Schoolio's Movie Corner

[mob roulette]

she might just be the perfect female specimen.

her or zooey deschanel.

that's a poll right there. ultimate sexbomb rivalry. yes sexbombs. i said it. eyecandy for the decemberists set yes? YES.

[Hannahrain]

why pick when you could have them BOTH?

[bmack86]

I just watched Through a Glass Darkly by Ingmar Bergman. I need a little bit of time to weigh it in my mind, as I'm not sure if I liked it more than Winter Lights or not. Regardless of that, it's a fantastically bleak and stark movie about a woman's descent into madness. The cinematography is beautiful and very sparse. Of the three Bergman films I've seen, this has the best acting. Max Von Sydow, in particular, is awe-inspiring as the distant and conflicted father.

And, Gabe, I'll be editing my top 25.

[jackstraw94086]

I don't think I can even stomach the thought of someone preferring the gibson Hamlet to Branagh's.... awful taste in my mouth right now.

brush your teeth.

Kenneth's the worst ham I've ever seen. Shakespeare can be done with subtlety. Not saying Gibson himself is the best, but the support cast were allowed to shine a bit more whereas Branagh makes even dialogue seem like soliloquy. He's full of himself and incredibly annoying. He's never sold me on any character he's ever played. It's always his own ego at varying volumes.

Besides, I already admitted that the only reason I chose Gibson's was just to spite Branagh's. It's the story that's engaging, I'd choose another over Gibson's if there were more available. Hawke's was shit and I've not seen others.

[codytwo]

I like my Shakespeare served with a side of Claire Danes and a DiCaprio garnish, topped in a lovely sauce made of that black guy from Lost, and slow roasted over the flames from John Leguizamo's Latin heart.

[bmack86]

Jack, see the Olivier version. Best Hamlet on film.

[downingthief]

Jack, see the Olivier version. Best Hamlet on film.

Olivier's is the best version, but I did enjoy Gibson's, as well.

Now, if we must talk Shakespeare, then we must speak of Othello, his finest in play in my humble opinion. Iago is the best villain in all of literature, and Branagh played him expertly in the film version, along side Laurence Fishburne. One of the best Othello performances though was Orson Welles, of all people. From 1952, he directed and starred. Anyone else ever see that one?

[wmgaretjax]

Olivier's is the best version, but I did enjoy Gibson's, as well.

Now, if we must talk Shakespeare, then we must speak of Othello, his finest in play in my humble opinion. Iago is the best villain in all of literature, and Branagh played him expertly in the film version, along side Laurence Fishburne. One of the best Othello performances though was Orson Welles, of all people. From 1952, he directed and starred. Anyone else ever see that one?

I have. I loved it. I think it is slightly better than the Stuart Burge film.

[downingthief]

I have. I loved it. I think it is slightly better than the Stuart Burge film.

I agree. I think the Welles' version is still only on VHS. Sad. It should be in the Digital world.

[wmgaretjax]

it is. We have a rad video store up in Seattle called Scarecrow (i think it's the 2nd largest rental video store in north america) where you can find great little gems like this. I went through a Welles phase where I watched everything they had there by him (and man, was it a lot).

[Kasabian]

oh man I MISS Scarecrow! I grew up in Seattle....that place is awesome...

[breakjaw]

OK I went back to page 23 and ranked mine,I'm just getting ready to watch "Bellville Triplets" so I may have to update...

[wmgaretjax]

oh man I MISS Scarecrow! I grew up in Seattle....that place is awesome...

yeah, they have 2 for 1 wednesdays now, and the rental period is a week. You can rent up to 10 films for 1/2 the price. Basically, I just go in and get a shit load of films on wednesday.... It's one of the highlights of my week.

[bmack86]

i really need to see Triplets of Belleville as well

[Courtney]

I liked the Triplets of Belleville. It wouldn't be in my top 25 or anything, but I think it did a solid job of combining good music with quirky animation. At times I thought that (similar to the film Amelie) The Triplets of Belleville got a bit overly precious, especially with the drawing style that seemed to be so invested in creating its signature eccentricity that sometimes it seemed like the plot was just an excuse to showcase visual effect. But still, given the majority of the films out right now, it's a fun watch for a charming (but never childish) piece of animation.

[wmgaretjax]

I liked the Triplets of Belleville. It wouldn't be in my top 25 or anything, but I think it did a solid job of combining good music with quirky animation. At times I thought that (similar to the film Amelie) The Triplets of Belleville got a bit overly precious, especially with the drawing style that seemed to be so invested in creating its signature eccentricity that sometimes it seemed like the plot was just an excuse to showcase visual effect. But still, given the majority of the films out right now, it's a fun watch for a charming (but never childish) piece of animation.

it's a great film on drugs.

[amyzzz]

it's a great film on drugs.
HAHAHAHAHAHA
I was reading the descriptions of this film all the way down the page, and I was thinking about asking "so is this a good film on drugs?" THANK YOU for answering that clairvoyantly for me. Animation is generally good on drugs.

[wmgaretjax]

HAHAHAHAHAHA
I was reading the descriptions of this film all the way down the page, and I was thinking about asking "so is this a good film on drugs?" THANK YOU for answering that clairvoyantly for me. Animation is generally good on drugs.

yeah.... i guess i was stating the obvious. i just got excited.

[J~$$$]

I saw The Lives of Others tonight......I loved it. Im thinking of adding it to my top 25 movies.

[schoolofruckus]

I loved it too....I want to see it again while it's in theaters.

I also heard that Harvey Weinstein is planning an English-language remake of it.....god, that's a fucking stupid idea. Almost as bad as making an English version of "OldBoy". I think some French filmmaker should make foreign versions of "Citizen Kane" or "Forrest Gump" or "Easy Rider".

[J~$$$]

I would be disgusted if he was to remake it in English-Language format. The beauty of the film was that the context is based on it being a German film, IN GERMANY 1984.


So ya I just repeated what you just stated.

[KungFuJoe]

Sorry Schoolio, I edited my list one last time. I took off Drunken Master 2 & Die Hard to make room for Ed Wood & I Heart Huckabees.

On another note I caught a screening Greg Araki's new film "Smiley Face" two nights ago. I must say I'm embarrassed for showing any sort of excitement or anticipation for this film. What a load of crap. I thought after "Mysterious Skin" he might actually continue to make competent films, but it seems as if that's not the case.

What I thought could be a funny 80 minute satire on drug use was a boring and juvenile mess of a film. There were maybe two parts that made me laugh. I'm sure many of you didn't need me to tell you this, but don't waste your money when it hits theaters, unless they make many changes to the film based on the crowds reaction. We'll see.

[Courtney]

I used to like Greg Araki. Actually, I still sort of think that Doom Generation is excellent for the kitsch factor. But only in the same way that Showgirls is good.

I probably won't be seeing Smiley Face.

[bumper31]

hmmmmmm I'm really tempted to edit my list to include XXX2.....there just wasn't as much hardcore sex as I was expecting though

I did actually watch XxX2 and wish I hadn't........I don't think I'll bother updating my list

[PotVsKtl]

I have free movie tickets. Zodiac or Black Snake Moan?

[blakely]

I have free movie tickets. Zodiac or Black Snake Moan?

i think zodiac's subject matter is too complex for someone of your intelligence....
maybe a nice animated feature would be better:thu

[Hannahrain]

i think zodiac's subject matter is too complex for someone of your intelligence....

blakely, unfriendly though he may be, he's no idiot.

[blakely]

blakely, unfriendly though he may be, he's no idiot.

im aware of that, i just enjoy antagonizing him....

[Hannahrain]

Seriously, though, Is it really worth doing if you have to scrape the bottom of the barrel for things like "you're dumb!"?

[mountmccabe]

I also heard that Harvey Weinstein is planning an English-language remake of it.....god, that's a fucking stupid idea. Almost as bad as making an English version of "OldBoy". I think some French filmmaker should make foreign versions of "Citizen Kane" or "Forrest Gump" or "Easy Rider".
I would watch the shit out of those.

I used to like Greg Araki. Actually, I still sort of think that Doom Generation is excellent for the kitsch factor. But only in the same way that Showgirls is good.
Doom Generation was very odd. I'm not sure what I thought of that.

Also Showgirls is rather amazing. This reminds me how much I love Verhoeven and that I still need to see The Fourth Man and his other Dutch films.

[blakely]

if it works, it works..... plus its all pretty pointless now, im sure he wont respond now that ive admitted it was solely to piss him off.... but your right, next time ill put a little more effort into it....

[bmack86]

Let him feed the fodder. Pot's insults are the stuff of legends.

[mountmccabe]

I have free movie tickets. Zodiac or Black Snake Moan?
Honestly I am expecting both of those to be pretty worthless.

[blakely]

Let him feed the fodder. Pot's insults are the stuff of legends.

apparently youve seen a different side. all ive gotten from him was repetitive and all together uninspiring.....

[mountmccabe]

Honestly I can't choose. I still have a thing for Fincher so I might lean that way but the subject and approach strike me as horrible.

Black Snake Moan looks like it could be something striking but I can't imagine that it will live up to that. It's too easy to screw up such a movie.

[mountmccabe]

Honestly I thought I didn't say honestly in the first of those posts.

[schoolofruckus]

"Mysterious Skin" is one of my favorite movies; maybe not Top 25, but fucking excellent. I'm sorry to hear that "Smiley Face" sucked in your eyes, but I'll probably have to see it regardless. I would like to catch up on old-school Araki as well; I haven't seen anything else he's done.

Pot, I'm seeing them both ASAP. "Zodiac" tonight. I have heard nothing but raves about it from journalists I trust. I can't imagine it won't own.

John - why do you think the approach and subject of Zodiac are horrible? You don't think making that case into a study in the consuming power of obsession is a good idea? Personally, I think Fincher could make a visual feast out of "60 Minutes". This time, he has a great cast, an ambitious idea, and (allegedly) a newfound sense of restraint in terms of visual histrionics. I can't fucking wait.

