What is the last film you watched?

[A24 4,326]

But it's missing something for my tastes, something beyond that.

Perhaps you miss the traditionalism and conventionalism you love so much in all the other Fincher movies? It's almost as if you are talking about The Game or Panic Room. There's a lot missing in them! Kubrick, me a$$!

Manhatten actually came after Annie Hall....and I'm with you on this. Annie Hall is good, but Manhatten is Woody's real romantic comedy gem. I think the B&W adds a lot to it.

That's right, Manhattan was made after Annie Hall. Manhattan shows an Allen that's a more mature and restraint (less desperately wanting to be funny). The B&W photography is indeed an added value, Morlock! What other Allen movies should I get? The one with Michael Caine? I have good memories of that one!

Alex

[tpigeon 3]

Fight Club is not a movie I formally appreciate. I think it pops a lot more in the first hour or so. After that it dwindles. It is an important movie, though.

As for Woody's duo, they're both excellent. I wouldn't say one is better than the other since they are very different. I know there are quite a few people who think that all Woody Allen comedies are the same, and I think it's a tragedy that these two are so commonly mentioned together, like they're the same thing. They're actually very different, but both outstanding.

Ted

But it's missing something for my tastes, something beyond that.

Perhaps you miss the traditionalism and conventionalism you love so much in all the other Fincher movies? It's almost as if you are talking about The Game or Panic Room. There's a lot missing in them! Kubrick, me a$$!

Manhatten actually came after Annie Hall....and I'm with you on this. Annie Hall is good, but Manhatten is Woody's real romantic comedy gem. I think the B&W adds a lot to it.

That's right, Manhattan was made after Annie Hall. Manhattan shows an Allen that's a more mature and restraint (less desperately wanting to be funny). The B&W photography is indeed an added value, Morlock! What other Allen movies should I get? The one with Michael Caine? I have good memories of that one!

Alex

But Alex, Annie Hall's desperate desire to be funny is a reflection of its central character. The movie distracts itself any way it can with comedy, just like Alvy Singer, to avoid the fact that it cannot be happy with itself. That's the beauty of it.

And yes, Hannah and Her Sisters is definitely something you should pick up, along with Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Ted

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Fight Club is not a movie I formally appreciate. I think it pops a lot more in the first hour or so. After that it dwindles. It is an important movie, though.

Why is it important?

[GoldsmithFanatic2000+ 0]

The Terminator

The Matrix owes everything to Cameron's creation.

Dated in areas, but overall still a great film.

[Morlock 11]

Fight Club is not a movie I formally appreciate. I think it pops a lot more in the first hour or so. After that it dwindles. It is an important movie, though.

Why is it important?

For starters, it's important in that it got young people hyped up about a movie that has some real thought behind it, and is far more filmically advanced than most of the other stuff teens get excited about. An admirable feat.

But it's missing something for my tastes, something beyond that.

Perhaps you miss the traditionalism and conventionalism you love so much in all the other Fincher movies? It's almost as if you are talking about The Game or Panic Room. There's a lot missing in them! Kubrick, me a$$!

I have a problem with movies displaying the angst of the generation, without saying anything beyond that. I have a similar problem with The Graduate, but the final shot at least crystalizes how misguided these people are.

What other Allen movies should I get? The one with Michael Caine? I have good memories of that one!

I love Hannah and Her Sisters. I like Martin Landau's portion of Crimes and Misdeamenors...but I am left totally cold by Allen's portion. The Purple Rose of Cairo is excellent. And I am a minority in this.....but I think that Bullets Over Broadway is one of Allen's best films. Pure entertainment from start to finish, with a surprising amount of real observations about artists.

[Ollie 1,059]

Valley of Gwangi.

[A24 4,326]

As for Woody's duo, they're both excellent. I wouldn't say one is better than the other since they are very different. I know there are quite a few people who think that all Woody Allen comedies are the same, and I think it's a tragedy that these two are so commonly mentioned together, like they're the same thing. They're actually very different, but both outstanding.

