[demonrail666]

 

Eyes Wide Shut 6/10

I know this has already been done to death in this thread but I watched it again this morning and came to the conclusion that if it'd been directed by Cronenberg instead of Kubrick and had James Spader played the lead instead of Cruise it could've been a masterpiece.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by atsonicpark

DEMONRAIL, yes! Love Antonioni so much. I am a huge fan of his films. I still am not into Zabriskie Point but all the rest -- all the rest -- are my favorite films of all time. Even his short in Eros, as silly and misguided as it is.

Yeah, he's on a different level to most of the rest. I've not seen everything, but I've loved almost everything that I have. I even have a soft spot for Zabriskie Point, although I can see why so many people don't like it.

[atsonicpark]

I actually first became interested in Antonioni because of Zabriskie Point, to hear the rare unreleased Fahey song (which doesn't really sound like most of his songs -- except his "John Fahey Trio" live recording album, ironically perhaps his last album... so far). He met Antonioni and punched him. He had watched an early cut of Zabriskie Point and thought it was horrible. His retelling of this story forced Jim O'Rourke -- also not a fan of Zabriskie Point -- to force Fahey to write a novel.

So, naturally, I checked out Zabriskie Point a few Christmases back and was disappointed in it aside from a scene here or there. Some of the music was cool. Soon after, I saw Red Desert which honestly seemed exactly like Zabriskie Point but really really really fucking good instead of bad. The use of color, the non-actors acting and the actors non-acting, the disenchanted and somewhat cold style of directing/editing/writing/speaking, the music, etc... then I watched Red Desert again. And again. And again. I became pretty obsessed with that film before moving on to films like Blow-Up (I'll never forget the story about how there is one line that completely sums up Blow-Up, that completely fills in the blanks to make the audience go "OH!!!!!!!!!"... so, Antonioni cut it out), Identification of a Woman (my favorite film by Antonioni besides Red Desert -- why so underrated?!), The Passenger (that fucking tracking shot at the end? Best scene ever filmed? It's up there with some of the scenes in Mirror, Stalker, Satantango, and some of Kiezslowski/Godard/Fassbinder/Jost/Kitano's stuff, I think), and his trilogy (La Notte being my personal favorite; did you know there's a subtitle at the end of LIFE OF BRAIN telling you to go see LA NOTTE?!).

It's hard to describe what makes his films so fucking fascinating. They just have an atmosphere that you can't get anywhere else. I just watch his films and am instantly taken somewhere else. But, by somewher else, it's not in the Tarkovsky or Bergman or Herzog sense. This "somewhere else" is eerily familiar. He's a very cold director most of the time, kinda like Fassbinder in that sense, though way more apt to deal with alienation and isolation head-on (Fassbinder's characters seemed to keep a lot of their feelings inside so that you never knew their true motives).

ONE OF THE BEST DIRECTORS EVER.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by atsonicpark

It's hard to describe what makes his films so fucking fascinating. They just have an atmosphere that you can't get anywhere else. I just watch his films and am instantly taken somewhere else. But, by somewher else, it's not in the Tarkovsky or Bergman or Herzog sense. This "somewhere else" is eerily familiar. He's a very cold director most of the time, kinda like Fassbinder in that sense, though way more apt to deal with alienation and isolation head-on (Fassbinder's characters seemed to keep a lot of their feelings inside so that you never knew their true motives).

He is cold but for some reason i never feel remotely depressed when watching his films. Same with Tarkovsky and Bergman - well, sometimes Bergman. Even at his bleakest, there's usually atleast some hope in an Antonioni film (the beach scene in Red Desert, Monica Vitti's dance in L'Eclisse, the final scene in L'Avventura). Fassbinder seemed far too cynical for all that, reflecting a very different era.

