Page created 26 Apr 2002 by baggins , last modified 28 Apr 2002 by baggins
URL: www.imdb.com
Well, i thought perhaps we could have a movies entree, where we could discuss movies. this intro has been edited. So post movies that you want to talk about. this is the place to do it.
ala carte.................................................$4.95
with cheese............................................$5.45
Ah, so I am not the only one. She was really great in The Larry Sanders Show. And she should have been given a much bigger part in Dogma, too.She was also in a movie called The Matchmaker, which was laden with Oirishness and generally cringe-making material. But who cares? It had Janeane Garofalo!
Lest we forget Mystery Men, where she was able to exhibit her full garofalosity.SHe was also in the GOOD Sylvester Stallone movie, Cop Land.
cop land is a great, overlooked movie. i love it.
another overlooked movie and also one of my favorites is Unstrung Heroes. it has Andie MacDowell, John Turturro, and Michael Richards in it. go and rent it.
actually, i mentioned this uncanny attraction in the company of several friends. a surprising number of them felt the same way, and felt strangely vindicated as well! so, we are not her only admirers. so interesting. i wonder how wide this is spread?
man she's been in lot of stuff, including Majo no takkyubin...
I wish I was half as sexy as Jeneane Garofalo. It's all in the attitude, the biting wit (I try to pull that off and I hurt myself). Personally, I think her best role was in Romy & Michelle's High School Reunion when she plays a badass who invented fast burning cigarettes.
I like Ms. Garofalo, but I'm not like, insanely crazy about her. I feel, a little bit, like her shtick is often sort of the same thing. It's cool, but I'm not sure I've seen that much dramatic or comedic scope.I still like her though, don't get me wrong.
Dude, her name begins with Gar! What's not to love?
You know, the justification for Elise naming one of her cats Gar was that it was short for Garofalupagus.
and i'm a straight chick.
... my favorite Janine Garafalo bit was the Bathroom Monkey commercial from Saturday Night Live. "I don't know where monkeys come from, I don't know how they reproduce..."
well, since i edited the body of the entree, the rest of my thoughts are now here. but they should be at the top of the list of replies. i don't know how to fix that.anyways, there is a really funny movie i saw a couple weeks ago called Wet Hot American Summer.
Its made by/stars a bunch of people from an old sketch comedy show on MTV called The State.
Its a funny movie that is kind of a parody of 80's camp movies. the plot is centered around the last day of summer camp, and lots of funny stuff that happens. if you were ever a fan of The State, or you like the comedy acting of Janeane Garofalo or David Hyde Pierce, this movie is for you. i'll warn you that it does go a little over the top on some themes, but that is what made The State funny a lot of times anyways. i laughed a lot when i watched this, and i was sober. If you ever worked at summer camp, or went to summer camp, you'll find at least some of this movie funny. id recommend it.
I also have a weird attraction to Janeane Garofalo. Im not sure what it is, exactly.
My first exposure to Ms. Garofalo was through her adverts for Comedy Central, the ones where she is sitting with a group of excessively cute big-eyed children in what looks like a kindergarten classroom and she is ranting on about how they don't have to follow the crowd and can just say no to The Bridges of Madison County. I was immediately impressed as this was the first hint I had seen that not all comedians in this country were in the "So, a guy goes into a bar..." category (all though the large majority are). Next was an old clip, again on Comedy Central, doing her act with long hair and spectacles. Again, a well-considered rant. Everything I've seen after that has been a major disappointment as she has toned down to nearer middle of the road and relies on preaching to the converted in the audience. I've seen no evidence of any new material. For someone who delivers deadpan to perfection, an early Margaret Smith is enormously better than Janeane. She reminds me of Hattie Hayridge (yes, one of the Hollys from Red Dwarf) at her best.
is this a Janeane Garofalo entree or good movie post? i love her but, can we talk about what some of you good people have seen.
for more that janeane has done her filmography.
there is a great page for info on everything movies.
The Internet Movie Database
check it out its really cool for looking up who was in what and such.
but it couldn't hurt to have it in again.
sorry dude i relized you post that already. great minds think alike.
how true. and you like janeane garofalo too. i knew i liked you.
Best Double Feature Ever
Book of Love
Career Opportunities
Second Best Double Feature Ever
Barton Fink
Blue Velvet
Deep Blue Sea
Gone with the Wind
Overboard
10 things I hate about you
And anything with Doris Day
if you haven't seen 'the princess and the warrior' : go out and rent it immediately. it's a beautiful flick. and not girlie.
Has anyone seen Spiderman yet? What did you think of it?
Everyone I've asked about it has said pretty much what I expected from it: "Oh, it's really great! I mean, it has some hokey scenes, but you need those in a comic book movie! It's got good action, and it's really cool! I was surprised!"
So yeah. It's a fun flick, by all accounts I've read. Although I still think the guy they got for Spiderman is wrong. I never bought the crap about Parker being a shy, nerdy teen. He always struck me as an introverted wiseass. He doesn't talk to many people, but he's got his wits about him, and he knows who he is. The coming-of-age spin doesn't do it for me.
we're talking some great movies.
Clerks
Mallrats
Chasing Amy
Dogma
Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back
some classics here folks.
i want to get the 'Berserker' Tshirt from the View Askew Productions website.
Don't see what the craze is. They're okay, but not spectacular. Dogma was enjoyable, but most definitely overhyped. Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back was pretty funny, but only if you've seen all the others. So the series gets a resounding "meh" from me.
some people laugh at some things, some laugh at others. i don't know.
two movies to recomend.
Focus with William H. Macy, Laura Dern, David Paymer, and Meat Loaf.
it was based on the book by Arthur Miller.
Novocaine with Steve Martin, Laura Dern, and Helena Bonham Carter. good dark comedy.
carlson will like that marla is in it. "If I had a tumor, I'd name it Marla."
I must say, I think that Dazed and Confused is a great movie.
"http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2001/02/08/delicatessen_1991_review.shtm l" delicatessen is a really cool french film that is very dark and grotesque,but takes such joy and delight in being so that you can hardly restrain your own delight. it's by the same guy who made amelie and stars the stalker guy from the cafe as a retired circus performer.
delicatessen is a really cool french film that is very dark and grotesque,but takes such joy and delight in being so that you can hardly restrain your own delight. it's by the same guy who made amelie and stars the stalker guy from the cafe as a retired circus performer.
html is still a foreign language to me.referring to the title of this post, did anyone see the HBO documentary called 'living dolls' ??? i spent much of last june watching this over and over and i'm still obsessed with it.
it may have disappeared entirely after that month because we spent the rest of the summer waiting for it to come back.
excellent movie. i love it. i haven't seen it in forever. ben affleck is in it too. and milla jovovich.
there is a movie that i have been reading about called
Dogtown and Z-Boys. it is a documentary on skateboarding in southern California when it first became popular. it is supposed to be really good, and have actual super8-type footage from then. has anybody heard of this movie, or anything about it? anybody know where its playing in chicago?
Delicatessen is a great movie! pete showed it down in java a few years back on a projector. it was really cool to watch in java house with a ton of people. i would second kels recomdation.
"It all started for me when I was fifteen. That's when I invented the artificial cow heart.""You know, if my foot could talk...it would say, 'May I please go up this geek's ass!"
-now THAT's some snappy dialogue. i miss the days when teen movies were intelligent and funny. although stupid and funny is nice sometimes too (dude, where's my script?). or am i missing-out? that's a hateful thought. i'm haunted by the fact that i haven't seen all the movies in the world yet, but that day is coming, mark my words!
Yeah, Delicatessen is MONEY MONEY MONEY.Also, I watched Dr. Stangelove for the first time in Hanover. I need to rent and watch that one again.
in watching dr. strangelove with you. i have wanted to see that for some time, but stupid blockbuster by my house doesn't carry it. and i dont really rent anywhere else (go figure)
I like them. They are cheaper and you don't feel as though you've sold out to the man. But, I will admit that their collections are smaller and depending on the store you feel different degrees of shadiness....
