As an adaptation, The Shining is not very accurate. However, it stands alone as just a great film despite the many differences from the original novel. I did like the ending of the film better than the novel (where topiaries come to life … leave it to Stephen King to ruin an ending). The only flaw I see with the film (albeit a very minor flaw) is that Jack Nicholson is not the best actor to play the character of Jack Torrence – at least the way the novel depicts him, he has too much of that unhinged look anyway so it’s no surprise when he starts acting crazy. Also, his transition from ordinary husband (granted, with tendencies toward violence) to homicidal killer is so sudden, it could’ve been more gradual.
Nevertheless, it’s a great film and an above-average novel, but they’re not synonymous. The film is only very loosely based on the novel.
Man Bites Dog
Straw Dogs
Robocop
Dead Ringers (or almost anything by David Cronenberg)
Old Boy and/or Sympathy for Mr. Vengence
Imprint (Takasi Miike’s episode for the Masters of Horror series)
It was an OK film. There hasn’t been a really good Korean film for quite awhile, but this one isn’t the worst. It is very much like an anime (in terms of plot and character development), so expect that kind of extreme violence and dry humour. Even in terms of the trilogy, Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance, while still having moments of dark humour, was pretty depressing where violent/immature actions had terrible consequences, and Old Boy seemed to lack that – I never felt the protagonist was really in danger or that his plight was very urgent.
I liked Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance much better and Old Boy second best in terms of the trilogy. Sympathy for Lady Vengeance is simply a hollow shock film, which I think Old Boy is merely a kind of Tarantino-esque tribute film.
If you were expecting Old Boy to be horror or serious drama, then you really misinterpretted it. I was actually reminded of Sam Raimi in a few scenes, as well as (inevitably) Takashi Miike in some regards. So, in the end, Old Boy is a worthwhile rental (if you know what you’re getting into), but a questionable purchase.
Yeah I didn’t mean it was a tribute to Tarantino, but Oldboy (and a lot of Park’s work) is LIKE a Tarantino film (I agree, not as vacuous) where he’s referencing and giving little nods to various films (for whatever reason, maybe he’s a fan or something) and pop culture amidst this seriously demented plot (and I mean “demented” as a compliment) and it all just gets lost in its attempt to be really clever. However, I should clarify, in style, Park’s films are in no way similar to Tarantino.
And I greatly disagree that Lady Vengeance is the deepest of the three. The film focuses so much on this character (The protagonist) who is wrongly convicted and loses her daughter and this elaborate scheme to get revenge on this child-murderer, but it never focuses on really developing the character herself it just describes her situation more and more – motivation doesn’t make characterization.
Besides, as a previous posted mentioned, the protagonists in the trilogy are almost identical in their inner turmoil (though, of course, the events causing or leading up to this turmoil is much different), so I think I like the first one better because it just presented that turmoil in such a creative way. With Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance, you didn’t really have “dark humour” (which is the only way to really watch Old Boy in my opinion – if you take it too seriously then the film becomes a parody of itself marred with “unintentional humour”.), the “humour” comes more from the absurdity of life itself. It’s a very existentialist film but in a very uncliched way. Old Boy deals with serious issues and gives the impression of approaching these issues in a very realist kind of way, but it doesn’t quite commit to either being a “dark comedy” or a serious drama, it instead tries to straddle the fence and be both which doesn’t quite work at times.
Old Boy isn’t a bad film, its really good, but I think Parks has done much better and that Old Boy is essentially a sleeker, more commercial (for Parks) “update” of Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance.
Yeah, I would disagree with saying that ‘Naked Lunch’ was a good adaptation either. I mean it’s a great film AND an amazing novel (if anyone on this forum hasn’t read the book by William S. Burroughs then shame on you, read it immediately, heh), but Cronenberg does a thing similar to Kubrick in his adaptations (like with History to Violence, I believe), which is to present the base material in a more simplified, minimalist way and then really focus on the more cinematic elements that the book(s) don’t really delve into. Like with Naked Lunch, the novel is such a mangled, complex matrix of psychological banter (I mean this in a good, entertaining way) and disjointed timelines that to precisely adapt the book to film would be impossible.
By the way, Cronenberg’s best book adaptation I believe is Dead Ringers (my favourite Cronenberg film), based on the novel Twins (I forget who it’s by). But the book isn’t that great. It’s well-written I guess you could say, but it gets lost in its own self-discovery that it just comes off as banal and over-emphatic. The film however has this great brooding atmosphere, almost like a horror film (I would consider it a horror film), and Jeremy Irons is fantastic as the TWO protagonists.
I would say that Lord of the Rings is probably the best book to film adaptation (at least that I can think of right off the top of my head). It does leave little things out like Tom Bombadil (sp?), etc., but that stuff isn’t essential to the plot, they’re not even sub-plots they’re basically just filler to add some humour and completist data.
Clockwork Orange is a great film, but a better book in my opinion. Again, Kubrick isn’t concerned with following Burgess’ novel exactly, but focuses more on the iconic imagery and overall aestetics that the plot sets up. However, the book is really really good, in fact I recommend reading the book as a supplement to the film (or vice versa) because there’s a lot of little nuances in the book that the film doesn’t fix on – but I don’t mean that the film isn’t good, it’s just such a great book that any visual embellishment is unnecessary.
1984 is also a decent adaptation starring the always amazing John Hurt (Elephant Man, the Naked Civil Servant, The Proposition, Alien, and a million more films). Again though, the book (by George Orwell) is so good that the film can’t really live up to it. Besides the film does meander in a few places perhaps going for some psychedelic free spirit theme, I don’t know. Anyway, it’s a pretty good film that mostly faithful to the novel.
I see where you’re coming from, Jamie, but the whole narrative center of Lady Vengeance is the meeting and congregational torturing of this terrible man and it just didn’t take the film to the level that it could’ve went to. It wasn’t a very long scene but it seems to drag on and on when such a scene should be the most gut-wrenching part (at least visually and on a base level, heh).
