I agree with the bulk of what you’re saying, but the reason I didn’t get Kubrick vibes from There Will Be Blood was Anderson’s lack of Kubrick-esque framing. One of the first things I look for in a Kubrick film is his angles: everything comes to sharp, square points and 90 degree angles (e.g. the hall of the jail in A Clockwork Orange, in which the angle is so head-on, every ceiling lamp lines up perfectly with the one behind it; or the hotel in The Shining, and the way in which every pillar in the lobby creates a frame-within-the-frame for actions within the scene). While most of your points hit the similarities right on the nose, I feel like framing is such an integral part of Kubrick’s style that Anderson’s piece didn’t evoke Kubrickian imagery for me at all.
Deep perspective, yes, but you’ll have to remind me if he uses that straight-on look—I saw There Will Be Blood back in theaters, so if I’ve forgotten, you’ll forgive me. But, had Kubrick shot it, the establishing shots at the very least would be a head-long shot perfectly centering the alley itself.
Thus the “best picture” win, right? A film with brilliant art direction—an INSPIRED retelling of the Kandor and Ebb original—is the worst film of the decade? Please.
As for Sin City, and I may be biased ‘cuz I am a sucker for good visual design, I thought the film was fantastic. It was a beautiful blend of gritty noir and over-the-top action film satire that reminded me of one of the reasons I go to movies in the first place: to GET AWAY from this world. It was excellent! And if you don’t believe me, ask Roger Ebert.
Conversely, the worst movie of the last decade may be ANOTHER Frank Miller work: The Spirit. This film was NOT the correct mix and noir and satire, though God knows it tried to be. No characters had anything at stake and the absurdist humor undercut whatever actual plot there may have been. What an utter waste of time and money.
Roscoe,
I understand your points, but still strongly disagree. I think Rob Marshall did great work and the camerawork was fine. The editing was a little much, but that’s an aspect of post-modern filmmaking in general, not just Chicago; on those grounds, anything by Baz Luhrman is also “unforgivable,” which I simply refuse to believe. The story wasn’t “tampered” with, it was adapted—one can’t very well film a stage production of something and attempt to pass it off as a film. In terms of stage-to-film adaptations of musicals (a genre that’s seen a decline, I’ll admit; see RENT), I think I’d have to say Chicago’s my favorite!
As for 300, while it’s no Citizen Kane, it’s at the very least a fun movie. You get what you pay for, and the film was exactly what I expected it to be. Nothing worth writing home about, but still a solid good time.
The Coen Bros. are my favorite auteurs for many many reasons. They create stunning films that reflect real life while exaggerating small details for satire. Every piece, excusing a few (namely The Ladykillers), is pitch perfect, but I often find myself in arguments as to which film is their best.
I used to think their greatest film was Fargo…that it, until I was introduced to The Hudsucker Proxy. I was concerned at first, because the film is their one and only PG piece (which automatically removes the random graphic depictions of violence, one thing their films are FAMOUS for), but I was pleasantly surprised with how impressive the narrative is! And, even though this Coen Bros. film is more approachable for families, it is still a very sophisticated film AND they don’t skimp out on literary/visual design one bit. It’s a truly amazing picture.
O Bro is actually one of my least favorite of their films. Conversely, I think The Big Lebowski is amazing, if not iconic (which is hardly arguable at this point—I mean, John Goodman has his own action figure for chrissakes).
Aside from Hudsucker and Fargo (which is receiving surprisingly little love here), I also loved Barton Fink, a film which tends to slip too far under the radar given its brilliance, and Burn After Reading, a film that went severely underrated most likely because it came right on the heels of best picture winner No Country For Old Men (another good movie, but far from their best).
Actually, because I’m taking a class in Horror, Science Fiction, and Fantasy films, I can accurately answer this question!
The sci-fi genre in film developed during the early stages of the Cold War. This was a time when America’s fears drifted toward a Red Russia and the mystery of nuclear arms. Suddenly, we had a nation living in fear of weapons that the masses didn’t entirely understand, and the bomb race and space race fueled a national fear of all things science. Citizens were being urged to build bomb shelters under their homes and federal grants were being awarded to college students studying astrophysics. Also at this time, technology was developing at an alarming rate. Households began to own more than one car and children were growing up in more affluent suburbs with expendable incomes.
It’s this last detail that’s key to the development of the sci-fi genre and its scientific implausibilities. Because teens and young adults now had their own expendable incomes (which generations before lacked courtesy of the depression), they became a marketable demographic. And, because these children were also familiar with the comics of the generation prior, the Buck Rogers and whatnot, this new genre emerged to cater to a new audience. Sci-fi films started as short serials aimed at drawing in kids and soon expanded into the feature length sci-fi and the feature length sci-fi/horror hybrid.