Christina Ricci recommendation- The Opposite of Sex
It would be cool if Rolling Stone would do a year of covers that were not intended to be sexy at all. Or were sexy, but without skimpy clothes, or something like that. They're so shameless, it's totally embarassing.
they used to be a cheap tabloid printing like your usual city free weeklies. They'd have photos of rockers and bands on the cover, in pretty straightforward poses. Now they're just another Vogue.
the opposite of sex and sleepy hollow - fall into the category of so-good-i-wish-i-hadn't-seen-it. tops on that list for me would be buffalo 66, a movie so good it's a tragedy i can't be surprised by it again for the first time. i confess that her (christina ricci's) part is nominally a supporting role, but she anchors the whole thing if you ask me, which no-one did. interesting how an almost choruslike, internal-audience part can make or break a film, especially considering that the movie's most outstanding character trait seems to be its personal-artistic-statement-type thing - a very male, lonely, kind of formal/stylistic exercise, focused on the acute mental anguish and f*ed-uppedness of the pathetic and sorry-assed protagonist. vincent gallo, if you haven't seen it, which if it's true is very sad, and a sadness you should remedy with all due speed in a dark room with a big stereo alone with the shades pulled down at about 2am with the volume on earbleed, especially for the opening credits. i like to believe that once we were warriors copped its opening setup from buffalo 66, but i'm sure vincent gallo copped it from one of his betters, which doesn't stop it from being my favorite opening credits ever (that i can think of right now). and that's not to start gushing about the soundtrack and its loveliness.
yikes, that's a lot of wannabe-film-school-prick fragrant-cow-pie-chucking. now i remember why i stopped writing.
jen and i rented three kings last night. we hadn't seen it before. it was really good! waaaaaaaayy better than i thought it would be. go rent it if you haven't seen it.
Didn't like it. It was all waaaaay too forced. It's probably the best performance ever in a film by a rapper, though.
Ice Cube in anything is better than Marky Mark. i thought 3Kings was alright. wasn't amazed. but it wasn't as bad as it could have been.
jen and i just rented The Princess and the Warrior on the recommendation of barefootjumper and it was a rad movie. give it a try. it does have subtitles. so, if your not in the mood to read a movie maybe wait till you are or else you'll miss out on a good flick.
LL Cool J in Deep Blue Sea (movie previously mentioned by me as a bad movie that wasn't so bad) LL's character makes me laugh throughout the whole flick. And nothing is better than a movie that makes fun of itself... Smart sharks- what a great plot...
Unless you are madly in love with special effects.... it can wait for video.
So I heard that LL Cool J stands for "ladies love cool James". Is that true? Is that not toally lame?
that is totally cool! like cool with a "k", like vanilla ice kool! as it says at the end of the credits to his totally kool movie, kool as ice (or is it "cool as ice"?), "be kool - stay in skool!"
Things that are kool:HAH! It's a Jeopardy category! "He and his gang like to 'celebrate'." bzzzz "Who are Kool and the Gang alex?" "Correct, 500 dollars to Bob." "Great! I'll take 'Cool with a K' for 800."
- kool and the gang
- kools (cigs)
- ryan "kool" richardson
- kool mo dee
- kool keith
- kool daddy fresh
- kool g. rap
- phil kool
- kool-aid
Umlauts are Kühl. Or something.
like for instance max headroom is kool. it's on techtv right now. being a blank is kool.
we just rented vanilla sky. i seem to remeber alot of people not getting it or what ever. i thought it was really Kool. i'd like to see the film by Alejandro Amenábar that it was based on, Abre Los Ojos. has anyone else seen these movies? by the way cameron crowe is the man. he has the greatest soundtracks ever.
saw it, and it was acceptable. it's one of those foreign films that i might not have been able to enjoy if i was a native speaker, but watching the subtitles allows me to forgive what i suspect is crappy dialogue and trite pseudophilosophizing and concentrate on actors' gestures and emotional investment. beyond that, i mainly remember that the lady is hella-enchanting, and it's probably worth a watching just for her.
back when they were 2 for 1 at the shell on foster and kimball. and that was like $2 for 2 packs. awesome deal, horrible cigarette. don't ever smoke a menthol cigarette, folks. it will kill you, and it is not a pleasant experience.
this friday jen, tim mcginnis, myself, and any one that would like to join us will be going to the brew and view for:
7:00 Lord of the Rings 10:00 Royal Tennanbaums 12:00 National Lampoon's Van Wilder
can't wait to have a smoke with gandalf and a pint with the hobbits.
Royal Tenenbaums really makes me want to smoke in it. I hope this crowd is better than the crowd in the theater when i saw it originally.
Run Lola Run... Considers the possibility of take-backs- very good.
its a really cool movie. and i love the ending.
wow we had a good time at the vic last night. it was really cool to see Lord of the Rings and Royal Tenenbaums again. i'm so glad that laura and peter carlson took jen and i to see tenenbaums when we were in l.a.
it was a amazing to see the two towers previews too. it rocked!
a walk on the moon is your thing...diane lane ain't so bad herself!
road to perdition was just as great as they say it is.
which is a hell of alot better than they said minority report was.
any one want to chat about either of these?
RTP was pretty subpar. it seems like they didn't try at all to hit the emotions they wanted us to feel. just pretty blah, as far as im concerned. but it WAS better than i thought. i expected total cheese when i saw the trailer. so i was actually pleasantly surprised when i saw it. there were cool things about it, but i wasn't all that thrilled with it.
I don't get out much. I haven't had a tv since '96. I now live in a house with a tv that is only hooked up to a vcr. This, I like. Before now the only way I could watch movies was by renting dvds and watching them on my laptop. Yes, I'm a nerd. So, I've been out of the loop for a while, I need suggestions.Top 5 movies you own:
Top 5 movies you want to own:
Top 5 movies to rent:
Bottom 5 movies that people will tell me to rent or buy, but will make me lose even more faith in humanity and Hollywood:
Do it!
but i think i'll wait for smax to post the entree.
i read that the second DVD that is coming out in nov. will not be rated "R" and will PG-13. and will only be 30 min. more not the extra hour that was rumored. suck! we'll it will still be kick ass i'm sure.
the preview on the DVD i have for the superspectacularDVD in nov. says that there is only about 30 min. of extra stuff. but there are 4 discs, 2 of which have special features. i assume the other 2 discs are for the movie. don't you think that 2 discs would have more than an extra half-hour of stuff on them?
the 30 min. are extra movie time. so, instead of a 3 hour movie it is a 3 1/2 hour movie now. the other discs are with extra behind the scenes and what nots.
4 discs - 2 discs of previews = 2 discs for movie.
i think that 1 disc would be enough for 3.5 hours of movie, leaving another disc left over. but maybe im wrong, and they split it up between 2. i wish it was more than a half hour.
i agree.
Tuesday the 20th, Alfred Hitchcock's Vertigo will be playing at Butler Field in Grant Park. Its free. Its all part of the Chicago Outdoor Film Festival.
anyone intrested in going? i think jen and i will be. it would be fun to get some people together and have a picnic.
i think dave clauson and aaron whitmer might be going as well. hope more can join us!
vertigo was fun except the end. maybe someone who hadn't seen the movie should post the end.
jena nd i just watched lst night "waking life." very cool. worth checking out.
Ok, so Judy and John are up the bell tower right, and then Judy turns into a nun and says, "Lord have mercy on their souls!" And then there's a scream. Fade to black.I'M STILL SHAKING FROM HOW FREAKY THAT IS.
David Lynch has nothing on Alfred "weirdo" Hitchcock. That dude had some serious issues.
yeah, what a weird ending. i mean, who is screaming? the nun? Judy? the Judy-Nun? John? Midge? talk about Alfred Bitchcock, gee whiz. why did they have to climb to the top of the belltower to turn into a nun, anyway? oh, i get it, its because the movie is called Vertigo, and J.Stewart is afraid of heights. or something.
