A local critic made a damned fine effort trying to insist that “300” was a loving homage to “Seven Samurai”. The argument basically boiled down to “They’re both about a small force setting up tactically against a bigger force.” The same critic also compared “Vantage Point” negatively to “Rashomon” in terms of stories playing out from multiple perspectives. Obviously, I don’t read his reviews much, anymore, but his is the newspaper with the most cohesive local listings, so he’s a necessary evil.
A local critic made a damned fine effort trying to insist that “300” was a loving homage to “Seven Samurai”. The argument basically boiled down to “They’re both about a small force setting up tactically against a bigger force.” The same critic also compared “Vantage Point” negatively to “Rashomon” in terms of stories playing out from multiple perspectives. Obviously, I don’t read his reviews much, anymore, but his is the newspaper with the most cohesive local listings, so he’s a necessary evil.
Well I work at a video store and I can tell you that by FAR the most common selling Criterion at my store is Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. We usually receive about 3-5 copies of them at a time, and they sell within five days. The Royal Tenenbaums and Chasing Amy sell decently, too, but that’s mostly because they’re only $15.99 as opposed to $29.99 (and we typically have them on sale for $12.99, so, bonus, right?).
Of course, my store is at the edge of what the inhabitants of this city lovingly call “The War Zone”, and drug-related movies sell/rent/get stolen at a pretty regular pace. So I wouldn’t know if Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas sells nearly as well in other locations.
I have to admit, the only Fellini film I’ve seen that I liked was 8 1/2. I’m a sucker for meta, though, and love Adaptation. despite its flaws for the very same reasons.
One time I was in a local video store that was going out of business, and struck up this conversation with this guy who said, “So: Fellini or Bergman?” I sez, “Uhhh… Bergman.” He sez, “Yeah, me too.” A strange question, but surprisingly one that’s really fun to posit to random people.
My roommate owns one of David Thomson’s books, and the only thing we get from it is laughs.
Anyway, I’m saving ultimate jury for Fellini for when I see La Strada, because as far as I’ve heard, even people who hate Felllini love La Strada.
I have to admit, the only Fellini film I’ve seen that I liked was 8 1/2. I’m a sucker for meta, though, and love Adaptation. despite its flaws for the very same reasons.
One time I was in a local video store that was going out of business, and struck up this conversation with this guy who said, “So: Fellini or Bergman?” I sez, “Uhhh… Bergman.” He sez, “Yeah, me too.” A strange question, but surprisingly one that’s really fun to posit to random people.
My roommate owns one of David Thomson’s books, and the only thing we get from it is laughs.
Anyway, I’m saving ultimate jury for Fellini for when I see La Strada, because as far as I’ve heard, even people who hate Felllini love La Strada.
I’m going to buy Last Year at Marienbad the second it comes out. I don’t know how many times I’ve read about that movie and started drooling just imagining it. Many of my favorite directors, including Nicolas Roeg, cite that movie as one of their favorites. It keeps popping up in critical essays and reviews I read in film. It seems to be one of those ultimate citations that pulls so much together. I must have it.
Well I work at a video store and I can tell you that by FAR the most common selling Criterion at my store is Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. We usually receive about 3-5 copies of them at a time, and they sell within five days. The Royal Tenenbaums and Chasing Amy sell decently, too, but that’s mostly because they’re only $15.99 as opposed to $29.99 (and we typically have them on sale for $12.99, so, bonus, right?).
Of course, my store is at the edge of what the inhabitants of this city lovingly call “The War Zone”, and drug-related movies sell/rent/get stolen at a pretty regular pace. So I wouldn’t know if Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas sells nearly as well in other locations.
The way I describe October; or, Ten Days that Shook the World to most people is, “Made me amazingly proud to be a Bolshevik… and I am most definitely NOT a Bolshevik!” Eisenstein is pretty brilliant, mostly in his silent movies. It wasn’t just revolutionary fervor… there’s a short film called “Romance Sentimentale” he made with Grigori V. Alexandrov that was equally as appealing. His ideas just don’t translate quite as well to sound, like so many silent film era artists. I have to admit, thought Alexander Nevsky was brilliant at the time, some of it hasn’t aged very well…. Alexander glowing as he does in many scenes doesn’t hit quite the way Stalin glowing does in his earlier work.
Amelie, City of God, and Pan’s Labyrinth are great starts because they’re in color, they’re quite stylistic and pretty, and they’re genre films, thus easier digested than the likes of really in-depth dramas from Antonioni and Ozu (I love both dearly, and I’d never recommend either of them for people looking for mainstream titles).
Sometimes, though… not to scare them away, or anything… but I find Takashi Miike movies are quite delightful to surprise people who think that all foreign films are boring over-Romantic “but I’m le tired!” dramas. Throw ‘em a bit o’ Ichi the Killer and then immediately follow it up with Zebraman, and they won’t know what to think.
It’s not a big recommendation; actually, it’s a dangerous move—but sometimes works. If you try to be all classy with foreign films all the time, you run the risk of reinforcing the idea that foreign films are merely for pretentious people.
OH! Luc Besson. Great start, they’ve probably already seen the likes of Fifth Element, Leon: The Professional, etc., just tell ‘em La Femme Nikita and Angel-A is from the same director and they’ll probably be much more interested in sitting down and paying attention. And if they haven’t seen those two movies, have’m watch those titles first.
And, if you feel like being a cheeky bastard, point out to them that 28 Days Later… is a foreign film. Whether they like horror films or not, at least that’ll put into perspective that it’s not all about non-English languages and cheap lesser-than-Hollywood production design.
—PolarisDiB
Word to the wise: I’m that frustrated video clerk who tries to slip people copies of “Tetsuo: the Iron Man” when they ask for a “good horror movie” (translated in customer-speak to: most recent Hollywood slasher out). I’m not always the best guy to take advice from when trying to expand people’s minds, ’cause I try to do that by battering them mercilessly. Mmmmm, cinematic assault… delicious!
Amelie, City of God, and Pan’s Labyrinth are great starts because they’re in color, they’re quite stylistic and pretty, and they’re genre films, thus easier digested than the likes of really in-depth dramas from Antonioni and Ozu (I love both dearly, and I’d never recommend either of them for people looking for mainstream titles).
Sometimes, though… not to scare them away, or anything… but I find Takashi Miike movies are quite delightful to surprise people who think that all foreign films are boring over-Romantic “but I’m le tired!” dramas. Throw ‘em a bit o’ Ichi the Killer and then immediately follow it up with Zebraman, and they won’t know what to think.
It’s not a big recommendation; actually, it’s a dangerous move—but sometimes works. If you try to be all classy with foreign films all the time, you run the risk of reinforcing the idea that foreign films are merely for pretentious people.
