Track the Films You Watch (2007) - Page 16

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2007)

Being the one who inadvertently kicked off the latest rematch between Mike and Joe, I guess I'm entitled to give my two cents:

Frankly, in hindsight, I think I did a disservice to THE ILLUSIONIST (2006) in my review by dwelling so much on how it fared in comparison to THE PRESTIGE (2006) and, to a lesser extent, THE FACE aka THE MAGICIAN (1958) since it was, in itself, a fine film but one doesn't really come off with that impression after reading my comments. But, the fact remains that THE PRESTIGE is still too fresh in my mind to consciously dismiss it when discussing THE ILLUSIONIST; incidentally, my pal at the DVD rental store just told me how superior he thought the latter was in comparison to the former and this made me wonder whether Joe Karlosi would agree when he eventually catches up with THE PRESTIGE (given his surprisingly high rating for THE ILLUSIONIST). But I'd better stop here before this thing turns into a labyrinthine conundrum!

Anyway, there is no denying the fact that one's amount of exposure to other films has a bearing on how one reacts to a "later" film - by which I mean that, for example, just as I today watched the 1924 Conrad Veidt version of THE HANDS OF ORLAC, there is no way that I won't compare it to the later 1935 Peter Lorre and 1960 Christopher Lee versions (which I was familiar with prior to my watching the 1924 original); similarly, this being another Robert Wiene/Conrad Veidt collaboration, it also invites comparison to their other more famous film, THE CABINET OF DR. CALIGARI (1919). Incidentally, I followed the screening of THE HANDS OF ORLAC with another remake - THE JAZZ SINGER (1980) - so there you go! And what about another very recent instance - MOTHER JOAN OF THE ANGELS (1961) vs. THE DEVILS (1971) - also dealt at length in my review of the former?

I realize this not "another discussion about remakes"-thing but, indulge me for a moment, please: two instances I like to bring up when remakes are discussed are FANNY (1961) and SOLARIS (2002): on their own, these two remakes would get a rating from me but when I watched them last - or, rather, for the first and only time, so far - I immediately followed them (i.e. the day after) with a screening of the original versions of The Fanny Trilogy (1931-1936) and SOLARIS (1972), respectively. Now, I was so impressed with the originals (both got a rating, in fact) that a mere distance of
did not reflect, in my eyes, the level of superiority the originals enjoyed over their remakes...with the result that I ended up giving the latter each. Was I unfair to the remakes? You tell me.

But this doesn't apply just to remakes: I remember that when after we watched THE SIXTH SENSE (1999), my father was full of praise for it but my twin brother and I soon cut his enthusiasm down to size when we said that the film reminded us of several older and better movies - namely THE DISCREET CHARM OF THE BOURGEOISIE (1972), THE EXORCIST (1973), etc. Does this mean that M. Night Shyamalan did consciously borrow from these movies? Perhaps not...but so it seemed to us. In the long run, a teenage moviegoer of 1999 (one of millions who helped make the film a big box office hit) wouldn't have suspected that and (most probably) couldn't have cared less!


P.S. Joe, keep up the good work with watching "new" movies so regularly.

And, Mike and Joe, look for tomorrow's entries in my "Track The Films" master list....

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2007)

Wow, that's a hard one. On the one hand, yes, it would seem that you were allowing the superiority of the first two films to affect you and (maybe wrongly) preventing you from giving the remakes their fair due. Yet on the other hand, I do believe that there are all sorts of factors which go into an individual's personal evaluation, so this makes your critique of the remakes true to your own feelings, and uniquely your own. I know this is a copout answer, but I can see this both ways. Perhaps if you just clarify your reasoning in your text as you did here for us, it would explain it best of all, from both angles (reviewed on their own, and then as compared to the originals). I'm really curious to hear what others think, if they're inclined to respond (and I hope they are!).


And I would argue that the teenager of 1999 in this example would only be able to go by his own experiences up to that point. I loved THE SIXTH SENSE, by the way (****) but I see no relation to THE EXORCIST (I haven't seen the other movie). The film I feel is most like THE SIXTH SENSE may be CARNIVAL OF SOULS (1962) -- and I like Shyamalan's movie MUCH better.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2007)

I'm glad you could see it my way, too (for once) and, for what it's worth, I hope others chime in about this one as well.