Whatever happened to Midge? Obviously, she comes and visits Jimmy in the hospital again, and basically for the rest of her life makes awkward (and inevitably spurned) advances towards him.
we just watched in the bedroom again last night. we had erik, kels, pedro, anna, and whitmer over. it was a grad time. i love that movie. sad, slow, but amazing. so, real. please rent it.
Now don't go getting any dirty ideas... I figure some of you guys have already talked this around the room a million times, but I was just thinking last night... when Gandalf dove off Isengard, he wasn't holding anything he had lost down stairs, yet he seemed to have it later. Has anyone looked to see if it is the same staff? if so, how the hell did he get it?I am a little itchy to see the second instalment and I don't think anyone up here in the UP cares... they are too excited about hunting season... then snow mobile season... then fishing season... oh, and as always, beer. I guess you toss a cat in the water but that doesn't make it a fish.
Yeah, I've wondered that same thing.
that has been noted in the LOTR discussions. it is presumably the same staff. but it is unclear how he gets it back. it is also something that isn't explained in the book, either. unless my geek has waned, that is.
Well, the books also don't specify that Gandalf and Saruman have it out in a battle of the staffs in the palantir room- in fact, in the books, Gandalf doesn't find out Saruman has a palantir til the 2nd book. From the books, I get the idea that Saruman tricked Gandalf into going onto the room rather than thrusting him up through sheer rock by magic, and if that is the case, there would be no reason for him to have lost his staff at all...
For Pedro- "Can't you control your staff?"
or, he could have used magic powerful enough to somehow make gandalf's staff useless in opening the magically sealed doors or something.
Ok. So, I saw this for the first time the other day and thought it was pretty good, liking animated stuff as I do. However, it was kind of bitter for me to see that the main monster in the moive gets to sleep until 6:05 in the morning when I have to get up at 5:30..... The fact that I noticed that was pretty sad....
this movie was alot better than everyone made it out to be. jen and i thought it was really funny. great dvd rental. the bloopers are high- larious. devito + stiller + williams + norton = funny.
...but alh remains skeptical. I'm interested.
Took my sister to see Tuck Everlasting- I'm telling you small syblings are indispensible if you are a sap who likes kids movies (even though she will soon not qualify as small, and then what will I do?). It was ok. It deviated quite a bit from the children's book (which is marvelous) in the plot, but they captured the themes dead on. Over all, an teary-eyed thumbs up.
This is the site for current movies..... But we can use the other one if you prefer....
but the title has NOTHING to do with movies... i don't get it... heh
Saw Harry Potter:Chamber of Secrets last night (I'm over in the UK this week for work, and it's released here already). HIGHLY recommend it-- I think it was better than the first. Staying in Oxford right now, a couple blocks from Christ Church, one of the Oxford campuses. They filmed a lot of both movies there (great hall scenes, a lot of staircase scenes). I toured the campus before seeing the movie, which made it all that much more cool. Since I saw the first film, it's probably easy for me to say that "you could see this movie and enjoy it if you haven't seen the first one." I was a bit hesitant going into the whole thing, figuring that it being a sequel, it would cop out to more of a "look what the producers can do with their FX super-computers" movie, but the plot was really engaging, and quite hilarious even for a big kid.
dont you know, harry potter is evil.
The best part of that tract is the final panel: "Samantha, you'll need a Bible to erad every day...a King James Bible. It's the only English version Satan hasn't messed with."
I don't particularly care for Jack Chick or tract evangelism or some of the silly things I've read in tracts, however, just on a whim I thought I'd see what the Pagan Federation, an english organization of wizards, witches, covens, and everything neo-pagan, might have to say about the Harry Potter books. Their website is not very 'search friendly' so I did a general google search instead.Seems that Christians are not the only ones that view the Harry Potter Books as stirring up an interest in witchcraft(as well as Sabrina the Teenage Witch, Buffy the Vampire Slayer). The Pagan Federation is apparently recieving a lot of inquiriers from young readers. Of course, if you're under 18 they wont send you material without parental consent.
Now if...if Harry Potter books create an interest in witchcraft, and given that certain Christians claim this, and given that some Pagans recognize this and set out to accomadate a growing need (according to the Pagan Federation, a need created by the failure of the Christian Churches), then I think we can move beyond the seemingly foolish claims of seemingly foolish christians on this subject.
I think that at some point the question becomes whether or not this is a good thing; if you're a pagan, great; if you're a christian, not so great.
Anyways, I'm not sure quite where I going with this, but I guess this is where you all come in.
Well...
is where that belongs. what about the 'caught' one? give me a break. i just adore how sleeping with bathsheba is stealing because he "stole another man's woman"
you're evading the question.
it already appeared in the Onion.
upon further reading I'm not sure what your comment was in reference to, perhaps to what I wrote or to something else. If to something else, please disregard the above comments.
first, i think she was referring to this.and i for one, love the story of david. great men can do horrible things. but that story being in scripture where people can learn from it is a whole lot different from the paperback version of the "starr report" going for 6.99 at your local bookstore. isnt gossiping a sin?
but speaking of bookstores, (and not to mention getting this discussion back to movies), i was pleasantly suprised to see this in the covenant book store a few weeks ago. not really being a potter fan, i dont plan on reading it. but i'm always happy to see people, especially christians, take the high road. especially when someone takes the time and effort to write a book. oh yeah, it was right next to this.
also, in the summer of 2001 i volunteered at half a dozen covenant camps. while at mission springs, (santa cruz, ca) this guy was the speaker. one morning during morning chapel (which is entirely outdoors, and were it not for the cross made from tree trunks, could conjure up pagan images) he spoke to 200 4th, 5th, and 6th graders about how harry potter is leading them into satan's trap. he told horror stories about 13 year old girls seeing devils and stuff. half those kids had to have been potter fans. i had some really good talks with those kids. most of them felt that idea was way over their heads, or that he was being ridiculous. imagination is imagination.
the problem is, if the christian publishing industry is afraid of "evil" books stealing thier dollars, they need to offer up something cooler than this as competition.
jrr would totally waste bibleman in a fight. hey that'd be a good celebrity death match.
ok i'm done.
ok wait. i just realized something...i in no way intended to imply that i hold up william jefferson clinton as a "great" man.
just for the record.
when i posted my reply about the onion, your reply was not yet there [somehow it ended up before mine,though. interesting]i think those tracts are silly and uncle bob is a putz. they are caricatures of christianity.
p.s. captain: did you pose a question that i was to evade?
maybe this will do the trick: as far as harry potter leading people to interests in witchcraft; i think it's much more likely than those pamphlets leading anyone to god.
So I was at a party session aound here with some very unChristian friends. They actually collect those little Chick books as a joke. It's kind of a contest to see who can get the most of them. I don't think they're working.
barefootjumper Seems I posted right before you did. I was a little puzzeled, but the Onion reference you made reminded me of the Onion article about how some 9 year old conjured up Satan after reading Harry Potter, so I took your entry as a reply to mine, and as such, another example of the dismissive attitude I was trying to call into question.The rest of your entry about stealing another man's wife was a bit more enigmatic, especially since it was in fact a reference to a Jack Chick tract I was unaware of. Again, I read it in light of what I had written and felt it was evasive in that seemed to read the conflict between some christians/pagans in a suspicious way, that maybe christians are more concerned about sheep stealing than witchcraft.
The question in question is implicit in the hypothetical statement concerning the claim of the books stirring up interest in witchcraft. Although the claim seems ridiculous, if it can be substantiated, and to some degree it apparently can be, then we need to move beyond 'those silly fundamentalists' and seriously engage its implications. My apologies for not being clear.
Ultimately, the issues surrounding the Harry Potter books do not concern thier entertainment value, the author's ability to write, or any risk they pose to mature teenagers or adults, but whether these children books are in fact appropriate for children.
