The first one I saw was 8 1/2 in an art museum theater on the UGA campus… the first DVD I saw was the life aquatic… too bad it couldn’t have been a better one…
From what I’ve seen (Life Aquatic, Darjeeling Limited), I think Wes Anderson is completely mediocre.
Also I really hated Taxi Driver, If…, and, of course, the Boondock Saints… I really don’t like when movies try to justify brutal murders, like these did.
Heath Ledger’s performance is not that great… his character was just well-written – most anybody could have done just as well, but, oh yeah, heath ledger died.
With regards to the hype… we already know that the public is not going to like truly brilliant or challenging films, and, if they’re gonna like something, I think that The Dark Knight is a pretty good one for them to choose. It has a tiny bit more meaning than the plot itself, and it is undeniably entertaining. Are you expecting the public to rave about 8 1/2?
This film seems kind of like a mobius strip to me. Every dimension of reality presented is dependent on other realities. It is impossible to look at it as reality and hallucination / dream / etc. It’s all on one side… which side, however, is impossible to say.
Isn’t the point of surrealism to see something strange and come up with your own interpretation? That’s the beauty of Inland Empire, everybody can look at it and have their own unique ideas of what it is about or what it represents. It’s more of a mirror than a film.
Maybe it’s just because I only watched it yesterday and the wound it left in my mind is still fresh, but I really regret watching it. It was not worth it. At all. I had a horrible day today because I couldn’t get the images out of my head, and, maybe it’s just because I’m too distracted by those images, but I don’t see anything artistic in it, other than some shallow philosophical musings and quotations by the sadists.
Maybe I was too distracted by the horrible things on the screen, or maybe I don’t know enough about the context, but I do not see any type of metaphor or any point to this film. Could somebody please explain what the metaphor is or what point he was trying to make? Thanks!
When Ferdinand has the conversation with Fuller, I thought that when Fuller said cinema is emotion, he was referring specifically to his film, not cinema in general. I thought Ferdinand’s question was mistranslated by the lady, and that it was some kind of comment on communication between the French and Americans. Did I just read it wrong (several times), or am I misinterpreting it? I’m assuming the subtitles aren’t to blame, since it was the criterion dvd.
Sorry to be annoying, and maybe I just should watch it again, but would you mind explaining how the eating poop and cutting off the tongue are metaphors? As far as the indictment in the last scene, I can see that, especially with the one guy looking through the binoculars backwards to distance himself from it (like we do when watching movies), but that really doesn’t justify the whole movie. If that’s the whole point, then it seems like it was just kind of tacked on, and Haneke’s Funny Games made that point a lot better (but maybe Salo was an influence).
I see all your points, and thanks for responding, but it seems like Passolini is just putting nasty stuff on screen but not really making any metaphors. I really regret not liking this film, but I also regret watching it. I guess it’s just too disturbing for me and I don’t know how I managed to watch the whole thing. Thank you for responding and not getting impatient!
My favorite thing about it is the way Kubrick manipulates everything (except the story) to make you on Alex’s side. When Alex is beating people up, the music is jolly and almost comical, but when he’s getting beaten, the music is disturbing. Every time Alex does something horrible, Kubrick does everything in his power to make it as light as possible, but whenever anything bad happens to Alex, Kubrick makes it seem as horrible as possible (I though that the scene when Alex is forced to lick the actor’s shoe in front of an audience was one of the most disturbing because of the background noise, lighting, and camera angles, even though there are far worse things in other parts).
Yes, the Blair Witch Project. Why is it so vehemently hated? True, the story is completely bland and generic, but the way it was done was, in my opinion, completely brilliant. The improvisation, the cheap camera, the marketing, and the idea of a character holding a camera make it one of the first truly original films in decades. So why is it regarded with such contempt in both the mainstream and arthouse crowds?
So, aside from the fact that everybody spoke in that crazy accent / foreign language, I really didn’t think his childhood was that horrible. His dad was a jerk, and he accidentally killed his friend, but I didn’t think there were really any other bad things that happened to him. I thought they were supposed to be living in extreme poverty, but I really didn’t think so when I saw it. Am I missing something?
Because it’s not American!!!!!!! Good children should be surrounded by Americans!!!!! Really, though, even looking through the child’s perspective, his childhood just wasn’t that bad…
I feel like I read somewhere that Rialto was gonna release this, which would mean criterion probably would too, but I can’t remember where I read it… Does anybody know if criterion ever will release it?
sorry, this is the second time I’ve done this… I’m talking about Week End by Godard… what is the correct way to start a topic so people will know what film I’m talking about?
I had been really disappointed about the cover when I saw the picture online, but I completely changed my mind when I actually bought the dvd, because, since the letters are actually embossed on the cover and aren’t colored, everything except the logo disappears when you look at it at a certain angle, leaving a blank white cover. I think that’s pretty much the coolest thing ever.
