Track the Films You Watch (2006) - Page 7

of

All Souls Day

I got the dvd which was released on 01/17 and then watched it. Well, it's worth of watchig. Horror movie that tells a horror story, when a young couple stays at a hotel after crashing their car and nearly running over a woman with her tongue cut out, they learn that something’s wrong with it after interfering with a sacred ritual on Mexico’s Day of the Dead ...

There are some gore scenes, some zombies, some blood and everything else

There are some clips to watch here:
http://www.hyfntrak.com/allsoulsday/AFF22091

Mike,


While I will agree that Pierre Clementi's character in BELLE DE JOUR (1967) is somewhat irritating, I guess I "warmed" up to him with subsequent viewings. It's funny that you mention Jean-Pierre Leaud's character in LAST TANGO IN PARIS (1972) - who, as you may know, was intended by Bertolucci to be a parody of Jean-Luc Godard - since Clementi also worked with Bertolucci on PARTNER (1968), a very rarely seen (and, by all accounts, very Godardian) film which has, thankfully, been released as a 2-Disc Set by No Shame late last year; I've been toying with the idea of picking it up while I'm still over here in the U.S. but, since I've purchased over 30 DVDs since I've been here (including Warners' second "Film Noir" Box Set just last night), I certainly don't have any more storage space in my luggage!

Anyway, to get back to BELLE DE JOUR: I have to admit that I was rather underwhelmed by it on first viewing myself - at around 02:00 on Italian TV! - but, of course, my estimation of the film rose with each viewing; the subject matter is certainly intriguing and fascinating and Bunuel's treatment of the material, while impeccably tasteful, is still sharp enough to belie the fact that the director was in his late 60s when he made the film; if anything, Bunuel's last film, THAT OBSCURE OBJECT OF DESIRE (1977), is even more sexually charged, with two hotties for the price of one! By the way, BELLE DE JOUR's famously open-ended finale is obviously intentional; at first I really wanted to know whether the events depicted in the second half of the film actually happened or not but now I think that the way it is (where the audience pretty much has to make its own mind up) is pretty cool...

With regards to Deneuve's performance, I obviously agree 100% - her role in BELLE DE JOUR is certainly her most famous; I've got to admit that I've had a big crush on her for the best part of 20 years thanks to some stills from this film I've found in one of my father's many old film magazines; in fact, I even went to the Beverly Hilton hotel last Monday (where the Golden Globes ceremony was being held) in the hope that I might catch a glimpse of the French diva (she was there merely to introduce one of the clips from the Best Picture nominees) but, alas, not only was it too dark to see shit when I finally got there but, the security guards/police officers wouldn't let anyone not having any legitimate business there cross the street!! Incidentally, just yesterday I managed to watch Deneuve in a film directed by Bunuel's son, Juan (and co-written by frequent Bunuel collaborator, Jean-Claude Carriere) - THE WOMAN WITH RED BOOTS (1974) - a weird, whimsical surrealist fable which, while I can't say I fully understood it, was quite enjoyable as it unfolded; Deneuve was also fully unclothed for an unforgettable split second so that certainly helped! The film also reunited Deneuve with VIRIDIANA's Fernando Rey - they had previously starred together in Luis Bunuel's last Spanish film, TRISTANA (1970).

Some more random thoughts...

Finally watched my copy of Le Samourai that I bought on release. What a fantastic film, I couldn't be happier on this blind buy. I've loved the previous Melvilles that Criterion has released, so it's not surprising. I just love the tone and the atmosphere of the film.

Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room is a solid documentary. It's fascinating for its entire running time, and makes you pretty mad, as any good documentary of this sort should. Highly recommended.

I got The Devil's Rejects for Christmas, and finally got around to watching it. Definitely one hell of an experience. It's one of those films that grips you and leaves you staring at the screen in disbelief. Not exactly a feel-good movie, but definitely, like I said, one memorable experience.

Check out Pola-X & 8 Women for some latter day Catherine Deneuve.

Some difficult films to rate in this batch. I'm thinking about switching to a simpler star system.