Once agian, My apologies. I will end with two personal anticdotes on the impressionableness(?) of children. Two movies my parents did not want me to watch were Jaws and Empire Strikes Back. They felt that Jaws was too frightening and they were uneasy about the central role of the Force in ESB. To this day I cannot swim (actually I can stay aflot as well as dogpaddle a few yards) because of the panic I feel while in water, especially murky water. Also, I spent years as a kid laying on the top bunk trying to lift Lincoln Logs up off the floor with the power of my mind. But hey, those are some outstanding movies, and look, we're back on track.
please give this movie a try. at first it might seem dark, well it is but, it's not what you think. please check this out. val kilmer at his best other than maybe tombstone or real genius. no, really he is great. and the movie is cool. if you liked memento you might like salton sea.
This might not be the perfect place for this post but I know some of you might be very excited to check out this bizarre scene:Star Wars Christmas Special Capsule by Jonathan Rosenbaum From the Chicago Reader
A 1977 television special, with Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, and those cuddly robots.
This movie is currently playing at: Delilah's, 2771 N. Lincoln, Chicago, Sunday, December 15, 6:00, 773-472-2771
the documentary of the making of mermaid avenue. brings you through the process nora guthrie, billy bragg, and wilco went through to bring woody guthrie's unrecorded lyrics to life.i adored this movie. 'this land is your land' started inducing awe and tears around age seven for me.
scotland,pa was a cool movie that jen and i watched last night. really worth checking out. it's one of those "dark comedies" that us kids like so much these days. but, it's based on "McBeth" and takes place in the 70's. so, if you like Fargo, William Shakespeare, and or BAD CO, then scotland,pa is the movie for you.
the pianist.
This is Peter Jackson's best movie! J/K. I hope you've seen it:I saw this when it first came out and loved it. This pulled no punches.
AuditionI had to the chance to see it in Chicago at the Landmark Century but the drive was too far for only a movie (although I did drive to Chicago to see Requeim for a Dream when it first came out..but come on, it's Aronofsky and Hubert Selby.) On top of that I didn't have the guts to see this movie when it first came out. The poster, the idea of needles being put where they really shouldn't be, and the stories I heard about people walking out during the last 15 minutes kind of freaked me out. The film also received an NC-17 rating but was later changed to "Not Rated". A lot of critics said that it's one of the most disturbing and disgusting films they've ever seen...so I had to see it. When I heard that it was coming out on Region 1 DVD, I bought it immediately. My girlfriend decided that she didn't want to see it, based on what I had told her, so I was stuck alone in a dark room with this horrifying film. I won't go into lengthy detail about the plot (that's what imdb.com link is for). What I can tell you is that this is one effective shocker of a film. Really well made. This is not for the weak of heart, but you just have to see it.
Gummo may be the most disturbin movies I've ever seen. The trailer doesn't do it justice.There are many aspects that make it disturbing, from the discusting conditions that the characters live, to the content, to the soft core porn bits with kids, to the.... the list goes on and on. However, the most disturbing part of the movie is that certain parts of the movie reminded me of kids I grew up woth and how they live, and how they probably still live.
Not sure I should jump into the fray at this point, especially given that most of you who know me seem to think I can't shut up about movies, so I'll only go into the new stuff.Adaptation - another brilliant collaboration from the guys who did Being John Malkovich. In my humble opinion, it's a superior film, and well worth watching if you think film has any merit beyond entertainment.
The Hours - Sublime. The dialogue reminded me of the kickass improv class we had at NPU, or the acting and directing scene with Erik and Laura, so much subtext buried in simplicity.
Bowling at Columbine - Shmeful that this is my first Michael Moore film, me a documentarian and all, but I loved it. Much funnier and more moving than I would have expected.
Chicago - Good flick, and a lot of fun, but Fosse's missing. The actors surprisingly don't suck, but the editing is too hurried. It don't stack up against the greats, like Singin' in the Rain.
Two Towers - of course it was great, though the extended version will smooth out a lot of the rough edges in the story and the plot development.
About Schmidt - everything you could possibly ask for in a quiet, bittersweet road movie comedy with Jack.
Ok, that's enough from me. Maybe if I feel like it, I'll actually say something substantive.
Rented it. I thought it was pretty good. Jennifer Aniston was much better than I was expecting. And the small town pacing was perfect.
i too enjoyed it. but, thought she could have been a little more homely. she was still a little to treddy for little town nowheresville. great soundtrack.
the last two movies i saw were AMORES PERROS and Y TU MAMA TAMBIEN.(or, LOVE'S A BITCH and AND YOUR MOMMA TOO)
both are from mexico are now on dvd, and are absolutely incredible films. they both also feature the same actor- GAEL GARCIA GANEL who will be showing up in american films very soon. he is quite talented.
if you rent Y TU MAMA TAMBIEN, be sure to get the unrated version and not the R rated version. it is a lot more sexually graphic but the R rated version omits about 15 seconds of film that, in my opinion, destroys the entire movie.
tadpole was the funniest movie i've seen in ages. it hit video stores today. go rent it!
I don't care for action movies, per se...I do like King Fu movies, though. But last night we rented The Bourne Identity and I nearly shat myself. Good stuff.
La Cité des Enfants Perdus is one of my most favorite movies ever, one of very few movies that i've owned multiple copies of. It's about a man who kidnaps children and tries to steal their dreams, with like, a couple jiggers (that's kind of like a big shot) of Jeunet mixed in just to make it neat. I like the darkness of it, and i especially like that the costumes were all done by Jean Paul Gaultier (just like the Fifth Element, though i'm not planning on buying that one just yet)and the music (score) is by Angelo Badalamenti (Lost Highway, Twin Peaks). I supposed the most notable character is "One" played by Ron Perlman, he's the only actor in this film that i recognise the name of. But a number of other actors are kindof in Jeunet's base of acting talent or something, cause some are in all of his films. Kindof like Steve Buscemi and the Coen brothers (or maybe it's just that buscemi is always available?) Anyway, this movie is really good, it's rated "R" by the MSDAP (a.k.a. the Mazi's, a.k.a. the MPAA) for "disturbing and grotesque images of violence and menace".Anyway I really can't wait to find out more info, and to see his new movie "Un long dimanche de fiançailles" hopefully it'll be as good as his others (Delicatessen, ?Alien: Resurrection?).
i recently saw this one for sale at best buy, for like, a dollar or something. anyway, it's a stephen king and it stars Pierce Brosnan, of "the tailor of panama" fame. I don't actually recall too much about it, but i thought someone else ( Pedro?)might like to jog my mind.
It's nothing like the short story. But you probably can't go far wrong for a dollar.
I loved that movie a long time ago...the story was so lame, but the special effects are still awesome. I'm into animation and 3D renderings, so I was all about this movie for years afterwords. Nice visuals. Stephen King later sued the director because it had little resemblence to his short story. On the DVD version I own, the director refers to Stephen King as only "the author". Questions about the Lawnmower Man???...come to me.
Go buy TRON instead -- now THERE'S a visually groundbreaking movie about cyberspace. I thought Lawnmower man was sort of cliched. Not that TRON wasn't cliched, but imho TRON is much more original.neoacerbitas, try Amile (also by Jeunet). I like Delicatessen better than City of Lost Children, but I should give City a second chance. Both of course star Dominique Pinon, who is fabulous. He was also the coolest character in Alien: Desecration.
of course tron is awesome. you may remember watching it at work when i rented it a few years ago. But TRON doesn't cost this little.also, i own amelie, it's good but i don't like it as much as his other works, i would like to see some of his earlier stuff but it's pretty hard, if not impossible to find. I'll get delicatessen when (if ever) it comes out on dvd. When i saw Deli i was definitely not ready for him, although i did enjoy it.
oh well
...with barefootjumper. By all means see The Pianist.
Amelie, as a film, is a large leap forward for Jeunet as a filmmaker. I'm speaking in terms of aethetics and influences. Amelie takes the typical conventions of romantic comedy and tosses them out as well as broadening the scope and tone of his shots, editing and pacing. But the sound design is unreal!Now, City of Lost Children is still one of my favorite films. I think it's one of the most visually stunning films I've ever seen. Certainly worthy of standing next to Brazil and Blade Runner. So, pedro, yes, Ithink you should check it out again.