Bruce Willis ostensibly plays a shrink going through a crisis in his life (due to a traumatic past experience) just as he is about to embark on a most overwhelming case; similarly, Fr. Damian Karras (Jason Miller) faces the ultimate opponent (the Devil himself, natch) just as he is having doubts about his faith (brought upon by his guilt feelings about abandoning his mother to a retirement home and her subsequent death).

Without giving anything away, the clue to the similarity between Bunuel's film - or, for that matter, your own old "favorite", AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON (1981) - and THE SIXTH SENSE (1999) is found in the latter's most famous line, "I see dead people"!

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2007)

Of course, we know you're kidding here, but lest anyone else think I actually like that stupid film, let it be known that I hate it!!

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2007)

LOL!

And if I ever decide to check out FRANKENSTEIN'S GREAT AUNT TILLIE or a 10-second 1880s short on the making of shoelace tips, you'd be my man!

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2007)

Being TCM, it's very likely to be the 1925 silent version, and not the 1942 version with narration. But you'll quickly be able to tell.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2007)

As I said at the very end of the last page, it is the 1925 version. Just wanted to post it here so Joe could see it.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2007)

02/13/07: REQUIEM FOR A HEAVYWEIGHT (Ralph Nelson, 1962)

I had missed out on an Italian TV broadcast of this acclaimed boxing drama in the 80s and, even if it did get released on DVD on both regions, I never got to pick it up until now because its lack of any significant supplements kept pushing it back. Anyway, I got to watch and own it now and it was certainly worth the wait as this must surely rank among the best films that deal with boxing. Interestingly, REQUIEM FOR A HEAVYWEIGHT was originally previewed at a much longer running time (featuring some 16 minutes of additional footage) but the version I watched is the more familiar 86-minute cut.

The film was superbly written by Rod Serling – best-known for writing many of THE TWILIGHT ZONE (1959-64) episodes and introducing the show – who, among others, provided the screenplay for such notable films as PATTERNS (1956), SEVEN DAYS IN MAY (1964) and PLANET OF THE APES (1968). Actually, this was the fourth filming of the play and previous TV versions – both made in 1957 – starred Jack Palance and, of all people, Sean Connery in the role played here by Anthony Quinn!

The four leads are all outstanding: Quinn gives what is arguably his most moving performance as the dim-witted boxer who cannot even talk coherently with all the beatings he took in the ring and might even lose his sight if he keeps at it much longer; Jackie Gleason is excellent as Quinn’s manager who is driven to bet against his own man in order to collect some fast dough and pay off his debts to an androgynous racketeer breathing down his neck; Mickey Rooney is just terrific as Quinn’s loyal handler (and an ex-prizefighter himself) who quickly sees through all of Gleason’s schemes to keep Quinn in the ring for his own personal gain; and Julie Harris as the lonesome social worker who takes pity on Quinn and tries to get him employed away from ringside perils. The blooming MARTY (1955)-ish romance between Quinn and Harris is perhaps a bit too good to be true and occurs rather too suddenly for this cynical viewer but it does not in any way detract from the film’s stifling recreation of the seamy ambience –strikingly similar to that of THE HUSTLER (1961), also featuring Jackie Gleason – aided in no small measure by Arthur J. Ornitz’s noir-ish lighting and Laurence Rosenthal’s jazzy score, not to mention the appearance of real-life boxing pros such as Cassius Clay (playing himself as one of Quinn’s ringside opponents) and Jack Dempsey.

Ralph Nelson was an erratic director with pretensions: I’ve watched 8 of his films so far and a few more have been numerous times on TV – FATHER GOOSE (1964), ONCE A THIEF (1965), THE WRATH OF GOD (1972) – so I guess I should make an extra effort now to catch them the next time they’re on; REQUIEM FOR A HEAVYWEIGHT, while actually his debut film, remains possibly his most satisfying work all round and deservedly earned him a nod from the Directors’ Guild of America.


02/13/07: FEAR STRIKES OUT (Robert Mulligan, 1957)

This is one of a myriad sporting biopics made by Hollywood around this time – and whose appeal didn’t really travel to other countries because the sport involved (or, for that matter, the star player whose life story we’re supposed to be viewing) is only appreciated by Americans: in this case, Jim Piersall and baseball. Anyway, while not exactly better than similar biopics, the film is sufficiently different (and therefore interesting) in view of its inherent psychological elements dealing as it does with Piersall’s mental breakdown.

