Expanding Horizons (1 Viewer)

[SteveGon]

Oddly enough, The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover is probably Greenaway's most accessible film!

 

[JohnRice]

I expect that is right. The "WTF was that" comment was directed at Prospero's Books, though I probably didn't get that across.

 

[SteveGon]

BTW, The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover is another film that freaked Kissinger out.

 

[Brian Kissinger]

BTW, The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover is another film that freaked Kissinger out.

It's not often I can't finish a movie because I find it disturbing, but this one did it to me. I think it had to have been my mind set. I've always wanted to go back and give her another go, but I just never have.

 

[JohnRice]

I never would have imagined Kissinger was so easy to freak out. Ha!


Actually, Brian, the movie I mentioned has

A guy with an arm growing out of his back
Not quite the same.

 

[Paul_D]

Two meaningless bits of trivia.
1) I used to play in the same Cricket team as Peter O'Toole's son. Regularly he'd be bowling practise balls to the team in the nets on Saturday morning.
2) I haven't seen Lawrence of Arabia.
Now, what do you guys think of that?

 

[Rob Tomlin]

Paul:

 

[Lew Crippen]

I used to play in the same Cricket team as Peter O'Toole's son.

Now, what do you guys think of that?

After watching the recent results (Sky Sports) from the MCG & SCG, I think that your country needs you.

 

[Brian Kissinger]

Frenzy (1972)
directed by Alfred Hitchcock
Let me say that I was quite surprised by this movie. All through the movie, I kept saying this just doesn't seem like a Hitchcock. Now I liked the movie, but I must say it was somewhat difficult to feel for Blaney (Jon Finch). He was a somewhat nasty fellow, and when he finds out his new lady friend has been murdered, he seems a bit remorseless. Perhaps it may be due to the fact that I've had so few lady friends in life, but I'd be tore up at this knowledge. And it was hard to put myself back in 1972, and their crime investigating techniques. It seemed that a simple semen analysis would have cleared Blaney from the get-go. But perhaps this was unavailable during this time period. At any rate, the potato truck scene was a pure delight. A great performance by Barry Foster as Rusk, this scene was just the topper. Overall the film seemed a bit flawed, but none the less enjoyable.
:star: :star: :star:

 

[Angelo.M]

What Time Is It There? [Ni neibian jidian] (2001)
This film was my first exploration into "New Taiwanese Cinema"--I won't be planning another one anytime soon.
It's very difficult to describe this film which, in part at least, is a riff on Truffaut's 400 Blows. In the film, we are granted a sideline seat as a string of fairly mundane activities unfold, all of which are triggered by the death of the main character's father. In an attempt to bring new definition to the word 'realism', the director simply sets a scene and lets the camera roll, lingering in most cases well beyond the point at which anything interesting happens.
For example...
One 'scene' in the film involves an important character sitting on her hotel-room bed drinking bottled water and eating a snack. This scene lasts a good five minutes. It is preceded by a scene more than twice as long which involves her walking into a bodega to purchase these snacks. After she exits the store, the camera lingers on the store clerk for a solid 2-3 minutes as he is doing virtually nothing. Contemplative? Maybe. Languid? Surely. Meditative? Granted. Ponderously dull? Absolutely.
The shame here is that this could have been a much better film. The concept involves a young street vendor (he sells watches) whose father's death sets off an interesting sequence of events. He acts despondently--well, for all we know, this may have been his personality beforehand. He urinates into a plastic bottle; this worked the first time, but do we need three entire scenes devoted to it? His mother sinks into the ritual and mystery of her husband's death, dealing with the nuts and bolts of her family's routine in the wake of widowhood. We see her come unglued several times, and it's presented in such a sterile, clinical, monkey-in-a-cage fashion that we feel nothing. Our watch salesman meets a woman, sells her a watch, she jets off to Paris, he is compelled by all things French, including Truffault's film. He begins to set clocks everywhere around town to Paris time. She begins to unravel in France. Or is it Heaven? Or is it Hell? The film moves on. She descends further into madness. The father reappears at the end of the film. Cameo by Jean-Pierre Leaud, in a French cemetary. Hey! Isn't Jim Morrison buried here? Are we still in France? I stop caring.
I dig movies that evolve slowly; Raise the Red Lantern, one of my all-time favorites, is a languid, gorgeously slow piece. But this film is something different entirely. It works hard at being arty; it succeeds only in being insufferably boring.
No stars.

 

[SteveGon]

Angelo, I liked What Time Is It There? a bit more than you - I gave it three stars - but I have to agree that it is one slow film. One has to be in the right frame of mind to enjoy it. Even then, well, that might not be enough. FWIW, I probably wouldn't watch it again, but I'm glad I saw it once.

 

[Angelo.M]

Steve:

Thanks for reading the review. I didn't like the film, but I'm glad I saw it as, at the very least, it did get me to think about its construction and execution a great deal. Given that, perhaps I should give it one-half of a star for inspiring some heavy-duty head-scratching!