OH! Luc Besson. Great start, they’ve probably already seen the likes of Fifth Element, Leon: The Professional, etc., just tell ‘em La Femme Nikita and Angel-A is from the same director and they’ll probably be much more interested in sitting down and paying attention. And if they haven’t seen those two movies, have’m watch those titles first.
And, if you feel like being a cheeky bastard, point out to them that 28 Days Later… is a foreign film. Whether they like horror films or not, at least that’ll put into perspective that it’s not all about non-English languages and cheap lesser-than-Hollywood production design.
—PolarisDiB
Word to the wise: I’m that frustrated video clerk who tries to slip people copies of “Tetsuo: the Iron Man” when they ask for a “good horror movie” (translated in customer-speak to: most recent Hollywood slasher out). I’m not always the best guy to take advice from when trying to expand people’s minds, ’cause I try to do that by battering them mercilessly. Mmmmm, cinematic assault… delicious!
I love books (mostly post-modern literature, actually) and I really dig experimental music (post-rock and noize music, too). I also have a special place in my heart for theory… I actually read that stuff for fun. One of my favorite essays is called “Breaking the Frames” by Inez Hedges, and it’s a theoretical look at Surrealist and Dadaist films from a Behavioral Psychology approach (most film theory is Psychoanalysis, which depresses me).
Since people are mentioning animals, I love cats. I have a cat sleeping on my leg as I type this. She makes my life okay.
I love books (mostly post-modern literature, actually) and I really dig experimental music (post-rock and noize music, too). I also have a special place in my heart for theory… I actually read that stuff for fun. One of my favorite essays is called “Breaking the Frames” by Inez Hedges, and it’s a theoretical look at Surrealist and Dadaist films from a Behavioral Psychology approach (most film theory is Psychoanalysis, which depresses me).
Since people are mentioning animals, I love cats. I have a cat sleeping on my leg as I type this. She makes my life okay.
Such a strange question. The introductory post points out something important, and that is that even if you cite one movie, a different movie can be completely different and in fact almost opposed to the first movie and still be an acceptable answer to the question.
Cinema is merely images on a timeline. What those images are, where they come from, what is done with them, and how they interact with the timeline is entirely up to the filmmaker. The possibilities are as many as there are possible pictures taken or drawn, stretched to any possible playlength. Is that way too open? Well, the opposite of essentializing is generalizing, so we fall into theoretical dead ends either way.
Ah, what the hell. I’ll throw away the superfluous language and say L’Eclisse. Every single frame means something.
@ Richard Deming: “Some would argue that with his last few movies Wes Anderson himself has become the biggest Wes Anderson imitator around.”
Nah. Anderson has built a world and is still exploring it. It doesn’t always go the way you think it will.
Noah Baumbach’s The Squid and the Whale suffered from Wes Anderson imitation. Baumbach learned under Anderson, so it’s understandable to see where he’s coming from, but it seems he didn’t realize that their two concerns are very different. The Squid and the Whale is essentially an attempt at Wes Anderson handheld, and yet it needed to be something very different, in my opinion. Well, that, and Baumbach playing around with daddy problems was really annoying. It didn’t need to have the look of a Wes Anderson film at all.
Nah. Anderson has built a world and is still exploring it. It doesn’t always go the way you think it will.
Noah Baumbach’s The Squid and the Whale suffered from Wes Anderson imitation. Baumbach learned under Anderson, so it’s understandable to see where he’s coming from, but it seems he didn’t realize that their two concerns are very different. The Squid and the Whale is essentially an attempt at Wes Anderson handheld, and yet it needed to be something very different, in my opinion. Well, that, and Baumbach playing around with daddy problems was really annoying. It didn’t need to have the look of a Wes Anderson film at all.
Nah. Anderson has built a world and is still exploring it. It doesn’t always go the way you think it will.
Noah Baumbach’s The Squid and the Whale suffered from Wes Anderson imitation. Baumbach learned under Anderson, so it’s understandable to see where he’s coming from, but it seems he didn’t realize that their two concerns are very different. The Squid and the Whale is essentially an attempt at Wes Anderson handheld, and yet it needed to be something very different, in my opinion. Well, that, and Baumbach playing around with daddy problems was really annoying. It didn’t need to have the look of a Wes Anderson film at all.
Okay, so I’m coming from probably a very different perspective than, um, all of you. I’m really fascinated by the concept of “vigilantism” and have sort of independently studied it for some years, and simply put I have found no better movie that really wrestles with the morality, logic, and sanity of vigilantism than The Dark Knight. Batman has always been an interesting comic book hero because he is not a superhero, and ever since the 80s Batman has been deeply analyzed through and through by many different artists in terms of questioning his very sanity (The Long Halloween, Arkham Asylum). I forget which book its in, but at one point the Joker asks of Batman, “When you first came, it was only gangsters. Now there are all these crazy people, and Arkham Asylum is getting full of people YOU’ve put in here. Why is that?”
Christopher Nolan is very aware of these more recent trends in Batman, away from the campy-go-lucky fun of previous incarnations as seen to the lesser or greater extremes of Tim Burton or that televised wonkiness. His Gotham is a realism. No, “realism” doesn’t mean entirely “realistic” (I’m not even going to touch the issue of the thumbprint on the bullet, aye vay!), but it does open up the character to what is one of cultures biggest internal concerns, and that is an essay of vigilantism. The fact that he builds a thriller around it is even more spectacular.
Yes, it does suffer from having a second second and third act tacked on at the end, and Nolan severely underplays Harvey Two-Face, who could have had a lot more to do, really. The movie is long and could have become even longer, and yet I’m not entirely certain anything could have been cut out. I think it’s a very savvy movie, juggling many elements that weren’t simply on people’s expectations because they needed to be there. I thought that Batman Begins was a pretty bad movie, and it turns out that it is mostly because it’s just a prelude to what Nolan wanted to do with this movie. It seems, to me, that The Dark Knight is bursting at the seams—it’s so full of themes, characters, problems, and the world around it that it just can’t look away. This, however, I don’t think is a bad thing at all. It shows that there’s more being imagined than a simple action movie of good and evil.
People have been saying The Dark Knight is a great comic book movie (or a terrible movie because it’s a comic book movie, or good for a comic book movie, or whatever), but I don’t even consider it a comic book movie. It’s not about the fans of Batman, it’s not about presenting a hero and then giving him a badguy to defeat, it’s not about his skills (“powers”, whateva), it’s an essay on vigilantism. And I find the character of Joker utterly compelling and mesmerizing. I find the asides, such as the vigilantes at the beginning that are aping Batman, to be of serious importance to the whole point. I find Lucius Fox’s “This is wrong” statement, though bluntly delivered and a little lacking in subtlety (“Privacy is an American right! Meeeehhh!”), still nevertheless important. Every character has their motivation and none of them are exactly matched, so sometimes they work together and sometimes they can’t. It’s true from the so-called “good guys” and “bad guys” perspectives. The variables crammed into this mofo are, in my humble opinion, worth lauding.