The pre-requisite Method performances ensure a rather melodramatic approach and I’m quite surprised how Anthony Perkins’ excellent central performance did not win him any accolades, whereas director Mulligan was nominated for the Directors’ Guild Award for his work here when, in hindsight, I cannot help thinking how much better the film would have been in the hands of, say, Elia Kazan or Nicholas Ray. His handling is competent but predictable – down to the inspirational final shot; as for the the scenes at the mental institution, these don’t garner as much power as they ought to, since it’s made obvious from the start that Piersall’s problem lies in his troubled relationship with his bullying father (Karl Malden). Even so, Elmer Bernstein’s fine score is a definite asset to the film.


02/15/07: THE GREAT GARRICK (James Whale, 1937)

With every new Whale film I watch, it’s becoming increasingly evident that it’s not just his horror output that was unique; this one, in fact – the director’s sole effort for Warner Bros. – feels nothing like any of their productions!

The title would seem to suggest a biopic of the celebrated English actor – many similar prestige films emerged from Hollywood during this time, such as THE GREAT ZIEGFELD (1936) and THE GREAT WALTZ (1938) – but Whale and screenwriter Ernest Vajda concentrate instead on one curious incident (the fact that it never actually occurred is immaterial). Most of the director’s typical qualities – and faults – are to be found in the film: his eye for pictorial detail (accentuated by Anton Grot’s distinctive set design), the fluid camerawork (courtesy of Ernest Haller), the dry English humor, etc. However, he also tends to over-indulge his character actors (which, this being essentially a celebration of the art of performing, is hardly surprising in this case) and, consequently, the film’s initial momentum isn’t sustained throughout – the second half is somewhat chaotic and ham-fisted – but picks up again for the splendid finale. Nevertheless, Whale biographer James Curtis considers THE GREAT GARRICK his last wholly satisfying film – which, actually, makes me look forward all the more to watching THE MAN IN THE IRON MASK (1939) someday given its own solid reputation!

Inevitably, the cast has been carefully and most ably chosen: the underrated Brian Aherne is superb in the title role, while it’s always a pleasure to see Edward Everett Horton (playing nervous and cowardly as always); among the endless list of supporting actors, perhaps the most impressive are Etienne Girardot (funny and poignant as an elderly stage prompter and Garrick’s most devoted fan) and Luis Alberni (a specialist in servant roles relishing his one-shot opportunity at essaying the showier part of a lunatic); in contrast, demure Olivia De Havilland – a Warners contract player – feels somewhat lost in such company, to the point where additional close-ups were imposed by the studio (notably the unwarranted and corny final shot).

This stylish and delightful gem is truly one of the unsung films about the acting profession, in every way a worthy companion piece to such major works as Marcel Carne`’s CHILDREN OF PARADISE (1945) and Jean Renoir’s THE GOLDEN COACH (1952). Unfortunately, the audio on the DVD-R I watched (made from a TCM broadcast) was occasionally accompanied by a distracting echo; given Warners’ recent DVD release of Whale’s WATERLOO BRIDGE (1931) – as part of the “Forbidden Hollywood” set – and the rumored one for SHOWBOAT (1936) – along with two other cinematic adaptations of the popular musical – I hope that THE GREAT GARRICK won’t be left behind (after all, those two films were actually Universal productions which became the property of Warners solely by virtue of the MGM remakes!).

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2007)

(edited)

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2007)

Well, I can't speak for the rest of "white America" (and I don't think Spike should be either), but I found both incidents to be disturbing because they each could have been avoided. I think part of Spike's point was that they indeed could have been avoided, but racism escalated both situations to the point of tragedy.

I'm not a scholar of the film, but Michael I think some of your statements are much too (pardon the terminology here) "black and white". What I got out of the movie (whether I believe it or not) is that EVERYONE is racist, but it may be to different degrees with each person having different abilities to control it. The idea of this being the hottest day of the year was that it helped break down everyone's normal ability to control their emotions and feelings. Sal's son Pino and the complaining Buggin Out (played a bit too well by Giancarlo Esposito - I can't really stand watching him in anything else because I think back to this character) normally have no filters and are very racist. Other characters, who typically have clearer thinking, find their filters breaking down because of the environment and situations.

