I concur with Mishima: a Life in Four Chapters. A super ambitious film that is largely successful. There’s a great concept for the film, terrific music, set pieces that all come together—and made under difficult circumstances (Mishima’s widow opposed the making of the film and Schrader worked with an all-Japanese crew). Granted, I know little of the truth of Mishima’s life, but Schrader seems to create a plausible “explanation” of Mishima’s final act—which wasn’t an easy feat.
I know Raging Bull is often mentioned as the best film of the 80s, but I think Mishima could compete against it.
When it comes to selecting the films I want to see, I’ve put myself in a difficult situation. You see, my ideal movie experience is knowing as little as possible—nothing, if possible—about the film before seeing the film. I find that even innocuous bits of information can take away from my movie experience. For example, before seeing The Wrestler, I knew about Mikey Rourke’s terrfic performance. When I finally saw it, I thought the performance was good, but, perhaps, not as good as the hype. In any event, had I not known this detail, I probably would have enjoyed the performance a bit more. Now the difference may not be so significant—and average film goers would find it negligible—but I don’t. These “losses” don’t ruin a film, but they do take away from my experience.
So now my problem is obvious. How can I know which film to see if I don’t know anything about it? I’ve solved this problem in several ways. First, I try learn if reputable critics like the film or not. I do this by reading the title of an article (although that can give information that I don’t want to know: a recent example was from Let the Right One In. The title of an article revealed who the girl was.) Looking at metacritic scores have been helpful, too. Second, I rely on friends who know me to recommend a film. When someone raves about a film, I ask, “Do you think I will like it?”
Dead Ringers. I was surprised that it was more of psychological character(s) study than a horror film. Indeed, Cronenbergian elements (i.e. the insect looking instruments and gore) seemed unnecessary. Irons’ performance was very good.
I have one of the earlier editions, and I wished they discussed how they defined “must see.” If “must see” means films that required to understand the art form, then you could make a case for having a 1001 film. But if you “must see” means films that are so terrific or important that they must been seen whether you’re a film fanatic or not, then I don’t think there are 1001 films that fit that description. I just think the editor should at least share how the contributors defined the term. Plus, I think it would make for an interesting discussion.
The first one that comes to my mind is from Breaking the Waves. It’s a really quick scene of Emily Watson screaming at the ocean while the waves crash around her. To be honest, Watson’s scream is a big part of what I love about that shot, so it’s not just a visual thing for me.
I could probably choose a bunch from Days of Heaven (or any Malick film—or Wong kar-Wai or Kubrick…)
Emphatically, Terrence Malick’s The New World. It could be his best film. There aren’t many other films that I would consider in the same class—2001 and L’Avventura come to mind.
Emphatically, Terrence Malick’s The New World. It could be his best film. There aren’t many other films that I would consider in the same class—2001 and L’Avventura come to mind.
Let me say a couple of things. First, part of what could explain Tom’s reaction is expectations—high for D9 and low for GI Joe. Expectations often significantly influence our experience of films. Had Tom had more moderate or high expectations of Joe, and he might not have liked it. The point is that a film is not good or bad because of the expectations you had going into the film.
Second, while I didn’t care for D9, let me say one thing in its defense. It was a film that didn’t work because that tried to be too clever (eg the documentary feel, combined with B-Movie cheesiness with A movie effects, social commentary etc.) without spending enough time on a better script.(Also, i thought the lead actor was a poor choice for the role.) On the other, the film had potential and it wasn’t a cookie-cutter type of film. Had the elements come together and this could have been an interesting film. For example, I think took the film in a more B-direction a la Planet Terror; and developed the relationship between the human and alien a little more a la Enemy Mine and I think this could have been a good film. My point is that there was potential.
Joe, on the other hand, just felt like a film made by people only interested in money. It did have some nice fx and action sequences, but you get the feeling that the filmmakers didn’t care at all about making a good movie. The characters were totally boring and dialogue flat. I really like action films, but I don’t think you need to sacrifice character development, dialogue or story to achieve a good action film. Indeed, for me, actions films without this are boring.
To sum up, D9 feels like it’s made by a creative, thinking individual who genuinely wanted to make an interesting movie; while Joe seems to be made largely by suits who only care about maximizing profits. So, no, I disagree with Tom.
Hmm, I find myself in a curious position of actually agreeing with a lot of what Tom said about D9 (eg. I also thought the casting for the lead was a bad choice), while not agreeing with his main point that GI Joe is a better film. As I mentioned earlier, I felt *D9*’s script really needed more work. I almost want to call the filmmakers lazy, as the film felt like a first draft. So I understand what Tom means when he calls the filmmakers "arrogant a**holes*. Personally, I wouldn’t got that far, as I can think of other reasons for this oversite (eg. just poor judgment, bad guidance from more experienced filmmakers, ie. Peter Jackson, etc.) For those of you who want specific problems, let me site a few. First, the filmmakers didn’t put much care or thought into creating a plausible or interesting way the main character escapes and then breaks back into the corporate headquarters. Second, the apartheid comparisons just seem thrown into the film without really developing or saying anything substantive about the issue. Third, the way the main character meets the alien and then develops a relationship with him—a crucial part of the film—needed more work to be believable and compelling.