Lord of War (2005) - Nic Cage stars as an international arms dealer without a conscience in Andrew Niccol's uneven film. The parts of the film that deal with the arms trade and politics are very strong. Portions of the film work as effective and entertaining dark comedy. Lord of War gets its message and commentary across in a clearer, more succinct, and powerful manner than either Syriana or Munich. Yet the portions of the film that deal with Cage's family read like a bad mafia movie. Ethan Hawke picks up a paycheck in a paper thin role as an Interpol investigator. I have no idea whether to recommend the film or not. - C+

Junebug (2005) - Embeth Davidtz plays a Chicago art dealer who comes to small town North Carolina to acquire the work of a local artist and to meet her new husband's family in this mostly delightful 1st film from director Phil Morrison. While the film starts you out thinking this is an art house excersize asking city movie watchers to laugh at small town rubes, the genuine honesty with which the material is presented quickly changed my mind. The film includes a number of warmly enjoyable characters with fine performances by the supporting cast, especially Amy Adams as the exuberant sister-in law, who steals virtually all her scenes and Scott Wilson as the father who has almost shut himself down. It is very good at presenting the small dramas of life, because unlike a lot of films, these characters know far more about each other than we get to learn about them.

The film effectively balances humor and more serious material, only faltering in its latter stages. While I like that the film does not offer easy answers or resolutions, I don't think it did as much as it could have with some of the characters. The last line of the film bothers me quite a bit too. It seems to invalidate a good deal of what we have seen. Another film I struggled to rate - B

The Perfect Crime (2004) - In Spanish director Alex de la Igleisia's latest comedy, a womanizing manager in a department store, Rafael, has his hip bachelor lifestyle jeopardized when an argument with a rival manager over a promotion leads to murder. Used to bedding a harem of gorgeous saleswomen, he finds himself blackmailed into a relationship with the only unattractive saleswoman he had hired.

This is a zany, at times surreal film as laughs stack upon laughs until it spins wildly out of control. The dead manager showing up as a bleeding apparition to give Rafael advice may have worked on the page, but just doesn't work at all onscreen and the film stumbles down the stretch before recovering nicely at the end when Rafael executes his plan to try and escape the tightening noose. Despite some problems, The Perfect Crime ranks as one of the year's funnier comedies. - B+

A Hole in My Heart (2005) - A misfire from Swedish director Lukas Moodysson involving 4 lost souls sitting and screwing in a dingy apartment, seeking any sort of meaning in their lives. A porn actor, the masochistic actress, the director/cameraman/2nd dick, and his son, a shy moody type who mostly stays in his room listening to industrial music. The film could be seen as an attempt to punish the audience with provocative, somewhat repulsive sexual imagery and sadistic human behavior interspersed with quiet moments of reflection or shame. The whole thing comes off as more dull than anything. Anytime the film seems on the verge of providing empathy for a character it immediately pushes one away. - D-

First Blood (1982)
Sylvester Stallone is really good here, and the character of Rambo was one of his best. I saw this film in the theatre in 1982 and liked it then, so I decided to revisit it now and I'm glad I did. It's a good movie, almost great -- but I feel the second half doesn't quite match the tension and intrigue of the first half (love that picturesque scenery early on, too). Brian Dennehey makes a fine 'bad cop' (he reminded me of Charles Durning's character in THE STING). Lots of action and sympathy for Sly's tormented war hero, and you can put me in the camp who appreciates his emotional speech at the end of the film. It's often been blasted as being too difficult to comprehend, but I think that's part of what makes it so heartfelt and effective.

Onto the sequels!

Safe

Horribly vapid film about a woman with a meaningless existence, and her toxicity to her life and the world, and her Freudian hysteria about it. Watching this film is more toxic than sitting in a landfill for two hours.

If you must watch something with Safe in it, might I suggest the Brady Bunch episode where they were in a commericial for Safe laundry detergent. It's one of the weakest Brady Bunch episodes, but looks like Citizen Kane compared to this tripe.

Julianne Moore puts up a good fight, but she's still number 2 on my list of most unwatchable actresses in the modern era, behind Renee Zellweger. But she narrowed the gap with this film.

added:

itle: my neighbor totoro
rating: a
comments: first viewing. another wonderful miyazaki anime. since i like just about everything he does, this one held water just fine. liked it even better then some of his other works (naussica, porco, etc.).