Again, I don't necessarily see things that way, but I think that's why Spike ends with 2 conflicting quotations...It's not that easy to understand and fix racism.

Anyway, that's what I got out of it. Haven't listened to the commentary yet, so I may be talking out of my ass. As for the film, I think it's tremendously successful in conveying the heat of the day, the tension build up and the complete uselessness of acts of violence committed due to racism.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2007)

Thanks for the recommendations on both directors Martin. I agree that the first section of Three Times was the best, particularly at the end of it. Qi Shu is extremely charming and girlish and gives the entire episode some warmth.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2007)

Cursed (2005)

A brother and sister are attacked by a werewolf while trying to save a young women from a car wreck. Better than most movies of this kind. I found myself enjoying it. I thought the werewolf was laughable but no matter, still entertaining.

Razor's Edge (1946)

A young man travels the world in search of the meaning of life, leaving a broken engagement behind. Even though I enjoyed the Bill Murray version very much, this rendition is a classic. The acting is subtle and superb especially the lovely Gene Tierney. Never a big Tyrone Power fan, but I did enjoy him in this movie. Ann Baxter is brilliant as a women that descends into a hell of her own making, or maybe not entirely. The movie was a bit overlong and could have been tightened up but overall a splendid movie.

RV (2006)

A family go on vacation in a rented RV to Colorado. Better than expected except for the bodily function joke which is getting really tiresome in these kinds of movies. Still enough laughs to give it, to quote Roger Ebert, a mild thumbs down.

Private Detective (1939)

Supposedly a murder mystery which in my opinion was easy to guess. I don't know if they were trying to play at the romance angle in this movie, but they failed miserably. Watchable but glad it was short.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2007)

Spike's point is not that everyone is racist. There are multiple characters throughout the film who do not display a trace of racism. (I've seen the film MANY times, please explain to me how Jade or Da Mayor are racist) The burning of the store is not a racist act. It is an act of protest and revolt against real, perceived, and illusionary shortcomings of "the system". I'm rather flabbergasted that Michael could give the film 4 stars and completely misunderstand it. However I've gone 15 rounds on this film with George and others in the past and am not up to retyping everything again. Unfortunately due to the amount of threads over the years, I can't find some of what I've written in the past about the film and simply repost it.

And check out Goodbye South, Goodbye as well Bob if you're interested in Hou. I agree on Three Times as I enjoyed the first section and found the other 2 rather underwhelming. I'm much more of a Tsai fan.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2007)

Well, to be fair, I've only seen it twice and I did say that I could be talking out of my ass...

Indeed you're right Brook, not everyone in the film is racist. But having said that, I still got the feeling that the film was showing an occasion of the right circumstances, environment, frustration level, etc. that broke down one man's filter and therefore implying that we could all be harbouring similar feelings.

Also, to clarify, I didn't mean to say that the store burning was an act of racism. It was a response to an act of racism (ie. racism escalated the situation to a point of tragedy).

Thanks for the additional Hsiao-hsien Hou pointer. Along with Martin's recommendations, I'm keen to see more now.

I said it was one of the factors. The environment, the situations, etc. It had been building up until this one day.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2007)

Well, despite what Brook says, it's clear that the message of Do the Right Thing is that everyone (or 99.99999% of everyone) is racist deep down, and that to act on that racism is the right thing to do. A horrible film with a horrible message. And I'm very proud to say that I've only seen it once.

Fat City

Very well-acted boxing film that is a lot more depressing than it is entertaining. Excellent music however.

Separate Tables

Soapy film that could have been made by Sirk, except in that case, Kerr wouldn't have been the only one engaging in hysterical overacting.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2007)

Clear to you perhaps George, but I absolutely completely disagree with the final part of the quote above. I just didn't see any indication at any point that acting on racism was right. On the contrary actually - racism leads to tragedy. Nor do I see Spike Lee trying to get that message across.

But I know you and others have discussed this to death.

I taped Fat City from TCM as well. Hope to get to it this week.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2007)

Mike,

I've already read your comments on ANGEL and VERDOUX on the "Sight & Sound" thread but, I reckon, you've got some more 'xplainin' to do now, m'boy!! There I was thinking I'd put one on you by watching MANDINGO (1975) and its follow-up but you've doggone and pulled the rug right from under my feet with these here star ratin's!

