This is my first post and I thought I’d start out with movies you like and respect but don’t quite love them the way everybody else seems to.
My list:
-The English Patient
-Juno
-Slumdog Millionaire
-Seven Samurai (I prefer The Magnificent Seven. Yeah, I said it)
-The Searchers (The portrayal of Native Americans is laughable. There’s no denying Ford’s ability to shoot a landscape, though)
-Lost in Translation
-Kill Bill Vol. 1 and 2
-The Prestige
-Batman Begins (I know, two Nolan films in a row. I think the guy is a great director but The Dark Knight and Memento are vastly superior to both of these)
-Pretty much every Pixar movie except Wall-E. I thought that was the first and only time they made a TRULY amazing film.
-Charlie and The Chocolate Factory (an odd choice but pretty much everyone I talked to in 2005 treated it like it was a masterpiece. I like Johnny Depp but I hated him as Willy Wonka).
Thanks for the welcome but again, I don’t hate these films, I just don’t find them the masterworks of cinema everyone else does. Don’t worry though, I’ll still bitch about movies I don’t like.
And Lars Von Trier is the very definition of a “love or hate” director. For example: I loved Dogville but I hated Manderlay.
It’s a coin toss between Rushmore and Bottle Rocket for me. Bottle Rocket remains Owen Wilson’s best performance. The guy hasn’t been in anything I’ve wanted to see in a long time. I still can’t believe John Hughes wrote Drillbit Taylor.
You seemed kind of upset by it is all. If it’s somebody I don’t know in real life and they’re not personally attacking me, I generally don’t give a shit what they do when they’re not on an internet message board.
The trailer did not do the look of the film justice. Apparently that was cut together with raw digital files and digital-to-film transfer is done now and supposedly the film looks gorgeous. I believe it.
I’m sick of the “Digital is inferior to film!” crap at this point. Look at Zodiac and Benjamin Button. If you can honestly tell the difference between the digital used there and film, you’re lying.
And I like Mann’s use of digital, anyway. I know he said he wanted digital for the depth since most of Collateral is shot at night but the overall look suits the fast, lean and gritty feel of the movie.
Any fans? I’m partial to The Big Red One (The Reconstruction, NOT the theatrical cut), The Naked Kiss, Shock Corridor and White Dog. Pick Up on South Street is good, too.
The guy is about as “in your face” as you can get and he’s a true personality in his own right, if you’ve ever seen interviews with him.
Also, starting at 8 p.m. on Friday July 3rd, TCM is having a mini-marathon of his films with I Shot Jesse James, The Baron of Arizona and The Steel Helmet.
The idea that digital will never look as good as film is a little ridiculous. Consider this: Film has had a 100+ years to achieve its look. Digital has made leaps and bounds in a fraction of that time. And as I stated in the Public Enemies thread, look at Zodiac and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. If you can SERIOUSLY tell the difference between the digital used there and film, you’re lying.
Okay, fair enough but the fact that a lot of directors use digital and film in the same movie and you can’t tell the difference is further proof that digital isn’t the shoddy, inferior format “purists” make it out to be.
Okay, fair enough but the fact that a lot of directors use digital and film in the same movie and you can’t tell the difference is further proof that digital isn’t the shoddy, inferior format “purists” make it out to be.
KJ, the point isn’t so much making it exactly like film but dismissing it as an “inferior” medium. Different is a good word but some people are downright ridiculous about it (not referring to anyone here). And what about Zodiac makes it obvious it was shot on digital?
I like the look of digital, I’m not going to say it trumps film. It is own its own thing but when old pros like Michael Mann, Francis Ford Coppola and David Lynch are swearing by it, why are people still so dismissive of it?
Jane, I have to be honest, part of the reason I’m so excited about Friday is those are three of his films I’ve never seen. I really need to get that Criterion Collection box set of them.
Is there any love for The Big Red One out there? My personal favorite WWII film.
