No but you wrote it like as good as ZODIAC is as a film, its nothing to those others...and that tone of writing annoys me. Its fanboy review-writing that clogs up AICN and IMDB.

Why not simply just say its another damn good/great movie from Fincher? I mean, tone is everything in reviews.

Besides, FANTASTIC FOUR is funny? I already question your KNOCKED UP review, since what comedy is funny to you if FF is funny to you? I don't trust you with comedy.



Okay, here is a new one.
22-29 - 4th place - AL East

I think Capo was refering to the fact that its subtle touches of the visuals for different periods in the film's timeline....I mean, its the little devil details like that why Fincher is a master.

svsg, I'm not tech-savvy for this kind of stuff, but I think Zodiac accomplished two things, visually: overall and throughout, it looked like a Fincher film. Smooth, slick pans and tracks, eliminating the limitations of space (by crabbing through walls, etc.) - note the birdseye-view shot of the taxi, which was very neat, I dunno how he did it. Secondly, depending on which decade it was, I thought, as well as looking like Fincher (in visual style), it evoked that decade (in terms of visual feel). The sixties, seventies and eighties portions all looked very subtly different. It wasn't as obvious as Scorsese's same technique in The Aviator, though, probably because changes in look weren't as obvious in the 60s-80s as in the 30s-50s.

Not only did Zodiac have period detail in terms of mise-en-scene (props, locations, fashions and clothing, etc.) but the way in which it was filmed, too. It's a very self-reflexive film.

Same thing as I said.....basically.

I am planning to watch zodiac again, but I don't know when I will get a chance.

POINT BREAK
(First Viewing)

Johnny Utah (Reeves) is a Special Agent for the FBI. Utah gets partnered with Angelo Pappas (Gary Busey) an experienced agent who is more than committed to his work. The two are asked to investigate the number of robberies committed by a group called the Ex-Presidents, who wears masks of Presidents Reagen, Nixon, Carter and Johnson for their robberies. Pappas has a theory that the Ex-Presidents are a group of surfers, and asks for Utah to go undercover as a surfer. The problem is, Utah couldn't surf to save his life. That plus the two continuously being hassled by unpleasant and rough Agent Harp (McGinley). With the help of Tyler (Petty) a competent female surfer, Utah begins to gain the respect of local surfer Bodhi (Swayze) and his group. Utah forms a close bond with Bodhi, but the relationship between Utah and Bodhi becomes limited when Utah suspects that Bodhi and his group are the Ex-Presidents.

Man I wonder what happened to Patrick Swayze, the man was making a pretty nice life for himself with RED DAWN, ROAD HOUSE and now POINT BREAK on his resume. Then he turned in that GHOST piece of crap and it all went down from there. Also young Keanu Reeves is fresh off his Ted Logan role in Bill & Ted (thank Heavens). My biggest beef with the film was there was too much surfing. I liked the bank robbing and sky diving scenes and wish there was more of that. I felt too much time was wasted on Keanu and Patrick bonding while surfing. Somewhat disappointing (especially since it started out so good) but an enjoyable film nonetheless.

Wow, throwing in the Yankees jokes in a movies thread and it's only June 1st. Pathetic! I've never seen ronnie stoop so low

Yeah, I roll my eyes at your lame reply too. For once, we agree.

North by Northwest ****
One of the best suspense thrillers I have ever seen. Right from the first scene till the end, it has that nail biting tension. The climax is amazing. It seems like Hitchcock carefully plans each of his frames... amazing photography. And as usual his attention to sound is excellent. I have nothing but praises for the film. After Vertigo, this is my favorite Hitchcock movie. Definitely watch it if you haven't.

THE HURRICANE
(First Viewing)

This film tells the story of Rubin "Hurricane" Carter, an African-American man who rose above his troubled youth to become a top contender for the middle-weight boxing title. However, his dreams are shattered when he is accused of a triple murder, and is convicted to three natural-life terms. Despite becoming a cause celebre and his dogged efforts to prove his innocence through his autobiography, the years of fruitless efforts have left him discouraged. This changes when an African-American boy and his Canadian mentors read his book and are convinced of his innocence enough to work for his exoneration. However, what Hurricane and his friends learn is that this fight puts them against a racist establishment that profited from this travesty and have no intention of seeing it reversed.

Definitely not Denzel Washington's finest work. He's Denzel Washington so of course he did a fine job but I felt this role for him was a little weak. I've also have never been a fan of Vicellous Reon Shannon's work. He's more of a TV "star" than a movie star. Pretty uneventful throughout except for the last 30 minutes or so, but by then I had lost interest with the film.