Hmm, you keep saying they're very, very, very different but the main character and subject matter couldn't be more identical, Ted. What's more, they're both comedies about relationships and their difficulties in the Big Apple. In both movies the relationship(s) goes bad. In both movies, Woody Allen's neurotic character has a similar balanced and 'successful in life' friend. In both movies, Allen cinematically expresses his love for New York. One can almost see them as the continuing story of Isaac Davis. The only 'real' big difference is that the comedy in Manhattan is less extrovert.

Alex

I think that Bullets Over Broadway is one of Allen's best films. Pure entertainment from start to finish, with a surprising amount of real observations about artists.

And it's filmed in black & white !

[Morlock 11]

Bullets Over Broadway? Full color. Probably the most colorful movie I've seen by Woody.

[tpigeon 3]

Sweet and Lowdown is also very colorful.

Ted

[Morlock 11]

Never seen it, it's one of the few Allen films I haven't seen that I want to (Interiors is the only other one I can think of that I really want to see).

[AzOutcast 122]

Hitman

Ya know, I remember a time when mindless action movies used to be fun. As much as I dig Timothy Olyphant (Deadwood baby) I think he was miscast here. Or maybe they story didn't give him enough to work with. Probably a bit of both.

[Morlock 11]

I'm not too impressed with him in Deadwood, frankly.

[Maglorfin 196]

Casino Royale. For me, Craig is a great Bond.

[Morlock 11]

For most others, as well. Ending shifts gears too suddenly. But a damn good film.

[Maglorfin 196]

Yes. I can't wait to see Quantum of Solace. "Only" 7 months to go ...

[Marian Schedenig 8,175]

Casino Royale. For me, Craig is a great Bond.

Plenty of reviews at the time said Craig was the best Bond since Connery. We'll see how the next one goes, but from CR, I'd say he's the best Bond along with Connery.

[A24 4,326]

Bullets Over Broadway? Full color. Probably the most colorful movie I've seen by Woody.

Oh, I was thinking of Broadway Danny Rose.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Revenge of the Sith, and Return of the Jedi. Neither should be called Star Wars.

[Morlock 11]

That one left me totally cold, for some reason.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

you didn't like Broadway Danny Rose? I don't even remember it, is it the one with the guy from dumb and dumber walking out of the film, or is that something else. Allen movies are not memorable anymore.

[Elmo Lewis 6]

Dude, that's Purple Rose of Cairo. And your definition, while accurate, is just wrong.

[Morlock 11]

Michaelangelo's David is correct.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

ok Danny Aileo (sp?) was in the Rose movie, I think

[Morlock 11]

I believe he had parts in both, though I'm not sure. I know he was in Radio Days, though.

[QMM 4]

I'm not too impressed with him in Deadwood, frankly.

Have you watched more than the first season?

I always get a kick when his temper gets the best of him and he beats the crap out of somebody.

[Morlock 11]

I finished the second season. His voice bugs me, as does his character. Without McShane, the show is nothing.

[GoldsmithFanatic2000+ 0]

I finished the second season. His voice bugs me, as does his character. Without McShane, the show is nothing.

Agreed.

[Maglorfin 196]

ok Danny Aileo (sp?) was in the Rose movie, I think

Probably you meant Danny Aiello.

[A24 4,326]

I finished the second season. His voice bugs me, as does his character. Without McShane, the show is nothing.

Hmm, I enjoy a lot of the Deadwood characters. It must be said that, in Season Two, McShane is the only strong, important character, while in Season 1, there was also Keith Carradine and the ill priest. In Season 3, Ian McShane has some nifty competition with Gerald McRaney (George Hearst).

[A24 4,326]

Zardoz: I gave up on it.

Elizabethtown: I gave up on it. Heck, this one is even worse than Zardoz.

[tpigeon 3]

As for Woody's duo, they're both excellent. I wouldn't say one is better than the other since they are very different. I know there are quite a few people who think that all Woody Allen comedies are the same, and I think it's a tragedy that these two are so commonly mentioned together, like they're the same thing. They're actually very different, but both outstanding.

