Last Movie You Watched? 7.0

Manhunter wrote:

Harmsway wrote:

Manhunter wrote:

I didn't get the idea of her feeling guilt over her sexual escapades, because she was only shattered after finding out about the possibility of having clap; just before that, she looks very self-confident and smug.

Of course she doesn't feel guilt until after she's gone through with the act; she's pursuing her own fantasy with abandon, and at first, it seems that it's everything she could want it to be. But the reveal of the test changes things; she suddenly sees the repercussions of realizing her fantasies and heavy guilt and panic sets in.

The panic is obvious. I may be nit-picking, but my understanding of 'guilt' makes it necessary to be strongly ashamed of one's own behaviour because of a real insight into the moral failure of said behaviour. She just panics at the prospect of having an STD. But maybe next time I'll see the profound character study of a remorseful woman. ;)

Well, the film also suggests that she's troubled by the potential loss of her family (hence her dialing her husband and then hanging up quickly thereafter). But, personally, I consider facing the negative consequences and fallout of one's actions to be sufficient moral perspective for this character, at least for the purposes of the film.

THERE WILL BE BLOOD. Had a much, much better time with this flick than I did when I first saw it a few years ago. Back then I found the first half riveting but felt that it went drastically downhill after that. What's more, I couldn't fathom precisely what Paul Thomas Anderson was trying to say with it. This time round, I was pretty much gripped from start to finish, and while I'm still no nearer to understanding the "point" of the film (if indeed it has one beyond making the statement "Only the most ruthless survive", or perhaps asking the rhetorical question "What does it profit a man to gain the world but lose his soul?"), my recent viewings of PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE and MAGNOLIA have given me the impression that Anderson's work is perhaps not something to be "understood" so much as experienced. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, especially in view of Anderson's awesome abilities as a filmmaker.

And boy oh boy does THERE WILL BE BLOOD provide an experience, and a thrillingly uncompromising one at that. If there's a star of this incredible and intoxicatingly cinematic slab of epic spectacle, it isn't Daniel Day-Lewis (who is, however, excellent - although for some reason he sounds like Sean Connery throughout, which I find a tad distracting) but cinematographer Robert Elswit, whose images more than do justice to Jack Fisk's superb production design and combine with Jonny Greenwood's eerie score to make BLOOD a very haunting piece of work indeed. And if there's a main character, it isn't Daniel Plainview but the landscape he seeks to possess for its buried treasures. As with PICNIC AT HANGING ROCK, this is a film that makes beautiful scenery - the wilderness, if you will - seem somehow malevolent and dangerous, with a power to seduce and corrupt people and suck dry their souls (or somefink).

Like Peter Weir's masterpiece, it's possible to read THERE WILL BE BLOOD as, essentially, a horror film. Then again, Anderson's film (unlike Weir's) often seems an exercise in deliciously underplayed black comedy. There are also strong echoes of CITIZEN KANE and THE TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE. It's a strange, heady brew. Can't wait for THE MASTER.

Quote :

Daniel Day-Lewis (who is, however, excellent - although for some reason he sounds like Sean Connery throughout, which I find a tad distracting)

Sounded more like John Huston to me.

I'm delighted that you came around to liking THERE WILL BE BLOOD, Loomis. I still think it's pretty awesome, though there are many who dislike it 'round these parts.


SUNSET BOULEVARD (1950, dir. Billy Wilder)

A knockout film. No matter how many times I see that ending, every time I see it, it's like I'm seeing it for the first time.

Infernal Affairs (2002, dir. Wai-keung Lau, Alan Mak)

It was a bad move to turn the remake into a farcical thriller, and it was even worse to hire Hollywood's worst two acting-c*nts as the two leads, because Lau and Leung act the f*** out of Damon and Di Caprio.
Even if I could not have followed INFERNAL without seeing DEPARTED first, I feel it's the superior film. Monahan did a good job, the remake is easier to follow and has added some meat, but it isn't emotionally rewarding, even if still quite tense and entertaining. The very ending, with Chen deciding not to let Lau be remembered as a criminal, is far superior in the original, but it could have been even considerably better in the hands of a great director who can handle the emotional stuff expertly. Perhaps the Monahan script with minor changes filmed by M. Mann, that would have been a gorgeous flick!

Harmsway wrote:

I'm delighted that you came around to liking THERE WILL BE BLOOD, Loomis. I still think it's pretty awesome, though there are many who dislike it 'round these parts.

You can definitely now count me in the "liking THERE WILL BE BLOOD" camp, Harms. In fact, I like it a lot. I'm already itching to see it again.

To be sure, there are still numerous things about it over which one could quibble - confusing aspects of the story and possible plot holes.