Yeah, such a wonderfully entertaining popcorn thriller. Glad you loved it man.

Well, the film obviously had an effect on your life. But I'm not talking about the film, I'm specifically talking about the story; the case. Serial killers and unsolved cases don't excite me, especially in a film as bland and lifeless as this one.



I wasn't comparing Haneke and Fincher head-to-head. Go back and read what I posted. You could easily remove the Haneke part and it'd still make sense.



You got the wrong guy. I don't term anything. A film is a film.



Placing the audience into different character's identities? If I remember correctly, most of the film was from Gyllenhaal's point of view.



Yeah, I noticed the change in cinematography. So what? I'm all of a sudden suppossed to enjoy the film because Fincher paid great attention to detail?



You don't make the film in the first place.

Twinkle, twinkle, blah blah...

Okay...

Wide-open and mysterious. Well, it goes to enormous lengths to, if anything, de-mystify the case. It's the opposite to "wide-open", to me. What do you mean by "overpolished"? Slick and smooth? Clean-looking? As opposed to grainy, perhaps, and hand-held? I don't see how being "overpolished" is a bad thing.

I don't understand this, really. What's your point? Do you mean subject matter, as opposed to a film's style or "form"?

It isn't, though. The final third is, from the point where he mentions, cleverly, that he's thinking of writing a book (the one which we see sold on shelves later in the film, and the one from which the film is adapted).

There are some beautiful flourishes in there, regardless of period detail - the period detail, which people often amount to "realism" or "historical accuracy" - doesn't really excite me all that much, since I never lived in San Fransisco and never have; it's a far-away reality to me. But you didn't find worth in the overhead tracking shot of the taxi - which belied any use of CGI for me, and seemed incredibly ambitious and difficult in concept, but pulled off very well.

I'll tell you what, I'll anticipate a quote from you: "So what, it's a nice tracking shot, now I'm supposed to care about the film?"

Well, yeah; even if you deem it as a gimmick (which it may or may not be), it's still beautiful enough in and of itself to be "of worth", no? I mean in strictly cinematic terms.

Oh, but then I could ask why make films in the first place? Why make anything? Why live?

I could easily say the same thing as you but apply it to Stalker. Tarkovsky didn't need to make that film to tell us about existentialism, did he?

Don't understand the "twinkle twinkle" part of your argument, either, but I'll assume it amounts to the ever-convincing, always-conclusive opinion of "whatever".

That's exactly what I mean by overpolished. It works sometimes, like in 2046 and Magnolia, but when the film rarely leaves a suburb/office/car setting like in Zodiac, it ends up being painfully dull.



Yeah. For example, at first glance, Godard's films are nothing special visually, but when you watch the film, his visual style is always perfectly suitable to what he's filming.



It's of worth to you since you found it to be a beautiful shot, and at the time I might have thought of it as beautiful as well (I can't really remember, which shows just how small of an impact the film had on me). But in the end, it's only one small part of a film that I hated.



Of course he didn't. But Stalker changed my life, so I'm glad Tarkovsky made it. I'm also glad Fincher made Zodiac, Juenet made Amelie, Anderson made Boogie Nights, and on and on. Watching bad films is essential in order to appreciate the films you love.

Twinkle, twinkle, blah blah...

I'll still contest that Boogie Nights is fucking genius.

Speaking of which, where's MistaMista been hiding? I miss that savage bastard.

GHOST RIDER 1/2
(Second Viewing)

When the motorcyclist Johnny Blaze finds that his father Barton Blaze has a terminal cancer, he accepts a pact with the Mephistopheles, giving his soul for the health of his beloved father. But the devil deceives him, and Barton dies in a motorcycle accident during an exhibition. Johnny leaves the carnival, his town, his friends and his girlfriend Roxanne. Years later Johnny Blaze becomes a famous motorcyclist, who risks his life in his shows, and he meets Roxanne again, now a TV reporter. However, Mephistopheles proposes Johnny to release his contract if he become the "Ghost Rider" and defeat his evil son Blackheart, who wants to possess one thousand evil souls and transform hell on earth.

I think this movie actually got better with a second viewing. The special FX were amazing and Nicolas Cage and Sam Elloitt fit their roles beautifully. I think this is as close as any of those "B" comic franchises are going to get to the likes of X-MEN or SPIDER-MAN because this is definitely better than FANTASTIC FOUR, HULK, DAREDEVIL, THE PUNISHER, etc. I really hope they give this a sequel, although I'd only want it done with the same cast and crew.

