It’s not just Raging Bull losing to Ordinary Peeps that irks me. Scorsese wuz robbed again when Goodfellas lost…to Dances with Wolves. Huh?
On a semi-related note, having just re-read Easy Riders, Raging Bulls, I make the observation that Scorsese was among the very few New Hollywood directors to exit the 1970s with his integrity essentially intact.
The 19-year critic at the Richmond Times-Dispatch. A complete rube, this guy has panned 95 percent of all the movies he has scribbled about since 1990. He named Scorsese’s The Departed one of the worst movies of 2006. Called it a “picture about cell phones.”
And we all know what one Best Picture, Director, Screenplay that year….
I think film critics have devolved into essentially two camps:
— those who fawn and gush over a film like sycophants, hoping to get their names mentioned in the advertising and on the DVD box.
— those who pan everything so people will read their swill for the dubious treat of seeing them tee off on another picture.
Neither offer much in the way of substance or critical analysis.
Cinematic Cteve hails from Charlottesville, Virginia, home of the University of Virginia and the semi-successful (though enduring) Virginia Film Festival, where I once met Sydney Pollock, Stan Winston and Roger Ebert, who conducted an interesting shot-by-shot workshop on Chinatown.
I am passionate about film and continue to be a voracious collector, with nearly 3,000 titles spanning 1906-2008 crowding the shelves.
Lindsay Anderson’s O Lucky Man! (1973) belonjgs in the Criterion Collection. They released This Sporting Life and if… last year.
Warner Bros. appears to have a choke-hold on its films, so i may just be indulging in wishful thinking, as Criterion can only release a film for which it obtains a license.
On a semi-related note, I would like to see Criterion re-issue Straw Dogs (or at least find a gently used copy), as I missed my window when that one was on the market.
I believe The Other is based on the novel of the same name by Thomas Tryon? That book scared the bageezus out of me. The film I saw once, late at night, long ago in those pre-cable days. The twins hitred for the picture conveyed a genuine creepiness.
Donnie Darko would seem to be that sort of cult film that falls into the love it or hate it category. At the time of its release I did have the opportunity to interview the director, Richard Kelly, who was quite forthright about his intentions. To me, Donnie Darko is Harvey (1950) on acid.
To Girl Biting Pen,
Yes, I would say Travis Bickle is stark-raving by the conclusion of the film. The violence that caps Taxi Driver is catharsis for the psychotic cabbie, although the final scene strongly suggests that his inner rage will build once more until he explodes again.
Amen on Hook. Gawd, what a deplorable waste of talent and money. If ever a man put his middle-aged angst on the big screen and wasted a boatload of cash in the process, it was Spielberg.
I’d like to thank everyone who responded to my first Forum posting, even the critics who disagreed with my choices or vociferously preferred other films.
Repulsion is great Polanski, no doubt, and its omission represents an oversight rather than any critical or aesthetic laziness on my part. M is a tremendous work, but didn’t seem to fit within the top 10 list I was going for.
I am pleased to discover there are such a number of knowledgeable cineastes on these forums, which are also relatively civil compared to the not-infrequent madness (there’s that theme again) of similar film forums on IMDb and — good Gawd — Craig’s List. Your insights reinforce in my mind that I made a good decision to join the Auteurs forum. Thank you.
Here are a few who always elicited a hiss from me:
Nurse Ratched in Cuckoo’s Nest.
The mechanical shark in Jaws. Only those who saw that film in a theater on its original release in 1975 can fully appreciate this simple truth. On a related note, the Xenomorph from Alien (1979).
Ed Norton before his redemption in American History X.
Mapache in The Wild Bunch.
Dr. Victor Frankenstein (Colin Clive, Peter Cushing, etc.)
Watched the Criterion release of this remarkable arthouse/horror film earlier this week and was mightily impressed. Even more disturbing was the documentary short included on the disc, Blood of the Beasts, an unflinching look inside a Parisian abbatoir, its lyrical compositions contrasting wildly with the subject matter.
Eyes seems like it could form a trifecta with Clouzot’s Les Diaboliques and Hitchcock’s Psycho as the seminal films that ushered in the era of splatter horror, albeit with a level of artistry few filmmakers would equal in the decades to come.
If you’ve seen Eyes without a Face, please share your thoughts.
Ah, Peeping Tom. Good call! That movie nearly destroyed Michael Powell’s career. Thanks for your response.
As for the Franju film, the American title, Horror Chamber etc., is rather comical since there is no Dr. Faustus in the film. I am vaguely reminded of a ridiculous movie by Del Tenney called Zombie Island (1962), whcih sat on a shelf for a decade before a distributor picked it up and retitled the film I Eat Your Skin. No skin is actually eaten, but the new title sounded good when linked with its double-feature, I Drink Your Blood.
