RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
2005
Nov 8, 2006 21:00:51 GMT
Post by RNL on Nov 8, 2006 21:00:51 GMT
From the Mendes thread, on Jarhead: I thought it was very good. Mendes abandoned storyboards for it, and it shows, because it's visually gorgeous, organic and Malick-esque. I loved the march into surreality toward the end, and the moment with the horse in the oil was incredible. Actually, it's full of brilliant little scenes.
My only points of contention, really, are that the early bootcamp scenes feel like limp impersonations of Full Metal Jacket, the drill sergeant's put-downs are forced and awkward. And I could've done without seeing their return home, which didn't offer much.
Discharging their weapons into the sky should've been the last scene, with maybe a very brief coda - but I'm all for abrupt endings. Showing their return, showing his reunion with his girlfriend (situation already implied), showing all the marines back in their civilian jobs, showing [SPOILER]-Troy's funeral, or having him die at all-[/SPOILER] seemed completely pointless and ineffective to me.
I'm all for hermetic worlds, too. So isolating the film to the boot camp and the desert is better, I think, than allowing it to spill over briefly into hometowns and greater communities for the simple sake of securing loose ends (it wasn't even plot-driven to begin with).
|
|
Boz
Published writer
Posts: 1,451
|
2005
Nov 8, 2006 21:05:14 GMT
Post by Boz on Nov 8, 2006 21:05:14 GMT
Yeah I was just reading the original. I commented there.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
2005
Nov 9, 2006 2:14:33 GMT
Post by Capo on Nov 9, 2006 2:14:33 GMT
I'll reply to the parts of your post, Mista, which will not be covered in my own elaborations. I was personally dissappointed with A History of Violence. While I've never seen any other Cronenberg's, his reputation kind of preceded him and I expected great things. In the end it came off as average, credible only for Cronenberg's willingness to inject reality with tinges of the distubring and abstract, something that other films of its kind (crime-fiction) weren't quite venturing into. I don't know, I'll have to go back, find my proview, and perhaps reconsider it. When we first saw A History of Violence last year, I rated it higher than Wet Dog did. It was, other than The Dead Zone, my only Cronenberg film. Ironically, and contrary to Wet Dog's claim that it's better the more you're into Cronenberg, I've notched it down to two stars since I discovered Videdrome, The Fly and Spider. It's a great film, which I'd like to watch again, but for now, it isn't "essential" by any means. Of those, I've only seen Jarhead. My proview for it reads: 'An effective succession of non-events and anti-climaxes, it is marred by its own failure to avoid--or decision to acknowledge--war movie clichés; if the message is that these soldiers are just kids, why do they always have to be noisy retards? References to other like-minded war movies save it from being lost, but as Gyllenhal says at one point, "All wars are different; all wars are the same." A reference, perhaps, to the film itself.' It's got some fantastic moments, energetic acting, and I'd like to see it again. I love Last Days, and it was for some time my favourite film of 2005. But when I saw it again on DVD, I discovered many problems with it. The 4:3 ratio doesn't work quite as well on the small screen. And it's not as visually innovative as Gerry or narratively ambitious as Elephant, and seems, in general, to further Van Sant's experimental form very little - there seems to be a contentment in his style. I think it's a great film with moments likely to linger, and I was actually intending on revisiting it soon.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
2005
Nov 9, 2006 4:20:34 GMT
Post by Capo on Nov 9, 2006 4:20:34 GMT
I hope people get out of these what I put into them... The New World explores the contrast between two civilisations, one free and content at its own introversion, the other curious and explorative, and both primitive in their own way, to fantastic effect. It's an ambitious extension of themes covered in his other three features; its images and sounds are transcendent and encompassing respectively; it never really settles for an established narrative arc, and what story there is sort of comes and goes, recycling and hovering upon its own themes; Malick's unique editing style suggests a never-settling atmosphere, a narrative drive which is in a constant state of exposition. Basically, his films are made for, and should be seen on, not only film, but the big screen. I saw Caché for the second time round, again on the big screen, two nights ago, and got more out of it. First time round, it took me a day or two to deem it recommendable, and about three months to realise I needed, desperately and with as much reasoning as a moth might have towards a neon light, to see it again. It's a slow, riveting, austere work all about cinematography. There's no music at all save for the introduction of a TV show, which we're watching inside a film. It's underlit, for the most part, and very anonymous-looking. And it has certainly provoked me into an interest of what, visually-speaking as well as narratively-speaking, I do, or should, expect from Cinema. Wolf Creek is an aesthetically gorgeous film, stylistically in the vein