Flipside Movie Emporium Forum Index Flipside Movie Emporium
Discussion Forums Locked & Archived for Browsing
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

What did you watch this week?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 38, 39, 40 ... 72, 73, 74  Next
 
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Flipside Movie Emporium Forum Index -> Movie Talk
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Danny Baldwin
Studio Exec


Joined: 26 Jun 2003
Posts: 1354
Location: San Diego, CA

PostPosted: 03.30.2004 6:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Everytime I watch The Others I have a completely different reaction: one is terrible, one is wonderful. I just seem to watch it relentlessely and hope I have a good one the given time I do.
_________________
Danny Baldwin

View My Reviews
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
matt header
Studio Exec


Joined: 26 Jun 2003
Posts: 623
Location: Milwaukee, WI

PostPosted: 03.30.2004 7:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I enjoyed The Others a great deal; its use of suggestion is sublime, as is its reluctance to depend on special effects. The twist ending is by far the weakest part of the movie, but so much of it works (the photo album of the dead, the kids' allergies to light, the young boy whipping open the curtains, etc.) that I can't help enjoying myself.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The Third M?n
Studio Exec


Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 575
Location: Chasing Stef around post-war Vienna

PostPosted: 03.30.2004 7:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jim Harper wrote:
The Others, Tesis and Abre los ojos are all excellent films, and I wish I had the chance to see more of Amenabar's work. I've been very impressed with the films I've seen so far.



Those are the only films he's done, apart from the one that's about to get released in Spain, with Javier Bardem.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
the night watchman
Studio Exec


Joined: 27 Jun 2003
Posts: 1373
Location: Dark, run-down shack by the graveyard.

PostPosted: 03.30.2004 9:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mfritschel wrote:


May (McKee) - Just a bad movie. I never related to the main character, and frankly found her character to outlandish and weird. She appeard to not even be human at times.



I totally disagree. To me, May is one of the best horror films of the last few years; the humor worked splendidly for me, and I felt profound sympathy for its central character.
_________________
"If you're talking about censorship, and what things should be shown and what things shouldn't be shown, I've said that as an artist you have no social responsibility whatsoever."

-David Cronenberg
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The Third M?n
Studio Exec


Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 575
Location: Chasing Stef around post-war Vienna

PostPosted: 03.30.2004 10:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Today I bought these four DVDs, for only ?29.97 [they were 9.99 each!] Any comments, etc?



  • Once Upon a Time in the West

  • Mirror

  • Koyaanisqatsi & Powaqqatsi [Double Pack]



I saw Once Upon a Time in the West [my favourite Western of all time, thus far] and Tarkovsky's Mirror:

?Words cannot express everything you feel. Words are flaccid?.

The irony found in Tarkovsky?s Mirror is that, in accord with the quote above, most of the emotions and feelings are expressed via images. Yet, there are several scenes in which the words are what hurt the most, and when we witness said events, we feel them. Mirror deals with themes such as divorce and nostalgia, all of which are finely conveyed throughout the film, and it is as an aftermath of such that the characters find themselves in situations they themselves cannot describe ? which is why Tarkovsky resorts to images in order to express what they cannot. As a film full of simplicity, Mirror astounds partly because it?s told in such a complex manner. This being Tarkovsky?s most auto-biographic film ? his own father recites some poems during the film --, it intertwines tales from his childhood with others that took place afterwards, mixing sequences of reality, dreams, historical news footage and nightmares, some of which are filmed in a sepia colour. Besides lacking the epic feeling that was so permanent in Stalker, it?s also missing that sense of linearity; Mirror is told in a series of sequences that jump from the past and into the future, so quick and so unexpectedly that one soon loses grasp of what?s occurring and when.

Once again, the incomparable Tarkovsky conjures images of a luminous beauty unlike we?ve never seen before on celluloid ? the film must be seen, if only for the emotions it evokes and for its endless desire to show. Mirror is, at its heart, a collage of unforgettable images all put together, with a string of subjects that prove to be as important, if not more.

In Tarkosvksy?s own words: "What, in my view, is Mirror about? It is an autobiographical film. The things that happen are real things that happened to people close to me. That is true of all the episodes in the film. But why do people complain that they cannot understand it? The facts are so simple, they can be taken by everyone as similar to the experience of their own lives. But here we come up against something that is peculiar to cinema: the further a viewer is from the content of a film, the closer he is; what people are looking for in cinema is a continuation of their lives, not a repetition.? Mirror reflects what astounding cinema should be like.

