Totally spur of the moment splurge today, but I've been wanting to see several of these films since the 90s, and have never been able to find this set. So when I practically stumbled over it today, I couldn't pass it up. Pricey, but so worth it.

Hey, thanks for the welcome caley. I've had an account for a little while now but I haven't put it to much use until now.

We Fun

I was curious about this. The majority of the attention is on The Black Lips while it touches on Deerhunter, King Khan, Mastodon, Subsonics and others. I was at a couple of the shows featured and it was a little surreal seeing familiar faces in the crowd. The interviews are pretty bland and most of the film just follows partying with The Black Lips and their hijinks.

Crank: High Voltage.


Ok. Prepare to call me crazy. This film was the closest thing to an art film that I've seen come out of Hollywood in a long while. Don't get me wrong, I'm not even sure I liked the film.

Regardless, the filmmaker's are so clearly unconcerned for the viewer's enjoyment that it's of interest. I adore the first film, and entered this one expecting something similar. However, from the first 'action' sequence (in which Statham stalks about a maze-like facility picking off his foes), I was surprised by the jarring camera-work. The first film was ludicrous, to be sure, but it kept itself in a state of entertainment. Due to the first film's relative success, it seems as if the filmmaker's have been left more to their devices. That's the only way I can explain the radically more bizarre film I was presented with. It's entirely unconcerned with progression of events, often cutting to bizarre sequences that seem to have no relevance within the plot.

Unlike the first film, moments of violence are simply that. They're off-putting. One scene, in which

Spoiler/NSFW: click to show/hide

a bad guy is forced to cut off his nipples

, feels far too drawn out, and nearly entirely unnecessary. Characters, unlike the former installments' mass of funny people, are often just annoying. There's an Asian hooker sort of woman, and seems created for the sole purpose of annoying the viewer. Even the action sequences are nearly ignored. They're brief, and the filmmaker seems almost disinterested in them, instead cutting to bizarre montages. Half the film is spent chasing after a case that holds a "disgusting" item that is never revealed. Then it all just seems to end. There's another scene, in which the doctor Statham threatened in the first film is getting counsel for his fear of guns. I'm all about dark humor, but a sequence in which he finds his center again (thanks to a rather bizarre counselor)

Spoiler/NSFW: click to show/hide

only to be killed graphically by chance

isn't really funny. I don't think the filmmakers wanted it to be. It would have been funny if he'd been scared by the ricochet again, or even if they counselor had been killed, but the gag chosen is simply grim. All the while, elements of the film are more ridiculous, by far, then even the previous Crank.

So, I found myself wondering, what was the purpose of this film? It doesn't really seem to seek to entertain. I may very well be overreaching, but I've come to think the filmmakers were basically saying "fuck you" to the audience. The film does end with

Spoiler/NSFW: click to show/hide

the main character flicking us off

, after all. In the first film, the two filmmakers presented a ridiculous action film. I'd assumed this was simply them having fun. Now, with its sequel, they seem interested in showing us what we'll watch. It's a mess with bizarre and fucked up scenes, and the filmmakers seem to take pleasure in pointing out just how wrong and dumb the stuff we pay to see is.

I enjoyed the first Crank, but this review falls right in line with everything I've read. I probably won't even bother renting this one, unless Amy Smart gets naked for real to make up for the lame stunt tits used in the first one.

Let the Right One In

Holy shit, I just saw this film for the first and loved it. What an awesome piece of work.

(However, I must say that the subtitles pissed me off. I know that there has been tons of talk about how the subtitles were butchered, but that's not what I'm talking about. Why the hell do the subtitles have to move from the top of the screen to the bottom? During this film the subtitles switched places at the most random times, it was really distracting and that's a shame because the visuals of this movie are amazing.)

I guess I get what people didn't like about this, but they should probably get used to it: This is the new way of imagining Bond. I, for one, am a rabid convert. This may be the best Bond I've ever seen. Yeah, some of the action sequences use too much of the Bourne-style herky-jerk hyper-editing, and in a couple cases it's a real liability.

