General Movie Thread

[JonFromMaplewood]

Watched "Anvil: The Story of Anvil" last night. I expected nothing more than a real-life Spinal Tap. I was surprised when it turned out to be quite touching. When Lips said "Family is some important shit" I almost wept.  Look out Noam Chomsky...Lips may be my new hero!

By the way: Is it just coincidence that the drummer's name is Robb Reiner?

[jbissell]

By the way: Is it just coincidence that the drummer's name is Robb Reiner?

Yes. They've said in interviews that coincidence was one of the Spinal Tap similarities that lead them to embrace the connection early on in the film to draw in the audience and then hit them with the real story of Lips and Robb's great friendship.

[Shaggy 2 Grote]

The other night I opted to go back into an Ann Taylor Loft outlet store rather than wait on line in the cold to see Where The Wild Things Are.  Did I make a good decision?

[B_Buster]

I watched Anvil over the weekend as well. For me the saddest moment was when Lips was doing his vocal take during the recording of This Is Thirteen and he was belting out some of the stupidest lyrics I think I've ever heard. I know people don't go to heavy metal for the lyrics, but as long as that's where they're setting the bar, heavy metal will never be popular again.

[Omar]

I watched Anvil over the weekend as well. For me the saddest moment was when Lips was doing his vocal take during the recording of This Is Thirteen and he was belting out some of the stupidest lyrics I think I've ever heard. I know people don't go to heavy metal for the lyrics, but as long as that's where they're setting the bar, heavy metal will never be popular again.

Idiotic post.

[fonpr]

the stupidest lyrics

[Pat K]

Later tonight, against my better judgement, I'm going to give Andrei Tarkovsky one more chance to wow me by checking out Solaris at my local theatre.  I've seen about four of his movies, and despite all the rapturous praise I hear about them, they've never done anything for me. Yet year after year I keep crawling back, like a battered arthouse wife - maybe this one will be different, maybe if I give that one just one more shot, etc. 

And I've even seen Solaris before and didn't like it one bit.  But there's still that nagging guilt: maybe it's me, maybe  I'm Just Not Getting It, maybe if I see it on the big screen...you know how it goes.  So there I'll be in the audience tonight once again, a glutton for punishment, trying to figure out the seemingly-arbitrary changes between color and black&white, trying to parce the significance of that interminable 10-minute "driving through the city of the future" sequence, trying to keep my eyes open as the same three Russian dudes wander silently around the same 3 sets.  Is it really just me, or are there any other FOT out there who just don't get this guy?

[Trotskie]

 

I loved the beginning scenes of Andrei Rublev and liked most of Solaris.  But, yeah, most of his other stuff makes me feel like I've got ants in my pants.  Stalker in particular.

[Bryan]

I liked the two Tarkovsky movies I've seen. I think all slow movies benefit from being seen in a cinema - it just forces you to take it.

[masterofsparks]

I like Solaris. I tried Andrei Rublev but had to turn it off because I couldn't stomach the animal cruelty. I haven't tried anything else since AR - it really left me with little desire to see anything else he's done.

I'll stand by Solaris, though. And although Tarkovsky nerds will probably call this heresy, I kinda like Steven Soderbergh's version as well.

[Shaggy 2 Grote]

I've only seen Solaris and Andrei Rublev, but I did like both.  Though I fell asleep 20 minutes into both of them at least 5 times before I finally made it through.

[Martin]

I've seen woefully little Tark (as all cinefiles call him), and because of my lukewarm reactions to the few I've seen (Solaris, Ivan's Childhood), I haven't actively pursued more. I do have copies of Stalker and Andrei Rublev laying around so I'll get to them eventually. He's definitely an acquired taste - Pat K, you're patience is admirable.

Seen four movies today (my one big achievement - moviewatching is an achievement, right?). No masterpieces in sight:

Humpday (Shelton, 2009) - I know the mumblecore people haven't written an aesthetic dogme manifesto or anything (and they hate to be lumped together under that unfair banner), but would it kill you to get some decent lighting or camera equipment or compositions up in this motherfucker? Also, the premise is shaky at best. Has it moments.
Zombieland (Fleischer, 2009) - I can't stand that Eisenberg kid, what a bore. And either he plays the exact same character as in Adventureland (in which case the credits should've said "based on characters by Greg Mottola" or something), or he's a very limited actor. I suspect it's both!
Jennifer's Body (Kusama, 2009) - Like Mark Kermode said, this might prove to the best work of Megan Foxxx's career. Anyway, it's pretty silly, way better than Juno, and Amanda Seyfried is very good.
Accident (Losey, 1967) - Filling some Losey gaps as part of my upcoming 60s Top 100 listmaking. This is no Servant, but it's pretty good. At times very subtle. Harold Pinter, who wrote the script, has a great cameo as a real "Pinter character" - a bullying TV producer with rapid-fire, aggressive dialogue.

[masterofsparks]

Four movies in one day is an achievement. I thought watching three on Sunday was pretty excessive, but you have me beat!

My Sunday viewing:

Paris, Texas - Slow and overlong but saved by the riveting final 30-40 minutes.
The Limey - Didn't like it when I first saw it years ago but liked it considerably more this time. Stamp is great, Fonda reminds me of Ray Manzarek (I wonder if it was intentional? In any case, the similarity was enough that I was rooting against him), and for some reason I can't quite articulate, Luis Guzman made me laugh a lot. Again.
Catch Me If You Can - Fluffy and breezy, which is quite an achievement for a 2 1/2 hour movie. It suffers in the way that any movie following the traditional biopic structure does, but it was reasonably fun. Tom Hanks is the best part of the movie, which is honestly something I never thought I'd say.

[Wes]

I really like Stalker, though I wouldn't have complained if they'd had to fight off an army of super mutants or something in there. Like maybe there could have been a couple of telekinetic kids in The Zone who could float around and make people's heads explode and talked with adult voices, and the stalker would have to use the The Zone against them so he and the writer and the tall guy could survive. I'm just gonna go ahead and save this for the inevitable Christian Bale-led remake.

In other news, I watched X-Men: Wolverine: Origins last weekend. Wow. I knew it was going to be awful, but not that particular brand of awful. There's a scene where it turns into Altman's Popeye, specifically the part where Wolverine has a boxing match with The Blob. I can see no other reason why they'd write and shoot a scene where Wolverine gets into a ring and has a boxing match with The Blob other than they wanted to recreate that Popeye/Fat Guy boxing match. Also, why would the one guy with a mutant power easily applied to the real world - control over all electronics - end up working at a carnival manning the shittiest of all carnival booths?

The best part of the movie was noticing that Wolverine can't grow a moustache.

[B_Buster]

Idiotic post.

Sorry, Omar. I guess I touched a nerve. I didn't know you were one of the guys carrying the torch for Anvil.