“Did you notice the night scenes? The sharpness and infinite depth of field? Using 35mm, do you know the amount of light you’d have to flood the set with to acquire that kind of effect, if even? You saw that same effect it in “Collateral”, you saw it in “Miami Vice”. I did not say it was inferior, but different. What I did say was I’m so tired of all the “You can’t tell the difference” hyperbole, when that’s just not true. I did single out Jia Zhangke as being someone who is doing remarkable work with digital cameras. But since he’s not linked to the RedOneCineAltaVipercam and he’s not part of industrial Hollywood, with their obscene budgets and playthings, he doesn’t count, I guess.”
Okay, I got you. Like I said, the different thing is fine. It’s this snobby “Digital will never compete with the vast beauty of film” I find pretty lame (which I understand you’re not saying). To a lot of these people (who weren’t even born when a lot of these filmmakers started out), it’s like guys like Mann, Lynch or Coppola have gotten lazy or out of touch. If you can’t look at it from an aesthetic stand point, I feel sorry for you. You’re missing out.
A lot of these film purists make me think of that Mr. Show sketch where David Cross played the music snob. "I don’t listen to CD, I listen to vinyl (except he pronounced it “vinel”)."
What’s even funnier is that vinyl’s making a huge comeback, too. Because, you know, it sounds better and that’s how the artist meant for it to be heard. Please. Find me a band or musician that intended the cracking, popping and hissing sounds that comes with vinyl.
Okay, but what exactly aren’t we “savoring”? Zodiac, for example, was incredible. What exactly did we miss out on by it not being shot on film? I can see why filmmakers like Steven Spielberg and Martin Scorsese stick with film. It’s what they know and are comfortable with. Great. But I can also see why filmmakers like David Lynch, Michael Mann and Francis Ford Coppola are responding to it. It opens new ways to visually tell a story. How is that not a benefit?
So that’s my question: What are we missing out on? What are we losing? If anything, the medium has opened further and if people can’t see that, that’s honestly their loss.
Okay, I meant as a film fans. I only shoot on digital, I’ve never shot on film, so I can’t honestly compare the two. At the same time, though, somebody who shoots a great film on digital is no less of a craftsmen than somebody who shot a great film on, well, film. Take a look at Night of the Museum 2. I’m sure the DP knows his stuff and everything is well-lit and in focus but are you going to tell me A Night at the Museum 2 has more skill and craft going on than Public Enemies because it was shot on film? Come on. A good movie is a good movie, regardless of the format it’s shot on.
So let’s pretend for a second we don’t make films and we’re just speaking strictly as film fans. What are we losing? I’m going to be bold here and assume the guy that wrote the book you were talking about isn’t a filmmaker and he’s speaking as a fan. Maybe I’m wrong but I didn’t recognize the name. So what’s being lost in his opinion (and possibly yours)?
Okay, sorry, someone else brought up the book. Yeah, preference is great, it’s just people that flat-out dismiss it that annoy me. Film can look like shit, too and the format really doesn’t matter when the movie ultimately sucks. All those awful Epic Movie, Date Movie, Meet the Spartans, etc. are shot on film. Is anybody in their right mind going to use the words “craft” or “skill” in the same breath as those unholy piles of shit?
I second Rosemary’s Baby and Prince of Darkness. I love the video footage of Satan. In an age of cell phone cameras and YouTube, that scene was way ahead of its time.
Is there any real skill or craft to what he’s doing or does he just dress in drag for laughs? That might make him entertaining (to some) but he’s certainly not an auteur.
One of my ten favorites. The scene with Donald Sutherland is could very well be my favorite scene in any film ever. Hogwash or not, it’s impossible not to be sucked in by this film.
