[atsonicpark]

 

 

 

10 out of 14 people found the following review useful:
No comment , 26 November 2010

 

Author: A C from IN

As a longtime Godard fan (especially his later works, like "Every Man For Himself" and "King Lear"), the wait for his latest film was excruciating; it had been 6 long years since the brilliant "Notre Musique" confounded and shocked me with its eye-popping imagery, jarring editing, and poetic dialogue. Something I've noticed about Godard is that he always strives for more and is always willing to take his ideas and methods and approach further and further. I was expecting a pure information overload with "Film Socialisme", and I was not let down. There is a lot going on in this picture, and it's going to take many, many watches for me to understand everything, to piece together all the information. No matter -- Godard's works have always been densely-layered and offer rewards for those willing to keep watching.

Such is the case here; Godard seems to be be in Histoire(s) du cinéma mode here, since this film -- for the most part -- resembles his work with that brilliant "film essay" series, as well as calling to mind films like Numero Deux and Comment Ca Va? Godard, for the first time, shot this entire film on digital, and the results are fascinating, sometimes even... funny. During one part, the crappy digital camera he had been shooting with appears to have been failing -- or at least, there was some failure when transferred to the computer for editing -- as parts skip ahead, and backwards; there are artifacts on the screen, audible and visual glitches, obscuring moments of a character's speech. This wasn't my DVD -- this was definitely part of the film. Other parts of the (early parts of) movie seem to have been filmed on really crappy webcams, then the footage was oversaturated... the results are quite jarring, especially when some of the "crap" footage is put next to some of the most beautiful digital filmography I've ever seen. There are audio messups, video glitches; recording synch sound on a boat in itself is absurd, as you mainly hear wind, people screaming in the distant, the engine of the ship; in sequences filming a party, you basically can't hear anything but fart sounds, a loud distorted booming and crashing. So, Godard seems to be using new technology against itself, in a way. He plays with jump cuts (which he popularized 50 years ago and has rarely used since), stop-motion (filming a camera being reassembled), dramatic pausing, silence, glitching, and slow motion. The first 40 minutes are all kinda like this; voices from who-knows-where delivering lines that were important to Godard, as image after image is shown in very quick bursts; some images were jaw-droppingly beautiful, some were distorted beyond comprehension -- all were striking. Godard is first and foremost an artist, and rest assured that the first 40 minutes are highly artistic. Not a dull moment in what can only be described as a postmodern documentary. Has Godard been watching the Current Channel? Has he been surfing Youtube? There definitely seems to be a lot of influence from outside sources in this part of the film, maybe even some of video art manipulating master Ryan Trecartin...

Then, the next part of the film -- a good 30-40 minutes -- is extremely "Godardian". It should be very familiar to people who have seen any of Godard's recent films. There's not a lot of image or sound manipulation here; just lots of long, quiet takes of characters discussing life... usually filmed in front of strikingly beautiful backdrops. This section calls to mind every film he's made in the last 30 years, Some people call this "alienating", but his style is so brilliantly personal, I can't help but be fascinated. The direction in this section is topnotch, of course...

...and it leads to the final 30 minutes, which is mostly a film essay, with dialogue over top of mostly stock footage (scenes from other films).

So, it's an overwhelming experience, but I never felt it was 'tiring'; I could've watched another hour or two of this stuff, definitely. Therein lies its brilliance. While, indeed, its difficult to sum up in a few words, its not difficult to understand why its so compelling; this is one giant ball of images, sounds, quotes, hitting us so fast that we can barely keep up. I'm not qualified to put forth everything this film meant to me, after just one watch, but I do know I will be watching this film 100 more times in the future, because it's just so captivating.

Forgot to mention... LOLcats are on this, as well as a lama who lives in a garage.

A truly brilliant experience that a lot of people will find "difficult" or "challenging", but to be completely honest, this is one of Godard's most easy-to-get-into films in a long time; by adopting the elliptical "youtube editing" and by going into "Sensory overload" mode (at least, for a lot of its length), Godard has actually managed to make a film that even an A.D.D.-addled teenage could probably enjoy... all the while, commenting on aspects such AS sensory overload, technology, language, and how impersonal and cold everyone in 2010 is. Characters speak but don't "converse". Talk, talk, talk... but no one listens. No one responds. In many ways, this is a style Godard has always utilized, but this is his best display of it; this might be the ultimate Godard film.

PS: I originally had a LOT more written on each section, but I had to keep removing chunks of it to get it to the 1000 word limit. I suspect anybody who tries to review this film will probably face the same challenge; there is just simply too much to say about this film. Truly the best film of the past 10 years.