Apropos of nuthin’, I discovered last night that Criterion also has an edition of Fiend Without a Face on the market.
Seeing the need to own all available copies of any films that involve the lack of a face, I ordered that puppy straightaway.
A guilty pleassure if ever there was, Fiend has some remarkable stop-motion animation at the climax as a group of people make a last stand against these creepy disembodied brains with spinal cords that wrap around the neck and choke vicitims to death. Two of the soliders, armed with .45s, take pot shots at the pesky crawling brains with spectacular results. A real gooey mess. Just a mind-blowing little b-movie. I was charmed to see Criterion deemed it worthy of inclusion (although they also offer a couple of Michael Bay films in the collection — proof positive that nobody’s perfect…).
Neil Marshall’s Dog Soldiers
Jess Franco’s Venus in Furs
John McNaughton’s Wild Things
Ed Wood’s The Sinister Urge
Ron Ormond’s Mesa of Lost Women
Too Soon to Love by Richard Rush (who directed the Stunt Man!), with a brief appearance by a 23-year-old Jack Nicholson.
Tobe Hooper’s Lifeforce
Paul Veerhoven’s Basic Instinct
Ken Russell’s The Lair of the White Worm
Roger Corman’s Attack of the Crab Monsters
For further reading, may I suggest: Cutting Edge: Art Horror and the Horrific Avante Garde (2000) by Joan Hawkins, who devotes an entire chapter to Franju’s little film. I won’t spoil it for you, but will merely pique your curiosity by saying she offers a provocative thesis.
True confessions: I dig Valli, too. There is an ungodly compelling mix of stoicism, vulnerability, duplicity and moist eroticism about that woman. She could lead a man to his doom without half trying.
You will recall that in The Third Man she is billed simply as “Valli.” Her mute kiss-off to Joeseph Cotton is unforgettable. Martin Scorsese certainly didn’t forget it, as he paid a little hommage to that shot in the second-to-last scene of The Departed.
@ Long: I think that’s right. You know you’ve made it when you can be known exclusively by your last name.
Dali comes to mind. What a showman he was. What a trip. Bug-eyed, mustachioed surrealist. He was the best part of another mediocre Hitchcock picture, Spellbound. That beautiful dream sequence was his creation.
A reporter once asked him, “Dali, do you take drugs?”
They increase our sense of dread because we know that no matter how far we run, or how fast, or for how long, the leg-dragging zombie…Will…Not…Stop. A good comparison would be The Mummy. He’s just gonna keep coming — and he’ll get ya eventually — and in the meanwhile, you must deal with the psychological terror (arguably worse) of knowing that sonofabitch is on his way, step by excruciatingly slow step.
Cinematically speaking, the slow zombie is more suspenseful as well.
As for the appeal of these films, I tend to look at them as satirical representations of our society — what I sarcastically refer to as “the sheeple” who shuffle along mindlessly through life, craving only the most base consumer goods (Romero’s Dawn of the Dead from 1978 remains the gold standard for this satirical interpretation of the zombie flick). The cannibalism aspect alone would provide thesis fodder for half a dozen grad’ students (and probably already has).
Sometimes, though, a zombie movie is just there to provide good, old-fashioned chills & thrills. Two of my favorites are White Zombie with Bela Lugosi (reportedly the first zombie movie), and I Walked with a Zombie, from the Val Lewton cycle of horror films produced for RKO in the 1940s.
Try Man on Wire, which won the Best Documentary Oscar last month.
The protagonist is self-absorbed and quite possilby out of his mind, but his obsessive vision and determination to see it through are really the key themes of the picture. Overall, highly recommended.
The demise of Blue Velvet’s terrifying villain, Frank Booth, played by Dennis Hopper.
Hopper, hopped up on gas (ether? nitrous oxide?) stalks around Isabella Rossellini’s apartment, searching for Kyle McLaughlin — all the while telling him via walkie-talkie that he’s going to kill McLaughlin. But in a satisfying turn of the tables, McLaughlin hides in the closet, remerges for just a second to retrieve a dead cop’s service revolver (doubling the supense), then returns to his hiding place.
The infuriated Hopper narrows his search to the closet, yanks open the door and — blam! — gets ventilated through the forehead.
For a brief moment he registers astonishment and a tornado-like wind can be heard on the soundtrack for just a second.
Amen.
Frank Booth is one of the most frightening villains in history, all the moreso because he is completely unhinged and unpredictable.
Blue Velvet is still disturbing (especially because it is heavily flavored with satire and black comedy) nearly 23 years later.
I recently encouraged a friend to see Truffaut’s Jules and Jim for the first time and she returned with a glowing, radiant, wildly enthusiastic response.