The scene at the end where the protagonist buries her face in the cake after an overly dramatic emphasis on her lost humanity even in doing the right thing was very heavy-handed as was most of the points Park was trying to make. I appreciate what he was trying to do, but I didn’t think he pulled it off very well. Lady Vengeance is a stylistic (the “Vengeance trilogy” seemed to get more and more concerned with visual appeal than simple storytelling), very well produced (and edited) film that seems to be trying to squeeze in these very serious and important themes when, instead the themes should be the central issue.
There were a lot of things I liked about the film that I think worked separately, such as the hypocrisy of the devout (as you mentioned, the great line with the priest) and invasive western culture, but together as a whole it just didn’t seem cohesive.
Just a counter-argument. I’m not slamming the film or Park (or you for that matter), but I just felt Lady Vengeance was a misfire.
I would say easily, Spielberg. I don’t even know where to begin. First off, Minority Report is the WORST Philip K. Dick adaptation ever made, not to mention A.I. Jaws was very influential, but beyond its iconic status, isn’t a very good film. I would regard it more as a technical achievement. Munich is one of his best films as well as Close Encounters, but beyond those two (and the first and third Indiana Jones films) he hasn’t really done anything truly spectacular.
Lucas isn’t a bad director, he’s just a really bad writer. THX was his only good film outside of the first three Star Wars films and the first three Indiana Jones (the latter of which he didn’t direct anyway).
I do think Tarantino is overrated, but not because he’s a bad director, but because people tend to think of him as some kind of revolutionary artist, but all he really does is rehash French auteurs and throw in some blaxploitation and a general 70s look. He’s never really done anything original, but I’m still hoping that someday he’ll return to something a little more low-key like Jackie Brown (his best work in my opinion) instead of these “tribute” films.
I would also say Sophia Coppolla is overrated. She’s heralded as this great female director and she’s only made like 3 films which all were so banal that they were really difficult to watch.
And whoever said Pekinpah, really needs to explain their reasoning behind that. I mean I can understand with his inconsistent last half of films but Cross of Iron? Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid? The Wild Bunch? C’mon those are classics. Straw Dogs is also great and I LOVE Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia (though both films are very limited in who they might appeal to).
That’s actually the only version I’ve seen and I did like the colour scheme very much. Park does have a great visual style. He is extremely skilled at creative transitions (as you mentioned) and, what I like most about his style, is his clever editing and camera work that seems to hover apart from the characters as opposed to conventional cinematography that is so enamored with following the characters’ every movement.
I agree wholeheartedly on both points. One example of a film being “too faithful” to its source material is the Soderberg’s (sp?) Kafka with Jeremy Irons. The film includes all these great references and compilations of characters from the Kafka stories, but it just fails miserably because it doesn’t focus on bringing all those things together and making a real film. Its more like some kind of weird biopic B-movie. Oh, and just to get this off my chest, I truly despise the colour transition near the last quarter of the film (when/if you see it you’ll know what I mean). It’s cheap and bourgeois and just … ah, I can’t even think of the words to describe this atrocity, heh.
Cronenberg is an old hand. Even with his earlier works, Rabid and Shivers (which are very rough, but have some great horror moments) you can see him getting a firm grip on developing his style. Great director.
1. Drunken Angel
2. Yojimbo
3. Seven Samurai
4. High and Low
5. Red Beard
6. Ikiru
7. Ran
8. Rashoman
9. Throne of Blood
10. Hidden Fortress
Drunken Angel I think is one of the most understated and truly revolutionary films of all time. I know Seven Samurai is lauded as Kurosawa’s best (and it is a technical and narrative masterpiece), but Drunken Angel is such a great minimalist piece with such great characters and overflowing with existentialist symbolism. A deceptively simple film, but deep to its core.
Overall, I think Throne of Blood is his best-looking film in terms of picture and cinematography. One of my favourite Shakespeare adaptations certainly.
Yojimbo is, I think next to Seven Samurai, his most influential film. And the funny thing about Kurosawa is that all the time he’s referencing Western culture which was such a huge influence on his style and he ended up influencing Western culture with his “imitations”. Amazing director, a true visionary.
I’m glad someone mentioned the bad lighting in the film. I know Lynch was going for a low-budget look but this was too much.
The problem I had with the film is the problem I have with a lot of Lynch’s work: he doesn’t know when to restrain himself. When given full reign he starts going off with these obsessive dreams/nightmares and when he goes too far off the deep end, we’re left with little to no conceivable plot line. And I don’t buy the whole “It’s a dream, so it’s not supposed to make sense” line, a story HAS to make sense to somebody, at least the director. This doesn’t mean that the film has to have a conventional storyline, but it can’t be just a string of the director’s phobias/dreams. With Mulholland Drive and Wild at Heart (even Twin Peaks), Lynch combined his obsessive dreams/hallucinations with a somewhat conceivable plot so it worked really well, so when he’s on his game he can really be amazing.
With Inland Empire there IS a story that Lynch is trying to tell, but it’s so mangled and unnecessarily disjointed that the whole point is lost and you get distracted by his embellishments.
Visually, Lynch is always appealing, but narratively he can get out of hand if not reined in properly. Inland Empire has a lot of great ideas (I did like rabbit scene and the way a lotof the street scenes were shot) but it just seemed like he was imitating himself and trying to be weird just to be weird.
However, to contradict myself (heh), I LOVE Eraserhead. Incredible soundtrack and simply the most “realistic” dream film I’ve ever seen. I know my dreams look like this – which is disturbing I’m sure.
Also, I want to add that the “music video” at the end of Inland Empire was grating to watch. I’m a huge Nina Simone fan and so have an opportunity to use a great song like Sinnerman and waste it on a vacuous “release” from the tension was cheap and uninspired.