It was a very risky thing Nolan did. It’s hard to do without weighing down the movie, which it did… It made a strong thematic statement in what most people were expecting to be a summer popcorn movie, and the necessary backlash came from that… It made the film difficult to structure, but he managed to pull it all together in the end… and it asks for patience in some really unexpected ways, which most audiences just don’t have anymore.
So, yeah. The Dark Knight is a good movie, and I stand by it. I’m not too surprised that so many people dislike it, mostly because it’s overwrought and heavy-handed in places. It’s certainly not a comic book movie for summer escapism, even though it gets criticized as being that quite often (to those critics: watch it again and tell me how much of the playlength is devoted to action set pieces, ultimately. Hint: not much). I personally find it a crime that it wasn’t nominated for a few more awards by the Academy, because it just goes to show that the Academy has a bias against genre movies—even when the apparent genre movie isn’t actually of that genre, and makes massive bank worldwide.
Okay, so I’m coming from probably a very different perspective than, um, all of you. I’m really fascinated by the concept of “vigilantism” and have sort of independently studied it for some years, and simply put I have found no better movie that really wrestles with the morality, logic, and sanity of vigilantism than The Dark Knight. Batman has always been an interesting comic book hero because he is not a superhero, and ever since the 80s Batman has been deeply analyzed through and through by many different artists in terms of questioning his very sanity (The Long Halloween, Arkham Asylum). I forget which book its in, but at one point the Joker asks of Batman, “When you first came, it was only gangsters. Now there are all these crazy people, and Arkham Asylum is getting full of people YOU’ve put in here. Why is that?”
Christopher Nolan is very aware of these more recent trends in Batman, away from the campy-go-lucky fun of previous incarnations as seen to the lesser or greater extremes of Tim Burton or that televised wonkiness. His Gotham is a realism. No, “realism” doesn’t mean entirely “realistic” (I’m not even going to touch the issue of the thumbprint on the bullet, aye vay!), but it does open up the character to what is one of cultures biggest internal concerns, and that is an essay of vigilantism. The fact that he builds a thriller around it is even more spectacular.
Yes, it does suffer from having a second second and third act tacked on at the end, and Nolan severely underplays Harvey Two-Face, who could have had a lot more to do, really. The movie is long and could have become even longer, and yet I’m not entirely certain anything could have been cut out. I think it’s a very savvy movie, juggling many elements that weren’t simply on people’s expectations because they needed to be there. I thought that Batman Begins was a pretty bad movie, and it turns out that it is mostly because it’s just a prelude to what Nolan wanted to do with this movie. It seems, to me, that The Dark Knight is bursting at the seams—it’s so full of themes, characters, problems, and the world around it that it just can’t look away. This, however, I don’t think is a bad thing at all. It shows that there’s more being imagined than a simple action movie of good and evil.
People have been saying The Dark Knight is a great comic book movie (or a terrible movie because it’s a comic book movie, or good for a comic book movie, or whatever), but I don’t even consider it a comic book movie. It’s not about the fans of Batman, it’s not about presenting a hero and then giving him a badguy to defeat, it’s not about his skills (“powers”, whateva), it’s an essay on vigilantism. And I find the character of Joker utterly compelling and mesmerizing. I find the asides, such as the vigilantes at the beginning that are aping Batman, to be of serious importance to the whole point. I find Lucius Fox’s “This is wrong” statement, though bluntly delivered and a little lacking in subtlety (“Privacy is an American right! Meeeehhh!”), still nevertheless important. Every character has their motivation and none of them are exactly matched, so sometimes they work together and sometimes they can’t. It’s true from the so-called “good guys” and “bad guys” perspectives. The variables crammed into this mofo are, in my humble opinion, worth lauding.
It was a very risky thing Nolan did. It’s hard to do without weighing down the movie, which it did… It made a strong thematic statement in what most people were expecting to be a summer popcorn movie, and the necessary backlash came from that… It made the film difficult to structure, but he managed to pull it all together in the end… and it asks for patience in some really unexpected ways, which most audiences just don’t have anymore.
So, yeah. The Dark Knight is a good movie, and I stand by it. I’m not too surprised that so many people dislike it, mostly because it’s overwrought and heavy-handed in places. It’s certainly not a comic book movie for summer escapism, even though it gets criticized as being that quite often (to those critics: watch it again and tell me how much of the playlength is devoted to action set pieces, ultimately. Hint: not much). I personally find it a crime that it wasn’t nominated for a few more awards by the Academy, because it just goes to show that the Academy has a bias against genre movies—even when the apparent genre movie isn’t actually of that genre, and makes massive bank worldwide.
Nearly the same thing happened with me, though not over quite as long a time. I saw El Norte in a class about three years ago, and immediately wanted to own it. Looking it up, I found only Reg. 4 editions. I was saddened, but now it’s available and I can own it, so… sweet.
I’m actually getting quite tired of that “in the box” shot. The character opens a container (mailbox, locker, safe, car trunk) and the next shot is from inside the container as the character contemplates what’s in it/dialogs with another character/takes something out that you can’t see because it’s too close in the frame. There’s no reason I dislike it, it’s just used so often that I begin to wonder if there’s not some other way….
And yes, complaining about things doesn’t change them. However, it provides catharsis. And there’s always a chance that an aspiring filmmaker could be talking on these boards and think, “Hmmm, what if I tried something different, then?” Or not. But it’s the Internet, so…. it’s not of very high importance.
In response to the complaints about hand-held cinematography: definitely, not enough people do it correctly and it’s over-used. I just wanted to mention that a really great response to this is Romero’s Diary of the Dead. In it, he has the “student filmmakers” make the movie, but this time allows them the opportunity from time to time to actually hold the camera steady and show what they’re shooting. Instead, the self-reflexivity of the camera is reinforced by people talking into it rather than unnecessary jerkiness. It’s still not graceful but it’s a huge improvement, and I think it’s really well done. Not everybody agrees with me, but I think Diary of the Dead is the perfect response to Cloverfield, Blair Witch Project, et al.
I love Aronofsky and I love Pynchon, both equally and amazingly and probably a little too much for what is healthy for me. I think Aronofsky could make a decent Gravity’s Rainbow adaptation, damned decent.
But you know who I always think of when I read Gravity’s Rainbow?
The Brothers Quay.
Gravity’s Rainbow is full of STUFF. Entire pages devoted to descriptions of desks. These descriptions always trialing off into ellipses…… It’s a wooden, fragmented, insular world of psychic turmoil and sexual exploits. It’s also hilarious and comedic and cartoonish, which lends it to animation quite well.
