BackwardsSuggestions
Member
Scullibundo said:
Yeah, I have the attention span of a 2 year old.
Right now I'm watching Thor and I skipped the first 10 minutes and am quite enjoying it still.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Movies You've Seen Recently: Return of the Revenge of the Curse of the...
- Thread starter Cosmic Bus
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, I have the attention span of a 2 year old.
Right now I'm watching Thor and I skipped the first 10 minutes and am quite enjoying it still.
AlternativeUlster said:
My friend used to always pause the movie halfway through for a smoke break, but that's just because he smokes cigarettes not anything to do with what he's seeing onscreen.
BackwardsSuggestions said:
Dude, don't do this. Watch something else. Or don't watch anything if you can't watch it in its entirety.
Agreed. That Pauline Kael piece was embarrassing, I'm glad Schneider called it out. Ebert is a god tier critic to be sure, but that also makes his missteps that much harder to stomach. Reading his terrible review of ACO again reminds me of his review of Blue Velvet. It sucks to see someone so insightful and intelligent completely miss the point of a film and focus on something which rubbed him the wrong way emotionally for whatever reason.Meliorism said:
brianjones
Member
AlternativeUlster said:
you might die if you watched mad men
AlternativeUlster
Absolutely pathetic part deux
Expendable. said:
Or like when you see Good Will Hunting and you pick up a bunch of books by Richard P. Feynman and at 16 you ask yourself, what the fuck I am going to do with these? Or after watching V for Vendetta, you want to throw a gasoline can in the street and light it and scream "Viva revolution" even though you have no idea why there should be a revolution and that just throwing a gasoline can won't cause anything to your non cause revolution.
brianjones said:
I've almost gone through a pack during a stint while watching 2 French New Wave films together.
Meliorism said:
he doesn't respond to this in any meaningful way, and i think it's totally key, kubrick after 2001 forgets what made that movie great and focuses on empty parades of depth. her other point about the sexlessness of his work i think is my problem across all his films including the ones i like and i think it something that becomes hard to defend much like hughes' asexual poetry about revolution
last rewatch for the eve:
a face of another *** the final teshigahara i'll be rewtaching this time around - i feel like it's most successful in merging the surreal and the modern and the post modern in compelling and visually stunning ways - but the story lacks the depth and understanding of pitfall and woman in the dunes. the second story that runs in parallell is totally wasted though its scenes in abstract are really beautiful and terrifying.
for fun altman features ranked (the first 20 or so are recommended)
1. nashville
2. short cuts
3. godsford park
4. mccabe and mrs. miller
5. images
6. long goodbye
7. 3 women
8. the player
9. mash
10. thieves like us
11. california split
12. brewester mccloud
13. streamers
14. secret honor
15. the company
16. cookie's fortune
17. a perfect couple
18. kansas city
19. quintet
20. buffalo bill and the indians...
21. gingerbread man
22. pret a porter
23. come back to the five and dime jimmy dean
24. a prairie home companion
25. fool for love
26. a wedding
27. vincent and theo
28. health
29. popeye
30. oc and stiggs
31. dr. t and the women
32. beyond therapy
haven't seen: countdown/cold in the park/the delinquents
1. nashville
2. short cuts
3. godsford park
4. mccabe and mrs. miller
5. images
6. long goodbye
7. 3 women
8. the player
9. mash
10. thieves like us
11. california split
12. brewester mccloud
13. streamers
14. secret honor
15. the company
16. cookie's fortune
17. a perfect couple
18. kansas city
19. quintet
20. buffalo bill and the indians...
21. gingerbread man
22. pret a porter
23. come back to the five and dime jimmy dean
24. a prairie home companion
25. fool for love
26. a wedding
27. vincent and theo
28. health
29. popeye
30. oc and stiggs
31. dr. t and the women
32. beyond therapy
haven't seen: countdown/cold in the park/the delinquents
Expendable.
Member
swoon said:
What a slacker.
Just kidding, I'm ashamed to say I've only seen Buffalo Bill a few years ago and at the time I hated it. Been meaning to give him another chance soon.