While happy for her and pleased that she liked the recommendation, I felt a curious pang of jealousy that got me wondering: how many beloved films would I like to experience again, with fresh eyes, for the first time?
Surely, North by Northwest, Taxi Driver and O Lucky Man!
Also Chinatown, of course. One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. M. City Lights. Steamboat Bill Jr. Psycho. The Wizard of Oz. The Quiet Man. It’s a Wonderful Life. A Clockwork Orange and 2001 and Dr. Strangelove. King Kong (1933), although I would also wish to be eight years old again, as that is an optimal age for viewing creaky old monster movies.
Most of the films noir from the classical period.
Jaws, though it frightened me senseless 34 years ago.
Even Die Hard — one of the few films I have seen that lived up to its tagline: “It will blow you through the back of the theater!”
Oh, this list could extend almost indefinitely, but I would rather hear your thoughts:
Which films would you wish to experience again, unseen, with all their secrets and surprises waiting to unfold and make you smile or think or cry or feel exhilarated?
Juno ranks among the most overrated movies I have endured. There was an overpowering stench of desperation in its determination to be hip.
No one speaks or acts the way those characters talked, day in, day out. Trying too hard to be hip…just isn’t hip.
I’d rather re-watch Ghost World or Napoleon Dynamite before enduring Juno again.
It is still staggering to believe Juno won a screenplay Oscar.
Also in 2008, Hall of Shame awards go to the Mike Meyers flick that need not be mentioned here, the latest Saw installment and all other examples of torture porn, and the overexposed Will Farrell.
Gangs hinges on a plot device — infiltration of the enemy camp — that Scorsese must have found intriguing, as he would use it again four years later in The Departed, his American adaptation of Moo gaan dou (Infernal Affairs).
Both Gangs and The Departed explore the idea that it is possible, perhaps inevitable, to be drawn into the world of the enemy and maybe even bond with them, whom you deal with day in, day out, as part of the subterfuge.
Amsterdam looked to Bill the Butcher as a father/older brother figure even as he resolved to kill the man. Likewise, in The Departed, undercover cop Billy Costigan begins to see Frank Costello as a sort of mentor/father figure while simultaneously determining to bring him down.
This sets up an interesting inner conflict with the hero characters — they’ve sworn an oath to destroy their enemies, criminals all, and yet they are vaguely drawn to them even in the midst of their hatred.
In both films, DiCaprio plays a character who is orphaned and essentially adrift. Pursuit of the bad guy, who also happens to represent a potential paternal figure, gives the DiCaprio characters a purpose, gives them meaning in life.
These are the sorts of character qualities that set Scorsese pictures apart from your typical cops & robbers fare. There is a depth and complexity to the characters that is more interesting than all the violence and obscenity that Scorsese can muster in the service of spectacle.
Really, characters in moral conflict are the common thread running through all of Scorsese’s work.
I don’t see Gangs of New York as a failure, or flat, or anything less than an ambitious historical epic with a runaway budget.
It is to Scorsese what Apocalypse Now is to Coppolla. Let me be clear: I am not comparing the films in terms of quality (clearly, Apocalypse is by far the superior film). What I am saying is that the scope of both projects nearly overwhelmed their directors, both of whom still returned from a difficult location shoot with fascinating but admittedly flawed films.
I often buy titles in the collection directly from Criterion, which always retails them online for 20 percent below the suggested retail price. Even when I add shipping, the cost is still less than buying at full retail from Barnes & Noble, Best Buy, etc.
There are exceptions. In January, Barnes & Noble ran a nice sale, buy 2 get 1 free. So I snagged Viridiana, Band of Outsiders and Vampyr. Sometimes Best Buy has good online sales. I recently ordered Fiend Without a Face from Best Buy’s website, which offered the disc 25 percent below the suggested $40 retail. Even with shipping and tax, I spent only $33 (a $10 savings over buying in a store at full price plus tax).
I am also blessed to live within easy driving distance of a superb indie record store (Plan 9) that stocks used DVDs, CDs, vinyl, memorabilia and such. They have a small bookcase devoted to used Criterion titles. Last weekend I snagged The Most Dangerous Game for $10 (retails for $30) and The Red Shoes for $17 (retails new for $40). I have no problem buying used Criterions as I am convinced the people who enjoy them treat their discs with greater care than, say, the frat boy who wants to cash out his American Pie collection to have beer money for the weekend. So I am comfortable that the discs will be in good shape. Also, the used Criterions at Plan 9 always come with the original booklets of essays and contextual information — that’s a must.
In sum, for me, half the fun is the quest — the treasure hunt. If I can find an excellent film, presented superbly in the Criterion fashion, and get a good deal on it, why, I feel like Indiana Jones unearthing gold in Egypt.
