A general film appreciation thread that focuses on recent film viewings. I've been wanting to start a thread where we could talk about what we're watching of late, or where I could talk about it with myself, without starting individual new threads each time I want to talk about a film I've seen recently.

TAXI DRIVER got me off my ass. I've had the special edition DVD sitting on my shelf for a year and I finally dusted it off and watched it yesterday. I had forgotten what an incredible film that is. I have not seen it for a few years and had grown to somehow think it was overrated. This was exacerbated by my viewing of Mean Streets for the first time a few months ago. I wasn't that crazy about it. I guess I grew to assume I felt pretty much the same way about Taxi Driver.

Wrong. Taxi Driver is really an amazing film. Such a surprise in so many ways.

Plus the DVD is just fantastic. I've only explored a few of the features but it looks amazing. The one feature I've looked at extensively is the screenplay to screen feature, where you can page through the screenplay and zip right to the scene you are reading in the actual film. Very cool.

Amanpour

DVDs in general are pretty cool. We got a DVD player for Xmas from my in-laws, plus X-men and Fantasia on DVD. (Guess which DVD was for who... hehe) I just like being able to look through all the extra stuff that they can put on a DVD. Sometimes doing that takes just as long as watching the movie itself, and it's usually interesting stuff.

I have a friend that has had a DVD player for about 2 or 3 years, so I've been borrowing from his drawerfull of discs. I think it's probably saved me almost $100 in rental fees... Not to mention being able to borrow stuff you usually don't find at Blockbuster like anime.

Another good thing about DVDs is that if you're an anime fan, you don't have to worry about looking for subtitled or dubbed versions, you get both on the DVD by default. Personally, I think anime isn't anime without Japenese dialogue and subtitles, but if I wanted to introduce someone to anime, and they hated reading the subtitles, I can just switch over with a few button presses.

"Another good thing about DVDs is that if you're an anime fan, you don't have to worry about looking for subtitled or dubbed versions, you get both on the DVD by default. Personally, I think anime isn't anime without Japenese dialogue and subtitles, but if I wanted to introduce someone to anime, and they hated reading the subtitles, I can just switch over with a few button presses."

Have you seen the Princess Mononoke DVD? That movie is just gorgeous and the sound is incredible. While the american voice overs are fairly good I found it much better with the original language.

Now if they would only hurry up and remaster Akira....

Yeah Kevin, I rented it from Blockbuster about a month ago. I had seen it a few years ago before then, but I had forgotten just how good a movie it was. I've heard that the american voice overs were really well done, but I didn't feel like watching it a second time to find out.

I haven't actually seen Akira, even though it's supposed to be the classic anime, probably because the only version Blockbuster had was dubbed.

I have the Macross Plus OAV series on DVDs. The difference between those and my very well used copies on VHS is incredible. The most striking thing was the crispness of the sound on the DVDs. I'm waiting anxiously for an Escaflowne DVD boxed set to come out.

My wife and I are enthralled with the Sopranos first season on DVD. Hell of a rental, those.

So far as ownership goes my favorite DVDs are the I Claudius boxed set, The Wall, the Matrix, Apocalypse Now, the first 25 minutes of Private Ryan, Glory, Ran ... and I just love watching Jackie Chan fight scenes in slow motion. Legend of Drunken Master particularly.

-Andrew

"I haven't actually seen Akira, even though it's supposed to be the classic anime, probably because the only version Blockbuster had was dubbed."

If you like classic anime Akira is definitely one of the first. If you like great anime then definitely get "Ghost In The Shell". It is a much better anime film than Akira.

Can we have a movie thread that doesn't degenerate into a discussion of anime or sci-fi?

Having said that, let me put in a nod for Ghost in the Shell. I don't know the first thing about anime, but my brother-in-law (the fellow who came up with the Quarter to Three eyeball staring at you on the left side of your browser) sat me down to watch Ghost in the Shell. I'm not sure I understood it, but I certainly was mesmerized.

Other things I've watched lately: saw Blow last night. Aptly named. It was an maudlin TV movie of the week version of Scarface. Memoirs of a Misunderstood Drug Dealer Who Never Meant Anyone Harm, the Poor Fellow.

Last week, I showed Dr. Strangelove to someone who hadn't seen it. Very gratifying, particularly her reaction to Slim Pickens last ride.

-Tom

"Can we have a movie thread that doesn't degenerate into a discussion of anime or sci-fi?"

You're dealing with gamers. We're skewed towards liking those types of movies.

"Very gratifying, particularly her reaction to Slim Pickens last ride."

That's what Skydive! should have been -- a game of guiding Slim Pickens down to a military base instead of a wheat field.

---

Quote:

You're dealing with gamers. We're skewed towards liking those types of movies.

---

Sean, I liked Ghost in the Shell quite a bit. It was among one of my piles of "free rentals" I mentioned earlier.

---

Quote:

Can we have a movie thread that doesn't degenerate into a discussion of anime or sci-fi?

---

---

Quote:

Still, that's one of my peeves about movie ads, when they don't actually tell you what the movie is about.

---

"If you like classic anime Akira is definitely one of the first. If you like great anime then definitely get "Ghost In The Shell". It is a much better anime film than Akira."

I got this DVD and was completely underwhelmed. Mostly because the dubbing was so pathetically bad. I'll have to revisit this using the subtitles, because hearing those talentless, melodramatic hacks "reading" the lines really sucked the life out of it for me.

"You're dealing with gamers. We're skewed towards liking those types of movies."

Wait a second.. so you're implying Tom isn't a gamer? Hmm.

"Other things I've watched lately: saw Blow last night. Aptly named. It was an maudlin TV movie of the week version of Scarface. Memoirs of a Misunderstood Drug Dealer Who Never Meant Anyone Harm, the Poor Fellow."

Well said. I completely agree. What attracted talent like that to such a limp, meaningless project? Sheesh.

"That's bad. What I hate more than that, though, is when they actually ruin the experience of watching a movie because the previews showed all the good scenes of the movie."

I've had that happen to me too. I have to specifically AVOID reviews and previews of movies that I might be interested in. I'll read just the review score and maybe the first few sentences, then force myself not to look at anything else about the movie, until I get a chance to see it.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

I should have added a smiley after whining about the discussion degenerating into a discussion of anime and sci-fi. I actually don't mind so much as simply feel left out... :)

***

Mark (Bussman), glad you caught the Fight Club references. Mark (Asher) once complimented me on some of the prose in one of the Shoot Clubs and I had to confess it has been lifted directly from Fight Club!

***

I *loved* the trailer for Driven in much the same way as I *loved* the trailer for Pearl Harbor. I'm 99% sure the trailer is better than the movie! Of course, the movies are quite obviously horrible, but what great trailers.

The funny thing about the Driven trailer is that by watching it, you'd think Indycar races are all about wrecking the cars! Every other sequence with an Indycar has one of the vehicles hurtling through the air, plowing into a wall, or erupting into flame. Whoo-hoo!

-Tom

---

Quote:

The funny thing about the Driven trailer is that by watching it, you'd think Indycar races are all about wrecking the cars! Every other sequence with an Indycar has one of the vehicles hurtling through the air, plowing into a wall, or erupting into flame. Whoo-hoo!

---

---

Quote:

I've had that happen to me too. I have to specifically AVOID reviews and previews of movies that I might be interested in.

---

Princess Mononoke was an excellent movie. I'd recommend it to nearly anyone (even if you don't normally go for anime).

On a completely different note, did anyone here watch "Horatio Hornblower: Mutiny" on A&E last night? I absolutely loved the original miniseries; so far this is just as good...

Ugh... as a race fan, Driven is a travesty. It's directed by Renny Harlin. A man well known for horrible film making and being Geena Davis' ex-husband. Anyone remember Cutthroat Island? Anyone WANT to remember it? Blech...

Now Sly is talking about owning a CART team next year. As if he knows everything there is to know from having witnessed a few races and sat in a race car to make a movie? Both he and Harlin had some ridiculous quotes in the press after attending this weekend's Long Beach GP for a publicity push. I have a hell of a lot more faith in Michael Bay and Pearl Harbor than I'll ever have in Driven.

On another directorial note, I just recently found out that Spy Kids is written and directed by Robert Rodriguez! (El Mariachi, Desperado, From Dusk Til Dawn, The Faculty (love those "John Carpenter's The Thing" references), part owner of Digital Anvil) I'm dying to see it now as he's one of my favorite directors. The reviews have been pretty much universally good too. I just wish my kids were a bit older so I could take them...

--Dave

Spy Kids has been killing at the box offices, too. It's been number one for the last two weekends. Not that it has serious competition, but there are several movies out that I'd rather see than it.

"The funny thing about the Driven trailer is that by watching it, you'd think Indycar races are all about wrecking the cars!"

You'd think the studios would have learned their lesson from Days of Thunder. While they're at it, they might as well make another time travel movie, since they're bound to get it right eventually.

I still wonder how they can green light movies like Driven, but it takes arm twisting and eye gouging to get them to even consider making X-Men II (X-Men was by no means a great movie, but it made $100mil+ domestic which usually means instant sequel).

"it takes arm twisting and eye gouging to get them to even consider making X-Men II "

I don't think there's any twisting or eye gouging-20th Century Fox wants to make a sequel its just a matter of getting everybody's schedule and the budget in line. Considering that Bryan Singer is rangling for a much bigger budget this time (and final cut I'm sure) it may take a while to work out the details. Especially when you consider that I imagine all the actors will want raises (particularly Hugh Jackman).

---

Quote:

On a completely different note, did anyone here watch "Horatio Hornblower: Mutiny" on A&E last night? I absolutely loved the original miniseries; so far this is just as good...

---

Good points about Driven guys. I guess the trailer got my attention, which is its ultimate purpose, but I'm not expecting it to be a awesome movie. Still, I'll probably rent it eventually...

---

Quote:

Wait a second.. so you're implying Tom isn't a gamer? Hmm.

---

---

Quote:

I should have added a smiley after whining about the discussion degenerating into a discussion of anime and sci-fi. I actually don't mind so much as simply feel left out... :)

---

---

Quote:

Mark (Bussman), glad you caught the Fight Club references.

---

Jason said:

"David Warner who has supplied the villain's voice in more than one game (not to mention a movie ABOUT games--Tron) was splendid as the mad Captain Sawyer"

I like the guy who plays Hornblower, too (Welsh fellow with a weird name that I never remember... he had a bit part in Titanic).

I'm considering ordering the original series on DVD. A&E's web site has it for $60, which isn't too bad considering that it's 450 minutes long, and includes a 50 minute documentary about Admiral Nelson's flagship, the HMS Victory. Hmm...

