[UrbanRats]

Don't worry Chan-wook Park isn't a good filmmaker anyways and only has two good films and another that is slightly okay.

Oldboy and Mr.Vengance were good, Lady V had a few decent moments, after that i saw I'm a cyborg but that's ok, and now i'm afraid to touch any other movie of his.

Also Tin Tin was fucking terrible, aside from the visuals, a constant, non-stop stream of over the top crap, it was unbearable, by the end.
When at the start of the movie, they needed to frame the cat rushing through the room, toppling the model ship, like it was a goddamn speeder chase in Star Wars, i knew it was gonna be a nasty one.

Watched Keane.
At first i was kind of annoyed by the constant close ups, but i figured they would've had a point.. and tbh, they did.
It was quite good, nice tension by the end, good performances, some of the protagonist's mumbling wasn't 100% convincing to me, but aside from that, it was nice and didn't overstay its welcome.

[ThisWreckage]

The Breakfast Club was a great movie up until the last five minutes. I loved it when it was Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf meets Sartre's No Exit, but ending was a huge let down. I thought it was completely unbelievable.

[Femmeworth]

Leon: The Professional (Extended Edition)

[Buckethead]

Youth In Revolt

Enjoyable comedy. Me laugh longtime.
Great supporting cast. I loved his friend Vijay.

It reminded me of that scene in 40 Year Old Virgin with Elizabeth Banks extended for an entire movie. Fabulous.

And it had the added bonus of having the incomparable Ray Liotta in it.

[UrbanRats]

Leon: The Professional (Extended Edition)

You talking shit about Leon?

[Femmeworth]

You talking shit about Leon?

The action sequences were great, but the script had issues. That .GIF was more in a response to all of the sexual tension. Sure, it didn't lead to anything, but I can see why the extended edition didn't test well with in the US.

[UrbanRats]

The action sequences were great, but the script had issues. That .GIF was more in a response to all of the sexual tension.

I always loved how Besson handled that, it could've been disgusting or disturbing very easily, but in the end he plays the sexual tension just on the surface, while it's pretty clear that none of the characters really wanted any sexual interaction with each other; both of them were oblivious to tender human relationships and, since Mathilda is a "grown too fast kid" going through early puberty, she probably interprets it as sexual love, while it's not (she even says as much when talking about a weight in her stomach going away).
Leon on the other hand never expresses as much, and is just generally awkward because he has encountered another human being that cares for him (him being a never grown up adult, emotionally retarded at times, also a serial murderer).
It's a weird relationship no doubt, but it's never in bad taste imo, the way they shift from mother/son (when Mathilda teaches Leon to read, or does the chores for him or teaches him to sleep in a bed) to Father/daughter (when Leon is being protective and taking care of her, especially at the end when Mathilda is freaking out) is at the core.
I think the lovers angle is played just on the surface and it's just Mathilda being confused as how to interpret this father/son figure, while also going through hormonal changes, coupled with her need to get attention (with the hotel receptionist or at the restoraunt, for example).

[Scullibundo]

Nobody talks shit about my Leon. I'm gonna clean you.

[ThisWreckage]

The Hunter

Dafoe is fantastic in this and I honestly think he's one of the best actors working.

[TylerD]

Just watched The Tsunami and the Cherry Blossom (2011) as I'm catching up on the HBO 2012 documentaries series.

It was incredibly heart wrenching and uplifting in the span of 39 minutes as it showcased the very worst and best of mother nature with stunningly savage then beautiful imagery.

The filmmaker does a wonderful job of connecting the viewer to the subjects emotionally.

[I Push Fat Kids]

Man, David Bowie is so bad in Merry Christmas Mr. Lawrence. Really don't see the quality - comes off as a non-actor trying really hard to take himself serious as an actor.

Thank Jeez for Takeshi Kitano.

[Femmeworth]

I always loved how Besson handled that, it could've been disgusting or disturbing very easily, but in the end he plays the sexual tension just on the surface, while it's pretty clear that none of the characters really wanted any sexual interaction with each other; both of them were oblivious to tender human relationships and, since Mathilda is a "grown too fast kid" going through early puberty, she probably interprets it as sexual love, while it's not (she even says as much when talking about a weight in her stomach going away). Leon on the other hand never expresses as much, and is just generally awkward because he has encountered another human being that cares for him (him being a never grown up adult, emotionally retarded at times, also a serial murderer). It's a weird relationship no doubt, but it's never in bad taste imo, the way they shift from mother/son (when Mathilda teaches Leon to read, or does the chores for him or teaches him to sleep in a bed) to Father/daughter (when Leon is being protective and taking care of her, especially at the end when Mathilda is freaking out) is at the core. I think the lovers angle is played just on the surface and it's just Mathilda being confused as how to interpret this father/son figure, while also going through hormonal changes, coupled with her need to get attention (with the hotel receptionist or at the restoraunt, for example).

