Track the Films You Watch (2008) - Page 14

PatW · 02-09-2008, 02:14 AM

Elizabeth: The Golden Age

Though beautiful to look at, it pales in comparison to Elizabeth in story.
I can't fault the acting here especially Cate Blanchard who gives the kind of performance that we've come to expect. Forget the love story. I wanted to see more of the warrior queen and more of the battle at sea with the Spanish Armada. That part, the most interesting part of the movie was skimmed over briefly. Instead we get lots of court intrigue and politics. The costumes were gorgeous as were the sets. The photography was out of this world. There is a scene with Elizabeth on a cliff looking out at the burning ships. I don't think I've seen a lovelier shot. This movie could have been alot better or at least been equal to the acting, costumes and sets. Very disappointed in a story that had so much potential.

42nd Street Freak · 02-09-2008, 03:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Elliott

You prefer fantasy over reality?

In all seriousness, who exactly do you think deserves to die? Someone who smokes pot? Someone who plays with himself to Britney Spears videos? Just the rapists and murderers? Is there a limit to who deserves what?

Have you seen I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE? If so, there's something in this movie that's also in THE BRAVE ONE, which I'd like to chat with you about after you've seen it. It's mainly something with Roger Ebert's review of both of them though.

Did you ever seen William Lustig's VIGILANTE? I've got this one on DVD but haven't watched it yet.

I own both "I Spit" and "Vigilante". And they won't help your cause, because they do the sub-genre proud.

And they are exactly what I mean.
In "Vigilante" an appalling injustice was done.
That injustice was put right by the man whose family was butchered and who did not even have the Law do what it should have done to get any kind of closure for him in his time of pain.

So he got it himself.
INCLUDING (and what a GREAT extra treat this was) an extra target who started all the injustice in the first place. You'll HATE it!

BOOM! Fuck reality.

If I want reality I'll watch something else.
Justice may not be done in the same circumstances in real life, but that is WHY vigilante flicks exist. So we can at least see it done for our movie going pleasure.
And I fail to see why you have a problem with that.

"12 Angry Men" is about as unrealistic as any vigilante flick in what happens. It's pure, planned, theatre.
That does not take away it's status, but it does not mean it's somehow above a "Death Wish" in realism.
In fact it's LESS realistic than "Death Wish" which is actually a film grounded in it (unlike the sequels...but that's ok too).

Who deserves to die????
The specific pricks in the film (whichever it happens to be) who have either wronged the main character and/or his family and got away with it, or (as in "Death Wish") the general pricks who thinks it's ok to mug and rape and think they can get away with it. (the rest of your sentence about that was absurd. There was no 'in all seriousness' there.)

And I fail to see why anyone who would watch a vigilante film would ever watch a vigilante film if they did not want that to unfold!
Stick to Cop movies then if you do! there's a lot of them.
But lets keep so called morals about punishing the wronged person who did what the law failed to do for them (and others) out of the genre.
As it negates the whole damn point of why vigilante films exist.

If you want reality and the Law actually doing what's right...Watch cop films (though I'd avoid "Dirty Harry" Mr Elliott) and "Law and Order".
Nothing wrong with that or them. But they are not doing what a vigilante film is doing.

the Vigilante film is a sub-genre that exists for one reason only. To see injustice righted in a way that the audience can enjoy as a break from reality (sort of...again, why does a vigilante in reality HAVE to be found or caught?) which is what a good 50% of all cinema exists for.

"I Spit" is the same.
True...The Law did not fail in it as it was never consulted. So it's slightly different.
But if you look at the facts (and let us not forget it's based on something the director did see when a real rape victim DID go to the Police and found no justice) then you have a sexy newcomer female, all alone in her cabin who screams rape about a group of locals. At least one of which owns a local business and has a wife.
No witnesses either. A small rural town. add it all up and the outcome is obvious.
The director saw what happened to the real rape victim so simply skipped the obvious and had her get her own revenge as the situation of her rape basically left no other way.
And she may not be OK at the end (because she was raped!) but she obviously feels a shit sight better than if she had been humiliated in court with no justice at the end (IF the cops had even let it get that far) or simply walked away and let them get away with it.

