Movies you've just watched

[Skykid]

I don't kid around what I'm genuinely shocked a girl knows any little thing about movies beyond Twilight

Twilight was actually carefully engineered over many years to appeal only to absolute retards (or 80% of the general population.)

[CMoon]

What, um, do you guys think girls enjoy watching?

This might sound superficial, but movies that actually have leading female roles. When I say 'dude films', I actually mean films that feature almost entirely dudes with little or no important female roles. The funny thing is that most peoples' top 10 movies or so feature little or no female roles. Here are some examples:

-The Wild Bunch
-All the Leone films
-The Big Lebowski
-The Thing
-Jaws (support female characters only)
-Seven Samurai (except for one exception, all the women are victims)
-Deliverance (OK, one dude has to be a woman for another dude, but that doesn't count.)
-Dead Man
-2001
-etc.

There's yet another category of films where women play important roles, but only as victims or as some other catalyst for the actual main character. Consider Chinatown for instance. Although there is clearly an important female role, it is what is done to this character that is important. Actually between Peckinpah and Polansky there is a whole anti-female theme where the female roles are quintessential, but with a loathing, hateful attitude.

Fortunately, there are plenty of great movies with strong female leads and important female characters, but they don't by any means make up the majority of classic cinema.

[xbl0x180]

Hm. I dunno if chicks would be down to watch Fellini, Godard, and Von Trotta, if that's the case

[Mischief Maker]

"Unforgiven" really isn't a movie for people who haven't already watched a lot of westerns, as it's basically a piece-by-piece refutation of all the elements of the standard western, from the honorable gun-for-hire to the quickdraw.

"For a few dollars more" is most definitely my favorite of the Spaghetti Westerns. "Fistful of Dollars" was a little uneven and "The Good the Bad and the Ugly" was too preachy. Unfortunately, "For a Few Dollars More" isn't nearly as punchy and memorable a title as the previous two.

I hope to one day purchase a musical pocket watch with a full pipe organ inside. Failing that, I'd settle for the one with a Mariachi trumpet.

[njiska]

Since we're talking about the Dollars Trilogy, does anyone else find The Good, The Bad and The Ugly is just a touch too long? Specifically I think the whole film could do without the civil war bridge battle. I don't feel it really does anything to advance the plot or build the words.

[CMoon]

Yeah, For a few dollars more is definitely the best. Best pacing, best story.

TGTB&TU is arguably a road movie. Has some of my favorite parts, but yes, it is too long. The fact that there is extra footage making it longer is ridiculous. Both films are actually quite long which is surprising for the genre. I like Fistful, but as a remake of Yojimbo I've found the former is so superior it is hard to take Fistful too seriously.

[Mischief Maker]

Since we're talking about the Dollars Trilogy, does anyone else find The Good, The Bad and The Ugly is just a touch too long? Specifically I think the whole film could do without the civil war bridge battle. I don't feel it really does anything to advance the plot or build the words.

It's all about the theme of the ugly brutality of the civil war. Kind of like "Once Upon a Time in America," the actual conflict driving the story is dwarfed by the larger events happening around it.

Strange when I think about it, but *Gangs of New York spoilers* GONY is the only film I can think of featuring a tiny conflict contrasted with a larger conflict where the larger conflict ends up smooshing the smaller one.

[Skykid]

Since we're talking about the Dollars Trilogy, does anyone else find The Good, The Bad and The Ugly is just a touch too long? Specifically I think the whole film could do without the civil war bridge battle. I don't feel it really does anything to advance the plot or build the words.

No, I love it. It's the ultimate epic western, I can get lost in that film whenever. It's extraordinarily long for the genre and movies of the era, but I love every minute of it (the civil war bridge part is amazing - best live explosion ever). It's the movie that doesn't stop giving for me: great lines, great acting, great characters, great set-pieces, great music, great humour. It's a bit like watching a golden TV series well edited into a movie format.

That's not taking anything away from the rest of the trilogy, I love them all, but for me that one is the icing on the cake.

[xbl0x180]

"Unforgiven" really isn't a movie for people who haven't already watched a lot of westerns, as it's basically a piece-by-piece refutation of all the elements of the standard western, from the honorable gun-for-hire to the quickdraw.

"For a few dollars more" is most definitely my favorite of the Spaghetti Westerns. "Fistful of Dollars" was a little uneven and "The Good the Bad and the Ugly" was too preachy. Unfortunately, "For a Few Dollars More" isn't nearly as punchy and memorable a title as the previous two.

I hope to one day purchase a musical pocket watch with a full pipe organ inside. Failing that, I'd settle for the one with a Mariachi trumpet.

"For A Few Dollars More" was also missing Eli Wallach as "Tuco." He added a sort of humorous flare to the movie, whereas the others were more serious in their violent tone. I love the pocketwatch jingle - haunting and beautiful all the same.