I didn't think it was in bad taste, it just could have been handled better. I feel there was tonal issues, the whole movie has a sort of odd tone. It's made light of how damaged they both are, and I don't buy Mathilda as a character. Ignoring that, there was a number of plot holes and contrivances. The movie is obviously stylized, but I don't think Besson pulled it off.

Nobody talks shit about my Leon. I'm gonna clean you.

Bah, go clean yourself.

[UrbanRats]

I didn't think it was in bad taste, it just could have been handled better. I feel there was tonal issues, the whole movie has a sort of an odd tone. It's made light of how damaged they both are, and I don't buy Mathilda as a character. Ignoring that, there was a number of plot holes and contrivances. The movie is obviously stylized, but I don't think Besson pulled it off.

I can see your point of view about tone, but i don't feel the same about it, since it's one my favorite movies.
Of course, since i watched it literally hundreds of times as a kid, i might be biased, just the initial shot of NY--> Little Italy --> Tony's restaurant, gives me chills. :P

[Jo Shishido's Cheeks]

Don't worry Chan-wook Park isn't a good filmmaker anyways and only has two good films and another that is slightly okay.

You can't count.
If Lady Vengeance qualifies as the 'slightly okay' film (its better than that) then JSA, Mr. Vengeance and Oldboy make three good films.
How many do you need to be considered a good filmmaker?

The action sequences were great, but the script had issues. That .GIF was more in a response to all of the sexual tension. Sure, it didn't lead to anything, but I can see why the extended edition didn't test well with in the US.

I found it rather endearing.
Kinda helps that I thought I was in love with an adult as a kid I guess :lol

[Hindle]

People are taking bad about Leon now? Thats just plain wrong. Anyway:

The Waterboy

The only truly brilliant film Adam Sandler did imo, he gives an hilarious performance. Plus who can forget You can do it!

****

[UrbanRats]

I found it rather endearing.

That's also the impression i've always got, for the reasons stated above.
And again, the sexual tension was really just superficial (and one sided, from Mathilda), imo.

I don't know why it didn't work out in the US though, because it's not like a relationship with those premises would be accepted in Europe.

[HiResDes]

People are taking bad about Leon now? Thats just plain wrong. Anyway: The Waterboy The only truly brilliant film Adam Sandler did imo, he gives an hilarious performance. Plus who can forget You can do it! ****

His best films are Billy Madison, The Wedding Singer, and then maybe Big Daddy IMO.

...If we're counting the ones he didn't contribute to making, Punch Drunk Love and then maybe Funny People (though the last 30 minutes are awful).

The Breakfast Club was a great movie up until the last five minutes. I loved it when it was Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf meets Sartre's No Exit, but ending was a huge let down. I thought it was completely unbelievable.

It just seemed a little too clean, like a forced fulfillment. It reminds me of the way Shakespeare's A Midnight's Summer Dream ends, but its farce was more purposeful. I was also surprised at the amount of cursing in The Breakfast Club. I had to cut the movie off at the local thrift store after receiving complaints from prudish elderly people.

[TheKaeptain]

You can't count. If Lady Vengeance qualifies as the 'slightly okay' film (its better than that) then JSA, Mr. Vengeance and Oldboy make three good films. How many do you need to be considered a good filmmaker?

Lady Vengeance is crap.

[Mister Wilhelm]

Leon: The Professional (Extended Edition)

The US theatrical cut is a joke compared to it.

[ViewtifulJC]

Leon's got a great villain in Stansfield, and Portman is good in it.

That's about all the praise I can dish out, though.

[Jo Shishido's Cheeks]

Lady Vengeance is crap.

The direction, cinematography and editing say it's not.
Pretty good score and decent lead performance too.

[harSon]

The direction, cinematography and editing say it's not. Pretty good score and decent lead performance too.

So you value style over substance? Because you haven't said shit about the characters or narrative.

[HiResDes]

So you value style over substance? Because you haven't said shit about the characters or narrative.

Hey people love Picnic at Hanging Rock...