While I can’t say I was crazy about Man With The Screaming Brain or My Name is Bruce, the guy is an icon for a reason. And he’s really cool to boot. I know just about every film geek has a Bruce Campbell story and they’re probably all pretty much the same but it is worth noting how fun and friendly he is to talk to. I met him on his If Chin Could Talk tour. Everyone got an autograph, a picture and a chance to talk with him. Add to that, he screened Evil Dead afterward and then hung around to sign any memorabilia people had. Great stuff.
I can’t remember where I read it but it makes sense. Compare the footage seen now with what was in the trailer. It already looks better and I’ve heard nothing but good things about the look of the film.
I like but don't love... almost 3 years ago
This is my first post and I thought I’d start out with movies you like and respect but don’t quite love them the way everybody else seems to.
My list:
-The English Patient
-Juno
-Slumdog Millionaire
-Seven Samurai (I prefer The Magnificent Seven. Yeah, I said it)
-The Searchers (The portrayal of Native Americans is laughable. There’s no denying Ford’s ability to shoot a landscape, though)
-Lost in Translation
-Kill Bill Vol. 1 and 2
-The Prestige
-Batman Begins (I know, two Nolan films in a row. I think the guy is a great director but The Dark Knight and Memento are vastly superior to both of these)
-Pretty much every Pixar movie except Wall-E. I thought that was the first and only time they made a TRULY amazing film.
-Charlie and The Chocolate Factory (an odd choice but pretty much everyone I talked to in 2005 treated it like it was a masterpiece. I like Johnny Depp but I hated him as Willy Wonka).
What about everyone else?
Go to Comment
I like but don't love... almost 3 years ago
Thanks for the welcome but again, I don’t hate these films, I just don’t find them the masterworks of cinema everyone else does. Don’t worry though, I’ll still bitch about movies I don’t like.
And Lars Von Trier is the very definition of a “love or hate” director. For example: I loved Dogville but I hated Manderlay.
Go to Comment
Wes Anderson almost 3 years ago
It’s a coin toss between Rushmore and Bottle Rocket for me. Bottle Rocket remains Owen Wilson’s best performance. The guy hasn’t been in anything I’ve wanted to see in a long time. I still can’t believe John Hughes wrote Drillbit Taylor.
Go to Comment
Sharing Your Love of Cinema almost 3 years ago
Josh Ryan, you broke up with a girl because she talked during the movies? Is your real name Larry David?
I mean, talking during the movies is one of my pet peeves but breaking up with somebody over it is impressive.
Go to Comment
Sharing Your Love of Cinema almost 3 years ago
Fair enough. The Larry David thing should be read as a compliment anyway.
Go to Comment
Sharing Your Love of Cinema almost 3 years ago
Lona, I didn’t mean “impressive” like the guy is my hero now. I guess I was just amused and surprised by it.
I do find myself wondering who hurt you.
Go to Comment
Sharing Your Love of Cinema almost 3 years ago
You seemed kind of upset by it is all. If it’s somebody I don’t know in real life and they’re not personally attacking me, I generally don’t give a shit what they do when they’re not on an internet message board.
Go to Comment
Public Enemies almost 3 years ago
The trailer did not do the look of the film justice. Apparently that was cut together with raw digital files and digital-to-film transfer is done now and supposedly the film looks gorgeous. I believe it.
I’m sick of the “Digital is inferior to film!” crap at this point. Look at Zodiac and Benjamin Button. If you can honestly tell the difference between the digital used there and film, you’re lying.
And I like Mann’s use of digital, anyway. I know he said he wanted digital for the depth since most of Collateral is shot at night but the overall look suits the fast, lean and gritty feel of the movie.
Go to Comment
Samuel Fuller almost 3 years ago
Any fans? I’m partial to The Big Red One (The Reconstruction, NOT the theatrical cut), The Naked Kiss, Shock Corridor and White Dog. Pick Up on South Street is good, too.
The guy is about as “in your face” as you can get and he’s a true personality in his own right, if you’ve ever seen interviews with him.