Aronofsky would try to fit Gravity’s Rainbow into just short of 4 hours. He’d have to cut a lot out. He’d make great choices, but fans of the book would always find something to nitpick over.
The Brothers Quay would either fit Gravity’s Rainbow into twenty-five minutes (and it’d be BRILLIANT!) or, in the world where I rule logic time and space, devote the rest of their lives to a 16 hour epic stop-motion animation that would go beyond BRILLIANT to some heavenly level of impossibility in cinema that everyone who would watch it would die instantly… kind of like Infinite Jest, which I think should be directed by the guy who did Begotten and Shadow of the Vampire.
And I would like to second that Takashi Miike should start adapting American comics as well as manga. He’s good at it and he makes it fun.
Hmmm… weirdly finding myself in the habit of defending mainstream movies on this board. Strange, usually it’s the other way around. Anyway…
I rather enjoyed Slumdog Millionaire—enjoyed it much more than Benjamin Button and was thrilled that it took all those Oscars away from the latter. I mostly liked the fact that every question doesn’t just simply relate to something the main character experienced, but something traumatic and depressing that the main character experienced; all that pain, and yet, adding up to karmic release. Yes, not the most vanguard and experimental way to structure a film, but nevertheless effective.
I really like Danny Boyle in the same way I really like Wes Anderson: they have a particular world they create, and all of their separate movies are just other aspects of the world. There the comparison completely breaks down, because Wes Anderson does the slightly Ozu-like deal of repeating the same characters, situations, and sets over and over, whereas Danny Boyle seems to throw in new things each time to change the context, and the two of them have completely different styles. Whereas Slumdog Millionaire obviously has nothing to do with Sunshine or Millions or 28 Days Later…, I still can’t help but feel like, as zombies are running around in London after some kid found a bunch of cash on the side of some train tracks, a troupe of astronauts are on an adventure to save the sun so that it can still shine over the ghettos of Mumbai, where kids are running around playing Three Muskateers. For some reason, there’s a love of humanity in Boyle’s work that feels quite sincere and sticks out beyond the stylistic, visually dazzling things he does with his camera (which I happen to find really great as well).
So there you go. I don’t think Slumdog Millionaire is overrated. I found it a very lush, appealing, and entertaining film. Yes, I guess I can concede the earlier point made that it’s not important, but it’s not meant to be and nor do I care. And as someone who wishes more films tried to be important, still I have to throw out the point that sometimes it’s just a movie, man. Relax and enjoy the popcorn.
Speaking of Warhol, I just saw the Warhol Live exhibit at the de Young Museum this last week. It was a great show. It had a lot of those very playing as both projections and videos. Of course I didn’t get to sit by and see all of them, but it was nice to see pieces (with stuff like Empire and Sleep, arguably I can imagine what the rest was like, right? Haha!).
Anyway, in an avant-garde class I once took we watched Vinyl. Now that’s some good underground cinema right there. It’s one of those movies that definitely cannot be described but has to be experienced, because I’ve read a lot about it and nothing that I’ve read really recreates the experience. I really “enjoyed” it, if that’s what you would call it.
Actually, no. It’s arguably better, but I own over seven hundred movies. And since I buy movies at a faster rate than Criterion releases them, that’s going to stay the same for a while. I’m always aware a fire could just wipe all the collecting away, but for now I’m good with what I have.
“Does Benjamin Button still suck?”
It never did. People are just upset that it wasn’t brilliant. Not being brilliant but being critically acclaimed creates backlash.
“Is insert boring, obscure movie still an underrated masterpiece?”
Dude, TOTALLY. If you haven’t seen it yet, you don’t even know, so shut up! And if you have seen it but didn’t like it, you missed the point—you’re SUPPOSED to not like it! Watch it again and learn how to read! And shu-u-u-t up! Never mind that the movie is so obscure that there’s no possible chance in hell I could have ever gotten my hands on a copy of it, because there was only a single print that was immediately bought up by some collector who died in an avalanche and his will specifically stipulates that he should be buried with the print, meaning that it’s currently in the hands of surveyors trying to find the body, and as long as his will is unsatisfied the print is considered private property that viewing it is punishable by law…. No, my UNCLE is a surveyor and he totally showed me it. So there!
“What makes a masterpiece, anyway?”
Simple. If I like it, it’s brilliant. If I don’t, it’s dumb. If I like it and you like it, I’m glad we agree because it just shows great minds think alike. If I like it and you don’t, you missed the effin’ point and need to learn how to read. If I don’t like it and you like it, obviously you’re a pretentious ass. If I don’t like it and you don’t like it, obviously no one likes it so why are we bloody discussing it in the first place?
Bill Morrison edits together found footage in various states of decay to a multipiece orchestra ensemble with detuned and broken instruments. The result is an aural and visual buffeting of spectres of spectatorship (I’d like to thank the Academy…) and is truly a piece not to be missed. Oh, and my friend Matt says it’s great to get high to, too, so, uh, there’s that. Just don’t drive after watching it, stoned or sober.
Zack Snyder gets compared to Stanley Kubrick about 3 years ago
A local critic made a damned fine effort trying to insist that “300” was a loving homage to “Seven Samurai”. The argument basically boiled down to “They’re both about a small force setting up tactically against a bigger force.” The same critic also compared “Vantage Point” negatively to “Rashomon” in terms of stories playing out from multiple perspectives. Obviously, I don’t read his reviews much, anymore, but his is the newspaper with the most cohesive local listings, so he’s a necessary evil.
—DiB
Go to Comment
Zack Snyder gets compared to Stanley Kubrick about 3 years ago
A local critic made a damned fine effort trying to insist that “300” was a loving homage to “Seven Samurai”. The argument basically boiled down to “They’re both about a small force setting up tactically against a bigger force.” The same critic also compared “Vantage Point” negatively to “Rashomon” in terms of stories playing out from multiple perspectives. Obviously, I don’t read his reviews much, anymore, but his is the newspaper with the most cohesive local listings, so he’s a necessary evil.
—DiB
Go to Comment
Best selling Criterion releases? about 3 years ago
Well I work at a video store and I can tell you that by FAR the most common selling Criterion at my store is Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. We usually receive about 3-5 copies of them at a time, and they sell within five days. The Royal Tenenbaums and Chasing Amy sell decently, too, but that’s mostly because they’re only $15.99 as opposed to $29.99 (and we typically have them on sale for $12.99, so, bonus, right?).
Of course, my store is at the edge of what the inhabitants of this city lovingly call “The War Zone”, and drug-related movies sell/rent/get stolen at a pretty regular pace. So I wouldn’t know if Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas sells nearly as well in other locations.
—PolarisDiB
Go to Comment
THE GREAT FELLINI about 3 years ago
I have to admit, the only Fellini film I’ve seen that I liked was 8 1/2. I’m a sucker for meta, though, and love Adaptation. despite its flaws for the very same reasons.
