A few films recently watched.

this looks promising. although i know goldthwaite more as a slightly annoying stand up comedian, 'shakes the clown' is a minor cult classic.

  On 2/9/2012 at 5:08 PM, The Overlook said:

  On 1/25/2012 at 12:45 PM, verticalhold said:

Drive

 

I didn't care for any of these characters, maybe I wasn't supposed to. The movie looked really slick and I guess the music was pretty good, but I was left feeling that the whole thing was a real waste of time. I mean I enjoyed the style of it about as much as I'd enjoy browsing an ikea catalogue or watching showroom footage. Not sure this movie knows what it is.

 

Yeah, the cartoony violence took me out completely. Not because it made me queasy, because it didn't, but rather because it was really fucking stupid.

 

I think the filmmaker was aiming for Kenneth Anger (Scorpio Rising most obviously) meets Taxi Driver and ended up with neither. He even channeled Wes Anderson a bit with meticulously sterile sets, blocking, camera movement. All of it felt incredibly labored for a story that bored the shit out of me. When it comes to artsy, ploddingly slow takes on this genre, I prefer Ghost Dog.

ghost dog was really really bad, one of the clunkiest depictions of mobsters ive seen short of Baby's Day out but i can understand your criticisms about Drive

The Kenneth Anger angle seemed obvious *because* of Taxi Driver. After all, Scorsese has often cited Anger as an influence over his early films, in particular Mean Streets and Taxi Driver.

Anyway, it had so much potential to be awesome. I didn't hate it. The moment he said to the guy in the diner, "Shut yer mouth or I'll kick your teeth down your throat and shut it for you." was a really intriguing turn in the film, but it spiraled heavily into awkward lameness after that.

  On 2/9/2012 at 8:22 PM, Awepittance said:

  On 2/9/2012 at 5:08 PM, The Overlook said:

  On 1/25/2012 at 12:45 PM, verticalhold said:

Drive

 

I didn't care for any of these characters, maybe I wasn't supposed to. The movie looked really slick and I guess the music was pretty good, but I was left feeling that the whole thing was a real waste of time. I mean I enjoyed the style of it about as much as I'd enjoy browsing an ikea catalogue or watching showroom footage. Not sure this movie knows what it is.

 

Yeah, the cartoony violence took me out completely. Not because it made me queasy, because it didn't, but rather because it was really fucking stupid.

 

I think the filmmaker was aiming for Kenneth Anger (Scorpio Rising most obviously) meets Taxi Driver and ended up with neither. He even channeled Wes Anderson a bit with meticulously sterile sets, blocking, camera movement. All of it felt incredibly labored for a story that bored the shit out of me. When it comes to artsy, ploddingly slow takes on this genre, I prefer Ghost Dog.

 

ghost dog was really really bad, one of the clunkiest depictions of mobsters ive seen short of Baby's Day out but i can understand your criticisms about Drive

Wasn't the clunkiness sort of the point in Ghost Dog? And wasn't the clunkiness of the mobsters in Drive a bit...oopsy/accidental? Then again, I have no idea what this filmmaker wanted out of Drive.

  On 2/9/2012 at 8:32 PM, The Overlook said:

The Kenneth Anger angle seemed obvious *because* of Taxi Driver. After all, Scorsese has often cited Anger as an influence over his early films, in particular Mean Streets and Taxi Driver.

 

Anyway, it had so much potential to be awesome. I didn't hate it. The moment he said to the guy in the diner, "Shut yer mouth or I'll kick your teeth down your throat and shut it for you." was a really intriguing turn in the film, but it spiraled heavily into awkward lameness after that.

 

  On 2/9/2012 at 8:22 PM, Awepittance said:

  On 2/9/2012 at 5:08 PM, The Overlook said:

  On 1/25/2012 at 12:45 PM, verticalhold said:

Drive

 

I didn't care for any of these characters, maybe I wasn't supposed to. The movie looked really slick and I guess the music was pretty good, but I was left feeling that the whole thing was a real waste of time. I mean I enjoyed the style of it about as much as I'd enjoy browsing an ikea catalogue or watching showroom footage. Not sure this movie knows what it is.

 

Yeah, the cartoony violence took me out completely. Not because it made me queasy, because it didn't, but rather because it was really fucking stupid.

 

I think the filmmaker was aiming for Kenneth Anger (Scorpio Rising most obviously) meets Taxi Driver and ended up with neither. He even channeled Wes Anderson a bit with meticulously sterile sets, blocking, camera movement. All of it felt incredibly labored for a story that bored the shit out of me. When it comes to artsy, ploddingly slow takes on this genre, I prefer Ghost Dog.

