Last Movie you Watched?

Peeping Tom

Fine and believable study of a hurt soul. Well photographed, Böhm gives a wonderfully natural performance as the deranged main character. Only the slapstick scene with the psychiatrist is out of place in the pleasantly presented serious subject matter. It's funny, but it does not fit.


Touch of Evil

Terrific film. Cinematography and editing are a marvel, the story is great, as is Welles as Quinlan.

Manhunter wrote:

Peeping Tom

Fine and believable study of a hurt soul.

Many have interpreted it as a critique of Hitchcock's voyeurism (particularly PSYCHO). What do you make of that?

Considering Peeping Tom is such an intelligent and insightful study, I doubt one of its main objectives was to be a critique of Hitchcock's supposed voyeurism. By that I mean its material is so important in itself, such a critique, if it was the initial idea to make this film, to me does not appear to be sufficient to bring about such a thorough work (although it is not unthinkable). Also, I just read that Hitchcock and Powell were friends throughout their careers, I rather think that watching - and working on! - Hitchcock's films inspired Powell to some ideas in Peeping Tom. What's more, Psycho was released three months after Peeping Tom, so the latter cannot possibly be a comment on that film.

Manhunter wrote:

What's more, Psycho was released three months after Peeping Tom, so the latter cannot possibly be a comment on that film.

Then they're a bunch of idiots.

After The Lady, my second TIFF viewing was a Russian-American film, Generation P. It's based on a cult 1990s novel, in whose title the "P" stands for Pepsi, but the film's director revealed to the audience that it really stands for "pizdets" - probably the most important Russian word, derived from "pizda" (pussy) and used when all is f.u.b.a.r. Essentially, the title refers to the generation of Russians who grew up as kids in the old USSR, but once it all fell apart they morphed into drug-abusing, hipster-nihilist mercantilist bitches of the highest order.

The story takes the hero from working and living in a kiosk to being an advertising genius to a virtual god. The visuals are often Gilliam-esque, relating to Brazil and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, but the humour and spirit of the film are still ultimately very Russian. It was probably the most fun cinema experience I've ever had. The English subtitles for the festival crowd were often hilariously inaccurate, as there sometimes simply is no way to properly translate such material.

Here's a subtitled trailer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZGtd6MnTto

Harmsway wrote:

Mr. Brown wrote:

Does the violence actually work with the film, or is it there to please kids who get boners from watching people getting their skulls caved in for no reason?

I don't know how to answer this question. If you're asking, "Does the violence feel somehow out of place in the film?" I'd have to say, "No, it doesn't." But it's nevertheless so extreme that I feel as though I should have had some problem with it, even though it didn't ruin the viewing experience for me.

I'm intrigued by the idea that the violence is "extreme" - not because I like me my gore and it makes me want to see the film even more, but because I'm curious as to how shocking it can possibly be. I mean, you've seen many violent films, right, Harms? How is DRIVE any different to, say, HEAT or RAMBO or Tarantino or whatever?

On a vaguely related note, I wonder whether you've seen THE TOWN and if so what you thought of it.

I think PEEPING TOM fits nicely with REAR WINDOW, VERTIGO, and PSYCHO, but I wouldn't call it a critique of Hitch's voyeurism. I think it can viewed as such after the fact. It's more about voyeurism in general.

The slapstick scene is fine to me. I don't think it's at all out of place.

One of my favorite scenes from the film is when Mark is in the store and the respectable old man is buying porn.

Loomis wrote:

I'm intrigued by the idea that the violence is "extreme" - not because I like me my gore and it makes me want to see the film even more, but because I'm curious as to how shocking it can possibly be. I mean, you've seen many violent films, right, Harms? How is DRIVE any different to, say, HEAT or RAMBO or Tarantino or whatever?

I wouldn't say the violence is "shocking," per se. I just wasn't prepared for how violent DRIVE actually was, so when the violence came, I was somewhat shocked (especially since the film isn't particularly violent until halfway through, when the film kind of erupts into a series of bloody confrontations). It seemed to take the audience I was with by surprise, too.