After reading this the film still does not make a whole lot of sense. Whether it?s supposed to or not does not matter, because even so, Mirror is a great piece of filmmaking. Every once in a while the camera stops, and we?re shown images of such lyrical gorgeousness all one can do is swoon. It?s not as if these images make a whole lot of sense, either, but it is because of what they communicate that one finds themselves in utter awe. Though Tarkovsky openly denied symbolism or surrealism playing a role in this film, some of the images, I?d say, are certainly open for interpretation.

As a reminder of childhood, Mirror reflects what it feels like to be a child; the sense of loss that a divorce can induce, or what it feels like to not know your place in this world, to not know what tomorrow will bring. Mirror can also be seen as a sample of the eternal incompatibility of man and nature; at the beginning of the film, comparisons between humans and plants are made, about how we always seem to be rushing things whereas plants just do it all gradually. When one of the film?s characters is lying on a bed, he has a bird next to him. He takes it in his palm, squeezes it and lets it fly in the room. Mirror is about our inability to achieve what nature can do; it is true that nature can do much more than us in so little time, and Tarkovsky knows that. One of the great things about the film is the acting, which only serves to make the film more powerful and spiritually profound. Indeed, this is a film that is as multi-layered as they come; once the film is over one remembers the fire, the wind blowing on the meadows, the condensation marks the mug leaves.

I wonder if these words will do the film any justice, or if any true justice can be done to it, for that matter. If anyone fully comprehended the film, then it must?ve been Tarkovsky himself, for it was his story that he was telling after all. However, I am certain about at least one thing: Mirror is a film, enigmatic, visually arresting and magnificently told that, even nowadays, confuses as much as it enthralls; it?s poetry of the highest range, and that alone can?t be denied.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
beltmann
Studio Exec


Joined: 26 Jun 2003
Posts: 2341
Location: West Bend, WI

PostPosted: 03.30.2004 11:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Third M?n wrote:
I think [The Others] is a terrific, old-fashioned ghost story, fascinatingly directed by Amenabar [anyone seen Tesis, which deals with the subkect of snuff films?] As for the ending, Amenabar claims that he wrote the script before The Sixth Sense was released.


Brief, random thoughts: I have no doubt that Amenabar did not crib from Sixth Sense. Nevertheless, since I saw Shyamalan's work first, familiarity did indeed dilute the effectiveness of The Others for me. I enjoyed the atmosphere and Kidman's performance, but I was never convinced by its secrets, nor sucked into its mysteries. Open Your Eyes is a very lean, effective picture, and I prefer it over Cameron Crowe's flabby American version. At first Tesis appears to be an exploration of our fascination with violent images--why do we consider death and blood entertaining?--but it quickly becomes a more conventional mystery/suspense story. (Why don't they simply go to the police? Because then we wouldn't have the violent showdown!) Despite the gaping holes, the absurdity is great fun. I'd say that all three reveal a promising director capable of generating and sustaining suspense, but hopefully they are merely warm-ups.
_________________
"When I was in Barcelona they showed pornography on regular television. I'm assuming it's the same way in Mexico since they also speak Spanish." - IMDb user comment
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
beltmann
Studio Exec


Joined: 26 Jun 2003
Posts: 2341
Location: West Bend, WI

PostPosted: 04.05.2004 2:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

3/29 ? 4/4/04

The Pilgrim (Chaplin 1923). Charlie escapes from prison, masquerades as a rural pastor, and helps protect the town?s mortgage money. It?s all very sweet but I wish it were less so?despite the smoothly developed gags, Chaplin seems slightly off his game: Why didn?t he envision the comic possibilities of a convict suppressing his inner mischief in order to sustain his external charade?

Stealing Home (Kampmann and Aldis 1988). I don?t usually pick on actors, but Mark Harmon, as a washed-up ballplayer asked to care for the ashes of a childhood crush, overextends every ?emotional? affectation available to him. Via flashback, the iconography of baseball and nostalgia get the two-a-day workout in this mediocre coming-of-age tale. Ah, the summer of ?64! When beaches, women, and the future all held such promise!