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2007)

Quotes (originally posted by Michael Elliott):

“Exterminating Angel, The (1962)

Luis Bunuel's film about a group of people, who after dinner can't leave the room they are in. I know this is considered one of the director's best films but I wouldn't call it that. The film never worked well enough for me to give it four stars or call it among the director's best film but it's still a highly impressive movie from the point of storytelling. I'm really not sure why I wasn't able to get drawn into the film but I'm going to say it's because I didn't enjoy any of the characters. Perhaps this was a point to them being trapped, ala Bunuel not liking these type of films but I didn't think it helped the film any. What's really impressive is Bunuel's sense of direction and storytelling that keeps this thing going even though we don't get too much time outside of this room. I also thought the explanation of why they are trapped was a tad bit too easy but it didn't really matter.”

Actually, I’m not all that surprised that you were underwhelmed by this one, Mike, as the same thing happened to you with THE DISCREET CHARM OF THE BOURGEOISIE (1972) for which THE EXTERMINATING ANGEL (1962) is virtually a template. Like John Lennon - a middle class citizen so desperately wanting to be a working class hero that he championed all anti-establishment causes then en vogue – Bunuel actually came from the Spanish upper classes and yet made a career of satirizing their mores and foibles and this was perhaps never clearer than in these two movies in that the whole narrative literally revolved around the etiquette in society parties, dinner engagements, etc. What’s so tragic about being invited to dinner and not being able to make it in the end? And yet, the characters in DISCREET CHARM spend the entire film looking for that elusive perfect dinner party, meeting for one dinner after another because the previous one had been a disaster for some reason. The same thing with ANGEL: a society party which, for no apparent reason, degenerates into a squalid one–room existence for its guests who are trapped within the walls of their hosts’ house for a whole week or so. The beauty of it is that their way out was a very simple one after all (and, no, I won’t spoil it here for anyone still unfamiliar with the film) which again harks back to the exaggerated level of importance society places on one’s adherence to codes of conduct in a civilized world. It’s rather too bad that I’m being so didactic in my explanation – which may end up making the film seem pretentious – when actually it’s very funny and thoroughly enjoyable.

Useless bit of trivia: shortly before she died, Marilyn Monroe visited Bunuel on the set of THE EXTERMINATING ANGEL! Whoever said this girl was dumbhttp?


”Valerie and Her Week of Wonders (1970)

Surreal Czechoslovakian film mixes horror, eroticism and fantasy. The film tells the story of a young girl named Valerie who receives a magical pair of earrings, which allows her to see the world as it really is. This world is full of sex, greed and that type of stuff. When something surreal works it works very well but quite often I think a lot of directors just try to pass off weirdness of surreal and I think that's the case with this film. It's never really clear what you're watching and I'm going to guess that was the point but I found this film to be quite boring and rather hard to get through the 77-minute running time. There are all sorts of strange characters ranging from the title character to the sexually abusive Priest but none of them are really interesting. The fairy tale nature of the film comes off pretty well but that's about it.”

While I’m partial to surrealism for obvious reasons, I’m not too keen on several facets of the style myself, at least as utilized by various film-makers I’m familiar with – Incomprehensible/Surreal (David Lynch, Peter Greenaway), Grotesque/Surreal (Federico Fellini), Scatological/Surreal (Alejandro Jodorowsky, Fernando Arrabal), etc. I’ve liked and admired some movies from all of these directors but, overall, I’m under the impression that they’re not as smart as they would have us believe, as opposed to being too smart for their own good.

In any case, I don’t classify VALERIE AND HER WEEK OF WONDERS (1970) as being one of these “failures” as I loved the film on both occasions I watched it. Yes, perhaps it is being weird for weirdness’ sake but, as Mike rightly said in his review, the fairy tale/dreamy nature of the film is so overwhelming that, for me, it makes all the loose ends fit in the long run. I’m sure one reacts to his own sexual initiation in his own particular way but I found it wonderful that this girl, being so young and all, assimilated her erotic experiences with her childhood world of fairies in forests and ogres in caves (and what have you) which, after all, was still so familiar to her.