Just saw Roger Dodger and Gangs of New York.Roger Dodger is one of those films that makes me glad that we have independent films. It takes a lot of chances, most of which pay off. Campbell Scott's performance is captivating. If you like In the Company of Men, give the film a try.
All I have to say about Gangs is Scorcese is in great form and the last few moments fo film blew me away.
I remember when scinatfilm used to work at the blockbuster at foster & pulaski and we used to show up there on a friday night with no clue as to what to rent. He would lead us around the store offering of recommendations and reviews and we would always go home with something good to watch. Also, since we seem to discuss Jenuet at least once a year, I would just add that Delicatessen is an excellent film and I'm still mad at Pepsi for ripping it off for a commercial.
possibly the worst film of the year. if anyone can watch cameron diaz in that movie and not laugh out loud, i give you credit. you are one of the strong.
I went to see gangs with not only my dad, but also my mom and my sixteen year old sister. I've never seen a movie with less of an excuse for sex and violence. It was good because D. Day-Lewis was in it, and that other guy that was in it for like, five minutes (good thing he got out early) but that's it. D. Day is only good because he plays the part so well that i could hardly respect him for taking such a role after the movie was over, which is another complaint, let get over this epic movie bullshit. Think of all the things you could've done with that extra hour of movie INSTEAD of watching people have coitus. I not that big into watching other people have sex, but if i'm going to do it, that's what i have the internet for ( not to mention the credit card # generator...just kidding). Anyway, there are so many other movies that could've been that violent but weren't, and could've had that much booty, but didn't, probably because most other movie directors realise that people know about fighting and killing...not to mention sex, ergo they don't figure they have to show it to us in all it's "splendor" just to make sure. Whatever, maybe i'm just not artistic enough to appreciate what he was trying to do, or maybe i respect the use of celluloid much more.Begin flameware here, but be advised, i don't care if you think i'm wrong, and you won't change my mind.
|| || \||/ \/
I can't believe I'm doing this, but it's the stuff of a good discussion, so I may as well throw my 2 cents in. I wanted to clarify some of my earlier comments about "Gangs of New York."First, while Scorcese is certainly not at the level of Taxi Driver, Raging Bull or The Last Temptation of Christ, he is nevertheless putting together a film that is much better than the rather average stuff he's been doing lately.
Second, I didn't love the film. I thought it had many strong points and some weak points. Daniel Day-Lewis was great, of course, though his accent faltered once or twice. Leo did a reasonable job. Cameron Diaz, though she's made some poor choices, does good work in the independent stuff I've seen, but she didn't blow me away here either. Brendan Gleeson (the barber), Liam Neeson (the priest) and John C. Reilly (the cop) were also splendid as usual, but didn't get enough screen time.
Third, I could have done without the incessant flashbacks. Why do we need to be reminded of something we saw five minutes ago?
Fourth, I've been waiting for a film on the NYC riots for years, not to mention an honest film about the Irish immigration (especially after Far and Away). And that's where the film's strength lies. It's a gritty film about the streets of New York, which is what Scorcese does so well. And that brings me to the next point
Fifth, regarding the sex and violence, Braveheart and Titus were far more violent, and Shakespeare in Love had far more sex. I agree that gratuitous sex and violence are not necessary, but I don't agree that sex must be "artistic" to be portrayed on film. For one thing, sex isn't always a pleasant experience, especially when it comes to the characters that are often portrayed in films: the lower classes. There are very few films about the middle class unless you count romantic comedies, which are almost all about the middle class.
Sixth, regarding the middle class question, George Bernard Shaw spent much of his creative energy poking fun at middle class morality. If there's going to be a film about people who engage in this type of lifestyle, then let's be honest about it. While I was disturbed by Monster's Ball, I respected the filmmakers for taking risks. [And some of it reminded me of the scene that Erik A. and Laura L. did in acting & directing at NPU] And just for the record, one thing I do respect about Cameron Diaz is that she's never appeared nude in any way shape or form in any of her films. With Gangs of New York, there was ample opportunity, and the only nudity in the 2 1/2 hour film was a brief, though gratuitous, scene that illustrated the callousness and the vice of the villian.
Seventh, regarding violence, I find it rather disturbing that Americans don't mind seeing people blown to bits or dying in a hail of gunfire but can't stand any mention of sex. Europeans, from all I've heard (and this is admittedly second-hand knowledge) feel exactly the opposite. In fact, Bowling for Columbine goes into this issue at great length (good film, by the way) One possible reason for this is that American history is one of violence, which is exactly what Gangs of New York is attempting to illustrate.
OK, I'm going to get off my soapbox now and prepare for the deluge of disagreements that are bound to come. I welcome them; I'd really like to hear people's thoughts. After all, that's what art is supposed to do, right?
lukas, it's hard to go wrong with the AFI's list of 100 Greatest Films. I don't know how to hyperlink, but it's on afionline.org.
They are building a new theater two blocks from my apartment. It's called the AFI Silver Theater and it looks like it's almost finished. They are kicking off the opening with a documentary festival. Big Sci Films should enter something!
I really didn't like it. Sam Rockwell was good as a one-dimensional smarm. Drew Barrymore was good as a one-dimensional stand-by-your-man kind of girl. Julia Roberts was bad as Julia Roberts. George Clooney actually added some dimension to a one-dimenstional G-man. Rutger Hauer was great as a German assassin. (I think Rutger Hauer is great in general and I like seeing him get good roles.) The sets and music and all that stuff was really cool, the movie did not lack for production, but I really didn't feel like the script was that good and the movie seemed pretty predictable in general. So anyway, I don't recommend it, but that's just my $.02.
scinatfilm:regarding your comment about sex in film having to be "artistic." you're right on. fuck that! real life sex hardly ever looks like the shit in shakesphere in love, and it hardly ever looks like porn either.
it looks like the sex scenes in "y tu mama tambien"-- some of the most beautifully gritty and honest ones ive ever seen.
as i said before, make sure you get the UN-RATED version.
i'm viewing this page from a different computer-- mine still freaks out on this entree.
ok, so this is kind of old, but...i remember reading this review for 40 days and 40 nights a year ago and cracking up.
breaking the waves. if you want gritty and realistic, there you go. it's awkward and exciting, it fumbles and advances, it unites and divides. you know that no one watching it is really turned on by it because it looks like the sex people really have.
honestly, i just felt bad for scorsese. it felt like he had lost control of the movie; the whole thing became a wild horse on a rampage that bucked its rider. twenty five years might just be way too long to take to get a film together. if the movie had been made twenty years ago i believe it would have been much tighter, much less self-involved, and less meandering. by the time it reached us it was hardly historical, not at all intimate and the dialects must have been dipped in acid somewhere along the line.i don't think the movie he made is the one he wanted to make. but because it took so long and feels so grandiose and because it is finished, they have to pretend like it is what they wanted.
i agree with neoacerbitas, i was kind of mad at daniel day lewis for being so good and being involved in such a stinker.
about Breaking the Waves the other day! I'm glad that somebody has brought this one up. I didn't initially like the movie when I rented it...but recently caught it on the Sundance Channel and I couldn't shut it off. What an ugly movie. The last scene is a little far-fetched...but incredible.
Mostly in reply to the the long, Scinatfilm post, but also of bits of other posts as well,Ive never seen Cameron Diaz in a movie where she isn't thrown into tight, revealing clothes to show off her body, _Being John Malkovich_ excluded (though she was more of a caricature, a walking joke in that role, anyways, with the audience's knowledge of the babe under the make-up adding to the punchline. A lot of attractive actresses have kept their clothes on, but Diaz is being funneled into these roles, and she doesn't seem to mind.
I haven't seen G.O.N.Y., so i can't comment on anything there.
