Movies You've Seen Recently: Return of the Revenge of the Curse of the...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Holy fucking shit.

Salo is SO much worse than I ever imagined.

Edit: Also, I went back and read that wall-of-text post by Satyamdas back when we had that long-ass discussion about it, and while I appreciate the thought that went into that post, I just have to say - no, it is NOT more than gross-out shit. It desperately WANTS to be, but it fails so miserably in every single aspect - from the unbelievably shallow characters, to the hollowness of most of the violence, to the boring and drab visuals (particularly the hammy attempt at commenting on voyeurism in cinema at the end), to the godawful acting, to the downright stupidity of the whole metaphor comparing modern capitalism to dehumanizing sexual slavery in the first place - that I honestly almost can't believe that any human being ever committed it to film. It's an art movie sans the art and an exploitation movie sans the fun; it's as bad a movie as I've EVER seen, if only for how unbelievably dull it is, not to mention how many other mistakes it makes.
 
Un coupable idéal (Murder on a sunday morning) - Jean-Xavier de Lestrade
One of the best courtroom drama I've ever seen. And it's no drama. Anyone even remotely interested in seeing justice at work should watch this. It's also more gripping than most fiction on similar subjects.

I'd sure like to buy a few drinks to these public defenders. Pat McGuiness is just a saint and a badass, i'll just submit this : http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=PpYXdKlLd9c#t=381s
 
Just saw Adaption,

Adaptation-2002-movie-pictures.jpg


I thought it was awesome.

Anybody else?
 
I enjoyed Adaptation when I saw it, but the older I've gotten and the more I've been exposed to world and art cinema, the more I've come to feel like Charlie Kaufman is basically a one-note, gimmicky writer with no sense of subtlety nor depth.
 
I think ADAPTATION falls apart in the third act. I get that that is supposed to be the joke, but I think it hurts the film.

However, it has one of the funniest shots in movie history, imo, when the two Nicholas Cage's are peering out of the car. That just cracks me up for some reason.
 
Snowman Prophet of Doom said:
I enjoyed Adaptation when I saw it, but the older I've gotten and the more I've been exposed to world and art cinema, the more I've come to feel like Charlie Kaufman is basically a one-note, gimmicky writer with no sense of subtlety nor depth.
Click to expand...

I sort of agree with you, but I think Being John Malcovich is great just for the idea alone. Adaptation felt too much like it turned into the movie it was trying to criticize instead of remaining on the other side of the fine line as satire.
 
love adaptation..

Do I have an original thought in my head? My bald head. Maybe if I were happier, my hair wouldn't be falling out. Life is short. I need to make the most of it. Today is the first day of the rest of my life. I'm a walking cliché. I really need to go to the doctor and have my leg checked. There's something wrong. A bump. The dentist called again. I'm way overdue. If I stop putting things off, I would be happier. All I do is sit on my fat ass. If my ass wasn't fat I would be happier. I wouldn't have to wear these shirts with the tails out all the time. Like that's fooling anyone. Fat ass. I should start jogging again. Five miles a day. Really do it this time. Maybe rock climbing. I need to turn my life around. What do I need to do? I need to fall in love. I need to have a girlfriend. I need to read more, improve myself. What if I learned Russian or something? Or took up an instrument? I could speak Chinese. I'd be the screenwriter who speaks Chinese and plays the oboe. That would be cool. I should get my hair cut short. Stop trying to fool myself and everyone else into thinking I have a full head of hair. How pathetic is that? Just be real. Confident. Isn't that what women are attracted to? Men don't have to be attractive. But that's not true. Especially these days. Almost as much pressure on men as there is on women these days. Why should I be made to feel I have to apologize for my existence? Maybe it's my brain chemistry. Maybe that's what's wrong with me. Bad chemistry. All my problems and anxiety can be reduced to a chemical imbalance or some kind of misfiring synapses. I need to get help for that. But I'll still be ugly though. Nothing's gonna change that.
Click to expand...


really do it this time kills me
 
I watched two movies this past weekend.

Tree of Life - I thought it was a great film for what it aimed to accomplish. The mother was absolutely the strongest character, and she hardly had to say a word.

