Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club - Page 123

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

Brook I’m pretty sure that some of your missing movies are available on VHS—perhaps not the favored format—but if you have a specialty video store in your area, go down and check it out. When I lived in Dallas, Premiere Video had some of these—as I recall, that is how I watched Through the Olive Trees and Les Vampires.

There is a well-known Chicago store, Facets, that has every video known to man. They do some online renting—I’m not sure of the price, but you might check them out.

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

Two good ones tonight!


#314 - Strike - Pretty amazing. And this was Eisenstein's first feature, too. I'm a little surprised that it's Battleship Potemkin that gets all the praise, this one was so much more impressive to me (although I admit it's been a few years since I've watched Potemkin). Lots of techniques and imagery that I was stunned to see in a 1925 film. Very poetic and stunning, with a great eye for composition and timing. There's even some humor. They're not kneeslapping gags or anything, but at least he tried. Of course, the story is pure propaganda (not that I object to a pro-union sentiment one bit), but it's told very well and with a few surprises. It's really exciting stuff. I haven't seen a ton of Soviet silent films (mostly just the well-known ones) but this ranks way up there, right behind Man With a Movie Camera. I may have to revisit me some Eisenstein. Rating: 9


#315 - Orlando - Sad to think this would have completely slipped under my radar if it hadn't appeared on this list. Based on a Virginia Woolf novel (which I haven't read), it's wildly inventive and very playful. I don't know which inventions are Potter's and which are Woolf's, but I loved how it toys with gender roles, time, and the fourth wall. And all with sparkling wit and whimsy and insight. Tilda Swinton is absolutely terrific in it. It greatly resembles a Peter Greenaway work, not only in its conception but also in the music (very Michael Nyman) and the production design (by people who have also worked with Greenaway). The film is quite beautiful. However, the very end was a letdown -- a dreadfully blunt song by Jimmy Sommerville (who I already wasn't that fond of) in a cameo appearance. Not enough to ruin the whole experience, but that final moment really just didn't work at all for me. Rating: 9

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

#316 - A Touch of Zen

I'm not a big fan of wuxia films. They're okay, but I'm not much of a martial arts guy. And at the risk of losing some film snob cred, I'd rather see the newer entries in the genre, where modern techniques make all the qinggong and so forth look so much cooler. The obvious trampolines here kind of ruin the effect. But this is a clearly influential film, and I appreciate it for that. The lightning-quick editing helps cover the cheapness of the effects, and keeps the battles exciting, although occasionally confusing. For my money, the best thing here is not the fight scenes (which are pretty sweet) but some of gorgeous images throughout. Lots of beautiful scenery and dramatic low angles. The story is reasonably engaging for most of the three hours... a little slow to get going, perhaps, but not intolerably so. Major buzzkill: a cruddy non-anamorphic DVD with some scenes too dark to see what was happening. Rating: 7

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

#317 - Death in Venice

One of those frustrating cases where I can't formulate much of an opinion. There are no particular flaws nagging at me, I could even make a case for its greatness. But I didn't connect with it on any level, and the whole thing just kind of washed over me. The only thing I wanted to note was that there seemed to be an inordinate amount of zooming going on. I guess it's weird to complain about a perfectly valid camera technique, but for whatever reason I found it distracting. Otherwise, I've got nothing much to say. It was poignant and well-executed, and the theme of an artist failing to acheive beauty was a little bit interesting, but I also have to say I was kinda bored most of the time. At least I can appreciate all the references in Who's Camus Anyway? now. Rating: 6

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

#318 - Make Way for Tomorrow

A moving (and depressing) story of how we treat our aging parents, the perfect thing to guilt you up just before Mother's Day. You could call this an American version of Tokyo Story, and I'd be surprised if it wasn't an influence on Ozu. Other than the wonderful performances by Victor Moore and Beulah Bondi, there's nothing spectacular about the film, but it is very realistic, honest, and sensitive. The ending is one of the most touching scenes I've witnessed for some time, it certainly brought a tear to my eye. Rating: 8

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

The Eclipse - 6 of 10
213th film seen

is it possible Antonioni actually made a film I like? apparently he did, cause this one actually has an interesting story and a decent ending (though Antonioni does his best to ruin it with fifteen minutes of random shots of Italy set to an atonal score after he's already resolved the film). Basically it's about a woman who breaks up with a man and falls for a stock broker only she doesn't want to let herself fall in love. There's several impressive shots and interesting moments between the couple (can't remember any of them now though) and some nicely put together sequences. Nothing spectacular, but a solid film.