of The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974). Wet Dog, when he first seen it (and recommended it enthusiastically; I wouldn't have seen it without him) noted, early on, two primary characters writing and sending postcards back home. Throughout thereafter, we see various shots, of a junction on a deserted Outback road, of a sunset, of Wolf Creek (a crater) itself, but it's a kind of Holiday from Hell. Confident and effective, and with very naturalistic acting, the first half is a lesson in how to absorb and ultimately wrong-foot your audience, the second is a terrifically sustained gore-fest, which builds up expectations like other horror films, but isn't afraid to follow through with them. I need to see Good Night, and Good Luck. again. It's incredibly succinct and pacey, and I remember sitting there for ninety minutes utterly absorbed by its striking cinematography and wonderful pull-focus tricks... David Strathairn being filmed, then we'd see that coverage inside of another frame, on a TV set, in the background - a complex structure of multi-angle coverage; a kind of shot/reverse shot without having to cut. I love that kind of stuff. Dark Horse is extremely recommended to fans of Jarmusch. It's episodic (chapter titles and all) and driven by a character whose "loser" attributes are charming, especially when complimented by Nicolas Bro's supporting performance as a clumsy best friend. Shot mostly in grainy black-and-white with flashes of colour, it sort of meanders around, making you laugh and smile, and then bang!, out of nowhere, there lies an emotional core. Fantastic soundtrack, too, from Slowblow. Speaking of Jarmusch, I must declare I have trouble with your claim that Broken Flowers' praise is undeserved because of the "slightly different way the respected director treated it". With that notion, you'd have to also denounce Jarhead too, which isn't all that original either, but finds merit in its fresh aesthetic approach. I haven't seen much from Jarmusch, and to be honest I can't find any adjectives which lend justice or reason for my liking his work... but on the flip side, whenever people knock his work or style, they also seem at a loss for words. or lack conviction, as to why. Sign of an original director, to me. I didn't find King Kong long at all; it's constantly lovely to look at, not only as regards the camera movement Wet Dog speaks of so fondly, but the CGI world it captures. It's the kind of remake I like - a passionate homage to and aesthetic transcendence of the original; it is also an exhilirating piece of filmmaking, and a convincing portrayal of both the human condition, found in the beast with a heart in a cold-blooded, blood-thirsty society, and artistic principle, found in Jack Black's Herzogian monster of a director, determined to make money from extraordinary images, at anything and anyone's expense. Michael Winterbottom is an interesting director because he is so prolific but not all of his films are critically or financially successful; how he continues to acquire funding for projects is beyond me. Whatever, Tristram Shandy is a masterpiece of intertextuality. It's exceedingly clever, self-reflexive, and very exciting to watch, with its layers-upon-layers of 'reality' interweaving with one another. We've got Steve Coogan playing himself as somebody else playing a fictional character in a filmic adaptation of a novel in which his character, the narrator, was never actually born. But it's much more accessible than that sentence makes it out to be. I went into Manderlay having read Wet Dog's critique, that he was in accordance with the general consensus, that the film was good, but nowhere near as good as Dogville. I came out with my expectations exceeded. It's completely independent from its predecessor, which is why von Trier's decision to put the trilogy on hold doesn't bother me - so long as he goes back to it, of course. The novelty of the minimalistic sets of Dogville has worn off, but von Trier is still able to accumulate an emotional and dramatic undercurrent as the film goes on. America is still his easy target, but it's full of effortless shots and edits which evoke the rarest of emotions, so as to be irresistible, to me. It is at its best when confronting the complexities of its characters, such as when Grace (a white woman) masturbates over the black men we can see but she can only desire (because, if you didn't already know, the stage sets have 'invisible' walls); or when she finally gives into her sexual urges and has sex with the leading black man in town, finding it as painful as it is pleasurable. Unknown White Male should be seen once, by everybody. Whether it rewards multiple viewings is another question, and one I cannot answer, since I've only seen it once, but it is of note because of its ludicrous premise. Supposedly a documentary, it follows Douglas Bruce, a middle-class Briton who woke up one morning in Long Island having lost his memory completely. I attended a premiere screening of it with a Q&A session with director Rupert Murray (Bruce's friend), in which he got lambasted by two guys because the movie was so contrived and fake. I found myself in a heated debate with them, and pleaded that it didn't really matter; it's an interesting character study anyway, with some uplifting moments. Contrived? Perhaps, but all the better for it, I'd say.