And "Black Snake Moan" isn't an easier concept to fuck up than "Hustle & Flow", is it? I mean, I hear "Pimp turned rapper", I check out in a hurry...but Craig Brewer pulled that off. Beautifully. One of the best crowd-pleaser movies I've ever seen. I'm thinking it's doubtful that "Black Snake Moan" will exhibit that kind of exhilaration, but I'd be shocked if it lacked that film's humane observation and soulful touch.

[mountmccabe]

John - why do you think the approach and subject of Zodiac are horrible? You don't think making that case into a study in the consuming power of obsession is a good idea? Personally, I think Fincher could make a visual feast out of "60 Minutes". This time, he has a great cast, an ambitious idea, and (allegedly) a newfound sense of restraint in terms of visual histrionics. I can't fucking wait.

And "Black Snake Moan" isn't an easier concept to fuck up than "Hustle & Flow", is it? I mean, I hear "Pimp turned rapper", I check out in a hurry...but Craig Brewer pulled that off. Beautifully. One of the best crowd-pleaser movies I've ever seen. I'm thinking it's doubtful that "Black Snake Moan" will exhibit that kind of exhilaration, but I'd be shocked if it lacked that film's humane observation and soulful touch.

OK first off I'll add the disclaimer that I try rather hard to avoid knowing anything about movies I might see. And I had talked with a friend about seeing a movie this weekend and have as such stayed away from much on either. Yeah this means I have little to decide upon but I think the potential upside is better. And advertising and trailers are misleading and stupid anyway.

But yeah, cops and detectives (notice the plurals) tend to make bad movie subjects, for me, all other things being equal. Add that to the Se7en like premise (even if it is real and whatever) gives it too much opportunity to be lazy. And I hate CSI/L&O/what have you.


BSM has Samuel L Jackson as a drunk and Christina Ricci running around in her underwear. The trailers point this out and also try to pass it off as some deep dark southern gothic thrust of a movie that blows you away. But it's probably just going to have Jackson phoning it in as he often does and Ricci running around in her underwear. I'd like to be wrong, though.

I tend to be pessimistic going into movies big Hollywood movies; I generally like them better that way.

[KungFuJoe]

"Mysterious Skin" is one of my favorite movies; maybe not Top 25, but fucking excellent. I'm sorry to hear that "Smiley Face" sucked in your eyes, but I'll probably have to see it regardless. I would like to catch up on old-school Araki as well; I haven't seen anything else he's done.



Don't say I didn't warn you Gabe. I mean, you may enjoy his films, but it's more than likely that the more films you see by Araki the more you'll realize that "Mysterious Skin" is a diamond in the rough.

[J~$$$]

I just watched "A guide to Recognizing your Saints" and godammit there is not a movie I can't think of that Robert Downey Jr. did not own. Every movie he is in = talent, im thinking that he maybe my favorite actor. Also Shia LeBeouf is a wonderful actor but his ego is going to ruin him in the future.

[mountmccabe]

What I meant to add was that I shouldn't forget such things when commenting on what movies others are going to see without me.

[Yablonowitz]

godammit there is not a movie I can't think of that Robert Downey Jr. did not own. Every movie he is in = talent, im thinking that he maybe my favorite actor.

Seconded.

[schoolofruckus]

godammit there is not a movie I can't think of that Robert Downey Jr. did not own.

First of all, you've seen "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang", right?

Second of all, you better see "Zodiac" immediately. All of you.

This is one of the best police procedurals, and one of the best genre deconstructionist movies, that I've ever seen. You may think it has a similar premise to "Se7en" - serial killer taunting police with faintly religious/spiritual clues - but I assure you, we are in a completely opposite universe here. I will say that I loved the shit out of "Se7en", but the only things David Fincher brought from that film to this one are a pervasive sense of dread and a great deal of moral ambiguity.

I don't want to spoil anything. I don't need to. All I will say is that any expectations you have for it better not synch up with "CSI"-esque thriller storylines. This film, rather than offering a pulse-quickening race to the conclusion, basically takes you on the same journey that the journalists and detectives went on in their pursuit of the Zodiac killer. You get to be terrified by the crimes; then you get to hear a whole lot of go-nowhere evidence that only slowly begins to add up, to the point that frustration and defeat set in. Again, I really don't want to get into specifics, but this is a film that is far more interested in the damaging qualities of obsession than the excitement factor of a manhunt. There's plenty of excitement to be had, sure, but it's just in a different form than you've seen before.

One thing I was curious about was this allegedly toned-down visual aesthetic Fincher was supposed to bring here. Well, he does a magnificent job of establishing the feel of 70's cinema here - literally starting before the film even begins. Even without all the breathtaking camera dancing of "Fight Club" (although there is a clever visual nod to "Fight Club" that put me on the floor), he proves that his cinematic eye is as good as any in the business. Every shot is gorgeous, and this is far and away the best-looking digitally-shot film I've ever seen. Whereas Michael Mann's last couple films have displayed an air of graininess or contrast extremity - which I think is partially by design - and films like "Superman Returns" have several instances that show their pixels, "Zodiac" is an exquisite, finely-detailed and, dare I say, historic visual accomplishment. Literally every drop of rain and every leaf on a tree pops off the screen. For those of you who have this option available, see this film on a digital projection screen (like the Arclight Dome, if you live in LA) so you can bathe in the splendor.

I should have already mentioned the actors by now. Downey has the juiciest role (which is kind of unfair because he makes every role seem juicy), and thus commands ever scene he's in. Mark Ruffalo gives possibly the best performance I've seen from him in the role of a guy who does most of the investigation's heavy lifting. Jake Gyllenhaal is absolutely better here than he's ever been, making his curiosity into the proceedings contagious and the repercussions for him sting. And there is a list of recognizable actors in bit parts too long to get into, but each one brings something to the table.

That's all I've got for now. John, I can't make you go, and I couldn't make you like it if you did. But I can't imagine this wouldn't make you rethink your opposition to detective movies, as I feel like it's one that was made specifically for people like you who have no interest in such things.

[amyzzz]

For those of you who have this option available, see this film on a digital projection screen (like the Arclight Dome, if you live in LA) so you can bathe in the splendor.
Anyone know if they still have that at the Harkins Arrowhead (Arizona)? That's awfully far from where I live now.

[Yablonowitz]

First of all, you've seen "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang", right?

Second of all, you better see "Zodiac" immediately. All of you.

This is one of the best police procedurals, and one of the best genre deconstructionist movies, that I've ever seen. You may think it has a similar premise to "Se7en" - serial killer taunting police with faintly religious/spiritual clues - but I assure you, we are in a completely opposite universe here. I will say that I loved the shit out of "Se7en", but the only things David Fincher brought from that film to this one are a pervasive sense of dread and a great deal of moral ambiguity.

I don't want to spoil anything. I don't need to. All I will say is that any expectations you have for it better not synch up with "CSI"-esque thriller storylines. This film, rather than offering a pulse-quickening race to the conclusion, basically takes you on the same journey that the journalists and detectives went on in their pursuit of the Zodiac killer. You get to be terrified by the crimes; then you get to hear a whole lot of go-nowhere evidence that only slowly begins to add up, to the point that frustration and defeat set in. Again, I really don't want to get into specifics, but this is a film that is far more interested in the damaging qualities of obsession than the excitement factor of a manhunt. There's plenty of excitement to be had, sure, but it's just in a different form than you've seen before.

One thing I was curious about was this allegedly toned-down visual aesthetic Fincher was supposed to bring here. Well, he does a magnificent job of establishing the feel of 70's cinema here - literally starting before the film even begins. Even without all the breathtaking camera dancing of "Fight Club" (although there is a clever visual nod to "Fight Club" that put me on the floor), he proves that his cinematic eye is as good as any in the business. Every shot is gorgeous, and this is far and away the best-looking digitally-shot film I've ever seen. Whereas Michael Mann's last couple films have displayed an air of graininess or contrast extremity - which I think is partially by design - and films like "Superman Returns" have several instances that show their pixels, "Zodiac" is an exquisite, finely-detailed and, dare I say, historic visual accomplishment. Literally every drop of rain and every leaf on a tree pops off the screen. For those of you who have this option available, see this film on a digital projection screen (like the Arclight Dome, if you live in LA) so you can bathe in the splendor.

I should have already mentioned the actors by now. Downey has the juiciest role (which is kind of unfair because he makes every role seem juicy), and thus commands ever scene he's in. Mark Ruffalo gives possibly the best performance I've seen from him in the role of a guy who does most of the investigation's heavy lifting. Jake Gyllenhaal is absolutely better here than he's ever been, making his curiosity into the proceedings contagious and the repercussions for him sting. And there is a list of recognizable actors in bit parts too long to get into, but each one brings something to the table.

That's all I've got for now. John, I can't make you go, and I couldn't make you like it if you did. But I can't imagine this wouldn't make you rethink your opposition to detective movies, as I feel like it's one that was made specifically for people like you who have no interest in such things.


Gabe - I read a review of "Zodiac" that essentially described it the same way as you. I have it on my "must-see" list. Your movie reviews are always good shit.
I'm kissing gabe's ass and I'm loving every minute of it.

My far less interesting review of Babel:

Another gem from Iñárritu. Gem being a term to describe the quality of the movie, not the tone. Not sure if it was the fact that I'm a parent but there were times in the movie where I just wanted to turn it off because I was so upset - spoiler - like when the nanny is forced to leave the two children in the desert while she looks for help and when the two boys are being ruthlessly shot at by the Morrocan police. The theme of children being put in peril by the depravaties of forces far beyond their control was potent and poignant. I don't think it overreached or took any easy routes to get where it got. It certainly doesn't depict the US very well - but it doesn't glorify any of the other cultures either. There are beautiful moments of humanity from everyone in every culture and there's wicked, rash, assumptive overreaching from people in all the cultures as well. I especially loved the scenes of chaotic celebrations during both the wedding and the clubbing scenes. Actually, it was the story of the Japanese girl that, in my opinion, was done the best. That woman was a fantastic actress and the believeability of her near-madness became perfectly fleshed-out (pardon the term) to the point where all you can feel is sadness and empathy for the girl. Amazing. I liked it better than 24 grams but not quite as much as Amores Perros.