 

ghost dog was really really bad, one of the clunkiest depictions of mobsters ive seen short of Baby's Day out but i can understand your criticisms about Drive

 

Wasn't the clunkiness sort of the point in Ghost Dog? And wasn't the clunkiness of the mobsters in Drive a bit...oopsy/accidental? Then again, I have no idea what this filmmaker wanted out of Drive.

clunky from an acting/fillmaking perspective not from a story perspective. it just seemed like very bad inconsistent filmmaking. I've never really liked anything Jarmusch has done, his films are all kinda badly put together for me. But yeah i liked Drive a shit load better than ghost dog. (i forgot he made Dead Man, i enjoy that one even though its annoyingly pretentious)

edit: for Albert Brookes performance alone in Drive he made any 'mobster' attempt in ghost dog look like amateur hour yotube shit, sorry its just the truth

I thought the mobster stuff in Ghost Dog was mostly played for laffs

I haven't seen it for a while though, and I may or may not have a nitrous oxide habit

  On 2/9/2012 at 8:32 PM, The Overlook said:

The Kenneth Anger angle seemed obvious *because* of Taxi Driver. After all, Scorsese has often cited Anger as an influence over his early films, in particular Mean Streets and Taxi Driver.

im not sure i follow that line of logic. yeah scorsese gets a lot from angers editing techniques and use of music, but so do a lot of films. after all, the guy was a pioneer. didnt detect too much of a direct anger influence in 'drive'..

  On 2/9/2012 at 8:34 PM, Awepittance said:

edit: for Albert Brookes performance alone in Drive he made any 'mobster' attempt in ghost dog look like amateur hour yotube shit, sorry its just the truth

i was surprised at how completely menacing he was. really did an excellent job.

  On 2/9/2012 at 8:46 PM, baph said:

I thought the mobster stuff in Ghost Dog was mostly played for laffs

 

I haven't seen it for a while though, and I may or may not have a nitrous oxide habit

indeed. ps, jenkem.

ghost dog is amazing and i will make a point of watching it soon.

tyrannosaur - 9/10

my god this is sledgehammer harrowing. not the deepest of plots but it's all about the characters and the 3 main roles are astoundingly portrayed... best acting i've seen in years from peter mullan, eddie marsan and olivia colman especially (annoying girl from the peep show to this!? just amazing!). brilliantly written and directed by considine, maybe a little laboured on occasion but really well shot, well told story of all-consuming cycle of domestic violence... if considine's first film is so hard-hitting i can't wait for more from him. hopefully he can follow it.

be warned - this won't be everyone's cuppa... it's depressing as hell but in a strange way i found it uplifting as it shows you just how terrible life can be... it's no feel-good movie that's for sure!

ps. my other half was in bits and almost had to stop watching at one point.

Saló, Or the 120 Days of Sodom.

I can appreciate it for being so controversial (at its time) and being a historically important piece of cinema, but jesus christ, it had me mentally crying one too many times. The whole thing is just so underplayed. Which makes it even more disturbing. Yet enjoyable.

It ended up giggling because I constantly saw the four libertines as being the Beatles. Which made it even more horrific.

It sure as hell didn't help that two of them looked like two Graham Chapman and Michael Palin from fucking Monthy Python.

I turned it off after they started eating shit. I know persons whom hail Pasolini as a film god. I do not. What is the point of making children eat shit on film? The rest of the film was, yes, disturbing, but in a way that I couldn't justify watching.

  On 2/10/2012 at 9:06 PM, Atop said:

I turned it off after they started eating shit. I know persons whom hail Pasolini as a film god. I do not. What is the point of making children eat shit on film? The rest of the film was, yes, disturbing, but in a way that I couldn't justify watching.

As far as I know, that particular scene was a metaphor for consumer capitalism and the rise of the junk food culture. As beard-scratchingly interesting that may sound, I just didn't for the life of me get that at all.

  On 2/10/2012 at 9:11 PM, Hasselbalch said:

  On 2/10/2012 at 9:06 PM, Atop said:

I turned it off after they started eating shit. I know persons whom hail Pasolini as a film god. I do not. What is the point of making children eat shit on film? The rest of the film was, yes, disturbing, but in a way that I couldn't justify watching.

 

As far as I know, that particular scene was a metaphor for consumer capitalism and the rise of the junk food culture. As beard-scratchingly interesting that may sound, I just didn't for the life of me get that at all.

HHAHAHAHAHAHRAHRAHRHAHJAAHAHRAHI!=JE? i1'EO -a<.---_:>

  On 2/10/2012 at 9:11 PM, Hasselbalch said:

  On 2/10/2012 at 9:06 PM, Atop said:

I turned it off after they started eating shit. I know persons whom hail Pasolini as a film god. I do not. What is the point of making children eat shit on film? The rest of the film was, yes, disturbing, but in a way that I couldn't justify watching.

