All I can say is that I agree with not having Capra on the site. Capra is one of the most enigmatic and essential filmmakers in the medium’s history and I see no reason for him to not have his own page on this excellent site.
No one is going to agree with me on this but The Warriors. I think it’s an important film for the time, and damn it if Michael Bay gets a Criterion why can’t Walter Hill?
Also, as was mentioned, There Will Be Blood needs a Criterion, as does The Wrestler, Synecdoche New York, Blood Simple, A Face In The Crowd, Stalag 17 or maybe even The Godfather. I mean think about the job Criterion could do on the Godfather I and II (leave out III of course).
…until I found out that some ridiculous amount of the film (something like 85%) is fabricated. Of course it is. Oliver Stone does nothing but lie in his films, often taking the facts and skewing them completely much to the dismay of the people his films are based on. Take The Doors for example. First of all, in a film called THE DOORS, the focus of the film is extremely one-sided, no? I mean the band was comprised of four members, not one. If you were making an exclusive Jim Morrisson biopic, why not call it The Lizard King? I could go on for days, but I absolutely detest Oliver Stone. The only one of his films I can fathom is Any Given Sunday, probably due to the fact that he isn’t trying to beat me over the head with some ridiculous political message.
Honestly, my favorite of all Anderson’s films is Rushmore. Just in terms of music, tone and acting, I love it to death. However, I think that his most moving film is The Life Aquatic. There’s a lot in that film that may seem pointless, or even a bit too Wes Anderson (even for Wes Anderson), but Zissou’s face when they finally show the Jaguar shark is incredibly telling. That scene always gets me.
Randy The Ram – The Wrestler
Harvey Dent – The Dark Knight
Tyler Durden – Fight Club
Carl Fredrickson – Up
Jimmy Markum – Mystic River
Billy Costigan – The Departed
Harvey Milk – Milk
Walk Kowalski – Gran Torino
Anton Chigurh – No Country For Old Men
Bullet Tooth Tony – Snatch
Theo Faron – Children Of Men
Harry – In Bruges
Eli – Let The Right One In
Edward Bloom – Big Fish
Frank T.J. Mackie and Claudia Wilson Gator – Magnolia
Frank Ginsberg – Little Miss Sunshine
Oliver Stone is a particularly interesting director to me. He garners much hate from some, and a whole lotta love from others. What’s your opinion and why?
Personally, I hate Stone. His visual style is non-existent and he preaches ridiculous political points, often convoluted in lies and liberal fabrications of the truth. He has a real talent for pissing off the people that his films are based on by making them into hybrid characters, or misquoting/completely lying about their actual lives knowing full-well that what he is doing is not the truth. Furthermore, I don’t think that he tells very interesting stories in general.
“Hollywood tends to fabricate history. Look at The Aviator; and I love that movie. As for the stories and your interest in them. Well, that’s just personal taste, ain’t it?”
OK, let’s start at the beginning here.
“Hollywood tends to fabricate history.”
Hollywood absolutely does fabricate history, and every single director that has ever made a film or documentary that is based/inspired by/“A” true story is lying from the get go. I understand that. But the specific way in which Stone handles this is juvenile and self serving. For instance, as I stated before, he created a character in The Doors, named Patricia Kennealy, that was Morrison’s witchcraft-practicing wife. On the second disc for The Doors DVD, the real Patricia Kennealy is on explaining that Stone took her name and likeness and made her into a hybrid of herself and many of Morrison’s other girlfriends at the time, much to her detest and dismay. This, to me, is a direct act of disrespect on Stone’s part, as well as a display of severe arrogance to many women that Morrison was with. It’s just a rude oversight and arrogant mish-mash of a character to serve Stone’s purpose rather than a reflection of the real woman. It just strikes me as lazy and disrespectful to the source material.
“As for the stories and your interest in them. Well, that’s just personal taste, ain’t it?”
Good grammar.
Yes, it is my interest in them, and that is what this thread was created for, people’s interest/opinion of Oliver Stone, and mine is he sucks.