Another Earth - It had its strong points, and its weak points. The ending definitely made me backtrack over all that had happened.
 
Snowman Prophet of Doom said:
Holy fucking shit.

Salo is SO much worse than I ever imagined.

Edit: Also, I went back and read that wall-of-text post by Satyamdas back when we had that long-ass discussion about it, and while I appreciate the thought that went into that post, I just have to say - no, it is NOT more than gross-out shit. It desperately WANTS to be, but it fails so miserably in every single aspect - from the unbelievably shallow characters, to the hollowness of most of the violence, to the boring and drab visuals (particularly the hammy attempt at commenting on voyeurism in cinema at the end), to the godawful acting, to the downright stupidity of the whole metaphor comparing modern capitalism to dehumanizing sexual slavery in the first place - that I honestly almost can't believe that any human being ever committed it to film. It's an art movie sans the art and an exploitation movie sans the fun; it's as bad a movie as I've EVER seen, if only for how unbelievably dull it is, not to mention how many other mistakes it makes.
Click to expand...
And how many times have you heard someone say that 2001 is NOT more than meaningless philosophical wank? Would you take such an opinion seriously? 2001 is a lot more than meaningless wank, and as I said before Salo is more than gross out shit, but not a lot more.

I agree the film is stiff and ugly, but this was clearly a conscious stylistic decision made by Pasolini. To portray a lifeless, soul crushing ritualistic atmosphere present in the villa, it makes perfect sense to me that you would not have exciting camera movements, overly beautiful sets, extravagant costumes, etc. It's supposed to be bleak and ugly. I also don't see why you would expect some deep characters in a movie that is not concerned with themes of redemption or overcoming adversity or personal growth. The characters are flat and one dimensional for a reason.

If you think the metaphor is explicitly comparing capitalism to sex slavery then you missed the point by a mile. The 4 masters represent Aristocracy, Religion, Banking, and Law. Pasolini is pulling a curtain back and saying "this is the capacity for CONTROL that we place in the hands of these 'pillars' of society". The power they wield in capitalist society is this great, even if it doesn't manifest itself in this way in our daily lives. Think about how the most powerful men in each of these positions can collude amongst themselves behind closed doors to craft laws to their favor, buy out each other, issue religious edicts that millions will follow, etc.

In the beginning the Duke (as symbol of the bourgeois/capitalist class) says "All things are good when carried to excess". Pasolini is saying "ORLY?" and showing us in the most graphic way possible, why that is not so. That's why Salo is so "excessive" in its revelations about what goes on behind the closed doors. The rules can be erased and rewritten on the whims of those exemplars of civic morality that we entrust with our welfare. Sexual slavery is just one example of how capitalism has the capacity to reduce those on the lowest rungs to nothing more than animals. The overarching theme is the amount of control that capitalism engenders, the particular debaucheries are not the point.

Now, please understand that I don't think this makes Salo a great or even good movie (it isn't), or that Pasolini is saying something profound (he isn't). But it clearly is about more than shock merely for shock's sake, even if those themes don't resonate with you.

Salo, like A Serbian Film, seem to want to say something profound using a language of depravity and gross out images, but they both fail spectacularly. It's like trying to write a deep and meaningful poem using nothing but curse words.
 
New TSPDT 1000 is out, some new stuff, though not a much as last year at first blush. Out 1 is now the full 12 hour version, now. Thanks guys.

I was like 5 away...now back to 13 or so.

Love the Rene Clair love though.
 
Satyamdas said:
And how many times have you heard someone say that 2001 is NOT more than meaningless philosophical wank? Would you take such an opinion seriously? 2001 is a lot more than meaningless wank, and as I said before Salo is more than gross out shit, but not a lot more.
Click to expand...

I grant that that's what you said, but my point is that it's NOT even "not a lot more." It's gross-out shit and nothing else, whatever Pasolini may have wanted.