The only time I have paid full price for a Criterion is when I ponied up $40 for The Third Man, because I absolutely had to have it. — And what is life without the occasional indulgence?
Mine is only a couple months old, but growing. Since it’s a one-man show, I can’t cover everything, but am hoping my enthusiasm and writing style might make up for it over the long run.
Amélie (Le Fabuleux destin d’Amélie Poulain) was like a crisp, cold chardonnay to these parched lips. It can be as sweet as French pastry, but that may have as much to do with my adoration of Audrey Tautou as any other single aspect of the picture itself.
I still shake my head when I recall the film was nominated for 5 Oscars, includign Best Foreign Film, Original Screenplay and Cinematography, yet won nothing.
Often, the Coen boys try too hard and when they do, their films annoy. Tarantino suffers a similar malaise, which I think of as “trying too hard to be hip.” It amounts to being a showoff. And that ain’t hip. I wish they would trust the intelligence of their audience.
Fargo toes the line of this tendency to overdo it. All those, “yah; you betchas” are tedious. What starts as an eccentric little tale of losers turns into a tiresome load of silliness.
I favor Miller’s Crossing and No Country for Old Men.
I am surprised no one here has mentioned that crime is central to every Coen Bros. film:
Kidnapping, murder, robbery, extortion, prison breaks, confidence schemes. These storylines are heavily infused with the Hitchcock strategy of placing ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances — typically situations in which the characters are in way over their heads.
It is also amusing to note the Coen Bros. cut a wide swath of misanthropy through every film they make.
We get the impression they are none too impressed with the human race, as each of their pictures has an undercurrent of mockery, of satire, of winking from behind the camera where they are probably saying to themselves, “Let’s see what sorts of dumbasses we can create and run through their paces.”
At the end of the day, despite their wonderful ear for dialog and facility with creating oddball characters, I find all of the Coen Bros. films to be cold and clinical. This is not to say that cold and clinical are bad things, but that the Coen Bros. are a one-trick pony.
Oscar snubs that piss you off... over 3 years ago
It’s not just Raging Bull losing to Ordinary Peeps that irks me. Scorsese wuz robbed again when Goodfellas lost…to Dances with Wolves. Huh?
On a semi-related note, having just re-read Easy Riders, Raging Bulls, I make the observation that Scorsese was among the very few New Hollywood directors to exit the 1970s with his integrity essentially intact.
Cheers,
Steve
http://cinemauprising.blogspot.com/
Go to Comment
YOUR FAVORITE SILENT FILM, PLEASE. over 3 years ago
I’ll tip my hat to City Lights, Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, Pandora’s Box, and Vampyr. The latter two are available in exquisite boxes from Criterion.
Cheers,
Steve
http://cinemauprising.blogspot.com/
Go to Comment
WHO IS / WAS THE MOST BEAUTIFUL FILM ACTRESS EVER? over 3 years ago
Ava Gardner.
Cheers,
Steve
http://cinemauprising.blogspot.com/
Go to Comment
If you had to pick ONE film as your favorite... over 3 years ago
North by Northwest (1959), because it delivers everything I love about movies.
Cheers,
Steve
http://cinemauprising.blogspot.com/
Go to Comment
Who is the worst critic in the business right now? over 3 years ago
The 19-year critic at the Richmond Times-Dispatch. A complete rube, this guy has panned 95 percent of all the movies he has scribbled about since 1990. He named Scorsese’s The Departed one of the worst movies of 2006. Called it a “picture about cell phones.”
And we all know what one Best Picture, Director, Screenplay that year….
I think film critics have devolved into essentially two camps:
— those who fawn and gush over a film like sycophants, hoping to get their names mentioned in the advertising and on the DVD box.
— those who pan everything so people will read their swill for the dubious treat of seeing them tee off on another picture.
Neither offer much in the way of substance or critical analysis.
Cheers,
Steve
http://cinemauprising.blogspot.com/
Go to Comment
Where are you from? about 3 years ago
Cinematic Cteve hails from Charlottesville, Virginia, home of the University of Virginia and the semi-successful (though enduring) Virginia Film Festival, where I once met Sydney Pollock, Stan Winston and Roger Ebert, who conducted an interesting shot-by-shot workshop on Chinatown.
I am passionate about film and continue to be a voracious collector, with nearly 3,000 titles spanning 1906-2008 crowding the shelves.
My film site:
cinemauprising.blogspot.com
Go to Comment
Movies That Should Be In the Criterion Collection about 3 years ago
Lindsay Anderson’s O Lucky Man! (1973) belonjgs in the Criterion Collection. They released This Sporting Life and if… last year.