I saw Schizopolis about six months ago, thinking that it would make more sense with time and that I would just need to think about it for a while, but then I just forgot about it. A lot of the movie seemed to me to be just cool cuts with quirky music, but not a lot of substance. I really wanted to like it, but it seemed to be weird just for weird’s sake. Does anybody disagree?
I saw Schizopolis about six months ago, thinking that it would make more sense with time and that I would just need to think about it for a while, but then I just forgot about it. A lot of the movie seemed to me to be just cool cuts with quirky music, but not a lot of substance. I really wanted to like it, but it seemed to be weird just for weird’s sake. Does anybody disagree?
I saw Schizopolis about six months ago, thinking that it would make more sense with time and that I would just need to think about it for a while, but then I just forgot about it. A lot of the movie seemed to me to be just cool cuts with quirky music, but not a lot of substance. I really wanted to like it, but it seemed to be weird just for weird’s sake. Does anybody disagree?
I’m sorry… I really didn’t mean to post the exact same thing three times in a row… how do I attach a topic to the page of a certain film? or delete the other two topics I accidentally made?
WHICH DIRECTORS...NOT...CURRENTLY REPRESENTED IN THE CRITERION COLLECTION DO YOU WANT TO SEE INCLUDED? over 3 years ago
David Lynch. It would also be nice to have scene selections on the Mulholland Drive DVD.
Go to Comment
What was the first Criterion movie you watched? over 3 years ago
The first one I saw was 8 1/2 in an art museum theater on the UGA campus… the first DVD I saw was the life aquatic… too bad it couldn’t have been a better one…
Go to Comment
Movie's you just don't like. over 3 years ago
From what I’ve seen (Life Aquatic, Darjeeling Limited), I think Wes Anderson is completely mediocre.
Also I really hated Taxi Driver, If…, and, of course, the Boondock Saints… I really don’t like when movies try to justify brutal murders, like these did.
Go to Comment
Anybody else hate the Dark Knight? over 3 years ago
Heath Ledger’s performance is not that great… his character was just well-written – most anybody could have done just as well, but, oh yeah, heath ledger died.
With regards to the hype… we already know that the public is not going to like truly brilliant or challenging films, and, if they’re gonna like something, I think that The Dark Knight is a pretty good one for them to choose. It has a tiny bit more meaning than the plot itself, and it is undeniably entertaining. Are you expecting the public to rave about 8 1/2?
Go to Comment
Anybody else hate the Dark Knight? over 3 years ago
really, though, Heath Ledger’s performance isn’t that great. for real.
Go to Comment
Anybody else hate the Dark Knight? over 3 years ago
oh, that’s what people mean by double post… sorry.
Go to Comment
Art or Mainstream? over 3 years ago
no country for old men and the darjeeling limited are both mediocre films… wow! they have one symbol! That definitely makes them valid arthouse films!
Go to Comment
Your interpretation of this film over 3 years ago
This film seems kind of like a mobius strip to me. Every dimension of reality presented is dependent on other realities. It is impossible to look at it as reality and hallucination / dream / etc. It’s all on one side… which side, however, is impossible to say.
Go to Comment
Your interpretation of this film over 3 years ago
Isn’t the point of surrealism to see something strange and come up with your own interpretation? That’s the beauty of Inland Empire, everybody can look at it and have their own unique ideas of what it is about or what it represents. It’s more of a mirror than a film.
Go to Comment
Should it be seen? over 3 years ago
Maybe it’s just because I only watched it yesterday and the wound it left in my mind is still fresh, but I really regret watching it. It was not worth it. At all. I had a horrible day today because I couldn’t get the images out of my head, and, maybe it’s just because I’m too distracted by those images, but I don’t see anything artistic in it, other than some shallow philosophical musings and quotations by the sadists.
Go to Comment
What is so great about this movie? over 3 years ago
Maybe I was too distracted by the horrible things on the screen, or maybe I don’t know enough about the context, but I do not see any type of metaphor or any point to this film. Could somebody please explain what the metaphor is or what point he was trying to make? Thanks!
Go to Comment
Fuller over 3 years ago
When Ferdinand has the conversation with Fuller, I thought that when Fuller said cinema is emotion, he was referring specifically to his film, not cinema in general. I thought Ferdinand’s question was mistranslated by the lady, and that it was some kind of comment on communication between the French and Americans. Did I just read it wrong (several times), or am I misinterpreting it? I’m assuming the subtitles aren’t to blame, since it was the criterion dvd.
Go to Comment
Fuller over 3 years ago
Did anybody else think he was talking about his film specifically?