-Pyromaniac-
Member
I watched Thor last night, I knew I'd find it enjoyable but I actually liked it a whole lot and am now anticipating the sequel in 2013. I like how they could have made it some obnoxious epic given the lore but it was pretty simple, and made better because of it.
I want Jane to find him 
ThisWreckage
Banned
Satyamdas said:
I really didn't understand that comment either. It's a legitimate point, but I don't think it takes anything away from the man's films. It's not like his films degrade or suffer from not having an abundance of well developed female characters.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
Watched Panic Room.
It was alright, but wtf at that ending.
It was alright, but wtf at that ending.
icarus-daedelus said:&c
Although Schneider's tossed off comment about how dense Kael is is pretty much response enough. It's all over the paragraph you quoted. She appears to be entirely missing the point and then making up one of her own which to attack. I will admit to bias as I think Pauline Kael was generally full of shit and not a particularly good film critic, tho
oh her writing isn't dense outside of the little nell reference maybe. she's directly talking about how the character lacks depth, it's pretty absurd to think she doesn't understand postmodernism. she nail kubrick's childish and shallow world view to the wall and calls it for what it is. and by doing so explains y'know why the book was so great, because it had depth and wasn't made for art-film 101 surveyors.
they do, but they don't right? like he has well developed female characters in at least one of his films , i just hoped someone would make a case for wendy or fay or something rather than crying oh PC.
Danne-Danger
Member
I will never see that movie, but now I want to know how it ends!Ether_Snake said:
ThisWreckage
Banned
swoon said:
There's no case to be made because I don't view those female characters as being well developed. I agree with you. I'm just saying that your point really doesn't detract from his films. Kubrick is known for his examinations of the male mind. It's no wonder that he wanted to adapt Perfume to the screen or do a film on Napoleon because those projects would have fit right in with the rest of his filmography. It could be something as simple as maybe he simply couldn't write female characters.
Warm Machine
Member
WTF is this Tony Scott is a hack BS?
The man essentially invented the Bruckheimer slick and stylish look with Top Gun and then polished it with Days of Thunder. All the other directors that Bruckheimer hires will always be in the shadow of Tony Scott.
The Last Boy Scout is the ultimate dirty shirt Bruce Willis film and a perfect product of filmmaking of the wise cracking buddy film Hollywood era. Crimson Tide is a damn good movie under any circumstance, as is Spy Game, and Man on Fire. Revenge is as unflinching gritty tale of Mexican dust blown violence and that is why Tarantino loves it so much.
Yeah, Beverly Hills Cop 2, The Fan, and Domino are his weakest films. Domino especially because the editorial and post production style doesn't do anything to help the movie like it does Man on Fire where it is used to portray Creasy's state of mind.
The guy is liked by auteurs like David Fincher for gods sake and he made a vampire movie with David Bowie that features a prolonged lesbian scene in the middle!
Most action and chase films pre Tony Scott look like they are filmed on crappy sound stages with junky lighting, and cheap rear projection. Tony put beyond A level production values, beautiful photography, and decent actors behind otherwise flat material to elevate it to a higher level. Just watch Iron Eagle and then follow it with Top Gun if you want to see the difference. Just the red sunset soaked opening credit sequence of Top Gun has better lensing than all of Iron Eagle.
The man essentially invented the Bruckheimer slick and stylish look with Top Gun and then polished it with Days of Thunder. All the other directors that Bruckheimer hires will always be in the shadow of Tony Scott.
The Last Boy Scout is the ultimate dirty shirt Bruce Willis film and a perfect product of filmmaking of the wise cracking buddy film Hollywood era. Crimson Tide is a damn good movie under any circumstance, as is Spy Game, and Man on Fire. Revenge is as unflinching gritty tale of Mexican dust blown violence and that is why Tarantino loves it so much.
Yeah, Beverly Hills Cop 2, The Fan, and Domino are his weakest films. Domino especially because the editorial and post production style doesn't do anything to help the movie like it does Man on Fire where it is used to portray Creasy's state of mind.