Also, starting at 8 p.m. on Friday July 3rd, TCM is having a mini-marathon of his films with I Shot Jesse James, The Baron of Arizona and The Steel Helmet.
Go to Comment
do directors need film anymore? almost 3 years ago
The idea that digital will never look as good as film is a little ridiculous. Consider this: Film has had a 100+ years to achieve its look. Digital has made leaps and bounds in a fraction of that time. And as I stated in the Public Enemies thread, look at Zodiac and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. If you can SERIOUSLY tell the difference between the digital used there and film, you’re lying.
Go to Comment
do directors need film anymore? almost 3 years ago
Okay, fair enough but the fact that a lot of directors use digital and film in the same movie and you can’t tell the difference is further proof that digital isn’t the shoddy, inferior format “purists” make it out to be.
Go to Comment
do directors need film anymore? almost 3 years ago
Okay, fair enough but the fact that a lot of directors use digital and film in the same movie and you can’t tell the difference is further proof that digital isn’t the shoddy, inferior format “purists” make it out to be.
Go to Comment
do directors need film anymore? almost 3 years ago
KJ, the point isn’t so much making it exactly like film but dismissing it as an “inferior” medium. Different is a good word but some people are downright ridiculous about it (not referring to anyone here). And what about Zodiac makes it obvious it was shot on digital?
I like the look of digital, I’m not going to say it trumps film. It is own its own thing but when old pros like Michael Mann, Francis Ford Coppola and David Lynch are swearing by it, why are people still so dismissive of it?
Go to Comment
Harmony Korine almost 3 years ago
Personally, the guy does nothing for me. Even the presence of the great Werner Herzog couldn’t save Julien Donkey Boy.
Go to Comment
Samuel Fuller almost 3 years ago
Jane, I have to be honest, part of the reason I’m so excited about Friday is those are three of his films I’ve never seen. I really need to get that Criterion Collection box set of them.
Is there any love for The Big Red One out there? My personal favorite WWII film.
Go to Comment
Public Enemies almost 3 years ago
Jackie Brown leaves both Kill Bills and Death Proof in the dust. It’s easily Tarantino’s third best.
Go to Comment
do directors need film anymore? almost 3 years ago
“Did you notice the night scenes? The sharpness and infinite depth of field? Using 35mm, do you know the amount of light you’d have to flood the set with to acquire that kind of effect, if even? You saw that same effect it in “Collateral”, you saw it in “Miami Vice”. I did not say it was inferior, but different. What I did say was I’m so tired of all the “You can’t tell the difference” hyperbole, when that’s just not true. I did single out Jia Zhangke as being someone who is doing remarkable work with digital cameras. But since he’s not linked to the RedOneCineAltaVipercam and he’s not part of industrial Hollywood, with their obscene budgets and playthings, he doesn’t count, I guess.”
Okay, I got you. Like I said, the different thing is fine. It’s this snobby “Digital will never compete with the vast beauty of film” I find pretty lame (which I understand you’re not saying). To a lot of these people (who weren’t even born when a lot of these filmmakers started out), it’s like guys like Mann, Lynch or Coppola have gotten lazy or out of touch. If you can’t look at it from an aesthetic stand point, I feel sorry for you. You’re missing out.
A lot of these film purists make me think of that Mr. Show sketch where David Cross played the music snob. "I don’t listen to CD, I listen to vinyl (except he pronounced it “vinel”)."
What’s even funnier is that vinyl’s making a huge comeback, too. Because, you know, it sounds better and that’s how the artist meant for it to be heard. Please. Find me a band or musician that intended the cracking, popping and hissing sounds that comes with vinyl.Go to Comment
do directors need film anymore? almost 3 years ago
Yes, I have. It’s still hipster bullshit it even came back in the first place.
Go to Comment
do directors need film anymore? almost 3 years ago
Well, if they don’t justify bringing back a format that ran its course 20+ years ago, I don’t know what does.
