair, behind the fetish is the characters' attempts to come to terms with the car crashes they have been in, and so one can see it as a study of grief in that respect- apart from the psychotic Vaughan and his "benevolent psychopathy". As the only character who really promotes the link between sex and car crashes, he is clearly a lunatic so there's no danger of your average citizen thinking that there is a valid link between the two.

I don't mind the film's coldness- how could a film about people getting off on car crashes be anything else?- but your mileage depends on how willing you are to stomach the characters' descent into depravity. The descent is quite shocking and gripping and the ending is very touching and fitting, but there's no pay off, which is very true to the situation.

As for the amount of sex in it, there is female full-frontal nudity. Well, there's nudity from all the characters but more so from the women, which probably didn't help the film's reputation. The scenes are important in that however and whoever the characters have sex with, they can never emotionally connect and the only pleasure they can derive is the sexual one that the fetish gives them. Ultimately the fetish is a cold compulsion rather than a pleasurable obsession. Like any addiction, it is cold and all-consuming.

However it would have been nice to explore the plot a little deeper rather than Cronenberg feeling obliged to put so many sex scenes in there.

It's worth a watch, because despite its flaws, it ends up being a uniquely chilling horrific film rather than a mere shock porno.

Disgrace

"It's not finished. It will go on long after I'm dead and you're dead."


Another tough watch here. Set in post-apartheid South Africa, John Malkovich plays David Lurie, a middle-aged lecturer at Cape Town University who takes advantage of a female student. He pleads guilty and is fired. Disgraced, he goes to the rural parts of the country to visit his daughter Lucy (Jessica Haines), who has recently split from her girlfriend. After Lucy is viciously attacked by three youths, David is forced to question his own actions and tries to heal his daughter's wounds as he heals his own.

What's refreshing about this film is that Lucy's lesbianism does not become a plot point. David has accepted her sexuality, redeeming him a bit from his opening actions.

Haines and Malkovich are very strong in the lead roles, and the supporting cast is good also. Malkovich just about retains a South African accent as well- better than Meryl Streep's "Eh hed a fim in Ehfreeka" accent in Out of Africa anyway.

Like I said, it's a tough watch- not purely because of the rape. If you're an animal lover, there's a lot of moments where you might want to look away. The moments fit with the film; it's just that it's horrible to watch.

Putting that aside, it says some interesting things politically about South Africa- maybe not new things but then there aren't that many films set in South Africa so it's interesting to see the landscape.

You will know if this film is your thing and even if it isn't necessarily your thing, it's well-acted and interesting to watch.

Les Misérables (Bille August, 1998) -

Non-musical adaptation of the novel that stars Liam Neeson as Valjean and Geoffrey Rush as Javert. Competently made and the two leads are good, but something about it just feels empty. It was probably seeing it too soon after the recent musical version that made it feel flat.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (Peter Jackson, 2012) -

It's The Hobbit. I really don't know what else to say, other than it's a bit uneven and I don't really feel like watching it again.

The Harder They Come (Perry Henzell, 1972) -

Jamaican cult classic from the Seventies starring Jimmy Cliff as a country boy who comes to the big city and does stuff like record a hit reggae song and become a violent criminal. Sure, it's got a reputation as a popular midnight movie and its soundtrack is one of the most significant releases in the reggae canon, but as a film this is a pretty stock-standard rise-and-fall exploitation film with little to recommend about it past its soundtrack.

Django Unchained (Quentin Tarantino, 2012) -

I don't know, after the gamble that was Inglourious Basterds it looks like Tarantino's gone and done something safe with this slightly more straightforward Western-only-it's-in-the-South-not-the-West. Funny enough in parts and decently made, but the quality of acting see-saws quite a bit and then there's the fact that after a certain point you're just waiting for it to get to the climax and end.

Network (Sidney Lumet, 1976) -

Highly recommended satire about the ins and outs of the exploitational side of television beginning when outgoing newscaster Howard Beale (Peter Finch) becomes a sensation due to his increasingly crazed on-air ramblings. Great performances from a solid cast, although like Altered States (another movie penned by Paddy Chayefsky) it guarantees that EVERY CHARACTER IS GOING TO SHOUT AT SOME POINT AND IT WILL SEEM KIND OF RIDICULOUS. Other than that, it's pretty good.

A Very Harold and Kumar 3D Christmas (Todd Strass-Schulson, 2011) -

The third Harold and Kumar movie that sees the titular duo being forced back together to search for a Christmas tree and getting into all kinds of madcap misadventures along the way. Most of the new supporting characters are irritating (with the obvious exception of Danny Trejo being Danny Trejo) and the gags aren't as funny this time around (especially the 3D ones that become really pointless when you're watching them on a 2D screen like I did). All in all, definitely the worst of the trilogy and probably deserving of a lower rating.

Fiddler on the Roof (Norman Jewison, 1971) -

Classic musical about Russian Jews at the turn of the 20th century. Well-photographed and played brilliantly, but at three hours it's a bit too long.

I just watched this movie as well and I'll third the . Sweet little flick. I may need to add to to my collection too.

__________________

Looney Tunes short ratings (and rankings):



or higher (awesome):

The Great Piggy Bank Robbery
Book Revue
Back Alley Oproar
Stage Door Cartoon - Wojciech Has eat your heart out.
A Corny Concerto - Looney Tunes 'Fantasia'.
Rhapsody Rabbit - Bugs Bunny does Liszt.

(good):

You Ought to Be in Pictures
Little Beau Porky - A good example of Frank Tashlin's obsession with live-action film technique ("that was like the poor man's Ufa." ~ Tashlin)
Roman Legion-Hare - I love it when Bugs throws the lions a box of saws...
I Love to Singa
What's Opera, Doc?
Now That Summer Is Gone - The palette of these early color cartoons is practically surreal, like the animators felt like 'kids in a candy store.'
Have You Got Any Castles? - one of the better "books-come-alive" cartoons. (Cf. Book Revue)
Hurdy-Gurdy Hare
Porky the Fireman

(worth seeing if you've got extra time):

The Case of the Stuttering Pig
Porky in the North Woods
I Got Plenty of Mutton
Plane Daffy
The Stupid Cupid
The Hep Cat
One Froggy Evening
Bunny Hugged
Bugs Bunny Rides Again
Gorilla My Dreams

(has a couple of good moments):

Booby Hatched
Rabbit Hood
Sahara Hare
Show Biz Bugs
You're an Education
Rabbit Romeo
Broom-Stick Bunny
Cracked Ice
Barbary Coast Bunny
Mississippi Hare
The Grey Hounded Hare
8-Ball Bunny
Porky's Poultry Plant
Hollywood Steps Out
Knighty Knight Bugs
Three Little Bops

(if you really feel like wasting your time...):
To Hare Is Human
Forward March Hare
Southern Fried Rabbit
Porky's Railroad
Little Pancho Vanilla
Puss n' Booty
Knight-mare Hare

or less (yuck):

Tabasco Road
Orange Blossoms For Violet
So Much for So Little