Gomorra has yet to be topped. I’m not necessarily anti-romanticism, but the mafia movie is in trouble, getting worse, fast. Garrone took the fluff out of organized crime, saved the mafia movie and brought back neorealism. Who better to do this than an Italian filmmaker? It’s the greatest crime film I’ve ever seen simply in the fact that there is not a single other like it.
I second Andrew Kay on Le Samourai. Highly recommended.
By the way, Batman Begins and The Dark Knight may be excellent films, which they are, but the day two blockbuster movies distributed by Warner Brothers are entered into the Criterion Collection is the day I boycot the Criterion Collection. Which is never. The purpose of Criterion, for the most part, is to bring movies to and preserve on DVD that don’t have a chance at ample distribution. Begins and Knight are doing just fine on their own, meanwhile Stalker is still only available from Kino and RUSCICO.
I couldn’t agree with Number 2 more. Slumdog Millionaire isn’t a movie, it’s a music video. All gimmick, all preciousness, and a painfully pop-cultureish portrayal of poverty in India. I’ve seen it three times, the last two being against my will, and every single time I’ve asked myself “How do the questions happen to be in chronological order according to his memories?”
Tarkovsky really needs to move to Criterion. I think his only film in the Collection is Solyaris, and they did a great job with it. The Kino version of Stalker made me want to destroy everything. No matter how many times I turned it off, that goddamn booming male English voiceover would not go away. I don’t understand why (No one else has complained of this, so perhaps it’s me or my player.). They also added a lot of poorly mixed new sound. And the Kino version of The Mirror has one of the worst menus I’ve ever seen.
In any case, Stalker, if any of Tarkovsky’s films aside from Solyaris, needs a proper restoration, a proper audio mix, and a proper set of features.
I feel like trying to dissect The Mirror is a bit counterproductive. I see it as a completely tactile, sense-driven film. It’s not a movie to be viewed with the brain. I wouldn’t explain its lack of structure by calling it stream-of-consciousness, but instead just Tarkovsky’s collage of memories and images from his life that are very dear to him. And when we witness them, our minds automatically connect them to moments in our lives or memories or people who are significant to us, without even knowing it. That’s why we like the film. Your subconscious and your past with dissect the film for you.
Even though it’s been described as esoteric, it’s really not. No movie is. when a person enjoys a movie, they connect with it, and The Mirror provokes this much better than most movie’s I’ve seen.
“He can breathe okay as long as nobody unplugs him” refers to the fact that Holden is on life support.
I don’t feel like Ridley Scott has much authority over the facts of the story. He just directed the film. The person to ask would be Phillip K. Dick, but he’s dead, so we can’t. I just think it’s better to decide for onesself rather than take what the director of the film adaptation claims to be the truth.
Just because the events in A Serious Man don’t have resoultion does not mean they are cop-outs. They’re emphatic about ambiguity in their films because they don’t agree with the typical audience’s need to know everything about what is happening, because in reality we don’t always gain resolution. The point of A Serious Man is to “accept the mystery”, maybe formulate your own personal interpretation, but in general come to terms with how uncertain everything is all the time. The answer to all and any questions anyone asks upon watching that movie is “exactly”.
When asked if their movies should be viewed in embrace of the mystery: “Yes! Please! We don’t engage in a lot of reflection when it comes to our movies,” says Joel. “And we’d love it if everyone followed our lead,” says Ethan.
It’s best to resist the need to know everything when watching any movie with an ambiguous ending. The truth is that there is no right answer, ever.
The book is incredible. Much more so about the idea of a world too alien for human science or logic to comprehend, rather than being a love story. Both the films kind of fall short of the central idea of the book, but are both excellent movies in their own respects nonetheless. In any case, the book is highly recommended.