The guy is liked by auteurs like David Fincher for gods sake and he made a vampire movie with David Bowie that features a prolonged lesbian scene in the middle!
Most action and chase films pre Tony Scott look like they are filmed on crappy sound stages with junky lighting, and cheap rear projection. Tony put beyond A level production values, beautiful photography, and decent actors behind otherwise flat material to elevate it to a higher level. Just watch Iron Eagle and then follow it with Top Gun if you want to see the difference. Just the red sunset soaked opening credit sequence of Top Gun has better lensing than all of Iron Eagle.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
Danne-Danger said:
The ending is weird because it makes you wonder if the dad is dead, and yet he wasn't important to the story. It's also weird because it does some stupid zoom on Jodie Foster's face when Whitaker gets arrested, as if something was going to happen. But nothing happens. And then it just ends.
Phoenician_Viking
Banned
I just re-watched Apocalypto. Such an amazing movie, and i really liked the acting.
today i watched Fast Five. I liked it, 3rd in the series for me. behind the original and 2009 one. also watched some garbage lol. Gator Bait. wooeee what a stinker. I'm not sure exactly what i was thinking i was in for but it failed at really gaining my attention and had little redeemable parts
One could just as easily ask where are the strong, well developed black characters in any Kubrick film, or where is the realistic portrayal of a loving familial relationship? Why does this omission matter, if his films inarguably remain master class expositions on human nature, male psyche, and societal issues? Would you prefer he shoehorn in a Katherine Hepburn or Sarah Connor to the detriment of his films' quality and dilution of their messages? And for what reason? So your sensibilities can be pandered to?swoon said:
His films were not hurt by the omission of strong women, but your comment seems to imply that in doing so he has failed to meet the standard to which a progressive, enlightened director should aspire. And as such he has committed a seriously PC faux pas. If this is *not* what you are insinuating, then again I ask, what is the reason to bring up the lack of strong female characters in his work?
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
I honestly don't think that there are many women in any film as interesting as Nicole Kidman is in parts of Eyes Wide Shut.
Edit: And there's simply no way that Kubrick can be said to have a childish and shallow world-view. I'd say that he had more vision and depth than pretty much any other director that I can think of, and I'd also argue that his view of man is one of the most realistic and grounded. You're literally deliberately misreading his films to say something of that nature. If anything, it's that level of depth that is the biggest deterring factor for most people in connecting with his films, most describing them as all mind and no emotion (which I think is crazy, but whatever. In addition, I think that Schneider describes quite well why A Clockwork Orange DOES work as a movie and why Kael's review of it is full of shit. Kael was a dart-tossing critic; she was right sometimes but off her rocker other times. The same could be said for most critics, but the difference is that even in their off moments, people like Siskel and Ebert could be seen to have an understanding of what makes films truly work on a deeper level, whereas I feel like Kael really just had her own biases and no real willingness to look beyond them. Just look at her now-infamous reviews of films like A Clockwork Orange and Days of Heaven and compare them to her very famous review of Last Tango in Paris where she fellates that movie far beyond it could really deserve.
Edit: And there's simply no way that Kubrick can be said to have a childish and shallow world-view. I'd say that he had more vision and depth than pretty much any other director that I can think of, and I'd also argue that his view of man is one of the most realistic and grounded. You're literally deliberately misreading his films to say something of that nature. If anything, it's that level of depth that is the biggest deterring factor for most people in connecting with his films, most describing them as all mind and no emotion (which I think is crazy, but whatever. In addition, I think that Schneider describes quite well why A Clockwork Orange DOES work as a movie and why Kael's review of it is full of shit. Kael was a dart-tossing critic; she was right sometimes but off her rocker other times. The same could be said for most critics, but the difference is that even in their off moments, people like Siskel and Ebert could be seen to have an understanding of what makes films truly work on a deeper level, whereas I feel like Kael really just had her own biases and no real willingness to look beyond them. Just look at her now-infamous reviews of films like A Clockwork Orange and Days of Heaven and compare them to her very famous review of Last Tango in Paris where she fellates that movie far beyond it could really deserve.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
icarus-daedelus said:
Oh, you'll have a few significant splits from him from what I recall of your ratings (Mishima comes to mind...), but I do think that he has one of the most consistently applied critical frameworks that I've seen, even if you find it disagreeable.