“Jack, there’s a long history of using composite characters in film. Stone also uses them in JFK but many historical biopics or epics use them. It’s an established convention so I don’t see how harping on Stone for that is a serious criticism. That said, I can’t stand Stone either. I do however like Nixon. It’s his best film that I’ve seen by a long shot. By the way, what exactly are “liberal falsifications of the truth”? This sounds like a Bill O’Reilly-ism to me. And when someone asked you about this, you cited something that had nothing to do with politics. I’m sure you’d point to JFK but it clearly doesn’t pretend to be history but a conspiratorial counter-history so calling it a falsification seems silly to me. That said, I can’t stand JFK either.”
So you agree with my argument, but you are nitpicking my reasons? That’s ridiculously self-serving, don’t you think?
This is a thread for films that you saw that are in the Criterion Collection, but just weren’t all that Criterion made them out to be. Now granted, I am well aware that Criterion sometimes releases films for their shock value or political/social importance, and I’m not saying they don’t belong there for that reason, but I thought this might make for an interesting discussion.
The Friends Of Eddie Coyle – While being a really interesting and rich look at gangster life in Boston circa the 1970’s, I expected something transcendent from Coyle, being an American gangster picture getting the Criterion treatment. However, by the end credits, I felt as if I had been deceived somehow. The story is very typical, and while the style and execution of the film itself was interesting, it wasn’t anything that I couldn’t anticipate happening at least fifteen minutes before it actually did onscreen. I still give the film an 8/10 and I did like it, but Criterion was slightly deceiving on that one, I thought.
Traffic – I cannot for the life of me understand the appeal of this one. I’m a pretty substantial Soderbergh fan, but Traffic bores me to tears. I can’t quite place why, and I know my argument is going to sound like a load of bullshit for this one, but I haven’t even had the heart to revisit it for a second viewing because it left such a sour aftertaste.
The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button – I cannot understand why this film has a Criterion and something like The Wrestler does not. Honestly, Button is a reworking of Forrest Gump in more ways than I can even explain here. It’s not a poorly made film, the acting is top notch and the special effects left me awestruck, but plotwise and pacing are slowed to the pace of a snail, which in my mind does not serve the tone of the film at all. Also, why is it that Button’s ailment has nothing to do with what happens to him in his lifetime? Was I the only one puzzled by what was so important about his reverse aging? Maybe to show that he is no different than us, but that seems like a very obvious and superficial theme to me, seeing as endless films about someone, either mentally or physically disabled in some capacity, touch on that subject or center it.
@DANF: Actually, Dark City was shooting on the same stages as The Matrix at the same time, so I wouldn’t say that The Wachowskis borrowed from Proyas on that one.
Johnny Mnemonic though is pretty close, albeit a really awful movie. It even has Keanu Reeves in it, and you can see where someone could develop The Matrix after seeing that film.
I was thinking just now about the scene in the Inglourious Basterds trailer where one of the Basterds is running down a hallway with a gattling gun, firing and screaming, and it occurred to me how common of a trend it is when studios use deleted scenes in the trailers for films. In the case of Basterds, I expected a childish action film from the trailers and was completely surprised by how much I enjoyed the film. In fact, I have to admit that I’m glad that scene was left out of the final cut, seeing as it may have dumbed down the pace of the film. My question is this; when the studios use unused footage to cut trailers, does it piss you off, or do you just see it as clever integration of otherwise useless shot footage? I’m all for the use of cut scenes in trailers because it’s almost as if the director gets to show more of his work to the world. The Dark Knight trailers used this technique, and it was brilliant because when you eventually got to see that film it was as if you really didn’t know what was coming next, or how it would look.
Pulp Fiction literally showed me what movies could be. It was the first film I’ve seen and was my favorite for a long time, until I grew out of the whole “favorite movie” thing. However, I’ve gotta say that Inglourious Basterds is my favorite of his films. I feel like Death Proof is way too self indulgent because the dialogue in Death Proof had nothing to do with the plot in the second half. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, I don’t give a shit how girls are doing in the “dick” department. In Basterds QT is still self-indulgent, but only when he is using his style to build suspense, and holding it for as long as he can. Everything in Basterds worked for me, which is something I can’t really say about all of his films. QT is just trying to make the coolest movies possible, he isn’t trying to change the world with film and I don’t think he’s an arrogant know-it-all. He’s just a fanboy that made it, and if you remember that when you watch his movies I think that you will have more fun with them.
