Expanding Horizons (1 Viewer)

[Rob Tomlin]

Then, some months later, I saw it breathtaking 70MM at the best movie theater ever built (the Senator) and my opinion of it changed dramatically. Now it's one of my favorite movies of all-time.

Repeated viewings of movies like Lawrence of Arabia and Citizen Kane always reveal more subtleties of the movies, and peoples opinions of them often go up after repeated viewings.
Of course, seeing a movie like Lawrence of Arabia in 70mm sure as hell isn't going to hurt either!
Glad to see you have changed your opinion on Lawrence, Andrew!

 

[Mike Hutman]

I have expanded my Horizons not with a movie, but with live theater this weekend. I went to the Human Race Theater in downtown Dayton to watch Bat Boy The Musical. I was not to sure what to expect from this play. It only took about Ten minutes and I was hooked. The music was great, some of the funniest stuff I heard in a long time. The acting was stunning. It truly was fun and enjoyable to watch.
If anyone is wondering, yes Bat Boy the Musical is based off the The Weekly World News.
I enjoyed this more then any resent movie I have seen in a long, long time. I would recommend this form of entertainment to anyone. I can't wait to go and see another Play.(I never thought I would say that)

 

[Dome Vongvises]

I really need to see Lawrence of Arabia in 70mm. Too bad I'm stuck in the middle of nowhere.

 

[Lew Crippen]

BTW, Dome, I'm pretty sure it was Rashomon that got Kurosawa his first real attention. Ironically, we also studied it in the same film class where I first saw Kane.

That is my understanding as well John. This film brought Kurosawa to the attention of the West. A few years later, when Seven Samurai made an even bigger splash, many film critics in Japan began to openly sneer at Kurosawa for being too accessible, especially to the West. And to have also borrowed too heavily from Western art forms to be truly Japanese.

Leaving him to viewed as too popular (in Japan) and too much of an art-house figure here—and all at the same time.

 

[Lew Crippen]

The first time I can really remember a movie that expanded my horizons was

Stalag 17, Billy Wilder’s classic WWII POW movie. I was probably 12 when I saw it for the first time and for the first time realized that a movie could be more than sheer entertainment, though it was a very entertaining movie. Of course I was not old enough to truly understand the film, but I can still remember thinking about it later in the day.

In about 1960:
Various films by the ‘New Wave’, especially Truffaut’s Shoot the Piano Player. This film led me to see a whole series of French films. Which in turn led to The Virgin Spring and other Northern European films.

La Dolce Vita, which I now consider a substandard Fellini, but this was my introduction to the Italian filmmakers.

I saw a stage production of Rashomon around this time as well, but really did not start watching Japanese films until around 1963—my introduction was Yojimbo—on a triple feature with The General and Le ciel et la boue/The Sky Above, the Mud Below. I’d gone to see Keaton and the New Guinea documentary. My girlfriend whispered plot points to me during the movie. This was the beginning of a long love affair (with Japanese films}.

Grave of the Fireflies, for which I have this forum to thank. I’d never even considered that the film form would have any interest for me. As I’ve just seen this, I have a whole new kind of film to explore.

There are many others, but when I look at this, my tastes are have been expanding over the last 48 years. I don’t really think that I discarded my love of films that I had seen even before then.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

Leaving him to viewed as too popular (in Japan) and too much of an art-house figure here—and all at the same time.

Eh, you can't pleae everybody.

 

[Brian Kissinger]

Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)
directed by Stanley Kubrick
It's no secret that I'm not a big Kubrick fan. I don't dislike him, but I also don't hold him in as high regard as most people around here do. So I went into Strangelove a bit hesitant. So I was delighted beyond belief when I found myself laughing my ass off. I knew the movie was a black comedy, but I didn't expect it to be as funny as it was. Both Peter Sellers and George C. Scott turn in wonderful performances that had me rolling. The movie starts off a little slow, but when it gets going the laughs are almost non-stop. This was unlike all other Kubrick movies I have seen.
The movie is a serious piece of work, disguised as a comedy. The truly great thing is that the movie works perfect both ways. If you just concentrate on the story, it's a quite frightening tale. A nuclear threat that could bring about the end of humanity. A look at how flawed and twisted the best of intentions can be. However, if you take it as a comedy, it is one of the funniest things I ever seen. This film was quite a wonderful surprise.
:star: :star: :star: :star:

 

[SteveGon]