As far as Unforgiven goes, it's a Clint Eastwood film and I feel that he knows how to reach mass audiences in his productions. There's very little he has directed - which I have seen - that was tailored for a niche crowd. In some ways, he has better writing and directing than the likes of Spielberg, Lucas, Zemeckis, Tarantino, etc.

Since we're talking about the Dollars Trilogy, does anyone else find The Good, The Bad and The Ugly is just a touch too long? Specifically I think the whole film could do without the civil war bridge battle. I don't feel it really does anything to advance the plot or build the words.

Yes, it's overly long by about one hour, but at the same time I would not change anything on it because it is perfect as it was finally realised

[Skykid]

I don't give a crap what people say, I think Clint Eastwood is completely average as a director. Unforgiven is the best thing he's done in recent years, and even that lacks something.

His stuff I've seen invariably suffers from poor scripting, obvious sensationalist plotlines and hollywood cliche/sentimentality that does nothing except pander to a cookie cutter filmgoing audience. Some of his stuff is complete trash - Flags of our Fathers is a terrible movie.

Of the ones I've seen, they have little artistic value and maximum disposability.

Gran Torino: completely average
Million Dollar Baby: Sentimental garbage
Changeling: Watchable true story, sunday TV matinee quality
Flags of Our Fathers: Dire, barely watchable
Mystic River: Hugely overrated drivel. Murray should have got the Oscar.
Space Cowboys: Speaks for itself
A Perfect World: Watchable, rambling popcorn nothingness.

In some ways, he has better writing and directing than the likes of Spielberg, Lucas, Zemeckis, Tarantino, etc.

I've seen little to nothing in his CV to demonstrate this.

[xbl0x180]

I can only speak for what I have seen:

Play Misty For Me
High Plains Drifter
Sudden Impact
Pale Rider
Unforgiven
A Perfect World
The Bridges Of Madison County
Letters From Iwo Jima

Granted, it is sentimental pap for the most part, but, then, that's whom I compared him to. I wouldn't go insofar as to say he has excellent screenwriting and directing abilities. However, are these better than some of the efforts by the directors I listed? Yeah, and those guys are pretty much the directors who draw in people into the cinema and have them collectively talk about how entertaining their films are. Has he done movies that are not on par? Sure. He's directed 35 total, so there's gotta be mediocre duds in there... Space Cowboys? Bleh! I thought that was DePalma who directed that crap!

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000142/#Director

[Skykid]

I dunno what your beef is with Tarantino and I dare not ask, but old Eastwood's got less than nothing in comparison. I'd say 'imo', but I just reckon that's plain fact.

Zemeckis gave us Back to the Future, and his sentimental Hollywood garbage (see Tom Hanks) is still better written, directed and produced than Eastwood's equivalents, which are more cringy/hammy than convincing. I can see why Eastwood movies go down so well with US audiences actually, but they're plainly superficial and distinctly average.

I haven't really enjoyed anything Spielberg since Private Ryan, but then I always hated his patented brand of schmaltz anyway.

[xbl0x180]

There is no "beef" with Tarantino other than he directs unwatchable drek tailored for the lowest common denominator hipster - and that's IF he hasn't already fallen from favour in that crowd Overall, they all direct hammy, smarmy, sentimental junk, which [again] is why I compared them all to each other.

[njiska]

There is no "beef" with Tarantino other than he directs unwatchable drek tailored for the lowest common denominator hipster - and that's IF he hasn't already fallen from favour in that crowd Overall, they all direct hammy, smarmy, sentimental junk, which [again] is why I compared them all to each other.

This is certainly more true now than earlier in his career. Reservoir Dogs is brilliant and one of my all time favourites. Pulp Fiction was also very good, but nearly put me to sleep in the middle. After that point Tarantino's works have just been getting more self-indulgent and become less about producing interesting stories and characters and more jerking off his over blown ego and knowledge of cinema. Inglorious Bastards was by far one of the worst movies I had ever seen. It's sad when the most likeable character in a film is literrally a Jew Hunter. All of the bastards were hatable and no one else actually made an impact. I'm very much afraid that Django Unchained will turn out the same way, despite the interesting premise.

[CMoon]

Watched Chaplin's Gold Rush. Only complaint is that I wish Big Jim had let me watch this 20 years ago.

[Skykid]

^ Ah great stuff. Christmas just gone we watched a load of Harold Lloyd silents, and they were superb.

[emphatic]

On the topic of films to see with your girlfriend, Woody Allen *always* works. Mine also enjoys Tarantino's films a great deal.

[xbl0x180]

There is no "beef" with Tarantino other than he directs unwatchable drek tailored for the lowest common denominator hipster - and that's IF he hasn't already fallen from favour in that crowd Overall, they all direct hammy, smarmy, sentimental junk, which [again] is why I compared them all to each other.