Can anyone explain why my decent Samsung DVD player skips and freezes on DVDs right and left, while my Sony PS2 plays everything flawlessly? The only pain is the PS2's cooling fans are unholy loud, but it's been a treat to finally be able to watch my DVDs without skipping.

"I want to pay money to see a movie about something that interests me. I don't want to pay money to find out what a movie is about."

I don't want to pay money at all, but given that that is how our economy works--unless you're rich and famous and people let you in for free and give you stuff--I want to pay to have a movie interest me in something I had no idea I would want to know about.

Movie marketing drives me up the wall. I wish it was more about using a sniper rifle and less about using a shotgun. I much prefer the early barebones teasers to the full blown mini-movie trailers that follow. I don't necessarily need to know what the movie is about, or even if it is going to show me something I'm interested in, so much as I need to get the impression that the people who made it had quality---and dare I say excellence---in their intentions as they made it.

Amanpour

Wumpus said :

"I got this DVD and was completely underwhelmed. Mostly because the dubbing was so pathetically bad. I'll have to revisit this using the subtitles, because hearing those talentless, melodramatic hacks "reading" the lines really sucked the life out of it for me."


I don't even bother with the dubbed version. The Japanese version with English subtitles is much better. Of course it helps if you have a Certificate I in Japanese Language when watching the film. [wink]

"I don't even bother with the dubbed version. The Japanese version with English subtitles is much better. Of course it helps if you have a Certificate I in Japanese Language when watching the film. [wink]"

I took Japanese briefly in College, but had to drop it because I was terrible at it. Languages are not my bag, baby, but a language that has different words for counting depending on which type of item you're counting.. is just wrong! It sure gives me a new-found respect for Japanese people who know English though. A very alien world.

Anyway. I watched Ghost in the Shell again today with the subtitles (no dubbing) and it was a much more pleasant experience. The outstanding matrix-like action scenes, for better or worse, constitute the backbone of the movie. It can't really back up the weighty philosophical arguments it tries to address. It chickens out and lets the action do the talking one too many times. But otherwise, a partial success and a worthwhile animated film.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"David Warner who has supplied the villain's voice in more than one game (not to mention a movie ABOUT games--Tron) was splendid as the mad Captain Sawyer"

Warner has a long game credit list, almost as long as long as Tim Curry. I find it sad he's best remembered for Titanic. He was great in so many roles... Tron, Into the Mouth of Madness, the voice of Ras al Ghul in the Batman Animated Series, Time After Time and don't forget, he was EVIL in Time Bandits.

-Andrew

Bub: "Warner has a long game credit list, almost as long as long as Tim Curry. I find it sad he's best remembered for Titanic. He was great in so many roles..."

You can't bring up David Warner without mentioning Straw Dogs. So creepy and sad at the same time. It makes me uncomfortable just thinking about him in that film.

Has anyone seen Memento? It's one of the better, or at least more enjoyable, films I've seen in awhile. There are some serious plot holes, but it's such a unique film that they are easily overlooked. At least they were for me.

Storywise, it's a pretty straight-forward noir, but the film has a completely unique (at least to my knowledge) structure. I hesitate to say more, because it'd be great to see with no prior knowledge. See it if/when it comes to your town.

David Warner is "best remembered for Titanic"? What are you smoking, Bub? I didn't even remember he was *in* that movie until you mentioned it. Give the guy a little more credit than that!

"Has anyone seen Memento? It's one of the better, or at least more enjoyable, films I've seen in awhile. There are some serious plot holes, but it's such a unique film that they are easily overlooked. At least they were for me."

Memento was the best thing I saw at Sundance, Ron. I loved it. Although I'm sure Newmarket is facing an uphill battle getting it distributed, it's getting enough attention that they'll come out ahead and director Christopher Nolan shouldn't have any problem getting his next project underway.

But what, pray tell, were the plot holes? After seeing it twice, I thought it was pretty airtight.

-Tom

"Anyone remember Cutthroat Island? Anyone WANT to remember it? Blech..."

Oops, I'm caught. I must confess I own a Cuthroat Island DVD. I have no idea why I enjoy watching this film every now and then...

Chick: "But what, pray tell, were the plot holes? After seeing it twice, I thought it was pretty airtight."

Maybe not holes, but lapses. I was just a bit suspicious of/disappointed by some of the exposition. It's definitely airtight in terms of the time it covers. I really don't want to get into specifics in this forum, lest I ruin it for those who haven't had a chance to see it. I think to some degree my criticisms speak to the greatness of the film, though. It's such a fun puzzle to watch (un)ravel that I wanted it to keep going. Nolan brings up so many interesting details I wished he'd keep explaining them all to death.

I agree with you that Memento is worth seeing twice. I went back and saw it the day after my first viewing and liked it even better.

Have you seen Following, Nolan's first film? I haven't, but I'm curious. I've heard it was good. I'm a bit surprised that his next film is going to be a remake of Insomnia. With Al Pacino, no less! I liked the original (though I fell asleep during my first attempt to watch it, ironically enough).

I haven't seen Memento but the plot line i read for it reminds me of the books by Gene Wolfe...also reminds me of the plot threads sorta intertwined in Kieslowski's movies...decalouge and the 3 colors one (at least in form, not plot). anyway, it does sound cool from what i read on imdb...why doin't they release these movies? it sounds like a movie that could be a cult hit. it has joe pantoliantano (sorry i spell bad), i think hes a real good actor. he was the best believable character (and actor) in the matrix imo.

btw, what ever happened to Tarantino? I read somewhere he wanted to do a WW2 movie... i think Tarantino is talented... if he just stops trying to be so hip...though i think Jackie Brown is pretty original and is a "lo-fi" movie that has some good scenes.

also btw, since this is a thread about what we're watching, what directors do you always watch. generally if so and so director makes a movie your bound to go and see it. thers very few ill go out and see by name alone...oh yeah Spielberg and Stone I usually pay to see...though i was dissapointed with the Stone football movie, but I thought U-Turn was pretty good. I don't know much about the indy directors...though whats his name who did Dead Man and Ghost Dog i like alot...there's something honest about his movies.

also, i saw 15 minutes recently...whats with Deniro...hes in every movie now...and he's still good! he makes a parody of himself and yet comes clean, without deniro 15 minutes would rate as worst movie i saw this year. sometimes i see movies just for a performance...uhm i ramble. i must be NUTZ!

etc

I just saw today that Tarantino is slated to write and direct a prequel of sorts to Reservoir Dogs/Pulp Fiction following the exploits of the Vega brothers. That's Michael Madsen's and Travolta's characters from the two films respectively. That sound appealing to me...though it's slated for 2003 apparently.

Vega Brothers

As for directors... there are a lot I pay attention to though I've always loved John Carpenter's films. I could watch The Thing a million times and still be frightened as hell when Kurt Russell tests the blood. And who can forget Wilford Brimley's "I'm ok, why don't you let me come back inside..." or Donald Moffat tied up on the couch... "If you gentlemen don't mind, I'd rather not spend the rest of my life TIED TO THIS FUCKING CHAIR!" This of course after the "thing" was tied up next to him, reavealed, amd then flipped up and stuck to the ceiling in a bloody man-like heap before it chewed up Windows (Tom Waites). Escape from New York will always stick with me also. "You're the Duke! BUDDA BUDDA BUDDA You're A #1!" Heh heh... Did you know he'd like to do one more? Escape from EARTH!

Anyway... there's other directors I follow. John Woo, Robert Rodriguez, David Fincher, Luc Besson, David Twohy... I'm pretty interested in Tomb Raider too because Simon West seems to have a clue. The General's Daughter was a well done film if a bit brutal and certainly not all action. I also really enjoyed Con Air. Stephen Hopkins is another guy I try to keep track of. I adored Lost in Space. That's the ultimate homage to a TV series in a self-contained 2 hour movie. Anyone that watched the show had to be super pleased with the treatment of that subject. He also made the better of the two Predator films IMO. I like style. I like to know kind of what to expect from a director. And obviously my tastes run toward action films. :)

I watch just about anything I can get my hands on though. I'm a sucker for a good romantic film or a period piece. Hell, I just like good cinema that entertains with interesting characters and an internally consistent plot. If it takes me somewhere I've never been, the movie is doing its job.

--Dave

"I just saw a preview for "Driven" last night, or was it the night before? I'm not even sure that's the right title, but I think that's what the title was. The preview didn't say what the movie was actually about, but there were a lot of cool shots of Indycars going really fast, so I'm looking forward to it anyway."

As penance for this, you must rent and watch Grand Prix. Damn fine racing movie, IMHO the best ever, and a wreck is shown as the tragedy that it is. The in-car footage on the banked turns of Monza is frightening.

BTW, playing Grand Prix Legends will increase your appreciation of this film.

"Has anyone seen Memento? It's one of the better, or at least more enjoyable, films I've seen in awhile. There are some serious plot holes, but it's such a unique film that they are easily overlooked. At least they were for me."

Would love to see it, but it's not in my area. :(

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

p.s. Quit talking about the plot, you bastiges! I had to skip all that text!

Ron: A word of advice. Do not even SUGGEST that you think Memento has plot holes around here. There are certain people with the initials TC who will start to call you bad names that start with w. Just say you liked it and back off man. It'll all work out for the best that way.

I had no idea Nolan was the one working on the Insomnia remake! Geez. I've been ripping apart that concept every chance I get, as have been friends who are fans of that film. I really like that film and have been annoyed by the fact of Hollywood feeling they have to remake it. The old La Femme Nikita syndrome (aka The Vanishing syndrome). Knowing Nolan is working on it has me all discombobulated now. I loved Memento. Loved the storytelling, the pacing, the editing. Everything I guess.

I hope he doesn't stumble with Insomnia. Fall into the trap Fincher fell into with Alien3: Caged Heat.

Amanpour

---

Quote:

Bub: Warner has a long game credit list, almost as long as long as Tim Curry. I find it
sad he's best remembered for Titanic. He was great in so many roles... Tron, Into the Mouth of Madness, the voice of Ras al Ghul in the Batman Animated Series,Time After Time and don't forget, he was EVIL in Time Bandits.

---

---

Quote:

As penance for this, you must rent and watch Grand Prix. Damn fine racing movie, IMHO the best ever, and a wreck is shown as the tragedy that it is. The in-car footage on the banked turns of Monza is frightening.

---

---

Quote:

a movie I'm not sure whether I'm looking forward to or not.

---

---

Quote:

How can you not be excited about it you DAMNED DIRTY APE!

---

---

Quote:

Heh, well Burton's going to have a bit of a problem making the ending a surprise this time, isn't he? :)

---

---

Quote:

I'm just looking forward to seeing Heston as an ape.