Having said that I still disagree that D9 is a worse film than GI Joe. I’m not disputing that Tom’s experience of GI Joe was much better. How could I? But I think he goes to far—or at least I disagree with him—that D9 is a worse film. The thing is D9 had potential and I don’t get the sense that the film was made primarily for business reasons rather than for aesthetic ones—or even with the objective of making quality entertainment—unless of course your idea of quality entertainment is simply fx, babes and good actions scenes. The fact that Tom cites Pirates of the Carribean as a film made for commerical reasons is not a very good defense of Joe. Yes, commercial forces were probably strongly behind the Pirates film, but that doesn’t make GI Joe lessen my cynicism towards Joe. Moreover, Johnny Depp’s performance and character in Pirates is a lot of fun, even deserving of the Academy nomination. That character alone makes the film better than GI Joe.
…while Joe was just made for fun, and didn’t insult anyone. It didn’t pretend to be anything more than saturday-morning fun.
I understand this, and, again, I’m not going to dispute youre experience of the film. Indeed, I actually had a little (very little) fun in GI Joe—and that was more than I expected, but I want to respond to the defense that it was just “Saturday morning fun.” There’s nothing wrong with “Saturday morning fun”—unless by definition that signifies crappy movies. See, for me, Saturday morning fun and quality films—films with characters we care about, decent acting and dialogue and a solid story—are not mutually exclusive. I love action films—when they’re well down (which is rare). I love going to films like Matrix (the first one), Die Hard, The Incredibles, and The Italian Job (remake) among others. These films are truly fun and well-made films. GI Joe is not. I like the fact that Hollywood makes action films, but I also want them to make good action films. There are too many filmmakers and Hollywood people who seem to think that you can just put some stars on the screen with f/x, high speed car chases, explosions and gun battles and you’ve got a good movie—not art but good entertainment. That’s horse-puckey! as Col. Potter would say.The comment that the film is just good Saturday morning fun sounds like an excuse for that kind of crappy filmmaking. Tom probably didn’t mean it that way, but I just wanted to make get that off my chest. You I guess I’m just as passionate about Saturday morning fun as the serious movies.
Yo Tom! I’d love to comment on the Nausicaa v. Empire Strikes Back thread, but I haven’t seen Nausicca—or if I did, I barely remember seeing it.
Polaris,
I just don’t think Blomkamp says anything substantive about the issue. You mentioned that Blomkamp explores the way the racial issue and conflict would develop, but does he develop the issues in ways that aren’t predictable or obvious? To me, he didn’t, but I’d be open to ways in which the film makes incisive observations about racism.
Spielberg is a very talented director and may be the one of the best action/thriller directors of all-time.* You could make a case that Raiders of the Lost Ark and Jaws are two of the best film in their respective genres. But something happened after Raiders, namely E.T. I haven’t seen E.T. in ages, but I really liked it as a child, and I would probably still consider it a good, if not very good film. However, with E.T. and it’s extraordinary success, Spielberg’s films developed a different tone and sensibility—specifically with family themes. Now, I don’t have a problem with family themes and indeed, some of his earlier films like Jaws and Close Encounters have that element in them. But they’re not as central to the films, and, more importantly, Spielberg’s treatment of them is significantly different. From E.T onward, the family elements in his films became cloyingly cute and childishly melodramatic. I believe Spielberg took input from his children when making E.T.—and you can sense that in the film. The films afterward also have that same sensibility—not so much that they’re made for children, but that the depictions and treatment of family issues feel like they’re made by a child—or someone who is not really immature. Moreover, they seem to become more prominent parts of the film. A good example of this can be seen in Indiana Jones films. The first film doesn’t have a family theme at all and none of the childish quality I’m talking about. In the Temple, the cute family thing is introduced with the Short-Round character and his relationship with Indy. This becomes more pronounced and silly in Last Crusade and Crystal Skull. (Even Marcus, Indy’s friend who has a more serious presence in the first film becomes a clown in the third). I know some people found this approach charming and funny, but, for me, they made the films progressively worse.
And I think that’s true about all the films that came after Raiders. Had Spielberg kept the same approach (the same maturity?) of films and tone to films like Close Encounters, Jaws, Raiders and even Duel (a very good thriller), I think he’d be the greatest Hollywood (read: enetertainment) films of all-time.
But I’d like to mention Bram Stoker’s Dracula, particularly since Coppola is…well, Coppola, and also because critics seemed to like this (which I found appalling). The only defense I can make for this film is that Coppola was intentionally going for a recreation of the original Bela Lagosi version (complete with Gary Oldman’s hamfisted impersonation: “I vant to suck your blood!”) Even then it’s not very good.
The other film that baffled me in its badness: Tim Burton’s Planet of the Apes. I only hope that money was the reason he made it.
I make a distinction between childlike and childishness. Yes, there is that childlike quality in Close Encounters, and I don’t have a problem with that. But there’s a childishness (which I’m not really articulating really well) in his subsequent films—and I find that he’s unabashed about it. Roy leaving his family is not one of those things either. Hopefully someone else knows what I’m talkign about (and agrees with me) and can explain it better than I can.
Fredo said, “I think one of the central reasons Spielberg became a filmmaker was because of this childlike wonder he had with the world, a sense of classic imagination (“classic” meaning grounded in “G-Rating” like a Disney cartoon as opposed to imagination of a more harsh reality – see Gilliam, Del Toro). I don’t really see too much differences in his pre-E.T. films to his post-E.T. films other than children were more prominent in the plot (and in some cases were the protaganist).”