Spoiler:

Mind you, none of these things mars the film for me. At the end of the day, THERE WILL BE BLOOD gives me a unique and memorable viewing experience that's exceptionally well-crafted and well-acted, unfolds on an epic canvas and really lingers in the mind afterwards. Can't really ask for much more in this day and age.

Harmsway wrote:

SUNSET BOULEVARD (1950, dir. Billy Wilder)

A knockout film. No matter how many times I see that ending, every time I see it, it's like I'm seeing it for the first time.

A great film. Haven't seen it in many years and have been thinking about revisiting it (along with THE PRIVATE LIFE OF SHERLOCK HOLMES).

Loomis wrote:

Spoiler:

I think we are meant to believe that Plainview's relationship with his son is something more than just Plainview using him as a prop (Anderson seemingly gestures in that direction with the enigmatic flashback after Plainview's "bastard in a basket!" moment).

Running through the film is this notion that Plainview is looking for some kind of echo of himself, someone he can connect with, and tries to do so by finding some kind of mirror image of himself. He strives for that, at first, with his boy, who he tries to remake in his own image, and then the accident makes sure that can't happen. He then tries to use his brother as a surrogate--who is even better, in his mind, given that the brother is his own flesh and blood, hence his comment to his brother, "If it's in me, it's in you"--but that doesn't work out, either.

Re: Plainview's alcoholism, if I remember right, we do see his dependence on alcohol gradually escalate throughout the film (his drunken buffoonery at the restaurant when his son comes back is an example). I think you're right that we're meant to see it coinciding with this sense that he won't have any more worlds to conquer, and that the stir-crazy Plainview of the film's last section has completely given himself over to alcohol out of overwhelming boredom.

Loomis wrote:

A great film. Haven't seen it in many years and have been thinking about revisiting it (along with THE PRIVATE LIFE OF SHERLOCK HOLMES).

I've never seen THE PRIVATE LIFE OF SHERLOCK HOLMES, though I had another friend passionately recommend it not too long ago. I'm assuming I should check it out.

The Birds (1963)

Watched it on the big screen. Best thing about the whole experience was how crowded it was and that NOBODY in the audience was snickering or all that bullshit (like in that article Tux posted about today's audiences' attitudes towards old film). It would have been better if they used film projection but seeing it on a big screen in a crowded room makes up for it. It was truly fantastic to see a Hitchcock film, and from his prime years. I really hope I see another film of his like this again, preferably with a Bernard Herrmann score booming on the speakers.

Harms, you've got to see THE PRIVATE LIFE OF SHERLOCK HOLMES. I'm not even joking. A real lost gem from the 1970s.

Harmsway wrote:

Running through the film is this notion that Plainview is looking for some kind of echo of himself, someone he can connect with, and tries to do so by finding some kind of mirror image of himself. He strives for that, at first, with his boy, who he tries to remake in his own image, and then the accident makes sure that can't happen. He then tries to use his brother as a surrogate--who is even better, in his mind, given that the brother is his own flesh and blood, hence his comment to his brother, "If it's in me, it's in you"--but that doesn't work out, either.

I suspect that Plainview is searching less for someone to connect with on a human level than someone he can mould into a right-hand man (which helps explain his discussion of pipelines and shipping costs with the boy near the start of the film). (Speaking of which, what happens to Ciaran Hinds' character? Doesn't he just fade out from the film for no apparent reason, or did I blink and miss the explanation for his disappearance?) Mind you, he may also - and without even acknowledging this to himself - be searching for human connection. If so, it would explain why he breaks down in tears.

In some ways, "Henry Plainview" seems too much of a dumb good ole boy to be suitable as Plainview's right-hand man. Then again, it may well be that Plainview wants underlings who aren't as intelligent as him (and therefore won't trick him) and will obey him without question.

Loomis wrote:

Harms, you've got to see THE PRIVATE LIFE OF SHERLOCK HOLMES. I'm not even joking. A real lost gem from the 1970s.

Absolutely essential viewing I'd say.

THE DESCENDANTS.

Finally a new wonderful terrific performance from Robert Forster, though far too brief for my taste. Judy Greer, good as ever, and the actress playing Clooney's oldest kid is quite good too (was Kristen Stewart too busy to take the gig?)

It felt like a cable movie, didn't work for me anywhere near as well as ELECTION or even SIDEWAYS, but I'm glad I watched it. Not glad I listened to it, because the score was maybe almost as obnoxious as that 'cornbread and holly' tune that cycles endlessly through the original THE WICKER MAN.

Hawaiian music leavened with yodeling is maybe my new concept for music to not get stuck in an elevator with for eternity.

Before the Devil Knows You're Dead (2007, dir. Sidney Lumet)

A really well-made film, with good acting (even PSH is decent, but Hawke is more convincing), old-school filmmaking with focus on realistic psychology, the switching between characters in (re)-telling the events from differing POVs works fairly well. A very dramatic family story, even if some minor elements may not work perfectly.