[wmgaretjax]

"Mysterious Skin" is one of my favorite movies; maybe not Top 25, but fucking excellent.

Have any of you seen Tim Roth's "War Zone?" If not, I recommend checking it out, although beware it is very intense.

Where Mysterious Skin, although a good movie, lacks subtlety, War Zone succeeds in some of the most powerful ways imaginable.

[amyzzz]

Yabs ***BABEL SPOILERZ***

Not sure if it was the fact that I'm a parent but there were times in the movie where I just wanted to turn it off because I was so upset - spoiler - like when the nanny is forced to leave the two children in the desert while she looks for help and when the two boys are being ruthlessly shot at by the Morrocan police.
I agree. For this reason, I'm not even sure if I liked the movie. It was so hard to watch. I also agree that the Japanese girl's story was the best one. Very believable, very poignant.

Those two little blond kids seemed so innocent and frightened, and they reminded me of my own daughters, so I was almost distraught watching their scenes in the movie. Same thing with the Moroccan boys to a lesser degree since they were older, although I had less sympathy for them because they were stupid to be shooting at random vehicles. However, in the end, they were unsupervised children given a loaded gun to play with.

[schoolofruckus]

I especially loved the scenes of chaotic celebrations during both the wedding and the clubbing scenes.

Even the first time when I saw "Babel" and kind of struggled with it, both of these scenes stood out to me as terrific bits of filmmaking. Scenes like those were part of the reason that I decided to give it a second - and, thankfully, much more successful - chance.

I haven't seen "War Zone" but if you're comparing it to "Mysterious Skin", I'm gonna have to. It seems to have a really solid cast.

[Yablonowitz]

Same thing with the Moroccan boys to a lesser degree since they were older, although I had less sympathy for them because they were stupid to be shooting at random vehicles. However, in the end, they were unsupervised children given a loaded gun to play with.

Well...I remember being that age and that was something that, had my brother and I been in a similar situation, I could see that happening to us. We once started a fire in our backyard messing around with matches. Also, my brother once hit a girl in the face with a piece of roofing tile from our local park, he was just messing around. Kids do that shit all the time.

[amyzzz]

Well...I remember being that age and that was something that, had my brother and I been in a similar situation, I could see that happening to us. We once started a fire in our backyard messing around with matches. Also, my brother once hit a girl in the face with a piece of roofing tile from our local park, he was just messing around. Kids do that shit all the time.
My kids don't, and I never did, so I guess I can't relate as well.

...Although I do remember hearing a story about my husband and his friend setting a shed on fire when he was young.

[HowToDisappear]

[QUOTE=amyzzz;85165]My kids don't, and I never did, so I guess I can't relate as well.QUOTE]

It's a guy thing. I take it you haven't any brothers? I have six. They were always wreaking havoc when they were young.

[amyzzz]

I have a younger brother. Other than trying to kill us all with a butcher knife, there were no violent incidents. *shrug*

[wmgaretjax]

Even the first time when I saw "Babel" and kind of struggled with it, both of these scenes stood out to me as terrific bits of filmmaking. Scenes like those were part of the reason that I decided to give it a second - and, thankfully, much more successful - chance.

I haven't seen "War Zone" but if you're comparing it to "Mysterious Skin", I'm gonna have to. It seems to have a really solid cast.

there is no better film about child abuse. again, make sure you are in an appropriate mood, it's an incredibly difficult film to swallow. The only film that comes close in my mind in this respect is Irreversible.

[bumper31]

there is no better film about child abuse. again, make sure you are in an appropriate mood, it's an incredibly difficult film to swallow. The only film that comes close in my mind in this respect is Irreversible.

How about Hard Candy? I started to feel sorry for the bad guy :(

[bumper31]

Just watched Braveheart in HD....wooooo

Anyway I remember it being really gory and violent.

But nowadays it doesn't compare to Battles like LOTR:TT, gladiator and the gore doesn't come close to SAW etc

Shame it hasn't aged well

[amyzzz]

How about Hard Candy? I started to feel sorry for the bad guy :(
Holy shit, yeah. That was a really messed up movie. I ended up wondering how old this girl actually is, and is she a sociopath? A sociopath for justice?

[wmgaretjax]

i don't know... the cinematography in hard candy was just too MTV for me. wasn't a bad film though.

[thefunkylama]

Other than trying to kill us all with a butcher knife, there were no violent incidents. *shrug*

What an uplifting childhood you had...

[amyzzz]

My brother went through this phase (age 7, age 8?) where he watched way too many Friday the 13th movies, and Jason was his "hero." I don't think he ever hurt anyone, but he scared the heck out of me (surprise, surprise). My brother is fine now. I like him more than my sister.

[thefunkylama]

Hahaha.... Yeah, my sister and I used to chase one another around the house with knives just to scare the piss out of each other. I can't honestly say either of us even knew about Jason, just that knives were scary. Big knives and siblings def. go hand-in-hand.

[amyzzz]

I guess I should be grateful we had no guns in the house.

[schoolofruckus]

"Hard Candy" was good. I agree that it was a tad too over-stylized, although some of the spastic camera/editing tricks were effective and the production design, while not being realistic, was pretty awesome. The acting was top-notch, and I loved the claustrophobia; it's not easy to keep a two character drama interesting for 90 minutes, but this one definitely did.

But it was no "Mysterious Skin". I know you (garetjax) remarked that it wasn't too subtle, and I agree, but I also didn't think it needed to be. To me, it's a terrific look at the effects of child-abuse as seen from the perspective that a child would use to reflect on it. One of my favorite movie endings ever. And I maintain that Joseph Gordon-Levitt's work in there was among the best performances I've seen lately, or ever.

[wmgaretjax]

"Hard Candy" was good. I agree that it was a tad too over-stylized, although some of the spastic camera/editing tricks were effective and the production design, while not being realistic, was pretty awesome. The acting was top-notch, and I loved the claustrophobia; it's not easy to keep a two character drama interesting for 90 minutes, but this one definitely did.

But it was no "Mysterious Skin". I know you (garetjax) remarked that it wasn't too subtle, and I agree, but I also didn't think it needed to be. To me, it's a terrific look at the effects of child-abuse as seen from the perspective that a child would use to reflect on it. One of my favorite movie endings ever. And I maintain that Joseph Gordon-Levitt's work in there was among the best performances I've seen lately, or ever.

I loved mysterious skin, don't get me wrong. I think War Zone is more effective at approaching child abuse from a more realistic perspective (especially incestual).

I agree about the ending, one of my favorite filmic moments ever. I agree about his performance as well, to me he has the potential to become a really prolific actor.

[Yablonowitz]

"Hard Candy" was good. I agree that it was a tad too over-stylized, although some of the spastic camera/editing tricks were effective and the production design, while not being realistic, was pretty awesome. The acting was top-notch, and I loved the claustrophobia; it's not easy to keep a two character drama interesting for 90 minutes, but this one definitely did.

Hard Candy took the easy route in the end by making the guy a heinous monster when I thought the point was to draw a parallel between the two. Rather, the girl ends up being a justified vigalante. So many possibile themes that could have been explored were ignored and the movie turned two-dimensional. That girl was flipping awesome though. She HATES Goldfrapp.

[Jenniehoo]

I, too, hate Goldfrapp and therefore, liked Hard Candy. And what was with Sandra Oh's 30 second speaking part? Where the hell has she been? Is that the only work she can get now, somehow? Did she know the director? It's questions like these that make me miss the point of most movies.

Also - I saw Zodiac with Gabe and I liked it. I didn't like it as much as he did (do I ever?) but I manage to busy myself in other, less serious arenas during the movie while he focuses on the camera work and more important things.

Robert Downey Jr. has a charm to his humor that he always manages to work into his roles. I think that Gyllenhall is a good actor, and has an identifiable quality that makes you think you understand him regardless of what he's doing in any movie. The movie details the Zodiac and investigation through the eyes of more than one character, allowing the focus to become attached to the character with the most going on. I felt like that was a really nice touch, because in the attempt to chronicle real events, one-sided characterization can kind of limit the spectrum to forced feelings or reactions by the audience. The chick that was sitting next to me had to tell her boyfriend the names of every actor that came on for a small part or a cameo. It was really pissing me off. Fucking LA, man. "Oh, that's so-and-so. She's brilliant. I saw a show starring her a few years ago and said that she was genius and she was going places..." Oh really? You knew she was going places? Wow, you're a smart one. You knew that by going "places" she'd end up as a face in a crowd in Zodiac? You really called that one. I bet actors clamor for your support. Her boyfriend was wearing a funny hat and seemed as annoyed as I was by her constant asides, but did nothing other than nod. He would look towards Gabe and I and sigh, as if to impart, "I know how you feel." Sometimes it occurs to me that I'm really glad I'm not a man. If I were a man, I think I would be a macho man with a really short temper and a penchant for outburts and possibly violence. I hope he goes home and beats his girlfriend. Not because she deserves it, necessarily, but because she's a pompous ass who talks during movies that people pay 14 dollars to see. This is where chunk comes along and calls me a bad person for having these types of thoughts. I'm banking that he (and most people) will see a big paragraph and skip it, instead.

So yeah. My review, complete with tangent, of Zodiac.

[C DUB YA]

Downey is awesome.

[Courtney]

I hope he goes home and beats his girlfriend. Not because she deserves it, necessarily, but because she's a pompous ass who talks during movies that people pay 14 dollars to see.

I hope this is a joke. I haven't seen Zodiac.

[bmack86]

I saw Traffic for the first time a few days ago. I really enjoyed it. It made the drug trade seem both more intimidating and more real to me. Michael Douglas was fantastic in it.

I just bought Wild Strawberries and will be watching that in a few days, but 300 is probably my next movie, as tomorrow I'm going to go to Largo to try and see Fiona Apple with Jon Brion.