Warner Bros. appears to have a choke-hold on its films, so i may just be indulging in wishful thinking, as Criterion can only release a film for which it obtains a license.
On a semi-related note, I would like to see Criterion re-issue Straw Dogs (or at least find a gently used copy), as I missed my window when that one was on the market.
Cheers,
Steve
cinemauprising.blogspot.com
Go to Comment
10 Mind-Blowing Movies about Madness (and 11 runners-up) about 3 years ago
What do you think?
http://cinemauprising.blogspot.com/2009/03/10-mind-blowing-movies-about-madness.html
Go to Comment
10 Mind-Blowing Movies about Madness (and 11 runners-up) about 3 years ago
Dear Dr. Lemonglow,
Thank you for your kind words.
I believe The Other is based on the novel of the same name by Thomas Tryon? That book scared the bageezus out of me. The film I saw once, late at night, long ago in those pre-cable days. The twins hitred for the picture conveyed a genuine creepiness.
Donnie Darko would seem to be that sort of cult film that falls into the love it or hate it category. At the time of its release I did have the opportunity to interview the director, Richard Kelly, who was quite forthright about his intentions. To me, Donnie Darko is Harvey (1950) on acid.
To Girl Biting Pen,
Yes, I would say Travis Bickle is stark-raving by the conclusion of the film. The violence that caps Taxi Driver is catharsis for the psychotic cabbie, although the final scene strongly suggests that his inner rage will build once more until he explodes again.
Cheers,
Cteve
Go to Comment
How could such a great director make such a lousy movie? about 3 years ago
For Drew:
Amen on Hook. Gawd, what a deplorable waste of talent and money. If ever a man put his middle-aged angst on the big screen and wasted a boatload of cash in the process, it was Spielberg.
Cheers,
Cteve
cinemauprising.blogspot.com
Go to Comment
10 Mind-Blowing Movies about Madness (and 11 runners-up) about 3 years ago
Yes! La Bete Humaine is an excellent example. Here’s a detailed essay on the Criterion release of that film:
http://cinemauprising.blogspot.com/2009/02/la-bete-humaine-criterion-collection.html
I’d like to thank everyone who responded to my first Forum posting, even the critics who disagreed with my choices or vociferously preferred other films.
Repulsion is great Polanski, no doubt, and its omission represents an oversight rather than any critical or aesthetic laziness on my part. M is a tremendous work, but didn’t seem to fit within the top 10 list I was going for.
I am pleased to discover there are such a number of knowledgeable cineastes on these forums, which are also relatively civil compared to the not-infrequent madness (there’s that theme again) of similar film forums on IMDb and — good Gawd — Craig’s List. Your insights reinforce in my mind that I made a good decision to join the Auteurs forum. Thank you.
Cheers,
Steve
Go to Comment
Greatest movie villain. about 3 years ago
Here are a few who always elicited a hiss from me:
Nurse Ratched in Cuckoo’s Nest.
The mechanical shark in Jaws. Only those who saw that film in a theater on its original release in 1975 can fully appreciate this simple truth. On a related note, the Xenomorph from Alien (1979).
Ed Norton before his redemption in American History X.
Mapache in The Wild Bunch.
Dr. Victor Frankenstein (Colin Clive, Peter Cushing, etc.)
Go to Comment
Franju's Eyes Without a Face (1958) about 3 years ago
Watched the Criterion release of this remarkable arthouse/horror film earlier this week and was mightily impressed. Even more disturbing was the documentary short included on the disc, Blood of the Beasts, an unflinching look inside a Parisian abbatoir, its lyrical compositions contrasting wildly with the subject matter.
Eyes seems like it could form a trifecta with Clouzot’s Les Diaboliques and Hitchcock’s Psycho as the seminal films that ushered in the era of splatter horror, albeit with a level of artistry few filmmakers would equal in the decades to come.
If you’ve seen Eyes without a Face, please share your thoughts.
Thanks,
Steve
cinemauprising.blogspot.com
Go to Comment
Franju's Eyes Without a Face (1958) about 3 years ago
Ah, Peeping Tom. Good call! That movie nearly destroyed Michael Powell’s career. Thanks for your response.
As for the Franju film, the American title, Horror Chamber etc., is rather comical since there is no Dr. Faustus in the film. I am vaguely reminded of a ridiculous movie by Del Tenney called Zombie Island (1962), whcih sat on a shelf for a decade before a distributor picked it up and retitled the film I Eat Your Skin. No skin is actually eaten, but the new title sounded good when linked with its double-feature, I Drink Your Blood.