Sex: I don't think it's so much of a conscious acceptance of violence over graphic sex/nudity that causes viewers/mpaa/critics/republicans/insert noun to accept bruckenheimer/simpson-esque carnage without a second thought while shunning sexy sex, but more of an unconscious feeling of violation. Any person can enjoy a comedy or action film because one is distanced from the action, feels safe. And I don't think there are many people who are against stupid Porky's like nudity or sex, it's more about films that show the grittier, dirtier side. Being subjected to graphic sex onscreen is more intimate, emotional, etc. It can make us feel uncomfortable, self-conscious, dirty, etc., as it is voyeuristic in its nature and (for now) taboo. We don't feel that way in comedic movies with sex because it can be laughed off or dismissed.
For nearly a century, film has shown us action, bandits, monsters, shootings in scenes of violence, even graphic images (ex. Potemkin) Everyone sees some act of violence in public every now and then. Sex, however, is personal and private, and rightfully so in real life, is not graphically acted out in public. And even though we are in an age of sexual awareness, for many people, being thrust into a scene of graphic sex on a 70mm screen in front of them is violating. It's no wonder that many critically praised movies succeed by sucking in the viewer and making them feel queasy or incredibly sad/horrified/anxious, and are absolutely abhorred by some audiences. I love _Jacob's Ladder_ and _Last Tango in Paris_, but some people i know couldn't sit through it. It's really up to the viewer to try to differentiate between what is on the screen and what these things on the screen mean in terms of theme or mood or the whole artistic vision.
I type too much, but one more thing.
A bunch of articles have popped up about the medium's crawl towards showing _real_ sex onscreen. The topic has been around for years [I remember a rumor that Wayne Wang had his actors actually copulate in front of the camera in _Center of the World_ (c. 1999?)], but seems to have really gotten some press recently. There are a couple of European movies that have come out overseas in the past year or so that include real sex. _Baise Moi_ was one that i remembered reading about. They've been well received by audiences. THere's also a movie that's been made by Larry Clark which supposedly shows real people (teens no less) copulating. And the dude that made/starred in _Hedwig and the Angry Inch_ is also interested in making a movie with the real stuff in it. Who knows who will pick these films up for distribution and which theaters would actually play it. Re the G.O.N.Y. post, Euros _Do_ think us Yankees are silly for being such prudes. I could go on for eons about my thoughts on the positive and negative aspects of such a shift in realistic films, but maybe this topic will spark some replies by others. But Im sure the big argument will always be exploitative vs. artistic and the blurred line between the two.
What do people think of real actors having real sex onscreen?
"What do people think of real actors having real sex onscreen? "isn't that called porn?
regarding cameron diaz in G.O.N.Y.: I haven't seen the film, but an actor i am working with had this to say about her being cast for such a role:
"its like... 'yeah, well... nicole kidman was busy.' "
I don't know many porns that have "real" actors. in Center of the World, one of the actors is quite a real actor with real movies under his belt. And Wayne Wang is, of course, a real director, first made famous by _Smoke_ and _Blue in the Face_. So does that make Wayne Wang a porn director?
I never said anything about sex having to be "artistic", I said "maybe I'm not artistic enough to appreciate what he was trying to do..."The reason that the sex in "And Your Mother As Well because it's exactly what you want to see in that film, it's beautiful because it's honest, but not gritty, it's the most honest, innocent sex ever, straight up adam and eve shit. It would be possible to say that the movie is about how sex drives everybody apart. Also, it's "and your mother as well", and don't you mean, make sure your roommate gets the un-rated version?
;-)
I realize that I'm going to be going out on a limb here, but why do we have to have so much sex in movies, anyway? Could it possibly be because people *like* watching sex? I'll admit that there are movies where sexuality and nudity really are essential to the plot (and some of those movies are extremely graphic), but by and large, we're making basically the same kinds of movies as we were making 50 years ago -- where the curtain falls and time passes -- only now the curtain doesn't fall, but the love theme streams in from the stereo next to the billowing curtains. How often, in 90% of the movies that are out there, is the dialog or the story being told by that scene essential in a way that couldn't be told differently? Pretty rarely, I think.Now, I realize that if nobody has any moral or ethical issues with sex and nudity and whatnot, then hey, what's the big deal, people like watching others have sex, so let's just do that rather than find a more creative way to tell a story or make our movie appealing. After all, audiences pretty much expect sex scenes.
It just seems to me like movies are trashier, basically for no reason other than because people sitting at home like to watch beautiful naked people get it on. I for one hate going to a movie and finding myself attracted to and enjoying watching complete strangers humping each other for my entertainment. It's embarassing for me, and I'm embarassed for them.
I know that I probably stand alone on this one, and I'm getting to be more comfortable with that.
...what was I just saying about rants?
pete, you bring up a pretty good point.i totally agree with you 100%. if i'm seeing a regular movie and getting turned on, and my getting turned on is distracting me from the story being told, then there's something wrong.
again, thats what porn is for.
as you said, back in the "good ol' days" of film, it would be indicated that humping was about to occur, a witty and/or sexy line would be uttered, and we'd fade out and into another scene after some time had passed and, presumably, humping had occured. in many cases, NOT showing nudity or sex and merely IMPLYING or HINTING at the occurance of it it as lot MORE sexy and hot than the alternative.
if sex is in a film, it better be there for the same reason as everything else: to aid the storytelling. i mean, censorship can eat it, but bad storytelling can eat an even bigger "it."
mercurymouth, barefootjumper and instantcofi, coming from a film school perspective, what comments do you have on this subject?
still, my favorite closing shot from any movie ever has got to be boogie nights. you finally see that twelve-incher, diggler says:
"i am a star. i am a big, bright, shining star,"
cut to black, cue the music, roll the credits.
...is that it's really easy to get used to seeing it in movies, until you reach the point that it just doesn't really affect you anymore (violence, of course, is the same way in many ways).I get uncomfortable pretty easily partly because i'm just a Sensitive Kind of Guy, but mostly because I pretty rarely watch movies with sex in them, or even much TV for that matter. I make myself live a pretty sheltered life in that regard. But for someone who doesn't, I suppose there's even less of an occaision to be either titillated or embarrassed. I'm not sure I want that.
i think we could do with less of it in movies. there is a lot of gratuitous sex in movies. i try to pick out the ones i know will have that kinda crap, and luckily they end up 90% of the time being exactly the films i have no interest in seeing.
but when i DO see sex in movies, it hardly fazes me anymore. perhaps im de-sensitized. i don't know. but i have never found myself turned on by a sex scene in a 'real movie'
i will admit to having been turned on by the sex in a porn-flick before.
Wags: Mulholland DriveCmon.
That scene was "The Bomb"
I'm one of the few not into the lesbian thing, but that scene was some pretty hot shit.I agree Fook.
Screenwriting or Directing 101 will always stress that every storyline/scene/beat/motion should further the story. And this is in regards to that which furthers the story. Bad storytelling can always eat a bigger "it"The point of the action in many films is to evoke some sort of emotion from the viewer. It must engage the viewer, otherwise the audience is just and only that, a "viewer", and not part of the movie, and that distances ourselves from the movie by definition, which is the #1 sin a film can committ, for the most part. If a scene onscreen makes someone feel aroused (and by that, "part of the action") then it's the same, or at least similar to someone being frightened by a horror or moved by a drama. Using a sex scene as an example, if it doesn't turn someone on, if it isn't engaging, then it better be for symbolism or to further the plot or complement the mood, or else it's gratuitous. (I agree completely, Ulysses, on that point) If one feels no fright or anxiety watching a horror film, then one deems that film as trash. If one is not moved by the story in a drama, then that film is trash. But if one actually _is_ aroused by a scene of sex, then that scene is trash?
And there's the whole thing of how, through conditioning, people are okay with the violent and the frightening, but not with the sexual.
