Track the Films You Watch (2006) - Page 19

Once again I don't have time to devote to a full blown discussion. I pulled a few posts from back in the day since I've had to defend Godard multiple times over the years. Suffice to say he is one of my favorites who pushed cinema in directions that no one else had before or since:

A war film so unremittingly ugly as to make the viewer not just repulsed by
war, but by the film itself. Godard's point being that if war is truly Hell,
than why would anyone want to watch a film about it?; much less make a film
about it. Overstuffed to the point of bursting with subtext, moral and
political lessons, and vitriol for most aspects of humanity, I was reveling
in every delicious inch of a creation who's director cared not a whit for
conventions of storytelling, plot, or pacing in an effort to present his
message.

Between Le Petit Soldat and Ecstacy of the Angels, I've seen a lot of rage
on screen this week, but Les Carabiniers tops them both. It has to be the
blackest war film I've seen. Other films like Apocalypse Now or Full Metal
Jacket may show men that war has turned into animalistic killing machines,
but for the most part, because of the way they are presented, you have
sympathy for them. In Les Carabiniers the audience isn't let off the hook.
There isn't a single character to latch on to, no cause or ideal of any
sort, only naked greed, apathy, and the power of a gun. The screen filled
with image after image of bombings, shootings, and death described by the
men in the most banal terms in postcards they send home that become title
cards for us. (and according to the commentary, were taken from actual war
letters). But the film also isn't without humor. In one memorable scene, a
character upon seeing his first film, acts out the old story about what
happened when the Lumieres showed their train film and then, when the film
switches to a woman bathing, the scene becomes an homage to Buster Keaton's
Sherlock Jr. The penultimate scene is masterful, as Godard seems to reject
the very notion of film and art all together or at least the idea that
anyone can own art or should seek to capture images of beauty.



Sure John, but that's what makes the movie so mind-blowing for me. Its anti-itself. I love that Godard tried to work out this concept on film. He has always tried to push the boundaries of film as a medium of expression, leading to both revelations and dead ends. Les Carabiniers falls within the category of "experimental" film, and for me, it is a fascinating one.

Quote (originally posted by Joe Karlosi):

"Absolutely. And in fact, I was going to write that in my original comments but forgot to! I hope you don't mind my adding it to my notes since you've reminded me."

No problem, Joe!


Quote (originally posted by Joe Karlosi):

"Since you enjoy so many 'foreign' films, I'd suggest you try the 1997 INSOMNIA. I'd be interested in your comparisons."

I would definitely try it, Joe...if my pal at the DVD rental store would add it to his selection or if it gets shown on Italian TV - but I'm not interested in owning it.


Quote (originally posted by Brook K):

"Once again I don't have time to devote to a full blown discussion. I pulled a few posts from back in the day since I've had to defend Godard multiple times over the years. Suffice to say he is one of my favorites who pushed cinema in directions that no one else had before or since."

Thanks for chiming in on Godard and LES CARABINIERS (1963), Brook...the trouble is, you've made me want to watch it now! I do have ECSTASY OF THE ANGELS (1972) in my unwatched VHS pile, though...

02/26/06:WOLF CREEK (Greg McLean, 2005) **1/2

Although apparently based on true events, this Australian slasher film is ultimately an unsurprising if occasionally effective rehash of THE TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE (1974). After a fairly unpromising start which shows a bunch of teenagers partying hard and a group of them setting out for a camping trip, it picks up considerably with the belated entrance of creepy villain John Jarratt whose vivid characterization is the best thing in the movie; the two girls in the harassed trio are also quite good and one feels empathy towards their plight but the same cannot be said about their ineffectual and rather obnoxious male companion.


02/27/06: COVER UP (Alfred E. Green, 1949) **1/2

Another nice discovery for me: a pretty good thriller which, though not exactly a film noir, features two staples of the genre – Dennis O’Keefe and William Bendix – in top form. Their rapport throughout is quite delightful and this, along with the equally refreshing charms of leading lady Barbara Britton and the distinct Christmas flavor of its small-town setting, creates an overall mood of warmth not easily found in murder mysteries! The plot (whose insurance-investigation angle clearly derives from Billy Wilder’s DOUBLE INDENMITY [1944]) provides a good amount of tension – and red herrings – along the way, while the final revelation (bearing an unexpected moral emphasis) concludes the film on a satisfying note.