@Tag. I don’t blame you for avoiding that tie-in edition, it’s an irritating cover. The one I read is a 1987 edition, and after looking around a bit I found it here:
@Strawgawg. Still, if not Dick, Hampton Fancher or David Peoples would be the ones to ask about whether or not Deckard is a replicant. Not Ridley Scott. In my opinion, Scott just likes to hold on to the hype, which is understandable, I’d hold on to the hype of Blade Runner if I directed it. He’s the filmmaker, not the storyteller, who has a completely valid interpretation like anyone else, but whose interpretation should not be viewed as more valid than yours or mine.
Regardless of all this, the truth is, and I said this about A Serious Man, there is no right answer. If there was, it would have been in the film, but as far as I’m concerned, until Fancher or Peoples explicitly come out and tell everyone “Deckard is a replicant,” nobody knows. That’s the best thing about an ambiguous ending.
@HAL. I didn’t mean to condescend. I completely agree, the lines of dialogue you pointed out are very interesting when thought of as hinting at those ideas. Anything’s plausible, really. I especially like the “That’s what you’re here for” idea. Everyone but Deckard seems to know he’s a replicant.
I remember someone on that six-part documentary that’s on the Final Cut DVD mentioning that one of the alternative versions of Tyrell’s death involved Batty squeezing Tyrell’s head and finding that it breaks apart into metals and circuits, and that he later finds a sarcophagus containing the human Tyrell’s body. It’s pretty interesting how many possibilities there are.
The second cover is excellent. And the Soderbergh movie itself is actually pretty nice, I just watched it recently. The only time I’ve ever preferred a movie tie-in cover is for Alex Garland’s The Beach. I’m absolutely not a fan of the movie, but the colors are much nicer than the original paperback.
Yeah Lem was pretty dissatisfied with both movies. He made a point of saying that the Soderbergh version was just a remake of the Tarkovsky. I can understand where he’s coming from, being the author of the novel, and having a specific set of ideas that the story was meant to address. I’m just still trying to decide which movie I like better. Tarkovsky’s is much more surreal and the atmosphere is a bit more effective, but the Soderbergh is more streamlined, is photographed a bit better and has a slightly more preferable ending. I suppose it’s best to seek very different things in all three works, because they do deliver in their own way.
No Country for Old Men is about people who lead simple lives confused and estranged in the face of brutality and violence commonplace elsewhere but unheard of to them.
The cinematographer who shot it wished that it had been in black and white. But this isn’t to say that it would have been better that way. I agree with Myersc in that this question is being taken too seriously. It’s an interesting thought to entertain. If the film would have been released in black and white, and no one would ever have seen it in color, it would have been pretty fantastic in its own way. The cinematographer intentionally drew a lot from Citizen Kane. What if Citizen Kane had been in color? We will never know.
I’m thinkin this thread is dead, or at least should be put to rest. We’ve got people writing essays. I mean, really? Everyone take a deep breath, and move on.
Just watched the trailer. I have a question. Or two.
What…is the point…of making a worse version of a movie that is fantastic all on its own? What’s there to remake? What’s in need enough to Americanize a vampire move that was so good precisely because it was so far removed from the American vampire trend that’s happening right now? Who in their right mind would Twilightify something that is so wonderfully unTwilight? Thoughts? Who is as frustrated by this as I am? If you’re pleased by this remake, I beg you, help me to understand why it’s a good idea. The music in the trailer alone makes me want to vomit.
@Uli Cain
You make an interesting point. I read the book, and while Let the Right One In was an excellent adaptation, it stands on its own as a very impressive piece of writing, mostly because of how much was condensed and simplified to make for a streamlined movie. I suppose it’s comforting to know that, regardless of how this remake actually turns out, Let the Right One In is great enough to remain untarnished. Depending on the viewer, of course.
France: Godard
Italy: Fellini
Germany: Lang
Sweden: Bergman
Japan: Kurosawa
Hong Kong: Wong
China: Woo
Korea: Park
Brazil: Salles
Mexico: Cuaron…shit or Inarritu
I’m just giving examples, I don’t by any means think that those names are solid or decisive. I’m just trying to determine who comes first to mind of all American filmmakers. If anything, it’d be good to gather further examples for all of them.