Doctor in Distress

unlike Doctor in the House (1954), the film lacks a certain charm or much at all. Inheriting much of the stuff that Carry On had turned into. Meanders aimlessly with little point or plot. Bogarde surely must've been embarrassed at some point, looking as he does older and faintly bemused in the film. Donald Huston doing it for the cash, making an arse of himself and only James Robertson Justice seems to be on some kind of form. Barbara Murray striking. Kenny More nowhere to be seen, odd as surely he needed the cash.

Python wrote:

The Birds (1963)

Watched it on the big screen. Best thing about the whole experience was how crowded it was and that NOBODY in the audience was snickering or all that bullshit (like in that article Tux posted about today's audiences' attitudes towards old film). It would have been better if they used film projection but seeing it on a big screen in a crowded room makes up for it. It was truly fantastic to see a Hitchcock film, and from his prime years. I really hope I see another film of his like this again, preferably with a Bernard Herrmann score booming on the speakers.

I saw VERTIGO back in the 90's. Quite an experience.



And in that theater.

Watched ED WOOD. Quite enjoy it, one of my favorite biopics. I enjoy the spirit of the film, and the sorta campy acting. Landau utterly steals the whole show, though. I kept rewinding (or rescanning...?) many of his lines two or three times.

I may be writing an Ed Wood play for a theater here in town, or working with someone on it. They might want to me play Ed Wood, but I'm not physically right for it. But I watched this (I certainly won't imitate Depp at the audition tomorrow, though I don't know what they'll have actors read anyway as the show isn't written), and I reread Nightmare of Ecstasy, along with looking at some docs again. These are both really good. HAUNTED WORLD has some very strange peeps in it. I've got them on DVD, so I don't have to deal with Hulu ads.



http://www.hulu.com/watch/85365

I actually checked out PLAN 9 in widescreen, as the DVD is open matte and it was framed for wide as far as I know. It looks pretty obvious when I zoom in on my TV. The movie looks better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8i9QqlM5TeA#t=3m9s

As far as I'm concerned it's probably the best thing Burton ever did.

Pink Floyd's The Wall, (1982) directed by Alan Parker

The movie has great visuals. Being as it's an '80s film it also has the obligatory boobie shots. Best part of course is the music. Crank it up on a good sound system.

Great extras. Roger Waters, the Director, and the animator, Gerald Scarfe, fought like dogs during the shoot. All three were too accustomed to being alpha in their respective domains. By all accounts shooting the movie was a miserable experience for the three of them, but years later, Parker and the animator look back fondly on the finished project. Waters not so much though. That was revealing. Waters I guess is still trying to get The Wall show right. The Waters/Wall 30th anniversary tour has been going full steam for about 3 years now.



Parker reveals that shooting the fascist rally scene was a tad scary, because they recruited real skinheads to populate the scene. Problem was the skinheads got a little too engaged in the scene, especially when they got to trash cars and terroize people.

More from Waters current Wall tour. This would be worth seeing. Hope he makes a blu-ray with top sound.

THE MASTER (2012, dir. Paul Thomas Anderson)

I left the theater feeling somewhat dazed, since the film threw so much at me. It's not an easy film to digest. Here are a few thoughts:

The film is not really Anderson's take-down of Scientology or cults. Insofar as it says anything about Scientology, it depicts it as false and manipulative, but not entirely without merit. (The ending scene powerfully puts a punctuation point on the notion that the Cause has helped Joaquin Phoenix's character.)

Anderson's films are more about relationships than ideas. This is no different. This is about a love story between two men, which their final scene together makes explicit.

Indeed, THE MASTER replays a number of features of THERE WILL BE BLOOD, and may be a sort of "answer" to it. THERE WILL BE BLOOD was one man's descent into inhumanity, gradually becoming more and more like an ape until, in the final scene, he recreates the ape-shattering-the-skull-with-the-bone moment from 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, suggesting devolution. THE MASTER allows an animalistic man to come back into his humanity.

There is a section of the film where THE MASTER seems to meander. I'm not sure if I just wasn't getting its significance, how it was supposed to fit with its surroundings. Thankfully, the ending pulled most of the film together for me.

The film is powered by its performances. There are plenty of remarkable directorial flourishes throughout the film--Anderson does very well with an early sequence set in a department store--but THE MASTER does not have a lot of the Big, In-Your-Face Moments that Anderson has often gone after in his work (no rain of frogs or "I drink your milkshake!" here). Thankfully, the actors are more than capable of carrying the picture, and Phoenix and Hoffman deliver career-best performances.