Ah, but that’s the movie bidness…
Go to Comment
Franju's Eyes Without a Face (1958) about 3 years ago
To Mr. Long:
Actually, I think your comparison is spot on. Eyes has a similar lyrical/poetic quality that Cocteau brought to Beauty and the Beast. Good work.
Go to Comment
Franju's Eyes Without a Face (1958) about 3 years ago
Apropos of nuthin’, I discovered last night that Criterion also has an edition of Fiend Without a Face on the market.
Seeing the need to own all available copies of any films that involve the lack of a face, I ordered that puppy straightaway.
A guilty pleassure if ever there was, Fiend has some remarkable stop-motion animation at the climax as a group of people make a last stand against these creepy disembodied brains with spinal cords that wrap around the neck and choke vicitims to death. Two of the soliders, armed with .45s, take pot shots at the pesky crawling brains with spectacular results. A real gooey mess. Just a mind-blowing little b-movie. I was charmed to see Criterion deemed it worthy of inclusion (although they also offer a couple of Michael Bay films in the collection — proof positive that nobody’s perfect…).
Go to Comment
Your Top 10 Guiltiest Guilty Pleasures about 3 years ago
Neil Marshall’s Dog Soldiers
Jess Franco’s Venus in Furs
John McNaughton’s Wild Things
Ed Wood’s The Sinister Urge
Ron Ormond’s Mesa of Lost Women
Too Soon to Love by Richard Rush (who directed the Stunt Man!), with a brief appearance by a 23-year-old Jack Nicholson.
Tobe Hooper’s Lifeforce
Paul Veerhoven’s Basic Instinct
Ken Russell’s The Lair of the White Worm
Roger Corman’s Attack of the Crab Monsters
Whew. That’s enuf.
Cheers,
Steve
cinemauprising.blogspot.com
Go to Comment
Sam Raimi about 3 years ago
I’ll throw some love to A Simple Plan, Raimi’s response to that wintry film, Fargo, made by his pals the Coen Bros.
Evil Dead remake? Does Raimi really need the money after all that Spiderman 1,2,3 foo-fa-raw?
Go to Comment
Franju's Eyes Without a Face (1958) about 3 years ago
@Dr. Lemonglow,
A solid piece of analysis, doktor.
For further reading, may I suggest: Cutting Edge: Art Horror and the Horrific Avante Garde (2000) by Joan Hawkins, who devotes an entire chapter to Franju’s little film. I won’t spoil it for you, but will merely pique your curiosity by saying she offers a provocative thesis.
True confessions: I dig Valli, too. There is an ungodly compelling mix of stoicism, vulnerability, duplicity and moist eroticism about that woman. She could lead a man to his doom without half trying.
You will recall that in The Third Man she is billed simply as “Valli.” Her mute kiss-off to Joeseph Cotton is unforgettable. Martin Scorsese certainly didn’t forget it, as he paid a little hommage to that shot in the second-to-last scene of The Departed.
Cheers,
Steve
cinemauprising.blogspot.com
Go to Comment
Franju's Eyes Without a Face (1958) about 3 years ago
@ Long: I think that’s right. You know you’ve made it when you can be known exclusively by your last name.
Dali comes to mind. What a showman he was. What a trip. Bug-eyed, mustachioed surrealist. He was the best part of another mediocre Hitchcock picture, Spellbound. That beautiful dream sequence was his creation.
A reporter once asked him, “Dali, do you take drugs?”
Comes the reply, “I am drugs.”
Heh. That makes me laff.
Go to Comment
Zombies and the people who love them about 3 years ago
Slow, shuffling zombies all the way, baby.
They increase our sense of dread because we know that no matter how far we run, or how fast, or for how long, the leg-dragging zombie…Will…Not…Stop. A good comparison would be The Mummy. He’s just gonna keep coming — and he’ll get ya eventually — and in the meanwhile, you must deal with the psychological terror (arguably worse) of knowing that sonofabitch is on his way, step by excruciatingly slow step.
Cinematically speaking, the slow zombie is more suspenseful as well.
As for the appeal of these films, I tend to look at them as satirical representations of our society — what I sarcastically refer to as “the sheeple” who shuffle along mindlessly through life, craving only the most base consumer goods (Romero’s Dawn of the Dead from 1978 remains the gold standard for this satirical interpretation of the zombie flick). The cannibalism aspect alone would provide thesis fodder for half a dozen grad’ students (and probably already has).
Sometimes, though, a zombie movie is just there to provide good, old-fashioned chills & thrills. Two of my favorites are White Zombie with Bela Lugosi (reportedly the first zombie movie), and I Walked with a Zombie, from the Val Lewton cycle of horror films produced for RKO in the 1940s.
Cheers,
Steve
cinemauprising.blogspot.com
Go to Comment
Any good documentaries out there? about 3 years ago
Try Man on Wire, which won the Best Documentary Oscar last month.