[Courtney]

Wild Strawberries is good. Personally, I think that Persona is even better. All of the biblical symbolism in Wild Strawberries is a bit of a turn-off to me. (Although for some reason I find it acceptable in Blade Runner? Double standard, I know.)

I think Wild Strawberries is visually stunning. But it's also a much happier film, and thus its measure of both box office and critical success. Persona is more difficult, but I think that the issues it probes about the human condition are what makes it a truly great film, and much more interesting than Wild Strawberries.

[bmack86]

So far I've loved every Bergman film I've seen (Through a Glass Darkly, The Seventh Seal and Winter Light). I'm really excited to watch Wild Strawberries because of what I've heard about it. I like movies that focus on religious questioning, so his films are right up my alley. It fits where I'm at right now in my life.

[breakjaw]

I loved it too....I want to see it again while it's in theaters.

I also heard that Harvey Weinstein is planning an English-language remake of it.....god, that's a fucking stupid idea. Almost as bad as making an English version of "OldBoy". I think some French filmmaker should make foreign versions of "Citizen Kane" or "Forrest Gump" or "Easy Rider".
I just finished watching this,and I completely agree with you both,an "Americanized" version would only ruin this movie.For one thing,there is no actor that could come close to being as perfect for the role as Ulrich Mühe.
And I wouldn't mind seeing the French tackle Citizen Kane....starring Jerry Lewis.

[Courtney]

So far I've loved every Bergman film I've seen (Through a Glass Darkly, The Seventh Seal and Winter Light). I'm really excited to watch Wild Strawberries because of what I've heard about it. I like movies that focus on religious questioning, so his films are right up my alley. It fits where I'm at right now in my life.

Oh, good. I'm pleased to hear that you're having the full Bergman experience. I get a bit annoyed when people talk about Wild Strawberries like it's the only film he's ever done, and I've had that experience several times recently.

I'll be interested to hear how you feel it compares to his other stuff, after you get a chance to see it. Wild Strawberries certainly isn't as overtly religious as Seventh Seal or Through A Glass Darkly (I haven't seen Winter Light), so you may find it pleasantly subtle in comparison. It addresses some of the same issues, but with a much lighter hand. I also think that his DP for Wild Strawberries, Gunnar Fischer, is much better than whoever he was working with for Through A Glass Darkly.

[bmack86]

Winter Light is my favorite of the three I've seen. It's a story about a priest who questions his religion over the course of one pretty fucked up day. It's extremely stark, and Gunnar Björnstrand has a masterful performance as the priest.

[Courtney]

My man Gunnar! (No, just kidding, I have no idea who any of Bergman's actors are.) But I'll definitely add Winter Light to my Netflix queue.

[bmack86]

Gunnar was the father in Through a Glass Darkly. I really like him.

[mountmccabe]

I get a bit annoyed when people talk about Wild Strawberries like it's the only film he's ever done, and I've had that experience several times recently.

I always thought that The Seventh Sign was the Bergman that was folks only Bergman. Then again maybe it's just the easier one to reference (see Animaniacs, Bill & Ted's 2, etc.)

Anyway I've seen Persona and the two already mentioned in this post. But it's been a while for all of them. I should revisit and see others.

Maybe I need to break down and start netflixing.

[wmgaretjax]

Cries and Whispers is my favorite Bergman film. Persona is amazing as well.

I saw Zodiac. I think Fincher is a brilliant director. The film was (technically) perfectly made and crafted. To be honest, I wasn't very compelled though. I was not interested in the stories or characters. I did however constantly analyze each fucking shot, the guy never misses a beat. Everything is rhythmically perfect and balanced flawlessly. Maybe too perfect to be honest... A good movie, not great.

[schoolofruckus]

It seems strange to compare a movie I loved to a movie I hated, but "Zodiac" kind of reminds me of "Jarhead" in a way. Both are genre movies with a seemingly easy subject - "war movie" and "serial killer hunt" - that go completely the opposite direction from that subject and instead focus on how the elusiveness of it destroys the men who crave it. And both have Jake Gyllenhaal. I think they're both films with a lot of integrity, and I love the refusal to pander to the "easy to entertain" crowd. But "Zodiac" is way the fuck better than "Jarhead", because I think the characterizations were far better, and the story was much more engagingly crafted.

Bryan, you should really see "The Virgin Spring". Along with "Seventh Seal", those are the only Bergmans I've seen, and while I've decided he's not for me, I did think "Virgin Spring" was the better of the two by far. In my opinion, the ending is a cop-out, and there's still some heavy-handedness that I didn't care for, but it's a strong story and really well-shot.

[chairmenmeow47]

i liked the zodiac; however it could have been shorter. i'm not sure how it could have been shorter, but definately was a bit too long. maybe it's cause i went to a 9:40 showing though.

i was impressed with most everyone in the cast. the obsession that these people had was facinating. it was interesting cause i went with a friend who has been obsessed with this case for a long time, so it was funny to even see her obsession cause of this psycho fuck.

and jennie, that is so obnoxious, i would have been giving icy glares the whole movie!

also saw breach, this was good too. i just loved chris cooper :)

[schoolofruckus]

I watched "Zabriskie Point" last night. It was my second viewing of a Michelangelo Antonioni film (the other being "Blow-up") and I'm officially hooked. This guy's style is right up my alley.

"Zabriskie" is about two counter-culturalists - the reluctant college revolutionary Mark, and the free-spirited, sometimes-corporate Daria - who meet in the desert and spend a day evaluating their places in a world in flux. He is fleeing a campus riot in a stolen plane, she intends on making a stop at a meditational mecca on her drive to a real estate development convention in Phoenix. They meet cute in a bizarre fashion, and they take to wandering the desert, thinking out loud about the perils of resisting the corporate-driven, establishmentalist modern world.....okay, and they engage in an orgy. Then they make their choices. It was a fascinating film, a little uneven - the performances have a raw, untrained quality that helps in some areas and hinders in others - but visually remarkable, and with a great soundtrack partially comprised of unreleased Pink Floyd songs. I loved it, although I think "Blow-up" is slightly better. Time to dive into his other stuff (some of which was on a couple of the Top 25 lists I've seen so far).

[wmgaretjax]

I agree. That's an amazing film.

Although, I think L'Avventura is his best with L'Eclisse closely behind.

[bumper31]

It seems strange to compare a movie I loved to a movie I hated, but "Zodiac" kind of reminds me of "Jarhead" in a way. Both are genre movies with a seemingly easy subject - "war movie" and "serial killer hunt" - that go completely the opposite direction from that subject and instead focus on how the elusiveness of it destroys the men who crave it. And both have Jake Gyllenhaal. I think they're both films with a lot of integrity, and I love the refusal to pander to the "easy to entertain" crowd. But "Zodiac" is way the fuck better than "Jarhead", because I think the characterizations were far better, and the story was much more engagingly crafted.

.

Jarhead bored me...interesting view of war is boring etc......just made the film boring......and Jake Gyllenhall has joined the Keanu Reeves school of one facial expression acting.....slightly constipated.....it worked in Donnie Darko....but has now worn thin

[thinnerair]

I saw Black Snake Moan over the weekend.
Pretty entertaining. Ran a bit longer than I had hoped it would.
On the bright side, countless Cristina Ricci boobie shots and funny Samuel L Jackson lines.

[schoolofruckus]

Jarhead bored me...interesting view of war is boring etc......just made the film boring......and Jake Gyllenhall has joined the Keanu Reeves school of one facial expression acting.....slightly constipated.....it worked in Donnie Darko....but has now worn thin

Oh, I agree, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying, "Zodiac" is as loyal to the serial-killer hunt genre as "Jarhead" is to the war genre - the difference being that "Zodiac" is fucking great, and "Jarhead" is fucking shit.

I saw Black Snake Moan over the weekend.
Pretty entertaining. Ran a bit longer than I had hoped it would.
On the bright side, countless Cristina Ricci boobie shots and funny Samuel L Jackson lines.

I'm there.

Pot, what did you see this weekend?

[PotVsKtl]

Not a damn thing. Well, I watched Half Nelson. It was decent.

[Mr.Nipples]

I watched the exploitation flick MEN BEHIND THE SUN for the first time this last weekend. Easily one of the most shocking and disturbing films i have ever seen, and ive seen them all.

[schoolofruckus]

This looks like a masterpiece. (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000LPS2RM/103-5459828-7685415?ie=UTF8&tag=aintitcooln07-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=B000LPS2RM)

[downingthief]

This looks like a masterpiece. (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000LPS2RM/103-5459828-7685415?ie=UTF8&tag=aintitcooln07-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=B000LPS2RM)

This says it all:
Amazon.com Sales Rank: #69,964 in DVD (See Top Sellers in DVD)

[bmack86]

I'm goin to see 300 tonight. Should be interesting.

[schoolofruckus]

Tonight, I'm seeing "The Lookout", starring Joseph Gordon Levitt and written/directed by Elmore Leonard adaptation extraordinaire Scott Frank. I see "300" on Thursday.

I'm excited for both.

[bmack86]

The Fountain tomorrow. For the first time. That has me very excited.

[amyzzz]

The Fountain tomorrow. For the first time. That has me very excited.
Bring tissues.

[schoolofruckus]

Whoa. You simply have to post reviews here.

Is it in a theater? Or do you have some kind of leaked DVD? Please tell me it's not a bootleg.

[wmgaretjax]

Tonight, I'm seeing "The Lookout", starring Joseph Gordon Levitt and written/directed by Elmore Leonard adaptation extraordinaire Scott Frank. I see "300" on Thursday.

I'm excited for both.

I'm interested in how the lookout is, do tell after you see it please...

[jackstraw94086]

i liked the zodiac; however it could have been shorter. i'm not sure how it could have been shorter, but definately was a bit too long. maybe it's cause i went to a 9:40 showing though.

i was impressed with most everyone in the cast. the obsession that these people had was facinating. it was interesting cause i went with a friend who has been obsessed with this case for a long time, so it was funny to even see her obsession cause of this psycho fuck.

and jennie, that is so obnoxious, i would have been giving icy glares the whole movie!

also saw breach, this was good too. i just loved chris cooper :)


The SF Chronicle is jizzing all over themselves every day for the past week about Zodiak so I'm tempted to see it. They said it has none of the dark brooding tension of Se7en. Is this true? I'd kind of be pissed if there weren't at least some. All I know is that the charles fleischer scene is freaky.