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

Well if Bunuel could make a film I not only like, but actually love (The Exterminating Angel), then I guess Antonioni might. As Blowup proved, he can make a fantastic film, but he can't seem to help himself from screwing it up by completely ruining it via the ending as he did in Blowup. Hopefully his ending of Eclipse doesn't completely ruin it, but I'm not hopeful.

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

no it doesn't completely ruin it, but it is the sort of art film nonsense that's vapid and empty but supposed to provide meaning and depth. it really is just five minutes of a few random shots of the city (occasionally with women in the frame) set to an atonal score, he's already resolved the rest of the love story by having the couple actually decide things, they're still in a slightly ambiguous position but it is satisfactory. Not at all like the mimes playing tennis cop out ending.

as for Exterminating Angel, it's definitely sitting well in my mind, and improving imo, the more I think about it.

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

#319 - Steamboat Bill, Jr.

It's hard to go wrong with Buster Keaton. I wouldn't rank this one among his very best (Cameraman, Sherlock, General), but it's pretty good. The first two-thirds are amusing, but it's only the stormy climax that truly impresses. I wasn't really in the mood for a silent comedy and I was kind of bored at first, but the dynamite ending definitely perked me up. Rating: 8

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

#320 - The Woman Next Door

How frustrating that some of Truffaut's films are these amazing, vibrant, lovely experiences, but so many of them are Just Plain Movies. Except for a couple of inspired moments (the talk-to-the-camera opening, following the telegram boy around) there's no zing to this one, no spark. As a tale of romantic obsession, it does the job, but that's the key word -- it feels like just another job for Truffaut. As characters, Bernard and Matilde are somehow incomplete and inaccessible. There are some tidbits of insight, but there's really not much here you haven't seen before. Satisfactory but unremarkable. Rating: 7

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

#321 - October

When it comes to silents, some are still engaging experiences, and some, although impressive for their time, are kind of a drag. This is not one of the engaging ones. It lacks the entertainment value of The General, the visual wizardry of Man With a Movie Camera, the compelling narrative of Metropolis, and the "wow" factor of Napoleon. It's just dry as dirt, about as exciting as a school lesson. I'm sure a film scholar could point to a dozen things that make it noteworthy, and a Soviet historian could comment on its political significance, but for me it was little more than an exercise in montage filmmaking. I have no doubt that it was influential, and it sports a few intriguing images, but I could never get involved with it. It's really hard to imagine someone saying, "Boy, I'm really in the mood to watch October right now!" (whereas I could picture that for Eisenstein's Strike). Rating: 6


#322 - Riff-Raff

Except for his segment of Tickets, this is my first Ken Loach film. Stevie, a laborer and a squatter, and his co-workers go through a series of episodes that explore working-class life. A splendid piece of social commentary, speckled with rewarding moments of comedy. The actors are all strong (particularly Robert Carlyle in the lead, but they all do a great job), and the characters they portray are personable and believeable. I wouldn't call this a brilliant masterpiece or anything, but it was quite enjoyable on several levels. However, the accents made it difficult to understand a lot of the dialogue. Also, Stewart Copeland's music is good, but seemed inappropriate to me. I think it would have been a better film without any score. Rating: 8

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change.


And as contradictory is a movie directed by a communist (from the aristocracy) taken from a novel by a conservative honoring the faded past and his aristocratic family and starring an American as the aristocrat of the title role (not to mention a Frenchman as his aristocratic nephew).

But no matter as Il Gattopardo/The Leopard is certainty Luchino Visconti’s magnum opus and one of the finest of all Italian films. Burt Lancaster as the aging Prince is magnificent both when he is portrayed as vital and when he shows us his awareness of his own mortality. Alain Delon is perfect as the dashing young officer who switches sides more easily than he changes his affections—and who can blame him as Claudia Cardinale is luminous (and never more beautiful) as Angelica, loved by Alain, but who prefers the uncle.

Visconti has given us an epic combined with a depth of character and humanism that is usually only seen in smaller movies with an inner focus.