02/28/06:THE CROOKED WAY (Robert Florey, 1949) **1/2

As opposed to COVER UP (1949; see above), the film noir stylistics – courtesy of master cinematographer John Alton – are all over this one and they are its main raison d’etre; alas, the plot is rather routine, though by no means uninteresting. This low-budget effort proved to be one of Robert Florey’s last movie projects and he competently handles the action throughout; most effective, perhaps, is chief villain Sonny Tufts’ violent demise in a hail of bullets. John Payne, however, is miscast in the main role of the amnesiac war veteran as one doesn’t quite believe in his earlier persona of a vicious thug! This opinion, though, might very well change after watching him in the reportedly superior KANSAS CITY CONFIDENTIAL (1952), 99 RIVER STREET (1953) and THE BOSS (1956), three other noirs I have on VHS...

Well what I don't understand is that if Godard's point is that no one should want to make a film about war, then why the hell did he make a film about war? To show that he shouldn't have made a film about war? This kind of logical contradiction is a big part of what makes Godard's films so unappealing to me. I think that watching a Godard film is truly hell, so I don't think anyone should want to make a film about watching a Godard film, but I'll be logically consistent, and not make such a film.

Because he is a filmmaker, George. Film is his chosen mode of expression. Was he just supposed to stand by a theater showing "The Longest Day" with a sandwich board expressing his view? The main idea being one should not be entertained by images of war and what does that say about the human race that we are entertained by war to the point of actively seeking out and paying to view such images?

And again as I said to John, the film is anti-itself in a way, and that's one of the reasons I find it so stimulating.


I'll assume "some" is me since I'm the only one talking about it in a positive manner. I'm not really sure what you mean. First, I have no idea how the the films are connected in any way. Second, why can't a film be a satire and deliver a "serious message about war". Doesn't Apocalypse Now and Full Metal Jacket qualify on both counts? So does Dr. Strangelove. I would argue even more directly comic films like To Be Or Not To Be and Hail The Conquering Hero still deliver serious messages about war. So again, I don't really see what you're getting at.

But I assure you, Les Carabiniers delivers a serious message about war, while also satirizing and attacking the war movie. Just like you feel like you know Griffith and can deliver passionate defenses of BOAN; I know what I'm talking about here. If you listen to the commentary with David Sterrit of the Christian Science Monitor, he will tell you the same thing.

I don't know if I'm included in the "some" with regard to Franco but I have watched a number of those types of films like S.S. Experiment, Daughter of Dracula, and Zombie Lake. I just haven't seen them by the hundreds like you and Mario. I have had my own arguments in trying to argue the talent of a low-budget cult filmmaker from the period - Jack Hill.

We can with agree on Wolf Creek though. Perhaps if I had been taken with John Jarret's performance like Mario was I would have been entertained. Instead I saw it as another in a long line of "isolated and lost" slasher movies with a carbon copy villain that didn't do anything to stand out from the pack.


Well Mario, I don't know if you want to take my words as an endorsement of that film. It's sort of a wacked out version of Godard's Le Petit Soldat but verging on the avant-garde. The director was involved in terrorist organizations and I believe trained with the PLO. Thus the movie reflects a deep anger and disappointment that such groups were not able to gain more traction in Japan and effect political change. Perhaps also of a piece with Fassbinder's The Niklashausen Journey from the same time period, that deals with why violent resistance groups were attractive to the youth of the time and also why they always failed and broke apart.

The other film I've seen by "Ecstacy"'s director, Go Go 2nd Time Virgin is even more insane and is very difficult to watch. Taking place almost entirely on the roof of a building, it has multiple rape and abuse scenes amongst other extremely depressing material. Not for the faint of heart.

Well Brook, we could go on for ever. I understand that Godard is a film maker, and I understand him using that medium to get his message across. But I'm still confused about his use of the film medium in this particular case. Kind of like a guy wearing a sandwich board which reads "Sandwich boards are stupid, and anyone wearing one is evil". But maybe it's just me.

Quote (originally posted by Michael Elliott):

"I pushed the other Godard films back and had them ship IKIRU, SCENES FROM A MARRIAGE and A MAN ESCAPED instead."

Wow, Mike - that's an eclectic if solemn bunch. You've managed to please Brook with your choice of IKIRU (1952) and me with your choice of A MAN ESCAPED (1956)!

The latter has always been my top Bresson film but, incidentally, I've just watched his PICKPOCKET (1959) for the very first time and...now I'm not that sure anymore! I know Brook was somewhat underwhelmed by PICKPOCKET but I'm still thinking about it 3 days later and in fact have yet to post my review of it!