[TheDom]

haha I read that on imbd and knew it was you.

it was very good but a lot of it went way over my head. it's a pretty heavy experience but all his movies are to a degree. I pretty much have to watch a film of his first for the visuals alone then try to crack his crazy codes.

i ordered the book everything is cinema. can't wait to read it I've heard great things about it.

[Rob Instigator]

I am on season three of Larry Sanders Show. Never had HBO when it was orig on

[atsonicpark]

DOM: EVERYTHING IS CINEMA is incredible. It is my favorite book of all time. I've read it.. damn.. 6 times? In a year.. just.. wow.

[atsonicpark]

 

 

 

 

My favorite kind of film right here: The truely dark, grim, bleak as hell and strange obscure weird indie film. Also see: ELEVATOR MOVIE, early John Waters (MULTIPLE MANIACS is my favorite movie by him, by far), JAMES FOTOPOLOUS' stuff (especially the masterpiece BACK AGAINST THE WALL)...

This film blew my away. As usual, cinemageddon has it,can't find it anywhere else, been looking for it for years. My saviour!

surrender dorothy = 9

[a-p a. niemi]

 

[atsonicpark]

How is... um.. I Killed Mom? Is that what it's called?

Also, does every French movie poster use that font? Heheh!

[atsonicpark]

I watched:

 

 

 

 

You know what i'VE ALWAYS found weird? How good of a director H.G. Lewis actually is. He gets lumped in with "Shit, bad horror films" but actually he has a really interesting style, beyond the usual gore (which, uh, he invented!). Watch GORE GORE GIRLS; the editing and pacing is actually brilliant...

Anyway, this was one of the only H.G. Lewis films I'd never seen -- I'm a big fan -- and I'd give it a solid EIGHT.

[Rob Instigator]

I think you'd rate a lot of movies far lower if youhad to drive somewhere, pay money, and sit through them without easily handy distractions of home.

[atsonicpark]

Huh.

I rate plenty of movies really really low. Of the 6,000+ DVD's I own, I only consider maybe 300 to be essential enough to deserve a 10. I'm pretty fair with my ratings. And I have to drive pretty far nearly every day, since I live 35 minutes from my job. Finally, I don't recall being distracted by anything easy at my home. I actually, most of the time, watch the movie. If a film bores me so much I take my attention away from it... well, that's just how it is, but I give most films a good chance (for example, if a film doesn't grab me at all and I don't think it's going to get better after an hour, I might turn it off and watch it later).

[a-p a. niemi]

Originally Posted by atsonicpark

How is... um.. I Killed Mom? Is that what it's called?

Also, does every French movie poster use that font? Heheh!

I think it's I Killed My Mother. It was fine, but I find Dolans latest film (Les Amours Imaginaires / Heartbeats) better than this one. Maybe. I'm not sure.

[Pelle]

Funny as shit!

 

[LifeDistortion]

 

[atsonicpark]

sexy beast - boring and overrated yet short and weirdly compelling [yes, I realized I called it both boring AND compelling.. you'd have to see the film to make sense of that one!]/10

[keep poppin pimples]

 

6/10

[me.]

 

[Dr. Eugene Felikson]

Originally Posted by keep poppin pimples

 

6/10

I thought Teenage Wasteland was brilliant, possibly even more entertaining than the original. The movie is absolutely bonkers from start to finish! The casting is outrageous, Herman's face alone has me in tears in nearly every scene. There are just so many classic lines, and every character is interesting. It has to be one of the funniest films I've ever seen. Plus the death scenes are ingenious, and so wild to watch! One of my favorite movies ever.

The SC rhat I've never been able to get into is part II, it just feels so lifeless to me when compared to the other 3.

[Dr. Eugene Felikson]

 

I definitely appreciated this film a lot more, now that I have seen it from the comfort of my own bed. It's a great little flick that's very reminiscent of Leone, Godard, and hell... even vaguely Katsuhito Ishii at times. The women were all lovely, the foot scene was great (Tarantino always has my back in that department), Eli Roth gave a convincing performance for a non-actor, and the gore was extremely well-executed - especially the final forehead carving, my god! A wonderful exploration in the blending of film genres, with masterful shots throughout. Oh, and Christoph Waltz, who played the "Jew Hunter" was absolutely outstanding! What an actor... I've heard he does German TV mostly? Melanie Laurent did a fabulous job as well, what a dazzling female lead.

I apologize for ragging on this one so much in the past, I think my poor theater experience may have killed it for me.

Kudos Quentin!

[atsonicpark]

[Random ass movie rant post in the style of batreleaser # 7. Just random thoughts, for fun. Not meant to be read, really.]

RONIN - david mamet dialogue is killer / 10
FUCK THE DOCUMENARY - aha.. funny as shit, genuinely / 10

..been watching the anime PANTY AND STOCKING WITH GARTER BELT
lately. download it, it's crazy as shit...