Is the movie excessively robert downey jr. heavy or gyllenhal heavy (the former being prefered)


My friends are trying to get me to go see 300 on imax this friday too. hmmmm.

[downingthief]

Whoa. You simply have to post reviews here.

Is it in a theater? Or do you have some kind of leaked DVD? Please tell me it's not a bootleg.

I have yet to see the Fountain. I didn't know it was coming out yet.

Next for me will be 300 and Zodiac. My girl still wants to see Number 23, too. Not looking forward to that one!

[chairmenmeow47]

i wouldn't say it's either character heavy. i think you'll be disappointed by the amount of robert downey jr; however i think it made me enjoy his scenes more. he comes across as a form of comic relief to me.

the nice thing is, i guess it technically focuses on gyllenhal's life; however it follows all the lives of these people in some form.

and yeah, it doesn't have the same tension as se7en. i think that's partially because we all know the story before going to see the movie, so it's harder to keep that tension going. the few scenes where they do show the killings definately had an impact on me though, one in particular.

and i wouldn't say the charles fleischer scene is super freaky or anything, but definately makes you uncomfortable. the thing i like is that the movie comes across as very "real" to me. and while se7en freaked me out, it didn't freak me out in that way that i felt like it could happen to me, if that makes sense. i also liked that there were subtle levels of destruction in people's lives.

it's definately a long one though, don't do the 9:40 showing like me ;)

[schoolofruckus]

The SF Chronicle is jizzing all over themselves every day for the past week about Zodiak so I'm tempted to see it. They said it has none of the dark brooding tension of Se7en. Is this true? I'd kind of be pissed if there weren't at least some. All I know is that the charles fleischer scene is freaky.

Is the movie excessively robert downey jr. heavy or gyllenhal heavy (the former being prefered)


My friends are trying to get me to go see 300 on imax this friday too. hmmmm.

It's very dark, and very tense, with a decent amount of brooding. What you won't get, however, is a series of conventional encounters with the killer, or a big rocking climax that leaves all strands tied up. But the murder scenes are chilling as fuck. If you're okay with watching a movie that actually proceeds the way a criminal investigation would, then you'll love it.

It's neither Downey nor Gyllenhaal heavy. It's basically a three-way ensemble piece between those two plus Mark Ruffalo. They all contribute their own fair amounts (though I have to say Downey's performance is the best), and they all also disappear for stretches of the film.

EDIT: I should amend this to say that it is not as dark, brooding or tense as "Se7en"; few films are. This is a different approach. But it's not as far of a departure from "Se7en" as some people seem to think.

[Jenniehoo]

I hope this is a joke. I haven't seen Zodiac.

Yes, it's a joke. Welcome to an evil sense of humor. Get in the severed dicks.

[KungFuJoe]

"Zodiac" is 100% an ensemble piece. The acting & direction of course was phenomenal. However, I wasn't the biggest fan of this film. It was very good, but I would've much rather have watched a documentary about the history. Although I will probably give it another viewing I doubt it will be a film that I will own a copy of and watch more than that. It was definately a bit too long and I wasn't totally engaged with the Gyllenhal character. Mark Ruffalo & Robert Downey Jr. were tops (as always). I wish I could be more articulate with my review, but this film just didn't do it for me. It was definately well executed, but I wouldn't urge anyone to run out and go see it immediately. Perhaps I should've taken Gabe's advice and saw it on digital projection. I understand that could make it a much more enjoyable experience. For instance, I thought "Star Wars: Attack of the Clones" was descent on digital projection and "Matrix: Revolutions" blew my mind on the IMAX. I would certainly rank "Zodiac" above those films, but (here's where I'll probably lose much credibility) I think I would rank "Summer of Sam" higher as a serial killer flick, but that's just me ....

On another note, I'm going to be lucky enough to catch a screening of "Across the Universe" tomorrow, the new Julie Taymor Beatles musical film starring Evan Rachel Wood. I'm excited about this one.

I also plan on seeing "300" Friday afternoon on the IMAX. This is one advantage of being unemployed right now. That and having time to spend with friends while they're in town.


edit: I realize I should not categorize "Zodiac" as a serial killer flick. It is something completely different.

[bmack86]

Whoa. You simply have to post reviews here.

Is it in a theater? Or do you have some kind of leaked DVD? Please tell me it's not a bootleg.

It's in a theatre. We're showing it on campus before it comes out on DVD since the studio pulled our sneak last quarter. I'm really excited for that.

I expected 300 to be another one of those movies that pounds you over the head with some grand message while showing you "historical" battles and vestiges of the culture. I'm glad to say that it did none of that. Instead, it was a beatifully filmed, over the top, ridiculous and ridiculously entertaining action film. The fight scenes were really fun, violently over the top and unbelievable in a great way. The acting is about what I expected; lots of loud statements that are meant to inspire a crowd. However, they mix in a sense of humor that fits with the mood. Add in the random Persian creatures that are marched out, and you're in for one helluva ride. The very end was a tad slow, but I left the theatre very pleasantly surprised.

[jackstraw94086]

The fight scenes were really fun, violently over the top and unbelievable in a great way.

They'd have to be. There's no way the fight scenes could be any more unbelievable than the premise for the movie itself. Not unless instead of soldiers Leonidas had 300 sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads.

[breakjaw]

This is my favorite thread."Breaking the Waves"(which it is safe to say I would not have seen were it not for this thread) was magnificently directed and acted,and I'm trying to find time to watch "Triplets of Belleville".

[schoolofruckus]

Oh, man. "Breaking the Waves" is one of the best movies of all time. I'm glad to hear you liked it! You should check out some other Lars von Trier films - "Dancer in the Dark" (starring Bjork) is similar in many aspects to "Breaking the Waves". It's about a single mother who is going blind and copes with her difficulties by losing herself in musical fantasies.

"Dogville" and "Manderlay" are the first to parts of an in-progress trilogy about America, as seen through the eyes of the permanently Denmark-ridden von Trier. They both have the same visual schematic - instead of a traditional set, there is a black floor with chalk outlines that designate where buildings are, and there is very minimal use of props. It sounds like it would be a tough sit, especially since both films top the 2 1/2 hour mark, but for me, both films managed to refreshingly keep a steady pace. They center around a rich woman named Grace (Nicole Kidman in Dogville, Bryce Dallas Howard in Manderlay), who is continuously on the run and keeps happening upon small American towns whose first impression masks some truly horrifying secrets.

[wmgaretjax]

Yeah, Trier is great. See "Dancer in the Dark" for sure. I'd also recommend "The Idiots," "The Element of Crime," "Five Obstructions," and also Harmony Korine's films (Gummo, Julien-Dokey Boy).

I think Dogville was great, although Manderlay was relatively flawed. Von Trier has some points to make, and as much as I agree with his final point, he makes some mis-steps getting there. Worth checking out though.

[schoolofruckus]

I need to see "The Idiots". "The Element of Crime" is great as well, but I like von Trier's recent stuff better. I want to see all of his films, but some of the ones from the early 90's are hard to find.

I think "Dogville" was better, but for me, "Manderlay" paid off almost as much. And I was shocked to see that Bryce Dallas Howard filled the roll very capably. I can't believe that the Antichrist's daughter would do a film as bold and unconventional as that one.

And I agree that Harmony Korine is the shit. I'm excited about his new one coming out this year.

[PotVsKtl]

I watched Wilder's The Apartment last night. It was funny. Shirley MacLaine used to be hot. Jack Lemmon is a bumbling fool.

[downingthief]

Gabe, have you ever seen a German movie called "Zentropa"? Great mind fuck of a movie. It's part of a trilogy, but it is not necessary to see the others. I think it is the best of the three, any way.

[C DUB YA]

300 looks killer - like big, bad, bloody opera.

I like the graphic novel quite a bit.

[TomAz]

I just read through the last 15 pages or so of this thread and determined that no one had made the compiled 'best of' list yet. So I want to change mine.

1. Apocalypse Now (original)
2. Dr Strangelove
3. Lawrence of Arabia
4. Monty Python and the Holy Grail
5. The Godfather
6. The Godfather Part II
7. Annie Hall
8. Animal House
9. Casablanca
10. This Is Spinal Tap
11. Ghandi
12. Amadeus
13. Saving Private Ryan
14. Fargo
15. Le Retour de Martin Guerre
16. Apollo 13
17. The Fugitive
18. The Gods Must Be Crazy
19. Das Boot
20. Citizen Kane
21. High Plains Drifter
22. The Wilby Conspiracy
23. O Brother Where Art Thou
24. Goodfellas
25. The Princess Bride

Also, I want to add:

- it's COB not EOB
- Branagh is a ham, yes, but "Much Ado About Nothing" is pretty good anyway
- speaking of Shakespeare movies, "Tempest" (1982) is worth watching
- I agree with those who say "What Dreams May Come" sucked. It tried to be meaningful but just wound up being squishy-headed.
- I'm glad Helen Mirrin won Best Actress, because I liked 'The Queen' a lot. It's sort of grown on me since I saw it.

that is all.

[amyzzz]

- Branagh is a ham, yes, but "Much Ado About Nothing" is pretty good anyway
I agree. Great ensemble cast. Really funny.

[jackstraw94086]

I just read through the last 15 pages or so of this thread and determined that no one had made the compiled 'best of' list yet. So I want to change mine.