So, to answer your question, a child/teen market is not as science-savvy as the more sophisticated older generation and is not only less likely to question faulty film science, but more invested in the fantastical aspects of the more outrageous sci-fi films (like The Day the Earth Stood Still and It Came From Outer Space). Not only that, but technology was expanding at such an alarming rate that early audiences really didn’t have a grasp for where science was headed. Though we look back and recognize these feats as implausible, the 1950s theater-goer couldn’t possibly know that; the development of nuclear power, and nuclear weaponry, made science seem limitless.
Thus, early sci-fi films are outlandish to the point of laughability. Today, we see films that, if not perfect, are at least more scientifically accurate, like Danny Boyle’s Sunshine (2007) for example. But yes, the early trend of absurd technological prospects started as a result of the Cold War and suburbia and stuck as a trend that is now, finally ebbing away.
Watchmen is NOT unfilmable. It was practically BEGGING to be filmed. It’s one of very few graphic novels that’s actually written like a movie, cross-cutting and all.
Watchmen is NOT unfilmable. It was practically BEGGING to be filmed. It’s one of very few graphic novels that’s actually written like a movie, cross-cutting and all.
Akira’s already being done right now. The grapevine says it’s to star Leonardo DiCaprio and Joseph Gordon-Levitt, but I think that’s still speculation. Either way you cut it, it’s being done as a two-parter (remake of the graphic novels, NOT the previous film) and Lord knows it won’t be good.
I’m invariably more drawn to a breaking of the fourth wall in a different way: sometimes on-set materials inadvertently (or intentionally) get on the camera and it becomes another means to break the fourth wall. During an inspired long take in Children of Men, a piece of blood or water gets on the lens and a digital cut removes it after it’s been on the screen for about 2 minutes. Though that example was likely, clearly, an accident, Paul Verhoeven’s alien blood on camera in the brilliant Starship Troopers was done to reinforce the satire and the campy tone.
So there are a couple of different ways to break the fourth wall, and both are equally interesting, but in VERY different ways.
She made The Lady Eve an absolute riot! I saw that movie just a couple of weeks ago and every joke withstands the test of time. Half a century has passed and Barbara Stanwyck’s work still holds up! That film is a really stunning comedy.
Clarification: Do you want films from the modern era? Or modern as in “recent”? Because technically, every film listed above is post-modern.
The modern era had very few good films, among them The Sting and Loving. Overall, it’s not my favorite film era. In terms of post-modern films, I think everyone’s got the best pretty much covered above.
Because I base ALL my opinions on Drew Casper’s thoughts. Seriously though, and I have nothing against Fritz Lang, but the film is boring, offensive, and worst of all, absolutely static.
Although admittedly, it has one of my favorite lines in cinema history: (paraphrasing) “You throw six women at the ceiling, and I like the one that sticks.”
Joshua has a very good point. The Matrix is the perfect textbook example of a high concept film: the series had other straight-to-DVD releases, several video games (including an MMORPG—the format that keeps on taking, monetarily), a line of action figures, several books (comic and otherwise), and that’s only the tip of the merchandising iceberg. It may have anti-consumerist undertones, but that would make it intensely hypocritical.
Or “I’ve Loved You So Long” from France? That film got heaping amounts of critical acclaim—many even said it was sure to win the Oscar! So how did it not even get nominated?
I’m surprised there’s no mention of Javier Bardem as Anton Chigurh in No Country For Old Men (2007). I mean, I know it was recent, but he was utterly blood-curdling—a very well-deserved Supporting Actor Oscar.
Oh, yes, correct; I was not the first to mention Javier Bardem in No Co. But admittedly he wasn’t getting the love that he deserved.
Another top pick of mine is actually probably a more bizarre choice, but allow me to explain: Lady Eboshi from Miyazaki’s Mononoke-hime (1997). The reason I single her out is not because she was particularly terrifying, but because I think she was the first villain I ever saw that could be seen as a hero as well. Sure she is greedy and manipulative and dangerous, but everything she does she does for the many people that depend on her to survive, and the sickly lepers who would have been cast aside and left to die without her help. While any good movie villain should have his/her own motive, I like Lady Eboshi’s because her reasons were stunningly noble. GREAT film; I cannot stress this enough.
I’m agreeing with FLCL because I think it’s a bizarre little piece that puts a radically different spin on the slice-of-life coming-of-age story, but Lord knows the six episode series will never get the love it deserves.