This is certainly more true now than earlier in his career. Reservoir Dogs is brilliant and one of my all time favourites. Pulp Fiction was also very good, but nearly put me to sleep in the middle. After that point Tarantino's works have just been getting more self-indulgent and become less about producing interesting stories and characters and more jerking off his over blown ego and knowledge of cinema. Inglorious Bastards was by far one of the worst movies I had ever seen. It's sad when the most likeable character in a film is literrally a Jew Hunter. All of the bastards were hatable and no one else actually made an impact. I'm very much afraid that Django Unchained will turn out the same way, despite the interesting premise.

I totally agree. I think his first two and his screenwriting work for True Romance were decent. It was still shot from the hip, but I think he improved on old ideas rather than just cut-and-paste stuff the way he did on films after Pulp Fiction. At this point, I cannot stand seeing more than a few minutes of any of that garbage. It tries my patience and is literally nauseating to watch. Frankly, I'd rank some of those as the worst I have seen

[njiska]

I totally agree. I think his first two and his screenwriting work for True Romance were decent. It was still shot from the hip, but I think he improved on old ideas rather than just cut-and-paste stuff the way he did on films after Pulp Fiction. At this point, I cannot stand seeing more than a few minutes of any of that garbage. It tries my patience and is literally nauseating to watch. Frankly, I'd rank some of those as the worst I have seen

The thing is he can still do some nice things from time to time. The opening chapter of Inglorious Bastards was truly great. So was the Car chase in Death Proof. However the rest of both films was shit.

[null1024]

Of the ones I've seen, they have little artistic value and maximum disposability.

Gran Torino: completely average
Million Dollar Baby: Sentimental garbage
Changeling: Watchable true story, sunday TV matinee quality
Flags of Our Fathers: Dire, barely watchable
Mystic River: Hugely overrated drivel. Murray should have got the Oscar.
Space Cowboys: Speaks for itself
A Perfect World: Watchable, rambling popcorn nothingness.

Apart from Gran Torino, which I thought was actually pretty good, the rest of this list is damn accurate.


Regarding Tarantino, I enjoy his movies. It's excessive and very self-indulgent, but it's enjoyable for those reasons.
Of course, I also enjoyed the second 2 Matrix films somewhat, so my taste is probably total shit and I should be mocked mercilessly.


Also, I desperately need to see the Dollars trilogy.


[EDIT]
I just saw Safe House.
Very violent, lots of action. I enjoyed it.
My favorite bit is near the beginning when Denzel [as Frost] fires into the ground to scare a bunch of people into running away to push back the people chasing them. Struck me as quite clever.

[CMoon]

Saw what was probably the best film of 2011, Drive: Aspects felt like they were a throwback to the 80's (To Live and Die in LA), but the film kept it simple. A few things I might have changed--I'd have loved the driver to be more passionless, drawn in by something other than love. I'd have loved the thing to culminate in a huge driving scene. Perhaps the film implies there is a drive to come as the main character vanishes. Honestly, this is real fertile ground and I think the film hardly exploits it. I don't think this is a great film, but it is definitely a step in the right direction.

Also saw the funniest film of 2012 today. The Avengers is probably the most enjoyable comic book film to-date, but this doesn't suggest artistic validity. This is a super-hero high induced by snorting lines of cocaine off aquaman's ass. I was entertained from start to finish and wish that the X-Men could have been as out-of-control. Can Marvel maintain this level of stimulation or will we collectively have to experience a giant spandex-clad downer? Regardless, while it lasts I fucking approve of the Hulk smashing gigantic alien sky fish. When is Guardians of the Universe coming out?

[CMoon]

Also, I desperately need to see the Dollars trilogy.

[drauch]

Also, I desperately need to see the Dollars trilogy.

...and Duck, You Sucker! and more importantly Once Upon a Time in the West!

[Mischief Maker]

Saw what was probably the best film of 2011, Drive: Aspects felt like they were a throwback to the 80's (To Live and Die in LA), but the film kept it simple. A few things I might have changed--I'd have loved the driver to be more passionless, drawn in by something other than love. I'd have loved the thing to culminate in a huge driving scene. Perhaps the film implies there is a drive to come as the main character vanishes. Honestly, this is real fertile ground and I think the film hardly exploits it. I don't think this is a great film, but it is definitely a step in the right direction.

This is my explaination of "Drive" originally posted to Caltrops.com Spoilerz follow, obviously:

The title does not refer to operating an automobile.

For the people who didn't click the link:

The Scorpion and the Frog

A scorpion and a frog meet on the bank of a stream and the
scorpion asks the frog to carry him across on its back. The
frog asks, "How do I know you won't sting me?" The scorpion
says, "Because if I do, I will die too."