 

As far as I know, that particular scene was a metaphor for consumer capitalism and the rise of the junk food culture. As beard-scratchingly interesting that may sound, I just didn't for the life of me get that at all.

the entire film is a metaphor for the rise of consumerist capitalism. i think pasolini was quoted as saying he wanted to make something 'indigestible', and in that sense he succeeded.

btw, the 'shit' is really chocolate covered in orange marmalade sauce :)

re salo, this sums things up well imo.

  Quote

Pasolini was, in many respects, the first critic of mass consumerism. For him, consumerism, unlike, say, Italian fascism, or German Nazism, was able to carry out the “homologation” and “anthropological transformation” of European man in a way that was never thought possible. This is because consumerism is tied to a hedonistic ideology, an ideology that teaches us that we do not have to, nor should we, delay our own personal individualistic gratifications. Paradoxically, however, by adhering to this new type of hedonism, one does not achieve, according to Pasolini, individuation.

Rather, by defining who you are by what you possess or what you wear, as well as by what others own and wear, one loses one’s individuality and sense of personal worth. And if there should happen to be any individual who refuses to conform to this scheme of things, and refuses to let herself be defined by whether or not she owns a Play Station 2, then that individual is looked upon as “weird,” or “abnormal”; she is someone who doesn’t know that its “human nature” to buy and consume.

In short, for Pasolini consumerism was the new fascism, the new conformism. The fascism of the 1920s, ‘30s and ‘40s, at least, demanded that the individual sacrifice himself for the sake of the collectivity. In German National Socialism, the collectivity was represented by the German “race,” in Italian fascism, by the Italian nation. It was an ideology requiring some degree of asceticism and self-sacrifice. Consumerism on the other hand, requires no sacrifice of the self, but rather invites a kind of self-indulgence. It is precisely this hedonistic element in consumerism that enables it to captivate the individual soul in a way that fascism was never able to do. (The infamous scenes of copraphagia in Salò, in which the victims and their ‘masters’ are served a gigantic meal of cooked human feces, days old, in a “Banquet of Shit,” were described by Pasolini as a critique of the processed and fast food industries, and of mass production, which , according to him, produced “useless refuse” that we then consume).

http://www.gcadvocate.com/2011/10/pasolini-anti-consumerism-and-the-counter-culture-of-a-politicism/

  On 2/10/2012 at 9:18 PM, Squee said:

  On 2/10/2012 at 9:11 PM, Hasselbalch said:

  On 2/10/2012 at 9:06 PM, Atop said:

I turned it off after they started eating shit. I know persons whom hail Pasolini as a film god. I do not. What is the point of making children eat shit on film? The rest of the film was, yes, disturbing, but in a way that I couldn't justify watching.

 

As far as I know, that particular scene was a metaphor for consumer capitalism and the rise of the junk food culture. As beard-scratchingly interesting that may sound, I just didn't for the life of me get that at all.

 

HHAHAHAHAHAHRAHRAHRHAHJAAHAHRAHI!=JE? i1'EO -a<.---_:

"HHAHAHAHAHAHRAHRAHRHAHJAAHAHRAHI!=JE? i1'EO -a<.---_:" as in "oh lord, not just that scene but the entire film?

7/10, though it did focus a bit too much on hoover's private life. also the old man makeup

looked sorta silly.

that picture of DiCaprio is so unappealing it's a wonder anyone saw the film

Gummo: 9/10 Good thing this. Almost like watching Koyaanisqatsi in some ways.

Kickass: 6.5/10 It has some really fun and surprising moments but they are all that made me want to watch anyway.

  On 2/11/2012 at 10:30 AM, gaarg said:

Kickass: 6.5/10 It has some really fun and surprising moments but they are all that made me want to watch anyway.

For once, Nicolas Cage was the only reason why I wanted to watch it

I loved him calling his daughter child all the time.

Man, Nicolas Cage is fantastic whenever he wants to be.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtBe46hZmAE

Wow, now I just want to watch Adaptation

  On 2/11/2012 at 10:30 AM, gaarg said:

Gummo: 9/10 Good thing this. Almost like watching Koyaanisqatsi in some ways.

lol i never thought of it like that but true.

  On 2/11/2012 at 11:26 AM, Squee said:

Man, Nicolas Cage is fantastic whenever he wants to be.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtBe46hZmAE

 

Wow, now I just want to watch Adaptation

lol now i know where Terrence Malick for the idea of that "evolution" scene in Tree of Life from.

I actrually thought of 'Adaptation' during the creation scene in 'the Tree of life' while watching it in the theatre, which I tried to watch again the other night, got to dinosaurs and lost all interest, again.

and I assumed the children weren't eating real shit in 'Salo'. Glad I got the curiosity out of me, of watching the film. Pasolini did succeed in making a sickening piece as a metaphor. Good for him.

Bad for us.