I agree the film is stiff and ugly, but this was clearly a conscious stylistic decision made by Pasolini. To portray a lifeless, soul crushing ritualistic atmosphere present in the villa, it makes perfect sense to me that you would not have exciting camera movements, overly beautiful sets, extravagant costumes, etc. It's supposed to be bleak and ugly. I also don't see why you would expect some deep characters in a movie that is not concerned with themes of redemption or overcoming adversity or personal growth. The characters are flat and one dimensional for a reason.
Click to expand...

There's nothing that annoys me more than alibis for bad art that rely on the premise that "it was bad for a reason!"

If you think the metaphor is explicitly comparing capitalism to sex slavery then you missed the point by a mile. The 4 masters represent Aristocracy, Religion, Banking, and Law. Pasolini is pulling a curtain back and saying "this is the capacity for CONTROL that we place in the hands of these 'pillars' of society". The power they wield in capitalist society is this great, even if it doesn't manifest itself in this way in our daily lives. Think about how the most powerful men in each of these positions can collude amongst themselves behind closed doors to craft laws to their favor, buy out each other, issue religious edicts that millions will follow, etc.
Click to expand...

I think the idea that the 4 masters "represent" those things is entirely an argument from intent, given that there's not really any differentiation between the four of them except in name - but the idea of "excess" as expressed in the beginning of the movie is clearly an idea connected to capitalism more than any other ideology. And there's a big difference between those subtle machinations of control that you describe and the sort of sexual slavery depicted in the movie, and that's my entire point - the metaphor is DUMB, devoid of any intelligence or creativity. He's not pulling anything back; he's connecting dot 1 to dot 47 and expecting us to buy it. I don't.

In the beginning the Duke (as symbol of the bourgeois/capitalist class) says "All things are good when carried to excess". Pasolini is saying "ORLY?" and showing us in the most graphic way possible, why that is not so. That's why Salo is so "excessive" in its revelations about what goes on behind the closed doors. The rules can be erased and rewritten on the whims of those exemplars of civic morality that we entrust with our welfare. Sexual slavery is just one example of how capitalism has the capacity to reduce those on the lowest rungs to nothing more than animals. The overarching theme is the amount of control that capitalism engenders, the particular debaucheries are not the point.
Click to expand...

The first part: well, yeah, such is obvious and doesn't require a two hour movie. But since capitalists aren't a bunch of cartoon character villains sitting in back rooms trying to figure out how to fuck the middle and lower classes - though such happens, it's usually the indirect result of those in power looking out for their own interests - he's not even making the point in an apropos way. As for the rest, the manner in which Pasolini tries to achieve this strikes me as the equivalent of taking a complicated painting and reducing it down to a stick figure in terms of the point being made.

Now, please understand that I don't think this makes Salo a great or even good movie (it isn't), or that Pasolini is saying something profound (he isn't). But it clearly is about more than shock merely for shock's sake, even if those themes don't resonate with you.

Salo, like A Serbian Film, seem to want to say something profound using a language of depravity and gross out images, but they both fail spectacularly. It's like trying to write a deep and meaningful poem using nothing but curse words.
Click to expand...

I said in my post that it IS trying, but since intent is meaningless in art, who cares? My point is that although it does try, it fails so badly that there is nothing left but the shock, which isn't even as shocking as some exploitation films that I've seen. It fails on literally ever level to have any depth or resonance, and it's shocking to me that anybody has ever fallen for such a transparently stupid attempt at using shock to make a hammy political statement. As a Facebook friend of mine put it, the only genuinely entertaining thing in the movie is the idea that Pasolini thought there was anything to it.

Anyway, I don't think we even disagree a great deal about the movie. But the difference is that I have no interest in scrutinizing what Pasolini was attempting, for even if his themes don't have resonance for me, the way that he goes about trying to achieve them is so poor regardless that it becomes a moot point.

Edit: swoon, isn't the new Sight and Sound poll coming out this year? I remember them saying that that would probably be the next big shift in terms of the rankings.
 
swoon said:
New TSPDT 1000 is out, some new stuff, though not a much as last year at first blush. Out 1 is now the full 12 hour version, now. Thanks guys.

I was like 5 away...now back to 13 or so.

Love the Rene Clair love though.
Click to expand...

And pretty soon they should be updating the best films of the 21st century which I imagine will be changed quite a bit more.
 