Anthony’s initial list has some hits and some misses, but I’ll agree with Princess Mononoke and with Crap Monster’s suggestion of Sita Sings the Blues—I stumbled upon it last week courtesy of /Film and loved it!
KUBRICK'S INFLUENCE ON "THERE WILL BE BLOOD" over 3 years ago
I agree with the bulk of what you’re saying, but the reason I didn’t get Kubrick vibes from There Will Be Blood was Anderson’s lack of Kubrick-esque framing. One of the first things I look for in a Kubrick film is his angles: everything comes to sharp, square points and 90 degree angles (e.g. the hall of the jail in A Clockwork Orange, in which the angle is so head-on, every ceiling lamp lines up perfectly with the one behind it; or the hotel in The Shining, and the way in which every pillar in the lobby creates a frame-within-the-frame for actions within the scene). While most of your points hit the similarities right on the nose, I feel like framing is such an integral part of Kubrick’s style that Anderson’s piece didn’t evoke Kubrickian imagery for me at all.
Go to Comment
KUBRICK'S INFLUENCE ON "THERE WILL BE BLOOD" over 3 years ago
Deep perspective, yes, but you’ll have to remind me if he uses that straight-on look—I saw There Will Be Blood back in theaters, so if I’ve forgotten, you’ll forgive me. But, had Kubrick shot it, the establishing shots at the very least would be a head-long shot perfectly centering the alley itself.
Go to Comment
What is the worst movie ever (2000-2009) over 3 years ago
@Roscoe
Thus the “best picture” win, right? A film with brilliant art direction—an INSPIRED retelling of the Kandor and Ebb original—is the worst film of the decade? Please.
As for Sin City, and I may be biased ‘cuz I am a sucker for good visual design, I thought the film was fantastic. It was a beautiful blend of gritty noir and over-the-top action film satire that reminded me of one of the reasons I go to movies in the first place: to GET AWAY from this world. It was excellent! And if you don’t believe me, ask Roger Ebert.
Conversely, the worst movie of the last decade may be ANOTHER Frank Miller work: The Spirit. This film was NOT the correct mix and noir and satire, though God knows it tried to be. No characters had anything at stake and the absurdist humor undercut whatever actual plot there may have been. What an utter waste of time and money.
Go to Comment
What is the worst movie ever (2000-2009) over 3 years ago
Roscoe,
I understand your points, but still strongly disagree. I think Rob Marshall did great work and the camerawork was fine. The editing was a little much, but that’s an aspect of post-modern filmmaking in general, not just Chicago; on those grounds, anything by Baz Luhrman is also “unforgivable,” which I simply refuse to believe. The story wasn’t “tampered” with, it was adapted—one can’t very well film a stage production of something and attempt to pass it off as a film. In terms of stage-to-film adaptations of musicals (a genre that’s seen a decline, I’ll admit; see RENT), I think I’d have to say Chicago’s my favorite!
As for 300, while it’s no Citizen Kane, it’s at the very least a fun movie. You get what you pay for, and the film was exactly what I expected it to be. Nothing worth writing home about, but still a solid good time.
Go to Comment
Last movie you saw and rate it over 3 years ago
American Beauty — 10/10 excellent
Go to Comment
3 Favourite Movies From 5 Favourite Directors over 3 years ago
JOEL & ETHAN COEN
The Hudsucker Proxy
Fargo
Barton Fink
STANLEY KUBRICK
Dr. Strangelove
The Shining
A Clockwork Orange
MICHEL GONDRY
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
The Science of Sleep
Be Kind Rewind
QUENTIN TARANTINO
Pulp Fiction
Kill Bill vol. 1
Kill Bill vol. 2
DAVID FINCHER
Fight Club
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Se7en
Go to Comment
Favorite Cinematographer over 3 years ago
Emmanuel Lubezki — Children of Men and Burn After Reading are GREAT examples of his work. He’s a very amazing man.
Go to Comment
The Coen Bros. -- Best film over 3 years ago
The Coen Bros. are my favorite auteurs for many many reasons. They create stunning films that reflect real life while exaggerating small details for satire. Every piece, excusing a few (namely The Ladykillers), is pitch perfect, but I often find myself in arguments as to which film is their best.
I used to think their greatest film was Fargo…that it, until I was introduced to The Hudsucker Proxy. I was concerned at first, because the film is their one and only PG piece (which automatically removes the random graphic depictions of violence, one thing their films are FAMOUS for), but I was pleasantly surprised with how impressive the narrative is! And, even though this Coen Bros. film is more approachable for families, it is still a very sophisticated film AND they don’t skimp out on literary/visual design one bit. It’s a truly amazing picture.