[atsonicpark]

Very true... I think Antonioni usually does have a bit of light in his films, but some of them end on a very sour note. I always thought BLOW-UP ended on a very strange and somewhat bleak note -- very unsettling, especially for the time period, and was always interested in why that film was so damn popular (don't get me wrong, I love it, it's one of the best films ever, but it doesn't seem like the kind of movie most audiences would want to watch over and over again, despite being a mainstream success).

[demonrail666]

On a bit of a marathon today...

 

Scarface. 7/10

Probably my favourite DePalma film, if only because it's the one where he spends the least time paying tribute to other people's movies. It's ironic that it took a remake for him to make his most purely DePalma-like film.

 

A Nightmare on Elm Street (Remake) (6/10)

Not that bad and definitely a lot better than it could have been. It was a good idea to play up the genuine scares. One of the things I never liked about the original was that in making Freddy so charismatic it sort of blunted the horror element, making him more like a Marvel villian than a child killer. The remake plays it far straighter so, while I ultimately prefer the original (just), I do think this version works fine in its own right and perhaps even better than the original as a pure horror film.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by atsonicpark

Very true... I think Antonioni usually does have a bit of light in his films, but some of them end on a very sour note. I always thought BLOW-UP ended on a very strange and somewhat bleak note -- very unsettling, especially for the time period, and was always interested in why that film was so damn popular (don't get me wrong, I love it, it's one of the best films ever, but it doesn't seem like the kind of movie most audiences would want to watch over and over again, despite being a mainstream success).

Yeah, I've always seen the ending of Blow Up as being very bleak. I remember GMKU writing a good interpretation of it a while back but I can't recall what it was. But yeah, Blow Up is the one I probably like the least. Antonioni seemed to have trouble grafting the style and ideas he'd developed in Italy onto films he made outside. They become merely clever. It's similar to what happened to Tarkovsky when he started making films in Sweden and Italy.

Regarding Blow Up's commercfial success, i know a few people who were part of the 'scene' that Antonioni was trying to capture and they were less than impressed with the result. The general word seems to be that Antonioni's London was very much an outsider's 'idea' of what was going on, compared with Performance, which many of the same people feel was a far 'truer' more authentic account. Not that Antonioni was ever interested in giving an authentic account of mid 60s London to begin with.

[atsonicpark]

Goddamn I love Scarface. Such a brilliant movie. I read your first sentence, though, and was thinking, 'But the whole film IS a tribute, in a way -- it's a remake!' Then you addressed the point later. I am surprised you don't love DePalma more -- I've always looked at him as a master director. In a way, he was continuing the direction Hitchcock was going in at the end of his career (Frenzy and stuff). DePalma is a genius, though, though he needs to pick better scripts (WHAT THE FUCK WAS THE BLACK DAHLIA?!) or just write the scripts himself. Strange we mentioned Blow Up since DePalma's Blow Out is a tribute/homage/almost-remake-of-one-of-the-key-plot-points. I actually am going to give Blow Out to a dude at work. It's in my top 10 movies ever, and the Criterion re-release is coming soon and I'm pre-ordering it.

But yeah, Scarface rules so much, it really makes me want to go to Florida and party. I love Florida. THat scene in the apartment is so amazing (the chainsaw, the camera "flying" down from the window, in a last-scene-from-Passenger-by-Antonioni kinda way now that I think about it, as it goes THROUGH the window and shit, and then goes all the way down to the car and all the way back up. Then at the climax of that scene? With the gun violence on the street? Genius. It's an epic that never gets old, no scene could be excised, not a moment is wasted, despite the movie moving really really fast. I think it's the best 3 hour crime epic ever, though Casino and Heat give it a run for its money.