The frog is satisfied, and they set out, but in midstream,
the scorpion stings the frog. The frog feels the onset of
paralysis and starts to sink, knowing they both will drown,
but has just enough time to gasp "Why?"

Replies the scorpion: "Its my nature..."

It's no accident that Walter White from Breaking Bad is in this movie. It's a film all about fantastic plans laid waste by people making self-destructive choices that it's their nature to take. Just about everyone in the cast is a frog or a scorpion at one point or another, but the Driver is the primary scorpion setting the conflict in motion, and Albert Brooks is the primary Frog whose mutually beneficial plans with the Driver are ruined. Kind of like, and I wish I could think of a better example but I cant, Robert DeNiro's consummate professional criminal in "Heat" who has a chance to make a clean getaway from Pacino for good and start a new life with Felicity, but can't leave a string untied in his criminal life and ends up losing everything and getting killed at the end.

As he says, "I'm a Driver, I drive." That's the only time in his life that he's completely at home and in his nature. Do a death defying flip for a measly $500? No problem. Strike up a conversation with his pretty next-door neighbor? He only manages that by getting manipulated into it by Bryan Cranston, and you get the feeling that Cranston's story that the Driver gave no argument to working for half wages in his auto shop wasn't just a humorous exaggeration.

At the start of the film he has grand plans going into effect. He's going to be a racecar driver working with his friend Cranston and financed by Brooks. He has a burgeoning relationship with his pretty neighbor and her son. Then her ex-con husband comes back. Everything about the guy spells trouble and the pretty neighbor is constantly dropping anvil-subtle hints that she'd be happy if he was back in jail or otherwise gone from their lives. The Driver comes across the ex-con lying in a bloody mess in the parking garage and tasked with doing a robbery that couldn't more obviously be a set up than if they also told the ex-con to wear a bullseye T-shirt on the job.

Like the scorpion on the river, all the Driver has to do is refrain from acting on his nature and he and everyone he cares about wins. He doesn't, his nature is that he drives and he signs on to take part in the doomed heist even as the pretty neighbor gives him rueful looks while her ex-con husband makes friendly with the Driver.

After the job goes south and for the remainder of the movie, the Driver is lost and out of his element. While he's cool as a cucumber evading police helicopters, he's shaking and terrified as he menaces a thug with a hammer. His only wish at this point is to get out of this uncomfortable situation as quickly as possible, to the point that Ron Perlman says to him during their brief telephone negotiation, "you're not very good at this, are you?"

But almost everyone is a scorpion at one point or another. Ron Perlman places the entire empire he and Brooks have built together in jeopardy because it's not in his nature to take any gruff from anyone, even if they're the Italian Mob. Cranston got his pelvis broken for trying to cheat a gangster but he's still trying to hustle them to the end. Etc. Like Brooks said to Cranston, it was just bad luck that put the scorpions in their lives in positions where their natures ruined their shared dream of a racing team. The Driver isn't autistic or retarded, his flaws are just put under the biggest microscope in the film.

And so the final image is of him bleeding to death, the frog killed by his hand, and sitting behind the wheel, partaking in the nature that drove him to ruin.



The Director's previous effort, Valhalla Rising, has a similar double-meaning bait and switch theme. here's my analysis of that movie, if you're interested.

[CMoon]

Great write up!

[Acid King]

Shut Up, Little Man - Documentary about a pair of dudes who record their neighbors' alcohol fuelled bickering and distribute it on cassette through the tape trading network of the 80's. It's kind of interesting and more than a little pathetic how these guys claim ownership of surreptitiously recorded material (after previously disavowing any copyright) and attempt to bribe people with booze and small amounts of cash to pry info/consent from them. Nevertheless, a decent doc and it made me realize where one of my favorite samples came from (the dialogue before Cruevo's "To Kill the Dawn"). I'd love to hear the full tapes, but I found the guy selling them such a contemptible d-bag I'd rather not give him any of my money.

[Aguraki]

just had to post here after reading previous posts:

the good the bad and the ugly is perfect.

/fanboy

[emphatic]

The Amazing Spider-Man - 3/5

Emma Stone was really great as Gwen Stacy, it had some really nice moments, but overall the first Raimi one is better IMHO.

[xbl0x180]

Great write up!

Walter Hill's The Driver was way better. It starred Ryan O'Neal and Isabelle Adjani

[Skykid]

Walter Hill's The Driver was way better. It starred Ryan O'Neal and Isabelle Adjani

Ooh, a Walter Hill movie I haven't seen. I love Southern Comfort and I enjoyed The Warriors too. I didn't think a great deal to Driver however (although based on the quality of 2011 releases, cmoon is probably right).

I'll check this out though, thanks.