Marie Antoinette did not entirely suck, and it had its moments. Main reason I went to see it is because Sofia Coppola directed it, and while I would not tell people to rush out and see it, I would recommend it on DVD.

Meshes of the Afternoon
(1943/Deren)
Very interesting short. Deren moves gracefully around a villa, seeing a haunting man with a mirror for a face, keys and knives dissappearing and switching, and eventually, clones of herself. In the end, she is awoken from what seemed like a dream by a gentle male figure, but upon the sudden arrival of the knife from the dream, she stabs him in the forehead, shattering his cranium to reveal a beach and an ocean inside. In the end, we find that the film was perhaps a pictoriliazation of the dying woman's thoughts, as the male figure from earlier enters her appartment to find her dead from an apparent suicide.

A Study in Choreography for the Camera
(1945/Deren)
A silent short in which we watch a slow-moving dancer moving in and out of several different settings as he dances. Less entertaining than the former film, could've used some music.

Scorpio Rising
(1963/Anger)
Perhaps the best short film I've ever seen. Anger mixes varying motifs, from religion to masculine idealism, to nazism, to homosexuality, all wrapped up in colorful, fast-paced but visually detailed film with no dialogue but a fantastic late 50's soundtrack. While it was somewhat dissappointing to see the vague homosexual undertones that were established in the first half descend into an orgy around the midpoint of the film, the scenes and montages that proceeded to wrap the piece up redeemed it. What begins as a nostalgic look at the age of Marlon Brando films, leather jackets, and cigarettes, eventually morphs into what appeared to be a comment on societal views of gay organizations and ideals. Another key element of the film seems to be the "live fast, die young" idea, with the sporadic appearances of a grim reaper, a noose, and newspaper articles about motorcycle accident deaths forming a morbid picture of the youth's future. And the somber ending bathes a fallen biker in the red flashes of an ambulance siren. Overall, a complex, sometimes disturbing, consistently fascinating film.

Kustom Kar Kommandos
(1964/Anger)
Supposedly originally conceived as a companion piece to Scorpion Rising, Anger ran out of of money so it was instead released a simple 2 minute video of a greaser buffing his custom car and then driving it away to a slow song from the 60's. The only real point of interest here is odd KKK reference in the title.

Rabbit's Moon
(1972/Anger)
We watch as a man dressed as a white rabbit jumps around the forest which is bathed in blue light. He is obsessed with the moon, and is visited by a demonic clown and a beautiful woman as he is engulfed in the moon's gaze. Anger utilizes good music again, but the meaning or quality of this short is otherwise lost on me.

Barbarella ** 1/2
(Second Viewing)

What a horribly great movie

Saw II ***
(Third Viewing)

Watching Primal Fear on TV. Ed Norton was so great in this movie. Otherwise, it's so-so. The book was better.

I watched Scent Of a Woman. I love that movie. Whoo-ah! Al really makes you think he is blind.

I agree the book was better, as most usually are. But I liked this movie and Edward Norton was awesome as Aaron Stampler. I wished the movie would have ended exactly as the book ended. The other movie I really liked Norton in was Red Dragon.

SB - did you read the other books in this storyline by William Diehl?

Goombah, I did read the whole trilogy. The first two were good, the third was just meh. I was sorry that the movie didn't include Aaron's background in Crikside, especially his relationship with his teacher.

And I agree, loved Ed Norton in Red Dragon.

Why do people watch films?

And do they watch them?

MAJOR LEAGUE II (1994) - **

Sequels in Hollywood tend to be formulaic, or subconciously are remakes. LETHAL WEAPON, DIE HARD, etc.

When the efforts are good, we forget this fact. When they aren't, what happens is we get piss-poor "remakes" of the same story, which then are sold off as "sequels". In a way, its like the Russian mob selling simple whole-grain alcohol as "genuine" vodka in some liquor stores.

Once again, Charlie Sheen has control problems. Berenger struts his veteran knowledge. Hayes can't hit worth a damn. We've seen this before, and things don't improve. We get new "wacky" guys that are molded into winners, from a Japanese player who's mostly used for lame subtitle/lost in translation jokes, to a catcher who can't throw the ball around the diamond. Whatever.

Thing is, logic is tossed out of the game. How does a player that, while accumilated a decent stash of money but still having to play to pay the bills, suddenly get, oh over $50 million(and if the film was made now, it would be over 100 million) to buy a baseball club...then lose it?

Then again, nobody involved seemed to give a shit about this movie. This was the time when Sheen's once-promising movie career was spiraling into simply the movies he made inbetween drug arrests and hooker scandals. Tom Berenger was very close in his career transformation of direct to DVD fare. At least Dennis Haysbert got elected President on TV.

I really wish you were in my film class. You'd love it.

Why?
Because film is primarily a visual medium.

We do merely watch it as long as we do not connect to it. For example, if I watch a program on leopards in Africa, most likely I am just watching it. Nothing more. On the other hand a film having intersting characters very quickly makes me forget that I am watching something and I start experiencing something and get involved.

But characters aren't specific to Cinema.

You can find characters in a novel, on stage, in a play, and so on. I am becoming more and more obsessed, invested entirely in the image. In style, in excess, in authorship and visual composition. My interest in Character is only in relation to how it might be cinematically evoked.
---
Anyway, I've seen five films in the past two days, four of which were on the big screen:

Rebecca (1940/Hitchcock): Suffocatingly constructed "woman's picture", full of feminine aspirations to be desired by the male, who here, played by Laurence Olivier, is a welcome contrast to the infuriating (and effective) Joan Fontaine. The final half-hour or so opens up into a murder mystery we care little about, and the ambiguities hitherto maintained are lost. [A shoddy bfi print upset the rhythm.]