True. I wrote a review on Amazon.com (under the name Horselover_Fat – yes, I know I have no life heh) for Drunken Angel which goes into how Mifune and Takashi’s characters are practically identical in their inner turmoil and ultimate fate (that being self-destruction). The film has many layers. It even sums itself up in one scene better than any other film I’ve seen: Near the first quarter of the film where Takashi’s character tries to keep a door open and it keeps closing, but he keeps opening it anyway until it finally stays open. Simple but effective.
I liked The Last Temptation of Christ a lot but with a few misgivings. First off, let me say that Scorsese deserves every accolade given to him because he is a fantastic director that is one of the best American directors of all time (my personal favourite is After Hours). He hasn’t had too many misfires but sometimes he concerns himself too much with the look of a film than the narrative aspect.
The best thing the Last Temptation has going for it, is the novel it’s based off of. The novel itself (Written by Kazantzakis – sp?) is very well written and is responsible for the unique characterization of these traditional Biblical characters as aforementioned. There’s a great soundtrack (by Peter Gabriel I believe) and of course excellent aggressive cinematography very uncharacteristic of a Biblical film. The film is for the most part very faithful (no pun intended, ha) to the book and brings out the “last temptation scene” at the end very well. However, some of the casting choices were misguided I thought, such as Harvey Keitel to play Judas. That is perhaps the worst casting choice in film history. Plus, while I don’t see how they could’ve done it any different with the selected cast, Isralites speaking New York accents was certainly a first (and hopefully a last) – very distracting. Willem Dafoe is great, he’s probably the best Jesus I’ve seen, and really brings out the battle between humanity and godhood.
Overall, it’s a good film, but certainly not Scorsese’s best. It works in a lot of places, but is a bit empty in its central core. I wouldn’t call it his most underrated film though. It was certainly the most hated film of his career. The initial reaction by religious groups was phenomenal and very unchristian-like, heh. I would say After Hours is his most underrated or perhaps King of Comedy.
Oh, and Roscoe, that actor playing Pontius Pilate was THE David Bowie and yes, he does almost steal the film despite his small role.
Well if you get a PS3 that WILL generate a lot of heat, so you want some vents for that. I have one and while I’m not that it generates a “dangerous” amount of heat, I don’t want to take any chances (considering how much it cost). In fact, it’s safe just to have at least some ventilation for the DVD player, blu-ray or whatever contraption you’re playing you’re DVDs on.
I don’t see the speakers being a problem with heat though.
Influence is THE most important thing to consider while watching a film. It opens up all kinds of underlying layers and motivations of the director/writer/whoever that would otherwise be missed if you ignored their influences.
Nothing (literally) is original. I firmly believe that and knowing this (or I guess since it is unproven: suspecting this), determining an artist’s influences is paramount. To truly understand a film (or film in general) you have to be aware of who did what “first” (read: in a recorded sense at least) and why. Then, following that you have to look at artists that were influenced by whoever and then determine if it was done well or simply trying to copy him/her.
I think influence is an extremely important step in looking beyond the glossy technical aspects or hype of a film and deconstructing it to understand the origin of things. However, saying that, it’s not the only aspect to look at, but without it you can’t really determine a film’s worth in a knowledgeable way.
I don’t mean the film has to be in Hebrew, but at least have the actors impress SOME kind of accent appropriate to the region. I don’t mind at all that it’s in English, it’s the fact that the actors don’t even try to affect an appropriate accent. But anyway, it’s not the main reason I don’t regard it as a great film.
I don’t know though, looking back to the last time I saw it (probably a couple years ago), I think what didn’t impress me much was the conventional quality of the film. It was very commercial and “uninvolving”. Of course its subject matter and Kazantzakis’ very human twist on that was scandalous, but that was really the only reason it drew any major attention and for anyone who had already read the book (such as myself) written twenty or so years before the film, it wasn’t really shocking or revelatory (so to speak).
Anyway, I agree it is certainly an underrated film that many narrow-minded people disregard simply on account of the “blasphemous” nature of Kazantzakis’ interpretation.
I’m not trying to argue with you or anything, Drew, just a friendly debate, but I thought Gangs of New York suffered from the same syndrome as Last Temptation: commercial and “uninvolving”, though this time, with Gangs, I felt that characterization suffered quite a bit amidst the epic battle scenes. Plus Cameron Diaz in anything is just an atrocious miscasting choice, but Daniel Day Lewis was phenomenal and probably the best aspect of the film. I don’t know, the whole film reeked of Hollywood to me.
King of Comedy took me awhile to like, but after a few viewings I really came around and it’s now one of my favourite Scorsese films. It’s interesting, Deniro almost takes a kind of Kurt Russell role (such as in Big Trouble in Little China, Tango and Cash, and interestingly Death Proof – even in films like Escape from NY and LA, he’s regarded as a legend and a hero, but is instead very human and vulnerable) where the central character isn’t your typical Hollywood protagonist, he’s this kind of pathetic dreamer/nihilist that you really don’t like but kind of do because of his unnerving self-confidence.
The trailer does look interesting. Del Toro is a great director that I think (along with Danny Boyle) is one of the best directors out there today.He’s had hits and misses, but he has a unique vision which is something very lacking in a lot of modern directors.
Ok, take for instance, Tarantino. If taken solely by himself, he would be probably one of the greatest directors alive today. However, it’s the fact that he’s ripping (whether intentionally or not it doesn’t matter) on French New Wave, Jack Hill, Hitchcock, and Ozawa (to name a very few) that undermines the quality of his work. If he had sat down and worked a script that didn’t try to recapture all this retrospection then he’d be a director that worked with his influences instead of being led by them. As with Jackie Brown, which I regard as his best film, you could see his many influences, but he worked with them instead of forcing them into the foreground as the central idea.
If I’m watching a film such as the U.S. version of Funny Games am I supposed to disregard the original? Do I really have a worthwhile opinion if I’ve seen a film such as Disturbia and never seen Rear Window? Not to say originals are automatically better than their remakes (certainly not true), but then again, I think mentioning remakes is getting a little off topic.