And above all...It's an EXPLOITATION film. And court scenes and police procedure and bail hearings and appeals have no place there obviously!

Don't we ALL prefer fantasy over reality at times?
Surely movie enjoyment takes in a whole spectrum of movies. Since when was a 100% dose of 'realistic' films a noble cause?

And Ebert... is a tit.

And to be blunt, if you want reality in these set-ups then simply read the damn papers and watch the news. You can see all the reality you could ever want of criminals getting away with it with nothing done and people who do fight back being sued for assault by the robber who broke into their house... everyday... for FREE. Who want to pay to see it in a film or DVD?
THAT'S why we have vigilante films, so at least the fantasy can cure the depressive ills of the reality of such situations.
And God bless the vigilante film that let's us do that in peace.

PatW · 02-09-2008, 06:50 AM

Invasion (2007)

I solid re-make in the horror sci-fi category though I don't know if I'm exactly thrilled with how it ended. My favourite re-make was the 1970's version with Donald Sutherland. That one was scary. Nicole Kidman was great in this film. Everyone else paled by comparison. I imagine they were trying for a more cerebral approach because the only horrifying or scary part of this movie was the car chases. Still I enjoyed watching it.

Michael Elliott · 02-09-2008, 08:17 AM

Dave, the thing that scares me are the ones who try to play God in these films. You can say Bronson, Jigsaw or the characters in any other revenge film. These are just movies so it doesn't matter but there's always some sick bastard who can't separate the two and thinks the only way out is through a weapon. We have an outbreak of school and mall shootings in this country and these people too thought they had the right to say who deserves to die. We can take trash like the DEATH WISH sequels or I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE and be entertained by it because there's no reality to it.

I think some people are so bitter and angry that they couldn't separate reality from a movie. Those people are rather scary and perhaps this belongs in a discussion of ELEPHANT. I've heard several people say they cheered for Jigsaw in SAW because those who use drugs deserve to die. There are sicko's out there cheering for whoever to kill the rich, kill the preps, kill, kill and just kill. I think Jigsaw and his twisted mind was a lot more dangerous than some woman selling her body or you and I toking on a joint.

Heck, OLDBOY is another we can put into the genre.

Quote:

I imagine they were trying for a more cerebral approach because the only horrifying or scary part of this movie was the car chases.

That's what I thought too. The movie seemed to be going for a "brains" approach but Warner didn't like it and hired directors to come in with the action scenes.

Joe Karlosi · 02-09-2008, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 42nd Street Freak

BOOM! Fuck reality.

If I want reality I'll watch something else.
Justice may not be done in the same circumstances in real life, but that is WHY vigilante flicks exist. So we can at least see it done for our movie going pleasure.
And I fail to see why you have a problem with that.

I agree completely -- that's the whole point, that our dopey system never gets the job done and always caters better to the criminal rather than the victim. A vigilante film should be where a person says "enough of that crap," and takes the law into his own hands and gets away with it as the Good Samaritan. It's the whole point of the genre.

And though it depends on the movie in question, to answer your question, yes -- I usually prefer fantasy over reality when going to the movies. But I enjoy both, depending on the subject.

Joe Karlosi · 02-09-2008, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Elliott

I've heard several people say they cheered for Jigsaw in SAW because those who use drugs deserve to die. There are sicko's out there cheering for whoever to kill the rich, kill the preps, kill, kill and just kill. I think Jigsaw and his twisted mind was a lot more dangerous than some woman selling her body or you and I toking on a joint.

You don't have to say "some people", Mike - just say me. The reason SAW worked so well for me is yes, I loved the idea that Jigsaw (at least as I took it in the first film, though things have morphed a bit in the sequels) was a guy dying of cancer who wanted to teach these idiots that life is very important, and to do the right things by themselves and try to lead a better life and learn from their mistakes. In the first film, Jigsaw's young female apprentice says he "saved her", if memory serves... he helped her.