By the way, I was thinking to myself just now that I have THE BIRTH OF A NATION (1915), THRONE OF BLOOD (1957) and SCENES FROM A MARRIAGE (1973) in my unwatched DVDs pile and it would have been great to get a chance to watch them now that they're 'topical'; however, I've watched the first two a couple of times anyhow and the gargantuan running time of SCENES (which I've never watched in any form) doesn't exactly whet my appetite...especially now that I've got some really exciting stuff coming my way from R2 land, among them TARTUFFE (1926), SPIONE (1928), NIGHTMARE ALLEY (1947; the only one I'm already familiar with), PITFALL (1962), THE FACE OF ANOTHER (1966) and PRETTY POISON (1968)!


Quote (originally posted by Michael Elliott):

"Mario, I've been rather curious as to how some here would react to the work of Franco. I'm sure they'd puke over something like ILSA but VENUS IN FURS, A VIRGIN AMONG THE LIVING DEAD and a few others I'd be curious about."

I don't quite get the Franco connection in this discussion but, yeah, I'd be interested in what fellow HTFers have to say about Franco's classier stuff, too!


By the way, Brook, I have GO, GO SECOND TIME VIRGIN (1969) on VHS as well...

Good stuff Mario. I own Tartuffe and it is very, very good if not quite as powerful as Murnau's better known work.

I haven't gotten to Scenes from a Marriage either. It and The Virgin Spring are the only major Bergman's I haven't seen. Virgin is in my unwatched pile, I never got around to buying Scenes. I really should see Scenes since I was impressed with its "sequel" Saraband and of course Bergman is also one of my very favorite directors. I own more of his films than anyone not named Rainer Werner Fassbinder.

As for Bresson, I admire/recognize the quality of his work more than I enjoy it. But there are 3 films of his that I think are both excellent and I like to the point that I've considered buying them - Diary of a Country Priest, L'Argent, & Lancelot du Lac.

Quote (originally posted by Brook K):

"As for Bresson, I admire/recognize the quality of his work more than I enjoy it. But there are 3 films of his that I think are both excellent and I like to the point that I've considered buying them - Diary of a Country Priest, L'Argent, & Lancelot du Lac."

Entertainment isn't a quality I associate with Bresson either and those 3 films you've mentioned are definitely among his greatest; I still need to pick up the R1 DVDs of AU HASARD, BALTHAZAR (1966) and L'ARGENT (1983) and the R2 DVD of THE TRIAL OF JOAN OF ARC (1962) myself. I don't know what else you've watched of his but, now that Mike's giving A MAN ESCAPED (1956) a spin, you should do likewise in case you haven't already...

Brook, I think you've just described how I currently feel about Godard. His techniques in Breathless are indeed hugely influential and worth analyzing. That 30 minute scene in the apartment in Contempt is indeed amazing (as Mario said) in the way it ebbs and flows continuously. But I find it more interesting to read about or discuss than to actually watch.

And though I haven't seen Les Carabiniers, all of what you described about it being anti-itself IS cool. I love that as a concept. I just don't know if I'll like it as a viewing experience (though I will give it a chance).


I just watched The Virgin Spring last night and I can't imagine you won't like it Brook. It's beautiful and frightening.

Mario, if you want to look back at what I posted about Pickpocket and A Man Escaped a few months ago, my thoughts on both of them were in this post.

Dark Command (1940) 8/10
This John Wayne western that was, er, "suggested" by some real historical events around the Civil War also stars Clair Trevor, Walter Pidgeon, and a non-singing role for Roy Rodgers. The good cast, and Raoul Walsh's strong direction, add up to a good solid movie, although the script takes some overly convenient turns at a few points.

T-Men (1947) 8/10
Anthony Mann's noir about undercover government agents labors a bit under some creaky pseudo-documentary material and a less than airtight plot, but the suspense and the violence are very powerful.

Quick Change (1990) 8/10
Bill Murray, Geena Davis, and Randy Quaid make their way through a breezy comedy blend of Dog Day Afternoon and The Out-of-Towners, as a trio of bank robbers who run into a lot more trouble than they planned for as they try to get out of the country. Pretty basic humor all the way through, but the dialogue and the gags are consistently funny. I was surprised to find out on IMDB that there was also an earlier movie based on the same book, from 1985...a French film called Hold-Up, starring Jean-Paul Belmondo and Kim Cattrall!