Fallout-NL said:
Nice shot of Kim Flowers in there.

Ron Perlman's always fun.

But as an Alien film it's way too convoluted
Click to expand...
Yeah, the power of the first film, was probably in its semplicity.
Buckethead said:
Alien 3 is so disrespectful of Aliens.

It's unforgivable and unredeemable.
Click to expand...
I get your point and agree, though i think it could've been an interesting take (but it wasn't).
I mean the idea of a prison and such.

Alien resurrection, was strange and dumb but kind of fun in the end, i liked it more than 3, because it took itself less seriously, at least.

I also saw The Godfather part 1 & 2, but i'm too tired to comment properly.
I Liked it, it's a massive accomplishment no doubt, though i liked part 2 better than part 1 (i don't know how unpopular this opinion might be, tbh).
Tomorrow i'll go with part 3.
 
Snowman Prophet of Doom said:
I grant that that's what you said, but my point is that it's NOT even "not a lot more." It's gross-out shit and nothing else, whatever Pasolini may have wanted.
Click to expand...
I saw Date Movie a while back. Didn't laugh once, didn't even smirk. It was that bad. Can I say that Date Movie fails so hard that the result is that it is NOT a comedy, regardless of what Jason Friedberg may have wanted? I don't think I can, because somewhere out there, someone thinks it is hysterical and they are laughing at the jokes.

Similarly, I don't think you can say Salo is "gross out shit and nothing else" since the film clearly has a message, and there are plenty of people who are of the opinion that it is touching on heavy themes and making profound statements.

Snowman Prophet of Doom said:
There's nothing that annoys me more than alibis for bad art that rely on the premise that "it was bad for a reason!"
Click to expand...
For someone who writes so many tomes about artistic expression filled with nuance and well thought out points, it's always surprising to see you assume the role of final arbiter of Good Art™.

Snowman Prophet of Doom said:
I think the idea that the 4 masters "represent" those things is entirely an argument from intent, given that there's not really any differentiation between the four of them except in name - but the idea of "excess" as expressed in the beginning of the movie is clearly an idea connected to capitalism more than any other ideology. And there's a big difference between those subtle machinations of control that you describe and the sort of sexual slavery depicted in the movie, and that's my entire point - the metaphor is DUMB, devoid of any intelligence or creativity. He's not pulling anything back; he's connecting dot 1 to dot 47 and expecting us to buy it. I don't.
Click to expand...
I agree the metaphor is dumb, but earlier you said Salo is "gross out shit and nothing else". So which is it? If it's just a parade of gross out shit and nothing more, then there is no metaphor that can even *be* dumb in the first place. How can a metaphor be present in something which lacks even a basic context?

Seems that you are so thoroughly unimpressed by the metaphor that you assert it is nonexistent. Dat paradox.

Snowman Prophet of Doom said:
The first part: well, yeah, such is obvious and doesn't require a two hour movie. But since capitalists aren't a bunch of cartoon character villains sitting in back rooms trying to figure out how to fuck the middle and lower classes - though such happens, it's usually the indirect result of those in power looking out for their own interests - he's not even making the point in an apropos way. As for the rest, the manner in which Pasolini tries to achieve this strikes me as the equivalent of taking a complicated painting and reducing it down to a stick figure in terms of the point being made.

I said in my post that it IS trying, but since intent is meaningless in art, who cares? My point is that although it does try, it fails so badly that there is nothing left but the shock, which isn't even as shocking as some exploitation films that I've seen. It fails on literally ever level to have any depth or resonance, and it's shocking to me that anybody has ever fallen for such a transparently stupid attempt at using shock to make a hammy political statement. As a Facebook friend of mine put it, the only genuinely entertaining thing in the movie is the idea that Pasolini thought there was anything to it.

Anyway, I don't think we even disagree a great deal about the movie. But the difference is that I have no interest in scrutinizing what Pasolini was attempting, for even if his themes don't have resonance for me, the way that he goes about trying to achieve them is so poor regardless that it becomes a moot point.
Click to expand...
I totally agree that any message Salo wished to convey is buried underneath too much excrement and too many uninteresting shock-for-shock's-sake scenes to resonate at all. I didn't like the look or the pacing either, but I can see that they were employed for a reason. Where we differ is that I'm not going to say that because I find nothing worthwhile in Salo that it must therefore be objectively worthless, and I don't agree when you say it. That was my only point of contention with your original post.