Misanthropy
Member
Where can I find more of Schneider's reviews?
wormstrangler
Banned
Watched Taxi Driver for the first time a couple of nights ago. I can see why it's a classic but it didn't do a whole lot for me. I'll give it another chance though because I was tired when watching it.
Also watched Collateral for the nth time. It was a taxi movie night. Love this movie.
And just finished watching Fast Five. Suspend your disbelief and this movie is some of the best action you'll see. The safe-chase is spectacular.
Also watched Collateral for the nth time. It was a taxi movie night. Love this movie.
And just finished watching Fast Five. Suspend your disbelief and this movie is some of the best action you'll see. The safe-chase is spectacular.
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
Serpico- meh, barely held my interest. The whole thing was kind of paint-by-numbers and nothing really made it stand out. Even young Pacino, who's early acting is usually great, seems to be channeling old Pacino here. Thematically, too, I feel like Lumet made similar points in other films that were all-around better. Out of the Sidney Lumet films that I've seen, this was my least favorite (others being 12 angry Men, Dog Day Afternoon, and Network)
Solaris- So good. I really like the way that Tarkovsky's long takes seem to hypnotize me. I never get a sense of "Ok, I get it. Next shot please" that I do with some other movies that use long takes. I was most intrigued by the film when he first boards the ship and is seeing things. The sense of paranoia and terror i was feeling was unmatched by any other film I've seen. However, once it gets into philosophical space romance mode it was still exquisite and the ending only further complicated things. Great stuff. What Tarkovsky would gaf recommend next?
Make Way for Tomorrow- saddest movie I've ever seen. More so than grave of the fireflies and marley & me, I think. This was a major inspiration for Ozu's "Tokyo Story".
Lolita- the censorship his movie encountered is pretty apparent. It was still very good and I found it to be pretty hilarious at times, but I think it could have been better if kubrik really got to have his way with the material.
Kill Bill vol. 2- I thought that vol. 1 was better right up until uma thurman's character sees get daughter. That was a really nice moment. I would say they're about equal now.
Persona- probably one of the most experimental films I've ever seen, but still extremely satisfying. It posed a lot of interesting questions about identity and, if I'm reading it correctly, the "illusion" of truth in film. Not something that I would make some popcorn for and watch with friends, but I thought it was pretty great. I think Wild Strawberries is still my favorite Bergman though.
Solaris- So good. I really like the way that Tarkovsky's long takes seem to hypnotize me. I never get a sense of "Ok, I get it. Next shot please" that I do with some other movies that use long takes. I was most intrigued by the film when he first boards the ship and is seeing things. The sense of paranoia and terror i was feeling was unmatched by any other film I've seen. However, once it gets into philosophical space romance mode it was still exquisite and the ending only further complicated things. Great stuff. What Tarkovsky would gaf recommend next?
Make Way for Tomorrow- saddest movie I've ever seen. More so than grave of the fireflies and marley & me, I think. This was a major inspiration for Ozu's "Tokyo Story".
Lolita- the censorship his movie encountered is pretty apparent. It was still very good and I found it to be pretty hilarious at times, but I think it could have been better if kubrik really got to have his way with the material.
Kill Bill vol. 2- I thought that vol. 1 was better right up until uma thurman's character sees get daughter. That was a really nice moment. I would say they're about equal now.
Persona- probably one of the most experimental films I've ever seen, but still extremely satisfying. It posed a lot of interesting questions about identity and, if I'm reading it correctly, the "illusion" of truth in film. Not something that I would make some popcorn for and watch with friends, but I thought it was pretty great. I think Wild Strawberries is still my favorite Bergman though.