Differing thoughts?
Go to Comment
favorite funniest movie over 3 years ago
The Big Lebowski
Burn After Reading
Broken Flowers (I laughed out loud, I kid you not)
Dr. Strangelove
Planet Terror
Hot Fuzz
Go to Comment
The Coen Bros. -- Best film over 3 years ago
O Bro is actually one of my least favorite of their films. Conversely, I think The Big Lebowski is amazing, if not iconic (which is hardly arguable at this point—I mean, John Goodman has his own action figure for chrissakes).
Aside from Hudsucker and Fargo (which is receiving surprisingly little love here), I also loved Barton Fink, a film which tends to slip too far under the radar given its brilliance, and Burn After Reading, a film that went severely underrated most likely because it came right on the heels of best picture winner No Country For Old Men (another good movie, but far from their best).
Go to Comment
did people not understand science? over 3 years ago
Actually, because I’m taking a class in Horror, Science Fiction, and Fantasy films, I can accurately answer this question!
The sci-fi genre in film developed during the early stages of the Cold War. This was a time when America’s fears drifted toward a Red Russia and the mystery of nuclear arms. Suddenly, we had a nation living in fear of weapons that the masses didn’t entirely understand, and the bomb race and space race fueled a national fear of all things science. Citizens were being urged to build bomb shelters under their homes and federal grants were being awarded to college students studying astrophysics. Also at this time, technology was developing at an alarming rate. Households began to own more than one car and children were growing up in more affluent suburbs with expendable incomes.
It’s this last detail that’s key to the development of the sci-fi genre and its scientific implausibilities. Because teens and young adults now had their own expendable incomes (which generations before lacked courtesy of the depression), they became a marketable demographic. And, because these children were also familiar with the comics of the generation prior, the Buck Rogers and whatnot, this new genre emerged to cater to a new audience. Sci-fi films started as short serials aimed at drawing in kids and soon expanded into the feature length sci-fi and the feature length sci-fi/horror hybrid.
So, to answer your question, a child/teen market is not as science-savvy as the more sophisticated older generation and is not only less likely to question faulty film science, but more invested in the fantastical aspects of the more outrageous sci-fi films (like The Day the Earth Stood Still and It Came From Outer Space). Not only that, but technology was expanding at such an alarming rate that early audiences really didn’t have a grasp for where science was headed. Though we look back and recognize these feats as implausible, the 1950s theater-goer couldn’t possibly know that; the development of nuclear power, and nuclear weaponry, made science seem limitless.
Thus, early sci-fi films are outlandish to the point of laughability. Today, we see films that, if not perfect, are at least more scientifically accurate, like Danny Boyle’s Sunshine (2007) for example. But yes, the early trend of absurd technological prospects started as a result of the Cold War and suburbia and stuck as a trend that is now, finally ebbing away.
Go to Comment
NEXT GRAPHIC NOVEL TO HIT THE CINEMAS over 3 years ago
Watchmen is NOT unfilmable. It was practically BEGGING to be filmed. It’s one of very few graphic novels that’s actually written like a movie, cross-cutting and all.
Go to Comment
NEXT GRAPHIC NOVEL TO HIT THE CINEMAS over 3 years ago
Watchmen is NOT unfilmable. It was practically BEGGING to be filmed. It’s one of very few graphic novels that’s actually written like a movie, cross-cutting and all.
Go to Comment
What Is "Movie Hell" For You? over 3 years ago
A Peckinpah marathon.
Go to Comment
NEXT GRAPHIC NOVEL TO HIT THE CINEMAS over 3 years ago
Akira’s already being done right now. The grapevine says it’s to star Leonardo DiCaprio and Joseph Gordon-Levitt, but I think that’s still speculation. Either way you cut it, it’s being done as a two-parter (remake of the graphic novels, NOT the previous film) and Lord knows it won’t be good.
Go to Comment
BREAKING THE FOURTH WALL over 3 years ago
KJ—Great example! I was floored by that too!
I’m invariably more drawn to a breaking of the fourth wall in a different way: sometimes on-set materials inadvertently (or intentionally) get on the camera and it becomes another means to break the fourth wall. During an inspired long take in Children of Men, a piece of blood or water gets on the lens and a digital cut removes it after it’s been on the screen for about 2 minutes. Though that example was likely, clearly, an accident, Paul Verhoeven’s alien blood on camera in the brilliant Starship Troopers was done to reinforce the satire and the campy tone.