Films like Jaws and Duel are probably closer to that harsher reality than the “classic imagination” you referred to. Btw, my problem with Spielberg is not that his films aren’t profound (a la Bergman, et. al.) It’s actually sort of the opposite. I wish he would just stick to making action/adventure/thrillers—sans the family melodrama, cutesy humor, and/or treatment of serious issues (i.e. holocaust, slavery, Munich retaliation, etc.) That’s what films like Jaws, Duel, Raiders of the Lost Ark and even Close Encounters have in common. Imo, what would result are action/thriller films in the mold of James Cameron—except I think Spielberg is more talented. Think of War of the Worlds. The beginning is really exciting and then it gradually morphs into this story about a father letting go of his son—or at least that sub-plot is prominent in the story. Man, if he’d just take that out and focus on creating a thrilling joy rid of a film, the movie could have been terrific.
Mike Spence,
I did mean to include Schindler’s List, Munich and Saving Private Ryan, although the first two films don’t fit into my theory in that I don’t recall the family themes featuring prominently in them (although I could be wrong). Ryan has that family element, but I think it’s also the cloying sentimentality that bothers me, and again he doesn’t seem to be embarrassed or at least a bit more modest about this aspect of himself or his films that I think he ought to. Moreover, this kind of sentimentality is lacking in the earlier films I mentioned. It’s like this childish part of him was held in check—and E.T. gave him permission to indulge in this side of him. I wish he could just put that stuff back in the closet and re-establish the tone and focus of the earlier films. Spielberg’s strength is not understanding psychological, emotional or spiritual complexity. But he is terrific—maybe one of the best, on par with Hitchcock—in shooting action/suspense sequences. Look at the landing at Normandy in “Saving.” That is one of great moments in film history, imo. It’s one of, if not the best shot, military battle sequences.
With Schindler’s and Munich, I don’t know if I’d call them were childish, so much as they seem a little superficial (particularly the latter film)—psychologically or emotionally (which, I guess, could be called childish, but that’s not the word I’d go for in this specific case). Because of that, I don’t think they’re great films.
Re: Temple of Doom.
Count me in as one of those who likes them better than “Crusade” or “Crystal Skull.” I like Connery, but the whole cute father-son gags practically ruined the film for me. In the final film, the reappearance of Marion and the family dynamic just didn’t work. Actually even the action sequences felt flat—probably in no small part due to Harrison Ford. God bless Ford, but the man is too old!
Btw, compare the humor in Raiders versus the later films. It’s there, but it’s subtler—more based on Harrion Ford’s smart-ass attitude rather than cute antics between “family” members. Jaws also has some nice humorous moments (via Richard Dreyfuss) that are entertaining and not childish.
I loved the concept of Hook, and I can’t remember too many details except that I thought it was utterly terrible. (Hoffman was bad, too.)
I gotta say that I don’t know if my problem is that he’s not taking risks and not repeating himself. If he kept making films like Jaws and Raiders, I don’t think I would be complaining too much. I don’t see him as a Serious Artist, but as potentially the greatest Entertainers in film and perhaps beyond it.
Jesse,
If you did examine Spielberg’s work, I think you would see if not a particular style, certain prominent themes that run through his work. And those themes involve children, and the relationship between parents and their children. So I think he is an auteur, but not one that I really like.
I’m not trying to be contentious here, but I want to defend Forrest Gump and Pretty Woman—two films that I really enjoyed. (Maybe I’ve just lost my credibility there.) I understand Mike Spence’s take on FG, and he makes a decent case for it. However, I saw the film—and FG, the character—as the classic Holy Fool. Peter Seller’s character in Being There is another example of this archetype—although that film is more of satire. Generally, Holy Fools are seen in a positive light. They critique worldly notions of power, status and values. They’re not handsome, talented or smart; and they’re often weak and inept. But they usually display kindness and wisdom, which allows them to prevail in some way. It’s those latter qualities—qualities that we don’t appreciate enough—that I think FG is honoring.
As for Pretty Woman I think it’s a terrific Hollywood film in a classic sense. To me, great Hollywood films are often about the Stars. The films—the cinematography, dialogue, story, etc.—all serve to make the stars shine in the best way possible. In a great Hollywood Romance, you get two stars with great chemistry and everything else serves them. That’s what you see in this film and it’s not an easy or common occurence. The only film that I can think of that did this as well is Titanic with the DiCaprio and Winslet team. Yes, the story is cliche. No, you’re not getting any deep Truths. No, the acting is not great (although it’s not bad either). But Gere and Roberts are great on the screen. (What the heck was with Gere’s silver hair? That was pretty cool.) Hollywood films can be great fun, and I think this one is a classic.
Blue said, “Holy Fools go against the prevailing notions and conventional wisdom to provide a glimpse into the truth that is completely dismissed by the world as we know it.”
I don’t know, your statement comes close to describing Gump, imo. Does Gump, as a character, really adhere to “prevailing notions and conventional wisdom?” Yes, he wasn’t a 60’s radical, but he—and his life—are hardly conventional. More to the point, I think Gump doesn’t possesses the qualities that would qualify him as a loser. Much of the time, the characters in the film view him as such (and I would guess most viewers—if they met someone like Gump—would, too.)—even though he is a super loyal, kind, decent and caring person. We all say that being kind, caring and decent are what’s most important, but we don’t really believe that (or it sure doesn’t seem that way). This is the subversive part of Gump—and other Holy Fools: they remind us that these values are really important. That’s what I take away from the Jenny character. FG doesn’t possess the qualities that Jenny—or most normal women—would find attractive in a man; he actually possesses the opposite qualities. But Jenny realizes for herself that someone who is unconditionally loving (a quality in the Holy Fools) and loyal is really what matters the most.
Is there any thread or review that makes the most compelling case for Funny Games (the original or the remake) being a masterpiece? If not, I’d like to hear one. The argument that the film makes people question their interest in violence and horror (or am I getting that wrong?) just doesn’t seem very convincing to me. Did the film really make advocates question our interest in violence, and what we get out of seeing the protagonists prevail? And, more importantly, did the film lead to any interesting insights into the question?
