I've nothing really against story, it's just not the primary means of engagement with a work of art for me.

Someone once said, "Martin Scorsese is a great storyteller". I took it as an insult, though it was intended otherwise.

Irishman, I think that ppl here simply miss the great reviews you used to write in this thread. For example, this great post you made about "Gone with the wind" :





The first paragraph was well-written Irishman, but I mostly enjoyed reading the bit on the "pull away" shots. It shows you do have a cinematic eye...that is, when you're not watching the babes

You dont have to of course, but I hope to read more posts like that one Irishman, I think you can do wonders.

Actually Capo, You misunderstood me.

I simply trust your ratings. Notice how save for a rare occasion, I don't challenge your ratings anymore. I trust your judgement. Besides, its not like some people on these boards (among whom I've met called WORLD TRADE CENTER a "intellectual-thought provoking" movie, and which I've ignored since then) that I don't respect their taste or even logic.

Anyway, you are right in that of that trilogy, BTTF 2 is the most daring film narrative-wise. My problem is with the 3rd Act. While I'm seeing it as very original on Zemeckis and Gale's part, I realize, "wait, I'm watching the first movie again". It must be me.

Besides, the editing pace is just...off. Even Zemeckis admits as much, since he was basically on a fucked-editing schedule in post-production, since he was having to shoot part 3 simultaneously.

However, a good movie.

Now BTTF 3, as I said before in my mini-review I published in this thread, I thought of it as the STAR TREK or DR. WHO episode of the trilogy. Nothing tied in anchor to the original film, but very playful in exploring the time-travel plot fantasy element. Besides, it gave Zemeckis an excuse to finally make a western.

So my question to you Capo is....grade on the first movie?

BACK TO THE FUTURE PART II (1989) - ***
BACK TO THE FUTURE PART III (1990) - ***1/2

Fame, how about you write up a review defending TROY as a good movie, which I totally fucking-cadillac-flame-torched disagree.

But hey, I'm up to argue about it.

I already started, but I'm waiting to see Alexander, and then compare it with KoH and Troy in the same review.
And you ronnie, you told me AGES ago that you'll write a review on POINT BLANK and Im still waiting.

Capo, thanx for taking the time to reply, I gotta go now, but will reply on my next visit.

I've missed a lot of films out that I've watched recently; I watched a lot in October, but didn't feel inclined to post my thoughts in a thread decidedly against Cinema.

But as regards Back to the Future: Colourful and inventive, immensely detailed too: Michael J. Fox has ample charm to carry this witty, well-written adventure, and the chemistry between him and other actors, notably Christopher Lloyd as the mad professor, is enjoyable to watch. Along with Part II, I rate it three stars; essential viewing.

Well I really do appreciate that. In fact, I think you're the first person EVER to compliment me on a review I wrote, so thank you

Alright, I agree with you on the first BTTF picture.

Fame, why compare? Just review TROY....TROY the motion picture itself. But whatever, its your review.

TROY (2004) - **

I'm sure Warner Brothers thought they had their own GLADIATOR for 2004. That is, a sand & sandal sword epic based on the Ancient World, that theoratically would be a populist financial box-office hit that would also impale on Oscar night.

The problem is, the GLADIATOR mold had a crack in it, and WB didn't realize that their $140+ million investment was a drippy leak.

What I hate is, you have a great cast stuck in an uninspiring script adaptation of the Homeric legend that is neither willing to accept the emotional tragedy of the saga, nor gulling enough to make for serious token to audiences.

Worse, you get Wolfgang Petersen. God, what happened to that German? Years back, he was a revelation with DAS BOOT, and directed the really good thriller IN THE LINE OF FIRE. Since then, AIR FORCE ONE....THE PERFECT STORM....and TROY. Plus, the super box-office flop dreck POSEIDON.

Shit, look at the cast! Pitt, Bana, O'Toole, Cox, Bloom, Sean "Sharpe!" Bean, Krueger, you name it.

Thing is, Pitt can be a great actor...when he gives a shit. Otherwise, he coasts without bothering much to act. Its the latter that appears in TROY. Cox is one of my personal favorite actors, but he Chews the scenary up like a T-Rex mauls fresh meat. O'Toole was so embarrased with the movie, he disowned the sucker at the official premiere. Bloom is the stiff hackful pretty boy that we have here, before he dramatically improved with KINGDOM OF HEAVEN and the 2nd PIRATES movie.