One time I was in a local video store that was going out of business, and struck up this conversation with this guy who said, “So: Fellini or Bergman?” I sez, “Uhhh… Bergman.” He sez, “Yeah, me too.” A strange question, but surprisingly one that’s really fun to posit to random people.
My roommate owns one of David Thomson’s books, and the only thing we get from it is laughs.
Anyway, I’m saving ultimate jury for Fellini for when I see La Strada, because as far as I’ve heard, even people who hate Felllini love La Strada.
—DiB
Go to Comment
THE GREAT FELLINI about 3 years ago
I have to admit, the only Fellini film I’ve seen that I liked was 8 1/2. I’m a sucker for meta, though, and love Adaptation. despite its flaws for the very same reasons.
One time I was in a local video store that was going out of business, and struck up this conversation with this guy who said, “So: Fellini or Bergman?” I sez, “Uhhh… Bergman.” He sez, “Yeah, me too.” A strange question, but surprisingly one that’s really fun to posit to random people.
My roommate owns one of David Thomson’s books, and the only thing we get from it is laughs.
Anyway, I’m saving ultimate jury for Fellini for when I see La Strada, because as far as I’ve heard, even people who hate Felllini love La Strada.
—DiB
Go to Comment
Criterion Coming Soon and Discussion about 3 years ago
I’m going to buy Last Year at Marienbad the second it comes out. I don’t know how many times I’ve read about that movie and started drooling just imagining it. Many of my favorite directors, including Nicolas Roeg, cite that movie as one of their favorites. It keeps popping up in critical essays and reviews I read in film. It seems to be one of those ultimate citations that pulls so much together. I must have it.
—PolarisDiB
Go to Comment
Best selling Criterion releases? about 3 years ago
Well I work at a video store and I can tell you that by FAR the most common selling Criterion at my store is Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. We usually receive about 3-5 copies of them at a time, and they sell within five days. The Royal Tenenbaums and Chasing Amy sell decently, too, but that’s mostly because they’re only $15.99 as opposed to $29.99 (and we typically have them on sale for $12.99, so, bonus, right?).
Of course, my store is at the edge of what the inhabitants of this city lovingly call “The War Zone”, and drug-related movies sell/rent/get stolen at a pretty regular pace. So I wouldn’t know if Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas sells nearly as well in other locations.
—PolarisDiB
Go to Comment
EISENSTEIN about 3 years ago
The way I describe October; or, Ten Days that Shook the World to most people is, “Made me amazingly proud to be a Bolshevik… and I am most definitely NOT a Bolshevik!” Eisenstein is pretty brilliant, mostly in his silent movies. It wasn’t just revolutionary fervor… there’s a short film called “Romance Sentimentale” he made with Grigori V. Alexandrov that was equally as appealing. His ideas just don’t translate quite as well to sound, like so many silent film era artists. I have to admit, thought Alexander Nevsky was brilliant at the time, some of it hasn’t aged very well…. Alexander glowing as he does in many scenes doesn’t hit quite the way Stalin glowing does in his earlier work.
—PolarisDiB
Go to Comment
Foreign films for beginners about 3 years ago
Okay….
Amelie, City of God, and Pan’s Labyrinth are great starts because they’re in color, they’re quite stylistic and pretty, and they’re genre films, thus easier digested than the likes of really in-depth dramas from Antonioni and Ozu (I love both dearly, and I’d never recommend either of them for people looking for mainstream titles).
Sometimes, though… not to scare them away, or anything… but I find Takashi Miike movies are quite delightful to surprise people who think that all foreign films are boring over-Romantic “but I’m le tired!” dramas. Throw ‘em a bit o’ Ichi the Killer and then immediately follow it up with Zebraman, and they won’t know what to think.
It’s not a big recommendation; actually, it’s a dangerous move—but sometimes works. If you try to be all classy with foreign films all the time, you run the risk of reinforcing the idea that foreign films are merely for pretentious people.
OH! Luc Besson. Great start, they’ve probably already seen the likes of Fifth Element, Leon: The Professional, etc., just tell ‘em La Femme Nikita and Angel-A is from the same director and they’ll probably be much more interested in sitting down and paying attention. And if they haven’t seen those two movies, have’m watch those titles first.
And, if you feel like being a cheeky bastard, point out to them that 28 Days Later… is a foreign film. Whether they like horror films or not, at least that’ll put into perspective that it’s not all about non-English languages and cheap lesser-than-Hollywood production design.
—PolarisDiB
Word to the wise: I’m that frustrated video clerk who tries to slip people copies of “Tetsuo: the Iron Man” when they ask for a “good horror movie” (translated in customer-speak to: most recent Hollywood slasher out). I’m not always the best guy to take advice from when trying to expand people’s minds, ’cause I try to do that by battering them mercilessly. Mmmmm, cinematic assault… delicious!
Go to Comment
Foreign films for beginners about 3 years ago
Okay….
Amelie, City of God, and Pan’s Labyrinth are great starts because they’re in color, they’re quite stylistic and pretty, and they’re genre films, thus easier digested than the likes of really in-depth dramas from Antonioni and Ozu (I love both dearly, and I’d never recommend either of them for people looking for mainstream titles).
Sometimes, though… not to scare them away, or anything… but I find Takashi Miike movies are quite delightful to surprise people who think that all foreign films are boring over-Romantic “but I’m le tired!” dramas. Throw ‘em a bit o’ Ichi the Killer and then immediately follow it up with Zebraman, and they won’t know what to think.
It’s not a big recommendation; actually, it’s a dangerous move—but sometimes works. If you try to be all classy with foreign films all the time, you run the risk of reinforcing the idea that foreign films are merely for pretentious people.
OH! Luc Besson. Great start, they’ve probably already seen the likes of Fifth Element, Leon: The Professional, etc., just tell ‘em La Femme Nikita and Angel-A is from the same director and they’ll probably be much more interested in sitting down and paying attention. And if they haven’t seen those two movies, have’m watch those titles first.
And, if you feel like being a cheeky bastard, point out to them that 28 Days Later… is a foreign film. Whether they like horror films or not, at least that’ll put into perspective that it’s not all about non-English languages and cheap lesser-than-Hollywood production design.
—PolarisDiB
Word to the wise: I’m that frustrated video clerk who tries to slip people copies of “Tetsuo: the Iron Man” when they ask for a “good horror movie” (translated in customer-speak to: most recent Hollywood slasher out). I’m not always the best guy to take advice from when trying to expand people’s minds, ’cause I try to do that by battering them mercilessly. Mmmmm, cinematic assault… delicious!