Greatest Gangster/Mafia Movies (Crime Genre Part 2) over 2 years ago
Gomorra has yet to be topped. I’m not necessarily anti-romanticism, but the mafia movie is in trouble, getting worse, fast. Garrone took the fluff out of organized crime, saved the mafia movie and brought back neorealism. Who better to do this than an Italian filmmaker? It’s the greatest crime film I’ve ever seen simply in the fact that there is not a single other like it.
I second Andrew Kay on Le Samourai. Highly recommended.
By the way, Batman Begins and The Dark Knight may be excellent films, which they are, but the day two blockbuster movies distributed by Warner Brothers are entered into the Criterion Collection is the day I boycot the Criterion Collection. Which is never. The purpose of Criterion, for the most part, is to bring movies to and preserve on DVD that don’t have a chance at ample distribution. Begins and Knight are doing just fine on their own, meanwhile Stalker is still only available from Kino and RUSCICO.
Go to Comment
Slumdog Millionaire Overrated Film of the Year over 2 years ago
I couldn’t agree with Number 2 more. Slumdog Millionaire isn’t a movie, it’s a music video. All gimmick, all preciousness, and a painfully pop-cultureish portrayal of poverty in India. I’ve seen it three times, the last two being against my will, and every single time I’ve asked myself “How do the questions happen to be in chronological order according to his memories?”
Go to Comment
Who wants "Stalker" to appear on Criterion? over 2 years ago
Tarkovsky really needs to move to Criterion. I think his only film in the Collection is Solyaris, and they did a great job with it. The Kino version of Stalker made me want to destroy everything. No matter how many times I turned it off, that goddamn booming male English voiceover would not go away. I don’t understand why (No one else has complained of this, so perhaps it’s me or my player.). They also added a lot of poorly mixed new sound. And the Kino version of The Mirror has one of the worst menus I’ve ever seen.
In any case, Stalker, if any of Tarkovsky’s films aside from Solyaris, needs a proper restoration, a proper audio mix, and a proper set of features.
Go to Comment
THE DEVIL’S IN THE DETAILS over 2 years ago
I feel like trying to dissect The Mirror is a bit counterproductive. I see it as a completely tactile, sense-driven film. It’s not a movie to be viewed with the brain. I wouldn’t explain its lack of structure by calling it stream-of-consciousness, but instead just Tarkovsky’s collage of memories and images from his life that are very dear to him. And when we witness them, our minds automatically connect them to moments in our lives or memories or people who are significant to us, without even knowing it. That’s why we like the film. Your subconscious and your past with dissect the film for you.
Even though it’s been described as esoteric, it’s really not. No movie is. when a person enjoys a movie, they connect with it, and The Mirror provokes this much better than most movie’s I’ve seen.
Go to Comment
Is Deckard a replicant? over 2 years ago
“He can breathe okay as long as nobody unplugs him” refers to the fact that Holden is on life support.
I don’t feel like Ridley Scott has much authority over the facts of the story. He just directed the film. The person to ask would be Phillip K. Dick, but he’s dead, so we can’t. I just think it’s better to decide for onesself rather than take what the director of the film adaptation claims to be the truth.
Go to Comment
A Serious Man ending over 2 years ago
Just because the events in A Serious Man don’t have resoultion does not mean they are cop-outs. They’re emphatic about ambiguity in their films because they don’t agree with the typical audience’s need to know everything about what is happening, because in reality we don’t always gain resolution. The point of A Serious Man is to “accept the mystery”, maybe formulate your own personal interpretation, but in general come to terms with how uncertain everything is all the time. The answer to all and any questions anyone asks upon watching that movie is “exactly”.