Le Million (Clair, France 1931). A down-on-his-luck Parisian learns he has won the lottery, but before he can pay off his numerous creditors he must recover the winning ticket from a missing jacket. The ensuing setbacks are by turns fluffy, tragic, hilarious, maddening. This structure has endured as a genre itself, right up through Meet the Parents, but Clair was perhaps its first master. He keeps stepping on the gas, carefully picking up speed until the plot engine begins to smoke. Matching his elegant taste and aptitude for breezy farce is Ren? Lef?vre, who, as the frazzled ticket hunter, has a pleasingly lightweight screen presence. The decision to inject mini-musical numbers to punctuate the action helps reinforce the feather tone, but it also reminds us of Clair?s reputation as an early sound pioneer. Considering its release date, this contains surprisingly sophisticated uses of the new technique, including incongruous sound effects and one truly sublime scene: As two singers perform an opera on stage, two young lovers sit behind the set and knowingly pantomime a makeup scene that matches the lyrics wafting from off screen.

The Cat in the Hat (Welch 2003). I was curious. You know what they say about cats and curiosity.
_________________
"When I was in Barcelona they showed pornography on regular television. I'm assuming it's the same way in Mexico since they also speak Spanish." - IMDb user comment
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
matt header
Studio Exec


Joined: 26 Jun 2003
Posts: 623
Location: Milwaukee, WI

PostPosted: 04.05.2004 3:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dude, this was an absolutely awesome week:

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (Gondry, 2004) B+

Spellbound
(Blitz, 2003) B

In the Mouth of Madness
(Carpenter, 1995) C-

The Ladykillers
(Coens, 2004) C+

Spellbound
(Hitchcock, 1945) B

The Battleship Potemkin
(Eisenstein, 1925) A

Meshes of the Afternoon
(Deren, 1943) B+

At Land
(Deren, 1944) B

A Study in Choreography for Camera
(Deren, 1945) B+

Meditation on Violence
(Deren, 1948) A

The Statement
(Jewison, 2003) C

Goodbye, Lenin!
(Becker, 2003) A-

Cabin Fever
(Roth, 2003) C

Cries and Whispers
(Bergman, 1972) A+

All of those were first-time viewings; I've been waiting to see Potemkin and Cries and Whispers for years now, and I was not disappointed by either. Maya Deren seriously rocks, and Goodbye Lenin is a perfectly absurd satire/tragedy/comedy in which all of the humor is bittersweet, and all of the pathos bizarrely humorous.

Seeing some kid say, "Pancakes! Pancakes!," before demonstrating some kung-fu and gnawing on somebody's arm was quite an experience as well. Shocked
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
the night watchman
Studio Exec


Joined: 27 Jun 2003
Posts: 1373
Location: Dark, run-down shack by the graveyard.

PostPosted: 04.05.2004 4:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

matt header wrote:


In the Mouth of Madness (Carpenter, 1995) [b]C-



This is a movie I really, really want to like more than I do, since I think it boasts some very neat ideas, and because I'm a big Lovecraft fan (whose work the themes of Sutter Kane's books are meant to resemble). But Carpenter seems to be painting-by-numbers here. I return to In the Mouth of Madness every three or four years with hope in my heart, but I'm invariably let down.
_________________
"If you're talking about censorship, and what things should be shown and what things shouldn't be shown, I've said that as an artist you have no social responsibility whatsoever."

-David Cronenberg
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Danny Baldwin
Studio Exec


Joined: 26 Jun 2003
Posts: 1354
Location: San Diego, CA

PostPosted: 04.05.2004 6:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Broke into the double digits, for the first time since October, I believe. Just barely, though.

Mona Lisa Smile (Newell, 2003) C

Pumping Iron (Butler, Fiore; 1977) C

The Way Home (Lee, 2002) B (Beltmann don't kill me!)

Give A Girl A Break (Donen, 1953) B

High Anxiety (Brooks, 1978) B

The Beach (Boyle, 2000) B

Brother Bear (Blaise, Walker; 2003) B

The Stepford Wives (Forbes, 1975) B

The Trials of Henry Kessinger (Jarecki, 2003) B-

Hoop Dreams (James, 1994) A
_________________
Danny Baldwin

View My Reviews
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Fred C. Dobbs
Director


Joined: 11 Mar 2004
Posts: 201
Location: New York

PostPosted: 04.05.2004 5:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I watched quite a few films this week, and my ratings for them are below, on a five-star scale.