Come on people, get voting.
|
|
Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
2005
Nov 9, 2006 4:35:27 GMT
Post by Omar on Nov 9, 2006 4:35:27 GMT
1. Broken Flowers (Jim Jarmusch) 2. A History of Violence (David Cronenberg) 3. Syriana (Stephen Gaghan) 4. The New World (Terrence Malick) 5. Match Point (Woody Allen) 6. Winter Solstice (Josh Sternfeld) 7. Paradise Now (Hany Abu-Assad) 8. Capote (Bennett Miller) 9. Last Days (Gus Van Sant) 10. Crash (Paul Haggis)
I complained in another thread that 2006 wasn't shaping up to be a good year for films, but I guess 2005 wasn't either, in my opinion.
There are so many films from last year that I need to re-watch, especially "Good Night, and Good Luck" and "The Squid and the Whale".
|
|
jrod
Ghost writer
Posts: 970
|
2005
Nov 9, 2006 6:46:49 GMT
Post by jrod on Nov 9, 2006 6:46:49 GMT
Crash is 2004, no?
1. Match Point 2. Batman Begins 3. Sin City 4. Thank you for Smoking (IMDb has it as 2005 I checked) 5. King Kong 6. Syriana 7. History of Violence 8. Murderball 9. Capote 10. Brokeback Mountain
|
|
Boz
Published writer
Posts: 1,451
|
2005
Nov 9, 2006 11:46:30 GMT
Post by Boz on Nov 9, 2006 11:46:30 GMT
Malick's unique editing style suggests a never-settling atmosphere, a narrative drive which is in a constant state of exposition. What might that be? Speaking of Jarmusch, I must declare I have trouble with your claim that Broken Flowers' praise is undeserved because of the "slightly different way the respected director treated it". With that notion, you'd have to also denounce Jarhead too, which isn't all that original either, but finds merit in its fresh aesthetic approach. I don't quite feel like Jarhead got the critical praise Broken Flowers did, and I wouldn't go so far as to say Jarmusch and Mendes are considered in the same class. You've got me excited to see several more of those as well. The analysis was much appreciated.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
2005
Nov 9, 2006 12:13:59 GMT
Post by Capo on Nov 9, 2006 12:13:59 GMT
Malick's unique editing style suggests a never-settling atmosphere, a narrative drive which is in a constant state of exposition. What might that be? It's like halfway between linear and non-linear, classic narrative and montage. Mark Kermode said that whenever the story runs into a dead-end, Malick will keep it going by cutting to a shot of birds in the sky or something. Kermode meant it demeaningly, but a) I think Malick has too fine a sense of visual and audio rhythm for it to be generic, and b) I just I love it. It gives a detached feel to each of the scenes. It goes especially well with an always-moving Steadicam, and is especially apparent in the battle scene halfway through, where it keeps coming back to this violent battle inbetween scenes showing its consequences on characters. Sort of like the sex scene in Don't Look Now between Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie, which shows them getting ready after having sex, but we're shown in at the same time. I remember The Thin Red Line (1998), which is a lot longer, to be even more like this.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
2005
Nov 9, 2006 12:27:53 GMT
Post by Capo on Nov 9, 2006 12:27:53 GMT
Omar, Winter Solstice and Crash are 2004. Do you want to edit your list, or shall I just count and rank the ones eligible?