I think many of Mapplethorpe's works and things like Piss Christ are artistically worthless and creatively bankrupt, but I'm not so high on my opinion that I am going to say they don't qualify as art or that no one can glean meaning from them. Similarly, while I find Salo banal and intellectually empty, I don't think that renders it non-art. Maybe it is a cop out to take the relativistic position rather than make objective claims, but that's where I am.

Anyway, Salo itself is certainly not worthy of a spirited defense/debate and I don't intend this post to be one, so I hope you don't take it as such. I'll bow out and give you the final word.
 
ADAPTATION is probably one of my favorite movies. i think the writing in it is so earnest and sincere and clever. there is really nothing else like it. i could post some dialogue or scenes from it, but i think most are familiar with it, so i will let the movie defend itself. suffice to say, there's something very funny and clever going on at a structural level, and it's supported by a very strong emotional story about brotherhood, love, contentment, self-acceptance, what it means to be happy, and so on. . . the conversation which derides ADAPTATION reminds me of the one that derides MAGNOLIA, another favorite: it's easy to accuse either of overindulgence, or of sentimentality, but how easily ambition and sincerity can be mistaken for those things.
 
Satyamdas said:
I think many of Mapplethorpe's works and things like Piss Christ are artistically worthless and creatively bankrupt, but I'm not so high on my opinion that I am going to say they don't qualify as art or that no one can glean meaning from them. .
Click to expand...

maaaaannnn what.
 
Satyamdas said:
I saw Date Movie a while back. Didn't laugh once, didn't even smirk. It was that bad. Can I say that Date Movie fails so hard that the result is that it is NOT a comedy, regardless of what Jason Friedberg may have wanted? I don't think I can, because somewhere out there, someone thinks it is hysterical and they are laughing at the jokes.

Similarly, I don't think you can say Salo is "gross out shit and nothing else" since the film clearly has a message, and there are plenty of people who are of the opinion that it is touching on heavy themes and making profound statements.
Click to expand...

See, this is where you and I differ. I WOULD say that Date Movie is not a comedy but rather just a cheap, stupid, and utterly dull bit of studio excrement. People call Dave Eggers a humorist, yet I'm pretty convinced that nothing the man has ever written has the least bit of wit. I think the thing that I'm ultimately saying is that I don't give an A for Effort award. Again, I agree that it IS trying for something, but when you fail so spectacularly, it has the same net effect as if it weren't there at all.


For someone who writes so many tomes about artistic expression filled with nuance and well thought out points, it's always surprising to see you assume the role of final arbiter of Good Art™.

The art IS bad, for any number of objective and discernible reasons.

As I said, I have no interest in being told that acting, or a character, or a piece of writing is bad because the artist was using that badness to communicate something. See: people writing something very dull and then defending it on the grounds that it's ABOUT dullness.

I agree the metaphor is dumb, but earlier you said Salo is "gross out shit and nothing else". So which is it? If it's just a parade of gross out shit and nothing more, then there is no metaphor that can even *be* dumb in the first place. How can a metaphor be present in something which lacks even a basic context?

Seems that you are so thoroughly unimpressed by the metaphor that you assert it is nonexistent. Dat paradox.

See above. It's really just a failure of communication on my part, I think; I grant that it TRIES to be more than gross-out shit, but since it fails so spectacularly, and since I don't care about intent in art, the net result is that it basically ends up as nothing more than gross-out shit. Just insert "basically" into the posts above if that makes them more palatable.

Hell, I might even contend that a bad metaphor is worse than no metaphor, since it has the potential to add another layer of artistic lack: pretentiousness. Some shirk away from that word, since it's overused by individuals who don't engage with any art at all, but I think it's a perfectly legitimate word if you justify your use of it. Now, pretentiousness CAN be used to some effect - for example, Persona is an overwhelmingly pretentious movie - but you have to subvert it in some way.