Great Expectations (1946) 9/10
David Lean's first major Dickens is extremely well-filmed, and features a fantastic cast. Francis L. Sullivan, also great in Oliver Twist, really seems like a Dickens character jumping straight off the page in this one. I think Lean and his crew reached a higher level of visual artistry with Oliver Twist, but this one is also terrific. Not sure that I've seen a couple of things from this one in any other movie: a rowboat chase, and someone imagining that a herd of cows is talking to him!

The Lost Weekend (1945) 9/10
Billy Wilder's first Oscar came for this portrayal of a dangerously far-gone alcoholic, with a brilliant award-winning performance by Ray Milland. The obsessiveness of the main character's alcoholism, and the damage it does to him, are depicted with a gathering intensity that reaches gothic levels of desperation and paranoia. A handful of overly talky scenes pop up here and there, but they don't do much to diminish the overall impact.

February Summary
total movies: 16
average gpa: 2.8 (41/16)
comments: decent month overall. standouts would probably be "happy endings", "memoirs of a geisha", and "curse of the were-rabbit". guilty pleasure goes to "lord of war". skunker was definitely "bubble". i guess most visually appealing goes to "northfork" ... too bad i fell asleep while watching it the first time.

title: bubble
rating: f
comments: i am definitely not getting this director's popularity and this movie was one of the worst. it felt like a low-budget college project. i know the actors were new, the dialogue was mostly improv, etc ... but sheesh ... i really had to force myself to finish it. thank gawd it was only an hour'ish long.

title: the united states of leland
rating: b
comments: interesting story, if not a touch contrived here and there. nice acting by the leads. loved the melancholy feel (and soundtrack).

title: grizzly man
rating: b
comments: one of the most interesting doc's i've watched in a while. that guy was definitely a little loose in the head, but i don't think he was flat-out crazy. without question a passionate person. while i got the feeling herzog definitely treated him with respect, i felt his view was a little one-sided (leaning towards 'he's a nut' territory).

title: lord of war
rating: b
comments: great flick, possibly one of my fave cage performances. the story stretched here and there, but no big deal. the wifey was uber-hot!

title: happy endings
rating: a
comments: totally loved this movie. for once, a movie with real characters, people you could believe you'd actually meet. great performances ... who knew kudros and arnold could act!

title: the corpse bride
rating: b
comments: about what i expected (and hoped for). didn't quite have the magic of "nightmare...", but i think that's because i've seen this before. still, a decent story with wonderful animation and visuals.

title: wallace & grommit: curse of the wererabbit
ratintg: a
comments: i am always floored by the technical feats of aardman (?) studios' work. but the key is they always toss in a good story. plus gromit is the most awesome dog in the world. i'll be watching this many times, catching little details i'm sure i missed the first time around.

title: only yesterday
rating: c
comments: possibly my least fave studio ghibli release so far. i know miyazaki didn't direct this one, but it just didn't have the charm or magic i usually associate with ghibli's work. the story didn't hold my attention ... i really felt like i was just watching a regular movie.

title: whisper of the heart
rating: b
comments: another ghibli feature not directed by miyazaki. unlike only yesterday, this one held my interest. i don't know if this came before or after "the cat returns", but you can see where the baron and mutu (sp?) came from. as usual, wonderful animation.

title: cinderella man
rating: b
comments: howard really knows how to pull those sentimental punches (ouch), but this one worked. i think any father could identify with braddock's desire to provide for his family. nice supporting role by giamanti (sp?) ... a personal fave of mine.

title: northfork
rating: b
comments: if it wasn't for the amazing visuals and creative flair, this would have rated lower. i just couldn't get over how "lush" (in a deserted way) the town looked. but the story (kind of cohen bro'ish) was pretty silly. all in all, still worth watching.

title: layer cake
rating: b
comments: some nice visual touches and good acting all around made for a nice straight-ahead british gangster flick. the very ending was somewhat unnecessary, but i guess i can see why it was put in.

title: memoirs of a geisha
rating: a
comments: outstanding performances, amazing visuals, and a very engaging story made for a great time. i found myself totally wrapped-up in this one.

title: madagascar
rating: c
comments: usually i really enjoy animated features, but this one was pretty bland. the animation was fine (no big deal), the story/dialog was okay (could have been snappier), but the voice-acting was *very* flat.

title: zathura
rating: c
comments: watched this since it was family night. okay story and average acting. but ... good visual effects and a *stellar* workout for the surround sound made it enjoyable. i recommend this movie for someone who wants to demo their system.

title: mr smith goes to washington
rating: b
comments: first viewing. nice "fight-the-man" movie. i always enjoy watching stewart's movies. i can see why he was so loved. i really need to start watching more classics ... i almost always find them enjoyable.