It's more extreme than HEAT. It's not necessarily more extreme than RAMBO or Tarantino at his worst. There are differences, though. The violence in RAMBO had a numbing effect, just because there was so much of it, and it was all so ludicrous. In DRIVE, the violence comes in quick, punctuated bursts. And while Tarantino is generally a bit more sadistic with his violence than you get here--you don't feel the stuff in DRIVE, per se, at least not the way you often feel some of the stuff Tarantino puts out there--but his stuff also seems more blatantly fake than what you get here.

Loomis wrote:

On a vaguely related note, I wonder whether you've seen THE TOWN and if so what you thought of it.

I didn't see it. Any good? The trailer kinda turned me off with its blue-ness.

Harmsway wrote:

Mr. Brown wrote:

Does the violence actually work with the film, or is it there to please kids who get boners from watching people getting their skulls caved in for no reason?

I don't know how to answer this question. If you're asking, "Does the violence feel somehow out of place in the film?" I'd have to say, "No, it doesn't." But it's nevertheless so extreme that I feel as though I should have had some problem with it, even though it didn't ruin the viewing experience for me.

Yeah, I suppose "out of place" would be what I was aiming at. So long as it isn't HOSTEL or Rodriguez styled crap. Either way, I look forward to checking it out.

I just got back from seeing THE FRENCH CONNECTION at the theater. It was great. I haven't seen the sequel, and I sort of want to now. Is it even close to the quality of the 1st film?


Also, if Ambler is checking in here, he might want to stop by NYC in October (presuming he's in the US at that time and his schedule allows), as Film Forum is playing OBSESSION. I don't think he's caught it on the big screen yet.

Mr. Brown wrote:

I just got back from seeing THE FRENCH CONNECTION at the theater. It was great. I haven't seen the sequel, and I sort of want to now. Is it even close to the quality of the 1st film?

It's better, in my book, though maybe that's just cos I'm a Frankenheimer fan.

I dig THE FRENCH CONNECTION II.

Harmsway wrote:

Loomis wrote:

On a vaguely related note, I wonder whether you've seen THE TOWN and if so what you thought of it.

I didn't see it. Any good? The trailer kinda turned me off with its blue-ness.

It's very much worth seeing (despite some plot implausibilities and a very "Hollywood" ending). I mean, don't get your hopes up that high - it's not nearly as good as the film to which it seems most indebted, Mann's HEAT (and I imagine it isn't as good as DRIVE, either) - but it's a very satisfying rental nonetheless. I mention it because, from what I gather about DRIVE, it strikes me as somewhat similar fare to DRIVE, i.e. a very standard B-movie story about macho working class crooks that's elevated considerably by good performances and stylish direction.

I've only seen THE TOWN in its theatrical version, but will certainly rewatch at some point it in its extended director's cut form, which is about half an hour longer and said to be a significant improvement on an already very decent film.

Oh, and I too much prefer FRENCH CONNECTION II to the first film.

Netflix says I returned TFC2 back in October 2006, so it's been a while since I've seen it. I recall it being a little flat in places. But those memories are fuzzier than Hackman's 70's stache.

Loomis wrote:

Harmsway wrote:

Loomis wrote:

On a vaguely related note, I wonder whether you've seen THE TOWN and if so what you thought of it.

I didn't see it. Any good? The trailer kinda turned me off with its blue-ness.

It's very much worth seeing

I want to see this one but can't find it where I live. Some things you have to do in England.

Thor - Occasionally fun, but mostly dull and cold. With Hollywood churning out so many comic book movies recently, it's becoming harder to sit back and just enjoy them for what they are. Thor has a lot of things going for it, namely some interesting production design and Branagh directing, but in the end it's just another factory-made movie for 12-year olds. This whole Avengers series is looking pretty uninteresting so far. Iron Man felt unique because of Downey Jr.'s charisma, but all the other entries including Thor are just pedestrian.

EL CID Anthony Mann, 1961

Wow. What an epic piece of film-making. Just the spectacle of seeing so many costumed extras on the screen at once made the entire three hours worthwhile. Factor in the extraordinary production design, the very fun fight sequences from the first hour, and a compelling plot involving high politics, invasion, and a simple romance, and you have one hell of an entertaining way to spend three hours.

Are Mann's The Fall of the Roman Empire and Quo Vadis in the same league? They're both on Blu and I fancy getting them. This Blu wasn't perfect, with really no grain visible at all, but was well worth the £6 I paid for it.

-------

https://bondandbeyond.forumotion.com/viewtopic.forum?t=795