The director of Sin Nombre stressed over the selection of his leads, saying something to the effect that casting was 70% of the film. I happen to agree with that sentiment. You can have the best script, great camerawork and direction, but if you have the wrong actors, you’re in trouble. What are some of the great casting decisions and what are some of the worse—including who you would have cast instead.
One of the actors that I like who seems frequently miscast is Kurt Russell. The films I’m thinking of are Executive Decision, Tombstone (terrible Wyatt Earp; on the flip side, Val Kilmer was a great Doc Holiday), Breakdown (where a whimpier, but likable actor was required). I also don’t care for him as Snake Pliskin in Escape From New York or Tarantino’s Death-Proof. He really has some good qualities for a leading man—primarily hunkiness and likability. He also has a toughness, but his goofy and even sweet side makes him a poor choice for the macho, silent type. To me his best role—a role that takes maximizes his strengths is the Jack Burton role in Big Trouble for LIttle China. The character is tough, goofy (funny), likable. Not many actors could pull that role off, and I love him in that. If anything Russell is more suited for comedies than straight action films (he seems to fit in Tango and Cash which had that comedic element in it). He seems like he’d be good in a romantic comedy (post-When Harry Met Sally type).
If we made a list of film characters who are (or supposed to be) Christians, I’d guess most of them would be a.) hypocrites; b.) hucksters; c.) narrow-minded jerks; d.) freaks; e.) all of the above. (For a recent example see Eli in There Will Be Blood.) Now, let me admit that I am a Christian, so I have a personal interest in this matter. Still, my problem is not just the negativity towards Christianity. There are Christians who fit the stereotype. But the problem with stereotypes is not that they’re completely false. The problem occurs, when their use indicates uglier feelings behind them; when the user can’t acknowledge anything beyond these stereotypes. Why is it acceptable to portray Christians almost exclusively within these negative stereotypes? Is the anti-Christian sentiment in the film industry really that strong?
But even that may not be the biggest problem for me. The bigger problem is that Christian characters who fall strictly within these negative stereotypes are just plain boring. They’re simplistic and not very compelling or interesting. Even positive stereotypes—i.e. the saint or matyr—can be dull. They’re just not real and lack the richness and complexity that interesting characters possess. So maybe the problem boils down to wanting to see more characters that are like me or most Christians I know—neither saint nor Satan’s spawn, but people with a genuine desire to follow Jesus, but who struggle at the same time. Wouldn’t that make for an interesting character—at least more interesting than the cardboard Christians we usually see in film?
(Btw, before anyone starts rattling off characters and films with positive and even interesting Christian characters/themes, I am aware and acknowledge that those films exist. (Love Ordet, but even that has some pretty stereotypical characters). But I think my point remains: those characters and films are the exception, not the rule.)
I’m sorry I have never heard of Pierre Rissient. But I read the thread because I thought he may be someone who might be worth learning about. If it’s any consolation, you could make a pitch for him and his films—i.e. what his films are like and what makes them so special in your view.
I don’t have time to right a complete response right now, but I wanted to respond to the remark: “I don’t want Christian characters. I want human characters.”
But isn’t Christianity, at least for some people, part of being human? There are people who actually take their faith (Christianity or other religions) seriously to the extent that they actually attempt to live out their faith; where their belief actually influences their every day decisions and how they behave. Where are these people in film? I think it would be great to have an action film where the leading character was a Christian or person of faith. That religious dimension could make that character and story interesting—as long as it wasn’t simplistic. (Actually, The Wicker Man was sort of like that, except it wasn’t really an action film. But there’s another example of a negative portrayal of a Christian. Edward Woodward’s character was so uptight and self-righteous that I barely had any sympathy for him when he met his fate.) What I’m saying is that religion or at least the religious impulse and inclination is a big part of being human. So why don’t we see that in films more often?
Hmm, so it sounds like he was more of a behind-the-scenes guy than an actual filmmaker who influenced people with his films. The documentary sounds interesting (sound like the doc about Robert Evans (the Hollywood producer).
Best film of the 80's? almost 3 years ago
I concur with Mishima: a Life in Four Chapters. A super ambitious film that is largely successful. There’s a great concept for the film, terrific music, set pieces that all come together—and made under difficult circumstances (Mishima’s widow opposed the making of the film and Schrader worked with an all-Japanese crew). Granted, I know little of the truth of Mishima’s life, but Schrader seems to create a plausible “explanation” of Mishima’s final act—which wasn’t an easy feat.
I know Raging Bull is often mentioned as the best film of the 80s, but I think Mishima could compete against it.
Go to Comment
Choosing What to See Without Knowing Anything About It almost 3 years ago
When it comes to selecting the films I want to see, I’ve put myself in a difficult situation. You see, my ideal movie experience is knowing as little as possible—nothing, if possible—about the film before seeing the film. I find that even innocuous bits of information can take away from my movie experience. For example, before seeing The Wrestler, I knew about Mikey Rourke’s terrfic performance. When I finally saw it, I thought the performance was good, but, perhaps, not as good as the hype. In any event, had I not known this detail, I probably would have enjoyed the performance a bit more. Now the difference may not be so significant—and average film goers would find it negligible—but I don’t. These “losses” don’t ruin a film, but they do take away from my experience.