The only people that escape are Bana, Krueger, and Bean. Well, Bean is always good with whatever is given to him. Bana is alright, and Krueger...nothing wrong.

But really, TROY is such a mediocre movie that despite millions thrown on the big screen, I just don't care anything about what is happening...and this from a mythology buff.

Just for you Fame

Superman Returns *** 1/2
(Second Viewing)

After a long period in space, looking for the remains of planet Krypton, Superman returns to Earth. He misses Lois Lane, who got married and has a son with Richard White. Meanwhile, Lex Luthor plots an evil plan, using crystals he stole from the Fortress of Solitude, to create a new land and submerge the USA.

I'm probably the only member on here who feels this way but I enjoyed this movie more than Batman Begins. Sure this movie ran a little long (with a runtime of about 2 hours and 26 minutes), but like I said, I enjoyed it more than old Bats. To start, I feel one of the only people alive who could fill the shoes Gene Hackman left as Lex Luthor is Kevin Spacey (who I believe is one of the finest actors alive today). Brandon Routh was great as Superman and stepped up to the challenge nicely. Kate Bosworth I was against at first and here's why, she's a good actor but she just looks too young for the part IMO. Finally, Parker Posey added some candid humor as Luthor's sidekick, Kitty.

What a spitting image:

Thats the wonderful thing about art (and I'm including filmmaking) ..... we each get something different out of it (probably because we each SEEK something different out of it).

When I watch a movie I want to be told a story, visually. It need not be "deep" and have symbolic and metaphorical references. If its well acted, well written, well directed and tells a decent story then I'm happy. I don't want to look for hidden meanings .... while I respect (and find interesting) your "take" on the meaning of the end of "Grand Canyon" I simply think that the individuals standing on the rim of the Canyon are humbled by its sheer size and beauty. But thats all I need to see.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

.

SC, I don't actively seek hidden meaning in a film. And I agree, a cigar is always a cigar.

Anyway, I just saw two films back-to-back at the cinema. One disappointing, the other fantastic.

Little Children
Todd Field 2006 US (1st time; big screen)
A man and woman have an affair in a town in fear of a recently released child molester.
Ambitious follow up to In the Bedroom for Field, but a very disappointing one. The opening shots are promising, setting a disturbing, haunting tone left over from the (amazing) trailer. But there's an awkwardness to this film which begins when the von Trier-like, over-literate, all-knowing voice-over is introduced. It is thematically very confused, bringing two or three separate narratives together which don't seem to really connect - the relationships between the married man and married woman and the paedofile and his mother seem to be taken from two separate films, ones which would have had little to say and even less to explore, and the ex-cop who seeks last-minute redemption could have been discarded altogether. The narratives certainly don't compliment one another, or justify any of the others' existence. Field is interested mainly in humans and their relationships with one another within society, which means the film is often of interest, but the means by which he explores his preoccupations is very frustrating. It will most likely enhance one's appreciation of films which tackle their difficult moralities more confidently, such as Solondz' Happiness, for instance.

The Prestige
Christopher Nolan 2006 US/UK (1st time; big screen)
In Victorian London, two rising magicians strike up a rivalry when one of them invents a new trick, and the other wishes to find out how it is done.
Outstanding: a film told for the most part in flashback, with one character reading another character's journal... and within that narrative, the other character reads the principle character's journal. On top of this, parallel to this dual-perspective, we've a third character reliving the fatal night which begins the film. It's spellbinding stuff, narratively exciting and completely authentic. Nolan is growing vastly in confidence and skill, and one would hope that he continues to be prolific, ambitious and vastly intelligent. His direction of actors is admirable - all the performances are notable, but Bale, at the very top of his game, gives further evidence of being the finest actor currently working. Nolan also has a fine sense of pacing and volume, knowing when to cut and what to - it's incredibly complicated stuff made to look effortless, much like the magic tricks themselves.

Again, I disagree with you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceci_n'est_pas_une_pipe

But where, in my post, did I say an image of a cigar is always a cigar?

You dont have to. What you think is a real cigar is in fact an image of cigar in your brain.

Dont think im ignoring your previous posts brother, just tryin to maneuver between that, my Troy review, my other new thread etc...it will all be here later.

Ok, expect a series of posts...post no.1:



Neither do I. But Troy or True Lies are not BAD films in my book. I meant films which are not profound, of high quality etc to still be worthy of my time. I embrace all forms of joy- from top notch quality to silly entertainment. If that makes me half shallow then so be it.

Post no.2 on the way...

But if you enjoy True Lies then how is not high quality?