Hmm, you keep saying they're very, very, very different but the main character and subject matter couldn't be more identical, Ted. What's more, they're both comedies about relationships and their difficulties in the Big Apple. In both movies the relationship(s) goes bad. In both movies, Woody Allen's neurotic character has a similar balanced and 'successful in life' friend. In both movies, Allen cinematically expresses his love for New York. One can almost see them as the continuing story of Isaac Davis. The only 'real' big difference is that the comedy in Manhattan is less extrovert.

Alex

This sounds a lot like the argument that Match Point and Crimes and Misdemeanors are basically the same movie. And it's just as misguided. The view of movies you seem to advocate is they are little more than plot structures, narrative arcs, and character development. These are fine to appreciate, but they collectively do not represent cinema, not by a long shot. I'll offer a few short thoughts on each movie, hopefully drawing a loose argument for why I think they're so different.

Of course, there are similarities between the two films with respect to the aforementioned elements, but Allen is after a different sentiment with each of them. Tonally, they are nothing alike. Manhattan adopts a more linear approach than Annie Hall, which jumps backwards and forwards. Both are tragedies, for sure, but Annie Hall is more about the honest reflection on the intoxication of new love and the hardships of commitment. It's about refusing to let go, and yet not being able to take the appropriate measures to ensure an enduring relationship. The flasbacks and fantasies are impossible to differentiate from reality, and that's the point; they are intertwined to the extent that neither is an accurate representation of Alvy, Annie, or their relationship. What we have are images, memories, and feelings of "love and loss," essentially.

Manhattan, while certainly boasting similar plot and character threads and motivic elements, is an altogether different movie. Isaac is a much more bitter person than Alvy. He seems singularly focused on the present -- what benefits him right here, right now. He's also slightly more mature than Alvy in the sense that his attention is directed at what is occupying his moment. He ultimately makes the same mistake as Alvy, in letting the one person who brought him happiness slide through his fingers, but the manner in which we see this movie is entirely different. There are budding moments of romanticism in the film, especially for New York and classic love stories, but ultimately the cynicism prevails. I wouldn't say Annie Hall is cynical at all; it's a bittersweet proclamation of loneliness and self-loathing.

Ted

[A24 4,326]

I recognize what you're saying but I still say that the similarities are greater than the differences. You may look at form and such but in the end both films have Allen's distinct signature. BTW, most of what you describe (character attributes) can also be allocated to the plot so what's up with the patronizing tone, Ted? I thought you were more mature than I am.

Alex

[tpigeon 3]

It can fall under plot, I suppose, but only topically. I don't mean to be patronizing; I do, however, feel strongly about cinema as being more than a simple matter of plot, characters, and narrative. I know these are tangible details, and I acknowledge that they are very relevant, but sometimes I think that even the best critical minds lose sight of the fact that this medium is about abstraction, about what happens to you while you're seeing hearing it. What irks me most is that people use these details --i.e. plot, character, structure, etc.-- as a means for justifying their view of a movie. But the more we lean on these things, the more we're conditioning ourselves to look through the images rather than at them.

Ted

[Hlao-roo 389]

It can fall under plot, I suppose, but only topically. I don't mean to be patronizing; I do, however, feel strongly about cinema as being more than a simple matter of plot, characters, and narrative. I know these are tangible details, and I acknowledge that they are very relevant, but sometimes I think that even the best critical minds lose sight of the fact that this medium is about abstraction, about what happens to you while you're seeing hearing it. What irks me most is that people use these details --i.e. plot, character, structure, etc.-- as a means for justifying their view of a movie. But the more we lean on these things, the more we're conditioning ourselves to look through the images rather than at them.

Which is part of why Manohla Dargis of the NYT is a superlative critic and essential voice. She reminds us that film is first and foremost a visual medium.

[tpigeon 3]

It can fall under plot, I suppose, but only topically. I don't mean to be patronizing; I do, however, feel strongly about cinema as being more than a simple matter of plot, characters, and narrative. I know these are tangible details, and I acknowledge that they are very relevant, but sometimes I think that even the best critical minds lose sight of the fact that this medium is about abstraction, about what happens to you while you're seeing hearing it. What irks me most is that people use these details --i.e. plot, character, structure, etc.-- as a means for justifying their view of a movie. But the more we lean on these things, the more we're conditioning ourselves to look through the images rather than at them.

