Originally posted by Don Zaluchi:
[b]Ladri di biciclette / The Bicycle Thief (1948) Vittorio De Sica / Italy 9/10 (I switched from stars to numbers :p )
A bit slow at the start but it more than makes up for it in the final twenty minutes. Raw Emotion is the only way to describe this film. A gem of Italian Neorealism, shot on a shoestring budget with non-professional actors, the experience is amazing. [/b]

Originally posted by svsg:
[b]Mulholland Drive
Didn't understand a single bit. Is this supposed to be like modern art, where no one understands, but everyone pretends to appreciate it, just to avoid looking ridiculous? I had the same experience with "The Lost Highway" and eventually had to google to find out what it was all about. But now I am really not inclined to find out what Lynch wants to say here. Lost Highway, Machinist (non Lynch), Mulholland Drive.... what next? I am sick of films that conveniently introduce imagination/fantasy bullshit plot in the pretext of creating mystery. Tell me a simple story. I refuse to google to find out what you are saying. Okay no more Lynch movies for me [/b]

Originally posted by MistaMista Tom Hagen:
United 93
2006; Greengrass

Spread the news, United 93 is a truly revolutionary film. Upon first impressions, this stands as one of the most powerful, tasteful, and interesting films released in the past decade, and its dedication to accuracy is impressive. As the first film about one of the biggest tragedies this country has ever faced, United 93 passes the respectability test with flying colors. Add in the fact that the events of that fateful day occurred less than five years ago, and one must consider writer/director Greengrass's accomplishment a truly remarkable one.

A director faces a difficult situation when his film is being blasted and criticized before it is even released. As the pioneer in what will surely become a sub-category unto itself in the disaster films genre, Greengrass took careful precaution in crafting the first 9/11 film, and his dedication seems to have paid off.

I call this film revolutionary because it is the closest I've ever seen a film walk the line between documentaries and feature films. The result is an fascinating experiment in a new approach to making movies. The events are shown, they are not dramatized, they are not romanticized, or sensationalized, they are simply portrayed, as accurately possible. The hijackers and the hijacked are on equal footing in the sympathy department. I found myself almost pitying the terrorists as they were overcome with their religious fanaticism which led to them being essentially forced into a suicide mission in the name of their god. Greengrass has made the first film in which both sides are presented and the director is truly able to succeed in not taking sides. His genius in this department is beautifully portrayed in one of the final scenes in the film where both the hijackers and their captives pray on opposite ends of aircraft. The juxtaposition of these images provides an interesting insight into exactly what this film really sought to accomplish.

Greengrass's camerawork, while relying on the hand-held effect a little too much at times, ultimately assists in portraying the frantic and panicked nature of all the characters depicted, as well as setting the tone for the entire fateful day itself. And the director's choice of music also suits the piece beautifully. Opting for a simple, minimalist orchestral score that plays throughout only a small portion of the film seems to have been just the right amount to accent but not drown out the story.

Another aspect of the film which I really admired, whether intentional or not, was its casting. I literally only recognized one face in the entire cast, and even then I couldn't name him or place where I had seen him. (It ultimately turned out to be John Rothman who I knew from Dinner Rush). The fact that the cast consisted almost exclusively of unknowns only added to the feel of realism throughout the film. Add in the fact that several real life people involved in the events of 9/11 played themselves, and also that the actors chosen to play the major figures in the passenger resistance movement looked remarkably like their real-life counterparts, and the viewers truly felt as if they were there.

Another fascinating choice by Greengrass was to not take advantage of his post-knowledge of the events. Throughout the entire film, characters can be seen making false assumptions and relaying information to one another that was eventually proved to be incorrect. This, again, adds to the realism and sense of panicked confusion being portrayed in the film, and I really respected the fact that Greengrass took the time to include this.

One other difficult choice made by Greengrass was exactly how to go about showing the plane's final moments. It can be tough for a director when the audience already knows how the story will end, but Greengrass does it in a unique and truly emotional way that really tugs at your heart strings without being overdramatic.

Nearly everything about this film was perfectly in accordance to what Greengrass sought to achieve. Thought-provoking, deeply emotional, realistic. I truly do not feel as though a better film could've been made about this subject matter.

5/5 Stars

Originally posted by svsg:
[b]Mulholland Drive
Didn't understand a single bit. Is this supposed to be like modern art, where no one understands, but everyone pretends to appreciate it, just to avoid looking ridiculous?[/b]

It is best to approach this film as an unfathomable nightmare, and let it unfold itself; for, in true Lynch style, the meaning here is not an obvious one, presented as a character-switching Chinese-box-like succession of dark and disturbing fantasies. It registers on the unconscious and lingers on the mind like the most haunting of dreams.

A teasing, complex mystery on identity, told as an elongated, inescapable nightmare for all, with characters switching into others; it begs for rewatches, and becomes more rewarding with each one.

Originally posted by Capo de La Cosa Nostra:
Didn't you find Mulholland Dr. to be full of beautiful images?

Originally posted by svsg:
[b]Mulholland Drive
Didn't understand a single bit. Is this supposed to be like modern art, where no one understands, but everyone pretends to appreciate it, just to avoid looking ridiculous? I had the same experience with "The Lost Highway" and eventually had to google to find out what it was all about. But now I am really not inclined to find out what Lynch wants to say here. Lost Highway, Machinist (non Lynch), Mulholland Drive.... what next? I am sick of films that conveniently introduce imagination/fantasy bullshit plot in the pretext of creating mystery. Tell me a simple story. I refuse to google to find out what you are saying. Okay no more Lynch movies for me [/b]

Originally posted by Lavinia from Italy:
[quote]Originally posted by Don Zaluchi:
[b] [b]Ladri di biciclette / The Bicycle Thief (1948) Vittorio De Sica / Italy 9/10 (I switched from stars to numbers :p )
A bit slow at the start but it more than makes up for it in the final twenty minutes. Raw Emotion is the only way to describe this film. A gem of Italian Neorealism, shot on a shoestring budget with non-professional actors, the experience is amazing. [/b]

Originally posted by Irishman12:
I don't think anyone outside the set [of Mulholland Dr.] understood what this movie was supposed to be about. As I said when I watched it, it's probably "weird for the sake of being weird"

Originally posted by xXx_DoN_CoRLeOnE_xXx:
[b]SE7EN (David Fincher/USA/1995)

Pitt and Freeman turned in two great performances, but Kevin Spacey really steals the show in this one. Eventhough he only has about 20 minutes total (give or take) of on screen time, his performance is disturbingly brilliant. [/b]

Originally posted by Capo de La Cosa Nostra:
Lynch isn't for everyone, and I know that you know that, but I can't quite fathom "weird for the sake of being weird" as a criticism. Isn't The Godfather "serious for the sake of being serious"? Isn't X-Men "action-packed for the sake of being action-packed"? Isn't Dumb and Dumber "funny for the sake of being funny"? If anything, "weird for the sake of being weird" is a good thing, no? It certainly makes a film original. And let's face it, how many films can you compare Mulholland Dr. to? In fact, I've read many times the adjective "Lynchian" being used to describe somebody else's work, but I've never read a review of Lynch's films with overt reference to others.

Originally posted by Irishman12:
But when a very small percentage of those who have watched Mulholland Dr. understand it fully, I think it defeats it's purpose as a movie.

Originally posted by DonVitoCorleone:
How'd you like the final image? That gave me chills more than anything else in the film.

Originally posted by Don Andrew:
Not every film can be a straight forward "There's a bomb! Get dowwwwnnnn!!!!" Arnold Schwarzenegger mindfuck that doesn't make you think at all.