So now my problem is obvious. How can I know which film to see if I don’t know anything about it? I’ve solved this problem in several ways. First, I try learn if reputable critics like the film or not. I do this by reading the title of an article (although that can give information that I don’t want to know: a recent example was from Let the Right One In. The title of an article revealed who the girl was.) Looking at metacritic scores have been helpful, too. Second, I rely on friends who know me to recommend a film. When someone raves about a film, I ask, “Do you think I will like it?”
Does anyone have any other helpful suggestions?
Go to Comment
what did you watch today? almost 3 years ago
Dead Ringers. I was surprised that it was more of psychological character(s) study than a horror film. Indeed, Cronenbergian elements (i.e. the insect looking instruments and gore) seemed unnecessary. Irons’ performance was very good.
Go to Comment
Recommend me romantic art films almost 3 years ago
I was going to say Once, but Josh beat me to it.
Others:
Leaving Las Vegas
Out of Africa
Sunrise: Song of Two Humans
Go to Comment
You guys all know about that "1001 movies you must see..." right? almost 3 years ago
I have one of the earlier editions, and I wished they discussed how they defined “must see.” If “must see” means films that required to understand the art form, then you could make a case for having a 1001 film. But if you “must see” means films that are so terrific or important that they must been seen whether you’re a film fanatic or not, then I don’t think there are 1001 films that fit that description. I just think the editor should at least share how the contributors defined the term. Plus, I think it would make for an interesting discussion.
Go to Comment
What is (are) your favorite frame(s)? Part Deux over 2 years ago
The first one that comes to my mind is from Breaking the Waves. It’s a really quick scene of Emily Watson screaming at the ocean while the waves crash around her. To be honest, Watson’s scream is a big part of what I love about that shot, so it’s not just a visual thing for me.
I could probably choose a bunch from Days of Heaven (or any Malick film—or Wong kar-Wai or Kubrick…)
Go to Comment
Underrated movies/actors over 2 years ago
I don’t know if Barry Pepper is underrated, but I like him, and I wish he were in more films.
Go to Comment
Underrated movies/actors over 2 years ago
I don’t know if Barry Pepper is underrated, but I like him, and I wish he were in more films.
Go to Comment
can you name a truly great american film in the last 5 years... over 2 years ago
Emphatically, Terrence Malick’s The New World. It could be his best film. There aren’t many other films that I would consider in the same class—2001 and L’Avventura come to mind.
Go to Comment
can you name a truly great american film in the last 5 years... over 2 years ago
Emphatically, Terrence Malick’s The New World. It could be his best film. There aren’t many other films that I would consider in the same class—2001 and L’Avventura come to mind.
Go to Comment
GI Joe > District 9 over 2 years ago
Let me say a couple of things. First, part of what could explain Tom’s reaction is expectations—high for D9 and low for GI Joe. Expectations often significantly influence our experience of films. Had Tom had more moderate or high expectations of Joe, and he might not have liked it. The point is that a film is not good or bad because of the expectations you had going into the film.
Second, while I didn’t care for D9, let me say one thing in its defense. It was a film that didn’t work because that tried to be too clever (eg the documentary feel, combined with B-Movie cheesiness with A movie effects, social commentary etc.) without spending enough time on a better script.(Also, i thought the lead actor was a poor choice for the role.) On the other, the film had potential and it wasn’t a cookie-cutter type of film. Had the elements come together and this could have been an interesting film. For example, I think took the film in a more B-direction a la Planet Terror; and developed the relationship between the human and alien a little more a la Enemy Mine and I think this could have been a good film. My point is that there was potential.
Joe, on the other hand, just felt like a film made by people only interested in money. It did have some nice fx and action sequences, but you get the feeling that the filmmakers didn’t care at all about making a good movie. The characters were totally boring and dialogue flat. I really like action films, but I don’t think you need to sacrifice character development, dialogue or story to achieve a good action film. Indeed, for me, actions films without this are boring.
To sum up, D9 feels like it’s made by a creative, thinking individual who genuinely wanted to make an interesting movie; while Joe seems to be made largely by suits who only care about maximizing profits. So, no, I disagree with Tom.
Go to Comment
GI Joe > District 9 over 2 years ago
Hmm, I find myself in a curious position of actually agreeing with a lot of what Tom said about D9 (eg. I also thought the casting for the lead was a bad choice), while not agreeing with his main point that GI Joe is a better film. As I mentioned earlier, I felt *D9*’s script really needed more work. I almost want to call the filmmakers lazy, as the film felt like a first draft. So I understand what Tom means when he calls the filmmakers "arrogant a**holes*. Personally, I wouldn’t got that far, as I can think of other reasons for this oversite (eg. just poor judgment, bad guidance from more experienced filmmakers, ie. Peter Jackson, etc.) For those of you who want specific problems, let me site a few. First, the filmmakers didn’t put much care or thought into creating a plausible or interesting way the main character escapes and then breaks back into the corporate headquarters. Second, the apartheid comparisons just seem thrown into the film without really developing or saying anything substantive about the issue. Third, the way the main character meets the alien and then develops a relationship with him—a crucial part of the film—needed more work to be believable and compelling.
Having said that I still disagree that D9 is a worse film than GI Joe. I’m not disputing that Tom’s experience of GI Joe was much better. How could I? But I think he goes to far—or at least I disagree with him—that D9 is a worse film. The thing is D9 had potential and I don’t get the sense that the film was made primarily for business reasons rather than for aesthetic ones—or even with the objective of making quality entertainment—unless of course your idea of quality entertainment is simply fx, babes and good actions scenes. The fact that Tom cites Pirates of the Carribean as a film made for commerical reasons is not a very good defense of Joe. Yes, commercial forces were probably strongly behind the Pirates film, but that doesn’t make GI Joe lessen my cynicism towards Joe. Moreover, Johnny Depp’s performance and character in Pirates is a lot of fun, even deserving of the Academy nomination. That character alone makes the film better than GI Joe.