Go to Comment
do directors need film anymore? almost 3 years ago
Okay, but what exactly aren’t we “savoring”? Zodiac, for example, was incredible. What exactly did we miss out on by it not being shot on film? I can see why filmmakers like Steven Spielberg and Martin Scorsese stick with film. It’s what they know and are comfortable with. Great. But I can also see why filmmakers like David Lynch, Michael Mann and Francis Ford Coppola are responding to it. It opens new ways to visually tell a story. How is that not a benefit?
So that’s my question: What are we missing out on? What are we losing? If anything, the medium has opened further and if people can’t see that, that’s honestly their loss.
Go to Comment
do directors need film anymore? almost 3 years ago
But if we’re going on perspective, what in your opinion is being lost? Truly being lost?
Go to Comment
What do you think is on Werner Herzog's Ipod? almost 3 years ago
Hopefully the awesome theme to Nosferatu: Phantom Der Nacht.
Go to Comment
do directors need film anymore? almost 3 years ago
Okay, I meant as a film fans. I only shoot on digital, I’ve never shot on film, so I can’t honestly compare the two. At the same time, though, somebody who shoots a great film on digital is no less of a craftsmen than somebody who shot a great film on, well, film. Take a look at Night of the Museum 2. I’m sure the DP knows his stuff and everything is well-lit and in focus but are you going to tell me A Night at the Museum 2 has more skill and craft going on than Public Enemies because it was shot on film? Come on. A good movie is a good movie, regardless of the format it’s shot on.
So let’s pretend for a second we don’t make films and we’re just speaking strictly as film fans. What are we losing? I’m going to be bold here and assume the guy that wrote the book you were talking about isn’t a filmmaker and he’s speaking as a fan. Maybe I’m wrong but I didn’t recognize the name. So what’s being lost in his opinion (and possibly yours)?
Go to Comment
do directors need film anymore? almost 3 years ago
Okay, sorry, someone else brought up the book. Yeah, preference is great, it’s just people that flat-out dismiss it that annoy me. Film can look like shit, too and the format really doesn’t matter when the movie ultimately sucks. All those awful Epic Movie, Date Movie, Meet the Spartans, etc. are shot on film. Is anybody in their right mind going to use the words “craft” or “skill” in the same breath as those unholy piles of shit?
Go to Comment
Satan Films almost 3 years ago
I second Rosemary’s Baby and Prince of Darkness. I love the video footage of Satan. In an age of cell phone cameras and YouTube, that scene was way ahead of its time.
Go to Comment
unforgivable blackness: tyler perry as "auteur" almost 3 years ago
Is there any real skill or craft to what he’s doing or does he just dress in drag for laughs? That might make him entertaining (to some) but he’s certainly not an auteur.
Go to Comment
JFK almost 3 years ago
One of my ten favorites. The scene with Donald Sutherland is could very well be my favorite scene in any film ever. Hogwash or not, it’s impossible not to be sucked in by this film.
Go to Comment
Bruce campbell discusion thread MKII almost 3 years ago
While I can’t say I was crazy about Man With The Screaming Brain or My Name is Bruce, the guy is an icon for a reason. And he’s really cool to boot. I know just about every film geek has a Bruce Campbell story and they’re probably all pretty much the same but it is worth noting how fun and friendly he is to talk to. I met him on his If Chin Could Talk tour. Everyone got an autograph, a picture and a chance to talk with him. Add to that, he screened Evil Dead afterward and then hung around to sign any memorabilia people had. Great stuff.
Go to Comment
do directors need film anymore? almost 3 years ago
Yeah, thanks for the heads up on that.
Go to Comment
Public Enemies almost 3 years ago
I can’t remember where I read it but it makes sense. Compare the footage seen now with what was in the trailer. It already looks better and I’ve heard nothing but good things about the look of the film.
And fuck Armond White. That guy is a joke.
Go to Comment