Children of Men (2006/Cuarón): 2nd time, I wanted to catch it again before it disappears from cinemas. Outstandingly-shot film, full of breathtaking sequences, using long takes and a hand-held, fiercely independent and roaming camera which restricts our view but enhances the immediacy of many incredibly complicated settings. The most impressive of these are the rebel attack on a car full of people, with the camera rotating three-sixty degress inside the car, before alighting and ending up left to observe two dead policemen as the car speeds off; the giving birth of a child in some worn-out, secluded safe house, with the very near threat of war and manic dogs outside; and the moving to different levels via a stairwell in a building at the heart of the fierce battle, with the relentless cry of a baby which, by the end of the shot, has silenced the guns and brought calm to a scene of devastation. It's genuinely thrilling, with a believable grittiness rarely seenin sci-fi. Best film so far this year.

Sky Captain and the World Tomorrow (2004/Conran): It might be easy to defend this film as a) experimental, b) an interesting failure, or c) visually fantastic. We probably shouldn't ignore the fundamental innovations of blue-screen, but just because it's new and experimental doesn’t mean it is by default any good; the acting is atrocious, often painful to watch, with nobody interacting with their CGI surroundings. Sound design is very flat, and it doesn't even look all that nice.

Meet Me in St. Louis (1944/Minnelli): Piercingly colourful musical, which, if it suddenly becomes preachy in its nostalgia and family moralsin its final quarter, is delightful from beginning to end due to some wonderful performances and a sharp, often dark script. The younger children, sweet, innocent and imaginative, are all obsessed with murder and death, whilst the older daughters, including Judy Garland, are interested solely in impressing the men in town. The narrative, divided into four seasons in a year - three of which constitute a single night - gives a real sense of depth to these characters without ever becoming detached; Minnelli only cuts when he has to. Certainly purged away the pain caused by Sky Captain.

And I also rewatched Godard's Weekend (1967) on DVD; probably my favourite film.

Shaft (1971) *
(First Viewing)

Thank goodness this nightmare is over. This was suppose to be such an "important" movie that I couldn't wait for it to be over with

MAJOR LEAGUE 3: BACK TO THE MINORS (1998) - * - BOMB

God, this movie sucked.

If #2 defied some logic in the minds of the audience in order to recreate the same movie that #1 was....

#3 outright makes a universe that only the Bush Administration would gladly call home.

The shit that the filmmakers had to gaul to try to pass through us is incredible. Let's see...

*Somehow, despite being another franchise, and supposedly brand new faces, that being a minor league club instead of the Cleveland Indians...somehow the manager, Scott Quantum friggin Leap Bakula, meets up with Dennis Haysbert and that Japanese dude from the 2nd movie, with both now happy to play minor league ball. Huh?

*Dorn has gone from being a guy with some cash in #1, enough cash to own a franchise, only to lose it in #2, and now enough to have bought ANOTHER team, the Twins. ?

*Ted McGinnis...hasn't he appeared in a movie/TV show that hasn't failed?

*Poor Bob Urkel, now knocked from the major leagues to that of a lowly minor league baseball broadcaster.

*Ok, so Bakula is able to have an exhibition game, in the middle of the minor league season, against a major league club in the middle of its season...and why? How?

*When people in a restaurant, in Minneapolis, openly root for a minor league club to beat their local MLB franchise....really, you think average people, much less the media, give a flying fuck about a minor league team, much less one going against a MLB club that's apparently super losers themselves? You think people would give a fuck if the Royals played their AAA affiliation?

*Worse yet, a rematch that...fuck this shit.

P.S. - I originally gave the movie a *1/2, but because the nonsense pissed me off so much, it got bumped to a total loser.

What constitutes an "important" film?

Shaft is an icon of 70's cool. When you think of blacksploitation films, Shaft tends to be high on the list and I just don't feel this movie lived up to the hype.

Zatoichi, Episode 2: The Tale of Zatoichi Continues ** 1/2
(First Viewing)

High on the list of what?

Good/important blaxploitation films.

But what makes a blaxploitation film important?

Oh you, everytime I think you might just be confused, you're being philosophical.

"Blaxploitation films starred primarily black actors, and were the first to feature soundtracks of funk and soul music. Although criticized by civil rights groups for their use of stereotypes, they addressed the great and newfound demand for Afrocentric entertainment, and were immensely popular among black audiences. The blaxploitation genre officially began in 1969 with the release of Sweet Sweetback’s Baadasssss Song. This film is also noteworthy in that it was written, directed, produced, and funded by Melvin Van Peebles, an African American. This remained the premise of the early blaxploitation films: film by, for, and about black people."

What makes Citizen Kane so important than Capo?

The films I find "important" are ones I establish a personal connection with. Films that are important to me.

I can agree with that DVC. My comment about Shaft was that I felt it was (and still is possibly) a very important film in the African-American community.

I know you mean that question in jest, but to establish where my own questions were hinting at, I'll offer a serious answer:

I find Citizen Kane important because, when I watch it, I want to make films.

I saw that on tv yesterday afternoon. Ed Norton is a fantastic actor. I haven't read the book so I'm not familiar with the different ending...though I thought the ending to the movie was good.

He was good in Red Dragon but I liked his acting better in Primal Fear. If you liked him in that you'll love him in The Score opposite Robert De Niro, his talent is beyond belief in that movie.

Flags of our Fathers - ****/4

The Bourne Supremacy **
(First Viewing)

The Life & Times of Irishman (2006) - **

Hmm, never heard of that one ronnie. Who stars in it?