I'm not sure I enjoyed this as much as you seem to have, Michael. I always find it difficult to know how to rate a Franco film. Do you compare his films with all other films, or do you just compare Franco’s films with his other films? Compared with the entire population of movies, Night of the Skull probably isn’t that good. But for a Franco film, it’s not too bad. And when you consider that this is only one of ten films Franco is credited with directing in 1976, it’s amazing that Night of the Skull is at all comprehensible.

Personally I think Safe is fantastic....

Nothing out of . Has anybody else seen this Canadian movie? It's a slightly absurd comedy which also plays around with a few serious ideas. Two friends discover they have the power to make things disappear and the film chronicles their adventures as more and more of their world vanishes. I quite enjoyed this film from the director of "Cube" and starring two of the same actors.

War of the Worlds (1953) out of . Straight ahead, no-nonsense story of Martian invasion is notable for its effects, the pessimism of the story (the humans are helpless against the invaders) and the abrupt ending. This is a direct ancestor of modern sci-fi blockbusters in its emphasis on effects over depth. I put this in the second rank of 50s sci-fi.

War of the Worlds (2005) out of . Speilberg's update is a solid sci-fi thriller with excellent effects, simple story and some incredibly annoying family dynamics. I did not like some of the 9/11 overtones as they felt exploitative and the film wears out its welcome but the whole film wasn't as overblown as I expected.

I'm sure lots of people do, at least around here.

I'm just stating my opinion, and frankly, after putting in two hours watching that type of film, I find it cathartic to voice my thoughts.

Lolita (1962)

First, I must confess that when I studied Nabokov's novel as an undergraduate, I thought it was the greatest thing I'd ever read. From the vivid characters to the wit to the humor to the semantic showmanship, it seemed to have it all. It also seemed, though I'm applying a bit of revisionist history here, to be completely un-filmable. I assumed that people would get so hung up on its taboo sexual themes, that they would lose sight of the narrative tour de force it concealed. Several of my fellow students, in fact, couldn't see the brilliance for the pedophilia. This, mind you, was in the novel. Adapted to film? Fuggetaboutit. Adrian Lyne's 1997 version confirmed my suspicions. Although I thought it a good film, it seemed to focus on the affair between Humbert and Lolita to the detriment of the source material. Where was the villain's charisma? Where was the humor? Where was Lo's complicity in the whole sordid affair? To its credit, Lyne's film is visually arresting and sexually-charged, but those things have little to do with what I loved about the novel.

So it was, with great skepticism that I came to Kubrick's film at this late date (1/21). Setting aside the changes made to the story (most notably Lolita's age), this great adaptation captures the essential spirit of the novel and fuses it with Kubrick's cinematic flair. To start with, the characters in the film are every bit as indelible as those in the book. James Mason is sniveling, yet sympathetic as Humbert, Peter Sellers is creepy as a modern-day Proteus, and Shelly Winters is the perfect suburban dilettante. What's more, several of the novel's complex themes (the nature of love, the double-self, etc.) are present in the film. Finally, and perhaps most significantly for me, is the humor. This is a black comedy and it's almost impossible not to laugh at all the "wrong" moments (the essence of gallows humor). This is not to say the movie lacks real emotion or sorrow, but rather that it is, like its literary forebear, a very funny tragedy. I'm sure Aristotle would have given it a .

Marc, have you seen the trailer for Kubrick's version, which I think is on the DVD? IIRC, the main phrase it keeps repeating is, "How did they ever make a movie of LOLITA?!"

Yep and I thought it was a brillaint selling point.

Joe,

Nice to read your comments on First Blood . I've always liked this film, despite the fact that I'm not that big of a Stallone fan. He was quite good in this, as was Dennehy and Richard Crenna. The location photography in the Pacific Northwest is just outstanding and is probably my favorite aspect of this film. You've inspired me to pull this one out of the library and give it another viewing. Hope you enjoy the sequels.

Great, Joe! Enjoy the film and get back to us to let us know how it held up for you!

Michael, let me say that - of course, I've always felt similarly regarding the rating of films. While I can still recognize when a thoroughly unenjoyable movie still has all the technical markings of what is considered by some snooty elitists to be a "good or great film," it doesn't amount to a hill of beans for me in the long run when it comes down to my ratings. Because I don't care how much technical know-how or cinematic brilliance is put into any motion picture; the bottom line is, if it fails to interest me or entertain me, then it's a "bad film" to me, period. In other words, I join the camp of film fans who do not believe that there are "objectively great films". It's mostly about aesthetic value, and if there was only one "correct" rating for every "good" film, then we'd all be robots and wouldn't need to bother writing down our personal findings.


