I can�t rationally explain my admiration for John Ford/John Wayne
westerns. In this one, he actually calls James Stewart “pilgrim.”
There�s a whole lotta doing the right thing in this one. And the eating
of steak.
If presented in the proper setting it is an unequalled movie experience. There’s no other movie I know of that tackled these subjects. Part of the magic, yes, is being obscure. Every late night undergraduate argument about the meaning of this film is completely earned. I caught this tonight on TMC’s “Essentials” series, and it is well placed on that shelf. There were a few years in my life when I dismissed this movie, but I’m officially reversing myself. One basic example of how it “works” is this: I saw this very young on TV, too young to “get” in any concrete the discussion about Man and Nature and Machine and Transcendence and Blah Blah Blah, and still, although this is not a “scary movie,” the imagery and aural textures had me up, oddly terrified, for nights.
What’s Spanish for “overhyped?” Or, frankly, “gross?” I’ve had it up to here with movies that are really numerous short films smooshed together with forced coincidences to make a feature. I say “feh” to that! Of the three short films here, one is good (the model with her dog trapped under the floorboards of the apartment), one is unoriginal but well-played (the contract killer with a past), and one, the kid with the fighting-dog who loves his sister-in-law, is just awful. Not one — not ONE — of any of the characters in the entire picture is sympathetic. And it’s an ugly picture. And two-and-one-half hours. Skip it. If you want to see Latin America in violent crises see “City of God” — it has a social conscious.
An quirky-yet-somehow-boring bedroom melodrama that, in the last twenty minutes, decides to become a screwball comedy. I liked the last twenty minutes.
“West Side Story” meets Vidal Sassoon. An orgasm of technique and style and archetypes and myth. Mesmerizing at times, but it sure felt longer than 94 minutes.
Depressing. Even if it doesn’t show any background, and suggests that every Irishman is a saint, it still makes me want to kick any Limey I see in his arse. Which, I’m sure, was the idea. The performances are terrific and the mock-doc style is a perfect choice, even if it felt, at times, like I was watching the History Channel. Which, again, I’m sure, was the idea. I will officially commit myself to seeing any movie James Nesbit is in; he was terrific, and watching him realize that non-violence doesn’t work was heartbreaking. [Sidebar: Denise says that, perhaps, Nesbitt's will not ultimately lose faith in non-violence. That's what makes his performance so fascinating.]
“Elephant” is among the most riveting experiences I’ve had in a cinema this year. A whole new film grammar is created. Expectations are shot down. The Peckinpah ending is done without slo-mo, without music, without emotion. The De Palma sequence, showing one instant from multiple perspectives, is a moment devoid of drama, an imposed sprout of warmth and humanity without context in a cold, cement institution. New characters are created in the heat of the third act to subvert all of our movie notions, from surprise endings to changes-of-fate to simply the way things are supposed to go down depending on where they are placed in the frame — it’s like a horror movie where the cat doesn’t jump out at you. From a formal perspective, that’s the elephant in the living room — nothing quite feels right, yet it all looks so ordinary. The high school set is 360 degrees of boredom but the tone, one of hyper-realism, makes “Elephant” seem as if it is set on a faraway space station. “Elephant” is the movie an observant kid makes in his mind fifteen times a day during high school. Some critics condemn it for trivializing Columbine. This movie isn’t about school shootings; I fully accept the notion that the killing spree at the end is symbolic. I don’t fall for that kind of talk easy, but here it is earned. This is the movie Steven Soderbergh almost made with “Solaris,” it’s David Cronenberg’s “Stereo” with less talking. Gus Van Sant has grown into one of the finest recorders of the mundane, in that his images are never boring. I absolutely loved it and after admiring his “Gerry” from earlier this year, he has become, mid-career, one of my favorite filmmakers.
A so-so documentary about a topic that’s important to me. I found the footage and some of the interviews fun, but I don’t see this as really explaining 70s cinema to someone looking at this stuff for the first time. But, man, Julie Christie is still hot. She must have a fantastic plastic surgeon.
Okay, so I’m a geek and I like this movie. The Ents are awesome and men on horses swinging steel turns me on, kill me. There are some drawbacks to this film a little. For one, it does seem drawn about a bit, and the digital creatures, while some of the best digital creatures yet created, do sometimes look like a colorform slapped on top of a film image. My other complaint is that the movie is a giant tangent. I felt like Milhous wondering when Itchy and Scratchy were going to get to the fireworks factory; shouldn’t we all be watching Frodo get to Mount Doom? The fight for Rohan is so secondary – if Frodo fails in his mission, what does any of this matter? And, dude, what the hell is up with the Rohan King? He is the worst leader ever. Viggo Mortenson and his crew wake him up from his evil spell and he hardly thanks them, just whines about fighting to save his people and gives the team a bunch of sass. What’s Mortenson and the Dwarf and the Elf’s motivation to stay there and fight? Rohan isn’t their country. The King is a dick and it has nothing to do with their principle voyage – what they formed the Fellowship for? Do these people all have short attention spans? But this is all quibbling. I like this movie and look forward to part three.
I have a job interview in 13 hours. I’d kill to work at this company. Maybe I should go out and sacrifice someone?
Koliba’s Czech and Slovak restaurant remains my favorite in the Ditmars area. The Staropramen is poured tall, the music isn’t too loud, the waitresses all have the same blonde-and-silent look, and it’s only 3 minutes away on foot.
Ann had the kick-ass goulash (can’t go wrong) and I had some kind of smoked pork and cabbage. We both had dumplings and shared an appitizer of cold, pickeled knockwurst.
We had no dessert as we could barely move.
This was instead of seeing the documentary and discussion about Maya Deren at BAM. At least we kept it Mittel European.
Seven annoying New Yorkers throw a party and yell at each other in their best Casavettes voices. Not really original or insightful, but some really wild performances. Of note is Michael Traynor and Amy (daughter of Robert) Redford as two of the least likable characters I’ve ever seen in movie history. The great Darrill Rosen of “Ultrachrist!” fame is wonderfully funny in a role that would be played by Stanley Tucci in the Hollywood version.
The first half is wonderful fun. Then it slips into traditional sucky action movie mode. Stanley Tucci is very funny.
I was unable to stay awake during Quo Vadis. It will not count toward the 365. Which led me to realize that there still is a chief benefit in DVD over cable. . .the almighty pause button, which can be hit for 5 minutes as you take a quick doze.
See David Byrne’s photography and digital art here.
I love 60s location footage of New York City. This is a goofy, well-meaning film about a lovable dorky young man and his amorous foibles. Imagine a less-heavy version of De Palma’s “Greetings” or James Toback’s “Fingers.” Or a less funny version of Milos Forman’s “Taking Off.” There’s a really cute dog in this. And a role Celia Montomery would have played much better. Cat Stevens is to “Harold and Maude” as John Sebastian is to this film. . .which is mostly a good thing.
Here’s a good movie that really needs to be remade. Production realities of the day keep the story from really coming through, the whole man v. nature aspect of the cattle trail. Someone like Peter Weir ought to take a crack at it. Good stuff, though, even if the ending is completely asinine. To a politically active animal rights person, this movie must seem like a Holocaust film. “Good beef for hungry people. Beef to keep ‘em strong and make ‘em grow.”