Go to Comment
is film your only love? about 3 years ago
I love books (mostly post-modern literature, actually) and I really dig experimental music (post-rock and noize music, too). I also have a special place in my heart for theory… I actually read that stuff for fun. One of my favorite essays is called “Breaking the Frames” by Inez Hedges, and it’s a theoretical look at Surrealist and Dadaist films from a Behavioral Psychology approach (most film theory is Psychoanalysis, which depresses me).
Since people are mentioning animals, I love cats. I have a cat sleeping on my leg as I type this. She makes my life okay.
—PolarisDiB
Go to Comment
is film your only love? about 3 years ago
Oops, double post, sorry…
Go to Comment
is film your only love? about 3 years ago
I love books (mostly post-modern literature, actually) and I really dig experimental music (post-rock and noize music, too). I also have a special place in my heart for theory… I actually read that stuff for fun. One of my favorite essays is called “Breaking the Frames” by Inez Hedges, and it’s a theoretical look at Surrealist and Dadaist films from a Behavioral Psychology approach (most film theory is Psychoanalysis, which depresses me).
Since people are mentioning animals, I love cats. I have a cat sleeping on my leg as I type this. She makes my life okay.
—PolarisDiB
Go to Comment
Which film, according to you, better represents the art of Cinema? about 3 years ago
Such a strange question. The introductory post points out something important, and that is that even if you cite one movie, a different movie can be completely different and in fact almost opposed to the first movie and still be an acceptable answer to the question.
Cinema is merely images on a timeline. What those images are, where they come from, what is done with them, and how they interact with the timeline is entirely up to the filmmaker. The possibilities are as many as there are possible pictures taken or drawn, stretched to any possible playlength. Is that way too open? Well, the opposite of essentializing is generalizing, so we fall into theoretical dead ends either way.
Ah, what the hell. I’ll throw away the superfluous language and say L’Eclisse. Every single frame means something.
Shrugs
—PolarisDiB
Go to Comment
Wes Anderson Imitators, the worst kind of directors/writers? about 3 years ago
@ Richard Deming: “Some would argue that with his last few movies Wes Anderson himself has become the biggest Wes Anderson imitator around.”
Nah. Anderson has built a world and is still exploring it. It doesn’t always go the way you think it will.
Noah Baumbach’s The Squid and the Whale suffered from Wes Anderson imitation. Baumbach learned under Anderson, so it’s understandable to see where he’s coming from, but it seems he didn’t realize that their two concerns are very different. The Squid and the Whale is essentially an attempt at Wes Anderson handheld, and yet it needed to be something very different, in my opinion. Well, that, and Baumbach playing around with daddy problems was really annoying. It didn’t need to have the look of a Wes Anderson film at all.
—PolarisDiB
Go to Comment
Wes Anderson Imitators, the worst kind of directors/writers? about 3 years ago
<>
Nah. Anderson has built a world and is still exploring it. It doesn’t always go the way you think it will.
Noah Baumbach’s The Squid and the Whale suffered from Wes Anderson imitation. Baumbach learned under Anderson, so it’s understandable to see where he’s coming from, but it seems he didn’t realize that their two concerns are very different. The Squid and the Whale is essentially an attempt at Wes Anderson handheld, and yet it needed to be something very different, in my opinion. Well, that, and Baumbach playing around with daddy problems was really annoying. It didn’t need to have the look of a Wes Anderson film at all.
—PolarisDiB
Go to Comment
Wes Anderson Imitators, the worst kind of directors/writers? about 3 years ago
<>
Nah. Anderson has built a world and is still exploring it. It doesn’t always go the way you think it will.
Noah Baumbach’s The Squid and the Whale suffered from Wes Anderson imitation. Baumbach learned under Anderson, so it’s understandable to see where he’s coming from, but it seems he didn’t realize that their two concerns are very different. The Squid and the Whale is essentially an attempt at Wes Anderson handheld, and yet it needed to be something very different, in my opinion. Well, that, and Baumbach playing around with daddy problems was really annoying. It didn’t need to have the look of a Wes Anderson film at all.
—PolarisDiB
Go to Comment
Anybody else hate the Dark Knight? about 3 years ago
Oh man.
Okay, so I’m coming from probably a very different perspective than, um, all of you. I’m really fascinated by the concept of “vigilantism” and have sort of independently studied it for some years, and simply put I have found no better movie that really wrestles with the morality, logic, and sanity of vigilantism than The Dark Knight. Batman has always been an interesting comic book hero because he is not a superhero, and ever since the 80s Batman has been deeply analyzed through and through by many different artists in terms of questioning his very sanity (The Long Halloween, Arkham Asylum). I forget which book its in, but at one point the Joker asks of Batman, “When you first came, it was only gangsters. Now there are all these crazy people, and Arkham Asylum is getting full of people YOU’ve put in here. Why is that?”
Christopher Nolan is very aware of these more recent trends in Batman, away from the campy-go-lucky fun of previous incarnations as seen to the lesser or greater extremes of Tim Burton or that televised wonkiness. His Gotham is a realism. No, “realism” doesn’t mean entirely “realistic” (I’m not even going to touch the issue of the thumbprint on the bullet, aye vay!), but it does open up the character to what is one of cultures biggest internal concerns, and that is an essay of vigilantism. The fact that he builds a thriller around it is even more spectacular.
Yes, it does suffer from having a second second and third act tacked on at the end, and Nolan severely underplays Harvey Two-Face, who could have had a lot more to do, really. The movie is long and could have become even longer, and yet I’m not entirely certain anything could have been cut out. I think it’s a very savvy movie, juggling many elements that weren’t simply on people’s expectations because they needed to be there. I thought that Batman Begins was a pretty bad movie, and it turns out that it is mostly because it’s just a prelude to what Nolan wanted to do with this movie. It seems, to me, that The Dark Knight is bursting at the seams—it’s so full of themes, characters, problems, and the world around it that it just can’t look away. This, however, I don’t think is a bad thing at all. It shows that there’s more being imagined than a simple action movie of good and evil.
People have been saying The Dark Knight is a great comic book movie (or a terrible movie because it’s a comic book movie, or good for a comic book movie, or whatever), but I don’t even consider it a comic book movie. It’s not about the fans of Batman, it’s not about presenting a hero and then giving him a badguy to defeat, it’s not about his skills (“powers”, whateva), it’s an essay on vigilantism. And I find the character of Joker utterly compelling and mesmerizing. I find the asides, such as the vigilantes at the beginning that are aping Batman, to be of serious importance to the whole point. I find Lucius Fox’s “This is wrong” statement, though bluntly delivered and a little lacking in subtlety (“Privacy is an American right! Meeeehhh!”), still nevertheless important. Every character has their motivation and none of them are exactly matched, so sometimes they work together and sometimes they can’t. It’s true from the so-called “good guys” and “bad guys” perspectives. The variables crammed into this mofo are, in my humble opinion, worth lauding.