The protagonist is self-absorbed and quite possilby out of his mind, but his obsessive vision and determination to see it through are really the key themes of the picture. Overall, highly recommended.
Here’s an essay on the film:
http://cinemauprising.blogspot.com/2009/02/man-on-wire-wins-best-documentary.html
Go to Comment
Favorite Moment In A David Lynch Movie about 3 years ago
The demise of Blue Velvet’s terrifying villain, Frank Booth, played by Dennis Hopper.
Hopper, hopped up on gas (ether? nitrous oxide?) stalks around Isabella Rossellini’s apartment, searching for Kyle McLaughlin — all the while telling him via walkie-talkie that he’s going to kill McLaughlin. But in a satisfying turn of the tables, McLaughlin hides in the closet, remerges for just a second to retrieve a dead cop’s service revolver (doubling the supense), then returns to his hiding place.
The infuriated Hopper narrows his search to the closet, yanks open the door and — blam! — gets ventilated through the forehead.
For a brief moment he registers astonishment and a tornado-like wind can be heard on the soundtrack for just a second.
Amen.
Frank Booth is one of the most frightening villains in history, all the moreso because he is completely unhinged and unpredictable.
Blue Velvet is still disturbing (especially because it is heavily flavored with satire and black comedy) nearly 23 years later.
Cheers,
Steve
cinemauprising.blogspot.com
Go to Comment
Seeing with Fresh Eyes about 3 years ago
I recently encouraged a friend to see Truffaut’s Jules and Jim for the first time and she returned with a glowing, radiant, wildly enthusiastic response.
http://cinemauprising.blogspot.com/2008/12/jules-and-jim-criterion-collection.html
While happy for her and pleased that she liked the recommendation, I felt a curious pang of jealousy that got me wondering: how many beloved films would I like to experience again, with fresh eyes, for the first time?
Surely, North by Northwest, Taxi Driver and O Lucky Man!
http://cinemauprising.blogspot.com/2008/12/thoughts-on-lindsay-anderson-lucky-man.html
Also Chinatown, of course. One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. M. City Lights. Steamboat Bill Jr. Psycho. The Wizard of Oz. The Quiet Man. It’s a Wonderful Life. A Clockwork Orange and 2001 and Dr. Strangelove. King Kong (1933), although I would also wish to be eight years old again, as that is an optimal age for viewing creaky old monster movies.
Most of the films noir from the classical period.
Jaws, though it frightened me senseless 34 years ago.
Even Die Hard — one of the few films I have seen that lived up to its tagline: “It will blow you through the back of the theater!”
Oh, this list could extend almost indefinitely, but I would rather hear your thoughts:
Which films would you wish to experience again, unseen, with all their secrets and surprises waiting to unfold and make you smile or think or cry or feel exhilarated?
Cheers,
Steve
Cinemauprising.blogspot.com
Go to Comment
The Worst Films of 2008 about 3 years ago
Juno ranks among the most overrated movies I have endured. There was an overpowering stench of desperation in its determination to be hip.
No one speaks or acts the way those characters talked, day in, day out. Trying too hard to be hip…just isn’t hip.
I’d rather re-watch Ghost World or Napoleon Dynamite before enduring Juno again.
It is still staggering to believe Juno won a screenplay Oscar.
Also in 2008, Hall of Shame awards go to the Mike Meyers flick that need not be mentioned here, the latest Saw installment and all other examples of torture porn, and the overexposed Will Farrell.
Cheers,
Steve
CinemaUprising.Blogspot.com
Go to Comment
Gangs of New York about 3 years ago
Gangs hinges on a plot device — infiltration of the enemy camp — that Scorsese must have found intriguing, as he would use it again four years later in The Departed, his American adaptation of Moo gaan dou (Infernal Affairs).
Both Gangs and The Departed explore the idea that it is possible, perhaps inevitable, to be drawn into the world of the enemy and maybe even bond with them, whom you deal with day in, day out, as part of the subterfuge.
Amsterdam looked to Bill the Butcher as a father/older brother figure even as he resolved to kill the man. Likewise, in The Departed, undercover cop Billy Costigan begins to see Frank Costello as a sort of mentor/father figure while simultaneously determining to bring him down.
This sets up an interesting inner conflict with the hero characters — they’ve sworn an oath to destroy their enemies, criminals all, and yet they are vaguely drawn to them even in the midst of their hatred.
In both films, DiCaprio plays a character who is orphaned and essentially adrift. Pursuit of the bad guy, who also happens to represent a potential paternal figure, gives the DiCaprio characters a purpose, gives them meaning in life.