The Last Laugh
I watched F.W. Murnau's 1924 classic for the first time last night. A masterpiece of expressionist cinema, the film works best when viewed in that context. Emil Jannings stars as the aging doorman at a ritzy hotel. An otherwise genial man, he is just a bit too proud of his job as it garners him a certain amount of respect from his neighbors. One day he arrives at work to find that he has been demoted to the position of washroom attendant - the excuse being that he is now too old to handle the tasks required of a doorman. His consequent tribulations stemming from this demotion could be seen as overwrought, Janning's performance included, but I believe such stylization is part and parcel of the expressionist form. Keep that in mind and the over-baked theatrics won't hamper your enjoyment of the film.
:star: :star: :star: :star:

 

[Rob Tomlin]

I finally watched Fellini's 8 1/2 this weekend. My reaction? Oh. My. God.
This movie is a celebration of fantastic, incredible images. It is done in a autobiographical way, mostly through fantasy. And despite the fact that the images are the priority in this film, there is still a story that is told, and told well. It is told through the eyes, and imaginination of, the director.
This perspective is nothing less than completely compelling for me. Having photography as a hobby, I found it fascinating to basically see what Guido (Fellini) was imagining for possible images/shots for his next movie, or fantasies he was having at various points in his life.
A memorable example is one in which Guido floats off into the sky like a kite, only to be yanked back to earth by a rope pulled by his associates, who are pushing him to organize his plans for his next movie, a science fiction film that he has completely lost interest in.
I found the way the film weaves in and out of reality and fantasy to be intriguing. Clearly, we can see that Guido is an artist, with many interesting ideas/images in his head. But, when he presents his ideas for his very different movie, his associates accuse him of being too abstract, with so many "meaningless" images. This is definitely autobiographical when it comes to Fellini's work!
So, what is 8 1/2 about? Its about a confused director who has no idea what he wants to do next. 8 1/2 itself is often described as the flailings of a filmmaker without a plan. In short, that's exactly what this movie is about!
As stated in an online review:

"What happens when one of the world's most respected directors runs out of ideas, and not just in a run-of-the-mill kind of way, but whole hog, so far that he actually makes a film about himself not being able to make a film?" But "8 1/2" is not a film about a director out of ideas--it is a film filled to bursting with inspiration. Guido is unable to make a film, but Fellini manifestly is not.

That sums it up perfectly.
This movie, without question, qualifies under the over-used term, "Great"!
:star: :star: :star: :star: :star:

 

[Brian Kissinger]

Spellbound (1945)
directed by Alfred Hitchcock
Here for the first time, I found myself a bit letdown with a "Hitch." I don't mean that I didn't like it, just that I wasn't as impressed as with the others I've caught. Gregory Peck just didn't radiate as Hitch's other leading men have, but Ingrid Bergman was as charming as ever. The story was interesting, and the supporting performances were excellent. It just didn't captivate me the way Hitchcock's previous films have. I must give admiration for the dream sequence, however. Overall the film is a pretty good one, but one that left me just a tad dry. Perhaps a repeat viewing can lift my evaluation.
:star: :star: :star:

 

[Brian Kissinger]

While I'm here, I'll throw out my views on a couple of werewolf movies.
Ginger Snaps (2001)
directed by John Fawcett
Now there were some pretty neat ways of looking at the werewolf in this film (such as it is a disease that can be passed through sex) but overall I just found this movie to be a bit of a stinker. I'm sorry, I can suspend disbelief with the best of them, but the chick in the movie was growing a tail. And her sister just happens to fall into the one pot seller in the world who is also a master botanist and a big believer in lycanthropes. And if passing the curse is so easy as having sex, why aren't there more werewolves running around through-out the movie. It was a strange way of looking at the werewolf, and not unentertaining, but one that just didn't work for me.
:star: :star:
Dog Soldiers (2001)
directed by Neil Marshall
If you have ever been sitting around in one of those thought-filled daydreams wondering what would happen if a rag-tag band of conscience riddled soldiers got into a real nasty scrape with a family of blood-thirsty and homeless werewolves, then this is your dream come true.
Now this was just a plain good old fashioned werewolf movie: lots of blood, lots of guts, lots of fun. The story centers around a group of soldiers out on a training mission, when they come into contact with some werewolves. And the fun just escalates from there. My only two gripes with the film was the very unnecessary woman "guide", and the final ending. I think they should just have ended it about five minutes earlier. But neither of these aspects are enough to bring down the ultra-good time to be had by viewing this film.
:star: :star: :star:

 

[SteveGon]

I'm sorry, I can suspend disbelief with the best of them, but the chick in the movie was growing a tail.