But not always. There's a scene in an opera house where it felt as if Forster was going for an homage to Coppola and was undone by his editors. That sequence mattered, as it was integral to the plot. While all the action sequences at least directly bear on the plot, now - no more of those throwaway mini-adventure prologues Bond used to be known for - some are less important than others. A chase/fight scene in Siena, which is far less integral, intercut with a parade is almost incoherent, but manages to posit a new Bond universe, in which a villain fires randomly into a crowd, wounding a civilian: The villains now are true sociopaths, not just cartoon characters.

Which is true of Bond, himslf: The cheery, winking, super-idiot is gone. In his place is Daniel Craig, easily the best dramatic actor to take the role since Connery, and by far my favorite Bond since then, as well. Since Quantum did only middling business at the box office, it may be that Barbara Broccoli will be forced to return to the cartoon camp the franchise is best known for, but I'm hoping she gives Craig at least one more shot before ruining what has been a breathtaking, jaw dropping, awesome reimagination of a franchise which desperately needed it.

Slumdog Millionaire
What can I really say that hasn't been said?

Son of Rambow

I really enjoyed this one. Thanks to the SOMB for making me aware of it.

Your opinion.

Good film.

OK film. It was well done, but I'm tired of the "spending half my life hung up on 'the one'" movies, the driving force just annoyed me.

Not a fan. Some great moments, but overall, it bored me. Perhaps a weak complaint, but it grew too formulaic. There was the question, and then there was how he knew the answer. Over, and over, and over. I got it, but I didn't really care, and it didn't keep me invested. Which surprised me. Also, despite its being a "true story" I didn't really buy the way

Spoiler/NSFW: click to show/hide

his brother suddenly decided to be good

, among other things.

I agree that it did follow many conventions, but it seemed to do so unabashedly.
It was told more like a fairy tale, so that wasn't a problem for me.

If it wasn't for Danny Boyle, Slumdog definitely would have been a total bore. I really have no desire to see it again...Rob Gordon's prediction be damned, I don't think it deserved Best Picture at all.

Seven Pounds...
Ok film, I guess, but I think they tipped their hat a little too early in explaining Will Smith's motivations and true background...and I still think the whole jellyfish aspect is kind of laughable. Writer sez in the featurette that he doubted his script would ever get made into a flick...ain't that the truth?

The Tale Of Despereaux...i didn't get to finish watching it, but it is a very enjoyable fairy tale...once you forget about how much it seems like Ratatouille in many of its moments, and not fret about so many characters with so many problems to solve. Parents should note it's good for 9 year olds, but too complicated for any less age than that.

did anyone else actively dislike tell no one? i'd heard so much good stuff about it, and though it had some good parts (the atmospheric, spooky opening, proper usage of recognizable music, france), it was thoroughly and irredeemably preposterous. halfway through i hoped that it would turn supernatural just so i could be spared the convoluted answer. also, full disclosure, i could get past the fact that the lead actor resembled either a dopey robert mitchum or martin short's impression of an autistic heartthrob. real letdown, cause it definitely had potential.

the big mistake here was adapting a book by harlan coben.

I liked it. It wasn't mind blowing or anything but I thought it was better than most of those types of filims. There was one major plot hole thought:

Spoiler/NSFW: click to show/hide

the dad says that he told his daughter that her husband was dead, but in this age of the internet and whatnot, it would have be really easy for her to figure out that wasn't true.

I liked the book too... not sure what you meant by your last line.

I had no idea that book had been adapted to film. Coben is one of my favorite light reads, even if he's not a terrific writer. I might have to check this out. I've read about eight of his books, and they are all about kidnappings or disappearances, so I don't remember which one this is but I know I read it.

yeah, i thought about the whole ending disclosure things. too much of the story is told, not shown and after a while, the feints and sleights of hand stop mattering.

as for my dislike of coben, it comes from a place of ignorance and practicality. i work at a library, majority of books that get checked out are of coben and his ilk. i've read enough of those disappointingly shallow thrillers to last a lifetime. there are some worthy books which get lumped in occasionally (into the woods is a damn fine psychological thriller/procedural), but the majority of these books are absurdly unrealistic, terribly written and largely humorless. if i want light reading, i'll go for some pop-non fiction or new gen lit authors. these branded authors are simply not my cup of tea. i'd hoped that as a movie, it wouldn't bother me. i can suspend my disbelief far more easily for a two hour investment. but nope, tell no one just didn't cut it for me. not a waste of time, just not nearly as good as the hype.