These are the sorts of character qualities that set Scorsese pictures apart from your typical cops & robbers fare. There is a depth and complexity to the characters that is more interesting than all the violence and obscenity that Scorsese can muster in the service of spectacle.
Really, characters in moral conflict are the common thread running through all of Scorsese’s work.
I don’t see Gangs of New York as a failure, or flat, or anything less than an ambitious historical epic with a runaway budget.
It is to Scorsese what Apocalypse Now is to Coppolla. Let me be clear: I am not comparing the films in terms of quality (clearly, Apocalypse is by far the superior film). What I am saying is that the scope of both projects nearly overwhelmed their directors, both of whom still returned from a difficult location shoot with fascinating but admittedly flawed films.
Cheers,
Steve
CinemaUprising.Blogspot.com
Go to Comment
Criterion too pricey for you? about 3 years ago
I often buy titles in the collection directly from Criterion, which always retails them online for 20 percent below the suggested retail price. Even when I add shipping, the cost is still less than buying at full retail from Barnes & Noble, Best Buy, etc.
There are exceptions. In January, Barnes & Noble ran a nice sale, buy 2 get 1 free. So I snagged Viridiana, Band of Outsiders and Vampyr. Sometimes Best Buy has good online sales. I recently ordered Fiend Without a Face from Best Buy’s website, which offered the disc 25 percent below the suggested $40 retail. Even with shipping and tax, I spent only $33 (a $10 savings over buying in a store at full price plus tax).
I am also blessed to live within easy driving distance of a superb indie record store (Plan 9) that stocks used DVDs, CDs, vinyl, memorabilia and such. They have a small bookcase devoted to used Criterion titles. Last weekend I snagged The Most Dangerous Game for $10 (retails for $30) and The Red Shoes for $17 (retails new for $40). I have no problem buying used Criterions as I am convinced the people who enjoy them treat their discs with greater care than, say, the frat boy who wants to cash out his American Pie collection to have beer money for the weekend. So I am comfortable that the discs will be in good shape. Also, the used Criterions at Plan 9 always come with the original booklets of essays and contextual information — that’s a must.
In sum, for me, half the fun is the quest — the treasure hunt. If I can find an excellent film, presented superbly in the Criterion fashion, and get a good deal on it, why, I feel like Indiana Jones unearthing gold in Egypt.
The only time I have paid full price for a Criterion is when I ponied up $40 for The Third Man, because I absolutely had to have it. — And what is life without the occasional indulgence?
Cheers,
Steve
CinemaUprising.Blogspot.com
Go to Comment
Film Blogs about 3 years ago
Mine is only a couple months old, but growing. Since it’s a one-man show, I can’t cover everything, but am hoping my enthusiasm and writing style might make up for it over the long run.
Cheers,
Steve
aka Cinematic Cteve
CinemaUprising.Blogspot.com
Go to Comment
French film this decade. about 3 years ago
Amélie (Le Fabuleux destin d’Amélie Poulain) was like a crisp, cold chardonnay to these parched lips. It can be as sweet as French pastry, but that may have as much to do with my adoration of Audrey Tautou as any other single aspect of the picture itself.
I still shake my head when I recall the film was nominated for 5 Oscars, includign Best Foreign Film, Original Screenplay and Cinematography, yet won nothing.
Cheers,
Steve
CinemaUprising.Blogspot.com
Go to Comment
The Coen Bros. -- Best film about 3 years ago
Often, the Coen boys try too hard and when they do, their films annoy. Tarantino suffers a similar malaise, which I think of as “trying too hard to be hip.” It amounts to being a showoff. And that ain’t hip. I wish they would trust the intelligence of their audience.
Fargo toes the line of this tendency to overdo it. All those, “yah; you betchas” are tedious. What starts as an eccentric little tale of losers turns into a tiresome load of silliness.
I favor Miller’s Crossing and No Country for Old Men.
I am surprised no one here has mentioned that crime is central to every Coen Bros. film:
Kidnapping, murder, robbery, extortion, prison breaks, confidence schemes. These storylines are heavily infused with the Hitchcock strategy of placing ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances — typically situations in which the characters are in way over their heads.
It is also amusing to note the Coen Bros. cut a wide swath of misanthropy through every film they make.
We get the impression they are none too impressed with the human race, as each of their pictures has an undercurrent of mockery, of satire, of winking from behind the camera where they are probably saying to themselves, “Let’s see what sorts of dumbasses we can create and run through their paces.”
At the end of the day, despite their wonderful ear for dialog and facility with creating oddball characters, I find all of the Coen Bros. films to be cold and clinical. This is not to say that cold and clinical are bad things, but that the Coen Bros. are a one-trick pony.
Cheers,
Steve
CinemaUprising.Blogspot.com
Go to Comment