I think it’s also important to stay close to the material, but like any medium (music, art, writing, etc.) you have to be aware of an artist’s influences to know where he/she’s coming from in terms of the context they put themselves in by having such motivations. You understand the meaning behind the medium when you understand the artist’s origins.
When I watch For a Few Dollars More, I am automatically thinking of scenes from Yojimbo because Leone, in that film, was obviously influenced by Kurosawa’s film (which itself was influenced by American Westerns). That doesn’t mean that I’m constantly comparing the two or critiquing the differences, but I am aware of the differences and what Leone borrows (more like tribute) from Kurosawa. Without that link, I think there’s an important aspect of viewing film that is lost.
Nothing human is without context. Everything is referencing something because that is human nature. No one, unless they literally live in cave, is without some outside influence.
Exactly, I totally agree with your last paragraph. Nevertheless, the influences are there whether we are aware of it or not. This doesn’t mean that we don’t create a work that defines us an individual and one’s influences doesn’t necessarily undermine the work, but it’s an ever-present factor regardless.
Again though I wholeheartedly agree with the idea of disregarding film historians and critics. That is a huge step in individual criticism. That’s not the kind of influence I’m talking about – that’s someone’s reasoning being influenced which is definitely something we all should avoid. Group connection is not the point at all.
For example, I don’t regard Citizen Kane as the greatest film of all time because Time tells me to, but if I were to draw my own conclusion that Citizen Kane is unparalleled for various reasons then there’s no reason to disagree with Time simply because they are an “established” publication (I, by the way think Welles’ The Trial is his greatest film, not Citizen Kane, but that’s for another topic).
But that’s all totally different from what my original argument was, which was art influencing art (not peer pressure or established opinions). I personally don’t think this kind of influence a negative aspect necessarily, however it can get out of hand when an artist is more concerned with glorifying his influences than with the film itself (or whatever the medium is).
So, essentially I agree with you even though it may not seem like it, heh. I’m an existentialist at heart, but even though I believe that everyone determines their own meaning in all aspects of life (including art, which is a very essential part of human existence) I’m still aware of the social and psychological human instinct to connect with others and the effect that this influence can have.
I’m really psyched about this film. Hillcoat is turning out to be an interesting director, the Proposition was excellent. Plus the soundtrack is by the infamous Nick Cave!
Sorry Taxi Driver just prompts such unnecessary discussion, I was being curt. Perhaps I caught some passive-laziness from Col. Dax. :D
Yes, I agree, Deniro portrays some of the most unlikable, pathetic characters (King of Comedy anyone?) that I’m just amazed that he caught on in Hollywood. I’ve mentioned this before, but his penchant for choosing antihero roles is very similar (on another level) to Kurt Russell (of which I’m a huge fan). Also, Cape Fear (Scorsese’s version) is in my opinion one of the worst films ever made (I know, slay me), but Deniro’s performance is so defiantly terrible and disturbing that I like it just for that uneasy feeling I get.
Eh. Irreversible is just eh. Once you get beyond the shock aspect of it it’s pretty banal.
And Taxi Driver should be ingrained in every film fanatic’s brain, so Loki, you need to have your brain ingrained. Forget your checkered homicidal past and quit looking in the rear view mirror.
Oh and back to seriousness, was I the only kid whose life was changed completely by the reversed bell sound at the end of Taxi Driver when he looks in the rear view mirror? Yeah, that was … real.
I think Raging Bull was his apex – that is a masterpiece. Taxi Driver is as well, but Scorsese was still on the rise then, I wouldn’t say Raging Bull was on the downgrade. He thinned out a bit in the 80s, but then Goodfellas was a return to form. Though, After Hours is my favourite Scorsese film so yeah (which was mid-80s I think) …
Is The Shining the best novel to film adaptation? about 3 years ago
As an adaptation, The Shining is not very accurate. However, it stands alone as just a great film despite the many differences from the original novel. I did like the ending of the film better than the novel (where topiaries come to life … leave it to Stephen King to ruin an ending). The only flaw I see with the film (albeit a very minor flaw) is that Jack Nicholson is not the best actor to play the character of Jack Torrence – at least the way the novel depicts him, he has too much of that unhinged look anyway so it’s no surprise when he starts acting crazy. Also, his transition from ordinary husband (granted, with tendencies toward violence) to homicidal killer is so sudden, it could’ve been more gradual.
Nevertheless, it’s a great film and an above-average novel, but they’re not synonymous. The film is only very loosely based on the novel.
Go to Comment
most violent criterion? about 3 years ago
As already mentioned:
Man Bites Dog
Straw Dogs
Robocop
Dead Ringers (or almost anything by David Cronenberg)
Old Boy and/or Sympathy for Mr. Vengence
Imprint (Takasi Miike’s episode for the Masters of Horror series)
Go to Comment
Last movie you saw and rate it about 3 years ago
Funny Games remake = D -
Go to Comment
OLDBOY - A DISAPPOINTMENT about 3 years ago
It was an OK film. There hasn’t been a really good Korean film for quite awhile, but this one isn’t the worst. It is very much like an anime (in terms of plot and character development), so expect that kind of extreme violence and dry humour. Even in terms of the trilogy, Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance, while still having moments of dark humour, was pretty depressing where violent/immature actions had terrible consequences, and Old Boy seemed to lack that – I never felt the protagonist was really in danger or that his plight was very urgent.
I liked Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance much better and Old Boy second best in terms of the trilogy. Sympathy for Lady Vengeance is simply a hollow shock film, which I think Old Boy is merely a kind of Tarantino-esque tribute film.
If you were expecting Old Boy to be horror or serious drama, then you really misinterpretted it. I was actually reminded of Sam Raimi in a few scenes, as well as (inevitably) Takashi Miike in some regards. So, in the end, Old Boy is a worthwhile rental (if you know what you’re getting into), but a questionable purchase.