I’m looking for a film in which a Chrysler 300, black, terrorizes a town and in the end is tricked into driving off of a cliff. A devil/demon’s face appears out of the plume of smoke from the explosion of the car. Does this sound familiar to anyone?
Batman: Hush
Directed By Christopher Nolan
Batman/Bruce Wayne – Christian Bale
Alfred – Michael Caine
Thomas Elliott – Edward Norton
Joker – Heath Ledger (clever editing and lighting of the scene)
Two-Face/Harvey Dent – Guy Pearse
The Riddler – Sam Rockwell
Poison Ivy – Marion Cotillard
Superman/Clark Kent – Brandon Routh
Killer Croc – CGI, Voiced by Vin Diesel
Oracle/Barbara Gordon – Scarlett Johansson
Jim Gordon – Gary Oldman
I was thinking about 2012 today, and something really didn’t quite sit well with me. Granted, this film is completely full of $hit, but I was astounded at the lengths the writers went to regarding Oliver Platt’s character the evil capitalist, when he clearly was the most logical human being on any of those arks. I mean think about it, when Chiwetel suggests to open the gates, Platt’s response is one of completely sound and logical mind. He states that they will run out of oxygen, food, and space quickly, thereby dooming the race to extinction unless cannibalism becomes a normalcy and the scientists on the boat miraculously come up with a solution to not having any oxygen for who knows how long. Platt is portrayed as a villain against humanity, and what does he represent in the film? He represents capitalism. And clearly, even though people paid for their seats on the arks, Platt is the bad guy for defending a plan of action that was created years before, and probably between more powerful heads of state than himself. He’s simply carrying out the plan that the powers that be decided was the best course of action. Yet in the end, he is the villain for trying to preserve the species. Moreso, near the very end, when the ark doors open after the flood, the Russian twins have Tamara’s dog and they tell Cusack’s daughter that they can share the dog, it will be all their dog, a clearly communist view of things. Granted, I think the biblical implications are far greater than any political ones, however I think there is a half-a$$ed attempt at taking a communism-over-capitalism jab. I mean, all these wealthy people that bought seats on the arks now are no longer wealthy, so they are essentially all forced to work together when the world calms down, thereby suggesting a Communist rule. Maybe I’m off my rocker, but I think this may have been a main point of the film that was put in subliminally, albeit an incredibly pointless one.
Request to add a Frank Capra page and most of his films almost 3 years ago
All I can say is that I agree with not having Capra on the site. Capra is one of the most enigmatic and essential filmmakers in the medium’s history and I see no reason for him to not have his own page on this excellent site.
Go to Comment
Movies That Should Be In the Criterion Collection almost 3 years ago
No one is going to agree with me on this but The Warriors. I think it’s an important film for the time, and damn it if Michael Bay gets a Criterion why can’t Walter Hill?
Also, as was mentioned, There Will Be Blood needs a Criterion, as does The Wrestler, Synecdoche New York, Blood Simple, A Face In The Crowd, Stalag 17 or maybe even The Godfather. I mean think about the job Criterion could do on the Godfather I and II (leave out III of course).
Go to Comment
JFK almost 3 years ago
I loved this film…
…
…until I found out that some ridiculous amount of the film (something like 85%) is fabricated. Of course it is. Oliver Stone does nothing but lie in his films, often taking the facts and skewing them completely much to the dismay of the people his films are based on. Take The Doors for example. First of all, in a film called THE DOORS, the focus of the film is extremely one-sided, no? I mean the band was comprised of four members, not one. If you were making an exclusive Jim Morrisson biopic, why not call it The Lizard King? I could go on for days, but I absolutely detest Oliver Stone. The only one of his films I can fathom is Any Given Sunday, probably due to the fact that he isn’t trying to beat me over the head with some ridiculous political message.
Go to Comment
Why does the Criterion Collection not have any Werner Herzog films? almost 3 years ago
I really hope somehow we get some Herzog Criterions, specifically for Aguirre.