1. Apocalypse Now (original)
2. Dr Strangelove
3. Lawrence of Arabia
4. Monty Python and the Holy Grail
5. The Godfather
6. The Godfather Part II
7. Annie Hall
8. Animal House
9. Casablanca
10. This Is Spinal Tap
11. Ghandi
12. Amadeus
13. Saving Private Ryan
14. Fargo
15. Le Retour de Martin Guerre
16. Apollo 13
17. The Fugitive
18. The Gods Must Be Crazy
19. Das Boot
20. Citizen Kane
21. High Plains Drifter
22. The Wilby Conspiracy
23. O Brother Where Art Thou
24. Goodfellas
25. The Princess Bride

Also, I want to add:

- it's COB not EOB
- Branagh is a ham, yes, but "Much Ado About Nothing" is pretty good anyway
- speaking of Shakespeare movies, "Tempest" (1982) is worth watching
- I agree with those who say "What Dreams May Come" sucked. It tried to be meaningful but just wound up being squishy-headed.
- I'm glad Helen Mirrin won Best Actress, because I liked 'The Queen' a lot. It's sort of grown on me since I saw it.

that is all.


how can you prefer the original apocalypse over redux? You didn't like the frenchmen? you couldn't have possibly disliked the stranded, tripping playmates.

I am flabbergasted that you admit branagh's a ham and then compliment Much Ado. I know his character's a supposed to be a ham in that but I wanted to bash the screen every time he opened his mouth. Benedic is supposed to be a dignified, not a fucking clown. Emma Thompson was maybe OK. The guy who played Leonardo was good. Michael Keaton was hilarious. Denzel and Beckinsale blew, Keanu was Keanu.

[TomAz]

I like Redux except it's just too long. And yeah the playmates thing was stupid. The french people were cool though.

I like Much Ado because of Michael Keaton. Richard Briers was good. I liked Denzel in it too. Actually I think I liked everyone except Branagh, cuz he just needs to get hit in the gob. But yeah Keaton was amazing.

[Yablonowitz]

I really liked Apollo 13. Soooo riveting. Astronauts and Ron Howard = wood for me.

[chairmenmeow47]

"you can't run a vacuum on 12 amps, john!"

i don't know why, but that cracks me up every time!

[C DUB YA]

thats a good list tomaz.

insert Clockwork Orange, Boogie Nights, Raising Arizona, Rear Window, and Blade Runner and our lists are pretty much identical.

[wmgaretjax]

yay! Someone else who hates Ron Howard (although, I did like Arrested Development). Thank god! I agree about her performance though, absolutely amazing.

I'm excited for the new Korine as well, although I am sad that Herzog got dropped from the role of Abraham Lincoln. Oh well, at least he's still in it.

[mob roulette]

300 looks killer - like big, bad, bloody opera.

I like the graphic novel quite a bit.

300 is already #206 on the IMDB. Despite not even being RELEASED here yet.

[downingthief]

I like Redux except it's just too long. And yeah the playmates thing was stupid. The french people were cool though.

I like Much Ado because of Michael Keaton. Richard Briers was good. I liked Denzel in it too. Actually I think I liked everyone except Branagh, cuz he just needs to get hit in the gob. But yeah Keaton was amazing.

Loved Much Ado...one of the better Shakespeare movies. That all that is holy that Keanu was minimal in it though.

[Kasabian]

This is my favorite thread."Breaking the Waves"(which it is safe to say I would not have seen were it not for this thread) was magnificently directed and acted,and I'm trying to find time to watch "Triplets of Belleville".

I'm glad to see so many people have seen and liked Breaking the Waves on this thread! Its such a well acted movie and really is one of my favorites. I watched it again over the weekend.

I just added Grizzley Man to my netflix queue out of curiosity. Has anyone seen this? My boss mentioned it and it sounded worth the rent.

[C DUB YA]

Yeah I actually bought it (Grizzley Man) on recomendation from a friend - its excellent, but I'm a huge documentary fan.

also queue up these recent docs:
Jesus Camp
This Film Is Not Yet Rated
The Fog of War
Worldplay

(Kasabian was my old board name, nice)

[SojuGorae]

300 looks killer - like big, bad, bloody opera.

I like the graphic novel quite a bit.

My Iranian friends have been ragging on this movie for a while now. How it's not historically accurate and blah blah blah. Even though I tell them it's based on a comic book they still think it makes Persians look weak.

Silly rascals.

[C DUB YA]

Loved Much Ado...one of the better Shakespeare movies.

for the record, the porn version was titled...

Much Ado About Butt F-ing

its a good title, but its no When Harry Ate Sally or The Apple Dumpling Gang Bang

[Kasabian]

Yeah I've got Jesus Camp on my queue as well...its going to be a documentary weekend for me!

[C DUB YA]

Yeah I've got Jesus Camp on my queue as well...its going to be a documentary weekend for me!

oh and before I forget...

New York Doll
When We Were Kings

also good docs

[TomAz]

thats a good list tomaz.

insert Clockwork Orange, Boogie Nights, Raising Arizona, Rear Window, and Blade Runner and our lists are pretty much identical.

Clockwork Orange. good, not great, IMO

Boogie Nights. never seen it

Raising Arizona. First rate, would be in my second 25.

Rear Window. Yeah, I should have had this one in there somewhere

Blade Runner. Also would make my second 25.

[downingthief]

for the record, the porn version was titled...

Much Ado About Butt F-ing

its a good title, but its no When Harry Ate Sally or The Apple Dumpling Gang Bang

And, don't forget about the classic, "Edward Penishands".

[C DUB YA]

And, don't forget about the classic, "Edward Penishands".

and these gems as well:

Glad-he-ate-her
The Gapes of Wrath
Tango and Gash
Schindler's Fist
Jurassic Pork
Men In Back
The Jizz Slinger
Napoleon Sodomite
Field of Reams
You've Got Tail
The Empire Strokes Back
A Fist Called Wanda
Bend Her Over the River Kwai
Forest Hump

[C DUB YA]

Clockwork Orange. good, not great, IMO

Boogie Nights. never seen it

Raising Arizona. First rate, would be in my second 25.

Rear Window. Yeah, I should have had this one in there somewhere

Blade Runner. Also would make my second 25.

One could say viewing your list - you NEED to see Boogie Nights. Its amazing in my opinion.

[amyzzz]

And, don't forget about the classic, "Edward Penishands".
and Pulp Friction. I actually watched both of those years ago.

[SojuGorae]

and these gems as well:

Glad-he-ate-her
The Gapes of Wrath
Tango and Gash
Schindler's Fist
Jurassic Pork
Men In Back
The Jizz Slinger
Napoleon Sodomite
Field of Reams
You've Got Tail
The Empire Strokes Back
A Fist Called Wanda
Bend Her Over the River Kwai
Forest Hump

Looks like I'll be renting porn this weekend.

[schoolofruckus]

Random thoughts:

Yeah, I absolutely abhor Ron Howard and most of his movies. I have to admit to having a childhood-birthed affection for "Willow". "Apollo 13" is decent, but over-rated. "A Beautiful Mind" and "Cinderella Man" and "EdTV" and the "Grinch" can all go fuck themselves. I will never be swindled into seeing his movies again, so that means no "DaVinci Code" or its sequels, not even for free.

I loved "This Film is Not Yet Rated" - it's one of my favorite documentaries ever.

I hated "The Fog of War"; to me, Errol Morris was way too soft on McNamara, and lets him off easy with only hinting at his guilt over the Vietnam fiasco and the rest of the blood on his hands. I realize that, from a narrative perspective, this was probably the best choice, so as not to get into Michael Moore editorial terrirory (and don't get me started on that worthless bastard). However, at the same time, we're talking about a guy who threw 80,000 American kids to the wolves, and who, at the absolute least, knows who killed JFK. And I couldn't stand watching the bastard talk without being asked point blank questions like, "who was behind the assassination and why?" and "who the fuck do you think you are playing with American lives to this degree?" I saw this once in theaters and not since, so my opinion may be different now - indeed, I feel like it at least serves a purpose in the sense that we need to start asking these kinds of questions to our current chiefs of staff - but all I can remember was that the movie pissed me off like few films I've ever seen.

Tom - watch "Boogie Nights" immediately.

Sean - I have not seen "Zentropa". That's one I've always wanted to see. I read that Spielberg tried to lure von Trier to Hollywood after seeing it, but of course, he didn't go. I love him so much. Fuck, I can't wait till 6/22/07 when his new one "The Boss of It All" comes out here.

[chairmenmeow47]

I hated "The Fog of War"; to me, Errol Morris was way too soft on McNamara, and lets him off easy with only hinting at his guilt over the Vietnam fiasco and the rest of the blood on his hands. I realize that, from a narrative perspective, this was probably the best choice, so as not to get into Michael Moore editorial terrirory (and don't get me started on that worthless bastard). However, at the same time, we're talking about a guy who threw 80,000 American kids to the wolves, and who, at the absolute least, knows who killed JFK. And I couldn't stand watching the bastard talk without being asked point blank questions like, "who was behind the assassination and why?" and "who the fuck do you think you are playing with American lives to this degree?" I saw this once in theaters and not since, so my opinion may be different now - indeed, I feel like it at least serves a purpose in the sense that we need to start asking these kinds of questions to our current chiefs of staff - but all I can remember was that the movie pissed me off like few films I've ever seen.


agreed, though my parents really loved it and they're not big mcnamara fans either. maybe it's a generational thing. it just seems pointless to do a movie like that and not make a statement. it should have just been an interview on PBS.

[kreutz2112]

I liked "A Beautiful MInd" What didnt you like about it?

[schoolofruckus]

Literally everything, aside from Jennifer Connelly's performance. It was trite. It was boring. It was needlessly deceptive and unfocused from a storytelling perspective, in the way that it starts off in his mind and then reveals his whole world to be a paper house. It was filled with the kind of copper-pot acting & photography that most of the big-shit studio stooges (like Howard and Nancy Meyers) love to heap on their films with a spoon. I can't stand the way people in these movies overdo their facial tics, or the way Ron Howard edits his scenes so that the performances aren't allowed to linger. I feel like the entire enterprise is just horribly manipulative. I don't need a big soaring musical score or too-eager acting to be emotionally engaged in a story like this; in fact, all those kinds of things do is make me check out, because they feel phony.