Go to Comment
what did you watch today? over 2 years ago
Loved the original Taking of Pelham.
In the Loop 5/10
Go to Comment
GI Joe > District 9 over 2 years ago
…while Joe was just made for fun, and didn’t insult anyone. It didn’t pretend to be anything more than saturday-morning fun.
I understand this, and, again, I’m not going to dispute youre experience of the film. Indeed, I actually had a little (very little) fun in GI Joe—and that was more than I expected, but I want to respond to the defense that it was just “Saturday morning fun.” There’s nothing wrong with “Saturday morning fun”—unless by definition that signifies crappy movies. See, for me, Saturday morning fun and quality films—films with characters we care about, decent acting and dialogue and a solid story—are not mutually exclusive. I love action films—when they’re well down (which is rare). I love going to films like Matrix (the first one), Die Hard, The Incredibles, and The Italian Job (remake) among others. These films are truly fun and well-made films. GI Joe is not. I like the fact that Hollywood makes action films, but I also want them to make good action films. There are too many filmmakers and Hollywood people who seem to think that you can just put some stars on the screen with f/x, high speed car chases, explosions and gun battles and you’ve got a good movie—not art but good entertainment. That’s horse-puckey! as Col. Potter would say.The comment that the film is just good Saturday morning fun sounds like an excuse for that kind of crappy filmmaking. Tom probably didn’t mean it that way, but I just wanted to make get that off my chest. You I guess I’m just as passionate about Saturday morning fun as the serious movies.
Go to Comment
GI Joe > District 9 over 2 years ago
Yo Tom! I’d love to comment on the Nausicaa v. Empire Strikes Back thread, but I haven’t seen Nausicca—or if I did, I barely remember seeing it.
Polaris,
I just don’t think Blomkamp says anything substantive about the issue. You mentioned that Blomkamp explores the way the racial issue and conflict would develop, but does he develop the issues in ways that aren’t predictable or obvious? To me, he didn’t, but I’d be open to ways in which the film makes incisive observations about racism.
Go to Comment
My Problem with Steven Spielberg over 2 years ago
Spielberg is a very talented director and may be the one of the best action/thriller directors of all-time.* You could make a case that Raiders of the Lost Ark and Jaws are two of the best film in their respective genres. But something happened after Raiders, namely E.T. I haven’t seen E.T. in ages, but I really liked it as a child, and I would probably still consider it a good, if not very good film. However, with E.T. and it’s extraordinary success, Spielberg’s films developed a different tone and sensibility—specifically with family themes. Now, I don’t have a problem with family themes and indeed, some of his earlier films like Jaws and Close Encounters have that element in them. But they’re not as central to the films, and, more importantly, Spielberg’s treatment of them is significantly different. From E.T onward, the family elements in his films became cloyingly cute and childishly melodramatic. I believe Spielberg took input from his children when making E.T.—and you can sense that in the film. The films afterward also have that same sensibility—not so much that they’re made for children, but that the depictions and treatment of family issues feel like they’re made by a child—or someone who is not really immature. Moreover, they seem to become more prominent parts of the film. A good example of this can be seen in Indiana Jones films. The first film doesn’t have a family theme at all and none of the childish quality I’m talking about. In the Temple, the cute family thing is introduced with the Short-Round character and his relationship with Indy. This becomes more pronounced and silly in Last Crusade and Crystal Skull. (Even Marcus, Indy’s friend who has a more serious presence in the first film becomes a clown in the third). I know some people found this approach charming and funny, but, for me, they made the films progressively worse.
And I think that’s true about all the films that came after Raiders. Had Spielberg kept the same approach (the same maturity?) of films and tone to films like Close Encounters, Jaws, Raiders and even Duel (a very good thriller), I think he’d be the greatest Hollywood (read: enetertainment) films of all-time.
Go to Comment
What Is The Worst Movie Made in the Past 20 Years? (THERE ARE RULES TO FOLLOW!) over 2 years ago
No film comes to mind that fits the criteria.
But I’d like to mention Bram Stoker’s Dracula, particularly since Coppola is…well, Coppola, and also because critics seemed to like this (which I found appalling). The only defense I can make for this film is that Coppola was intentionally going for a recreation of the original Bela Lagosi version (complete with Gary Oldman’s hamfisted impersonation: “I vant to suck your blood!”) Even then it’s not very good.
The other film that baffled me in its badness: Tim Burton’s Planet of the Apes. I only hope that money was the reason he made it.
Go to Comment
My Problem with Steven Spielberg over 2 years ago
I make a distinction between childlike and childishness. Yes, there is that childlike quality in Close Encounters, and I don’t have a problem with that. But there’s a childishness (which I’m not really articulating really well) in his subsequent films—and I find that he’s unabashed about it. Roy leaving his family is not one of those things either. Hopefully someone else knows what I’m talkign about (and agrees with me) and can explain it better than I can.
Go to Comment
My Problem with Steven Spielberg over 2 years ago
Fredo said, “I think one of the central reasons Spielberg became a filmmaker was because of this childlike wonder he had with the world, a sense of classic imagination (“classic” meaning grounded in “G-Rating” like a Disney cartoon as opposed to imagination of a more harsh reality – see Gilliam, Del Toro). I don’t really see too much differences in his pre-E.T. films to his post-E.T. films other than children were more prominent in the plot (and in some cases were the protaganist).”