I watched Forbidden Lie$ tonight; it's a 2007 Australian documentary about the controversy surrounding the book "Forbidden Love" (Honour Lost in the US). The book was supposed to be the author's recounting of the murder of her childhood friend Dalia, an honor killing resulting from the young Muslim woman dating a Christian man, and how Jordan's laws are designed to permit male family members performing honor killings with minimal consequences.
Only, a year after release, it becomes obvious that a lot of facts in the book are fabrications, and it becomes doubtful that Dalia ever even existed. Facts about the author are revealed, and it gets even less believable, but throughout the author maintains the book was based on reality.
Really interesting watch; it ultimately makes the whole Million Tiny Pieces thing seem pretty tame in comparison.
Only, a year after release, it becomes obvious that a lot of facts in the book are fabrications, and it becomes doubtful that Dalia ever even existed. Facts about the author are revealed, and it gets even less believable, but throughout the author maintains the book was based on reality.
Really interesting watch; it ultimately makes the whole Million Tiny Pieces thing seem pretty tame in comparison.
Jo Shishido's Cheeks
Member
Ah Lolita. The film is like a beautiful woman who is madly in love with me, but she has smelly feet. And I really hate smelly feet. Why oh why oh why did Kubrick use a framing device!? This ruined my enjoyment of the film on first watch (at which point I had no prior knowledge of the book) and continues to do so today. I sincerely think it would be a superior film if it were more conventional and the ending actually appeared at the end rather than the beginning. It's something that will bug me until the end of (my) time no doubt...OrangeGrayBlue said:
Anyway:
The Straight Story
"Hey Alvin, what's the worst part about being old?"
"Well, the worst part about being old is remembering when you were young."
It seemed pretty surreal to be going into a Lynch film which was anchored with 'Walt Disney Presents' from the get go and in every sense this is like a slightly grown up Disney film, a saccharine, melodramatic, 'life-affirming' tale of an old mans redemptive journey.
I'm thankful for Lynch being at the helm however as amongst the usual tropes of the determined underdog, surmounting impossible odds and the kindness of strangers the film had a bite to it and was laden with a dark undercurrent, sometimes subtlety and elegantly brought to the forefront and at other times disappointingly less than so.
On top of it's zany premise of a 73-year-old man travelling 300+ miles on a lawnmower to reunite with his brother, the film also touches on mortality, alienation, faith, unwanted pregnancy, suspected child abuse and the haunting visions and effects of the war on veterans. It's the weaving in and out of these aspects that turn a commodity full of comic potential into something sensitive and rather touching, which add a great deal of weight to lines such as the one quoted above, which take them and the film itself from being slightly cheesy into something rather touching.
The ending is perfect also and the fact this is based on a true story goes beyond being a gimmick to positively enhancing the proceedings.
John Dunbar
correct about everything
Snowman Prophet of Doom said:
you mean the parts where she isn't wearing any clothes, ruh-roh?
But yeah, it's one of my favourite films and performances.
brianjones
Member
crash (1996)
In case you aren't aware, he is talking about David Cronenberg's Crash from 1996, not the steaming pile of shit from 2004. Cronenberg's Crash is about a guy who gets disfigured in a car accident, and then starts to become obsessed with fucking other car crash survivors. Shit is weird and sick even for Cronenberg, and the Homer.gif is a perfect response to it. I still dug it, just nowhere near as much as his better works like Videodrome, eXistenz, and Naked Lunch (which is so weird it makes Crash look like Mary Poppins).