I think CITIZEN KANE is a great movie and happens to be one of the classics that truly deserves its glorious reputation. While I cannot relate to thinking of PLAN 9 as being anything other than an incompetent mess that is fun to watch because it's so inane, I personally wouldn't say it's better than KANE. But since you are asking for "explanations" from anyone who might, let me offer up that they may think it's the "better" film because it worked at doing what it was supposed to do for those people - entertained them more than KANE did. And after all our writing and discussion is over and done with, that's the final test of a film: "does it entertain me, and did I enjoy it?" If someone was entertained by and enjoyed PLAN 9 but was bored to death by KANE, then they have the right to call PLAN 9 "the better film" - in that sense. Not "technically" better, God knows...!

Your remark about "I'd question their knowledge" is always a hot topic, because you still seem to believe that great cinema is a science that must be "learned". I don't agree with that. I can still see that GONE WITH THE WIND was a beautiful-looking film on a grand scale, with lavish production and a beautiful music score. However, it still emerged as only so-so for me when it came to entertaining me, and it's not something I want to watch again and so will never be in my perosnal collection. Give me 1958's FRANKENSTEIN'S DAUGHTER any day over it. That film is pure fun and entertainment throughout for its type of Drive-In schlock, and therefore the "better" movie, aesthetically, in my book.

Michael,

Glad to hear from a fellow lover of the book/movie. I think I saw the documentary (Stanley Kubrick: A Life in Pictures?) you're referring to, but it's been a while. Since I've been on a bit of a Kubrick kick lately I may have to re-visit it. A Clockwork Orange and Paths of Glory (which you seem to have the same affection for as I do) are up next on the slate.

I haven't watched Dr. Strangelove since the latest dvd came out over a year ago, so I won't comment too much on the relative merits of the two films, but I think they're both great and both very funny.

I think part of the reason that Strangelove occupies a more eminent position in the film canon than Lolita, is that the latter requires some familiarity with Nabokov's novel to realize what a singular achievement the movie is.

Nabokov did end up with sole credit for the screenplay, but I think Kubrick ended up changing most of it anyway.

added:

title: the island
rating: c
comments: i liked the first half better, neat vision of the future. second half was standard michael bay flick (enjoyable, but senseless action). huge plot holes didn't help much. zero chemistry between two leads.

title: march of the penguins
rating: c
comments: not sure what all the buzz was about. i guess these folks have never watched tdc, tlc, or the science channel. decent enough if you've never seen a nature documentary before.

Has it really only been four years? It seems longer...


LOL!

Please, Michael. You're making my side ache from so much laughter! I've been watching "classics" before home computers were commonplace, and not only before I met you, but well before you were even born (meaning way before 1980). However, it's definitely true that since meeting you online I have been more inspired to try out even more different types of classics and genres that I might not have before. Not only have I been intrigued by yourself and Mario, but also by others on this forum and other message boards all together. I mean, jeez, isn't that supposed to be part of the fun of this thread? Isn't that what it's all about? We trade ideas off one another, and inspire each other to seek out new films for the first time or revisit ones we've seen before? Who cares if someone gains a real appreciation for all types of films/TV at age 20, 40, or 60? The main thing is that they're interested, period. Some of the films I've come to appreciate at 40 I probably wouldn't have been able to relate to had I tackled them when I was 15.

You say we've debated these things for 4 years but here it's obvious you still retain that habit of exaggerating and painting things with a very wide (or even mangled) paint brush. And you've still got me all wrong after all this time, which means I guess it is truly pointless to carry on.


Correct, but this is totally consistent with everything I'm saying. For example -- I didn't care for GONE WITH THE WIND personally, yet it really requires no defending because its reputation is assured by the majority, and set in stone. It's at times like this where those of us in the minority who are the exception to the general reputation are required to explain their position. And I always do. But there's no way I'm going to beat GONE WITH THE WIND into my head a dozen times until I realize it's actually a "great film", and then I can hold my head up high in the clouds and say I'm "one of the gang". No way.