You're still freaked out over that tail thing, aren't you?

 

[george kaplan]

I wouldn't worry about it. I think your evaluation is perfect. This is a good film, but it is a notch below the best Hitchcock. I don't know what you've seen but the good news is there's a ton of better Hitch films, and the bad news is that there are definitely worse.

 

[Brian Kissinger]

You're still freaked out over that tail thing, aren't you?

3 nightmares and counting, and I still can't bring myself to look at a woman's ass yet.

 

[Brian Kissinger]

Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
directed by David Lean
Well, I finally got around to watching the behemoth that is Lawrence. Some movies you go in expecting to love, others with a strong impression that you will dislike. With this one, I had no clue what to expect. I've heard wonderful things and I've heard horrible things. This movie seems to split you one way or the other. I'm proud to say I see both sides of the story.
On the one hand, I was riveted by the story and scope of this picture. There are some powerful moments to this picture. In particular, the rescue (and subsequent fate) of Gasim.
On the other, the picture does seem to just go on and on at times. I was never bored, but I can easily see how others may become so.
So my final breakdown of the film? I enjoyed it very much and look forward to viewing it again.
:star: :star: :star: 1/2

 

[Rob Tomlin]

I enjoyed it very much and look forward to viewing it again.

That's the best thing you could have said in your review. If you enjoyed it on the first viewing, even though you felt that it did drag at times, but you still look forward to watching it again, is a very good sign.

I have heard MANY people say that the first time they saw Lawrence of Arabia, they liked it but thought it dragged a bit too much. Some even said they thought it "sucked" the first time they saw it (Andrew), but on subsequent viewings they came to truly appreciate the movie.

There are so many layers to this movie, so much going on, (as well as the fact it is 222 minutes long) that it really does take repeat viewings to fully appreciate its scope. David Lean used a very large canvas to put his piece of art on!

It didn't become my favorite film until I had seen it in its entirety three times.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

Rob Tomlin said:

I have heard MANY people say that the first time they saw Lawrence of Arabia, they liked it but thought it dragged a bit too much. Some even said they thought it "sucked" the first time they saw it (Andrew), but on subsequent viewings they came to truly appreciate the movie.

That's one thing I've never been able to figure out is that exact discrepancy in films. Lawrence of Arabia had me captivated the entire feature length. But oddly enough, I've watched films with half the running time that has made me want to fall asleep or commit suicide.

I guess a lot of what makes LOA successful is that you see a character grow and develop. He reaches dramatic highs and awful lows.

It's unfortunate to see that films have decided to take two extremes to this approach. Either the characters lack any development at all (eg. any B action movie), or they simply tread dramatic waters (eg. arthouse films).

 

[Rob Tomlin]

Lawrence of Arabia had me captivated the entire feature length. But oddly enough, I've watched films with half the running time that has made me want to fall asleep or commit suicide.

Of course you know that I completely agree with that statement.

The only part of Lawrence that I think drags at all is at the very end of the film....when the "politics" begin, how to devide the land, who will run what, etc. And this part of the movie only lasts a little more than 10 minutes.

But, I really think it is intentional that this part of the movie "drags". Lawrence has accomplished so much to this point, so much so that the Arabs almost considered him a God. Now, it all comes to an anti-climatic end. We, and Lawrence, are left to wonder if it was all worth it, and whether he really accomplished any of his ultimate goals in the end.

Like Brian, I do not find ANY part of Lawrence "boring" at all.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

Rob Tomlin said:

Lawrence has accomplished so much to this point, so much so that the Arabs almost considered him a God. Now, it all comes to an anti-climatic end. We, and Lawrence, are left to wonder if it was all worth it, and whether he really accomplished any of his ultimate goals in the end.

I like to think of the ending as poignant. No riding off into the sunset with Grace Kelly, no band fanfare, no rewarding of medals.....

 

[Brian Kissinger]

Actually (and I'm going to catch some shit for this), I haven't come across a movie like Lawrence since Lord of the Rings. By this I mean that when I first finished my initial viewing, I knew that I had just seen something special, but yet it hadn't sunk in. It was only after reflection and another viewing that I truly fell in love with the picture. After giving her another go earlier, I wouldn't hesitate to say Lawrence is indeed a masterpiece.
Parts earlier that seemed to drag, now took on a whole new meaning. I felt more this time around. I've always been a big Peter O'Toole fan, but his performance in this was truly his best.
And after the second viewing, I'd like to change my rating from 3 1/2 :star: to 4 :star:.
So there you have it. I've shamed myself by siding with a Nascar fan.