3/28/04 - 4/3/04:

3/28 - Yankee Doodle Dandy (1942) ***1/2

3/28 - James Cagney: Top of the World (1992)

3/28 - Psycho (1960) ***1/2

3/29 - Dario Argento's Door into Darkness - The Complete Series (1973)

3/29 - The Barbary Coast (1935) ****

3/30 - Django, Kill...If You Live, Shoot! (1967) ***

3/30 - The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003) ***1/2

3/31 - Mill of the Stone Women (1960) ***1/2

April 2004:

4/1 - Something's Gotta Give (2003) ***

4/3 - Yojimbo (1961) ****1/2
_________________
"Pino, fuck you, fuck your fuckin' pizza, and fuck Frank Sinatra."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
juhsstin
Camera Operator


Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 87

PostPosted: 04.05.2004 7:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
I watched quite a few films this week, and my ratings for them are below, on a five-star scale.

3/30 - The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003) ***1/2



OMG, i give this movie 0 stars... it was so bad!
_________________
Who let the dogs out?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fred C. Dobbs
Director


Joined: 11 Mar 2004
Posts: 201
Location: New York

PostPosted: 04.05.2004 8:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

juhsstin wrote:
Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
I watched quite a few films this week, and my ratings for them are below, on a five-star scale.

3/30 - The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003) ***1/2



OMG, i give this movie 0 stars... it was so bad!


:roll: Says you.

I happened to like it. Obviously, the original is superior, but this film boasted a good performance from R. Lee Ermy, Excellent cinematography from the original director of photography, Daniel Pearl and Jessica Biel looking fine (...and in a cowboy hat, and it's well documented that I go crazy for girls in cowboy hats). I'm sure it's a knee-jerk reaction to hate the film because it's a remake, though.
_________________
"Pino, fuck you, fuck your fuckin' pizza, and fuck Frank Sinatra."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
the night watchman
Studio Exec


Joined: 27 Jun 2003
Posts: 1373
Location: Dark, run-down shack by the graveyard.

PostPosted: 04.05.2004 8:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
I'm sure it's a knee-jerk reaction to hate the film because it's a remake, though.


Well, it's not fair to dismiss someone's opinion as superficial just because you don't agree with it. I disliked the TCM remake myself, but not just because it's a remake. Some of my favorite horror movies are remakes, including Carpenter's The Thing and Cronenberg's The Fly, and I quite liked the Dawn of the Dead remake, even though I'd never consider it in league with its classic source. Anywho, if you're interested in my take on where and how the movie failed follow this link to the thread on this forum. On a five star scale I'd rate it **, maybe **1/2 for Ermey's performance.
_________________
"If you're talking about censorship, and what things should be shown and what things shouldn't be shown, I've said that as an artist you have no social responsibility whatsoever."

-David Cronenberg
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fred C. Dobbs
Director


Joined: 11 Mar 2004
Posts: 201
Location: New York

PostPosted: 04.05.2004 8:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

the night watchman wrote:
Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
I'm sure it's a knee-jerk reaction to hate the film because it's a remake, though.


Well, it's not fair to dismiss someone's opinion as superficial just because you don't agree with it. I disliked the TCM remake myself, but not just because it's a remake. Some of my favorite horror movies are remakes, including Carpenter's The Thing and Cronenberg's The Fly, and I quite liked the Dawn of the Dead remake, even though I'd never consider it in league with its classic source. Anywho, if you're interested in my take on where and how the movie failed follow this link to the thread on this forum. On a five star scale I'd rate it **, maybe **1/2 for Ermey's performance.


Fair enough. When I read his reply to me, I thought he was challenging me, trying to make me look like an idiot for liking the film.
_________________
"Pino, fuck you, fuck your fuckin' pizza, and fuck Frank Sinatra."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Flipside Movie Emporium Forum Index -> Movie Talk All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 38, 39, 40 ... 72, 73, 74  Next
Page 39 of 74

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001-2007 phpBB Group