---

Last I heard, Burton's version is on a different planet, not the future Earth... How the hell is there going to be a twist, especially the nonsensical one mentioned as a possibility on reel.com? I didn't want to mention it here in case someone didn't want to get spoiled.

MEMENTO = Fantastic
Possibly my favorite film since the great movies of 1999. There's even a nice twist at the end... We find out Guy Pearce is a DAMN DIRTY APE!

"BTW, Warner will be appearing (in full Chimpanzee makeup) in Tim Burton's remake of Planet of the Apes, a movie I'm not sure whether I'm looking forward to or not."

Tim Roth as a DAMN DIRTY APE is reason enough for me to want to see it.

But I've been heavily criticized for my taste in all kinds of things.

-Thierry

Enough with the damn dirty apes already!

You know what 70's movie I watched for the first time recently? Woody Allen's Sleeper. I couldn't believe how funny it was, and hardly dated at all. Thoroughly enjoyable. Compare to something like Easy Rider, which I consider unwatchable today.

I'm telling you guys-- a truly great film is one you can come back to 2,5 or even 20 years later and it's just as good (if not better) than the first time.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

p.s. Heston did a number of those wacky 70's scifi movies. Omega Man, Soylent Green, Apes, etc. I think I shall go shoot a gun in his honor.

Why do you have to spoil our fun you DAMN DIRTY APE?! :)

Films, like games, are reviewed as snapshots in time. Some weather time better than others. That doesn't make them any less or more of an entertainment the first time around. Most films aren't really made to be watched again and again. Even something like Fight Club, as great as it is, loses some of the wonder and awe the second or third viewing. The Matrix is another case in point. It's riveting and revealing the first time you see it, but because you know the "secret" the second time it can never affect you the same way.
Heck another example is the movie Seven. I'll never watch that again because it was profoundly disturbing to me. That doesn't mean I think it was a lousy movie...quite the opposite. If it affected me so much I can't bring myself to see it again, it did something right.

--Dave

"Films, like games, are reviewed as snapshots in time. Some weather time better than others. That doesn't make them any less or more of an entertainment the first time around. Most films aren't really made to be watched again and again."

I strongly disagree with this. A truly great book is just as good 100 years from now as it is today. Ditto for movies! Though I think the "shelf life" of movies is probably less than that of books, it's still comparable. Our kids should be able to appreciate them.

"Even something like Fight Club, as great as it is, loses some of the wonder and awe the second or third viewing. The Matrix is another case in point. It's riveting and revealing the first time you see it, but because you know the "secret" the second time it can never affect you the same way."

Disagree. Fight Club was best on the third viewing for me. Matrix never fails to entertain. Only a gimmicky move is all about the "secret".

"Heck another example is the movie Seven. I'll never watch that again because it was profoundly disturbing to me."

*cough*wussy*cough* ;)

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

p.s. Is it just me or does Eyes Wide Shut completely and utterly SUCK ASS? Not sure if I brought this up before. I've seen this movie twice (thanks free hotel HBO!) and both times I had to shake my head in disbelief. Am I missing something here?

"I strongly disagree with this. A truly great book is just as good 100 years from now as it is today."

Absolutely. Universal themes remain universal.

"Ditto for movies! Though I think the 'shelf life' of movies is probably less than that of books, it's still comparable."

Possibly. Themes remain constant, although cinematographic techniques are quickly surpassed. The directorial approach of The Seventh Seal was groundbreaking, but its theological perspective seems naive by today's standards. On the other hand, I've read "As I Lay Dying" at least five times, and still have issues with the text that I can't resolve. I don't know if this is a result of Faulkner's dense style or my inability to come to grips with certain philosophical points.

I think that the difficulty with movies is that film is such a new medium. Every time some movie comes out where people say cool things - "Why do they call it a 'Royale w/cheese'?" "Uh, because of the metric system?" viewers latch onto it as though it were a new school of philosophy, whereas few people can compare Madame Bovary with Anna Karenina because so few people these days have read either one, let alone both. I suppose people react to what speaks to them.

Supposedly Faulkner was somewhat influenced in style by watching DW Griffith's Intolerance, so i read. and Faulkner is very dense, i think he read too much Joyce ... though its ironic that he became a part time screenwriter (watch Barton Fink, Mahoney and Torturo are supposed to be resmblances of Faulkner and Tennesee Wiliams!)

Picking a book nowadays for being just as good 100 years from now seems harder then it was even 100 years before...I mean nobody reads much anymore (me included and i was a friggin literature major).

Some movies that i think are timeless are Hitchcock's films, i saw a rerelease of Psycho the Birds and Rear Window in college on a big screen, my god the audience was floored... especially the last scen in Rear Window, you could hear the tension in the audience when James Stewart saw Raymond Burr see him. Great great movie.

BTW, Tolstoy in Anna Karenina, that book is still relevant today, and what i like most about Russian Literature in the 19th century is the "down to earth" aspect of it...there is a spiritual Russian soul that can't be touched, maybe the orthodoxy to it...plus the fact that Russian authors at that time were almost in a renaissance in there own mode...they were very traditional without being too academic. btw, Madame Bovary by Flaubert is less readable then Anna karenina by todays audiences imo, though similar in plot (a housewife in rebellion) Anna Karenina comes of more natural only because Tolstoy imo was a better writer! plus the fact that Tolstoy loved/hated the character of Anna Karenina whereas Falubert comes off as being completely objective in his tone with his character...anyway Flaubert was still a great writer!

etc

"Supposedly Faulkner was somewhat influenced in style by watching DW Griffith's Intolerance, so i read. and Faulkner is very dense, i think he read too much Joyce"

My prof, a Joyce scholar and generally a specialist in 20th century lit, said that Faulkner called Ulysses "The Writer's Bible."

Time to get back to Absalom, Absalom, since we're talking about ol'Billy Faulkner now!

-Thierry

"I mean nobody reads much anymore (me included and i was a friggin literature major)."

I always hear people say this, but I wonder if it's really true. There's a superbook supermarket superstore on virtually every corner. That's a phenomenon that didn't exist thirty years ago, when, according to the "people don't read" logic, everyone was reading a lot more. Somebody's keeping these gigantic stores in business. Maybe on average people are reading less, but there's like four guys in every city who have become super readers.

"I suppose people react to what speaks to them."

I think this is absolutely true. Although I don't think Bruce means this pejoratively, a lot of people will say it as a way of dismissing anything current. But, hell, although Anna Karenina contains some deep insights into the human condition, Tolstoy certainly wasn't against being topical. I think the full enjoyment of much of Anna Karenina relies on some preexisting knowledge of 1870s (80s?) Russian Society, which did not require any outside research for Tolstoy's original readers. In other words, he couched his more universal themes in a soap opera that was immediately accessible to his audience.

Note: I'm not a Tolstoy scholar or a scholar and only read Anna Karenina once nice years ago, so all factual errors are Tolstoy's.

We're slipping into the difference between timeless ideas and timeless implementation here, which is an important distinction. The ideas of any form can only be communicated when the user can understand the implementation, and the process is greatly improved when the user appreciates the implementation.

The ideas in The Scarlet Letter, for example, can be argued to be timeless, and to speak to large numbers of people. But the literary style of Hawthorne grows more turgid with each passing year, and fewer and fewer people can hack through it. (Although, to see how good Hawthorne was, check out a contemporary.) Shakespeare is already impenetrable without significant instruction to most English speakers.

Novels, at least, have only one axis in which to engage the reader: the written language. Since language and writing style develop quite slowly over time, a broader spectrum of people can understand the ideas, and a broader spectrum may find the implementation pleasing.

Movies, however, have a powerful visual axis as well as a more literary one. We are still in the midst of developing the visual language, and as a result the aesthetic is changing rapidly. Many important and good movies of the 30s are nearly unwatchable by modern audiences (please note that I said audiences, not students of the form), and I imagine the same thing will happen to the movies of today.

I believe that ideas can be timeless, but that the clock will run out on implementation of everything some day. As Erik said above, the Russians of a century ago were more clued into the implementation of Tolstoy's ideas, and loved the book more than we ever could.

KP

mtkafka: "i think Jackie Brown is pretty original and is a "lo-fi" movie that has some good scenes."

I think it's Tarantino's best film, and the only flaws are the scenes where he seems to be asserting his previous style. The DeNiro/Fonda sex scene, for example, is really out of place in a film that is otherwise pretty somber.

Jackie Brown has three scenes in it that are among my favorites: the split screen scene with Robert Forrester's glove compartment, the Chris Tucker/Samuel Jackson vacant lot scene, and the final shot of Robert Forrester in his office. And that Bobby Womack song at the end.

I think the film's lack of commercial success (at least in relation to Pulp Fiction/Reservoir Dogs) probably sent Tarantino into some sort of tailspin. While his first two films were entertaining, they were pretty gimmicky. Here he made a more "mature" film, or at least a film about more universal themes. And it flopped. So what does he do? Take some time off and then return to making the kinds of films that made him famous (assuming Kill Bill and Vega Brothers really get made).

Long: "Films, like games, are reviewed as snapshots in time."

I'm going to place my vote with the "nays" on this one. The problem is that we have access to all of the crap from every era in filmmaking, while only the classics of literature are still widely distributed. There are a handful of great, timeless films from every era, and I'm sure the ratio to books is comparable. The primary difference is that we don't know about the 19th century Russian equivalents of Dunston Checks In.

Amanpour: "A word of advice. Do not even SUGGEST that you think Memento has plot holes around here."

Well, I'm certainly not going to bring up my Big Problem with the film in this forum, but I'd be happy to discuss it via email. We should get a little off-list thread going.

I'm not quite sure how you all turned to evaluating my opinion of reviewing movies and games as equal to reviewing books but whatever...

If reviews aren't a snapshot in time, how do you explain the need for people to "update" certain games to today's graphical standards. Cries of X-Com or Master of Magic re-releases updated to modern day looks are heard constantly. These same cries come from people who claim they just can't play the original anymore because it looks dated. Well, that means their review of that game today wouldn't be nearly as high as it would have been in 1993 when the game was released, right?

Movies fall into the same boat. When a film is reviewed in 1990 among whatever films were available in that day, it gets compared to those films. If that same film comes out in 2001, there's 11 more years of films to compare it to. You can only ever review that film using the criteria of the day you write it.

I've read your replies and I don't quite understand where you all were going with the books. Kevin Perry sort of said what I was getting at...

---

Quote:

I believe that ideas can be timeless, but that the clock will run out on implementation of everything some day.

---

Perry: "Movies, however, have a powerful visual axis as well as a more literary one. We are still in the midst of developing the visual language, and as a result the aesthetic is changing rapidly."