Oh, Jonny Greenwood's score is amazing. The bits that have been used in trailers and clips don't accurately represent the whole of it.

THE CABIN IN THE WOODS

Normally I skip "horror" movies because they're bloody, gory, violent, and stupid, but I chose this film because I read reviews that said it was original, smart, and sophisticated. It was all of the former and none of the latter. Though there were a few tense and scary moments, the movie is nowhere near as interesting or inventive as reviewers had led us to believe. I don't see this film as being worth anyone's time. Not even as clever as the original SCREAM.

Harmsway wrote:

THE MASTER (2012, dir. Paul Thomas Anderson)

I left the theater feeling somewhat dazed, since the film threw so much at me. It's not an easy film to digest. Here are a few thoughts:

The film is not really Anderson's take-down of Scientology or cults. Insofar as it says anything about Scientology, it depicts it as false and manipulative, but not entirely without merit. (The ending scene powerfully puts a punctuation point on the notion that the Cause has helped Joaquin Phoenix's character.)

Anderson's films are more about relationships than ideas. This is no different. This is about a love story between two men, which their final scene together makes explicit.

Indeed, THE MASTER replays a number of features of THERE WILL BE BLOOD, and may be a sort of "answer" to it. THERE WILL BE BLOOD was one man's descent into inhumanity, gradually becoming more and more like an ape until, in the final scene, he recreates the ape-shattering-the-skull-with-the-bone moment from 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, suggesting devolution. THE MASTER allows an animalistic man to come back into his humanity.

There is a section of the film where THE MASTER seems to meander. I'm not sure if I just wasn't getting its significance, how it was supposed to fit with its surroundings. Thankfully, the ending pulled most of the film together for me.

The film is powered by its performances. There are plenty of remarkable directorial flourishes throughout the film--Anderson does very well with an early sequence set in a department store--but THE MASTER does not have a lot of the Big, In-Your-Face Moments that Anderson has often gone after in his work (no rain of frogs or "I drink your milkshake!" here). Thankfully, the actors are more than capable of carrying the picture, and Phoenix and Hoffman deliver career-best performances.

Oh, Jonny Greenwood's score is amazing. The bits that have been used in trailers and clips don't accurately represent the whole of it.

I guess it's too soon to ask you this, but how would you rank THE MASTER in the Anderson canon? I'm inferring that you'd cite it - for now - as his best work after THERE WILL BE BLOOD.

Do you plan on seeing it a second time on the big screen, or will you wait for Blu-ray?

I guess that, more so than with most directors, Anderson's films require two or three viewings to start coming to terms with and even then defy a "definitive" appraisal.

I may see it this week.

Loomis wrote:

I guess it's too soon to ask you this, but how would you rank THE MASTER in the Anderson canon? I'm inferring that you'd cite it - for now - as his best work after THERE WILL BE BLOOD.

Yeah, that's kinda my gut-level opinion at this stage in the game, though I do think THE MASTER will have to stew for a bit, and my opinion will evolve throughout future viewings. (FWIW, my wife actually thinks THE MASTER is better than THERE WILL BE BLOOD.) Even when THE MASTER doesn't quite work, it's pretty damn fascinating.

Loomis wrote:

Do you plan on seeing it a second time on the big screen, or will you wait for Blu-ray?

If I can see it in 70mm, I'll see it in theaters again. Otherwise I'll probably wait for the Blu-Ray, just because going to the movies is expensive, and I'll probably put that cash toward one of the many other films I'm looking to see this year.

Loomis wrote:

I guess that, more so than with most directors, Anderson's films require two or three viewings to start coming to terms with and even then defy a "definitive" appraisal.

It's probably true of THE MASTER more than any of other Anderson's previous films. THE MASTER seems to be pretty divisive; people have told me that they actually think it's his weakest film to date.

Harmsway wrote:

Thankfully, the ending pulled most of the film together for me.

That's a comment I would make of my experience with THERE WILL BE BLOOD. I love that movie, but I feel like the ending is what justifys most of it. Oddly, I've heard people who hate the ending, calling it over-the-top or out of step with the rest of the film. They're so in love with the silent elegaic quality of the majority of it that I suppose the explosion of dialogue, plot and human emotion in the last few minutes seems at odds. But for me it's a movie that wouldn't work without that ending and just as much an ending that wouldn't work if you hadn't had to experience the whole movie that leads up to it.

The High and the Mighty (1954)

I was bored outta my mind, but it's well-crafted and I'm sure it was riveting in it's time. Needed Patroni. And it needed to be about an hour shorter.

The DVD has an intro by that kissass Leonard Maltin talking about how great the movie is. :roll:

Well, I like Maltin okay, but he can be a real kissass. That's probably why he shows up on so many DVDs.

Maltin knows f all about good cinema.