Go to Comment
OLDBOY - A DISAPPOINTMENT about 3 years ago
Yeah I didn’t mean it was a tribute to Tarantino, but Oldboy (and a lot of Park’s work) is LIKE a Tarantino film (I agree, not as vacuous) where he’s referencing and giving little nods to various films (for whatever reason, maybe he’s a fan or something) and pop culture amidst this seriously demented plot (and I mean “demented” as a compliment) and it all just gets lost in its attempt to be really clever. However, I should clarify, in style, Park’s films are in no way similar to Tarantino.
And I greatly disagree that Lady Vengeance is the deepest of the three. The film focuses so much on this character (The protagonist) who is wrongly convicted and loses her daughter and this elaborate scheme to get revenge on this child-murderer, but it never focuses on really developing the character herself it just describes her situation more and more – motivation doesn’t make characterization.
Besides, as a previous posted mentioned, the protagonists in the trilogy are almost identical in their inner turmoil (though, of course, the events causing or leading up to this turmoil is much different), so I think I like the first one better because it just presented that turmoil in such a creative way. With Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance, you didn’t really have “dark humour” (which is the only way to really watch Old Boy in my opinion – if you take it too seriously then the film becomes a parody of itself marred with “unintentional humour”.), the “humour” comes more from the absurdity of life itself. It’s a very existentialist film but in a very uncliched way. Old Boy deals with serious issues and gives the impression of approaching these issues in a very realist kind of way, but it doesn’t quite commit to either being a “dark comedy” or a serious drama, it instead tries to straddle the fence and be both which doesn’t quite work at times.
Old Boy isn’t a bad film, its really good, but I think Parks has done much better and that Old Boy is essentially a sleeker, more commercial (for Parks) “update” of Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance.
Go to Comment
Is The Shining the best novel to film adaptation? about 3 years ago
Yeah, I would disagree with saying that ‘Naked Lunch’ was a good adaptation either. I mean it’s a great film AND an amazing novel (if anyone on this forum hasn’t read the book by William S. Burroughs then shame on you, read it immediately, heh), but Cronenberg does a thing similar to Kubrick in his adaptations (like with History to Violence, I believe), which is to present the base material in a more simplified, minimalist way and then really focus on the more cinematic elements that the book(s) don’t really delve into. Like with Naked Lunch, the novel is such a mangled, complex matrix of psychological banter (I mean this in a good, entertaining way) and disjointed timelines that to precisely adapt the book to film would be impossible.
By the way, Cronenberg’s best book adaptation I believe is Dead Ringers (my favourite Cronenberg film), based on the novel Twins (I forget who it’s by). But the book isn’t that great. It’s well-written I guess you could say, but it gets lost in its own self-discovery that it just comes off as banal and over-emphatic. The film however has this great brooding atmosphere, almost like a horror film (I would consider it a horror film), and Jeremy Irons is fantastic as the TWO protagonists.
I would say that Lord of the Rings is probably the best book to film adaptation (at least that I can think of right off the top of my head). It does leave little things out like Tom Bombadil (sp?), etc., but that stuff isn’t essential to the plot, they’re not even sub-plots they’re basically just filler to add some humour and completist data.
Clockwork Orange is a great film, but a better book in my opinion. Again, Kubrick isn’t concerned with following Burgess’ novel exactly, but focuses more on the iconic imagery and overall aestetics that the plot sets up. However, the book is really really good, in fact I recommend reading the book as a supplement to the film (or vice versa) because there’s a lot of little nuances in the book that the film doesn’t fix on – but I don’t mean that the film isn’t good, it’s just such a great book that any visual embellishment is unnecessary.
1984 is also a decent adaptation starring the always amazing John Hurt (Elephant Man, the Naked Civil Servant, The Proposition, Alien, and a million more films). Again though, the book (by George Orwell) is so good that the film can’t really live up to it. Besides the film does meander in a few places perhaps going for some psychedelic free spirit theme, I don’t know. Anyway, it’s a pretty good film that mostly faithful to the novel.
Go to Comment
OLDBOY - A DISAPPOINTMENT about 3 years ago
I see where you’re coming from, Jamie, but the whole narrative center of Lady Vengeance is the meeting and congregational torturing of this terrible man and it just didn’t take the film to the level that it could’ve went to. It wasn’t a very long scene but it seems to drag on and on when such a scene should be the most gut-wrenching part (at least visually and on a base level, heh).
The scene at the end where the protagonist buries her face in the cake after an overly dramatic emphasis on her lost humanity even in doing the right thing was very heavy-handed as was most of the points Park was trying to make. I appreciate what he was trying to do, but I didn’t think he pulled it off very well. Lady Vengeance is a stylistic (the “Vengeance trilogy” seemed to get more and more concerned with visual appeal than simple storytelling), very well produced (and edited) film that seems to be trying to squeeze in these very serious and important themes when, instead the themes should be the central issue.
There were a lot of things I liked about the film that I think worked separately, such as the hypocrisy of the devout (as you mentioned, the great line with the priest) and invasive western culture, but together as a whole it just didn’t seem cohesive.
Just a counter-argument. I’m not slamming the film or Park (or you for that matter), but I just felt Lady Vengeance was a misfire.
Go to Comment
Who do you think the most overrated director is? about 3 years ago
I would say easily, Spielberg. I don’t even know where to begin. First off, Minority Report is the WORST Philip K. Dick adaptation ever made, not to mention A.I. Jaws was very influential, but beyond its iconic status, isn’t a very good film. I would regard it more as a technical achievement. Munich is one of his best films as well as Close Encounters, but beyond those two (and the first and third Indiana Jones films) he hasn’t really done anything truly spectacular.
Lucas isn’t a bad director, he’s just a really bad writer. THX was his only good film outside of the first three Star Wars films and the first three Indiana Jones (the latter of which he didn’t direct anyway).