As far as DePalma goes, Femme Fatale is also amazing (what an adventurous, daring little film! It REALLY alienated audiences but it's not DePalma's fault he makes filsm you have to pay attention to!), Murder A La Mod, Greetings, Hi Mom (a 9/10 definitely. It has that gritty "New York atmosphere", and the movie COMPLETELY changes in probably the most radical and insane "fuck-you-to-the-audience" I've ever seen, almost in a disturbing way. I'm not going to ruin it for those who haven't seen it, but the film just suddenly, out of nowhere, changes to a completely different film, a completely different style with different characters. It's daring as hell, and arguably "pretentious", and DEFINITELY shocking. The film had been somewhat light, maybe even comedic in parts up to that point, but the film gets dead-serious and fucking nuts after this part, filmed in gritty black and white that inspired NO REASON TO EXIST. This is one of the most underrated films ever), Sisters, Phantom of the Paradise (god I love this movie), Obsession (I remmeber buying this on dvd for $4 brand new and selling it for about $47 on ebay a few years back. One of my greatest buy-a-used-movie-and-sell-it-for-profit stories! Still, great film with a GREAT Bernard Hermann score, though it looks and feels a LOT like Vertigo for comfort, doesn't it?), Body Double (maybe his most sleazy and fun film, but filmed with SO MANY mindblowing scenes that it's ridiculous; how can DePalma put trash next to treasure so effortlessly?), Home Movies, The Fury, Dressed to Kill (elevator scene is one of the best shock scenes ever, if not the best. Talk about a murder coming out of nowhere. Also, the Nancy Allen scene with the psychiatrist at the end is insane. Robocop's partner is steppin' out. "Do you want to have sexual intercourse wiith me?" Psychiatrist: "Yes." Just the exchange in that scene is fucking hilarious. And Argento ripped off scenes from it for Tenebre)... I thought Raising Cain was a mess, and it was embarassing to watch at times, but there is a tracking shot in it that is one of the best of all time, and Lithgow's multiple performances (he plays like 10 characters) were amazing. I think Mission: Impossible is a really fun and perhaps amazing film, and I don't like Tom Cruise. Also, I actually love Wise Guys and Casualties of War, and feel that Snake Eyes could have been a masterpiece if the ending was cleaned up -- it just kinda, uh, ends, in a really sour and weird way. But that's another one of DePalma's films that has one of the most mindblowing long-ass-takes ever -- that opening 12 minutes or so, which all appears to be one take (it's like 6 takes done in a Rope style, where the cuts would appear in a shadow or as a tv monitor is switched on or something). And then he made some other films I like too. But I think Carlito's Way is kinda boring.

ANYWAY...

http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplayli...e_turin_horse/ ..... NEW BELA TARR FILM! For those who don't know, Bela Tarr is one of the best directors of our time, our generation's Tarkovsky (Mirror, Stalker, Nostalgia, etc). If you haven't seen SATANTANGO, set aside 7 1/2 hours (seriously) and prepare to have your mind blown....

Also, anyone heard of Park Chan Wook's new short (30 minutes) film, shot on 8 Iphones? He's getting a lot of publicity, telling directors to "just do it, just make a film" and basically saying that no budget filmmaking is where the future is at. Couldn't agree more. I've been saying this forever -- Giuseppe Andrews was making genius no-budget films for 13 years before he just, well, stopped.

It's so fucking badass to see a popular mainstream director (actually, surprisingly perhaps, he's the most successful director of all time in South Korea; the somewhat lousy JOINT SECURITY AREA made more money than any movie EVER there, or something ridiculous like that, last I checked) embaracing no-budget filmmaking. Seriously -- yeah, yeah, directors like Packard, Trent Harris, that one old geezer Lynch, Jost and, uh, Korine, have all embaraced digital/no budget filmmaking but they've always been on the fringe of indie film culture anyway. When you see directors who have "filmed on film" (still, very important to people who think aesthetics are more important than content; "wow, this album sucks but the album is packaged in a bag of blood panties! GENIUS! GONNA BUY A THOUSAND COPIES!" Good frames don't save bad paintings, asshole!) suddenly saying, "fuck it, let's do this shit digital"... that makes me very very happy.