THE CORPORATION
(First Viewing)

Since the late 18th century American legal decision that the business corporation organizational model is legally a person, it has become a dominant economic, political and social force around the globe. This film takes an in-depth psychological examination of the organization model through various case studies. What the study illustrates is that in the its behaviour, this type of "person" typically acts like a dangerously destructive psychopath without conscience. Furthermore, we see the profound threat this psychopath has for our world and our future, but also how the people with courage, intelligence and determination can do to stop it.

I actually picked this up on a whim at work. I didn't even know we carried it but I was looking for something interesting to watch before I go and I'm glad I picked this up. By and large I am against corporations and am tired of the commercialization that takes place in this country. If you're in the same boat I am, then this documentary will interest you as it takes an in depth look at how corporations and governments around the world are practically ruining this planet. However, before anyone wants to get cute I don't believe all corporations or businesses are bad. Many of them aren't but many of them are.

The only good thing that didn't seem campy, cheesy, Silly, and H.L.(Hardcore Lame)* was Peter Fonda...too bad this video came stinker didn't give him enough to work with.

*=Hardcore Lame is when filmmakers or movies in general try to be "badass," only to end up looking super LAME.

Two Family House

Two Family House is an independant film that tells the story of Buddy Visalo, a man who regrets that he has passed up the one opportunity offered to him early in his life. So Buddy strives to make up for that missed opportunity by attempting to make it in life trying different businesses and coming up with different ideas.

His latest idea is converting a run down two family house into a business called Buddy's Tavern. He decides that he and his wife will use the upstairs apartment as their home, and the downstairs will be where the tavern is. Sure enough, with Buddy's luck, it's not so easy getting rid of the tenants because the housing laws cause him all kinds of complications.

What starts out as a problem eventually evolves into a totally unexpected romance.

Buddy is played by Michael Rispoli, who is better known as mob boss Jackie Aprile from season one of The Sopranos, along with a supporting cast of Sopranos characters include Katherine Narducci (Charmaine Bucco ), Sharon Angela ( Rosemarie Aprile), Vincent Pastore ( Big Pussy ) & Matt Servidio ( agent Harris ).

A very entertaining and enjoyable film.

Pierrot le Fou

I was underwhelmed by this film on my first viewing, and I honestly have no idea how that happened. I must have been half asleep, because right now I'm thinking this is quite possibly Godard's best film, and one of the greatest films ever made.

Godard said of Pierrot Le Fou that "it is not really a film, it's an attempt at cinema. Life is the subject, with [Cinema]Scope and color as its attributes...In short, life filling the screen as a tap fills bathtub that is simultaneously emptying at the same rate."

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059592/trivia

I don't know if I will like this particular movie, but I like his allegory

Godard and Lynch are my two favourite filmmakers, if you didn't already know. Check him out, svsg. I dunno how familar you are with him; check out his first film, Breathless (A bout de souffle) first, and move from there. He's very challenging, very innovative, absolutely spellbinding at his best.

DVC, I'm really interested in what you'd make of Sympathy for the Devil. Check it out asap, please, and get back to me.

Speaking of Lynch,

Capo, you ever read his legendary script treatment for RONNIE ROCKET?*

*=Now you all know where I got my username from.

Breathless is the only Godardd movie I have seen. I didn't find anything special in it. I remember DVC pointing out that this movie was dealing with Americanization of France or something to that effect. I won't argue about its social significance, but as a plain movie, it didn't do anything special for me. Can you suggest me any more movies of his, that I can appreciate without any regard to the social impact or its historic significance in Cinema?

what about AGO in your username?

Will do.

God-art has become my favorite filmmaker, and I've only seen 6 of his films. This Summer I'm going to make an attempt to see as many of his films as I can. Hopefully I can get through all of them.

Why not?

Besides, It gave a three-word prong to my name, almost like the name of a crappy Glam Rock tune.

"Ronnie Rocket...AGO!"

HANZO THE RAZOR: SWORD OF JUSTICE
(First Viewing)

Not enough fighting scenes and the few that were in the film were horribly choreographed. Also, this is suppose to be an honest, straight line walking cop, yet he's a rapist? Probably one of the weakest samurai movies I've ever seen.

I absolutely love À bout de souffle too, and I'd also recommend Alphaville and a woman is a woman (a femme est une femme) . these 3 and pierrot le fou are the only Godard's films I have seen, but as for pierrot, I didn't like it at all. it was sooooo boring with all that singing and dancing in the bushes... I don't even remember what the hell it was about. obviously, one day in my time I'm still going to give it another shot.