I totally agree that any message Salo wished to convey is buried underneath too much excrement and too many uninteresting shock-for-shock's-sake scenes to resonate at all. I didn't like the look or the pacing either, but I can see that they were employed for a reason. Where we differ is that I'm not going to say that because I find nothing worthwhile in Salo that it must therefore be objectively worthless, and I don't agree when you say it. That was my only point of contention with your original post.

I think many of Mapplethorpe's works and things like Piss Christ are artistically worthless and creatively bankrupt, but I'm not so high on my opinion that I am going to say they don't qualify as art or that no one can glean meaning from them. Similarly, while I find Salo banal and intellectually empty, I don't think that renders it non-art. Maybe it is a cop out to take the relativistic position rather than make objective claims, but that's where I am.

Anyway, Salo itself is certainly not worthy of a spirited defense/debate and I don't intend this post to be one, so I hope you don't take it as such. I'll bow out and give you the final word.[/QUOTE]

Eh, nothing more for me to really say at the moment.
 
Welp, I watched Demons and Anguish back to back last night and it was a lot of fun. Demons was ridiculously bad in an awesome way, with awful acting/dubbing, non-fitting music and terrible writing. I laughed more then I do with most comedies. Anguish was more serious, and the better movie. I liked how meta it was and confusing it tried to be; especially the scenes in the
bathrooms where they keep cutting between the movie and the movie within the movie
. Good stuff. The ending wasn't really satisfying though. Overall fun factor: 8/10
 
&Divius said:
Welp, I watched Demons and Anguish back to back last night and it was a lot of fun. Demons was ridiculously bad in an awesome way, with awful acting/dubbing, non-fitting music and terrible writing. I laughed more then I do with most comedies. Anguish was more serious, and the better movie. I liked how meta it was and confusing it tried to be; especially the scenes in the
bathrooms where they keep cutting between the movie and the movie within the movie
. Good stuff. The ending wasn't really satisfying though. Overall fun factor: 8/10
Click to expand...

The dubbing in DEMONS is a product of that era in Italian filmmaking. Movies were made to be sold internationally, so the casts would be a hodge-podge of local and international actors. Every region would have a dubbed version, even Italy.

Also, the music is awesome. How dare you?!?!

But kudos for you for doing the double feature.
 
Count Dookkake said:
The dubbing in DEMONS is a product of that era in Italian filmmaking. Movies were made to be sold internationally, so the casts would be a hodge-podge of local and international actors. Every region would have a dubbed version, even Italy.

Also, the music is awesome. How dare you?!?!

But kudos for you for doing the double feature.
Click to expand...
I know about the dubbing, I've seen a few Argento movies that had that as well. The typical 80s funky synth music was indeed awesome, but the random heavy metal by Motörhead (or something of the likes) is just so weird and feels so out of place, just like in Argento's Phenomena.

And yes, it made for a great double feature :) thanks for the recommendation, guys.
 
A Better Tomorrow - John Woo, Chow Yun-Fat, some other dudes, gangsters, police, betrayal, melodrama, and exceptionally awesome slowmotion shootouts. It's cool and all, but it's not as good as The Killer or Hard Boiled. 7/10

I was thinking though how cool it would/could be if John Woo and Chow Yun-Fat teamed up again for a movie like this.
 
Tried catching up on Wes Anderson's film:

Bottle Rocket - I liked it. It was simple, funny and adorable. Really liked the characters played by the Wilson's, especially Owen's one, so hilarious - 8/10

Rushmore - Fucking awesome. Liked the story, and it was executed perfectly. Characters are really unique and memorable, Bill Murray was so fun to watch, as always - 9/10

The Royal Tenenbaums - That was a fun ride. A crazy story, loved the introduction of the characters. Wasn't a fan of the ending though, it was just too comical - 7.5/10
 
On the back of Netflix coming to my country I've been engrossed in its documentary selection. Got through two today, first was The Corporation which is an epic and academic dissection of American business practices after the industrial revolution. It's clean-cut and clinical, perhaps to its detriment, and while its running time suggests depth it skims over subjects and case studies and contains no major narrative hook. It's mostly comprised of talking head commentary and archival footage, and it'd be perfect for students of business or economics. Unfortunately it's a bit too emotionally detached for me to consider it an entertaining documentary, although as an interesting historical and well-researched piece it certainly brings a lot to the table.