Films like Jaws and Duel are probably closer to that harsher reality than the “classic imagination” you referred to. Btw, my problem with Spielberg is not that his films aren’t profound (a la Bergman, et. al.) It’s actually sort of the opposite. I wish he would just stick to making action/adventure/thrillers—sans the family melodrama, cutesy humor, and/or treatment of serious issues (i.e. holocaust, slavery, Munich retaliation, etc.) That’s what films like Jaws, Duel, Raiders of the Lost Ark and even Close Encounters have in common. Imo, what would result are action/thriller films in the mold of James Cameron—except I think Spielberg is more talented. Think of War of the Worlds. The beginning is really exciting and then it gradually morphs into this story about a father letting go of his son—or at least that sub-plot is prominent in the story. Man, if he’d just take that out and focus on creating a thrilling joy rid of a film, the movie could have been terrific.
Mike Spence,
I did mean to include Schindler’s List, Munich and Saving Private Ryan, although the first two films don’t fit into my theory in that I don’t recall the family themes featuring prominently in them (although I could be wrong). Ryan has that family element, but I think it’s also the cloying sentimentality that bothers me, and again he doesn’t seem to be embarrassed or at least a bit more modest about this aspect of himself or his films that I think he ought to. Moreover, this kind of sentimentality is lacking in the earlier films I mentioned. It’s like this childish part of him was held in check—and E.T. gave him permission to indulge in this side of him. I wish he could just put that stuff back in the closet and re-establish the tone and focus of the earlier films. Spielberg’s strength is not understanding psychological, emotional or spiritual complexity. But he is terrific—maybe one of the best, on par with Hitchcock—in shooting action/suspense sequences. Look at the landing at Normandy in “Saving.” That is one of great moments in film history, imo. It’s one of, if not the best shot, military battle sequences.
With Schindler’s and Munich, I don’t know if I’d call them were childish, so much as they seem a little superficial (particularly the latter film)—psychologically or emotionally (which, I guess, could be called childish, but that’s not the word I’d go for in this specific case). Because of that, I don’t think they’re great films.
Re: Temple of Doom.
Count me in as one of those who likes them better than “Crusade” or “Crystal Skull.” I like Connery, but the whole cute father-son gags practically ruined the film for me. In the final film, the reappearance of Marion and the family dynamic just didn’t work. Actually even the action sequences felt flat—probably in no small part due to Harrison Ford. God bless Ford, but the man is too old!
Btw, compare the humor in Raiders versus the later films. It’s there, but it’s subtler—more based on Harrion Ford’s smart-ass attitude rather than cute antics between “family” members. Jaws also has some nice humorous moments (via Richard Dreyfuss) that are entertaining and not childish.
Go to Comment
My Problem with Steven Spielberg over 2 years ago
I loved the concept of Hook, and I can’t remember too many details except that I thought it was utterly terrible. (Hoffman was bad, too.)
I gotta say that I don’t know if my problem is that he’s not taking risks and not repeating himself. If he kept making films like Jaws and Raiders, I don’t think I would be complaining too much. I don’t see him as a Serious Artist, but as potentially the greatest Entertainers in film and perhaps beyond it.
Jesse,
If you did examine Spielberg’s work, I think you would see if not a particular style, certain prominent themes that run through his work. And those themes involve children, and the relationship between parents and their children. So I think he is an auteur, but not one that I really like.
Go to Comment
What Is The Worst Movie Made in the Past 20 Years? (THERE ARE RULES TO FOLLOW!) over 2 years ago
So much to coment on, and so little time.
I’m not trying to be contentious here, but I want to defend Forrest Gump and Pretty Woman—two films that I really enjoyed. (Maybe I’ve just lost my credibility there.) I understand Mike Spence’s take on FG, and he makes a decent case for it. However, I saw the film—and FG, the character—as the classic Holy Fool. Peter Seller’s character in Being There is another example of this archetype—although that film is more of satire. Generally, Holy Fools are seen in a positive light. They critique worldly notions of power, status and values. They’re not handsome, talented or smart; and they’re often weak and inept. But they usually display kindness and wisdom, which allows them to prevail in some way. It’s those latter qualities—qualities that we don’t appreciate enough—that I think FG is honoring.
As for Pretty Woman I think it’s a terrific Hollywood film in a classic sense. To me, great Hollywood films are often about the Stars. The films—the cinematography, dialogue, story, etc.—all serve to make the stars shine in the best way possible. In a great Hollywood Romance, you get two stars with great chemistry and everything else serves them. That’s what you see in this film and it’s not an easy or common occurence. The only film that I can think of that did this as well is Titanic with the DiCaprio and Winslet team. Yes, the story is cliche. No, you’re not getting any deep Truths. No, the acting is not great (although it’s not bad either). But Gere and Roberts are great on the screen. (What the heck was with Gere’s silver hair? That was pretty cool.) Hollywood films can be great fun, and I think this one is a classic.
Go to Comment
What Is The Worst Movie Made in the Past 20 Years? (THERE ARE RULES TO FOLLOW!) over 2 years ago
Blue said, “Holy Fools go against the prevailing notions and conventional wisdom to provide a glimpse into the truth that is completely dismissed by the world as we know it.”