Is quality judged by an external value? An unsaid hierarchy?

but Maradona is handsomer.




Its true that there are great movies out there with simple plots. But life is a collection of stories, how can you not be interested in other stories? I dont remember your reviews to be simply a description of the camera angle, the great visuals, and thats about it. The story is always there. Consider this paradox:
You said you despise "filmed stories/filmed plays" if I remember correctly. Taking a book or story and film it is dismissable in your eyes? Like you explained about the greatness of a joke(its not the joke, but how you tell it) - take it here: if you only care about HOW its being told, then why dismiss a filmed play? it could be told in a very special way. Yet you dismiss it for sticking to the plot with nothing new, and just a while back you said you dont care about plots? do u see the paradox here?
Indeed, some great movies are filmed plays IMO. Henry V, Death of a Salesman, Julius Caesar - top notch films in my book, because they portray the written pages in an outstanding manner. That way of portrayal is something new, regardless of it being loyal to the written play.

Why isnt the Matrix, LOTR, Terminator and Ten Commandments in your top 10 films for example? all great visuals methinks.
You have Taxi Driver in your top 10 - is it the visual take that stood out in this film, or is it the character study which hits you most?
Is "The French Connection" no more than a movie with a memorable, visually outstanding, chase?

If theres a great film about 2 guys talking in a cafe. Will you dismiss it solely based on it being poor in the visual department?

The story/ the plot is the substance, the core. Every film begins with that. You work your way from there, building the film in the visual method you prefer.

Are you familiar with Da Vinci's painting - The Last Supper?
What would this painting be if it was not a portrayal of...well,the last supper? thats the story within this painting.
You take that away, and what do you have? a bunch of guys eating dinner. Beautiful picture, but worldwide masterpiece?





By all means NO. Art can be disgusting, manipulative, dangerous and dishonest.

Post no.3 on the way......

Quality is judged by every person individually. Thats why I'm against lists such as AFI's list. I love most of the films there, but having such a list is pointless IMO.
I enjoy True Lies for the cheap humor it has; I like, for example, when Jamie Lee Curtis uses the water in a flowerpot to wet her hair, tryin to be sexy, followed by the funny instructions she gets from the tape- that amuses me, the shallow person that I am.
I also love the witty humor in Casablanca, if that is somewhat of an opposite type of humor in your book. I can watch Casablanca, one of my favorites, on a daily basis (and for a while I did) but I dont limit myself to movies only of that caliber. True Lies is a 'light snickers' type of film, which is another type of films to enjoy. I didnt expect it to be better, in fact, it couldve been a disaster, but I like it the way it is.

I enjoy playing basketball and I enjoy playing chess. I wouldnt call basketball a high-quality game like chess is. I still enjoy playing basketball. Does that help you understand how one can enjoy something that is not of high quality? There are certain degrees of quality.

Post no.4 on the way....

Good. Now I know that at least ONE person will reply to my review

You know what? No need to be a stubborn ass when not needed. You want a review, you got it. Fuck Alexander. Give me 24 hours. I have to leave tomorrow anyway so now I'll have the excuse of "running away from the forum after writing a positive review on Troy, chicken Fame". Splendid

Post no.5 on the way....

Fame, you never said anything about my Superman Returns review

Im gonna comment on what Im not gonna say in my review.

Pit gave a shit about this film...he gave a big shit actually, maybe the biggest shit he ever gave. He worked hard preparing for the role for a long time. I dont know where you get it that he didnt give a shit in this film.
How does O'toole, or any other actor's opinion on the film fits into your own review? and besides, dont you just love it when things are taken out of context? O'Toole said a lot of bad shit after filming was over mostly because he hated working with Petersen. But whatever, to each his own.

Post no.6 on the way....

Irishman, I was replying by order of messages-yours just happen to be right after ronnie's review which is exactly NOW:

Thats the spirit, Irish! Keep it up with these kind of reviews. Im hardly a reviewer myself but I like to read about movies.

I've yet to see Superman Returns, but I cant wait. I loved the first half of Superman I, and LOVED Superman II. Superman II is what I consider to be the greatest comic book film to date. The Batman films cant touch it. Superman III and IV however is another story. Wont see those again.

Superman II was great and is up there for me in terms of the greatest comic book movie ever made. But for me personally, it doesn't get any better than Sin City.

Wait, BIGGEST "Shit" he ever gave?