I do think Tarantino is overrated, but not because he’s a bad director, but because people tend to think of him as some kind of revolutionary artist, but all he really does is rehash French auteurs and throw in some blaxploitation and a general 70s look. He’s never really done anything original, but I’m still hoping that someday he’ll return to something a little more low-key like Jackie Brown (his best work in my opinion) instead of these “tribute” films.
I would also say Sophia Coppolla is overrated. She’s heralded as this great female director and she’s only made like 3 films which all were so banal that they were really difficult to watch.
And whoever said Pekinpah, really needs to explain their reasoning behind that. I mean I can understand with his inconsistent last half of films but Cross of Iron? Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid? The Wild Bunch? C’mon those are classics. Straw Dogs is also great and I LOVE Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia (though both films are very limited in who they might appeal to).
Go to Comment
OLDBOY - A DISAPPOINTMENT about 3 years ago
That’s actually the only version I’ve seen and I did like the colour scheme very much. Park does have a great visual style. He is extremely skilled at creative transitions (as you mentioned) and, what I like most about his style, is his clever editing and camera work that seems to hover apart from the characters as opposed to conventional cinematography that is so enamored with following the characters’ every movement.
Go to Comment
Is The Shining the best novel to film adaptation? about 3 years ago
I agree wholeheartedly on both points. One example of a film being “too faithful” to its source material is the Soderberg’s (sp?) Kafka with Jeremy Irons. The film includes all these great references and compilations of characters from the Kafka stories, but it just fails miserably because it doesn’t focus on bringing all those things together and making a real film. Its more like some kind of weird biopic B-movie. Oh, and just to get this off my chest, I truly despise the colour transition near the last quarter of the film (when/if you see it you’ll know what I mean). It’s cheap and bourgeois and just … ah, I can’t even think of the words to describe this atrocity, heh.
Cronenberg is an old hand. Even with his earlier works, Rabid and Shivers (which are very rough, but have some great horror moments) you can see him getting a firm grip on developing his style. Great director.
Go to Comment
Favorite Kurosawa flicks? about 3 years ago
Yes! I was looking for a topic along these lines.
1. Drunken Angel
2. Yojimbo
3. Seven Samurai
4. High and Low
5. Red Beard
6. Ikiru
7. Ran
8. Rashoman
9. Throne of Blood
10. Hidden Fortress
Drunken Angel I think is one of the most understated and truly revolutionary films of all time. I know Seven Samurai is lauded as Kurosawa’s best (and it is a technical and narrative masterpiece), but Drunken Angel is such a great minimalist piece with such great characters and overflowing with existentialist symbolism. A deceptively simple film, but deep to its core.
Overall, I think Throne of Blood is his best-looking film in terms of picture and cinematography. One of my favourite Shakespeare adaptations certainly.
Yojimbo is, I think next to Seven Samurai, his most influential film. And the funny thing about Kurosawa is that all the time he’s referencing Western culture which was such a huge influence on his style and he ended up influencing Western culture with his “imitations”. Amazing director, a true visionary.
Go to Comment
Your interpretation of this film about 3 years ago
I’m glad someone mentioned the bad lighting in the film. I know Lynch was going for a low-budget look but this was too much.
The problem I had with the film is the problem I have with a lot of Lynch’s work: he doesn’t know when to restrain himself. When given full reign he starts going off with these obsessive dreams/nightmares and when he goes too far off the deep end, we’re left with little to no conceivable plot line. And I don’t buy the whole “It’s a dream, so it’s not supposed to make sense” line, a story HAS to make sense to somebody, at least the director. This doesn’t mean that the film has to have a conventional storyline, but it can’t be just a string of the director’s phobias/dreams. With Mulholland Drive and Wild at Heart (even Twin Peaks), Lynch combined his obsessive dreams/hallucinations with a somewhat conceivable plot so it worked really well, so when he’s on his game he can really be amazing.
With Inland Empire there IS a story that Lynch is trying to tell, but it’s so mangled and unnecessarily disjointed that the whole point is lost and you get distracted by his embellishments.
Visually, Lynch is always appealing, but narratively he can get out of hand if not reined in properly. Inland Empire has a lot of great ideas (I did like rabbit scene and the way a lotof the street scenes were shot) but it just seemed like he was imitating himself and trying to be weird just to be weird.
However, to contradict myself (heh), I LOVE Eraserhead. Incredible soundtrack and simply the most “realistic” dream film I’ve ever seen. I know my dreams look like this – which is disturbing I’m sure.
Also, I want to add that the “music video” at the end of Inland Empire was grating to watch. I’m a huge Nina Simone fan and so have an opportunity to use a great song like Sinnerman and waste it on a vacuous “release” from the tension was cheap and uninspired.
Go to Comment
Favorite Kurosawa flicks? about 3 years ago
True. I wrote a review on Amazon.com (under the name Horselover_Fat – yes, I know I have no life heh) for Drunken Angel which goes into how Mifune and Takashi’s characters are practically identical in their inner turmoil and ultimate fate (that being self-destruction). The film has many layers. It even sums itself up in one scene better than any other film I’ve seen: Near the first quarter of the film where Takashi’s character tries to keep a door open and it keeps closing, but he keeps opening it anyway until it finally stays open. Simple but effective.
Go to Comment
"The Last Temptation of Christ", Scorsese's most underrated film? about 3 years ago
I liked The Last Temptation of Christ a lot but with a few misgivings. First off, let me say that Scorsese deserves every accolade given to him because he is a fantastic director that is one of the best American directors of all time (my personal favourite is After Hours). He hasn’t had too many misfires but sometimes he concerns himself too much with the look of a film than the narrative aspect.
