General Movie Thread

[Pidgeon]

What is up with this "ION" channel? The only movies I ever see on the station are ones starring Bruce Willis.

[crumbum]

If you're able to, track down and watch the Danish documentary Armadillo. It's about a team of Danish soliders at an outpost in Afghanistan, and covers pretty much the same bases as Restrepo in an equally involving fashion. I watched Armadillo first, so Restrepo had somewhat of a lesser impact on me (though I found it engaging and certainly worthy of the praise it's gotten). But if you want to see another good documentary about the war, albeit from a slightly different angle (young Danish soldiers going off to war), I'd recommend it.

I caught this at TIFF last year, and I agree it's worth searching out. My favorite moment came after the screening during the director's Q&A. Regarding the numerous scenes capturing fierce firefights where the cameraman and crew is clearly right in the middle of things, someone asked 'were any of you ever in danger during filming?'

[Sarah]

The final minutes of the Academy Awards show must have enraged Spike.  Doubly.

[Pidgeon]

The final minutes of the Academy Awards show must have enraged Spike.  Doubly.

Did Puff Daddy and the cast of iCarly perform a song, backed by the Staten Island Orchestra?

[Sarah]

Staten Island was involved.  And many, many people under the age of twenty-five.  Being heard.

[dave from knoxville]

Just finished watching 127 Hours.  Danny Boyle unquestionably churns out a slick product:  it was very handsome.  I was, however, very annoyed by the lack of change in James Franco's facial hair over the course of the ordeal, and I thought he was implausibly energetic once he freed himself.  A big fall and grave injury, just over five days with little water and food, and then a brutal amputation with a dull knife, and he's walking briskly?  I know he was a fit young fellow, but come on.

I have seen four of the nominees for best picture, which is amazing (it's been years and years since I've seen even one).  Maybe I'll even watch the Oscars tomorrow in celebration. I think I'll eschew Twitter just in case:  it would be tragic to have the results spoiled for me the first time I've watched the Academy Awards in more than a decade.

P.S.  I wonder what it would have been like watching 127 Hours not knowing at the outset how it ended.

P.P.S.  Non sequitur:  I just heard a fox scream.

P.P.P.S.  Maybe I can work through The Social Network and Inception tonight and tomorrow and up my total to a stunning five.  A fine goal.

It would have been my honor to have had you following my #oscars twitter feed, but I understand, you do what you can do.

[Sarah]

Just watched Black Swan.  Dumbdeedumbdumbdumb.

[Sarah]

Now I have just watched Repulsion, which is reams and reams better.  And, boy oh boy, did Aronofsky swipe a lot from it.

[DS1077]

Just watched Black Swan.  Dumbdeedumbdumbdumb.

Truth.  I really don't understand all the affection "Black Swan" has been getting.  It's manages to be way over the top and boring at the same time, loaded with cliches, and Portman is kind of absurd in it as well.  I get that she did some dance training, but there isn't any kind of legible difference between her allegedly poorer dancing scenes and her improved ones (to the untrained eye, at least) and her character is played so meekly that her backstory doesn't make any sense to me - how did she even manage to get as far as she did in life if she can barely speak above a whisper?

[Sarah]

Indeed, yes.  Nina reminded me of an anxious swot in high school.  Her acting consisted mostly of perpetual fretting.

I agree completely that the movie was both boring and overwrought.  Those ludicrous special effects!  When Nina's neck lengthened in the fight scene, I burst out laughing.  And those grotesque wings!  Oh, and the toes!  So, so heavy-handed and infantile.

Another thing that drove me nuts is that Mr. Genius French Choreographer, Thomas, spoke entirely in the most hackneyed of clichés. 

Bah, this is the first time I've bothered to think about it since watching it yesterday.  Repulsion, on the other hand, has been much on my mind.  Can't believe I had never gotten around to seeing it before.  Catherine Deneuve was amazing.  Eat your heart out, Natalie Portman (whom, by the way, I find likable; just not great).