If all sex scenes become self-reflexive to you, then you simply won't be able to watch any movies with sex in them, which is unfortunate, but that's more of a personal thing, and shouldnt really be a fault of the movie (not that it is the fault of the viewer, either...it's just personal taste)
But either way, yeah, there's way too many crap movies out there...1 good for every 10 bad, and too many people using sex and violence for the wrong reasons. But there are plenty of films out there that use sex and violence beautifully, and a beautiful sex scene or act of violence should be applauded. And especially in sex scenes, I'm thankful that sex doesn't only have to be hinted at or implied, as it was in the past.
There are only (I forget...its been too long) 7 or so types (say archetypes) of films that all the millions of films that have been made can be categorized in. The same stories are told over and over and over again, and the only way they will ever remain fresh and vital in the future is if they are told in different, newer, innovative ways, whether that means using different cameras, newer schools of editing theory, animation, special effects, or breaking down barriers that have previously existed. Dear God, how could _Clerks_ possibly have been made 30 years ago? _Last Temptation of Christ_, _Bowling for Columbine_, "Celebrity Boxing"...er...wait...nevermind.
ya it was pretty good...for me to poop on! that was the biggest waste of time movie ever. lame,lame,lame,lame, lame, lame.
dogmanphil rules. In the theatre, I should have said "for me to poop on!!!" when the credits started rolling.
I agree about sex in the movies. I'm married, I'm certainly no prude and wasn't even before I was married. But I agree 100% with you. The sex in the movies cheapens them for me, and I get frankly irritated and pissed off when it seems to have no purpose. It was a lot more arousing to me emotionally when the scenes ended before the sex began - a nice steamy kiss, you know what's going to happen next, but why should I have to watch it? It cheapens movies and it cheapens the act of sex, in my opinion. And it is embarassing to watch. Porn, you know what you're getting and that's the point of it. Movies, enh, why bother with it?Then again, I don't like gratuitous violence or frightening things in movies either. The directors these days seem to be seeking the shock value. When I see a movie, I want a plot that's a complete draw, and none of the distraction from having to look away from someone's arm being ripped off or from jumping out of my skin when a dude with no lower jaw comes back and starts haunting someone's lame campsite, know what I mean? What happened to the days of seeing, well, take Hitchcock. Nothing gratuitous but man was that some creepy stuff, thrilling, inventive, and fascinating.
ok, fook, you make a really good point.my joke about "isnt that porn?" was more in relation to what is REAL and what is NOT. most porn sex looks fake, even though it is real. if sex is in a movie, and the action of two people having sex aids the storytelling, and its good storytelling, fine. but i could care less wether its REAL or not.
i mean, if i see, for example, a character slap someone in a movie, i think "wow, that charcter was pissed. they wanted to hurt someone." if i read in some magazine a few months later that the only way the film's director could get the scene to go right was by having the actor ACTUALLY slap the other actor and make it hurt, i might find it to be a fascinating little bit of trivia, but it doesnt make the film's plot any better in my mind. i myself am an actor and i have been fake slapped and real slapped on stage, and as long as the audience believes it, its real. regardless of what i'm feeling on my cheek.
but that's stage acting... a whole different bag.
Real sex between actors for the sake of storytelling. Again, I know that I'm sort of conservative on this point compared to the rest of the world, but I still think of sex as a sacred thing, and I would have a really hard time supporting a movie that had the actors physically have intercourse just for the sake of better storytelling. There's a sense in which that is courageous and adventuresome, and probably does add to what makes it on film, and I can recognize that and in a detached way, appreciate that. But for me on a practical, moral, and spiritual level, that's too much (completely outside of whether I find it arousing or not) -- it seems like misaligned priorities.I'm not going to eat shrooms (a pretty innocuous drug or so I'm told) just so I can truly know the experience myself, even though I can recognize a sort of legitimacy in knowing an experience firsthand, and even though I would really like to know what it's like. And that probably means I will never really know what it's like, nor will I be able to fully convey what it's like to another person because I do not know myself. But I came to terms with that reality some time ago.
There's an analogy between those paragraphs, but I'm not going to draw the lines myself.
never saw Mullholland Drive. so i can't say i was turned on by it. maybe i would be, who knows?
<rant>im with pedro on this one, i think. i mean, we know its a movie. that its a story being told, not documented. we don't need the realism of sex on screen. sex IS a sacred thing, and it is not to be taken lightly. part of whats wrong with the world today is casual sex, and how lightly it is taken. no matter how unimportant it may be intended, it cannot be that. and it will mess people up in ways they wouldn't be messed up if they had taken sex more seriously. </rant>
For completely drawn plots I recommend any movie by John Sayles. My favorite is Limbo. It's actually one of my favorite movies ever. It's a small story set in Alaska. Everything from the characters, to the music, to the stories within the stories, to the unusual ending is superb. Other Sayles movies are Matewan, Lone Star, and Sunshine State. They'll renew your faith in modern moviemaking.
I think that it is almost dangerous to talk about actual sex in movies being cutting edge. Especially if critics get behind the idea and talk about how real sex scenes are better than acted sex scenes. There is already enough pressure for actors, both male and female, to take their clothing off on camera... If "real" sex becomes an expectation- acting may become closer to prostitution than it's been in a couple hundred years...
Sex on screen has needed realism, as in Gods and Monsters, I mean come on the sex scene between Halle Barry and Billy Bob is so graphic and raw that it makes you uncomfortable, and that's what it was intended to do, there are situations where it fits, and I think that is a perfect one, it really lets you into what the characters are feeling, it was gratuitous, but had severe impact, which is what that movie was intending.
I know what you mean, but I'm finding that I just care less and less for movies that require that kind of storytelling. There are already enough things in my head that I wish weren't there.
Has anyone seen Waking Life?I like it. Some don't. Excellent Artwork
is why does a completely naked woman get an "R" whereas when there's a little floppycock in a film it's like, immediately "NC-17"? Funk dat.I bought a movie the other day, probably the first one in a long time that doesn't have and sex in it. It's called Nine Queens, the only remotely sexual part is when a guy kisses this lady, but that's only to distract her from the fact that he's stealing her cigerettes (i think, i'll have to watch it again).
Sorry if anyone felt that i justified or was a thumbs up for real sexual contact being used in movies, because Im not. I don't see any real reason for people to have true sex onscreen.Seems like people are confusing two threads that I spun off in involving 1) this new shift in filmmaking to use real actors having sex, and 2) sex scenes in general in films
And what i was sort of getting to in the whole "real sex" thread was more of not whether it's a good idea or necessary (i can't see many instances where actors having real sex would make any difference), but the sorta creepy way that film, and tv for that matter, is becoming more and more...anything goes, should i say.
Hitchcock did tons of gratuitous stuff. Not that that's bad. He's one of my favorite directors
Just so you know, my posts were more in reaction to conversations I've had elsewhere as much as they were to conversations here. It was more like, people are saying X, and I feel like I have to bring Y to the table, or something like that. SO please don't feel like I was upset with you or antyhign like that. Not so.
just so everyone knows:the more "floppycock" in a film, the better.
i think BigJ meant Monster's Ball, not Gods and Monsters. Monster's Ball was Halle Berry and B.B.Thornton. Gods and Monsters is Ian McKellan and Brendan Fraser. i didn't like G&M very much. and i didn't see Monster's Ball.
Well, it's certainly gratifying to see that I started such a heated discussion. (gives me a warm fuzzy) Sorry I had to step out of the diner for a few days. I just completed a massive move and the internet is finally back up. Thought I'd chime in with my three cents.FIrst, my intention was not in any way to imply that I am advocating more sex in film, or even more realism in sex scenes. [Not that anyone necessarily thought that, but I wanted to clear the air.]
Second, I firmly believe that implication can be much more powerful than explictness, whether it comes to sex, humor, or thrills. I thought I'd point out some classic examples.
Jaws: it's scary because you don't see the shark until 2/3 of the way through the film! ( on a side note, Spielberg has since revealed that this was because the shark didn't work properly).
One of my favorite sexy scenes of all time is in Streetcar Named Desire, the scene on the staircase. Wow, talk about hot. Another scene in the film is also one of the most brutal sex scenes I've seen, though nothing is actually shown.(acting/directing, wink, wink)
Two other exmples are To Have and Have Not (Bogie and Bacall's first film together) and Double Indemnity. The dialogue sizzles and the chemistry is unmistakeable.