The best thing the Last Temptation has going for it, is the novel it’s based off of. The novel itself (Written by Kazantzakis – sp?) is very well written and is responsible for the unique characterization of these traditional Biblical characters as aforementioned. There’s a great soundtrack (by Peter Gabriel I believe) and of course excellent aggressive cinematography very uncharacteristic of a Biblical film. The film is for the most part very faithful (no pun intended, ha) to the book and brings out the “last temptation scene” at the end very well. However, some of the casting choices were misguided I thought, such as Harvey Keitel to play Judas. That is perhaps the worst casting choice in film history. Plus, while I don’t see how they could’ve done it any different with the selected cast, Isralites speaking New York accents was certainly a first (and hopefully a last) – very distracting. Willem Dafoe is great, he’s probably the best Jesus I’ve seen, and really brings out the battle between humanity and godhood.
Overall, it’s a good film, but certainly not Scorsese’s best. It works in a lot of places, but is a bit empty in its central core. I wouldn’t call it his most underrated film though. It was certainly the most hated film of his career. The initial reaction by religious groups was phenomenal and very unchristian-like, heh. I would say After Hours is his most underrated or perhaps King of Comedy.
Oh, and Roscoe, that actor playing Pontius Pilate was THE David Bowie and yes, he does almost steal the film despite his small role.
Go to Comment
DVD Shelf about 3 years ago
Well if you get a PS3 that WILL generate a lot of heat, so you want some vents for that. I have one and while I’m not that it generates a “dangerous” amount of heat, I don’t want to take any chances (considering how much it cost). In fact, it’s safe just to have at least some ventilation for the DVD player, blu-ray or whatever contraption you’re playing you’re DVDs on.
I don’t see the speakers being a problem with heat though.
Go to Comment
WHY DO WE CARE SO MUCH ABOUT INFLUENCE? about 3 years ago
Influence is THE most important thing to consider while watching a film. It opens up all kinds of underlying layers and motivations of the director/writer/whoever that would otherwise be missed if you ignored their influences.
Nothing (literally) is original. I firmly believe that and knowing this (or I guess since it is unproven: suspecting this), determining an artist’s influences is paramount. To truly understand a film (or film in general) you have to be aware of who did what “first” (read: in a recorded sense at least) and why. Then, following that you have to look at artists that were influenced by whoever and then determine if it was done well or simply trying to copy him/her.
I think influence is an extremely important step in looking beyond the glossy technical aspects or hype of a film and deconstructing it to understand the origin of things. However, saying that, it’s not the only aspect to look at, but without it you can’t really determine a film’s worth in a knowledgeable way.
Go to Comment
"The Last Temptation of Christ", Scorsese's most underrated film? about 3 years ago
I don’t mean the film has to be in Hebrew, but at least have the actors impress SOME kind of accent appropriate to the region. I don’t mind at all that it’s in English, it’s the fact that the actors don’t even try to affect an appropriate accent. But anyway, it’s not the main reason I don’t regard it as a great film.
I don’t know though, looking back to the last time I saw it (probably a couple years ago), I think what didn’t impress me much was the conventional quality of the film. It was very commercial and “uninvolving”. Of course its subject matter and Kazantzakis’ very human twist on that was scandalous, but that was really the only reason it drew any major attention and for anyone who had already read the book (such as myself) written twenty or so years before the film, it wasn’t really shocking or revelatory (so to speak).
Anyway, I agree it is certainly an underrated film that many narrow-minded people disregard simply on account of the “blasphemous” nature of Kazantzakis’ interpretation.
I’m not trying to argue with you or anything, Drew, just a friendly debate, but I thought Gangs of New York suffered from the same syndrome as Last Temptation: commercial and “uninvolving”, though this time, with Gangs, I felt that characterization suffered quite a bit amidst the epic battle scenes. Plus Cameron Diaz in anything is just an atrocious miscasting choice, but Daniel Day Lewis was phenomenal and probably the best aspect of the film. I don’t know, the whole film reeked of Hollywood to me.
King of Comedy took me awhile to like, but after a few viewings I really came around and it’s now one of my favourite Scorsese films. It’s interesting, Deniro almost takes a kind of Kurt Russell role (such as in Big Trouble in Little China, Tango and Cash, and interestingly Death Proof – even in films like Escape from NY and LA, he’s regarded as a legend and a hero, but is instead very human and vulnerable) where the central character isn’t your typical Hollywood protagonist, he’s this kind of pathetic dreamer/nihilist that you really don’t like but kind of do because of his unnerving self-confidence.
Go to Comment
GUILLERMO DEL TORO'S NEW NOVEL THE STRAIN about 3 years ago
The trailer does look interesting. Del Toro is a great director that I think (along with Danny Boyle) is one of the best directors out there today.He’s had hits and misses, but he has a unique vision which is something very lacking in a lot of modern directors.
Go to Comment
WHY DO WE CARE SO MUCH ABOUT INFLUENCE? about 3 years ago
Ok, take for instance, Tarantino. If taken solely by himself, he would be probably one of the greatest directors alive today. However, it’s the fact that he’s ripping (whether intentionally or not it doesn’t matter) on French New Wave, Jack Hill, Hitchcock, and Ozawa (to name a very few) that undermines the quality of his work. If he had sat down and worked a script that didn’t try to recapture all this retrospection then he’d be a director that worked with his influences instead of being led by them. As with Jackie Brown, which I regard as his best film, you could see his many influences, but he worked with them instead of forcing them into the foreground as the central idea.
If I’m watching a film such as the U.S. version of Funny Games am I supposed to disregard the original? Do I really have a worthwhile opinion if I’ve seen a film such as Disturbia and never seen Rear Window? Not to say originals are automatically better than their remakes (certainly not true), but then again, I think mentioning remakes is getting a little off topic.
I think it’s also important to stay close to the material, but like any medium (music, art, writing, etc.) you have to be aware of an artist’s influences to know where he/she’s coming from in terms of the context they put themselves in by having such motivations. You understand the meaning behind the medium when you understand the artist’s origins.