Go to Comment
what do you think is the most touching Wes Anderson Film? almost 3 years ago
Honestly, my favorite of all Anderson’s films is Rushmore. Just in terms of music, tone and acting, I love it to death. However, I think that his most moving film is The Life Aquatic. There’s a lot in that film that may seem pointless, or even a bit too Wes Anderson (even for Wes Anderson), but Zissou’s face when they finally show the Jaguar shark is incredibly telling. That scene always gets me.
Go to Comment
STOP THE FILM CLUB! almost 3 years ago
I’m definitely in.
Go to Comment
The Best Worst Films of All Time almost 3 years ago
Showgirls is absolutely hilarious, as is the brilliant Christopher Walken vehicle MCBAIN.
Go to Comment
STOP THE FILM CLUB! almost 3 years ago
I’ll Take 10
Go to Comment
best film about an unattainable women? almost 3 years ago
Showgirls.
No one can attain Nomi.
No one.
Go to Comment
What film do you love but your friends either don't get or like? almost 3 years ago
The Rocky Horror Picture Show
Go to Comment
What are the best written film characters of the past ten years? almost 3 years ago
Randy The Ram – The Wrestler
Harvey Dent – The Dark Knight
Tyler Durden – Fight Club
Carl Fredrickson – Up
Jimmy Markum – Mystic River
Billy Costigan – The Departed
Harvey Milk – Milk
Walk Kowalski – Gran Torino
Anton Chigurh – No Country For Old Men
Bullet Tooth Tony – Snatch
Theo Faron – Children Of Men
Harry – In Bruges
Eli – Let The Right One In
Edward Bloom – Big Fish
Frank T.J. Mackie and Claudia Wilson Gator – Magnolia
Frank Ginsberg – Little Miss Sunshine
Go to Comment
Oliver Stone Opinions almost 3 years ago
Oliver Stone is a particularly interesting director to me. He garners much hate from some, and a whole lotta love from others. What’s your opinion and why?
Personally, I hate Stone. His visual style is non-existent and he preaches ridiculous political points, often convoluted in lies and liberal fabrications of the truth. He has a real talent for pissing off the people that his films are based on by making them into hybrid characters, or misquoting/completely lying about their actual lives knowing full-well that what he is doing is not the truth. Furthermore, I don’t think that he tells very interesting stories in general.
Go to Comment
Oliver Stone Opinions almost 3 years ago
“Hollywood tends to fabricate history. Look at The Aviator; and I love that movie. As for the stories and your interest in them. Well, that’s just personal taste, ain’t it?”
OK, let’s start at the beginning here.
“Hollywood tends to fabricate history.”
Hollywood absolutely does fabricate history, and every single director that has ever made a film or documentary that is based/inspired by/“A” true story is lying from the get go. I understand that. But the specific way in which Stone handles this is juvenile and self serving. For instance, as I stated before, he created a character in The Doors, named Patricia Kennealy, that was Morrison’s witchcraft-practicing wife. On the second disc for The Doors DVD, the real Patricia Kennealy is on explaining that Stone took her name and likeness and made her into a hybrid of herself and many of Morrison’s other girlfriends at the time, much to her detest and dismay. This, to me, is a direct act of disrespect on Stone’s part, as well as a display of severe arrogance to many women that Morrison was with. It’s just a rude oversight and arrogant mish-mash of a character to serve Stone’s purpose rather than a reflection of the real woman. It just strikes me as lazy and disrespectful to the source material.
“As for the stories and your interest in them. Well, that’s just personal taste, ain’t it?”
Good grammar.
Yes, it is my interest in them, and that is what this thread was created for, people’s interest/opinion of Oliver Stone, and mine is he sucks.
Go to Comment
Oliver Stone Opinions almost 3 years ago
“Jack, there’s a long history of using composite characters in film. Stone also uses them in JFK but many historical biopics or epics use them. It’s an established convention so I don’t see how harping on Stone for that is a serious criticism. That said, I can’t stand Stone either. I do however like Nixon. It’s his best film that I’ve seen by a long shot. By the way, what exactly are “liberal falsifications of the truth”? This sounds like a Bill O’Reilly-ism to me. And when someone asked you about this, you cited something that had nothing to do with politics. I’m sure you’d point to JFK but it clearly doesn’t pretend to be history but a conspiratorial counter-history so calling it a falsification seems silly to me. That said, I can’t stand JFK either.”