By the way, here’s my full review of the film:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066516/usercomments-14


”Alphaville (1965)

Jean-Luc Godard's "classic" science fiction film about a detective (Eddie Constantine) who arrives in the futuristic city of Alphaville to rescue a scientist and destroy an evil robot that has taken away love and sympathy. You put an American director's name on this film and this thing would only get reviewed in the Golden Turkey Awards book. It's rather amazing at how bad this film was on nearly 96% of all levels. I'll give credit where it's due and say that Godard made a nice looking film with some wonderful cinematography but this guy couldn't tell this story to save his life. The story to this film is as bad as anything Ed Wood or Roger Corman dealt with and I'd go even further to call this one of the worst science fiction films ever made. I'm sure fans of the film think I'm coming down too hard on this film but I hated it that much. Overly talky doesn't begin to describe this thing and the dialogue is on the level of a Wood film (one and one equals two...oh, how deep). I thought Flesh for Frankenstein was the worst film Criterion ever released but I believe that honor goes to this title.”

I’ll use a Joe Karlosi “expression” as a rebuttal for that last crack: you haven’t seen every film Criterion has ever put out on DVD, so how can you tellhttp? Again, I can’t say I’m too surprised that you didn’t like this movie…only at the intense level of loathing heaped on it in your review!

Seriously, though: I’ve said time and again that Jean-Luc Godard’s films between 1960-1967 are a blind spot to me in that I find them all to be amazingly vigorous, innovative and challenging in ways that other film-makers can only dream of. Of course, despite being inspired by the pulp fiction of Peter Chesney (who invented the Lemmy Caution character whom Eddie Constantine interpreted in a whole series of film prior to this one), it’s no great surprise that, being a Godard film, it’s on a whole other intellectual level. I can see now that you really did hate the film as your review failed to mention Anna Karina, Akim Tamiroff, Howard Vernon (as Professor Nosferatu Von Braun), the guttural voice of Alpha 60 (a precursor to HAL 9000), the scenes printed in negative, the pool-side mass execution sequence, etc. You have likened this film to the worst of Roger Corman and Ed Wood but you failed to name Jess Franco, who at the time considered Godard among the greatest film-makers and even had one character say so in SUCCUBUS (1967), and who employed the services of Constantine (twice), Tamiroff (once) and Vernon (countless times) in his films!

Mike, I know you own Godard’s CONTEMPT (1963) and I’d really love to hear your take on that one…oh, boy! After all, Scorsese ripped off its haunting Georges Delerue score for his “been there-done that” CASINO (1995)!


”Monsieur Verdoux (1947)

Hit and miss black comedy from Charles Chaplin has him playing a man who marries rich women and then kills them so that he can support his wife and child during the Depression. It's easy to see why this film was so controversial and turned out to be a box office bomb at the time of its release but I think time has probably been good to it. I would have to call this a minor work in Chaplin's career but there are still several moments of brilliance but at the same time there's several flaws. I thought the biggest flaw was the ending, which I thought was really, really bad. The speech Chaplin gives is rather bogus to me. I'm not sure what Chaplin was aiming for but it was a miss all around. Another thing is that I thought the film could have lost a good fifteen to twenty minutes. Outside of that there's several things to love here including the performance of Chaplin who is great in nearly every scene. There's a hilarious, great Chaplin bit involving a slap fight, which had me on the floor with laughter. Then there's the wonderfully touching scene with one of the women who he changes his mind about killing. This speech about love was brilliantly written and acted. The supporting wives all give very good performances and in some ways pass Chaplin. It would have been curious to see what Orson Welles would have done had he directed this film like was originally planned. It was also interesting seeing that Robert Florey was Associate Director.”

I’ve watched this movie a couple of times but it’s been so long ago – some 10 years at the very least – that my comments can only be of the generic kind: Chaplin was very fond of this movie and, at one point, he said he wished to be remembered for it the most (although he had said that of some of his previous movies, too). I would argue that it’s probably his most interesting film (I’m not surprised that it has found a place on that high-brow “Sight & Sound” poll) because it’s so different from all the ones that came before it i.e. being a black comedy rather than a slapstick farce. Also, being a black comedy about a serial killer, it forms a kind of eccentric trilogy with Luis Bunuel’s THE CRIMINAL LIFE OF ARCHIBALDO DE LA CRUZ (1955) and Mario Bava’s HATCHET FOR THE HONEYMOON (1970) – incidentally, two more films by which Michael Elliott was underwhelmed; no wonder it took you so long to catch up with it! Just pulling your leg a little, pal!