Michael,
Having just watched The Rules of the Game (twice), I think it will be a more enjoyable experience the second time around. Also, I agree about Renoir the actor. He delivers a really fine, nuanced performance. The first time I watched it, it took me a little while to realize it was him. "Hey that looks like a young Jean Renoir." I was most familiar with the avuncular Renoir who delivers the prologue to Grand Illusion. BTW, if you haven't already done so, I heartily recommend the extras on the Criterion set. They provide some great historical context for the film as well as a solid overview of the director's career. So many Renoir films that I want to see now.

Billy the Kid vs. Dracula (1965)
I haven't seen this one in a long time, but it used to seem like it was more fun than it was last night. John Carradine really keeps the thing alive with his colorful theatrical performance as an older cranky vampire. If not for his presence, this would be close to unwatchable. He provides some laughs, at least. There's actually the seed of a good movie in here somewhere in the mixing of horror and the Old West, but it's a bit duller than it ought to be.

Quote (originally posted by Michael Elliott):

"Rules of the Game, The (1939) ***

Jean Renoir’s satire about a group of rich folks and poor servants who spend the weekend in a country estate. I think this film will work better for me on a second viewing because it took a good thirty minutes for me to warm up to the characters and actually “get” what was going on in the movie. Things finally started to pick up for me even though I had a pretty good idea how the movie was going to end. All of the performances were very good but it was Renoir the actor that really took me by surprise. His performance was the best of the bunch and I’d even say his character was the most interesting in the film. I’ve read about the controversy surrounding this film when it was first released but all of this must have gone over my head. The way the rich are shown was very well done and this film probably seems truer today than when originally released. Great camerawork and the staging was very good as well."

Since there's no way one can fully appreciate all the merits and subtleties of Renoir's masterpiece in one viewing, I'm satisfied with your rating, Mike!

I agree that Renoir is very good in the role of the oafish Octave although, in my opinion, the film's finest performance is given by Marcel Dalio. I'm sure you've recognized him from various Hollywood classics of the 1940s - CASABLANCA (1942), TO HAVE AND HAVE NOT (1944), etc. - to which he was relegated after escaping from France in view of his Jewish descent. He did work again in France after WWII and even landed a belated, hilarious role in Walerian Borowczyk's notoriously erotic romp, LA BETE (1975)!

As for myself, it took me some time to warm up to the broad antics of Julien Carette or even to the desirability factor of Nora Gregor - who, incidentally, had appeared much earlier in Carl Theodor Dreyer's MICHAEL (1924)! - but now that I've watched it 3 times (not counting the breathless Audio Commentary read by the usually placid Peter Bogdanovich!), its standing has risen enormously so that it's currently in my Top 10 films of all time. Anyhow, here's my take on Renoir (see Post No. 14):

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...24#post2742324


Quote (originally posted by Michael Elliott):

"Anna Christie (1930) ***1/2 German version

A former prostitute (Greta Garbo) goes to see her father (Hans Junkermann) for the first time in fifteen years so she can escape her past but she ends up falling in love with a sailor (Theo Shall) who isn’t aware of her secret. While I haven’t seen the American version, which was filmed at the same time, I have a hard time believing the subject matter would be treated more seriously or openly as what’s on display here. The only problem I had with the film is that some of the direction is weak in terms of the camera just standing still and not adding too much to the film. Other than that this is a very open and hard hitting little love story that works wonders and packs a terrific punch due to the three leads performances. Garbo brings her typical beauty to the screen and perfectly captures her character’s tortured soul. The love scenes with Shall are very good and you can’t help but cheer for things to work out well."

I've only watched the American version of ANNA CHRISTIE (1930) ages ago and I have yet to pick up Warners' 10-Disc "Garbo Collection". I haven't watched many such "export" versions but those that I have - apart from several L&H shorts, they are THE BLUE ANGEL (1930; English version), DRACULA (1931; Spanish version), THE TESTAMENT OF DR. MABUSE (1933; French version), THE THREEPENNY OPERA (1933; French version) - made for some fascinating comparisons.