It was a very risky thing Nolan did. It’s hard to do without weighing down the movie, which it did… It made a strong thematic statement in what most people were expecting to be a summer popcorn movie, and the necessary backlash came from that… It made the film difficult to structure, but he managed to pull it all together in the end… and it asks for patience in some really unexpected ways, which most audiences just don’t have anymore.
So, yeah. The Dark Knight is a good movie, and I stand by it. I’m not too surprised that so many people dislike it, mostly because it’s overwrought and heavy-handed in places. It’s certainly not a comic book movie for summer escapism, even though it gets criticized as being that quite often (to those critics: watch it again and tell me how much of the playlength is devoted to action set pieces, ultimately. Hint: not much). I personally find it a crime that it wasn’t nominated for a few more awards by the Academy, because it just goes to show that the Academy has a bias against genre movies—even when the apparent genre movie isn’t actually of that genre, and makes massive bank worldwide.
—PolarisDiB
Go to Comment
Anybody else hate the Dark Knight? about 3 years ago
Oh man.
Okay, so I’m coming from probably a very different perspective than, um, all of you. I’m really fascinated by the concept of “vigilantism” and have sort of independently studied it for some years, and simply put I have found no better movie that really wrestles with the morality, logic, and sanity of vigilantism than The Dark Knight. Batman has always been an interesting comic book hero because he is not a superhero, and ever since the 80s Batman has been deeply analyzed through and through by many different artists in terms of questioning his very sanity (The Long Halloween, Arkham Asylum). I forget which book its in, but at one point the Joker asks of Batman, “When you first came, it was only gangsters. Now there are all these crazy people, and Arkham Asylum is getting full of people YOU’ve put in here. Why is that?”
Christopher Nolan is very aware of these more recent trends in Batman, away from the campy-go-lucky fun of previous incarnations as seen to the lesser or greater extremes of Tim Burton or that televised wonkiness. His Gotham is a realism. No, “realism” doesn’t mean entirely “realistic” (I’m not even going to touch the issue of the thumbprint on the bullet, aye vay!), but it does open up the character to what is one of cultures biggest internal concerns, and that is an essay of vigilantism. The fact that he builds a thriller around it is even more spectacular.
Yes, it does suffer from having a second second and third act tacked on at the end, and Nolan severely underplays Harvey Two-Face, who could have had a lot more to do, really. The movie is long and could have become even longer, and yet I’m not entirely certain anything could have been cut out. I think it’s a very savvy movie, juggling many elements that weren’t simply on people’s expectations because they needed to be there. I thought that Batman Begins was a pretty bad movie, and it turns out that it is mostly because it’s just a prelude to what Nolan wanted to do with this movie. It seems, to me, that The Dark Knight is bursting at the seams—it’s so full of themes, characters, problems, and the world around it that it just can’t look away. This, however, I don’t think is a bad thing at all. It shows that there’s more being imagined than a simple action movie of good and evil.
People have been saying The Dark Knight is a great comic book movie (or a terrible movie because it’s a comic book movie, or good for a comic book movie, or whatever), but I don’t even consider it a comic book movie. It’s not about the fans of Batman, it’s not about presenting a hero and then giving him a badguy to defeat, it’s not about his skills (“powers”, whateva), it’s an essay on vigilantism. And I find the character of Joker utterly compelling and mesmerizing. I find the asides, such as the vigilantes at the beginning that are aping Batman, to be of serious importance to the whole point. I find Lucius Fox’s “This is wrong” statement, though bluntly delivered and a little lacking in subtlety (“Privacy is an American right! Meeeehhh!”), still nevertheless important. Every character has their motivation and none of them are exactly matched, so sometimes they work together and sometimes they can’t. It’s true from the so-called “good guys” and “bad guys” perspectives. The variables crammed into this mofo are, in my humble opinion, worth lauding.
It was a very risky thing Nolan did. It’s hard to do without weighing down the movie, which it did… It made a strong thematic statement in what most people were expecting to be a summer popcorn movie, and the necessary backlash came from that… It made the film difficult to structure, but he managed to pull it all together in the end… and it asks for patience in some really unexpected ways, which most audiences just don’t have anymore.
So, yeah. The Dark Knight is a good movie, and I stand by it. I’m not too surprised that so many people dislike it, mostly because it’s overwrought and heavy-handed in places. It’s certainly not a comic book movie for summer escapism, even though it gets criticized as being that quite often (to those critics: watch it again and tell me how much of the playlength is devoted to action set pieces, ultimately. Hint: not much). I personally find it a crime that it wasn’t nominated for a few more awards by the Academy, because it just goes to show that the Academy has a bias against genre movies—even when the apparent genre movie isn’t actually of that genre, and makes massive bank worldwide.
—PolarisDiB
Go to Comment
Anybody else hate the Dark Knight? about 3 years ago
Damn, double post again. This board is sometimes really difficult to post and navigate on. FYI to any of its developers out there.
—DiB
Go to Comment
About time! about 3 years ago
Nearly the same thing happened with me, though not over quite as long a time. I saw El Norte in a class about three years ago, and immediately wanted to own it. Looking it up, I found only Reg. 4 editions. I was saddened, but now it’s available and I can own it, so… sweet.
—PolarisDiB
Go to Comment
Things your're really sick of about 3 years ago
I’m actually getting quite tired of that “in the box” shot. The character opens a container (mailbox, locker, safe, car trunk) and the next shot is from inside the container as the character contemplates what’s in it/dialogs with another character/takes something out that you can’t see because it’s too close in the frame. There’s no reason I dislike it, it’s just used so often that I begin to wonder if there’s not some other way….
And yes, complaining about things doesn’t change them. However, it provides catharsis. And there’s always a chance that an aspiring filmmaker could be talking on these boards and think, “Hmmm, what if I tried something different, then?” Or not. But it’s the Internet, so…. it’s not of very high importance.
In response to the complaints about hand-held cinematography: definitely, not enough people do it correctly and it’s over-used. I just wanted to mention that a really great response to this is Romero’s Diary of the Dead. In it, he has the “student filmmakers” make the movie, but this time allows them the opportunity from time to time to actually hold the camera steady and show what they’re shooting. Instead, the self-reflexivity of the camera is reinforced by people talking into it rather than unnecessary jerkiness. It’s still not graceful but it’s a huge improvement, and I think it’s really well done. Not everybody agrees with me, but I think Diary of the Dead is the perfect response to Cloverfield, Blair Witch Project, et al.
—PolarisDiB
Go to Comment
You choose the book to make into a film. Then choose the director. Go! about 3 years ago
On the issue of Aronofsky and Gravity’s Rainbow:
I love Aronofsky and I love Pynchon, both equally and amazingly and probably a little too much for what is healthy for me. I think Aronofsky could make a decent Gravity’s Rainbow adaptation, damned decent.