I thought it was funny that someone earlier on (maybe the same poster?) was commenting early on about how sexy it was. Crash is probably the least sexy film about sex that I can think of. Hardly a bad thing at all (and it's the proper perspective, IMO), but it's still amusing that someone would get the opposite impression.
brianjones
Member
i couldnt find anything to like about it
it was a quirky sex fetish idea stretched out for 2 hours.. it went nowhere
i was lol'ing hard when he was humping the girls scarred leg and also when hes fucking that blonde chick and shes talking dirty to him about having anal sex with that other dude
would have been super awkward to watch in a theatre lol
it was a quirky sex fetish idea stretched out for 2 hours.. it went nowhere
i was lol'ing hard when he was humping the girls scarred leg and also when hes fucking that blonde chick and shes talking dirty to him about having anal sex with that other dude
would have been super awkward to watch in a theatre lol
Snowman Prophet of Doom said:
days of heaven is my second favorite movie ever, but i don't think her review is bad - she's right on about gere - but at some point criticism isn't just about if the movie is good or bad. who cares if you don't agree with the outcome. and last tango in paris is that good.
anyway, you can scream this aco has depth and meaning, but saying that's why people connect to aco because of the depth is absurd and kinda proves kael's point. while i think kael focuses too much on the book (which is really wonderful) she's is really correct with her comparisons to bunuel's work and really shows the difference between a master and a director who directed one masterpiece.
the childish stuff comes from how he shows juxtaposes those penis jokes everywhere, like all the dumb and obscure names in dr.strangelove and how aco is completely asexual.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
swoon said:
Her review of Days of Heaven is rather poor and shows a lack of understanding of the film. And no, Last Tango in Paris is not that good; it's an alright movie, like other Bertolucci movies that I've seen. And criticism HAS to be, on some level, if not about good and bad then at LEAST about whether or not a person shows a depth of understanding of what makes a film work or not work. I've read a number of Kael reviews, and I've never seen that from her.
Honestly, if you think Kubrick has only one masterpiece, then I think we probably have almost nothing to talk about, ever, man. I'm actually pretty sure that Kubrick is the most non-pareil director in the history of cinema, and even if you disagree with THAT admittedly probably hyperbolic conceit, I think that it's utterly wrong - not just a difference of opinion, but flat out wrong- to say that the man has a childish or immature outlook on the world or on art. At least, such is not demonstrable by any of his films. Certainly, Kael doesn't prove that in her ACO review; her 'point' is a silly one since she doesn't seem to understand Kubrick's film all that well in the first place and just wants to show off that she really liked the novel, and she calls him out for pandering that is simply not so. And honestly, I don't think that she proves her point about why she thinks the book is better all that well; considering that she seems to just be making things up about Kubrick's film, I don't feel like I can take seriously her interpretation/enjoyment of the Burgess novel.
A penis joke is not childish because it's a penis joke. While Kubrick did have an enjoyment of phallic humor, he used it in a quite sophisticated way most of the time to comment on masculinity, sexuality, societal ideas about sex, etc.
Edit: I'll defend Wendy. There's nothing particularly wrong with or about her character except for the fact that some people seem to hate Shelley Duvall in that role; but, in terms of writing, it's a good portrayal of an apparently emotionally needy enabler, somebody who obviously fears Jack's alcoholism but fears more the idea of being alone. She may not be a strong female character in the Lady Macbeth sense, but she is certainly a realistic one. And to say that Kubrick didn't have anything of value to say outside of 2001 is patently ridiculous.
TheKaeptain
Banned
The dick jokes are probably the most important thing he says about the cold war and the men of the 60's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaS2bRGS86c&t=3m26sCaptYamato said:
TheKaeptain
Banned
UrbanRats said:
Amazing George Carlin was truly the greatest stand-up comedian of all time.
eternaLightness
Member
I watched Fallen the other night. It's a pretty good thriller I've seen a couple of times now and not many people know about it.
TheKaeptain
Banned
Sword Of Doom ****
Guns & Talks ***
Sleuth ****
Guns & Talks ***
Sleuth ****
TheKaeptain
Banned
UrbanRats said:
He is probably third right now. His joke about the mixed emotions you get when you have a child is 100% the realest shit I have ever heard.
Count Dookkake
Member
This was supposed to happen earlier this year, but it looks like it is finally happening: a screening of SOCIETY in Austin. I think I can pick any week after October. If there are any GAFers that want to come see it, let's try to pick a week that works for as many as possible.
- Status