[Rei_Toei]

Love Exposure (2008 Sion Sono, Japan, IMDb): Could be described as a moving depiction of the pitfalls of young adulthood wrestling with identity, religion, sexuality and love and the influence of religion on families and society as a whole. While exploring these themes Jesus and Kurt Cobain are proclaimed to have been the only decent men to ever walk the earth, a martial arts montage explains the training an aspiring panchira photographer goes through and there's talk of totally acceptable and beautiful rape. The conclusion in the mental ward, when Yu sees his own crotch reflection in the mirror dropped by Yoko is absolutely brilliant. My only (unoriginal) complaint would be that it's only 237 minutes long.

In all seriousness, blown away. This movie moves from light comedy to romance, injects some cheesy fight scenes left and right, takes a turn towards organized religion and cult tactics, becomes a bit more grim, goes balls-deep into ridiculous territory but somehow lands on its feet again. Acting is over the top or downright amateurish at times - but the movies somehow gets away with it all. What a ride. ★★★★★

[HiResDes]

Yep, nice review.

[Jo Shishido's Cheeks]

So you value style over substance? Because you haven't said shit about the characters or narrative.

In certain specific cases, sure!
Ever seen a De Palma or Suzuki film?
Films don't solely amount to characters or narrative, it is a visual medium after all.

[TheKaeptain]

The direction, cinematography and editing say it's not. Pretty good score and decent lead performance too.

The story (you know the fucking backbone) is fucking shit and the movie is filled with bad acting from everyone but the lead. Also, the editing is pretty fucking basic. Nothing special going on with cinematography either. I really find Park to be pedestrian. He's never done anything as interesting as Kim Jee-woon has done (like the cab scene in I Saw the Devil).

[HiResDes]

I must say Pale Flower is really really good and it would probably fit that description, despite my indifference towards Lady Vengeance.

[lunchtoast]

Porco Rosso. Might be my favorite Ghibli film.

[harSon]

In certain specific cases, sure! Ever seen a De Palma or Suzuki film? Films don't solely amount to characters or narrative, it is a visual medium after all.

De Palma and Suzuki are both hit and miss as directors, and their good movies both have something in common, their characters and narrative aren't complete shit.

You can have style over substance, with an average to above average story, and the end product will be solid. You can't have style over substance, with the substance being complete shit.

The story (you know the fucking backbone) is fucking shit and the movie is filled with bad acting from everyone but the lead. Also, the editing is pretty fucking basic. Nothing special going on with cinematography either. I really find Park to be pedestrian. He's never done anything as interesting as Kim Jee-woon has done (like the cab scene in I Saw the Devil).

I wouldn't go that far. The hand to hand fight scene in Oldboy was similarly well shot.

[ViewtifulJC]

Sometimes, style IS substance.

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Film is a visual medium, but it's inherently an extension of the type of narrative storytelling found in literature, drama, and (to a certain extent) poetry. I think most would agree that a film could still be a great work of art absent notable cinematography if you have a really dynamite script (All About Eve is pretty boring-looking for the most part, for example), but I think that it's alot harder to credit a film as much more than an exercise in style if all it has is its visual elements.

[Jo Shishido's Cheeks]

Again, where does this idea that 'story = the be-all-and-end-all of a film' come from?
It's pretty ignorant to think that films can't be or aren't more than their stories.

Are Koyaanisqatsi, work by Chris Marker and many other examples not classified as 'films' all of a sudden?
What about visual artists, directors who make tone poems and experimental cinema that doesn't hinge on a story or narrative?
What medium are they working within?

You know what, this:



is shit.
There's no story aka fucking backbone to it.

[TheKaeptain]

Lee Chang-Dong is the best Korean director anyways.

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

A narrative doesn't have to be "A -> B -> C" to be a narrative. That's something that cinema takes from poetry very well - it can create narrative in the most unlikely places. It's not that a film can't be more than its story, it's that in the absence of a well-done narrative of some kind (and there's certainly something being communicated in something like Koyaanisqatsi, even if it's not a Hollywood plot), it's hard to find much depth in a work.

[harSon]

Lee Chang-Dong is the best Korean director anyways.

I loathed Secret Sunshine.

But then again, I hate melodramas and transforming Kang-ho Song into the biggest creep to ever grace the screen.

[harSon]

A narrative doesn't have to be "A -> B -> C" to be a narrative. That's something that cinema takes from poetry very well - it can create narrative in the most unlikely places. It's not that a film can't be more than its story, it's that in the absence of a well-done narrative of some kind (and there's certainly something being communicated in something like Koyaanisqatsi, even if it's not a Hollywood plot), it's hard to find much depth in a work.