THE PSYCHIC - why do people dislike Fulci? He has made so many great films. I had never seen this one all the way through, yet it's a masterpiece / 10
point break - keanu / 10

...back to Fulci. I'll do a megapost sometime, but damn. LIZARD IN A WOMAN'S SKIN, DON'T TORTURE A DUCKLING, NEW GLADIATORS, CONQUEST, NEW YORK RIPPER, ZOMBI 2, THE BEYOND (surreal, epic, brilliant masterpiece!), GATES OF HELL, THE PSYCHIC, CAT IN THE BRAIN, NIGHTMARE CONCERT, THE TOUCH OF DEATH.... great films. I'm forgetting some. And yeah, he made some shit. MANHATTAN BABY is shit. His westerns are boring. DEMONIA has some cool gore but mostly sucks. HOUSE OF WAX is shit (strangely, this is him and Argento together or something ridiculous). ZOMBI 3 sucks... what else? Uhhh.. .I dunno. Oh, HOUSE OF CLOCKS sucks. Yeah.,, OH, I don't like HOUSE BY THE CEMETARY either, though lots of people do. That little kid's dubbing is horrid, he's like a 5 year old white kid btu his voice sounds like Morgan fucking Freeman. Boring ass film. I think they were trying to do THE SHINING or something with it, that kinda haunted ass shit, but there was no scatman.

But his good films are very fucking good. He has an atmosphere that is unreal. He gets flack "his directing sucks, WHY DOES HE ZOOM IN SO MUCH?" Well, honestly, he is not only a dvierse/creative director (though not as skilled as Argento and Bava, obviously -- who is? Not many -- especially when you consider how fast and how cheap they worked, their films sure did look amazing... but fuck it), he is a SMART director. His style is a bit "Dry", like a horror Lumet or Altman... it's not flashy, usually. But everything is staged brilliantly. I mean, I think Ed Wood is a GREAT director, as is H.G. Lewis... and they get flack, too.. but my thing is, is everything lit? Is everything in focus? Can you tell what's going on? I mean, that doesn't make you a horrible director, then. You may be UNINSPIRED, but what makes a director GREAT, to me, is when you can look at a director's film -- no matter what type of film they're making -- and within 5 minutes, tell who made it. Godard, Jost, Kitano, Cronenberg (and I think Cronenerg is a great example, when you consider how diverse his filmography is; but really, you really can tell EASTERN PROMISES and NAKED LUNCH are made by the same director, just by the editing, the atmosphere, etc... even though both films appear to be quite dissimiliar. Almost all his films are cold on the surface and are interested in sex and psychology, for lack of better words. Eh, I'll do Cronenberg some other time)... and indeed.. LEWIS, WOOD (whose Glen or Glenda is in my top 50 favorite films of all time -- and is in DAVID LYNCH'S top 10! Did you know he sampled the wind sound fx from Glen or Glenda for Eraserhead? iN FACT, he said GoG blew his mind, and it was the film that made him really decide to be a filmmaker; it gae him the courage to do Eraserhead! So, all y'all owe a big debt to Wood!), and indeed.. FULCI... Despite how fake the fx look to most people, there is something (probably the sound fx) genuinely unsetling about Fulci's imagery, in THE BEYOND. the spiders eating through the dude's face.. fuck! !!! The end, with the INSANE void.. that vaccuum of Hell ... jesus. I fucking love it man. Fuck me! Also, that empty road with the blind girl.. GATES OF HELL is in my top 3 favorite horror films ever.. the stilted, ugly spaghetti western chords in the background (with odd sound fx like a woman screaming through a flanger and a guitar practice amp or something). The zombies who appear out of thin fucking air and then disappear (obviously accomplished, for those not in the know, by having a film on a tripod.. don't move a fucking thing, and then have a character move in the shot and then move out. Then just edit so all you see is the character not there, and then the charact there. My films do it, as does FUNERAL PROCESSION OF ROSES, hah. But Fulci's use is very unsetling.. thning of characters just poppingup u of nowhere.. weird as hell)... GATES OF HEL is not even described as a zombie film. But there are zombies in it. There is also a HUGE storm of maggots. Also a big ass drill in a dude's face. Also a woman seeing a priest and vomitting her organs out. Also a priest hanging himself.... the most disturbing thing I've seen in a horror movie is probably the main character getting the back of his head/skull ripped out so his brains spill out.. that has always FUCKED with me...., Let's not forget the end, which always distubs me. a kid runs towards the main woman character (who was buried alive with a scene that looks, sounds, and feels EXACTLY like the scene in Kill Bil volume 2 -- which Tarantino later admitted WAS an homage! Nice!)... she screams, for seemingly no reason.. then, the entire picture "Cracks", like a glass breaking... very fucking crazy.. you know how there are images that stick with you forever? This movie is filled with 'em... So yeah.. PSYCHIC.. not much gore or violence for Fulci, but it's so well made... Oh fuck, that reminds me.. Pedophile child murdering priest falling to his death and hitting rocks on the way down and cracking pieces of his face off, just DESTROYING his fucking face in DON'T TORTURE A DUCKLING... that fucked with me too... LIZARD IN A WOMAN'S SKIN surreal shots, almost DAISIES like in some of its experimental editing and color filters... Man, Fulci rocks.