On the other side of the issue, if I enjoy a film that is generally considered crap and has a general reputation of being lousy, then I'll be the "odd man out" to explain what I find good about it. And I always do.


I'd like to see you put this one quote of yours out in the open where everyone can see it and offer their view on it. So you really believe there is such a thing as a "fact" as to what's great art or not? "Great Art" is completely subjective.


What's the point, when we don't see this type of evaluating technique the same way? You think there is only one way to view a film, and that people are "wrong" if they don't see it "the proper way". You've used the word "wrong" yourself a million times in cases like this. You've even called yourself "wrong" when you were perplexed that you couldn't appreciate a certain "classic" now and then. Well, you're not "wrong" and neither is anyone else.

The main thing is, HOW TO MAKE A MONSTER entertains me and succeeds at giving me a more worthwhile film experience at the movies for my money (didn't I already explain this)? But comparing HTMAM with THE SEARCHERS is really like comparing apples and oranges; they're so different in every way. You can check out my review for THE SEARCHERS over at IMDB and why I found it so underwhelming. But I have a more important question for you --- if you wanted to ask me about two very different types of films why didn't you ask me if I think that HTMAM is better than INHERIT THE WIND, ADAM'S RIB, HIGH NOON, THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE, AMERICAN GRAFFITI, CITIZEN KANE, IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT, SUNSET BLVD., THE STING, THE WIZARD OF OZ or BEN-HUR (1959)? Because I don't think it is. But this is a little routine you're doing of trying to render my opinion null and void, and to try to discredit me and make yourself seem superior. You're using a classic that I don't enjoy to make some sort of point while there are plenty of other classics I love and appreciate.


That's not my description. To me, it's being a "snob" when someone acts like he knows the "proper" way to experience or to rate a movie, and that all others do not. Or that he is somehow "better" than everyone else for his taste in films, and that others don't know what they're talking about. I have learned a lot from different movies, but I watch films primarily to be entertained and to have a rewarding experience. As I've said in the past, the "knowledge" becomes a natural part of the territory as you watch. But as far as "dedicating my life" to films, while I've always been heavily into movies and always will be, I'm sorry but there are other interests in my world, too, and people I care about. It goes beyond only "The Movies" for me.


Suit yourself, Michael - that's it for us then. No matter how much you need to believe otherwise to stroke your own ego as "young film guru par excellence", the fact is that I've watched classic films long before I "needed you to pick them out for me". I just thought you agreed with me that it would be a fun exercise for both of us to recommend one film each month to one other, and to see what the other person thought of it, and that's all. Sometimes they'd be classics, sometimes not. But it was all supposed to be FUN. Unfortunately, it's obvious that you view this experience as a "Teacher (Mike) / Pupil (Joe)" lesson, so I'll follow your lead now and I'll call off this exercise from this point on. Yet I will still continue to use my Netflix queue to watch all types of different films as I've already been doing before we ever began our "game", be they classics or schlock, without any suggestion from you or discussion with you.


These are all your words and interpretations, Mike. Not mine. I think it's wrong of you to attempt to rally others with your exaggerated statements here.

Ah, it seems that "The Joe Vs. Mike Show" is back on the air...

Come on, guys - you need to relax; I know that, in the past, I've been guilty (more times than I care to remember) of being carried away myself by similar discussions, but there's no reason to take it to such extremes!

Joe, I don't want to seem like I'm supporting Michael (although you know what my opinion on this whole matter is) but I believe that by putting an untimely end to the friendly "suggestion game" you and Mike decided to play this year only serves to invalidate any further discussion on this or any other online Film forum!

That's not as drastic or as doom-laden as it may sound because, if you think about it, the only real reason why we film fans spend so many lonely hours crouched on our computers writing continuously to "anonymous strangers" stems from the fact that we not only care passionately about the subject but also because we want to impart our knowledge (however limited or extensive it may be) to other like-minded guys.

As I've said, one tends to get all worked up every once in a while and we three have all gone through that repeatedly over here and elsewhere but, if truth be told, such long-winded discussions rarely, if ever, prove fruitful...although they are entertaining to read (if not to write)!


P.S. When I told you that AGUIRRE: THE WRATH OF GOD (1973) was one of the most beautiful films I had ever seen, it wasn't to sound off my elitist horn but, apart from stating my honest opinion (which happens to be shared by most film critics), I also thought that such a remark would perhaps make you watch it sooner rather than later.