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

#323 - Odd Man Out

Carol Reed once again brings on the stunning photography, with deep, long shadows and fantastic hallucination sequences. And the story contains a lot of tension, and comments on the issue of taking sides, without actually taking sides itself. However, it falls short of The Third Man. Although the film doesn't rely on James Mason as a strong central character (it's more about the people he and his associates encounter), it's worth noting that he doesn't have the commanding screen presence of Joseph Cotten or Orson Welles. And I couldn't help feeling a bit restless, wanting the plot to move forward more swiftly. It felt like the suspense was at odds with the drama. I thought it was a good movie, but not quite a great one. Rating: 8


#324 - Les Vampires

I was rather surprised that there were no actual vampires in this, although I guess I should have figured that out from watching Irma Vep. Not a ton of artistic merit here, but entertaining fare nonetheless. A serialized tale of a journalist (who seems to produce precious little journalism) on the trail of the underworld gang "The Vampires". Except for a few slow spots, the film is loaded with schemes, surprises, reversals, captures and escapes. Along the way, they run the gamut of old-school thriller staples like disguises, poisons, gases, hidden compartments and hypnotism. The real question is: who's hotter in a catsuit, Musidora or Maggie Cheung? I have to give the edge to Musidora, although Maggie is cuter in general. Rating: 7

(note: I've only watched the first 7 episodes of Vampires so far, but if the other 3 should alter my opinion, I'll update my comments)

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

That's the point. You're looking the point in the mouth and not even recognizing it as such (!??!) As for it being vapid, the construction of the ending is not, but if you meant its connection to Vitti's vapid emotional state, then you're getting there.


No he hasn't; not at all. Moreover, it's the denouement that gives meaning to everything that has come before it and explains the inevitable end-result of the relationship. The same is true of Blow-Up's meaningful conclusion.


I really shouldn't bother -- it's a lost cause with you guys. But this is a great case in point why one should at least TRY to place a movie within a contextual framework if a solipsistically quizzical reaction is all that a viewer is left with after watching a renowned and widely-considered classic. I can't believe you don't ask yourself why this movie is considered so great, right?

*shrugs* -- NO OFFENSE, I really don't care at this point; I've done all I can do.

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

#325 - An Autumn Afternoon

I vacillate so much on Ozu. Sometimes I'm enchanted by his unique brand of humanism, his consistency of style, and the understated but genuine performances he extracts from his actors. Other times I'm annoyed by the blandness and the sameness of his films. During this, his final picture, I was annoyed. It would be disingenuous of me to say that it's EXACTLY like the two that precede it, but it's pretty damn close. And the one before it (Early Autumn) was itself rather repetitive. The only surprise here is the final moment, where a character bursts into tears... as if, after a career's worth of burying emotions under layers of restraint, Ozu was at last free to openly express something. And even though I'm tired of his stories about salaryman fathers trying to marry off their daughters, I can't honestly say I didn't enjoy this one on some levels. Rating: 7

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

Oxymoron alert.

The phrase "meaningful conclusion" would only not be oxymoronic in this context if you were referring to the "conclusion of anything meaningful" in the film.

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

George's ideal Blow-Up ending would be: they catch the killer, the guy gets the girl, Alfred Hitchcock slips on a banana peel and then Jack Lemmon suddenly appears and says "oopsy-daisy!" and everyone has a good laugh.

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

#326 - Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

Being a person over the age of 30, I have no particular interest in exploitation films. That ironic stance of loving something because it's "so bad it's good" is in my past. Funny thing about this movie, though... it's not "so bad". At least, it's better than I thought it would be. This is my first Russ Meyer film, and I didn't expect him to be such a competent (even skilled) director and editor. It's clearly the work of someone who knows how to make movies. The weakest part is the acting. Or possibly the writing... even a gifted actor would have a hard time delivering lines so overloaded with slang, puns, metaphors and innuendo. I guess that's part of the fun, though, along with the big breasts and bad attitude. I didn't enjoy this as much as some mid-20's hipster would (the kind of guy who would annoy all his friends by quoting it incessantly for the following 3 weeks), but I was pleasantly surprised. Rating: 7

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

I agree with you other than the bit about your age. What does that have to do with anything? Tarantino's interested in exploitation films and he's 45.

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

Actually, some of that sounds pretty good to me too, particular the Lemmon cameo.

But, I'd never want Hitch to slip on a banana peel. But, if a young girl were to spill her ice cream on him, I'd like it.

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

faceticiousness on.

So, I was trying to avoid saying Eclipse was kind of an empty movie and then Thomas tells me that's the point. That its very emptiness is proof of it's artistic depth.

For some reason this is both hilarious and baffling.