I don’t know, your statement comes close to describing Gump, imo. Does Gump, as a character, really adhere to “prevailing notions and conventional wisdom?” Yes, he wasn’t a 60’s radical, but he—and his life—are hardly conventional. More to the point, I think Gump doesn’t possesses the qualities that would qualify him as a loser. Much of the time, the characters in the film view him as such (and I would guess most viewers—if they met someone like Gump—would, too.)—even though he is a super loyal, kind, decent and caring person. We all say that being kind, caring and decent are what’s most important, but we don’t really believe that (or it sure doesn’t seem that way). This is the subversive part of Gump—and other Holy Fools: they remind us that these values are really important. That’s what I take away from the Jenny character. FG doesn’t possess the qualities that Jenny—or most normal women—would find attractive in a man; he actually possesses the opposite qualities. But Jenny realizes for herself that someone who is unconditionally loving (a quality in the Holy Fools) and loyal is really what matters the most.
Go to Comment
Funny Games U.S. vs. Funny Games Austira over 2 years ago
Is there any thread or review that makes the most compelling case for Funny Games (the original or the remake) being a masterpiece? If not, I’d like to hear one. The argument that the film makes people question their interest in violence and horror (or am I getting that wrong?) just doesn’t seem very convincing to me. Did the film really make advocates question our interest in violence, and what we get out of seeing the protagonists prevail? And, more importantly, did the film lead to any interesting insights into the question?
Go to Comment
Funny Games U.S. vs. Funny Games Austira over 2 years ago
Yeah, that would be nice.
Go to Comment
Casting: the Good, Bad and the Ugly over 2 years ago
The director of Sin Nombre stressed over the selection of his leads, saying something to the effect that casting was 70% of the film. I happen to agree with that sentiment. You can have the best script, great camerawork and direction, but if you have the wrong actors, you’re in trouble. What are some of the great casting decisions and what are some of the worse—including who you would have cast instead.
Go to Comment
Casting: the Good, Bad and the Ugly over 2 years ago
One of the actors that I like who seems frequently miscast is Kurt Russell. The films I’m thinking of are Executive Decision, Tombstone (terrible Wyatt Earp; on the flip side, Val Kilmer was a great Doc Holiday), Breakdown (where a whimpier, but likable actor was required). I also don’t care for him as Snake Pliskin in Escape From New York or Tarantino’s Death-Proof. He really has some good qualities for a leading man—primarily hunkiness and likability. He also has a toughness, but his goofy and even sweet side makes him a poor choice for the macho, silent type. To me his best role—a role that takes maximizes his strengths is the Jack Burton role in Big Trouble for LIttle China. The character is tough, goofy (funny), likable. Not many actors could pull that role off, and I love him in that. If anything Russell is more suited for comedies than straight action films (he seems to fit in Tango and Cash which had that comedic element in it). He seems like he’d be good in a romantic comedy (post-When Harry Met Sally type).
Go to Comment
Movies Have No Love for Christians over 2 years ago
If we made a list of film characters who are (or supposed to be) Christians, I’d guess most of them would be a.) hypocrites; b.) hucksters; c.) narrow-minded jerks; d.) freaks; e.) all of the above. (For a recent example see Eli in There Will Be Blood.) Now, let me admit that I am a Christian, so I have a personal interest in this matter. Still, my problem is not just the negativity towards Christianity. There are Christians who fit the stereotype. But the problem with stereotypes is not that they’re completely false. The problem occurs, when their use indicates uglier feelings behind them; when the user can’t acknowledge anything beyond these stereotypes. Why is it acceptable to portray Christians almost exclusively within these negative stereotypes? Is the anti-Christian sentiment in the film industry really that strong?
But even that may not be the biggest problem for me. The bigger problem is that Christian characters who fall strictly within these negative stereotypes are just plain boring. They’re simplistic and not very compelling or interesting. Even positive stereotypes—i.e. the saint or matyr—can be dull. They’re just not real and lack the richness and complexity that interesting characters possess. So maybe the problem boils down to wanting to see more characters that are like me or most Christians I know—neither saint nor Satan’s spawn, but people with a genuine desire to follow Jesus, but who struggle at the same time. Wouldn’t that make for an interesting character—at least more interesting than the cardboard Christians we usually see in film?
(Btw, before anyone starts rattling off characters and films with positive and even interesting Christian characters/themes, I am aware and acknowledge that those films exist. (Love Ordet, but even that has some pretty stereotypical characters). But I think my point remains: those characters and films are the exception, not the rule.)
Go to Comment
Pierre Rissient: Man of Cinema over 2 years ago
I’m sorry I have never heard of Pierre Rissient. But I read the thread because I thought he may be someone who might be worth learning about. If it’s any consolation, you could make a pitch for him and his films—i.e. what his films are like and what makes them so special in your view.
Go to Comment
Movies Have No Love for Christians over 2 years ago
I don’t have time to right a complete response right now, but I wanted to respond to the remark: “I don’t want Christian characters. I want human characters.”
But isn’t Christianity, at least for some people, part of being human? There are people who actually take their faith (Christianity or other religions) seriously to the extent that they actually attempt to live out their faith; where their belief actually influences their every day decisions and how they behave. Where are these people in film? I think it would be great to have an action film where the leading character was a Christian or person of faith. That religious dimension could make that character and story interesting—as long as it wasn’t simplistic. (Actually, The Wicker Man was sort of like that, except it wasn’t really an action film. But there’s another example of a negative portrayal of a Christian. Edward Woodward’s character was so uptight and self-righteous that I barely had any sympathy for him when he met his fate.) What I’m saying is that religion or at least the religious impulse and inclination is a big part of being human. So why don’t we see that in films more often?
Go to Comment
Pierre Rissient: Man of Cinema over 2 years ago
Hmm, so it sounds like he was more of a behind-the-scenes guy than an actual filmmaker who influenced people with his films. The documentary sounds interesting (sound like the doc about Robert Evans (the Hollywood producer).
Go to Comment