This was a thought-provoking post, but I think I disagree with your central idea. The fact that films are a visual medium, from my perspective, makes them more accessible. And I'm not sure the visual language is evolving any more rapidly than the written language. The evolution of primary technical elements ended long ago (with the introduction of sound), and rapid aesthetic changes are common to any form of entertainment.

Perry: "Many important and good movies of the 30s are nearly unwatchable by modern audiences."

True, but you could also argue that great works of literature are just as undigestable by modern audiences. There are any number of films from the 30s/40s that hold up, and would easily win over anyone who gave them a chance - His Girl Friday, Trouble in Paradise, Pepe Le Moko, Duck Soup, to name just a few. These are very entertaining films, and not scholarly in the least.

I'm not sure the unwatchability is as indicative of the medium's evolution as it is of modern audiences' resistance to anything different. Which probably isn't only a symptom of modern audiences, either. A film like Sleepless in Seattle is completely classic in its structure and style, but audiences are more comfortable with Tom Hanks than with Cary Grant.

Or maybe I'm wrong.

Dave Long: "I'm not quite sure how you all turned to evaluating my opinion of reviewing movies and games as equal to reviewing books but whatever..."

I didn't know you were literally talking about reviews. I thought you were saying that films had an inherent expiration date, much like games with technological improvements. I was arguing against that.

Apologies for misunderstanding your original point.

"True, but you could also argue that great works of literature are just as undigestable by modern audiences."

Well, I thought I just did :).

To follow through on the thrust of my hasty post, the parallel I was positing was of the languages of the written word vs. film. The edge of inaccessibility is difficult to judge, of course. One reaches for a dictionary on Chaucer, but not (or rarely) on Twain. Words change and eventually fail to deliver the ideas.

But the problem of older films for newer audiences is the exact opposite. It's not an inability to figure out what's going on; it's an inability to care due to different aesthetic notions. Dickens is no more convoluted than a season of 90210, but the implementation is far different. But 90210 will seem slow and dated to my children.

Hmm. Let's try another example. My mother-in-law sent us half a dozen Shirley Temple movies for our young children, based on the idea that she loved them as a child. But even my two-and-a-half year old son cannot deal with their glacial pace and few payoff moments, since he is, even on very limited TV, used to a far higher transfer rate of information. I think he responds to a different visual dialect now.

And no, Sleepless in Seattle is *not* classic in its style. Structure, sure, but not style. A scene in SiS lasts no more than two minutes, for a major scene. Compare with His Girl Friday, where the setup alone for major scenes takes that long. Older films are too visually verbose for modern audiences.

FWIW, I agree with Dave Long. Reviews are a snapshot in time, especially when the medium moves so quickly. I was a professional computer game reviewer in 1993-4. Now, I can barely stand some games that I thought were brilliant then, and my tastes haven't changed-- the medium has. To bring this thread full circle, that is the mark of a masterpiece. X-Com has been only slightly tarnished by the intervening time.

Ron Dulin also brings up the important point that when we reach back, we can recall only the greats. Let's pull a random author off the midlists from 1854 and compare that to Twain, for example. We remember the greats.

KP

"But the problem of older films for newer audiences is the exact opposite. It's not an inability to figure out what's going on; it's an inability to care due to different aesthetic notions. Dickens is no more convoluted than a season of 90210, but the implementation is far different. But 90210 will seem slow and dated to my children."

Excellent posts, Kevin Perry. I've got another example for you-- the seperate beds for married couples on TV shows like Dick Van Dyke.

It's difficult to imagine Americans 40 years ago getting their feathers ruffled by the idea (only the IDEA, mind you) that married couples might actually sleep in the same bad.

I can't relate to that at all.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

p.s. As for you, Mr. Ron Dulin, might I humbly suggest that you visit our Fallout: Tactics thread and address some of the issues brought up there?

I've been watching "The Tuskegee Airmen" in the course of showing the film to a class. This is an HBO film from a few years ago that I missed since, well, I don't have HBO. I never really gave it a second thought to be honest. Until now.

I must say it is a shame that more people have not seen this film, and that it did not get a wide theatrical release. It is an excellent film. Even watching it in somewhat weird circumstances (three times a day over two days) it played better than many films I've seen of late in theatres, most notably "An Enemy At The Gates." The flight scenes were fantastic, and overall I thought it was a beautifully made film.

Amanpour

Great posts by a bunch of people. I wish I had time to check in more than once every now and then at midnight to participate.

If I could take issue with one post by Mr. Dulin, it would be this:

"There are a handful of great, timeless films from every era, and I'm sure the ratio to books is comparable. The primary difference is that we don't know about the 19th century Russian equivalents of Dunston Checks In."

Sure we do. Want some titles? In any case, it doesn't matter. Whether there is literary detritus around doesn't bear on whether a work of literature is timeless. That issue is decided by the reader. And for me, Anna Karenina remains one of the most powerful books I've ever read. The existence of Chernyshevskii is irrelevant.

I would argue that literature is inherently deeper and more complex than film. It also requires more effort on the part of the reader/viewer.

Getting back to timelessness, in the latest NYR, Robert Cottrell reviews "My Six Years With Gorbachev" and has an absolutely fantastic quote from Mr. G at the end of his article, which he identifies as being "worthy of Chekhov":

Oh Tolya, everything has become so petty, vulgar, provincial. You look at it and think, to hell with it all! But who would I leave it to? I'm so tired.

It's absolutely Chekhov. The fact that Chekhov has defined this kind of speech is evidence of the historical development of discourse. This discourse continues. Is anyone shocked by Willa Cather anymore? Apparently some people are - Cather criticism got a real kick in the pants in the '90s. Or perhaps it's that some people are shocked by what other people think of Cather. Either way, this kind of discourse contributes to the development of ideas. It all seems petty and pointless, yet this is what we're left with as the years pass, and this is what shapes our intellectual development. Kind of like X-Com. I've completely stopped making sense. Good night.

Bruce

"I've completely stopped making sense. Good night."

Don't let the virtual door hit you in the ass on the way out!

Seriously, guys, you're starting to pull these literary references out of your ass. Can we stick to gaming? Or the topic as it relates to gaming?

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

Wumpus, I think it's a reasonable compromise that you read some of these posts, considering that their authors might accidentally read some of yours.

Xtien is the Tuskegee Airmen available on DVD or rental? I got to see that...

Wumpus this thread is OT on movies and whatnut...but i guess i can say Delta Force is a movie and a game...uhm.

btw, Chekov is prolly the main influence of modern acting...without Chekov there prolly wouldn't have been Stanislavski and method acting so on.

Its just phenomenal how good Russian literature was (imo) in the 19th century...from Pushkin and Gogol to Tolstoy and Dostoevski to Chekov and Turgenev...they did alot. Its easily readable as well with a good translation, to non lit readers, which makes it even better imo.

OT again about Russian Literature compared to American Literature in the same time is the complete opposites...American Literature was alot about Transcendat;lism and the individual, whereas Russian Literature was still concerned alot on ideals from rennaisance times...about good and evil, family and society...numerous directors from Kurosowa to Scorcese were influenced alot by Dostoevski, Tolstoy is harder to emulate since alot of his "natural" writing cannot be done on screen (at least in the same manner). anyway, to tie it into movies...generally the better directors are "well-read" meaning they know they're classics literature somewhat...

sorry thius is OT...but this is a thread not about games!

etc

"sorry thius is OT...but this is a thread not about games!"

Doh! My bad! :P But it's *DEFINITELY* not about books. I just thought it was going a little too far in that direction.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

Oh, come now, Wumpus! They were discussing movies and games with books as a reference. It was topical -- sort of.

Besides, since when does the topic matter? It's not so important in any other thread!

I think it's funny that wumpus was the first one to mention books when replying to me. Now you want to get the thread back on topic, wump?

Choose your references more carefully next time with this bunch. :)

--Dave

"Xtien is the Tuskegee Airmen available on DVD or rental? I got to see that..."

It is on DVD. I just put it on my Netflix queue.

BTW, great thread! I really appreciate the contributions being made here. Anyone who feels out of his league is more than welcome to not read it.

-Tom

C'mon guys. My book analogy was a mild detour. Now we have a full-blown literary death march across the world-- Pushkin, Gogol, Tolstoy, Dostoevski, Chekov, Turganzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzkjewa

Erk, sorry, fell asleep on the keyboard there.

MOVIES BABY! MOVIES!

I recommend "Zero Effect" if you haven't seen that. Dunno why, just liked it. I also saw "Titus" yesterday and it was pretty good, though I think Tom Chick would have a utter epileptic fit if he saw Anthony Hopkin's performance in it. A little hammy, particularly the dinner table stuff-- shades of Hannibal. It helped that I had no idea what Titus Andronicus was about. The movie is rather play-like, which I didn't appreciate. I thought Richard III was better and less artificially "stage-y". And Henry V for that matter too.

Nobody wants to comment on "Eyes Wide Shut"? Everyone agrees that it completely sucks? I can't find a single redeeming quality in that film.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

I thought Eyes Wide Shut was ok...it kinda reminds me of the shining, the crisp dreamlike shots n all...but the mood of the movie left me cold. i only saw it once though. also, Tom Cruise looked like a teenager compared to a mature Nicole Kidman! almost reminded me of the Graduate for some reason, er in that Anne Bancroft was supposedly only 5 years older, in real life, than Hoffman when that movie was made (and Hoffman looked like a teenager...just like Tom Cruise).

etc

re: TITUS

Man what an incredible film. I am just amazed that it even got made. I watched it the first time like a slack-jawed-yokel just trying to figure out how Julie Taymor convinced people to let her spend the kind of money that must have gone into this film. The overall design--costume, art direction, etc--is just phenomenal.

What catapults me even beyond this is the fact that on top of the existence of the film is the two-disc special edition DVD that is out. What the hell? How did this happen? I don't know why what should have been an obscure little film got such royal treatment, but I know I'm thankful.

Wumpus, you must read the play and study Shakespeare himself a bit to understand what he was up to, and to therefore really get what the film is going for (I mean no insult here, for once). Rather than stagey I would say the film is highly stylistic. From the first moments of the film we understand we are in a world with different rules. Hopkins' performance totally works once you understand what an over-the-top play Titus Andronicus is. I'm not even sure it really qualifies to be defined as a play. It's weird. It feels almost like Shakespeare was trying to win a gross-out contest but just couldn't keep himself from writing beautiful poetry even while doing that. This in and of itself lends a wonderful dichotomy to the film.

I'm totally smitten by it and the abovementioned DVD special edition is one of my prized disks.

Amanpour

"The overall design--costume, art direction, etc--is just phenomenal."

Yes that part was outstanding.

"Hopkins' performance totally works once you understand what an over-the-top play Titus Andronicus is."