One last thing: if life's too short to watch "everything", why do you keep going through the same stuff over and over? Beats me...

Fort Apache (1948)

I found life at FORT APACHE to be only mildly entertaining. Exterior locations in John Ford's beloved Monument Valley were impressive, but I found the film's pacing a little slow. Shirley Temple in an adult role was fun to watch. But, in the end, the ordinary rank and file horse soldier pays the price for poor decision making by the commanding officer.

Where did I ever suggest that you were being "elitist" just because you mentioned how beautiful that film was? What's wrong with that? I really have to scratch my head at how things get so blown out of proportion. Now, if I had gone ahead and watched AGUIRRE: THE WRATH OF GOD and turned out to dislike it, and then you or someone else comes online to belittle me by saying I "don't recognize greatness" and "how could I not like this film but enjoy something less like (fill in the blank)?" -- then, THAT would be an example of snooty, snobby elitism.


Well, it "beats me" as to why you and Michael seem to think that it's the Law of the Land for you to expect that everyone must feel as you two do, and watch everything ever made. I have a desire to see new films for the first time and, as I never tire of saying, I have had a very rewarding time discovering new classics for the first time. And I choose to continue to do so for myself, even if I left the HTF tomorrow. But what's with this automatic decree that "people must watch everything"?

And Mario, I will certainly be watching the same stuff over and over, too. That's why I own a DVD collection, and why I have over 1,000 films in my personal library. If I didn't want to see favorite films over and over, then I'd just be a guy who rents movies. I'm sure George Kaplan could relate to that, and not think he's "wasting his time".

It's funny you use this example, Michael, because you are a tremendous Bob Dylan fan, yet in our discussions you have told me you're not interested in his early albums (which are some of his best, IMO)!

As for your Beatles example, there too you have stalled at listening to the rest of their albums. In fact, you've told me that you don't appreciate the early Beatles, and you seem to want to ignore their 1963-1965 records and continue from that point on!

So what are you talking about?


I have explained this before but you still prefer to twist my words. It's not just watching a ton of films that would smack of "elitism", but when someone rubs others' faces in it or somehow belittles them because they haven't done the same. You say you don't expect everyone to watch as many films as yourself or Mario or some others, but from your writings here and the very thing we're talking about, it seems obvious to me that yes, you DO!.


Check out my list from 2005 and see how many films by those people I chose to watch, and how many of them I enjoyed (which was the majority of them). Yes, I want to see GIANT some day, and I want to watch more Tracy, Gable, Bogart, Cagney, etc... but I work during the day, and I am exhausted at night. I also have tons of unwatched television shows I'd like to get to (as you've seen) and I am a music fan who spends time listening to my CD's. I go out with my wife on weekends and am not always home. Now, even discounting all of these other things, there are, what, like a billion or more movies in the world to watch? There are many to get to, but it can't all be done overnight, or even in one or two years, with everything else on the plate.

Sure, I'll get to GIANT. But I also have to be in "that mood" (sorry guys!). Last year I got into a Bette Davis craze and kept renting her films. Right now I watched Stallone in FIRST BLOOD and am interested in seeing the Rambo sequels right away. I am watching TV's ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN and this has interested me in seeking out the Christopher Reeve features at this time. So, there is a lot more to watch other than just the things you can't understand that I'm not getting to right away.

Let's use your own Beatles example. You bought RUBBER SOUL bascially for one song (IN MY LIFE), but when I asked if you'd played the whole album yet, you said you hadn't. Now honestly -- how long have I tried to get you to listen to The Beatles' "White Album"? Two or three years? When you bought and enjoyed Lennon's IMAGINE album, I also suggested that you check out WALLS AND BRIDGES, but you never did. I mean, going by your own logic, why don't you just "rush out and get it", since you already enjoyed the other music?

So you see, we could take this both ways, back and forth. But of course, you have other interests too and are not totally obsessed with this one subject of The Beatles, that you would run out at my request and go through the whole library just because I am recommending to do so. You've got a lot of other things to do, maybe even other interests ahead of mine. And that's okay, and it should be understandable. I don't think that means you'll "never" get to it eventually.