In the humor department, one film that I think is highly overrated is Something About Mary. Someone pointed out (and I agree) that the infamous zipper scene could have been twice as funny and half as graphic with someone like Cary Grant (look at Bringing Up Baby and Arsenic and Old Lace for crying out loud!)
More than anything else though, implication pays the audience a great deal of respect. The best example I can think of is in My Best Friend's Wedding. The horny cousin has gotten into a situation: sh'e gotten her tongue stuck to an ice sculpture. "So what?" says Julia Roberts. And then the punchline: "It's a statue of the David." Now that in and of itself is funny. But then the camra "has" to pan and get the offending shot in. Not only did I not need to see it, but my intelligence was insulted.
Anyway, several people brought up Hitchcock, as they should. There's more freaky moments and genuinely sexy stuff in his films than in most stuff today.
But there is one detraction I'd add. A couple of times while watching an older film, I'd assume because of the standard steamy kiss setup that sex occurred. Bu then, later in the film, I'd have my doubts, based on dialogue and/or the story. So when is a kiss just a kiss?
Finally, to return to an earlier point, Fook mentioned (great posts, by the way) that sex is more intimate than violence, and it is, but shouldn't we feel just as violated seeing someone's head get blown off as seeing a partial sex scene?
So that there's no confusion, I'm just raising the issue of the cultural double standard. I myself am almost completely desensitized (not bragging, mind you) and I'm more interested in the emotional stuggles of the characters. I was also making the point that, at some level, film is supposed to be somewhat artistic and art should resonate emotionally and provoke thought and discussion.
fook, i had a really good taunt all written up but i couldn't get the <proj> tag to work so i couldn't refer you to the "banging goats" forum, so instead i'm just going to suggest that people that don't like seeing lotsa fluid swappin' go to this site to keep yourselves accountable.
is one of my favorite comedic actors, Bringing Up Baby was hysterical, as was ARsenic and old Lace, and thank you baggins for correcting me, you are right is was Monster's Ball, I like both movies though, and am looking forward to Gods and Generals, making another movie for me to mix up. Has anyone else noticed that there are more posts on here now than ever before, and it will soon be a full time job to just read it all!
I saw the two towers tonight, gosh, it took me long enough too. Some of it was really cheesy, like the CGI guys (or gals, could be gals) we getting lasy so they were like "yeah, the light source is a little of center in this scene, but nobody will notice" but i do. It was really great, so of the scenes kindof make me think of what I would think if Jesus came back. There was some really grrrrrrrrrrrrreat stuff in it, just like, one or two spots that we a little off (could've been better, not "weren't necessary" or "weren't in the book", just could've been better, not that i could've, just my opinion). So yeah, i enjoyed it.
last night was 'about schmidt' night with three quarters of the total roommateage.there were moments when i laughed so much that everyone else in the theater had faded their laughter out and i just had to shake silently with laughter and then all of a sudden i'd realize i was crying at the next scene.
you guys might think i was just having a breakdown, and that could be partially true. i can't say i've been entirely put together these days. but i think it was mostly the movie. it was wonderful. i loved it all. and it rings so true to the midwest, it made me nostalgic for my childhood.
and kind of in the vein of the whole sex discussion, kathy bates is phenomenally beautiful totally nude. i believe that the movie would have been less if they had not included that scene.
Igby Goes Down (on video). Man, what a great movie. The performances were spectacular, there was just the right balance of ambiguity to give an OK story exactly the right twist. It was somwhat similar to Wes Andreson's films, with a slightly different twist.and I (mostly) agree with kels on about schmidt. one of the finest films i've seen all year
I was subjected to these two hours of cinematic torture this weekend at my b.f.'s behest. He agrees that it totally sucked.Please, don't watch it.
I just watched About a Boy last night, and I thought it was great! Hugh Grant can be very funny. However, I'm sure I wouldn't classify the movie as anything great, but it wasn't torturous at all. Of course, when I did have TV, all I watched was the Lifetime channel.
I also talked to two friends at work today who loved it...of course it is personal choice.Besides, my opinions aren't always the one to take to heart, being that Joe Millionaire is the only thing I watch on TV (and soon that will be over...sniffle...how shall I spend my Monday nights?), and I watch maybe a movie a month and only like (on average) about one out of every three or four I see. Movies ain't my thing. The last movie I saw and really, really loved was Moulin Rouge.
I prepare for attack from 90% + of Diner customers who are movie buffs.
Check out Chicago. It's a fun film, and the three leads ain't half bad. Of course, the best numbers are "All That Jazz" and "Cell Block Tango"
I just watched Focus, which is an adaptation of an Aurthur Miller novel. It was quite good. Not in an About a Boy kind of way, it was, like, a good film. Oh, and, I thought that Moulin Rouge was visually very stunning, however, I despise musicals, and I wished that I had seen it as a silent film.
i absolutely loved Moulin Rouge. i thought it was really well done, from the songs, to the storyline to the visuals to the jokes to the pacing to the costumes. i am a big sap sometimes. of course, i TOO hate musicals. but this was really great.
Cinnamon, on your free monday nights you should hit the 'Wood for free pool night. there is usually a fair size crowd of cool cats there. im often there. 'twould be lovely to see your shining mug across a pint of Honey Brown Ale.
gettysburg, or glory, or any civil war movie? I have this problem where I get extremely emotional during civil war movies. Of course, the really good ones make up for the really crappy one, and kind of "destructive interference" thing. I can't wait for "Gods and Generals" to come out.I can't believe i cry at civil war movies, i still haven't figured out why, but i do, and it's a little concerning.
have any of you seen the television pruduction of "centennial"? It is possibly one of the most amazing things i've ever seen through the glowing phosphors of the cathode rays. Probably not too great by today's standards, but amazing nonetheless. I can remember how I loved getting my eye teeth pulled because I got to stay home for a day and watch the entire series in stead of going to school, like, seven hours in front of the tele or something.AMAZING
Focus-great movie! i posted about it back in may.
About a Boy- i too liked this movie. good rental.
is probably one of my top three favorite movies, ever. I will refer to what Baggins was saying about how awesome it is, and it is also just that awesome without being cheesy, just phenomenally over-the-top romantic and theatrical. But in a good way. And despite my usual avoidance of musicals, this wasn't even like what I had stereotypically defined them as--it just rules on its own merits.Scinat, I have heard mixed reviews of "Chicago," but definitley plan on seeing it. I'll tell you what I think. if it's anything like M.R., I know I'll like it. A good movie I saw recently (and as I said I like really few movies, not cause there aren't a lot of great ones because I don't watch many), was "Y Tu Mama Tambien." I loved the movie for what it was--amazing--but I took a Spanish class last semester and also enjoyed picking up the Mexican-Spanish slang. I never learned any of that in class!
Ive always loved musicals, and I loved Moulin Rouge. That movie is probably as good as it gets in musicals-terms for me...except for Singin in the Rain. Just saw Chicago last week and i thought it was fun in a look-at-the-actors sort of way. The sound wasn't that great at Webster Place where I saw it, so maybe that had a negative effect. I wasn't able to get very involved with the characters, and thus, the movie dragged. Pretty smart screenplay, though, in how they fit the musical numbers in there. The biggest problem for me was the non-Fosse-ness. I saw the broadway production in new york a few years back, and compared to that, the movie was plain boring
Fook, the absence of Fosse was the biggest disappointment with Chicago for me as well, but any musical these days is cause for celebration.As much as I like the traditional musicals, my favorites (aside from Singin' in the Rain, the greatest movie musical ever) are those by Steven Sondheim, especially Into the Woods. There's a filmed performance with Bernadette Peters that is extraordinary.
I also just just saw Y Tu Mama Tambien. Wow. what a great film
Another great rental is "Frailty" Really creepy independent film.
About a boy-- like it. I almost peed my