Imdb says it was a French movie from two years ago. I've never heard of it. How much hype could there have been? Or is there another adaptation I'm missing?

it played forever in limited release, made more than 6 mil in the us alone (not too shabby) and here, read some of the reviews: http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/tell...tell%20no%20one

it had been something i had wanted to see for a long time. suppose i sought out the same hype that let me down...

You've been taken to the cleaners, and you don't even know your pants are off.

Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House: Enjoyable 1948 comedy with Cary Grant as put-upon ad executive and husband who decides his apartment is too small for him, his wife (Myrna Loy), and his two children, and builds his dream house in Connecticutt. Of course, everything goes wrong to hilarious consequences. I actually thought it was going to end with a murder/suicide or shotgun massacre, as the bills piled up. But I enjoyed it, nevertheless.


Love is the blackest of all plagues... if one could die of it, there would be some pleasure in love, but you don't die of it.

The Seventh Seal: Beautiful film, every frame of it could be a painting hanging in an art gallery. That said, I feel particularly ill-equipped to undestand it, as I have little to no experience with the bible. Thinking of rewatching it with the expert commentary, but, then again, I also just bought Cleopatra Jones and would like to watch that instead.

Good insight...

In re Magnus' review above...maybe Michael Haneke had an invisible hand in it?

No offense to Dave Kehr, but The Seventh Seal and 'dull' do not belong in the same conversation at all.

Great, now I can't wait.

just watched the wrestler and am pretty sure that it was one of the best films of last year. not too many surprises,

Spoiler/NSFW: click to show/hide

i even turned to my friend at one point and was like, i hope the movie ends with him standing on the ropes

but it really captures a mood with a healthy amount of love and dignity. it's not a happy movie by any stretch, and regardless of how the movie ends, it's clear from the first scene that randy isn't gonna last too much longer. but it was generous and humanist, without offering any easy happy endings. acting was strong all around, script was sharp enough (probably the weakest part of the film) and the direction was solid, well shot without being flashy (rare for aronofsky, as good as he is in auteurial overdrive). again, nothing revelatory, just a really solid, durable movie. definitely recommended.

Saw Notorious tonight at the Paramount in Oakland--holy hell what a great place to see a great movie. It's such a unique film, as Hitchcock films go...very subtle, sophisticated performances along w/ some beautiful photography. I've seen it bunches of times but it's different on the big screen. They have an organist play before the movie starts, a raffle, and you can bring cocktails to your seat! All for $5 (drinks are extra of course).

Maybe you aren't as big of a dog as you think you is

Marty: Although it seems like a rather slight Best Picture winner, especially with its padded 91 minute runtime, I really enjoyed Marty. It was just a genuinely sweet little movie about a shy butcher falling in love for the first time in his mid-thirties. Ernest Borgnine was great.


There are two people in this barracks who know I didn't do it. Me and the guy that did do it.

Stalag 17: Great little movie about POWs in WWII Germany. William Holden is the mysterious yankee who always seems to know what's going on, while the rest of the place is trying to piece together who amongst them may be a traitor. Even if the makers of Hogan's Heros won a lawsuit saying that they didn't rip off Stalag 17 for the basis of their show, it's pretty obvious they were heavily influenced by it, at the least. Heartfelt and surprisingly funny, though I guess it shouldn't be surprising at all since it's directed by Billy Wilder.

star trek - was really, legitimately great. not like oscar great, but like popcorn great. takes itself entirely seriously, while still retaining a healthy sense of humor. dorky, nerdy and chock full of jargon. still, it feels like something i would have not just loved as a kid, but something i would have recognized as on a plane above most blockbuster fare. movie isn't without flaws by any means, but none which are really noteworthy. movie is just a really good, captivating time.

Showing my age (26) but this is really bringing the nostalgia factor. Saturday mornings on Fox when I was 9-10 years old. The focus on Gambit and Jubilee is a little irritating in the first few episodes, but the fact that the series successfully adapts "The Phoenix Saga" and "Days of Future Past" make it just a tier below "Batman: The Animated Series" in it's comic book and cartoon awesomeness.