So there are a couple of different ways to break the fourth wall, and both are equally interesting, but in VERY different ways.
Go to Comment
Barbara Stanwyck over 3 years ago
She made The Lady Eve an absolute riot! I saw that movie just a couple of weeks ago and every joke withstands the test of time. Half a century has passed and Barbara Stanwyck’s work still holds up! That film is a really stunning comedy.
Go to Comment
Barbara Stanwyck over 3 years ago
Honey Bunny,
I didn’t name it ‘cuz I didn’t like it. Stanwyck was good, but the film was dreadful.
Go to Comment
What modern films are great? over 3 years ago
Clarification: Do you want films from the modern era? Or modern as in “recent”? Because technically, every film listed above is post-modern.
The modern era had very few good films, among them The Sting and Loving. Overall, it’s not my favorite film era. In terms of post-modern films, I think everyone’s got the best pretty much covered above.
Go to Comment
WHAT MODERN...AMERICAN...HORROR FILMS SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE CRITERION COLLECTION? over 3 years ago
The expect The Host might get Criterion treatment.
Go to Comment
Barbara Stanwyck over 3 years ago
@ Honey Bunny
Because I base ALL my opinions on Drew Casper’s thoughts. Seriously though, and I have nothing against Fritz Lang, but the film is boring, offensive, and worst of all, absolutely static.
Although admittedly, it has one of my favorite lines in cinema history: (paraphrasing) “You throw six women at the ceiling, and I like the one that sticks.”
Go to Comment
What is (are) your favorite frame(s)? over 3 years ago
Marla Singer, Fight Club, of course
Coen Bros.‘s The Hudsucker Proxy
the composition in Paul Newman’s office is stellar too, but I couldn’t find a picture of that
And it goes without saying, but anything Kubrick does it just plain great. There would be too many pictures to reasonably post.
Go to Comment
The Matrix over 3 years ago
Joshua has a very good point. The Matrix is the perfect textbook example of a high concept film: the series had other straight-to-DVD releases, several video games (including an MMORPG—the format that keeps on taking, monetarily), a line of action figures, several books (comic and otherwise), and that’s only the tip of the merchandising iceberg. It may have anti-consumerist undertones, but that would make it intensely hypocritical.
Go to Comment
Foreign Film Nominations, 2009 over 3 years ago
Or “I’ve Loved You So Long” from France? That film got heaping amounts of critical acclaim—many even said it was sure to win the Oscar! So how did it not even get nominated?
Go to Comment
2009 Spirit Awards Results over 3 years ago
The Wrestler has to be my favorite film of the near, second maybe only to Frost/Nixon, but that surely wouldn’t get any love at the Spirit Awards.
I think it’s good that The Wrestler took so many categories. Lord knows it won’t get any love tonight at the Oscars.
Go to Comment
I was just on IMDB over 3 years ago
Everyone’s hit it right on the nose. I second all prior sentiments.
Go to Comment
stop motion is... over 3 years ago
I wholeheartedly agree, but can’t offer any explanation.
Go to Comment
Greatest movie villain. over 3 years ago
I’m surprised there’s no mention of Javier Bardem as Anton Chigurh in No Country For Old Men (2007). I mean, I know it was recent, but he was utterly blood-curdling—a very well-deserved Supporting Actor Oscar.
Go to Comment
Greatest movie villain. over 3 years ago
Oh, yes, correct; I was not the first to mention Javier Bardem in No Co. But admittedly he wasn’t getting the love that he deserved.
Another top pick of mine is actually probably a more bizarre choice, but allow me to explain: Lady Eboshi from Miyazaki’s Mononoke-hime (1997). The reason I single her out is not because she was particularly terrifying, but because I think she was the first villain I ever saw that could be seen as a hero as well. Sure she is greedy and manipulative and dangerous, but everything she does she does for the many people that depend on her to survive, and the sickly lepers who would have been cast aside and left to die without her help. While any good movie villain should have his/her own motive, I like Lady Eboshi’s because her reasons were stunningly noble. GREAT film; I cannot stress this enough.
Go to Comment
Animated Films on Criterion over 3 years ago
I’m agreeing with FLCL because I think it’s a bizarre little piece that puts a radically different spin on the slice-of-life coming-of-age story, but Lord knows the six episode series will never get the love it deserves.
Anthony’s initial list has some hits and some misses, but I’ll agree with Princess Mononoke and with Crap Monster’s suggestion of Sita Sings the Blues—I stumbled upon it last week courtesy of /Film and loved it!
Go to Comment