[atsonicpark]

Also, I really enjoyed the NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET remake, to be honest, it was fun. It was ridiculous, and downright stupid at times (why was Freddy's claws knocking over pharmacy bottles in the "dream world"? Were all the pills asleep? Freddy can't manipulate anything in the real world except in the person who was dreaming. Also, didn't he kill a dog? So, was the dog dreaming? If two people -- or an animal and a person in this case -- sleep/dream at the same time, can Freddy combine the dreamland somehow and kill a dog in one to freak out the other dreamer?). There was a whole huge list of things like this, and the silly shock ending was retarded. But yeah, it was a fun film, probably the best Nightmare on Elm Street ever, aside from 1, 3, and New Nightmare. It was fun to watch, kill after kill, and people were getting offed I wasn't expecting. As a remake, it was FAR more ENTERTAINING than Friday the 13th's remake, which felt like a boring version of the first 4 films. Don't get me wrong, this remake was really bad, but the blood floors, the kid standing in his thong while in post-apocalyptic Nazi germany or something (what a weird set) while the kids set "KREUGER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" on fire was one of the most hilarious/ridiculous scenes ever. That kid alone was such a pud. I like how he's the "dark, sensitive, loner" kid so he just has to have a Joy Division shirt... Also, why didn't these kids just do meth? ... aNYWAY, I loved the scene wtih the blood floors. As a whole, this film wasn't even as ridiculous as Freddy vs. Jason (pinball sounds? Elbow drops? "FIRE KILLS FREDDY! WATER KILLS JASON! IT HAS TO MEAN SOMETHING!"). But for 74 minutes, it entertained me. What was the deal with Freddy, though? I can't remember since it's been about 9 months since I saw it, and can't recall the original... in the original, he was a child killer, right? And in the new one, he's a child MOLESTOR? I think that's right. Why, exactly, do you think they felt the need to change this? I read somewhere that a child molestor wouldn't be as "bad" as a child killer, that it wouldn't disturb audiences as much. Somehow I tend to disagree. It made the movie a helluva lot creepier, and not in a good way... Still, it was a fun time, and Freddy did the "claw flip" thing (when he moves his hands and all the claws protrude, kinda like how Wolverine does in X-Men and almost like how Dirty Harry sexily removes his .44 magnum...) about 5,000,000 times which was so stupid that I was delighted. Me and my girlfriend laughed through the whole film -- truely one of the funniest films I've seen in theatres. I really hope no one takes these remakes seriously.

But, hey, everyone, go see SANTANGO.

 

 

 

It's 7 1/2 hours long, but you will never forget this experience. I've seen it 3 times now. Maybe it could've been cut down a wee bit -- it did feel a bit long, unlike, say, Eureka (3 hours and 44 minutes) and Out1 (12 hours of some of the most insane stuff you'll ever see. It's almost like they knew people wouldn't be watching this film so they just filled it, after a certain point, with so much insanity. But you also get a lot of REALITY. Seeing Jean Pierre Laude how he really is, is nuts). But it's not as bad as Berlin Alexerplatz (15 hours, and a LOT could've been cut out of that beast). Just be carful about the cat scene. A little girls rolls around with a cat and apparently poisons in. It's supposedly just drinking some kind of milk with melatonin in it (and apparently Tarr took the cat home afterwards and it was his pet), and it just fals asleep. But damn, uh, it got limp. It was probably the most disturbing scene I've ever seen in a film, next to the ending of Exhausted when the Korean hooker gives birth to an dead fetus...

10/10 film.

[jon boy]

 

thought it was excellent. worth watching for sure.

[TheDom]

Originally Posted by atsonicpark

Type Godard into the search and read the last page, I reviewed his top 15 best films.

Start with PIERROT LE FOU or WEEK END. I did, and it's the best.