My issues with X-Men TAS as a kid were that there was something a little too cheap or primitive about the animation and that the multiple episode story archs were too difficult for me to just come in the middle of (which looking back at an episode list, there were a bunch of two part episodes, but the four and five episode ones were mostly just the Phoenix Saga ones). I think the real reason is that I got into Batman TAS first and realized how amazing it was right away, therefore I couldn't understand how anyone could think the X-Men cartoon was better like everyone else at school did.

notorious is pretty worthless, aside from the copious amounts of titties on display. total hagiography, no depth, totally preposterous, actors hardly even resemble their real life counterparts. watchable, but utter garbage. rush job all the way. disappointing.

I'm assuming you're talking about the B.I.G. picture and not the Hitchcock film from Velocity's most recent post.

ha. yeah, i should've specified. not the hitchcock/bergman movie, but those would be some titties worth paying to see.

Just finally saw this myself it did not disappoint really great performances all around. Only minor nitpick is what was the deal with the cocaine and the blonde? We're supposed to believe his heart is in such a fragile state that wrestling might kill him but cocaine and sex are no problem at all?

I'm Popeye the Sheriff Man!

Fury: Wow, a powerful, gritty film this was. Released in 1936, this is Fritz Lang's treatise on the dangers of mob mentality. Good guy Spencer Tracy is on his way to be reunited with his wife when he gets pulled over by the cops. Despite some pretty scarce evidence, he ends up in prison while being investigated. The town gets wind that one of the famous kidnappers is in their jail and decides to take justice into their own hands by burning down the prison with Tracy in it. Really good stuff.


I steal

I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang: Paul Muni gets caught up in an armed robbery and is sentenced to five years in prison, working on a chain gang. He endures the hardships for a while before escaping and trying to rebuild his life with the ever-present threat of being re-apprehended. Powerful, brutal film, made all the more shocking that it's based on a true story.


No. I didn't know when I came in here, and I haven't suddenly gotten any brighter.

Crossfire: Ah, I love TCM themed nights, in this case, Intolerance Night. A Jewish man is beaten to death and a G.I. is implicated. Robert Mitchum is G.I.'s superior who doesn't believe he did it, and Robert Ryan is another one trying to cover the whole thing up. Pretty ahead of its time in its message of dangers of anti-semitism, lots of good performances, particularly by Ryan. Definitely worth a watch.

La Pianiste [The Piano Teacher].
written and directed by Michael Haneke.
2001.

Phenomenal film. Haneke is a filmmaker of great sensitivity, though his films aren't always (or ever) easy to watch. This is a more unsettling picture than either of his Funny Games films and ranks with Cache as the best work he's done. The titular character is disturbed but entirely sympathetic and her inability to properly relate to other people (as a result of her relationship with her mother, or perhaps other unrevealed issues) is tragic. Isabelle Huppert is stunning and the fact that she gave this performance and wasn't even nominated for an Oscar in the same year that Halle Berry was nominated and won clearly demonstrates the silliness of an Academy that has no real interest in painful and honest performances unless they come from young and attractive actresses. Berry's work in Monster's Ball is a shallow joke compared to what Huppert does in this film.

OTM.

Saw this Friday night - it's one of the best movies, let alone horror films, I've seen in a long time. I can't believe how good this movie is.

"I've been 12 for a long time"

Hancock was unexpectedly enjoyable, and more complex than I had originally thought it would be.

That is all.

I can't imagine how simplistic you must have expected Hancock to be if you found it complex.

Yea. The answer to that is: very.

Also, the ending was kind of nonsensical and annoyingly hollywood in comparison with the rest, which I found somewhat buyable.

watched while she was out and la vie en rose yesterday. la vie en rose was fine, jumbled but pretty with a great lead performance. while she was out was far more interesting. not a good movie, by any measure, but definitely one worth watching for anyone who likes exploitation films with a feminist bent. it was produced by guillermo del toro, but felt more like a tarantino dtv produced movie. fast paced, but talky, preposterous, but deeply enough felt. the movie is basically about a housewife (kim basinger) who gets attacked on her way home from the mall. attackers chase her, she fights back. movie over. some of the dialog is horrendous, but other parts are fantastic. direction varies from very good to barely competent and basinger is consistently terrific throughout. seriously, anyone who appreciates feminist discourse in film (i.e. probably very few dudes here) or gory usage of screwdrivers will have a heck of a time. but only get it at redbox or download it illegally. not really worth paying more than a dollar for.