Eh, well, I found it rather hammy in parts. Not all the time, just the dinner stuff mostly. Certainly no less hammy than his work in Hannibal involving, er, the dinner table. I guess I was taken aback by the cannibalism angle too. Very similar.

"What catapults me even beyond this is the fact that on top of the existence of the film is the two-disc special edition DVD that is out."

Yeah, definitely not for everyone. Though I have never seen or read the play, it seemed like a very close adaptation, almost scene for scene-- is this true? Most movie versions of WS plays tend to be adapted/modified heavily. I didn't get that impression here, it felt verbatim.

I was expecting something a lot more along the lines of Richard III, if you've seen that:

http://us.imdb.com/Title?0114279

What I got was a remarkably stage-like adaptation-- a coy half-fantasy, half-reality setting that I could never really buy into. I don't like these as a rule, just a personal preference, which is also why I'm not heavily into plays or even worse, musicals (blech). But it was very well done, like Xtien says.

I much preferred Henry V's historical "realism", or the way Richard III or Hamlet (2000) transplanted the classic WS plays to different eras, and maintained that fiction in a consistent way throughout.

http://us.imdb.com/Title?0171359
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0097499

Also, remember the old adage "the brother always dies first" or "BADF"? I loved that scene in the Edge (another great movie with Hopkins). Well, I didn't realize that started with WS! The Moor is a very unsympathetic character, quite evil, and dies horribly. Of course everyone dies in this play, but he's the worst of the lot. So BADF redux. I actually thought the actor who played this character was the best of the lot.

"It feels almost like Shakespeare was trying to win a gross-out contest but just couldn't keep himself from writing beautiful poetry even while doing that. This in and of itself lends a wonderful dichotomy to the film."

Yeah reading the reviews at http://www.rottentomatoes.com I guess that is the case. Like I said, I didn't know anything about this play. My verdict: I was entertained, but not impressed enough to recommend it strongly.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

I also want to plug Existenz and Crash. I really liked these two Cronenberg films for completely different reasons. Thoroughly enjoyable.

And every gamer should watch Existenz. Seriously!

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

I thought Romeo and Juliet was a fairly good adaptation of a Shakespeare play into a different time. I could have done without Leonardo di CRAPrio, but he doesn't ruin this one. At least, I didn't think so. But that movie had kind of a neat touch.

---

Quote:

Bruce Geryk: On the other hand, I've read "As I Lay Dying" at least five times, and still have issues with the text that I can't resolve. I don't know if this is a result of Faulkner's dense style or my inability to come to grips with certain philosophical points.

---

Titus is quite an accomplishment. In fact, the play was my entry to Shakespeare. I saw the Royal Shakespeare Company's production of Titus Andronicus, which I believe was the origin of Taymor's unique production before wending its way on to film, with Brian Cox as Titus. You Rushmore-ophiles will certainly recognize his name. It was one of those defining moments for me, the sort of thing that can only happen to a 20-year-old. So Titus Andronicus has always been one of my favorite plays.

Having said that, I do take issue with certain parts of the film. The production design upstages the actual narrative. I would have preferred if it were a little simpler at times.

Hopkins was great in that. He's very comfortable with the role and brings his movie star weariness to the part of a venerable aging Roman general. Anyone who thinks he's too hammy should see how dreary a production is when the actor takes everything in earnest; without acknowledging how overblown the drama is, a production of Titus Andronicus can be pretty grim. Even moreso than the play already is.

I really liked Jessica Lange, BTW. I don't know why so many actresses are pining away to play Lady MacBeth when Tamora is a far more developed role.

Great smaller roles in Titus, too. I like the guy who played Marcus (who had a great part at the Mississippi Attorney General in The Insider). It's a tough part since you basically have to play the audience's reaction for them, bearing witness to all manner of horrible things. The Aaron was good, but I kept thinking "What if they got Laurence Fishburne to play that part?" :)

-Tom

"OK, I'm weird, but I found "As I Lay Dying," despite its radical style, to be Faulkner's most accessible novel; not dense at all, at least compared to something like "Light in August.""

I agree, Jason. In fact, As I Lay Dying is a good introduction to Faulker. It's as accessible as some of his piffling short stories, but with more depth. And it's probably one of the best incarnations of "Southern gothic". It's also a good primer for the kaleidoscoping perspectives in The Sound and the Fury.

Even Light in August is pretty accessible. I think anyone who likes a good crime drama could have it dropped into his lap.

-Tom

---

Quote:

Tom: Even Light in August is pretty accessible. I think anyone who likes a good crime
drama could have it dropped into his lap.

---

I hated The Sound and the Fury, probably because we were forced to read it for AP English in High School. But I had no business being in that class and am only just now starting to understand some things that were obviously apparent to my classmates then. Maybe I'd appreciate it better now. Still, I remember thinking, "Okay, so he wails when they go to the left. That's symbolism?"

"Great smaller roles in Titus, too. I like the guy who played Marcus (who had a great part at the Mississippi Attorney General in The Insider). It's a tough part since you basically have to play the audience's reaction for them, bearing witness to all manner of horrible things. The Aaron was good, but I kept thinking "What if they got Laurence Fishburne to play that part?" :)"

I thought Aaron (the Moor) was outstanding. And I agree that Jessica Lange did a great job, that would be my second pick for best actor in this film. However, I don't agree at all that Hopkins' performance was of similar quality. I found it way too hammy in parts, almost exactly like Hannibal. I think you guys are being a little hypocritical here since you despised that in Hannibal, but you like it in Titus? Every other actor in Titus took their role seriously-- at least I couldn't detect any hamminess in anyone else. Even Alan Cummings, for God's sake!

I should note here that the movie *does* feature breasts. It's no Caligula though. :P

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

What's surprising with Titus is that if you compare it to Shakespeare's fellow writers at the time, Johnson, Kyd, Marlowe, etc... the tone of the play is of a huge bloody spectacle (nothing like Titus was done with as much gore at the time). Titus actually is like an unformed Shakespeare...alot of his techniques are rough and not fully realized dramatically. Its generally considered the "worst" of his plays (for reasons of no moral value, lacking dramatic tension, no reasonable denoument and too long) and it's also been dated to possibly be the first play he had ever wrote. But the "nihilism" of the revenge trgedy in the play is what draws it more to modern audiences then to a rennaisance audience... its ahead of its time in that respect. as well the "racial" Moorish asepect is WAY ahead of its time... one thing no other writers took upon except with portraying caricatures. The moor is imo the best character in Titus, moreso than Titus himself.

What's ironic is that this play is really MORE grotesque and violent then Hannibal (and more then 500 yrs old)... and if it was done in less of a poetic lyrical mood (which was stil good for the movie), you can see another director filming it just like Hannibal.

I remember reading Titus a few years ago and laughing. The violence is so over the top you can only picture Shakespeare writing it in an ironic half serious way. Now imagine this same Shakespeare (who wrote Titus at about the same time) as that one we see in the Shakespeare in Love movie... bah. Basically Shakespeare is the God among men when it comes to writers, I just don't see him as a bedazzled lovelorn writer...well maybe before he got to London ... and was married.

and before i go off more on Shakespeare... if it weren't for Shakespeare there wouldn't have been any form of Freudian psychology. his influence is boundless! you name it, somebody has dibs on one particualr aspect of Shakepeare... feminism, lesbianism, racism, nihilism, modernism ... game development... hehe

etc

---

Quote:

I hated The Sound and the Fury, probably because we were forced to read it for AP English in High School.

---

Well, I'll probably get banned for saying this, but.. I just watched the "Bring It On" DVD and I was thoroughly entertained.

I know, this is (seemingly) exactly the sort of puerile cheerleader movie that has launched a thousand Daily Radar and PXCL careers. But-- and this is key-- the movie doesn't take itself seriously.

It reminded me most of "Clueless" in overall tone, pacing, and approach. But I think it's actually better.

Plus the DVD has an embarassing number of extras (easily encoaching on special edition territory IMO) all of which were actually GOOD with INTERESTING commentary by the director. In particular, one of the deleted scenes, intended to run after the credits, was the funniest thing I've seen in a long, long time. I'm still laughing! No, I won't ruin it for you by telling you what it is-- rent the DVD, and check out the deleted scenes. Holy crap, that was funny. I can't believe they cut it!

Recommended. Try it yourself and then post here how much I suck. I enjoy it.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

Actually, my brother-in-law just said the same thing about "Bring It On". He said it's one of the funnier movies he's seen in awhile. I just may have to check it out.

I watched "The 6th Day" this weekend. I liked the overall idea, but the execution was average which isn't surprising given the Director (Roger Spottiswoode). Arnold is still fun to watch IMO. He gets to do some funny stuff with the clone thing too. Overall it's worthy of your time if you have someone to talk about it with afterward since cloning humans is certainly a hot topic for debate. The treatment is abusive, mean-spirited and far-fetched, but not completely out of the realm of possibility.

Should be watching "The Contender" tonight.

--Dave

I saw "Ravenous" yesterday. Very interesting premise, but unfortunately the whole thing falls apart and degenerates into a rather typical action movie about 70% of the way through.

It's really a shame. I feel the scriptwriter lets us down in this case. Can't fault the casting, acting, cinematography, or score-- all are excellent across the board.

I still enjoyed the movie, but like Titus, I can't recommend it without reservation.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

Ok, I'm convinced that Gary Oldman can be anyone after seeing him in "The Contender". I mean, midwestern politician with horn rims and a receeding hairline?! The guy's freakin' BRITISH! Another great role to add to his long list of accomplishments. Great film with a lot of great performances. Jeff Bridges made a great President and the food angle is a riot. Sam Elliott should've gotten some recognition for his role also. Definitely one not to miss if you enjoy political thrillers in the least. It was just... well, great! :)

--Dave

Eh, I didn't like Contender. Too rah-rah. Politics are far darker than that movie depicts them.

It felt like a Lifetime movie about politics. Righteous, but oh so wrong.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"Ok, I'm convinced that Gary Oldman can be anyone after seeing him in "The Contender"."

I think I like his work in "State of Grace" best. I cannot help but love that film, despite its flaws.

Amanpour

Aaron in TITUS was played by an actor named Harry Lennix. He just blew me away in the film. What a fantastic presence. I have a friend who saw him on stage (in a different play) and was just mesmerized by him. He was on the television show "ER" for awhile and rumor has it he is in the second and third "Matrix" movies. Woo-hoo.

In TITUS he just had this incredible assurance about him, this confidence that is absolutely essential to the role. Great stuff. I guess he and Julie Taymor worked together on the play when it was on Broadway, which is how he got the job in the film.