Fact is, Brad Pitt is like the younger and less-scientology nutty Tom Cruise. When they put away their whorish passions for money, gross-points, and the media spotlight and actually act, they deliver great acting work. The problem is, with Cruise knocked off his throne as the biggest male movie-star of Hollywood, Pitt is poised to take over, for ebtter or for worse.

In a way Fame, the perfect explanation of my point with Pitt is FIGHT CLUB and TROY.

Both roles needed charismatic men with masculine qualities of the highest ideal. Brad Pitt was very believable as a fascist figure that easily sways the disgruntled men of GenX/Y to his cause, until the viewer realizes that he isn't a promised-savior...he's simply another ideological manipulator who sways desperate people to his dangerous goals (which history has way too many of unfortunately).

But Acheilles in TROY is simply a "rock star" of a warrior(Pitt's words, not mine)....Fame, you have no idea how fucking disapointed I was with Pitt. With the famed saying that a star that burns twice as fast as other stars, lasts only half as long...Pitt seemed very right to be a person that would be a hero in Greek and later Western mythology.

Instead, we get an obvious prima donna that whines, groans in angst that I would expect in a pussy-goth-punk indie movie about high school, and which Pitt never gives me a reason to give a shit about Acheilles, which I didn't think was actually possible.

(Well to be fair, I also blame the mediocre script and direction. But again, when Pitt has painfully shown that he can be one of our best charismatic actors of our era, I can't excuse him).

As for O'Toole's comments, its not just because his problems with Peterson. Hell, after the hell that David Lean made the poor guy suffer with, in legendary exploits, on LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, when Lean offered him the lead part in DOCTOR ZHIVAGO, O'Toole basically had an emotional breakdown(based from known accounts) and said he couldn't go through with it again.

But, he always talks about it, without problems, in any press junket. He's proud of that great movie, and appreciates Lean's talent. He still hated the insane production schedule.

Then again Fame, sometimes an actor's negative opinion on their movies go totally against my super-positive reviews on those films. Alec Guinness always thought STAR WARS was sillyness, and even after making alot of nice cash from it, he still refused to take it seriously in his long illustrious career.

Burt Reynolds badmouthed BOOGIE NIGHTS right through press junket interviews, until he found out that the movie got great raves, and was set to score some nominations. He turned 180 degrees, and "loved" the film. He got his supporting actor nomination, but that is why I don't respect fucking Smokey.

Hell Fame, director Alan Parker considers his PINK FLOYD THE WALL to be "the most expensive student film ever made" and quite dislikes it. Yet I seriously belief its a (pun!) wall-banging of a rock musical narrative, and absolutely crucial in the evolutionary development of the music video.

Very true. I've nothing against adaptations. But many I think miss the point of adapting; it's not merely a case of 'staying true' to the original narrative, but it adds nothing specifically cinematic. And I've called many films "filmed-theatre" which are not adaptations, they were written for the screen, and my criticism was that they were nevertheless neglecting the whole idea of being cinematic.

I enjoy stories, and I dislike some too, but I don't like stories for the sake of stories. Imagine somebody tells you a story out of nowhere, with no particular relevance. They tell you just for the sake of telling you a story. It's boring business. No, like I said, I enjoy stories, if they're good, but don't approach a film expecting to be told one. My primary point of engagement with a film is its aesthetic, its formal qualities. The first fact of Cinema is the image, the visual, and sounds. When I write of what a film is about, you'll note I never regurgitate plot synopsis, but rather explore the film's thematic exploration.

You could say an entire narrative comprises littler narratives. Such as a man going into his house. It's told in one shot, from one camera angle, and that is a self-contained, rather ordinary story. We then cut to a shot of the man inside the house. When Cinema was in its early stages, this cut was feared to confuse audiences; they wouldn't make the link. Nowadays, the opposite is true, sometimes to a narrowing effect, such as when Lynch cuts from one character to another in Lost Highway, people get confused and walk away from the film having dismissed it. What if those two shots of a man walking into a house and of a man inside of a house showed two different people inhabiting two different parallel universes? They're linked together with a simple, invisible transition, and brought together, and are assumed to be of the same cohesion. Cinema in this respect is an illusion; the camera is truth 24-times-per-second, and every cut's a lie.

I love Taxi Driver because it's an exploration of violence, of the social external impact on an individual mind, how that impact is internalised through repressed rage, and how it's externalised again through more violence. A cycle, evoked through a pattern of mundanely repetitive shots - the camera on the bonnet of the taxicab, riding through the New York night, to the sound of Bernard Herrmann's score. Why aren't The Matrix and The Terminator in my top ten? Because neither match the profound resonance of those films in my top ten. If I had a top ten, which I don't.