Would I watch it again? No. Would I give this director's stuff another shot? Definitely. There are, apparently, other collaborations between this director and the principal cast of this film (the street vendor, his mother and father). I'd skip those, but I'd be willing to see him try something different.

 

[SteveGon]

I'd like to see some of the director's other work as well.

I was delighted to see your review here - I just saw the film myself last week (my comments can be found on page two of this thread). My local Hollywood Video had it in stock if you believe that! At .99 a rental, What Time Is It There? was certainly worth a look.

 

[Elizabeth S]

I'm somewhat between Angelo and Steve on "What Time is it There?" I didn't find it as ponderously slow as Angelo, but wouldn't go so far as to give it 3 stars. . .maybe 2-1/4! I found it intriguingly head-scratching at times, especially the conclusion. I have Ming-Liang Tsai's "Vive L'Amour" in my "to watch" batch, but haven't quite felt in the mood for it yet.

 

[Paul_D]

They certainly need something!

 

[Kirk Tsai]

The well known Taiwanese directors such as Hao and Tsai are considerably slower than the famous China's 5th generation directors such as Zhang Yimou or Chen Kaige. Nevertheless, I don't think What Time Is It There is a good introduction to Taiwanese cinema, and other films may have more familiar themes that the West is used to.

 

[Angelo.M]

Kirk:

Can you suggest a good introduction to Taiwanese film?

 

[Dome Vongvises]

The Deer Hunter
directed by Michael Cimino

- character
- character development
- opening score
- cinematography
- acting

- pacing
- redundancy
Movie Score: C+
Film Score: A-
Overall Score: B
I got to see this film when I was part of the HTF AFI challenge/Best Picture kick. After having viewed it, there is no doubt in my mind that this is indeed a very powerful film. However, I think that of all the good Vietnam films, this one is the least because the film is less a film about the horrors of Vietnam than it is about friendship.
The basic synopsis of the story is the friendship of Pennsylvania steelworkers, and what happens to it during the Vietnam War.
I'd like to get the negatives out of the way before I proceed on. The first hour of the film is one of the most boring I've ever faced my entire life. It's not enough to say out loud at the audience, "Hey, these are the greatest of all buddies." The very idea is crammed down your throats. And the wedding? Dance, dance, dance, we're all great friends, let's dance some more!!! And it goes on like it. Every now and then there's a break, and you get bits and pieces of other story information. Eventually, the story takes a turn into the mountains of Pennsylvania (actually Oregon and Washington) where the friends embark on a hunting trip, hence the title name. At times, you wonder if Michael Cimino was in love with excess. Of course, we all know what happened with Heaven's Gate.
The film doesn't really "start" until the screen explodes with the appearance of helicopters in the jungles of Vietnam. This is when you start to see and feel the dynamics involved with the friendship amongst these characters, especially what happens to it under the adversity of war.
Bar none, the infamous Russian roulette scenes are some of the most intense I've ever seen, and they still hold up very well to this day.
There is an immense ensemble cast in this film. The three male leads of Robert De Niro, Christopher Walken, and John Savage turn in great performances, especially De Niro and Walken. It seems De Niro's time in a steel mill actually paid off. You could accept the pain, happiness, and anguish of not these actors playing characters, but of the characters themselves. Meryl Streep turns in a good performance for the amount of screen time she got.
This is one of those films in which you can not fully get the effect until you've seen the whole picture. It's just an amazing, cathartic experience.

 

[Rob Tomlin]

Movie Score: C+
Film Score: A-

I've been meaning to ask what the difference is between the "Movie Score" and the "Film Score"?

 

[Dome Vongvises]

Rob Tomlin said:

I've been meaning to ask what the difference is between the "Movie Score" and the "Film Score"?

The scores are a measure of how I go about assessing the movie on two different scales and then averaging them out with an Overall Score (which includes reviewer's tilt).

The "Movie Score" assesses how well the superficial elements in the film such as story, plot, etc. and how well all that contributes to the simple, basic enjoyment in a movie. In the simplest terms, it's an escapist entertainment factor, or simply "how fun is this movie to watch?".

The "Film Score" assessess how well the cinematic craftsmenship of the film is. This regards areas such as screenplay, direction, cinematography, acting, philosophical and thematic relevance, the stuff that only film buffs would care about.

The whole purpose of the two scores basically is for a quick read for anybody who wants to know right off the bat if the film is for them or not. If you're looking for simple, fun entertainment (high movie score, low film score), then movies like The Mummy or Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigalo would be the stuff. If you're looking for arthouse films that develop through time and care (low movie score, high film score) then films like Andrei Rublev or 8 1/2 are for you. And then there are films that score extraordinarily high on both scales, such as Citizen Kane, Lawrence of Arabia, or Star Wars.

Keep in mind that I seriously do not believe that a good movie and a good film aren't mutually exclusive. As a matter of fact, on success in one area (direction or acting for example) may contribute to the success in the other (great story or plot).

But like I said, the scores are nothing more than quick summaries of my feelings concerning different aspects of a total experience.