I would definitely rank BREATHLESS amongst his lesser works. LE PETIT SOLDAT, though, is brilliant; all the things one would love about BREATHLESS but way darker and more interesting. THat's a good palce to start. Start anywhere aside from DETECTIVE and LES CARABINERS and you'll be fine, honestly.

thank you thank you thank you

I actually started with Breathless because it was watch instantly on netflix & after reading other comments I figured it was the best place to start. Going to pick out another one right now & I'm pretty excited because if what you say is true I'm about to have my mind blown.

[alteredcourse]

Dead Ringers is actually really fucking awesome.

 

 

It's just good.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by atsonicpark

I am surprised you don't love DePalma more -- I've always looked at him as a master director.

I'm definitely beginning to think he's one of the most interesting of that whole movie brat generation. I've not seen everything by him but I suppose whatever problems I may have had might just've come down to me deciding quite early on, for reasons I can't even remember anymore, that I'm not a big fan - based, I don't doubt, simply on my not liking The Untouchables.

And yes, the chainsaw scene in the hotel is brilliant. I was trying to work out if he'd taken the mobile camera thing from Argento or Hitchcock. It's obviously Hitchcock but it looks more like a homage to Argento. Although the fact so much of that scene takes place in a shower obviously gives part of the game away, atleast.

And Scarface is probably the last time that Pacino got away with acting like a coke fuelled egomaniac - probably because he was playing a coke fuelled egomaniac.

NEW BELA TARR FILM! For those who don't know, Bela Tarr is one of the best directors of our time, our generation's Tarkovsky (Mirror, Stalker, Nostalgia, etc).

I've not seen the new one yet but I saw The Man from London recently and was really impressed.

[demonrail666]

 

The Consequences of Love (7/10)

Excellent film. The first that I've seen by Paolo Sorrentino. Looking forward to seeing the rest.

[atsonicpark]

demon, argento seemed to take it from depalma, really. Tenebre came after scarface, and had that "camera moving around house" thing (which was first used to much better effect in DePalma's 1973 classic "sisters"). BUT later DePalma stole the "guy right behind other person" shock thing from the end of Tenebre with Lithgow in the woods at the end of Raising Cain. I love love love Blow Out. only thing I like Travolta in. He adds a real personality and great sadness to the rule. Strange.

Seriously though, Demon, ignore his mainstream films like Untouchables and just focus on his odd, idiosynchratic, and often brilliant thrillers like DRESSED TO KILL, the usual "Mmmm-Godard" type film MURDER A LA MOD (I think a lot of directors have that "Godard film", like Jost had ANGEL CITY, Scorsese had WHOSE THAT KNOCKING ON MY DOOR, films that really referenced the French New Wave -- gotta love the TAXI DRIVER "staring into the sizzling Alkatrez in water" scene, which is exactly like 2 OR 3 THINGS I KNOW ABOUT HER's "staring into the sugar cubed coffee cup" scene. Hah!

Re: Pacino.. he does act like a fucking nutcase a lot, doesn't he? Serpico.. Panic at Needle Park is fairly restrained for him (meaning: scenery-chewing insaniac! .. but you know .. with a quiet side!)... etc. You know my favorite AL Pacino performance, though? Lumet's CLASSIC..

 

Hey everyone, DOG DAY AFTERNOON has recently joined DEERHUNTER as "fucking AMAZING movies you can get at Wal-Mart on DVD for $5, so they're probably at Big Lots brand new for a penny or something." Seriously, pick these fucking movies up. While you're there, why not get the Dirty Hary collection...

 

really, you can't go wrong with this set. I think the dvd's are $18, blu ray is.. I dunno. What's a blu-ray? "WHOA. HIS GUN IS SLIGHTLY SHINIER THAN IN THE DVD. I AM SURE GLAD I BOUGHT A $900 PLAYER AND PAID TWICE AS MUCH FOR A DISC. A-MA-ZING!" Hmm. Isn't DVD kinda like "perfect qualitY"? Wasn't that, like, the point?

ANYWAY...