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
2005
Nov 9, 2006 12:33:53 GMT
Post by Capo on Nov 9, 2006 12:33:53 GMT
So far, the films highest on the voting list without more than one vote are Where the Truth Lies and Batman Begins. Wet Dog's enthusiasm for Atom Egoyan, and comparison with Julio Medem, have made me want to see his work for a long time.
As for Nolan, I intend on seeing The Prestige tomorrow.
|
|
Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
2005
Nov 9, 2006 13:26:55 GMT
Post by Omar on Nov 9, 2006 13:26:55 GMT
Omar, Winter Solstice and Crash are 2004. Do you want to edit your list, or shall I just count and rank the ones eligible? Just count and rank the ones eligible.
|
|
jrod
Ghost writer
Posts: 970
|
2005
Nov 10, 2006 1:21:31 GMT
Post by jrod on Nov 10, 2006 1:21:31 GMT
Batman Begins is the best comic book movie Ive seen I think. Someone else needs it somewhere in their top ten, so Im not the doushebag skewing the statistics by making it #2
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
2005
Nov 10, 2006 3:24:50 GMT
Post by Capo on Nov 10, 2006 3:24:50 GMT
I've uploaded an image, and it isn't very good. I'll to tweak it, but for now, it'll do.
|
|
Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
2005
Nov 10, 2006 4:07:33 GMT
Post by Omar on Nov 10, 2006 4:07:33 GMT
I've uploaded an image, and it isn't very good. I'll to tweak it, but for now, it'll do. I like it. It motivates me to keep this going.
|
|
Boz
Published writer
Posts: 1,451
|
2005
Nov 11, 2006 8:56:00 GMT
Post by Boz on Nov 11, 2006 8:56:00 GMT
Thought this was interesting. Our Top 10 so far as ranked on TSP's New Millenium list.
1. Last Days (92) 2. A History of Violence (8) 3. Broken Flowers (150) 4. The New World (140) 5. Cache (42) 6. King Kong (121) 6. Match Point (162) 8. Syriana (138) 8. Capote (63) 8. Good Night, and Good Luck (53)
Their Top 10 from this year:
1. A History of Violence 2. The Squid and the Whale 3. Brokeback Mountain 4. Grizzly Man 5. Cache 6. Good Night, and Good Luck 7. Munich 8. Capote 9. Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit 10. King Kong
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
2005
Nov 11, 2006 21:54:14 GMT
Post by RNL on Nov 11, 2006 21:54:14 GMT
What's TSP?
|
|
Boz
Published writer
Posts: 1,451
|
2005
Nov 11, 2006 23:18:55 GMT
Post by Boz on Nov 11, 2006 23:18:55 GMT
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
2005
Nov 11, 2006 23:22:35 GMT
Post by RNL on Nov 11, 2006 23:22:35 GMT
Oh, right, yeah. Thanks.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
2005
Dec 6, 2006 0:40:02 GMT
Post by RNL on Dec 6, 2006 0:40:02 GMT
Updated with all the 2005 releases I've seen. The top ten's been changed a bit, but I'm not sure how.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
2005
Dec 7, 2006 21:27:40 GMT
Post by Capo on Dec 7, 2006 21:27:40 GMT
Fuck. Putting stars in your post is a pain in the arse, because it copies the images into Excel when I copy the lists for editing. Seriously not good.
|
|