So you agree with my argument, but you are nitpicking my reasons? That’s ridiculously self-serving, don’t you think?
Go to Comment
Terry Gilliam's best film. almost 3 years ago
I think 12 Monkeys is a masterwork.
Go to Comment
Criterions That Didn't Impress You almost 3 years ago
This is a thread for films that you saw that are in the Criterion Collection, but just weren’t all that Criterion made them out to be. Now granted, I am well aware that Criterion sometimes releases films for their shock value or political/social importance, and I’m not saying they don’t belong there for that reason, but I thought this might make for an interesting discussion.
The Friends Of Eddie Coyle – While being a really interesting and rich look at gangster life in Boston circa the 1970’s, I expected something transcendent from Coyle, being an American gangster picture getting the Criterion treatment. However, by the end credits, I felt as if I had been deceived somehow. The story is very typical, and while the style and execution of the film itself was interesting, it wasn’t anything that I couldn’t anticipate happening at least fifteen minutes before it actually did onscreen. I still give the film an 8/10 and I did like it, but Criterion was slightly deceiving on that one, I thought.
Traffic – I cannot for the life of me understand the appeal of this one. I’m a pretty substantial Soderbergh fan, but Traffic bores me to tears. I can’t quite place why, and I know my argument is going to sound like a load of bullshit for this one, but I haven’t even had the heart to revisit it for a second viewing because it left such a sour aftertaste.
The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button – I cannot understand why this film has a Criterion and something like The Wrestler does not. Honestly, Button is a reworking of Forrest Gump in more ways than I can even explain here. It’s not a poorly made film, the acting is top notch and the special effects left me awestruck, but plotwise and pacing are slowed to the pace of a snail, which in my mind does not serve the tone of the film at all. Also, why is it that Button’s ailment has nothing to do with what happens to him in his lifetime? Was I the only one puzzled by what was so important about his reverse aging? Maybe to show that he is no different than us, but that seems like a very obvious and superficial theme to me, seeing as endless films about someone, either mentally or physically disabled in some capacity, touch on that subject or center it.
Well, what do you think?
Go to Comment
what in your opinion is the major inspiration souce for the story of the matrix (1999) almost 3 years ago
@DANF: Actually, Dark City was shooting on the same stages as The Matrix at the same time, so I wouldn’t say that The Wachowskis borrowed from Proyas on that one.
Johnny Mnemonic though is pretty close, albeit a really awful movie. It even has Keanu Reeves in it, and you can see where someone could develop The Matrix after seeing that film.
Go to Comment
Trailers That Use Deleted Scenes Not Present In Finished Films almost 3 years ago
I was thinking just now about the scene in the Inglourious Basterds trailer where one of the Basterds is running down a hallway with a gattling gun, firing and screaming, and it occurred to me how common of a trend it is when studios use deleted scenes in the trailers for films. In the case of Basterds, I expected a childish action film from the trailers and was completely surprised by how much I enjoyed the film. In fact, I have to admit that I’m glad that scene was left out of the final cut, seeing as it may have dumbed down the pace of the film. My question is this; when the studios use unused footage to cut trailers, does it piss you off, or do you just see it as clever integration of otherwise useless shot footage? I’m all for the use of cut scenes in trailers because it’s almost as if the director gets to show more of his work to the world. The Dark Knight trailers used this technique, and it was brilliant because when you eventually got to see that film it was as if you really didn’t know what was coming next, or how it would look.