I'm in the middle of watching this. My 10 year old is just getting in to the Simpsons. Bloody brilliant stuff. I just love the early seasons of this show.

Then I watched a new episode on Fox, last night. Oh how the mighty have fallen.

Finally got around to seeing this:



Man did I love this. I don't know what to say. I will say this, and it may sound very American and ignorant, but boy were those characters French (at least the French ones).

Spoiler/NSFW: click to show/hide

At the end, when Phillipe fucks that groupie and cheats on his girlfriend, he just says something like "it was an explosive moment and we took part in the pleasures of the flesh"; and then his girlfriend was simply like "our relationship had run its course and come to an end."

I was laughing at that. Every (American) girl I know would have kicked the shit out of him.

Keep on running, don't look back! We're brothers, Jimmy! We stick together no matter what. We'll take care of anyone who gets in our way.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine: So, Wolverine and Sabretooth are 170-year-old werewolves? This movie left too much unexplained and just...was not good. I was reasonably convinced the director had never seen a movie, just trailers, prior to looking him up, but it turned out he directed Oscar-Winner Tsotsi a few years back, so now I'm just perplexed. I mean, I'm not big on the whole Wolverine backstory/comic books, but even I know some of this stuff was preposterously out there. The best part of the movie was when he puts on a leather jacket and some girl in the back row yelled "Wooo! The jacket!!!" and everybody started laughing at her.

I had the pleasure of seeing two truly terrible movies in theatres this weekend:

State of Play - Prime example of the misuse of a twist ending. The first 45 minutes or so carry the premise of an enjoyable enough conspiracy film but it quickly gets bogged down in too many turns down roads that are far less treacherous than they had appeared earlier on. The acting is all pretty good and the writing isn't awful, but it seems that whoever was putting together the idea of the movie didn't have the enthusiasm to finish it the right way. Rent if you have to but I would recommend avoiding alltogether.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine - I'm a ex-comic geek, true, but I don't expect my comic movies to necessarily stick to canon. I do, however, expect them to retain at least the spirit of the source material. Wolverine doesn't really do that, or anything else. It's just a long excuse to see Hugh Jackman running around as Wolverine (something he does very well) in the hope that this alone will make for a servicable enough movie. It doesn't. This is lazy filmmaking at its worst. I can't even recommend this to comic fans just looking for an excuse to see some mutant action as even that is lacking. Jackman is good as Wolvie and the dude who plays Sabretooth does a nice job as well but really that's it. I hope that Marvel Studios can eventually get the rights back to the X-Franchise and reboot the series. The only problem then would be how to possibly find another Wolverine as Hugh really fits the bill fantastically.

Dai-bosatsu tôge [The Sword of Doom].
directed by Kihachi Okamoto.
1966.

"The sword is the soul. Study the soul to know the sword. Evil mind, evil sword."

An evil, pitch black masterpiece. Tatsuya Nakadai is brilliantly psychotic. Toshiro Mifune is a supreme bad-ass. The camera floats. The compositions are incredible. The sword fights are simply the very best I've seen in any Samurai picture. The very last fight, which runs around 10 minutes, has no parallel in cinema. See this film, people. Fucking gobsmacking. A work of raving mad genius.

^^
Have had it in my queue forever. I really wish Zip.ca prioritized their movies properly like Netflix does. *Sigh*



Don't take him!

Boxcar Bertha: I love watching tug-of-war movies. You know the kind where you can see one creative force (director, stubborn actor) is trying to take the movie in one direction while another force (producer, stubborn actress) is trying to take it in a different direction. Here, you've got King of the B-Movie Roger Corman putting together exploitation tale about a young female runaway getting involved in train robberies, but you've got Scorsese taking the film down unexpected alleyways dealing with guilt, and some pretty striking cinematography. You'll get scenes of uncommon beauty, like Bertha (Barbara Hershey) trying to hop a train in the early-morning mist, punctuated with scenes of rididculous neon red-coloured violence and unnecessary nudity. It's not a great film, but it's infinitely watchable, with a surprisingly poignant conclusion.