DOM: You're on netflix eh? My name on there is adumbsfriend. Yes, I'm adumb himself, but I've written some shitty stuff and certain directors read the comments so I'd rather be his friends on there. Haha. Anyway, best way to find me is to go to the Bride of Frank page and I should be the top review. Is CORN DOG MAN still instant watch? How about TOUCH ME IN THE MORNING? Go watch those.

BTW, there's a DVD set with LES CARABINERS, BREATHLESS, LE PETIT SOLDAT, and NOTRE MUSIQUE I got at Big Lots for -- you guessed it -- $5. Great motherfucking set. Even if you can't find it that cheap, I bet it's on amazon for $10 or $15. It's worth it. Totally fucking worth it. If you dig NOTRE MUSIQUE in particular, you should get the Anchor Bay set with OH WOE IS ME, DETECTIVE, PASSION, and FIRST NAME CARMEN -- 3 of those films would be in my Godard top 10, in retrospect, so obviously, paying the $24 asking price is worth it.

Godard is someone who I have the highest respect for, who I have immersed myself in complete. He is the god of cinema. He broke all the rules, he rebuilt film from the ground up withhis new rules. I HIGHLY reccomen the book EVERYTHING IS CINEMA. It's one of the best, if not THE best, biographies I've ever read; despite neglecting to talk about his short film Aria (....?), it extensively covers every single thing he's ever done, if he's FARTED on a film it covers it. Thing is scary-deep going into his working methods and just.. man I dunno. Thing is awesome!

Godard's pretty easily my favorite director, with only Jost and Kitano even coming close to matching his level of genius. Even his "lighter" films -- WOMAN IS A WOMAN for example -- have a quiet, subtle darkness to them. He's a very depressed, depressing director; and his films only became grouchier and bitter as time went on. I like that.

I've written extensively about the man before. Feel free to ask me anything THE DOM. But yeah -- PIERROT LE FOU has gotta be his best, a great mix of some of his later stuff and a perfect encapsulation of his early stuff too. Just, uh, a perfect film.

ALTERCOURSE:

Thanks, that reminds me. I got burnt out on Cronenberg a while back and I never got around to replacing DEAD RINGERS or CRASH -- I did replace DEAD ZONE and VIDEODROME and that's it. I had DEAD RINGERS on an awesome VHS, got from a yard sale from a really old couple for 50 cents, it was a special collector's edition VHS even from Anchor Bay, GREAT quality.. yeah, one sad fucking film. Based on the book TWINS which I read and is sadder.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by atsonicpark

demon, argento seemed to take it from depalma, really. Tenebre came after scarface, and had that "camera moving around house" thing (which was first used to much better effect in DePalma's 1973 classic "sisters"). BUT later DePalma stole the "guy right behind other person" shock thing from the end of Tenebre with Lithgow in the woods at the end of Raising Cain.

That's really interesting, especially with regards the whole 'killer standing directly behind the victim', thing. It's really difficult working out who took what from whom.

[atsonicpark]

Well, I am not so well versed in Hitchcock, both are clearly HUGELY inspired by him, so maybe they stole from the 'Cock.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by atsonicpark

You know my favorite AL Pacino performance, though? Lumet's CLASSIC..

That's one of my favourite movies ever but, while I agree that Pacino is great in it, it's John Cazale who gets the acting plaudits from me. As for my favourite Pacino performance, I still don't think he was ever better than in the first two Godfather films. He never loses his cool, doing very little but being utterly convincing in the process. His growth as a character over those two films is epic but never over the top. A very un-Pacino-like performance and probably better for it.

[sonic sphere]

 

[diamondsea]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

 

The Consequences of Love (7/10)

Excellent film. The first that I've seen by Paolo Sorrentino. Looking forward to seeing the rest.

You can try Il Divo or, talkin' about Rome, Antonioni's L'eclisse.
Best italian movie ever from the best italian director ever.