Quote (originally posted by Michael Elliott):

"Well, I went with the theatrical cut, which I think is under three hours. If I enjoy it then I'll watch the TV version in a few years or so. I still have to get FANNY AND ALEXANDER on as well as watching THE VIRGIN SPRING again. I'm going to somewhat cheat with this foreign thing by catching up on some of my Euro Horror that I haven't seen in years. Figured I'd watch the Bergman film as well as a few of the rips."

I didn't know that the Theatrical Cut of SCENES FROM A MARRIAGE (1973) was available on its own. Anyhow, I too have some Bergman to watch: AUTUMN SONATA (1978) and both cuts of SCENES and FANNY AND ALEXANDER (1982)...but, as I said before, that won't be happening for the present!


Quote (originally posted by Michael Elliott):

"I personally can't see how anyone would be disappointed with VIRGIN especially if they've seen the trashy rips like Craven's LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT or HOUSE ON THE EDGE OF THE PARK. I was hoping the horror communtiy would try Bergman's original when Criterion released it but they've overlooked the film again."

I've only watched THE VIRGIN SPRING (1959) once so far on VHS several years ago and I'll definitely upgrade to the Criterion DVD one of these days; however, I was sufficiently impressed by it that I had a minor character in my first screenplay 'killed' in the same shocking way that Max von Sydow disposes of the boy in SPRING!


Quote (originally posted by Haggai):

"Mario, if you want to look back at what I posted about Pickpocket and A Man Escaped a few months ago, my thoughts on both of them were in this post."

Thanks for posting that link, Haggai.

As much as I would want to read what people like, say, you, Michael, Brook, Steve Gon and Bob Turnbull have said about a particular film when they watched it, it's rather cumbersome and time-consuming for me to look through their respective entries in threads like these...which is why I'm grateful to Joe Karlosi for pointing me towards the IMDB as a place where I can neatly store all my comments for future reference. Therefore, if I am curious to know what's Mr. Karlosi's opinion of THE BIRTH OF A NATION (1915) or DEAD END (1937), all I have to do is look it up in the IMDB "User Comments" of that particular film...

RE: Godard

Well, I probably wouldn't recommend "Les Carabiniers" to someone who didn't like Godard or hadn't seen one of his films. Not really a great choice for only your 2nd viewing of one of his films Michael. It and "Week-End" are particularly challenging, dense, and experimental. Films like "Contempt", "Band of Outsiders", "My Life to Live", and "A Woman is a Woman" are more accessible places to start.

RE: Franco

He's on my radar as someone to look at sometime down the road, but I don't have any great desire to do so right now. I have had one Franco film "Oasis of the Zombies" on my Netflix queue for quite awhile. I just keep pushing it down my list. I also have a few more Nazi torture-type movies like "SS Hell Camp" on my list.

RE: Bresson

My feelings for "A Man Escaped" are similar to those for "Pickpocket". Interesting films...I see why Bresson is so highly thought of. The "model" style of acting is just tough to attune to because it is so different and foreign to what I'm used to. There's an energy missing from the films. They are also more character study-directed and I find that combination less remarkable than more story-driven/human nature/human truths films like "L'Argent" or "Diary of a Country Priest".

"Mouchette" and "Trial of Joan of Arc" are the remaining well-known Bresson works I have to see.

One other thing to note is that I have only seen Bresson movies one time each unless you count the commentaries on Diary and L'Argent as a 2nd viewing.

RE: Quick Change

I rented that years ago when it came out and remember liking it quite a bit. Never have gone and revisited.

RE: Reviews

I've often thought of pulling everything I've written here and putting it on my ridiculously out-of-date website. Just another project I've never gotten to, like watching "The Godfather" box set or putting an insulating blanket around the hot water heater. I've had the blanket sitting right next to the heater for a few months now. I'm hoping the next time I check it will have jumped onto the heater by itself.

RE: Ted Lee

What do you have against capital letters? Am I the only one disturbed by this?

Hey, he uses 2 in that last post!

lol ... sorry about the lack of caps. i think it's just my "thing" ....

but don't feel bad ... it's been much discussed over in after-hours as well! :b

ps brook - i really dug 'he loves me, he loves me not'. even wifey (who doesn't normally dig foreign flicks) thought it was great.