Exactly.

It doesn't have to be straight forward, cohesive or traditional, a narrative can be purely thematic like Koyaanisqatsi.

But the movies you're listing Jo Shishido's Cheeks, don't really apply to Lady Vengeance. It wasn't trying to be experimental or push some alternative form of story telling. It was extremely straight forward, traditional and Hollywood in its narrative, and that narrative that was crap.

As I said, you can have style eclipse substance and the movie will not suffer because of it. You can't have an arguably awful narrative, with equally awful characters, and not expect the overall package to suffer.

There's a difference between not having a narrative, or having an non traditional narrative, and simply having an awful one.

[HiResDes]

harSon nailed it. You can experiment within a traditional narrative formula, or you can try and forgo any sort of formula whatsoever. Some would argue that it's more difficult to accomplish the former, to innovate within the box. Lady Vengeance doesn't really accomplish either.

[Jo Shishido's Cheeks]

A narrative doesn't have to be "A -> B -> C" to be a narrative. That's something that cinema takes from poetry very well - it can create narrative in the most unlikely places. It's not that a film can't be more than its story, it's that in the absence of a well-done narrative of some kind (and there's certainly something being communicated in something like Koyaanisqatsi, even if it's not a Hollywood plot), it's hard to find much depth in a work.

We may have to agree to disagree, I certainly don't see a "well-done narrative" in work by Kenneth Anger, Maya Deren, Andy Warhol, Jean-Luc Godard and again Chris Marker, but I do see substantial amounts of depth, meaning and feeling.
If somebody does need a nice Hollywood style story to decipher any sort of theme, meaning or depth in a work then more fool them frankly.

[TheKaeptain]

Again, where does this idea that 'story = the be-all-and-end-all of a film' come from? It's pretty ignorant to think that films can't be or aren't more than their stories. Are Koyaanisqatsi, work by Chris Marker and many other examples not classified as 'films' all of a sudden? What about visual artists, directors who make tone poems and experimental cinema that doesn't hinge on a story or narrative? What medium are they working within? You know what, this: [IMG]http://softmorningcity.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/2or3.jpg is shit. There's no story aka fucking backbone to it.

We don't talk about post Masculin Féminin Godard in here.

Exactly. It doesn't have to be straight forward, cohesive or traditional, a narrative can be purely thematic like Koyaanisqatsi. But the movies you're listing Jo Shishido's Cheeks, don't really apply to Lady Vengeance. It wasn't trying to be experimental or push some alternative form of story telling. It was extremely straight forward, traditional and Hollywood in its narrative, and that narrative that was crap. As I said, you can have style eclipse substance and the movie will not suffer because of it. You can't have an arguably awful narrative, with equally awful characters, and not expect the overall package to suffer. There's a difference between not having a narrative, or having an non traditional narrative, and simply having an awful one.

harSon nailed it.

and you know this is the only time me, har, and HD have ever agreed on something.


EDIT: HarSon, Song Kang-ho plays a perfect creep in a few movies.

[harSon]

We don't talk about post Masculin Féminin Godard in here. and you know this is the only time me, har, and HD have ever agreed on something. EDIT: HarSon, Song Kang-ho plays a perfect creep in a few movies.

I don't know. There's something about persistently hitting on a woman who is emotionally broken and suicidal from the death of her young child, that is beyond creepy hahaha

[Jo Shishido's Cheeks]

But the movies you're listing Jo Shishido's Cheeks, don't really apply to Lady Vengeance. It wasn't trying to be experimental or push some alternative form of story telling. It was extremely straight forward, traditional and Hollywood in its narrative, and that narrative that was crap.

But that suggests there's nothing else to take from Lady Vengeance or in fact anything with a straight forward, traditional narrative other than what it's Hollywood narrative presents on the surface.
What if a film with an atrocious narrative still manages to invoke meaning or depth via elements other than it's story?
What if something like Vengeance communicates depth or meaning via it's use of colour, atmosphere, score or other element not directly tied into the narrative?
Is this redundant because it wasn't directly what the story was aiming for?
Or can something present deeper meaning through means other than its story?
If so (which we obviously know is the case) then it does a dis-service to film itself to write a piece off because it didn't have a 'good' story, no matter how straight forward this story may have been presented.