Now, this doesn't mean it's okay to go around setting booby traps to kill people! Jigsaw is still a crazy lunatic.... but I did enjoy the angle. I don't have cancer myself, but I do have my share of health annoyances, and nothing pisses me off more than seeing people who "have it all," like a Britney Spears, destroying themselves. I despise this... these people have money, good looks, great health, popularity, anything any human being could ever desire or need, and yet somehow they feel compelled to throw it all away by poisoning their bodies, driving drunk, overdosing on pills, and basically spitting in the eye of God who bestowed a special blessing on them, and squandering it. "Good riddance" is what I say each and every time another of them bites the dust; there are too many sensible non-users in the world who do not abuse themselves yet who are desperately trying to be healthy and find the answers they seek, and who, sadly, cannot. These people have to actually work hard for a meager living, while many (not all) rich and spoiled ungrateful celebrities throw it all away.

But by the same token, I champion and respect those people who recognize they're the only ones to blame for wrecking their lives, and they go about correcting it. I salute these people with all my heart, those who wake up and make the choice to stop putting themselves into harm's way.

So call people like me "sicko" if you want; I don't consider myself the sicko, and I surely will never hurt anyone... but it is satisfying to watch the films. I can certainly separate reality from fantasy and right from wrong, so maybe you weren't referring to someone like me...

Mario Gauci · 02-09-2008, 01:25 PM

I’ve been catching up on my reading the last few pages of this thread and I seem to have missed out on a lot of hot topics – Grindhouse flicks, THE TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE (1974), cinematic depictions of homosexuality, vigilantism, etc. – to which I could – and perhaps should – have contributed. Still, it’s nice to see people getting mildly worked up about these themes even if, in the long run, it’s only a movie…

Anyway, some belated comments on things I met along the way of my reading through this thread:

I had to laugh when I read George’s views that Frank Capra did a much better job at directing the overlong and badly-miscast (and, unsurprisingly, his cinematic farewell) POCKETFUL OF MIRACLES (1961) – than with the Oscar-nominated original, LADY FOR A DAY (1933). Talking of Capra, while it’s been years since I’ve seen them, I’d say that the blackly comedic LONG PANTS (1927) was the most fascinating of the three best-known Harry Langdon movies…even if, overall, THE STRONG MAN (1926) was the most satisfying vehicle for his talents.

Dave, kudos to you on your insightful reviews of SUNSET BOULEVARD (1950) and VICTIM (1961); as for BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN (2005), I did watch it but, like Michael, I found the second half to be far more interesting and emotionally involving than the hyped-up gay cowboy segment. Not something I’d ever watch again definitely… which, in hindsight, perhaps nullifies my own

rating!

Finally, Michael: as much as I love Burt Lancaster (and particularly his collaborations with European auteurs), I’ve always felt that John Hurt was criminally robbed of a much-deserved Oscar for his overwhelmingly emotional turn as the misshapen John Merrick in THE ELEPHANT MAN (1980) which, in my mind, is still the only wholly satisfying film David Lynch ever made; it’s a damn pity that it was only years later that it became fashionable for actors to portray handicapped people in search of surefire Oscar glory!! I’m not totally discounting De Niro’s victory here but I suppose I’ve pointed out my views on Martin Scorsese’s films often enough on HTF already…

Also, to know the “Carry On” series only through CARRY ON EMMANNUELLE (1978) is like judging all the Hammer horrors via PREHISTORIC WOMEN (1967)!! Film-buffs who enjoy the Espionage, the Epic, the Western and the Horror genres should seek out and eventually enjoy CARRY ON SPYING (1964), CARRY ON CLEO (1964), CARRY ON COWBOY (1965), CARRY ON SCREAMING! (1966), FOLLOW THAT CAMEL (1967), CARRY ON…UP THE KHYBER (1968), CARRY ON UP THE JUNGLE (1970) and CARRY ON HENRY (1971).

Joe Karlosi · 02-10-2008, 05:38 AM

7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)

A charming little film directed by George Pal, made brilliant solely by Tony Randal