I know I sound like an elitist bastard right now, predictably hating on the Oscar winner. But I'll freely admit that there are several big Hollywood dramas that I love the hell out of. This one, and many others of its ilk (and, nothing personal, but it's not a coincidence that Howard has directed many), that I just can't abide by.

[downingthief]

I liked "A Beautiful MInd" What didnt you like about it?

I liked it as well. One of the better RH flicks.
He is defintely hit or miss as a Director. Very little in between. DaVinci was complete rubbish.

[C DUB YA]

I thought it was alright (BM)

[mob roulette]

Literally everything, aside from Jennifer Connelly's performance. It was trite. It was boring. It was needlessly deceptive and unfocused from a storytelling perspective, in the way that it starts off in his mind and then reveals his whole world to be a paper house. It was filled with the kind of copper-pot acting & photography that most of the big-shit studio stooges (like Howard and Nancy Meyers) love to heap on their films with a spoon. I can't stand the way people in these movies overdo their facial tics, or the way Ron Howard edits his scenes so that the performances aren't allowed to linger. I feel like the entire enterprise is just horribly manipulative. I don't need a big soaring musical score or too-eager acting to be emotionally engaged in a story like this; in fact, all those kinds of things do is make me check out, because they feel phony.

I know I sound like an elitist bastard right now, predictably hating on the Oscar winner. But I'll freely admit that there are several big Hollywood dramas that I love the hell out of. This one, and many others of its ilk (and, nothing personal, but it's not a coincidence that Howard has directed many), that I just can't abide by.

THANK you.

also how is is that you haven't seen boogie nights, tom? this does not add up to me. it's practically a prerequisite in some circles.

[schoolofruckus]

Time for a movie ethics debate.

There is a recent news item (http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article1403516.ece) revealing a developing new trend in post production - directors are using CGI effects to alter their actors' performances. The example listed in the story is a scene in the recent Edward Zwick movie "Blood Diamond" - which I did not see, as my opinions of "The Last Samurai" are even more venomous than my take on "Beautiful Mind" - in which Jennifer Connelly is talking on a cell phone, and a tear was digitally added to be sliding down her cheek. Of course, this brings up the question - how fucked up is this? Should directors, by definition being magicians and maniuplators of the truth, be allowed to enhance their actors' performances to this degree? Is it fundamentally worse than, say, using digital or even costumed recreations of actors when they die during filming (a la Brandon Lee in "The Crow" or Oliver Reed in "Gladiator")? Or even by recycling dialogue from deceased actors for newer films (such as Marlon Brando in "Superman Returns")?

Personally, I don't like the sound of this. I mean, I'm the kind of person who wishes for less artifice in movies as opposed to more. But I also can't definitively say I wouldn't do the same thing, if I were in a bind while editing a film and felt that it needed a tear drop here or there. I definitely can't come up with a defensible rant against the idea, as it's hard to say what post production tricks have integrity and which ones do not. But on a principle level, I think this trend sucks, and it needs to be mitigated and used as little as possible before it becomes the norm on every big-budget production.

[mob roulette]

this is about as bad as genetically modified food, IMHO.

[jackstraw94086]

Gabe, if you don't STFU Spielberg's gonna send a crew of walkie-talkie toting motherfuckers to fuck your shit up.

[chairmenmeow47]

i think it's fucking sad that they can't just get an actor who will cry on camera for them, lol. i don't like the adding in of the tear; however i can see why they do it.

if i were a famous actor, i'd have a clause in my contract about what can and cannot be done with my digital personality after i'm gone. there's no way in hell they'd have me dancing with a goddamned vacuum.

[downingthief]

i think it's fucking sad that they can't just get an actor who will cry on camera for them, lol. i don't like the adding in of the tear; however i can see why they do it.

if i were a famous actor, i'd have a clause in my contract about what can and cannot be done with my digital personality after i'm gone. there's no way in hell they'd have me dancing with a goddamned vacuum.

Agreed. Although, playing Devil's advocate a bit here...what if it was not the actor's fault, and at the time of shooting, the "tear" was not asked for? Then, in post-prod, the Director decides to add it.

SO true about the Fred Astaire commercial. That was a travesty.

Side note, on of my fave Bogie films, The Big Sleep, was on TCM last night. Bogie and Bacall...doesn't get much better than that!

[chairmenmeow47]

what if it was not the actor's fault, and at the time of shooting, the "tear" was not asked for? Then, in post-prod, the Director decides to add it.

that's the sort of thing i can understand; however as a project manager, i find it very odd that thought wouldn't cross their mind until post-prod (though i don't make movies, so it could happen).

and i'll have to check out the big sleep!

[schoolofruckus]

Gabe, if you don't STFU Spielberg's gonna send a crew of walkie-talkie toting motherfuckers to fuck your shit up.

Oh, son of a bitch. I forgot to get into that one. That's the worst of all, and I don't think there will be much disagreement on this - the toning down of films for better family viewing potential is absolutely despicable. Spielberg will forever be a spineless chickenshit in my book for his continued efforts in the pussyfying of movies. Cutting out "penis breath!" and putting walkie talkies where guns should be is absolutely inexcusable. No matter how many fine films he's made (and it's really not as many as assumed, not to mention the fact that most of them get kneecapped eventually by his wussy instincts), Spielberg is an enemy of cinema.

[mob roulette]

thank you again. this thread's getting good.

[fober]

Just thought I'd mention that every time I read the thread title, I hear

"Come along and ride on a fantastic voyage."

in my head.


Peace out. Movies suck.

[ghettojournalist]

i know there are budgetary concerns, but aren't there such things as re-shoots?
didn't directors used to do these when they didn't get a shot they wanted?
to just add things is lazy.

[schoolofruckus]

that's the sort of thing i can understand; however as a project manager, i find it very odd that thought wouldn't cross their mind until post-prod (though i don't make movies, so it could happen).

and i'll have to check out the big sleep!

It's beyond common for directors to change their minds constantly on set and in post production when they get a flint of inspiration for what they think would put their films over the top. Bad directors do it (i.e., Zwick's move in "Blood Diamond"). Good directors do it (as when David O. Russell improvised the bulk of his shooting schedule on "Three Kings" and drove his cast/crew berzerk). I think there's something to be said for guys who have a clear vision from the beginning, but that kind of rigidity can sometimes be hard on actors, the better of which almost all like to react and play in the moment on set rather than in the production meeting.

[TomAz]

Technology is what it is. Can't stop progress. We're probably, what, 20 years from the technology being so good that real actors won't even be needed. The greatest, most beautiful starlet will just be a computer creation that doesn't really exist. Will this be a bad thing? probably. Will it happen anyway? if it makes for movies that the general public likes better, yes.

There's always the theater.

[ghettojournalist]

someone just saw "simone".

[TomAz]

I just realized I didn't address the ethical question at all. my bad.

I'm ambivalent about it. Part of me says 'who cares', part of me says 'yeah and Christopher Reeve didn't really fly in the Superman movies either', but part of me says 'that's cheating'. but I don't think it's worth putting a lot of energy into the ethical question, because this is Hollywood we're talking about. The business is to produce entertainment and make money at it. It's not "art". "Art" is for the little indie hipster movie makers to worry about. Not Spielberg.

[schoolofruckus]

"Art" is for the little indie hipster movie makers to worry about. Not Spielberg.

That's true. But that's also why it's important to oppose that trend if you feel like it's for the worse (like I do). I don't want to see movies that only feature digitally projected actors; I hope that technology never fully blossoms in my lifetime. I don't want to see movies where augmentation technology is responsible for the best moments in movies - the kinds of moments that actors have been having in films and theater since the craft was born. I don't even want to see a world where every film is shot on HD, no matter how good some of them look, be they Hollywood ("Zodiac") or arthouse ("Bubble"). I think that as long as there are strong storytellers who still have reverence for authenticity (and celluloid), then they won't die out regardless of whatever trends "the industry" chooses to follow. At least, I hope that's the case.

[caco0283]

gabe i see where you are coming from i just have to add this....in our lifetime and im very happy about this.....HD is not about saving money....its about the look of the film....and DPs will choose the format and camera they shoot that format on because of the look of the camera

like zodiac...they used the viper cos its holds lowlight situations better than the cinealta

[wmgaretjax]

HD is not about saving money? That's quite a generalized claim. I'll agree that this may be true sometimes, but there is no way that is even almost always true.

I agree with everything you said about Beautiful mind schoolio, and I'm sure we'd agree regarding the last samurai.

As for the ethics, I have no fucking problem with it. Here's why; no amount of CG manipulation can turn a bad performance into a good one. She was still god awful in the film, and no tear changed that. Take it, and hold it up to Bjork's performance on cheap DV, and guess what, no one will even consider thinking about jennifer connelly's performance again.

Celluloid is far from disappearing, I don't think we have to worry about that anymore. However, I know that a lot of newer films will deifnately utilize HD, which I don't think is a bad thing. Done right, it can easily match the visual stun of film, and that's a great thing for indie film. I have some problems with labeling celluloid authentic as well. What makes it authentic? It's still a mediated image no matter what way you cut it, whether it's captured onto film or a CCD. If by "authentic" you mean rooted in a empirical history, i will agree, it does require an amount of reverance. But in no way should digital video be dismissed.

[schoolofruckus]

I forgot to review "The Lookout".

I'm just going to say up front that I liked it and enjoyed it and had no real problems with it. I feel that it's necessary to do so, because I've had many false starts in writing this review that all come out sounding like faint praise.

It's something of a throwback thriller, back to the days before manufactured twist endings and out-of-place action scenes became a prerequisite. It's also somewhat character-driven, and for a heist film it's got a bit of a writerly quality to it. That definitely checks out because it was written & directed by Scott Frank, a way-above-average Hollywood screenwriter who has done some stellar adaptations ("Get Shorty" and "Out of Sight") and movies that were not good adaptations, but were good movies anyway ("Minority Report"). This is Frank's first time as a director, and he does a fine job, although he lacks the natural visual chops of other writer-turned-directors like Christopher McQuarrie and David Mamet.