Wumpus, w/r/t the hammy comments about Hopkins's work in TITUS v. his work in Hannibal. I can only say "apples and oranges." Really, come on. In the scene you mention from TITUS, the dinner scene, you absolutely have to evaluate all that the character has gone through up until that point and all that is happening just then. If you can imagine another way to play this scene that makes more sense, by all means share it. I think he hits the exact right notes in a bizarre moment. I think saying that this is "hammy" is unfair, and not considerate of the context.

I really cannot even make a comparison to "Hannibal" here, which was my intention, because in that film Hopkins is really just spinning his wheels. There is no viable comparison because there is no real version of the character there. Proof of this--which I know you will demand--is in the very fact of "goody-goody" and "okey-dokey"---campy additions Hopkins felt he had to make to entertain the audience. Why? Because the writing supplied no real meat for his character to chew.

I'm not saying TITUS is the be all end all, but it is a wonderful film for what it is. And more importantly I love it because it was something I stumbled upon. A film that I did not expect to be any good at all. I love it when that happens, When I go in with low or no expectations and a film really surprises me. I guess that is what keeps me going to the movies.

Amanpour

re: As I Lay Dying

My favorite Faulkner book. I remember being most surprised by the black humor in it.

re: being forced to read classics and "Is there a better way to ruin a good book?"

I just found out this very thing when I accidentally picked up a classic I never thought I would read...Jane Eyre. I realize this is going to prove once and for all that I'm a girl, but I just loved that book. I picked it up when during silent reading time while teaching. My book had run out and I needed a few pages to keep me occupied. Jane Eyre was there and I thought she would bore me and that would be that.

I got hooked immediately and stayed hooked. Color me surprised. Thing is, if I'd been forced to read that in high school it probably would have made me diabetic.

It is better to discover the classics on your own. They have more of an impact that way. I will always be suspicious of Moby Dick because it was an assigment. I will always love The Grapes of Wrath because I chose to read it on my own.

Problem is, precious few high school students today read of their own volition.

Amanpour

"It is better to discover the classics on your own."

This is very true. I remember trying to read alot of Joyce, just to see what was going on (plus being an assignement). After Dubliners... reading joyce (who is otherwise a modern master) was very demanding (a chore to read)... even Faulkner needs much in terms of attention to the details... it is best to read what you like. If you like reading the Beats then read that. If you like Dickens prose, read Dickens. If you like suicidal romantic poetry, read Sylvia Plath...etc etc etc. Basically in this day and age its not worth the time to read for an "academic" endeavour, unless your someone who prides himself in learning more about different literatures and art.. You can read stuff like TS Eliot or Shakespeare or Tolstoy without much in knowledge of "literary" technique and still be enlightened. There are some i would steer some ppl away from if they want to read for pleasures sake... (proust, joyce, etc.) for instance... i think if anyone loves Scorcese movies ppl should definitely check out Dostoevski...plus with the better translations he is very "fun" to read (and humorous... check out the Gamblers). stuff like Kafka and Gogol are hilarious when you get into them, or even Poe. (I always envisioned Gogol Poe and Kafka as similar in spirit but from different cultures).

i usually reccomend 19th century russian novelists because in a general translation they are very easy to read and have very believable characters (in terms of naturalistic prose). Also, the best "road" novel ever written is still the first one ever made, the homer's Oddysey (with Don Quixote second and maybe Gulivers Travels 3rd imo). All three of these are easy to read imo.

Whats surprising when you do get into "calssic literature" (pre modernism)... is that you will see how not much has really changed (in terms of our understanding and maturity). You don't need to have an agenda (feminism, marxism, existentialism, atheism etc etc), to read these books, just read a chapter and if you like it keep reading...even "recent" stuff like Salinger or Marquez or Delilo or Kundera are easy to read (though the modernism and pessimism in there books is annoying to me). Mao and Libra by Delillo are pretty cool, as well as White Noise, weird stuff. sorta like Vonnegut is delillo....

just read "literature"like you would read Stephen King or Tom Clancy. This was the mistake i made in early lit classes i took. its funny that a few years after i graduated from college i picked up MORE from Shakespeare's Hamlet with "casual" reading then i did with "studious" examination of it. i think maturity DOES help in reading some books, in terms of what has happened in your life and your experiences and such...

also, if you really want to read one of those "academic" modernist books, sometimes it IS good to get cliffnotes as guides. yes it sounds stupid to have another book to guide you thru a book, but you'll learn more than you would if you just picked it up without any prior knowledge.

though im so much spending my spare time playing games these days that the most i read is moslty poetry here and there... Borges, Wallave Stevens, Neruda...French Symoblism (awesome stuff), Yeats or William Blake... post ww2 literature i have barely touched...

anyway i ramble but its been awhile since i have been enthusiastic over talking "literature". i used to be TOTALLY nutz with literature a few years back...

"Problem is, precious few high school students today read of their own volition. "

this is sad...i have a cousin who just graduated high school and i reccomend to her some books and poetry i know she would like if she gives it a chance... but shes all caught up with all things feminism (which isn't bad)... and only reads Beat stuff becuase her bf does. I always tell her "try some other stuff", but she never does.

this if for those who are "afraid" to read "literature". hope i didn't sound "know it all", just that literature CAN be cool yay.

etc

Has anybody actually seen "Spy Kids"? I keep hearing how surprisingly good it is, and I want to know if this is true or just so much hype. I was totally uninterested and thought the marketing was terrible and then, fairly late in the game, I found out Robert Rodriguez directed it. That was the spark. Since then my desire to see it has gained momentum. Should I bother?

kafka: "but shes all caught up with all things feminism (which isn't bad)... and only reads Beat stuff becuase her bf does."

Is the irony here intentional? Because this is one of the most hilarious statements I have ever read.

Amanpour

"Has anybody actually seen 'Spy Kids'?"

I cannot imagine paying full theater price for this as an adult without children. Maybe when it comes out on video.

Then again, there is the Goonies and Pee Wee factor.. some kid movies work well for adults. I'm not willing to risk full ticket price to find out, though.

Gonna see Magnolia tonight. I plan to respect the cock.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"Has anybody actually seen 'Spy Kids'?"

It's getting a ridiculously high score at Rottentomatoes.com. I was also iffy about it until I found out Robert Rodriguez was the director. Still haven't seen it though.

It's been #1 at the box offices three weekends in a row...That makes me wonder. Kid movies don't usually do that well, unless they're Pokemon.

I finally slogged all the way through the (very long) Magnolia.

Except for the intriguing introduction sequence, I found the first half unbearably shrill and abrasive. It's as if he's trying to piss off the viewer by using extensive quick cuts, frequent plot shifts, and constant shock transitions. The director's previous movie, Boogie Nights-- which I loved-- used many of the same devices and didn't feel so grueling.

But.. the second half of the movie slows the pace down considerably, thank God. And the emotional payoff is worthwhile.

And let me get this out of the way. I really dislike Aimee Mann's music. Yeah yeah, hush hush, keep it down now, shaddup! I can forgive the use of her music on the soundtrack-- no accounting for tastes, after all. But what I _cannot_ forgive is the sequence where the characters in the movie all sing words from one of her songs, round robin style. What is this, a freakin' rap video? Sheesh.

And I just couldn't buy the hail of frogs at all. Was that really necessary? The movie confounds the "this only happens in the movies" theme in other, more effective ways.

Overall, though, I would recommend this movie. As long as you can deal with the manic pacing early on.. and take the lyrical and fantastical turns in stride.

Still, I think Boogie Nights is a slightly better movie.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

p.s. I am Luis Guzman's bitch!

Yes, Boogie Nights was better than Magnolia imo... basically because i CARED more for the characters in Boogie Nights then in Magnolia. Almost all the characters in Magniolia were kind of annoying to me, but maybe thats the point of the movie (being punished with frogs n all)... anyway, the only character i actually liked in Magnolia was the cop, though when hes crying about losing his gun i found that unbelievable... i think the actor John C Reily who played him made him more intelligent than probably intended (scriptwise the cop might have come off as a Don Knotts Mayberry caricature with any other actor) but that Reilly actor is just ... great, he has an added depth to that role. Not exactly naive... as seemed intended.

But whats exceptional about Magnolia is that its a Hollywood soap opera drama on caffeine that doesn't feel long... just like Boogie Nights. you could call his movies action-dramas! its like the director was brought up on Goodfella's! though Hard Eight is very subdued then either of his recent movies.

btw, if you liked Magnolia or Boogie Nights, watch Short Cuts or any Robert Altman drama... especially Nashville. they aren't as "MTV" edited as Magnolia, but they have alot of naturalistic characters in em... alot of Altman is improvised supposedly.

btw, who is Luis Guzman?!?

etc

-- checking off my mental list --

"Except for the intriguing introduction sequence, I found the first half unbearably shrill and abrasive."

-- there goes wumpus' credibility --

"btw, who is Luis Guzman?!?"

-- and there goes mtkafka's --

Who is Luis Guzman? Think of a movie with a short funny Puerto Rican. Go ahead, any movie. That was Luis Guzman.

-Tom

By the way, if anyone actually likes Raymond Carver, for the love of god do not see Short Cuts. Setting it in L.A.... good lord, talk about not getting Carver. All of his stories were set in the dreary pacific northwest, and all of the characters are way more at home in that atmosphere then in LaLaLand.

I really liked Magnolia. Got the DVD and really enjoyed the nice work there, though I can see how it might not be everyone's cup of tea. I also thought it was Cruise's best performance (I'm not a big fan of any of his other works).

"btw, who is Luis Guzman?!? "

Pachanga, man, Pachanga! To me, he will always be Pachanga.

Definitely. He's Pachanga to me too. "Pachanga just fucking around!"

He pops up in so many movies, just like Danny Trejo.

Just saw "Almost Famous".

I like this movie a hell of a lot better than Jerry McGuire. The kudos are warranted. My one beef-- it doesn't totally escape the formulaic, saccharine touch of Cameron Crowe's previous movie. Almost Famous is closer to Fast Times At Ridgemont High* in overall feel-- heartfelt, autobiographical, and more risque.

Still, except for the few moments of McGuire-ization, this is an amazingly well-made movie. So many great scenes, and outstanding performances from everyone involved. Definitely recommended!

God, those editors at Rolling Stone were hilarious. As was the love song and closeup when they pumped Penny Lane's stomach. Who can't relate to the "you mom kinda freaked me out" theme? ;)

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

* See this again, you'd be surprised how well it stands the test of time. Seriously.

How about "Wonder Boys"?

I don't understand the fuss over this movie. It's like a meandering, geriatric, bookish "Go". Do you have to be over 40 to appreciate this one? Because I definitely wasn't seeing the appeal. Just see "Go" instead-- a truly underrated film.