I suppose you haven’t watched the Claude Chabrol version, LANDRU (1962), which even if I watched it in truncated form, I found to be much better than that dismissive review in Leonard Maltin’s guide would have us believe. Also, despite its bad reputation, I’d love to watch the international Edward Dmytryk/Richard Burton version, BLUEBEARD (1972) someday.

By the way, which DVD edition did you watch, Mike? Personally, I never managed to snag a copy of the single Image disc of this one – as well as THE KID (1921)/A DOG’S LIFE (1918) – during that mad rush to get those editions of the Chaplin films some years back before they all went OOP! I do have the MK2/Warners disc of MONSIEUR VERDOUX (1947), though, but it’s currently languishing in my unwatched pile. Unfortunately, I have a shitload of other Chaplin DVDs (and, come to think of it, Hitchcocks) to watch as well but I don’t know when I will ever get the craving to watch them all in a row!

Incidentally, it’s funny that you mention the Orson Welles incident because that is just another example of Chaplin’s slimy opportunism which infuriates me so much: when Welles called Chaplin in 1943 inviting him to star in a film about Landru, the latter declined but then, after the project died in its tracks, revived it a few years later on his own thus taking all the plaudits (which weren’t that many at the time, I grant you) himself; at least, he did have the decency to give Welles a tiny “based on an idea by” credit…

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2007)

I haven't seen the film, but now I'm interested in seeing it and forming my own opinion.

One thing I still see by all these posts alone is that there may not necessarily be only one way to interpret a film (which reflects back to a similar recent discussion). Or could it be, though, that the director's intent is the "proper" way, even if some may not recognize it?

I hope my local Blockbuster carries this.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2007)

Time Out!

Are you sure this is something "I've" expressed? While I do tend to agree with it, the irony to me is that it sounds more like something Michael Elliott himself has often expressed! Michael's usually the one saying things like: "well, if someone's going to say he thinks (blank) is the worst, then I'm going to ask what else he has seen". So it sounds like a contradiction.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2007)

That's true, but the problem is that it's damned hard not to believe that ones interpretation is correct. I'm sure that Brook and many others absolutely 100% so see this film with some kind of non-racist message that they can not even begin to fathom how someone can see a "everyone is racist" racist message in the film. On the other hand, it's so clear to me that that's what the message is, I find it impossible to imagine how anyone else could not see it for the racist piece of trash it is.

Conceptually, we can all agree that different interpretations are feasible, but it's hard to put into practice. Pat Robertson has studied the bible a hell of a lot more than I have, and he's absolutely certain his interpretation is right, but it so contravenes basic logic that I have a difficult time imagining how anyone with a functioning frontal lobe can come to those conclusions.

I do think that watching a film for oneself and coming to ones own conclusion is absolutely the right way to go, and whether your opinion is mainstream and shared by all the critics, or something that you alone have, you shouldn't let anyone else change your mind. What most stuns me about DTRT is how many people see the same things I do (e.g., a portrayal of deep-seated racism as ultra prevalant among the films characters, and the lead character deciding at the end that the "right thing to do" is to act violently), yet draw a different conclusion about what that says, or rejecting their own interpretation because it's not mainstream, so it must be wrong cause all those knowledgable critics must know what they're talking about.

The Notebook

This isn't a horrid chick flick on the level of Bridget Jones' Diary or anything, but it's far too predictable and saccharine to be anything more than mediocre.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2007)

Correct me if I'm wrong, Joe, but in spite of your having "subscribed" to the "Sight & Sound" thread with, I assume, the intention of going through it - or, at least those titles which strike your fancy - I'm under the impression that you, as a rule, are skeptical about such polls simply because nobody - from professional film critics to passionate film buffs - can truly be said to have watched every film ever made so, therefore, no films can ever truly earn "the greatest 100 - or the greatest 1000 - films ever made" moniker!

It follows, thus, that Michael's conviction that ALPHAVILLE (1965) is the worst film Criterion ever put out on DVD is similarly suspect.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2007)

It may have "sounded" hilarious to you but tell that to the guy who voiced Alpha 60 since he really talked like that on account of him having no larynx!



Shit!




Even back then, Orson Welles was not someone you could easily ignore!



Come, come now...give the man a chance to go through his Tarzans, Mr. Motos and Charlie Chans first: at least, they're a step up from Elvis Presley...or Godzilla!