When I watch For a Few Dollars More, I am automatically thinking of scenes from Yojimbo because Leone, in that film, was obviously influenced by Kurosawa’s film (which itself was influenced by American Westerns). That doesn’t mean that I’m constantly comparing the two or critiquing the differences, but I am aware of the differences and what Leone borrows (more like tribute) from Kurosawa. Without that link, I think there’s an important aspect of viewing film that is lost.
Nothing human is without context. Everything is referencing something because that is human nature. No one, unless they literally live in cave, is without some outside influence.
Go to Comment
WHY DO WE CARE SO MUCH ABOUT INFLUENCE? about 3 years ago
Exactly, I totally agree with your last paragraph. Nevertheless, the influences are there whether we are aware of it or not. This doesn’t mean that we don’t create a work that defines us an individual and one’s influences doesn’t necessarily undermine the work, but it’s an ever-present factor regardless.
Again though I wholeheartedly agree with the idea of disregarding film historians and critics. That is a huge step in individual criticism. That’s not the kind of influence I’m talking about – that’s someone’s reasoning being influenced which is definitely something we all should avoid. Group connection is not the point at all.
For example, I don’t regard Citizen Kane as the greatest film of all time because Time tells me to, but if I were to draw my own conclusion that Citizen Kane is unparalleled for various reasons then there’s no reason to disagree with Time simply because they are an “established” publication (I, by the way think Welles’ The Trial is his greatest film, not Citizen Kane, but that’s for another topic).
But that’s all totally different from what my original argument was, which was art influencing art (not peer pressure or established opinions). I personally don’t think this kind of influence a negative aspect necessarily, however it can get out of hand when an artist is more concerned with glorifying his influences than with the film itself (or whatever the medium is).
So, essentially I agree with you even though it may not seem like it, heh. I’m an existentialist at heart, but even though I believe that everyone determines their own meaning in all aspects of life (including art, which is a very essential part of human existence) I’m still aware of the social and psychological human instinct to connect with others and the effect that this influence can have.
Go to Comment
The Road Trailer about 3 years ago
I’m really psyched about this film. Hillcoat is turning out to be an interesting director, the Proposition was excellent. Plus the soundtrack is by the infamous Nick Cave!
Go to Comment
Most depressing film you have ever seen? about 3 years ago
Ingmar Bergman’s work tends to depress me a lot; Shame, Cries and Whispers, Winter Light, The Virgin Spring, and a few others.
I’ve also found Ikiru to be the most emotionally affecting Kurosawa film I’ve seen.
Vivre Sa Vie (since someone mentioned Godard) was depressing.
I found In Bruges to be depressing, but not in a hopeless blackhole kind of way (unlike Bergman’s work).
Others: Withnail and I, Woyzeck (Herzog’s version in particular), The Proposition, The Pledge.
Go to Comment
Anyone want to talk about a film? I do about 3 years ago
Taxi Driver. Scorsese. Deniro. Schrader. Great.
OK, how about Withnail and I?
I would also like to point out that this is a rather general discussion.
Go to Comment
Obscure recommendations about 3 years ago
I highly recommend Alice by Jan Svankmajer as well as Faust – great stop-motion effects and generally weird/dark humour.
Another high recommendation: The Third Part of the Night by Andrzej Zulawski, as well as Possession and The Silver Globe.
I do like me some Dark Star by John Carpenter. Cul-de-sac by ROman Polanski is also an interesting film.
The Last Wave was pretty good. The Naked Civil Servant, Paperhouse, Onibaba, Sisters by Brian DePalma.
Also, I thought Mr. Brooks with Kevin Costner was pretty good. I know, fillet me, but it was a guilty pleasure.
AND how about Raw Meat (otherwise known as Death Line). Great performance by Donald Pleasance.
Go to Comment
Anyone want to talk about a film? I do about 3 years ago
Sorry Taxi Driver just prompts such unnecessary discussion, I was being curt. Perhaps I caught some passive-laziness from Col. Dax. :D
Yes, I agree, Deniro portrays some of the most unlikable, pathetic characters (King of Comedy anyone?) that I’m just amazed that he caught on in Hollywood. I’ve mentioned this before, but his penchant for choosing antihero roles is very similar (on another level) to Kurt Russell (of which I’m a huge fan). Also, Cape Fear (Scorsese’s version) is in my opinion one of the worst films ever made (I know, slay me), but Deniro’s performance is so defiantly terrible and disturbing that I like it just for that uneasy feeling I get.
Go to Comment
Favourite film of 2008? about 3 years ago
Hmm.
The Wrestler is one of them. The Dark Knight of course. Let the Right One In. In Bruges. Iron Man. Milk. – were all pretty good.
I’d probably go with In Bruges as my favourite.
Go to Comment
Anyone want to talk about a film? I do about 3 years ago
Eh. Irreversible is just eh. Once you get beyond the shock aspect of it it’s pretty banal.
And Taxi Driver should be ingrained in every film fanatic’s brain, so Loki, you need to have your brain ingrained. Forget your checkered homicidal past and quit looking in the rear view mirror.
Oh and back to seriousness, was I the only kid whose life was changed completely by the reversed bell sound at the end of Taxi Driver when he looks in the rear view mirror? Yeah, that was … real.
Go to Comment
Most depressing film you have ever seen? about 3 years ago
Lost in La Mancha – that depressed me at least.
Go to Comment
The Road Trailer about 3 years ago
I thought they weren’t going to explain what happened to Earth in the film. Did they change it?
Go to Comment
Anyone want to talk about a film? I do about 3 years ago
I think Raging Bull was his apex – that is a masterpiece. Taxi Driver is as well, but Scorsese was still on the rise then, I wouldn’t say Raging Bull was on the downgrade. He thinned out a bit in the 80s, but then Goodfellas was a return to form. Though, After Hours is my favourite Scorsese film so yeah (which was mid-80s I think) …
Go to Comment