Go to Comment
So what is your favorite QT? (please don't turn this into a fanboy thing, it's not) almost 3 years ago
Pulp Fiction literally showed me what movies could be. It was the first film I’ve seen and was my favorite for a long time, until I grew out of the whole “favorite movie” thing. However, I’ve gotta say that Inglourious Basterds is my favorite of his films. I feel like Death Proof is way too self indulgent because the dialogue in Death Proof had nothing to do with the plot in the second half. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, I don’t give a shit how girls are doing in the “dick” department. In Basterds QT is still self-indulgent, but only when he is using his style to build suspense, and holding it for as long as he can. Everything in Basterds worked for me, which is something I can’t really say about all of his films. QT is just trying to make the coolest movies possible, he isn’t trying to change the world with film and I don’t think he’s an arrogant know-it-all. He’s just a fanboy that made it, and if you remember that when you watch his movies I think that you will have more fun with them.
Go to Comment
The best Monty Python film? over 2 years ago
Holy Grail is a masterwork and their best film in my opinion.
Go to Comment
How important is a perfect image quality for cinephiles? over 2 years ago
A good movie is a good movie, whether you watch it on Blu-Ray or on a portable DVD player.
Go to Comment
Looking for a specific "Road" movie over 2 years ago
Hi there,
I’m looking for a film in which a Chrysler 300, black, terrorizes a town and in the end is tricked into driving off of a cliff. A devil/demon’s face appears out of the plume of smoke from the explosion of the car. Does this sound familiar to anyone?
Go to Comment
Looking for a specific "Road" movie over 2 years ago
Thanks guys.
Go to Comment
You choose the book to make into a film. Then choose the director. Go! over 2 years ago
Batman: Hush
Directed By Christopher Nolan
Batman/Bruce Wayne – Christian Bale
Alfred – Michael Caine
Thomas Elliott – Edward Norton
Joker – Heath Ledger (clever editing and lighting of the scene)
Two-Face/Harvey Dent – Guy Pearse
The Riddler – Sam Rockwell
Poison Ivy – Marion Cotillard
Superman/Clark Kent – Brandon Routh
Killer Croc – CGI, Voiced by Vin Diesel
Oracle/Barbara Gordon – Scarlett Johansson
Jim Gordon – Gary Oldman
Go to Comment
CLICHES over 2 years ago
When the father has to choose between his job and his family, specifically when it’s the choice between a promotion or the son’s Karate exhibition.
Go to Comment
Rorschach in films? over 2 years ago
Armageddon
Go to Comment
Great Uses of Focus over 2 years ago
Once Upon A Time In The West has the best use of focusing on a character ever.
Go to Comment
Great Uses of Focus over 2 years ago
Once Upon A Time In The West has the best use of focusing on a character ever.
Go to Comment
2012's Communist Agenda over 2 years ago
I was thinking about 2012 today, and something really didn’t quite sit well with me. Granted, this film is completely full of $hit, but I was astounded at the lengths the writers went to regarding Oliver Platt’s character the evil capitalist, when he clearly was the most logical human being on any of those arks. I mean think about it, when Chiwetel suggests to open the gates, Platt’s response is one of completely sound and logical mind. He states that they will run out of oxygen, food, and space quickly, thereby dooming the race to extinction unless cannibalism becomes a normalcy and the scientists on the boat miraculously come up with a solution to not having any oxygen for who knows how long. Platt is portrayed as a villain against humanity, and what does he represent in the film? He represents capitalism. And clearly, even though people paid for their seats on the arks, Platt is the bad guy for defending a plan of action that was created years before, and probably between more powerful heads of state than himself. He’s simply carrying out the plan that the powers that be decided was the best course of action. Yet in the end, he is the villain for trying to preserve the species. Moreso, near the very end, when the ark doors open after the flood, the Russian twins have Tamara’s dog and they tell Cusack’s daughter that they can share the dog, it will be all their dog, a clearly communist view of things. Granted, I think the biblical implications are far greater than any political ones, however I think there is a half-a$$ed attempt at taking a communism-over-capitalism jab. I mean, all these wealthy people that bought seats on the arks now are no longer wealthy, so they are essentially all forced to work together when the world calms down, thereby suggesting a Communist rule. Maybe I’m off my rocker, but I think this may have been a main point of the film that was put in subliminally, albeit an incredibly pointless one.
Go to Comment
2012's Communist Agenda over 2 years ago
I apologize for the spelling error.
Go to Comment