BANDIT A MILANO - 7/10

oh.....hey, My mom is watching Terminator 2. I bet I've seen this movie 100 times. Man. I was sitting here and I heard HALF A SECOND of the background music and I immediately said "Terminator 2!" and she said, "holy shit! How could you know that?" and I listened to it for about 3 seconds, without looking at the picture and me and Linda Hamilton both said "there are 215 bones in the human body..." haha. That's a great part. She said, "okay, don't look at the tv, just listen for a second and tell me if you know this one." She turned the channel and I heard "OH WELL. GUESS I'LL JUST HAVE TO SMOKE ALL HIS WEED MYSELF." I said, "oh, keep it here, it's Cabin Fever!" And now I'm gonna go watch Giuseppe. I remember seeing Cabin Fever in theatres and thinking it was the biggest piece of shit ever, obviously a guy with great tastes in movies, Japanese shit and Evil Dead and shit.. Gozu.. whatrever. But I like it a lot now. I also like Hostel 2 pretty good -- it's WAY better than the first one, which I think is garbage. You ever notice the end scene with the kids kicking the decapitated head around is ripped off from Miike's DEADLY OUTLAW REEKAH (great fcuking Miike film, btw... You know what's cool about it? It avoids the flaws of most of Miike's films: it's fast paced, it's inventive the ENTIRE time; not just 3 or 4 scenes that everyone talks about on msg boards, while being padded with a lot of garbage -- see ICHI, which I dont' like at all. THe only other film of his that is genuinely interesting from begining to end is IZO... Kitano, Kazuki Tomokawa, and more surreal moments than EL TOPO, which it reminds me of in parts.. EL TOPO was a surreal experimental existentialist masterpiece disguised as a western, IZO is a surreal experimental existential MINDFUCKING masterpiece)? So, yeah, Roth has excellent tastes. Roth, you know, his best thing ever is THANKSGIVING. I mean, GRINDHOUSE was a failure, pretty much in every sense of the word. Rob Zombie and... EDgar Wrigh (is that the guy who made Scott Pilgrim?).. there trailers.. and even Machete sucked. DEATH PROOF is one of the worst films ever made, if not the absolute worst. PLANET TERROR had enough good scenes for a short -- I really think the film should have been a few shorts, and some fake trailers... have William Lustig (RELENTLESS, MANIAC, MANIAC COP) involved ... you know, talented people who actually can make grindhouse films... you can stil involve TARANTINO and shit, just have people there who know what they're doing. Most importantly, don't make it 3 1/2 hours long. The thing is, Eli Roth's THANKSGIVING.. fuck, that was good. He showed a real knack, a real intelligence. I mean ,Tarantino has good tastes -- he loves CHUNGKING EXPRESS, THRILLER: A CRUEL PICTURE, FULCI, KITANO, you know.. why didn't he do something like THRILLER or something, instead of some shitty car film? As for Rodriguez, he made .. like .. a zombie film .. I know he loves John Woo. An exploitation/grindhouse film doesn't necessarily have to be a horror film, he could've made a badass balls-to-the-wall Hard Boiled tribute or something. THey should have made short fast paced films that relied on their strengths. But yeah.. THANKSGIVING? Loved it. It kinda reminded me of GRADUATION DAY, and it looked -- filmstockwise -- like GOD TOLD ME TO. Odd... Did you guys know Eli Roth's favorite director is Giuseppe Andrews? He convinced Lloyd Kaufman to put out TRAILER TOWN. He also produced many of Giuseppe's films ($1000 a piece). How cool is that? Anyway, FROM DUSK TILL DAWN was basically GRINDHOUSE, idealized, anyway, just really fucking good. You got Keitel (one of the best actors ever). You got a movie that starts one way (seemingly like a boring crime film), then it becomes a fun grindhouse film. Tom Savini is god in that movie. I love how Cheech played 3 characters. Such a fun, crazyass film! Anyway, enough ranting.

[Dr. Eugene Felikson]

 

 

 

 

Sweet!