Conversely, King of Kong is about half its length and twice as fun as it follows the trials of one poor sap trying to beat the highscore of a deluded messiah in Donkey Kong. It paints a great picture of passionate, competitive hobbyists and its all presented with a serious yet mocking tone that exposes these so-called winners for who they are: self-fellating clowns with absolutely no impact on anything outside of their own clique. A strong, well-paced and well executed documentary about something most people wouldn't even know exists, much less care about.
 
Big update on what I have watched.

Female Convict Prisoners 701 Trilogy
Scorpion ****
Fun movie that could have only been made in 70's Japan. I really like the idea of a somewhat silent protagonist.
Jailhouse 41***
Director turns the movie into a giant chase film. Not as good as the first movie but still really fun.
Beast Stable****
The best movie out of the three. Shunya Itō really hit his stride and fully realized what these films really were. Just good escapist fun. Meiko Kaji was at her best here too.

I also watched the fourth movie Grudge Song. It isn't directed by Ito, so it isn't considered part of the original series. It's fun but less crazy compared to the other three. It's a solid 3 stars.

Maiku Hama Trilogy****
Detective movies from early 90's Japan. The idea of three separate films all representing (and somewhat riffing) different eras of Detective film is brilliant. All three feature compelling stories and great characters. Overall, all three were great love letters to Noir and New Wave. I have to admit the first movie is somewhat cliche but that doesn't matter. It's still fun and very engaging. The growth of Maiku is outstanding.

Also, that MOTHERFUCKING CAMEO IN THE FIRST MOVIE WAS AWESOME! "His" involvement growing through the films was good to see. A very great way to pay respects to one Japan's greatest actor and leaders of the Japanese New Wave.

Other watched/re-watched movies
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy*****
My favorite movie of 2011. Probably the most engaging movie I have seen in theater in long time. Love everything about it.

Hunger***
Good flick. That 18 min scene gets better each time I watch it.

Le Havre**
First Aki Kaurismäki film I have seen. Alright movie.

Masculin Feminin*
Didn't like it. Godard rubs his dick for over an hour and doesn't even have a decent pay off.

Weekend***
Pretty fun movie but still a bunch of Godard BS. At least this one is watchable and somewhat entertaining. Also, cars are loud and death traps because people are asses.

My five star double feature
Criss Cross
This was wonderful. The heist was so damn awesome and totally not what I expected to go down. The ending...

The Bad Sleep Well
Damn. Wasn't expecting that. Probably going to be my favorite Kurosawa movie after a re-watch.
 
Just watched the last 4 Harry Potter movies, hadn't ever been interested in HP before but had some spare time and the books lying around so read up to the Half Blood Prince in the last week, watched the movies of each book I read and then just got carried away and finished the last 4 and now the sun is rising.

Back to the books I suppose, no rest for the wicked
 
Max Armstrong said:
Tried catching up on Wes Anderson's film:

Bottle Rocket - I liked it. It was simple, funny and adorable. Really liked the characters played by the Wilson's, especially Owen's one, so hilarious - 8/10

Rushmore - Fucking awesome. Liked the story, and it was executed perfectly. Characters are really unique and memorable, Bill Murray was so fun to watch, as always - 9/10

The Royal Tenenbaums - That was a fun ride. A crazy story, loved the introduction of the characters. Wasn't a fan of the ending though, it was just too comical - 7.5/10
Click to expand...

These three films are proof that Mr Anderson should write with Mr Wilson again. Three of my favourites.

I do like the rest of his catalogue though, just not as much.
 
I will never understand the love for Rushmore. I fucking hated that movie. In fact, I consider to be one of the most overrated films ever made. I guess it didn't help that I loathed the main character to the point of wanting to turn it off.
 