I didn't have any problem with the acting, though. I enjoyed seeing Robert Downey, Jr. play.. himself, evidently. And Frances McDormand is a national treasure. Between "Almost Famous" and this movie, we had an impromptu Frances Film Festival at the Atwood home. Great, great acting in both movies from her.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"I don't understand the fuss over this movie. It's like a meandering, geriatric, bookish "Go"."

It's absolutely nothing at like "Go". Except maybe the superficial fact that both movies strain credulity, are rife with coincidence and have a couple fresh faced youngsters in starring roles.

"Do you have to be over 40 to appreciate this one?"

No, but it probably helps if you're a writer or have ever been stuck in a destructive rut.

MASSIVE Spoilers follow:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


To me the central theme is, bear with me a sec, The Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner.

We have a character who is older than his actual age. He's stuck in a rut. He writes a certain way. He "writes under the influence" as a habit. He doesn't "make choices" in his writing or his life. He wears an old bathrobe as a good luck charm and he teaches out of habit. He is in a loveless marriage. THINGS HAPPEN TO HIM.

All these things are the albatross round his neck.

Then a series of coincidences shatters that reality. His wife leaves him, his annoying agent comes a'calling, his stolen car is re-stolen and he sort of falls into a web of small lies and becomes embroiled with a raw and talented student, who, like all fiction writers sort of have to be, is a consummate liar.

Then...
he learns his mistress (and secret love) is pregnant.

Then he loses his 1600 page book/obsession/Syssyphusian stone.

The albatross falls away and he is finally free to pursue happiness and most of all risk for the first time in a long time. At the end HE MAKES THINGS HAPPEN FOR HIM.

"Just see "Go" instead-- a truly underrated film."

I'd call it a decent film that has nothing at all to do with Wonder Boys.
Instead of "Go", go see Pulp Fiction or After Hours instead.

-Andrew

My take on the Wonder Boys -- without shoehorning in a Samuel Taylor Coleridge connection or mangling the spelling of Sisypus :) -- would go as follows:

[Reprinted without permission from the now-dead Daily Radar]

On the Whole, I'd Rather Be in Pittsburgh

by Tom Chick

"It felt good to be in the car, alone, where I could clear my head," says Michael Douglas' Grady Tripp as he lights up a joint after a hard day at work. He's a professor of literature at a picturesque college in Pittsburgh, as well as a frustrated novelist trying without success to follow-up on the novel he wrote seven years ago. His publisher is coming to town to check up on his progress. His wife just left him and now he's got to make a decision about whether to marry his boss's wife now that he's gotten her pregnant. Then there's the adorable co-ed, played by Katie Holmes, who rents a room in his house and makes no effort to hide her affection and admiration. And the troubled and talented boy in one of his classes might be suicidal. But it's going to be a whole lot worse before it gets any better, because Wonder Boys is just getting under way.

Wonder Boys deftly walks a fine line between being wistful and merry. It is a meditation on the art of writing with none of the overblown trappings that come with such movies. It is an affectionate look at the world of academics without the pretentiousness of something like Dead Poet's Society. It is a portrait of a wry sad man who literally has to pull himself back from the brink, but it is not desperate or overbearing. This pleasant post-holiday surprise is so far the best movie of the year. Granted, that's not saying much, but here's to hoping it doesn't get lost in the Academy's notoriously short attention span when the nominations are announced next year.

Michael Douglas cuts a fine figure in his overcoat and scarf, looking over one of the silliest pair of glasses this side of the Eisenhower era. He is tired and unshaven, with an almost leonine shock of graying hair. This is a fine example of a recognizable actor truly making a character his own. He seems to live inside Grady Tripp as if he's been there all his life. Tobey Maguire is also impressive because he once more demonstrates that he has mastered something elusive to most actors of his generation: how to underplay a character for maximum impact. "I don't like to lose control of my emotions," he glumly explains, while fingering a pistol. Moments later, he launches into a quietly hilarious compendium of famous suicides.

The supporting cast includes Robert Downey Jr. looking remarkably clear-eyed after his stint in prison and Frances McDormand once more playing a pregnant woman. Rip Torn and his usual gusto give the movie one of its funniest moments with four little words.

One of the most surprising things about Wonder Boys is its director. Curtis Hanson's previous work consists mainly of intricate character-driven thrillers like L.A. Confidential and The River Wild. But while Michael Douglas' performance provides the emotional center, Hanson brings a sense of pace and adventure to this day in the life of a burned-out college professor. Much of the credit goes to cinematographer Dante Spinotti, who does Michael Mann's movies and is currently nominated for The Insider. In Wonder Boys, Spinotti and Hanson range easily from a college bar to a stuffy cocktail party to a packed lecture hall to dimly lit cars. They make a wet and snowy Pittsburgh look like the coziest place you could ever hope to be.

Wonder Boys has a lot in common with American Beauty. It is about having to save yourself from fear and insecurity. As Francis McDormand's character tells Grady, while working in a lush greenhouse in the middle of a snowy city, "I'm not going to draw you a map. Times like these you have to do your own navigating." The result is a funny and sweetly sad road movie that never leaves town, but manages to come a long way.

Speaking of 'mangling the spelling', we all know that's supposed to be 'Sisyphus' at the top of that last message, don't we?

-Tm

"Speaking of 'mangling the spelling', we all know that's supposed to be 'Sisyphus' at the top of that last message, don't we?"

At least as much as syssyphus was supposed to be I suppose.
I admit... I sort of just stabbed at that spelling. The baby was crying and the Bulfinch weren't handy.

-Andrew

Is Sisyphus even in Bullfinch's? It's been a long time since I looked at that book. My mom gave it to me when I was a kid and I read all the Norse myths, so to me Bullfinch's is all about Thor and Loki. If the Greco-Roman myths were in there, I didn't read them for some reason.

- Mark Asher, a Luddite at home now until his computer's fixed.

"Wonder Boys has a lot in common with American Beauty. It is about having to save yourself from fear and insecurity. As Francis McDormand's character tells Grady, while working in a lush greenhouse in the middle of a snowy city, "I'm not going to draw you a map. Times like these you have to do your own navigating." The result is a funny and sweetly sad road movie that never leaves town, but manages to come a long way."

The movie doesn't need a map because it's too busy meandering aimlessly all over the friggin' place. I do agree the acting is excellent all-around.

And I do think it's a lot like "Go", regardless of what Bub says. The epiphanies are similar, but Wonder Boys is much more tedious to watch. The movie itself is so stoned it has no velocity, and therefore no impact. I wouldn't say I was bored, but I was only marginally entertained.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

p.s. Shame on both of you. Sisyphus. Didn't you guys take Latin?

http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/users/00/pwillen1/lit/msysip.htm

michael douglas was smoking pot in that movie... thats evil... evil i say... who are you people...whats with all the tatooes on me? oh yeah, hi every-body...hi tom chick hi wumpus...lemme take a polaroid.

"dont trust there lies"

etc

Mark,
Bulfinch has got 'em all.

-Andrew

http://www.bulfinch.org/

"Speaking of 'mangling the spelling', we all know that's supposed to be 'Sisyphus' at the top of that last message, don't we? "

Drat. There goes that clever "Snagglepuss" tie-in angle I thought you were working ;-)

I always name my vehicles after mythological figures. For instance, right now we have Alkmene the Van (it is also loads of fun to listen to our little girls call her that). I need to buy a new commuter car soon, and while I try to stick to female names, Sisyphus would be a perfect name for that!

"Sisyphus would be a perfect name for that"

1. Sisyphus was a man
2. Sisyphus' plight would make for a very unfortunate commuter car name.

How into irony are you Supertanker?

-Andrew

"1. Sisyphus was a man"

Yes, though I thought I implied I would be breaking my rule.

"2. Sisyphus' plight would make for a very unfortunate commuter car name."

I'm intending to express the idea that a daily commute is an unfortunate (and similar) plight. I probably put too much thought into car names, but I picked Alkmene (the mother of Herakles) because she was mother to a child of legendary strength, and the van is part of our efforts to raise strong girls. I was stumped on a name for the car before that until I got in a fender-bender when it was still very new. After that, I named her Psyche because she suffered misfortune through no fault of her own.

Supertanker,

I can think of no better metaphor for a daily commute than Sisyphus.

Either Bub doesn't know what irony means or he doesn't know who Sisyphus is. I'm putting the odds at 5-2 on the former, 3-2 on the latter, and 2-1 on both.

-Tom

YES Sisyphus and traffic! Its the daily grind, the daily heave up the hill with a rock! I hate traffic! plus the prices of gas are high now, that is pretty sissyfied. Though really, I remember a commute i had for a contract that was almost 2 hours WITH bumper to bumper, drving home and sleeping 2 hours to only come back to work surely felt like a Camus Sissyfit.

anyway, Lenny in Memento is Sisyphus, I am Sisyphus... we are all Sissies to the man!

etc

Supertanker,
I misjudged you. Or, more to the point, I took you too seriously.

I don't think I could face the day in a car called Sisyphus. I'd prefer going to work in Herakles' mother (er... Herakles' Mother the Car -starring Jerry Van Dyke!). The work day is Sisyphusian enough thank you very much!

Also, a car named anything other than Sisyphus would require much less pushing, one would think.

Still,
A worse name might be Icarus. Why, you'd stall out on the sunny days. Or Arachne, fear for your daughters Supertanker!
-Andrew

Just don't name it Narcissus -- you'd never be able to keep your eyes out of the rear-view mirror!

Mercy be upon you if you name a vehicle Clytemnestra.

-Thierry

Or Cassandra.
"Damn, the engine and fuel lights keep turning off and on..."

Achilles?
Perfect name for a Pinto.

Hmm...I think I feel a runner-up for geekiest thread ever right here...

I'd steer clear of Prometheus, too.

Still, this doesn't hold a candle to the X-Wing vs. Y-Wing thread. That was "phat", as the kids say.

I've owned more than one vehicle that I've referred to Hades, if not outright naming it that.

Dionysus would be a poor choice if you get stopped by the police.

I named my last car wumpus.

I love the fact that Toyota actually has a car called a Cressida! Buy it and it will betray you!

-Tom

Just because it occurs to me now, I have to say that Wonder Boys appears to be complete and total plagiarism of Richard Russo's Straight Man. Straight Man isn't a movie, but it was written approximately 2 years before Wonder Boys, and I gotta say that Chabon ripped off Russo. Its a tragedy. I'm not really upset, but in my opinion, it appears to be the truth.

As a point of referance, if you haven't read Straight Man, Richard Russo had another of his books made into a movie called Nobody's Fool, with Paul Newman. I liked Nobody's Fool much better than Wonder Boys.

Although, and I'm sorry if you guys don't like this sort of language, I would have liked Wonder Boys a lot more if it had had Katie Holmes showing as much skin in Wonder Boys, as Melanie Griffith shows in Nobody's Fool. I don't mean to be all sexual and gross in this fine forum, but it would have made somewhat of a differance in my mind.