Which is part of why Manohla Dargis of the NYT is a superlative critic and essential voice. She reminds us that film is first and foremost a visual medium.

She is one of my favorite critics for precisely those reasons. As you can probably see, she has influenced me quite a bit.

Ted

[Maglorfin 196]

Psycho. Such great classic ...

Uh, Mother, my mother, what is the phrase ... she isn't quite herself today.

[Morlock 11]

Saw The Dresser. The story of the head of Shakespearian company during WWII (Played by Albert Finney), and his dresser (Tom Courtney). I think the film got a bit lost with the Courtney character....but it is a fun, theatrical piece. And even though I had problems with the character....I love Tom Courtney, with his eternally youthful eyes (The older he gets, the more striking his performances get, I find), and it was fun to see him playing such a loud role for a change.

Also rented a nice selection- Yojimbo, Aki Kaurismäki's Leningrad Cowboys Go America, and Charles Laughton's The Night of The Hunter, which I can't wait to see. Also hope to catch In Bruges next week.

And I'm finishing the first season of Rome...damn that's fine television. And it got me to finally order I, Claudius.

[Luke Skywalker 1,792]

Superman IV.

I'm still not sure if i will suffer the consequences in the future.

The movie is awfully done, i wonder how would the complete version be.

But the effects are BAD.

The only good thing is the music, and even that is clumsily chopped.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Wrong actually. The music is not the only good thing.

It's also well-acted for the most part (except that guy playing Nuke-man).

The film has 2 main problems.

1- It's done on the cheap. It just doesn't feel like a quality product. Superman The Movie, while not perfect truly feels like an event, you're watching something special.

Supes 4 feels like a made-for-TV reunion special.

The fight at the Statue Of Liberty is especially laughable, since it's so obviously a miniature. (looks like they could not even pay some extra's to run around screaming in that scene)

2- The story is really lacking. This is partly because of the last minute hack-job, but even taking hat into account, there are massive gaps in logic. Especially concerning Lois Lane and Clark Kent/Superman. At one point Clark reveals his identity to her and they go flying (again), and it turns out she remembers all the events from Superman II still. Superman then gives her another amnesia kiss.

But later in the film when visiting the ill-stricken Clark in his appartment, she insinuates that she still knows that he is Superman.

All this and more is planty of reason to declare this film a total fiasco.

And yet....

And yet....

Because the film has been shortened so much, it never gets boring, it flies by in a snappy pace.

It's good to see Reeve again in his signature role, and he still sells it, despite the sometimes shoddy material. In all his films he really, truly nailed Superman.

Same goes for Hackman, yes the material isn't exactly world class, but he's having fun with it.

It's actually a fun film to watch, if you are in the right mood, yes it's cheap, yes it's obvious yes it has asperations it cannot possible reach. But it's light and perky. You'll soon forget it, but you can be entertained while watching it.

And the score is outstanding.

I liked watching it a lot more then Superman Returns.

[Luke Skywalker 1,792]

I dunno.

I still feel i should not watched it...

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Why?

[Marian Schedenig 8,175]

The Good, The Bad and The Ugly. When it's good, it's damn good. But I'm afraid I felt the same way I did when I first saw it - it's too long. All those 4 films (OUaTitW included) are lengthy and slow, but this one at times just feels like it's going on for little reason. Still, it has brilliant moments. But OUaTitW remains the best of the bunch for me.

[A24 4,326]

And I'm finishing the first season of Rome...damn that's fine television. And it got me to finally order I, Claudius.

Wow, don't expect I, Claudius to be like The Sopranos in ancient Rome, Morlock. It's quite different than HBO's Rome.

Alex - who was tired of Rome's gimmicks after 2 episodes.

It can fall under plot, I suppose, but only topically. I don't mean to be patronizing; I do, however, feel strongly about cinema as being more than a simple matter of plot, characters, and narrative.