03/01/06: THE MANXMAN (Alfred Hitchcock, 1929) **1/2

I hadn't watched that many Silent Hitchcock films prior to this one - THE LODGER (1926), THE RING (1927) and the rarely-screened "original" version of BLACKMAIL (1929) - but they were good ones; I knew going in this wouldn't be a thriller but it was still a disappointment, coming from one of my favorite film-makers! Melodrama was never Hitchcock's forte and the pseudo-realistic background of a fishing community only accentuates further the director's incompatibility with the material at hand. That said, the film is nicely photographed and the resolution of the main plot is unconventional, to say the least - as the girl (played by the lovely Anny Ondra, who also starred in BLACKMAIL) chooses the company of the scholarly, upper-class lover over her rugged, more handsome husband!


03/02/06: THE FARMER'S WIFE (Alfred Hitchcock, 1928) **

If THE MANXMAN (see above) was nothing like a Hitchcock film, how to describe this rustic comedy? Or what passes for it, as there was absolutely nothing to laugh at in all the 129 slow-going minutes of this boringly predictable and impossibly archaic affair (adapted from a stage play) that is peopled for the most part by grating caricatures! It is obvious that Hitch made this one purely as an assignment picture, and it is easily the worst film of his I have ever watched. Thankfully, he developed a more sensible (and subtle) "funny bone" as he went along...


03/01/06: MR. AND MRS. SMITH (Doug Liman, 2005) ***

A polished and elaborate actioner tailor-made for its two likeable and charismatic (if overly mannered) stars, whose on-screen chemistry (by-now well-proven) is unmistakable. For all the up-to-the-minute gadgets on display, this is really light and old-fashioned stuff - and I mean that in a good way; fast, funny and exciting, MR. AND MRS. SMITH (nothing at all to do with the 1941 Hitchcock comedy) is generally scintillating entertainment of a kind rarely seen anymore; also, Vince Vaughn is hilarious as Pitt's misanthropic colleague.


03/02/06: THE CONSTANT GARDENER (Fernando Meirelles, 2005) ***

A very good if somewhat flashily directed film with excellent performances (adapted from the John le Carre` novel) which, however, seems to have too many things going on at once - political intrigue, social conscience, character study, local color - so that it ends up being aloof about most of them! The relationship between Ralph Fiennes and Rachel Weisz (a deserving Oscar contender) is credibly developed, the double investigation undeniably gripping, but the socio-political emphasis is a matter of taste as it all felt rather dreary to me. I had watched Meirelles' CITY OF GOD (2002), about which I had more or less the same reservations; as for John le Carre`, I've always been interested in catching up with cinematic adaptations of his work though, so far, I only have three under my belt - the others being the Cold War-themed (as it was for most 60s spy thrillers) THE SPY WHO CAME IN FROM THE COLD (1965) and THE DEADLY AFFAIR (1966), both of which are first-rate (I do have THE TAILOR OF PANAMA [2001] on VHS, however).


03/03/06: THE CURSE OF THE WERE-RABBIT (Nick Park and Steve Box, 2005) ***

I hadn't watched CHICKEN RUN (2001) or the "Wallace & Gromit" TV series, so I didn't quite know how I would take this feature-length effort; I must say that I was very surprised with the results. The film was a delight: very funny, clever and with any number of wonderful sight gags that ought to shame the makers of what passes for comedy nowadays! Wallace and Gromit turned out to be a very likeable pair after all, as were the "villainous" dog and the flock of bunnies who, obviously, play a pivotal role in the proceedings. Besides, its take on werewolf films is quite nicely done. The form of clay animation adopted here is somewhat crude (when compared to the standard Disney style)...but I vastly prefer it to CGI!


03/03/06: STAGE FRIGHT (Steve Box, 1997) **

An earlier "claymation" short from the "Wallace & Gromit" stable which is somewhat unsympathetic, though typically proficient on a technical level. Its vaudeville-vs.-cinema theme, however, is an interesting one if too basically developed (in view, no doubt, of the film's modest origins) to be very insightful.

“What in the wide, wide world of sports is a-goin’ on here?”

Yikes! I thought I clicked on the S&S thread by accident until I spotted the Billy the Kid vs. Dracula review.

First time viewings in Bold

The Thief of Bagdad (1924)
Silent Douglas Fairbanks fantasy which was improved upon in 1940 with sound and flashy Technicolor. Hoo-ya

Faust (1926)
Classic tale of the man who sold his soul to Mephisto. Some very cool visuals in this German expressionistic silent, though the story drags a bit in the middle. Add this one to the very small list of Silents that rise above being mere museum pieces.