When asked if their movies should be viewed in embrace of the mystery: “Yes! Please! We don’t engage in a lot of reflection when it comes to our movies,” says Joel. “And we’d love it if everyone followed our lead,” says Ethan.
It’s best to resist the need to know everything when watching any movie with an ambiguous ending. The truth is that there is no right answer, ever.
Go to Comment
Solyaris and Solaris over 2 years ago
The book is incredible. Much more so about the idea of a world too alien for human science or logic to comprehend, rather than being a love story. Both the films kind of fall short of the central idea of the book, but are both excellent movies in their own respects nonetheless. In any case, the book is highly recommended.
Go to Comment
A Serious Man ending over 2 years ago
No Country was a Cormac McCarthy ending, not a Coen ending. They were just being faithful to the book.
Go to Comment
Solyaris and Solaris over 2 years ago
@Tag. I don’t blame you for avoiding that tie-in edition, it’s an irritating cover. The one I read is a 1987 edition, and after looking around a bit I found it here:
http://www.amazon.com/Solaris-Stanislaw-Lem/dp/0156837501
And the other one I own, which has an even better cover and, since it’s older, has that nice smell to it, I found here:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000HQVF8I/sr=1-14/qid=1259972742/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&qid=1259972742&sr=1-14&seller=
You can see the cover if you view the customer image I uploaded. They both have the same translation, too.
Go to Comment
Is Deckard a replicant? over 2 years ago
@Strawgawg. Still, if not Dick, Hampton Fancher or David Peoples would be the ones to ask about whether or not Deckard is a replicant. Not Ridley Scott. In my opinion, Scott just likes to hold on to the hype, which is understandable, I’d hold on to the hype of Blade Runner if I directed it. He’s the filmmaker, not the storyteller, who has a completely valid interpretation like anyone else, but whose interpretation should not be viewed as more valid than yours or mine.
Regardless of all this, the truth is, and I said this about A Serious Man, there is no right answer. If there was, it would have been in the film, but as far as I’m concerned, until Fancher or Peoples explicitly come out and tell everyone “Deckard is a replicant,” nobody knows. That’s the best thing about an ambiguous ending.Go to Comment
Who wants "Stalker" to appear on Criterion? over 2 years ago
I’m unfamiliar with Ivan’s Childhood and Andrei Rublev, are they good?
Go to Comment
Is Deckard a replicant? over 2 years ago
@HAL. I didn’t mean to condescend. I completely agree, the lines of dialogue you pointed out are very interesting when thought of as hinting at those ideas. Anything’s plausible, really. I especially like the “That’s what you’re here for” idea. Everyone but Deckard seems to know he’s a replicant.
I remember someone on that six-part documentary that’s on the Final Cut DVD mentioning that one of the alternative versions of Tyrell’s death involved Batty squeezing Tyrell’s head and finding that it breaks apart into metals and circuits, and that he later finds a sarcophagus containing the human Tyrell’s body. It’s pretty interesting how many possibilities there are.
Go to Comment
Solyaris and Solaris over 2 years ago
The second cover is excellent. And the Soderbergh movie itself is actually pretty nice, I just watched it recently. The only time I’ve ever preferred a movie tie-in cover is for Alex Garland’s The Beach. I’m absolutely not a fan of the movie, but the colors are much nicer than the original paperback.
Go to Comment
Solyaris and Solaris over 2 years ago
Yeah Lem was pretty dissatisfied with both movies. He made a point of saying that the Soderbergh version was just a remake of the Tarkovsky. I can understand where he’s coming from, being the author of the novel, and having a specific set of ideas that the story was meant to address. I’m just still trying to decide which movie I like better. Tarkovsky’s is much more surreal and the atmosphere is a bit more effective, but the Soderbergh is more streamlined, is photographed a bit better and has a slightly more preferable ending. I suppose it’s best to seek very different things in all three works, because they do deliver in their own way.