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

We may have to agree to disagree, I certainly don't see a "well-done narrative" in work by Kenneth Anger, Maya Deren, Andy Warhol, Jean-Luc Godard and again Chris Marker, but I do see substantial amounts of depth, meaning and feeling. If somebody does need a nice Hollywood style story to decipher any sort of theme, meaning or depth in a work then more fool them frankly.

Again, you're pegging "narrative" into a very narrow hole. It can be plot- or character-driven, sure, but it can also be anchored by a philosophical, political, or thematic conceit, or crystallize a moment, etc. As for your suggestions - I'm not familiar enough with the work of most of those artists to comment (though at least a few of Deren's films appear to be on Youtube, so I'll check them out), but I know that I think Godard is a mostly mediocre artist precisely because his understanding of narrative is so half-baked.

Edit: How can a color have depth, except via its juxtaposition against a narrative or idea? What does an atmosphere or a good score matter if the story that they're supporting doesn't live up to them? It's all well and good to call attention to a movie's strengths, but it also has to work as an organized whole. And by and large, I think that it's fair to say that human cognition is largely narrative in structure, given how deeply storytelling and language seemed to be ingrained in us. Again, this DOES NOT MEAN a plot as much as it means a particular way of structuring whatever it is that the film is communicating in such a way that it's mutually intelligible between artist and percipient.

[HiResDes]

Again, you're pegging "narrative" into a very narrow hole. It can be plot- or character-driven, sure, but it can also be anchored by a philosophical, political, or thematic conceit, or crystallize a moment, etc. As for your suggestions - I'm not familiar enough with the work of most of those artists to comment (though at least a few of Deren's films appear to be on Youtube, so I'll check them out), but I know that I think Godard is a mostly mediocre artist precisely because his understanding of narrative is so half-baked.

French New Wave doesn't give two fucks about narrative substance, and it's all the better for it. Sure, maybe François Truffaut had more to say, but stylistically Godard's films at their best contained a purer youthful and rebellious vivacity.

[ThisWreckage]

The story (you know the fucking backbone) is fucking shit and the movie is filled with bad acting from everyone but the lead. Also, the editing is pretty fucking basic. Nothing special going on with cinematography either. I really find Park to be pedestrian. He's never done anything as interesting as Kim Jee-woon has done (like the cab scene in I Saw the Devil).

It depends on the person. I've said this before, but I value mood over everything when it comes to film. There are films like Eraserhead that have a nearly incomprehensible story to it, but that's not why I love the film. I think Park Chan Wook's films are sleek and he's pretty effective at building a certain mood. Good enough for me.

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

French New Wave doesn't give two fucks about narrative substance, and it's all the better for it. Sure, maybe François Truffaut had more to say, but stylistically Godard's films at their best contained a purer youthful rebellious vivacity.

What do I care what they "give two fucks about"? I'm approaching the movies from 5 decades later, with the knowledge that many works of that time period have, in fact, held up. The very fact that Godard put more emphasis on image and on "youthful rebellious vivacity" and not anything substantive is why he was so mediocre as an artist.

[HiResDes]

You're no fun.

[TheKaeptain]

I don't know. There's something about persistently hitting on a woman who is emotionally broken and suicidal from the death of her young child, that is beyond creepy hahaha

He's so good at it though. He also plays a wonderful douche-bag.

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

You're no fun.

I'm plenty of fun! But I fail to see what was "fun" about the French New Wave, save that they did different kinds of things with cinematography and editing (which have been used to greater effect in subsequent decades). Every time I watch one of the movies, I always sense that I'm just getting all the pretentiousness of stereotypical European art without either the intelligent humor of a Vonnegut or Twain or the mindless fun that Hollywood has always excelled in.

[Jo Shishido's Cheeks]

How can a color have depth, except via its juxtaposition against a narrative or idea? What does an atmosphere or a good score matter if the story that they're supporting doesn't live up to them? It's all well and good to call attention to a movie's strengths, but it also has to work as an organized whole. And by and large, I think that it's fair to say that human cognition is largely narrative in structure, given how deeply storytelling and language seemed to be ingrained in us. Again, this DOES NOT MEAN a plot as much as it means a particular way of structuring whatever it is that the film is communicating in such a way that it's mutually intelligible between artist and percipient.

But you seem to be saying that individual elements of a film aren't able to communicate meaning on their own accord and can only do so if working in tandem with a films narrative which is entirely incorrect.
An atmosphere or good score matter precisely because they can communicate to an audience irrespective of narrative, Eraserhead does so for example as ThisWreckage points out.
There's a whole lot more to take out of a film than a good story as you fully well know already.