In the context of what I've been saying, if it's an exploration of a theme which interests me, which I find of interest, I'll give it merit. But cinematically speaking, if its aesthetic value is very ordinary, I'm not going to consider it essential viewing.

So what about films without a story or plot? I think every film begins with the visual. Not all films need a story to exist, but all films needs some kind of visual to exist.

If not a picture of The Last Supper, it would be a picure of a bunch of guys at a table, wining and dining. But it would still be beautiful to look at, if it was painted in the same way.

So you're more open-minded than me because you are able to lower yourself to enjoy True Lies? I'm not saying you are lowering yourself, though; that's what you implied. I would argue that in order to engage with the film and its humour, you were already on its level. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. I'm not above you because I don't find it funny, and you're not above me because you do.
You're conjuring a notion of high films and low films, in quality terms, and that you as a viewer raise or lower yourself to do that. I don't view Cinema as a vertical hierarchy; I think of it as a terrace of houses, and I walk along it, in a horizontal fashion. I approach every film with the same goal: simply to enjoy it. That allows a lot of room for appreciation, I think, and also a lot of room for not. Any other adjective, such as "thought-provoking" or "mindless" is narrowing me chances of appreciation.

Oh, I would, in so far that a lot of chess players wouldn't be able to play basketball on any kind of competent level, and vice-versa. There is a specific knack to both.

It's why I have no hesitation in saying Dumb and Dumber is just as good a film as The Godfather.

I love Dumb and Dumber.

I liked SUPERMAN RETURNS, but better than BATMAN BEGINS? No wonder I question Irishman's logic. I should have noticed something when he thought that the Red Sox will seriously contend next year.

If anything, RETURNS does suffers from problems:

(1) Too much loyalty to the Donner films. His work is a good foundation to work with, but its not durable enough that I would build a house on. Worse, Bryan Singer decided to carry over the one damn problem with the really good original SUPERMAN film: Camp.

(2) Alot of plot holes that arrive because people haven't seen the first two movies. Why you all think the movie only made $200 million in America? I mean, yeah I understood why Luthor would know where the Fortress of Solitude. Hell, I even know how Kryptonina sperm would score in a human womb. But imagine if I hadn't seen SUPERMAN or the Donner/Lester committee sequel SUPERMAN II?

Picky? Sure, but why be slavish that badly to the Donner films? The Brando-Jor El footage was a great touch. But SUPERMAN RETURNS did raise a question that never popped into my skull with Donner's films: What does the Fortress of Solitude in those movies actually good for, besides being a labor of work for Union workers and a nicely-paid Art Director?

(3) Kevin Spacey is great casting for Lex Luthor. But which Lex Luthor? If it was to follow the campy/smartass intellectual taskmaster that Irish wanted that we got from the Gene Hackman regime, then its successful.

Thing is, I HATE that Luthor. You know what Lex Luthor I wanted?

I forgot which episode, but in an JUSTICE LEAGUE:UNLIMITED animated series episode, after leader King Gorilla had led the Legion of Doom to turn every human into an ape, and failed, he had a Legion board meeting. Luthor outright told him how fucking stupid and pointless his plot was(which viewers would agree). took out his gun, blasted him away, and took power of the group.

That Luthor is a ruthless cold-blooded "killah". His smarts, and one very nice bank account, counters Superman's powers. Spacey can be a ruthless bastard very easily. Too bad instead that the quietly-homosexual Spacey instead played it for camps. Too bad...

(4) Wait, the kid can throw a piano, but can't punch through a door? Singer is too smart for such Ratner-esque mistakes.

Yet, there are good things in SUPERMAN RETURNS. Brandon Routh I really doubted, but man, he IS Superman. Singer was right on the money. The stadium sequence is real feel-good. The 3rd act with the hospital is really....well, it brings things to home.

I think its the fact that like X3 and FANTASTIC FOUR, I can't help but....realize that I prefer the vision in my head. I'll share it later in the morning when I pen it up.

Still, SUPERMAN RETURNS is a good film, and I hope the sequel is really superior.

I still don't understand why you and ronnie continue to refer to these movies. YES, I liked them. And YES, I'm sure I'm not the only one. But I also do like other comic book movies, take The Punisher for example.

Irish, which PUNISHER film version? The shitty one with Dolph Lundgren, or the shitty one with Jane?