Go to Comment
A Serious Man ending over 2 years ago
I’m with ya Nate. I couldn’t help but let out a chuckle as soon as I heard everyone scoffing during the end credits.
Go to Comment
What is No Country actually about? over 2 years ago
No Country for Old Men is about people who lead simple lives confused and estranged in the face of brutality and violence commonplace elsewhere but unheard of to them.
Go to Comment
Post a song you are currently listening to over 2 years ago
William Basinski- 92982.3. This genius of a man is highly recommended.
And an argument about a genre of music is like any argument based on personal taste— absurd, because there’s no right answer, ever.
Go to Comment
Post a song you are currently listening to over 2 years ago
@Roger
I just acquired the Disintegration Loops yesterday, excellent stuff indeed.
Anyone familiar with any of the artists on 12k Records?
Go to Comment
What is No Country actually about? over 2 years ago
hahah
Go to Comment
Post a song you are currently listening to over 2 years ago
Miley Cyrus- Party in the USA
Go to Comment
Most violent films you've seen about 2 years ago
Starts with an I, ends with an E.
Go to Comment
Would Blade Runner be better in black and white? almost 2 years ago
The cinematographer who shot it wished that it had been in black and white. But this isn’t to say that it would have been better that way. I agree with Myersc in that this question is being taken too seriously. It’s an interesting thought to entertain. If the film would have been released in black and white, and no one would ever have seen it in color, it would have been pretty fantastic in its own way. The cinematographer intentionally drew a lot from Citizen Kane. What if Citizen Kane had been in color? We will never know.
Go to Comment
Would Blade Runner be better in black and white? almost 2 years ago
I’m thinkin this thread is dead, or at least should be put to rest. We’ve got people writing essays. I mean, really? Everyone take a deep breath, and move on.
Go to Comment
Would Blade Runner be better in black and white? almost 2 years ago
@Matt Parks
You’re absolutely right. Didn’t realize it’d been six days. I should get a job.
Go to Comment
Would Blade Runner be better in black and white? almost 2 years ago
stfu
Go to Comment
What? Why? almost 2 years ago
Just watched the trailer. I have a question. Or two.
What…is the point…of making a worse version of a movie that is fantastic all on its own? What’s there to remake? What’s in need enough to Americanize a vampire move that was so good precisely because it was so far removed from the American vampire trend that’s happening right now? Who in their right mind would Twilightify something that is so wonderfully unTwilight? Thoughts? Who is as frustrated by this as I am? If you’re pleased by this remake, I beg you, help me to understand why it’s a good idea. The music in the trailer alone makes me want to vomit.
Go to Comment
What? Why? almost 2 years ago
@Uli Cain
You make an interesting point. I read the book, and while Let the Right One In was an excellent adaptation, it stands on its own as a very impressive piece of writing, mostly because of how much was condensed and simplified to make for a streamlined movie. I suppose it’s comforting to know that, regardless of how this remake actually turns out, Let the Right One In is great enough to remain untarnished. Depending on the viewer, of course.
Go to Comment
Need help filling in the blank... almost 2 years ago
France: Godard
Italy: Fellini
Germany: Lang
Sweden: Bergman
Japan: Kurosawa
Hong Kong: Wong
China: Woo
Korea: Park
Brazil: Salles
Mexico: Cuaron…shit or Inarritu
you get the drift so far, here’s my question:
USA: ?
thoughts?
Go to Comment
Need help filling in the blank... almost 2 years ago
I’m just giving examples, I don’t by any means think that those names are solid or decisive. I’m just trying to determine who comes first to mind of all American filmmakers. If anything, it’d be good to gather further examples for all of them.
Go to Comment
Need help filling in the blank... almost 2 years ago
Also, Russia: Tarkovsky
Chile: Jodorowsky
England: Alfred Hitchcock probably
who else comes to mind for those? Kubrick sounds to me like a pretty good fit for USA.
Go to Comment