Arrowsmith (1931)
Stodgy Ford drama has Ronald Coleman inventing a cure for insomnia the plague.

Broadway Bill (1934)
Frank Capra infuses the then topical Seabiscuit legend in a story that’s basically a tired rehash of his superior It Happened One Night.

The Plainsman (1936)
Standard western stars Cary Cooper & Jean Arthur as the legendary Wild Bill Hickock & Calamity Jane.

Romeo and Juliet (1936)
Leslie Howard and Norma Shearer star as Shakespeare’s starry eyed lovers in this lavish MGM costume drama.

The Hurricane (1937)
I was very let down by this insipid John Ford tropical island romance. The centerpiece of the film are the hurricane effects which while impressive for it’s time hardly elevate this above the average melodrama.

Night Must Fall (1937)
Fairly good thriller has an invalid hiring a mysterious young man (Robert Montgomery) as a caretaker.

Vivacious Lady (1938)
George Stevens comedy has Professor Jimmy Stewart falling for nightclub performer Ginger Rogers.

Four Daughters (1938)
Dull melodrama about a musician and his well….four daughters of course.

Young Mr. Lincoln (1939)
Henry Fonda stars as lawyer Abe Lincoln who defends two men against a murder charge.

added:

MARCH 2006

title: danny deckchair
rating: c
comments: it wasn't the worst quirky romance movie i've seen, but there was really nothing special to set this apart. some nice charm though.

Man I know I'm late but I'll guess I'll start from last week.

March 4, 2006
Some Like it Hot 3.5/5

March 3, 2006
Bridge on the River Kwai 5/5
North Country 3.5/5

March 2, 2006
Zathura 3/5

March 1, 2006
On the Waterfront 4/5

Febuary 28, 2006
Doctor Zhivago- 5/5

Update part II

First time viewings in Bold

The Long Voyage Home (1940)
John Ford drama about a group of merchant sailors features John Wayne as a Swede?!

Primrose Path (1940)
Melodrama has rich guy Joel McCrea falling for poor girl Ginger Rogers.

Waterloo Bridge (1940)
Tearjerker about a tragic love affair between a ballerina and a WWI British officer (Vivian Leigh and Robert Taylor).

Joan of Paris (1942)
WWII flick has a group of downed RAF pilots getting help from a Parisian woman.

Mission to Moscow (1943)
WWII propaganda film has FDR sending US diplomats to enlist the support of the Soviet Union. The whitewashing of Stalin in this film is almost amusing.

The Southerner (1945)
Jean Renoir brings his European sensibilities to Americana in this bland film about a poor farming family.

Joan of Arc (1948)
Ingrid Bergman stars as the legendary French heroine in this, the most complete and entertaining version of this story I’ve seen.

A Foreign Affair (1948)
Billy Wilder dra-medy set in post war Berlin as congresswoman Jean Arthur is duped by an Army Captain and his ex-Nazi nightclub singer girlfriend, Marlene Dietrich.

The Emperor Waltz (1948)
Tedious Billy Wilder musical has Bing Crosby romancing Joan Fontaine in turn of the century Austria.

A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court (1949)
Musical/Comedy has Bing Crosby transported to medieval times. Where are the knights who say Ni?

The Adventures of Mark Twain (1949)
Fredric March stars in this bio-drama about…. well Mark Twain of course.

We Were Strangers (1949)
John Garfield stars as an American who joins a fanatical Cuban revolutionary organization.

Tokyo Joe (1949)
Bogart returns to Japan to find his past love has married another.

added:

title: pom poko
rating: a
comments: probably my favorite non-miyazaki directed feature. who knew racoons could be so cute. i caught myself laughing and smiling quite a bit (hard to do) -- while other scenes made me actually feel sad (even harder to do)! btw, do the tree huggers know about this movie?

3/3: Lady and the Tramp /

Of all the Walt Disney animated films, this is the one that felt most like a "slice of life" picture. Yes, the romance and action at the end are exciting, but it's the way these characters worm their way into the heart that makes the movie work. The instant I saw each of the dogs, I could connect with their feelings and experiences. As well, the music is beautiful and performed admirably.

What brings the movie down a notch is the annoying howling song in the pound and the decision to let Trusty live after the chase. Lady and the Tramp is not my favorite Disney film by any means, but it is a well-made movie, and I am happy to have it in my collection.