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

Don't worry Adam. We all know that Citizen Kane would be a far better artistic masterpiece if, instead of discovering what Rosebud was, we never did, and at the end of the film a couple of firemen in green underwear started playing checkers with live goldfish on top of Kane's corpse, while reciting Shakespeare backwards in Russian. Cause then it'd be art.

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

Do I really have to explain the ending of Blow-Up? I swear I've done this before. It's not as random and empty as you make it out to be.


To be honest, that was meant to be a lighthearted dig at someone on another forum where I also post my reviews. However, I do find that exploitation fans generally belong to a certain demographic (with the occasional exception of people like Taranatino and John Waters who have made a career out of emulating it). Post-college young folks (primarily males), yearning for a way to differentiate themselves, so they do it by flipping "bad" and "good". Irony is a staple of their diet, in the music they listen to, the T-shirts they wear, and the movies they like.

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

#327 - The Thief of Bagdad

Beautiful color, impressive sets and costuming, full of wonder and whimsy and a sense of fun. There really isn't any reason not to like this movie (the effects are dated, but that's hardly a fair complaint). Perhaps if I had seen it as a child, it would be as beloved to me as The Wizard of Oz or Clash of the Titans. But as someone watching it for the first time now... I didn't LOVE it. I couldn't put my finger on it at first, but eventually I narrowed it down to Conrad Veidt. He's great in the silents, and his small role in Casablanca, but he doesn't have the oomph to carry a leading man speaking role. He brings no life to the character, and that made it hard for me to get invested. Sabu (in the title role) had a little more charm, but even he could have used more spark. An impressive and in some ways magical production, but the lackluster performances keep it from perfection. Rating: 8

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

The reason I say I'm done with this issue is because we're talking in circles, but I'll grant us all one more round of circling the wagons.

The reason you find it "hilarious and baffling" is that you insist on interpreting an Antonioni film as a cinematic-literative work rather than what I instructed a long, long time ago -- cinematic architecture.

And in architectural design, emptiness in and of itself is not something to look down upon. In fact, empty space can add more meaning to a design than otherwise. Really, it is up to the interpreter of the sensation, whether it be a cinematic sensation in the form of a movie, or an architectural sensation in the form of viewing a building, to interpret empty space on the grounds of the purpose for that empty space.

This is to say, just because the climax of L'Eclisee is purposely anticlimactic, this doesn't mean that that empty space itself is not a meaningful climax in an inverted way. Not everything has to have "rising action" -- in fact, your view of L'Eclisse having, let's say, "declining action" IS to Antonioni rising action. He thought to put the breathing room at the end of the picture rather than between the second and third acts as in classical Hollywood cinema, because he knew doing so would create resonating reverberations in the viewer that inform everything that has preceeded them. Recommending the removal of the ending from pictures like L'Eclisee and Blow-Up is to totally distort their construction.

What Antonioni did was brilliant, but only if you are willing to set aside your preconceived notions of what emptiness can accomplish, and so forth and so on.

Hopefully we're done now, pretty please, lol.

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

I happen to really like L'eclisse. Antonioni being quite playful. I also like it because, while I never knew where it was going, it had (in my view) interesting scenes. The stock market, scene at the airport, apartment party come to mind. Even smaller scenes like the boy meeting an old girl acquaintance who had changed her hair color was interesting.

Thomas I know that you're trying to build off of what others wrote before you but I don't find the film empty. Nor do I find great architecture empty but rather open ... so the analogy is a bit of a stretch for me.

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

Ok, then let's roll with that. The ending is "open" rather than "empty" -- ergo the open ending. Since when is that a bad thing?

I love your Simpsons avatar.

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

Perhaps.


Perhaps. But (and this is a point that I think you totally miss), for those of us who think the construction is, at best, painful to watch, distorting that construction wouldn't be a bad thing. And, if you were to change the ending of Blowup (and do so well), not only would the rest of the film maintain all of it's impact, it would be far better.

Consider a tract home. If you brought in Frank Lloyd Wright to change it, you would certainly be totally distorting the construction of the house. But would that necessarily be a bad thing?

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

For some of us, Antonioni is Frank Lloyd Wright. Bringing in Levitt to make Fallingwater more accessible to the average home buyer would also not necessarily be a good thing.

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

Well, Lew, that's kind of the point. If you like Blowup as it is, then great, but for those of us who hate the ending, Antonioni is Frank Lloyd Wrong...scratch that he's:

Frank Lloyd Wrigh*%^!$&%(@#

If Antonioni built a house, it'd be absolutely beautiful, but the toilets wouldn't be hooked up to any pipes.