"Although, and I'm sorry if you guys don't like this sort of language, I would have liked Wonder Boys a lot more if it had had Katie Holmes showing as much skin in Wonder Boys, as Melanie Griffith shows in Nobody's Fool."

First of all, are you suggesting we don't like discussing nudity? Just because this is an Amish gamer forum doesn't mean the subject of naked women makes us squeamish. We love it. We all get together once a year to watch "Witness" and toast Kelly McGillis with lemonade.

Second of all, um, does this mean that "The Gift" is your favorite film so far this year?

On a related note, "The Gift" is currently showing in Spain under the title "La Premonicion" (with an accent over the second 'o').

Amanpour

P.S. I recall liking "Nobody's Fool" a lot, and remember thinking it was easily Melanie Griffith's best work. I only recall her pulling up her shirt one time though, so let's not get all crazy.

ah the Gift with Cate Blanchett. Theres also the "slipping on the floor see Cate's panties" scene. I liked it. and Katie Holmes getting nailed by that actor from Chicago (forgot name). plus it has Keanu Reeves as a wife-beater!?! and hes pretty believable as it. The Gift is the wierdest cast for a movie ive seen since... maybe Nurse Betty. Hollyqood movie that is.

Yeah I liked Nobody's Fool as much as Wonder Boys. Though I think ppl relate more to Michael Douglas than Paul Newman, I think.

etc

I just watched the film "Animal Factory" on DVD yesterday. "Animal Factory" is the second feature film directed by Steve Buscemi, and it tells the story of a young man going into prison on a rather minor drug charge---well, I don't know if it really "tells the story of" the guy so much as simply follows him around, but it is a mildly interesting movie nonetheless. The biggest surprise for me, though, was that this was the first time an Edward Furlong performance didn't affect me like nails on a blackboard.

Better than the film, however, was the commentary track on the DVD that featured producer/actor Danny Trejo and writer/actor Edward Bunker. Listening to these guys talk about their real-life experiences in prison and why they liked the ways Buscemi captured vibe and emotion of prison life was fascinating, especially since I had formed impressions of these guys from their past work. Danny Trejo has been an Endo-level heavy in a number of films (Con Air, Replacement Killers) and Edward Bunker played Mr. Blue in Reservoir Dogs), so I thought I pretty much had a bead on who they were, that is to say I simply assumed they were "only" journeymen character actors. The commentary track opened my eyes and entertained me (more than the film did).

Sadly I kept exploring the special features on the disk. I say sadly because I eventually got to the interview section, and there was an interview segment with Edward Furlong. Oof. What a moron. Whatever I think of Buscemi's ability as a director handling story I have to say that he must be amazing at handling actors. After listening to Furlong confirm my worst impressions of him I came away realizing that anything good about his performance would have to be credited to Buscemi.

My favorite performance in the film would have to be Mickey Rourke's though. I knew he was in the film but had no idea what he was playing and did not even recognize him until his second or third scene. I love that kind of thing. In fact, that's all I'm going to say about the performance in the interest of not spoiling the discovery for anyone else who may want to see this film.

Amanpour

"I named my last car wumpus."

Heh.

http://us.imdb.com/Title?0095497

Anyway, back to the movies. I watched "The Last Temptation of Christ". Not bad. I learned the following things--

1) Willem Dafoe is incredibly freaky looking.

2) Jesus isn't afraid to _get_ incredibly freaky with the ladies.

In all seriousness, worth seeing. I was afraid it was going to suck, since the opening scenes are slow going, but the pace picks up considerably after that. I know so little of the Bible that I wasn't sure what was "interpreted"; at times it felt like a weird amalgam of Jesus and Jerry Springer. But in a good way.

If that doesn't sell you, there is a cool cameo by David Bowie, and an even cooler soundtrack by Peter Gabriel. I was entertained, and I even found it thought provoking, as trite as that may sound.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

---

Quote:

I know so little of the Bible that I wasn't sure what was "interpreted"

---

"A word of advice. Do not even SUGGEST that you think Memento has plot holes around here."

I got to see this over the weekend. I really enjoyed it: loved the editing, the pace, the novel way the story's told, the ending, etc.

HOWEVER...

[spoiler to follow... read on at your own risk]
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


there was one rather large plot hole where I wasn't able to make the leap. How was he able to remember he had a condition? The whole premise of the story is he can't make any new memories after the incident with his wife, but the condition happens after his wife and he is able to remember it quite well.

It's not like it ruined the move for me. Other than this lapse of internal logic and the at times overbearing voice over, I had a hoot watching it. Especially impressive was the editing. I never felt lost in the story's timeline, which, considering it's told from end to begining, is no small feat.

"memento plot"

[SPOILER]
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I think he could form new memories through repetition. If he constantly reminded himself of something, it would eventually be incorporated into his memory. Though that doesn't explain why he couldn't remember Teddy.

My questions:

1) What was Teddy's deal? Was Leonard just the key component in a really baroque drug dealer ripoff scheme? It seems like there would be plenty of *much* easier ways to steal money from criminals, especially if you're already a cop.

2) Why did Leonard steal the drug dealer's clothes?

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

MOMENTO SPOILER
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
"I think he could form new memories through repetition."

What I got was that some people with that this type memory malady could be conditioned to give an instinctive response through repitition. That was the whole thing with Sammy and the electified objects. I thought Leonard might have learned that you had to burn the polaroids to get rid of them in this manner. You could argue that he knew that from before, but it's creepier to believe he's burned a lot of polaroids.

"If he constantly reminded himself of something, it would eventually be incorporated into his memory."

See, I'm not ready to make this leap. He tattooed himself to get the constant reminder, but I never got the sense that the info from the tattoos would *become* memory. In fact, if you go with him not being able to create memory, it gives the show a more sinister ending, since the tattoo on his chest winds him up and he has no way of remembering if he's avenged his wife. Ever.

Ok, Teddy's deal. Didn't you think Teddy had the hots for Leonard? Teddy seems really jealous of Natalie and overly protective of Leonard in the car scene outside Natalie's house. And isn't that where Teddy mentions that only his mother calls him Teddy? But we know Leonard calls him that, too. Teddy is freakin obsessed. He knows all about Leonard. Speaking of which, I love it when Teddy creates all the doubt about whether Leonard's wife is really dead, a diabetic, etc. It plays on the whole theme of how memory is such an elusive witness to begin with. This scene is where the movie really opened up for me. I get the sense that these two have a lot of history together and realize that, like Leonard himself, I don't know *when* (much less if) Leonard's wife died. It's like how long has this shit been going on and how many people are dead?

You know, I still have no idea why Leonard stole the drug dealers clothes.

On Memento:

>>SPOILERS HERE TOO<<

"there was one rather large plot hole where I wasn't able to make the leap. How was he able to remember he had a condition?"

That was my early question about the film as well. I was roundly trounced for having the temerity to ask it. Still, Christopher Nolan was on one of my favorite radio shows--Fresh Aire--and he admitted that this may have been a mite unclear. He explained it by referring to the "conditioning" argument that comes in a couple messages after yours, and I think I can pretty much accept that. For one I can accept the necessity of it, for while having Leonard relearn his condition every morning would create interesting obstacles, it would also have created a different film. I can accept the artistic license here in selectively ignoring the problem.

Also, you have to accept conditioning as a part of who Leonard is, post-condition. The groundwork for this is laid in the Sammy Jankis story. All or some of Sammy Jankis has to be invented by Leonard's mind, and I think it is there partly to let us know that Leonard can condition his mind to some degree even while Sammy could not.

In any case, I love a film that forces you to think, and that makes you want to talk about it [for months] afterward.

Amanpour

As to why he took Jimmy's clothes, I figured it was for the same reason he took his car: wouldn't you trade in a pick-up for a Jag?

-Tom

Has anyone here see Jesus' Son? I mean the film, not the guy. I'm putting it in my NetFlix queue and wanted to see if it's worth it.

Also, if anyone has read the book as well...should I read it first, or does it matter?

I was gonna post this question on the "Movies You Recommend" thread but I didn't want to get in trouble for not having it in list form. So I'm asking here.

Amanpour

Jesus Son is a good movie and a great book. The book is a quick and giddy read and will probably help you appreciate the movie more.

I did it the wrong way round and still enjoyed them both.

Dig this:

http://www.dailyradar.com/reviews/movie_review_212.html

-Tom

Amanpour: "I can accept the artistic license here in selectively ignoring the problem"

You know, I think that's the thing. It was a great movie, despite the flaw. My only real regret is that I ended up seeing it alone and had no one to discuss it with.

Tom: "wouldn't you trade in a pick-up for a Jag"

uh, excuse me? Not if I just killed the owner of the Jag, no. You've obvoiusly never commited a felony, Chick. Note to self: never partner in crime with Tom.

Amanpour: "Has anyone here see Jesus' Son?"

I usually love dope fiend movies, but this one doens't really fit the mold. Once I got past that, it was enjoyable. It's been a while since I saw it, but "haunting" is the first word that comes to mind now. Never read the book, btw.

I just saw Requiem on DVD... man what a depressing movie... is it really neccesary to belittle Ellen Burstyn's character that much? oh well i guess its the realism meets fast cut 5.1 sound that made it so good... really though, the movie has no heart imo.

JUICE JUICE JUICE

anyway, after seeing movies with dead-end endings (Happiness, Requiem), i appreciate a movie like Wonder Boys or Erin Brockovich even more... Its hard to do a non condescending "feel good" movie.

btw, Memento was awesome, best movie i've seen this year so far... its film noir done right... also, i really like that Guy Pearce... he was pretty good as the lawyer in Rules of Engagement (a so-so Friedkin film).

Pearl Harbor Tamara. ZEE PLANES BOSS!!!

Also, PLAY the OPERATION FLASHPOINT DEMO

etc

I know this isn't a thread about DVD per se, but I just read this article on DVD extras on the USA Today website and I had to share a couple quotes.

John Waters on revisiting his older films:

"I'm racking my brain trying to come up with new anecdotes" for the commentary, he says. "You want it to be special. A DVD is different because it's permanent. It's like a hardback book, where videotape is more like a paperback."

And even more exciting (to me anyway):

"Darren Aronofsky says he frequently uses discs as a source of inspiration. While filming Requiem for a Dream, which was released this week on disc, Aronofsky popped in the DVD of Akira Kurosawa's Seven Samurai when he went to bed.

"I'd listen to directorial comments as I fell asleep," he says. "It was pretty inspiring."

I just love this stuff.

Amanpour

P.S. Here's the link if you want it
http://www.usatoday.com/life/llead.htm