The movie is about Chris Pratt (played my boy Joseph Gordon-Levitt), a former trust-fund king of his high school whose life is marred by a foolish accident that left him with a memory-impacting form of brain damage (shades of "Memento") and blood on his hands. He's living in Kansas City and trying his best to reconstruct his life, which currently consists of assisted living courses by day and a janitorial job at a local small town bank by night. His blind, sardonic roommate, Lewis (a nicely-shaped performance by Jeff Daniels), leaves notes to help him get through his daily tasks and dreams of the day when the two of them can open up a small restaurant. Things change soon for Chris, as they often do in these kinds of movies, when a guy from high school shows up and gradually draws him into a shortcut to get his life back in his own hands.

Like I said, it's a good movie overall. Despite the aforementioned similaritY to "Memento", it's really got none of that film's complexity or cinematic trickery. The latter is fine; any attempt at making a snakey thriller about a guy with memory loss would be doomed coming out of the gate. But I would have preferred the movie to be a hair or two more in-depth about the illness, and the impact on his daily life. I mean, I described the movie above as being "character-driven", and it is, but.....well, let's just say nobody's mistaking this for "The Killing of a Chinese Bookie" anytime soon. All I'm saying is that the movie could maybe have been memorable if it would have done more with Chris' affliction. But all in all, he's written decently, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt (who I've knobbed often on this thread, on account of his terrific work in "Mysterious Skin" and "Brick") does a stellar job expressing his guilt, frustration, and fear.

I don't know. This review sucks ass because I sound like I'm being too hard on a movie that I found perfectly agreeable. It wasn't anything unforgettable, but it is good, and if you're in the mood for a heist film that won't pull any shit on you, then this one's the way to go.

[schoolofruckus]

HD is not about saving money? That's quite a generalized claim. I'll agree that this may be true sometimes, but there is no way that is even almost always true.

I agree with everything you said about Beautiful mind schoolio, and I'm sure we'd agree regarding the last samurai.

As for the ethics, I have no fucking problem with it. Here's why; no amount of CG manipulation can turn a bad performance into a good one. She was still god awful in the film, and no tear changed that. Take it, and hold it up to Bjork's performance on cheap DV, and guess what, no one will even consider thinking about jennifer connelly's performance again.

Celluloid is far from disappearing, I don't think we have to worry about that anymore. However, I know that a lot of newer films will deifnately utilize HD, which I don't think is a bad thing. Done right, it can easily match the visual stun of film, and that's a great thing for indie film. I have some problems with labeling celluloid authentic as well. What makes it authentic? It's still a mediated image no matter what way you cut it, whether it's captured onto film or a CCD. If by "authentic" you mean rooted in a empirical history, i will agree, it does require an amount of reverance. But in no way should digital video be dismissed.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to dismiss DV. "Zodiac" looked fantastic. "Dancer in the Dark" and "Julien Donkey-Boy" and "Bubble" were gorgeous. And I love Michael Mann's films like nobody's business; even the imperfections in his HD feel like masterstrokes. All I'm saying is that I hope that industry sentiment doesn't make the use of 35mm, 16mm, et. al., into a specialty. I don't think it will, but the idea has troubled me in the past.

And Ronnie, while I agree with you that DV is an aesthetic choice more often than not, it still has financial benefits that make studios and producers want to get behind it. You always tell me that the conversions from DV to 35mm for distribution end up costing tons of money, and that that balances out the difference in costs for the raw stock. But when you consider that these days 35mm is often converted to DV anyway for post, and then converted back to 35mm....I mean, not only are you saving hundreds of thousands of dollars on stock costs, but you're also saving half your transfer costs as well.

[wmgaretjax]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to dismiss DV. "Zodiac" looked fantastic. "Dancer in the Dark" and "Julien Donkey-Boy" and "Bubble" were gorgeous. And I love Michael Mann's films like nobody's business; even the imperfections in his HD feel like masterstrokes. All I'm saying is that I hope that industry sentiment doesn't make the use of 35mm, 16mm, et. al., into a specialty. I don't think it will, but the idea has troubled me in the past.

And Ronnie, while I agree with you that DV is an aesthetic choice more often than not, it still has financial benefits that make studios and producers want to get behind it. You always tell me that the conversions from DV to 35mm for distribution end up costing tons of money, and that that balances out the difference in costs for the raw stock. But when you consider that these days 35mm is often converted to DV anyway for post, and then converted back to 35mm....I mean, not only are you saving hundreds of thousands of dollars on stock costs, but you're also saving half your transfer costs as well.

I don't think you have to be worried about 35 fading away (although 16 is a kind of novelty these days). There are plenty of purists out there to keep it in the ranks. I shot on 16mm a while back and loved it, I can't wait to get my hands on some 35 sometime.

But for now.... HD will do :-)

[bmack86]

I just saw the Fountain. I was expecting a lot, and I was let down. I felt like they tried too hard to force the connections in the story, but I didn't really feel like the characters were developed enough for that to work. Also, the symbolism throughout the flick left me lacking. I liked the concept of the movie, but it didn't come across for me.

[Mr.Nipples]

Forest Gump 2: The 'Tardening...

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/31791

It’s been thirteen years since Forrest Gump first ran into theaters, and now it looks like America’s favorite chocolate loving mental deficient may be back for a sequel. Forrest Gump II isn’t a new idea, Paramount has been kicking it around since the original movie made a bajillion dollars, and in 2001 they even hired Forrest Gump writer Eric Roth to pen a sequel screenplay.

An absolutely reliable, unfortunately anonymous source, contacted me tonight with the latest scoop on Forrest’s impending return. It seems that old 2001 Eric Roth screenplay is being dragged out of development hell for another look by Gump producers Steve Tisch and Wendy Finerman. Remember that the first Forrest Gump movie was based on a novel by Winston Groom. Roth’s sequel script was based on Groom’s followup novel, “Gump & Co”. “Gump & Co” takes place several years after “Forrest Gump” and finds Forrest’s shrimping business failed and Jenny dead, leaving Forrest a single unemployed father. As you’d expect, Gump still stumbles through more important historical events. In this case it’s a cavalcade of history from the 80s and 90s. He even meets Tom Hanks.

So, why didn’t Paramount make this five years ago when Roth first wrote the script? Apparently the project got bogged down in a big legal tiff between Groom, the book’s original author, and the studio. Groom claimed he wasn’t properly paid for Forrest Gump, and so refused to sell them the sequel rights to his other book. Evidently they’ve now worked it out.

The truly important question here is whether or not Tom Hanks will return. Our source says Finerman and Tisch are talking to him, but there’s nothing definitive yet. It is however likely that Gary Sinise will be back as Forrest’s battle damaged buddy Lt. Dan. If Tom can’t be talked into it, will they replace him? Word is they want this in theaters within the next couple of years, so while it’s possible, let’s hope they’re smart enough to scrap it if he’s not interested. No one does a better potty dance.

[C DUB YA]

Forest 2 - ugh

[SojuGorae]

The idea of a Forrest Gump sequel was ridiculous until the article mentioned the original writer coming in to pen the script.

Who knows. It might be good. But I figure the 80s and 90s weren't as interesting as the 60s and 70s.

[lindseyb]

apparently the sex and the city movie is being penned right now, too. god, i hope so.

[wmgaretjax]

apparently the sex and the city movie is being penned right now, too. god, i hope so.

fuck that.

[All That I Am]

Forest 2 - ugh

Forest 1 - ugh.
That movie was nothing more that poorly strung together set of coincidences. I hated that movie for so many reasons. That movie was retarded and i'm glad they are making a sequel so people can look back on the original and say "Ya know, that first movie was pretty damn stupid too now that i think about it."

[schoolofruckus]

I just saw the Fountain. I was expecting a lot, and I was let down. I felt like they tried too hard to force the connections in the story, but I didn't really feel like the characters were developed enough for that to work. Also, the symbolism throughout the flick left me lacking. I liked the concept of the movie, but it didn't come across for me.

Man, that's too bad...I knew we were kind of running the risk of setting the expectations too high with all the Fountain fellatio on this thread. I hope you decide to give it a shot sometime down the road, maybe when your expectations/memories of your viewing experience have faded a bit. I think there's a lot there to grab onto, particularly in the way of character development....one of my favorite things about this movie was that it used a unique approach to humanize the characters and create empathy while still trying to pack a large-scale epic into a 90 minutes movie.

[lindseyb]

fuck that.
fuck you.

[bmack86]

I really enjoyed the cinematography, for what it's worth. I'll definitely see it again. I felt like, despite the fact that I didn't take a whole lot away from it, that it might grow on me given a few chances.

[John Peel is My Co-pilot]

apparently the sex and the city movie is being penned right now, too. god, i hope so.


I'm not quite sure how they could top the HBO version. Pop shots and champagne enemas perhaps?

Sex and the City - The Movie: Carrie gets a Hot Lunch!

[wmgaretjax]

fuck you.

you sure? I found out i have a nasty strand of herpes last week.

[KungFuJoe]

I just got back a couple hours ago from an advanced screening of Julie Taymor's new film "Across the Universe". For those of you that don't know yet, this is a Beatles musical love story set in the 1960's. I don't want to spoil this movie or set expectations too high for anyone, but this could quite possibly be the best film I see all year. I doubt it will be, but if it does not at least make my top ten than this will be a truly magnificent year for film.

In short, nothing can top Julie Taymor's direction. If she is not honored at the end of the year it will be a shame. This should, and hopefully will be her biggest success yet (in film that is). Even at points where I felt a bit tired and exhausted by the frantic musical numbers and visuals of this film I could not help but marvel at it all. All the performances were spot on.

I would love to share more, but I don't want to get everyone excited about a film that you probably won't be able to see for another 6 months. All I can say is I absolutely loved this film and will pay to go see it again. It is amazing in every way, though it's not without its flaws. Beyond all, it is a completely unique & stunning spectacle that I would encourage you all to go see in a theater when it opens.

[bmack86]

I just got back a couple hours ago from an advanced screening of Julie Taymor's new film "Across the Universe". For those of you that don't know yet, this is a Beatles musical love story set in the 1960's. I don't wan