Winnebago Man - I initially popped this in to let my wife in on the joke. Then the first 10 minutes were pretty much what I expected - one joke dragged out to the length of a documentary. But then it opens up and the movie stops being about the uninteresting narrator and his relationship with a viral video and turns into a movie about an compellingly deranged old man. Then the movie, surprisingly, becomes far more than I expected. Not a must watch but a darn good documentary about life, age, cynicism and people.
 
swoon said:
maaaaannnn what.
Click to expand...
Well I do admit he took a couple nice pictures of flowers and the human form in between the endless penis shots and bullwhip-in-anus stuff. For the most part though his art just elicits a huge "meh" from me.



In the recent thread about great but disturbing movies, someone linked an old movie called Threads which was about a possible nuclear war and what life would look like after the attack (link is to the full movie on google video). I hadn't seen a nuclear war movie in a while so I watched it. It was OK if terribly "small". I liked that it didn't just focus on the immediate aftermath but showed what life would be like tens of years after the fact.

But watching Threads reminded me of another nuclear war movie I saw many years ago, that I can't find for the life of me. I've seen it twice, both times on tv as a "late late movie" in Los Angeles (pretty sure it was on KCAL or KCOP), and the last time I saw it was in the mid 90s.

The premise of this movie is that nuclear war is imminent, and the whole thing takes place in a fairly large fallout shelter. There are maybe 12-15 people inside, and the only connection they have to the outside world is a television that is broadcasting periodic news reports.

The focus of the film is the tension inside the shelter that is building as nuclear war becomes inevitable. Once the bombs drop and people are banging on the door begging to be let in, there is disagreement about whether they should let them in or not. There are limited supplies and limited air, but as time goes on more people think they should just let them in anyway. They decide to vote on it, and when the side that wants to let them in wins, someone on the other side pulls out a gun and forces them to leave the door closed. Someone may have gotten shot trying to open the door, I'm not sure though.

The news shows video of the panic happening outside as cities are being leveled. The newsroom reporter basically says it's all over and signs off for good. So things are getting worse and worse outside as well as inside, and eventually a young girl goes to the bathroom in the back and kills herself. Shortly after this, we see someone breaking through the bathroom wall, and it turns out that there is no nuclear war happening at all, that the whole thing was a government funded experiment to observe and monitor people's reactions to an imminent nuclear threat. We see the fake newsroom set as they walk out, and the last scene is of everyone leaving the fake shelter to be greeted by reporters. They ask how the government could do such a thing, remind us about how terrible the nuclear threat is, etc.

I've searched high and low for this movie and I can't seem to find it, so I'm asking for your help, Movie GAF. I'm fairly certain it was made in the early 80s, and I'm pretty sure the title is 4 words. Maybe 2. I'd be super grateful to anyone who remembers it and can point me to it. Thanks in advance.
 
&Divius said:
A Better Tomorrow - John Woo, Chow Yun-Fat, some other dudes, gangsters, police, betrayal, melodrama, and exceptionally awesome slowmotion shootouts. It's cool and all, but it's not as good as The Killer or Hard Boiled. 7/10

I was thinking though how cool it would/could be if John Woo and Chow Yun-Fat teamed up again for a movie like this.
Click to expand...

This is what I wanted for the longest time. Woo and Chow Yun-Fat back for a badass noir action film.
 
220px-The_Hidden_Blade_FilmPoster.jpeg


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hidden_Blade

Second movie in Yoji Yamada's "Samurai Trilogy", some of you may be familiar with his more famous The Twilight Samurai. Like TTS, it's an understated and believable look at 19th century Japan, centering around the life of a low-rank samurai, during the beginning of western influence. I thought it was really good, but be warned that it's not an action movie.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

2025 Super Bow Commercials Thread | The Return of Michael Bay
2
59
3K
ManaByte replied
First photos from the new Masters of the Universe movie
26
2K
Jenov replied
Brian Cox explains the Fermi Paradox (why we have not yet seen evidence of intelligent alien life)
2
68
3K
GloveSlap replied
Amazing remake of Raiders of the Lost Ark in the early 80’s
4
742
Evil Calvin replied
Art film???? Worst experiences or movies you've ever seen.
2 3
134
6K
Badlucktroll replied
Top Bottom