Actually, Ted, me too. I believe film should be as far removed from a book as possible. It's the reason why I have such problems with the Potter films. They stink as book adaptations and they stink as film entities.

Alex

[Morlock 11]

And I'm finishing the first season of Rome...damn that's fine television. And it got me to finally order I, Claudius.

Wow, don't expect I, Claudius to be like The Sopranos in ancient Rome, Morlock. It's quite different than HBO's Rome.

I can't wait!

[tpigeon 3]

It can fall under plot, I suppose, but only topically. I don't mean to be patronizing; I do, however, feel strongly about cinema as being more than a simple matter of plot, characters, and narrative.

Actually, Ted, me too. I believe film should be as far removed from a book as possible. It's the reason why I have such problems with the Potter films. They stink as book adaptations and they stink as film entities.

Alex

I've read enough of your posts that you hold this view of movies, which is why I always enjoy reading them. But I think none of us can resist the pitfall (sometimes) of describing audivisual aspects of cinema in relation to plot, characters, and narrative. I think it should be the other way around: that plot, story, characters, etc. should be situated in relation to the aesthetic components of cinema. Ideally, having them collapse into each other would be nice, but so long that we keep them separated, I opt for this approach. Which is a minority practice, I know.

Ted

[Luke Skywalker 1,792]

And I'm finishing the first season of Rome...damn that's fine television. And it got me to finally order I, Claudius.

Wow, don't expect I, Claudius to be like The Sopranos in ancient Rome, Morlock. It's quite different than HBO's Rome.

I can't wait!

I saw it last week (I clavdivs), and it was good

[Delorean90 42]

Expelled

I just got back from seeing this with my parents and siblings, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Ben Stein hosted and co-wrote the documentary, which deftly balances a sense of humor with a surprising amount of gravity. Things start off in a relatively light-hearted manner, and then grow more serious around the second half, then returning to a mixture of the two for what I found to be a terrific end--especially if you are even remotely familiar with what is probably Stein's most famous role. If you are looking for a nitty-gritty technical debate on intelligent design vs. evolution, this is not that type of film. Rather, what it does is explore the fact that there is indeed a closing up among the scientific elite against exploration of intelligent design hypotheses. My parents said they would use judgment with a third-grader, and recommend it for anyone above that level. I intend to view it again with others. It is rather fascinating and thought-provoking, and I highly recommend it to anyone. ****/****

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Dr. Seuss' Horton Hears A Who! (**1/2)

Decent flick, but FOX Animation is never really anything spectacular. A good laugh occasionally, but nothing really funny. I particularly love the scene when Steve Carrel is at the dentist though.

Only other thing that needs to be mentioned is the score. Some of John Powell's finest compositions. Fit the film like a glove, despite it being not so great. Good melodies, awesome instruments like always, and the classic Powell style that I love. Perfect score.

[QMM 4]

Punch Drunk Love

Like it more with each viewing. One of the last great romantic comedies in recent years. Jon Brion's score is delightful.

[A24 4,326]

I've read enough of your posts that you hold this view of movies, which is why I always enjoy reading them.

Well thanks Ted, I enjoy reading your posts too.

Punch Drunk Love

Like it more with each viewing. One of the last great romantic comedies in recent years. Jon Brion's score is delightful.

Now you're talking, QuestionMarky! It's mostly seen as a smaller P.T. Anderson film, but Punch-Drunk Love is actually my favorite of his (I haven't seen There Will Be Blood). The phone call Sandler's character makes to the sexline was one of the best things I've seen in cinema that year. It's also my favorite because it's Anderson's most silent film, in terms of dialog, that is. The atmosphere, the colors, the music ... It's just a series of events and you don't know where it's going. The film proved to me that Anderson is a force to be reckoned with. What a difference compared to Magnolia! The tone in Magnolia is so 'heavy' (its gravitas cannot be missed) that I become immune to its intentions, which is a shame because there's much good in it. I have similar problems with Babel, Crash, The House Of Sand And Fog and 21 Grams. Films like these mourn for their own drama.

BTW, I have the album of Punch-Drunk Love but it's the kind of score that works better in the film.

Alex