Various things I'm reading about it all refer to Deneuve's character as sexually repressed, many as though that is the root of her illness (which is laughable).  Certainly, she's got probs with menfolk, possibly because of some foul deed in her past.  But to me the movie seems to chronicle a slightly wonky girl experiencing her first schizophrenic break.  And one of the more horrible aspects of the movie, for me, is the way both her victims see only her beauty and are oblivious to her craziness.  All she is to them is an object of desire; nothing else matters.   I cheered when she killed them.  I mean, come on, victim #1 breaks her door down (are we really supposed to accept this as an act of gallantry, not a prelude to rape?), and victim #2, surrounded by evidence of her lunacy, propositions and then jumps her instead of calling in the men in the white coats (who, in this movie, would probably have tried it on as well).  The movie drips with contempt for men.

The reviews of the movie are revealing.  The ones I've read are all by men, and all share the misguided notion that attractive women must by definition welcome the attentions their beauty draws.  This quote from a 1965 NYT review says it all:  "the weird and agitating mystery here is why a girl of such fascinating beauty should be as hostile as she is toward men."  Reviewers also consistently characterize the first victim as an innocent and mostly view the second victim as comic relief.  And more than one claim that Deneuve's character is opaque:  she does mad things, but the reason is obscure--unless it's just that she needs to get laid.

I'm experiencing a little repulsion myself now.

[wood and iron]

I just watched Samuel Fuller's White Dog. There were moments of greatness, however, the movie had a weird TV-movie look and vibe that kind of keeps it from being a great movie. The dog used is quite the amazing actor.

[Martin]

The reviews of the movie are revealing.  The ones I've read are all by men, and all share the misguided notion that attractive women must by definition welcome the attentions their beauty draws.  This quote from a 1965 NYT review says it all:  "the weird and agitating mystery here is why a girl of such fascinating beauty should be as hostile as she is toward men."  Reviewers also consistently characterize the first victim as an innocent and mostly view the second victim as comic relief.  And more than one claim that Deneuve's character is opaque:  she does mad things, but the reason is obscure--unless it's just that she needs to get laid.

I'm experiencing a little repulsion myself now.

I agree, that's pretty sickening. Hypothetical, but what do you think the critics would say if Repulsion had been released today? (Actually, it would be interesting to see some 21st century criticism/analysis on the film - see what if any has changed in the reception of it.)

[Sarah]

Most of the reviews I read (on Rotten Tomatoes) were pretty recent.  They're not all quease-inducing, but the number that are is surprising.  The implication that sexual repression is the cause, not a symptom, of the heroine's condition is fairly widespread.

later . . .  Just read this:  "It has become common to interpret the photo as evidence that Carole was sexually abused by her father, but Polanski has denied this in interviews, stating that he merely wanted to show that Carol had been disturbed from a very early age, without offering an exact explanation."  I'm pleased:  that's exactly how I understood the photo.  This also suggests that Polanski himself saw the sex stuff as a side effect, not a cause.  So many of the reviews imply that Carole's discomfort overhearing the sounds of sex from the other room is a sign of repression, when, come on, why shouldn't someone, particularly an eighteen-year-old, non-sexually active girl in 1965, find that distressing?  In the same way, any young woman at any time might respond fearfully to men as predatory as those in this movie.  As for interpreting Carole's disgust at her sister's boyfriend's habit of putting his razor and toothbrush in her glass as a further sign of sexual repression, well, that's just silly.  I mean, I'd be pretty revolted if someone, especially a nonrelative, took advantage of my glass that way. 

All that sets Carole apart is the extremity of her reaction, not the reaction itself.

[Chris L]

Watched LITTLE MURDERS for the first time tonight and LOVED IT. I'd heard it was pitch-black, but it was way more anarchic than I expected. Brilliant work from Jules Feiffer and Alan Arkin, and Elliott Gould is at least as good here as in The Long Goodbye. The Donald Sutherland scene was great too.

I subsequently learned that Jean-Luc Godard was strongly interested in directing it, but that fell apart (luckily, in my opinion) when he refused to attend any meetings about the film.  Gould quoted him as saying "If my wife and child wanted me to say I loved them, I'd tell them to go fuck themselves."

[Pidgeon]

I just watched Samuel Fuller's White Dog. There were moments of greatness, however, the movie had a weird TV-movie look and vibe that kind of keeps it from being a great movie.

That's how I felt about A Woman Under the Influence.