Go to Comment
What is so great about this movie? over 3 years ago
Tom wins! Sorry about that, I was referring to Salo though…
Go to Comment
What is so great about this movie? over 3 years ago
Sorry to be annoying, and maybe I just should watch it again, but would you mind explaining how the eating poop and cutting off the tongue are metaphors? As far as the indictment in the last scene, I can see that, especially with the one guy looking through the binoculars backwards to distance himself from it (like we do when watching movies), but that really doesn’t justify the whole movie. If that’s the whole point, then it seems like it was just kind of tacked on, and Haneke’s Funny Games made that point a lot better (but maybe Salo was an influence).
Go to Comment
What is so great about this movie? over 3 years ago
I see all your points, and thanks for responding, but it seems like Passolini is just putting nasty stuff on screen but not really making any metaphors. I really regret not liking this film, but I also regret watching it. I guess it’s just too disturbing for me and I don’t know how I managed to watch the whole thing. Thank you for responding and not getting impatient!
Go to Comment
what's all the fuss about? over 3 years ago
My favorite thing about it is the way Kubrick manipulates everything (except the story) to make you on Alex’s side. When Alex is beating people up, the music is jolly and almost comical, but when he’s getting beaten, the music is disturbing. Every time Alex does something horrible, Kubrick does everything in his power to make it as light as possible, but whenever anything bad happens to Alex, Kubrick makes it seem as horrible as possible (I though that the scene when Alex is forced to lick the actor’s shoe in front of an audience was one of the most disturbing because of the background noise, lighting, and camera angles, even though there are far worse things in other parts).
Go to Comment
The Blair Witch Project over 3 years ago
Yes, the Blair Witch Project. Why is it so vehemently hated? True, the story is completely bland and generic, but the way it was done was, in my opinion, completely brilliant. The improvisation, the cheap camera, the marketing, and the idea of a character holding a camera make it one of the first truly original films in decades. So why is it regarded with such contempt in both the mainstream and arthouse crowds?
Go to Comment
The Blair Witch Project over 3 years ago
Wah wah! There wasn’t any blood! I had to imagine too much! Wah!
Go to Comment
Poverty (in Ratcatcher) over 3 years ago
So, aside from the fact that everybody spoke in that crazy accent / foreign language, I really didn’t think his childhood was that horrible. His dad was a jerk, and he accidentally killed his friend, but I didn’t think there were really any other bad things that happened to him. I thought they were supposed to be living in extreme poverty, but I really didn’t think so when I saw it. Am I missing something?
Go to Comment
Poverty (in Ratcatcher) over 3 years ago
Because it’s not American!!!!!!! Good children should be surrounded by Americans!!!!! Really, though, even looking through the child’s perspective, his childhood just wasn’t that bad…
Go to Comment
Obscure recommendations over 3 years ago
Holy Mountain by Alejandro Jodorowsky is insane!!
Go to Comment
Rialto / Criterion release? almost 3 years ago
I feel like I read somewhere that Rialto was gonna release this, which would mean criterion probably would too, but I can’t remember where I read it… Does anybody know if criterion ever will release it?
Go to Comment
Rialto / Criterion release? almost 3 years ago
really? do you know when please?
Go to Comment
Rialto / Criterion release? almost 3 years ago
sorry, this is the second time I’ve done this… I’m talking about Week End by Godard… what is the correct way to start a topic so people will know what film I’m talking about?
Go to Comment
Last year at marienbad alternative cover almost 3 years ago
I had been really disappointed about the cover when I saw the picture online, but I completely changed my mind when I actually bought the dvd, because, since the letters are actually embossed on the cover and aren’t colored, everything except the logo disappears when you look at it at a certain angle, leaving a blank white cover. I think that’s pretty much the coolest thing ever.
Go to Comment
Anyone know what this one's about? almost 3 years ago
I saw Schizopolis about six months ago, thinking that it would make more sense with time and that I would just need to think about it for a while, but then I just forgot about it. A lot of the movie seemed to me to be just cool cuts with quirky music, but not a lot of substance. I really wanted to like it, but it seemed to be weird just for weird’s sake. Does anybody disagree?
Go to Comment
Anyone know what this one's about? in Schizopolis almost 3 years ago
I saw Schizopolis about six months ago, thinking that it would make more sense with time and that I would just need to think about it for a while, but then I just forgot about it. A lot of the movie seemed to me to be just cool cuts with quirky music, but not a lot of substance. I really wanted to like it, but it seemed to be weird just for weird’s sake. Does anybody disagree?
Go to Comment
Anyone know what this one's about? almost 3 years ago
I saw Schizopolis about six months ago, thinking that it would make more sense with time and that I would just need to think about it for a while, but then I just forgot about it. A lot of the movie seemed to me to be just cool cuts with quirky music, but not a lot of substance. I really wanted to like it, but it seemed to be weird just for weird’s sake. Does anybody disagree?
Go to Comment
Anyone know what this one's about? almost 3 years ago
I’m sorry… I really didn’t mean to post the exact same thing three times in a row… how do I attach a topic to the page of a certain film? or delete the other two topics I accidentally made?
Go to Comment