But you know who I always think of when I read Gravity’s Rainbow?
The Brothers Quay.
Gravity’s Rainbow is full of STUFF. Entire pages devoted to descriptions of desks. These descriptions always trialing off into ellipses…… It’s a wooden, fragmented, insular world of psychic turmoil and sexual exploits. It’s also hilarious and comedic and cartoonish, which lends it to animation quite well.
Aronofsky would try to fit Gravity’s Rainbow into just short of 4 hours. He’d have to cut a lot out. He’d make great choices, but fans of the book would always find something to nitpick over.
The Brothers Quay would either fit Gravity’s Rainbow into twenty-five minutes (and it’d be BRILLIANT!) or, in the world where I rule logic time and space, devote the rest of their lives to a 16 hour epic stop-motion animation that would go beyond BRILLIANT to some heavenly level of impossibility in cinema that everyone who would watch it would die instantly… kind of like Infinite Jest, which I think should be directed by the guy who did Begotten and Shadow of the Vampire.
And I would like to second that Takashi Miike should start adapting American comics as well as manga. He’s good at it and he makes it fun.
—PolarisDiB
Go to Comment
The first great film about 3 years ago
La voyage dans la lune.
It’s magical. Really.
—PolarisDiB
Go to Comment
Film Critic vs. Film Historian about 3 years ago
I’m a reviewer. I read film criticism. I’ve taken classes in film history.
For one.
—DiB
Go to Comment
WHATARE YOUR MAJOR INTERESTS/AREAS OF EXPERTISE IIN FIILM? about 3 years ago
Isn’t this what profiles are for?
Speaking of which, I’ve been meaning to flesh mine out a little better than the simple declarative statements that it currently is…
Hmmm…
—PolarisDiB
Go to Comment
Slumdog Millionaire Overrated Film of the Year about 3 years ago
Hmmm… weirdly finding myself in the habit of defending mainstream movies on this board. Strange, usually it’s the other way around. Anyway…
I rather enjoyed Slumdog Millionaire—enjoyed it much more than Benjamin Button and was thrilled that it took all those Oscars away from the latter. I mostly liked the fact that every question doesn’t just simply relate to something the main character experienced, but something traumatic and depressing that the main character experienced; all that pain, and yet, adding up to karmic release. Yes, not the most vanguard and experimental way to structure a film, but nevertheless effective.
I really like Danny Boyle in the same way I really like Wes Anderson: they have a particular world they create, and all of their separate movies are just other aspects of the world. There the comparison completely breaks down, because Wes Anderson does the slightly Ozu-like deal of repeating the same characters, situations, and sets over and over, whereas Danny Boyle seems to throw in new things each time to change the context, and the two of them have completely different styles. Whereas Slumdog Millionaire obviously has nothing to do with Sunshine or Millions or 28 Days Later…, I still can’t help but feel like, as zombies are running around in London after some kid found a bunch of cash on the side of some train tracks, a troupe of astronauts are on an adventure to save the sun so that it can still shine over the ghettos of Mumbai, where kids are running around playing Three Muskateers. For some reason, there’s a love of humanity in Boyle’s work that feels quite sincere and sticks out beyond the stylistic, visually dazzling things he does with his camera (which I happen to find really great as well).
So there you go. I don’t think Slumdog Millionaire is overrated. I found it a very lush, appealing, and entertaining film. Yes, I guess I can concede the earlier point made that it’s not important, but it’s not meant to be and nor do I care. And as someone who wishes more films tried to be important, still I have to throw out the point that sometimes it’s just a movie, man. Relax and enjoy the popcorn.
—PolarisDiB
Go to Comment
Andy Warhol about 3 years ago
Speaking of Warhol, I just saw the Warhol Live exhibit at the de Young Museum this last week. It was a great show. It had a lot of those very playing as both projections and videos. Of course I didn’t get to sit by and see all of them, but it was nice to see pieces (with stuff like Empire and Sleep, arguably I can imagine what the rest was like, right? Haha!).
Anyway, in an avant-garde class I once took we watched Vinyl. Now that’s some good underground cinema right there. It’s one of those movies that definitely cannot be described but has to be experienced, because I’ve read a lot about it and nothing that I’ve read really recreates the experience. I really “enjoyed” it, if that’s what you would call it.
—PolarisDiB
Go to Comment
You Guys Talking About Anything Worth a Damn Yet? about 3 years ago
“So, what’s all the talk of the forum?”
Uhhhh… stuffff…. shut up!
“Is Criterion Collection bigger than mine?”
Actually, no. It’s arguably better, but I own over seven hundred movies. And since I buy movies at a faster rate than Criterion releases them, that’s going to stay the same for a while. I’m always aware a fire could just wipe all the collecting away, but for now I’m good with what I have.
“Does Benjamin Button still suck?”
It never did. People are just upset that it wasn’t brilliant. Not being brilliant but being critically acclaimed creates backlash.
“Is insert boring, obscure movie still an underrated masterpiece?”
Dude, TOTALLY. If you haven’t seen it yet, you don’t even know, so shut up! And if you have seen it but didn’t like it, you missed the point—you’re SUPPOSED to not like it! Watch it again and learn how to read! And shu-u-u-t up! Never mind that the movie is so obscure that there’s no possible chance in hell I could have ever gotten my hands on a copy of it, because there was only a single print that was immediately bought up by some collector who died in an avalanche and his will specifically stipulates that he should be buried with the print, meaning that it’s currently in the hands of surveyors trying to find the body, and as long as his will is unsatisfied the print is considered private property that viewing it is punishable by law…. No, my UNCLE is a surveyor and he totally showed me it. So there!
“What makes a masterpiece, anyway?”
Simple. If I like it, it’s brilliant. If I don’t, it’s dumb. If I like it and you like it, I’m glad we agree because it just shows great minds think alike. If I like it and you don’t, you missed the effin’ point and need to learn how to read. If I don’t like it and you like it, obviously you’re a pretentious ass. If I don’t like it and you don’t like it, obviously no one likes it so why are we bloody discussing it in the first place?
“What’s the good stuff around here?”
Shrugs I dunno, it’s a movie forum.
—JocularDiB
Go to Comment
Recommend a Movie about 3 years ago
Decasia: The State of Decay
Bill Morrison edits together found footage in various states of decay to a multipiece orchestra ensemble with detuned and broken instruments. The result is an aural and visual buffeting of spectres of spectatorship (I’d like to thank the Academy…) and is truly a piece not to be missed. Oh, and my friend Matt says it’s great to get high to, too, so, uh, there’s that. Just don’t drive after watching it, stoned or sober.
—PolarisDiB
Go to Comment